Cheap cheap

Everyone, I suppose, in Singapore knows that medicine across the Causeway is cheaper, just like food and petrol. So it is natural that Singaporeans exit Singapore in droves during weekends to stretch their feet and their Singapore Dollar. Over the years, however, Johor has become less of a shopper's paradise for Singaporeans. For some time now, the prices in their shopping malls aren't too different from what you can get back in Singapore.

Petrol is still a bargain, but the Singapore government does its best to 'pursuade' Singaporeans to 'buy Singapore'. The 3 Qtr tank rule is still there. However, of late, the powers that be appears to have changed their minds. For example, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has famously said (in February 2009) that Singaporeans can consider putting their elderly parents in Nursing Homes in Johore. Now, Salma Khalik, ST's Health Correspondent (who reported on the Johore Nursing Home story earlier this year for the same paper) is suggesting that Singaporeans stretch their dollar by getting vaccination jabs (against streptococcus pneumoniae bacteria) in Malaysia simply because it costs much less there than in Singapore. Although Mr Khaw's name is missing in this opinion piece, it is pretty much the same point that Mr Khaw was making - there are choices for cheaper medicine, and Singaporean's should avail themselves of it, never mind that you can't avail yourself of more than a quarter tank of cheaper petrol over there. I suppose the petrol is not Mr Khaw's department. The Transport Minister, Mr Raymond Lim doesn't seem to have heard, nor is willing to hear, or if heard, is not willing to have a change of heart about Singaporeans having the choice of spending less on petrol.

By now, everybody knows that medicine in Singapore isn't cheap. That is common knowledge, really. There is a perception that, on the whole, medicine is good in Singapore. That's the premium you have to pay. But now Ms Khalik is suggesting (see Straits Time, 23 October 2009, page A2) that medicine in Malaysia, as far as vaccinations go, is just as good, you wonder why you have to continue to pay a premium in Singapore? It would appear that not only do our businesses price themselves out of the market that lead to the inevitable recessionary cycle, we, the citizens of Singapore, also get priced out of our products like medicine, which isn't exactly optional in our lives. And who are setting the prices in the medical sector in Singapore? Go figure.

I suppose we have to thank Ms Khalik for her money-saving tip, but we would also be grateful if somebody were to talk to Minister Raymond Lim about that petrol thingy.

Heavenly house

Housing people in Singapore has been a challenge. It always has been, and probably will continue to be. Back in the early days - the 1960s/70s, it was building enough public housing apartments fast enough. Today, it is trying to put people into their preferred houses fast enough - high floors, not situated in some remote and god-forsaken corner of the island, near where their parents live, has a full suite of amenities - wet markets, supermarkets, shopping mall, adequate parking, schools (the more well-known ones the better), convenient public transport (bus, MRT, LRT), has a view, preferably of the sea, or at least some greenery, etc. etc.

You can never satisfy all of them, but can you blame people with this laundry list of demands when the price of a public housing apartment these days is upwards of S$200,000? In some countries, you can get a bungalow for that kind of money. The government does not seem to get it. I think anybody will be happy with any public apartment if the prices weren't so stratospheric. But when you are potentially tied down for the rest of your life servicing the mortgage, you'd naturally want something better. Frankly, whatever subsidy that the government provides for nowadays is "peanuts", to quote a distinguished citizen. No, it wouldn't be practical to have all the items on the laundry list checked off, but you try to get the best. And this is why, I suppose, some people reject apartments offered to them time and again.

Having said that, however, people should look at the practical side of things. When it is your first apartment with your fiance/wife, take any flat that is offered, even if it is in the most remote corner of the island. Someone said that Punggol is in one corner of the island (read "remote"). Singapore is a small island, and no part of the island that is remote today will remain so tomorrow. The reason why our parents made so much money from their public apartment over the years is because of this belief. They didn't mind Toa Payoh when it was a swamp-land, ditto Ang Mo Kio, Bishan, etc. With the redevelopment of the surrounding land courtesy of the government, the value of the real estate naturally soared. Many cashed out and moved to more virgin parts of the island to repeat their conquests of new land and more value. Sure, you need to put up with the inconvenience at first, and probably the sneers and jokes from relatives and friends about your living in an ulu place, but you probably will have the last laugh when you cash out again and buy that dream condo, and then have something left over for a good meal of curry fish-head.

The value of your apartment may not appreciate as much today compared to 15-25 years ago, but property will always be valuable in land-scarce Singapore. If the government wants to build apartments in a particular part of the island, you can be sure that they already have big plans for redeveloping that piece of land and its surroundings. Don't be short-sighted and go for instant gratification. Every good investor will tell you the same. Isn't a house an investment rather than an expense?

EPL ransom

It is news that didn't bother me at all, but it has got quite a number of people in Singapore upset yet resigned over it. No, it isn't about the local S-League that has come up for criticism from one of its own. It definitely is not about Ris Low, nor the revivied mini-bonds saga. It wasn't the earthquake in Sumatra, which shook many Singaporean's out of their highrises. No, its is about the most important thing in many people's lives in Singapore today - watching the English Premier League (EPL) games 'live' on TV.

Many were upset to learn that their erstwhile provider for EPL broadcasts, Starhub, has lost its broadcasting rights to rival Singtel. Just when they were settling down on the skyhigh prices that Starhub currently charges, they are faced with the propect of paying more in a year's time. As both operate the transmission of their programmes using different platforms, die-hard fans will have to invest on both platforms - cable and mio, or give up their cable (Starhub) equipment in exchange for Singtel's mio. Such is the grief that honest but desperate consumers have to suffer from big businesses trying to hook them in. But why are these broadcast rights so expensive?

It is business. If Singtel thinks that it can 'extort' the kind of money it will probably charge viewers of these programmes, and these die-hard fans are willing to shell out that kind of money, then its a willing buyer willing seller situation. Well, Singtel did say that it will not charge more than what Starhub charges now, even though the amount of Singtel's bid is reportedly twice what Starhub paid (i.e. US$160m) when it secured the rights in 2007.

Whatever Singtel will charge is not important to me. What is important is that they don't go off and start cross-subsidizing their services, and recover the costs of the EPL license from non-viewers like me. Charge whatever you need to charge soccer-mad fans for their fix, but don't increase the prices of other services, such as mobile and fixed-line services. I am not a soccer fan and I do not want to pay for Singtel's madness, and those EPL soccer fans as well. If they find joy in contributing to the overpaid soccer players in the EPL, that's their pleasure and their right. I do not want to be a part of it.

Otherwise, I am sure MDA, or someone with a big stick, will look into it.

Abused Beauty

After all is said and done, I think Singaporeans have been a bit mean (well, ok, very mean) to Ms Ris Low. Much has been said and written about her less than perfect English diction and videos have made her the laughing stock of the whole country. Why are we so mean? It is not as if she is totally unintelligble when she speaks. I can think of and heard other Singaporeans pronounce English words the way she does. Just today I was at a seminar presented by a major public-listed company, in a room full of professionals, and its speakers were pronouncing 'badder' for 'better'. There were a couple of other words that were similarly abused. This isn't all that different from Ms Low's diction. In this respect, I think some of the Youtube videos about her less than perfect diction have been made in bad taste. Yes, they are funny, but they are also very cruel. In fact, unless Mediacorp (or whoever the original video belongs to) is in on it, some IP rights may have been violated and the perpetrators could be charged in Court. What's the difference then between Ms Low's trouble with the law with this sort of 'stealing'? So whoever put them up should take them down.

And what's wrong with Boomz? At least now English has a new word, and words are created all the time. Singlish has produced not a few of them, which we have come to love. We don't understand what Boomz is? Well, neither do I understand what the 'lah' that ends Singlish phrases mean. But don't we use it with relish because that is so Singaporean? That's one thing you look out for when you are overseas, when in a sea of people, it brings a smile to your face the moment you hear it. You know for sure that a countryman is in the midst. Lewis Carroll himself was probably 'guilty' of spouting nonsense, with his invention of the nonsensical words 'jabberwocky', 'chortled and 'galumping' in his poems. But these words have since entered the English language. OK, ok, Ms Low was not being particularly poetic when she blurted out the Boomz word. But inventions are often made at the spur of the moment, no?

But isn't the whole of Singapore, in ridiculing it, now trying to give meaning to the word? In time, who knows, it may become a peculiar Singlish word that our children will use without the ridicule that accompanies it today.

I think the real 'problem' is not her language, nor particularly her diction. If it were, many Singaporean's will be just as guilty as her. Her diction could have been 'badder', as befits the representative of Singapore women, but I think the real issue about her representing Singapore is her conviction for credit card fraud. She should have come clean about it from the start. Unfortunately, she did not. Maybe she was immature, maybe she thought that her achievements in the beauty pageant will erase her 'moment' of weakness (well, that moment did last quite a while, I admit). But I think enough is enough. Let the poor girl alone. Hopefully she has learnt the right lessons from the whole affair and we will hear better things of her in the future.

Boomz! RIP.

Confused Beauty

Do we have another air-head in the making? I don't know, but I am beginning to have grave doubts about the girls that were crowned first and second (and third and ....?) in the Miss Singapore World 2009 contest.

It is all well and good for friends to stick together and speak up for each other. But when the first runner-up, Ms Lee, a graduate of NTU's aerospace engineering, insisted that Ris Low should still represent Singapore in Africa even after Ms Low has bowed out, you have second thoughts about the quality of the person who came in second. Let's separate personal loyalty and national duty. One can, and should be, loyal to one's friends, but when that loyalty concerns the nation, then you should put aside personal feelings. Ris knows she has become a liability in the competition in Africa. She knows that she can potentially shame Singapore and give it a bad name. She knows she cannot be an effective ambassador and spokesperson for Singapore, much less win the title But it would appear that Ms Lee doesn't get the point when she insisted that Ris proceed to Africa.

If Ms Lee is now chosen as the replacement, I will cringe at the thought of Singapore's name being dragged through the mud of Africa. It'll be no different sending Ris.

Where did they get these 'beauties' from, anyway? Perhaps all those years of studying aerospace has gotten to her head, She should land and show us some maturity, not blind loyalty. One would have thought that she hasn't been reading the newspapers and blogs of late. Or if she had, she hasn't been applying her mind.

P.S. Its tough to be a beauty in Singapore.

Cheating beauty

Given the revelation of this year's Ms Singapore World, Ms Ris Low's conviction for credit card fraud, cheating and criminal misappropriation, numbering no less than 60 charges, and given that she did not reveal this to the organisers until after she had secured the crown, demonstrating her dishonesty and hypocrisy (I can only imagine the 'honest-to-God' answers she gave during the competition proper on her way to her now tainted crown), how can she represent the whole of Singapore on foreign soil? She can represent herself, she can represent the organisation that anointed her, but can she claim to represent the women of Singapore? If I were a women, I would cringe, though as a Singaporean, I still will cringe. Hey world, this girl doesn't show off the best of our girls - heck most of them are honest and hardworking, never mind that they may not have the perfect physical features and proportions. And many of them may have a problem or two with some physical or mental condition, but they don't steal credit cards and dine dishonestly at posh-posh restaurants.

Some talk of second chances and all. Well, yes, that is desirable. But to use Ms Singapore World to redeem yourself ultimately cheapens the Ms Singapore World title and brand. Actually, I don't care very much for Beauty contests, but if Singapore's name and reputation are at stake, that's when a line needs to be drawn. One may be compassionate and forgiving, but in the dog-eat-dog world out there in South Africa, any pretender will be mauled if she even has a spot of blemish. So the best thing for Ms Low is to give up her crown gracefully instead of hanging on to it so doggedly. I think she has already proven something. No point exposing herself to ridicule in South Africa. She will jeopardise the chances of all future Ms Singapore World at these competitions. The world will look at Singapore women with a different eye. It'll be a steeper slope for all future Ms Singapore World to climb on the world stage.

You don't want to be that selfish, do you?

Home on the net

This posting is not about life in Singapore. Its about life not in Singapore and the contrasts that it brought, at least as far as accessing the internet is concerned. You see, I have been away for slightly less than 2 weeks in Shanghai, and had thought that I could be connected to the internet and blogging and all, just like what I do in Singapore. I had been to Shanghai 2 years ago, and know for a fact that most hotels provide free broadband internet access. What's more, there is my spanking new netbook that will make the whole thing effortless, especially when it comes to lugging it around in my carry-on luggage.

So, yes, I was connected. All I had to do was to plug in the network cable into my computer and wallah, I am connected, or so I thought. The problem with China, even now, with its liberal capitalist approach in big cities such as Shanghai, is that it censors internet access to websites with a heavy hand. Popular websites such as Facebook and Blogspot cannot be accessed at all in China, or at least using the hotel broadbands in both hotels that I stayed in. Yes, I could not access any of my blogspot blogs!

Mercifully, though, I could access e-mail websites such as Yahoo, Gmail and Microsoft's Live.com. Otherwise, I would have been cut off from the rest of the world while in China, which had been the case before the 1980s, before Deng Xiaoping instituted his Black-cat-White-cat brand of pragmatism that has propelled its economy in leaps and bounds over the last 30 years. On the other hand, any website with the .cn country domain name (i.e. China for those of you who are clueless), such as baidu.com.cn, loaded extremely fast, with zero or near zero latency. Talk about favouritism!

So here I was, missing all the blogs and blogging and thus cut off from life in Singaore. My schedule was busy, and I didn't have ready access to printed news of Singapore, except perhaps to todayonline.com, Today's online newspaper, which I had delivered to my e-mail account. Curiously though, I never opened it up to read. I was more interested in chatting with people back home and then hitting the sack, so tired I was after a day's activities.

Happily though, I experienced no withdrawal symptoms with the limited access to many internet websites I frequent back in Singapore. And so I had a semi-voluntary news blackout for this period. Now that I am back in Singapore, the latest news appears to be Ms Singapore World, and yes, the F1 too. But the former makes for more interesting reading, though.

Glad to be back in Singapore.

Cult of religion

On the whole, Singapore takes a balanced approach towards people's beliefs, and their freedom to practice those beliefs. This was one of the major themes in the PM's National Day rally speech this year. And for the most part, this is something to be happy about. There will, of course, be some who think otherwise, when their 'religion' is frowned upon as they propagate values that are alien to a conservative society's, as is Singapore's. Amazingly, this atmosphere prevails when the government openly favours the Muslims in putting aside land for them to build their Mosques. Less so for Christian, who often have had to resort to gathering in house-churches, or abandoned cinemas or even huge conventions centres like those in Suntec City, paying an arm and a leg, to practice their religion every week. But we all live and let live. Religion is not about equality on earth. It is the afterlife, after all, that matters, isn't it? But some religions somehow miss this point.

Thus it is puzzling that peoples in other countries practice their religion in such as literal and earthly manner. This calls to mind whether they are following the letter of the law, and blindly at that, but have lost the spirit of these religous injunctions. For example, we hear of 2 Muslim women sentenced to caning for doing nothing more than drinking beer and wearing pants! Maybe in these places, such barbaric practices are the norm, that women-folk are accepted as the constant object of abuse in the name of religion, if not society at large - even by the women themselves. In the case of the women sentenced to canning, she perversely asked that she be caned. I often wonder if women like her have a sado-masochistic streak or are they plainly longsuffering in the name of religion? Whichever the case, it is probably no wonder that that section of society finds the whole thing quite civilised, proper, and (gasp), holy(istic).

Which reminds me. Today is 911 - the day of infamy when, 8 years ago, a few religious Muslim fanatics found it the height of their obligations to Allah, their God, to first hijack a plane, and then ram them straight into 2 towering buildings in New York City, thus attaining their ultimate religious state at the expense of thousands of poor innocent people. As I am reminded today, these people who perished were fathers, they were mothers, they were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, grandchildren and grandmothers....How can any religion find it right in its teachings that killing innocent people is the way to release? Yet as recent events have shown, in Jakarta for example, these religious fanatics have persisted in their perverse views. They will glady kill again in the name of their religion.

May such thinking and the people who continue to propagate them, face their just deserts when they see their God. Those who have already gone before would have been shocked to discover that they have died for a lie.

In memoriam, to the victims of 911

and terrorism the world over

May you rest in peace

Castle in the air

It was James Otis who first said that a "man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle...". Well, I am sad to observe that in Singapore, even the Law acknowledges that this is not necessarily true. There was a recent case where 2 people sued a man for not being dressed at all while he was in his house's kitchen. The inside of this kitchen faced a public area, and as the newspaper account went, these 2 women were walking pass it when they saw the man of the house all naked sitting in his kitchen. Their modesty was so outraged that they sued the man. The Courts agreed with the women and fined the man $2,000 for the indecent exposure and a follow-up act of agression against the same.

So now, I am very careful about being decently dressed while I am at home. All the more so as many public, and might I say also private, apartments face public wakways and other apartments' windows. I once observed that in Hong Kong apartments, you could just reach out with your hands to touch your neighbours' window. Such was the congestion and design of their houses. Nowadays you can say the same about Singapore. At least you could see clearly into someone else's apartment.

Why would anyone move around in his/her apartment dressed to the zeros (as opposed to nines, i.e.?) Well, given Singapore's hot and humid climate, this would be the most sensible thing to do, actually. Nowadays, I sweat even when I remain still, sitting on my sofa chair in the living room. Sometimes, I take off my shirt and go around the house in nothing more than a pair of shorts. How short is my shorts? Well, that is my business. But that is exactly the issue. How much or how little must you have on before you offend the modesty of some prudish women (or men for that matter) and land up in court on the opposite side of the law? Nobody is forcing anyone to look into somebody's castle...err house. You are not forced to be a kay-poh. You choose to be one. If you take a look and see a naked man or woman in the house and am offended by what you see, that is your problem. You shouldn't even contemplate taking the owner of the house to court for exposing whatever. We talk of being tolerant when religion is concerned, but we must be equally tolerant of what the master of the house chooses to do, short of committing a crime. An act of indecency you say? What is indecent to you may be common sense to another, so long as it is done in his castle.

Rain or shine

All of a sudden, some locals are now concerned about the safety (and comfort?) that employers employ in ferrying their foreign workers to and from work. Right now, many of these foreign workers sit at the opened back of their employers' station wagons. Some of these station wagons, or lorries or trucks (whichever word you use depends on where you come from) are not covered, so workers hold on to whatever they can to steady themselves while the lorry moves. Some lorries have roof shelters, so when it rains, they are protected. Some have additional fencing so workers can sit on raised wooden planks installed across or along the sides of these lorries, probably making the ride more comfortable.

Responding to safety concerns, some people are suggesting a gamut of things - not about making the lorries safer, but suggesting that employers abandon the use of their lorries in favour of using buses and the like for ferrying their workers. One has even accused Singapore of being worse than what some 3rd World countries practise. For example, someone pointed out that China has laws that disallow the use of lorries for this purpose. Well I am not sure if that law exists in the first place, and even if it does, whether it exists nation-wide. Just becaues a local says so to make a point does not mean it is so.

I think in their fervour to make it safer for our foreign workers,we are forgetting one important thing. And that is to keep costs low for our business owners. Otherwise, these same businesses will lose out to our regional neighbours resulting in the retrenchment of these foreign workers. Then these best safety practices will be moot. It will be a supreme irony - that 'better' laws or rules that are meant to protect our foreign workers' safety will result in their being sent home prematurely. Sure we can have First World best practices. This also means we will have First World costs.

I have ridden behind open-top lorries and station wagons before. While it can be thrilling, I recognise the danger that it poses. But I also think that if passengers practice sensible care, this mode of transport can be quite comfortable and safe. Of course when it rains, it can get uncomfortable, but it is nothing that a tarpaulin cannot fix. Even with a roof, water can splash in, and you'd just have to wear a water-proof overalls for cover. Sure this isn't as comfortable and ideal as a bus, but if it is going to kill the foreign workers' job, which would they prefer? Before we pontificate on what our employers should do, shouldn't was ask them - the foreign workers, what they want?

Thank you foreigners!

Tunnel boring for Singapore's MRT circle line was completed today. (Today and The Straits Times, 18 August 2009, p12 and p4 respectively). The Straits Times had a picture showing the large boring mechanism in the background and everyone clapping and jumping in celebration. Normally this is unremarkable. Sure they should be happy. Its a job completed without any more loss of life. But one thing caught my attention about the photograph.

If one didn't know better, one could be forgiven to think that the boring took place somewhere in India. Every single person in the picture looks like an Indian! I don't see any Chinese, or Ang Mo for that matter. It just goes to show that the real credit for Singaporean's getting a world-class transport system is due in no small measure to some of our imports - foreign labours, just as it took our forebears - today's Singaporeans' fathers and grandfathers who hail from India and China, to build Singapore into the modern city-state that it is today. Even as Singapore celebrates its National Day, it bears remembering that our prosperity, our first-class infrastructure, comes from the toil and sweat of the very same peoples who settled in this land more than 50 years ago and whose sons from that same faraway land continue to do so today.

Yes, they are not doing it for free. But the smiles on their faces, and the jubilant cheering (I can only imagine this) shows how much pride they have in their work. Imagine, celebrating an achievement which they may never get to enjoy as they must go home to India (or wherever they came from) one day. Given that most Singaporeans are unwilling to work in such jobs anymore, we owe them a debt of gratitude in helping make our journeys to and from work faster and a lot more bearable.

Truth and pragmatism

"We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as...."

This National Day, our 44th, much was made of it. We got as many people as possible to recite that pledge at 8.22pm during the National Day celebrations at the Marina Bay and everywhere else. Many would have reflected on the words in the pledge, what it really meant to them, why, as a student, they had to recite it every school day (except when it poured rain or H1N1 or SARS), and whether they even meant what they say.

It would appear that there are some who are dead serious about it. NMP Viswa Sadasivan spoke about squaring our public policies with the words of the pledge, something that, one would say, is obvious. You say what you mean and mean what you say, so the saying goes.

But, as any citizen and long-time resident would know, this is not exactly how Singapore works. There is what the Americans would call affirmative action - positive discrimination in favour of a particular race in Singapore from the very first day it was founded as an independent nation. So it isn't regardless of race. Maybe language, maybe religion, but certainly not race. The Chinese race is dominant but it has been pragmatic enough to realise that it lives in a sea of countries dominant in a race that is a minority on the island of Singapore. And that therefore, it must pay especial attention to this fact - discriminate, regard the race, in order to move forward toward happiness, prosperity and progress.

Some would disagree, as the honourable NMP does, because we would want to be true to ourselves and what we say. But ironically, we have to be schizophrenic if we want to maintain a semblance of sanity and order. On the other hand, when you think about it, a mother does not neccessarily treat all her children the same. One may born less well endowed. Another may be stronger. So a good parent will discriminate against the stronger in favour of the weaker because she knows that the stronger can fend for himself, whereas the weaker needs more support. Of course the wish is that one day, the weaker one will be able to stand up for himself and find his own place in society, confident, independent and contributing in his own way to others. This is called paternalism - a label that Singapore has had for a very long time. So all these are nothing new. MM Lee Kuan Yew reminded Singaporeans in Parliament on Tuesday.

Is this the best state of affairs? I think few would say 'yes'. Those who say 'no' look for a day when it will be. MM says it will take tens, if not hundreds of years, and even leaves it open if it will ever be reached. Many will agree that we are on a journey, that the journey is more important than the destination, because if and when we reach the destination, then what? Is it even a desirable goal in the first place?

But I must give credit to NMP Sadasivan for bring up the issue. I suppose that is what NMP's are for - to challenge the status quo, push the boundaries and provoke thought, whether one agrees with the proponent or not.

Uncock the bottle

Today is Singapore's 44th National Day. Today, Singapore is just as racially diverse as it was 44 years ago, perhaps more so. 44 years ago, we had Indians, Chinese, Malays and Eurasians. There were, of course, the Europeans - mostly British - our former British colonial masters who stayed behind to support a fledgeling nation, if only for a while. And among the locals, there were the sub-groups among the Chinese and Indians - the Cantonese, the Hokkiens, the Teochews, and among the Indians - the Malayalees, the Tamils, the Sikhs. The Malays were probably the most homogenous group, this land being historically theirs, until the British colonised Malaya.

Today, 44 years later, we have just as many diverse people. The Chinese dialect among the younger Singaporeans have almost died out, though there are still among them some, like me, who continue to speak Cantonese (or whichever dialect) at every opportunity. Some people think I am a Hong Konger, but I am never more Singaporean than a Singaporean. Nevertheless, the island's Mandarin only regime (particularly in the mass media) is stifling. It hides our identities, no, it has buried our identities, RIP. Our children no longer speak these dialects, not even if you tempt them with rewards beyond their years.

But we have been joined by people from all over the world - expatriates here to earn a living. Some have stayed - the Czechs, the Serbians, the Hong Kongers, the Shanghainese, the Beijingers, the Koreans, the Filipinos, the Vietnamese, the Burmese, and yes, the Americans too - and married locals, producing yet other species of children among us. Truly, the Singapore of 44 years is now as diverse as it has ever been. Today, we are not puzzled by our neighbours who speak Hakka, or Hokkien. We are puzzled by very much more strange tongues when we travel the MRT subway. Though sometimes disconcerting, it is probably a good thing. We have retained, if not grown our cultural diversity. We remember that it has always ever been this way, though sadly, some feel threatened by strange skins and strange languages, as we did 44 years ago.

But this is the only way Singapore can grow. It is probably the easiest way. The locals want smaller families, either by choice or forced by choice - they want the good life above any toddler who may be a hindrance. They cannot see beyond 50 years later and what they will live by. Perhap the CPF kitty, their wholly-owned apartments, have replaced whatever need for financial dependence on children in our old age that our parents used to have. And anyway, in the hothouse of the Singapore education system, you probably really can only afford one, at most two. Not because of the financial burden - we are much more well-off than our neighbours in surrounding countries, but the social and psychological pressure that comes with having our kids perform in exams - twice a year - for at least 12 continuous years. Surely it is too much for any parent to bear, after they have borned their own 12 years?

But I am thankful for the relative peace and safety of this place. So I take this opportunity to wish all Singaporeans a very happy and meaningful National Day. Let's uncock the bottle!

PM Lee's National Day Message

Corporate Responsibility

Some call it Corporate Social Responsibility - CSR for short. Corporations see it as good PR to be seen to be generous towards non-profit purposes, for the good of the community, such as acts of donations to charities, organising meaningly charitable events at their expense, and etc.

Great Eastern Life just did that - not in the usual way we associate it with CSR, but it is CSR at its best. Why? Because its payback is not immediate nor guaranteed while it swallows, on behalf of its investors, the losses that have fallen on its GreatLink Choice investment products. My mother made a startling remark about 5 months ago - that bankers have become professional fraudsters. For all her life, she has kept her money faithfully in a bank, not under the bed, nor in the drawer. And she got us all to keep our monies in the bank too, for the interest that it would earn. So can you blame her when she put a substantial amount of that money in what a relationship manager called a high-yield structured investment product? She had wanted to open a fixed deposit account with the cash, actually. After all, she has been trusted banks with her cash for over 40 years. Structured or not, the banks are selling it and they must have evaluated the product's risk. They said it was low-risk high-yield. What's more, they also threw in the principal guaranteed / principal protected words. Little did we know that banks' definition of 'guaranteed' and 'protected' can be so convoluted that it would take a couple of lawyers to untangle it, or make it more confusing, depending on who you spoke to.

So, 'Thank you', Great Eastern Life and OCBC Bank (the parent), for taking what must be a difficult decision to return all the money that people have invested in structured products with you, knowing that their values have plunged 40-80% today. That's good 'ol banking - honouring people's trust and keeping their money safe, like it has always been, until recently.

Public love

Singaporeans, they can take things a bit too far. So when the word went out about fines beings dished out to people who were caught eating on the subway trains, I insisted that it be done on buses as well. Then people protested that drinking water should be allowed and yet others say: have pity on the babies - let them be fed (milk from a bottel, I suppose) on trains and buses.

Now there is a swing the other way. Somebody suggested that amorous behaviour on these public transport vehicles be banned. Yes, it is not uncommon to find couples smooching away on public transport nowadays, hugging, kissing, dozing of each other's shoulders, if not the chest in broad daylight with the bus/train engine at full blast, as if there are no private spaces for them to do so. But hey, why discourage the behaviour? Taxpayers have had to throw millions of dollars to get people to be amorous behind closed doors in order to up the population numbers. Why don't we just let people go about their courting habits in full public view? It's their choice, really. If they don't mind being watched, I don't mind watching either.

Well, its an Asian thing, some say. Not very prim and proper. Some people are very sensitive to these things. Well, let me say that unless you are the parent, you have no business stopping them, unless they begin to take their clothes off in the process of their smooching. Otherwise, what is so bad about seeing two people expressing affection for each other? There's hope for mankind yet when there is love, whether its in the privacy of their spaces or in the publicity of the bus.

So boys and girls, keep doing it. God knows how life is so stressful nowadays without somebody telling us to sit straight and not even hold your partners' hands while you sit side by side on the bus, or the train.