Ng Ya Ken
13 July
Schools may be an “instigator” of stress among our children, as pointed out in “Are schools going too far in the quest for accolades?” (July 12), but the schools are not wholly to blame.
Schools respond to what our parents and society expect them to achieve: Better academic results year after year.
Academic results are much emphasised in our society because students must be in the top quarter or so of their cohort to have the chance to go to our universities now. And this group can earn far more over a lifetime than those without a degree.
There are exceptions, but they remain as exceptions.
However, in countries where academic results and having a degree are not as important in getting good paying jobs as in Singapore, the gap between white-collar and blue-collar workers is small, if any.
And it is common for salaries of skilled technical jobs to exceed those of general white-collar jobs.
[This letter is... too complicated - it's the most generous I can get. To summarise, the point the writer is making is a) schools are stressful, because b) you need academic qualifications in order to c) get a good paying job, otherwise, d) you drop out and get a crappy paying job, which is really bad because e) Singapore's pay differential between a grad and and non-grad is very wide. Whereas, f) in other countries skilled technicians can earn MORE than a grad. Therefore, (g) we should pay our technicians more.]
In Australia, the mining, engineering and construction industries pay better than legal, marketing, banking, accounting and government jobs. Also, the entry-level pay of a manager can be only one-quarter higher than that of an executive assistant
In Sweden, a doctor earns only double that of a teacher or a nurse.
Over time, if Singapore could raise the salaries of skilled technical jobs, more of our young would switch to technical training in polytechnics and vocational schools. They could then pursue careers according to their inclination and aspiration.
We should make these career options, as well as jobs in music, the arts, design and the like, more viable. This would be an important step towards a more balanced and less stressful education system.
Such tweaks in our pay structure would tame our Gini coefficient, though it may have implications for our economic competitiveness.
If the long-term social and political benefits outweigh the costs and inconveniences, it would warrant our consideration.
[I wonder if people who suggests such ideas (and the people who support such ideas) really know what it means.
First of all, the examples are irrelevant: "Mining, Engineering, and Construction".
We don't have Mining.
Engineering pays quite well, and Construction is mainly filled by foreign workers.
The proper examples for SG might well be, Hawkers, Sales persons, and Property Agents. I could be wrong. What do students who fail to get a degree go on to do in SG?
Let's take Hawkers. Obviously this is a respectable profession. 2 out of 3 hawkers (I may be generalising here) can beat a michelin-starred chef.
How much does a michelin-starred chef make and how much does a hawker make?
If we can all agree that the hawker should have a higher income (comparable to a michelin-starred chef), that would be great.
Now, - here's the reality check, this is where you put your money where your mouth (or keyboard typing fingers) is - how many of you are willing to pay $24 for a bowl of laksa so our hawkers can have a more decent wage for the job they are doing which is BETTER than a michelin-starred chef?
Anybody?
How about $20?
$16?
In any case the complicated argument lost most readers, and response from readers... went off on different tangents. ]
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
No solution for eateries flouting rules?
Jul 10, 2013
I WAS amazed to read the report ("Steamboat outlet faces closure for repeatedly obstructing walkway"; July 1).
The steamboat restaurant was fined 38 times over the last three years and was finally given an ultimatum.
However, other restaurants in the vicinity are still operating outdoor dining areas right alongside the road.
A waiter was quoted as saying: "If we can't operate outside, it's the end for us."
It would appear that the authorities' primary concern is issuing penalties for persistent flouting of the rules, while noise disturbances, public hygiene issues, general disamenities to the public and perhaps even danger to road users continue unabated.
It also seems that the operation of certain businesses in some areas cannot be carried out profitably without disregarding the rules, and this particular "problem" in Beach Road has been unresolved for several years.
Can the Urban Redevelopment Authority, Land Transport Authority and the management councils of buildings suggest solutions?
[On the one hand we want to have a more "humane" society, with more give and take.
Then we have people who want uncompromising enforcement of the letter of the law. And when the eateries are closed down because of uncompromising enforcement of the law, the authorities will have to take the blame. And the people who asked for the enforcement of the letter of the law will quietly fade away, leaving the authorities to face the music for being "heartless". Passionless. Without Compassion or Humanity. Being overly Legalistic. Or Bureaucratic. Stone-faced enforcers of the law without understanding the needs of businesses or their patrons.
But sure. In the meantime, stridently defend your need for disturbances, nuisances, and disamenities to be dealt with to the full letter of the law.
If you want a kinder, gentler Singapore, it starts with us. Being a little more tolerant. Live and let live. Give and take. Accept a little inconvenience as part of the price of living in a thriving society/community.
Or just clean up Singapore until all disamenities and organic businesses are gone. Then complain that Singapore is so sterile. Then go to places like KL and Bangkok and Penang, and say, "Wah! They have such a thriving street food scene. Ya, it's a little messy, but it is so ALIVE! Not like Singapore. Like a hospital."
Singaporean: One who complains about everything without realising what their complain would result in.]
I WAS amazed to read the report ("Steamboat outlet faces closure for repeatedly obstructing walkway"; July 1).
The steamboat restaurant was fined 38 times over the last three years and was finally given an ultimatum.
However, other restaurants in the vicinity are still operating outdoor dining areas right alongside the road.
A waiter was quoted as saying: "If we can't operate outside, it's the end for us."
It would appear that the authorities' primary concern is issuing penalties for persistent flouting of the rules, while noise disturbances, public hygiene issues, general disamenities to the public and perhaps even danger to road users continue unabated.
It also seems that the operation of certain businesses in some areas cannot be carried out profitably without disregarding the rules, and this particular "problem" in Beach Road has been unresolved for several years.
Can the Urban Redevelopment Authority, Land Transport Authority and the management councils of buildings suggest solutions?
Derrick D'Souza
[On the one hand we want to have a more "humane" society, with more give and take.
Then we have people who want uncompromising enforcement of the letter of the law. And when the eateries are closed down because of uncompromising enforcement of the law, the authorities will have to take the blame. And the people who asked for the enforcement of the letter of the law will quietly fade away, leaving the authorities to face the music for being "heartless". Passionless. Without Compassion or Humanity. Being overly Legalistic. Or Bureaucratic. Stone-faced enforcers of the law without understanding the needs of businesses or their patrons.
But sure. In the meantime, stridently defend your need for disturbances, nuisances, and disamenities to be dealt with to the full letter of the law.
If you want a kinder, gentler Singapore, it starts with us. Being a little more tolerant. Live and let live. Give and take. Accept a little inconvenience as part of the price of living in a thriving society/community.
Or just clean up Singapore until all disamenities and organic businesses are gone. Then complain that Singapore is so sterile. Then go to places like KL and Bangkok and Penang, and say, "Wah! They have such a thriving street food scene. Ya, it's a little messy, but it is so ALIVE! Not like Singapore. Like a hospital."
Singaporean: One who complains about everything without realising what their complain would result in.]
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Meal service on SIA flight poorly timed
Jun 10, 2013
DESPITE recent complaints about Singapore Airlines' (SIA) service standards slipping, my parents insisted on taking our national carrier to Osaka for their holiday on March 22. To their horror, they experienced an appalling in-flight meal service on board SQ616.
[Yes, Jason. It was all a conspiracy to torture your parents for the convenience of the SIA cabin crew who are after all just glorified flying waitresses and waiters.
For the next trip, you should try another airline. Note what time they serve the meal or meals. And report back. Preferably you should provide a table to compare the two meal services/airlines, and your conclusion that SIA meal service is outrageous in terms of timing should be supported by how other airlines serve their meal (or meals) and what time they did so.
Otherwise your complaint cannot be taken very seriously.
BUT, here's some speculation on my part. With some known parameters.
Every flight has some risk of encountering turbulence. If turbulence is very bad, meal service would be suspended.
The hour immediately after take-off and just before landing are "no-go" for inflight service as the plane maneuvers into position. So basically, the in-flight service window is from 3 to 8 pm. It may about 30 mins to an hour to serve all the passengers (depending on the size/capacity of the plane) so the latest service can start is 7 pm.
However, there are usually customs and immigration forms to be filled up and the crew will start handing out the forms about an hour or two before landing, so that might be another consideration.
Even if you intend to start meal service at 7, the plane may suddenly encounter turbulence severe enough for the captain to suspend in-flight service at about the same time, there may NOT be meals, at all.
So you want to start earlier. The earlier you start, the more margin for dealing with unexpected turbulence. And yes, turbulence can hit more than once.
I just love Singaporeans. They are so pampered because everything here works EXACTLY as it should, and Nature here is tamed and domesticated to our wills, they never realise that we still need to consider unpredictable nature elsewhere.
Update July 2013. The same unreasonable and unrealistic expectations of Singaporeans were again manifest during the Haze of 2013. The PSI reached 401 at the highest and Singaporeans were appalled that our govt has NO PLANS to go to Indonesia and STOP the burning. ]
DESPITE recent complaints about Singapore Airlines' (SIA) service standards slipping, my parents insisted on taking our national carrier to Osaka for their holiday on March 22. To their horror, they experienced an appalling in-flight meal service on board SQ616.
There was only one meal during the flight - which was six hours and
40 minutes long - and this was served at 3pm, an hour after the plane
took off. No food was served for the rest of the flight.
[With a start like, "despite recent complaints...", I was led to believe that "to their horror" meant that service standards had NOT slipped! Disappointing!
In a movie, if you hear about "service standard slipping", it's called "foreshadowing" and at some point later in the movie you should experience the "slipped service standard" more or less firsthand (or vicariously thru the lead actor/actress)!]
The plane landed at Kansai International Airport at about 9pm, and by the time my parents cleared Customs, it was already 10.15pm. They then had to rush to catch the last train leaving the airport for Osaka and managed to have their dinner only around midnight, after much difficulty as most eateries were already closed.
My parents were terribly disappointed by SIA's poor scheduling of the meal service. Their experience led me to wonder: Did the cabin crew intentionally serve the main meal way ahead of dinner time, enabling them to get this time-consuming task out of the way?
If the cabin crew were merely following a planned schedule, it speaks poorly of SIA's in-flight service standard and suggests that the carrier has little regard for the welfare of its passengers.
Did it not occur to SIA that tourists entering a foreign country would not be able to clear customs as quickly as its flight crew and would thus have to go for hours without food?
Passengers should be treated humanely and not have to endure what my aged parents went through.
Jason Fok Wai Kwong
[With a start like, "despite recent complaints...", I was led to believe that "to their horror" meant that service standards had NOT slipped! Disappointing!
In a movie, if you hear about "service standard slipping", it's called "foreshadowing" and at some point later in the movie you should experience the "slipped service standard" more or less firsthand (or vicariously thru the lead actor/actress)!]
The plane landed at Kansai International Airport at about 9pm, and by the time my parents cleared Customs, it was already 10.15pm. They then had to rush to catch the last train leaving the airport for Osaka and managed to have their dinner only around midnight, after much difficulty as most eateries were already closed.
My parents were terribly disappointed by SIA's poor scheduling of the meal service. Their experience led me to wonder: Did the cabin crew intentionally serve the main meal way ahead of dinner time, enabling them to get this time-consuming task out of the way?
If the cabin crew were merely following a planned schedule, it speaks poorly of SIA's in-flight service standard and suggests that the carrier has little regard for the welfare of its passengers.
Did it not occur to SIA that tourists entering a foreign country would not be able to clear customs as quickly as its flight crew and would thus have to go for hours without food?
Passengers should be treated humanely and not have to endure what my aged parents went through.
Jason Fok Wai Kwong
[Yes, Jason. It was all a conspiracy to torture your parents for the convenience of the SIA cabin crew who are after all just glorified flying waitresses and waiters.
For the next trip, you should try another airline. Note what time they serve the meal or meals. And report back. Preferably you should provide a table to compare the two meal services/airlines, and your conclusion that SIA meal service is outrageous in terms of timing should be supported by how other airlines serve their meal (or meals) and what time they did so.
Otherwise your complaint cannot be taken very seriously.
BUT, here's some speculation on my part. With some known parameters.
Every flight has some risk of encountering turbulence. If turbulence is very bad, meal service would be suspended.
The hour immediately after take-off and just before landing are "no-go" for inflight service as the plane maneuvers into position. So basically, the in-flight service window is from 3 to 8 pm. It may about 30 mins to an hour to serve all the passengers (depending on the size/capacity of the plane) so the latest service can start is 7 pm.
However, there are usually customs and immigration forms to be filled up and the crew will start handing out the forms about an hour or two before landing, so that might be another consideration.
Even if you intend to start meal service at 7, the plane may suddenly encounter turbulence severe enough for the captain to suspend in-flight service at about the same time, there may NOT be meals, at all.
So you want to start earlier. The earlier you start, the more margin for dealing with unexpected turbulence. And yes, turbulence can hit more than once.
I just love Singaporeans. They are so pampered because everything here works EXACTLY as it should, and Nature here is tamed and domesticated to our wills, they never realise that we still need to consider unpredictable nature elsewhere.
Update July 2013. The same unreasonable and unrealistic expectations of Singaporeans were again manifest during the Haze of 2013. The PSI reached 401 at the highest and Singaporeans were appalled that our govt has NO PLANS to go to Indonesia and STOP the burning. ]
Friday, April 26, 2013
Why peg EPL rates to GDP per capita?
Apr 27, 2013
THE statement on Wednesday by Mr Allen Lew, chief executive of SingTel's digital life unit, stated that the service provider's English Premier League (EPL) subscription rates are the lowest relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Asia.
In fact, the rates Singapore residents pay to watch European football league matches are the highest in Asia and are comparable to those in Britain if you combine SingTel's and StarHub's sports package fees (that's the only way to watch all available European league matches).
In some countries, service providers offer free EPL broadcasts over mobile devices and personal computers. In Singapore, watching the EPL on mobile devices costs $7, and on personal computers, $12.
Can SingTel explain why fees are pegged to GDP per capita rather than pricing around the region?
Advin Kwok Ching Hoong
[Should I be kind to addicts?
I shall. They can't help themselves. It's a form of psychological dependency.
SingTel chooses to compare on the basis of GDP because, as you noted, comparing absolute prices would be disastrous for their PR reply.
Also, to be fair to SingTel, comparing simply on absolute prices would be... simplistic.
The simplistic (and childish) retort then would be, "if you think so cheap, then you go overseas and watch lah!"
Moreover, why stop at comparing only cable TV subscription? Cars are cheaper anywhere else in the region. Homes too. For the price of a 3-room flat in Singapore, you could probably get a nice landed property in Philippines. Or Sabah. Or even in Johor (please check prices as I am not a property agent).
In fact with prices so affordable in the neighbouring region, and the overcrowding in Singapore, and the always congested MRT (please check trains personally, as I usually do not use the trains), it is a wonder to me why more people do not migrate to these less expensive, less crowded places but instead choose to flock to Singapore (or stay in Singapore, if you were born here)!
So to Mr Kwok and his ilk, my question to his question would be, "Why watch the EPL in Singapore when it is cheaper to watch it anywhere else in the region?"
Unacceptable answers:
a) "Because I live here!" - You can move/migrate.
b) "My friends/families are here" - Your family/friends more important or EPL more important?
c) "I work here!" - You mean the surrounding region got no work?
d)"I can't get as good a job with as high a pay elsewhere!" - Bingo! (This is actually an acceptable answer, and it actually answers Mr Kwok's question. If there are more jobs here with better pay, the GDP will go up and EPL will be stupid to charge 3rd world rates for a 1st world economy.)]
THE statement on Wednesday by Mr Allen Lew, chief executive of SingTel's digital life unit, stated that the service provider's English Premier League (EPL) subscription rates are the lowest relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Asia.
In fact, the rates Singapore residents pay to watch European football league matches are the highest in Asia and are comparable to those in Britain if you combine SingTel's and StarHub's sports package fees (that's the only way to watch all available European league matches).
In some countries, service providers offer free EPL broadcasts over mobile devices and personal computers. In Singapore, watching the EPL on mobile devices costs $7, and on personal computers, $12.
Can SingTel explain why fees are pegged to GDP per capita rather than pricing around the region?
Advin Kwok Ching Hoong
[Should I be kind to addicts?
I shall. They can't help themselves. It's a form of psychological dependency.
SingTel chooses to compare on the basis of GDP because, as you noted, comparing absolute prices would be disastrous for their PR reply.
Also, to be fair to SingTel, comparing simply on absolute prices would be... simplistic.
The simplistic (and childish) retort then would be, "if you think so cheap, then you go overseas and watch lah!"
Moreover, why stop at comparing only cable TV subscription? Cars are cheaper anywhere else in the region. Homes too. For the price of a 3-room flat in Singapore, you could probably get a nice landed property in Philippines. Or Sabah. Or even in Johor (please check prices as I am not a property agent).
In fact with prices so affordable in the neighbouring region, and the overcrowding in Singapore, and the always congested MRT (please check trains personally, as I usually do not use the trains), it is a wonder to me why more people do not migrate to these less expensive, less crowded places but instead choose to flock to Singapore (or stay in Singapore, if you were born here)!
So to Mr Kwok and his ilk, my question to his question would be, "Why watch the EPL in Singapore when it is cheaper to watch it anywhere else in the region?"
Unacceptable answers:
a) "Because I live here!" - You can move/migrate.
b) "My friends/families are here" - Your family/friends more important or EPL more important?
c) "I work here!" - You mean the surrounding region got no work?
d)"I can't get as good a job with as high a pay elsewhere!" - Bingo! (This is actually an acceptable answer, and it actually answers Mr Kwok's question. If there are more jobs here with better pay, the GDP will go up and EPL will be stupid to charge 3rd world rates for a 1st world economy.)]
Thursday, April 4, 2013
What I want my Singapore to be
Apr 05, 2013
DURING my seven-day stay in ward 11C of Tan Tock Seng Hospital, I was taken care of by a group of registered nurses, enrolled nurses and Nanyang Polytechnic trainee nurses. They were from different countries, such as India, Malaysia and the Philippines, with varying backgrounds.
As they worked together, it was clear that they had respect for one another's differences and culture, while they discharged their duties swiftly and quietly.
This is what I want my Singapore to be.
This stay reminded me of the Singapore I grew up in - with my Chinese friends, Indian classmates and Malay neighbours. We were all very different, yet got along well.
Having been based outside Singapore for eight years, I find that people always seem to be able to spot a Singaporean from a mile away - we speak English, Hokkien and Malay all in the same sentence, and are honest, hard-working and not prone to taking unethical short-cuts.
People say this is the result of growing up in a multiracial and meritocratic country.
I would like to thank the nurses who brought warmth to my heart - Ms Mary George, Mr Kelvin Chin, Ms Felicia Yap and Mr Mohd An-nur.
Moses Tan Beng Teck
[Sadly the online comments to this letter were not very sympathetic. Most totally missed the point and went off on a tangent for their pet peeves. Do Singaporeans only appreciate Singapore after they have left Singapore for a while?
Maybe.]
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Tweaking the NCMP scheme
Mar 29, 2013
Mix of electoral systems can work
BOTH Dr Jack Lee Tsen-Ta ("Changing system not the answer"; Wednesday) and Mr Devadas Krishnadas ("Proportional representation has its limitations"; Wednesday) have made valid comments on my commentary ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).
The proportional representation system has a long established history and been adopted by more than 80 countries. The interplay of many factors, socio-economic and cultural, determines the selection of a most suitable system to meet the needs of a nation.
[The "interplay of many factors" therefore undermines and renders irrelevant your "long established history" and "adopted by more than 80 countries" point. If the "interplay" determines the most suitable system, then what was the point of the preceding point? Verbose fillers?]
In Singapore, the first-past-the-post method has served us well, and it was never my intention to propose a replacement of the existing system by proportional representation.
However, a tweaking of the system by modifying the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme may add value and help solve the problem of scouting for capable people to stand for elections.
The suggestion of adding 10 NCMPs is merely an example; it could be increased to a greater number after we have gained adequate experience in future.
It is incorrect to say that "first-past-the-post" and "proportional representation" cannot be mixed.
There are a number of variations of proportional representation. Many countries adopt a mixed system of the two methods. Australia uses proportional representation in its Senate elections and preferential voting in House of Representatives elections. Germany, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea adopt mixed proportional methods.
[If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that for bi-cameral legislative bodies, one body (or house) may be elected with one system (say first-past-the-post) and another body or house can be elected by proportional representation. This is NOT the same as having a chimera (not to be confused with a bi-cameral parliament) voting system. So no. You have NOT proven that it is incorrect to say that the two systems cannot be mixed. Or rather, you have not proven that the two system HAVE been mixed in other places.]
I share Mr Krishnadas' view that there are limitations. The proportional representation "with the largest remainder method" used in Hong Kong favours small parties and encourages vocal minorities. But this is only one of its few variants.
Without the "largest remainder", it has worked well in Taiwan and other countries.
It is true that the system by itself may lead to fragmentation of votes and hence the need for a coalition government. But what I have suggested is to keep the "first-past-the-post" system largely intact, and just add a small number of NCMPs by proportional representation. The fragmentation of votes will not occur in our case.
Under the present Constitution, NCMPs are eligible to be appointed as ministers. It is again incorrect to say that this is "politically illegitimate".
[There is a difference between legally permitted and politically illegitimate. Devadas point was that it was contrary to democratic principles to have someone rejected at the polls to be allowed to make policy. So no, you do not seem to understand "politically illegitimate" to be able to say that it is incorrect.]
The American president appoints Cabinet ministers who are not elected members. In Hong Kong, ministers are appointed by the Chief Executive and they are not elected. The Taiwanese president appoints his premier and ministers who are not elected members.
[Yes. And the appointees are appointed by someone ELECTED by the people, and the appointees were not directly REJECTED by the people in an election.]
People may pose many questions on the present NCMP system. More should be discussed to make it relevant and useful in our parliamentary institution.
Ker Sin Tze (Dr)
[Relevant and useful is a good starting point. Unlike your proposal.]
Mar 27, 2013
Changing system not the answer
DR KER Sin Tze ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday) proposed that the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme be altered to increase "participation in the decision-forming process" and "reduce the difficulty of enticing bright talents to serve in Parliament and the Government".
With regard to the first justification, the proposal might indeed have the effect of increasing diversity in Parliament.
As Dr Ker pointed out when discussing the Hong Kong electoral system, proportional representation tends to favour smaller parties and independent candidates. If that is the intention, should proportional representation not be extended to choosing all the elected MPs in Parliament?
Perhaps Dr Ker suggested having proportional representation for only 10 additional MPs so that the number of such "vocal minorities" remains small and unable to pose much of a challenge to the majority party's policies.
If so, it is rather difficult to see what the proposal adds to the existing NCMP and Nominated MP (NMP) schemes. I suspect people will be sceptical about the proposal, seeing it as merely introducing token alternative voices in Parliament with no real clout.
Incidentally, I am not sure why the NCMP scheme was termed as being "inactive" until Parliament revised it in 2010 by increasing the potential maximum number of NCMPs to nine. We have had NCMPs in Parliament since the scheme was introduced in 1984, except after the 1991 General Election when there were four opposition MPs in Parliament.
As for the second justification, it is already possible under the present constitutional system for any MP, including an NCMP and an NMP, to be appointed a minister, or even prime minister if that individual commands the confidence of a majority of the MPs.
Of course, in practice, it is highly unlikely that MPs other than those from the political party having a majority in Parliament will be appointed to the Cabinet. Increasing the potential pool of MPs by 10 will not really help to address the issue, because the true challenge that all political parties face is finding suitable people to stand for election in the first place.
Jack Lee Tsen-Ta (Dr)
Assistant Professor of Law School of Law, Singapore Management University
----------------
Proportional representation has its limitations
WHILE it is always useful to study other political and economic systems, it would be a mistake to do so without considering the historical and current differences in culture, law and politics ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).
Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore share similar characteristics as competitive economies, but that is where the similarities end. Even the fact that Hong Kong and Singapore were British colonies can be stretched too far - as evident by the contrast between Singapore's current sovereign status and Hong Kong's special relationship with China.
Applying the proportional representation approach to the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) system is unsound.
First, we cannot have two systems of electoral practice - "first past the post", as is the current practice, and proportional representation. For harmony in our political principles, it must be either one or the other.
Second, if we were to change our parliamentary system to a proportional representation model, we should look at its limitations, not just its superficial attractiveness as being more democratic.
Proportional representation is a model that typically leads to coalition or minority governments. This may be a supportable outcome in large countries with powerful regional cities and provinces, but not in a tiny island with no economic or social distribution of power.
Third, appointing NCMPs as ministers is contrary to democratic principles. It would be politically illegitimate for someone not elected by the due electoral process to be given policy responsibility. It would not only give the incumbent an unfair advantage, but also cheat the people of their electoral choice of leadership.
It is possible to contribute to policymaking without distorting the political model, which has served us well to date.
Furthermore, the idea of introducing proportional representation for the NCMP system as a way to "entice talent" is oxymoronic. If a person cannot get himself elected, then either he is not seen as talent or the people have decided that the electoral winner is better.
We should not create "backdoor" routes to political leadership. If anything, given the growing electoral success of the opposition, the more pertinent question to ask is if the NCMP system will continue to have justification beyond this term of government.
Devadas Krishnadas
[Devadas point in the last para is, this may be the last election/parliament with NCMP. Dr Ker's proposal would seem to be a proposal to tweak the horse-drawn carriage with the Ford Model T in full production.]
Mix of electoral systems can work
BOTH Dr Jack Lee Tsen-Ta ("Changing system not the answer"; Wednesday) and Mr Devadas Krishnadas ("Proportional representation has its limitations"; Wednesday) have made valid comments on my commentary ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).
The proportional representation system has a long established history and been adopted by more than 80 countries. The interplay of many factors, socio-economic and cultural, determines the selection of a most suitable system to meet the needs of a nation.
[The "interplay of many factors" therefore undermines and renders irrelevant your "long established history" and "adopted by more than 80 countries" point. If the "interplay" determines the most suitable system, then what was the point of the preceding point? Verbose fillers?]
In Singapore, the first-past-the-post method has served us well, and it was never my intention to propose a replacement of the existing system by proportional representation.
However, a tweaking of the system by modifying the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme may add value and help solve the problem of scouting for capable people to stand for elections.
The suggestion of adding 10 NCMPs is merely an example; it could be increased to a greater number after we have gained adequate experience in future.
It is incorrect to say that "first-past-the-post" and "proportional representation" cannot be mixed.
There are a number of variations of proportional representation. Many countries adopt a mixed system of the two methods. Australia uses proportional representation in its Senate elections and preferential voting in House of Representatives elections. Germany, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea adopt mixed proportional methods.
[If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that for bi-cameral legislative bodies, one body (or house) may be elected with one system (say first-past-the-post) and another body or house can be elected by proportional representation. This is NOT the same as having a chimera (not to be confused with a bi-cameral parliament) voting system. So no. You have NOT proven that it is incorrect to say that the two systems cannot be mixed. Or rather, you have not proven that the two system HAVE been mixed in other places.]
I share Mr Krishnadas' view that there are limitations. The proportional representation "with the largest remainder method" used in Hong Kong favours small parties and encourages vocal minorities. But this is only one of its few variants.
Without the "largest remainder", it has worked well in Taiwan and other countries.
It is true that the system by itself may lead to fragmentation of votes and hence the need for a coalition government. But what I have suggested is to keep the "first-past-the-post" system largely intact, and just add a small number of NCMPs by proportional representation. The fragmentation of votes will not occur in our case.
Under the present Constitution, NCMPs are eligible to be appointed as ministers. It is again incorrect to say that this is "politically illegitimate".
[There is a difference between legally permitted and politically illegitimate. Devadas point was that it was contrary to democratic principles to have someone rejected at the polls to be allowed to make policy. So no, you do not seem to understand "politically illegitimate" to be able to say that it is incorrect.]
The American president appoints Cabinet ministers who are not elected members. In Hong Kong, ministers are appointed by the Chief Executive and they are not elected. The Taiwanese president appoints his premier and ministers who are not elected members.
[Yes. And the appointees are appointed by someone ELECTED by the people, and the appointees were not directly REJECTED by the people in an election.]
People may pose many questions on the present NCMP system. More should be discussed to make it relevant and useful in our parliamentary institution.
Ker Sin Tze (Dr)
[Relevant and useful is a good starting point. Unlike your proposal.]
Mar 27, 2013
Changing system not the answer
DR KER Sin Tze ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday) proposed that the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme be altered to increase "participation in the decision-forming process" and "reduce the difficulty of enticing bright talents to serve in Parliament and the Government".
With regard to the first justification, the proposal might indeed have the effect of increasing diversity in Parliament.
As Dr Ker pointed out when discussing the Hong Kong electoral system, proportional representation tends to favour smaller parties and independent candidates. If that is the intention, should proportional representation not be extended to choosing all the elected MPs in Parliament?
Perhaps Dr Ker suggested having proportional representation for only 10 additional MPs so that the number of such "vocal minorities" remains small and unable to pose much of a challenge to the majority party's policies.
If so, it is rather difficult to see what the proposal adds to the existing NCMP and Nominated MP (NMP) schemes. I suspect people will be sceptical about the proposal, seeing it as merely introducing token alternative voices in Parliament with no real clout.
Incidentally, I am not sure why the NCMP scheme was termed as being "inactive" until Parliament revised it in 2010 by increasing the potential maximum number of NCMPs to nine. We have had NCMPs in Parliament since the scheme was introduced in 1984, except after the 1991 General Election when there were four opposition MPs in Parliament.
As for the second justification, it is already possible under the present constitutional system for any MP, including an NCMP and an NMP, to be appointed a minister, or even prime minister if that individual commands the confidence of a majority of the MPs.
Of course, in practice, it is highly unlikely that MPs other than those from the political party having a majority in Parliament will be appointed to the Cabinet. Increasing the potential pool of MPs by 10 will not really help to address the issue, because the true challenge that all political parties face is finding suitable people to stand for election in the first place.
Jack Lee Tsen-Ta (Dr)
Assistant Professor of Law School of Law, Singapore Management University
----------------
Proportional representation has its limitations
WHILE it is always useful to study other political and economic systems, it would be a mistake to do so without considering the historical and current differences in culture, law and politics ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).
Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore share similar characteristics as competitive economies, but that is where the similarities end. Even the fact that Hong Kong and Singapore were British colonies can be stretched too far - as evident by the contrast between Singapore's current sovereign status and Hong Kong's special relationship with China.
Applying the proportional representation approach to the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) system is unsound.
First, we cannot have two systems of electoral practice - "first past the post", as is the current practice, and proportional representation. For harmony in our political principles, it must be either one or the other.
Second, if we were to change our parliamentary system to a proportional representation model, we should look at its limitations, not just its superficial attractiveness as being more democratic.
Proportional representation is a model that typically leads to coalition or minority governments. This may be a supportable outcome in large countries with powerful regional cities and provinces, but not in a tiny island with no economic or social distribution of power.
Third, appointing NCMPs as ministers is contrary to democratic principles. It would be politically illegitimate for someone not elected by the due electoral process to be given policy responsibility. It would not only give the incumbent an unfair advantage, but also cheat the people of their electoral choice of leadership.
It is possible to contribute to policymaking without distorting the political model, which has served us well to date.
Furthermore, the idea of introducing proportional representation for the NCMP system as a way to "entice talent" is oxymoronic. If a person cannot get himself elected, then either he is not seen as talent or the people have decided that the electoral winner is better.
We should not create "backdoor" routes to political leadership. If anything, given the growing electoral success of the opposition, the more pertinent question to ask is if the NCMP system will continue to have justification beyond this term of government.
Devadas Krishnadas
[Devadas point in the last para is, this may be the last election/parliament with NCMP. Dr Ker's proposal would seem to be a proposal to tweak the horse-drawn carriage with the Ford Model T in full production.]
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Give ex-offenders a chance
Mar 29, 2013
MY SON was released from prison last September. He served a four-year sentence and has to wear an electronic tag for one year. He also needs to report to the police station once every two weeks.
He admits that he made a mistake, and wants to turn over a new leaf.
He is the family's sole breadwinner and is currently working as a technician, earning a gross monthly salary of $1,000.
After three months on the job, he was confirmed and promised a pay rise. But there has been no follow-up even after six months. Each time he raises the issue, it falls on deaf ears.
My son is now looking for a new job. But it is discouraging as many employers discriminate against him. Some require him to work long hours, others offer him ridiculously low pay, while the rest do not want to employ him at all.
This is because my son wears the tag and needs to report to the police station.
Why is he still being discriminated against when he has already paid his dues? How can he possibly change and be a better person when society is unable to accept him? It is no wonder that many former offenders return to prison. How can they possibly earn a living when employers are unwilling to give them a chance?
I do not deny that some former offenders return to a life of crime, but why discriminate against all the others just because of a few black sheep?
Everybody makes mistakes, but all deserve a second chance.
Fatimah Nachair (Ms)
[Another caring-to-the-point-of-over-protective (?) mother. Not quite sure how to describe her, but there is a hint of mothering when your mother writes to the press about your parole from prison.
So many misconception and unrealistic expectations in this letter.
"He has paid his dues".
Not exactly. If he has completed his sentence and paid his due, served his time/sentence, etc., he would NOT be electronically tagged. Prisoners given "parole" (not sure what they call in Singapore, so using the American term) with electronic tagging are technically still subject to prison regulations (i.e. they are still serving time) and may be recalled to prison during the duration of the term of the electronic tagging. So NO, he has NOT completed his sentence.
"Deserve a second chance"
If the complaint is that employers are unwilling to hire him or are trying to exploit him, my answer would be: He currently has a job with $1000 salary. That is $1000 MORE than what he would be getting in prison. His current employer HAS given him a second chance and after just 9 months, he is searching for ANOTHER job? Maybe I'm old fashioned, and 9 months these days are a lifetime (in which case the 1 year electronic tag must be an eternity, and the 4 years he spent in prison must have passed glacially), but I am from the generation that believes you stick with a job unless you have very good reasons to quit or change jobs. The fact that he has NOT taken up the other exploitative job offers indicate that his CURRENT employer is NOT exploiting him (as much).
Isn't that his second chance? Or you want his second chance to be gold-plated? Presented on a silver platter? Invitation sent by courier?
"It is no wonder that many former offenders return to prison... some former offenders return to a life of crime."
Maybe I am over-sensitive, but is that a threat? Blackmail? "Don't give my son a good job, he go back to be criminal then you know! And it will be all your fault!"
Or is it a highly sophisticated social commentary on our criminal-justice and social safety net/social compact where it is inherently "easier" to be incarcerated than to be "free" to struggle for a living with the rest of us? No?
To quote: "Dying is easy. Living is hard." This can be paraphrased to "Prison is easy. Freedom is hard" to suit this instance.
I hope that your son is actually doing his best to find his way in life. I hope that he is just considering all his options when he looked at other jobs and is realising that his current employer is NOT THAT BAD and while a little easy on the promises and tardy with following thru, is nevertheless giving him a decent job and a decent chance, and your son is appreciating his opportunity.
I hope that you are writing this letter on your own initiative out of concern for your son, and not at his instigation, and that you do so because you see his situation and feel more strongly about it than he does. I hope that when he finds out that you have written to the press, he will be horrified and mortified that you have made a big deal of the normal struggles of people trying to make a living regardless of whether they have a prison record or not. It would be a sign that his expectations are realistic and that is a good indicator that he will succeed.
I wish your son well, and you, I wish you peace of mind.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)