Fighting fire

I spoke to a few teenagers the other day about Sam Bacile's "Innocence of Muslims" and the widespead violent response to it. Imagine my surprise when they asked me what it was all about. With this news hogging headlines in every print and internet publication, it was incredible these youth of the internet generation were not all that aware of what was going on. I can understand it if they didn't know about the Chinese and Japanese tussling over an island somewhere between China and Japan. It is between 2 close neighbours who have had a long history of conflict. This latest demonstration over a amateur movie has been widely publicized and correspondingly vilified by adherents to the Islamic faith. Google has reportedly blocked the video to countries such as Libya, Egypt, Indonesia and Malaysia - countries with large numbers of Muslims. Although Muslims in Singapore do not form the majority, the government has also asked for it to be blocked and Google has reportedly obliged. Or has it?

There are now many versions of the movie. So much so that the movie, in part or in whole, is still accessible in Singapore. This goes to show that it is very hard to censor anything on the internet. Even countries which block access to Facebook, like China, fight a losing battle. It is relatively easy to bypass the restrictions with counter technologies. That's why I think that the best way to fight fire is with fire. This is what some Muslims have done, by putting up videos that counter the message of the "Innocence of Muslims". In my opinion, this is a far more rational and effective way of responding to something you don't agree with and not by staging violent and deadly demonstrations all over the world. These demonstrations only serve to prove that Islam is a certain type of religion, justifying the very accusations made of it.

But the mob is often unreasonable and, frankly, ignorant. Ask how many of those demonstrating have actually seen the movie and I will wager that not one of them has seen it. They may have heard about it, perhaps from many quarters. It is typical of people to exaggerate as they denigrate others. It works both ways. Sadly the net result is the death of Muslims rather than a real chastisement of the perpetrators of the video in question.

Yes to dress

I rarely, well come to think of it, never, comment on fashion, and especially the way women dress. I'll make an exception because, like many, I am impressed with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's dress sense when she visited Singapore between 11 and 13 September 2012. The press and fashion people noticed and were generally full of praise for the dresses she wore on the many occasions she was in Singapore. I must admit, I was mesmerized. Sure those dresses would have cost quite a sum of money, but simple well designed ones can be quite affordable, especially in affluent Singapore. How do I know? When you have to accompany your wife out, you inevitably end up looking at dresses. Not that I care, i.e. But it did lead me to thinking how dressed down Singapore women are. I mean, its really boring.

The standard tog? Short shorts that expose the entire thigh. Period. Hello, doesn't anyone of you have anything else in the wardrobe? It's getting a bit boring, you know. Sexy yes, but boring nonetheless. Women 'throwing' their breast out in extreme figure hugging Ts swing heads, yes, but ultimately boring. They a dime a dozen nowadays. And don't start down the path of putting on less. It becomes slutty looking.

Singapore women have forgotten how to dress. They have forgotten the dress. And I don't mean mini dresses. One piece full length (down to the knees) type. Whether it is flared out A-lined or cheong-sum tube. Truth be told I have seen some women in beautiful dresses in the subways. They really are head turners, well at least mine, because they look so elegant and beautiful in their dresses. And knee length dresses are escalator-friendly too.

Say what you will, when you have the figure, a dress will accentuate it and put you in the best possible light. Over time, shorts just makes you look like a stick. The difference is whether your are a thick stick or a think stick. Heck sometimes the look is so androgynous.

Girls have the best figure when they are in their teens and into their twenties. No matter how much they eat, they'll maintain that figure. Its biological, really. Metabolism and all that. That's when they should put on dresses, and not wait until their inevitable pounds (its biological again, really) distort the body as they push into their 30's and beyond.

Educating the parent

The Ministry of Education (MOE) didn't disappoint. Apparently it heard from the ground about some of the grouses about the way children are taught in schools and the school system itself. So in its last policy revision, it is no longer ranking (banding is the word used by the MOE) schools. Indeed it now says that all schools are good schools, whatever that means. We know this is not true, but it doesn't harm to be ambiguous, does it? I suppose not. The MOE says that academic results is not the be all and end all of learning. I will agree wholeheartedly with them, except...

But I wonder if parents who still have school-going kids and who still face 2 major national exams - the PSLE and the GCE 'O' Levels, think they can go along, even against their best wishes? Look, so long as these exams exist in their present form and purpose, parents will still engage tutors, send their children for enrichment classes, and God knows what else, to give their children that extra edge. These latest initiatives will mean little. As they say, the devil is in the details. How will this policy be implemented? How extensive will be be? Will the MOE implement communist-style uniformity? What do we mean by unique programmes? Do they matter when its comes to these major exams? After all, the Education Minister didn't say that these national exams will be reformed. The PSLE, we can control and dictate. But we are apparently not touching. The GCE - well you have to call London.

So while I congratulate the MOE for admitting it had been wrong all along, it hasn't gone far enough for these changes to make any significant difference. If I were a private tutor today, I wouldn't worry about my rice bowl a single moment.

But we, the parents, should also do some deep reflecting. Because a large part of the blame for how we educate our children goes to us.

Wayang wayang

There was reportedly another wayang going on in Queenstown yesterday. For those who do not already know, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge - the grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, was in town the last couple of days. One of their stops was in Queenstown where some shows were put up for them. mrbrown suggested that this was, well, a shallow show put up to, I suppose, rub someone's behind.

Well, even if this is wayang, it is good wayang. Don't tell me that when your aunt or uncle or brother, or even a friend visit, you don't try to be a good host? At least you would offer them a cup of water? Some would normally offer more. How much more? It depends. Some will even cook up a storm to entertain the guests. Apparently, mrbrown appears not to believe in hospitality.

It appears that online views and comments are taking on an increasing vitriol to the extent that the good, the bad and the ugly are all treated with equal disdain and ridicule, especially when it has got to do with the PAP government.. And it is sad that mrbrown has stooped to this level. How does he know that the people who lined the path that Prince William took were planted there to appear to welcome him? Hasn't it occurred to him that these people are genuinely interested and came of their own accord?

I have always enjoyed his humour, but when it goes off, it really isn't funny. Its rude to refer to your countrymen as actors and they could just as likely be there because they want to be there. If we blame the government for painting a version of the truth, aren't we also equally guilty with our own version?

What is the Point?

I cannot agree more with letter writer, Mr Nick McHugh, when he asked if it was odd that the government's response to incidences of death by cycling in Singapore is to increase penalties on cyclists (Stiffer penalties for cyclists do not solve the problem). I for one agree with him that this makes no sense. I sometimes, no, often, wonder, if our highly paid civil servants and political appointees are worth the money the state (read "tax payers") pays them.

There appears to be have been an increase in cycling accidents on Singapore's roads. Motorists and cyclists have weighed in on the case, each blaming the other. I do not drive nor own a bicycle. But I seriously doubt if another increased fine solves any problem at all except enrich the government coffers.

Right now, the Transport Ministry appears to be doing all it can to relieve the strained capacity on our public transport systems and roads. S$1.1billion has been set aside for buying buses over the next 10 years. Taxpayers are footing the bill for new buses for a profit making public-listed company. Steve Jobs would have said, "Amazing". COE's are at historically sky high levels. And we are even building another expressway for motor vehicles that will cut through and remove parts of Bukit Brown and several houses along the way. Several buildings, including Chinatown's Pearl Centre will be demolished to make way for the building of yet another subway line - the Thomson line. All these cost lots and lots of money Yet when it comes to putting bicycle lanes on our roads, government officials appear to have dismissed it outright, saying that it is going to be very expensive to retrofit our roads with bicycle lanes. Well, obviously our government does not believe in cycling or cyclists. It does not believe in saving the environment and the planet. Cycling is not only clean (as in not polluting), it is a good form of exercise. If we become a cycling nation, we can probably reduce our Health budgets substantially in the long run. But no, motorists, including some well paid government officials who cannot do without their cars, want to keep cyclists off the roads. Not even that, throw the book at any cyclist who misbehave, it says. As far as they are concerned, cyclists belong in the public parks or the road connectors. Perhaps best if they keep their cycling to the gym. Don't be seen and don't be heard, they seem to be saying. The roads - well we paid thousands of dollars every year to use them, isn't where minions on bicycles belong. Talk of elitism. Some government officials betray their stripes when they speak.

What's that? A National Conversation? Who are you trying to kid? It is already dead on arrival. Like what some people are saying, its probably going to be one big fat but very expensive wayang. Somebody said that since this is a government initiative, a government that was voted in in the last general elections, we should logically participate in the whole thing. Well, I would agree if this is a bipartisan effort, a national effort. As it now stands, no political opposition figure is in the committee headed by Mr Heng Swee Keat. Lets not forget that the division of spoils in the last GE was 60% to the sitting (PAP) government, 40% anti-PAP. 4 in 10 did not not agree with the government. Go figure.

Minting myths

I am glad that the honourable Member for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and a Senior Counsel no less, has given voice to what many Singaporeans have been whispering about around the island about the education system in Singapore. Among them was the oft heard claim that teachers defer to private tutors to do the teaching ("teach less, learn more"), and even encouraging parents to engage private tutors for their weaker students, if they haven't already. I have even written about it recently, but not with as much authority and plain-ness as the good MP and Senior Counsel. You can't ignore such a person, can you?

Well. the  Education Ministry couldn't ignore him and did reply. This was reported by the newspapers. Among other remarks, it stated that

"Teachers should not recommend tuition to students or parents as a form of learning support..."

It was also reported that its teachers do put in the extra hours for weaker pupils, even on a personal level.

"Where helpful and necessary, teachers may also provide individual coaching to such students outside lessons..."

Yah, I cannot help hearing a couple of sniggers around the corner now. What does MOE mean by individual coaching? It is not unheard of that some full time paid MOE teachers moonlight as paid private tutors. And parents seek these people out because they know the syllabus intimately and are considered more able to provide their children with the "right" coaching. How many are there of these? I don't know. Of course I have no proof of this. It is hearsay, but it is powerful and persistent hearsay, as even Mr Hri Kumar has heard it and very appropriately, written about it. And even if I did have proof (and I don't), I cannot divulge it because some people's rice bowls may be broken. I am sure that if this moonlighting thing is true, it involves only a minority. But of course there are those who do this legally. They spend some years in the educational system as teachers, then resign to become private tutors, which is more lucrative. Some even go on to publish school assessment books which parents snap up, making them even more money from the royalties. But lets not go into this subject now. In the main, I believe MOE teachers are committed and hardworking within their schools for their students. But black sheeps give a black name, don't they?

As far as I feel, and probably most other parents do so too, the MOE's reply which denies these rumours or myths enumerated by Mr Kumar, isn't convincing at all. After all, what do you expect? That they will contritely state that they are guilty as charged? What is needed are not mere words but action that demonstrates unequivocally that these are indeed myths, or if they are not, to put their foot down and stop this shameful behaviour. It is going to be a real challenge. Myths don't go away easily. After all, some myths have lasted for centuries. And the reason for their longevity is that nobody has put the foot down authoritatively to debunk the stories, or admit that the myths are no myths but facts. Anyway, some myths add colour to life. The longer hearsay stories linger, the greater the possibility of them developing into ones of mythological proportions. Myths have a way of propagating themselves. People like a good story. They love myths, never mind if there isn't any truth in them, or not.

I thank Mr Hri Kumar for doing his part in helping parents and their children seek clarification.

The ball is on MOE's court now. But judging by its response so far, it is going to be a long night. True or false. The myth persists.

See also Todayonline report.

One or two?

The PM announced last evening that men will also be entitled to paternity leave, similar to women's maternity leave, to look after their just borned child. Everyone in the University Cultural Centre auditorium that I could see through the TV broadcast clapped in approval, particularly the women amongst them. The rationale? PM related an example of a women who voiced her fears that she would be forgotten by her employer if she took as long as 6 months maternity leave. So fathers should step in to shoulder this burden by being allowed to take similar leave to share the burden of nursing the baby. All of which is dandy, until you think about it further.

Would men not also be forgotten at the workplace when they take paternity leave? The couple can now share equally the 4 months of maternity leave that women are entitled to, that is 2 months each. And even supposing it is 1 month out of the 4 for the men, it is probably 1 month too long for the men to be absent from the office. In this dog-eat-dog world, if you are not around, you need not be around, period. So sharing this load might lead to both of the couple, the mother and the father, to become expendable employees. Which is better - to have one expendable person or two?

So those cheering and clapping last evening should stop and think again what paternity leave really entails. The "absence" problem is already raised above. The second question that needs asking is: are all fathers capable of looking after and handling an infant? We know what maternal instincts are. Is there such a thing as a men's version of it, i.e. a paternal instinct? Sadly, experience tells us that the answer is not clear. What is the proportion of clumsy and incompetent men when it comes to nursing an infant? I don't know, and I suspect, the people who clamoured for and the government which said yes to paternity leave last evening don't know either. Yes, I know of men who love children (and I mean that in a "straight" way). My mother often mentions that my uncle loves children. I love children too. In fact I played a big part in taking care of my infant son, without the benefit of paternity leave. My wife will attest to this. But this is anecdotal. There probably are more men who are clueless and view infant care as a woman-only job. Worst, men tend to be more impatient, with the frightening consequence that the child may suffer rather than be cared for.

PM said in jest that men, if they are given paternity leave, should use it for that very purpose. Everyone may have laughed at that remark, but it is a disturbing reaction, to say the least. There is really really a high chance that paternity leave may be abused. After all, no one can police this. The wife can't and won't say a thing. The husband who abuses it will certainly keep quiet about using his paternity leave to do other things. You expect the maid to complain to the authorities?

There are probably other reasons that make paternity leave a bad idea. The issue, really, is not about the leave - maternity or paternity, much as many mothers wish to believe that it is. This will not go anywhere near helping to resolve the problem of low fertility among Singaporeans.

I believe that I will be proven correct one year from the implementation of this policy.

Death and Taxes

Should we treat paying taxes not so much an obligation, indeed no a duty, but an act of charity. This is what a letter writer to Today suggested come days ago. Yet ironically, in that same paper, on the facing page, a letter writer wrote about how certain public servants are wasting tax-payers' money by engaging private law firms in their law suits.

At one level, I agree with the letter writer. As many would by now have found out, the personal tax bill for many this year is far far more than last year's. Last year was election year, so it would not take a Phd to figure out why. Yep, my tax bill has nearly doubled, not that my pay has increased by that quantum, mind you. And the last time I filed my tax returns online, I could not claim for some donations I made in the year of assessment simply because the organisation was not listed as one of the approved institution of public character (IPC). There wasn't anywhere on the screen form you could write it in. You could only select from a preset list. This in spite the fact that I have been donating to the same institution for 2 years prior to the last YA and the deduction had been allowed. I would like to think that I am honest, but I am penalised? Well, the Singapore IRAS is very efficient and, in a sense, ruthless, in extracting that pound of flesh, and then some, from its taxpayers. So when I thought about what the writer suggested, I wondered if I should write to IRAS to re-assess my income tax.

In a sense, the writer is correct. Taxes are a means to redistribute income and enable a government to govern for the common good. Even billionaire investor Warren Buffet famously said that the rich in America are not paying enough taxes, and that they should. Paying taxes to care for society is an ideal, an assumption that, as events in the last few months in Singapore have demonstrated, is far from the ideal. What with S$2,200 bicycles to patrol public parks, S$650 designer chairs for government officers' butts. Is it any wonder the ambivalence towards contributing to the public purse for the common good.

In any case, those who have the means - profitable businesses and wealthy individuals, routinely engage tax accountants to minimise their tax obligations. So why should the man in the street do any less in minimizing his own tax bill?

Death and taxes will remain dreaded facts of life. They are to be avoided at all cost, or for as long as possible.

Un-maidenly

Ever had somebody bark "Excuse me" to you? Yes, bark. It is annoying to say the least. This phrase is no longer that polite, and indeed apologetic, request to heed a need. The way it is used by some people nowadays sounds like "Hey low life, you are getting in my way. Move aside or else...". It grates on the ear. "Excuse me" is no longer said in a gentle, apologetic manner, but it is a bark, a command, a directive with a barely concealed impatience and disdain for the rest of mankind. And the main perpetrators of this bark?

I am sorry to say this. They are mostly young female, some are even teenagers. I am not trying to discriminate. Older people perhaps understand and use the phrase more appropriately. The guys are not ready to bark. They don't need to. Oh, how unmaidenly many of the young 'fairer' sex among us have turned, prematurely, into witches. Maybe it has got to do with the movies, or that misplaced thing called 'girl power'. I don't know. I don't have a daughter, so I can't related the phenomenon. Brash, young, the 'me' generation that demands immediate attention and yet not give any attention.

Sometimes, I just feel like turning around and given the barker a slap on the face.Only, I'll be hauled to court for molest. Don't mess with young girls, particularly if they are under-aged. Society seems to protect them more, even though they probably deserve less.

Tuition nation

"The fool and his money are soon parted". I learnt this a long time ago. First as an idiom in primary school. Then in a venture that I was just too careless over. Just careless, not foolish, mind you.

But there are some people who are foolish, like those that paid thousands of dollars to an unaccredited tutor that purportedly could teach their children to be gifted. Obviously these overly ambitious parents are prepared to swallow the bait, hook, line and sinker. I suppose "gifted" to them meant that it was ok to pay through their noses to give their child a chance to join the gifted education programme invented by the Ministry of Education. After all, 'gifts' are bought and given away, right?

I don't want to comment about the tutor who swindled so many people. Suffice to say that he is dastardly and probably a scum of society. There have been others in the past who acted in similar fashion, perhaps even worse. And there will be others who will come along to swindle others in like manner, so long as you have people who are ready and willing to be tricked.

What is remarkable is that people think that a person can be trained to be gifted. Someone said to me that either you have it or you don't. Hello, its in the genes, and you can't train genes to perform somersaults, can you?. I tend to agree. That's what you start off with. Good genes. But to fully harness the capabilities that those genes bring, you have to work hard, really hard. Like putting in the hours to read, to train your mind, to practise, to become familiar and good at what you want to do, like playing the piano, or creating the next  new thing. Wasn't it Thomas A. Edison who said that you need 1% inspiration and 99% hard work to achieve your goals? Well, he should know. He was probably the greatest inventor in modern times.

In a way, the Singapore education system has encouraged people to 'buy' knowledge and capability. Singapore is not known to be the tuition nation for nothing. And the sad situation is that the school system appears to be working hand-in-glove with the tuition industry. I have heard from parents and students that teachers in the formal school system assume that every child has a tutor. So they off-load, or outsource, some of their teaching to the tutors, never mind that some children come from families that are too poor to even afford a meal from the school canteen. Tell me I am wrong, but somehow I am not hopeful of being proven wrong. Perhaps these teachers are taking too literally the mantra, "teach less, learn more" - an invention of the Ministry of Education. Do we even know what this means before we take it literally? For one, excellence and promotions are still very much dependent on a rigorous examination system where the muggers tend to do well. I am not saying that that is the best and only way to do well in school. There have been exceptions, but the rule is more relevant to the rest of us.

So long as we have such a system of rote learning, there will always be pretenders who will help fools part with their money.

Numbers game

The numbers do not lie. On a per capita basis, Yahoo Sports reported that Jamaica, with a population of 2.7 million, won nine gold medals in the recently concluded London Olympic games. This casts doubt on people who say that Singapore's population is too small to produce world beaters in sports. For the record, Singapore won three bronze medals, and all by people who were not born in Singapore. They are what Singaporeans' euphemistically call "Foreign Talent". Singapore's population as of 2011 is 5,183,700 of which  Singapore residents number 3,789,300. That's roughly 1 million more than Jamaica's population, or 2.5 million more if you include the non residents.

Granted, we are not comparing apple with apple. There are differing social, cultural and economic environments that mask these numbers, and sociologists and politicians will have their stories to tell to rationalise and explain the discrepancies in these numbers.

However, going by these numbers alone, Singapore hasn't done all that well. Tao Li didn't even get into the finals. She was 6th in the Beijing Games.Joseph Schooling, the great hope of the Republic, blamed his disastrous performance on the cap and goggle, nuf said. The Singapore women table tennis team was demoted from Silver at the Beijing Olympics to Bronze at this London Games. Feng redeemed the team with her commendable individual Bronze effort. And the rest of team Singapore? What, there are others?

Perhaps we should study countries like Jamaica or even Grenada to discover how else, other than immigration, which is a contentious issue in Singapore right now. Singapore can do better on the world sporting stage. I think, after the post-mortem (I assume there will be one conducted), it won't be for the lack of ideas and initiatives that the Singapore government and the sporting community have approached the issue. But many would say that monetary reward is not the only, nor the best way, nor is it the right way in the long term to produce local sporting talent. Don't get me wrong. Money can and does play a part, but obviously there is something missing that the Jamaicans appear to have. Usain Bolt is not their one-shot wonder. Their 1-2-3 victory in the 200m race proves it.

Singapore has the next 4 years to prepare for gold in the Rio Olympics. Hopefully, we will have answers way before then so that we can works towards greater success in those Olympics.

Daoxiao lunch

Singapore has become a cosmopolitan place, and a bit confusingly amusing. I was having lunch on National Day at a Chinese restaurant serving dao-xiao mian (literally shaved noodles). I was attended to by a waiter who took our order in English. Nothing odd about that. Then came a couple - two women, who took seats next to ours. It wasn't as if I wanted to eavesdrop. It wasn't a large restaurant, so we literally sat side by side with them. When they started to converse, I could tell immediately that they were China Chinese.

When the waiter came by, they were discussing their choices in Chinese. Then having decided, one of them placed their order with the waiting waiter - in English! It wasn't a case that they wanted to show off their linguistic skills. The waiter was a Filipino. I suppose he could only speak English, and perhaps his native Tagalog. So here I was, in a Chinese restaurant, seated beside a couple of China Chinese who were placing their order in English.

If this weren't Singapore, it would be odd.

Regardless of language

As Singaporeans recite the National Pledge today in celebration of its 47th National Day, I am reminded of the phrase in the pledge "regardless of language...". Much has been made of our Table Tennis trio of Feng Tianwei, Li Jiawei and Wang Yuegu being foreign imports and therefore not representative of the country's sporting abilities. One the the factors often cited about this ambivalence toward the trio is their inability to speak English, or even try to to learn to speak English. Is the ability to speak English a distinguishing attribute of a Singaporean? If you asked my father, he might spit at you. But no, he was just too gentle and even tempered a person to ever do that. But there would probably be many other Chinese who would - spit at you, or at least on the ground in front of you, i.e.

English was the language of the colonialists. It had no place in a local's linguistic heritage as opposed to the foreign devils. My father brought up all his children in Singapore, put them through the Singapore education system. He sent them to English language schools because he was a pragmatic person. You couldn't possibly advance in your lives if you didn't know how to speak English, he reasoned. Yet all his life, he never spoke nor learnt to speak English. He was born in China, spent his youth in Hong Kong, then came to Singapore shortly thereafter. He spoke Cantonese, could understand Mandarin but not speak it. He also spoke and understood a smattering of Malay. His penmanship (in Chinese AND English - he signed his English name beautifully) was of the first order. If we define being a Singaporean as one who can speak English or makes an attempt to do so, then my father was not a Singaporean. Perhaps he tried to learn it, I am not sure. He conversed with his children, and everyone else, in Cantonese and no other language.

Yet it would be absurd to say that he was not a Singaporean. He appreciated the government under Lee Kuan Yew and never waivered in giving them his support at every GE. I am not embarrassed to say this. Lee Kuan Yew was good for Singapore. It gave him a peaceful and safe environment in which he could practise his religion, make friends across races, earn a living and bring up his children. He started off living in an attap house, and gradually owned a HDB flat. And so it was for that generation of 'imports' - people who migrated to these shores for one reason or another, sunk roots and never thought of anywhere else as home.

We are their descendants and woe to us if we call our fathers, or their fathers, foreigners because they never learnt to speak English.

Happy Birthday, Singapore!

That maiden medal

Ms Feng Tian Wei has won a bronze medal in Table Tennis at this year's London Olympics, and many Singaporeans are proud and happy about it. After all, the last time a Singaporean won a medal at these games was in 1960, by Mr Tan Howe Liang, in weight-lifting. I say "many" because there appears to be many others who have poured cold water over it because Feng is not a 'true-blue' Singaporean. And the quarter million dollar reward for achieving this feat appears to be one of the reasons. True, Feng, and compatriots, Yuegu and Jiawei, were imported from China, ostensibly for the very purpose of ending the Olympic, and in fact, any International sporting medal  drought. There were no other stated purpose. At least the importees were open and honest about this. A Singaporean is a Singaporean sol long as he/she has sworn allegiance to the country, right? If this weren't so, you'd have to ask who made the decision to grant this much prized citizenship status away. Someone said that TW and her compatriots have not made any effort to assimilate within the local environment - they speak Chinese all the time, whereas the world over has encountered that brand of English known as Singlish as a distinguishing identity of a native of the island of Singapore. The trio face an uphill battle for recognition, not so much on the ball court, but in the court of public opinion.

My advice, if it is worth anything at all, is to have each of them marry a Singapore guy and bear a couple of "authentic" Singapore children (must be born in KK Hospital). It doesn't matter if their offspring do not become TT champions. They probably will not when they are plugged into the Singapore system of educating its young ones. Yes, Jiawei is already married to a China Chinese, and borned a son in Beijing. So no chance that the child will become a Singaporean though maybe a great TT player after her mother. Lest history repeats itself, Singapore would not have been very wise in its investment of time and money. A good sporting history counts for little if it does not pay the baby bonus for Singapore. I know, I know, let's not demean female foreign talents as sows, but you just can't help it when you think of the millions of taxpayers' money expended on this venture.

Nevertheless, credit where credit is due. We must congragulate these women for their effort and victory on the world largest sporting stage.Let's not collectively "chase" them away. We will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

That 2200 bicycle

Much has been reported, written, talked about around the table, discussed and dissected by all and sundry about the now notorious case of the Singapore NParks  buying Brompton bicycles for its officers to patrol the network of parks around the island.

NParks has undoubtedly done a good job putting in place, connecting and nurturing the green lungs of Singapore. It is now possible to cycle around the island through this network of parks, away from the busy roads and Singapore drivers' bullying ways towards cyclists. However there might be instances when you need to lug your bicycle over an overhead bridge here and there. Its not perfect, and that's why NParks needed foldable bicycles for its officers, so we are told. That way, they can ride and carry their bikes as the situation demands, and even take the bus with these foldable bicycles. Certain bus types operated by SBSTransit are bicycle and wheelchair friendly. I suppose covering those kilometers of Singapore's parks isn't an easy task. So our officers deserve every tool that will make their job easier and probably more productive.

But Singaporeans are up in arms over the NParks spending S$2,200 on some Brompton bicycles. Some cycling enthusiast have weighed in with their bicycle purchases of a wide variety of models, foldable and otherwise. None that we have heard from have spent more than a S$1,000 on a bicycle. Most that have spent that amount of money bought 2 or more bicycles. For the rest of us, S$200 is about what all that is needed for a good and sturdy bicycle. And if you are a casual cyclist, you can get one for S$80 or less from Carrefour. So when did NParks decide they needed a super premium bike to do their jobs? Its like the police buying Porshe's and Ferraris for their patrol cars. Well, the police have, quite sensibly, so far, bought the more economical Japanese and European models. At least nobody has gone to town accusing the policemen of  luxuriating in super cars during their patrolling duties, chasing down speed demons who ignore traffic lights. They could easily have given this excuse for expensive tastes, just as NParks has done.

It is incredible that NParks insists that Bromptons are the only foldable bicycles out there that fit their purposes. Knowledgeable cyclists will tell you, and I agree wholeheartedly with them, that these bicycles are  easily S$2,000 more than the alternatives that would help the NPark officers do their jobs. And the Bromptons aren't light, if a video of an NParks officer lugging the bicycle up an overhead bridge, which was broadcast on the CNA news, showed.

This episode of extreme waste of tax payers' money has now been conveniently swept under the proverbial carpet by NParks writing a letter that expressed some remorse, that they could have done a better job in the procurement process, promising that they will do a more thorough job the next time. That goes without saying, but the deed is already done. Tax payers like myself, who wouldn't even consider buying a $200 bicycle, just spent $2,200 on one. I am seriously considering asking the IRAS to re-assess my income tax for reliefs that I apparently could not claim in the last tax filing.

Thank you, Mr Khaw, for helping me re-evaluate my tax obligations to the government.