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.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
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cornered the best doctors and equipment, condemning the rest to inferior public hospitals with third-rate doctors and outdated equipment.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)]
Reward cabbies for 'selling' Singapore
Aug 16 2014
I WENT to a wedding dinner recently and met some relatives from overseas. One was from Switzerland and another was from New Zealand.
I was taken aback by the negative things they had heard about Singapore. They were bemused as they knew Singapore was renowned for being a great place to live and visit.
They said taxi drivers had told them these things after they revealed themselves to be visitors.
I acknowledge that citizens of any country do have their gripes. However, I expect taxi drivers to be "mini-ambassadors" of our country, especially when they are ferrying foreign visitors.
Why pour out their grievances to foreign guests and leave them with an unsavoury impression of our country?
Taxi companies should educate their drivers on their role of "selling" Singapore, so more tourists will visit and, hence, bring more business for cabbies.
Perhaps the Singapore Tourism Board should find ways to reward taxi drivers for promoting Singapore. After all, cabbies are usually the first line of contact for tourists when they arrive here.
Henry Low Chuan Hoe
- See more at:
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/reward-cabbies-selling-singapore-20140816#sthash.ROnnZMrG.dpuf
- See more at:
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/reward-cabbies-selling-singapore-20140816#sthash.ROnnZMrG.dpuf
So instead, you want visitors to our country to get into a cab, make a passing/ throwaway remark, and then have the cabby extoll the wonders and virtues of MAGNIFICENT SINGAPORE?
I understand the desire to properly represent Singapore, and I wish that such cabbies would leaven their critique of SG with some concessions as to where and how SG has done well.
BUT, perhaps they do not see such "concessions"? Perhaps all they have seen is depressing and hopeless?
Or maybe they are just curmudgeonly old men who couldn't appreciate good fortune if it shat on them.
Whatever the case, they have a right to express their opinion. I may not agree with their opinion, but they have a right to it. And they have a right to express it.
As for being "mini ambassadors", at which point in the licensing process were they commissioned as such?
You, as a "mini ambassador" for Singapore should have told your overseas friends, "Ah yes. As you can see, in Singapore we respect freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And no we do not clamp down on criticisms of Singapore. Now, did you note the name of the Taxi driver or drivers, or their vehicle registration number?"
I WENT to a wedding dinner recently and met some relatives from overseas. One was from Switzerland and another was from New Zealand.
I was taken aback by the negative things they had heard about Singapore. They were bemused as they knew Singapore was renowned for being a great place to live and visit.
They said taxi drivers had told them these things after they revealed themselves to be visitors.
I acknowledge that citizens of any country do have their gripes. However, I expect taxi drivers to be "mini-ambassadors" of our country, especially when they are ferrying foreign visitors.
Why pour out their grievances to foreign guests and leave them with an unsavoury impression of our country?
Taxi companies should educate their drivers on their role of "selling" Singapore, so more tourists will visit and, hence, bring more business for cabbies.
Perhaps the Singapore Tourism Board should find ways to reward taxi drivers for promoting Singapore. After all, cabbies are usually the first line of contact for tourists when they arrive here.
Henry Low Chuan Hoe
Reward cabbies for 'selling' Singapore
Published on Aug 16, 2014 1:02 AM
I WENT to a wedding dinner recently and met some relatives from
overseas. One was from Switzerland and another was from New Zealand.
I was taken aback by the negative things they had heard about Singapore. They were bemused as they knew Singapore was renowned for being a great place to live and visit.
They said taxi drivers had told them these things after they revealed themselves to be visitors.
I acknowledge that citizens of any country do have their gripes. However, I expect taxi drivers to be "mini-ambassadors" of our country, especially when they are ferrying foreign visitors.
Why pour out their grievances to foreign guests and leave them with an unsavoury impression of our country?
Taxi companies should educate their drivers on their role of "selling" Singapore, so more tourists will visit and, hence, bring more business for cabbies.
Perhaps the Singapore Tourism Board should find ways to reward taxi drivers for promoting Singapore. After all, cabbies are usually the first line of contact for tourists when they arrive here.
Henry Low Chuan Hoe
I was taken aback by the negative things they had heard about Singapore. They were bemused as they knew Singapore was renowned for being a great place to live and visit.
They said taxi drivers had told them these things after they revealed themselves to be visitors.
I acknowledge that citizens of any country do have their gripes. However, I expect taxi drivers to be "mini-ambassadors" of our country, especially when they are ferrying foreign visitors.
Why pour out their grievances to foreign guests and leave them with an unsavoury impression of our country?
Taxi companies should educate their drivers on their role of "selling" Singapore, so more tourists will visit and, hence, bring more business for cabbies.
Perhaps the Singapore Tourism Board should find ways to reward taxi drivers for promoting Singapore. After all, cabbies are usually the first line of contact for tourists when they arrive here.
Henry Low Chuan Hoe
Reward cabbies for 'selling' Singapore
Published on Aug 16, 2014 1:02 AM
I WENT to a wedding dinner recently and met some relatives from
overseas. One was from Switzerland and another was from New Zealand.
I was taken aback by the negative things they had heard about Singapore. They were bemused as they knew Singapore was renowned for being a great place to live and visit.
They said taxi drivers had told them these things after they revealed themselves to be visitors.
I acknowledge that citizens of any country do have their gripes. However, I expect taxi drivers to be "mini-ambassadors" of our country, especially when they are ferrying foreign visitors.
Why pour out their grievances to foreign guests and leave them with an unsavoury impression of our country?
Taxi companies should educate their drivers on their role of "selling" Singapore, so more tourists will visit and, hence, bring more business for cabbies.
Perhaps the Singapore Tourism Board should find ways to reward taxi drivers for promoting Singapore. After all, cabbies are usually the first line of contact for tourists when they arrive here.
Henry Low Chuan Hoe
I was taken aback by the negative things they had heard about Singapore. They were bemused as they knew Singapore was renowned for being a great place to live and visit.
They said taxi drivers had told them these things after they revealed themselves to be visitors.
I acknowledge that citizens of any country do have their gripes. However, I expect taxi drivers to be "mini-ambassadors" of our country, especially when they are ferrying foreign visitors.
Why pour out their grievances to foreign guests and leave them with an unsavoury impression of our country?
Taxi companies should educate their drivers on their role of "selling" Singapore, so more tourists will visit and, hence, bring more business for cabbies.
Perhaps the Singapore Tourism Board should find ways to reward taxi drivers for promoting Singapore. After all, cabbies are usually the first line of contact for tourists when they arrive here.
Henry Low Chuan Hoe
So instead, you want visitors to our country to get into a cab, make a passing/ throwaway remark, and then have the cabby extoll the wonders and virtues of MAGNIFICENT SINGAPORE?
I understand the desire to properly represent Singapore, and I wish that such cabbies would leaven their critique of SG with some concessions as to where and how SG has done well.
BUT, perhaps they do not see such "concessions"? Perhaps all they have seen is depressing and hopeless?
Or maybe they are just curmudgeonly old men who couldn't appreciate good fortune if it shat on them.
Whatever the case, they have a right to express their opinion. I may not agree with their opinion, but they have a right to it. And they have a right to express it.
As for being "mini ambassadors", at which point in the licensing process were they commissioned as such?
You, as a "mini ambassador" for Singapore should have told your overseas friends, "Ah yes. As you can see, in Singapore we respect freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And no we do not clamp down on criticisms of Singapore. Now, did you note the name of the Taxi driver or drivers, or their vehicle registration number?"
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Cheaper to help families hire home care, helpers
TODAY ONLINE
FROM DAVID SOH POH HUAT
AUGUST 5
I was surprised at the report “MOH may run its own nursing homes” (Aug 1). In view of our ageing population, are we promoting the easy way out; that is, putting our sick and aged in these nursing homes?
We should be encouraging families to care for the sick and aged via more subsidies for employing domestic helpers and for home care by doctors and nurses, as well as more tax reliefs.
The ministry should train more home-care specialists and have more day rehabilitation centres instead. There would surely be more savings in all these than in building more nursing homes with the subsequent operating costs.
Based on my experience with my late father, putting him in a nursing home three years ago was more expensive than engaging a helper. Giving our loved ones home care is also something they need during their final journey and what I call filial piety.
The ministry could perhaps have a rethink.
[According to this writer, filial piety is getting a foreign maid to care for your dying father. And cheaper than a nursing home!
I am not going to be too hard on him. End of life care is not an easy issue. I do not blame him for getting a maid instead of choosing a nursing home. Cost is of course a consideration. And most people would rather die at home.
BUT a nursing home is NOT a hospice.
And while we still have access to cheap foreign maids, sure, let's consider that option.
But "Home Care Specialists"? WTF is that and who is going to do that? "Day Rehabilitation Centres"? How the hell are those even relevant?]
FROM DAVID SOH POH HUAT
AUGUST 5
I was surprised at the report “MOH may run its own nursing homes” (Aug 1). In view of our ageing population, are we promoting the easy way out; that is, putting our sick and aged in these nursing homes?
We should be encouraging families to care for the sick and aged via more subsidies for employing domestic helpers and for home care by doctors and nurses, as well as more tax reliefs.
The ministry should train more home-care specialists and have more day rehabilitation centres instead. There would surely be more savings in all these than in building more nursing homes with the subsequent operating costs.
Based on my experience with my late father, putting him in a nursing home three years ago was more expensive than engaging a helper. Giving our loved ones home care is also something they need during their final journey and what I call filial piety.
The ministry could perhaps have a rethink.
[According to this writer, filial piety is getting a foreign maid to care for your dying father. And cheaper than a nursing home!
I am not going to be too hard on him. End of life care is not an easy issue. I do not blame him for getting a maid instead of choosing a nursing home. Cost is of course a consideration. And most people would rather die at home.
BUT a nursing home is NOT a hospice.
And while we still have access to cheap foreign maids, sure, let's consider that option.
But "Home Care Specialists"? WTF is that and who is going to do that? "Day Rehabilitation Centres"? How the hell are those even relevant?]
Thursday, June 19, 2014
GM food should be labelled
JUN 19, 2014
I AM concerned
about how much genetically modified (GM) food we may be exposed to unwittingly
in Singapore as there are no mandatory requirements to label food as such
("GM food in Singapore safe"; last Saturday).
There has been
a recent spate of studies which show that GM food crops containing Bt toxin
have caused foetal malformations, sterility and deaths in cattle as well as
other mammals and birds exposed to them.
[If you do a decent (3 minutes) google search you will find results from Joseph Mercola from May 2011 (caution: he’s trying to sell you “snake oil” and part of the “conspiracy economy”) supporting the claims above. But you will also find results from sites that debunk urban myths, legends, and rumours like Snopes. They report:
The Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) protein... is a naturally occurring one which has been used in agriculture for decades… The claim about GM corn causing organ failure in rats stems from articles published in 2009 and 2012 by Dr. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois (et al) which reported the finding of high tumor rates and early mortality in rats fed genetically modified corn and "safe" levels of the herbicide Roundup. However, several food safety authorities and regulatory agencies found the analysis and conclusions of the 2009 article to be flawed and unsupportive of its claims. Moreover, France's six scientific academies issued a rare joint statement in October 2012 denouncing the latter study as a similarly flawed "scientific non-event" that served to "spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion”.
And by the way, what "recent spate of studies"? You mean you just checked your email and found emails from 2009 to 2012?]
China has
recently banned imports of GM dried grains from the United States, and there is
a growing movement in Canada and Europe against Monsanto, one the the biggest
producers of GM crops.
[Wow. If China, which allows lead in children’s toys, melamine in milk, and reuse grease as cooking oil bans GM products from the US, GM food must be REALLY dangerous. Or you could be focusing on the wrong facts. It’s not that is is GM food. It’s just that it is imports, and it’s from the US. Actually, they just want to ban imports.
Protectionism.
Look it up.
Yes. There is a growing movement against Monsanto. (for example, a poll showed that 51% of respondents nominated Monsanto as the most evil company. Of course the fact that the poll was done by Natural News which is a special interest magazine/online news group, may lead one to question their objectivity, and their readers objectivity. In other words, it is a self-selected sample.)
Welcome to the movement. Please check your brain at the door. And believe whatever we tell you. Monsanto is evil. Repeat after me: Monsanto is Evil. The FDA is Corrupt. Obama is Muslim. Gun Control is against Human Rights. Climate Change is a Hoax. Evolution is Not in the Bible so it DIDN'T HAPPEN.
Americans also believe many things that are wrong. Strength of conviction is not evidence of truth.
Alternatively, you may want to decide for yourself.]
There are large
amounts of foodstuff from the US in shops here, most of which contain corn or soya
products and derivatives. Unless they are specifically labelled organic and
GM-free, there is no way for consumers here to know what they are feeding their
families.
[When in doubt, assume that they are all GMO (you won't be too far wrong). ]
Short of going
on an expensive organic-only diet, which is economically not feasible for the
majority of Singaporeans, how can we be better informed of what goes into the
food we eat?
Lai Sui Wan (Ms)
[You seem to think that "organic" = "non-GMO". They are not. You can have organic GMO food.
But yes. You are right. Organic food is unsustainable.
Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of genetically
modified foods here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genetically_modified_food.html
The rice we eat have been genetically modified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
And as stated earlier, Organic-only diet will not help. Organic doesn't mean non-GMO.]
GM food in Singapore safe
JUN 14, 2014
WE THANK Mr Steven Lo Chock Fei for his feedback ("Label GM food products"; May 29).
We assure the public that all genetically modified (GM) food commercially available in Singapore has undergone safety assessments by both the Singapore Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).
These assessments are based on the Codex Alimentarius Commission's principles established by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.
There has been no substantiated scientific evidence to show that GM food is unsafe.
Like all other food products, GM food must meet prevailing AVA food safety labelling requirements on ingredient listing and information for consumers. Currently, companies can voluntarily label a food product as "GMO" or "non-GMO", provided this can be substantiated.
It is not international practice for GM food to be labelled as such.
Where practised, GM food labelling serves the purpose of providing consumers with choice, rather than for food safety reasons.
There are a number of factors to consider in reviewing the need to specify GM food.
One is the lack of an internationally agreed threshold level of genetic material in a food product to make labelling obligatory.
Singapore, like many other countries, is of the view that any labelling regime must be practical, scientifically derived and effectively implementable across countries.
In other words, "what do you mean "genetically modified"? Should GMO cotton be labelled? How about oil for GMO canola? The oil has no GMO material and is indistiguishable from oil from non-GMO canola:
For a number of GM crops, the genes/gene products never enter the food supply, since those parts of the plants are removed during processing. For example, sugar from GM sugar beets is chemically identical to non-GM sugar. Likewise, oils purified from GM canola, soybean, cottonseed, and corn is identical to non-GM oils. Much of the corn crop is dedicated to generating ethanol, which, of course, is identical to non-GM ethanol. It has not been noted that ethanol from GM corn adversely affect automobile performance compared to non-GM ethanol. Genetically modified Bt cotton is worn, rather than ingested, and there have been no reports of adverse effects of wearing GM clothing. For GM crops in which whole plant cells are ingested, the genes and gene products are usually destroyed through digestion in the stomach and small intestine. So, it is unlikely, even in theory, that eating GM crops can harm human beings.
AVA and GMAC are following ongoing global discussions on GM food closely and will implement measures in line with international best practices.
More information on GMAC and its guidelines on the safety evaluation of GM food crops are available at
http://www.gmac.gov.sg/
Astrid Yeo (Dr)
Group Director
Regulatory Administration Group
Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority
Nurhuda Nordin (Ms)
Secretariat
For Chairman
Genetic Modification Advisory Committee
BUT, despite all this, I agree that GM food
should be labelled. As should food containing gluten. And organic food too. I
believe people should be given information to make their choice. I may think
they are paranoids but I would rather the paranoids shop at the specialist
green organic, all-natural non-GMO food mart, then be found standing next to me
ranting about Monsanto while I’m trying to get some GM-corn.
OK. I lied. I don't like corn. So I wouldn't be shopping for corn. GMO or non-GMO.
Here's something I found while looking for dirt on Monsanto. I think it is quite enlightening. And refreshingly rational.
I have seen it time and time again. Monsanto is evil, GE crops (GMOs) get a bad name because of Monsanto, GE crops are bad because they are made by Monsanto, Monsanto persecutes innocent farmers with lawsuits to drive them out of business, etcetera, etcetera. If you've paid attention to any aspect of the GE arguments, you'll see these arguments rolled out pretty much en masse. But my independent research says otherwise.
1) There seems to be scientific consensus on the health effects of GE crops, regardless of Monsanto. You can generally find people saying that there is not, but I can cite a lot of scientific studies and major scientific bodies that say otherwise.
2) A few cases of Monsanto suing a farmer for patent infringement have been turned into this narrative that Monsanto sues anyone for any amount of "contamination" in their field. Percy Schmeiser is often indirectly cited, though his case, as ruled by the Canadian Supreme Court, is 100% his fault because he intentionally selected the accidentally "contaminated" crops which resisted glyphosate by spraying glyphosate and replanting those that survived, ending up with a 97% pure GE canola field which he did not have license for, violating Monsanto's patent on that GE canola. Other cases are sometimes cited, like the one farmer which attempted to circumvent patents by buying GE wheat from a grain tower and planting it, but they all have similar faults in that they ignore what actually happened in order to demonize Monsanto.
3) Monsanto is not controlling the research on GE. It just does not make any sense that the same people who claim that massive oil companies like Enron could not stymie anthropogenic global warming are the same people who claim that the comparatively much smaller Monsanto could control the results of thousands of studies except for a small handful. Sure, they may have some influence here and there, and their blocking of fully independent research (until 2010) is horrendous but that does not invalidate the results of thousands of studies.
4) The fact that Monsanto has produced a variety of chemicals in the past does not matter. I've seen it over and over again, where some person brings up Monsanto's production of Agent Orange without looking at the context of the situation (at government request, during the Vietnam war, with little research done into dioxin contamination, etc) and thinks that they have made this stunning zinger of an argument. I've even seen someone produce a small gish gallopy list of chemicals Monsanto has produced, and seen the list debunked as the original poster was ignoring the individual details and contexts of those chemicals (I did the debunking).
5) Monsanto seemingly only has 17% of the bio-tech market, if I remember correctly. This is often portrayed as some attempt at monopolization by anti-GE activists, but I just do not see it. In fact, I believe that stopping the inane over-regulation of GE crops would decrease the chances of any single monopoly on GE crops being made.There are probably other things I may have added to this post if I could remember them, but do not take this as some form of corporate shilling for or white-washing of Monsanto. I know that, as a company, their bottom line is going to be profits, and that there are some legitimate criticisms I would make of them (such as close connections with a U.S. Supreme Court Justice [one which, may I say, I particularly despise], and, the Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration, Michael R. Taylor). But I do not believe that Monsanto is of much more concern than any other company. I do not find good enough reason to conclude as many others do that Monsanto is an evil organization whose goal is world domination and the enslavement of farmers (which is an obvious exaggeration... hopefully).
Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.
By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction.
OK. Here comes my rant.
I started this blog to rant about the impossibly stupid people and to vent about their stupidity.
However, I have found that otherwise intelligent people are nevertheless confused about GMO and Organic and quite a few New Age rubbish.
Some of these people I call "relatives".
And to be fair, these genetically engineered crops and food are all very sciency and it is no wonder some people get confused about it.
And they don't understand.
And what they don't understand, scares them.
So I have... restrained myself in addressing the questions here. Questions which I find... not very intelligent, but perhaps understandable.
The problem as I see it, is the US. This is the country that leads the world. But their people can be incredibly stupid. I provided a link of the 11 things that Americans wrongly and frighteningly believe.
29% of Americans believe cloud computing involves actual clouds.
So when someone comes along and tells them about how scientist have been manipulating the DNA of food, don't expect them to understand. Expect them to NOT understand what it entails and to wonder if that means trouble. Then throw in a word for them to hang their pale understanding. A word like "frankenfood" and that will help them file GMO under "scary" and "evil".
The problem is that the US education process may not have prepared the average American to understand science and what is possible and what is not possible.
For example, the fear that eating GMO food could change your DNA.
When lack of information and education is so low, I do not even know how to start my rant. But this was my comment on Facebook:
So when people ask about GMO foods, the best retort to them is: "You wanna eat it or fuck it?"
Update (4 Aug 2014): A more restrained and balanced assessment on the GMO Food.
I started this blog to rant about the impossibly stupid people and to vent about their stupidity.
However, I have found that otherwise intelligent people are nevertheless confused about GMO and Organic and quite a few New Age rubbish.
Some of these people I call "relatives".
And to be fair, these genetically engineered crops and food are all very sciency and it is no wonder some people get confused about it.
And they don't understand.
And what they don't understand, scares them.
So I have... restrained myself in addressing the questions here. Questions which I find... not very intelligent, but perhaps understandable.
The problem as I see it, is the US. This is the country that leads the world. But their people can be incredibly stupid. I provided a link of the 11 things that Americans wrongly and frighteningly believe.
29% of Americans believe cloud computing involves actual clouds.
So when someone comes along and tells them about how scientist have been manipulating the DNA of food, don't expect them to understand. Expect them to NOT understand what it entails and to wonder if that means trouble. Then throw in a word for them to hang their pale understanding. A word like "frankenfood" and that will help them file GMO under "scary" and "evil".
The problem is that the US education process may not have prepared the average American to understand science and what is possible and what is not possible.
For example, the fear that eating GMO food could change your DNA.
When lack of information and education is so low, I do not even know how to start my rant. But this was my comment on Facebook:
Yes. Please label GMO food. Because besides eating the food (which is not a problem as our digestive system will break down all DNA in the food, so it doesn't matter if it is GMO or not), apparently some people are thinking of MATING with their food - in which case you should be concerned about the DNA of the food, their genetic make-up, and such. So yes, for these people, they want to be sure that the food they mate with are pure. They are sort of like Food Nazis.
So when people ask about GMO foods, the best retort to them is: "You wanna eat it or fuck it?"
Update (4 Aug 2014): A more restrained and balanced assessment on the GMO Food.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
What message was police sending over Filipino event?
TODAY
FROM DANIEL SIM SHAO QI -
MAY 29
The police have advised the Pilipino Independence Day Council that there are public order and safety concerns with the venue proposed for its celebration plans. Consequently, the organisers decided to cancel their event.
I am disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their intolerance.
Instead of advising the organisers to hold the event elsewhere, they should have promised additional security if needed. What message are we sending to the Philippine government — that we are unwilling to protect its citizens?
What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore? When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking responsibility.
[What arrogance.
Prior to PIDC submitting their application to use Ngee Ann City space, PM Lee (and other politicians) had already stated his public support for this and denounced the xenophobia of some Singaporeans.
So if you were the police officer who received this application from PIDC, and you assessed that it is not safe to approve it, do you ignore the PM's publicly stated support for this and act "without fear or favour" by rejecting this application?
Or do you raise this to your boss as a potentially controversial issue requiring management inputs and consideration?
And do you think management might have asked, "is there some condition we can request to allow us to justifiably approve this?"
"Is there someway to approve this? Would PM want us to approve this?"
And in all likelihood, this application may go all the way up to the Minister of Home Affairs who would have discussed this with PM (in view of his publicly stated support), who would then have spoken to the Philippines Ambassador to explain what are the considerations, and sought the Ambassador's help in speaking to the PIDC organiser, before the Police publicly announced the denial of the application.
Is this all speculation or do I have proof? Of course it is all speculation. But speculation supported by facts. Such as, the PIDC organiser has NOT raise any noise about this. ]
FROM DANIEL SIM SHAO QI -
MAY 29
The police have advised the Pilipino Independence Day Council that there are public order and safety concerns with the venue proposed for its celebration plans. Consequently, the organisers decided to cancel their event.
I am disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their intolerance.
Instead of advising the organisers to hold the event elsewhere, they should have promised additional security if needed. What message are we sending to the Philippine government — that we are unwilling to protect its citizens?
What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore? When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking responsibility.
[What arrogance.
Prior to PIDC submitting their application to use Ngee Ann City space, PM Lee (and other politicians) had already stated his public support for this and denounced the xenophobia of some Singaporeans.
So if you were the police officer who received this application from PIDC, and you assessed that it is not safe to approve it, do you ignore the PM's publicly stated support for this and act "without fear or favour" by rejecting this application?
Or do you raise this to your boss as a potentially controversial issue requiring management inputs and consideration?
And do you think management might have asked, "is there some condition we can request to allow us to justifiably approve this?"
"Is there someway to approve this? Would PM want us to approve this?"
And in all likelihood, this application may go all the way up to the Minister of Home Affairs who would have discussed this with PM (in view of his publicly stated support), who would then have spoken to the Philippines Ambassador to explain what are the considerations, and sought the Ambassador's help in speaking to the PIDC organiser, before the Police publicly announced the denial of the application.
Is this all speculation or do I have proof? Of course it is all speculation. But speculation supported by facts. Such as, the PIDC organiser has NOT raise any noise about this. ]
Friday, May 9, 2014
Why condo units are shrinking
May 07, 2014
PRIVATE developers are only meeting the growing demand for smaller condominium units ("Condo units shrinking: Report"; April 28).
I know of people who are holding on to their HDB flats and buying small private condo units either to rent out, or to live in while renting out their HDB units, hence turning the subsidised flats into "long-term cash cows".
As they are not selling their flats, they cannot pay a large quantum for the condo units, which leads to growing demand for "downsized" apartments.
[Defined "large quantum".]
Letting HDB flat owners rent out their units for profit, when they can afford private property, goes against the HDB's mission of providing affordable homes for the masses.
[How so?]
A subsidised flat that is being used to generate long-term profits is not really a home.
The HDB should relook its policies in this regard.
A flat owner who buys private property should be subjected to an income assessment.
If his income is above a certain cap set by the HDB, he should be made to sell his flat on the open market within a certain period of taking possession of the private property.
When owners have to dispose of their HDB flats upon upgrading to private property, they will have more cash and Central Provident Fund savings to purchase larger condo units, which in turn encourages developers to build them.
[No. What will happen is that HDB owners will pull out of the private property market because given option of selling their HDB in order to buy a pte property, and just staying put in their HDB, guess what? Many of them will stay put. The private property market will crash. Or at least depressed. Prices will fall, and developers will build fewer condo units, big or small.]
Another way would be to limit the timeframe that an HDB flat can be rented out, if the owner has a private property under his name and does not have a valid reason, such as being stationed overseas, for renting out the unit.
[So what have you got against the rental market and people seeking to rent accommodations? Your proposal would cut the supply of rental flats in the market.]
Current rules forbid a private property owner from purchasing even a resale HDB flat. The same rule should apply to HDB flat owners looking to buy private property.
[That's not exactly correct.]
This is a loophole many are exploiting, resulting in fewer resale HDB flats on the market. This deprives people who genuinely need public housing from owning such units, and encourages developers to build smaller condo units for HDB flat owners who want the best of both worlds.
Chan Suan Yen (Ms)
[A classic! Short-sighted. Single-minded, selfish perspective. Self-serving problem analysis. You could almost hear the "me! me! me!" in her letter.
The simple problem is that some people who buy pte property are better off, but not necessarily so "well-off" that they see themselves as "upgrading" to pte property. At least not on a permanent basis.
HDB flats purchase is means-tested. Your family/household income needs to be below $12k/$10k in order to buy direct from HDB at concessionary rates.
If you and your spouse exceed the income ceiling, you have to buy from resale (no concession/ subsidy).
If you owned pte property within the last 30 months, you can't buy from HDB. You can buy resale, but you cannot use CPF, and you need to sell your property within 6 months of getting the HDB flat.
BUT, if you applied for HDB flat when your income is below the ceiling, you can proceed with the purchase even if your income has EXCEEDED the ceiling by the time the sale is completed.
If you move into your flat, you can continue to STAY in your subsidised flat even if you later get promoted and your income exceeds the ceiling.
A lot of applicants wait for one spouse to resign from her (usually her, for extended maternity) job so that their income falls below the ceiling, to apply for HDB flats. Then after that, the spouse rejoins the workforce (when baby is older) and they bust the income ceiling.
Do these HDB owners return their subsidised flats when their income exceeds the ceiling? Do they top up the subsidised price they paid? Are they still considered "low income" families?
If the point is that HDB owners who can now afford to buy condos should be considered above the income level, then you have to consistently apply the rules to all those who are now above the income level, including all the examples above.
If you find yourself starting to make excuses as to why those people (like yourself) should get to keep their flats, then be aware that everyone else will also have reasons why the rules should not apply to them.
Consistency? This is consistent: you need to be below the income ceiling when you apply for HDB flats, but you are means-tested just once, and then even if you subsequently exceed the income ceiling, that's ok.
You need to not have owned private property in the last 30 months when you apply for a HDB flat, but if later you can buy one, that's ok.
Consistent? ]
PRIVATE developers are only meeting the growing demand for smaller condominium units ("Condo units shrinking: Report"; April 28).
I know of people who are holding on to their HDB flats and buying small private condo units either to rent out, or to live in while renting out their HDB units, hence turning the subsidised flats into "long-term cash cows".
As they are not selling their flats, they cannot pay a large quantum for the condo units, which leads to growing demand for "downsized" apartments.
[Defined "large quantum".]
Letting HDB flat owners rent out their units for profit, when they can afford private property, goes against the HDB's mission of providing affordable homes for the masses.
[How so?]
A subsidised flat that is being used to generate long-term profits is not really a home.
The HDB should relook its policies in this regard.
A flat owner who buys private property should be subjected to an income assessment.
If his income is above a certain cap set by the HDB, he should be made to sell his flat on the open market within a certain period of taking possession of the private property.
When owners have to dispose of their HDB flats upon upgrading to private property, they will have more cash and Central Provident Fund savings to purchase larger condo units, which in turn encourages developers to build them.
[No. What will happen is that HDB owners will pull out of the private property market because given option of selling their HDB in order to buy a pte property, and just staying put in their HDB, guess what? Many of them will stay put. The private property market will crash. Or at least depressed. Prices will fall, and developers will build fewer condo units, big or small.]
Another way would be to limit the timeframe that an HDB flat can be rented out, if the owner has a private property under his name and does not have a valid reason, such as being stationed overseas, for renting out the unit.
[So what have you got against the rental market and people seeking to rent accommodations? Your proposal would cut the supply of rental flats in the market.]
Current rules forbid a private property owner from purchasing even a resale HDB flat. The same rule should apply to HDB flat owners looking to buy private property.
[That's not exactly correct.]
This is a loophole many are exploiting, resulting in fewer resale HDB flats on the market. This deprives people who genuinely need public housing from owning such units, and encourages developers to build smaller condo units for HDB flat owners who want the best of both worlds.
Chan Suan Yen (Ms)
[A classic! Short-sighted. Single-minded, selfish perspective. Self-serving problem analysis. You could almost hear the "me! me! me!" in her letter.
The simple problem is that some people who buy pte property are better off, but not necessarily so "well-off" that they see themselves as "upgrading" to pte property. At least not on a permanent basis.
HDB flats purchase is means-tested. Your family/household income needs to be below $12k/$10k in order to buy direct from HDB at concessionary rates.
If you and your spouse exceed the income ceiling, you have to buy from resale (no concession/ subsidy).
If you owned pte property within the last 30 months, you can't buy from HDB. You can buy resale, but you cannot use CPF, and you need to sell your property within 6 months of getting the HDB flat.
BUT, if you applied for HDB flat when your income is below the ceiling, you can proceed with the purchase even if your income has EXCEEDED the ceiling by the time the sale is completed.
If you move into your flat, you can continue to STAY in your subsidised flat even if you later get promoted and your income exceeds the ceiling.
A lot of applicants wait for one spouse to resign from her (usually her, for extended maternity) job so that their income falls below the ceiling, to apply for HDB flats. Then after that, the spouse rejoins the workforce (when baby is older) and they bust the income ceiling.
Do these HDB owners return their subsidised flats when their income exceeds the ceiling? Do they top up the subsidised price they paid? Are they still considered "low income" families?
If the point is that HDB owners who can now afford to buy condos should be considered above the income level, then you have to consistently apply the rules to all those who are now above the income level, including all the examples above.
If you find yourself starting to make excuses as to why those people (like yourself) should get to keep their flats, then be aware that everyone else will also have reasons why the rules should not apply to them.
Consistency? This is consistent: you need to be below the income ceiling when you apply for HDB flats, but you are means-tested just once, and then even if you subsequently exceed the income ceiling, that's ok.
You need to not have owned private property in the last 30 months when you apply for a HDB flat, but if later you can buy one, that's ok.
Consistent? ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)