Today, I read with much amusement in the Straits Times Forum a letter sent in by a woman, who claimed that an earlier ST reader who wrote in about a doctor overcharging his grandmother for consultation on Chinese New Year should rather be grateful that the doctor charged only $42.

She claimed that even in hospitals, one got to pay “no less than $70 per consultation”. May I point out that the $70 A&E charge includes all basic services such as basic X-Rays, blood tests and standard medication, based on my own experience.

She further mentioned that she had willingly paid $400 to fix a leaking tap, $600 to fix a fuse box and $500 to fix a leaking roof. She also believes that the doctor should have charged $100 for a consultation on a public holiday.

She claimed to sympathise with the reader at first, but the remaining parts of her letter doesn’t show it.

Is the the kind of stereotypical rich person we have in Singapore? I think (and I believe the contractors she mentioned would agree with me), that she was either too rich, too generous or too stupid to willingly part with $400 - $600 for simple work done. Yet she seems so proud of it that she even wrote in to the papers about it.

I think we should have a moral education campaign targeted at insensitive rich folks to learn some empathy and learn how to be more sensitive to less fortunate people who do not have as much money as her to flaunt at contractors charging hundreds of dollars for 5 minutes worth of work.

If you can afford to pay, it doesn’t mean that others can. Also, one must also consider that most doctors will not advise of higher charges before seeing the patient. Let’s be honest about it - those doctors who opened on Chinese New Year and charged a lot higher were probably just leveraging on the power of scarcity.

If they are so kind to open for the sake of community service, then they shouldn’t have raised the charges that much. Their marginal cost of opening on CNY wouldn’t have cost that much more, considering a clinic assistant on double pay doesn’t cost much. 

To put it bluntly, they are just profiteering from the occasion, just as florists do for Valentines’ Day.

Furthermore, I like to point out that the Singapore Medical Council has a schedule of recommended consultation charges for doctors and I believe it is well under $100 for GPs.

I certainly hope that CASE, SMC or MOH can provide guidelines in future to prevent such profiteering by medical professionals. In my opinion, $42 for a 2 to 3 minutes consultation with a normal doctor is really ridiculous, considering some top business consulatants in Singapore charges only $200 - $300 per hour for their services.

On the other hand, I really wouldn’t mind giving up my university education to become a plumber if there are enough people like this around who can pay me $400 for every job. Erm, provided it isn’t a golden tap that I got to replace.

Today I went to the washroom at Clementi MRT station. On my way out, I noticed that the toilet attendant - an elderly man who looked in his 60s - 70s, was preparing a bowl of plain porridge to eat. I felt sorry for him, especially when I am so lucky compared to him. If my mom gives me a bowl of plain porridge, I’ll probably refuse to touch it. At the same time, I felt very sad that he had to work at that age and eat plain porridge.

A couple days ago, I saw in the news that Singapore was ranked somewhere near the top in some global survey on the percentage of people in their 60s who are still working (I wasn’t really paying attention to what was exactly being said and I can’t really be bothered to go and verify the details). If I recall correctly the authorities were actually quite proud of it.

I find it quite strange to be proud of such an “achievement”. As in, I hope I don’t have to work anymore when I am in my 60s. I feel that at that age, I should be sitting back in an armchair and watching my grandchildren grow up. Or, if I am in better health, do some gardening and go travelling.

Neither do I expect my mother to be still working in her 60s. It’s quite sad isn’t it, to work and work until death? Life is only so short. Why do we have to spend the bulk of our lives working to pay for an overpriced HDB apartment that we will have to give up one day for a coffin?

A HDB apartment isn’t exactly comfortable to live in anyway. They are getting smaller, crampier and more expensive these days. I’d settle for a condo or house in Thailand anytime for the same amount of money.

When I was in the army, my boss once told me he had to pay his HDB loan up to the age of 63. Although his household income is quite high, it still sounded quite bad. It means that he has got to work till at least 63 to ensure that he will have enough money to pay the loan and for retirement.

I feel that our government should think about it’s policies on the workforce. It is true that it’s good for the economy to have lower-cost (elderly) workers. It’s also commendable that some Singaporean companies are willing to employ these elderly people. However, why do our elderly need to work at that age in the first place?

I feel that there should be some kind of state pension program for the elderly, instead of making the people work for their every cent (the use of CPF for old age savings). Afterall, if we think about it, it is that generation of people who helped to build up Singapore’s prosperity.

I know Singapore is a meritocracy. But no matter how big or small a role they played in their working lives, there is no reason to base everything on merit. For example, a cleaner plays a very small role, but he also helps to maintain Singapore’s reputation as a clean and green country, right? In his old age, shouldn’t the government do more to help him enjoy his remaining years… rather than trying to be “helpful” by encouraging him to work longer (possibly to his death)?

Similarly, when I get to that age, I would have helped to maintain Singapore’s prosperity with over 30 years of working life. The country prospers partly because of my hard work, why can’t the government give something back to me when I am old? How much money does an old person need to survive on? If European countries can have such schemes, why can’t a wealthy country like Singapore do so?

Afterall, our government has more cash reserves that many other first-world countries. Our government is rich. And it still wants to earn more revenue from the people (think the GST rise), while being miserly and ultra-selective in giving out handouts to those who need it. Like, taking in a dollar from every person and giving out cents selectively.

Whew, it’s been quite a long while since I last blogged. Suddenly, it’s the end of the 1 week study break. It didn’t seemed like a break at all. I was working hard throughout the week, trying to catch up with schoolwork and projects. I’m still not done yet, and there’s only 1 last day before school reopens.

In the coming week, I’ve got a mid-term paper worth 40%, plus a project to hand in and a presentation to do for the same project.

I think I need to work harder to secure better grades this semester to pull my average up… so that I can relax a little bit in subsequent semesters when the modules will get progressively more difficult.

Come to think of it, there’s only slightly less than 2 months to go before the final exams, with lots of project deadlines coming up soon too. Life in uni certainly isn’t a bed of roses even though I’ve got some prior background education from polytechnic.

In one of my project groups, I was unlucky enough to be grouped with a couple of unmotivated teammates. I ended up having to do most of the co-ordination work. I guess the only consolation I can give myself is that sometimes in life, we really have no choice but to work with whatever people that we are assigned to. Even if it seems unfair, there’s no choice but to accept it and try our best to do good with whatever that is within our control. I suppose it is a good learning experience, an opportunity to train myself to work under such circumstances.

On the other hand, I am planning for some exciting stuff this summer holidays. I intend to apply for a summer exchange programme in China. Also, hopefully I can meet my mom and PY there for a holiday right before/after my exchange (so as to save the airfare).

When I first came into uni, I really hoped to go on a humanitarian trip to a poorer country to volunteer. There are certainly lots of opportunities. However, all of them required high commitment throughout the entire semester, which I find it difficult to fufill due to the high workload I’ve got. I hope before I graduate I can at least participate in one such event. It’s kinda like a promise to myself that I made when I first came in.

Sigh, back to books…

Already, Singapore has one of the highest (if not the highest) population density in the world. We are so crammed in our HDB flats and these are getting smaller over the decades too. MRTs are perpetually crowded to the brim with commuters and our universities’ enrolments are maxed out.

Now the government wants to grow the population by another 2 million over 40 to 50 years. So where will all these people come from? Not surprising that most of them are not going to come from increased efforts to encourage procreation by Singaporeans. The majority of this 2 million has got to come from foreign immigrants.

This is bringing things a little too far. Singapore is such a tiny island. It worries me that if we squeeze another 2 million people in, we are going to just sink into the ocean, just as an overweight ship do. It also proves that the Singapore government will continue to welcome foreigners with open arms, to the dismay of Singaporeans - many who are already unhappy with the current foreign talent policies.

Is it really for the better that we need the additional 2 million population? Will the pros really outweigh the cons? I can only think of sustaining economic growth as the only advantage to a growing population. In terms of quality of life, environment and personal space… they will go down.

It is not going to do any good in terms of job competition as well. We will see stronger competition for both skilled and unskilled jobs. For the males, we will be serving NS to protect at least 1 million more immigrants - assuming that Singaporeans’ procreation contributes to 50% of the targeted growth.

Question is - did the government consult citizens on their willingness for such a system? Did they ask our opinions on what kind of Singapore do we want to live in? Do they understand the plights of the people?

The only people that are going to benefit from such a policy are the capitalists. It is no secret that Singapore is a capitalist state. Economics principles tell us that people act in their self-interests. This is what is going on. Such a policy can only be thought of by people who feel that there will be benefits in it… benefits in a more competition job market (read: ability to pay lower wages), benefits in a stronger demand for property (read: property developers), benefits in a stronger demand for transportation services (read: our govt-linked transport companies).

Alas, those people who are going to benefit make up probably only 20% of Singaporeans - those who are earning 80% of our wealth… at the expense of the other 80%

Today, I came across an interesting statement:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

- United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19

Singapore has always been seen as a good friend of the United Nations, when it comes to economic or environmental issues.

However, when it comes to freedom of expression, it is an entirely different matter. With all the official media outlets owned by government-linked companies, the only place where we can have freedom of speech is on the Internet. Now, it seems as though we will be losing it all, with increased monitoring of Internet blogs and forums by the ruling party. Sigh.

I have been reading ¨The Undercover Economist¨ by Tim Harford. It offers a look at the everyday issues we face from an economist´s perspective. There is a section on the topic of immigration.

It basically says that our receptiveness to incoming immigrants is determined by our self interests. Skilled workers are more interested to have plenty of unskilled immigrants coming in because that would mean that skilled workers have become relatively scarce compared to unskilled ones. And vice-versa. However, an influx of either type of workers will lower the wages within the category.

This is a simplified but, in my opinion, a very realistic view of what is happening in Singapore.

Despite reading in the newspapers everyday about the good economy in Singapore nowadays, many middle and lower class workers are feeling the pinch. This doesn´t mean that the economy is not doing well. It is doing well; for the richer people… specifically for those who benefit from the influx of foreigners who are willing to work for lower pay.

So who are these people enjoying the good economy? They are probably the capitalists, business owners and high-level executives whose qualifications get relatively scarcer, or who benefit from paying out lower wages as more middle and lower class immigrant workers come in.

A good example will be the starting wages for graduates in Singapore. Ten years ago, despite the better purchasing power of money at the time, it wasn´t unusual to hear fresh graduates getting $2,500 a month in the private sector. Nowadays, it will be good if a fresh graduate can get $2,400… and this is in civil service… which by right should be more or less reflecting the job market conditions in private sector. And, this is taking into consideration the lower purchasing power of money in today´s terms. So, we are getting lower wages, coupled with lower bang for bucks - while employers are earning more than ever in revenue, at the same time saving on manpower costs.

Lest I become labelled as an “anti-establishment” blogger and get bookmarked by the ruling party’s subcommittee on New Media for some of my previous posts, it’s time for me to defend my country on the blogosphere.

I read with interest a Malaysian’s blog featured on Tomorrow.sg. This guy goes by the nickname of Mark Eleven. Apparently, he was awarded an ASEAN Scholarship some years ago for Pre-U studies. Now, he is ranting about why it sucked and how Singapore is SCAMMING Malaysians with such scholarships.

In my opinion, this guy is being too harsh about it. He claimed that $2,300 a year for living expenses is a very low amount for a scholarship. Well, I would admit that it probably ain’t enough to sustain the full costs of living in Singapore. However, before claiming that Singapore is scamming him, he should reflect on whether Singapore owes the scholarship to him.

Awarding the scholarship to non-Singaporeans is purely a measure of goodwill. Many Singaporeans would love to get their hands on a $2,300 scholarship, as it certainly helps to offset living expenses to a good extent. Instead of thanking Singapore for giving him the opportunity to study here on subsidised terms, he is attacking us on all fronts.

Let me refute his claims point-for-point:

1. Is ASEAN Scholarship really a scholarship?
Mark Eleven complains that the money was not enough to cover his daily costs. WTF. Do we owe the $2,300 to him in the first place? What did he do for Singapore? Did he serve NS? In the first place, if he considered the money insufficient, he should just stay in Malaysia and leave the scholarship for somebody else who would be more appreciative of it.

2. One Way Ticket
He claims that the ASEAN scholarship is a trap for foreign students to get them to come here and stay on and work here after they graduate from Pre-U. What a joke! As far as I know, and as I pointed out in my earlier post on What Benefits do Singaporeans Enjoy?, many students from ASEAN are more than happy to work in Singapore after their studies, earning many times what they can get back home.

Then again, my question is: Do we owe it to you?

3. Brainwashing by PAP Machineries
The writer mentions that all students are subjected to brainwashing session every morning with the recital of the National Pledge and singing of National Anthmn. This is probably the most lop-sided argument I’ve ever heard, and worst still, coming from a supposedly highly educated scholar!

First and foremost, this is the norm for schools not only in Singapore, but other countries too. I am not sure about Malaysia, but this is a very basic form of National Education. Well, if you are in Singapore, you cannot expect the school to make exceptions to you and excuse you from doing this just because you are a foreigner.

About the part on PAP, I don’t understand what point he is trying to make. Certainly, there are a lot of controversial issues surrounding the ruling party. But to be fair, this is surely not one of them. I am sure even if the country is ruled by other parties, such National Education programs will continue to run.

4. Meritocracy
The writer claims that there is no true meritocracy in Singapore. I would say this is not entirely untrue, but the reasons that he gave were wrong.

The writer picked the issue of gaining entry into NUS Medical School as an example. He claimed that there were no chances given to ASEAN scholars to be considered for entry.

My question again: Do we owe it to you?

Singapore is a small nation. NUS Medical Faculty is a small faculty. There can only be so many doctors graduating from NUS each year, and already we are facing the problem of shortage of doctors in our local hospitals. Why should we expend our resources to teach foreign doctors only to have them leave our country to work elsewhere, when we are already short-handed? Any sensible government would put a limit on the admission of foreign medical students under such circumstances.

He also claimed that Singaporean females had almost ZERO chances of getting into medical school. Not true. I am from NUS and I know of a number of female medical students.

5. Higher Standard in Cambridge O-level and A-level?
Writer claimed that the supposedly high standards of Cambridge exams are disputed by some factions. Whatever. In any case, Cambridge certs are certainly still more popular among employers compared to Malaysian certs.

6. Opportunity Costs
Here comes the part complaining about the 3 year bond for foreign students to work in Singapore after they graduate. Look again. Is it an opportunity COST or GAIN? Foreign students work here and earn higher pay than they can in their home countries. After 3 years, they can choose to pack up and go home and lead comfortable lives with their savings. Or they can stay on here and become PRs.

Is it their loss and Singapore’s gain, or the other way round? I think it is the latter case. They come here and rob Singaporeans of our jobs and then complain about it?!

My question again: Do we owe it to you?

7. Immaturity
He claims that Singaporean students are relatively immatured compared to his counterparts back in Malaysia. He substantiates this argument with a very strange comparison, saying that in our free time, Singapore students like to sit around in a group and sing(?!) WTF. Maybe it’s just those few Singaporean friends that he had. Most of the people I know don’t do that.

In a poor attempt to give more strength to his argument, he claims that some Malaysian students he knows were already business owners with pasar malam stalls. Haha. This is really hilarious. He obviously never met some of the more enterprising students in Singapore. The writer probably had a very small circle of aquaintances in Singapore.

8. Rote Learning
The writer tried to undermine Singapore’s internationally-renowned education system with his claim of Singaporean students having little general knowledge. Again, maybe it’s just his friends who “sit around in a group to sing” in their free time.

9. The System in Singapore is not Conducive for High Flyers
For once, I agree with this guy. However, I want to point out that if you are indeed a true High Flyer, you will excel anywhere you go.

10. Unhealthy Competition
While I agree on this to a certain extent, the writer cites some examples of things that happened in TJC during his time. Not the general picture.

Lastly, Mark Eleven mentioned that he spent more than 10 years in Singapore studying and working. And he disliked it so much that he spent more than 10 years here? Who is defending Singapore for this ingrate, one of many who can come and go as they like? Enjoy the benefits of our economy while ranting about how “tough” life in Singapore is? Don’t need to serve NS somemore.

———————

Look at what Singapore has done. We give money away to foreign students and they are not grateful about it. They go so far as to complain that the money is not enough.

It is time for the government to take a look at whether these scholarships are serving any useful purposes. Are we being fools, giving our money away in return for such criticisms? My late father once told me that he once overheard a Chinese national speaking on the phone, presumably to his hometown friend: “新加坡人钱多，人傻 - 快来!” (Singaporeans are rich and dumb, come over!)

If there is one thing in common between our opinions, it must be the part on encouraging foreigners not to take up Singapore’s scholarships. Yes. Please don’t come here and take away our jobs. Please don’t come here and take up our university enrolment slots. Please stay in your own countries and lead your own peaceful, better lives there.

Today, Reuters reported that 2 sub-committees in PAP are in charge of scouring the Internet for online criticisms of the ruling party, and to post anonymous messages to rebut those criticisms.

A minister who was interviewed went further to say that the messages were only effective if they were not “too obvious” lest they resemble “propaganda”.

Conversely, I do think that it IS propaganda. Propaganda doesn’t have to be “obvious” to be deemed as such.

I quote the definiton of propaganda from Dictionary.com:

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.

3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

What the ruling party is doing can fit under any of the 3 definitions. As we can see, the definition of propaganda does not involve any notion of identity or obviousness. As such, whether messages are posted anonymously/obvious or not doesn’t change the fact that they are propaganda since they fufill the definition of “information delibrately spread widely to help a group”.

I would recommend that besides posting anonymous messages, members of the ruling party should check the dictionary for proper definitions before they talk to the press.

One member of the committee who spoke to the Straits Times also mentioned that “there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment”. Why don’t they spend the effort to reflect on why there are so few people who speak for the party, rather than going all out to defend themselves?

Why does the ruling party need to resort to such extremes to clarify itself? They can always use their own party blog to refute criticisms for everyone to see. There isn’t a need to hide their identities if they have strong enough points to make.

In my opinion, this is a very unethical way of handling criticisms. It would be much better if they can actively reflecting on why there are criticisms in the first place.

I feel very sad at the direction in which our society is going. The ruling party should set a good example for the society by being more transparent in their marketing efforts.