Bukit Batok residents - Listen to him again

Chee Soon Juan may be the SDP candidate standing for Bukit Batok. I would advise the voters in Bukit Batok to listen to these two clips and hear him out once again in the quiet and leisure pace before the election campaign go into full swing. Assess this man and ask a few simple questions, is he a reasonable man, a sound man or as what people tagged him, a mad and rash man? Has this man grown up, mellowed and has he become a better man today?

The two clips were his speeches in the last GE. Make your own judgement and do not allow other people to plant their ideas and agenda on your mind. Be your own master. You deserve that, to judge freely on your own terms.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IkF7jZjNRU
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnJxdO-6nuQ

Animal Farm Revisited

One of the famous quotes of this classical political satire is that All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. This state of affair came to passé when the pigs usurped the power given to them by default by the other animals in the farm. The pigs conveniently took over the farm and treat the farm as their rightful inheritance and the rest of the animals as their slave workers.

In our Constitution, every citizen is equal under the law, has equal rights to what everyone should have as a citizen of the state. No one is more equal than others unless one achieves greatness, or appointed/employed to positions of power and authority when the power and authority are vested in those positions. Before that, everyone is just an ordinary citizen, everyone is an Ah Kow, Ahmad or a Muthu, equal under the law.

There is now a Constitutional Commission to rewrite the laws and regulations on the eligibility to be a candidate to stand for election as the Elected President? Before this, it is already regulated that only some clever and powerful people have the right to be Elected Presidents, in other words more equal than other citizens. Is this a violation of the rights of the citizens provided in the Constitution?

So far no legal minds have stood up to say anything about this change, that some are more equal than others. Does this silence mean that it is legally right, constitutionally right, to legislate that some are more equal than others by virtue of wealth and position?

The Constitutional Commission is reviewing the eligibility criteria for the Elected President. Maybe, with the privilege of having two high court judges in the Commission, that this issue be aired and cleared once and for all. The privilege and rights of the people as equals provided by the Constitution is sacred and must not be violated and legislated away.

No, the Constitution can be changed and some should be made more equal than others? Would Singapore turn into an Animal Farm like the animals allowing their rights to be taken away without any resistance or protest?

What do you think? Anyone writing to the Commission wants to bring this point up? Non issue? Not important, no need to defend this right? Ok, I heard it, the legal minds and all the wise men and wise women have spoken, in silence. And they said silence is consent.

I rest my case. Four legs are good, two legs are better.

No more A Class ward for me

Still reminiscing the good old days when life was good, when many things were free. Dental and medical treatments were free for children. And as adults working in the civil service, hospitalization entitlement was free even for the wife, and in A Class ward. Many retired civil servants that opted out from the old medical schemes are kicking themselves silly today when the cost of A Class ward today is like paying for a Presidential Suite in a 5 star hotel.

 

Just a few decades ago, practically every Singaporeans, technicians and taxi drivers, would opt for A Class wards on admission to a hospital. A Class was affordable to the average Singaporeans with their large savings in their CPF. Today, you no longer hear the average Singaporeans asking for A or even B1 wards in privatized public hospitals. They know that one admission would make them a bankrupt or in debt forever. I have made up my mind that C Class is what I could afford should I ‘sway sway’ get admitted to a private public govt hospitals. And I am not even sure if I could afford to pay the medical bills even with subsidies and with the MediShield Life Scheme.

 

Below are a couple of comments from bloggers posted in TRE in an article by Phillip Ang titled, ‘PAP should not disguise a subsidy as a grant’.  But let me quote a para from Phillip, ‘The more citizens are assisted by the govt the worse off we are.  If our economy was really on steroids, why should we need an ever increasing amount of handouts? Something is very wrong here.’ And here is a comment by a Tuck Wan and a Oxygen.

 

Tuck Wan:  Phillip Ang, You are 100% right. I was billed $900+ after 80% subsidy for 3 days stay (C class). No surgery just medication, blood test and microprobing the stomach. If no subsidy then bill should be $4,500+.  Still scratching my head why so expensive…

 

Oxygen:  Quality of healthcare in C class care risk aggravation of patient’s health recovery from major surgery. The tragic result, if not eventuating in the death of the patient through breakout of infectious clusters, could prolong the stay of patients adding to their cost of hospitalization stay. Less in class C could well ended in a lot more for the unfortunate few – after hospitalization stay complication arising from lower quality care.

 

The hospital bill for a C Class ward has been inflated to such a huge sum that even after a 80% subsidy, the amount still comes to a substantial sum. And the people are not really paying for the services of world class doctors and nurses but those from the 3^rd world countries where the medical training and standard are sub par from our very own medical professionals. And as Oxygen mentioned, and had happened several times, there is now a higher risk of getting infected in a breakout of infectious diseases due to lower level of medical standard. We had hepatitis C breakout that had never occurred before, then TB affecting children and babies and what else.

 

Everyone should be praying not to get sick, not just because of the hefty medical bills after subsidies and after Medishield Life but also the fear of the unknowns. How have we progressed? How many are still opting for A Class wards in privatized public govt hospitals? How many can afford this luxury?

Fake moral superiority or moral righteousness

The personal indiscretion of public figures is now the talk of the town (in the social media only) and receiving unnecessarily extra attention that should not be the case. And ministers have been pleading for privacy and to respect and protect the innocent parties like children and family members. Such calls for decency were a bit unnatural, hypocritical and not necessary when decency and privacy were respected in the past when others fell from grace due to such indiscretion. Many politicians left the scene quietly without anyone knowing what was happening, until Yaw Shin Long’s case.  Many ‘gooder’ than good people were asking for his blood, wanted to drag him through the mud. Must tell, must tell, for the sake of transparency and accountability, must tell all.

Who were the culprits or the most indecent ones calling for more details of such discretions to be aired in public just to score political points. Kee chiu please.

Humans are all subject to temptations of all kinds, greed, power, sex, corruption just to mention a few. It is human to err but what to do? The offenders often withdrew and felt guilty of what they had done which was enough a punishment. There is no need to rub it in with more salt or to make a public issue to embarrass the offenders. Whether one forgives the offender or otherwise is a personal choice.  And if it is a crime, the law would take its natural course. If it is a moral or ethical issue, the court of social justice and conscience would extract the price accordingly.

The most decent and honest man in this regard was Lee Kuan Yew. When faced with such an embarrassing situation, he said, ‘I do not expect my ministers to be celibate… but if it becomes an issue, they should just resign.’ This is as close to what he actually said then. He did not call for more accountability and details to be aired in the public. Several of his ministers just resigned and left quietly. It is a private matter to be dealt with by the affected parties, and legally if it is a legal issue.

Unfortunately we have more than righteous, holy and morally spotless people today to demand a public airing and dressing down for personal indiscretions. How decent are these people? I am not writing this to defend or protect the offenders.  Just cannot tahan the hypocrisy of rogues behaving like priests and angels. Wait for the day when they are in the shoes of the offenders.  Maybe they realized their past follies and are asking for privacy now for reasons that served their interests best.

Most seniors working past retirement did not suffer pay cut

I quote Leong Sze Hian from his article posted in the TRE.

‘I refer to the article “More in Singapore remaining in workforce past 65” (Straits Times, Mar 7).

98% who continued working beyond 62 did not suffer any basic wage cut

It states that “”Nearly all who approached 62 are offered re-employment.

“Most do not suffer any cut to their basic pay if they continue on the same job with the same job scope and responsibilities.”

In 2014, 98 per cent who continued working beyond the age of 62 did not suffer any basic wage cut, with about 10 per cent earning higher wages.”

Why are these seniors so lucky? I think many are working as cleaners, security guards, or like what Leong Sze Hian said, as operators or service/sales workers. These are jobs that many Singaporeans shunned and also paid very lowly. There is no way for the employers to lower the pay further and to think of being able to hire more of such workers. In fact many cleaners and security guards are getting raises instead of pay cuts.

So you see what the statistics are saying? What about the PMETs who ended up as self employed bosses driving taxis? Are they part of the statistics for employment? Also, read carefully, it is all about ‘re employment’ not new employment. A PMET joining the workforce as a security guard may not be called ‘re employment’.  ‘Re employment’ means being reemployed in the same job. So if one is employed first time as a security guard, it is new employment, no count. But once employed as a security guard and reemployed as a security guard, like that can count.

This is just one possible explanation to make the statistics make sense. Please feel free to disagree with me.