Holy cow! The ground is moving

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

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

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

Read more about the quake here:

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

Maid in Singapore

I was waiting for the train at Potong Pasir last Friday evening - my daily routine - to get home after a hard day's work. Usually, the train going up north will have standing room only, but yesterday, an empty train came from the north, stopped at Potong Pasir station and headed north again. I guess something must have happened along the rail that day - another rail suicide, perhaps?

Whatever happened, I got a comfortable seat and noticed a couple and their maid with a pram in tow, containing a toddler of about 2-3 years just across from where I sat. This is not an uncommon sight in Singapore nowadays, but it is a disturbing one. Assuming that that couple has only that one son (I didn't see another), we are looking at 3 adults looking after one toddler - an overkill by any measure, don't you think? Just because one can afford a maid doesn't mean that one needs to engage one. Is it so very hard to look after ONE toddler nowadays? If that is not the maid's primary responsibility, what is she doing out with the couple then? They weren't ladden with bags of shopping either. Shouldn't the maid be at home cleaning the house and cooking dinner, or perhaps looking after the aged parents of this couple, if there is any?

Our children are becoming mini-emperors, and by the same token, couples of these mini-emperors are the great pretenders - the budget version of emperors who have bought their statuses at $350 a month or thereabouts and like to parade around with them. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that all couples with maids are pretenders. But there are instances when the need for a maid is manifestly questionable. On the other hand, the mini-emperors phenomenon is much like what happened in China when the one-child policy was forcefully pushed down the Chinese' throat. Only, in Singapore, it is a matter of not willing to bear more children than not being allowed to do so. Everywhere a toddler goes in Singapore today, there is an entourage of mummy, daddy and maiddy accompanying, ensuring the comfort, safety, needs and wants of that ONE toddler by three grown-ups. Children have never had it so good, in fact, too good. Teenagers nowadays do not know how to sweep the floor (okay, vacuum the floor) and put their soiled clothes out to be washed.

So schools have found it necessary and perhaps therapeutic to organise outdoor camps and activities for these teenagers, only to have teachers complain about how 'spoilt' and molly-coddled their charges are. For example, a group of 21 students (about 17-19 years old) were told to plan their menus and BBQ for an outdoor camp. And what was the plan they submitted? Simple, have the food and the BBQ catered for - entirely outsourced! No need to go to the market, no need to cook, no need to do anything except wait for the food to be delivered . All they have to do, besides paying for it, is simply to eat it. This is probably an indication of what normally happens in their homes.

So while our students get sparkling results because of the many hours of extra lessons put in after school hours with tuition for every subject they take in school and then some others, they do not know anything else except to 'outsource'. Some call this smart and keeping up with the times, I call this shortsighted and regrettable. This dependency culture is going to boomerang on Singapore society in years to come, with detrimental effects.

What to do with our young ones who are fast growing up? I shudder to think about the day they 'outsource' us, the aging parents. Some say this is already happening.

Made in Singapore

When the issues of procreation comes up in Singapore, maids and work-life balance are often mentioned in the same breadth. Many see these two as prerequisites for bearing children, not love nor a desire to share with each other the joys of an offspring. Carrying on the family lineage must be the last thing on most young Singaporean couple's mind nowadays. It is common to see them getting a public-housing apartment and moving away from the parents. With the absence of parental nagging, the impetus to 'go multiply' for the sake of the family name will be absent.

Don't get me wrong. I am making no judgement either way about a couple setting up house without the parents, nor even about getting that public housing apartment on marriage. Most young couples do that. I was one of them in my time, and our parents do not stay with us although we have room. The story is a long but amicable one.

Often a couple thinks that if they are to bring anyone into the world, they must be ready to provide the best for that youngling. So many couples work and strive to climb that corporate ladder to this end, or so they pretend that that is why they are doing so. But they forget that biology is not on their side, at least not on the women's side. Many think that the women can still give birth way past thirty. Yes, you can, but many never factor in issues of post-natal problems after the first child, which may put a stop to the possibility of conceiving a second time, much less a third time. Furthermore, there are the issues of providing care for that first child that may wear out the couple, so much so that they will probably have second thoughts about a second child, which leads me on to the issue of maids and work-life balance.

Many women argue that the discrimination, real or imagined, that they face at work when they get pregnant (or hear about other women's experience) is a total put-off. The problem is real and often difficult to resolve. The government is willing to throw money at the problem, to make the financial loss more bearable for the employer. But lets be frank - pregnancy of a female staff is never a good thing for business. We are not talking about losing an employee's time, but also experience and expertise in her work. It is even more difficult to replace staff the higher up they are. If it were possible, what reason would the pregnant women keep her position, except the law and some dispute resolution parties? Really, we have dug ourselves into a hole by being so successful with our educational system and the largely equitable opportunities thereafter. I am not sure that aggressive economic growth is consistent with biological plenty.

Well, I have no solution to offer except that something has to give. That is the hard choice that we are faced with in Singapore today. We have seen that money, on its own, cannot solve this problem.

Now, about the maid...

Priorities in life

In a bid to sustain the standard and way of life that Singaporeans have become used to, very often, both husband and wife, mother and father, MUST hold down a job in ultra-competitive Singapore. I remember a time (my time) when the wife stays at home to raise the kids while the man brings home the bacon. But of course, that is a bygone era. With both male and female getting equal educational opportunities and career options in Singapore, it just doesn't make any sense for the wife to stay at home when she can be more productive, for home, country and vacations, holding down a job that provides more of the good material things in life, not to mention the spa holidays for relaxation and re-charging of the spirit and soul from time to time.

But the cost has been found to be in the declining birth rate among Singaporeans. We are already in crisis because apparently, we are not reproducing enough to replace ourselves. In time to come, we might just become extinct, to be replaced by migrants from other lands, just as our parents and grandparents themselves were migrants in Singapore in their time. So who are we building our homes for anyway? Does all this even make sense when we cannot reproduce enough of ourselves? I think we must come around to changing our expectations of what should be before this reversal will take place. Importing people will only go so far because in time to come, they will be just as unproductive as they assimilate and, inevitably, adopt the Singapore way of family and working life.

I argue that in Singapore, every couple should strive to work towards a single breadwinner family, the sooner the better. This means that Singaporeans must radically change their priorities. So instead of acquiring a car and a condo first, they must ensure that one of them earns enough to support the rest of the family - children and, preferably, grandparents included. Many would protest that this is impossible to do in Singapore, but really, with the re-arrangement of priorities, it can be done. I often marvelled that my father, with a salary not exceeding $500 a month, managed to raise 5 kids with the help of a very shrewed and thrifty wife. They knew where their priorities lay.

Some of you will not be convinced because you'd say, that was thirty years ago. Society has changed, and the standard of living has changed and all that. I can only say that I have done it. My wife doesn't work. She stopped working 4 years ago. I am the sole breadwinner, and by God's grace, we live in a condo. And I am just a salaryman, not even near one of the many millionaires that are sprouting up on the island these days. I just do not drive a car. That saves a lot of money, so I am told by people who do own a car. Well, I do have to live with the vagaries of public transport, including figuring out the pysche of Singapore taxi drivers. But its a trade-off that I have gotten used to. I can take my family on overseas vacations not once, but twice a year. And no, I do not try to supplement my income on 4-D and Toto. I don't make a cent from the stock market either because I am not good at it at all. If nothing, all my small and infrequent investments in equity have lost money.

So I am not convinced that, Singaporeans, when presented with a choice between family and work, work (the rice-bowl) must necessarily always come first. It is a matter of priorities. You can live relatively comfortably in Singapore without both husband and wife working. This is a myth that must be slain here and now.

What are your priorities?

Image source: http://www.northcoastchurch.com/

Queue Logic

Getting a taxi in Singapore in certain locations at certain hours of the day on the island is a real bugbear. It is not uncommon for people to stand in line for over an hour before they can board one. So the LTA (Land Transport Authority) has come up with a 'brilliant' idea - put up signs at the taxi stands to inform would-be commuters the average waiting time for a cab. This will allow them to make an inform decision either to wait or to go somewhere else to wait. Apparently this has reduced the waiting times at 'notorious' taxi queues at Ngee Ann City, Paragon, etc. I wonder how long this heavenly state of affairs will last, though. (Well, not long, going by yesterday's Straits Times story about the waiting woes at Ngee Ann City).

One would have thought that the natural logic of clearing queues is to broadcast queue info to the taxis (instead of commuters) so that these drivers can head straight for the business instead of cruising aimlessly. Curiously, it doesn't work in Singapore. It isn't that our taxis are not equipped with the necessary receivers. In fact, almost every taxi in Singapore has an LCD-equipped, voice-enabled and satellite-based system that allows the taxis to take bookings. Strangely though, it isn't used to track places where there are most people waiting for a taxi.

You know why this is so? Because taking a taxi booking is more profitable than driving to a location to pick up passengers. Unlike Changi Airport and some selected remote corners of Singapore (e.g. Singapore Expo), cabbies are not re-imbursed for the trouble of getting to a particular location. Well, surely there must be cabs nearby that will take that little extra step to earn their keep? The problem, my friend, are those 'trigger happy', impatient and oh so superior people who cannot see themselves as queuers. Once they see more than 1 person in a queue, they would immediately whip up their cell phones to book for a taxi, 'spoiling the market' in the process. When cabbies detect that people are placing calls in the vicinity (yes, their equipment are THAT sophisticated), they'd naturally slow down, dive into a car park and wait for a booking. Its at least $3 extra for the dodging effort.

What can we do? This isn't a new problem. Its been there for a long long time. The only thing that solved this problem, for a while, was the economic recession of 2003 when everybody was careful about their last penny. Now in these times of plenty, they find it easier to throw a couple of bucks away. We are caught between a rock and a hard place indeed.

Springing a leak

Everyone knows by now about the incessant rain that poured over Singapore, and much of the region, causing floods and loss of life, over last December and January. Although Singapore has, over the years, built canals and other civil works that ensures the efficient drainage of water, a part of the island was still inundated with significant losses to businesses in and around the vicinity of these floods. Fortunately, no life was lost.

Then my wife noticed that a corner of the ceiling in one of our rooms was mouldy and, on closer inspection, we were horrified to note that the wall was wet - on the inside! Apparently, the sustained 'pounding' and 'pouring' of the rain waters against the wall had caused water to seep through it! Coupled with the heat (it had stopped raining for a couple of weeks then) and wallah - we had mould growing on the cornice, ruining it. And to think, this was only a 5 year old house and cost us almost $700K!. I was incensed and dismayed, but not surprised. We complained to the management and they quickly arranged for the thing to be fixed, as if this was a common occurrence. I mentioned this to a colleague in the construction business and he seemed to be saying that this is quite common. I cannot understand how the construction industry can be so seemingly nonchalant. Even my aging $2K widescreen TV (pre-dating the LCD TVs increasingly becoming common today), which is more than 10 years old, is still working fine. It hasn't had to be repaired at all in all the years of faithful service it has provided me.

I supposed buildings nowadays are not built to last. Cracking walls are not uncommon to Singapore. Ask any Singaporean living in public housing and even condos and they will have a 'cracking' story for you. Witness the en-bloc fever and you begin to understand the psyche behind modern architects and builders. I suppose nobody nowadays expects their house to be a castle anymore - more like a pile of virtual cash to be used as a springboard to another pile of virtual cash. They'd sell at the first opportunity of making a profit and start anew in another house. Meanwhile, the house gets torn down and another brand new one will rise in its place. That's permanence for you in Singapore.

Which reminds me of the civilian quarters in the Naval Base I used to live in during my childhood. Those walls were rock solid. I know because one day, my father attempted to drill a hold in the wall (using a power drill, no less), but he wasn't able to make much headway at first. I remember him saying that those walls were tough, as only the British would make them. I am also reminded of a colleague who bought a house in Britain to live in as he travelled there every year. In itself this is uninteresting, except that this house is probably over a hundred years old. I am not praising the British for building houses that last, it is just a fact, and probably not a good idea in hindsight. If we did this in Singapore, our civil engineers will soon be out of work once the island is fully 'built-up', and doing SERS and MUPs and such can get very painful and expensive.

So I am not sure how long those billion $ IRs that many Singaporeans are looking forward to will last. Probably as long as necessary to recoup the investment, only to be redeveloped some time down the road in the name of progress.

I only regret that the concept of permanence in housing is as foreign on our soil as snow is. Can you blame people who cannot think of Singapore as a permanent home?

Whither the goodies?

The latest Singapore budget, announced by 2nd Minister for Finance, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, contains a lot of goodies for the low income worker and for businesses. But as usual, the middle-income earners get the the least even though, I must say, they probably are the cogs that keep the economic machinery well-oiled and running. It is not the government, stupid!

The press has gone to town praising the budget and businesses are over the moon in spite of the rise in the CPF contribution rates. Someone has rightly pointed out that the most anyone will get from this rise is $67.50 (i.e. 1.5% x $4,500, which is the income ceiling that will attract CPF contributions) - all of which must go into the enforced long term CPF deposit account. So for day to day expenses, there will be a net decrease in disposable income when the full effects of the 2% rise in GST kicks in. As I mentioned in an earlier blog entry, a 2% rise usually translates to a greater than 2% rise in prices. Did I hear GST credits? I don't know what form this rebate or credit is going to come to me. Outright cash in my bank, or will it be in the form of an income relief that I can claim when filing my income tax? If so, it may make little difference in reducing my personal income tax bill depending on whether the relief is offset before or after computation of the taxes. Good luck if you don't pay income tax at all (for whatever reason).

And worst if you are a middle-incomer who does not live in public housing. By the government's quirky measure of wealth, applied for the umpteenth year now, the budget has denied a substantial amount of the giveaways to this constituent of citizens although it now admits that people living in HDB Executive Apartments are also entitled to some rebates as those living in 1 - 5 room apartments. Why they didn't see this when I was living in one I will never understand. That was one of the reasons why I sold my EA and bought a condo. I wasn't getting ANY S&C rebates at all when I owned an EA. I should have waited longer for these people to make up their minds. This measure of wealth is, dare I say, so arbitrary.

So again, as in previous budgets, I get the least of the handouts because of the type of housing that I own and stay in. I am not so poor that I get the lion's share of the handouts nor am I rich enough to care about handouts at all. Sigh... and I wonder why people are rushing to buy the next condo property launch? Don't they realise that that will put them outside the bracket of people entitled to the most rebates and goodies come budget time? (But of course, many are speculators. For these people, there is a whole different set of logic that drives their often risky action). It has a feeling of "you're own your own, buddy", we hack care less for your votes come election time.

Humility in service

In Singapore, the train tracks are now a preferred route to heaven , or hell, as the case may be. Instead of jumping off the 20th floor of a highrise (and Singapore is full of highrises), suicidal people would rather throw themselves in front of train that is coming into the train stations. I suppose they choose to do so because it would guarantee instant entry into the netherworld, or wherever they think they are headed, in three pieces, no less. You see, a person reportedly fell from the 14th floor the other day, and survived! And no, he wasn't committing suicide. Failing in a suicide attempt can be very painful in more ways than one.

But using the rail system to commit suicide inconveniences many people as train operations must grind to a complete halt. Everyone down the rail line will be delayed and some even have to cancel their appointments. If the suicider had jumped down the 20th storey of a highrise, nobody will be inconvenienced. So I plead with would-be suiciders to avoid the trains stations.

But train suicides are not peculiar to Singapore. In Japan, where the rail network is much more extensive than Singapore's, people also use it to commit suicides. And there will be the resultant delays. But unlike Singapore, Japanese train officials go to great lengths to bow and apologise to commuters for the delays. They also issue a piece of paper to commuters that reads:

Proof of Train Delay
This certificate is to indicate that the train you boarded was delayed by the time [in minutes] indicated by the punch marks on the right, at the date and time stamped above. Japan Railways humbly and unreservedly apologise for this delay.*

Well, this paper is proof for the company that your delay is caused by the train arriving late rather than any attempt to skive. Maybe Singappore's SMRT and Transitlink should be more humble in their dealings with its customers, the commuters, in the future, even if the fault is not entirely theirs.

* As related in "The Blue-eyed Salaryman" by Niall Murtagh, page 61, published 2005 by Profile Books Ltd.

Image source: http://www.mtm.or.jp/

Lucky team

Good for Singapore. It retained its Tiger Cup. They are champions of the Asean Championship 2007. But for much of the first half of the match played on Sunday, they didn't look like a championship side at all. Every time the Singapore team gained possession of the ball, they would lose it the next minute. No, wait, change that to next second. I thought, "Now what kind of championship side is this?" I have seen this all too often and I feel that Singapore soccer will never progress beyond this region. It got painful to watch as the match progressed and I thought if Singapore continued to play like that, it was only a matter of time that the Thai team wacked a ball into Singapore's goal, as it did eventually. I turned off my TV. I just couldn't bear to continue watching Singapore's tiger torn to shreds by an obviously revived Thai side.

As it turned out, Thailand faced one person it couldn't crack - Lionel Lewis and was floored by the fantastic individual effort of Khairul Amri. Singapore should play more like Khairul - get the ball, retain possession, and go for goal! Unfortunately, the Singapore team is still far far away from a great team. Do not forget that the scoreline for the second leg is 1-1 - hardly a convincing victory. After the euphoria has died down, it should reflect and re-evaluate upon this.

I don't hope ever to switch off the telly in the middle of a match between Singapore and its opponents.

Politics of soccer?

The Asean Football Champion Cup final at the Singapore National Stadium is now deadlocked over a controversial decision by the referee to award a penalty to Singapore. The replay showed that probably the Thai player did not do anything that warrant the penalty, but soccer players and officials should know that the referee's decision is final on the pitch. Yet the Thai officials and players are refusing to carry on with the game.

Oh boy, here comes another issue that the Thai Generals might nitpick. God help Singapore

Charity under siege

Nowadays, it doesn't pay to do good. I mean it has never paid to do good any day. Rather, what I mean is that it should never pay to do good at all. Whenever the public finds out that the CEO of a charitable organisation is paid in excess of S$10,000, the alarm bells start to go off. While we must always be vigilant against excesses, it is also right that a person who works is deserving of his pay.

This is the dilemma that any person who runs a charity organisation or who is thinking of starting a charity organisation in Singapore needs to consider very consciousnessly and deliberately. Ever since the NKF saga, charities or Institutes of Public Character (IPC) are increasingly under siege - from the regulatory authorities, from the NCSS, from the donors and, ironically, from the volunteers themselves. Youth Challenge, an organisation that has channelled youths into charitable and meaningful activities for the last 30 years, has come under financial scrutiny due apparently to complaints received from its volunteers, whose behaviour and attitudes have been less than generous and charitable to start off with. The truth is now out, and its erstwhile CEO, Mr Vincent Lam, booted out together with it. (Well, yes, he resigned, but its the same as the boot, is it not?) This must be a sad day for Mr Lam, who spent 30 years building up YC only to be felled by it.

On the other hand, we have recently witnessed one of the largest charitable actions in the history of man. Mr Warren Buffet, the Oracle of Omaha, donated all of US$31 billion worth of his fortune, accumulated through his Berkshire Hathaway investment company, to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That kind of money is good enough for me to retire a thousand times over. Mr Buffet is not even leaving that pile to his children, saying that he had already given them the means to make a living on their own, re-affirming the power and wisdom of that oft-quoted saying, 'give a man a fishing rod...".

Charities remain an important part of society. There will always be the poor, the downtrodden, the ones whose 'luck' has run out, who needs another chance, who are struck down by a malady that, without good medicine, medical and social care and concern, often means a painful existence that often and quickly slips into despair. Yes, we need concerned and generous people no matter if some among us are proven to be exploitative and wasteful - people who are not only good guardians of the resource entrusted to them, but who extend a helping hand when it is needed, whether that hand is a physical one or a monetary one.

More so, we need volunteers who are self-less and, more importantly, persistent in the work of charity. I recall, a few weeks ago, I received a call on my handphone from a lady who solicited help on behalf of a local charity. Unfortunately, I was in the midst of a meeting and asked that she call back half an hour later. She did call back much later, but by then I was already in another meeting. By then, I could guess what the call was about, but from the sincerity of the voice on the line, I apologised and again ask that she call back later. She did - for the third time - the next day while I was having lunch in a canteen that was so noisy I couldn't hear myself think, much less listen to the person on the other end of the line. So we agreed that she call in the evenings when I would definitely be free of any activities so that I could give her my undivided attention. She called, for the fourth time, and explained the case of her solicitation. For all her persistence and sincerity and the charity work that she was involved in, it didn't take long for me to decide to commit a modest sum of money towards her charity. I am relating this not to show what a generous and charitable person I am. I am sure there are many others who would contribute more than me. I relate this to illustrate how important it is for volunteers to be sincere and persistent in the work they do, even though rejection tends to be the rule rather than the exception in non-face-to-face solicitations. It is so easy for a respondent to just hang up, or say no. I can understand that people might have their suspicions about the genuineness of such calls but I suppose I took a leap of faith and left it to God to execute his judgement if needed. Ultimately, it looked above board as a person arranged to show up at my workplace to pick up my cheque. What I did not expect was that an official 3-ply receipt was issued to me (I didn't even asked for it in the first place) for my contribution. Ever since, I have not been contacted, but it is not for me to hanker for any praise or expressions of gratitude for carrying through with my commitment. It is enough for me to know that somewhere in Singapore, a handicapped person is able to move about more freely because I gave.

I trust that charity is not a seriously wounded animal in Singapore in spite of the bad press that IPCs have received in the last year (and into this as well).

Meannie Friends?

Nowadays, my son refers to us, his parents, as meannies whenever we disallow him from doing something or having something. We, the parents, know better and any restrictions are for the child's good, so we believe. Thus being called mean doesn't really hurt us a bit. In fact, I detect a hint of affection whenever we are so labelled.

However, this doesn't seem to be the case in the recent spat, first between Singapore and Thailand, and most recently, between Singapore and Indonesia. Singapore has gone out of its way to court of its neighbours, preferring a prosper thy neighbour policy rather than the one-up-manship policies that the previous Malaysian government under Dr. M used to practice, with some degree of relish.

But alas! Even our best intentions and actions are sometimes not good enough. Singapore stands accused of spying on Thailand by no less than the General Boon-whatever-his-name-is (hope it doesn't rhyme with Baboon) who led a coup that toppled Thailand's previous premier, Dr Thaksin. As improbable as this may be, the Thai brass has already determined that this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There was a time when we laid out the red carpet for each other, not only at the government level, but also on the business, educational and social levels. Catching a plane to Bangkok to shop has been every Singaporean's favourite past time. But then, it is probably the militarian's psyche that is at work here. Pretty soon, this psyche will also set the Thai economy back a couple of notches, if it has not already begun, that is. In retrospect, Temasek Holdings made a very ill-considered investment in gaining majority control of Shin Corp, an asset the Thai government considers strategic to its national interest. But what is done cannot be undone, unless Temasek divest its interests soon. But this is to kow-tow to the Thai military on a matter that Singapore considers a purely business transaction. So how? Wait for the wind to blow over, or the Thai military to stumble. Some are speculating that this is a diversenary tactic by the Thai brasses to cover up its incompetence at managing an economy going downhill. Whatever, it is Thailand that is in real trouble. As a friend, Singapore wishes them well.

Indonesia has suddenly woken up to environmental issues and is now banning all exports of sand to Singapore. Given that Indonesia consists of vast stretches of islands that span the seas between two major oceans with Singapore but a red dot, they cannot be serious that stopping the sales of sand to Singapore will make a significant difference in the environment? You'd laugh at this reason for their decision, especially when they haven't done any thing to stench the fires that destroy vast stretches of forests (over areas many times the size of Singapore) over the last few years. Just look at the map. Even if sand is dumped onto Singapore 10 times its size ten times over, it would not affect more than 0.01% of the land mass of Sumatra. It would seem that the Indonesia Minister and her minions who suddenly became environmentally conscious and dreamt up this restriction don't know their Geography at all. Again, Singapore must have stepped on sensitive toes when it complained about the haze originating from Indonesia to the UN recently.

What can we learn from all this? Singapore property is going to go on the up and up again. Obscene amounts of foreign money will now flow from Thailand to Singapore even as foreign sand from Indonesia stops coming. Singapore has turned an economic backwater into a vibrant economy which is the envy of many. It is now exporting water technology into lands where, ironically, desert sand is in abundance. Will Singapore invent sand now that it is in short supply? Well, if its history of the last 40 years is anything to go by, it probably will.

And Thailand and Indonesia will remain clueless...

The staunching of the dirt

Surprisingly, Mr TT Durai decided to throw in the towel of public scrutiny after just 1 and a half day's of the prosecutor laying out all the dirt that was dug up in 8 months of investigative work, including computer forensics. While much of the dirt wasn't all that new (well, dirt is never new anyway), some of it having been aired during TTD's suite against SPH back in 2005, the depth of it was, I suppose, just too much for TTD to bear. Actually, I think he is smarter this time around by cutting his losses and running. He probably figured that he has better things to do than to sit down in Court and have dirt thrown at him.

That leaves his cronies to defend themselves, which may be more interesting to most since much of what we are hearing is new to many, including myself. One lesson that has already come out of this is that sitting on the Board of any organisation is a very heavy responsibility. Just look at the sheer number of lawyers representing these various (former) board members (which reads like a Who's Who in Singapore) in Court who may or may not have been responsible for the mess at the old NKF.

The next time I get invited to take a board seat, I'd think twice, no, better make that thrice.

The dirt just comes pouring out

'Goodness gracious me', as an old and dear friend of mine used to exclaim when presented with an unusual situation.

This time, the NKF is yet again in the limelight, and possibly for the next 7 weeks, for that is the time set aside by the Singapore Courts to hear the civil suite filed by the new NKF against its former Board Members, led by its former CEO, Mr T.T. Durai, to recover S$12million big ones that was allegedly misappropriated. From newspapers reports of the account of this ongoing trial, a lot of dirt, and I mean a LOT of it, is being dumped out by the prosecutors from the erstwhile closed closets of the dependents.

Strangely, I feel glad that I have never contributed a cent to the NKF. Well, that's not strictly true. My wife and son contributed once, some S$50 of my money, for two reasons - to stand a chance to win the fabulous prizes that NKF was dangling, and I suppose, for the charity as well. I am not saying that my dearly beloved ones are less charitable, but they got caught up in the prizes thing that releasing money in the name of charity became that much easier - not to mention that those money belonged to me.

Well, if what the prosecutor has said so far regarding the profligacy of the old NKF CEO is true, about him using much of the contributions on expensive hotels and airplanes and polishing some people's asses, then I am glad that my contribution towards these is minimal. But I can imagine more charitable people now sharpening their knives, ready to plunge it into - themselves - for having been such fools. And I can imagine certain well-meaning artiste who risk their lives and limps staging those charity shows so that the money raised can contribute towards somebody's hugely obscene bonuses. And I thought that TTD's family was a bunch of angels...helping to shred incriminating documents...

Well, if day one is so shocking, we should be prepared to bring out our cardiac arrestor to make sure we survive the seven weeks. No point making the supreme sacrifice for such err...cronies and crooks. (say what? innocent till proven guilty?....)

Minority Oppression

The majority is often bullied by the minority. This sounds strange as anyone in a real democracy will tell you that that is not true. The majority decides, right? Well, no, not if you look at the coffeeshops in Singapore. Let me elaborate.

The law has stipulated that a part (20% to be exact) of any outdoor or non-aircon public eating places (such as local coffeeshops and outdoor spaces in Starbucks) must be demarcated as a smoking area. This means that a majority of spaces is for non-smokers. However, if reports are anything to go by, the majority non-smokers are complaining that smoke still gets in their eyes and noses, and in some cases, the law is broken by smokers blatantly smoking in non-smoking areas. Well, that's nothing new. There are people who find violating the law a particular challenge to be taken on head on.

The complaint, really, is that proprietors of these places of businesses are reluctant to help enforce the law because they are worried of losing the minority of their customers! That is strange logic indeed. I think there is a majority of customers who are against smoking at public places. Given a choice, would you be more concerned about the majority of your customers or the minority?

But of course, to a businessman, every single one of its customers matters. So they are reluctant to offend anyone. But if the majority non-smokers are complaining about the smoke still coming over to their side because of the ill-considered location of the smoking area, and the proprietor is not doing anything to resolve it, then I think the majority should just vote with its feet and not patronise that eating place. Wouldn't the businessman then have to go back to fundamentals and figure out that the majority actually contributes more to its profits than the minority? But of course, in Singapore, people rarely vote with their feet. They just do so with their mouth - all words and not action?

It is no wonder that some have a disdain for Singaporeans who complain incessantly and expect the authorities to do something about it. Well, we can't have NEA officers stationed at every eating place, otherwise our tax bill will just go up, which will be another cause for complaint.

The solution to this problem is actually very simple. And it must involve the people who are complaining. Just shut your mouth and go somewhere else that is more non-smoker friendly. After all, when the majority speaks, the business will take notice, right? Why should the minority oppress the majority?