Regulate parking in private estates

Oct 14, 2010

PARKING illegally and causing traffic obstruction is rampant in private residential estates. This scenario is, however, uncommon in HDB estates and almost non-existent along major roads.

Time and again, we read in the news that neighbours come into conflict and even end up in court over disputes of traffic obstruction.

When the authorities ignore indiscriminate parking in private estates, they are sending a message that such offences are tolerated. Thus the line between running afoul of and compliance with the law becomes obscure. The consequence of this is that more disorderly behaviour may be condoned.

Richard Goh

[This is not a silly letter. But it speaks to our love-hate relationship with the authorities/government, and it reveals our desire to abdicate our independence to the government. The writer does not make a distinction between private space and public space, government matters and private matters. The distinction is not between compliance or non-compliance of laws but applicability of laws, situational needs, government intervention or over-intervention. Or it speaks to boorish behaviour of the nouveau riche. or the pseudo-riche. or the materially wealthy, but morally bankrupt.]

A high-speed railway dream

Oct 5, 2010

THE Tanjong Pagar Railway Station must be preserved for future use as the terminus for the high-speed rail service to Kuala Lumpur, and beyond to China.

[Why?]

The smaller metre gauge tracks, like those used in old tin mines, will have to be changed at Tanjong Pagar. But we are not just thinking of convenience for passengers, railways are viable only if they carry freight.

[Sounds like additional work for no change in the situation.]

China is planning to build its track down from Yunnan through Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar and Malaysia to Singapore. It needs another access point for the vast hinterland of central China. Its eastern railheads on the Pacific coast are choked with too much freight and cannot move any faster. Hence, the need for this more southern bridgehead.

[So why Tanjong Pagar? Why can't the station start at say... Woodlands? Or better yet, Johor Bahru?]

It is up to the South-east Asian nations to grasp this opportunity to help themselves as well as China. In very many ways, all will benefit.

There will be revenue from the faster nocturnal cargo traffic and daily high-speed passenger traffic direct from our city centre next to Tanjong Pagar station to Kuala Lumpur and then further to Bangkok.

The Chinese railway is expected to also connect through Xinjiang and Urumchi/Kashgar to the European rail network via Iran and Turkey.

From Tanjong Pagar, one would, in effect, be able to buy a ticket through to London.
With engineering and architectural ingenuity, the station at Tanjong Pagar could be preserved and stay alive within a modern high-rise complex.

George Yuille Caldwell

[Nice letter. Doesn't grasp the point about addressing the point of a railway line that cuts thru half of Singapore, tying up valuable land. Yes, we can have a high-speed train to serve voracious China. But it doesn't have to start at Tanjong Pagar station. It would work just as well if not better from Woodlands or even across the causeway.]

Low-flying concern for residents

Oct 2, 2010

YESTERDAY'S report ('RSAF helicopter makes forced landing in Woodlands field') is a stark reminder that for all our emphasis on safety protocols and meticulous attention to maintaining and servicing combat aircraft, there is cause for concern.

I live along a stretch of road in the East Coast that lies directly in the path of aircraft making their landing in Paya Lebar Air Base. The planes fly extremely low, and are barely metres above the rooftops of some of the neighbouring apartments.

[This is a standard requirement for landing planes. The planes that are attempting to land, should preferably, gradually reduce their altitude. This requires them to slowly get lower and lower. The alternative of being very high and then suddenly drop to ground level has been found to be greatly increase the chances of crashes to about 100%. This is generally considered a bad landing technique.]

I have also seen the Hercules aircraft in low-level flying, encircling the airbase. What safety measures does the Defence Ministry have in place to protect residential areas? What parameters are used in determining that these low flight paths are safe?

Are exhaustive methods used to train pilots on what to do should an emergency occur at different stages of the landing approach?

[We try not to use exhaustive methods to train our pilots otherwise when they too exhausted, they tend to make mistakes, like crash their planes into your house. We therefore use comprehensive methods so the pilots can comprehend (that means understand) the landing procedure and what to do in case of emergency. We also have contingency plans. This is in case the pilot cannot control his bladder (incontingent; in Hokkien, jio kin) which may make him try to land the plane too fast and thereby cause the plane to crash into your house.]

Are there alternative landing paths that would not place the land approach right above densely populated areas?

[As the plane needs to fly lower and lower as it lands, the buildings along the landing path are restricted to low rise buildings. For example, we would never have built Pinnacle@Duxton along the landing path. So population density is already lower; there are fewer people living along the flight path. However, if by "population density" you mean how "dense" (stupid) the population is, that is not important for the landing of the plane. In any case, most likely the people living there are either dense or hard-up. They should already know that they are in the landing path, they still stay there! Or they buy the homes there very cheap (cos the sellers irritated by noise of planes landing and taking off, and buyers know so they bargain the price down. So those that buy homes there also probably a bit cheapskate or hard-up: want landed property but can't buy better location. ]

Should the ministry consider relocating the air base?

Dr Yuen Siu Mun

[Dr Yuen asks what safety measures are in place to protect residential areas. The answer is: none. You're all going to die! Crash and burn, man! Crash and burn!

Alternative Answer: We depend on the pilots' sense of self-preservation to ensure that their planes are in airworthy condition, and not to crash at all. The persons most likely to die are those on the plane. This includes the pilot. They cannot choose to be elsewhere at that time. (Unless they use the emergency parachutes.) There is at least a chance that residents may be at some hawker centre eating (or in the office, etc) when the plane crashes into their homes. So they can still survive. However, we note that the presence of parachutes may promote laxity in ensuring planes are airworthy and that pilots exercise due care in landing their planes. We are therefore removing parachutes from all aircrafts from now onwards. Dr Yuen can be assured that the pilots will be henceforth even more cautious and crash-adverse.

Should the airbase be relocated? Where to? The airbase has been there for 30 years. The low flying aircraft has been flying low for 30 years. It's about time one of them crash soon. So, move already! Why you still hanging around there? Wanna die issit? Anyway, we did a quick check. The people in Serangoon Gardens also don't want the Airbase near there. They say already got foreign workers dormitory, so should give other people a chance to sacrifice for the country.

Comment: The writer has seized this opportunity to make a case for moving Paya Lebar Airbase elsewhere (as long as it's not in my backyard - NIMBY)! If he succeeds, his property will appreciate in value. However, the current site has already been in existence for 30 years as an Airbase, and longer, if you include the years it had operated as an International Airport. The surrounding area has been zoned and restricted in development to ensure that there is a safe path for aircraft landing. Moving the airbase is not going to be easy in land scarce Singapore. Any other site will mean introducing a new disamenity to residents, not to mention demolishing buildings that are too tall in the flight path. This would mean additional costs. There are probably few if any viable sites left in Singapore. However residents in the path of landing aircraft by now should be used to the disamenity, or if not should have moved out long ago. There is little point in moving the airbase. Moreover in 30 years of operations, there has been no crashes into residential areas. The writer can either decide that one is long overdue and move before it happens, or take comfort in the track record. For comparison, the former Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong was surrounded by densely packed residential areas, and there has been no crashes despite the high volume of air traffic.

To take a singular episode which ended with no loss of life and minimal risks to civilian lives, and to blow it out of proportion, presumably for his own property value, is fear-mongering for fun and profit. To suggest that there is a real danger and yet to stay put in his current residence, is disingenuous.]

History is not an unchanging narrative

Sep 29, 2010

Related.

WHILE history is about the objective pursuit and description of 'truth' about the past, to the extent that truth can be objectified, there is no single, immutable 'truth'.

[I'm not sure if the writer even knows what this means.]

Our interpretations of the past are bound to change with time with the presentation of new evidence, new perspectives, new frameworks and even with linguistic drift. Setting history in stone would be to deny this ongoing dialogue between the past and the present; it would severely stymie our understanding of ourselves, our societies, our cultures and their evolution over time.

[If there is new evidence, then that would change the way history is written and viewed.]

It is in that vein that historical revisionism is vital. Without it, history would just be a dead science, as much a disservice to humanity as to the historians.

[History is a discipline, but it is not "science" as in having scientific theories or principles.]

Also, we must not see revisionism in simplistic binary terms: mainstream versus alternative, right versus wrong, good versus evil, yours versus mine. Historical discourse is about competing as well as complementary narrative strands and rational debate.

At the end of the day, there might not just be one history, but many, equally valid, alternative histories, told from differing perspectives.

That is where my quarrel with Mr Ong Weichong's commentary lies ('Guard against romanticising leftist past'; last Thursday). He presents the issue as a false dilemma: it is either the state-sanctioned narrative or a romanticised version.

[The rebuttal from the History professor was much better argued. This is at best a layman's attempt to rebut. It lacks... discipline.]

There is also the straw man fallacy here: The nuanced but unmistakable insinuation that revisionist Singapore historians are guilty of 'romanticisation', and their claims are hence, by association, invalidated.

When Mr Ong writes about 'plugging the gaps left by the state', it is not revisionism, but padding of the status quo, an enlargement at best. Revisionism consists of not only 'plugging the gaps', but also rewriting or modifying, even supplanting, existing narratives in response to new evidence, new readings and new perspectives.

His treatment of violence is also simplistic. Armed insurgencies and insurrections, especially in the post-World War II era, must be seen in the larger context of the fight for emancipation from imperial rule and colonialism.

Often, violence is the only weapon of the oppressed, the weak, the disenfranchised, and must be juxtaposed against the backdrop of state violence if a meaningful narrative and deeper understanding are to be arrived at.

Dr Leong Yan Hoi

[I don't disagree with the point which was that the original commentary was arrogant and reductionistic (I may be using this word wrongly), and pompously dismisses academic enquiry especially in disenfranchised voices. Certainly, for a full picture of history, the silenced minority, or the vanquished should be heard as well. But I think the original rebuttal was forceful, well argued, and addresses all the issues. A half-baked effort such as this to refute or rebut the original commentary unnecessarily opens up an avenue for a re-rebuttal.]

Minimum wage, maximum impact

Sep 22, 2010

MINIMUM wage means different things to different people. Unions, management and low-wage workers will view it differently.

I define it as wages designed to protect workers from economic forces should they depress salaries to mere subsistence level. It is a good thing.

Wages determined by "market forces", which later need supplementing from Workfare, send the message that my job is undeserving of a pay required for basic survival. Will this message erode work ethics? Very likely.

[Why? If you choose to view your job as basically worthless (or worth less than what you need to survive/subsist) then sure, you won't have much work ethics left. But many people with work ethics in this situation would say, "I need a second job to supplement my income". The Workfare Income Supplement may then serve to relief them of the need to get a second job.]

History has shown that depressing or eliminating wages in the name of productivity is counter-productive eventually.

[Really?]

Heron of Alexandria, a Greek engineer, invented the Aeolipile, the first steam engine, in the first century AD. It took 1,700 years before Scotsman James Watt put the steam engine to use and launched the Industrial Revolution.

Absence of low wages spurs employers to seek new technology. The silver bullet of innovation is for the bold. Heron did not harness his steam engine for industry simply because there wasn't a need to, as slave labour was cheap. Had Heron done what James Watt did, the Industrial Revolution would have been brought forward by a thousand years.

[That is quite a leap in logic. While we recognised it as a steam engine, Heron and his contemporaries saw it as a scientific wonder to study the laws of heaven and the winds. In any case, the industrial revolution was a mixed blessing for the people of the times. Certainly their lot in life was not all for the better or Karl Marx would hardly be moved to write his communist manifesto expounding on the exploitation of labour by capital and the class war.]

What an impact it might have had on humanity.

Dr Chan Chee Leong

What makes a democracy

Sep 22, 2010

MS MARGO McCutcheon surprised me last Friday ('No say? It's simply not true, she says') when she wrote that Singaporeans have far more say in what their government does than Canadians.

She offered as an example that Singaporeans were consulted before the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced, while Canadians like her were not for a 'harmony tax' imposed by Ottawa.

There is more to democracy than government-led consultation exercises. A democracy not only ensures that citizens are consulted on policies, but gives citizens real bargaining power to affect government decisions.

[True, there is more to democracy than just consultation. BUT, her point was that we have that, while Canada, supposedly a more mature democracy than Singapore, didn't. And that the practice of democracy as it applies to the citizen being consulted, is more obvious here, than in Canada. Implicitly, she is also saying that there was no bargaining power there. After all, if you're not even consulted, how can you bargain?]

Ms McCutcheon's American husband also described democracy as a fancy word for partisan bickering and gridlocked government. Rejecting democracy that way is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Perhaps. Or perhaps democracy as practiced that way is inevitable, and all democracies end in bickering and gridlock at best, and murders, shootings, and assassinations at worst. Can it be argued, that the competitive, confrontational, adversarial nature of democratic politics invariably leads to partisan bickering, and demagogic posturing? Can we look at the United States, which presents herself as the bastion of democracy, as an enviable paragon of democratic governance? Or can we read in the frustration of Ms McCutcheon's husband's statement an indictment of the Democratic process as practiced in the US?]

While we shouldn't adopt democracy's negative aspects, we should not cling blindly to the status quo simply because it may have worked in the past.

The form of democracy which works is one in which all political parties compete vigorously; and present better proposals for voters to choose.

[I agree. We should not cling blindly. If we cling, we should cling with our eyes open and be sure that it is what we want to cling to. Not because we do not know better. So we should look at other options. For reference, the CIA World Factbook list Singapore as a Parliamentary Republic, and the US as a Federal Republic. In either case a "republic" can be defined (and is commonly defined) as a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct democracy (the fact that we elect MPs to represent us means that we have a representative democracy). There are practically no direct democracies as it would be very difficult to manage. Maybe a very small country with only a few thousand citizens.

Theoretically, the competition of ideas as presented by different political parties should result in the best ideas being adopted. However, this is idealistic at best. The reality is that while some issues are clear as to what is best, on many issues, what is good for one segment of the electorate may not be so beneficial to another. Pro-family policies (not so good for Singles), policies for the lower income (doesn't help the middle income and above), benefits for mothers (what about fathers), etc. Inherent in democratic assumption is that people will vote for the greater good, BUT there is danger that people will vote out of self-interest, out of fear, out of greed, or even out of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Freedom of speech and freedom of information is supposed to educate and inform, but as Fox News in the US has shown, it can also be misused to incite fear and hate, and spread misinformation and confusion, and propel the agenda of an influential interest group.]

It should include an open and transparent government, strong and independent institutions not easily manipulated by partisan interests, and capable, upright politicians.

[Again, I think that was the point Ms McCutcheon was making explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly, she was saying that in having consultation and feedback, the Singapore Govt is practising openness and transparency. Implicit in this is that an effective government, a competent government is what a country needs. The means (democracy) is just a means. When the means becomes the end and we serve the means rather than pursue and appreciate the ends that we have achieved, we are getting the cart before the horse. What got her goat, so to speak, was the middle-aged couple "braying about democracy". From her perspective, all the democratic process in her country and her husband's have done little in terms of real progress and real improvement in lives. What we have here, she is saying, is inherently more tangible and more real. And we should appreciate it. Instead of chasing idealistic constructs that promises more than they deliver.]

Democracy should afford citizens the freedom to express their opinions without fear of unjust repercussions. The mass media should report objectively and fairly, and be willing to criticise the government when necessary.

[And one is free to express one's opinion here. Libel and slander laws apply, except for parliamentary privileges. As MM Lee has noted, the opposition in parliament have not abused their privileges in parliament. The fact that politicians in the US are regularly slandered, parodied, and ridiculed is no reason to expect the same in Singapore. Certainly, one can make the case that allowing untrue accusations that Obama is a a Kenyan Muslim taking orders from his Tribal puppet master to turn the US into a communist state is beyond the protection of freedom of speech. Or that it is so ludicrous that no one will take it seriously. EXCEPT people do believe it!]

Building such a democracy requires the effort and participation of all citizens. We need an informed citizenry that is able to elect leaders based on merit, rather than out of fear or ignorance, and hold them to account for their actions in office.

[Yes, it would be good if voters vote on the basis of what is best for the country, rather than what is best for themselves. But ultimately (and perhaps unfortunately), that is the basis of Democracy, that the people choose a person that best represents their interests. So people are going to wonder, does that Indian chap know my interests let alone how best to represent my interests? Does that young man know the concerns of an old retiree like me? Can that woman understand how a man feels when he cannot get a job to feed his family? Does that Christian know enough about my concerns as a Muslim or will he ignore or downplay the needs of my community? Or does that godless heathen understand that we CANNOT have a casino in Singapore? I'm afraid fear and ignorance are often the baseline reasons for voting.]

We can build such a democracy while avoiding the trappings that bog down some other countries.

[Actually, I believe the real issue is about competence and corruptibility. Representative Democracy requires competent representatives to form a competent government. If candidates are equally incompetent or corrupt, you basically have a Hobson's choice. And the problem is not just "some" countries are bogged down by some "democratic trappings". The problem is not that despite the failings of democracy, there is still a lot of progress in democratic countries. The miracle is that there is progress IN SPITE OF so-called democracy.

For large resourceful countries like the US, with able leaders who can nevertheless navigate the obstructions of the opposition parties, they can still bring progress to the country in spite of the worst excesses of the democratic process. But for less developed, less resourceful, less stable countries, "democracy" can cripple or even derail progress. And with a multi-racial society like Singapore, where there is no common language, history, religion or race, unfettered democracy may well rip this country apart. As MM Lee says, this is not a "natural" nation.

This has been a dialogue between a citizen of a "true" democracy realising that ideals not grounded in fundamentals such as competence, transparency are more show than real, and a citizen of a "limited" democracy wanting the full freedom of the ideal without realising that all freedoms must have reasonable limits or be tyrannical in its excesses.

The one true danger of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. And that is never more true than in a multi-racial, multi-religious society like Singapore.]

Gerald Giam

--------
Responses to the forum letter

Sep 25, 2010
What matters is a democracy that works

MR GERALD Giam's version of democracy ('What makes a democracy'; Wednesday) is precisely what I think Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew fears Singaporeans take for granted - an auto-pilot flight to success without recognising what made us successful.

Mr Giam dreams of a paradoxical democracy where all political parties compete vigorously and yet form a strong independent government institution void of partisan interest.

The fact is, there will be a partisan division because political parties cannot agree.

The world's greatest democracy, the United States, is stymied by its democratic structure. The President needs to submit his proposal (Bill) for approval by both the House and the Senate, with the two political parties at odds with each other.

Every Bill is debated vigorously by intelligent men on both sides and is often either amended or abandoned. While they debate and bicker, millions of Americans remain unemployed and jobs are lost to China daily. American wages have fallen since 2001.

Is this the type of democracy we should wish for?

It took an outstanding leader like President Barrack Obama many months to navigate partisan agendas to pass health-care reforms that give American workers basic access to health care.

[Actually, it took decades. The work started as early as the 70's.]

Would we prefer to wait so long should MediShield require fixing one day? I am glad my Government is not only capable but free from being politically shackled.

When we are in a crisis, the Government is free to act swiftly. When manufacturing jobs were lost to China, the Government's response was swift, as was its rapid reaction to the global recession.

Theodore Yeo

Sep 25, 2010

Singapore democracy 

 

'There is room for improvement.'

DR YIK KENG YEONG: 'The perfect democracy is as mythical as the unicorn (Mr Gerald Giam, 'What makes a democracy'; Sept 22). Elections are rigged, the electorate is apathetic and bribe-able, idealistic politicians commit sins, the administrative branch becomes inefficient, the judiciary operates under fear and the press resorts to gonzo journalism. These happen in democracies. There is, of course, room for improvement in Singapore, such as a more considerate bureaucratic response to public sentiment over bread-and-butter issues. The impression of an impassive leadership bent on pursuing its lofty goals, regardless of feedback on the ground, does prevail - well-considered though the goals may be. Singapore also does not yet have a credible opposition to present an alternate viewpoint, which is why it is important for the Government to be more empathetic towards direct complaints from the ground.'

An American view
'I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to have the people's well-being at heart.'
MR MARK J. TOPOLSKI, North Carolina, United States: 'The democracy practised by America and Singapore, although different, are probably well suited for each county's size and demographic (Ms Margo McCutcheon, 'No say? It's simply not true, she says'; Sept 17). Having observed Singapore's for more than 10 years now, I sometimes wish American politicians would always, or at least sometimes, first ask themselves what is best for the people, rather than what will get them elected another term. I admire Singapore's democracy. The Government seems to really have the people's good and well-being at heart.'

[I think the point is that good governance is possible under democracy or other forms of government, and bad governance can also occur under other forms of government. The one advantage democracy has is a systematic approach and process to choose government, especially if government has gone wrong.]

Long wait for SingTel iPhones

Sep 2, 2010

I WISH to state my displeasure with SingTel's handling of iPhone 4 sales. Like many others, I had to place an order for the phone and wait for up to a month to get it.

I placed my order on Aug 12 at an exclusive retailer at Northpoint, but have yet to receive my phone. After numerous checks with SingTel, I was told that I would need to wait an additional two weeks before I could get my hands on the phone.

Shouldn't SingTel have foreseen the problem of low stocks, given that there were already acute shortages just days after the phone's launch and with a large number of orders still coming in?
StarHub and M1, both of which faced shortages a few weeks ago and also employed a waiting list, have rectified their problems. They have begun selling the phones on the spot.

The unusual waiting period for SingTel iPhones may be due to a lack of a proper system for tracking the waiting list. Some customers have been able to land an iPhone 4 after just four days of waiting, while others have to wait for a month. This discrepancy occurs even if the orders are made at the same location.

A quick check online shows that I am not the only frustrated one. A thread on the issue on Hardwarezone.com is already well past 300 pages of posts. It is evident that this problem could go on for some time unless action is taken.

Bhas Kunju

[The solution is already in his letter. Buy from Starhub or M1.

And which part of Straits Times Forum Page looks like the Singtel Customer Complaint Dept? How is this a matter of national interest that should be published in the national broadsheet? Long waiting list for HDB flats - yes, national issue. Long wait for consumer product - take it up with the retailer. Nothing in the letter speaks to unfair practices. If the writer is concerned with poor service, poor preparation, poor logistics, poor planning, and a callous disregard for customer's satisfaction, then why is he still queueing for a Singtel iPhone, especially when he can get from other providers. if this waiting is a prediction of the service to come, he should switch.]