Reverse gear

Peak hour surcharge, surcharge for taking a taxi at Changi Airport and Singapore Expo (and God knows where else), midnight surcharge, ERP surcharges, taxi booking surcharge, and God knows what else will be invented. Now Singapore is not only known as a Fine city, it will also gain a reputation as a Surcharge city, going by the half a million tourists expected every year.

Let's not consider foreign guests. For some time now, whenever I travel on a taxi, I can never be sure that whatever I see on the taxi meter at the end of a trip is what I should pay the cabby. So, except for familiar routes I take at familiar times, I almost always have to ask the taxi driver how much I owe him, for fear of embarrassing myself for being ignorant of such simple thing as surcharges.

So when Nelson Quah, a Today reader, suggested to do away from all surcharges (except the Changi Airport one - I wonder why?), I couldn't agree more. Instead, taxi companies should adjust their fares to a level that encourages cabbies to pick one and all at all times of the day anywhere on this island. It should take a leaf out of the government's approach to GST and COEs - no exceptions, in order to keep the administration of these taxes straightforward and easy to implement. People then know exactly the cost they will incur for their actions. This will help commuters make rational decisions which will enable the market to reach equlibrium and cut off all the complaints that is now almost an issue throughout the year, and especially after the General Elections, at example of which is mr brown.

But this will probably not happen soon, as we seem to have a oligopoly situation in taxi services right now. Big businesses will not want to jeopardise their 'shareholder value' - at least not when their is no real competitor in this market. Ditto for bus services. As SMRT raises its transport fares, don't bet against SBS Transit not doing the same.

There are very few things that Singapore would fail at doing. It a country 'that works', as they say. But as far as market competition in the transport sector leading to competitive prices, it has failed abjectly. A world-class transportation it may become, but at uncompetitive prices.

Un-Patriotism

Let me be frank. People who obtained free National Day Parade (NDP) tickets should be free to sell them. There is nothing wrong about it and should they turn a profit from it, that's their gain through their enterprise. Sure, some would say that it is a riskless enterprise, but then, some enterprises are riskless, though not long lasting nor self-propagating in the long run. A person is duly rewarded when he is quick enough to identify an opportunity, learns how to use a service such as eBay and takes the necessary action to cash in on the opportunity. Do you think learning how to use eBay is costless? The time and trouble learning to use eBay should be rewarded.

Sure, some would still begrudge such blatant profiteering. Many would see this as socially irresponsible, selfish and ethically questionable. But we queue up to buy that TV going for a special promotion of $1 at Courts, we pick up free giveaways just because we were at that special event at the Mall that day, and we win a car just because it was our day, so why not give somebody a chance to attend the final NDP to be held at the National Stadium? If there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, who is to make a value judgement that that transation is immoral? After all, isn't the current buzzword one of being entrepreneurial? Some people would rather pay somebody else to secure those tickets, thereby saving himself a lot of hassle putting in an application and getting 'lucky' in the process. Luck and inconvenience can be bought. So the money exchanged is not so much for the ticket per se, but for the convenience and certainty, which is directly proportional to the quantum of money offered.

I know that this opinion is not going to be popular among many, but I think it is reasonable. So go ahead, trade in your NDP ticket, while you can, before the powers that be decide to put a stop to such entrepreurial spirit.

Gagging haggling tagging

Nothing much has changed with the news media organisations in Singapore, which is dominated by SPH and Mediacorp. SPH owns has the largest print publications on the island, with the Straits Times as its anchor paper. Mediacorp owns the free Today tabloid and the broadcast media, including Channel News Asia. In spite of the growth in the news media in the past few years, one thing remains the same - no news article can be critical of the Singapore government, after discounting those that it sanctions.

It is said that Singaporeans are becoming more discerning, and are increasingly unwilling to accept this status quo. Because of the mr brown case, some Singaporeans have even gone so far as to boycott the Today newspaper, nevermind that it is free of charge. But can the news and people's views ever be denied to Singaporeans? The simple answer to that is: 'No'.

I make Yahoo my homepage, and through My Yahoo and RSS, I can and am pulling a lot of specific news sources into my custom pages in My Yahoo. One of those categories I have is about Singapore. Everyday, I review these pages and lo and behold, I find news articles from Yahoo Singapore and some foreign media publishing sometimes probing news stories about Singapore. Some of these articles may never pass muster in the Singapore Press, but they are freely and readily available to any Singaporean who has an Internet connection. So why does the government still gag the local media? It is not as if by doing so, it stanches the tide of critical commentary. If nothing, it increases it from offshore news sources, many of which appear on the internet. Mr Lee Boon Yang says the government is not too concerned about blogs as it considers them as chatter, but surely, they cannot ignore the internet-based foreign press? The fact is that the government cannot shut anyone of them down.

An internet generation - the i-generation, is growing up in Singapore, thanks to the government's strong push for all its children to become computer literate, and indeed, internet-savvy, before they leave school. Gagging the local media will no longer do, because when people's appetite for news stories that are not coated with sugary flavours cannot be satisfied locally, the internet is just a click away. Surely the Singapore government should know that its restrictive press policies, as right as it may sound, is an exercise in futility?

Instead of 'keeping people in line', it is driving more people to hate the government's way of filtering news. Ultimately, and logically, the opposition will grow, but this time, the opposition must thank the government for lending them such a big and helpful hand.

News in the dock

First, there was a strong rebuttal to mr brown's regualar Friday opinion column published on 30th June 2006 in the Today newspaper. The rebuttal came out the following Monday, on the 3rd of July 2006. This rebuttal, from non other than the Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, refutes some of mr brown's opinions about Singaporeans being 'fed up with Progress'. In his inimical way, mr brown took a cynical look at how the people in Singapore could be poorer in spite of the generous monetary gifts from the government of the past year. Then, on the following Friday, 7 July 2006, I noticed that Today did not carry mr brown's column. I thought maybe mr brown, aka Mr Lee Kin Mun, must be on a mid-year vacation with his family, like what many Singaporeans do nowadays, including myself, so he didn't write a column for that week.

Today, I read on Yahoo News, dated Sunday, 9 July 2006, the following:

Supporters of a Singaporean blogger have gathered at a busy subway station for a silent protest at the suspension of his weekly newspaper column after the government criticised his latest satirical piece about high living costs.

That weekly column is mr brown's column in the Today newspaper. In this same report, Mediacorp, the publisher of Today, has confirmed that it has suspended mr brown's column, but did not offer any reason for doing so, preferring to leave people to speculate on the likely reason.

Putting 2 and 2 together (although I admit that I have flunked my Maths before), this is what I speculate to be the case:

1. mr brown first ruffles some official feathers through his Bak Chor Mee podcast
   
2. mr brown then irritates some officials through his cynical piece on progress in Singapore
   
3. Some government official rebutes those opinion in the same media
   
4. The publisher develops cold feet and/or caves-in to stakeholder interests and pulls its most popular column off the printing presses (Did somebody add more ice to the cold feet?). Sounds awfully familiar when SPH ruled the print media.
   

At the end of the day, although we are dealing with the news media here, NOBODY is the wiser as to what really happened. Well, so much for press freedom and integrity in Singapore. Which is why any award that the local press media receives must be no more than an exercise in flattery. What else can there be?

So I am right after all. Mr Lee, aka mr brown, is on vacation, though when he will return (to Today), if ever, is not certain. But I am sure that other publications will gladly take up his column where he left off - so long as it is not printed in Singapore. His loyal and appreciative readers will still flock to his humourous musings of life in Singapore.

p.s. Contrary to what the Press Secretary writes in her rebuttal to mr brown's column last week, mr brown is not hiding behind an anonymous name. mr brown is just his pen name. I would venture to say that practically the entire newspaper reading public in Singapore and everyone else wired to the internet gossip circuit knows that mr brown is a Singaporean by the name of Lee Kin Mun. His picture is also readily available from the internet. He maintains a very public blog, complete with pictures and all, at http://www.mrbrown.com/. From what I have heard, mr brown has also been invited to some government schools to give talks. Surely, the Press Secretary can know all about this man with the resources at her disposal?

Either the Press Secretary is not reading the newspapers, or she thinks that Singaporeans are not well informed and cannot judge for themselves what is right or wrong or what is in-between. That's really the problem, isn't it?

p.p.s. So who is epilogos? After this incident, he/she has no wish to reveal himself/herself. Anonymity is preferred. This is how it will continue to be in Singapore. It is so sad. Call me a coward, but be honest yourself to say that there is not some morsel of truth in what is written everyday by Singapore bloggers about life in Singapore.

See also:
Dr Balakrishnan's take on the issue
Inter Press Service News Agency Joins in the debate

Death, Taxes and Taxi

Nothing is certain in life, they say, except death and taxes. Well, in Singapore, there's one more - Taxi fare increases. As many have expected, the prices of many essential items are going up. Some are naughty enough to link this chronologically to the last General Elections. Well, there is another reason for these prices increases (including electricity tariffs), and that is the increase in the price of oil. Still, many people will be unhappy about the increases in tranportation costs, though I venture that they are less unhappy when electricity tariffs are increased.

One of the things about increases in electricity tariffs that raises relatively less negative public feedback is that these tariffs are peg to the actual price of oil. When oil becomes cheaper, the price of electricity actually falls. But when was the last time you can recall the prices of transportation have fallen when oil becomes cheaper? I will hazard to say, on everyone's behalf, that it has never happened at all in the last 30 years. And that is why, as has always been the case, that most commuters will be unhappy, except the editorial staff of the Straits Times, i.e.

A few days ago, the editors of the ST ventured that raising the price of taxi fares is a good thing. They argue that this will make the cost of travelling on taxis significantly higher than other mass public transport such as the buses and trains. This will in turn discourage the long queues for taxis and lessen the pressure on taxi services. In this way, complaints against non-existent taxis, long waits for taxis and similar irks expressed by many commuters will naturally decrease. This will be good for tourists, who now have less people to compete with them. I was horrified that these editors, most of whom probably own private transport, could be so mean. But on further reflection, they may have a point. I wrote in the past how I was irritated when people jump the queue by whipping up their handphones to book a taxi, preferring to pay the surcharge over waiting. So there are people who are willing to pay more than what taxi companies are charging now.

On the other hand, the cost of transport in this tiny island, ironically, is very expensive. Owning a car can set you back S$60,000 at least, and even that is limited to 10 years, after which you need to pay more money to continue owning a car. So for many, the taxi is the next best thing without breaking an arm and a leg. Anyone insisting on increasing this costs to the commuter will naturally meet with a lot of opposition. In Singapore, business strategy is simple - follow thy neighbour. Price competition in Singapore is an anarchronism. But as anybody studying economics will know, upward price movements have unintended but certain consequences - it will lead to other price increases. This is known as the price acceleration phenomenon in inflationary situations.

So while nothing new is happening under the Singapore Sun, all of us have to brace ourselves for a recession a few years hence, when increasing costs will inevitably lead to another round of recession.

Singing a different tune

Despite all talk to the contrary, the PAP has yet to make any real change in it domestic policies regarding lift upgrading works. Opposition MP, Mr Chiam See Tong reportedly asked for $80m, which was part of the the promised package of benefits that the PAP candidate for Potong Pasir, Mr Sitoh Yipin, said he would deliver if he won. Well, he lost, but still, a significant 44% of the electorate in Potong Pasir voted for him. That's almost 1 in 2 people who desire the PAP's package.

Mr Chiam has now asked for this sum of money for upgrading the facilities in his constituency. It was no surprise that the government, which is majority ruled by the PAP, said no, although in most likelihood, the money has already been set aside. In doing so, it said no to the 44% of Potong Pasir residents that supported the PAP candidate. In doing so, it also practiced what it derides the opposition of doing: show up only during election time to offer sweeteners in order to make themselves known and heard. For now, Potong Pasir is Mr Chiam's problem. To be fair to the PAP, they have been working the ground all these years, but to no avail. The latest denial of the funds shows that the PAP is still clueless about how to win back the Potong Pasir Constituency and its people. It is still sticking to its old policy of Winner Takes All - i.e. the responsibility to look after and provide for the constituency out of the constituents' and the MP's own pockets, never mind that these same people pay taxes to the PAP government.

The government is certainly not for the people in Potong Pasir. Potong Pasir might as well be another country, for all that the PAP cares (or don't care). I wouldn't be surprised if the government were to announce tomorrow that all Potong Pasir registered cars will have to pay toll on all the roads outside of the constituency. This is not impossible, given the sophistication of the ERP system that is already in place.

I had hope to see the PAP government sing a more just and equitable tune. It looks like it will take a long time coming, if it comes at all.

Taxis taxis where are you

Some foreigners gush that Singapore's transport system is one of the best in the world. To them, it simply works. But to some other foreigners who have lived or worked in Singapore, the taxi service leaves much to be desired. This was highlighted in some newspapers reports recently.

To the locals, this is nothing new. We have been living day-in and day-out with the frustration and vagaries of our taxi services, particularly during peak hours, in the mornings between 8.30 and 9.30 and in the evenings between 4.30 and 8.30. This gets worst if you try to wait for a taxi downtown, in the business districts in Singapore. In spite of these, Singaporeans also know that the handphone can work miracles. The moment you secure a taxi, it miraculously shows up in a matter of minutes when previously, you'd be fortunate to even see an 'empty' taxi in half an hour. It is an open secret that taxi drivers prefer to pick up passengers through bookings rather than cruising, particularly nowadays, with the soaring prices of petrol. Interestingly, even Taxi Booking lines are now difficult to get through, which has exacerbated the problem of securing taxis even when commuters are willing to pay a premium.

I have never really understood why taxis never turn up when you most need them, and why they line up at empty taxi stands at certain times of the day. It is frustrating and ironic. However, I cannot begrudge a cab driver from wanting to earn more out of the vocation. All of us do that in our own ways in our own jobs. With the economy doing well and people earning more money, there is a distinct tendency for people, facing a long queue at a taxi stand, to whip up their handphones to do the obvious. Suddenly, roaming taxis do not come by anymore, or at least, the interval between their arrivals becomes longer and longer. But then, you wonder why the queue is so long in the first place. A case of chicken and egg, I guess.

I am always piqued when people book for taxis while standing in a taxi queue, particularly those behind me. They 'spoil the market' by agreeing to pay more, and thus increasing the average cost of taking a taxi for all the rest of us in the queue, since waiting longer is also costly. This makes me appreciate that time during the last recession when few people booked taxis, for obvious reasons. Then it was easier, and cheaper, fairer, and more pleasant to queue up for one.

I don't see these problems with taxis going away soon. Locals have lived with it for a long long time. Foreigners are beginning to appreciate that not all is well in paradise. The only likely solution is not to work within the established norm, but for some bright spark to invent an alternative way of ferrying people that is just as convenient, fast and comfortable as a taxi is nowadays, sans the waiting, that is. Buying a car in Singapore is not an option, unless you are willing to be tettered to even more bank loans. Any takers?

Who I am who you are

Who am I? So Jackie Chan's character in his movie of the same name asked after he forgot his identity through amnesia. But that's exactly what we should asked ourselves in this multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-national country of ours. Throw a stone into a crowd and you can bet it will hit a person who speaks a different 'mother' language, or who speaks English but has a different skin colour from yours, or who looks the 'same kind' as you but speaks in a language totally foreign to yours. The social makeup of Singapore has become so diverse that it dwarfs my experience growing up in the Naval Base, where you can find Malays, Indians, Chinese and Eurasians all living within a community called the Naval Base.

Why are all these important? Well, when you have different peoples living amongst you, some of whom look very different and, to others, not too 'pleasant', because of smell, colour and even diet, you will get conflicts and misunderstandings sooner rather than later. Take that unfortunate incident of a Chinese boy bashing up an Indian migrant worker accused of starring at him. There is no doubt that what that boy did was wrong. But part of the problem really, is the lack of understanding and, dare I say, appreciation for people who are different from us. Government policy in Singapore has gone out of the way to get different peoples to interact with each other, but whether people actually do so is not up to the government, but themselves. I would say that, from anecdotal and personal experience, this isn't working insofar as the policy to have a certain racial mix in public housing is concerned. Heck, I don't even know what my Chinese neighbour do for a living, not to speak of a family of a different race. With exceptions, we tend to mind our own business, which can be a virtue, but stifles the development of community and bonding among peoples and families. One problem is our children rarely get to play and talk to people of different races as often as it used to be for me 30 years ago. And I venture to say that that is a problem created by a majority of Singaporeans living out of pigeone-holed highrise apartments, which, ironically, is viewed as one of the most visible symbol of Singapore's success today.

Yes, there are community centres (or clubs as they are unfortunately now called. Club always has the connotation of exclusivity and special interest. Inter-racial interaction and bonding couldn't be further from such settings), public parks and swimming pools. But when was the last time you saw two people of different races mixing naturally with each other in any of these settings?

Without venturing into a long thesis regarding the subject of racial integration, tolerance and social cohesion, it is not hard to see that Singapore will face more problems melding the various races and peoples on this small island of ours in the years to come. Perhaps it is opportune for Singaporeans to travel more and, if nothing, learn to live and let live.

Back from Paradise

Regular readers of this blog would notice that this is my first blog after more than a week's silence. That's because I was in Australia's Sunshine State last week on vacation. As vacation goes, the Notebook PC did not follow me, and I stayed away from newspapers entirely. I also avoided Internet Cafes although the thought to blog did cross my mind. In fact, the last time I was overseas in South Korea, I blogged using the PC at the lobby of the hotel I was in. There was a PC in the hotel lobby I was staying in Australia, but I just didn't find the time nor the interest to do any blogging. Part of the reason is that this vacation has been quite a busy one for me and my family. We were getting up early in the mornings every day so that we could get to our destinations to enjoy the full benefit of the tickets that we had paid for. In fact, for a couple of days after stepping onto Singapore soil again, I didn't feel like blogging till now. Blame it on Jet-lag.

I think I haven't missed much in terms of news although the Football World Cup is in full swing. I have never been a football fan, so that explains it. Timor Leste burnt and the politics hewed and hawed, but nothing significant happened, until I came back. That was when Xanana Gusmao threatened to resign. If Alkatiri has any sense of decency, he should resign, not wait to be thrown out of office and back into exile.

And, oh, I missed the debate on the desirability and implications of employing native English speakers for our schools. Anyway, this is water under the bridge, as far as I am concerned. In my school days some quarter of a century ago, this issue has been raised and debated before, although not with the vehemence this time around. I have had my share of being taught by native English speakers. I think I am the better for it today, not that non-natives weren't good at all. Some even think I talk like a non-native (i.e. native English) and I may have been accused of speaking 'slang' - a word which is much mis-used and misunderstood. There is no absolute regarding this issue, though I understand that our non-native English teachers may have felt slighted, and this issue raised not a few doubts and contentious thoughts in the minds of the perceptive. But if you are confident in what you do and know, it really shouldn't bother you. Policies change over time, though, if you have live long enough, you would notice that they tend to be cyclical and circular, just like the prices of property.

All in, I am glad to be back in Singapore, although still I hate the weather. Australian 'winter' is so much more cool, literally.

Politics of Bak Chor Mee

By now, almost every Singaporean is talking about the digital audio dialog called 'Bak Chor Mee" which began life as a podcast during the last General Elections. Produced by Tan Kin Mun (mr brown in cyberspace) and co., its an excellent spoof of the James Gomez affair. When the JG affair unfolded, many of us Singaporeans thought that the powers that be were being unfair in pursuing a man who had made a mistake and subsequently apologised for it. This sentiment was also reflected in this blog.

I think Bak Chor Mee (BCM) sums up the sentiments of the general populace over the whole affair. I heard (and this is just rumour) that some PAP members and Ministers had a good laugh over BCM - note: not AT but OVER. So the people or party being ridiculed have shown that they can take a joke. Hopefully, they can also learn from the incident not to treat its citizens like fools. Otherwise, they will end up looking like the real ones.

Fortunately, mr brown is still alive and kicking and writing his columns for Today, as well as serving the country in military gear. I doubt that that is some sort of punishment, as some conspiracy theorists might suggest. So the PAP can take heart that, in the main, even among those who did not vote for them, Singaporeans are pro-Singapore - and that's what really matters. Whichever party you belong to, so long as it is led by decent, sincere people who have the heart of Singaporeans in their minds, is alright. We may disagree, but we are not out to destroy the country, unlike some party which is not only reckless, but may have lent itself to being manipulated by forces outside the country in the guise of freedom and democracy.

New newspaper in town

Some time ago, SPH, the largest press publishers in Singapore, put out a cleverly name free daily tabloid called 'Streats'. Competition followed with the publication of the not-so-cleverly name, but also free tabloid, Today, by rival Mediacorp. Two elephants battled and the grounds on which they stomped became more fertile - with readers spoiled for choice. But as many suspected, this could not last. The SPH elephant blinked first and both decided to come together rather than continue the fight. And so was reborn the Today newspaper 'incorporating Streats'. Today (sorry, non pun intended), those words acknowledging Streats are not to be found any more on the masthead of the Today newspaper.

But SPH has done the smart thing recently. It has put out a free daily tabloid called My Paper. Like Today, it is distributed in the mornings and at noon at selected MRT stations and Bus Interchanges. Some of it are even delivered to selected homes, which was also the case with Streats. But one thing is different. It is a Chinese language daily. There is no competition in this space, except SPH's own Lianhe Wanbao and Zhaobao. Even so, I think both are sufficiently different, in terms of breadth and depth of coverage, language sophistication and format that each will find or maintain their readership. My Paper is obviously produced by a young generation who have no qualms mixing their sentences and sub-titles with English and colloquial phrases such as 'chiMology'. What I find so attractive about My Paper is the utter simplicity of the language use, so much so that I even encourage my young son to read it.

I am not used to reading any Chinese language paper because I use English more and find that I can get through the English paper much much faster than any Chinese paper. I think this is generally true of many Chinese on this island. But My Paper is different. I find that I can get through the gist of a news article very quickly. Although this comes at the cost of depth and detail, its a good way to get one, anyone, started on reading the Chinese papers. Who knows, one might progress to Zaobao and Wanbao eventually, which may be SPH's strategy of growing the Chinese paper-reading public. In this respect, SPH has done the Chinese community a favour.

Saved by the movies

Last Saturday, 3rd June 2006, I failed to do something that I had always been able to do all these years - attend the PC Show. You see, I was working last Saturday, I had to work, which I normally needn't - exigencies of service and all that. So when I got off, it was already 3.15pm. Still time to spare, right, given that the Show didn't end until 9pm. So I made my way down to Suntec City, and in the process, lined up to cross the Bridge which escalator was not working...grrrr..

Finally, when I did get into Suntec City, an electronic signboard advised that I should come back 1 hour later as the exhibition halls at levels 6 and 8 were at full capacity. Now, I thought that that happened to car parks only. Sheesh. Having experienced geeky crowds before, I headed straight for the Suntec City bus stop and took a bus home - without waiting for that 1 hour. What a waste of my time! But it was good exercise, though! My legs were aching so I thought I'd sleep early that night, given that I had had to work that day and I had made a round trip to Suntec City. But no, I slept well after midnight. I was up watching John Q on MediaCorp Channel 5, which turned out to be an absorbing drama of a father's effort to save his child who had a defective heart. Its that age-old plot about the poor battling a soul-less hospital that wanted to see the money before it would save a life. This father was played by a favourite actor of mine - Denzel Washington. He sure can carry a plot and pile in the drama. Great movie!

Well, in a day of work and disappointment, Denzel Washington saved my day.

A celebration of parents

Every May and June, we celebrate Mothers and Fathers for their love and sacrifice for us, the children. Children get their turn only in September on Children's day. I think this is a recent development for I cannot remember such Mother/Father's day occasions when I was growing up a long time ago. So I wonder who decided the 2nd weeks of May and June for such occasions? Actually, the ones who benefit the most are retailers and restaurateurs because children often feel obliged to get something for their parents and/or take them out for an extra special meal. In May and June, you will see many advertisements from restaurants that helpfully suggests their special Mother/Father's Day menus. Flower and gift shops will also have their own promotions. The net outcome is that the children are some tens of dollars, some even hundreds of dollars the poorer from these 2 separate occasions (2 sets of gifts, 2 dinners, etc).

I am not trying to begrudge anybody anything, much less my mother (my father has already passed on). But wouldn't it make more sense on everyone's pocket, and my children's much smaller pockets, to combine these 2 days - Mother's Day and Father's Day - into one Parent's Day instead? After all, you don't exclude your Father at a Mother's day meal and vice versa, do you? I don't think you will love either one of them less by putting these occasions together, right? In the worst instance (mother and father are separated), you still have 3 meals in a day to split between the 2, right?

Well, call me a scrooge, but I think it makes more sense this way than having it on separate days. After all, it is not just the mother, but also the father, who gives the love and care that children deserve. That either one of them shows this in their different ways doesn't mean that one loves the child more than the other.

So I say, lets do away with Mother's Day and Father's Day and combine it into a Parents' Day. It brings out the important role of both parties in the well-being of the family.

Gone yesterday, disappear tomorrow

It looks very likely that yet another historical area in Singapore that holds much memories for common folks like you and I will bite the dust, literally. Seletar Airbase and much of its surrounding pre-war British Black-and-White houses will become dust once the government starts to re-develop that area into a new integrated aerospace industry cluster. This is yet another development project that, hopefully, will spur the economy to ever greater heights, according to the Economic Development Board (EDB).

But not all Singaporeans are in favour of this latest development, especially those who live or have lived in the area. To these people, their homes, and more importantly, their deep memories of the place where they grew up, in time, will be become just that - memories. There will be nothing to return to to re-live those memories, and no place to take their children to to share with them the quaint environment they grew up in, to share the wonder of wandering over a large expanse of space that characterised growing up in that time and place. I can empathise with it because I once lived in the British Naval Base, which today does not exist anymore except for a small cluster of Black-and-Whites in the vicinity of Admiralty Road.

Unfortunately, our government planners have no such experiences and memories. They cannot leave well alone. There must, at some time or other, be some project that is grand and exciting. For not doing so will not only stunt Singapore's economic development, it will stunt their career developments more. The planners talk of preserving some of the character of the place, or the historical pre-war buildings that today still serve as living quarters. But the only memories made from careful planning are called Museums. The life and times in these places cannot be replaced with some carefully constructed or preserved buildings. You cannot re-construct the ambience that is today's residential environment around Seletar airbase. How can you when you have not lived a single day in the place?

In time to come, there will be nothing to remember about Sembawang, except through the obligatory Documentaries that Mediacorp will shoot about the place - before it is carved up. Our children cannot be rooted to personal histories. There will be no place worth defending. Yes, we have new spanking apartments, but those are often the object of our trading up or out of to ever newer places, but often places without soul. The memories that I have of the Naval Base is far far deeper than I have of Ang Mo Kio, the town that my family moved to from the Base.

There are some who would turn back the clock, if it were even possible. There are some who do not want economic development at such a great expense. Can anything be done at all? The realist and the sceptic among us are resigned to this latest project. The idealist will still hold out for a rescinding of this redevelopment plan. Whichever it is, an old part of Singapore will be buried by the sands of time.

Do we wonder why we do not want to commit our lives and memories totally to this piece of rock called Singapore?

Workfare welfare slippery slope

I find it laughable that money from government will lead people to work harder. Yet that is what the general-secretary of AUPDRW suggested about the largesse that the Singapore government doled out to its citizens in the last few months. I know of a person, who, upon receiving the money, went shopping and more shopping. Yes, this will help the local economy, the retailers especially, gain more business and employ more people and resources. But it is simplistic to suggest low-wage earners will work harder and go for more upgrading programmes as a result of the Progress Package.

One of the things that spurs people to better themselves, fortunately, is the realisation that they will go nowhere in their present careers (if any of it is left, that is) or that they want to make more money. People do not do so because somebody has given them more money. If nothing, free money will induce complacency and the delusion that somebody (the government and the Unions) will look after them. Why do more when, with little effort, you qualify for the Workfare bonus and the Progress Package? The Singapore government has argued long and hard against welfarism - handing out money for no effort at all. The Workfare bonus, while not exactly a handout, may slide down the proverbial slippery slope to one eventually, especially when elections need to be won. This may be 10, 20 years down the road, but every road is carved from the first step. Will this first step be the Workfare bonus?