Search the Community

Sounds like PCM... (This is based on an actual experiment conducted in U.K.on 8 monkeys) Put eight monkeys in a room. In the middle of the room is a ladder, leading to a bunch of bananas hanging from a hook on the ceiling. Each time a monkey tries to climb the ladder, all the monkeys are sprayed with ice water, which makes them miserable. Soon enough, whenever a monkey attempts to climb the ladder, all of the other monkeys, not wanting to be sprayed, set upon him and beat him up. Soon, none of the eight monkeys ever attempts to climb the ladder. One of the original monkeys is then removed, and a new monkey is put in the room. Seeing the bananas and the ladder, he wonders why none of the other monkeys are doing obvious. But undaunted, he immediately begins to climb the ladder. All the other monkeys fall upon him and beat him silly. He has no idea why. However, he no longer attempts to climb the ladder. A second original monkey is removed and replaced. The newcomer again attempts to climb the ladder, but all the other monkeys hammer the crap out of him. This includes the previous new monkey, who, grateful that he's not on the receiving end this time, participates in the beating because all the other monkeys are doing it. However, he has no idea why he's attacking the new monkey. One by one, all the original monkeys are replaced. Eight new monkeys are now in the room. None of them have ever been sprayed by ice water. None of them attempt to climb the ladder. All of them will enthusiastically beat up any new monkey who tries, without having any idea why. This is how any company's policies get "Established". hmmmmm...... sound familiar...... , after long times, no one queries the company policies. everyone just says, ppls had been doing it for years/decade.... , why change now......

I bought a life insurance policy a few years ago, thinking that it was a good means of saving and getting some protection. But I recently reviewed the policy, and to my horror, I found the computed return after 20 years would be a mere 1.1% increase from the total premiums I would have paid by then. This is a far cry from the projected 4.5% that the insurance agent told me at the point of purchase. I have only myself to blame for not being more financially savvy and being too easily sold to sales talk. So which brings me to my question. I am considering terminating this policy, but I will suffer a penalty of about $7000. This is the difference between the total premiums I have paid to date and the cash value of the policy today. The breakeven point (where the penalty will be zero) is at the 18 year mark. I think this move will only make sense if I can somehow earn back the 7k + a decent % return over the 7k in the next 14-15 years. Do you guys think this is a good move? Should I terminate the policy now and cut losses with the 7k loss? What do you guys think ... ? Thanks.

Brace for the impact... http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin.../337363/1/.html

Below is what PM Lee said on his annual New Year's Day message: Transports is another key issue. Mr Lee said the focus is to improve public transport so that more Singaporeans will take buses and trains instead of driving cars. He added: 'We have to lower the vehicle growth rate and step up measures to manage the demand for road space. We need to enhance the ERP and extend its coverage so that driving costs significantly more, but we will balance that with lower vehicle ownership taxes'.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20071111/tap-...49-231650b.html i'm pretty much amazed after reading this news....... i believe when they started CPF thingy there were some promises here n there..... some on pension scheme was even persuaded to convert to CPF with certain promise... seem some how this article is showing that CPF is not working as wat it is deemed to be..... i guess partly due to the ever increasing inflation rate at an insane rate we are moving on...... seems like they have shifted all the responsibilities bac to the ppl again without admitting that the policy was a no good thingy... the annuity plan... will it be jus another flop..... wats ur take???

Notice this clause on AIG private vehicle motor insurance policy. Hmm ... Anyone insured with AIG has any comments or feedback about such clauses so far? ************************************************ Age Condition Policy Do you require coverage for younger drivers? If not, you can enjoy an lower premium by setting an age condition to your policy. The higher the age condition, the lower the premium! Choose from the following options: All age condition+ 30 years old & above age condition 35 years old & above age condition 40 years old & above age condition Please note that coverage will only be provided for insured or authorised drivers who meet the age condition you have selected. + If you require coverage for younger drivers, you can opt for an "All age" condition policy. ***********************************************************

WHEN Mr Chiang Soong Chee suffered a stroke, he went from a man capable of lifting drums of paint to someone resigned to signing cheques in the family-run paint store. Click to see larger image He was no longer able to handle his old tasks. Never mind, he thought, he could always rely on his insurance payout. But after making the first five instalment payments, NTUC Income held back on the remaining amount. The insurance company, which is the biggest here with more than 1.8 million policy holders, argued that Mr Chiang was not totally and permanently disabled. And he was able to work, though not at the same job he held previously. Mr Chiang, disagreeing with the insurer, sued for the remaining $90,000. And won. SEVERELY PARALYSED Mr Chiang became severely paralysed in his left limbs after a stroke in 1992. He had bought a life insurance policy in 1988, which said that Income (then NTUC Co-operative Insurance Commonwealth Enterprise) was to pay $150,000 in 10 annual instalments if he became totally and permanently disabled. But after the stroke, Mr Chiang was told by his insurance agent later that year that his disability did not meet Income's criteria. The agent was not named in the court papers. In March 2001, during a chat with friends, Mr Chiang was urged to go ahead and make the claim. He decided to act on their advice and registered his claim. By this time, after nine years of being treated by neurologist Dr Tong Hoo Ing, he was able to walk, albeit with a limp. In August that year, Mr Chiang was examined by Dr Tong and another doctor. Both doctors certified him as totally and permanently disabled. Initially, all went well with his claim. The insurer accepted the doctors' findings and in Sep 2001 told Mr Chiang that it would pay him four annual instalments of $15,000 each. The first payment was made in late 2001. A final instalment of $90,000 would be paid in 2005. Mr Chiang was paid the first $60,000, but things then went awry. Before Income made the final payment in Jan 2005, it asked Dr Tong to clarify Mr Chiang's current condition, which it was entitled to do under the policy. This time, Dr Tong certified that Mr Chiang was not totally and permanently disabled, but maintained that he was unemployable. This was because while Mr Chiang was mobile, he still carried a limp and had poor short-term memory. Income then decided not to pay Mr Chiang the remaining $90,000, saying he was no longer totally and permanently disabled. So Mr Chiang filed a suit. He was awarded judgment last month in the Subordinate Courts by District Judge Lim Wee Ming, who rapped the insurer for its treatment of Mr Chiang. The judge said the insurer could not provide a clause to attract potential customers, only to make it difficult for them to claim the money. Said District Judge Lim: 'Income cannot on one hand have a clause that appears more acceptable to potential customers but when they seek to enforce it, Income be allowed to take advantage of the ambiguity against the customer.' In his affidavit, Mr Chiang said that before the stroke, he handled, stacked, moved and delivered drums and tins of paint. His lawyer argued that because of the stroke, he was no longer able to carry out such work. As a result, his work with his family business is limited to signing cheques and bank documents. Mr Chiang's present role in the family business was minor compared to what he was doing before, and he remained employed only out of his siblings' sympathy. His doctors also testified that Mr Chiang was unable to do manual work. The main issue for the court was the interpretation of the policy, which stated that the disability must be total and permanent such that the insured person is unable to earn a living. In its defence, Income said it had observed a strict interpretation of the policy, which meant that Mr Chiang, even if only signing cheques and bank documents, was gainfully employed. Under a broader interpretation, the court would consider work as that which the insured was doing when he bought the policy. But Income claimed that Mr Chiang would have to show that he could not do any work whatsoever, regardless of his occupation when he bought the policy. The judge disagreed, saying that the phrase 'regardless of the usual occupation of the Life Assured' was not mentioned in the policy. In his judgment, Mr Lim wrote: 'Obviously, such a provision would have made the policy less palatable to potential customers.' The judge also noted that Income's strict interpretation of the policy would then apply only to extreme cases, such as brain damage or vegetable-like existence. And that was not fair. He was satisfied that Mr Chiang qualified for the payout as he could not continue the work he did before the stroke. Mr Chiang declined comment when contacted at his home, but a staff member at his family's shop, Sai Sia Paint, said he still works there. Income's lawyer, Mr Sundararaj Palaniappan of Straits Law Practice LLC, told The New Paper that his client plans to appeal. http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,...,138844,00.html

Min loan 5yrs and 50% of loan amt or min 20K (whichever is higher). Like that cannot do 1yr min 10K loan. How does an SE earn? What can heshe earn from?

As above .. Non Approved Workshop with Excess Annual Premium S$823.28 (inclusive of GST) Excess: S$350.00 (Own Damage) S$1350.00 (Young and Inexperience Driver who is age 24 and/or less than 2 years driving experience OR Non Approved Workshop without Excess Annual Premium S$898.13 (inclusive of GST) Excess: S$350.00 (Own Damage - Waived) S$1350.00 (Young and Inexperience Driver who is age 24 and/or less than 2 years driving experience) Which one will u take ? thanks !

hi all i'm planning to get a kia sportage, but all this coe bidding and price manipulation is really getting me confused. anyone knows what kia motors's (the one at leng kee) policy is regarding direct purchase at quoted price as opposed to going for bidding? they quoted $71499 for immediate registration (valid up to next tuesday 5 april). as i suspect the coe prices will go down next bidding since it is only 1 week after the last one, i intend to book next thursday (after the next bidding closes). if the coe falls by 2k during the next bidding, will i get it at 2k less than the current price?

Hi all, Been trying to find information about the above. Essentially, gahmen supposed to be re-looking at its diesel car policy. The thing is that most new diesel cars meet or in fact exceed Euro-IV standard. Anyone got any past links or current info? Thanks http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_1971/article.html