Aussie churches ban Sinatra’s My Way —
MELBOURNE
Sports anthems and popular songs such as Frank Sinatra’s My Way have been banned from funerals at more than 200 Australian churches after new orders from Melbourne’s archbishop.
The edict follows a study that found the signature song for Australian Rules Football team Collingwood was one of the top requests at Melbourne funerals, along with My Way and the Bette Midler version of
The Wind Beneath My Wings .
Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart said sports songs were not appropriate for a service which emphasises the solemn nature of death and is not designed as a celebration of the deceased’s life.
“Secular items are never to be sung or played at a Catholic funeral, such as romantic ballads, pop or rock music, political songs, football club songs,” Archbishop Hart wrote in the new guidelines.
“At the funerals of children ... nursery rhymes and sentimental secular songs are inappropriate because these may intensify grief.”
The move in Melbourne has received a mixed reaction, a spokesman for the church said.
One parish priest, Father Bob Maguire from South Melbourne, said the move would make it harder to balance the needs of mourners with those of the church.
He told Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper he preferred to see funerals as “family affairs attended by clergy, not a clergymen’s affair attended by family”. AFP
Let’s do our bid for a $2 COE
Source:
|
The Sunday Times
|
Author:
|
Khoo How San
|
Sunday: 5th September 2010
Someone asked me:
Will you bid for a certificate of entitlement (COE) if you see your dream car beckoning from the showroom?
Then I had a dream.
I dreamt of snagging a $2 COE and dashing over to get my metallic object of desire.
Why a $2 COE?
It has happened before - on a day in November 2008.
True, it happened amid a banking crisis-sparked recession. The COE price for Category A cars (up to 1600cc) crashed to $2.
As my colleague Christopher Tan wryly pointed out: 'On the afternoon of the freak $2 result, those monitoring the tender noticed that a crash might be imminent. Hence they went in with ultra-low bids.
'It was a confluence of many aligned stars: the world economy was tanking, people were losing their jobs, salaries were being cut, and last but not least, COE supply was near its highest.
'Plus, the car 'population' had become very young after years of abundant COEs. Plus, many people were stuck with cars bought at high loans, and were not able to trade them in for new ones.'
In other words, car showrooms were empty and it was mostly individuals, not the dealers bidding on behalf of buyers, who put in bids that fateful November 2008 day.
Maybe it was because I had recently seen the movie Inception, but in my dream, people bought into the idea that they should do their own COE bidding, skipping the car dealers' package deal.
Hence, the $2 COE for Category A was replicable, without most of those underlying factors my colleague cited.
In my dream, I first 'entered' the mind of the person who devised the scheme, to grasp the fuel-injected mechanics of the COE system. He or she must have had a devilish sense of humour and understood Fallen Man.
This person created a bidding set-up that tantalised would-be car buyers with a minimum $1 bid price yet set the actual bid price at the sum Bidder X will pay. Simply put, Bidder X is the price setter.
He epitomises you and me, who desire a 'low' COE but will pay up for a 'high' COE simply because you and I have already made up our minds to buy a car, and we see others rushing to the showrooms (the best shorthand here is 'kiasuism', or fear of losing out).
In my dream, this kiasuism was expunged from our human nature.
Instead, a number of bidders were prepared to become what I shall call 'suckers'. But that is not a fair label, because these people did want a new car but were prepared to wait many months for it. They were 'public-spirited'.
Remember, it was a dream.
You can go to the Land Transport Authority's website on how COE bidding works, or you can Google 'how COE works' for simple yet accurate examples.
I'll use a simplified illustration myself.
Supposing there are 10 Category A COEs for the current bidding round. Technically, everyone - say, 20 bidders - can bid at $1. But there is no price setter to enable 10 bidders to secure the 10 COEs. All 20 have 'lost' and the 10 COEs go into the next bidding round.
Bidder X comes into being, in this example, if 10 people had bid only $1 and the 11th bidder had put down $2. He is the price setter. The 12th to 20th bidders, together with Bidder X, secure all 10 COEs.
These others (apart from Bidder X) had all bid more than $2. Bidder No. 20 can even bid $1 million or more and still get his COE at $2.
In fact, this kiasuism was understood by the devilish creator of the scheme, since a high bid ensures the bidder's success! It also, typically and across the board, ensures in the real world that COE prices are not freak $2 ones.
But should many be like the 20th bidder, and bid outrageously?
The ancient Chinese said, 'You may get what you wish for.' The $1 million sum may well become the price setter if bidders 1 to 10 bid from $1 to $999,999 and bidders 12 to 20 bid above $1 million.
If you have now truly grasped this Nobel Prize-worthy scheme, enter my dream world, and bid with me to get that $2 COE.
Indeed, and this is real, not from the dream, the LTA has been on our side, helping out by allowing real-time transparency. You can actually monitor the bids.
To repeat my dream scenario, individuals - not car dealers - did the bidding. Also, there were enough 'suckers' who bid $1 to enable Bidder X to set the price at $2. But who wants to be a sucker?
Think of it this way: Even with the current annual COE quotas, how many genuine car buyers will be thwarted from getting their new cars within a reasonable time?
Even if the wait is a year, remember, that COE will cost only $2! * It is defInItely wOrth it ! *
Assuming there are 600 Category A COEs up for bidding (I use only one category to simplify my model), 599 people must bid more than $2, and only one must bid $2.
The rest (just one person if there are only 601 bidders) must bid $1.
As an alternative, only 601 people need to bid in this round, and plus or minus 600 in the next round, based on the actual available COEs each time. In this case, only one person puts in the $1 bid and the other 600 can put in $2.
Come on, we can do it.
Just hold back on your need for a car this round.
It's worth it, for a $2 COE. Haha.
The writer is The Sunday Times' copyeditor.
Pasted from <http://www.cpf.gov.sg/imsavvy/infohub_article.asp?readid={533534806-6311-3618128299}>
Feeling lost, depressed and lonely while jobless? Email gilbert@transitioning.org if you need to access our free volunteer career coaching or counselling services. Don't suffer alone, seek help! Thanks for visiting!
Sep 4, 2010
Past 62, you take the job you can do
In an e-mail interview with Insight, MM Lee Kuan Yew elaborates on his views on work and retirement
When you said ‘there should be no retirement age’, did you mean it metaphorically – that people should continue to be productive in their old age, or did you mean that the official retirement age should be scrapped?
I do not mean just metaphorically. As long as people are productive, however old they are, if they have something to do, it is better to semi-retire. If they refuse a job, that is up to them.
Employment after retirement age has to be for lower pay and lighter work. How much is a matter which has to be decided in accordance with the requirements of the job they are doing and their physical or mental alertness.This is too radical a change in one step. I have persuaded the Prime Minister and my Cabinet colleagues to introduce re-employment in gradual steps. First, from 62 to 65, and then to 67. After that, case by case for employer and employee.
Should it be applied to the entire workforce, or only to the top-tier talent and the middle-management and professional ranks?
It should apply to the entire workforce, not just to top-tier talent or middle management and professional ranks. If a man is physically fit and can still do his work, he should be allowed to do so.If he cannot do hard physical work, then find him a job in the service and leisure industries, lighter work which he can do but keeps him occupied and earning a living. So his CPF (Central Provident Fund) and other savings will not be the only money he will have.
The new British government plans to phase out its default retirement age of 65. According to a White Paper, an employer can fire someone on the basis of age only after the employee is administered a ‘capability test’ and fails it. Businesses complain of administrative costs, but older workers welcome it. Is this feasible in Singapore?
The British government is moving in one big step. We should go step by step, to allow employers and employees time to adjust. First, from 62 to 65, then to 67. It will take several years.
Do you see the Civil Service taking the lead in re-employment? Would it impinge on the Public Sector Leadership (PSL) scheme, which places limits on how long top civil servants can serve in key posts? At more junior levels, how would the Civil Service ensure it does not become bloated? Should employment be on the basis of term contracts rather than permanent?
Yes, the Civil Service is taking the lead. The Public Service Division tells me that in 2009, it offered re-employment to nine out of 10 officers who retired at 62.The PSLs will step down from their top jobs when their terms are up in order to have flow-through and leadership renewal at the top of the public service. This allows younger officers to take on responsibilities when they are ready, and keeps the service energetic and connected with new trends.When officers reach the end of their PSL terms or 62, and provided they can still contribute, they move sideways or to less demanding jobs in the ministries or statutory boards where their experience and abilities are put to good use.At junior levels, the key is to keep refreshing and upgrading their skills so that they continue to contribute even past 62. They have to be on term contracts because it must depend on their health, once they are past official retirement age. Workers will be very concerned if there is no official retirement age, as it could mean that employers are freer to hire and fire
It does not mean employers are free to hire and fire just because there is no official retirement age.
You said that working will keep people ‘interested and engaged in life’ into their old age. Does this apply only to the well-educated, high-income executives? What about the lower-skilled and lower-wage elderly? They may want to work past retirement age out of necessity rather than to keep interested and engaged.
The lower-skilled and lower-wage elderly have to be kept engaged, and earning an income. They could move from heavy manual labour to lighter work in the service and leisure industries at counters or the backend of the hotel and leisure business, or in restaurants and retail outlets. For big functions, the hotels hire students from the polys, the ITEs (Institutes of Technical Education) and universities. They can do these jobs. It is up to them if they want to retire.
There are jobs where the specialised nature and physical demands require an age cut-off, for example, pilots, divers, policemen, army officers. If there is no retirement age, how can workers in such jobs be redeployed?
For jobs that require special physical attributes like pilots, divers, policemen and army officers, there has to be a retirement age. Extended employment should be based on their physical fitness.They should be given the option to continue if they are fit, as indeed pilots do have. So do policemen. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) needs its leadership corps of officers to be physically and mentally vigorous. Hence, they need a flow-through of young officers.SAF officers complete their military career in their 40s, but they have not retired from work. Some move on to less physically demanding jobs in Mindef where they put their experience to good use, while others go on to successful second careers in other ministries or in the private sector.
Many older workers want to retire because they would rather not suffer the ‘humiliation’ of getting less pay or having to follow the orders of those younger than them. Is this a ‘mindset’ that can be remedied?
Those who feel humiliated or get less pay because they are demoted and have to follow the orders of younger men, can move to some other new sector where the young officers are not their former subordinates.When you reach retirement age, you have to take the job that you can do. I moved from prime minister to senior minister under prime minister Goh Chok Tong. Now I am Minister Mentor under, first, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and, second, Senior Minister Goh. As long as I am fit, if the next prime minister wants to retain me because I am still capable, I am prepared to go down in status. It makes little difference to me and my amour propre.
Some Singaporeans disagree with your view that they should not retire but keep on working. They argue that the end of life is a happy retirement, not more work.
Those who want to engage in new pursuits and develop interests which they could not do so because of work, can do so. They will have no income and may run out of their savings and CPF monies earlier.
ShareThis
If you bought a flat before Aug 30 ...
Letter from Lily Wong Jee Choo Deputy Director (Policy and Property) Housing and Development Board We refer to the letter “Nest egg delayed” from Mr Chi Han- Hsuan (Sept 1). Mr Chi mentioned that he recently bought a HDB flat with his wife and planned to invest in a private condominium for investment, but had to wait now because of the changes to the policy for Minimum Occupation Period (MOP).
We would like to clarify that the new MOP policy is prospectively applied on resale applications received by HDB on or after Aug 30, 2010.
Resale applications received by HDB before Aug 30, 2010 will be subject to the previous MOP policy where there are no restrictions on the purchase of private properties during the MOP of the nonsubsidised flat. We thank Mr Chi for his feedback.
pharoah88 ( Date: 01-Sep-2010 22:13) Posted:
Nest egg delayed
Letter from Chi Han-Hsuan
THE latest regulations came as a shock to my wife and me. Why can’t HDB flat owners stay in their flats and invest in private property without a five-year MOP?
Private properties are a long-term investments, like blue chip stocks or precious commodities such as gold — they appreciate in value over time and are a good hedge against inflation.
I believe the Government’s stance all along has been to curb the use of HDB flats for speculation, and those who want to invest should buy private property.
So, why discourage flat-owners from investing in private property?
A five-year MOP is too long and restrictive.
My wife and I recently bought an HDB flat without a loan and plan to invest in a condominium for our retirement. But now we’ll have to wait before we can do so.
The Government shouldn’t be discouraging HDB owners with excess cash from buying private property as a safe, long-term investment in their nest egg.
Rather, it should be imposing restrictions on foreigners buying private residential properties. |
|