Unfair to say SG Climate Rally does not take into account societal concerns: Organisers

By Ajay Nair, SG Climate Rally

01 December, 2019

I am writing on behalf of my co-organisers of the SG Climate Rally. We refer to the commentary, “In calling for action on climate crisis, it is not enough to say ‘listen to the science’” (Nov 25).

SG Climate Rally acknowledges the need for climate movements to listen to broader social concerns. As part of these efforts, we published a statement last week in support of the food delivery workers affected by the ban on personal mobility devices on footpaths. 

[Lip service followed by an example of tokenism.]

To cut waste, set up supermarket selling overstocked, expiring goods

By Doreen Lai Bin Hui

26 September, 2019

I was happy to read TODAY’s Trash Talk features on how Singaporeans can do their part to reduce waste.

I have two ideas that I hope can bring Singapore closer to its zero-waste target.

Despite being a developed country, our environmental consciousness trails even some developing nations.

[Note: what she considers "environmental consciousness" is basically the latest fads promoted by so-called "environmentalists". More later.]

Recently, I took a six-month break. [Just curious. Did you fly, or bike, or take a "zero-emissions" boat? Whatever that is.] Through my travels, I saw how the effects of global warming and erratic climatic changes have caused glaciers to recede at an alarming rate, and places such as Alaska becoming much warmer than they should.

[Oh yes. Come see the glaciers before they are all gone!]

We need to step up our environmental consciousness to safeguard our planet for future generations.

During my travels, I encountered many excellent ideas of how we can help to reduce waste.

START A GROCERY OUTLET

In the United States, there is a successful supermarket chain called Grocery Outlet selling heavily discounted brand-name groceries and products that are either overstocked or close to their use-by date.

[In Singapore, there is a chain of budget shops called "Value $ Shop". Their tagline is "Closing Down Sale!" and "Fire Sale"! And they are NOT the only bargain budget shops.]

I patronised this supermarket often because its items were cheap and I was going to consume the produce pretty soon anyway.

It makes sense for one of the big supermarket chains here — or, better still, an alliance of them — to create such an outlet to reduce waste. It can also be a part of their corporate-social-responsibility efforts to bring affordable groceries to the masses.

[Or see what they are already doing. From a Facebook comment:

Supermarkets are already doing this for some products. Fresh meat have a shelf life (or a sell by date) of just 3 days. [When] they are close to their sell-by date, some supermarkets slash their prices. But you often have to use the meat on the same day. This is not always possible (for me), so I cannot take advantage of this. And this (offering discounts within the store) is a better solution than having a specialty store selling say 2-day old meat. This requires the originating store to send the meat to the specialty discount store, who will need to check that the meat (or other products) are still saleable, re-tag the merchandise, and put it on display. All these take time, transport, logistics, and labour and adds to the costs. Re-tagging the soon to expire meat within the originating store is speedier (unless the specialty store is right next to the originating store and a subsidiary of the originating store or parent company).

DEPOSITS FOR BOTTLES AND CANS

In Europe and North America, it is common to see glass or plastic bottles and steel or aluminium cans being sold with a deposit. Consumers can get their money back when they return these to a machine that is usually at the entrance of supermarkets.

This scheme will boost recycling collection rates and attitudes towards recycling.

[Hate to break the news to you but... Recycling is a scam. But don't take my word for it. Find a recycling plant in Singapore. Not a recycling materials collection and sorting facility. These simply "export" our "recyclables overseas. Where a large proportion of them are either left to rot, burned haphazardly, or tossed into the oceans. Find an ACTUAL plant that takes recyclables (say aluminium cans), and actually process the recyclables and make NEW products with it. There are no such plants in SG. (I got a hint that there is a "local steel mill" that can recycle ferrous metal - not aluminium. But I have NO idea where it is, or if recycling is a major component of its business model.)

As for plastic, it helps to believe that you can recycle plastic. But the truth is, it is very difficult to recycle a plastic bottle and imagine that it would come back as a bottle. Plastics are hard to recycle. The best you can do is down cycle it.]

Recent news that supermarket chain NTUC FairPrice is charging for plastic bags in a trial at selected stores is also a step in the right direction.

Singapore is already behind many countries in this area. Others, including many African states, have banned single-use plastic bags. A report from the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Resources Institute found that at least 127 out of 192 countries have adopted some form of legislation to regulate plastic bags as of July last year.

I sincerely urge Singaporeans to be more environmentally conscious because every little step matters.

[More from the FaceBook comment:

As for other goods (over-stocked goods) this is already being done if the writer would simply open her eyes and understand what she is seeing. "Value $ Shop" with their perpetual "Closing Down Sale" or "Fire Sale" (despite the lack of evidence of fire, unless they are exploiting the Haze) ARE in fact discount stores for overstocked goods. Yeah, sure they have lots of parallel imports from countries with lower costs of living (Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, Malaysia), but they also have overstocked goods. "Halls XS" are about $1.40 at Fairprice. They were once sold at Value $ Shop for 50 cents (no stock now).

This letter is an example of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" or at least a useless thing. Or will get you to do useless things that will make you feel good about yourself. 

The War on Plastic is futile. And people are doing it for the wrong reasons. If we stop using plastic, the world will NOT become a better place. We would NOT stop climate change or global warming. If you think giving up plastic will save the world from climate change, you are a victim of "a little knowledge" and the wrong kind of knowledge.

Same for giving up plastic straws.]

Hard not to be stressed when basic food and play will incur more tax

By Hazelyn A Yuen 

23 February, 2018

I foresee that the increase in our Goods and Sevices Tax (GST) in future will push up the cost of living further.

[Wow! A psychic! I wish I had the power to foresee the future, like her. I wanna know what numbers will be in the Hong Bao draw.] 

We can cut back on more luxurious travels, expensive cars, premium houses, etc, but we still have to eat, so shouldn’t the most basic food items be largely exempted from GST? 

Such goods are relatively inelastic in price, and if they cost more, demand for them will still not fall.

[OMG! This psychic is predicting that once GST increase, Singaporeans will take fewer holidays, buy fewer expensive cars, and fewer premium houses! What's the GST on houses? Oh wait! There's no GST on property purchase. That's "covered" by Buyer's Stamp duties. WHICH HAS ALREADY INCREASED (for million dollar property)!] 

A GST hike will not benefit producers and consumers, but likely compound the already stressful cost of living domestically.

Even leisure or play is going to cost more, as seen by the tax on digital services which include entertainment content. So, too, will a visit to theme parks or gym classes or the buying of sports gear. How are we encouraged to maintain a healthy lifestyle — which could help to reduce stress — in a pressure-cooker society?

Right! The solution to a "pressure-cooker society" is to spend lavishly on theme parks and gym classes. 

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.

Parents with premature babies need more financial support

[A well-intentioned writer who is not aware of Medishield Life.]


By Ng Chee Kheon

19 December, 2017


Whenever the subject of how to raise Singapore’s total fertility rate is being discussed, the focus is invariably on things like increasing maternity and paternity leave, providing affordable childcare services and education, and enhancing work-life balance.

However, the emotional trauma experienced by parents with pre-mature babies, as well as their financial plight, have not been highlighted enough.

Pre-mature babies need to be warded in an intensive care unit for weeks, if not months. The resulting total medical bills could run into tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

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

Did wild boar in Punggol die needlessly?

By Sivarajah Nathan


TODAY/VOICES

25 November, 2017

I refer to the report, “'Rampaging' wild boar in Punggol euthanised after gunshot wound to neck” (23 Nov).

More could have been done to save the wild boar before it was shot by a police officer. Was the animal sufficiently tasered?

As the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) said, the boar could have been stressed and became defensive after sustaining injuries from the road accident and then found itself cornered.

I am not sure that the police have the right training to handle wildlife and the right specialists should have been called in instead.

Offer public transport subsidies to help S’pore become car-lite

[I am beginning to suspect a conspiracy. But let's go with the Forum Letter to TODAY first.]

Francis Cheng

March 11, 2017

If Singapore is aiming to be a car-lite nation where Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans alike, regardless of class, travel on public transport, then subsidies to ensure affordability may be a necessary element (“Khaw signals that transport fares will go up in future, TODAY March 9”).

Subsidies to public transport are common in many countries. A shift towards greater use of public transport can help reduce emissions and congestion. Public transport subsidies are all the more necessary for low-income households and the elderly.

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!

Water a necessity - shouldn't Govt bear cost for it?

[Water tariffs are increasing. Let the complaints begin!

Oh here's one!]

ST Forum

Forum writer Ng Chun Jin has not heard of many countries or cities that would raise water charges by so much.

23 Feb 2017

The Government, by proposing a 30 per cent tax hike, clearly views water as an economic good rather than a basic necessity. This is a disconnect in principle that requires further examination.

The United Nations, on July 28, 2010, acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realisation of all human rights.

Create fun TV programmes to educate public on how to recycle

LYNNETTE LOW

JUNE 9, 2016

It is a bad idea to make residents “pay as you throw” in order to reduce waste (“Pay as you throw among ideas to cut down waste in Singapore”; June 4).

First, it would raise the high cost of living and send stress levels here even higher. That surely cannot be a good thing.

Second, littering is already a problem in Singapore. If we have to pay as we throw, unclaimed and anonymous rubbish would probably be more prevalent.

A more effective and meaningful way to encourage recycling and to cut waste here is to educate the public and create awareness of this subject through interesting programmes on Channels 5 and 8 during prime time.

Recast the S’porean identity based on inclusivity, fairness — not materialism

[I clip and pasted this article to this blog because I thought it was a reader's letter. Only at the end, did I realise that it was supposed to be a commentary or opinion piece. But seriously, I found the quality of thought to be no better than some forum letters. And the verbosity hinted at some insecurities or immaturity.

Maybe I am being too harsh... NAAAAHHHH! 

Or, rather, why don't you decide. I found his writing rather pompous.]

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.

GM food should be labelled

JUN 19, 2014

I AM concerned about how much genetically modified (GM) food we may be exposed to unwittingly in Singapore as there are no mandatory requirements to label food as such ("GM food in Singapore safe"; last Saturday).

There has been a recent spate of studies which show that GM food crops containing Bt toxin have caused foetal malformations, sterility and deaths in cattle as well as other mammals and birds exposed to them.

[If you do a decent (3 minutes) google search you will find results from Joseph Mercola from May 2011 (caution: he’s trying to sell you “snake oil” and part of the “conspiracy economy”) supporting the claims above. But you will also find results from sites that debunk urban myths, legends, and rumours like Snopes.  They report:

The Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) protein...  is a naturally occurring one which has been used in agriculture for decades… The claim about GM corn causing organ failure in rats stems from articles published in 2009 and 2012 by Dr. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois (et al) which reported the finding of high tumor rates and early mortality in rats fed genetically modified corn and "safe" levels of the herbicide Roundup. However, several food safety authorities and regulatory agencies found the analysis and conclusions of the 2009 article to be flawed and unsupportive of its claims. Moreover, France's six scientific academies issued a rare joint statement in October 2012 denouncing the latter study as a similarly flawed "scientific non-event" that served to "spread fear among the public that is not based on any firm conclusion”.

And by the way, what "recent spate of studies"? You mean you just checked your email and found emails from 2009 to 2012?]

China has recently banned imports of GM dried grains from the United States, and there is a growing movement in Canada and Europe against Monsanto, one the the biggest producers of GM crops.

[Wow. If China, which allows lead in children’s toys, melamine in milk, and reuse grease as cooking oil bans GM products from the US, GM food must be REALLY dangerous. Or you could be focusing on the wrong facts. It’s not that is is GM food. It’s just that it is imports, and it’s from the US. Actually, they just want to ban imports. 

Protectionism. 

Look it up.

Yes. There is a growing movement against Monsanto. (for example, a poll showed that 51% of  respondents nominated Monsanto as the most evil company. Of course the fact that the poll was done by Natural News which is a special interest magazine/online news group, may lead one to question their objectivity, and their readers objectivity. In other words, it is a self-selected sample.)

Welcome to the movement. Please check your brain at the door. And believe whatever we tell you. Monsanto is evil. Repeat after me: Monsanto is Evil. The FDA is Corrupt. Obama is Muslim. Gun Control is against Human Rights. Climate Change is a Hoax. Evolution is Not in the Bible so it DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Americans also believe many things that are wrong. Strength of conviction is not evidence of truth.

Alternatively, you may want to decide for yourself.]

There are large amounts of foodstuff from the US in shops here, most of which contain corn or soya products and derivatives. Unless they are specifically labelled organic and GM-free, there is no way for consumers here to know what they are feeding their families.

[When in doubt, assume that they are all GMO (you won't be too far wrong). ]

Short of going on an expensive organic-only diet, which is economically not feasible for the majority of Singaporeans, how can we be better informed of what goes into the food we eat?

Lai Sui Wan (Ms)

[You seem to think that "organic" = "non-GMO". They are not. You can have organic GMO food.

But yes. You are right. Organic food is unsustainable.

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of genetically modified foods here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genetically_modified_food.html

The rice we eat have been genetically modified: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

And as stated earlier, Organic-only diet will not help. Organic doesn't mean non-GMO.]

GM food in Singapore safe

JUN 14, 2014

WE THANK Mr Steven Lo Chock Fei for his feedback ("Label GM food products"; May 29).

We assure the public that all genetically modified (GM) food commercially available in Singapore has undergone safety assessments by both the Singapore Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC) and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

These assessments are based on the Codex Alimentarius Commission's principles established by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.

There has been no substantiated scientific evidence to show that GM food is unsafe.

Like all other food products, GM food must meet prevailing AVA food safety labelling requirements on ingredient listing and information for consumers. Currently, companies can voluntarily label a food product as "GMO" or "non-GMO", provided this can be substantiated.

It is not international practice for GM food to be labelled as such.

Where practised, GM food labelling serves the purpose of providing consumers with choice, rather than for food safety reasons.

There are a number of factors to consider in reviewing the need to specify GM food.

One is the lack of an internationally agreed threshold level of genetic material in a food product to make labelling obligatory.

Singapore, like many other countries, is of the view that any labelling regime must be practical, scientifically derived and effectively implementable across countries.

In other words, "what do you mean "genetically modified"? Should GMO cotton be labelled? How about oil for GMO canola? The oil has no GMO material and is indistiguishable from oil from non-GMO canola:

For a number of GM crops, the genes/gene products never enter the food supply, since those parts of the plants are removed during processing. For example, sugar from GM sugar beets is chemically identical to non-GM sugar. Likewise, oils purified from GM canola, soybean, cottonseed, and corn is identical to non-GM oils. Much of the corn crop is dedicated to generating ethanol, which, of course, is identical to non-GM ethanol. It has not been noted that ethanol from GM corn adversely affect automobile performance compared to non-GM ethanol. Genetically modified Bt cotton is worn, rather than ingested, and there have been no reports of adverse effects of wearing GM clothing. For GM crops in which whole plant cells are ingested, the genes and gene products are usually destroyed through digestion in the stomach and small intestine. So, it is unlikely, even in theory, that eating GM crops can harm human beings.

AVA and GMAC are following ongoing global discussions on GM food closely and will implement measures in line with international best practices.

More information on GMAC and its guidelines on the safety evaluation of GM food crops are available at 

http://www.gmac.gov.sg/

Astrid Yeo (Dr)
Group Director
Regulatory Administration Group
Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority

Nurhuda Nordin (Ms)
Secretariat
For Chairman
Genetic Modification Advisory Committee

BUT, despite all this, I agree that GM food should be labelled. As should food containing gluten. And organic food too. I believe people should be given information to make their choice. I may think they are paranoids but I would rather the paranoids shop at the specialist green organic, all-natural non-GMO food mart, then be found standing next to me ranting about Monsanto while I’m trying to get some GM-corn.

OK. I lied. I don't like corn. So I wouldn't be shopping for corn. GMO or non-GMO.

Here's something I found while looking for dirt on Monsanto. I think it is quite enlightening. And refreshingly rational.

I have seen it time and time again. Monsanto is evil, GE crops (GMOs) get a bad name because of Monsanto, GE crops are bad because they are made by Monsanto, Monsanto persecutes innocent farmers with lawsuits to drive them out of business, etcetera, etcetera. If you've paid attention to any aspect of the GE arguments, you'll see these arguments rolled out pretty much en masse. But my independent research says otherwise.

1) There seems to be scientific consensus on the health effects of GE crops, regardless of Monsanto. You can generally find people saying that there is not, but I can cite a lot of scientific studies and major scientific bodies that say otherwise.

2) A few cases of Monsanto suing a farmer for patent infringement have been turned into this narrative that Monsanto sues anyone for any amount of "contamination" in their field. Percy Schmeiser is often indirectly cited, though his case, as ruled by the Canadian Supreme Court, is 100% his fault because he intentionally selected the accidentally "contaminated" crops which resisted glyphosate by spraying glyphosate and replanting those that survived, ending up with a 97% pure GE canola field which he did not have license for, violating Monsanto's patent on that GE canola. Other cases are sometimes cited, like the one farmer which attempted to circumvent patents by buying GE wheat from a grain tower and planting it, but they all have similar faults in that they ignore what actually happened in order to demonize Monsanto.

3) Monsanto is not controlling the research on GE. It just does not make any sense that the same people who claim that massive oil companies like Enron could not stymie anthropogenic global warming are the same people who claim that the comparatively much smaller Monsanto could control the results of thousands of studies except for a small handful. Sure, they may have some influence here and there, and their blocking of fully independent research (until 2010) is horrendous but that does not invalidate the results of thousands of studies.

4) The fact that Monsanto has produced a variety of chemicals in the past does not matter. I've seen it over and over again, where some person brings up Monsanto's production of Agent Orange without looking at the context of the situation (at government request, during the Vietnam war, with little research done into dioxin contamination, etc) and thinks that they have made this stunning zinger of an argument. I've even seen someone produce a small gish gallopy list of chemicals Monsanto has produced, and seen the list debunked as the original poster was ignoring the individual details and contexts of those chemicals (I did the debunking).

5) Monsanto seemingly only has 17% of the bio-tech market, if I remember correctly. This is often portrayed as some attempt at monopolization by anti-GE activists, but I just do not see it. In fact, I believe that stopping the inane over-regulation of GE crops would decrease the chances of any single monopoly on GE crops being made.There are probably other things I may have added to this post if I could remember them, but do not take this as some form of corporate shilling for or white-washing of Monsanto. I know that, as a company, their bottom line is going to be profits, and that there are some legitimate criticisms I would make of them (such as close connections with a U.S. Supreme Court Justice [one which, may I say, I particularly despise], and, the Senior Advisor to the Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration for the Obama administration, Michael R. Taylor). But I do not believe that Monsanto is of much more concern than any other company. I do not find good enough reason to conclude as many others do that Monsanto is an evil organization whose goal is world domination and the enslavement of farmers (which is an obvious exaggeration... hopefully).

Myth 4: Before Monsanto got in the way, farmers typically saved their seeds and re-used them.
By the time Monsanto got into the seed business, most farmers in the U.S. and Europe were already relying on seed that they bought every year from older seed companies. This is especially true of corn farmers, who've been growing almost exclusively commercial hybrids for more than half a century. (If you re-plant seeds from hybrids, you get a mixture of inferior varieties.) But even soybean and cotton farmers who don't grow hybrids were moving in that direction.

OK. Here comes my rant.

I started this blog to rant about the impossibly stupid people and to vent about their stupidity. 

However, I have found that otherwise intelligent people are nevertheless confused about GMO and Organic and quite a few New Age rubbish. 

Some of these people I call "relatives".

And to be fair, these genetically engineered crops and food are all very sciency and it is no wonder some people get confused about it. 

And they don't understand.

And what they don't understand, scares them. 

So I have... restrained myself in addressing the questions here. Questions which I find... not very intelligent, but perhaps understandable.

The problem as I see it, is the US. This is the country that leads the world. But their people can be incredibly stupid. I provided a link of the 11 things that Americans wrongly and frighteningly believe.

29% of Americans believe cloud computing involves actual clouds.

So when someone comes along and tells them about how scientist have been manipulating the DNA of food, don't expect them to understand. Expect them to NOT understand what it entails and to wonder if that means trouble. Then throw in a word for them to hang their pale understanding. A word like "frankenfood" and that will help them file GMO under "scary" and "evil".

The problem is that the US education process may not have prepared the average American to understand science and what is possible and what is not possible. 

For example, the fear that eating GMO food could change your DNA. 

When lack of information and education is so low, I do not even know how to start my rant. But this was my comment on Facebook:

Yes. Please label GMO food. Because besides eating the food (which is not a problem as our digestive system will break down all DNA in the food, so it doesn't matter if it is GMO or not), apparently some people are thinking of MATING with their food - in which case you should be concerned about the DNA of the food, their genetic make-up, and such. So yes, for these people, they want to be sure that the food they mate with are pure. They are sort of like Food Nazis.

So when people ask about GMO foods, the best retort to them is: "You wanna eat it or fuck it?"

Update (4 Aug 2014): A more restrained and balanced assessment on the GMO Food.

Offer young Singaporeans a menu of options in national service beyond the military.

[I thought this was a forum letter. Then I read the end about the author. I am not impressed. So I am putting it in this blog, because despite being a adjunct professor, his writing is little better than some ST Forum Page letters.

And way below Wikipedia's standard!]


Apr 26, 2014

Parag Khanna, For The Straits Times

National service for the 21st century


"Switzerland doesn't have an army, it is an army."

So described the American writer John McPhee the Swiss military in his famous reportage La Place de la Concorde Suisse.

For over 200 years, conscripted Swiss men have trained to mobilise to defend the whole country in less than 48 hours. In a referendum last year, an overwhelming 73 per cent of Swiss citizens showed continued support for mandatory conscription.

Singaporeans also believe that full-time national service (NS) is essential for defence, identity building, fitness and other reasons. But like all venerable institutions, NS must evolve with the times to remain relevant to the challenges it is designed to address. [Why? Why "must"? Because it is a "Venerable Institution"? To "Remain Relevant"? Have you proven that it has become irrelevant? In fact, the first sentence of this para affirms that Singaporeans BELIEVE that it is still essential, and by extension, relevant (find me an example of something essential, but not relevant. And no, your wife's boobs doesn't count.) This is an example of writing that is below Wikipedia's standard!]

The state has substantial and diverse priorities. These include national defence and internal security, social services, and a desire to stimulate creativity and promote economic growth. Singapore's NS should therefore be broadened to encompass these functions [Again, why? Assumptions not stated, arguments not developed, logic not applied, brain not engaged.] in a way that does not compromise fundamental security needs.

21st century info-states

SINGAPORE and Switzerland are what I have called "info-states". [You can call them "chopped liver" as far as I'm concerned. The question is, so?] These are societies where data, technology, master planning and alternative scenarios are as critical to governance as democracy. The two countries are often characterised as having inverted political systems, with Switzerland having a "bottom-up" system while Singapore maintains a "top-down" one. But Singapore and Switzerland can also be viewed as being quite similar, not least for their propensity to top many global competitiveness rankings.

Contrived (and illogical) comparisons - Swiss is bottoms up. SG is top down. Same lah same lah! Both countries also top in everything! Can compare! GAWD what a ridiculous reasoning! So they are both top in global competitiveness rankings so they should have the same military /defence/ national service system? But the best part is just before talking about the "sameness" of the two, he tells us that Swiss is bottoms-up and SG is top down. Minor difference? Different but the same? Or is this a significant difference in style sufficient to derail his suggestion?

Handwaved.

A strong military is vital to protecting such small countries that are rich in financial, technical and human capital. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is thus unstinting in its pursuit of military excellence. It must continue to acquire all the assets necessary to deter aggression: military, cyber and economic. But even with razor- sharp defences, info-states fundamentally thrive on connectedness. Their economic and diplomatic footprint will always be far larger than their military one.

[So? When an invading army is at your doorstep, you will use economics and diplomacy to deter them? Because we are an "info-state" connected by economy and diplomacy, we will never need to defend ourselves (or demonstrate our ability to defend ourselves)? 

Tell that to Kuwait, eh? They had great economics - oil revenue. They had great diplomacy - US was their friend. They got invaded. The US came to help. Eventually. No worries, eh? 

Economics and Diplomacy is to reduce the probability of military aggression, but it is NO GUARANTEE of non-aggression. The only true deterrence for military aggression is military defence capability. Comprehensive Military Defence Capability. ] 

A 21st century country must think in 21st century terms about national security. Only two advanced countries still have military-only national service schemes: South Korea and Israel. Arguably they still need it.

[But let's not argue about whether SG needs it. Or course we don't need it. Everybody else (except for two paranoids) has done away with it. We should be doing away with it too!

Let me let my mother respond to this: "So Ah Seng jump off a cliff, you also jump lah!"]

But many stable societies in the world also modify their national service requirements to changing circumstances. The decade following the reunification of Germany in 1990 saw a wave of such adjustments. Just as I was leaving high school near Hamburg, all my German contemporaries went off to diverse military or civil service assignments lasting only one year.

If I have a bias in this debate, it is to keep national service a primarily military activity rather than diluting it. [Don't worry, your biases are safely non-evident. At least the biases you are admitting to, here.] My undergraduate concentration was military strategy - known much more by its campus nickname "Guns & Bombs". I also served as an adviser with the United States Special Operations Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan conducting counter-terrorism missions.

My first book, The Second World, is a geopolitical travelogue covering high-stakes countries from Libya and Ukraine to Venezuela and Kazakhstan. I have worked with the US National Intelligence Council to develop scenarios on major regional conflicts.

[Well, since you are sharing, I used to be in the police force a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far... actually, in this galaxy. I knew police constables who had been constables all their career. 20 years. Awaiting retirement. Never promoted. Some were good. Some, I understood why they were still constables. Because some people have twenty years of experience. Others have one year of experience repeated twenty times.

Similarly, I have met people who have travelled the world, but have not left the smallness of their mind.

I am not saying that you (the author) is either of these. I have not met you, only this article you wrote, and if your ideas are not coherent, not logical, not put together, not THERE, it really doesn't matter to me what you have experienced. Or your expertise. ] 

Yet what I have learnt from all of these experiences is that someone who is expert in only "security" is missing the big picture.

Malaysia: Shifting dynamics

THE shifting dynamics between Singapore and Malaysia are a key case in point. Across the former British Empire, countries that shunned each other at independence a half-century ago are now sharing currencies, pooling capital, building cross-border infrastructure, and attracting joint investments.

Singapore and Malaysia fit this pattern of post-colonial fraternity. Malaysia has become a major economic opportunity for Singapore. But it is also the source of a variety of micro-threats, such as drugs and illegal immigrants. None of these can be dealt with using primarily military means (as the US has learnt on the Mexican border).

The solution requires more joint investment, job creation, law enforcement, and other tools. In this context, we should ask: How does NS contribute to greater stability in this new regional paradigm?

[I see it now. Your point about "missing the big picture" ties in with your question here: how can NS be the answer.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To a man with a gun, everything looks like a target. 

However the best thing to use a hammer on is an actual nail that needs to be driven in. That is, use the tool to fit the job, not make whatever tool you have do the job you need done. A gun can be used as a hammer, but it is better to get a hammer.

In other words, NS is a tool to serve a specific purpose. It is a necessary evil. We see it as a necessary evil. We don't glorify it, or exalt it. But we recognise the sacrifice for it, and when we see a silver lining, and unexpected benefits from it, we focus on it. The mistake is to think that National Service is a good thing. That it can build community. And then you have the stupidity of the Malaysian having "National Service" to promote and foster community spirit or racial harmony or some such crap, and the youth are molested, or injured, or even die during NS. To what end? Racial harmony? 

Using a gun as a hammer.]

New model army

THE most fundamental question is how to allocate human resources efficiently. The SAF is a crucial foundation of this strength - but it is not the only one. Nor is it the only one that requires able-bodied citizens to commit time and effort.

Indeed, it is rather odd for a country whose civil service is perhaps the world's most competent and effective to limit formal service requirements to defence alone. [Really? You think so? Maybe the reason why it is the most competent and effective is because WE DON'T LET FUCKING IDIOTS WORK THE CIVIL SERVICE AS PART OF THEIR NATIONAL SERVICE!]

Given Singapore's particular circumstances, NS should become a menu of options across military, civil, commercial and social entities. But it should be managed in a manner that preserves the equity of the programme.

Basic training must remain a universal commitment. But it should be carried out by the SAF, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and police - a distribution that is critical especially if women become integrated into NS so that exercises are more flexibly suited to physical abilities.

Each year, a wide range of places will be available for NS positions across corporate, civil, social and military functions, with dynamic quotas based on positions available and needed each year. Students will indicate their preferences across "hard" and "soft" placements, but with the SAF, SCDF and police having priority to ensure they meet their force adequacy requirements.

Not everyone will get their first choice, but fairness should be built in by requiring each NS-hosting entity to take in a representative cross-section of youth from all backgrounds and education levels to avoid giving unfair career advantages to those in corporate or civil roles rather than military. This is essential to preserve one of the key virtues of national service as it stands today: the integration of all racial groups and income levels.

If choices are unevenly distributed - for example, if too many young people choose the engineering option and not enough choose the educational one - a ballot may be held and some routed to their second or even third choices.
 
[Right. A ballot. Because that worked so well with HDB flats allocation and Primary School registration. I LOVE this recommendation! Because Singaporeans only have TWO ballot systems to complain about and everyone knows good things comes in THREES. So yes! Another ballot system. Now for National Service.]

No doubt the allocation process may get a little complicated, but it will not be anything out of the ordinary for Singaporeans used to the posting exercises for admission to secondary schools, polytechnics and universities. The key is to make sure that criteria for deployments are transparent and the process, such as a ballot, is seen as equitable.

Upgrade, not upsize

BUT ensuring the primacy of the military is not a race for numbers. [Strawman fallacy. Motherhood statement. WTF are you talking about? GAWD pointing out the idiocy (I'm way past "fallacy" already) in this article is tedious! Strawman Idiocy: Who the fuck is saying that SG is playing a numbers game when it comes to NS? Has ANY official MINDEF statement been made about getting more conscripts into the army? Or conscripting women? For numbers? In FACT, whenever people say, "Women should serve NS", MINDEF has said, "we don't need to conscript women." And WTF are you talking about "primacy of the military"? First what does that even mean? Primacy over what?]  Looking around the world, it is clear that military effectiveness does not correlate with the number of soldiers under arms. America's defence establishment is being forced to consider how to get more value from technology rather than manpower, hence the greater investments in drones and wearable exoskeletons.

With opportunities in hardware innovation and cyber security, Singapore could indeed become even more of a "start-up nation" than Israel, with tighter links between the defence and technology sectors. [Wow. First "info-states". Now "Start-up nation". You're know all the latest lingo. You must be cool! Or Rad! Or Hip! Or Sick! Or Bad! - I'm sorry, I'm not hip to the new lingo.] A professional army with a well-trained and compensated officer corps and more linkages outside the military would also struggle less with career transitions at the age of 50 or 55.

NS provides a captive audience of highly capable youth whose abilities can be leveraged and skills upgraded. NS can be used to train responsible stakeholders, not just in law and order, but also in welfare and productivity.

Formally designating strategic industries as a form of national service is not at all new. During World War II, the US exempted from the draft men working in crucial sectors such as automobile and tank assembly. In Singapore in the 1980s, more than 10,000 servicemen were diverted into the so-called "construction brigade" to accelerate Housing Board public housing development. At the time, Singapore faced a labour shortage. Now, of course, it seeks to cap foreign labour.

[You don't know what you are talking about do you? Or realise how stupid your attempts to use facts are? Or that your facts do not support your argument? 

Yes. There was a construction brigade in the 80s. That means, your proposal has actually been tried. And the experiment has been terminated.You're the expert. Go find out why.

But the funniest line is the last two sentence. SG "faced... labour shortage. Now... cap foreign labour." 

You do realise that there is still a labour shortage? You do realise that the capping of foreign labour is a POLITICAL response to the resistance of Singaporeans to foreigners, NOT because there is no labour shortage? You do realise that HDB have been ramping up construction since GE 2011, and if the construction brigade idea was such a success, it should have been brought back two years ago? ] 

Shouldn't some NS men become structural engineers, [Yes, because isn't that just a mail-order course? You can learn to be one in 2 weeks. Or 3 months if you are REALLY REALLY stupid.] building next-generation infrastructure at home [in our two-car garage, of course] while developing skills for a lucrative industry Singapore can export? Indeed, as the labour component of manufacturing and its gross domestic product contribution decreases, it is likely that more Singaporeans will have to venture abroad as managers, trainers and investors.

[And then he goes into his wet dreams... I have to pause here.]

The French system includes rigorous training in public administration as well as work in commercial entities. Singaporeans should similarly become commercial cadets within the many government-linked companies, learning management skills essential for both climbing corporate ladders and running entrepreneurial start-ups. They could even do service projects in neighbouring Asean countries in a Singapore-style peace corps.

Education is as strategic as any other sector. From pre-schools to polytechnics, more educational institutes are mushrooming, each with needs in staffing, administration and training. Many of those who begin with teaching apprenticeships during NS may later choose education as a profession.

Health care, particularly for the elderly, also needs a manpower boost.

Given Singapore's concern about growing ethnic diversity and inequality, another function from the French NS system is instructive: social integration. Providing counselling to new arrivals, marginalised families, and under-skilled individuals will ensure that a more diverse Singapore continues to build a common identity.

Whatever the role, NS members should get similar stipends during their year of service, and return once a year to mentor their successors.

Once NS functions are broadened, there is even more reason to draw from two enormous and untapped pools of labour to ensure that defence and non-defence requirements are fulfilled: women and permanent residents (PRs).

It is clear from the Singapore Conversation dialogues that there is some public sentiment - among men and women alike - for women to play a stronger role in national service. More inter-gender bonding during various NS duties may even lead to earlier marriages and a much-desired boost in the birth rate.

As a country with a large, permanent expatriate population, PRs can also provide necessary talent and manpower while deepening their integration into Singaporean society.

Building solidarity

THERE is no underestimating how important NS is to building solidarity, promoting fitness, and boosting long-term volunteerism. But evidence from around the world suggests that there are many ways to achieve social cohesion. Teach for America, [Yes. By all means, compare volunteer work with conscripted service. Your ability to equate dissimilar things has been well-established by now. Obviously, you failed Sesame Street's "One of this things is not like the others" exercise regularly.] a nonprofit organisation founded in 1990, pays graduates meagre stipends to work in inner-city schools, yet jockeys with investment banking and management consulting as the most competitive and desirable first step after college. Employers view it as a true demonstration of character and teamwork.

Broadening NS options taps the latent idealism of youth and channels it into fruitful service for the nation. Rather than being viewed as an opportunity cost, it will provide a platform for youth to develop their interests early on, leading to better focus in universities and polytechnics.

When the time comes, my son will do Singaporean national service whatever form it takes. So the question is not whether to serve, but what service is needed?


The author is an adjunct professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, and senior fellow at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

No patriotic response from S’pore about Yasukuni visit?

ST has not had any dumb forum letters for some time. So this blog has been dormant.

Fortunately TODAY still has... okay, this is not "dumb" as in stupid... just not very discerning. It is trying to draw a comparison which is not exactly unreasonable, but is based simply on vaguely similar characteristics. If anything, this letter teaches us we need to be more discerning. Unfortunately, we don't think. Not even to write to the papers.

From :CORNELIUS KHOO HONG SIN

Today Forum Page

APRIL 24, 2014

The recent outcry by the Defence Ministry and, to some extent, the local population about the naming of the Indonesian warship after the marines who bombed MacDonald House during Konfrantasi was justifiable.

I wonder why there is no patriotic response, though, about Japanese officials visiting the Yasukuni shrine for Japan’s war dead. Most of the protests come from China and South Korea, through various channels. (“More Japanese MPs head to Yasukuni, marring Obama’s visit”; April 23)

I would think that three years of brutal occupation by an invader in our history would elicit some form of protest, official or otherwise, whenever an official visit to Yasukuni is made.

From a comment on the letter on the website.

I know who the two indonesian soldiers are, and their actions are documented, and their acts are specific, and their victims are Singaporeans.
Do you know, if we are to protest the Yasakuni Shrine Visits, who EXACTLY are the Class-A War Criminals buried ("enshrined"?) at Yasakuni? 
What EXACTLY did they do to Singapore and Singaporeans (Pre-independent Singapore)? Who or what are we protesting?
Do you even KNOW who or what are "Class-A war criminals"? I believe there are 14 there. Do you know if 1 or more of those 14 were actually carrying out atrocities in SG during WWII?
Or is this just a brainless, mindless, unthinking copying of China? You know, the unthinking following of perceived authority that many war criminals use as the excuse for their war crimes - "I was just following orders"?

So what are Class-A War Criminals? They must be the worst of the worst, the most horrendously brutal atrocities were probably committed by them!

Actually no. This is the definition:

The US-led tribunals had three classes of war criminals.  Class A was reserved for those who committed a "crime against peace," by participating in "a joint conspiracy to start and wage war." Under international law, it's a crime to initiate an unprovoked war.  Tens of millions died in Japan's wars to expand the empire from 1937 to 1945.  Class B war criminals were those actually carried out specific atrocities, while Class C was for those accused of "the planning, ordering, authorization, or failure to prevent such transgressions at higher levels in the command structure." In other words, those with command responsibility.

The problem (if there is one) isn't the 14 Class-A war criminals. Those are the ones who started an unprovoked war (and that is certainly bad), and certainly they should be held accountable for it, but they did not commit any atrocities (Class-B), nor did they have command responsibility over those who did (Class-C).

It is actually the other 1000 or so war criminals enshrined there that is the problem:

"about 5,700 Japanese were charged in Classes B and C before the international war crimes tribunal in Tokyo. Almost 1,000 were executed. Others were tried and executed by the Communist Chinese and by the Soviet Union.  It's these men whose presence at Yasukuni offends Japan's neighbors, including 14 Class A criminals."

So, say of the 1000 or so war criminals buried or enshrined (I'm not too sure which is correct) at Yasukuni, there is a good probability that there were at least one or two (or more) that committed atrocities in SG, right? That is, war criminals whose crimes were committed in SG against Singaporeans (pre-independent Singaporeans) are likely to be there. 

So?

Everyone who's dead has to be buried somewhere. Usman and Harun are buried in a HEROES cemetary in Jakarta (or the surrounds). 

We objected to the naming of a WARSHIP after these two as further HONOUR to them.  Other than being buried (and enshrined) in Yasukuni in accordance to their religion, how else are the Japanese War Criminals being honoured?

Nothing else. So some politicians visit the shrine. Why should that matter to outsiders?

To Cornelius Khoo and those who ask about the lack of a patriotic response, let me just say, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.".

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.]

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.]