ST Forum Page

Offer cheaper flats with a condition - sell them back to HDB

2011-10-24T08:27:00.001-07:00

Oct 24, 2011

IN HER letter, Ms Chen Xinyi argued that restricting resale of three-room flats to only low-income earners, and pegging resale prices to the original sales price plus the annual inflation rate will disadvantage current as well as future three-room home owners, as they will be unable to leverage on capital gains from the asset to upgrade to a larger flat ('Restricting sale and price of resale 3-room flats won't work'; last Thursday).

There is a legitimate need to supply flats to citizens who simply want a place to live, and are not concerned about capital gains.

Yet if the Government continues to build more flats to keep prices at low levels, existing owners like Ms Chen, who hope for capital appreciation, will be out of luck. There is clearly a need to balance the interests of the two groups.

I suggest that a new restricted sale scheme be implemented for new HDB flats. Then those who buy flats directly from the HDB can choose to buy either under the restricted sale scheme or the current (open market) scheme.

Under the restricted sale scheme, buyers will pay a substantially lower price to the Housing Board. But they must sell the unit back to HDB at the original purchase price, depreciated for the length of stay and adjusted for inflation.

Additional rules like no subletting (regardless of how long the owner has lived in the flat) can also be imposed. In effect, it is a long-term prepaid rental scheme, but with looser income restrictions than existing rental schemes.

The intent of this scheme is to supply flats at a steep discount to citizens who want the flats to simply live in, while isolating their effects on citizens who wish to see the value of their flats appreciate.

The crux of the problem is that HDB flats' resale prices are directly affected by the direct sale prices. One cannot have the best of both worlds, but one should be allowed to choose the scheme that best suits one's needs.

Wah June Hwang

[Was going to critique the writer for proposing what would be better served by a rental scheme, and noted that the writer does recognised that it is a pre-paid rental scheme. Also good that the point is that this scheme would offer people options between just living in a flat and buying one for capital appreciation.

That said, the proposal seems like a unusually circuitous process for a pre-paid rental scheme. Why not just have a looser rental scheme? A looser income criteria for renting flats would be more affordable and less onerous in terms of deposits and down payment.

If people can afford down payments, they might as well try to buy a regular flat. If the "buyer" still needs to pay installments, he might as well just rent. This just gives all the hassle of buying a flat with no real advantage over renting.]

Politicians need to be seen by voters

2011-09-27T10:27:00.001-07:00

Sep 24, 2011

MY LIFE

A recent survey of 1,100 Singaporeans aged 21 and older found that three in 10 'do not trust politicians to act in their best interests'. YouthInk writers suggest why.

I AM a 'cynic' because I don't trust politicians, and one reason I don't trust them is that I rarely see my MP around - except during the elections.

Though I am still a minor, I like to be politically aware because I know in the future, I will play a part in choosing people to lead the country. But I don't believe the brief period before a general election is enough to convince us of the true capabilities of politicians who claim they can take Singapore to greater heights.

The process of scrutinising them has to start years beforehand, to ensure consistency in their actions. I have been to election rallies and heard fiery speeches, but once the hullabaloo of the elections dies down, the politicians seem to disappear.

They are probably working for their constituents but, unfortunately, a lot of it is not visible. One way to stay visible is through social networking, where I can see them responding to feedback and complaints. But that's not enough. Residents need to see their MPs in the flesh, and the best way would be through door-to-door visits. I understand such visits are taxing on MPs, but a visit more than once in five years wouldn't do much harm, would it? It would show us you are taking pains to visit us, and I would be assured that you truly have our best interests at heart.

Lim Shan, 16, is a Secondary 4 student at St Margaret's Secondary School.

[Politics is not just about going around knocking on doors and shaking hands. I don't see my MP, and I don't want to see my MP because I want him to help the people who need help more than me. So no, I don't see my MP because I don't need to see him, but if I do need to see him, I know where to find him. Really, if he comes to my door, I really don't think it is the best time to be discussing any problems I might have. Firstly, it may not be a convenient time for me. I feel about MP walkabouts the same way I feel about door to door sales people.

The other role of the MP is precisely to be a member of parliament. He should be there to debate issues, to raise questions, to propose changes to make our lives a little better.

If he can do that, I don't need to see him at my door.

If you want to be politically aware, read. Find out how things are done. Find out why things are done in a certain way, or what considerations need to be taken into account to make good decisions. Understand that politics is about allocating resources according to policies. Good policies channel resources to where they do the most good for the most people. Bad policies causes more hardship than benefits.

All policies are good and bad. All policies have beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, and all policies have costs, either today or tomorrow.

Understand that there is no free lunch, and that anyone who tells you there is, is lying and trying to con you into voting for him.

Then you would be politically aware.]

Meritocracy's shortcomings

2011-09-20T08:03:00.001-07:00

Sep 20, 2011

THE bottom line is that meritocracy is a euphemism for institutionalising a caste system ("Meritocracy is the only way to tackle inequality fairly" by Dr Khor Swee Kheng and "Level playing field" by Mr Alex Tan; Sept 13).

[Hyperbole. A caste system is one where your position in society is determined by your parentage. The ideology of meritocracy is that one can find one's place in society based on merit. A poor student who can score as high or even higher than a rich student would have as many opportunities as the rich student based on merit.

Now we can agree that the rich student probably have more opportunities because daddy can buy him a place in some foreign university, but that is not because of meritocracy.

And meritocracy is not an euphemism for a caste system. That's just demagoguery.]

The corollary of the so-called positive aspects of meritocracy is that it provides an equal opportunity to also dump the least advantaged into socio-economic badlands in pursuit of individual advantage and influence for oneself above all others. Some call this elitism.

[Explain these "socio-economic badlands" you speak of. A student who cannot make it to JC, has Polytechnics as an option. If that is also beyond his ken, there is ITE. Have you seen the ITE campus at Choa Chu Kang? A veritable monument to the "economic badlands".

Or is everyone suppose to be University graduates? In the 70s, less than 5% of the cohort made it to university. Today, I believe the figure is closer to 26%, with another 43% going to polytechnics. 20% goes to ITE. There is some overlap (ITE may go onto Poly, Poly may go onto University). But taking this as an illustration, almost 70% of a cohort goes to university or polytechnic. This is elitism?

I must have been sick the day they redefined elitism.]

To claim that the alternative to meritocracy is communism is bizarre. Why would Singapore want to be communist?

[I'll accept that is also hyperbole. But the correct response is, then what is this alternative to meritocracy?]

To state that there is such a thing as "compassionate meritocracy" is to make as much sense as former United States president George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism". Putting the term "compassionate" before an ideology does not suddenly add heart power to it.

Coming up with alternatives to a meritocratic system would involve allowing as much freedom to others as we would allow for ourselves, free and equal opportunities for all, and ensuring that we look out for the interests of the least advantaged in society.

[I have taken and defended a very narrow aspect of meritocracy - that of educational meritocracy. This is because this is public policy and practice, figures and statistics are open and transparent, schools are governed by govt policies and in particular the ideology of meritocracy, whereas trying to argue meritocracy in the workplace is a minefield of ego, perception and beyond the direct control of govt policies.

So when someone suggests alternatives to the meritocratic system, the first question is, "so we don't use grades anymore?" The danger is not communism, but American Liberalism. The US education system is still great - people still want to go study in their top universities. But many universities are average, and many schools are not working, particularly for the average children. Where the schools are more concerned about the self-esteem of the child rather than teaching the child skills that the child can be proud to master (and thus solving the self-esteem problem).

So what is the alternative to meritocracy? Assume everyone is equally good (and equally average) and teach at an average level? Or drop standards so even the least able can graduate?

Looking out for the interest of the least advantaged, heck let's call a spade a spade, the most disadvantaged in society is not an issue for meritocracy to address. That's barking up the wrong tree. An abused child is an abused child and the issues are abuse, neglect, absentee parenting, parents addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, work, success, etc. That has nothing to do with meritocracy.

An intellectually or developmentally disabled child is a disabled child and yes meritocracy is going to leave him behind, but the problem is not going to be addressed by de-institutionalising meritocracy or leading an ideological charge against meritocracy as an unthinking, unfeeling, impartial, objective, heartless ideology. It is all that and all that is irrelevant. The disabled child needs specialised help and that is beyond the scope of meritocracy.]

We have to work these ideas out in a constructive manner between the citizenry, government, bureaucracy and other interest groups. This social, economic and political constructivist approach will allow us to create the reality we want.

It is this attitude of being free from ideological obsessions that helped make Singapore a successful state. But as we evolve into a well-ordered society that recognises the value of human beings beyond their talent or so-called economic merit, then we are on the path to creating a just and fair society.

[I suggest you get free of your obsession with meritocracy as the bane of Singapore society. Your concern is valid. Your solution, no so much.]

When we recognise the intrinsic worth of a human being irrespective of race, language or religion, then we are also learning tolerance, kindness and compassion.

Sanjay Perera

[When you can prove that meritocracy is also an euphemism for racism and religious intolerance, in addition to institutionalising a caste system, then we'll talk some more.]

AWARE and Lee Kuan Yew

2011-09-13T07:39:00.001-07:00

Sep 13, 2011

MARRIAGE, MOTHERHOOD AND CAREER
Aware disagrees with Mr Lee

THE stark choice between motherhood and professional advancement presented in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's comments to Ms Joan Sim is not new ('A PhD's fine, but what about love and babies?'; last Tuesday).

In 1983, he said: 'We shouldn't get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the same time, be mothers.'

In 1994, he said that 'attractive and intelligent young ladies' should go to finishing colleges so that they will be 'marvellous helpers of their husband's career'.

And now, Ms Sim has been advised to stop wasting time on her doctorate and find a boyfriend instead. These views contradict the recent statements by Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Halimah Yacob to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw) that gender equality is central to Singapore's socio-economic growth and that 'maximising the full potential of every individual, male or female, is a priority'.

Under Cedaw, the Government is obliged to 'take appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of the conduct of men and women based on the idea of stereotypical roles of men and women'. However, state policies have not kept pace with social developments and changing gender roles.

Fathers are not entitled to paid paternity leave, reinforcing the social expectation that mothers should bear most of the caregiving responsibilities.

Flexible working arrangements attractive to mothers of young children are not widely available. Infant care facilities are inadequate for the country's needs. Such policies make raising children a daunting prospect for working women who want to continue their careers after becoming mothers. The State should take the lead in making family a more attractive option for these women, starting with a change of governmental attitude and the policies stated above.

The Scandinavian countries have shown that appropriate state policies that counter social norms can reverse declining fertility rates.

Public statements made by influential figures like Mr Lee are also important to shaping social attitudes.

Remarks that imply that women belong at home and men should be primarily providers undermine the efforts of men and women who struggle every day to meet the demands of family and working life.

Implying that marriage and motherhood are more important than education and work belittles the choices and contributions of women who prefer to be single or childless.

Such comments also perpetuate sexist stereotypes for a younger generation.

Nicole Tan (Ms)
President
Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)

[And may I say misrepresenting the words of others in order to propel your own agenda is disingenuous at best, and a poor reflection of your reading and comprehension skills. You come out sounding like an over-sensitive harpy ready to pounce on any misperceived slight or misconstrued sexism with strident denunciation and accusation of perpetuating sexist stereotypes.

No. Lee Kuan Yew did not ask the PhD candidate to abandon her studies and get pregnant. (See the excerpt below for reference.)

That was your inability to comprehend simple English or your disingenuous attempt to twist his words to create a false assault on gender equality, allowing you to drag in CEDAW, paternity leave, childcare facilities, etc to further your own public agenda.

Mr Lee's advice to Ms Sim did not perpetuate sexist stereotypes.

Your ridiculous letter of complaint to the forum paints you and the association you head and represent as stereotypical strident feminists with no sense of reality and an over-developed sense of prostitution.]

Excerpt from:
A PhD's fine, but what about love and babies?
6 Sept 2011

The 27-year-old, who is pursuing a doctorate in biological sciences at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), observed that Singapore had accepted a large number of foreign immigrants within a short period of time. She asked what could be done to promote a greater sense of belonging among those here.

Mr Lee said that given Singapore's fast-ageing population and extremely low fertility rate, it needs to accept a sizeable number of immigrants each year, to ensure society has enough young and economically active members.

He then cited figures from projections done by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in an exercise due to be made public later this month.

He said: 'The Institute of Policy Studies has a grim statistic of 60,000 migrants a year to keep our people young and economically active. We can't digest that; 20,000 maybe, 25,000 then you're stretched, but certainly not 60,000.'

He called the latter figure 'politically indigestible'...

Mr Lee then turned the tables on Ms Sim and started gently quizzing her about her personal life, to the surprise and amusement of the audience.

He asked her age and if she was married, to which she said 'no'. He asked her when she would finish her PhD, and she said 'in two years' time'.

He then asked if she had a boyfriend, and again she said 'no'.

He then gave her some advice on why she should try to have children by the age of 35.

'After 35, the dangers of having mongoloid children, Down syndrome, in other words, a dull person, rises. So my advice is, please don't waste time. It's more important and more satisfying than your PhD but good luck to you. I hope you get your PhD and your boyfriend.'

'Online chatter' not just chatter

2011-09-06T08:42:00.000-07:00

Sep 5, 2011

I AM shocked by what political scientists passed off as prescient commentary in last month's presidential election.

Dr Derek da Cunha ('What observers say'; Aug 28) stated that 'online chatter' was irrelevant to the May 7 General Election and the Aug 27 presidential election.

Really? 'Online chatter' was how the People's Action Party (PAP) discerned how unhappy Singaporeans were with policies, personnel and politicking in the GE. 'Online chatter' was why a relative unknown like Mr Tan Jee Say grabbed a 25 per cent share of the votes on Aug 27. 'Online chatter' cannot be dismissed any more.

[Bullcrap. In the first PE, the virtual unknown Chua Kim Yeow won 41%. There was no internet chatter then in 1993. Tan Jee Say's 25% proves nothing other than the fact the 25% of voters were optimistic. Or pessimistic depending on your point of view.]

That is why the Government, wisely, used a light touch in navigating 'online chatter'.

Dr da Cunha said that the PAP vote held up on Aug 27. Again, really? In the first contested presidential election in 1993, Singaporeans gave a reluctant Mr Chua Kim Yeow 41.3 per cent of the votes against a PAP-backed Mr Ong Teng Cheong, who expected well over 65 per cent.

Dr Tony Tan, the favourite candidate and most closely linked with the PAP in this year's election, should have swept most of the 60 per cent pro-PAP GE votes. By obtaining only about one-third of overall votes, he was clearly affected by his PAP link.

[And I say 70% voted PAP - split between the two Doctors from PAP.]

The only certainty now is that the PAP must be repositioned to 'change the conversation' about itself, to quote from the TV series Mad Men.

[Go back to watching TV, you couch potato.]

Singaporeans like myself are asking ourselves why we, as a nation, are dazed, confused and frustrated now more than before.

[So you agree with the other commentary that we should have an electoral college system to elect the President? So as to avoid further confusing and dazing you.]

We need a catharsis and it will not appear because results come after the fact, or because the Prime Minister asks us to move on.

We seem to have just finished a huge family quarrel. We need time to cool down, settle and discover fresh sensibilities within the new order - winners and losers both.

For that to happen, mainstream media like The Straits Times must find the people's authentic pulse; visionaries and insightful individuals must ask probative questions and share valid views; comedians must nudge us and artists, inspire us.

[You have us confused with the US culture. We do not have an tradition of comedians nudging us or artists inspiring us. No Sharon Au hugging Tony Tan does not count. Seriously, you want us to take inspiration from Hossan Leong? Gurmit Singh? Sheik Haikel? Stefanie Sun? Fann Wong?

Not to say that their views are irrelevant, but how are they authoritative. Oh wait. You are a couch potato and so you believe everything TV tells you.]

We need leaders committed to creating a healthy public space where we can all agree to disagree but have the best for Singapore in our hearts.

What we don't need are political scientists who offer no clues.

[Or forum writers from an alternate TV universe.]

Anand A. Vathiyar

Sep 6, 2011

Beware of political opportunists online

MR ANAND Vathiyar's assertion that Internet chatter played a major role in our final choice of president cannot be wrong ('Online chatter not just chatter'; yesterday).

["Played a role" does not imply that the role was responsible, intentional, or had the intended effect. I would say that if internet chatter had an effect it was to create a bias view that Tan Jee Say was leading and may have drawn some voters to him instead of say Tan Cheng Bock, and leading to the unintended freak result of Dr Tony Tan winning the election. So yes, in that sense it "played a role". ]

From the upheaval in Egypt and Libya to the recognition of epidemics way before the health authorities were aware of their presence, online chatter has proven influential.

Unfortunately, a significant amount of Internet chatter comes not from the genuinely aggrieved, but from the politically opportunistic who hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

Half-truths and misinterpreted statistics are perpetuated and made believable because they are replicated thousands of times on the Internet.

There are many local insightful political blogs that provide discursive commentary on Singaporean issues. Read discriminately, they can complement The Straits Times in providing counterpoise in its political and social coverage.

Unfortunately, unlike The Straits Times, which allows only civil debate and riposte with editorial adjudication, Internet chatter is replete with uncivil name-calling, where contrary ideas are shouted down by threatening claques of naysayers and any meaningful exchange of opinions is not possible.

It is no wonder then that the blogosphere artificially amplifies pessimism, negativism and nihilism.

Dr Yik Keng Yeong

Proud of national service precisely because it is a sacrifice

2011-09-02T08:41:00.001-07:00

Proud of national service precisely because it is a sacrifice

Sep 2, 2011

MS SERENE Wong ('NS is no burden'; Aug 22) was wrong when she rebutted recent presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian ('Kin Lian: Make NS a privilege, not a burden'; Aug 20).

How can military training that prepares a person for the highly complex and dangerous task of defending one's country not be a huge load to bear?

If it is no burden at all, I would question the quality of our military training.

Usually, the only ones who feel little or no burden are those in non-combat positions.

If Ms Wong remains unconvinced, she should ask why first-generation naturalised male citizens are not required to perform national service.

The Government is fully aware that it is not a small load and it does not want to deter potential new citizens from choosing to sink their roots in Singapore.

[Not just that. A new citizen may be a military spy or saboteur, or he may have divided loyalties. If we should have a military action against his former country, his loyalties would be unduly tested.]

I applaud Mr Tan for standing up for national servicemen.

His call for greater recognition of the sacrifice servicemen make is worth serious consideration by the Government.

Without that sacrifice, nationhood for Singaporeans would quickly become a thing of the past.

We should highlight the fact that national service is indeed a burden.

It is precisely because it is a burden - and defending our nation the responsibility of citizens - that servicemen are proud to be called upon to bear it.

Michael Ang

[But it sounds self-serving to ask for more recognition for National Service. TKL is wrong to do so. In asking for more recognition, he is in effect asking that we compensate NS men more completely, but it can never be adequately compensated. it is not a commercial transaction. The reason army speaks of duty, and honour, and loyalty and pride, is because these ideas drive and motivate people. If you replace it or attempt to compensate for these burdens of pride and loyalty, you exchange a sense of duty, with a sense of mercantilism. When your Sarge asks you to "Take that hill!" you're supposed to say, "yes sir!" not "How much?"

Men do to march to war because they were paid well. Men do not face death because they will be amply compensated for their death.]

Dr Tony Tan wins Presidential Election with 35.2% of votes. Sore losers erupt.

2011-08-29T21:18:00.001-07:00

ST Facebook post:

"It is disturbing that an elected president did not receive more than a 50 per cent majority of votes," says our reader. Do you agree?

Selected comments from Facebook (I've taken those that wanted a re-vote. There were also some who said, we should live with the results as it is. But there were sore losers. Seems like those from the TJS camp. The TCB camp were mostly pro-stable govt and would have wanted TCB, but accepted TT as president.)

"Ya 65% did not vote for TT! Re election ..TT vs TCB!"

"Yes, agree that there shuld be re-election among the two. only then, we'll see who's the real winner!!"

"I find hard to accept TT as our president as 65% of the voters didn't support him. It just goes to show how many Singaporeans dislike him."

"Should use the Altenative Vote or Instant-Runoff election methods. ALOT more fairer in a multi-cornered contest."

"TOC and TR FB voters liked for TCB and TJS. We were at one point did not know who to vote for. Therefore I disagree. TCB is the only candidate that appeals to both Pro and Oppositions parties."

My Comments:
In such an election, you choose who you think would be the best president. 25% thought TJS was the one. No one else agreed. 5% thought TKL was the one. no one else did. Everyone has one vote. One opinion. One choice. No "backsies". Welcome to the adult world. You're not in primary school anymore.

If you think TCB would have been the better choice why didn't you vote for him in the first place?

If you voted TJS or TKL as the best choice why are you now willing to back another? What happen to strength of conviction? Loyalty? Or now that you know the "crowd" is with TCB, you wanna follow the crowd? Where is your independence of thought you bunch of cows?

----

Tan Jee Say is one deluded candidate. He thinks (constitutional) rules don't apply to the presidency. Not surprisingly, he attracts people who are equally deluded, and thinks (election) rules don't apply. He lost the GE. He thinks the PE is a second chance. Nor surprisingly he attracts people who think life is a game, that you can always reload saved game if you lose and get a second chance.

The PAP warned about a freak election result if voters anyhow vote. Well, we got a FREAK election result, didn't we?

TCB should have won, but because TJS conned gullible voters into supporting his delusional presidential gambit, he pulled enough voters away from the real alternative.

And the TJS voters now say, "sorry sorry, I anyhow vote. Have a second election, can?"

If you truly believe in your candidate, do you stand and defend him even in defeat, or do you find the next credible challenger and back him? The candidate attracts the people that reflects his character. The TJS voters who now asks for a round 2 of voting are fickle fickle voters of no integrity. They used TJS and TJS used them. They deserve each other.

And the best part, TJS has the unmitigated gall to think that if he didn't stand for election, all his voters would have spoilt their votes. What utter chutzpah! What delusions! What an ego!

He is just trying to assuage his guilt of having help perpetrated a FREAK election result.

TKL has been humbled at the polls and he has accepted defeat with humility. For that, I respect him. And I wish he didn't have to lose his deposit. I don't support him, and I think if he had pulled out, perhaps some of his votes might have gone to TCB. Maybe even enough to make TCB president. But what is done is done.

Place limits on foreign pro runners

2011-07-31T11:40:00.001-07:00

Jul 31, 2011

I refer to the article, 'Kenyan bags Shape Run 10k to make it two on the trot' (last Monday), which stated that Kenyan Eunice Muchiri (above) won all four races in Singapore in which she specifically came here for.

As much as she deserves to win, the reality is that a foreign professional runner has deprived worthy locals of a chance to shine, for they can in no way match the times of these professional runners.

It is meaningless to join these races when foreign professional runners arrive here with the sole aim of sweeping the top prizes, and then disappear from the local running scene.

While I understand the need for international events like the Standard Chartered Marathon to attract elite runners, the smaller local events - such as the Great Eastern Women 10K , Jurong Lake Run, Marina 21K Women's Open and Shape Run - are clearly to encourage local participation, so there is no real need to attract these foreign runners.

Organisers of such events should either limit the participation of these professionals - perhaps ruling that they can participate but not win prizes - or have a separate category of prizes for them.

Cindy Tan (Ms)

[To you it's a prize. To those runners it's a living. They are pros. This is what they do to make a living. Don't want to attract them, then the prize money should be reduced. For as long as the money is worth their while, they will come to make a living. Restrict to Singaporeans only? Then the prize will not be very much, and the prestige is not great either. The organisers want international recognition if they can get it.]

Public consultation not a populist measure

2011-06-28T16:06:00.001-07:00

Jun 29, 2011

I REFER to last Saturday's report ('Getting all on board in steering S'pore'). The debate on how to resolve policy dilemmas is a tremendously challenging one, primarily because no single decision can please everyone.

[Right. Taxing cigarettes is neutral to most people but makes smokers unhappy. Taxing rich people more makes most people ambivalent or even slightly happy, but unlikely to make rich people happy.]

Socio-economic policy direction and discussion should not be perceived as being mutually exclusive.

[And here you miss the point totally. It's not about direction and discussion. It is about decisions, and the rationale for the decision.]

Policymakers must customise their methodologies based on the characteristics of the concerns, their level of urgency and the groups of Singaporeans involved.

[When the objective criteria should be the nature of the problem, the reasonable options and feasible solutions.]

Clearly, the actual decision-making process should continue to be managed by parliamentarians, who have been given the mandate to do so, and who will ensure that efficiency is not compromised. However, prior to that, they have to proactively solicit feedback from their constituents, so that different perspectives can be taken into consideration.

This particular role of the politician has remained largely unchanged throughout the years, but varying local circumstances - especially after the recent general election - have presented a significantly new landscape for our ministers and MPs.

First, there has been greater diversity in the stakeholders involved. Traditionally, feedback and opinions have been gathered from a select group of professionals - from academics to private-sector experts - through policy study workgroups and various feedback sessions. Now, given the rapid dissemination of information and the better-educated population, more individuals are desirous of having a say through engagement platforms.

[Just because they want to have a say, doesn't mean they have anything meaningful, intelligent, objective, informed or salient to say or add to the discussion. Just read any damn online comments on any news story.]

Second, there has been a rise in the number of platforms and corresponding responses offered by their users. Most notably, communication through the Internet has evolved to become more of a necessity than an option. Even though new media channels per se are not the most productive avenues to articulate public policies, their administrators should have the ability to sieve out constructive criticisms and raise consultation rates.

The trick is to develop a diverse range of feedback forums to cater to different groups of Singaporeans: Facebook pages, spontaneous e-mail messages and blogs would appeal to on-the-go professionals who simply want to give their two cents' worth, while carefully crafted online policy workgroups would attract serious-minded Singaporeans who wish to engage in sustainable conversations, and simultaneously develop recommendations or resolutions to the host of observations.

Public consultation cannot be casually dismissed as being populist appeasement.

[But it is. Two cents worth? Not even that at most time. Most feedback are self-serving at best.]

The proliferation of personal views has gathered pace even in the previous absence of government involvement; it would be a pity if the authorities refuse to acknowledge their value.

Kwan Jin Yao

[Opinions are a dime a dozen and during the GSS, buy 12 get 1200 free. Most people are uninformed and are unmotivated to be informed beyond where they want to go for lunch and where's the best place to get a good deal on an iphone. Ask anyone about nuclear power in Singapore and most will say NIMBY. Politicians need to sell their idea, and more importantly, they need to get the people to buy into their idea. Consultation is one way to get buy-in. If consultation is to get ideas, we obviously need to get better experts if the hoi polloi can come up with better ideas.]

A uniquely Singapore system based on first come, first served principle

2011-05-29T08:18:00.001-07:00

May 29, 2011

Your letters

I am irked by people who question our uniquely Singaporean seat reservation system at hawker centres and foodcourts.

[And I am irked by your stupid letter and lack of comprehension.]

These places operate on a first come, first served basis.

[Ya, so I come first, see an empty space, go buy my food, come back and see packets of tissues "choping" the seats by people who came later than me.]

The people who find tissue packs placed on tables to reserve the seats are facing a fact: They have got there later than others. However, these latecomers refuse to accept this fact and, instead, start a flood of discussions and classify this seat-reserving behaviour as an embarrassment.

[So will you give up our tissue-choped seats to someone with a tray of food? Obviously if they have a tray of food, they were here earlier than you. Except that you plonked your tissue on the table first.]

In my experience, this tissue pack reservation system operates only in crowded places where there are insufficient seats available, such as in Shenton Way food centres during peak hours.

I seldom come across the practice in heartland areas like Ang Mo Kio.

I do not know if placing a 'reserved' card issued by the hawker centre will be any more acceptable to people who are against a reservation system. If they disagree with first come, first served as a principle, nothing will make them any happier - be it a card, umbrella, book or even bodies.

The tissue pack system is the cheapest to operate.

[But inherently rude and inefficient. If people got their food then look for their seat, there would be less space waste. As it is you see "empty" tables occupied by tissue packs while people with hot food unable to find a seat wander desperately about. This kiasu, kiaboh mentality is inconsiderate. But you don't see it, cos you are inconsiderate.]

If we decide that a First World country cannot practise such an 'unseemly' system and deem this an embarrassment, let's design one which includes issuing seat numbers and having a crowd manager. Then voila, we have a system resembling a restaurant.

Then my fishball noodles may cost $5 instead of $3.50.

But seriously, people should just live and let live, and let peace prevail.

Lam Wen-li (Ms)

No discounts needed if ministers' pay is set fairly

2011-05-29T08:07:00.001-07:00

May 29, 2011

Your letters

I refer to last Sunday's report ('Ministerial pay to be reviewed'), which quoted Mr Gerard Ee, the head of a committee to review ministers' salaries, as saying that 'whatever we work out, the final answer must include a substantial discount on comparable salaries in the private sector and people looking at it will say, 'these people are serving and making a sacrifice''.

There is a jewellery shop here known for advertising huge discounts. But it is an open secret that its prices are highly inflated. The discount is only a marketing gimmick.

We do not need discounts if the salaries of ministers are set to fairly reflect the worth of their jobs. It is questionable to peg their salaries to inappropriately high pay, and then reduce these with 'discounts'.

One's pay should be commensurate with the job, and one should be held 100per cent responsible to deliver on it. We should have no qualms paying for performance, not because it is necessary to attract the right people, but because it is fair. What is currently lacking is the penalty when ministers fail to deliver. Ministers should have clearly publicised and closely monitored key performance indicators relevant to their jobs.

[With CEOs of corporations, where the bottom line is clearly profit, you can make such stupid, lame, seemingly intelligent statements with phrases like "pay for performance", "penalty for failure to deliver", "key performance indicators". What the elections have show is that people want a more consultative government, which is not a KPI or if it were a KPI, would be subject to manipulation. Imagine, relentless consultation with the people and no decision or action. On the other hand imagine quick decisions and action but with complaints of no consultation. How do you balance such demands and reduce it to a KPI? or two contradictory KPIs?]

While the current pay formula already includes gross domestic product growth, it should also incorporate other economic indicators, such as inflation rates, housing price indices, employment figures and median wages of citizens in all income brackets.

These would better correlate the Government's performance, and thus ministers' salaries, with the well-being of the majority, rather than a small minority who benefit the most each year.

With the right salary formula, it will be bizarre to deliberately underpay ministers just so that people can see them as making a sacrifice - this makes a mockery of the meaning of sacrifice.

Chen Junyi

[But that is what the hoi polloi wants. And that is politics.]

Create cheaper class of flats

2011-05-26T10:27:00.001-07:00

Peg price to three times median household income but with shorter lease, stricter conditions
May 26, 2011

Letter from Eric Tan Heng Chong

As the new Cabinet gets down to work pledging a fresh look at existing public polices and an innovative approach to policy-making, I would like to offer a proposal to address the Housing and Development Board (HDB) affordability issue.

The HDB should go back to its roots of focusing solely on providing affordable housing for the majority of Singaporeans, instead of the other current objective of asset enhancement of the flats as a financial asset for investment or retirement.

Firstly, we need to define affordability. The Government's definition of affordability is in terms of 30-year loans; a better definition would be in terms of a price that is pegged to three times the annual median household income. This suggests that a housing loan can be paid off within a 10- to 15-year time frame.

For example, a family with a median household income of about S$3,800 per month or S$46,000 per year would be able to afford a four-room apartment if it is priced at $137,000 (three times annual household income).

At this price, they can take a 15-year loan to pay for the flat and the family will be able to save for retirement, children's education and future medical expenses for the remaining 15 years of their working life. Currently, the average four-room HDB flat is priced at five to six times annual household income, which is in excess of about S$265,000, hence the need for 30-year mortgages.

To solve this problem, the HDB could create a new segment of flats similar to what we have done in the car market, where we have normal and off-peak cars.

For this new segment, the HDB could price its flats at three times the median annual household income of applicants but subject these flats to more stringent restrictions to reflect the price difference from normal flats.

These restrictions, which would be in additional to the conditions that apply to normal flats, could include the following: Owners of such flats cannot own private housing at all; no permanent resident can own these flats; no cash-over-valuation is allowed; and a shorter lease of, for example, 60 years.

In addition, owners could be allowed to sell the flat to upgrade but the prices would be set by the HDB, which would index the price increases to median income increases, to ensure the three-times ratio is maintained. The prices would go up if the median household income goes up.

[This measure to restrict the owner to selling the flat at the same price peg at the time of sale less wear
and tear and other disamenities (if the owner had not taken care of the building) or with additional value that the seller may have invested is sufficient. So the owner can only sell it to another low income applicant (pre-approved by HDB), just like a off-peak car must be sold as an off-peak car. No need shorter lease.]

This list of conditions can be expanded further to make it clear that this segment of flats is subsidised by the state for Singaporeans to live in and not intended as a financial investment for their retirement.

In short, Singaporeans would have the choice of buying a HDB flat at either a higher price based on the existing terms; or a lower price subject to more restrictive terms. This may not be the ideal solution but at least it helps to address affordability issues.

URL http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC110526-0000359/Create-cheaper-class-of-flats

[My concern is that these "subsidised flats" will become ghettoes. Because the owner can never expect to profit from property appreciation, he would not have the incentive to maintain the value of the flat. It would become run-down despite the best efforts of HDB and town councils.]

Accord minister's pay to leader of opposition

2011-05-26T08:11:00.001-07:00

May 26, 2011

WHILE I am delighted to read that the policy on ministers' salaries is being reviewed ('Ministerial pay to be reviewed'; Sunday), the review committee may also wish to consider paying the leader of the opposition a salary.

In Britain, the opposition leader, who carries the title of the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition in its Parliament, is paid a salary equivalent to a minister's, on top of his MP's salary.

He is also given a chauffeur-driven car whose cost and specification is equivalent to the vehicles used by Cabinet ministers.

Workers' Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang could take on such a role here. In a way, he and his colleagues represent about 40 per cent of our citizenry. His responsibilities and contributions should be recognised.

With the increased number of opposition members in Parliament and with the formation of a committee to review political office-holders' salaries, now may be the appropriate time to consider allocating a salary for the leader of the 'loyal opposition'.

This would reflect the inclusive government that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong aspires to have.

I would like to emphasise the words 'loyal opposition' as I feel that Mr Low and his party have always believed it is possible to be in the opposition and yet remain loyal to Singapore.

Lee Tow Kiat

[Yes. We should pay Low Thia Khiang the equivalent of a Minister's pay for being the leader of the opposition. Nevermind if we don't know what he is supposed to do. In the UK the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition is like the Alternative to the Prime Minister, and is a member of the Privy Council and advises the British Sovereign. The incumbent also runs a shadow cabinet precisely because he is supposed to be an alternative to the PM. We don't have a Privy Council, but we do have a Council of Presidential Advisors. Low can be a member!

So what if there is only 6 elected opposition MPs? There's 3 NCMPs! That's nine opposition MPs who can form a shadow Cabinet. Just double-hat a little.

Low as Shadow PM and Minister for Defence, Sylvia as Shadow Minister for Finance and Home Affairs, Chen Show Mao Shadow Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs, Pritam Singh Shadow Minister for Education and Manpower, Md Faisal Shadow Minister for Community Development, Youth & Sports, and Environment & Water Resources, Yaw Shin Leong Shadow Minister for National Development, and Transport. NCMPs Yee Jenn Jong as Shadow Minister for Trade & Industry, Gerald Giam as Shadow Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Lina Chiam as Shadow Minister for Health.

Entirely workable. And now there is a back-up plan (shadow cabinet) if the PAP fails.

And the next time Sylvia stands up to criticise the Minister's salary, Low will also feel uncomfortable.

I thought the writer of this was a pro-WP supporter, but I realise now, he is a scheming PAP-supporter who seems to be innocently pushing for more resources for the WP, but is actually laying the foundation for the corruption and downfall of the WP!

Incredible!]

Aljunied delay remains inexplicable

2011-05-17T00:18:00.001-07:00

May 17, 2011

MEDIACORP'S reply last Friday ("MediaCorp explains why Aljunied result came after 2am") will surely assist voters and viewers alike to better appreciate or understand the constraints and limitations under which it covered GE2011.

But where the public is concerned, the question still remains unanswered.

If, as reported, Mr George Yeo himself was preparing to concede as early as 11pm, and his opponent, Mr Low Thia Khiang, too was already preparing to celebrate victory, what was it that stood in the way of an earlier public announcement of this crucial result by the Returning Officer?

One could reasonably expect the results of small constituencies with around 20,000 voters (like Whampoa and Yuhua) with clear-cut majorities to be among the first to be announced.

Admittedly, Aljunied is not in this smaller group, but the winning margin was convincing and unambiguous enough.

Why then the inordinate delay in making public the polling result of this particular constituency, which was so eagerly awaited by the people?

Hopefully, the official body supervising the election exercise will now offer its explanation to clear the air on the matter.

Narayana Narayana

[Looking at a pile of ballots after it has been sorted, a candidate can see which pile is higher, and which is lower, and you would be an unmitigated optimist to think that maybe the count will be in your favour when you consistently have the smaller pile. Except with very close counts (like in potong pasir) or with very mixed results (some wards going one way, and others going the other way), would an observer be unable to estimate the final result.

BUT the election process (counting) will have to continue. Surely we do not expect the RO to say, pursuant to my eyeballs, I hereby declare WP the winner of Aljunied, because any idiot can clearly see their pile of ballot papers is obviously higher than that of the PAP.

So the ballots still have to be counted to the very last ballot, the resulted checked and confirmed. And with so many votes to count, there may well be errors to correct, discrepancies to resolved, and finally results to be reported by each counting centre, confirmed and finally recorded and announced by the RO.

Delays happen for many reasons. Most are not for devious reasons. Did the delay caused the results to be different? Did the unduly long delay lead to intolerable excitement causing one or more over-anxious voter to have a heart attack and die?

Does Narayana Narayana (so nice, they named him twice) suspect foul play on the part of the PAP? How? Maybe they were so shocked the asked the RO to delay the announcement so that they have time to write their concession speech? Or maybe the WP asked for more time to write their victory speech. Or to bring more supporters to the assembly area. Or the police asked for a delay to allow them to deploy more officers for crowd control. Or maybe there was a technical problem or some sort or other (Maybe the RO needed to practice saying "Aljunied" properly).

In other words, what was the big deal? Does Nara-Nara write in to complain to the Academy Awards for awarding all the meaningless little titles for 150 minutes before announcing the best picture, best actor and best actress awards? What's his problem? He explained on May 11:]

From ST May 11:
MR NARAYANA NARAYANA: 'Sunday's article on the keen contest for Aljunied GRC ('From political gamble to election history') starts by recalling that Foreign Minister George Yeo called his wife Jennifer about 11pm on Polling Day and calmly told her: 'We have lost.' The report further informs that an hour later, his opponent, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was preparing for what would perhaps be the sweetest victory speech of his career. So, it must seem obvious that the Workers' Party had clinched the critical Aljunied constituency. But the hundreds of thousands of viewers who were not privy to such information sat glued to the designated TV channels awaiting the crucial outcome, which was not announced until after 2am, by which time I had decided to call it a night. A few minutes afterwards, I heard cheers in the neighbourhood and guessed, correctly, that the opposition had pulled off the near-impossible. Viewers deserve an explanation for the long delay (three hours) in what was arguably the most eagerly awaited result of the election. With the winning majority of over 12,000 votes, even a call for a recount was hardly likely to have changed the outcome. Don't viewers and voters need greater consideration in such supposedly 'live' and 'on-the-spot' coverage?'

[Well, I guess, if it's not important enough for you to stay awake, it's just not that important. You can check the news the next day. Or do you expect the RO at the next election to say, Pursuant to Mr Narayana Narayana bedtime which was set by his parents as to be no later than 2.00 am, and to all those supporters standing in the fields with poor cardiac health, and poor bladder control, I hereby declare... ?]

He came, he left, he's back and leaving again...

2011-04-26T20:38:00.000-07:00

Apr 27, 2011

I LEFT my home country 16 years back in search of greener pastures and came to Singapore on a work permit.
I married a wonderful woman from Singapore, who has been my life partner for the past 13 years. I bought a home here and fell in love with Singapore for its safety, tolerance among the different races and convenience.
Five years ago, I had to leave for an overseas job offer based in London and thought that it would give us a better lifestyle. The adjustment was enormous, in terms of culture and standard of living. After two years, I decided to return to Singapore since this country had spoilt me in terms of its high living standards, efficiency, safety and ease of living, and I realised how much we missed "home".

Sadly, even though I have more than two decades of experience behind me, I have been doing odd jobs to sustain myself and all my funds have dried up in the past two years.

My wife and I have decided to leave, not because we are quitters but because we want to start a family and feel that the emphasis is now on getting foreigners to fill up the job market rather than taking care of citizens who have given a major part of their lives to the development of this country.
Virdi Bhupinder

[Oh the irony.]

Pragmatism shouldn't be only consideration

2011-04-18T08:00:00.000-07:00

Apr 18, 2011

READING the many opinions for and against a multi-party government, I think we need to first re-examine the assumption that alternative parties will challenge the incumbent's policies blindly and that they do not have Singapore's interest at heart.

Members of the opposition parties are after all fellow Singaporeans, who had their education under the same system and grew up in a similar social and cultural climate. And theirs and their families' well-being will mirror the state of health of Singapore.

Granted, they have different ideologies and choose to look at issues through different perspectives, and they definitely do not have the experience that People's Action Party (PAP) members have of running a country. But does that mean their views are definitely always wrong?

Looking at the Parliament speeches, blogs and interviews of the members of these alternative parties, I must say there are interesting ideas raised which seem plausible and deserve further discussion.

While I am impressed by the rigorous process that PAP has put in place to identify its talent pool, there is always a concern that such a formulaic selection process will inevitably value some attributes over the others. So no matter how diverse the talents are as claimed, one cannot help feeling that they are just more of the same.

Although there may be no "groupthink" within the PAP, can it be that the group is so conditioned to think what is best for Singapore mostly in terms of economic values and social efficiency, that other less valued factors are not taken as much into consideration or given as much weight during the deliberation process?

Good deliberation can occur only when groups with truly different ideologies, not bound by one-party discipline, are able to come together to each present their perspectives and understand why it can or cannot work.

[Because this writer's tone is respectful, I shall restrain myself from my usual rant.

I do not see how good deliberation can occur with members of the group with truly different ideologies. If one party believes that the free market is the best way for economic growth and government regulation just distorts the market, and the other party believes that while on the whole the free market does work, the natural greed and exploitative instincts of businesses needs to be controlled and regulated, the two parties will never be able to agree on how to regulate business. One will insist that it is necessary to rein in excesses, while the other will accuse the first of being an interventionist govt that will only distort and skew the market. How can there ever be a decision?]

Only then can the resulting resolution or compromise claim to have been fully looked at from all angles and not just based on the most pragmatic reasons.

As we have moved away from the survival phase of nation-building, pragmatism should no longer be the main or only consideration for policymaking.

[If not pragmatism, what? Idealism? Non-pragmatism? ]

For me, a good government does not necessarily equate a one-party government, but it is one which is formed by morally sound and competent individuals. I look forward to the day when competent and upright Singaporeans, with the same heart to serve, regardless of their ideologies, can pull their weight together for the betterment of Singapore.

[So are you saying that the current government is immoral, unsound, incompetent and made up of non-upright Singaporeans?]

Lee Jing Yng (Ms)

Don't judge system with Western eyes

2011-04-18T07:47:00.000-07:00

Apr 18, 2011

RECENTLY, certain opposition groups have attempted to disparage our political system as being "Third World" just because political power here is largely in the hands of a single party ("WP's goal: A First World Parliament"; April 10).

Politics and economics are closely intertwined, like the relationship between mind and body. Just as a strong and healthy body needs to be sustained over the long term by a healthy mind, so too a country's economy needs a strong and healthy political system to nurture it on a long-term basis.

Each country should adopt the political system best suited to its needs. The two-party system may be more democratic and suitable for some countries, but for a country like Singapore with its historical development, small size, multiracial mix and lack of natural resources, the kind of system we now have is probably a better, if not the best, choice.

So we should not judge whether our political system is First World or Third World through Western eyes. If our economic and other achievements have attained First World standards, then our political system must also be First World, through our own eyes at least. It would be dangerous and foolish to discard something which has worked well just because it does not conform to foreign (mainly Western) norms.

Tan Gim Kheng

[I do not disagree with the conclusion, but with the process and the argument. Or perhaps the title.

To say that we need to judge not based on Western eyes, is to impute a cultural bias or a cultural content to governance and politics.

The difference I see is not about more democracy or less democracy, but the mechanisms of democracy.

The two party system in the US, with the built-in check-and-balance is designed to slow down govt. That must first be understood. Their historical baggage is an inherent distrust of government. The two-party system has evolved into ideological opposites that sees working together and compromise as the betrayal of party beliefs.

The system is inherently unworkable.

Not because of Western values or perspective.

But perhaps what the writer simply means to say is be courageous enough to see with reasonable and objective eyes and understand how the current system works rather than blindly following ideological principles which may be unsound.]

Flawed understanding of multi-party system

2011-04-16T08:57:00.001-07:00

Apr 16, 2011

I REFER to Mr Daniel Yew's commentary on Thursday ("Is a multi-party system good for S'pore?"), in which he uses the analogies of a committee and an army to highlight the pitfalls of a multi-party system.

Both analogies are flawed.

Having a multi-party system is not akin to increasing the size of a committee. Rather, it is analogous to the view that a committee should be made up of different members of the company. Whether it is for a dinner and dance event or improving productivity, committee members are usually appointed from different departments to ensure proper representation of the company.

Similarly, his suggestion of widening the input of ideas in the army by consulting every soldier, as an analogy of a "many views" system gone wrong, is like asking the Government to consult every Singaporean. No, this is not what a multi-party system entails.

[So far so good. Multi-party system is not the same as direct democracy.]

He also mentioned that an army is best led by an able general who draws upon the advice and experience of his general staff. But isn't this a fine example of a multi-party system? The commanding officer listens and consults not just his rifle company commanders who lead the fighting forces, but also the support weapons and logistics commanders on support, back-up plans and contingencies. Isn't that what a multi-party system is for?

Khong Kiong Seng

[No. A general who consults all his unit commanders is like the Prime Minister who consults all his Ministers, who by the way are from the same party. A less dominant party with more opposition MPs is like a general with fewer advisers as unit commanders are lost to the enemy, or units are commanded by whichever is the most senior officer as key commanders (Minister-calibre MPs) are lost in battle.

But I take the point that the army is a bad analogy, as is the committee analogy.

Because the opposition party in parliament has no role other than to question and to object to the proposals of the ruling party. They can of course agree and support some of the ruling parties proposals but if they support ALL the ruling party's initiatives, why are they in Parliament? How are they opposition? They can of course offer suggestions and amendments that they believe will improve the ruling party's bills, or they can even propose their own bill for debate (just as Walter Woon did for the maintenance of parent's bill, and he was just an NMP). BUT the ruling party is under no obligation to accept their suggestions or amendments, and they have no leverage to force the ruling party to amend or withdraw the bill for those requiring a simple majority. For those that require a two-third majority, if there are enough opposition, they can block such proposals (usually to amend the constitution).

So if the previous writer has misunderstood the scope of a multi-party system, this writer has not shown a clearer understanding either.]

Apr 16, 2011
Multi-party system can address talent shortage

MR EUGENE Tan gave examples of countries having two- or multi-party systems that failed miserably or ran into trouble and concluded that a one-party system is better ("UK, US? Give him a S'pore MP any day"; Wednesday).

But is it simply because of the nature of a multi-party system or are there other reasons? I doubt converting to a one-party system would help those countries to do better than they are today.

I think it is down to the quality of people chosen as leaders rather than the failure of the system itself. If you had ineffective people operating in a one-party system, it would failed as well.

[True! Very true! Signs of higher order thinking? Or just pure fluke? After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.]

Singapore has done well thus far because of the quality of its leaders rather than the system itself. But can we guarantee that this will be so in the future?

Indeed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that there is a lack of talent in Singapore. If that were so, all the more reason we should adopt a multi-party system so that we can cast the net wider in search of talent.

We should not accept a one-party system simply because there is a shortage of talent. Rather we should find ways to solve the shortage problem.

Tan Wei Cheng

[And... this is a stopped clock apparently. ]

Chinese may forgive, but not forget

2011-04-10T11:22:00.001-07:00

Apr 11, 2011

I SUPPORT greater rapport and cooperation between China and Japan ("Give credit where it's due"; March 28). However, the crux of the matter is that until today, the Japanese government has never openly admitted to nor fully apologised or expressed sincere remorse for the atrocities or inhumane war crimes it committed during World War II.

In contrast to Germany, whose leaders have sincerely apologised for and admitted to WWII crimes, the Japanese government rewrote their school history textbooks and described the invasion of China as an 'in and out' military manoeuvre, and they have even denied that the Nanjing Massacre happened despite the historical evidence.

Historically, China and Japan's relationship has been wrought with events that have left deep wounds on China's psyche that cannot be easily erased. Such incidents include the Japanese invasion prior to and during WWII which caused millions of Chinese casualties, the infamous Nanjing Massacre, biological and chemical warfare and experiments conducted on the Chinese people by the Japanese Army (for example, by their notorious Unit 731) and lesser known events such as the Jinan incident.

This occurred in 1928, when Japanese troops attacked, killed and injured thousands of Chinese civilians, including diplomats, just five years after China had rendered generous aid to Japan following the Great Kanto earthquake. This was then a show of ingratitude and treachery by Japan towards China.

China bureau chief Peh Shing Huei's suggestion to China seems to be that instead of reminding its younger generations of the facts of the Japanese atrocities of WWII, it should educate its people on being grateful to the Japanese for its loans and grants since 1979.

This seems to endorse the thinking that giving such loans is considered enough to redeem whatever crimes committed by Japan.

Japan's loans are merely payments in lieu of monetary wartime reparations, as Mr Peh has pointed out.

Although China's government has reached out diplomatically to Japan, short of a proper apology and admission of guilt, the Chinese people may forgive, but not forget, Japan's WWII atrocities and crimes.

Chiang Kwee Seng

[I do not intend to defend Japan, or to explain culture, context, or history. But this is history. For the writer to be alive at the time of the Nanking Massacre, he would have to be at least 83 yrs old. For him to be aware of the brutality about him if he was indeed in Nanking, he would have to at least 2 yrs old, so he would be 85 today. For him to be elsewhere and to hear and to understand the horrors of war, he probably need to be at least 5 years old then, and 88 today, and I would wonder what kind of adults would tell horror stories to a 5 year old.

My point is, I do not believe the writer is an 83+ year old survivor of Nanking. I believe if he was he would have stated that up front.

What drives a person to bear an 83 year old grudge for things that happen to a group of people ethnically the same as the person, but with no other explicit connection?

The Japanese may not have apologise for the atrocities to the satisfaction of some, many, or most Chinese. If some, many or most Chinese feel the need for the Japanese to apologise and would die unhappy if they do not hear that apology, then I am very sad to inform them that they will die unhappy.

But understand, that the Japanese are not holding you back to those days in 1928. The people who personally carried out those atrocities are in all likelihood dead. The people to whom those atrocities were done, died then or soon after, or if they survived those years, have since passed on either peacefully, or with great disgruntlement in their hearts. And the people who resurrect and relive the horrors of those days, even tho they were not there, are re-victimising themselves, it seems to me, to no good purpose.

I do not understand these people.]

Thai teen's tragedy: Will SMRT help her?

2011-04-08T22:59:00.001-07:00

Apr 9, 2011

I AM saddened by the photograph of Thai student Peneakchanasak Nitcharee yesterday ('I want to see my family').

The 14-year-old's hopes and dreams have been shattered by a horrific accident, which should not have happened had appropriate safety measures been taken swiftly on the Ang Mo Kio train station's open-deck platform.

Her parents, whom I gather from yesterday's report are from a low-income background, have stated that they are not in a financial position to pay for the hospitalisation costs.

While I have no doubt that kind Singaporeans will rally to assist them financially, as they have so often done, I am curious to know whether SMRT will do likewise - if not from a point of legal liability, which has never surfaced in all the past fatalities, at least because of a strong tug at the heartstrings in this case.

Ralph S. Lesslar

[Good-hearted but stupid. Moral hazard. Recall the man who committed suicide at Clementi MRT Station (Oct 2006). His sob story tugged at heartstrings and his family received a lot of donations. Rumours was of about half a million. Some other rumours went as high as a million. In any case it was in the hundreds of thousands from verifiable sources.

Two weeks or so later. Another man killed himself in the same way. The media decided to play down this one. Or we would have a flood of suicide to invoke public sympathy.

While I have no doubts that this was a tragic accident. This accident can easily be recreated with unpredictable outcomes.

SMRT has no legal liability here. But paying compassionate compensation is a moral hazard.]

A single party can't represent all views

2011-04-08T01:57:00.000-07:00

Apr 8, 2011 PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's argument that 'if the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the opposition will find it easier' shows a misunderstanding of multi-party democracy ('Not enough talent for two A teams'; yesterday).

It is not the job of the ruling party to assemble a second 'A team' - it is the opposition's. A two-party system is not about providing just two competent teams but also two different policy options.

Voters would not simply want two 'A teams', each with similarly impressive credentials but from the same party and holding largely similar views.

The point is to have two 'A teams' that represent different views and needs of constituents. The dialogue of these multiple viewpoints in Parliament is what refines national policy, ensuring all sectors of society have their interests considered.

Scarcity of talent is a poor argument for not having a multi-party system. No one party can presume to speak for the needs and views of the entire populace. In the last general election, the People's Action Party (PAP) garnered only 66 per cent of the vote. This means there is a sizeable minority of the population wishing to be represented by a different voice in Parliament.

The PAP may call itself a 'pragmatic party' that is 'ready to take in good ideas', but being pragmatic does not mean it does not have its own underlying ideologies and principles - meritocracy, for instance.

[I understand the point, and I understand the problem. Saying the PAP has an ideology such as "meritocracy" is like saying the PAP have an ideology like "rationality", or "fairness". What I mean by understanding the problem is that a two party system requires -- no, practically demands ideological absolutes. One pro-life. One pro-choice. One for hands-off govt, one for govt intervention. But PAP is not ideological except for its stand on integrity (non-corruptibility), and meritocracy. How does one take a viable stand against those position.]

However open a party may be to new ideas and differing opinions, it has its own party line to toe and cannot possibly stand for a plurality of viewpoints, especially when they are contradictory. Voters would be unreasonable to expect a single party to represent all viewpoints; that is why we have multiple parties.

[Yes, there will always be multiple viewpoints. What does that mean politically? This is what happens in the US: When the democrats are in power, businesses are tax, and welfare is provided. Then a few years later the republicans take over and reverse the policies... and then some. The the democrats come back, reinstate their policies, reverse other new policies enacted by the GOP, etc. Two steps forward, 3 steps back. Legalise abortion, cut funding to planned parenthood. Allow gay marriages. Cancel it. Does this remind you of our northern neighbours political decisions and announcements?

The solution to this is to based policies not on ideology, religion, faith or even philosophy, but on rational consideration of the facts and the effects. Which is not to say that policies have not changed under the PAP. From family planning to pro-marriage and fertility. From no casino to two IRs. But such reversals are publicly discussed and all views are aired. There were strong religious resistance to the IRs, but secular reasoning prevailed, despite the presence of some religious people in the Cabinet.]

It would also be wrong to characterise the job of the parliamentary opposition as 'waiting and watching just in case the PAP screws up'.

[PM Lee was not saying the role of the opposition was to watch and wait. His example was of someone who is competent, talented and wants to contribute. He can either join the PAP and start contributing immediately, or join the opposition and wait for the PAP to fail so that he can start to make policies.]

The very point of the multi- party system is that opposition politicians, though not forming the government, can still contribute to policy discussion and refinement in a very real way, which is through Parliament.

[Idealistic at best. Look at the US with its mature two-party system. Opposition obstructionist tactics do not "refine" policies or bills. They weaken, distort, dilute, and divert efforts and initiatives leading to compromise that waste time and resources. The US govt will shut down on Friday (Sat noon SG time) because their partisan and gridlocked Congress cannot agree on the budget.

Realistically, opposition can raise discussion on issues, and if in the course of the discussion, the PAP or ruling party fails to answer to the satisfaction of the people, this can be pointed out during election to remind the people of the inadequate response of the ruling party and perhaps persuade the people that it is grounds to vote out the party.

But if that is the role, then NCMP and NMPs can perform just as well if not better. I always felt that Siew Kum Hong and Walter Woon were great NMPs and perform better than opposition MPs.]

The parliamentary opposition's raison d'etre goes far beyond whether the ruling party 'screws up' or not. So long as there are different views in society and voters who do not wish to be represented by the ruling party, there is a need for more than one party in Parliament.

Michael Cyssel Wee

[Let's just say I disagree. Not every view is worth a party. Some views are so narrow, they become one dimensional caricatures. Some views are temporary. Some views are irrational. Some are misguided or dumb.]

Minister's Salary - The Price of Honesty?

2011-04-04T09:02:00.001-07:00

Apr 2, 2011

Pricing honesty misses larger concerns

THE reasons cited by Mr Kanagasabai Haridas to support ministerial salaries miss the larger concerns of many Singaporeans ('Singapore has priced honesty correctly'; last Saturday).

Mr Haridas states that financial incentives are necessary to entice leaders because we are a young country.

Singapore will always be young compared to others with a long history. Does that mean financial incentives will always be necessary?

Even if we view youth as an absolute value, at what age can we wean ourselves off financial incentives?

Just as we would not teach our children that wealth is all that matters, we should not entrench the pursuit of financial incentives in political office.

Second, Mr Haridas argues that the extended political life of a minister in Singapore makes it necessary to pay honest ones sufficiently.

The thinking that ministers must be rewarded handsomely if we want them to serve honestly is not the way a government should operate. The political lifespan of a minister should instead depend on the people's mandate via free elections.

Third, Mr Haridas suggests that only those who have already made their fortune can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.

Such a view perverts a minister's responsibility to dedicate himself to the betterment of the lives of the people, and not seek office for monetary gain.

Finally, Mr Haridas notes that ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit after their political career.

This statement assumes that the ultimate reward for serving the people is wealth. It ignores the satisfaction gained from knowing that the people have been served well, and that the country has been steered in the right direction.

It also ignores the respect the people have for a minister who has selflessly served them.

The first priority for ministers anywhere is to serve the people and the country.

Tim Mou Hui

Mar 26, 2011
Singapore has priced honesty correctly

AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.

My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.

We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.

Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.

# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.

# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.

When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.

# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.

Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.

Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.

Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.

# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.

Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado

[These are two civil, mostly thoughtful letters with valid if incorrect concerns.

Let's get the usual quotes and corollaries out of the way: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Power attracts the corruptible. And my own thoughts: "The real power tends to ensure that the nominal power positions are taken by those they can influence and corrupt to their own advantage."

What do I mean?

If you are making $5m a year as a CEO or a professional (lawyer, doctor, banker) all you really want is to be left alone to continue to make your money not simply for yourself, but to ensure that your family is well provided for.

What you want is a stable environment to work and raise your family. You want this to cost you as little as possible.
And you want to be left alone to do your work.

For this to happen there is a need for stable government. Maybe even good government.

If ministers salaries are say $100,000 a year, you can expect that very few professionals at the top of their career will want to make the sacrifice. Why should they? They would rather find someone they can influence, and finance their political campaign so they they "own" them and can influence if not control them when they are in power.

Or if they do take up the political leadership, it is so that they can directly plunder the resources of the country, or use their power to corruptly fleece the citizenry.

So look at the world.

There are some countries where the corrupt are in power, because that's the best way to control the natural resources of the country and channel revenues into their own pockets. Gaddafi in Libya is one.

There are other countries where businesses finance politicians in order to ensure that their politicians get into power and can be pro-business. The Republicans in the USA are basically that. Look up John Boehner and his connection to businesses.

In either cases, the actual salary from their political position can be very modest. But their lifestyle shows that they have alternative, possibly undisclosed income.

The US President's salary is like $400,000. But to get elected, they are willing to spend HALF A BILLION for their campaign. EACH! Why? To do volunteer service? Give back to the country? It takes a multi-millionaire to run for president or at least someone with serious backing from rich people or corporations. Hilary Clinton spend millions of her own money to try to get the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.

(Afternote: For our Presidential Elections, for the over 2 million voters, the candidates spent a total of just over $1.3m, or about 65 cents per vote. )

So which is the corruption in Singapore. Are the leaders accumulating wealth from our natural resources? We are blessed with no natural resources. Have they been bought by the rich and wealthy? If they have there will be signs.

In the US, the rich corporations get lots of tax loopholes. Are there any here?
In M'sia and other corrupt govts, the usual suspects get all the govt contracts often by closed tender or direct awarding of the tender. Is this done here?

The answer is no. Singapore is clean by independent assessment. Transparency International Corruption Perception Index lists Singapore, Denmark and New Zealand as the 3 countries with the highest rating (i.e. least corrupt) of 9.3.

So it is not about young or old country. It is about clean govt, properly priced.]

Stop meddling in Libya

2011-04-03T19:21:00.000-07:00

Apr 4, 2011

JUST like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the world is again witnessing another illegal invasion spearheaded by the United States.

[Illegal? No. It was UN sanctioned at the request of Libyans.]

Is this act of aggression justified? While the US and its allies may point to the United Nations' mandate as justification for their actions, often, they use the carrot and stick approach to persuade smaller, more vulnerable, non-permanent members of the UN Security Council to vote in their favour. It is all too easy to get countries like Lebanon, Gabon, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Nigeria to vote in favour of the UN resolution in exchange for "goodies".

In contrast, it is interesting to note that the five abstaining countries - China, India, Brazil, Germany and Russia - are larger countries that can withstand the pressure from the US and its allies to vote in favour. Together, the abstaining countries make up almost half the world's population. And yet, they are powerless to stop the mindless aggression unleashed against Libya by the US and its allies.

[Or perhaps for countries like Bosnia, Nigeria et al, the plea for help to prevent violence and genocide is one they can readily identify with because of their history? Perhaps they wish there were outside help for them?

As for the abstainers, China will of course object to any foreign intervention even at the request of the citizens under attack by the leader. Do you remember Tiananmen Square? If China approves of such action, they open themselves to such options if ever they need to clamp down or use violence on protesters in their cities, or in Tibet, or Mongolia, or any other restive province. Same for Russia.]

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has been shown to be an illegal act of aggression that resulted in the unnecessary and brutal deaths of at least a million Iraqis. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in the country. The US had deliberately misled the rest of the world in order to pursue its personal agenda of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Sadly, we are now seeing the same scenario unfold in Libya.

Where is the evidence that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is massacring civilians as claimed by the US and its allies?

[See story below. Open your eyes. Read widely. And not just from US Conservative media. So what lies are you claiming the US are telling now?]

The real agenda here is the removal of Col Gaddafi himself (under the guise of supporting the Libyan people in their fight for more democracy) because he has been a thorn in the side of US designs in the area for years, given his consistent opposition to US policies.

The US and her allies must stop meddling in Libya's internal situation. Real change for the country must come from within, not without.

Siow Jia Rui

[So why are you writing to the ST? You are uninformed, misinformed, and biased. I do not even see the point of your letter. Unless you believe the ST is an agent of the US.]

Apr 4, 2011

Ship brings rare glimpse of Libya's bloodiest front

BENGHAZI (Libya) - THE wounded men on the aid ship from the besieged city of Misrata, most of them torn apart by shrapnel and bullets, tell of the bloodiest front in the revolt against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.

They speak of a city under lockdown that has gone weeks without electricity or running water, where snipers have cleared the centre and mortar rounds and rockets rain down at random on residents huddled inside their homes.

The more than 250 patients were brought on Sunday to the rebel port of Benghazi on board a Turkish aid ship, which was to pick up another 100 or so wounded people from the eastern front before steaming on to the Turkish port of Cesme.

On board, a pale Mohammed Muftah, 34, describes how he was sitting at home on a quiet Friday morning when a barrage of mortar rounds fired by Gaddafi's forces slammed into his residential neighbourhood.

'They killed entire families, women. I have a neighbour who lost his wife and his three children,' he said. 'They did it just to terrorise people.' Mr Muftah has shrapnel wounds up and down his legs and in his back and neck, but soon he will receive further treatment in Turkey. His wife and six children are still in Misrata.

Mohammed Ahmed, who sits on the mattress next to his, has a thick bandage around his right arm with surgical pins sticking out. He was standing outside his home with friends and neighbours when a mortar bomb exploded next to them, the shrapnel killing six of his neighbours and carving off most of his upper arm. 'The doctor said it's serious... it's down to the bone,' he said. 'I'm with the revolution, but I don't have a gun,' he said, as tears streamed down his face and his voice broke into sobs. -- AFP

[If the US wanted to illegally invade Libya, they had reason or excuse over a month ago.]

http://theweek.com/article/index/212363/violence-in-libya-should-the-world-intervene

Are high-rises in S'pore quake-proof?

2011-04-02T23:11:00.001-07:00

Apr 3, 2011
YOUR LETTERS

Last Sunday's article, '1,200 buildings in Bangkok 'at risk'', made me wonder how safe Singapore's high-rise buildings are, especially in the light of recent earthquakes in Japan, New Zealand and Myanmar.

I am curious to know if the Government has looked into and evaluated the robustness of the structures of the many high-rise buildings here.

Are these quake-proof?

Singapore has experienced light tremors arising from quakes in Indonesia in the past, and although it has no record of natural disasters, nothing is certain now.

If a natural disaster were to occur unexpectedly, will Singapore be ready? I worry that we may be taking our safety for granted.

Sharon Lo (Miss)

[You're RIGHT! the buildings in Singapore are NOT quake-proof! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

Is she gone? Good. One less stupid person in Singapore.

But the Forum Page Editor is still making money being stupid.]

MPs should focus on national issues

2011-04-01T07:59:00.000-07:00

Apr 1, 2011

THE parade of candidates for the upcoming general election has begun and they all pledge to serve their constituencies.

What has been left unsaid is their opinion on national issues.

Are we voting for local municipal councillors or parliamentarians?

Local councillors focus on neighbourhood matters while parliamentarians have a duty to address greater matters of state.

Are our candidates satisfied merely with ensuring that their housing estates are clean and the lifts are working, and writing letters on their constituents' behalf?

If that is so, why would we need so many Members of Parliament? Why not a separate slate of local councillors?

Our parliamentary sittings are a bare minimum and done with swift dispensation that suggests more of going through the formalities.

Question time is limited and speeches have been shortened. Given the increased number of MPs, some may not be able to speak or present their views.

Parliament is the country's highest institution. There are many issues of a higher order that challenge Singapore - from population policies to housing and cost of living, and the nature of our society.

Where does each candidate stand on key issues? We should do away with a general election if it is merely aimed at electing a cohort of like-minded MPs.

Parliament should be reserved for politicians who can envision the nation's future, challenge the status quo, influence policies, effect change, and dwell on the larger issues at stake.

Singapore has been blessed with good, honest and capable government, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

Changes made to constituencies and Parliament have over the years been more designed to entrench an existing government than to allow for change.

A good, fair, honest and effective government need not fear losing an election. In fact, any fear of losing its privilege to govern should spur it to remain so.

Michael Seah

[What a load.

This letter writer is simplistic, naive, idealistic, and uninformed.

The MPs are your representatives. The American revolution ran on this slogan: no taxation without representation. The PAP strive to provide a wide range of representatives to represent Singaporeans of all diversity: the young, the old, the various ethnicities, and the different languages, religions and cultures. You want less of them?

From the MPs are drawn the Ministers. These are the ones focusing on the national policies. But lest they end up myopic or cross-eyed, there are also Government Parliamentary Committees which are drawn from the MPs. These GPCs study, examine, scrutinise the policies of the respective ministries for effectiveness, accountability, relevance, and perhaps even value for money.

But the reality is that given the chance, our MPs will become less diverse.

When Chiam See Tong was contesting against Mah Bow Tan, MM Lee (then PM) campaigned for Mah. He compared Mah's brilliant scholastic achievement vs Chiam's "late bloomer" life. Big mistake. Chiam was a grassroot MP, who had worked to build up his support base. Mah only had the branding of the PAP. The people of Potong Pasir voted for Chiam and that was history.

Look at the opposition MPs - Chiam, Low, and in the 1991 election, Cheo (Chai Chen) and Ling (How Doong). These are all grassroots/ heartlanders MP. Low's ace is his ability to connect with the people in Teochew. Ling or Cheo (can't recall which, or maybe both) have "gutter mouth" and used less than polite language in Parliament when they were not campaigning in dialect. Chiam is a man of the people. Even JBJ was respected for championing the common man/heartlanders.

This has forced PAP to ensure that the heartlanders are represented by the likes of Ang Mong Seng, Seng Han Thong, etc. But the PAP also need "brains". Very few MP/Minister can be like Khaw - a man of the people, as well as smart. So the GRC is probably as much to ensure that the "brains" are paired with the "grassroots/heartlander" as well as the minority.

Without the GRC, we would ALL be represented by Chinese, dialect/mandarin-speaking heartlanders MP from PAP as well as the opposition. And our parliament will become like Taiwan.

Kenneth Jeyaratnam will probably not win. He's not his father. Chee also can never win. He has a bloody stupid accent. Probably can't speak dialect or even mandarin. SDP's new recruits, Vincent Cheng and Fernandez are also not heartlander types and old to boot. Sylvia Lim would make a good opposition MP and I hope she looks for a vulnerable SMC and wins the seat. *BUT*, I also don't think she can win because she doesn't have the heartlander appeal. A bit too "atas".

Interestingly, if PAP allows Michael Palmer to stand in an SMC and he *wins*, I will be pleasantly surprised.

So the suggestion that an honest effective govt need not fear losing is a load of bull. People vote for who they think they can bend, if not corrupt.
They want MPs they can "trust", and by "trust" they mean speak their language, understand and share their fears and help them protect what they have. That is why Mah lost to Chiam. Chaim was someone they could identify with. Mah is a scholar, an elite and may not identify with them.

In other countries, those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't neither do nor teach, become politicians and peddle their influence to whoever can pay them best. In SG, those who can govern, should govern, are deliberately chosen to govern, and are paid well to govern, because if they are not, they would go back to doing what they do best because they can.]

Don't label critics without considering their views

2011-03-31T20:53:00.000-07:00

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.]

To understand suffering, be prepared to persist

2011-03-28T23:55:00.000-07:00

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.]

Drop nuclear, go solar

2011-03-23T23:51:00.000-07:00

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.

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:

http://www.gizmag.com/shams-1-concentrated-solar-power-plant/15389/

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.]

About the President's pay...

2011-03-16T01:48:00.001-07:00

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.]

Why S'pore should back Timor Leste

2011-03-14T01:24:00.000-07:00

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.]

Proposed skywalk icon impractical, will be an eyesore

2011-03-06T04:30:00.001-08:00

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.]

Don't miss the fishes for the shark's fin

2011-03-03T23:58:00.000-08:00

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.]

Opposition in Disarray

2011-03-01T23:11:00.000-08:00

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

Disunity is obstructing an effective by-election strategy

WHEN the by-election strategy was hatched 20 years ago, it worked because the leaders of the opposition parties then were united ('Only a united opposition can succeed' by Mr Paul Chan; last Saturday).

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.

Lim Jit Chaing

[The By-election effect has already been discredited. It was really the LKY effect. Or more precisely, the LKY stepping down effect. That was the year GCT took over. Some people obviously thought, if LKY is not PM, perhaps it is time to consider alternatives.

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

2011-03-01T23:10:00.001-08:00

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?]

Columnist's selective view [Acupuncture]

2011-02-22T23:52:00.000-08:00

Feb 23, 2011

AS A champion of evidence-based medicine, Dr Andy Ho never fails to highlight little molehills of evidence that cast the slightest doubts on the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine such as acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic and bioresonance ("Pinning down acupuncture: It's a placebo", Feb 12; "Indefensible ideas behind homeopathy", Jan 22; "Perils of chiropractic neck manipulation", Jan 21; "Sending out the wrong signals", Nov 6, 2010).
Yet he turns a blind eye to the huge mountains of scientific evidence that point to the harm and/or ineffectiveness of medical treatments and procedures, including:
- arthritis drugs, cholesterol-lowering drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-depressants, anti-viral drugs for flu and other drugs;
- medical tests such as magnetic resonance imaging;
- chemotherapy;
- vaccination;
- unnecessary surgery; and
- dental amalgams that contain toxic mercury.
Iatrogenic disease - which refers to illness caused by medical treatment, including medical errors, infections picked up at hospitals and "acceptable" drug side effects - has become a serious problem. Some medical commentators have statistics to show that it is now the third-leading cause of death in medically advanced countries like the United States.
Dr Ho is also largely silent about the many scandals involving fraudulent medical research, data cover-ups, negative studies that go unreported when they fail to prove a drug's safety or effectiveness, and other unethical practices of the pharmaceutical industry, all of which cast serious doubt on the validity of the "evidence" that support drug-based medicine.

Richard Seah

[There is a difference between saying that western medical science has errors and scandals and saying that acupuncture in theory and practice is based on erroneous assumptions, and unsupported beliefs, and has no efficacy beyond that of a placebo effect.

Western medicine is not perfect. Drugs have side effects, precisely because it has effects. (Viagra's efficacy as an impotence cure was originally a side effect.) The difference is between having a falsifiable, testable hypothesis to gather evidence for one or another conclusion. Western medicine continues to test and retest hypotheses. Sometimes human failings short cut the process and drugs or treatment are approved when they should not. But there are remedies and channels to correct these mistakes.

There are no such peer review or scientific approach to alternative medicine. If such review exists there is no rigour to the review. Unlike western medicine which has competing opinions and testing of hypothesis, alternate medicine practitioners all have a vested interest in an autistic conspiracy to prove their practices' efficacy.

Studies published by China's TCM show only half a bell curve in terms of the efficacy of acupunture. The believer will say that this shows that acupuncture works because even the least effective treatment showed positive effect. The skeptic will suspect that the authorities only publish positive supportive studies.

You never hear of side effects or overdose by homeopathy. There are no reports of misapplication of acupuncture resulting in an inadvertent result or side effect. You never hear of a misapplied needle leading to some unintended side effect.

Either every acupuncturist is so well-trained and so experienced that there is no misdiagnosis, no misapplication of the needles, and no side effect, or very simply, nothing is happening.

Similarly, you can't overdose on homeopathy cos there's nothing there.]

Salaries of Charities staff

2011-02-18T21:26:00.000-08:00

Feb 19, 2011

Working for charity is about the heart, not the pay

I DON'T agree with Dr Keith Goh's letter on Monday ("If you pay peanuts, you get...."). In any commercial organisation where profit is the prime objective, if you pay peanuts, you get lousy chief executive officers (CEOs). In a charity organisation, the operating principle is not profit-orientated and you need only a CEO with passion to do the job, on a decent salary.

[Define "decent". Is market rate "decent"? What if you don't have CEOs with passion? Would CEOs with professional pride do? "You need only a CEO with passion". So no need competence, ability, imagination, etc? ]

A well-run charity organisation delivers efficiently the donated dollar value to the intended beneficiary. Its reputation and good deeds will attract more donors. The CEO does not need charisma but rather diligence.

[And you want to reward the diligence with... gratitude instead of a reasonable compensation? Which is better a CEO with passion, heart, but limited competence willing to work cheap, or a CEO with competence, diligence, professionalism, and a good work ethic but who could work in any other sector, and make a good living to support his family and so require compensation commensurate with his experience and ability?]

Take, for example, the Thong Chai Charity Night held in March last year to raise funds for the 143-year-old Singapore Thong Chai Medical Institution. It raised $8.6 million, far exceeding the targeted amount of $3.5 million in a single event. The response was overwhelming and testified to the spirit and dedication of the organisation.

[Again, the criteria the unwashed public seems to use for determining charities' "success" seems to be their fund-raising capability. If so, NKF under Durai was the most successful charity ever. A charity's main objective should be to provide the help that it was set up to do first and foremost. Fund-raising is to resource that objective. But because fund-raising is so much easier to measure, so much easier to distill to a single figure, it becomes the sole measure of a charity's "success". ]

The free hospital sees more than 700 patients a day with only 51 employees at a total manpower cost of just below $1.26 million. I salute the leaders of this charity organisation for working in the true spirit of charity.

Giving to charity is a personal sacrifice from the heart for the needy and underprivileged in our community, and serving a charity organisation is to answer the noble calling to serve society.

[And if no one answers the call? In the first generation people work for free or cheap because of passion. But for sustained growth, you need to professionalise by the second or third generation of leaders. Harping on passion without understanding the complexities of running an organisation, let alone a charity is parochial, short-sighted, idealistic, and unrealistic. You want to do that, you need to establish your own religious order, and breed your own monks and nuns who would be willing to work for the sheer passion of it. But competence would be hit or miss. ]

I see no reason why charity organisations should pay big salaries to their CEOs when all volunteers work for free to conserve donated funds for intended beneficiaries. There is no place in charity organisations for high-fliers and ambitious managers. People who choose to work there should have the right mindset.

[And we'll forgive the wrong skillset because you're willing to work cheap. And that is why the social sector is struggling to improve.]

Paul Chan

Feb 19, 2011

Integrity, not money, must be the decisive incentive

I DISAGREE with Dr Keith Goh ("If you pay peanuts, you get..."; Monday) that it is all right to pay hefty salaries to leaders of charities.

If leaders are motivated solely by monetary benefits, they might as well work for a profit-driven organisation instead of for a charity whose sole object is to help the needy.

[Exactly. So most of the competent professionals are shunning the Charity sector, that's why the charities have been trying to attract competent people with more pay. But public reactions like this are going to frighten off potential leaders. If you impose such ridiculous burden on them - to work for free or cheap - they will think about their families, the scrutiny, the public disapproval, and say, "I don't need this" and go work for a bank.

Your unrealistic ideals are in the way of charities trying to improve their governance and capability. Your ideals are keeping them dumb and depriving the disadvantaged of good service.]

Recent cases where leaders of charities were brought to trial for their dishonesty highlight the need to have charity leaders with integrity. Those convicted of wrongdoing were no doubt talented, but were greedy and lacked integrity.

We must learn from these past experiences and not use money as an incentive to attract the wrong talent to run charities.

[So we'll depend on competent people with good hearts willing to work for free or for very little. Unfortunately Mother Teresa is dead, and while I think she has a good heart, and an inspirational leader, I have no idea about her ability as a CEO.

We don't need priests and nuns and monks. We need leaders. Competent leaders who know how to manage charities as viable organisations, not as well-meaning amateurs whose hearts are in the right place but everything else is in the wrong place.]

William Tay

Feb 19, 2011

Personal sacrifice required of charity CEOs

DR KEITH Goh's letter on Monday ("If you pay peanuts, you get...") re-ignites the debate as to whether charity honchos should be paid market rates on a par with chief executive officers (CEOs) of public-listed companies, or whether they should be recruited on the basis of their passion first and foremost.

Dr Goh described the various duties expected of a charity boss, certainly no less onerous than those of a public-listed company's CEO, but he overlooked one big difference.

A charity boss is not only expected to give of his best to the charity he serves, but also to do this at some personal sacrifice. His love for and dedication to the cause of the charity should be his primary motivation, not how much he will get in terms of salary. This is so, notwithstanding that he may have attributes befitting of a more lucrative position as a CEO in a public-listed company.

True, such a person is hard to come by. But so is any good company CEO. Nevertheless, they are there if the search is genuine and relentless.

We should not compromise faithfulness to a cause with opportunism or profit motivation.

Yap Swee Hoo

[All these writers think that Charities are suddenly deciding that what the hey, let's pay big bucks and get some high-flyer CEO just for the heck of it? Let's see, we need someone with integrity, passion, and competence. The Dalai Lama is not available (still fighting for Tibet's independence). The Pope... hmmm not exactly sure that he's cheap. Mother Teresa's dead. Gandhi too. Jesus Christ long dead (or resurrected according to some). Dammit! Messiahs, Saviours and Saints only come once every few hundred years and we have like 300 social service charities needing good leaders.

So sit around and search and search for a saint? Or work with what we've got, and realise that talent needs to be compensated (or they'll work elsewhere).

These writers should ask themselves. If their son or daughter graduated with high honours and distinctions and then decided to follow their passion and work in a charity for a token salary just enough to pay their living expenses would they worry for their child? If they had spent their savings to give their child the education they wanted and now depend on their child to support them in their old age, would their child's choice worry them? Of course it should not! Because since the child is in the charity sector, the parents will have priority admission to old age home, nursing home and other social services!]

Improperty Tax

2011-02-15T22:44:00.000-08:00

[After so many letters to ease up on property tax, here's one who's going after the big landed property owners.]

Feb 16, 2011
Make property tax more equitable

ACCORDING to Saturday's report ("Housing affordability of key concern"), the general sentiment is that the Government would be dishing out property, utility and service and conservancy rebates, upgrading old estates to increase the supply of HDB flats and providing larger housing grants for lower-income households in this year's Budget.
While these measures would be welcomed, they are just stop-gap measures and do not address the root of the problem: land scarcity in Singapore.

Land scarcity inevitably leads to high property prices as the supply of properties is insufficient to meet demand. Living in landed property is definitely a luxury and to ensure efficient and equitable allocation of resources, luxuries should be priced accordingly to reflect their scarcity. The current property tax policy in Singapore does not adhere to this principle of efficient allocation.

Currently, properties are taxed based on their annual value, which is the estimated amount of rental the properties would fetch if they were to be rented out. At first glance, one might be convinced that the landed property owner is paying a higher property tax and is thus paying a fair price for his luxury. However, the current tax rates fail to separate the concept of property from land.

Take, for example, a bungalow that sits on a 10,000 sq m plot of land could accommodate 40 three-room flats. Thus we can say that for the same size of land, HDB flat dwellers collectively pay a higher amount of tax than a landed property dweller.

Furthermore, the tax places a bigger financial burden on the lower-income group.

A property tax reform where the notions of land and property are separated is due. Property owners should still be taxed based on the estimated rental revenue, but at a lower rate. The balance should come from a land tax, where property owners are taxed based on the size of the plot they occupy and also the share of the plot which they occupy. Thus, the landed property owner would pay tax for the whole of his bungalow, while an HDB flat dweller living in a 20-storey block would pay 1/20 of the land tax. This new tax regime would be more equitable.

Goh Ching Soon

[Amazing how ingenious Singaporeans can be when it comes to shifting their tax burdens onto other people. Yeah, let's stick it to the land owners! We'll make him pay tax for imaginary, yet to be built flats.

Oh and you live in a 20 story flat? Haven't you heard? Duxton Plain is now 40 stories high. Oh but since we are going for imaginary, I think I can imagine a time when we will have 70 or even 100 storey flats. You are squatting on a scarce resource! You in your underdeveloped 20 storey only flat!

We should just put you and with the other property tax reformers in a steel cage and let you all sort it out.]

Feb 9, 2011
Why Iras should review formula for property tax

MR PAUL Chan ('Adopt fairer tax system for owner-occupiers'; Jan 23) is right in advocating a new and fairer formula for property tax.

The current method of tagging market value to rental value is grossly unfair to owner-occupiers, and my personal experience is a good example.

When we experienced the worst year of economic growth in 2009, the property tax went down by only 23.5 per cent from that in the preceding, pre-crisis year.

[That was the year there was a 40% property tax rebate. It was a once off.]

Yet the same tax shot up by a whopping 98 per cent last year, which meant the property tax paid in 2010 was 50 per cent higher than that in the 2008 pre-crisis year.

And the economy has not even recovered to pre-crisis levels.

There were also four adjustments made between 2007 and last year, three of which were increases and one, a decrease.

Is there a need for such frequent adjustments in tax rates?

All the above reinforces the view that when times are bad, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) returns less than it should, but when times are good, it takes back a lot more than it deserves.

The efforts by Iras to introduce adjustments and inform taxpayers could have been saved if a different formula is used.

As an owner-occupier, I do not lose or benefit from economic changes or changes in rental value, so why is my property tax not reflecting that?

Thian Tai Chew

[As an owner-occupier, you pay concessionary property tax. That is a recognition that you are not overtly gaining economically from the property. But your property is an asset and has economic value. If not to you, to others. A home in a more central area has a higher value. It means you have more amenities and conveniences. Someone living in a less central area has less conveniences and probably incurs more costs to enjoy the same conveniences and amenities.]

CHARITY LEADERS' SALARIES

2011-02-14T00:38:00.000-08:00

Feb 14, 2011

If you pay peanuts, you get...

MR VICTOR Looi's letter ('Avoid paying big salaries to hire charity leaders'; last Friday) raises the issue of what really constitutes hefty pay.

Having served as a volunteer of local charity Make-A-Wish Singapore since its inception and board chairman since 2007, and being a past chairman of Make-A-Wish Foundation International, I have been involved in many discussions on this issue of CEO remuneration and benefits.

The argument that charity leaders should not be motivated by financial benefits is a lofty ideal, but is it realistic in today's society, and what is fair and reasonable compensation?

Let us look at the principal duties and responsibilities of a charity chief executive:

Ensure that the charity mission is carried out well and meets the needs of its beneficiaries;

Ensure the highest standards of governance within the organisation, so as to comply with the strict code of governance for charities;

Initiate and implement fund-raising and financial stewardship programmes so that there are sufficient funds;

Inspire and organise volunteers;

Maintain relations with the community and media; and

Manage office staff, oversee human resource policies and serve as a link between board members and office staff.

Such a multi-faceted and multi-tasking individual, with great many responsibilities, also needs to have the warm, engaging personality expected of a charity leader.

Such a person is not easily found, even in the highest echelons of for-profit organisations or multinational corporations.

A recent survey of CEO compensation for 2008-2009 by ASAE - The Centre for Association Leadership, an organisation representing more than 11,000 trade associations and voluntary organisations in 50 countries, indicated that for an organisation with an annual budget of US$1 million (S$1.3million) to US$2.5 million, the average annual salary for CEOs is between US$134,000 and US$154,000.

Is this applicable as a benchmark for Singapore? For a First World country, with a cost of living, gross domestic product and property prices among the highest in Asia, these figures are surely something for us to ponder.

Furthermore, if we apply the same argument that ministers, who give up lucrative careers in the private sector for the higher calling of serving the nation, should be fairly and reasonably compensated for their sacrifice, then we need to change our mindset about the salaries of our charity leaders.

As the oft-repeated saying goes: 'If you pay peanuts, you get...'

Dr Keith Goh

Online comments

Paying peanuts you get monkeys do carry some weight however, what assurances has the public got (don't forget the NKF Saga), despite all the governance in place the CEO still manages to get away for some time?If $$$$$ issue is a key factor, I would appeal the "gorillas" to stay out of it as to be involved in charity starts off with CHARITY above everything else.
Posted by: yklim008 at Mon Feb 14 15:05:01 SGT 2011

i don't ask for a lot when i know i'm performing charity, just a token, and even that may seem like a lot to the poor. it's my way of giving back. but i have little sympathy shall we say, when i'm dealing with someone who can afford to pay. they don't need my charity. they're looking for an experience and i deliver just that.
Posted by: unewolke at Mon Feb 14 14:14:27 SGT 2011

i see that people are motivated by money/greed, some more so than others. that is fine, but don't work in a charity if you don't want to give more than take. i've been on both sides - earning a little or a lot based on the same skill sets.
Posted by: unewolke at Mon Feb 14 14:13:37 SGT 2011

[Social workers also have family commitments and bills to pay. They may have the aptitude to work with disadvantaged people, but they also need to be properly compensated for their time and their education. The problem is that most people seem to think that Charity work is volunteer work. Yes. There are volunteers, but when the problem is dealing with family issues, financial problems, gambling, drinking, addiction, unemployment, discipline, delinquency, parenting and other complex socio-psychological issues, volunteers are out of their depth. You need social workers trained and resourced to help these individuals and their families with their specific problems.

And these social workers need to be paid adequately.

And the administrators and executives who help and support these social workers may have good intentions, but they also bills to pay and a family to feed. Helping the poor does not mean they have to be as poor as the people they help.

If we continue to pay them pittance, they we attract the low talent, no-talent, and failures. They have limited competence and they cannot make the charity strong and viable. And the charity fails. Look at the social work charities. Most of them are poorly run. Many are living from hand to mouth, disaster and failure just one donation away. And social workers are making sacrifices in terms of salaries. They can continue for some time, but eventually, they will burn out, or decide that they need to look after themselves and they leave the sector taking with them a wealth of experience. And the social sector is poorer for the loss of these experienced social workers.]

What it is like to be a mum in Finland

2011-02-07T00:23:00.000-08:00

Feb 7, 2011

I AM a Singaporean mother who is currently on maternity leave in Finland ('Encourage gender equality and the babies will come'; Jan 22). I was holding a job there - technically, I still do - when my child came along.

A month before my expected delivery date, I started my maternity leave. For the next eight months, I would receive up to 80 per cent of my salary with two full months paid for by the company and the rest covered by the state.

After that, should I choose to stay at home with my baby in his formative years, my position in the company would be held for up to three years. A child allowance of €200 (S$350) is also paid monthly until the child grows well into his teens.

Family-friendly benefits are by no means restricted to mothers. Fathers are given up to three weeks of paternity leave. And because they are expected to chip in with child rearing, a certain portion of benefits can be shared by the father if he stays at home while the mother returns to work.

Benefits in Finland are classed as maternity and parental allowances to reflect the equally important role of fathers in bringing up a child.

Singapore has come a long way to join the First World club but like its counterparts, it is also afflicted with the bane of falling birth rates. Singapore's policymakers must weigh the pro-business policies that keep the cost of labour low and make Singapore competitive, against the cost of creating an environment where the burden of having a baby does not fall squarely on the mother's shoulder.

A paradigm shift in people's mindset is also needed so that women are not discriminated against in the workplace and men play a bigger role in parenting.

Ashley Chang (Ms)

[Benefits have to be paid for in some way. There is no mention of taxes in Finland. The tax is 6.5% to 30%, with municipal tax of 15% - 20%. Corporate tax is another 26%.

In contrast, Singapore taxes are 3.5% to 20% personal income tax, with 7% GST, and 17% corporate tax.

The paradigm shift may well need a tax system shift.]

The day it was raining money at Sentosa...

2011-02-06T23:54:00.000-08:00

Feb 7, 2011

MY FAMILY and I were at the Universal Studios at Sentosa around midday last Friday. I was waiting underneath the roller coaster Battlestar Galactica which my overjoyed children were riding as it intermittently opened to the public for test runs.
Imagine my surprise when it suddenly started raining money - mostly Malaysian ringgit. Imagine my greater surprise when the crowd of people around me did not make a rush for it. Instead of filling their pockets and walking away congratulating themselves on their good fortune, strangers belonging to various races and nationalities organised themselves to pick up the money which was lying on the ground.
They found a wallet bulging with cash, a RM1,000 clip of 20 RM50 notes as well as an assortment of other notes - altogether not an insignificant sum. They then located a staff member and handed over the money and wallet to him.
A few minutes later, a family of six tourists emerged from the exit. They were distraught, fully expecting the money to be lost. The mother could be heard loudly berating her son for being so stupid as to drop the family's money packet.
But the family was in for a pleasant surprise. Without any fuss, the staff member approached them, confirmed their identity using the identity card found in the wallet and returned the money.
It was a wonderful display of honesty, integrity and decency by a group of ordinary Singaporeans and visitors that day.
Andrew Ong

[Thank you, Andrew Ong for sharing this.]

All for a strong Singdollar

2011-01-27T18:02:00.000-08:00

Jan 28, 2011

ACCORDING to the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) website, our total official foreign reserves have ballooned by more than 94 per cent from US$116 billion in 2005 to about US$226 billion (S$289 billion) last year.
This may look good to most people, but I see it as a dramatic intervention by MAS to weaken the real value of the Singdollar over a short span of five years by buying up freshly printed money of foreign governments.
I prefer a strong Singdollar. Whenever a foreign government debases its currency, it affects our foreign reserve holding. At best, a large forex reserve gives our government a lot more money and enables our exporters to sell into markets chronically stricken with trade deficits. However, these are not necessarily a good thing.
A realistically strong Singdollar allows better distribution of wealth as it does not dilute the savings and earnings of Singaporeans. It keeps interest rates realistic, higher than the current Singapore Interbank Offered Rate which is near zero, and dampens speculation and over-borrowing. This keeps real inflation down and housing prices affordable. It also encourages saving and spending within one's means.
I suggest MAS sell off some foreign reserves for tangibles such as gold and silver, and allow the Singdollar to strengthen naturally. Stop subsidising the currencies of nations with chronic trade deficits at the expense of the Singdollar.
Our export sectors can benefit from significantly lower imported input costs and still remain internationally competitive.
Yong Jianjun

[First of all, just because the value of the foreign reserves is totalled and valued in US$, doesn't mean that it IS held all and only as US$. Most country hold a basket of foreign currency including gold.
Second, currencies that are considered as foreign reserves are not so easily "debased". The US$ can fall over time, and it has because it has been printing money to finance its debt, but it is still holding its value.
Third, foreign reserves may be used to defend a country's forex rate, but it is not the sole determinant of the strength and stability of the S$.
Fourth, on what basis do you say that our export sectors can benefit significantly from lower import costs and still remain competitive internationally? What figures do you have to support that conclusion? A rising S$ would mean our exports will be less competitive to the EU, China, Malaysia and US. It is for the same reason China is keeping its yuan low and buying US$ and US debt. Is this sustainable? Maybe not. Alternatives? No easy answer.
Finally, buying and holding gold is not the best answer. If it is, every country would only hold gold as reserves. Why don't they?]

Economic link to falling fertility rates

2011-01-26T23:49:00.000-08:00

Jan 27, 2011

I AGREE with Ms Laurelle He ('Encourage gender equality and the babies will come'; last Saturday). In Sweden, if parents care jointly for the child, they are entitled to 240 days' leave each with parental benefit. Monthly child allowance of 1,050 Swedish kronor (S$205) per child is also paid up to and including the quarter when the child reaches the age of 16.
If Singapore makes a paradigm shift and matches the Swedish family benefits, I am sure Singaporeans could do much better.
Our declining birth rate was largely due to social and economic transformation during the last 50 years, when more women with better education joined the workforce. Materialism and pragmatism have forced child-bearing to take a backseat. The trend seems irreversible due to changing perceptions.
I did a cursory comparison of Singapore's TFR to its gross domestic product (GDP) over the last 60 years, and found our TFR to be inversely proportional to our GDP.
Until we change the economic model to be more family-friendly, the falling birth rate may slide further.
Paul Chan

[Wow! Amazing! Stop the press! Economic development is inversely proportional to TFR!

Big Fat hairy Deal.

So? The solution is to reduce economic growth until we have unemployment, poverty, barely enough to eat, no money for entertainment, can't afford TV and sex is our only recreation, then produce more children?

Why don't you do a correlation between infant mortality rate and TFR. Inversely proportinal also right? So does that mean we should cut down on post-natal and infant care, incrase infant mortality, and so people would produce more children as insurance against losing some of them?

Or do a correlation between education and TFR or education level of women and TFR. The more education you put in a woman the less babies come out right? So? Ban education for women?

The GDP - TFR link is a correlation not causation unless a clear hypothesis as to causation can be tested and proven/disproved.

The problem of the TFR is a complex issue. The question is not should we have strong economic growth or more children. The question should be how do we have more children while sustaining our economic growth.

There does not seem to be any simple solution. Feedback cannot totally be trusted as people use this issue to blackmail the government - give me a flat, a maid, maternity leave, paternity leave, childcare leave, subsidy, priority, medical, career guarantee, etc THEN I will have more babies.

Simplistic answers with meaningless stats are not helpful.]

'Reason enough to revisit polygamy?'

2011-01-22T00:34:00.001-08:00

DR GORDON TAN: 'As a gynaecologist who helps sub-fertile couples conceive, I have seen many couples who put off childbearing as they are busy working to pay off their housing and car loans ('Time for stork-taking on baby issue'; Tuesday). When they duly arrive financially, many husbands lament that even though they are now ready financially and socially for another child, their wives have become biologically too old for childbearing. Could there then be reason enough for us to revisit polygamy?'

[Dr Tan. I hope your wife tonight will ask you who you have in mind as your second wife. :-)

In any case, there are grandmothers who have children for their daughters, albeit via in-vitro fertilisation and other fertility procedures. So why do you automatically choose the polygyny option?

The other option is to use your sperm, your wife's egg (if still viable) or a donor egg, and a surrogate mother (if your wife is unable or unwilling to carry a pregancy).

In future, this might be the way forward. Rich older couples will pay a young woman to carry a pregnancy to term for them in exchange for cash payment, treatment to extract and freeze some of the young woman's eggs, and of course all expenses related to the cost of carrying the pregnancy to term. This will give the young woman some start-up cash for business or other enterprise. Then later when she is older and gets married, she can use her frozen eggs (from when she was younger), to be fertilised with her husband's sperm (or sperm of choice), and pay a younger woman to carry her child to term, for the same benefits.

And the cycle continues.

This solves the problem for the woman of choosing between career and biology. ]

Make tax system simpler for rented-out property

2011-01-18T01:09:00.001-08:00

Jan 18, 2011

THE Government has introduced progressive tax rates on property tax for owner-occupied properties from this year. Properties that are rented out will continue to be taxed at 10 per cent of the annual value.

The Government should consider extending the progressive tax rate system for rented out properties and remove property income from the income tax returns. There is no need for the same income to be taxed twice - as property tax and income tax - especially as the taxes are based on the market-adjusted annual value of the property.

[Rental income to different people are tax differently. If you have an annual salary of $100,000 and have property bringing in $20,000 annually in rent, you will pay a higher income tax. If you have just one property bringing in just $20,000, but is otherwise unemployed, you pay zero income tax. So you don't pay the same tax for the same property.

For an ex-CEO, you don't seem to be able to see the whole picture.]

The progressive tax rate on rented properties can be made to mirror the revenue that is currently collected by the Government from the income tax levied on the rental income.

[How? It will have to take into account other income. So might as well figure it out by income tax returns.]

As an owner of property that has been rented out, I now find it a hassle to compute the net property income to submit in my income tax returns. I must identify the rental income and expenses that are expended on the property, such as property tax, insurance, repairs, maintenance charges, agency fee and other items.

[Hassle, then don't own property. Don't rent out. Singapore's tax code is already one of the most simplified.]

It is unclear if the owner is allowed to deduct the proportion of the rental that is set aside for furnishing of the property.

[Then find out. You only need to do it once.]

The complexity can be removed when the income tax portion is integrated into the proposed progressive rate on rented out properties. It will also save a lot of work for the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore in policing the reporting of rental income.

Tan Kin Lian

[And now, how about NO tax?]

Jan 23, 2011
YOUR LETTERS
Adopt fairer tax system for owner-occupiers

The basis of assessment of property tax is the same regardless of whether a property is let, owner-occupied or vacant, while the annual value reflects its monthly gross rent. This is the stand of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras).

The rationale for it is fair when the property generates income and the owner can deduct the property tax paid as expenses against rental incomes in computing his income-tax return.

It remains fair if an owner-occupied property generating no income is exempted.

But it becomes a burden and is unfair when the owner of a wholly owner-occupied property has to pay tax for essentially 'no income'.

The actual tax I have paid over the past six assessment years, for instance, reflects this burden and shows the exponential rise of property tax.

Apart from a substantial rebate in 2009, the rising trend has been fast and furious. For instance, the tax increased by virtually 2.29 times from March 2007 to January last year.

[You neglect to mention that for owner-occupier, property tax is tiered, and progressive concessionary. Whereas for leased out premises, the property tax is a flat 10% with no concession. Secondly, the annual valuation is way under-valued (at least for HDB flats). So if you own & occupy a 3-rm flat, you may well pay no taxes, or minimal property tax.

If the annual value of your flat is $65k or less (monthly rental of about $5.5k which would put it in the landed property category), you'd pay 4%, and if you exceed $65k, the excess of $65k will be taxed at 6%.]

Economic transformation and changing landscapes improve standards of living but do not change the intrinsic values of property where the owners, through no fault of their own and for whatever reasons, choose to live in the same house for many decades.

The rental incomes of their neighbours have nothing to do with this group of owners, as they still live in their homes with no income generated.

The present system is unfair and not 'owner-occupied friendly'.

Iras should isolate unrelated factors like prevailing rental yield, market fluctuation and economic growth, and consider the factor of 'no income' to exempt owner-occupied property.

[If you have no income, you pay no income tax. If you have no property, you pay no property tax. If your property is expensive, then maintaining it is probably also expensive. If you can afford to maintain it, you should be able to afford to pay property tax. If you bought property 20 or more years ago, you are extremely fortunate. Young couple today can't afford the high prices of even HDB flats. The value of your property increasing is not your doing, but the entire neighbourhood and what the authorities did to raise the value of your neighbourhood. That is what the tax is a proxy for. If you are retired and living in a highly desirable location for working people who can benefit more from your strategic location, then it makes sense for you to give up the location so someone else can gain more from it. Perhaps he will commute less, pay less for fuel, spend less time on the road.]

Perhaps a more reasonable approach is to use 'date of purchase' to peg property valuation as the basic quantum.

Paul Chan

[It's not all about you. Or your situation. Or how life has passed you by. Or why you should need special treatment. Or about maintaining your way of life for your convenience. Or what you are used to. It's about redistributing resources for what's best for the nation.

Taxes are a way of redistributing wealth. If you bought your property a long time ago when it was relatively cheap, then you have really made a gain. Compared to your children who today have to fork out 10 times what you paid for a flat half the size of your property or even less, is it fair for the younger generation to pay higher property tax for a small property while you being from an earlier generation who had the opportunity to buy property when it was relatively cheap pay little or no property tax on a huge property?

Taxes are a crude instrument to do that, but it's the best we've got.]

Young S'poreans keen to hear MM Lee's views

2011-01-16T06:05:00.000-08:00

They are curious to find out what he has to say on issues that concern the young

By Elgin Toh

When Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew stepped down as prime minister in 1990, Mr Cheo Ming Shen was just six, so his memory of Singapore's founding leader is hazy at best.

But that did not stop the 27-year-old co-founder of Internet start-up Netccentric from ordering an autographed copy of a new book on Mr Lee. He was among 60 donors who will get a limited edition signed copy of the book, having donated $10,000. Proceeds go to The Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund.

'There is nobody bigger than MM in Singapore,' said Mr Cheo, who has read and owns both volumes of Mr Lee's memoirs. 'He is the equivalent of Nelson Mandela to Singaporeans.'

[Really? LKY was locked up for 27 years for sabotaging govt while fighting racial discrimination? Then on his release, won election to lead the country. And promoted reconciliation between the races? And won the Nobel Peace Prize?

I think comparing LKY to Mandela is an incredible (and wholly inappropriate) compliment to LKY. Not sure if Mandela would feel complimented though.

And most importantly, "he's Nelson Mandela to Singaporeans"? I think 70% of Singaporeans don't know who is Nelson Mandela. And 30% don't know who Lee Kuan Yew is.

This normally would be in the other blog, but my intended comments bumped it here.]

Spare pet owners the 'D' word

2011-01-10T20:17:00.000-08:00

Jan 11, 2011

RECENTLY, my dog passed away and I had to deregister it on the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority website.
On the site, under the given options for reasons for deregistration, the first one is the word "dead" followed by others such as "lost", "stolen" and so on.
We are already feeling very sad over the loss of our dog and it is insensitive to have such a word on the site. Is it possible to change it to something like "passed on"?
This would really go a long way towards helping dog owners get over their grief.
Elizabeth Chiona (Ms)

Latest comments (online)
It's an official form, with factual reasons for the cancellation of a license. Why whould AVA use euphemisms? Instead of "Dead", "Lost" and "Stolen", why not "Moved to the Big Kennel in the Sky", "No Longer at Home, but surely Trying to Find his way back to My Loving Arms" and "Liberated by Less Than Honest Individuals, Current Whereabouts Unknown, but Sorely Missed"? The dog is dead, deal.
Posted by: agooddaytodie at Tue Jan 11 10:32:07 SGT 2011

[I think the online comment was harsh enough. :-) ]

Works there, why not here?

2011-01-08T03:30:00.001-08:00

TODAY
Jan 04, 2011

Letter from Rick Lim Say Kiong

I AM worried. Despite the assortment of pro-family measures dished out by the Government over the years to address Singapore's low fertility rate, it continues to drop further ("S'pore grapples with low birth rate, integration", Dec 31).

While our total population is steadily increasing, we are aware that this is due mostly to the number of transient workers and immigrants who become Permanent Residents (PR). Singaporeans have groused about this massive influx of foreigners. The nub of their complaints is not only with the number, but also the quality, of the immigrants.

We can all agree that we need transient workers for jobs in sectors such as construction, food and beverage, and cleaning. Since these industries have been reluctant to increase wages or improve productivity, foreign labour seems to be the only option at the moment to meet manpower demands. What we need to be concerned about, however, are immigrants not working in these labour-intensive industries.

As a human resource practitioner, I have noticed that the quality of workers applying for and obtaining permanent residence has decreased over the years. In the past, when the Government was espousing the need for foreign talent to work here, start businesses and create jobs for Singaporeans, potential PR applicants had degrees, diplomas or higher-level certificates and/or a wealth of experience.

[Since you are HR practitioner, tell us why the market is not paying more wages to Singaporeans, or why productivity is stagnating. You should be in the know. If the new FW are lower quality, why is your HR practice to hire lower quality FW?]

In the last six years, however, I have noticed that even workers with three O-Level credits are granted PR status once they have worked here for a year or two. Skilled as they may be, do they contribute to our economy by creating jobs or do they take jobs that can be done by locals? If only real foreign talents are given PR to work and stay here, and they do create jobs for the locals, then my guess is that most Singaporeans would not mind their growing numbers.

We need to worry about why we cannot arrest the decline in our fertility rate when pro-fertility measures implemented in other developed countries seem to work. In Australia, the goal is to reach a fertility rate of 2.1. Their current rate is 2.0 - impressive if you compare that to our dismal figure of 1.22 last year.

Australia has flexible working arrangements for employees, dating agencies for singles and a government-run baby bonus scheme for parents - which we also have in Singapore - yet theirs seem to work and ours do not. Why?

[So why don't you tell us why it works in Australia? We don't know why ours don't work. If we knew, don't you think we would have fixed it? Since you know Australia's work, did you dig a little deeper and get an analysis of why it worked there?]

One contributor to the Today online forum puts it aptly with this analogy: When pandas in a forest are not reproducing themselves sufficiently, do you add other bears to the forest (where resources are scarce) and then expect the panda numbers to increase?

[Depends. The bears were introduced to eat berries and salmon. Pandas only eat bamboo. Not very versatile. Impossible to reskill. And if resources (bamboo) are scarce, don't worry. Bears don't eat bamboo.]

When we find that our spaces get more cramped, wages do not increase, modes of public transport are packed, jobs are threatened, housing options are becoming limited and their cost increased, et cetera, it does not take much to realise that these factors will impact our country's fertility rate.

[Bullshit. One of the biggest problems in poor countries are high births among poor people living in cramp conditions, with low stagnating wages, or no jobs, and no housing options. All the points you raise are our government's insidious efforts to make Singaporeans feel poor so that they will produce more babies.

And that was a facetious way of saying, those are excuses, not reasons. Sometimes they are fodder for blackmail. You see it in forum pages: If the govt wants me to have more kids, they should help me get a flat!]

In addition, our long working hours and demanding workloads are the main killers of fertility. Having better maternity benefits, flexible work arrangements and baby bonus schemes are measures that treat only the symptoms of our underlying problems - and until we truly fix these, our fertility rate is likely to continue its decline.

[So to reduce long working hours, and demanding workloads, we need to hire more people, and since there are no more people of the required quality, we need to hire more... FOREIGNERS! Which means that Singapore will get more crowded and housing costs increase and people worry about their jobs, so they DON'T HAVE BABIES!

You haven't really thought through this problem, have you?]

Time for a new formula?

2010-12-30T16:45:00.001-08:00

Explore a way to de-link property tax from rental values driven by foreigners

Dec 30, 2010

Letter from Thian Tai Chew

WITH effect from Jan 1, 2011, Singapore's property tax will shift from a flat 4-per-cent rate to a system of progressive property tax rates based on Annual Values (AV) of these properties. As a result, I will save about 8 per cent of the property tax payable for next year. Am I happy with this saving?

Let's look at the formula for calculating the property tax rate. It is based on the annual value of your property.

According to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore's (IRAS) circular, the AV is the estimated market rent if the property were to be let. It is determined based on the market rentals of comparable properties.

It is no secret that the rental market in Singapore is heavily influenced by the demand from foreigners working in Singapore. The more foreigners we attract here, the higher the demand for rental housing and, hence, higher rental rates.

It begs the question then - why should property tax be tagged to the influx of foreigners coming into Singapore ?

I am not against paying property tax, but I am against the link of property tax to the demand by foreigners coming to Singapore to work.

These foreigners, most of whom would go for rental housing, do not pay property tax. It is fair to assume that landlords would have already priced the property tax into the rental, hence jacking up the rental prices, which in turn would jack up the property tax as the AVs are now higher.

It is a vicious cycle and as long as we continue to attract more foreigners into Singapore, the only outcome for such a formula is that the property tax would go higher and higher.

As an owner-occupied property owner who does not partake of the rental market, I do not see why I should be taxed based on the actions of other people who are renting out their property.

Since the Government has explicitly mentioned that attracting foreign talents will remain as one of our national policies, the property tax moving forward is going only one way - up.

I do not see the rationale for paying property tax that is linked to the outcome of another unrelated policy.

It's time for the IRAS to explore a formula that would de-link the property tax from rental values that are heavily influenced by the influx of foreigners.

So the answer to my earlier question: Am I happy with the tax savings for next year? Yes, any saving is always good, but I do not like what is coming beyond 2011.

[Eh, goondu. Owner-occupier pays concessionary tax. Owners who rent or sublets their flats pay 10%. Your 4% is a concessionary rate.

More importantly, the annual value is ridiculously undervalued! (don't tell IRAS!) You look at your property tax bill and tell me you will rent your flat for annual rent equivalent to the AV assessed by IRAS.

Three room HDB flats have AVs of less than $7000 (that's about $550 per month. FOR THE WHOLE FLAT! Four rooms' AV is less than $9000 or less than $750 pm for the whole flat. This is SERIOUS under-valuation. But I don't believe IRAS is stupid. I believe this is another way they give tax concession to home owners.

So don't ask stupid questions about new formula for property tax. You are already getting a GREAT DEAL!

Idiot!]

Upsized out of a lucky draw

2010-12-28T22:48:00.000-08:00

Dec 29, 2010

ENTICED by a "Say Aloha to the teriyaki chicken sandwich" promotion - and a chance to win a holiday in a lucky draw - outside the Carl's Jr restaurant at Jurong Point, my wife and I decided to try out the new teriyaki chicken sandwich for lunch on Monday.

When placing our orders, the counter employee asked if I would like to upsize my meal and I agreed on the upsize and I added on another pack of onion rings.

After being served our meal, we realised we were not given any entry coupon for the lucky draw. I then approached the counter and the manager asked to see my receipt. He said because I had upsized my meal, I did not qualify for the draw.

Surely this should be clearly stated so that customers would know not to upsize and pay extra if they do not want to be deprived of the lucky draw opportunity.

Alvin Alexis

[Ok. Granted Carl's Jr marketing and promotion is a little weird. This is a completely strange way of running a promotion. BUT if your choice of lunch is decided by lucky draws and freebies... you don't really know what you want do you?

Put another way. When you upsized your meal, you became a premium customer to Carl's Jr who then felt that it was not nice to have their premium customer's particulars added to the list that they were going to sell to telemarketers. Therefore they didn't give you your lucky draw coupon where you will have a 1 in 8 million chance of winning a holiday (terms and conditions apply, holiday must commence no earlier than the 26 Dec 2011 and be completed before the 31st Dec. Action figures sold separately. Batteries not included. Actual holiday may differ from illustration. Alcoholic beverages are chargeable. Offer void where prohibited by law. Prizes are not exchangeable or refundable), and will definitely be harassed by 352 telemarketers over the next 2 months.

You got the better deal.]

Japan's Strategic Position

2010-12-24T22:45:00.001-08:00

Dec 25, 2010

Don't shunt history into a corner

I REFER to the commentary by academic Heng Yee Kuang ('Best not to push Japan into a corner'; Tuesday).

Japan is not a landlocked country. It has access in all directions - by air or sea.

[Thus implying that Japan cannot be cornered and has strategic maneuverability. Which is stupid. Move where? So someone attacks from the east, and Japan moves it's entire force to the west? Someone invades your exclusive economic zone in the south, and you just move your fishing fleet to the north? Dumb.]

After the recent incident involving a collision between a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese patrol boat near the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, the 'sleeping giant' suddenly woke up and started announcing new changes in defence policy.

Its focus seems to be to ensure that this claimed territory in the East China Sea remains under Japanese control.

So, where did the writer find evidence of China trying to corner Japan?

[China making a big incident out of it, demanding the release of the Chinese captain charged with ramming the Japanese defence force vessel, demanding restitution, threatening sanctions, cutting off rare earth minerals exports to Japan, etc. And by the way, the article was not just about China. The article pointed out that Japan is being pressured by China and Russia, with N.Korea as a bit player. That the writer focus only on China shows a flawed and biased reading of the article. ]

The article quoted a Japanese academic's concern that 'Japan might be compelled to contemplate the possibility of re-fighting China once again'. Re-fight China? Who invaded whom in the past? Let us not forget history.

[And here the penny dropped. Yes, since Japan invaded China and committed atrocities such as the Nanking massacre, this now entitles China to get what's fair, eh?]

Chen Sen Lenn

Dec 21, 2010

Best not to push Japan into a corner

By Heng Yee Kuang

JAPAN'S announcement of sweeping changes to its defence postures last week reflects mounting strategic unease at being trapped in the increasingly rough neighbourhood of North East Asia. This sense of multiple threats bearing down on the nation from various directions was conveyed by Defence Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, who said: 'Our country is encircled by severe security situations...'

To begin with, there were the 'pincer movements' by China and Russia ganging up to press home their advantage. A joint statement released by Presidents Hu Jintao and Dmitri Medvedev in September soon after the Senkaku/Diaoyu trawler incident had both sides agreeing to support each other's 'core interests', including national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity (code words for territorial disputes in Japanese eyes). Coincidentally or not, President Medvedev then became the first Russian leader to visit the disputed Kurile islands shortly afterwards. While unrelated, North Korea's shelling of the South's Yeonpyeong island further stoked the feeling of a Japan under siege.

Putting the squeeze on Tokyo not only has the potential to awaken the sleeping giant, but can also backfire on Moscow and Beijing. In my discussions with leading academics, military officials and students in Tokyo, I found there was apprehension about how the Japanese people will react to such pressure. One young student said to me that he was very concerned about the nationalist backlash from the younger generation frustrated at Japan's weakness.

Although young Japanese are usually depicted as more interested in anime and manga than high politics, one Internet opinion poll earlier this month of 500 teens in junior high school rated the Senkaku clash as the news story of 2010.

More than its gaffes, the Naoto Kan Cabinet suffers heavily from a perception of its diplomatic weakness. Plummeting opinion polls are front-page headlines on leading dailies like the Asahi Shimbun.

A Fuji News Network survey showed the Cabinet's approval rating plunging to 21.8 per cent early this month. Protests denouncing both China and the Kan government have attracted crowds in the low thousands, a relatively large number in Japan. Cabinet Office data released last Sunday indicates the number of Japanese who feel favourable towards China has reached a low of 20 per cent, dropping 18.5 percentage points in just a year.

China was once viewed as more an opportunity than a threat. The previous Hatoyama administration came to power peddling the notion of closer ties with China and distancing Japan from America. However, China's recent assertiveness has pushed Tokyo back into Washington's embrace.

The new National Defence Programme Guidelines document employs the strongest language ever used to describe China's military modernisation and maritime activities. 'These movements, coupled with the lack of transparency in its military and security matters,' the document asserts, 'have become a matter of concern for the region and the international community.' The previous guideline in 2004 merely said Tokyo would be 'attentive' to China's future intentions.

As a result, Japan will now re-deploy forces to the remote south-west Nansei Shoto island group where China has territorial claims, abandoning its Cold War focus on a Soviet invasion of northern Hokkaido. More submarines, early warning radar systems and surface-to-ship missiles will be stationed closer to the disputed Senkaku islands to fill what the document calls a 'defence vacuum'. A second squadron of warplanes will also be added at Naha, Okinawa.

Despite its pacifist outlook, Japan's military is in fact larger than Britain's. It deploys the most advanced naval forces in the Pacific after the US Navy's Seventh Fleet. Japan also has one of the highest military budgets in the world. Deployments overseas have for years been testing the limits of the country's post- World War II pacifist Constitution.

Further provocation from Pyongyang, Beijing or Moscow will only provide more ammunition to those Japanese who are seeking to loosen the constitutional constraints on their country's military power. While no one seriously expects Japan to once again rampage across Asia, an expanded role for its technologically advanced Self-Defence Forces and a paradigm shift where Tokyo abandons engagement and confronts China directly is hardly in the interest of Beijing and Moscow.

Already, the latest guidelines hint at Japan's desire to break out of its 'encirclement' by courting allies such as Australia and South Korea. It should not be forgotten that Japan is considered widely to be a so-called 'virtual nuclear weapon state'. It can produce nuclear weapons relatively quickly.

A leading Japanese academic told me privately of his concern that Japan might be compelled to contemplate the possibility of re-fighting China once again. Do China and Japan really need several major wars, like the European powers did, before finally establishing structures for peace and cooperation? Full-blown conflict is certainly not yet on the cards but driving Japan into a corner would be a short-sighted and counter-productive move.

The writer, a Singaporean, is assistant professor of international relations at the University of St Andrews, Scotland. He is now a visiting scholar at Waseda University in Tokyo.

[The basic point of the article as I understand it is that extra-legal (or outright illegal) strategies regarding disputed territories will only raise the temperature of the issues, and may eventually spill over into confrontation. The proper approach is to use established international dispute resolution processes to sort out disagreements. However, that is not route being taken at the moment. Attitudes and postures "backed" by historical grievances as implied by the letter-writer serves little purpose, except to perhaps justify those extra-legal activities and strategies.

Still, there is a right and wrong way to go about protecting one's interest... ST Editorial below summarises.]

EDITORIAL
Japan right and wrong on defence posture

ANY Japanese government would be mindful that raising the nation's military preparedness, however justified, will cause unease. First is the arms buildup in North Asia extending to the subcontinent and South-east Asia. Japan's latest defence review stressing a rapid-response capability will accelerate the race. A buildup is inevitable anyway to keep trade routes open, but this is slight mitigation when productive spending should have priority in societies moving towards middle-income status. Second, countries that bore the brunt of the Japanese imperial advance during the last war will wonder whether the post-war pacifism, which held when Japan was peerless in Asia, is starting to unravel with China having displaced it. Unlike in Germany, militarist instincts are alive among sections of the Japanese elite. Thus, the incomplete atonement for wartime acts and denials of history.

And yet, and yet. Japan may end up looking not unduly aggressive for the new defence doctrine of meeting contingencies rather than imagining an old-fashioned invasion, from Russia for instance. The surprise of the military reassessment out last Friday was that it had not been updated sooner. In the six years since the last review undertaken by the Liberal Democrats, economic strides made by other Asian nations concurrent with force modernisation had left Japan looking under-invested. Maritime and territorial disputes in the East and South China seas in which Japan is involved have been longstanding. But North Asia is a changed theatre with China and South Korea more at odds as they progress, and North Korea defying norms of rational conduct as it prepares for leadership change. Then there is China's unstoppable growth in all fields of contest. Japan's treaty linkages with the United States oblige Tokyo to relook its defence posture in the light of what is spoken of as China's 'assertiveness', as if this is not a natural progression of gathering strength.

This is all very clinical on paper. In practice, Japan has needlessly got off badly with China by declaring that its realignment of forces to the south near China, and its spending on surveillance and missile systems are on account of its neighbour. In helping the US retain mobility in the Pacific, Japan should be emphasising it is defending the peace. And that this is essential for economic growth and recovery across the world. Then there will be no cause for fresh Beijing-Tokyo tension, which has arisen as China has objected to being targeted. Japan ought to take an all encompassing approach in relations with China, to stress also political and cultural collaboration. And military ties need not be a contradiction.

Dos and don'ts when flagging cabs

2010-12-22T22:59:00.000-08:00

Dec 23, 2010

I REFER to Mr Muhamad Noh Sapari's letter about errant cabbies ('Waiting in the rain as cabs whizz past'; Dec 7).

I have been a cabby for 10 years, and have had many experiences with passengers flagging down a cab at traffic lights, along bus lanes during operational hours or at times when stopping abruptly would cause serious accidents.

While it is not excusable not to stop, passengers and other road users' safety must come first, service second and fare third.

So let's be fair to all. If people want a safe ride home, flag down a cab at the correct spot, do it in advance, place your arms high and out, stay out of the bus lanes, keep a distance from big obstructing vehicles such as lorries and trucks and, more importantly, be patient.

Tan Ah Chuan

[Thank you Mr Tan. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have seen passengers flag cabs at the last minute and I have seen brainless drivers screech to a halt with no notice just to pick up these passengers, causing accidents or near accidents. It is not unthinkable for the passengers to then abandon the cab for the next cab leaving the driver to deal with the accident. Of course the driver is at fault, but the passengers bear part of the blame too.

Finding a safe place to hail a cab is also important. I have seen passengers try to stop a cab in the middle of a junction! ]

Award merit bursaries with no strings attached

2010-12-21T22:28:00.000-08:00

Dec 20, 2010

Bursary limit

MRS ELIZABETH NG: 'The Edusave Merit Bursary is given annually to students whose monthly household incomes are less than $4,000 and who rank within the top 25 per cent in terms of academic performance in their school. I find this unfair to students whose family incomes are above the income limit. All students need encouragement. Students whose household incomes are above $4,000 could be given a token in recognition of their efforts. These can be in the form of a collar pin, badge or certificate.'

Dec 22, 2010

I AGREE with Mrs Elizabeth Ng's comments on Monday ('Bursary limit') about the need to recognise students' efforts.

For the past few years, my children have been in the top 25 per cent in terms of academic performance in their school, but did not qualify for the Edusave Merit Bursary because our monthly household income is well above $4,000.

Since this is a scheme for students based on their academic performance, then eligibility should not be linked to their household income. The funds should be awarded to them with no strings attached.

The money can be credited into their Post-Secondary Education Account or their savings account for their future educational needs.

Ng Geok Hui (Madam)

[Bursuries are not scholarships. Scholarships are based purely on merit. Bursaries are intended to help needed students. So an income limit for eligibility is justifiable. Mdm Ng may argue for a higher income limit, but not no limit. Or if not limited by household income, then by other measures.

As for recognition, there was this comment:]

I am a parent myself and I don't agree that we should give awards for all students in the top 25% of the school. Most schools already award students for being top in the class. And bursaries are for the ones who need the financial help. Explain to your child that there are some who can't even afford to buy their own textbooks. Don't shelter them so much. Teach the child to be more civic minded.

Posted by: tiffangel at Wed Dec 22 13:35:10 SGT 2010

[Good for tiffangel! Sensible parent. Renews my faith that most parents are even-minded people.]

Stop the blame game

2010-12-16T18:45:00.002-08:00

Dec 17, 2010

I CANNOT fully agree with Mr Sebastian Tan who put the blame on the players for the Lion's loss to Vietnam in the AFF Suzuki Cup ("Blame the players, not the coach"; Wednesday).

Was it not the coach's responsibility to ensure that the players were psychologically, physically, technically and tactically fit for the competition? If not, why did he not recommend that Singapore pull out of the tournament? Why did he promise that the team would make the final?

I am sure coach Raddy Avramovic has good reasons for his inability to get the team to the level he desired.

I am also sure the players have tonnes of excuses for their inept performance. But they are not really important even though some may be legitimate.

For Singapore sports to progress, the blaming must stop. There is nothing much the coaches and players can do by themselves. It is time for the sports authorities, including the Singapore National Olympic Council, the Singapore Sports Council and the national sports associations to collectively take responsibility.

Lim Teong Chin

[So you blame the sports authorities, the SNOC, SCC and NSA? How is this stopping the "blame game"? Sailing Singapore is an NSA, what responsibility have they got for the football team's shortcomings? And in assuming the coach and players have reasons (or excuses) for their failures, he is absolving them of blame (and so playing the blame game).

Instead of focusing on a specific failure, this idiot wants to expand to generalities. Yes, at generalities, it's everybody's fault. It's a wonder he stopped where he did and did not proceed to blame the govt and the PAP.

But hey, guess what? I'm sure they have good reasons, even legitimate ones for why they are not respionsible for the Football team's poor performance. Like, THEY ARE NOT THE FARKING FOOTBALL TEAM.

Even if it is true that the sports hierarchy has some responsibility for the failures, the writer has not stated what these are. This is forum letter is a waste of time and space. Must be slow news day.]

Picture perfect harmony

2010-12-15T09:23:00.001-08:00

Dec 15, 2010

(From left) Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, Venerable Fa Rong and Syed Isa sharing a light moment at an event to honour the mufti with the Inter-Religious Organisation award. -- ST FILE PHOTO

I AM an American living in Indonesia and over the past 30 years, have made dozens of trips to Singapore.

The Prime News photograph yesterday (above) of Rabbi Mordechai Abergel, Buddhist monk the Venerable Fa Rong and Mufti Syed Isa Mohamed Semait nearly moved me to tears ('Tributes flow as mufti gets award').

I wish my native country as a whole could demonstrate the religious tolerance that Singapore has been able to cultivate.

Certainly there are good, tolerant people everywhere, and the United States has many who think like I do.

But in Singapore, it is the norm, and immediately observable everywhere you go. On a daily basis, I see Christian, Muslim and Hindu office workers sharing a meal at a kopitiam (coffee shop), exchanging smiles or pleasantries on the street or otherwise kindly extending help to one another.

In all my trips here, I have not once witnessed religion-fuelled hostility or prejudice.

My travels have taken me to all corners of the world, yet I have never found a country that comes even close to the religious and spiritual maturity that Singaporeans demonstrate towards one another.

Many letters complain about life in Singapore, but from an outsider's perspective, what a beautifully pluralistic and enviable society Singapore has.

In many ways, and especially in their tolerance for one another, Singaporeans are a beacon to the world.

Jack Blaylock

[Cynical Singaporeans will immediately jump on this and say how much of this may be posed photo-ops and how the facade may not reflect the truth. Certainly I feel a little discomfited to hear the writer say that we have spiritual maturity.

Well, maybe that might not be the correct phrase, but I think I understand what he means. Maybe we are not 100% honest, or sincere. Maybe we do harbour little niggling resentment or disdain for other faiths, but at least we have enough respect to show tolerance, and enough understanding to show mutual respect, and enough courtesy to keep our less flattering opinions to ourselves.

A little courtesy goes a long way. Respecting boundaries and agreeing to live and let live is the way to go forward.

So yes, compared to many other countries, Singapore has it a lot better and has a lesson for many other countries.]

Update: 12 Mar 2011.

A video in support of the letter writer. A muslim tries to pray while Christians taunt and mock him. So different from Egypt where Christians protected the Muslims when they prayed from pro-Mubarak forces trying to break up the protesters in Tahrir Square.

Update: Mar 22, 2011

Florida pastor burns Quran

GAINESVILLE (FLORIDA): A controversial American evangelical preacher on Sunday oversaw the burning of a copy of the Quran in a small Florida church after finding the Muslim holy book 'guilty' of crimes.

The burning was carried out by pastor Wayne Sapp under the supervision of pastor Terry Jones, who last September drew sweeping condemnation over his plan to ignite a pile of Qurans on the anniversary of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Sunday's event was presented as a trial in which the Quran was found 'guilty' and 'executed'. The jury deliberated for about eight minutes.

The holy book, which had been soaking for an hour in kerosene, was put in a metal tray in the centre of the church, and Mr Sapp started the fire with a barbecue lighter. The book burned for around 10 minutes while some onlookers posed for photos.

Mr Jones had drawn trenchant condemnation from many people, including top US leaders, over his plan to burn the Qurans last September.

He did not carry out his plan then and vowed he never would, saying he had made his point.
But this time, he said he had been 'trying to give the Muslim world an opportunity to defend their book', but did not receive any answer. He said he felt that he could not have a real trial without a real punishment.

While there were public protests against Mr Jones' Sept 11 activities, this event was largely ignored. The event was open to the public, but fewer than 30 people attended.

Ms Jadwiga Schatz, who came to show support for Mr Jones, expressed concern that Islam was growing in Europe. 'These people, for me, are like monsters,' she said. 'I hate these people.'

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Supplementary Retirement Scheme works best for the rich

2010-12-05T06:19:00.001-08:00

Dec 5, 2010

I refer to the article, 'Saving a little today will go a long way' (Nov14), which shows how the Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) helps taxpayers save on taxes.

SRS works best for high-income earners. For the rest of us, the savings are uncertain and the scheme can even result in some paying more taxes, as I will explain.

SRS contributions are tax-free up to $11,475 per year, but only for money that goes in. Unlike the Central Provident Fund, you must pay taxes - on half the money - when it comes out. Withdrawals are over a 10-year period beginning at the statutory retirement age, which is now 62.

Why does SRS sometimes result in little or no tax savings? There are two key reasons.

First, the article explains that withdrawals before age 62 entail a 5per cent penalty plus taxes on 100 per cent of the money withdrawn, which 'includes whatever capital gains you might have made from your investments using your SRS funds'.

Actually, non-early withdrawals also entail a capital gain tax. SRS also taxes dividends and interest. All of these are normally tax-free.

Second, the article says: 'For a person with a taxable income of $100,000, a $10,000 contribution works out to him paying $1,400 less tax based on current tax rates.'

Yes, but that is only one side of it. It's the tax savings when you put money in. How about when you take the money out? Could you pay even more taxes then?

Yes. Suppose $10,000 per year goes into the SRS from age 22. At 7per cent interest, it will grow to $2million by age 62 and one would withdraw roughly $200,000 per year for 10 years and pay taxes on half, which is $100,000 per year.

[If you're making $100k at age 22. I think that qualifies as rich.If you can consistently get 7% interest for 40 years, you are incredibly savvy investor. This is about what the highly risky mini-Bonds were offering. Now either 7% returns incurs that kind of risk, or the mini-Bonds were wrongly assessed in terms of risk. But at this point there are few investments that can steadily offer that kind of returns. And if you can withdraw $200k per year for your retirement out of a nest egg of $2m, I think you rank in the well-off if not rich category. Most likely, a 22 year old will not be making enough to contribute to the SRS. There are too many discretionary expenditure at that stage in life. Even at 35, most people may not have the means to save to the SRS consistently. But never mind.]

It incurs total taxes of $7,100 x 10 years = $71,000, which exceeds $1,400 x 40 years = $56,000 in tax savings.

[I don't know how he arrives at $7,100 taxes per year for 10 years, but for a so-called financially-savvy adviser, he totally ignores concepts of present values and future values. Put another way: Would you agree to have $56k now which you don't have to repay for 40 years, and at the end of 40 years, you will pay back $71k in fixed installments of 10 years. Ok, that's not exactly fair either. It should be $1,400 per year for 40 years, after which you pay back $7,100 per year for 10 years. Note that this $71,000 is based on his computation that said saver/investor will turn $400,000 to $2m over 40 years based on an investment return of 7%. I suspect that the figure will work out to less than that for most people because they will save for less than 40 years, and their returns will be less than 7%. ]

Why? The reason comes back to SRS taxing your capital gains, dividends and interest income.

In general, SRS works best for the rich. It offers a good chance of paying lower taxes if your tax bracket is (i) high when the money goes in, (ii) low when it comes out and (iii) if you invest late in life in low-yield securities, such as bonds.

Larry Haverkamp

[I usually like his analysis of financial and investment issues, but this is just biased and unrealistic. Perhaps he has an agenda - people are foregoing investing with him in order to squirrel away their savings in SRS? I don't know.

A rebuttal of sorts below.]

Dec 19, 2010

Why SRS accounts are a good way to save

While some dispute benefits of supplementary retirement scheme, it's possible to enjoy good return on investments

By Goh Eng Yeow

Around this time of the year as the annual bonus payout approaches, I find myself promoting a little-known savings programme known as the supplementary retirement scheme (SRS).

This is a scheme established in 2001 to complement the Central Provident Fund (CPF), which allows a saver to put up to $11,475 a year into a special account that can be opened at DBS Bank, OCBC Bank or United Overseas Bank and enjoy a tax relief on his contribution.

As Singaporeans live longer and healthier lives, relying solely on their CPF to keep them comfortably retired during their golden years may not be sufficient, especially if a big chunk of it is used to service monthly housing instalments.

What SRS offers as an incentive to savers is the tax savings they get from the money they put away into an SRS account.

Let me explain.

If you have a taxable income of $100,000 and you put away $10,000 into your SRS account, you can enjoy savings of $1,400 on your income tax bill the following year.

It is a tidy sum not to sneeze at, especially if you have the discipline to keep squirrelling away the same sum into your SRS account every year.

After 10 years, you will reap considerable savings of $14,000 on your income tax and that is not including any interest or investment returns which you might have earned from those savings.

After reaching the mandatory retirement age - now fixed at 62 - you can withdraw up to $40,000 tax-free from your SRS a year.

This works out to a maximum tax-free sum of $400,000, as SRS withdrawals can be staggered over a period of 10 years after retirement.

Data furnished by the Government shows that the effort to popularise the SRS is slowly bearing fruit.

Between 2007 and last year, the number of SRS account holders jumped by 12,322 - or 30 per cent - to 53,656, as more Singaporeans learnt about the scheme and decided to sign up.

This is a significant improvement over earlier years when the number of account openings languished at a sluggish pace.

Still, this number is a far cry from the 400,000-odd taxpayers, earning more than $60,000 a year, and who may reap some tax savings by putting some money into an SRS account.

When a saver squirrels away some money into an SRS account, he does not need to keep it locked up in a cash deposit. He can use the money in the SRS account to buy unit trusts, insurance policies or even stocks listed on the Singapore Exchange.

But the few times I had written to raise public awareness of the SRS, I received feedback from a few disgruntled readers who disputed the benefits it bestowed on the ordinary saver.

One reader noted that there was a 5 per cent penalty charge for early withdrawal. The sum withdrawn would also be treated as part of his taxable income for that year.

Doesn't this smack of a disguised capital gains tax, he asked.

There was another reader who griped that the SRS was useless for savers who were not interested in buying financial products from banks.

'If you already plan to buy things like unit trusts from that pretty girl in the bank, you can consider putting money into SRS, enjoy some tax savings and make her very happy for closing the sale and getting a commission out of it,' he wrote.

A third reader raised the intriguing possibility that a successful investor may actually end up footing an even bigger tax bill on the monies he withdraws from his SRS account after retirement.

While not disputing the merits of the points they raised, I can use only my experience as an SRS account-holder to point out some of the benefits.

I have been diligently putting money into my SRS account every year since its inception.

Going through the SRS data furnished by the Government, this decision is hardly surprising. I belong to the age group, between 36 and 55 years, which form 70 per cent of all SRS contributors.

In general, wage-earners in this age group would have a steady job and a steady income, with some cash to spare - after servicing their home mortgages and car loans.

After 10 years, I can attest to the considerable sum I reaped on the tax savings I enjoyed from the SRS contributions.

The incremental benefits add up. The total tax savings that I received over the past decade were sufficient for me to make the maximum SRS contribution of $11,475 for this year - and still have cash left over.

And unlike some SRS account holders who complain that they are lured into buying unsuitable insurance policies or financial products, I am glad to report that my experience has, so far, been a happy one.

In my 10 years of putting money into my SRS account, I have never once been pursued by an insurance agent or financial adviser on how to invest the funds.

Partly, this is because I know how I want to invest the money. That is surely the maxim which any investor should apply on all his investments, and not simply those related to SRS.

As I have no intention of making any premature withdrawal from my SRS account prior to retirement and attracting the 5 per cent penalty charge, I can afford to take a long-term view on selecting the investments. This has served me well.

My SRS account now has a couple of blue chips that were accumulated when they fell to attractive levels during the 2003 Sars crisis and the more recent global financial crisis two years ago.

I am also perfectly happy to keep the SRS contributions parked in cash in some years when I could not find any stocks worth my while to invest in.

Despite the market upheavals over the years, I have enjoyed an annual return of 12 per cent on my SRS investments. All in, my SRS account has outperformed the benchmark Straits Times Index in the past decade.

But unless I enjoy an extraordinary stroke of good luck in my investments, it is unlikely that I would ever hit the $400,000 tax-free savings ceiling limit for the SRS account by the time I retire.

I believe that this is an experience which most SRS savers are likely to share, since they keep their SRS monies in ultra-safe investments like blue chips, bonds and insurance products.

For us, the benefits in having an SRS account are obvious.

What is needed is for the scheme to be given a makeover like a catchy name change to attract more savers to its fold.

engyeow@sph.com.sg

Alternative Medicine - the debate

2010-12-02T00:07:00.000-08:00

Dec 2, 2010

Stick to mainstream medicine till there's proof

MR RICHARD Seah's letter ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19) misses the point made by the writers whom he criticises (Dr Choo Su Pin and Dr Toh Han Chong, 'Don't make cancer harder than it is'; Nov 11).

Mr Seah targets the conclusions of the writers without dealing with their reasoning.

The crux of Dr Toh and Dr Choo's letter was that bioresonance therapy was not an 'alternative' treatment, but rather could actually be risky; patients were either overly frightened by the less than accurate diagnostics of bioresonance or worse, forsook conventional cancer treatment therapies for an unproven one, thereby giving up a potential cure.

Far from being dismissive and close-minded, they did acknowledge in their letter that 'there may be some treatments and supplements that may indeed be proven beneficial one day' but qualifed it by stating that 'these cannot be oversold beyond what is known about their true benefits'.

Dr Ang Peng Tiam's take on anti-cancer diets ('Food for thought'; Nov 18) should be taken in context. He was merely warning against giving up a regular diet in favour of other diets especially because chemotherapy requires adequate nutrition, and not arguing against alternative medicine.

The point these other writers were trying to make is this: Unless and until such alternative treatments are proven to be safe, effective and accurate, we should not choose them over conventional ones. Doing so could cause us either unnecessary worry or additional suffering that leads to premature death.

Tang Shangjun

Mainstream medicine isn't a cure-all...

I HAVE been a practising family doctor since 1994 and seen my fair share of chronic debilitating diseases and cancers causing much suffering and death over the years.

Often, I find myself helpless in preventing the onset of such illnesses or providing relief to my patients even with advanced Western medicine.

[Yes. Everybody dies. Not every illness can be prevented or cured. You are not god. Pain and suffering is part of life. Death is also part of life. If you are a doctor because you think you can save everyone, you will indeed feel helpless, and you will indeed find that even advance medicine will not save all your patients. If you think you can save everyone, your medical training is sorely inadequate. If you think salvation is in alternative medicine, please switch and stop practicing western medicine.]

Our body has a remarkable capacity to heal itself, much more quickly than people realise, when we address the underlying causes of illnesses. And for many people, the choices they make each day and what they eat each day will determine their health in the long run.

[I have no disagreement with the above paragraph... within reason. But if the lungs were punctured, or one was acute appendicitis, please do not tell the patient to rest at home and let the body heal itself. I'm all for self-medicating, or the power of a good rest and yes, I think I should eat more healthily, and yes, my diet and life choices affects my health. But these are not arguments for alternative medicine.]

We should not begrudge those who prefer a vegetarian diet and seek alternative treatment. It is their choice and who are we to decide for them when we don't even know ourselves?

In short, we are all learning. I remember years ago when traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) was not recognised by medical practitioners. But now, there is a TCM practice even in major hospitals.

[I seriously wonder about the efficacy of that.]

As doctors, we should keep an open mind as there is always more to learn.

Dr Benny Lim Jit Biaw

...No, but it's the be-all, unlike alternative healing

I REFER to the letter by Mr Richard Seah ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19).

Mr Seah's polemic against Dr Andy Ho's article ('Sending out the wrong signals'; Nov 6) completely misses the point and grossly oversimplifies the view of allopathic medicine on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

Mr Seah's contention that Dr Ho and Dr Ang Peng Tiam ('Food for thought'; Nov 18) displayed 'rudeness and insensitivity' by dismissing CAM as pseudoscience fails to take into consideration the duties of the two medical men.

Medical professionals are accountable only to the health and well-being of the patient. 'Culture' and political correctness take a backseat when providing information concerning patient care. Mr Seah's implied assertion that doctors should permit CAM on grounds of sensitivity thus, holds no water.

[Good point.]

Doctors acknowledge that the patient has autonomy in matters of his health and is free to choose his choice of therapy. This does not preclude doctors from speaking out against quackery and 'snake oil' salesmen brazenly promoting a panacea that provides little benefit beyond a placebo effect. Doctors must provide necessary information verified by the scientific process for patients to make informed choices.

Mr Seah implied that CAM holds more value than allopathic medicine is wont to give. However, CAM is a body of unverified practices that have questionable outcomes and doubtful methodologies.

Homeopathy, for example, has long resisted the golden test of efficacy - the double blind trial. Mr Seah's argument that 'qi' and other pseudoscientific concepts in CAM are 'holistic' is a tired argument raised countless times. It is puzzling that the public demands drug trials and testing for drugs but yet does not demand the same rigour from CAM.

Certainly, not all aspects of CAM are worthless. Pharmaceuticals recognise the value of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) - for example Artemisinin, a first-line antimalarial derived from herbs. However, the fact that once CAM has been accepted by the scientific and medical community, it becomes 'mainstream' rather than 'alternative' seems to fly over CAM proponents' heads.

Singapore has come a long way in the field of science and it is precisely because of its 'advanced medical technology' that old practices that have little footing in science are abandoned.

Oon Ming Liang

Beware, be very aware of mumbo jumbo...

I AM writing in response to Mr Richard Seah's letter ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19).

While I agree with Mr Seah that there are indeed other traditional forms of medical practices that have been passed down through the generations in different cultures, one thing must be made clear: If these practices are not scientifically proven, they cannot be considered as treatments to be endorsed.

Mr Seah quoted bioresonance as an example in his letter, criticising mainstream doctors for dismissing this as mumbo jumbo. The fact of the matter is that it has been scientifically proven that it is no more effective than a placebo; that is, it would be equally effective as tap water.

There is no scientific basis for its efficacy; just your imagination. Yes, the mind is a wonderful tool and has been able to help heal the body, as shown by Professor V.S. Ramachandran in his research on the phantom limb; yet to attribute the mind's powerful healing effects to bioresonance, or some other mumbo jumbo, is irresponsible.

I am not saying that mainstream medicine is infallible. However, there is a reason why there are exacting standards to prove the efficacy of a treatment before it becomes adopted as mainstream. This is to protect unsuspecting citizenry from quack treatments, regardless of whether the doctor has published a book or not. If a treatment has not undergone peer review and trials, it cannot be considered responsible treatment.

Ian Dyason

...Sure, but doctors should try a dose of humility

I REFER to the letter by Mr Richard Seah ('Mainstream doctors shouldn't be insensitive to alternative medicine'; Nov 19) and couldn't agree more with him.

I suffered from a chronic gastric condition for 20 years. I was treated by both general practitioners and specialists in both government and private clinics. I was put through all kinds of tests and prescribed many medicines... but these did not improve my condition.

A friend introduced me to bioresonance therapy last year and my health has since improved.

Instead of criticising and making negative comments about alternative medicine, why aren't these professionals in medicine humbling themselves to find out why people are not sticking to conventional treatments but seeking alternative ones instead?

Lim Swee Har (Ms)

[I'm glad BRT "worked" for you. But as Dr Benny Lim and Mr Ian Dyason noted, the the human body has great restorative powers, and the human mind too. Please consider the case cited by the oncologists - one a false diagnosis of gastric cancer by BRT, scaring the woman into expensive medical test and procedures only to prove that she has no cancer.

If someone told you that rubbing a magic stone over your abdomen everyday for 2 weeks would cure your gastric, and it really happened, would you believe that the stone was magic? Or would you want to see the magic stone heal other people?]

Nov 25, 2010

Alternative medicine unsafe? Not true

MAINSTREAM medical doctors routinely warn that complementary and alternative medicine can be dangerous, the latest instance being Monday's report about hypnotherapy ("When you wake, you will excel in school").

In that report, psychiatrist Brian Yeo warned that "hypnotherapists have the power to elicit information that the subject may not ordinarily want to reveal".

I believe hypnotherapists will attest that such an assertion is untrue. If indeed hypnotherapy has such powers, the police and security forces might as well use it to elicit confessions from suspected criminals and terrorists.

[In this case, I would say that Mr Seah has a point. The powers of hypnotherapy is overstated by Brian Yeo. I would not be surprised if he was misquoted by the reporters. But if he wasn't he really should be ashamed of himself for saying such stupid things.]

In reality, a person cannot be hypnotised against his will. One hypnotherapist explained to me: "If a person has no desire to stop smoking, I cannot use hypnotherapy to make him stop."

Dr Yeo also warned that "anything that has the power to do good also has the power to do the not-so-good".

This is a general statement that applies to anything and everything - including psychiatry.

An Internet search for "harm of psychiatry" will throw up many reports and medical studies about the damage done by psychiatric drugs and other forms of psychiatric treatment.

Ditto if you do a search for "harm of medicine". Studies of iatrogenic illnesses - caused by medical treatment - show that in medically advanced countries like the United States, medical care is the third leading cause of death.

By contrast, complementary and alternative medicine rarely cause harm. Insurance companies know this. They charge complementary and alternative medicine practitioners much lower premiums for professional indemnity insurance.

Richard Seah

[Partly it is because the proper authorities would not allow untrained, unscientific practitioners near deadly or potentially dangerous equipment, devices and ingredients. If I say my alternative medicine involves placing my hands on the patient's head and letting my qi flow into him to cure him, I probably won't need malpractice insurance. If my alternative medicine involves putting the patient in a tub of milk and applying an electric current through him, or if involves cutting open the patient in order to massage the pancreas to stimulate the flow of qi, the authorities will probably be down on me like a ton of bricks, and no insurance company should want to insure me.

So treatments like BRT where the equipment is no more dangerous than an ECG/EEG machine, insurance companies will be as glad to take your money as you are prepared to take the money of your gullible victims... I mean patients.]

The original article, and the letter from Cancer specialists that started the debate.

Nov 6, 2010

DAEDALUS
Sending out the wrong signals

By Andy Ho

SEVERAL non-physicians are offering 'bioresonance' as a cure-all for ills ranging from allergies and addictions to autism and cancers.

All for $150 to $300 for one to 1-1/2 hours at a device that looks like any oscilloscope you might find in a physics lab.

Recently, a Bedok general practitioner called Dr Erwin Kay was censured by the Singapore Medical Council for 'treating' patients with the device. He was fined $5,000 for professional misconduct.

But while bioresonance is not accepted as a method of medical treatment that trained physicians may use, it is perfectly legal for non-physicians to offer it.

In the United States, by contrast, the extravagant claims that these operators make for bioresonance may see them hauled off to court.

For instance, in October 2002, a bogus cancer cure guru, David L. Walker, had to settle with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, which works to prevent consumers from being defrauded, had taken him to court for claiming that he could cure cancer with his bioresonance machine.

What practitioners like Mr Walker claim their 'remedy' can do is based on the unproven premise that cells in the human body have a natural vibration or resonance. Hence, bio-resonance. That is, they vibrate or resonate at 'healthy frequencies' whereas unhealthy cells supposedly do so at different frequencies.

It follows, therefore, that healthy frequencies should be applied to ill bodies to bring them into balance once again. Such rebalancing apparently would free unhealthy cells of unspecified toxins accumulated in the course of ill health.

What is needed, then, is a device that can detect these differences in frequencies, determine which organs are ill and then deliver opposite waves to 'cancel out' the unhealthy frequencies. This is where the bioresonance device comes in.

In use, the electrodes linked to the device are applied to the patient's skin to supposedly diagnose one's conditions. The electrodes send out electrical signals that perform their 'wave interference' work adroitly, thus leading to a rebalancing of frequencies.

The stated frequency range at which rebalancing occurs is said to vary greatly from 10 Hz to 150,000 Hz. Computerised data recording goes on even as the electrodes emit their healing frequencies.

Computer power is also used to analyse the data and interpret the results to give an indication of the patient's health.

Signal intensity is then varied according to these analyses, which may also direct the practitioner to focus the electrodes on a specific part of the anatomy where treatment is particularly needed. Of course, several sessions are needed to achieve re-balancing and healing.

There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence to support this gobbledegook. The evidence that does exist utterly refutes its theory and practice.

In a randomised, double-blind trial involving children in Davos, Switzerland, who had an allergic skin condition called atopic dermatitis, bioresonance was found to have no curative effect at all.

In a separate trial, bioresonance electrodes were tested for accuracy in the diagnosis of allergies to house dust mites or cat dander. Their accuracy was compared to that of the standard skin-prick test used by dermatologists. There was absolutely no correlation between the two sets of results.

A similar trial published in the British Medical Journal in January 2001 also showed that the bioresonance machine failed to diagnose skin allergies.

Since these are not life-threatening conditions, perhaps the practice of bioresonance is quite harmless. Not so, however, when it is also claimed to cure cancer.

Though there have been no clinical trials to test this claim, it is based on completely erroneous science. Advocates argue that the bioresonance device can kill cancer cells by releasing tumour suppressor genes that have become 'suppressed'. Alternatively, or in addition, it is said to attenuate hyperactive oncogenes or genes that cause cancer.

Actually, cancer arises when mutations develop in these genes, not because they are suppressed or become hyperactive, respectively. Once mutations have developed in them, genes cannot be restored to their previously normal state.

The p53 gene helps to regulate when a particular type of cell will divide in two. It also leads defective cells to 'commit suicide'. But when p53 mutates, it can no longer do these things, so cancer develops.

But bioresonance advocates claim that p53 is 'suppressed', not mutated, in cancer cells. For this reason, it is argued, bioresonance can be used to reinvigorate p53, thus curing the cancer.

But genomics studies show p53 is mutated, not suppressed, in cancers.

In sum, bioresonance is junk science. Advocates may trot out testimonials from satisfied customers, but testimonials are not data. Its efficacy can be proven only with trustworthy data obtained from rigorous trials with blinded controls.

But since anyone may make and sell these devices - that is, the technology can no longer be patented since it is widely available - no one has any incentive to invest in such studies.

Be that as it may, unless and until such studies are done, one should stay away from this 'therapy'.

andyho@sph.com.sg

----------
Nov 11, 2010
Don't make cancer harder than it is

AS MEDICAL oncologists, we were heartened to read Dr Andy Ho's column last Saturday ('Sending out the wrong signals').

It is a daily struggle trying to convince some desperate cancer patients that they are unwittingly giving away their time and money to mumbo jumbo like bioresonance therapy.

Earlier this year, a woman was referred to our centre after she was told by her bioresonance therapist that she had Stage 2 gastric cancer detected by bioresonance. In the end, she did not have any cancer but ended up with a needless CT scan, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, blood tests and a lot of unnecessary anxiety.

More recently, another patient asked a colleague if she should go for bioresonance therapy at a popular bioresonance therapy centre. One cannot say that bioresonance therapy and similar unproven therapies are harmless, as they can lead to unnecessary investigations, wastage of money and resources, and worse, patients refusing conventionally proven therapy with evidence of real benefits.

We remember a patient with potentially curable lymphoma who refused curative chemotherapy and went on a strict diet based on its recommendation as anti-cancer therapy.

He was only 35 years old and almost died from renal failure and other electrolyte abnormalities caused by the diet before he eventually died from the lymphoma itself.

It is frustrating, especially when patients refuse conventional therapy which can potentially achieve good outcomes and even cures in favour of unproven alternative therapies.

It is easy to exploit vulnerable cancer patients, create fear and promise unsubstantiated hope. Cancer patients and their relatives may willingly pay for unproven therapies with little or no solid basis in science, common sense or evidence but solely based on hearsay, if there is even a glimmer of hope for their often terminal illness.

While most alternative treatments, like mangosteen juice and wheatgrass, have not shown anti-cancer effects in humans, others like chelation therapy, oxygen therapy, coffee enemas and various antioxidant therapies have been reported to cause dangerous effects in patients.

We respect that there may be some treatments and supplements that may indeed be proven beneficial one day, but these cannot be oversold beyond what is known about their true benefits.

It is our responsibility and that of the media to educate the public and point people in the right direction and away from baseless cancer-treatment claims.

Dr Choo Su Pin and
Dr Toh Han Chong
National Cancer Centre Singapore

Alkaline ionised water

2010-11-23T09:04:00.001-08:00

Nov 30, 2010

Show the science of alkali water

DR KOH Lam Son ("A different view on alkaline ionised water"; Nov 23) and Mr Kenneth Wong ("Making a case for alkaline water"; Nov 26) referred to the widely researched and well-documented beneficial effects of alkali water, which include the neutralisation of free radicals and a salutary antioxidant effect.

This appropriately brings up the topic of what constitutes good science and research.

Succinctly, the scientific approach demands the formulation of hypotheses, construction of theories, separation of fact from opinion, acceptance through public publication after peer review and the critical quality of experimental results being replicable.

The hypothesis that water can be turned into an acid-alkali/bi-component moiety is merely wishful, the theory behind it untenable and the support for it mainly testimonial in nature, without legitimate substantiation.

Supporters of alkali water can convincingly remove the blinkers from doubting cynics by providing for scrutiny, before the eyes of erudite chemistry professors, the science of alkali water. At the same time, by publishing irrefutable clinical data which would clinch their case conclusively, they can convert doctors that simply transforming a molecule of water can serendipitously turn it into an elixir for health.

Dr Yik Keng Yeong

-------------

Nov 23, 2010

A different view on alkaline ionised water

I REFER to Dr Yik Keng Yeong's comments on alkaline ionised water ("Don't be taken in by 'benefits' of alkali water"; Nov 15).

The subject of alkaline ionised water has been widely researched in the last 50 years, mainly in Russia, Japan and South Korea. Scientific studies have generally concluded that it has beneficial alkalising and antioxidant effects.

Alkaline ionised water has been shown to neutralise free radicals and improve the control of many lifestyle-related chronic disease conditions associated with free radical stress - for example, diabetes, gout, obesity, hypertension, high cholesterol and rheumatoid arthritis.

I urge general physicians to consider using the water as a support measure in the management of patients with chronic diseases.

Dr Koh Lam Son

15 November 2010.

=========================================================

Don't be taken in by 'benefits' of alkali water

OF LATE, more and more patients have been approaching family practitioners asking whether the ingestion of alkali water has a salutary effect on health.

Insofar as I know, no reputable scientific or medical journal has recorded any beneficiary effects of alkaline or ionised water. The structure of the human digestive system is such that the potent acids of the stomach will quickly neutralise whatever small amount - if any - of alkali water made in an ionising machine and ingested orally.

At any rate, these acidic contents from the stomach, once emptied into the intestines, encounter the strong alkaline digestive juices secreted by the pancreas, so the visceral contents turn naturally alkaline.

Adding either acid or alkali to the diet is therefore superfluous as the physiology of the human body just does not need such meddling - acid-base homeostasis being judiciously regulated by the lungs and the kidneys.

Makers of alkali/ionising water machines exploit credulous patients by proclaiming their nostrum as a panacea for curing everything from hair loss to osteoporosis to cancer. Sadly, unsuspecting patients are hoodwinked by their claims which are impressively supported by reams of gobbledegook masquerading as science.

The health authorities should come out against this practice and arrest this trend among the gullible.

Dr Yik Keng Yeong

[Call me skeptical, but read the first letter by Dr Koh. Basically, he says that alkaline ionised water can neutralise free radicals and improve control of lifestyle ailments. How does it do it is not clear. "Free radicals" have been tossed off as an explanation for cancer. There at least the theory has some explanation of the "mechanics" - free radicals being reactive disrupt normal cells turning them cancerous. How free radicals cause obesity, gout, high cholesterol, hypertension, etc, is not explained.

On the other hand, Dr Yik's letter is more logical. Alkali is caustic so you won't want to ingest water that is too alkaline. If there is no problem ingesting such things, you may want to chew on some alkaline batteries. A little alkaline is probably not a problem. But the mild alkalinity would be neutralised by stomach acid in the first place. Now if the point was to reduce heartburn, I can see how this might be a possible remedy. But the effect of mild alkaline water would be neutralised beyond the stomach.

Now both of them are doctors, so who should we believe. Moreover Dr Koh has a double postgrad degree - in O&G and general surgery. And he was a PAP MP for 2 terms. But he wandered into anti-ageing medicine when he retired. There is something to be said about a man in his sixties looking to stay young.

But all this pseudo-science/fraudulent medicine is selling hope. Not cures.]

Off-peak car licence system inadequate

2010-11-19T17:27:00.001-08:00

Nov 20, 2010

I WOULD like to share my experience with the electronic day (e-Day) licence for off-peak cars (OPC).

As an OPC user, I have consistently purchased e-Day licences before midnight as required by the authorities.

I received a notice of offence for driving my car during restricted hours more than three months after the alleged offence. I checked online for my historical e-Day licence purchases but the system provided only one month's worth of historical data.

I have written an appeal for leniency and forwarded some questions about the system to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) but have not received any response for more than a month, despite repeated reminders. I have since paid the fine to avoid any further ordeal.

My experience has led me to question the efficiency of LTA in handling feedback from the public, as well as the efficacy of the e-Day licence system and its adequacy in providing information to the public to verify e-Day licence purchases.

Sim Lai Yong

[A refreshingly simple, concise, non-whining, reasonable letter about data availability and system processes.]

Our Buses

2010-10-28T23:04:00.000-07:00

[One tourist complain, and two letters with suggestions! Helpful!]

Oct 29, 2010

Make bus rides friendlier

MRS HYUNHEE Kim's suggestion to equip buses with route maps and a system to announce the name of the next bus stop is indeed useful ('Lost after taking the bus'; Tuesday).

Only last week, my nephew was in a similar situation. He studies at the Nanyang Technological University and came to visit me. I gave him detailed instructions to alight at the bus stop near Block 610 Clementi West.

But he missed it and had to alight at the next bus stop near the National University of Singapore. Fortunately, he had his mobile phone with him and after more instructions, got to my home 30 minutes later.

I have noticed that some of the buses operated by SMRT display signs of the next bus stop coming up. But they are ineffective when names of bus stops are similar. Also, the entire fleet of buses here will have to be upgraded to make a difference.

I have a few suggestions to solve the problem:
- Assign a unique identification (ID) to each bus stop and display it prominently so that it is visible from a distance of 200m to 300m whether it is day or night.
- The bus guide and tourist maps should indicate the bus stop ID in addition to the bus stop's name.
- The ID system could also be used by Internet- and mobile-based services.

Such a standardised system will go a long way in making our public transport system more friendly for commuters.

Prem Prakash

[Unique ID for every bus-stop that can be see 300m away? UGLY! As it is there are already too many signs and advertisements littering our landscape. Most bus services cater to the resident population and they learn the bus routes after the initial period. Tourist tend to stay within the tourist belt or to visit specific attractions. The next letter is more practical.]

Tourists may have other options

MRS HYUNHEE Kim's letter ('Lost after taking the bus'; Tuesday) brought back memories of an almost similar situation that my family and I experienced in South Korea.

We had found a place of interest online which had instructions on how to get there via public transport.

The first part of the journey was smooth enough as it was by the Metro; but the second part was by bus. We tried to follow the online instructions which was to board a green bus with a certain number.

There were no instructions on when to get off, and we could not understand anything from the bus-stand signs as English is not widely used there.

Nevertheless, we boarded the bus and travelled a distance before we decided to ask a fellow passenger who, to our relief, spoke some English.

Like Seoul, I believe Singapore's public bus network is designed to provide cost-efficient transportation for a large portion of the population and caters less to tourists who are less familiar with the routes.

Places of interest are usually accessible via the tourist transport network and these would have all the sophisticated tools to get first-time visitors to where they want to go.

As new families get to know Singapore better, they could use other means, for example, smart phones with locator or map tools. Or, they could seek assistance from fellow passengers.

Donovan Sy

MRT travails of a pregnant woman

2010-10-27T19:56:00.000-07:00

[Usually I picked on silly forum letters. But this one not silly. It was the online comment (after the letter) that caught my eye. Uncourteous and ungracious is barely forgiveable. Rude and obnoxious (in this situation) speaks of an entitlement mentality and a self-centredness that would shame his parents.]

Oct 28, 2010

I AM almost seven months pregnant and I take the MRT and bus to work daily. During the course of my pregnancy, fewer than 10 people have given up their seats to me.

Last week, I was standing in front of a priority seat on the MRT. The person sitting on it got up as he was getting off the train, but a man in his 40s brushed past me to grab the seat.

[May be "racist" of me, but I suspect he's from China.]

In his haste, he pushed me just as the train was leaving the station. I almost lost my balance but he pretended not to notice me and fell asleep. I can understand that he was eager to get the seat, but I cannot accept such ungracious behaviour.

People have bumped into my tummy with their huge backpacks and handbags, and I have endured jerky train rides with no poles for me to hold on to as some commuters choose to lean on them. I have also had my feet trampled on and been pushed as some passengers rush to alight without so much as an 'excuse me'.

Is it so difficult for us to practise some graciousness in our everyday life? Pregnant women do not want to be treated like queens, but at the very least, be considerate to them. Even if no one gives up his seat to me, a person who asks if I would like to lean on the glass panel at the end of the row of seats would earn my gratitude, because at least someone notices and cares.

I have even given up my seat to an old woman who was walking with a tongkat. Are there no able-bodied young men or women around?

[Of course people will paint themselves in a good light, and yes, we only have her perspective. But the tone of her letter speaks of a lack of entitlement mentality that is laudable. I feel empathy for her and I wish Singaporeans would be more gracious, and I think she's right. A dim sum dolly ad is not going to work.]

I hope people can be more considerate to pregnant women and old folk. This is something our society needs to work on, and it can't be fixed with just a Dim Sum Dollies campaign.

Cai Suqi (Ms)

Online comment

An elderly passenger did not choose to be elderly. A handicapped passenger did not choose to be handicapped. Gestures of grace or sympathy are rightly due to them. But a pregnant passenger exercised her own free will, with eyes wide open, to be pregnant. So take responsibility for the decision you make, expect the vissicitudes of life that come with the decision, and shut up already.
Posted by: acsian12 at Thu Oct 28 10:50:54 SGT 2010

How rude. Wonder if writer is really from ACS or just trying to defame the school. Prime candidate for retroactive abortion. His/Her mother really wasted her time and made the wrong choice carrying it to term.

Obviously it is still a virgin. Or it would know that some women when getting pregnant (or tyring to) close their eyes.

And of course the elderly has a choice whether to grow old... or die. Such closed minded "logic".

I highly recommend acsian12 to consider living fast, dying young and leaving a corpse. I don't know what it looks like so I can say "good-looking corpse". Probably ugly. Like its soul.

Casinos catering more to S'poreans than tourists?

2010-10-24T19:51:00.000-07:00

Letter from Leong Sze Hian
Today Online 05:55 AM Oct 25, 2010

I REFER to media reports about Singaporeans visiting the two casinos here.

If Singaporeans reportedly make up about a third of the 55,000 visitors to the two casinos, does it mean that there has been about 3.85 million (55,000 ÷ 3 x 210 days) visits by Singaporeans to the casinos in the seven months since their opening?

If we add to this figure permanent residents (PRs), the number of visits may cross 4 million.

If we include the 1.4 million foreigners who are resident in Singapore visiting the casinos, then the number of tourists (two-thirds of the daily 55,000 less PRs and foreigner residents) may not be even half the total number who visit the casinos.

So, are the casinos catering more to attract Singapore residents or tourists?

Finally, why are the statistics not being made public?

[Maybe because stupid people may make dumb conclusions like this one? Let's see in 7 months 3.85 million visits by Singaporeans. Implying that practically every Singaporean, man woman and child, has been there at least once? And apparently, all 1.4m resident foreigners are visiting the casinos as well! That's every foreign talent, PR, foreign worker, foreign maid, and foreign bride!

3.85m is practically the whole population of SC. I haven't gone to the casino. Most of my colleagues have not gone (or maybe would not admit to having gone). So many of those who go are repeat visitors.

But Mr Leong is not stupid. He generally provides analysis of financial issues and offers some intriguing viewpoints. But this is probably pre-election posturing.]

Is there a serious educational gap?

2010-10-18T09:53:00.001-07:00

Oct 18, 2010

MS LIM Zi Kun's letter ("Generation Y: Don't assume we're not serious"; Oct 8) is a breath of fresh air, coming as it does from an 18-year-old with everything to live and strive for still ahead of her.

If what she claims is true - that she and her peers are still quite unaware of "Singapore's legislative machinery, government policies and political culture" after 12 years of education - then something ought to be done quickly.

She has identified a serious gap in the education of our young, a gap that could seriously compromise Singapore's continued progress.

Those in the position to change the status quo should ensure that she and her peers, and all those who come after them, understand the importance of their personal contributions and are able to make intelligent and informed decisions about things that affect their lives and Singapore.

Singapore would be so much the poorer without citizens of this calibre.

Lee Seck Kay

[I read that same letter, and a part of me was thinking, yeah right. There is a critique of Singapore's education system, and Singapore students that the system and the product of the system are not very pro-active about learning. They are spoon fed. Whatever they need to know, they expect to be spoon fed. I must say that when I was 18, I probably didn't know everything about Singapore politics or Singapore history. But I probably knew quite a bit, from personal interests, from reading the papers, from questioning the situation, and just wondering why things were the way they were.

When I was 18, there was no internet. At least not the internet of today, and certainly I had no access to the rudimentary internet.

But there's wikipedia today. And if you're 18 years old, and you profess an interest in Singapore's politics, legislative system, and history and you have not found out from wikipedia, then you are either lying about your professed interest, or every time you log onto the internet, you are facebooking. Distracted.

Or did you want the official version of everything to be spoon fed to you? Then I guess, you are a ~~product~~ victim of our education system.]

Oct 8, 2010

Don't assume we're not serious

AS A 'Gen Y' Singaporean who is turning 18, I realise that despite 12 years of national education and two years of social studies, I remain quite unaware of Singapore's legislative machinery, government policies and political culture.

Likewise, most of my peers have never heard of the Women's Charter, and are clueless about the laws of estate, marriage, inheritance, censorship and so on.

Most adults around us have neither discussed nor spoken to us about Singapore law and politics in an open and impartial manner. This has created a false impression that these subjects are taboo, unrelated to our lives and exclusive only to the academic elite. We must correct the misconception among young people that law and politics do not concern them.

When adults instil in them the belief that they have a stake in the law, governance and their own future, perhaps they will not be as apathetic as adults claim they are.

To help create awareness, private organisations could work with schools to hold talks, symposiums and the like to actively inform young people about Singapore's law and political culture in an unbiased and objective manner. The Ministry of Education could also make it a mandatory part of the curriculum for pre-university and tertiary students.

If young people are more informed, they are more likely to make informed decisions and they might also actively seek to improve the quality of legislation and governance in Singapore.

What is needed is an informative platform for youth to understand their place in the nation's 'eco-system' in real terms. It should be a springboard for civic thinking and, by all means, activism.

Lim Zi Kun (Ms)

[I wanna say, go Google it, you twit! But decided she has a point also. The school hasn't taught her to go find things out herself. Sad.]

Regulate parking in private estates

2010-10-13T22:54:00.000-07:00

Oct 14, 2010

PARKING illegally and causing traffic obstruction is rampant in private residential estates. This scenario is, however, uncommon in HDB estates and almost non-existent along major roads.

Time and again, we read in the news that neighbours come into conflict and even end up in court over disputes of traffic obstruction.

When the authorities ignore indiscriminate parking in private estates, they are sending a message that such offences are tolerated. Thus the line between running afoul of and compliance with the law becomes obscure. The consequence of this is that more disorderly behaviour may be condoned.

Richard Goh

[This is not a silly letter. But it speaks to our love-hate relationship with the authorities/government, and it reveals our desire to abdicate our independence to the government. The writer does not make a distinction between private space and public space, government matters and private matters. The distinction is not between compliance or non-compliance of laws but applicability of laws, situational needs, government intervention or over-intervention. Or it speaks to boorish behaviour of the nouveau riche. or the pseudo-riche. or the materially wealthy, but morally bankrupt.]

A high-speed railway dream

2010-10-04T20:11:00.000-07:00

Oct 5, 2010

THE Tanjong Pagar Railway Station must be preserved for future use as the terminus for the high-speed rail service to Kuala Lumpur, and beyond to China.

[Why?]

The smaller metre gauge tracks, like those used in old tin mines, will have to be changed at Tanjong Pagar. But we are not just thinking of convenience for passengers, railways are viable only if they carry freight.

[Sounds like additional work for no change in the situation.]

China is planning to build its track down from Yunnan through Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar and Malaysia to Singapore. It needs another access point for the vast hinterland of central China. Its eastern railheads on the Pacific coast are choked with too much freight and cannot move any faster. Hence, the need for this more southern bridgehead.

[So why Tanjong Pagar? Why can't the station start at say... Woodlands? Or better yet, Johor Bahru?]

It is up to the South-east Asian nations to grasp this opportunity to help themselves as well as China. In very many ways, all will benefit.

There will be revenue from the faster nocturnal cargo traffic and daily high-speed passenger traffic direct from our city centre next to Tanjong Pagar station to Kuala Lumpur and then further to Bangkok.

The Chinese railway is expected to also connect through Xinjiang and Urumchi/Kashgar to the European rail network via Iran and Turkey.

From Tanjong Pagar, one would, in effect, be able to buy a ticket through to London.
With engineering and architectural ingenuity, the station at Tanjong Pagar could be preserved and stay alive within a modern high-rise complex.

George Yuille Caldwell

[Nice letter. Doesn't grasp the point about addressing the point of a railway line that cuts thru half of Singapore, tying up valuable land. Yes, we can have a high-speed train to serve voracious China. But it doesn't have to start at Tanjong Pagar station. It would work just as well if not better from Woodlands or even across the causeway.]

Low-flying concern for residents

2010-10-02T11:32:00.001-07:00

Oct 2, 2010

YESTERDAY'S report ('RSAF helicopter makes forced landing in Woodlands field') is a stark reminder that for all our emphasis on safety protocols and meticulous attention to maintaining and servicing combat aircraft, there is cause for concern.

I live along a stretch of road in the East Coast that lies directly in the path of aircraft making their landing in Paya Lebar Air Base. The planes fly extremely low, and are barely metres above the rooftops of some of the neighbouring apartments.

[This is a standard requirement for landing planes. The planes that are attempting to land, should preferably, gradually reduce their altitude. This requires them to slowly get lower and lower. The alternative of being very high and then suddenly drop to ground level has been found to be greatly increase the chances of crashes to about 100%. This is generally considered a bad landing technique.]

I have also seen the Hercules aircraft in low-level flying, encircling the airbase. What safety measures does the Defence Ministry have in place to protect residential areas? What parameters are used in determining that these low flight paths are safe?

Are exhaustive methods used to train pilots on what to do should an emergency occur at different stages of the landing approach?

[We try not to use exhaustive methods to train our pilots otherwise when they too exhausted, they tend to make mistakes, like crash their planes into your house. We therefore use comprehensive methods so the pilots can comprehend (that means understand) the landing procedure and what to do in case of emergency. We also have contingency plans. This is in case the pilot cannot control his bladder (incontingent; in Hokkien, jio kin) which may make him try to land the plane too fast and thereby cause the plane to crash into your house.]

Are there alternative landing paths that would not place the land approach right above densely populated areas?

[As the plane needs to fly lower and lower as it lands, the buildings along the landing path are restricted to low rise buildings. For example, we would never have built Pinnacle@Duxton along the landing path. So population density is already lower; there are fewer people living along the flight path. However, if by "population density" you mean how "dense" (stupid) the population is, that is not important for the landing of the plane. In any case, most likely the people living there are either dense or hard-up. They should already know that they are in the landing path, they still stay there! Or they buy the homes there very cheap (cos the sellers irritated by noise of planes landing and taking off, and buyers know so they bargain the price down. So those that buy homes there also probably a bit cheapskate or hard-up: want landed property but can't buy better location. ]

Should the ministry consider relocating the air base?

Dr Yuen Siu Mun

[Dr Yuen asks what safety measures are in place to protect residential areas. The answer is: none. You're all going to die! Crash and burn, man! Crash and burn!

Alternative Answer: We depend on the pilots' sense of self-preservation to ensure that their planes are in airworthy condition, and not to crash at all. The persons most likely to die are those on the plane. This includes the pilot. They cannot choose to be elsewhere at that time. (Unless they use the emergency parachutes.) There is at least a chance that residents may be at some hawker centre eating (or in the office, etc) when the plane crashes into their homes. So they can still survive. However, we note that the presence of parachutes may promote laxity in ensuring planes are airworthy and that pilots exercise due care in landing their planes. We are therefore removing parachutes from all aircrafts from now onwards. Dr Yuen can be assured that the pilots will be henceforth even more cautious and crash-adverse.

Should the airbase be relocated? Where to? The airbase has been there for 30 years. The low flying aircraft has been flying low for 30 years. It's about time one of them crash soon. So, move already! Why you still hanging around there? Wanna die issit? Anyway, we did a quick check. The people in Serangoon Gardens also don't want the Airbase near there. They say already got foreign workers dormitory, so should give other people a chance to sacrifice for the country.

Comment: The writer has seized this opportunity to make a case for moving Paya Lebar Airbase elsewhere (as long as it's not in my backyard - NIMBY)! If he succeeds, his property will appreciate in value. However, the current site has already been in existence for 30 years as an Airbase, and longer, if you include the years it had operated as an International Airport. The surrounding area has been zoned and restricted in development to ensure that there is a safe path for aircraft landing. Moving the airbase is not going to be easy in land scarce Singapore. Any other site will mean introducing a new disamenity to residents, not to mention demolishing buildings that are too tall in the flight path. This would mean additional costs. There are probably few if any viable sites left in Singapore. However residents in the path of landing aircraft by now should be used to the disamenity, or if not should have moved out long ago. There is little point in moving the airbase. Moreover in 30 years of operations, there has been no crashes into residential areas. The writer can either decide that one is long overdue and move before it happens, or take comfort in the track record. For comparison, the former Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong was surrounded by densely packed residential areas, and there has been no crashes despite the high volume of air traffic.

To take a singular episode which ended with no loss of life and minimal risks to civilian lives, and to blow it out of proportion, presumably for his own property value, is fear-mongering for fun and profit. To suggest that there is a real danger and yet to stay put in his current residence, is disingenuous.]

History is not an unchanging narrative

2010-09-30T08:50:00.000-07:00

Sep 29, 2010

Related.

WHILE history is about the objective pursuit and description of 'truth' about the past, to the extent that truth can be objectified, there is no single, immutable 'truth'.

[I'm not sure if the writer even knows what this means.]

Our interpretations of the past are bound to change with time with the presentation of new evidence, new perspectives, new frameworks and even with linguistic drift. Setting history in stone would be to deny this ongoing dialogue between the past and the present; it would severely stymie our understanding of ourselves, our societies, our cultures and their evolution over time.

[If there is new evidence, then that would change the way history is written and viewed.]

It is in that vein that historical revisionism is vital. Without it, history would just be a dead science, as much a disservice to humanity as to the historians.

[History is a discipline, but it is not "science" as in having scientific theories or principles.]

Also, we must not see revisionism in simplistic binary terms: mainstream versus alternative, right versus wrong, good versus evil, yours versus mine. Historical discourse is about competing as well as complementary narrative strands and rational debate.

At the end of the day, there might not just be one history, but many, equally valid, alternative histories, told from differing perspectives.

That is where my quarrel with Mr Ong Weichong's commentary lies ('Guard against romanticising leftist past'; last Thursday). He presents the issue as a false dilemma: it is either the state-sanctioned narrative or a romanticised version.

[The rebuttal from the History professor was much better argued. This is at best a layman's attempt to rebut. It lacks... discipline.]

There is also the straw man fallacy here: The nuanced but unmistakable insinuation that revisionist Singapore historians are guilty of 'romanticisation', and their claims are hence, by association, invalidated.

When Mr Ong writes about 'plugging the gaps left by the state', it is not revisionism, but padding of the status quo, an enlargement at best. Revisionism consists of not only 'plugging the gaps', but also rewriting or modifying, even supplanting, existing narratives in response to new evidence, new readings and new perspectives.

His treatment of violence is also simplistic. Armed insurgencies and insurrections, especially in the post-World War II era, must be seen in the larger context of the fight for emancipation from imperial rule and colonialism.

Often, violence is the only weapon of the oppressed, the weak, the disenfranchised, and must be juxtaposed against the backdrop of state violence if a meaningful narrative and deeper understanding are to be arrived at.

Dr Leong Yan Hoi

[I don't disagree with the point which was that the original commentary was arrogant and reductionistic (I may be using this word wrongly), and pompously dismisses academic enquiry especially in disenfranchised voices. Certainly, for a full picture of history, the silenced minority, or the vanquished should be heard as well. But I think the original rebuttal was forceful, well argued, and addresses all the issues. A half-baked effort such as this to refute or rebut the original commentary unnecessarily opens up an avenue for a re-rebuttal.]

Minimum wage, maximum impact

2010-09-22T11:10:00.000-07:00

Sep 22, 2010

MINIMUM wage means different things to different people. Unions, management and low-wage workers will view it differently.

I define it as wages designed to protect workers from economic forces should they depress salaries to mere subsistence level. It is a good thing.

Wages determined by "market forces", which later need supplementing from Workfare, send the message that my job is undeserving of a pay required for basic survival. Will this message erode work ethics? Very likely.

[Why? If you choose to view your job as basically worthless (or worth less than what you need to survive/subsist) then sure, you won't have much work ethics left. But many people with work ethics in this situation would say, "I need a second job to supplement my income". The Workfare Income Supplement may then serve to relief them of the need to get a second job.]

History has shown that depressing or eliminating wages in the name of productivity is counter-productive eventually.

[Really?]

Heron of Alexandria, a Greek engineer, invented the Aeolipile, the first steam engine, in the first century AD. It took 1,700 years before Scotsman James Watt put the steam engine to use and launched the Industrial Revolution.

Absence of low wages spurs employers to seek new technology. The silver bullet of innovation is for the bold. Heron did not harness his steam engine for industry simply because there wasn't a need to, as slave labour was cheap. Had Heron done what James Watt did, the Industrial Revolution would have been brought forward by a thousand years.

[That is quite a leap in logic. While we recognised it as a steam engine, Heron and his contemporaries saw it as a scientific wonder to study the laws of heaven and the winds. In any case, the industrial revolution was a mixed blessing for the people of the times. Certainly their lot in life was not all for the better or Karl Marx would hardly be moved to write his communist manifesto expounding on the exploitation of labour by capital and the class war.]

What an impact it might have had on humanity.

Dr Chan Chee Leong

What makes a democracy

2010-09-21T23:57:00.000-07:00

Sep 22, 2010

MS MARGO McCutcheon surprised me last Friday ('No say? It's simply not true, she says') when she wrote that Singaporeans have far more say in what their government does than Canadians.

She offered as an example that Singaporeans were consulted before the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced, while Canadians like her were not for a 'harmony tax' imposed by Ottawa.

There is more to democracy than government-led consultation exercises. A democracy not only ensures that citizens are consulted on policies, but gives citizens real bargaining power to affect government decisions.

[True, there is more to democracy than just consultation. BUT, her point was that we have that, while Canada, supposedly a more mature democracy than Singapore, didn't. And that the practice of democracy as it applies to the citizen being consulted, is more obvious here, than in Canada. Implicitly, she is also saying that there was no bargaining power there. After all, if you're not even consulted, how can you bargain?]

Ms McCutcheon's American husband also described democracy as a fancy word for partisan bickering and gridlocked government. Rejecting democracy that way is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Perhaps. Or perhaps democracy as practiced that way is inevitable, and all democracies end in bickering and gridlock at best, and murders, shootings, and assassinations at worst. Can it be argued, that the competitive, confrontational, adversarial nature of democratic politics invariably leads to partisan bickering, and demagogic posturing? Can we look at the United States, which presents herself as the bastion of democracy, as an enviable paragon of democratic governance? Or can we read in the frustration of Ms McCutcheon's husband's statement an indictment of the Democratic process as practiced in the US?]

While we shouldn't adopt democracy's negative aspects, we should not cling blindly to the status quo simply because it may have worked in the past.

The form of democracy which works is one in which all political parties compete vigorously; and present better proposals for voters to choose.

[I agree. We should not cling blindly. If we cling, we should cling with our eyes open and be sure that it is what we want to cling to. Not because we do not know better. So we should look at other options. For reference, the CIA World Factbook list Singapore as a Parliamentary Republic, and the US as a Federal Republic. In either case a "republic" can be defined (and is commonly defined) as a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy (the fact that we elect MPs to represent us means that we have a representative democracy). There are practically no direct democracies as it would be very difficult to manage. Maybe a very small country with only a few thousand citizens.

Theoretically, the competition of ideas as presented by different political parties should result in the best ideas being adopted. However, this is idealistic at best. The reality is that while some issues are clear as to what is best, on many issues, what is good for one segment of the electorate may not be so beneficial to another. Pro-family policies (not so good for Singles), policies for the lower income (doesn't help the middle income and above), benefits for mothers (what about fathers), etc. Inherent in democratic assumption is that people will vote for the greater good, BUT there is danger that people will vote out of self-interest, out of fear, out of greed, or even out of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information is supposed to educate and inform, but as Fox News in the US has shown, it can also be misused to incite fear and hate, and spread misinformation and confusion, and propel the agenda of an influential interest group.]

It should include an open and transparent government, strong and independent institutions not easily manipulated by partisan interests, and capable, upright politicians.

[Again, I think that was the point Ms McCutcheon was making explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly, she was saying that in having consultation and feedback, the Singapore Govt is practising openness and transparency. Implicit in this is that an effective government, a competent government is what a country needs. The means (democracy) is just a means. When the means becomes the end and we serve the means rather than pursue and appreciate the ends that we have achieved, we are getting the cart before the horse. What got her goat, so to speak, was the middle-aged couple "braying about democracy". From her perspective, all the democratic process in her country and her husband's have done little in terms of real progress and real improvement in lives. What we have here, she is saying, is inherently more tangible and more real. And we should appreciate it. Instead of chasing idealistic constructs that promises more than they deliver.]

Democracy should afford citizens the freedom to express their opinions without fear of unjust repercussions. The mass media should report objectively and fairly, and be willing to criticise the government when necessary.

[And one is free to express one's opinion here. Libel and slander laws apply, except for parliamentary privileges. As MM Lee has noted, the opposition in parliament have not abused their privileges in parliament. The fact that politicians in the US are regularly slandered, parodied, and ridiculed is no reason to expect the same in Singapore. Certainly, one can make the case that allowing untrue accusations that Obama is a a Kenyan Muslim taking orders from his Tribal puppet master to turn the US into a communist state is beyond the protection of freedom of speech. Or that it is so ludicrous that no one will take it seriously. EXCEPT people do believe it!]

Building such a democracy requires the effort and participation of all citizens. We need an informed citizenry that is able to elect leaders based on merit, rather than out of fear or ignorance, and hold them to account for their actions in office.

[Yes, it would be good if voters vote on the basis of what is best for the country, rather than what is best for themselves. But ultimately (and perhaps unfortunately), that is the basis of Democracy, that the people choose a person that best represents their interests. So people are going to wonder, does that Indian chap know my interests let alone how best to represent my interests? Does that young man know the concerns of an old retiree like me? Can that woman understand how a man feels when he cannot get a job to feed his family? Does that Christian know enough about my concerns as a Muslim or will he ignore or downplay the needs of my community? Or does that godless heathen understand that we CANNOT have a casino in Singapore? I'm afraid fear and ignorance are often the baseline reasons for voting.]

We can build such a democracy while avoiding the trappings that bog down some other countries.

[Actually, I believe the real issue is about competence and corruptibility. Representative Democracy requires competent representatives to form a competent government. If candidates are equally incompetent or corrupt, you basically have a Hobson's choice. And the problem is not just "some" countries are bogged down by some "democratic trappings". The problem is not that despite the failings of democracy, there is still a lot of progress in democratic countries. The miracle is that there is progress IN SPITE OF so-called democracy.

For large resourceful countries like the US, with able leaders who can nevertheless navigate the obstructions of the opposition parties, they can still bring progress to the country in spite of the worst excesses of the democratic process. But for less developed, less resourceful, less stable countries, "democracy" can cripple or even derail progress. And with a multi-racial society like Singapore, where there is no common language, history, religion or race, unfettered democracy may well rip this country apart. As MM Lee says, this is not a "natural" nation.

This has been a dialogue between a citizen of a "true" democracy realising that ideals not grounded in fundamentals such as competence, transparency are more show than real, and a citizen of a "limited" democracy wanting the full freedom of the ideal without realising that all freedoms must have reasonable limits or be tyrannical in its excesses.

The one true danger of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. And that is never more true than in a multi-racial, multi-religious society like Singapore.]

Gerald Giam

--------
Responses to the forum letter

Sep 25, 2010
What matters is a democracy that works

MR GERALD Giam's version of democracy ('What makes a democracy'; Wednesday) is precisely what I think Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew fears Singaporeans take for granted - an auto-pilot flight to success without recognising what made us successful.

Mr Giam dreams of a paradoxical democracy where all political parties compete vigorously and yet form a strong independent government institution void of partisan interest.

The fact is, there will be a partisan division because political parties cannot agree.

The world's greatest democracy, the United States, is stymied by its democratic structure. The President needs to submit his proposal (Bill) for approval by both the House and the Senate, with the two political parties at odds with each other.

Every Bill is debated vigorously by intelligent men on both sides and is often either amended or abandoned. While they debate and bicker, millions of Americans remain unemployed and jobs are lost to China daily. American wages have fallen since 2001.

Is this the type of democracy we should wish for?

It took an outstanding leader like President Barrack Obama many months to navigate partisan agendas to pass health-care reforms that give American workers basic access to health care.

[Actually, it took decades. The work started as early as the 70's.]

Would we prefer to wait so long should MediShield require fixing one day? I am glad my Government is not only capable but free from being politically shackled.

When we are in a crisis, the Government is free to act swiftly. When manufacturing jobs were lost to China, the Government's response was swift, as was its rapid reaction to the global recession.

Theodore Yeo

Sep 25, 2010

Singapore democracy

'There is room for improvement.'

DR YIK KENG YEONG: 'The perfect democracy is as mythical as the unicorn (Mr Gerald Giam, 'What makes a democracy'; Sept 22). Elections are rigged, the electorate is apathetic and bribe-able, idealistic politicians commit sins, the administrative branch becomes inefficient, the judiciary operates under fear and the press resorts to gonzo journalism. These happen in democracies. There is, of course, room for improvement in Singapore, such as a more considerate bureaucratic response to public sentiment over bread-and-butter issues. The impression of an impassive leadership bent on pursuing its lofty goals, regardless of feedback on the ground, does prevail - well-considered though the goals may be. Singapore also does not yet have a credible opposition to present an alternate viewpoint, which is why it is important for the Government to be more empathetic towards direct complaints from the ground.'

An American view

'I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to have the people's well-being at heart.'

MR MARK J. TOPOLSKI, North Carolina, United States: 'The democracy practised by America and Singapore, although different, are probably well suited for each county's size and demographic (Ms Margo McCutcheon, 'No say? It's simply not true, she says'; Sept 17). Having observed Singapore's for more than 10 years now, I sometimes wish American politicians would always, or at least sometimes, first ask themselves what is best for the people, rather than what will get them elected another term. I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to really have the people's good and well-being at heart.'

[I think the point is that good governance is possible under democracy or other forms of government, and bad governance can also occur under other forms of government. The one advantage democracy has is a systematic approach and process to choose government, especially if government has gone wrong.]

Long wait for SingTel iPhones

2010-09-01T21:05:00.000-07:00

Sep 2, 2010

I WISH to state my displeasure with SingTel's handling of iPhone 4 sales. Like many others, I had to place an order for the phone and wait for up to a month to get it.

I placed my order on Aug 12 at an exclusive retailer at Northpoint, but have yet to receive my phone. After numerous checks with SingTel, I was told that I would need to wait an additional two weeks before I could get my hands on the phone.

Shouldn't SingTel have foreseen the problem of low stocks, given that there were already acute shortages just days after the phone's launch and with a large number of orders still coming in?
StarHub and M1, both of which faced shortages a few weeks ago and also employed a waiting list, have rectified their problems. They have begun selling the phones on the spot.

The unusual waiting period for SingTel iPhones may be due to a lack of a proper system for tracking the waiting list. Some customers have been able to land an iPhone 4 after just four days of waiting, while others have to wait for a month. This discrepancy occurs even if the orders are made at the same location.

A quick check online shows that I am not the only frustrated one. A thread on the issue on Hardwarezone.com is already well past 300 pages of posts. It is evident that this problem could go on for some time unless action is taken.

Bhas Kunju

[The solution is already in his letter. Buy from Starhub or M1.

And which part of Straits Times Forum Page looks like the Singtel Customer Complaint Dept? How is this a matter of national interest that should be published in the national broadsheet? Long waiting list for HDB flats - yes, national issue. Long wait for consumer product - take it up with the retailer. Nothing in the letter speaks to unfair practices. If the writer is concerned with poor service, poor preparation, poor logistics, poor planning, and a callous disregard for customer's satisfaction, then why is he still queueing for a Singtel iPhone, especially when he can get from other providers. if this waiting is a prediction of the service to come, he should switch.]

What flier nuisance?

2010-08-23T10:53:00.001-07:00

Aug 22, 2010
EDITORIAL

[I wasn't sure whether to put this in this blog "ST Forum" or the Newsclippings blog. I decided to treat this as a letter by the editor.]

Some Housing Board residents are almost in revolt over advertisers and businesses sticking fliers in their door grilles. Promoters have resorted to doing so as a result of anti-junk mail locking devices installed on letter-boxes in HDB estates. A recent letter to The Straits Times complaining about the messy fliers drew a dozen like grouses.

These letter writers wanted a ban placed on junk mail at their doorstep. But the Ministry of National Development, in response to questions on the issue raised in Parliament by Ms Lee Bee Wah, an MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, said town councils and the HDB had no authority to stop the distributing of leaflets in HDB households.

Are these fliers sent out mainly by real estate agents in a rising market, like now, such a nuisance? The answer is an unequivocal 'no'. Residents do not get these bits of paper every day. If they cannot stand looking at them, toss them in the waste basket. We suspect this is where most hopeful sales pitches end up. What's so hard about throwing unwanted paper in the trash? Those who are away a lot can arrange for neighbours or relatives to remove accumulated junk. The point is to be sensible about the ways of daily commerce.

[I agree. There are more sensible ways of daily commerce. My question is, how successful are these flyers? How many thousands of these litter-to-be must be distributed to get one response? How different are these flyers from cold-call telemarketers? From touts at Newton hawker centre? The point is that for just one response, these flyers inconvenience thousands of other residents indiscriminately. This is commerce? This is marketing? This is a strategy?

What right-thinking person intending to sell his property will pick up a cheap flyer on his door with a cheesy photo and promise of stratospheric prices for his property and call the number on the flyer? The agent obviously has no creative way of drumming up business. What evidence does one have that he will have the required intelligence or ability to sell your property for the best price other than his self-testimony? For a transaction of a lifetime, wouldn't one pick an agent with a reference from trusted friend who has used his services? Flyers are for fast food delivery, where one knows (and presumably trusts) the brand and the quality.]

Residents made a litter problem of these fliers when there were no anti-locking devices on letter boxes. In going through their mail, they would leave behind a carpet of leaflets in the lift lobby area because it was too much trouble to dispose of them in bins close by. The litter was not an uplifting sight for anyone coming home from work. So, who's the culprit? The HDB introduced the anti-locking device in letter boxes in the mid-1990s in new blocks of flats and in upgraded older estates precisely because the indiscriminate tossing of paper in void decks was getting out of hand.

All of which says that excessively cared-for Singaporeans can be a spoilt lot, even among heartlanders.

[Actually, I put the flyers with my stack of newpapers for recycling. As I only buy the Sunday Times, I don't have a lot of newspapers. At times it almost seems like there are more flyers than newspapers. That's how bad it is. My perspective of this is that these people dump litter on my door almost everyday. Why? What if I take all these flyers and drop them in mail boxes? What if I take all these Singpost delivered flyers and put them back in the mailboxes? Returned mail. Not wanted. Return to Sender.]

Act faster to solve drainage woes

2010-07-29T01:57:00.000-07:00

Jul 24, 2010

THURSDAY'S report ("100mm: Expect floods if this much rain falls in an hour") confirms that there was nothing freakish or extraordinary about the recent storms. What was extraordinary were the serious floods that occurred within a span of one month as a result of the storms.

It is clear our current drainage system is failing to cope with the rapid urbanisation of recent years, which took away much water-permeable grounds.

[So, you'd prefer to walk on dirt tracks? Your choice: flood or mud.]

So steps are now being taken to raise roads and improve drains, and works will be expedited where possible. But why are most of the major tenders being called only in October or November, and some even next year?

Singapore prides itself as being able to achieve in record time completion of high-profile projects, such as the Formula One circuit and the two integrated resorts. Why can't we do the same and have the entire drainage system upgraded in record time?

[Because the F1 is sponsored by private capital, and the govt taxes hotels to recover costs. IRs were built with private capital. So who's going to pay for accelerated construction of drains? In any case, to improve drainage, works will probably mean diverting or even reducing drainage capacity temporarily in order to upgrade it. That means if it rains heavily, it would cause more floods. Must wait for drier season.]

Given the widespread disruption to lives and severe losses already suffered in the recent floods, and the high chance that more is to come (with possible loss of lives), wouldn't it be justified that we accord the greatest urgency to tackle the problem?

[PUB has already stated that they would bring forward their drainage improvement plans. Threatening the possibility of loss of lives is an appeal to emotions. And hyperbole. It would be irony if there is a drought after the completion of the drainage improvement works.]

Francis Kwek

COLONIAL HISTORY

2010-07-25T21:04:00.001-07:00

Jul 26, 2010

Apathy? Far from it

I WAS impressed by Europe correspondent Jonathan Eyal's insightful comments ('History as it should be taught'; July 17) on the crossroads of teaching history in British schools, only to be disconcerted by his assertions about 'citizens of the old colonies'.

After suggesting the pitfalls of choosing between neglecting and engaging with the history of the British Empire, Mr Eyal concludes that the only 'consolation' is that formerly colonised citizens 'no longer care, one way or another'. He presents this ignorance as a post-colonial triumph. But why should apathy be considered a 'consolation', and for whom?

To say that the seduction of 'globalisation and economic growth' leads directly to such historical indifference is reductive.

Instead of being 'content to retain their Victoria streets', as Mr Eyal suggests, the Mumbai authorities bowed to pressure from Hindu right-wingers to rename Victoria Terminus in 1996. Replacing colonial names with names of local origin has continued since independence from British rule, pursued with growing enthusiasm in countries such as Myanmar.

Even if Mr Eyal was referring primarily to Singapore, with its seemingly superficial attachment to all names colonial, the reality is far more complex.

Rather than offer superficial, symbolic associations, the book, Singapore Through 19th Century Photographs, by Mr Jason Toh actively engages with colonial architecture and city planning.
Last year, a National Museum of Singapore exhibition featured public lectures, which interpreted the physical environment of colonial Singapore, while a tour of the landscape of 19th century Singapore through visual records was sold out.

Apart from such academic efforts, colonial history resounds in current affairs. The fact that the British administered Pedra Branca for 100 years heavily influenced the International Court of Justice case between Singapore and Malaysia in 2008.

More recently, it was revealed that the KTM railway land, originally thought to be Malaysian property, had in fact been leased from the British Straits Settlements from 1918. Such imperial developments reverberate strongly today.

Still, Mr Eyal surprisingly concludes that 'coming to terms' with the largest empire in history is, just 13 years after the return of Hong Kong, 'now a problem for the British alone'. I am one of these 'citizens of the old colonies' who Mr Eyal claims no longer cares how the history of the empire is approached. As a Singaporean undergraduate studying history in Britain, I could not disagree more.

Ashish Ravinran

[This letter doesn't really belong here because it is rather well-written and the author does have a point - that apathy should not be a consolation prize. But then again, I don't believe Eyal was presenting this as a "consolation prize". Rather, he was making a comment, perhaps cynical, that how the British represents themselves to their populace is not going to be very controversial as opposed to say the Japanese rewriting their history text to gloss over the events of World War II.

So Eyal is not wrong to say that citizens of old colonies (or ex-colonies) would not care one way or another how the British engage (or don't engage) their citizens. A a Singaporean undergrad studying history in Britain, the writer disagrees. Of course he would. He's a history student. Specialising in British History. But I think we can safely assume that he is the exception that proves the rule.

As for the cases of imperial rule reverberating to contemporary issues, they make an interesting footnote but are irrelevant to the issue which is how Britain will engage their citizens on their history. It is not about whether there are influences for the ex-colonies, but rather how to teach British history to the British. And on that most citizens of ex-colonies would not care how it is done. So Eyal is right, and the writer is confused about the point Eyal is making.]

LATEST FLOODS - It's time to start a proper investigation

2010-07-20T10:40:00.001-07:00

Jul 20, 2010

AS A concerned citizen watching the physical transformation of Singapore over the last 50 years, I have often wondered whether there are any downside risks that come with such development.

Our land mass has grown by an amazing 25 per cent in almost half a century to 775.5 sq km. In fact, the entire shape of Singapore has changed along with our ethnography, transportation and management of water resources, down to the way we work and play.

[I always get wary when writers used big words that don't mean what they think it means. "Ethnography" does not mean ethnic composition.]

According to a study, Singapore's coastline has been strikingly transformed not solely by territorial expansion through land filling or reclamation, but also by the closure of the estuaries of the main rivers draining the interior of the island.

To what extent has such a closure and relentless construction contributed to the floods in recent years?

To what extent, too, has the loss of 40 per cent of our natural forests, from 37.8 sq km to 22.6 sq km between 1960 and 2006, affected the island's ability to absorb torrential downpours?

It would be unfair to pick on the PUB or hold drainage as the culprit for the flooding. Neither should we cite Typhoon Conson as being a possible cause for our floods. It is simply too convenient.

[Ah! So you want an Inconvenient Truth? A conspiracy theory perhaps? So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it might well be a talented chicken who can swim and speak a second language? Or maybe... IT'S A DUCK!]

The Government should start a Commission of Inquiry to examine why the recent floods have been concentrated mainly in the central and southern parts of the island, whereas the northern, north-western and north-eastern parts have been largely spared.

[Let's see, could it be because the storm came from the Southeast and by the time it passed the central region, it had dumped most of the rain? Or that really, if the rain fell in the forest and there was no one around to see it, did it flood?]

Has this to do with the closing of the river estuaries and the massive construction and urbanisation in the city and the surrounding suburbs?

Until we arrive at a more multi-dimensional root cause for the problem, we will, at best, get only a piecemeal solution.

[Or maybe it's the fact that 100 mm of rain fell within 2 hours which is 60% of the entire month's average rainfall (June), and 180 mm of rain fell in 2 hours which was MORE than the ENTIRE month's average rainfall (July). The wettest month in Singapore is Dec with an average of 300 mm in total for the whole month. So 180mm in 2 hours is FREAKING unusual for ANY month. This is a "convenient" excuse? As a comparison, Typhoon Ketsana in 2009 dumped over 400 mm of rain on the worst hit region of the Philippines over 6 t0 12 hours. In other regions, the same amount of rain, 180 mm, fell over 6 to 12 hours.

But yes, there is more to it than, "it rained a lot" or "it was as wet as a typhoon". The question we should be asking is, whether the past can be used to predict the future. Whether past averages are a valid baseline for measurement. Or whether the 3 floods within the period of 1 month is going to be a freak occurrence. It is not impossible that 2 freak incidents (Sumatran squall and typhoons) occurs one after another. Just as it is not impossible to roll 6 on a dice 3, 4, 5, or even 6 times in a row. The point is, it could well be coincidence, aided by a confluence of factors. La Nina could be a cause, and if it is, then we might expect this to repeat every three years. Or if this is due to a long term or permanent trend in Singapore weather, then definitely we should upgrade our drainage to meet the new storm patterns. But, if this is only a freak confluence of "the perfect storm" conditions, then upgrading the drainage would be unnecessary.]

As a world-class city, we cannot afford to sink like Venice or swim like New Orleans.

Patrick Low

Add more carriages to trains

2010-07-11T10:47:00.001-07:00

Jul 11, 2010

I refer to last Sunday's article, 'Peak-hour crush'.

While it is true that the current infrastructure limits train capacity, as SMRT has pointed out, the issue has to be resolved because Singapore's population will continue to grow, and trains still have to carry more passengers.

Hence, it is myopic to maintain the status quo in our transport situation.

Here is a suggestion on how to improve the situation: Extend our six-carriage trains by adding two more carriages each - that is, one extra carriage at each end.

The load capacity of each train would effectively be increased by a third.

But how would these eight-carriage trains fit into current station platforms, which are only six carriages long?

To put it simply, they do not have to. The first and second carriages could share a common carriage door, while the seventh and eighth carriages could share another.

Though passengers get onto the trains at every station, most get off only at stations within the Central Business District (CBD).

The additional carriages would cater for passengers who are expected to alight at these stations, where the trains pretty much 'empty out'.

Yin Shanyang

[I should be more optimistic and supportive of good ideas. And this theoretically is a good idea. However in practice... I'm not optimistic. At least with buses, the drivers can try to cajole passengers to move to the rear to make room for incoming passengers, and practice a tacit blackmail by not moving the bus until passengers heed his pleas. On a train, during rush hour, with 2 or 3 minutes intervals between trains, drivers do not have the luxury... for trains with drivers. No one to shout, "Ao buay bo quee!" ("There're no ghosts at the back of the bus!") to use humour to try to get passengers to comply.

With the extra carriages which are rather long, and with only one exit now, only a few rational and non-kiasu Singaporeans will move to these carriages and most passengers will crowd at the doors. As it is, the carriages at the extreme ends are usually less crowded because most people find the cars at the extreme ends rather inconvenient (too far), let alone carriages beyond the platforms.

Better to just run more trains on a tighter schedule - like every 90 seconds during peak hours.]

Who'll stop littering by the river?

2010-06-29T21:11:00.000-07:00

[Here is a sad example of exploiting the headlines for a less serious issue.]

Jun 30, 2010

THE tragic death of the young man who fell into the Singapore River after a drinking binge, as well as the recent floods, highlights the problem of littering along our waterways.

[You would be led to think that the young man who drowned must have slipped on litter and fell into the river. An image in my mind of the drunken youth slipping on a carelessly tossed beer bottle, and fallling into the river is created.]

Far too many groups of people gather along the banks of the Singapore River, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, and consume vast quantities of alcohol and food.

[So not only are they drunk, but they are gluttonous, as well. Revise image in mind. Replace youth with FAT youth.]

Even comparatively quieter areas of the riverside, such as the stretch between Saiboo Street and Kim Seng Road, resemble 'war zones' on Saturday and Sunday mornings with drink bottles, cans, food scraps and plastic bags fouling the banks, bridges and river.

[Revise image in mind. Now FAT youth is picking his way amidst the "war zone" of litter, BUT steps on a "land mine" of a beer bottle anyway!]

Obviously, the security staff of the condominiums and hotels that line the river do not have the authority to ask these revellers to move on or clean up after themselves.

[Okay. Not sure what this point is. Was the falling in the river witnessed by a hapless condo security guard?]

Rampant littering will undoubtedly cause drainage problems, especially when heavy rain coincides with high tide.

[Wait a minute! So was the FAT youth's body found trapped in some culvert thus causing flooding in Orchard Road?]

If vandalism attracts an automatic punishment of caning, surely littering calls for severe penalties.

Not only are we rapidly losing the distinction of being among the cleanest cities in the world, but we are also exposing ourselves to flood risks which severely impact the economy.

[Right. So we want to hang onto our reputation as having one of the harshest laws in a democratic couontry, as well as being the cleanest city, and also one of the most economically vibrant. Now if the writer can somehow tie in our Housing shortage, COE prices, Immigration policies, and CPF for retirement to this drowning, we would have the unified theory of what makes Singapore work.]

Jairam Amrith

[I am amazed at the logic that can flow from one man's drowning to litter. Actually the poor guy's death has nothing to do with litter, other than the fact that he might have contributed to the litter before he died.]

Isn't GRC system affirmative action?

2010-05-04T11:26:00.001-07:00

May 3, 2010

I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Foreign Ministry responds to UN expert's comments'. On the sensitive issue of race, Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that United Nations Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai appears to advocate some form of 'affirmative action' to help the Malays progress in the area of education.

This approach, according to the ministry, 'has been tried by many countries without notable success'.

Even the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) told Mr Muigai that the Malays in Singapore do not need any affirmative action policy because 'the Malay community had a deep sense of pride in its own ability to achieve steady progress under the national system of meritocracy'.

If affirmative action is frowned on by minorities themselves, why does the Government insist on keeping the group representation constituency (GRC) system in the political landscape? The GRC system, as propagated by the Government, ensures minority representation. Thus it is an affirmative action policy.

Does it make sense that the minorities in Singapore need affirmative action only to protect their political rights and everything else can be based on meritocracy?

[Because voters don't always vote on merit. They vote based on affinity and affiliation - i.e. race. Malaysia has tried living with race-based political parties, and the system is unravelling now. If your claim to representation is how ethnic you are, then you have to be more ethnic than your opponent and that just spirals down into extremism. When voting and elections are a meritocratic and transparent process, then yes, do away with the GRC. But voting is inherently confidential and in fact secret. And people are free to use any criteria, including race, to choose their candidates, and because politics is inherently local, and voters are generally selfish, the results will be domination by the ethnic majority.]

The minorities have spoken. They have the ability to achieve progress under the national system of meritocracy. The Government should recognise that and abolish the GRC system.

We are no longer living in the past. The tumultuous period of our early years can only serve as a lesson for all ethnic groups to maintain racial harmony at all costs. The past should not impede the desire of our multiracial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people.

[Spoken like a true ideologue. What desire of our multi-racial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people? Do you wake up each morning thinking about becoming one people with your Malay and Indian friends? Even now, new stress lines between Legacy Singaporeans and new Singaporeans and PRs are surfacing. What more existing ethnic lines? We don't need to live in the past to make the mistakes of the past. We can in fact make fresh mistakes. Low Thia Kiang speaks to the voters in the Teochew vernacular as part of his campaigning. Unless a minority candidate can do the same, they won't be able to even connect with some of these voters.]

The GRC system, as an affirmative action policy, can take our nation only one step forward in theory and three steps backward in nation-building.

[How?]

Png Eng Huat

[This is just a pretext to argue against the GRC, whether for political or racial reasons.]

NS in hospital or the police?

2010-05-04T10:08:00.001-07:00

From Today, 4 May 2010

by Tang Li

AS A Singaporean who served National Service (NS) in a combat unit (23 SA, 1994-1997), I enjoyed Paul Gilfeather's commentary "A lesson from Singapore"(April 29). However, much as I appreciate his endorsement of our NS and my own experiences in it, I have to ask myself if NS - as we know it - is still as relevant to the current state of affairs.

Singapore established NS in March 1967 because there was a need to build a credible defence force and deterrent as quickly as possible with limited resources. Thanks to more than 40 years of NS, Singapore can mobilise nearly half a million soldiers if the need arises. Foreign military experts have described the Singapore Armed Forces as capable of defending Singapore effectively.

However, while Singapore's defence policy has thus far proved to be the right one, one has to ask if the institution of NS is suitably geared to the wars of tomorrow?

There are fewer and fewer conflicts between nation states. More often conflicts are between nation states and international terrorist groups. The United States talks about war with Al Qaeda and not with Afghanistan. Israel fights the Hezbollah and Hamas rather than Syria. In South-east Asia, we are more likely to see a scenario where we work with our neighbours to defeat groups like Abu Sayyaf or Jemaah Islamiah.

Armed forces are moving away from being about delivering massive firepower on the battlefield to being about delivering "smart" firepower on specific targets. Special forces like the British Special Air Service or the US Navy Seals are growing in prominence.

Yes, it's important to still have the capability to fight a conventional war. Yes, NS is a credible deterrent. And, yes, NS is still important to Singapore society.

However, is our ability to mobilise as many troops as we can a little outdated? Should we instead focus more on training a smaller force of more specialised troops?

[Rumsfeld thought he could win a quick war with some well-equipped troops to "shock and awe" their enemy combatants. The answer the writer's question is in his own preceding paragraph. There is still a need for capability to fight a conventional war. To do that the ability to mobilise and mass troops is still necessary.]

If the SAF were to become more specialised and require less manpower (bearing in mind that birth rates have fallen and cohorts are getting smaller), where could the remaining enlistees be sent to?

One possibility is the Ministry of Home Affairs: To work with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority or the police.

Given the growing likelihood that the enemy of the future will be a terrorist group, it is important that our NS personnel be trained in investigation and working with civilians.

Another area where more NS personnel could be deployed is in the Ministry of Health, where they could learn first aid skills and also help to ease manpower shortages at hospitals. In the event of a terrorist attack, shouldn't the majority of our population be able to deal with the wounded?

Our economy is moving away from labour-intensive manufacturing that competes on price to more-advanced, value-added services, where a premium is placed on brain power rather than manpower. To prepare Singaporeans to meet the needs of the economy, we are training our workers to work smart and be more productive.

Perhaps, NS should mirror the transformation in our economy - training Singaporeans who are prepared to "serve" smart.

[The purpose of the army must continue to be to provide deterrence. Yes, we will have to evolve measures and response to terrorist threats. Yes, response to terrorists is not the same as response to a massing enemy army at our borders. Yes, terrorism, incursions like the Mumbai attack, and other asymmetric attacks are more likely than conventional war, but if we only prepare for such asymmetric wars, guess what? We become vulnerable to conventional attacks. The invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqi forces was a conventional invasion. The Kuwaitis had no standing army. The moment we let down our guard against conventional invasion, the more likely it becomes. So no, it is not time to hang up our open mobilisation exercises.]

Are they well thought out?

2010-05-01T08:39:00.001-07:00

May 1, 2010
ELECTION CHANGES

THE changes to the Non-Constituency MP and Nominated MP schemes, the average size of group representation constituencies and the number of single-seat wards appear too utilitarian in intent and approach.

["Too utilitarian"? So should be less useful? More idealistic? Needs more bells and whistles to dress up the drab utilitarianism?]

The Government must be commended for its courage to implement novel - though unconventional - means of providing Singaporeans with both a strong majority government and an alternative voice in Parliament.

Many trust the Government has the longer-term interest of Singaporeans at heart and that the changes are made for the overall good of Singapore.

It appears we can have our cake and eat it too.

However, the idea that the political process can be changed so easily according to the prevailing political climate discomforts me. Surely the ruling People's Action Party will be foolhardy to consider these changes if, some day in the future, the opposition gets to control close to half of Parliament.

[If there are more than 9 opposition members voted into parliament, there would be no NCMP. Just as currently, if there are more than 3 Opposition MP, there would be no NCMP. Under current rules as approved by the President, the total of Opposition + NCMP cannot be > 3 (The rules however, allow the President to approve up to 6). By the time opposition gains almost half the seats in parliament, NCMP would be irrelevant. Heck, by the time they win 9 seats, NCMP would be irrelevant.]

What if these adjustments to the political system prove 'too' successful for the incumbent's liking? What if more opposition candidates win seats in Parliament in future elections?

Will the PAP then feel its political survival is under threat? Will it then respond by reversing these changes?

[If the writer is referring to the other changes - increasing the number of SMCs and reducing the size/candidates per GRC, these changes would give the opposition a better chance of actually taking an SMC or GRC. And with the game stacked against the opposition, a little leveling of the playing field can only be good. If in spite of all the advantages the PAP candidates enjoy they are still unable to win the election, then they deserve to lose, as LKY has said of even Mah Bow Tan.

Maybe if the PAP deteriorates to the point where they lose the trust of the people, the competence to govern, and the integrity to bow to the will of the people, they may well try to reverse the changes to the GRC system. But that is another story in another situation.]

What will this say about our democratic process? Is it a national ideal we consciously strive to improve and uphold, or a lowly tool to achieve a higher good?

[To summarise this writer's argument: These changes are all well and good, but when things start to look bad for the PAP, what will they do then? They'll reverse the changes showing that they pay lip service to democratic process when it is convenient for them, but will cast it aside when it no longer suits them. The problem with this argument? Hasn't happened yet. Ascribes ill-intent to the PAP in the future. Don't know if it will ever happen.]

Han Tau Kwang

[Certainly the PAP has no role to play to help the opposition win seats in Parliament. Or does it? The PAP astutely understands that voters know all about tricks and strategies, and can see that the current set up skews the playing field in favour of the PAP. Sure the opposition can win SMCs but GRCs? They haven't won one yet.

The changes to the parliament and the GRC system is to address two issues.

Firstly, the voters want alternative voices in parliament. A pair of opposition MPs, 1 NCMP and 9 Nominated MPs provide alternative views, but just aren't enough, or valid enough. And part of the reason there aren't enough real opposition is because the system is stacked against them. And the PAP has stacked the deck. Only 9 SMCs, usually headed by PAP strongmen, 14 GRCs with up to 6 MPs in each, all anchored by a Minister, sometimes 2. The opposition has little chance with such a system.

Secondly, given the trends with new, younger voters who say, don't tell us what you did, tell us what you're going to do for us, the PAP cannot rely on historic gratitude or shared history anymore to bond with the voters and get their votes. The younger voters are more likely to say, I grew up with the PAP, I think I've outgrown them. I want change. Let's give the other side a chance. The PAP won Aljunied GRC with 56% of the votes. In the next election, it might well be lost to the opposition. With the loss will be two Ministers (George Yeo & Lim Hwee Hua). The shift of votes to the opposition may not be stoppable.

The reduction of the GRC may well be a "don't put so many eggs in one basket" strategy. We can't afford to lose two ministers. The corollary to that is, the opposition doesn't have that many "stars" anyway. A 5-man GRC may just mean 2 good opposition candidates and 3 duds. The third point is that PAP may well lose a GRC in the next election. If the opposition wins even with the bar set so high, it would be all the opposition's doing. But if they win while the bar is being lowered at the same time, the PAP can steal some of the opposition's thunder.]

Find alternative ways to sell

2010-04-25T10:21:00.001-07:00

Apr 24, 2010
Today
Letter from Li MingHui

I REFER to "Don't call us, period" (April 21), which described how painful it is to be harassed by banks for credit-card membership, by insurance companies for a great product launch, etc. I would like to highlight that fitness clubs and spas are no less guilty for pushing sales through telemarketing.

Is it truly necessary to call a person twice/thrice a day to talk on the same subject? Has anyone who was never interested in fitness clubs/risky investments ever succumbed to these calls and bought products/services?

Businesses which attempt to sell their products via telemarketing could end up having harassment charges filed against them. In this day and age, I am truly surprised that marketing people have yet to come up with more targeted, high yield and less intrusive methods to sell their products.

Telemarketing is as futile as printing thousands of flyers and hiring pushy aunties and uncles who would stand in the middle of high-pedestrian traffic junctions and underpasses, shoving them out as furiously as their arms allow them.

I'm simply against lazy, unimaginative marketing people, many of whom are well paid to reach new customers. It is time to sit down and analyse the target market and think about how to reach them.

[I share this rant. I don't know how effective telemarketing and flyers are, but they are not effective with me. I agree that lazy unimaginative marketing people are not doing their jobs if these tired, ineffective ways are their best efforts at marketing.]

Play fair, Fifa

2010-04-12T15:10:00.001-07:00

Apr 10, 2010

I AM still puzzled why Fifa wants to charge so much for broadcast rights of the World Cup matches after it has secured fees from broadcasters in most other nations.

[What's there to be puzzled about? Money is money. If that is not enough reason, more money is better than less money, and there is no such thing as enough money.]

Singapore's telcos and media broadcaster should not be held to ransom.

[Definition of "Ransom":

money demanded for the return of a captured person
payment for the release of someone
exchange or buy back for money; under threat
the act of freeing from captivity or punishment

In all the above definition of ransom, there is an element of wrongful imprisonment of denial of liberty. For example if the world cup matches belong to Singapore, and FIFA had taken it from us and is now offering to return what they have wrongfully taken for money or payment, that would be a ransom. In this case, FIFA is the rightful owner of the rights of the World Cup broadcasts. Singapore is not even part of the final 64 or however many teams that make it to this final stage. So "Ransom" is overly emotional. "Profiteering" would be more correct.]

In the spirit of any sporting event, the World Cup should be for all to enjoy and appreciate. It can also rally people to strive for sporting excellence. Broadcast right fees must be at a fair and reasonable rate. Singaporeans should stand by the cable TV providers and free-to-air broadcaster in whatever decision they make.

[So you go to an S-league match and say in the spirit of the sporting events, I wanna watch the match for 20 cents, because, frankly, in terms of entertainment, it is probably worth that much to me. Or go to the F1 and say, I think your prices are unreasonable. How about lowering to say, oh, $20 for paddock tickets, cos frankly, I can't really see much from the paddock, and the prices you are charging are unreasonable.]

Let's use the millions of dollars saved to make an impact by helping Singaporeans who are unable to make ends meet.

[Oh like Singtel and Starhub will say, "we saved a bundle now that Fifa has charged reasonable fees. Let us donate the money we saved to the poor Singaporeans." Get real. And start making plans to travel to M'sia and Indonesia to catch the world cup.]

Felix Ng

Cheaper, direct bus ride beats MRT option

2010-04-11T05:19:00.000-07:00

Apr 11, 2010

I refer to last Sunday's article on cross-country bus routes, 'Please don't take away my long bus rides'.

I live in Taman Jurong and take service 30 bus to work as the bus stop is just in front of my block.

The bus ride costs $1.65 and it takes about 45 to 50 minutes to reach HarbourFront. From there, it is just a short walk from the bus stop to my office.

If I take the MRT route, I need to first take a bus to Lakeside MRT station, then a train to Outram Park MRT, and then transfer to another line to get to HarbourFront MRT station. The whole trip also takes about 45minutes and it costs $1.80.

Buses can go to the places that trains cannot get to, and such trips cost less than taking the MRT.

Teo Cher Whei

[So in the writer's case, it so happens there is a direct bus service between his home and his workplace. But not everyone would have such a service. What if he moves? Or he changes workplace?

In any case, if Service 30 where to be shortened, or split, it would probably terminate at Harbour Front anyway, so he wouldn't be affected. In fact, there will then be zero chance of him overshooting his stop. He should be happy.]

Tie COEs to owners instead of vehicles

2010-04-03T07:25:00.001-07:00

Apr 2, 2010

THE recent spike in certificate of entitlement (COE) prices has stirred emotions among car buyers and dealers. Instead of making tweaks, the authorities should consider revamping the system to make it more equitable and effective.

One way is to allow COEs to be tied to the vehicle owner instead of the vehicle.

Car owners can then transfer the remaining COE to their next vehicle. There are many advantages to this proposal:

# The actual number of 'used' COEs will not be artificially inflated because of COEs that are tied to unsold second-hand cars. This will result in a better reflection of actual demand for COEs as only car buyers without an existing COE will need to bid for a COE.

# Car dealers will also benefit as new and used cars will be sold without COEs. Car prices would become more stable for dealers and more transparent for buyers.

[Except for prices of second-hand cars. One scenario is an existing car owner with a COE already will buy the second hand car, and one wonders why one would do that. A serial second-hand car owner will sell an older car, say 8 yrs or older, to buy a newer second hand car, say 3 - 5 years old. With 2 years, left he would be looking to either bid for a new COE in 2 years with the uncertainty of prices in 2 years. A second scenario is a new car owner, without an existing car looking to buy a second hand car...]

# Existing car owners will be more free to change to a new or second-hand car without being concerned about how changes in COE prices will affect car prices.

[... because that burden will now be transferred to the second hand car would-be owner, who would have to bid for COE on a used car. ]

# With consumers able to transfer their COEs to their next vehicle, they would be more cautious in bidding for COEs.

Consumers who need more than one COE should be made to pay more for their subsequent COEs.

For example, a consumer who needs a second or third car should be made to pay an additional levy of 30 per cent and 50 per cent respectively on top of the prevailing COE price.

The idea is to make the COE system more consumer- and business-friendly. The Government can still continue to peg the availability of COEs to the number of COEs deregistered but further changes will go a long way in making the system better.

Loh Chee Meng

[So. What are the disadvantages?

Like many forum writers, the author speaks from his own perspective and interests. Let me guess. He is a car owner. He was just thinking about getting a new car to replace his slightly used (less than 5 year old car), But DAMN! the COE went up. He can't believe it. He paid like $5k for his last COE and now it is $14k or maybe more in the next bidding. So if he can hold onto the COE he paid for his current car, he doesn't have to worry about bidding for a new COE. Let the buyer of his current car bid for it.

So some poor sod who can only afford second hand car will pay high prices for COE in order to own his used car? Most likely, he won't be able to sell his car cos the second hand car market would have collapsed. Yes second hand cars will be cheaper, because there's no market for them.

The 10-year COE tied to the vehicle is not perfect. But it keeps things straight, relatively. ]

General Election: Ban walkovers

2010-03-23T09:28:00.001-07:00

Mar 23, 2010

COME General Election time, a significant minority will not get to vote. This is because of Singapore's unique group representation constituency (GRC) system, which puts enormous strain on the opposition to match the People's Action Party, owing to lack of resources and credible candidates.

Having gone through GRC elections for the past 20-odd years, many Singaporeans have been sidelined in walkover wards.

Although we boast a high voter turnout in every election, the underlying picture tells only half the story. It is not very surprising if a citizen does not get to vote in his lifetime in democratic Singapore. This basic human right to choose one's leaders is denied to some because of the GRC system.

I suggest no more walkovers. If only one party stands in a GRC, the poll should still be carried out. The lone party must win enough votes to secure the parliamentary seat.

The winning barrier should be set at 50 per cent plus one vote. If this lone contestant fails to secure the cut-off percentage, a second round of voting must be called. This by-election should be able to attract participation from the opposition.

Tan Hong Ngan

[Let's say there's no contest in your ward come election. And Mr Tan's suggestion is implemented so the lone candidate still needs to be polled. So there you are in the polling station. How do you cast your vote? If you're a responsible person, you'd think about the candidate and decide if he or she has done a good job, or will do a good job and you vote for or not for him/her. Or you decide you want more excitement and you want a choice so you vote against the candidate in order to force a by-election? I think we can safely assume that there will be a by-election under Mr Tan's rules.

The opposition has an opportunity to field candidates in the General Election. If they choose not to, then they have failed the electorate in that ward. Why give them a second chance? Why subject the responsible party that ensures representation for all wards to a double jeopardy?

If this rule is allowed, then the top opposition candidates will just choose the wards they want to contest. If they fail, they can try again in another by-election. And another. And another.

Democracy is just a process of choosing a govt. If the parties do not offer a choice, then we should proceed with the business of governing, not be obsessed about forcing a secondary and even tertiary choice. ]