Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Social and Economic Development in Singapore
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 28, 29, 30  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tay Cheng Khoon died at 58

Sports editor of ST died at 58 and obviously leaving behind whatever he had in his CPF to his family. Hopefully his illness did not take a big chunk of it first.

Another that failed to make it to 62 years to collect his stipends.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The right to die

Visited a nursing home or a hospice? I assure you that it is not a pretty sight. My respect for all the care givers in the homes, paid or volunteered. Many of the inmates are no longer able to look after themselves. Can't see, can't hear, can't move, can't talk and can't think. And everything must be done for them.

Is it a good thing to keep them living in those conditions? Are they living and enjoying life, or are they serving penance for a life not worth living?

Many kind hearted souls will swear and fight tooth and nail to keep them alive and going. Life is precious. Anyone with a different view?

We are not meant to live forever in this physical form. We come and we go. Different religions and races have their theories and teachings on what come next. Some may believe that this is their one and only existence. Some believe that there is life after death. Some believe that one's spirit lives on forever.

The question is whether people should be preserved to live with such indignity, in such a pathetic condition, and celebrated as living. Living life must be living life, not suffering life, immobilised in bed.

A lot of education needs to be done to prepare people to live and die gracefully and respectfully. People must not be imprisoned in their dysfunctional bodies in this world one day longer that they have to be. They must be set free to roam the universe, to carry on living as a free spirit.

We have the right to live and also the right to die, in dignity. A lot of work must be done in this neglected area that has been left to chance and the opportunitists. We need some of our best talents to be trained in this field and to enlighten the ignorant masses on what life and living is all about and remove the fear of dying.

Dying is the last act of grace. A beautiful moment to a new life. Dying is to live again.

PS. Exclude the violent and unnatural deaths for they are not meant to die through natural wear and tear.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF - Grabbing at straws

The Straits Times gives Chua Mui Hoon almost one whole page of the Editorial Page to justify why it is good to raise the withdrawal age for the minimum sum to 65. It is so pathetic. Her only good reason for not returning the money to its rightful owner is for CPF Board to improve its returns to the people.

Who cares about those miserable returns that could not even keep pace with the GST increases. It is a non issue. Nobody is interested in the interest rate. The longer the money is kept, the lesser it is worth.

The issue is what right has the govt to keep on holding on to the people's money?

The life long savings of the people must be returned to the people at the earliest possible as it is their just reward for a life time of struggling and working. This is the last contentment for the ageing and dying men and women and no one shall deprive them of it. They have worked for a life time, waited for a life time, looking forward to this moment to breathe a little easier, to touch the money that they have slogged and saved all this while.

How cruel it can be to die without seeing it, without touching it and without being able to spend it for themselves, to go for that holiday, to buy a good meal for themselves, or a little toy for their own amusement?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Priority tertiary education for locals

28,000 locals applied and nearly half were offered places. This means about 14,000 places were offered to locals. This is a big number given the average birth rate of Singaporeans at about 35,000. Hey, that is 40% of each year's cohort. Then why are Singaporeans complaining that they cannot get admission to local universities.

And the govt's target is only 25%. The actual intake was 23.5% or 8,225 students out or 35,000. Where is the balance of 14,000, ie about 5,700 comes from?

Is the intake 8,225 or 14,000? And how many of these are citizens? Locals are not necessarily citizens. Or can we assume that 8,225 are citizens? If this is so, then the percentage of non citizen locals, ie PRs, is 41%. So for every 5 students admitted, 3 are citizens and 2 are PRs.

But the actual intake could only be 8225, as 14,000 places were just offered and not necessarily accepted.

The numbers are my guestimates based on the data provided in the paper and may not be accurate. What is the real number?

Also, should it be a local-foreign problem or a citizen-non citizen issue?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let the religious have a say on GAY

Andy Ho suggested in his article in the ST that we should let the religious have a say on the gay issue. The religious is generally assumed to have a higher morality than the atheist on such issues.

I beg to differ. Religion should not be allowed to interfere in state and secular matters. The Americans, though more inclined to Christianity, will not allow it to be part of the state belief system. It is best to leave state and religion separate.

Every religion has their own set of strong beliefs on moral issues. And not everyone agrees to them. It is best that such beliefs be left among their believers and in the confines of their religious sacred grounds. No religion is superior to another and no religion must be allowed to impose their values and systems of beliefs on other people, atheists or people of other religions.

There cannot be peace when religion is mixed with politics. Some extremists will emerge in time to invoke god to suppress the free will of others, and in the name of god, wickedness will be seen to be right.

Let religion grow as a personal pursuit but not be allowed to become a national belief to govern a country.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MOE corrected the misleading data

It is 18% and not 4.3%. That is the official data, 4,218 foreign students offereed places in local universities, not 987 in the latest intake.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grunt



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 373

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Think it's more like :

987 or 4.3 percent + 18 per cent of the 22,933 foreign students = 22.3%

That is excluding PRs intake.

And :
Quote:
The universities provided places for 23.5 per cent of local students this year


they already said that out of 100 locals applied 50 got places, so the
percentage cannot be that of the whole Singapore cohort applications.

Quote:
This year, about 50 percent of local students who applied for local universities got in.


So : 23.5 + 22.3 = 45.8%.

Who got the balance 54.2% ?

Think MOE should go back to school to do both their Maths and
English before coming out with figures and statements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

During my time we were not taught modern maths. So it is a bit difficult for people in my generation to under the new maths and how figures are generated and how they overlapped.

For those who were taught modern maths, they may understand that the figures make perfect sense.

1 plus 1 is not 2.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OCBC Bank - Returning to the roots

It was not many years ago when children were encouraged to save in schools. Banks were also actively promoting savings among children by offering all kinds of schemes and attractive toys to the young savers. Then as banks grew big and strong, they find the few dollars and cents too tedious, unworthy, and costly to manage. So they start to impose a fee for savers who did not have the minimum sum in their bank accounts, something like $1000 or $1500. Small savers suddenly find that it is the bank that is doing them a service and they have to pay to keep their miserable sums in the banks for safe keeping.

I think subsequently all the children savers who have less than the minimum sum stop putting their money in the big and strong friendly banks. The banks are now so rich that they find the small savers a pest. I cannot imagine where these small savers are putting their monies but very likely in piggy banks or some tin cans. Where else when no bank is going to keep their few dollars for free?

Now OCBC is launching a scheme with all kinds of attractive gifts for the children to save. I believe these children will not have to pay a fee should their savings be too small. Nothing stated on this.

Looking at the long run, this is a genius move, a strategic move to sign up all the future depositors to become OCBC account holders. Yes, get them when they are young and once they have got use to OCBC and have an account with OCBC, they will remain there. Unless OCBC mess it up with their services or starts the nonsense of imposing a banking charge again for small savers.

Just one generation, OCBC will sign up all the new adults as their account holders. What a smart move.

'Greed has no shame'
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nobel laureate out of sync in Paradise Island

Professor Muhammed Yunus was invited to Paradise Island to share his idea of a poor man's bank with Singaporeans. There were also talks of setting up an equivalent bank to help poor Singaporeans. I almost got choked when hearing this. This is probably the biggest contradiction to start with.

In the first place there are no poor in Paradise Island. Or at least the poor are given more monetary aid than what the poor man's bank is giving out as loans, a miserable $50. Our govt is giving $300 a month to the poor as handouts! That must be a princely sum to go by. It is thus a non starter as a concept.

The talks of Singaporean banks starting a poor man's bank is also another non starter. We used to have a poor man's bank. But since it started to charge a fee for the poor men to keep their miserable few dollars in our world class banks, I don't think any of our banks will bite at the possibility of giving out petty loans of $50 in the first place. It does not justify the high administrative cost. And how could we expect our banks to give loans without collaterals? Unthinkable.

The talk by the Nobel laureate is as good as an academic exercise in futility to honour a great man.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

New laws needed to protect the weak and innocent.

The Odex case is revealing in the sense that the weak can be subject to extortion by the rich and powerful. People can be dragged to court or pay a ransom for the slightest infringement of the law.

Then there is this guy who wrote to the press begging that something be done to restrain his neighbours 5 rottweilers from attacking any passerbys. After highlighting the fear and the possibility of a child being tear to pieces by the dogs, he pleaded sheepishly on what recourse he would have from the barking of the dogs.

There must be laws to protect the innocents from people who live dangerously and exposed others to potential harm and destruction of lives. No recourse is going to make any difference to a child or an oldie who is badly mauled by ferocious animals.

What the hell is happening? Are we waiting for disasters to happen just to make a few idiots happy with their wild animals? Tame? Animals are only tame when they don't attack. You just can't be too sure how the animal minds work and when it is going to be provoked or go berserk.

Please, get rid of those beasts. Or at least have a law to cane the owners if their beasts attack anyone. Monetary compensation is useless to the victims. Make caning of the owners mandatory when an attack takes place.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redblood



Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Embarassed Rolling Eyes Arrow

Last edited by redblood on Thu May 22, 2008 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No French cap in Paradise

The beautiful thing about living in Paradise is that there is no need for a cap. Everything will just go up, no need for any cap. Get what I mean?

In our paradise, we can defy gravity forever. But that is our unspoken tooth or truth. Where got gravity in paradise? So we can expect everything to go up, all the prices must go up. All the cost of living must go up. But have no fear, all our salaries will also go up. We can be paid more and more everyday, so that we can afford to pay for all the GST, ERP, and all the fees needed to live and get around. No country can be so blessed as us. But we are in paradise. We do not need to conform to the any economic or natural rules, principles or laws. We decide our own operational parameters.

Affordability is never an issue. We will make sure that everything is affordable to everyone. The prices will be raised, and the income will also be raised to catch up with the prices.

Why is it that a TV set, or a PC, or fridge, or a camera, no matter how many improvements added into it, will still be sold at about the same price in the world market, including paradise? Are these affected by globalisation, by competition from around the world?

The quality and power of these instruments have increased by 100s of folds, but the prices remain fairly the same. Is it because of affordability? Should these manufacturers raise their prices to atmospheric level since their products are of super quality? They should as their products are definitely of super quality and created by their super talents. If they do not price their products to world class prices, how are they to feed their super talents? Or are they under paying their super talents? Aren't they afraid that their super talents would quit, go elsewhere to get more money?

Do we see all the super talents coming to paradise? Or we are seeing only the third or fourth rate talents here? And they too must be happy to know that there is no cap here and may one day shoot to the sky.

At the rate we are going, our workers can expect to be paid in tens of thousands in a matter of time.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redblood



Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Embarassed Question Arrow

Last edited by redblood on Thu May 22, 2008 11:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 14255
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Redblood,

I think you got it all mixed up. It is not greed at work. We stood by our high standard of morality and we uphold virtues and righteousness and incorruptibility.

We need to pay them high salaries because if we don't they will all go to Hongkong. Now how many lawyers are we producing a year? 200 or 300? How many can Hongkong absorb, 500 or 1000? Maybe we should produce 2000 lawyers a year. Then we will have some left provided these talented individuals are not snatched up by US or UK.

Our talent pool is getting more talented.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 28, 29, 30  Next
Page 3 of 30

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions