Want people to return trays at hawker centres? Reward, educate them

19 July, 2019


Earlier this week, Jamie Tan (letter below) suggested that the authorities forbid cleaners from clearing tables at hawker centres that charge refundable 50-cent or S$1 deposits for trays. This will compel patrons to do it themselves. Ms Tan also proposed that tray deposits, which are optional, be made compulsory at these food centres.

Her letter set off a lively debate online, with some readers saying hawker centres should instead reward patrons for returning trays. Others said going back to the basics, such as educating users, was the way forward.

Stop cleaners from clearing tables at hawker centres that charge deposits for trays

By Jamie Tan 

17 July, 2019


Hawker centres that charge deposits for trays do not appear to be relying less on cleaners.
At these facilities, users pay a 50-cent or S$1 deposit, and receive a refund after returning the trays with their used crockery and cutlery.
When the practice began at two hawker centres last year, the National Environment Agency said the move would allow cleaners to be “better able to focus on table-cleaning, allowing for a faster turnaround of tables”.
I patronise the hawker centre at Block 628 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 4, which has automated tray-return stations, at least twice weekly on average.
I often see patrons carry hot soupy dishes to their tables because they decided against forking out a deposit for a tray.
They would find a table near a stall, and walk back and forth with dishes in hand.
At these hawker centres, cleaners are still seen clearing the tables. This runs counter to the self-service system the authorities want to encourage.
Patrons could easily lapse into the mindset that “it will be cleared anyway and it is just a matter of who does it”.
The leniency shown by the authorities in continuing to hire cleaners has reduced the effectiveness of the system.
They should take a big gamble by stopping cleaners from clearing the crockery. The cleaners should instead focus on centralised dish-washing.
This will leave no room for patrons to take advantage of the notion that cleaners would clear their dishes.
This way, the Government’s objective to raise labour productivity can be met, too.
The authorities should also make it compulsory for all diners to place a deposit for trays at these food centres. This is optional now.
By making it mandatory, we will likely see cleaner tables at the hawker centres, as most Singaporeans do not wish to incur extra costs.

And below are the comments and responses first posted to TODAY’s Facebook page or sent to Voices. TODAY has edited these comments for clarity, accuracy and length. I just cut and paste.

Do it the other way around. Give S$1 for every tray returned. DAVID QI

This is a good policy, but a bad system. We should use incentives: Those who return their trays will be given a 10-cent coupon that can be used to buy food from vendors. Getting consumers to pay a deposit is not helpful at all. DAMIEN TAN 

The concept is flawed. Hawker centres should make it mandatory for patrons to have a tray if they buy food. They can get their money back when they return the tray with their plates, bowls and utensils. Alternatively, incentivise people to clear the tables by giving them 50 cents, or offer S$1 to those who return two trays and two persons’ bowls, plates and utensils. LAWRENCE SOH 

I do not know who came up with this tray-deposit system. It is so troublesome. And I have seen an elderly person who did not even know he paid 50 cents for a tray until I asked him. JOSH SIM 

In a fast-food outlet during off-peak hours, I see almost 90 per cent of patrons clear their tables before they leave. But the tables are not cleaned. They are soiled with spillage or condensation from cold drinks, ketchup, chilli sauce, and so on. And here you are saying “stop cleaners from clearing tables and concentrate on centralised dishwashing". Then who cleans the tables? LAWRENCE TAN 

No. Hawker centres will become a dump. Also, I wonder where the good habit of returning our utensils, which we cultivated in school, had gone? VINLEON ANG

Cleaners still need to wipe the table for the next patron. TAY YONG HONG 

Even if a dish is cleared, there is spillage left behind, which has to be cleared. The tables and floors must be sanitised. Cleaners will always be needed unless people follow Japan’s system, where customers not only return trays but clean the tables. ROHAN VINEKAR

There are too many entitled people in Singapore for this to work effectively. Maybe what could change is that, with or without a deposit, cleaners should clean tables only after patrons finish and clear their used crockery and cutlery. There will be no cleaning of tables if this is not done. The authorities need to come down hard to change a habit that is worsening. SG MAVERICK

Some customers choose to hold hot soup instead of using a tray. This happened to me: A kid was running around and bumped into a customer carrying herbal soup. The hot contents spilled on to the boy, then the customer, and splashed on me and others nearby. Some people do not want a tray, as they have to fork out 50 cents or S$1. At times, the tray-return system does not work and the coins do not come out. It really annoys people. EDWINA KOH

Cleaners are still needed. But we can help by being more civic-minded and return trays after use. This minimises the chances of birds scavenging for leftovers and reduces bird droppings. It also lightens the cleaners’ workload, so they can clean the tables for the next user. Everyone has a small part to play, but the outcome can make a big impact. Let us start today. TERENCE TEO 

For those who said “do not return the tray so that the cleaner has a job", do you leave rubbish on the floor so that you can "create and maintain" more jobs for cleaners? Not returning plates and bowls, and leaving bones on the table, is plain ungracious. This is akin to leaving rubbish on the floor. Hawker tables are public amenities. Keep them clean after you dine. Do not rely on stakeholders or the National Environment Agency, and give all sorts of reasons for not doing it. If there is a tray-return station, walk a few steps and return it. What is so complicated about that? You need to have the right attitude fit for a First World nation. CHEE VIWEN 

My godson clears his trays when I take him to McDonald’s. The reason is education from the start, at age 2. At 10, he still clears. LYNETTE ENOCH

Ironically, there is no such problem at the cookhouses in army camps. When national servicemen go for in-camp training, we even help to separate the plates, bowls, cups and cutlery when we return the trays to the dishwashers. Perhaps the National Environment Agency should learn from this good practice. It is also time to instil good manners at hawker centres. For example, have brand-new banners, posters and stickers on the tray-return racks and tables with simple and soft words such as: “Please return your tray — it brings out good manners in you.” SENG LOON KWEE 

Why not educate? It may take time. With volunteers — such as from grassroots or student groups — encouraging and educating patrons during mealtimes, the public may understand. Then the day will come when patrons of our food centres return their trays automatically. That would be better than using gimmicks or penalties to encourage good practice. CHEONG FOOK WENG

[I was going to point out that this is a problem that cannot be be solved quickly or easily. It requires slow, long-term socialisation and education, and inculcation of values.

But this is Singapore. We don't do slow. 

We do social engineering, and behaviour modification, and operant conditioning.

It has its limits. ]

Build highways for personal mobility devices, bicycles

[I will let the words of this... moron, speak for themselves. I will just highlight the more... ludicrous parts.]

By Su Sicheng

21 July, 2019

You know, it's like one day everything was fine,
and the next there were these fuckin' scooters everywhere.

There has been much talk about errant users of personal mobility devices (PMDs).

While regulations are in place to minimise inconsiderate behaviour, many pedestrians still feel that their sense of space and security is infringed upon when such vehicles pass too close or too fast.

It is too simplistic, however, to only blame users. Talk to PMD or electric-bicycle riders, or cyclists, and they will likely say they are frustrated that they have nowhere to ride freely.

The limited space on footpaths and the pace of pedestrians frustrate them.

PMDs are banned from roads, and most casual cyclists also restrict themselves to pedestrian paths, as those riding on roads must wear helmets.

It is clear there is rising demand by people here for such devices.

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

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.

Review age limit for caning sentences

[I've been sitting on this for a whole year. Time to "publish" it.]

Today Voices

Liew Kai Khiun
January 6, 2017

I refer to the report “Ex-teacher, 66, jailed for molesting girl, 7”; Jan 4). It is always saddening to read about child victims of molestation, especially by teachers.

What angers me is that by dint of the culprit’s age, he was spared the caning punishment and given an extra six weeks of jail in lieu.

Besides serving as a deterrence, the purpose of judicial caning in Singapore has evolved since its codification in 1871 into an additional punishment to underscore the enormity of the crimes committed, particularly those involving bodily harm.

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

Singlish must not be allowed to displace Standard English

MAY 25, 2016

I agree that the Government cannot afford to ease up on its strict stance on Singlish ("PM's press secretary rebuts NYT op-ed on Singlish"; yesterday).

Singlish has indeed taken on a life of its own, and has flourished as a vernacular with a distinctly Singaporean heritage. We use and flaunt it like a badge of national pride.

While poet and literary critic Gwee Li Sui, in his opinion piece on Singlish published in the International New York Times, said that even politicians and officials use Singlish, I believe most do so with an awareness of the specific context and register that Singlish should be used in.

It is often used to establish an instant rapport with the audience, as it transcends barriers of race and social class.

Build 'singles village' to help young people get hitched

[On the same day that Singapore was reported to be the happiest place in the Asia Pacific, and the 22nd happiest place (or people) in the world, this letter was published. Which tells me that while we may be happy, we are a sad, sad people with no real world smarts.

I will let you read the horrifying proposal by this forum letter writer. The comments were mostly negative. The positive/supportive ones... were likely sarcastic. 

And yet, the ST Forum Page Editor felt that this letter was worth printing. This blog continues to find new material. My "response" at the end.] 


Mar 16, 2016,

While I respect the decision of those who have opted to remain single, a check with my single friends revealed that most of them did not choose to be so ("More young people staying single"; last Friday).

Our working schedules are so packed that we simply cannot find the time or opportunity to meet other singles.

We have to think out of the box to increase the odds of a meeting exponentially. 

[An intended double entendre, here? No? Probably not. This writer seems quite devoid of humour.]
Most of my friends got attached during their university days, when they stayed in hostels and had chances to mingle in places like the canteen and library.

Hence, building a singles' village would be a good way to go.

For this to work, a lot of criteria will have to be fulfilled.

First, the rent to stay in the village must not be high. However, the term of rental should be restricted to two years as singles are there to find love, not access cheap housing.

Second, these rental units have to be small or even shoebox-size. We do not want those staying there to be too comfortable with living alone.

Wi-Fi or other entertainment should not be provided in the units. Those who want to watch TV or surf the Internet will have to go to community halls. All day-to-day activities, such as laundry, must be done in public places, so that singles will have the chance to meet and chat with strangers.

There can also be meetings or outings planned every weekend, or even every night.

At the end of the day, even if one does not leave the village with a soulmate, one will leave with more friends than before.

Chua Boon Hou

[The temptation is to spoof his idea with sophomoric twists with puerile intent. I shall resist temptation. It would be too easy, really. 

Another temptation is to poke holes in his little details - like not providing wifi in the units. Apparently, he has never heard of mobile wifi, and smartphones with extended data plans. 

The really really sad thing about this suggestion is that it is so yesterday. No, so last week. No, so last decade. Or 3.

This is basically "SDU 2.0 - Summer Camp" Or "BMT" if you like.

The same reason people resisted SDU at first is going to be the same reason they will resist SDU 2.0 the Singles Village.

Men may well sign up for this. After all, low rent, social activities, chance to meet women - why not?

But women will think long and hard about how they will be seen if they signed up and lived in such a village.

Besides the labels - "desperate", "easy", "party girl", she might as well just wear a sign "Open Season" on her body, cos every male in the village will be trying to hit on her. 

This would be SDU writ large and in your face. Especially if you are a woman. You couldn't walk into the "singles village" without the potential for sexual harassment. 

Of course, it is only sexual harassment if he doesn't look like Brad Pitt, but realistically, why would a Brad Pitt lookalike be living in a Single's Village?

Leaving aside the costs of setting up such a place, the expenditure of resources, the opportunity costs, the sacrifices for other possible use of these resources, the sad sad sad thing is that the writer in all seriousness, believes this can work.

Which shows his lack of appreciation of the reality of human nature, human motivation, human concerns, social interaction, social rules, and social mores.

Worse, he seems to have imbibed of the SG govt's penchant for social engineering. At least the govt's penchant from the past. Only more clumsily. ]

A rare instance of a reflective ST?

I can only hope. Is ST questioning its contribution to stupid debate/opinions?

May 10, 2015

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.

Here's the letter:

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.

Schools should do away with cleaners

FEB 15, 2015

I salute editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang for his maverick and courageous suggestion that schools do away with paid cleaners and make students responsible for cleaning ("No litter please, we're Singaporeans"; last Sunday).

Mr Han's suggestion should be seriously considered.

Values that are instilled in the young through practice will remain with them throughout their lives.

I spent four years in three different Chinese schools from 1948 to 1951. All the three schools did not have paid cleaners. Students were the cleaners. Today, I don't feel that doing manual work is beneath me and I respect the people who do such jobs. We used to have Use Your Hands campaigns in schools, where students were required to clean classrooms and wash toilets.

Will our school principals today have the courage to take up Mr Han's challenge?

Tan Kim Hock


[I think this is a good idea. But the problem is not the children. The problem is the parents. If TOP schools were to implement this, would they still have parents clamouring to enroll their children in those schools? ]

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.

 

A German's lifelong love affair with S'pore

Oct 03, 2013

Among the birthday wishes Mr Lee Kuan Yew received for his 90th birthday was this letter from accountant Stefanie Tuczek, 51, of Germany. This is an edited excerpt.




[This is not an ST Forum Page letter, but it is a letter. So I put it here.]

DEAR Mr Lee,

I am from Munich, Germany. My first time in Singapore was in 1978 when our family was on our way to Australia. (My father was a physicist and he was about to spend a working semester there.) I had my 16th birthday in Singapore and I instantly fell in love with your island. Although we travelled around the world and we visited many places such as Hong Kong, Sydney, Hawaii and Tahiti, Singapore always remained my favourite.

In retrospect, I think Singapore Airlines was partly responsible for that: I still remember when my father told us that he booked our flights with some "obscure" airline because they were the cheapest. Nobody knew SIA at that time, at least not in Europe.

From the moment we boarded the plane in Frankfurt, we were thrilled. It took me two more weeks and two more SIA flights before I actually came to Singapore, but I knew right from the beginning that a country with such an exceptional airline must be something special.

[Bravo SIA! But some travellers have felt that SIA standards have fallen. Or rather, not kept up with other airlines. Can't rest on 35-year-old laurels.]

In 1991, I had a brief stopover in Singapore and saw that the Singapore River was cleaned up and not that filthy water I used to know. What an achievement. I could hardly believe my eyes!

In 1998, my mother and I planned to spend a vacation in Batam. We thought it would be nice to combine an Indonesian island close to Singapore which would give us two weeks at a beach and one week in Singapore.

Being back in Singapore was awesome: the clean river and all the new or restored buildings, the MRT, Changi Airport.

Soon we took the ferry for a day trip to Batam to look for a hotel for the beach vacation. But after my mother's passport was stolen, we spent the rest of the day oscillating between the local police station and the immigration at the harbour. It was really hard work to get back to the ferry to Singapore without a passport and without bribing anybody. But when we finally made it, we really appreciated the Singaporean immigration office: nice people, no chaos, no bribes, rules and regulations which were followed strictly! I loved this place even more.

The next day, my mother got a new passport from the German embassy. But we had made up our minds not to leave. Singapore was a safe haven in the middle of strange worlds.

[And that is our selling point. For the less adventurous, for those who want safety and comfort when they travel, Singapore is it.]

And we had a great time. We even went to the beach in Sentosa. In 1978, we just had a cable car ride and we couldn't find proper places to swim.

Since 2000, we have always combined our vacations in Vietnam, Shanghai or Malaysia with Singapore. But the time we spent in Singapore became longer and longer. Now, it is only Singapore. Once or twice a year, we come back for a few weeks. There is always something new.

I tried to learn more about this stunning development. Your memoir, From Third World To First, is definitely one of my favourite books.

Most of my German friends cannot understand why I always go to Singapore. In their opinion it is a police state with corporal punishment and absurd laws, such as no chewing gum and no littering. I gave up arguing with them. Over here it seems quite often that the authorities believe that people will behave without the threat of corporal punishment, which of course doesn't work.

And they make fun of Singaporean campaigns to educate the people. But I never understood what is bad about that. I still remember the signs back in 1978 in public buses - "Courtesy is our way of life." I liked that, it gives you a good feeling.

Or the reminder "Use it, don't lose it" for the Chinese not to forget their native language. Sometimes I ask my Singaporean friends to write some sentences in Chinese characters on my postcards. At first I was surprised how many couldn't do this properly.

They were surprised that I wanted these sentences to impress my friends back home. They couldn't imagine that angmohs are fascinated with the Chinese language. It's so easy to learn it as a child but it's just as easy to forget it as a grown-up. So sad.

Singaporeans are also astonished that I spend so much time in their country. Many think that everything in Germany must be a lot better. I once praised the toilets in MRT stations. The reply was: "OK-lah. But I suppose they are much better in Germany!" Unfortunately I had to answer that if there is a subway toilet, it is either filthy or closed because of vandalism.

I think in both countries many younger people take the status quo for granted and don't consider the hard work done to achieve this level.

Anyway, this is just a story of somebody from Europe who loves your country a lot, and who is well aware that all these great developments happened thanks to you. I wish we had wise politicians like you in Europe, but I know that this will never happen.

I look forward to November when I will have the great pleasure again to spend four divine weeks in Singapore. I wish you a very happy birthday and I hope that you will be Singapore's mastermind for many more years!

Alles Gute fur Sie und Ihre Familie (All the best for you and your family).

http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/germans-lifelong-love-affair-spore

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. ]

Give ex-offenders a chance

Mar 29, 2013

MY SON was released from prison last September. He served a four-year sentence and has to wear an electronic tag for one year. He also needs to report to the police station once every two weeks.

He admits that he made a mistake, and wants to turn over a new leaf.

He is the family's sole breadwinner and is currently working as a technician, earning a gross monthly salary of $1,000.

After three months on the job, he was confirmed and promised a pay rise. But there has been no follow-up even after six months. Each time he raises the issue, it falls on deaf ears.

My son is now looking for a new job. But it is discouraging as many employers discriminate against him. Some require him to work long hours, others offer him ridiculously low pay, while the rest do not want to employ him at all.

This is because my son wears the tag and needs to report to the police station.

Why is he still being discriminated against when he has already paid his dues? How can he possibly change and be a better person when society is unable to accept him? It is no wonder that many former offenders return to prison. How can they possibly earn a living when employers are unwilling to give them a chance?

I do not deny that some former offenders return to a life of crime, but why discriminate against all the others just because of a few black sheep?

Everybody makes mistakes, but all deserve a second chance.

Fatimah Nachair (Ms)

[Another caring-to-the-point-of-over-protective (?) mother. Not quite sure how to describe her, but there is a hint of mothering when your mother writes to the press about your parole from prison.

So many misconception and unrealistic expectations in this letter.

"He has paid his dues".
Not exactly. If he has completed his sentence and paid his due, served his time/sentence, etc., he would NOT be electronically tagged. Prisoners given "parole" (not sure what they call in Singapore, so using the American term) with electronic tagging are technically still subject to prison regulations (i.e. they are still serving time) and may be recalled to prison during the duration of the term of the electronic tagging. So NO, he has NOT completed his sentence.

"Deserve a second chance"
If the complaint is that employers are unwilling to hire him or are trying to exploit him, my answer would be: He currently has a job with $1000 salary. That is $1000 MORE than what he would be getting in prison. His current employer HAS given him a second chance and after just 9 months, he is searching for ANOTHER job? Maybe I'm old fashioned, and 9 months these days are a lifetime (in which case the 1 year electronic tag must be an eternity, and the 4 years he spent in prison must have passed glacially), but I am from the generation that believes you stick with a job unless you have very good reasons to quit or change jobs. The fact that he has NOT taken up the other exploitative job offers indicate that his CURRENT employer is NOT exploiting him (as much).

Isn't that his second chance? Or you want his second chance to be gold-plated? Presented on a silver platter? Invitation sent by courier?

"It is no wonder that many former offenders return to prison... some former offenders return to a life of crime."
Maybe I am over-sensitive, but is that a threat? Blackmail? "Don't give my son a good job, he go back to be criminal then you know! And it will be all your fault!"

Or is it a highly sophisticated social commentary on our criminal-justice and social safety net/social compact where it is inherently "easier" to be incarcerated than to be "free" to struggle for a living with the rest of us? No?

To quote: "Dying is easy. Living is hard." This can be paraphrased to "Prison is easy. Freedom is hard" to suit this instance.

I hope that your son is actually doing his best to find his way in life. I hope that he is just considering all his options when he looked at other jobs and is realising that his current employer is NOT THAT BAD and while a little easy on the promises and tardy with following thru, is nevertheless giving him a decent job and a decent chance, and your son is appreciating his opportunity.

I hope that you are writing this letter on your own initiative out of concern for your son, and not at his instigation, and that you do so because you see his situation and feel more strongly about it than he does. I hope that when he finds out that you have written to the press, he will be horrified and mortified that you have made a big deal of the normal struggles of people trying to make a living regardless of whether they have a prison record or not. It would be a sign that his expectations are realistic and that is a good indicator that he will succeed.

I wish your son well, and you, I wish you peace of mind.]

Brain-death diagnosis based on stringent clinical criteria: MOH

Mar 26, 2013

THE Sunday Times reported on the case of Ms Suzanne Chin, who recovered from a coma ("Back from the dead: 'I have been blessed with a second chance'"; Sunday).

We are happy that Ms Chin has made a recovery. However, we are not able to comment on the case as we do not have access to specific information on her medical treatment in Hong Kong and what exactly was diagnosed and communicated to her family.

Brain death is diagnosed only when there is catastrophic brain injury. When brain death has occurred, blood flow and oxygen delivery to the brain ceases irreversibly and all brain functions are lost and will never return again.

Brain death is determined according to strict clinical criteria.

Once diagnosed, it is recognised both medically and legally in Singapore as death of the person.

This definition is similar to those used in countries such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, Britain and the United States.

[In other words, we don't know WTF standards HK uses.]

Brain death implies the irreversible cessation of consciousness, loss of capacity to breathe and other brain stem functions, and is accepted as the termination of a human's life; correspondingly, the diagnosis of brain death is very important.

The neurological criteria for diagnosing brain death in Singapore are based on current best medical evidence and knowledge, and are similar to those adopted by countries such as the US, Australia, and Britain.

In Singapore, all criteria have to be fully met for the diagnosis of brain death, including absence of pupillary response to light, absence of corneal reflex and absence of respiratory drive or spontaneous breathing, to cite a few; and when one or more of these tests cannot be done, additional tests to demonstrate the absence of brain circulation need to be performed.

In addition, two doctors are required to certify brain death, at least one of whom has to be independent and not involved in the care of the patient.

Doctors accredited to perform brain-death certification in our hospitals are specialists who have had appropriate training to certify brain death.

We would like to reassure the public of the highest standard of medical practice in our hospitals, and that correctly diagnosed brain death is not a reversible medical condition.
[So the fact that Ms Chin recovered from a "diagnosed" brain death would indicate that the diagnosis by the HK doctors were faulty.]

Kwek Tong Kiat (Clinical Associate Professor)
Senior Consultant,
Ministry of Health, Hospital Services Division
Head and Senior Consultant
Dept of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine
Tan Tock Seng Hospital

Lee Heow Yong (Dr)
Acting Director/Hospital Services Division, Health Services Group
Ministry of Health


[And this is the news article that prompted the doctors' reply:]


Mar 24, 2013

BACK FROM THE DEAD

'I have been blessed with a second chance'

Singapore lawyer declared brain dead wakes up amid calls to pull plug on her

By K.c. Vijayan


Lawyer Suzanne Chin is convinced that what happened to her four years ago is nothing short of a miracle.

The mother of two was living and working in Hong Kong when she suffered a heart attack, was hospitalised in a coma and declared brain dead.The head of the intensive care unit, two neurologists and a cardiologist told her husband to prepare for the worst. Soon, he was advised to take her off life support because, simply put, there was no hope.

Then, three days after she was admitted, she woke up from her coma. She recovered within a week and left the hospital. Today, she is living in Singapore, still working as a lawyer, still a wife and mum. She is well, and she is alive.Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon recalled her remarkable story in a speech earlier this month on euthanasia and assisted dying. When The Sunday Times contacted Ms Chin for her story, she agreed only to answer questions via e-mail....

[OK. First a politically incorrect joke about why a lawyer would be found to be brain dead... Never mind.

CJ Menon had raised this issue so that we can have a discussion about end of life issues, assisted death (or suicide) and euthanasia. Based on the online comments to Suzanne Chin's story (which were sharing of similar or related religious experiences) and comments to the letter from the doctors (Anti-HOTA), we don't seem to be ready to have a rational discussion.

Maybe we should just get back to that lawyer joke I wanted to tell... again, never mind.

My suspicion was that the HK doctors had screwed up, as the letter from the Singapore Doctors had implied. However, I searched for some information on this - hoping to see an official report from the HK doctors explaining this error or how to prevent this error. 

I found an updated guide on determining Brain Stem Death (BSD) from HK Society of Critical Care Medicine. Revised in Aug 2009. Just months after Suzanne Chin's miracle recovery from BSD. Possibly a response, though obliquely, to that incident.

I also found a post on facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10151516169355155

There was Suzanne's "testimony" as well as her brother, Dr Alan Chin who is a medical doctor. This was the second opinion from another neurologist, and Dr Chin's observation and narrative:

"We requested for a second opinion from a neurologist who examined her that afternoon.

Her pupils were fixed and dilated. Vestibulo-ocular reflex was negative. She had a negative gag and cough reflex. There was no pain reflex in response to deep pressure over sternum, fingers, and eyebrow. She was flaccid, a-reflexic and there was no plantar response. His diagnosis was also that of brain stem death.
That evening, Suzanne looked dead. She was cold and clammy; facial discoloration had set in, especially under her eyes. There was also a smell of death over her."

I would have preferred a more objective source, and maybe someone can find one. But if we take Dr Chin's testimony at face value, it would seem that the HK doctor did everything right, and Ms Chin was by all indications, brain dead, and this truly was an unexplainable miracle. 

BUT if we consider that Dr Chin might have some interests in promoting belief in miracles, his testimony may not be considered impartial.  Certainly, there is some validation of their belief if her condition were as bleak as he reported. Again, it would good to have an independent enquiry from HK medical authorities to provide a more unbiased report. Certainly if the HK neurologists had made a mistake, it would be in their interest to support a "miraculous explanation" as it would absolved them of any wrong-doing.

So in my mind, this is still unresolved.] 

HDB flat should not be for ride on the gravy train

HDB flat should not be for ride on the gravy train

TODAYonline

Voices

With home ownership crossing 90 per cent, it is difficult to understand why Singapore is building homes at a frenetic pace. Is there really a housing shortage?

From Michael Tan Hoe Heng -
25 Mar 2013

With home ownership crossing 90 per cent, it is difficult to understand why Singapore is building homes at a frenetic pace. Is there really a housing shortage?

The Housing and Development Board (HDB) sold 69,000 Build-to-Order flats from 2010 to last year. Where are these buyers sleeping while waiting for their flats? Do they all need a new flat?

There are 3.8 million citizens and permanent residents, with 82 per cent living in approximately 900,000 HDB flats — an average of 3.5 people per flat. What is a comfortable ratio before the HDB stops building more flats?

When prices are subsidised, there will be overconsumption.

A sign that we might have a misallocation problem, and not insufficient public housing, is that 43,500 whole flats had approval for subletting, not to mention there are flats being sublet without approval.

Why is the HDB wasting public money to build another 25,000 units this year? Why does one not permanently rent from these 43,500 owners instead of buying from the HDB?

The answer: One does not “get” money from the Government if one rents, and one cannot pay the rent using one’s Central Provident Fund.

When I started work, a colleague asked me why I was not queuing for a flat, along the lines of “the Government is giving you money; it’s stupid not to take it”.

I saw classmates applying for flats before they started work so they would not hit the income ceiling. An HDB flat was viewed as their first pot of gold.

We have been told of the perils of a welfare state: Once benefits are given out, they cannot be taken away. Subsidised HDB flats and various housing grants have become an entitlement programme, requiring substantial tax funding.

There is a temptation to appeal to voters by lowering flat prices. Young Singaporeans perceive that they are missing the gravy train of getting a flat that could sell for S$1 million but cost only a fraction.

While many who are applying for flats have genuine needs, how many young couples need a five-room flat? If we could filter out the investment demand, we would not waste resources building flats that owners are not interested in turning into a home.
Every country has limited resources. Should we spend more to build another flat, or use the same tax dollars to help an old lady who collects cardboard, or a child with special needs?

We complain that Singapore is a perpetual construction site, yet we are addicted to this asset enhancement. The HDB should continue to build homes for the poor, but should it aim to house 80 per cent of our citizens?

As the nation prospers, it is logical to expect that a smaller percentage, and not greater, needs subsidised public housing. I applaud the National Development Minister for reviewing the HDB’s role, which should not be to make people rich.

[It takes a brave man, a man of principles and conviction, to write this. It is rare to find a letter written so candidly.

Comments online:
Thumper Koh (edited)

Is it right for taxpayers who do not cash out by selling their flats to
subsidise the "profits" of sellers? At current prices, we are talking
about 100k (5 years holding period) to 400k (15 years holding period).

Sometimes it is not just about government earning but about being egalitarian.


If you look at the Case-Schiller index and rent-price ratios. The
prices should be 4 years of income based on 20% of wages to be spent on
rent and yearly rent at 5% of property price. Current prices are an
anomaly which frequently occurs in cyclical manner. They did not pluck
the 4 years out of thin air.

I believe that HDB prices are affected
too much by CPF. CPF is "free", people do not appreciate the difference
between 1% to 20% of their income on housing because anything less than
20% does not affect out-of-pocket money. Therefore pushing it close to
the 20% mark. Because you can achieve real cash profit from the
untouchable CPF.

Based on current median household income of
6,340. A HDB 4 room flat in non-mature estate should cost no more than
230k based on 30 year loan at 2.5% interest, CPF OA totally used for
housing. Those who over-leveraged with a lower interest bank loan should
be worried, the great quantitative easing (QE) will not last for
another 20 years, since we are already in the 5th year.

There is an interesting paper regarding housing affordability in Singapore before the current growth spurt.

http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/pub/wp-scape/0807.pdf

---


I agree the problem is CPF money. This is money that CANNOT be used for anything else EXCEPT to buy property. Hence, people think nothing of throwing everything in their CPF OA at housing... as investment...

Recently Khaw Boon Wan delinked BTO prices from resale prices, but when it was linked, there was a vicious circle.

Resale market pricess would be higher than BTO because those who are  ineligible for BTO or want to choose their location had to pay a premium over BTO. Then BTO were pegged to Resale prices, so as resale prices  went up, BTO prices increased. And buyers in the Resale market had to  bid higher premiums over BTO so resale prices went up. Pegging BTO
prices to Resale was the stupidest policy ever. Or smartest if the point was to raise BTO prices.

The delinking from Resale prices is a partial solution, because as long as Resale HDB buyers can freely use  their CPF to buy resale flats, reslae prices will continue to go up, and the discrepancy between BTO (which is now being arbitrarily or artificially held to 4 years income) and resale will widen. This is untenable, unnatural and will lead to a backlash.

The additional measure that MUST be included is to limit CPF funds to similar BTO prices in the area. So if a 3-rm BTO flat is going for $200k, resale flat buyers can only tap on their CPF for $200k. The rest must be cash or savings.

See this:
http://singapore2b.blogspot.sg/2013/03/how-to-contain-hdb-flat-prices.html

Are 'shrinking' HDB flats really affordable?

Mar 20, 2013

AS A parent of three, I have been following the Population White Paper debate and the recent budget announcements with concern.

The Government says it will build infrastructure well ahead of demand ("Major shift in planning strategy: Khaw"; Feb 7). We are assured that HDB flats will always remain "affordable". But these assurances are not convincing.

[In other words, "we don't believe you." Oh to be clear, if you read the rest of the letter, she doesn't believe the "affordable" part. Not the "build ahead of demand" part. Not sure why she put that in.]

Cost of living is big concern

Mar 01, 2013

THE recent debate over the Population White Paper has missed the point.

[And, I picked this letter because the writer has missed the whole picture. Not just a point.]

View volunteerism positively

Jan 03, 2013
 
[First, this will not be one of my usual caustic rant against morons who write letters to the forum page.

As someone who DOESN'T volunteer, I admire those who do, and respect those who wants to.]

SINGAPORE ranked near the bottom on helping strangers in the 2011 World Giving Index survey conducted by Charities Aid Foundation ("Ask, and you will receive"; Dec 21). The Philippines and Hong Kong scored respectable 26th and 33rd positions respectively in the 146-nation ranking.

We should not attribute our poor ranking to survey methodology, as suggested by those interviewed in the article.

Malaysia, China and Japan were also near the bottom, and India ranked last. My guess is that cultural factors are to blame.

[Why? One might argue that we have the same culture and same level of development as Hong Kong!]

Singapore also fared very badly on volunteering time and donating money, according to the statistics available on the foundation's website.

On volunteering time, Singapore was also ranked near the bottom, behind the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, which were ranked fifth, sixth and 10th.

[I do agree that the cultural milieu may have something to do with it... if by culture you mean affluence and a highly urbanised society, with a highly pressurised lifestyle. Then again, HK puts paid to that theory, no?]

Singapore was ranked 53rd in monetary donations, lagging behind Indonesia, Thailand and Hong Kong who were among the top 10.

We should do more self-reflection, and review the environment and existing regulations on charity and volunteerism activities here.

Two weeks ago, I helped in the flag day of the Lions Home for the Elderly. At first, I worked at a bus stop but later decided to work at a hawker centre nearby. I took a short cut by walking through a shopping mall. Within seconds of entering the mall, a security guard approached me and asked me to leave.

Based on my experience, there may be a few who do not like to be approached in public places and asked to donate money; but the majority do not mind. Some even compliment the volunteers. Those who have children with them would often ask their children to put the money into the collection tin, teaching them about charity in the process.

[Seriously? You think kids learn charity that way?]

In 2011, Singaporeans contributed $896 million in tax deductible donations alone. In terms of dollars per capita, the figure is one of the highest in the world.

However, the Charities Aid Foundation survey showed that only 29 per cent of Singaporeans donated in 2011, compared with 71 per cent among Indonesians and Thais. This was how we lost out in ranking. We need to expand the base of our donating population.

This also applies to helping strangers and volunteering time - more should come forward to boost our meagre participation rates.

Ng Ya Ken

The cost of clearing a tray ...

From Chiew York Hun

TODAYONLINE

Sep 07, 2012

I disagree with the opinion in the letter "No excuses please, just clear your trays" (Aug 31) from two perspectives.

First, the comparison with the police and doctors is flawed. The police would never encourage citizens to break the law and a doctor would never jeopardise his patients' health just to keep their jobs, whereas a food and beverage business would always encourage people to patronise.

Manpower and operating costs such as for cleaning services would have been taken into account in the price a customer pays. It is facetious to view tray return as a social grace when it is a paid-for service.

For instance, is it ungracious to have chambermaids make the beds in hotel rooms? Would one insist that it is social grace to refresh the room for the next guest?

Second, those employed to clear trays are often unskilled elderly with little chance to "elevate" their job. Clearing trays, wiping tables and washing dishes are critical processes that must go on simultaneously to maximise patron turnover.

Therefore, either there is separate manpower to do the wiping and washing or these elderly staff are also expected to do them. In any case, if customers start clearing their trays, it would reduce workload.

What could that mean other than a manpower cut in a profit-driven business obsessed with productivity and efficiency?

Asking customers to clear their trays benefits only the F&B company's bottom line and not other customers, as people are already employed to do that at a cost worked into the prices we pay. More importantly, these employees are a group who would have difficulty getting a job elsewhere. It is an irony that one deemed as gracious is endangering the livelihood of some needy elderly.

[Only a Singaporean can rationalise laziness and inconsideration with logic surpassed only by self-righteous indignation that anyone would dare suggest that he should clear his own table. He should hire someone to wipe his ass. Hey! Think of all the jobs that would create for the poor uncles and aunties with no better skills.]