But some recent developments really infuriated me and hence I am writing about this now…

First of all I think it is essential to post this disclaimer: I am not being racist or encouraging racism. I understand there are good PRC nationals and bad ones, just as there are good Singaporean people and bad ones too. However, my personal observations as well as this recent development I will comment on in this post shows the typical mentality of some PRC people in Singapore – that we Singaporeans are stupid and jealous of PRC people who are able to do better than us in studies and in careers.

There is an ongoing fiasco involving a PRC student named Jeff who is enrolled in NAFA. Apparently he was caught red-handed when he tried to sell a dog he adopted for $350 for $2,000 – a hefty profit – and in his online advertisements he claimed that he paid $4,000 for it. This matter infuriated dog lovers and netizens who quickly exposed his many lies and identity on a Hardwarezone forum thread. Jeff replied to the thread as well, claiming his innocence and scolding netizens for being “racists”. In his first reply in the thread, Jeff said:

nx time if anyone wants to call my mom, plz make sure ur chinses is gd enough to understand her ok? n i think, only unhealthy minded man will say somethin like “sell half eat half” thing. nv heard of a better version. n wat “rain wanna be”? u digged into my profile, found my pics, which r totally just pics n u say im rain wanna be? did i write anything there? if u r stupid, plz don waste the space here. anyway, i didn not invite u to view my profile n to upload my FRIENDS` PICS! if anyone of u hv a prob with chinese PRC, try shout it out in front of the PRCs n see wat happen. u ve just proved urself that u r a dickless man with no brain. just for ur info, PRCs r always the top student in the schs. u name any sch, there will be a top student being a PRC. work hard ppl n u will be the same, no point being racist here. 吃不着葡萄嫌葡萄酸.

So this is the kind of people we have attracted into Singapore. Congratulations to the Government of Singapore, we have successfully attracted talents from China who are dominating Singapore and doing so much better than native Singaporeans in school and at work... and they are now scorning Singaporeans, laughing at us for being jealous of their abilities to do better than us.

What’s more, some recent online discussions were on how PRC students were discussing on Chinese forums about how to cheat Singaporean taxpayers’ money by leaving Singapore after completing their taxpayer money sponsored scholarships in Singapore universities without completing the requisite bonds. In other words, how to be freeloaders and fleece a free education in Singapore using hardworking Singaporeans’ taxpayer monies and then go back to China or greener pastures outside Singapore.

Jeff is definitely not the only PRC student in Singapore with such an attitude towards Singaporeans. The Government obviously has recognized this problem, and they are now embarking on a (taxpayer money sponsored) program to better integrate immigrants into Singapore society. I’m sorry to say this, but I think these efforts have come a little too late. Look in the local online forums – how many discussions are there discussing Singaporeans’ unhappiness with foreigners?

I do not think Singaporeans are like what these PRCs make us out to be – “jealous” of their success. I believe the problem is more about unfairness – Singaporeans are feeling VERY MUCH SHORTCHANGED and VERY UPSET about the unfair treatment they are receiving compared to what the Government is according to foreigners and immigrants. I don’t think I need to rattle of the entire list of issues but here are a couple just to indicate what I mean – invitation letters for foreign students to become PRs (and eventually, citizens if they like) upon completion of their studies while Singaporeans guys have to spend more than 2 years of our lives serving the nation in NS. Eligibility for PRs to buy resale flats in Singapore while Singaporeans struggle to get queue numbers to buy flats priced at record high levels partly due to demand from new immigrants jacking up prices on the resale market.

I do not blame all PRCs for our troubles. I have Chinese friends, and I am of Chinese heritage (and not ashamed of it in any way). Like I said a long time ago in another post, I love Chinese culture and history, and I love traveling in China. I don’t blame people for wanting to improve their lives by moving to Singapore, just like how I want to improve my life by leaving Singapore. I don’t even blame them for making comments such as what Jeff said, even though I must admit that I am very angry and upset about it. A possible reason why they make such comments might be because of the attitude they receive from Singaporeans who see them as intruders and not respecting enough of Singaporeans. Then again, it is not our (Singaporeans’) fault either for feeling upset and angry about foreigners’ intrusion, competition and impact in every aspect of our lives (studies, work, buying flats, etc).

So, whose to blame for all these trouble and the divide we are facing now between Singaporeans vs PRCs and other immigrants? The Singapore Government should reflect on its open-door policy… instead of trying to spend more taxpayers’ money on “integrating” foreigners, we should think about how the many years of having this open-door policy has negatively impacted native Singaporeans and our children and our hopes for the future. How much is a Singaporean PR or Citizenship status worth today if we are to put price tags to them? When one can become a PR after completing a one or two years’ private school diploma… what kind of talents are we trying to attract? When a PR can become a citizen after several years’ working and competing with Singaporeans in the job market on an unfair basis – what is the value of Citizenship in Singapore?

I have already gave up hope on a better Singapore, or a better life for me and my future family in Singapore. My heart is elsewhere, and my mind is already focused on how to achieve a better future, somewhere else besides in “Uniquely Singapore”.

No related posts.

The greatest mistake that people embroiled in this saga is to align themselves (or see other people who comment on the issue) as being EITHER PRO-GAY or ANTI-GAY. This is a very convenient way to organize our thoughts… however, is VERY DANGEROUS and WRONG.

Pro-gay and Anti-gay can be seen as two polar ends of a single measure. A lot of people (like myself) would fall somewhere in between pro and anti… while few extremists would take sides on the extreme ends.

Indeed, another way to view it would be that both pro-gay and anti-gay beliefs can exist at the same time in the same person. Again, this is subject to the extent of belief and a convenient label of EITHER you are ‘pro-gay’ OR you are ‘anti-gay’ does not do justice. For example, I can rate myself on a scale of 3 out of 5 as being pro-gay, since I am liberal and respect other people’s choice of sexual orientation. At the same time, I can also rate myself on a scale of 3 out of 5 as being anti-gay, since I accept the scientific view that homosexuality is not genetically linked and I hope my children will grow up to have heterosexual relationships as, looking at the state of affairs now, I think homosexuals face a lot of discrimination in the world and I will not want my children to be subject to that.

I think the point of contention of many people now is not about PRO or ANTI GAY. It is that, AWARE is a secular organization. As such it should not be used to support values based on religious beliefs. Further, Singapore is a secular, multi-racial, multi-religion country which should not allow the hijack of a secular organization by religiously-affiliated individuals trying to impose their values on the nation.

Just because the OLD AWARE is NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE PRO-GAY, as the Christian fundamentalists from COOS have conveniently, unjustifably labelled them as so… by using a few examples to support the claims (out of the so many activities AWARE held). On the contrary, the COOS people have established themselves as, CLEARLY ANTI-GAY based on what they have said so far in the media, despite their claims that they are not anti.

Very interestingly, this is also a very classical psychological trait. People are essentially self-serving, self-affirming. One would attribute good things that happened to his or her own credit, while anything bad that happens would be others’ fault. Similarly, people would seldom use negatively-connotated terms on themselves (i.e. anti-gay)… choosing rather to put the negative focus on others as being pro-gay (to me it is not negative but to the COOS people I suppose pro-gay is negative, given their value system).

No related posts.

From a totally non-biased (I’m not gay, not pro nor anti gay, not pro Christian nor anti Christian, no vested interests of any sort) point of view, I think it is quite clear which side is wrong. Allow me to summarize the facts briefly. I don’t intend this to be a comprehensive coverage of what happened so far, just what I observed.

1. The Aware new guard claimed they were not ‘anti-gay’, but they are, coincidentally, linked to a church that has strong views against homosexuality. Further, in some of their church emails which are circulating on the Internet, staff and members of the church referred to the Aware ‘old guard’ as ‘pro-gay’.

2. Ms Thio, the self-proclaimed ‘feminist mentor’ of the new Aware exco, claimed that she had been a supporter of Aware in its early days but the founding members did not remember her at all. Further, in emails circulating on the Internet, Ms Thio’s email to gather support for the now infamous AGM did not mention much (if anything at all) about feminism. Nor did any other of those emails the church members and staff sent say anything about feminism. It seemed to be all about furthering their own hidden agenda of forcing their anti-gay views through using Aware, a secular organization, as a vehicle. Further, why the secrecy, if they were not having a hidden agenda? In one of those emails, Ms Thio mentioned that her identity could not be exposed, and asked those who wanted to join Aware to write nothing on the portion of the Aware membership application form that asked who referred them to Aware.

2. The new guard claimed that they were not bringing religion into Aware, but it emerged later that it was quite clear that they had a religious agenda, and that, worse still, they were trying to hide this agenda by denying it. My opinion is that by taking over a secular women’s organization, they are showing a blatant disrespect for the existence of other religions in Singapore… trying to impose their religious beliefs onto others forcefully. See below for excerpts of those emails:

“Right now we should pray for the COOS members who are being put through scrutiny and invasion of their private lives by the media. Pray that God’s Word will prevail over the values of the world. Homosexuality isn’t God’s design and we pray that those who stand up against it and are discriminated will be delivered. Praise God for COOS’ stand and He who aids us as we stand firmly upon His Word.”

“The pro-gay old guards are retaliating by calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting where they intend to amend the Constitution to only allow members who have been with AWARE for more than 2 years, to vote. If this change is passed, then only the pro-gay old guards and their cohorts will have the power to do what they want.”

“Right now we should pray for the COOS members who are being put through scrutiny and invasion of their private lives by the media. Pray that God’s Word will prevail over the values of the world. Homosexuality isn’t God’s design and we pray that those who stand up against it and are discriminated will be delivered.”

“From: smthio@xxxxxxx.sg

..Please ask your like-minded friends to join Aware so that you can give the vote to those who wish to be an agent of change for the Lord. They could also contribute to the activities of the oprganization as there is much to be done for women and families in this dowturn of the economy. Unfortunately, I cannot surface but shall be assisting in the background . I attach the Aware membership application form for your use. The Aware application form has a section as to who ( if any) told you about Aware. You can just leave it blank .”

3. The new guard exhibited classical signs of consumer behavior – they seemed to be looking for confirming information about the old guard so as to ‘prove their point’ that the latter were advocating ‘pro-gay’ lifestyles, and painted a ‘pro-family’ picture of themselves (and thus justifying their ‘anti-gay’ stance) so as to justify their coup. This was evident from the fact that they only highlighted the more ‘pro-gay’ activities that the old guard held, which might have only comprised of a small percentage of all the activities Aware organized. Further, they seemed to have ignored the disconfirming information… they highlighted that ex-leader Constance Singam attended a gay event last year… but omitted the fact that she had been unwilling to do so previously for fear of being seen as advocating homosexuality…

4. Of course, the new guard, upon knowing that an EOGM would be held next week to bring them down, naturally wanted to protect their positions by garnering more voters on their side… and in the meantime they served themselves another blow with the email asking church members and friends to support their fellow members in the new guard (thereby admitting that Aware is now controlled by the church).

5. Guess whose side the Government is on? The Government has repeatedly said that they would not intervene in this saga. Kind of a dilemma for the Govt, which made clear it’s stance not to legalize homosexualism some time ago. Makes sense, since the Govt would not want to be seen as supporting one religion in a multi-religion society like Singapore. On the other hand, they don’t want to contradict themselves by appearing to support the pro-gay community. But subtle comments were made by various ministers… about how religious organizations should not make use of secular ones to forward their agendas… and now MOE is jumping into the fray by defending the talks on sexuality delivered by the old Aware, which was criticized by the new guard as promoting homosexuality.

Interesting to see how grown-ups with children can be so immatured in fighting over differences in opinions like that. This episode shows that 1. senior executives and professionals can be very childish too 2. better not offend women… as they say, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned =) 3. Singapore is confirmed to be VERY far from being an inclusive society at this point.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens as we move towards the EOGM next week… meanwhile, I am enjoying the dramatic twists and turns in this classic TVBS style catfight on my copy of the Straits Times, over a nice cuppa every morning.

Update: I just read an article on TOC which says that the church pastor made some comments about homosexuality and the new Aware. I was upset when I read that Pastor Hong made some comments to make it seem like the church is trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone in Singapore. I have sent an email to them to seek clarifications. We’ll see if they respond.

Hi

I am not gay, nor am I religiously affiliated. As a concerned citizen of Singapore I would like to seek clarifications on Pastor Hong’s recent comments on the Aware saga.

As all of us know, Singapore is a multi-religion and multi-racial society (and prides itself as being so). However, Pastor Hong commented that “the new team’s actions are not “a crusade against the people,” but instead a move to ensure that the nation does not cross the line drawn by God.”. I am curious as to why Pastor Hong termed it this way when Singapore is not a Christian country. It serves to disconfirm and disrespect the presence of other religions in Singapore – that the line drawn by God should be adhered to by the nation – which implies everyone in Singapore.

I would appreciate your clarifications on the above.

Update as of 30 April: I have heard nothing from COOS with regards to the above email I sent them. I see this very seriously, since it is a statement that presents their religion as superior to the other religions, by saying that there is a line drawn by God which should be followed by the nation (i.e. Singapore).

No related posts.

I have to admit that I was a little skeptical at first, wondering whether this is a genuine case of hardship. It has since emerged that this is indeed a genuine case of someone needing help.

It’s quite amazing that within days, more than $100k in donations were collected. I do intend to donate a little as well, since it’s been reported that her medical bills will come up to about $400k in total.

However, I am wondering:

1. If the amount of donations greatly exceed $400k or assuming $400k has been collected but it turns out that the full amount wasn’t completely utilized for the medical bills… what would happen to the balance?

2. Donations are being accepted via cash, cheques, bank transfer and PayPal. Cash payments are being handled by NUSSU and should be alright. However, I presume the cash once collected will be banked to the patient’s personal account. The question is, should the donations go straight to the patient’s personal bank/PayPal accounts?

My opinion is that since NUSSU is coordinating the donation drive, it should have set up a bank account or made use of NUSSU’s bank account to collect the funds, then disburse whatever amount of funds required to pay the medical bills. It’s an issue of accountability and I think a proper system like this should be in place especially when dealing with such large amounts of money (i.e. nearly half a million). Not that I don’t trust the patient, but I believe that when public funds are involved, there should be clear accountability.

3. I am wondering if the same scale of efforts will be put in for local, Singaporean students who are facing similar problems… I am sure there are a number out there who are suffering from dread diseases and need the financial support – even though they are locals and can get subsidies, most of us should know that costs can still run high. I wish NUSSU and fellow NUS students can do as much for other seriously ill students. It’s a good thing that the NUS community is coming together to help this particular student, but I hope people can be equally generous and helpful to other students who are in need…

UPDATE: I sent an email to NUSSU enquiring on the above concerns (1 and 2) and received a reply that NUSSU is addressing those issues.

For #1, donations are accepted through both NUSSU’s account as well as the student’s account. The latter is because it facilitates transfers from overseas donors (I can’t verify the validity of this statement though). NUSSU also mentioned that they have access to the student’s bank account statements and will update the NUS community about the amount collected and disbursed.

As for #2, NUSSU said they are looking into setting up a “trust fund” for excess monies (but no mention of what the “trust fund” is for).

No related posts.

So if my idea of a no-frills Government is adopted, I would like to see less luxurious building materials used for Government buildings and facilities (I feel like I am walking into the lobby of a five star hotel whenever I visit most of the newer buildings), less “landmark” architectural projects that are just wasting taxpayers’ money (e.g. the Supreme Court’s “UFO” design), less frivolous spending on Government departments’ family days and other functions… the list goes on.

I think this would save plenty of money that can be channeled towards subsidizing housing costs for lower-income Singaporeans… although I still believe the first step is to prick the housing bubble by lowering the profit margin HDB is earning.

And if all my suggestions are not good enough for our Dear Leaders… if they think that as “top talents”, elite Singaporeans who have seats in parliament, their suggestions must be good… then poor Singaporeans should brace themselves for the new slums of Singapore that are being proposed, by the very people who are supposed to advocate welfare for the poor. Perhaps we should have communal toilets at the foot of each block instead of private ones, so that the poor can save on the outrageously expensive conservancy fees that the town councils collect so that their “top talents” can help them invest the funds in “prudent”, “long-term investments” like Bukit Panjang-Holland Town Council’s investment in Creative Technology’s shares?

No related posts.

In times of economic crisis, such as now, when it becomes more apparent that many Singaporeans are having difficulties making ends meet, the disconnect seems to be more greatly felt – with many Singaporeans lamenting that the stimulus package unveiled by the PAP-controlled Government seems more targeted towards relieving businesses and capitalists rather than regular wage-earning Singaporeans.

To make matters worse, in such times when highly-paid civil servants ought to be more sensitive towards the feelings of Singaporeans who are hard hit by the recession, we have people like Perm Sec Tan Yong Soon who bragged about his lavish holiday in France in the mainstream media… and MP Charles Chong who joined in the foray by insuinating that Singaporeans who complained about Tan Soon Yong were just “lesser mortals” who were envious of him. At least he didn’t use the term “green-eyed monsters”.

And of course, more recently there was another MP (edit: a reader pointed out this was NMP Loo, not a PAP MP, just to clarify… apologies for the mistake) who suggested that we should revert to a 5.5 days work week just because Singaporeans are not procreating enough despite the reduction in work week (by half a day. Wow). This chap don’t seem to understand the bigger picture why Singaporeans are not procreating – is there a direct correlation between procreation and work hours, or could it be due to other factors like financial and mental stresses of working and living in Singapore?

Poor PR management indeed. But this is merely icing on the cake. The public outroar at the Tan Yong Soon incident only occured because people had an opportunity to do so since it was an outright display of insensitivity. How about the rest of the top government leaders and ministers who have been quietly enjoying their million-dollars salaries, at the expense of taxpayers who are now finding themselves facing very real risks of retrenchment or pay cuts?

And what about our national reserves which are being ’safeguarded’ by ‘prudent investments’ made through Temasek Holdings and GIC? Mdm Ho Ching, wife of PM Lee, announced her stepping down as CEO of Temasek Holdings, around the same time when it was announced that Temasek lost 31% of its portfolio value (and Temasek justified it by saying that the loss was below benchmark, so it actually outperformed the benchmark by managing to keep losses to ‘just’ $39 billion). We thought Temasek knew better than other investors when they decided, at the onset of the economic crisis last year, to buy massive amounts of equity in the troubled banks like Citi and UBS – it now seems clear that it couldn’t have done so at a worse time.

Rumours having also been floating that GIC lost $50 billion. Combined with the nearly $40 billion losses made by Temasek, that would total $90 billion – perhaps about 1/3 of the rumoured $300 billion in total reserves, or 1/2 if the total reserves are more like $200. Ouch.

Granted, it was not entirely Temasek and GIC’s fault that they lost money in this economic crisis – how many investors actually turned a profit in such times? However, the investments in the foreign banks last year really baffled many people. I wonder if we could have lost less of the country’s reserves by being more conservative – buying stakes in banks during economic crises started by banks’ imprudent lending practices don’t seem to be a very good investment idea, in my humble opinion.

The competence of a country’s leadership is perhaps best tested during economic recessions. This is when we can observe whether the leaders have what it takes to bring us through the recession with minimal impact. This is when we can observe whether our leaders are as good as they claimed they are – remember when PM Lee announced the salary increments for senior civil servants? He said that we must pay competitive salaries to retain top talent. So why has Singapore, under the leadership of top talents, become the first Asian country to be hit by recession, and being impacted so greatly?

To be honest, I rather have less money in our national reserves and a more compassionate government with leaders that understand citizens’ problems and can feel for us, rather than one that proclaims to understand us and yet goes about implementing a stimulus plan that don’t directly address our immediate needs as much as those of businesses and investors. Granted, businesses and investors are an important group to take care of… but in extraordinary times like this, people do expect more direct aid.

Will this recession spell the beginning of a marked decline in popularity of the PAP Government? We shall see what happens in the coming General Elections, which is slated to be held by 2011… not very long from now.

No related posts.

No playgrounds or covered walkways in new HDB estates. Nor any barbecue pits. New flats should have very basic floor tiles, meanwhile.

It is hardly the usual call from Members of Parliament (MPs), who tend to push for upgrading in their constituencies. But two among their ranks are making the call for “no-frills” housing.

According to Dr Lim Wee Kiak and Ms Lee Bee Wah, this should be an option for home buyers and one way to provide more affordable housing.

When he first raised this in Parliament on Friday, Dr Lim gave the example of flat prices in the 1970s: S$15,000 and S$20,000 for a three-room and four-room flat respectively. A graduate with a starting salary of S$1,000 could pay off his apartment with 15 to 25 months of his pay, he said.

The two MPs did not actually use the word “slums”, but given their description of what would constitute lower cost housing, I couldn’t help but have a vision of Singapore’s future slums should their ridiculous idea become reality.

I doubt these two MPs actually live in HDB flats to begin with. And I wonder if they got their facts right – covered walkways and barbeque pits in HDB neighbourhoods don’t seem to be factored into the cost of HDB flats if I understand correctly – I thought these costs are covered by town council funds? Even if they are indeed factored  into the cost, I would think they won’t cost each homeowner much and every neighbourhood ought to have some basic amenities anyway.

To begin with, I don’t think HDB flats and neighbourhoods are anywhere near luxurious in the first place. “No frills” housing? Do those MPs really believe that HDB flats nowadays have lots of “value-added” features? How about making doors optional to lower building costs further? Perhaps we should revert to the 1970s standards when there are no elevators (and when noodles costs just $0.50 or $1 a bowl, and bus rides probably cost just ten or twenty cents).

Further, I think the MPs don’t even know how much it costs to build HDB flats vs the selling price in the first place – they are kind of implying that the government is selling HDB flats at near cost price when it obviously isn’t the case. Assuming there are 250 3-room flats in a block, and each unit costs $150k (selling price)… does it really cost HDB $37.5 million to build the flats? What is the profit margin HDB is making on a block of flats, and how much of the $37.5 million actually goes towards land costs, given that each block of flats don’t really take up a lot of land? I argue that the only solution to make HDB housing affordable, is to either reduce the surpluses that HDB earns on selling flats, or for the Government to reduce land prices in HDB neighbourhoods. The same way that SLA can make a piece of land become worthless overnight by “rezoning” it.

Kinda gives me the shudders to think that some of our MPs don’t really know what’s going on although they are in more ‘privileged’ positions. I don’t claim to know, but I think an educated guess will tell us that the main issue is not about having frills or no frills, because I don’t think BBQ pits and covered walkways cost that much to build… but about Government policy towards HDB housing prices.

The MPs also suggested that upgrades can be added later by the homeowners when they have the financial ability to do so. That is a badly thought out idea. I am sure it costs HDB a lot less to engage a contractor to provide decent quality tiles in bulk to all flats in a neighbourhood, compared to having individual homeowners approaching contractors on their own.

Another example of having people detached from the grassroots suggesting impractical solutions. Why do we pay them $13k a month for them to advocate downgrading our living standards? I don’t think cutting corners is the solution to Singaporeans’ housing woes – rather, more subsidies and financial aid should be provided for those who are unable to afford the cost of HDB flats. Or, more importantly, a review of HDB pricing policy should be done.

No related posts.

From The Straits Times:

WHEN MP Seng Han Thong was set on fire by a Yio Chu Kang resident last month, he drew many online attacks that were vicious.

Some were ‘downright outrageous’, said Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck Yew in Parliament yesterday.

He was referring to postings that included statements saying Mr Seng deserved to be assaulted and a list of 10 things he should ‘be thankful for’ in spite of being attacked.

But instead of silencing these attackers, the online community largely bit their tongue.

The tepid response of netizens to the nasty comments disappointed Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui, who said it was ‘quite apparent the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be’.

RADM Lui was replying to Ms Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), who had asked for his views on netizens’ response to the physical attack on Mr Seng, MP for Yio Chu Kang.

He said: ‘I do not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.

‘It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation.It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.

‘But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.’

RADM Lui also urged netizens to do more to define acceptable online conduct.

I argue that the Government should be thankful for the lack of governance on the Internet. Why? Because it is only through the Internet that nameless and anonymous Singaporeans can voice their unhappy feelings about the state of governance in Singapore. And it is precisely through lack of governance that the Government leaders who usually have their heads up in the clouds, can learn about how regular Singaporeans feel.

Instead of lamenting about and asking why netizens are not ‘rebutting’ the ‘unhelpful comments’ made about MP Seng Han Thong’s precadiament, RADM Lui would have been better off asking himself or his fellow MPs, “Why are the majority of netizens not sympathetic towards MP Seng – is it because of widespread resentment about MPs and government policies, or is that the majority of online Singaporeans have no morals or compassion, and are mean, deceitful and simply put, horrible people?”

Or is RADM telling Singaporeans that everyone should feel sympathy for MP Seng just because he personally feels that way? What moral authority has he got to have expectations that people think and behave in his preferred way?

Having said that, I must say that I personally do sympathize with MP Seng. Whether or not he done a good job as MP, I don’t think any person should be subject to that kind of grevious attack… expect for criminals like murderers and rapists.

No related posts.

Lee Hsien Loong: “We have helped those who needed help…no one will be left behind.”

Lee Kuan Yew: “You go down New York, Broadway. You will see the beggars, people of the streets…Where are the beggars in Singapore? Show me.”

Singapore has no beggers because they will be picked up by the police before long. We have no poverty, because Singapore has no official poverty line. This is the same as saying that Singapore’s TV license fee is “one of the lowest” in the world, without revealing the fact that many countries do not charge for TV license fees at all. Technically it remains correct that Singapore has one of the lowest license fees since there aren’t many countries out there that charge for it anyway.

Similarly, we can also say that Singapore has free speech because we’ve got the Speaker’s Corner, Hong Lim Park where anybody can say anything without getting arrested (but still face the prospects of being crushed with civil defamation lawsuits).

If 3 years of university education in “one of the world’s top”, “world class” university here in Singapore has taught me anything, it has taught me how not to be deceived by mere statistics or unsubstantiated claims. It has also taught me to view mainstream media reports with skepticism.

Gone are the days when university graduates constitute just a minority of the population, and when the public can be easily swayed by reports in the mainstream media when there were no other easily accessible sources of news and information. Today, with information easily available on the Internet and our relatively higher proportion of highly-educated citizens, the mainstream media and the Government are facing their toughest challenge – with access to alternative news sources and social media,  Singaporeans no longer need to rely exclusively on mainstream media and are better able to evaluate the reports and statistics reported by doing simple research online.

Look around in blogs, online news sources, etc. Is there really no poverty in Singapore? Are Singaporeans’ safety net of CPF really adequate, as those people who are marketing it always claim? Are Singaporeans well protected enough to retire with enough to see them through old age? There is this Chinese saying that goes “老王卖瓜，自卖自夸“. Rough literal translation -  a watermelon seller would always tell you that his watermelons are sweet.

This is what researchers from the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy (ironic, eh?) have to say (Original article - Singapore’s policy responses to ageing, inequality and poverty: An assessment) :

Singapore represents an instructive case study in managing globalization and addressing ageing, inequality, and poverty challenges. It has relied on a single-tier mandatory savings scheme (CPF) for housing (primarily); for healthcare (minor importance quantitatively but major ideologically); and for retirement. Stringent means-testing, a case-by-case approach, and low levels of benefits have been hallmarks of the various social assistance schemes. The end result of these social policies has been to make individuals and their families bear disproportionate risks of old age and of low incomes, with grossly inadequate social risk-pooling.

Ultimately, social sector policies exhibit a revealed preference concerning the vision of the society. As Bowring (2007) has argued, investment in children through government spending may provide a much better return than accumulating vast fiscal surpluses to be invested in low yielding foreign assets or unnecessary infrastructure. There is a dumb arrogance in East Asia’s approach to excess savings and its inability to face up to the reasons for its abysmal fertility rates. The two are linked. That must change if the whole region is not to be a geriatric poor-house. This applies to Singapore, where adherence to social Darwinism and desire to perpetuate socio-political control are additional factors preventing the development of a much-needed multi-tier social protection system.

No related posts.

Apparently, a group of Singaporean bloggers set up an “Association of Bloggers”, purportedly to provide support and guidelines for bloggers in Singapore, especially professional bloggers.

Sounds like a union of sorts to me, which should be encouraged if it’s role is to advocate the rights of bloggers… but wait a minute… the inaugural President of the association was quoted in a press interview:

Describing bloggers as “loose sand scattered all over,” Ms Goh wants the blogging community to have “grown-up conversations, blogging responsibility and creative growth”.

“I find the state of our blogosphere in Singapore appalling,” said Ms Goh, “When discussions get heated, crude language, insults and other off-colour comments may be encountered … I want to change that,” she said.

So it’s existence seems to be more as a overseeing agency for bloggers – to provide guidelines and best practices for bloggers?

I am unconvinced that it would have any impact in changing how things are in the blogosphere. As a matter of fact, the Internet as it is today, provides people with an outlet to voice their views, thoughts and opinions – whether or not those views are polite, politically correct, professional, responsible or not. Hence, what is the purpose of having an association overseeing and providing guidelines for bloggers? This is tantamount to stifling creativity and the whole idea of the Internet being the media of choice for freedom of expression.

By the way, “flaming” and crude language is not a phenomenon seen only in the Singapore blogosphere – in reality, this occurs everywhere in the world, and is more likely to happen in Western societies where people are more used to the idea of freedom of expression and have no problems with flaming each other online. In fact, flaming is not even an online thing. How often do we hear people criticizing and flaming others offline?

The only difference, I would argue, is in perspective – I see online flaming as a good opportunity for people to exchange views and also in trying to understand why people become upset and motivated to flame one another. It is better than arguing offline, when the situation can get out of control and we have people ending up losing their cool and physically fighting when arguments don’t go their way. We cannot realistically expect that everyone can remain rational and cool-headed in their online activities, just as much as we cannot expect the same to happen offline.

Furthermore, Ms Goh has announced that not everybody can join the Association – they must be invited and/or be approved by their “Council”. This makes it seem even more like a joke – what, forming a group of “elite” bloggers? Very, Uniquely Singapore indeed! What we see in the socio-political scene today – the social divide between the elite civil servants and poor peasants, is now coming onto the blogosphere – very soon we shall witness a social divide between self-branded, “elite” bloggers versus “peasant” bloggers like mrbiao.

No related posts.