insurance industry: how to destroy more jobs?

from a workforce of more than 20,000 agents to 13,000 today. that must be a great way to create jobs. from an attractive profession that provides a decent and good livelihood, many agents are trying to make ends meet. that is another great achievement. why has a flourishing industry that supports a huge and happy workforce been battered to a state that joining the industry is a case of no better choice? i wonder how many other industries are facing the same plight? maybe insurance agents will do better if they call themselves entrepreneurs. that title will entitle them to earn more and be respectable. is it because the insurance agents were earning too much and people begruded their high income? and they were able to afford big cars and big houses, which probably make people's eyes turned from green to red. one thing for sure, these agents or the industry were not in a position to tell the world that they are professional people and deserve to be paid well. and, because they are able to provide a good level of service and professionalism, they should be paid more than a peanut. i find it very odd that the insurance people are not able to demand to be paid well and demand to be respected while people working in non profit charitable organisations can demand such high respect and high income. qualification may be a factor, i think. they should create an insurance university and award all the agents with first class honours and doctorate. i think that might help. once they get the papers, their work scope can be that of a clerk. but all they need to do is to give themselves a big title and pay accordingly. people will accept that formula. the game will be different if the insuracnce people were able to justify their own value and income and decide how much theyshould be paid. they can even create more jobs with better job titles to be paid more....only if they could not be questioned. i think many insurance agents would qualify for workfare bonuses.

an honest answer from a blind man

why is the society of the blind having more members that are not blind? the blind membership chairman answered. 'when the applicants tell me that they are blind i have to take their words for it.' the above story was posted in the talkingcock forum. and i wonder why would these people with sight wanted to join a society for blind people?

singapore is a truly open society

this blog is the best example of singapore as an open society. i have written everything truthfully as they are. i have written about everything that can be written. is this not enough proof of our openness. must invite george soros to visit my blog.

budget terminal ok

someone replied that the name budget terminal is fine as it truly reflects the character of the terminal, for budget travellers only. ok, ok, i accept that. from now onwards all hdb flats shall be called budget flats or cheap flats. no more rivervale or riverdale or whatever. punggol just call punggol, sengkang just call sengkang. punggol lane 1, 2 and 3. sengkang lane 4, 5 and 6. so no punggol sixth avenue huh. budget names are good for budget things. cheap food courts, cheap shops. we can retain names like kopitiams. this should be fine. where is my blakang mati? sentosa? weird? can budget people be allowed to have a little illusion and hallucination? i remember the story when the poor farmer told his children that yellow sweet potato is called pork and red sweet potato is called roast meat. facing reality everyday can be quite painful actually. changi international airport for rich travellers, budget terminal for not rich travellers. nice, truthful, appropriate and pragmatic.

sports school, what do you think you are doing?

or maybe i should rephrase that and ask, 'parents, do you know what you are doing?' the singapore sports school is facing some dropping outs of students and coaches. that should be normal and expected in all schools and systems. what i find it hilarious, yes hilarious, is that the reasons given include things like the school or parents expecting the academic standards to be as good as a normal school. and complaints of too tough or not enough time to do sports training and academic training as sports training is taking too much time and too stressful. unbelievable! if our sports talents, or the world's sports talents are so gifted that they are so good academically as well as in sports, then they would be the perfect human beings. can it be possible? spending more than twice the normal school hours in sports training and wanted to do just as well academically? supertalents, better than all the talents in the best colleges? one has to choose either one to excel and spend more time in it. there is no way to excel in both. maybe one in a million. the purpose of the sports school is primarily to train sports talents. not academic talents. doing both or trying to do both is pure folly. if this fundamental concept cannot be grasped by the school and parents, then indeed all the education is wasted. just tell the parents plainly that their children are to be trained first in sports. any academic training is at best rudimentary. if they cannot accept that, better not to enlist them in the school. and the school not should try to sell the idea that the students will also do well academically.

soros called for open societies

george soros calls for an open society that is tolerant of differing views. when asked about singapore he said, 'obviously, singapore does not qualify as open society...but i hope they will be brave enough to take the next step in the development of an open society.' the ministry of information, communications and the arts responded by say, 'if we were not an open society, george soros would hardly be able to make the comment at an open forum in singapore, and be reported in the singapore media.' can both parties be speaking the truth? or one is telling the truth and one is lying? who is to be the judge. if infocomm is telling the truth, then why is soros, an eminent and successful man, obviously not one who talks without knowing what he is saying, making those comments. soros probably did not know the whole truth. or shall we ask the singaporeans who are living witnesses to the system whether they think we are an open society or otherwise? whether differing views are tolerated, when and where it matters. the most accurate way of putting it is by tommy koh. 'while the us appears to be moving from a more open to a less open society, singapore is moving in the other direction - from close to open.'

the health net that was not there when needed

quoting from a report by lee uwen in the today paper, the health feedback group assured sick singaporeans that the ability to pay their medical bills should be the least of their worries. from the procedural aspects, the system will first ensure that no one can be admitted without proof of ability to pay. this will actually take care of those who cannot afford to pay from being admitted. the screening process prior to admission is meticulous and unyielding. no money no admission. but according to a dr lee kheng hock, the govt's 3m scheme comprising the medisave, medifund and medishield actually was found wanting in many cases when the patients needed the assistance. each case is unique. but because of the stringent criteria, many cases were turned away. is that not funny? a safety net that was there but not there. actually it is not funny at all. so now the feedback 'group is now pushing for an integrated national healthcare charity fund to be established to act as a "safety net" for them and others in the same boat.' ie those that needed the net that would not work. 'it could be managed by community leaders who will focus solely on raising money. when the pot runs dry, the people will see the need to top it up. it will be like a community based "medifund" that acts as an additional layer of help,' said dr lee. cannot believe in system perfect singapore that a safety net needs another safety net as it is found to be faulty. how about a third net in case the second safety net fails again? what this portends to is that all the assurance about not to worry is not that comforting after all. it is like creating all the problems, ie raising all the fees, then create a series of solutions and found the solutions not working. so create more solutions again to patch all the leaking holes. why not go back to the basics and address the problems of high fees. bring down the fees and save all the effort to create all the safety nets with funds that cannot be dispensed out. does one feel encouraged?