No money no house

In these Elections, the PAP has warned (actually, I was thinking of using the word 'threatened') that the value of Singaporean's properties, which mostly refers to their houses, will likely fall if the Opposition Parties were to win in their constituencies. The latest came from none other than SM Lee Kuan Yew, with (surprise?) Mr Mah Bow Tan, the Housing Minister (formally the Minister of National Development), sitting beside him. Earlier on, Mr Mah had criticised the Workers' Party for proposing that public housing prices not be pegged to the resale market prices, but instead to the median income of Singaporeans. He warned that doing so will cause property prices to fall and thereby possibly wipe out a substantial value of every Singaporean's house. Well, I won't go into the arguments which have swung back and forth and will probably still be debated long after the Elections.

My point is so what if the valuations dropped? The increased values of our houses are first of all, unrealized gains. What good is it to be told that my house is worth $900K when the house that I need to replace it with, should I want to cash out, will probably cost me $900K, if not more? So what real gains are there, really? How much more wealthy have we become with all the touted asset enhancements brought to the people by the PAP government?  Now I would admit that this is true for the older generation, those that bought their HDB apartments relatively cheap, direct from the government. They probably paid $120K to $180K, or thereabouts, for a 4 or 5 room apartment back in the 1980s and early 1990s, but have since then made a real pile of money as the values of their properties have increased 3 or 4-fold. Well, the younger Singaporeans among us have found that this is no longer true. They have to pay through their noses nowadays for their first HDB apartment, and more if they have to settle for a resale one. And part of the reason is that the government had decided to price public housing according to market rates. So the Workers' Party does have a point. The disappointment is that the PAP cannot see the point, or at least is pretending not to. A climb-down now during these Elections will cause a lost of face, if not votes.

I admit that I am one of those who benefited from the relatively cheap housing in the early 1990s, and I voted for them in every election. But you know, I don't gain any more benefit from the rising value of my house today. On the other hand, the increased (and increasing) valuation of my property only attracts higher property tax. The real beneficiary of asset enhancements is the government. So, tell me, Mr Mah, how has PAP's recent housing policies really benefited me and the many property-owning Singaporeans?

See also Mr Wang Says So

Devil fight devil

The Singapore General Elections are in full swing. All but one constituency is being contested. Some have very strong and credible opposition teams, such as that in the Aljunied GRC. There is a sprinkling of other promising opposition candidates spread across the other opposition parties, so this General Election is shaping up to be a fight to watch.

But I was puzzled when Mr Khaw Boon Wan, erstwhile PAP man and Health Minister was reported to have said, "You cannot suddenly plonk somebody, no matter how bright and intelligent...to take charge of a government". (MyPaper, 29 April 2011, page A8). Is he speaking for the opposition or for the PAP, because that's exactly what the PAP did, 'plonk' some people into the PAP election teams and expect them to form the next government - people like the 2 high flying Generals, and the Doctor who was gifted a seat in Parliament when another PAP candidate pulled out at the last minute, and even a former civil servant who paid for her early release from the Civil Service, not to speak of that girl.... Is Minister Khaw a shadow opposition member, because, in this instance, he appears to be carrying the torch for them.

Perhaps PM Lee should look at the devils within?

On Second Thoughts

Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang pitch about buying political insurance now resonates with me. The present government is good, but it is not perfect. Some policies are not debated enough in Parliament nowadays. Many PAP members make the obligatory speeches, especially near election time. Truth be told I am hearing from some 'new' MPs in Parliament in the last few months. I didn't know they were MPs, to start off with. I couldn't place their names at all, much less their faces. It is said that faces are easier to remember, but.... Sylvia Lim, only a losing finalist and thus not a duly elected MP, has been far more visible. And even when they speak, they don't offer fresh perspectives, and tend to sing the same tune as the government. Their speeches do not inspire and make you sit up. In fact their speeches are so bland that I wonder why Mediacorp even bother to broadcast their speeches on TV.

And yes, they are yes-men and yes-women. Take the proposal to reduce GST, as proposed by Mr Low Thia Khiang. If there were a Tan Cheng Bock or a Tan Soo Khoon, it could have been different. I am sure they will bring something new to the debate. But the current generation of PAP MPs? I suppose they assume that Mr Tharman, with his array of statistics, can only be right. Where is the debate? The cut and thrust that once fired up Mr Lee Kuan Yew and  which helped to engage with the electorate and carry them into and through unchartered waters. There are still uncharted waters in the future, as the PM always reminds us, but who can carry us through them? The A-team? 'A' in the classroom only or 'C' on the ground too - the ability to Carry the ground on their own steam?

The 10 Reasons

PM Lee Hsien Loong's speech that there is not enough good people in Singapore to form another team of government ministers is less than convincing, to say the least. That the PAP has tried their level best to attract good people into the party and to stand for elections but failed does not mean that there are not enough good and capable people who can take over the government. Most of the new PAP faces come from government or the trade unions. You wonder why. I think there is an obligation factor involved or even a ladder-climbing opportunity, I mean, for the serving civil servants. After all, they don't have to resign their civil service posts if they become MP, do they? The PAP has wondered why people from the private sector are so reluctant to go into politics. I think these are possible reasons, which, I am sure the PAP also knows:

1. Being in government will make no difference to career advancement in the private sector. What's more, loose change under the table is an unpardonable sin. In the private sector, under the table shenanigans are sometimes obligatory to move the business agenda forwards, no?;
2. The good people know there is already a good government, so they wouldn't be able to contribute significantly more. In this sense, the PAP is a victim of its own success;
3. The good people don't agree with the PAP, which isn't the same as not agreeing with the government. Perhaps some of the ways the PAP does things, their policies and approaches just put these people off;
4. They don't like playing politics, at least not in public though they may not shy away from it in the office. The variables are far less in the office compared to the public. They are in control, not controlled;
5. The PAP is looking for Saints. So the good people don't want their past to be dredged up, for example, forgetting to pay that $100 tax 10 years ago, whether intentional or not. There is such a thing known as guilt by association;
6. The sixth is an extension of the 5th. They don't want dirt to be digged up about their close ones, or even the not so close ones, although they were in the least at fault themselves;
7. They don't see themselves as patriots who feel they have a responsibility to give back to society. This doesn't make them bad people, does it?;
8. They value time spent with the family more than power and glory;
9. They don't want to be traumatized and have some senior person tell on them; and
10. They hate white shirts and trousers / dress pants.

Well, ok, the last reason is somewhat frivolous, but your can't blame people for their dress sense. But you know, there are about enough reasons to stay out, at least for those thousands who are successful in the private sector. If there aren't these thousands of good people out there, who do you think is bringing wealth into Singapore? The sitting MPs?

Kidding you kidding me*

Has SM Goh Chok Tong lost it? He back tracked when he realised that his initial remarks about Ms Tin Pei Ling having to seek 'trauma specialist' Dr Fatimah Lateef's help for trauma suffered due to negative talk of her hadn't been stately as befits a senior Minister. But instead of saying 'I stand corrected...' as MM Lee Kuan Yew did when he back tracked on his remarks about Malays being a race apart in his book "Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going", SM Goh put it down to jesting (tongue-in-cheek was the word he used). And what is worst, the Straits Times are also convinced that he was merely joking and making people look like fools for taking him that seriously over the remark. Unfortunately, this remark, made on Facebook and went to Twitter on 2nd April, couldn't count for an April Fool's day joke. Otherwise, Mr Goh could have honestly explained it all away.

First, even if it was a joke, it was done in bad taste. Given how Ms Tin has reportedly suffered, the last thing SM Goh should have done is to pour oil over simmering coals. He did so. The PAP has always said that people who stand for national elections must be serious people, and here, you have have a senior minister jesting over one of its own deeply hurt comrade. Was it really intentional? It would appear that only the PAP and the Straits Times believe that it is.

Second, it would have been good if SM Goh were contrite about his ill-considered remark (also known as a boo-boo). I believe that what he was originally reported to have said, about Ms Tin having to seek medical (psychiatric) help, was true. Instead of coming clean, as PAP always demands of its opponents, he sidestepped the issue by trying to pull wool over the eyes of the rest of Singapore, claiming that he wasn't serious at all. Come on, Mr Goh, give Singaporeans more credit for being able to tell the difference between serious and foolish talk. That's what you would want them to do in the coming General Elections, right? Representatives of the PAP should do no less.

Apparently, SM Goh has still not learnt enough from the Master in the art of contrition, not that the Master is a particularly contrite man.

See Yahoo's report

* to be sung to the tune of ABBA's 'Loving me loving you".

Youth in the Box

What's wrong being 27 and standing for national elections? Singaporeans are biased and can be sexist too. Many people are casting doubts on Ms Tin Pei Ling's qualification for standing as a PAP candidate for elections, slated to be held either this month or in May 2011. Many say she is too young and thus lacking the bearing of a law maker and representative of the people. People forget that one of the important roles of an MP is to think on the national scale, propose measures to do something better or institute suitable controls via laws to facilitate activities for the country. Sadly, in Singapore, MPs are more often viewed as glorified social workers, whose job is to write letters, petition government departments for this convenience and that 'want', and, occasionally do some walkabouts for the publicity. It would be even sadder if MPs themselves view their role in this limited, parochial manner. But so far, that's the impression I get from a majority of little-known sitting-MPs who turn up to speak in Parliament only near election time.

But lets not judge a person by her youth. It has been pointed out that Mr Tan Soo Khoon, a former PAP MP, was also 27 when he entered Parliament. Actually, Ms Tin, age-wise, is in good company. Britain's four-time PM, William Gladstone, whose political life spanned over 60 years, first entered Parliament when he was only 23 years old. The similarity, for now, ends there. If she is elected, she will be judged sooner rather than later, with all manner of yardsticks thrown at her. Then only can we know the measure of this brave woman.

Elect Them?

Wow, wow, and WOW! Senior Civil Servants in Singapore will be paid 8 months bonus for last year's stellar economic growth of 14 plus percent! And these include government ministers, who already receive million dollar annual pay packages. Do the math. As many have observed, even Barack Obama doesn't get paid this much to run the world's only superpower government. Well, ok, there are uncertainties in politics. One day you are a minister of such-and-such, and the next day you may be out on the streets, booted out by the electorate. But senior civil servants - the perm secs and all, they can pretty much stay around forever so long as they don't 'mess up'. And that's really the problem about them receiving such large bonuses. You get rewarded, hugely, for keeping the status quo! And my bonus with tax rebates and all annoiunced in the budget last month now looks a pittance in comparison!

Don't experiment. Don't fix anything which is not broken. Just don't do anything and you will get your bonus, and 8 months at that. How this is related to a stellar economic perrformance eludes me. And the local press, such as the Strait Times are trying too hard being apologists for the government. They deconstruct the 8 month figure to show that it is actually 3 or 4 months, citing that the 8 months is based on the basic pay amongst a total package that includes various other variable components. Well, it is either 8 months or it is 3 months. Why the need to deconstruct? To make it more palatable for the man in the street, who I surmise, is shocked at the quantum. But this is enshrined in the law, they would say. And it certainly is.

Which is why we need more good opposition minds in Parliament who can pour over legislation and prevent such madness from ever being instituted again, or at least make it much more difficult to do a 'walkover' by the government. Come on Singapore, we owe it to ourselves to make sure that the people's money is not frittered away by some senior civil servants on gourmet trips to France while the rest of us have to earn double incomes to service that 30-year mortage, send our children for tuition classes, pay the bills and, perhaps, keep the car. If Singapore is as resilient as it is for its leaders to be rewarded with 8 months bonus, a couple of fallen ministers does not matter, does it?

Let your votes count this year!

Elect Them

The Government just announced a $13B budget that has most workers salivating. But of all the comments made about this budget, I like the one from Mr Chiam See Tong, the Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir. He called this a "Fantastic Election Year Budget". Spoken like a true politician!

Unlike many opposition politicians in Singapore, who cannot say anything good about the government, Mr Chiam gives credit where credit is due. But in so doing, he manages to put forth the opposition view, and that is this is pork-barrel politics at play. Mr Chiam does not dismiss out of hand that this is indeed a people's budget. It is obviously very good for the man in the street. Come on, what can beat being given cash, and legally at that? So we go off with a clear conscience that this is not a bribery. Of course some will read this as a sort of 'bribery' in an Election year. Well, you can't please everybody, not even after forking out S$3.2 billion giveaways. I venture to speculate, though, that this largesse will have little impact, if at all, on the additional votes that the PAP can pull in some time this year. The ROI just won't do justice to the amount of money spent.

But then again, some would say that the money is the people's in the first place, so no big deal when it is given back to them. And since its theirs, they'd probably make a bee-line for the Casinos to gamble it all away, and then wait for next year to come. Just make sure that the chicken that lays the golden egg is not inadvertently, and prematurely, slaughtered.

To those who still say that the budget could have been better for the man in the street, I say, get real. Opposition for the sake of opposition is way past its used-by date. They should take a leaf out of Mr Chiam's approach. He has credibility and integrity.

We have grown

I think that we, as Singaporeans, have gotten so used to hanging on to every word that our MM Lee Kuan Yew says that every time he does say something disagreeable, Singaporeans go into a fit - as if he is God who has just pronounced an infallible truth. The most recent example is  where he was quoted as saying that Malay Muslims are "distinct and separate". This had the Malay community up in arms with all manner of accusations, both by the Malays and opportunistic people, flying left and right that LKY is a racist. There has even been the observation that the government is complicit in his remarks for if it were anybody else, you can be sure that the ISD will be knocking on his door. Well, the ISD stayed home, so people observed.

What is my take on this whole affair? I have lived my life largely under Singapore's firstt PM - MM Lee Kuan Yew. I have lived through the years when Communism was still the greatest threat on earth, with US and the former USSR training their most lethal missiles at each other, and inventing and building new 'strategic' ones all the time for the same purpose. So the threat of being over-run by the China-supported CPM, or at least the perception, was very real for Singaporeans. But more than that, there has always been tension between the majority Malays rulers of (the former) Malaya and those who believed in multi-racialism in Singapore. I say political because on the ground, the Malays couldn't be nicer and agreeable people. But the years of experience naturally brings a certain concern, if not fear, about how society is developing. So I can understand where MM is coming from.

I had another chance to speak to this Malay acquaintance who taught religious classes in the Mosque. He let on that his children, who are all schooled in Madrasah's, didn't manage to do well enough to take the PSLE. Nevertheless, he had hopes that one day, they would be good enough to proceed to Al-Azhar University in Egypt to pursue the ultimate Islamic education in order to provide leadership to the Muslim community in Singapore.

Among the many reasons he may have in putting his children through this unconventional Islamic education route was that he felt that children needed a moral compass. If left to themselves, he feared that they would stray. This had been a particularly Malay youth problem though they do not have a monopoly on this concern.

I thought this was enlightening. In the highly competitive society that Singapore is today, religion can be an anchor to ensure that people do not go astray. Thus far the Christians, and increasingly the Buddhists, have youth programmes in religion to provide this moral compass. Enlightened Muslims are doing though largely confined in the Mosques and their religious schools. It would be best if they could bring this out of these institutions into the wider community, if only to let others know about their moral principles beyond just the ritual fasting and food abstinences, and more so about their view on life and society in order to remove perceptions of extremism and exclusivity that MM has spoken of. The ball really is on the Malay-Muslim community, not to prove anything, but to demonstrate their involvement and integration into the wider community within the context of Islam.

Whose Singapore?

I have reflected again on what I wrote in my last post, about Singapore Malays begin less easy to get along with nowadays, compared to 30 more more years ago during my younger days. I must say, in all justice, that I know many Malays who are as friendly and 'mild' (i.e. not militant) as those that I called my best friends in the days of my youth. Now, I even know a person who teaches religious lessons at a Mosque. In my conversations with him, I have found him to be anything but extreme. Instead, he goes for 'secular' courses to upgrade himself, thinks of a whole bunch of options, not quite decided yet, of where to head towards - career-wise. Obviously he is not quite the same as those Malays I have known a long time ago, where striking out on a high performance career was the last thing on their minds. As a religious teacher, he was anything but militant in his outlook nor extreme in his views. And there is one other I know who is so full of life and fun and enthusiasm for life. Being around her can be infectious, and she doesn't spout militancy or separateness. In fact, I have seen recent photos of her in China sans the Tudung - a form of the hijab worn among Malay women. I don't think she is being a hypocrite - just being pragmatic.

I do not want to generalize. There is ample evidence to show that some Malays have become 'apart' but there are others who still are very much my fellow citizen, if not a friend who lives next door. And they can even be nicer than your own kind in some respects. So in this sense, Singapore's race policy has succeeded. While a bad apple may spoil the whole basket of them, there remains a certain resilience in the "regardless of race, language or religion" ethos that has characterized Singapore for well over 40 years.

If this were not so, Singaporeans will be making a bee-line for the exit.

In a sense, this is not Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, it is S Rajaratnam's Singapore.

Live and let Live

Would you rather that someone be open and honest with you, or that that person is pleasant and agreeable in front of you but say all sorts of un-sayable things behind your back? I think most, if not all, would rather the former than the later. But there are people who are so unsure of themselves, so sensitive and so lacking in self-confidence that you'd better watch what your are saying. They would rather the latter because if you tell them the truth, they cannot handle it (which reminds me of the movie, "A Few Good Men"). I am referring to the sensitive nerves that Mr Lee Kuan Yew has (again) managed to prick among Singapore's northern and southern neighbours, which are majority Muslim countries. Mr Lee made the 'offending' remarks in the newest book on him "Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going". And I agree with what he has said. There was a time when, growing up in a multi-racial community, one didn't think that a Malay or an Indian or a Chinese made that much difference.

Sure all of us looked different, spoke different languages, believe in different gods and exhibited peculiar mannerisms that one can put down to culture, social habits of particular peoples, and yes, religion. But beyond that, we called them friends, some even best friends though there were some who we didn't get along with. We just avoided these, err, let's just say disagreeble, people's company. I certainly didn't avoid them because of religion, nor they me. We, at least I, felt that whatever you believed is a personal matter and should not form any kind of barrier to good relations. I even got invited to meals at these different friends' homes. That was a much more enlightened period if only because religion was not a barrier that it is today, and here I must agree with Mr Lee. Islam in the last 2 decades or more, has become exclusive. Not only that, in some quarters they have become so sensitive about the exclusivity of their faith that they cannot tolerate others. What had happened between then and now? I will not venture an answer. Historians are probably more qualified to do an objective analysis and provide some answers, some day.

For me, I can only reminisce of the time when the many peoples in my neighbourhood, in the worst case, just live and let live.

Truth be told

The government's decision to gazette The Online Citizen (TOC) was a surprise, and a warning to myself. TOC started out aggregating blog posts by Singaporeans, such as mine. In fact, a search of TOC shows that I still have one blog post on their blog site. I thought this was swell - I get publicity and some bit of recognition for my writing. And I have never had any problems with them at all although I haven't been that active in the blogosphere for the past half year due to other pressing commitments.

I suppose that TOC has, over time, become more vocal about the Singapore political scene. It is now more like a newspaper, reporting and commenting on social and political issues of the day.  The suspicion is whether they have been 'taken over' by external parties (read: foreigners) who may be driving their agenda. Truth be told, I am totally ignorant about this, but I do notice that it isn't as 'innocent' as it once used to be.

Personally, I am not too comfortable with blog sites reporting about the issues of the day as if they knew best. If it is opinion, then I can accept it. My discomfort arise from the fact that you really don't know who are doing the reporting, and what their agenda might be. I have been around long enough to know that you take online content that purports to report on the 'truth' (expose is what they call it) with a pinch of salt, unless you know who are doing the reporting and what their credentials are. But things are evolving this way, and serious people who lack a license to publish often now do it online. This just can't be stopped, and shouldn't be stopped. But I can see how certain controls do make sense, if only to ensure that what is reported is done responsibly.

Of course, you can take all of the above with a pinch of salt.

Atypically Singapore

Yet there are some things that happens in Singapore and nowhere else in the world. You see, Singapore is an eat-out nation. People tend to finish their work day after 6 and after factoring in the traveling time, reach home around 7, or later. So in a family where both husband and wife work, there just isn't the time to whip up a home-cooked meal. Eating out during the weekdays is fairly common, so anyone in Singapore for the first time always remark that Singapore is a food paradise. Paradise to them, but a necessity for the locals, really.

Thus when it was reported that a new food centre was being built in Bedok (yeah...that Eastern Revamp again) to replace the existing one, it wasn't really new. What was interesting is what existing stall operators were concerned about.Some asked that when (not "if") they moved over to the new food centre, they'd be charged higher rentals,. This is something that happens all the time with spanking new facilities. One operator was quoted as saying "We don't want to raise our food prices because of the rent...this is a place for HDB Heartlanders to have their three meals" (Sunday Times, 16 Jan 2010 page 2). Funny this. You would think that these businesses are acting out of character. As a business, isn't it their concern to bring in a profit? They shouldn't need to care if rentals go up because they can then justifiably charge more to sustain their margins. Let the government worry about the people's complaints. Yet in Singapore, the government always chorus that market prices should dictate and reflect the true cost of doing business. So if rentals go up, so be it, they'd say. There is very little by way of effort to keep the old prices, as far as the government goes. New means progress, Progress comes at a higher price. That's the mantra that always gets chanted. In this instance, you'd wonder who better represents the needs of the residents - the food operators or the government?

The tender system is probably one of the culprits behind the incessant rise of prices. We do not yet know if the NEA or private developer is building this new place. If a private developer comes in, the result is a foregone conclusion. Look at the development of Kopitiam Square in Sengkang. From the tender exercise, the winning bid was easily close to a quarter million dollars more than the second highest bid. As a result, food prices must be charged at a level that can sustain this cost. In other words, higher prices must be charged. We ask who benefits from all these and you are right - the government coffers. Now isn't that a good thing, since this means the government can dish out more goodies come the year end, or during budget time? But that's the point. They get to decide how to spend that money, and in the process either arm-twist or make people beholden to them. Now isn't that dandy? Using your money to fulfill their own purposes?

Before I get gazetted, let me just say that if you do not agree with me, you can always leave a comment - the very policy advocated by the Singapore government - the right of reply.

And no, I do not receive a single cent from my mother for blogging, much less from foreigners.

Typically Singapore

Singapore is very much like elsewhere in the world.

Take for example the grand plans that are being rolled out in the past 2 months, the latest of which is the improvements promised to that part of Singapore called Bedok. Touted as the great Eastern Revamp (Sunday Times, 16 Jan 2011, pages 1 & 2), it promises a slew of improvements, including new MRT stations, transport hubs, sports and recreation centres...(come to think of it, none of these are really new nor creative). When these things take place, you know the elections are coming. Well, no surprise really as there has been talk about this for the last couple of months. But it is very common for the government to make massive improvements, or at least PROMISE to make those improvements as a form of enticement for votes. Nothing wrong with that. That's the benefit of incumbency. But promises are just that - promises. They never tell you about the fine print - that if the votes are not forthcoming, oh, say, in the high 70%, the promises will remain promises, until the next elections. Well we are not kids, and even kids will know when the adult is lying when promises keep getting broken, not that this has happened in a widespread manner, i.e.

So let's see how the election fares, in places where plans for significant improvements in civil facilities have been promised. You can't blame me for being cynical sometimes, if you have lived in Singapore for a while.

Murderous Youth

If you had followed the local news in the last 3 months, you would have asked the question, "What is wrong with Singapore's Youth today?" Frankly, if it were anywhere else except Singapore, this question would have been passe - what is wrong with youth has always been wrong with youth. But in the usually orderly and systematic Singapore, a country where you can reputedly walk the streets at night alone without beings harassed or mugged, youth gangs fighting other youth gangs, and in some instances youth attacking by-standers, this is unusual to say the least, and very worrying for everyone - the government, society and parents. Now every parent is worried any time their teenage children are spending time out on an evening, no matter where. We parents advise them to 'walk away' when there is any hint of people turning aggressive - better to be a living 'coward' than to be a dead 'hero'. At least you live to 'fight' another day for society and become a real hero.

But really, what is wrong with youth in Singapore today? Some are still reported to be involved in fights at the very same locations that shocked Singapore. Downtown East is at risk of gaining the unwelcome reputation of being a den of gangs. It first got into the news with the murder of a Polytechnic students on its premises. Of late, another 3 assault cases have been reported at Downtown East, by youth to youth. Downtown East, in various forms, has been there since I was a youth, and that is many many years ago. It used to be a quiet place for a family-and-friends-BBQ getaway. It still is. It was redeveloped over the years and has become a much more hip-and-happening destination for the family, but more so today for youth who descend on its holiday chalets, amusement parks, live shows and the great variety of food. It appears that many hot-blooded youths are attracted to it in droves and at all hours of the day. It used to be a members-only place - you had to pay an entrance fee to get into its premises. Now it is wide open. Anyone can walk in and out of the place any hour of the day, except for the holiday chalets.

Yes, there have been gang fights elsewhere on the island, some reported and some kept quiet, but Downtown East is the focus of youth mis-behaving today in Singapore. Many have written and speculated on why Singapore youth have turned out this way. But to put it in perspective, it is after all just a handful compared to the generally well-behaved youth in Singapore. And we should suspend our judgments until the original murderous youths are brought before the Courts. Then perhaps we can better understand what has gone wrong. In the meantime, we should advise our children to be cautious and not get into meaningless arguments and fights, and above all, not to stare at anyone. For some people, this is even worst than pointing with the middle finger. Bravado counts for little when you get a black eye for no good reason.