'Consent' shouldn't trump what society deems morally bad

Nov 23, 2009

I REFER to Mr Alvin Chen's letter last Monday, 'Give courts more sentencing discretion'. This was in response to Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy's letter, 'Decriminalise consensual underage sex' (Nov 13).

Allowing 'consent' to trump what society perceives as morally bad behaviour is to undermine society's right to enforce its moral determinations. This was an issue that Lord Patrick Devlin addressed his mind to in his essay, The Enforcement Of Morals.

Lord Devlin stated that a shared morality is what keeps a society together. The law is used to prevent the loosening of this moral 'cement'. Thus, as a matter of presumption, the fact that a law exists that criminalises consensual sex between minors indicates that the word is already out on the moral judgment of such behaviour.

Mr Chen's argument that the state should be paternalistic in situations where consent might be given by minors who do not have sufficient maturity is also not without problems. First, using a 'sufficiently mature' consent approach to determine whether certain acts should be legislated is a slippery slope that could see us spiralling towards decriminalising even euthanasia or incest.

Second, Mr Chen's proposal of reform at the level of sentencing, and not at the level of legislation, presupposes that such an action is wrong to begin with. However, if Mr Chen is willing to accept it is not morally wrong for mature minors to engage in consensual sex, why should even punishment be meted out?

Alternatively, if one can show that as a matter of statistical probability, sexual activity at this age results in an aversion to deepening the commitment of a relationship via the institution of marriage, or that it affects an individual's psyche in the perception of the value of commitment, then in so far as the institution of marriage or the value of commitment is regarded as a moral good that society embraces, one could also find oneself somewhat persuaded that the law should remain.

Marcus Foo

[Agree with the gist of the letter. But Marcus makes a wrong assumption: that laws reflect morality. Adultery is morally unacceptable to most. But it is not criminalised. Prostitution is also not acceptable to most. But it is not criminalised. Gambling - to many also not acceptable, legal.

What "consenting" children do sexually is not morally acceptable. The question is whether criminalising these acts is the best solution? Sending them through the courts and giving the courts little discretionary powers to deal with minors - is this the best way to deal with the problem? The answer is not simply decriminalise or criminalise. A first step would be to give the courts more leeway and discretion.]

Thank you MM Lee, for showing the way

Nov 23, 2009

I HAVE always been impressed with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for his vision and passion. But my respect for him has gone up a few more notches after his recent speech to encourage the study of Chinese language differently.

Having believed earlier that every child can master two languages equally well, he admitted his mistake. He said he did not realise that a child's intelligence and language ability were two different things.

These are the lessons I have learnt from MM Lee:

# Leaders make policy for their country, not for themselves: The implementation of the bilingual policy was for the sake of the country. He envisioned the growth of China and he has been proven right. Now he is championing a change of course for the sake of Singapore citizens.

# Leaders admit mistakes: For a man of his stature, and one who has accomplished so much, he is willing to admit he was wrong. For that, I have the utmost respect.

# Leaders learn from their mistakes and make amends: MM Lee said: 'I intervened successively over the years and insisted that my experience should guide the policy. I was taking risks. I started wrong and I put it right.'

# Leaders acknowledge they may not have it right completely: MM Lee's willingness to learn, relearn and unlearn is truly admirable. Regarding the policy, he said: 'It is not completely right but I will get it right if I live long enough.' His keeping on pushing the boundary and passionately desiring to make a difference tops it all.

Thank you, MM Lee, for teaching me how to lead.

Dr John Ng

Why living with parents is a stultifying Singaporean trait

Sep 19, 2009

I REFER to the replies which criticised my letter, 'Few babies? It's the Hotel Mama mindset' (Sept 9).

Let me emphasise that there are many reasons for a low fertility rate and that the situation in the West is similar to Singapore's.

But being forced to live with one's parents is something uniquely Singaporean, which has some negative consequences.

Human development goes through stages. To become an adult, not just in years, but in the truest sense of the word, one has to 'leave the dependency of childhood and adolescence...explore a variety of possible life directions in love, work and world views...before entering the enduring responsibilities that are normative in adulthood' (Wikipedia, Emerging adulthood).

Staying at home in one's 20s and early 30s keeps individuals dependent on the services of their parents (shelter, food, laundry and cleaning) and prevents them from proceeding in their personal development in some areas. Perhaps a psychologist could explain why facing challenges on our own and becoming independent is so important to our development?

My guess is that 50 years ago, people in Singapore got independent earlier, that the parent generation had to stand on their own feet and reached 'maturity' at an age when their children nowadays still enjoy the comfort of their parents' home.

In Switzerland, I had a neighbour who lived with his mother until she died when he was 60. Of course, he remained single for the rest of his life.

I grew up with my grandmother sharing our home, as my sister's family does now with my parents. But my sister had her own household before and lived in the United States and Japan for many years. Taking care of one's parents is a value cherished around the world, but it does not mean one should depend on one's parents long into adulthood.

I have a friend in Singapore who hates his father. Some years ago, when his mother got sick, the father refused to come back from Vietnam, where he worked. When she was terminally ill, he had to come back, but refused to pay for her treatment, sending his money to Vietnam instead, insisting it was his money.

His wife died and not long after he got involved with a woman 30 years younger, who wanted to marry him. But he had to prove his sincerity. So the father, who had just retired, gave her all his Central Provident Fund savings, upon which she disappeared.

My friend is so angry with his stubborn, selfish father who would not listen to reason. When my friend is at home, he locks his door and avoids seeing his father at all costs. But my friend is stuck with him in the same HDB flat.

Another friend in his early 30s goes to his room around 11pm and waits until his parents are asleep. Sneaking out, he locks his bedroom door so his parents think he is still asleep when they get up early in the morning, while he spends the night in a cheap hotel with a girl.

But I have another friend whose father got too sick to work. The son supports his parents and lives with them happily, with his wife and their first baby.

If someone wants to take care of his parents out of his free will and lives with them, I would be the first to applaud him for that. But filial piety should not be confused with the many who have no choice than to stay with their parents and where the parents support their adult children instead the other way round. This might feel comfortable, but for some it becomes so comfortable that they will never break free and start a family on their own, like my neighbour in Switzerland.

I am convinced that Singapore would benefit if it gave young adults a chance to live on their own. Singapore's population is supposed to grow to six million people, which means nearly 50 per cent more housing is needed. If that is possible, why not a small 10 per cent increase to cater for the needs of the young?

Peter Huber

---------- Online comment ---------

Hi all,

Stop critisizing Peter Huber for a moment and read his letter again. Peter is in fact pointing the finger at our govt for the lack of housing. This housing shortage (which leads to high property prices) will only worsen if PAP really goes for 6 million population!!!
Posted by: legolass at Sun Sep 20 00:13:01 SGT 2009

[Peter is rambling all over the place and drawing on any and all anecdotes to support his argument that children shouldn't live with their parents - for the sake of the children's psychological development and health. And if legolass is correct about his real point, she (and he) is missing the big picture. If 200,000 singles were suddenly free to buy their own flats under HDB rules, their entry into the market is going to increase demand and increase prices, not reduce them. And when Peter finally finds someone who will marry him, he will find that he and his wife will be competing with so many singles looking for a flat and prices will be even higher. Then he will be writing to the press to say why HDB should give priority to newly weds like him so that they can produce the children that Singapore wants and needs. He's not arguing from principle. He's arguing from self-interests and trying to disguise it as high principles. And even if he were arguing from high principles, then he needs to propose a solution that takes into account the real and local constraints. Otherwise, he's just a whiny impatient brat.]

ADORABLE WAY OF SPEAKING - Ris Low & her RazorTV interview

19 Sep 2009

I think the way Ms Low speaks is adorable. She really 'shouts me'. It is Singlish of the highest order and I lurve it.

Yes, we can make fun of Singlish for its peculiar pronunciation and queer sentence structure but it is our own self-evolved lingua franca.

The Speak Good English Movement chairman Goh Eck Keng is right. When we laugh at Ms Low, we are laughing at half of Singapore (maybe more).

I used to lament that we had no sense of language identity. Travelling around Asia, I have observed that every country has its unifying patois. The Thais speak Thai, Malaysians speak Malay tinged with English pronouns, the Indonesians have Bahasa and Filipinos have Tagalog.

We had nothing until Singlish came along.

Let's rejoice. Just as the Chinese have Chingrish and the Japanese have Japlish, we can take great pride in having our own Singlish.

And like any other language, it will evolve. You cannot stop it because this is the language of comfort and convenience.

We feel good when we hear it. It is warm, witty, humorous and musical. And it has such wonderful words.

Just the other day, I heard a Singapore Airlines stewardess say: 'Thankchew for frying with Sinkapor Allies, a member of Style Lions.'

What on earth was that? I had to think for a few seconds before connecting the dots. 'Style Lions' is 'Star Alliance'. But what a great name - Style Lions!

As for Ms Low, she is just gorgeous and 'Boomz', whether or not she wears a 'piss of rad bigini' or 'duck gins with leopard and zibbra preens'.

If she needs a dress that 'shouts' her for the big occasion, I offer to buy her one and I will get my cousin Tina Tan-Leo (the owner of The Link boutique) to style her, too.

Go for it, Ms Low. Do us proud.

Dr Woffles Wu

[This letter made me feel happy for Ris Low.  It made me think about what this opportunity means to her. We are not all born beautiful, and we don't all have the same skills and abilities. This is perhaps a chance of a lifetime for her. Let's not rain on her parade. I hope she has a good time at the final show.]

S'pore not the only dragon that scores well in public policy

Sep 16, 2009

IN HIS commentary last Wednesday ("The Republic of Common Sense"), Professor Kishore Mahbubani compared the PUB's 99.9 per cent water delivery record with the problem of irregular maintenance of hundreds of miles of water pipes in the United States to illustrate Singapore's superior public policies.

But the US is so much bigger with so many more pipes to maintain. The US infrastructure is also much older. The recent stink about the Pasir Ris coast being contaminated by old, leaking sewerage pipes shows just how difficult it is to tackle the problem of aged infrastructure.

Singapore may often be cited as one of the models of development, but that does not mean Singapore is unique in and of its own in its rapid development. What is often forgotten is that Singapore is merely one of four East Asian dragons and much of the success of our policies and institutions is rooted in who we are - East Asians.

It would be good indeed if the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, which Prof Mahbubani heads, can help raise the level of reflection and questioning in Singapore.

Ng Kok Lim

[So by raising the level of reflection and questioning, we would conclude that the success of our policies and institutions is because we are East Asians? So Hong Kong, Taiwan & S. Korea being the other 4 dragons also have good and sound public policies?

Then what about Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, and the Indochina countries? They are East Asians too? Ng's letter is ironic evidence that there is a lack of reflection and questioning by Singaporeans, if his conclusion is based more on cultural/racial prejudice rather than well thought out arguments.

(edit: In other words, thinly veiled racism)

As for the Pasir Ris problem, Ng apparently makes no differentiation between water pipes and sewerage pipes. He may be taking Newater a little too literally. But not to sweep the problem under the carpet, at least the authorities recognise there is a problem and is acting to solve the problem, and there is a plan to resolve the problem. It is not unknown for other countries to deny there is a problem and let people swim in contaminated waters, or give up on the problem - no budget and other priorities, and make vague promises to solve the problem... which then drags on for decades without resolution. That's poor public policy.

There are some cities in the US that uses a tagline "The city that works" If any city deserves such a tag, it is Singapore.]

Few babies? It's the Hotel Mama mindset

[And now we bring you the tale of a sexually frustrated young man in Singapore...]

Sep 9, 2009

IT IS not by chance that Singapore has such a low fertility rate. There are many contributing factors, but an important one is the housing policy and the mindset behind it.

In Europe and the United States, people leave their homes in their early 20s or even earlier. With their salaries, they can afford to rent a place, maybe with a friend or two. Those aged 25 and above, who are still living at home, are considered strange, immature and lacking in independence.

In the West, people in their 20s experiment, enjoy their freedom and have probably more than one relationship before they settle down and start a family.

[And what are their TFR?]

In Singapore, it is a policy that only married couples can have an affordable, subsidised flat. It is way too expensive for someone who has just entered the workforce to rent or buy an apartment on the resale market. So they live with their parents and enjoy Hotel Mama, which is comfortable and saves them some money.

But they have to follow their parents' rules, such as, 'When I wake up, you have to be in your bed, alone'. Bringing a lover home is out of the question. For them, childhood continues until they are well into their 30s.

Is it then really surprising that there are not many babies?

[You really need to learn from our students. They somehow managed it. At home, when their parents are at work. At void decks, stairwells, holiday chalets, parks, etc. And they start as young as 10 now. and they don't need to be Americans or Europeans. :-)]

It is not just a question of having no private space. It is also a question of mentality. In the West, young people learn early to stand on their own feet, to take care of themselves, to live their own lives.

In Singapore, the young are conditioned to follow the rules, to live for their schools or jobs, to listen to their parents and to be obedient citizens.

But different qualities are needed for starting a family, such as readiness to take risks, independence and the ability to have fun.

[Ya. Those are the qualities to start a pregnancy. But the qualities to be a good parent should include sense of responsibility, discipline, resourcefulness, and tenacity.]

In Singapore, there is too much emphasis on obedience, too little on independence. That is not good for having babies.

[Wong (below) will say something about this. Much better than I can. You dodo.]

Some might say that Singapore has no choice because it is a small island. But I don't know any other big city which has so much empty land, even at the best locations next to underground train stations.

[There you are! have sex next to the train station!]

It seems to be the policy here to make available only a little land for buildings and to keep property prices sky-high.

[Damn! you found out our national secret. We'll have to stop you from procreating!]

Peter Huber

-------- online comments ---------
[And now, a comment from our resident misogynist & bigot:]

The writer, Peter Huber, is entitled to his theory to explain SG's low birth rate just like any of us. He may have something when he points to the high property prices ( as part of the high costs of living in general). In the main, though, he blames it on us for being docile obedient dodos when compared with the ("superior") risk-taking independent die-die-must-move-out Westerners. 

If he had put more thought into it, he might have noticed: 

1. When SG had a post-war baby boom, the pre-conditions to which he ascribes higher birth rates in the West didn't obtain then, in some ways even less than now. Rent was not cheap relative to income, extended families lived under-one-roof and social norms were far more conservative than now. 

2. In fact, in none of the Asian countries that experienced a baby boom were you likely to have found the pre-conditions to which the writer ascribes Western birth rates. Indeed, relative to these Asian countries during their baby boom years, Western birth rates were LOWER. 

3. He might have noticed that if we were indeed obedient docile dodos, we would NOT HAVE a birth rate problem because we would obey the exhortations of the govt and our own parents to pro-create.

[Bravo! *clap* *clap*. Wong, despite his misogyny, is an intelligent man. But then he goes on...]

But, of course, Mr. Huber was not really interested in a deeper look into his own theory. His letter was about ideology i.e. pushing the stock Western line about "superior" Western freedom versus stifling Asian conformity. Same ole same ole. This kind of superiority complex underpinned the whole era of overt imperialism and the thing to note is how alive and well it is up to now. (So much for the Westernised who claim differently.) 

 [No, no, Mr Wong. You're misinterpreting the sexual frustrations of a young man with no privacy with higher ideals. In doing so, you ridiculously elevate the testosterone ranting of a sex-starved young man to the level of a clash of civilisations. Samuel Huntington, he is not. Mr Wong is born in the wrong era. He would have made a wonderful anti-colonialist.]

Look, if we don't care for generalisations about Asian societies being "morally superior" to Western societies then we must recognise Mr. Huber's letter for what it is - merely a similar generalisation in the opposite direction. Come back when you have a real take on our problems, Mr. Huber, but spare us the cold war era ideological broadcast.

[And Mr Wong should take off his tunnel-vision glasses. :-) ]

Posted by: WongHoongHooi at Wed Sep 09 15:00:42 SGT 2009

...
[And now a word from our resident Anti-PAP...]

WongHoongHooi,
The reason for the stop at two policy was obvious - the govt projected the population based on the birth rates then (1960's) to be untenable for whatever developmental plans it had in mind.
And as they say, things tend to acquire their own momentum once things get rolling. One thing leads to another. Small families and policies designed as disincentive for having large families inevitably led to the 'nuclear' family, more liberal abortion law etc.
The stop at two policy became so ingrained in govt policy consideration order of the day that nobody gave a dot when reproduction rates dived below renewal level. And of course, the making of an aging population obviously crossed nobody's mind. The dominant thought was probably this: the overpopulation issue has been effectively
tackled. And it didn't help when the PM is such a dominant and overpowering figure that no well meaning and career minded senior civil servant dared to point out the looming problem to him in order to live another day1
What did people like Ngiam Tong Tow and the Chief Statistician who probably have the ears of the top do then?
I have a cynical belief that many probable did see the problem looming but were AFRAID to speak for they love their families' and their own future more.
THERE IS NO RUNNING AWAY FROM RESPONSIBILITY BY THE POLITICIANS IN THE MANNER THINGS TURN OUT IN A COUNTRY. THE BUCK STOPS SQUARELY AT THE DOOR STEP OF THE LEADERSHIP. IN THIS CASE WE KNOW WHO.
Posted by: commentator_sc at Wed Sep 09 16:22:24 SGT 2009

...

[Commentator was having such a good run, I didn't have the heart to interject. :-)

But this is a case study of hijacked agendas. Huber writes a barely disguised piece on his sexual frustration. which is translated by the anglophobe as an attack on his culture and rises to defend his civilisation while casting Huber in the role of imperialist. Then commentator comes along and says, "it's all LKY's fault!"

And that is a day in the life at the ST forum.

You have to laugh.]

Flaming vortex

Aug 4, 2009
Wanton use of fire for entertainment will work against green efforts

I REFER to the report "Flaming vortex gets Science Centre fired up" last Saturday.

While I am not against scientific research and activities that yield benefits for the planet and humankind, I feel that the wanton use of fire as entertainment or attraction is a spit in the face of pro-environmental efforts.

On the one hand, we are discussing the problem of forest fires in Indonesia and global warming on an unprecedented scale. On the other hand, we are burning fuel purely for the sake of entertaining people for a few minutes.

Not only that, the Singapore Science Centre is actually thinking of producing smaller versions of this invention for commercial sale.

Besides being a potential fire hazard, this invention goes against the green message: conserve energy and reduce global warming.

Aeronautics engineer Tsai Her Mann's invention can be used to demonstrate how fires may spread or grow in strength, but let us not waste resources on transient entertainment.

Adam Leo Isidore Tan
--------------

[Extreme Environmentalism. Next he would travel to Hawaii and terminate the employment of many fire entertainers. Think Global. Act Loco.]

--------------
Aug 1, 2009
Flaming vortex gets Science Centre fired up

A SWIRLING tornado of fire, 6m high, will be the showpiece of a fire exhibition at the Science Centre later this year.

Aeronautics engineer Tsai Her Mann has invented a structure which can channel wind to create the flaming vortex, and the centre is spending $250,000 to put the flames on show.

Visitors will be able to get close to the roaring flames, which will be encased in a steel and glass structure at the centre.

To create 'Tornado', which will go on show in early November, about 3 litres of kerosene will be placed in the central shallow pan. Once lit, 24 slanted vents around the base channel in cool air.

As the cool air rushes in at an angle to replace the rising hot air, a swirl of air currents is created, spinning the flame into a spiralling column in the tower.

The column, which can reach a width of about 1m and a temperature of 300 to 600 deg C, will burn for three to five minutes. There will be bubbles released into the column to demonstrate the air flow, and Dr Tsai has also developed technology for the creation of hydrogen bubbles which will crackle when they burst, adding another dimension to the show.

However, before it can go on display, the exhibit must get safety approval from Singapore Civil Defence Force fire chiefs.

'It will be the iconic, awe-inspiring attraction of the fire exhibition,' said Dr Tsai, who took about four months to build the device. The fire exhibition will include a look at the impact of fire on human civilisation, and the use of fire in domestic and industrial settings.

The Science Centre has filed a patent for a smaller prototype of his invention, at a cost of about $10,000. Patenting an exhibit idea has not been done before at the centre, which is looking to sell tabletop versions of the device at its Jurong shop and other outlets, and hopes it will be as popular as lava lamps. 'I think it represents a milestone for the centre. Even though we may not patent everything, we want to recognise a good idea when it occurs,' said the centre's chief executive, Dr Chew Tuan Chiong.

The invention is believed to be the first flame tornado that does not have to rely on mechanics such as air jets and fans to generate the swirl.

Said Dr Tsai: 'I felt it in my bones, having spent years in aerodynamics, that there must be a way to do it better.'

VICTORIA VAUGHAN

Thio cancels NYU stint

July 27, 2009
Don lost the chance to field her arguments in marketplace of ideas

IN THE wake of Professor Thio Li-ann's decision not to teach at New York University (NYU), much as been made of a lack of tolerance of diverse views in that university. Both Prof Thio and Mr Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University have cited the sequence of events as a display of intolerance.

With respect to both the learned professors, I feel this is a mischaracterisation of what transpired at NYU. A right to express one's views freely comes with the right of others to disagree with those views, and one must take courage to defend what one believes in.

The NYU position throughout this unfortunate sequence of events has been that while the faculty may disagree with Prof Thio's position, it believes that academic freedom should be respected. Even when alumni threatened to boycott future fund-raising events unless Prof Thio was refused access, the university was steadfast in its position that it would not force Prof Thio to withdraw. �

It is disingenuous to paint the disagreement as a suppression of alternative views. Surely one cannot be naive to the fact that the attitude in the United States towards homosexuals is significantly different from that in Singapore. Just as Prof Thio was entitled to her view that homosexual acts should be criminalised, so were the NYU faculty and students entitled to their view that such discrimination is abhorrent.

In many ways, what happened at NYU has been disappointing. By cancelling her courses, Prof Thio has lost the chance to field her arguments in an open marketplace of ideas. The NYU students too have lost the opportunity to be taught by someone who, all views aside, is an extremely intelligent academic with a great presence in the classroom.�

Leon Michael Ryan


-----------------
July 27, 2009
Don's withdrawal from NYU: Don't be too quick to claim victimhood

I REFER to the reports, 'Thio Li-ann cancels teaching stint at NYU' (last Friday) and 'American social activist support Thio Li-ann' (last Saturday), regarding law professor Thio Lin-ann's withdrawal from her teaching stint at New York University (NYU).

The reports imply that Professor Thio felt she had to withdraw from NYU after she was intimidated by the hostile atmosphere there. This should be examined more closely.

At no point did NYU rescind its invitation to Prof Thio. Likewise, the gay university campaign group OUTLaw did not ask for her invitation to be withdrawn. It sent an e-mail message to students stating its position on her homosexual issues, with links to videos of speeches she made in Parliament in 2007. In OUTLaw's own words:

'While respecting Dr Thio's right to her opinion and without questioning her teaching abilities, OUTLaw believes it is important for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and allies to be aware of her views in order to make fully informed decisions regarding class registration.'

There was also an online petition that expressed 'deep disappointment' at NYU's decision to appoint her as Global Visiting Professor of Law. The petition, which drew about 880 signatures, did state that the 'decision to appoint Dr Thio was a grave mistake and her designation to teach 'Human Rights in Asia' is inappropriate and offensive'. But there was no explicit call for her invitation to be rescinded.�

Prof�Thio�is quick to claim victimhood. But when�she accepted the invitation, she must have been aware that her views would not be popular at NYU, a famously liberal university. She should have been prepared for NYU undergraduates to express their opposition strongly.

Bert Wee
-----------------

NUANCE, A SO-CALLED MEMO AND THREATS ...
Letter from Professor Thio Li-ann
05:55 AM Jul 27, 2009

I WRITE to clarify a few points in "Former NMP calls off professorship at NYU"(July 24).

First, the online petition asserting I was an "opponent of human rights" over-simplistically assumes "gay rights are human rights".

Certain countries legally recognise the controversial idea of "gay rights", but this is not a universally accepted human right. Further, the idea of "gay rights" may cover anything from prohibiting workplace discrimination (which I support) to same-sex marriage (which I oppose).

Nuance is needed; simplification is sensationalistic.

Can a capitalist teach Marxism? Could someone who supports the death penalty (which many at New York University disagree with) teach human rights?

There is no settled theory of the source of human rights; many competing interpretations exist. There are core (prohibiting torture) and contested (same-sex marriage, euthanasia) rights.

Second, no 18-page rebuttal was sent to the NYU law faculty. I do not know who posted the so-called "18-point memo" circulating online. This was an internal email I wrote in response to a non-law NYU staffer's email copied to the Dean (who made no response) and others, strongly criticising my appointment.

This was just one of the hostile, often vulgar messages I received, some insulting my intellect, gender, ethnicity and country.

I sought to clarify misrepresentations and rebut potentially defamatory allegations made to personnel involved in the Global Faculty programme which invited my visit.

It is disappointing the NYU law dean would label my response "offensive" and "hurtful", while ignoring the offensive, hurtful and even threatening messages directed against me.

To say I was "disappointed by the hostility" minimises the virulence of the attacks I received. A cursory glance at the invective online explains why many friends worried for my safety.

An American NYU alumnus wrote to the NYU law dean (copied to me), saying he had the impression the dean was "not troubled by the kind of atmosphere" that I was "expected to endure" had I decided to teach at NYU.

Some NYU faculty, staff and students also sent supportive emails; a gay New Yorker apologised for the bullying tactics of certain activists who did not represent him.

Academic freedom dissipates in a hostile environment - by this I do not mean mere viewpoint disputation. Why prejudicially assume I would create "an unwelcoming atmosphere" in class, as opposed to politicking students or frosty faculty members?

Why assume I would not permit free discussion when it is "political correctness" which chills free debate? An email from a Harvard law graduate noted of this affair: "Things just got a little bit darker down at NYU.

-----------
Prof Thio,

"Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic." Very well said. You are a very capable, eloquent academic. Too bad I disagree with you about homosexuality.

The next time anyone says that homosexuality is "anti-family", please help us all tell them many gays can and do love their families a lot. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.

The next time anyone says gays are responsible for AIDS/HIV, please remind them the virus spreads because of promiscuity and unsafe sex, not because of a person's sexuality. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.

The next time someone equates supporting homosexuals as supporting incest, rape, infidelity, murder, animal sex, please help us all tell them those are wrongful, vulgar accusations. Nuance is needed. Oversimplification is sensationalistic.
Posted by: wugui1977 at Mon Jul 27 10:33:45 SGT 2009

Re-merger revisited - Response

July 27, 2009
S'pore in a far better position to survive independently

I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Mr K. Kalidas, 'Revisiting merger'.

Singapore was expelled from Malaysia in 1965, chiefly due to its uncompromising stance on giving equal treatment to people of all races. To put it simply, Singapore's sovereignty was born out of principles and confidence. After 44 years of independence, the considerable economic gap is one of the many testaments to what a nation with strong principles and confidence can achieve.

Like an abandoned child left to fend for itself in an uncongenial milieu, Singapore in 1965 held little hope in the minds of almost all pundits. Despite seemingly insurmountable odds, Singapore survived and grew considerably, and became nimble and tough.

In human achievement, no civilisation, nation or city has had infant mortality rate drop as quickly as in Singapore. One top of that, no country with such diverse demographics has achieved the racial and religious harmony of Singapore.

China, with one-fifth of the world population, is the world's fastest-growing major economy. At the current clip, it is set to be the largest economy in the world by 2050. The Chinese have enormous brainpower but still model their developing cities on Singapore. This cannot be a coincidence. It is a strong indicator that Singapore has moved in the right direction and implemented the right policies.

Despite shifts in geopolitical tectonic plates and economic fundamentals, the Singapore of 2009 is no doubt in a better position than the Singapore of 1965 to survive independently for the next century. The key is to keep institutionalising what works and never waver on the very principles that created Singapore.

Singapore did relatively well, precisely because it stuck to its principles with confidence. Unless Malaysia adopts the same principles, it can never pose a challenge to Singapore's independence. The Singaporean Narrative, to use the term coined by Professor Kishore Mahbubani, is not a mirage, but a real possibility.

Tay Xiong Sheng

Revisiting merger

July 25, 2009
TIES WITH MALAYSIA

[Commenting along the way. Generally, I think it is good that we consider all possibilities and keep an open mind, but re-merger is highly unlikely, and I'll cover that at the end.]

IN HIS commentary on Wednesday, 'KL-Singapore ties: Turning of the tide', Mr K. Kesavapany seems to agree with his Malaysian friend Din Merican that Singapore is no longer dependent on the Malaysian hinterland for its economic prosperity as it is driven by financial and intellectual capital.

I tend to see things differently. The very economic fundamentals that required Singapore to join Malaysia may revisit us 30 to 40 years down the road for us to consider seriously the option of re-merger.

In the long term, the rise of China and India, the waning power of the United States, the European Union and Japan, and the concurrent economic development and prosperity of regional countries, including our neighbours Malaysia and Indonesia, will have serious implications for Singapore's survival.

Fifty years ago, Malaysia imported its Mandarin oranges, lychees and longans and other Chinese goods largely from Singapore, as Malaysia shunned direct import of China goods for political reasons. It is no longer so and this is one example where the tide has turned to Singapore's disadvantage.

[Economic fundamentals have changed vis-a-vis Singapore-Malaysia relationship. In the past, we took as a given the need for the "hinterland" of Malaysia. However, that position of M'sia can be seen (and is seen by Dr M) as insulting. No country would enjoy being labeled as any other country's "hinterland". So yes, we don't re-export Chinese goods to M'sia because situations change. But Singapore changes with it.

We move into higher value added products, like wafer fabrication which is a water-heavy industry. M'sia followed us and competed with us, but they wanted an additional advantage, so they tried to up the price of the water they were selling us to ridiculous rates. We went the NEWater route and we aren't looking back.]

The rising prosperity of regional countries will drive our imported talent back to their home countries and beyond, where good jobs await them in plenty, including thousands of Malaysians who make up a critical segment of our manpower.

[Certainly, there may be a pull back to the home country. But it is not just good jobs awaiting that will pull people back. Singapore's attraction is not just our prosperity, but how we create this prosperity and the opportunities Singapore can offer both in terms of career but also as a place to live and raise a family. ]

Also as these countries replicate Singapore's work efficiency, organisation and training of labour in higher skills, they will no longer need Singapore as a trading and service hub to conduct their cross-border business transactions. The reality is no country, big or small, however close and supportive of us they may be now, owes us a living.

[And we have never operated on "the world owes us a living" presumption. Everything we get, we paid for or reimbursed with comparable value. Cheap raw water from M'sia? In exchange we provided subsidised treated water so needed that M'sia drew much more than their allowance in the water agreement. On the other hand, M'sia seems to think that we owe them something. This is historical emotional baggage that will not fade away so easily.]

Did Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent visit to Malaysia - undertaken primarily to lay the ground work for second-tier leaders in both countries to get to know each other better and forge stronger ties - also imply a long-term view of possible re-merger as an option that should not be ruled out?

MM Lee said in 2007: 'If they (Malaysia) would just educate the Chinese and Indians, use them and treat them as their citizens, they can equal us and even do better than us and we would be happy to rejoin them.'

[You may wish to read "re-merger" in that. But I wouldn't. MM Lee is a pragmatist. The meritocracy principle will be a non-negotiable for Singapore. But in Bumi M'sia, that is still a long way away. And if M'sia does surpass Singapore, what benefits would there be for M'sia? Would it not be better to keep Singapore separate and independent and an example to trot out every now and then to show how far M'sia has come? They don't owe us a living if they ever surpass us. Can we rejoin M'sia as equals? I don't think so. As a vessal? That was the plan 44 years ago, but it may not be relevant. However for historical closure M'sia might take us back as a humbled vessal. But it would not be to our advantage.]

It is important that non-Malay Singaporeans learn the Malay language. Forty years ago, most Chinese stall keepers spoke a smattering of Malay, but now it is an alien language. The Government should encourage learning Malay on a wider scale.

K. Kalidas

[And then an agenda from left field. In the long term view of history, anything is possible and remerger cannot be ruled out. But, we can consider situations where remerger would not occur. The following scenarios does not consider how likely it would happen, just merely what if it happened - would merger be probable?

Situation 1. Singapore strong, M'sia relatively weaker.
I would say that this is the current situation. In such a situation, Singapore would gain nothing from merger. If Singapore wre were still dependent on primary industry, perhaps. If merger happens it would have to be on Singapore's terms, and it is unlikely that M'sia would swallow its pride and accede to Singapore's terms. No matter how bad the situation. And it is also unlikely that Singapore would want to be responsible for M'sia. That would be too big a job.

Situation 2. M'sia ascendent, Singapore relatively weaker or in decline.
Here the tables are turned. Singapore has no natural resources to speak of. M'sia would have little reason to merge with Singapore. The S'pore Chinese would probably not be very amenable to M'sia's political system and taking in Singapore would be like letting a viper into your house. There would be little material or political gain from merger (from the M'sian perspective) and more risk than is necessary. M'sia would probably do better by letting Singapore get weaker, use Singapore as an example of a weak neighbour, and maybe offer some humanitarian help now and then to gain moral superiority. If M'sia succeeds without Singapore, it makes no economic sense to bring in a weakened Singapore. We would only be a liability and a risk.

Situation 3. S'pore & M'sia equally or comparatively strong economically.
Negotiating from strength sounds more plausible. However if the political and philosophical gulfs that led to Separation in 1965 are still there, there would be little reason to merge as the reasons for separation still exists. Thus S'pore & M'sia may be strong economically but each is strong for different reasons. In any case if each has succeeded without the other, the question would be what synergy would a merger bring and at what costs? S'pore would never go the bumiputra route and would never accept it. While I believe that for as long as M'sia has the Bumi policy they can never be as competitive or efficient, this scenario assumes that they succeed with or in spite of the Bumi policy. Okay, what if M'sia had set aside the Bumi policy (which the current PM is starting to do, but given the tendency for M'sia to u-turn their policy...)? There would be no barriers (from the Singapore perspective) to re-merger, but there are no push or pull factors to encourage merger. When Singapore merged 46 years ago, it was to break away from the Brits for independence. There is no such push now. Singapore is already independent and in this scenario, it is doing fine. Similarly, M'sia has no push factor to seek re-merger other than a Malay hegemony, which would be tied to Malay dominance or supremacy, which means that M'sia would not have abandoned the bumi policy.

Situation 4: S'pore & M'sia both weakened and in decline.
Merger here must be seen as a win-win synergistic solution to both countries fighting for survival.  But it may not be so. In times of trouble, doors tend to close. it would take visionary leaders on both sides of the causeway to see a way forward that ties the destiny of two poor countries together. ]

In (limited) defence of like-minded enclaves

July 24, 2009

I THANK Ms Lydia Lim for her column last Friday, 'Beware enclaves of the like-minded', which highlighted the difference between 'religiosity per se' and 'religious practices that lead to closed communities'. I am glad she warned against an unqualified 'flight to uniformity'.

However, her point was made at the expense of 'like-minded enclaves', and it would be equally disastrous if Singapore ended end up distrusting any and every group's deeply held, faithfully practised convictions.

There is another, better way to build healthy communities, and it lies in good, old-fashioned communication and the careful instruction of Singaporeans, beginning with clarifying our thoughts and public writing on this subject.

While I share Ms Lim and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Boon Heng's concern regarding closed communities, care needs to be exercised in defining 'closed'. In a necessary and very real sense, every cogent belief or thought system rules out ideas that are antithetical to or incompatible with it. This is simply how we define who we are and what we believe - by drawing boundaries.

These demarcations are not inherently harmful. 'Good fences make good neighbours', so the late American poet laureate Robert Frost perceptively penned. As Ms Lim rightly notes, any community trades on its simultaneous openness and 'closedness' within the larger society. The enclaves per se are not the problem; to speak of integration is meaningless if there are no pre-existing differences.

Nor should we move to eradicate all those differences - that would be a flight to homogeneity.

What we must avoid is segregation, the 'closedness', not of healthy communities within a society, but of isolation without participation in the greater whole.

So how do we build communities that reach out beyond the very fences that construct and contain them? Again, the fences should not be mistaken as the problem. Rather than discourage people from believing anything too deeply or from disbanding their support groups, we should encourage and value communication and understanding across these social groups.

We must surely learn to recognise and accept our differences, and still choose to interact with one another; this should not exclude having the support of a like-minded group. To return to the proverb 'Good fences make good neighbours', well, we can value our neighbours, as neighbours - but they do not live in our homes. Nor should they have to, to be valued.

It is worth spelling this out in our public discussions because the word 'tolerance' has shifted in meaning in recent years (especially in terms like religious tolerance), largely because of the influence of political correctness in the United States and elsewhere. It used to be that tolerance meant putting up with someone else's point of view and recognising that he was entitled to express it, even if one had an entirely different point of view.

Today, tolerance seems to mean never really expressing your view because that in itself impinges on someone else's perceived right not to be discomfited by it; and that is a shame.

Such tolerance is more likely to produce segregation than the sensitive practice of entrenched beliefs. For where would the interaction between those beliefs be if no one is voicing true convictions? Where is the 'multi' part of our multi-religious national identity?

Are the common bonds of our nationhood so superficial that we cannot express deeply held religious beliefs in a climate that can agree to disagree?

How much in-depth understanding of others can we ever have if the only beliefs - spiritual, intellectual, emotional or otherwise - we can share or bear to hear from others are watered down and of the lowest common denominator? How then to develop our own minds or form our own opinions? Is it any wonder we are constantly lamenting the state of this nation?

And so, finally, in the interest of genuine understanding, on to the example Ms Lim gave: the worrisome 41.5 per cent of Christian clergymen who would resist the perception that all religions are equal. In fact, many mainstream Christian groups do not accept that all religions are right and the same. Those clergymen are only being faithful leaders. They are neither against charity nor against dialogue.

Ms Lim, Mr Lim and others would be less worried if they understood also that the unique calling of these Christian clergymen makes them more, not less, responsible for and thoughtful about their interaction with larger society, including other religious groups, the authorities and the law of the land. The label 'closed' or 'exclusivist' is unhelpful and misleading for a religion just as deeply committed to reaching out and engaging with the unlike.

Religious devotion is not in itself a threat to social cohesion. I think we can also agree that we are talking about social responsibility in exercising those personal beliefs. If so, let us carefully define and adequately address such things as communication, tolerance (old style) and unity in diversity.

Do not demonise 'likeminded enclaves' and inadvertently fuel the misguided notion that harmony and unity are about never being deeply committed to local causes or never hearing or expressing viewpoints different to one's own. What we need in a climate of weakening social bonds (if that is the perceived fear) is greater, not less, understanding of those around us.

Karen Kwek (Ms)

[This is generally a well-argued and well-presented position. I can agree that groups need boundaries for their identity. And every community can be both closed and open.

And yes I agree that a more tolerant definition of "tolerance" would be nicer, but the agenda of the aggressively evangelistic is suspect. One comment on-line:

Being an ex-christian, I can agree with Karen kwek that the Christian religion is deeply committed to reaching out, but it's mostly the kind of 'reaching out' the others are afraid of - trying to convert someone else relentlessly like a hardcore salesman, even after the potential 'victim' says 'not interested'.

'Reaching out' as in telling others what you believe is fine. It is the 'reaching out' as in trying relentlessly to convert( eg. waiting at the school gates to distribute religious literature and stopping students from leaving until they take a copy or give their phone numbers) that's unsettling.
Posted by: GhostRider666 at Fri Jul 24 22:15:57 SGT 2009

Karen also asks, "can we not agree to disagree?" Yes we can. But the aggressively evangelistic cannot.

In fact, "many mainstream Christian groups do not accept that all religions are right and the same."

If so, can we agree to disagree and not talk about how Christians disagree with other religions? Because what would be the point? To realise we disagree? Or to realise how much we disagree?

For as long as aggressive evangelists treat their religion as some divine MLM or pyramid scheme, there can be no tolerance at the level of open discourse leading to agreeing to disagree.

Karen speaks of "greater understanding of those around us". Perhaps she should put her money where her mouth is. What steps has she taken to understand another faith? Or is her understanding of "understanding" purely one way? That non-christians should understand why Christianity is the one true religion.

Here's a deeper understanding of multi-religious Singapore. If one religion aggressively converts the followers of another, understand that the other religion will not stand idly by with passive "tolerance". They will fight for their followers, and the survival of their faith.

What's so "multi" about multi-religious Singapore? It is that the religions co-exist without attempting to wipe each other out either with violence or more subtly by systematic conversion of followers of other religions. Maybe that's a superficial definition of "harmony", but it beats a situation of religious antagonism/aggression.

The reality of Singapore (and most places) is that harmony is achieved by respecting boundaries (Karen's quoting Frost - "good fences"). Championing some idealistic notion of tolerance and free discourse while ignoring the effect of such idealism is naive, irresponsible and dangerous.

Eventually, it may be safer to ban all cults that pursue evangelisation as a core duty of its members.]

[Edited May 1, 2010. Further comments:
Enclaves of the like-minded exists in politics as well, and the two-party Democrats-Republicans system in the US is a prime example and model of what extremes such enclaves can go to. When you surround yourself with like-minded people, speak only to like-minded people, share your frustrations (with contrary views and people with those views) with like-minded people who express support for your grief and anguish and reinforce your worldview, your views and position will become more entrenched, more polarised, and more rooted. There are websites, radio, and other media channels that support and reinforce these enclaves of the like-minded, and being immersed daily in such an environment serves to close one mind to all other possibilities.

Free discourse works when the ideas being presented are more fact-based than faith-based. The scientific community can engage in free discourse because positions can be proven or disproven, evidence can be presented, examined, discredited, or accepted.

With faith and conviction, all you have are bold statements, subjective interpretations, followed by a lot of singing, or chanting, or yelling. Free discourse does not work in matters of faith and personal convictions. ]

Moral values & Terrorism

July 21, 2009
Let's reinforce unity of purpose in fighting terrorism

WE CAN never overemphasise the need to remain vigilant against the threat of terrorism, as warned by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in last Sunday's report, 'PM Lee warns of evolving terror threat'.

He warned that the recent bomb explosions at the Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott hotels in Jakarta showed that terrorists continue to have 'new ways of doing evil, bad deeds'. Schools, religious organisations and the business community need to make a concerted effort to not only condemn the murderous acts of terrorism, but also set the boundaries that define good and evil in society.

Often, the human spirit needs to be rekindled to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. Religions with good society and family values must take proactive steps to engage the public and schools by upholding godly values and renouncing the evil that destroys the fabric of society. Our children need to learn from religious leaders who demonstrate how their faith can build strong family bonds and create social stability, harmony and security. Where the fault lines of society are shaken, religious leaders are to super-glue the gaps.

Religious leaders in collaboration with the Government should openly reject socially irresponsible behaviour such as racism, religious intolerance, adultery as well as perverse sexual behaviour in society. Moral relativism has no place in a society that treasures and thrives on good, absolute values.

As part of civil defence, schools must be vigilant to teach children strong traditional family values through the covenant of marriage and fidelity to one's spouse.

Insidious and egregious practices such as abuse of human rights and extreme liberalism must be exposed and rejected for what they are. Drug trafficking, use of abortion as a form of contraceptive, polygamy and serial divorce will remain as wrongdoings. Our police force should be held in high regard as they enforce the rules against criminal behaviour.

Children must be encouraged to speak up against evil and not fear being rebuked for doing the right thing. The heathen attack religious people with the phrase: 'Get down from your high horse for we reject your holier-than-thou attitude.'

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew recently remarked that for 44 years, Singapore still has not yet achieved the ideals of nationhood. Perhaps the next step requires the conviction and partnership of religious and government leaders to take a firm stand against wicked deeds and support those who stand for the truth in nation building. It is time we took serious heed of the axiom: 'Righteousness exalts a nation.'

George Lim

July 22, 2009
Poor logic to equate terrorism with lifestyle decisions

I WRITE in response to Mr George Lim's Forum Online letter on Monday, "Let's reinforce unity of purpose in fighting terrorism".

Mr Lim is correct to label the Jakarta bombings as evil and murderous. But he is wrong when he goes on to argue that for Singapore to achieve social security, harmony and stability, "strong family bonds" and "traditional family values through the covenant of marriage" must be upheld. Accordingly, pre-marital sex, abortion, serial divorce and "perverse sexual behaviour", such as homosexuality, must be condemned.

It is poor logic to equate terror attacks to personal decisions such as homosexuality and serial divorce. These actions involve only willing parties and do no harm to others.

On the other hand, crimes like terrorism, murder and robbery involve the harm (and possible deaths) of other innocent parties. Rightfully, divorce, pre-martial sex and abortion are not punishable by the common law, which serves mainly to protect the fellow man. Countries such as the United States and France, while having astronomical divorce and pre-martial sex rates, are still prosperous and socially cohesive.

Mr Lim also argues that Singapore's government should partner religious leaders to take a firm stand against evil, heathen and non-godly values.

If this is so, then a good number of Singaporeans will run afoul of the rules simply on the basis that they do not believe in godly values, but answer responsibly to their conscience.

Many Singaporeans, while expressing faith in religion, also see no wrong in pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion, because these are matters of personal choice.

Surely atheists, agnostics and liberal followers of religion deserve the right to live unharassed by the beliefs of the staunchly religious.

Jonathan Kwok Dao Yang
-------
I quote what George Lim mentioned in his letter on Monday.

"schools must be vigilant to teach children strong traditional family values through the covenant of marriage and fidelity to one's spouse."

I'm sure Rodney Sim, and ELDER from LIGHTHOUSE EVANGELISM CHURCH - the man paid for sex with an underaged teen as mentioned in today's paper must have had really strong family values (he has 2 kids mind you). So strong that he couldn't resist having sex with a Chinese child prostitute. Well done you over-religious, self-righteous morons.

Terrorism came about because of these religious fanatics, and all George Lim's letter did was to self contradict himself.
Posted by: urbanator at Wed Jul 22 10:28:38 SGT 2009

-------
Jonathan old boy! I think you are missing the gist of what George is trying to say. George is merely inferring that if you get the basics right from the onset, perhaps people would not think of turning to terrorism or aggression for whatever reason. And he goes on to mention that religion and the government by working in collaboration on certain issues with youngsters might ultimately create a more upright person thus deferring anyone from going as far as thinking of resorting to aggression of any sort. Whether this will help or not is the question, but certainly there is some basis to what he is saying. After all if you are generally an organized person, the tendency is you will be neat and tidy in appearance and vice versa. Positivity begets positivity, negativity begets negativity get it. So don’t take his words out of context. But when it comes to certain beliefs, I think George is indulging in a bit of wishful thinking, he is like many others who believe all religions are the same, teach peace, love etc. Well he has another guess coming.

And urbanator old chap. Rodney Sim is a hypocrite like many other religious goons, and despite his religious foundation, he failed miserably and is certainly a perfect example that Christians are not perfect, but at least he did not resort to violence. His beliefs ultimately kicked in and he resorted to redeem himself by helping the girl and getting himself into trouble with the law while at it. This is somewhat what George is getting at. So save the rhetoric for yourself.
Posted by: ontheside at Wed Jul 22 12:22:55 SGT 2009

-----------
Hi ontheside,

I shall quote ad verbatim Mr George's letter:

Schools, religious organisations and the business community need to make a concerted effort to not only condemn the murderous acts of terrorism, but also set the boundaries that define good and evil in society.

Often, the human spirit needs to be rekindled to distinguish between right and wrong behaviour. Religions with good society and family values must take proactive steps to engage the public and schools by upholding godly values and renouncing the evil that destroys the fabric of society.
--------

He surely did not hint, or argue, that a 'morally decadent society' will lead eventually to terrorist acts, or that a more upright person may resort to aggression.

His argument, plainly, is to argue that schools, governments, businesses etc should combat 'evil' in society as much as they combat terrorist tendencies. His definition of 'evil', as we have seen, is very narrow, and includes all sorts of behaviour that many people consider very normal.

Why should people combat 'evil' (George's definition of evil) with as much vigour as they combat terrorism? They are miles apart. How can they be equated?
Posted by: jonkwok at Wed Jul 22 16:07:41 SGT 2009

-------
July 22, 2009
Man jailed, fined for paid sex with teen

His attempts to help her after she said she was forced into prostitution led to a police report

By Elena Chong

AN ACCOUNTANT who twice paid to have sex with an underage prostitute from China was jailed for two weeks and fined $16,000 yesterday.

The sentence amounted to a victory of sorts for Rodney Sim Hang Nge, 61, who had testified that he did not know the girl was 16 when he had sex with her.

He could have been jailed up to seven years, or fined a maximum of $10,000 on each charge - or both - under a new law, which makes it a crime to have paid sex with a person under 18. The law took effect in February last year.

The father of two grown-up children, a daughter and a son, pleaded guilty last December to two counts of paying $100 to have sex with the girl on Aug 3 and 5 last year.

But during his sentencing hearing, he disputed the prosecution's contention that he knew the prostitute was underage.

Another hearing was then held to resolve this.

Yesterday, District Judge Jeffrey Sim ruled that Sim, an elder at the Lighthouse Evangelism church, did not deliberately exploit a minor. 'He was misled by both the pimp and the minor into believing that the minor was 18 or above 18 years old,' the judge said.

Sim, he said, also tried to help the prostitute after she told him that she was being forced to work as a commercial sex worker against her will.

In fact, his attempts to help her landed him in hot water.

He took her to the Chinese Embassy and then to a police post to lodge a report, and this led to charges against him.

The judge said these facts made Sim's case different from that of Tan Chye Hin, 55, who was jailed nine months last year for having sex with the same girl.

The renovation contractor, who was the first person convicted under the revised law, knew the girl was a minor and had specifically sought her sexual services.

However, despite the differences in the two cases, the judge dismissed a plea from Sim's lawyers, Mr Shashi Nathan and Ms Tania Chin, for a fine to be imposed.

Judge Sim said a fine alone would not be appropriate, as the law was enacted to protect the vulnerable group of under-18 minors from being sexually exploited.

Sim, he added, should have insisted on verifying the girl's age from her passport before engaging her services, instead of relying on the bare representations of the pimp and the minor.

elena@sph.com.sg

Water conservation tax hard to swallow

July 15, 2009

I REFER to last Saturday's letter ('Need for water conservation tax') by Mr Chan Yoon Kum, assistant chief executive of national water agency PUB, in response to my letter ('Shouldn't we pay less for consuming water?') on July 8.

Mr Chan did not address the crux of my question, which was this: After many decades of conscientiously and successfully pursuing water conservation measures, is it necessary to continue using a hefty pricing mechanism to penalise consumers for some incremental reduction?

What is the ideal limit of water consumption in our hot and humid climate without compromising basic hygiene that would convince the PUB to remove the water conservation tax and waterborne fees?

According to a study in 2003, 'The water issue between Singapore and Malaysia: No solution in sight?', by Dr Lee Poh Onn, a Fellow of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore produced 1.3 million cubic m of water per day. The PUB revealed that by last year, the daily capacity had increased to more than 1.4 million cubic m, of which domestic households consumed half and the rest was sold for commercial revenues.

The report quoted that our raw water processing cost was 25.3 cents per cubic m. Dr Lee summarised the production cost of imported water at 26 cents, Newater at 39 cents and desalination water at 78 cents (exchange rate of S$1 to RM$2.08 in 2003).

By 2011, the PUB will be producing 1.33 million cubic m of water (0.68 million cubic m from catchments, 0.4 million cubic m from desalination and 0.25 million cubic m of Newater).

Based on the 2003 study, the average cost would be 41.5 cents per cubic m. With a 20 per cent increase, the cost is about 50 cents per cubic m.

There is hardly any justification for responsible consumers to pay $2.21 per cubic m of water quoting Mr Chan's example. The water tariff in Johor Baru is 36 cents (90 Malaysian sen), while that in Hong Kong is HK$4.15 (80 Singapore cents) per cubic m.

Is it logical or reasonable for Singaporeans to pay over four times the recovery cost of drinking water - a basic human need?

While it is laudable that Singapore proudly and unselfishly helps solve the water dilemma by sharing its drinking water technology with the world, the country's citizens should also share the benefits of Singapore's water success.

It took us a long time to get to where we are now; where we are self-sufficient with less imported water if needed on a sustainable basis.

Tax revenues and sanitary fees should cover the maintenance cost of the sanitation system. Hence, the water conservation tax and waterborne fees have lost their intended purposes. They can only become an extra burden on citizens.

Paul Chan

[Lots of facts and figures. Save for reference. Basic flaw in argument: reducing price would encourage water use and water wastage. So prices have to stay at current rate.]

Wealthy and yet unhappy

July 9, 2009
Wealthy and yet unhappy - how come, Singapore?

IT IS disturbing to read that Singapore ranked 49th in the Happy Planet Index 2.0 survey conducted by the New Economics Foundation ('Costa Ricans the 'happiest worldwide'', Monday).

This is even though it was ranked fourth highest per capita income in the world by the International Monetary Fund last year, and third by the World Bank in 2007.

By all counts, we are a materially wealthy nation, so why are Singaporeans not happy with their lot? Singaporeans have access to the best of everything, yet they seem to indicate that they are not happy.

I wonder if this is why we often see grim faces on buses and the MRT. Are Singaporeans stressed out? Do they yearn for more, without finding it? Why are we, as a nation, not as happy as our poorer neighbours like Vietnam, for example, which ranked highest in Asia? Does our education system stress material success over achieving internal peace and happiness?

Curiously, Vietnam, with less material success than Singapore, ranked fifth in the index, and Costa Rica topped the survey.

At the same time, the wealthy and technologically advanced nations we like to emulate, such as the United States and Britain, ranked 114th and 74th respectively, even worse than Singapore. This clearly shows that material success does not guarantee happiness.

It is time that we made an effort to re-establish our priorities, learn to relax, appreciate what we have, smile, and be happy.

Anil Bhatia

July 11, 2009
In this meritocracy, there's no time to smell the roses

I REFER to Thursday's letter by Mr Anil Bhatia, 'Wealthy and yet unhappy - how come, Singapore?'

There is a systemic flaw in our meritocratic system where we strive to be the best in everything, in meeting wants, in careers, in infrastructure. In the process, our human capital is put through various stress tests from a young age until retirement and even the grave.

The young are put to a stress test the minute they start formal education at primary level with homework and remedial classes. School holidays are filled with more lessons, remedial classes and co-curricular activities for upper secondary students. To gain entry to top junior colleges or polytechnics, students must achieve an aggregate score of eight points or less, compared to 10 to 15 points years earlier. How not to be stressed out?

Young adults struggle with work from demanding bosses who expect 24/7 due diligence from employees. Many in this age group struggle to acquire material wealth at the expense of pro-family, procreation activities. Mature workers worry about job security and those who are retrenched often remain chronically unemployed for a long while. Many in this age group (45 to 55) are most vulnerable, with massive expenses to take care of, such as children's education, housing loans, elderly parents' medical bills and retirement expenses. How to be happy?

The elderly are also vulnerable as their children may fall into the mature age group who are either struggling to maintain their livelihoods or unemployed.

With little financial support from their children, many are forced to work as cleaners or do other manual work with their limited skills. Retirees who have exhausted their Central Provident Fund savings are forced to go back to work with limited scope of employment in the current economic climate.

There is hardly any stage in the human cycle where we can slow down and make an effort to smell the roses in society.

Roland Ang

[Read this article:
http://www.helium.com/items/329527-the-link-between-money-and-happiness

High on Per capital Income, low on happiness? Nothing new there. Countries richer than Singapore are ranked unhappier.

However the most unhappy countries are those that are the poorest. When starvation and death are staring you in the face you would be insane to still be happy.

As for why the rich are unhappy, the helium article proposes that the answer lies in the opportunity cost hypothesis; or the spoilt for choice hypothesis.

A rich man simply has more choices open to him than a poor man. However actually making a choice means giving up all the other choices and foregoing the opportunity to enjoy those other choices. Hence the lament of the rich: "I've got nothing to wear!" "There's nothing to do!"

There is also another reason, and that is that happiness is relative. If your neighbour's situation is as bad as yours, you would be less unhappy - The "Everybody's in the same boat" hypothesis.

However if your neighbour is better off, then you realise your lack, and you feel unhappy.

Another possible explanation is that people measure happiness differently in different countries. This is somewhat related to the above. With higher income comes development, comes globalisation, comes news and information, and suddenly your "neighbourhood" extends to the entire developed world or first world. Then you wish your human rights was as good as the US, your social welfare as good as the Netherlands, your industry as innovative as the Japanese, your customer service as good as Hong Kong, your engineering as good as the German.

But if you're puttering around in your little farm in a Costa Rica, with no knowledge of the wider world beyond your island, you'd be happy when the rain comes on time, the wind cools you down, and the sun comes out when you need your harvest to ripen. Your world is smaller, more manageable, and you are more content.

The saying, "ignorance is bliss" applies in these case. The happiest people are those who do not know of other alternatives (or do not care).

So what is the solution for Singapore? Become ignorant? Stop chasing development and the almighty buck?

Or decide that Happiness is over-rated?

Or understand that a Happy Costa Rican may not be comparable to an unhappy Singaporean?

Or understand that happiness = contentment = satisfaction = things stay status quo = no development = no improvement.

And the next time someone makes a stupid simplistic comparison about happiness and wealth, we take him out and shoot him for being an angsty whiny complainy twit?]

Citizen-to-population ratio important for survival

June 23, 2009

I REFER to The Straits Times online article, "Spore's population is 4.84m", on Wednesday.

Judging from the statistics, citizens and permanent residents (PRs) account for 75.3 per cent of the population while citizens account for 65.4 per cent of the population. In other words, for every three residents, there is one foreigner, and for every two citizens, there is one PR/foreigner.

The influx of foreigners has increased significantly since 2005, while the citizen to population ratio has steadily declined. These trends are alarming to me, but first, I would like to say that this letter is not about foreigner bashing.

It is about pursuing sane, sound policies so our society will not become fragile in the face of crisis, and it raises the question: How many foreigners is too much?

I suspect that at the rate we are courting foreigners, our citizens to total population ratio will reach 50:50 very soon, and I am of the view that the current trend must be stopped. There must be a minimum level of citizens to the total population. The question is: How small is too small?

Our strategic vulnerabilities have been well touted. Even in current relative stability, if there is a determined influential force in the region, the situation can turn drastic within six months to a year. In such a situation, we can expect that the PRs and foreigners would return to their home countries, and only the citizens would stay.

If one-third of the population leaves in times of crisis, the remaining two-thirds have to shoulder the burden.

In times of war, if you do not count the national servicemen and those in the civil defence or police force, in essence, we will be left with very little of the population to keep the essential services going.

If the population decreases further, say by 50 per cent, perhaps due to starvation, lack of medical services, a pandemic or poor sanitation, we become very vulnerable. A serious study to determine how many foreigners is too much is in order.

I agree with the reasons to welcome foreigners, but we must do this while maintaining a minimum citizen to population ratio. If, in order to maintain such a ratio, we must compromise economic growth, so be it. It would be better to have a robust infrastructure, than one that cannot be rebuilt - or would take decades to rebuild - after a crisis.

Teo Chun Sang

[MM Lee has said the same, so you can be sure the Govt is aware of the problem. The last thing the Govt wants is the AWARE saga played out on the National and sociological stage.]

Low taxi ridership: Take a look at the surcharges

June 23, 2009

THE Land Transport Authority's letter on Saturday, "3 aims of $1m fund", on its rationale for setting up the fund to promote taxi ridership, reflects its lack of appreciation for the reasons some commuters cut down on their use of taxis.

The recent drop in taxi ridership is perhaps a sign that the various surcharges have resulted in overall taxi fares rising to a level beyond what many commuters are prepared to pay. The situation is not helped by the practice of some errant taxi drivers who park their empty cabs and wait for phone bookings.

Without addressing these concerns among commuters, LTA's intention to fund more campaigns and install more taxi stands at major events will not encourage more commuters to take taxis more often.

Instead of ploughing public funds into promoting taxi ridership, LTA should encourage taxi companies to react to market forces and reduce the various surcharges, and start clamping down on bad practices which distort the supply of available taxis on the road.

LTA should also consult consumer bodies such as the Consumers Association of Singapore to get a sense of consumer sentiment and ensure that its future policies continue to be relevant and representative of the needs of all stakeholders in the market.

Liew Chin Wen

[Incoherent letter. On the one hand, he acknowledges that there are some taxi drivers who will wait for phone bookings. On the other hand, he claims that surcharges are too high. Phone bookings come with booking charge. Taxi drivers like that. People obviously are willing to pay for that otherwise the drivers will wait in vain.

And obviously the writer has not read the LTA's explanation carefully. The infrastructure is aimed at supporting major events, so it is irrelevant to general taxi ridership. As for the campaigns, these would be Taxi companies' initiative and LTA will fund up to 1/3 of the costs - presumably on approval. The other part is to improve service and training.

It is not clear from LTA's letter if the fund is actually called "fund to raise taxi ridership", but based on its objectives, it should be called, "fund to improve Taxi Service".

As for low ridership, I don't think there is low ridership. Taxi drivers may have fewer passengers than before the last fare increase, but their income has not suffered according to some survey. This is good for the taxi driver.

Another "let me use the issue of the day to push for my own agenda, which is basically getting things cheaper or better still, free" letter. ]

Lift three-quarter tank rule to send positive signal to KL

June 19, 2009

I AM encouraged to see the recent renewal of strong ties between Singapore and Malaysia. With Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's visit to Singapore, and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's reciprocal visit to many parts of Malaysia, I sense a genuine desire to establish new levels of diplomatic relations and economic ties.

I strongly support MM Lee's call for cooperation between the two governments to be wide-ranging, consistent and stable. Such a level of solidarity cannot be achieved overnight, and may even take years. Both governments should try to take the initiative, and not wait for the other side to start. They could work on things that are relatively easy to implement, which will yield results of mutual benefit.

As a sign of our sincerity in achieving stronger ties, I urge Singapore to take the lead. In line with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's call to shun protectionism and embrace free trade (especially among Asean member countries), I wonder if we could lift the three-quarter petrol tank rule now.

I believe the timing is right for this decision. It would send a positive signal to the Malaysian government. I also believe many Singaporeans would welcome this decision.

Danny Lee

[Many online comments savaged this letter-writer. Glad to see Singaporeans can be critical and intelligent. Some of the comments included, lifting the rule would mean more Singaporeans taking advantaged of subsidised fuel in M'sia - which would irk the M'sians more. Enterprising Singaporeans will fit additional or larger fuel tanks in the car. Or even bring jerry cans to top up. The cynical noted that the Govt would not allow a drain on their coffers (petrol tax).

In any case, the whole point of the 3/4 tank rule was mainly to support the tax policy to disincentivise car usage. It therefore does not make sense to remove the rule now, when the policy to discourage car use is still in place.

A side effect of lifting the rule, would be that jams to JB will increase even more.

And in any case, the whole cooperative mood has been dashed by the Johor Sultan rejecting a third link and the UMNO Youth chief rejecting any possibility of selling sand to Singapore.]

Make Causeway crossing akin to Changi Airport experience

June 3, 2009

I HAD an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience driving from Singapore to Johor Baru, via the Woodlands Checkpoint, last Saturday.

I just could not believe that this could happen in Singapore, after experiencing so many pleasant and smooth journeys through the beautifully organised and well-managed terminals at Changi Airport.

I left my home in Upper Changi and arrived close to the Woodlands Checkpoint in 30 minutes - a smooth and beautiful drive.

Then the shock.

A traffic snarl formed about 1.6km from the checkpoint. There were about four to five lanes converging into two as we neared the checkpoint.

There were no road signs giving advance warning about converging lanes, resulting in the criss-crossing of vehicles dangerously fighting for space and squeezing into lanes.

As darkness approached, the lighting was inadequate and road signs became difficult to read.

Upon approaching the line of immigration booths, I could not believe the concrete jungle of a checkpoint, with insufficient greenery and no decorative features, so very different from the scene at Changi Airport's terminals.

Immigration staff were also very different in personality and attitude from those at the airport terminals.

When it came time to pay the car exit fees, I had to remove the CashCard from the in-vehicle unit and insert it into a slot in order for the barrier to be lifted.

It took 90 minutes to cross the Singapore checkpoint and get on the Causeway, and another hour thereafter to arrive at and clear the immigration and customs counters at JB. The return journey was a little less unpleasant, but it also took 90 minutes in all. We spent six hours on the road that evening to attend a two-hour wedding function in JB.

I am confident that creative short-term solutions can be worked out on the Singapore side to enhance public safety and convenience, shorten waiting times and make visitor travel so much more comfortable and pleasant.

For the medium to longer term, a possible integration of systems and processes may be explored for the mutual benefit of all travellers and staff on both sides of the Causeway. Let us try to make this border crossing an experience similar to that at Changi.

Amarjit S. Wasan

[The land crossing is a different class of experience and I hope that the wishes in this letter may come to pass. But I think there are severe constraints on these wishes. Most of the smuggling are via the land crossing, and so is the drug trafficking. At the same time there isn't a lot of revenue from the causeway operations as compared to the Airport (with airport tax etc). So this is a problem of money.]

Don't let traditions and festivals vanish

June 3, 2009

I AM in my late teens and am upset that many youth these days take various customs and festivals lightly.

Festivals under the lunar calendar, such as the Hungry Ghost Festival and Mid-Autumn Festival, go unnoticed by youth. Some do not even know their history.

In the past, people would pray to the deceased throughout the month during the Hungry Ghost Festival. There would also be getai performances.

But times have changed and youth do not bother to carry on the tradition. They also do not support getai performances.

During the Mid-Autumn and Dragon Boat Festivals, they know only that it is time to eat mooncakes and dumplings. A few days before the Dragon Boat Festival, I overheard a group of secondary school students saying: "There's no need to celebrate such things. We are not in China. Just eat dumplings."

With such a mindset, I fear that Singapore's youth will not only lose their traditional beliefs, but also forget the history and significance of such festivals.

My suggestion is to have exhibitions at various locations in Singapore where youth hang out.

The Education Ministry should promote such traditions in schools. If not, in a decade's time, such activities and traditions will be wiped out from the lives of Singaporeans.

Tan Shao Ken

[I just wanted to comment that Singapore and "nan yang" Chinese probably have a better grasp of traditions and customs, especially those with religious or semi-religious overtones. The Communist cultural revolution and a disdain for religion under the communist regime meant that many of these traditions were suppressed.

As with all traditions, the importance and the meaning will evolve with the times.]

Teach sex education in context of meaningful relationships

May 23, 2009

I READ with interest the reports on how sex education is needed to counter worrying trends and the approaches to be taken.

There is one important factor missing in all the discussions and that is the context in which sex happens - in a relationship.

Sex education is not just about teaching how sex takes place or when sexuality is aroused. Nor is it about accepting the barrage of emotions involved in exploring alternative lifestyles. These make up only one component of sex education.

The reason there's such a mess is because the programme should be entitled "Relationships", with sex, sexuality and so on as sub-topics. If sex education is taught in isolation, our children will never see the importance of abstinence or why precautions are to be taken when engaging in sex.

Relationships should be the anchor to sex and sex education should be taught in the context of a relationship and all its intricacies, such as self-esteem, values and beliefs.

First, a complete and wholesome view of what a balanced relationship should be must be shared so that children from various backgrounds understand the goal and aim of having a relationship. The choices of abstinence and the consequences of indulging in premarital sex should be shared and revealed.

Share what happens when abstinence is not practised and when relationships are not honoured. Provide our children with a reference point for a good and wise choice.

Whatever the choice is, it is ultimately their choice and they should enter these scenarios with their eyes wide open.

Don't advocate options like wearing a condom as a choice for premarital sex. Instead, educate them on what is premarital sex in the context of a relationship so that our children know why it is not encouraged.

If they do eventually engage in it, it is their personal choice but one where they are made fully aware of the consequences. They need to be ready to deal with the situation after that.

So, it's really not sex education that needs to be taught. It's the importance of being in a responsible adult relationship that needs to be shared.

We, as a society, need to be brave to stand up for what's right, to communicate clearly what's right and allow our children to make the choices themselves and subsequently handle the various consequences of their choices.

Karen Chew (Mrs)

[The problem with this letter and letter writer is the simple naivete and conservative "stick our head in the sand" approach. There are some assumptions that needs to be addressed.

Consider the alleged youngest father in UK, the 13 yr-old boy with the 15 yr old "girlfriend" who claimed that the boy was the father of her child. The boy seems to think that he is in a relationship.

The point is that up to the age of 19 and sometimes beyond, people often think they are in a relationship and often believe that the relationship they are in is the best and the most sincere.  And sex is often a consideration in the relationship, and so telling them that sex MUST happen in the context of a relationship merely transfers some weight to the relationship. Most teens engaging in sex believe that they are in a relationship. Some of course realise later or even understand beforehand that sex and relationship are not inseparable.

And herein lies the problem. If you tell kids what they know is not true, you lose credibility and then even when what you tell them is true, they won't believe you.

The "Sex must happen in a relationship" position is a value-laden statement that is not factually true. It is a teaching of values, yes, our conservative and prescribed value that we hope all our children will follow. But the reality is that not all of them will. Lots of people have sex outside of marriage and even outside of relationships and they give testimony that it is not only fine, it was great!

And here we go trying to hold the conservative line and it is not going to work. The kids will know you are feeding them a line.

They are curious and their hormonal changes drive them to immature and irresponsible acts. Telling them to be responsible and act matured is like trying to command the waves to stop crashing on the beach.

This is reverting to the old syllabus. It didn't work then. Why would it work now? And the vulnerable/stupid kids will continue to do stupid things advised by their stupid friends who tell them the wrong things that will get them into trouble.

Wouldn't it be better to give them the facts, tell them to talk to their parents, tell them what is fact and what is value, and tell them to respond to the situation in the most responsible way.

Or do conservatives believe that STD is God's punishment for premarital sex and condom use is thwarting God's natural punishment mechanism? Maybe we should teach that.]

Comment on the Sex Education in Schools

 Comment by: clearingsmoke
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
8% sexually active, why must teach wholesale to the whole cohort? Those at risk of experimenting can opt in, why expect the majority to opt out?

Even Minister Ng thinks this is still an AWARE and some christians catfight, we are doomed! Can someone please acknowledge the rest of Singapore exists?
-----------
Of course clearingsmoke thinks that the 8% does not include his/her children. So apparently 8% of parents will spontaneously decide that their children are probably the ones at risk and decide to opt for their children to attend sex education.

That is soooo going to happen.

But clearingsmoke is one of those people who will never acknowledge that there is a responsibility and it is not being discharged responsibly.

Sex education is the responsibility of parents. If not them, then who?

If parents properly educate their children on sexuality and sexual mores, they need not worry about what wrong things their children are hearing from other children or even other adults.

But because parents don't schools have stepped in. because the alternative is children teaching children about sex. Or worse, sexual predators teaching your children about sex.

AWARE, The Straits Times exposed!‏

from
http://wayangparty.com/?p=8714

May 1, 2009 by admin
Filed under Daily Musings

By Yeo Toon Joo, Peter, who ceased to be a newspaperman when he found none left


The inordinately extensive and daily coverage of the AWARE leadership tussle exposes and underscores the provincialism of Singapore’s press, the Straits Times in particular.

Any thinking person, with a modicum of appreciation of what constitutes news, must marvel over the MSM’s (mainstream media) ability to ignore the real issues of the day in Singapore while focusing so much of its might on what was primarily a parochial affair.

Instead of enlightening Singaporeans on the pressing issues confronting us – events that beg many questions and offer much scope for enquiry – our national press chooses to rivet readers’ attention through a daily barrage of reporting on the dispute of a marginal organization, till recently, of no more than 100 or 200 feminists.

Has the subservient MSM lost its way, just as AWARE allegedly had lost its own focus and objective?

It is incredible that the full strength of the MSM’s reporting staff had failed so remarkably to ferret out the real issue of the leadership coup – until spoon-fed by the protagonist.

In the not too distant days of yore, one of my rookie reporters would surely have enlightened us, and quite early on, too.

The Straits Times’s willingness to manipulate, or be manipulated (wittingly so) by minority interest groups, is so clear for all to see: any image consultant worth his salt will promptly point out how the ST’s photo/news editor had deliberately selected for publication the most frumpy photos of the new committee while editing so dramatically the most flattering portraits of the old, ousted committee members.

Sure, concern over AWARE’s alleged espousal of the cause of lesbianism and homosexuality was at the crux of the crisis. But this is no longer the hot issue of the day.

Aren’t there other pressing national issues worth examining? Is Singapore so boring that a storm in a teacup should excite the brains of its handpicked leaders? Should the people who wield the mighty pen (in our newspaper offices) engage in such peevishness? And be so actively stoking it up into a national controversy?

If our national press is truly unable to focus on what concern more Singaporeans than what used to engage a handful of AWARE feminists, may I suggest that it thinks about real national issues and cease its tomfoolery. May I offer some news gathering tips to our wayward press:

· Stop conducting yourself like a mosquito press while holding – by default only – the mantle of a national daily

· Be serious and desist from propagating a modern version of yellow culture in your pages or so-called Life-style sections (“Bollywood’s newest hotties”! My foot! Only good upbringing constrain me from a rude retort; MITA whither art thou?)

· Stop flaunting semi-nude bodies in your life-style pages or flashing regularly the bust lines of dumb broads, and exalting the careers of those engaged in promoting the bacchanalian life styles of geeks and Zouks

· Desist from playing up the prating of some misguided, immature, amorous young reporter who boasts about squeezing some exposed part of a film or rock star (such a confession should, in a court of law, rightly result in a charge of criminal molestation)

· Tell us about the vast disparity of incomes in our so-called 1st World economic miracle and how suffering Singaporeans are coping with the recession

· Instead of giving him scant attention, tell us more and truthfully about Kenneth Jeyaretnam, JBJ’s second son and his dream for the Reform Party. What about his brother Philip?

· Tell us also about the millions being frittered away everyday to finance the myriad failed bio-tech start-ups, and round it up with a balance sheet of Singapore’s successes-failures in this field – and what prospect the future holds

· Tell us something about how our Ah Bengs and Ah Lians are coping in this new world order and with unemployment, or do they not exist?

· Explain how that Singapore family could lose its 5-room HDB flat, and fall through the cracks of MCDYS’s social benefits safety net to spend the past year cadging for food and sleeping on park benches

· If the Straits Times press could devote a full page to profiling China’s five rising stars, why do our leaders in Temasek remain anonymous? Can’t get an interview with them? Surely!

· How will Singapore hope to recover some of its lost national wealth in the world’s economic downturn?

· If even a Warren Buffett could be caught out by the economic downturn and make some massive investment mistakes why is blogosphere so unkind to and unreasonable with Ho Ching?

· If Singapore could throw up a Ho Ching, a truly remarkable woman, why are so few women in parliament and just one has become a full fledge cabinet minister? (This is one issue the old AWARE could have shown some gumption in pursuing)

· Tell us how are our million guest workers, especially the lower-skilled ones, coping with Singapore’s recession and what is their likely fate; this study could also include the sub-standard living conditions of these people, the prostitute camps that used to spring up overnight around their dormitories, and their exploitation by hard-pressed and ruthless employers

· We read that, together with the 1.8k workers whose contracts were terminated prematurely, total redundancy in Singapore increased to a record 12.6k in 1Q09. Obviously, poor people do not exist in the MSM’s world; everyone seems to be happily employed only in media and marketing, if not in the press

· Tells us also what it means to our society to have a trade volume that is three times our GDP; does this not affect our values?

· Throw the spotlight on our local banks, e.g. how did the still independent OCBC and UOB manage to escape being caught more deeply in CDOs and toxic assets of other banks?

· How is Wee Cho Yaw planning his leadership renewal and how he built up his father’s little bank into the behemoth it is today without a foreigner at the helm, while OCBC still struggles to raise its profile, and why DBS with all its patronage is not faring so well

· Stop publishing all the incredible ‘feel good’ stories that we read daily, e.g. how our displaced unemployed workers are merrily engaging in community work, how Mr Mohd Zainuddin is happily adapting to a lowly paid job (1/3 what he used to earn) and is so optimistically looking forward to promotion in his new found position, and signing for self-improvement marketing courses in his late middle-age

· And, if you are truly interested in why and how people become homosexual, conduct a real examination of this subject. Give us, in a non-partisan and objective manner, an intelligent digest of the question. So many people, including even senior cabinet ministers, still labour under much misunderstanding of this subject. Apparently, too, even our Minister Iswaran (Education) and the Ministry’s director of education programmes have not read the old AWARE’s manual on sex education before issuing a defence on the issue a few days ago.

The ideas thrown up above are quick from-the-hip suggestions that any news editor worth three-quarters his salt would suggest on a daily basis, even hourly if need be. That’s because, unlike now, the journalists of old used to be trained, sensitive, experienced and fiercely jealous of their independence. We were not automatons who had to wait for cues from news editors who reside outside the newsroom.

I know Saturday’s EGM at AWARE will throw up more morsels for the MSM to continue its feeding frenzy. If it is true that the newspapers of a country reflect the caliber and depth of a society’s intellect, then the MSM does Singaporeans much injustice.

[There are two charges Yeo makes against The Straits Times.

1) The Straits Times (and other mainstream media in Singapore) is a parochial newspaper (in the case of other MSM, news agencies) that writes up insignificant fluff and passes it off as news; and 

2) The AWARE situation is largely the domestic affairs of a marginal organisation with little impact or relevance beyond the gay issue and sex education.

Taking the first point, Yeo charges that the Straits Times shouldn't be presenting fluff like "Bollywood Hotties" and "semi-nude bodies in [the] life-style pages" (Perhaps Yeo thinks these should be on Page 3 as is traditional?)

His remedy is that MSM should focus on real news with real issues of the day affecting Singapore and Singaporeans. In other words, this AWARE business is just "petty politics". (Now, who else characterised this sad affair as "petty politics"? I guess Yeo concurs with him.)

Well, Yeo (and the powers that be) are free to characterised this issue as "petty politics" or fluff, or not "real issues of the day". The fact is that there is a variety of issues that interests and affect people. There are days when the front page news do not grab my attention. There are sections of the papers that I never bother to read (soccer news for example). Certainly, sports news, horse racing information, and lottery results are not issues of the day. But they are in the papers, and people do want to read them.

So is the Straits Times supposed to be some elite newspaper intended for the well-read, well-informed, serious policy maker and policy commentator? Or is it intended to be a mainstream broadsheet with something for the whole family? Then it has to cater to all these interests, and that means bread and butter issues, jobs, employment, the economy and economic outlook and government policies - all the important issues of the day, as well as sports news, entertainment news, lifestyle, food, fads, health and so on. And yes, Bollywood Hotties too.

The ST has done rather well in continuing to be profitable, maintaining and even increasing it's readership in a era of falling readership worldwide for print media. That means that it has managed to stay relevant and hold the interests of its readers. And if Yeo thinks that the ST is parochial, he should check out newspapers in countries such as Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia and many other countries. Even some of the "international" papers in the US, is more US-centric, than truly international. Because of Singapore's position in global trade, I would argue that the ST is in fact one of the more "globalised" in perspective.

Which brings us to the second charge: that the whole AWARE issue was fluff. There is nothing wrong with fluff, but does it deserve pages and pages of newsprint? Yeo is of course entitled to his opinion as to the relevance and importance of the AWARE issue. He can remain convinced that it is nothing more than a storm in a teacup over some gay issues and the syllabus of some sex education programme.

But based on the interest and arguments raised on the internet, I put it that his opinion is not shared by many others. The discussion, arguments, criticisms, and posts on the matter extends beyond the explicit bone of contention (sex/gay education) to what netizens identified as the expansion of the religious realm and an encroachment into the secular common space. It has become an public discourse (a rowdy and passionate discourse!) on the role of religion and what is secular common space, and the expression of religious values in secular terms.

In other words, netizens and the ST recognised that the crux of the matter was not simply a debate about sex education and family values, but about how religious values relates to civil society organisations. Concerned parties recognised that the strategy of the insurgents was tantamount to an attack with no interest in discussion or debate.

The ST may have been tipped off to this story by their contacts in AWARE, but the other factor that weighed in as newsworthy was the amount of cyber-chatter on the issue. If the ST had ignored the new media, then wouldn't they be guilty of selective blindness or traditional media snobbery?

So, no. The ST is probably one of the least parochial papers in the region. And no, the AWARE story was not just a petty politics story about a marginal feminist organisation.]