LYNNETTE LOW
JUNE 9, 2016
It is a bad idea to make residents “pay as you throw” in order to reduce waste (“Pay as you throw among ideas to cut down waste in Singapore”; June 4).
First, it would raise the high cost of living and send stress levels here even higher. That surely cannot be a good thing.
Second, littering is already a problem in Singapore. If we have to pay as we throw, unclaimed and anonymous rubbish would probably be more prevalent.
A more effective and meaningful way to encourage recycling and to cut waste here is to educate the public and create awareness of this subject through interesting programmes on Channels 5 and 8 during prime time.
Showing posts with label Beliefs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beliefs. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Good to sound alarm on terror attacks, but guard against self-fulfilling prophecies
Haj Mohamed
March 30, 2016
I acknowledge why the Home Affairs Minister sounded a note of caution in the report “Attack on Singapore a matter of when, not if, says Shanmugam” (March 24). However, Singapore is not Britain, France or Brussels.
Britain’s Muslim population comprises immigrants from Asia and Middle East, whose cultures contradict its own. Singapore has an indigenous Muslim population who have deep roots here and have been practising their culture with ease. France, the most secular of countries, allows the mocking of religions. Singapore’s Government, though secular, has thoughtful legislators who are against this.
I acknowledge why the Home Affairs Minister sounded a note of caution in the report “Attack on Singapore a matter of when, not if, says Shanmugam” (March 24). However, Singapore is not Britain, France or Brussels.
Britain’s Muslim population comprises immigrants from Asia and Middle East, whose cultures contradict its own. Singapore has an indigenous Muslim population who have deep roots here and have been practising their culture with ease. France, the most secular of countries, allows the mocking of religions. Singapore’s Government, though secular, has thoughtful legislators who are against this.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
'Elitism' can be good for society
Aug 11, 2015,
Russell Tan Wah Jian
Having graduated from Raffles Institution (RI) last year, I have witnessed the transformation of the school and would like to share my thoughts on the matter ("RI now a 'middle-class' school / 'Make RI a better school for S'pore'" and "RI population less diverse now, say many alumni"; both published on Aug 4).
Singapore is a society built on the core tenets of meritocracy, fairness and equity. However, in recent years, we seem to have collectively confused equity with equality.
Equality is making everyone stoop down to the lowest common denominator of society - everyone does the same thing and all are given equal probabilities. Equity entails everyone doing what their abilities allow them to do, and everyone being given equal opportunities to succeed; only the most outstanding grab those opportunities.
Russell Tan Wah Jian
Having graduated from Raffles Institution (RI) last year, I have witnessed the transformation of the school and would like to share my thoughts on the matter ("RI now a 'middle-class' school / 'Make RI a better school for S'pore'" and "RI population less diverse now, say many alumni"; both published on Aug 4).
Singapore is a society built on the core tenets of meritocracy, fairness and equity. However, in recent years, we seem to have collectively confused equity with equality.
Equality is making everyone stoop down to the lowest common denominator of society - everyone does the same thing and all are given equal probabilities. Equity entails everyone doing what their abilities allow them to do, and everyone being given equal opportunities to succeed; only the most outstanding grab those opportunities.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
A rare instance of a reflective ST?
I can only hope. Is ST questioning its contribution to stupid debate/opinions?
May 10, 2015Here's the letter:
Never mind the data, what's the point?
They add nothing to a moral argument; why not ask instead: Why do you feel this way?
By John Lui
Deep inside The Straits Times Forum Page, tucked in with letters scolding bad cyclists, unexplained phone charges and the shutdown of The Real Singapore website, there was one letter last week that squeezed two unbeatable topics - sex and real estate - into one quite wonderful package.
The Yale-NUS College is introducing mixed-sex suites in its student housing, and the writer was having none of it.
At least I think so. The letter was earnest, heartfelt and darn near unintelligible.
May 05, 2015
Co-ed cohabitation endangers chastity
YALE-NUS College recently announced that it will be allowing male and female students to share suites ("Male, female students in Yale-NUS can soon share suites"; April 22).
In the report, a parent, Mrs Grace Yeo, was quoted saying: "These are not teenagers but young adults. I trust my son to make responsible choices."
I wonder if this is representative of Singapore parents today.
Based on the 2004 Global Sex Survey by Durex, the average age that Singaporean youth first have sex is 18.9 years. The survey also found that Singapore youth have an average of 5.8 sexual partners.
The average age that our youth first have sex is dangerously close to the age when students would enter Yale-NUS.
So we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: Is it an issue to have premarital sex?
Or perhaps we think that even if our children have premarital sex, they can sort it out after marriage.
A recent report ("Recent marriages not standing the test of time"; April 7) showed that recent marriages are failing more often than in the past, and I would say that today's generation lacks faithfulness.
How does abstaining from premarital sex help? Because when your partner can control himself before marriage, he will be able to control himself after marriage.
One may ask: Why keep your virginity when you can have fun? Because sex has the uncanny ability to create a lasting connection with another person, and the voices of your previous sex partners hovering over you when you embark on a serious relationship can be very disconcerting.
Rage and insecurity can hinder the formation of a healthy relationship and it is very lonely to be in such marriages.
Intentionally or unintentionally, Yale-NUS' policy propagates a lifestyle that begets relational loneliness.
Chen Dewei
I tried to follow its reasoning as it writhed this way and that but, like the maths question about Cheryl's birthday, it left many of us feeling exhausted.
But what stood out for me were the tools the writer used to justify his beliefs.
The writer thinks co-ed living brings men and women into close proximity and therefore promotes sex before marriage.
That leads to what he calls "voices of your previous sex partners hovering over you" when you embark on a serious relationship, causing it to suffer.
On that last point, I can agree: No marriage can withstand sexy poltergeists.
But what struck me was, why did this writer take a perfectly valid moral opinion - sex before marriage is bad - then undermine it with confusing and contradictory shards grabbed from population studies and sociology?
Yale-NUS College later explained once more that what it was introducing was mixed-sex suites with separate bedrooms.
This practice might be new on campus, but off-campus, mixed-sex house-sharing has been going on for a very long time, long before the ghosts of past sex partners started floating above our beds.
The writer seems to be using a classic method of persuasion, the appeal to general welfare: This or that issue is bad not because it hurts me (because that would be selfish), but it hurts everyone.
This sort of appeal is very popular in Singapore and, over the years, the method has evolved and been refined.
I remember a time when letter writers made appeals to values like thrift and hard work ("Surely this will destroy our sense of financial prudence.").
A thing was liable to "corrupt the minds of the youth" (usually to do with a youth craze of the time that older people couldn't stand).
If all else fails, whip out the trusty "no right-thinking person would do it" or that the thing in question "flouts common sense".
But those reasons are less seen these days.
Simple moral reasoning - "I believe this because that's what my parents taught", or "This is what my religion says", or "I hate this because it just makes me uncomfortable" - seems to have fallen out of fashion.
People can now whip out supporting facts within a few seconds of pecking around on the Internet.
Others, meanwhile, cook up a word salad made up of phrases like "social cohesion" and "fostering harmony" or bring out that old favourite, "it benefits the economy", as if only lunatics would argue against it.
Tossing our elderly into the sea would be great for the economy, but I doubt anyone is going to suggest it.
The more someone writes as if he were penning a corporate mission statement, the shakier he knows his ground to be.
That magisterial tone is an appeal to our respect for authority.
Looking like pragmatic, data-driven beings has made us really bad at conversations about things that have nothing to do with data.
Does Amos Yee, or anyone else who spews rubbish online, deserve punishment and, if so, how much?
Is the Pink Dot event good or bad for society?
What should the sex education curriculum look like?
Are people who dislike the idea of a hospice or a columbarium in their neighbourhood wrong?
In these discussions, the same bits of data will be waved around.
These include the rates of divorce, abortion, fertility and current property values.
Sometimes, a survey on values will be thrown in, whether for sexuality or online codes of behaviour.
There will be assertions about why X must surely be the cause of that particular number's rise or fall.
People who throw down research think they are scoring a slam dunk, as if the other side will cave in immediately, saying, "Oh no, you used statistics! Well, I can't beat that. You won fair and square. Well played, sir!"
I'm still waiting for that to happen.
Bringing data to a moral argument adds nothing because values are rarely logical, fully articulated or fair.
People with progressive ideals - those who are for co-ed dorms and expansive sex education - would help their cause if they knew that they are facing a set of conservative and often irrational beliefs that tie a majority of Singaporeans to their family.
Change would require them to sever ties. Some people can do this, many cannot.
I also wish the question "why do you feel this way?" was used more frequently in values debates, but no one seems interested in how the other side thinks.
It's a useful question and, if asked often enough, gets to how these issues are primarily about feelings, not rationality that can be moved by research, and certainly not about the spirits of ex-girlfriends or boyfriends hovering around the ceiling.
I agree with Mr Lui - people don't know how to argue their moral or value-informed position - we are "really bad at conversations about things that have nothing to do with data."
But these questions are precisely the ones that evoke visceral responses from readers, which is why ST continues to publish these letters. And when such letters are not forthcoming, ST will ask a stupid survey question that would evoke visceral responses from readers.
So my hope at the start of this? Fat hopes.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
On Family, Community, Respect, Tolerance, and Compromise
[So someone writes in to TODAY with a nostalgic wish to return to "Family and Community Values"... Ah, the good ole days, when men were men and families were strong (or else daddy will whack the shit out of you), and people were moral, dammit! Moral, not this hedonistic, self-centred moral relativism. I'm paraphrasing here cos I get the sense simply of his... well, read it for yourself:]
A Singapore Family requires community interest, shared morality
HAN JUNWEI -
NOVEMBER 27
I approve of the Social and Family Development Minister’s call for us to be a Singapore Family, as opposed to mere “economic sojourners”. (“Seize opportunities, but remember to give back to society: Chan Chun Sing”; Nov 22, Channel NewsAsia)
[Thank you for your approval, Mr President.]
The powerful imagery of family is to do with solidarity, community and love. But this symbolism lies deeper than providing an emotional appeal. It envisages community to be more than a collection of individuals, and community interest to be more than the multilateralist self-interest of people.
In a family, one does not merely assert rights, but also acknowledges mutual responsibilities. Family members do not stand apart, each given to their own ends, but rather work together with a collective wisdom under which all participate.
A Singapore Family would have its distinct character based on the shared understanding, aspirations and attachments of the people, as well as a shared morality which influences societal structure and government policy.
The ideas of community interest and shared morality are important, allowing us to ban websites such as Ashley Madison or to have the Maintenance of Parents Act. These decisions exemplify the community interest and show how we place no value, for instance, in the freedom to commit adultery.
This philosophy of a Singapore Family can be contrasted with Western liberalism, which relies largely on a subjective notion of morality and individualised notions of good.
While the promise of greater liberty is intuitively appealing, scholars have often criticised these concepts as being incoherent or hedonistic. If everything is subjective, then Plato is indistinguishable from pornography.
[It takes incredible mental ability to see Plato as pornography. I just see him as an old man. But I guess to each his own.]
As Singapore approaches its jubilee, I encourage Singaporeans to view themselves not only as individuals, but also as family members in a community. A Singapore Family requires a buy-in, a desire to play a part in this larger community, from ourselves, the stakeholders in this society. It cannot simply be a top-down initiative.
We must also remember that while strength and comfort is found in family, there is often sacrifice too.
[And people say propaganda doesn't work! Here is prime evidence that it does! Or maybe you need to be a certain age...
Anyway, the letter below was a reply to his "nostalgia"... or moral irredentism (?)]
------------
Community interest should not become tyranny of the majority
The values our Singapore Family will need, through good times and bad, are tolerance, respect and compromise.
ANGELINE WONG HUI WEI
NOVEMBER 28, 2014
Like the writer of “A Singapore Family requires community interest, shared morality” (Nov 27), I agree with the call for Singaporeans to unite as one Singapore Family.
The writer emphasises how community interest and shared morality are key elements of a Singapore Family, and distinguishes these from the Western concepts of individuality and subjectivity. I would caution, though, against imposing such artificial distinctions.
One cannot be said to be better than the other. Indeed, it would be detrimental to Singapore and Singaporeans if we swing to the extreme and pay heed only to one end of the spectrum.
We must be careful, for example, to avoid letting community interest — itself a nebulous, subjective concept — be used as a pretext to run down anything which the majority disagrees with, as this would transform Singapore into a tyranny of the majority.
Community interest is often based on the views of the many. Many opposed the civil rights movement and the fight against slavery — two stark examples of how they can be wrong.
We must also be careful to avoid letting our pursuit of shared morality — another ambiguous concept — be used to suppress diversity and inclusiveness in our Singapore Family.
We should take a clear moral stand on some issues, say, murder. But it would be foolish to imagine we could establish a common morality for most issues, unless one group decides to impose their version of morality on others.
The values our Singapore Family will need, through good times and bad, are tolerance, respect and compromise, the same values that brought us to where we are today.
----------
[I do not disagree with the second writer. If her point was to caution against moral irredentism, of the futility of returning to the past, or wishing for the good old days, she is right.
However, her conclusion is clichèd. Cookie-cutter, uncritical prescription: Tolerance, Respect, and Compromise.
It is similar to the prescription from Kishore Mahbubani - "to develop a political culture based on compromise and consensus".
I fear he seems to be missing the point.
The fact is consensus today is elusive, if not outright unobtainable.
Singaporeans aren't able to compromise even within the same religion (see the second example on the tudong issue), or even if they have the same values (animal welfare), they do not agree on their agenda. If they could why, is there a proliferation of animal welfare societies? SOSD, ACRES, CWS, etc? And when SPCA declared that a "severed cat" was probably the victim of stray dogs, there was disbelief. It was "easier" to believe that there is a psychopathic cat killer doing the unnatural, than some dogs doing what is natural? And that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is out to cover up animal cruelty?
Compromise is easy to prescribed.
But really, when it comes down to values, how does one compromise on one's value?
When values are on the line, compromise is next to impossible.]
A Singapore Family requires community interest, shared morality
HAN JUNWEI -
NOVEMBER 27
I approve of the Social and Family Development Minister’s call for us to be a Singapore Family, as opposed to mere “economic sojourners”. (“Seize opportunities, but remember to give back to society: Chan Chun Sing”; Nov 22, Channel NewsAsia)
[Thank you for your approval, Mr President.]
The powerful imagery of family is to do with solidarity, community and love. But this symbolism lies deeper than providing an emotional appeal. It envisages community to be more than a collection of individuals, and community interest to be more than the multilateralist self-interest of people.
In a family, one does not merely assert rights, but also acknowledges mutual responsibilities. Family members do not stand apart, each given to their own ends, but rather work together with a collective wisdom under which all participate.
A Singapore Family would have its distinct character based on the shared understanding, aspirations and attachments of the people, as well as a shared morality which influences societal structure and government policy.
The ideas of community interest and shared morality are important, allowing us to ban websites such as Ashley Madison or to have the Maintenance of Parents Act. These decisions exemplify the community interest and show how we place no value, for instance, in the freedom to commit adultery.
This philosophy of a Singapore Family can be contrasted with Western liberalism, which relies largely on a subjective notion of morality and individualised notions of good.
While the promise of greater liberty is intuitively appealing, scholars have often criticised these concepts as being incoherent or hedonistic. If everything is subjective, then Plato is indistinguishable from pornography.
[It takes incredible mental ability to see Plato as pornography. I just see him as an old man. But I guess to each his own.]
As Singapore approaches its jubilee, I encourage Singaporeans to view themselves not only as individuals, but also as family members in a community. A Singapore Family requires a buy-in, a desire to play a part in this larger community, from ourselves, the stakeholders in this society. It cannot simply be a top-down initiative.
We must also remember that while strength and comfort is found in family, there is often sacrifice too.
[And people say propaganda doesn't work! Here is prime evidence that it does! Or maybe you need to be a certain age...
Anyway, the letter below was a reply to his "nostalgia"... or moral irredentism (?)]
------------
Community interest should not become tyranny of the majority
The values our Singapore Family will need, through good times and bad, are tolerance, respect and compromise.
ANGELINE WONG HUI WEI
NOVEMBER 28, 2014
Like the writer of “A Singapore Family requires community interest, shared morality” (Nov 27), I agree with the call for Singaporeans to unite as one Singapore Family.
The writer emphasises how community interest and shared morality are key elements of a Singapore Family, and distinguishes these from the Western concepts of individuality and subjectivity. I would caution, though, against imposing such artificial distinctions.
One cannot be said to be better than the other. Indeed, it would be detrimental to Singapore and Singaporeans if we swing to the extreme and pay heed only to one end of the spectrum.
We must be careful, for example, to avoid letting community interest — itself a nebulous, subjective concept — be used as a pretext to run down anything which the majority disagrees with, as this would transform Singapore into a tyranny of the majority.
Community interest is often based on the views of the many. Many opposed the civil rights movement and the fight against slavery — two stark examples of how they can be wrong.
We must also be careful to avoid letting our pursuit of shared morality — another ambiguous concept — be used to suppress diversity and inclusiveness in our Singapore Family.
We should take a clear moral stand on some issues, say, murder. But it would be foolish to imagine we could establish a common morality for most issues, unless one group decides to impose their version of morality on others.
The values our Singapore Family will need, through good times and bad, are tolerance, respect and compromise, the same values that brought us to where we are today.
----------
[I do not disagree with the second writer. If her point was to caution against moral irredentism, of the futility of returning to the past, or wishing for the good old days, she is right.
However, her conclusion is clichèd. Cookie-cutter, uncritical prescription: Tolerance, Respect, and Compromise.
It is similar to the prescription from Kishore Mahbubani - "to develop a political culture based on compromise and consensus".
I fear he seems to be missing the point.
The fact is consensus today is elusive, if not outright unobtainable.
Singaporeans aren't able to compromise even within the same religion (see the second example on the tudong issue), or even if they have the same values (animal welfare), they do not agree on their agenda. If they could why, is there a proliferation of animal welfare societies? SOSD, ACRES, CWS, etc? And when SPCA declared that a "severed cat" was probably the victim of stray dogs, there was disbelief. It was "easier" to believe that there is a psychopathic cat killer doing the unnatural, than some dogs doing what is natural? And that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is out to cover up animal cruelty?
Compromise is easy to prescribed.
But really, when it comes down to values, how does one compromise on one's value?
When values are on the line, compromise is next to impossible.]
Friday, November 15, 2013
Nature reserve worth more than cost to save it
TODAY Letters
from Ong Jun Yuan
15 Nov 2013
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) plans to build the Cross Island Line (CRL), slated for completion in 2030, as part of the expansion of Singapore’s MRT network.
The current proposed route would cut through our Central Catchment Nature Reserve and “severely degrade ancient, species-rich and highly complex ecosystems”, according to the Nature Society (Singapore), which has proposed an alternative route.
Despite the talk of losing biodiversity and damaging our forests, these issues carry little weight with ordinary citizens who have no particular passion for nature.
We are more concerned about bread-and-butter issues such as transportation and construction costs, travelling time and how these affect our daily life.
If the Nature Society’s proposal is accepted, construction costs and travelling time would increase.
Yet, while cost is one of the main considerations of any project, I believe there is a case for avoiding the reserve.
First, one should consider the cost as being distributed over the years until the CRL is completed.
What may seem like a big amount, say S$1 billion, would work out to about S$66.7 million per year over 15 years, an increase of 0.125 per cent of our country’s yearly budget, based on the current budget of S$53.4 billion.
This is a small price to pay for preserving our reserve. While it may be argued that the money could be better spent on other programmes to benefit the population, could their success be guaranteed? The effect of preserving a nature reserve cannot be disputed.
[You can always spot a zealot by their profession of faith. "The effect of preserving a nature reserve cannot be disputed." Well, I would try if I knew what the effect was. But it is a given. Like faith. Meanwhile, programmes to help the population cannot guarantee success. Wow. Nature, sure bet. People, population and society? Don't bet on them. They will always let you down. Success? Not guaranteed. With such faith in people, I wonder how he thinks he can sell his proposal.]
A similar event happened before. In 1986, the Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) was built, separating the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve from the Central Catchment forest.
Today, the construction of Eco-Link@BKE, a collaboration between the National Parks Board and the LTA, serves to link the two nature reserves again, albeit only along a fraction of the swathe that was cut to construct the BKE.
This will provide a bridge for animals to once again move across freely. So, it can be seen that the Government recognises the value of our nature reserves and biodiversity.
[The govt of SG has always considered the place of nature in our island, as well as the value of nature. But it has properly weighed the value of nature against the needs of the people. The nature society? Not so much. As seen from the previous comment where the writer dismisses the needs of the people for the paramount need for preserving nature reserves. It is clear that his impartiality is in question.]
As of now, the CRL’s route has yet to be finalised. What may seem like a simple map exercise, a line drawn on paper, may have permanent effects in future.
-------
Comment:
For a letter with the implicit argument that value is more than just costs, the writer seems to have ignored the value of time, and only considered only development costs.
The LTA proposed route is the faster route. The alternative proposed by the nature society (who are not urban planners, and have a declared interest in protecting nature) would add to the travelling time. Let's say it adds just 5 minutes to the travel time.
5 minutes is not a lot of time right?
Not for one person. Not for just one day.
But more than one person will be affected. Even if the CRL is a smaller system with a capacity of 600 persons per train, that is 600 persons losing 5 minutes on a trip. And that's just one trip. In an hour, there may be 12 trips (assuming a very low frequency of 1 train every 5 minutes during peak hours). That's 7,200 persons who lost 5 minutes in travelling time. Or a total of 36,000 minutes (or 600 hours, or about 4 "man-weeks"). For every working day. Assuming just 200 working days a year, that's 120,000hrs a year.
How do you value that?
I think the value of 120,000 hours is hard to assess. Some will value their hours more. Some less.
Why should the Nature Society care?
Well, because a good public transport system can reduce the number of cars, which means less congestion on the road, which means less pollution and the burning of fuels, which means less CO2, which means less contribution to climate change.
Why do people prefer cars to public transport? Because cars get you there more directly and faster. If you ever take a bus that meanders all over the neighbourhood, you know what I mean.
So you want people to take public transport? It needs to be fast and direct. Looping around some spot that the nature society wants to protect, adds to the travel time, and makes public transport that much more unattractive, and car usage that much more likely.
Protecting one spot, one area may be the most short-sighted thing the nature society can do. As the nature society, they should consider themselves experts on ecology and how things relate and affect each other.
But they fail to understand that building a meandering, loopy MRT line may well undermine the success of that segment of the rail system, and that failure may well cascade on to the whole public transport system and undermine the measures to reduce car use. Which in turn will add to climate change, and so yes, there may well be a protected nature reserve, but it may well be destroyed or irrevocably altered by climate change.
So no. It is not "a small price to pay". The nature society has not shown that it has considered all the prices and all the costs and all the values. Its proposal is myopic at best, and dishonest and deceptive at worst.
But the truth is probably somewhere in between - well-meaning but blinkered amateurs with no understanding of urban planning other than the impact of urban planning on their beloved nature, making a idealistic, uninformed proposal to protect their interests at the expense of others, and asking others to "pay a small price" for biodiversity.
They need to make a better case.
from Ong Jun Yuan
15 Nov 2013
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) plans to build the Cross Island Line (CRL), slated for completion in 2030, as part of the expansion of Singapore’s MRT network.
The current proposed route would cut through our Central Catchment Nature Reserve and “severely degrade ancient, species-rich and highly complex ecosystems”, according to the Nature Society (Singapore), which has proposed an alternative route.
Despite the talk of losing biodiversity and damaging our forests, these issues carry little weight with ordinary citizens who have no particular passion for nature.
We are more concerned about bread-and-butter issues such as transportation and construction costs, travelling time and how these affect our daily life.
If the Nature Society’s proposal is accepted, construction costs and travelling time would increase.
Yet, while cost is one of the main considerations of any project, I believe there is a case for avoiding the reserve.
First, one should consider the cost as being distributed over the years until the CRL is completed.
What may seem like a big amount, say S$1 billion, would work out to about S$66.7 million per year over 15 years, an increase of 0.125 per cent of our country’s yearly budget, based on the current budget of S$53.4 billion.
This is a small price to pay for preserving our reserve. While it may be argued that the money could be better spent on other programmes to benefit the population, could their success be guaranteed? The effect of preserving a nature reserve cannot be disputed.
[You can always spot a zealot by their profession of faith. "The effect of preserving a nature reserve cannot be disputed." Well, I would try if I knew what the effect was. But it is a given. Like faith. Meanwhile, programmes to help the population cannot guarantee success. Wow. Nature, sure bet. People, population and society? Don't bet on them. They will always let you down. Success? Not guaranteed. With such faith in people, I wonder how he thinks he can sell his proposal.]
A similar event happened before. In 1986, the Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) was built, separating the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve from the Central Catchment forest.
Today, the construction of Eco-Link@BKE, a collaboration between the National Parks Board and the LTA, serves to link the two nature reserves again, albeit only along a fraction of the swathe that was cut to construct the BKE.
This will provide a bridge for animals to once again move across freely. So, it can be seen that the Government recognises the value of our nature reserves and biodiversity.
[The govt of SG has always considered the place of nature in our island, as well as the value of nature. But it has properly weighed the value of nature against the needs of the people. The nature society? Not so much. As seen from the previous comment where the writer dismisses the needs of the people for the paramount need for preserving nature reserves. It is clear that his impartiality is in question.]
As of now, the CRL’s route has yet to be finalised. What may seem like a simple map exercise, a line drawn on paper, may have permanent effects in future.
-------
Comment:
For a letter with the implicit argument that value is more than just costs, the writer seems to have ignored the value of time, and only considered only development costs.
The LTA proposed route is the faster route. The alternative proposed by the nature society (who are not urban planners, and have a declared interest in protecting nature) would add to the travelling time. Let's say it adds just 5 minutes to the travel time.
5 minutes is not a lot of time right?
Not for one person. Not for just one day.
But more than one person will be affected. Even if the CRL is a smaller system with a capacity of 600 persons per train, that is 600 persons losing 5 minutes on a trip. And that's just one trip. In an hour, there may be 12 trips (assuming a very low frequency of 1 train every 5 minutes during peak hours). That's 7,200 persons who lost 5 minutes in travelling time. Or a total of 36,000 minutes (or 600 hours, or about 4 "man-weeks"). For every working day. Assuming just 200 working days a year, that's 120,000hrs a year.
How do you value that?
I think the value of 120,000 hours is hard to assess. Some will value their hours more. Some less.
Why should the Nature Society care?
Well, because a good public transport system can reduce the number of cars, which means less congestion on the road, which means less pollution and the burning of fuels, which means less CO2, which means less contribution to climate change.
Why do people prefer cars to public transport? Because cars get you there more directly and faster. If you ever take a bus that meanders all over the neighbourhood, you know what I mean.
So you want people to take public transport? It needs to be fast and direct. Looping around some spot that the nature society wants to protect, adds to the travel time, and makes public transport that much more unattractive, and car usage that much more likely.
Protecting one spot, one area may be the most short-sighted thing the nature society can do. As the nature society, they should consider themselves experts on ecology and how things relate and affect each other.
But they fail to understand that building a meandering, loopy MRT line may well undermine the success of that segment of the rail system, and that failure may well cascade on to the whole public transport system and undermine the measures to reduce car use. Which in turn will add to climate change, and so yes, there may well be a protected nature reserve, but it may well be destroyed or irrevocably altered by climate change.
So no. It is not "a small price to pay". The nature society has not shown that it has considered all the prices and all the costs and all the values. Its proposal is myopic at best, and dishonest and deceptive at worst.
But the truth is probably somewhere in between - well-meaning but blinkered amateurs with no understanding of urban planning other than the impact of urban planning on their beloved nature, making a idealistic, uninformed proposal to protect their interests at the expense of others, and asking others to "pay a small price" for biodiversity.
They need to make a better case.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Columnist's selective view [Acupuncture]
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.]
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.]
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Picture perfect harmony
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.
(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.
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
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Alternative Medicine - the debate
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.
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 advanced 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.]
[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.]
[April 2016 comment: If we agree that the human body has a remarkable ability to heal itself, then sometimes the best thing you can do is to let the body heal itself. It is more natural, less intrusive, and if the body fights off an illness, it gets stronger and immunity in the future. If so, the best thing doctors can do is generally to let the illness "run its course" - which is simply letting the body heal itself.
However, when people go to a doctor, they want a "cure". Or more correctly, they want relief. They want the pain and discomfort to go away. Here's the thing, a significant portion of the effect of medicine is "placebo" effect. And most of the medicine you get from your doctors provide symptomatic relief - pain-killers, fever suppression, nasal decongestant, etc. Only antibiotics are actually targeting the cause of your illness.
Much of TCM medication or herbs are intended to work over the long term - strengthening one's immunity, and fighting off disease. However, most of TCM treatments have not been objectively proven as efficacious. But it doesn't matter.
If most illnesses can be allowed to "run its course" without undue harm to the patient or the general public, then it does not matter if the patient is treated by western medicine, TCM, or self-medicates/rest at home.
Channelling patients to TCM relieves the hospital of demand for western doctors. Sure. you can read that to mean that TCM is recognised by medical practitioners.]
[I seriously wonder about the efficacy of that.]
[April 2016 comment: If we agree that the human body has a remarkable ability to heal itself, then sometimes the best thing you can do is to let the body heal itself. It is more natural, less intrusive, and if the body fights off an illness, it gets stronger and immunity in the future. If so, the best thing doctors can do is generally to let the illness "run its course" - which is simply letting the body heal itself.
However, when people go to a doctor, they want a "cure". Or more correctly, they want relief. They want the pain and discomfort to go away. Here's the thing, a significant portion of the effect of medicine is "placebo" effect. And most of the medicine you get from your doctors provide symptomatic relief - pain-killers, fever suppression, nasal decongestant, etc. Only antibiotics are actually targeting the cause of your illness.
Much of TCM medication or herbs are intended to work over the long term - strengthening one's immunity, and fighting off disease. However, most of TCM treatments have not been objectively proven as efficacious. But it doesn't matter.
If most illnesses can be allowed to "run its course" without undue harm to the patient or the general public, then it does not matter if the patient is treated by western medicine, TCM, or self-medicates/rest at home.
Channelling patients to TCM relieves the hospital of demand for western doctors. Sure. you can read that to mean that TCM is recognised by medical practitioners.]
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)
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?]
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
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.]
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)