Someone says one thing 2 weeks ago, another says an entire different thing

2 weeks ago, the Singapore Health minister, Mr. Khaw suggested that because of high costs in putting old folks into old folks homes in Singapore(as if that's a good suggestion to treat one's aging parents that way in the first place), S'poreans should consider putting them overseas over in JB!

S'pore Health Minister suggests JB as a location for S'pore old folks

Now, however, the former Prime Minister Mr. Goh Chok Tong said on saturday- coincidentally, perhaps?- that S'poreans simply shouldn't do this, and neglect their filial duties to one parents.

Link

So now, what is the government trying to say? Does it endorse old folks home as an option? And even better(or worse), trying to locate them in JB instead? Is it how we treat our elderly, and in effect, our parents?

If money is the only consideration, should it be the only one? I believe in the tradition that the younger generation has to take care of the older one, especially of those whom are retired. Its not just a duty or an obligation, but one of deep moral principles. In this case, whether or not the government says one thing and says a different one 2 weeks later, I think its clear that, while they have their own reasons in stating so, we the people have to deal this problem in the best way suited to our own circumstances, and in line with the moral principles we have in general and share.

In any case, the welfare of our elderly is paramount. The health of our elderly is paramount. More can also be done for those elderly people who are still working, especially those in menial jobs, getting low wages. We cannot outsource just because of money- because there's a deeper question in that when we just do something convenient because of money.

That has to be crystal clear to us.

Why do I choose Economics?

Here in Australia, I have already did sign up for a BA in Economics in UWA over a year ago. It's been pretty quick, with a year zipping past and leaving little trace in studies wise.

It has also been 3 months since the summer started, and the holidays have also ended last Sunday. And while people do understand why I do economics, there are a few who do not, or think that accounting would be a better choice.

I do respect these thoughts, and certainly from certain angles, certainly I sincerely empthise why a lot of my peers do accounting. I certainly don't judge them because after all, perception, personal and professional, are not about rights or wrongs. They are opinions after all.

My reason to do economics is borne out not just of idealism, but also about realism. People have dreams and I'm no different. Everyone would like to do something, and hopefully people around them- at least family and friends- would acknowledge it or them. Increasingly, however, the facts of life have harshly also set a reality that one cannot ignore.

I believe economics do serve a purpose, a useful purpose, let it be during bad times such as this, and during the good times. Economists always have to see the long term and use current and past numbers to justify them, and to see through corners so as to forewarn out-of-sight punches that may come our way(in this aspect, we are no different from accountants in these goals).

Economists also have to see the truth, and use verifable statistics to show the people, the country and even the world that the state of the economy is something not be taken for granted. To tell the truth about upcoming pot holes- if we aren't careful- is important. We should say it as it is, and don't shy away from telling the truth diplomatically and in a realistic way.

No matter what political stripes each economist is, or which economics lecturer he or she is, I hope we can do something for the people around us, and the people around the world. I hope to transcend differences in politics, sociology, ideology.

To do economics is something that I have choosen, and its something I would pursue in not just my degree but in the career I will have in the future. That's why I choose economics: not for myself, but for those I serve around me, in any country, but especially those of my own.

That's what He has asked me to do, and I'm glad to follow.

Time to go to the Gym! And the Coles supermarket...

Yes. The Gym. And yes, the Supermarket

The fact of life is that when you live independently overseas or alone in your home country, you have to do your own stuff, including groceries, and clothes(washing of). The gym I go, besides Fitness First Intl, is the local gym run by the Curtin Student Guild at Curtin Uni..which is 15 minutes of walking time away.

Then I will go to Coles at Karawara- a picture is below to show what a typical Coles supermarket in Australia looks like- for some weekly shopping- milk, bread, the like, and some fishballs et al.



Oh yes, I just started school today. The date is 23rd Feb 2009. Is it a great day? Well, with such Aussie summer days..what do you expect? Anyway time for the gym. Cheers for now!

Back in Oz...since Monday...

And I'm back for my studies. Can't admit I don't miss Singapore and my friends, and family though- not.




The fact is that if I say I don't miss Singapore, I would be lying, and God forbids that. I miss my family, my friends, and my relatives, all whom I love because of blood ties, friendship and of tight bonds.

I still have a life in Australia though, and its a privilege to be here, studying, understanding the fact that many of those whom I love would want such a privilege as well.

Its my duty to not just do well study-wise, but to develop a fuller, wiser character from this experience. All else I laid upon Him for His wisdom, including my future after I finish my studies. There's no ambition of mine without His approval.

I will see you in a second, guys.

A video post of a song I love

Nice, I feel. I love it when I hear it all the time.

Spending taxpayers money on infrastructure is socialism? No, more like..

...if its abused, then its more like political pork, not socialism.

I have always been amazed by the arguments of a number of neo-conservatives who argue that, in all cases of government spending, all of it are bad, and all of it are a sign of socialism.

They forget that because the first rule in economics that not all sectors, and not all industries can be completely be covered by the private sector because of the economies of scale, and for realism. For example, to build roads for all to use, only the government can use government's taxpayers' monies to give to road construction companies(which successfully won the bid) to build them on a massive scale to faciliate movement of people quicker, and faster. This helps commerce since time is saved. And private companies can't build such infrastructure because they don't have enough money to build on a massive scale, and they cannot realistically ban anyone from using it if they do have the resources to go massive.

The same goes for the laying of higher quality of broadband internet cables, that helps expand the base of people online to do business online. The same goes for airports and roads and mass transits, where companies like Fed- Ex, DHL, Emirates, American airlines, Virgin, SIA, and Cathay, all profit based, can function well and transport goods and people on a massive scale.

In the end, its pretty clear that government here doesn't serve as a socialist bulwark. Instead its actually a faciliator. It helps to lower the scale of costs of infrastructure that helps the private sector to do business with each other and with consumers. Instead what this is all about is actually about pork and abuse of taxpayers money.

So all of these have to be transparent and clear, and be made available as public knowledge, online and offline. Parliament should have a check-and-balance authority, shared by the judiciary from the lower levels right up to the Supreme Court. And if there's any abuse, then its possible that any citizen who has the justified peeved feelings and have the proof can at least file a suit in that effect to rectify the situation.

This would reduce chances of people abusing the taxpayers money for any initiative, and also restore trust by people towards the system the government is running for them. Political pork shouldn't be in any package of infrastructure or even in any tax credits/cuts and rebates available in the annual budget- and governments from near and far should realise this.

President Obama moved by homeless woman; help flows in after town hall finishes..

Here is the video, when a homeless mum, asks President Obama in a town-hall meeting at Fort Myers, Florida about what his plans will do to help homeless folks like her. The videos are provided courtesy of youtube and CNN.

The District: Barack's friends Let Him Down

A continuation of the spoof show on the US telly networks, by Newsweek, called The District, starring the Obama administration.



=)

Temasek loses 31% of their investments in overseas banks such as Citibank and Merill Lynch

News report is right here

Again, it goes to show how a politicised investment firm, a company which has deviated from its main purpose of being a parent company of several state-owned firms that run natural monopolies such as public utilities, and public transportation, makes business decisions based on political considerations.

A company such as this should have never gone into investment, period. I oppose such moves in the past, and I oppose it now. This is wrong, because these monies came out of our foreign reserves- our precious taxpayers dollars. It's morally wrong because we trust that the government would manage them wisely- which they have not. Instead what we have now is the government doesn't mind losing US$39 billion in their overseas "investments" but refuses to extend tax breaks, and other breaks to curb rising costs in the annual budget for both the businesses- small and medium sized ones especially- and to those who are especially vulnerable in a severe downturn: the women and children, the sick and handicapped, the already very poor, and working and lower middle classes.

We need to go back to the basics and restore the main priorities of Temasek. In addition GIC is probably also even serve less than a purpose than Temasek itself. Whether or not should it exist even as an entity is up in the air by its own self.

President Obama's first press conference in the White House, Monday Night..US time

The video is below:

Bloomberg predicts a -10% shrinkage of the Singapore economy due to deepening falls in export volumes to the US...

Link is here: Singapore Projected to shrink by 10% in 2009 by Bloomberg News

Its projection is also 5 times worse than MAS' prediction. But again, looking at how MAS had to revise 3 times for their projection, I don't trust them as much as the analysts working for and working with Bloomberg, a reliable business news channel.

In my opinion, we have to be prepared for the worst, and not sugarcoat reports with the false intentions to mislead people that this, one of the worst since the Great Depression, is actually a minor one when its not.

This also is serving a notice to Mr. Albert Tye who wrote to ST, saying that the recession is not serious and thus we can ride it out. I understand his concerns about using the reserves, but the main goal here is to stem the tide of this serious recession that will hit us at -10% for 2009.

This is also a warning to Mr. Lim Swee Say, who insists that the Job credit scheme will save jobs. President Obama scrapped his own plan- he thought of this idea first, and not Tharman's civil servants- for a good reason. And we worry that this Job Credit scheme is merely political pork money. Lim Swee Say thinks he's such a smart guy, but again, I think he's being overly intellectual, but not street wise to realise that there's more factors at work here than he knows.

So much for the Job Credit scheme

Well, according to sources, which I have read from a few Singaporean blogs, this Job Credit scheme, which was claimed to be a new idea, is actually not a new concept. In fact, during the course of the American Presidential campaign against John McCain last year, then-candidate Barack Obama suggested that the government would give $2k to $3k to companies who retain or hire new workers during the recession. It was later scrapped because many Democrats in Congress, in the first week of his administration, said that it was tough to ensure which company did or didn't retrench or hire, and thus almost unworkable. Besides it wouldn't help ordinary workers because the money would go to bigger companies first, and would have little chance of trickling down to ordinary workers.

This is also beside the fact that companies would rather retrench workers- that save them say $2000 per employee- as opposed to saving $900 to retain one. In the end, the bigger savings of $2000 is more than the $900 the government is willing to pay.

Anyway Mr. Low had severely question the credibility of the problem. Unlike the edited version that ST has provided, these three videos give the full context of what Mr. Low of WP has really said in Parliament yesterday about the Job Credit scheme. Needless to say when so many people come out to hammer him, its not because they are right- but because they fear the truth and they fear Mr. Low.

Below are the videos anyway. I leave to you all to judge for yourselves.