Good report/advisory, bad journalism (imho) and a messed-up consumer policy

Yes, the shameless ungrateful young blogger is back! This time, the following CNA article/advisory caught my attention:

Excessive methanol detected in two Chinese wine products (By Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 26 August 2009 2051 hrs).

Summary: Two Chinese wine products (detailed in article) has "excessive" methanol and is being "recalled" by Singapore's Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA). Symptoms of "excessive" methanol intake described. Consumers warned.

Perfectly good advisory.

Here comes the details and my beef with what ought to have been a news report:

AVA said on Wednesday excessive intake of methanol may cause visual disturbances, nausea, abdominal and muscle pain, dizziness, seizures and coma.

As a precautionary measure, AVA has also instructed the manufacturer to suspend production and recall all its Chinese wine products. Retailers have also been instructed to remove all the products.

Consumers who have bought any of the affected wines are advised to discard them.

First of all, the questions:

1. What is methanol and how is it related to alcohol people drink?

Well, I had to do some digging and this is what I found out -

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

... It is the simplest alcohol, and is a light, volatile, colourless, flammable, toxic liquid with a distinctive odor that is very similar to but slightly sweeter than ethanol (drinking alcohol) ...

... Methanol is produced naturally in the anaerobic metabolism of many varieties of bacteria, and is ubiquitous in the environment. As a result, there is a small fraction of methanol vapor in the atmosphere. ...

... Because of its toxic properties, methanol is frequently used as a denaturant additive for ethanol manufactured for industrial uses — this addition of methanol economically exempts industrial ethanol from the rather significant 'liquor' taxes that would otherwise be levied as it is the essence of all potable alcoholic beverages. ...

... Because of its similarities to ethanol (the alcohol in beverages), it is difficult to differentiate between the two (such is the case with denatured alcohol). ...

which did not quite cover everything I wanted to know (like "what the hell is this toxic substance doing in excessive amounts in a product meant to be consumed by humans?", so I dug even further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol

and finally an abstract from a 2001 paper on the (US) National Institute of Health "Defining a tolerable concentration of methanol in alcoholic drinks." which says:

Methanol, a potent toxicant in humans, occurs naturally at a low level in most alcoholic beverages without causing harm. However, illicit drinks made from "industrial methylated spirits" [5% (v/v) methanol:95% (v/v) ethanol] can cause severe and even fatal illness. Since documentation of a no-adverse-effect level for methanol is nonexistent in the literature a key question, from the public health perspective, is what is the maximum concentration of methanol in an alcoholic drink that an adult human could consume without risking toxicity due to its methanol content? Published information about methanol-intoxicated patients is reviewed and combined with findings in studies in volunteers given small doses of methanol, as well as occupational exposure limits (OELs), to indicate a tolerable ("safe") daily dose of methanol in an adult as 2 g and a toxic dose as 8 g. The simultaneous ingestion of ethanol has no appreciable effect on the proposed "safe" and "toxic" doses when considering exposure over several hours. Thus, assuming that an adult consumes 4 x 25-ml standard measures of a drink containing 40% alcohol by volume over a period of 2 h, the maximum tolerable concentration (MTC) of methanol in such a drink would be 2% (v/v) by volume. However, this value only allows a safety factor of 4 to cover variation in the volume consumed and for the effects of malnutrition (i.e., folate deficiency), ill health and other personal factors (i.e., ethnicity). In contrast, the current EU general limit for naturally occurring methanol of 10 g methanol/l ethanol [which equates to 0.4% (v/v) methanol at 40% alcohol] provides a greater margin of safety.

Which answers the next question, but begs the question - "Just how excessive were the levels of methanol detected in the wines? Could industrial foul play be involved as evidenced in the milk case?"

2. What is an excessive amount of methanol for humans?

Answered by the abstract above, but wikipedia has another answer (which one would have to find out if the answers are consistent):

Methanol is toxic. If ingested, as little as 10ml can cause permanent blindness by destruction of the optic nerve.[4] The usual fatal dose is 100–125 ml (4 fl oz). Toxic effects take hours to start and effective antidotes can often prevent permanent damage.

Surprisingly, ethanol (found in alcoholic drinks) is administered as a way to mitigate the toxic effects of methanol consumption as described in the general article on Alcohol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol

An effective treatment to prevent formaldehyde toxicity after methanol ingestion is to administer ethanol. Alcohol dehydrogenase has a higher affinity for ethanol, thus preventing methanol from binding and acting as a substrate. Any remaining methanol will then have time to be excreted through the kidneys. Remaining formaldehyde will be converted to formic acid and excreted.[6][7]

Perhaps my standards are too high, but those felt like pertinent questions to be answered with some level of detail in (what I deem to be) a proper piece of journalism ... e.g. "Methanol, when consumed, is toxic beyond 10 ml but occurs naturally in alcoholic beverages at X%, AVA found Y% which while not highly dangerous (??) is a cause for concern."

Finally, my ungrateful rant - "advised to throw it away"??!! You mean you are not going to act as a facilitator to get the companies to give me a refund for dangerous crap they just sold me? Am I going to have to privately sue them for any medical fees I incur if I fall sick drinking their wines? What is a consumer to do to get any justice from this?

Marital Rape - Singapore worse than Afghanistan?

This article on the BBC piqued my interest, particularly with recent activism against Marital Rape on behalf of women in Singapore: "Row over Afghan wife-starving law" (By Sarah Rainsford Page last updated at 15:28 GMT, Sunday, 16 August 2009 16:28 UK)

An Afghan bill allowing a husband to starve his wife if she refuses to have sex has been published in the official gazette and become law.

The original version obliged Shia women to have sex with their husbands every four days at a minimum, and it effectively condoned rape by removing the need for consent to sex within marriage.

Wait a minute ... Wha??!! The Afghans fought off something that is currently *permitted* by Singapore law?

It is funny how something that is regressive but actively pursued (in Afghanistan) gets so much media attention and yet, something that is regressive but "status quo" (in Singapore) gets nary a mention.


EDIT: As a reader pointed out, I had failed to roundly condemn the new Afghan law. Indeed I do. Starving your wife for refusing to have sex with you is simply barbaric. There is no other way of putting it. I do, however, want to point out that my original focus had been on how the Afghans previously had no immunity clause for husbands which came as a surprise to me, given that Singapore does!

To the opponents of any changes to Singapore Law: Husbands denied sex by their wives have legal options outside of raping them - go to a prostitute (don't be cheap!), go masturbate, seek a divorce. It is hypocritical to say "Government should not interfere in peoples' personal sexual lives" when the Singapore government selectively does so (against gay people and against guys who masturbate with their windows open).

An anti-marital rape law does not even have to be harsh initially - barring aggravated assault, send the man in for counseling for a first offense. I could accept that. As long as men in Singapore know it is wrong and illegal to abuse their wives this way.

On the flip side, something to think about now ... how do we deal with situations where the wife rapes the husband?

Phd Taxi Driver

Fox at his Next Stop Wonderland blog highlighted an interesting blog by Cai Mingjie on his experiences becoming a taxi driver in Singapore after losing his job as a Principle Investigator at Singapore's Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB).

Mingjie's blog can be found at A Singapore Taxi Driver's Diary.

It is an interesting read and it kinda hits home for me because I am working towards earning my own Phd in Computer Science. It is reinforcing my current view of Singapore as a pretty unforgiving place with few good alternative opportunities the moment you lose your job. Unlike Dr. Cai, I cannot even drive (and do not dare to). If the same thing happens to me and I am somehow forced to stay in Singapore, my few remaining options are a teaching job or a job as a cleaner (if they do not consider me "over-qualified" - I remembered this being a problem, perhaps I'm wrong).

Well, it is back to writing the thesis for me, but this story will no doubt weigh heavily at the back of my mind for the next few months. I sure hope things work out well eventually for Mingjie.

The new P65 blog

http://www.p65.sg/

Very active, very energetic, and very devoid of the MPs who used to post their thoughts and respond to (imho, side-step) hardcore critics like Blackfeline and gang.

The cynic in me thinks these new guys and girls on the new P65 are vying to be the 4th PM of Singapore :P. What does the cynic in me think that? Like someone else pointed out online, the old postings from the old blog are now gone, as if the old P65ers never posted. Perhaps time will tell.

Meanwhile, the articles so far either do not seem interesting to me or seem rather one-sided. I kinda miss Lam Pin Min's old articles. He sounded a little grovelly then, but they were still somewhat insightful and some level of grovelling was kinda expected :P.

Yay to 44 years of "National Development": A comment on a comment.

Found this rather amusing (but scary) comment on the ST Forum: Why not introduce Net filter here? (Tan Shao Ken, ST Forum, Online Story, Aug 10 2009).

It is short enough, so I'll reproduce the text as an entire quote here:

IN RECENT months, there have been reports on China's plan to introduce an Internet filter.

I wonder if Singapore is planning to introduce such filters to curb certain content on the Internet.

With 90 per cent of Singaporeans having Net access, it is easy for one to obtain tonnes of information, regardless of whether it is accurate or not.

There are educational and children's clips on video-sharing websites, such as YouTube and MetaCafe, that have been remixed to include vulgarities.

It is shocking to know that everyone, even children, can access these videos and learn the wrong things. An Internet filter can restrict their access to such clips.

The third paragraph amused me the most. Some questions come to mind:

a) How did the statement flow logically? Fact: 90% Singaporeans with net access; and so Conclusion: easy for 1 Singaporean to obtain tons of information???

b) Who decides what is accurate? The onus is on the intelligent reader to constantly question the material and to probe it for inconsistencies. Mr Tan obviously thinks there is some oracle out there (read: the greater mortals) who WILL tell him about what is accurate and NOT tell him about what is not.

Even in the rigorous world of peer-reviewed scientific publications, it is necessary to read a published result carefully to avoid mis-interpretation or to catch any inconsistencies that escaped the peer-review process.

To me, I'm sorry to say, Mr. Tan is the product of 44 years of nannying and he is NOT alone.

Succession in Singapore and Geo-politics (Burma): Goh Chok Tong's comments

This article on CNA troubles me: PM Lee looking for successor in his 30s to be fielded in next GE (By Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 06 August 2009 2003 hrs). All quotes in this article are from the above CNA article unless otherwise indicated.

The PAP seems to be obsessed with finding a fresh face to succeed Lee Hsien Loong. I believe this is unhealthy. What about the current batch of ministers? Are none of them reasonably capable of taking the reins of government? Many of them I do not like, but I can name a few who seem to have potential: George Yeo, Teo Chee Hean or even Vivian Balakrishnan (to whom I've not yet forgiven for his statement about giving money to the poor).

Why do I think this is unhealthy?

If we take Goh's words on face value, politicians (from the PAP) are effectively discriminated against based loosely on their age. If I shared the same "political generation" as the current Prime Minister in the PAP, I am effectively disqualified from becoming Prime Minister. What if circumstances put in place a younger person far less capable than I am? How do you think this would make people feel? It makes joining the PAP turn into some kind of race to gain recognition from party bosses. Only one (within each generation) will make it to become Prime Minister. Once that decision is made, no one else will.

I find it ironic that Goh says the following:

Mr Goh noted the next prime minister will have to be in his 30s today. That is because it will take another five to 10 years for the potential candidate to fully understand how to deal with people, policies and international partners.

"It's not an easy task," Mr Goh said. "He's (Mr Lee Hsien Loong is) having a more difficult time now. He's looking for a fourth prime minister."

Mr Goh added that during his time, he could get ministers at the age of 37 or 38. Now, ministers are in their early 40s.

To him (if he even bothers listening), I say the reason is staring right at him in the face. Not only has the PAP created a hostile environment for participating in opposition politics or civil society, they are creating a hostile environment within their own ranks. Surely, he realizes that at one stroke, he had just disqualified every newcomer to the PAP team, including the so-called P65-ers? What effect do you think this has on their morale?

Let me now try to dissect the problem into various components:

1. Managed Succession: The PAP believes in a managed (staged, I say) political succession, for stability reasons. I do not believe this is what a democracy is all about. Vaclav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic, once said (I do not remember the exact quote, nor can I find that article which once carried that quote) he did not worry about who succeeded him as President because the people would choose based on their needs as was required in a democracy. I believe he said if he interfered, he would effectively break that democratic process.

Contrast this with what Goh Chok Tong said was Singapore's "unique approach":

Mr Goh said Singapore has a unique system of political succession. He said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who stepped down as prime minister in 1990, marked his own contribution to Singapore not by what he has achieved but whether the country can continue to sustain its development.

"If Singapore can, then he (Minister Mentor Lee) will say, 'I've succeeded in building Singapore.' If Singapore falters, 4, 5 years after he is gone, then he would say he's not succeeded in his ambition of building Singapore," said Mr Goh.

By staying on in politics, Lee is basically unwilling to allow his legacy (by Goh's accounting of Lee's criteria of "success") to be judged after he stepped down. Imho, that is because his ultimate legacy is less-than-sterling. If he had truly succeeded, he would have left behind a self-sustaining political system that would serve Singaporeans well by being robust regardless of who was in charge. The US political system, for all its known flaws, is one such system where succession is usually smooth, even between rival political parties. The British system, changes political ideology in government without much of a fuss.

2. Leadership Longevity: The PAP believes that once a Prime Minister is chosen by the party, for stability and to be effective, he/she needs to stay 15-20 years. I wonder how much of this resulted from the sting Goh Chok Tong took when Catherine Lim suggested he was a "seat warmer" for Lee Hsien Loong. Anyway, I believe this is the primary reason why, in Goh's view, no one else in Lee's political generation can ever become Prime Minister. [Edit: (Reason: Because there simply isn't enough time to fit 2 Prime Ministers over 30-40 years in one generaion.)] While it sounds "reasonable", again it is not what a democracy is all about. The population of informed citizens is the key test for the longevity of a Prime Minister. That is why we have elections, to judge the effectiveness of our current politicians and choose others if necessary.

3. Political Assumptions: The PAP assumes it will always be in government and that it is a monolithic entity where the Prime Minister is always chosen whenever the party wins government. Well, I hate to burst their bubble, but the latter assumption works if Singapore used the Israeli political system where the electorate votes nationally for parties and parties list their political candidates for proportional selection. It is not guaranteed to work in Singapore's own current political system. It doesn't take a genius to observe that the PAP government has already started to lose touch with the electorate and will continue to do so if it does not take stock. I would take joy in a silent giggle the day the electorate elects well-established ministers but throws the Prime Minister out of office. Let's see how the PAP will react when their succession plans are thrown into the resulting chaos.

Finally, on an off-note, I read with distaste what Goh Chok Tong said about Burma in the article:

Separately, Mr Goh also touched on the situation in Myanmar. He said while pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi is seen by the West as the solution, she is also "part of the problem" because she believes she is the government.

Mr Goh noted that Ms Suu Kyi's political party needs to seek a fresh mandate in the 2010 general election.

Seek a fresh mandate? They won an overwhelming mandate in the last elections and had it taken away from them by the force of arms. It is the current Burmese government that has ZERO mandate to run the government! Aung San Suu Kyi has EVERY right to consider herself and her party the legitimate government of the country.