Nature reserve worth more than cost to save it

TODAY Letters

from Ong Jun Yuan

15 Nov 2013

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) plans to build the Cross Island Line (CRL), slated for completion in 2030, as part of the expansion of Singapore’s MRT network.

The current proposed route would cut through our Central Catchment Nature Reserve and “severely degrade ancient, species-rich and highly complex ecosystems”, according to the Nature Society (Singapore), which has proposed an alternative route.

Despite the talk of losing biodiversity and damaging our forests, these issues carry little weight with ordinary citizens who have no particular passion for nature.

We are more concerned about bread-and-butter issues such as transportation and construction costs, travelling time and how these affect our daily life.

If the Nature Society’s proposal is accepted, construction costs and travelling time would increase.

Yet, while cost is one of the main considerations of any project, I believe there is a case for avoiding the reserve.

First, one should consider the cost as being distributed over the years until the CRL is completed.

What may seem like a big amount, say S$1 billion, would work out to about S$66.7 million per year over 15 years, an increase of 0.125 per cent of our country’s yearly budget, based on the current budget of S$53.4 billion.

This is a small price to pay for preserving our reserve. While it may be argued that the money could be better spent on other programmes to benefit the population, could their success be guaranteed? The effect of preserving a nature reserve cannot be disputed.


[You can always spot a zealot by their profession of faith. "The effect of preserving a nature reserve cannot be disputed." Well, I would try if I knew what the effect was. But it is a given. Like faith. Meanwhile, programmes to help the population cannot guarantee success. Wow. Nature, sure bet. People, population and society? Don't bet on them. They will always let you down. Success? Not guaranteed. With such faith in people, I wonder how he thinks he can sell his proposal.]

A similar event happened before. In 1986, the Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) was built, separating the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve from the Central Catchment forest.

Today, the construction of Eco-Link@BKE, a collaboration between the National Parks Board and the LTA, serves to link the two nature reserves again, albeit only along a fraction of the swathe that was cut to construct the BKE.

This will provide a bridge for animals to once again move across freely. So, it can be seen that the Government recognises the value of our nature reserves and biodiversity.

[The govt of SG has always considered the place of nature in our island, as well as the value of nature. But it has properly weighed the value of nature against the needs of the people. The nature society? Not so much. As seen from the previous comment where the writer dismisses the needs of the people for the paramount need for preserving nature reserves. It is clear that his impartiality is in question.]

As of now, the CRL’s route has yet to be finalised. What may seem like a simple map exercise, a line drawn on paper, may have permanent effects in future.

 -------

Comment:

For a letter with the implicit argument that value is more than just costs, the writer seems to have ignored the value of time, and only considered only development costs.

The LTA proposed route is the faster route. The alternative proposed by the nature society (who are not urban planners, and have a declared interest in protecting nature) would add to the travelling time. Let's say it adds just 5 minutes to the travel time.

5 minutes is not a lot of time right?

Not for one person. Not for just one day.

But more than one person will be affected. Even if the CRL is a smaller system with a capacity of 600 persons per train, that is 600 persons losing 5 minutes on a trip. And that's just one trip. In an hour, there may be 12 trips (assuming a very low frequency of 1 train every 5 minutes during peak hours). That's 7,200 persons who lost 5 minutes in travelling time. Or a total of 36,000 minutes (or 600 hours, or about 4 "man-weeks"). For every working day. Assuming just 200 working days a year, that's 120,000hrs a year.

How do you value that?

I think the value of 120,000 hours is hard to assess. Some will value their hours more. Some less.

Why should the Nature Society care?

Well, because a good public transport system can reduce the number of cars, which means less congestion on the road, which means less pollution and the burning of fuels, which means less CO2, which means less contribution to climate change.

Why do people prefer cars to public transport? Because cars get you there more directly and faster. If you ever take a bus that meanders all over the neighbourhood, you know what I mean.

So you want people to take public transport? It needs to be fast and direct. Looping around some spot that the nature society wants to protect, adds to the travel time, and makes public transport that much more unattractive, and car usage that much more likely.

Protecting one spot, one area may be the most short-sighted thing the nature society can do. As the nature society, they should consider themselves experts on ecology and how things relate and affect each other.

But they fail to understand that building a meandering, loopy MRT line may well undermine the success of that segment of the rail system, and that failure may well cascade on to the whole public transport system and undermine the measures to reduce car use. Which in turn will add to climate change, and so yes, there may well be a protected nature reserve, but it may well be destroyed or irrevocably altered by climate change.

So no. It is not "a small price to pay". The nature society has not shown that it has considered all the prices and all the costs and all the values. Its proposal is myopic at best, and dishonest and deceptive at worst.

But the truth is probably somewhere in between - well-meaning but blinkered amateurs with no understanding of urban planning other than the impact of urban planning on their beloved nature, making a idealistic, uninformed proposal to protect their interests at the expense of others, and asking others to "pay a small price" for biodiversity.

They need to make a better case.

Are there protocols for euthanasia requests by pet owners?

16 Oct 2013

Today Voices

While animal welfare groups have stepped up efforts to promote the humane treatment of animals here, the legislative framework seems somewhat ambiguous following the latest incident.

[Hoo boy. Assumptions. Damn Assumptions. Presumptions. Short answer: Animal welfare groups have not done any work in reforming the legislative framework. And what do you mean "ambiguous"? Where is the ambiguity?]

...Given the increasing animal abuse here and the grey areas in our animal welfare legislation, I am concerned about the veterinary protocols concerning euthanasia requests by pet owners.


[Again. What "grey areas"?]

For example, are there conditions where veterinarians may exercise professional prerogative over such decisions? Are there conditions that constitute abuse or negligence on the owner’s part when a healthy pet is sent for euthanasia without exploring alternatives?

[You have neither made a case or proven that a) there are conditions where vets can or should over-ride pet-owners' requests, nor b) that "euthanasia" of pets must be supported by a list of approved reasons, or only as a last resort. And no, this is not jeopardy. You do not need to frame your answer in the form of a question. You just want to redefine abuse to include euthanising a healthy pet? Just say so... but it helps if you explain why and you show you at least appreciate the reality of the situation, even if you seem divorced from reality]

Also, what access rights do owners and rescuers have to an animal’s medical records in the event of a dispute, and what avenues may one seek regarding errant vets?

[The right of privacy of the animal records are covered by the... oh wait! There are no such rights. Nor are these records a matter of public interests or public information. If a vet writes up his observation, it is HIS (or HER) observation. There are NO rules governing medical records of pets. Where did this "errant vet" come from? Define "errant"?]

Animal abuse should not be limited to signs of physical injury. Legally, it should also encompass mental harm and any malicious intent that contributes to the unnecessary suffering or death of an animal.

[So how was the owner of the puppy "malicious"? You are not legally trained are you? Tossing in "intent" is just going to make prosecution harder. Which brings us to the next question: who is going to investigate and prosecute such cases? Who will pay for the legal proceedings? Do we want to tie up our courts with such proceedings?]

Perhaps another legislative review is in order to address all of the above and to move Singapore closer to being an animal-centric and inclusive society.

Tan Pei Ying

[I will assume you mean "animal-centric" and "animal-inclusive" society. 

Wow.

Those are big dreams. 

Stupid dreams. But Big. 

Big, Stupid Dreams. 

"Animal-centric" huh? So Animals will be the centre of Singapore society? How does that even start? Do you mean ALL animals, or just the ones you like. You know, like dogs.

I'm not sure, but the neighbourhood garbage centre at my place is quite animal-centric. Rats, Crows, Pigeons, and even Cats and Dogs gather there. The hawker centre nearby is also Animal-centric. Crows, Mynahs and Pigeons scavenge food off the tables. The hawker patrons are quite Animal-centric. They leave scraps of food on the table for the animals to pick, instead of clearing their plates to the tray return point.

There are some Cat lovers around my place. The responsible ones will feed the stray cats and then clear up the uneaten food. But the animal-centric ones will just leave the uneaten food for rats, and other animals. I used to think they were just irresponsible. But now I see that they are actually animal-centric. 

Comment: There are different types of animal lovers. But the true animal lovers are respecters of animals. They allow animals to be exactly what they are. In other words, they won't keep animals. They consider it a cruelty at worst and an indignity at best to the animal.

The so-called "animal lovers" who keep pets, give them names, domesticate them, dress them up in ridiculous clothes they think are cute, and otherwise tries to anthropomorphise the animals are sad, insecure people seeking vicarious validation of their life choices.

Or they just need to get a life.

Then there are "pet owners". These range from the "animal lovers" mentioned aforehand, to animal "farmers" who try to make money from the animals, usually by breeding them for sale. The choice is often between cruelty and unnatural control/indignity.

Which is not to say that there are no "good" pet owners. But these are usually people with large compounds for the dogs to run freely, explore excitedly, and mark naturally. Most SG pet owners do not have that luxury.

The argument over whether the puppy could have been saved or re-homed misses the bigger picture. 

The point is, there are different views and values about pets and the value of an animal's life. You may believe that all life is sacrosanct. That is your right. But it is the right equally of others to believe otherwise, or not to the same extent as you. 

Imposing your views, or wanting your views to be paramount, is not much different from Lawrence Khong believing that adultery should be punished with dismissal from the job, regardless of one's pregnancy or need for income at one of the most critical point in one's life, or the law of the land. The issue of the death of that puppy is at best a moral issue. And moral issues are personal choices. It is not a legal issue.]

A German's lifelong love affair with S'pore

Oct 03, 2013

Among the birthday wishes Mr Lee Kuan Yew received for his 90th birthday was this letter from accountant Stefanie Tuczek, 51, of Germany. This is an edited excerpt.




[This is not an ST Forum Page letter, but it is a letter. So I put it here.]

DEAR Mr Lee,

I am from Munich, Germany. My first time in Singapore was in 1978 when our family was on our way to Australia. (My father was a physicist and he was about to spend a working semester there.) I had my 16th birthday in Singapore and I instantly fell in love with your island. Although we travelled around the world and we visited many places such as Hong Kong, Sydney, Hawaii and Tahiti, Singapore always remained my favourite.

In retrospect, I think Singapore Airlines was partly responsible for that: I still remember when my father told us that he booked our flights with some "obscure" airline because they were the cheapest. Nobody knew SIA at that time, at least not in Europe.

From the moment we boarded the plane in Frankfurt, we were thrilled. It took me two more weeks and two more SIA flights before I actually came to Singapore, but I knew right from the beginning that a country with such an exceptional airline must be something special.

[Bravo SIA! But some travellers have felt that SIA standards have fallen. Or rather, not kept up with other airlines. Can't rest on 35-year-old laurels.]

In 1991, I had a brief stopover in Singapore and saw that the Singapore River was cleaned up and not that filthy water I used to know. What an achievement. I could hardly believe my eyes!

In 1998, my mother and I planned to spend a vacation in Batam. We thought it would be nice to combine an Indonesian island close to Singapore which would give us two weeks at a beach and one week in Singapore.

Being back in Singapore was awesome: the clean river and all the new or restored buildings, the MRT, Changi Airport.

Soon we took the ferry for a day trip to Batam to look for a hotel for the beach vacation. But after my mother's passport was stolen, we spent the rest of the day oscillating between the local police station and the immigration at the harbour. It was really hard work to get back to the ferry to Singapore without a passport and without bribing anybody. But when we finally made it, we really appreciated the Singaporean immigration office: nice people, no chaos, no bribes, rules and regulations which were followed strictly! I loved this place even more.

The next day, my mother got a new passport from the German embassy. But we had made up our minds not to leave. Singapore was a safe haven in the middle of strange worlds.

[And that is our selling point. For the less adventurous, for those who want safety and comfort when they travel, Singapore is it.]

And we had a great time. We even went to the beach in Sentosa. In 1978, we just had a cable car ride and we couldn't find proper places to swim.

Since 2000, we have always combined our vacations in Vietnam, Shanghai or Malaysia with Singapore. But the time we spent in Singapore became longer and longer. Now, it is only Singapore. Once or twice a year, we come back for a few weeks. There is always something new.

I tried to learn more about this stunning development. Your memoir, From Third World To First, is definitely one of my favourite books.

Most of my German friends cannot understand why I always go to Singapore. In their opinion it is a police state with corporal punishment and absurd laws, such as no chewing gum and no littering. I gave up arguing with them. Over here it seems quite often that the authorities believe that people will behave without the threat of corporal punishment, which of course doesn't work.

And they make fun of Singaporean campaigns to educate the people. But I never understood what is bad about that. I still remember the signs back in 1978 in public buses - "Courtesy is our way of life." I liked that, it gives you a good feeling.

Or the reminder "Use it, don't lose it" for the Chinese not to forget their native language. Sometimes I ask my Singaporean friends to write some sentences in Chinese characters on my postcards. At first I was surprised how many couldn't do this properly.

They were surprised that I wanted these sentences to impress my friends back home. They couldn't imagine that angmohs are fascinated with the Chinese language. It's so easy to learn it as a child but it's just as easy to forget it as a grown-up. So sad.

Singaporeans are also astonished that I spend so much time in their country. Many think that everything in Germany must be a lot better. I once praised the toilets in MRT stations. The reply was: "OK-lah. But I suppose they are much better in Germany!" Unfortunately I had to answer that if there is a subway toilet, it is either filthy or closed because of vandalism.

I think in both countries many younger people take the status quo for granted and don't consider the hard work done to achieve this level.

Anyway, this is just a story of somebody from Europe who loves your country a lot, and who is well aware that all these great developments happened thanks to you. I wish we had wise politicians like you in Europe, but I know that this will never happen.

I look forward to November when I will have the great pleasure again to spend four divine weeks in Singapore. I wish you a very happy birthday and I hope that you will be Singapore's mastermind for many more years!

Alles Gute fur Sie und Ihre Familie (All the best for you and your family).

http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/germans-lifelong-love-affair-spore

Want less stress for kids? Raise pay of technical job

Ng Ya Ken

13 July

Schools may be an “instigator” of stress among our children, as pointed out in “Are schools going too far in the quest for accolades?” (July 12), but the schools are not wholly to blame.

Schools respond to what our parents and society expect them to achieve: Better academic results year after year.

Academic results are much emphasised in our society because students must be in the top quarter or so of their cohort to have the chance to go to our universities now. And this group can earn far more over a lifetime than those without a degree.

There are exceptions, but they remain as exceptions.

However, in countries where academic results and having a degree are not as important in getting good paying jobs as in Singapore, the gap between white-collar and blue-collar workers is small, if any.

And it is common for salaries of skilled technical jobs to exceed those of general white-collar jobs.

[This letter is... too complicated - it's the most generous I can get. To summarise, the point the writer is making is a) schools are stressful, because b) you need academic qualifications in order to c) get a good paying job, otherwise, d) you drop out and get a crappy paying job, which is really bad because e) Singapore's pay differential between a grad and and non-grad is very wide. Whereas, f) in other countries skilled technicians can earn MORE than a grad. Therefore, (g) we should pay our technicians more.]

In Australia, the mining, engineering and construction industries pay better than legal, marketing, banking, accounting and government jobs. Also, the entry-level pay of a manager can be only one-quarter higher than that of an executive assistant

In Sweden, a doctor earns only double that of a teacher or a nurse.

Over time, if Singapore could raise the salaries of skilled technical jobs, more of our young would switch to technical training in polytechnics and vocational schools. They could then pursue careers according to their inclination and aspiration.

We should make these career options, as well as jobs in music, the arts, design and the like, more viable. This would be an important step towards a more balanced and less stressful education system.

Such tweaks in our pay structure would tame our Gini coefficient, though it may have implications for our economic competitiveness.

If the long-term social and political benefits outweigh the costs and inconveniences, it would warrant our consideration.


[I wonder if people who suggests such ideas (and the people who support such ideas) really know what it means.

First of all, the examples are irrelevant: "Mining, Engineering, and Construction".

We don't have Mining.

Engineering pays quite well, and Construction is mainly filled by foreign workers.

The proper examples for SG might well be, Hawkers, Sales persons, and Property Agents. I could be wrong. What do students who fail to get a degree go on to do in SG?

Let's take Hawkers. Obviously this is a respectable profession. 2 out of 3 hawkers (I may be generalising here) can beat a michelin-starred chef.

How much does a michelin-starred chef make and how much does a hawker make?

If we can all agree that the hawker should have a higher income (comparable to a michelin-starred chef), that would be great.

Now, - here's the reality check, this is where you put your money where your mouth (or keyboard typing fingers) is - how many of you are willing to pay $24 for a bowl of laksa so our hawkers can have a more decent wage for the job they are doing which is BETTER than a michelin-starred chef?

Anybody?

How about $20?

$16?

In any case the complicated argument lost most readers, and response from readers... went off on different tangents. ]

No solution for eateries flouting rules?

Jul 10, 2013

I WAS amazed to read the report ("Steamboat outlet faces closure for repeatedly obstructing walkway"; July 1).

The steamboat restaurant was fined 38 times over the last three years and was finally given an ultimatum.

However, other restaurants in the vicinity are still operating outdoor dining areas right alongside the road.

A waiter was quoted as saying: "If we can't operate outside, it's the end for us."

It would appear that the authorities' primary concern is issuing penalties for persistent flouting of the rules, while noise disturbances, public hygiene issues, general disamenities to the public and perhaps even danger to road users continue unabated.

It also seems that the operation of certain businesses in some areas cannot be carried out profitably without disregarding the rules, and this particular "problem" in Beach Road has been unresolved for several years.

Can the Urban Redevelopment Authority, Land Transport Authority and the management councils of buildings suggest solutions?

Derrick D'Souza

[On the one hand we want to have a more "humane" society, with more give and take.

Then we have people who want uncompromising enforcement of the letter of the law. And when the eateries are closed down because of uncompromising enforcement of the law, the authorities will have to take the blame. And the people who asked for the enforcement of the letter of the law will quietly fade away, leaving the authorities to face the music for being "heartless". Passionless. Without Compassion or Humanity. Being overly Legalistic. Or Bureaucratic. Stone-faced enforcers of the law without understanding the needs of businesses or their patrons. 

But sure. In the meantime, stridently defend your need for disturbances, nuisances, and disamenities to be dealt with to the full letter of the law.

If you want a kinder, gentler Singapore, it starts with us. Being a little more tolerant. Live and let live. Give and take. Accept a little inconvenience as part of the price of living in a thriving society/community.

Or just clean up Singapore until all disamenities and organic businesses are gone. Then complain that Singapore is so sterile. Then go to places like KL and Bangkok and Penang, and say, "Wah! They have such a thriving street food scene. Ya, it's a little messy, but it is so ALIVE! Not like Singapore. Like a hospital."

Singaporean: One who complains about everything without realising what their complain would result in.]

Meal service on SIA flight poorly timed

Jun 10, 2013

DESPITE recent complaints about Singapore Airlines' (SIA) service standards slipping, my parents insisted on taking our national carrier to Osaka for their holiday on March 22. To their horror, they experienced an appalling in-flight meal service on board SQ616.

There was only one meal during the flight - which was six hours and 40 minutes long - and this was served at 3pm, an hour after the plane took off. No food was served for the rest of the flight.

[With a start like, "despite recent complaints...", I was led to believe that "to their horror" meant that service standards had NOT slipped! Disappointing!

In a movie, if you hear about "service standard slipping", it's called "foreshadowing" and at some point later in the movie you should experience the "slipped service standard" more or less firsthand (or vicariously thru the lead actor/actress)!]

The plane landed at Kansai International Airport at about 9pm, and by the time my parents cleared Customs, it was already 10.15pm. They then had to rush to catch the last train leaving the airport for Osaka and managed to have their dinner only around midnight, after much difficulty as most eateries were already closed.

My parents were terribly disappointed by SIA's poor scheduling of the meal service. Their experience led me to wonder: Did the cabin crew intentionally serve the main meal way ahead of dinner time, enabling them to get this time-consuming task out of the way?
If the cabin crew were merely following a planned schedule, it speaks poorly of SIA's in-flight service standard and suggests that the carrier has little regard for the welfare of its passengers.

Did it not occur to SIA that tourists entering a foreign country would not be able to clear customs as quickly as its flight crew and would thus have to go for hours without food?

Passengers should be treated humanely and not have to endure what my aged parents went through.

Jason Fok Wai Kwong

[Yes, Jason. It was all a conspiracy to torture your parents for the convenience of the SIA cabin crew who are after all just glorified flying waitresses and waiters.

For the next trip, you should try another airline. Note what time they serve the meal or meals. And report back. Preferably you should provide a table to compare the two meal services/airlines, and your conclusion that SIA meal service is outrageous in terms of timing should be supported by how other airlines serve their meal (or meals) and what time they did so.

Otherwise your complaint cannot be taken very seriously.

BUT, here's some speculation on my part. With some known parameters.

Every flight has some risk of encountering turbulence. If turbulence is very bad, meal service would be suspended. 

The hour immediately after take-off and just before landing are "no-go" for inflight service as the plane maneuvers into position. So basically, the in-flight service window is from 3 to 8 pm. It may about 30 mins to an hour to serve all the passengers (depending on the size/capacity of the plane) so the latest service can start is 7 pm. 



However, there are usually customs and immigration forms to be filled up and the crew will start handing out the forms about an hour or two before landing, so that might be another consideration.

Even if you intend to start meal service at 7, the plane may suddenly encounter turbulence severe enough for the captain to suspend in-flight service at about the same time, there may NOT be meals, at all.

So you want to start earlier. The earlier you start, the more margin for dealing with unexpected turbulence. And yes, turbulence can hit more than once.

I just love Singaporeans. They are so pampered because everything here works EXACTLY as it should, and Nature here is tamed and domesticated to our wills, they never realise that we still need to consider unpredictable nature elsewhere.

Update July 2013. The same unreasonable and unrealistic expectations of Singaporeans were again manifest during the Haze of 2013. The PSI reached 401 at the highest and Singaporeans were appalled that our govt has NO PLANS to go to Indonesia and STOP the burning. ]

Why peg EPL rates to GDP per capita?

Apr 27, 2013


THE statement on Wednesday by Mr Allen Lew, chief executive of SingTel's digital life unit, stated that the service provider's English Premier League (EPL) subscription rates are the lowest relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Asia.

In fact, the rates Singapore residents pay to watch European football league matches are the highest in Asia and are comparable to those in Britain if you combine SingTel's and StarHub's sports package fees (that's the only way to watch all available European league matches).

In some countries, service providers offer free EPL broadcasts over mobile devices and personal computers. In Singapore, watching the EPL on mobile devices costs $7, and on personal computers, $12.

Can SingTel explain why fees are pegged to GDP per capita rather than pricing around the region?

Advin Kwok Ching Hoong

[Should I be kind to addicts?

I shall. They can't help themselves. It's a form of psychological dependency.

SingTel chooses to compare on the basis of GDP because, as you noted, comparing absolute prices would be disastrous for their PR reply.

Also, to be fair to SingTel, comparing simply on absolute prices would be... simplistic.

The simplistic (and childish) retort then would be, "if you think so cheap, then you go overseas and watch lah!"

Moreover, why stop at comparing only cable TV subscription? Cars are cheaper anywhere else in the region. Homes too. For the price of a 3-room flat in Singapore, you could probably get a nice landed property in Philippines. Or Sabah. Or even in Johor (please check prices as I am not a property agent). 

In fact with prices so affordable in the neighbouring region, and the overcrowding in Singapore, and the always congested MRT (please check trains personally, as I usually do not use the trains), it is a wonder to me why more people do not migrate to these less expensive, less crowded places but instead choose to flock to Singapore (or stay in Singapore, if you were born here)!

So to Mr Kwok and his ilk, my question to his question would be, "Why watch the EPL in Singapore when it is cheaper to watch it anywhere else in the region?"

Unacceptable answers: 
a) "Because I live here!" - You can move/migrate.
b) "My friends/families are here" - Your family/friends more important or EPL more important?
c) "I work here!" - You mean the surrounding region got no work?
d)"I can't get as good a job with as high a pay elsewhere!" - Bingo! (This is actually an acceptable answer, and it actually answers Mr Kwok's question. If there are more jobs here with better pay, the GDP will go up and EPL will be stupid to charge 3rd world rates for a 1st world economy.)]

What I want my Singapore to be

Apr 05, 2013

DURING my seven-day stay in ward 11C of Tan Tock Seng Hospital, I was taken care of by a group of registered nurses, enrolled nurses and Nanyang Polytechnic trainee nurses. They were from different countries, such as India, Malaysia and the Philippines, with varying backgrounds.

As they worked together, it was clear that they had respect for one another's differences and culture, while they discharged their duties swiftly and quietly.

This is what I want my Singapore to be.

This stay reminded me of the Singapore I grew up in - with my Chinese friends, Indian classmates and Malay neighbours. We were all very different, yet got along well.

Having been based outside Singapore for eight years, I find that people always seem to be able to spot a Singaporean from a mile away - we speak English, Hokkien and Malay all in the same sentence, and are honest, hard-working and not prone to taking unethical short-cuts.

People say this is the result of growing up in a multiracial and meritocratic country.

I would like to thank the nurses who brought warmth to my heart - Ms Mary George, Mr Kelvin Chin, Ms Felicia Yap and Mr Mohd An-nur.

Moses Tan Beng Teck

[Sadly the online comments to this letter were not very sympathetic. Most totally missed the point and went off on a tangent for their pet peeves. Do Singaporeans only appreciate Singapore after they have left Singapore for a while?

Maybe.]

Tweaking the NCMP scheme

Mar 29, 2013


Mix of electoral systems can work

BOTH Dr Jack Lee Tsen-Ta ("Changing system not the answer"; Wednesday) and Mr Devadas Krishnadas ("Proportional representation has its limitations"; Wednesday) have made valid comments on my commentary ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).

The proportional representation system has a long established history and been adopted by more than 80 countries. The interplay of many factors, socio-economic and cultural, determines the selection of a most suitable system to meet the needs of a nation.

[The "interplay of many factors" therefore undermines and renders irrelevant your "long established history" and "adopted by more than 80 countries" point. If the "interplay" determines the most suitable system, then what was the point of the preceding point? Verbose fillers?]

In Singapore, the first-past-the-post method has served us well, and it was never my intention to propose a replacement of the existing system by proportional representation.

However, a tweaking of the system by modifying the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme may add value and help solve the problem of scouting for capable people to stand for elections.

The suggestion of adding 10 NCMPs is merely an example; it could be increased to a greater number after we have gained adequate experience in future.
It is incorrect to say that "first-past-the-post" and "proportional representation" cannot be mixed.

There are a number of variations of proportional representation. Many countries adopt a mixed system of the two methods. Australia uses proportional representation in its Senate elections and preferential voting in House of Representatives elections. Germany, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea adopt mixed proportional methods.

[If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that for bi-cameral legislative bodies, one body (or house) may be elected with one system (say first-past-the-post) and another body or house can be elected by proportional representation. This is NOT the same as having a chimera (not to be confused with a bi-cameral parliament) voting system. So no. You have NOT proven that it is incorrect to say that the two systems cannot be mixed. Or rather, you have not proven that the two system HAVE been mixed in other places.]

I share Mr Krishnadas' view that there are limitations. The proportional representation "with the largest remainder method" used in Hong Kong favours small parties and encourages vocal minorities. But this is only one of its few variants.

Without the "largest remainder", it has worked well in Taiwan and other countries.

It is true that the system by itself may lead to fragmentation of votes and hence the need for a coalition government. But what I have suggested is to keep the "first-past-the-post" system largely intact, and just add a small number of NCMPs by proportional representation. The fragmentation of votes will not occur in our case.

Under the present Constitution, NCMPs are eligible to be appointed as ministers. It is again incorrect to say that this is "politically illegitimate".

[There is a difference between legally permitted and politically illegitimate. Devadas point was that it was contrary to democratic principles to have someone rejected at the polls to be allowed to make policy. So no, you do not seem to understand "politically illegitimate" to be able to say that it is incorrect.]

The American president appoints Cabinet ministers who are not elected members. In Hong Kong, ministers are appointed by the Chief Executive and they are not elected. The Taiwanese president appoints his premier and ministers who are not elected members.

[Yes. And the appointees are appointed by someone ELECTED by the people, and the appointees were not directly REJECTED by the people in an election.]

People may pose many questions on the present NCMP system. More should be discussed to make it relevant and useful in our parliamentary institution.
Ker Sin Tze (Dr)

[Relevant and useful is a good starting point. Unlike your proposal.]

Mar 27, 2013
Changing system not the answer

DR KER Sin Tze ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday) proposed that the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme be altered to increase "participation in the decision-forming process" and "reduce the difficulty of enticing bright talents to serve in Parliament and the Government".

With regard to the first justification, the proposal might indeed have the effect of increasing diversity in Parliament.

As Dr Ker pointed out when discussing the Hong Kong electoral system, proportional representation tends to favour smaller parties and independent candidates. If that is the intention, should proportional representation not be extended to choosing all the elected MPs in Parliament?

Perhaps Dr Ker suggested having proportional representation for only 10 additional MPs so that the number of such "vocal minorities" remains small and unable to pose much of a challenge to the majority party's policies.

If so, it is rather difficult to see what the proposal adds to the existing NCMP and Nominated MP (NMP) schemes. I suspect people will be sceptical about the proposal, seeing it as merely introducing token alternative voices in Parliament with no real clout.

Incidentally, I am not sure why the NCMP scheme was termed as being "inactive" until Parliament revised it in 2010 by increasing the potential maximum number of NCMPs to nine. We have had NCMPs in Parliament since the scheme was introduced in 1984, except after the 1991 General Election when there were four opposition MPs in Parliament.

As for the second justification, it is already possible under the present constitutional system for any MP, including an NCMP and an NMP, to be appointed a minister, or even prime minister if that individual commands the confidence of a majority of the MPs.

Of course, in practice, it is highly unlikely that MPs other than those from the political party having a majority in Parliament will be appointed to the Cabinet. Increasing the potential pool of MPs by 10 will not really help to address the issue, because the true challenge that all political parties face is finding suitable people to stand for election in the first place.

Jack Lee Tsen-Ta (Dr)
Assistant Professor of Law School of Law, Singapore Management University


----------------

Proportional representation has its limitations

WHILE it is always useful to study other political and economic systems, it would be a mistake to do so without considering the historical and current differences in culture, law and politics ("Picking out the winners in electoral systems"; last Saturday).

Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore share similar characteristics as competitive economies, but that is where the similarities end. Even the fact that Hong Kong and Singapore were British colonies can be stretched too far - as evident by the contrast between Singapore's current sovereign status and Hong Kong's special relationship with China.

Applying the proportional representation approach to the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) system is unsound.

First, we cannot have two systems of electoral practice - "first past the post", as is the current practice, and proportional representation. For harmony in our political principles, it must be either one or the other.

Second, if we were to change our parliamentary system to a proportional representation model, we should look at its limitations, not just its superficial attractiveness as being more democratic.

Proportional representation is a model that typically leads to coalition or minority governments. This may be a supportable outcome in large countries with powerful regional cities and provinces, but not in a tiny island with no economic or social distribution of power.

Third, appointing NCMPs as ministers is contrary to democratic principles. It would be politically illegitimate for someone not elected by the due electoral process to be given policy responsibility. It would not only give the incumbent an unfair advantage, but also cheat the people of their electoral choice of leadership.

It is possible to contribute to policymaking without distorting the political model, which has served us well to date.

Furthermore, the idea of introducing proportional representation for the NCMP system as a way to "entice talent" is oxymoronic. If a person cannot get himself elected, then either he is not seen as talent or the people have decided that the electoral winner is better.

We should not create "backdoor" routes to political leadership. If anything, given the growing electoral success of the opposition, the more pertinent question to ask is if the NCMP system will continue to have justification beyond this term of government.

Devadas Krishnadas

[Devadas point in the last para is, this may be the last election/parliament with NCMP. Dr Ker's proposal would seem to be a proposal to tweak the horse-drawn carriage with the Ford Model T in full production.]

Give ex-offenders a chance

Mar 29, 2013

MY SON was released from prison last September. He served a four-year sentence and has to wear an electronic tag for one year. He also needs to report to the police station once every two weeks.

He admits that he made a mistake, and wants to turn over a new leaf.

He is the family's sole breadwinner and is currently working as a technician, earning a gross monthly salary of $1,000.

After three months on the job, he was confirmed and promised a pay rise. But there has been no follow-up even after six months. Each time he raises the issue, it falls on deaf ears.

My son is now looking for a new job. But it is discouraging as many employers discriminate against him. Some require him to work long hours, others offer him ridiculously low pay, while the rest do not want to employ him at all.

This is because my son wears the tag and needs to report to the police station.

Why is he still being discriminated against when he has already paid his dues? How can he possibly change and be a better person when society is unable to accept him? It is no wonder that many former offenders return to prison. How can they possibly earn a living when employers are unwilling to give them a chance?

I do not deny that some former offenders return to a life of crime, but why discriminate against all the others just because of a few black sheep?

Everybody makes mistakes, but all deserve a second chance.

Fatimah Nachair (Ms)

[Another caring-to-the-point-of-over-protective (?) mother. Not quite sure how to describe her, but there is a hint of mothering when your mother writes to the press about your parole from prison.

So many misconception and unrealistic expectations in this letter.

"He has paid his dues".
Not exactly. If he has completed his sentence and paid his due, served his time/sentence, etc., he would NOT be electronically tagged. Prisoners given "parole" (not sure what they call in Singapore, so using the American term) with electronic tagging are technically still subject to prison regulations (i.e. they are still serving time) and may be recalled to prison during the duration of the term of the electronic tagging. So NO, he has NOT completed his sentence.

"Deserve a second chance"
If the complaint is that employers are unwilling to hire him or are trying to exploit him, my answer would be: He currently has a job with $1000 salary. That is $1000 MORE than what he would be getting in prison. His current employer HAS given him a second chance and after just 9 months, he is searching for ANOTHER job? Maybe I'm old fashioned, and 9 months these days are a lifetime (in which case the 1 year electronic tag must be an eternity, and the 4 years he spent in prison must have passed glacially), but I am from the generation that believes you stick with a job unless you have very good reasons to quit or change jobs. The fact that he has NOT taken up the other exploitative job offers indicate that his CURRENT employer is NOT exploiting him (as much).

Isn't that his second chance? Or you want his second chance to be gold-plated? Presented on a silver platter? Invitation sent by courier?

"It is no wonder that many former offenders return to prison... some former offenders return to a life of crime."
Maybe I am over-sensitive, but is that a threat? Blackmail? "Don't give my son a good job, he go back to be criminal then you know! And it will be all your fault!"

Or is it a highly sophisticated social commentary on our criminal-justice and social safety net/social compact where it is inherently "easier" to be incarcerated than to be "free" to struggle for a living with the rest of us? No?

To quote: "Dying is easy. Living is hard." This can be paraphrased to "Prison is easy. Freedom is hard" to suit this instance.

I hope that your son is actually doing his best to find his way in life. I hope that he is just considering all his options when he looked at other jobs and is realising that his current employer is NOT THAT BAD and while a little easy on the promises and tardy with following thru, is nevertheless giving him a decent job and a decent chance, and your son is appreciating his opportunity.

I hope that you are writing this letter on your own initiative out of concern for your son, and not at his instigation, and that you do so because you see his situation and feel more strongly about it than he does. I hope that when he finds out that you have written to the press, he will be horrified and mortified that you have made a big deal of the normal struggles of people trying to make a living regardless of whether they have a prison record or not. It would be a sign that his expectations are realistic and that is a good indicator that he will succeed.

I wish your son well, and you, I wish you peace of mind.]

Brain-death diagnosis based on stringent clinical criteria: MOH

Mar 26, 2013

THE Sunday Times reported on the case of Ms Suzanne Chin, who recovered from a coma ("Back from the dead: 'I have been blessed with a second chance'"; Sunday).

We are happy that Ms Chin has made a recovery. However, we are not able to comment on the case as we do not have access to specific information on her medical treatment in Hong Kong and what exactly was diagnosed and communicated to her family.

Brain death is diagnosed only when there is catastrophic brain injury. When brain death has occurred, blood flow and oxygen delivery to the brain ceases irreversibly and all brain functions are lost and will never return again.

Brain death is determined according to strict clinical criteria.

Once diagnosed, it is recognised both medically and legally in Singapore as death of the person.

This definition is similar to those used in countries such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, Britain and the United States.

[In other words, we don't know WTF standards HK uses.]

Brain death implies the irreversible cessation of consciousness, loss of capacity to breathe and other brain stem functions, and is accepted as the termination of a human's life; correspondingly, the diagnosis of brain death is very important.

The neurological criteria for diagnosing brain death in Singapore are based on current best medical evidence and knowledge, and are similar to those adopted by countries such as the US, Australia, and Britain.

In Singapore, all criteria have to be fully met for the diagnosis of brain death, including absence of pupillary response to light, absence of corneal reflex and absence of respiratory drive or spontaneous breathing, to cite a few; and when one or more of these tests cannot be done, additional tests to demonstrate the absence of brain circulation need to be performed.

In addition, two doctors are required to certify brain death, at least one of whom has to be independent and not involved in the care of the patient.

Doctors accredited to perform brain-death certification in our hospitals are specialists who have had appropriate training to certify brain death.

We would like to reassure the public of the highest standard of medical practice in our hospitals, and that correctly diagnosed brain death is not a reversible medical condition.
[So the fact that Ms Chin recovered from a "diagnosed" brain death would indicate that the diagnosis by the HK doctors were faulty.]

Kwek Tong Kiat (Clinical Associate Professor)
Senior Consultant,
Ministry of Health, Hospital Services Division
Head and Senior Consultant
Dept of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine
Tan Tock Seng Hospital

Lee Heow Yong (Dr)
Acting Director/Hospital Services Division, Health Services Group
Ministry of Health


[And this is the news article that prompted the doctors' reply:]


Mar 24, 2013

BACK FROM THE DEAD

'I have been blessed with a second chance'

Singapore lawyer declared brain dead wakes up amid calls to pull plug on her

By K.c. Vijayan


Lawyer Suzanne Chin is convinced that what happened to her four years ago is nothing short of a miracle.

The mother of two was living and working in Hong Kong when she suffered a heart attack, was hospitalised in a coma and declared brain dead.The head of the intensive care unit, two neurologists and a cardiologist told her husband to prepare for the worst. Soon, he was advised to take her off life support because, simply put, there was no hope.

Then, three days after she was admitted, she woke up from her coma. She recovered within a week and left the hospital. Today, she is living in Singapore, still working as a lawyer, still a wife and mum. She is well, and she is alive.Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon recalled her remarkable story in a speech earlier this month on euthanasia and assisted dying. When The Sunday Times contacted Ms Chin for her story, she agreed only to answer questions via e-mail....

[OK. First a politically incorrect joke about why a lawyer would be found to be brain dead... Never mind.

CJ Menon had raised this issue so that we can have a discussion about end of life issues, assisted death (or suicide) and euthanasia. Based on the online comments to Suzanne Chin's story (which were sharing of similar or related religious experiences) and comments to the letter from the doctors (Anti-HOTA), we don't seem to be ready to have a rational discussion.

Maybe we should just get back to that lawyer joke I wanted to tell... again, never mind.

My suspicion was that the HK doctors had screwed up, as the letter from the Singapore Doctors had implied. However, I searched for some information on this - hoping to see an official report from the HK doctors explaining this error or how to prevent this error. 

I found an updated guide on determining Brain Stem Death (BSD) from HK Society of Critical Care Medicine. Revised in Aug 2009. Just months after Suzanne Chin's miracle recovery from BSD. Possibly a response, though obliquely, to that incident.

I also found a post on facebook: 
https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsFoundation/posts/10151516169355155

There was Suzanne's "testimony" as well as her brother, Dr Alan Chin who is a medical doctor. This was the second opinion from another neurologist, and Dr Chin's observation and narrative:

"We requested for a second opinion from a neurologist who examined her that afternoon.

Her pupils were fixed and dilated. Vestibulo-ocular reflex was negative. She had a negative gag and cough reflex. There was no pain reflex in response to deep pressure over sternum, fingers, and eyebrow. She was flaccid, a-reflexic and there was no plantar response. His diagnosis was also that of brain stem death.
That evening, Suzanne looked dead. She was cold and clammy; facial discoloration had set in, especially under her eyes. There was also a smell of death over her."

I would have preferred a more objective source, and maybe someone can find one. But if we take Dr Chin's testimony at face value, it would seem that the HK doctor did everything right, and Ms Chin was by all indications, brain dead, and this truly was an unexplainable miracle. 

BUT if we consider that Dr Chin might have some interests in promoting belief in miracles, his testimony may not be considered impartial.  Certainly, there is some validation of their belief if her condition were as bleak as he reported. Again, it would good to have an independent enquiry from HK medical authorities to provide a more unbiased report. Certainly if the HK neurologists had made a mistake, it would be in their interest to support a "miraculous explanation" as it would absolved them of any wrong-doing.

So in my mind, this is still unresolved.] 

HDB flat should not be for ride on the gravy train

HDB flat should not be for ride on the gravy train

TODAYonline

Voices

With home ownership crossing 90 per cent, it is difficult to understand why Singapore is building homes at a frenetic pace. Is there really a housing shortage?

From Michael Tan Hoe Heng -
25 Mar 2013

With home ownership crossing 90 per cent, it is difficult to understand why Singapore is building homes at a frenetic pace. Is there really a housing shortage?

The Housing and Development Board (HDB) sold 69,000 Build-to-Order flats from 2010 to last year. Where are these buyers sleeping while waiting for their flats? Do they all need a new flat?

There are 3.8 million citizens and permanent residents, with 82 per cent living in approximately 900,000 HDB flats — an average of 3.5 people per flat. What is a comfortable ratio before the HDB stops building more flats?

When prices are subsidised, there will be overconsumption.

A sign that we might have a misallocation problem, and not insufficient public housing, is that 43,500 whole flats had approval for subletting, not to mention there are flats being sublet without approval.

Why is the HDB wasting public money to build another 25,000 units this year? Why does one not permanently rent from these 43,500 owners instead of buying from the HDB?

The answer: One does not “get” money from the Government if one rents, and one cannot pay the rent using one’s Central Provident Fund.

When I started work, a colleague asked me why I was not queuing for a flat, along the lines of “the Government is giving you money; it’s stupid not to take it”.

I saw classmates applying for flats before they started work so they would not hit the income ceiling. An HDB flat was viewed as their first pot of gold.

We have been told of the perils of a welfare state: Once benefits are given out, they cannot be taken away. Subsidised HDB flats and various housing grants have become an entitlement programme, requiring substantial tax funding.

There is a temptation to appeal to voters by lowering flat prices. Young Singaporeans perceive that they are missing the gravy train of getting a flat that could sell for S$1 million but cost only a fraction.

While many who are applying for flats have genuine needs, how many young couples need a five-room flat? If we could filter out the investment demand, we would not waste resources building flats that owners are not interested in turning into a home.
Every country has limited resources. Should we spend more to build another flat, or use the same tax dollars to help an old lady who collects cardboard, or a child with special needs?

We complain that Singapore is a perpetual construction site, yet we are addicted to this asset enhancement. The HDB should continue to build homes for the poor, but should it aim to house 80 per cent of our citizens?

As the nation prospers, it is logical to expect that a smaller percentage, and not greater, needs subsidised public housing. I applaud the National Development Minister for reviewing the HDB’s role, which should not be to make people rich.

[It takes a brave man, a man of principles and conviction, to write this. It is rare to find a letter written so candidly.

Comments online:
Thumper Koh (edited)

Is it right for taxpayers who do not cash out by selling their flats to
subsidise the "profits" of sellers? At current prices, we are talking
about 100k (5 years holding period) to 400k (15 years holding period).

Sometimes it is not just about government earning but about being egalitarian.


If you look at the Case-Schiller index and rent-price ratios. The
prices should be 4 years of income based on 20% of wages to be spent on
rent and yearly rent at 5% of property price. Current prices are an
anomaly which frequently occurs in cyclical manner. They did not pluck
the 4 years out of thin air.

I believe that HDB prices are affected
too much by CPF. CPF is "free", people do not appreciate the difference
between 1% to 20% of their income on housing because anything less than
20% does not affect out-of-pocket money. Therefore pushing it close to
the 20% mark. Because you can achieve real cash profit from the
untouchable CPF.

Based on current median household income of
6,340. A HDB 4 room flat in non-mature estate should cost no more than
230k based on 30 year loan at 2.5% interest, CPF OA totally used for
housing. Those who over-leveraged with a lower interest bank loan should
be worried, the great quantitative easing (QE) will not last for
another 20 years, since we are already in the 5th year.

There is an interesting paper regarding housing affordability in Singapore before the current growth spurt.

http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/ecs/pub/wp-scape/0807.pdf

---


I agree the problem is CPF money. This is money that CANNOT be used for anything else EXCEPT to buy property. Hence, people think nothing of throwing everything in their CPF OA at housing... as investment...

Recently Khaw Boon Wan delinked BTO prices from resale prices, but when it was linked, there was a vicious circle.

Resale market pricess would be higher than BTO because those who are  ineligible for BTO or want to choose their location had to pay a premium over BTO. Then BTO were pegged to Resale prices, so as resale prices  went up, BTO prices increased. And buyers in the Resale market had to  bid higher premiums over BTO so resale prices went up. Pegging BTO
prices to Resale was the stupidest policy ever. Or smartest if the point was to raise BTO prices.

The delinking from Resale prices is a partial solution, because as long as Resale HDB buyers can freely use  their CPF to buy resale flats, reslae prices will continue to go up, and the discrepancy between BTO (which is now being arbitrarily or artificially held to 4 years income) and resale will widen. This is untenable, unnatural and will lead to a backlash.

The additional measure that MUST be included is to limit CPF funds to similar BTO prices in the area. So if a 3-rm BTO flat is going for $200k, resale flat buyers can only tap on their CPF for $200k. The rest must be cash or savings.

See this:
http://singapore2b.blogspot.sg/2013/03/how-to-contain-hdb-flat-prices.html

Don't forget aim of state-run kindergartens

Mar 23, 2013

THE main reason for setting up government-run kindergartens in the heartland is to ensure that children from disadvantaged families possess the necessary literacy and numeracy skills when they start primary education ("Parents fear rush for MOE kindergartens"; March 15).

It is therefore surprising for people to object to others sending their children to privately run kindergartens, and insist on nationalising pre-schools, claiming that this allows children to enter primary school on an equal footing ("Do more for pre-school sector, Govt urged"; March 6).

While we provide assistance to the disadvantaged groups, we should not deter those capable of taking care of themselves from being independent.

In fact, the home is the best kindergarten, and parents the best pre-school teachers. Wise parents do not send their children to expensive kindergartens; they send them to kindergartens nearby so that their children can learn socially acceptable behaviour in a conducive environment.

It amazes me to read that parents who can afford to drive their children from one class to another plan to register their children in the upcoming state-run kindergartens, because they think such kindergartens will have the best teaching methods.

If the number of applicants exceeds the number of places available and balloting ensues, won't some children from disadvantaged families be left out? Won't this defeat the purpose of having state-run kindergartens?

The misconception of the rationale for setting up these kindergartens is causing undesirable results. Shouldn't the aim be made clear to prevent further problems?

Yeo Boon Eng (Ms)

[This is a reasonable letter and I am not going to bash the points in the letter because it is a reasonable position.

I'm just including this letter because it gives ME a chance to present my "conspiracy theory".

Well, not exactly a "conspiracy".

Question: Before there were state-run kindergartens, where do low income and middle class parents send their pre-school kids?

Answer: PCF kindergarten. What is PCF? Poor Children's Fund?  No, it's the PAP Community Foundation.

For whatever reasons (i don't know, just speculating here), whether enrollment has fallen, difficulty in setting up PCF kindergartens in Aljunied, Hougang, and Punggol East, or PAP just deciding it has borne this burden long enough, the State will now provide what PCF had for over 40 years provided. ]

Peg flat subsidies to minimum occupation period

Mar 23, 2013

I AGREE with Mr David Goh ("HDB must return to its original aim"; Wednesday) that the Housing Board should increase the minimum occupation period (MOP) before a home owner is allowed to sell his flat.

The problem does not just lie with permanent residents buying our flats, but also Singaporeans who "flip" their properties.

Flat subsidies for citizens can be tiered depending on the MOP the buyer applies for.

For example, a buyer can get a $20,000 one-off subsidy if he opts for a five-year MOP, a $40,000 subsidy for a 10-year MOP, and an $80,000 subsidy for a 20-year MOP.

This will gauge whether someone wants to buy a flat for accommodation or as an investment.

Those who fail to satisfy the agreed MOP will have to sell the flat back to the HDB at the price it was bought.

This measure will not only help to control the number of citizens who are out to make a quick buck, but also make public housing more affordable for those who genuinely need a place to live in.

Owning an HDB flat must always remain a privilege that every Singaporean can enjoy, but not abuse.

Yeo Shuan Chee

[I don't want to bash these people who are just trying to get a place to call home. I understand their frustrations. But they don't seem to understand economics. Or have common sense. In part it is because whatever solution they come up with tend to be biased and short-sighted.

Their proposals tend to be short-sighted because they only want to solve THEIR problem, not the whole problem. Worse of all, THEIR solution doesn't even solve THEIR problem.

Increasing the MOP will mean fewer flats can be sold, so the supply of resale flats will shrink, and guess what? The resale prices will rise. HDB has recently de-linked their BTO flat prices from resale prices, but if they haven't, the BTO prices would also rise!

BUT since BTO prices have been de-linked from resale prices, then what is the issue with MOP and resale? Unless David Goh and Yeo Shuan Chee have both lived in their flats longer than whatever MOP they are proposing (10 years), and are trying to sell their flats at inflated prices, but are unable to inflate the price much higher because of the current levels of supply! If they can stop their neighbours from selling, their flats would be worth more!

And if they AREN'T current and long-time flat owners, they are solving a problem that does not exist (the high resale prices shows that there is insufficient supply, not too much), and which CANNOT help them to buy a BTO (HDB has already de-linked BTO from resale).

Singaporeans continue to prove to me that they are selfish, self-centred, self-absorbed, and can't see further than their noses when it comes to understanding their environment and circumstances. Oblivious - the defining characteristic of a Singaporean.]

Military service opened doors for him

Mar 21, 2013

"TELL me about your military experience."

I have been asked this question repeatedly at interviews for schools and work throughout the world. And I have learnt that the very best global institutions value my military skills, discipline and teamwork.

I started out poorly. After faring badly in junior college and being rejected by local universities, I enlisted for national service and, after my basic military training, decided to sign on with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). I hoped to use my military service to bolster my applications for overseas universities.

The skills and experience that I gained in the SAF helped me break through seemingly impossible odds.

Are 'shrinking' HDB flats really affordable?

Mar 20, 2013

AS A parent of three, I have been following the Population White Paper debate and the recent budget announcements with concern.

The Government says it will build infrastructure well ahead of demand ("Major shift in planning strategy: Khaw"; Feb 7). We are assured that HDB flats will always remain "affordable". But these assurances are not convincing.

[In other words, "we don't believe you." Oh to be clear, if you read the rest of the letter, she doesn't believe the "affordable" part. Not the "build ahead of demand" part. Not sure why she put that in.]

It's only fair to make COEs affordable for all car buyers

Mar 07, 2013

[COE and Car Ownership policies brings out the crazies. Some are more silly than others. Most tend to get one basic thing wrong: they think car ownership is a right. Or more specifically, they think affordable or even cheap car ownership is a right.]

I DISAGREE with Mr Trent Ng ("COEs based on need: Let's not get on that slippery slope"; last Thursday) that the Government does not have an obligation to make certificates of entitlement (COEs) affordable to citizens.

His notion that "cars are a luxury good and not an entitlement" does not seem to take into account that the definitions of luxury versus necessity, or want versus need, are nebulous.

For example, the public accepts the need to ballot for primary school places and for HDB flat ownership. It is claimed that education and homes are necessities, but how far is that true?

There are enough school places for every child in Singapore. Therefore, having the convenience of going to a school of one's choice should be considered a luxury and not a necessity.

As for HDB flats, young couples already have a home in the sense that they can stay with their parents. To own a home for themselves, or even to upgrade to a better one, should also be considered a luxury.

[See what I mean about crazy? You have to be quite detached from reality to argue that your right to own a car supersedes a young couples need to have their own home. Or that wanting your own home for your spouse and children is just so much fancy luxury.]

The COE system is an artificially created system to regulate congestion on the road.

There should be equal opportunities for rich and poor buyers alike to own a COE, since cars owned by both groups contribute equally to congestion. Hence, balloting is the way to go.

I fully acknowledge that it is not the Government's responsibility to make the basic cost of car ownership affordable; however, it has a responsibility to make its policies fair for every potential car buyer.

Abel Tan

Comment online:
The crux of the letter above is simply this: "There should be equal opportunities for rich and poor buyers alike to own a COE".

What's your definition of "opportunity"?

Is this a true statement: Everybody, rich and poor, has the opportunity to bid for a COE, but only the rich who can afford to bid more, is likely to actually get a COE?

If the above is true, then everyone has an *opportunity*. And the letter writer has no point.

If you deem the above untrue, and that opportunity must equal actualisation of the goal, then balloting, as suggested by the letter writer is also not the way to go. If 20 people ballot for every COE available, then only the Lucky will get a COE. So 19 people will NOT have the opportunity to own a COE.

And since now COE is neither granted based on need or ability to pay, but purely by Luck, then EVERYONE will try their luck. And every COE will have THOUSANDS of people balloting for it. So for every one that gets a COE, there will be thousands who did not get the opportunity.

Unless, you charge a balloting fee, to weed out the free-riders.

There is already such a ballot. It is called Toto and 4D. Go buy a ticket. If you win, you can afford COE. If you bet enough.

Update: Response by abeltan.09 [Some time on 8 Mar 2013]

your oppotunity definition is irrelevant.
What kind of logic is this? Thats like saying everyone from the pauper in Africa to Bill Gates has the oppotunity to own a PRIVATE JET.but because the rich can afford it, they can get a PRIVATE JET.
If you cant afford something, your oppotunity will be ZERO PERCENT.
I have already abandoned COE balloting in favor of bid as proportion of ANNUAL income. The highest bid of income will get the car. For example, a middle income can bid100% of annual income and get a COE for $50,000, while a millionaire can bid 100% of his income , and pay $ 1 million dollars.
I submtted this a day later than this argument, but ST wont publish it.
This will ensure that affordability is not a concern when it comes to COE. You bid as much of your income as you need to have a car. If you need it more, you bid higher.

Reply to abeltan.09

(some time on the 9 Mar)

I don't usually like to do a point by point rebuttal, because it is very time consuming. But when every sentence you write is screamingly unreasonable, I will respond.

abeltan.09: "your oppotunity definition is irrelevant."

>>>     So, what is your “correct” and “relevant” definition? You claim to be a scientist by trade. I am rather disappointed that your writings reflect neither the discipline nor the precision of a scientific mind.

abeltan.09: "What kind of logic is this? Thats like saying everyone from the pauper in Africa to Bill Gates has the oppotunity to own a PRIVATE JET.but because the rich can afford it, they can get a PRIVATE JET.If you cant afford something, your oppotunity will be ZERO PERCENT."

>>>  This is what I mean by lack of discipline and imprecision. A private jet has a specific price. What is the specific price of a COE? If the price of a jet is $2m, you need $2m. The price of a COE had previously fallen to $2 (Nov 2008). You telling me you can't afford $2? Everyone who bid for COE in that category in Nov 2008 got a COE. My point is not that COE will be $2 again. But that there is a chance which is NOT zero percent (as you brazenly claim with no reference to facts or precedent) that bidders can get a COE.

abeltan.09:"I have already abandoned COE balloting in favor of bid as proportion of ANNUAL income. The highest bid of income will get the car. For example, a middle income can bid100% of annual income and get a COE for $50,000, while a millionaire can bid 100% of his income , and pay $ 1 million dollars."

>>>        And of course our lives revolve around your thought processes - impressive as it is. So this means that you are not a man of your word? You say one mindless thing today. Change your mind next week. And your ill-informed utterances of a week ago becomes irrelevant? You abandon and disown your words like an unwanted baby? This says less about your integrity, and more about the amount of thought and consideration you give to your words. Like I said, your writings reflect neither discipline nor precision one expects from a scientist.  Or for that matter, a reasonably intelligent, consistent, and logical person. One would expect a scientist to be more circumspect in arriving at conclusions. To weigh their words more carefully.

abeltan.09: "I submtted this a day later than this argument, but ST wont publish it."

>>>    They probably regretted publishing your first letter. Or not. Based on the number of comments here, they are probably patting themselves on their backs for picking a good troll. So by your own admission, you abandoned your ballot idea one day later. Your ideas change day by day, eh?

        
abeltan.09: "This will ensure that affordability is not a concern when it comes to COE. You bid as much of your income as you need to have a car. If you need it more, you bid higher"

>>>     In any case I had addressed your “proportional income bid” system where COE applicants bid based on a percentage of their annual income. Frankly, I do not know how you come up with these ideas. The only people who stand to gain are those with NO income:

“Wow. So smart. I got a grandfather and a retired uncle. I will get them to bid 7 million percent of their income. Sure get COE one!
BTW, what is 7 million percent of zero hah? My grandfather and uncle not working. But I will pay them back when they get the COE, and give them a bit of kopi money for their trouble.
You also got retired uncle or grandfather with no income right?”

>>>     And... let me guess:  you will now change or adjust your “proportional income bid” system to address this HUMONGOUS loophole in your proposal and tell everyone you have already abandoned your ill-thought-out first draft and can we all just give you a break and listen to your latest (half-baked) idea?

>>> Why don't you take a break, think thru your ideas, and test them out on some people, preferably someone smarter than you. If you are truly a scientist by trade, I expect some of your colleagues should be pretty smart. As for you, well, there is the Bell Curve and -2 SD from the mean is still considered normal.

Don't leave out singles when making policies

Mar 05, 2013


BEING a single Singaporean, I am discriminated against by policies time and again.

Cost of living is big concern

Mar 01, 2013

THE recent debate over the Population White Paper has missed the point.

[And, I picked this letter because the writer has missed the whole picture. Not just a point.]

A mother's wish list

Feb 25, 2013

LOOKING at the steady decline in our birth rate, the cost of raising a family, the intense competition from the global workforce for local employment, and workplace discrimination against mothers, I fear that mothers will become marginalised in society unless more is done to meet their needs throughout the stages of parenthood.

[Listen people! This is how you start a classic piece of letter-writing to the press. First, leverage off current affairs or issues that are very germane, so that the ST forum page editor (or whoever selects your letter for publishing) will have a pretext to publish it - It speaks to the issue of the day!

THEN you work in your pet peeve, or pet rant, or your pet project!]

Use smaller buses on less popular routes

Feb 12, 2013

I HAVE noticed that during off-peak periods and on certain routes, buses have few or no passengers.

PAP sending wrong signal in Punggol East

Feb 09, 2013

BY TAKING the drastic stand that it will not push for new facilities in Punggol East after losing the recent by-election, the People's Action Party (PAP) is sending the wrong signal to the 44 per cent of voters who supported it ("PAP won't push for facilities in Punggol East"; Wednesday).

[What about the signal to the 56% that did NOT vote for the PAP?]

Don't drive online debate underground

Jan 10, 2013

WHILE I cannot presume to judge whether or not blogger Alex Au's article or the comments it attracted were defamatory, [Well, why don't you read them and decide?] I am concerned that serving a letter of demand on him may not be entirely in the public interest ("PM asks blogger to remove 'defamatory post'"; last Saturday).

[So... public interest is better served by allowing baseless accusations about the integrity and intent of publicly elected officials to stand unchallenged? How so?]

Rate advertisements for sexism

Jan 03, 2013
 
PG MOVIE ON FREE-TO-AIR CHANNEL

I CAUGHT the late-night screening of the movie You, Me And Dupree on free-to-air television on Christmas Day.

The 109 minute-long movie aired from 12.45am to 3am and was interspersed with advertisements.

What I did not expect was the repeated airing of a few advertisements that drew attention to the female body and offered breast enhancement, weight-loss programmes and hair-loss treatment.

One advertisement, which focused entirely on close-up images of a model's exposed cleavage, and flaunted her presumably augmented breasts, was lewd and subliminally pornographic.

Another showed the drastic weight loss of a young mother and her progression from being an oversize to an XS size.

The message suggested that excessive weight gain as a result of childbearing is crushing to a woman's self-esteem.

It did not offer any information on the health risks of obesity, or the benefits of staying healthy.

In yet another commercial, a young wife is visibly distressed when her husband tells her that her crowning glory is thinning.

Her crisis was not over a life-threatening illness but the fear of looking unattractive to her husband.

Sexism was the common thread in all these commercials, with in-your-face messages that a woman's self-esteem can be repaired simply with breast augmentation, weight loss and hair-loss treatment.

While it is important for every person - man or woman - to keep good health and hygiene habits, I was offended by the sexual objectification of women in these messages.

Ironically, while the movie carried a PG-13 rating, there was nothing to warn me of the sexist contents in TV commercials that could be offensive to me as a woman.

For a long time, Singapore has had legislation that prohibits tobacco advertising and limits the screening of alcohol commercials.

In the wake of the recent heinous gang-rape in New Delhi and the global outcry for the protection of women against violence, maybe it is time our media and advertising regulatory bodies also look into the content, presentation and impact of print and TV advertisements to rate them for sexism, ageism and all forms of discrimination against women.

Eve Loh (Ms)

[Yes, the answer to hyperbole in advertisement is.... hyperbole in your complaint against them!

Yes the advertisements were tasteless... however, using the gang-rape victim to "sell" your point was also tasteless. Yes, every little bit of social and cultural conditioning may well add to the overall sense of oppression and devaluation of women, but it is a loooooong jump to the conclusion that an advertisement working on a young wife's fear of losing her hair would lead to indiscriminate, inevitable, and a proliferation of gang-rapes in our society.

Or ads on breast enhancement and weight-loss.

Moreover, these ads were aired in the late-night slot where the authorities have rightly exiled these tasteless, baseless, and valueless advertisements.This is almost the same time slots as those ads selling those products, "as seen on TV".

Advertisements on late-night TV serves a purpose, it provides breaks for you to refresh your drink, take a toilet break, check your email on your iPad, messages on your iPhone, and sms on your mobile phone. Only people with no social life, and a weak sense of self, pay close attention to those ads and get upset by them.]

View volunteerism positively

Jan 03, 2013
 
[First, this will not be one of my usual caustic rant against morons who write letters to the forum page.

As someone who DOESN'T volunteer, I admire those who do, and respect those who wants to.]

SINGAPORE ranked near the bottom on helping strangers in the 2011 World Giving Index survey conducted by Charities Aid Foundation ("Ask, and you will receive"; Dec 21). The Philippines and Hong Kong scored respectable 26th and 33rd positions respectively in the 146-nation ranking.

We should not attribute our poor ranking to survey methodology, as suggested by those interviewed in the article.

Malaysia, China and Japan were also near the bottom, and India ranked last. My guess is that cultural factors are to blame.

[Why? One might argue that we have the same culture and same level of development as Hong Kong!]

Singapore also fared very badly on volunteering time and donating money, according to the statistics available on the foundation's website.

On volunteering time, Singapore was also ranked near the bottom, behind the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, which were ranked fifth, sixth and 10th.

[I do agree that the cultural milieu may have something to do with it... if by culture you mean affluence and a highly urbanised society, with a highly pressurised lifestyle. Then again, HK puts paid to that theory, no?]

Singapore was ranked 53rd in monetary donations, lagging behind Indonesia, Thailand and Hong Kong who were among the top 10.

We should do more self-reflection, and review the environment and existing regulations on charity and volunteerism activities here.

Two weeks ago, I helped in the flag day of the Lions Home for the Elderly. At first, I worked at a bus stop but later decided to work at a hawker centre nearby. I took a short cut by walking through a shopping mall. Within seconds of entering the mall, a security guard approached me and asked me to leave.

Based on my experience, there may be a few who do not like to be approached in public places and asked to donate money; but the majority do not mind. Some even compliment the volunteers. Those who have children with them would often ask their children to put the money into the collection tin, teaching them about charity in the process.

[Seriously? You think kids learn charity that way?]

In 2011, Singaporeans contributed $896 million in tax deductible donations alone. In terms of dollars per capita, the figure is one of the highest in the world.

However, the Charities Aid Foundation survey showed that only 29 per cent of Singaporeans donated in 2011, compared with 71 per cent among Indonesians and Thais. This was how we lost out in ranking. We need to expand the base of our donating population.

This also applies to helping strangers and volunteering time - more should come forward to boost our meagre participation rates.

Ng Ya Ken