Social Enterprise - to boldly go... where...?

"Social Enterprise" is trendy.

I am reminded of this as I passed the site of a "Social Enterprise".  I know it is a "Social Enterprise" because it says so on the signboard above the gate.

So, what is a social enterprise?

Pop Quiz!

Which of these are social enterprises?

1) A seasonal store (opens at most once a month) that sells donated goods at or near market prices. This is not a thrift store. The goods are not used, and the operators are picky about what donations they accept. But funds raised go towards a charity. Social Enterprise, or not?

Perspective - 27 Sept 2014

In Singapore: Return our CPF or we will traumatise these kids!
In HK: Return our democracy, and you can tear-gas us, baton us!

[This post is short as I do not wish to waste time on the infantile. Others have said all I care to.]

A compromise compromised. Sitting on the fence is an uncomfortable position

So apparently Walter Woon and Tommy Koh disagreed on the question of 377A. Actually, they don't. Bad headlines by the Straits Times.

Walter Woon made a case as to why there is a constitutional flaw or pitfall in the position taken by the government. However, the fatal flaw depends on one's interpretation of how the govt has framed their position, in particular to the direction (if any) given to the Attorney-General.

Tommy Koh agrees that 377Ashould be taken out, but notes social and political concerns or considerations.

Ideas for Ubin

A lot of comments were to leave Ubin alone. Leave it Rustic. Undeveloped. Untouched. Pristine. Primeval. Primitive.

I agree.

Then of course there was the recent incident where a man collapsed/fainted, and died while being transported to a Hospital on the main island.

So maybe there should be a emergency medical centre there?  But who to staff it? Is it worth it? How often is there a life and death situation to warrant such a centre?

So maybe not.

Leave it pristine, untouched, undeveloped.

Leave it for Singaporeans, for future generations.

Leave it historical.

You are either part of the solution...

... or you are part of the problem.

You may have heard or read that quote.

I was reminded of that quote when I read some of the comments on the Wear White/Pink Dot issue.

How to save $400,000 in 60 years

You may have read this story: about how a 74-year old cleaner managed to save $400,000 and lose it all to con artists.

What some people found unbelievable, was how a cleaner was able to save $400,000.

In 60 years. Or slightly over.

She's 74 now and (according to the news report) she started working when she was 10. Sixty-four years to save $400,000. Assuming 0% interest, that's $200k in 32 years, $100k in 16 years. Or about $60k in 10 years. $6k per year for 64 years?

Or about $600 per month.

The Hazards of a Giant Stumbling.

No. This is not about the US.

I am not an expert in China, but I'm trying my best to understand China's growth trajectory, especially since my usual source has dried up.

Here's a quote from an expert, or at least one familiar with the issue:

A study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences showed the debt/gross domestic product ratio for China’s non-financial corporations was 113 per cent by the end of 2012. Standard & Poor’s found that, a year later, these firms’ total debt amounted to US$14.2 trillion (S$17.7 trillion), eclipsing the US$13.1 trillion of outstanding debt in America and making China the world’s largest issuer of corporate debt.