Views posted in the survey
1. Please don't force the children to buy useless textbooks which are not comprehensive enough. At the moment there is a huge sideline industry for other "outside" study guides which are a thousand times better than the school textbooks! It penalises the children from poor families who already spend all their money on the Official textbooks.
2. Children learn the selfishness from parents. Parents are selfish because of the education system here. So, the root cause is the education system here. Under the current system, only those who can perform better academically will be "rewarded" with a place in "good" school. Consequently, lucrative career awaiting them in government service. As there are limited vacancies in these "good" schools, do you think parents would share useful info among their friends so that children of their friends would land a place in these good schools? That's how the selfishness begins and unwittingly pass it to the next generation...sad!
3. University degrees ought not to be valued over other factors in recruitment, unless the technical knowledge or skills required are those that cannot be acquired otherwise (medical, engineering, or specific professional degrees). For example, an general office worker does not require a degree to be competent; rather, what should be required are good language skills and other skills that are relevant to the job. A university degree may be a sufficient condition, but it ought not be a necessary condition.
4. Good results/certification does not equal to good future.
Participate in the survey by clicking on this link.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Financial Inquiry Commission
The US Congress set up a Financial Inquiry Commission to investigate the causes of the financial crisis. Some knowledgeable people and the media have identified questions to be posed to the large banks that were involved in the crisis. The questions are shown here:
Ten Questions A Financial Inquiry Commission MUST Ask
by Eliot Spitzer, William Black, and Frank Partnoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://www.businessinsider.
My questions for 4 bank CEOs
Mr Keith Hennessey, an ex-senior White House economic advisor to former president
George W Bush, is one of the members of the 10-member panel..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://keithhennessey.com/
Questions for the Big Bankers
The New York Times's Op-Ed editors asked eight financial experts
to pose questions they would like to hear the bankers answer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/
Ten Questions A Financial Inquiry Commission MUST Ask
by Eliot Spitzer, William Black, and Frank Partnoy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://www.businessinsider.
My questions for 4 bank CEOs
Mr Keith Hennessey, an ex-senior White House economic advisor to former president
George W Bush, is one of the members of the 10-member panel..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://keithhennessey.com/
Questions for the Big Bankers
The New York Times's Op-Ed editors asked eight financial experts
to pose questions they would like to hear the bankers answer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/
Unemployment in Singapore
I need your help to do some research on unemployment in Singapore
a) How many citizens and permanent residents lose their job each year, due to retrenchment or business failure of their employers, i.e. not due to change of job? It varies from one year to another, but I like to have an average over a number of years.
b) What is the proportion of people who lose their job, i.e. taking this average number as a percentage of those in the workforce.
c) How long does it take to find a new job and what is the average salary for the new job compared to the job that was lost? This statistics may be difficult to get, but I hope that some approximate figures are available.
d) How long does it take a school leaver to find a full time job?
You can post your findings here or send them to kinlian@gmail.com
a) How many citizens and permanent residents lose their job each year, due to retrenchment or business failure of their employers, i.e. not due to change of job? It varies from one year to another, but I like to have an average over a number of years.
b) What is the proportion of people who lose their job, i.e. taking this average number as a percentage of those in the workforce.
c) How long does it take to find a new job and what is the average salary for the new job compared to the job that was lost? This statistics may be difficult to get, but I hope that some approximate figures are available.
d) How long does it take a school leaver to find a full time job?
You can post your findings here or send them to kinlian@gmail.com
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Speech by Franklin D Roosevelt
Three score and six years ago, the greatest president of the 20th century gave one of his greatest speeches. On Jan. 11, 1944, in a State of the Union address that deserves to be ranked with Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" and King's "I Have a Dream" speech, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for recognition of a "Second Bill of Rights."
According to FDR:
"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed."
President Roosevelt was not promoting economic rights that were necessarily enforceable in court, but rather economic benefits and opportunities that every American should expect to enjoy by virtue of citizenship in our democratic republic.
Many of the rights he identified have been secured by programs with bipartisan support. These include "the right to a good education" (the G.I. Bill, student loans, Pell Grants, Head Start, federal aid to K-12 schools) and "the right of every family to a decent home" (federally subsidized home loans and tax breaks for home ownership). But even before the global economic crisis, the U.S. fell short when it came to full employment -- "the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation" -- and a living wage -- "the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation."
According to FDR:
"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed."
President Roosevelt was not promoting economic rights that were necessarily enforceable in court, but rather economic benefits and opportunities that every American should expect to enjoy by virtue of citizenship in our democratic republic.
Many of the rights he identified have been secured by programs with bipartisan support. These include "the right to a good education" (the G.I. Bill, student loans, Pell Grants, Head Start, federal aid to K-12 schools) and "the right of every family to a decent home" (federally subsidized home loans and tax breaks for home ownership). But even before the global economic crisis, the U.S. fell short when it came to full employment -- "the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation" -- and a living wage -- "the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation."
Utopia of welfare corporatism
Dear Mr. Tan,
I believe this article has strong relevance to our situation in Singapore: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/01/11/second_bill_of_rights/index.html.
Some of the things that Mr. Lind mentions are occuring here.
"In the utopia of welfare corporatism, today's public benefits -- Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and, in a few states, public family leave programs -- would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by libertarian ideologues at corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Tax subsidies would be funneled to insurance companies, brokers and banks. Social Security would be replaced by a bewildering miscellany of tax-favored personal savings accounts. Medicare would be replaced by a dog's breakfast of tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance and personal medical savings accounts. Unemployment insurance would give way to yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of tax-favored unemployment insurance accounts. As for family leave -- well, if you're not wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a nanny for your child or a nurse for your parent, you're out of luck."
I also agree with this:
"The strongest case for economic citizenship instead of welfare corporatism is economic. Economic citizenship is more efficient and cheaper in the long run, because the government need only meet costs, while subsidized private providers must make a profit."
Balbindar
I believe this article has strong relevance to our situation in Singapore: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/01/11/second_bill_of_rights/index.html.
Some of the things that Mr. Lind mentions are occuring here.
"In the utopia of welfare corporatism, today's public benefits -- Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and, in a few states, public family leave programs -- would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by libertarian ideologues at corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Tax subsidies would be funneled to insurance companies, brokers and banks. Social Security would be replaced by a bewildering miscellany of tax-favored personal savings accounts. Medicare would be replaced by a dog's breakfast of tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance and personal medical savings accounts. Unemployment insurance would give way to yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of tax-favored unemployment insurance accounts. As for family leave -- well, if you're not wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a nanny for your child or a nurse for your parent, you're out of luck."
I also agree with this:
"The strongest case for economic citizenship instead of welfare corporatism is economic. Economic citizenship is more efficient and cheaper in the long run, because the government need only meet costs, while subsidized private providers must make a profit."
Balbindar
Prices of HDB Flats
Some comments in the survey
1. HDB Flat used to be financed by one breadwinner with 20 years loan period in the past, but now it is financed by double-income family yet stretched to 30 years, this is a reflection of un-affordability in price.
2. Most young (<30 years old) are willing to spend more on repayment because they think that their salaries will increase and with more income in future, the repayment % will go down> They are not aware that the 23% that goes into the cpf OA when they are fresh out of school will be reduced to 19% when they are 35 and even lesser as they grow older. Even under a 5% yearly salary increment without hitting the 4k cpf cap, the 5% increment cannot cover the drop in 4% to the cpf OA.
3. I hope that HDB does not act like a private company like Capitland. If so, then it should be listed like a REIT in SGX.
4. I think prices should reflect the national income level and should not be subject to speculation or COV. Because HDB monopolises the public housing market, their priority should be to ensure prices remain within the means of the average Singaporean. HDB housing should also only be made available to Singapore citizens and not permanent residents. It is highly unfair for permanent residents to be entitled to buy a HDB flat and later on sell for a profit when there is no 100% guarantee that they intend to live in the country until the day they croak. If the government sincerely believe that Singaporeans are their priority - this is the key area they need to seriously look into or make proper adjustments before it's too late.
1. HDB Flat used to be financed by one breadwinner with 20 years loan period in the past, but now it is financed by double-income family yet stretched to 30 years, this is a reflection of un-affordability in price.
2. Most young (<30 years old) are willing to spend more on repayment because they think that their salaries will increase and with more income in future, the repayment % will go down> They are not aware that the 23% that goes into the cpf OA when they are fresh out of school will be reduced to 19% when they are 35 and even lesser as they grow older. Even under a 5% yearly salary increment without hitting the 4k cpf cap, the 5% increment cannot cover the drop in 4% to the cpf OA.
3. I hope that HDB does not act like a private company like Capitland. If so, then it should be listed like a REIT in SGX.
4. I think prices should reflect the national income level and should not be subject to speculation or COV. Because HDB monopolises the public housing market, their priority should be to ensure prices remain within the means of the average Singaporean. HDB housing should also only be made available to Singapore citizens and not permanent residents. It is highly unfair for permanent residents to be entitled to buy a HDB flat and later on sell for a profit when there is no 100% guarantee that they intend to live in the country until the day they croak. If the government sincerely believe that Singaporeans are their priority - this is the key area they need to seriously look into or make proper adjustments before it's too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)