The best govt

We have the best and a world class govt that the world admires. Citizens of our neighbouring countries and far and wide all had a Christmas wish, that they could have a govt like ours. And the govt has pledged to the people that it will look after the people, no man will be left behind, all the policies are for the good of the people. Now the paradox. Increasingly the mood is that the govt is no longer the govt for the people. It may be just a perception. It may not be true. It may be a false reading by the ignorant and not so talented citizens who are not up to it to understand what the govt is doing for them. But it is their perception, like it or not. When the people think otherwise, does it matter?

Means testing already in practice?

Is this true? Mrs Yeun Yik Kwong wrote to the ST forum page on her personal encounter with means testing at a polyclinic. All we have been hearing is that means testing is still an option in govt hospitals. OK, polyclinic may technically not be a hospital, it is a clinic. So has means testing been introduced into polyclinics and not in hospitals? Whether it is introduced in polyclinics or hospitals, would it make a difference that means testing is already in practice? What is the truth? Administratively it is brilliant, worthy of the high pay for talented minds. If a referral from a polyclinic is the first door to a hospital admission, and if this door is closed, no further need for means testing in hospitals. Now is this true or false? Simply brilliant.

market economy, consumer choice

When the market was booming and demand for condominiums was high, many developers, including HDB, responded by building more condos. When the market was weak, HDB changed policies to build more 3 rm flats. This is not only being responsive to the needs of the people, it makes simple commonsense. Provide what the people want and can afford to pay. Read in the papers today that C class hospital wards are in demand. This simply says that people cannot afford better class wards or do not want them. And this is expected. According to the distribution of incomes, only 10% are at the top and another 20% are reasonably comfortable. The bulk of the populations are just struggling and trying to make ends meet. C class wards would be appropriate for their pockets. Hospitals should provide the different classes of wards according to the income of the people. The number of A and B1 wards must reflect proportionately the income distribution of the population. A responsive govt that thinks for the people should provide goods and services according to the needs of the people. So, are we going to see more C class wards being provided by the hospitals? Or are we going to see means testing being introduced to cut down on people opting for C class wards? Or the charges of C class wards will go up to cut down the high demands for them. Whatever, those who have to be hospitalised must quickly get themselves admitted and take advantage of the current situation.

out of quotes

'My outlook on life is not based on what possessions I own, knowing how transient life is; or what others think of me, knowing how seldom they do.' Peter Lim in Today paper. I don't know which Peter Lim this is. There could be thousands of them in the streets. Personally I have known at least half a dozen. Doesn't matter. But this is crap and dangerous in a way. It will undermine the ethos of our society. People may start to give up the chase for more dollars. People may stop working. We will have employers crying for employees and may end up with more imports of foreign workers. And if people refuse to work, to earn money, to buy those properties, the property market may collapse. We cannot say such things. Quite stupid actually. Money is good. The smell of money is the smell of success and recognition. No money no honey.

whose right balance?

Another great debate in the making - The right balance This time we are seeing learned counsels trained to argue in courts arguing in the media. And we are seeing two of the best taking sides on Champs, Chumps and Chimps. The key issue probably is about who are the Champs, the Chumps and the Chimps. Philip Jayeratnam is not comfortable about the remuneration system in the public sector, including the salaries of Ministers. Shanmugam is now out to defend the goodness of the system. The Today paper reported, 'Mr Shanmugam, however, argues that Singapore must strike the right balance between valuing the contribution to society through public service and paying reasonably for that service.' Now, right balance according to who? Many, including Jeyaratnam, must have disagreed with the present right balance. That's why the issue was hotly talked about in every little corners of the society, including the msm and cyberspace. But this is the right balance, the best balance, in fact less than perfect, as the salaries paid are still below the benchmark provided by the formula. So who should have the final call and say 'I am right. My version of the right balance is the right balance.'

The basics of education

An educated workforce is an asset to the nation. Govt will find it to its advantage, and also its responsibility to educate its people, which in turn benefits both country and people at the same time. Educating the population is thus both a necessity and a responsibility of a govt. The investment ploughed into education will bear its fruits and the country will be rewarded with a better educated and trained workforce. Initially it may appear to be a cost centre. But it is more than just the churning out of more employable workers, it encompasses the whole well being of a nation, the quality of life and the social environment, and everything that got to do with progressing up the ladder towards an advanced country. But education has been seen as an avenue for profit by some wise guys. Which is true to a certain extent. However, when profit is the only driving goal for education, it undermines its reason to exist as an industry. The assumption of private education for profits must be quality education to befit its high price. And quality education, which culminates in producing quality students, does not depend on the infrastructure and the quality of the teachers. It also depends on the quality of the students. Another case of rubbish in rubbish out. Here comes the problem. Quality students will either be provided with scholarships to pursue their studies in quality institutions or will qualify for admission to state universities at a much lower cost. There is no need for them to pay through their nose to private institutions for a quality education. Private institutions will thus be snuffed out of their supply of good quality students. This is a simple fact that they must know. Unless private universities can provide such a high quality education that established universities cannot provide and can attract quality students to pay for it. In reality, only those who cannot get into cheaper state universities will opt for private universities and willing to pay a higher fee. What these students would expect is that the entry requirements must be lower. That is the expectation. This is the contradiction that private universities must live with. Who the hell would want to pay more for admission to a lesser private university when they can get admitted into the best universities at a lower fee? Education for profit must thus compromise the quality of the education for the students. And this has been going on in many countries when grades were inflated to keep paying students happy and coming. Exceptional cases can be made out for niche markets or for very well established universities that can still retain the high entry requirement and command a high fee. A Harvard or MIT campus here will attract some very good students who are willing to pay the high fees which again may be relatively cheaper than pursuing it in the US. Any other average brand universities must reckon with the hard realities that they will only get the second or third best candidates available if they set up business here and want to command a higher fee. Would ivory tower professors understand this simple business logic?

Myth 140 - Unsolvable Problems

It is a myth that Singapore cannot solve any problem. The latest problem on difficulties in finding taxis during peak periods has been solved. This is a problem caused by heavy usage and calls for taxis during the certain hours. The solution, raise the surcharge. This will reduce the demand for taxis. It's so elementary and so ingenius. And any expressway that is too congested, raise the toll fees. Then traffic will be directed from expressway A to expressway B. And when B is congested, raise the toll fees. Traffic will then be diverted back to A which is having lesser traffic. And when it gets congested again, raise the toll fees again. Traffic will then go to B again. Just keep doing it and the problem will be solved. And if people are consuming too much food and there is food shortage, just raise the price. Then people will consume less. Just like saving water. This is the magic formula to problem solving.

Abe not good enough

ABE not good enough. No, I am not referring to Shinzo Abe but A level grade. When a ABE grade cannot find a place in the local universities, this is going to be a bigger issue than the UNSW. In the latter, it concerns only 250 students, and maybe half are foreigners. For a university place, it is going to affect many Singaporeans, dotting parents and their precious wards. Now people are going to question why their children with reasonably good passes are not going to find a place in local universities. Admittedly what are reasonable grades may be subjective depending on the standard of the affected parties and the universities. What will eventually be dragged out to air will be the number of places given to foreigners, including scholarships using public money, and how many local children would have been displaced from such a policy. The parents are now up in arms. We are the citizens of the country. We are the taxpayers. We are the people to defend this country. I could here them say...Welcome to the Hotel California, such a lovely place, such a lovely place...

Faces of anguish

Everyday the papers and the TV flashed faces of anguish of distraught students from UNSW and their parents. It is truly distressing. A very sad episode to put so many innocent people in such a state of uncertainty with their hopes totally smashed.

6th most stressful country

Singapore is 6th most stressful country We are now ranked as more stressful than Hongkong, according to Grant Thornton International Business Report. Can you beat that? I know one sure reason why Singaporeans are feeling stressed. When you are earning $20k a year and queuing to strike toto every week but in vain, but you are told that many people are earning an equivalent of a toto win every 6 months or every 2 months, sure you get stressed. How not to when all the queuing for the next 30 years may not even strike one toto prize?

Najib's pledge of govt support

Najib was in Singapore selling the IDR. No one can doubt his sincerity and the sincerity of the Abdullah govt for what they want to do in the IDR. They will definitely be investor friendly. After so many years of comparing the nonsenses committed by the Mahathir regime and the Indonesians in Riau, and the no nonsense economic policies of Singapore and even China, they should be able to see the impact of economic growth if the policies are correct. But the Malaysian politics is as changeable as the weather and with so many kampong politicians in the wings, anything can happen tomorrow. In order for the present policies to be taken seriously, they need to cast them in iron with all the what if conditions stated clearly in the contract. If not, it will become, for future Malaysian leaders to say, "I don't know. It was the old regime. We are now changing our policies." And the investors will be caught again with their pants down, and pockets empty. And cannot pull out.

UNSW case, signs of progress

Though I posted a different sentiment under the topic Signs of Decline on this issue, I am saying something different here from another perspective. We are progressing towards a kinder and more forgiving nation and mistakes are now taken in their strides. When mistakes were made in the thousands of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, we are now regarding them as honest mistakes and part and parcel of the risk mechanism. And anyone making such multi million dollar mistake becomes more valuable as we have invested the lost millions in them to learn. And definitely they will not repeat the same mistake again and will become a wiser person. We are progressing in the right track. Just because we are paying top dollars does not mean that the axe must come down every time a mistake is made. We must treasure risk takers and people who made honest mistakes. Otherwise no one will want to be risk takers and no honest mistakes will be made. But for those who did not do enough homework or were tardy, and left a big gap in their decisions and resulting in huge losses, now that is a different matter altogether.

The audacity of Siew Kum Hong

How could Siew Kum Hong questioned the role of EDB in the UNSW fiasco? EDB has came out openly to say that they are not responsible and UNSW is ultimately responsible for the mess. Period. Can we not accept this clear cut position? And the reasons for not disclosing how much public money were lost were logical and for the good of the country. They cannot disclose it as it will compromise our position in future negotiations. Very reasonably put forth. Certain information are best keep undisclosed in the interest of the country. Transparency must have its limits and things of national interest cannot be divulged casually. According to the Financial Times, $80 million of public money were involved. This is only speculation and cannot be proven as no official figure has been given. Anyway it is small change. Money seems to be an issue in the article as Siew Kum Hong said that with world class pay, the public should demand a higher standard of disclosure, transparency and quality from govt employees. Though I take a different position from Siew Kum Hong, I strongly encouraged everyone to read his article in the Today paper today. He makes a lot of sense. And I am proud of him and Today for printing it. It will be better if Siew Kum Hong raises the same issues in Parliament.

good and bad news on medical fees

Good news, govt hospitals to absorb GST increases Bad news, consultation fees to go up between 5% to 20%. Patients visiting govt hospitals should be thankful that the 2% GST increases will not be absorbed by the hospitals. But because of higher demand and higher costs, though many measures were implemented to reduce cost, consultation fees just have to go up. But a reasuring note, these fees are still affordable. Affordable according to who?

Indonesian Parliament rejects DCA

The refusal by the Indonesian Parliament to ratify the DCA also means that the Extradition Treaty will be thrown out of the window as well. Now, shall we be unhappy or rejoice for this great happening? I think we shall celebrate. If we express any regrets or unhappiness, they will think that they have done the right thing and good for Indonesia. What we should do is to celebrate loudly. That will make them ponder and probably start to worry about what they had done. Let's keep them guessing and questioning their own thinking by throwing a ball.

When altruism is dead

When setting up schools is to make money When setting up hospitals is to make money When standing for election is to make money When public service is to make money When setting up a charity is to make money When recognition of an individual's worthiness is about making money That is, when altruism is dead.

myth 139

The fiction of guilt The Sentosa Resort has been plagued with an assumed guilt that Stanley Ho is linked to the triads and it is not desirable to put his money here. I have earlier commented that many of the casinos in Las Vegas and around the world are also linked in one way or another to the mafias and triads all over the world. So what's the big deal? Now western developed, advanced and high moral countries are accepting that the children of Stanley Ho are innocent and not guilty by relations to Stanley Ho. By the way, who has pronounced that Stanley Ho is guilty? Which God said so? I like what Jesus said. 'Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast the stone.' Where are all the saints? All in the little red dot I supposed. We shouldn't call ourselves a paradise. That is an insult to our squeaky clean country. We shall call ourselves heaven on earth, Sin free City, the habitat of demigods where no evil man shall be allowed to trample on.

barking up the wrong tree?

By now the whole machinery to achieve a first class transport system and a first class MRT should be in full swing. So far the idea of a first class transport system includes an MRT that is modelled probably after Tokyo. Tokyo seems to be the best model to take us there. I just hope first class does not mean sardine class, where commuters are squeesed, tit to tit, inside a jam pack train. The concept of first class invokes a sense of classiness, comfort, space and a little pampering, something similar to first class air travel or A class hospital wards. If that is the definition of first class, then it makes sense. And don't forget that such first class public transport comes with a first class price tag. Who can afford such services? The top 10% of the population will not be bothered with first class or world class public transport. They have their own classy private transport which they cannot part with. Maybe the next 10 percentile may consider such an option. Or perhaps the lower 5 percentile of the this group. Those who can afford the comfort of private transport will want to keep themselves away from the masses. The 80% of the population are unlikely to take it kindly to a first class price tag. They will love to have the first class service. But many would not be able to afford it or would opt to save the extra dollar for something else. Maybe a business class equivalent rather than a first class MRT to cater for the 20 percentile group at the top. It cannot be for everyone. Half the population will not be able to afford it no matter how affordable it claims to be. Let's hope that the system of first class travel will not be imposed on the population like the hospital ward system where eventually you will get first class and economy class travel. And if not enough takers for first class, means testing will be introduced to ensure that more people pay for first class services that they do not want. It must not be a 'What the provider wants is what the commuters must pay' system.

No need to wait for 6.5 million population

SINGAPORE: The current high occupancy rate at some public hospital is stressing doctors to discharge their patients, admitted Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan yesterday. Occupancy has hit highs of more than 90 per cent for some hospitals recently, above Mr Khaw’s ideal of 85 per cent. “When you run at over 90 per cent, it’s very stressful,” said the Health Minister, who was the chief executive of several hospitals from 1985 to 1992. “Stressful in the sense that, every day, our doctors have to go down to beg the patients (to be discharged).” Occupying a hospital bed for acute illness costs the Government an average of $1,000 a day, compared to “a few hundred dollars” for a community hospital bed. This is “the cost to society”, said Mr Khaw at the sidelines of an event yesterday. “If I don’t actively shift patients down, our total cost will just be heavy.” Reported in Today We are now starting to get a little dosage of what life would be like when we double our population. We will simply break at the seams if we continue to push to the limits.

unsw - money is the end all

UNSW Too hasty a decision University's governing body had 30 seconds to decide on Singapore. Sydney Morning Herald. May 26, 2006 By Harriet Alexander The University of NSW rushed through plans for its now collapsed Singapore campus so quickly that the university's governing body was given just 30 seconds to scrutinise the proposal, a senior academic says. One former member of the governing body said he was so disgusted by the decision in early 2004 that he decided not to stand again for his position on the University of NSW council. Yesterday the university announced it was abandoning the university's Asia operation in Singapore after losing millions of dollars on the venture. Fewer than 150 students had enrolled in the offshore campus this year, far short of plans to have it expand to 15,000 students over the next two decades. It is the latest hitch in the Australian university sector's troubled attempts to exploit the lucrative international student market by setting up offshore campuses. I extracted the above bits from littlespeck.com. This is what will happen when the original objective of education is hijacked into a money making enterprise. It is now all about money. The noble objective of education, the responsibility of educating and training a productive population is discarded and forgotten. Now it is whether there is money to be made. If not, simply close it down, cut your losses, and look for another more lucrative business. Is there anything to learn from this?

legal profession going cuckoo?

Recently we have been hearing very strange things coming from the legal fraternity. Some said making a lot of money is not important. They were talking about service to the people, and making money is not the end all of becoming lawyers. Now the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said, 'Ethics is what matters most.' When has ethics been an issue among our learned friends? The profession has always been in the thick of things, at the forefront of all important events in the island, and with many distinguished members becoming leaders of the nation. They are the cream of the society, earning big bucks and delivering justice for the wronged citizens. The Chief Justice was giving a lecture on ethics which is normally taught in primary schools to children. We should expect adults and professionals to live ethics as their second nature. The Chief Justice was talking about setting high morals and building trusts with clients. But more surprising is that he was telling them that making money is secondary to leading a straight and narrow path. What is happening or what has happened for the Chief Justice to have to lecture them on ethics and morals? Is the message to the young lawyers a reminder that our society has gone to the dogs and that they should not follow the same slippery path, of just grabbing money at all cost, without a care to their conscience or propriety?

would jbj's new party make a difference?

Would a new party make a difference to the political landscape of Singapore and alter the present political system? In the last election we have seen some life coming into the political tussling for power and the ruling of the country. Everything has quiet down for the moment. JBJ's new quest may be just another yawn. Our political system has reached a mature state in its own way, not that of a western democracy model. It is a different model that has attained a level where it can only stagnate and not getting better. It has been institutionalised as a parallel to the civil service, an employment opportunity for people to build a life long career with all the perks of employment. And it has developed around it a network of systems and controls to ensure its existence for a long time to come, not to be challenged. The system is not just the political party in power. It seeps down to many levels of the govt service, to the industries, GLCs and not GLCs, and an extended linkage of people groomed and associated with the power of the day. Such an extensive network of people working as one, may not be necessarily bad as has been proven over the years. But the possibility of it turning bad is starting to show when over concentration of power leads to a kind inbreeding mindset or mentality. The group think is getting very transparent, that they share the same thinking, the same aspiration, the same value system, the same self gratification as the motivation and reason to protect and perpetuate the existing system. There is no way for new parties to make any inroad into the political fray and challenge the supremacy of the ruling party under the present conditions. At the worst the opposition parties may gain a handful of seats in the next election. We need to have a paradigm shift as they called it, for all Singaporeans to start thinking about what kind of society and political system they want. Not the present kind where serving the group in power is the end all of life. Many just serve the group, defending the group and behave like the group, unthinkingly. Change will only come when everyone, including all those in govt services, start to think for the country and people, that their loyalty is to the country and people and their general good. And when they start to question what they are doing and for whose interests and for whose goods begin to trouble their conscience, of rights and wrongs, and that it is not really right to serve the paymaster at all cost, with no qualms of the longer term good of the country, only then things will change. When the people are free, at all levels, to think freely, act freely, unfettered by power or self interests and self preservation, then only will there be a change in the political framework and a change in the political system. More parties and more new parties will just be laid on the roadside, as another new sideshow.

UNSW students fight on

The students are fighting back. That is the spirit needed when the big boys washed their hands and packed up to go. The UNSW students met to demand that UNSW honours its commitment to them and keep the campus running, at least till they complete their courses. There is a contract, a social and business obligation once they admitted the students to a degree course. And they cannot walk away and offer whatever half bake measures and expecting the students to accept them. The legal route is an option. Where is the professionalism, the integrity, the honour and responsibility to see through a commitment? An university is always highly regarded by the people as an icon of all the virtues of human endeavours. How could UNSW possibly get away with the fiasco by a shock pullout like this and think that its reputation will not be affected? I do not know how much is our side's involvement and responsibility to the mess. But we cannot get away without some shit sticking to us. We will also smell as bad as UNSW. We may say and think that we are going ahead full steam to achieve our goal as an education hub. But will future students and their parents buy it after what had happened? To think that we have nothing to do with it and that our gleaming reputation is untarnished is like putting blinkers on.

Cheaper to stay in hotel

The cost of staying in the govt General hospital for acute illness is $1000 a day. And for community public hospitals, it is several hundred a day. I heard the number $400 daily. Compare this to staying in a budget hotel, plus simple food and employing a maid to look after the patient, it may not come to $200 a day. Just give the maid a little training or even even employed qualified foreign nurses will still be cheaper. Incidentally how many people can afford $1000 or $400 a day if it is going to be more than a month? I am guessing how much it will cost per day in Mt E or Gleneagles?

What happens to our excellent relations with the Indonesians?

The sand ban, the granite ban, the bombing of a Singaporean owned company in Karimun and the arrest of their executives, Singaporeans. Now they are going after Temasek's holdings in their telco companies. And the Riau islanders are protesting the joint military agreement and exercises in the islands. What's next? All the signs are written clearly on the wall, that they do not want to friendly with us. Singapore should quietly beat the retreat. Hopefully that will make them happier.

Who is responsible? - UNSW

The UNSW staff held a meeting with the students and parents affected by the closure at Trader's Hotel yesterday and were bombed by the parents. It is hardly imaginable for a highly regarded institution and academics to do such a thing. Unbelieveable! The classes should not have started at all and the students need not waste their time and resources to go through such a slipshod arrangement. Where is the duty and due diligence done to take in the students only to close the university barely 3 months after classes started? The parents cannot be faulted for having trust in the UNSW which is a reputable university run by reputable professionals. But the situation is definitely unjustifiable and they should sue them for compensation. Singapore should also sue them for damaging our image as an education hub.

Go for right wage measures or risk losing edge: Swee Say

Go for right wage measures or risk losing edge: Swee Say 'Labour chief Lim Swee Say cautioned companies against being "seduced" by the easy option of paying higher basic wages to attract workers. Such a measure will only erode their competitive edge in the long term or force them to trim staff in lean times, he told reporters yesterday during a visit to a training.' by Keith Lin in the Straits Times

Was there public outrage?

The judge said there was public outrage on the case about a preacher having 10 wives and fathering 64 children and the wives encouraging their daughters to have sex with the father preacher. Was there any public outrage? If there was, this thing would not have happened and been going on for so long. It is not sex between two frogs or many frogs at the bottom of a well and not visible to anyone. It occurred right before the eyes of many people, the whole community and neighbourhood cannot be blind to it. How could this thing go on for so long without anyone putting a stop to it at the early stages?

pay according to performance

NWC linked pay hike with productivity The NWC recommendation suggested that employers should pay employees more when there is an increase in productivity. I think this is a bit tedious to compute. An easier way will be to commission a salary survey on comparative wage levels and then adjust the salaries accordingly when they are found to be lower than the market. It will be more objective and impartial if done by a neutral party. This is especially effective and applicable when productivity is very difficult to measure. And sometimes the lower productivity or performance could be due market forces or events beyond the employees control. And at the lower level, their performance will often be affected by many more factors, including those of their bosses.

A new buzz, a fiasco

There is a new kind of buzz in town, one that is being repeated quite often these days and would tarnish the Singapore brand. We are reputed as a country where all things work. Once we put up something, we can sleep in peace that it will be successful. The University of NSW closed down after only two months and with 148 students, Singaporeans and foreigners, stranded. It would not happen if it was a Singapore run university. We don't do this kind of things. But even if it is an Australian university, it happens in our land and we will somehow be linked to it. Our Singapore brand cannot keep getting this kind of bashing. And the students were only told after the decision to close was made and announced. Well, only 148. No big deal. Anyway, they should expect such things can happen to a new set up that does not have a Singapore brand. It is caveat emptor. They went in with their eyes open and knew the risk. In a way it is also a kind of progress for Singapore. It shows that we are taking more risk and even risky projects that were not well thought through and with insufficient finances. This is good for Singapore as we will become a riskier country that encourages everyone to be more cautious and risk aware.

Return of the Knight

It is good that Glen Knight is allowed to practise his trade again. He had gone through very rough time and had paid a very heavy price for his mistakes. He took the punishment gentlemanly and quietly and had lived a life of a reform man, in the wilderness. Though the reason to take him back into the law fraternity was because of the good words of eminent lawyers, I am more impressed by Knight himself. He is every inch a repent man. He went about his life in his darkest hours, alone, far from the main stream of all the glamorous happenings. He could be a very rich man today if not of the lapses in his life. He deserves to start life anew, albeit too late. He was out cold for too long for not too major offences that he committed. It is good that he is given a second chance.

Legalise insider trading

A letter from a Charles Tan in the Today paper suggested that insider trading should be legalised. There is nothing for me say when people cannot see what this will lead to. But this is another brutal truth. When one is in a position of power or authority and accessible to sensitve information, connections etc, it is ok to take advantage of the situation to fatten one's pocket. Are we ready for the Singapore of the future?

Why is Singapore trying to explain the IDR Committee

Why is Singapore trying to explain the IDR Committee Why is Singapore taking on the task to explain to the Malaysians that we have no interest in meddling with Malaysian affairs or taking over the sovereignty of the IDR through the joint committee? It is a red herring that we should not be involved. The more we try to explain a stupidity, the more will stupid people read into our intention when there is none. The IDR is a Malaysian proposal to be developed in Malaysian soil. To have Malaysians questioning their own ability to manage the IDR and even toying with the fear of losing their sovereignty is unbelieveable. Unless the Malaysians are really that low in their ability to give away their sovereignty without knowing. Maybe this is possible and their concern is real. Don't they have talented people to manage the IDR to their advantage? And maintaining sovereignty within one's soil, with the full support of the law and the law enforcing agencies, you do not need much brains to do that. How could the village chiefs even think that it is clever to suggest that it can happen? Singapore is best to shut up and let them play their own political wayang. It is not very clever of us to try to explain away their self created paranoia.

Age of citizen journalism is here

And this is what the media big bosses are saying. Their comments are justified by the coverage of people on the ground, at the scene, shooting and relaying information and pictures to media organisations to broadcast or put into prints. Handphones and digital cameras are very handy tools for the coverage of instant news. And there is the great happenings at Youtube with everyone trying out their flair and showing off what they have shot. What the media gurus forget to say is that citizen journalism is journalism of the people. The people choose their agenda and report things they want to report. This is a huge difference from what one reads in the media when the content is chosen by the editor. Now the citizens decide what they want to write, print and shoot and read. My denture almost fell out when I read this statement from ReuterTV's senior producer Jahabar Sadiq who cautioned against the bias in such material. "I 've seen videos that were edited and shaped in such a way that they presented just one point of view...News agencies will still be there to provide a neutral point of view - a view that has integrity and is created by professionals with very good editorial policies.' He said. How much is true in Jahabar's statement? 10% perhaps. All the news we read are edited and shaped in such a way that they present the views of the journalist or that of the media or broadcasters. It is often a one sided view. A neutral view? What a load of bullshit! And integrity, created by professionals with very good editorial policies? Integrity in what? Good policies according to who? The only thing professional is that the people are professional people being paid to do what they are told to do. Only in citizen journalism is there independence of thoughts and ideas reflecting what the citizen sees, hears and reports, of course with his taint of biasness. At least the citizen does not pretend to be neutral and objective.

What it is like with a doubling of population

We need to DOUBLE the following: 1. Roads and public transport system and car parks 2. Housing, either sideways or upwards 3. Schools, polytechnics and universities 4. Hospitals and clinics 5. Recreation, sports stadiums and amusement facilities 6. Places of worship 7. Jobs 8. Shopping centres, markets 9. Land of course 10. Reservoirs 11. Air and breathing space 12. Food 13. And many more things But our land is shrinking because of global warming. When that happens, no more land reclamation and many housing and other landed properties will be under water.

Car Insurance Premium expected to go up

The Insurance association has given warning that car insurance premium would have to go up because of high cost and claims. It reported a loss of more than $13 mil for the first quarter of the year on a revenue of nearly $200 mil for the same period. Assuming labour and other cost works out to be 70% of the revenue, or $140 mil, the claims from car accidents must be $60 mil plus $13 mil or $73 mil. And if the total cost is 50%, or $100 mil, the claim was a staggering $113 mil. These are just ball park figure. What is alarming is that a whole year figure would be 4 times this amount or between $292 mil and $452 mil. Now that is a lot of claims. The question is whether the loss is due to high accident claims or other costs eg labour cost, rental costs or losses due to investments. The amount of claims due to car accidents was expectedly not reported. The motorists who are going to be charged with higher car insurance premium deserved to know the whole picture. If accident claims is really that high, then it is justifiable to throw back the cost to the motorists. However, if the losses were due to higher manpower cost or other losses, then it is unfair to expect the motorists to bear the hike in insurance premium. Would CASE look into this before car insurance premiums are raised?

My reply to Li Ao

Ah Bian was interviewed by Yang Ming over Channel News Asia. And Ah Bian was in his own self, speaking or misspeaking in words that he could not pronounce clearly, and explaining his policies and philosophy of life and politics. Yang Ming was his professional best, articulate, polite and perceptive. He was posing questions at Ah Bian, leading him along but Ah Bian evading all the sensitive issues related to China. The most important feature throughout the interview was Yang Ming's expression. Though he smiled very often, and very cool and polite in his questions and comments, he could not hide his frustration at the man sitting in front of him that he called President. His face was as red as a lobster. He must be wondering why the Taiwanese elected such a man to be their President. There was nothing in Ah Bian that could impress him as one who can lead a nation. Ah Bian was fumbling as he could not articulate his words clearly. It was not even Min Nan dialect. After this interview, my reply to Li Ao is that the Taiwanese are also stupid. How else would a people electe a President like Ah Bian when there are many capable men around. Even Yang Ming is a much better man, anytime, in all aspects. They need to raise their President's salary to attract better talents.

security threat is real

The terrorist threat getting serious. This is a threat that will not go away but getting worst by the day. It is a matter of time when we will cry for our brothers and sisters lying in pools of blood or dying after an attack. And the govt is aware that they cannot fool around with such threats and must take all precautions and preparations necessary to prevent such an attack. Chee Hean came out with a new scheme to train more soldiers to take on this task, to protect our beautiful houses, complexes, infrastructures and HDB flats as well. No amount of men is too many to carry out this task. Uniformed personnel will be first on the line to face the terrorists. Maybe it is time they pay the uniformed personnel in the millions for putting their lives on the line to protect the wealth, security and safety of the people. Some issues and concerns were raised in Parliament with this new change. There were fears of abuses. This is unavoidable. Lets hope that there is no repeat of the airport incident where uniformed personnel abused their power and threaten the people they are supposed to protect. In that incident, an innocuous remark by a mother and a child resulted in their plan family holiday ruined and subjected them to intimidation by uniformed personnel, held up or in a way prevented them from going for their holiday. What the govt needs to do, and the people needs to know, is that the uniformed people are there to protect the people. And the people also must know their rights and when such uniformed personnel abuse their authority, they must be challenged or a channel for official complains to bring them to task, and be punished severely. For it is a very serious situation if we allowed uniformed personnel to think that they can abuse their authority and mess around with the citizens. And knowing the sheeple that we have, they will allow such abuses against them to get by. We need to educate our people of their rights as citizens as well. And also what they should do when uniformed personnel cross their line of duty to intimidate the people. This is also a time when the people and uniformed personnel must work closely together as one against a common enemy.

Getting old or getting wiser

The age issue in employment is receiving more attention in a population that is growing with the baby boomers. This is the group of movers and shakers of the economy for the last 30 years and they refuse to go away. They are here to stay, like it or not. They will occupy all the seats of power and influence, and money of course, until they drop dead. Who says people should be retiring? Is there an issue with people working to their sunset years? Is 62 a reasonable age to retire? It all depends. It depends on the physical and mental health of the worker. It also depends on the nature of the job. In more physically demanding jobs, you cannot afford to risk the lives of workers who are physically challenged to continue what they doing when young. And in many jobs, the dexterity of the fingers and the nimbleness of the minds, as well as the pretty face of a sweet young thing make a world of a difference in getting the job done well. Can a straight jacket law be simply introduced to be applicable to all situations? What the law could look at is a real restructuring of jobs for the oldies instead of kicking the oldies aside. There are many jobs that are suitable for oldies that have been threatened because young boys and girls think that oldies should be confined to old folks homes. On the other hand younger and physically able people could be encouraged to take on more active jobs or jobs that require more mobility. There is no hard and fast rules when physical suitablity is concerned. But one thing of concern is the slow reaction and nearly blind uncles driving taxis. The physical checks must not just be confined to general health and the eyesight. The lost of attentiveness and slow reaction to a fast changing situation can be life threatening. We need job restructuring rather than stringent laws that are cast in stone. But don't send all the uncles and aunties to become table cleaners and dish washers, or road sweepers.

politics is a game for man

This is truly exceptional and extraordinary. The change catalyst in Singapore politics is in the hands of two ancient politicians. One is in the thick of things and instituting changes all the way. Another is in the fringe waiting to re enter the scene to institute the biggest change in Singapore's politics. Make way boys and girls. Age is an advantage in politics. Go back to play marbles and catch spiders.

I am back - JBJ

The ONE that refuses to go away and keeps coming back. He may be 85 in 2011, if his health permits, surely he will run the race. He has given everything he got to run this race. He will make his last stand. And he has everything going for him. There are plenty of issues that he can talk about and people will listen to him. The sympathisers will be with him. His admirers for his determination and sacrifices will be for him. And there will be the permanent opposition votes that will go to him. He is likely to waltz into parliament without any resistance. The boys and girls will be overawed by his presence. And if they dare attack him or ridicule him in any way, the joke will be on them. The only obstacle in his path is not to get himself into any legal battle and be made a bankrupt again before the next election. But the naysayers will try to write him off. Those who believe that it is good to be in the winning camp will also want to write him off. Ultimately it will be a test of whether Singaporeans have a heart to see this grand old man through the last few years of his life. He is a Singaporean that never run away.

We need means testing

There is no better time than now to quickly introduce means testing before things get out of hand. The public service is public service for the people and not a treasure chest for the finders and keepers. It is the public's money and not only that the money must be spent reasonably, the public must also have a say in how and how much it should be spent particularly in the area of Ministerial salary. And this is where means testing must come in. A set of criteria must be adopted to test the means of such an income that the people deems fit for the political appointees. This should be measured against affordability and real income. Real income as compared against equally well off nations and the value of the income vis a vis the basket of goods it can purchased. Next we need to look at affordability not in the sense that the country has a golden goose and it is able to afford as many eggs as the picker wants to. Affordability shall be in the area of what the salary should be able to afford to the office holders. How many houses should the salary afford to buy every year, how many Benzes or BMWs or Bently every year, how many family holidays to choice destinations, how many millions to be put aside as savings. The political appointees must be able to afford a lifestyle fit for them in a prosperous country. The means testing must make sure that they can afford all these comforts to be meaningful and of course to attract more of such talented people befitting of such lifestyle to join the fray. The govt should immediately start to work out a set of means testing for such high offices.

The perfect example of a stupid Singaporean

The perfect example of a stupid Singaporean I chance to read this little article about the TV serial Survivor and a guy called Yau-Man Chan. The way he spelt his name, which is actually Chan Yau Man, tells you how stupid he is without needing any further explanation. What he did in the TV serial was the offering to someone a Ford truck for a verbal deal. Unfortunately the world is not made up of people as innocent and naive as he is. And the other guy, a Andria Herd, negated on the deal and he lost the game as well as the truck. Andria's reason is that 'I never totally gave my word. That's how people play the game.' And Andria was proud to say it in front of millions of people on TV, that there is nothing wrong with that. Very likely the world agrees with him except for the few supporter of the sorry loser, Yau Man Chan. And the stupid Yau Man Chan accepted that. Why couldn't he negate on his words and not to give up his truck since the other party did not fulfill his obligation? And he had to apologetically said that Andria was not evil, just confused, while he himself was dubed. The character traits of this Yau Man Chan is very typically Singaporeans. They went around the world, globetrotting, got into deals only to be cheated as the other party has no intention to honour the deal. And the Singaporean would pathetically and compliantly walk away without his pants. Just a note, Yau Man Chan is not a Singaporean but a Malaysian Chinese living in foreign land and has to compromise on his rights, dignity and even the way he writes his name. Chinese Singaporeans in Singapore still have some dignity and respect to stand up for their rights inside the island. But once out of it, they will have to be another decent, innocent, complaint, and graceful victim of people who will take advantage of them as they only have themselves to blame for being in the jungle and they the helpless sheep. This is the new image of an overseas Chinese. In the past the model image of the Chinese was a super loyal and obedient cook whose only talent is cooking and washing the laundry.

Chinese Singaporean or Singaporean Chinese?

Why is citizenship so important to Chinese Singaporeans? I am writing from the perspective of the Chinese Singaporeans. I cannot speak on behalf of the other Singaporeans as I am not wearing their shoes. Please excuse me for just looking at this issue from a specific angle. Many Chinese Singaporeans have taken for granted their good fortune as a citizen of this island. They failed to appreciate how exceptional this situation is. And some have become so cocky while some becoming too careless (loose in their minds) to think that losing it is okay. Look around us or at the world at large and see if there is a little corner where a person of Chinese origin can live freely as an individual, free from discrimination, victimization and even brutality. This little island is probably the only bastion for Chinese Singaporeans to live a life of his own, the way he wants it. He can turn his dreams to reality, to excel in anything that he wanted to be if he only puts in the effort, and to walk tall, speaks to anyone equally without fear, without having to stoop lower. And when he has achieved his dreams, built his fortune, he does not need to apologise or share it with any strangers who will visit him under any guises, but actually demanding that his pocket be filled or he will not have any peace. Some silly Chinese Singaporeans may think that there is always New Zealand, Australia, the UK or the US to migrate to. Yes, if they have the wealth to go over and live a peaceful life of plenty, as a private citizen. But that is all. Their station in life in these adopted countries will be merely as guests in a hotel, paying for all the services. But let them not forget, anyone could trespass their freedom, infringe on their rights, intimidate them or violate them physically or mentally. And when faced with such aggression, they can only walk away, quietly and sheepishly. For those countries can never be home like Singapore. There will be no pride, no dignity and no self respect. They might kid themselves among their small circle of friends. I know some will disagree. And they are right too. For a few individual cases, they could still be equals in other lands. But here is where they have all the rights and respect as an individual. It is a basic privilege that any citizen or decent human being should have, without fear or prejudice. This is how important citizenship is to the Chinese Singaporeans. But would any of them be foolhardy to compromise this right of theirs and carelessly give it away? For once lost, they can never ever dream of having it back. They will then be just like any overseas Chinese, the Malaysian Chinese, Filipino Chinese or Indonesian Chinese. To be kicked around, bullied and manhandled in anyway the power of the land wish to. They will then be called the Singaporean Chinese, the equals of Malaysian or Indonesian Chinese, in the same boat, turning in circles and not going anywhere. Would Chinese Singaporeans think that all is fine, that whoever comes into power will treat them fairly and equally? Never bet on that. No power to be can guarantee fairness to all and be magnanimous to those under their control. When all the chips in your hand are gone, the holder of all the chips will call the shot. Sadly, Li Ao is right. The stupid Singaporeans are slowly marching forward, oblivious to losing this right to self determination, to live as an equal among all citizens, free from discrimination and coercion. When that day arrives, Chinese Singaporeans will have no where else to go to. We cannot and must not become second class citizens in our own island, the only island in the world that offers us the right to a normal life. That is how important this citizenship is to the Chinese Singaporeans. The Chinese Singaporean is an oddity that can go up in smokes, and we will all become Singaporean Chinese, trying to exist in a world that has no place for us, a bit like the Jews before Israel.

One dollar for you one grand for me

It was only last weekend when Abdullah and Hsien Loong met in Langkawi and everything seemed to have taken off from a sound footing. It was all warmth and an eagerness to work together for mutual benefits. It only takes a few days and the mood changes. The fear has returned. The acrimony of the past, the mistrust of others and of self. Why should there be so much fear of the Singaporeans when negotiating for a deal to benefit both parties? Both enter the negotiation with a I want List. And before signing anything, both parties will have to satisfy themselves that their wish list is fulfilled. Then why should it be that after a few years down the road one party will complain that they have been taken for a ride, that they have been cheated? And now even the fear of losing jurisdiction over their own territories? I can understand such a fear after being colonised by big powers for so long. But such thing can never happen in a hypersensitive polity when everyone is politicised. It is just unimaginable that any country will ever sign away their rights to self determination. The only country that may do so is one that think too highly of itself and think that it can get away with it. The Malaysians are going to negotiate with the Singaporeans on an equal basis. It is unlike a small consumer accepting the top down terms from a monopolistic giant. One dollar for you and one thousand dollars for me. In an unequal relationship, the one getting the one dollar has to accept the deal compliantly. But a sovereign state would not accept such nonsense or an unequal treaty. The Malaysians must start to believe in themselves. What happens to Malaysia boleh?

Gravity defying act

The New NKF is going to become a model organisation in another way. The new management has just taken over for a short period of time and the cost to dialysis patients has gone down by 4 times. This is gravity defying, unheard off and unnatural in the Singapore context. How can cost go down instead of going up? Would they be sending out the wrong signal, that medical cost can actually come down instead of going up? Anyway, good work New NKF.

the malaysian nightmare

We have a reputation of having a lot of talented men in govt. And these men are well honed in negotiation skills and always get the best deal for us and make the other party looks stupid. And this reputation is going to haunt us and undermine our relations with Malaysia. They really fear us. What ever deal we propose or agree or accept will make them worry. They fear that they will get lesser benefits from the deal and we will get more. They fear that we will take them for a ride. Above all, they fear that the truth will be out for all to see, their incompetence when negotiating a deal with Singaporeans. How they have become so paranoid and frighten of Singaporeans and their own lack of ability to negotiate a deal that is favourable to themselves is quite startling. Don't they have any faith or confidence in themselves? Abdullah and Hsien Loong have just agreed on a few things to do together and you can see their immediate reactions of horrors!

NKF Story - A kinder Singapore

Whatever had happened or caused to have happened, the NKF has turned Singapore into a kinder society. Richard Yong and Loo Say San both got a slap on the wrist after being found guilty of the charge for failing in their duties as directors. Each was fined $5000 for allowing a $1.3 million deal to go to waste. Though the $5000 fine was the maximum allowable other than jail terms, the judge said it reflected the 'gravity of the matter'. For a grave matter like the loss of $1.3 million, a $5000 fine is grave and appropriate. This is one step forward towards a kinder Singapore. If the punishment is too severe, we may not have any good men coming forward to serve in public service. There must be incentives to attract good people and talented people to serve the people. And from the judge's comment that Richard Yong was only an 'ornament' without any real understanding of what was going on when he went along to Chennai to negotiate the deal, it tells a lot about the talents in NKF. And even Loo Say San 'was not aware of NKF's right under the agreement'. Both instances said that they are not competent and thus should not be made to feel too guilty about not doing a good job. Their intention were good. They volunteered to serve the people in a charity. They are not aware that they were not competent to do the job. They were not party to a collusion or acquaintance to a crime. They did not benefit from the deal. The $5000 fine was thus very appropriate and we shall just move on. Case close. And NKF may want to offer higher pay to recruit better talents to run the show. Paying peanuts is what they get. If they want talents, they need to pay in the millions.

Laws to maintain fair recruitment.

A letter by Sangeetha Bysheim in the Today paper described her experience in applying for a job. She said that all her interviews were by expatriates. This, she concluded, could be that most of the top jobs are occupied by expatriates or two, expatriates are likely to be less discriminatory. She had a point. And she suggested that we must have laws to prevent discrimination at work places, and in employment, especially when we are inviting more talented foreigners to take the place of less talented locals in the job market. I have a better idea and easier to implement. Appoint all the expatriates to the top jobs of organisations, or at least as the HR Managers. This will ensure that there will be fair play and foreigners will be given a fairer chance of getting employment here.

Can you afford to plan for retirement?

Professional people find it astonishing that 50% of Singaporeans did not plan for their retirement. The point is that how many Singaporeans can afford to plan for their retirement? Take the example of a two paycheck average $5k income family with two children. I believe this is representative of an average Singaporean family. With 30% CPF contribution over a period of 30 years, his CPF savings should be $1500 x 14 x 30, using 14 mths pay and all things remaining unchanged. This will give $630k. The remaining will be his take home pay at $1.68 mil. I f household expenses plus personal expenses for the two parents is $3k pm, total is $1.08 mil. The cost of raising two children to university level at $200k each is $400k. Presumably he owns a car for 20 years and monthly expenditure, including instalment etc is $800. This will cost him $192k. Then we have $1.68m less all these expenses the balance is $8000! Nothing left really. And all the holidays, social commitments, hospital bills etc are not even considered. His only savings is in the CPF. And the full amount would probably be used to pay for a 5 rm HDB flat and a little left in the Medisave. Can he afford to plan and save? Even if he is a thrifty person, thriftyness is frown upon in this island, he may put aside $100k. And all he needs is a major hospitalisation of one member of his family and it will be wiped out. In order to be meaningful, two old folks need to have about $200k in their CPF on retirement. This is based on the minimum sum and Medisave expectation of the CPF Board. If these average Singaporeans have no spare cash to save, what is there to plan? Just work and work is the best plan, really.