Thursday, December 15, 2005

NKF: Please continue to DONATE!

It is time to put this unhappy episode behind us and start donating again. The NKF scandal captivated, angered and even confused some Singaporeans. See what transparency brings - nothing but unhappiness and anger. The main lesson from the NKF episode for me is that transparency is best avoided because it brings so much unhappiness. Before the NKF scandal, everyone was so happy with the NKF, gladly donating to the charity....I wished things have continued that way so I get to watch those highly entertaining spectacular NKF shows....I believe many Singaporeans like myself really miss those shows.

I strongly suggest, for Singaporean's own good the following 'transparency' questions should be outlawed:

1. How much does it cost to build a HDB flat?

2. What is the GIC doing with our money? What is their performance?

3. How is our CPF managed?

Why frustrate yourself asking questions that won't be answered in the first place? If answered, they might be upsetting and make you unhappy.

Anyway back to the NKF. I would like to urge Singaporeans to continue donating to the NKF. The NKF CEO has said that if you stop donating, the kidney patients will be left to die because they can't afford treatment. Our govt probably cannot afford to help these people at all.

Each session of NKF dialysis now cost S$162 (down from $200). Kidney patients should be thankful for this S$162 treatment because it is high quality. Unlike in Malaysia where kidney patients are given cheap dialysis S$26 by the Malaysia NKF, Singaporeans are lucky to receive $162 dialysis treatment. You can see from the picture that each patient has his own fish tank to look at while undergoing treatment - imagine if you're in Malaysia, you probably have to bring your own book or MP3 player, how terrible. Singapore's kidney patients are so lucky to receive such high value treatment.


Anonymous said...

Picture well painted with words...
How one's perecived it's all depend on one's mindset.

Ha.. Ha.. LL7928

A.Ball.of.Yarn said...

own fish tank! ha. i know dialysis is no laughing matter but that was real funny.

LuckySingaporean said...

If you look closely, each patient also has his own flat screen TV beside him.

There was a forum letter about this guy who wrote about the cheap dialysis treatment he received elsewhere on the forum:

1. Canada - free for residents & citizens. Can you ever trust free treatment?!

2. Shanghai - $83 per session at a private clinic for foreigners using the same machines as NKF. ...yeah but do they have the fish tank & personal flat screen TV?!!! ...

Anonymous said...

"I strongly suggest, for Singaporean's own good the following 'transparency' questions should be outlawed:

1. How much does it cost to build a HDB flat?

2. What is the GIC doing with our money? What is their performance?

3. How is our CPF managed?"

Actually, asking for transperancy has already been outlawed in Singapore.

High Court judge V K Rajah has already ruled on this:

"The applicants have persistently attempted to elevate the present proceedings to a “constitutional motion” to protect the public right of assembly. They claim that the protest was “peaceful”. This cannot mask the fact that the contents of their T-shirts and the placard are prima facie more incendiary than an ordinary affray or a localised breach of peace. Their protest amounts to a grave attack on the financial integrity of key public institutions. Not even a modicum of effort has been made in the present proceedings to justify the attacks made on these institutions. Why? One might reasonably be inclined to think that the applicants were protesting because they had unearthed some skulduggery or chicanery prevailing in these institutions which they wished to unravel by bringing to the public’s attention. However, nothing has emerged. This is also not in effect a case about the freedom of speech. The applicants’ unequivocal stance seems to be that they have an unfettered right to undermine the legitimacy of public institutions without being held accountable for the consequences of their conduct. The Constitution protects no such right.

It cannot. The existence of such an open-ended “right” would undermine the very existence of public governance which in turn depends on public confidence in institutional integrity."

Hurrah PAP!!

Web Design Company said...

Nice information, many thanks to the author. It is incomprehensible to me now, but in general, the usefulness and significance is overwhelming. Thanks again and good luck! Web Design Company

WMUD962G said...

Thanks you. Very good post.Unless they can offer a really compelling reason for users to come back, it will be the next Bebo, MySpace said...

I read so much useful data above!

rocky case said...

Stephen Stapinski

Really your blog is very interesting.... it contains great and unique information. I enjoyed to visiting your blog. It's just amazing.... Thanks very much for the share.