Chee Wai's Random Musing

A delicious pot of Curry and how not to blow your own horn ...

2011-08-19T21:32:00.000-07:00

I will be cooking a pot of Thai Panang (chicken or fish, I've not quite decided) Curry on August 20th at 10pm here in Eugene, OR, USA in solidarity with the others in Singapore who intend to cook curries of different stripes August 21st Singapore time.

Many of those doing the same will probably be doing it for many different reasons. For my part, I will be expressing myself as a global citizen. I will allow the smell to waft out through the back patio door. If my neighbors do not like it, they will talk to me about it and I will engage them, as mature adults should. For me, it will be a non-issue, after all I do not take Panang as a staple and even if I do, I'm sure we can come to amicable solutions.

My take on this whole sordid affair is that it was an inappropriate, even stupid, attempt on the part of someone to toot their horns in the public media using what was, in fact, a really lousy example. I am surprised they did not review the material and on a second read, realized their story had a massive WTF/"aiyaiyai" moment behind it.

I am more than willing to believe the two families had come to an amicable agreement (timing, the use of fans, letting each other know ... etc ... ). The "authorities" did not need to make the "incident" sound as if it were a resounding success story of their "mediation" and "integration" programs. I mean, why could they not simply have said "We have volunteers who are trained to help mediate in disputes and we encourage folks who find it hard to resolve a problem on their own to contact us for help" and just leave it as that.

Well, their back-patting exercise backfired and frankly, I'm glad it did. I'm glad it riled up enough people to take note of it, get annoyed enough to then poke some fun at the expense of the "authorities". As with all issues with a strong emotional backdrop, there will be people who are riled up for the wrong reasons, perhaps adding to the problems of mounting tensions toward immigrants who come to our country. However, I am a strong believer in free speech. I believe these people, probably in the minority, should be allowed to say what they wish. At the same time, the rest of us also have a right to speak up whenever there are unfair or inflammatory statements and say "No, that is not right, we should not be feeling this way."

As I've said, I was annoyed by the initial description of how things were "resolved" but I am inclined to accept the clarifications made by Shanmugam. I would like to think the two families worked things out. If one takes a step back and think about it, these are just simple things that people need to do as mature adults and private citizens in a civilized society living in a high-density environment (and with tons of artificial mobility restrictions imposed on people by the government - one cannot "simply move away" to reduce tensions).

Anyway, enough of my rant ... in 24 hours time, I get to enjoy my very yummy curry! Pictures will be forthcoming.

Update: 8/28/2011 - Photos!!

I'm an Atheist. Ask me.

2011-04-14T14:38:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was "Ask an Atheist Day": http://www.secularstudents.org/askanatheistday

So, I decided to let my friends ask me. One person did take me up on my offer and here's the question:

Why won't you accept Christ into your heart?

And here was my reply. Not really the best answer I could give given the time I had available, but it is a good enough summary of my outlook on life:

I probably already have, at least a good chunk of the stuff he represents as a model of what is decent human behavior.

I am just extremely hard pressed to believe the theological mythos surrounding Christ. It does not even matter to me if he was real. The time lapsed between his death and when the gospels first appeared seem, however, highly suspect. The evidence is also scant that the authors really were who they claimed to be. The fact that many other texts claiming to represent Christ's teachings did not make the bible also makes the modern accepted canon, well, dubious.

More importantly, I do not need Christ in my heart (I choose to stick with the established metaphor ... the truth is probably closer to some part of the brain governing emotion and dealing with the unknown/contradictions) to derive any meaning from my existence. If nothing goes wrong, I have approximately 30 years remaining. I would rather spend this time be spent being a source of comfort to my friends and the ones I love; being useful to humanity's continued existence; and allowing our fellow living creatures on Earth a chance to succeed if we are to falter. In the unlikely chance that Earth really is the only (or earliest) place to harbor life in the Universe, then I believe it is essential for us to learn to leave our cradle and to spread life elsewhere before Earth inevitably fails to be a suitable home.

A Quick Update

2011-03-03T11:05:00.000-08:00

In case people really do follow my blog, here is a quick update - I have not found time to write anything that I believe is (and I'm wrong as often as I am correct) insightful over the course of the last year while trying to settle in to my career as a research scientist.

Often, issues would come up that bug me enough to want to write about it, but often, those very issues involve complexities that require nuanced thought and analysis which I lack the time for :(.

However, the good news is that I am getting a number of "settling in" things resolved (hopefully) and if I am able to also get my career going at a good developmental pace, I may finally find that time I need to maintain a regular, readable blog.

Politics and religion in the US

2010-07-09T11:28:00.000-07:00

Was following Rachel Maddow (am a casual fan of hers) and came across this report that happened a while ago:

What I loved most about it: "Theologically inept arguments" :). Otherwise, mostly disturbing stuff involving bigotry and a willingness to exact or overlook injustice and unfairness in society. Of course, things are slightly more nuanced than that, but these are simply my surface thoughts.

An intent to mislead or a failure to fully explain?

2010-07-01T17:09:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post. I had been working on a post about TMCR, but that's taking a whole lot more time than expected.

Found this excerpt on CNA today (unlike my usual practice, I'll not cite and link for now):

"The total rainfall for June this year is 10 times higher compared to the same period last year.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) said the total rainfall recorded at Changi Climate Station in June is 240.5 mm, up from just 21.8 mm last year.

However, it is not the first time Singapore experienced heavy rainfall in the month of June. There was a similar level of rainfall in June 2006.

The Meteorological Services added that average rainfall for June since 1869 is 162.2 mm."

Sounds fair and all the data seems to be there. However, my first impressions were "wait a minute ... what are you actually trying to tell me?".

Here's my interpretation after reading it several times:

1. June 2010 has high rainfall (about 33% above average).
2. June 2009 was an especially dry month (just 13% of average).
3. The average of 162.2 mm is a fairly stable value since it is over 140 years and as a result, 140 data points. Having standard deviation data would have helped us understand the actual variation.
4. June 2006 had similar rainfall to June 2010.

However, the way it was written had initially made me think the article was trying to tell me that June 2010 was an incredibly wet June, especially with that useless reference to it being 10 times higher than (what turns out to be a ridiculously dry June) June 2009.

I don't know, maybe it is just me ... but I feel that news articles should not merely state facts semi-incoherently but to do so with a reasonable interpretation in mind in order to help readers understand a matter or an issue.

Incidentally, this raises a question - were there serious floods in Singapore in June 2006? Of pertinence is the fact that if we successfully withstood a similar level of rainfall (barring extreme daily spikes) then, why did we not successfully handle the same in 2010?

Our dear MBT does not understand the idea behind market forces?

2010-03-08T18:38:00.000-08:00

Get a load of this article:

Grants, smaller flats instead of shorter lease tenure (By Ong Dai Lin, TODAY | Posted: 09 March 2010 0751 hr)

Ignore my pet peeve that HDB flats are not really owned by the buyers.

Ignore my other peeve that the Singapore government has dominant control of the market (if one can call it a market) share for housing in Singapore.

Ignore the fact that a 99-year lease is as likely (if not more) to screw the 2nd generation choosing to stay in their flats as a 60-year lease in screwing the 1st generation.

Ignore the fact that the government will have to come up with a way of dealing with end-of-lease issues soon, whether they are 99-year leases or 60-year leases. Perhaps lease renewal? Perhaps the provision of alternative housing locations at a discount? Or perhaps they expect to simply take the homes away from those Singaporeans and say "tough luck"?

It would appear Mah Bow Tan does not appear to understand the idea behind market forces!!! What outstanding words to be spoken in parliament:

Mr Mah was also asked by MP Cedric Foo if Singaporeans are not buying the flats situated in poorer locations because they are not "priced correctly".

Mr Mah responded: "We do price these less attractive flats cheaper than the other flats. Is it cheap enough? I don't know how cheap is cheap enough."

"But I think the evidence says that people who reject these flats, some of them don't even look at the price when they do reject them. So, it's not just a matter of pricing."

Cheap is "cheap enough" when you start getting your target take-up rates or do your HDB MBAs not tell you these things? Afterall, you were the one who said that the material cost does not reflect the "value" of the flat so I do not think you should fret when you build flats that cost more than the perceived value? Using examples of people not wanting a flat regardless of price is disingenuous. There are lots of reasons why *some* people would not want to live in particular places, crappy or not. If the general data is showing a low take-up rate in a general area, well then you better start thinking about making the area more attractive, whether it involves pricing or not.

Thoughts about Political Life by Catherine Lim

2010-03-02T13:06:00.000-08:00

This little vignette from Catherine Lim struck a cord with me:

‘Why Don’t You Get Into Politics?’

I do not have much to say except that it pretty much captures the same feelings I have about myself if I were to choose a career in politics. The significant differences between Catherine and myself are that I am less of a maverick and not as on-the-fringe as she seemed to imply she is. Unlike her (based on my impressions of her), I reckon I am also more likely to be physically intimidated by someone else arguing face-to-face about an issue. My natural tendencies have been to put myself into other peoples' shoes and attempt to be as fair to them as possible. That just does not work when faced with a hostile political opponent.

Of hyperboles and reactions to them

2010-02-18T08:55:00.000-08:00

So, I watched what I considered to be a ridiculously funny Jon Stewart clip about exaggerated blog/news headlines involving himself and other TV personalities in the US. Here is the clip (assuming the embed works):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Blogs Must Be Crazy

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

It made me think about the Singapore government's belief that blogs must self-censor and news must not be "sensational". Why? Are Singaporeans too lazy to examine content for themselves? Are they too "daft" to understand when something is blown out of proportion? Are they so bereft of reasoning that they are unable to separate arguments based on emotion from arguments based on evidence (I'm not even going as far as to say they have to be based on facts ... just evidence)? Maybe. Judging from some of the comments I've seen out there in the blogosphere, the Singapore government may just be right. However, must they intervene?

I think not. I think we need more Mr. Browns, Jon Stewarts and Stephen Colberts in Singapore. I think we need more Singaporeans to feel relaxed about their situation and to laugh at the silliness that is out there. I think we need to be exposed to more silly views so we understand what is sound and sensible. I think that if we as a people cannot handle the extremes of thought and ideas and must depend on what the government tells us, we do not deserve to exist as a nation.

Looking foward to the day this becomes non-news in Singapore.

2010-02-15T10:58:00.000-08:00

Channel News Asia reported on an event where a woman in Singapore invited her PR Indian friends over to the reunion dinner: "PR from India celebrates Lunar New Year" (Patwant Singh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 15 February 2010 2305 hr).

It is a good sign. However, it troubles me deeply how it was reported in the news (hell, that it was even reported in the first place). Here is the line that bugs me, please correct me if you think I am putting things out of context or that I am being unfair:

The host even catered to Madam Mehrotra and her mother-in-law's vegetarian dietary needs.

Excuse me? "even"? I mean ... what is the point of inviting someone over to dinner if you are not going to make sure they have something to eat? Why would the reporter be so impressed that he wants to even make this point, much less use words that give it significance?

Here is some context from my personal experiences here in the US. I live in a campus town of a University with significant international presence. It is the norm, rather than the exception, to invite friends over for a bit of cultural exchange (usually involving food, from which the exchange then flow through questions, pertinent or otherwise). Invitations are often not confined to cultural events, though the latter adds flavor to the interaction. Potlucks are often the richest form of cultural exchange. The hosts of these events are sometimes not ethnically tied to the cultural event they are hosting. Traditions are almost always cast aside to accommodate the cultural restrictions of your guests. Guests often cast away their cultural restrictions to make things easier on the host, unless it is of deep significance to them. Cultures are as varied as it gets and the diversity is staggering. Forget about the CMIO typecast in Singapore.

Well, I am looking forward to the day these things become non-newsworthy-events in everyday Singapore life.

Frankly, as long as something like the Sedition Act remains, it becomes very hard to have a congenial and casual conversation about other cultures and religions. I have learned a lot about the richness of other cultures (including the many different Chinese cultures) through such conversation here in the US.

On the other hand, I have always found the same to be awkward, at best, while in Singapore. To be fair, I have found that people tend to get upset over the slightest thing in Singapore. I remember an episode in my teenage years when I was sucked into listening to a tense all-night argument between two of my friends just because I happened to mention the word "evolution" in our conversation. Here, even when having conversations about religion and culture in the presence of Indian and Pakistani nationals (I know I know, it's a stereotype), I have yet to offend anyone (though I may have generated some awkward moments). In Singapore, I wonder what happened to the commonsense understanding that when you are among friends, your friends do not mean to offend even if their questions may sound offensive to you? I wonder why the Singapore government believes that Singaporeans are unable/unwilling to say "Hmm, what you said is rather awkward and can be interpreted as offensive. Please, let us talk about something else.". It sure is commonsense here in my community in the US.

Making Pluralism work in Singapore

2010-02-05T13:16:00.000-08:00

This is really my response to Kenneth Jeyaratnam's comments on a Facebook page "Pluralistic Democracy for Singaporeans -Make it Happen." I was somehow unable to post (probably too long):

Please refer to the above link for the context.

My basic concern is with the lack of a suitable environment in which we can build pluralism into our democracy. Hence the baby step.

Citizens need to at least have the basic realization that they form the main basis of a democracy, not the government nor any political party. Eisenhower's letter, imho, was partially intended to highlight the natural distance between government and citizenry and how they must both work toward bridging that gap.

From that principle, one can potentially then proceed to work in the logical direction for follow-up actions to be taken. At this point, I'll admit a profound level of ignorance on my part, at least with the "hows" in the Singapore context. I am sure the Reform Party has considered each of the following points at some depth and are taking appropriate action:

1. Guiding credos/identity - What governing principles does the Reform Party intend to live by? Will its policies be liberal or conservative? How much internal pluralism of different viewpoints (as with all large groups of individuals, differences will always be present and that is good) will the Reform Party tolerate within its ranks? How will the Reform Party let these principles be known to the general public? Through its manifesto? Through its constitution?

2. Politician contact with the citizenry. I'll break it down into several parts:

a. Walkabouts - bridges the gap between policy and citizenry. Are we informally surveying people's concerns and working these concerns into the party's principles? Are we trying to project the party's principles onto the people, convince them this is the right way to go? Are we encouraging them to take a stake in the democratic process, not just at election time, but to speak out whenever they observe potential problems for themselves or others? Are we encouraging them to be open minded about different viewpoints, even ones they strongly disagree with?

b. Meet-the-people - Are they just intended for people who need specific problems solved? Can we not encourage citizenry to come to MTP sessions with ideas or just to thank or criticize their MPs? Can we not wean them off the idea that government MUST be the solution to ALL their problems (eg. in some cases, teaching them to fish instead of fishing for them)?

c. Surveys - serves pretty much the same purpose as Walkabouts. Could be made scientific and more rigorous. Could serve as more concrete evidence to back up policy ideas and implementation.

3. Expert consultation for policy implementation. Is the Reform Party keeping in touch with the widest possible range of NGOs, think-tanks and academics out there willing (usually non-partisan) to talk to you? Are you able to draw on their expertise, hard data and views for drafting specific governing policy based on your own principles? Imho, Singapore is surprisingly rich with NGOs and I wonder if the PAP ever spoke with them on issues.

I apologize for not having any concrete proposals and for the muddled thoughts streaming out in this post. The only way forward that I see is to actively encourage and work with Singaporeans to be more aware of, and interested in, their role in a pluralistic democracy. That:

1. diversity is valuable.
2. civil disagreement is valuable.
3. their views as individuals are valued.

From what I can tell, this will be a long and hard road. However, I think once you have that, multi-party democracy will naturally follow. Frankly, the very first thing I'd get rid of is compulsory voting. The biggest turn-off for someone to democracy is forcing them to vote. A just-get-it-over-with vote is, imho, worse than not voting at all.

Other than that ... go win elections ... :P

Vandalism

2010-01-06T13:25:00.000-08:00

Came across an interesting article: "SingPost apologises for "acts of vandalism" on mailboxes" (By Jeremy Koh, 938LIVE | Posted: 06 January 2010 2216 hrs) on Channel News Asia.

A good number of things hit me about this article. I'll attempt to distill my thoughts from the random streams the article generated in my brain the first time I read it (outside of sheer humor - it made my day).

1. Bureaucratic mindset in Singapore. Priorities, priorities, priorities!:

The police is certainly not amused, saying it will take the matter up with SingPost as the episode had caused unnecessary public alarm and wasted valuable resources.

They said the organiser did send an email query to one of their units about the need for a police permit for a possible advertising event they were holding. But the organiser did not provide the full picture and details of the publicity stunt.

SingPost said it will be working closely with the police on the matter.

Perhaps I am wrong, but aren't those mailboxes owned by SingPost? Why should the police get upset if SingPost is not? To me, it seems that Singaporean officials and maybe Singaporeans are so used to the spartan aspects of their lives that they butt into trivial issues that really are none of their business.

Of course, the Singapore police appears to work in an, imho, counter-intuitive manner. This is what I think ought to be the "normal" approach: Your property gets vandalized; You report it to the police; and the police investigates. Here, we have the police pro-actively "protecting the public good" (from what!?!) and *yet* when someone reports they had been assaulted on an MRT, they refused to even investigate!

If they are so concerned with graffiti and vandalism "alarming" people, why aren't they dealing with the following pictures with the same zeal and passion?

If the Singapore police is so upset about the "wasted valuable resources" *reacting* to the "vandalism" on that mailbox, then *surely* they must be spending *fortunes* handling each and every case of the above pictures (for those readers who are not from Singapore, they are graffiti by Loan Shark gangs trying to psychologically terrorize their "clients" or family into paying up. These graffiti are practically ubiquitous in public housing in which the majority of Singaporeans live.). I am being sarcastic, of course. The police certainly handles loan sharking problems ... just not with the kind of enthusiasm I saw from the article about SingPost.

2. What is wrong with graffiti? When does it become vandalism?

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

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

Here is the image from Channel News Asia (Used without permission. I am reproducing this to illustrate what I mean. If this is a problem, let me know and I'll remove it):

To be fair, the "art" leaves much to be desired (still better than loan shark "art"). Still, as planned by SingPost, it hardly interferes with the functionality of the mailbox to be considered "vandalism". It is, however, kind of an eyesore and of course, the police thinks Singaporeans will be so outraged and "alarmed" that the "public good" will be harmed.

Here is some graffiti in Sao Paolo, Brazil (taken with implicit permission from Wikipedia and attributed to Lukaaz - Marcelo. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vila_Madalena_%C2%B9.jpg)

Frankly, I think this graffiti actually beautified this wall. From my experience in my part of the US, graffiti is extremely uncommon (ie. they are not all over the place). They can be easily found, however, but are quite unlike their counterparts in the well-known parts of New York. Here, they tend to be simple and crude (more like the ones on the SingPost mailbox and nowhere close to the ones on that Sao Paolo wall). For the most part, they are not acts of vandalism. None of the graffiti here were crude or attempted to incite violence or hatred. None of the graffiti hampered the functionality or effectiveness of the objects on which they were painted. Private property tended to be respected (nobody's car, fence or doors were painted on). The graffiti, while not beautiful, also tended not to be garish and unsightly. All this in the "land of the free" where Singaporean authorities have warned Singaporeans about for decades about "too much freedom".

A testimony from a Canadian Ex-Singaporean

2009-12-23T17:23:00.000-08:00

For archival purposes as well as for readers' interest. Something from a comment left by (64) Wing Lee Cheong on December 24th, 2009 7.35 am) on TOC article “I kept quiet. Just weep. What else?” (original blog entry on the topic from Lucky Tan at A Singaporean Mind). This is something I would like to remember, whether I ultimately choose to flee or fight the Singapore system.

The welfare systems between Singapore and Canada is a comparison between Hell and Heaven. The following is a testimony by an ex-Singaporean who has a special need child. This testimony will open the eyes of many Singaporeans who are fooled into believing Singapore has the one of the best welfare in the world:

Testimony:

In Singapore, one can go bankrupt if there is a major illness in the family and need to be hospitalized in the blood sucking hospitals. I say blood sucking I mean it. When my daughter went for a heart operation (congenital defect), we need to phone our relatives to combine blood donation back to the blood bank.

As we ward her, the P.A.P. really started showing its true meaning….PAY-AND-PAY. Because my daughter’s defect and other multiple illnesses were/are congenital, our life insurance agent group health would not cover! Wow! All hell broke loose. We did not have CPF medisafe bec. we were self-employed, then no insurance. I remember vividly standing at the registration counter of the SGH LIMITED.. since I did not have all the usual coverage, she asked for my credit card and got me to sign on the BLANK copy and told me they will charge me later. I was signing a “BLANK CHEQUE”! Can you imagine how heavy my heart was when I was walking back to admit my daughter! The ghostly question kept ponding on me: “How much? But my daughter is more important! But how much!? How Much!!!!?”

When she was born in Feb 1988 it was not privatized but 2 years later when she went for all these treatments and operations it was coincidently privatized by the PAP govt….damn. To me most of the doctors and facilities were the same before and after privatizing and yet the medical bill were like earth and hell difference. Why? We felt cheated by LKY.

Not long after we landed in Canada, we received a letter (I kept it till today so that I will show my great grandchildren later) from the University of Alberta Hospital. It gave us two full-days of schedule with all those professors and sepcialists…from heart, hearing, speech, ear etc..you name it we have it there…to check on my 3 year old Singapore-born daughter. Again (like the same scene in the SGH) on the day of the medical check-ups I went over to the registration desk. After the white receptionist helped me to fill up all the forms, I sheepishly asked her: “How much must I pay for all these professors and specialists check-up on my daughter?” Listen, listen listen to the answer, ready?: “Sir it is FREE. It is under Alberta Health Care.”
What!!? I could not believe her…I have not even paid my first Alberta Health Care premium (that time we need to pay about Can $100 per month for a family) and not a single cent of tax and yet we got FREE real professional check-ups for my daughter! I almost cried! The receptionist did not ask for my credit card. It was/is FREE!!!!!

Now just imagine as I was walking back to my wife and daughter from the registration desk…How light hearted I was. I did not need to ask “HOW MUCH!?” The Christian song “Jesus loves me this I know” played in my played in my heart and soul. All I can see was “my daughter was/is important and she was/is well taken care of by the Canadian government.” Same daughter, same illness but in a different country and heaven and hell difference. Lucky we immigrated to Canada. Lucky. Pure luck.

In the ward, as I look at my sweat daughter laying on the bed, I just wounder why not all Singaporeans immigrate out of the shit hole. They don’t know how much they had been cheated by LKY.

When I tell you how my special needs daughter are taken care of in school and now as an adult with handicap you will not believe it at all…or rather refuse to believe it. How can it be so good? Impossible.

At kindergrader her class had only 7 special needs kids but they were taken care of by a full-time teacher, an assistant and watch over by a nurse and a specialist for special needs kid!

Fast forward. On reaching 18, she is given a monthly inflation-indexed allowance of Sin $1,500 (C$1+S$1.3), free medical and drugs, free dentistry and glasses (Sin $ 400 every 2 yrs). She can enroll for all kinds of studies and even dance, swim or social dance … all paid for..yea FREE. Monthly bus is half price at Sin$45 per month …unlimted bus and train travel.

If she is out of job, the social service will immediately find her a suitable job. Now she works 1 to 2 days a week in the Dollar Shop to do stuffing and packing…earning about sin$400 per month…no tax and no crawl back as it too low an income. So total monthly allowance+income about Sin$2,000.

I always tell Singaporeans that it takes alot of courage to emigrate out of Singapore but it takes even more courage to live in Singapore!

Just imagine your child or grandchild living with a major congential defect and needs contant health care supervision like my daughter. Or your love ones is still in coma after 2 years.
What would it cost you? Let them die? Let your own son die? LKY and the ministers with their $million pay + bonus can probably afford it but can you? Watch the show “Money not enough part 2″ … the scene of the dying mother and the worry over her medical bill…you would say “NO lah this wound not happen to me lah.” What if it really happens? Commit suicide? Pray that your love ones (son and daughter) die fast?

Canada is not a perfect place but you know for sure that it is not Singapore where if you do not die in the hospital, you will die of shock by just looking at the hospital bill!

Open to the idea of emigrating out of Singapore. You can search for all the options but getting out of the shit hole is the best one. Look if you do made a BIG mistake after obtaining a Canadian or Australina citizenhip you can always to back to Singapore as FT…they treat you better…yea same person but being treated better just because you change your citizenship.

“Men cannot discover new horizons with loosing sight of the land.” Are you prepared to loose the sight of Singapore and the damn sight of Lee Kuan Yew contantly appearing in the Straits Times front page?

We are not taking about politics here, we are talking about happy laughter of our children and grandchildren playing in the snow. We are talking about focusing on how to have our children get well in the hospital without worrying over the hospital bills.

We are talking about giving ourselves our children’s children a choice of freedom. Straits Times might write ghost stories about Canadian crimes, drugs, school shootings…all bad nothing good…as a Cantonese saying: “Not worth a grain of rice”. But in reality we are at least 10,000 times bigger than the red dot., we have four seasons, we have fresh air, we do not need to drink shit water….most important WE ARE CANADIANS…damn proud CANADIANS!

“A mind is like parachute…it works best when OPEN”

The name of the writer is kept confidential to protect the rights of the child. This is a true case as I know the writer personally.

The situation described looked like a reasonable one based on what I understand of the Canadian and Singapore systems (however little). I cannot, however, be 100% certain this is a true or a typical scenario for people in that same situation.

A nice little change ...

2009-12-21T22:10:00.000-08:00

For once, I have something positive to say about someone from the PAP.

"Health Minister apologises for overcrowding situation at hospitals" (By Hoe Yeen Nie, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 21 December 2009 2148 hrs) caught my attention.

Mr. Khaw realized the problem, regrets the failure to complete a hospital building project early enough and announces plans to try to solve the problem.

He has earned some brownie points from me.

For him to truly score in my books, however, I'd like for him to have told us why they failed to complete the hospital on time. Was it a problem with the budget? Did they not anticipate the growth in hospital use? I would rather the Ministry of Health think about what might have led up to this failure in order to better serve the people than for our athletics team to "reflect" on why they did not get more gold medals at the behest of Teo Chee Hean (CNA - "http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1026000/1/.html"). It would also have been nice if Mr Khaw had revealed some statistics about the scale of the problem and how the future hospital plans are expected to effectively solve the problem.

Ok, sorry, could not resist the pot-shot at Teo Chee Hean. Quite frankly, the only military person I like in that bunch has got to be George Yeo.

"Mixed" Reactions as defined by Channel News Asia

2009-12-01T21:06:00.000-08:00

I don't know whether I want to cry or laugh after reading the following Channel News Asia article "Mixed reactions to PM's proposal of one-day cool-off before Polling Day" (By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 01 December 2009 1908 hrs).

Reading the article, it would appear the "mixed reactions" are defined as:

1. PAP MPs and ministers (Lim Boom Heng, Lee Hsien Loong and Teo Ser Luck) in agreement;
2. Opposition MPs (Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang - both Workers Party) in disagreement; and
3. The lone "neutral" academic (Eugene Tan) guessing why the PAP might think this is a good idea, with no opinion of his own.

Apparently:

1. The opinions of ordinary Singaporeans do not matter. CNA either did not seek their opinions or considered them of too little importance to publish, even as a non-scientific poll.

2. Only the Workers Party represent the Opposition in Singapore. No mention of whether the other opposition MP, Chiam See Tong had anything to say or declined the interview. No mention of what the other political parties think. I guess the others are only there to help reinforce the idea that Singapore cannot possibly be repressive if there are "so many" opposition parties. Never mind what they think or feel about issues.

Finally, it appears CNA will happily quote MPs and ministers without even noting apparent contradictions. Here's what Lim Boon Heng said:

Choosing your representative in Parliament is a serious matter. So I think it is a good idea to allow people to reflect what has been said during the campaign period and then to make a considered decision on how they would vote on Polling Day.

And then Teo Ser Luck seems to happily suggest something completely different:

"Mr Low could be reading too deep into such an action. I think cooling-off could be good, whether for the opposition or the main party to consolidate and take a breather and to review their positioning.

"I don't believe it would have that great an impact on anyone. It would give people some time to consider but, as I say, some of them would have decided before the nine days of campaigning begin.

"And a lot of Singaporeans would almost look at the whole GE as uneventful, as their life would go on as per normal. But for another segment of the society, it would impact. But I wouldn't look at it as the majority."

So, we are now told the election is serious yet uneventful ... ow ... my brain hurts.

By the way, it is rather telling, what Teo Ser Luck said. What is the point of "allowing the political parties time to consolidate, take a breather and review their positions" during the "cooloff" period when they cannot influence the electorate from then on other than through "Party Political Broadcasts" and "News reports"? Well, it is not too much of a stretch to say the PAP enjoys a *massive* advantage where broadcast and news access is concerned. You can be sure they will make full use of this access too ... after all, the PAP has never shied from taking advantage of gross imbalances in the political playing field.

To the Opposition, some advice - please stop playing the "this is unfair" card. I am fairly sure a good number of Singaporeans know that at some level. Stop wasting your energy crying foul and start convincing us that you can form a reasonable government capable of tackling the issues facing this nation without resorting to the out-of-touch policies of the PAP. I cannot speak for others, all I want from you are signs you will have at least an inkling of an idea of what to do if voted into power (not just to deny the PAP a 2/3 majority). I want to know how you will run the government, what your policies will be. And yes, I get very annoyed when all you do is cry foul or tell us to vote opposition just because there is no opposition and that you "support democracy". I know that, I do not need to be reminded.

Temasek Bonds

2009-10-20T08:54:00.000-07:00

Ok, I am not an economics expert but I do not feel comfortable about the following article:

Temasek to issue US$1.5b 10-year notes due in 2019 with 4.3% coupon (By Irene Chan, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 20 October 2009 1307 hrs)

My first understanding of Bonds are those of public bonds. That is, Bonds are typically issued to raise money for public projects that require a high start-up cost. Or start a war. This article prompted me to find out that there are actually private bonds (makes sense). These tend to be used to finance a project for the same reasons, high start-up cost.

So, what bugs me about this Temasek offering (other that I am a raving anti-PAP government lunatic)?

Net proceeds from the offering will be provided to Temasek and its subsidiary companies to fund their ordinary course of business.

Temasek is an investment firm. We have already been told that its business is none of our business. So, as far as I can discern, it is taking this money raised to invest. Why does this feel wrong to me? It feels like a ponzi scheme ... "invest your money with me, so I can invest some more".

To be fair, given Temasek's record, it *should* be able to get returns on the money above the 4.3% it is offering to people buying this bond offer, so as a practical matter it seems sound. I guess I'm just more fiscally conservative ... I expect the raising of money from bonds to contribute to some clearly defined project, so investors in those bonds know exactly what they are getting themselves into. Right now, anyone buying these bonds will only know Temasek will invest it somewhere else ...

Why Low Thia Khiang was wrong. Now, nobody has any clue what LUP is about.

2009-10-13T16:36:00.000-07:00

This is really for archival purposes only. The response by the Ministry of National Development to Mr. Low Thia Khiang's quip about LUP does not square with anything previously discussed within the public domain:

"Ministry: MP Low wrong on lift upgrading" (Straits Times Forum, Oct 13, 2009).

Once I find some time, I'll try to dig up all prior discussion on the topic to attempt to properly make sense of this. Right now, this letter seems to contradict everything that has been said before ... why we have town councils, why town councils are required to maintain reserves, what are CDCs for, the suggestion that Potong Pasir's S$4.5M sinking fund cannot handle LUP for a few blocks etc ...

Meanwhile, the contents of the article are found below.

I REFER to last Saturday's letter by Member of Parliament for Hougang Low Thia Khiang, 'No basis for MP not to announce lift upgrading'.

The joint letter last Friday by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the People's Association ('Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading') should be read in conjunction with Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan's explanation to the media last Wednesday.

As Mr Mah highlighted, HDB's upgrading programmes are carried out and funded by the Government. This is no different from other government programmes such as the building of roads and schools.

These programmes have to be implemented through government channels. In the case of HDB upgrading, this channel is the advisers to grassroots organisations, who are appointed by the Government. Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government, nor are they obliged to carry out and explain the Government's policies.

The Government pays up to 90 per cent of the cost of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), with the rest shared between the residents (5 per cent) and the town councils (5 per cent). Funding for LUP is possible only because of the Government and the Budget surpluses it has generated through prudent policies.

Opposition MPs are not responsible for generating budget surpluses. There is therefore no basis for opposition MPs to lead the LUP - a national programme funded mainly by the Government. Mr Low is mistaken when he cites the 'will of the people' expressed in general elections to justify why he should play a leading role in the LUP in Hougang. The will of the people expressed in general elections is to elect a government for the country as a whole; and not to elect separate local governments for each constituency.

Singapore has a one-level system of government. MPs, whether People's Action Party or opposition, do not constitute a local government in their constituency.

However, MPs do have a role in running town councils. Their role in town management and maintenance is clearly defined in the Town Councils Act, and does not extend to implementing government programmes such as the LUP.

Lim Yuin Chien
Press Secretary to the
Minister for National Development

Mah Bow Tan needs to be slapped ...

2009-10-09T14:02:00.000-07:00

... for making me waste time to blog yet another entry because of him :P.

That little good-for-nothing minister is hiding behind nice-looking statistics that tell us *absolutely nothing* about the state of affairs in HDB housing. Here is what he says (I'll even cite this from the PAP website rather than the news) - "Hard to get that first flat? Not so" : National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan sets records straight on claims by couples.

1) He quotes 3 different pieces of data from 3 different data points. This is what he tells us:

Data Point #1 (Oct 7 2009) - 80% first try applicants offered BTO flat. 96% second try applicants offered BTO flat.

Data Point #2 (2007) - 67% of first try applicants reject offer.

Data Point #3 (May 2008) - 52% of first try applicants reject offer.

What conclusions can you draw? Absolutely nothing, unless you make assumptions about the relevant pieces of data for each data point.

2) His conclusions from the skimpy data above require huge leaps of logic, typical of PAP claims that "if the percentage of the problem is small, then there is no problem". Let me do part of his homework for him (he, or someone else, will need to fill in the blanks):

For any given application period,
F = first try applicants.
S = second try applicants.
O = other applicants.
X = flats offered.
Y = flats taken.

Using just Oct 7 data:
X = 0.8F + 0.96S + pO where p = fraction of other applicants who are successful.

Assuming May 2008 data applies to Oct 7:
Y = 0.48x0.8F + aSx0.96F + aOxpO
where aS = acceptance fraction of 2nd try,
aO = acceptance fraction of others.

Flats remaining available for next cycle = X - Y (assuming the decision based on demand is to build).
Number of first tries with no flat at the end of this cycle = 0.2F + 0.52x0.8F = 0.616F.

To make his conclusion, one needs to know at least F and S. If the numbers are small, then maybe it really isn't a problem for the "innocent" rejectees. But if the numbers are large, then 0.2F could very well be a serious problem. Why? Because a fraction of 0.616F will go on to become the next round's S figure. Again, we have no clue what fraction that is.

How many people give up? What are the numbers for X, F, S, p, O, aS and aO for the application cycles over the last 5 years? What are the trends? Are the S and O figures growing, indicating flat supply is not keeping up with demand?
How many of the "bad" F (0.416F) applicants go on to reject their flats when they become the S figure on the next cycle?

Where the rejections are concerned, how many of F, S and O got their first-choice of flats? How many rejected the offer because they were offered their 3rd or worse choices they could pick? How many were offered choices they had not even opted for in the first place (as is typical with NUS undergrad applications)? I remember very unhappy friends who got shoved into NUS Comp Sci merely because it had showed up at the bottom of the list of choices for their study major. How many applicants were "picky"? How many were simply not offered any reasonable choice?

Come on, Mr Mah, I'm sure you and your staff can do a better job than that with statistical data! Show me the meat upon which we can have a far more meaningful discussion!

Singapore's Population

2009-09-28T17:31:00.000-07:00

I was not planning to blog about anything until I complete my Phd thesis ... but this just stunned me ...

S'pore population hits 5m (By Melissa Pang, Straits Times, Sep 28, 2009).

Two (well, three) things struck me:

1. Households

The number of resident households has also gone up at the same rate - by 1.7 per cent to an estimated 1,093,100 in 2008.

That's around 18,000 households. So, I have so many questions now ... how the hell are we housing everyone if the HDB is constructing only 8,000 homes per year? Is there a large enough surplus of flats? Is there a large enough supply of private housing? Are families now being forced to rent rooms just to have a roof over their heads? The Americans over-extended by trying to have more people to own homes but are we headed the other direction by trying to have fewer people owning their own homes?

2. Percentage growth in population

The latest figures indicate a 3.1 per cent growth over the previous year, with the resident population registering a 2.5 per cent jump.

Ok ... is it me, or is our population growing at a similar or faster rate than our GDP growth? Naively, this should mean our per-capita GDP should be stagnant. Given a huge chunk of our GDP goes into company profits, does this mean we are going to continue to see wages frozen for the foreseeable future while costs go up?

3. The spin ... oh, the spin ...

Soon after I read the article and refreshed the page to acquire the reference links to blog about it, I came across what must be the most blatant spin-article to "reassure" Singaporeans nothing is wrong (in the most un-reassuring way):

Population rises, slowly (By Zakir Hussain, Political Correspondent, Straits Times, Sep 29, 2009)

Just look at the language used ... speculative or stuffed with weasel words ...

The others are permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners. In this foreign pool of 1.8 million, the number of PRs grew faster - by 12 per cent.

It shot up by 55,000 to 533,200, partly because of many foreigners rushing to be PRs to avoid having to pack up and leave Singapore should they lose their jobs during the downturn.

... sooo, you are telling us that our Immigration policies have become so liberal that a foreigner can suka suka become a PR by saying "because I don't want to leave if I lose my job during the downturn"? Come to think of it, that only makes sense if these people want a shot at another job in Singapore if they lose one. Otherwise, why would they even want to stay in expensive Singapore? I wonder how many foreigners actually feel this way ... did Zakir Hussain actually research this "fact" or did he conjure it out of nowhere?

In contrast, the number of foreigners - which includes family members of foreign workers - rose less sharply to 1.25 million.

This is a rise of 5 per cent, which is much smaller than last year's 19 per cent increase amid a booming economy.

More than half of these foreigners are transient workers, many of whom do jobs or take shifts that locals avoid.

To be fair, I am reading what might be a non-existent sub-text with a classic spin ... "not as bad as last year's terrible numbers = 'please be grateful, you sorry peons'". Seriously though, I'm a little pissed-off by the last sentence. It reads to me rather like "many of whom are sitting around unpaid for non-existent jobs because the economy is so damn bad".

Finally, this takes the cake:

The bigger foreign pool is cause for cheer, said National University of Singapore sociologist Paulin Straughan.

'That we managed to grow the population in spite of a downturn and sustained low fertility rate is quite an achievement.

'This means Singapore remains an attractive destination for those seeking work,' said Associate Professor Straughan, who is also a Nominated MP.

Yay. I'm so very happy we can have more people to suffer through a downturn and have all those extra people to soak up all the jobs that become available when the economy recovers.

Being a foreign graduate student in the US who might seek a job here, I'm normally very supportive of foreign workers in Singapore complementing our workforce. However, all I can see in the future given how the government and employers in Singapore behave is that the majority of new jobs created when the Singapore economy recovers will go to this huge extra surplus of foreign workers because, let's face it, they are way cheaper than Singaporeans. At the very best, wages will remain depressed for a long time to come. Of course, that's what the establishment wants ...

Thoughts on Democracy by D.W. Eisenhower. Something to think about.

2009-09-03T15:27:00.000-07:00

It is a link to a reply by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in response to comments from a dying war veteran. I found the link on an article linked by a reader on the Singaporean Mind blog article (MM Lee : PAP in power for 10 more years!) and found it very apt in some aspects in the context of the Singapore political scene. To think Eisenhower was a Republican! :P

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/second-term/documents/1051.cfm

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

2009-08-26T22:46:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-16T19:17:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-15T11:55:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-10T15:15:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-09T18:33:00.001-07:00

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

2009-08-06T13:42:00.000-07:00

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.

S$264,000 for a 4-room flat at Punggol???

2009-07-30T14:18:00.000-07:00

This article from CNA (HDB launches another BTO project in Punggol - Posted: 30 July 2009 1300 hrs) just blew my mind ...

Prices range from S$264,000 to S$322,000 for the 4-room flats and from S$344,000 to S$409,000 for the 5-room flats.

Are you kidding me? My Duxton Plains apartment at $330k already has me really worried about the loan mortgage ... what in the world makes them say the following without cringing?

HDB said these prices are below those of similar flats in the market and are affordable to first-time flat buyers.

Why would anyone pay these kinds of prices all the way out in Punggol? I must be getting out of touch with how expensive Singapore has become ...

Goodyear leaves Temasek

2009-07-22T19:13:00.000-07:00

The topic has been practically talked-about to death on the blogosphere but something in this Straits Times article (Goodyear's exit questioned - By Gabriel Chen & Alvin Foo July 22, 2009) tickled me:

Mr Charles Kernot, a London-based mining analyst told Bloomberg: 'It may be that he went in with the understanding he would be able to develop a direct equity investment portfolio across the mining and oil and gas space. 'With all the market volatility and uncertainty among commodity producers, it may be the Singaporeans were not so sure of that strategy.'

I'm not sure if Mr. Kernot is referring to the leadership when he writes "the Singaporeans" ... because Singaporeans in general has no say ... absolutely zero, zilch, nadda ... in how Temasek is run or its strategy. We cannot even say "We're not really sure we like the direction Temasek is taking." because doing so gets us a "Mind your own business" response. In any case, if Mr. Kernot is indeed referring to the leadership, I'm offended too ... it's "our" money. How the Singapore leadership feels about things does not necessarily square up with how Singaporeans feel about things, so he should have made that distinction clear.

Meanwhile ... a thought just occurred to me ... even if Temasek does make ooodles and tons of money from its investments, how do Singaporeans know if the profits even go back into making our lives better? Where do the profits go? Back into making more money? Into our reserves? And if the money never makes it back into society, then what's the point of screaming about the losses in the first place? It is not as if we're gonna see any benefits from the profits!

CNA: Clean Slate of NMPs

2009-07-06T18:03:00.000-07:00

A brand new slate of NMPs in the House
By Loh Chee Kong and Ong Dai Lin, TODAY | Posted: 07 July 2009 0731 hrs

SINGAPORE: It will be a slate of completely new faces in the House, all nine of them – the maximum number of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) allowed by the Constitution. But you might recognise a few familiar names.

One surprise is former national swimmer and Olympian Joscelin Yeo, who makes the move from pool to politics; while ex-current affairs television presenter Viswa Sadasivan will simply be taking his long-time involvement on government panels to the next level.

On Monday evening, an email sent out by the Select Committee, tasked with whittling down the list of 46 applications, revealed the results of their deliberations.

Subject to President S R Nathan's formal approval, the nine picked to give voice to non-partisan, alternative views in Parliament comprise an entrepreneur, a decorated unionist, a top honcho at a Big Four accountancy firm, a vocal sociologist, a shipping industry leader, a communications consultant, a sportswoman, a community service veteran and an artistic director.

Former NMPs Mr Siew Kum Hong and Mr Gautam Banerjee, both of whom had sought second terms, were conspicuously absent from the list.

The newbies, who will be sworn in before Parliament sits on July 20, were selected after interviews held over three days last week.

Ms Yeo, 30, said she went for the interview without any expectation after her name was put up to the panel by the sporting fraternity. She views being an NMP as an extension of the work she is doing at the swimming school she runs with her brother and with the Youth Ministry of New Creation Church.

"Definitely, some of the things close to my heart are sports and youth," she told TODAY, on the type of issues she might raise.

Mr Viswa, 49, who has been active on national panels for years, feels "sufficiently attuned to what's happening on the ground".

"I'm at a steady state in my life where I'm able to commit the time needed ... I also feel strongly that to be able to contribute effectively (as an NMP), you need to have sufficient knowledge - and I feel today that I have enough to participate in debates on a spectrum of Bills," he said.

Foot up for civil society

One area Mr Viswa feels strongly about is the development of civil society, and he thinks the public is getting "mixed signals" from the top.

"I think the government is sincere but quite often, there appears to be a sense that it's one step forward and two steps back," he said.

Though mindful not to "overstep" his bounds as NMP, he is ready to leverage on his new role.

"I would like to form a loose resource panel of individuals with domain knowledge in specific areas like economics, social work, education, defence policies and so on ... so I'll be able to tap on their expertise which I might articulate (through) my views in Parliament," he said.

Another NMP hoping to extend her work outside of Parliament is The Substation co-artistic director Audrey Wong. Besides seeking to "give the arts a foot in the door among decision-makers", and reflecting the people's views on issues such as Internet freedom, political films and education, she plans to start a blog and run workshops for youth.

"I've discussed with The Substation what my role should be ... one is to develop a stronger education programme where we give young people insights into arts and culture, and how the arts and society are intertwined."

From bread-and-butter to identity issues

While veteran unionist Terry Lee said he would focus on workers' welfare and employability - especially with Singapore in recession - some fellow NMP-appointees want to draw attention to social and cultural issues affecting the country.

Fashion entrepreneur Calvin Cheng hopes to contribute in national debates on "cultural identity".

"With the Integrated Resorts, a window is opening which will either strengthen our cultural identity or weaken it ... At no time is having a strong, unique and proud cultural identity more important than right now, when we throw open our doors to the world," he said.

Married to an American, National University of Singapore sociologist Paulin Straughan wants to share her own experiences in drawing attention to the children of such "inter-cultural marriages".

"Each year, we lose some of these bi-cultural youth when they are forced to give up Singapore citizenship.

"As more Singaporeans marry foreigners and grow their families here, we must find an innovative way to help these children maintain their bi-cultural identity," she said.

TODAY was unable to contact the other three new NMPs. Ernst & Young Associates managing director Mildred Tan chairs the public communications sub-committee on the National Council on Problem Gambling.

Mr Teo Siong Seng, managing director of a container-ship operator, is president of both the Singapore Chinese Chamber Of Commerce & Industry and the Singapore Shipping Association.

Mr Laurence Wee is the executive director of Presbyterian Community Services.

- TODAY/so

Archiving this so I do not lose the information. As to my thoughts, those would have to come later (if at all) as I'm horrendously busy. All I can say now is that I'm miffed that they did not select Siew Kum Hong for a 2nd term.

Efficient when familiar, unhelpful in uncharted waters

2009-06-03T16:56:00.000-07:00

That's the gist of the CNA article "Singapore civil servants ranked most efficient in Asia: survey" (Posted: 03 June 2009 1948 hrs).

SINGAPORE : A business survey on 12 Asian cities found that civil servants in Singapore are the most efficient.

The survey, conducted by Hong Kong-based Political & Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), also found that Singaporean bureaucrats are unhelpful when things go wrong.

How very true. The Singapore civil service could be manned with rule-based robots and nobody would notice the difference. To be fair, a decent number of civil servants at least smile and try to be nice, at least from my experiences so far. Then again, once you have exceptional situations for them to handle, the smiles fade rather quickly ...

A Sign of South Korean Democratic Maturity that Singapore Lacks?

2009-05-28T20:18:00.000-07:00

Source:

Koreans turn out in force for Roh (BBC - 02:11 GMT, Friday, 29 May 2009 03:11 UK).

and

S Koreans sad and angry over Roh (By John Sudworth, BBC - 13:25 GMT, Saturday, 23 May 2009 14:25 UK).

A national funeral held for former President Roh Moo-hyun, a liberal, by the current conservative administration of President Lee Myung-bak.

Former opponents honoring the passing of a "colleague". Will we ever see that happen again in Singapore? Will Singapore continue to go the way of (what I consider) political vindictiveness as part of its national political psyche? Former Presidents Ong Teng Cheong (elected, no less!) and Devan Nair were the two out of five former Singapore Presidents not honored with a national funeral and state burial. Why? Officially, it was the result of some (what I consider) arbitrary decision by the Cabinet. Unofficially, "everyone" now knows they "caused trouble" for our "ruling" (I hate that term) party.

David Marshall, our first Chief Minister, was honored at his death in 1995 (I do not know if he was given a state funeral). This was despite his being a staunch political opponent to the PAP in the early years before serving as Singapore's Ambassador to various European countries. What changed since 1995?

I hope in the future, I'd see a political landscape where leaders are honored for their service to the nation regardless of their differences with the sitting government when they die. Of course, should they turn out to be vile criminals (as Hitler was), they should be struck off the rolls (remembered, but not honored).

2009-05-16T15:44:00.000-07:00

Sex Theme Park in China.

UPDATE March 20 2009: Heh, guess Chongqing officials felt mostly the same way Singaporean officials do. The planned park has been demolished.

Here is an updated article from the BBC: "China sex theme park demolished" (04:25 GMT, Monday, 18 May 2009 05:25 UK).

Pity ...

This from the BBC: "China builds first sex theme park" (14:36 GMT, Saturday, 16 May 2009 15:36 UK).

Image from the BBC article:

China is building what is billed as its first sex theme park, aimed at improving both the sex education and the sex life of its visitors.

In the heart of industrial town Chongqing! Yay for "Asian Values"! To be fair, I believe this is a private enterprise rather than a state venture.

My thoughts: even the Chinese government appear to believe it is better to let citizens decide for themselves the "appropriateness" of the park by its success or failure through market forces. If no one shows up because they are uncomfortable with it, it will have to close down. If only the sexually deprived show up, I doubt they'd get off on much of the stuff there and after prolonged exposure (no pun intended) to the displays, so it will also have to eventually close down.

I hope it succeeds in its goals. I hope the Chinese will pull the rug from under the Singapore government's excuses for conservatism in Singapore. I hope the obvious cherry-picking of "values" (from East and West, as and when it is convenient) will be exposed for what it is and Singaporeans will emerge from it stronger and more confident about its own identity and culture.

2009-05-14T12:14:00.000-07:00

Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS).

A Mr. Lawrence Loh had a letter published on TODAY outlining his personal experience at MPS which mirrored my take on why a good number of our MPs are out-of-touch with reality. It is entitled "MP had no empathy" (Letter from LAWRENCE LOH KIAH MUAN - Updated 10:07 PM May 13, 2009).

I felt I just had to archive this. I have no faith in Singapore-based online news outlets keeping any article alive forever.

It started with Member of Parliament (MP) Seng Han Thong being set on fire. Then came MP Denise Phua who was threatened by a rag-and-bone man. Recently, MP Cynthia Phua was subjected to a display of violence by a constituent.

Although these incidents are disturbing and a cause for concern, I wonder whether the constituents are solely to be blamed.

Allow me to relate my personal experience.

In February 2001, my older son died in a naval accident whilst serving National Service. In that year, my younger son was due for enlistment. A friend, a very active grassroots member, suggested that I approach my MP, for help in exploring the possibility of getting an exemption for my younger son. I was reluctant but he went ahead to fix an appointment for me at the Meet-The-People Session (MPS). I subsequently relented and he accompanied me there. It was in March 2001. That was my first appearance at a MPS, and it was to be my last.

I waited until midnight before I could meet the MP. Prior to this, he was given the case paper which detailed the objective of the meeting and the circumstances of my case.

When I entered the room, his first remark was “Yes, what can I do for you?”. There was no attempt at offering a word of sympathy or condolence. I then related my situation and said that both my wife and I were very traumatised.

His next remark “What traumatic, after two months, you won’t be traumatic?”. With that, I decided to end the meeting. And with that, my respect for him hit ground zero. I was too stunned and grief-stricken to react. Someone who was less-controlled and less-measured than me could have flown into a rage and become violent.

MPs are elected or appointed to serve the constituents. People who attend the MPS are those who have real problems and need help. In a lot of instances, they are stressed, distressed and troubled. What they need is a caring soul, a helping hand, a gentle voice, and words of hope and encouragement. To dispense these, MPs need good interpersonal skills and a high EQ. Arrogance, a patronizing, chiding and belittling attitude, aloofness and lack of empathy will only trigger acts of rashness and violence. Many of our politicians have a high IQ, some are scholars. However, a high IQ is not the only attribute needed in a political career. A high EQ is equally, if not more critical, especially when it comes to dealing with the constituents.

In my case, I would have felt good if my MP could have been a warm and caring person. If he could have been empathetic, consoling and helpful. All these qualities can only come from the heart, not from the mind.

How many of our MPs can stand up and be counted for this?

If Mr. Lawrence Loh is reading this, my condolences on your loss. I am sorry your emotional hurt did not register with the MP and I am also sorry it did not initially register with myself until after I've read to the point where you expressed that hurt. All I can say is in Singapore, people tend to have this mindset where if you ask them for something exceptional, they think you are out to cheat them or cause trouble for them.

Something else caught my eye in that article ... one of the comments:

Meiyi- Updated 03:03 AM May 15, 2009

When you have heard of a story, please do not hear one side of the story and jump into conculsion that what you have heard is true. In everything we do, there is a cause and effect. There must be something that the resident said for the MP to react that way.

While the premise of what is said is true, that one should take accounts with a pinch of salt, the "conclusions" of the comment abuses that notion. What does Meiyi mean by "must"? The implication of disbelieve, that Mr. Loh has exaggerated things, is there in the sub-text. Why is Mr. Loh's account any less probable than Meiyi's supposition? In any case, I guess the ball is in the MP's court ... let us hear what he or she has to say (I would note that Mr. Loh had been kind enough not to publicly identify that MP, but I think he really should have outed the MP).

Personally, I'm inclined to believe Mr. Loh's account given my personal experiences with bureaucrats in Singapore (and many other places), especially those who think highly of the powers and authority that have been vested in them.

2009-05-07T15:14:00.000-07:00

17 year-old arrested for public display of anger.

This incident has been reported at various news sources:

Outburst at MP's office (Straits Times Online - May 7, 2009 by By Sujin Thomas)

Low IQ teen arrested for “violence” at MPS office after meeting PAP MP Cynthia Phua (Wayang Party - May 6, 2009 by admin)

Boy arrested for slamming chair at MP Office! (Diary of A Singaporean Mind - Wednesday, May 06, 2009 by blogger)

I am very upset by this incident. I do not think this boy (still one year away from serving NS) is being treated fairly. Why was the first response from the "grassroots leaders" to call the police? Was he threatening anyone directly? His family was obviously in distress. Why was the first reaction not to try to calm him down, get him seated down and told that physical violence will not help him solve his family's problems? Are we (staff at "Meet-The-People" sessions, no less!) really so incapable of handling people as individuals?

Something else does not add up. If he were "restrained" while the police was contacted by the staff at the MP's office (as reported on the Straits Times), then what led to his eventual release and then arrest at his home? Why does the blog entry say Miss Cynthia Phua (the MP) asked "pointed" questions and the ST article had no mention of that?

The most troubling quote came from Minister Lim Hwee Hwa (source: Diary of A Singaporean Mind):

There is a clear line between being frustrated or disappointed and being violent. The thrown chair could have killed somebody.

Sure, he could have injured someone with that chair. Kill? Maybe in freak cases. Kill or injure when he did not seem to be directing the attack at any particular person but a glass door? Please ...

Why are our ministers, MPs and hell, our "grassroots leaders" so damn out-of-touch with the real world?

Enough anger ... I had asked if something could be done to help the poor boy ... free legal aid, financial help, anything ... I felt distant and helpless, unable to provide any immediate aid/relief for their suffering. Then I see that the police has declined to reveal any details about the boy to the public. So now I am just frustrated ... frustrated as hell.

EDIT: As pointed out by commenter Vox Leo, the grassroots leaders are mostly volunteers. Please read my reply in the comments section, but I do feel I ought to express some regret sounding so harsh regarding what I consider their professionalism (implied) in the matter.

2009-04-23T15:27:00.000-07:00

Church of Jediism anyone?

This started out as a giggle for me when I first read about it on the BBC, but now I don't really know.

However, I've recently thought about how religions evolve from something rather unbelievable (recent examples include the Mormon church and the "church" of Scientology) and I cannot help imagining what would happen in the future, particularly after George Lucas passes away.

This is something from their Church Doctrine [www.jedi-church.co.uk, www.jedichurch.org]:

History of Our Religion

The force has always existed and always will.

Our faith in the force existed well before the fictional Star Wars movies brought popular recognition to the terminology and concepts that our members always innately held, but had difficultly describing in a shared forum.

When the movement to answer Jedi to the religion question in the NZ census began, it was incredible to see how quickly word spread, and just how many people embraced the new popular name of their shared innate religion. With such immediacy, people from all around the world followed suit, now having an obvious and common name for their deeply held religious and moral convictions. It is the speed and numbers of people involved in the census movement, that show just how powerful the concepts of the Jedi Faith are.

The terminology used by the Jedi Church were introduced by the fictional Star Wars movies, and often references are made to the movies by our members, as a conceptual demonstration of how some might ascribe to the higher levels of a Jedi faith, in a far away land, a long time ago. The fact remains, that these concepts merely reflect a deep held innate morality, that we all have inside us, and now we have some common terminology and place to share our thoughts with each other. This morality existed prior to the movies. The movies do not in any way legitimise nor negate the legitimacy of the Jedi Church. They are merely a discussion point.

The Jedi Church neither confirm nor deny that George Lucas is a member of the Jedi Church. We do not mind if our members deny their involvement in our church should they seek to avoid persecution.

So, these people are serious. A work of fiction was merely incident on a "fundamental truth". Depending on how you look at it, this is almost as bad as Scientology. The latter was based on science fiction but actively perpetrated by the author as a religion.

I wonder if this will gain traction. In 200-300 years, will they become mainstream? Will they then begin to rewrite history to legitimize their "religion's" existence? Will Star Wars cease becoming fiction and turn into canon? Afterall, the starting text says "A long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away ..." totally legitimizing a non-existent inter-galactic history as humanity is, perhaps, embarking on its first baby steps to practical space travel. We know the truth now ... will we remember it a few hundred years from now?

2009-04-20T19:17:00.000-07:00

Contagious Culture-Bound Syndromes? The Story of Grisi siknis.

It was with great interest that I read on the BBC the article 'She ran around like a maniac' (BBC Website 20th April 2009).

The descriptions of the disease are something every atheist skeptic scoffs at:

"Grisi Siknis turns people into witches and they go crazy," she said.

Last year there were 65 cases of Grisi Siknis, which translates from the local Miskito language as 'crazy sickness'.

Exorcism

It behaves like a virus, sending teenager after teenager into a frenzied state followed by long periods of coma-like unconsciousness.

and the most effective cure is ...

While Western doctors are at a loss as to how to treat this mysterious illness, Doña Porcela says she can cure people with her concoction.

"It can be drunk or bathed in," she said. "Within three or four days, they are normal again."

Using her herbs and candles, she performs a cleansing ceremony on sufferers and, often, on their houses too - akin to an exorcism.

Strangely enough, this disease along with a good number of others, appear to actually be taken seriously by "western" scientific medicine. Wikipedia has an article on it with a number of citations from what seems to be reputable scientific journals (it is noted that Medical Anthropology appears to be considered somewhat controversial).

I guess without digging a whole lot deeper into the field, it is hard to understand the justifications for treating this as a serious medical condition. My guess is that it appears to be strangely contagious, affects random people (among teenage girls of the Miskito people), lasts a long time (months to a year) and records people as having complete amnesia of the events after they had recovered. In spite of the somewhat strange efficacy of traditional herbal solutions to the problem (excaberated by the witchdoctors' refusal to share the information with scientists), the list of symptoms does appear to preclude any shenanigans on the part of the victims.

I wonder if they will allow (or have allowed) victims to be analyzed through an MRI machine (while strapped down) in the middle of an attack. I'm not sure if that is safe though, considering the stories of how violently they struggle. Am almost certain that if something is wrong, an MRI would show it up on the brain scans. Apparently doctors cannot detect anything strange in the blood samples of victims suffering from the disease (while not violent, I presume).

Definitely a curious case.

2009-04-10T13:55:00.000-07:00

Singapore, a First World country?

Straits Times Article (April 10, 2009): S'pore's meritocratic edge

Let me put aside my anger with MM Lee's obvious hypocrisy (quoted by ST, am seeking the original speech transcript for a better understanding of the context. Could have sworn the ST had a link to the PDF file the last time I checked):

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has urged Singaporeans not to delude themselves that they are a part of the First World in South-east Asia.

Singapore is situated in a region with 'special features' which makes it particularly vulnerable, so to keep its competitive edge and be relevant to the world, it must stay a cohesive, multiracial, multireligious nation based on meritocracy, he said.

If he had apologized about having repeatedly pronounced Singapore's "arrival" at First World status when trumpeting his achievements, I might have felt better about this.

Anyway, I want to focus on the definition of "First World" on this blog entry. Here's something from Wikipedia (link):

The terms First World, Second World, and Third World were used to divide nations into three broad categories. The three terms did not arise simultaneously. After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western Bloc" and the "Eastern Bloc". The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World".

It was intended as a political moniker, not an economic one. It so happened that most Third World countries were poor. Economically speaking, now that we are past the era of the Cold War, people often use the term Developed Countries and Developing Countries. Singapore is defined as a High-Income Country by the World Bank.

Notice how MM Lee abuses the term "First World" by taking advantage of (what I think is) the general misunderstanding of the phrase. Also notice how he has twisted the use in the context of a mixed social-political-economic environment.

The question now is "What is the motivation behind this exhortation?". Personally, I hope it is not a veiled threat against a (very slowly) rising tide of liberal thinking (which is, unfortunately, mistakenly tied to "First World" or "Western" countries whenever it suits people in power).

2009-04-06T18:59:00.000-07:00

Schindler's List of 801 found in Australia.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7985004.stm

This is one of those stories that I have found touching. Unfortunately, a little detail popped out that made me wonder:

If Oskar Schindler had been living in the modern world, helping these refugees survive persecution by working in his munitions factory ... the likely outcome would be a tragedy.

The factory would be bombed to bits, the refugees killed and Schindler would be accused of using human shields. A chilling thought about the modern world ...

It would even be a realistic scenario too. Goodness knows the number of times troops have called down an artillery bombardment or air-strike on a civilian target just on "reasonable suspicion" that it was a threat. A munitions factory would not even warrant a second-thought.

2009-03-22T11:30:00.001-07:00

Making better use of statistics

Too often, we've all relied on anecdotal evidence or personal perceptions to guide our arguments and form our thoughts. The following video, which was highlighted on The Online Citizen caught my attention.

The information about the developing world is nice, but I think it is more important for us to realize that we need tools (to view trends) as well as hard data (statistics) to help us reason about the truth (statistics sometimes do lie, however).

I encourage readers to check out the professor's tool website at http://www.gapminder.org/

2009-03-19T17:14:00.000-07:00

Suppression of Dialects in Singapore

I posted the following as a comment on TOC but I thought it merited a full post here on my own blog:

In the US, people are free to learn languages based on an individual's needs, whether for economic gain, one's family/cultural environment, or just out of interest. The government does not force (in spite of some bigoted cries for ALL US citizens to have to know English) people to learn (American) English. Instead, the US government adapts ... in areas where there are more Spanish speakers, you tend to see more documents available in Spanish. If it is not economical to make multiple copies of forms and instructions, they offer translation services as best as they can.

What Singapore lacks is the confidence in ourselves. We are not confident that need, economic or otherwise, will necessarily inspire an individual to pursue what is required to fulfill that need. Instead, we rely on the government to "provide".

In doing so, the government left no one with much of a choice as we grew up! We get pigeon-holed into 3 secondary languages (Bahasa Melayu, Tamil and Mandarin) and a smattering of tertiary languages (French, German and Japanese). Under this scenario, to survive in our education system, one has no choice but to tackle a secondary language.

I personally struggled with Mandarin for which I either lacked talent with or just hated the way it was taught. Either way, it felt uninspiring. I learned more about Chinese culture and history playing games like Romance of the Three Kingdoms than from my Mandarin classes in formal education. Perhaps I should have chosen Bahasa Melayu as my "mother tongue" (had I, as a kid, the choice) but Mandarin was the "natural" option given my ethnicity. Cantonese had to take a back seat. It is unclear if I would have succeed with Cantonese given my failure at Mandarin, but I still regret having to "converse" with my late maternal grandmother in broken Cantonese with Mandarin words thrown in when I failed to find the equivalent Cantonese ones (and the awkward moments when grandma fails to understand what I think were the appropriate Mandarin replacements).

Today in the US, I still lack any serious linguistic talent (outside of English), but I no longer feel strait-jacketed. Nowadays, I take joy trying to get a feel for every language my (very) international friends had to offer. From English (it is more diverse than you think) to Italian to Spanish to Polish to Mandarin to Hindi. I do not learn enough to actually converse (other than English and Mandarin, and barely the latter), but I feel great satisfaction understanding aspects of a language (eg. gender associations) and sometimes the cultural aspects. The diversity is staggering and at the same time, beautiful.

The people in Singapore who insist on eliminating everything outside the "supported" languages presented by the media (since we do not, in practice, have private media) are really depriving Singaporeans of this beauty. I would love to see the day private media enthusiasts in Singapore are allowed to present material in any language (or dialect) they desire (eg. "The World of French Music" in French) instead of being strait-jacketed by "official policy".

I would like to add my thoughts on the current discussion of Chinese dialects in Singapore. If individual need had triumphed, I daresay Singapore would have the entrepreneurs interested in the China market being proficient or learning to be proficient with Mandarin while others can pursue their own interests. Instead, we have a situation where many of us possess half-baked knowledge of a mother tongue we are insufficiently inspired with and practice too infrequently to properly maintain. All in the hope that somehow we would ALL employ our mother tongues in the economic service of our nation ...

2009-03-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

A possible case of double standards

This is more of a "highlighting" post. Wayang party reported this:

Phone threats a “non-seizable offence”: case of double standards?

I've followed the links to at least check on their sources and it looks real.

The origin - No action on phone threat (ST Forum - online only? March 11, 2009).

It was short enough to quote in its entirety:

'No one from the police has called. If the caller's intention was real, wouldn't we be harmed by now? How do the police decide which cases to investigate first?'

MADAM TAN LIAN GIM: 'My husband received a verbal threat via his mobile phone last Wednesday. The caller, who knew my husband's name, threatened to inflict bodily harm on him and his family. My husband made a police report the same day at the Bedok North station. No one from the police post has called us since. If the caller's intention was real, wouldn't we be dead or harmed by now? I have read reports about how the police acted swiftly when similar threats were made against a grassroots leader. How do the police decide which cases to investigate first in apparently similar reports?'

I also found the corresponding reply the Wayang Party article noted but failed to link to: "Phone threats a non-seizable offence" (ST Forum March 19, 2009 - It would now seem that both posts were on-print). Again, the response seems short enough to quote directly:

WE REFER to Madam Tan Lian Gim's letter, 'No action on phone threat' (March 11). Under the law, verbal threat is a non-seizable offence where the police have limited powers of investigation and arrests. Nonetheless, when a report is made, the police will look into the facts and if no aggravating factor is found, the police will advise the complainant to lodge a complaint before a magistrate, who has the power to direct further action as provided under the law.

The magistrate can direct the police to lawfully investigate the case and take further action where appropriate.

In Madam Tan's case, the police had found no aggravating factor and Madam Tan's husband was thus advised to lodge a magistrate's complaint accordingly.

DSP Paul Tay,
Assistant Director,
Media Relations,
Singapore Police Force

So, it would appear ... as pointed out by the Wayang Party article that in the case of MP Denise Phua, all the necessary follow-up action must have been taken which ultimately resulted in the current trial involving the man issuing the indirect phone threat.

I, for one, would like to see some transparency here that the followup action did indeed happen because the consequences of that being false is that we have a separate set of rules for VIPs (which is not, by itself, a bad thing) which we know nothing about (that's the bad thing!).

Of course, I am also annoyed that Madam Tan and her husband's case was treated in this fashion by the police given the speed with which the Denise Phua incident was pursued. All this along with, fresh in my mind, the recent incident of the man who was assaulted on an MRT train but was told by the police they could do nothing after being directed there by MRT staff.

2009-03-16T14:29:00.000-07:00

A classic Singaporean reaction to Singaporean streakers:

"Streaking 'fun' can lead to other crimes"
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_350495.html

I'll post his comments in full (since he hardly said anything and the ST may not archive this to the end of days like the BBC does):

AFTER reading last Thursday's report, "Undergrad streakers expelled from NUS hostel", I would like to remind students that NUS stands for "National University of Singapore", and not "Naked University of Singapore".

I have nothing against drinking and having fun. However, running naked from one hostel to the next is something all schools and universities must prevent. Such "fun" can lead to other crimes.

Ace Kindred Cheong

This guy seems to possess future ministerial qualities ...

First paragraph - trying to impose his "authority" by "reminding" people of a useless piece of fact. Everyone knows NUS does not stand for the "Naked University of Singapore" ... your sarcastic remark does not tell anybody anything useful.

Second paragraph - Mr Cheong does the classic "fear factor" tactic of the ruling party - unsubstantiated paranoia about "other crimes". What other crimes are you alluding to, Mr Cheong? How are they related to streaking? Where do you get your crime statistics from that relates streaking to these "other crimes"?

As usual the Mainstream Media laps this kind of drivel up while rejecting other more thoughtful and interesting letters (you can see some of those on The Online Citizen or Wayang Party - I don't always agree with them, but I find those letters far more thoughtful about the issues we face as Singaporeans).

2009-03-11T18:25:00.000-07:00

Bill Gates' net worth - a view from "below".

Just read on BBC the latest net worth (apparently the world's richest have all had their net worth slashed thanks to the recent crunch) of Bill Gates - US$40 billion dollars.

What does this mean for an individual?

Imagine spending US$1 million every day. If Bill Gates liquidated all his assets, he can do so for 109 years.

Now, let us imagine Bill Gates giving away all this money to others (FYI, he has a charitable foundation for helping the world on health and other issues: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx):

Say he's trying to support people with US$50,000 a year (Singapore's PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP for the year 2007 - http://indexmundi.com/singapore/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html). He would succeed in supporting 7,300 people for 120 years, which means 14,600 people for most of their adult lives. That's about 3% of Singapore's current population, including all foreigners.

I happened to be expecting the tyranny of large numbers to kick in when I initially did the math. Needless to say, I was still surprised by the scale of the impact he would actually have (were he to simply give his money away).

Now curious, I am going to see what our S$4.9 billion package drawn from our reserves for servicing the JCS would do. Right now, we're looking at 1.00 SGD = 0.653253 USD. This gives us US$3.2 billion. As a repeat of the previous exercise, this lasts 8.77 years if we spent US$1 million a day.

I am going to more directly calculate how many people we can help directly with US$3.2 billion: Assuming a modest salary of US$25,000 (S$3,189 a month) a year, this translates to 128,000 people sustained for 1 year or 25,600 people over the expected 5 years of recession. So, idealistically (I'll explain later), if we expect 51,200 people to lose their jobs over the next 5 years, US$3.2 billion will keep these people afloat with approximately S$1594.50 a month over the 5 years.

Ok, end of idealism ... social realism kicks in. Lots of other factors also muddle the issue (eg. 51,200 job losses over 5 years is too static a number given the dimensions involved - some will lose their jobs for a few months, etc ...) but I will not even attempt to discuss those. The real problems are - Who gets the money? - If I knew I was getting about S$1600 a month just by being unemployed, would I deliberately become unemployed? (I consider myself a principled person, but even I'm tempted at these rates!)

Having said that, I think I now have some inkling of why many have criticize the Singapore government for not openly considering other ways of distributing the S$4.9 billion from our reserves. The very tough question (I have no answer to), is how do we do this fairly (while helping the ones in trouble)?

My criticism of JCS is that we're being "too fair" with the money. A big proportion of the people benefiting from JCS will not be in danger of unemployment. It just seems like the Singapore government is using a shot-gun to kill a smattering of cockroaches - you use up a lot of resources to solve a small percentage of your problems. I feel a more targeted approach is probably more appropriate.

I also now see the JCS as being very similar to the (imho, flawed) US Republicans' idea that you can give money to the rich (companies being subsidized for retaining their employees), the money will trickle down to the poor (the employees the companies retain as a result of the JCS scheme).

Heh, I had not expected this article to move from Bill Gate's fortune to this, but it flowed somehow ...

2009-01-24T19:39:00.000-08:00

2009 Singapore Budget - I do not comprehend.

Out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at the basic form of the Singapore budget - Revenue and Expenditure. These can be found here (with explanatory notes, which I didn't find particularly helpful):

http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/revenue_expenditure/toc.html

Here is the press announcement about the budget in Singapore mainstream media:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/sgbudget09/

My confusion lies with the figures ... according to the news report, we are drawing on S$4.9 billion from the reserves to fund the extra ("Resilience Package") programs. Yet, unless I've misread the whole thing, we're expected to have an income of S$55,322,614,000 and an expenditure of S$66,280,667,000. Shouldn't we be drawing on S$11.0 billion from the reserves? or do we have a S$6.1 billion surplus in FY 2008 we could use? Or have I totally misunderstood the definition of national reserves?

It would really be nice if someone knowledgeable with national economics would help me out here ... I've only looked at the 4 most basic summary documents. Will looking at the individual annexes shed more light on the matter?

2009-01-11T16:43:00.000-08:00

Mr Tan Kin Lian and his bid for political office.

I am pleased to have discovered (I had intended to ask him on ToC) that Mr. Tan had a small (I assume?) group of volunteers working to help him manage his bid - first, I assume, on his attempt to gather 100,000 signatures and second, on an actual platform for either contesting the Elected Presidency or as an MP.

Here's the link to his volunteer blog (as part of their effort to publicize this):

So, please do visit the site (read my comments - I'm not encouraging you to go to his site and blindly sign up, I'm encouraging people to find out more about him and engage him).

A few personal comments:

1) What has impressed me about Mr. Tan is his willingness to engage with people, even with people he does not agree with. So, feel free to study his statements and leave comments for him and his volunteers.

2) I've signed the petition. I had initially indicated that he ought to go for the Elected Presidency, but I've thought further about it and realized that the office is really a basket-case. Even if Mr. Tan succeeded in overcoming the number of ridiculous barriers set up to even qualify for running for the office (International readers would be aghast at this!), he would be effectively handicapped if he were successfully elected (Mr. Ong Teng Cheong, the first elected President, was a former ruling party stalwart and even he was shut out when he tried to do his job as President.

Now I think he is better off forming an independent team of MP candidates to contest a GRC.

3) Decide for yourself if he is worth supporting. I am encouraging him to run because he is a breath of fresh air in Singapore politics. Someone who is willing to listen, willing to talk (rather than talk-down) to people, willing to be civil (rather than defensive) about disagreements and shows an active empathy with people in trouble (rather than stay silent and praying the problem "goes away").

2009-01-09T20:08:00.000-08:00

Am I out-of-touch?

I just read "Not the time to flaunt your riches" by Seah Chiang Nee of the star online (Malaysian newspaper) which described the recent insensitive revelations of one of our top civil servants.

What I had not known were the following incidents, also described by the author (but not attributed):

A bigger controversy flared up four years ago when Wee Shu Min, the teenage daughter of a Member of Parliament, came across the blog of a Singaporean who wrote that he was worried about losing his job.

She called Derek Wee “one of many wretched, under-motivated, over-assuming leeches in our country.

“If you’re not good enough, life will kick you in the b***s ... Our society is, I quote, ‘far too survival of fittest’,” said Shu Min, who hailed from the elite Raffles Junior College.

“... Unless you are an arm-twisting commie bully, which, given your whiny, middle-class, under-educated penchant, I doubt,” she added before signing off with “please, get out of my elite uncaring face”.

This, I knew about. Here's the wikipedia article that archived and documented the event.

Raffles JC, which has produced several state leaders, had another brush with student snobbishness.

When a student found that a Raffles girl was dating a boy from a lower-achieving neighbourhood school, he hit out at him and had a message for lower-ranking students everywhere.

“Quit trying to climb the social ladder by dating students from top schools.”

I found two sources, unfortunately one written by the above author -

1) from https://www.termpaperslab.com/term-papers/96455.html

Last year, Big boy' posted on an internet forum, claiming that he knew of somebody from a neighbourhood school dating a girl from top school Raffles Girls' School (RGS).
Four months and 500 postings later, it is clear that the responses to this issue can be classified into positive and negative sides. For example, kennys8' supports this relationship, saying that love has no barrier'. However, there are people such as Cynic' and RJCdude' were adamant that the relationship would be doomed. RJCdude even posted, "Quit trying desperately to climb the social ladder. The higher you go, the more you will feel your inferiority."
RJCdude may have a right to express his feelings, but it is obvious that he is discriminating against students from neighbourhood schools. He is most probably from the top school Raffles Junior College.......

2) and from http://www.littlespeck.com/content/education/CTrendsEdu-040215.htm (by Seah Chiang Nee).

The original sources seem to be from forum discussions long gone.

Finally,

A reporter recounted how her friend was shaken when her young daughter came home one day and mentioned in passing that poor people were “stupid, obviously”.

Coming from RI/RJC back in the late 80s and early 90s, I never knew (or realized - if it were true) of any of my peers who felt this way. Sure ... we felt like "gods" and creatures of superior intellect (I know I did), but I never got the feeling that any of us ever looked down on others (at least, to this extent)!

So, are these the odd extreme (albeit high-profile) cases? Or is it the start of a disturbing trend? More importantly, am I so out-of-touch to be so blissfully unaware of these cases?

2008-12-03T17:18:00.000-08:00

Singapore Journalism: How our mainstream media blinds us.

This is actually a followup to the previous entry on cluster bombs. CNA faithfully re-reported the Reuters article "Some 100 countries ban cluster bombs as signing begins in Oslo" (Channel New Asia - Posted: 03 December 2008 2311 hrs).

Of course, Reuters isn't going to issue nation-specific news and all our mainstream media conveniently ignores the obvious question on what should be a historic world event: Did Singapore sign it?

The answer? No!

Was this issue every brought up in the public? Yes! As in my previous entry earthtimes has an article quoting our government's reasons for not signing up. So, why was this not even given a mention? Are these journalists of ours worth their salt?

Edit: I found it. This was reported (AFP article) in the Straits Times Nov 26 "No to cluster bomb pact".

I am still disappointed no journalist attempted to question our own government on the details behind such an important decision. How many bombs did we produce? Who did we use to sell them to? Can and do we still produce and stockpile them? (The previous article's link indicated Singapore as a producer of such weapons, so I did not include "Did we produce them?").

Perhaps I'm too worked up about it ... thinking about it, the Singapore military is too small a client for an industry that produces cluster bombs, so the moratorium on export should effectively kill it. With it's dearth, we would have to consider buying them from other producers which have not signed on to replace aging stocks and eventually this should kill the stockpile we have as well.

I don't know, I'm still royally pissed off we did not sign up.

2008-12-03T12:03:00.000-08:00

Geopolitics: Singapore refuses to sign Cluster Munitions Ban

107 nations have signed the treaty banning the "use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions, and obligating them to provide victim assistance and to clear contaminated land" at Oslo (Dec 3rd 2008). (see The Cluster Munition Coalition website).

These 107 nations include Britain and most of ASEAN, the exceptions being Burma (duh?), Vietnam and ..... SINGAPORE! Not only does Singapore stockpile these weapons, we produce and we (used to) sell them! (see "Singapore opts out of cluster munitions convention but bans exports" http://www.earthtimes.org - 27 Nov 2008).

Here's a particularly disturbing quote:

The government pointed out that a blanket ban on such weapons would be impractical, as many countries still saw the need to keep stockpiles for legitimate self-defensive purposes.

Let us take the Singapore government at its word - we're gonna use cluster munitions (many of which FAIL TO EXPLODE) on OUR OWN SOIL to deter an attack by enemy troops? So, this becomes a case of "We won't let foreign troops come in to kill Singaporeans, but we'd gladly do it to ourselves"?

Let us NOT take the government at its word. That is to say "to defend Singapore, we'd gladly use it on foreign territory to push their armies back before reaching Singapore soil". Is that right? Are we willing to clean up after the conflict? Note that the foreign ministry has not signed up to the clean-up clause of the treaty and has a self-imposed (very typically PAP) moratorium on sale.

I say without hesitation - SHAME on us if we do not turn around and recognize that these weapons are a bane to mankind whether used defensively or offensively! It is an indiscriminate weapon of mass destruction. It kills during conflict and it continues to kill after conflict. In the latter case, it is the worst kind of weapon because it will kill civilians trying to return to a normal life after conflict. It will also do so regardless of nationality, regardless of who was right and who was wrong, regardless of "who started it". I shudder to think of the Singapore military using it on Singapore soil to repel invaders. Very frankly, I would rather lose the war and rely on the UN to force an invader to leave rather than to inflict, on my own people, such a price for driving an enemy away. We have many other deterrents - we already have one of the larger, sophisticated and well-trained military forces in the region.

At the VERY LEAST, we need to pressure our government to sign up to the clean-up clause ... that if we EVER find the need to use this weapon, we commit ourselves to cleaning up after. This will at least give impetus for us to actually make sure the munitions truly have the "low failure rate" claimed by manufacturers but constantly debunked by realities in a real war where these weapons are used.

2008-11-10T17:38:00.000-08:00

Miscellaneous: Maldives plans to buy new homeland

BBC article (10:42 GMT, Monday, 10 November 2008) "Plan for new Maldives homeland"

Public domain images from Wikipedia.

I'm quite impressed by the forward-looking nature of their new leader. I'm also impressed by the unstated determination on his part to be as self-reliant as possible in that he had not demanded a new homeland to be set aside by the powerful countries responsible for most of the global warming in the world. I think it is a touching story and I hope other nations pay attention to consider setting aside land the Maldivian people can buy. Even better, if the rich polluting countries recognize their role in the eventual destruction of the Maldives and pay for such a piece of land on the Maldivian's behalf.

Quotes of interest in the article:

The Maldives is the lowest nation in the world. Its highest land is little more than two metres above sea level.

The United Nations estimates that sea levels may rise globally by nearly 60 centimetres this century.

"Global warming and environmental issues are issues of major concern to the Maldivian people. We are just about three feet (0.91 metre) above sea level," Mr Zaki said, speaking from the capital, Male.

"So any sea level rise could have a devastating effect on the people of the Maldives and their very survival".

Mr Nasheed's plan is to create a "sovereign wealth fund" using tourism revenues to buy land so that future generations will have somewhere to rebuild their lives if they have to leave.

He wants somewhere within the region, where the culture is similar - possibly India or Sri Lanka.

Perhaps Australia might be convinced to sell Christmas Island (which Singapore "sold" to Australia years ago - in fact, the British Government authorized the "sale" on our behalf at Australia's request. See the wikipedia entry on Christmas Island).

2008-11-10T16:49:00.000-08:00

Singapore Journalism: Lim Swee Say and CPF cuts

CNA's article (By Ca-Mie De Souza, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 10 November 2008 2115 hrs) "CPF cuts not likely for now, says NTUC chief Lim Swee Say" just drives me up the wall.

I expected to find out:

1) How CPF cuts affect us or businesses.

2) What good alternatives are there to CPF cuts?

3) Why CPF cuts is considered an "easy way out"?

Instead, I'm treated to:

1) CPF cuts lower business costs. No brief explanation of the how.

2) "1001 ways" says Lim Swee Say.

3) It apparently just is. No comments.

4) A major off-tangent announcement on job re-training and re-employment (taking up more than half the article and unrelated to the title of the article).

Needless to say, I was disappointed.

2008-11-08T15:45:00.000-08:00

Race and Political Leadership in Singapore

Here's a decent article about this on ST (Nov 9 2008): Non-Chinese PM?

This fact in the article caught my eye:

Last year, a survey of 1,824 Singaporeans' views on inter-racial ties by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies found that 94 per cent of Chinese polled said they would not mind an Indian as prime minister, and 91 per cent said they would not mind a Malay in the top post.

It is very intriguing to me what goes on in the mind(s) of our political leadership of the PAP.

1) How does Lee Hsien Loong reconcile his statements with the study (pdf file) that effectively says nobody really cares what race our Prime Minister is? (I have some issues with that study, but that is something for later) Does he have more polling information that tells him otherwise?

2) Does Lee Hsien Loong truly believe that if the PAP were to offer a non-chinese as the potential next Prime Minister at the next General Election, that the backlash would be so severe that i) this individual would not be voted into his/her constituency (possible) or; ii) the PAP gets voted out of power (very unlikely) *just because* of this choice of a leader? Does he really believe Singaporeans are such racial bigots that we would gladly rather vote into power people unready to govern? (WP is the closest thing to an alternative governing party, but even they have demonstrated very little to the public about their readiness and willingness to govern the country).

3) Is Lee Hsien Loong acknowledging that we are still far from the "harmonious multi-racial" society that the PAP keeps proclaiming but refuses to allow people to talk about it? If we are so racially harmonious, why are they still afraid this foundation of society be turned into chaos because of a few extreme views? Are we as a society still mired in hidden layers of racial bigotry?

4) When our political leaders make comments like these, how often are these really backed by well-organized studies? When they say "no no no ... this will be chaos!", is that what studies show people will behave? Or is it merely how they *believe* people will behave?

Some personal comments about race:

I consider myself a closet racist. I think that way because I find myself in a state of discomfort when I interact with people from a culture I do not understand or I do not agree with (probably due to a lack of understanding).

In Singapore, where I am part of the racial majority, the closest thing to a cross-cultural experience I had was when my army S1 Capt. Krishnan invited us to his house. Back home, I never talked to others about their race, culture, history or belief systems. In part, I was nervous about government OB markers on such topics. It was also due to the fact that as a member of the racial majority, I hid within my own community (many people do, majority or minority).

It is only when I was in the US, when I was a minority, that I began to experience a flowering of "multi-culturalism". It helped a lot that the University campus environment is highly international. It also helped that the town (society along with the local government and leadership) had nurtured a culture very supportive of spontaneous cultural exchange of ideas (not the kind of formalized "inter-cultural" wayang the Singapore government engages in). Lots of people of all races are genuinely curious, asking me about my ethnicity, where I am from, what life is like, what I believe in. This takes place in almost any casual setting. As a result, I have learnt to also ask other people the same, to find out more about them and their lives. People are seldom judgmental and when they are, it typically becomes a matter of discourse as opposed to contention, a clearing of any misunderstanding as opposed to the heightening of tensions. We never suffer the chaos that PAP leaders often publicly fear. At the very worst, I imagine raised voices and ruffled feathers. Even these, I have never encountered in my many years here, even when the topic was religion which some people feel strongly about.

We in Singapore like to think of ourselves as multi-cultural. In fact, we are dwarfed by the scale of the multi-cultural scene in the US. For the most part, people of the same races and ethnicities tend to stick together and not interact. It is in more international campus towns like Champaign-Urbana where there is hope that we will all one day find sufficient commonality to feel strongly that we are all brothers and sisters of this world and that our differences enriches us rather than divide us.

2008-11-05T12:41:00.000-08:00

American Politics: Obama Elected!

I think this is a great moment in world history but those are complex, rambling thoughts perhaps for the future. I would like to draw contrasts to Singapore's political system and political climate for now.

The Obama victory speech:

The McCain concession speech:

Beautiful, gracious speeches. They will have serious difficulties ahead, in practice, trying to work together in the future. However, they publicly offer support for working together. This is a scene sadly seldom seen in Singapore, PAP and opposition alike. Too much bad blood, too many personal dirty-tricks designed to keep people out of politics and too much fear (or paranoia on the part of the PAP).

They also speak of working for "all Americans", not merely for those who voted for them. I contrast this to the sheer arrogance projected by the PAP when they indicated that wards that voted for them gets priority in government projects like HDB upgrading. Goh Chok Tong had even suggested Potong Pasir could turn into a slum if they continued to support Chiam See Tong at one point. If it was political rhetoric, it was poorly played. I shudder to think of a leader who would allow an otherwise ok estate to devolve into a "slum" simply because it's residents had not decided to vote his or her way.

An elected government, in my opinion, is expected to do the right thing and spend resources fairly to solve problems for the nation as a whole (e.g. upgrading estates based on age and disrepair). The PAP government is not such a government.

Obama said in his victory speech:

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.

For most of the time, the PAP takes the opposite "you voted for us, you do what we tell you to do" approach. To be fair, they have often tried to be honest about the challenges Singapore faces (for unpopular policies). However, the refrain has come across mostly been "trust us" rather than "why we believe this policy works and here is the detailed evidence". Officials in Singapore only seem to offer "reasons" that really do not mean much in the context of the problem other than the fact that they make remote sense. The "reasons" offered have always felt more as a means to assuage people than a means to help people understand. Only on rare occasions have they ever grudgingly listened to their constituents when they *disagreed*. The North-East corridor traffic conditions were only acknowledged after Mah Bow Tan took a trip on a peak-hour bus. The Serangoon Gardens worker hostel issue seems to be half-addressed, it was unclear how much of resident-concerns and suggested solutions were considered and a compromise reached.

Maybe some day Singapore can have her Obama-moment. Frankly, I do not see it happening in my lifetime. It scares me how many people believed in the William Ayers rhetoric. If something similar happened in Singapore, I am sure the ruling party would have employed the ISA. Worse, if an election went this way, I am almost certain Lee Kuan Yew would make good on his comment that "the army would have to be called in". At best, Singapore's Obama would come in the form of a PAP candidate if this is even to be possible.

2008-10-30T22:16:00.000-07:00

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).

2008-10-19T18:14:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-16T14:45:00.000-07:00

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 ...

2008-10-13T21:38:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-13T20:59:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-09T16:11:00.000-07:00

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)?

2008-10-09T01:29:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-08T15:51:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-08T14:38:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-07T16:12:00.000-07:00

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?

2008-10-06T18:51:00.000-07:00

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.

2008-10-06T16:55:00.000-07:00

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."

2008-09-29T21:25:00.000-07:00

JBJ passed away.

I may not have liked his style of politics, but I cannot say I dislike the man. In fact, I had grown more and more sympathetic for him as the years went by. He will be remembered by me, at least. Fiery warhorse of an opposition politician who just never seems to back down from anything (which is good and bad).

What I find a little sad is how unresponsive people have been so far in light of his passing. I read about this 30 minutes ago from the online Straits Times. I checked various sites:

PAP - expected ... no mention of JBJ.
SDP - posted an article about his passing.
WP - sad. Not a squeak. I kinda expected more from WP where a timely tribute to their old leader was concerned.
NSP - nothing.
SPP - sad. Had expected Chiam See Tong to have paid a quick tribute to an old colleague, but well ...
Edit: Turns out Acting Secretary General Desmond Lim has indeed placed a note of condolences. It just happened to be placed in a rather awkward position under Mr. Chiam's Bio entry.
TOC - news article offering their condolences.
SgPolitics.net - summary of CNA article.
Wayang Party - very short statement to refer to the SDP site.
other blogs - nadda.

Maybe I'm too early. Will check again 2-3 days from now.

2008-09-01T18:45:00.000-07:00

National Anthem:

A sudden wave of patriotism somehow swept me and I decided to take firm action (and procastinate from my work) to "rediscover" the meaning of our beloved anthem "Majulah Singapura". ("rediscover" because I do not believe anyone has ever spent the time to explain to me what the words meant when I sang it as a child!)

Here are the lyrics from the wikipedia entry on our anthem followed by the english translation:

Mari kita rakyat Singapura
Sama-sama menuju bahagia
Cita-cita kita yang mulia
Berjaya Singapura

Marilah kita bersatu
Dengan semangat yang baru
Semua kita berseru
Majulah Singapura
Majulah Singapura

Marilah kita bersatu
Dengan semangat yang baru
Semua kita berseru
Majulah Singapura
Majulah Singapura

Come, fellow Singaporeans
Let us progress towards happiness together
May our noble aspiration bring
Singapore success

Come, let us unite
In a new spirit
Let our voices soar as one
Onward Singapore
Onward Singapore

Come, let us unite
In a new spirit
Let our voices soar as one
Onward Singapore
Onward Singapore

Not content, of course, to just know the general meaning (sadly, unlike my mother, my mastery of Malay is close to zero), I proceeded to look at the individual words:

Majulah - Not listed in the Malay-to-English online translator (!!??!!). Am safely assuming some term that is similar in meaning to "Onward"
Mari - "come"
Kita - "us" or "we"
Rakyat - "citizen", "people", "public"
Sama - "same", "together"
Menuju - Not listed.
Bahagia - Not listed. Hmmm am I using a Bahasa Indonesia dictionary here?
Cita - Not listed. Ok, this translator sucks.
Yang - "that", "which", "who"
Mulia - "distinguished", "honorable", "noble", "respectable"
Berjaya - "succeed", "successful"
Marilah - Not listed. Am assuming a derivative form of "Mari".
Bersatu - Not listed. Assuming it has something to do with "unite".
Dengan - Not listed (!!??!!)
Semangat - "Enthusiasm", "Soul", "Spirit", "Vigor", "Zest"
Baru - "recent". At least this word, I know. Hehehe
Semua - "all"
Berseru - Not listed. Sing perhaps?

Ok, procastination over. Eventually, I hope to sing the song and remember exactly what I mean when I sing it. My memory has been fading over the years and I'm not even old yet ...

2008-09-01T14:27:00.000-07:00

Poverty in Singapore:

Strangely enough, for someone who does not like a good number of PAP policies and takes their statements with a good dose of salt, it appears that I had always bought their line that poverty had been eliminated in Singapore.

It sure seemed true to me back in the 80s and 90s, perhaps my eyes were blinded or I had been delusional (probably the latter). The following video, however, reminded me that I undoubtedly witnessed many of those scenes depicted whenever I visit my girlfriend in Chinatown as well as in a good number of places over the last 10 or so years.

Now the questions to be asked as a nation, are: How severe is this problem? How do we solve this problem?

I do not know. I'll not, for now, be offering any solutions or trying to wrap my head around it. I will, however, post my personal (rambling) feelings about it.

For the rest of this article, I'll leave politics aside. I am (still) unaware of the extent of the problem, but it would seem to me that it is commonplace enough that it warrants our attention as a nation. IMHO, the PAP is deluding itself and the people if they think this is not a problem (like the way they dismiss maid-abuse as the exception when in fact, their employment environment treats them as no better than slaves).

First off, I feel a sense of shame and powerlessness. Shame because I have lived 36 years without seeing the proverbial "elephant in the room". Powerlessness because, as an individual, I feel I am well-to-do enough to help some but not all. I am not so selfless as to give all that I have to the poor, and not so trusting as to believe that they are all truly in need.

I am also (strangely enough) socially "shy". As far as possible, I do not wish to build strong personal relationships with people, particularly with people I am trying to help. Each relationship puts a large amount of stress on me as I would often feel I've let people down by not spending enough time with them (in fact, I often DO NOT spend enough time with ANYONE because of that). This makes me a lousy social worker and heightens my sense of powerlessness to help these people.

Finally, there is a massive communication gap between myself and most of the poor in Singapore. My mental frame of context is probably very different from theirs and my linguistic skills are limited in all practical terms to English. I can perhaps converse a teeny bit in Mandarin and Cantonese, but that's about it.

I would like to see help show up for the poor and destitute in Singapore. There are some questions I would like answered:

1) How extensive is the problem? Do we have data? The reason for this question is not to excuse ourselves from the need to help them, but to find out how much effort would be involved. The thing that bugs me is that I am aware of private organizations that offer help to the poor and needy ... but WHY do we still see so much of these instances of homelessness?

2) How can we reach out to them? Do the homeless get insulted or run away when approached? Can they be interviewed to find out how they got into their situation and how they think we can help them get back on their feet? Are some of these individuals (usually busking) just bored at their age (as one old person in Martyn See's video indicated)?

3) How do we get our nation involved? How do Singaporeans in general feel about the homeless and the poor? Do they consider these people "useless and lazy" (we'll then have to change their mindset)? Are they aware of the plight of these people (I had just woken up to the "elephant" after 36 years ... am not surprised if many people are still blind to the problem)? Would Singaporean girls be willing to take up a 4-5 month "National Service" to volunteer their time to organize and canvass help for these people in all ways (money, lodging, food, employment) possible?

Shame is setting upon me again ... as I sit here procastinating from my own struggle to graduate, I feel like I have little or no time to try and help ...

2008-08-28T08:59:00.000-07:00

Global Politics: Russia

I believe I'm in the minority of views on this point. I feel the Russians have been unfairly treated over the Georgian problem.

The two breakaway regions were apparently given to Georgian back in the Soviet days by Nikita Kruschev and the population appeared to be genuinely unhappy with Georgian rule. Assuming we worked on the basis of national integrity, they became issues of contention for which it was previously agreed upon that Russian peacekeepers were needed.

From what appeared to happen, Georgia seemed to have unilaterally decided to take back South Ossetia by force. I do not know if the response was a disproportionate use of force, but it sure seemed mild compared to a half-the-world invasion of Iraq on a hunch that they *might* pose a threat. So, the accusations on that count seemed totally unfair. From a military standpoint, I believe holding key military installations and buffer zones is a sound tactic to deter a counter-attack, especially if the Russians no longer trust the Georgians not to pull a stunt like that. Ideally they should withdraw into the 2 territories proper, but if Western leaders have allowed Israel to have a giant buffer zone in the south of Lebanon for years, I do not see how their current calls hold any water.

Recognizing the breakaway regions, however, seems like a very bad move on Russia's part, particularly given the poor environment of distrust. I thought there should have been continuing negotiations on that. Now, it just feels like a tit-for-tat in response to Kosovo. It now opens the door for Ukraine to be worried about the Crimean region that Kruschev also gave to Ukraine during the Soviet era.

Anyway, it's all a bad situation and getting worse by the day. My sympathies are for Russia in this case (it usually isn't) and I think Western leaders, particularly the UK and the US, need to take a long hard look at their own behavior before lambasting Russia about theirs. At the very least, they need to apologize for their actions in Iraq or this feeling of double-standards will stick for a long time.

2008-08-27T14:14:00.001-07:00

Maids redux: This breaks my heart knowing we have policies and a social culture that support or ignore such issues.

The Maid Trade - Singapore

Some of the more (imho) horrendous "rules" (assuming it varies from agency to another):

1) No relationships. "Practical", but would any civilized person tolerate controlling another's personal life? Do you think I would go to the US if I was told I was forbidden to have relationships with people there? The ugliest part of the video was the agency trainer publicly disparaging an Indian construction worker as ugly and not worthy to be a boyfriend.

2) Inequality. $200 for Indian maids, $300 for Thai maids? Discrimination by nationality?

3) No freedom to practice one's religion (even mainstream ones!!!)??? Will probably have to verify this ... seems like a "WTF moment" here considering how sensitive an issue religion is in Singapore.

4) Maids paying for their travel to Singapore.

5) Off-days discrimination for different races! Then again, off-days are treated as a privilege, not a right. It's like labor laws are totally not respected.

2008-08-21T12:42:00.000-07:00

Sports and Imports - IOC concerned

Good. I'm not the only one concerned that nations are so blinded by the desire to win that the Olympics has turned into a pseudo-professional sporting event (I remember the old days when USA fielded college players in Basketball until they got tired of not dominating the sport).

Nation-switchers trouble Olympic chiefs

The government is right, it's common practice ... but is it right?

2008-08-21T11:41:00.000-07:00

Social/Semi-politics: What the Government does for/on behalf of the people ...

This recent blog entry "More on National Day Rally 2008" of NMP Siew Kum Hong made me think a little about how the Government and the society in Singapore are now so intertwined, it's hard to separate activities of the two. The following paragraph is what drew my attention:

I think there are some things that the Government cannot do (e.g. the repeated calls by singles for the Government to help them meet people, e.g. to make it easier for them to use dating agencies, are just a little bit too much for me), but there remain a lot of things that the Government can do, which it has not done.

I think Mr. Siew is right, that finding a spouse or life partner is something that is private and personal. Direct government assistance in this case, just seems ... wrong. Strangely enough, I do not feel as offended if private groups organize to provide opportunities for people to meet up (e.g. blind lunch "dates" for executives whose only "free" time is over lunch on a work day). There are a good number of these informally organized schemes in the US ... I do not know if the same is true here in Singapore.

Now comes the kicker. Singles get desperate to get hitched for a lot of reasons. In Singapore, one of these reasons could be economic. Government housing is, in many cases, forbidden to singles. The one exception I can think of is for someone to live with their parents. Singaporeans are effectively penalized for not performing their "duty" to the family fabric of society in Singapore as envisioned by the government. Rightly or wrongly, the government has decided to enact policies to preserve the family-oriented social fabric of Singapore life in its current form (imho, wrongly, since I believe society needs to be allowed to constantly and gradually evolve over time). The trouble is, the effects of the policy percolates to other aspects of life the government should not try to enact policies or laws in, such as an individual's personal love life. This, unfortunately puts these individuals in a catch-22 ... "If I do not want to have to spend tons of money living in a private apartment, if I do not want to sacrifice my privacy living with my parents, then I better get myself a wife. But ... sigh ... I'm so damn ugly no one wants me and the government would not help!"

Frankly, the PAP government has micro-managed Singapore for so long (kinda like playing "Sim City" or "The Sims") that it has virtually dug itself into this hole along with the rest of Singapore. I see stagnation coming (or here already) and I do not feel hopeful.

2008-08-18T14:04:00.000-07:00

Sports: Singapore's Silver Medal at the Olympics

I congratulate the team on doing well. However in my mind, as a nation, this is still a hollow victory. The three key members of the team Wang Yuegu, Feng Tianwei and Li Jiawei became Singaporeans as a deliberate action on the part of the Singapore Government under the "Foreign Sports Talent Scheme" to train and compete for Singapore specifically for their Table Tennis skills.

Here's an interesting quote from the article about Foreign Sports Talent:

STTA president Lee Bee Wah said: "It doesn't mean that we should look at them [foreign-born table tennis players] differently because they're not born and brought up in Singapore. The important thing is that they have embraced Singapore and want to be a part of it. And they wanted so badly to win a medal for our country. We should not be harping on where they are born. I hope mindsets change."

"I hope mindsets change" Ha! I hope the official mindset changes! I have nothing against foreign talent. However, when we trumpet our victories through deliberate and specific effort to import individuals (please note that these sportsmen/women were specifically enticed to come and be Singapore citizens and not a general call for skilled sports persons to apply for Singapore citizenship, which would in my opinion, be a palatable approach) in order to win competitions, all these victories are to me just empty victories.

This reminded me of how back when I was in Raffles Institution, sport ECAs such as Basketball and Soccer were simply eliminated because they were non-performing. Whatever happened to sports because people enjoyed the game? Whatever happened to nurturing interest and talent in a sport?

That is the kind of nurturing "mindset" I would like to see: Putting resources into sports for people interested in them, even for foreigners, to help nurture real talent. Right now, we are just going to individuals who have the skills and asking "Hey, you look like you're capable! How about becoming a Singaporean?". I remember how hard I laughed when then-PM Goh Chok Tong suggested we could get into the Soccer World Cup by 2050 (?) ... by buying all the necessary talent ... dream on!

2008-08-18T13:43:00.001-07:00

Society: Soul sucked out Part II.

I know ... I'm always pointing out the negative examples. I'll start this off by saying that I've seen plenty of positive examples of good social behavior from Singaporeans and I'll admit that I'm biased in the sense that I take the latter for granted.

However, I'd like to take the stand that we, as a people, should be working towards the good. Bad examples should be highlighted and eliminated ... hence the focus.

Anyway, this is from personal experience (yesterday, in fact): I was at the Chinese restaurant in campustown. There was a middle-aged man with his family eating there ... and I assume one of them was his daughter studying here. Turns out, there's a good chance they were from Singapore because the waitress asked them when they were returning to Singapore. Anyway, they seemed on good personal terms with the waitress.

Then, horrors of horrors ... after eating, they left without clearing the dishes as was expected at the restaurant and on campus in general! I was sure they were not in a rush ... the waitress reminded them they had a small dessert they had not been served yet and they stayed over 10 minutes to finish it and continued to chat with the waitress.

Why had they done that? The only reason I could think of is that the waitress had insisted they not clear the dishes. From what I know of this waitress, she would not go out of her way to insist on that before they start on their food (at least, she does not do that for me, and I'm a regular too). He left a tip, but surely that's not a license to not clear the table? The thing that shocked me most was the fact that he knew them well ... then why not clear the table to help them out?

I can understand if we do not clear the table because the serving staff would be blamed for not doing their jobs (a friend and I recently got frowns for clearing our own table at another restaurant outside campustown). This was clearly not the case ... I really consider that guy's behavior to be a case of bad social graces.

2008-08-14T10:28:00.000-07:00

Society: The soul sucked out of Singaporeans?

A rather disturbing opinion piece on the Straits Times forum about benefits for pregnant women by Mr Yeh Siang Hui. It is just one person's opinion, but I wonder how prevalent this view is amongst employers.

"Maternity leave not a perk"

Here are some quotes (pretty sure it is not taken out of context):

The rationale is simple. The measure of reward and recognition an employee receives is commensurate with the level of her contribution. An employee who chooses to become pregnant and take maternity leave chooses to compromise her level of accountability to her employer.

A pregnant worker surely cannot expect her employer or colleagues to regard her pregnancy with the same joy and excitement as her family or friends - as, after all, a pregnancy in the workplace is nothing but bad news.

In respect of colleagues, their workload will increase (not necessarily with any assurance of extra reward). In respect of the employer, the pregnant worker not only does not contribute to the company during her maternity leave, but she actually causes loss to the company as she continues to draw pay for zero productivity during that period.

It is therefore perfectly understandable - and human - for an employer or a colleague to exhibit signs of dissatisfaction.

Mr Yeh is not wrong, of course. However, I wonder if his rationality is a symptom of our "souls" getting sucked out of us, leaving us as rational emotionless beings. The US, despite being demonized as "corporate", has a culture that is in general far more human-oriented. Not only will most reputable employers happily grant maternity leave, they congratulate their employees, share in their joy, actually spend the time to visit the family and take time at some meetings to enjoy baby pictures with the rest of the employees.

Humans are social creatures, it should be natural for us to share in the joys of other humans. In the case of employment, the people involved are not even total strangers ... even then, in many cases, I do not understand why one cannot share in the joy of a stranger. In general American culture has not lost this sense of social togetherness (there are exceptions, of course), however I wonder if Singapore culture is going to lose it.

2008-08-13T12:17:00.000-07:00

Singapore journalism: The sad state of affairs?

Ok, I was browsing the Straits Times news, and the following article caught my attention: "S'pore, India sign joint army training pact". Knowing a good number of Indian friends at my lab, I thought it would be a nice topic to chat over. However, as I read the article, one thing struck me ... the article just tells us an army training pact just got signed. No details of what the pact is about or what it entails!

Previously, I would just have shrugged it off and said "oh well ...". However, this time I chose to pursue the matter and googled for it (keywords: "Singapore India Army Training Pact"). This article from the Hindustan times showed up: "India, Singapore ink pact for joint army training".

Now this article actually had proper details, as readers should reasonably expect! I quote:

The agreement provides for the temporary basing of a detachment of SAF personnel for a maximum period of eight weeks, up to two times a year. However, small SAF detachments not exceeding eight personnel may be allowed to be stationed with their equipment in India.

“Besides the bilateral agreement, associated protocols on training, administration and logistics, as also on financial arrangements were also signed. The agreement comes into effect from today (Tuesday) and shall remain in force initially for a period of five years,” the spokesman added.

The Hindustan Times article was not much longer than the one in the Straits Times and in my opinion was way more newsworthy than the latter. What in the world is going on with Singapore journalism these days?

2008-06-17T14:58:00.000-07:00

Random: Singapore population growth over the years.

Something surprised me when I was discussing Singapore's population size and distribution with some other international students here at UIUC. I knew Singapore's population is now 4.5 million, and I remember being mildly surprised when I noticed a large transition a long time ago.

Anyway, I went to our statistics board's website and found a nice table on population growth over the years. It does not merely show total Singapore population but distinguishes between foreigners and citizens/PR. I was amazed to find that the foreign population is now more than 20% of the total population! They have been growing at an increasing rate in recent years.

2008-06-17T13:15:00.001-07:00

Social: Foreign maids. Qatar has finally recognize the injustice dealt to their foreign workforce providing domestic help. See this BBC article for some details.

The law will oblige employers to pay wages on time and give their workers a paid day off per week and three weeks' holiday a year.

There will also be a new mechanism for settling disputes between employers and their employees.

When will Singapore follow suit?

I am sure the Qatari government could have easily used the same excuse to justify Singapore's refusal to act ("oh ... abuse is not a widespread problem"). My take on it is "widespread or not, it's the right thing to do". Otherwise, we're just saying just because we're legally allowed to abuse others just so Singaporeans can take advantage of cheap labor, we would.

2008-06-16T15:06:00.000-07:00

Random: Got a feeling my blog was starting to become a little too politics-heavy, so time to lighten it up again ...

This time, a news article about a very lucky dog "Trouble" inheriting US$12 million from his deceased mistress, now gets his inheritance cut!

Go to the link to see just how cute the dog is, so I don't blame the rich ex-owner :). Anyway, what impressed me most about the article was that the request for the cuts came from the trustees for the dog, who told the judge that with an annual expense bill of US$190,000 there was no need for US$12 million over it's lifetime. So, US$10 million got sent to the now-dead owner's favored charity instead.

How often do you see a group turn money away like that, and for a practical reason? Unless, of course, the group had interests in the charity which benefits from this fund-transfer ... in which case, I say "meh, so sad" ...

2008-06-12T16:19:00.000-07:00

Finally got (some excerpts of) the Courtroom transcripts for the case between CSJ and LKY/LSL.

They can be found on this blog:

Anyway, I was looking for it to seek some kind of an informed/balanced opinion of the case. Having read these excerpts, I cannot get a good feel for the rationale behind the line of questioning started by CSJ. I think, he really should have gotten a defense counsel to frame the questions properly.

I am not a lawyer and I am still trying to find out what a court proceeding for "determining the quantum of damages" should involve. However, based on the rather tangential questions he asked, I cannot help but feel that CSJ does not care as to the nature of the court proceedings. I also sense from the ongoing transcripts that the Justice Belinda Ang got more and more frustrated, which appeared to manifest itself in subsequent statements with almost curt responses and with CSJ getting cut-off rather rapidly. Maybe there's a deeper context the transcripts failed to convey (time requirements?). Like some others, I think Justice Ang should have handed the subsequent contempt case over to another judge to avoid conflict-of-interest issues.

My personal opinion (somewhat more informed now) is that CSJ probably deserved the contempt charges. I think he was using the court as a forum for something other than the business at hand. I wish he would stop ... he just gives other critics a bad name.

2008-06-04T15:00:00.000-07:00

Libel and Defamation in Singapore

A Yawning Bread article about Chee Soon Juan and Gopalan Nair got me intrigued about the legal definition of defamation in the world. What a tangled mess! It is not a simple matter, of course, because where emotions are concerned, particularly in the heat of the moment, it is hard to apply common sense. By common sense, I refer to the determination of malicious intent to harm another's feelings and reputation. Anyway, here's a quote from wikipedia where Singapore's concerned:

Singapore

Singapore has perhaps the world's strongest libel laws. The country's leaders have clearly indicated to the public that libel, as they choose to define it from time to time, on the Internet will not be tolerated and that those they deem responsible will be severely punished. On March 6, 1996, the government made providers and publishers liable for the content placed on the Internet. Even the owners of cybercafes may be held liable for libelous statements posted or possibly viewed in their establishments.[20]

In 2001, a Singapore bank was fined SG$2 million (approx. 1 million euros or 1 million US$ at the time) for accidentally publishing a mildly libelous statement during the heated discussion of a takeover bid. The mistake was corrected very quickly, and there was no intent to do harm. In fact, it was reported that no harm seems to have been done. Nevertheless, the offended parties were awarded SG$1 million each. Apparently confirming the stringency of Singapore’s defamation law, Business Times declined to report on the matter because one of the libeled parties objected.[21]

Please refer to the Wikipedia page for access to the citation links 20 and 21.

I am rather disturbed by some of it, particularly since this does apply to myself as I delve into some issues that may be controversial. I tend to write off-of-my-head (quite unlike Mr. Au of Yawning Bread, who writes with great eloquence and structure, often backing his articles with sources of fact and citations - the proper thing to do). While I generally try to avoid being angry or unreasonably critical of others in my posts, I know I do get caught up in emotions from time to time. The "obvious" solution to "shut up" is unappealing and I feel infringes on my rights. However, I do recognize the fact that I will on occasion say something that hurts another and unfairly too. In those cases, I do not see reason why I cannot simply apologize, amend or retract my statements humbly and sincerely but instead have to face the possibility of getting hauled to court. Of course, there are those things where people choose to be offended by. What aspects of the law protects me from malicious attempts to claim that I had maliciously defamed them instead!?

Finally, a personal opinion on Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore courts: I generally agree on a need for the concept of "contempt of court". If a court is held in contempt, then what is the point of engaging in the judicial process? However, it brings me great discomfort that a court does not seem to have to do anything to show that it should not be held in contempt. I know little to nothing of the court system. My questions are: Is there a way to seek redress if one considers a judge unfit or biased without causing undue disruption to the judicial system? What is the body that can act as a counterweight or oversight to the courts should the latter become corrupt and unworkable? Do we have a transparent means in Singapore to ensure that it is possible to verify if rulings are openly fair and made in good faith?

Where Chee Soon Juan is concerned, it is my opinion that he is likely guilty. From what I have seen, he has never come across as logical and methodical where his anti-government, anti-LKY/LHL statements are concerned. As far as I can tell, he is the epitome of political theater. He says the things he say, but never really presenting any compelling facts that proves he is right. Some of the responses to him, however, feel heavy-handed to me. I hesitate to use the term "unfair".

2008-06-02T16:11:00.000-07:00

Wow! How some people think really makes me worried, especially since it sounds a lot like what the majority of people in Singapore express publicly. I'm gonna cite the two Straits Times forum articles as well as quote them in full since I don't think the articles will stay in perpetuity and I think the full text is very instructive:

Don't choose to ignore Singapore's positives

ALLOW me as an ordinary Singaporean to refer to recent events whereby Singapore's values and quality of life have been questioned by Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leader Chee Soon Juan and his sister.

The quality of life we enjoy today, and sometimes take for granted, is the result of good governance. Dr Chee and his sister have ignored the progress that we have made as a nation.

Like all law-abiding societies, we are free.

Apart from the odd pornographic site that is blocked, we are essentially free to surf the Internet where we want, and watch what we wish.

Piqued by Dr Chee's railings, I visited the SDP website for the first time on Thursday.

The first question that struck me was: Where were the media restrictions Dr Chee complained about? His website certainly didn't have any.

Patronise the coffee shops and we hear a variety of criticisms from which the Government and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) are not exempt. My favourite: PAP, which coffee-shop critics will have you know stands for Pay And Pay. Has anyone been detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for such talk? Where are the Government's human- and civil-rights violations?

The ISA of today is not the ISA of yesterday. The ISA of yesterday had political detainees, whose detention was necessary for a young Singapore's stable growth. The ISA of today has terrorists like Mas Selamat, whose capture is necessary for national security. This subtle shift in the ISA's role was ignored by Dr Chee.

Has Dr Chee ever been detained under the ISA?

If Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was not so forward-thinking in the early days, Singapore would be less than what it is today.

MM Lee's leadership style while he was prime minister was like a strict father's; SM Goh's, like an elder brother, while PM Lee Hsien Loong's is that of a peer who works, plays, laughs and cries with us.

All three styles match the respective stages of Singapore's development.

As for the SDP website? I found it an entertaining read, much like the reported antics of Dr Chee and his sister.

Lim Boon Kwee

Celebrate unique style of democracy

I APPRECIATE the views of Mr Lim Boon Kwee on Saturday, 'Don't choose to ignore Singapore's positives''. As a Singaporean born before independence, I have seen how Singapore transformed itself from a nation of attap houses into modern Housing Board residential estates. Our families sleep peacefully every night now.

Many foreigners, especially Westerners, choose Singapore for their overseas posting, because they know that when they go on business trips, they do not need to worry about the safety of their family and home in Singapore.

A foreigner may be hard put to locate our little red dot on the world map, but when Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew travelled to the United States, President George W. Bush, who leads the world's champion in human rights, welcomed him with open arms. What does this tell us?

In Paris recently, people wrestled with a wheelchair-bound Olympic torch bearer. Do we need this type of democracy and human rights?

Across the Causeway, former Malaysian strongman Mahathir Mohamad is feuding bitterly with his handpicked successor, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. In Singapore, Mr Lee, an octogenerian, is still our travelling salesman doing his utmost for future generations of Singaporeans.

Singapore is unique. We cannot copy the Western style of democracy blindly. We need our own unique democracy and human-rights style which suit us. We have crafted and honed it for the past 40 years and this Lion City is still roaring.

Without Mr Lee and his style of leadership, we might not have survived after being kicked out of Malaysia.

We should feel very lucky and be grateful to Mr Lee, or as the Chinese saying goes, 'yin shui si yuan' (never forget where one's happiness originates).

The late US president John F. Kennedy once said: 'Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.'

Perhaps, our equivalent is: 'Ask not what LKY can do for you forever - ask what you can do for LKY now.'

I am not a member of the People's Action Party. But, this is Singapore's style of democracy and human rights.

Steven Tan

I think at the heart of both letters are the following key thrusts:

1. Necessity dictates the state of our politics.
2. We should be grateful for what we have.
3. "Look! We are free! Kinda."

They are not wrong per-se. In fact, at one point, I would have agreed with them. However, imho, the arguments used by these two gentlemen are fundamentally flawed. I can summarize it as the frog-in-a-well syndrome. I have been out here in the US for 8+ years now. There is no such thing as "Western style democracy". Each democratic regime in the "West" has its own style, its own standards, its own good and bad. The "western" champions of human-rights and democracy have irked me as much as our own "Singapore is unique" arguments. These are people who, imho, are unwilling and unable to keep an open mind. The former need to stop being pedantic and even hypocritical (where somehow "their" democracies can do no wrong). The latter tries to justify sitting on their asses and doing nothing in the face of authoritarianism, an unfair political system and refusing to face the serious long-lasting damage a failure in the PAP could potentially do to the country where no opposition party is in a position to effectively replace them ruling the country.

The authors of the two letters have also used very flimsy specific examples to justify their argument lines. For example, if the ISA is invoked to arrest someone for saying "PAP stands for Pay and Pay" then Singapore democracy is in serious trouble. In fact, the recent line of argument employed by the Zimbabwean army chief to tell its soldiers to vote for Mugabe (or leave) feels eerily like some of the logic (note: just a feeling, the former is really too extreme) used by the PAP to scare people (aka "Potong Pasir will turn into a slum", "It is not the ruling party's job to help the opposition"). A qualification on the latter: It is indeed not in a ruling party's interest to "help the opposition", however, I think it is the government's job to ensure that our democracy is fair to all. Unfair allocation of resources (Pasir Ris: 2 (3?) rounds of upgrading, Potong Pasir and Hougang: 0) where everyone pays taxes just leaves a great distaste in any neutral observer.

2008-06-02T16:02:00.000-07:00

Cluster Bombs: Forum article

Yay, someone got something posted in the Straits Times forum:

Singapore should sign pact on cluster bombs

Let's hope enough noise gets generated that the government takes heed. I know ... I'm an armchair critic. Right now, I have no strong motivation to actually get up off my comfort zone and be an activist. Maybe I never will. However, that won't stop me from expressing my views about it here, esp since it's "for me" (frankly, I doubt anyone reads this after Teck Beng stopped a while ago).

2008-05-30T13:54:00.000-07:00

The Cluster Bomb Ban Treaty - this was agreed on recently by over 100 nations. Unfortunately, I simply cannot find any information on which of these nations supported the treaty, only the big names that *did not* (oh and Kudos to Britain for signing on!).

Specifically, I wanted to know if Singapore signed up. My current belief is that she did not, we are a strong ally of the US and in the course of trying to find this list of nations, I also found out on a Human Rights Watch page that Singapore possesses and markets some types of cluster munitions as well, though it is unclear exactly which types.

It just bugs me that such information cannot easily be found. I hope we will (or did) sign up to the treaty and destroy our stockpiles just like Britain will be doing. Cluster munitions are just an abomination in its current form (well, ideally, we should consider all weapons an abomination ... but this is the real world, so ...). Official dud rates are something below 1%, but as Dan Rather reported, in practice these are something like 10% or as high as 70%. Even at 1% ... it was reported that the US has 1 billion of these bomblets, that's right ... 1,000,000,000. Take 1% of that and you have 10 million of these that will linger on dangerously after they have been dropped. Reports say that the UN has already cleared 130,000 of these from Southern Lebanon after the Israel-Hezbollah conflict recently.

Finally, a thought. Now we have a ban that half the world is queasy about signing-up to ... perhaps for this other half, we could make sign up to a "responsibility clause". If these countries are so confident about their dud rates, then they should be responsible for them:

1) at the end of war, be forced to pay for cleanup operations in affected locations.
2) be forced to attend trials and litigation proceedings against them in case of post-war damage or injury resulting from such weapons provably attributed to them.
3) be forced to provide "strike details", so cleanup crews know where to go look.
4) be forced to mark these bomblets clearly, large danger symbols. This might be a two-edged sword since children who do not understand may be attracted by such symbols. Nonetheless, it would certainly help bomb disposal units who do not have to hunt through landscape where such bomblets may hide and be camouflaged.

I think these will make nations who believe that cluster bombs are "essential" to their military operations to think and plan carefully before the use of such weapons. This should also provide a way for innocents to seek justice should such weapons be used indiscriminately.

2008-05-27T12:12:00.000-07:00

Passing the buck on Maids in Singapore ...

On the issue of mandating a rest-day for maids, I am disappointed with the response from acting Minister for Manpower, Gan Kim Yong. Instead of acknowledging the issues and problems faced by our guest workers, he is passing the buck to people employing maids, claiming they are "responsible for their wellbeing", including adequate rest.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_241519.html

If the nature of domestic help demands flexibility, why not mandate rest-hours or hours of work per week with extra-hour work pay like the rest of the workforce? I think it is just terrible the way we have one set of standards for "normal" workers in Singapore and a complete disregard for domestic workers. Just a terrible disgrace.

2008-05-22T13:22:00.000-07:00

Politics: Some wise quotes from Ex-Czechoslovakia President Vaclav Havel about being an artist (he is a renowned playwright) and a politician. These are from the BBC interview article:

Havel: I want to be free

Personally I do not think that I have somehow abandoned myself and my nature and principles and that I have somehow changed fundamentally. Many things had to change, but these are more superficial things.

I have to speak in a diplomatic manner, carefully, I cannot always say, straight out, that I think someone is a fool. I have to wear a tie. The office ties me down in a thousand ways and the specific nature of the Czech presidency no less.

I think the above is a fundamental truth as a (good) leader. Diplomacy is necessary on the world stage. The variety of people with all their different cultures and perspectives on the world (orthogonal to whether or not they are sincere, scheming or evil) have to be handled with diplomacy and an open mind. Well, in general, this is a good thing to have when dealing with any people, IMHO.

I think it would perhaps be really good if politicians did not allow themselves be governed by the particular interests of their parties and the rhythm of elections - the need to devote themselves to the technology of power and maintenance of power.

This comment really resonates with my last post.

They should take a broader, longer-term outlook. These are perhaps characteristics of intellectual or spiritual people... it would be good if more so-called intellectuals entered politics.

Personally, I think this ideal would be possible only if some maturity enters the human race in general. We are still too easily threatened and react badly to differing views.

One of the reasons I became president is that I was being told: "You have been criticising all the time, so show us how to do better."

This is a comment that is particularly appropriate to Singapore opposition politicians. I have disliked J. B. Jeyaratnam because he always seems to come across as a "complainer", opposing for the sake of opposing. I also feel that he, almost single-handedly, made the PAP (to be fair, they are not blameless in this matter) react to any opposition in that same light ... essentially dismissing or crushing any opposing view without properly evaluating their merits. I was very glad when he announced his retirement (which apparently may be reversed soon if he forms his own party ... *shudder*) but just as that happened, Chee Soon Juan showed up ... *sigh* (I think he is even worse than J.B.J.).

BBC Question: A big criticism of you is that you have not groomed a successor, and it might turn out to be someone you don't like at all.

I have perhaps taken democracy too seriously, but imagine that President Clinton would groom President Bush or the old President Bush would groom President Clinton. This is not how it works. In democracy one does not groom one's successor.

Nails it on the head. I have always felt uncomfortable when PAP leaders talk about grooming the next generation of "Singapore" leaders, when they really ought to be talking about grooming the next generation of "PAP" leaders. Just reinforces my views that they are getting more and more high-handed and presumptuous. Also makes me worried that they will also get more and more out-of-touch to the point they eventually fail, with no reasonable alternative to take over reins of power in Singapore should Singaporeans decide one day that "enough is enough".

2008-05-21T14:58:00.000-07:00

Opposition member votes PAP: Sincere exercise of democracy or Wayang?

This fact came from a ST forum article which then got me interested. Here's a blog entry from none other than this Worker's Party member himself, Mr. Yaw Shin Leong:

http://yawshinleong.blogspot.com/2008/05/vote-for-other-side.html

I like his explanation. It is a plain and simple fact, vote for whom you think is the best person running for your constituency.

Of course, as with all political actions, there are people who agree with you as well as your critics. Here's some of the discussion on this topic at Sammyboy's forum:

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sammyboymod&msg=176554.1&maxT=4

In it, there are some valid (under some circumstances) criticism that Mr. Yaw:

1) did this out of spite against the SDP (which chose to run in Mr. Yaw's planned GRC, forcing the WP team to challenge the Prime Minister in his ward instead)

2) was "Wayanging", since he brought it up after the election was over, presumably to score points as an "underdog"

3) was a hypocrite for doing so in the first place because he was simultaneously asking voters to vote opposition in his contest

So, just how valid are these complaints? Firstly, I do not know Mr. Yaw, so I have no clear understanding of the man at the personal level. Taking things at face value and the fact that he is a politician (playing the political game), all three claims are possible (as you can see, I don't think very highly of politicians in general). However, such a biased view does not do us justice if we wish to move into an era of enlightened politics as Singaporeans. Where 1) goes, all I can say is that it is possible. Who can know what he was thinking? On the flip side, he could also sincerely feel the lack of quality in the SDP team. Mentioning it in his blog (I'll get to that later) kinda counted against him on this point, since it reinforced the negative aspects of this view. On 2), I do not agree with the criticism on two counts ... one, I felt Mr. Yaw did not make a big deal out of it. He merely mentioned it. So, either he was making a sincere observation (which I believe he was), or he was so deviously cunning and subtle that he believed Singaporeans would feel an outpouring of sympathy for him because of his act. NOBODY, especially not Singaporeans, responds in an overwhelmingly positive manner to such a subtle gesture in politics. A bunch (including myself) may be impressed, but to believe the act would make people fall in love with him is futile as a political gesture. He might as well go on a hunger strike like Chee Soon Juan. Two, it is foolish to think the act will be received positively. Given my perceptions of Singaporean mentality, I think it more likely (as in the posts on Sammyboy) it would be interpreted as an act of treachery. So, given this fact, why would a politician stick his neck out in such a risky fashion? Mr. Yaw does not appear to be a madman maverick like Chee Soon Juan, so I think it unlikely and unreasonable that he engineered this. On to 3), was he a hypocrite? You could say so for all politicians and their supporters when they get "emotional" in general. Someone commented that Mahatir desired to drive a wedge between Malaysia and Singapore, spouting rhetoric saying all the economic deals will "force Malaysians to live in the forest". What about the time Goh Chok Tong said if the residents of Potong Pasir continued to vote for Chiam See Tong that the constituency would "become a slum"? I do not know if Mr. Yaw was actively saying (in general) that "people should vote opposition" while campaigning, but that's his job while campaigning. It sounds kinda wierd in a campaign to say "vote for the best person, even if you don't think it's me" even though frankly, I think that's the proper thing to do (of course, one has to follow up and say "I believe I'm the best person and I can prove it to you!").

This leads me to a slightly off-topic thought I had while considering "honest and sincere" politicians I have witnessed. I wanted to use the word "encountered", but frankly, I've never actually met nor interacted with a politician or political activists and while I enjoy talking about politics, I get uncomfortable when I have to deal with people with partisan backgrounds and avoid it then.

A politician has a "job" to do. That is, they are tasked to convince people to vote for them. What I find sad about being a politician, is that they have to "pander" to these people. It becomes the "math" of populations. They are forced to take a multi-hued world where people possess individual blends of colors, and "squeeze" specific colors out of groups of these people to find the issues that resonate with the biggest blotch of these colors they can find, then making a stand based on those colors while spinning your stand to offend as few of the 2nd biggest blotch, 3rd biggest blotch ... etc ... that's how I think politicians become successful in politics, at least in the US. Which is what made me so interested in Barack Obama because I liked the way he makes stands based on his belief yet they resonate with the people in general while at the same time, reminding people and himself (he's doing less of that now)less of that now, which worries me) that things are not black and white and that many things require careful thought.

Of course, "the game" is very different in Singapore. I think in Singapore, the number of "colors" has been limited, due to our smaller population size and our close proximity to one another (it's really wierd, seeing how different US states vote so very differently just based on geographical clustering). Also, I think this pool of "colors" has grown smaller in part due to the constant feedback of economic fears and pressures emphasized by the PAP government over the many years they have been in power. So, in Singapore, I believe the predominant "color" for voting criteria amongst Singaporeans is that of economic progress and worldly comforts. I believe we see that played out every single recent election (I was too young to have paid attention to any election before 1988). It is a worrying trend. The PAP has done a good job of managing Singapore's problems so far. However, they have also swept a number of other problems under the carpet. Problems like ethnicity, unfair treatment of maids, treatment of homosexuals, etc ... these are tough problems, but are swept aside with discussion of them "forbidden", always with the claim people are not ready for it. It may be true, but if we are not ready for them, why can't the government get people ready for them? I see few if any signs that the PAP are helping Singaporeans (in general, including the Bengs and Sengs) mature politically and get them ready to express views and accept views without getting angry or emotional about them. You see this form of political maturity often here in the US. A conservative Republican can tell me "he respectfully disagrees with my views" without becoming an enemy or even losing my friendship. He has gay friends (mine too) whom he is close to, yet disagrees with their lifestyles. In Singapore, somehow, disagreement often gets perceived as a threat.

I hope this changes and improves, no matter how slowly in Singapore. All I appear to see is mostly the reverse happening.

Ok, end of rant. I just realized I've gone fairly random hehehe.

2008-04-24T14:35:00.000-07:00

Yawning Bread Blog

Discovered Yawning Bread a couple of days ago thanks to an article on CNA discussing the response of the Singapore blogosphere to report on Mas Selamat's escape.

I like the way he presents his material and articles. They come across as well thought-out and fair with an attempt to provide as many facts as possible. He has his own stands, of course, and some of them resonate with my own. Most importantly, it looks like he does try to make reasoned clarifications when challenged (like in his stands on the flaws of the GRC system).

I certainly look forward to seeing more articles from him.

2008-03-21T15:23:00.000-07:00

Found the Hillary context. And I was right, Rev Wright started the sermon in the context of how God sent his son to us in a manger, reflecting his position that the poor are no less worthy in his eyes than the privileged. That, is a good message.

However, the Reverend then goes on and veers away from that very important message and gets distracted by rhetoric about black and white people. As far as I am concerned, this still ended up being a hate-speech. The anger was palpable, the anger was directed and the anger, justified or not, was inappropriate and inflammatory.

Watch how the video starts and the unfortunate way it ended (which was focused on by the American media). I apologize for the poor video quality, but it was the audio that was far more important.

2008-03-21T14:58:00.002-07:00

Reverend Wright: Some Context. I am so glad someone posted this on youtube and reminded me and some others about context. This is a full video of his speech, at least as far as 9/11 is concerned. As you can see, Rev. Wright is a far more complex man with a far more nuanced message than one might have gathered from what Fox News has shown. In fact, this has convinced me more than merely hearing what other people have said, how Fox distorts the news rather than present it. You can be sure that I will give very little credence to whatever subsequent stuff they show, at least not without some independent verifcation.

Meanwhile, watch this video in it's entirety. I'll admit, I'll have to try to find the context of the 2nd video of Rev Wright to see if it was also taken out of context. However, I doubt it was given what I saw.

2008-03-18T13:54:00.000-07:00

Obama Speech: A More Perfect Union.

This is a fuller response from Sen. Obama on the issue of race stirred up by Rev Wright. I don't believe I have to make any further comments, he has reinforced my views of him. Please watch it to the end, it is a beautiful speech.

2008-03-17T20:08:00.000-07:00

Hate speech?

I wished that Americans in general would think about an issue before judging. I would agree that the following speech this Reverend made just after Sept 11 was done in very poor timing and set in a very poor tone (very much in line with the tone of a later speech, which I do consider something very close to a hate speech).

The point about Hiroshima is controversial. There is still debate over whether it had to be done. I myself am not sure about this. My opinion, however, is that Nagasaki was unnecessary.
As for the other poorly-made foreign policy decisions over the decades after world war two, in spite of the distaste of the way the Reverend presented it, I would have to agree with the spirit of his words. American foreign policy has been dubious and it is a long-held view of mine that many Americans (actually, people in general, myself included) feel little to nothing in response to deaths in other countries, sometimes even if it is a direct act of American foreign policy. I believe the primary reason is that we are so far removed from the suffering and the pain inflicted on others.

As a result, I agree ... people here have no right to feel indignant, sad and hurt yes, but not indignant about the attack on 9/11. It is a very indirect swing of cause and effect. It is horrific event, for sure. I was personally so downcast by the event (I am not a US citizen), just by the sheer tragedy of the event that I could not work or smile or laugh for a week. If people think very carefully about it, the perpetrators of the event did a terrible thing, evil by it's very nature. However, I also strongly believe that the source of the evil and the hatred seeded in these people were indirectly affected by a sense of injustice, perceived rightly or wrongly, about US foreign policy. So many of us forget, this is not a black and white world.

Anyway, unfortunately, I think Senator Obama had rather prematurely condemned his former pastor in this respect. I do not, however, disagree with Obama for condemning the following tirade from the same Reverend:

I think can understand where Reverend Jeremiah's frustrations come from and he even speaks some truth, but this is to me, definitely hate speech and a clear case of religion gone wrong in America. I mean, why can't priests and pastors give useful, level-headed sermons of right and wrong backed up with facts in an even tone that is meant to help people think? Why do all these "charismatic" churches always have to sensationalize issues in this fashion? Just look at the people reacting to him as he speaks ... it's outright freaky, imho.

Anyway, here's Obama's response to the issue. As I have said, I feel he has prematurely denounced the Reverend's statements about U.S. foreign policy, which had more grains of truth than people were comfortable with.

2008-03-12T16:41:00.000-07:00

Semi-Politics: A Broken Bureaucracy.

This is symptomatic of a government that would not listen or try to fix that which is not broken, or simply one that is so far removed from daily life that they cannot even understand what the problem is.

[Thanks, but sorry, it just doesn't work...] is an ST Forum article that shows just how incompetent the LTA has recently become. First, a long time ago, when people were trying to convince them the North-East corridor had become congested and bad, they had to be ultimately convinced by making the Minister for Transportation actually take the bus along that route at rush hour. Now, they are convinced that forcing taxis to stop at designated stands in the Central Business District is a good idea.

2008-03-11T14:55:00.000-07:00

Malaysian Politics

I'm looking at the recent changes in Malaysia where the ruling party has lost it's 2/3 majority for the first time with great interest. It is a scenario Singapore's ruling party and even opposition parties have feared for Singapore: The opposition being thrust into a position of ruling.

We'll see over time, whether the DAP at Penang will reinforce the fear-tactics the PAP has inflicted on Singapore by failing the state big time ... or it will show Singaporeans that the fear is unfounded. For now, Lim Eng Guan's policies for Penang sound reasonable and looks good. So things are hopeful.

2007-10-31T12:59:00.000-07:00

Singapore Politics (Opposition)

I'm very heartened to read this article:

WP chief: 377A debate shows more openness

where Workers Party chief Mr. Low Thia Khiang enhances the good impression I have always had of him: A mature, reasonable and wise opposition politician.

I cannot understand why many people (who do not agree with the Government) tend to oppose every single thing the government does, particularly people in opposition politics. The PAP, for all its faults (and I feel they have many), have in general done a good job running Singapore.

At the same time, (and I have yet to observe behavior to the contrary) many PAP supporters and PAP politicians themselves cannot seem to restrain their instinct to dismiss ideas coming from opposition politicians or from people who do not agree with them. To them, it seems, people who disagree are "troublemakers" or "dangerous" people. A mature discussion of issues and problems do not appear to be on the cards as far as they are concerned.

In any case, while I hope the Worker's Party will eventually mature into a political group with the potential to form a government, I must say I do not fully agree with its manifesto. I do think, however, that it is important that they, along with the SDA reach such a stage and the political situation becomes more conducive for peaceful, amiable transitions of power.

Then, I think, the governance of Singapore would have reached a stable and sustainable stage. It currently relies too much on the competence and incorruptibility of one party and as we know from history, just because you had a good emperor does not mean his successor will remain just as good. Without appropriate checks and balances, the potential for things to go wrong is high. My observation is this: the PAP continues to try to stunt the competence and capability of opposition parties. The bad effect of this is, if the PAP becomes corrupt or incompetent and Singaporeans wished to vote them out (as is the idea of a democratic system), it becomes a no-win situation if the opposition is equally bad if not worse. The thinking in the PAP that "We can do no wrong" is, I think, the primary reason why the PAP is so high-handed and is also the potential path to such a scenario. Some humility, along with a sense of competitiveness (ie. The opposition can come up with great ideas, but we think we can come up with even better ones!) would I think serve the PAP and Singapore better in the long run.

2007-10-17T12:38:00.000-07:00

Politics

I think this article:

NMP overstepped role in championing gay cause by Jenica Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

is a reflection of the sad state of affairs in Singapore politics. She considers the "homosexual agenda" a "political group".

Details about NMPs or Nominated Members of Parliament in Singapore may be found on this wikipedia article.

Anyway, according to Ms Chua, these individuals are supposed to be "non-partisan" and by that extension, are not supposed to represent any "political group". Which leads me to think ... so what does she expect these people to do? Fight for issues on behalf of all Singaporeans? What about the poor homosexual people who do not have rights equal to other Singaporeans? Should the NMPs then ignore issues that only affect groups/subgroups of people?

I'll admit, I do not know the precise definition of the "role" that NMPs are supposed to fulfill (rather, I cannot seem to find those details anywhere). Seems a tad restrictive if what Ms Chua believes is also what the government wants of NMPs. In any case, it's a moot issue since the ruling party basically has the right not to reappoint particularly annoying NMPs (in fact, it looks like over the last 5 years, only 1 NMP ever got reappointed).

What troubles me is people (well, actually I believe most people ... I think I'm in the minority here) would believe this. Kinda defeats the purpose of having NMPs if they are meant to just sit pretty. I missed the good old days of NMP Walter Woon who would fight for issues and now I see people dissing the efforts of another NMP who wishes to make a change he feels is for the improvement of overall justice and fairness in society.

2007-10-15T16:02:00.001-07:00

Marital Rape (2)

Wow, it seems the previous opinion is shared by more people (well, at least a second vocal person):

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_167271.html

I do not buy the crap that just because a woman enters into "Holy Matrimony" with a man, it means she has to subject herself to her husband's sexual desires anytime he wants it. I'm generalizing here, but it sure sounds like theological crap from over-zealous Christian thinking that I've seen so much in Singapore Christian youth.

Also, he starts to criticize the report on trauma, obviously cherry-picking and choosing to nitpick on the word "violence". I cannot pretend to know the emotions one goes through when one is having sex forced on himself or herself (whether or not there is violence involved) but I do not believe it is pleasant. At the very least, the woman would have to "fake it", which I think is mildly annoying at the least. How the husband can enjoy sex with his wife who is not reciprocating, I do not understand ... might as well masturbate with some porno ... oh wait, there's no porno available in Singapore ... sucks to be a Singaporean male living in Singapore then ...

Which brings me to my next topic, which is the author's sweeping (implied) generalization that because a woman denies her husband sex (Remember, I consider consistent denial grounds for divorce) when she's not in the mood, the husband will invariably visit a prostitute and conduct unsafe sex. That is, again, a typical leap of logic that my countrymen (including the government when they wish to make people afraid) really enjoy making.

I'm starting to feel afraid for the fine womenhood of my country ... sigh. Be strong and kick our men in the butt!

2007-10-12T14:16:00.001-07:00

Marital Rape ...

... this is a highly disturbing opinion-piece posted on the Straits Times forum website:

http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_166104.html

In my opinion, the author twists logic to arrive at his conclusion, showing little if any of the simple empathy that should help most civilized individuals come to the conclusion that a lack of consent should be respected in the case where it infringes on personal integrity.

If a spouse says he or she is not interested in sex, then that's that. If this turns out to be a long-term problem, then divorce is the proper and justified option.

I think the law exempting marital rape is outdated and archaic.

It is however, I must admit, a different problem in practice. Unlike the traditional idea of rape, it is extremely hard to prove or disprove marital rape considering the couple are (well, expected to be) regular sex partners. If accusations are made, then what happens? Perhaps a court-order requiring separation? Afterall, the bond of trust has already been broken in such a case, whether or not the crime was in fact committed.

2007-07-26T12:12:00.000-07:00

Homophobia in Singapore

Ever since MM LKY spoke on the possibility of decriminalizing sodomy (Section 377a of Singapore Law), there has been an active but rather heated discussion on the Straits Times Forums. I feel a little sad how biggotted some of the responses against homosexuals were.

Then I thought back to when I was younger and asked myself what I would have felt about homosexuals back then. I'll be frank ... and somewhat ashamed to say that I would have thought all homosexuals to be the stereotypical effeminine deviants who go around harassing people.

I now know a fairly close friend (here in the US) who's gay. Hong Eng knows him too and I believe she finds him to be a very nice person, smart, capable and productive member of society. Oh, and guess what? I'm not his "type" hahaha! Even his very conservative parents have accepted his homosexuality and love him nonetheless. Our group of friends share in his joys and also his pain ... we felt really sad when he broke up with his boyfriend (who was also a very nice guy) which was really a pity.

I also know and am friends with several people who are lesbians. They have their own eccentricities, maybe more so than normal, but don't we all? For most part, they are very normal people leading mostly normal lives with normal emotions and normal social interactions. I think the problem with many of those people involved in the "debate" have never actually encountered homosexuals, got to know them or have been friends with them.

I'm actually fairly curious what Teck Beng (or any of my other friends back home) thinks of this?

2007-07-02T13:33:00.000-07:00

Maid Abuse in Singapore.

Finally, I get my butt on writing stuff on my blog. This is something I had wanted to talk about for a while and this Forum article on the Straits Times prompted it again.

What appalled me initially was just how callous the government had been towards foreign workers when I read an article a while back about the government's reasons for not putting maids in the same category as other people as far as labour laws are concerned. That is:

1) they do not get Sundays off as part of a regular work-week (or an equivalent day off since the claim is that they are specially needed over the weekend);

2) there's apparently no minimum wage restrictions on the hiring of maids. I believe it was written in that older article, that they are paid lower than some minimum wage (the reason I used the word "some" is because as of this time, I'm not even sure Singapore enforces any minimum wage per se as part of any labour law). Really, I should check ... afterall I'm trying to make the point that maids are treated very differently from the rest of our labour force.

I think I would agree with the MoM that the incidence rate of maid abuse is low. However, I find it a very uncomfortable thought ... is "low" good enough? No tears are shed for the ones that get abused? No serious punishment? (according to the linked forum article, the fine is just $250 ... we pay more for littering for crying out loud). There also seems to be no easy way for a maid to report an abusive employer without severe consequences to her employment status.

Which brings me to the other topic of maids out to take advantage of the employer. I know many people in Singapore (I know a few) who simply do not trust their maids. It is a tough problem. Can we ensure that there is a system in place to bring justice not only to abused maids, but also to employers who are criminally targetted by their maids?

I would like to borrow from the MM's take on corruption for this matter. "If you pay them well, treat them well, then you have a better chance of an employee who will not abuse your relationship with them". That is, we start treating our maids as proper human beings who are here to help us with our chores (and hence valued). If the maids in question do cause trouble, there's a justice system in place that favors neither employer nor maid but is there to quickly resolve problems of this nature.

Ultimately, I like the idea the article's author presented: That maids would live in hostels and turn up for work for 10-12 hours per day. I've actually seen that in action in India at my friend's home where they have domestic help come in everyday (or at pre-arranged times) instead of staying 24-hours. I'd like to remind fellow Singaporeans that their general purpose here is to help relieve our day-to-day chores, not be at our beck-and-call any time of the day. In the case of special needs (looking after children, aging parents etc ...), there should probably be a special category of maids for which higher pay might be demanded. We're a first-world country, I think we should start learning to live and pay for it like everyone else does.

2007-04-17T14:53:00.000-07:00

Guns for everyone? or Guns for none?

After the tragic death of 33 people at Virginia Tech, voices are being heard on both sides of the gun-ownership divide.

It seems so simple in Singapore. "Ban guns!" is the off-the-cuff remark I would imagine hearing from the typical Singaporean. I used to think the same way too ... until I realized the difference in scale of things when I've lived here in the US long enough. The key idea is "how do you enforce this?":

1) Lots of places to hide: Singapore is a city - 692 sq km (also sarcastically known as the "red dot" by people both inside and outside the country). The U.S. is huge - 9,826,630 sq km.

2) Not enough people to enforce: Singapore population density - 6,208 people per sq km. USA population density - 31 people per sq km. I bet they'll have a hard time even if everyone's a police-person.

3) Get the political will to limit domestic gun manufacturing? Hmmm ... next step, stop smuggling ... doesn't seem so bad this time ... but then again, they can't even keep illegal Mexican Immigrants out: Singapore coastline - 193 km. USA land borders - 12,034 km, coastline - 19,924 km. So, Singapore people-per-border - 23,275 people per km, USA people-per-border - 9,338 people per km.

4) Getting rid of existing guns? No hard numbers here ... I'll just liken it to the Singapore govt trying to take all cellphones away from us, hehehe.

What's the point? None really, I guess ... other than to remind ourselves that very often things are not as simple as it seems in the world outside our little "red dot" and that we have it really lucky (on this point, I'd say that while I agree with LKY that paying the government and especially the civil service well is a good way of keeping corruption to a minimum, I absolutely hate the way they use scare tactics ... ie "You want Singapore to fail? Then don't raise our pay!" to justify it. Frankly, you can justify almost anything with that ...).

Personally, I'm far more comfortable having faith that guns are only in the hands of the few psychos out there (with the majority with the Police) than a scenario where every person has a gun and I've to constantly worry about:

1) someone turning psycho
2) me turning psycho
3) me shooting some poor bloke, thinking he has turned psycho
4) me accidentally shooting some poor bloke while trying to shoot at a psycho
5) me simply accidentally shooting someone or myself

Just way too many variables when everyone has guns ... it's just sad how the gun lobby thinks ...

2007-02-16T12:04:00.000-08:00

Family unit and family values. This report on Channel News Asia about what PM Lee said just riles me up!

At the same time, Mr Lee refers to how generous state welfare benefits for the employed and the elderly have led to the weakening of the family unit in many Western countries.

"When somebody loses his job, he falls back on state unemployment insurance. When he grows old, he relies on state pensions and medical care. As a result, family members often feel little responsibility to care for one another," says PM Lee.

My personal interactions with many of my friends here in the US (including Europeans) have led me to believe that their family relationships are probably stronger and not weaker than asian families. All my life back in Singapore, I was fed with anecdoctal evidence about the strengths of our "traditional family values" until the 7 years I've spent here woke me up to the realization that "Western" families feel as much of a bond, if not greater, as that of Singaporean families.

The difference here is that families place emphasis on respect for the individual. Members of the family are expected to challenge their elders, respectfully, if the former believes the latter is wrong or misinformed. They encourage their children to achieve monetary independence early and young. They expect to be treated with the respect and a sense of independence when they grow old, even if they are frail. Their love is reciprocated by connection. They talk a lot to their families and the phone companies recognize that ... talk time in the evenings are free under most plans. They frequently fly and drive thousands of miles to be with family, just for a few days.

PM Lee, in my opinion, has made the mistake of making a statement without the necessary statistics information and casting it as a general "truth". It made me doubt how much he really knows about how a "Western" family really interact with one another.

Still, I support the overall theme of his message. It is a good thing to encourage family love. I just get really pissed off when he wrongfully bashes the "Western" ideals in a lame attempt to present a contrasting scenario. It just breeds a stereotypical worldview amongst our citizens and completely smacks of hypocrisy when we turn around and accuse the "West" of not understanding our culture when they try to highlight what they think is wrong with our policies. There are two sides to the story, it is counterproductive to keep thinking "our side" is always right and "theirs" is always wrong. People need to start becoming more aware of the great diversity (and similarity) of the world around us.