Beware of a welfare state

Greece was the role model for Europe’s crisis of a welfare state gone wrong. And Greece is not the only welfare state in Europe. Many are and still looking after their people through public welfare and assistance. And they have done it for many years. Canada and the US also have their own variations of a welfare state.

A welfare state is costly to the country and public. It has to be carefully managed. And many of these countries have managed their welfare system pretty well. Singapore has defended its policy of welfare by the people, of the people and from the people’s own pocket for many years. Finally we have a Greece to prove that we are right in not having a welfare state.

But are those countries that are still practising welfarism finish or near finish? One swallow does not make a summer. For the fall of Greece, there are many that are successful and still doing ok.

What is important is how much to collect and how much to give. Giving $500 to $600 a month to the down and outs will not empty our state coffers so easily. If our reserves can afford to lose tens or hundreds of billions and still can afford to lose more, a little welfarism is not going to harm the reserves. No, no one is asking to kill the golden goose or for a drum stick, just some eggs.

Definitely if the welfare comes in the millions for each recipient it is going to be very dangerous. As more and more people continue to receive million or multi million dollar state welfare, then that is a different kind of welfarism that cannot be condoned. Do we practise state welfarism of any kind here?

Of farting or alternative solution

Farting is a very easy and effortless thing to do. Everyone can do it and it does not cost anything. Looking for alternative solution to a national problem is a different matter altogether. A ministry may come out with a policy or decision to solve a problem, like the ERP. I am very sure the policy or decision does not come out like farting. It must have gone through many thinking heads, many discussions and reviews before the minister finally put his signature on it.

How many super talents would have been involved in the making of a policy or a solution? How many man hours would be needed to work on it. And the minister is not working for free either. The cost of a policy or decision is quite substantial. A consultant that is engaged to solve a problem too will charge his price based on the number of hours put in, the expertise needed and all other necessary costs involved.

Good solutions are costly, not like free fart. Anyone who asked for a free solution while he is getting paid to come out with a solution is going to get nothing more, nothing less, except farting. Why should anyone offer free solution to another who is paid handsomely to do the job but not doing it, and put in great effort, man hours and expenses for a serious alternative solution? Unless of course the person is farting, which does not require much effort and of not much value.

Anyone got any suggestions?

Missed opportunity in Parliament

As the final curtain fell in Parliament’s first session, the big guns of the two camps took their final stand. PAP drew its best from its most eloquent and flowery speaker, Swee Say, to do his final take on the opposition’s position.

The final issue came down to be the CBF workers versus the CBF ministers, the former stands for cheaper, better and faster versus the latter version of costlier, betterer and fasterer ministers. While Swee Say coined the infamous CBF term for the Singapore workers, nothing of the like was reflected in the minister’s pay, which keeps going higher and higher. This has led to the public’s perception that the ministers were not as sacrificing as they claimed to be, but more self serving and looking only after their own gaji rather than the people.

This, according to Swee Say, was shocking. He rebutted the accusation, that ministers were working their guts out for the interests of the people, all the time thinking for the people’s welfare. If this is true, then the public must have grossly mistaken. If this is not true, then it is very frightening. Whatever, Swee Say said he was lost for words, in another word dumbfounded.

Actually he could lead by example as leaders instead of politicians, and for telling the workers to be CBF, ministers too can be CBF with the same meaning, cheaper, better and faster. For that to be believeable, he could announced that ministers would take a 50% pay cut to show to the people that they were really not self serving, working for self interest, but working for the people.

That kind of statement would be as good as giving Low Thia Khiang a tight slap for bringing the public’s negative perception into Parliament, and will straight away be proven wrong.

Well, Parliament will be in recess and it must be the biggest opportunity missed by Swee Say to score a winning goal for the PAP. And no matter how shock or dumbfounded he claimed to be, the accusation still stands and he did nothing to dispute it. The public’s perception of self serving ministers is still hanging there, waiting to be proven wrong, and to be taken down.

I am equally dumbfounded.

Is MSM controlled by the govt?

"Do you believe that the mainstream media is controlled, and is that why you're putting forward the proposal for these acts," asked Tanjong Pagar MP Indranee Rajah.

Indranee was asking Pritam Singh if he believes that the MSM is under the control of the govt. I think it is a fair question. Shanmugam also wanted to know and asked Pritam to answer, yes or no. Unfortunately Pritam was kind of half in and half out.

I think it is important that everyone should answer this question with a yes and no, including Indranee and Shanmugam.

I will take the first step by answering No. Just feel free to disagree with me. This is not a right or wrong answer. Just what you think. But if one’s answer is No, no further question. If one answers Yes, please explain.

Old habits die hard

Hsien Loong has made several encouraging motherhood statements about how his govt is going forward, to be more listening, more flexible, more caring, and more inclusive. Putting all these together we can expect a more gracious govt, less purgnacious, more accommodating, more listening and a better rapport with the people. The govt wants to get closer to the people, to be more human like than god like, to admit mistakes and go forward together, no one being left out or discriminated by govt policies.

So would there be less policing of the critics of govt policies, a really lighter touch, less bickering in parliament for the sake of bickering, like you say it hor, I say you said this, be brave to admit it lah, then see what will happen? See, I challenge him and he lost. I clever right?

Would the civil servants and govt officers be less politically sensitive in the conduct of their daily affairs, and get on with the more serious stuff of the affairs of the state, regardless of political hue? Or would politicians still behave like little boys and girls trying to score political points at the slightest opportunity instead of using the Parliament as a platform to discuss and improve governance of the people and country?

Watching the clips on what was happening in Parliament, and reading what was being reported, I cannot see anything has changed for the better.