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.

Mooiness was in Singapore recently, and came to visit us. This is the 5th time since we first met in the flesh in Dec 2005. =))

During our Bak Kut Teh lunch, he recapped how his dog, Snoop, had attacked the neighbour's dog and could have been taken away.

Mooiness said,"Snoop is great with humans, but he just doesn't like his own kind."

Immediately, I said,"I can totally relate to that! I love cats, but I don't really like humans. LOL!!"

What is 'Professionalisation of Hawker Centres'?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that all there is to the picture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

CCS: Speaking in English

RE: Pay not a primary factor for PAP team: Chan Chun Sing

Before flaming him, you must watch the video of Ag Minister Chan Chun Sing addressing questions from residents and students in Jurong.


He makes mostly clear points.
Except I don't think he is in any position to speak for all his comrades in the Government.

Since Day 1, his biggest problem is his tone.
He never fails to sound lao lan when he speaks in English.
Like he still has the HDB boy's chip on the shoulder, when he has outgrown his flat and bettered his humble background decades ago.

I've watched and listened to Minister Chan speak in Mandarin on TV once. He sounded very decent. Almost like a different person. A caring person.

So, I'm guessing that English is a language which he has learnt via formal schooling and uses it in formal situations such as in school, at work, for go-getting etc. Hence, his brain associates speaking in English with the need to project an air of self-confidence. And when he thinks he needs to 'connect' with his audience, he adds a generous dose of Singlish and Singlish accent.

While Mandarin is an everyday language for him, which he has initially learnt informally and uses it in social situations where he is generally more relaxed.

Now as a politician and minister, he needs to be able to speak in English (not Singlish), and in a relaxed manner. It's not an easy switch. This takes practice. Years and years of practice.

Minister Chan needs to fix this Achilles' heel of his quickly. If not, people will be easily swayed by the better looks and softer tones from competition such as Tan Chuan Jin, who, though takes a lot of front-page heartstrings-tugging pictures such as posing with stray animals and tombstones, doesn't necessarily make points which are as clear/good as Chan's.

Form over function.
Regardless, form is important when one is dealing with the masses.
See public reaction to Minister Chan's comments on $10 vs $1.50 Chye Tao Kuey.

If you don't get your form right, anything you say is crap.
But if you pose for a pic with a stray puppy/tombstone, it doesn't matter at all that you are not making any policy changes. They will still adore you.

This is our future leader in training. Watch him develop himself into our future PM... Maybe not the next PM... But one in the future.

I have a dilemma...

You must help me with this one, ok?

I have a black bedsheet which I have been using for the past 6 years. I like it very much coz it's just plain black and smooth to the touch. I can't seem to be able to find it in the stores anymore.

After earlier this year, I noticed a couple of small 'L'-shaped tears in the bedsheet. About 1cm by 1cm. Nothing too drastic. I stitched them up with black thread and that was it.

Then more of such tears started to appear. And I began to realise that they were at Blinky's preferred corners of the bed. Must be his claws.

After a while, the bedsheet began to look quite stitched up.
Which is kind of cute, but I am totally coloured by my love for the black bedsheet, the cause of the problem (Blinky), and the fact that I cannot find black bedsheets for sale.

My question is: At which point do I decide that 'it's time to let it go'?

Talk Talk Talk

Introvert: I'd rather have no conversation, than poor conversations.

Extrovert: I'd rather have ANY conversations, than no conversation.

Some people are simply desperate for social interaction. I believe it has to do with the addiction to the 'high' one gets when engaging in social interaction. It can be reduced to mere hormone production.

This desperation, in turn, contributes to the problem of poor quality conversations.

Low Pay = Passion + Heart?

"Eric Chiang, head of a wholesale business, said: 

"People who want to go into the public service, I think apart from the pay, it is the passion and heart for the people. So frankly speaking, even if it's a 38 per cent (cut) for the PM, for those who have the heart, perhaps they will even settle for less.""

Source: Channelnewsasia

"Please do not think, for one moment, that you are entitled to receive a high lump sum of pay just because you are serving for the people of Singapore. 

If you were truly so altruistic, you would be accepting a minimal sum of money to just get by."
~ a Singaporean male, who graduated from Imperial College, 

commenting on Senior Minister of State Grace Fu's Facebook post.

Source: Grace Fu's Facebook Wall

LOL! These people are hoping for monks to be running their country!

You wanna pretend that by cutting ministers' pay, that 'things will improve'? That the same people and/or future politicians/ministers will have 'passion and heart for the people'?

Just look at the hard truths in the rest of the world. In other countries, politicians are paid far less than ours. Are they any more 'passion and heart for the people'?

This entire unhappiness with and distrust of the ruling party situation has gotten out of hand.
What exactly is the point of electing someone whom you are unhappy with and unable to trust, then punishing him for being 'imperfect' by cutting his pay drastically?
Nah! Take that!! HAHA! 活该!

What kind of sick mentality is that?!
Whatever happened to the sole intention of electing this person in the first place, i.e. to get the job done?

Even the ruling party is reacting to such strong emotions by holding the PAP mega sale at 36+% discount. O_o

I mean, if the same PM and/or minister can continue to give his 110% to his job after a salary cut of 36%, he is sending out a terrible message that he has been over-charging Singapore for the past few years. This is a terrible mistake.

Everyone just needs to calm down, and realise that it is not the minister's salary that is CAUSING Singaporeans' problems. It is the QUALITY & HEART of leaders, who are in fact elected by the people. To know whether a candidate has quality and heart, takes time. A lot of time.

And to get the right leaders into office, the people must first learn and be clear about what kind of Singaporean society they want, then vote for people who will help to fulfill that vision. This means the people have to spend time and energy to keep up with local politics and participate in local discourse. Most importantly, we must get to know the leaders better.

If majority of voters simply refuses to work at this (to find a way to identify what a good leader is), yet wanna complain, and shoot their votes from the hip every 5 years, then we will all have to suffer the ugly side of democracy, which no modern person wishes to talk about, i.e. an unfortunate election result that is created by rash unthinking masses.

The Conversationalist

"The only basis for a civilised conversation between two people was to treat each other with mutual respect.
It is pointless otherwise."

Guess who said the above?

I have come to realise that there are very few people who are capable of engaging in a civilised conversation. You may not wish to believe so, but it's more likely than not that you are unable to do the above. Simply because lousy and pointless conversations are the norm.

I don't know whether lousy and pointless conversations have always been the norm. And I hate to romanticise about 'better earlier times', when we all existed in 'simpler' lives and were running around hunting small mammals and eating berries off the trees.

What is a lousy and pointless conversation? You may ask.

Many factors degrade the purpose of a conversation.
Mainly, these two factors crack it: Insecurity and Ego.

I absolutely abhor conversations that degenerate into digging and competition. I notice that many, especially females, do this. They just can't stop at 'Oh! Your kid is in Primary School already'. They feel to need to ask which Primary School, then proceed to put down that school with 'I hear what's not-so-great about that school. My kid goes to XYZ school and so doesn't have to put up with that problem.'

And the more conversations you have with the same person, the more pointless and lousier they get.

Some who participate in such conversations love to euphemise their behaviour by terming it as simply 'being concerned' or 'just sharing'. No one will ever admit that the real reason is due to his insecurity and ego. They just feel the uncontrollable need to be superior to you, even if their lame example is saving $5 by buying an iPhone from some obscure shop in Tuas.

One may assume that an 'un-lousy' and 'point-ful' conversation would then be one which is full of intellectual content, jargon and citation of dead famous people's quotes and works, regardless whether the other party understands. But this is in fact simply another manifestation of insecurity and ego. The conversation is still about 'Me Me Me! Shiok Shiok Shiok!', and not about getting to know the other party, or exploring a topic TOGETHER.

And then, you have the conversation where one party only wants to talk about other people/things/monkeys, and refuses to tiptoe anywhere near himself or express his own feelings about anything. I'd be better off talking to Blinky and Tiger. At least, I'd get a genuine and personal response, even if it's a sharp-claw blood-drawing swipe at me.

Lastly, you have the great conversationalist who disbelieves everything you say. "Is it? Are you sure? Cannot be! I don't believe you!" He likes to exclaim. What's the point of having a conversation if you believe that I am a liar?

Hence, it is not an exaggeration to claim that the contemporary conversation is lame and unconstructive.
Don't believe me? Take some time to listen to and observe the next conversation at the pub, in the pantry, during lunch etc, especially those amongst so-called friends.
Avoid making the 'it's like that' conclusion.
Attempt to imagine that conversations could be better.

It takes intelligence to understand and practise mutual respect.
Similarly, it takes intelligence to engage in a civilised conversation.
And I am not talking about IQ. IQ is too common these days. So common that it's crass.