A reader wrote to the Straits Times to suggest that "old" citizens and "new" citizens should be treated differently for priority allocation into the choice schools. A new citizen wrote today to state that this would be unfair and is bad for Singapore.
For the past 20 years, I have strongly disliked the practice of our Government leaders and top civil servants in writing complicated rules to differentiate between different classes of people - graduates and non-graduates, different allocation to benefits according to the type of house that you live in, different eligibility to tax relief according to the birth order of your child or the year of birth, different level of health care subsidy according to the type of house you live in and income, complicated rules to determine eligibility for welfare payments, and so on.
If you are caught on the wrong side of the rule, bad luck to you. And the people who write the rules will know how to be on the right side of these rules. It is unfair, but this is Singapore. We are used to this type of environment.
I wish Singapore to be fairer and simpler. We should make high income earners pay more tax, and after that, apply the same level of benefits to all citizens, regardless of income level or housing type. There is no need for complicated rules.
We should pay an adequate allowance, almost like a full time salary, to our National Servicemen. After that, there is no need to have complicated rules to give them slightly more in entitlement to Government benefits.
Tan Kin Lian
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Will Goldman Sachs sue Thomas Adams?
Read this story.
I am surprised that Thomas Adams and the New York Times is bold to write the article in this direct manner. They are protected by a vigorous culture of tranparency and accountability that is available under the American system.
Singapore is far behind in this aspect. It is so easy for for big businesses and powerful people to sue individuals in Singapore and intimidate them into silence. It is unfair and undesirable, but this is the Singapore system. I hope that this situation will be corrected.
I am surprised that Thomas Adams and the New York Times is bold to write the article in this direct manner. They are protected by a vigorous culture of tranparency and accountability that is available under the American system.
Singapore is far behind in this aspect. It is so easy for for big businesses and powerful people to sue individuals in Singapore and intimidate them into silence. It is unfair and undesirable, but this is the Singapore system. I hope that this situation will be corrected.
Merry Christmas and Best Wishes for 2010
To the visitors of my blog, all the best for 2010
Tan Kin Lian
Tan Kin Lian
Playing with fire
An elderly bank officer told me. He spent a few years as a wealth manager of a bank. He knew the risks of the financial products and were careful in explaining the risks to his clients.
These same products were given to young bank officers to sell to their clients. The young officers did not understand the products but they were bold in recommending them to their clients. They were driven by the commission that comes with the sales and were keen to meet the sales targets.
Why are these young people allowed to play with fire? We need a better way of regulating the sale of financial products. Surely, risky and complex products cannot be allowed to be sold by inexperienced people?
Imagine someone who takes a 3 week course in medicine who is then allowed to prescribe drugs!
These same products were given to young bank officers to sell to their clients. The young officers did not understand the products but they were bold in recommending them to their clients. They were driven by the commission that comes with the sales and were keen to meet the sales targets.
Why are these young people allowed to play with fire? We need a better way of regulating the sale of financial products. Surely, risky and complex products cannot be allowed to be sold by inexperienced people?
Imagine someone who takes a 3 week course in medicine who is then allowed to prescribe drugs!
Churning the CPF savings
There is a report about financial advisers advising low income families to wthdraw their CPF savings for investment in unit trusts. The financial advisers earn up to 3% on the front end charges and give a rebate to the CPF member. By churning these investments many times, the CPF member is able to withdraw a fairly significant amount of savings. The problem is - for every $1 that is withdrawn, the CPF member is likely to lose $3 (my guess) of savings.
The CPF tries to bar the errant financial advisers from being involved in the future. This is similar to telling a thief that if he is caught, he will be barred from stealing in the future. I hope that our Government will make this type of activity into a crime that can send the culprits to jail.
We have a law on Financial Advice, which is administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Surely, this law requires the licensed advisers to operate ethically and avoid dishonest transactions, such as illegal withdrawals of CPF savings? If this is the case, the MAS should investigate and take action under this law. We cannot have people who are licenced to abuse their privileges.
Tan Kin Lian
The CPF tries to bar the errant financial advisers from being involved in the future. This is similar to telling a thief that if he is caught, he will be barred from stealing in the future. I hope that our Government will make this type of activity into a crime that can send the culprits to jail.
We have a law on Financial Advice, which is administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Surely, this law requires the licensed advisers to operate ethically and avoid dishonest transactions, such as illegal withdrawals of CPF savings? If this is the case, the MAS should investigate and take action under this law. We cannot have people who are licenced to abuse their privileges.
Tan Kin Lian
Rechargeable torchlight and shape quiz
You can get them from the following shop in Sim Lim Tower:
Torchlight: $8, Shape Quiz: $2
Torchlight: $8, Shape Quiz: $2
Skylimit Int Enterprise Ptd Ltd
10 Jalan Besar
#B1-21 Sim Lim Tower
Singapore 208787
Telephone: 62929155 / 62935766
Emal: info@skylimitie.com
Singapore 208787
Telephone: 62929155 / 62935766
Emal: info@skylimitie.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)