FEB 15, 2015
I salute editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang for his maverick and courageous suggestion that schools do away with paid cleaners and make students responsible for cleaning ("No litter please, we're Singaporeans"; last Sunday).
Mr Han's suggestion should be seriously considered.
Values that are instilled in the young through practice will remain with them throughout their lives.
I spent four years in three different Chinese schools from 1948 to 1951. All the three schools did not have paid cleaners. Students were the cleaners. Today, I don't feel that doing manual work is beneath me and I respect the people who do such jobs. We used to have Use Your Hands campaigns in schools, where students were required to clean classrooms and wash toilets.
Will our school principals today have the courage to take up Mr Han's challenge?
Tan Kim Hock
[I think this is a good idea. But the problem is not the children. The problem is the parents. If TOP schools were to implement this, would they still have parents clamouring to enroll their children in those schools? ]
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
What are pre-schools' guidelines on naps?
FEB 12, 2015
ARE there recommendations or guidelines on sleeping for pre-schoolers who are in full-day class ("Many parents 'not alert to children's lack of sleep'"; last Friday).
Some pre-schools do not allow afternoon naps from Kindergarten 1 onwards. One reason could be that there are enrichment classes on some afternoons. But these do not take place every afternoon, and not all children are involved.
Another reason could be that some parents feel that they are paying school fees not for their children to nap.
Some people say that not having a nap in school means children will sleep earlier at night.
But the key consideration is whether a child's overall development and health benefit from a nap.
My children benefit from a nap: They are less cranky and have better appetites at dinner time.
My questions for the childcare and kindergarten authorities are: Are there guidelines on napping for pre-schoolers? Is there no benefit to a child napping, say up to an hour, in addition to sleeping nine to 10 hours straight at night?
Yah Jun Yang
[I am an evil person who relish dumb letters to the ST Forum Page so I have material for this vicious blog. If you are reading this you are probably a evil person as well.
OK. enough self-flagellation.
Let's flagellate the more deserving.
Like this letter-writer who in his inspired wisdom decided that the best way to ensure that his children gets enough sleep in pre-school is to ensure that ALL pre-schools have nap time.
This despite noting that some pre-schools do not schedule nap times because:
Why?
I dunno why people act selfishly. I dunno why people think that what works for them MUST apply to everyone. Oh wait, I do know. It's because they are self-centred, self-absorbed, and thinks the world revolves around them, their needs, their priorities, their interests.
The reasonable, rational approach would have been to ask the the pre-school you are considering enrolling your children in, about their programme, or if you want to be specific about it, ask them straight out if they schedule afternoon naps. And if they do, and everything else is fine and meets your needs or your children's needs, you can enrol them in that pre-school.
Instead you choose to ask the AUTHORITIES if they have guidelines on napping? Because they know your children better? Or they know that ALL children need afternoon naps? That all children are the same? Or that this need supercedes all other needs? Or your need has precedence over other parents' needs and priorities?
While you are at it, can you ask MOM about scheduling afternoon naps in the workplace?
Thank you.]
ARE there recommendations or guidelines on sleeping for pre-schoolers who are in full-day class ("Many parents 'not alert to children's lack of sleep'"; last Friday).
Some pre-schools do not allow afternoon naps from Kindergarten 1 onwards. One reason could be that there are enrichment classes on some afternoons. But these do not take place every afternoon, and not all children are involved.
Another reason could be that some parents feel that they are paying school fees not for their children to nap.
Some people say that not having a nap in school means children will sleep earlier at night.
But the key consideration is whether a child's overall development and health benefit from a nap.
My children benefit from a nap: They are less cranky and have better appetites at dinner time.
My questions for the childcare and kindergarten authorities are: Are there guidelines on napping for pre-schoolers? Is there no benefit to a child napping, say up to an hour, in addition to sleeping nine to 10 hours straight at night?
Yah Jun Yang
[I am an evil person who relish dumb letters to the ST Forum Page so I have material for this vicious blog. If you are reading this you are probably a evil person as well.
OK. enough self-flagellation.
Let's flagellate the more deserving.
Like this letter-writer who in his inspired wisdom decided that the best way to ensure that his children gets enough sleep in pre-school is to ensure that ALL pre-schools have nap time.
This despite noting that some pre-schools do not schedule nap times because:
"One reason could be that there are enrichment classes on some afternoons. But these do not take place every afternoon, and not all children are involved.So despite these reasons, this parent decides that since
Another reason could be that some parents feel that they are paying school fees not for their children to nap.
Some people say that not having a nap in school means children will sleep earlier at night."
My children benefit from a nap: They are less cranky and have better appetites at dinner time.Therefore, he "reasons", EVERY Pre-school should have nap times.
Why?
I dunno why people act selfishly. I dunno why people think that what works for them MUST apply to everyone. Oh wait, I do know. It's because they are self-centred, self-absorbed, and thinks the world revolves around them, their needs, their priorities, their interests.
The reasonable, rational approach would have been to ask the the pre-school you are considering enrolling your children in, about their programme, or if you want to be specific about it, ask them straight out if they schedule afternoon naps. And if they do, and everything else is fine and meets your needs or your children's needs, you can enrol them in that pre-school.
Instead you choose to ask the AUTHORITIES if they have guidelines on napping? Because they know your children better? Or they know that ALL children need afternoon naps? That all children are the same? Or that this need supercedes all other needs? Or your need has precedence over other parents' needs and priorities?
While you are at it, can you ask MOM about scheduling afternoon naps in the workplace?
Thank you.]
Sunday, November 30, 2014
On Family, Community, Respect, Tolerance, and Compromise
[So someone writes in to TODAY with a nostalgic wish to return to "Family and Community Values"... Ah, the good ole days, when men were men and families were strong (or else daddy will whack the shit out of you), and people were moral, dammit! Moral, not this hedonistic, self-centred moral relativism. I'm paraphrasing here cos I get the sense simply of his... well, read it for yourself:]
A Singapore Family requires community interest, shared morality
HAN JUNWEI -
NOVEMBER 27
I approve of the Social and Family Development Minister’s call for us to be a Singapore Family, as opposed to mere “economic sojourners”. (“Seize opportunities, but remember to give back to society: Chan Chun Sing”; Nov 22, Channel NewsAsia)
[Thank you for your approval, Mr President.]
The powerful imagery of family is to do with solidarity, community and love. But this symbolism lies deeper than providing an emotional appeal. It envisages community to be more than a collection of individuals, and community interest to be more than the multilateralist self-interest of people.
In a family, one does not merely assert rights, but also acknowledges mutual responsibilities. Family members do not stand apart, each given to their own ends, but rather work together with a collective wisdom under which all participate.
A Singapore Family would have its distinct character based on the shared understanding, aspirations and attachments of the people, as well as a shared morality which influences societal structure and government policy.
The ideas of community interest and shared morality are important, allowing us to ban websites such as Ashley Madison or to have the Maintenance of Parents Act. These decisions exemplify the community interest and show how we place no value, for instance, in the freedom to commit adultery.
This philosophy of a Singapore Family can be contrasted with Western liberalism, which relies largely on a subjective notion of morality and individualised notions of good.
While the promise of greater liberty is intuitively appealing, scholars have often criticised these concepts as being incoherent or hedonistic. If everything is subjective, then Plato is indistinguishable from pornography.
[It takes incredible mental ability to see Plato as pornography. I just see him as an old man. But I guess to each his own.]
As Singapore approaches its jubilee, I encourage Singaporeans to view themselves not only as individuals, but also as family members in a community. A Singapore Family requires a buy-in, a desire to play a part in this larger community, from ourselves, the stakeholders in this society. It cannot simply be a top-down initiative.
We must also remember that while strength and comfort is found in family, there is often sacrifice too.
[And people say propaganda doesn't work! Here is prime evidence that it does! Or maybe you need to be a certain age...
Anyway, the letter below was a reply to his "nostalgia"... or moral irredentism (?)]
------------
Community interest should not become tyranny of the majority
The values our Singapore Family will need, through good times and bad, are tolerance, respect and compromise.
ANGELINE WONG HUI WEI
NOVEMBER 28, 2014
Like the writer of “A Singapore Family requires community interest, shared morality” (Nov 27), I agree with the call for Singaporeans to unite as one Singapore Family.
The writer emphasises how community interest and shared morality are key elements of a Singapore Family, and distinguishes these from the Western concepts of individuality and subjectivity. I would caution, though, against imposing such artificial distinctions.
One cannot be said to be better than the other. Indeed, it would be detrimental to Singapore and Singaporeans if we swing to the extreme and pay heed only to one end of the spectrum.
We must be careful, for example, to avoid letting community interest — itself a nebulous, subjective concept — be used as a pretext to run down anything which the majority disagrees with, as this would transform Singapore into a tyranny of the majority.
Community interest is often based on the views of the many. Many opposed the civil rights movement and the fight against slavery — two stark examples of how they can be wrong.
We must also be careful to avoid letting our pursuit of shared morality — another ambiguous concept — be used to suppress diversity and inclusiveness in our Singapore Family.
We should take a clear moral stand on some issues, say, murder. But it would be foolish to imagine we could establish a common morality for most issues, unless one group decides to impose their version of morality on others.
The values our Singapore Family will need, through good times and bad, are tolerance, respect and compromise, the same values that brought us to where we are today.
----------
[I do not disagree with the second writer. If her point was to caution against moral irredentism, of the futility of returning to the past, or wishing for the good old days, she is right.
However, her conclusion is clichèd. Cookie-cutter, uncritical prescription: Tolerance, Respect, and Compromise.
It is similar to the prescription from Kishore Mahbubani - "to develop a political culture based on compromise and consensus".
I fear he seems to be missing the point.
The fact is consensus today is elusive, if not outright unobtainable.
Singaporeans aren't able to compromise even within the same religion (see the second example on the tudong issue), or even if they have the same values (animal welfare), they do not agree on their agenda. If they could why, is there a proliferation of animal welfare societies? SOSD, ACRES, CWS, etc? And when SPCA declared that a "severed cat" was probably the victim of stray dogs, there was disbelief. It was "easier" to believe that there is a psychopathic cat killer doing the unnatural, than some dogs doing what is natural? And that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is out to cover up animal cruelty?
Compromise is easy to prescribed.
But really, when it comes down to values, how does one compromise on one's value?
When values are on the line, compromise is next to impossible.]
A Singapore Family requires community interest, shared morality
HAN JUNWEI -
NOVEMBER 27
I approve of the Social and Family Development Minister’s call for us to be a Singapore Family, as opposed to mere “economic sojourners”. (“Seize opportunities, but remember to give back to society: Chan Chun Sing”; Nov 22, Channel NewsAsia)
[Thank you for your approval, Mr President.]
The powerful imagery of family is to do with solidarity, community and love. But this symbolism lies deeper than providing an emotional appeal. It envisages community to be more than a collection of individuals, and community interest to be more than the multilateralist self-interest of people.
In a family, one does not merely assert rights, but also acknowledges mutual responsibilities. Family members do not stand apart, each given to their own ends, but rather work together with a collective wisdom under which all participate.
A Singapore Family would have its distinct character based on the shared understanding, aspirations and attachments of the people, as well as a shared morality which influences societal structure and government policy.
The ideas of community interest and shared morality are important, allowing us to ban websites such as Ashley Madison or to have the Maintenance of Parents Act. These decisions exemplify the community interest and show how we place no value, for instance, in the freedom to commit adultery.
This philosophy of a Singapore Family can be contrasted with Western liberalism, which relies largely on a subjective notion of morality and individualised notions of good.
While the promise of greater liberty is intuitively appealing, scholars have often criticised these concepts as being incoherent or hedonistic. If everything is subjective, then Plato is indistinguishable from pornography.
[It takes incredible mental ability to see Plato as pornography. I just see him as an old man. But I guess to each his own.]
As Singapore approaches its jubilee, I encourage Singaporeans to view themselves not only as individuals, but also as family members in a community. A Singapore Family requires a buy-in, a desire to play a part in this larger community, from ourselves, the stakeholders in this society. It cannot simply be a top-down initiative.
We must also remember that while strength and comfort is found in family, there is often sacrifice too.
[And people say propaganda doesn't work! Here is prime evidence that it does! Or maybe you need to be a certain age...
Anyway, the letter below was a reply to his "nostalgia"... or moral irredentism (?)]
------------
Community interest should not become tyranny of the majority
The values our Singapore Family will need, through good times and bad, are tolerance, respect and compromise.
ANGELINE WONG HUI WEI
NOVEMBER 28, 2014
Like the writer of “A Singapore Family requires community interest, shared morality” (Nov 27), I agree with the call for Singaporeans to unite as one Singapore Family.
The writer emphasises how community interest and shared morality are key elements of a Singapore Family, and distinguishes these from the Western concepts of individuality and subjectivity. I would caution, though, against imposing such artificial distinctions.
One cannot be said to be better than the other. Indeed, it would be detrimental to Singapore and Singaporeans if we swing to the extreme and pay heed only to one end of the spectrum.
We must be careful, for example, to avoid letting community interest — itself a nebulous, subjective concept — be used as a pretext to run down anything which the majority disagrees with, as this would transform Singapore into a tyranny of the majority.
Community interest is often based on the views of the many. Many opposed the civil rights movement and the fight against slavery — two stark examples of how they can be wrong.
We must also be careful to avoid letting our pursuit of shared morality — another ambiguous concept — be used to suppress diversity and inclusiveness in our Singapore Family.
We should take a clear moral stand on some issues, say, murder. But it would be foolish to imagine we could establish a common morality for most issues, unless one group decides to impose their version of morality on others.
The values our Singapore Family will need, through good times and bad, are tolerance, respect and compromise, the same values that brought us to where we are today.
----------
[I do not disagree with the second writer. If her point was to caution against moral irredentism, of the futility of returning to the past, or wishing for the good old days, she is right.
However, her conclusion is clichèd. Cookie-cutter, uncritical prescription: Tolerance, Respect, and Compromise.
It is similar to the prescription from Kishore Mahbubani - "to develop a political culture based on compromise and consensus".
I fear he seems to be missing the point.
The fact is consensus today is elusive, if not outright unobtainable.
Singaporeans aren't able to compromise even within the same religion (see the second example on the tudong issue), or even if they have the same values (animal welfare), they do not agree on their agenda. If they could why, is there a proliferation of animal welfare societies? SOSD, ACRES, CWS, etc? And when SPCA declared that a "severed cat" was probably the victim of stray dogs, there was disbelief. It was "easier" to believe that there is a psychopathic cat killer doing the unnatural, than some dogs doing what is natural? And that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is out to cover up animal cruelty?
Compromise is easy to prescribed.
But really, when it comes down to values, how does one compromise on one's value?
When values are on the line, compromise is next to impossible.]
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Can the aerostat hold up in conflict?
PETER LOON SENG CHEE
NOVEMBER 6
I refer to the report, “Powerful balloon radar to help watch over Singapore” (Oct 29), that we will be using a helium balloon to monitor our skies.
While this is financially a good move, as it promises to cost millions less than our current radar systems, I wonder about its vulnerability to attacks.
Many armies have used balloons before, but history has shown that a large, slow-moving object can be a sweet target for enemies.
If any enemies were to fire missiles or send aircraft to shoot the aerostat down and it should fall into an urban area, it could cause havoc and damage.
[Yes. That is generally the point of warfare, bombing attacks, and weapons of mass destruction.]
Furthermore, if it is lost early in any conflict, then we lose any advantage we have.
Manpower efficiency is vital in a small country, and we want to maximise the use of our troops. But we also want to ensure that our forces can withstand any initial assault, allowing us to respond swiftly and decisively.
Any such balloon must be backed by early-warning aircraft. Some costs are worth bearing.
[This is so silly, I don't know how to start. I think I'll just leave it as it is. Some things are too easy, it just isn't worth it.]
NOVEMBER 6
I refer to the report, “Powerful balloon radar to help watch over Singapore” (Oct 29), that we will be using a helium balloon to monitor our skies.
While this is financially a good move, as it promises to cost millions less than our current radar systems, I wonder about its vulnerability to attacks.
Many armies have used balloons before, but history has shown that a large, slow-moving object can be a sweet target for enemies.
If any enemies were to fire missiles or send aircraft to shoot the aerostat down and it should fall into an urban area, it could cause havoc and damage.
[Yes. That is generally the point of warfare, bombing attacks, and weapons of mass destruction.]
Furthermore, if it is lost early in any conflict, then we lose any advantage we have.
Manpower efficiency is vital in a small country, and we want to maximise the use of our troops. But we also want to ensure that our forces can withstand any initial assault, allowing us to respond swiftly and decisively.
Any such balloon must be backed by early-warning aircraft. Some costs are worth bearing.
[This is so silly, I don't know how to start. I think I'll just leave it as it is. Some things are too easy, it just isn't worth it.]
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Hawker food no longer has 'soul'
[An old forum letter from July. I can appreciate the sentiment, but no real solutions offered. ]
Jul 20, 2014
I support Penang's plan to ban foreigners from being hired as cooks at hawker stalls, to protect its food heritage ("Penang may ban foreign cooks at hawker stalls"; last Sunday).
In Singapore, too many types of traditional fare are disappearing. Our food is also being "bastardised", from roti prata to Teochew fishball noodles.
Traditional ingredients are shunned, and faster cooking methods are being used.
Indeed, one need look no farther than our foodcourts to see that our food no longer has "soul".
This sad state of affairs is not due solely to the presence of foreign cooks on the hawker scene. Other factors include the lack of pride in maintaining standards and the lack of Singaporeans willing to become hawkers.
If we do not intervene to turn back the tide, our taste buds will suffer.
Barring hawker stallholders from subletting their stalls will not slow down the dilution of our food culture. A stallholder can easily employ cheap foreign labour to helm the stall while he takes a back seat.
In order to maintain the standard of our hawker food, which has fed and made generations of Singaporeans happy, the Government should follow Penang in not allowing foreign cooks to helm hawker stalls.
If the Government deems this ban too drastic to be applied islandwide, it should at least apply this rule to new hawker centres.
To sweeten the deal, rentals in new hawker centres should be kept affordable, to minimise increases in food prices.
Let's work together to preserve our food heritage for future generations to savour!
Colin Loh
"Let's work together"? Really? How do you propose to "Work Together"?
You wanna be a hawker?
Yes, you are right. There is a lack of Singaporeans who are willing to be hawkers.
Are you willing? Any of your siblings want to be a hawker? How about your children if you have any or when you have children? Would you encourage them to take up hawkering?
From this blog piece:
So did this guy in his forum letter.
And my response:
The corollary to that quote is: For every complex problem there are at least 3 billion idiots who
How to check if you are one of the 3 billion idiots: Ask 5 of your friends how to solve the problem. If even one of them has the same solution as you, you are an idiot. (If all 5 of them have the same answer, you are DEFINITELY an idiot.)
Let's say you are not an idiot. Say the solution really is to have more Singaporeans take up hawkering. What's stopping them?
What's a hawker? Someone who cooks great food and charges affordable prices. Correct?
If he cooks great food and charges high prices, he would be a chef no? If he can't cook great food, he is just a dilettante, right?
So, the question is, why won't Singaporeans cook great food for very little money? In a non-air-conditioned environment (to save on costs)?
Is the answer obvious now?
I am sure there will still be Singaporeans who want to be hawkers. Just not enough to sustain the "hawker" culture or ecology of the 70s and 80s... or even the 90s.
You want soul food? Food with soul? And you are looking to hawkers to make it for you?
There will be two trajectories for hawkers.
New Hawkers from Philippines and China will be selling what they know how to cook. You're already seeing them. There are Filipino hawker stalls selling Filipino cuisine, and PRC stalls and restaurants selling regional specialties. They will sell to their community, and they will keep the prices low because that is what their countrymen can afford with their lower wages.
You can try to expand your gastronomic horizons and try these new offerings.
Local "hawkers" will be upgrading themselves. They want to be chefs, be respected, have decent reasonable working hours, while making enough money to give their families a reasonable standard of living. You could enjoy these good ole "soul" food, if you can find these new "hawker-chefs", and you were willing to pay the "reasonable prices" they will be asking.
The other way to enjoy good soul food - learn to cook it yourself.
Many of the "soul" food were family recipes, which were eventually shared with the public at family run restaurants and foodstalls.
Time for the trend to reverse itself.
Jul 20, 2014
I support Penang's plan to ban foreigners from being hired as cooks at hawker stalls, to protect its food heritage ("Penang may ban foreign cooks at hawker stalls"; last Sunday).
In Singapore, too many types of traditional fare are disappearing. Our food is also being "bastardised", from roti prata to Teochew fishball noodles.
Traditional ingredients are shunned, and faster cooking methods are being used.
Indeed, one need look no farther than our foodcourts to see that our food no longer has "soul".
This sad state of affairs is not due solely to the presence of foreign cooks on the hawker scene. Other factors include the lack of pride in maintaining standards and the lack of Singaporeans willing to become hawkers.
If we do not intervene to turn back the tide, our taste buds will suffer.
Barring hawker stallholders from subletting their stalls will not slow down the dilution of our food culture. A stallholder can easily employ cheap foreign labour to helm the stall while he takes a back seat.
In order to maintain the standard of our hawker food, which has fed and made generations of Singaporeans happy, the Government should follow Penang in not allowing foreign cooks to helm hawker stalls.
If the Government deems this ban too drastic to be applied islandwide, it should at least apply this rule to new hawker centres.
To sweeten the deal, rentals in new hawker centres should be kept affordable, to minimise increases in food prices.
Let's work together to preserve our food heritage for future generations to savour!
Colin Loh
"Let's work together"? Really? How do you propose to "Work Together"?
You wanna be a hawker?
Yes, you are right. There is a lack of Singaporeans who are willing to be hawkers.
Are you willing? Any of your siblings want to be a hawker? How about your children if you have any or when you have children? Would you encourage them to take up hawkering?
From this blog piece:
Wanted
Hawkers. Be your own BOSS! Must be capable of cooking EXCELLENT food at affordable prices. Willing to work up to 18 hours a day. Minimal rest days (maybe twice a month). No promotion prospects. No career advancement. (But hey, you're already your own boss!) No CPF! (You can decide how much to put in yourself!) Successful candidates should have:
- Good memory for faces and orders
- Able to do simple math on the fly (make change without calculator).
- Diverse language skills (Mandarin/Malay and English at least, dialects an advantage).
- Logistics and management skills an asset - no training provided except on-the-job learning by trial and error.
- HR experience also an asset. The successful hawker may have to hire stall assistants, deal with MOM if they are foreign workers. Deal with CPF and IRAS regarding their wages. Prepare and manage their work schedules.
Challenging work environment (likely no air con, slaving over a hot stove, risk of rat and other pest infestation if stall not properly maintained and clean - ENV officers will be checking on your stall's cleanliness; possible unreasonable customers with "special" requests (e.g. Mee Siam mai hum), possible disputes/disagreements with neighbouring hawkers, town councils, MPs, new media.)So you think low rent is the solution?
So did this guy in his forum letter.
And my response:
Yes. Rent is one aspect of costs. But thinking that controlling rent will reduce costs is simplistic at best and assumes hawkers are idiots.To quote H. L. Mencken: "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."
Look at any rent-controlled hawker stalls where the hawkers either bought their stall about 25 years ago (and so pay no rent, and so have sole control over their rent costs) or are "legacy" hawkers who were given 30-year rent-controlled leases that are a fraction of the open market value of their stalls.
Yes, their prices ARE lower.
But what are their operating hours? Because their rent is low, they only need to cover their variable costs. After they have earned enough, they close for the day and take it easy. Do I blame them? Of course not! Hawkering is a tiring and trying job, and most of them have been at it for years. They deserve to take it easy in their silver years.
The corollary to that quote is: For every complex problem there are at least 3 billion idiots who
a) think they understand the complexity of the problem;
b) think they have the clear, simple, and obvious answer; and
c) think everyone else is obtuse for not seeing the obvious solution they are proposing.
How to check if you are one of the 3 billion idiots: Ask 5 of your friends how to solve the problem. If even one of them has the same solution as you, you are an idiot. (If all 5 of them have the same answer, you are DEFINITELY an idiot.)
Let's say you are not an idiot. Say the solution really is to have more Singaporeans take up hawkering. What's stopping them?
What's a hawker? Someone who cooks great food and charges affordable prices. Correct?
If he cooks great food and charges high prices, he would be a chef no? If he can't cook great food, he is just a dilettante, right?
So, the question is, why won't Singaporeans cook great food for very little money? In a non-air-conditioned environment (to save on costs)?
Is the answer obvious now?
I am sure there will still be Singaporeans who want to be hawkers. Just not enough to sustain the "hawker" culture or ecology of the 70s and 80s... or even the 90s.
You want soul food? Food with soul? And you are looking to hawkers to make it for you?
There will be two trajectories for hawkers.
New Hawkers from Philippines and China will be selling what they know how to cook. You're already seeing them. There are Filipino hawker stalls selling Filipino cuisine, and PRC stalls and restaurants selling regional specialties. They will sell to their community, and they will keep the prices low because that is what their countrymen can afford with their lower wages.
You can try to expand your gastronomic horizons and try these new offerings.
Local "hawkers" will be upgrading themselves. They want to be chefs, be respected, have decent reasonable working hours, while making enough money to give their families a reasonable standard of living. You could enjoy these good ole "soul" food, if you can find these new "hawker-chefs", and you were willing to pay the "reasonable prices" they will be asking.
The other way to enjoy good soul food - learn to cook it yourself.
Many of the "soul" food were family recipes, which were eventually shared with the public at family run restaurants and foodstalls.
Time for the trend to reverse itself.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Second city for S'pore makes long-term sense
AUG 22, 2014
THERE has been a recent surge of property projects in Johor Baru and Iskandar Malaysia targeting Singaporeans.
As the world is becoming borderless, more of us will be investing in businesses and properties abroad.
Developments in the region, in some ways, complement and widen our economic opportunities.
But we should also put more efforts to redevelop Singapore.
THERE has been a recent surge of property projects in Johor Baru and Iskandar Malaysia targeting Singaporeans.
As the world is becoming borderless, more of us will be investing in businesses and properties abroad.
Developments in the region, in some ways, complement and widen our economic opportunities.
But we should also put more efforts to redevelop Singapore.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Is Singapore a Winner Take All Society?
[Two letters and an editorial piece. If you're here to read my usual rant, apologies. This will be a... calmer post. Partly because the issue is an important one. We'll start backwards. I read the original article by Lydia Lim (it's the second article in the link). Thought about it, but left it simmering at the back of my mind. I missed the letter supporting her article. Then I saw this "rebuttal":]
Jul 03, 2014
Even well before the recent shift to "left of centre", Singapore's brand of capitalism was far more benign than the United States' or even Hong Kong's version.
The HDB provided roofs over most Singaporeans' heads, with mortgage payments pegged at sustainable portions of their monthly incomes.
Schools provided virtually free education. No pupil was denied the education he deserved because of financial difficulties, and the ablest from the humblest backgrounds got to study at Oxbridge on the state's account.
No one was left dying in the street because he had no insurance, and no government hospital delayed an urgent costly operation because of doubts over the patient's ability to pay.
Have winners now taken all in Singapore?
If that had happened, newly married couples would not be buying HDB flats (and making a profit five years later), but renting from winners-turned-landlords for years on end.
Winners' children, instead of having to ace the Primary School Leaving Examination, would just be a donation cheque away from the secondary schools of their choice.
And winners would be treated in private hospitals that would have cornered the best doctors and equipment, condemning the rest to inferior public hospitals with third-rate doctors and outdated equipment.
The Government, while allowing meritocracy to create wealth, has not hesitated to transfer wealth from the successful to the less successful. Such transfers have been growing in recent years.
It is dangerous to focus on what the successful can have that the less successful cannot have, instead of what the less successful can have compared to any reasonable benchmark.
The bell curve naturally separates the successful from the rest, so the only way to give similar rewards to both the successful and less successful is to level down the former, but this will not help the latter.
For us to stay together as a community, wealth transfer from the successful to the less successful is essential.
But instead of targeting some pre-determined income gap or Gini coefficient, such transfers must aim at ensuring that the least successful among us live healthy, productive and dignified lives based on a reasonable benchmark, with opportunities for advancement open to them if they apply themselves to the fullest.
A fair and just society is not one in which no one can live better than his neighbour. Such social resentment, which some commentators appear to be encouraging, will bring Singapore to its knees.
Cheng Shoong Tat
Jun 28, 2014
[I get the sense of at least mild impatience at the "liberal-minded", but generally, the above echoes the position of the govt generally, and possibly many if not most Singaporeans.
However, I note his assertion that there are "opportunities for advancement... if they apply themselves to the fullest."
This is similar to the quote attributed to S. Rajaratnam: "Everyone can be rich if they try hard."
This would suggest though, that if you are not rich, you didn't try hard enough.
So then, why should we transfer wealth to the less successful? Obviously they are less successful because they didn't try hard enough, that they didn't "apply themselves to the fullest". And if so, why should we transfer wealth to you, you lazy bum?
That is the inconsistency in his argument.]
I CANNOT agree more with political editor Lydia Lim on the need to change our social and cultural values so that we can limit the adverse effect of meritocracy turning Singapore into a winner-take-all society ("Long-term task to fix winner-take-all mindset"; Sunday).
We need meritocracy to spur success. It was the economic model since our nation's independence 49 years ago.
But to evolve into a winner-take-all society is utterly bad for national unity.
It leads to a divisive population and reduces trust in government.
It is one in which there is superior financial advantage for those at the top but if you are second or further down the hierarchy, you get nothing comparable, however good.
Having benefited from meritocracy, I was enlightened by Occupy Wall Street - the protest movement in New York that brought to light some of the social ills of unabated American capitalism, such as the widening income gap and stunted social mobility.
[Note: He seems to equate Meritocracy with Capitalism (unabated or otherwise. Bated?). BUT, he has not defined either, nor has he implicitly or explicitly explained how meritocracy equal capitalism. ]
Singapore's Gini coefficient - a measure of income inequality - is among the highest in the world, so there is every cause for concern.
While we should not stoke class resentments, rational dialogue among the top-echelon citizens should begin sooner rather than later. More data and research are needed so that discussions can be more productive - beyond rhetoric.
[Note: "class resentments". Together with the out of left field jibe at "capitalism", I am suspicious of this shadow communist! :-). But I can agree to get beyond rhetoric.]
When convinced, I believe more affluent Singaporeans are prepared to make adjustments for a more equitable society.
We can explore how to further improve our economic mechanisms to distribute wealth more fairly.
Edmund Lam (Dr)
[One line from Lydia Lim's opinion piece was that we:
Jul 03, 2014
S'pore has never been winner-take-all society
SINCE when has Singapore ever been a winner-take-all society ("Engage now for a more equitable society" by Dr Edmund Lam; last Saturday)?Even well before the recent shift to "left of centre", Singapore's brand of capitalism was far more benign than the United States' or even Hong Kong's version.
The HDB provided roofs over most Singaporeans' heads, with mortgage payments pegged at sustainable portions of their monthly incomes.
Schools provided virtually free education. No pupil was denied the education he deserved because of financial difficulties, and the ablest from the humblest backgrounds got to study at Oxbridge on the state's account.
No one was left dying in the street because he had no insurance, and no government hospital delayed an urgent costly operation because of doubts over the patient's ability to pay.
Have winners now taken all in Singapore?
If that had happened, newly married couples would not be buying HDB flats (and making a profit five years later), but renting from winners-turned-landlords for years on end.
Winners' children, instead of having to ace the Primary School Leaving Examination, would just be a donation cheque away from the secondary schools of their choice.
And winners would be treated in private hospitals that would have cornered the best doctors and equipment, condemning the rest to inferior public hospitals with third-rate doctors and outdated equipment.
The Government, while allowing meritocracy to create wealth, has not hesitated to transfer wealth from the successful to the less successful. Such transfers have been growing in recent years.
It is dangerous to focus on what the successful can have that the less successful cannot have, instead of what the less successful can have compared to any reasonable benchmark.
The bell curve naturally separates the successful from the rest, so the only way to give similar rewards to both the successful and less successful is to level down the former, but this will not help the latter.
For us to stay together as a community, wealth transfer from the successful to the less successful is essential.
But instead of targeting some pre-determined income gap or Gini coefficient, such transfers must aim at ensuring that the least successful among us live healthy, productive and dignified lives based on a reasonable benchmark, with opportunities for advancement open to them if they apply themselves to the fullest.
A fair and just society is not one in which no one can live better than his neighbour. Such social resentment, which some commentators appear to be encouraging, will bring Singapore to its knees.
Cheng Shoong Tat
Jun 28, 2014
[I get the sense of at least mild impatience at the "liberal-minded", but generally, the above echoes the position of the govt generally, and possibly many if not most Singaporeans.
However, I note his assertion that there are "opportunities for advancement... if they apply themselves to the fullest."
This is similar to the quote attributed to S. Rajaratnam: "Everyone can be rich if they try hard."
This would suggest though, that if you are not rich, you didn't try hard enough.
So then, why should we transfer wealth to the less successful? Obviously they are less successful because they didn't try hard enough, that they didn't "apply themselves to the fullest". And if so, why should we transfer wealth to you, you lazy bum?
That is the inconsistency in his argument.]
Engage now for a more equitable society
I CANNOT agree more with political editor Lydia Lim on the need to change our social and cultural values so that we can limit the adverse effect of meritocracy turning Singapore into a winner-take-all society ("Long-term task to fix winner-take-all mindset"; Sunday).
We need meritocracy to spur success. It was the economic model since our nation's independence 49 years ago.
But to evolve into a winner-take-all society is utterly bad for national unity.
It leads to a divisive population and reduces trust in government.
It is one in which there is superior financial advantage for those at the top but if you are second or further down the hierarchy, you get nothing comparable, however good.
Having benefited from meritocracy, I was enlightened by Occupy Wall Street - the protest movement in New York that brought to light some of the social ills of unabated American capitalism, such as the widening income gap and stunted social mobility.
[Note: He seems to equate Meritocracy with Capitalism (unabated or otherwise. Bated?). BUT, he has not defined either, nor has he implicitly or explicitly explained how meritocracy equal capitalism. ]
Singapore's Gini coefficient - a measure of income inequality - is among the highest in the world, so there is every cause for concern.
While we should not stoke class resentments, rational dialogue among the top-echelon citizens should begin sooner rather than later. More data and research are needed so that discussions can be more productive - beyond rhetoric.
[Note: "class resentments". Together with the out of left field jibe at "capitalism", I am suspicious of this shadow communist! :-). But I can agree to get beyond rhetoric.]
When convinced, I believe more affluent Singaporeans are prepared to make adjustments for a more equitable society.
We can explore how to further improve our economic mechanisms to distribute wealth more fairly.
Edmund Lam (Dr)
[One line from Lydia Lim's opinion piece was that we:
"...live in a meritocracy which has to date stressed that the talented deserve to be richly rewarded for their efforts."That on the face of it seems reasonable. But I have found that as I grow older, I have started to ask, "and what does the flip side of that mean?"
If success is the reward for the talented, the able, the hardworking, the deserving, then the flip side of it is that failure is the outcome for the talentless, the incapable, the lazy, and the undeserving.
And that is the Just World Belief working its way into our psyche.
Think about it. When you see a poor person, do you think, "poor guy, he has been so unlucky in life. Let me give him a little something to make his life less miserable."
Or do you think, "Get a job!"
I am always impressed by people who give to the poor. Their hearts are untainted.
Me? I think "Get a job!" and suspect that they are part of a begging syndicate. I have grown cynical. My heart is tainted.
If you click on the link in "Just World Belief", it will take you to an article about Meritocracy. And this conclusion:
And that is the Just World Belief working its way into our psyche.
Think about it. When you see a poor person, do you think, "poor guy, he has been so unlucky in life. Let me give him a little something to make his life less miserable."
Or do you think, "Get a job!"
I am always impressed by people who give to the poor. Their hearts are untainted.
Me? I think "Get a job!" and suspect that they are part of a begging syndicate. I have grown cynical. My heart is tainted.
If you click on the link in "Just World Belief", it will take you to an article about Meritocracy. And this conclusion:
In short, Meritocracy has the following flaws or negative effects:
First it engenders a Just World Belief. It leads people to judge "failures" or "unsuccessful" people as "meriting" their lower status, their poorer status... if you subscribe to meritocracy, you intuitively believe that "Everyone can be rich if they try hard." And the corollary to that is, "if you're not rich, you did not try hard enough". Or is not good enough. And so you deserved to be poor, to be unsuccessful.
Secondly, it justifies class differences. Singaporeans then become a "stratified" society that justifies Social Strata with meritocracy, and the Just World Belief. That is, not only are there "high-class" and "low-class" people in Singapore, but these classes were determined not by some unfair caste system or hereditary status, but by the VERY FAIR meritocratic system.
Thirdly, Singaporeans [well, most Singaporeans] become very hardhearted, judgmental, punitive, unsympathetic, and justify their attitude with Meritocracy and their Just World Belief.
The other point in the article is that there is often an element of luck in Success, but having succeeded we do not like to believe that we were just lucky. We reframe the narrative of our success such that it was an inevitable success. Destiny even.
But there is an element of luck in almost all success stories. And we should remind ourselves, that meritocracy or not, we had also been lucky.
Watch the Youtube video of Michael Lewis at the graduation ceremony. It is enlightening. If you don't have 13 minutes to spare, watch from 6:13 and watch for about a minute. Then if that piques your interest and you can watch from the start.
The first writer (the shadow Communist) has a point though. Although "Welfare" is a dirty word in SG, the SG govt does provide some welfare. The question is, should SG provide more welfare?
Then there's Thomas Piketty's hypothesis that Capitalism inherently favours the Capitalists (this sounds a lot more obvious when stated this way)]
But there is an element of luck in almost all success stories. And we should remind ourselves, that meritocracy or not, we had also been lucky.
Watch the Youtube video of Michael Lewis at the graduation ceremony. It is enlightening. If you don't have 13 minutes to spare, watch from 6:13 and watch for about a minute. Then if that piques your interest and you can watch from the start.
The first writer (the shadow Communist) has a point though. Although "Welfare" is a dirty word in SG, the SG govt does provide some welfare. The question is, should SG provide more welfare?
Then there's Thomas Piketty's hypothesis that Capitalism inherently favours the Capitalists (this sounds a lot more obvious when stated this way)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)