Pseudo Politics: The George Yeo Facebook page

Here's the link to our Foreign Minister's Facebook page (it is public).

It is a fun (long) read. Was a little surprised by it given how tight-lipped most PAP ministers are about their work.

I still do not know what to fully make of it. Then again, I realize I do not really know George Yeo very well in the first place. So, here are some surface thoughts:

1) It is public (you do not need to be his "friend" to read everything on his "wall"). So, it is intended to serve his purpose as a cabinet minister and he does not hide that (good for him).

2) Imho, it is a genuine attempt to feature his work on behalf of Singapore while also revealing some of his personality and personal life. In all the entries I've read, where he does write something, he rarely ventures an opinion. He usually acknowledges his fans with a nice short neutral statement. The reason I use "genuine" is because I did cynically wonder if the account is the work of a team writing on behalf of Mr Yeo. If it is, then they have certainly been remarkably good.

3) He has 1630 "friends". There are a good number of attention seekers (pretty hardcore fans who comment on just about everything he does). I wonder how he feels about them. Interestingly, there are a number of people publicly seeking his opinions on issues political and social. Apparently, he does respond, just not publicly (which is the wise and appropriate thing to do). This I deduced from three (somewhat awkward) public comments by one seemingly distraught Indian gentleman.

4) Overall, I like it and the general tone it presents. So, I must applaud his cyberspace presence. He shares a blog with Mr Harold Fock "Beyond SG" which provides a more detailed look (when he posts) on his experiences and views after each major international visit. Pretty interesting.

5) I got curious and tried to see if there was any other major PAP ministerial presence online. Only Vivian Balakrishnan is Mr Yeo's friend on Facebook, so I'm gonna make the fairly safe assumption that no one else is actually on Facebook. Dr Balakrishnan is certainly not (yet) as tech savvy as Mr Yeo. Or maybe his interests do not really lie here on cyberspace (to be fair, it *is* intensely time-consuming).

The Environment: Autumn Arctic temperatures hit record high.


Arctic autumn temperature hits record high

It is rather alarming. Average (I assume) Arctic temperatures are 5 degrees celsius higher than the historical (I assume, what's written was "normal") average. To put it in perspective, this is approximately the size of Singapore's day/night temperature variation (32/27).

What the news article does not address though, is "What does it mean where the Arctic (or the world) is concerned?". How significant is this change? I sense some alarm bells ringing in the article in the form of statements like:

This year, for the first time a scientific expedition was able to navigate the fabled Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans along Arctic waters bordering Russia and North America because they were free of ice, the German institute Alfred Wegener announced Friday.

Or is it that nobody knows?

Society: Ridiculous Rules!


Man fined $200 for sleeping on bench 'I didn't know it was an offence' on The Electric New Paper.

The above article reflects some of the ugliest aspects of our "nanny" state in Singapore. I left a comment (which I had earlier "promised" I would not, hehe) on the Young Pay-And-Pay Blog but I would like to elaborate here on my own blog.

Here's a quote describing what happened to the poor man:

On 1 Sep this year, Mr Kassim was cycling near the park in Tampines when it began to drizzle. He decided to wait out the rain in a shelter at the park.

It was pouring heavily by the time he reached the shelter, so he lay down on one of the wooden benches, and dozed off after about five minutes.

This could have happened to *anyone*!

What's wrong with our National Parks system? Here are some comments I'd like to make:

1) The way I see it, this rule is meant as a cudgel against the homeless squatting in national parks on a permanent/semi-permanent basis. The question I'd then ask is: Is this the right attitude to take? If we find homeless people forced to seek shelter in our public parks, shouldn't we be trying to find decent alternative free state accommodation for these people instead of fining them S$200 (which they cannot afford anyways?). At the same time, if we have old schools which have been left empty and could be converted into dormitories for foreign workers, shouldn't one or two be converted into homeless shelters for our destitute citizens?

2) Here's the official response according to the newspaper article:

The NParks spokesman said: 'We try to create the conditions that make visitors feel at ease when they come to our parks. When people abuse our parks by overstaying or squatting, they make genuine park users feel uncomfortable.

My comment? If "genuine" park users are uncomfortable, they could complain about it. Why set up a blanket rule on the assumption that park users *may* (rightly or wrongly) feel uncomfortable? What if I feel "uncomfortable" about half-naked joggers in parks (purely hypothetical, but I can imagine some people will take offense at even that)? This is one aspect of how the Singapore bureaucracy has functioned that has bugged me the most all these years. Laws, rules etc ... seem to be based on what ministers believe our citizens *may* feel and never based on how people *actually* feel. Did someone do a survey of park users? Do they do periodic surveys to see if people's feelings have changed over the years?

In the US, public parks are places where people can come and relax. One of these (common) relaxation choices happen to be taking a nap, whether under the shade or under the sun. This was so the last time I visited Norway and the UK as well. This is an *expected* behavior in public parks! What is so "dirty" about taking a nap or sleeping in Singapore society that it is forbidden in our public parks?

3) Further evidence of this bureaucratic thinking can be found in this quote:

'Others sleep on benches or in shelters in an inconsiderate manner and deny park users from using these facilities.

How is it a "denial" of facilities? If it is merely inconsideration at play, why not just wake them up and tell them to do it more considerately? (By considerate, I assume the napper was taking up too much space and others had wanted to use that space but could not). Again, this should have been easy for people to resolve in a public park. Only if one party causes a ruckus by being hostile and truly inconsiderate, I think, should park authorities step in.

Again, this rationale is based on the assumption that an active contention for resources is present at all times. If no one else wants to use the bench, why is it a "crime" for someone to sleep on it?

4) Finally, this takes the cake:

But Mr Kassim pointed out that if sleeping on park benches was an offence, there should be signs to tell people.

On the NParks website, there is a list of 'Dos' and 'Don'ts' for visiting parks.

Sleeping on a park bench was not among the 'Don'ts', though there is a disclaimer which said the list was 'not exhaustive or intended to be a complete list of the prohibitions or regulations governing our parks'.

It also stated that 'any omission does not constitute a waiver of any offence'.

Another classic symptom of the nature of our bureaucracy: "If we did not tell you an action was permitted, you may assume it is not permitted!". Of course, there are pros and cons to this approach. It is "safe". Nothing "bad" would happen if authorities "covered their butts" by never saying it was permitted. It is politically convenient. If people complained enough, the authorities could be seen to be "gracious" by adding a new "you can do this now!" rule and expect people to feel grateful for it. The con? Well, in such a restricted environment, people are bound to want to exploit loopholes. Yes, loopholes exist even in a "permit-based" rule system. This mentality is, frankly, uniquely Singapore. Most economically developed societies work on rules that grants people freedom to do as they wish unless it is of obvious detriment to others.

Finally, the fact that the rules appear to show up only (or mostly) on the internet is, to me, just obnoxious. From my experience in US parks, if rules or information are complex enough that they cannot summarize them onto a sign board, they would be published in a free booklet or pamphlet for people to acquire at convenient park locations. By taking this approach, it sure makes me feel like our authorities only want to bust the "riff-raff" who have no access to the internet. Of course, their blanket 'non-exhaustive' statement makes it possible for them to bust just about anyone ...

Politics: Will we see this one day in Singapore?

Picture from the BBC: Economy woes shake up Canada poll - 13 Oct 2008.

From left to Right: Jack Layton (New Democratic Party), Stephen Harper (Conservative Party and current PM), Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois, who would have Quebec leave Canada if they could help it), Elizabeth May (Green Party) and Stephane Dion (Liberal Party).



A picture of 5 leaders of the major political parties in Canada (including the Green Party led by Elizabeth May with "merely" one seat). Whatever their differences are, they are willing to pose for a picture together in relative harmony. I may be wrong, but this is at least an indication that they are trying to put forward the impression that country comes first.

I remember reading a comic by a local Singapore artist a long long time ago who drew an image of Lee Kuan Yew, J B Jeyaratnam and Chiam See Tong toasting and drinking together at a parliament cafeteria (I think) after a hard day's work at Parliament. He was musing and thinking aloud something to the lines of "wouldn't it be great if our ruling and opposition politicians could get along like this?". With the passing of JBJ, that image will always remain fiction. Perhaps one day ... we can have politicians who are at least civil and respectful toward one another in private life. I am only 36, but perhaps it is saying something when I say I do not believe I will ever see a day when this happens, *even if* the opposition somehow wins in Singapore. Too much bad blood.

Singapore Politics: Lim Swee Say and his rather poor "jest".

Read this report on Channel News Asia:

Labour chief says Singapore's slide into recession unavoidable

The key unfortunate quote:

Giving some financial advice at the seminar, Mr Lim said: "Every month, when I receive my CPF statement, I feel so rich and the best part is, I know the CPF money won't run away. CPF will still be around for a long, long time to come... Not only is it earning good interest, my capital is protected."

This was reported on The Online Citizen and elsewhere.

What do I think of it?

One, it just *must* be a joke. If not, it was a horrendously insensitive statement, especially given how much government ministers earn in Singapore. If Mr. Lim was trying to show rapport with working class Singaporeans (about how the CPF is helping them preserve their savings and earning interest on top of that), this is *certainly not* the way to do it. At the same time, if this was meant to be a joke, it certainly was made in poor taste, again, given how much he earns relative to most Singaporeans.

Two, it is a hint Mr. Lim either does not really know what he is talking about OR he is treated very differently from most other Singaporeans and is seriously out-of-touch. One thing in his comment jumped right out at me. I get my CPF statements once every SIX months, not monthly. Reading the comments on other blogs, it would seem I am not the only one noting this fact. Perhaps he gaffed, meaning to either *not* say "monthly" but there have been no corrections, either by the media or by Mr. Lim. Nitpicking by me? Yes. However, it is the media's job to note such things, point them out and if the gaffe seems serious enough, question the politicians to give them a chance to clarify what they really mean. That is seriously lacking in Singapore media. The result is that government officials can end up saying nonsense in public and all people will do is simply nod their heads or pretend they did not hear it. Ultimately, if laziness gives way to actual incompetence, we will just let a poor government screw the nation up without challenge.

Geopolitics: North Korea and the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Strange I have never thought of it this way until the recent North Korean U-turn on its nuclear program, forbidding IAEA inspectors from its Yongbon reactor once again: How can the definition of a "state-sponsor of terrorism" be subject to change just because they abandon their nuclear program? How can that be realistically tied to a deal to dismantle the North Korean nuclear program in the first place? Shouldn't a state-sponsor of terrorism stop becoming one if and only if no evidence of continuing activities in that direction be found (assuming the definition of terrorism stays constant, of course)?

Random: What is Melamine?

It's in the news. Babies are being hurt, people are becoming worried about tainted foods. That made me curious: What exactly is melamine? What is a safe dose? Does it eventually get cleared of the body? The last question is important because if a toxic substance never leaves after ingestion, then the previous question of what a safe dose is becomes a red herring.

Here is the wikipedia article describing Melamine.

Turns out melamine by itself isn't as big a problem as melamine cyanurate, which is what is formed by the combination of melamine and cyanuric acid. Also, turns out:

A survey commissioned by the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians suggested that crystals formed in the kidneys melamine combined with cyanuric acid, "don't dissolve easily. They go away slowly, if at all, so there is the potential for chronic toxicity."

Scary, means we really should avoid melamine so we avoid the risk of interaction with cyanuric acid where possible. Finally, this is the extent of regulation of melamine where the US Food and Drug Administration is concerned:

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides a test method for analyzing cyromazine and melamine in animal tissues in its Chemistry Laboratory Guidebook which "contains test methods used by FSIS Laboratories to support the Agency's inspection program, ensuring that meat, poultry, dairy and egg products are safe, wholesome and accurately labeled."[28][29] In 1999, in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register regarding cyromazine residue, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed "removing melamine, a metabolite of cyromazine from the tolerance expression since it is no longer considered a residue of concern."[30] Melamine, classified a controlled substance in China[31], has been illegally used in the high profile 2008 baby milk scandal case which led to the death of at least 4 infants[31].

On October 3, 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that up to 2.5 parts per million of melamine was safe for adults, but declined to set a standard for children. The FDA also implied it would not permit the sale of food deliberately adulterated (rather than accidentally contaminated) with melamine.[32]

So, really, the safe ppm rating is for background or accidental contamination of foodstuffs by melamine. No one's supposed to be doping any food products deliberately with melamine. I'm also guessing the 2.5 ppm number may be derived partially from expected consumption ... that you're fine because the accumulated content of melamine cyanurate as well as pure melamine during your lifetime will be below their individual toxicity thresholds.

Society: Policeman blames himself for girl's death.

Just read an ST Forum article Public vent not good for police force by a retired police officer that rather disturbed me.

The issue in question is the appearance of a blog entry from a police officer who blames himself for a girl's death when it appeared she may have committed suicide rather than face a court appearance for shoplifting. Apparently, that blog entry is now readable to people granted permission by the blogger. However, I found a couple of other blog articles that talk about it: “Girl's death: Officer blogs about his guilt” and Of Offenders And Guilt.

I wonder how ex-policeman Lionel can consider this to be an impact on the morale of the Police Force. Is our Police Force so fragile that the public expression of trauma by one of its members will cause the force to fray? If anything, the Mas Selamat and prison escape incidents should have hit police morale much harder than this.

Personally, it seems natural for the officer in question to feel traumatized. What he did, however, was a job that he had to do. I feel he would have suffered a totally different crisis of faith if he had chosen to close an eye to the fact that the girl had indeed committed a crime.

What makes me wonder, however, is how the girl was handled by our system once she was formally charged with shoplifting and told to appear in court.

In the US, this is understood by most people to be a minor misdemeanor and that kids *can and will* do something (potentially) criminally stupid at some point in their teenage years. In such cases, it is reasonable to expect the young person to be counseled, told that it was a bad thing they did but it was not the end of the world. Her parents and loved-ones would probably have been present for emotional support.

I can only speculate about the pressure on the poor girl. Did she think it was the end of a meaningful life for her? That she would have a criminal record that ruins her? More frighteningly, would she have been correct thinking this way? Would Singapore society permanently brand someone guilty of what she did as a "rotten character"? Could we have done better?

Anyway, here's another interesting blog response to this incident: Police officers not allowed to be human - Lionel De Souza.

Political Blogs: They do get very strange, do they not?

Perhaps it is a satire-themed blog, I do not know. Anyway, I visited the Young Pay-And-Pay Blog which, based on the title of the blog itself, was on hindsight a rather silly act on my part.

Anyway, I left comments on two particular topics. The first:

Don't tell people he is my Prime Minister. Very pai seh!

was a video of a rather embarrassing moment for our PM Lee as he tried to make an off-the-cuff joke that just did not resonate with anybody. I believe I understand the author's point, that we are paying these politicians a lot of money and yet they can get really embarrassing in public. Well, which politician around the world hasn't? You can read my comment there. Essentially, I agreed that LHL sounded silly and offered my personal experience on how many human beings could be put in that spot. The response was rather unexpected ... I don't know how to put it ... you'll just have to read that comment thread. To say the least, I could not be sure if they were a satire site, or they were so hardcore anti-PAP that any hint or perception of "support" was to be attacked. I considered responding directly to the response, but decided otherwise. This is effectively my "response", to myself (and anyone who cares to read about it) for my own records.

The second article was a tad more serious:

新加坡人比猪狗不如的台湾人更加猪狗不如！

The title roughly translates to "Singaporeans are worse off than Taiwanese who are treated worse than pigs and dogs". To be worse than a pig and a dog is part of an old Chinese saying used to describe people who are effectively social outcasts, to be shunned and at best, ignored.

Anyway, I was troubled by it mostly because it drew the conclusion simply from the levels of acceptable melamine (I assume they got their source somewhere) in food products - 0 ppm in American dog food, 2 ppm in Chinese pig fodder, 2.5 ppm in Taiwanese food products and 5 ppm in Singapore food products.

Naively, I pointed out that animals and humans do have different requirements and tolerances in food consumed. I also wondered aloud what international standards for melamine were and did a quick google check. Again, on hindsight, I don't think the author was interested in an intellectual discourse on drawing a conclusion from a poorly laid out foundation. I think he or she just wanted to say Singaporeans are treated badly ... the example used really does not matter. It just sounded good to tie the treatment to any "evidence" linked to pigs and dogs. Strangely enough, the response to my comment on this article was far more civil than the first.

I think this will be my last "blind" foray into posting comments on blogs. Next time I will keep my eyes wide open. At best, this recent incident was an exercise in silliness.

Singapore Politics: Forums for fun and laughter?

Does no political party pay attention to what people say on their forums? Or is it the perpetual problem of "face" or electability if one starts becoming candid?

What started this off was my early experiences with the SDP website which I felt was nice and imho, very forward looking. It reached out to readers by providing a format where a person may make comments (delayed and moderated before being published, which is an appropriate thing to do where I'm concerned.) And then I read an article presumably about how the SDP cares (SDP CARES '08). As it had an image of an elderly lady, it struck a chord with an earlier post of mine where I worried about the elderly homeless in Singapore. Hopefully, they will put up my comment soon and you can ready about my thoughts on the comments thread there. However, what caught me was how unresponsive the SDP itself was to a question posted by an earlier commenter asking if the SDP had any specific programs for helping the poor.

That led me to wonder ... do Singapore political parties actually care about what the people think?

So, I visited the WP site. It was a dissemination forum, nothing more. There was no convenient way for someone to interact with party members or post comments on their news articles, hoping to provoke thought on issues. This was true even of their youth website, which pretty much disappointed me.

What of the PAP? On the surface, it looked like their website was for dissemination-only, just news articles. But lo and behold, a forum was discovered (from a rather obscure link, unfortunately) on their Young PAP site! A good start. And then, to my amusement, I came across this thread:


Not only we need oppositions, but need overthrow papa party

My initial reaction? Impressed! I had not expected Young PAP to be so progressive as to allow such an overtly anti-PAP thread. Then, as I read on, it got funnier and funnier. Most of the posts were just random rambling gibberish. There were a few gems though and the last post I know was a rather balanced view. It then occurred to me that it was highly probable that neither the SDP nor PAP people managing the forums really cared to read the entries posted. I can see why the rambling nonsense could be ignored, but when people raise appropriate issues on your site, it is reasonable to expect some response from you to at least share your views on the matter. That is the purpose of a forum, so people can get together to discuss issues in a civil manner, isn't it?

Question: What happened to the "Open Singapore Centre"?

In Chee Soon Juan's parting article to JBJ, he mentioned that they both formed the "Open Singapore Centre". I googled for that and all I could find was that it had been transferred to CSJ's father.

Nothing about it's goals, what it had done etc ... does anybody know?

The SDP article I am referring to is: "Goodbye, dear friend" and here's the appropriate quote:

During breakfast we talked about setting up an NGO to advocate transparency and democracy in Singapore. When we came back, we had a bit of a laugh seeing how the gentleman at the Registry of Companies squirmed as he tried to handle our application for the "Open Singapore Foundation".

After rejecting the term "Foundation", "Institute" and a couple of others, the ROC finally allowed the use of "Centre". Thus was born the first human rights NGO in Singapore.

Singapore Journalism: Whither the details?

Yet another mainstream news article with what I consider useless content. This time from Channel News Asia:

MP Teo says systems are in place to cope with economic downturn

Government measures include a slew of programmes, fine-tuned over the years through the experience of past downturns. Many Community Development Councils (CDCs) said they already have schemes to help and are ready to respond.

Mayor, Northwest District, Dr Teo Ho Pin, said: "Since Chinese New Year, we've experienced an increase in the number of job seekers looking for job assistance. We don't know what will be the scale downstream, but we are prepared with our staff and resources."

The above quote is all I'd say is relevant given the title of the news article. Come on! Surely, one can give some details what these "systems" are, or at least point or link to some government publication, website or gazette that does?! I read the article to find out WHAT kind of specific schemes the government had in place to help people and HOW these schemes can help so I can reason about it!

The way the article is written, they might as well have said "Ummm ... the government has some systems and plans in place to help you. Please trust them, I have no clue what they are."