By Ajay Nair, SG Climate Rally
01 December, 2019
I am writing on behalf of my co-organisers of the SG Climate Rally. We refer to the commentary, “In calling for action on climate crisis, it is not enough to say ‘listen to the science’” (Nov 25).
SG Climate Rally acknowledges the need for climate movements to listen to broader social concerns. As part of these efforts, we published a statement last week in support of the food delivery workers affected by the ban on personal mobility devices on footpaths.
[Lip service followed by an example of tokenism.]
Showing posts with label A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Friday, November 1, 2019
To cut waste, set up supermarket selling overstocked, expiring goods
By Doreen Lai Bin Hui
26 September, 2019
I was happy to read TODAY’s Trash Talk features on how Singaporeans can do their part to reduce waste.
I have two ideas that I hope can bring Singapore closer to its zero-waste target.
Despite being a developed country, our environmental consciousness trails even some developing nations.
[Note: what she considers "environmental consciousness" is basically the latest fads promoted by so-called "environmentalists". More later.]
Recently, I took a six-month break. [Just curious. Did you fly, or bike, or take a "zero-emissions" boat? Whatever that is.] Through my travels, I saw how the effects of global warming and erratic climatic changes have caused glaciers to recede at an alarming rate, and places such as Alaska becoming much warmer than they should.
[Oh yes. Come see the glaciers before they are all gone!]
We need to step up our environmental consciousness to safeguard our planet for future generations.
During my travels, I encountered many excellent ideas of how we can help to reduce waste.
START A GROCERY OUTLET
In the United States, there is a successful supermarket chain called Grocery Outlet selling heavily discounted brand-name groceries and products that are either overstocked or close to their use-by date.
[In Singapore, there is a chain of budget shops called "Value $ Shop". Their tagline is "Closing Down Sale!" and "Fire Sale"! And they are NOT the only bargain budget shops.]
I patronised this supermarket often because its items were cheap and I was going to consume the produce pretty soon anyway.
It makes sense for one of the big supermarket chains here — or, better still, an alliance of them — to create such an outlet to reduce waste. It can also be a part of their corporate-social-responsibility efforts to bring affordable groceries to the masses.
[Or see what they are already doing. From a Facebook comment:
DEPOSITS FOR BOTTLES AND CANS
In Europe and North America, it is common to see glass or plastic bottles and steel or aluminium cans being sold with a deposit. Consumers can get their money back when they return these to a machine that is usually at the entrance of supermarkets.
This scheme will boost recycling collection rates and attitudes towards recycling.
[Hate to break the news to you but... Recycling is a scam. But don't take my word for it. Find a recycling plant in Singapore. Not a recycling materials collection and sorting facility. These simply "export" our "recyclables overseas. Where a large proportion of them are either left to rot, burned haphazardly, or tossed into the oceans. Find an ACTUAL plant that takes recyclables (say aluminium cans), and actually process the recyclables and make NEW products with it. There are no such plants in SG. (I got a hint that there is a "local steel mill" that can recycle ferrous metal - not aluminium. But I have NO idea where it is, or if recycling is a major component of its business model.)
As for plastic, it helps to believe that you can recycle plastic. But the truth is, it is very difficult to recycle a plastic bottle and imagine that it would come back as a bottle. Plastics are hard to recycle. The best you can do is down cycle it.]
Recent news that supermarket chain NTUC FairPrice is charging for plastic bags in a trial at selected stores is also a step in the right direction.
Singapore is already behind many countries in this area. Others, including many African states, have banned single-use plastic bags. A report from the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Resources Institute found that at least 127 out of 192 countries have adopted some form of legislation to regulate plastic bags as of July last year.
I sincerely urge Singaporeans to be more environmentally conscious because every little step matters.
[More from the FaceBook comment:
The War on Plastic is futile. And people are doing it for the wrong reasons. If we stop using plastic, the world will NOT become a better place. We would NOT stop climate change or global warming. If you think giving up plastic will save the world from climate change, you are a victim of "a little knowledge" and the wrong kind of knowledge.
Same for giving up plastic straws.]
26 September, 2019
I was happy to read TODAY’s Trash Talk features on how Singaporeans can do their part to reduce waste.
I have two ideas that I hope can bring Singapore closer to its zero-waste target.
Despite being a developed country, our environmental consciousness trails even some developing nations.
[Note: what she considers "environmental consciousness" is basically the latest fads promoted by so-called "environmentalists". More later.]
Recently, I took a six-month break. [Just curious. Did you fly, or bike, or take a "zero-emissions" boat? Whatever that is.] Through my travels, I saw how the effects of global warming and erratic climatic changes have caused glaciers to recede at an alarming rate, and places such as Alaska becoming much warmer than they should.
[Oh yes. Come see the glaciers before they are all gone!]
We need to step up our environmental consciousness to safeguard our planet for future generations.
During my travels, I encountered many excellent ideas of how we can help to reduce waste.
START A GROCERY OUTLET
In the United States, there is a successful supermarket chain called Grocery Outlet selling heavily discounted brand-name groceries and products that are either overstocked or close to their use-by date.
[In Singapore, there is a chain of budget shops called "Value $ Shop". Their tagline is "Closing Down Sale!" and "Fire Sale"! And they are NOT the only bargain budget shops.]
I patronised this supermarket often because its items were cheap and I was going to consume the produce pretty soon anyway.
It makes sense for one of the big supermarket chains here — or, better still, an alliance of them — to create such an outlet to reduce waste. It can also be a part of their corporate-social-responsibility efforts to bring affordable groceries to the masses.
[Or see what they are already doing. From a Facebook comment:
Supermarkets are already doing this for some products. Fresh meat have a shelf life (or a sell by date) of just 3 days. [When] they are close to their sell-by date, some supermarkets slash their prices. But you often have to use the meat on the same day. This is not always possible (for me), so I cannot take advantage of this. And this (offering discounts within the store) is a better solution than having a specialty store selling say 2-day old meat. This requires the originating store to send the meat to the specialty discount store, who will need to check that the meat (or other products) are still saleable, re-tag the merchandise, and put it on display. All these take time, transport, logistics, and labour and adds to the costs. Re-tagging the soon to expire meat within the originating store is speedier (unless the specialty store is right next to the originating store and a subsidiary of the originating store or parent company).
DEPOSITS FOR BOTTLES AND CANS
In Europe and North America, it is common to see glass or plastic bottles and steel or aluminium cans being sold with a deposit. Consumers can get their money back when they return these to a machine that is usually at the entrance of supermarkets.
This scheme will boost recycling collection rates and attitudes towards recycling.
[Hate to break the news to you but... Recycling is a scam. But don't take my word for it. Find a recycling plant in Singapore. Not a recycling materials collection and sorting facility. These simply "export" our "recyclables overseas. Where a large proportion of them are either left to rot, burned haphazardly, or tossed into the oceans. Find an ACTUAL plant that takes recyclables (say aluminium cans), and actually process the recyclables and make NEW products with it. There are no such plants in SG. (I got a hint that there is a "local steel mill" that can recycle ferrous metal - not aluminium. But I have NO idea where it is, or if recycling is a major component of its business model.)
As for plastic, it helps to believe that you can recycle plastic. But the truth is, it is very difficult to recycle a plastic bottle and imagine that it would come back as a bottle. Plastics are hard to recycle. The best you can do is down cycle it.]
Recent news that supermarket chain NTUC FairPrice is charging for plastic bags in a trial at selected stores is also a step in the right direction.
Singapore is already behind many countries in this area. Others, including many African states, have banned single-use plastic bags. A report from the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Resources Institute found that at least 127 out of 192 countries have adopted some form of legislation to regulate plastic bags as of July last year.
I sincerely urge Singaporeans to be more environmentally conscious because every little step matters.
[More from the FaceBook comment:
As for other goods (over-stocked goods) this is already being done if the writer would simply open her eyes and understand what she is seeing. "Value $ Shop" with their perpetual "Closing Down Sale" or "Fire Sale" (despite the lack of evidence of fire, unless they are exploiting the Haze) ARE in fact discount stores for overstocked goods. Yeah, sure they have lots of parallel imports from countries with lower costs of living (Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Malaysia), but they also have overstocked goods. "Halls XS" are about $1.40 at Fairprice. They were once sold at Value $ Shop for 50 cents (no stock now).This letter is an example of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" or at least a useless thing. Or will get you to do useless things that will make you feel good about yourself.
The War on Plastic is futile. And people are doing it for the wrong reasons. If we stop using plastic, the world will NOT become a better place. We would NOT stop climate change or global warming. If you think giving up plastic will save the world from climate change, you are a victim of "a little knowledge" and the wrong kind of knowledge.
Same for giving up plastic straws.]
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Waste management and Recycling
[Note: This is NOT a letter to the Editor. This is ACTUALLY an article. Written by "a Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design and an Assistant Professor of anthropology at the university. As us plebes would say, "oo tak cheh eh lang". And they write like this?]
Why waste management is such a knotty issue in Singapore
There are many considerations in how to implement a system for waste management that is convenient, fair, equitable, hygienic, and cost-effective. Reuters file photo
10 April, 2019
How cities deal with household trash, or ‘waste management’ in urban planning jargon, is not a sexy topic. One thing that can make it even less palatable to talk about?
Paying fees based on how much trash we generate – a hot-button topic that’s received some coverage in the media lately.
How cities deal with household trash, or ‘waste management’ in urban planning jargon, is not a sexy topic. One thing that can make it even less palatable to talk about?
Paying fees based on how much trash we generate – a hot-button topic that’s received some coverage in the media lately.
[I may be out of touch, but I haven't read anything recently about trash collection fees based on volume. This suggests this paper was started some time ago (when "pay as you throw" was current... over a year ago?)]
Monday, November 5, 2018
‘Archaic attitudes’ have to change, modern universities should prepare students to enter the workforce
By Jonathan Tiong Soon Yi
31 October, 2018
I agree with Assistant Professor Woo Jun Jie's commentary “Why graduates from S’pore’s newer universities find it easier to get jobs” (Oct 16).
The 2017 Joint Graduate Employment Survey found that graduates from the Singapore University of Technology and Design, the Singapore Institute of Technology, and Singapore University of Social Sciences fared better in the job market than those from the traditional “big three” of the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University and Singapore Management University.
Asst Prof Woo explained that the newer universities have a “strong commitment to an industry-centric and practice-oriented education”, which employers prefer over the “more traditional and academic” style adopted by the older institutions.
I agree with Assistant Professor Woo Jun Jie's commentary “Why graduates from S’pore’s newer universities find it easier to get jobs” (Oct 16).
The 2017 Joint Graduate Employment Survey found that graduates from the Singapore University of Technology and Design, the Singapore Institute of Technology, and Singapore University of Social Sciences fared better in the job market than those from the traditional “big three” of the National University of Singapore (NUS), Nanyang Technological University and Singapore Management University.
Asst Prof Woo explained that the newer universities have a “strong commitment to an industry-centric and practice-oriented education”, which employers prefer over the “more traditional and academic” style adopted by the older institutions.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Redefining the Singaporean that we know
By Mike Hou
TODAY file photo
Are Singaporeans being defined only by our achievements, asks the author.
22 May 2018
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Hard not to be stressed when basic food and play will incur more tax
By Hazelyn A Yuen
23 February, 2018[Wow! A psychic! I wish I had the power to foresee the future, like her. I wanna know what numbers will be in the Hong Bao draw.]
I foresee that the increase in our Goods and Sevices Tax (GST) in future will push up the cost of living further.
We can cut back on more luxurious travels, expensive cars, premium houses, etc, but we still have to eat, so shouldn’t the most basic food items be largely exempted from GST?
Such goods are relatively inelastic in price, and if they cost more, demand for them will still not fall.[OMG! This psychic is predicting that once GST increase, Singaporeans will take fewer holidays, buy fewer expensive cars, and fewer premium houses! What's the GST on houses? Oh wait! There's no GST on property purchase. That's "covered" by Buyer's Stamp duties. WHICH HAS ALREADY INCREASED (for million dollar property)!]
A GST hike will not benefit producers and consumers, but likely compound the already stressful cost of living domestically.
Even leisure or play is going to cost more, as seen by the tax on digital services which include entertainment content. So, too, will a visit to theme parks or gym classes or the buying of sports gear. How are we encouraged to maintain a healthy lifestyle — which could help to reduce stress — in a pressure-cooker society?
Friday, December 29, 2017
Review age limit for caning sentences
[I've been sitting on this for a whole year. Time to "publish" it.]
Today Voices
Liew Kai Khiun
January 6, 2017
I refer to the report “Ex-teacher, 66, jailed for molesting girl, 7”; Jan 4). It is always saddening to read about child victims of molestation, especially by teachers.
What angers me is that by dint of the culprit’s age, he was spared the caning punishment and given an extra six weeks of jail in lieu.
Besides serving as a deterrence, the purpose of judicial caning in Singapore has evolved since its codification in 1871 into an additional punishment to underscore the enormity of the crimes committed, particularly those involving bodily harm.
Today Voices
Liew Kai Khiun
January 6, 2017
I refer to the report “Ex-teacher, 66, jailed for molesting girl, 7”; Jan 4). It is always saddening to read about child victims of molestation, especially by teachers.
What angers me is that by dint of the culprit’s age, he was spared the caning punishment and given an extra six weeks of jail in lieu.
Besides serving as a deterrence, the purpose of judicial caning in Singapore has evolved since its codification in 1871 into an additional punishment to underscore the enormity of the crimes committed, particularly those involving bodily harm.
Friday, March 24, 2017
Offer public transport subsidies to help S’pore become car-lite
[I am beginning to suspect a conspiracy. But let's go with the Forum Letter to TODAY first.]
March 11, 2017
If Singapore is aiming to be a car-lite nation where Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans alike, regardless of class, travel on public transport, then subsidies to ensure affordability may be a necessary element (“Khaw signals that transport fares will go up in future, TODAY March 9”).
Subsidies to public transport are common in many countries. A shift towards greater use of public transport can help reduce emissions and congestion. Public transport subsidies are all the more necessary for low-income households and the elderly.
If Singapore is aiming to be a car-lite nation where Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans alike, regardless of class, travel on public transport, then subsidies to ensure affordability may be a necessary element (“Khaw signals that transport fares will go up in future, TODAY March 9”).
Subsidies to public transport are common in many countries. A shift towards greater use of public transport can help reduce emissions and congestion. Public transport subsidies are all the more necessary for low-income households and the elderly.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Singaporeans are ageing fast — let’s get planning
[This is quite a bit late - a letter from June. Better publish it before the end of the year. What can I say? Getting old.]
Ku Swee Yong
June 10, 2016
I am not bringing up this subject because I see my hairline receding rapidly or because I need bifocals.
As highlighted in my latest book, Weathering a Property Downturn, if we took a snapshot of Singapore’s population tree in 2015 and assumed that the population was with us all the while (that is, no inward or outward migration), 400,000 residents celebrated their 60th birthdays between 2006 and 2015, and in the next 10-year period between 2016 and 2025, more than 600,000 residents will celebrate their 60th year on earth.
Our resident population in 2015 was 3.9 million, of which 700,000, or 18 per cent, were already over 60 years of age. If we froze the population based on the 2015 demographics and accounting for about 19,000 a year for residents who pass away, by the year 2025 at least 30 per cent of us will be older than 60. That equates to more than 1.1 million Singapore residents.
Ku Swee Yong
June 10, 2016
I am not bringing up this subject because I see my hairline receding rapidly or because I need bifocals.
As highlighted in my latest book, Weathering a Property Downturn, if we took a snapshot of Singapore’s population tree in 2015 and assumed that the population was with us all the while (that is, no inward or outward migration), 400,000 residents celebrated their 60th birthdays between 2006 and 2015, and in the next 10-year period between 2016 and 2025, more than 600,000 residents will celebrate their 60th year on earth.
Our resident population in 2015 was 3.9 million, of which 700,000, or 18 per cent, were already over 60 years of age. If we froze the population based on the 2015 demographics and accounting for about 19,000 a year for residents who pass away, by the year 2025 at least 30 per cent of us will be older than 60. That equates to more than 1.1 million Singapore residents.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Create fun TV programmes to educate public on how to recycle
LYNNETTE LOW
JUNE 9, 2016
It is a bad idea to make residents “pay as you throw” in order to reduce waste (“Pay as you throw among ideas to cut down waste in Singapore”; June 4).
First, it would raise the high cost of living and send stress levels here even higher. That surely cannot be a good thing.
Second, littering is already a problem in Singapore. If we have to pay as we throw, unclaimed and anonymous rubbish would probably be more prevalent.
A more effective and meaningful way to encourage recycling and to cut waste here is to educate the public and create awareness of this subject through interesting programmes on Channels 5 and 8 during prime time.
JUNE 9, 2016
It is a bad idea to make residents “pay as you throw” in order to reduce waste (“Pay as you throw among ideas to cut down waste in Singapore”; June 4).
First, it would raise the high cost of living and send stress levels here even higher. That surely cannot be a good thing.
Second, littering is already a problem in Singapore. If we have to pay as we throw, unclaimed and anonymous rubbish would probably be more prevalent.
A more effective and meaningful way to encourage recycling and to cut waste here is to educate the public and create awareness of this subject through interesting programmes on Channels 5 and 8 during prime time.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Does ethical consumption have to cost so much?
[This was not a forum page letter. But it is silly enough to get my dander up. So here it is and here I go.]
TODAY
VAIDEHI SHAH
MAY 13, 2016
Eat organic food. Drive an electric car, not a gas-guzzler. Buy clothes made by fairly paid workers: Such calls have grown louder and more frequent in recent years.
While responsible consumption advocates mean well, they often overlook the fact that not everyone can afford these sustainable goods, which are usually more expensive than mass-market products.
The poor are being priced out of sustainable and ethical consumer options, and this is wrong for many reasons.
TODAY
VAIDEHI SHAH
MAY 13, 2016
Eat organic food. Drive an electric car, not a gas-guzzler. Buy clothes made by fairly paid workers: Such calls have grown louder and more frequent in recent years.
While responsible consumption advocates mean well, they often overlook the fact that not everyone can afford these sustainable goods, which are usually more expensive than mass-market products.
The poor are being priced out of sustainable and ethical consumer options, and this is wrong for many reasons.
[But not as wrong as your inability to see that arguing for the right of the poor to drive electric cars instead of gas guzzlers, presumably to reduce carbon emission, in order to save the planet, is the WRONG solution to saving the planet. We should move towards aggregated transport, i.e. public transport. But a great start to a blinkered, ill-informed, unthinking essay.]
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Second city for S'pore makes long-term sense
AUG 22, 2014
THERE has been a recent surge of property projects in Johor Baru and Iskandar Malaysia targeting Singaporeans.
As the world is becoming borderless, more of us will be investing in businesses and properties abroad.
Developments in the region, in some ways, complement and widen our economic opportunities.
But we should also put more efforts to redevelop Singapore.
THERE has been a recent surge of property projects in Johor Baru and Iskandar Malaysia targeting Singaporeans.
As the world is becoming borderless, more of us will be investing in businesses and properties abroad.
Developments in the region, in some ways, complement and widen our economic opportunities.
But we should also put more efforts to redevelop Singapore.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Offer young Singaporeans a menu of options in national service beyond the military.
[I thought this was a forum letter. Then I read the end about the author. I am not impressed. So I am putting it in this blog, because despite being a adjunct professor, his writing is little better than some ST Forum Page letters.
And way below Wikipedia's standard!]
Apr 26, 2014
Parag Khanna, For The Straits Times
National service for the 21st century
"Switzerland doesn't have an army, it is an army."
So described the American writer John McPhee the Swiss military in his famous reportage La Place de la Concorde Suisse.
For over 200 years, conscripted Swiss men have trained to mobilise to defend the whole country in less than 48 hours. In a referendum last year, an overwhelming 73 per cent of Swiss citizens showed continued support for mandatory conscription.
Singaporeans also believe that full-time national service (NS) is essential for defence, identity building, fitness and other reasons. But like all venerable institutions, NS must evolve with the times to remain relevant to the challenges it is designed to address. [Why? Why "must"? Because it is a "Venerable Institution"? To "Remain Relevant"? Have you proven that it has become irrelevant? In fact, the first sentence of this para affirms that Singaporeans BELIEVE that it is still essential, and by extension, relevant (find me an example of something essential, but not relevant. And no, your wife's boobs doesn't count.) This is an example of writing that is below Wikipedia's standard!]
The state has substantial and diverse priorities. These include national defence and internal security, social services, and a desire to stimulate creativity and promote economic growth. Singapore's NS should therefore be broadened to encompass these functions [Again, why? Assumptions not stated, arguments not developed, logic not applied, brain not engaged.] in a way that does not compromise fundamental security needs.
21st century info-states
SINGAPORE and Switzerland are what I have called "info-states". [You can call them "chopped liver" as far as I'm concerned. The question is, so?] These are societies where data, technology, master planning and alternative scenarios are as critical to governance as democracy. The two countries are often characterised as having inverted political systems, with Switzerland having a "bottom-up" system while Singapore maintains a "top-down" one. But Singapore and Switzerland can also be viewed as being quite similar, not least for their propensity to top many global competitiveness rankings.
Contrived (and illogical) comparisons - Swiss is bottoms up. SG is top down. Same lah same lah! Both countries also top in everything! Can compare! GAWD what a ridiculous reasoning! So they are both top in global competitiveness rankings so they should have the same military /defence/ national service system? But the best part is just before talking about the "sameness" of the two, he tells us that Swiss is bottoms-up and SG is top down. Minor difference? Different but the same? Or is this a significant difference in style sufficient to derail his suggestion?
Handwaved.
A strong military is vital to protecting such small countries that are rich in financial, technical and human capital. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is thus unstinting in its pursuit of military excellence. It must continue to acquire all the assets necessary to deter aggression: military, cyber and economic. But even with razor- sharp defences, info-states fundamentally thrive on connectedness. Their economic and diplomatic footprint will always be far larger than their military one.
[So? When an invading army is at your doorstep, you will use economics and diplomacy to deter them? Because we are an "info-state" connected by economy and diplomacy, we will never need to defend ourselves (or demonstrate our ability to defend ourselves)?
Tell that to Kuwait, eh? They had great economics - oil revenue. They had great diplomacy - US was their friend. They got invaded. The US came to help. Eventually. No worries, eh?
Economics and Diplomacy is to reduce the probability of military aggression, but it is NO GUARANTEE of non-aggression. The only true deterrence for military aggression is military defence capability. Comprehensive Military Defence Capability. ]
A 21st century country must think in 21st century terms about national security. Only two advanced countries still have military-only national service schemes: South Korea and Israel. Arguably they still need it.
[But let's not argue about whether SG needs it. Or course we don't need it. Everybody else (except for two paranoids) has done away with it. We should be doing away with it too!
Let me let my mother respond to this: "So Ah Seng jump off a cliff, you also jump lah!"]
But many stable societies in the world also modify their national service requirements to changing circumstances. The decade following the reunification of Germany in 1990 saw a wave of such adjustments. Just as I was leaving high school near Hamburg, all my German contemporaries went off to diverse military or civil service assignments lasting only one year.
If I have a bias in this debate, it is to keep national service a primarily military activity rather than diluting it. [Don't worry, your biases are safely non-evident. At least the biases you are admitting to, here.] My undergraduate concentration was military strategy - known much more by its campus nickname "Guns & Bombs". I also served as an adviser with the United States Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan conducting counter-terrorism missions.
My first book, The Second World, is a geopolitical travelogue covering high-stakes countries from Libya and Ukraine to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. I have worked with the US National Intelligence Council to develop scenarios on major regional conflicts.
[Well, since you are sharing, I used to be in the police force a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far... actually, in this galaxy. I knew police constables who had been constables all their career. 20 years. Awaiting retirement. Never promoted. Some were good. Some, I understood why they were still constables. Because some people have twenty years of experience. Others have one year of experience repeated twenty times.
Similarly, I have met people who have travelled the world, but have not left the smallness of their mind.
I am not saying that you (the author) is either of these. I have not met you, only this article you wrote, and if your ideas are not coherent, not logical, not put together, not THERE, it really doesn't matter to me what you have experienced. Or your expertise. ]
Yet what I have learnt from all of these experiences is that someone who is expert in only "security" is missing the big picture.
Malaysia: Shifting dynamics
THE shifting dynamics between Singapore and Malaysia are a key case in point. Across the former British Empire, countries that shunned each other at independence a half-century ago are now sharing currencies, pooling capital, building cross-border infrastructure, and attracting joint investments.
Singapore and Malaysia fit this pattern of post-colonial fraternity. Malaysia has become a major economic opportunity for Singapore. But it is also the source of a variety of micro-threats, such as drugs and illegal immigrants. None of these can be dealt with using primarily military means (as the US has learnt on the Mexican border).
The solution requires more joint investment, job creation, law enforcement, and other tools. In this context, we should ask: How does NS contribute to greater stability in this new regional paradigm?
[I see it now. Your point about "missing the big picture" ties in with your question here: how can NS be the answer.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, everything looks like a target.
However the best thing to use a hammer on is an actual nail that needs to be driven in. That is, use the tool to fit the job, not make whatever tool you have do the job you need done. A gun can be used as a hammer, but it is better to get a hammer.
In other words, NS is a tool to serve a specific purpose. It is a necessary evil. We see it as a necessary evil. We don't glorify it, or exalt it. But we recognise the sacrifice for it, and when we see a silver lining, and unexpected benefits from it, we focus on it. The mistake is to think that National Service is a good thing. That it can build community. And then you have the stupidity of the Malaysian having "National Service" to promote and foster community spirit or racial harmony or some such crap, and the youth are molested, or injured, or even die during NS. To what end? Racial harmony?
Using a gun as a hammer.]
New model army
THE most fundamental question is how to allocate human resources efficiently. The SAF is a crucial foundation of this strength - but it is not the only one. Nor is it the only one that requires able-bodied citizens to commit time and effort.
Indeed, it is rather odd for a country whose civil service is perhaps the world's most competent and effective to limit formal service requirements to defence alone. [Really? You think so? Maybe the reason why it is the most competent and effective is because WE DON'T LET FUCKING IDIOTS WORK THE CIVIL SERVICE AS PART OF THEIR NATIONAL SERVICE!]
Given Singapore's particular circumstances, NS should become a menu of options across military, civil, commercial and social entities. But it should be managed in a manner that preserves the equity of the programme.
Basic training must remain a universal commitment. But it should be carried out by the SAF, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and police - a distribution that is critical especially if women become integrated into NS so that exercises are more flexibly suited to physical abilities.
Each year, a wide range of places will be available for NS positions across corporate, civil, social and military functions, with dynamic quotas based on positions available and needed each year. Students will indicate their preferences across "hard" and "soft" placements, but with the SAF, SCDF and police having priority to ensure they meet their force adequacy requirements.
Not everyone will get their first choice, but fairness should be built in by requiring each NS-hosting entity to take in a representative cross-section of youth from all backgrounds and education levels to avoid giving unfair career advantages to those in corporate or civil roles rather than military. This is essential to preserve one of the key virtues of national service as it stands today: the integration of all racial groups and income levels.
If choices are unevenly distributed - for example, if too many young people choose the engineering option and not enough choose the educational one - a ballot may be held and some routed to their second or even third choices.
[Right. A ballot. Because that worked so well with HDB flats allocation and Primary School registration. I LOVE this recommendation! Because Singaporeans only have TWO ballot systems to complain about and everyone knows good things comes in THREES. So yes! Another ballot system. Now for National Service.]
No doubt the allocation process may get a little complicated, but it will not be anything out of the ordinary for Singaporeans used to the posting exercises for admission to secondary schools, polytechnics and universities. The key is to make sure that criteria for deployments are transparent and the process, such as a ballot, is seen as equitable.
Upgrade, not upsize
BUT ensuring the primacy of the military is not a race for numbers. [Strawman fallacy. Motherhood statement. WTF are you talking about? GAWD pointing out the idiocy (I'm way past "fallacy" already) in this article is tedious! Strawman Idiocy: Who the fuck is saying that SG is playing a numbers game when it comes to NS? Has ANY official MINDEF statement been made about getting more conscripts into the army? Or conscripting women? For numbers? In FACT, whenever people say, "Women should serve NS", MINDEF has said, "we don't need to conscript women." And WTF are you talking about "primacy of the military"? First what does that even mean? Primacy over what?] Looking around the world, it is clear that military effectiveness does not correlate with the number of soldiers under arms. America's defence establishment is being forced to consider how to get more value from technology rather than manpower, hence the greater investments in drones and wearable exoskeletons.
With opportunities in hardware innovation and cyber security, Singapore could indeed become even more of a "start-up nation" than Israel, with tighter links between the defence and technology sectors. [Wow. First "info-states". Now "Start-up nation". You're know all the latest lingo. You must be cool! Or Rad! Or Hip! Or Sick! Or Bad! - I'm sorry, I'm not hip to the new lingo.] A professional army with a well-trained and compensated officer corps and more linkages outside the military would also struggle less with career transitions at the age of 50 or 55.
NS provides a captive audience of highly capable youth whose abilities can be leveraged and skills upgraded. NS can be used to train responsible stakeholders, not just in law and order, but also in welfare and productivity.
Formally designating strategic industries as a form of national service is not at all new. During World War II, the US exempted from the draft men working in crucial sectors such as automobile and tank assembly. In Singapore in the 1980s, more than 10,000 servicemen were diverted into the so-called "construction brigade" to accelerate Housing Board public housing development. At the time, Singapore faced a labour shortage. Now, of course, it seeks to cap foreign labour.
[You don't know what you are talking about do you? Or realise how stupid your attempts to use facts are? Or that your facts do not support your argument?
Yes. There was a construction brigade in the 80s. That means, your proposal has actually been tried. And the experiment has been terminated.You're the expert. Go find out why.
But the funniest line is the last two sentence. SG "faced... labour shortage. Now... cap foreign labour."
You do realise that there is still a labour shortage? You do realise that the capping of foreign labour is a POLITICAL response to the resistance of Singaporeans to foreigners, NOT because there is no labour shortage? You do realise that HDB have been ramping up construction since GE 2011, and if the construction brigade idea was such a success, it should have been brought back two years ago? ]
Shouldn't some NS men become structural engineers, [Yes, because isn't that just a mail-order course? You can learn to be one in 2 weeks. Or 3 months if you are REALLY REALLY stupid.] building next-generation infrastructure at home [in our two-car garage, of course] while developing skills for a lucrative industry Singapore can export? Indeed, as the labour component of manufacturing and its gross domestic product contribution decreases, it is likely that more Singaporeans will have to venture abroad as managers, trainers and investors.
[And then he goes into his wet dreams... I have to pause here.]
The French system includes rigorous training in public administration as well as work in commercial entities. Singaporeans should similarly become commercial cadets within the many government-linked companies, learning management skills essential for both climbing corporate ladders and running entrepreneurial start-ups. They could even do service projects in neighbouring Asean countries in a Singapore-style peace corps.
Education is as strategic as any other sector. From pre-schools to polytechnics, more educational institutes are mushrooming, each with needs in staffing, administration and training. Many of those who begin with teaching apprenticeships during NS may later choose education as a profession.
Health care, particularly for the elderly, also needs a manpower boost.
Given Singapore's concern about growing ethnic diversity and inequality, another function from the French NS system is instructive: social integration. Providing counselling to new arrivals, marginalised families, and under-skilled individuals will ensure that a more diverse Singapore continues to build a common identity.
Whatever the role, NS members should get similar stipends during their year of service, and return once a year to mentor their successors.
Once NS functions are broadened, there is even more reason to draw from two enormous and untapped pools of labour to ensure that defence and non-defence requirements are fulfilled: women and permanent residents (PRs).
It is clear from the Singapore Conversation dialogues that there is some public sentiment - among men and women alike - for women to play a stronger role in national service. More inter-gender bonding during various NS duties may even lead to earlier marriages and a much-desired boost in the birth rate.
As a country with a large, permanent expatriate population, PRs can also provide necessary talent and manpower while deepening their integration into Singaporean society.
Building solidarity
THERE is no underestimating how important NS is to building solidarity, promoting fitness, and boosting long-term volunteerism. But evidence from around the world suggests that there are many ways to achieve social cohesion. Teach for America, [Yes. By all means, compare volunteer work with conscripted service. Your ability to equate dissimilar things has been well-established by now. Obviously, you failed Sesame Street's "One of this things is not like the others" exercise regularly.] a nonprofit organisation founded in 1990, pays graduates meagre stipends to work in inner-city schools, yet jockeys with investment banking and management consulting as the most competitive and desirable first step after college. Employers view it as a true demonstration of character and teamwork.
Broadening NS options taps the latent idealism of youth and channels it into fruitful service for the nation. Rather than being viewed as an opportunity cost, it will provide a platform for youth to develop their interests early on, leading to better focus in universities and polytechnics.
When the time comes, my son will do Singaporean national service whatever form it takes. So the question is not whether to serve, but what service is needed?
The author is an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.
And way below Wikipedia's standard!]
Apr 26, 2014
Parag Khanna, For The Straits Times
National service for the 21st century
"Switzerland doesn't have an army, it is an army."
So described the American writer John McPhee the Swiss military in his famous reportage La Place de la Concorde Suisse.
For over 200 years, conscripted Swiss men have trained to mobilise to defend the whole country in less than 48 hours. In a referendum last year, an overwhelming 73 per cent of Swiss citizens showed continued support for mandatory conscription.
Singaporeans also believe that full-time national service (NS) is essential for defence, identity building, fitness and other reasons. But like all venerable institutions, NS must evolve with the times to remain relevant to the challenges it is designed to address. [Why? Why "must"? Because it is a "Venerable Institution"? To "Remain Relevant"? Have you proven that it has become irrelevant? In fact, the first sentence of this para affirms that Singaporeans BELIEVE that it is still essential, and by extension, relevant (find me an example of something essential, but not relevant. And no, your wife's boobs doesn't count.) This is an example of writing that is below Wikipedia's standard!]
The state has substantial and diverse priorities. These include national defence and internal security, social services, and a desire to stimulate creativity and promote economic growth. Singapore's NS should therefore be broadened to encompass these functions [Again, why? Assumptions not stated, arguments not developed, logic not applied, brain not engaged.] in a way that does not compromise fundamental security needs.
21st century info-states
SINGAPORE and Switzerland are what I have called "info-states". [You can call them "chopped liver" as far as I'm concerned. The question is, so?] These are societies where data, technology, master planning and alternative scenarios are as critical to governance as democracy. The two countries are often characterised as having inverted political systems, with Switzerland having a "bottom-up" system while Singapore maintains a "top-down" one. But Singapore and Switzerland can also be viewed as being quite similar, not least for their propensity to top many global competitiveness rankings.
Contrived (and illogical) comparisons - Swiss is bottoms up. SG is top down. Same lah same lah! Both countries also top in everything! Can compare! GAWD what a ridiculous reasoning! So they are both top in global competitiveness rankings so they should have the same military /defence/ national service system? But the best part is just before talking about the "sameness" of the two, he tells us that Swiss is bottoms-up and SG is top down. Minor difference? Different but the same? Or is this a significant difference in style sufficient to derail his suggestion?
Handwaved.
A strong military is vital to protecting such small countries that are rich in financial, technical and human capital. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is thus unstinting in its pursuit of military excellence. It must continue to acquire all the assets necessary to deter aggression: military, cyber and economic. But even with razor- sharp defences, info-states fundamentally thrive on connectedness. Their economic and diplomatic footprint will always be far larger than their military one.
[So? When an invading army is at your doorstep, you will use economics and diplomacy to deter them? Because we are an "info-state" connected by economy and diplomacy, we will never need to defend ourselves (or demonstrate our ability to defend ourselves)?
Tell that to Kuwait, eh? They had great economics - oil revenue. They had great diplomacy - US was their friend. They got invaded. The US came to help. Eventually. No worries, eh?
Economics and Diplomacy is to reduce the probability of military aggression, but it is NO GUARANTEE of non-aggression. The only true deterrence for military aggression is military defence capability. Comprehensive Military Defence Capability. ]
A 21st century country must think in 21st century terms about national security. Only two advanced countries still have military-only national service schemes: South Korea and Israel. Arguably they still need it.
[But let's not argue about whether SG needs it. Or course we don't need it. Everybody else (except for two paranoids) has done away with it. We should be doing away with it too!
Let me let my mother respond to this: "So Ah Seng jump off a cliff, you also jump lah!"]
But many stable societies in the world also modify their national service requirements to changing circumstances. The decade following the reunification of Germany in 1990 saw a wave of such adjustments. Just as I was leaving high school near Hamburg, all my German contemporaries went off to diverse military or civil service assignments lasting only one year.
If I have a bias in this debate, it is to keep national service a primarily military activity rather than diluting it. [Don't worry, your biases are safely non-evident. At least the biases you are admitting to, here.] My undergraduate concentration was military strategy - known much more by its campus nickname "Guns & Bombs". I also served as an adviser with the United States Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan conducting counter-terrorism missions.
My first book, The Second World, is a geopolitical travelogue covering high-stakes countries from Libya and Ukraine to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. I have worked with the US National Intelligence Council to develop scenarios on major regional conflicts.
[Well, since you are sharing, I used to be in the police force a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far... actually, in this galaxy. I knew police constables who had been constables all their career. 20 years. Awaiting retirement. Never promoted. Some were good. Some, I understood why they were still constables. Because some people have twenty years of experience. Others have one year of experience repeated twenty times.
Similarly, I have met people who have travelled the world, but have not left the smallness of their mind.
I am not saying that you (the author) is either of these. I have not met you, only this article you wrote, and if your ideas are not coherent, not logical, not put together, not THERE, it really doesn't matter to me what you have experienced. Or your expertise. ]
Yet what I have learnt from all of these experiences is that someone who is expert in only "security" is missing the big picture.
Malaysia: Shifting dynamics
THE shifting dynamics between Singapore and Malaysia are a key case in point. Across the former British Empire, countries that shunned each other at independence a half-century ago are now sharing currencies, pooling capital, building cross-border infrastructure, and attracting joint investments.
Singapore and Malaysia fit this pattern of post-colonial fraternity. Malaysia has become a major economic opportunity for Singapore. But it is also the source of a variety of micro-threats, such as drugs and illegal immigrants. None of these can be dealt with using primarily military means (as the US has learnt on the Mexican border).
The solution requires more joint investment, job creation, law enforcement, and other tools. In this context, we should ask: How does NS contribute to greater stability in this new regional paradigm?
[I see it now. Your point about "missing the big picture" ties in with your question here: how can NS be the answer.
To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, everything looks like a target.
However the best thing to use a hammer on is an actual nail that needs to be driven in. That is, use the tool to fit the job, not make whatever tool you have do the job you need done. A gun can be used as a hammer, but it is better to get a hammer.
In other words, NS is a tool to serve a specific purpose. It is a necessary evil. We see it as a necessary evil. We don't glorify it, or exalt it. But we recognise the sacrifice for it, and when we see a silver lining, and unexpected benefits from it, we focus on it. The mistake is to think that National Service is a good thing. That it can build community. And then you have the stupidity of the Malaysian having "National Service" to promote and foster community spirit or racial harmony or some such crap, and the youth are molested, or injured, or even die during NS. To what end? Racial harmony?
Using a gun as a hammer.]
New model army
THE most fundamental question is how to allocate human resources efficiently. The SAF is a crucial foundation of this strength - but it is not the only one. Nor is it the only one that requires able-bodied citizens to commit time and effort.
Indeed, it is rather odd for a country whose civil service is perhaps the world's most competent and effective to limit formal service requirements to defence alone. [Really? You think so? Maybe the reason why it is the most competent and effective is because WE DON'T LET FUCKING IDIOTS WORK THE CIVIL SERVICE AS PART OF THEIR NATIONAL SERVICE!]
Given Singapore's particular circumstances, NS should become a menu of options across military, civil, commercial and social entities. But it should be managed in a manner that preserves the equity of the programme.
Basic training must remain a universal commitment. But it should be carried out by the SAF, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and police - a distribution that is critical especially if women become integrated into NS so that exercises are more flexibly suited to physical abilities.
Each year, a wide range of places will be available for NS positions across corporate, civil, social and military functions, with dynamic quotas based on positions available and needed each year. Students will indicate their preferences across "hard" and "soft" placements, but with the SAF, SCDF and police having priority to ensure they meet their force adequacy requirements.
Not everyone will get their first choice, but fairness should be built in by requiring each NS-hosting entity to take in a representative cross-section of youth from all backgrounds and education levels to avoid giving unfair career advantages to those in corporate or civil roles rather than military. This is essential to preserve one of the key virtues of national service as it stands today: the integration of all racial groups and income levels.
If choices are unevenly distributed - for example, if too many young people choose the engineering option and not enough choose the educational one - a ballot may be held and some routed to their second or even third choices.
[Right. A ballot. Because that worked so well with HDB flats allocation and Primary School registration. I LOVE this recommendation! Because Singaporeans only have TWO ballot systems to complain about and everyone knows good things comes in THREES. So yes! Another ballot system. Now for National Service.]
No doubt the allocation process may get a little complicated, but it will not be anything out of the ordinary for Singaporeans used to the posting exercises for admission to secondary schools, polytechnics and universities. The key is to make sure that criteria for deployments are transparent and the process, such as a ballot, is seen as equitable.
Upgrade, not upsize
BUT ensuring the primacy of the military is not a race for numbers. [Strawman fallacy. Motherhood statement. WTF are you talking about? GAWD pointing out the idiocy (I'm way past "fallacy" already) in this article is tedious! Strawman Idiocy: Who the fuck is saying that SG is playing a numbers game when it comes to NS? Has ANY official MINDEF statement been made about getting more conscripts into the army? Or conscripting women? For numbers? In FACT, whenever people say, "Women should serve NS", MINDEF has said, "we don't need to conscript women." And WTF are you talking about "primacy of the military"? First what does that even mean? Primacy over what?] Looking around the world, it is clear that military effectiveness does not correlate with the number of soldiers under arms. America's defence establishment is being forced to consider how to get more value from technology rather than manpower, hence the greater investments in drones and wearable exoskeletons.
With opportunities in hardware innovation and cyber security, Singapore could indeed become even more of a "start-up nation" than Israel, with tighter links between the defence and technology sectors. [Wow. First "info-states". Now "Start-up nation". You're know all the latest lingo. You must be cool! Or Rad! Or Hip! Or Sick! Or Bad! - I'm sorry, I'm not hip to the new lingo.] A professional army with a well-trained and compensated officer corps and more linkages outside the military would also struggle less with career transitions at the age of 50 or 55.
NS provides a captive audience of highly capable youth whose abilities can be leveraged and skills upgraded. NS can be used to train responsible stakeholders, not just in law and order, but also in welfare and productivity.
Formally designating strategic industries as a form of national service is not at all new. During World War II, the US exempted from the draft men working in crucial sectors such as automobile and tank assembly. In Singapore in the 1980s, more than 10,000 servicemen were diverted into the so-called "construction brigade" to accelerate Housing Board public housing development. At the time, Singapore faced a labour shortage. Now, of course, it seeks to cap foreign labour.
[You don't know what you are talking about do you? Or realise how stupid your attempts to use facts are? Or that your facts do not support your argument?
Yes. There was a construction brigade in the 80s. That means, your proposal has actually been tried. And the experiment has been terminated.You're the expert. Go find out why.
But the funniest line is the last two sentence. SG "faced... labour shortage. Now... cap foreign labour."
You do realise that there is still a labour shortage? You do realise that the capping of foreign labour is a POLITICAL response to the resistance of Singaporeans to foreigners, NOT because there is no labour shortage? You do realise that HDB have been ramping up construction since GE 2011, and if the construction brigade idea was such a success, it should have been brought back two years ago? ]
Shouldn't some NS men become structural engineers, [Yes, because isn't that just a mail-order course? You can learn to be one in 2 weeks. Or 3 months if you are REALLY REALLY stupid.] building next-generation infrastructure at home [in our two-car garage, of course] while developing skills for a lucrative industry Singapore can export? Indeed, as the labour component of manufacturing and its gross domestic product contribution decreases, it is likely that more Singaporeans will have to venture abroad as managers, trainers and investors.
[And then he goes into his wet dreams... I have to pause here.]
The French system includes rigorous training in public administration as well as work in commercial entities. Singaporeans should similarly become commercial cadets within the many government-linked companies, learning management skills essential for both climbing corporate ladders and running entrepreneurial start-ups. They could even do service projects in neighbouring Asean countries in a Singapore-style peace corps.
Education is as strategic as any other sector. From pre-schools to polytechnics, more educational institutes are mushrooming, each with needs in staffing, administration and training. Many of those who begin with teaching apprenticeships during NS may later choose education as a profession.
Health care, particularly for the elderly, also needs a manpower boost.
Given Singapore's concern about growing ethnic diversity and inequality, another function from the French NS system is instructive: social integration. Providing counselling to new arrivals, marginalised families, and under-skilled individuals will ensure that a more diverse Singapore continues to build a common identity.
Whatever the role, NS members should get similar stipends during their year of service, and return once a year to mentor their successors.
Once NS functions are broadened, there is even more reason to draw from two enormous and untapped pools of labour to ensure that defence and non-defence requirements are fulfilled: women and permanent residents (PRs).
It is clear from the Singapore Conversation dialogues that there is some public sentiment - among men and women alike - for women to play a stronger role in national service. More inter-gender bonding during various NS duties may even lead to earlier marriages and a much-desired boost in the birth rate.
As a country with a large, permanent expatriate population, PRs can also provide necessary talent and manpower while deepening their integration into Singaporean society.
Building solidarity
THERE is no underestimating how important NS is to building solidarity, promoting fitness, and boosting long-term volunteerism. But evidence from around the world suggests that there are many ways to achieve social cohesion. Teach for America, [Yes. By all means, compare volunteer work with conscripted service. Your ability to equate dissimilar things has been well-established by now. Obviously, you failed Sesame Street's "One of this things is not like the others" exercise regularly.] a nonprofit organisation founded in 1990, pays graduates meagre stipends to work in inner-city schools, yet jockeys with investment banking and management consulting as the most competitive and desirable first step after college. Employers view it as a true demonstration of character and teamwork.
Broadening NS options taps the latent idealism of youth and channels it into fruitful service for the nation. Rather than being viewed as an opportunity cost, it will provide a platform for youth to develop their interests early on, leading to better focus in universities and polytechnics.
When the time comes, my son will do Singaporean national service whatever form it takes. So the question is not whether to serve, but what service is needed?
The author is an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
No patriotic response from S’pore about Yasukuni visit?
ST has not had any dumb forum letters for some time. So this blog has been dormant.
Fortunately TODAY still has... okay, this is not "dumb" as in stupid... just not very discerning. It is trying to draw a comparison which is not exactly unreasonable, but is based simply on vaguely similar characteristics. If anything, this letter teaches us we need to be more discerning. Unfortunately, we don't think. Not even to write to the papers.
From :CORNELIUS KHOO HONG SIN
Today Forum Page
APRIL 24, 2014
The recent outcry by the Defence Ministry and, to some extent, the local population about the naming of the Indonesian warship after the marines who bombed MacDonald House during Konfrantasi was justifiable.
I wonder why there is no patriotic response, though, about Japanese officials visiting the Yasukuni shrine for Japan’s war dead. Most of the protests come from China and South Korea, through various channels. (“More Japanese MPs head to Yasukuni, marring Obama’s visit”; April 23)
I would think that three years of brutal occupation by an invader in our history would elicit some form of protest, official or otherwise, whenever an official visit to Yasukuni is made.
From a comment on the letter on the website.
I know who the two indonesian soldiers are, and their actions are documented, and their acts are specific, and their victims are Singaporeans.
Do you know, if we are to protest the Yasakuni Shrine Visits, who EXACTLY are the Class-A War Criminals buried ("enshrined"?) at Yasakuni?
What EXACTLY did they do to Singapore and Singaporeans (Pre-independent Singapore)? Who or what are we protesting?
Do you even KNOW who or what are "Class-A war criminals"? I believe there are 14 there. Do you know if 1 or more of those 14 were actually carrying out atrocities in SG during WWII?
Or is this just a brainless, mindless, unthinking copying of China? You know, the unthinking following of perceived authority that many war criminals use as the excuse for their war crimes - "I was just following orders"?
So what are Class-A War Criminals? They must be the worst of the worst, the most horrendously brutal atrocities were probably committed by them!
Actually no. This is the definition:
The US-led tribunals had three classes of war criminals. Class A was reserved for those who committed a "crime against peace," by participating in "a joint conspiracy to start and wage war." Under international law, it's a crime to initiate an unprovoked war. Tens of millions died in Japan's wars to expand the empire from 1937 to 1945. Class B war criminals were those actually carried out specific atrocities, while Class C was for those accused of "the planning, ordering, authorization, or failure to prevent such transgressions at higher levels in the command structure." In other words, those with command responsibility.
The problem (if there is one) isn't the 14 Class-A war criminals. Those are the ones who started an unprovoked war (and that is certainly bad), and certainly they should be held accountable for it, but they did not commit any atrocities (Class-B), nor did they have command responsibility over those who did (Class-C).
It is actually the other 1000 or so war criminals enshrined there that is the problem:
"about 5,700 Japanese were charged in Classes B and C before the international war crimes tribunal in Tokyo. Almost 1,000 were executed. Others were tried and executed by the Communist Chinese and by the Soviet Union. It's these men whose presence at Yasukuni offends Japan's neighbors, including 14 Class A criminals."
So, say of the 1000 or so war criminals buried or enshrined (I'm not too sure which is correct) at Yasukuni, there is a good probability that there were at least one or two (or more) that committed atrocities in SG, right? That is, war criminals whose crimes were committed in SG against Singaporeans (pre-independent Singaporeans) are likely to be there.
So?
Everyone who's dead has to be buried somewhere. Usman and Harun are buried in a HEROES cemetary in Jakarta (or the surrounds).
We objected to the naming of a WARSHIP after these two as further HONOUR to them. Other than being buried (and enshrined) in Yasukuni in accordance to their religion, how else are the Japanese War Criminals being honoured?
Nothing else. So some politicians visit the shrine. Why should that matter to outsiders?
Nothing else. So some politicians visit the shrine. Why should that matter to outsiders?
To Cornelius Khoo and those who ask about the lack of a patriotic response, let me just say, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.".
Friday, November 15, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
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.]
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.]
Monday, February 11, 2013
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.
I HAVE noticed that during off-peak periods and on certain routes, buses have few or no passengers.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
US Electoral College ensures inclusive democracy
Nov 08, 2012
MR CHO Yan Fatt argued that there cannot be true democracy with the US Electoral College system ("No true democracy with US Electoral College system"; Forum Online, Tuesday).
While is true that the winning candidate in the presidential election may get fewer popular votes, the Electoral College system is respected for its historical roots, and many factors considered then remain relevant today.
[No they haven't.]
The United States is a federal union, with each state having the autonomy to run its own affairs, given the diversity of its society.
The Electoral College system gives greater weight to the smaller states - one of the checks and balances that the US Constitution values, so no big state can dominate the general election.
[Instead, the whole election is just dominated by a few swing states - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, for example. California with 55 Electors are ignored because they are a "safe" Democrat state. Texas with 38 gets scant attention because it is a safe Republican state. Instead candidates expend their time and resources on the swing states - those states who are likely to be swayed by political ads. The Electoral College system does not prevent that. Instead it may be argued that the system causes this problem.]
In the case of a popular vote system, regions which are sparsely populated would not merit the attention of presidential candidates.
[So how many Presidential candidates make visits to or campaign in Alaska because of the electoral college system? Or Hawaii for that matter?]
However, under the Electoral College system, a candidate would need to get a spread of votes from across the country by developing plurality of support, thus ensuring that the smaller states in the union have a say in the election as well.
[I am so glad the internet does not transmit smells.]
The US founding fathers understood the dangers of direct democracy and struggled to create a system that not only reflected the will of the people, but also respected the minority.
Thus, the Electoral College system encourages moderation, compromise, coherence and inclusiveness of the United States as a nation.
Jonathan Lim
[Mindless regurgitation of textbook answers. Watch this Youtube video for an excellent analysis of the problems of the electoral college system. So "moderation, compromise, coherence and inclusiveness" my ass.
The Electoral College system was put in place because of the time lag in communications in the 18th century, and the vast size of the country required voters to send representatives (Electors) to the Capitol to elect the president.
Technology has improved quite a bit since then.
However if you want to argue that the Electoral College system should be kept because it helps candidates to focus their efforts and energies on just a handful of swing states instead of criss-crossing the nation trying to whip up that "plurality of support"... Ever heard of TV or the Internet?]
MR CHO Yan Fatt argued that there cannot be true democracy with the US Electoral College system ("No true democracy with US Electoral College system"; Forum Online, Tuesday).
While is true that the winning candidate in the presidential election may get fewer popular votes, the Electoral College system is respected for its historical roots, and many factors considered then remain relevant today.
[No they haven't.]
The United States is a federal union, with each state having the autonomy to run its own affairs, given the diversity of its society.
The Electoral College system gives greater weight to the smaller states - one of the checks and balances that the US Constitution values, so no big state can dominate the general election.
[Instead, the whole election is just dominated by a few swing states - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, for example. California with 55 Electors are ignored because they are a "safe" Democrat state. Texas with 38 gets scant attention because it is a safe Republican state. Instead candidates expend their time and resources on the swing states - those states who are likely to be swayed by political ads. The Electoral College system does not prevent that. Instead it may be argued that the system causes this problem.]
In the case of a popular vote system, regions which are sparsely populated would not merit the attention of presidential candidates.
[So how many Presidential candidates make visits to or campaign in Alaska because of the electoral college system? Or Hawaii for that matter?]
However, under the Electoral College system, a candidate would need to get a spread of votes from across the country by developing plurality of support, thus ensuring that the smaller states in the union have a say in the election as well.
[I am so glad the internet does not transmit smells.]
The US founding fathers understood the dangers of direct democracy and struggled to create a system that not only reflected the will of the people, but also respected the minority.
Thus, the Electoral College system encourages moderation, compromise, coherence and inclusiveness of the United States as a nation.
Jonathan Lim
[Mindless regurgitation of textbook answers. Watch this Youtube video for an excellent analysis of the problems of the electoral college system. So "moderation, compromise, coherence and inclusiveness" my ass.
The Electoral College system was put in place because of the time lag in communications in the 18th century, and the vast size of the country required voters to send representatives (Electors) to the Capitol to elect the president.
Technology has improved quite a bit since then.
However if you want to argue that the Electoral College system should be kept because it helps candidates to focus their efforts and energies on just a handful of swing states instead of criss-crossing the nation trying to whip up that "plurality of support"... Ever heard of TV or the Internet?]
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Health warnings on cigarette packs signal moral progress, not 'nannying'
May 2, 2012
DR ANDY Ho's commentary ('Lessons on smoking from the nanny state'; last Saturday) claims that health warnings on cigarette packs are paternalistic in the sense of 'nudging' individuals to stop smoking, and are founded on an undesirable premise that people are not assumed to behave rationally.
[Such a poor summary of Dr Ho's article!]
DR ANDY Ho's commentary ('Lessons on smoking from the nanny state'; last Saturday) claims that health warnings on cigarette packs are paternalistic in the sense of 'nudging' individuals to stop smoking, and are founded on an undesirable premise that people are not assumed to behave rationally.
[Such a poor summary of Dr Ho's article!]
Firm dollar ineffective against real inflation
Apr 25, 2012
TODAY
Letter from Teo Hoon Seng
WITH headline inflation up again, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is expected, again, to use foreign exchange policy to combat it. At some point, one has to wonder how effective, if at all, this has been.
To cite some daily examples, the papaya I used to buy at S$1 now averages S$2; a small pack of vegetables that used to retail at 60 cents at FairPrice is now 69 cents; a brand of peanut butter that cost S$7.70 six months ago is now S$10.15.
The list goes on. And these do not include items repackaged in smaller quantities but sold at the same or slightly higher prices.
The MAS should consider using the good, old-fashioned interest rate tool.
Not only would this bring some relief to long-suffering pensioners, who receive next to nothing for their savings, it should go some way towards cooling our property market, where prices have been exacerbated by our monetary policy.
If inflow of hot money is a concern, there are ways to pre-empt it, such as prohibiting the parking of such funds in an interest-bearing account.
[A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Yes, one way to combat inflation is to raise interest rates... if the problem is over demand. If demand is overheating your economy, then you raise interest rates to slow down spending, and at the same time encourage savings. The high interest rates also help to ensure that your savings do not lose value while sitting in the bank.
But, here is the problem.
There are 1.2 billion people in China who has just started to get a little rich. They are eating better food, eating more food, using more modern gadgets, needing more electricity, travelling abroad on holidays, buying more cars and more consumer goods. All these means more raw materials are being sold to China, and all those goods needs to be transported to China, so fuel prices goes up, transport costs goes up, and your 60 cents veggies now cost 70cents. China eats more peanuts. Your peanut butter costs more because the prices of raw peanuts have gone up and the cost of transporting the final product to you have gone up.
How will raising interest rates help?
Even if we raise interest rates and somehow people decide that it makes more sense to save the money, cut back on spending, and don't buy as much (which is what higher interest rates are supposed to do), it'll just mean that what you don't buy will just go to China or somewhere else where it is wanted.
And higher interest rates means higher cost of borrowing, which means higher investment costs, which will curb investment in new machines or factories or shops and that in turn will curb business and the economy might slow down or even shrink. And with high interest rates, the projection is that the economy should shrink. So raising interest rates now is just silly.]
TODAY
Letter from Teo Hoon Seng
WITH headline inflation up again, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is expected, again, to use foreign exchange policy to combat it. At some point, one has to wonder how effective, if at all, this has been.
To cite some daily examples, the papaya I used to buy at S$1 now averages S$2; a small pack of vegetables that used to retail at 60 cents at FairPrice is now 69 cents; a brand of peanut butter that cost S$7.70 six months ago is now S$10.15.
The list goes on. And these do not include items repackaged in smaller quantities but sold at the same or slightly higher prices.
The MAS should consider using the good, old-fashioned interest rate tool.
Not only would this bring some relief to long-suffering pensioners, who receive next to nothing for their savings, it should go some way towards cooling our property market, where prices have been exacerbated by our monetary policy.
If inflow of hot money is a concern, there are ways to pre-empt it, such as prohibiting the parking of such funds in an interest-bearing account.
[A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Yes, one way to combat inflation is to raise interest rates... if the problem is over demand. If demand is overheating your economy, then you raise interest rates to slow down spending, and at the same time encourage savings. The high interest rates also help to ensure that your savings do not lose value while sitting in the bank.
But, here is the problem.
There are 1.2 billion people in China who has just started to get a little rich. They are eating better food, eating more food, using more modern gadgets, needing more electricity, travelling abroad on holidays, buying more cars and more consumer goods. All these means more raw materials are being sold to China, and all those goods needs to be transported to China, so fuel prices goes up, transport costs goes up, and your 60 cents veggies now cost 70cents. China eats more peanuts. Your peanut butter costs more because the prices of raw peanuts have gone up and the cost of transporting the final product to you have gone up.
How will raising interest rates help?
Even if we raise interest rates and somehow people decide that it makes more sense to save the money, cut back on spending, and don't buy as much (which is what higher interest rates are supposed to do), it'll just mean that what you don't buy will just go to China or somewhere else where it is wanted.
And higher interest rates means higher cost of borrowing, which means higher investment costs, which will curb investment in new machines or factories or shops and that in turn will curb business and the economy might slow down or even shrink. And with high interest rates, the projection is that the economy should shrink. So raising interest rates now is just silly.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)