ST Forum Page

Thursday, February 13, 2014

A Comment thread on The Jakara Post (name of Frigate)

From The Jakarta Post reprint of a ST editorial.

So not a rant against the ST Forum page. A Comment thread from Jakarta Post online readers.

purnomor 2 days ago

Maybe Indonesia will start telling Singapore what to name its vessels, streets, and buildings as well. Let's start with Raffles. This 19th century terrorist massacred so many Indonesian civilians, not to mention he burned down and looted the Yogyakarta royal palace in 1812.

When will Singapore change all the streets, places, buildings, and hotels named after this murderer? These Singaporeans are so insensitive to celebrate such a terrorist who has hurt so many Indonesians! In other words Singapore is condoning murder of civilians and looting!

Obviously Singapore does not care about Indonesia's sensitivities, why should Indonesia cares about whatever fake sensitivity being whipped-up by the Spore regime stooges? We know the low level of their maturity from their comical expectation that they can tell Indonesia what to name our own vessels.

No wonder, currently Singapore is under the omnipotent rule of LKY who worked for the Japanese in massacring and cutting off the heads of so many Singaporean Chinese youth. Now the younger Singaporean generation is poisoned with diatrabes against its neighbours by the Spore regime stooges and its propaganda mouthpiece. Such immature hypocrites these people are. They are so insecure about what Indonesian named its vessels LOL.

GoGoGoh 2 days ago

Wow. the number of people protesting Singapore honouring Raffles is... what? 3 paranoids? 30? 300? Their protest is overwhelming. Your ministers should raise this with Singapore.

Let's take another tack. Let's say everything you say about Raffles is correct. I believe you about what he did to Indonesia. Those British Imperialists are the WORST.

Except when they are not.

They are so ARROGANT. But they also have their positive aspects.

But we are here today to Bury Raffles, not to praise him.

Unfortunately, Raffles did many things. "Terrorism" (as you called it) in Indonesia, was only one of it. He was also known for other things. Like Inventing the Internet. And movable type. And the Atom Bomb (citation needed). Oh yes, and this little thing called the Founding of Singapore. Which is really stupid, because the island was always there. It was not lost, so why did he have to "found" it. And apparently the present tense of "founding" is not "find". It is still "found". Stupid British and their stupid language.

So when we name buildings and places and even erect a statue of Raffles, we (in Singapore) remember him for the Founding of Singapore. Not for the atrocities committed by him in Indonesia.

In the case of Usman and Harun, they were unfortunately solely famous for their act of terrorism. Now Indonesia can say that it is not honouring U&H for their terrorism, but for their Obedience (for example). So how was this "obedience" demonstrated? They obeyed their orders to bomb Singapore.

Or maybe they are being honoured for being professional soldiers? And how was this demonstrated? Bombing civilians in Singapore?

Or maybe they are being honoured for the sacrifice of their lives? Again, how did they sacrifice their lives? Executed? For bombing civilians, committing murder in Singapore?

Now if U&H are the best trainees and were the fastest runners during boot camp and they are famous for that, and you want to name a ship after them for that, please explain this to Singaporeans so we can understand that naming the ship after them is for being best trainees in boot camp, and not to remember a time when Indonesia was exporting terrorism, instead of being a victim of terrorism; not to remember a time when Indonesia was an enemy and not a friend; not to remember a time when Indonesia freely ordered their soldiers to target civilians.

However, if U&H are being honoured for what they did in Singapore in 1965, then you will be reminding Singapore of a time when Indonesia was an enemy. And we would like to know why? And without a satisfactory answer, we can only guess at Indonesia's intent.

And yes. Do raise the Raffles issue with your ministers. And they can raise it with our ministers. And we will accord it the same level of concern as Indonesia has accorded our concerns.

purnomor 10 hours ago

LOL, obviously my English is far superior to yours, GoGoGoh. It is just you are trying to escape since you have no arguments left, correct? Since Indonesia is on the right and Spore is on the wrong on this issue.

purnomor 4 hours ago

Haha.. No worries, don't forget to ask if you need some tips on learning the English language.

[I do not know if purnomor (pronounced Pure No More?) is playing along or truly confused, but if he was trying to be humourous, he failed. Or rather he scored own goal. But I thought this was funny.]

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Unfair to judge China as aggressor over air defence zone

TODAY Forum

FROM ONG HEAN TEIK

04 JANUARY 2014

Some have called China’s announcement of an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) an aggressive act.

However, as pointed out in the report, “Foreign warplanes remain active in China’s defence zone” (Dec 30), since China established its ADIZ, 800 foreign military planes have flown over the territory unhindered, while China has conducted 51 missions.

In contrast, Japan sent its warplanes 193 times between July and September in response to foreign military flights. It is obvious which the aggressive country is.

If establishing an ADIZ is aggressive, then those that established these zones first must be the persisting aggressors. The United States’ ADIZ began in 1950, Japan’s in 1969. Why has the world kept quiet about these actions?

The US sends its military planes and ships thousands of kilometres away from its borders. It is no wonder they were monitored or faced Chinese ships as they approached Chinese airspace and seas.

In facing two aggressive countries, China can seek only to defend its rights. It is time for fairness in this world, and not have one rule for the powerful and another for the others.

[I will let the online comments respond to this letter. However, note that the comment thread I picked is not representative of the comments on line. Quite a number were "Apologists for China". Others were out of point (big surprise. This is the internet). This one attempted to refute the allegations in the letter, and then there was a respond. I thought it funny that the main thrust of his counter was: "you're just parroting the Japanese Govt paid message!", when he was just parroting the Chinese Govt PR statements and "spin".

I find these "Nanyang Chauvinists" quite silly and deluded. I think it was LKY who said that when he visited China, he found some ex-Singaporeans who had gone to China during WWII to help defend China. Except that they were treated with suspicion, doubt, and as outcasts. These "Nanyang Chauvinists" sees themselves as True Sons of China, but don't realise that to the PRC, they have enough "True Sons", and their motives are suspect to the PRC. ]

--- One Comment thread from online ---

Commenter D

This letter is a biased, one-sided, partial perspective of the issue.

And the basis for judging aggression is irrelevant if not outright stupid. The number of foreign flights in the area is a measure of aggression?

That is simplistic and ignores the practical and political reality of the situation.

And yes, countries can establish ADIZ and it would not be an act of aggression. However. China's ADIZ is NOT an ADIZ. It is BEYOND the scope of an ADIZ, and and functions more "militarily" (and hence aggressively) than a ADIZ.

Moreover, China's unilaterally declared "ADIZ" overlaps other countries' already established (and much more reasonable) ADIZ, and the onus would have been on China, in proposing a new ADIZ, to consult and negotiate with these other countries to sort out the overlap. Specifically, China's "ADIZ" overlaps with Japan's, S. Korea's, and Taiwan's ADIZ. Sure, they don't recognise Taiwan, so that may well justify their slight of Taiwan. But S. Korea and Japan?

But why is China's "ADIZ" MORE than an ADIZ?

This article explains:
http://heresthenews.blogspot.sg/2013/12/chinas-adiz-brazen-air-grab-land-grab.html

But to summarise just one of the points from the article, the international norm of "innocent passage" means that aircraft passing through an ADIZ but not intending to enter the territorial airspace of the country (whose ADIZ they are passing through) is not required to report to the country. This is clearly NOT the case for China's "ADIZ". Hence commercial jets flying between Singapore and Tokyo for example are required by China to file their flight plans and report their position periodically to China. Despite NOT entering China's territorial airspace. In effect, China's ADIZ is a territorial claim of the airspace within their so-called "ADIZ".

So to claim that China is just implementing it's own ADIZ ignores the blatant attempt at seizing control and "sovereignty" (?) of their "ADIZ" as China's territorial airspace. To be clear, in line with the "innocent passage" norm, the US does not require aircraft passing through their ADIZ but not intending to enter US airspace, to comply with ADIZ procedure (i.e. report to US).

So no. The world is not making a noise about China's implementation of the ADIZ. The world is making a noise because China's so-called ADIZ is a thinly (and poorly) disguised attempt at extending their territorial airspace (possibly as a prelude to reinforcing their claim of the disputed isles), and it ignores international norms (such as the right of innocent passage), and unilaterally imposes requirements contrary to such norms, and threatens military action for non-compliance.

China is the bully here. Singapore and Taiwan are unable or unwilling to stand up to the bully. It falls to Bigger Boys like Japan and the US to call the bully's bluff. And we can only hope that it is a bluff, and that it will be resolved without any tragedy.
January 4 at 7:08am

---

Commenter S

A lot of words and rehashes of APP reportings without kowing those were US views and to some extent a paid campaign by Japan Foriegn Ministty.

What norm is ADIZ? Who started them? Have you compare the ADIZ surrounding China? And who's norm? Now take a look around ADIZ around US, and around Japan. US spy ship went so close to monitor the China carrier, and when a smaller China ship tried to "say" guys don't try poke people in the eyes and back off, they came atound and complain.
January 5 at 4:36pm
---

Commenter D

And the basis of your claims? Your position?

So Japan, Taiwan and S Korea's ADIZ were NOT overlapped by this so-called ADIZ?

So it is NOT aggressive to just unilaterally declare control over a space regardless of existing arrangements without preliminary discussion, early consultation, and negotiation? It is NOT aggressive to overlap other existing ADIZ?

It is NOT aggressive to threaten military action against passenger aircraft not entering your airspace but just passing through as "innocent passage"?

So it is purely a COINCIDENCE that China's ADIZ so happens to include the disputed isles?

If US and Japan were the only country voicing concerns about China's ADIZ then maybe your comments may have some basis.

But the simple fact is that China's action is alarming to many countries, who have expressed their concern about China's intent and words, like "power grab" and "aggressive" and "provocative" has been used to describe China's actions and to denounce China's actions. The effect of all these criticism is to draw out the Chinese Chauvinists and the Chinese Apologists like this letter and some of the comments, and you.

So are you one of China's apologists or a Chinese Chauvinist?

January 6 at 4:53am
---

Commenter S

have you read more than what have been fed to you by the pro US press? Do you know the Japanese government have a huge fund to pay off writers. From your writings, I am re-hearing the views of the Western press. Have you read the China media on their position? Have you compare all the ADIZs I have mentioned? I don't think so. I don't think you wanted to be biased, but you have been made into one by the materials planted into you.

When you are weak, other people can draw a huge zone just at the edge of your house without seeking your permission, and claim that is their defensive zone. So when you are strong, do you seek people for permission to write your zone outside your own home. What answers you going to get? NO, so you keep accepting the bullying. There are too many chess playing.

I took your last 2 paragraphs as incomplete draft. So I shall not take offence. ADIZ is clearly a move not at the innocent civilian flights, if the flight plans are filed they are Ok. If they are not filed, they are Ok too. It is not to let US and Japan getting away frm the post WW2 international treaty of wanting the Japanese to return the lands prior the WW2 agression. I don't think I have time to come back to rebute your points if there is any. Just beware of too much posionings in the Western press by too many people with dubious intent.
January 6 at 3:49pm
---

Commenter S
Just to comment on the "words" used by the US and their press.

There is no international treaty on the ADIZ. So US want their old "norm" to be the accepted position. And frame whatever that wants to change it as aggressor. And the old norm is when China were very weak and US were very strong, you could draw wherever zone you wanted without CARING for permission. And when people become strong, and start writing their zone to stand up for themselves, they wanted their old "norm" to be accepted, and be consulted, otherwise you are an aggressor in your own backyard. The facts is the "norm" has changed, if there is one. China move is either I can stand up for myself whatever I see fit. US move is accepted the norm I had marked for myself.

Will US put out all the ADIZs on the table that all the international community can accept? If they can't, then everyone can and should challenge whatever people have put up around them when they can. I don't think it is an unreasonable position as a country, as a family and as an individual.
January 6 at 6:06pm
---

Commenter D

So instead of listening to the Japanese Press that is paid off by the Japanese Govt, you have chosen to listen to the Chinese press that is CONTROLLED by the Chinese Govt?

That's unassailable logic.

Quote from your writing: "when you are strong, do you seek people for permission...?"

Thank you for confirming that China believes that Might is Right. Thank you for affirming that China is acting like a Bully. Thank you for proving that you are a Chinese Apologist.

"ADIZ is clearly a move not at the innocent civilian flights, if the flight plans are filed they are Ok. If they are not filed, they are Ok too."

Really? So you haven't read the East China Sea Air Defence Identification Zone (to use the name the Chinese has given it)?

I suggest you read it before you spout more communist press propaganda/ damage control/ spin doctoring.

The first rule is "Aircraft MUST follow... the rules." No qualification about civil or military.

The third is: "China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions." Again no qualification about civil or military aircraft.

So who do I believe? The official announcement of MinDef PRC? Or a Chinese Apologist like you?

Oh, you will say, China already clarified that the rules do not apply to civilian flights. If so, scrap the rule then. What kind of rule is it if, as you say, "it's ok if you follow, and it's also ok if you don't follow"?

If the rule doesn't apply to civilian then rescind that rule for civilian aircraft. Don't say one thing, and then say another, and then do something else.

That shows lack of integrity, lack of honesty, and lack of righteousness.

But it is China. Expect less.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Nature reserve worth more than cost to save it

TODAY Letters

from Ong Jun Yuan

15 Nov 2013

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) plans to build the Cross Island Line (CRL), slated for completion in 2030, as part of the expansion of Singapore’s MRT network.

The current proposed route would cut through our Central Catchment Nature Reserve and “severely degrade ancient, species-rich and highly complex ecosystems”, according to the Nature Society (Singapore), which has proposed an alternative route.

Despite the talk of losing biodiversity and damaging our forests, these issues carry little weight with ordinary citizens who have no particular passion for nature.

We are more concerned about bread-and-butter issues such as transportation and construction costs, travelling time and how these affect our daily life.

If the Nature Society’s proposal is accepted, construction costs and travelling time would increase.

Yet, while cost is one of the main considerations of any project, I believe there is a case for avoiding the reserve.

First, one should consider the cost as being distributed over the years until the CRL is completed.

What may seem like a big amount, say S$1 billion, would work out to about S$66.7 million per year over 15 years, an increase of 0.125 per cent of our country’s yearly budget, based on the current budget of S$53.4 billion.

This is a small price to pay for preserving our reserve. While it may be argued that the money could be better spent on other programmes to benefit the population, could their success be guaranteed? The effect of preserving a nature reserve cannot be disputed.

[You can always spot a zealot by their profession of faith. "The effect of preserving a nature reserve cannot be disputed." Well, I would try if I knew what the effect was. But it is a given. Like faith. Meanwhile, programmes to help the population cannot guarantee success. Wow. Nature, sure bet. People, population and society? Don't bet on them. They will always let you down. Success? Not guaranteed. With such faith in people, I wonder how he thinks he can sell his proposal.]

A similar event happened before. In 1986, the Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) was built, separating the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve from the Central Catchment forest.

Today, the construction of Eco-Link@BKE, a collaboration between the National Parks Board and the LTA, serves to link the two nature reserves again, albeit only along a fraction of the swathe that was cut to construct the BKE.

This will provide a bridge for animals to once again move across freely. So, it can be seen that the Government recognises the value of our nature reserves and biodiversity.

[The govt of SG has always considered the place of nature in our island, as well as the value of nature. But it has properly weighed the value of nature against the needs of the people. The nature society? Not so much. As seen from the previous comment where the writer dismisses the needs of the people for the paramount need for preserving nature reserves. It is clear that his impartiality is in question.]

As of now, the CRL’s route has yet to be finalised. What may seem like a simple map exercise, a line drawn on paper, may have permanent effects in future.

-------

Comment:

For a letter with the implicit argument that value is more than just costs, the writer seems to have ignored the value of time, and only considered only development costs.

The LTA proposed route is the faster route. The alternative proposed by the nature society (who are not urban planners, and have a declared interest in protecting nature) would add to the travelling time. Let's say it adds just 5 minutes to the travel time.

5 minutes is not a lot of time right?

Not for one person. Not for just one day.

But more than one person will be affected. Even if the CRL is a smaller system with a capacity of 600 persons per train, that is 600 persons losing 5 minutes on a trip. And that's just one trip. In an hour, there may be 12 trips (assuming a very low frequency of 1 train every 5 minutes during peak hours). That's 7,200 persons who lost 5 minutes in travelling time. Or a total of 36,000 minutes (or 600 hours, or about 4 "man-weeks"). For every working day. Assuming just 200 working days a year, that's 120,000hrs a year.

How do you value that?

I think the value of 120,000 hours is hard to assess. Some will value their hours more. Some less.

Why should the Nature Society care?

Well, because a good public transport system can reduce the number of cars, which means less congestion on the road, which means less pollution and the burning of fuels, which means less CO2, which means less contribution to climate change.

Why do people prefer cars to public transport? Because cars get you there more directly and faster. If you ever take a bus that meanders all over the neighbourhood, you know what I mean.

So you want people to take public transport? It needs to be fast and direct. Looping around some spot that the nature society wants to protect, adds to the travel time, and makes public transport that much more unattractive, and car usage that much more likely.

Protecting one spot, one area may be the most short-sighted thing the nature society can do. As the nature society, they should consider themselves experts on ecology and how things relate and affect each other.

But they fail to understand that building a meandering, loopy MRT line may well undermine the success of that segment of the rail system, and that failure may well cascade on to the whole public transport system and undermine the measures to reduce car use. Which in turn will add to climate change, and so yes, there may well be a protected nature reserve, but it may well be destroyed or irrevocably altered by climate change.

So no. It is not "a small price to pay". The nature society has not shown that it has considered all the prices and all the costs and all the values. Its proposal is myopic at best, and dishonest and deceptive at worst.

But the truth is probably somewhere in between - well-meaning but blinkered amateurs with no understanding of urban planning other than the impact of urban planning on their beloved nature, making a idealistic, uninformed proposal to protect their interests at the expense of others, and asking others to "pay a small price" for biodiversity.

They need to make a better case.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

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.]

Thursday, October 3, 2013

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

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

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. ]

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

No solution for eateries flouting rules?

Jul 10, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Derrick D'Souza

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

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

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

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

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

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