When Jee Say and his comrades announced the birth of a new party I was a
bit uneasy. We don’t need more opposition parties but for opposition
candidates to gel together as a united front. My misgivings were kind of
softened when the name of the party was announced. It is called
Singaporeans First Party. And I was quite agreeable with his manifesto
that puts Singaporeans First. At least we have a political party that
values and wants to protect the interests of Singaporeans.
Yesterday in Parliament when Foo Mee Har called for Singaporeans First
in employment opportunities she was shot down by Amy Khor. Amy’s position
is the same as the PAP/Govt. Cannot put Singaporeans first and lost out
on foreign talents. If there are better foreign talents, just too bad
if Singaporeans were passed over. It is a competitive world and we must
fight for the best foreign talents. This is the same as ST’s Fernandez
position, regardless of nationalities as long as they are talents. This
position also presumes that the foreign talents hired are really better
talents than Sinkies and not otherwise, not because they are of the same
kind or clan.
Foo Mee Har ended having to qualify her position that all things being
equal, or something like that, Singaporeans must be given first right of
refusal. I like that.
Is Amy Khor’s foreign talents preference against Singaporeans First the
policy position of PAP? If this is the case, then we will have two
parties with two different priorities with respect to jobs for
Singaporeans. Singaporeans First Party would put the hiring of
Singaporeans First as a major policy. PAP will be talents regardless of
nationalities. Am I right to make this conclusion?
Would the PAP care to clarify its position on this new development in
Parliament? Was Amy Khor spelling out PAP’s policy on the hiring of
talents?
Kopi Level - Green
5/28/2014
Constructive Politics in Parliament
Last night’s news on Parliament was dominated by a new find in
Puthucheary. He came across as the smartest MP in the house. He was on
his feet many times, even his speech on healthcare was allowed extra
time to expound on his wisdom. The ministers were in awe, mesmerized by
his grasp on the issues facing healthcare. He seemed to have all the
answers especially on what Gerald Giam had to say. And Gerald Giam was
as good as saying nothing but sound bites.
Gerald Giam made two points which I thought were very pertinent and should be seriously considered by the MOH instead of being brushed off lightly by some wise cracks. The first point was the American private healthcare system. Gerald told the house that the American govt made it a law for excessive profits from health insurance to be ploughed back to reduce the premiums paid by the insured.
This point was hastily dismissed by Puthucheary with no second thought. It was a private insurance scheme and should not be used in our discussion on a public healthcare scheme. Why not? Be it private or public healthcare scheme, excessive profits must be moderated and best returned to the insured. Otherwise the insurance agencies would be raising higher and higher premiums to make more and more profits. I think this is a very important point for our govt and private insurers to take note of and to prevent premiums from running away.
The second point by Gerald, actually related to the first, is that the claims made in our public health insurance scheme came to 63% of premiums collected, ie giving a huge surplus of 37% to the insurers. The American private health insurance’s claim was 82% and the American govt was already finding the profit too high.
This point was again pooh-poohed by Puthucheary. What is wrong with collecting more premiums and more surplus? What? Who said that? Nothing wrong with collecting unnecessary higher premiums from the masses? Puthucheary’s logic was that there were too many unthinkables and contingencies that could happen and could raise the claims unexpectedly. It was good to have a big cushion of excess premiums. Ya, I know that too, let’s add another 20% to the premium.
This kind of thinking I can agree if I am prepared to worry about when the sun would not shine again or when the next epidemic will hit. We must have a lot of extras, a lot of fats, just in case. No wonder the CPF minimum sums keeps going higher and higher. No wonder the nation’s reserves for a rainy day must keep increasing, even if we have 20 trillions will not be enough. No wonder some ministers are saying their salaries are not enough.
It is okay to collect more premiums. It is okay to increase the minimum sums to $1m. Who can dispute against such logic? But who is paying? Whose pocket will be hurt?
What is wrong with collecting more money from the people?
I am worried when we have so clever people in the govt who wants to worry about everything under heaven, every unknown, and wanting to provide for them and make the people pay for their concerns. I know their hearts are good and in the right place.
Who is indulging in constructive politics and who is indulging in destructive politics?
Kopi Level - Green
Gerald Giam made two points which I thought were very pertinent and should be seriously considered by the MOH instead of being brushed off lightly by some wise cracks. The first point was the American private healthcare system. Gerald told the house that the American govt made it a law for excessive profits from health insurance to be ploughed back to reduce the premiums paid by the insured.
This point was hastily dismissed by Puthucheary with no second thought. It was a private insurance scheme and should not be used in our discussion on a public healthcare scheme. Why not? Be it private or public healthcare scheme, excessive profits must be moderated and best returned to the insured. Otherwise the insurance agencies would be raising higher and higher premiums to make more and more profits. I think this is a very important point for our govt and private insurers to take note of and to prevent premiums from running away.
The second point by Gerald, actually related to the first, is that the claims made in our public health insurance scheme came to 63% of premiums collected, ie giving a huge surplus of 37% to the insurers. The American private health insurance’s claim was 82% and the American govt was already finding the profit too high.
This point was again pooh-poohed by Puthucheary. What is wrong with collecting more premiums and more surplus? What? Who said that? Nothing wrong with collecting unnecessary higher premiums from the masses? Puthucheary’s logic was that there were too many unthinkables and contingencies that could happen and could raise the claims unexpectedly. It was good to have a big cushion of excess premiums. Ya, I know that too, let’s add another 20% to the premium.
This kind of thinking I can agree if I am prepared to worry about when the sun would not shine again or when the next epidemic will hit. We must have a lot of extras, a lot of fats, just in case. No wonder the CPF minimum sums keeps going higher and higher. No wonder the nation’s reserves for a rainy day must keep increasing, even if we have 20 trillions will not be enough. No wonder some ministers are saying their salaries are not enough.
It is okay to collect more premiums. It is okay to increase the minimum sums to $1m. Who can dispute against such logic? But who is paying? Whose pocket will be hurt?
What is wrong with collecting more money from the people?
I am worried when we have so clever people in the govt who wants to worry about everything under heaven, every unknown, and wanting to provide for them and make the people pay for their concerns. I know their hearts are good and in the right place.
Who is indulging in constructive politics and who is indulging in destructive politics?
Kopi Level - Green
Low Thia Khiang’s constructive politics
Low Thia Khiang tried to expand Tony Tan’s call on constructive politics
in Parliament yesterday. He made many good points about what
destructive politics was all about. What he said made very good sense to
me. But to some it would come through like high falutins. And to those
who believe that his descriptions of destructive politics are
constructive politics, they would not bother one bit to listen to what
he was saying. Some may call him idealistic and his version of
constructive politics as an aspiration. Politics was not meant to be
constructive.
Though Tony Tan aspires for politics to be more constructive in his Presidential Address, he could really mean what he said and want it to happen, but how many people would listen to him and actually make politics more constructive? Maybe those who have been indulging in destructive politics believe that they were really constructive.
From the tone and emotion of the voices in Parliament yesterday, Tony Tan may need to visit Parliament again to explain what he really meant or his definition of constructive politics. The expression on the faces told all, who were being constructive and who were being destructive. I don’t think the house understood what Tony said or what he wanted. The mood, as usual, exuded contempt and hostility.
Low Thia Khiang’s effort to talk about constructive politics is more like 对牛弹琴。
Kopi Level - Green
Though Tony Tan aspires for politics to be more constructive in his Presidential Address, he could really mean what he said and want it to happen, but how many people would listen to him and actually make politics more constructive? Maybe those who have been indulging in destructive politics believe that they were really constructive.
From the tone and emotion of the voices in Parliament yesterday, Tony Tan may need to visit Parliament again to explain what he really meant or his definition of constructive politics. The expression on the faces told all, who were being constructive and who were being destructive. I don’t think the house understood what Tony said or what he wanted. The mood, as usual, exuded contempt and hostility.
Low Thia Khiang’s effort to talk about constructive politics is more like 对牛弹琴。
Kopi Level - Green
5/27/2014
Salute China for standing up to the bullying by Vietnam and the Philippines
Vietnamese ships have been encircling the Chinese oil rig inside Chinese
territory in the South China Sea to harass and ram the rig for several
weeks. Chinese coast guards and fishing boats have been defending the
oil rig and blocking the aggressive advances of the Vietnamese boats.
China finally lost its patience after weeks of persistence harassments by the Vietnamese boats. This also came after the killings of Chinese workers and the burning of Chinese factories in Vietnam. Yesterday, 26 May, one Vietnamese fishing boat attempted to break the Chinese defence line was rammed and sunk. The Vietnamese sailors were picked up by other Vietnamese boats in the area.
China has to act fast to stem the hostile actions of the Vietnamese. This sinking would also serve as a warning to the Pinoys that China meant business and would take on the Americans if provoked further. China would not yield in the presence of the American naval fleet and would go to war with the Americans if forced to.
China has no option and to remain defensive under such adverse provocations would be read as a sign of weakness and would embolden the Vietnamese and the Pinoys and the Americans as well.
The sinking of the Vietnamese fishing boat could lead to an escalation of tension in the South China Sea and even open warfare. China must be prepared for this scenario as the two pesky countries would be coming back more aggressively with the support of the Americans. The Americans would be pushing hard for the two belligerent countries to attack China and force China to retaliate. Like it or not, China would have to hit back as the Americans would not allow the Chinese in peace.
War is imminent in the South China Sea.
China finally lost its patience after weeks of persistence harassments by the Vietnamese boats. This also came after the killings of Chinese workers and the burning of Chinese factories in Vietnam. Yesterday, 26 May, one Vietnamese fishing boat attempted to break the Chinese defence line was rammed and sunk. The Vietnamese sailors were picked up by other Vietnamese boats in the area.
China has to act fast to stem the hostile actions of the Vietnamese. This sinking would also serve as a warning to the Pinoys that China meant business and would take on the Americans if provoked further. China would not yield in the presence of the American naval fleet and would go to war with the Americans if forced to.
China has no option and to remain defensive under such adverse provocations would be read as a sign of weakness and would embolden the Vietnamese and the Pinoys and the Americans as well.
The sinking of the Vietnamese fishing boat could lead to an escalation of tension in the South China Sea and even open warfare. China must be prepared for this scenario as the two pesky countries would be coming back more aggressively with the support of the Americans. The Americans would be pushing hard for the two belligerent countries to attack China and force China to retaliate. Like it or not, China would have to hit back as the Americans would not allow the Chinese in peace.
War is imminent in the South China Sea.
Jonathan Eyal and his western lens
Jonathan Eyal has been given a special place in the ST to expound his western views on Asian affairs and influencing the unthinking minds of his Asian readers. His position is always about American exceptionalism and that the Americans either has the right to continue kicking the asses of Asians or the Americans are so innocent, angelic, and would not do anything mischievous or slimy. The Americans don’t conduct spying activities.
His latest article, ‘US China cyber nefarious new face’, on the Americans charging 5 Chinese officials in China for cyberspying in American courts is like the Americans doing the right thing and the Chinese doing the wrong thing as usual. The Americans would not do such a thing, spying on foreign corporations to steal commercial secrets. Neither would Americans be spying on foreign leaders until it was exposed by Edward Snowden. Before the revelations by Snowden, Eyal would likely to swear that the Americans would not indulge in such a dastardly thing, to spy on foreign leaders, listening to their mobiles and private conversations, even the leaders of their allies.
This is what Eyal said, ‘While the Snowden revelations raise questions,… none has indicated the existence of a deliberate US programme targeting foreign corporations in order to steal their know how.’ Yeah, before Snowden, there was also no indication of the existence of deliberate US programme targeting foreign leaders too.
How old is this Eyal, 3 years old? He is so innocent. Maybe he should consider writing nursery rhymes or fairy tales where the prince will ride into the sunset to live happily ever after with his princess. The gullible Asians would love to read his fairy tales of precocious innocence.
Oh, in his concluding paragraph he warns China that the US would launch a cyber attack against China if China does not stop snooping on American corporations. The snooping around of American corporations was started by the Chinese. The nice and innocent Americans would not have started it. CIA stands for Children Intelligence Association and NSA stands for National Students Association.
Kopi Level - Green
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)