To cut waste, set up supermarket selling overstocked, expiring goods

By Doreen Lai Bin Hui

26 September, 2019

I was happy to read TODAY’s Trash Talk features on how Singaporeans can do their part to reduce waste.

I have two ideas that I hope can bring Singapore closer to its zero-waste target.

Despite being a developed country, our environmental consciousness trails even some developing nations.

[Note: what she considers "environmental consciousness" is basically the latest fads promoted by so-called "environmentalists". More later.]

Recently, I took a six-month break. [Just curious. Did you fly, or bike, or take a "zero-emissions" boat? Whatever that is.] Through my travels, I saw how the effects of global warming and erratic climatic changes have caused glaciers to recede at an alarming rate, and places such as Alaska becoming much warmer than they should.

[Oh yes. Come see the glaciers before they are all gone!]

We need to step up our environmental consciousness to safeguard our planet for future generations.

During my travels, I encountered many excellent ideas of how we can help to reduce waste.

START A GROCERY OUTLET

In the United States, there is a successful supermarket chain called Grocery Outlet selling heavily discounted brand-name groceries and products that are either overstocked or close to their use-by date.

[In Singapore, there is a chain of budget shops called "Value $ Shop". Their tagline is "Closing Down Sale!" and "Fire Sale"! And they are NOT the only bargain budget shops.]

I patronised this supermarket often because its items were cheap and I was going to consume the produce pretty soon anyway.

It makes sense for one of the big supermarket chains here — or, better still, an alliance of them — to create such an outlet to reduce waste. It can also be a part of their corporate-social-responsibility efforts to bring affordable groceries to the masses.

[Or see what they are already doing. From a Facebook comment:

Supermarkets are already doing this for some products. Fresh meat have a shelf life (or a sell by date) of just 3 days. [When] they are close to their sell-by date, some supermarkets slash their prices. But you often have to use the meat on the same day. This is not always possible (for me), so I cannot take advantage of this. And this (offering discounts within the store) is a better solution than having a specialty store selling say 2-day old meat. This requires the originating store to send the meat to the specialty discount store, who will need to check that the meat (or other products) are still saleable, re-tag the merchandise, and put it on display. All these take time, transport, logistics, and labour and adds to the costs. Re-tagging the soon to expire meat within the originating store is speedier (unless the specialty store is right next to the originating store and a subsidiary of the originating store or parent company).

DEPOSITS FOR BOTTLES AND CANS

In Europe and North America, it is common to see glass or plastic bottles and steel or aluminium cans being sold with a deposit. Consumers can get their money back when they return these to a machine that is usually at the entrance of supermarkets.

This scheme will boost recycling collection rates and attitudes towards recycling.

[Hate to break the news to you but... Recycling is a scam. But don't take my word for it. Find a recycling plant in Singapore. Not a recycling materials collection and sorting facility. These simply "export" our "recyclables overseas. Where a large proportion of them are either left to rot, burned haphazardly, or tossed into the oceans. Find an ACTUAL plant that takes recyclables (say aluminium cans), and actually process the recyclables and make NEW products with it. There are no such plants in SG. (I got a hint that there is a "local steel mill" that can recycle ferrous metal - not aluminium. But I have NO idea where it is, or if recycling is a major component of its business model.)

As for plastic, it helps to believe that you can recycle plastic. But the truth is, it is very difficult to recycle a plastic bottle and imagine that it would come back as a bottle. Plastics are hard to recycle. The best you can do is down cycle it.]

Recent news that supermarket chain NTUC FairPrice is charging for plastic bags in a trial at selected stores is also a step in the right direction.

Singapore is already behind many countries in this area. Others, including many African states, have banned single-use plastic bags. A report from the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Resources Institute found that at least 127 out of 192 countries have adopted some form of legislation to regulate plastic bags as of July last year.

I sincerely urge Singaporeans to be more environmentally conscious because every little step matters.

[More from the FaceBook comment:

As for other goods (over-stocked goods) this is already being done if the writer would simply open her eyes and understand what she is seeing. "Value $ Shop" with their perpetual "Closing Down Sale" or "Fire Sale" (despite the lack of evidence of fire, unless they are exploiting the Haze) ARE in fact discount stores for overstocked goods. Yeah, sure they have lots of parallel imports from countries with lower costs of living (Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Malaysia), but they also have overstocked goods. "Halls XS" are about $1.40 at Fairprice. They were once sold at Value $ Shop for 50 cents (no stock now).

This letter is an example of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" or at least a useless thing. Or will get you to do useless things that will make you feel good about yourself. 

The War on Plastic is futile. And people are doing it for the wrong reasons. If we stop using plastic, the world will NOT become a better place. We would NOT stop climate change or global warming. If you think giving up plastic will save the world from climate change, you are a victim of "a little knowledge" and the wrong kind of knowledge.

Same for giving up plastic straws.]

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.

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.

Provide Raw Water for non-drinking purposes.

NORMAN WEE SIN CHUAN
Mar 6 2017

TodayOnline

My letter to Today in full:

Water has not reach crisis level, but the debate on pending price increase has.

As a long-term measure, I think to save precious treated water, another tap should be laid to pipe in direct cheap raw water from Singapore reservoirs and Johor for general purpose like flushing toilet and cleaning premises.

Then the treated water for drinking and cooking can be as expensive as bottled drinking water and no one need to complain as water for drinking and cooking constitute only a very small portion of water used.

As it is expensive treated Singapore water which can be drank direct from tap, is wasted and go down the drain for general purpose.

We know there are rich households that buy bottled water for drinking and cooking and use tap only for other purpose.

Some fear the flouride and other bacteria killing chemicals in the treated water.

A cheaper way instead of having to lay another pipe, is to use existing tap for raw water and bottled water for drinking and cooking.

Who knows the raw water could turn out to be health craze water!

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. ]

Let's be a cultural melting pot, not bowl of salad

Jan 7, 2016, 

When we take a train ride, we often hear many languages being spoken and see attire that hails from varied origins.

These are signs that we have become multi-faceted in terms of ethnicity and national origin.

But it begs the question: Are we evolving into a melting pot, where many distinct elements are forged into one? Or a bowl of salad, where each item remains separate from the other?

Many of us are of immigrant stock. Singapore was barren and it was these people who put aside their differences and made the country into what it is today.

Each community retained its self-help social establishment, but, on the whole, there was ample room for all to mingle and be part of Singapore's mainstream, including its English-medium schools and national service.

Thaipusam

[Arrest some people during the procession, see it blow up in the social media, ask why it's not a public holiday. Get an official reply. Then push for it to be made a public holiday.

Hey! I also want!

Another day off, who don't want? Even those who have to work during holidays also happy because - OVERTIME RATES! ]


Seek views on Thaipusam as a public holiday


FROM AMOS MAXIMILIAN LEE CANGUANG

FEBRUARY 19

I thank the Manpower Ministry for its letter, “Impractical to make all key festivals public holidays” (Feb 14), which explained its stance on whether Thaipusam should be a public holiday.

Indeed, in 1968, Christians and Muslims had to give up two public holidays. Both faiths were, however, left with two days: Christians have Good Friday and Christmas, and Muslims have Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji.

It seems odd that Hindus, who had two days to begin with, Deepavali and Thaipusam, had to choose one instead of keeping both.

Firstly, the difference between Thaipusam and Vesakhi for the Sikhs or Lao-Tzu’s Birthday for the Taoists is that Thaipusam involves a huge procession of devotees. Designating it a public holiday could reduce traffic congestion and potential safety hazards.

[The authorities DID NOT tell the Hindus: "You have to give up Thaipusam." The Hindus considered the two important days to their religion and decided Deepavali was more important. And that they can work around Thaipusam not being a public holiday. The question is, do we want to re-open the issue or ask the Hindus to decide if they want to stick with Deepavali or change to Thaipusam.

And yes, traffic congestion is a major consideration for public holidays. We should make the week preceding the F1 race a Golden Week Public Holiday.]

Secondly, Hindus make up 5 per cent of the resident population, a sizeable number compared to the Sikhs. The Taoists, who form 11 per cent of our population, have also petitioned previously for Lao-Tzu’s Birthday to be a public holiday.

Perhaps, designating a public holiday for religions that comprise 5 per cent of the resident population is a better way of ensuring religious harmony.

Finally, it is one thing to say from an official standpoint that the status quo maintains harmonious living, but I hope the ministry would seek opinions on Thaipusam from employers, employees, Hindus and people of other faiths.

I am confident that many non-Hindus here would support designating Thaipusam as a public holiday, and if a majority on the ground does, it would show Singapore’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious solidarity and society.

[Merits of ANOTHER public holiday? Seek views of public as to whether Thaipusam should be a public holiday?

While you are at it, why don't you ask really controversial questions like: "Do you want Free Money?" in addition to this moral conundrum: "Do you want ANOTHER public holiday?"

Yes, I am CONFIDENT too that if you ask ANYBODY if he wants one more public holiday, they will all say yes. Unless they are crazy. 

BUT to be fair, I think if we let Hindus have TWO public holidays, than Christians and Muslims should have one more public holiday each. And yes, the Taoist and the Buddhists and heck, the Chinese too.

I am CONFIDENT that many non-(whatever) will support more public holidays. Because in our multi-racial, multi-religious, racially harmonious society, we all want to celebrate each other's important festivals appropriately. i.e. resting at home.]


More public holidays may be better

FROM HAZRUL AZHAR JAMARI

FEBRUARY 19

I refer to the Manpower Ministry’s letter, “Impractical to make all key festivals public holidays” (Feb 14). Perhaps, the consideration is how it could be hard for Singapore to be competitive if we have too many holidays.

Our fierce economic competitor, Hong Kong, has 17 public holidays, though, and the Chinese territory has no problems remaining one of Asia’s best economies, often beating Singapore in economic rankings.

[Yes. I googled "Singapore HK Economics" and these are some of the results:
http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1498467/booming-years-singapore-lost-decade-hong-kong?page=all
"Hong Kong’s economy grew 2.3 per cent in 2014, while Singapore’s expanded 2.9 per cent."

See? The writer is right! with just 6 more public holidays, HK's economy only lost to SG by 0.6%! Or only about 0.1% per holiday! We can afford that right?]


Unlike Hong Kong, Singapore is multiracial. So during this Chinese New Year, for example, those from the other races might be working.

This is true for services that must run throughout the holidays, such as public transport, our airport, the checkpoints and some supermarkets.

[So... in HK, during public holidays, all these essential services STOP? wow. I did not know that.]

Hong Kong, as a homogenous territory, has the luxury of providing holidays for both major and minor occasions; the residents take their breaks and return to work refreshed.

Perhaps, overworked Singaporeans would be better off having holidays that make everyone happy. Every racial community is an important cog in our economy.

[OK, now you are starting to lose me. First you say that SG multi-racial so more holidays ok because OTHERS will be working. NOW you say HK homogeneous so holiday, EVERYBODY rest and come back refreshed. Which is it?]

With less annual leave left, just so they can attend an important religious or cultural occasion, some Singaporeans may end up feeling less refreshed.

Further, more holidays means that the ever-important and growing tourism industry has more reasons to bring in foreign visitors.

[OK, now you are just sounding desperate to make your case. What about all the SG going overseas and spending money in other countries? And SG already so crowded! You want more foreigners here?!?]

For example, Thaipusam is a crowd-puller in Malaysia. Were it made a public holiday in Singapore, with the entire road for Hindu Singaporeans to perform their procession, there may be many tourists preferring Singapore as a holiday destination instead.

[I will leave it to the Hindus to decide if they want to be insulted that their religious practice is to be turned into a tourist attraction. Next: "True Confessions!" Webcams to be installed in Catholic Confessionals. Especially those in churches next to convent schools or CJC.]

But it seems we want workers to work more days when it would be better to earn the tourist dollar, let our Hindu friends enjoy their religious festival, and for the rest of us, a well-deserved break.

The ministry should rethink this issue. What happened in 1968 is no longer relevant; we may have needed to make compromises then for our young nation to become an Asian Tiger, but we are at the top now.

More holidays does not necessarily mean a slow or weaker economy as Hong Kong has demonstrated.

[Sorry. Debunked. See chart below. Since 1989, SG (red bars) have consistently been better than HK (blue bars.]

GM food should be labelled

JUN 19, 2014

I AM concerned about how much genetically modified (GM) food we may be exposed to unwittingly in Singapore as there are no mandatory requirements to label food as such ("GM food in Singapore safe"; last Saturday).

There has been a recent spate of studies which show that GM food crops containing Bt toxin have caused foetal malformations, sterility and deaths in cattle as well as other mammals and birds exposed to them.

[If you do a decent (3 minutes) google search you will find results from Joseph Mercola from May 2011 (caution: he’s trying to sell you “snake oil” and part of the “conspiracy economy”) supporting the claims above. But you will also find results from sites that debunk urban myths, legends, and rumours like Snopes.  They report:

The Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) protein...  is a naturally occurring one which has been used in agriculture for decades… The claim about GM corn causing organ failure in rats stems from articles published in 2009 and 2012 by Dr. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois (et al) which reported the finding of high tumor rates and early mortality in rats fed genetically modified corn and "safe" levels of the herbicide Roundup. However, several food safety authorities and regulatory agencies found the analysis and conclusions of the 2009 article to be flawed and unsupportive of its claims. Moreover, France's six scientific academies issued a rare joint statement in October 2012 denouncing the latter study as a similarly flawed "scientific non-event" that served to "spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion”.

And by the way, what "recent spate of studies"? You mean you just checked your email and found emails from 2009 to 2012?]

China has recently banned imports of GM dried grains from the United States, and there is a growing movement in Canada and Europe against Monsanto, one the the biggest producers of GM crops.

[Wow. If China, which allows lead in children’s toys, melamine in milk, and reuse grease as cooking oil bans GM products from the US, GM food must be REALLY dangerous. Or you could be focusing on the wrong facts. It’s not that is is GM food. It’s just that it is imports, and it’s from the US. Actually, they just want to ban imports. 

Protectionism. 

Look it up.

Yes. There is a growing movement against Monsanto. (for example, a poll showed that 51% of  respondents nominated Monsanto as the most evil company. Of course the fact that the poll was done by Natural News which is a special interest magazine/online news group, may lead one to question their objectivity, and their readers objectivity. In other words, it is a self-selected sample.)

Welcome to the movement. Please check your brain at the door. And believe whatever we tell you. Monsanto is evil. Repeat after me: Monsanto is Evil. The FDA is Corrupt. Obama is Muslim. Gun Control is against Human Rights. Climate Change is a Hoax. Evolution is Not in the Bible so it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Americans also believe many things that are wrong. Strength of conviction is not evidence of truth.

Alternatively, you may want to decide for yourself.]

There are large amounts of foodstuff from the US in shops here, most of which contain corn or soya products and derivatives. Unless they are specifically labelled organic and GM-free, there is no way for consumers here to know what they are feeding their families.

[When in doubt, assume that they are all GMO (you won't be too far wrong). ]

Short of going on an expensive organic-only diet, which is economically not feasible for the majority of Singaporeans, how can we be better informed of what goes into the food we eat?

Lai Sui Wan (Ms)

[You seem to think that "organic" = "non-GMO". They are not. You can have organic GMO food.

But yes. You are right. Organic food is unsustainable.

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of genetically modified foods here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genetically_modified_food.html

The rice we eat have been genetically modified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

And as stated earlier, Organic-only diet will not help. Organic doesn't mean non-GMO.]

GM food in Singapore safe

JUN 14, 2014

WE THANK Mr Steven Lo Chock Fei for his feedback ("Label GM food products"; May 29).

We assure the public that all genetically modified (GM) food commercially available in Singapore has undergone safety assessments by both the Singapore Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

These assessments are based on the Codex Alimentarius Commission's principles established by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.

There has been no substantiated scientific evidence to show that GM food is unsafe.

Like all other food products, GM food must meet prevailing AVA food safety labelling requirements on ingredient listing and information for consumers. Currently, companies can voluntarily label a food product as "GMO" or "non-GMO", provided this can be substantiated.

It is not international practice for GM food to be labelled as such.

Where practised, GM food labelling serves the purpose of providing consumers with choice, rather than for food safety reasons.

There are a number of factors to consider in reviewing the need to specify GM food.

One is the lack of an internationally agreed threshold level of genetic material in a food product to make labelling obligatory.

Singapore, like many other countries, is of the view that any labelling regime must be practical, scientifically derived and effectively implementable across countries.

In other words, "what do you mean "genetically modified"? Should GMO cotton be labelled? How about oil for GMO canola? The oil has no GMO material and is indistiguishable from oil from non-GMO canola:

For a number of GM crops, the genes/gene products never enter the food supply, since those parts of the plants are removed during processing. For example, sugar from GM sugar beets is chemically identical to non-GM sugar. Likewise, oils purified from GM canola, soybean, cottonseed, and corn is identical to non-GM oils. Much of the corn crop is dedicated to generating ethanol, which, of course, is identical to non-GM ethanol. It has not been noted that ethanol from GM corn adversely affect automobile performance compared to non-GM ethanol. Genetically modified Bt cotton is worn, rather than ingested, and there have been no reports of adverse effects of wearing GM clothing. For GM crops in which whole plant cells are ingested, the genes and gene products are usually destroyed through digestion in the stomach and small intestine. So, it is unlikely, even in theory, that eating GM crops can harm human beings.

AVA and GMAC are following ongoing global discussions on GM food closely and will implement measures in line with international best practices.

More information on GMAC and its guidelines on the safety evaluation of GM food crops are available at 

http://www.gmac.gov.sg/

Astrid Yeo (Dr)
Group Director
Regulatory Administration Group
Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority

Nurhuda Nordin (Ms)
Secretariat
For Chairman
Genetic Modification Advisory Committee

BUT, despite all this, I agree that GM food should be labelled. As should food containing gluten. And organic food too. I believe people should be given information to make their choice. I may think they are paranoids but I would rather the paranoids shop at the specialist green organic, all-natural non-GMO food mart, then be found standing next to me ranting about Monsanto while I’m trying to get some GM-corn.

OK. I lied. I don't like corn. So I wouldn't be shopping for corn. GMO or non-GMO.

Here's something I found while looking for dirt on Monsanto. I think it is quite enlightening. And refreshingly rational.

I have seen it time and time again. Monsanto is evil, GE crops (GMOs) get a bad name because of Monsanto, GE crops are bad because they are made by Monsanto, Monsanto persecutes innocent farmers with lawsuits to drive them out of business, etcetera, etcetera. If you've paid attention to any aspect of the GE arguments, you'll see these arguments rolled out pretty much en masse. But my independent research says otherwise.

1) There seems to be scientific consensus on the health effects of GE crops, regardless of Monsanto. You can generally find people saying that there is not, but I can cite a lot of scientific studies and major scientific bodies that say otherwise.

2) A few cases of Monsanto suing a farmer for patent infringement have been turned into this narrative that Monsanto sues anyone for any amount of "contamination" in their field. Percy Schmeiser is often indirectly cited, though his case, as ruled by the Canadian Supreme Court, is 100% his fault because he intentionally selected the accidentally "contaminated" crops which resisted glyphosate by spraying glyphosate and replanting those that survived, ending up with a 97% pure GE canola field which he did not have license for, violating Monsanto's patent on that GE canola. Other cases are sometimes cited, like the one farmer which attempted to circumvent patents by buying GE wheat from a grain tower and planting it, but they all have similar faults in that they ignore what actually happened in order to demonize Monsanto.

3) Monsanto is not controlling the research on GE. It just does not make any sense that the same people who claim that massive oil companies like Enron could not stymie anthropogenic global warming are the same people who claim that the comparatively much smaller Monsanto could control the results of thousands of studies except for a small handful. Sure, they may have some influence here and there, and their blocking of fully independent research (until 2010) is horrendous but that does not invalidate the results of thousands of studies.

4) The fact that Monsanto has produced a variety of chemicals in the past does not matter. I've seen it over and over again, where some person brings up Monsanto's production of Agent Orange without looking at the context of the situation (at government request, during the Vietnam war, with little research done into dioxin contamination, etc) and thinks that they have made this stunning zinger of an argument. I've even seen someone produce a small gish gallopy list of chemicals Monsanto has produced, and seen the list debunked as the original poster was ignoring the individual details and contexts of those chemicals (I did the debunking).

5) Monsanto seemingly only has 17% of the bio-tech market, if I remember correctly. This is often portrayed as some attempt at monopolization by anti-GE activists, but I just do not see it. In fact, I believe that stopping the inane over-regulation of GE crops would decrease the chances of any single monopoly on GE crops being made.There are probably other things I may have added to this post if I could remember them, but do not take this as some form of corporate shilling for or white-washing of Monsanto. I know that, as a company, their bottom line is going to be profits, and that there are some legitimate criticisms I would make of them (such as close connections with a U.S. Supreme Court Justice [one which, may I say, I particularly despise], and, the Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration, Michael R. Taylor). But I do not believe that Monsanto is of much more concern than any other company. I do not find good enough reason to conclude as many others do that Monsanto is an evil organization whose goal is world domination and the enslavement of farmers (which is an obvious exaggeration... hopefully).

Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.
By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction.

OK. Here comes my rant.

I started this blog to rant about the impossibly stupid people and to vent about their stupidity. 

However, I have found that otherwise intelligent people are nevertheless confused about GMO and Organic and quite a few New Age rubbish. 

Some of these people I call "relatives".

And to be fair, these genetically engineered crops and food are all very sciency and it is no wonder some people get confused about it. 

And they don't understand.

And what they don't understand, scares them. 

So I have... restrained myself in addressing the questions here. Questions which I find... not very intelligent, but perhaps understandable.

The problem as I see it, is the US. This is the country that leads the world. But their people can be incredibly stupid. I provided a link of the 11 things that Americans wrongly and frighteningly believe.

29% of Americans believe cloud computing involves actual clouds.

So when someone comes along and tells them about how scientist have been manipulating the DNA of food, don't expect them to understand. Expect them to NOT understand what it entails and to wonder if that means trouble. Then throw in a word for them to hang their pale understanding. A word like "frankenfood" and that will help them file GMO under "scary" and "evil".

The problem is that the US education process may not have prepared the average American to understand science and what is possible and what is not possible. 

For example, the fear that eating GMO food could change your DNA. 

When lack of information and education is so low, I do not even know how to start my rant. But this was my comment on Facebook:

Yes. Please label GMO food. Because besides eating the food (which is not a problem as our digestive system will break down all DNA in the food, so it doesn't matter if it is GMO or not), apparently some people are thinking of MATING with their food - in which case you should be concerned about the DNA of the food, their genetic make-up, and such. So yes, for these people, they want to be sure that the food they mate with are pure. They are sort of like Food Nazis.

So when people ask about GMO foods, the best retort to them is: "You wanna eat it or fuck it?"

Update (4 Aug 2014): A more restrained and balanced assessment on the GMO Food.

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.]

Peg flat subsidies to minimum occupation period

Mar 23, 2013

I AGREE with Mr David Goh ("HDB must return to its original aim"; Wednesday) that the Housing Board should increase the minimum occupation period (MOP) before a home owner is allowed to sell his flat.

The problem does not just lie with permanent residents buying our flats, but also Singaporeans who "flip" their properties.

Flat subsidies for citizens can be tiered depending on the MOP the buyer applies for.

For example, a buyer can get a $20,000 one-off subsidy if he opts for a five-year MOP, a $40,000 subsidy for a 10-year MOP, and an $80,000 subsidy for a 20-year MOP.

This will gauge whether someone wants to buy a flat for accommodation or as an investment.

Those who fail to satisfy the agreed MOP will have to sell the flat back to the HDB at the price it was bought.

This measure will not only help to control the number of citizens who are out to make a quick buck, but also make public housing more affordable for those who genuinely need a place to live in.

Owning an HDB flat must always remain a privilege that every Singaporean can enjoy, but not abuse.

Yeo Shuan Chee

[I don't want to bash these people who are just trying to get a place to call home. I understand their frustrations. But they don't seem to understand economics. Or have common sense. In part it is because whatever solution they come up with tend to be biased and short-sighted.

Their proposals tend to be short-sighted because they only want to solve THEIR problem, not the whole problem. Worse of all, THEIR solution doesn't even solve THEIR problem.

Increasing the MOP will mean fewer flats can be sold, so the supply of resale flats will shrink, and guess what? The resale prices will rise. HDB has recently de-linked their BTO flat prices from resale prices, but if they haven't, the BTO prices would also rise!

BUT since BTO prices have been de-linked from resale prices, then what is the issue with MOP and resale? Unless David Goh and Yeo Shuan Chee have both lived in their flats longer than whatever MOP they are proposing (10 years), and are trying to sell their flats at inflated prices, but are unable to inflate the price much higher because of the current levels of supply! If they can stop their neighbours from selling, their flats would be worth more!

And if they AREN'T current and long-time flat owners, they are solving a problem that does not exist (the high resale prices shows that there is insufficient supply, not too much), and which CANNOT help them to buy a BTO (HDB has already de-linked BTO from resale).

Singaporeans continue to prove to me that they are selfish, self-centred, self-absorbed, and can't see further than their noses when it comes to understanding their environment and circumstances. Oblivious - the defining characteristic of a Singaporean.]

It's only fair to make COEs affordable for all car buyers

Mar 07, 2013

[COE and Car Ownership policies brings out the crazies. Some are more silly than others. Most tend to get one basic thing wrong: they think car ownership is a right. Or more specifically, they think affordable or even cheap car ownership is a right.]

I DISAGREE with Mr Trent Ng ("COEs based on need: Let's not get on that slippery slope"; last Thursday) that the Government does not have an obligation to make certificates of entitlement (COEs) affordable to citizens.

His notion that "cars are a luxury good and not an entitlement" does not seem to take into account that the definitions of luxury versus necessity, or want versus need, are nebulous.

For example, the public accepts the need to ballot for primary school places and for HDB flat ownership. It is claimed that education and homes are necessities, but how far is that true?

There are enough school places for every child in Singapore. Therefore, having the convenience of going to a school of one's choice should be considered a luxury and not a necessity.

As for HDB flats, young couples already have a home in the sense that they can stay with their parents. To own a home for themselves, or even to upgrade to a better one, should also be considered a luxury.

[See what I mean about crazy? You have to be quite detached from reality to argue that your right to own a car supersedes a young couples need to have their own home. Or that wanting your own home for your spouse and children is just so much fancy luxury.]

The COE system is an artificially created system to regulate congestion on the road.

There should be equal opportunities for rich and poor buyers alike to own a COE, since cars owned by both groups contribute equally to congestion. Hence, balloting is the way to go.

I fully acknowledge that it is not the Government's responsibility to make the basic cost of car ownership affordable; however, it has a responsibility to make its policies fair for every potential car buyer.

Abel Tan

Comment online:
The crux of the letter above is simply this: "There should be equal opportunities for rich and poor buyers alike to own a COE".

What's your definition of "opportunity"?

Is this a true statement: Everybody, rich and poor, has the opportunity to bid for a COE, but only the rich who can afford to bid more, is likely to actually get a COE?

If the above is true, then everyone has an *opportunity*. And the letter writer has no point.

If you deem the above untrue, and that opportunity must equal actualisation of the goal, then balloting, as suggested by the letter writer is also not the way to go. If 20 people ballot for every COE available, then only the Lucky will get a COE. So 19 people will NOT have the opportunity to own a COE.

And since now COE is neither granted based on need or ability to pay, but purely by Luck, then EVERYONE will try their luck. And every COE will have THOUSANDS of people balloting for it. So for every one that gets a COE, there will be thousands who did not get the opportunity.

Unless, you charge a balloting fee, to weed out the free-riders.

There is already such a ballot. It is called Toto and 4D. Go buy a ticket. If you win, you can afford COE. If you bet enough.

Update: Response by abeltan.09 [Some time on 8 Mar 2013]

your oppotunity definition is irrelevant.
What kind of logic is this? Thats like saying everyone from the pauper in Africa to Bill Gates has the oppotunity to own a PRIVATE JET.but because the rich can afford it, they can get a PRIVATE JET.
If you cant afford something, your oppotunity will be ZERO PERCENT.
I have already abandoned COE balloting in favor of bid as proportion of ANNUAL income. The highest bid of income will get the car. For example, a middle income can bid100% of annual income and get a COE for $50,000, while a millionaire can bid 100% of his income , and pay $ 1 million dollars.
I submtted this a day later than this argument, but ST wont publish it.
This will ensure that affordability is not a concern when it comes to COE. You bid as much of your income as you need to have a car. If you need it more, you bid higher.

Reply to abeltan.09

(some time on the 9 Mar)

I don't usually like to do a point by point rebuttal, because it is very time consuming. But when every sentence you write is screamingly unreasonable, I will respond.

abeltan.09: "your oppotunity definition is irrelevant."

>>>     So, what is your “correct” and “relevant” definition? You claim to be a scientist by trade. I am rather disappointed that your writings reflect neither the discipline nor the precision of a scientific mind.

abeltan.09: "What kind of logic is this? Thats like saying everyone from the pauper in Africa to Bill Gates has the oppotunity to own a PRIVATE JET.but because the rich can afford it, they can get a PRIVATE JET.If you cant afford something, your oppotunity will be ZERO PERCENT."

>>>  This is what I mean by lack of discipline and imprecision. A private jet has a specific price. What is the specific price of a COE? If the price of a jet is $2m, you need $2m. The price of a COE had previously fallen to $2 (Nov 2008). You telling me you can't afford $2? Everyone who bid for COE in that category in Nov 2008 got a COE. My point is not that COE will be $2 again. But that there is a chance which is NOT zero percent (as you brazenly claim with no reference to facts or precedent) that bidders can get a COE.

abeltan.09:"I have already abandoned COE balloting in favor of bid as proportion of ANNUAL income. The highest bid of income will get the car. For example, a middle income can bid100% of annual income and get a COE for $50,000, while a millionaire can bid 100% of his income , and pay $ 1 million dollars."

>>>        And of course our lives revolve around your thought processes - impressive as it is. So this means that you are not a man of your word? You say one mindless thing today. Change your mind next week. And your ill-informed utterances of a week ago becomes irrelevant? You abandon and disown your words like an unwanted baby? This says less about your integrity, and more about the amount of thought and consideration you give to your words. Like I said, your writings reflect neither discipline nor precision one expects from a scientist.  Or for that matter, a reasonably intelligent, consistent, and logical person. One would expect a scientist to be more circumspect in arriving at conclusions. To weigh their words more carefully.

abeltan.09: "I submtted this a day later than this argument, but ST wont publish it."

>>>    They probably regretted publishing your first letter. Or not. Based on the number of comments here, they are probably patting themselves on their backs for picking a good troll. So by your own admission, you abandoned your ballot idea one day later. Your ideas change day by day, eh?

        
abeltan.09: "This will ensure that affordability is not a concern when it comes to COE. You bid as much of your income as you need to have a car. If you need it more, you bid higher"

>>>     In any case I had addressed your “proportional income bid” system where COE applicants bid based on a percentage of their annual income. Frankly, I do not know how you come up with these ideas. The only people who stand to gain are those with NO income:

“Wow. So smart. I got a grandfather and a retired uncle. I will get them to bid 7 million percent of their income. Sure get COE one!
BTW, what is 7 million percent of zero hah? My grandfather and uncle not working. But I will pay them back when they get the COE, and give them a bit of kopi money for their trouble.
You also got retired uncle or grandfather with no income right?”

>>>     And... let me guess:  you will now change or adjust your “proportional income bid” system to address this HUMONGOUS loophole in your proposal and tell everyone you have already abandoned your ill-thought-out first draft and can we all just give you a break and listen to your latest (half-baked) idea?

>>> Why don't you take a break, think thru your ideas, and test them out on some people, preferably someone smarter than you. If you are truly a scientist by trade, I expect some of your colleagues should be pretty smart. As for you, well, there is the Bell Curve and -2 SD from the mean is still considered normal.

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.]

The messy limit to tray returning

Sep 29, 2012

[Another excuse-making lazy Singaporean!]

LET'S get real ("Tray-return campaigns have worked before" by the Singapore Kindness Movement; Monday).

How do you return trays for "messy" meals such as chilli crab, bak kut teh and fish head curry?

[Riiiight! Lots of Hawker centre stalls sell Chilli Crab, and Fish Head Curry.]

There is no doubt that the tray-return campaign had worked and is successful in certain places like school cafetarias, army camps, McDonald's outlets and the foodcourt at Ikea.

But in all these establishments, the foods sold or catered are simple dishes like noodles and rice, or just finger food like burgers, chicken wings and french fries.

These are foods that do not generate a lot of waste like bones and gravy.

I do not want to sound pessimistic or negative. [Try harder! You're failing miserably!] But from my observation, the tray-return system is not so easily implementable in establishments where messy food is on the menu.

These items generate a lot of food waste, and woe betide the operators who want their customers to clear their soiled crockery and food waste after their sumptuous meals.

[Most of these stalls are either zichar stalls or restaurants. Yes. Maybe for these, the stall operators have an incentive and a vested interest in keeping their high-value (or higher value) customers happy. Or for operational and logistical efficiency, they could or should clean up after their customers? First of all, it is tray return. If nothing else leave your food waste (bones, bowls of leftover gravy, etc) within your tray. Return tray with everything on it. Second, maybe it's time to learn how to eat with a little more decorum and keep things neat instead of spraying your bones and gravy all over the place?]
The customers will either go to another outlet, or the restaurant floors will be covered with food waste and gravy.

For similar reasons, the campaign has not been successful in hawker centres.

[No. Not similar at all. So it would seem that all your arguments above are for non-hawker centres?]

There is a need to look into the prerequisites for a successful campaign this time round. It a waste of funds to relaunch it if no modification is made.

For the campaign to be successfully implemented, especially in hawker centres and foodcourts, the operators have to restrict the food items that can be sold in the establishments.

So, chilli crab, fish head curry, bak kut teh, cockles, clams and food that generate messy waste should be banned in hawker centres earmarked for the campaign. But it will not be easy to enforce a ban on the types of food that can be sold in existing hawker centres without attracting a backlash.

[No. No. No. You are solving the wrong problem. Messy, bone-spitting, gravy spraying, soup-spilling, excuse-making, lazy-farkers who do not reduce their mess or return their trays should not be allowed to eat at hawker centres.]

Hence, the relevant authorities should enforce it and the tray-return system in the new hawker centres that are being built over the next few years.

Soh Ah Yuen

[Stupid argument. Sets up a false premise, unrealistic assumptions and then concludes it cannot be done. As good as arguing that car park space is too small for buses and lorries and so parking spaces should be made larger.

So his argument literally is, I'm a messy eater! I love eating messy food! The messier the better! This new rule discriminates against lovers of messy food!

Stop making excuses.

Update: The letter below is written by a better person than me. Or he puts his point across in a non-confrontation (or at least less confrontational than me) manner. Yes, we cannot pretend to be "job-creators" when we are just being messy, inconsiderate slobs.]


Oct 20, 2012

 

Cleaners picking up trays is not the answer

 

 

I disagree with Benjy Kip, who wrote the letter Pay 10 Cents For A Cleaner To Pick Up Tray (Life!, Oct 13). Graciousness in the form of keeping tables clean for the next person should not deprive cleaners of their jobs.

They will still be needed to wipe dirty tables and take soiled dishes to the washing area. Creating messy tables to ensure jobs for unskilled people is a step backwards in building a gracious society.

Let us be more creative in solving this ungracious and unhygienic practice at hawker centres instead of resisting change to anti-social habits. Employing more cleaners is not the answer.

Just visit any hawker centre during peak hours and on Sunday mornings, and you will notice that the cleaners cannot keep pace with the fast turnover of customers.

Lim Jit Chaing

The S'pore I don't want to see in 2032

From James Poh Ching Ping

Jun 18, 2012

I refer to Dr Jason Kho's I Say piece "The S'pore I want to see in 2032" (June 11), about the Singapore he still wants to call home in 20 years' time. In contrast, I wish to express what I do not want to see in 2032.

I do not want, the minute I leave my home, to have to pay to use the roads or the expressways.

[So you want free petrol, issit? In any case, don't, worry, in future ERP will be very friendly, you won't be charged the minute you leave your home. You will be charged before you leave.]

I do not want to see more independent secondary schools which further divide the rich and the poor, as it is obvious that their academic and enrichment programmes are costlier than those of other schools.

As a parent, I do not want children to be able to telephone the authorities to report that their father is spanking them, as is the case in some countries. In Asian society, it is a norm to discipline an ill-behaved child so long as it is not abuse.

[So you still want to have naughty children to spank?]

I do not want the Government to liberalise same-sex marriages, as it would go against the policy of encouraging a higher birth rate to maintain a good population size.

[So you want to make gays and lesbians produce children?]

I do not want to see more shoebox apartments and congested public housing, even though Singapore is land-scarce. Architects should be creative to maximise land use and ensure the right housing proximity, not like in Hong Kong.

[Hmmm... maybe you should rethink your gay marriage ban. Firstly, a good size population will require more apartments, and second, some of the best creative architects are gay. But if you ban gay marriage, they may not be here to apply their creative solutions to housing.]

I do not want to see a lack of social etiquette in public places, such as on public transport. It is rude, for instance, to use electronic gadgets so openly here, compared to Japan and in Europe.

[Ya! much better if they use it furtively. You know, like terrorists.]

I do not want to see more "Fine" signage. There should be a balance between legal and social discipline. Indeed, Singapore is an orderly society where most citizens are law-abiding.

[Of course, no need "fine" signage. You should have spanked the anti-socialness out of them!]

I do not want fast-food outlets to outgrow the traditional food court or hawker centre. Although Singapore has a busy workforce, it is equally important that health comes first.

I do not want any overuse of robots or productivity gadgets to the extent of replacing customer service personnel. We should continue to upkeep the Singapore spirit and show the world what is uniquely Singapore through our people.

[er... that we are uniquely technophobic? You do realise that many of our customer service personnel over the phone are in India?]

I do not want to see a place where one could only survive or succeed with academic achievements and wealth. There should be space for people with skills and who are hardworking enough to make one's day worthwhile.

[My suggestion is that on Dec 31 2031, if you are still alive, you should poke out your eyes. This will guaranteed that you will not see all those things you don't want to see.

People have a vision for the future. Only a "unique Singaporean" can turn his complaints into a non-vision. Bravo! you have managed to set a new low for what is often criticised as Singapore's lack of vision.]

AWARE and Lee Kuan Yew

Sep 13, 2011
 
MARRIAGE, MOTHERHOOD AND CAREER
Aware disagrees with Mr Lee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such comments also perpetuate sexist stereotypes for a younger generation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 29, 2011
 
Your letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tissue pack system is the cheapest to operate.

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

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

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

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

Lam Wen-li (Ms)