The Real Last

Our grand old dame, Singapore's National Stadium, refuses to give up its ghost of 35 years. It just wouldn't die, not when games and events continue to be hosted there after the 'Field of Dreams', billed as the last event to be held there (on 30 June 2008), has come and gone. The Stadium is still standing, and major events continue to be held there. People have been writing in to the press expressing a sense of being cheated when the National Stadium continues to be used for big events, such as the Olympic Qualifier soccer match between Singapore and Saudi Arabia on 14 June 2008. And yes, we cannot trust our sports official when they say anything regarding the use of the National Stadium because contrary to their statements, another major event (for which they are charging $60 entrance fee - to a condemned building) - the hosting of the Brazilian soccer team who are on their way to Beijing for the Olympic games - is going to be held there on 28 July 2008 (next Monday).

It would appear that our sports officials will kow-tow to the IOC, or whoever made the request, instead of keeping to their words. That when Ronaldinho and Robinho comes, integrity is not that important. They do not believe in the saying, "A man's word is his bond". No, not when you go gaga over a has-been and a still-to-be (heard that Real Madrid wants to offload Robinho). It isn't as if Cristiano Ronaldo is coming, for heaven's sake! Or for that matter, David Beckham. (Well, of course there still are seasoned players like Kaka, Cafu and Adriano).

Singapore sports like to live in the past, and perhaps this is THE problem after all. It hasn't gain significant honours in the past, it is constantly reminiscing about the past. Well, ok, we are going to host the YOG come 2010, but the results remain to be seen.

In the meantime, it would do well for the sport officials to regain their integrity. If they intend to do something, and say they intend to do so, then they must DO IT. If not, they should keep their mouths shut. Nobody forced them to declare a last night at the grand old sports dame that is the National Stadium.


Image source: wikipaedia.com

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

Child-free

'Child-free' - I heard someone say some days ago. That is said in the same spirit as 'freedom', 'liberating' and 'care-free'. It wasn't something that the couple feels that something is missing from their lives. Rather, because of being 'child-free', they can enjoy their marital bliss. Come to think of it, why get married anyway? They can plan to sail here during this long weekend, and fly there during their annual breaks in March, September and December. There is no need to worry about the child being too young to travel, or the exam periods of the older ones in March and September because they are 'free' of any child.

That's the life many couples would look forward to (again, why marry?). At the same time, they can climb the corporate ladder unhindered, to reach that earnings level that a condo and a car becomes a reality early in life. So what's there about kids that one must have one when marriage is a done thing? Why indeed? Today, sex without children, though not an exact Science, is easy. Perhaps the only reason why an ambitious couple would want kids have to do with money again - the baby bonus and tax reliefs. If that is the primary consideration, I wouldn't want these people to be my father and mother. For I will be a product conceived in cash and borned for profit. That would mean early introduction to a life of 'education' which end is to generate 'wealth' - pre-K 'education', followed by K1/K2, Primary, Secondary, JC and culminating in a good U degree. And through all these years, there'll be no lack of tuition classes, enhancement classes, etc. And all to what end? So that the child can grow up to become successul money generating machines, just as their parents are.

That's the Singapore, unfortunately, that I am witnessing today. I do not know what will become of us tomorrow. Except that amidst all these madness, I know of people who, instead of profiting from the government to bring kids into the world, would spend a lot of their hard-earned money to bring children into the world through in-vitro. There is no way to justify such expenses, in terms of dollars and cents (sense too). Its a totally losing proposition. Yet I know of parents who have done so and have run up huge debts. But they have no regrets doing so. Being 'child-free' was not an option, even if it meant financial hardships. I would rather be a child of such parents, deprivation notwithstanding.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Ettore

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

Baring Fangs

There seems to be a lot of fantastic acting going on these past few weeks. First, Hollywood released blockbuster after blockbuster to overwhelm the viewing appetite of the movie-going public. What with National Treasure 2, Indiana Jones, Iron Man, Prince Caspian...the list goes on. Coming up is Hellboy II and the widely anticipated Batman, though the Joker could be the main draw this time. This was Heath Ledger's last major starring role (as the Joker) before he committed suicide.

The other acting closer to home is the trial of Mdm Valli, or rather the Priests, Volunteers and the Novena Catholic Church. Unexpectedly, counsel for Mdm Valli, Mr RS Bajwa, has now put on the mantel of priesthood by uttering "May God forgive you", referring to Father Simon Tan, at the conclusion of his cross-examination of the same. Has Mr Baja taken holy orders? He appears to be more of an expert on exorcism than the priests, and he seems to know when one should stop talking to God, more so than the priests, when he questioned the efficacy of the prayer sessions during their attempts to help Mdm Valli.

Father Tan was understanding enough. He doesn't seem to be perturbed and merely stated that the way counsel behaved was consistent with him doing his job.

Readers would know that I have the greatest doubt and skepticism regarding the plaintive's case. I maintain that opinion. Counsel's behaviour does not help me form a more sympathetic view for the plaintive. This trial is probably going to turn more ugly before the truth comes out, if it has not already surfaced, i.e.

 

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Emily Roesly

Rocket food

Well, thank God that you can still get Chicken Rice for $2.50 a pop in at least 3 out of 5 stalls in Singapore. CASE did a survey and came up with this finding. Not surprisingly, these can only be found in non-air-conditioned food centers. Anecdotal evidence will also tell us that in air-conditioned food centers, the $2.50 chicken rice place is a rarity. If it exists, you'd probably get a lean serving with lots of fat, which suits some taste buds, but certainly not the health conscious.

Unfortunately, I eat out in an air-con food centre most of the time and that has seen my daily food expenses soar like an eagle. Going out of your way to get a $2.50 plate of chicken rice, or mixed rice, or any food or drinks for that matter at these places, which are way lower than what you would get at a Kopi Tiam operated food court, is not practical, time and traveling expenses-wise.

I live in Sengkang and there just aren't many food centres that isn't air-conditioned. Even the new neighbourhood food centre in the vicinity of Buangkok MRT station is air-conditioned (and run by Kopi Tiam). And even for those food centres that aren't air-conditioned in Sengkang, the prices are not that economical either. Perhaps it has got to do with how long you have been in business. The newer food centers seem to always charge newer economy prices - a la Kopi Tiam, which rarely is economic for heartlanders like me. The older ones tend to charge prices more reflective of 10, 20 years ago, notwithstanding the increases in raw material prices in recent times. There must be something to be said for people who have been operating their food businesses on their own for some time now compared to people who are managed by the organised F&B establishments such as Kopi Tiam.

So dare I say that inflation is not only a function of raw material prices, fuel and electricity, it is also a function of the "Kopi Tiam effect" - large organisations of food management companies bidding astronomical prices for many a food centre and then passing on the costs down the line finally to the consumer? Well, it may be unfair to blame Kopi Tiam. The Banquet chain, the Koufu chain, and even the NTUC Foodfare chain are all in on the same modus operandi. That's why you will never find a plate of chicken rice priced anything below $3 in places managed by them. I have witnessed the price of a piece of roti prata go from 60 cents to 80 cents and is now 90 cents. You want egg in it? That'll be $1.50 a piece. That means that an egg costs 60 cents! It must be premium egg they are using. Even in inflationary times like this, an egg in the supermarket can be priced as low as 20 cents - cheaper if you buy in bulk, which is what food operators do. They must be using a different, perhaps more sophisticated, calculator than any that I have ever owned in school. We need a 'Dell effect' like never before.

Unfortunately, these food centre management chains are becoming more the rule than the exception, at least in the newer Heartland Towns such as Sengkang, Buangkok and Punggol in the East. I suppose the story is the same in the North and the West of the island. But as long as they draw the crowds (and the eateries that are run by them do draw the crowds because they are conveniently located in places that Singaporeans practise their favourite pass-time - shopping), they can price their food anything they want. Heck, some are even collecting money for the takeaway meal boxes. Takeway diners do not take up the limited seats in their food courts. That counts as a savings as well as increased opportunity for more sit-in diners, doesn't it? That means more business and consequently more profit$. But they don't see things this way. The mentality is different compared to those that operate their own foodstalls in the heartlands.

I think what is missing, really, is effective competition. These organised food businesses haven't taken the 'C' in 'Competition' out of their vocabulary. They have replaced it with the 'C' in 'Corporate' objectives and 'Corporate' strategy of behaving as one entity, so when one operator raises his prices, all the rest are duty bound to raise theirs too. Its just like a Cartel. One would wish that they would practice more corporate social responsibility, but that does not seem to be high on their agenda.


Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Ajay Kumar Singh

Like a kid

Don't know what's wrong these days. I feel like I am being herded around like a sheep, or scolded like a child. For heaven's sake, half my life is already over, and I still get people coming up to me to knock my knuckles for doing 'naughty' things. Take the Saturday before last, for instance. I had dinner at Punggol Marina. Very good food and good company - what company can compare to your wife and kids? Anyway, it was belated mother's day, and father's day was coming up, so one good meal for two occasions was a 'steal'. The Marina provides private bus transport in and out of the place. I don't drive, so while waiting for the bus outside the lobby, I took a photograph of the family. Lo and behold, the driver of the private bus, which had just arrived, came up to me and told me off. He said that photography was forbidden on the Marina grounds, and continued berating me for not 'obeying' the rules and that if I didn't believe him, he'd march me over to the sign that said so. I had kept silent all the while I was being 'reprimanded', but I can only take so much. I gave him a piece of my mind. Fortunately, no blows were exchanged - it was that bad and it spoilt the evening for us.

Then last Friday, I visited the PC Show in Suntec City. I had reached the floor via escalator that overlooks the third level exhibits. I made sure I stepped aside so as not to block people who might be coming up the escalator as I looked down at the exhibits. Along came a security guard who told me to move off as I was blocking people coming up the escalator. Annoyed, I asked him if anyone was coming up the escalator (there were non, not even a mouse) and therefore who I was being accused of blocking? The crowds on Friday wasn't as bad as that on Saturday - I was there both days. I was annoyed because I thought I had been considerate enough to check that I wasn't an obstruction but someone else imagined that I was an obstruction. That was rubbing me the wrong way and I couldn't let it pass. I gave the guard a piece of my mind. I challenged him to show me the non-existent crowd. I don't like to question authority, especially when someone has been tasked to keep the path free. But for heaven's sake don't tell people that they are an obstruction when they clearly are not. I can understand the rationale behind this man's instructions, just that I cannot tolerate being told to do something when that specific rationale doesn't exist, at least at that moment. A case of reading off a prepared script? Come on, the public deserves better.

All of which goes to show that our service people still have a long way to go, service-wise. Tact is certainly not in their vocabulary, bulldoze is probably more familiar to them. And they wouldn't think twice about offending people who are obviously out contributing to the economy (and, indirectly, their existence as drivers or security guards). If I come across as arrogant, then pardon me. But I do not deserve to be treated like a 10-year old kid.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Bianca Meyer geb. Bollmeier

Based on justice and equality

Something struck me as not quite right on Sunday when I watch the evening news on Channel 5. Both were national servicemen. Both were Singapore born and bred. Both died while serving their national service. That's where the similarities end.

One gets what appears to be a send-off with full military honours - gun carriage, and senior Air Force officers in attendance. The only thing they left out was the plane. The other's send-off hardly merited a whisper in the press. It was probably a quiet and private affair.

Now, I am not grudging the attention given to a promising young man who died in his prime while serving his country. But then, that describes the other Army recruit too, no matter that he wasn't in as prestigious a unit, and he was described as slightly plumb. Both died serving their country. One got, I suppose, an all expense-paid (by Singapore tax-payers no less) burial, but the other got nothing, as far as burials go.

Are national serviceman bound for officer cadet school more equal than a humble recruit of a few days? How did he get into the air force when his eyesight was less than perfect? Now, before you go off and berate me for sour-grapes, let me say that I do not personally know these men nor their families. Its just that I have been brought up in the Singapore system that swears by justice and equality. And what I witnessed on Sunday on the Telly was anything but.

I may be wrong. There may be a perfectly legitimate reason for one boy getting a full military send-off and the other hardly a mention. If there is, pray enlighten me.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Tony Roberts

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

Oil oil I need less

Oil, petrol, gasoline, fuel, you name it. Its on the mouth of everyone these days. As the price of oil soars into the US$135 range, the world is getting to be a much more expensive place to live in. Some in the US are even practising a 4-day work-week in order to save on the power needed to drive the office air-cons, lighting, and other electrical appliances. These, together with the saving in gasoline otherwise needed to travel to and from work, can add towards quite a bit of savings. But not all companies and not all countries can afford to do this. For some, it is not in the culture to do it. Work-weeks are still 5 1/2-day affairs. Even for Singapore, the civil service only went 5-day a couple of years ago.

But I think the Americans have a point. Not about working less in a week. It's about 'firing' up the office and burning tar one day less in a week. And this is where telecommuting really comes into its own. Its nothing new. Some businesses already practice it, but it hasn't become as pervasive as, say, the Internet, which has become part and parcel of doing business in the office today - at least in countries or cities that has the requisite infrastructure to support it. But it is usually such cities that burn up the most fuel in the offices and on the roads. Why not have a 4 in-office days and 1 out-office day? You still work on the out-office day, but you do it from home.

A lot can be done at home nowadays that is otherwise done in the office today. E-mailing, hold meetings using teleconferencing tools, collaborate on a document or a plan the budget using the collaboration features built into Lotus Notes, or MS Office, Zoho Office, or even Google Docs and Spreadsheets. What's that? There are some things that you need to do face to face? Yeah, so do it during the 4 in-office days, or if not possible, meet at the cafe so that the whole office or building doesn't have to be lighted just for 5 people. Today, even education and training can be done the e-way. E-learning is an established pedagogy, one which will be increasingly used because of its sheer efficiency and convenience.

Some would argue against these, stating that it merely shifts the cost of doing business from the employer to the employee. The employee has to pay for the electricity that powers the home computer, the broadband connection to the Internet, and even the extra expenses incurred using the home toilet more often. But I would counter this with pointing to the savings in travelling time, travelling expenses, being stuck in the jam and risking accidents on the roads. Its not all that bad a deal, actually. What's more, it will bring greater work-life balance back to one's life, and possibly increase the birthrate (don't ask me what the connection is). So there is a lot to be said for a 4+1 work-week.

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Clara Natoli

Bar none

Truth be told, I have never stepped into a pub, well, at least not those in Singapore. Occasionally when I am overseas and I get brought to one, I'd oblige. But some people are not happy with our local watering hole, St James Power Station's discriminatory practice of allowing foreigners into its premises without collecting the $20 cover while locals have to ante up the amount. This is tantamount to subsidizing foreigners' hours of happiness. And the reason for this freebie? St James says that this will add to the cosmopolitan nature of the crowd, which will make it a more interesting place for everyone. Granted, St James is well within its right to have this discriminatory policy in order to achieve a business objective and be different from other watering holes, but still, in egalitarian Singapore, this stands out as a sore thumb.

One can go as far as to say that these foreigners are prostituting themselves, without their knowing it. They are used to attract other people who pay for the privilege of being in the pub's premises, people who perhaps appreciate the cosmopolitan nature of the place and are willing to pay, a place where there are ready Ang Mo's to whet their appetite for a conversation and perhaps something beyond. Well, some locals are not too happy on learning this (it is surprising that they only realise this now as St James has been in business for some time now) but the foreigners insist that they don't really get a freebie as they HAVE to buy the drinks (no, you can't bring your own). There is thus no difference - you get a free drink for paying for entry, but somehow, it is natural to feel a difference, a feeling that some people are treated 'more fairly' than others.

Whatever, I leave it to the pub to set their policies and run their business. Nobody can say that it is wrong until people start to stop coming. And locals can choose to continue to give St James their patronage if they see value in it. And foreigners can choose to continue to be made used of to attract the crowd, or not. Ultimately, its all a business, not an egalitarian society.

 

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Kristine Kisky

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

Lost cause

Really, I don't understand what Mr Chee Soon Juan is doing. If he wants to be an opposition politician, that's his prerogative. If he wants to speak out against the Singapore government, that is his right. If he wants to criticize unjust policies, that would be a good thing, provided it is constructive. But why is he on a crusade to nail MM Lee and PM Lee? What is he trying to prove? But of course some would say the Lee's sued first, so Chee is just defending. But his way of defending is very offending. Unfortunately, whatever he is accusing the Lees of is really old hat. We have heard all that before, oh, since 20 years ago. Why is he trotting out the same old tired accusations? What is he trying to prove? Who is he trying to convince?

The foreign press will likely pick up this story and parrot the same old tired line of the Lee dictatorship, the Lee dynasty, the lack of transparency, and all that. But you know, Singaporeans are not stupid. They may have a lot of complaints and write that a lot can be improved on this island and in this Singapore society. I often ventilate through this blog. But I do not, for one moment, think that the Singapore government is as puppety as people like Chee Soon Juan & Co, have make them out to be.

Singapore is not heaven on earth, although I have heard someone say that some Africans call Singapore God's gift to humanity, whatever that means. Mr Chee has hardly earned my respect and I am still not persuaded that he deserves my vote the next time the elections come around and he stands in the constituency I live in. Nor has he convinced me of his cause, whatever that is.  I think the first thing that a politician should do is to win people's hearts and not engage in tired old accusations about the Lees and the government that has no bearing on their livelihood and well-being. Chee Soon Juan should take a leaf out of MM Lee's approach to politics in the years leading up to the formation of self-government in the 1950s - win the hearts and minds of people and not seek pity because a 100 pound gorilla is bearing down on him.

If a politician and pretender to the government needs pity, who will pity the people?

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Paul Anderson

Easy come easy go

Singapore is a place of ironies. Or is it just being Singaporeans? We have been experiencing real inflation of late. Our money would have shrunk more if the government had not kept the value of the Singapore dollar high against other countries' currencies to stanch the further importation of inflation. And don't say that the Singapore government is all talk only. In response to the National Wages Council's recent recommendation to pay an inflation-fighting lump sum of money to all employees, the government civil service has taken the lead. It isn't all good news for me as this time, as always, I will get the least amount - $100 while the lower wage earners will get up to $300 - on top of the half year bonus. One cannot really argue against that. The poorer should be helped more - or should they?

A recent survey conducted by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) found that 8 out of 10 people who earn less than S$1000 per month spend up to S$100 gambling in the State-run lotteries - 4-D, Toto, etc. Now, with the extra $300, they can afford to spend more. The reasoning is statistically correct - the more you buy, the greater the chance of winning. And any gambler wants to win. So if there is extra money, what better way to spend it? The problem is if everyone else is doing the same, the odds of winning never improves. The irony is that the government collects back what they give out since they have a share in the lottery system.

So why give the money in the first place when we know that it really isn't necessary? Don't ask me, I don't have the answer. But one thing you can be assured - in Singapore, you may starve, but you certainly won't be of deprived of a chance to gamble on your empty stomach. And what is so good about the system is that the State will sponsor that gambling habit, no questions asked.

 

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: Nicolas Raymond

A nest of our own

The young'uns in Singapore, they are a spoilt lot, really. In the past, many have written to the press complaining about the sheer impossibility of securing a new public housing apartment (i.e. HDB built and subsidized apartment). And why are they complaining? Because they cannot see themselves getting married without first securing a personal love-nest of their own. Gone are the days when renting an apartment, or a room or living with mum and dad upon marriage is a consideration. In Singapore, marrying no longer means extending the family, but removing the family to some corner of your own, preferably a place that overlooks an idyllic lake or the sea, or at least overlooking some lush greenery, never mind if that that place will set you back by half a million dollars or more (public housing only, i.e.).

The fact of the matter, as the HDB has pointed out, is that people, the young'uns, are a choosy lot. They apply for a chance to purchase a public housing apartment but when one is offered, they reject it, and then write to the press complaining that it is impossible to get a public apartment in Singapore. What they mean, really, is that they don't want an apartment that is situated on the 2nd floor, or one that faces the West sun, or, worst, one that looks out into the multi-storey card park or is next to the centralised refuse collection dump. Well, I can understand the reluctance, but you have to start somewhere when you cannot afford to start with buying a re-sale apartment, or a private apartment, right? There is a Chinese saying, that these people are trying to reach heaven in a single bound (yi bu deng tian). Totally unrealistic, unless you have backers like rich parents who will think nothing of shelling out hundreds of thousand of dollars, millions even, to secure the dream home for you.

So what do the typical Singaporeans who cannot get what they want do? They write to the press admitting as much as what I have said here - that they cannot accept any public housing that is not close to heavenly proportions. And they reason that that is because, for the money they have to pay, they deserve something better than a 2nd story apartment. I can understand the thought process and the reluctance, but that is life in Singapore and the cost of living here. Is there no way forward other than getting the government to build that dream home for you (and by extension), everyone else? That is impossible. There are only so many directions where the sun does not rise and set. To get to the 12th heavenly floor, you need to start at the first. Given Singaporean's appetite and penchant for cars, a road must wind somewhere around some apartments. We have had to clear so much greenery to build the roads and apartments that HDB has compensated with building roof-top gardens on top of multi-storey car parks. What do these young PMEDs want for the money that they have (or more precisely, don't have)?

The solution is rather simple - be patient and build up your love nest gradually. I have a relative who rented a room after marrying, then bought a HDB apartment that looked out into a small patch of grassland, sold it at a decent profit, bought a private property and rebuilt it into a three storey semi-D. My first public apartment upon marriage was situated along a public corridor, and what's worst, faces an expressway directly. That was in the early 1990s. The only saving grace was that it was on the 7th floor., not the ground floor. Much as I disliked it (I was eyeing an apartment on offer that was situated along a river), I took it and made the best of it. I sold it 8 years later at a tidy profit (didn't know that it appealed to some people) which enabled me to buy an apartment that is the envy of many. So young man and young women, practice patience and search around while your apartment appreciates in value. Property prices rise and fall - you don't have to take my word for it. See what happened last year! You will reach your heavenly nest some day, but not immediately, not tomorrow. Just be patient. Investing in a house is for the long term.

 

Image source: morgueFile.com. Author: K-etana