Merely my own 2 cents. Maybe only one. Enjoy.
Our people (Healthcare Plans.)
How viable is the 3M in safeguarding the security of the healthcare of the citizens of Singapore? Will the forces of the economy render it useless as inflation takes its toll, reducing the real value of the currency? One must not forget the pension program that ended in disaster in Australia, as pensioners found themselves quickly out of cash as the real value of their pension decreased. What can be done to ensure the survival of the real value of the funds in the 3M?
If the 3M are to fail, that one is unable to afford healthcare for himself, what are the plans that would catch these that has fallen through the sieve? Eg. People that are sick a lot. People that do not have contributions to their Medisave(Working odd Jobs/Homemaker). Will it only be the CDCs? Or should another plan be set up for people falling into this category?
When is the line drawn between moving the older patients from community hospitals to their home? If a attack or relapse if to happen at home, or medical situation to worsen, would there be adequate emergency services provided? Would there also be enough medical manpower to be keeping an eye on these patients at home? It is feasible to be providing these services for a rapidly aging population as ours?
How is the government going to popularize the job of nursing? Making it more attractive? What would also be done to ensure the high quality of doctors and nurses in the future? Also with a fixed enrollment into medical courses in Universities, would there be enough doctors to tend to the society?
When moving patients to their homes, what if he has no families? Or if the families are REALLY unable to take care of the parent? Financially, or physically. Would they be affected by the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents?
For Promoting healthy lifestyles, it has generally been targeted at middle income and high income families. So what can be done for the lower income?
Our Economy (Economic Plans.)
As the world globalises, more and more Singaporean industries would be moving out and investing in other countries. As such, more and more Singaporeans would also be sent overseas to work in such companies, such as the example given at Hyflux. However, a problem is, Singaporeans living overseas might be tempted by other industries in other counties, and ‘jump ship’. This situation would also apply to scholars like us, studying in overseas universities. Thus the question is, is there anything being done to prevent this brain drain from occurring?
On the side on employment within the country, Singapore is doing exceptionally well despite being very weak in the area of exports this year. Even as GDP continues to fall, unemployment levels has managed to maintain at a respectable level of 3%. This is mostly due to 2 of the government’s initiatives. Jobs Credit, and SPUR. While increased borrowing was also allowed from banks to SMCs, it hasn’t helped much as both entrepreneurs and banks remain cautious with assets and loans in this dangerous financial times. However, with the 2 policies, they have also resulted in problems.
With the Jobs Credit, while the firms are allowed to be employing more people with more money given to them, it is actually damaging to the firm in the long run. The additional manpower hours are practically wasted as the workload would continue to decrease in the crisis. It is a significant drop in worker’s productivity in Singapore. While it is acceptable in the short run to employ this measure and support most Singaporeans to have a steady, albeit reduced income, it would not be sustainable in the long run, both for the economy, and the government’s ability to finance it.
On the other hand, for SPUR has also trained a lot of people into the PMET profession. However, even with such training one wonders how one can find a job when the demand for PMETs is decreasing in the first place. Even with training, and millions of dollars pour in, from both the government and the individuals, would it ASSURE them of their jobs? In the end, they are doing everything for their job, not to revolutionise Singapore labour force. With decreasing demands for PMETs, would the scheme only put some of the people in worse situation as they pay for their course and remain unable to get a job?
Our Future (The Japalan Plans.)
Through the years, Singapore has made huge investments in education infrastructure at all levels. And this year is no different, with new schools and media production studios and indoor sports halls, as from the rally speech. However, with most of the budget focused on infrastructure, one would wonder if it is what the education system really requires at the current point. With less budget in other sections, would their quality be affected in the year? Firstly, with a recruitment of 3000 potential teachers this year, one cannot bear to wonder that while their qualifications remain comparable with the past, would the attention paid to every single one of them remain the same? Would they have been adequately trained as from previous batches within NIE, and would they have enough opportunities to upgrade themselves as more people would vie for a spot in a certain course etc. Secondly, on the assimilation into the labour force after graduation from their respective institution. With only a degree/diploma under their belts, one would find problem entering the job market without experience. What has been done by the government for this easier assimilation within the market? And lastly, despite having that much infrastructure, has the curriculum also been updated as well to engage our new students to train them for the problems of the 21st century? Has the teachers been trained to deviate from traditional teaching methods and subjects, most importantly, moving to more important topics and mental development rather than simply the role learning of a subject?
Efficiency of the MRT train stations. Are they really as efficient as the rally describes? With so many fines already imposed on SMRT and SBS, one wonders if they even feel the pinch of these fines at all. Of course, we’re more efficient compared to countries like Japan, but realize that it just means that they’re more inefficient that us, not that we’re efficient in the first place. Transport costs in Singapore is rather low, that is a fact, but much still remains to be seen from 2 companies. I yearn for the day when nobody would ever need to wait 30 minutes for a bus of 15 minute intervals or wait for 4 MRT trains before having enough space to enter it.
Our Society (The Race and Religion Plans.)
As from the Prime Minister, I am one of the few that believe that issues of Race and Religion is sensitive, thus preferring to shy away from discussing it. If it’s not broken, why fix it? But it is true that discussions should still be held from time to time to ensure the existence of social cohesion. But firstly, perhaps it would be better to start out as with a portal for information to kick-start such discussions? To phrase it better, more of an open portal for discussion that provides the data to these issues as well. This is simply because the fact is that the government remains relatively quiet themselves over such a sensitive issue.
I have nothing to say about the AWARE saga, not because I wasn’t interested, but I actually don’t seem to recall anything about it. But I guess looking from the tone set by the PM during the speech, it’s probably better than I didn’t.
General Views
I’m surprised at some of the missing issues that weren’t touched on the speech itself, especially the rising tensions between locals and expats in Singapore. But I guess there probably wasn’t enough time to touch on the subject within the rally itself.
The whole speech itself remained a very safe one, despite the whole portion dedicated to the sensitive issue of race and religion. There was nothing controversial nor volatile discussed within the speech itself, only sensitive.
The speech also uncharacteristically focused more about the past than the future this year. It was more of a review of the year rather than a view of the future, as from the previous few rallies. It almost looks like a promotional speech to vote for PAP, amplified by jokes(Rolls Royces and next 4 General Election) and facts littered around the speech(The whole introduction starting from PAP’s rally at 1959.)
Our people (Healthcare Plans.)
How viable is the 3M in safeguarding the security of the healthcare of the citizens of Singapore? Will the forces of the economy render it useless as inflation takes its toll, reducing the real value of the currency? One must not forget the pension program that ended in disaster in Australia, as pensioners found themselves quickly out of cash as the real value of their pension decreased. What can be done to ensure the survival of the real value of the funds in the 3M?
If the 3M are to fail, that one is unable to afford healthcare for himself, what are the plans that would catch these that has fallen through the sieve? Eg. People that are sick a lot. People that do not have contributions to their Medisave(Working odd Jobs/Homemaker). Will it only be the CDCs? Or should another plan be set up for people falling into this category?
When is the line drawn between moving the older patients from community hospitals to their home? If a attack or relapse if to happen at home, or medical situation to worsen, would there be adequate emergency services provided? Would there also be enough medical manpower to be keeping an eye on these patients at home? It is feasible to be providing these services for a rapidly aging population as ours?
How is the government going to popularize the job of nursing? Making it more attractive? What would also be done to ensure the high quality of doctors and nurses in the future? Also with a fixed enrollment into medical courses in Universities, would there be enough doctors to tend to the society?
When moving patients to their homes, what if he has no families? Or if the families are REALLY unable to take care of the parent? Financially, or physically. Would they be affected by the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents?
For Promoting healthy lifestyles, it has generally been targeted at middle income and high income families. So what can be done for the lower income?
Our Economy (Economic Plans.)
As the world globalises, more and more Singaporean industries would be moving out and investing in other countries. As such, more and more Singaporeans would also be sent overseas to work in such companies, such as the example given at Hyflux. However, a problem is, Singaporeans living overseas might be tempted by other industries in other counties, and ‘jump ship’. This situation would also apply to scholars like us, studying in overseas universities. Thus the question is, is there anything being done to prevent this brain drain from occurring?
On the side on employment within the country, Singapore is doing exceptionally well despite being very weak in the area of exports this year. Even as GDP continues to fall, unemployment levels has managed to maintain at a respectable level of 3%. This is mostly due to 2 of the government’s initiatives. Jobs Credit, and SPUR. While increased borrowing was also allowed from banks to SMCs, it hasn’t helped much as both entrepreneurs and banks remain cautious with assets and loans in this dangerous financial times. However, with the 2 policies, they have also resulted in problems.
With the Jobs Credit, while the firms are allowed to be employing more people with more money given to them, it is actually damaging to the firm in the long run. The additional manpower hours are practically wasted as the workload would continue to decrease in the crisis. It is a significant drop in worker’s productivity in Singapore. While it is acceptable in the short run to employ this measure and support most Singaporeans to have a steady, albeit reduced income, it would not be sustainable in the long run, both for the economy, and the government’s ability to finance it.
On the other hand, for SPUR has also trained a lot of people into the PMET profession. However, even with such training one wonders how one can find a job when the demand for PMETs is decreasing in the first place. Even with training, and millions of dollars pour in, from both the government and the individuals, would it ASSURE them of their jobs? In the end, they are doing everything for their job, not to revolutionise Singapore labour force. With decreasing demands for PMETs, would the scheme only put some of the people in worse situation as they pay for their course and remain unable to get a job?
Our Future (The Japalan Plans.)
Through the years, Singapore has made huge investments in education infrastructure at all levels. And this year is no different, with new schools and media production studios and indoor sports halls, as from the rally speech. However, with most of the budget focused on infrastructure, one would wonder if it is what the education system really requires at the current point. With less budget in other sections, would their quality be affected in the year? Firstly, with a recruitment of 3000 potential teachers this year, one cannot bear to wonder that while their qualifications remain comparable with the past, would the attention paid to every single one of them remain the same? Would they have been adequately trained as from previous batches within NIE, and would they have enough opportunities to upgrade themselves as more people would vie for a spot in a certain course etc. Secondly, on the assimilation into the labour force after graduation from their respective institution. With only a degree/diploma under their belts, one would find problem entering the job market without experience. What has been done by the government for this easier assimilation within the market? And lastly, despite having that much infrastructure, has the curriculum also been updated as well to engage our new students to train them for the problems of the 21st century? Has the teachers been trained to deviate from traditional teaching methods and subjects, most importantly, moving to more important topics and mental development rather than simply the role learning of a subject?
Efficiency of the MRT train stations. Are they really as efficient as the rally describes? With so many fines already imposed on SMRT and SBS, one wonders if they even feel the pinch of these fines at all. Of course, we’re more efficient compared to countries like Japan, but realize that it just means that they’re more inefficient that us, not that we’re efficient in the first place. Transport costs in Singapore is rather low, that is a fact, but much still remains to be seen from 2 companies. I yearn for the day when nobody would ever need to wait 30 minutes for a bus of 15 minute intervals or wait for 4 MRT trains before having enough space to enter it.
Our Society (The Race and Religion Plans.)
As from the Prime Minister, I am one of the few that believe that issues of Race and Religion is sensitive, thus preferring to shy away from discussing it. If it’s not broken, why fix it? But it is true that discussions should still be held from time to time to ensure the existence of social cohesion. But firstly, perhaps it would be better to start out as with a portal for information to kick-start such discussions? To phrase it better, more of an open portal for discussion that provides the data to these issues as well. This is simply because the fact is that the government remains relatively quiet themselves over such a sensitive issue.
I have nothing to say about the AWARE saga, not because I wasn’t interested, but I actually don’t seem to recall anything about it. But I guess looking from the tone set by the PM during the speech, it’s probably better than I didn’t.
General Views
I’m surprised at some of the missing issues that weren’t touched on the speech itself, especially the rising tensions between locals and expats in Singapore. But I guess there probably wasn’t enough time to touch on the subject within the rally itself.
The whole speech itself remained a very safe one, despite the whole portion dedicated to the sensitive issue of race and religion. There was nothing controversial nor volatile discussed within the speech itself, only sensitive.
The speech also uncharacteristically focused more about the past than the future this year. It was more of a review of the year rather than a view of the future, as from the previous few rallies. It almost looks like a promotional speech to vote for PAP, amplified by jokes(Rolls Royces and next 4 General Election) and facts littered around the speech(The whole introduction starting from PAP’s rally at 1959.)
Comments (0)
Post a Comment