Is the World Ending in 2012?

I dunno why, but many people are mouthing that the world is gonna end in 2012.

I'm cool with the world ending in 2012 or not, because I am surrounded by beings I love and who love me.

What about you?

Overheard in a women's hospital ward

Wife was going through labour to expel an unfortunate stillbirth, and had been experiencing extreme pain for more than 2 hours at the break of dawn.

Husband appeared in the ward, with freshly-shampoo-ed hair, in t-shirt, bermudas and slippers. He was shocked to witness the scene, where his sweaty wife, with disheveled hair and legs spread open, was trembling, crying, and sometimes screaming in discomfort.

In his helplessness, he managed to say the following first words,

"Erm... Heh Heh... You look like you are shitting."

Everyone, including the nurses, patients in the next beds, and even the wife, went quiet.
...................................................................

Does one have to wait till a time like this to realise that one has married an idiot?

It is much easier to start a revolution than to finish it.

I was watching Eric Schmidt deliver a keynote speech at the LeWeb conference in Paris, when he warned that in the digital age, it is “much easier to start a revolution than to finish it”.

It is a worrying thought.

It is always easier to be destructive, than to be constructive.
From big world phenomena such as war, pollution etc, to every day behaviour such as passing caustic remarks to your loved ones, friends and colleagues.

With incessant complaints about the ruling party in Singapore, and some people displaying 'anything/one but the ruling party' behaviour, I wonder if we, as the Singaporean collective, are starting something we do not know how to end well.

This is not to say 'let's not do anything' then.
But I worry about how 'doing something in a highly emotional manner' can go very wrong.

We need a leadership which can unite Singapore once again.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that money can buy us such a leadership.

Singlehood is Your Own Doing

I posted this on my Facebook accounts, and the discussion was intense.

"There are more than 7 billion people in the world.
It's impossible not to find a soulmate and more.
If you claim you cannot, it's all because of you."

What struck me most was that while some singles supported the statement, all of those who vehemently had rebutted it, all are singles.

Their arguments range as follows:

• This statement is condescending - Sounds like the elites telling the poor that it's all their fault for not working hard enough.
• There is a supply and demand imbalance.
• It's not that people do not try, but there are impediments such as geography, language, internet access, immigration policies, gender imbalance, family obligations etc.
• People have too high expectations of their future partners.
• Some people just need help - Hence, the existence of marriage agencies, snake heads and human smugglers etc.

I am liking this discussion.
Not for the personal attacks, but because this is definitely a sensitive topic. And precisely because it is sensitive, many avoid talking/debating about in-depth, limiting the understanding of the problem.

I must say through this discussion, I have gained much insight of these singles' psyche.

The starting point is whether any (single) person wants to seek a partner to begin with. We must agree that there are people who are perfectly happy being single. There are also people who don't mind finding a partner, but in view of the trouble one has to go through to find a partner, rationally decide against it anyway. I do not refer to these 2 groups of singles in my statement.

The premise of my statement is limited those who WANT to find a partner, but yet like to blame every one/thing else for their inability to do so. As such, the problem really lies with themselves.

These people like to claim that their failure to find a soulmate, in this world of unprecedented 7 billion population, is a result of every one/thing else's fault.

There is No Supply-side Problem
What supply and demand imbalance?
There are 7 billion human beings in this world, even if gender distribution is not perfectly 50-50, show me a society where all of the available 'minority' gender is entirely exhausted, to prove the point of supply-side problem.

Laziness & Cowardice
Many people like to give excuses for refusing to learn how to get to know others, choose a partner who is suitable for themselves (and not fit some perverted self-image or fantasy), and sustain + manage a relationship.

If one needs help for the 1st step, i.e. even to find a partner, then what happens later? Does he need help to sustain + manage the relationship?

You can only get teachers and tutors to equip you with the skills/knowledge for the big test, but you have to take the test on your own. Only then, will you truly own the results.
If you cheat and/or avoid the learning process, you will forever be ignorant.

Or in other words, since you are too lazy and/or cowardly to open your mouth, why don't you get others to eat your lunch for you too?

Yes, My Statement is Condescending
But it is only condescending to people who refuse to admit that this is indeed their own doing.

One rebutted that my statement "is 'elitist' in a kind of way, almost in the same spirit of saying, there are millions of ways to 'make it' in this world, if you can't, it's because of you"

I think there is a huge difference between 'making it' versus 'finding a soulmate'. It's much easier to find a soulmate.

Simply because the definition of 'making it' is always only pegged to rarity, e.g. top 1% of any community, population, field etc.

Meanwhile the definition of 'soulmate' is entirely up to how crazily difficult you make it out to be for yourself.

Love is neither Rare, nor a Pre-Requisite
One claimed that through the history of time, there are so many examples of people who have failed to find love, especially presented by famous philosophers and poets. I guess she is alluding that, as such, 'love' must be something difficult to find.

While it's an unpleasant fact to deal with, however, the fact remains that 也有很多条件"差"的人，找得到伴侣。也可以幸福。

'爱' is not really an essential ingredient to start a partnership. That misguided understanding is one of the many impediments which the single individual has created for himself. We have been sold too much bullshite and misconceptions about '爱'. So much that we have become addicted to the romantic 'feel good' misconception, refusing to let it go even though it's detrimental to our lives.

'爱' is really an outcome of the partnership, not a pre-requisite.
You will only really find love if you try to go through the process.

殷离练千蛛万毒手

殷离 Yin Li is a character created by 金庸 Jin Yong in 倚天屠龙记 The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber.

The story goes that Yin Li's mother regretted not having learnt the deadly skill named 千蛛万毒手 "Thousand Spiders Venom Hand" thoroughly, because it involved ingesting poison from spiders which would lead to horrible disfigurement. Yin Li's mother believed that if she had practised the deadly skill well, she would have been able to 'protect herself', mainly from the threat of her husband's second wife. Her husband took a concubine, who bore him 2 sons, because she had been somewhat disfigured by the Thousand Spiders Venom Hand and had later become infertile.

Eventually, the second wife bullied Yin Li's mother and was stabbed to death by the tiny Yin Li. To protect her child, Yin Li's mother entrusted Yin Li to a random old lady, and committed suicide. Yeah... That's sort of how it went.

Of course, her traumatic childhood gave rise to a rather insecure and emotionally-unstable Yin Li who started to practise the Thousand Spiders Venom Hand, as advised by her dead mother. All that effort, to 'protect herself'.

Why do I bother with this somewhat plain character in the Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber?

Because I see Yin Li and her practice of the Thousand Spiders Venom Hand as a metaphor.

It's akin to how many females think they must have 'career' to protect themselves, make themselves independent etc because men cannot be trusted, other women are competition etc.

In the process, they make themselves 'ugly' and suspicious of others (men and women alike).

I'm not saying being able to carve out a career for oneself is not a good thing. Just like learning a wugong is not a bad thing. However, one has to sort out the intention for doing so.

What's worse was that Yin Li, given her limited 悟性 'potential', could not master her chosen Thousand Spiders Venom Hand well, while it turned her into an ugly girl anyway. She became even more insecure. She was a sweet and pretty girl to begin with.
何必呢？What for?

殷离懵练千蛛万毒手, 毁了自己.

Gabriel is a formulated Genius

Overheard:

"Gabriel's parents have sent him to ABC classes, bought him the DEF children's book series and the GHI IQ toys series, fed him with JKL supplements, gotten him in MNO primary school, and make him sleep on PQR special mattress and oxygenated air at night.

This is why he has done so well, i.e. gotten into GEP and aced his PSLE. 

I am gonna do just all of the above for my kid(s)."

Seriously, the reason why Gabriel has done so well is because of Gabriel's parents.
Because of their genes, their upbringing, their values, their priorities in life, their personalities, their commitment to and influence on Gabriel etc.

You can't replicate that, even if you had all the money in the world.

Not especially when you believe you can outsource parenting and educating of your kid(s) to school teachers and enrichment course providers.

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.

We're playing a game at home today

I read this off a St Nicks' senior's Facebook status:

"We're playing a game at home today. 

It's called Every Thing Has Its Place So Let's Freakin' Put Them Back Where They Belong."

Following that was an entire string of 'likes' and comments from what looked like other mums with similar experiences. I was hugely amused.

Two things popped out.
Firstly, it's the school holidays, i.e. kids are at home more than usual.
Secondly, you mean parents have to 'play a game' or 'remind' to get their kids to keep their stuff?

Back in my days, my brother and I would be so dead if we didn't put our stuff back to where they belong. Even if it was just 1 tiny storybook or cup or sock or pencil. And we did not hang around to wait for reminders and/or to test the boundaries.

My folks would not reprimand the maid (we always had a maid), and such transgressions would clearly and solely be our problem... with extreme consequences. *gulp*

In fact, I was so well-trained that I would spend a couple of holiday afternoons rearranging my book shelves. Sometimes, arranging the books according to languages, or the alphabet, or book height, or categories. Other times, I would be clearing out the old stuff. I don't think my mother ever specifically told me to do this. I just wanted to do it. Perhaps, it's because my folks do it from time to time too. Monkey-see monkey-do.

After a while, I began to spend the afternoons rearranging the furniture in my room. I also painted my room (and the rest of the apartment plus some furniture) with my father. Later, during my uni days, I would paint my dorm room and furniture, re-line the flooring etc, before every new school year.

I think nagging at the kids, e.g. to put back the stuff to where they belong, doesn't work.

Everyone ought to learn the concept of being '自动'.
What's '自动' in English? Is there a good translation for this? As such, if you were 'English-educated', how do you learn the concept of '自动'?

Making sure that the kids know (i) how to do so, and (ii) the extreme consequences of not doing so, is much more effective.

人，是贱的。 =))

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.

Cyber-baiting Your Teacher is WRONG.

RE: Cyber-baiting happens to 3 in 10 teachers here
RE: 3 in 10 teachers experience 'cyberbaiting'

"Cyber-baiting works like this: A student will irritate his teacher until the latter loses his temper. The student will film the incident on his mobile phone and then upload the video onto the Internet, with the aim of embarrassing the teacher and the school."

Because cyber-baiting is premeditated, it is worse than incidents where foreigners beat up our public transport workers.

What kind of lousy upbringing produces such kids?!! I bet parents of such kids can't see what's wrong to begin with.

It's a jungle of 野孩子 and 野父母 out there!
The teachers are literally working with criminals.

If this is what the kids do to teachers, imagine what they do to one another.

Doesn't MOE have the responsibility to ensure a 'safe work environment' for its teachers?
There must rules, prevention, enforcement, and the big penalty stick.

Probably need to increase the capacity of boys/girls' homes in tandem.

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!

Can Arts School Students be Different?

I walk past School of the Arts quite a bit, and notice that the students emerging from the building are usually in this school T-shirt, even those in their ballet gear.

And I have not seen any SOTA students with coloured hair, obvious tattoos, body piercings etc.

Of course, one can argue that these are merely superficial traits, but their absence got me wondering if conformity was a requirement of this Arts School. 

And how that helps to achieve "the vision to identify and groom future generations of artists and creative professionals to be leaders in all fields, in particular, the arts, the School of the Arts will build on Singapore's unique strengths, including its multicultural Asian heritage and openness to local and foreign artistic talent."

I think 'Discipline' and 'Conformity' are very different traits, and should not be confused.

Sewing Pin found in Cathay Cinema Seat

I went for a movie at the Grand Cathay yesterday afternoon. Halfway through the movie, I found one of these 3cm-long sewing pins sticking out of the seat.

I removed it from the seat, felt around for more, found none other, then decided to finish the movie.

After the movie, I went to the ticketing counter and asked for the manager. A manager with a Filipino accent appeared after a while, flanked by a couple of excited trainees (one of them seemed to be a young Korean girl).

*Manager approaches*

BM: Hi. I've just watched a movie at the Grand Cathay. I was in this seat. *handed her the movie tickets* And I found this pin in the seat. *handed her the pin* I think you should sweep all the seats, just to be safe.

Manager: Oh... *looking at pin*

BM: I think you should sweep all the seats, just to be safe.

Manager:  *still looking at pin*... Thank you for your feedback...

I must say I've been watching many movies at the Cathay and this is the first time I've found a pin in the seats. So, it's not like it's a regular occurrence.

However, I am sorely disappointed by the manager's handling of the situation. She didn't ask if I was injured by the pin, she didn't place her customer first. She was simply stunned by the situation.

I just hope she took the incident seriously and swept the rest of the seats for pins as I'd suggested.

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.

Real Steel

I didn't want to watch this coz I dislike wrestling and boxing... The concept of human violence for entertainment is simply perverted.

But Real Steel is not about human violence. It's about robots in the boxing ring, and how the robots are a platform upon which a pair of cheeky long-lost father and son began to build their non-existent relationship.

When Hugh Jackman isn't stuck behind Wolverine's fur and personality, Hugh Jackman can act.

The little Canadian boy, Dakota Goyo, can act... very well. It seems if one is not American, one must be an exceptionally good actor to get into Hollywood. And he is very cute.

And the robots... I was kind of holding onto my seat... in preparation for unnecessary anthropomophication of the robots... You know... The robot has some secret ability to think on its own, has feelings, wanna save his human boyfriend etc. But I was pleasantly surprised. None of that rubbish. Which is refreshing. Dreamworks makes good films.

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.

Man Enough to Speak up for Women in Parliament

RE: Singapore ranked 37th best place to be a woman
RE: Women MPs speak for the men as well, replies Grace Fu

Blah... Blah... Blah...

Let's cut the crap.

Firstly, Grace Fu should stop rolling around in the mud and replying to a sexist's comments in the newspaper forum. Just because you are an MP doesn't mean you have respond to idiots.

Actually, just because you are a female minister, doesn't mean you HAVE to fight for gender equality. That kind of expectation, in itself, is uber sexist.

Secondly, in any situation where there is inequality, incessant public rhetoric pointing out the already obvious inequality ain't gonna change anything. Everyone knows there is gender inequality in Singapore. We are ranked 37th best place on Earth to be female. Great.

It is simply tiresome to hear females fighting for gender equality all the time. It just becomes 'whining' after a while. The plot is lost and nobody is listening anymore.

The only way to achieving any equality is for the more powerful side to agree that equality is important.

It is more powerful for straight people to fight for gay people's rights.
It is more powerful for the dominant group/race to fight for minority rights.
It is more powerful for able-bodied people to fight for handicapped rights.

If the ruling party is serious about gender equality, send a heavyweight MALE minister to talk about gender equality in Parliament.

Not some kuching kurak attention-seeking male MP, but a MALE full Minister with enough clout and seniority in the Cabinet to pursue this agenda and make real progress. Now that will make Singapore history and progress.

The only question is:

Who is Man Enough to Speak Up for Women in Parliament?

Or are they afraid that their sexist male counterparts would ostracise them for doing so?

Or perhaps, male ministers simply do not believe in gender equality.

If so, how on Earth can we reasonably expect 1 x Grace Fu (+ a couple of female MP sidekicks) to fight for gender equality or even champion any female causes with any sliver of success?

Wishful and wasteful thinking.
...............................................................

Strategically, if male MPs could stop for a moment to think about this issue, appearing to champion gender equality would endear yourselves to more than 50% of the voters, across ethnic lines, social class, age etc.

Will this piss off male voters?
That will depend on how skillful you are in pitching the message.

It just takes 1 male politician to do this, and the rest will follow.
Maybe that's why they are all holding their breaths. Nobody wants to be the first 'gu-niang'.
This is a hilarious thought. I cannot stop laughing. LOL!

'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.

the Help

If you like Desperate Housewives, the Help will rock your weekend at the cinema.

I love the hypocrisy.
The 'toilet initiative' by that white lady, especially the way she pitches as if it's an upgrade for the black helpers. And of course, the benefit night for African children.

Not too different from our daily lives, if you pay close attention.

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.

Her Face as a Reminder in Every Parliament Speech

RE: Singapore's system depends on 'getting politics right': PM Lee

Regardless of the great stuff they mouth in their speeches, the sight of Tin Pei Ling, in the background of every single shot of anyone speaking in Parliament, starkly reminds me that they are insincere about doing the right thing.

This so-called elected MP quibbled about her mistake for not declaring her friend, Denise He, as 'moderator' for her Facebook account in her election forms. Subsequent to the announcement of Police's investigation which established that Denise He did post that comment on Tin Pei Ling's Facebook account on Cooling-Off Day, Tin Pei Ling stated publicly that, because Denise He was merely in-charge of uploading pictures, and not changing text, Denise He was therefore NOT a moderator. As such, Tin Pei Ling concludes that she did not make false declarations in her forms.

To me, or any typical user of Facebook, blogs and even mainstream media, the content of these platforms is made up of text, pictures, moving images, audio etc. Hence, the definition of a 'moderator' of a website or Facebook account is anyone who makes changes to such content, including pictures.

Being inexperienced, 'young' or even 'not smart enough' isn't that bad a problem, but I absolutely abhor the act of quibbling as demonstrated by Tin Pei Ling. It shows what her values are and where her priorities lie. Clumsy and desperate self-preservation. That's hardly inspiring.

Of course, I am disappointed with the Elections Department (ELD) for not acting on this. As public servants, ELD should have minimally pretended to do something about it. I don't remember hearing about ELD's conclusion on this matter. Did ELD do anything at all?

But most importantly, I am extremely disappointed with the PAP for not taking her to task. You have no moral high ground, if you do not take your own kind to task. As such, you cannot be sincere about doing the right thing.

I really want to take you seriously, and believe in your speeches.
But you have made it very difficult for me.

This is an abomination.

And we are all gonna have to see her annoying face in every single Parliament speech henceforth, for the next 5 years. Reminding us of how she got herself in Parliament, and how she was allowed to do so.

"君子"和而不同

RE: Chen Show Mao's maiden parliamentary speech

“政者正也， 子帅以正，孰敢不正”，“为政以德，譬如北辰，居其所而众星拱之”，“风行草偃”

"其实孔子三千年前就已说过，“君子和而不同”。和谐，可却不尽相同。晏婴说过：乐团只演奏一个音符，谁听得下去？白开水上再加白开水，谁喝得下去？一个和谐的社会，不只有一种声音。而是每个人很和平的在法律的範围内发表他的看法，从事政治活动。我们不必防民如防贼。

CSM's maiden parliamentary speeches in English and Mandarin are a polite yet obvious 下马威.

This man is guai lan.

In his English speech, he quoted former 'esteemed' PAP Minister George Yeo, then delivered a separate speech in cheem Mandarin.

I wonder how many of the Chinese PAP people sitting in that house really understood what CSM had said, especially those who like to pretend that they are 'bi-cultural' amidst their angmohpai "I can't even write 新-加-坡" colleagues.
LOL!!

It's basically a show of middle finger. NAH! I'm better than you! 就是比你强!

Finally, our foreign talent policy pays off... IN PARLIAMENT!!
LOL! Oh...The irony!!


This is entertaining, no doubt about that. But at this point, I have to point out to everyone:

圣人不死，大盗不止

Not I say one leh... 庄子 said so. Hence, it must be wise and important enough for you to pay attention to.

别高兴得太早哦！
This is the start of turbulent times.

Midnight in Paris

You have to watch Midnight in Paris.

I don't wanna say too much about the film, coz I can't do that without giving the plot away.

The first lady of the French Republic, Carla Bruni, has a role it.

I think, in a way, Woody Allen indulges in the fact that he will be remembered and lauded in the future, just like how we remember the past artists today.

I love this dress. It's feminine, chirpy, yet modest and comfortable.
Real people should wear clothes like that all the time.