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.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)