Redefining the Singaporean that we know

By Mike Hou

 TODAY file photo

Are Singaporeans being defined only by our achievements, asks the author.

22 May 2018

Hai Di Lao closed due to hygiene lapses. Singaporeans (some) lose their shit.

[One restaurant suspended for hygiene lapses. At least two Singaporeans suffer a lapse in common sense.]

Food outlets under suspension should be upfront about why they are closed 

Popular spicy hot pot chain Hai Di Lao's flagship branch at Clarke Quay has had its licence suspended for two weeks for hygiene lapses, according to a suspension notice issued by the National Environment Agency (NEA) on Monday (Feb 12).

By Tay Yong Hong

14 February, 2018

I refer to the report, “Hai Di Lao’s Clarke Quay outlet gets 2 weeks’ suspension for hygiene lapses” (Feb 13).

While I feel sorry reading that this popular Chinese restaurant is suspended during this peak festive period due to unhygienic handling of food, I think they are misleading customers by posting signs at the shop saying that they are undergoing renovation, even if that is true.

I hope the authorities will require companies that are suspended to be more upfront to their customers on why they have to close temporarily.

Dual citizenship: Little to fear, much to gain

[This is not a forum letter, but the writer writes very much from a personal perspective. So putting this here.]

CHIRAG AGARWAL

MARCH 8, 2016

In response to Member of Parliament David Ong’s question about 19-year-old Brandon Smith, a New Zealand and Singapore dual citizen who has refused to come back to serve National Service (NS), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last week reminded all Singaporeans of their NS obligations, adding that exceptions cannot be made for those residing overseas. The case, however, is more than just about avoiding conscription, as it highlights a larger issue with the Singapore Government’s policy on dual citizenship.

Singapore will not allow Mr Smith to drop his citizenship before he turns 21 on the grounds that the Republic has provided Mr Smith with protection that comes with being a Singaporean. This makes him an outlaw for not serving NS.

But, more importantly, the Government will also not let him keep both his Singapore and New Zealand citizenship after his 21st birthday. This rule is driven by the unfounded fear that if we all had a choice and things went south in Singapore, we would all run for (or remain on) greener pastures.

Parents with premature babies need more financial support

[A well-intentioned writer who is not aware of Medishield Life.]


By Ng Chee Kheon

19 December, 2017


Whenever the subject of how to raise Singapore’s total fertility rate is being discussed, the focus is invariably on things like increasing maternity and paternity leave, providing affordable childcare services and education, and enhancing work-life balance.

However, the emotional trauma experienced by parents with pre-mature babies, as well as their financial plight, have not been highlighted enough.

Pre-mature babies need to be warded in an intensive care unit for weeks, if not months. The resulting total medical bills could run into tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Give illegal hawkers a chance to make honest living

[A letter from almost 3 years ago. I sometimes draft blogposts and then feel that they are not good enough, or that I want to write more and I put the post in draft, and never publish them. Sometimes it is because I am trying to be more... critical? nasty? sarcastic? Yeah. One of the above. So here is a "mediocre" post. Not very nasty. Though I do think the letter was not thought through.]

Jan 02, 2015

I SYMPATHISE with the food hawkers who continue to ply their trade despite being fined ("Complaints rising against illegal food hawkers"; Tuesday).

Are there any statistics to show how many people have suffered food poisoning after consuming food from unlicensed hawkers?

If the authorities feel that these hawkers' food is not prepared in accordance with proper hygiene procedures or has not undergone quality control checks, perhaps they could send these hawkers for food hygiene courses or do random quality checks on their food.

[Of course! That is precisely why they should be registered and licensed and... you don't know what you are talking about, do you?]

I propose that the National Environment Agency give such Singaporean hawkers a chance to make an honest living, by giving them a licence to peddle their wares, just like how some seniors are allowed to sell ice cream along Orchard Road and in parks.

I believe some unlicensed hawkers are truly unable to find jobs, for various reasons. It is good that they do not steal or peddle drugs.

[So these were the only two alternatives you can think of? So illegal hawkers other options are to steal or push drugs? I love your perspective. And what you think of the less fortunate.]

I admire their strong determination and perseverance in wanting to make a living on their own, instead of depending on government assistance and handouts.

Instead of playing a cat and mouse game, why not legalise their trade in a way that is acceptable to the public?

Allocating designated spots for them to ply their trade will make routine checks easier.

The smell of fresh and piping hot chestnuts sold by street hawkers reminds me of my childhood days, when my father would buy roasted chestnuts from these hawkers.


[So, only roasted chestnuts? kari-pok? Otah-otah? nasi lemak? kueh-kueh? Or just those that remind you of your childhood?]

They will continue to add colour to our Singapore culture.

Lim Chye Hai

Did wild boar in Punggol die needlessly?

By Sivarajah Nathan


TODAY/VOICES

25 November, 2017

I refer to the report, “'Rampaging' wild boar in Punggol euthanised after gunshot wound to neck” (23 Nov).

More could have been done to save the wild boar before it was shot by a police officer. Was the animal sufficiently tasered?

As the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) said, the boar could have been stressed and became defensive after sustaining injuries from the road accident and then found itself cornered.

I am not sure that the police have the right training to handle wildlife and the right specialists should have been called in instead.

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.

Conservation must go beyond face value

5 Mar 2016

Changi Prison is undoubtedly an important historic site ("Parts of Changi Prison gazetted as national monument"; Feb 16).

Hence, it is regrettable that what is to be preserved is just a mere section of its perimeter wall.

The rest of the historic prison complex has been levelled, including key structures, such as its clock tower and blocks containing the prison cells where prisoners of war were incarcerated during World War II.

'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.

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.]

Hawker food no longer has 'soul'

[An old forum letter from July. I can appreciate the sentiment, but no real solutions offered. ]

Jul 20, 2014

I support Penang's plan to ban foreigners from being hired as cooks at hawker stalls, to protect its food heritage ("Penang may ban foreign cooks at hawker stalls"; last Sunday).

In Singapore, too many types of traditional fare are disappearing. Our food is also being "bastardised", from roti prata to Teochew fishball noodles.

Traditional ingredients are shunned, and faster cooking methods are being used.

Indeed, one need look no farther than our foodcourts to see that our food no longer has "soul".

This sad state of affairs is not due solely to the presence of foreign cooks on the hawker scene. Other factors include the lack of pride in maintaining standards and the lack of Singaporeans willing to become hawkers.

If we do not intervene to turn back the tide, our taste buds will suffer.

Barring hawker stallholders from subletting their stalls will not slow down the dilution of our food culture. A stallholder can easily employ cheap foreign labour to helm the stall while he takes a back seat.

In order to maintain the standard of our hawker food, which has fed and made generations of Singaporeans happy, the Government should follow Penang in not allowing foreign cooks to helm hawker stalls.

If the Government deems this ban too drastic to be applied islandwide, it should at least apply this rule to new hawker centres.

To sweeten the deal, rentals in new hawker centres should be kept affordable, to minimise increases in food prices.

Let's work together to preserve our food heritage for future generations to savour!

Colin Loh

"Let's work together"? Really? How do you propose to "Work Together"? 

You wanna be a hawker? 

Yes, you are right. There is a lack of Singaporeans who are willing to be hawkers. 

Are you willing? Any of your siblings want to be a hawker? How about your children if you have any or when you have children? Would you encourage them to take up hawkering?

From this blog piece:

Wanted

Hawkers. Be your own BOSS! Must be capable of cooking EXCELLENT food at affordable prices. Willing to work up to 18 hours a day. Minimal rest days (maybe twice a month). No promotion prospects. No career advancement. (But hey, you're already your own boss!) No CPF! (You can decide how much to put in yourself!) Successful candidates should have:

• Good memory for faces and orders
• Able to do simple math on the fly (make change without calculator). 
• Diverse language skills (Mandarin/Malay and English at least, dialects an advantage).  
• Logistics and management skills an asset - no training provided except on-the-job learning by trial and error. 
• HR experience also an asset. The successful hawker may have to hire stall assistants, deal with MOM if they are foreign workers. Deal with CPF and IRAS regarding their wages. Prepare and manage their work schedules.

Challenging work environment (likely no air con, slaving over a hot stove, risk of rat and other pest infestation if stall not properly maintained and clean - ENV officers will be checking on your stall's cleanliness;  possible unreasonable customers with "special" requests (e.g. Mee Siam mai hum), possible disputes/disagreements with neighbouring hawkers, town councils, MPs, new media.)

So you think low rent is the solution?

So did this guy in his forum letter.

And my response:

Yes. Rent is one aspect of costs. But thinking that controlling rent will reduce costs is simplistic at best and assumes hawkers are idiots.
Look at any rent-controlled hawker stalls where the hawkers either bought their stall about 25 years ago (and so pay no rent, and so have sole control over their rent costs) or are "legacy" hawkers who were given 30-year rent-controlled leases that are a fraction of the open market value of their stalls.
Yes, their prices ARE lower.
But what are their operating hours? Because their rent is low, they only need to cover their variable costs. After they have earned enough, they close for the day and take it easy. Do I blame them? Of course not! Hawkering is a tiring and trying job, and most of them have been at it for years. They deserve to take it easy in their silver years.

To quote H. L. Mencken: "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."

The corollary to that quote is: For every complex problem there are at least 3 billion idiots who 

a) think they understand the complexity of the problem;
b) think they have the clear, simple, and obvious answer; and
c) think everyone else is obtuse for not seeing the obvious solution they are proposing.

How to check if you are one of the 3 billion idiots: Ask 5 of your friends how to solve the problem. If even one of them has the same solution as you, you are an idiot. (If all 5 of them have the same answer, you are DEFINITELY an idiot.)

Let's say you are not an idiot. Say the solution really is to have more Singaporeans take up hawkering. What's stopping them?

What's a hawker? Someone who cooks great food and charges affordable prices. Correct?

If he cooks great food and charges high prices, he would be a chef no? If he can't cook great food, he is just a dilettante, right?

So, the question is, why won't Singaporeans cook great food for very little money? In a non-air-conditioned environment (to save on costs)?

Is the answer obvious now?

I am sure there will still be Singaporeans who want to be hawkers. Just not enough to sustain the "hawker" culture or ecology of the 70s and 80s... or even the 90s. 

You want soul food? Food with soul? And you are looking to hawkers to make it for you?

There will be two trajectories for hawkers. 

New Hawkers from Philippines and China will be selling what they know how to cook. You're already seeing them. There are Filipino hawker stalls selling Filipino cuisine, and PRC stalls and restaurants selling regional specialties. They will sell to their community, and they will keep the prices low because that is what their countrymen can afford with their lower wages. 

You can try to expand your gastronomic horizons and try these new offerings.

Local "hawkers" will be upgrading themselves. They want to be chefs, be respected, have decent reasonable working hours, while making enough money to give their families a reasonable standard of living. You could enjoy these good ole "soul" food, if you can find these new "hawker-chefs", and you were willing to pay the "reasonable prices" they will be asking.

The other way to enjoy good soul food - learn to cook it yourself.

Many of the "soul" food were family recipes, which were eventually shared with the public at family run restaurants and foodstalls. 

Time for the trend to reverse itself.

 

Is Singapore a Winner Take All Society?

[Two letters and an editorial piece. If you're here to read my usual rant, apologies. This will be a... calmer post. Partly because the issue is an important one. We'll start backwards. I read the original article by Lydia Lim (it's the second article in the link). Thought about it, but left it simmering at the back of my mind. I missed the letter supporting her article. Then I saw this "rebuttal":]


Jul 03, 2014

S'pore has never been winner-take-all society

SINCE when has Singapore ever been a winner-take-all society ("Engage now for a more equitable society" by Dr Edmund Lam; last Saturday)?

Even well before the recent shift to "left of centre", Singapore's brand of capitalism was far more benign than the United States' or even Hong Kong's version.

The HDB provided roofs over most Singaporeans' heads, with mortgage payments pegged at sustainable portions of their monthly incomes.

Schools provided virtually free education. No pupil was denied the education he deserved because of financial difficulties, and the ablest from the humblest backgrounds got to study at Oxbridge on the state's account.

No one was left dying in the street because he had no insurance, and no government hospital delayed an urgent costly operation because of doubts over the patient's ability to pay.

Have winners now taken all in Singapore?

If that had happened, newly married couples would not be buying HDB flats (and making a profit five years later), but renting from winners-turned-landlords for years on end.

Winners' children, instead of having to ace the Primary School Leaving Examination, would just be a donation cheque away from the secondary schools of their choice.

And winners would be treated in private hospitals that would have cornered the best doctors and equipment, condemning the rest to inferior public hospitals with third-rate doctors and outdated equipment.

The Government, while allowing meritocracy to create wealth, has not hesitated to transfer wealth from the successful to the less successful. Such transfers have been growing in recent years.

It is dangerous to focus on what the successful can have that the less successful cannot have, instead of what the less successful can have compared to any reasonable benchmark.

The bell curve naturally separates the successful from the rest, so the only way to give similar rewards to both the successful and less successful is to level down the former, but this will not help the latter.

For us to stay together as a community, wealth transfer from the successful to the less successful is essential.

But instead of targeting some pre-determined income gap or Gini coefficient, such transfers must aim at ensuring that the least successful among us live healthy, productive and dignified lives based on a reasonable benchmark, with opportunities for advancement open to them if they apply themselves to the fullest.

A fair and just society is not one in which no one can live better than his neighbour. Such social resentment, which some commentators appear to be encouraging, will bring Singapore to its knees.

Cheng Shoong Tat

Jun 28, 2014

[I get the sense of at least mild impatience at the "liberal-minded", but generally, the above echoes the position of the govt generally, and possibly many if not most Singaporeans. 

However, I note his assertion that there are "opportunities for advancement... if they apply themselves to the fullest." 

This is similar to the quote attributed to S. Rajaratnam: "Everyone can be rich if they try hard."

This would suggest though, that if you are not rich, you didn't try hard enough.

So then, why should we transfer wealth to the less successful? Obviously they are less successful because they didn't try hard enough, that they didn't "apply themselves to the fullest". And if so, why should we transfer wealth to you, you lazy bum?

That is the inconsistency in his argument.]

Engage now for a more equitable society

I CANNOT agree more with political editor Lydia Lim on the need to change our social and cultural values so that we can limit the adverse effect of meritocracy turning Singapore into a winner-take-all society ("Long-term task to fix winner-take-all mindset"; Sunday).

We need meritocracy to spur success. It was the economic model since our nation's independence 49 years ago.

But to evolve into a winner-take-all society is utterly bad for national unity.

It leads to a divisive population and reduces trust in government.

It is one in which there is superior financial advantage for those at the top but if you are second or further down the hierarchy, you get nothing comparable, however good.

Having benefited from meritocracy, I was enlightened by Occupy Wall Street - the protest movement in New York that brought to light some of the social ills of unabated American capitalism, such as the widening income gap and stunted social mobility.

[Note: He seems to equate Meritocracy with Capitalism (unabated or otherwise. Bated?). BUT, he has not defined either, nor has he implicitly or explicitly explained how meritocracy equal capitalism. ]

Singapore's Gini coefficient - a measure of income inequality - is among the highest in the world, so there is every cause for concern.

While we should not stoke class resentments, rational dialogue among the top-echelon citizens should begin sooner rather than later. More data and research are needed so that discussions can be more productive - beyond rhetoric.

[Note: "class resentments". Together with the out of left field jibe at "capitalism", I am suspicious of this shadow communist! :-). But I can agree to get beyond rhetoric.]

When convinced, I believe more affluent Singaporeans are prepared to make adjustments for a more equitable society.

We can explore how to further improve our economic mechanisms to distribute wealth more fairly.

Edmund Lam (Dr)


[One line from Lydia Lim's opinion piece was that we:

"...live in a meritocracy which has to date stressed that the talented deserve to be richly rewarded for their efforts."

That on the face of it seems reasonable. But I have found that as I grow older, I have started to ask, "and what does the flip side of that mean?"

If success is the reward for the talented, the able, the hardworking, the deserving, then the flip side of it is that failure is the outcome for the talentless, the incapable, the lazy, and the undeserving.

And that is the Just World Belief working its way into our psyche.

Think about it. When you see a poor person, do you think, "poor guy, he has been so unlucky in life. Let me give him a little something to make his life less miserable."

Or do you think, "Get a job!"

I am always impressed by people who give to the poor. Their hearts are untainted.
Me? I think "Get a job!" and suspect that they are part of a begging syndicate. I have grown cynical. My heart is tainted.

If you click on the link in "Just World Belief", it will take you to an article about Meritocracy. And this conclusion:

In short, Meritocracy has the following flaws or negative effects:
First it engenders a Just World Belief. It leads people to judge "failures" or "unsuccessful" people as "meriting" their lower status, their poorer status... if you subscribe to meritocracy, you intuitively believe that "Everyone can be rich if they try hard." And the corollary to that is, "if you're not rich, you did not try hard enough". Or is not good enough. And so you deserved to be poor, to be unsuccessful.
Secondly, it justifies class differences. Singaporeans then become a "stratified" society that justifies Social Strata with meritocracy, and the Just World Belief. That is, not only are there "high-class" and "low-class" people in Singapore, but these classes were determined not by some unfair caste system or hereditary status, but by the VERY FAIR meritocratic system.
Thirdly, Singaporeans [well, most Singaporeans] become very hardhearted, judgmental, punitive, unsympathetic, and justify their attitude with Meritocracy and their Just World Belief.

The other point in the article is that there is often an element of luck in Success, but having succeeded we do not like to believe that we were just lucky. We reframe the narrative of our success such that it was an inevitable success. Destiny even.

But there is an element of luck in almost all success stories. And we should remind ourselves, that meritocracy or not, we had also been lucky.

Watch the Youtube video of Michael Lewis at the graduation ceremony. It is enlightening. If you don't have 13 minutes to spare, watch from 6:13 and watch for about a minute. Then if that piques your interest and you can watch from the start. 

The first writer (the shadow Communist) has a point though. Although "Welfare" is a dirty word in SG, the SG govt does provide some welfare. The question is, should SG provide more welfare? 

Then there's Thomas Piketty's hypothesis that Capitalism inherently favours the Capitalists (this sounds a lot more obvious when stated this way)]

What message was police sending over Filipino event?

TODAY

FROM DANIEL SIM SHAO QI -

MAY 29

The police have advised the Pilipino Independence Day Council that there are public order and safety concerns with the venue proposed for its celebration plans. Consequently, the organisers decided to cancel their event.

I am disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their intolerance.

Instead of advising the organisers to hold the event elsewhere, they should have promised additional security if needed. What message are we sending to the Philippine government — that we are unwilling to protect its citizens?

What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore? When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking responsibility.


[What arrogance.

Prior to PIDC submitting their application to use Ngee Ann City space, PM Lee (and other politicians) had already stated his public support for this and denounced the xenophobia of some Singaporeans.

So if you were the police officer who received this application from PIDC, and you assessed that it is not safe to approve it, do you ignore the PM's publicly stated support for this and act "without fear or favour" by rejecting this application?

Or do you raise this to your boss as a potentially controversial issue requiring management inputs and consideration?

And do you think management might have asked, "is there some condition we can request to allow us to justifiably approve this?"

"Is there someway to approve this? Would PM want us to approve this?"

And in all likelihood, this application may go all the way up to the Minister of Home Affairs who would have discussed this with PM (in view of his publicly stated support), who would then have spoken to the Philippines Ambassador to explain what are the considerations, and sought the Ambassador's help in speaking to the PIDC organiser, before the Police publicly announced the denial of the application.

Is this all speculation or do I have proof? Of course it is all speculation. But speculation supported by facts. Such as, the PIDC organiser has NOT raise any noise about this. ]

Offer young Singaporeans a menu of options in national service beyond the military.

[I thought this was a forum letter. Then I read the end about the author. I am not impressed. So I am putting it in this blog, because despite being a adjunct professor, his writing is little better than some ST Forum Page letters.

And way below Wikipedia's standard!]


Apr 26, 2014

Parag Khanna, For The Straits Times

National service for the 21st century


"Switzerland doesn't have an army, it is an army."

So described the American writer John McPhee the Swiss military in his famous reportage La Place de la Concorde Suisse.

For over 200 years, conscripted Swiss men have trained to mobilise to defend the whole country in less than 48 hours. In a referendum last year, an overwhelming 73 per cent of Swiss citizens showed continued support for mandatory conscription.

Singaporeans also believe that full-time national service (NS) is essential for defence, identity building, fitness and other reasons. But like all venerable institutions, NS must evolve with the times to remain relevant to the challenges it is designed to address. [Why? Why "must"? Because it is a "Venerable Institution"? To "Remain Relevant"? Have you proven that it has become irrelevant? In fact, the first sentence of this para affirms that Singaporeans BELIEVE that it is still essential, and by extension, relevant (find me an example of something essential, but not relevant. And no, your wife's boobs doesn't count.) This is an example of writing that is below Wikipedia's standard!]

The state has substantial and diverse priorities. These include national defence and internal security, social services, and a desire to stimulate creativity and promote economic growth. Singapore's NS should therefore be broadened to encompass these functions [Again, why? Assumptions not stated, arguments not developed, logic not applied, brain not engaged.] in a way that does not compromise fundamental security needs.

21st century info-states

SINGAPORE and Switzerland are what I have called "info-states". [You can call them "chopped liver" as far as I'm concerned. The question is, so?] These are societies where data, technology, master planning and alternative scenarios are as critical to governance as democracy. The two countries are often characterised as having inverted political systems, with Switzerland having a "bottom-up" system while Singapore maintains a "top-down" one. But Singapore and Switzerland can also be viewed as being quite similar, not least for their propensity to top many global competitiveness rankings.

Contrived (and illogical) comparisons - Swiss is bottoms up. SG is top down. Same lah same lah! Both countries also top in everything! Can compare! GAWD what a ridiculous reasoning! So they are both top in global competitiveness rankings so they should have the same military /defence/ national service system? But the best part is just before talking about the "sameness" of the two, he tells us that Swiss is bottoms-up and SG is top down. Minor difference? Different but the same? Or is this a significant difference in style sufficient to derail his suggestion?

Handwaved.

A strong military is vital to protecting such small countries that are rich in financial, technical and human capital. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is thus unstinting in its pursuit of military excellence. It must continue to acquire all the assets necessary to deter aggression: military, cyber and economic. But even with razor- sharp defences, info-states fundamentally thrive on connectedness. Their economic and diplomatic footprint will always be far larger than their military one.

[So? When an invading army is at your doorstep, you will use economics and diplomacy to deter them? Because we are an "info-state" connected by economy and diplomacy, we will never need to defend ourselves (or demonstrate our ability to defend ourselves)? 

Tell that to Kuwait, eh? They had great economics - oil revenue. They had great diplomacy - US was their friend. They got invaded. The US came to help. Eventually. No worries, eh? 

Economics and Diplomacy is to reduce the probability of military aggression, but it is NO GUARANTEE of non-aggression. The only true deterrence for military aggression is military defence capability. Comprehensive Military Defence Capability. ] 

A 21st century country must think in 21st century terms about national security. Only two advanced countries still have military-only national service schemes: South Korea and Israel. Arguably they still need it.

[But let's not argue about whether SG needs it. Or course we don't need it. Everybody else (except for two paranoids) has done away with it. We should be doing away with it too!

Let me let my mother respond to this: "So Ah Seng jump off a cliff, you also jump lah!"]

But many stable societies in the world also modify their national service requirements to changing circumstances. The decade following the reunification of Germany in 1990 saw a wave of such adjustments. Just as I was leaving high school near Hamburg, all my German contemporaries went off to diverse military or civil service assignments lasting only one year.

If I have a bias in this debate, it is to keep national service a primarily military activity rather than diluting it. [Don't worry, your biases are safely non-evident. At least the biases you are admitting to, here.] My undergraduate concentration was military strategy - known much more by its campus nickname "Guns & Bombs". I also served as an adviser with the United States Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan conducting counter-terrorism missions.

My first book, The Second World, is a geopolitical travelogue covering high-stakes countries from Libya and Ukraine to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. I have worked with the US National Intelligence Council to develop scenarios on major regional conflicts.

[Well, since you are sharing, I used to be in the police force a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far... actually, in this galaxy. I knew police constables who had been constables all their career. 20 years. Awaiting retirement. Never promoted. Some were good. Some, I understood why they were still constables. Because some people have twenty years of experience. Others have one year of experience repeated twenty times.

Similarly, I have met people who have travelled the world, but have not left the smallness of their mind.

I am not saying that you (the author) is either of these. I have not met you, only this article you wrote, and if your ideas are not coherent, not logical, not put together, not THERE, it really doesn't matter to me what you have experienced. Or your expertise. ] 

Yet what I have learnt from all of these experiences is that someone who is expert in only "security" is missing the big picture.

Malaysia: Shifting dynamics

THE shifting dynamics between Singapore and Malaysia are a key case in point. Across the former British Empire, countries that shunned each other at independence a half-century ago are now sharing currencies, pooling capital, building cross-border infrastructure, and attracting joint investments.

Singapore and Malaysia fit this pattern of post-colonial fraternity. Malaysia has become a major economic opportunity for Singapore. But it is also the source of a variety of micro-threats, such as drugs and illegal immigrants. None of these can be dealt with using primarily military means (as the US has learnt on the Mexican border).

The solution requires more joint investment, job creation, law enforcement, and other tools. In this context, we should ask: How does NS contribute to greater stability in this new regional paradigm?

[I see it now. Your point about "missing the big picture" ties in with your question here: how can NS be the answer.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, everything looks like a target. 

However the best thing to use a hammer on is an actual nail that needs to be driven in. That is, use the tool to fit the job, not make whatever tool you have do the job you need done. A gun can be used as a hammer, but it is better to get a hammer.

In other words, NS is a tool to serve a specific purpose. It is a necessary evil. We see it as a necessary evil. We don't glorify it, or exalt it. But we recognise the sacrifice for it, and when we see a silver lining, and unexpected benefits from it, we focus on it. The mistake is to think that National Service is a good thing. That it can build community. And then you have the stupidity of the Malaysian having "National Service" to promote and foster community spirit or racial harmony or some such crap, and the youth are molested, or injured, or even die during NS. To what end? Racial harmony? 

Using a gun as a hammer.]

New model army

THE most fundamental question is how to allocate human resources efficiently. The SAF is a crucial foundation of this strength - but it is not the only one. Nor is it the only one that requires able-bodied citizens to commit time and effort.

Indeed, it is rather odd for a country whose civil service is perhaps the world's most competent and effective to limit formal service requirements to defence alone. [Really? You think so? Maybe the reason why it is the most competent and effective is because WE DON'T LET FUCKING IDIOTS WORK THE CIVIL SERVICE AS PART OF THEIR NATIONAL SERVICE!]

Given Singapore's particular circumstances, NS should become a menu of options across military, civil, commercial and social entities. But it should be managed in a manner that preserves the equity of the programme.

Basic training must remain a universal commitment. But it should be carried out by the SAF, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and police - a distribution that is critical especially if women become integrated into NS so that exercises are more flexibly suited to physical abilities.

Each year, a wide range of places will be available for NS positions across corporate, civil, social and military functions, with dynamic quotas based on positions available and needed each year. Students will indicate their preferences across "hard" and "soft" placements, but with the SAF, SCDF and police having priority to ensure they meet their force adequacy requirements.

Not everyone will get their first choice, but fairness should be built in by requiring each NS-hosting entity to take in a representative cross-section of youth from all backgrounds and education levels to avoid giving unfair career advantages to those in corporate or civil roles rather than military. This is essential to preserve one of the key virtues of national service as it stands today: the integration of all racial groups and income levels.

If choices are unevenly distributed - for example, if too many young people choose the engineering option and not enough choose the educational one - a ballot may be held and some routed to their second or even third choices.
 
[Right. A ballot. Because that worked so well with HDB flats allocation and Primary School registration. I LOVE this recommendation! Because Singaporeans only have TWO ballot systems to complain about and everyone knows good things comes in THREES. So yes! Another ballot system. Now for National Service.]

No doubt the allocation process may get a little complicated, but it will not be anything out of the ordinary for Singaporeans used to the posting exercises for admission to secondary schools, polytechnics and universities. The key is to make sure that criteria for deployments are transparent and the process, such as a ballot, is seen as equitable.

Upgrade, not upsize

BUT ensuring the primacy of the military is not a race for numbers. [Strawman fallacy. Motherhood statement. WTF are you talking about? GAWD pointing out the idiocy (I'm way past "fallacy" already) in this article is tedious! Strawman Idiocy: Who the fuck is saying that SG is playing a numbers game when it comes to NS? Has ANY official MINDEF statement been made about getting more conscripts into the army? Or conscripting women? For numbers? In FACT, whenever people say, "Women should serve NS", MINDEF has said, "we don't need to conscript women." And WTF are you talking about "primacy of the military"? First what does that even mean? Primacy over what?]  Looking around the world, it is clear that military effectiveness does not correlate with the number of soldiers under arms. America's defence establishment is being forced to consider how to get more value from technology rather than manpower, hence the greater investments in drones and wearable exoskeletons.

With opportunities in hardware innovation and cyber security, Singapore could indeed become even more of a "start-up nation" than Israel, with tighter links between the defence and technology sectors. [Wow. First "info-states". Now "Start-up nation". You're know all the latest lingo. You must be cool! Or Rad! Or Hip! Or Sick! Or Bad! - I'm sorry, I'm not hip to the new lingo.] A professional army with a well-trained and compensated officer corps and more linkages outside the military would also struggle less with career transitions at the age of 50 or 55.

NS provides a captive audience of highly capable youth whose abilities can be leveraged and skills upgraded. NS can be used to train responsible stakeholders, not just in law and order, but also in welfare and productivity.

Formally designating strategic industries as a form of national service is not at all new. During World War II, the US exempted from the draft men working in crucial sectors such as automobile and tank assembly. In Singapore in the 1980s, more than 10,000 servicemen were diverted into the so-called "construction brigade" to accelerate Housing Board public housing development. At the time, Singapore faced a labour shortage. Now, of course, it seeks to cap foreign labour.

[You don't know what you are talking about do you? Or realise how stupid your attempts to use facts are? Or that your facts do not support your argument? 

Yes. There was a construction brigade in the 80s. That means, your proposal has actually been tried. And the experiment has been terminated.You're the expert. Go find out why.

But the funniest line is the last two sentence. SG "faced... labour shortage. Now... cap foreign labour." 

You do realise that there is still a labour shortage? You do realise that the capping of foreign labour is a POLITICAL response to the resistance of Singaporeans to foreigners, NOT because there is no labour shortage? You do realise that HDB have been ramping up construction since GE 2011, and if the construction brigade idea was such a success, it should have been brought back two years ago? ] 

Shouldn't some NS men become structural engineers, [Yes, because isn't that just a mail-order course? You can learn to be one in 2 weeks. Or 3 months if you are REALLY REALLY stupid.] building next-generation infrastructure at home [in our two-car garage, of course] while developing skills for a lucrative industry Singapore can export? Indeed, as the labour component of manufacturing and its gross domestic product contribution decreases, it is likely that more Singaporeans will have to venture abroad as managers, trainers and investors.

[And then he goes into his wet dreams... I have to pause here.]

The French system includes rigorous training in public administration as well as work in commercial entities. Singaporeans should similarly become commercial cadets within the many government-linked companies, learning management skills essential for both climbing corporate ladders and running entrepreneurial start-ups. They could even do service projects in neighbouring Asean countries in a Singapore-style peace corps.

Education is as strategic as any other sector. From pre-schools to polytechnics, more educational institutes are mushrooming, each with needs in staffing, administration and training. Many of those who begin with teaching apprenticeships during NS may later choose education as a profession.

Health care, particularly for the elderly, also needs a manpower boost.

Given Singapore's concern about growing ethnic diversity and inequality, another function from the French NS system is instructive: social integration. Providing counselling to new arrivals, marginalised families, and under-skilled individuals will ensure that a more diverse Singapore continues to build a common identity.

Whatever the role, NS members should get similar stipends during their year of service, and return once a year to mentor their successors.

Once NS functions are broadened, there is even more reason to draw from two enormous and untapped pools of labour to ensure that defence and non-defence requirements are fulfilled: women and permanent residents (PRs).

It is clear from the Singapore Conversation dialogues that there is some public sentiment - among men and women alike - for women to play a stronger role in national service. More inter-gender bonding during various NS duties may even lead to earlier marriages and a much-desired boost in the birth rate.

As a country with a large, permanent expatriate population, PRs can also provide necessary talent and manpower while deepening their integration into Singaporean society.

Building solidarity

THERE is no underestimating how important NS is to building solidarity, promoting fitness, and boosting long-term volunteerism. But evidence from around the world suggests that there are many ways to achieve social cohesion. Teach for America, [Yes. By all means, compare volunteer work with conscripted service. Your ability to equate dissimilar things has been well-established by now. Obviously, you failed Sesame Street's "One of this things is not like the others" exercise regularly.] a nonprofit organisation founded in 1990, pays graduates meagre stipends to work in inner-city schools, yet jockeys with investment banking and management consulting as the most competitive and desirable first step after college. Employers view it as a true demonstration of character and teamwork.

Broadening NS options taps the latent idealism of youth and channels it into fruitful service for the nation. Rather than being viewed as an opportunity cost, it will provide a platform for youth to develop their interests early on, leading to better focus in universities and polytechnics.

When the time comes, my son will do Singaporean national service whatever form it takes. So the question is not whether to serve, but what service is needed?


The author is an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

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.

Are there protocols for euthanasia requests by pet owners?

16 Oct 2013

Today Voices

While animal welfare groups have stepped up efforts to promote the humane treatment of animals here, the legislative framework seems somewhat ambiguous following the latest incident.

[Hoo boy. Assumptions. Damn Assumptions. Presumptions. Short answer: Animal welfare groups have not done any work in reforming the legislative framework. And what do you mean "ambiguous"? Where is the ambiguity?]

...Given the increasing animal abuse here and the grey areas in our animal welfare legislation, I am concerned about the veterinary protocols concerning euthanasia requests by pet owners.


[Again. What "grey areas"?]

For example, are there conditions where veterinarians may exercise professional prerogative over such decisions? Are there conditions that constitute abuse or negligence on the owner’s part when a healthy pet is sent for euthanasia without exploring alternatives?

[You have neither made a case or proven that a) there are conditions where vets can or should over-ride pet-owners' requests, nor b) that "euthanasia" of pets must be supported by a list of approved reasons, or only as a last resort. And no, this is not jeopardy. You do not need to frame your answer in the form of a question. You just want to redefine abuse to include euthanising a healthy pet? Just say so... but it helps if you explain why and you show you at least appreciate the reality of the situation, even if you seem divorced from reality]

Also, what access rights do owners and rescuers have to an animal’s medical records in the event of a dispute, and what avenues may one seek regarding errant vets?

[The right of privacy of the animal records are covered by the... oh wait! There are no such rights. Nor are these records a matter of public interests or public information. If a vet writes up his observation, it is HIS (or HER) observation. There are NO rules governing medical records of pets. Where did this "errant vet" come from? Define "errant"?]

Animal abuse should not be limited to signs of physical injury. Legally, it should also encompass mental harm and any malicious intent that contributes to the unnecessary suffering or death of an animal.

[So how was the owner of the puppy "malicious"? You are not legally trained are you? Tossing in "intent" is just going to make prosecution harder. Which brings us to the next question: who is going to investigate and prosecute such cases? Who will pay for the legal proceedings? Do we want to tie up our courts with such proceedings?]

Perhaps another legislative review is in order to address all of the above and to move Singapore closer to being an animal-centric and inclusive society.

Tan Pei Ying

[I will assume you mean "animal-centric" and "animal-inclusive" society. 

Wow.

Those are big dreams. 

Stupid dreams. But Big. 

Big, Stupid Dreams. 

"Animal-centric" huh? So Animals will be the centre of Singapore society? How does that even start? Do you mean ALL animals, or just the ones you like. You know, like dogs.

I'm not sure, but the neighbourhood garbage centre at my place is quite animal-centric. Rats, Crows, Pigeons, and even Cats and Dogs gather there. The hawker centre nearby is also Animal-centric. Crows, Mynahs and Pigeons scavenge food off the tables. The hawker patrons are quite Animal-centric. They leave scraps of food on the table for the animals to pick, instead of clearing their plates to the tray return point.

There are some Cat lovers around my place. The responsible ones will feed the stray cats and then clear up the uneaten food. But the animal-centric ones will just leave the uneaten food for rats, and other animals. I used to think they were just irresponsible. But now I see that they are actually animal-centric. 

Comment: There are different types of animal lovers. But the true animal lovers are respecters of animals. They allow animals to be exactly what they are. In other words, they won't keep animals. They consider it a cruelty at worst and an indignity at best to the animal.

The so-called "animal lovers" who keep pets, give them names, domesticate them, dress them up in ridiculous clothes they think are cute, and otherwise tries to anthropomorphise the animals are sad, insecure people seeking vicarious validation of their life choices.

Or they just need to get a life.

Then there are "pet owners". These range from the "animal lovers" mentioned aforehand, to animal "farmers" who try to make money from the animals, usually by breeding them for sale. The choice is often between cruelty and unnatural control/indignity.

Which is not to say that there are no "good" pet owners. But these are usually people with large compounds for the dogs to run freely, explore excitedly, and mark naturally. Most SG pet owners do not have that luxury.

The argument over whether the puppy could have been saved or re-homed misses the bigger picture. 

The point is, there are different views and values about pets and the value of an animal's life. You may believe that all life is sacrosanct. That is your right. But it is the right equally of others to believe otherwise, or not to the same extent as you. 

Imposing your views, or wanting your views to be paramount, is not much different from Lawrence Khong believing that adultery should be punished with dismissal from the job, regardless of one's pregnancy or need for income at one of the most critical point in one's life, or the law of the land. The issue of the death of that puppy is at best a moral issue. And moral issues are personal choices. It is not a legal issue.]

Want less stress for kids? Raise pay of technical job

Ng Ya Ken

13 July

Schools may be an “instigator” of stress among our children, as pointed out in “Are schools going too far in the quest for accolades?” (July 12), but the schools are not wholly to blame.

Schools respond to what our parents and society expect them to achieve: Better academic results year after year.

Academic results are much emphasised in our society because students must be in the top quarter or so of their cohort to have the chance to go to our universities now. And this group can earn far more over a lifetime than those without a degree.

There are exceptions, but they remain as exceptions.

However, in countries where academic results and having a degree are not as important in getting good paying jobs as in Singapore, the gap between white-collar and blue-collar workers is small, if any.

And it is common for salaries of skilled technical jobs to exceed those of general white-collar jobs.

[This letter is... too complicated - it's the most generous I can get. To summarise, the point the writer is making is a) schools are stressful, because b) you need academic qualifications in order to c) get a good paying job, otherwise, d) you drop out and get a crappy paying job, which is really bad because e) Singapore's pay differential between a grad and and non-grad is very wide. Whereas, f) in other countries skilled technicians can earn MORE than a grad. Therefore, (g) we should pay our technicians more.]

In Australia, the mining, engineering and construction industries pay better than legal, marketing, banking, accounting and government jobs. Also, the entry-level pay of a manager can be only one-quarter higher than that of an executive assistant

In Sweden, a doctor earns only double that of a teacher or a nurse.

Over time, if Singapore could raise the salaries of skilled technical jobs, more of our young would switch to technical training in polytechnics and vocational schools. They could then pursue careers according to their inclination and aspiration.

We should make these career options, as well as jobs in music, the arts, design and the like, more viable. This would be an important step towards a more balanced and less stressful education system.

Such tweaks in our pay structure would tame our Gini coefficient, though it may have implications for our economic competitiveness.

If the long-term social and political benefits outweigh the costs and inconveniences, it would warrant our consideration.


[I wonder if people who suggests such ideas (and the people who support such ideas) really know what it means.

First of all, the examples are irrelevant: "Mining, Engineering, and Construction".

We don't have Mining.

Engineering pays quite well, and Construction is mainly filled by foreign workers.

The proper examples for SG might well be, Hawkers, Sales persons, and Property Agents. I could be wrong. What do students who fail to get a degree go on to do in SG?

Let's take Hawkers. Obviously this is a respectable profession. 2 out of 3 hawkers (I may be generalising here) can beat a michelin-starred chef.

How much does a michelin-starred chef make and how much does a hawker make?

If we can all agree that the hawker should have a higher income (comparable to a michelin-starred chef), that would be great.

Now, - here's the reality check, this is where you put your money where your mouth (or keyboard typing fingers) is - how many of you are willing to pay $24 for a bowl of laksa so our hawkers can have a more decent wage for the job they are doing which is BETTER than a michelin-starred chef?

Anybody?

How about $20?

$16?

In any case the complicated argument lost most readers, and response from readers... went off on different tangents. ]

No solution for eateries flouting rules?

Jul 10, 2013

I WAS amazed to read the report ("Steamboat outlet faces closure for repeatedly obstructing walkway"; July 1).

The steamboat restaurant was fined 38 times over the last three years and was finally given an ultimatum.

However, other restaurants in the vicinity are still operating outdoor dining areas right alongside the road.

A waiter was quoted as saying: "If we can't operate outside, it's the end for us."

It would appear that the authorities' primary concern is issuing penalties for persistent flouting of the rules, while noise disturbances, public hygiene issues, general disamenities to the public and perhaps even danger to road users continue unabated.

It also seems that the operation of certain businesses in some areas cannot be carried out profitably without disregarding the rules, and this particular "problem" in Beach Road has been unresolved for several years.

Can the Urban Redevelopment Authority, Land Transport Authority and the management councils of buildings suggest solutions?

Derrick D'Souza

[On the one hand we want to have a more "humane" society, with more give and take.

Then we have people who want uncompromising enforcement of the letter of the law. And when the eateries are closed down because of uncompromising enforcement of the law, the authorities will have to take the blame. And the people who asked for the enforcement of the letter of the law will quietly fade away, leaving the authorities to face the music for being "heartless". Passionless. Without Compassion or Humanity. Being overly Legalistic. Or Bureaucratic. Stone-faced enforcers of the law without understanding the needs of businesses or their patrons. 

But sure. In the meantime, stridently defend your need for disturbances, nuisances, and disamenities to be dealt with to the full letter of the law.

If you want a kinder, gentler Singapore, it starts with us. Being a little more tolerant. Live and let live. Give and take. Accept a little inconvenience as part of the price of living in a thriving society/community.

Or just clean up Singapore until all disamenities and organic businesses are gone. Then complain that Singapore is so sterile. Then go to places like KL and Bangkok and Penang, and say, "Wah! They have such a thriving street food scene. Ya, it's a little messy, but it is so ALIVE! Not like Singapore. Like a hospital."

Singaporean: One who complains about everything without realising what their complain would result in.]

PAP sending wrong signal in Punggol East

Feb 09, 2013

BY TAKING the drastic stand that it will not push for new facilities in Punggol East after losing the recent by-election, the People's Action Party (PAP) is sending the wrong signal to the 44 per cent of voters who supported it ("PAP won't push for facilities in Punggol East"; Wednesday).

[What about the signal to the 56% that did NOT vote for the PAP?]

Harping about the F1

Oct 04, 2012

F1 reveals ethical dissonance


THANK you, Ms Anna Quek, for so eloquently expressing the concerns about the Government's decision to extend the hosting of the Formula One (F1) race for another five years ("S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please"; last Saturday).

[I don't know why you are thanking her. Her points were nothing related to yours. Oh! You were just using it as a hook! Or simply to form solidarity of "SG against the F1". I see. No logical or philosophical alignment other than a simple common foe: the F1.]

Singapore risks evolving into a country of contradictions.

[Wrong. Singapore is already a country of contradictions. Farrer Park is not on Farrer Road. Marina Bay Station is not at Marina Bay Sands. Esplanade Station does not open directly to the Esplanade. There are 4 different brands of "Katong Laksa" all claiming to be the authentic one. Right in the middle of our city centre, we have a cricket club and how many Singaporeans even know the rules of cricket let alone play it?]

We welcome casinos and try to teach values in our schools.

[No. No. No. We teach students to be disciplined and want our soldiers to think!]

We host a clearly environmentally hostile race, while we make increasingly loud noises about sustainability.

[We do? (make increasingly loud noises about sustainability)?]

We also claim great pride in our reputation for integrity.

Yet, integrity is about doing the right thing, even if it costs one personally.

[So... JBJ, CSJ are men of integrity, but since CST and LTK have never been sued by the PAP and so never suffered personal costs, they have no integrity, or at best less integrity than JBJ and CSJ?]

It means having to make financial sacrifices in order to preserve and build a long-term reputation.

[Like Ng Eng Hen giving up his multi-million practice to make just about $1m as a minister? Or K Shanmugan giving up his multi-million dollar law practice? or Vivian Balakrishnan?]

I am increasingly concerned that we are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices because we cannot see beyond dollars and cents.

[Like how your definition of integrity is pegged to financial costs? How about a simple, "Integrity is simply doing what one says one will do and saying what one will do"? Like CST? What's with all these personal costs and financial sacrifices crap? Integrity - it's not real until you put a price on it.]

If we do not watch it, we may one day be called ethical pragmatists, which is an oxymoron.

Mak Yuen Teen

[Thank you ethical moron. My problem with your letter is your assumption that contradictions are an evil. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind and the same time and still retain the ability to function" says F. Scott Fitzgerald.

There is an obvious failure to function here.

Contradictions abound in life. Mature people navigate these contradictions and can even hold opposing ideas in their mind at the same time. They don't selectively seek to resolve the "contradictions" that contradict their wants.

Here's a contradiction: we value tolerance. So here is an example of me being intolerant of intolerance!

Let's see what Anna Quek actually wrote.]

Sep 29, 2012

S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please


I AM dismayed that Singapore has committed itself to a further five years of Formula One ("Five more years for S'pore race", Sunday; and "F1 'to bring bigger benefits' in next lap", Tuesday).

[Narcissistic delusion. Assumes we are concerned about her dismay. Or that her dismay amounts to an earth shattering catastrophe that needs urgent attention to address or prevent.]

I am unconvinced by its purported benefits and worry about the ethical implications from the promotion of the event.

[See "Narcissistic Delusion" above. Assumes that others should be similarly unconvinced.]

The only certainty about F1 is the financial outlay for each race, amounting to about $150 million, with the Government co-funding 60 per cent of approved costs.

[Her first factual assertion.... and it's WRONG! OK, possibly wrong. The figures she stated were the conditions of the first 5 years deal. We have not been told what the deal is for the next 5 years.]

It is widely acknowledged that Singapore paid a hefty premium for the first deal, and there were expectations that the Government would negotiate better terms for a second contract.

It is disappointing that there has been no disclosure of the actual financial terms of a deal involving millions of dollars of public funds. Instead, Singaporeans are asked to place their faith in "consultants" who claim favourable international publicity generated by the F1 glitz.

[Life is disappointment. Get used to it.]

I am sceptical that any for-profit company would pooh-pooh such a trophy event and risk incurring the wrath of its clients.

[There's healthy scepticism, and poisonous cynicism, and pathological paranoia. She has a 1 in 3 chance of being healthy. Consultants thrive on the value they provide to their clients, and their reputation depends on it. Bad advice can kill their reputation. Ask Arthur Anderson. Similarly, I am sceptical that any myopic, idealistic, xenophobic puritan with no business experience or business acumen, would approve such an event and risk not being able to impose her values and wants on others.]

Even assuming the survey results are representative, there is no certainty that favourable impressions translate into actual benefits for Singapore and the average Singaporean.

At any rate, $150 million is a princely sum for a three-day "marketing campaign".

[And here is the essence and evidence of the naivete of the idealistic, myopic, xenophobic puritan with the mono-factorial decision-making heuristic. You can spend $150m (less actually for the SG govt) for EFFECTIVE marketing that reaches your TARGET audience in 3 days and it would be better than spending $15m for a year long campaign that is ineffective. Or $50m. Or $100m. Or even $150m for a year long campaign that is not as effective. Judging the worth simply by the cost is precisely why we need consultants and not Ms Quek and her ilk.]

I am also curious how the "incremental tourism receipts" of $560 million, from 2008 to last year, were attributed to F1, or how the fantastical "billions" in revenue projected by the consultants were arrived at.

[Finally! A good question!]

Is every tourist asked upon arrival at Changi Airport if they came specifically because of F1, and if so, were their wallets tagged and monitored?

[Followed immediately by a stupid research methodology!]

How were the losses suffered by Marina Bay area businesses and commuter inconvenience accounted for?

[Another good question! I think those businesses have been ignored by the govt! What do you think we should do Ms Quek?]

I believe I am not alone in noticing that there have been many more "super-cars" on our roads since the introduction of F1.

[... And... other than that short question, she has also ignored the fate of those "few, those unhappy few" businesses.... And has instead decided to imply that F1 has caused a surge in "super-cars" in Singapore! Correlation is not causation, as any researcher can tell you. ]

On our Little Red Dot, the allure of super-cars probably lies in their bragging rights, driven home by deliberate loud revving and speeding (if only for 10m).

While it may be a stretch to blame F1 for the anti-social behaviour of some drivers, the marketing thrust of F1 - fast cars, grid girls, extravagant parties and "bling-bling" - is nothing short of crass consumption, with its corrosive effect on social values.

[And so she admits it is a stretch to blame the F1... and then proceeds to cast her disapproving eye on crass consumption, and pass judgement on its"corrosive effect" on social values. Why corrosive? I don't know. Bravo Ms Quek! In one sentence, you have managed to start with understated research methodology, and jump straight to the conclusion you had already decided! Bravo! Such intellectual sleight-of-hand! Mental illusion that is exceeded only by your narcissistic delusion! Beautiful were it not also opinionated and misleading.]

Hosting F1 in Singapore will appear much less triumphal once its true economic and social costs are weighed against a realistic assessment of "incremental receipts".

Anna Quek (Ms)

[When we require a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of hosting the F1, we can be sure that you will be the most biased and unqualified person to make that assessment. We may have to ask one of those for-profit consultants to run the assessment. Again. You will probably be disappointed. Again.

Tough.

Deal.

Personally, I have no interest in the F1, or to want to watch it up close and in person. This is a made for TV spectacle, and I would watch only for the thrill of seeing slips, slides, skids, crashes, collisions, and explosions. From the safety of my home or a sports bar somewhere. I hate unrelentingly loud noises. I hate packed-like-sardines crowds.  Would I be unhappy if F1 were not renewed for 5 more years in SG? No. It bothers me not one bit. But it matters to many others. So for a week or so, downtown SG is off-limits to me, by my own choice. Big deal. So the F1 is "environmentally hostile". If so, it is so regardless of where it is held and affects the global climate eventually.]