Of the Public, the Public Service, the Public Servant & 'Moral Behaviour'

RE: Public servants have moral authority to uphold: MPs & public


What's up with the expectation that public servants have to be demonstrate 'appropriate and moral behaviour'?

Paying for sex with someone over the age of 18 is legal in Singapore. So, unless the public servants paid for sex with a kid, they haven't committed any crimes.

What I don't get is the definition of 'moral behaviour'. And when the definitions are not laid out clearly, one is placed in a highly vulnerable position.

I wonder if the public servant's employment contract and/or instruction manual spells out (i) the expectation of 'moral behaviour', and (ii) what exactly 'moral behaviour' of a public servant means.

Having it spelled out and/or disseminated via a mass email is not enough. I also wonder if the normal position and/or scholarship interview processes include such an assessment of the person's moral fibre.

If the system wishes to use 'public expectations of moral behaviour of public servants' as a reason for taking these public servants to task, then the system has to show that it has actively attempted to explain to/ remind ALL its employees of, and to ensure that ALL its employees have been employed based on the criteria of ability to understand and demonstrate 'appropriate and moral behavior', even before commencing the employment relationship.


Since the recent incidents involving public servants (I would like to point out the public servants made up the MINORITY of the online vice ring subscribers), I have been thinking about the tricky issue of who the public servant can safely have a sexual relationship with, without the public or the public service getting involved.

There are many variables and of course many resulting permutations. One can even argue whether the proximity of the persons involved has to be defined by a sexual act alone.

It seems it's difficult to pinpoint how wrong an employee's sexual act is to his employer, as opposed to say, pin-pointing how 'wrong' it is to reveal skin, i.e. covering nothing (criminal), covering little (morally wrong + clearly stated in work guidelines), covering more (acceptable and clearly defined).

For discussion purpose, let's keep things simple and take a look at a plain vanilla sexual relationship between a public servant and X. No work-related interests involved. Just sex.

Public Servant	Sleeps with someone outside of office	Sleeps with someone in office	Pays for sex with someone 18 years and above	Pays for sex with someone below 18 years old
Married	Acceptable - provided no public outburst	Not Acceptable	Not Acceptable	Criminal
Unmarried but with partner	Acceptable	Acceptable	Not Acceptable	Criminal
Single	Acceptable	Acceptable	Not Acceptable	Criminal

If the outcome is highlighted in red, it is criminal, i.e. illegal. That's very clearcut. With such a record, the public servant can no longer serve in the Singapore Public Service.

If the outcome is highlighted in orange, it is not criminal. It is simply not acceptable by the service, i.e. likely to result in internal disciplinary actions. In such cases, the public servant can either receive a letter of warning, be demoted (rare) or be sacked. As we have seen, these implicated public servants usually resign from the service.

If the outcome is highlighted in green, the sexual relationship is tolerated by the service, and does not affect the public servant in terms of black and white records within the service.

Hence, looking at the table above, it seems that the difference in expectations of a married versus an unmarried public servant is that he can no longer sleep with someone from within the office. Having affair(s) outside of the office is acceptable for all.

It is okay if the married public servant sleeps with someone outside of the office, provided that this someone outside of the office has nothing to do with his work.

Hence, if the scenario is tweaked a little, the outcome becomes different. (See table below)

Public Servant sleeping with someone who is: (1) Somewhat related to ongoing public tenders and/or applications for public approvals, (2) But with no clear evidence of accepting monetary bribes	Sleeps with someone outside of office	Sleeps with someone in office	Sleeps with own Spouse	Sleeps with own Partner
Married	Not Acceptable	Not Acceptable	Acceptable	-
Unmarried but with partner	Not Acceptable	Acceptable	-	Not Acceptable
Single	Not Acceptable	Acceptable	-	-

This table has a new dimension of whether X, whom the public servant is having a sexual relationship with, is related to the public servant's work in anyway, e.g. X works for a company (that has tendered for a public project) which requires approval from the public servant and/or his department/organisation.

With the introduction of this new dimension, it is no longer acceptable for public servants to be sleeping with someone from outside the office.

Curiously, under this scenario, if the public servant and X are married to each other, it seems acceptable. This raises an eyebrow. As long as the sexual relationship is not adulterous, the conflict of work interests of the 2 parties is considered acceptable?


So what exactly outlines public expectations of the public servant?

Do the Public Service's expectations of the public servant take dressing from and/or align with public expectations of the public servant?

Is it that public servants cannot pay for sex, and cannot be unfaithful to their spouses?
Or that public servants cannot have close personal relationships with ANYONE who is seeking approval for public tenders/applications?

What is 'moral authority'?
What is 'moral authority' for?

What are the public servants getting in return for upholding this 'moral authority' which the public, and as a result the public service, craves for?

Someone mentioned that public servants are looked up upon by the public, hence public servants have to uphold moral authority. So, it is the currency here 'respect'?

If you, a public servant, uphold 'moral authority', that I, as member of public, would give you respect in return?
要不要笑？HAHAHAHAHAH!

That equation is out-dated and void.
The public does not 'respect upholding of moral authority' more than it respects the owner of copious amounts of money, pretty words, pretty faces, pretty cars and (multiple) hot sexy partners.

That's the true market value of 'respect' these days, though it's still 'wrong' to say it out loud, but it's definitely cool to show that you have it.

We can send you all to university, but...

RE: Further education hot topic at ITE dialogue
RE: Lawrence Wong explains position on ITE graduates
RE: Lawrence Wong: Comment on ITE graduates taken out of context

Apparently, Minister of State (Education) Lawrence Wong said at an ITE talk with its students that "he understood their aspirations but not everyone would be able to pursue a diploma at a polytechnic immediately after obtaining their Higher NITEC.

This was due to limited places at local polytechnics and employers' demand for ITE graduates. "If everyone can move up, we will not have enough ITE graduates out there in the workforce," he said.

"At the end, it's the number of places we can provide … I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone, frankly," he said."

FWAH! Sounds very terrible, right?
How can he even mouth something like that?

But we are all missing the point here. Don't flame him... yet.
What's more terrible is what is left UNSAID in such explanations to ITE students, Poly students, JC students, parents etc.

And the fault doesn't lie with the politicians and policy makers. It's not like anything they can say will make the reality better.

The problem really lies in everyone of us.

Take a good look at ourselves:

• Parents of young babies demand for a seat for their offsprings in pre-schools, and not just any pre-schools, must be of quality.
• Parents of kids in pre-schools demand for a seat for their offsprings in a reputable, convenient, inexpensive primary school.
• Parents of kids in primary schools demand for a seat for their offsprings in a reputable convenient, inexpensive secondary school.
• Parents of kids in secondary school demand for a seat for their offsprings in junior institutions of higher learning... whether it is a junior college, polytechnic or ITE... and eventually all must provide access to university.
• Parents and/or kids in JCs/polys/ITEs demand for more access to the local universities. 

This journey is long (around 20 years for each child) and arduous (many hoops to jump through). But have we stopped to think about the objectives? WTF are we doing this?

If your objective of getting a university degree is to get a well-paying white-collar job afterwards, shouldn't you pay some attention on whether there are in fact such opportunities, i.e. are there really well-paying white-collar jobs waiting for you after you graduate from uni?

Getting into the university is only a means to an end. However, most people behave as if that's the end in itself. As if everything will be ok once you get the degree. Or as if everything will end if you do not get the degree.

And if you are truly rational about this objective and still want to pursue the degree route, you'd realise that your efforts are better spent on:

1. Building up your CV for that job from young (Yeah... You read it right. Start building up the CV in pre-school.)
2. Lobbying for such jobs to be kept available to Singaporeans (Coz there is no point in getting the degree but only to realise that the great jobs have gone to others, yah?) 
3. Or be prepared to work overseas.

Here is the piece of information which is UNSAID and not brought to your attention, because YOU don't wanna hear it and as such no policy maker/ politician will say,

"Hey look! 

We can tweak our education system for your kid to get into university (e.g. building more local unis/polys/jcs/ITEs and allowing you to use CPF for your kid to study at private distance-learning and overseas unis in SG etc), 

BUT there is no guarantee that the degree will be worth anything afterwards."

People, who are willing to tell this to your face, unfortunately do not make good politicians coz they are unlikely to be popular.


The bottom line is there is a CERTIFICATE INFLATION.
Each additional degree a Singaporean earns, dilutes the value of everyone else's degree. Geddit?

So, in other words, for existing degree holders, your priority ought to be to prevent (i) more degree holders from arriving on our shores and (ii) more degrees to be earned upon our shores.

For non-degree holders, your priority ought to be either get a better degree than those existing, OR find a lucrative job/niche which degree holders are too dense/too occupied with their certificates to notice and attempt.

But most people are too lazy to think otherwise. They will still join in the certificate frenzy, complain about their lousy jobs, and buy TOTO on the side, hoping that their lives will change for the better someday.

Construction Worker Productivity

RE: Fewer foreign workers needed if productivity improves: Khaw

This issue about construction workers productivity has been ongoing for years and decades.

Back when I was an undergrad (starting in the mid 90s), we were introduced to the issue of lack of productivity of the construction industry/workers in Singapore. I remember a lecturer commenting that 1 truly skilled construction worker (e.g. Australian, though more expensive per worker) could do the work of more than a few unskilled construction workers one commonly finds in Singapore.

Further back in the 80s, SG was dependent on Thai and Korean construction workers, which resulted in problems such as violent fights. These days, we get our workers from South Asia and China. Apart from keeping them entertained on their off-days, housing the thousands of workers is also a problem.

And it's not just us poor Singaporeans who suffer in the 'import foreign workers' equation. The foreign workers also suffer. Getting cheated by their agents, working overtime without getting compensated adequately, getting injured without adequate medical attention, getting housed under terrible living conditions etc.

Makes one wonder what is the point of giving BCA honchos awards for attempts at creating frilly construction industry awards, when such fundamental problems in the construction industry have not been resolved for decades.

Isn't it hypocritical to claim to have a "green master plan" to champion for green buildings in Singapore, i.e. being conscious about Mother Earth's resources etc, while throwing copious shovels of human labour (because human labour is so damn cheap) at the same construction project?

I hope Minister Khaw will make a real difference to the construction portfolio.

What is 'Professionalisation of Hawker Centres'?

Been wanting to write about this topic for weeks, but I have been distracted.

I remember reading about Minister Vivian's comments on that hawker centres ought to be professionalised some time ago. But he did not give details on what 'professionalisation' meant. It was kept vague.

To me, 'professionalisation of hawker centres' sounds like getting an operator to take over the hawker centre from NEA. If Minister Vivian had meant 'professionalisation of hawkers', then that would take on an entirely different meaning, but he didn't actually say that.

Currently, there are only 2 main parties in the Hawker Centre equation, i.e. NEA and the Hawkers. (Let's not talk about the cleaning subcontractors.) Under the 'new scheme', one could expect that an Operator will come in-between NEA and the Hawkers, probably via a bidding system, where the highest bidding Operator will win the rights to operate the hawker centre for the next X years. It's a different business model for hawker centres.

I've summarised the key milestones in the life-cycle of a hawker centre below. You can easily compare who's doing what before and after the new scheme.

Stage	Milestones	Under NEA	Under ‘New Scheme’
A	Planning	NEA	NEA
B	Building	NEA	NEA or Operator
C	Leasing stalls	NEA	Operator  (Operator may choose to lease stalls to individual hawkers, or employ hawkers.)
D	Cleaning, Maintenance & Upgrading	NEA	Operator

Sounds simple enough. Not too different from a shopping centre operator winning the bid to develop a shopping centre on a parcel of land zoned Commericial for retail purposes, then leasing shop space to individual retailers.

From an efficiency-driven policy perspective, this sounds like the optimal solution to maximise the income revenue per hawker centre, minimise public manpower in terms of hawker centre management etc, while claiming that the 'standards of lowest-rung of foods in Singapore will be improved with institutionalisation (aka professionalisation, modernisation etc)'.

Is that all there is to the picture?

As with all types of policy changes, some parties will lose, and some parties will win. And sometimes, a couple of parties will win BIG, while many others will lose BIG.

See the quick summary of expected pros and cons from the perspectives of the various groups involved in such a change:

	Expected Pros	Expected Cons
For NEA	Devolvement of responsibilities to Operator Focus on planning and regulatory functions only Can claim ‘market forces’ and is likely to extract more revenue from each hawker centre.	Loss of control
For Operator	Solid business opportunities Strengthen brand presence by forming islandwide chain of hawker centres, food courts etc.	-
For Hawker	May be able to operate a stall in cleaner, cooler environment. May be employed by Operator	Faced with increasing rental obligations Loss of impetus to improve/innovate Loss of business ownership Loss of livelihood
For Consumer	Enjoy food in a cleaner, cooler environment	Increase in food prices Decrease in food quality and/or innovation of food
For Others	-	Subcontractors (cleaning, disposable cutlery vendors, food stuff and supplies etc) may be able to cut bigger deals with the Operator, but prices have to be lowered. Hence, smaller suppliers/subcons may go out of business over time. Kopitiam owners/stallholders will be facing direct competition from the new-model hawker centres, forcing them to either upgrade themselves and/or lower their prices. Eventually, the chains may take over to operate at greater 'efficiency'.

3 Inevitable Negative Outcomes:
Loss of Livelihood,
Loss of Food Innovation,
Increase in Food Prices 

Akin to the price-hikes of taxis in Singapore, there is little the government can or will do when the operator decides to raise the rents it charges to the tenants (e.g. the hawkers). It is merely a 'private agreement' between 2 parties.

Rental increases will inevitably and eventually be passed onto consumers as increase in food prices. This is the government giving up control over stall rentals and food prices.

More so than ever, I would be concerned with hawkers losing their livelihood as a result of this new scheme.

If you pay just a little attention, every hawker centre has hawkers selling duplicate foods and drinks. E.g. There will be more than 1 drinks stall, more than 1 chicken rice stall, more than 1 Economy Rice stall etc.

This is competition. It helps to keep the prices of each food and drink low, while encouraging each hawker to innovate and/or ensure that his food is the best he can create. This competition is the reason why Singapore can boast of many different dishes of exceptional taste and quality. This spirit of innovation is not something you can remove, then attempt to replicate later.

This unique characteristic of the hawker centres ecosystem today also allows for more people to become hawkers, make a livelihood, and be their own boss. This is beyond a question of economics. This is a pragmatic question of survival, personal pride and freedom. Pragmatic management of emotions.


Does it matter that 3 out of 4 chicken rice stalls per hawker centre will never become Tian Tian Chicken Rice?
No. The point here is to give people a chance to try.

And when 1,000 people are trying to make Hainanese chicken rice, after 20 years, Singapore will eventually boast of a Tian Tian Chicken Rice.

Now, once the Operator starts to rationalise this creative chaos, there will only be 1 drinks stall, 1 chicken rice stall, 1 prata stall, 1 laksa stall, 1 desserts stall etc in every hawker centre.

Overall stall space will be reduced, while seating areas will be expanded. It becomes a food court. And I don't remember finding any great memorable foods in food courts. Food court offerings are usually plain and ubiquitous.

The Operator could either lease each stall to an individual hawker and charge him a rent (and sometimes also take a cut of the hawker's earnings), or employ its own cooks and workers (e.g. former hawkers and/or foreign workers) for each food stall, and centrally produce/manage the food types/quality/production, probably in a food factory in Woodlands.

The coveted 'efficiency' and 'productivity' will go up, but the total number of jobs created per hawker centre will drop drastically. Majority of the displaced hawkers will become unemployed, even after you exclude those who are employed by the Operator or set up stalls in the new model hawker centres. This loss, to me, is unacceptable.


I am not against the idea of new-model hawker centres per se.
However, this must be carried out selectively.
Certainly, not ALL hawkers centres ought to come under the new scheme.

One way to minimise potential downsides is to only apply the new scheme to NEW hawker centres, and not existing hawker centres.

Ultimately, there must always be a mix and distribution of new-model and organic hawker centres in any estate.

Time to Review COE Categories & Priorities

RE: Singapore to become a premium car market?

"High-end names such as Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz are expected to make up for more than half of new cars sales next year, according to a Straits Times report today. 

This is due to the lower number of certificates of entitlement available next year, which predetermines the number of cars sold."

There is a limited number of COEs sold each year. There are currently 2 main categories of COEs for private cars, i.e.

Cat A = 1600cc and below
Cat B = Above 1600cc




There are 2 glaring problems with the current categories.

(1) Cat A includes Taxis, which are basically commercial vehicles.

(2) Cat B is for a family sedan to a ultra noisy and powerful sports/luxury car.

If you are a potential owner of your only family car, you are up against 2 formidable competitors in both categories, i.e. the taxi-owner and the luxury car owner.

Both can outbid you easily coz the former uses the taxi for business, while the latter has a lot money than you'd ever imagine. Some (foreigners) buying their cars in this category are sponsored by their companies.


Questions to ask are:

How many families (households) are there in Singapore?
Break down according to Singaporean, PR and others (e.g foreigners), then again by Household Income.

How many Singaporean families own at least 1 car? At which Household Income level?
Create a distribution map using the family categories above.

Shouldn't the Government's objective to work towards say at least say 60% of all Singaporean families own at least 1 car? And help to spread this across household income levels?

The Singaporean family, headed by a hot-blooded Singaporean who has served National Service, ought to be the Government's first priority, isn't it?

Or does the Government NOT operate based on such criteria at all?

The more rare a commodity is, the more it ought to be shared amongst Singaporeans First. That is the point of a nation, isn't it?
..................................................................

PROPOSED: The Singaporean Family Master Plan

MCYS, or whichever ministry/portfolio that has enough clout, ought to study the Singaporean family/household holistically, in terms of its needs and aspirations.

If the family unit is the basic building block of the Singaporean society, then there must be a Singaporean Family Master Plan that charts out the quality of life this family unit is projected to enjoy in the years and decades to come, in addition to simply collecting 'hard data' such marriage/divorce rates, total fertility rate, household income etc.

And the gap between the level at which the Singaporean Family can perform in terms of economic contribution, social contribution, civic contribution, and even... political contribution, versus what the Government expects of the Singaporean Family to keep up with other priorities such as economic growth. Today, the Singaporean Family is just silently expected to keep up with the Government's plans in other areas.

Once the Government and the Singaporean Family starts to explore the Singaporean Family from this perspective, it will then be able to highlight the contradictions with other master plans that the Government draw up. Only then will meaningful discussions and debate take place to prioritise the different objectives and iteratively make amendments to all policies and plans, and to manage expectations for all.

(Acting) Minister Chan Chun Sing ought to take this opportunity to make a difference to his portfolio and his political appeal. Maybe I should write to him.

6-days of Paid Eldercare Leave = Sucking Up

RE: Public sector takes lead in granting elder care leave

I think it is ridiculous to suggest to mandate 6-days of paid eldercare leave, on top of the existing 6-days of paid childcare leave for children under age of 7.

It SOUNDS great though, right?
More paid leave! Who doesn't want that?
Best is to get paid, but no need to go to office at all.

Don't forget. This Eldercare Leave suggestion was made by a certain very very unpopular and 'uncredible' MP. She happens to be the only child of 2 retired elderly parents. Not that she needs to take leave to attend her parents la.

If this wonderful suggestion somehow gets adopted at the national level, this means a worker in the sandwich generation can take up to 6 (childcare) + 6 (eldercare) = 12 days of additional paid leave per year, in addition to her annual leave.

Say her annual vacation leave is 18 days.
In total, this person can take up to 18 + 12 = 30 days of paid leave per year for her own enjoyment and family matters. By including public hols, she'd be enjoying long weekends for most weeks in the year.

Throw in other typical forms of paid leave such as sick leave, maternity leave etc, and you won't be seeing your employee or colleague very much. Guess who's gonna be doing the work? Eventually, if you'd realise that if you can't beat them, join them.

Only people who are not clear about paid work objectives, and/or are desperate for (electorate) affirmation, would suggest (and approve) something like that.
.........................................................

Before you start to slam Blinkymummy for not being sympathetic towards people with elderly folks, read on...

A more intelligent way to structure such a suggestion is as 'Pro-Family Leave'.
This means you are entitled to take leave to take care of family matters, including taking care of a disabled sibling, troubled child, chronically ill parent, injured spouse etc.

Controls could include:

1. A maximum cap on days of fully-paid 'Pro-Family Leave', say 9 days or 50% of annual leave, whichever is lower. 
2. A maximum cap on days of unpaid or partially-paid 'Pro-Family Leave', say 9 days or 50% of annual leave, whichever is lower. 
3. 'Pro-Family Leave' can only be applied to situations involving immediate family members, including grandparents and grandchildren. Adopted and step family members are also included.
4. All benefiting family members must be Singaporean Citizens.
5. Single parents are eligible for 'Pro-Family Leave'. [Please! They need this leave more than typical married parents.]
6. Employee has worked for at least 3 months.
7. First 6 days of paid/ partially-paid leave to be paid for by Singov.

The point is to be crystal clear about the objectives of mandating such paid leave, and for policy makers not to be trigger-happy so as to be popular with the electorate.

The Problem with Urban Redevelopment & Consultation

RE: Rochor residents unhappy at lack of dialogue over move
RE: Were local groups even consulted about Bukit Brown plan?
RE: 市区重建局放宽管制准则
RE: Conservation guideline upsets shophouse owners
RE: Fate of 4 conserved Tanjong Katong blocks in limbo
RE: Not possible to conserve every former school in S'pore: URA
RE: BlogTV.SG: Historic Sites or Plain Old History?

There has been a recent spike in unhappiness due to announcements of urban redevelopment plans by the Government. Bukit Brown, Rochor Centre, Tanjong Katong, Buona Vista Swimming Complex, Old School etc.

As a former public urban planner and a 35 year old member of public, I see the over-arching problem as such:

Points of Contention	From Member of Public's point of view	From SINGOV's  point of view	The Complex Reality
‘Changes’	What are you doing to my land/ property/ neighbourhood? Why now?	According to the relevant acts, Singov can, AT ANY TIME, make the following changes to any land/property in Singapore: Zoning  - What your property can be used for Gross plot ratio – How much floor space you can build on your property Development controls – How tall, how wide, how many floors etc your property can be. Other controls – E.g. the look of your property (e.g. type of windows, colour of roof tiles, retaining plaster mouldings etc) << the legal term is ‘Conservation’. Ownership – State can acquire your property on a compulsory basis and compensate you. Your property then becomes State property, and the State can do what it deems fit with the property.
Public Consultation	Why wasn’t I consulted before Singov finalised and announced the plans?	You HAVE been consulted. The planning intention for your land parcel/ property/ neighbourhood have been reflected in the Concept Plan and Master Plan all this while… since 1998 etc. At every Concept Plan and Master Plan review, we exhibit them for you to give your feedback. You didn’t say anything back then. If the changes were made as an adhoc process, we followed the requirements of the Planning Act, e.g. exhibited the proposed changes in the notice board at the ground floor of URA Centre for x weeks before the changes were finalised. You didn’t say anything back then.	(1)    Few members of public realise the difference between a PR exhibition by a typical stat board vs a Master Plan exhibition by the URA. The Master Plan exhibitions are not merely a PR effort, but are part of a statutory process to seek comments on the draft plan before it becomes a legal document. (2)    There have been occasions where the Master Plan exhibitions were held only at the lobby of URA Centre, i.e. highly reducing the possibility of members of public chancing upon the exhibitions, and giving their feedback if any. (3)    The changes to the Master Plan are: (i) Not specifically brought to the foreground in the exhibition and are instead presented as part of the new plan; and (ii) The individual owners of affected land parcels/ properties are not informed specifically at this stage. They are only informed at execution stage, i.e. after the plans have been approved and  when the land is being acquired or enforcement action is taken.
Appeal	Who can I appeal to?	Back when you were publicly consulted, you could have raised objections to the Minister of National Development. Now, you can always write an appeal to Minister of National Development.	Minister of National Development APPROVED the changes to begin with. Why would he overturn his decision now? That would make his entire decision-making process look silly. But NOW may be an opportune time to appeal, because there has been a recent change of leadership in Ministry of National Development.
Further Appeal	If the Minister of National Development turns down my appeal, who else can I appeal to?	You can take this matter to court.	From what I know, few people have gone to court for such matters. Those few who have, have lost their appeals. From my limited knowledge of the law and how the courts work, as long as the authorities have closely followed what's required by the law when making changes to your property/ land/ neighbour, the courts cannot rule otherwise. In other words, if you wanna change the situation, you need to change the rules (law).

Being High-Handed
Some see the current approach as 'being high-handed'.

But do not be mistaken. 'Being high-handed' is merely an approach, a tool. Like all tools, it can wielded to do good and damage. It depends on the wielder's intelligence and execution.

I am all for 'being high-handed', but such an approach should only be adopted to benefit a significant portion of the Singaporean population in real terms.
E.g. If the government needs to clear 50 families from a site to develop a high-rise public housing estate for 1,000 families, I say go ahead and be 'high-handed'.

(Having said that, it is not right to clear the 50 families now, then leave the site vacant for 10 years and more before redevelopment. Or acquire a building for conservation and redevelopment purposes, then not doing anything different from the previous owner for the next 2 decades, before the building site is put up for redevelopment. That's just being unreasonable and kiasu.)

However, in other cases, there is no good reason to be high-handed.
Take the Tanjong Katong case. This is a situation where the authorities wanting the blocks to LOOK a certain way. There will be no quantitative change to total number of people's consumption of the area. Benefits of any qualitative change are subjective and debatable.

Most importantly, the owners were not consulted BEFORE the policy was approved.
In other words, the authorities are shoving this 'beautification' policy down the throats of the owners and expecting the owners to comply and pay for the look which the authorities want, while suggesting that a huge fine and/or jail term awaits those who do not comply. Anything that's just about 'looks' is highly subjective, and as such, should not be approached in a high-handed manner.

Being Euphemistic about being 'Open'
Owners are supposed to be taking care of anything related to their private properties. It's your responsibility to be aware of what's going on. It's your responsibility to comb the papers and URA notice boards regularly. And of course, all documents and notices are in only in English.

But if the authorities want to claim that they are in open discussions with members of public and owners, I would expect a updated level of care and due diligence in its execution.

Some owners can't even understand the English notices. Not to mention that owners are not informed of proposed changes at the draft stage, but only after the approval and at the execution stage, i.e. land acquisition, enforcement etc.

And, just because owners fight to protect their private properties and way of life does not suggest that members of public believe that 'the government owes them a living'. Perhaps the officers in charge are just not used to dealing with conflict and/or not having things their way. An attitudinal change amongst public officers, especially those in management, is necessary, so as to cater changing public expectations.

'Consultation' does not mean 'Agreement'
I observe that some members of public tie 'consultation' together with 'agreement'.
In simpler terms, even if the government 'consults' you for its plans, it does not mean it will accommodate all or even any of your feedback and suggestions in the final plans.

Also, from the authorities' perspective, any public consultation will lead to speculation of property prices, difficulties in managing public expectations, flood of 'unreasonable requests/ suggestions' as not all members of public are adequately knowledgeable in the fields of urban planning, infrastructure engineering etc.

Hence, from a cynical point of view, it is possible for a 'consultation process' to end up being merely perfunctorily, e.g. the information provided by the authorities for public consultation is highly limited and as such inevitably leads to a couple of conclusions which the authorities seek.

A New 'Decision-Achieving' Framework
The member of public should not be fixated on asking for 'public consultation', but instead ought to be fighting for is a new 'decision-achieving' process and framework to be woven into the legislation.

In other words, working with the public and/or the public's representative(s) for future redevelopment plans, is no longer a 'good to have', but a requirement by law.

The public and the political leaders have to first come to an agreement on:

• WHAT types of urban redevelopment ought to fall under this 'decision-achieving' category. 
• Then move onto WHO ought to be consulted
• HOW and WHEN the decision-achieving process will take place.

It's certainly not straightforward to outline the above-mentioned. But not doing it is a sure sign of avoidance.

E.g. It's very clear to me that, if the authorities wish for 4 blocks of private apartments to LOOK a certain way as prescribed by the authorities, and that the owners have to pay for this look, the authorities have to (i) formally engage ALL owners, (ii) before the plans are approved, (iii) achieve a majority vote for this proposal, (iv) set a date for completion of the proposal.

However, it becomes rather dicey when it comes to compulsory land acquisition of homes/ work places for construction of public infrastructure, because it does not make sense to cancel public infrastructure plans for the benefit of minority owners. In such cases, perhaps the 'decision-achieving' process does not focus on the possibility of rejecting the redevelopment proposal, but tweaking details of proposal to ensure a smoother transition for affected individuals.

Is this new framework gonna slow down the pace of urban redevelopment in Singapore?
Perhaps.
Most urban redevelopment projects take years and even decades from inception to planning to announcement to execution to completion. I'm sure inserting the new framework into the project timeline will increase it by 20% at most.

Is this new framework gonna reduce the amount of unhappiness with urban redevelopment plans in Singapore?
Perhaps.
It depends on the sincerity and competence of the authorities and members of public to participate in this process, the design and the execution of the framework etc.

Whatever form it takes, it sure beats what we are doing about it now. An evasive and defensive approach, causing many to feel left out and unhappy.

No good reason to shrink new HDB flats?

Rochor Centre is to be demolished to make way for the North-South Expressway.
Residents are offered new flats in Kallang, ready by 2016.

RE: No good reason to shrink new HDB flats

"Why must the HDB reduce flat sizes when the older, bigger ones of the 1980s offered better quality of life to balance the social, environmental pressures exerted on the shrinking average household?

There are no compelling reasons to shrink the flat size down to 91 sq m and sacrifice quality of life.

HDB should reverse its policy."


What is this guy talking about?!
Instantly, I can think of a couple of GREAT reasons to shrink the HDB flats as much as possible:

(1) Smaller flats = More affordable homes for Singaporeans
Surely you want to be able to afford your own home, right?
We are reducing flat sizes to help you own your dream home.

The money you save from the purchase can go towards renovating your new home. If you know how to, you can make your tiny home cosy and comfy for your family.

(2) It's ALWAYS land scarcity!!
How many times do we have to repeat this?! Land scarcity!!
This is even more sacred than sacred moo moo cows.
Smaller flats take up less land!

Foreigner Workers & the Draw of Casinos

RE: Foreigners stare and shoot videos of bikini-clad beach-goers on Sentosa

Over the long weekend, we drove on Marina Boulevard, in between the Sail, MBFC etc, and the Promontory site, breeze shelters etc, where we saw many many foreign workers hanging around, waiting for friends, kissing their girlfriends, having a snack etc.

Then a day later, we see the above STOMP post on foreign workers hanging around at the beaches in Sentosa.

To be fair, plenty of local and other foreigner men who hang around the beaches gawk at and take pictures of the bikini-clad ladies too. Can't really argue that just because foreign workers are gawking, that these beach-goers have 'less privacy' coz it's a freaking public place in which they have decided to lie prone in very little clothing.

Regardless, I'm sure the rich and powerful people and entities affected by this phenomenon will find ways to reflect their displeasure to the higher-ups.

The policy makers will then realise that this phenomenon of foreign workers hanging around in the public spaces at Marina Bay and on Sentosa is an unintended consequence of allowing anyone with a foreign passport to enter the 2 casinos at no charge. We've always had foreign workers in Singapore, why didn't they hang around at the beaches in Sentosa earlier?

Because the casinos are the main draw. The hanging around in the adjacent/nearby public spaces and gawking at bikini babes are merely the sideshows. And this will keep happening at every public holiday.

At some point, I believe a decision will be taken to disallow foreigners on work permit to visit the casinos at no charge and/or to visit the casinos at all, citing repeated cases of foreign workers losing all their earnings and being in debt. When in fact, this is a crude way to cut out majority of foreign workers from the Integrated Resorts and their vicinity to preserve their respective 'enjoyment level' for everyone else. Relying on the self-exclusionary orders to achieve this outcome is simply wishful thinking.

I wanna see how the casinos will react to this, coz that will be a reflection of how significantly foreign workers contribute to the casinos' revenue streams.

The Man who didn't find happiness in Bhutan

I came across a blog entry by a Bhutanese entitled 'To Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, What did you expect?'.

This 28 year old Bhutanese teacher read about Mr Khaw Boon Wan's comment on the famous Bhutanese Gross National Happiness, and made a response on his blog in English.

Some excerpts here:

"Those people you saw in the fields weren't unhappy, if you have gone closer you would have heard them singing and enjoying the social lives, perhaps you won't understand that. If you have spent a little longer time watching them, you would have seen and a woman with basket on her back and holding arms with several children coming with steaming food- we don't have McDonald or KFC. Then everybody will sit down to eat their lunch, laughing and joking, feeding babies, for over an hour- you wouldn't have had so much time to sit and watch I know, times means money in your country."

"If we start mining our mountains and lumbering our forests, we can become Singapore in a year but no matter what you do you can never become Bhutan. It is far too difficult. We shall be the last breath of oxygen on earth."

For those who have been reading my blog for some time, you must have realised that I am not a romantic. I am neither a tree-hugger, nor all warm and mushy about natural stuff, nor a proponent that we ought to revert to our peasant roots.

However, this Bhutanese's entry has brought to the foreground something we may all be blind to.

In his blog entry, he named the pic of Mr Khaw as 'The Man who didn't find happiness in Bhutan'. I thought it was brilliant.

The Bhutanese-Happiness is right there, but you can't find it. WHY?!

How do you explain 'Bhutanese-happiness' to someone who has never allowed himself to experience it, or thinks because he is smarter than everyone else, that such happiness has to be impractical and impossible in the SG context?

Even if happiness is presented right before his eyes, he neither sees it, nor acknowledges it.

That happiness is neither about money, nor singing in the fields.
That happiness is about the rulers and the ruled being on the same page.

That rulers are respectable.
That rulers are respected by the ruled.

You cannot sneak Tin Pei Ling into Parliament, and expect to remain respectable and/or to be respected.
................................................

** As of yesterday, the Bhutanese blog entry caught mainstream media attention and has garnered almost 100 comments from Singaporeans, mostly apologising to the Bhutanese for the comments made by our Cabinet Minister, and lauding the Bhutanese for his views.

The Bhutanese has also responded to Singaporeans in a new blog entry.

Still No Singaporeans First

RE: New guidelines to ensure Singaporeans remain core of workforce

After all that posturing and gesturing... The government is still not giving us Singaporeans First.

Just a lot of talking to gloss over the problems. For example:

"Employers should make reasonable efforts to attract and consider Singaporeans for job positions on merit, and to train and develop their potential and careers," said Mr Tan (Chuan Jin).

You mean such a statement is gonna help?
Moral suasion is better than law? WOW.


And they are still refusing to budge on the issue of imposing a quota on foreign worker permits and talent passes.

If you are white collar, just be aware that nothing has really changed. The (foreigner) employer can still deny you of the job and/or your promotion by filling positions with his friend(s) from abroad, simply because there's still no Singaporeans First.

And filling those juicy positions will be a breeze, especially when the economies in the rest of the world are still in shitez. Many of your boss' friends are uber willing to come to Singapore, even at a paycut. Sure beats having NO JOB back home.

How are you gonna fight against the tide of the WORLD's talent pool?!

Of course, Singov is saying that if you feel aggrieved, you can go lodge a complaint against your employer. That's the theory.

But in reality, if you were not even selected for interview, how do you lodge a complaint? On what basis? Unless you have friends from inside the company, you wouldn't know why you were not selected, and/or that the eventual person hired for that position was a foreigner or of same nationality as the foreigner hiring manager etc.

Also, if you are already a minority in your department, lodging any complaints against your manager/company = career suicide. It'd be really obvious who had lodged the complaint, wouldn't it?


Such 'open arms' policy is great for Singapore and the rich, but not so great for you, the average Tan Ah Kow.

Telling you to work harder to prove your mettle is simply euphemistic.

Yeah... You wanna play fair too. You wanna play 'meritocracy'.
But is everyone in this employment equation playing fair and meritocratic?

Singov's latest attempt to send signals to employers is merely superficial. Yelping, but no bite.
Maybe this is the first of many more steps to resolve this problem.

In my opinion, if Singov is serious about its latest "Singaporean Core" concept yet wishes to stop short of legislation, it can still go beyond just talking. Minimally, Singov can call up the major employers of each industry to volunteer for a hiring practice audit. Then MOM can report the findings publicly, i.e. which employer refused to participate, which employer passed the audit with flying colours etc. No need for legislation. Just requires some will, guts, and effort on the part of MOM and the rest of Singov.

Or maybe this latest announcement is all there is to Singov's solution. Only time will tell.

But in the meantime, for the past few years and many more to come, how many Singaporeans have been denied of job opportunities?
Instead, they settle for some other lesser jobs. Or some have no jobs.

Still no Singaporeans First.

.................................................................

With that, are you sure you don't wanna fight to secure some advantages for yourself, e.g. by unlocking the value of your national service?

Or do you want the benefits but don't wanna fight for them?

SIGH.

'No Alcohol Zone' is merely a Palliative Solution.

RE: MP wants 'no-alcohol zone' around Robertson Quay
RE: PAP MP Indranee wants no alcohol zone near Zouk
RE: 'High' life shattered by drunk party goers

"MS INDRANEE Rajah wants to set up a "no-alcohol zone" around Robertson Quay.

This comes after the MP of Tanjong Pagar received feedback from residents at Rivergate condominium about drunken revelry.

Ms Rajah was planning to visit the area, which is a five-minute walk away from Zouk, early this morning to determine the severity of the issue along with 30 other people."

TNP PICTURE: Jonathan Choo

BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS

Before we get started, I wanna highlight a couple of background points:

(1) While I think it's great that MP Indranee speaks up for her constituents who are living in Rivergate, I cannot help but to wonder about:

(i) the number of Singaporeans staying at Rivergate, and
(ii) whether the complainants are Singaporean citizens.

This in turn points us to the nagging issue of whether MPs ought to be responding to complaints/appeals from non-citizens. Because it is the citizens who have voted for the MPs, not PRs, not foreigners.
What is the standing policy within Singov on MPs appealing on behalf of non-citizens?
Is there an MP's code of conduct which governs who they should be speaking up for?

(2) I wonder if MPs ought to view 'peace' and 'being clear of unsightly people/things/activities' within expensive residential neighbourhoods as more essential than the same phenomena within common folks' HDB estates.

Read such sentiments on this very issue via a local discussion forum:

Qn: "my HDB block also have people loiter, drink, smoke, si ginna play football etc. Huai moi MP neh take interest?"

(Translation: There are people who loiter, drink, smoke etc at my HDB flat block, and children playing football too. Why doesn't my MP take interest in these issues?)

Ans: "because you are not rich"
.............................................................................................

THE PROBLEM

Assuming all's fair and right, i.e. the complainants were ALL Singaporean citizens, and MPs respond to all peace-disturbing complaints regardless of how atas the neighbourhoods are, now let's study the problem raised about Zouk.

Simply put, Zouk is very popular and its drunk party-goers are causing dis-amenities to the residents nearby. These party-goers puke and litter on the public pavement/bridge and into the river between Zouk and the nearby high-end residential developments. They hang around late into the night, and some make noise and mischief.

Btw, I love Zouk and have ever been a 'Zoukette', if anyone still uses that term these days, i.e. going to Zouk up to thrice per week over a sustained period (e.g. years).

However, my other experiences as a Real Estate student, window-shopper, and former public servant scream out to me that Zouk indeed poses many dis-amenities to its quiet and tidiness-seeking neighbours, especially the ones occupying recently purchased expensive real estate.

During my undergraduate industrial attachment to one of the condominiums nearby, I was told by the property manager that the heavy bass of Zouk's sound system can be heard, even after Zouk had spent copious amounts of money to insulate its premises. Complaints flooded the management office, and then to the authorities. That was back in 1998, when there were only a couple blocks of residential apartments near Zouk.

10 years later, the authorities have given more approvals for residential units to be developed in the same area. Just by eye-balling the developments, the number of dwelling units in that area must have gone up by 10 times. However, this so-called Zouk problem has not been resolved.

In early 2011, a tenant in Rivergate tells me that her family can hear Zouk from the inside of their apartment on the 20+ floor, even with the windows shut, especially on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

And now, you have this reflection by MP Indranee Rajah.

MP Indranee's solution to this problem?
A 'no alcohol zone' in that area to be policed by the Police.

*Cracks knuckles and neck*

I can totally understand where MP Indranee is coming from.

She can't say aloud to SINGOV, 'Move Zouk away, please!"
That's simply not business-friendly, especially when this is a business set up by a Singaporean-citizen, and that Zouk is an establishment which touches the heart and flames the memories of many many English-educated P65 Singaporeans.

She also doesn't have that much influence to get the stat boards involved to do something about the Zouk situation, when these stat boards created the problem to begin with, and would have already done something about this decades-old problem if they had any will to.

So, her last option is to suggest for the all-encompassing and ever obliging Police to police her little proposal.


Now... Here's what's wrong with this nett outcome:

Firstly, the phenomenon of drunk Zoukettes shouting, littering and peeing along/into the river is neither the main nor only problem which comes with Zouk. Other problems include vibrations from Zouk's sound system, traffic on popular nights etc.

Also, such problematic phenomena is not unique to Zouk, i.e. it happens to any area near highly successful nightspots around the island. If so, why should a 'no alcohol zone' only apply to the atas residential area around Zouk? I want it to be applied to my HDB estate too.

If this policy is expanded islandwide, the nett effect is that one can no longer consume alcohol in public, except in Tuas and Pulau Ubin.

Secondly, Zouk does not own the plot of land it's sitting on. Zouk is on State land via a relatively short-term lease. This means that the government could have removed (and can still remove) Zouk from its present location quite easily, i.e. by doing nothing and letting the lease lapse.

But in the past 10 years, the authorities have actively renewed Zouk's lease, despite receiving the complaints and not tackling them at the roots.

Also, on top of not renewing its lease, the government can always help Zouk move by suggesting a few attractive alternative locations elsewhere. E.g. Zouk could be part of the great Marina Bay, MBS etc.

Thirdly, I'm sure that Zouk, as the most successful and internationally-recognised nightspot in Singapore for the past couple of decades, pulls its own weight with the authorities. And rightly so. It didn't get to where it is today by chance.

Which trouble-avoiding officer wants to end Zouk's land lease? What if Zouk decides to stop its operations? What if Zouk fails after the relocation? Which public agency wants to risk being responsible for the demise of such a great (organically-developed) national entertainment and tourism product? What if there is no river buzz once Zouk moves away from the river! OMG?!! How do we live with that?!

Everyone involved just wants to be nice and cordial, and avoids buying an apartment in that area, while hoping that someone else, e.g. the Police (or the Home Team/ Ministry of Home Affairs), will sort the mess out that Zouk has brought along with its success.

Once again, lemme bring your attention to how some public agencies just want to focus on 'Beautification and Buzz' projects, while neglecting their core duties such as enforcement etc.

And when they are like this, some other more public-spirited public agencies, usually the Home Team, will have to pick up the former's slack.

So, my fellow people, neither Zouk nor the Zoukettes are the problem.
For right or wrong reasons, MP Indranee has brought the problem to the surface, but because her hands are tied, she comes up with a palliative solution (治标不治本), i.e. get the Police to police a 'No Alcohol Zone' around Zouk.

If the new SINGOV is sincere and serious about its promises to the people, stop wasting time on shoving mistakes such as Tin Pei Ling down our throats, but instead spend time and energy on tackling such deep-seated problems at the roots.

A lot of mess has been created during the huge accelerated party in the past decade. It's time for house-keeping. Clear out the crap to make space for the future. A lot can be done in 4.5 years.

Review: Bilingualism Policy in Singapore

RE: Low Thia Khiang urges Govt to review bilingualism policy

I agree that it is time to review Singapore's bilingualism policy. In fact, the current policy is more of a Mother Tongue policy, than an authentic bilingual policy.

When it first started, the 'bilingualism' policy was meant to:

(i) Learn English
This is to ensure that all ethnicities in Singapore could communicate using the same and a neutral language, i.e. English.

This was decided against backdrop of racial tensions, post-colonial rule, the need for Singapore to plug itself into a very Western world economy etc.

(ii) Learn Mother Tongue
If you were categorised as Malay, you have to learn Bahasa Melayu, if you were categorised as Chinese, you have to learn Mandarin etc. Along with learning of the Mother Tongue, one was imbibed with the respective ethnic values.

Ascribing 1 mother tongue per ethnic group serves to unite the group, while learning a mother tongue (instead of only English) is meant to help to ameliorate concerns that 'western values' would be adopted along with learning the English values.

At the individual level, the compulsory mastering of 2 languages poses a huge problem for those who are either (i) not predisposed to being bilingual, or (ii) grow up in a family which only speaks English.

The inability to achieve a good command of both languages has real consequences, because children are streamed into different education progress tracks based on this, and/or denied access to certain tertiary programmes. Ultimately, the question we ought to be asking is:

Is one's (in)ability to be bilingual an indication of one's (lack of) intelligence?

A lot has been written on the unintended consequences of the current 'bilingualism' policy. Please read up on it.
................................................................................

Moving forward, let's start over. Let's relook at the issue by re-balancing how influence the individual ought to wield on this issue, while balancing the desired outcomes at the national level.

(A) Learning the Mother Tongue should NOT be compulsory
Personally, I think it is ridiculous to force someone to learn a language as a specified mother tongue based on his ethnic category. In fact, it sounds rather racist, doesn't it?

The earlier argument of 'mother tongue = infusion of values' is no longer valid. These days, an ethnically Chinese person may wish to choose to adopt and practise Christian values, and speak no Mandarin.

If you wish to argue about value-infusion, perhaps it makes more sense for a 'values course', via religious and/or social-philosophy studies classes, to be included.

In any case, it is getting more difficult, to the point of being ludicrous, to determine what one's ethnicity and/or mother tongue ought to be. In the past,  inter-ethnicity marriages were less common. But these days, your father may be Dutch, while your mother is an Indian-Singaporean. Your mother may be Vietnamese, while your father is Chinese-Singaporean. Or just to make the equation even more difficult. Your father is Polish-French, while your mother is Japanese-Chinese.

You, the product of multiple ethnicities, may want a choice. You may not want to only learn your father's mother tongue. You may wish to learn your Singaporean parent's mother tongue. Or you may wish to learn both.  Or you may wish to learn neither, but something else altogether.

(B) Learning a 2nd Language should be a priority
Is it enough to only learn English?

At this point, I'd like to point out that 老李是对的, at least partially.
Just like it is important to encourage the learning of Mathematics, it is important for citizens from a tiny country such as ours to be minimally bilingual, so as to be able to connect with the rest of the world in more ways than one.

Hence, Singapore should unabashedly announced that the bilingual individual is more valuable than the monolingual individual. (This could also be used a criteria to further differentiate amongst PR/Citizenship applicants.)

However, there must be changes to the approach adopted for the learning of the 2nd language:

(i) The 2nd language should NOT be tagged to one's ethnic category.

(ii) The list of 2nd languages offered should NOT be limited to the traditional few languages offered in the P65 Singapore education system, i..e should be tied to ethnicity or origins only.

(iii) Mastering of a 2nd language should NOT be a compulsory criteria for admission to tertiary education.

(iv) Every student in the public school system is required to read a 2nd language for a minimum of 10 consecutive years, starting from Primary 1.

(v) Students are given a choice of language difficulty, i.e. Basic, Intermediate and Advanced, at   the start of Year 1, at the start of Year 4, and at the start of Year 7.

(vii) To encourage the pursuit of a high standard of mastery of the 2nd language, weighting is applied to the 2nd language at the major exams, i.e. PSLE and 'O' levels.
Simply put, achieving an 'A' for 2nd language at Advanced level is worth say 100% more than an 'A' at Basic level, or 50% more than an 'A' at Intermediate level.

(viii) To make possible for an individual to take up a 3rd language from Year 1.

(ix) To encourage study of 2nd language at post-10 year level, i.e. at junior college and tertiary levels.

(C) Which languages to be offered as 2nd Language?
If one takes a utilitarian view on languages, i.e. learning more languages = better plugged into our world, then let's look at which are the top languages used by the largest number of people in the world.

International Platform
Mandarin Chinese: (845 million to 1.12 billion speakers)
English: (328 million to 480 million speakers)
Spanish: (300 million to 329 million speakers)
Arabic: (around 221 million speakers)
Hindi: (182 million to 250 million speakers)
Russian: (144 million to 285 million speakers)
See source

Regional Platform (not in order of no. of speakers)
Mandarin Chinese: (845 million to 1.12 billion speakers)
English: (328 million to 480 million speakers)
Hindi: (182 million to 250 million speakers)
Japanese: (122 million to 133 million speakers)
Bahasa Indonesian
Bahasa Melayu

Of course, we do not simply adopt to the top few. It is important to study whether these populations and their economies have been and would be expanding in the longer run, because this is after all the essence of adopting the utilitarian view.

Also, one can adopt the affectual view that the mother tongues of the various ethnic groups ought to be offered as 2nd language too.

Of course, the list of 2nd languages cannot be go on forever. Neither should this list be static.

A vid of Russians speaking in Bahasa Melayu.

I've always wondered why I cannot speak Bahasa Melayu.

(D) Learning the 2nd Language as a Subject
The teaching of the 2nd Language must be a departure from the current way which Mother Tongue is taught, i.e. moving away from preaching of ethnic values through the teaching of the language, simply because more people would be now learning the language from a utilitarian point of view, and not simply for the sake of preservation of ethnic values.

Instead, introduce general knowledge features such as history of the language, the type of speakers around the world, contrast the language with its dialects, contrast the language with English and/or other languages, cultural immersion programmes etc.

Also, I believe that it is important for the 2nd language to be applied to the rest of the student's school curriculum. E.g. Create opportunities for the students to translate passages from their science, history, geography, literature text books, reading stories/legends from other languages and cultures etc, using the 2nd language. This is to seek a balance between the student's ability to interpret the same content using both languages, and the vocabulary for both languages.

(E) Learning Languages as a Family
Recently, Mr Lee Kuan Yew encouraged Chinese families to speak Mandarin to their kids at home, while the kids pick up English in the public school system via lessons and interaction with teachers and schoolmates. Of course, quite a few less or non-Mandarin speaking Chinese-Singaporeans got defensive upon reading his advice, and wrote to the newspaper forums to air their displeasure.

The fact is 老李是对的. For the kid to master any language(s), he has to be constantly steeped in an environment where he has to use the language(s) consistently. Currently, the kid uses English most of the time, but has significantly reduced opportunities to speak in his mother tongue. Sending a kid for 2 hours worth of mother tongue tuition every week and hoping that it will help is merely wishful thinking on the part of consumerist parents.

Hence, to complement the child's learning journey, Parent-Child learning of the language(s) ought to be encouraged. Schools (or private entities) can provide Parents only and/or Parent-Child enrichment classes in tandem with the child's language syllabus. It's important to realise that if the child sees how seriously the Parent is about language-learning, the child is likely to monkey-see monkey-do. And with such exposure from a young age, perhaps the kid will be able to surpass the language proficiency of his parents'.

The Lan Gaming Problem in Singapore

RE: Singaporean youths spend more time gaming than American youths: Study

"On average, gamers here spend about 20 hours per week on gaming, as compared to about 13 hours for American youths.

Of this group, about one in 10 were found to display symptoms of obsessive, or pathological, video gaming, which caused significant disruption to their regular lives.

Such pathological gamers also spend twice as much time gaming, averaging more than 37 hours a week. They are more likely to have poorer grades, are less social and more hostile, and have more health problems like wrist pain.

Other countries with high rates of obsessive gamers include China (14 per cent), South Korea (10.2 per cent) and Spain (9.9 per cent), said the study."


More than 37 hours per week?! That's almost a full-time job.

After years of looking the same problem, it's just more stats reporting, and waste of public funds (millions of dollars) on studies and awareness/ wellness programmes.

Since when have such awareness and wellness efforts lead to any real decrease in addiction?
Just ask Health Promotion Board (HPB).
It has been doing such rah-rah programmes for smoking addiction.
Years and millions of dollars later, the statistics for smokers, especially the younger ones, are looking worse than ever.

Wake up! Wake up!
Stop pretending that having rolled out some awareness programme = did a great job.
These gaming addicts are stealing, borrowing from loansharks, and beating up their mothers to feed their addiction.

Time to be realistic about the approach against this War on Gamecraft.

Obviously, a HPB-type approach has proven not to work.
You don't hear of people borrowing from loansharks to buy cigs, but you do hear of kids borrowing from loansharks to lan-game, similar to drug addictions.

Time to think about a more CNB-ish approach, which includes:

(1) Legislation (Laws on how long each lan gaming session can last, Minimum age for lan-gaming, Power for the public agency to take drastic action against lan shops, individuals, Taxing the lan shops (i.e. raising the minimum price of lan-gaming) etc)

(2) Enforcement (Need I say more?)

(3) Awareness (Target parents, teachers, ECA groups etc, not just the kids.)

(4) Mandatory and optional Rehab programmes (E.g. for parents to opt-in on the rehab programme for their kids, for the system to prescribe rehab as an option etc.)

Stop acting blur and looking away, while hoping for a post-out before this issue blows up, just because this does not fall squarely in your (ministry's) portfolio today.

The more troublesome this piece of policy solution is, the more serious the situation has become.

And the more you drag your public servant feet, the more kids (and their families) will suffer.

If it's about Nation and Rarity...

RE: Landed property: Fewer foreigners to get approval

"Mr Shanmugam added: "We have kept foreign ownership of landed property in Singapore to under 5 per cent... It's actually closer to 3.5 per cent."

What's more important, but not made clear, is the following:

140 such approvals given per year (in past 3 years) = How many % of the total number of transactions for landed properties in the past 3 years?

While the foreign ownership approval criteria is tightened, who or what's effectively stopping the non-citizen from  buying landed properties in Singapore via locally-registered commercial entities (e.g. an investment firm)?
.................................................................

Apart from landed housing, I've wondered why non-citizens are allowed to own CONSERVED PROPERTIES (e.g. shophouses), coz those are even rarer than landed properties, and are an intrinsic part of Singapore's history.

While non-citizens cannot buy conserved properties zoned Residential, they can buy those zoned otherwise (e.g. mixed uses, commercial etc).

We must remember that there is no match for the infinite supply of non-citizen investment capital out there, and conserved properties are attractive exotic assets.

Better do something about this before these gems of Singapore get eroded even further.

Higher employment rate = Better life for more people?

RE: Singapore has one of the highest employment rates worldwide

"According to a report released by the Manpower Research and Statistics Department and the Singapore Department of Statistics, nearly eight in ten (77 per cent) Singaporeans aged 25 to 64 were employed in 2010.

The unemployment rate among citizens declined to pre-recessionary levels of 3.1 per cent in June 2011, down from a high of 4.5 per cent in 2009.

This surpasses economies such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom."

What is the intention behind highlighting something like that?

To remind Singaporeans that the Government is doing a good job, and/or that your lives are in fact very good, relative to the rest of the world?

I would love to conclude as such.

But I cannot help but to think that this high employment rate can be read in multiple ways. It does not only or necessarily suggest that the picture is all fine and dandy.

Firstly, it is misleading to compare employment rates of countries with and without welfare systems (namely unemployment benefits). 

It can be said that countries with unemployment benefits will generally see a lower rate of employment as people have the confidence to stay or choose to be unemployed over longer periods.

Secondly, while it is tempting to conclude that increasingly higher employment rate = better life for more people, the former may simply suggest that it is impossible for a family to get by decently without dual incomes, i.e. both parents working. Hence, people are unable to choose to be unemployed.

Strange concept to Singaporeans? Counter-intuitive?
Think about it for a second.

Remember, nothing is absolutely good (or bad). Everything is contextual.

Thirdly, it is absolutely misleading to present the national employment picture by highlighting the employment rate figures only.

There are other indices which paint the 'quality of employment' dimension, e.g. productivity: GDP per hour worked etc. These figures are also, if not more, important.

In fact, I am surprised that this 'quality of employment' dimension has not been included in this press release, because the President's maiden speech just this week emphasizes on 'quality'. I guess the contents of the President's speech will only affect work's directions and outcomes in the coming years, not immediately.

Lastly, perhaps, the Government ought to start developing a set of indices to help Singaporeans understand how the influx of foreigners has added to the economy, coz it's always been kind of unclear.
E.g. every Employment Pass/Work Permit added = S$X to the GDP or X no. of Citizen job (types of job) added to the economy for a period of X months etc.

Doesn't matter that such indices are not common in other countries. Singapore is special.

This will also help to facilitate the dialogue between the people and the government. No point engaging the public but only to talk in vacuum and about theories or emotions. Let's talk with facts and numbers. As many of them as possible.

And don't worry about the public being unable to handle the figures. Can't say that all Singaporeans can handle them, but there are enough who are competent and will do it for the rest.