Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts

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 

By Julienne Chen and Lyle Fearnley


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.

[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?)]

Friday, December 29, 2017

A love-hate relationship with the mobile phone

TODAY VOICES

By Thow Chun Meng

A reader says people are so dependent on the mobile phone that he wonders how much people are enslaved by it. 

28 December, 2017

During this time of the year, we get many phone text messages from people wishing us a good year ahead and such. The mobile phone has changed the way that people interact tremendously.

Instead of calling each other for a chit-chat or to catch up, we simply drop a short message.

We are so dependent on this piece of gadget that I sometimes wonder how much we are enslaved by it.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Depositors have no say in banks' business activities

Aug 10 2016

I am surprised by Mr Christopher Tang Wai Leng's view that DBS Bank owes depositors an explanation for its loan losses ("DBS must explain Swiber debacle"; last Saturday).

Yes, in classic banking theory, banks lend out their customers' deposits, so if there is a big loan loss, a bank could fold and it is possible that customers won't be able to get their deposits back. However, this theory is long out of date.

A bank is a corporate entity separate from its customers (both depositors and borrowers).

As long as customers can get their deposits back with the agreed interest, which is still the case with DBS, depositors have no say in the business activities of the bank.

Banks have capital, profits and reserves, their own borrowing ability, and even a possible government bailout, with which to first fund losses (well before getting to deposits).

If anyone, it is the bank's shareholders who deserve, or have a right to ask for, an explanation, certainly not its depositors or other customers.

Gerard de Vaz

Friday, August 15, 2014

Is Singapore a Winner Take All Society?

[Two letters and an editorial piece. If you're here to read my usual rant, apologies. This will be a... calmer post. Partly because the issue is an important one. We'll start backwards. I read the original article by Lydia Lim (it's the second article in the link). Thought about it, but left it simmering at the back of my mind. I missed the letter supporting her article. Then I saw this "rebuttal":]


Jul 03, 2014

S'pore has never been winner-take-all society

SINCE when has Singapore ever been a winner-take-all society ("Engage now for a more equitable society" by Dr Edmund Lam; last Saturday)?

Even well before the recent shift to "left of centre", Singapore's brand of capitalism was far more benign than the United States' or even Hong Kong's version.

The HDB provided roofs over most Singaporeans' heads, with mortgage payments pegged at sustainable portions of their monthly incomes.

Schools provided virtually free education. No pupil was denied the education he deserved because of financial difficulties, and the ablest from the humblest backgrounds got to study at Oxbridge on the state's account.

No one was left dying in the street because he had no insurance, and no government hospital delayed an urgent costly operation because of doubts over the patient's ability to pay.

Have winners now taken all in Singapore?

If that had happened, newly married couples would not be buying HDB flats (and making a profit five years later), but renting from winners-turned-landlords for years on end.

Winners' children, instead of having to ace the Primary School Leaving Examination, would just be a donation cheque away from the secondary schools of their choice.

And winners would be treated in private hospitals that would have cornered the best doctors and equipment, condemning the rest to inferior public hospitals with third-rate doctors and outdated equipment.

The Government, while allowing meritocracy to create wealth, has not hesitated to transfer wealth from the successful to the less successful. Such transfers have been growing in recent years.

It is dangerous to focus on what the successful can have that the less successful cannot have, instead of what the less successful can have compared to any reasonable benchmark.

The bell curve naturally separates the successful from the rest, so the only way to give similar rewards to both the successful and less successful is to level down the former, but this will not help the latter.

For us to stay together as a community, wealth transfer from the successful to the less successful is essential.

But instead of targeting some pre-determined income gap or Gini coefficient, such transfers must aim at ensuring that the least successful among us live healthy, productive and dignified lives based on a reasonable benchmark, with opportunities for advancement open to them if they apply themselves to the fullest.

A fair and just society is not one in which no one can live better than his neighbour. Such social resentment, which some commentators appear to be encouraging, will bring Singapore to its knees.

Cheng Shoong Tat

Jun 28, 2014

[I get the sense of at least mild impatience at the "liberal-minded", but generally, the above echoes the position of the govt generally, and possibly many if not most Singaporeans. 

However, I note his assertion that there are "opportunities for advancement... if they apply themselves to the fullest." 

This is similar to the quote attributed to S. Rajaratnam: "Everyone can be rich if they try hard."

This would suggest though, that if you are not rich, you didn't try hard enough.

So then, why should we transfer wealth to the less successful? Obviously they are less successful because they didn't try hard enough, that they didn't "apply themselves to the fullest". And if so, why should we transfer wealth to you, you lazy bum?

That is the inconsistency in his argument.]


Engage now for a more equitable society


I CANNOT agree more with political editor Lydia Lim on the need to change our social and cultural values so that we can limit the adverse effect of meritocracy turning Singapore into a winner-take-all society ("Long-term task to fix winner-take-all mindset"; Sunday).

We need meritocracy to spur success. It was the economic model since our nation's independence 49 years ago.

But to evolve into a winner-take-all society is utterly bad for national unity.

It leads to a divisive population and reduces trust in government.

It is one in which there is superior financial advantage for those at the top but if you are second or further down the hierarchy, you get nothing comparable, however good.

Having benefited from meritocracy, I was enlightened by Occupy Wall Street - the protest movement in New York that brought to light some of the social ills of unabated American capitalism, such as the widening income gap and stunted social mobility.

[Note: He seems to equate Meritocracy with Capitalism (unabated or otherwise. Bated?). BUT, he has not defined either, nor has he implicitly or explicitly explained how meritocracy equal capitalism. ]

Singapore's Gini coefficient - a measure of income inequality - is among the highest in the world, so there is every cause for concern.

While we should not stoke class resentments, rational dialogue among the top-echelon citizens should begin sooner rather than later. More data and research are needed so that discussions can be more productive - beyond rhetoric.

[Note: "class resentments". Together with the out of left field jibe at "capitalism", I am suspicious of this shadow communist! :-). But I can agree to get beyond rhetoric.]

When convinced, I believe more affluent Singaporeans are prepared to make adjustments for a more equitable society.

We can explore how to further improve our economic mechanisms to distribute wealth more fairly.

Edmund Lam (Dr)


[One line from Lydia Lim's opinion piece was that we:

"...live in a meritocracy which has to date stressed that the talented deserve to be richly rewarded for their efforts."
That on the face of it seems reasonable. But I have found that as I grow older, I have started to ask, "and what does the flip side of that mean?"

If success is the reward for the talented, the able, the hardworking, the deserving, then the flip side of it is that failure is the outcome for the talentless, the incapable, the lazy, and the undeserving.

And that is the Just World Belief working its way into our psyche.

Think about it. When you see a poor person, do you think, "poor guy, he has been so unlucky in life. Let me give him a little something to make his life less miserable."

Or do you think, "Get a job!"

I am always impressed by people who give to the poor. Their hearts are untainted.

Me? I think "Get a job!" and suspect that they are part of a begging syndicate. I have grown cynical. My heart is tainted.

If you click on the link in "Just World Belief", it will take you to an article about Meritocracy. And this conclusion:
In short, Meritocracy has the following flaws or negative effects:
First it engenders a Just World Belief. It leads people to judge "failures" or "unsuccessful" people as "meriting" their lower status, their poorer status... if you subscribe to meritocracy, you intuitively believe that "Everyone can be rich if they try hard." And the corollary to that is, "if you're not rich, you did not try hard enough". Or is not good enough. And so you deserved to be poor, to be unsuccessful.
Secondly, it justifies class differences. Singaporeans then become a "stratified" society that justifies Social Strata with meritocracy, and the Just World Belief. That is, not only are there "high-class" and "low-class" people in Singapore, but these classes were determined not by some unfair caste system or hereditary status, but by the VERY FAIR meritocratic system.
Thirdly, Singaporeans [well, most Singaporeans] become very hardhearted, judgmental, punitive, unsympathetic, and justify their attitude with Meritocracy and their Just World Belief.
The other point in the article is that there is often an element of luck in Success, but having succeeded we do not like to believe that we were just lucky. We reframe the narrative of our success such that it was an inevitable success. Destiny even.

But there is an element of luck in almost all success stories. And we should remind ourselves, that meritocracy or not, we had also been lucky.

Watch the Youtube video of Michael Lewis at the graduation ceremony. It is enlightening. If you don't have 13 minutes to spare, watch from 6:13 and watch for about a minute. Then if that piques your interest and you can watch from the start. 


The first writer (the shadow Communist) has a point though. Although "Welfare" is a dirty word in SG, the SG govt does provide some welfare. The question is, should SG provide more welfare? 

Then there's Thomas Piketty's hypothesis that Capitalism inherently favours the Capitalists (this sounds a lot more obvious when stated this way)]




Thursday, April 4, 2013

What I want my Singapore to be

Apr 05, 2013
DURING my seven-day stay in ward 11C of Tan Tock Seng Hospital, I was taken care of by a group of registered nurses, enrolled nurses and Nanyang Polytechnic trainee nurses. They were from different countries, such as India, Malaysia and the Philippines, with varying backgrounds.

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

This is what I want my Singapore to be.

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

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

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

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

Moses Tan Beng Teck

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

Maybe.]

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Brain-death diagnosis based on stringent clinical criteria: MOH

Mar 26, 2013

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

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

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

Brain death is determined according to strict clinical criteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Mar 24, 2013

BACK FROM THE DEAD

'I have been blessed with a second chance'

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

By K.c. Vijayan


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

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

Then, three days after she was admitted, she woke up from her coma. She recovered within a week and left the hospital. Today, she is living in Singapore, still working as a lawyer, still a wife and mum. She is well, and she is alive.Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon recalled her remarkable story in a speech earlier this month on euthanasia and assisted dying. When The Sunday Times contacted Ms Chin for her story, she agreed only to answer questions via e-mail....
[OK. First a politically incorrect joke about why a lawyer would be found to be brain dead... Never mind.

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

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


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

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

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

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

Her pupils were fixed and dilated. Vestibulo-ocular reflex was negative. She had a negative gag and cough reflex. There was no pain reflex in response to deep pressure over sternum, fingers, and eyebrow. She was flaccid, a-reflexic and there was no plantar response. His diagnosis was also that of brain stem death.

That evening, Suzanne looked dead. She was cold and clammy; facial discoloration had set in, especially under her eyes. There was also a smell of death over her."
I would have preferred a more objective source, and maybe someone can find one. But if we take Dr Chin's testimony at face value, it would seem that the HK doctor did everything right, and Ms Chin was by all indications, brain dead, and this truly was an unexplainable miracle. 

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

So in my mind, this is still unresolved.] 

Monday, March 25, 2013

HDB flat should not be for ride on the gravy train

HDB flat should not be for ride on the gravy train

TODAYonline
Voices

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

From Michael Tan Hoe Heng -
25 Mar 2013

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

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

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

When prices are subsidised, there will be overconsumption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments online:
Thumper Koh (edited)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

---


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

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

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

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

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

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


Friday, March 22, 2013

Don't forget aim of state-run kindergartens

Mar 23, 2013
THE main reason for setting up government-run kindergartens in the heartland is to ensure that children from disadvantaged families possess the necessary literacy and numeracy skills when they start primary education ("Parents fear rush for MOE kindergartens"; March 15).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeo Boon Eng (Ms)

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

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

Well, not exactly a "conspiracy".

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

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

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

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Military service opened doors for him

Mar 21, 2013
"TELL me about your military experience."

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

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

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

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Don't drive online debate underground

Jan 10, 2013

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

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

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Hard for ageing siblings to care for mum

Mar 31, 2012

MY MOTHER is 90 years old and has been ill since April 1993. She suffers from severe osteoporosis, dementia, Alzheimer's disease and, lately, severe bleeding from stomach ulcers.

For 15 years, my siblings and I have been paying her medical bills, which add up to a significant sum. My mother has no income, no inheritance and no insurance. All she has are her six children, who give her an allowance every month to ensure that she leads a meaningful life without being placed in a home.

Our repeated efforts to seek government assistance have failed. For instance, our application for assistance for an expensive bone-growth drug called Forteo in April 2007 was turned down.

At the end of the following year, we sought assistance to pay her hospital charges. This was rejected as well.

Nonetheless, I have the highest praise for Changi General Hospital's doctors, nurses, and pharmaceutical and administrative staff, from the top officer to the lowest-level staff.

In our most recent application for Medifund last month, I again highlighted that my siblings and I are now retired and find it increasingly difficult to maintain our mother's medical and daily expenses. My monthly annuity payment of $400 goes entirely to my mother. My sister's contribution is just as stiff.

While I am pleased that the authorities are considering our application for financial aid somewhat differently this time, I am still left wondering why they have chosen to reject some form of assistance for recent expenses.

Although we are deeply grateful that they are now considering some future subsidy, we wonder if help could have been rendered earlier when we sought, and needed, it.

Patrick Low

[This is not going to be the usual rant. In fact, it's not a rant but support for the writer and I think more can be done.

For a start, I think the govt should extend free or highly subsidised basic healthcare to citizens born before 1930. There are not many of them, and all would have contributed to nation building in some way or the other. These people would be 82 years old today and if they are still alive, would not have much CPF at retirement, if at all. (They would have reached 55 yrs of age in 1985 or earlier, and would not have had enough time to build up any kind of CPF.)

But the healthcare should be basic and not too expensive. an expensive bone-growth drug like Forteo should not be covered. In 2007, the patient would have been 85 years old, with multiple illnesses since 1993. how much improvement in her quality of life would Forteo have provided? With that consideration, Forteo should be an elective treatment.

Palliative care in SG is still not very good. A person with that much suffering should be provided good pain control which may include opiates (like vicodin).

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Petain 2012

[On 20 Mar 2012, Prof Tommy Koh, our Ambassador at large wrote this article about renaming Petain Road because while it was originally named for one Henri Philippe Petain for his heroism during WW I, in WWII he was more villainous and so not worthy of having a street named after him...]
Mar 20, 2012

Should Petain Road be renamed?

By Tommy Koh
IN SINGAPORE, unlike many newly independent countries, we do not have a policy of de-colonising the names of streets and places. As a result, our streets have kept the names given to them by the British colonial administration. I approve of this policy because we should not deny the past and wipe out part of our history.

There is a road in the Jalan Besar area called Petain Road. The French community has been campaigning for many years to change the name of the road. I support the campaign and would like to explain why the Street and Building Names Board, under the Ministry of National Development, should consider the request favourably.

Britain was an ally of France during the First World War. In the Jalan Besar area, there are several roads which bear the names of famous generals, such as Petain and Beatty, or famous sites of battles, such as Verdun, Marne, Jutland and Flanders. In 1928, the Municipal Government of Singapore decided to name one of the roads after the great French war hero, Field Marshal Henri Philippe Petain.

Petain was born in 1856. His father was a farmer. Young Petain joined the French army in 1876 and attended the St Cyr Military Academy and the Army College. In 1911, he was a colonel and commander of the 33rd Infantry Regiment of Arras. His young lieutenant was Charles de Gaulle. His career took off in 1914, when he was already 58 years old. He was promoted to the rank of brigadier-general. In 1915, he was given command of the Second Army and participated in the Battle of Verdun in the following year.

At the end of the First World War, Petain was regarded as one of France's greatest military heroes. In 1918, he was made a Marshal of France. In 1922, he was appointed as the Inspector-General of the Army. The decision by the Municipal Government of Singapore to name a road after him, in 1928, was perfectly understandable.

No one in 1928 could have foreseen what Petain would do during the Second World War. The French Army had been progressively degraded after the First World War, no thanks to budgetary cuts. When the Second World War broke out in 1939, the French Army was no match for the German Army.

In May 1940, Petain, who had become the Prime Minister of France, regarded the military situation as hopeless. On the 20th of June, France signed an armistice with Germany, giving the latter control of the north and west of France, including Paris. The seat of the French government was moved to Vichy, a town located about 400km south of Paris.

On July 10, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate ratified the armistice, abolished the Third Republic, and adopted a new Constitution under which Petain, as the head of state, had near-absolute powers. The Petain government oppressed the French people and collaborated with Germany in suppressing the French resistance and arresting the Jews. In November 1942, Germany occupied the whole of France and Petain became a puppet of the Germans.

In 1945, de Gaulle's provisional government placed Petain on trial for treason. The three judges were in favour of acquitting him. The jury, however, disagreed and convicted him of treason and sentenced him to death. De Gaulle, who had served under Petain in 1911, commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment, on account of his age and taking into account his contributions in the First World War. Petain was stripped of all his military ranks and honours, except for the title of Marshal. He died in ignominy, in 1951, at the age of 95.

In the light of these historical facts, we must agree with the French community that it is inappropriate to continue to honour Petain by naming a road after him. The question is whether there is a precedent for changing the road's name.

I think I have found a good precedent. Chulia Street was originally named Kling Street. The word, 'kling' is derived from the word, 'kalinga', the name of a powerful South Indian kingdom. In the beginning, the Malays referred to all South Indians as 'orang kling'. However, over time, the word acquired a pejorative connotation and was used to refer to the Indian coolies.

In 1918, Rev J A B Coach petitioned the municipal commissioners to change the name of the street, but his appeal was rejected. Three years later, in 1921, the commissioners acceded to the request of Dr H S Moonshi, who spoke on behalf of the Indian community.

I hope that the Street and Building Names Board will kindly consider the request of the French community to rename Petain Road. I propose calling it 'de Gaulle Road', to recognise the historic contributions made by the indomitable French leader in the country's history.

The writer is the Honorary Chairman of the National Heritage Board. He would be speaking today at the Malraux Seminar, which will bring together French and Singapore culture and heritage professionals in dialogue.
[Prof Koh's article was followed a few days later by an idiotic comment in the ST Forum. In line with ST Forum's unwritten policy of publishing humourously stupid letters and comments for us all to laugh at, it was printed in the "My Point" segment of the ST Forum...]

24 Mar 2012 - ST Forum.
Petain Road
'The argument for changing the name relates to French history and politics, not Singapore's.'
MR LIM ENG LIAN: 'As a Singaporean, what is important to me is the context of the name 'Petain Road' in Singapore ('Should Petain Road be renamed?'; Tuesday). It seems the argument for changing the name relates to French history and politics, not Singapore's, which links Petain Road to the person so honoured at that time. If the rationale provided in the article for changing the name is to be accepted, then shouldn't all references to Petain in France be expunged by the French?'

[Done! See below!
But before that, why would the writer think that France would not have tried to clean up their own house before looking elsewhere? Secondly, Petain did nothing for SG in WWI. The street was named for his heroism as a principle to be admired and aspire to. As history has subsequently prove that he is more of a villain than a hero, should the honour still remain? What does it say of SG's principle that we "honour" a villain with a street named after him?]


Forward.com
The Name of Pétain, Hero and Villain, Is Cleansed From the Streets of France

Letter From Tremblois-lès-Carignan

By Peter Hellman

Published December 29, 2010, issue of January 07, 2011.

Renaming a street in a tiny French village should have been of no consequence to anyone other than its inhabitants. But when the municipal council of Tremblois-lès-Carignan (population 115) in the Ardennes region voted to change the name of Rue Pétain to Rue de Belle-Croix, it marked the end of an era. Theirs was the last street in France named for the white-mustachioed Marshal Philippe Pétain, hero of Verdun in the Great War.

The cleansing of Pétain’s name from the French street map was in belated recognition of the “other” Pétain — the octogenarian who, in league with the Nazi conquerors of his country, led the Vichy state from 1940 to 1944. Three months into his rule, Vichy promulgated its first anti-Jewish statute, defining Jews and restricting their rights. The taciturn marshal never publicly uttered anti-Semitic words. But, in October, the French Holocaust historian Serge Klarsfeld revealed a previously unknown draft of Vichy’s anti-Jewish statute, marked up in Pétain’s own hand with phrasing that made it harsher. The notations show “that this was the desire of Pétain himself,” Klarsfeld said. Most of the 76,000 Jews deported from France were arrested by French police at Vichy’s order, the regime having become a willing instrument of the Nazi occupiers.

Pétain was put on trial in 1945 and found guilty of treason. Death was the penalty, but in view of his age, he was allowed to live out his long life under house arrest. He died in 1951 at age 95, senile, in exile on an island in the Atlantic Ocean. But for many, the Vichy years were the aberration of a revered war hero who still wanted to do his best for France. In his honor, streets all over France took his name after the Great War. But after Pétain’s conviction, nearly all those streets were, as the French say, “debaptized.” The exceptions were in three forgotten villages in northeastern France amidst the battlefields where Pétain had won glory in the battle of Verdun, one of the deadliest of World War I.

One was Dernancourt (pop. 450), in the Somme. In 1970, the post office decided to facilitate deliveries with new street signage, igniting a debate over its Rue Pétain. “It’s not bothering anyone here,” insisted the village mayor at the time, and the name remained. In 2005, the debate was reawakened by a village resident who complained in a letter to a local newspaper that a street named Pétain not only shamed those who fought against Hitler but insulted citizens opposed to the reactionary politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, an admirer of the marshal.

In early November, Dernancourt’s mayor, Lionel Lemott, announced that the time had come to erase Pétain’s name from the village map. He’d been influenced by a court decision, a few weeks earlier, requiring the town of Gonneville-sur-Mer, in Calvados, to remove Pétain’s portrait from a marriage chamber in its town hall. The court reasoned that, since Pétain “personally incarnated the [Vichy] regime,” his portrait on the wall was “contrary to the neutrality of public services.” And so, the mayor of Dernancourt surrendered, saying, “No more Pétain, period.” The little street behind the church, one of the remaining trio of Rue Pétains in France, was given the unwieldy name of “Rue du 5 Avril 1918-Bataille de Dernancourt.” And then there were two. Next came the turn of Parpeville (pop. 219), not far from Dernancourt. Here, too, there had long been dissension over its Rue Pétain. At Chez Paulette, a café on the street, co-proprietor Paulette Dollé told the local newspaper, “We always had dust-ups between the pro- and anti-Pétainists. But this is neutral turf, so I’d say to them, ‘Go fight outdoors.’” On November 30, Parpeville, also influenced by the decision in Calvados, changed the name of its Rue Pétain to “Rue de la Paix.” And then there was one.

In Tremblois-lès-Carignan, the street called Rue Pétain prominently led into the village, passing near a commemorative statue of a soldier of the Great War. Mayor Jean-Pol Oury had for years shown no interest in a name change. “In the War of 1940, he did what he thought was right,” the mayor said of the marshal. At the behest of the regional prefect of the Ardennes, Oury finally agreed to put the issue to a vote. On December 1, the village council changed the name of its Rue Pétain to Rue de Belle-Croix. And then there were none.

Behind the eradication of Pétain’s name from the French street map was a slow but profound change in the popular view of Vichy and its leader. Until 1993, every post-war French president, including even Charles de Gaulle, had annually laid a wreath on Pétain’s tomb on Armistice Day. That practice was effectively ended by Serge Klarsfeld, who in 1992 led a group of Jewish protesters to Pétain’s tomb on the Ile de Yeu. They were prepared to block the sitting president, Francois Mitterrand, from continuing the ritual which honored not only the hero of Verdun, but also the villain of Vichy. Mitterrand never showed up, but after Klarsfeld’s group left the cemetery, a helicopter swooped down and a representative of the president placed the wreath in his name next to one from Jean-Marie Le Pen.

That was the last presidential wreath for Pétain. Jacques Chirac, who succeeded Mitterrand, was the first French president to acknowledge that Vichy was not just a “parenthesis” in the history of the Third Republic and that France was responsible for the mass arrests of Jews, even as many of its citizens hid the hunted. “Those dark hours will stain forever our history,” said Chirac in 1995. Yet, in three formal speeches on the crimes of Vichy, Chirac never once uttered the name of its leader, Philippe Pétain.

Contact Peter Hellman at feedback@forward.com

[As the above article shows, rewriting history is not easy. It's not like wikipedia. Even France has only just completed the renaming of Petain Roads (Rue) on Dec 2010. But SG has always been a fast mover. Should we take as long?]



Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Politicians need to be seen by voters

Sep 24, 2011
 
MY LIFE

A recent survey of 1,100 Singaporeans aged 21 and older found that three in 10 'do not trust politicians to act in their best interests'. YouthInk writers suggest why.
 
I AM a 'cynic' because I don't trust politicians, and one reason I don't trust them is that I rarely see my MP around - except during the elections.

Though I am still a minor, I like to be politically aware because I know in the future, I will play a part in choosing people to lead the country. But I don't believe the brief period before a general election is enough to convince us of the true capabilities of politicians who claim they can take Singapore to greater heights.

The process of scrutinising them has to start years beforehand, to ensure consistency in their actions. I have been to election rallies and heard fiery speeches, but once the hullabaloo of the elections dies down, the politicians seem to disappear.

They are probably working for their constituents but, unfortunately, a lot of it is not visible. One way to stay visible is through social networking, where I can see them responding to feedback and complaints. But that's not enough. Residents need to see their MPs in the flesh, and the best way would be through door-to-door visits. I understand such visits are taxing on MPs, but a visit more than once in five years wouldn't do much harm, would it? It would show us you are taking pains to visit us, and I would be assured that you truly have our best interests at heart.

Lim Shan, 16, is a Secondary 4 student at St Margaret's Secondary School.

[Politics is not just about going around knocking on doors and shaking hands. I don't see my MP, and I don't want to see my MP because I want him to help  the people who need help more than me. So no, I don't see my MP because I don't need to see him, but if I do need to see him, I know where to find him.  Really, if he comes to my door, I really don't think it is the best time to be discussing any problems I might have. Firstly, it may not be a convenient time for me.  I feel about MP walkabouts the same way I feel about door to door sales people.

The other role of the MP is precisely to be a member of parliament. He should be there to debate issues, to raise questions, to propose changes to make our lives a little better.

If he can do that, I don't need to see him at my door.

If you want to be politically aware, read. Find out how things are done. Find out why things are done in a certain way, or what considerations need to be taken into account to make good decisions. Understand that politics is about allocating resources according to policies. Good policies channel resources to where they do the most good for the most people. Bad policies causes more hardship than benefits.

All policies are good and bad. All policies have beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, and all policies have costs, either today or tomorrow.

Understand that there is no free lunch, and that anyone who tells you there is, is lying and trying to con you into voting for him.

Then you would be politically aware.]