Problem dogs: 30-year veteran shares his experience

Dec 31, 2008

I REFER to Mr Gabriel Chua's online letter on Monday ('Kampung boy bitten by unprovoked dog'), on his unfortunate experience in being bitten by a tiny dog without provocation. Mr Chua is justified in stating that Ms Jasmine Tan's theory is an excessive generalisation.

Mr Bill Koehler, chief animal trainer at Walt Disney Studios for more than 21 years, wrote in his book, The Koehler Method Of Dog Training, that there are several types of dogs that bite:

- The Protest Biter

- The Real Hood

- The Overly Possessive Dog

- The Chase-Happy Dog

- The Sneak Biter

Mr Chua's bad experience comes under The Sneak Biter. This is the type that lurks in its lair behind a bush or under a table, ready to glide out and nip a human that its imagination has changed into a tiger. A lot is due to its owner's warped sense of responsibility in allowing it to bite people, giving the excuse that it does not understand, that it is just a baby - even when it has turned into a full-grown monster.

Let me share my 30 years of professional experience in rehabilitating some of these problem dogs.

I was helping a friend move some furniture when I noticed a neighbour had an unusually large dog. I was curious and asked her what breed it was. Throughout our conversation, the dog was jumping up and down, trying to clear the gate and bite me. The neighbour said the dog had completed its training in Germany and could sit down, come forward and stay when commanded. I told her the dog had been taught exercises and not 'obedience'.

She later admitted the dog was out of control when she and her husband took it for walks. It would attack any human or animal on the road. They had to wrap themselves round something strong like a lamp post to prevent the dog from biting an innocent passer-by.

The owner engaged my services, and after five days of intensive training on a neutral ground, I gave her a demonstration by placing the dog on a down-stay stance in a busy pavement in Holland Village. The owner and her maid observed it from a nearby fast-food restaurant. People of all shapes and sizes walked past the dog, which remained relaxed in the same position. The owner was very pleased with the result. Later at her house, I showed her how to correct the dog should it misbehave, before handing it back.

The moment the dog entered the gate, it became aggressive and wanted to bite me. I told the owner to use the 'throw chain' and tag the dog's behind. Instead of tagging it, she quietly dropped the throw chain to the ground and said: 'He's my baby and I don't want to hurt him.' The throw chain is an effective piece of equipment I had used to teach her dog to behave.

For the record, I asked Mr Koehler whether he has ever been sued over the 140,000 dogs he supervised in training. He assured me: 'No.'

You can't teach old dogs new tricks

Mr Boey was a retired agriculturist who suffered from high blood pressure. His daughter went on overseas studies and left her six-year-old German shepherd behind. Mr Boey called me after his dog tried to attack another in a park. His dog had a history of terrorising other dogs in the neighbourhood. So fierce was its reputation that neighbours' dogs would retreat into their homes when Mr Boey's dog was taken out to exercise.

When Mr Boey and his dog joined me for a lesson, the first thing it did when it approached the training ground was to charge at the nearest dog. It was chaotic trying to get the class started. So explaining to the class what needed to be done, I told Mr Boey to put his dog on the choke chain correctly, hook onto the longe-line and head forward to the dog 10m in front of him. I specifically reminded Mr Boey he was to continue moving forward and not look back. When I tapped him on the shoulder, he would hand me the loop of the longe-line and keep walking forward.

Mr Boey's German shepherd saw what it thought was an easy target. With the dog lunging forward, and Mr Boey struggling and trying to hold it, I moved towards him and took over the longe-line. With the momentary slackness of the 8m longe-line, I opened and closed my palm, and with a quick about-turn, I headed in the opposite direction. Before the dog could recover from the impact of opposite momentum, I again took him towards the same target. The moment the longe-line tightened as the dog charged, I again dropped the longe-line and headed in the opposite direction. The dog then realised that, the greater the temptation, the more it needed to keep its eyes on me, the handler. We continued the class without trouble and the German shepherd graduated from the novice class in the 10th week off-leash.

Leashing a dog in public just minimises its chance of misbehaviour. It does not address the issue of behaving responsibly and being under control at all times and in all conditions. It is impractical to leash a dog 24 hours a day. It must be made to understand that it must not leave the home unless told to.

Harry Quek

[Every now and again, someone with true expertise writes into the forum page and justifies the existence of the section.]

Offshore nuclear plant for S'pore?

[Not an outright dumb letter, but not well thought through.]

Dec 29, 2008
Offshore nuclear plant for S'pore?

I REFER to last Monday's article, 'Asia weighs nuclear power option', and last Wednesday's articles on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

I suggest that an offshore nuclear power station would benefit Singapore. Singapore is too small to house a nuclear power station. But, like the Marina Bay floating stadium, we must innovate to make up for what we lack.

An offshore station in the open sea can have many advantages. It can be moved to avoid threatening weather when needed. The open sea can enhance and ensure a high level of security; a much larger area can be cordoned off to give security forces more time and flexibility to react to any threats.

[As the pirates of Somalia and Aden has shown. The open sea is not safer. An aircraft carrier travels in a fleet or battle group and those support ships are to provide protection for the aircraft carrier which would be a prime military target. An offshore nuclear power plant would have the same bullseye painted on it. And the seas around Singapore are too congested to have a large enough security area. And how do you fence off the sea? As for comparing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with an offshore power plant, the difference is the carrier is producing power for itself. The offshore power plant is producing power for use offsite. That means power transmission lines need to connect the plant to the mainland. That means limited or even no movement once fixed.]

The sea will also ensure a higher level of safety as there is an almost unlimited amount of water available. Most importantly, nuclear power emits minimal greenhouse gases and has proven to be extremely safe when managed properly.

Singapore has one of the best offshore rig-building and ship-repair companies in the world. Ocean-going nuclear power marine vessels, both naval and merchant, have been built and are running across the world for more than 50 years (since 1955).

It is not cheap to use nuclear energy to power a vessel, but using an offshore platform or vessel to house one or many micro nuclear power generators should be more economically and socially viable than building a station on land.

Syu Ying Kwok

[We may need nuclear power one day, but the problems are not quite ready to be solved. If a stop-gap measure is required today, then yes, buy a few nuclear-powered ships, dock them and run the power lines out to the grid. The issues of security we leave to the experts to propose.]

Ethnicity not only marker of progress

Dec 27, 2008
EXAMINATION RESULTS

THE Ministry of Education (MOE) has been publishing annual statistics on examination results for a range of subjects and levels that are supposed to be indicative of the social and educational trends of the main ethnic groups. Such data has been crucial as a litmus test of meritocracy and progress.

As the recent data revealed, the figures have been generally positive. For the category of the percentage of the Primary 1 cohort admitted to post-secondary institutions for example, the Malays and Indians have been registering comparatively larger increases of 20 per cent and 28 per cent respectively against 14 per cent for the Chinese between 1997 and last year. The minority groups have been showing significant improvements.

But given the rapid changes in our socio-educational profiles and priorities, should ethnicity be the only marker or consideration in determining progress on the individual and national levels?

How relevant and accurate would such data be for parents and students in assessing their own situations and making choices at the micro level, and the openings and barriers to entry into higher education on a macro social level? Are the MOE figures supposed to tell me that my racial background alone is largely responsible for my performance? Should we look at other factors like nationality, income level, housing type and school background? The concern of three-room HDB flat residents would probably be the chances of advancement for their children in neighbourhood schools vis-a-vis not their Malay, Chinese or Indian neighbours, but their counterparts who live in five-room flats or private properties and come from independent schools. Putting aside race, what is the trend for students of lower-income backgrounds obtaining a university degree?

Perhaps it is time for MOE to broaden its statistical model beyond the examination-ethnicity nexus for the public to make more informed and holistic assessments, which would help in fine-tuning social policies. A mindset change is needed from merely highlighting how much the Malays have caught up with their Chinese and Indian classmates to one that looks at how the playing field is changing for all students.

Liew Kai Khiun



Do this instead...

'Publish data of students collectively, and compare it with that of children from other countries who sat for the same examinations.'

DR DHARSHINI GOPALAKRISHNAKONE: 'I refer to Tuesday's article, 'Good exam results across races, but maths scores dip'. It is high time that race is not made an issue with regard to examination results. Haven't we crossed the racial barriers such that an individual's capabilities are judged based on a meritocratic system, without race being an issue? If the aim of publishing such data is to motivate the different races to aspire to greater heights, then it is the responsibility of the authors to print only statistically significant differences and produce more relevant data. As a Singaporean, I would rather feel proud that Singaporeans performed well against those in other countries, rather than against fellow Singaporeans of other races. Perhaps what would be more ideal is to publish the data of Singaporean students collectively and compare it with that of children from other countries who sat for the same examinations. This promotes more cohesiveness and would inspire more unity in aspiration among Singaporean students.'

[Idealists who do not know about practical realities. The purpose of such statistics is to show that the education system is not discriminatory or biased against any specific ethnicity. If Malays and Indians are doing as well as the Chinese, then minorities are not systematically being sidelined. If the results show that on the whole the Chinese (or any specific ethnic group) is doing better than the others, then there is cause to wonder if either the system is marginalising or otherwise disadvantaging any specific group. And if so, to take action to remedy the situation. This is about meritocracy. Ensuring that the system is fair to all.]

Right to die: The poverty of secularism

Dec 25, 2008

I REFER to Mr Jonathan Lin's response to my online forum letter on Monday.



[Since he replied, I'll just include for the sake of completeness.]

I appreciate his candour regarding my "diatribe" on how secularism has not provided a clear moral compass for societies at large. However, I fail to see which part of my letter caused him to conclude that we have failed as a society on "how its members treat one another, despite their differences". I certainly hope it was not because I had expressed my objections to euthanasia from the sanctity of life principle.

Secularism is generally the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious beliefs. Correspondingly, secular ethics make the assertion that human beings, through thought and logic, are capable of deriving normative principles of behaviour, outside of religion.

Nowhere in my letter did I espouse a universal or single moral compass for societies based on any particular religious belief. I had merely juxtaposed the euthanasia issue with the sanctity of life principle which emanates from the major religions practised in Singapore. Because secular ethics must obtain its inspiration from non-religious sources, Mr Lin's secular logic caused him to view euthanasia "solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated" and that "everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed".

This is exactly the poverty of secularism in its attempt to address the various moral issues confronting our societies.

[Why is that a "poverty"? Why is "sanctity of life" as a principle more important than "choice" as a principle? Isn't the imposition of the "sanctity of life" moral principle a "poverty of choice" and a "poverty of reason", and a "poverty of discretion"? If we impose "sanctity of life" as a moral absolute then there is no questioning, no reasoning, no need to make a decision. This may be better for some people. But it may not be best for all. For people who need religion to guide and rule their lives, it is good and necessary to have these moral absolutes to make these critical life decisions. But for those who do not need (or want!) these moral absolutes, then such absolutes bind and constraint their options and choices. It is fine to want such absolutes. It is not fine to decide that your absolutes should apply to all.]

If societies at large employ such secular mantras as a basis for legislative codification, then there is nothing to stop us - once we put the necessary safeguards in place - from decriminalising attempted suicides to legalising responsible drug usage, allowing abortions beyond the current 24-week limit as well as liberalising divorce laws and bio-medical research legislation.

[Yes. Question everything based on secular reasoning. You position may be based on your faith. But your attempts to persuade and convince must be based on reason. If you are unable to do that, you come across as a religious fanatic imposing your ways purely on religious grounds. How then are you any different from the PAS in Kelantan?]

Secularism is not the reason various religious groups can co-exist harmoniously in Singapore. By its own definition, secularism does no such thing. The religious harmony that we enjoy today is simply a case of pragmatism, tolerance and mutual respect shown by many in Singapore.

[That is the most idiotic thing written in this letter. "Religious Pragmatism" is an oxymoron. "Secular Pragmatism" is redundant. Mutual respect is not the natural order of ALL religions. Someone knocks on your door in the evening and wants to share his or her faith with you. Is this person a) a Christian, or some deriviations thereof, or b) some other religion? Mutual respect means not believing that your beliefs are better, superior, or truer than other beliefs. No Christian "respects" other religions in that sense. Otherwise, they won't be evangelising. So the writer is wrong. Secularism IS the reason for religious "harmony" in Singapore, because secular laws does not hold any religion to be above any other and any attempt to denigrate any other religion is an offence.] 

Participating in the euthanasia debate, opposing its legalisation and stating the possible ramifications of such actions do not equate to showing disrespect or having an intolerant attitude towards others holding alternative views. It is also certainly not a case of forcing one's belief on another.

[Then explain "Singaporeans ignore Sanctity of Life at their peril". Or "Two wrongs do not make a right" (from the original letter). Those are moral arguments appealing to emotions.]

Alex Tan Tuan Loy

In all fairness, protect employers too

Dec 24, 2008

I AM an employer of a foreign maid. The agreement signed between the employer and maid and the agreement signed between the employer and the agency provide protection for the maid and the employment agency.

However, who protects the employer?

For instance, the agreements state that the employer must hire the maid for at least one month before he can change maids.

Otherwise, the employer must pay the agency the equivalent of a month's salary of the maid.

Another condition stipulates that the employer must bear the cost of the maid's food and lodging when he sends the maid back to the agency for a transfer.

Is this a fair condition?

Why is there no protection for the employer?

For instance, should the employer be liable in cases where the transfer is triggered off by the maid and not the employer?

Why must the employer pay a month's worth of the maid's salary to the agency as well as the maid's food and lodgings in such a situation?

The current agreements are unfair to employers and the Government should consider protecting employers as much as it protects the agencies and the maids.

Loke Kok Wai

[What a whiny letter! Full of self-righteous pettiness. How much is a maid's salary? How much food are you going to pay for? If it is unfair, don't get a maid. If you get a maid, you have to provide for them because they have left their home, family and country to try to work for you. They are not things or animals. Don't want just throw away or send to SPCA and forget about them. Their monthly salary is already laughable. Their working hours incredible. Not all of them can take it. It's the cost of hiring a maid. ]

Euthanasia Debate

Dec 22, 2008
The right to die: A litmus test for secularism

WHEN I read Mr Alex Tan's Online Forum letter last Wednesday ("Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril"), I was reminded of a famous quote that essentially said that a society is best measured by how it treats its poorest.

Mr Tan's diatribe against secularism and euthanasia has inspired me to disagree. A society is better measured by how its members treat one another, despite their differences.

Because, by that measure, if Mr Tan's sentiments are prevalent among Singaporeans, then we have failed as a society.

To Mr Tan, our lack of a universal moral compass is secularism's failure, but he forgets that a diversity of religions and moral standards has always been inherent in civilisation, secular or not. Everyone is also entitled to live and behave in any way, including subscription to moral standards (or not), as long as others are not harmed - as protected by the law, which is purely rational and not adherent to any one set of morals.

Given our rights and diversity, a single moral compass for all is therefore untenable; its non-existence is instead a boon and the natural consequence of religious freedom in our secular state.

Our secularism is why people like Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, even atheists and agnostics, can co-exist harmoniously and engage in respectful debate, despite differing views.

That there is yet "no right or wrong" answer to euthanasia, and that some Singaporeans feel "uptight and queasy" about it, is good. Why hide our differences and pretend that debate is unnecessary? It trumps forcing our beliefs on one another and failing as a society.

The sanctity of life is one such belief central to the objection to euthanasia. I have no personal stake yet in this issue, but the logic of my conclusion revolves solely around whether the freedom of choice is violated - and the best solution is to legalise euthanasia and just let the individual patient weigh the sanctity of his or her own life.

I cannot imagine how euthanasia opponents like Mr Tan would be legally affected when their personal choice to refuse euthanasia would remain intact, and when the personal decisions of terminally ill patients are nobody else's business. Showing respect for one another's personal choice instead of seeking to restrict choice just because we think others are immoral, would be a sign of a society's progress by any measure.

Jonathan Lin

[I asked a colleague, who is a strong, level-headed Christian that I respect, if she automatically opposes euthanasia. Surprisingly, she said no. She might support it actually. I went on to lightheartedly berate her for picking and choosing which tenets of her faith to support, but it is in part this ability and willingness of her to look at things objectively and decide for herself what she feels is right, that I respect her. I do not think she's right. Or wrong, for that matter. I don't know. My religion also says that euthanasia is wrong. I can agree with that... sometimes. I can also question it. And I can also disagree with it. Between these two letters you see the difference between a secularist (or atheist?) and a theist (specifically, a Judeo-Christian theist). The difference is not between "Yes to euthanasia" or "No to Euthanasia". Or the difference between "Sanctity of Life" or "Life is cheap".

No. The real difference between a secularist (atheist) and a theist is the ability to live with ambiguity. The secularist and the atheist are able to live with ambiguity. The theist requires absolutes. (And absolution?)

And it is this demand for absolutes that is the mark of immaturity and which is the seed for destruction.]


Dec 17, 2008
Euthanasia: Singaporeans ignore sanctity of life at their peril

I WRITE to share my personal reflections on the special report on euthanasia by Ms Sandra Davie last Saturday ('Right to die... or right to kill?').

The first reflection is why the renewed debate on euthanasia is taking place now. Ms Davie pointed to the declining role of religion in politics and daily life as one reason for this renewed debate. This is an indictment that secularism and postmodernism have failed to provide a clear moral compass for societies at large. When one subscribes to a philosophy that denies the existence of objective truths, and that truth is a product of a person's culture, secular societies are left paralysed by the individual's clamour to decide his own fate. It also led to Ms Davie to conclude in her blog that 'there is no right or wrong in this issue'. This is indeed a profound statement from secularists. If this is the best that secularism can muster, then I suggest there should be no reason why Singapore society needs to be so uptight and queasy on this issue. As Ms Davie suggested in her blog, this issue just 'requires a full and informed debate'.

The second reflection is the question of sanctity of life in the euthanasia debate. It is disingenuous for doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath to 'do no harm', to oppose euthanasia and yet in the same breath, remain silent with regard to abortion. To objections that we will set ourselves on a slippery slope if Singapore legalises euthanasia, I would venture to suggest that we already started on the slippery slope in 1974 when the Government passed the Termination of Unwanted Pregnancy Act. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, in a parliamentary speech, said the Act was 'to provide for the safe termination of unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential'. I suggest we consider Mr Khaw's advice regarding abortion to euthanasia by 'basing our decision purely on science so we take the emotion out of this particular subject'.

I am against euthanasia. Granted there are emotive, passionate and seemingly heart-rending reasons why it should be legalised, two wrongs do not make a right.

Sanctity of life has an 'in-your-face' logic that Singaporeans and societies at large choose to ignore at their peril.

Alex Tan

Buses move more people

Dec 19, 2008
ON THE ROAD

I REFER to Mr Jatin Doktor's letter last Friday, 'Cars or buses - which move more people?'

Mr Doktor estimated the capacity of a road lane at 6,389 cars per hour along Upper Bukit Timah Road, which would move up to 9,583 people per hour per lane. This was then compared with the bus lane carrying some 5,200 bus passengers per hour.

In fact, based on Mr Doktor's assumptions of car spacing (average car length of 4.5m and three body length spacing between cars) and a travel speed of 23kmh, there would be a total of 1,278 cars passing a specific point every hour along one lane of road. This is the throughput capacity of the road lane.

Unfortunately, Mr Doktor appears to have made an error by multiplying by five, arriving at 6,389 cars per hour, on account of the 5km length of Upper Bukit Timah Road.

The length of the road lane has no effect on the throughput capacity, in the same way that the length of a water pipe does not increase the flow rate of water through the pipe.

Our monitoring of traffic along Upper Bukit Timah Road during the morning peak hours shows that the throughput is about 1,500 vehicles per lane per hour. If we take the average number of people carried by a car to be 1.5 and that carried by a single- deck bus to be 80, it would work out to about 5,000 passengers per hour on the bus lane, compared with 2,250 passengers by car on a normal road lane.

Hence, bus lanes better utilise our limited road space and favour more people.

The bus lane scheme is one of a series of initiatives to improve bus commuters' overall journey experience. Bottlenecks at congested stretches of roads would delay the travel of not only on-board passengers, but also commuters further downstream in terms of unreliable waiting time.

With more bus priority measures, buses can keep to their schedules better, and bus commuters can enjoy faster and smoother journeys. Given our land constraints, we need to strike a balance in meeting the needs of different groups of road users.

We seek public understanding and support for our efforts in improving the travel experience of all road users and we thank Mr Doktor for the opportunity to clarify.

Geoffrey Lim
Deputy Director Media Relations
Land Transport Authority

[If you like math, you'll love to try to understand this reply. This is a good reply. But not all will understand.]

Mica committed to all 4 official languages

Dec 18, 2008

I REFER to Tuesday's letter, 'What about proper use of other languages?'.

We agree with Ms Koh Mei Hui on proper use of the other languages. The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) is committed to support and promote all four official languages.

Besides the Speak Good English Movement, Mica appoints and funds the Promote Mandarin Council, the Malay Language Council and the Tamil Language Council. They work with various public, business and community partners, as well as the mass media which is a key instrument to reach out to the communities. Together, they promote the use and appreciation of the languages. The councils and partners also organise language festivals, literary programmes and events rooted in the cultures of the communities.

The Government is committed to working with our community partners to promote the proper use of our four official languages.

Julia Hang (Mrs)
Director, Corporate Communications
Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts

[If MICA is committed to the 4 languages, explain the contradictory "Huayu Cool!" slogan from sometime back!]

What about proper use of other languages?

Dec 16, 2008

I WOULD like to ask about other languages, especially Chinese, Malay and Tamil.

Many young Chinese Singaporeans cannot speak their mother tongue properly, especially variety show hosts and radio deejays who misread or mispronounce Chinese words. More Chinese Singaporeans speak Mandarin now, but in a sentence you hear a mixture of 'lor, then, but'. This is really frustrating to hear.

Singapore is fortunate to be multicultural and we have the environment to master different languages. I hope the authorities will look into speaking other languages properly as well.


Kok Mei Hui (Ms)

[I was thinking about this just this morning. I had just ordered "yi ke lor mai kai, he liang ke siew mai" which was basically Mandarin mixed with Cantonese. In my defence, at two coffee shops, my order of "teh-o peng" invariably gets translated by the China workers as "teh-o Ping". The hokkien "teh-o peng" gets mangled into hokkien-mandarin.  As long as we all understand each other. :-)]

GOOD ENGLISH THE WAY TO GO

Dec 16, 2008

Singlish will undermine education hub

I READ last Friday's reply by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts and Ministry of Education, 'Good English the way to go', with interest.

I suggest that schools implement the following to enable students to learn standard English.

First, schools should teach grammar in English classes. To implement this, MOE should publish a series of English grammar textbooks to be used at all levels.

Second, teachers must use standard English in teaching and communication. They should correct students' poor language habits whenever they write or speak Singlish.

In addition, teachers must explain to students why their Singlish usage is wrong, and show them the correct usage in standard English. Students should be taught not to repeat improper English in future.

Apart from the important reasons why we should use standard English, as stated in the ministry letter, it is vital to be aware that Singlish will undermine Singapore's image as an education hub.

Simon Ng

[Another letter stating the obvious, while oblivious to other issues, and recalling a return to the old days of school. An appeal to nostalgia. Wonderful. Must be a slow forum page day.]

PRs who live in Johor and drive into Singapore enjoy unfair advantage

Dec 15, 2008

I HAVE noticed that there is an increasing number of Singapore permanent residents (PRs) living in neighbouring Johor and driving into Singapore.

They drive Singapore-registered cars during peak hours and contribute to massive jams along all major expressways as well as the two land checkpoints. They live in Johor, enjoy subsidised petrol which is extended only to Malaysians and hardly spend a cent in Singapore.

[How is driving a S'pore reg'd car an advantage? They contribute to jams at the two land checkpoints? How does this affect the writer unless he's also squeezing thru the checkpoint at that time? i.e. He's either one of the S'pore PR in M'sia he's complaining about, or he's a M'sian commuting to work in Singapore every morning. And if they contribute to the jams on the expressways, then they would also be paying ERP. So all's fair.

Cheap petrol? They would be subject to 3/4 tank rule too.]

So why do Singaporeans have to pay similar electronic road pricing (ERP) charges as PRs when it is this latter group that jams up the roads?

[Wow, like it's 90% SPR cars on the road is it?]

If the Government's rhetoric of 'Singaporeans first' applies to the health and public housing sectors, then it should extend to the ERP as well.

Perhaps the Land Transport Authority could comment on the issue and also make it known to the public what percentage of car owners (including off-peak cars) are PRs?

[So you don't know? So all your claims are based on...?]

I would also like to suggest that PRs driving Singapore-registered cars pay higher toll fees to offset the ERP charges during peak hours.

Kevin Wong

[Yea! Stick it to the SPR living in M'sia. As long as I don't have to pay!]

Good English the way to go

Dec 12, 2008

WE REFER to Tuesday's report, 'Linguists speak up for Singlish'.

Since independence, Singapore has adopted English as our language of use for business and government. As a result, we have gained a competitive edge as English is the lingua franca on the Internet and in a globalised world.

We have attained a level of proficiency in English among our young and the general public. However, it would be wrong to assume that this competency is a given, if standards are not adhered to.

As linguists have pointed out, the language environment in Singapore is complex, due to the use of multiple and very different languages.

The Ministry of Education's experience in schools is that the use of Singlish will confuse students and hinder their progress in developing competency in the English language. If children hear Singlish, they will learn Singlish.

Students immersed in Singlish encounter many difficulties in learning and speaking standard English. Furthermore, non-standard usage in speech often transfers to writing. While some students who are proficient in English can switch between standard English and Singlish, this is not true for all students. It is therefore educationally sound to teach standard English.

The Speak Good English Movement promotes standard English. People who speak good English should continue to do so, to serve as role models and help our young learn standard English.

Singaporeans, especially our young, must be able to communicate in English with clarity and impact, not just with fellow Singaporeans but with English speakers all over the world. This is especially important because we are a small nation, and cannot expect others to understand Singlish.

While Singlish may be a fascinating academic topic for linguists to write papers about, Singapore has no interest in becoming a curious zoo specimen to be dissected and described by scholars. Singaporeans' overriding interest is to master a useful language which will maximise our competitive advantage, and that means concentrating on standard English rather than Singlish.

Liew Choon Boon
Director, Arts & Heritage Development Division
Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts

Ho Peng (Ms)
Director
Curriculum Planning and Development
Ministry of Education

[There's no question about making Singlish an official language. All the linguists are saying is that the complex society that Singapore is, makes for an interesting interaction between English as it is taught, and Singlish as it is spoken. There is also no question that schools and the Speak Good English Movement has key roles in maintaining the standard of standard English and in this they have an important role. Singlish has its place and its role and there is no need to attempt to eradicate Singlish. But the bureaucrats need to state the obvious while being oblivious to the point.]

English for maids, but not front-line staff?

Dec 10, 2008

I REFER to the letters on front-line staff who cannot understand or speak even basic English, and would like to give my feedback.

It is surprising that a maid must pass a basic English test before her work permit is approved, but foreign front-line staff need not. Maids usually have to communicate with their employer's family members and do some work outside, such as shopping, whereas front-line staff in shops must understand products and explain them to customers. Moreover, they must be able to do it quickly and to people of various races who share a common language, English.

Are we penalising the wrong people here? I can live with a maid, even if she does not speak English, as long we can communicate in another language. However, I do not expect the same from a supermarket cashier and I do not want to have to struggle to understand what he is trying to say.

I hope the authorities can explain this.

Regimon Sebastian

[A sensible, simple letter raising a very pertinent point. ]

Double standards: In sedition case and DBS charity tie-up

Dec 9, 2008

I READ with interest two seemingly unrelated reports last Friday, 'Couple go on trial for sedition' and 'DBS' charity tie-up draws flak'.

In the case of the sedition trial, while the authorities have rightly taken action to robustly maintain the fragile balance in the areas of race, language and religion, it is disheartening that this action is not applied universally to all. There seems to be a greater tolerance of 'attacks' on Christianity than other major religions.

We have these attacks in cinemas in The Da Vinci Code movie, where insinuations regarding the 'authority' of the Bible abounded and the central tenet of who Jesus is was questioned repeatedly. We have them in bookshops and community libraries as well. Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, labelled the God of the Bible 'a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully'.

[There is no double standards. Clearly Singapore is against Christianity! Can't his paranoid delusion help him see it?

And, as pointed out by some comments online, there is a world of difference between a proselytising action (distributing tracts to people who did not ask for it), and personal choice of entertainment (buying a book or watching a movie). There is also a world of difference in offering what is claimed to be facts, and what is claimed to be fiction or an opinion.]

As a Christian, I am not threatened by such 'attacks' and even welcome such opportunities it gives the Christian community to reflect on what and why we believe, thereby strengthening our faith. I do, however, wonder how the authorities would have responded if these 'attacks' were aimed at other religious groups.

In the case of the DBS charity tie-up case, a group of concerned activists has successfully forced DBS Bank to draw down its support of a local charitable organisation for fear of further negative publicity over a tenuous link the organisation may have had with its American parent, with its strong family-centric and corresponding pro-life and traditional family values.

[That DBS is a wimp is a separate matter. DBS is a commercial entity and makes decision based on commercial consideration. They fear losing some customers, or being seen as intolerant, etc. It cannot be used as a reflection of the Govt or the powers that be. ] 

It will not be long before these activists, bolstered by their success, start to target 'bigger' fish. Religion-based beneficiaries of other charity initiatives (for example, the President's Challenge), which do not conform to the activists' values, will be targeted. Mission schools will also be targeted since, in the views of these activists, public money should not be used to promote any religious viewpoint, subtle or otherwise.

The first incident intimated the seemingly differing treatment in Singapore towards religion in general, and Christianity in particular. The second incident demonstrated an increasingly disturbing trend by some in Singapore to forcibly remove all religious influences from society.

The potential ramifications of these two incidents, if left unchecked, will bode for an increasingly factious and polarised Singapore society.

Alex Tan

[Muslims don't proselytise. Buddhist don't proselytise. Hindus don't proselytise. Jews don't proselytise. If someone knocks on your door and asks to share his religious views with you, what is the most likely religion they are "sharing"?

a) Christianity
b) Christianity
c) Christianity
d) Christianity
e) All of the above.

The fractious and polarised society will come about because of attempts to proselytise.]

Singapore remained a functioning port: After fall of Temasek in 14th century

Dec 6, 2008

IN HIS letter on Monday, 'Sleepy fishing village? Singapore a sizeable port of regional significance in 14th century', Mr Gilles Massot, replying to Mr Tan Yip Meng ('Back to the future, a sleepy fishing village', Nov 25), invoked my name and expertise. Mr Massot referred to a short paper I prepared for the colloquium The Makers And Keepers Of Singapore History at the Asia Research Institute on Nov 10. As the letter to the Forum touches on the history of pre-Raffles Singapore and is of considerable interest to the public, I would like to clarify my position on a few points.

The first concerns Stamford Raffles. Mr Massot accuses Raffles of spreading lies. While I fully concur that there are a number of problematic and historically challenging aspects relating to the Van Braam treaty of 1784, its impact on the Johor-Riau-Lingga Empire, and implicitly the legal status of Singapore island, I veer to the side of caution and surmise that Raffles simply did not know any better. For sure, he was insanely hostile to the Dutch cause, but he was also completely ignorant of Singapura's fate and history between the late 15th and early 18th century.

This leads us to the issue of Singapura's protracted decline. Mr Massot is absolutely correct to highlight that there are non-English language sources of European provenance worth consulting. These lend support to the view that Singapura had a sizeable and functioning port well beyond the 'fall' of Temasek. Over the past decade, I have published a series of papers to advance precisely this point. The public should know that the Florentine merchant-traveller Giovanni da Empoli wrote his last will and testament while anchored in the 'port of Singapura'. That was in the year 1517. Several officers' logs of the early Dutch voyages to the East Indies mention the Singapore Strait, and describe in considerable detail their passage through the narrow channel that separates present-day Sentosa and HarbourFront. Vice-Admiral Pietersz van Enkhuysen mentions in his log the 'town' of Singapore in an entry dating from 1603. The most comprehensive and detailed testimony, however, derives from the Spanish-language materials of Jacques de Coutre. In several memorials addressed to the King of Spain, de Coutre recommends the construction of one fortification each on Singapore and Sentosa, and a third on what appears to be the north shore of Pulau Tekong Besar. De Coutre also makes reference to the town he calls Shabandaria, because this was the site of the shabandar or harbour master. This can be additionally corroborated on the basis of Portuguese cartography dating from the early 17th century. De Coutre's ship anchored in the port of Singapura in 1594 and he also told the King of Spain it was 'one of the best that serves all of the Indies'. All this hardly squares with the image of a sleepy seafront kampung.

There are, of course, other sources as well, but it must be immediately added that European authors are not always clear what they are talking about. About a decade ago, I consulted some letters by Francis Xavier, the famed 16th-century Jesuit and missionary. He makes references to Singapura as well, but the Jesuit refers to the narrow strait between present-day HarbourFront and Sentosa, and not the town. Now, as was evidently the case with Xavier's vessel, ships often had to anchor off the waters near Fort Siloso or in the Old Harbour of Singapore (which was located to the south of Beach Road, now under reclaimed land) to await the change of the tides and winds. Surviving reports and testimonies tell us this waiting could take days, even a week or more. There are reports mentioning scores of vessels anchored off present-day Fort Siloso waiting to pass through the Old Strait. When the wind and tide was finally favourable, ships had to pass through the strait, whether it was broad daylight or the wee hours of the morning. That is why ships often relied on local pilots to guide them though dangerous waters that were littered with submerged rocks and reefs.

Singapore's local population, we are told by many Dutch and Portuguese sources dating from the 16th and 17th centuries, and notably also by de Coutre, lived in and around the Old Strait, as well as in the town located at the mouth of the Singapore River. Few sources from this period describe the local population as 'pirates' - that label appears to date from a later period in the 18th and early 19th century. Now the local population were nothing short of clever business people, acting as pilots to guide ships though the Old Strait, or as flying vendors who pulled up in their boats alongside the passing ships to sell fresh fruit, fish, live chickens and fresh water. Some of the local residents, we are told, spoke Portuguese fluently, and after the dawn of the 17th century, also Dutch. In other words, in the 16th and early 17th century, Singapore was a pretty happening place.

Dr John Miksic, whose name Mr Massot also invokes, has published extensively on his archaeological findings in Singapore. I refer to his excellent publications and add only this observation from my own research in archives in Portugal and the Netherlands: Something seems to have happened around Singapore in the first decade of the 17th century. Dr Miksic - perhaps relying on the testimony of the 18th-century Dutch cleric Francois Valentyn - claims the Portuguese had 'destroyed' or burnt down Singapura sometime around the first decade of the 17th century. Indeed, there were Portuguese attacks on settlements up the Johor River, such as in 1587 when Paulo Lima de Pereira sacked Johor Lama, and again in 1604 or early 1605 when the Portuguese attacked the rebuilt city and other towns further upstream. Valentyn mentions a Portuguese attack in 1608. Singapura may have been burnt down by another party at another date, namely by the Acehnese in 1613, in the course of their second attack on the royal residence of Batu Sawar in 1615, or even as late as 1617 to 1618 when the Acehnese attacked positions in Pahang, Bintan and Lingga.

The Spanish armada arriving from Manila anchored off Singapore in late 1615 and early 1616, raising alarm among the Johor nobles and particularly the sultan who pressed the proverbial 'panic button' with the Dutch by requesting their prompt military assistance. An attack on Singapura made sense in any case, because we know from the log of Admiral Cornelis Matelieff de Jonge (1605 to 1608) that Singapura was the residence of the shahbandar, and this shahbandar also commanded over a sizeable 'fleet' of the Johor sultan. All this evidence hardly reflects the image of a sleepy seafront kampung.

My own extensive research on the Singapore and Malacca straits has revealed that references to the town of Singapura or the Shahbandaria diminish after about 1620. This could be linked to the periodic Acehnese attacks (Johor was at peace with Portugal at the time) and the sultan who fled to Bintan, Lingga and finally died on one of the Tambelan Islands in the early 1620s.

What is clear from all of the above is that Singapura was not in a forgotten backwater or a sleepy seafront kampung. It would be simply self-deluding to repeat the error and false conclusions of Raffles and assume that the sleepy kampung of Singapura had always been that way, at least since the fall of Temasek in the 15th century.

In conclusion, I fully concur with Mr Massot that pre-Raffles Singapore history has been quantitatively and qualitatively enriched over the past 20 years, notably also as a result of the archaeological excavations of Dr Miksic in the 1980s. The research findings from archaeological diggings and archival research are all out there, published, in the libraries, sometimes on the Internet, and in any case freely accessible to the public. But the debate over the value, meaning and significance of these published findings for the modern Singapore citizen continues.

This contribution is submitted as a private individual.

Peter Borschberg

[Then once in a while, someone intelligent, or who knows what he's talking about writes in and enlighten us all. Nice.]