Valentine's Day 2012

Just got reminded that it's Valentine's Day, only because I had to check the date to quote an anonymous comment on the earlier entry. How romantic.

Nobody in this home cares about Valentine's Day anymore.
I think he grunted when I mentioned Valentine's Day to him last night, while he was checking his work emails.
A far cry from the first few Valentine's Day we had together. I guess the novelty has worn off. I'm not complaining, coz I'm not trying either. =P

I think I got a foot massage this morning... for about 30 seconds per foot. I guess that's about it. He didn't even say it's for Valentine's Day. Oh well... I'll take whatever.

Maybe I can get him to shower the cats too.
..................................................................

Random thought flashed in my mind last night while I was on the toilet bowl.

"I always find the toilet seats up in our home. 

Couples (at least those in American sitcoms) are always having arguments about having the toilet seats up or down.

Is it a problem if we don't find this to be a problem?"

O_o

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.

点解你娶个中国人呀?

Been neglecting my blog. I think this is a record. Longest in 8 years.

Remember the earlier incident where some ah pek on his bicycle mistook me for his PRC wife's sister and spat at me? Or the even earlier incidents where taxi drivers insisted that I was PRC who had refused to own up to my nationality?

Apparently, I keep giving fellow Singaporeans the impression that I am from the great land of PRC, and that doesn't attract positive attention.

Sometime last year, at a Chinese family restaurant in Singapore and amidst placing orders, the middle-aged waitress asked 'Good Fren' in Cantonese,

"点解你娶个中国人呀?" 

(Why did you marry a Chinese Mainlander?)

I was like,

"AUNTIEEEEEE!! 我是新加坡人! KK 医院出生的!"

(AUNTIEEEEEE!! I'm Singaporean! I was born in KKH!)

'Good Fren' didn't stop laughing for quite a while. =_=

Just a couple of weeks ago, we went to the former Katong Mall, now known as 112 Katong. I was in the women's toilet, at the start of the toilet queue.

Almost immediately, 2 elderly ladies joined the queue behind me, and were chatting in Cantonese. A couple of minutes later, a pair of mother and daughter joined the queue. By then, the queue had taken up most of the circulation space in the toilet, and the conversation started:

SG Auntie: (To the mother with daughter) Hey! Hello!

Mother: Hello!

SG Auntie: You know, us Singaporean Chinese must stand together. Must be united. She (points to her friend) is Malaysian Chinese. Still quite same like us. But us Singaporean Chinese must stand together. Must stand up for each other.

Mother: (smiles)

SG Auntie: (to the little girl) You high tide or not? Urgent or not?

Little Girl: Huh?

SG Auntie: You need to go toilet now? Can jump queue. I ask for you! No need to be scared. Us Singaporean Chinese must stand together, must be united.

Little Girl: (shakes her head) Not urgent.

SG Auntie: Yah... Us Singaporean Chinese must stand together. (turns to her friend and mutters something in Cantonese)

My interpretation was that the SG Auntie thought I was PRC, taking up the first spot in the toilet queue. What do you think?
...................................................

Related thoughts:

Such encounters make me wonder what it is like to be a PRC in Singapore.
I also wonder about the social dynamics between Singaporean Chinese and PRCs. Obviously, there is animosity, even in public spaces, and this has gone beyond silent displeasure. Is this the worst it can get? Which direction will it take in the future? What can we do ameliorate the situation?

What about Indians? What are the social dynamics between local-born/bred Indians and Indians from India?

What about local-born/bred Malays and non-Singaporean Malays?

This is an uber fertile space for social research.

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.

龍年快樂！

새해 복 많이 받으세요!

Ai Pee Ai Tcee... Ai Dua Lyap N-n-n ...

I think many people have misunderstood Ag Minister Chan's Chye Tau Kueh analogy.

To me, his point was clearly about price vs quality aka 一分钱，一分货, but many distorted it and instead argued that it was about:

(i) Affordability, i.e. 'we poor people cannot afford $10 Chye Tau Kueh'; or
(ii) 'Cheap and good' Chye Tau Kueh and ministers do exist; or simply
(iii) Kee Chiu Chan is elitist.

Affordable Ministers
Affordability is an invalid argument here, because Singapore, as a country, can definitely afford to pay our ministers multi-million dollar salaries.

(Come on, we freaking built the expensive Gardens by the Bay at S$1.4 BILLION and counting... This figure does not include the cost of the 100ha of reclaimed land it sits on, ok?!)

Many people have mistaken their own tight financial situation for the nation's financial health. As a nation, we definitely can pay our leaders high, or even higher, salaries.

Also, it's not as if Singaporeans will be paying less taxes after the 1/3 ministerial pay cuts. Neither would the pay cuts be redistributed to all Singaporeans. See my point? Nothing to do with whether Singapore can 'afford' to pay high salaries.

'Cheap and Good' Ministers
As for those of us who believe there are enough capable people out there, who will:

(a) wholeheartedly take up a minister's job,

(b) at a starting pay of under S$1mil, and

(c) put up with the crazy scrutiny and criticism from everyone and anyone,

I think such thoughts are a clear sign of delusion.

Just because you can find 1 'Cheap and Good' candidate, doesn't mean you can find enough of them to fill the Cabinet, and for the years to come.

Before you go all ballistic about the spirit of public service and how that means one should not be drawing high salaries, please be reminded that while not getting paid for her relentless and selfless efforts, Mother Teresa didn't have to publicly account for her causes or work. She didn't have to explain why she had chosen to feed/ tend to these mouths and not help them in other ways or at all. Nor did she have to justify her choice of beneficiaries, e.g. which nationalities, race, illness types, etc. She just did the work she thought was necessary, and chose to invest herself in it.

Net Result of Succumbing to Demands for Ministerial Pay Cut
I believe that paying our minister less, while expecting more, is a slippery down slope slide.

The new pay, as it stands now, together with this new wave of extreme criticism and scrutiny by the public, will end up attracting the following:

(1) Not-the-best people from the private sector

Pay is not the best indicator of talent, but let's see who earns more than our ministers anyway.

Hmmm... Let's see... Oh wow... Former CEO MRT, Saw, made more than the revised minsters' pay. She made S$1.4million (before share options). So if she's willing to take a 30% pay cut to serve as a Minister, does it mean Singapore has found itself a great leader with 'sense of duty and self-sacrifice'?

How many great talents from the private sector are willing to forgo their top jobs, where they would probably only need to answer to a 10-member board, and trade that for a job which subjects them (along with their family) to extreme public scrutiny and criticism by 3.x million people? What will happen after they have been voted out of this job? Can they return to their careers in the private sector?

(2) Second-tier top civil servants and uniformed officers (coz their retirement age is earlier than norm)

I'm referring to 'second tier' from the very top, i.e. those who are unlikely to make it to the top civil servant positions such as Permanent Secretary.

Maturing as Thinking Followers
I know this point is merely me being naive, but I'll say it anyway.

Even if we somehow are able to find enough people with fiery passion and right heart to fill the Cabinet, the incessant demands from the public will get louder, and eventually simply distract our leaders from focusing on their core functions (which are not clear to begin with). They will end up having to constantly manage these incessant voices.

This is not to say everyone ought to shut up. But it is also time for us to learn about maturity as followers. We probably need a 'Sane and Thinking Citizens campaign', but not under that name coz people's egos will be wounded.

It's great that more Singaporeans are interested in politics these days, but such interests should not be left unguided, unchecked and unharnessed. It's an entire craft altogether to manage public's opinion and feedback.

If not, we may slide into a situation where it's just bickering and mud-slinging all the time, while little time and effort can be devoted to getting the work done. And eventually, politicians will keep coming and going like a revolving door.

Just take a look at Japan. 7 prime ministers in the last 10 years, with 1 change per year in the last 7 years. Each change of PM bringing along a Cabinet reshuffle. How much time and effort are really spent on getting work done?

Don't say silly things like "Oh... That's just Japan. We will not be like that."

Who's gonna stop something like that from happening?
You, me, or the incessantly noisy public?
It's very easy to be destructive, but it's very difficult to be constructive.

阿公 ain't gonna be around to slap people for misbehaving anymore.
Wanna imagine a situation where we will end up slapping one another as we fancy?

Talk, no matter how pretty the words are, is so cheap.