Hocking our Future (Or the Future of Hawkers in Singapore)

[Nothing will rouse the average Singaporean more than a threat to his beloved Hawker Culture. Except maybe the death of a founding father.]

Unsafe to sew on train

Nov 19, 2015

Recently, I came across a young woman working on a piece of cross-stitch embroidery inside an SMRT train.

She sat forward with a gap between her and the back of her seat, perhaps to facilitate the flow of her needlework movements.

The embroidery floss running through the needle was about 45cm long.

'Elitism' can be good for society

Aug 11, 2015,

Russell Tan Wah Jian

Having graduated from Raffles Institution (RI) last year, I have witnessed the transformation of the school and would like to share my thoughts on the matter ("RI now a 'middle-class' school / 'Make RI a better school for S'pore'" and "RI population less diverse now, say many alumni"; both published on Aug 4).

Singapore is a society built on the core tenets of meritocracy, fairness and equity. However, in recent years, we seem to have collectively confused equity with equality.

Equality is making everyone stoop down to the lowest common denominator of society - everyone does the same thing and all are given equal probabilities. Equity entails everyone doing what their abilities allow them to do, and everyone being given equal opportunities to succeed; only the most outstanding grab those opportunities.

Tuition a sign of a developed economy

JUL 9, 2015,

I read Mrs Marietta Koh's insightful analysis of the tuition industry in Singapore with interest ("Tuition a necessary evil"; yesterday).

Instead of seeing tuition as an inherently problematic phenomenon that society must merely tolerate, here is a different perspective on an industry that exists not only in Singapore, but also in all major cities, such as London and New York.

[So does Crime and Prostitution. But, go on...]

High-stakes examinations are a microcosm of working life, especially in late-capitalist societies where individuals compete for plum positions at a variety of institutions, ranging from prestigious universities to white-shoe law firms.

[So... law firms are ranked based on the colour of their shoes? I learn something new every day. Useless, but new.]

Smaller homes, smaller families

So Straits Times have started to highlight stupid letters to the press for comments. They are obviously trouble-makers.

Jun 18, 2015

THE latest property trend of buying smaller-sized private property will take a toll on population planning in the years to come ("HDB upgraders buying 'smaller private homes'"; last Saturday).

My concern for those who are buying homes of a smaller size is: Will these be beneficial to those aiming to start a family?

This is not a good societal decision, as there will be no space for children to be raised in such confined spaces.



[Battery Children? If it's good enough for chickens, it's good enough for children?]

Such property trends could potentially have repercussions on our birth rate.


[New Scientific Study finds, buying small private property results in small privates! Birth rate affected!]

Jeremy Cheong Weng Kee

And it attracted this comment:

Will it be beneficial to those who want to start a family? Of course not! If you buy property, you can't afford children!
But if you don't buy property, then property agents cannot make money, and then they cannot feed their families (children included). Or if they don't have children, then they won't start a family because they can't afford it! Or if they are not even married, then they won't get married, cos they can't afford to get married!
How? What to do?
Kek sim ah!
Aiyah! Buy also no good. Don't buy also no good.
But it's good that we have writers like this to the press with a laser-focus on just ONE FACTOR which they think will solve the problem. They show us all that Ministers are a waste of our money. We just need single-minded people like the writer to make policy.

A rare instance of a reflective ST?

I can only hope. Is ST questioning its contribution to stupid debate/opinions?

May 10, 2015

Never mind the data, what's the point?
They add nothing to a moral argument; why not ask instead: Why do you feel this way?
By John Lui

Deep inside The Straits Times Forum Page, tucked in with letters scolding bad cyclists, unexplained phone charges and the shutdown of The Real Singapore website, there was one letter last week that squeezed two unbeatable topics - sex and real estate - into one quite wonderful package.

The Yale-NUS College is introducing mixed-sex suites in its student housing, and the writer was having none of it.

At least I think so. The letter was earnest, heartfelt and darn near unintelligible.

Here's the letter:

May 05, 2015 

Co-ed cohabitation endangers chastity
YALE-NUS College recently announced that it will be allowing male and female students to share suites ("Male, female students in Yale-NUS can soon share suites"; April 22).
In the report, a parent, Mrs Grace Yeo, was quoted saying: "These are not teenagers but young adults. I trust my son to make responsible choices."
I wonder if this is representative of Singapore parents today.
Based on the 2004 Global Sex Survey by Durex, the average age that Singaporean youth first have sex is 18.9 years. The survey also found that Singapore youth have an average of 5.8 sexual partners.
The average age that our youth first have sex is dangerously close to the age when students would enter Yale-NUS.
So we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: Is it an issue to have premarital sex?
Or perhaps we think that even if our children have premarital sex, they can sort it out after marriage.
A recent report ("Recent marriages not standing the test of time"; April 7) showed that recent marriages are failing more often than in the past, and I would say that today's generation lacks faithfulness.
How does abstaining from premarital sex help? Because when your partner can control himself before marriage, he will be able to control himself after marriage.
One may ask: Why keep your virginity when you can have fun? Because sex has the uncanny ability to create a lasting connection with another person, and the voices of your previous sex partners hovering over you when you embark on a serious relationship can be very disconcerting.
Rage and insecurity can hinder the formation of a healthy relationship and it is very lonely to be in such marriages.
Intentionally or unintentionally, Yale-NUS' policy propagates a lifestyle that begets relational loneliness.
Chen Dewei

I tried to follow its reasoning as it writhed this way and that but, like the maths question about Cheryl's birthday, it left many of us feeling exhausted.

But what stood out for me were the tools the writer used to justify his beliefs.

The writer thinks co-ed living brings men and women into close proximity and therefore promotes sex before marriage.

That leads to what he calls "voices of your previous sex partners hovering over you" when you embark on a serious relationship, causing it to suffer.

On that last point, I can agree: No marriage can withstand sexy poltergeists.

But what struck me was, why did this writer take a perfectly valid moral opinion - sex before marriage is bad - then undermine it with confusing and contradictory shards grabbed from population studies and sociology?

Yale-NUS College later explained once more that what it was introducing was mixed-sex suites with separate bedrooms.

This practice might be new on campus, but off-campus, mixed-sex house-sharing has been going on for a very long time, long before the ghosts of past sex partners started floating above our beds.

The writer seems to be using a classic method of persuasion, the appeal to general welfare: This or that issue is bad not because it hurts me (because that would be selfish), but it hurts everyone.

This sort of appeal is very popular in Singapore and, over the years, the method has evolved and been refined.

I remember a time when letter writers made appeals to values like thrift and hard work ("Surely this will destroy our sense of financial prudence.").

A thing was liable to "corrupt the minds of the youth" (usually to do with a youth craze of the time that older people couldn't stand).

If all else fails, whip out the trusty "no right-thinking person would do it" or that the thing in question "flouts common sense".

But those reasons are less seen these days.

Simple moral reasoning - "I believe this because that's what my parents taught", or "This is what my religion says", or "I hate this because it just makes me uncomfortable" - seems to have fallen out of fashion.

People can now whip out supporting facts within a few seconds of pecking around on the Internet.

Others, meanwhile, cook up a word salad made up of phrases like "social cohesion" and "fostering harmony" or bring out that old favourite, "it benefits the economy", as if only lunatics would argue against it.

Tossing our elderly into the sea would be great for the economy, but I doubt anyone is going to suggest it.

The more someone writes as if he were penning a corporate mission statement, the shakier he knows his ground to be.

That magisterial tone is an appeal to our respect for authority.

Looking like pragmatic, data-driven beings has made us really bad at conversations about things that have nothing to do with data.

Does Amos Yee, or anyone else who spews rubbish online, deserve punishment and, if so, how much?

Is the Pink Dot event good or bad for society?

What should the sex education curriculum look like?

Are people who dislike the idea of a hospice or a columbarium in their neighbourhood wrong?

In these discussions, the same bits of data will be waved around.

These include the rates of divorce, abortion, fertility and current property values.

Sometimes, a survey on values will be thrown in, whether for sexuality or online codes of behaviour.

There will be assertions about why X must surely be the cause of that particular number's rise or fall.

People who throw down research think they are scoring a slam dunk, as if the other side will cave in immediately, saying, "Oh no, you used statistics! Well, I can't beat that. You won fair and square. Well played, sir!"

I'm still waiting for that to happen.

Bringing data to a moral argument adds nothing because values are rarely logical, fully articulated or fair.

People with progressive ideals - those who are for co-ed dorms and expansive sex education - would help their cause if they knew that they are facing a set of conservative and often irrational beliefs that tie a majority of Singaporeans to their family.

Change would require them to sever ties. Some people can do this, many cannot.

I also wish the question "why do you feel this way?" was used more frequently in values debates, but no one seems interested in how the other side thinks.

It's a useful question and, if asked often enough, gets to how these issues are primarily about feelings, not rationality that can be moved by research, and certainly not about the spirits of ex-girlfriends or boyfriends hovering around the ceiling.

I agree with Mr Lui - people don't know how to argue their moral or value-informed position - we are "really bad at conversations about things that have nothing to do with data." 

But these questions are precisely the ones that evoke visceral responses from readers, which is why ST continues to publish these letters. And when such letters are not forthcoming, ST will ask a stupid survey question that would evoke visceral responses from readers.

So my hope at the start of this? Fat hopes.

Build modern cafeterias, not hawker centres, in Singapore

FROM PAUL CHAN POH HOI

APRIL 8

By 2027, Singapore will have 20 new hawker centres. However, society should drop its dated image of hawker centres to raise the profile of the hawker workforce. (“Ten more hawker centres to be built in next 12 years”; March 12)

If society continues to hold hawkers in low regard, we will fail to embrace them in our supposedly inclusive society.

It is time we appreciate their culinary skills, raise their status and transform their working environment to remove the stigma attached.

Stronger security needed in educational institutes

TODAY Online

From Prem Singh

February 20

I refer to the report, “Terror threats real and evolving: Lawrence Wong” (Feb 8, online) and could not agree more. Recent terror events round the globe prove this.

The violence committed by terrorists come in extremes: Suicide bombings, hostage taking followed by sadistic execution of the hostages and reported hijacking of planes to be used in other attacks against nations opposed to their barbaric, evil activities.

Knowing that the threat is real and cannot be taken lightly, our Government must do more to ensure that Total Defence is what it says exactly.

For a start, educational institutions must beef up their security systems, which must be strict and include trained security personnel who are stationed at the entrances and exits. Pre-emption must be the critical role of security.

[Why?]

Thaipusam

[Arrest some people during the procession, see it blow up in the social media, ask why it's not a public holiday. Get an official reply. Then push for it to be made a public holiday.

Hey! I also want!

Another day off, who don't want? Even those who have to work during holidays also happy because - OVERTIME RATES! ]


Seek views on Thaipusam as a public holiday


FROM AMOS MAXIMILIAN LEE CANGUANG

FEBRUARY 19

I thank the Manpower Ministry for its letter, “Impractical to make all key festivals public holidays” (Feb 14), which explained its stance on whether Thaipusam should be a public holiday.

Indeed, in 1968, Christians and Muslims had to give up two public holidays. Both faiths were, however, left with two days: Christians have Good Friday and Christmas, and Muslims have Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji.

It seems odd that Hindus, who had two days to begin with, Deepavali and Thaipusam, had to choose one instead of keeping both.

Firstly, the difference between Thaipusam and Vesakhi for the Sikhs or Lao-Tzu’s Birthday for the Taoists is that Thaipusam involves a huge procession of devotees. Designating it a public holiday could reduce traffic congestion and potential safety hazards.

[The authorities DID NOT tell the Hindus: "You have to give up Thaipusam." The Hindus considered the two important days to their religion and decided Deepavali was more important. And that they can work around Thaipusam not being a public holiday. The question is, do we want to re-open the issue or ask the Hindus to decide if they want to stick with Deepavali or change to Thaipusam.

And yes, traffic congestion is a major consideration for public holidays. We should make the week preceding the F1 race a Golden Week Public Holiday.]

Secondly, Hindus make up 5 per cent of the resident population, a sizeable number compared to the Sikhs. The Taoists, who form 11 per cent of our population, have also petitioned previously for Lao-Tzu’s Birthday to be a public holiday.

Perhaps, designating a public holiday for religions that comprise 5 per cent of the resident population is a better way of ensuring religious harmony.

Finally, it is one thing to say from an official standpoint that the status quo maintains harmonious living, but I hope the ministry would seek opinions on Thaipusam from employers, employees, Hindus and people of other faiths.

I am confident that many non-Hindus here would support designating Thaipusam as a public holiday, and if a majority on the ground does, it would show Singapore’s multi-ethnic and multi-religious solidarity and society.

[Merits of ANOTHER public holiday? Seek views of public as to whether Thaipusam should be a public holiday?

While you are at it, why don't you ask really controversial questions like: "Do you want Free Money?" in addition to this moral conundrum: "Do you want ANOTHER public holiday?"

Yes, I am CONFIDENT too that if you ask ANYBODY if he wants one more public holiday, they will all say yes. Unless they are crazy. 

BUT to be fair, I think if we let Hindus have TWO public holidays, than Christians and Muslims should have one more public holiday each. And yes, the Taoist and the Buddhists and heck, the Chinese too.

I am CONFIDENT that many non-(whatever) will support more public holidays. Because in our multi-racial, multi-religious, racially harmonious society, we all want to celebrate each other's important festivals appropriately. i.e. resting at home.]


More public holidays may be better

FROM HAZRUL AZHAR JAMARI

FEBRUARY 19

I refer to the Manpower Ministry’s letter, “Impractical to make all key festivals public holidays” (Feb 14). Perhaps, the consideration is how it could be hard for Singapore to be competitive if we have too many holidays.

Our fierce economic competitor, Hong Kong, has 17 public holidays, though, and the Chinese territory has no problems remaining one of Asia’s best economies, often beating Singapore in economic rankings.

[Yes. I googled "Singapore HK Economics" and these are some of the results:
http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1498467/booming-years-singapore-lost-decade-hong-kong?page=all
"Hong Kong’s economy grew 2.3 per cent in 2014, while Singapore’s expanded 2.9 per cent."

See? The writer is right! with just 6 more public holidays, HK's economy only lost to SG by 0.6%! Or only about 0.1% per holiday! We can afford that right?]


Unlike Hong Kong, Singapore is multiracial. So during this Chinese New Year, for example, those from the other races might be working.

This is true for services that must run throughout the holidays, such as public transport, our airport, the checkpoints and some supermarkets.

[So... in HK, during public holidays, all these essential services STOP? wow. I did not know that.]

Hong Kong, as a homogenous territory, has the luxury of providing holidays for both major and minor occasions; the residents take their breaks and return to work refreshed.

Perhaps, overworked Singaporeans would be better off having holidays that make everyone happy. Every racial community is an important cog in our economy.

[OK, now you are starting to lose me. First you say that SG multi-racial so more holidays ok because OTHERS will be working. NOW you say HK homogeneous so holiday, EVERYBODY rest and come back refreshed. Which is it?]

With less annual leave left, just so they can attend an important religious or cultural occasion, some Singaporeans may end up feeling less refreshed.

Further, more holidays means that the ever-important and growing tourism industry has more reasons to bring in foreign visitors.

[OK, now you are just sounding desperate to make your case. What about all the SG going overseas and spending money in other countries? And SG already so crowded! You want more foreigners here?!?]

For example, Thaipusam is a crowd-puller in Malaysia. Were it made a public holiday in Singapore, with the entire road for Hindu Singaporeans to perform their procession, there may be many tourists preferring Singapore as a holiday destination instead.

[I will leave it to the Hindus to decide if they want to be insulted that their religious practice is to be turned into a tourist attraction. Next: "True Confessions!" Webcams to be installed in Catholic Confessionals. Especially those in churches next to convent schools or CJC.]

But it seems we want workers to work more days when it would be better to earn the tourist dollar, let our Hindu friends enjoy their religious festival, and for the rest of us, a well-deserved break.

The ministry should rethink this issue. What happened in 1968 is no longer relevant; we may have needed to make compromises then for our young nation to become an Asian Tiger, but we are at the top now.

More holidays does not necessarily mean a slow or weaker economy as Hong Kong has demonstrated.

[Sorry. Debunked. See chart below. Since 1989, SG (red bars) have consistently been better than HK (blue bars.]

Schools should do away with cleaners

FEB 15, 2015

I salute editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang for his maverick and courageous suggestion that schools do away with paid cleaners and make students responsible for cleaning ("No litter please, we're Singaporeans"; last Sunday).

Mr Han's suggestion should be seriously considered.

Values that are instilled in the young through practice will remain with them throughout their lives.

I spent four years in three different Chinese schools from 1948 to 1951. All the three schools did not have paid cleaners. Students were the cleaners. Today, I don't feel that doing manual work is beneath me and I respect the people who do such jobs. We used to have Use Your Hands campaigns in schools, where students were required to clean classrooms and wash toilets.

Will our school principals today have the courage to take up Mr Han's challenge?

Tan Kim Hock


[I think this is a good idea. But the problem is not the children. The problem is the parents. If TOP schools were to implement this, would they still have parents clamouring to enroll their children in those schools? ]

What are pre-schools' guidelines on naps?

FEB 12, 2015

ARE there recommendations or guidelines on sleeping for pre-schoolers who are in full-day class ("Many parents 'not alert to children's lack of sleep'"; last Friday).

Some pre-schools do not allow afternoon naps from Kindergarten 1 onwards. One reason could be that there are enrichment classes on some afternoons. But these do not take place every afternoon, and not all children are involved.

Another reason could be that some parents feel that they are paying school fees not for their children to nap.

Some people say that not having a nap in school means children will sleep earlier at night.

But the key consideration is whether a child's overall development and health benefit from a nap.

My children benefit from a nap: They are less cranky and have better appetites at dinner time.

My questions for the childcare and kindergarten authorities are: Are there guidelines on napping for pre-schoolers? Is there no benefit to a child napping, say up to an hour, in addition to sleeping nine to 10 hours straight at night?

Yah Jun Yang

[I am an evil person who relish dumb letters to the ST Forum Page so I have material for this vicious blog. If you are reading this you are probably a evil person as well.

OK. enough self-flagellation. 

Let's flagellate the more deserving. 

Like this letter-writer who in his inspired wisdom decided that the best way to ensure that his children gets enough sleep in pre-school is to ensure that ALL pre-schools have nap time.

This despite noting that some pre-schools do not schedule nap times because:

"One reason could be that there are enrichment classes on some afternoons. But these do not take place every afternoon, and not all children are involved.
Another reason could be that some parents feel that they are paying school fees not for their children to nap.
Some people say that not having a nap in school means children will sleep earlier at night."

So despite these reasons, this parent decides that since 

My children benefit from a nap: They are less cranky and have better appetites at dinner time.

Therefore, he "reasons", EVERY Pre-school should have nap times. 

Why?

I dunno why people act selfishly. I dunno why people think that what works for them MUST apply to everyone. Oh wait, I do know. It's because they are self-centred, self-absorbed, and thinks the world revolves around them, their needs, their priorities, their interests.

The reasonable, rational approach would have been to ask the the pre-school you are considering enrolling your children in, about their programme, or if you want to be specific about it, ask them straight out if they schedule afternoon naps.  And if they do, and everything else is fine and meets your needs or your children's needs, you can enrol them in that pre-school.

Instead you choose to ask the AUTHORITIES if they have guidelines on napping? Because they know your children better? Or they know that ALL children need afternoon naps? That all children are the same? Or that this need supercedes all other needs? Or your need has precedence over other parents' needs and priorities? 

While you are at it, can you ask MOM about scheduling afternoon naps in the workplace?

Thank you.]