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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!