TODAY ONLINE
FROM DAVID SOH POH HUAT
AUGUST 5
I was surprised at the report “MOH may run its own nursing homes” (Aug 1). In view of our ageing population, are we promoting the easy way out; that is, putting our sick and aged in these nursing homes?
We should be encouraging families to care for the sick and aged via more subsidies for employing domestic helpers and for home care by doctors and nurses, as well as more tax reliefs.
The ministry should train more home-care specialists and have more day rehabilitation centres instead. There would surely be more savings in all these than in building more nursing homes with the subsequent operating costs.
Based on my experience with my late father, putting him in a nursing home three years ago was more expensive than engaging a helper. Giving our loved ones home care is also something they need during their final journey and what I call filial piety.
The ministry could perhaps have a rethink.
[According to this writer, filial piety is getting a foreign maid to care for your dying father. And cheaper than a nursing home!
I am not going to be too hard on him. End of life care is not an easy issue. I do not blame him for getting a maid instead of choosing a nursing home. Cost is of course a consideration. And most people would rather die at home.
BUT a nursing home is NOT a hospice.
And while we still have access to cheap foreign maids, sure, let's consider that option.
But "Home Care Specialists"? WTF is that and who is going to do that? "Day Rehabilitation Centres"? How the hell are those even relevant?]
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
What message was police sending over Filipino event?
TODAY
FROM DANIEL SIM SHAO QI -
MAY 29
The police have advised the Pilipino Independence Day Council that there are public order and safety concerns with the venue proposed for its celebration plans. Consequently, the organisers decided to cancel their event.
I am disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their intolerance.
Instead of advising the organisers to hold the event elsewhere, they should have promised additional security if needed. What message are we sending to the Philippine government — that we are unwilling to protect its citizens?
What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore? When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking responsibility.
[What arrogance.
Prior to PIDC submitting their application to use Ngee Ann City space, PM Lee (and other politicians) had already stated his public support for this and denounced the xenophobia of some Singaporeans.
So if you were the police officer who received this application from PIDC, and you assessed that it is not safe to approve it, do you ignore the PM's publicly stated support for this and act "without fear or favour" by rejecting this application?
Or do you raise this to your boss as a potentially controversial issue requiring management inputs and consideration?
And do you think management might have asked, "is there some condition we can request to allow us to justifiably approve this?"
"Is there someway to approve this? Would PM want us to approve this?"
And in all likelihood, this application may go all the way up to the Minister of Home Affairs who would have discussed this with PM (in view of his publicly stated support), who would then have spoken to the Philippines Ambassador to explain what are the considerations, and sought the Ambassador's help in speaking to the PIDC organiser, before the Police publicly announced the denial of the application.
Is this all speculation or do I have proof? Of course it is all speculation. But speculation supported by facts. Such as, the PIDC organiser has NOT raise any noise about this. ]
FROM DANIEL SIM SHAO QI -
MAY 29
The police have advised the Pilipino Independence Day Council that there are public order and safety concerns with the venue proposed for its celebration plans. Consequently, the organisers decided to cancel their event.
I am disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their intolerance.
Instead of advising the organisers to hold the event elsewhere, they should have promised additional security if needed. What message are we sending to the Philippine government — that we are unwilling to protect its citizens?
What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore? When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking responsibility.
[What arrogance.
Prior to PIDC submitting their application to use Ngee Ann City space, PM Lee (and other politicians) had already stated his public support for this and denounced the xenophobia of some Singaporeans.
So if you were the police officer who received this application from PIDC, and you assessed that it is not safe to approve it, do you ignore the PM's publicly stated support for this and act "without fear or favour" by rejecting this application?
Or do you raise this to your boss as a potentially controversial issue requiring management inputs and consideration?
And do you think management might have asked, "is there some condition we can request to allow us to justifiably approve this?"
"Is there someway to approve this? Would PM want us to approve this?"
And in all likelihood, this application may go all the way up to the Minister of Home Affairs who would have discussed this with PM (in view of his publicly stated support), who would then have spoken to the Philippines Ambassador to explain what are the considerations, and sought the Ambassador's help in speaking to the PIDC organiser, before the Police publicly announced the denial of the application.
Is this all speculation or do I have proof? Of course it is all speculation. But speculation supported by facts. Such as, the PIDC organiser has NOT raise any noise about this. ]
Friday, May 9, 2014
Why condo units are shrinking
May 07, 2014
PRIVATE developers are only meeting the growing demand for smaller condominium units ("Condo units shrinking: Report"; April 28).
I know of people who are holding on to their HDB flats and buying small private condo units either to rent out, or to live in while renting out their HDB units, hence turning the subsidised flats into "long-term cash cows".
As they are not selling their flats, they cannot pay a large quantum for the condo units, which leads to growing demand for "downsized" apartments.
[Defined "large quantum".]
Letting HDB flat owners rent out their units for profit, when they can afford private property, goes against the HDB's mission of providing affordable homes for the masses.
[How so?]
A subsidised flat that is being used to generate long-term profits is not really a home.
The HDB should relook its policies in this regard.
A flat owner who buys private property should be subjected to an income assessment.
If his income is above a certain cap set by the HDB, he should be made to sell his flat on the open market within a certain period of taking possession of the private property.
When owners have to dispose of their HDB flats upon upgrading to private property, they will have more cash and Central Provident Fund savings to purchase larger condo units, which in turn encourages developers to build them.
[No. What will happen is that HDB owners will pull out of the private property market because given option of selling their HDB in order to buy a pte property, and just staying put in their HDB, guess what? Many of them will stay put. The private property market will crash. Or at least depressed. Prices will fall, and developers will build fewer condo units, big or small.]
Another way would be to limit the timeframe that an HDB flat can be rented out, if the owner has a private property under his name and does not have a valid reason, such as being stationed overseas, for renting out the unit.
[So what have you got against the rental market and people seeking to rent accommodations? Your proposal would cut the supply of rental flats in the market.]
Current rules forbid a private property owner from purchasing even a resale HDB flat. The same rule should apply to HDB flat owners looking to buy private property.
[That's not exactly correct.]
This is a loophole many are exploiting, resulting in fewer resale HDB flats on the market. This deprives people who genuinely need public housing from owning such units, and encourages developers to build smaller condo units for HDB flat owners who want the best of both worlds.
Chan Suan Yen (Ms)
[A classic! Short-sighted. Single-minded, selfish perspective. Self-serving problem analysis. You could almost hear the "me! me! me!" in her letter.
The simple problem is that some people who buy pte property are better off, but not necessarily so "well-off" that they see themselves as "upgrading" to pte property. At least not on a permanent basis.
HDB flats purchase is means-tested. Your family/household income needs to be below $12k/$10k in order to buy direct from HDB at concessionary rates.
If you and your spouse exceed the income ceiling, you have to buy from resale (no concession/ subsidy).
If you owned pte property within the last 30 months, you can't buy from HDB. You can buy resale, but you cannot use CPF, and you need to sell your property within 6 months of getting the HDB flat.
BUT, if you applied for HDB flat when your income is below the ceiling, you can proceed with the purchase even if your income has EXCEEDED the ceiling by the time the sale is completed.
If you move into your flat, you can continue to STAY in your subsidised flat even if you later get promoted and your income exceeds the ceiling.
A lot of applicants wait for one spouse to resign from her (usually her, for extended maternity) job so that their income falls below the ceiling, to apply for HDB flats. Then after that, the spouse rejoins the workforce (when baby is older) and they bust the income ceiling.
Do these HDB owners return their subsidised flats when their income exceeds the ceiling? Do they top up the subsidised price they paid? Are they still considered "low income" families?
If the point is that HDB owners who can now afford to buy condos should be considered above the income level, then you have to consistently apply the rules to all those who are now above the income level, including all the examples above.
If you find yourself starting to make excuses as to why those people (like yourself) should get to keep their flats, then be aware that everyone else will also have reasons why the rules should not apply to them.
Consistency? This is consistent: you need to be below the income ceiling when you apply for HDB flats, but you are means-tested just once, and then even if you subsequently exceed the income ceiling, that's ok.
You need to not have owned private property in the last 30 months when you apply for a HDB flat, but if later you can buy one, that's ok.
Consistent? ]
PRIVATE developers are only meeting the growing demand for smaller condominium units ("Condo units shrinking: Report"; April 28).
I know of people who are holding on to their HDB flats and buying small private condo units either to rent out, or to live in while renting out their HDB units, hence turning the subsidised flats into "long-term cash cows".
As they are not selling their flats, they cannot pay a large quantum for the condo units, which leads to growing demand for "downsized" apartments.
[Defined "large quantum".]
Letting HDB flat owners rent out their units for profit, when they can afford private property, goes against the HDB's mission of providing affordable homes for the masses.
[How so?]
A subsidised flat that is being used to generate long-term profits is not really a home.
The HDB should relook its policies in this regard.
A flat owner who buys private property should be subjected to an income assessment.
If his income is above a certain cap set by the HDB, he should be made to sell his flat on the open market within a certain period of taking possession of the private property.
When owners have to dispose of their HDB flats upon upgrading to private property, they will have more cash and Central Provident Fund savings to purchase larger condo units, which in turn encourages developers to build them.
[No. What will happen is that HDB owners will pull out of the private property market because given option of selling their HDB in order to buy a pte property, and just staying put in their HDB, guess what? Many of them will stay put. The private property market will crash. Or at least depressed. Prices will fall, and developers will build fewer condo units, big or small.]
Another way would be to limit the timeframe that an HDB flat can be rented out, if the owner has a private property under his name and does not have a valid reason, such as being stationed overseas, for renting out the unit.
[So what have you got against the rental market and people seeking to rent accommodations? Your proposal would cut the supply of rental flats in the market.]
Current rules forbid a private property owner from purchasing even a resale HDB flat. The same rule should apply to HDB flat owners looking to buy private property.
[That's not exactly correct.]
This is a loophole many are exploiting, resulting in fewer resale HDB flats on the market. This deprives people who genuinely need public housing from owning such units, and encourages developers to build smaller condo units for HDB flat owners who want the best of both worlds.
Chan Suan Yen (Ms)
[A classic! Short-sighted. Single-minded, selfish perspective. Self-serving problem analysis. You could almost hear the "me! me! me!" in her letter.
The simple problem is that some people who buy pte property are better off, but not necessarily so "well-off" that they see themselves as "upgrading" to pte property. At least not on a permanent basis.
HDB flats purchase is means-tested. Your family/household income needs to be below $12k/$10k in order to buy direct from HDB at concessionary rates.
If you and your spouse exceed the income ceiling, you have to buy from resale (no concession/ subsidy).
If you owned pte property within the last 30 months, you can't buy from HDB. You can buy resale, but you cannot use CPF, and you need to sell your property within 6 months of getting the HDB flat.
BUT, if you applied for HDB flat when your income is below the ceiling, you can proceed with the purchase even if your income has EXCEEDED the ceiling by the time the sale is completed.
If you move into your flat, you can continue to STAY in your subsidised flat even if you later get promoted and your income exceeds the ceiling.
A lot of applicants wait for one spouse to resign from her (usually her, for extended maternity) job so that their income falls below the ceiling, to apply for HDB flats. Then after that, the spouse rejoins the workforce (when baby is older) and they bust the income ceiling.
Do these HDB owners return their subsidised flats when their income exceeds the ceiling? Do they top up the subsidised price they paid? Are they still considered "low income" families?
If the point is that HDB owners who can now afford to buy condos should be considered above the income level, then you have to consistently apply the rules to all those who are now above the income level, including all the examples above.
If you find yourself starting to make excuses as to why those people (like yourself) should get to keep their flats, then be aware that everyone else will also have reasons why the rules should not apply to them.
Consistency? This is consistent: you need to be below the income ceiling when you apply for HDB flats, but you are means-tested just once, and then even if you subsequently exceed the income ceiling, that's ok.
You need to not have owned private property in the last 30 months when you apply for a HDB flat, but if later you can buy one, that's ok.
Consistent? ]
Friday, April 25, 2014
Offer young Singaporeans a menu of options in national service beyond the military.
[I thought this was a forum letter. Then I read the end about the author. I am not impressed. So I am putting it in this blog, because despite being a adjunct professor, his writing is little better than some ST Forum Page letters.
And way below Wikipedia's standard!]
Apr 26, 2014
Parag Khanna, For The Straits Times
National service for the 21st century
"Switzerland doesn't have an army, it is an army."
So described the American writer John McPhee the Swiss military in his famous reportage La Place de la Concorde Suisse.
For over 200 years, conscripted Swiss men have trained to mobilise to defend the whole country in less than 48 hours. In a referendum last year, an overwhelming 73 per cent of Swiss citizens showed continued support for mandatory conscription.
Singaporeans also believe that full-time national service (NS) is essential for defence, identity building, fitness and other reasons. But like all venerable institutions, NS must evolve with the times to remain relevant to the challenges it is designed to address. [Why? Why "must"? Because it is a "Venerable Institution"? To "Remain Relevant"? Have you proven that it has become irrelevant? In fact, the first sentence of this para affirms that Singaporeans BELIEVE that it is still essential, and by extension, relevant (find me an example of something essential, but not relevant. And no, your wife's boobs doesn't count.) This is an example of writing that is below Wikipedia's standard!]
The state has substantial and diverse priorities. These include national defence and internal security, social services, and a desire to stimulate creativity and promote economic growth. Singapore's NS should therefore be broadened to encompass these functions [Again, why? Assumptions not stated, arguments not developed, logic not applied, brain not engaged.] in a way that does not compromise fundamental security needs.
21st century info-states
SINGAPORE and Switzerland are what I have called "info-states". [You can call them "chopped liver" as far as I'm concerned. The question is, so?] These are societies where data, technology, master planning and alternative scenarios are as critical to governance as democracy. The two countries are often characterised as having inverted political systems, with Switzerland having a "bottom-up" system while Singapore maintains a "top-down" one. But Singapore and Switzerland can also be viewed as being quite similar, not least for their propensity to top many global competitiveness rankings.
Contrived (and illogical) comparisons - Swiss is bottoms up. SG is top down. Same lah same lah! Both countries also top in everything! Can compare! GAWD what a ridiculous reasoning! So they are both top in global competitiveness rankings so they should have the same military /defence/ national service system? But the best part is just before talking about the "sameness" of the two, he tells us that Swiss is bottoms-up and SG is top down. Minor difference? Different but the same? Or is this a significant difference in style sufficient to derail his suggestion?
Handwaved.
A strong military is vital to protecting such small countries that are rich in financial, technical and human capital. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is thus unstinting in its pursuit of military excellence. It must continue to acquire all the assets necessary to deter aggression: military, cyber and economic. But even with razor- sharp defences, info-states fundamentally thrive on connectedness. Their economic and diplomatic footprint will always be far larger than their military one.
[So? When an invading army is at your doorstep, you will use economics and diplomacy to deter them? Because we are an "info-state" connected by economy and diplomacy, we will never need to defend ourselves (or demonstrate our ability to defend ourselves)?
Tell that to Kuwait, eh? They had great economics - oil revenue. They had great diplomacy - US was their friend. They got invaded. The US came to help. Eventually. No worries, eh?
Economics and Diplomacy is to reduce the probability of military aggression, but it is NO GUARANTEE of non-aggression. The only true deterrence for military aggression is military defence capability. Comprehensive Military Defence Capability. ]
A 21st century country must think in 21st century terms about national security. Only two advanced countries still have military-only national service schemes: South Korea and Israel. Arguably they still need it.
[But let's not argue about whether SG needs it. Or course we don't need it. Everybody else (except for two paranoids) has done away with it. We should be doing away with it too!
Let me let my mother respond to this: "So Ah Seng jump off a cliff, you also jump lah!"]
But many stable societies in the world also modify their national service requirements to changing circumstances. The decade following the reunification of Germany in 1990 saw a wave of such adjustments. Just as I was leaving high school near Hamburg, all my German contemporaries went off to diverse military or civil service assignments lasting only one year.
If I have a bias in this debate, it is to keep national service a primarily military activity rather than diluting it. [Don't worry, your biases are safely non-evident. At least the biases you are admitting to, here.] My undergraduate concentration was military strategy - known much more by its campus nickname "Guns & Bombs". I also served as an adviser with the United States Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan conducting counter-terrorism missions.
My first book, The Second World, is a geopolitical travelogue covering high-stakes countries from Libya and Ukraine to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. I have worked with the US National Intelligence Council to develop scenarios on major regional conflicts.
[Well, since you are sharing, I used to be in the police force a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far... actually, in this galaxy. I knew police constables who had been constables all their career. 20 years. Awaiting retirement. Never promoted. Some were good. Some, I understood why they were still constables. Because some people have twenty years of experience. Others have one year of experience repeated twenty times.
Similarly, I have met people who have travelled the world, but have not left the smallness of their mind.
I am not saying that you (the author) is either of these. I have not met you, only this article you wrote, and if your ideas are not coherent, not logical, not put together, not THERE, it really doesn't matter to me what you have experienced. Or your expertise. ]
Yet what I have learnt from all of these experiences is that someone who is expert in only "security" is missing the big picture.
Malaysia: Shifting dynamics
THE shifting dynamics between Singapore and Malaysia are a key case in point. Across the former British Empire, countries that shunned each other at independence a half-century ago are now sharing currencies, pooling capital, building cross-border infrastructure, and attracting joint investments.
Singapore and Malaysia fit this pattern of post-colonial fraternity. Malaysia has become a major economic opportunity for Singapore. But it is also the source of a variety of micro-threats, such as drugs and illegal immigrants. None of these can be dealt with using primarily military means (as the US has learnt on the Mexican border).
The solution requires more joint investment, job creation, law enforcement, and other tools. In this context, we should ask: How does NS contribute to greater stability in this new regional paradigm?
[I see it now. Your point about "missing the big picture" ties in with your question here: how can NS be the answer.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, everything looks like a target.
However the best thing to use a hammer on is an actual nail that needs to be driven in. That is, use the tool to fit the job, not make whatever tool you have do the job you need done. A gun can be used as a hammer, but it is better to get a hammer.
In other words, NS is a tool to serve a specific purpose. It is a necessary evil. We see it as a necessary evil. We don't glorify it, or exalt it. But we recognise the sacrifice for it, and when we see a silver lining, and unexpected benefits from it, we focus on it. The mistake is to think that National Service is a good thing. That it can build community. And then you have the stupidity of the Malaysian having "National Service" to promote and foster community spirit or racial harmony or some such crap, and the youth are molested, or injured, or even die during NS. To what end? Racial harmony?
Using a gun as a hammer.]
New model army
THE most fundamental question is how to allocate human resources efficiently. The SAF is a crucial foundation of this strength - but it is not the only one. Nor is it the only one that requires able-bodied citizens to commit time and effort.
Indeed, it is rather odd for a country whose civil service is perhaps the world's most competent and effective to limit formal service requirements to defence alone. [Really? You think so? Maybe the reason why it is the most competent and effective is because WE DON'T LET FUCKING IDIOTS WORK THE CIVIL SERVICE AS PART OF THEIR NATIONAL SERVICE!]
Given Singapore's particular circumstances, NS should become a menu of options across military, civil, commercial and social entities. But it should be managed in a manner that preserves the equity of the programme.
Basic training must remain a universal commitment. But it should be carried out by the SAF, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and police - a distribution that is critical especially if women become integrated into NS so that exercises are more flexibly suited to physical abilities.
Each year, a wide range of places will be available for NS positions across corporate, civil, social and military functions, with dynamic quotas based on positions available and needed each year. Students will indicate their preferences across "hard" and "soft" placements, but with the SAF, SCDF and police having priority to ensure they meet their force adequacy requirements.
Not everyone will get their first choice, but fairness should be built in by requiring each NS-hosting entity to take in a representative cross-section of youth from all backgrounds and education levels to avoid giving unfair career advantages to those in corporate or civil roles rather than military. This is essential to preserve one of the key virtues of national service as it stands today: the integration of all racial groups and income levels.
If choices are unevenly distributed - for example, if too many young people choose the engineering option and not enough choose the educational one - a ballot may be held and some routed to their second or even third choices.
[Right. A ballot. Because that worked so well with HDB flats allocation and Primary School registration. I LOVE this recommendation! Because Singaporeans only have TWO ballot systems to complain about and everyone knows good things comes in THREES. So yes! Another ballot system. Now for National Service.]
No doubt the allocation process may get a little complicated, but it will not be anything out of the ordinary for Singaporeans used to the posting exercises for admission to secondary schools, polytechnics and universities. The key is to make sure that criteria for deployments are transparent and the process, such as a ballot, is seen as equitable.
Upgrade, not upsize
BUT ensuring the primacy of the military is not a race for numbers. [Strawman fallacy. Motherhood statement. WTF are you talking about? GAWD pointing out the idiocy (I'm way past "fallacy" already) in this article is tedious! Strawman Idiocy: Who the fuck is saying that SG is playing a numbers game when it comes to NS? Has ANY official MINDEF statement been made about getting more conscripts into the army? Or conscripting women? For numbers? In FACT, whenever people say, "Women should serve NS", MINDEF has said, "we don't need to conscript women." And WTF are you talking about "primacy of the military"? First what does that even mean? Primacy over what?] Looking around the world, it is clear that military effectiveness does not correlate with the number of soldiers under arms. America's defence establishment is being forced to consider how to get more value from technology rather than manpower, hence the greater investments in drones and wearable exoskeletons.
With opportunities in hardware innovation and cyber security, Singapore could indeed become even more of a "start-up nation" than Israel, with tighter links between the defence and technology sectors. [Wow. First "info-states". Now "Start-up nation". You're know all the latest lingo. You must be cool! Or Rad! Or Hip! Or Sick! Or Bad! - I'm sorry, I'm not hip to the new lingo.] A professional army with a well-trained and compensated officer corps and more linkages outside the military would also struggle less with career transitions at the age of 50 or 55.
NS provides a captive audience of highly capable youth whose abilities can be leveraged and skills upgraded. NS can be used to train responsible stakeholders, not just in law and order, but also in welfare and productivity.
Formally designating strategic industries as a form of national service is not at all new. During World War II, the US exempted from the draft men working in crucial sectors such as automobile and tank assembly. In Singapore in the 1980s, more than 10,000 servicemen were diverted into the so-called "construction brigade" to accelerate Housing Board public housing development. At the time, Singapore faced a labour shortage. Now, of course, it seeks to cap foreign labour.
[You don't know what you are talking about do you? Or realise how stupid your attempts to use facts are? Or that your facts do not support your argument?
Yes. There was a construction brigade in the 80s. That means, your proposal has actually been tried. And the experiment has been terminated.You're the expert. Go find out why.
But the funniest line is the last two sentence. SG "faced... labour shortage. Now... cap foreign labour."
You do realise that there is still a labour shortage? You do realise that the capping of foreign labour is a POLITICAL response to the resistance of Singaporeans to foreigners, NOT because there is no labour shortage? You do realise that HDB have been ramping up construction since GE 2011, and if the construction brigade idea was such a success, it should have been brought back two years ago? ]
Shouldn't some NS men become structural engineers, [Yes, because isn't that just a mail-order course? You can learn to be one in 2 weeks. Or 3 months if you are REALLY REALLY stupid.] building next-generation infrastructure at home [in our two-car garage, of course] while developing skills for a lucrative industry Singapore can export? Indeed, as the labour component of manufacturing and its gross domestic product contribution decreases, it is likely that more Singaporeans will have to venture abroad as managers, trainers and investors.
[And then he goes into his wet dreams... I have to pause here.]
The French system includes rigorous training in public administration as well as work in commercial entities. Singaporeans should similarly become commercial cadets within the many government-linked companies, learning management skills essential for both climbing corporate ladders and running entrepreneurial start-ups. They could even do service projects in neighbouring Asean countries in a Singapore-style peace corps.
Education is as strategic as any other sector. From pre-schools to polytechnics, more educational institutes are mushrooming, each with needs in staffing, administration and training. Many of those who begin with teaching apprenticeships during NS may later choose education as a profession.
Health care, particularly for the elderly, also needs a manpower boost.
Given Singapore's concern about growing ethnic diversity and inequality, another function from the French NS system is instructive: social integration. Providing counselling to new arrivals, marginalised families, and under-skilled individuals will ensure that a more diverse Singapore continues to build a common identity.
Whatever the role, NS members should get similar stipends during their year of service, and return once a year to mentor their successors.
Once NS functions are broadened, there is even more reason to draw from two enormous and untapped pools of labour to ensure that defence and non-defence requirements are fulfilled: women and permanent residents (PRs).
It is clear from the Singapore Conversation dialogues that there is some public sentiment - among men and women alike - for women to play a stronger role in national service. More inter-gender bonding during various NS duties may even lead to earlier marriages and a much-desired boost in the birth rate.
As a country with a large, permanent expatriate population, PRs can also provide necessary talent and manpower while deepening their integration into Singaporean society.
Building solidarity
THERE is no underestimating how important NS is to building solidarity, promoting fitness, and boosting long-term volunteerism. But evidence from around the world suggests that there are many ways to achieve social cohesion. Teach for America, [Yes. By all means, compare volunteer work with conscripted service. Your ability to equate dissimilar things has been well-established by now. Obviously, you failed Sesame Street's "One of this things is not like the others" exercise regularly.] a nonprofit organisation founded in 1990, pays graduates meagre stipends to work in inner-city schools, yet jockeys with investment banking and management consulting as the most competitive and desirable first step after college. Employers view it as a true demonstration of character and teamwork.
Broadening NS options taps the latent idealism of youth and channels it into fruitful service for the nation. Rather than being viewed as an opportunity cost, it will provide a platform for youth to develop their interests early on, leading to better focus in universities and polytechnics.
When the time comes, my son will do Singaporean national service whatever form it takes. So the question is not whether to serve, but what service is needed?
The author is an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.
And way below Wikipedia's standard!]
Apr 26, 2014
Parag Khanna, For The Straits Times
National service for the 21st century
"Switzerland doesn't have an army, it is an army."
So described the American writer John McPhee the Swiss military in his famous reportage La Place de la Concorde Suisse.
For over 200 years, conscripted Swiss men have trained to mobilise to defend the whole country in less than 48 hours. In a referendum last year, an overwhelming 73 per cent of Swiss citizens showed continued support for mandatory conscription.
Singaporeans also believe that full-time national service (NS) is essential for defence, identity building, fitness and other reasons. But like all venerable institutions, NS must evolve with the times to remain relevant to the challenges it is designed to address. [Why? Why "must"? Because it is a "Venerable Institution"? To "Remain Relevant"? Have you proven that it has become irrelevant? In fact, the first sentence of this para affirms that Singaporeans BELIEVE that it is still essential, and by extension, relevant (find me an example of something essential, but not relevant. And no, your wife's boobs doesn't count.) This is an example of writing that is below Wikipedia's standard!]
The state has substantial and diverse priorities. These include national defence and internal security, social services, and a desire to stimulate creativity and promote economic growth. Singapore's NS should therefore be broadened to encompass these functions [Again, why? Assumptions not stated, arguments not developed, logic not applied, brain not engaged.] in a way that does not compromise fundamental security needs.
21st century info-states
SINGAPORE and Switzerland are what I have called "info-states". [You can call them "chopped liver" as far as I'm concerned. The question is, so?] These are societies where data, technology, master planning and alternative scenarios are as critical to governance as democracy. The two countries are often characterised as having inverted political systems, with Switzerland having a "bottom-up" system while Singapore maintains a "top-down" one. But Singapore and Switzerland can also be viewed as being quite similar, not least for their propensity to top many global competitiveness rankings.
Contrived (and illogical) comparisons - Swiss is bottoms up. SG is top down. Same lah same lah! Both countries also top in everything! Can compare! GAWD what a ridiculous reasoning! So they are both top in global competitiveness rankings so they should have the same military /defence/ national service system? But the best part is just before talking about the "sameness" of the two, he tells us that Swiss is bottoms-up and SG is top down. Minor difference? Different but the same? Or is this a significant difference in style sufficient to derail his suggestion?
Handwaved.
A strong military is vital to protecting such small countries that are rich in financial, technical and human capital. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is thus unstinting in its pursuit of military excellence. It must continue to acquire all the assets necessary to deter aggression: military, cyber and economic. But even with razor- sharp defences, info-states fundamentally thrive on connectedness. Their economic and diplomatic footprint will always be far larger than their military one.
[So? When an invading army is at your doorstep, you will use economics and diplomacy to deter them? Because we are an "info-state" connected by economy and diplomacy, we will never need to defend ourselves (or demonstrate our ability to defend ourselves)?
Tell that to Kuwait, eh? They had great economics - oil revenue. They had great diplomacy - US was their friend. They got invaded. The US came to help. Eventually. No worries, eh?
Economics and Diplomacy is to reduce the probability of military aggression, but it is NO GUARANTEE of non-aggression. The only true deterrence for military aggression is military defence capability. Comprehensive Military Defence Capability. ]
A 21st century country must think in 21st century terms about national security. Only two advanced countries still have military-only national service schemes: South Korea and Israel. Arguably they still need it.
[But let's not argue about whether SG needs it. Or course we don't need it. Everybody else (except for two paranoids) has done away with it. We should be doing away with it too!
Let me let my mother respond to this: "So Ah Seng jump off a cliff, you also jump lah!"]
But many stable societies in the world also modify their national service requirements to changing circumstances. The decade following the reunification of Germany in 1990 saw a wave of such adjustments. Just as I was leaving high school near Hamburg, all my German contemporaries went off to diverse military or civil service assignments lasting only one year.
If I have a bias in this debate, it is to keep national service a primarily military activity rather than diluting it. [Don't worry, your biases are safely non-evident. At least the biases you are admitting to, here.] My undergraduate concentration was military strategy - known much more by its campus nickname "Guns & Bombs". I also served as an adviser with the United States Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan conducting counter-terrorism missions.
My first book, The Second World, is a geopolitical travelogue covering high-stakes countries from Libya and Ukraine to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. I have worked with the US National Intelligence Council to develop scenarios on major regional conflicts.
[Well, since you are sharing, I used to be in the police force a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far... actually, in this galaxy. I knew police constables who had been constables all their career. 20 years. Awaiting retirement. Never promoted. Some were good. Some, I understood why they were still constables. Because some people have twenty years of experience. Others have one year of experience repeated twenty times.
Similarly, I have met people who have travelled the world, but have not left the smallness of their mind.
I am not saying that you (the author) is either of these. I have not met you, only this article you wrote, and if your ideas are not coherent, not logical, not put together, not THERE, it really doesn't matter to me what you have experienced. Or your expertise. ]
Yet what I have learnt from all of these experiences is that someone who is expert in only "security" is missing the big picture.
Malaysia: Shifting dynamics
THE shifting dynamics between Singapore and Malaysia are a key case in point. Across the former British Empire, countries that shunned each other at independence a half-century ago are now sharing currencies, pooling capital, building cross-border infrastructure, and attracting joint investments.
Singapore and Malaysia fit this pattern of post-colonial fraternity. Malaysia has become a major economic opportunity for Singapore. But it is also the source of a variety of micro-threats, such as drugs and illegal immigrants. None of these can be dealt with using primarily military means (as the US has learnt on the Mexican border).
The solution requires more joint investment, job creation, law enforcement, and other tools. In this context, we should ask: How does NS contribute to greater stability in this new regional paradigm?
[I see it now. Your point about "missing the big picture" ties in with your question here: how can NS be the answer.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, everything looks like a target.
However the best thing to use a hammer on is an actual nail that needs to be driven in. That is, use the tool to fit the job, not make whatever tool you have do the job you need done. A gun can be used as a hammer, but it is better to get a hammer.
In other words, NS is a tool to serve a specific purpose. It is a necessary evil. We see it as a necessary evil. We don't glorify it, or exalt it. But we recognise the sacrifice for it, and when we see a silver lining, and unexpected benefits from it, we focus on it. The mistake is to think that National Service is a good thing. That it can build community. And then you have the stupidity of the Malaysian having "National Service" to promote and foster community spirit or racial harmony or some such crap, and the youth are molested, or injured, or even die during NS. To what end? Racial harmony?
Using a gun as a hammer.]
New model army
THE most fundamental question is how to allocate human resources efficiently. The SAF is a crucial foundation of this strength - but it is not the only one. Nor is it the only one that requires able-bodied citizens to commit time and effort.
Indeed, it is rather odd for a country whose civil service is perhaps the world's most competent and effective to limit formal service requirements to defence alone. [Really? You think so? Maybe the reason why it is the most competent and effective is because WE DON'T LET FUCKING IDIOTS WORK THE CIVIL SERVICE AS PART OF THEIR NATIONAL SERVICE!]
Given Singapore's particular circumstances, NS should become a menu of options across military, civil, commercial and social entities. But it should be managed in a manner that preserves the equity of the programme.
Basic training must remain a universal commitment. But it should be carried out by the SAF, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and police - a distribution that is critical especially if women become integrated into NS so that exercises are more flexibly suited to physical abilities.
Each year, a wide range of places will be available for NS positions across corporate, civil, social and military functions, with dynamic quotas based on positions available and needed each year. Students will indicate their preferences across "hard" and "soft" placements, but with the SAF, SCDF and police having priority to ensure they meet their force adequacy requirements.
Not everyone will get their first choice, but fairness should be built in by requiring each NS-hosting entity to take in a representative cross-section of youth from all backgrounds and education levels to avoid giving unfair career advantages to those in corporate or civil roles rather than military. This is essential to preserve one of the key virtues of national service as it stands today: the integration of all racial groups and income levels.
If choices are unevenly distributed - for example, if too many young people choose the engineering option and not enough choose the educational one - a ballot may be held and some routed to their second or even third choices.
[Right. A ballot. Because that worked so well with HDB flats allocation and Primary School registration. I LOVE this recommendation! Because Singaporeans only have TWO ballot systems to complain about and everyone knows good things comes in THREES. So yes! Another ballot system. Now for National Service.]
No doubt the allocation process may get a little complicated, but it will not be anything out of the ordinary for Singaporeans used to the posting exercises for admission to secondary schools, polytechnics and universities. The key is to make sure that criteria for deployments are transparent and the process, such as a ballot, is seen as equitable.
Upgrade, not upsize
BUT ensuring the primacy of the military is not a race for numbers. [Strawman fallacy. Motherhood statement. WTF are you talking about? GAWD pointing out the idiocy (I'm way past "fallacy" already) in this article is tedious! Strawman Idiocy: Who the fuck is saying that SG is playing a numbers game when it comes to NS? Has ANY official MINDEF statement been made about getting more conscripts into the army? Or conscripting women? For numbers? In FACT, whenever people say, "Women should serve NS", MINDEF has said, "we don't need to conscript women." And WTF are you talking about "primacy of the military"? First what does that even mean? Primacy over what?] Looking around the world, it is clear that military effectiveness does not correlate with the number of soldiers under arms. America's defence establishment is being forced to consider how to get more value from technology rather than manpower, hence the greater investments in drones and wearable exoskeletons.
With opportunities in hardware innovation and cyber security, Singapore could indeed become even more of a "start-up nation" than Israel, with tighter links between the defence and technology sectors. [Wow. First "info-states". Now "Start-up nation". You're know all the latest lingo. You must be cool! Or Rad! Or Hip! Or Sick! Or Bad! - I'm sorry, I'm not hip to the new lingo.] A professional army with a well-trained and compensated officer corps and more linkages outside the military would also struggle less with career transitions at the age of 50 or 55.
NS provides a captive audience of highly capable youth whose abilities can be leveraged and skills upgraded. NS can be used to train responsible stakeholders, not just in law and order, but also in welfare and productivity.
Formally designating strategic industries as a form of national service is not at all new. During World War II, the US exempted from the draft men working in crucial sectors such as automobile and tank assembly. In Singapore in the 1980s, more than 10,000 servicemen were diverted into the so-called "construction brigade" to accelerate Housing Board public housing development. At the time, Singapore faced a labour shortage. Now, of course, it seeks to cap foreign labour.
[You don't know what you are talking about do you? Or realise how stupid your attempts to use facts are? Or that your facts do not support your argument?
Yes. There was a construction brigade in the 80s. That means, your proposal has actually been tried. And the experiment has been terminated.You're the expert. Go find out why.
But the funniest line is the last two sentence. SG "faced... labour shortage. Now... cap foreign labour."
You do realise that there is still a labour shortage? You do realise that the capping of foreign labour is a POLITICAL response to the resistance of Singaporeans to foreigners, NOT because there is no labour shortage? You do realise that HDB have been ramping up construction since GE 2011, and if the construction brigade idea was such a success, it should have been brought back two years ago? ]
Shouldn't some NS men become structural engineers, [Yes, because isn't that just a mail-order course? You can learn to be one in 2 weeks. Or 3 months if you are REALLY REALLY stupid.] building next-generation infrastructure at home [in our two-car garage, of course] while developing skills for a lucrative industry Singapore can export? Indeed, as the labour component of manufacturing and its gross domestic product contribution decreases, it is likely that more Singaporeans will have to venture abroad as managers, trainers and investors.
[And then he goes into his wet dreams... I have to pause here.]
The French system includes rigorous training in public administration as well as work in commercial entities. Singaporeans should similarly become commercial cadets within the many government-linked companies, learning management skills essential for both climbing corporate ladders and running entrepreneurial start-ups. They could even do service projects in neighbouring Asean countries in a Singapore-style peace corps.
Education is as strategic as any other sector. From pre-schools to polytechnics, more educational institutes are mushrooming, each with needs in staffing, administration and training. Many of those who begin with teaching apprenticeships during NS may later choose education as a profession.
Health care, particularly for the elderly, also needs a manpower boost.
Given Singapore's concern about growing ethnic diversity and inequality, another function from the French NS system is instructive: social integration. Providing counselling to new arrivals, marginalised families, and under-skilled individuals will ensure that a more diverse Singapore continues to build a common identity.
Whatever the role, NS members should get similar stipends during their year of service, and return once a year to mentor their successors.
Once NS functions are broadened, there is even more reason to draw from two enormous and untapped pools of labour to ensure that defence and non-defence requirements are fulfilled: women and permanent residents (PRs).
It is clear from the Singapore Conversation dialogues that there is some public sentiment - among men and women alike - for women to play a stronger role in national service. More inter-gender bonding during various NS duties may even lead to earlier marriages and a much-desired boost in the birth rate.
As a country with a large, permanent expatriate population, PRs can also provide necessary talent and manpower while deepening their integration into Singaporean society.
Building solidarity
THERE is no underestimating how important NS is to building solidarity, promoting fitness, and boosting long-term volunteerism. But evidence from around the world suggests that there are many ways to achieve social cohesion. Teach for America, [Yes. By all means, compare volunteer work with conscripted service. Your ability to equate dissimilar things has been well-established by now. Obviously, you failed Sesame Street's "One of this things is not like the others" exercise regularly.] a nonprofit organisation founded in 1990, pays graduates meagre stipends to work in inner-city schools, yet jockeys with investment banking and management consulting as the most competitive and desirable first step after college. Employers view it as a true demonstration of character and teamwork.
Broadening NS options taps the latent idealism of youth and channels it into fruitful service for the nation. Rather than being viewed as an opportunity cost, it will provide a platform for youth to develop their interests early on, leading to better focus in universities and polytechnics.
When the time comes, my son will do Singaporean national service whatever form it takes. So the question is not whether to serve, but what service is needed?
The author is an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
No patriotic response from S’pore about Yasukuni visit?
ST has not had any dumb forum letters for some time. So this blog has been dormant.
Fortunately TODAY still has... okay, this is not "dumb" as in stupid... just not very discerning. It is trying to draw a comparison which is not exactly unreasonable, but is based simply on vaguely similar characteristics. If anything, this letter teaches us we need to be more discerning. Unfortunately, we don't think. Not even to write to the papers.
From :CORNELIUS KHOO HONG SIN
Today Forum Page
APRIL 24, 2014
The recent outcry by the Defence Ministry and, to some extent, the local population about the naming of the Indonesian warship after the marines who bombed MacDonald House during Konfrantasi was justifiable.
I wonder why there is no patriotic response, though, about Japanese officials visiting the Yasukuni shrine for Japan’s war dead. Most of the protests come from China and South Korea, through various channels. (“More Japanese MPs head to Yasukuni, marring Obama’s visit”; April 23)
I would think that three years of brutal occupation by an invader in our history would elicit some form of protest, official or otherwise, whenever an official visit to Yasukuni is made.
From a comment on the letter on the website.
I know who the two indonesian soldiers are, and their actions are documented, and their acts are specific, and their victims are Singaporeans.
Do you know, if we are to protest the Yasakuni Shrine Visits, who EXACTLY are the Class-A War Criminals buried ("enshrined"?) at Yasakuni?
What EXACTLY did they do to Singapore and Singaporeans (Pre-independent Singapore)? Who or what are we protesting?
Do you even KNOW who or what are "Class-A war criminals"? I believe there are 14 there. Do you know if 1 or more of those 14 were actually carrying out atrocities in SG during WWII?
Or is this just a brainless, mindless, unthinking copying of China? You know, the unthinking following of perceived authority that many war criminals use as the excuse for their war crimes - "I was just following orders"?
So what are Class-A War Criminals? They must be the worst of the worst, the most horrendously brutal atrocities were probably committed by them!
Actually no. This is the definition:
The US-led tribunals had three classes of war criminals. Class A was reserved for those who committed a "crime against peace," by participating in "a joint conspiracy to start and wage war." Under international law, it's a crime to initiate an unprovoked war. Tens of millions died in Japan's wars to expand the empire from 1937 to 1945. Class B war criminals were those actually carried out specific atrocities, while Class C was for those accused of "the planning, ordering, authorization, or failure to prevent such transgressions at higher levels in the command structure." In other words, those with command responsibility.
The problem (if there is one) isn't the 14 Class-A war criminals. Those are the ones who started an unprovoked war (and that is certainly bad), and certainly they should be held accountable for it, but they did not commit any atrocities (Class-B), nor did they have command responsibility over those who did (Class-C).
It is actually the other 1000 or so war criminals enshrined there that is the problem:
"about 5,700 Japanese were charged in Classes B and C before the international war crimes tribunal in Tokyo. Almost 1,000 were executed. Others were tried and executed by the Communist Chinese and by the Soviet Union. It's these men whose presence at Yasukuni offends Japan's neighbors, including 14 Class A criminals."
So, say of the 1000 or so war criminals buried or enshrined (I'm not too sure which is correct) at Yasukuni, there is a good probability that there were at least one or two (or more) that committed atrocities in SG, right? That is, war criminals whose crimes were committed in SG against Singaporeans (pre-independent Singaporeans) are likely to be there.
So?
Everyone who's dead has to be buried somewhere. Usman and Harun are buried in a HEROES cemetary in Jakarta (or the surrounds).
We objected to the naming of a WARSHIP after these two as further HONOUR to them. Other than being buried (and enshrined) in Yasukuni in accordance to their religion, how else are the Japanese War Criminals being honoured?
Nothing else. So some politicians visit the shrine. Why should that matter to outsiders?
Nothing else. So some politicians visit the shrine. Why should that matter to outsiders?
To Cornelius Khoo and those who ask about the lack of a patriotic response, let me just say, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.".
Monday, February 17, 2014
Fifa should invest more in Singapore football
Feb 17, 2014
IT APPEARS that, just as in 2010, Fifa wants a lot more money from Singapore for the right to broadcast the upcoming World Cup in Brazil ("Broadcast rights not yet secured in Singapore"; last Friday).
When he was in Singapore in 2010, Fifa president Sepp Blatter was asked by a journalist about the issue. He stated that he was not aware of it but would look into it.
I was naive to think that the situation would not be repeated.
Fifa reportedly spends a lot of money promoting football in many countries, especially on the African continent. It correctly views football as a force for change.
The results speak for themselves. Many African players play in the European leagues. The money Fifa poured into African football has brought great success for African players, their countries and the continent.
That begs the question: How much money does Fifa spend promoting football in Singapore?
The local league has not been a success story; football is not viewed by many as a proper career, and passions get aroused only for "derby" games between Singapore and Malaysia.
The only time I have witnessed football as a powerful unifying force in Singapore was at the U-16 tournament during the 2010 Youth Olympic Games.
Singapore should not be a net provider of funds to Fifa. If there was ever a country in need of Fifa investment and support to build up the sport, it is Singapore.
Peter Wadeley
IT APPEARS that, just as in 2010, Fifa wants a lot more money from Singapore for the right to broadcast the upcoming World Cup in Brazil ("Broadcast rights not yet secured in Singapore"; last Friday).
When he was in Singapore in 2010, Fifa president Sepp Blatter was asked by a journalist about the issue. He stated that he was not aware of it but would look into it.
I was naive to think that the situation would not be repeated.
Fifa reportedly spends a lot of money promoting football in many countries, especially on the African continent. It correctly views football as a force for change.
The results speak for themselves. Many African players play in the European leagues. The money Fifa poured into African football has brought great success for African players, their countries and the continent.
That begs the question: How much money does Fifa spend promoting football in Singapore?
The local league has not been a success story; football is not viewed by many as a proper career, and passions get aroused only for "derby" games between Singapore and Malaysia.
The only time I have witnessed football as a powerful unifying force in Singapore was at the U-16 tournament during the 2010 Youth Olympic Games.
Singapore should not be a net provider of funds to Fifa. If there was ever a country in need of Fifa investment and support to build up the sport, it is Singapore.
Peter Wadeley
[Short Comment: First World Problem.
Long Comment: Yes, football is a force for change... but it is not a force for changing EVERYTHING. What are the problems of Singapore? The MRT keeps breaking down and is unreliable. Football to the Rescue! Housing prices are going through the roof. Football to the Rescue! Income disparity! Football to the Rescue!
In Africa, football is a way for talented players to escape poverty, it gives hope to children who can hope for little else, it can provide a dream for millions of children. So how many African players make it to Europe? hundreds? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? A million?
In Africa, football is a way for talented players to escape poverty, it gives hope to children who can hope for little else, it can provide a dream for millions of children. So how many African players make it to Europe? hundreds? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? A million?
How many fail to make it? Millions?
Football is a force for change, when your country is so poor, so badly run, so disorganised, so underdeveloped, so corrupt, that your only way out is being good at football, and getting out of poverty trap you call home.
In Singapore, there are easier ways to get ahead. And parents do not encourage their children to get ahead by being good at football. Well, few parents do.
FIFA promote football in Singapore? 5 million of us? 1.5m foreigners with no leisure to watch or play football. And they mostly play cricket if they have a chance.
Yes. The letter is obviously asking for FIFA to give SG a cheap deal.]
Football is a force for change, when your country is so poor, so badly run, so disorganised, so underdeveloped, so corrupt, that your only way out is being good at football, and getting out of poverty trap you call home.
In Singapore, there are easier ways to get ahead. And parents do not encourage their children to get ahead by being good at football. Well, few parents do.
FIFA promote football in Singapore? 5 million of us? 1.5m foreigners with no leisure to watch or play football. And they mostly play cricket if they have a chance.
Yes. The letter is obviously asking for FIFA to give SG a cheap deal.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)