Today
Apr 01, 2011
Letter from Tan Pei Ying
AS a young Singaporean with that all-important vote in my hands, I believe I express a concern many of my peers hold. With news of Ms Tin Pei Ling's candidacy in the coming elections, an interesting bit in a Today report on March 29 caught my eye: "In the 2009 November/ December edition of the party's Petir magazine, she was quoted as saying that some online feedback 'is cynical'. 'Maybe some young people feel a need to be different, and they express it by being anti-establishment,' she said then." Is there a hint of arrogance here?
While some may indeed make cynical comments out of "a need to be different", any problem should be looked at from both sides. I hope Ms Tin has considered those comments in depth and analysed the root cause of disgruntlement, rather than simply attributing it to "a need to be different".
I personally have no qualms about a candidate's age or, and choice of lifestyle is not my concern.
However, the ability to analyse, empathise and be open to alternative views from people of all walks of life is an important attribute of any potential politician. Remember, Singapore is uniquely composed of various ethnic groups, income earners and needs. There should be sensitivity.
It is worrying if any of our future leaders label citizens collectively as "anti-establishment" or vice-versa as a starting point when their ideals are not aligned.
[A voice of reason in a sea of unreason? I take issue with the comment that "some feedback are cynical". I think MOST feedback are useless, irrelevant, illogical, paranoid, self-serving rants. Considering those comments in depth will drive most people insane. Symptoms of this insanity? They post replies/further comments.]
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
To understand suffering, be prepared to persist
Mar 29, 2011
JOURNALIST Yen Feng asserted that "humans can never really come to grips with the why of suffering. We will never understand" ("Acts of God: It's how we react"; Saturday).
The nature and extent of the writer's desperation may sound familiar to many who have faced similar personal tragedies. An individual's own conclusion about not being able to find an answer is all right and understandable.
However, extending his helplessness to the whole of humanity is not.
How can we be certain of making a pronouncement about the whole of humanity? Can it be said with conviction that none has ever come to grips with the why of suffering? Not even sages, saints and gods?
Can it also be said that none will ever understand the why of suffering? The why and the wherefore of suffering are not difficult to understand, provided one is prepared to persist.
As is often said, the "guru" or teacher will appear if the seeker is earnest in his inquiry.
Pawan Kumar Modi
[Such simplistic arrogance. Only the truly naive who have never suffered can be so arrogant.]
JOURNALIST Yen Feng asserted that "humans can never really come to grips with the why of suffering. We will never understand" ("Acts of God: It's how we react"; Saturday).
The nature and extent of the writer's desperation may sound familiar to many who have faced similar personal tragedies. An individual's own conclusion about not being able to find an answer is all right and understandable.
However, extending his helplessness to the whole of humanity is not.
How can we be certain of making a pronouncement about the whole of humanity? Can it be said with conviction that none has ever come to grips with the why of suffering? Not even sages, saints and gods?
Can it also be said that none will ever understand the why of suffering? The why and the wherefore of suffering are not difficult to understand, provided one is prepared to persist.
As is often said, the "guru" or teacher will appear if the seeker is earnest in his inquiry.
Pawan Kumar Modi
[Such simplistic arrogance. Only the truly naive who have never suffered can be so arrogant.]
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Drop nuclear, go solar
Mar 24, 2011
SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong attributes our present water self-sufficiency to political will, sheer determination and creativity ('Clean water a result of a wave of effort'; Monday).
It is now time to focus on garnering new energy resources.
SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong attributes our present water self-sufficiency to political will, sheer determination and creativity ('Clean water a result of a wave of effort'; Monday).
It is now time to focus on garnering new energy resources.
In the same way that our neighbours cannot be depended upon to sell us water in perpetuity, neither can we assume that, in the future, Singapore will not be deprived of oil and gas. Our search and development of alternative sources of energy must start now and should have no less the intensity and ingenuity we levied on water.
After the recent Japanese disaster, nuclear power is clearly not the answer. The world has about 400 nuclear power stations and already we have had a few major incidents.
[The 3 that comes to mind are Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima. 3 out of 400].
The chances of having a disaster if Singapore operated a nuclear power generator for 100 years are high, a consequence we, on our postage stamp-size country, just cannot live with.
[How do you decide that 3 out of 400 is high?]
Even with research on solar power in its infancy, with vast improvements in costs and efficiencies certain in the future, a back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that, should all HDB blocks be installed with solar panels on the roof, 20 per cent of our present energy needs can be met. The potential seems unlimited.
[You just said, the potential is limited to 20%. Also, what is the costs? The back of your envelope needs to be bigger to have more details. The current tech is not promising. Take a look at this real project:
This is based on Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) which is currently the most efficient solar power generator. To generate 100 MW, it will cover 741 acres or about 2.5 sq km. Singapore needs about 5000 MW on average. To supply 20% of our electricity needs (or about 1000 MW) we will need to have 10 of these CSP or about 25 sq km. That's my calculation. Let me double check that with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia suggest 6000 acres or 24 sq km for a CSP generating 1000 MW, and if using photovoltaic (PV) solar cells, 12,000 acres or 48 sq km for the same output. And this is just to generate 20% of our CURRENT electricity needs.
The idea is to put this on HDB roof tops? CSP is out for roof tops, so we'll check PV. 48 sq km = 48,000,000 sq m. There are about 10,000 HDB blocks, so that's 4,800 sq m of roof required per HDB block.
NO HDB block has a roof that big. That would mean about 48 4-rm flats per floor.
Even if you double the efficiency of the PV, that would still mean 2,400 sqm of roof. Assuming all blocks have about 800 sqm of roof, PV technology needs to be at least 6 times more efficient.
So really? PV the roofs of HDB flats and provide 20% of energy needs? Bullshit!]
The science behind solar panels involves semiconductor technology, which Singapore already excels in. It is well within our ability to research and manufacture these panels. The market for them already exceeds $30 billion, and getting a slice of this action will open up a whole new sector of manufacturing for Singapore.
Solar energy is clean and green, dependent on an ample resource, free of encumbrances imposed by neighbours and is difficult to sabotage.
[And you forgot expensive, inefficient, and unlikely to ever be a major source of energy in land scarce Singapore. At best it will supplement our energy requirements, but it will be a minor component. Unlikely to ever hit 20% of our energy needs.]
There is far more for Singapore to gain by embracing solar power over nuclear energy.
Dr Yik Keng Yeong
[The most promising solar power that can generate the kind of concentrated power required for a highly urbanised city like Singapore, is going to be CSP. The downside is that it will need a large contiguous area to operate. None of that solar panel on every HDB block shit. So the land requirement basically renders that idea unfeasible.
PV and other technologies yet to be invented or improved are expensive and inefficient, and at the current development, will not be able to be implemented in the next 5 to 10 years.
The more immediately implementable ideas are safer nuclear power. But we don't need them at this point, and we don't need to make a decision yet. However, dismissing them out of hand and out of fear and out of a philosophical or ideological position is neither constructive, nor instructive.]
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
About the President's pay...
Mar 16, 2011
PARLIAMENT has approved raising the amount set aside for President's salary from $3,376,800 to $4,267,500 in tandem with increases for political, judicial and civil service appointment holders ('President's pay approved'; last Friday).
The salary issue is an old chestnut which evokes passion among detractors and proponents. Amid the debate, one aspect has been neglected: Why is the President paid more than the Prime Minister and veteran ministers?
Tan Chak Lim
[To encourage capable people to contest the Presidential Election. As it is, our current president has been walking into his terms. Capable people don't want the job at the old salary. Maybe the new salary might get a few to think about it. The fact that it is such a fat pay package, and no one wants it, is a sign that the job is more than meets the eye.
Next dumb question from the lesser mortals, please.]
PARLIAMENT has approved raising the amount set aside for President's salary from $3,376,800 to $4,267,500 in tandem with increases for political, judicial and civil service appointment holders ('President's pay approved'; last Friday).
The salary issue is an old chestnut which evokes passion among detractors and proponents. Amid the debate, one aspect has been neglected: Why is the President paid more than the Prime Minister and veteran ministers?
Tan Chak Lim
[To encourage capable people to contest the Presidential Election. As it is, our current president has been walking into his terms. Capable people don't want the job at the old salary. Maybe the new salary might get a few to think about it. The fact that it is such a fat pay package, and no one wants it, is a sign that the job is more than meets the eye.
Next dumb question from the lesser mortals, please.]
Monday, March 14, 2011
Why S'pore should back Timor Leste
Mar 14, 2011
INCLUSION IN ASEAN
MR BARRY Wain highlighted how Indonesia is pushing for inclusion of Timor Leste in Asean while Singapore was cited as leading the objectors ('Timor Leste's bid to join Asean faces objections'; last Thursday).
It appears the main reason for excluding Timor Leste now is that its institutions and human capital are undeveloped and, therefore, cannot keep up with Asean's integration efforts, especially economically.
The worry, it seems, is that Asean must substantially integrate its economies by 2015, failing which it would be rendered irrelevant; a loser in the face of rising China and India. The newer, and generally poorer, Asean members like Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are also worried about the likely diversion of aid if Timor Leste joins.
I take a different view. We should commend Indonesia and Thailand for supporting Timor Leste's inclusion, with few or no reservations. Timor Leste had a painful birth 12 years ago, after an angry Indonesia withdrew from then East Timor in an orgy of killing and destruction. Jakarta is now relenting and championing Timor Leste's inclusion.
Singapore also had a painful birth in 1965 when it was evicted from the young Malaysian federation, two years after joining it amid fanfare. In the 1960s and 1970s, we were a struggling island trying to be a nation. Many doubted Singapore would make it; there was a danger of a failed state. Then, we appreciated any help given to build Singapore and our human capital.
Asean's formation by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand was a blessing, ensuring security and stability in the previously tumultuous region after the colonial powers left. Singapore has prospered since then.
There is a parallel with Timor Leste's case. The small, former Portuguese colony is now at peace with itself, its people ready to learn and to advance the country. Given its beautiful landscapes and coral reefs, tourism is taking off while various industries are budding. It needs more help in developing transport, health care, education and financial services, and guidance on economic development and security.
Singapore, as a small successful state, should go out of its way to help Timor Leste stand more firmly on its feet on various fronts. Asean economic integration is important, but even more vital is the need to ensure that Timor Leste, located in the middle of the Indonesian archipelago, does not fail. Asean cannot be at peace with itself if this happens.
Mano Sabnani
[By all means help Timor Leste. But ASEAN membership with the accompanying obligations are not necessarily the best way to help Timor Leste.
Everyone in ASEAN is studying for their "A" levels and Timor Leste comes along graduating from kindergarten and wants to take the "A" levels with the rest? It will fail. The best thing for Timor Leste is to pass PSLE first. the ASEAN members can help by providing tuition, even as they focus on their "A" levels.
This letter just appeals to emotions. There was no ASEAN when Singapore was "born". It is only when Sg was stable and ready was ASEAN formed. Timor Leste can be helped but dragging them into ASEAN when they are not ready is just a show at best and political maneuvering by Indonesia and Thailand at worse, using Timor Leste as the patsy.]
INCLUSION IN ASEAN
MR BARRY Wain highlighted how Indonesia is pushing for inclusion of Timor Leste in Asean while Singapore was cited as leading the objectors ('Timor Leste's bid to join Asean faces objections'; last Thursday).
It appears the main reason for excluding Timor Leste now is that its institutions and human capital are undeveloped and, therefore, cannot keep up with Asean's integration efforts, especially economically.
The worry, it seems, is that Asean must substantially integrate its economies by 2015, failing which it would be rendered irrelevant; a loser in the face of rising China and India. The newer, and generally poorer, Asean members like Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are also worried about the likely diversion of aid if Timor Leste joins.
I take a different view. We should commend Indonesia and Thailand for supporting Timor Leste's inclusion, with few or no reservations. Timor Leste had a painful birth 12 years ago, after an angry Indonesia withdrew from then East Timor in an orgy of killing and destruction. Jakarta is now relenting and championing Timor Leste's inclusion.
Singapore also had a painful birth in 1965 when it was evicted from the young Malaysian federation, two years after joining it amid fanfare. In the 1960s and 1970s, we were a struggling island trying to be a nation. Many doubted Singapore would make it; there was a danger of a failed state. Then, we appreciated any help given to build Singapore and our human capital.
Asean's formation by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand was a blessing, ensuring security and stability in the previously tumultuous region after the colonial powers left. Singapore has prospered since then.
There is a parallel with Timor Leste's case. The small, former Portuguese colony is now at peace with itself, its people ready to learn and to advance the country. Given its beautiful landscapes and coral reefs, tourism is taking off while various industries are budding. It needs more help in developing transport, health care, education and financial services, and guidance on economic development and security.
Singapore, as a small successful state, should go out of its way to help Timor Leste stand more firmly on its feet on various fronts. Asean economic integration is important, but even more vital is the need to ensure that Timor Leste, located in the middle of the Indonesian archipelago, does not fail. Asean cannot be at peace with itself if this happens.
Mano Sabnani
[By all means help Timor Leste. But ASEAN membership with the accompanying obligations are not necessarily the best way to help Timor Leste.
Everyone in ASEAN is studying for their "A" levels and Timor Leste comes along graduating from kindergarten and wants to take the "A" levels with the rest? It will fail. The best thing for Timor Leste is to pass PSLE first. the ASEAN members can help by providing tuition, even as they focus on their "A" levels.
This letter just appeals to emotions. There was no ASEAN when Singapore was "born". It is only when Sg was stable and ready was ASEAN formed. Timor Leste can be helped but dragging them into ASEAN when they are not ready is just a show at best and political maneuvering by Indonesia and Thailand at worse, using Timor Leste as the patsy.]
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Proposed skywalk icon impractical, will be an eyesore
Mar 6, 2011
YOUR LETTERS
Mr Harry Tong ('Build 'skywalk' mall as national icon'; Feb20) proposed that Singapore consider building its next icon in the form of a 5km-long, three-storey-high, open-air skywalk pedestrian mall running above the existing Orchard/Bras Basah roads and stretching to the Marina Bay area.
Beyond the factors of feasibility and costs, there are at least three major issues with this proposal.
First, the idea of a skywalk as an above-ground connector between buildings emerged from the need to protect pedestrians from crime and inclement weather in certain North American cities.
[We have inclement weather here too. And floods too.]
Because of its original design intentions, the skywalk also drains pedestrian traffic from the street level, thereby impoverishing the existing street life without necessarily compensating for this loss, since pedestrians typically use the skywalk only to move between destinations.
[Have you seen Orchard Road? It can do with some draining (of pedestrians as well as rain water). In any case, window shoppers are not so dumb as to window shop on the streets. They go into Ion, wander thru to Wisma, then into Ngee Ann City/Takashimaya, pop out onto the street only because that is the only way to link to the next shopping mall. People on the street clearly want to move to their next destination anyway.]
If a skywalk is built here as proposed, it will impoverish the present vibrancy of street-level activities on Orchard Road without any certainty of recreating such activities again above ground.
Second, a skywalk on the scale of what Mr Tong proposed would be more of an urban travesty than a national icon. It will cast a shadow over everything below it.
Imagine the underside of such a long skywalk. It will be similar to the underside of a concrete highway. Can this serve as an attractive space for vibrant street life?
[Here I think there is some concern. A almost fully enclosed skywalk will lead to a build up of vehicle exhaust which would potentially make the "Underwalk" a health hazard. But this need not be so, with proper ventilation and eventually if/when we switch to more electric vehicles. And the unimaginative concrete tunnel is the brainchild of an unimaginative brain.]
Third, the need to rely on yet another icon to attract more tourist dollars is unsettling.
'Icon' means the representation or imagery of some identity - an icon is thus not the real thing. To rely continuously on different representations to sell Singapore to the world undermines the commitment to the kind of social solidarity, and hence civic identity, that iconic representations cannot offer but which every unique city or state integrally requires.
[LKY is iconic. We should tell him he is not coke, i.e. not the real thing. I don't even know what this point is about. Probably an iconic rant with no real substance. Probably taking a word out of context, and arguing semantics. Yeah, I'm sure every tourists to Singapore is here to see our civic identity. We should charge admission for it.]
For these reasons, the proposal for yet another eye-catching icon, whether in the form of a skywalk or some other urban structure, needs to be considered carefully.
Jeffrey Chan
[Get off your high horse and walk. If you like high horses, you might like the skywalk.]
YOUR LETTERS
Mr Harry Tong ('Build 'skywalk' mall as national icon'; Feb20) proposed that Singapore consider building its next icon in the form of a 5km-long, three-storey-high, open-air skywalk pedestrian mall running above the existing Orchard/Bras Basah roads and stretching to the Marina Bay area.
Beyond the factors of feasibility and costs, there are at least three major issues with this proposal.
First, the idea of a skywalk as an above-ground connector between buildings emerged from the need to protect pedestrians from crime and inclement weather in certain North American cities.
[We have inclement weather here too. And floods too.]
Because of its original design intentions, the skywalk also drains pedestrian traffic from the street level, thereby impoverishing the existing street life without necessarily compensating for this loss, since pedestrians typically use the skywalk only to move between destinations.
[Have you seen Orchard Road? It can do with some draining (of pedestrians as well as rain water). In any case, window shoppers are not so dumb as to window shop on the streets. They go into Ion, wander thru to Wisma, then into Ngee Ann City/Takashimaya, pop out onto the street only because that is the only way to link to the next shopping mall. People on the street clearly want to move to their next destination anyway.]
If a skywalk is built here as proposed, it will impoverish the present vibrancy of street-level activities on Orchard Road without any certainty of recreating such activities again above ground.
Second, a skywalk on the scale of what Mr Tong proposed would be more of an urban travesty than a national icon. It will cast a shadow over everything below it.
Imagine the underside of such a long skywalk. It will be similar to the underside of a concrete highway. Can this serve as an attractive space for vibrant street life?
[Here I think there is some concern. A almost fully enclosed skywalk will lead to a build up of vehicle exhaust which would potentially make the "Underwalk" a health hazard. But this need not be so, with proper ventilation and eventually if/when we switch to more electric vehicles. And the unimaginative concrete tunnel is the brainchild of an unimaginative brain.]
Third, the need to rely on yet another icon to attract more tourist dollars is unsettling.
'Icon' means the representation or imagery of some identity - an icon is thus not the real thing. To rely continuously on different representations to sell Singapore to the world undermines the commitment to the kind of social solidarity, and hence civic identity, that iconic representations cannot offer but which every unique city or state integrally requires.
[LKY is iconic. We should tell him he is not coke, i.e. not the real thing. I don't even know what this point is about. Probably an iconic rant with no real substance. Probably taking a word out of context, and arguing semantics. Yeah, I'm sure every tourists to Singapore is here to see our civic identity. We should charge admission for it.]
For these reasons, the proposal for yet another eye-catching icon, whether in the form of a skywalk or some other urban structure, needs to be considered carefully.
Jeffrey Chan
[Get off your high horse and walk. If you like high horses, you might like the skywalk.]
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Don't miss the fishes for the shark's fin
Mar 4, 2011
MANY marine conservation groups profess to champion the concept of sustainable seafood but actually focus primarily on the issue of shark's fin ('Shark's fin: Marine group rebuts trader's claim' by Project: FIN; March 1).
The shark is only one among millions of fish species in the seas and oceans. Granted, the number of sharks has declined but the same goes for all other commercial species.
Researchers have logged the decline in sharks, but how does that relate to the decline in the total fish population?
If the fish population declines by 90 per cent, does it not follow that the shark population will drop as well?
A report last year ('Overfishing emptying the seas in South-east Asia'; Nov11) noted that there was 10 times less fish in the Gulf of Thailand in 1995 than in 1965 while Malaysia experienced an 80 per cent to 90 per cent plunge.
The cod fishery in the North Sea collapsed over a decade ago. The giant bluefin schools found off the east coast of the United States are history.
Apparently, only 10 per cent of the big fish are left.
While it is undeniable that the shark's fin trade is partly responsible for the decline in the shark population, the problem cannot be seen in isolation and must be part of a holistic approach that looks at overall fish populations.
Even if the shark's fin trade is stopped, will that save the sharks? If the seas continue to be pillaged of fish, they too will disappear. Yet, certain groups that promote sustainability of the sea focus mainly on shark's fin.
Could these groups be swayed emotionally by gruesome videos showing live finning? What proportion of shark's fin is derived from live finning?
Perhaps measures could be taken to have shark's fin labelled to differentiate those finned after death, in the manner of 'dolphin safe' tuna meat.
The focus on shark sustainability alone is akin to guarding a particular tree in the forest against loggers, while the rest of the forest around it is burning. One may save that tree from the loggers, but unless one douses the fire, that tree too will eventually perish.
If one is serious about sustainability, one must look at the bigger picture.
The decline in overall marine resources will soon lead to the end of sharks, even if they are not caught for their fins.
Steven Lauw
[What seductive logic! The fish stocks are already low! If we leave the sharks alone, they will eat the fish and we will have even less fish to feed humans! Even if we don't eat them with the depleted fish stocks, the sharks will die of starvation anyway. Better for us to eat thier fins before they die (of starvation) and their fins rot away.
Yeah. protecting sharks is like protecting one tree in the fiorest from loggers while the rest of the forest burns. Instead the protectors should focus on trying to put out the fire. Meanwhile the loggers can cut down the tree undisturbed by the tree-huggers. Or the shark-huggers.
Here's another analogy. The shark conservationists are like a store security trying to prevent shop-lifting, but meanwhile the store is burning! I'm just a shopper who sees that if I just leave the store because of the fire, all the goods in the store will burn. So when I see an iPad I think, If I just go, the iPad will burn and be destroyed. What a waste! I shall save the iPad and take it with me. This is also saving the environment. The amount of energy to manufacture an iPad would be wasted if it were destroyed in the fire.
The self-justifying looter.]
MANY marine conservation groups profess to champion the concept of sustainable seafood but actually focus primarily on the issue of shark's fin ('Shark's fin: Marine group rebuts trader's claim' by Project: FIN; March 1).
The shark is only one among millions of fish species in the seas and oceans. Granted, the number of sharks has declined but the same goes for all other commercial species.
Researchers have logged the decline in sharks, but how does that relate to the decline in the total fish population?
If the fish population declines by 90 per cent, does it not follow that the shark population will drop as well?
A report last year ('Overfishing emptying the seas in South-east Asia'; Nov11) noted that there was 10 times less fish in the Gulf of Thailand in 1995 than in 1965 while Malaysia experienced an 80 per cent to 90 per cent plunge.
The cod fishery in the North Sea collapsed over a decade ago. The giant bluefin schools found off the east coast of the United States are history.
Apparently, only 10 per cent of the big fish are left.
While it is undeniable that the shark's fin trade is partly responsible for the decline in the shark population, the problem cannot be seen in isolation and must be part of a holistic approach that looks at overall fish populations.
Even if the shark's fin trade is stopped, will that save the sharks? If the seas continue to be pillaged of fish, they too will disappear. Yet, certain groups that promote sustainability of the sea focus mainly on shark's fin.
Could these groups be swayed emotionally by gruesome videos showing live finning? What proportion of shark's fin is derived from live finning?
Perhaps measures could be taken to have shark's fin labelled to differentiate those finned after death, in the manner of 'dolphin safe' tuna meat.
The focus on shark sustainability alone is akin to guarding a particular tree in the forest against loggers, while the rest of the forest around it is burning. One may save that tree from the loggers, but unless one douses the fire, that tree too will eventually perish.
If one is serious about sustainability, one must look at the bigger picture.
The decline in overall marine resources will soon lead to the end of sharks, even if they are not caught for their fins.
Steven Lauw
[What seductive logic! The fish stocks are already low! If we leave the sharks alone, they will eat the fish and we will have even less fish to feed humans! Even if we don't eat them with the depleted fish stocks, the sharks will die of starvation anyway. Better for us to eat thier fins before they die (of starvation) and their fins rot away.
Yeah. protecting sharks is like protecting one tree in the fiorest from loggers while the rest of the forest burns. Instead the protectors should focus on trying to put out the fire. Meanwhile the loggers can cut down the tree undisturbed by the tree-huggers. Or the shark-huggers.
Here's another analogy. The shark conservationists are like a store security trying to prevent shop-lifting, but meanwhile the store is burning! I'm just a shopper who sees that if I just leave the store because of the fire, all the goods in the store will burn. So when I see an iPad I think, If I just go, the iPad will burn and be destroyed. What a waste! I shall save the iPad and take it with me. This is also saving the environment. The amount of energy to manufacture an iPad would be wasted if it were destroyed in the fire.
The self-justifying looter.]
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Opposition in Disarray
Mar 2, 2011
Instead of forming a single party, agree on straight fights against PAP
GETTING opposition parties to unite against the People's Action Party (PAP) in a general election is unconstructive, impractical and unworkable ('Only a united opposition can succeed' by Mr Paul Chan; last Saturday).
Simply merging different parties together would mean that weaker individuals and ineffective groups get conveniently subsumed into the association.
Given the challenging roles and duties of opposition politicians, there should be competition between parties - in the form of leadership calibre, manifestoes and overall quality.
As the immediate goal of opposition parties is to increase party credibility and persuade people to vote for them, they cannot compromise on their policy proposals and recommendations.
As they are motivated by varying ideals, though bound by the common purpose of serving the people, there are significant differences in their strategies for a better Singapore.
Also, the different levels of development among opposition parties may also deter the establishment of a single party.
Case in point: The resignations and confusing developments that appear to have roiled the new Reform Party contrast sharply with the situation in more established parties whose game plans are in place and well-articulated.
Merging into a single bloc now will result in valuable time and resources being wasted on wrangling over leadership positions and bickering over bureaucratic imbroglios, instead of focusing on substantive policy issues.
A call for unity without proper justification will hardly convince Singaporeans of the opposition's readiness to challenge the status quo.
Nonetheless, what opposition parties can - and should - do is to discuss the distribution of their candidates across the electoral map, to prevent three-way fights.
This would prevent splitting the opposition vote. More importantly, straight fights against the PAP will ensure contests in all constituencies, and allow all eligible Singaporeans to have their say at the ballot box.
Kwan Jin Yao
Simply merging different parties together would mean that weaker individuals and ineffective groups get conveniently subsumed into the association.
Given the challenging roles and duties of opposition politicians, there should be competition between parties - in the form of leadership calibre, manifestoes and overall quality.
As the immediate goal of opposition parties is to increase party credibility and persuade people to vote for them, they cannot compromise on their policy proposals and recommendations.
As they are motivated by varying ideals, though bound by the common purpose of serving the people, there are significant differences in their strategies for a better Singapore.
Also, the different levels of development among opposition parties may also deter the establishment of a single party.
Case in point: The resignations and confusing developments that appear to have roiled the new Reform Party contrast sharply with the situation in more established parties whose game plans are in place and well-articulated.
Merging into a single bloc now will result in valuable time and resources being wasted on wrangling over leadership positions and bickering over bureaucratic imbroglios, instead of focusing on substantive policy issues.
A call for unity without proper justification will hardly convince Singaporeans of the opposition's readiness to challenge the status quo.
Nonetheless, what opposition parties can - and should - do is to discuss the distribution of their candidates across the electoral map, to prevent three-way fights.
This would prevent splitting the opposition vote. More importantly, straight fights against the PAP will ensure contests in all constituencies, and allow all eligible Singaporeans to have their say at the ballot box.
Kwan Jin Yao
Disunity is obstructing an effective by-election strategy
The strategy was a hit as it garnered the opposition four seats in the 1991 General Election (GE), a record since Singapore's first GE for Parliament in 1968 when the People's Action Party (PAP) was returned to power on Nomination Day, and when walkovers became virtually a permanent feature thereafter.
A by-election strategy is still relevant. However, with so many opposition parties and self-centred leaders, it is almost impossible now.
One minor disagreement among opposition candidates would result in one of them joining or forming another political party.
The reality is that some opposition candidates can barely hope to keep their election deposits in a GE.
Opposition parties should pick their candidates more carefully.
For instance, those who are older than 60 and have lost in two GEs should refrain from contesting.
In fact, I think the opposition parties cannot find the 43 effective candidates they would need for a by-election strategy in the upcoming GE.
For example, if the Workers' Party can find five credible candidates like party chairman Sylvia Lim, it may have a chance of winning Aljunied GRC by employing the by-election strategy, on the assumption that the PAP is assured of forming the next government on Nomination Day.
A by-election strategy is still relevant. However, with so many opposition parties and self-centred leaders, it is almost impossible now.
One minor disagreement among opposition candidates would result in one of them joining or forming another political party.
The reality is that some opposition candidates can barely hope to keep their election deposits in a GE.
Opposition parties should pick their candidates more carefully.
For instance, those who are older than 60 and have lost in two GEs should refrain from contesting.
In fact, I think the opposition parties cannot find the 43 effective candidates they would need for a by-election strategy in the upcoming GE.
For example, if the Workers' Party can find five credible candidates like party chairman Sylvia Lim, it may have a chance of winning Aljunied GRC by employing the by-election strategy, on the assumption that the PAP is assured of forming the next government on Nomination Day.
Lim Jit Chaing
However, of the 4 opposition voted in that year, 2 were duds. Instead of heralding a new phase in opposition politics, they were a blip on the political radar and a lesson that alternatives need to be credible, viable, feasible, and presentable. The people learnt their lesson and rewarded Chiam and Low, and promptly kicked out the two twits in the next election.
And it has been two ever since.
To counter the By-election effect, the PAP has implemented local election effect with upgrading and asset enhancement offered to "buy" votes. It was worked, but now with most precincts upgraded, there is less to offer.
But the real reason the opposition is in disarray is that the PAP has no ideological weakness, simply because it has no ideology. The members of the opposition flit from one part to another because in the absence of an ideology, the opposition are unable to present a logical, coherent alternative.
If they have an ideology, it is that the PAP is pro-Singapore. And how can any opposition decide to campaign on an Anti-Singapore platform?
Before the opposition even can decide to oppose the PAP, they need to decide what are they opposing? You can oppose policies, but policies can change. You need to oppose principles and ideologies. Or provide an alternative.
Without a ideological or principle platform, all that the opposition can do is oppose policies, which is a weak platform.]
Tackle inflation now
Mar 2, 2011
THE Government has made a strong push in this year's Budget to raise real median incomes over the long term, while Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Workers' Party has called for immediate measures to lower price pressures on consumers by reducing the goods and services tax and reining in the price increases on essential items ('Who will win inflation debate?'; yesterday).
While both measures are at opposite ends of the spectrum of methods to tackle inflation, one via incomes, and the other via prices, the two types of measures are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a combination of both to be used.
Raising real incomes will take time, and such measures will take effect only in the medium to long term.
However, inflation has been a significant problem in the past two to three years, with headline inflation numbers going past 3 per cent more often than not, in stark contrast to the period of sustained low inflation that our economy enjoyed in the previous five to 10 years.
Even if the difficult task of increasing productivity to raise real incomes is successful, the roaring inflation that we are currently experiencing would have already done very significant damage to lower-income families in the interim period.
There are even calls from other voices in the Government to be wary of the harm that inflation has on the social mobility of lower-income families.
Inflation is a clear and present danger that, if not tackled with immediate measures, will do harm that even medium- to longer-term measures cannot repair.
While the Government's plans to raise real incomes are laudable, now is not the time to stand back and allow inflation to rear its ugly head in the short term.
I urge the Government to consider more broad-based short-term measures to tackle inflation, in addition to its longer-term plans.
Tan Jiaqi
[There are perhaps three causes to inflation. One, increased demand, not enough supply. Two, too little supply. Three, too much money supply, with money losing value.
The first situation is happening. As China gets richer, it wants more cars, it wants more goods, it wants better food. As it ramps up its growth in manufacturing, it wants more raw material and it wants more energy, specifically, oil. World demand is rising. You want to stop inflation? How do you stop China?
The second situation is happening. Floods and cyclones in Australia devastated crops and supplies of raw materials. Unrest in the middle east is disrupting oil supplies. Increase cost of oil is raising the cost of transporting food and goods around the world. Chicken from Brazil will cost more when the cost of transporting them increase. How do you ensure supply of food and goods are not affected by weather events and political events?
Reduce GST? And replace that with what?
Subsidise food? For how long? Isn't it more focused to give cash to low income?]
THE Government has made a strong push in this year's Budget to raise real median incomes over the long term, while Mr Low Thia Khiang of the Workers' Party has called for immediate measures to lower price pressures on consumers by reducing the goods and services tax and reining in the price increases on essential items ('Who will win inflation debate?'; yesterday).
While both measures are at opposite ends of the spectrum of methods to tackle inflation, one via incomes, and the other via prices, the two types of measures are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a combination of both to be used.
Raising real incomes will take time, and such measures will take effect only in the medium to long term.
However, inflation has been a significant problem in the past two to three years, with headline inflation numbers going past 3 per cent more often than not, in stark contrast to the period of sustained low inflation that our economy enjoyed in the previous five to 10 years.
Even if the difficult task of increasing productivity to raise real incomes is successful, the roaring inflation that we are currently experiencing would have already done very significant damage to lower-income families in the interim period.
There are even calls from other voices in the Government to be wary of the harm that inflation has on the social mobility of lower-income families.
Inflation is a clear and present danger that, if not tackled with immediate measures, will do harm that even medium- to longer-term measures cannot repair.
While the Government's plans to raise real incomes are laudable, now is not the time to stand back and allow inflation to rear its ugly head in the short term.
I urge the Government to consider more broad-based short-term measures to tackle inflation, in addition to its longer-term plans.
Tan Jiaqi
[There are perhaps three causes to inflation. One, increased demand, not enough supply. Two, too little supply. Three, too much money supply, with money losing value.
The first situation is happening. As China gets richer, it wants more cars, it wants more goods, it wants better food. As it ramps up its growth in manufacturing, it wants more raw material and it wants more energy, specifically, oil. World demand is rising. You want to stop inflation? How do you stop China?
The second situation is happening. Floods and cyclones in Australia devastated crops and supplies of raw materials. Unrest in the middle east is disrupting oil supplies. Increase cost of oil is raising the cost of transporting food and goods around the world. Chicken from Brazil will cost more when the cost of transporting them increase. How do you ensure supply of food and goods are not affected by weather events and political events?
Reduce GST? And replace that with what?
Subsidise food? For how long? Isn't it more focused to give cash to low income?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)