‘Light-ups’ at Orchard Road a disgrace

From Phillip Tan Fong Lip

December 18, 2015

The first fire at Orchard Road, known the world over to be a shopping haven at this time of the year, signalled something amiss about this year’s light-up (“Christmas tree catches fire at Orchard Road”; Dec 2, online).

Though Orchard Road is still one of the world’s best shopping streets, it is unfortunate for its reputation that there was another fire (“X’mas decoration along Orchard Road catches on fire”; Dec 10, online).

Although that was not as big as the first fire, two things stand out: First, why were lessons not learnt from the first case and more care not taken to ensure no repeat of such an incident?

Second, has the cost of the light-up been so prohibitive that safety has been compromised in a case of penny-wise-pound-foolishness? The literal light-up — incineration and not only illumination — of the decorations is a disgrace.

Perhaps lacklustre business at Orchard Road has compelled sponsors to cut costs. On this note, I wonder if Singaporeans would be willing to defray the cost of the light-up.

I, for one, would donate a note or two to this cause. Orchard Road has enriched my life with its grandeur, and surely others would not deny its enthralling beauty and that they want to see it perpetuated.

[Classic example of unbridled speculation leading to a jump to a conclusion unsupported by any facts other than the writer's unimpeded imagination, followed by a proposed solution of his own inclination. To be fair, his inclination is quite selfless - donating a few dollars to the cause. I said "selfless", not overwhelmingly generous. 

His whole proposal is premised on assumptions build upon assumptions, and even more assumptions. 

Let's start from the end: Would this drive to get Singaporeans to defray the cost of the light-up mean a voluntary "Donation" or a "tax"? If donation, fine. If tax, on what basis? Who gets taxed?

All this is assuming that the problem is money and cutting costs. Assumption without facts. How much was spent on this year's light up compared to previous years'? How much should it have been if costs were cut? Where were the costs cut? How much money do we have to throw at the problem to prevent it in future? Assume that costs were cut. The end of faux rational thinking.

Thirdly, he assumes that sponsors were cutting costs. What does he think happens? The sponsors individually calls for tender for the decorations and then bargain for lower prices, and the vendors cut corners? Maybe in his mind and in his world. 

In this world (or if I know how things are done), the sponsors pledge their donations to the organisers, the organisers request for tenders and proposals, and the best offer that is within budget gets the contract.

So what corners were cut?

"Orchard Road has enriched my life with its grandeur, and surely others would not deny its enthralling beauty and that they want to see it perpetuated."

Wow. some pretty lights and your life is "enriched"? ]

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.

Hocking our Future (Or the Future of Hawkers in Singapore)

[Nothing will rouse the average Singaporean more than a threat to his beloved Hawker Culture. Except maybe the death of a founding father.]

Unsafe to sew on train

Nov 19, 2015

Recently, I came across a young woman working on a piece of cross-stitch embroidery inside an SMRT train.

She sat forward with a gap between her and the back of her seat, perhaps to facilitate the flow of her needlework movements.

The embroidery floss running through the needle was about 45cm long.

'Elitism' can be good for society

Aug 11, 2015,

Russell Tan Wah Jian

Having graduated from Raffles Institution (RI) last year, I have witnessed the transformation of the school and would like to share my thoughts on the matter ("RI now a 'middle-class' school / 'Make RI a better school for S'pore'" and "RI population less diverse now, say many alumni"; both published on Aug 4).

Singapore is a society built on the core tenets of meritocracy, fairness and equity. However, in recent years, we seem to have collectively confused equity with equality.

Equality is making everyone stoop down to the lowest common denominator of society - everyone does the same thing and all are given equal probabilities. Equity entails everyone doing what their abilities allow them to do, and everyone being given equal opportunities to succeed; only the most outstanding grab those opportunities.

Tuition a sign of a developed economy

JUL 9, 2015,

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

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

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

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

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

Smaller homes, smaller families

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

Jun 18, 2015

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

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

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



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

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


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

Jeremy Cheong Weng Kee

And it attracted this comment:

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