The Island that was

It is a sad day for Singapore.

The celebrated "Singapore works" moniker is in danger of extinction. The erstwhile 'it just works' island is now an unreliable place to be, transport wise. How did we ever descend into this?

Commuters are so spooked that they pray and cross their fingers they will get to the office on time every morning. And students taking exams are now caught up in this worrisome phenomenon - of trains breaking down for hours. Come to think of it - Singapore students of one type or another are taking exams and tests throughout most of the year, except perhaps in June and December. I am beyond that, but I have children who may face this previously unthinkable prospect. If you are late, it is because you are late. Don't blame the bus or the train. You should have set off earlier to allow for heavy traffic. That's what we get told anyway.

Now, we can definitely say it was the train that was late. What can you do when you are stuck in a subterranean tunnel somewhere on the island for an extended period of time? There is really nowhere to go, nothing to do except wait for help. And given the mess that is likely taking place above ground, you can hunker down and wait, and wait and ....until the oxygen runs out or someone smashes the door with a fire extinguisher.

But we have become complacent, even arrogant in our perceived resiliency. We have gotten drunk on the praise that the international community has lavished on us for years that we have begun to believe in our own invincibility. Well, schools are going to have to craft out a new set of rules that govern these exceptions that are likely to occur to students taking exams. Our exam standards and processes will now get to a higher level. Yeah, you bet.

As the Committee of Inquiry (COI) on transport proceeds, we are hearing of lapses that reddens the face, and not least those earning millions whose job was to put in place people and processes precisely to prevent, and manage disasters. But no, the here and now matters more. The stockholders' interest is primary. If you can't cut cost and grow profit, you're just not good enough a CEO. You need to get one person to do two persons' job. That's promoting productivity. Isn't that what the government is advocating, nay, droning on and on these days?

The customer who? Oh those rats in the tunnels and holes. Well, consider themselves lucky that we charge them so little to zip from one hole in the ground to another, those vermins. For us, that Porshe is just fine.

City Hall, we have a problem here.

Tank the Tanker

An oil tanker and a bulk carrier collided with another ship on 25 May 2010. As a results, thousands of tonnes of crude oil was dumped and now threatens the sea and shores of Singapore. The latest report has the oil slick affecting Malaysian waters too.

I don't have much of an opinion about this disaster, except to ask - what were the people manning the sea traffic doing, or more more pertinently, NOT doing to prevent this collision? Like the people manning the Control Tower in an airport, the people manning the seaport have just as heavy a responsibility to make sure things like this do not happen. The Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) has sophisticated radar control systems that monitor the passage of sea craft in its waters. Ships are mapped on giant radar screens, and the people manning these radar systems  are supposed to look out for any potential problems or collisions. Yes, in spite of these, a large bulk carrier can collide with tanker so near to Singapore's shores. Maybe the warning was issued to the ships but the captain ignored them. Maybe there was a failure in the communications hardware. Nothing has been said so far on where the fault lies. Whoever or whatever to blame, it just shows that the systems in place are not perfect, and the MPA will have to rectify any weakness. Singapore is, after all, the world's most busy port. An lapse in its systems and processes must surely reflect badly on its ability to host sea craft in our waters.

A Serious Flood?

Sometimes you wonder about the reasoning that comes out of the government's mouth. Referring to the deluge that many parts of Singapore faced on Thursday afternoon, Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim was reported to have said that this kinds of deluge (rain) happens only once in 50 years. Well it happened yesterday, in the year 2009. According to his estimate, the next deluge of this size isn't due till 2059. So I am puzzled why the Public Utilities Board (PUB) wants to upgrade Bukit Timah's first diversion canal, which was built in the 1970s to alleviate the then flood-prone area. It has proved to be effective all these many years, except last Thursday, which as Dr Yaacob Ibrahim explained, was a rare occurrence.

Or is the PUB not letting on something? If so, then could Thursday's deluge have been prevented in the first place, or was somebody sleeping on the job. It has had to take a severe act of God to wake up our overworked(?) civil servants?

I was surprised that a wide expanse of that Bukit Timah area was flooded. Ever since the early 1980s, where floods still occurred, it has never happened again, thanks to the civil works to widen the canal and making sure that the waters flowed into our rivers unimpeded. I know, because I once had to wade, knee-deep, to make it to school there, and that was 1981.

Looks like Singapore needs to do some more digging, of a different sort that Minister Raymond Lim is familiar with. It needs to make sure that the same flooding will not occur again. But then, going by PUB's account, that wouldn't be 50 years hence. There's all the time in the world!

How the Markets really work

Someone passed me this Youtube video that explained in plain man's English (ok, it souds like the Queen's English) what happened in the world of high finance in 2007.

It says a lot about how we ended up where we are today. When there are no good news, we just have to swallow the bitter pill, laugh at the taste and promise not to trust anyone with the title, MBA (Finance/Investments/Risks), after their names anymore, particularly if the word 'bank' appears somewhere as well.

Toxic times

These are trying times in Singapore for some 10,000 people. I am not sure that all of them are Singaporeans. It may very well be. These 10k people are looking into a hole so big and wide, and bottomless, that I suppose you'd understand that some would want to jump into it. Fortunately, so far, we haven't heard of any superman acts in our tall tall buildings (some soon to rise to 50 floors!) nor our above-ground subway stations. It would appear that the SMRT cannot erect barriers at its stations soon enough to prevent people using its platforms as launching pads into...I don't know where anyone wants to go by jumping in front of oncoming trains...

Well, by now, you would have guessed that I am referring to the 10,000 people who potentially have lost all their investments (and life-long savings for some) in the mini-bond saga that resulted from the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the US. All investments linked to this Investment Bank are in jeopardy now. It is hardrending when you read of senior citizens losing their entire life-savings in this ONE investment. But on the other hand, you cannot but feel how foolish they are for putting all their eggs in one basket. Has half a century of life and living, which probably included several recessions, not taught them about anything? Yes, many of the Relationship Managers (RM) that the bank employed should bear the blame for pushing otherwise risky products down the throats of aged investors who know nothing, or are not interested to know about the complexity of the product beyond the amount of money they are putting down and the interest they will earn.

Indeed, I have heard of young RMs gloating about the $20,000 they earn per month doing what they did, relieving old and maybe not-so-old but cash-rich people of their life-savings to put into 'principal-protected' and/or high-interest-yielding structured investment products. In retrospect, I am sure neither the RM, nor the investor, understood the nature of the mechanisms underlying these investment products. This calls to mind the true story of the wildly successful mortgage bond traders at Saloman Brothers (SB), before it collapsed in the 1980s, who weren't even trained in finance. (As told in Michael Lewis' Liar's Poker) It will be farfetched to equate SB's young and hot-blooded mortgage traders with today's RMs or the products they sold, but the role they played is not all that different, in retrospect.

In retrospect too, 'principle-protected' means nothing, and even plain vanilla savings deposits for that matter, if the bank that helms the investments and deposits goes bankrupt. We always see better after the fact. Our vision suddenly improves to 20-20. Truly the prophet is without honour in the free-wheeling world of leveraged investments. Who would have thought, much less predicted, that Lehman Brothers would collapse, or for that matter, AIG? Certainly not DBS Bank, and others whose error was to retail toxic investments and not see them for what they were, much like ignorantly selling melamine-tained milk powder. If the investments people in these banks, who probably have a ton of MBAs, cannot see a toxic financial product for what it is early, how much more the man in the street? (Interestingly, Lewis claimed that Salomon Brothers crumbled when it started to rely more on educated professional financial people rather than on people with raw trading skills but had otherwise no financial training).

For the rest of the 10,000, and more, caught in the repercussion of bank failures in the US, it is cold comfort. All have lost money, though none as spectacular as those that bought into the Lehman Brothers' mini-bonds and related funds. And all shouldn't expect the government to bail them out. Whatever money the government has belongs to the taxpayers. Surely you do not expect a lowly paid bloke like me who never dabbles in investments beyond FDs to foot the bill of others' failed investments? Where is the fairness in it? Would these same people who, if they had made money from these investments, share them with me?

So I think that the MAS is doing the right thing now. Investigate the matter, and if the Financial Institutions have breached any laws through the conduct of its RMs or others, or have been manifestly negligent, get them to 'do the right thing', as MAS' Managing Director, Mr Heng Swee Keat is reported to have said. There is no question that the Singapore government SHOULD NOT buy up these toxic assets with taxpayers' money so that the same investors who have lost a bundle get to invest another day in financial products that nobody understands. The lesson is a hard one, but we must be fair in the whole thing, particularly to those who have had no hand, not even a finger, on these financial toxins.

Even if the FI's buy back all the toxic Lehman bonds, like what the Hong Kong FI's have done, it'll hit the bank's shareholders. Oh well, in these stressful times, almost nobody will get away scot-free.

Disclaimer: I am not a financial consultant. Anything written here are my personal opinion. The reader should consult a professionally qualified person for advice on matters relating to investments and risk. However, it appears you can't trust anybody nowadays. You'd want to take with a pinch of salt what any finance person, qualified or not, would tell you nowadays, except the very helpful Mr Tan Kin Lian, who perhaps should stand for election for Parliament in the next General Election, seeing as By-Elections have lost its favour with the sitting government.

Picture shows the attractive but poisonous berries of the Yew tree.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Mike

Absolution

Mr Freddie Kee, the father of Reuben Kee, who died while competing in last November's dragon boat competition in Cambodia, has made an important point. He, and the parents of the 4 other youth who lost their lives in the same accident, are asking a question that has so far been pushed aside perfunctorily - who was to blame for the accident? The Inquiry panel that was convened to look into the accident basically said that nobody could be blamed, that no one person or organisation can be held accountable for the accident. But now, Mr Kee is forcing the hand that would not play. In the light of the latest 'water accident', where a student from the SMU drowned, this is indeed a pertinent question, one that demands an answer, especially in the light of new information.

It appears that it was an accident that could have been avoided after all. A Singapore Dragon Boat Association's (SDBA) team manager had reportedly warned about the danger of the pontoon platform which eventually claimed the lives of the 5 rowers. But in spite of this, a judgement was made (probably within the SDBA) to discount the warning, to fatal consequences. Clearly, there is a case for the SDBA to answer. Also, it would appear that the Inquiry Panel's conclusions were defective. I do not know if they were in possession of this material fact. If they were, they will be just as culpable in hiding the truth, or at least not given it due weight in their deliberations. But the fact is that the Singapore Dragon Boat Association was in possession of such a fact. Therefore the decision not to put on life vests was an irresponsible decision.

The SDBA might not want to admit culpability by apologising. Will it be facing a civil suite in the days to come? But beyond civil suites and apologies, it now appears that the SDBA is not an organisation that puts safety above all else. This is a widely reported accident. And if the SDBA is not going to do anything to convince the public that it does put safety above all, then its popularity in the coming years will dwindle and the sport may die a natural death. Why? Because Singapore is a very kiasu society and each family doesn't have so many children to 'spare'. Why would any right-thinking parent allow his child to participate in an activity where its organisers have a poor track record on safety? What's worse, if anything bad happens, this organisation would appear to be the first to 'run away' from bearing responsibility.

So for the sake of the sport, and more so, for the sake of safety, the leaders of the SDBA should come clean about itself. Otherwise, it is time either to change the guard or disband the association.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Dani Simmonds

Blame Game

I am flabbergasted. Quite obviously, Singapore mobilised whatever resource it had: the Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) that involved its personnel and craft, Singapore Police Coast Guard, Republic of Singapore Navy and Raffles Marina. Yet for all these effort, the sister of Levin Angsana, Hannah, went on television to blame these same agencies for not being able to save her brother, who drowned off the seas around Raffles Marina while sailing with his team mates and friends from the SMU, where Levin was studying.

She said on Channel NewsAsia that "...More precautions (sic) could have been taken. Further, rescue measures that could have been done in time were not. The Singapore naval divers were not activated fast enough. They arrived after dark. The fact that my brother could not swim and was not wearing a life vest at the point of the accident showed safety was not a priority." This same report was also broadcast on its evening News as 9.30pm, where I first caught this incredible display of blame everyone but... 

Well, lady, tell that to your dead brother, pleeeze. Nobody was wearing a life-vest then, and nobody knew that he could not swim. And according to what I understand, her brother wasn't a rank amateur. He had reportedly obtained a Class 1 sailing licence last year, which was a requirement before he could sail. With this licence, it meant that he could "sail solo and swim for up to 50 metres in open water while wearing a life jacket". Either her sister is correct about him not being able to swim, or Levin managed to fool his assessors.

Singapore always does its best to help those in distress, whether the person is a Singaporean, Permanent Resident or Foreigner. But it isn't an all-knowing and almighty God. That our Navy divers were willing to go into pitch dark waters tells you the lengths they will go to search for and hopefully, save a person. But Hannah cannot appreciate this and literally blamed everyone except her own brother. While we sympathise with her and her family for the loss of a loved one, the rest of Singapore cannot be held accountable for his unfortunate and accidental death, even if the waters which claimed his life belonged to Singapore. I shudder to think if the waters belonged to Malaysia. Then perhaps she would vent her spiel at the Malaysian waters for swallowing up her brother and for the Royal Malaysian Police to have taken its own sweet time with the rescue effort. In any case, the Malaysians were also putting in effort in the search, so why didn't she blame them too?

 

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Dani Simmonds

Ego Hero

I think Today writer, Leong Wee Keat, hit the nail on the head when he wrote that our SAF National Serviceman can get into trouble, healthwise, because they are not willing to come clean on the state of their health. And really, as someone else has written, the doctor will only know you are not well when he examines you upon a complaint by you. Otherwise the only other way a doctor can know if you are not well is when you collapse. The first requires one to volunteer the information. After all, doctors are not Gods and Platoon Commanders upwards in a military chain of command are even less so. The second is when information is forced out of you. Unfortunately, it might be too late for anyone to help then.

In the recent death of two young men in the course of their national service exercises, questions have again been raised as to what caused their deaths. It certainly wasn't a war, nor a bullet. Less sympathetic observers might say that it is the recruits - they are so 'lembeh' (Malay for weak) nowadays, conditioned by years of comfortable (if not luxurious) home living, that a little more exertion can literally kill them. In other cases, it is pushing yourself so hard to achieve your objectives that you throw the warning signs that your body is likely sending out out the window. When you do fall dead, nobody is the wiser why an otherwise healthy young man can die so easily. All things being equal, when 19 others go through the obstacle course unharmed, whereas one falls dead, the reason does not lie in the obstacle course, but with the person. Unless you say that something in the course (e.g. jungle) poisoned him - but that can be determined by an autopsy, I suppose.

So the lesson we must take away from the recent deaths of 2 NS men is to put common sense above bravado. It isn't very much use if you cannot reap the benefits of bravado because you ignored Mr Common Sense. And it is no shame to tell someone, or get someone to help early when your body says something is not quite right. After all, war is about survival. If you can't take care of yourself, how can you take care of the nation?

Postscript: The SAF resumed training activities after a 3-day suspension "following the deaths of Officer Cadet Clifton Lam Jia Hao and Recruit Andrew Cheah Wei Siong". Further, "MINDEF is satisfied that proper procedures are in place for all physical and endurance training activities carried out by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), and that these are being followed". - Channel NewsAsia, 17 June 2008.

Conclusion: The SAF is not at fault.
Question: So who is?

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Clara Natoli

A rowing we won't go

Rank amateurs. Incredible. 5 young man died and it is nobody's fault. In the case of Mat Selamat's escape from detention, 8 people were found to be culpable and disciplinary action instituted, even on a person who had been absolved of blame in the escape. In the case of the death of 5 dragon-boaters, part of the ill-fated dragon-boat race team that took part in the race in Cambodia last year, 'no one was to blame', said the inquiry panel set up to investigate the circumstances and reasons for this tragedy. Granted it is very important that the lessons learnt in this tragedy should go towards preventing similar tragedies from happening in the future, it still begs the question: who is/are to blame? To some of the families who lost a son, there must be a feeling that somebody or some people are shirking their responsibilities.

To its credit, the Board of Inquiry (BOI) does not seem to have hidden anything. It even pointed out that "the team manager and captain...responsible for making crucial decisions on safety instead...(left it) to a vote". Clearly, in matters of safety, a democracy just will not do. Imagine a teacher leading 40 students out on a field trip making decisions by taking a vote - that's what really happened here. It's an abdication of leadership and responsibility. How can nobody be blamed? Granted we do not want to promote a blame culture, but people must be held accountable, beginning from the very top.

What is disingenuous in the finding is the hint that the Cambodian organisers, their paddles and their boats are to blame. If you want to participate in competitions overseas, you cannot insist that the paddles must measure a certain dimension and that all of them should be uniform. In the same way, you cannot insist that the Tonlap River be as calm as the Kallang River, or that the boat must be as wide and flat as those used in Singapore. Every team, including the 8 other teams from Asean, use the same equipment and row in the same river and encounter the same currents. If the Singapore dragon-boat team can only row in calm 'placid' waters, then they should be nowhere near international competitions.

It is symptomatic of Singaporeans, when they travel overseas, that they insist on the kind of efficiency and cleanliness that they are used to and expect in Singapore. No, you have to adapt to different conditions and be prepared for the unexpected, even the worst, when you are in countries that have less developed infrastructure and systems. Ban Singaporeans from joining competitions that do no conform to the guidelines set by the International governing bodies? Well, that proves one thing, doesn't it? That Singaporeans can't hack it. They can't manage, and they don't know how to prepare for the most challenging races. It just goes to perpetuate the perception that Singapore dragon-boaters are soft, easy pushovers - kiddy rowers, actually.

Why don't we just forget the sport and channel our energies elsewhere? That will really help to prevent similar incidents from happening ever again.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Ray Forester

Business of giving

Singaporeans have been called kiasu and kiasi, which roughly translated, means averse to losing out to any and everybody. Yet, when it comes to giving, Singaporeans really have a heart of gold. Just the other day, the hat was passed around in my workplace and everyone contributed cash in greater or lesser amounts towards the needs of the people affected by the Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar (Burma). This in spite of reports that the generals and other government crooks are hoarding some of the donated stuff and passing the rotten leftovers to the people in need. Then came increasingly grim news of the Sichuan earthquake, now known as the 512 incident, with upwards of 20,000 lives and counting reportedly lost. Singaporeans opened their pockets again in spite of living on an island where the prices of some things have gone up by as much as 40%.

What can we make of this creature called the Singaporean? Before, we all thought that Singaporean's giving was not all out of altruistic motives. For example, there were lucky strings attached to the giving in the Singapore National Kidney Foundation's charity shows and the Ren Ci charity drives. People gave in copious amounts - millions of dollars when totaled up. The cynics among us sniggered and found the kiasu/kiasu pattern in all this. But what of the giving to Myanmar and China? Don't want to lose out there too, even when there is no obvious return on the donation, whether in cash or kind? Perhaps the feel good factor that one has helped an unfortunate human being is there. We just don't want others to feel better than ourselves - kiasuism in action again! How characteristic of the Singaporean! But of course I am being cynical again. It is probably nearer the truth to say that most, if not all, of the giving arises from a feeling of shared humanity in times of suffering. Truly our troubles become insignificant when we see others face tragedies far worse - like the lost of lives, houses and livelihoods.

I was told of how the parents of a student in Singapore, who hails from Sichuan, escaped just in time before their house collapse. This student spent sleepless nights worrying over her parents. We know of many Burmese in Singapore who may have lost friends and relatives in the Irrawaddy delta region, which is the worst affected by Cyclone Nargis. While we often talk about global businesses, it has become the business of nations to care for each other. Almost without fail, the US, Europe and Japan put themselves first in line to offer aid, wherever that need is, even in countries not on the most friendly terms with them. While the rest of the world may berate the US for throwing its weight around the world and engaging in unwelcome wars, it must acknowledge that the American people are generous to a fault. Some cynics would disagree and say that this is a proxy approach to 'buy people's hearts', as the Taiwanese seem to be doing by boasting that they can raise more money for the Sichuan disaster victims than even the mainland Chinese can, but I think that is being biased. At the end of the day, action speaks louder than words. Let those who often criticise others look at themselves first to see if they have done enough.

Yet the cynic in me cannot help but ask the question: why does China need any money from the rest of the world when it has trillions in foreign reserves? Television footage showing Premier Wen Jiabao comforting a grieving child and promising government help should settle the matter. Premier Wen knows he can back up his promises with money and action. Having said that, Premier Wen is turning out to be a serial comforter, from the mining incident back in 2003 to the snowstorms this past Chinese New Year and now, the Sichuan disaster. In many countries, the top leadership remains largely aloof in times of tragedy and the comforting is left up to functionaries to perform. Here, however, is a display of leadership from the very top by example. More than mere money, Premier Wen is giving of his spirit and sharing the people's grief in a very visible and real way. No wonder China has fallen in love with "Wen Yeye". Let us applaud Premier Wen and let the Myanmar generals learn a thing or two from "Grandpa Wen".

Image source: morguefile.com. Author: xpSquid

Strap on for life

What is more important than saving a life, or better still, preventing a death? Yet this is the 'seat belt' that the LTA has been sitting on for several years. Like what many have already written, why must it take a boy's death to galvanise our law makers into action? That our Parliamentarians appear so determined this time around AFTER the fact smacks of hypocrisy. As people elected to make and pass laws, it would appear that our Parliamentarians, government or opposition, are remiss in one of their most important jobs - to protect their constituents, and by extension, their country.

Is it that the civil service, represented by the LTA, is so authoritative, and the mini-bus drivers' association so intransigent, that our law makers shy away from engaging them when it sees a danger that must be plugged? Truly, making money on this island is still of primary importance, even over life and safety. Well, not totally true. Safety at construction work site is policed regularly, though the last tragedy at a work site - the Nicoll Highway collapse, was supervised by LTA. Is it a coincidence that the LTA is involved in so much bad news over the last couple of years?

Are seat belts the solution to preventing deaths in our vehicles? Probably, but I would venture to guess that it hasn't been foolproof, nor can it be the last word on road safety. The other problem, really, is speeding and reckless driving on our roads. And it hasn't stopped. Just last evening, it was reported that an SMRT bus was involved in an accident with a private bus, resulting in 15 people getting injured. Fortunately for everyone, nobody died in spite of the absence on both vehicles of seat belts. The private bus was reportedly carrying more passengers in this accident. And it wasn't a minor one. The front of the SMRT bus was reportedly "badly mangled".

Perhaps our law makers should also re-look into issues over and above that of mandatory seat belts in mini-buses?

p.s. Going by the same logic, shouldn't there be seat belts in public buses and trains as well? Some 'experts' have claimed that the size and design of large vehicles allow them to better withstand shocks. Well, we are just waiting for the first fatal casualty, aren't we?

Image source: www.morgueFile.com. Author: Kahanaboy

Holy cow! The ground is moving

Holy cow! The ground is moving. Well, not actually. Most people on ground level yesterday at around 12.15 pm or 1.50pm in Singapore would not have felt nor experienced the earthquake tremors that enveloped the island due to a 6.x earthquake on the Sumatran island. I know because I didn't feel the tremors when I was at the third level of one building and walking back to my office's building during the 11.50-12.10pm time window when tremors struck the island yesterday. I phoned home at about 1pm to check if the tremors were felt in my 7th floor apartment. It wasn't, though we learnt later on the news that Pasir Ris, which is near Sengkang, experienced the tremors. Apparently, some people in Potong Pasir felt the tremors at near ground level.

But when the tremors struck again at around 1.50-2pm (didn't read the exact time, except that I was preparing for a meeting at 2pm yesterday) I was at my desk on the seventh floor. I felt my chair moving back and forth on its own while I was working on my computer. It was surreal and yes, there was a sense of dizziness. I evacuated the building immediately, walking down all 7 floors. This wasn't that bad. Some people on other parts of the island reportedly walked down more than 30 floors, not daring to risk the lifts.

This is unusual, not that Singapore doesn't experience tremors that originate from afar, but that it is so widespread this time around. Well, as expected, it turned out to be from Indonesia where the epicentre was reportedly about 50 km from the city of Padang on the western coast of Sumatra. Unfortunately, 71 people reportedly lost their lives there.

Read more about the quake here:

Singapore shaken after quakes in Indonesia
Powerful Indonesian quake kills at least 71
BBC: Indonesian earthquake

A dismal December

Dartmouth Flood Observatory

December is turning out to be a month of disasters in Southeast Asia. Two years ago today, the Asian Tsunami claimed the lives of 130,000 people across a huge swat of Asia, stretching from the Maldives in the Indian Ocean to Sri Lanka beside the Indian Continent right up to Penang Island on the western coast of the Malay Peninsula. The hardest hit was Aceh in Indonesia, which was nearest the epicentre of the undersea earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter Scale.

Two years hence, CNA reported on 24th December 2006 that at least 60 lives were lost due to the devastating floods caused by heavy rainfall in the Aceh Tamiyang district in Indonesia. Will there be no respite for this ravaged land?

On a smaller scale this December, Malaysia again suffered, though this time farther south of Penang. Flood waters caused by the heaviest rainfall in a century took the lives of at least 4 people in Peninsula Malaysia. Almost 90,000 people lost their homes mainly in the southern parts of the country.

Earlier in the month, Typhoon Durian wreaked havoc in the Philippines, killing at least 400 people with almost the same number reportedly missing. About 66,000 people became homeless due to the destruction caused by this typhoon.

Though no one lost their lives in Singapore, the flood waters caused by incessant rainfall over several days led to significant damage to property and businesses primarily located in the centre of the island. Fortunately or unfortunately, I was away from Singapore most of this time and never experienced any of the inconveniences that it reportedly caused had I been commuting to work. You see, one of the places I pass through to work is Lornie Road beside MacRitchie Reservoir. It seems that my holiday and travelling plans of the past week or more have unwittingly saved me all the inconvenience.

Nevertheless, at this moment, beside remembering those that lost their lives in the tsunami 2 years ago, it is also opportune to remember those who lost lives and homes in the Philippines, West Malaysia and again in Indonesia this December.

Somehow, remembering the loss that businesses sustained in Singapore seem not to be in the same 'league' as lost lives, but as someone has pointed out, this is Singapore's mini-tsunami of sorts.

While we hope that it never happens again, who can stop the forces of nature?