Monday, October 22, 2007

Hiatus

Hi people, been taking a hiatus from blogging for a while (as u can already see from the previous date when I last blogged), not even blogging on my personal site.

Sorry about that. Will give a shoutout/comment when I next come alive on the blogging scene, probably at the end of the year. Just too busy with work/fun in SZ/GZ/Macau/HK now.

Cheers!

Thursday, September 13, 2007

A Child's Understanding of Politics

A little boy goes to his dad and asks, "What is Politics?"

Dad says, "Well son, let me try to explain it this way. I am the head of the family, so call me The President. Your mother is the administrator of the money, so we call her the Government. We are here to take care of your needs, so we will call you the People. The nanny, we will consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother, we will call him the Future. Now think about that and see if it makes sense."

So the little boy goes off to bed thinking about what Dad has said. Later that night, he hears his baby brother crying, so he gets up to check on him. He finds that the baby has severely soiled his diaper. So the little boy goes to his parent's room and finds his mother asleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny's room. Finding the door locked, he peeks in the keyhole and sees his father in bed with the nanny. He gives up and goes back to bed.

The next morning, the little boy says to his father, "Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now." The father says, "Good, son, tell me in your own words what you think Politics is all about."

The little boy replies, "The President is screwing the Working Class while the Government is sound asleep. The People are being ignored and the Future is in deep sh**."

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Excerpts of LKY's interview with IHT

This is a good read, to understand the ideas in the guy who made Singapore what it is. That's not to say I totally agree with him, but some salient points are made, and I guess that it's good to know how our government (and our Prime Minister's father) thinks.

One thing that has been dissed around in the blogosphere for the longest time yet and one that I take issue with is, why China and Hongkong have accepted gays (officially), and Singapore is still like a little backwater village with its archaic laws (against homosexuality) made by some uneducated village heads. The Singapore government's stance is that the law is there, but we're "taking an ambiguous approach". So while you are "free to be gay", you might want to watch your back. The government can so choose to label you as one and throw you into prison simply cos... you're homosexual. But then, did they not read that, laws that are not enforced (and/or are not enforceable) only serve to weaken the legal system. So we might as well rid our system of it.

For me at least, although I don't like homosexual behaviour, I do not think that society will denigrate to the level of the slippery slope arguments that seem to be the reasoning of choice with politicians in Singapore. Because if you look at China, although homosexuality has been "approved" by their Communist government, that kind of behaviour and being is still frowned upon in society, even being laughed at, because China is and always will be an Asian society (read: conservative.) Ditto to Singapore, so I think PAP is worrying too much.

I've no time to read the whole article yet so I'll come back to this some time later.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Expats and the rising cost of living

Mr Brown highlighted the rising costs of living in SG in a recent article, which can be linked from above. My heart goes out to expats working in Singapuraaaaa oh Singapuraaaaaaaa now, since I know that rent can be the most headache part of living in another country now, having experienced it for myself.

But one of the forum posts that he highlighted struck a chord with me.

not a dollar chaser:


Singapore Inc is all about money. The people are obsessed with it, and you can't do anything without spending some of it. Most conversations here involve money and you will find that even if you think you came here to experience the "culture", your life will be consumed with the thought of money. We're going home too. I don't want my kids growing up in a place that values cash and "prosperity" over all else.

So now it is one person's voice (I might consider squeaking a little too). If you don't take steps to nip it in the bud, (and I don't mean by sending this guy to jail/ censorship of any form), soon it will be an avalanche of voices in unison, agreeing to a mass exodus of talent, foreign or not, from Singapore's shores.

Yes, isn't it? When you see the government glamorizing awards they receive from financial companies and other agencies - like AAA ratings, busiest port, best airline, biggest telecoms company in SEA (which is so small as compared to the rest of the world), a ever-increasing stockpile of foreign reserves - and rate this as more important than the average livelihood of citizens by downplaying the plight of the less fortunate, you know that somewhere, somehow, something has gone wrong. Unknown unknowns - as some minister put it. Whateverrr.

The hardware has been set in place, we are now first-world in more ways than one. But the heartware is not installed properly. That may be the singular factor to cause a spectacular crash in our smoothly running hard(hearted)ware.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

The modern allegory of teaching a man how to fish

Straits Times Online: Help the poor to start businesses: Nobel winner

Grameen Bank's business model is being copied all over the world. I think it's an excellent idea and there is no doubt that the founder of this bank deserves his Nobel Prize. Wonderful stuff.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Poverty, a thing of the past in Singapore?

A masterful piece by Martyn See... of the poor and the old. A must-watch, especially for the people at the top who are trapped in their cotton-candy world that poverty is history in Singapore.

Imagine yourself at that age, collecting cans and cardboard. I would do it so as to recycle stuff in the environment, but not cos I need to eke out a living out of it. This film is moving, to say the least. Kudos to See, for bringing out the harsh reality we all knew but chose to ignore.



Link to Google video

Martyn's blog

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Happy National Day Singapore

On this very joyous occasion, I am not in Singapore.

Before I launch into an endless tirade about nothing in particular, three simple words: Happy National Day! Yes, it's once again, 9th August. This is probably the first National Day I'm not on home soil, but I'm guessing it won't be the last. Strangely enough, I am missing home as I write this. More on this later on (or not, we'll see...)

I remember...

In primary, secondary and junior college, where we had to sing the National Anthem and recite the pledge everyday. And of course, when we went to do our NS too. Majulah Singapura!

In the army, where our respect for the flag (both National and the SAF one) was increased because of the almost God-like status. Saluting the flag, ah yes, like we do to officers. Hmm, I vaguely remember we salute officers only cos they carry the Singapura insignia on their shoulders. (Sidetrack: But whatever lah, I hate officers with the yaya papaya attitude.)

I remember the time when I got punished, because I offered to take over my junior's duty of flag-raising (when I was in the army). The flag's tip merely brushed the ground, and a staff sergeant who just woke up and was blurry-eyed, accused me of dropping the WHOLE FLAG on the ground. Needless to say, I“had committed” the worst sin during peacetime (besides AWOL and taking drugs, that is.) It became one of the camp's biggest issues of the day (and no, I had no illusions of grandeur of being one of the most famous then – or should I say, notorious.) For that, I had restriction of privileges (it could have been worse) and my bookouts became more irregular than the number of times a person with constipation went to shit in the toilet. So much for offering to help. Bahhhh.

The first time I was away from Singapore for an extended period of time – my student exchange in Finland. Really tested me a bit, but haha, I didn't really miss home cos I was having too much fun partying away with my ang moh friends. Spent my first New Year, Chinese New Year and Labour Day away from home during that period. Man, I sure missed the ang baos. Hahahahaha.


Now I'm working in China, I miss the familiarity of places that I always visit. Suntec City, where my company's Singapore office is; town, where I meet my friends for lunch; the clubs, where I get to party away with equally crazy friends; the comfort of having TRUE friends around; my uni gym, where I got the most value out of (cos it's "free" and I'm used to the equipment there); Geylang, where I hang out for suppers with friends (sometimes); driving around at night, when the night wind is cool and refreshing; getting lost on streets and turning around in circles, albeit still knowing I'd be safe no matter where I am.

The place I'm in now has lots of shady characters, people of dubious backgrounds, some who are out to look for a quick buck, others who patiently cultivate your trust in them and wait to make a lump sum at your expense, others who belong to some Mafia and whatnot.

Bahhh, the imaginings of my mind. How I wish. Right now, I'm just on alert everywhere I go. Contrast this with back home, where I could be walking on the streets at 2 or 3 am, with nary a care (maybe I'd be careful not to step on snails that occasionally stray onto pavements.)

The culture, the feel, the environment in each place is... just so different. Uniquely Singapore is unique in more ways than one.

Once again to my brothers and sisters in Singapore, and all over the world, let us rejoice on this day and sing the National Anthem with gusto. I won't be joining you guys in person, but in spirit, I'm always with you.


*sob sob* --> (ya right!)


See also: Choo Zheng Xi on TOC - How Do I Love Thee, let me (not) count the ways

Monday, August 6, 2007

Funny blog

Of satire and laughter... and not to be taken seriously!!

Presenting to you, Singapore Donkey.

Definitely takes the Monday blues away!

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Thoughts and reality

This is an interesting post by Mr Wang. In it, a scientist (Emoto) theorizes that thoughts can affect the formation of water crystals if they are directed at the water before it is frozen. Woah... I think this is just the tip of the iceberg as to what thoughts can do for the self.

As I keep stressing, positivity also helps. And it especially helps when you're in a new environment and everything is bewildering you, like what I am facing now :)

Things are falling into place for me, but only because I thought it would. Have a nice day folks!

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Constitutional amendment

Looks like the ruling government are making even more dubious decisions after their last pay raise issue (click on the above link to read Molly's take on it - a rather good one I must say). This post is not meant to be a commentary, but rather as a record for myself to come back and look at after some time.

After being out of the country for some time, I've more or less lost touch with the happenings on the ground. Now I'm trying to make up for lost time.

Keep up the good work, fellow bloggers! Our people are learning to read online articles for more news! =)

Right-of-way

Like everywhere else, one has to learn to quickly adapt or become redundant. Luckily for me, it is an inborn thing to want to ACT like the locals from the area I am in (whilst not necessarily accepting their values as mine).

So, this post is about right-of-way. In China, at least of what I've seen, this word/phrase is not commonly used/known, not least because the people here don't use English, but more because of their nature.

What I am talking about? Lest people start accusing me of broadly tarring everyone here with the same brush, I have to account for my stand.

1. On the road - in Shenzhen it is not as bad, but in Tianjin (where I was briefly for 2 days), the number of times I heard the car/bus/lorry/van/whatever vehicle horn was uncountable. Really, I kid you not. It almost seemed like the cacophony of noise was as continuous as air from an air-conditioner (a working one!), only that it jarred on my nerves. People here don't really allow others to cut into their lanes, and also, they have no sense of traffic rules. A two-way street quickly becomes one-way when one of the lanes become congested with traffic, and then a deadlock happens as a result because traffic on both sides are stuck with no possibility of either side advancing. And no one has the brains to reverse their cars apparently. It takes a policeman to come direct the people to MOVE IT! MOVE IT!

2. Rushing for lifts/trains/buses - While it is fair to clarify that the problem is not as acute for trains and buses because it is relatively less crowded than the lifts in particular I am talking about, the problem remains. One thing that stands out from what I recall, is that the DOOR OPEN button is rarely used in the lift situation. The person nearest the lift buttons would be furiously pressing on the DOOR CLOSE button instead, all whilst people are trying to come into the lift. LIKE WTF #$%^&?! And people here take it as a given! OMG bozos!! What were you guys thinking? Are we all like pigs to the slaughter, rushing into some sanctuary or something? Did you really have to press the Door Close button so many times as people are coming in? Will it get you any faster to your office? Stupid fugheads.

OK, I hope this piece entertained you a little. I'm still trying to figure out the enigma that is the Chinaman. Till then, there will be more of this shit coming up.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

This blog will not be updated till further notice

Due to pressing personal problems and those with work, I will cease updating of this blog till further notice.

I will be away in Shenzhen, China till the end of the year and I heard that Blogger is banned in China. As such, I think it might be impossible to blog on this platform.

I thank all my previous readers for their support and I hope bloggers out there will continue on your endeavours to protect Singapore's and Singaporeans' collective interests!

WE LOVE SINGAPORE!

Monday, June 18, 2007

Recycling and why it will not take off in Singapore

Before I start the post proper, let me display two pictures I took at Suntec City the other day.



The two bins. Look similar? Not really, right?

But contents looks similar!


This is what I call the lack of social conscience in SG. This is why, despite many of the good intentions behind the SG government's policies, they almost never seem to take off in the way it was intended.

Since people like to compare across countries, I shall use Finland as an example. There, the law doesn't state a penalty for littering. Why? Because simply, people there don't do it. I once asked a friend over there, "why don't people litter?" She looked at me with an extremely puzzled look, and replied, "Clarence, why would anyone WANT to litter?" That was what I call, a moment of enlightenment. Why do we litter? Why do we throw rubbish into the wrong bins? When it is obviously a recycling bin and the one for rubbish isn't even overflowing with refuse!

That moment of enlightenment led me to change my attitude towards littering. Nowadays, when I have something to throw and a bin is not in sight, I simply shove it in my back pocket.

****

We are already a first-world country, and in many aspects of our economy, we're first-class amongst the first-world nations. But the thing is, we look upon other locals with disdain, treat them as inferior, simply because of their social practices. Things that could have been changed easily, like not littering, like giving way to alighting passengers from MRTs and buses, like not squeezing yourself into the train when it is obviously bursting with people inside already, like not spitting in a public place, like... like... like... so many other things. I understand the meaning of 'old habits die hard', so I really hope that the younger generation (my own and those younger) will not follow in their parents' generation's footsteps, at least in terms of social practices.

Having said that, we now look at the decision of putting the two bins side by side. If we leave it as it is, there will be absent minded people who just throw their rubbish into either of the bins (let's just say 50-50 chance for argument's sake.) Some people will feel guilty about dropping it in the wrong bin but even these are rare. There will be those who are more civic-minded who after accidentally drop it in, will want to pick it out and drop it in the correct bin, but these people are an endangered species (even rarer than the previous category.)

Yet if we don't, there will be inconsiderate asses who, on pretext of not having a rubbish bin to throw their litter, will just drop it conveniently into the recycle bins if they are placed separately from the rubbish bins.

So this is going to be a real hard decision, eh? Because if we look at how recycling works, it just takes one idiot to pour in some curry sauce and dirty all the paper, plastic, or cans to make them unfit for recycling. No wonder recycling is not that profitable a business as in other countries. Back to my earlier example, in Finland, where people even SORT OUT their refuse to be recycled! There are about 7 or 8 categories of such, and people actually bother to do it. It's amazing to us Singaporeans, maybe, but until we bother to do such, we can never call ourselves a first-world country in all senses of the word.

My suggestion to the management of all establishments/ recycling companies is to rig the design of the bins such that the rubbish bins are incorporated with the recycling ones, with the hole for rubbish at waist level to suit those absent minded and inconsiderate asses. The hole for dumping materials fit for recycling should be placed slightly higher, maybe at shoulder level, so kids cannot reach it, and only civic-minded people actually bother. I'm not sure, it might be expensive to redesign the bins, but in a country like ours, it might be the only saving grace for recycling yet.


Featured read: The Great Singapore Sale

Synopsis - Esther talks about her GSS experience, whilst comparing between Singapore and Malaysia. I think it's a good read and a wake-up call for the frogs-in-the-well who are unable to see the picture outside of their wormhole.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

University places = F(protectionism, citizenship, taxes)?

Great debate on the issue of "how we should allocate our university places." I didn't write on it first-time round because I didn't think it was much of an issue to be debated on. How wrong could I get.

If people understand what a debate is about, they will realize that there is hardly a "correct" and "wrong" stand. Too very often in our lives, there are the so-called grey areas. I hope that readers exercise caution in reading, then commenting. It is easy to gripe about the imperfections in any system, simply because no system is perfect! But it is more difficult to come up with a solution that can actually work better, and has less/minor side-effects! But you all already know that.

Before I start let me explain the title of this post. So far that I've seen in the blogs and their respective comments, these few issues have cropped up together with this discussion on "university places", so I somehow thought that it would be interesting that university places could actually be a function of all the above-mentioned! What you guys think?

----------

I was quite taken aback that Mr Wang - whom I highly respect for his (usually) rather incisive and balanced views - took an absolute stand on this issue. To the extent I thought he was actually xenophobic. I was wondering why I thought that way (apparently my subconscious mind works faster than my conscious one), but when I re-read the article I finally realized.


"Heh. Actually there's nothing surprising about it. Look at our property market. Look at our residential rental rates. Look at the crowds on our MRT trains and in our food courts. Look at the endless jam on the CTE.

And then look at our university situation.

See the pattern? Due to a massive intake of foreigners in recent years, our resident population has exploded. We've become the 2nd most crowded country in the world. And our current infrastructure just can't cope."


Now, I dunno what happened along the way, but although I am quite certain that the intake of foreigners may have something to do with the problems mentioned (there is indeed a logical connection), I wouldn't connect them in the manner that Mr Wang has done. If connections were so easily made, then academics would be out of work.

"The basic point still remains. It is the responsibility of the government to provide adequate education opportunities for its citizens."

Yes Mr Wang. But to what level are we talking about? The state is providing for education up till secondary level. We can't even guarantee places at JC level, and now you're talking about university? What is adequate? Enough for one is not enough for another. ($1million a year is enough for many of us, but yet not enough for... you know, others.) It is easy to SAY things, but to implement, you must have the means, and that directly translates to money, and yes, taxes.


Of course, I foresee the next point coming: "Then don't give out so many foreign scholarships lah!" Correct, I agree on this point. I even mentioned in one of my previous comments on some blog that some of the money that we've been giving out to foreign scholars to make Singapore more "cosmopolitan" could be better spent on Singaporeans to give them an overseas exchange experience. This, as opposed to giving out whole scholarships to some Singaporeans, because the same amount of money could be better spent to benefit a larger group of Singaporeans. I also argued that the cosmopolitan-ity of a country would not be greatly enhanced just by introducing a group of foreigners into the country because people will tend to stick in their social circles (of course not true for hall residences where people get to mix around more freely!) and not mix around too much.


From the many comments on Mr Wang's blog, I can see that a lot of these people do not have foreign friends, and it is quite sad. Not just because you cannot be more "cosmopolitan", but also because you will tend to have warped views of yourself, your country and the world as a whole. I am against excessive spending OUR money on foreigners, of course, but the thing is, I have seen firsthand, how a foreign friend of mine (American) came here, studied for a year, fell in love with the place, fell in love here too (albeit not with a local), went home to complete his degree and vowed to come back here to be a PR (with a possible view of taking up citizenship) - he already has a return ticket to Singapore! Looking at the big picture, would you say the money spent on him - I dunno how much - is not worth it? He is probably going back to Michigan and saying a lot of good words about Singapore - of course he is not blindly pro-Singapore - and encourage more tourists to come here in the process. Word-of-mouth is growing in importance in this age, and I believe it's more powerful than any advertisement. In this sense, the scholarships/bursaries given out might be more effective than the STB advertisements being screened in various countries. (Now of course if you're going to be a total ass and say that we DON'T NEED foreigners, then sorry, there is no point for argument anymore. We're on two different wavelengths already.)


In case people start accusing me of being elitist/ uncaring/ not knowing what being rejected from university means, I have to categorically state that my bro got 4As, 1D and 1M (for S papers), A1 for both GP and Project Work and got rejected from the Medicine faculty too. His CCA record is impeccable too, having had MP attachment (only offered to the best students in his JC) and various Community Involvement projects. I shall not elaborate further on his achievements (I'm not here to boast!) but needless to say, my brother has qualifications that far surpass any of those mentioned in the papers. Yet as we wonder why he did not gain acceptance into Medicine, my family and I do not go around accusing the government of not doing its part. My mum's considering selling some property - not sure if it's the flat we're staying in - to let my brother study overseas. Thing is, there is always going to be competition all round, and if you get rejected from somewhere, it is fair to say that you're going to have choices elsewhere. There ARE second rate/less established universities in Singapore, besides the 3 main ones, and well, if I state those university names, I run the risk of offending YET another group of people (hint: read the comments in Mr Wang's blog for clues.)

In fact, as pointed out somewhere, the whole idea of setting up second-rate universities opens up a can of worms. It is recognizable that competition is indeed quite the extreme in Singapore, and getting this second rate degree might not be worth its salt (or money). Then, ah yes, when you graduate after 3 or 4 years, these very people are going to COMPLAIN again (oh why not?) that now that they have degrees, they SHOULD be employed and why are they not? Look at Taiwan, they're bursting with graduates from all over the place, but a significant percentage of them are unemployed. So is this how we want our graduates to turn out? Even being the best is not enough? Then what? Masters, PhD, post-doc? Then everyone in Singapore will now want a PhD and they're going to demand tha tthe government provide enough places for everyone?

Can of worms indeed. Huge.

The suggestion of setting up another university JUST to cater to the Dragon Year babies is NOT economically viable. Are you going to tell me, you're setting up an multi million-dollar (probably upwards of $50million?) institution just to cater to one batch of students, and after they graduate, the university falls into disuse until 8 years later (assuming 4 year courses)? I hope the person who said that has some intellect left to admit that he was a moron.

The author believes that we should not always turn to the government for help, as I have said again and again. Since when has not getting a place in university turned into a thing of national concern? Sure, and the next time you lost your wallet, you'd blame the government for not making the place safer?! What next, pray tell. Sure, by all means, vocalize your thoughts, but before that, sit down and reexamine yourself, and those thoughts - are they reasonable or not?

Having said that, it is my belief that our government should not have gone out on such an aggressive drive to hunt foreigners to come to our land (which is quite frankly, bursting at its seams already - like Mr Wang said.) It should be a gradual thing so we can adjust at the various stages. But I'm not sure, it could be due to the greying population issue.


I end this post urging readers and bloggers alike to try to get the big picture of the situation (well, I'm not saying I did get the WHOLE picture, so correct me where I erred) before actually airing your thoughts. Of course it all makes for good verbal discourse when ideas get thrashed out in the online world like this.

G'day to all!


Related blogs and news:

Mr Wang: Should Citizens Get Priority for University Admission
Molly Meek: University Places: Can we think beyond the universities?
Singapore Angle: Much ado about university admissions
Aaron Ng: Universities should give Singaporeans priority?
Bart JP: Protection for Singaporeans?
Updated
ST Forum: S'poreans have priority in university admission - MOE clarifies
ST Forum: Unsuccessful students may yet excel in life

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Pragmatism and the choice to stay out of politics

Life could be predictable, if only you'd believe it to be.

There's a "straightforward" path to success. Study hard in primary and secondary school (get into all the brandname ones without the "negative influences"), get into a top JC (y'all already know which), then achieve the perfect 4As, 2Ds, A1 for GP and an excellent CCA record to boot. (But that's IF you can do it, and a very big IF.) Then of course, hone the interview skills to ace that scholarship interview, and you have it MADE FOR LIFE. Yes, literally speaking.

From then on, as those responsibilities come one by one, so does greatness. Promotions come thick and fast, and before you know it, you're in the top echelons of power, a position which commonfolk like us all can only hope to reach - and that we pin our hopes on our next generation. One of my friends actually said she LIKED that kind of predictability - she felt safe in the knowledge that there was a surefire formula for success. But that's only if you do make it there, or at least somewhere NEAR there.

-----------

Pragmatism in Singapore means to lead a peaceful existence, earn your own money and mind your own business. This necessarily(?) means you do not dabble in politics or engage in alternative views, or does it? Pragmatism tells me I shouldn't be confronting (if at all) the establishment. Yes, looking at what I can potentially lose, it is scary.

While it is not my business who is in charge of Singapore, it is my concern, as long as I am Singaporean and feel such, to want the best to be right at the top, and more than that, to ensure that they do not go unchecked and totally unopposed as they chart the path for our country. I think a government, however bright and capable, will crumble if there is insufficient checks and balances in place. Corruption will set in, regardless of the level of salaries being paid out (of course a higher salary will manage to stave off chances of that happening for a longer time, but still...) That is why, although I favour a limited democracy for its efficiency in policymaking, I also believe that the citizens have a role to play by being watchful over their own leaders.

I am glad to have found an active online community which watches the government's actions closely. While we might be tempted to feel discouraged from time to time (words are only words without action being taken), let us take heart in the fact that maybe one day, the government will take our opinions with more than a pinch of salt.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Bureaucracy at its ugly worst

Well well, what do we say to this?

Alfian Sa'at writes:

"I was told that the school had received a telephone call from the MOE requesting the immediate termination of my services as a relief teacher. He [the principal] was unable to give me the grounds for such a decision. When I queried him as to whether this was based on my performance in school, he assured me, in his own words, that 'professionally and pedagogically, we had no problems with you'.

I asked if there had been any complaints made against me by any student or parent. Again, I was told that the school had been very satisfied with my performance, and based on feedback from students and teachers, acknowledged the fact that I had often gone beyond the minimum expectations for a relief teacher—including producing extra classroom material and marking the examination papers. He acknowledged that the school was in a very difficult position, because they would have problems procuring the services of another relief teacher at such short notice. "


If the person were me, I would be extremely indignant. I'm sure this guy is very angry too, but he manages to stay cool and fire off a cool-headed letter to the MOE, but the reply he got was another TYPICAL dodgy governmental answer. No Alfian, I did not have fun reading your correspondence. I was boiling with rage.

Why is the Civil Service like that? Is it that they have a standard protocol to follow (and again, this begets the question on WHO sets this policy) and that this practice is pick one of several "standard" replies and send it back to any letter writers, regardless what the matter at hand is?

The administration who are in the Civil Service are those with a handicap in the language - is that it? I'm wondering if the Government has a reply about this postulation, what with their INCREASE in Civil Service salaries to attract talent and retain existing ones. Are you equating talent to those equipped with the skill to write inane replies which "communicate maximum bureaucratic reticence", in Alfian's words? If so, their salaries really need not be that high - you could hire any JC kid on summer vacation to fill in those posts.

So where are the people who are actually equipped with the proper command of grammar and vocabulary and who are able to better answer queries than... an advanced robot with pre-set generalized replies to respond to ANY kind of situation? Note that I am not even talking about verbal sparring or debating, most people just want a decent reply that actually ANSWERS the questions swimming in their heads!

To me, what Alfian has asked is plain and simple. I reproduce his questions.

"I am thus writing to you to seek some answers.

1) What are the reasons for my termination as a relief teacher? I have satisfied the eligibility requirement as stated on your website, which stated a minimum of 5 'O' Level passes. As a matter of fact, I had garnered ten A1 distinctions for my 'O' Level results. I do not have a criminal record. To the best of my knowledge, I have not committed an infraction during the course of my teaching so grievous as to warrant such abrupt termination.

2) Today I received a letter from the Personnel Division informing me that I have not been 'successful for (my) applicaton'. This of course came after the fact; I had already been teaching for a month. Obviously, I would like to know why this letter is sent to me only after my employment.

3) When your directive arrived at the school, I was in the midst of marking the first semestral exam papers for 16 classes. I would like to know why you had urged my termination with such alacrity, without considering how this would affect the school and the student population. I felt a natural responsibility to review with the students the papers that I had marked. In light of these considerations, would it not have been more humane and less disruptive to provide me with a grace period so as to tie up loose ends before my departure?

4) I can only speculate that I have been somewhat blacklisted—as a relief teacher for now—by the MOE. I do not know the basis of this blacklisting, and whether it was generated via any kind of inter-ministerial communication and information-sharing. Does this mean that I will not be able to enter the teaching profession, and that an avenue for possible gainful employment in the civil service has been forever closed to me?"


To MOE's credit, they DID manage to answer one of his questions - q2! WOW, wonders of an automated generalized reply!

Quote:

"In the processing of relief teacher applicatons, we will usually give provisional approval due to the urgency of need at school level, pending further registration formalities. This is why you were initially appointed by East View Sec from 16 Apr to 11 May 07. Upon consideration of your application, we were not able to approve your registration as a relief teacher. Unfortunately, due to an oversight, the school has appointed you again on 14 May 07. We would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused."

But I think, maybe it's just me, or did I see points 1 - 4 neatly organized into paragraphs, and all waiting to be answered?

However, I read one of the comments at the bottom. And it was enough to chill me to the bone. Next, just to convince myself, I googled for Alfian Sa'at - sure, I've heard of his name, but I'm just not familiar with what he does. And here might be a more plausible reason (although not necessarily palatable) which MOE neglected to include in their reply to Mr Sa'at - reputed in Wikipedia to be Singapore's enfant terrible -that people who are known to be anti-establishment/have alternative views might not be suited to teach our young and malleable minds. Goddamn it, I'm cold, I'm shuddering at the thought of the insidiousness of it all.

If anyone would like to clarify my conjectures with me (I only put two and two together), I will oblige and will be more than happy to answer any queries to my best of my knowledge. I will not be dodgy because... I'm not a "Civil-ized Servant".

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Say NO to NETS

NETS is increasing its fees for merchants, and these merchants are likely to pass the increased costs to us. This increase is not unsubstantial, as it represents a three-fold increase over current charges.

"NETS now charge businesses between 0.35 and 0.55 per cent of the amount of each transaction. Starting July, this will be increased gradually to between 1.5 and 1.8 per cent of purchases." --- from Channelnewsasia website

True, there's no free lunch on Earth, and we should expect to pay for everything we use, but what? A three-fold increase? Right. I suggest that we vote with our dollars, and use cash, debit/credit from now on. We will show NETS that we consumers are not to be trifled with.

Meanwhile, NETS has also clarified that this increase in fees is not meant to be a consumer issue, but I think they're more afraid of the Competition Commission coming down hard on them because of their monopolistic position as CASE has filed a complaint against them with the Commission. Hooray to that.

A ST reader sent in his views on the NETS issue and I'm furiously nodding my head away to his comments. Couldn't agree more. But well, I'm not sure if the hoo-ha will die off like it ALWAYS does in Singapore - be the issues be on upgrading of HDB estates, political issues, transport fee hikes and stuff. I'd be disappointed if it were the same with every issue, although I'd tend to think that this NETS thing shouldn't be blown out of proportion - I'd just change my mode of payment to debit, thank you very much.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Of hawkers, whining and foreign talent

It is funny how the mind works. I cannot pretend to fathom how my own brain works, much less say I understand others'. In the short span of 15 minutes I was at a coffeeshop (a coffeeshop is different from a hawker centre, but any Singaporean would know that) having my lunch, I had formulated this post in my mind's eye.

I had noticed a bunch of hawkers grouped together at a table, and gossiping. Although I cannot say I heard their words, but through their gestures and glances, I quickly began to realize that it was directed at their more successful neighbour - Botak Jones.

Before we begin, let me give some background on this outfit Botak Jones (BJ). It started off as one outlet in Tuas, or so I heard from my brother's friend (should be accurate). That one is reputed to serve the best BJ food. The other outlets, I heard, cannot compare, somehowthe original is still best. (I've had the chance to dine at the Clementi outlet - the Cajun Chicken is not bad - but this post is not about food.) I think the idea of this BJ chain is to serve great Western food at "affordable" prices. Their prices are not hawker standard, but again, this post is not about food prices or quality. BJ has quite successfully infiltrated the coffeeshops they set up at, as evidenced by the crowds that throng these eateries AFTER they set up shop there. And it must be mentioned that most of these people eat from the BJ shop rather than the other hawkers.


---------
Now, picture this situation. You're an old-time hawker, having seen the setting up of this coffeeshop when it was still a venture between two old and balding men, rather than big coffeshop chains like S11 or Kopitiam. Now, the coffeeshop's revamped by one of these big coffeeshop chains, and then they bring in Botak Jones.

You laugh, thinking it must be one those ambitious entrepreneurships trying to make it big. Just another one of them, doomed to failure within... 3 months, you calculate with your fingertips. Then you go about your business, selling fishball noodles. You steal another glance at the stall, and get stumped. WOAH, is that $7.60 for a set of fish and chips? IN A COFFEESHOP!? Hahahaha... you recalculate with your fingertips, this time, you estimate that they will pack up and go within one and a half months. Nobody with half a brain would choose to eat there, after all people come to coffeeshops for CHEAP food. And of course, your fishball noodles has been the traditional crowd-puller. You go back to cooking food for that nasty customer who's yelling away. Secretly you wish to slap that guy's face, and when he shouts again, you tell him to "go eat at Botak Jones lah! Don't come back! Don't need your business!"

Within 1 month, your business is down 30% (no, it's nothing to do with that previous incident). The crowds prefer to eat at BJ, somehow. You begin fretting, but then you've seen many new shops open and suffered temporary loss of business before the novelty factor wore off and the new hawkers began to pack up and leave for a "better location". So this must be another trying period for you, but it's going to pass. No worries.

The next month, your business nosedives to 50% of the pre-BJ era. Now you start worrying. Weren't they supposed to ship out after one and a half months? And now they're not just going strong, they're growing stronger! The novelty factor is supposed to last all of a month only, wasn't it?

3 months since, your business remains dismal. Lunch hour comes and goes, it used to be hell for you, but now you're sitting at a table, shooing houseflies from your leftover ingredients from last week. Shit.

4 months pass. You start to get really angry about this BJ outlet. You secretly harbour thoughts of razing their stall to the ground, but of course you're more rational than that. You bitch about them to the next stall owner. "Look at them, they think they're so great cos they sell Western food. Please lah, Singaporeans where got so stupid like to eat Western food one. They still prefer the traditional food like laksa and chicken rice mah. How come all our business like that? Must be that stupid Botak Jones lah. Come and ji siao."
---------


I can imagine that was what happened. Anyway I believe it's been more than four months since BJ set up in my area, and a lot of these old time hawkers are getting really frustrated with them for snatching otherwise what would have been their business.

But from a neutral standpoint, I should say the increased business at the coffeeshop was in no small part due to BJ. And I shall use this example as part of bigger concepts - the foreign talent policy (see my previous article on the same topic) and the typical Singapore mindset to whine and complain (I'll talk about both in simultaneity.)

BJ can be seen as the foreign talent imported by say, Kopitiam, to improve their business. After all we know that Kopitiam is a business outfit driven by profit, and the way it functions is not unlike our government, who operates Singapore Inc. in a similar fashion. So of course, somehow, by means of some magical formulae or pure luck, Kopitiam hit on their jackpot, more people eat at the coffeeshop and handsome returns come flushing into their coffers. Very similar to Singapore Inc.'s reliance on foreign talents who create jobs for our locals and at the same time getting our own national coffers flushed with surpluses.

But see, the other hawkers are not happy. Yes, more people eat at the coffeeshop, but the influx of the new customers go to BJ! They don't really notice that they have new customers coming to their stalls too, because now their old customers eat at BJ (the stall which disgusts them to no end not least cos of their huge servings of fries which always seem to be unfinished.) Their business is down, but instead of seeking to innovate, how to improve themselves, they just sit around, mope, gripe and reminisce about the pre-foreign talent era.

One hawker recently came up to my friends and me one day and whilst serving me my food, started to gripe to us about Botak Jones! He asked my friends sarcastically if they were getting food from BJ. One of them was, and he said so. Then the hawker went on to tell us a long story, about how he'd been there for a long time, that BJ was unhealthy, that the waiting times for their food was unreasonable, that the prices were crazy. By comparison, his fish bee hoon was the healthier choice (bah!), cheaper, and in the time my friend was going to get his western food serving, I was going to finish my bowl of noodles, walk one big round around the neighbourhood, and then come back to see... that my friend hadn't gotten his food yet (yes the hawker said all of that.) It wasn't like he knew or could reasonably expect my friend to drop his BJ order and immediately order from him, but he said it anyway. Kept coming back to make snide remarks, and, brought up by our parents NOT to be rude to the older generation, we could only nod and smile in silence, and pray that he would get the hint we were not interested in hearing him talk.

Yes, I know, I'm still young. I might not know as much about what goes on in the working world yet, cos I haven't started working. I would be the first to admit too, that I've had a very sheltered environment, being in all the, for lack of a better phrase, non-neighbourhood schools. But I make an effort to mix around with the neighbourhood school people, and I do not find that a chore. In fact, my life revolves about people and making friends. I do not see the people who did not go to elite schools as inferior. In fact, I'd say most are much better than me in EQ and people relationships when I was younger, especially when I was in secondary school and did not mix around much. So please, I do not see myself as part of the elite, nor am I elitist. (This paragraph is to pre-empt people who might offer dumb comments about me - please do not get personal.)

I think whining and complaining are both things which come naturally to us. It in itself is fine. I engage in whining too. But to rely on the government for everything and anything is becoming a chilling prelude to where our future is headed. I believe, as do many of my European friends that the Singapore CPF system is one of the best systems in the world. You reap what you sow, what is so wrong with that? If you choose to give private tuition, or set up your own business, and in both circumstances not contribute to CPF, then it's your choice too, and it's your fault if anything goes wrong later on, right? True, the government should provide some sort of social security, but too much of it provides for a crutch mentality in all Singaporeans.

I forget when the cash handouts started, prolly when GST was first introduced in Singapore, but since then we've almost begun to take it like a given. There're so many of these schemes that I've forgotten all their names, I just remember that the government's giving me money and that I've a bonus over my female counterparts cos I've done NS and they haven't. When the government started giving out cash handouts to ALL Singaporeans, they might not have anticipated the turn in tide of public thinking. It was all cosy in the beginning of course. Everyone appreciates spare cash.

But soon enough, the Government got so caught up with this that they conveniently ignored the fact that they did NOT want Singaporeans to rely on the Government! But slowly and gradually, it became such. You laugh, you think it's nonsensical, but you judge for yourself when you look at the deluge of extremely humourous articles in the Humour section of our States Times Straits Times. Oops, sorry my bad, it's the Forum Pages.

A ST forum article, which happened to be the centrepiece for Piper's article about a father writing in to gripe his daughter's inability to get into a local university despite her grades - A, B, E, made for good lunchtime fodder. A and B aside, what about the E she got? And I think it made perfect sense to read the fineprint in the university handbook that was given to most aspiring undergrads who bothered to turn up at the annual Open House - that meeting the minimum criteria would NOT guarantee admission into the university. I do not think an open admission policy would be in the sights of NUS/NTU/SMU, who are all so caught up with the rankings in the international arena that the last thing they need is a perceived drop in standards of entrance criteria and correspondingly the university's "exclusivity" and reputation. With UNSW Asia's pullout of Singapore, and other foreign institutions' unwillingness to move in as yet, Mr See's daughter would have to try her luck elsewhere.

Last time, in my parents' generation Eh my bad, just some four years back(!), if I couldn't make it to university, it was my fault that I wasn't good enough. Nowadays, if you can't make it to university, you ask your dad to write a letter to the Forum pages (letting people have a good laugh about it in the process must be a bonus.)

Maybe in some part due to Singaporeans nowadays being better educated and as such being more vocal, they start to articulate issues which might have been their own personal grudges last time. True, See Jr's grades of A, B, E and a C for GP are reasonably good, but it's not like they're terribly good that a university would be damned not to accept her. Blame it on luck, blame it on herself. By no means the system is perfect, the net might not have been woven tight enough to catch all the capable people and not let anyone fall through. Whining, if done correctly, can cause the system to improve, but the truth hurts - not many people engage in constructive whining.

Wang Hongjun, in his letter to the ST Forum, laments the participation of our youth in their own business. In his letter, aptly titled "Why are students not writing in themselves?", he claims he is surprised to see parents writing in for their children when the matters at hand are clearly the problems of the children. Add that to the fact that these very children we speak of are not primary school going age, but rather aspiring to go to the university! Have their linguistic ability failed them? Or are they used to having their parents write parents' letters for them in primary, secondary school and even junior college? Stressed Teacher wrote about this topic before - a very interesting phenomenon indeed, although by no means new.

My whole point here is that, many Singaporeans have become sucked into a vacuum of mollycuddling by the government. We need to get out of this vicious cycle and once again learn to stand on our own two feet.


P.S.: I'm not sure if hawkers can opt to sell anything they want or change the food they cook (if they don't have that liberty, then maybe the fault's not really theirs), especially in the setting of a coffeeshop. But then they could ask for a switch? Or somehow improve their cooking, come up with other gimmicks, team up with other hawkers, come up with discount schemes? I dunno, but many of them are the older generation, haven't had the benefit of a tertiary marketing education. Tough luck.

The Charade of Meritocracy

An old article found (click on the link above) after reading one of Mr Wang's old posts, but nonetheless a great read because of the investigative journalism done.



The article outlines how the government scholarship system works to the man-in-the-street's detriment. While the Govt continues to insist that the system is fair and above-board (it may well be so), statistics prove otherwise. The author, Michael D. Barr, looks at several top government scholarships, namely the President's Scholarship (the most prestigious), SAF Overseas Scholarship (commonly ranked as the second most prestigious) and concludes that if there is indeed any meritocracy in our system, then it has to be a fact that Singaporean Chinese are indeed smarter than our Malays and Indians.



Chart from: http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/0610/free/p018.html

(I'm not sure how he uses his statistics - the very fact that Chinese are the dominant race means that you're going to see more of them amongst the elite, unless you're assuming that Chinese brains are warped and Malays and Indians are superior, but let's not debate on that, shall we? Statistics have to be interpreted with a pinch of salt, and confidence levels have to be taken into account. I shan't do my own analysis - in a large part due to my abhorrence for statistical analysis - I just want the readers to be aware of this. Anyone is free to do their own analysis and then come up with a conclusion.)

But then other lines of reasoning he uses are quite chilling. That the SAP programme was used to marginalize non-Chinese, or seen in another light, to help the Chinese remain dominant over the rest of the races. (I do not want to be seen as a radical wanting to upset the racial balance, and indeed with this, I might well be already bordering on sedition, but it's quite upsetting how the article analyses our government's actions.) I just hope that it is not true. Preserving the Chinese culture is a good thing, is it not? Of course, it could be seen in another light like what Barr did, and in totality with other policies, could be seen in a negative light.

Brings me to realize what "ignorance is bliss" means... the world is becoming a darker place - the more we know, the more we become afraid.

Is meritocracy truly dead? I can only cross my fingers and pray it is not so. And now time for more thinking, how much more information is the government keeping from us?

Oh oh Singapore is not as clean and white as you think

Well well, so we've raised the pay of our ministers, ensuring that they stay corruption-free, and now we get a nice rude shock.

First it started off small (though quite big by any standards), with the Public Accounts Committee revealing that EDB was being audited for the first time in 46 years, and on top of that, many irregularities were found. What now, "Cocky" Yeo?

The Auditor General's report on our 12 ministries and statutory boards has shown that the full extent and collective loss of public monies amounted to $6.2million - an amount almost equivalent (slightly less than) to our PM and MM's pay.

Is it the dawn of a new cleaner era, or is it the sign of murkier things to come? A stricter regime of checks and balances really need to be set up in place. And the Auditor General needs to wake up more often than once in 46 years.

Read more on the TOC website. A well written exposé.

Sunday, June 3, 2007

You Can Do It

This phrase is an oft-heard one, but how often do we use it on ourselves? Be it in educational institutions or in the workplace, it is a sad fact but true - that negativity in the leaders breeds even more negativity in their followers. Read the middle part of Mr Wang's post on this. Can you imagine how the promising young man that is now would have turned out if he actually believed his teacher?

That said, we must beware the danger of overusing this sentence without meaning it, because we, being the smart people we are, can easily differentiate between heartfelt words and words that are said out of routine/without meaning them.

I have seen and heard so many people who tell you not to dream big. They use their age to impress upon me that, despite all my "potential", I better be pragmatic. A big house, a sports car? Stop dreaming. A millionaire before 30? Stop dreaming. The inevitable answer to "I think I have a great idea to make money" would be "if so, why didn't the thousands and millions of people before you not think about it?" Better have your two feet firmly on the ground, stop building castles in the air. All too familiar? I think it's in the Singaporean culture to be "practical".

Yes, Practicality and pragmatism are something we should be aware of. Parents should let their sons and daughters know how to be practical in life, yet should never try to suppress their youthful zest for life. It would be the greatest tragedy to bring up your offspring and have them think they can NEVER reach the top of the world, even in their wildest dreams. Is it wrong to dare to dream? To be the greatest musician that ever lived, to be the fastest person alive, to be the multi-talented person whom everyone admires, to be the most patient person in the world, to be the best teacher, to be the Prime Minister, to be whatever you want. You could even dream of being Superman, just so long as you have a firm vision of going about it. No one can ever stop you, it's all in your mind whether you can conquer that wall, get past that obstacle in life, whether you can pass the test, whether you can forget your old flame who left you for another.

It's all too tempting to tell someone to know their limits. Granted we have their good at heart, we don't want them to dream too high and fall down even harder. We don't want them to be left disappointed, disillusioned with the world, have their hopes smashed and dashed when they realize they're not up to par. But thing is, we have to admit we will never know how things will turn out. How do you know the classmate beside you who's always failing his maths test won't one day "wake up" and get the next PhD in maths? There're all too many cases of no-hopers made good to ignore.

Autistic people who are normally seen as mentally retarded, all have their own strengths. Kim Peek, whom doctors gave till 14 to survive, is 54 now and is known all over the world as the "living Google". He has the amazing ability to devour books 2 pages at a time, his left eye reading one page and his right eye the other - all of that simulataneously - and can read up to 8 books a day. He is able to store 80% of this information in his brain, hence his nick "The Living Google". (His life has been made into a movie, The Rain Man.) Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Jane Austen, Henry Ford, Van Gogh and even Bill Gates have all been known to be autistic. How many more examples of supposed "no-hopers" do you need to tell you that dreams are worth dreaming?

You know yourself best. Don't let people dictate your fate. Others may think that to live peacefully on Earth and minding their own business is the way in life. My own mother believes that suffering IS NECESSARY when we're living on Earth (in some ways it is true). But for the most part, I beg to differ. I have my own set of thinking, and I have included positivity as a way of life. I find that more often than not, I wake up feeling happy, and friends always admire my happy-go-lucky attitude. But that is something they too can control! And being happy-go-lucky doesn't make me any worse than them - I'm aware of being pragmatic too (notice I don't use "knowing my limits" - even autistic people can reach so high, why not me, an able-bodied person?). But that does not preclude me from dreaming my own dreams (and smiling that wry knowing smile that gets people puzzled.)

From Mr Wang's post: "Although I believe that most people can achieve great things, I also believe that most people won't. The greatest reason is that THEY don't believe that they themselves can achieve great things."

How apt. If you tell yourself you can't do it, you WILL NOT make it. If that lucrative bank job is still open, who is there to tell you you should not apply for it cos you're not good enough? Heck, give it a go, it won't waste a bit more than a few hours of your time, and at worst end up with a bruised ego. You at least have a chance of getting that job, better than that good-for-nothing who has ZERO chance.

The next time you want to tell someone to "forget it" and "stop dreaming", stop yourself. You might be looking at the next world champion or the world's next richest man/woman.


Related posts/blogs:
Trybe blog
Mr Wang's post

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The closing of UNSW Asia

Well it's been a long time since I've written, and this topic doesn't especially seem to be fresh, but I'm particularly appalled by the university's shocking decision to close shop even before trying out for a year.

It's easy to see how the university is at blame for choosing to quit and leave their inaugural batch of students high and dry. It's easy to point fingers at the UNSW's governing council, who were given all of 30 seconds to read through the proposal for the setting up of the Asian campus in Singapore. One of UNSW Asia's concerns was that it would be a B-school, ranked below our own local universities. I think that was one of the concerns of SMU when it was set up not too long ago too, but look at what branding has done for them. All these and more, we can easily put a finger to.

However, the more shocking thing is the lack of investigation by our own media into the reasons behind the collapse of UNSW Asia. Or should it be the case that we shouldn't be surprised cos it's anti-government to question the wisdom of EDB officials? Or anti-establishment to dig up worms when it might be the case that OUR own officials might be at fault?

In a bid to be an educational hub in Asia, or renowned in the world for educational services, Singapore needs to re-examine the real underlying reasons behind all that hubba-bubba. How is it that the UNSW officials rushed through the proposal? Was it because EDB was pushing them too hard? Why is it that Warwick University, the second to be wooed as part of Singapore's dreams to form an educational hub, decided that it was not feasible to set up a campus here? Academic freedom was cited as the reason, but what exactly was behind it? More specifically, we need to break out of the vagaries - what in the name of "no academic freedom" was Warwick and UNSW against? A clarification by the MD of EDB has nary a response to any of these more "fundamental" questions.

Granted, targets have to be set so that we can reach our dreams of being a hub (of this and that and everything else), but surely FLEXIBILITY could be arranged? Up till this point in time, the government is still very rigid. How can it move past its own authoritarian, hand-holding culture when the big shots in the party cannot even move out of the shadows of their (fore)fathers?

We already have 3 or 4 full-service universities - NUS, NTU (not Nanyang IT!), SMU and (to a lesser extent?) UniSIM. So I question the feasibility for overseas universities to take root here. If there is any, the authorities should at least allow them to carve out a niche that they could excel in - for eg. when SMU came on board a few years ago, they were able to market themselves as THE business school. Similarly, we should have art schools, sports institutions and music universities in Singapore so as to diversify the educational aspects that can be found in our country. I heard that some music school was being wooed to set up here, and I'm very gladdened to hear that news.

I think it's a typical Singaporean mentality to be kiasu and kiasee, but more often than not, rushing things through hastily without thinking of the consequences will lead to the things not being accomplished satisfactorily. In this case, it not only spells the end of cooperation between UNSW and Singapore, but more importantly, it makes a dent in our aspirations to be THE place to get your education. And as we all know, negative things and images tend to stick around for a long time to come. Pray tell, what is EDB (who incidentally is suffering from lack of proper internal controls after an internal audit by the Attorney General - its first in 46 years!) is going to do about this.

A reputation, once damaged, is going to need so much salvation to get back to where it once was.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Blogging - "Arise, Communicate, and Inspire"

Benjamin, in his post above on the Online Citizen, contends that most blogs nowadays are "reactionary in nature". I couldn't agree less, because I for one am a reactionary blogger, i.e. I blog after reading about certain news in any or all of the below:

1. a newspaper (online or paper),
2. a news site (which may include other mainstream media like the TV or radio),
3. another blog.


I am probably doing what most other bloggers are, and do not create NEW content. Basically, I write on topics that interest me, and that cause me to have feelings bottled up so much that I have to blog about it. That's basically each and every blogger's mentality.


Blogging for myself

The world (and my world) has changed much in these few years. I started blogging in 2005 mainly as a pastime, and only recounted narrative events in my life. Back then my writing style was quite immature and littered all over with expletives (that my friends found quite entertaining, for some reason). I do not think I would have changed even if allowed to go back then, cos I see it as part of a growing process. But at the back of my mind, I knew I would want to write properly, just that I needed some impetus to do so.

As the days went on, I began to despise blog-writing that had SMS lingo, or simply bad spelling and/or grammar, in it (it's such a pain to read!), and therefore adopted a proper English writing style. With that mindset, I finally evolved to writing not just in proper sentences, but also developing a better vocabulary (fortunately I have had a firm grounding in my grammar.) At that time, I used blogging as a medium to improve my standard of English, and as a way to force myself to articulate thoughts that would otherwise have been just "mere figments of imagination" floating about in my mind.

Now armed with a reasonable standard of English, I have come to the point where I use the blog as a means to develop opinions on certain matters. I read, therefore I am. I write, therefore you know who I am. It doesn't matter that I may not have a well-rounded opinion of any matter at hand, I write because I believe in it. Back in my youth, the leaders lamented the dearth of political participation amongst the younger generation. Now, there is an active blogosphere which touches on anything from healthcare, politics, NS, socio-economic problems and the like. PAP has certainly gotten more than it has asked for.


Reactive blogging

This kind of blogging, as mentioned earlier, does not create new content. That said, reactive blogging has its good points, because we know that reports in the newspapers do not give adequate coverage to certain issues - and so we can "add breadth and depth", as Benjamin says. We should not be restricted to reading what the editors of a certain newspaper think are important, and instead have our own views on those topics thrashed out in the online world. Some issues are given very little coverage, but with the power of the blogging medium, we can give it the coverage it deserves.

In fact, the newspapers and other mainstream media like TV and radio are feeling the heat from popular bloggers. In this year alone, countless articles debating the importance/relevance/credibility of blogs have appeared in ST. I say, if blogging were as bad as the shadow which the newspaper cast over it, then the reporters wouldn't have wasted their time dissing it in the first place, would they? Fact is, some of the better bloggers have much more interesting content, better English and a wider readership than those individual reporters could ever hope to have, and as such, these reporters feel threatened.

The accusation that most blogs do not do enough research and hence what they say cannot be taken at face value may ring true (we do not own the resources which an established newspaper owns), but I believe seasoned bloggers and blog readers already know this for a fact, and hence will not rely on a single blog for information they want to know. This is where the "power in numbers" comes in. In fact, for any article you may find on a single blog, you can be sure there will be others talking about it too, so you can get a myriad of similar/differing viewpoints on it, and even those with similar viewpoints will tend to bring up other facets of the opinion that might not have been discussed in detail in the original post.


Proactive blogging

Proactive blogging is indeed the future of blogging activism - there is no doubt about it. Benjamin has outlined 3 ways where bloggers can do so, namely depicting future scenarios which could emerge, covering issues that have NOT appeared in mainstream media (MSM) and discussing controversial issues that MSM will find challenging/tricky to tackle.

Only when blogging has reached this level, and on a large scale at that, will newspapers start to become irrelevant. This may not be for some time, but I foresee this happening because of various reasons.

1. The Internet has made it easier for us to get news fast, dig out information more easily. It is now not as painful for us to do research on topics that interest us, because most major organizations put relevant information on the Net which can help our cause. The only information that newspapers can get that bloggers can't is probably that which requires the use of spies within the organization itself, or that which the organization itself is covering up. However, with the "power in numbers", once one individual (who may be in the organization) who knows some news-worthy information publicizes it, the rest will quickly catch on, and soon everyone will be in the know. Online forums may be a great avenue to indulge in gossip, but more importantly they may also be a good starting point to lay the groundwork for our own "investigative blogging".

2. Another phenomenon that is occurring that I noticed (though it might not be widespread yet) is that of reporters or ex-journalists joining the burgeoning rank of bloggers. These few may help spearhead the direction of blogging through their sheer expertise and know-how. Even discounting this fact, many of the bloggers have rather astounding credentials, for e.g. TOC's Leong Sze Hian, who has 5 degrees and 13 professional qualifications, and this indubitably lends weight to his opinion(s).

3. Blogging may be seen as more credible because of the lack of censorship over it, although the lack of control over accuracy of facts may undermine it. However given time, intellectuals will be able to identify how good a blog is and how factual the writing is simply by reading it. Granted, there will be the older generation or even the not-so-privileged in education that cannot separate facts from fiction, but a general guide to how good a activist blog is is simply how many blogs link to it, and no, I am not talking about populist bloggers like Xiaxue or Dawn (who mainly attract teens and aunties who need a good dose of gossip). We shall draw the line between people who know proper English (and actually employ the use of such) from those who don't, and those who narrate their lives (in full or part) on their blogs from those who produce serious commentary.

-------

I say, the future of blogging burns bright in more ways than one. Those who can afford the time and who have the ability should try their hand at it. It sharpens the mind, helps to articulate thoughts, gives you an opinion should anyone else ask you about a certain issue, and in general, aids in improving your English over time. Oh, and did I mention, it helps relieve boredom too. Haha.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Singapore, Forever a Migrant City?

Whilst I do not attempt to hit out wildly at the government, I do have my fair share of criticism for certain policies they uphold. Sure, the government is doing at least SOME of the things right, because our country is growing from strength to strength. But look at our people, they are getting increasingly disgruntled. The leaders are stunned. Why, should they not be happy for us we are drawing million-dollar salaries? Why, is Singapore not having consistent growth? Why, are we not worth our weight in gold? Really? Then find us someone who can do our job, and we might quit. Foreign talent, anyone?


As I commented in the Young PAP blog (reference the link above, please) on EOC's post, our country has made good on its progress and has attained first-world status. Now after our basic physiological needs have been met, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs actually suggests that we might have moved on to the next level, and what's that? Yes, safety. What safety? I quote excerpts from Wikipedia: of body, of EMPLOYMENT, [...] of health and property.


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - every business student knows this by heart. (Disclaimer: I am NOT from Business.)


Which brings me to...

The Foreign Talent policy. Sweet. Don't we all have a love-hate relationship with it?

No, actually I know of people who only love it. Our leaders. Don't they? They only proclaim the positives of this policy, and conveniently sidestep the problems that this policy can bring about.

Business students anywhere and everywhere would know, that globalization and diversity are inevitable in this era, and our government has so cleverly tweaked immigration and work policies to make it easier for an inflow of, what we now know as, foreign talent. Yes yes yes, of course, Singapore only has one resource, foreign talent. Oops, I actually mean Singaporeans, our human resource. And now that resource is unhappy that it is being used, but not given remuneration commensurate with the amount of time spent studying, or serving National Service, or the number of upgrading workshops they have attended. So they leave. And get labels like traitor, quitter and the like.

So that's how our government leaders are worthy of their salaries. They invent names! They do not squirrel down to the root of the problem, but think they can hold people back by publishing their faces in our very own well-loved and widely-circulated Shit Times. Oooh, dangerous territory I am wading into.

So as to protect myself, I would like to have you and the whole world know, I agree with many policies that PAP has made, I am happy with how the country has been run so far, but that does not necessarily preclude me from speaking up about those policies which are quite clearly disadvantaging Singaporean citizens now, and well into the future.

Whilst I am NOT a low wage-earner (or maybe, who knows), nor someone who is not internationally mobile (after being endowed with a world-class education from 18th-in-the-world NUS, yayness!), I feel for these categories of people. Nowadays, I go out and I try to spot the old men and women who are picking up cans from the streets, from the rubbish bins, the dishevelled old man who sits by the wall begging for money, the cleaners! (OMG this should really be another post.) The cleaners in the food courts, or the hawker centres, or the coffeeshops are more likely than not to be our senior citizens, 65 or older, supposed to be enjoying their twilight years. Hey they could be your grandmas or grandpas for all you know.

OK, I shall not deal with the topic that these elderly folk should be resting at home, playing chess at the void deck with their friends or jetting off to see the world, but now I shall more pertinent to the point. Have you guys noticed a paradigm shift? Now what did I just say earlier? Did you spot something wrong? Were you sharp enough? I specifically point you to this statement. "The cleaners in the food courts, or the hawker centres, or the coffeeshops are more likely than not to be OUR senior citizens..." Anything wrong?

No, wrong. That was in the past. Now, the cleaner cleaning your table is likely to be a "foreign talent" - many from India/Bangladesh/Timbuktoo, and more recently, more from China. OMG really, you surely need talent to clean a table! Then the not-so-talented elderly folk have no money to retire, no job to work and a rather supportive government providing them with $290 per month. Wait, that's just slightly more than my monthly pocket money - $200 - and I did not have to pay for my transport fees, or utility bills. I only had to pay for my school lunches. And guess what, $200 was just about enough for me. So pray tell, does the government need anymore proof that $290 per month is not enough? Darn, I strayed from my main topic again!

Rehashing Nicholas Lazarus's point (read his comments from EOC's post), the locals should not suffer because of replacement by cheaper substitutes. The government says, upgrade lah! Eh, upgrade to what? What other skills does a cleaner need to have besides being able to clean stuff? Oh yeah, maybe being able to paint walls, use Microsoft Word, and being fluent in 3 other languages besides English and Mandarin might help you to snare the cleaner position. Then other problems remain, what about those who are not academically inclined? I mean, they couldn't do well in school that's why they ended up in menial jobs in the first place, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

All in all, my point is, Singapore has to develop into a more compassionate society. If foreign rubbish is going to balloon our population to 6.5 million, then I can say with confidence (and maybe a little flourish) that I will be saying bye bye Singapore! And then after leaving Singapore, "YES, NO MORE RESERVIST!" I do not want to see the little red dot we love so much turn into a huge rubbish dump.

You see, at the end of the day, I am still proud to say I am Singaporean. What about the foreigners?

National Service disadvantages Singaporean males

Tomorrow.Sg post on NS and the due compensation
Untold truths of National Service
Is NS killing Singaporeans?
Mr Wang's take
The lone dissenting voice (from a SAF regular)


The above links all talk about the recent Taiwan mishap involving 4 Singaporean males, of which 2 were granted a merciful(?) reprieve when a Taiwanese F5 fighter plane crashed into a Singaporean camp in the country, and seriously injuring 2 other servicemen. I sincerely offer my condolences to the departed, and to the two who are still fighting the battle in the hospital, I pray for their well-being.

--------


The issue that the above bloggers tackle is that of compensation to NSFs (full-time National Servicemen) and NSmen (aka reservists) when something unfortunate happens to them. Mr Wang contends (and I concur) that blanket group insurance should be offered to ALL those serving NS, on NS training stints and such, on SAF's account. Yes Mr Army Regular argues that NS pay has been raised many times, and this can be construed as an equivalent to SAF giving out free insurance premiums to its servicemen, but I believe pay (or allowance, as SAF calls it - that's why it's so low!) and insurance benefits should be kept separate. For sacrificing our time and effort, and in unfortunate cases, an otherwise bright future, or even lives(!!), allowances should be made commensurate. To cover the servicemen with insurance should be a responsibility on the part of our dear SAF, because conscription means we never had a choice in whether to serve - it's just when is your turn. We guys just have to do it, "Serve And Fuck off", don't we all.


I belong to the generation where we gave up 2.5 years of our prime to serve the country (now it's 2 years, but still!) Without that 2.5 years delay, I could have graduated 2 years earlier with my female peers, gotten a cushy job and maybe earning my first million before 30 wouldn't be that difficult. Now, not only is that "million dollars before 30" a pipe-dream (yes I am still dreaming about it), I am also ensconced in the culture of swearing and vulgarities (hoho, no you don't get to choose whether to swear or not cos EVERYONE'S doing it), I am retardified because of two and a half years of "no need to think, just follow orders!" (what with "thinking army" man - the only thing we're all thinking about is bookout time), but fortunately, NS armed me with many horror stories to entertain girls (who are too bored of NS stories already cos they know nothing about it). Luckily I have been able to get my English back on track else I would have one more complaint. SAF really makes you stupid, no doubt about that.

That's why scholars have the option of disrupting, so they don't get too stupid before they matriculate in their brand name universities, so that they can start earning a decent salary right away after they graduate. I was told by my youngest bro that his commanding officer (a lieutenant colonel) is all of 28 years old. What? Don't believe? Then you dig some more. Oh because he is a President's Scholar. NO WONDER LAH! Now you get the drift, why the rich will never understand the poor, why politicians who are able to paint themselves as an Average Joe will more likely get the vote over someone who has all the "necessary credentials".


Yes, I know, it should be an honour to serve your country. But well, the way I see it, the honour goes both ways. The country should be privileged that I am serving it, and offer me (and other servicemen) adequate compensation commensurate to the risks we undertake when we serve in the armed forces. How do we know it's risky? Simply because most insurance firms do not cover the armed services, where live rounds are not like guided bombs - they do not have eyes - and a gun in the hands of a "blur fuck" can cause people to die, or get seriously injured. At least one of my friends can testify to cases of such happenings - when a recruit kept pulling his trigger when a bullet got stuck in his M16 barrel and at the same time yelling, "IA! IA!" while turning the rifle to point at him. That idiot got a kick to his head and deservingly so. Another told me about night live-firing conducted together with section movement. A bullet narrowly missed his head as it whooshed past the side of his eyes and he instinctively ducked. Who says you need to experience war to get killed. If you don't understand this, it's either because 1. you are a foreigner, 2. you are a female Singaporean, 3. you are a disabled Singaporean male, or at least handicapped in some way (sorry about that, but I am not in the business of being politically correct), 4. you have been completely retarded because of NS.

And then there are cases of servicemen plunging to their deaths from helicopters, from rappelling down high walls and the like. How many running-related deaths have we in the past year? And the dunking incident, surely people can remember, it blew up into a criminal case, and was maybe the first time SAF admitted its fault and charged some officers and warrant officers for not discharging their duties properly.


Yes, I know, the various government payouts have given NSmen additional bonuses in recognition of our service. I really appreciate that. But for the unfortunate few, a couple of hundreds is not going to make up for it. Lawrence Leow suffered from a heat stroke that left him paralysed, but our dear SAF is giving him a $500 monthly stipend and a CSC card (which gives him free medical help at polyclinics and hospitals). Again, the thing about money is how much is enough. I don't know, you don't know, no one knows, but what we DO know, is that $500 is NOT enough for a paraplegic that was once an active person, someone who was stripped of his future and indignified in a wheelchair for life and now can't even talk! Hey come on, our dear ministers who are paid handsome salaries must have been so used to just paying for anything and everything with their seemingly bottomless bank accounts such that they can't see for themselves that $500 a month is hardly enough for a normal person, let alone a handicapped person with extremely limited mobility. If a war veteran that gets permanently disabled in other countries can get a decent monthly allowance from his government, then there is no reason why someone who was serving the nation not of his own free will but being forced by conscription should not get at least the same, if not higher (because it wasn't out of his free will!)

They dare to tell us, you serve your country with honour, why talk about pay, when they themselves, the creme de la creme, pride of our country, leaders of our land, have to up their pay to "attract the right talent". Forgive my vulgarities, but BALLS TO YOU, understand! (Haha, courtesy of NS, don't blame me ok!)

As an aside, the Taiwanese pilots who were flying the F5 fighter plane got NT$15 million as compensation (article's in Mandarin). This amount is roughly equivalent to S$750,000.

Mr SAF Regular tries to hint that hiring a maid is not necessary in Lawrence's case. But as a fellow blogger has kindly pointed out, his parents cannot be there for him his whole life (assuming he lives as long as they do). He is going to need someone to care for him, and if he does not have the fortune to have a wife to love him and be by his side what come may, will he not need "a maid or two"?


And more pertinent to the hearts of Singaporean males, especially working ones, is that reservist commitments may prevent them from climbing higher up their career paths, and even lead to some being dismissed. Sure, the law is on our side, but seriously, you can't force someone to keep you employed. Yeah can, just keep you there and let you rot, see whether you wanna leave or not. Or all the people in the workplace give you the cold shoulder, then we'll see how long you can tolerate it. The boss (*gasp* a foreigner who understands shit about NS!) just needs to give you negative vibes every day to make your work environment a living hell, and he can hire mainland Chinese or India Indians to replace you for cheap, and without the NS commitments! So what's so great about your local university education that some foreign talent cannot replace?


In the midst of our attracting foreign talent here, and being another dreamland of expatriates all over the world, let us not forget the sacrifices that Singaporeans have made to ensure the security of the country and exercise our sovereignty as a nation. To attract Singaporeans to stay and not migrate for good (to any of the 33 other "better" cities, according to Mercer's survey) is to look at these seemingly petty issues, address them once and for all, and simply remember, that Singaporeans should, somehow, be made to feel more comfortable in their own country than foreigners.


I hope, in my heart of hearts, that is not too much to ask.

-------

P.S.: Readers should take note, that the author absolutely abhors officer males who flaunt their "officer status" as though the whole world should worship them just because they are, well, officers. Showing off your medals is hmmmm... where should I even find the words to say it. Oh puhhh-leeeees, who gives a damn about it. The whole thing just reeks of an INFERIOR COMPLEX. Like come on, is there no other facade of you besides being an officer!

Monday, May 14, 2007

Flagellate that dead horse

Refer to this post on the Young PAP blog.

Refer to K Shanmugam's speech in Parliament during the ministerial pay hike debate (link above). Yes I know this is coming late, but it's better than never.

I take issue with point 21 and 22. My comments are as follows.

Yeah true, US politicians are well sought-after after they leave the public service, but are our own scholars not well-taken care of after they leave public service?

The way I see it, it's like these academically elite have their WHOLE future mapped out for them already, right from the day they got confirmation of the scholarship award.

I can even spell it out for you.

Study hard in university -> get first class honours (this is probably the hardest part - but they are academically bright, so is it really THAT hard?) -> get inducted into the organization they are bonded to -> rise up very very quickly -> "retire" from their organization, get seconded to another organization to "get more experience" -> join PAP become a minister/minister of state/perm sec after sufficient rounds of exposure.

After "graduating" from public service serving more than 8 years to ensure they get a lifelong pension, they go on to serve in a GLC, often serving in positions like executive vice-president, or CEO or the like.
This goes even for non-scholars who join the public service mid-career. Show me a ex-minister that is sitting in a kampung, fishing for a living (or doing something along those lines) and I will close down my blog for good.

And someone was drawing a parallel between US politicians and Singaporean ministers?

My toes are tickled, thank you very much.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

PM freezes own pay for 5 years and donates pay hike to charity

Since this topic has been on my blog for a while, I thought I'd just add this in for completeness sake. I think the PM's gesture is to alleviate any pressure on his government for the pay increases. It's a good move I guess, since pressure has been mounting over this issue. This topic is a tired one already, and I do not wish to debate anymore about it. Case closed. Thing is, the Civil Service might be scheduled for another pay increase at the end of the year.


Read about the PM's conciliatory gesture here.

(ST, 11 April) - Ms Denise Phua (from Jalan Besar GRC) argued against using high pay to attract talent to ministerial positions. Very well thought out and easily understandable. A good read.

Monday, April 9, 2007

Singapore ministers receive ~25% increase in salary

The news is out:
- The Channelnewsasia article can be found here.
- The full ministerial statement by Mr Teo Chee Hean (Minister-in-Charge of the Civil Service) can be found here.


Stuff your face with this. Our PM will earn $3.1 million while our President will earn $3.2million. MM and SM will earn $3.04 million each.

And your dad earns the proverbial PEANUT.

Of listening to the people and the GST hike

Ms Elaina Olivia Chong, Young PAP vice-chairperson (Women's Wing) on "Countdown to the 2% GST hike, Ministerial and Civil Service Pay Increments".

I reproduce my comment (on her post on the Young PAP blog - click above link) below.

------------

Hi EOC,

I can see that you're making a sustained effort to engage the readers of this blog. On this note, I must say I am rather heartened by this fact. Let both PAP and Young PAP alike know that, by constantly listening to the people and addressing their concerns instead of giving "standard" stock answers, will the party be able to function properly.

I see this as a problem now because I feel the leaders nowadays are not as engaging as the MM or SM. Either that or their answers are not at a satisfactory level. The leaders should not become complacent because while the system works and the country is economically successful, the young adults about to enter the workforce are becoming increasingly disgruntled with the government's aloofness (elitism and stuff). It is NOT ENOUGH to be doing the right things, you have to be SEEN as doing the right thing too. If Singapore does not want to face a brain drain (be it in the public sector or private one), it must focus on capturing the hearts of Singaporeans young and old.

Anyway back to the topic of discussion in your post about the GST hike, I'd suggest that instead of having an exemption for basic goods, the next time the government wants to increase money in their coffers (since this time it's already a foregone conclusion), they should just identify luxury goods and impose an additional tax (i.e. luxury good tax) on them, on top of the prevailing GST.

As argued by some, basic goods are hard to classify, and would be difficult too. For example, rice can be seen as a necessity, but what about the various grades? And then, university students require to work on computers all the time, we can rightfully say laptops are a "necessity" too?

Anyway, my point is the concept of necessities vary over time, so it may make for difficult classification. Luxury goods might be easier to identify (perhaps with a minimum price tag of say, $10000 or so) and I'm quite sure that the rich would not (and SHOULD NOT) complain so much about 1 or 2% increase in consumption taxes for them.


Addendum: This luxury tax income can then be ploughed back into helping the poor. So each time the rich buy something luxurious for themselves (for e.g. nice condos and houses by the sea), the poor get something too. This is, I would say, a rather wonderful solution for society's ills. Of course we must hike this tax gradually (1% then 2%, etc...), so that the rich buggers can take the bitter pill better =)

However, I think this will not come into action because the policymakers themselves will be the ones that are being targeted. So well, back to the drawing board, please.