I just checked my CPF statements and found the interest rates for my Retirement Account is 4% but that of my Medisave is 2%. I have just posted an email to CPF for an explanation. I believe it should also be 4% as well.
Please check your CPF statements.
2/15/2012
A religious Order for Sin City
The rage against infidelity and personal indiscretion in the media continues unabated. Everyone is taking potshots at the transgressors and demanding apologies or confession. Bill Clinton must be quietly telling himself how lucky he is to be living in the US. If he was our President, he could be stoned to death or attacked in public.
This thing about the high expectation for a high moral conduct could be a manifestation that in a paradise called Sin City, there indeed resided many sinless residents. Only the sinless could dare to demand such a high standard of moral behavior from others, to equal theirs.
And soon there could be a call for a higher standard of conduct from civil servants and political leaders. Do not be surprised that they could demand an annual declaration of fidelity and good conduct like the annual non indebtedness declaration. And all new candidates could be expected to sit through a moral test followed by an interview by a board of monks and priests before being accepted to the religious order. And of course the Prime Minister would then be elevated to the position of High Priest of Paradise. Anything less of a perfect personal conduct would not do.
Just a word of caution. When standing on a high pedestal to pass judgement on personal indiscretion, do not be personal. The power of the internet and the right to freedom of speech do not give anyone the right to personal attacks. Let’s restrain and restrict ourselves to policies and issues. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with policies or be disgusted by them. Every policy can be good and bad to different people. Stay clear from being personal even if in Sin City.
This thing about the high expectation for a high moral conduct could be a manifestation that in a paradise called Sin City, there indeed resided many sinless residents. Only the sinless could dare to demand such a high standard of moral behavior from others, to equal theirs.
And soon there could be a call for a higher standard of conduct from civil servants and political leaders. Do not be surprised that they could demand an annual declaration of fidelity and good conduct like the annual non indebtedness declaration. And all new candidates could be expected to sit through a moral test followed by an interview by a board of monks and priests before being accepted to the religious order. And of course the Prime Minister would then be elevated to the position of High Priest of Paradise. Anything less of a perfect personal conduct would not do.
Just a word of caution. When standing on a high pedestal to pass judgement on personal indiscretion, do not be personal. The power of the internet and the right to freedom of speech do not give anyone the right to personal attacks. Let’s restrain and restrict ourselves to policies and issues. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with policies or be disgusted by them. Every policy can be good and bad to different people. Stay clear from being personal even if in Sin City.
2/14/2012
More privileges for foreigners
Foreign employment pass dependants can stay, but some Singaporeans' foreign spouses can't?
As a Singaporean, I find it somewhat ironic that an average of 35,000 dependents of employment pass holders who are foreigners, entered Singapore each year from 2005 to 2010, of which about 4,200 have gained employment, when thousands of Singaporeans' foreign spouses were denied permission to live in Singapore, or to work here.
The above is by Leong Sze Hian from his article posted in TOC
Foreigner's dependants and wives can stay and work, those of Singaporeans can't. Leong Sze Hian was referring to a Malaysian wife of a Singaporean who died and would probably be deported. Now, does she have children that are Singaporeans and also own a HDB flat? Or they were not qualified?
As a Singaporean, I find it somewhat ironic that an average of 35,000 dependents of employment pass holders who are foreigners, entered Singapore each year from 2005 to 2010, of which about 4,200 have gained employment, when thousands of Singaporeans' foreign spouses were denied permission to live in Singapore, or to work here.
The above is by Leong Sze Hian from his article posted in TOC
Foreigner's dependants and wives can stay and work, those of Singaporeans can't. Leong Sze Hian was referring to a Malaysian wife of a Singaporean who died and would probably be deported. Now, does she have children that are Singaporeans and also own a HDB flat? Or they were not qualified?
Petition by Transitioning.org
I was reading the comments in the above petition on employing Singaporean first. One signatory said he is not coming back as he did not have a roof over his head. Some will say not true. There are plenty of private flats out there what? Just because he is not qualified to buy HDB does not mean that he cannot buy from private or rent or stay with his parents. To me, such arguments are cock arguments.
For a professionally qualified Singaporeans and willing to live a less flashy lifestyle, which is prudence, they should not be forced into the private market to spend a million bucks just to have a roof over their heads. This is a $1m ransom just to return home to stay, produce children to do NS after they have done their share of NS.
Compare to the deal for PRs and new citizens, the Singaporeans cannot but feel cheated by the govt policy. The govt must allow every Singaporean the option to buy a public flat. The stupid excuse of the higher income competing with the lower income for flats is simply bull.
There is no competition if the govt builds enough flats for all Singaporeans. A roof over the head is a sound and pro citizen policy that was the foundation of our nation building in the early years. The current policy of forcing Singaporeans to pay through their noses in the millions for a small private flat is anti Singaporean.
Doesn’t the govt understand why Singaporeans are not returning home? The govt should stop singing songs and talking cock. It is such anti Singaporeans policies that are preventing Singaporeans from returning home. Or would the govt prefer more new citizens from other countries without any emotional ties or family bonds to replace our very own citizens who have done their share of NS? The govt must seriously review its housing policy to allow Singaporeans to buy a public flat, a roof over their head. This is how we started, where we came from. Don’t forget the basics. If the govt does not think this is important, then it can forget about Singaporeans coming home to roost and have babies for NS. The PRs will send their children away too when the time for NS comes.
For a professionally qualified Singaporeans and willing to live a less flashy lifestyle, which is prudence, they should not be forced into the private market to spend a million bucks just to have a roof over their heads. This is a $1m ransom just to return home to stay, produce children to do NS after they have done their share of NS.
Compare to the deal for PRs and new citizens, the Singaporeans cannot but feel cheated by the govt policy. The govt must allow every Singaporean the option to buy a public flat. The stupid excuse of the higher income competing with the lower income for flats is simply bull.
There is no competition if the govt builds enough flats for all Singaporeans. A roof over the head is a sound and pro citizen policy that was the foundation of our nation building in the early years. The current policy of forcing Singaporeans to pay through their noses in the millions for a small private flat is anti Singaporean.
Doesn’t the govt understand why Singaporeans are not returning home? The govt should stop singing songs and talking cock. It is such anti Singaporeans policies that are preventing Singaporeans from returning home. Or would the govt prefer more new citizens from other countries without any emotional ties or family bonds to replace our very own citizens who have done their share of NS? The govt must seriously review its housing policy to allow Singaporeans to buy a public flat, a roof over their head. This is how we started, where we came from. Don’t forget the basics. If the govt does not think this is important, then it can forget about Singaporeans coming home to roost and have babies for NS. The PRs will send their children away too when the time for NS comes.
Child adoption could promote crimes against children
CNA recently screened several documentaries about child adoption and the crime of child snatching to feed the needs of childless couples. A child could fetch tens of thousands in places like Quangzhou. I was particularly touched by the documentary ‘I love mommy’, about a little orphan girl from Quangzhou, if I can recollect, being adopted by American parents. There was a little difficulty in the early period of adjusting into a new life. But love by the adopted parents conquered everything and the child grew up quickly into her new home and new parents. It was a very happy ending, with both adopted parents and child having a wonderful union living together as a family.
Many children, especially the girls, were abandoned in China, and in many poorer countries. It is a very good thing for couples with no children to want to bring them home to give them love and shelter. The problem is child snatching to feed the adoption industry. The fear and anguish of children and parents being forcibly separated is a very cruel act of crime. It is simply unimaginable and intolerable. The number of child snatching in China alone comes to a few hundred thousands annually. It is a very serious problem.
There must be very strict laws and punishment for child snatching. The criminals, child snatchers, are inflicting so much pain that lasted a lifetime on their victims.
While the adoption of orphaned children is a good thing, an act of compassion and love, it must not lead to a growing industry of crimes against innocent children and their parents. When the criminals see the demand, the more they will be tempted to snatch children. Parents must be extremely careful when looking after their children, particularly in red areas when child snatching is a common state of affair.
Many children, especially the girls, were abandoned in China, and in many poorer countries. It is a very good thing for couples with no children to want to bring them home to give them love and shelter. The problem is child snatching to feed the adoption industry. The fear and anguish of children and parents being forcibly separated is a very cruel act of crime. It is simply unimaginable and intolerable. The number of child snatching in China alone comes to a few hundred thousands annually. It is a very serious problem.
There must be very strict laws and punishment for child snatching. The criminals, child snatchers, are inflicting so much pain that lasted a lifetime on their victims.
While the adoption of orphaned children is a good thing, an act of compassion and love, it must not lead to a growing industry of crimes against innocent children and their parents. When the criminals see the demand, the more they will be tempted to snatch children. Parents must be extremely careful when looking after their children, particularly in red areas when child snatching is a common state of affair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)