Cross Island Line: Besides a direct and skirting route, how about a semi-direct one?

By Chew Seng Yian

21 September, 2019

I refer to the report, “Through nature reserve or around? Residents, nature groups stick to guns on Cross Island Line paths” (Sept 3).

The environmental-impact assessment carried out for Phase 2 of the project is commendable for its extensive coverage of the impact and mitigation for the two alignment options. It also shed more light on the pros and cons for the direct (Option 1) and skirting (Option 2) routes.

While the former would be more economical and efficient with a faster travelling time, nature groups are rightfully concerned about boring a tunnel right under the heart of MacRitchie Reservoir.

Dual citizenship: Little to fear, much to gain

[This is not a forum letter, but the writer writes very much from a personal perspective. So putting this here.]

CHIRAG AGARWAL

MARCH 8, 2016

In response to Member of Parliament David Ong’s question about 19-year-old Brandon Smith, a New Zealand and Singapore dual citizen who has refused to come back to serve National Service (NS), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last week reminded all Singaporeans of their NS obligations, adding that exceptions cannot be made for those residing overseas. The case, however, is more than just about avoiding conscription, as it highlights a larger issue with the Singapore Government’s policy on dual citizenship.

Singapore will not allow Mr Smith to drop his citizenship before he turns 21 on the grounds that the Republic has provided Mr Smith with protection that comes with being a Singaporean. This makes him an outlaw for not serving NS.

But, more importantly, the Government will also not let him keep both his Singapore and New Zealand citizenship after his 21st birthday. This rule is driven by the unfounded fear that if we all had a choice and things went south in Singapore, we would all run for (or remain on) greener pastures.

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.

Give illegal hawkers a chance to make honest living

[A letter from almost 3 years ago. I sometimes draft blogposts and then feel that they are not good enough, or that I want to write more and I put the post in draft, and never publish them. Sometimes it is because I am trying to be more... critical? nasty? sarcastic? Yeah. One of the above. So here is a "mediocre" post. Not very nasty. Though I do think the letter was not thought through.]

Jan 02, 2015

I SYMPATHISE with the food hawkers who continue to ply their trade despite being fined ("Complaints rising against illegal food hawkers"; Tuesday).

Are there any statistics to show how many people have suffered food poisoning after consuming food from unlicensed hawkers?

If the authorities feel that these hawkers' food is not prepared in accordance with proper hygiene procedures or has not undergone quality control checks, perhaps they could send these hawkers for food hygiene courses or do random quality checks on their food.

[Of course! That is precisely why they should be registered and licensed and... you don't know what you are talking about, do you?]

I propose that the National Environment Agency give such Singaporean hawkers a chance to make an honest living, by giving them a licence to peddle their wares, just like how some seniors are allowed to sell ice cream along Orchard Road and in parks.

I believe some unlicensed hawkers are truly unable to find jobs, for various reasons. It is good that they do not steal or peddle drugs.

[So these were the only two alternatives you can think of? So illegal hawkers other options are to steal or push drugs? I love your perspective. And what you think of the less fortunate.]

I admire their strong determination and perseverance in wanting to make a living on their own, instead of depending on government assistance and handouts.

Instead of playing a cat and mouse game, why not legalise their trade in a way that is acceptable to the public?

Allocating designated spots for them to ply their trade will make routine checks easier.

The smell of fresh and piping hot chestnuts sold by street hawkers reminds me of my childhood days, when my father would buy roasted chestnuts from these hawkers.


[So, only roasted chestnuts? kari-pok? Otah-otah? nasi lemak? kueh-kueh? Or just those that remind you of your childhood?]

They will continue to add colour to our Singapore culture.

Lim Chye Hai

Provide Raw Water for non-drinking purposes.

NORMAN WEE SIN CHUAN
Mar 6 2017

TodayOnline

My letter to Today in full:

Water has not reach crisis level, but the debate on pending price increase has.

As a long-term measure, I think to save precious treated water, another tap should be laid to pipe in direct cheap raw water from Singapore reservoirs and Johor for general purpose like flushing toilet and cleaning premises.

Then the treated water for drinking and cooking can be as expensive as bottled drinking water and no one need to complain as water for drinking and cooking constitute only a very small portion of water used.

As it is expensive treated Singapore water which can be drank direct from tap, is wasted and go down the drain for general purpose.

We know there are rich households that buy bottled water for drinking and cooking and use tap only for other purpose.

Some fear the flouride and other bacteria killing chemicals in the treated water.

A cheaper way instead of having to lay another pipe, is to use existing tap for raw water and bottled water for drinking and cooking.

Who knows the raw water could turn out to be health craze water!

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.

Conservation must go beyond face value

5 Mar 2016

Changi Prison is undoubtedly an important historic site ("Parts of Changi Prison gazetted as national monument"; Feb 16).

Hence, it is regrettable that what is to be preserved is just a mere section of its perimeter wall.

The rest of the historic prison complex has been levelled, including key structures, such as its clock tower and blocks containing the prison cells where prisoners of war were incarcerated during World War II.

Let's be a cultural melting pot, not bowl of salad

Jan 7, 2016, 

When we take a train ride, we often hear many languages being spoken and see attire that hails from varied origins.

These are signs that we have become multi-faceted in terms of ethnicity and national origin.

But it begs the question: Are we evolving into a melting pot, where many distinct elements are forged into one? Or a bowl of salad, where each item remains separate from the other?

Many of us are of immigrant stock. Singapore was barren and it was these people who put aside their differences and made the country into what it is today.

Each community retained its self-help social establishment, but, on the whole, there was ample room for all to mingle and be part of Singapore's mainstream, including its English-medium schools and national service.

Tuition a sign of a developed economy

JUL 9, 2015,

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

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

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

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

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

Smaller homes, smaller families

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

Jun 18, 2015

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

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

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



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

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


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

Jeremy Cheong Weng Kee

And it attracted this comment:

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

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.

No solution for eateries flouting rules?

Jul 10, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Derrick D'Souza

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why peg EPL rates to GDP per capita?

Apr 27, 2013


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

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

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

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

Advin Kwok Ching Hoong

[Should I be kind to addicts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweaking the NCMP scheme

Mar 29, 2013


Mix of electoral systems can work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mar 27, 2013
Changing system not the answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Proportional representation has its limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devadas Krishnadas

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

Give ex-offenders a chance

Mar 29, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everybody makes mistakes, but all deserve a second chance.

Fatimah Nachair (Ms)

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

So many misconception and unrealistic expectations in this letter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peg flat subsidies to minimum occupation period

Mar 23, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeo Shuan Chee

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are 'shrinking' HDB flats really affordable?

Mar 20, 2013

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

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

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

Cost of living is big concern

Mar 01, 2013

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

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

Harping about the F1

Oct 04, 2012

F1 reveals ethical dissonance


THANK you, Ms Anna Quek, for so eloquently expressing the concerns about the Government's decision to extend the hosting of the Formula One (F1) race for another five years ("S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please"; last Saturday).

[I don't know why you are thanking her. Her points were nothing related to yours. Oh! You were just using it as a hook! Or simply to form solidarity of "SG against the F1". I see. No logical or philosophical alignment other than a simple common foe: the F1.]

Singapore risks evolving into a country of contradictions.

[Wrong. Singapore is already a country of contradictions. Farrer Park is not on Farrer Road. Marina Bay Station is not at Marina Bay Sands. Esplanade Station does not open directly to the Esplanade. There are 4 different brands of "Katong Laksa" all claiming to be the authentic one. Right in the middle of our city centre, we have a cricket club and how many Singaporeans even know the rules of cricket let alone play it?]

We welcome casinos and try to teach values in our schools.

[No. No. No. We teach students to be disciplined and want our soldiers to think!]

We host a clearly environmentally hostile race, while we make increasingly loud noises about sustainability.

[We do? (make increasingly loud noises about sustainability)?]

We also claim great pride in our reputation for integrity.

Yet, integrity is about doing the right thing, even if it costs one personally.

[So... JBJ, CSJ are men of integrity, but since CST and LTK have never been sued by the PAP and so never suffered personal costs, they have no integrity, or at best less integrity than JBJ and CSJ?]

It means having to make financial sacrifices in order to preserve and build a long-term reputation.

[Like Ng Eng Hen giving up his multi-million practice to make just about $1m as a minister? Or K Shanmugan giving up his multi-million dollar law practice? or Vivian Balakrishnan?]

I am increasingly concerned that we are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices because we cannot see beyond dollars and cents.

[Like how your definition of integrity is pegged to financial costs? How about a simple, "Integrity is simply doing what one says one will do and saying what one will do"? Like CST? What's with all these personal costs and financial sacrifices crap? Integrity - it's not real until you put a price on it.]

If we do not watch it, we may one day be called ethical pragmatists, which is an oxymoron.

Mak Yuen Teen

[Thank you ethical moron. My problem with your letter is your assumption that contradictions are an evil. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind and the same time and still retain the ability to function" says F. Scott Fitzgerald.

There is an obvious failure to function here.

Contradictions abound in life. Mature people navigate these contradictions and can even hold opposing ideas in their mind at the same time. They don't selectively seek to resolve the "contradictions" that contradict their wants.

Here's a contradiction: we value tolerance. So here is an example of me being intolerant of intolerance!

Let's see what Anna Quek actually wrote.]

Sep 29, 2012

S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please


I AM dismayed that Singapore has committed itself to a further five years of Formula One ("Five more years for S'pore race", Sunday; and "F1 'to bring bigger benefits' in next lap", Tuesday).

[Narcissistic delusion. Assumes we are concerned about her dismay. Or that her dismay amounts to an earth shattering catastrophe that needs urgent attention to address or prevent.]

I am unconvinced by its purported benefits and worry about the ethical implications from the promotion of the event.

[See "Narcissistic Delusion" above. Assumes that others should be similarly unconvinced.]

The only certainty about F1 is the financial outlay for each race, amounting to about $150 million, with the Government co-funding 60 per cent of approved costs.

[Her first factual assertion.... and it's WRONG! OK, possibly wrong. The figures she stated were the conditions of the first 5 years deal. We have not been told what the deal is for the next 5 years.]

It is widely acknowledged that Singapore paid a hefty premium for the first deal, and there were expectations that the Government would negotiate better terms for a second contract.

It is disappointing that there has been no disclosure of the actual financial terms of a deal involving millions of dollars of public funds. Instead, Singaporeans are asked to place their faith in "consultants" who claim favourable international publicity generated by the F1 glitz.

[Life is disappointment. Get used to it.]

I am sceptical that any for-profit company would pooh-pooh such a trophy event and risk incurring the wrath of its clients.

[There's healthy scepticism, and poisonous cynicism, and pathological paranoia. She has a 1 in 3 chance of being healthy. Consultants thrive on the value they provide to their clients, and their reputation depends on it. Bad advice can kill their reputation. Ask Arthur Anderson. Similarly, I am sceptical that any myopic, idealistic, xenophobic puritan with no business experience or business acumen, would approve such an event and risk not being able to impose her values and wants on others.]

Even assuming the survey results are representative, there is no certainty that favourable impressions translate into actual benefits for Singapore and the average Singaporean.

At any rate, $150 million is a princely sum for a three-day "marketing campaign".

[And here is the essence and evidence of the naivete of the idealistic, myopic, xenophobic puritan with the mono-factorial decision-making heuristic. You can spend $150m (less actually for the SG govt) for EFFECTIVE marketing that reaches your TARGET audience in 3 days and it would be better than spending $15m for a year long campaign that is ineffective. Or $50m. Or $100m. Or even $150m for a year long campaign that is not as effective. Judging the worth simply by the cost is precisely why we need consultants and not Ms Quek and her ilk.]

I am also curious how the "incremental tourism receipts" of $560 million, from 2008 to last year, were attributed to F1, or how the fantastical "billions" in revenue projected by the consultants were arrived at.

[Finally! A good question!]

Is every tourist asked upon arrival at Changi Airport if they came specifically because of F1, and if so, were their wallets tagged and monitored?

[Followed immediately by a stupid research methodology!]

How were the losses suffered by Marina Bay area businesses and commuter inconvenience accounted for?

[Another good question! I think those businesses have been ignored by the govt! What do you think we should do Ms Quek?]

I believe I am not alone in noticing that there have been many more "super-cars" on our roads since the introduction of F1.

[... And... other than that short question, she has also ignored the fate of those "few, those unhappy few" businesses.... And has instead decided to imply that F1 has caused a surge in "super-cars" in Singapore! Correlation is not causation, as any researcher can tell you. ]

On our Little Red Dot, the allure of super-cars probably lies in their bragging rights, driven home by deliberate loud revving and speeding (if only for 10m).

While it may be a stretch to blame F1 for the anti-social behaviour of some drivers, the marketing thrust of F1 - fast cars, grid girls, extravagant parties and "bling-bling" - is nothing short of crass consumption, with its corrosive effect on social values.

[And so she admits it is a stretch to blame the F1... and then proceeds to cast her disapproving eye on crass consumption, and pass judgement on its"corrosive effect" on social values. Why corrosive? I don't know. Bravo Ms Quek! In one sentence, you have managed to start with understated research methodology, and jump straight to the conclusion you had already decided! Bravo! Such intellectual sleight-of-hand! Mental illusion that is exceeded only by your narcissistic delusion! Beautiful were it not also opinionated and misleading.]

Hosting F1 in Singapore will appear much less triumphal once its true economic and social costs are weighed against a realistic assessment of "incremental receipts".

Anna Quek (Ms)

[When we require a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of hosting the F1, we can be sure that you will be the most biased and unqualified person to make that assessment. We may have to ask one of those for-profit consultants to run the assessment. Again. You will probably be disappointed. Again.

Tough.

Deal.

Personally, I have no interest in the F1, or to want to watch it up close and in person. This is a made for TV spectacle, and I would watch only for the thrill of seeing slips, slides, skids, crashes, collisions, and explosions. From the safety of my home or a sports bar somewhere. I hate unrelentingly loud noises. I hate packed-like-sardines crowds.  Would I be unhappy if F1 were not renewed for 5 more years in SG? No. It bothers me not one bit. But it matters to many others. So for a week or so, downtown SG is off-limits to me, by my own choice. Big deal. So the F1 is "environmentally hostile". If so, it is so regardless of where it is held and affects the global climate eventually.]

Ferrari crash: Regulator should step in

Sep 18, 2012


I AGREE with Mr Abbas Vakharia ("Fatal Ferrari crash: Insurer's stance cause for consumer concern"; last Saturday).

AXA's insurance policy clearly states that it covers a motor vehicle that is accidentally damaged by the operation of several named perils, including "collision".

But it does have a clause stating that the policy does not cover "any wilful act and/or wilful negligence" of the insured or an authorised driver.

A "wilful act" means that the Ferrari driver intended to collide with the taxi and even take his own life. While the driver was reckless, I cannot imag(in)e that he had intended to cause the collision.

I hope that the Insurance Commissioner's office will discuss this issue with AXA and clarify if its stand is justified, based on the circumstances.

Consumers need to be assured that insurance companies will act fairly in meeting their obligations.

Special attention is required from the regulator, as motor insurance is compulsory by law.


Tan Kin Lian
President
Financial Services Consumer Association

[I respect Mr Tan's expertise and experience in the insurance industry and value his contribution and input on this matter. However, while he is right to say that a "wilful act" would imply that the driver of the Ferrari intended to crash and die is an unreasonable assumption, he has unfortunately ignored the second part which is "wilful negligence", and exaggerated the first.  


In this case, there was probably "wilful negligence" on the part of the driver who should have known that going at more than twice (and maybe even 3 times) the speed limit was dangerous. The fact that the car sped through a red light about 4 seconds after the lights had turned red was eitther a wilful act (he intentionally ran the red light), or wilful negligence (he didn't see the red light). And at the speed he was going, either was dangerously fatal.  


The larger question is why would the insurance company do this?   Of course to save money for the company.   And if the driver were a poor man with no money and the victims needed the compensation, this would be a travesty.


But the driver was not poor and his estate can pay, and making his estate pay is better justice and better disincentive.   What this means is that in future if any other owner of supercars were to drive as recklessly with wilful disregard for safety or rules or the lives of others, their insurance company with not cover their recklessness. They or the family they leave behind will pay for their recklessness. And this should sound a warning to other supercar owners.   Mr Tan is right to be concerned, but he should also see the larger picture.]