Times They Are A-Changin'

The Battle Begins...

2011-04-26T07:45:00.000-07:00

I joined the Workers' Party in 2006. I wanted to help the party in any way to level the uneven playing field created by the ruling party.

I helped at the back-end for GE2006. Now I am going to the front line. This battle is not five years in the making though. It's fifty years in the making.

I will be reaching the big 5-O end of the year. Half a century is a long time to live on this tiny island without knowing what a First World parliament is like. I am definitely not going to live the next fifty years the same way.

I want my children to taste the liberating feeling of a First World parliament. I want their minds to be liberated of undue fear. I want their world to be liberated of unjust laws. I want their lives to be liberated of unfair policies.

I am comforted to know that I am not alone in this battle. I have GOD, my family and my friends with me.

I am honored to go into battle with my fellow party members; some are totally fearless and some are fully committed to liberate Singapore from this repressive political system.

I stand in awe among the fearless and passionate party candidates. I know we will fight to the end and we will emerge from the battle with our heads held high... for we know we have given our all and done our best.

Are you ready for change?

2011-04-08T09:56:00.000-07:00

The remark by PM Lee Hsien Loong that a two-party system will not work here must be taken in the proper context. He is probably confused that PAP is Singapore or vice versa.

Singapore is bigger than the PAP and that must be the premise for Singaporeans to begin their journey to establish a first world Parliament at the coming General Elections.

The PAP may have problem attracting enough talents but that does not mean Singapore has no talent! There are plenty of talents lurking out there. These people just do not want to join PAP even though the MP job can be guaranteed! That speaks a lot about the image problem facing the ruling party.

The search for the 4th generation leaders for Singapore is not the sole responsibility of the ruling party. That responsibility lies with the electorate. Telling the voters that the 4th generation leaders are amongst the current batch of new PAP candidates is just plain political marketing. It is just selling its own renewal process - nothing more.

The wind of change is blowing strong across the world. The PAP should learn to accept the reality that it has lost some of its shine and appeal. There is nothing wrong with that and the sooner the ruling party accepts the reality, the better it is for Singapore.

If the PAP refuses to embrace the change in the mindset of the electorate and uses all ways and means to maintain its overwhelming majority in Parliament, it may find itself at the losing end. It may end up alienating the silent majority and frustrating an already disempowered generation further.

It may also end up accelerating the birth of a multi-party Parliament not by choice but by the sheer anger and frustration of an electorate whose support for the ruling party has been taken for granted one too many times.

Are you ready for change? I am and it is by choice. I want a first world parliament in the making come polling day. What about you?

Happy New Year!

2011-01-01T11:50:00.000-08:00

A pensive view from MBS

2010-12-11T09:04:00.001-08:00

The view from Marina Bay Sands is quite spectacular. The number of foreign workers there is also equally spectacular. So where have all the Singaporeans gone? I hope they are not wasting their lives inside the casino.

Unfortunately, all that glitters is not gold for most Singaporeans...

Would you sell your soul to the Devil for a City of Gold?

A tempest is brewing. The Gods must be angry today...

Langkawi 2010

2010-12-02T04:18:00.000-08:00

My family made a trip to Langkawi in November. Coming from Singapore, we deeply appreciate the pace of life there. Langkawi is made up of 99 islands. One must go island hopping to experience the archipelago.

View from top of Gunung Machinchang (Mount Mat Cincang). The cable car ride up the mountain is exciting especially when it starts to climb at an angle of 42 degrees!

It was jelly fish season when we were there. No swimming for us at the Langkawi Lagoon Resort. However, you can still swim near Pantai Cenang.

The Brahminy Kite eagles are beautiful...

The White-bellied Fish Eagle is big...

Look at the wing span!

This is King Kong Hill...

This outcrop looks like a head...

This is Shoe Island...

Late lunch at a fish farm (included in day tour)...

This is how close you can get to the marine life at Pulau Payar...

You can really swim with baby sharks!

The steel bridge at the top of Mount Mat Cincang. I took a few photographs at this location and this one accidentally captured an oval object flying across the bridge! The object must be travelling quite fast as it was out of focus.

UFO in Langkawi or time to change my camera?

Why give MPs less time to speak?

2010-11-16T22:58:00.000-08:00

THE proposal by the Standing Orders Committee to shorten parliamentary speeches ('Less speech time for MPs in Parliament'; last Wednesday) is rather strange given that we are expecting a diverse group of Members of Parliament and Non-Constituency MPs after the impending general election.

The current time limit of 30 minutes is already short to engage in a meaningful debate in the House. Why is there a necessity to shorten it further to 20 minutes?

The argument cited in last Wednesday's report - that other Commonwealth countries are not as generous as Singapore in giving lawmakers time to speak - tells only half the story.

Although parliamentarians in Britain are allowed to speak seven to 15 minutes, and it is five to 20 minutes in Canada and five to 30 minutes in Malaysia, these legislatures meet a lot more times in a year than ours.

The House of Commons in Britain met for 139 days during the 2008-2009 session; the House of Commons in Canada met for more than 120 days last year; and the Malaysian Parliament met for more than 70 days last year.

Our Parliament sits for fewer than 30 days a year and each sitting lasts half a day. In the thick of the financial crisis last year, the House met for only 27 days. That is an average of 2.25 half-days a month for 84 MPs to file questions, debate on policies, and enact laws. On top of that, we have another nine Nominated MPs and one Non-Constituency MP who are supposed to join in the debate as well.

Are we pushing the productivity drive in Parliament a little too far?

It is rather comical to see some of our MPs speaking faster and faster as the clock winds down.

Although we cannot measure a House by the number of times its elected members meet in a year, we would certainly like to see more robust engagement in policymaking and budget debate in Parliament.

Cutting the time limit for MPs and ministers (from 60 minutes to 40 minutes for replies) by more than 30 per cent is not the way to go if we are serious about opening up our political landscape.

(ST Forum, Nov 15, 2010)

Work Longer? Look into some fundamental issues

2010-11-11T08:57:00.000-08:00

With the talk by the Government to increase the retirement age to even 68, this letter I wrote in 2007 is still quite relevant... :(

I refer to the report, 'Work longer to save for old age, says Boon Heng' (ST, Apr 30).

If Singapore wants to increase the number of older people in the workforce to '65 per cent of those aged 55 to 64 - roughly that of what Japan currently has', the government has to look into some very fundamental issues.

First, in Japan, companies have to tap the senior population to fill their workforce because there are strict laws governing the employment of foreigners.

We do not have such legislation in Singapore and with a liberal foreign talent policy in place; it will be quite difficult for the government to achieve its target of putting more senior citizens into the workforce.

Second, something must be fundamentally wrong with the society if one cannot retire after working for 30 to 40 years!

I can understand if a senior citizen is working beyond retirement age to stay healthy and to keep in touch with society. But if one has to work beyond retirement to keep a roof over his head and to keep the authorities from cutting off his utilities, then our social security savings plan, the Central Provident Fund (CPF), has failed to achieve its objective of providing working Singaporeans with 'a sense of security and confidence in their old age'.

Is the cost of public housing too high that one is left with virtually nothing to retire upon? Is the cost of living a major concern for senior citizens here?

Maybe the government should address these fundamental issues before asking older Singaporeans to work longer because it is meaningless to continue working for something you cannot afford in the first place.

(ST Forum, May 4, 2007)

Happy Diwali

2010-11-05T00:51:00.000-07:00

The Model Singaporean Workers

2010-10-25T00:44:00.000-07:00

Just for Laugh

2010-10-19T02:00:00.000-07:00

See anything wrong with this online report, 'Risk of technical recession' (The Straits Times, 19 Oct 2010)?

Which is scarier? The risk of a technical recession or the risk of being strangled by Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S Iswaran?

I think The Straits Times needs to work on its selection of photographs.

I can almost hear Mr Iswaran saying, "I'm going to get you for this!"

MP Low's response to Report on Hougang Constituency

2010-09-24T08:48:00.000-07:00

MP Low Thia Khiang has released a press response to the Insight report on Hougang Constituency. Key points of the press release are:

Mr Eric Low said, “at every wake, he would send a blanket from the town council”. I would like to clarify that blankets and donations to families of deceased residents are given in my personal capacity as MP for Hougang to offer my condolences, not from the town council.

He was further quoted to have invited me for the meeting of HUDC cluster privatisation, to which I have replied, “too busy and didn’t want to come”. Mr Eric Low had brought this up in a conversation when we met at a lunar seventh month dinner. Never had it crossed my mind that a brief casual conversation was actually an official and important invitation to a formal dialogue session and not a grassroots meeting. In any case as I understand it, the dialogue session was organised by the People’s Association (PA) and Mr Eric Low was invited as the Guest-of-Honour. I was not informed nor invited to the meeting by the PA...

To summarise, when a PAP candidate loses the election, he goes to the CC under the umbrella of the PA and to his party office under the PCF, where he can conduct meet-the-people sessions in a proper office in air-condition comfort.

Now, when a WP candidate loses the election, he has to, quite simply put it, ‘roam the streets’ if he wishes to continue extending his reach in the ward.

The entire press release can be found at www.wp.sg.

Government Must Set Minimum Wage, Not Market Forces

2010-09-15T06:23:00.000-07:00

I refer to the reports, 'Minister restates stance against minimum wage' and 'Basic Pay: Tommy Koh weighs in' in the past two days.

If the Government's approach is to let the market forces determine the wages of low-skill workers and supplement the low wages through Workfare, it is sending a wrong signal to the business community that underpaying low-skill workers is an acceptable practice. It is also indirectly encouraging some businesses to continue to operate in an 'unreal' economy.

The much talked about market forces to set the wages of low-skill workers do not work in reality. How can a low-skill worker here compete with his foreign counterpart who can feed a whole family on just $500 a month? With a strong Singapore dollar, this meager salary can be stretched even further when converted to local currency.

The existence of the Workfare programmes is proof that such market forces are actually shortchanging our low-skill workers.

The argument for a regulated wage for low-skill workers is even more compelling when you see the living conditions and constant struggles these foreign workers have to put up with in Singapore. They have to cut corners everywhere to ensure there is money left at the end of the day to remit home.

I once witnessed a foreign worker emptied his pocket to pay for medicine at one of our local hospitals. The look on his face is heart-wrenching.

The Government, being the sole gatekeeper in the supply of cheap foreign workers, has the biggest say on how much these low-skill workers should be paid. It must do so because the world is bewitched by a globalised economy. Market forces would only exploit low-skill workers to the fullest, locals and foreigners included.

Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri

2010-09-10T00:39:00.001-07:00

WhyOhGee...

2010-08-18T10:52:00.001-07:00

Someone must have the premonition that the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) is going to be a hot topic to come up with such a strange prefix for the YOG website – whyohgee.singapore2010.sg.

Although the web address has been changed to just ‘singapore2010.sg’, ‘WhyOhGee’ is an apt description of the sentiment some of us may have about the games.

First, why the Minister for Community, Youth Development and Sports (MCYS), Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, thinks it is money well spent for the YOG despite having its budget tripled from $104m to $387m?

We gave up the 2013 SouthEast Asian (SEA) Games because we couldn’t get the Sports Hub ready. The same Minister said then the delay was because ‘the Government did not want to over-spent on the facility’. The budget-conscious Minister was quoted to have said, “I still want to work within the budget that we have set out for ourselves…” (‘SEA Games – S’pore may not play host’, 30 Sep 2009).

So how could a budget-conscious Minister suddenly morph into a free-spending executive overnight? It is ironic for Singapore to give up the 2013 SEA Games because of costs and yet, the Minister has no issue with hosting an Olympic event on a runaway budget.

We spent a lot of money on upgrading our facilities just to meet the Olympic-class standards of competition. We even built a 3ha equestrian facility to the tune of $24 million. And since most of our horses prefer to stay at the Turf Club, we had to pay more to get those ‘goody-two-shoes’ horses from Australia for YOG.

We have no problem staging a glitzy Opening Ceremony last Saturday despite not having a stadium at our disposal. We even moved the Youth Olympic Village from NUS’s University Town campus to NTU because of escalating construction costs.

Surely hosting the 2013 SEA Games will be a cinch since the Minister is so resourceful in staging the YOG. We can certainly be flexible with the venues for the SEA Games. In addition, a lot of our facilities are upgraded to Olympic-class standards so why did we have to give that up?

Well, here comes the ‘Oh’ part.

Oh, the YOG is an excellent opportunity for us to showcase Singapore to the world. Oh, budget is not an issue when the world is watching. Oh, etc… etc…

When asked if it is money well spent for the YOG, the Minister said:

"Definitely, yes. Even at this amount, we will still get value for money and put Singapore on the world map. The many eyeballs, potential investors and interest in Singapore would make our investment in the Games worthwhile.” (‘Worth it despite tripled budget’, The New Paper, 16 Aug 2010)

But is the world really watching us? The YOG coverage on the major sports channels and websites is almost negligible. The Ministry of Education had to buy 80,000 tickets to ensure the YOG is well attended by our youth.

And why do we have to use $387m to ‘put Singapore on the world map’ when the country is already well known around the world? We have been selling Singapore for a long time. Our miracle story has been told many times around the world. How many more times do we want to keep doing that?

Finally, for a $387m event, the quality of the food given to some volunteers is just beyond comprehension.

Gee, that is a lot of money spent for an event the world doesn’t really care much about! And gee, that is money not well spent as well.

I could be wrong but when the only countries standing between Singapore and an Olympic medal in Football are Bolivia, Haiti, Montenegro, Vanuatu, and Zimbabwe, something is definitely amiss. You can’t fault the low media coverage around the world for that.

We can still have a good YOG but we definitely do not need to have a bottomless budget to showcase Singapore again and again. We must ask ourselves - are we selling the spirit of the first Youth Olympic or selling Singapore? I shudder to think that we are showing off our ‘wealth’ to the world actually.

Kelong 2010

2010-07-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

My family took an unusual holiday break this June and visited a kelong off Pulau Sibu, Kota Tinggi. You must like fishing to stay on this kelong because everything is designed to make fishing hassle free and fun.

You can sleep in your bed and watch your lines at the same time!

You can leave your lines at any spot unguarded or even overnight!

Dinning area is right beside your beds! The food is not fantastic but edible.

Common wash area with clean water. The white taps dispense sea water.

Communal living at its best - huge double-decker bed for 9 adults!

Privacy... nobody cares. Fishing is the main attraction here.

My kids put me to shame. They caught a total of 81 fish!

This fish gave my son a good fight!

And yes... you can even catch fish upside down!

The kelong provides 5 meals a day, unlimited water, tea, coffee, biscuits, ice and 'sotongs' (baits) as well! Furthermore, the kelong operator will pick you up in an air-conditioned bus from Singapore.

The 3-day package costs RM$300 per adult. Money well spent because it is 100 percent undiluted fun!

Is MBS operating like a dedicated casino?

2010-06-17T19:46:00.000-07:00

I REFER to Tuesday's joint letter by the Building and Construction Authority, Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) and Singapore Tourism Board on the licences issued to Marina Bay Sands ('MBS licences only after all criteria met').

It was reported in The Straits Times on Feb 8 ('Dice to roll at Resorts World Sentosa by Chinese New Year') that to be granted a casino licence, the integrated resort (IR) must fulfil several conditions - at least half of the resort's gross floor area must be completed and at least half of the committed investment must be spent.

In a recent report on the Bloomberg website ('Las Vegas Sands says Singapore site to top estimates'; June 2), Las Vegas Sands chief operating officer Michael Leven was reported to have said that the overall MBS resort is only 'about 25 per cent open'.

It is not difficult to infer from this which part of the IR has the lion's share of the 25 per cent.

I find it strange that the CRA would allow an IR to open only 25 per cent of its operations despite granting the casino licence on the premise that at least half of the resort has been completed.

Are the authorities saying that as long as half of the resort is complete, the IR has the prerogative to open the most lucrative part of the resort first while the rest wait? In doing so, the IR is operating like a dedicated casino with very little other attractions to show.

In the same Bloomberg report, Mr Leven revealed that 'about 550,000 people visited the MBS casino in the first 25 days of May'. He used the word 'casino' instead of 'resort' for good reason. Where else would one expect half a million visitors to go if the resort is not required to open at least 50 per cent of its operations?

The gaming industry is a magnet for crime and social ills. It has a propensity to attract undesirable and illegal activities. It is imperative that the authorities here ensure everything that relates to this industry is as transparent as possible.

Is the CRA satisfied that only 25 per cent of MBS has been opened despite certifying that 50 per cent of the resort has been completed?

(ST Forum, 17 Jun 2010)

Etiquette for Dummies

2010-05-17T00:52:00.000-07:00

I am not a fan of Apple but I believe Spring Singapore chairman Philip Yeo has gone overboard with those tactless remarks about customers of Apple's Appstore.

It was a brilliant marketing strategy by the publisher of the highly successful ‘For Dummies’ books to refer to its customers as “dummies”. It works well for the publisher and these self-help books contain useful and non-intimidating information for beginners. Every book even has a subtitle that says - “A Reference for the Rest of Us” – to highlight the book is not literally meant for dummies.

Mr Yeo may get away with using “dummies” in the same context as in those self-help books but adding boorish term like “gullible customers” and implying that many of them were wasting their money on “all sorts of useless applications” is uncalled for.

Minister Ng Eng Hen gave the ‘wrong impression’ on the mother tongue issue and he apologized. Mr Yeo gave the ‘wrong impression’ too but all we got was an English lesson on the difference between idiots and dummies.

When a senior civil servant is so reluctant to admit to a simple faux pas, it may have many unexpected ramifications for the civil service and the Government.

I guess a book on ‘Etiquette for Dummies’ would be useful in this instance.

Flexi-Weighting For Language

2010-05-13T09:36:00.000-07:00

The recent debate on the possible re-weighting of the mother tongues in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) has certainly polarised the society.

Both proponents and opponents of the possible cut in the weighting of the mother tongues should look beyond the doomsday prediction of such a move and arrive at a compromise that will benefit our children.

Perhaps, we should take only three subjects into consideration for PSLE - Mathematics, Science, and Language. The Language subject should comprise English and a mother tongue. Students should have the flexibility to decide the weighting of the two components of the Language subject.

A student who is more comfortable with English can opt for a 75-percent weighting for English and a 25-percent weighting for mother tongue. Likewise, a student who is stronger in mother tongue can opt for the reverse.

This will ensure no student is penalised for having a weaker grasp of the mother tongue or English. For any student who aspires to study in a competitive secondary school, getting a decent mark for the lower weighting component of the Language subject, be it English or mother tongue, would definitely be helpful.

This approach ensures competitive students will continue to put in effort to learn their weaker language but it will not penalise them unduly if they just cannot handle two languages.

The above proposal does not dilute the importance of the mother tongue in our multiracial society. It does not change the way it is taught in our schools. It does not take away the joy of learning the mother tongue as well.

It does, however, bring back some sanity into our stressful lifestyle.

I met a resident who told me that her daughter's teacher advised her to send her child for tuition for a particular subject. She told the teacher that if she has to send her child for tuition on top of the regular classes, she might as well not put her child in school since her little girl is going to learn more outside the system. She asked the teacher what is the point of sending her child to school then?

Let's bring back some sanity into our education system as well.

(ST Forum Reject - Revised for blog)

Just for Laugh

2010-05-10T10:10:00.000-07:00

Judging from the many featured articles on PAP ministers and MPs in The Straits Times lately, the General Election must be near. The Government-friendly newspaper must have prepared some of these articles way in advance.

On 1 May 2010, The Straits Times carried a huge report on Minister Lim Swee Say. The Insight team spent a day trailing the labour chief to find out his work schedule. It was quite a nice writeup except for some strange photographs.

See anything amiss in this photograph?

Did you notice the two boxes of mandarin oranges on his table? Such packaging only appears during Chinese New Year. These photographs were probably shot late January to early February as the supermarkets do not carry such packaging anymore.

If the article and photographs were actually done in the month of April, it would be quite strange to see mandarin oranges in such packaging around this time of the year. Could it be...

The boxes are empty and they are collectible items.
The boxes are full but you do not want to look inside. It may 'upturn the downturn' your stomach!
Fairprice over-ordered for CNY 2010 so every day is Mandarin Orange Day at NTUC.
The office cleaner has gone for upgrading and re-training exercise... again.

Feel free to add in your take on this. Cheers!

Isn't GRC system affirmative action?

2010-05-03T22:12:00.000-07:00

I REFER to last Thursday's report, 'Foreign Ministry responds to UN expert's comments'.

On the sensitive issue of race, Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs noted that United Nations Special Rapporteur Githu Muigai appears to advocate some form of 'affirmative action' to help the Malays progress in the area of education. This approach, according to the ministry, 'has been tried by many countries without notable success'.

Even the president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis) told Mr Muigai that the Malays in Singapore do not need any affirmative action policy because 'the Malay community had a deep sense of pride in its own ability to achieve steady progress under the national system of meritocracy'.

If affirmative action is frowned on by minorities themselves, why does the Government insist on keeping the group representation constituency (GRC) system in the political landscape? The GRC system, as propagated by the Government, ensures minority representation. Thus it is an affirmative action policy.

Does it make sense that the minorities in Singapore need affirmative action only to protect their political rights and everything else can be based on meritocracy?

The minorities have spoken. They have the ability to achieve progress under the national system of meritocracy. The Government should recognise that and abolish the GRC system.

We are no longer living in the past. The tumultuous period of our early years can only serve as a lesson for all ethnic groups to maintain racial harmony at all costs. The past should not impede the desire of our multiracial populace to achieve the goal of becoming one nation, one people.

The GRC system, as an affirmative action policy, can take our nation only one step forward in theory and three steps backward in nation-building.

(ST Forum, 3 May 2010)

Too Good To Be True?

2010-04-27T22:05:00.000-07:00

The debate on the amendments to increase the number of Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) from six to nine and make the Nominated MP (NMP) scheme a permanent feature of our political landscape drew this ludicrous remark from Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng as reported in The Straits Times

Mr. Wong Kan Seng said the Government was actually trying to make the cake bigger and offering the opposition a slice of it. (‘No NCMP post for me: Low’, ST, 27 April 2010)

Let's get one thing straight - the PAP Government has not even come close to breaching the ‘quota’ for NCMP seats under the old system and now it wants to be seen as ‘magnanimous’ by making the cake bigger for opposition!

Perhaps, Mr. Wong should explain why the Government appointed only one NCMP for the current Parliament when it could have up to four such MPs since two Opposition MPs were elected in the last General Election?

It is perfectly normal to ask for more when you have exhausted the means but we have not even pushed the previous ‘quota’ to the limit yet. When the Government allows only one NCMP versus nine NMPs in the current Parliament, it says a lot about its sincerity to recognize the wishes of the electorate to have more elected representation in the legislature.

The legitimacy of an elected government will slowly erode when it attempts to manufacture democracy and engineer its complete dominance through such tactics. Aided by gerrymandering and the Group Representation Constituency scheme, the ‘baker’ rather than the ‘cake’ has become ‘bigger’ in the process.

Any hope that the appointed-NMP scheme will strengthen and entrench democracy in Singapore is also doubtful. NMP Calvin Cheng said this during the recent debate:

Sir, I think that the NMP scheme has worked well but in order for it to work even better, the reasons for NMPs and the roles they play need to be more clearly defined.

If the Government has to define the reasons and roles of NMP more clearly, where does democracy come in? Do NMPs need to have their roles more clearly defined before they can give alternative or opposing views?

Coming back to Mr. Wong’s tantalizing offer of a slice of the 'bigger' cake for opposition, we should remember what his mentor said in 2006:

There is no level playing field of any government helping opposition to win votes...

The reality is that Potong Pasir and Hougang will have to wait for their turn at the end of the queue. It is as simple as that. Look, ask yourself - does any government help the opposition to displace itself? Is it the business of the government?

So, you mean to tell me in America or Britain they gave benefits to all constituencies equally? At the same time or worst, favour the opposition? No, you favour your supporters because you want to retain them as your supporters. ("Why My Vote Matters - A Dialogue with the Minister Mentor", CNA, 13 April 2006)

Still want a slice of the 'bigger' cake from Mr. Wong? As the adage goes, if it is too good to be true, it can’t be true. The Workers’ Party has rightly opposed the Amendment.

Note: Read Sylvia Lim's speech on the Constitutional Amendments here.

Large foreign workforce a buffer?

2010-03-10T00:36:00.000-08:00

The Budget debate on the foreign worker issue has brought up many interesting views from the Unionist MPs.

One fundamental issue before us is - did the 'growth at all costs' strategy really work in helping Singaporeans keep their jobs during the recent recession?

Labour MP Lim Swee Say defended the strategy of growing the foreign worker pool as a buffer in case of a downturn. He said the strategy actually worked as our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the world today. However, the fiscal measures urgently undertaken by the Government at the end of 2008 tells a different story.

If the buffer created by a large pool of foreign workers has indeed worked, there should be jobs left for Singaporeans after the natural attrition brought on by the financial crisis of 2008. However, it was not the case.

The Government had to intervene drastically and urgently to keep jobs for Singaporeans during the downturn. For the first time in our history, we had to dip into our reserves to incentivize employers to keep our citizens and Permanent Residents on their payroll.

The President’s consent to use the reserves was sought in the shortest possible time and the Budget day was brought forward to January 2009.

All the above actions certainly infer the growth strategy adopted by the Government did not work according to plan. If it did, we would not need to touch our reserves at all.

In a downturn, employers need to cut costs. The large pool of foreign workers available offers them the perfect opportunity to do just that - cut Singaporean workers and go for cheaper foreigners.

The growth strategy and the large buffer of foreign workers did not make Singaporean workers any more attractive to hire or keep in the downturn. Lest we forget, our reserves was called upon to rectify the situation.

The success of the Jobs Credit scheme is debatable. The buffer effect of a large pool of foreign workers in a downturn is delusional. The use of our reserves to rectify that delusion is undeniable.

The sooner the Government accepts the fallacy of that strategy, the more united we would be to surmount the issue together as a nation.

How does that work?

2010-03-02T22:30:00.000-08:00

The Unionist MPs' response to Mr Low Thia Khiang's budget speech effuses passion and conviction but not for the workers they represent. It was reported on CNA (2 Mar 2010):

Josephine Teo, assistant secretary-general, NTUC and MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, said: "I am puzzled by the member's description of the foreign worker levy and comparing it with opium. Because earlier he had said that there is no denying that our economy needs foreign workers. To try and introduce an alternative system to a pricing mechanism is a very dangerous suggestion to make. It opens up a whole Pandora box of the difficulties we have to overcome.

I am quite shocked by Mr Low's suggestion to remove the foreign worker levy altogether. How does Mr Low propose that the government allocate the foreign workers quota efficiently to businesses without a levy mechanism? Would it be right for civil servants to pretend to know all about market demand and supply? Removing a levy is turning a blind eye to the social disparities they create.

There is already a huge Pandora box created by the Government in growing the economy at all costs without due consideration for the man in the street. It has created a nation with a high dependency on foreign workers and it does not know how to unravel it. Singapore is simply overcrowded. The society is indeed moving closer and closer to the brink of polarisation.

We need firm and decisive actions to solve our foreign worker dependency problem, however calibrated the execution of these actions may be. The PAP Government is just not willing to do that.

And on the contrary, civil servants do know or pretend to know all about market demand. That is why the foreign worker levy is pegged so tightly to demand. The Government's assumption is this - the more foreign workers a company needs, the more profitable it must be. Therefore, it must pay more levy.

The tiered system levy is just the perfect tool to ensure the Government does not miss out on a bumper collection of worker levy when the demand for foreign workers picks up. Thus, there is some truth the whole exercise may just end up fattening the Government's coffer with little to show in controlling the foreign worker dependency issue.

A tightly control Dependency Ratio or a quota system is more effective since we are not going to worry much about growing our economy at all costs now, isn't it?

The CNA report added:

Ms Teo said that without the levy, foreign workers will be cheaper and more attractive to businesses, and some will find loopholes to get round the quotas, to get cheaper workers, affecting jobs for Singaporeans.

Foreign workers are already cheaper to hire with or without the levy. Loopholes are already present in the current system if you talk to those VWOs helping migrant workers in Singapore. No policy is water-tight. If this Government cannot handle loopholes, it probably cannot handle 10, 15, or 20 opposition members in Parliament. As the famous saying goes:

Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them (opposition MPs), to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges.

But wait a minute, we do not have 10 or 15 opposition members in Parliament for decades and we still have misguided policies. How does that work?

Who crossed the line first?

2010-02-19T01:30:00.000-08:00

The first casino in Singapore is finally opened on 14 Feb 2010.

While it is too early to gauge the social impact, Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr, President and CEO of American Gaming Association, has already gone on the offensive to defend casino gaming in a letter to The Straits Times forum on 16 February 2010:

…it is well documented that gambling does not lead to increased crime. In fact, the Public Sector Gaming Study Commission, a bipartisan collection of state legislators, found 'no link between gaming, particularly casino-style gaming, and crime'.

Within 24 hours after the letter was published, the first crime linked to the opening of the casino was reported. An Indonesian man who lost all his money at the Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) casino was jailed for four weeks after pleading guilty to stealing a $500 phone.

The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG), in anticipation of the opening of the two casinos, began a series of TV advertisements addressing problem gambling late 2009.

One advertisement features a little girl whose father has a gambling addiction. Her family becomes dysfunctional and is harassed by loan sharks. It ends with this line:

If problem gambling is affecting your family, you’ve crossed the line.

This is a timely reminder not just for gamblers but for the PAP Government as well. It crossed the line first when it allowed not ONE but TWO casinos to operate in Singapore under a lofty objective to grow the economy and create more jobs for Singaporeans. The reason for having two casinos was best summed up by MM Lee Kuan Yew in his interview with National Geographic (6 July 2009):

So alright, we'll put up two casinos, so obviously they are not going to target Singaporeans because there are not enough numbers for two casinos.

That argument is one of the lamest justifications I have heard on the casino issue. This reminds me of a twisted logic I heard many years ago that if the odds of finding a person with a gun on a plane is so small, then to be really safe, one should attempt to smuggle a gun onboard because the odds of finding two persons with two guns onboard would be even smaller. Got the logic?

Two casinos can only mean one thing – more choices to try your lady luck. It doesn’t matter whether there are enough Singaporeans and PRs to fill the casinos. And more choices to try your lady luck can only lead to one thing – more chances to get addicted.

Don’t Blame Us

In the same National Geographic interview, MM Lee said the imposition of the $100 per day entry fee for Singaporeans and PRs was to absolve the Government of blame if the social ills of problem gambling escalate with the opening of the two casinos. He said:

So I said you do that because I do not want to be blamed and the Prime Minister doesn’t want, and his Cabinet doesn’t want to be blamed for those who get addicted. And there will be those who will get addicted.

If this Government thinks that imposing a $100 entry fee on Singaporeans and PRs will free itself of any blame for social problems brought on by legalized gambling, it has probably crossed the line of decency as well. This Government can’t even bring itself to SHARE the blame for social ills for allowing casino gaming to flourish in the first place!

How is a $100 per day entry fee going to deter a gambler from going to the casinos? And how serious is the Government in wanting to deter local residents from casino gaming when it offers a rather attractive annual entry fee of $2000 for 365 days of unlimited gambling indulgence? This works out to only $5.48 per day, which makes the deterrence rather ludicrous. Most diehard gamblers will know how to do the math.

I hope the NCPG and the mainstream media will continue to monitor and report on the social impact of the two casinos. Whether the Government shares the blame or not, problem gambling is a serious social issue that deserves much attention. Loan shark activities will definitely escalate. Many families and especially young children may end up suffering the consequences of an ambitious policy designed solely to grow the economy and create jobs with little attention paid on the social costs.

Creating More Jobs

PM Lee Hsien Loong said in Parliament on 18 Apr 2005 that MTI estimated 35,000 jobs would be created by the two casinos. How many of these jobs will go to Singaporeans? No one really knows.

RWS said in a CNA report that 70 per cent of its staff strength of over 8,000 comprises Singaporeans or PRs. Isn’t it amazing the casino can detect your citizenship at entry but they cannot tell how many of its employees are Singaporeans!

The Manpower ministry has this problem too. It can’t tell Singaporean from PR in its labour report all the time. One wonders how the Government is going to make the distinction between Singaporean and PR clearer when it refuses to acknowledge ‘us’ separately in such simple statistics.

If the two casinos ended up fattening the Government’s coffer and making little headway in employing Singaporeans, the men responsible for allowing casino gaming to take roots in Singapore would have crossed the line of respect. It doesn’t really matter if they think they are not to be blamed.

Reference:
1 - ‘No link between gambling and bankruptcy’, ST Forum, 16 Feb 2010
2 - ‘Man stole after casino losses’, ST, 17 Feb 2010
3 – MM Lee Kuan Yew’s Interview with Mark Jacobson, 6 Jul 2009 (Jan 2010 Edition)
4 - ‘Resorts World Sentosa says 70% of its over 8,000 staff are S'poreans, PRs’, CNA, 17 Feb 2010

Happy Chinese New Year!

2010-02-14T02:06:00.000-08:00

The Big Apple Came Calling...

2010-02-01T08:21:00.000-08:00

The transcript of the Q&A with LAW Minister K. Shanmugam at the New York State Bar Association International Section's meeting in Singapore on 28 Oct 2009 makes an interesting read.

Mr. Shanmugam said Singapore's version of democracy is different because we are a city and not a country. To substantiate his argument, Mr. Shanmugam cited quite extensively from a book called "The Myth of the Rational Voter" by Bryan Caplan, a leading American economist:

“The picture changes radically if we instead think of Singapore as a city. In the United States, big city politics is often about as lopsided as Singaporean politics. Democratic mayors have won without interruption since 1931 in Chicago and 1964 in San Francisco. While the Democrats have failed to monopolise the mayor’s office in New York City, they have near-PAP dominance of the New York City Council: Democrats hold 45 out of 48 occupied seats.”

And the Minister remarked why nobody questions whether there is a democracy in New York.

Unfortunately, the visiting New Yorkers did not tell the Minister that nobody needs to ask such a question there because there are democratic forces at work all the time in the Big Apple. Most big cities in the United States have more than 1 newspaper and at least 3 to 5 major TV stations providing the political diversity, critique, and views to ensure democracy is upheld.

I am also sure New Yorkers do not need to ask such a question themselves because they do not wake up every election year to find the boundaries of their voting precincts drastically changed for no apparent reason.

On the suggestion that our judges are not independent, the Minister told the visiting New Yorkers that our High Court judges are protected by the Constitution. He said:

Once they are appointed, they cannot be removed until they reach the age of 65 and they retire. And, if there is any misconduct, a Judge will be tried by his peers from the Commonwealth, that is, other Supreme Court Judges from the Commonwealth who will sit on the bench to try the case and decide whether he did or did not misconduct himself.

Will the above constitutional protection ensure the independence of our judiciary? It probably only prevents the unlawful removal of our High Court judges but it doesn't safeguard the independence of our judiciary. The character of these judges will come into play. They must be able to uphold their independence amidst any political pressure.

High Court judges are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. Wouldn't these judges feel beholden to the people who appointed them?

The only way to protect the independence of the High Court judges is to subject the High Court judges to the electorate. That way, they are only answerable to the people and not to any ruling political party.

Similar Look, Similar Goal?

2010-01-31T10:14:00.000-08:00

I came across this logo at a local DIY store. It does look like the logo of The Workers' Party, doesn't it?

By the way, Golden Hammer makes products for pest control purposes - i.e. to rid those pesky little critters like ants, cockroaches, etc from your home.

The other Hammer does something similar too . It hopes to exterminate those pesky propaganda like our little island cannot support a multi-party political system, our HDB flats are really affordable, our ministers must be indecently paid, Singaporeans are really special, etc, etc, etc.

Both jobs are tough to execute. Those pesky critters and propaganda are ingrained into our society for generations.

One up for honesty albeit a funny one!

2010-01-21T21:54:00.000-08:00

When a politician gets brutally honest, it can be quite funny sometimes.

In an article in The Straits Times, 'Ministers can raise profile of MPs' regional forum' (Page C12, 22 Jan 2010), Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, Singapore's Speaker of Parliament, was reported to have said the delegates to the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum (APPF) 'had sought ways to give the APPF a higher profile and higher-level presentation.'

When asked if the proposed changes to the APPF arose out of criticisms that it was a mere talk shop, MP Abdullah said:

It's easy to say it's a talk shop, which in a way it is, but at a deeper level.

That settles it... bring on the heavyweights from the region to sink the APPF further into a 'deep-level' talk shop.

The APPF 'gathers parliamentarians from Asia-Pacific countries yearly to discuss global issues and make resolutions to tackle them.' It was founded in 1993.

Has this group achieved any thing significant after 17 years? Well, they have two 'milestone' declarations so far - the Tokio Declaration in 1993 when it was first founded and the Vancouver Declaration in 1997. Read them if you have the time and decide for yourself if these are 'milestone' declarations. There isn't much activities reported for the past 12 years since the last declaration in 1997.

And what good is a declaration made up of motherhood statements with no power to bite?

By the way, the 'Tokio' Declaration is not a typo error. That is how it is spelled on the APPF website, www.appf.org.pe.

Sorry is indeed the hardest word to say...

2010-01-19T09:08:00.000-08:00

Is it so hard for a PAP Minister to admit to any mistake publicly?

I thought the recent revelation by MM Lee Kuan Yew on the difficulties of implementing the bilingual policy in schools was quite clear – the Government made a big mistake in the way the Chinese language was taught in schools and it took the ruling party over 30 years to resolve the issue.

On 18 January 2010, The Straits Times reported that Law Minister K. Shanmugam, in a response to a student who asked if the Government’s bilingual policy, in particular, the teaching of the Chinese language, is a mistake, said:

So I don’t think the bilingual policy is wrong. Maybe requiring you to master it at a very high level, writing as well as speaking, may have to be changed. The policy is not a mistake, but the expectations that were placed, in terms of the proficiency that was expected, may have been too high.

Singaporeans know the bilingual policy is good for the nation. Many countries in the world have such policy too. I believe the student who asked that question was only interested to find out if the Government was wrong in teaching the Chinese language the rote way.

The policy is not wrong but the execution of it is definitely incorrect. The policy is not a mistake but the high expectation placed on students is definitely a blunder. Any good intention badly executed is still a mistake. Is it so hard to admit that?

Let’s take a short trip down memory lane to hear what MM Lee said about the bilingual policy. On 17 November 2009, in a CNA report, ‘Insistence on bilingualism in early years of education policy was wrong: MM Lee’, he said:

We started the wrong way. We insisted on ting xie (listening), mo xie (dictation) - madness! We had teachers who were teaching in completely-Chinese schools. And they did not want to use any English to teach English-speaking children Chinese and that turned them off completely.

Successive generations of students paid a heavy price, because of my ignorance, by my insistence on bilingualism. And I wasn't helped by the ministry officials, because there were two groups - one English speaking, one Chinese teaching.

If the above is not conclusive enough on the ‘bad after taste’ of the bilingual policy, let’s go further back in time. On 3 November 2009, in a Straits Times report, ‘Bilingual policy was most difficult: MM’, MM Lee said candidly:

Eventually, we settled the problem in 2004 by teaching the mother tongue in the module system. Had we done this earlier, we would have had less wastage of students' time and effort, and less heartache for parents.

In my world, the word ‘problem’ connotes something is wrong and it needs to be rectified. Does the Law Minister still think the wasting of students’ time and effort was not wrong? Does he think the unnecessary heartache inflicted on parents was not a mistake?

This Government could definitely use a little humility when the time calls for it. Not every policy is good. Ill-conceived policies cannot be quietly swept under the carpet or discontinued. Singaporeans know how to give credit where it is due. Does the Government know how to accept responsibility in return?

I shudder to think this administration may not actually know the severity of the damage caused by these bad policies on Singaporeans over the years and thus it sees no need for any admission of guilt.

I am also concerned that not enough ‘honest and quality’ information is channeled back to the policymakers to help them ‘see’ the damage caused by bad policies.

In a speech at the Speak Mandarin Campaign’s 30th Anniversary Launch on 17 March 2009, MM Lee said:

School examinations no longer concentrate on mo xie, dictation from memory, or ting xie, listening and writing. They are not needed in real life. With computer programs, you can type the pinyin and the characters will appear. Since 2007, we have allowed the use of digital dictionaries in national examinations.

Well I have bad news for MM Lee. My children are still bombarded with ‘mo xie’ and ‘ting xie’ at school. In fact, one of my daughter’s classmates broke down over ‘mo xie’ today. She is just a Primary Three kid. I guess the heartache for parents is not going to go away for a while.

Perth 2009

2010-01-16T10:39:00.000-08:00

It was nice visiting our relatives in Perth last December. Good food, great wine, wonderful company, and a nice change of pace of life. My kids really enjoyed the wildlife in Perth.

We love taking pictures of scenery and nature (animals, birds, insects ,etc) although some people may think indulging in such simple pleasure in life will make one stupid. Well, the last picture in this post is my response to people who harbour such thoughts.

Lazing around Scarborough Harbour...

Vineyard and restaurant in Swan Valley... great place for a meal!

Scots Presbyterian Church, Fremantle (1890)...

A dusty road leading to Marapana Wildlife Park...

A sleepy Koala... they sleep about 20 hours a day!

A up-close view of a deer...

Wild camels are a problem in Australia...

An albino Kangaroo with a 'joey'...

The famous Australian dingo...

The Tasmanian Devil... they are small but look ferocious!

Another kangaroo...

Feeding the birds in Joondalup... don't try this in Singapore unless you have $500 to spare!

Caught a seagull in flight...

Another one in flight...

These birds are really good at catching seeds in the air...

HaHaHa...

To Be Or Not To Be...

2010-01-11T11:24:00.000-08:00

The recent revelations by MM Lee Kuan Yew are quite controversial. I guess he can be brutally frank. For someone in his twilight years, he does not need to answer to any one on Earth anymore.

If you have the time, go read the full transcript of MM Lee Kuan Yew's interview with Mark Jacobson from National Geographic on 6 July 2009 at www.news.gov.sg. The watered-down version of the interview in The Straits Times on 5th and 6th January 2010 is just so (fill in your own adjective).

MM Lee's take on Singaporeans in this interview is quite 'raw'. So are you ready for this?

Q: “What would you say the parents of the second or third generation of Singaporeans and their children are not able to compete with the new people? How do you tell them?”

Mr Lee: “We tell them look they have got to work harder or they’ll become stupid. It’s just that they don’t see the point of it. Why race when you can canter and save your energy and do other things? Art, ballet, sports whereas these new migrants, they spend all their time slogging away in the library or at home.”

Q: “You’re not saying that arts, sports and ballet are not important, are you?”

Mr Lee: “No, I’m not saying they are not important but an inordinate amount of time is spent on extra-curricular activities.”

Do you get this feeling MM Lee is not really interested in making Singapore a sporting nation and a renaissance city? How can we excel in these areas without breaking out a sweat? To excel in anything, you need to spend an inordinate amount of time in training before you can compete on the world stage.

It is also strange for MM Lee to lament about young Singaporeans spending too much time on arts, ballet, or sports when his colleagues are so obsessed with achieving sporting glory to the point of importing foreign talents just to get the job done. The inordinate amount of money the Government spent to nurture such foreign talents does indicate it is serious about such development, isn't it?

How can the Government allow foreign sports talents to eat, sleep, and enjoy ping-pong all day at its expense and only expect Singaporeans to play a stressful game of 'Chop the Library Seat' with new migrants? Will Singaporeans really become stupid if we do not play this 'game'?

In Jan 2008, MM Lee said in a newspaper report, 'Be like Italy - aim for a cultural renaissance':

'If you go to Florence or you go to Venice or you go to Rome and you see their churches, their museums, and you see the number of sculptors, painters sitting outside trying to copy Leonardo da Vinci, you know that was the beginning of the renaissance. That is a great civilisation.'

On Austria, he noted how the nation was the centre of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and is home to the famed, almost 500-year-old Vienna Boys' Choir.

'These are things which take a long time to nurture, and that night at Iseas we were nurturing some,' said MM Lee.

The MM Lee in January 2008 seems to understand arts and cultural movement takes a long time to nurture and such development is good for a nation. The MM Lee in July 2009 thinks it is stupid to spend so much time on such activities.

I am really having a tough time understanding what this Government wants out of Singaporeans. Oh no... am I becoming stupid just like what the sage has predicted? Alright, I better teach my children to play 'Chop the Library Seat' game tonight lest they become stupid like me.

And guess what - 'Study', 'Stupid', and 'Singaporean' all begin with the letter 'S'. What a coincidence! Phew! Glad to know I still have some grey matter left up there.

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-24T23:59:00.000-08:00

Truth Hurts...

2009-12-02T23:13:00.000-08:00

The Sunday article, 'Morals & Morale', by Dr Lee Wei Ling on 29 Nov 2009 reveals another 'secret' of the much debated Bilingual policy.

Dr Lee wrote:

I remember many years ago Mr. Lim Kim San telling my father that if my brothers and I had not been able to cope with both Chinese and English, he would not have insisted that all ethnic Chinese students acquire an equal facility in both languages.

This revelation on the Bilingual policy is by far the most hurting. Would Mr. Lim Kim San, Education Minister from 1970 to 1972, make the same consideration if it were someone else's son or daughter who could not cope with the learning of Chinese?

I wonder how serious Mr. Lim was when he made that remark to MM Lee. How could Mr. Lim base the tenet and necessity of the Bilingual policy on the Lee siblings' ability to cope? This is unthinkable and unacceptable.

Unlike rich families, a lot of Singaporeans did not have the resource to make up for poor grades in those days. Many families could only afford textbooks and nothing else for their children. Many hardly visited libraries with their children nor could they afford tuition for them.

Does it mean if MM Lee's children could not cope with Chinese, generations of students would be spared the agony of learning their mother tongue at such an intense level?

From this insight by Dr Lee, we can only infer that Mr. Lim Kim San was rather misguided on the Bilingual policy; an ill-advised education policy that has inflicted a lot pain on generations of Singaporeans in the process.

No Bonus?

2009-11-27T09:13:00.000-08:00

You cannot possibly miss the screaming headline, 'No bonus for civil servants', on the front page of The Straits Times on 27 Nov 2009.

One may think civil servants are shortchanged this year but isn't the 13th month wage supplement a bonus? Read this sentence in the report carefully:

Apart from their regular 13th month wage supplement, civil servants will not be receiving any other bonus next month.

Doesn't this sentence imply the 13th month wage supplement is a bonus and civil servants will not be receiving any other bonus next month? Still think there is no bonus for civil servants? This paragraph in the report says:

This means that civil servants - from the Customs officer to the Cabinet minister - end the year with 1.25 months in extra payment, one of the smallest bonus packages in recent history.

So is the headline, 'No bonus for civil servant', correct? I thought the mathematics paper for this year's PSLE was hard but I guess mathematics at SPH is even harder to comprehend when 1.25 months in extra wage is classified as no bonus in the headline!

This reminds me of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the Iraqi Information Minister during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In his daily briefing on Iraqi television, he claimed that the enemies were defeated along the highway to Baghdad and there were no American troops in the city. However, viewers around the world could see American tanks rumbling in the background in one of his televised press briefings! Al-Sahhaf was nicknamed 'Comical Ali' for stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the facts.

I guess The Straits Times has just done a 'Comical Ali' act on 27 Nov 2009.

Anyway, putting the 'comical' report aside, I think all civil servants with the exception of cabinet ministers, appointment holders and top civil servants should get more than the 0.25-month bonus, which, incidentally, is subject to a cap of $750.

I am sure most of the top civil servants do not mind sitting out on this year's bonus. What is $750 to these civil servants on Superscale and Ministerial Grades annual pay packages? It cannot even pay for one cooking lesson in France.

The H1N1 situation has drained a lot of energy out of healthcare staff. The hunt for Mas Selamat has exhausted a lot of police officers. The highly stressed education system has probably made many teachers 'panadol-dependent' (extra strength). Surely, these rank and file civil servants deserve more 'recognition' than the 0.25-month bonus from the Public Service Division.

Where Have All The Talents Gone?

2009-11-24T03:22:00.000-08:00

What do the these people have in common; Ong Pang Boon, Lim Kim San, Lee Chiaw Meng, Chua Sian Chin, Goh Keng Swee, Tony Tan Keng Yam, Lee Yock Suan, Teo Chee Hean, and Tharman Shanmugaratnam?

They were all education ministers at one point in time. Whether they liked it or not, they were responsible for the implementation of the much talked about Bilingual policy.

Some of these ex-ministers may not ring a bell but a couple of them were heavyweights in their times.

For some strange reason, these ex-ministers did not come into the picture when MM Lee Kuan Yew made the rather startling and disturbing revelation about the Bilingual policy.

The only mention of the involvement of the Education ministry came in a CNA report, 'Insistence on bilingualism in early years of education policy was wrong: MM Lee', on 17 Nov 2009. In it, MM Lee said:

Successive generations of students paid a heavy price, because of my ignorance, by my insistence on bilingualism. And I wasn't helped by the ministry officials, because there were two groups - one English speaking, one Chinese teaching.

We can only infer all ex-ministers of Education were included in the group of ministry officials mentioned by MM Lee.

The revelation by MM Lee is startling because he does not admit to many mistakes in the governing of Singapore. It is disturbing because the Education ministry, despite being helmed by heavyweights all the time, did not seem to be in control of this Bilingual policy since day one!

The teething problems with the Bilingual policy were well documented and debated over the years but somehow successive ministers did not pick them up. And if they did get the feedback, there were not much corrective action done to address the issues at all.

It is hard to imagine that successive ministers, from Dr Lee Chiaw Meng (1972-1975) to Tharman Shanmugaratnam (2003-2008), could not detect the flaw in the implementation of the Bilingual policy for so long.

The failure of all these past ministers to address the insistence of one man, who stood down as Prime Minister in 1990, goes against the notion the PAP Government has always put men of extraordinary abilities at the helm. It seems to me that these men were nothing more than obsequious talents.

The stress on parents and children probably began in 1972 when the second language was given double weightage at PSLE. The stress exacerbated with the 'Goh Report' presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee in 1979 allowing the streaming of students according to their abilities so as to reduce 'educational wastage, low literacy and non-attainment of effective bilingualism' (libguides.nl.sg).

We have talents like Dr Goh to formulate complex policies but we sorely need talents to listen to the people and to stand up against ‘wise men’ who insist on dishing out ‘bitter medicine’ at the slightest hint of trouble with little concern for the well being of an ‘overdosed’ and ‘overstressed’ populace.

Did all the past Education Ministers agree with MM Lee's ignorance and insistence on bilingualism? If not, where were they when parents and students cried out in desperation over this policy the past 3 decades? How can the insistence of one man silence the cries of generations of parents and students?

The painful part of this whole episode is MM Lee was 'awakened' by his own daughter and not by any ministry official. If not for MM Lee's candid revelation, I do not think such ‘admission of mistake’ would surface in a cabinet governed by ‘unquestioned’ respect.

An obsequious talent is just talent gone to waste.

Baby Carrots...

2009-11-14T08:29:00.000-08:00

My children love the simple things in life; doodling on recycled papers, having fun with imaginary play, relaxing on the piano, and reading Roald Dahl's books are some of the things they enjoy doing thoroughly.

Three months ago, they decided to become farmers for a change. The thought of growing something that they can eat excites them. So, we bought a few packs of seeds and embarked on a journey to experience subsistence farming!

The first thing my children wanted to grow was baby carrot. After three months of 'hard' work, we were all ready to harvest the juicy carrots and make ourselves a delicious salad on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

We stopped salivating after pulling out the third carrot from the flower box. The baby carrots were really small or should I say microscopic. The biggest ones were only about 5-6cm in length. Our salad was rapidly fading right before our eyes.

I guess we are not ready to be farmers yet. We are not giving up though. We will attempt to grow 'KangKong' the next round. Hopefully this time round we will get to eat the fruits of our labour.

Well, the hard work put in by my kids did not go to waste. They gave the carrots away as farewell gifts to their classmates as another illusional 'Teach Less Learn More' school year came to an end.

No Apology Needed...

2009-11-03T00:44:00.000-08:00

I am sure a whole generation of Singaporeans affected by the Bilingual policy would find it painful to read page B6 of the Home section of The Straits Times on 2 Nov 2009.

In the article, 'Bilingual policy was most difficult: MM', Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said he did not know how difficult it was for a child from an English-speaking home to learn Mandarin.

He went on to say:

You spend time on extra tuition, and still make little progress. Many were turned off Mandarin for life.

Eventually, we settled the problem in 2004 by teaching the mother tongue in the module system. Had we done this earlier, we would have had less wastage of students' time and effort, and less heartache for parents.

It took the PAP Government 30 years to 'resolve' this issue. To many Singaporeans affected by this ill-conceived policy, it will take more than just time to get over the anguish, pain, and frustration they felt growing up as guinea pigs in an educational experiment that probably drained a big chunk of their youthful energy, shattered their dreams and altered their aspirations.

A whole generation was affected by this Bilingual policy. It was reported that MM Lee initially believed 'intelligence was equated to language ability'. It took a confirmation from his daughter, a neurologist, to make him realise the flaw in the implementation of the policy.

Was there no feedback on the ground when this Bilingual policy was introduced in the initial years? I am sure many parents must have voiced their concerns and frustrations via some feedback channels. Where did those feedback ended up the past 30 years?

Although the PAP Government has wasted much of the students' time and effort in learning Mandarin, the 'by-products' that came with the implementation of this bilingual policy were more damaging. It is the stigma that many young students of that generation had to live with when they could not cope with the learning of their 'mother tongue'.

It is also the inferiority complex that developed in those young children over time that caused the most heartache for the parents. The money and time they spent to help their children coped with the bilingual policy can go to waste for all they care but to see their children slowly retreating into a world of despair and depression was probably the hardest thing for them to stomach.

Didn't any feedback from parents, students and teachers over the years prick anybody at the Ministry of Education, in the Parliament, or in the Cabinet? Must we wait for MM Lee's daughter to become a neurologist to awaken everyone on this ill-conceived approach to learning Mandarin?

Were there no experts or neurologists around the past 30 years to advise the Cabinet?

It may be easy for us to criticise such policy now. The PAP Government cannot be faulted for implementing the Bilingual policy because Singapore really needed to 'upgrade' its population to compete for investments in the early years of nationhood.

What I find it unacceptable is it took the PAP 30 long years to 'correct' the issue. Furthermore, has the issue really been resolved? Many parents with school going children may disagree with that conclusion. I am one of them. When time permits, I shall blog about this.

What is also disturbing was no Education Minister ever told MM Lee that there was something amiss in the implementation of the Bilingual policy over the years. It is hard to imagine no one at the Education Ministry knew there was a problem with the implementation of the policy for 30 years.

Educating our young cannot be an experimental thing. There was a time when our policymakers experimented with extending primary education to level 7 or 8. Fortunately, we did not have to wait 30 years for this ill-conceived policy to be scrapped.

Did we detect any sense of remorse in our leaders when they quietly dropped such ill-informed policies? Not really. The Bilingual policy wasn't wrong. It was just a 'difficult' policy to implement. There is no apology needed in a one-party rule.

Let's Not Politicise LUP Anymore!

2009-10-25T10:56:00.000-07:00

The recent debate on the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) has only 2 conclusions.

One, the People's Association (PA), despite being publicly funded by millions of tax dollars, remains an unreasonably partisan entity. In doing so, the association has completely lost touch with the community. To put it simply, it has lost all sense of reality.

In the reality television game show, Survivor, when a participant gets voted out at the end of each episode, he or she must 'leave Exile Island immediately'.

In PA's version of the 'Survivor' show, a candidate who gets voted out does not need to 'leave the island immediately'. It all depends on the colour of his or her 'skin'. If it is white, you get to come back on the 'show' to haunt and taunt the very people who booted you out. If your skin is anything but white, off you go. You must leave the 'island' immediately.

That is indeed a uniquely Singapore concoction - something for the Tourism Board to think about and possibly include in its campaign of the same name.

Two, public housing is no longer under public control anymore. It is now in the 'private' hands of a partisan HDB. The rationale behind HDB's practice to deal with a constituency's grassroots adviser for all upgrading programmes instead of its popularly elected opposition MP is just beyond comprehension.

It is ludicrous for HDB not to acknowledge the two opposition MPs in Hougang and Potong Pasir are more 'grassroots' than the grassroots advisers appointed by PA!

Both Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang have been serving the residents of Potong Pasir and Hougang since 1984 and 1991 respectively. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin and Mr Eric Low Siak Meng only surfaced in 2001.

It is also delusional for PA to think it could fulfill its mission to 'build and to bridge communities in achieving one people, one Singapore' when it repeatedly chooses two defeated candidates over two popularly elected veterans as grassroots advisers to serve the opposition wards.

A taxpayer-funded PA should not restrict its selection of grassroots advisers to just PAP members. Currently, the PA Board comprises mostly PAP members starting with the Prime Minister as Chairman. The only distinction between PA and PAP is just an alphabet letter.

As we have a non-partisan and elected President now, perhaps he should be the best person to front PA to promote racial harmony and social cohesion. After all, the President has the mandate of the people as the entire electorate supposedly elects him.

Last, the LUP is to rectify a design flaw in older HDB flats. It is not that difficult for anyone to explain that to the residents. In fact, HDB should be the one doing the job since those badly designed flats were built by some ‘penny-wise-pound-foolish’ civil servants in the first place. HDB should take full ownership of this problem and rectify it to the best of its capability.

Going through grassroots advisers or any MP to announce or publicise the LUP will only politicise the issue further. Nothing will absolve HDB of its shortsightedness in building such ridiculous flats until the lift landing issue is resolved.

Sadly, about 200 flats will not get LUP because of the high costs involved in rectifying those badly designed public housing. A Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme should be instituted for those affected residents.

Super Grassroots!

2009-10-11T00:37:00.000-07:00

Faster than a speeding bullet... More powerful than a locomotive... Able to leap tall building in a single bounce... It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s SUPER GRASSROOTS!

Disguised as mild-mannered citizens, these grassroots advisers are specially selected by the People’s Association (PA) to defend truth, justice, and equality. More importantly, they are there to explain complex issues like upgrading of estates.

Never mind that 63% of the good citizens of Hougang had voted an 18-year incumbent, Mr. Low Thia Khiang, to represent them in the last election; a grassroots adviser with 37% support is the chosen one to unite the residents.

Never mind that a majority of the brave residents of Potong Pasir has elected Mr. Chiam See Tong for the past 25 years to be their leader; a grassroots adviser who dished out $2 shark fin and abalone soup is the enlightened one to bring hope to the constituents.

Never mind even if the grassroots advisers have lesser or zero experience in running these constituencies because PA probably says’ never mind’ too.

Never mind that Mr. Chiam, painted to have only 5 ‘O’ level passes, had beaten Mr. Mah Bow Tan, an 8-distinction poster boy, in a one-on-one fight in the 1984 General Election; PA still insists its selection of grassroots advisers is sound.

Never mind that the lift upgrading program is there to fix those badly designed flats built by a ‘penny-wise-pound-foolish’ HDB; the grassroots advisers are the only selected few who can make the affected residents understand the need to co-pay for bad design.

Never mind even if Mr. Mah is now running HDB… oh well… NEVER MIND!

Freshly Squeezed...

2009-10-07T00:09:00.000-07:00

The people at Channel 5 must have a wicked sense of humour. Every time I watch this trailer, I can really feel the squeeze. And yes, we all get FRESHLY squeezed to the tune of $110 a year just to watch 'free-to-air' TV programmes that are hardly 'fresh' and full of very stale 'reruns'.

On top of parting with 110 bucks of our hard earn money; we are also required to squeeze every single drop of our brain juice just to comprehend the logic behind the collection and disbursement of the TV and Radio Licence (RTV) fees.

To start with, all the TV and radio channels under the Mediacorp's stable are called 'free-to-air' services. That means the TV and radio signals are unencrypted. Anyone can legally receive these signals without subscription. Such services are usually funded by advertising.

Here comes the first squeeze. 'Free-to-air' broadcasting in Singapore does not mean 'free-to-watch' or 'free-to-listen'. Singaporeans are required to pay an annual TV and Vehicle Radio Licence fees of $110 per household and $27 per vehicle respectively. These fees are collected in the guise of supporting unprofitable public service programming.

Under the FAQ section of the Media Development Authority's website (MDA), it says:

TV Licence fees help to fund selected TV programmes to ensure that our population has access to a more balanced and wider range of Public Service Broadcast (PSB) programmes. PSB programmes include current affairs, info-educational, cultural, quality drama, children's and minority language programmes... (iFAQ)

That argument is sound but it needs accountability and transparency of the highest level to administer PSB programming.

There are 965,000 TV licences issued in 2008 (Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2009). Multiply that number by $110 and that is what MDA gets every year - a whopping $106.2 million freshly squeezed from Singaporeans. If we add 851,336 Vehicle Radio Licences (Vehicle ownership as of Y2007 - www.lta.gov.sg), we are looking at a potential annual collection of $129.2 million.

Here comes the second squeeze. With all that money, why are there so few PSB programmes and so many reruns? In my quest to understand the 'mystery' of the never ending reruns, I have deciphered what those station call numbers actually meant. Channel 5 means a show will repeat at least 5 times. Channel 8 means a show will repeat at least 8 times and so forth! Try counting the repeats, if you really need a pastime.

So how is the $129.2 million spent? If you think the answer lies in the MDA's Annual Report, squeeze your brain juice harder. The MDA report has nothing on financial. You won't find anything on this issue in MICA's Annual Report either. It looks like such financial numbers are not 'free-to-air' after all.

Interestingly enough, MDA came under fire in the 2008/09 Report of the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) for some glaring lapses including serious shortcomings in the management of PSB programmes. And by a stroke of good fortune, a brief breakdown of the usage of the RTV Licence fees was revealed in the report!

So here is the elusive breakdown:
* Public Service Broadcast (67%)
* Expenses related to RTV licence fee collection (11%)
* Industry development expenses (15%)
* Reserves for future PSB & content devt funding (7%)

Based on the estimated 2007/08 RTV licence fees, $86.6 million would have been spent on PSB programming, $14.2 millions on collection expense, and $19.4 on 'industry development'. There should be $9 million left in reserves.

Now the question is do we feel like we have been given $86.6 million worth of 'current affairs, info-educational, cultural, quality drama, children's and minority language programmes'? I don't know about you but I feel like I have been given $86.6 million worth of advertising on TV and Radio despite all the public funding Mediacorp and other smaller radio broadcasters received from MDA.

The popular show, 'The Little Nonya', was mentioned as a beneficiary of our RTV fees. Each commercial break in that show was long enough for one to cook a 3-minute instant noodle meal with a freshly brewed coffee and a toilet break thrown in! MDA has to do some 'soul' searching and revamp its management of PSB funding.

It was announced on 28 Sep 2009 that Mediacorp made an operating profit of $16 million for the year ending 31 Mar 2009. Since Mediacorp is the only 'free-to-air' TV broadcaster left, we can safely assume that it is the largest recipient of our RTV fees. For some strange reason, it did not thank us in its press release for our support all these years.

The 'squeeze' gets worse when you know some of our Asean neighbours are going to watch the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa for free and they do not need to pay any TV or Radio licence fee.

Freshly squeezed on 5? You bet we are.

Who will take care of our poor and aged?

2009-09-02T01:12:00.000-07:00

In June 2008, I brought 3 foreign journalists to visit some of the poorest people in Singapore.

We visited a 62-year old male diabetic amputee living in a 1-room rental flat with no amenities like telephone or television.

‘Where's the bed?’ one of the journalists asked me quietly. There was no bed. An old straw recliner chair in the middle of the room was the only thing the elderly resident could rest or sleep on. A dusty old fan spun noisily beside the chair provided some relief on a hot and humid summer night.

‘I have exhausted all my CPF money. I got nothing left. I cannot afford to pay for my dialysis anymore,’ the old man recounted his story while the 4 of us listened attentively.

‘The government has given up on collecting any money from me because I got nothing left. I am just waiting for my time to come,’ the old man said.

‘See this eye,’ the old man pointed to one of his eyes. ‘It's gone. My good eye is also going. And you know what, when this good eye is gone, I will know what to do. No point living.’

For a while, we were all taken aback by his nonchalant remark about death. We all knew the old man wasn't talking about waiting for death to come knocking on his door.

‘In Singapore, there is a famous saying (Hokkien) - eh sai se buay sai pua pne,’ the old man said as he shook his head in resignation. The visitors from Taiwan needed no translation to understand that phrase.

We tried to cheer him up but strangely this old man needed nothing of that. He spoke with no quiver in his voice. He laughed heartily when he recounted his younger days to us. I could detect a tinge of sadness in him but not a sense of bitterness at all. At that point, I knew he had found peace with himself and with his maker.

We left the 1-room flat with a heavy heart. We truly believe the old man will end his life when his world goes dark.

As I drove the visitors back to their hotel, they told me the conditions of the poor and needy in their country are not as bad as what they have seen here. At the very least, they will have a telephone, newspaper, or television to keep them occupied and connected to the outside world. Furthermore, dialysis is free for them.

I became pensive after hearing that. Who will take care of our poor and needy when they grow old? Are there many of such aged and poor people in this land of 'milk and honey'?

It is very sad when a person has nothing to live for in life. It is worse when that person is living in constant pain and suffering. I do not condone suicide but for some strange reason I found myself agreeing with the old man that death isn't so scary after all if the alternative is a life of misery, pain, loneliness, and suffering.

Common day mixed-up a racial issue?

2009-08-27T07:44:00.000-07:00

I refer to the articles, 'Twin threats of race and religion' (ST, Aug 17).

The standoff incident cited in the National Day Rally speech involving a Malay wedding and a Chinese funeral over a void deck space was unfortunate but nothing racial at all.

Both events were important to the families involved. I am sure if both parties were of the same race, the standoff would still be equally intense.

The commonsensical resolution to the standoff would be first-come, first-served. Most reasonable Singaporeans will understand this rule of thumb quite easily. Thus, it was gracious of the wedding party to give way to the grieving family.

The chances of different races squaring off in our multi racial society over space, environment, or facility due to unreasonable behaviour or administrative error are very high. If a badminton court is double-booked by two parties of different races, is the resultant standoff going to be racial?

The Government has always reminded Singaporeans the danger of playing the race card. As the incident cited in the rally speech was caused by an administrative oversight on the part of the grieving family or some other parties, it should not be brought up as an example of racial and religious fault lines.

Putting a racial undertone to a common day mixed-up is unhealthy. Such incident can happen to any one regardless of race. It would be more appropriate to cite the resolution of the incident and the Malay family as good examples of what neighbourliness is all about in a densely populated and land scarce Singapore.

No More Good Year...

2009-08-19T09:43:00.000-07:00

Do not expect Temasek to achieve what the PAP could not deliver, i.e. more Good Years. There is officially no more ‘good year’ at Temasek, literally and figuratively speaking.

The past twelve months have not been good for Temasek in terms of investment returns and leadership succession. Having lost billions of dollars in its ill-timed investments, the SWF lost its first carefully chosen CEO-designate, Charles ‘Chip’ Goodyear as well.

The succession plan to replace Mdm Ho Ching was two years in the making. Mr. Goodyear was on the radar of Temasek since 2007. It was also reported that Temasek spent more than a year wooing him. He was interviewed by board members individually and as a group.

The Board of Temasek has nine members. That means Mr. Goodyear went through ten interviews, nine individual and one group. President S R Nathan met him before agreeing to his appointment too. That is eleven interviews in total.

The 24-month affair, with twelve months of ‘wooing’ and eleven ‘dates’, lasted only four months in transitional union. Mr. Goodyear left Temasek before he was to start work officially on 1 Oct 2009.

What went wrong with those interviews that eleven wise men could not detect the ‘strategic differences’ between Temasek and Mr. Goodyear? His departure was attributed to ‘unresolved strategic differences’ though we were not told what these differences were.

However, we were told in Parliament on 18 Aug 2009 that the entire Cabinet has ‘considered very carefully and debated’ on the issue of hiring a foreigner to run Temasek before Mr. Goodyear’s appointment.

With this revelation, the number of wise men involved in this issue has just mushroomed from 11 to 32.

Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam also told the House that Mr. Goodyear was selected because he was assessed to share the basic values of Temasek, i.e. ‘building long-term sustainable value, not just going for quick turn of profit; commitment to maintaining a globally diversified portfolio; commitment to the basic geographical stance of Temasek.’

The values listed by the Finance Minister are quite typical of any SWF. You can expect any serious candidate to share these values, especially those with the patience to go through with eleven interviews.

However, when you are hiring a foreigner for the very first time to manage parts of our reserves, the interview sessions had to go beyond shared basic values. You will need to know how the candidate is going to take Temasek to the next level.

The official reason given for Mr. Goodyear’s departure is ‘unresolved strategic differences’. I could only speculate three things.

One, the Board knew of Mr. Goodyear’s strategic differences before he was hired and hoped to convert him later. (Does this sound like the recruitment drive of some political party –join us even if you disagree with us; we welcome diversity of views… because we will make you one of us eventually)

Two, the Board and Mr. Goodyear shared the same strategic values but one party had a change of mind.

Three, the Board forgot to ask Mr. Goodyear about his strategy to manage our reserves during the interviews.

The public will have to content with speculations and rumours on the sudden departure of Mr. Goodyear. The publicly elected Finance Minister believes that public interest alone is not sufficient for the government to disclose more on the issue. What then is a good enough reason for the government to tell the truth?

A picture may paint a thousand words but a name can sometimes tell a strange tale. The name of the ill fated CEO-designate probably sums up the misery Temasek went through the past twelve months. It was neither a ‘Cheap’ nor a ‘Good Year’ for the SWF.

You may think it must be really tough for one of the most powerful women in the world to announce her resignation in public only to reverse it four months later. Not if your name in reverse means ‘very good’ in hokkien. You can’t go wrong with a name like that.

Reference:
ST, 06 Feb 2009 - Ho Ching to quit Temasek
ST, 22 Jul 2009 - Hand-picked CEO's Shock Exit
ST, 18 Aug 2009 – No goodwill for Goodyear

MAS should have been more objective

2009-07-19T08:28:00.000-07:00

I REFER to Wednesday's report, 'MAS acts against 10 institutions'.

It seems the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has learnt little from the Lehman crisis. The crux of the sale of those toxic structured products was that their profits were oversold or misrepresented while their underlying risks were undersold.

In short, too much positive spin was put on the marketing of such products. In its latest report on the structured notes linked to Lehman Brothers, MAS has fallen into this 'positive spin' mode by highlighting the impressive statistics on settlement cases, while not addressing the pressing issue that most affected investors did not get any closure at all.

Telling the public that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of settlement offers by the 10 institutions have been accepted is rather one-sided because the figure amounts to only about 3,280 investors. This is closure for just 33 per cent of all affected investors. There are more than 6,600 investors who are still trying to get their lives in order.

The total value of the settlement offered by these institutions is $107.34 million, which is only 21 per cent of the amount invested by almost 10,000 retail investors. The actual payout is even less since not all settlements offered were accepted as of May 31.

If the MAS report was an attempt to find closure for all affected parties, it should have been more objective. The good and bad statistics must be summarised for all to digest.

Apart from 1,384 investors who were offered full settlement, more than 8,500 affected investors, or 86 per cent, are still on the losing end.

(ST Forum, July 10, 2009)

Happy Days Are Here?

2009-07-05T09:06:00.000-07:00

In the latest Happy Planet Index Report (HPI), Singapore has jumped to 49th position from a lowly 131st in 2006.

And how happy are our neighbours? Malaysia moved to 33rd from 44th, Thailand dropped to 41st from 32nd, Indonesia climbed to 16th from 23rd, and Hong Kong inched to 84th from 88th.

From the above comparison, our great leap of 82 positions is nothing short of a phenomenon.

Here is another strange one; Burma (aka Myanmar) moved from 77th to 39th position in the latest happiness index. The Burmese are happier than us!

All other Asean countries are ranked higher than us with the exception of Cambodia (80th). Vietnam is way up there at 5th position. Brunei is not covered in the survey but I guess we can safely assume Bruneians must be happy with all that oil-revenue funded subsidies.

Our ministers must be happy with the vast improvement in our HPI as well. By the way, our ministers are the happiest public servants in the world. The huge leap in our happiness index will certainly make them delirious by now. Do you smell election around the corner?

The Burmese generals are also the happiest soldiers in the world. One of them even got an orchid named after him. I wonder if that has something to do with the impressive jump in the country's HPI.

Anyway, happiness is a state of mind. Most of the countries above Singapore in the happiness index have a lower per capita income than us. What more proof does one need that money just can't buy you talent to create happiness.

Another 'state-of-mind' factor is most of these happy people know exactly where they live when they wake up every morning. Singaporeans, on the other hand, have to ponder if their constituencies are going to be around before and after each election. Now, that cannot be a happy thing, can it?

So are Singaporeans really happier now than three years ago? Are Burmese happier as well? Going by the results of the HPI, I no longer understand how happiness is measured! But one thing for sure, there will be many happy generals and politicians who will use this HPI results to justify their despotic existence.

By the way, the HPI was started in 2006 by nef, an 'independent think-and-do' tank. The nef website states that HPI provides a compass to measure 'what truly matters to us – our well-being in terms of long, happy and meaningful lives – and what matters to the planet – our rate of resource consumption.'

Jacob Ballas Children's Garden

2009-06-15T11:10:00.000-07:00

This is one interesting garden to bring your children to explore during the school holidays. The Jacob Ballas Children's Garden is Asia's first children's garden. Admission is free. You can also choose to pay for a guided tour. For city slickers like my family, we thoroughly enjoyed the informative guided tour on 4 Jun 2009.

Banana tree...

Papaya up-close...

Fresh gourd...

Lady's finger...

This fruit is huge and heavy but I cannot remember the name...

Jatropha - the oil from the seeds of this plant can power your car!

The Aware Scorecard

2009-06-05T23:50:00.000-07:00

The leadership tussle at Aware is over but no clear winners came out of it. What came out of the saga, though, was an affirmation that our society has indeed awakened from its inert state.

Never before has the public witnessed such an intense debate on gender equality, homosexuality, and Christian fundamentalism. And I am not talking about the Internet!

Stakes got higher and higher as the saga went on. Democracy and inclusiveness became the battle cry of the day.

Membership at Aware grew from a few hundreds to over 3000 members within a short span of time. At $40 a piece, that’s a cool $120k in membership fee!

It was a classic 'David versus Goliath' battle. Behemoth like DBS and the mainstream media came, saw, and jumped on the bandwagon for reasons beyond comprehension. The mainstream media gave the Aware issue unprecedented coverage. I counted 6 full pages of write-ups on the episode in just one issue of the Straits Times!

Well the dust has settled (I hope) and the curtain is down. It's time to rate the players. I will start with the 'extras' or 'calefare' first.

The one who sent the envelope with powder – 0/10
Everyone has a civic duty to engage the government and society but this is definitely not the way to go. Save the powder. It will do more harm than good for any cause. Intimidation using such tactics has no place in our society.

DBS - 0/10
No sane organisation would reprimand its employees publicly. Was there a pressing need for DBS to chastise Miss Josie Lau via a press release? Did anyone at Temasek get a public reprimand for that untimely investment foray in late 2007 and 2008? So what catastrophic harm has Josie Lau done to DBS to deserve such a public rebuke? Save the speedy press release for those angry High Notes investors instead. Employees do not need such communication channel. For that, DBS deserves a big fat zero too.

The Mainstream Media - 1/10
When we have ONLY ONE major English daily and ONE TV Station here, impartial reporting is crucial. The video, pictures and write-ups accorded to the old and new Aware teams were grossly imbalanced throughout the whole saga. Anyone could easily tell whose side the media was supporting right up to the day of the Aware EGM! MICA had also found ‘the coverage (of the Aware episode) was excessive and not sufficiently balanced.’ (‘Q&A with DPM on Aware saga’, ST, 14 May 2009). Was the episode really about religion versus society? What about morality versus society? The Comprehensive Sexual Education issue was (and still is) of public interest but where was the in depth coverage on this topic? This episode has proven that the need for an alternative and independent mainstream media remains valid not matter how small our country is.

Ministry of Education - 2/10
It looks like parents were not the only ones who did not get their facts right on sex education in schools. Senior Minister of State for Education S. Iswaran was not too sure about the facts as well. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether the schools are autonomous or not, MOE must ensure mainstream sex education stays mainstream. You cannot teach about inclusiveness if the law says otherwise. MOE must take responsibility and teach our children well. Do not confuse them when the law says otherwise.

Senior lawyer Thio Su Mien - 2/10
She won the war but lost the support of the masses. The coup was well engineered but Miss Thio never knew how to win the hearts of the people she intended to influence. To be fair, the media played a large part in highlighting the possible link between religion and her campaign on morality. But does morality really need a particular religion or church to champion it? Getting more women outside her church or religion to join the campaign would be a better bet for success.

LGBT - 2/10
How did LGBT and Aware become inseparable in this saga? The issue about homosexuality in Singapore is not so much about persecution or oppression but it is about getting due recognition as a legitimate minority group. The government does not really care what we do behind closed door. At least that was what our political leaders said during the debate on Section 377A. LGBT would need to put its cause on the ballot to gain legitimacy. The electorate would have spoken when that happens. All other efforts are irrelevant. Teaming up with organisations like Aware to educate the public on such sensitive issues is not going to help these secular societies or the LGBT movement to grow. The Aware saga has shown how polarised the society has become over the issue on homosexuality. Until now, I am still confused what is the deal between Aware and the LGBT movement. Was there one in the first place?

Old Aware Leadership (pre-coup) - 4/10
The old Aware team has shown signs of being out of focus. I cannot imagine an organisation originally set up to help women find their rightful place in society now admits men into its rank. It is even thinking about giving these male members voting rights! Aware should just stay focused on helping abused, discriminated, disadvantaged girls and women. I cannot see the relevance of the inclusion of the opposite sex in the organisation in any way. Has Aware forgotten that the root of many problems faced by women since time immemorial came from the opposite sex in the first place? If Aware wants to be inclusive, perhaps it should start by changing its logo and name to reflect its intention because the public is definitely not aware of that.

New Aware Leadership (post-coup) - 4/10
For all the good intention the new team had, the words just did not come out right for the leaders. Miss Josie Lau and her team failed miserably on public relations. When you have the major media against you, good PR is imperative. Nonetheless, Josie Lau and her team have woken MOE up from its slumber to review all external sex education programmes in schools. She has also indirectly help Aware raised more than $120k in membership fee though her team has spent a whopping $90k in its short tenure.

New Aware Leadership (post-EGM) – No grade yet
Miss Dana Lam has inherited a battle weary organization with an image problem to repair. It is sad to see all the good work done by Aware being sidelined by the issue of homosexuality. Well, look on the bright side of things. Aware is technically $30k in the black. Spend the money wisely. Aware cannot afford to be mistaken as a ‘rojak’ outfit if it wishes to gain back the trust of MOE and the mainstream populace. All the best!

PAP Good, Opposition Bad?

2009-05-31T11:54:00.000-07:00

I refer to the article. 'Opposition is best check against graft? MPs rebut Low's claim', (ST, 27 May 2009)

I am sure many Singaporeans understand the best check against a corrupted government is to have men and women of integrity, honesty, and zero-tolerance for corruption in Parliament.

However, a clean and honest political system cannot be the sole confines of any political party. No one but only time can tell if a political party is worthy to govern Singapore.

Over the years, the PAP Government has realised there is value in having some opposition in Parliament. Thus, it introduced schemes like Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) and Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) to placate the growing call to open up our political landscape.

But what good does it do for democracy if a NCMP or NMP cannot vote on supply bills and constitutional amendments that matter most in the governing of a country?

Democracy has not taken roots in Singapore under a dominant one-party system. I am not sure which is worse – to have NCMP and NMP who cannot vote on critical issues or to have PAP MPs who vote along party line no matter how passionate they argue against any bill!

On rare occasions when the Party Whip was lifted, the expected dissenting votes of outspoken PAP MPs were sorely missing.

So what is a good check against graft? An elected opposition still fit that role quite nicely because only it can cast a vote of no confidence against an errant government. The rest cannot vote or will have to toe the party line.

The mentality of 'PAP good, Opposition bad' borders on pure ignorance or sure arrogance on the part of the ruling party.

Mollycoddled or Muddleheaded?

2009-05-27T09:17:00.000-07:00

The screaming ST headline certainly caught my attention, 'We're too mollycoddled' (ST Online, 25 May 2009). I thought to myself... well at least some PAP MPs are quite honest with themselves.

Many PAP MPs are indeed too mollycoddled. They hide under the coattails of heavyweight ministers in General Elections, enjoy walkover in GRCs, get all the support from the well-funded Residents' Committees, get all the coverage from the mainstream media, take credits for helping the needy with taxpayers' money, etc, etc, etc.

As I read on, MP Sam Tan wasn't talking about himself or his party colleagues. He was talking about Singaporeans!

In Sam's world, Singaporeans are morphing into 'softies' because they are too protected by the Government. According to him, Singaporeans 'see Government help as an entitlement, something that they should tap on as a first port of call, rather than a last resort.'

In Sam's words:

"We have become accustomed to the largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us – they make sure the poor children do not have to pay fees, the needy elderly have enough food, and even well-to-do children who do not care of their parents have VWOs to turn to, when they want to shunt these old folks out of their homes."

In Sam's world, the recession is worse on paper, but much less on the ground because people are still spending. And the reason why people are spending is because the PAP Government has done too much recession cushioning thus giving Singaporeans a false sense of security. In Sam's words again:

"So, we have become “practiced” at the craft of recession-cushioning. Each time the economy shows signs of slowing down, we have the NTUC and e2i coming out at the forefront to job match, get training, reduce retrenchments. We have MND pump priming with infrastructure projects, we have of course the MCYS and its numerous help schemes."

Well, now that I have read the entire article and MP Sam Tan's speech, let's get things straightened out.

First, there are people out there who, without a helping hand to pull them out of their hellholes again and again, will never get their lives or the lives of their children back on track. Dishing constant help to such people is definitely not mollycoddling especially in such unprecedented times. One of the responsibilities of an elected MP is to ensure the important helping hand is always there when needed by such resident in his constituency.

By the way, MP Sam Tan’s colleagues in the other contested wards would have no hesitation ‘mollycoddling’ the needy because they know very well what general elections are all about on the ground.

Second, the 'largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us' is a misconception. MCYS has never known to have a spirit of generosity. The ministry has a deep-rooted fear of the needy developing a 'crutch mentality' when too much help is given to them. Surely, MP Tan must have witnessed in Parliament how swiftly MCYS put down MPs who tried to ask for a few dollars more for poor people on the Public Assistance Scheme!

Furthermore, it is the largesse of VWOs, which comprises tireless and selfless people, that has created a rub-off effect on MCYS. The ministry, sadly, is running like a bureaucratic funding machine lacking in compassion. It operates on the notion that if the people can make do with less, why not. Perhaps, MCYS should work on a notion that if it can do more for the poor, why not. Then, and only then, the largesse of MCYS would be more believable.

Last, Singaporeans are definitely not mollycoddled. If it were so, the breadlines all over the country should be getting shorter. There would be less foreign workers to compete for jobs. And ‘empathy’ would not be the buzzword for our civil service to adopt.

On the contrary, it is the slate of ‘walkover’ MPs in the PAP Government that are too mollycoddled to the point that most of them have become muddleheaded.

Money Can't Buy You Talent

2009-05-16T08:28:00.000-07:00

Temasek's exit from Bank of America (BoA) as reported in the Straits Times on 19 May 2009 is really bewildering.

Some probable reasons why Temasek chose to cash out were suggested in another article, 'Temasek should clear the air', by Ignatius Low. One of the reasons was Temasek did not end up with what it paid for. Its investment in Merrill Lynch ended up with BoA after the two entities merged.

Although BoA may not be the preferred investment, it was definitely in better shape than Merrill when the financial crisis hit. Otherwise, Merrill would be taking over BoA and not the other way. Thus, ending up with BoA is a blessing for Temasek because it may end up with nothing as in the case for investors of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.

It is difficult to understand why a long-term investor like Temasek was willing to stick with a dud investment like ABC Learning Centres right to the very end and yet it cannot exercise a little bit more patience with a US government-backed entity like BoA? There is a real good chance that Temasek may recoup all its investment in Merrill by the end of the year.

Has the Board of Temasek been given an objective assessment of the financial situation in the United States? Was it that difficult to conclude from the various news sources that BoA would not be nationalised? Was the nationalization issue a push factor for the board to dump BoA? The US Government has stated clearly that it will not nationalise BoA even though it is technically the largest shareholder of the bank. What more assurance does the board need?

I agree with Mr. Low that 'these are, after all, extraordinary time, and so extraordinary outcomes - and losses - will be expected.' However, the untimely foray into Merrill and the ill-timed exit from BoA were not that extraordinary in nature. I am sure any one who dabbles in stocks would have made such bad calls before, i.e. buy high and sell low!

But the Government has raised the benchmark for performance for Temasek and GIC to the highest level because we were told that it had put in place extraordinary men to safeguard our reserves. It does not go down well with Singaporeans when extraordinary men make very ordinary and incomprehensible decisions. As reported in the Straits Times, the latest investment move by the crème-de-la-crème in Temasek has resulted in record-breaking losses of between US$2.3 billion to US$4.6 billion of our precious reserves.

This financial crisis has revealed many things. Among them is that men with extraordinary salaries may not have extraordinary talents at all. The number of high-flying CEOs that came crashing down in the US is a revelation. Money just can’t buy you talent.

Which country would the Minister like to govern?

2009-04-20T21:56:00.000-07:00

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, said the Public Order Act seeks to optimally balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety, security and stability. He said in Parliament:

“Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?"

Before Singaporeans answer these questions, perhaps the Minister would like to answer this - which country in our region would he like to govern?

Which nationality can tolerate shortsighted policies such as the highly punitive 'Stop at two' population containment program that caused its fertility to fall below replacement level?

Which nationality has to put up with controversial population growth policies like the 'Have three or more, if you can afford it' program that came with a eugenic 'Graduate Mother Scheme' to improve the quality of its breed as well?

Which nationality has suffered silently under the highly discriminatory 'Education Streaming' policy that subjected many of its young children to unnecessary stress at a tender age and possibly a lifetime stigma of being classified as underachievers?

Which nationality has allowed its government to quietly discontinued half-baked policies with no apology tendered?

So which country would the Minister like to govern? I am sure the Minister’s answer to my question would be Singapore. Where else in this world can the Minister find such a supportive and 'easy' group of people to govern and be paid handsomely in the process as well?

And which country would I rather be in? My answer to the Minister’s questions is the same. This is probably the only thing we can agree on.

So back to the question of have we gotten the balance between political freedom and public order right? For being a responsible, supportive, and constructive electorate all these years, the answer to this question is an emphatic no.

Do Singaporeans deserve to be treated like children? Do we deserve to have our rights as citizens restricted further though we had never shut down the airport, paralyzed the city or even endangered the lives of our politicians and fellow citizens since we became a nation in 1965?

I believe the political marriage of convenience between Singaporeans and the PAP is no longer mutually beneficial. Over the past 44 years of nationhood, the party has eroded the power of people bit by bit. Today we are a nation paralyzed with fear, real and imaginary.

This paranoid government must grow up and recognise that nation building requires mutual respect of the highest degree between the citizens and the elected authority. So far, Singaporeans have given the government all the respect it had craved for. The Public Order Act is not the kind of respect the citizens expects in return.

The people of Singapore must reclaim their rights and respect at the next poll.

A 'White Curtain' has descended...

2009-04-15T04:03:00.001-07:00

The passing of the Public Order Act (POA) on 13 April 2009 is a sad day for freedom and democracy in Singapore. The Act, in the guise of maintaining public safety and order, will slowly erase any semblance of individual freedom guaranteed under our Constitution.

Winston Churchill, in his speech on 5 March 1946, said an 'Iron Curtain' had descended across Europe just to warn the world about the increasing influence and control of Soviet Union on Central and Eastern Europe. A similar 'White Curtain' has descended on Singapore too. Singaporeans should be warned that the POA will restrict our basic citizen rights further.

To the outside world, Singapore is seen as a 'clean and white' country full of law-abiding citizens. But behind the 'White Curtain' lies a nation legislated beyond comprehension, silenced and highly strung.

Under the POA, an illegal 'assembly' could mean a gathering of only ONE person and a 'procession' could comprise just TWO! Sadly, the highest paid Government in the world has also the lowest tolerance for dissent.

The new 'Move On' power now allows the police to ask a person to leave a premise in the interests of 'public safety, public order, and the protection of the rights and freedom of other people'. What about the rights and freedom of the poor guy slapped with the 'Move On' order? Doesn't that deserve protection too? The right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Article 14 of our Constitution apparently does not apply to that poor chap if the police think otherwise.

To complete the whitewash of our rights, a public-spirited citizen can no longer film any law enforcement activity even if that person witnessed a serious case of police brutality. It is sad that justice for victims like Ian Tomlinson and Oscar Grant could never happened behind this White Curtain.

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, in taking the POA, said in Parliament:

"The approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability. Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in? The answer to these questions would be the answer to the main question I asked."

Have we really gotten that balance right? It seems to me that this Government likes to pick and choose any country in turmoil to justify the need to restrict civil liberty on its own citizens without first understanding the cause of the unrest overseas. Does it mean that any outbreak of protest in this world must impel Singapore to tighten its public order laws?

The event unfolding in Thailand is not about lax public order laws. It is about the need to uphold democracy. NCMP Sylvia Lim said in Parliament:

"If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy. It is not about the consequences of having weak public order laws because the Thai people felt cheated. The Thai police and army are not weaklings either. They are more battle-hardened than our equivalent as they have been fighting Muslim separatists for many years. Many of these security people are just sympathetic to the 'Red shirt' cause. Does the PAP government think that slapping a 'move on' order on 100,000 Thais will work?

The Singapore Government should not take advantage of the situation in Thailand to justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of citizens further. The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to the extreme. On the other end, Singaporeans, who have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing, are being penalised further for nothing. As long as this government respect and uphold democracy, the problem we are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems."

So has Singapore really opened up in recent years?

Mr Shanmugam said the opening of Speakers' Corner in 2000 was the start of the process by the Government to liberalise the political space.

The Minister went to say that restrictions were also lifted on speeches by elected MPs at community events albeit with conditions attached. Constituency activities organised by MPs and held in the constituency were also exempted from police permits - again with conditions attached.

Indoor political activities are now exempted from permits too. You can even demonstrate at Hong Lim Park provided there is no community event going on there.

And finally (drum roll please), the outright ban on party political films was lifted on 23 Mar 2009.

Apart from the Speakers' Corner experiment, which was a baby step in the right direction, there is nothing worth shouting about in the 'opening up' of our political space so far. Most of the previously banned activities are harmless and should not be restricted in the first place.

And remember, it is technically a 'procession' when you go out walking with your date. If you are alone and loitering is your past-time, you could be deemed as an illegal 'assembly'.

Strange but that is life behind the 'White Curtain' after 13 April 2009.

Films Act - A Class Act to follow...

2009-04-01T23:09:00.001-07:00

I saw this DVD on sale at some supermarket. I have seen books on Lee Kuan Yew but this is the first time I have seen a DVD on him.

The recently amended Films Act permits a political documentary film under the following conditions:

'without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate account depicting actual events, persons (deceased or otherwise) or situations, but not a film -
(i) wholly or substantially based on unscripted or '"reality" type programmes; or
(ii) that depicts those events, persons or situations in a dramatic way;'

I wonder if this political film complies with the above conditions. I wonder if there is any animation in it? What about any moving newspaper cuttings to dramatize the tumultuous events of our history? Well, I guess the answer is available for $24.90.

For $24.90, I can eat lunch for 5 days. I can bring my family to McDonald's for dinner. I can also make the MINDS-operated car wash workers really happy with snacks and munchies to keep them going under the hot sun.

For that same amount, I can also spare myself from getting into trouble. Big trouble to be specific - up to $100,000 fine or up to 2 years of imprisonment if I were to make a political documentary that did not comply with the amended Films Act. I assume the above DVD must have complied else it wouldn't be put on sale. Shucks, I need $24.90 to find that out!

Life is full of hard choices, isn't it? Which will you choose, to clear your head or fill your stomach? For my kids, it's definitely McDonald's!

Dendrobium Thein Sein? Give me a break!

2009-03-27T09:59:00.000-07:00

On 18 Mar 2009, it was reported in the Straits Times that Myanmar Prime Minister, General Thein Sein, came to Singapore for a 2-day official visit.

Engaging the military junta of Myanmar has proven to be a tough act for Asean since Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest in 1989. Naming an orchid after a member of this ruthless regime is definitely not going to make the junta any less despotic. This gesture by the Singapore Government is a hard act to fathom.

Flowers are powerful symbols of love, peace, remembrance and appreciation; almost everything the junta is not associated with!

The military rulers of Myanmar refused to give up power peacefully in the 1990 General Election, led a bloody crackdown on unarmed monks in 2007, and delayed aids to survivors of last year's deadly Cyclone Nargis.

Engaging a despotic regime in a talk is good enough but to go the length and 'appease' such mean and heartless leaders is just too much for me to swallow. Can anyone imagine a flower named after leaders like Hilter? For that, the Botanic Garden scores a perfect 10 on 'dumb things to name an orchid after'.

And to the civil servant who suggested this act to honour the General, please google the web for news on Aung San Suu kyi, Myanmar monks, and victims of Cyclone Nargis. Then take a look in the mirror and tell yourself you have done the right thing. Can you do that with a straight face?

Vintage Buffett...

2009-03-01T23:19:00.000-08:00

Warren Buffett, Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK), in his Annual Letter to shareholders, was incredibly frank and funny in his assessment of 2008.

On acknowledging his bad investments:

During 2008 I did some dumb things in investments. I made at least one major mistake of commission and several lesser ones that also hurt. I will tell you more about these later. Furthermore, I made some errors of omission, sucking my thumb when new facts came in that should have caused me to re-examine my thinking and promptly take action.

On sensing opportunities in the auto insurance business:

As we view GEICO’s current opportunities, Tony and I feel like two hungry mosquitoes in a nudist camp. Juicy targets are everywhere.

On hiring a good Foreign Talent:

Ajit came to Berkshire in 1986. Very quickly, I realized that we had acquired an extraordinary talent. So I did the logical thing: I wrote his parents in New Delhi and asked if they had another one like him at home. Of course, I knew the answer before writing. There isn’t anyone like Ajit.

On the home mortgage crisis:

I described it as involving “borrowers who shouldn’t have borrowed being financed by lenders who shouldn’t have lent.”

On home ownership:

Putting people into homes, though a desirable goal, shouldn’t be our country’s primary objective. Keeping them in their homes should be the ambition.

On admitting a wrong investment call:

Without urging from Charlie or anyone else, I bought a large amount of ConocoPhillips stock when oil and gas prices were near their peak. I in no way anticipated the dramatic fall in energy prices that occurred in the last half of the year. I still believe the odds are good that oil sells far higher in the future than the current $40-$50 price. But so far I have been dead wrong. Even if prices should rise, moreover, the terrible timing of my purchase has cost Berkshire several billion dollars.

I made some other already-recognizable errors as well. They were smaller, but unfortunately not that small. During 2008, I spent $244 million for shares of two Irish banks that appeared cheap to me. At yearend we wrote these holdings down to market: $27 million, for an 89% loss. Since then, the two stocks have declined even further. The tennis crowd would call my mistakes “unforced errors.”

On the complexities of derivatives:

Improved “transparency” – a favorite remedy of politicians, commentators and financial regulators for averting future train wrecks – won’t cure the problems that derivatives pose. I know of no reporting mechanism that would come close to describing and measuring the risks in a huge and complex portfolio of derivatives. Auditors can’t audit these contracts, and regulators can’t regulate them. When I read the pages of “disclosure” in 10-Ks of companies that are entangled with these instruments, all I end up knowing is that I don’t know what is going on in their portfolios (and then I reach for some aspirin).

On accountability:

I both initiated these positions and monitor them, a set of responsibilities consistent with my belief that the CEO of any large financial organization must be the Chief Risk Officer as well. If we lose money on our derivatives, it will be my fault.

On BRK's Annual Meeting:

If you decide to leave during the day’s question periods, please do so while Charlie is talking.

During the Annual Meeting, products of Berkshire's subsidiaries are put on sale at special prices for shareholders.

Last year, the 31,000 people who came to the meeting did their part, and almost every location racked up record sales. But you can do better. (A friendly warning: If I find sales are lagging, I lock the exits.)

On taking questions at the meeting:

Neither Charlie nor I will get so much as a clue about the questions to be asked. We know the journalists will pick some tough ones and that’s the way we like it.

And finally (drum roll please)...

Charlie and I cannot promise you results. But we can guarantee that your financial fortunes will move in lockstep with ours for whatever period of time you elect to be our partner. We have no interest in large salaries or options or other means of gaining an “edge” over you. We want to make money only when our partners do and in exactly the same proportion. Moreover, when I do something dumb, I want you to be able to derive some solace from the fact that my financial suffering is proportional to yours.

Berkshire Hathaway Class A share closed at US$78,600 a share on 27 Feb 2009. When Warren Buffett bought into the company, it was trading at $12 a share.

Trust Without Transparency?

2009-02-15T09:22:00.000-08:00

When asked if he could detail the process and what was discussed in the lead up to the President's approval of the draw down of our past Reserves, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam replied that he was not sure the details were relevant.

He said, 'This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge. Do you trust them? Have they make decisions wisely? Has this Government been acting responsibly? That is ultimately what has been and will be the strength of the system.' (ST, 6 Feb 2009)

I was taken aback by this statement alone - 'This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge.' Are Singaporeans expected to place complete and unquestioning trust in the individuals running the Government?

Trust, in the absence of transparency, is a tough act to do. Transparency breeds trust. And in trust, transparency flourishes. These two traits are intertwined. Take one out and the other would be weakened.

Complete trust without seeing, touching, smelling or hearing does exist. That is what most people called faith. Complete faith is only accorded to someone divine and not some earthly mortals.

Does this government see itself in the same league as our maker; divine, beyond reproach and demanding absolute trust?

Absolute power is indeed intoxicating. It can induce a one-party government into harbouring such a ludicrous thought, isn't it?

Salaries Estimates Not Up To Date

2009-02-09T23:00:00.000-08:00

When queried in Parliament by MP Low Thia Khiang on why the estimated expenditure for Political Appointments for all the ministries including PMO only showed a 1 per cent dip from FY2008 instead of 20 per cent as suggested by Minster Teo Chee Hean in Jan 2009, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam revealed that the salaries estimates for political office-holders in the Budget Book are not up to date.

Mr Tharman went on to say that 'all estimates in the Budget Book are simply that - estimates,' and 'the Government was likely to get some wrong.'

He told the House that the Government got the stamp duties estimates completely wrong in 2007. The Government collected $2.3 billion more than what was estimated for that year because of a boom in the property and stock markets.

The Minister added, 'And there are lots of smaller errors we make each year because it's not possible to forecast in advance how each item, our revenues, will turn out - which depends on what's happening in the economy, what's happening in the markets, depends on lots of factors.'

We know that revenue estimates are subject to market conditions. We understand completely that one may hit, surpass or miss a revenue forecast in a given financial year due to economic factors. This Government has gone totally off target in estimating the GST revenue many times.

Expenditure estimates, however, cannot be way off. You cannot possibly spend what you did not budget. You also do not want to over-budget and end up looking silly in front of your bosses with a 20 per cent surplus in expenditure at the end of the year.

Would the Finance Minister not agree that there is a difference between revenue and expenditure estimates? One must be very careful and fairly accurate when it comes to allocating money for spending.

According to Mr Tharman, it was 'a case of not having updated the relevant estimates in each of the ministry's budgets as distinct from coming out with a wrong forecast'.

Well, if the salaries estimates are not updated, then the budget forecast is wrong. Isn't that right? Or is different? Or is that one of those 'same-same-but-different' gibberish that somehow infected the 2009 Budget Debate?

To put it simply, it does not matter whether the mistake was caused by an oversight or a miscalculation, the budget estimates are wrong. The more the Government explains, the more illogical it gets.

To be honest, a simple apology from the Minister would suffice but sadly there was none.

Sleepless in GIC...zzz

2009-01-31T08:28:00.000-08:00

This is quite a news! GIC owns 5.3% of Citigroup Inc. (C) or 303.8 million C shares. Based on the closing price of US$3.55 on 30 Jan 2009, it's stake is worth only US$1.08 billion.

Almost a year ago on 15 Jan 2008, GIC invested US$6.88 billion into Citibank. Is that all we have left in the Citibank investment?

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
The Government of Singapore Investment Corp. on Wednesday reported a passive 5.3% Citigroup Inc. (C) stake.

GIC reported a beneficial stake of 303.8 million Citigroup shares, including about 261 million shares into which 137,600 shares of 7% non-cumulative convertible preferred stock may be converted, based on an adjusted conversion rate expected to take effect no later than April 15, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission...

-By Bhattiprolu Murti, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-1357
- 28 January 2009

Eclipse of the Sun

2009-01-26T07:10:00.000-08:00

The partial eclipse of the Sun over Singapore on 26 Jan 2009 was quite a spectacle. In 10 years' time, we will witness an annular eclipse of the Sun on 26 Dec 2019 at about 11.20am (I think).

This video was filmed using variable time lapse settings of 3-10 seconds. I used 3 layers of exposed negative film (for those who still remember the good old days) as a filter to block out the glare of the sun.

Sleepless in Temasek (Revised)

2009-01-08T09:55:00.000-08:00

Following up on the earlier article, 'Sleepless in Singapore', these are some of Temasek's investment made from 2006 to 2008.

Althought Temasek does have some good assets in its portfolio, I am sure these 'cash cows' will be brought to every one's attention without much prompting. The 'not so good' assets of the company are the ones that need to be scrutinized so that one can get a more complete picture on how our reserves are doing under Temasek.

The combined value of these selected assets under Temasek has gone down by 63% as of 7 Jan 2009 The US$10.16 billion investment portfolio is now worth US$3.73 billion.

* Current price as of 7 Jan 2009
* %P/L is calculated based on Bought and Current prices
* The Amt Paid and Est. P/L are in US$ billion

1. Shin Corp (SHIN)

Amount invested based on ownership of 49.6% as reported by Temasek on 23 Jan 2006
The alleged 96% ownership of SHIN after Temasek's General Tender Offer is not reflected in the computation
THB73.3 billion = US$1.869 billion (1:0.0256 on 1 Jan 2006)

2. ABC Learning Centres (ABS)

ABS shares were suspended on ASX on 21 Aug 2008
A$401.5 million = US$0.33 billion (1:0.825 on 20 May 2007)
A$29.5 million = US$0.027 billion (1:0.903 on 14 Feb 2008)
Temasek added almost 12 million shares worth A$29.5 million from 14-26 Feb 2008, bringing its total shares in ABS to 69,590,467

3. Barclays PLC (BARC)

£975 million = USD2.0 billion (1:2.058 on 23 Jul 2007)
Temasek was spared a further £1.5 billion investment in Barclays (at a share price of £7.40 per share) as the Barclays-ABN AMRO merger was unsuccessful ('Temasek Holdings Invests in Barclays PLC' 23 Jul 2007)

4. Bank of America (BAC) / Merrill Lynch (MER)

Temasek paid an average price of US$23.11 a share for MER, based on Bloomberg calculations from exchange filings. It was also reported that Temasek paid a total of US$5.9 billion for the Merrill Lynch stake ('Temasek May Reap $1.5 Billion Gain From Merrill Lynch Takeover', 15 Sep 2008)
In the article, 'Temasek reduces Merrill stake' (ST. 8 Jan 2009), the company holds about 189 million shares of BAC after conversion.
Using the initial investment of US$5.9 billion, each share of BAC costs Temasek about US$31.22.
There is a discrepancy of US$900 million in the total investment made by Temasek for the Merrill Lynch stake as reported in the Straits Times on 8 Jan 2009 and Bloomberg on 15 Sep 2008.

My Little Red Dot

2009-01-05T10:35:00.000-08:00

We have compulsory savings
Yet we never have enough to retire

We set aside billions for rainy days
Yet we do not know what they are

We elect a president to protect our reserves
Yet we do not know how much we have

We build high-rise public housing
Yet we do not make elevators stop on every floor

We have an inclusive society
Yet we do not include special needs children in the system

We come up with a ‘study less learn more’ vision
Yet school bags never get any lighter

We build a world-class transport system
Yet it lacks handicap access

We admit some highways are badly designed
Yet we penalize motorists for slow traffic

We make voting compulsory
Yet most of us never get to vote

We have many home-grown talents
Yet we do not know how to keep them

We can legally gamble everyday
Yet we need 2 more casinos

We glamorize casinos as integrated resorts
Yet we trivialize alternative views as time bombs

We have a democracy
Yet we have cannot tolerate dissent

We are Singaporeans
Yet we are a minority

Why some town councils are willing to take higher risk?

2008-12-19T06:40:00.000-08:00

I refer to the article, 'Town council funds safe: Khaw' (ST, 19 Dec).

Out of the 14 PAP-run town councils, 8 have $16 million exposed to toxic financial products. Out of these 8 town councils, 2 contributed 75% of the exposure.

Perhaps it is good to know what tipped the scale for Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council (HBPTC) and Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) to invest up to $8 million and $4 million of their sinking funds respectively into these failed structured financial products.

HBPTC has another $3 million invested in Pinnacle Note Series 6 which has a Redemption Bid value of 3.88% for Tranche A (USD) and 2.73% for Tranche B (SGD) as of 12 Dec 2008 as published by OCBC Securities.

While the $16 million investment may only represent 0.8% of the combined $2 billion sinking funds of the 14 PAP town councils, the $8 million exposure to toxic financial products of HBPTC represents 6.7 per cent of its sinking funds.

If we include the $3 million invested in the Pinnacle Note Series 6, almost 10% of HBPTC's sinking funds are on shaky ground.

Town councils can invest up to 35 per cent of their sinking funds in financial instruments like equities, corporate bonds and funds. HBPTC has taken the decision to invest almost 30% of this investable amount into structured financial products.

Since all town councils engaged highly qualified and prudent fund managers to manage their reserves, what make HBPTC and PRPTC willing to take more risk in investing their sinking funds than any other town council in Singapore?

Residents of Holland-Bukit Panjang and Pasir Ris-Punggol would definitely have more reasons to find out the answer to this question than most Singaporeans.

Sleepless in Singapore

2008-12-12T07:02:00.000-08:00

If you are feeling sleepless in Singapore lately, you are not alone.

The recession bug that bit United States has caught up with Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Britain and counting.

Even if you had not invested in any Lehman Minibond, you will be sleepless just by looking at the ‘mark to market’ values of the investments made by Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd (Temasek) and Government Investments Corporation Pte Ltd (GIC). So much of our country’s reserves are at stake.

Although Temasek and GIC are long term investors, the severity of the global financial crisis has exacerbated the bad timing of their investments.

What seemed like a basket of good deals the past 24 months has turned into a pile of highly volatile and uncertain investments now. Apart from suffering astronomical capital loss, the guaranteed dividend payouts from some of these investments are no longer certain anymore.

The much-touted ‘track record’ annual return of 18% and 7.8% for Temasek and GIC respectively will be hard to achieve now with Shin Corp, ABC Learning Centres, Barclays PLC, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, UBS, etc in their portfolio.

I shall track some of these investments that are probably keeping many Singaporeans and some people at Temasek and GIC sleepless.

Living in Smallville

2008-12-01T08:35:00.000-08:00

It's official... SMALL is beautiful!

Of late, we were told that we are too small to have two dominant political parties (ST, 16 Nov 2008). We were also told that we are too small to stimulate our economy by pump priming (ST, 28 Nov 2008).

These are strange words of wisdom coming from a government that encourages its people to think out of the box and its businesses to think big in a globalised world.

Correct me if I am wrong. If we were to keep thinking we are small, how are we ever going to think out of the box?

To think out of the box means to explore the uncharted visions of our minds, to walk the road less traveled, and to constantly challenge ourselves with ‘why not.’

To believe that Singapore is too small for a political overhaul is to hoist a white flag (no pun intended) without an enemy in sight or putting up a fight. It is not good for Singaporeans to imprison themselves mentally when the rest of the world is breaking free from authoritarian political bondage.

Therefore I urge Singaporeans to think BIG for the future of our next generation. We can have a 2-party system in our little red dot. And we can start by giving the alternative parties a chance to take root in our political landscape; just like our fathers before us who had given an inexperienced PAP the chance to lead and grow in the early years of our nationhood.

I dare say PAP was inexperience in the early years because no sane government in this world would build high-rise apartment without providing elevator access on every floor. This was a classic ‘penny wise and pound foolish’ decision by the early PAP government. It takes more money to upgrade these sub-standard apartments with this feature now than if they were to be built with it in the first place.

And to make thing worse, the lift-upgrading program has become a political tool for the ruling party. In past elections, voters were threatened with no or delayed upgrading for their estates if they did not vote ‘wisely.’

Such is the audacity of a one-party democracy.

We do not know what the future holds for a 2-party democracy in Singapore. Until we get there, all the doomsday scenarios painted by the men-in-white are only figments of their imagination. Most people certainly do not think Singapore will be ‘finished’ without PAP.

Pay fall is expected but will there be a pay cut?

2008-11-26T10:00:00.000-08:00

It was reported in the press on 25 Nov 2008 (Public sector pay to fall) that senior civil servants' pay will fall by as much as 19%. The fall in salaries was attributed to the linking of about 25% of their annual salaries to the GDP growth of Singapore.

Based on this GDP link formula, the fall in salaries for these top political office-holders is thus expected and nothing 'out of the ordinary' unless there is a cut in the 75% fixed component part of their salaries.

Most people with performance-based salary structure will understand that a weak economy will affect their take home pay because there will be a corresponding drop in the sales commissions, performance bonuses, etc. Their annual salaries will fall with the economy but they cannot claim to have made any sacrifice for the company as their substantial basic salaries are intact.

It was reported that 'since the pay formula was introduced, top civil servants and ministers have seen their pay go down several times along with the country's economic fortunes - in 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003.' Likewise, their salaries have gone up many times in the good years

The total pay rise accumulated by top office-holders over the fat years will still exceed the total drop in salaries they suffered in the lean years. This is why the President and Prime Minister are still paid an astronomical $3.14 million and $3.04 million respectively after the reported fall in their salaries.

The Public Service Division should also tell us how the 19% drop in salary for the President and Prime Minister come about? Was the deferred third phase of the salary adjustments due in January 2009 computed into the overall salary fall?

The ST headline, 'Public sector pay to fall' , is aptly put. The public salary for top office-holders will fall but it has nothing to do with a deliberate or voluntary pay cut gesture. It is the result of a weak economy.

The reported fall in salary will not hurt the pockets of these top office-holders. The ones with large holes breaking out in their pockets are the working class. The strange thing is nothing is falling through these holes because there isn't any money left in their pockets to begin with.

Rising costs and inflation have already done their job on the working class. A pay cut now will complete the misery for these low to middle income groups of workers in this challenging time.

Why Peanuts?

2008-11-24T06:08:00.001-08:00

Why peanuts in my design?

It has got nothing to do with Mrs Goh Chok Tong's famous remark. I shot these peanuts end 2004 to early 2005, about six months before the NKF vs SPH trial in July 2005.

The idea of using peanuts for one of my projects came while I was eating the yummy snack one fine day in 2004. Unfortunately, many of the peanut characters never made it to 'stardom'. Only a few were used for a greeting card project. The rest were 'canned'.

If anyone got any interesting idea on what I can do with these peanut characters, let me know. Cheers!

MAS' approach to the financial debacle needs refinement (ST Reject)

2008-11-18T10:58:00.000-08:00

I refer to the articles, 'Questions on investment products rally' (ST Forum, Nov 18).

Whether it is Tan Kin Lian or someone else taking the lead in helping investors resolve their complaints of mis-selling, the calculated and measured approach taken by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has indirectly contributed to the heightened anxiety faced by these affected investors.

Many of these people are only seeking a simple answer to a simple question. Is overselling the attractiveness and underselling the risk of a financial product a case for mis-selling?

The use of this age-old marketing approach to 'open the eyes' of potential customers is prevalent in many society. Perhaps, MAS should state clearly whether this approach, if it was used in the selling of the failed financial products, is acceptable or mis-selling? A simple answer to this question will go a long way to alleviate the concerns of those affected investors.

I am sure there are recording devices installed in the banks to handle disputes. Are there any audio or video recordings of transactions that MAS can review?

Asking the Financial Institutions (FI) to 'do the right thing' will not help. No sane FI will admit to any wrong doing just like MAS would not admit that it has erred in allowing such risky products to be sold 'over the counter'.

The independent probe into the alleged mis-selling of financial products will carry no weight if affected investors have no say in who should be included in the investigating committee.

The Lehman Brothers protest is a non-political event. The peril of a pervasive government, which has a hand in every corner of the economy, is when something bad happens, any protest can be easily misconstrued as politicking because the government is indirectly at fault.

What is the value of a citizenship?

2008-07-25T10:55:00.000-07:00

I refer to the ST Forum letter, 'Home and Singapore, from a PR's viewpoint' by Mr. Amit Nagpal (ST, 25 Jul).

All the lively discussion about foreign talents (FT) and permanent residents (PR) in Singapore has a deeper undertone for the government to ponder.

Most Singaporeans do welcome FT and PR but they are clamoring for a clear signal from the government on how it will address the issues of subsidies and over-crowding of our housing, education, and transport systems that are unduly affecting our citizens under an unabated and inorganic population growth program.

Time and time again, Singaporeans have been asked to o beyond the call of duty to serve the country. Many Singaporeans have done so and more. I believe Singaporeans have earned their rights to find out what is the true value of a citizenship to the government.

The writer of the letter can be assured by the Singapore government that FT and PR are always welcome. Many Singaporeans, on the other hand, are still quite clueless on how the government values them.

(ST Forum Reject, July 25, 2008)

Don't dismiss seat-belt subsidy idea for the needy

2008-05-22T10:33:00.000-07:00

I refer to the articles, 'Seat belts compulsory for new minibuses' (ST, May 18) and 'Ministry clarifies on school bus fare subsidy' (ST Forum, May 19).

The Transport Ministry should not be so quick to discount the notion of giving specific assistance to needy families to cope with any increase in bus fares following the new seat belt rule for minibuses.

Miss Soffy Hariyanti Abdul Rahim, Press Secretary to Minister for Transport, has implied that existing help schemes like Growth Dividends, GST credits and Workfare Income Supplement are substantial enough to help low-income families cope with such unexpected cost pressures.

However, the world has changed a lot since these help schemes were introduced. Surely the government did not formulate these benefits on the basis that oil prices will hit $127 a barrel, inflation will touch a 26-year high of 6.7%, and food prices will climb out of control on an unprecedented scale.

The severity of the current economic crisis has even prompted the National Wage Council to recommend a one-off 'inflation' bonus to help workers deal with rising costs.

A $250 annual GST credit can probably offset only a fraction of what it was originally slated to do because the inflation on the ground is a lot higher than the official rate. In addition, oil at $150 a barrel may not be a far-fetched prediction anymore.

Looking at the economic climate, how far can a needy family stretch or juggle these benefits to meet unexpected cost pressures?

I am sure the Transport Ministry, with its vast resources, can come up with a win-win arrangement to ensure school bus operators do not pass on the cost of retrofitting seat belts to needy families.

(ST Forum, May 22, 2008)

Can the government save jobs for Singaporeans?

2008-04-22T10:35:00.000-07:00

I refer to the article. 'They're young, they're foreign, and they're helping to save your job' (ST, 18 Apr)

The positive spin by Minister Lim Boon Heng to address the concern of the local drink seller on losing her job to 'young and chatty foreign waitresses' can only bring temporal relief to workers caught in such dilemma.

The influx of these low-wage foreign workers may help save the business but it will not guarantee the mature lady mentioned in the story the drink selling job for long.

At the end of the day, reality will set in. The coffee shop owner will do his sum and come to the conclusion that hiring cheaper foreign waitresses is the way to go to maximize profit to meet rising inflationary cost.

What can the National Trade Union Congress do to help such people then? Sending these low-skilled mature workers for re-training is not going to work because the influx of foreign workers in our society is all too pervasive at the moment. No job is safe from foreign competition anymore.

Can we impose stricter regulations on some sectors of our economy from hiring too many foreign workers? Perhaps we should draw the line somewhere. If we can shelter government linked companies in Singapore by not opening up
certain sectors of the market to serious foreign competition, why can we accord our fellow Singaporean workers the same protection?

After all, any effort by the government to save jobs must benefit Singaporeans eventually.

(ST Forum Reject, April 22, 2008)

Can the Committee of Inquiry or Home Affairs tell us more?

2008-03-19T10:25:00.000-07:00

I refer to the letter, 'MHA will render full account' (ST Forum, Mar 19).

I believe everyone in Singapore is waiting to read the findings of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) on the escape of Mas Selamat. Hopefully, the report will not only address the lapse in security but also on the 4-hour delay in getting the news of the escape out to the public on 27 Feb 2008.

A full account on how Mas Selamat escaped and what has been done to prevent such incident from happening again are not so complex to determine and report. I am sure the many closed-circuit televisions at the Whitley Road Detention Centre will substantiate the COI's findings on how the escape happened.

The 4-hour news blackout is something harder to comprehend since Mas Selamat was assessed to be of no imminent danger to the public at the time of his escape.

The possible sightings of Mas Selamat near Mount Pleasant Road and Toa Payoh Rise by members of the public one hour after he was discovered missing from the detention centre were opportunities lost in the hunt for the Jemaah Islamiah fugitive as no one in that vicinity knew anything about the breakout.

In addition, the information on Mas Selamat's unnoticeable limp, clothing, and the mole on the right side of his cheek all came in bits and pieces 4 to 18 days after his escape.

The COI should find out if there was a lapse of judgment on the part of Home Affairs for not releasing an urgent alert to the public on Mas Selamat within reasonable time of his escape. The COI should also address why critical information on the physical appearance of Mas Selamat cannot be made known to the public earlier and in one coherent manner.

(ST Forum Reject, Mar 19, 2008)

Bus Captain, any taker?

2008-03-13T10:41:00.000-07:00

I refer to the article, 'China bus drivers hired as few S'poreans keen on job' (ST. Mar 11)

It was reported that more Singaporeans shun driving public buses because the job entails irregular hours and low pay.

Looking at the job specifications, it is quite obvious why SBS Transit and SMRT are having difficulties hiring Singaporeans to work as bus captains.

An entry level bus captain earns only $1600 per month working 10-12 hours a day on a six-day workweek schedule. On top of that, this job does not have a fixed day off, requires one to report to work at 4am for the morning shift, and expects one to go home at 2am or later for the night shift.

Honestly, this does not look like a very desirable job description for a first world country.

Driving a public bus involves great responsibility. A single lapse of concentration by a tired driver can result in the loss of many lives. For some strange reason, this job pays only $5.33 an hour ($1600/30 days/10 hours).

The public transport companies must be fair. With rising cost of living, $1600 is not going to make Singaporeans jump for joy to work for these profit-oriented companies, knowing very well that their quality of life will suffer under long and irregular work hours.

Since a salary revision in 2005 worked in attracting more Singaporeans to drive public buses, the 2 big transport companies should review the remuneration for this job again now that inflation has gone up significantly.

The government should not allow these transport companies to hire cheap foreign labour without looking into the fundamental issues first. Giving these monopolies an easy way out to solve their labour shortage problem only fuel their desires to improve their bottom-line and profitability year after year. It does not translate into lower public transport fares nor help our unemployed Singaporeans in any way.

(ST Forum, March 13, 2008, Full Version)

Is the government too dependent on the 'Many Helping Hands' approach?

2008-02-01T10:46:00.000-08:00

I REFER to the letter by Mr Kevin Shum, 'Helping the needy not just about financial aid' (ST, Jan 31).

I do agree that 'helping the needy is not just about giving them a sum of money to solve all their problems'. Some of these needy residents may have medical, social and mental problems too complex for one party to understand or resolve.

There is no doubt the 'Many Helping Hands' approach has served the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) well in helping needy residents all these years. The question is has the ministry become too dependent on it to discharge its social responsibility?

Community groups are not mandated by any law to help the poor and needy. These organisations operate out of compassion, love, and religious beliefs. Many such groups provide food rations, free meals, and hongbao out of their own pockets.

MCYS, on the other hand, is mandated by the government to assist the poor and needy. Thus, one would expect the ministry to come up with help schemes that work even without the involvement of these community groups.

If simple cash handout schemes such as the public assistance programme cannot operate alone without the intervention of these community groups, then these schemes are due for an overhaul.

The government must understand the 'Many Helping Hands' approach is not an entitlement but a privilege.

It is a blessing to Singapore that many warm-hearted people and organisations exist in our society. However, an abundance of such people should not diminish the social responsibility of the government in any way.

The presence of voluntary welfare organisations, charities and warm-hearted people in a society should be viewed as a 'bonus' blessing to the poor and needy. The government should not package such 'blessings' as part of its effort in discharging its mandated social responsibility.

(ST Forum Reject, February 1, 2008)

Don't make needy seek aid from multiple sources

2008-01-29T09:38:00.000-08:00

I refer to the article, 'More help could be on the way for the very poor' (ST, Jan 23)

In the article, the Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan acknowledged that needy residents usually need more than the public assistance (PA) handout to survive. He also highlighted that there are other help mechanisms, such as ComCare fund, for these PA recipients to tap on for further assistance.

It is hard to comprehend that Dr Balakrishnan would want to make a needy resident go through multiple sources for assistance when the PA and Comcare schemes are both funded by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).

Wouldn't it be inhumane to make a needy resident repeat his or her sad story over and over again to different help schemes funded by a common ministry just to get enough money for basic living expenses?

Wouldn't raising the PA sum to a decent subsistent level be more productive and effective in helping needy residents than to come up with a slew of other help schemes to supplement the shortfall?

Currently, there are many to schemes under MCYS to help needy residents. These schemes should be combined whenever possible to simplify the bureaucratic application process. If a PA recipient has school going children, ComCare Grow (Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare, Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, Student Care Fee Assistance Scheme) should be packaged in as well.

Reviewing the PA sum is not exactly 'rocket science'. With rising inflation, MCYS should complete this exercise as soon as possible because it is not good to let PA recipients go to sleep hungry every night while waiting for an obvious outcome to a long-awaited and meaningful review of the PA scheme.

(ST Forum, January 29, 2008)

Thinking school needs to rethink...

2008-01-17T10:52:00.000-08:00

I refer to the article, 'Principal's 'wake-up call' to Sec 5 students had to be 'conveyed' (ST, Jan 16)

Although principals should be given autonomy to run their schools, their actions cannot be seen to run contrary to the vision of the Ministry of Education (MOE).

MOE's vision of "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" states that 'Thinking schools will be learning organisations in every sense, constantly challenging assumptions..."

Instead of challenging the assumption that most of her Secondary 5 students would not make it to tertiary education, the principal was telling these students to 'resign to fate'.

The principal could have said 'From past data, 40 per cent of students will not do well to qualify for polytechnic but I want all of you to prove that assumption wrong." The message is conveyed and a hope is planted.

If that 'wake-up call' by the principal was delivered after a disastrous showing by the students at a mid-term examination, one can understand the tone used, but this is only the beginning of a school year. These young students are probably still basking in the euphoria of being promoted to secondary 5.

Good intention when badly executed is actually an execution in disguise.

(ST Forum Reject, January 17, 2008)

Cultural renaissance? Start with built heritage

2008-01-17T07:46:00.000-08:00

I refer to the article, 'Be like Italy - aim for a cultural renaissance' (ST, Jan 11).

Living in country that places economic growth above everything else, it is interesting to read that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew now hopes to see a cultural renaissance in Singapore in 10 to 15 years.

For a start, keeping our brick-and-mortar heritage alive could be a good investment for a cultural renaissance.

The government should not equate conserving historical buildings and landmarks with plain economics. These old structures may be expensive to conserve but they add immeasurable value to our heritage and culture over time.

I always wonder why the Raffles City complex, which could be built anywhere in town, had to occupy the grounds of Raffles Institution, a school founded by Sir Stamford Raffles in 1823. One would sense a feeling of loss rather than awe looking at an inconspicuous plaque which now marks the historical site.

Similarly, the SMRT headquarter could be located anywhere in Singapore but it had to eat into the historical site of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus at Victoria Street, a school founded by early missionaries in 1852.

The fact that the government did not even blink an eye to the destruction of such important historical sites could lead one to infer that conservation is definitely not a priority in Singapore.

When such old buildings and structures disappear, it may be difficult for a cultural renaissance to take root in Singapore.

The Renaissance era that defined 14th to 16th-century Europe encompasses a cobweb of intellectual and artistic movements. The renaissance covers not only achievements in the cultural arena but also in areas like politics, religion, and social life.

Thus, a cultural renaissance by itself may not happen in a society without any corresponding changes in the sociopolitical scene. The ramification of a cultural transformation has wide reaching influence on all aspects of life in a society.

The question then is will the government allow such a renaissance to take place? When such a situation arises, I am afraid 'out of bounds' (OB) markers will pop up like clockwork to put the strays back into their places.

So where does that leave us? We will probably end up with a pseudo-cultural renaissance that is engineered to perfection but lacking in depth and substance.

(ST Forum, January 17, 2008)

An Ant Story

2008-01-14T07:35:00.000-08:00

A green ant landed on our car. We decided to keep it because we got our son an 'EyeClop', a digital microscope, for Christmas and we needed an interesting subject to view. The ant proved to be more than just an ordinary creepy crawly. It started to lay tiny eggs! The eggs looked like silkworms.

Mommy ant used these grubs to build a wall of silk around the cluster of eggs.

Look at the baby ants. They looked like aliens!

Note: We let the mommy and baby ants go after a while.

New Zealand 2007

2007-11-10T10:29:00.000-08:00

New Zealand is such a beautiful country.

Clean air, beautiful flowers...

Fresh water...

Amazing landscape...

Milford Sound...

More Milford Sound...

Sunrise over Milford Sound... Heaven on Earth!

And strange geo-thermal features...

An Anomaly of an Inclusive Society (Hammer)

2007-11-05T07:31:00.000-08:00

From President S.R. Nathan to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the all too familiar refrain of making Singapore an inclusive society has become the theme song for our nation since PM Lee first mooted his vision at his swearing-in ceremony in 2004.

The Enabling Masterplan (2007-2011), based upon the vision of PM Lee, was released on 12 Feb 2007. The 5-year plan is targeted at Singaporeans with physical or mental disabilities. It aims to help this group of people 'to reach their full potential and be included as part of Singapore'.

But how can one build an inclusive society when a misguided dichotomy exists in the ways we dish out educational support for 'normal' and 'special needs' children?

When one is born 'normal', the Ministry of Education (MOE) will do its utmost to provide this child 'with a balanced and well-rounded education' so that he or she will have the potential to develop into a good and responsible citizen.

Primary education is compulsory and free for all 'normal' children (note: the $5.50 charge per month is known as standard miscellaneous fees). The mainstream schools are adequately equipped, spacious and stuffed with well-trained teachers.

However, when one is born with physical or mental disabilities, MOE does not get involved in the education of this child anymore. This responsibility is left very much to a complex tripartite arrangement involving the Volunteer Welfare Organisations (VWOs), National Council of Social Services (NCSS) together with Ministry of Community, Youth, and Sports (MCYS) and MOE.

For special needs children, education is not compulsory and school fee is not cheap, not to mention that some early intervention modules are 'means tested'. The Special Education (SPED) schools are stretched to the limits in facilities and enrolment, and the teachers are grossly under paid since they come under the purview of the usually cash-strapped VWOs and not the well-budgeted MOE.

The tripartite arrangement under the 'many helping hands' approach to manage the education of special needs children is highly inefficient because not a single ministry or party is in total control.

In simple terms, the tripartite arrangement puts VWOs in charged of the SPED schools, NCSS to oversee these schools' Programme Evaluation System and to conduct on-site assessments, and MOE to provide teacher and principal training programmes via the National Institute of Education (NIE). The funding for special education comes primarily from MCYS and MOE.

One of the key findings of the Enabling Masterplan was that there is a need for leadership in the area of early intervention and education for special needs children. There was a general call for MOE to assume this leadership but the ministry felt that it does not have the necessary expertise to do the job.

The government also felt that there is no need to 'rock the boat' now as the current tripartite arrangement has worked reasonably well.

But why is MOE so reluctant to take ownership of educating our special needs children?

Cost is not an issue because the government has stated that the current total funding per child in SPED schools is about four times the level of funding per primary student in mainstream schools. Although this funding is shared between MCYS and MOE, a simple consolidation of this budget under MOE would have streamlined this administrative anomaly.

Just for comparison, taking away the NCSS and other recurrent funding, the $55 million a year commitment by MOE (as outlined in a speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen on July 9, 2005) to support the SPED schools and mainstream schools with special needs programme is a mere 0.78% of its 2007 budget of $7 billion. One would have thought MOE could afford to do more for special needs children.

The lack of expertise in special education cannot be such an insurmountable hurdle for a world class institution like MOE to prevent it from assuming its rightful responsibility of educating all children regardless of any physical or mental disability.

In addition, an inclusive society cannot leave the career development of SPED school teachers in 'no-man's land'. These teachers should be duly recognised for their talent and effort, i.e. to be gainfully employed by MOE and not VWOs.

The claim that the tripartite arrangement has worked so far has much to do with the dedications of many tireless and selfless individuals running the VWOs rather than the fragmented 'leadership' the government is providing so far.

For many years, prior to the birth of the Enabling Masterplan, 'disadvantaged' Singaporeans are virtually an invisible group of citizens in our society. Some early key public infrastructures did not even make provisions for these citizens in their designs and implementation.

For example, when our Mass Rapid Transit system was first conceived, there was no plan to allow citizens with physical disabilities to use this mode of transport due to cost considerations in implementing handicap access. It was also not mandatory for public buses to be handicapped ready. Barrier-free access in many public and private places were inadequate or totally non-existence.

It is good to know that the government has finally awoken to the plight of this group of citizens. However, the government must instill urgency in the building of an inclusive society in Singapore.

MOE, for the lack of expertise, must acquire the necessary knowledge to run SPED schools sooner rather than later. The government must recognize that early intervention programmes and special education for special needs children are as essential and fundamental as providing primary education for 'normal' children.

If a 'normal' child is entitled to a free compulsory primary education, a special needs child should not be treated any differently, i.e. a free compulsory special education must be offered as well. It is inconceivable that MOE would only take charge of the 'able' but not the 'disabled'.

Every morning, thousands of school children are reminded that they are living in a democratic society that is built on justice and equality. While many SPED school students may not have the capacity to understand the national pledge, their caregivers and parents would probably have some difficulties believing the part about 'equality' until MOE comes into the picture for special education.

In an inclusive society, no child should be left stranded in 'no-man's land'.

Stop all arms sales to Myanmar

2007-10-27T09:26:00.000-07:00

I refer to the article, 'Singapore's arms sales to Myanmar not substantial' (ST, Oct 23).

Since Singapore is not a substantial supplier of military weapons to Myanmar, we should just put a stop to all arms sales to the junta as a clear statement of our outrage towards its recent violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators.

Although Foreign Minister George Yeo has stated that such arm sales to Myanmar had 'been carefully limited to items that are not suitable for countering civilian unrest', we must understand that putting any kind of weapon in the hands of a repressive regime that does not discern between civilian and military targets is a bad call.

Furthermore, Singapore may view Myanmar as a small trading partner but the reverse is not true. For an impoverished country like Myanmar, Singapore is ranked 3rd among its import partners after China and Thailand (The World Factbook 2007, Central Intelligence Agency, USA).

Surely Singapore can do more to pressure the junta to seriously work towards reconciliation and a peaceful resolution of the situation in Myanmar since we are one of its top trading partners.

Years of constructive engagement by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has failed miserably on Myanmar. Members of ASEAN stand to lose their international standing by making politically correct statements on this latest development in Myanmar without imposing any tougher action.

(ST Forum, October 27, 2007)

Will the new CPF changes help at all?

2007-09-21T10:15:00.000-07:00

I refer to the debate in Parliament on the CPF changes and the articles, 'CPF reforms will help most to save enough for retirement'(ST, Sep 20) and 'New CPF interest rate more than fair' (ST, Sep 20).

Amidst rising costs of living and property, it is quite hard to imagine that '8 in 10 now entering the workforce' will be able to meet the Minimum Sum even after using their CPF to buy a home when only '1 in 3' succeeded in doing so under the old scheme which comprises higher Employer's CPF contribution rate of up to 20% prior to the cut.

The average Singaporean will probably exhaust his CPF Ordinary Accounts (OA) as down payment for a HDB flat and leave almost nothing meaningful to enjoy the proposed 3.5% interest on the first $20,000 in the OA balance.

Furthermore, the move to replace the guaranteed interest rate of 4% for the Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts (SMRA) with a floating rate pegged to the 10-year Singapore Government Securities (SGS) plus 1 percentage point cannot be called 'more than fair'.

One must note that the guaranteed rate for all CPF accounts will be reduced to 2.5% in 2 years' time. Since no once can guaranteed risk-free rates, our SMRA could be making only 2.5% return instead of a guaranteed 4% as it is the case now.

The government's confidence in achieving a higher rate of return for our CPF accounts using the floating rate model is not convincingly reflected in the offering of a guaranteed rate of only 2.5%.

If the government is not even confident of providing a 4% floor for the SMRA rate indefinitely, how much confidence can it instill in the public that the new CPF market rate peg will yield better returns?

The call by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen to MPs to 'employ Hokkien, poetry or whatever else it took to explain the new system to people and assure them their CPF accounts would grow faster as a result' is mere rhetoric since these CPF changes are not optional.

On a sombre note, one gets the feeling that the government views longevity as a form of liability to the country's coffer. In United Kingdom, octogenarians are invited to the Buckingham Palace to have lunch with the Queen to celebrate their longevity and zest for life. Here, we 'invite' them to buy insurance first before we talk about anything else.

All these CPF changes may make 'cents' to a government obsessed with building a 'rainy-day' reserve but absolutely no sense at all to the average Singaporeans drenched in the many 'downpours' they face in their daily lives.

(ST Forum Reject, September 21, 2007)

Why is there a difference in the number of foreign workers?

2007-04-11T10:09:00.001-07:00

I refer to the report, 'Put ministers' pay in perspective: MM' (ST, Apr 5).

It was reported that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew 'asked Singaporeans to consider how it was that a resident population of just over three million people could support and provide jobs for another 1.3 million foreigners.'

The 'Labour Market 2006' report released by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) on 15 Mar 2007 shows a total employment of 2,495,900 workers comprising 1,739,600 locals (Singaporeans and Permanent Residents) and 756,300 foreigners (those with valid work passes issued by MOM).

Why is there a difference of half a million foreign workers between the MOM report and MM Lee's remark?

Could these 500k foreign workers be permanent residents? If yes, then there would be only 1.2 million gainfully employed Singaporeans in 2006. Foreigners and permanent residents would have outnumbered Singaporeans by 100,000 jobs in the labour market last year.

If the above assumption is proven correct, it would be very hard for Singaporeans to put the current or any future ministerial salary revision in perspective; given that Singapore's economic growth has not really benefited them as much as it did for the foreigners and permanent residents.

Would MOM care to comment on the 500k unaccounted foreign workers in Singapore?

(ST Forum Reject, April 11, 2007)

Time to reveal Ministers' pay

2007-04-11T10:01:00.000-07:00

I refer to the reports, 'Ministers and civil servants get pay rise of up to 33%' (ST Apr 10) and 'A point-by-point response' (ST Apr 11)

It was reported that the Prime Minister, Minister Mentor and the Senior Minister were paid a total remuneration of $7.8 million in 2006. One of the reports also contained a table showing that 'the Government pays clean wages with no hidden extras'.

The expenditure for Political Appointments for the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) in FY2006 was $18.48 million covering 7 ministers and 1 political secretary. Taking out $7.8 million for the 3 senior ministers, we are left with $10.58 million for 4 ministers and 1 political secretary.

Assuming the political secretary was paid $1 million, and each of the remaining 4 ministers was paid an average of $1.2 million, we will end up with an excess "political appointment" expenditure of $4.78 million for PMO in 2006.

The Government should 'walk the talk' that it pays 'clean wages' by publishing all the salaries of the ministers so as to make this sensitive issue totally transparent.

The public will end up more perplexed on the issue of ministerial salaries if it attempts to put together the bits and pieces of information released by the Government.

Borrowing MM's remark that 'we live in the real world', the public needs 'real and concise numbers' to put the ministerial salaries in perspective.

Most first world countries in the real world publicly disclosed the pay packages of their top leaders. Our government should do likewise.

If our ministers are so passionate about pushing their salary benchmark to $2.2 million, then they should have no qualm about disclosing their public service salaries.

MM has inched the public closer to putting the ministers' pay in perspective by revealing his own annual salary. Until the rest of the ministers follow suit, the public can only second-guess why these leaders are asking for a pay revision again.

(ST Forum Reject, April 11, 2007)

How is a multi-portfolio minister paid?

2007-04-05T09:20:00.000-07:00

I refer to the report, 'Pay for ministers, civil servants: PSD responds' (ST, Apr 2).

According to the Public Service Division (PSD), 'a minister receives one salary, even if he holds two or more portfolios.' Going by this explanation, the higher salary of a portfolio should take precedent.

However, the numbers do not add up if you look into each ministry's expenditure for 2006.

Take the Ministry of Finance (MOF) for example. The expenditure for Political Appointments for MOF in FY2006 was $2.96 million covering 2 ministers and 1 minister of state.

Since the Minister for Finance is also the Prime Minister, his salary would come under the budget of the Prime Minister Office (PMO). Likewise, the salary for the Second Minister for Finance would come under the budget of the Ministry of Education (MOE) since he is also the Minister for Education.

Based on the above assumptions, only the Minister of State is left in the MOF payroll. We could not have possibly paid a Minister of State an annual salary of $2.96 million!

In addition, the expenditure for Political Appointments for MOE in FY2006 was $2.77 million covering 1 minister, 2 ministers of state and 1 parliamentary secretary. This is on the 'low' side because the combined average salaries of the 3 ministers at MOE would exceed $3.6 million easily.

So how is a multi-portfolio minister paid? We all know he is paid 'one salary' but what is the formula used to compute that salary?

Furthermore, looking through the budget for all the ministries, one-third of our ministers were already paid above the proposed $2.2 million salary benchmark last year.

The expenditure for Political Appointments for PMO in FY2006 was $18.48 million covering 7 ministers and 1 political secretary. Since we do not know the salary breakdown, by simple division, we will get an average pay of $2.31 million per political appointee in PMO for 2006.

Does it mean that some ministers have already gone beyond the new salary benchmark while some have not? Does the government see an 'income gap' issue to address in the ministerial salaries as well?

Public service salary is a complex and sensitive issue. The government should publish such information in a concise format so that the public can easily understand.

(ST Forum, April 5, 2007)

Base benchmark on top private-sector basic pay

2007-03-27T09:39:00.000-07:00

I refer to the article. 'Ministerial salaries well below benchmark' (ST, Mar 23).

While I can understand that ministerial salaries need to be adjusted periodically to keep the public service competitive, the benchmark salary used to determine the salaries of our top political office holders is a little bit hard to comprehend.

The benchmark salary should be calculated based on the basic salary of the top eight earners and not the total income as reported in their tax returns.

The top salaries used in the computation of the benchmark salary include bonuses and 50% discounted stock options. As we all know, these 2 components are highly performance based, variable and not guaranteed.

The use of such variable remunerations by our government to compute the fixed salaries of our top political office holders will create an anomaly. This will result in our ministerial salaries being perpetually guaranteed regardless of the performance of the office holder or the overall economy.

The 'basic' salary benchmark model will reflect what the market is willing to pay for the creme de la creme of the society at all times. Using this model, we can go straight to 100% of this salary benchmark rather than do it in phases. The government can then declare a generous bonus in good times to fairly compensate these ministers for their personal sacrifice and performance.

This flexi-benchmark of our ministerial salaries will also fall in line with the government's push for companies to adopt a more flexi-wage system in a globalised economy.

(ST Forum, March 27, 2007)

Emulate Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' agenda

2007-03-22T09:14:00.000-07:00

I refer to the article, 'Special education MOE's responsibility' (ST, Mar 17).

This perennial debate of who should be responsible for the education of our special needs children must come to a conclusion soon.

Special needs and handicapped Singaporeans have always been 'invisible' in our society since time immemorial.

I remember when our Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) system was first conceived, there was no plan to allow citizens with physical disabilities to use this mode of transport due to cost consideration in implementing handicap access!

Life has already dealt a severe blow to these people born with mental or physical disabilities. Our government should not deliver the 'knockout punch' by not integrating them, whenever possible, into all levels of our mainstream society.

How else can Singaporeans learn to co-exist with fellow special needs citizens in an inclusive society when they are not even given a chance to interact with these people in our public schools, buses, trains, parks, etc?

It is already quite challenging for one to be born different but to be treated differently by the government and society is definitely not the kind of thing you would expect from a country that aspires to be in the 'upper half' of the 'First World' grouping.

In United States, President George Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' (NCLB) agenda on 8 Jan 2002 has evolved from 'idea to law to a way of life'. NCLB ensures that every child, special needs or not, has access to a quality education.

How far has our President SR Nathan's 'inclusive society which leaves no one behind' agenda on 8 Nov 2006 (President's Address) evolved in the area of special needs education?

Not much. As long as the Ministry of Education (MOE) is not taking ownership of educating our special needs children, the agenda outlined by President Nathan will never evolved from 'idea to law to a way of life'.

(ST Forum, March 22, 2007)

GST offset for poor may not last 19 years

2007-03-06T08:45:00.000-08:00

I refer to the report, 'Sylvia Lim ignoring offsets in generous Budget: PAP MPs' (ST, Mar 1).

Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) was reported to have said that the Budget was 'incredibly generous', with as much as 19 years' worth of GST offsets for the poor that 'do not fall into any election cycle'.

While the Budget is generous for the poor, though not incredibly, our MPs should not take this '19 years' worth of GST offsets for the poor' too literally.

The 'Number of Years of Additional GST Payable that is offset by the GST Offset Package' listed in Annex E of the 2007 Budget is computed based on the following assumptions:

First, to enjoy 19 years' worth of GST offset, the poor must be able to claim all these benefits in one go - GST Credits, Senior Citizens' Bonus, U-Save rebates, service & conservancy charges rebates, rental rebates, property tax rebates and Post-Secondary Education Account top-ups. A senior citizen living in a rented apartment will probably not enjoy the last 2 benefits.

Second, one must note that this figure is derived from using the household expenditure estimates from the 2002/03 Household Expenditure Survey.

I would think the household expenditures in Singapore in 2002/03 would be very conservative coming out of '911' in 2001 and coping with 'SARS' in 2003. Until we compute the GST offsets against any up-to-date household expenditure estimates available, one cannot be sure the offsets are worth 19 years in current values for the poor.

Third, household expenditures do not remain stable for 19 years. They usually go up with inflation. Are the GST offsets adjusted for inflation for the poor? This group of people will find it increasing hard to balance a stagnant income against a rising expenditure.

Last but not least, the '19 years' worth of GST offsets for the poor' is given over 5 years. I believe Miss Irene Ng would agree that this will fall quite nicely into an election cycle!

(ST Forum, March 6, 2007)

Barrier to entry for new market players in the poster sector too high

2007-02-13T07:59:00.000-08:00

I refer to the reports, 'S'pore to open up basic mail services market' (ST, Feb 6), 'Postal companies express interest in new licences' and 'SingPost still exclusive holder of mailbox keys' (ST, Feb 7).

While it is a good sign that our government is opening up the economy, it is also a big waste of taxpayer money, resources, and time to formulate such policies where the barrier to entry for new service providers is so monumental and the benefits to the public is minimal.

Lest we forget, we were once hopeful that there would be new residential telephone service providers and free-to-air broadcasters when these markets were first opened. After so many years, we are back to square one.

The opening up of the basic mail services market by the Ministry of Information, Communications, and the Arts (MICA) may soon follow this route to nowhere.

Of the two types of licences made available, it is quite easy to predict the Public Postal Licensees (PPLs) will attract no interest.

PPLs must provide island-wide letter collection and delivery services, maintain a minimum number of post boxes and post offices for consumers' easy access, and offer service quality according to standards set by IDA.

In the FY2005/06 financial report for SingPost, domestic mail generated $198 million in revenue. According to the press release by MICA, businesses account for almost 95% of Singapore's total domestic mail. Thus, public mail only contributed 5% in revenue or $9.9 million.

If this is the revenue expected, potential PPLs will be foolhardy to set up an island wide network of post boxes and post offices just to share $9.9 million with SingPost.

The second licence, Postal Services Operators (PSOs), is more palatable notwithstanding that new PSOs (including PPLs) will need to buy the service of those key-bearing postmen from their biggest competitor, SingPost, to complete their services.

When the dust has settled, it is not too difficult to guess who will be the last man standing. And where will the public be then? Square one again.

I urge the government to take a pragmatic approach to opening up the market. If the barrier to entry for new market players is next to impossible, the government should channel its effort into protecting the interest of the public against profiteering by the existing monopoly. This will serve the people better than formulating policies that lead the public to nowhere.

(ST Forum, February 13, 2007)

Perth 2006

2006-12-05T04:52:00.000-08:00

Perth is nice small city.

Perth from Victoria Park (I think).

A lone tree on the way to a farm.

More trees...

Ducks in the shade...

The ducks in Perth are pretty.

Met a Blue-tongue lizard on the road.

Closeup of our lizard friend.

Met a friendly parrot too.

Ah...tangerines or is it oranges?

We were told this is a very poisonous plant!

And finally, we met Skippy...

An inclusive society shouldn't leave education of special needs students to volunteer bodies

2006-11-25T09:46:00.000-08:00

I refer to the article 'Govt should manage special-needs schools' (ST, Nov 2), 'No, better review this sacred cow' (ST, Nov 9), and 'More kids with special needs attending MOE schools' (ST, Nov 17).

It is heartening to know that the enrolment of special needs children in mainstream schools is on the rise. I believe it is time for the Ministry of Education (MOE) to seriously consider putting special education (SPED) schools under its management and control.

President SR Nathan, in his Address at the Opening of Parliament on 2 Nov 2006, has called for Singapore to be an inclusive society.

An inclusive society cannot leave the education of special needs children to voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) and the National Council of Social Service (NCSS).

While MOE provides a comprehensive approach in managing mainstream schools, it only provides 'professional guidance and support for special education schools' as stated on its website.

While a gifted child is given all kinds of assistance to excel in mainstream schools, a special needs child has to fight for an affordable and decent education in the few SPED schools run by VWOs.

MOE has stated that the total funding per child in SPED schools is about 4 times the level of funding per primary student in mainstream schools. However, taking away the NCSS and other recurrent funding, the $55 million a year commitment by MOE (as outlined in a speech by Dr Ng Eng Hen on 9 Jul 2005) to support the SPED schools and mainstream schools with special needs program is a mere 0.79% of its 2006 budget of $6.966 billion.

Furthermore, an inclusive society cannot leave the career development of SPED school teachers in 'no-man's land'. These teachers are far and few and they should be duly recognised for their talent and effort. I wonder how much does MOE appreciate such teachers in its $1.947 billion permanent staff budget for 2006?

President Nathan, in the same address, stated that the government 'will continue to provide every child access to a top-rate education, so that he or she gets the best possible start in life'.

I am very sure President Nathan did not exclude special needs children with learning disabilities in his outlook on education in an inclusive society.

(ST Forum, November 25, 2006)

Shin offer: Temasek shouldn't be surprised by response

2006-10-24T09:08:00.000-07:00

I refer to the letter, 'Shin Corp deal: Temasek complied with Thai laws' (ST, Oct 17).

Why would the Temasek consortium be surprised by the 96% take-up rate for its General Tender Offer for the remaining shares of Shin Corp?

When the legendary investor, Warren Buffett, buys into a listed company, everyone jumps in. When he sells, everyone jumps out!

In Shin Corp's case, the founding member, who was also the Prime Minister of Thailand at that time, was the one selling out. If I were a Thai investor in Shin Corp, I would have accepted Temasek's offer of 49.25 baht and 'jumped ship' too. To the Thais, Shin Corp without Thaksin Shinawatra is just not an attractive investment anymore.

Thus, it should not be 'far beyond anyone's expectations' that the General Tender Offer by Temasek was so successful.

I have no doubts that Temasek's investment in Shin Corp was 'based on commercial principles and was consistent with best practices in international mergers and acquisitions'. But I wonder if the above scenario did play out prominently in the minds of a long-term investor like Temasek?

(ST Forum, October 24, 2006)

Did Temasek take unnecessary risk?

2006-10-14T08:27:00.000-07:00

I REFER to the article, 'Shin's ownership structure may be under review' (ST, Oct 13).

I believe many Singaporeans have been following the news on the Shin Corp purchase by Temasek Holdings but are still perplexed over the truth of the matter.

As a Singaporean, I would prefer to hear the facts from our own people rather than read bits and pieces about this saga from some foreign online newspaper.

Did Temasek own more than 49 per cent of Shin Corp through direct and indirect holdings?

If yes, why was there a need for Temasek to hold more than 49 per cent of Shin Corp, knowing very well that such an act would not only contravene Thai laws on foreign ownership but would also attract unnecessary political risk even if former premier Thaksin Shinawatra were still in power?

When the political dust has settled in Thailand, I hope Temasek can provide some insights to Singaporeans on this intriguing commercial undertaking.

(ST Forum, October 14, 2006)

A mature electorate?

2006-03-11T09:06:00.000-08:00

I REFER to the letter, 'Budget goodies not an election 'sweetener' (ST, March 7).

If Singaporeans have indeed matured over the years, as the writer would have us believe, why do we need group representation constituencies (GRCs) to ensure minority representation? Why are we not trusted to vote sensibly and not along racial lines?

The other and more important use of the GRC is to 'co-opt' new and untested PAP candidates by allowing them to ride on the coattails of heavyweight ministers.

If we are truly a mature electorate, we would have been trusted to vote a proven and winning party into power in every election even if its candidates are not tested.

(ST Forum, March 11, 2006)

Switzerland 2005

2005-10-21T09:20:00.000-07:00

We finally got to see Switzerland. Remember Singapore was supposed to attain the 1984 Swiss standard of living in 1999?

The Matterhorn

Ari Resort - Our 'base camp'... fully furnished kitchen

Ari Resort - bathroom with heated floor, towel rack...

Swiss houses on an Alpine valley

Closer look of the hillside houses

Swiss street entertainers

A white tiger at the Basel Zoo