On Sexual Orientation

An online comment from ST Forum.

Dear MOE,

The AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (Trainer’s guide 2007) had been circulating in the internet, and based on its content, it does suggest a Pro Gay agenda which I will elaborate in detail in my following passage.

I do recall the main reason why the Penal Code Section 377A was not repeal based on the reasons I quote from MHA Official statement.
“Singaporeans are still a largely conservative society. The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable. Neither side is going to persuade or convince the other of their position. We should live and let live, and let the situation evolve, in tandem with the values of our society. This approach is a pragmatic one that maintains Singapore’s social cohesion…”

Therefore I find the Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education “Pro Gay” approach in contrary with the Penal Code Section 377A as well as our largely conservative Singapore Society.

Why I view the Comprehensive Sexuality Education Pro Gay?
In page 14, item 2, the Guide states that our law does not recognize homosexuality and deems homosexual sexual activities as unnatural, however, it state quite clearly that homosexuality is perfectly normal. It did not mention like in the case of rape, statutory rape and carnal connection that homosexual acts could still be charge under S377A.

MHA official stand: “Police has not been pro-actively enforcing the provision and will continue to take this stance. But this does not mean that the section is purely symbolic and thus redundant. There have been convictions over the years involving cases where minors were exploited and abused or where male adults committed the offence in a public place such as a public toilet or back-lane.

Whilst homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing section 377A will be very contentious and may send a wrong signal that Government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life.”

The Guide had also not shown why the homosexual lifestyle should not be encourage and endorse as part of our mainstream way of life or why the Government had made such a stand?

Based on the Government statistic on HIV new cases, the homosexual lifestyle is the highest risks lifestyle, see the facts for yourself:
In 2006, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 26.3% of the new HIV cases of our national figure! (Homosexual is 19 times most likely to cause new HIV case than general male who is not homosexual in 2006)

In 2007, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 30.8% of the new HIV cases of our national figure! (Homosexual is 22 times most likely to cause new HIV case than general male who is not homosexual in 2007.)

In the first six month of 2008, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 32% of the new HIV cases of our national figure!
Therefore Homosexual lifestyle is a high risk lifestyle and should not be encourage and endorse as part of our mainstream way of life!

In page 17, item 2 of the guide state that, “We do not know the causes of homosexuality or heterosexuality for that matter...” and further to emphasis that “Some scientific studies show people are born like this” period, without stating that there are also a number of scientific studies that show homosexual are not “inborn” as they claim to be and also some scientific studies had cast serious doubt on the earlier studies on homosexual been inborn!

One widely known study is the claim of ‘Gay gene” widely claimed by the gays based on Simons LeVay’s paper.

Extract on LeVay comment: He later added, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ... Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

The Guide in Page 17, item 2 also state that “Since lesbian, gay and bisexual people are not ill or abnormal, they don’t need to “cured”?
May I ask Aware, based on what scientific concurrence among all the world’s scientific bodies do you arrive at this conclusion?
I do have scientific studies that prove that there are treatments that may be very sussessful and permanent if one’s is willing to take up, I have personnal witness two close homosexual friends change to lead a perfectly normal happy straight life with childrens of their own and having a wife.

For scientific studies on therapy, see below link;
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch12.pdf

Extract:
Dr Robert Spitzer, a prime mover in the 1973 decision to remove Same-Sex-Attraction (SSA) from the Diagnostic Manuals as a mental illness which are often quote by gays that they are not abnormal or ill, had in fact change his mind after 30 years
After nearly 30 years later he interviewed 200 people who claimed they had change, and he concluded that real and extensive change had occurred in many cases. His studies publish in 2003.
A contrary study done by Karten in his doctoral project to show harm to some people particularly showing up in poorer self-image and suicidal thoughts, but including accounts of people who claimed they had been helped and had changed. His results were very similar to Spitzer’s studies in 2003.

Reference material/sites:
Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education Trainer’s Guide (There are many other sites): http://inspirationfortoday.files.wor...ware-20073.pdf and
http://voicethread.com/#q.b468061.i0.k0
http://www.aware.org.sg/?p=1319&cat=

MHA Official statement regarding rejection to repeal S377A:
http://www.spf.gov.sg/faqs/police_pph.htm

Posted by: cutthecrap at Thu Apr 30 13:37:56 SGT 2009

[To quote Shakespeare: methinks he doth protest too much.

Three European Knights during the crusades were gathered around a campfire and talking about their motivation. The British Knight proclaimed, "We British Knights fight for Duty and Honour!" The French Knight scoffed, and said, "We French, we fight for Love."

Then the two of them looked to the third, the Swiss Knight, and asked, "I hear the Swiss fight for money.

The Swiss Knight said, "Perhaps we each fight for that we most lack."

I cannot understand why a heterosexual would spend so much time and effort compiling information to explain why homosexuality is wrong and heterosexuality is right.

We fight our personal demons. We fight for what we feel we lack most. If we are secure about our identity, we do not need to demarcate it so obviously. It is when we are not secure that we feel the need to fight harder to protect what we are losing.

I know that for me, I like women. If there are men out there who like other men, that means less competition for me. Perfectly fine for me.]

Man killed by falling branch

MR TEO JUN WEN: 'I refer to Sunday's article, 'Man killed by falling branch'. The authorities should take action to prevent these kind of accidents. Trees that are old and have long branches or huge trunks should be uprooted. People's lives are more important. The branch that fell on Mr Noordin Osman was 20m long and the accident took place at the prestigious Pyramid Club in Goodwood Hill. The company employing the workers should also emphasise to them how important it is to wear a helmet as it can save one's life. The victim's co-worker said it was not windy when the accident took place, which proves the branch was too long and heavy to support its own weight. People should pay more attention to their surroundings and the authorities should act as quickly as possible.'


Let us consider the possibility of having the authority, NEA to check on trees with over-hanging branches that are potentially dangerous. I do not see any harm in trimming them. I am sure the operation of the mentioned authority are segmented into zones. Do they check on the trees and identify possible dangers that the trees might pose? We may have a government which is free from corruption but in some ways, they are rather reactive than proactive. It was evident from the food poisoning case. But how it has dealt with the economy crsis, it still has some credit in proactiveness. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: xppsti42 at Tue Apr 28 10:27:13 SGT 2009

[I wanted to counter these two comments, but one can't argue with myopic idiocy. If Mr Teo has his way, no trees above the height of a man will be allowed in Singapore. And the online comment will only accept a 100% accident-free Singapore. ]

Put public health before hawkers' livelihood

April 28, 2009

IN LAST Thursday's article, 'Grading system for hawker hygiene 'sound'', it was reported that a suggestion to take away the licences of stallholders rated 'C' or 'D' was turned down, as these people depend on hawking as their livelihood.

Should hawkers' livelihood matter more than customers' safety? What about protecting the lives and health of consumers? If hawkers value their livelihood, they will shape up - at least given time.

Therefore, it is prudent to set high standards and have a system to meet and exceed standards.

Providing the right infrastructure and environment is no less important than hawkers' performance. The performance of the Environment and Water Resources Ministry, which oversees hawker hygiene standards, should be exemplary and not fall below 'A' grade.

This includes cleaning frequency,

provision of suitable bins, pest control, sanitation and hand-washing facilities (disinfectant sprays should be placed at the entrance of hawker centres), as well as ongoing education of hawkers and patrons.

Better still, the ministry should encourage competition among hawker centres, as is the case with schools that improve themselves by vying against one another in studies and co-curricular excellence.

Jack Chew


Dear Jack,

Simple solution. Eat only at A & B graded hawkers. No one can force you to eat at C & D. Those who find Singapore too bland and safe can dice with death and dine at C & D establishments. It is our only daily excitement. That and watching the AWARE soap opera.

You can also eat at Hospitals food court as MOH has impose the policy on their foodstall operators.

Alternatively, you can try to arrange a coup and set up your own govt, take over as Minister for Env (& water resources), and impose the new standard across Singapore; bring back focus to the NEA, and move the NEA away from being a single issue agency (worrying about hawker's livelihood!) and focus on the true objective of the NEA which is protecting the lazy busy customers who have no time to cook and must eat out.

Chill dude.

Ballot is fairer to all

April 21, 2009
DESIGN, BUILD AND SELL SCHEME

I REFER to last Friday's article, 'Simei condo-style flats: No balloting'.

I believe this news came as a surprise to many people. Of all the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) projects launched in the past few months, I believe this is the only one available for booking without the need for a ballot. While those who manage to get in the queue to book a flat will be happy, those who cannot be present will be disappointed.

The HDB's DBSS website states: 'Under the DBSS, private developers will be responsible for the entire flow of the public housing development process - from bidding for the land, designing the project, overseeing construction and eventually, selling the flats directly to eligible flat buyers.'

Apparently, private developers are responsible to sell flats directly to buyers, but who determines the mode of selling? Who determines if there is a need for balloting? Who determines if sales should be on a first-come, first-served basis?

[You so smart can quote the website. But so stupid cannot understand. Already stated: developer will be responsible for selling flat direct. That means developer can decide how to sell.]

The HDB uses the ballot system as demand for flats in Singapore generally outstrips supply, and the ballot system is regarded as a 'fair' means in such situations. Flat buyers also do not need to queue overnight. Balloting also gives potential buyers enough time to consider before making a decision.

[Yes, but this is not a subsidised flat. This is a premium flat sold at market rates or even above market rates. So market rules can apply and there is nothing fair or unfair about it. If the PC show has a special offer with limited stocks that was sold out by the second day, would you say that it is unfair to those who went on the 3rd day?]

Ultimately, is there consistency in the selling of DBSS flats?

[A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.]

Zhou Zhiqiang

Are classrooms bright enough?

I REFER to Monday's article, 'Poor eyesight affecting students' schoolwork'. I am shocked to learn that more than a quarter of students in Northlight School cannot see clearly. While the article provided several reasons for the high incidence of myopia in that school, I suggest the level of illumination in classrooms nationwide be given a thorough study.

Many schools use PowerPoint as a teaching aid. In order to project a sufficiently clear image, the lights in the classroom are usually dimmed. In some cases, all the lights in the classroom are turned off. If students have to take notes, they would be writing in the dark. Needless to say, reading and writing in a dimly lit environment are bad for the eyes.

Projectors used in schools should have sufficient lumen so not too many lights in the classroom need to be turned off when they are in use.

Peck Thian Guan

[Probably a projector salesman. More to the point. Dim lighting may make one eyes tired, but it won't spoil one's eyesight. You wanna go blind, which method will work - sit in the dark for 24 hrs or stare at the sun for 24 minutes?]

School priority scheme penalises grandparents for helping out

April 7, 2009

I READ with disappointment the Ministry of Education's (MOE) policy on Primary 1 registration which seems to penalise - wrongfully - grandparents for helping out in caring for their grandchildren.

Under the current scheme, children living with their grandparents and within 1km of a school are allowed to ballot for a place only under the 1km to 2km category. This seems to contradict the Government's effort to promote this arrangement in the first place.

In 2004, then-Minister of State Chan Soo Sen advocated this set-up, encouraging the elderly to reprise their roles as grandparents after noting that there was a need to step up efforts in promoting intergenerational bonding lest the gap between generations widens.

The very purpose of introducing the Home-School Distance Prioritisation Scheme was to enhance the caregivers' convenience. If that was the intent, why are we punishing them by intentionally reducing the opportunity to enrol their wards in schools that are near their homes?

Should a child be unable to secure a place at nearby schools, grandparents are left with little choice, but to enrol their wards in schools located much farther away.

Use the school bus, one might suggest. But school buses cater only to regular school hours and are not able to accommodate pupils who participate in co-curricular activities.

With the number of families with both parents working set to grow here, especially since mothers are encouraged to return to the workforce, more will turn to grandparents to help out in caring for the children in their absence. A review by the MOE is in order.

Pang Tee Meng

Latest comments
Parents who live with their children got higher priority because they got to get their kids to school before going to work.

In comparison, grandparents who look after the grandchildren usually take up the job because they do not have another full time job.

In addition, this is also a guard against abuse for parents who actually live with their children but opt to use the grandparents' address for applying schools.

It does not guarantee to work out fairly for everyone, but it got some rational behind it.
Posted by: coolbeagle at Tue Apr 07 15:28:39 SGT 2009

[A good rational comment not usually seen on ST online forum comments page. I thought I should save it to remind myself that not everyone who comments on the online forum are cynical twats. Bravo coolbeagle!]

Dense Cities

March 25, 2009
THE ST INTERVIEW

Pack them in, build them up

A 6.5m population is fine. Dense cities thrive by attracting smart people

By Tan Hui Yee

IF YOU feel uneasy about the fact that Singapore is gearing up for a population of 6.5 million, Professor Edward Glaeser has this to say: You've nothing to worry about.

'Density is underrated and undervalued and the pleasures of density are in fact quite remarkable,' he declares.

'Living with 6.5 million people doesn't mean you necessarily have less private living space. There is absolutely nothing unhealthy about having lots of tall skyscrapers and people walking around between them. Not only is it good urban policy, it is a good environmental policy as well.'

If urban density ever needed a salesman, it would be Prof Glaeser.

The 41-year-old economist at Harvard University made his name studying what made cities tick.

In Singapore earlier this month to give a talk at the Civil Service College, he stressed that cities survive and thrive by constantly reinventing themselves, which is only possible if there are enough 'smart people' present to generate a creative buzz.

His view is shared by urban theorist Richard Florida, who famously argued that a 'creative class' of talented professionals flocks to vibrant global cities for work and lifestyle opportunities and in turn contributes to their growth.

Except, both men differ on what constitutes talent.

Dr Florida's idea of a skilled worker, Prof Glaeser says half in jest, 'is a 28- year-old who wears a black turtleneck' and frequents coffee houses.

'My model of a skilled worker is that 42-year-old biotechnology worker who has a husband and two kids and is trying to live a decent life.

'Those lead you to very different views of what the fight for talent is all about. Florida thinks you need a lot of coffee houses, and I think you need good schools and safe streets and fast commutes. And I'm pretty sure I'm right.'

If he is, Singapore - seen as clean, safe and sterile - is in a good position.

Cities, he says, need the right kind of buzz to bring them forward. 'The things that people define as what makes a city buzz, a lot of them have to do with public spaces and restaurants and bars and cafes. But I don't think it's at the heart of what makes cities well-functioning and successful. It's a mistake to think that the buzz is just the number of pages that you read in Time Out magazine.'

Take the buzzing research triangle in North Carolina in the United States, home to companies like IBM Corporation.

'It may not be the hippest area to spend a Saturday night but there sure is a heck of lot of new innovations going on. A lot of Silicon Valley is pretty boring from the perspective of an urban hipster. But in terms of what really matters, there's a lot of buzz there.'

To maintain what he refers to as an intellectual edge, he says Singapore needs to constantly expose itself to cutting- edge ideas and have a sizeable pool of skilled workers.

Asked what skills are valued in the context of recurring discussions over the value of an arts degree versus a science degree here, he says: 'Studying Shakespeare does not make up for innumeracy. It certainly does enrich our lives. The more prosperous a country is, the larger the role of arts.'

He points out that a recent study on the effect of mandated science and maths curricula in American schools found that they improved the earnings of the less advantaged significantly. 'It suggests that forcing the school to teach maths and science ended up being very good for them.'

The arts, he says, is 'a bit of a luxury good'. 'If you told people of my great- grandfather's generation that a thriving arts scene was going to determine which city you were going to go to, they would have thought you were mad.

''Can I put bread on the table?' and 'Would we be shot?' - those would have been the primary issues that would have driven people two generations ago.'

A small country like Singapore, with a four million population, he says, need not worry that its size will disqualify it from the big league as long as it has enough quality and diverse talent.

'The question is more an issue of the high human capital people you have, how many potential entrepreneurs you have, how much diversity there is, rather than the actual body count. You can add on an extra five million unskilled labour and it is not going to make a difference to your ability to innovate.'

But primarily, he maintains that cities should serve people's needs rather than exist for their own sake.

In 2005, he wrote an article against the rebuilding of New Orleans after it was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, saying that its residents were better off getting money to rebuild their lives elsewhere if they wished. The city, he said, had been declining way before the hurricane hit, and it was not doing a good job of looking after its poor residents either.

Putting people first means getting rid of unnecessary rules that make business and housing unaffordable. From his studies of New York and Boston over the past 30 to 40 years, he contends that the cities' recent surge in home prices is more a result of tightening building regulations, rather than anything else.

Logically, if there is enough supply of homes, housing prices will converge around the cost of building that next floor up. In places where land is scarce - like Singapore - height restrictions act as a dampener on housing supply.

Although the demand for housing reflects the attractiveness of a city, its ability to produce enough affordable housing to meet that demand is 'a sign of urban health'. He notes in some parts of the US, 'it feels as if every neighbour has gotten the right to say no to every project'. In suburbs, it is all about zoning and minimum lot size. In cities, it is about maximum heights.

He is quick to admit that his model applies to cities where housing is supplied by the market. The fact that more than 80 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing makes it trickier to apply here, but he ventures: 'I think you want to think of how well you are delivering pleasant affordable housing. The Government has played such a heavy role in housing, not inappropriately so, that I think the ability of the private sector to deliver cheap affordable housing is potentially not as strong as it could be.'

Not only does density make housing affordable, he says it is also sustainable. 'Crowding more people on less land is fundamentally good for the environment. Partly because people have lower transportation costs, live in smaller homes, and use less energy.'

A 2008 US study he did found that the carbon footprint of the people who choose to live 'close to nature', surrounded by woods or lawns, was higher than that of city folk. 'If you want to be good to the environment, stay away from it,' he advocates.

Density is also exciting. 'Chicago's lakefront has grown and strengthened the city. The high-rise buildings in Boston have been associated with an increasing vitality in that city's downtown. Philadelphia only recently broke its height restriction, and the high rises there have been able to support more stores and night life.'

If he had it his way, all cities would be planned around actual human dynamics rather than according to preconceived notions of what they should look like.

During his walks around Singapore, he noted that its hot, humid climate keeps people off the streets in the day.

'There's a huge amount of pedestrian traffic but it's indoors. It's all in the air- conditioned malls, which is really where the street life is. That means connections between those malls are actually what city planning needs,' he prescribes.

Still, by any standard, Singapore has a lot going for it. 'The density levels are remarkable...if you love the ability of cities to bring people together and experience a collective world, there's a lot to admire there.'

tanhy@sph.com.sg

ON HOW ARTS APPRECIATION SHOWS PROGRESS

'It is a remarkable statement of the prosperity of humankind that we are
increasingly willing to say that guys may actually care about having a
downtown buzz and an artistic buzz in cities. That's actually a great
thing, that we have reached that level of prosperity.'

ON GROUND-UP INNOVATION

'The core model of urban innovation is one in which it's very very hard to
predict what the new 'in' thing is going to be. In most of the world,
when cities got involved in top-down planning processes, they have not
been very successful.'

ON SPACIOUS SINGAPORE

'I grew up in New York, a city of eight million. Six-and-a-half million
doesn't seem so big to me. People get used to anything. Living with 6.5
million people doesn't mean you necessarily have less private living
space. That can be accommodated by building up without too much
difficulty. It doesn't mean that you have less shared spaces. You've
actually got a lot of green space on this island and there's lots of
room for moving things around.'

[And the feedback.]

March 27, 2009

Thriving density? Be wary of potential pitfalls

I REFER to the report on Wednesday, 'Pack them in, build them up'. Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard University suggests that a population of 6.5 million in a densely built-up city could give Singapore a thriving density attractive to 'smart people' who would generate new jobs and a 'creative buzz'. In turn, this buzz would spur new growth, making Singapore an even better place to live and work, for natives and foreigners alike.

On this rosy feedback cycle, seemingly loaded with an infinite chain of goods, I suggest caution: Beware of possible pitfalls of this model.

The first lies in the possibility of overcrowding. Beyond the obvious speculations of ever more crowded hawker centres, trains and roads, a thriving density cannot be automatically assumed, even with a 6.5 million population on an island as small as Singapore. A thriving density must be deliberately encouraged and designed, or it will turn into overcrowding. A thriving density is the result of people interacting with other people, people wanting to interact with other people; while overcrowding is by default, people brushing by other people.

A thriving density fosters social understanding and productive interaction, culminating in greater social solidarity. On the other hand, overcrowding exacerbates alienation and unproductive competitiveness, consequently turning into open conflict.

Common sense tells us that, while skyscrapers may provide the vertical solution to the problem of overcrowding, they are least ideal to foster a thriving density, since vertical use of skyscrapers via elevators tends to compartmentalise lives, minimise social interaction and reduce chance meetings.

The second pitfall lies in the unqualified emphasis on 'smart people'. No one would deny that Bernard Madoff or the many Wall Street financial wizards who have exacerbated the current financial crisis are 'smart people', or part of the creative class. Yet 'smartness' or creativity without morality, scruples or responsibility - as the current crisis has demonstrated - is a liability rather than a benefit to society.

From what is happening in the world today, being satisfied with a mere 'creative buzz' is likely to alarm many, while trying to foster a 'moral creative buzz' is likely to reassure, and intuitively attract post-financial crisis workers, investors and citizens.

This model of a densely built up, creative city growing on its own dynamics is nevertheless very seductive. But as with any other model to be pursued on a practical level, one should be wary of its potential pitfalls.

Jeffrey Chan


[I take two issues with this forum letter.

'No one will deny that Bernard Madoff and (others)... are "Smart People"'

I would disagree that Madoff was smart. He had no exit strategy. Cheating does not require smarts. just audacity. Pretending to create value and actually creating value are two different things. One just requires the ability to lie. The other requires ability.

The other reason I included this letter is the argument that skyscrapers or highrise living dampens social interaction. Or is not conducive to social interaction. That is probably very true. It is the common space or shared space that leads to interaction. See this online comment:]

Has the professor stayed in a 2 bed room Hong Kong apartment of 350 sq. ft.?

The master bed-room is able to accommodate a 4ft wide "queen" bed and a 2 door wardrobe with barely enough space to walk. The second room is exactly the size of two single beds. You can touch the opposite walls of the kitchen with outstretched hands.

Some apartment blocks are so close to each other that you can touch them with a bamboo pole.

Staying in such an apartment will make you realise why Hong Kong has such a vibrant night life? Hong Kongers youth only go home to sleep and spend the evenings in shopping centers, restuarants etc.

I don't want this kind of life because you are tired everyday and spend your income on "enforced entertainment".

Posted by: hubhubhub at Fri Mar 27 12:52:07 SGT 2009

[The next article is an example of forum replies that don't read original articles properly and fill in the blanks with their own assumptions.]

March 27, 2009

Who wants a densely packed Singapore?

I REFER to Wednesday's article, 'Pack them in, build them up'.

I am both shocked and dismayed by Professor Edward Glaeser's short-sighted and highly flawed opinion that a population of 6.5 million would be essentially beneficial for Singapore. His notion that there is nothing unhealthy about living in skyscrapers does not take into consideration the many Singaporeans who wish Singapore would lose its tag as a concrete jungle and focus on creating a city with more 'green spaces'.

[So who's calling Singapore a "concrete jungle"? If anything, we're called "Garden City" or "City in a Garden". Compare Singapore with other cities and then it becomes clear what is a "concrete jungle".]

He also welcomes the addition of more 'smart people', whom he defined as a typical man in his 40s with children, without considering whether these individuals would be able to assimilate into Singapore culture with no accompanying problems which are already plaguing many immigrants here.

[First two mistake. Glaeser's "skilled worker" (he didn't say "smart people") is a 42-yr-old biotech worker with a HUSBAND. So no. It's not a typical MAN.]

He also mentioned that a city with high density would also serve people's needs but he has conveniently forgotten that the basic human need of privacy, comfort and space would be severely compromised in public spaces if the population hit 6.5 million.

As it is, many of my peers have expressed a sincere wish to emigrate, not because of the high cost of living or the stressful lifestyle. It is primarily because they are appalled by how Singapore has been transformed into a city where it is difficult to find a seat on the MRT on a weekday afternoon, or seek peace and solace even in the suburbs, when Sembawang Mall is now as crowded as Plaza Singapura. Homes are getting smaller and more expensive, and people feel blessed to secure a seat in a foodcourt at any time of the day.

Prof Glaeser also claimed that packing individuals close together in smaller homes would reduce transport costs and energy usage, but this is overly simplistic and short-sighted. There is every possibility that smaller homes may use more energy if more time is spent on home entertainment.

[Third error. Glaeser talked about packing more people on less LAND. Nothing about smaller homes. Here the writer is filling in the blanks with his (or her - Robin could be a man or woman's name) own preconceptions or concerns. Theoretically, the same size unit built to more floors would increase density, without need to decrease size per unit. Unit size decrease when land costs increases while height restrictions are in place. Then it becomes necessary to shrink unit size to affordable ranges. Also as lifestyle changes, less space is required. And people are willing to make do with smaller units.]

Prof Glaeser's view that a city with high population density would reduce transport cost is also problematic as recent research shows that individuals living in residential zones which are overly crowded have a higher tendency to travel out of their residential area to seek leisure arenas that are 'less congested' and where they are 'less scrutinised' than in flats built in close proximity to each other.

[Doesn't say which research or on what city or the context or the circumstances. But even if true, the frequency of a daily commute from suburbia to the city to work would mean more costs than living in the city and going off to the suburbs on the weekends for recreation. In other words if you need to go to the office 5 days a week, and the golf course 1 day a week, where should you be living closer to? Does it make more sense to live within walking distance of your office or your golf course? If you say golf course, you have your priorities wrong... unless you are a professional golfer.]

Prof Glaeser's comments are certainly not representative of most Singaporeans who seriously wish for a less crowded living environment.

Robin Chee

[I personally think Orchard and the shopping districts are just too crowded. So i avoid those places. I haven't been to an IT/PC/COMEX/SITEX for over a year as I detest the crowds. But apparently thousands of Singaporeans don't mind. So I'm not sure that while Singaporeans may voice their preference of open spaces, they would really want that. There is a cost to a smaller population in terms of convenience. In less dense cities, public transport is less frequent (tho less crowded). You may do more walking. Or else you'd buy a car, or a bike. If Singaporeans want less crowded places, they won't be rushing down to Orchard, Suntec, Vivocity and their heartland malls.]