TR EMERITUS

Singapore blood stocks at low to moderate levels, Ong Ye Kung appeals for O type donations- CNA,17June 23. I support blood donation and I was a regular blood donor when I was younger, however, I am much befuddled that over the decades, harder and smarter questions regarding blood donation were not forthcoming from the public or even the donors themselves. Let me explain. In Singapore, unlike countries such as the United States, Germany, Canada, Austria and Hungary etc, people do not sell blood legally but donate blood and different people donate blood for different reasons. Of course donated blood cannot be transfused immediately into patients who need them. They must go through certain processes to ensure their safety and fit for use on patients further down the line.Some do it for altruistic reasons, some maybe for religious reasons and many of my fellow soldiers and I did it decades ago because a long weekend was waving at us at the end of our donation. We were not financially compensated. A few pieces of biscuits and a cup of milo were all that we got for our generous gesture. All those processes cost money and I totally understand and accept if our hospitals, private or public, bill the eventual blood recipients for cost recovery, however, my question is 'for donated blood that were used on the eventual patients, apart from cost recovery, is there also a certain profit component that is added onto their bills' and if there is, are donors told beforehand or are they aware of it? I want to stress that profit is not a dirty word, and if we strongly subscribe to that principle, then transparency must not be compromised, hidden or brushed aside from the donors. Unlike those too many don't know don't care donors and suckerporeans, I, being a blood donor will want to know how much profits, if any, of my donated blood that the hospitals, both public and private, are making from. I ask is that too much to ask. I invite feedback and contributions from fellow netizens regarding this commentary. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →

This Yahoo article stated that the energy prices in Singapore jumped 3,000%. I give my views of the underlying cause. Singapore liberalized its energy market in 1995. The Public Utilities Board corporatized its electricity and piped gas undertakings. Some of these entitles were later sold to foreign energy companies. By liberalizing the market, the authorities hoped that free market competition would produce greater efficiency in the generation of energy and that the overall prices will fall. This was a flawed thinking. It failed to recognize the following factors: a) The open market for crude oil and gas are volatile and fluctuate wildly.  This could be mitigated by long term contracts given to producers to generate the energy at the contracted prices. b) When there is a shortage, the producers could jack up the prices by a large margin. The limited number of producers could easily follow each other to jack up the prices to an insanely high level without breaking the competition law. I believe that the energy market had used long term contracts, but it is not clear about the extent that it was done. The recent shortage, and the hike of 3,000% in energy prices, probably occur for part of the day when demand is high. It is clearly an exploitation of the situation to generate huge profits. This has to be managed by price controls. The authority is now acting to implement the price control. This episode reflect the dangers of leaving prices to the free market, when there is a limited number of producers. I understand that this problem is experienced in other countries that followed the liberalized market structure. I have never been in favor of free market, without adequate regulation.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam From the day he announced his presidential candidacy, the media has been gushing about how popular Tharman Shanmugaratnam is. The Straits Times was first off the block, saying that “Mr Tharman’s popularity could deter other hopefuls from throwing their hat into the ring.” TODAY reported that race was not an issue in this open presidential election “because Mr Tharman has a broad appeal that cuts across racial groups.” Political pundit after political pundit have also spoken of how Tharman’s popularity makes him a formidable candidate. But they all seem to be looking at it in a vacuum. Popularity aside, what about suitability? Let’s try and distinguish between the two. Tharman had to resign from the People’s Action Party (PAP) government to contest the presidential election. And ever since, he’s been trying to distance himself from the PAP government, saying he would not be on the same team with them if he were President. Why the need to distance himself from the PAP he served for more than 20 years? This shows his eagerness to come across to the people as his own man, independent of the shackles of being a PAP man. Jumping into the fray, Ho Ching said in a Facebook post that the role of the President is “not to be an independent voice.” However, this does not square with what her husband, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has expressed. In a letter accepting Tharman’s resignation, PM Lee said he was confident that Tharman, as President, would exercise his “custodial powers independently” and carry out his duties “with the independence of mind.” Why the need for PM Lee to emphasise independence not once but twice? What all this goes to show is that it is not a natural progression, and not a natural fit for Tharman to be President. His popularity does not equate to his suitability for the office of the presidency – the PAP will always be in his DNA, and his independence will always be questioned. The PAP knows too well the difference between popularity and suitability. It wasn’t so long ago that a segment of Singaporeans were clamouring for Tharman to be Prime Minister. But the word from the PAP was that Singapore was not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister. Is it fair to infer that although popular, Tharman was not considered suitable to be Prime Minister, and the time was not right for him? Having bypassed him for the post of Prime Minister, the PAP wants to leverage on Tharman’s popularity by endorsing him for President. Ironically, the people can now make the same distinction the PAP once made – popular but unsuitable. Even if Tharman is as popular as they say he is, the fact remains that he is simply not suited for the role of President because of this: Singapore can do much better than yet another PAP person as President.   Augustine Low      Read More →