Reaping what you sow

One of the most common ways of justifying an action is to appeal to peer example. For example, you'd hear of people say they are going to this party or that party because their friends are also going, or that some students are not attending lectures because nobody attends lectures in the other classes anyway. Some coffee shops justify increasing the price of a cup of coffee they sell because 10 other shops have done so. Even those in authority often use this same argument to justify its policies. For example, Minister Lim Hng Kiang cited Brazil, France and Germany as countries with compulsory menbership in their respective Business Federations to justify the law in Singapore that makes it compulsory for Singapore businesses to join the Singapore Business Federation, whether such membership is beneficial or not. Some companies have questioned this policy lately in the press and, through MPs, in Parliament.

It is no wonder that an increasing number of teenagers who are reportedly engaged in pre-marital and other kinds of sex acts as well as filming themselves doing so feel no shame at all. They justify what they do by appealing to peer example again. They simply make the point that they know of others who are doing the same thing. What they are saying is what they do (all the sex and filming) is normal, and by extension, should be acceptable in the society in which they live. They are surprised when society at large is horrified and critical of their actions. But can you blame them when that same society, as well as those in authority, often appeal to the same argument when justifying their own actions?

We reap what we sow into the fertile minds of our teenagers, albeit often unawares.

Majestic visit let down by pasar wear

Queen Elizabeth II came by Singapore again yesterday. She was last here in 1972 and 1989. As she had done before, she was gracious enough to visit our heartlands, and in particular, a Singaporean whom she first got acquainted with about 34 years ago who still lived in the same Toa Payoh Town, albeit in much better circumstances now.

ST's front page photo (18 March 2006) showed Mr Pung dressed to his nines - a full suit and tie in his own house - welcoming the Queen, who herself was dressed in a simple but beautiful flowing green gown with matching hat. It is not far fetched to imagine and expect that everyone else would be dressed well, for it is her Royal Majesty, the Queen of Britain, visiting. So it was disturbing to see in that front page picture Mr Pung's daughter so under-dressed, and, what's more, standing next to the Queen! Granted, she is in her own home and she is a housewife, but doesn't she have anything more appropriate to wear for the occasion except a white tanktop (it would be called a singlet in 1972, worn only by men), particularly when her father is so well dressed? One would probably wear the same clothes to the market nowadays. After all, as another housewife, Ms Tay, said, "It is not everyday that the Queen visits". Is this a generation gap thing or what? The daughter is 33, the father, 63.

Perhaps the powers that be suggested some degree of informality. If so, the father didn't heed it and the daughter has gone off on a tangent. Inappropriate is what I call it. Some would accuse her of not having any dress sense. Others will say she is disrespectful. You will no doubt hear this in conversations in the heartland coffeeshops in the days to come, in kaypoh Singapore blogs (such as this one) and further afield where the ST is distributed (which includes Britain).

So ok, Singapore is no more a colony of Britain, and QEII is no longer our Majesty the Queen, but she is a visitor from afar, and one who doesn't come by often. I am sure that formal wear is also called for if and when President S.R. Nathan visits, or for that matter, any friend or relative visiting on a special occasion.

P.S. I am sorry that readers cannot see the photo here. ST requires subscription before one can view its pages. Subscription here means paying $$$. I am too poor to do so. Even if I weren't and did subscribe, ST will probably send their lawyers after me for infringing copyright if I link to that picture here, in which case, I will be made poor anyway. Actually, there is also another reason why I don't read the ST regularly. I've blogged about it here.

Sex and the classroom

Teenage promiscuity is occupying the minds of educators again today. The latest was over the Tammy video incident. I say 'again' because I am old enough to know that this is not a new problem. About 30 years ago in Singapore, when handphones had yet to be invented, teens have been just as promiscuous. I used to read of debates in the press and discuss it in class during my school days regarding teenagers who fathered / mothered (its an equal society now right?) babies before they are even old enough to exercise their vote rights in a General Election. The morality, the social consequences and the psychological issues that inevitably accompany teenagers who become romantically and/or sexually entangled and those who become fathers and mothers prematurely were hotly debated. The only difference then was that there were no naughty videos to download, watch and debate over. The only videos then could only be seen at the cinemas, and even then, there were no such movies with R18, R21, etc. ratings. There was only the XXX rating, but you will never get to see these movies in Singapore. Movies which passed censorship would have scenes that are snipped off at the most inconvenient places. Imagination was all important. Nowadays, nothing much is left to the imagination.

Nominated MP Eunice Olsen recently talked about sex in Parliament. Its nothing new. The proposal to have some form of sex education in schools was raised even in those days. The major thing that came out of those discussions was the institution of Moral Education as a subject in the schools. But by then, I was already out of the school system. So, more often than not, until Moral Education was introduced, teachers took their own initiative regarding the issue of sex education.

I remember one afternoon, when I was a Secondary 2 student, my Science teacher took the class into the labs as usual, for our weekly lab lessons. But he started talking about how the penis and vagina could be joined and how, when it did so, eventually, a fetus would be formed in the girl's uterus when her eggs got fertilized by the guy's sperm. The teacher drew on the chalkboard to illustrate his lesson on sex. The lesson was all very scientific you see, but I am sure there wasn't an eye which was closed. But the unusual thing about this lesson is that this topic was not even in our syllabus for that year, and there was no such thing as sex education in the Singapore school system then.

Well, fortunately, the class was an all-boys class, so nobody was very embarrassed then nor did anybody hide their heads under the tables. Many laughed uncomfortably and some joked out loud. That was my first sex education. For the first time, I understood how babies were made. The teacher was not moralistic during the entire lesson, he just said matter-of-factly that it was important that we understood these things. Till today, I do not know what triggered the teacher into deciding to hold this impromptu sex class, but I am grateful that he did so - not for the graphic description and the excitement in the lesson, but enlightening me on what can happen when a boy and a girl got very close - not that I was close to any girl then, that is.

So there is indeed a place for sex education for teenagers. This is a time when they will start to be interested in the opposite sex, and some may be interested enough to begin experimenting with each other, without realising the power that nature has put at their disposal when they come together in a certain way. Today, such experiments are becoming startlingly very visible.

After all these years, however, the jury is still out on whether sex education will do any good in actually stopping young, impressionable teenagers from taking the plunge.

Today, not yesterday

Readers of this blog would by now notice that I tend to comment on what is written in Today more than in the Straits Times. The reason is very simple. I read only Today on weekdays, and only occasionally the Straits Times (ST). The reason why this is so is that I 'swore off' ST some time ago when they raised their cover price from 65c to 80c (or was it 70c to 80c?). I didn't see how the price increase could be justified, especially when there is a good newspaper (Today) that is distributed free of charge. So I switched to the free Today newspaper. That's the free market mechanism for you - when you have a choice.

Now, some of you may say that I am a scrooge, a freeloader and all that, but I am quite settled now with Today, after reading the ST for over 20 years. Yes, its been that long, especially when no close alternative was available. I don't miss the ST though. In fact, I have become somewhat impatient with ST because it take a lot longer to get through that paper compared to Today - yet another reason for me to stop paying the inflated price for a paper which I rarely complete reading anyway. I am not saying that Today is a perfect paper. But it suits my lifestyle now, and that's where, I think, it has succeeded and will continue to do well.

One shop too many?

A local property company, in a joint venture with a Hong Kong property heavy-weight, is going to develop a shopping centre cum condo along Singapore's Orchard Road (called the Orchard Turn) by 2008. The land alone costs S$1.38b, so it is going to be a very very expensive development indeed. The eventual tenants of this development can also expect about S$2000 psf, which will result in very very high rentals. But this is inevitable for the developers to recoup their investments in an acceptable time-frame. The developers think that they can get certain retailers now not represented in the current retail scene to take up the floor space, and thus make this a retail destination that is truly unique. (Reported in Today, 14 March 2006).

Great plans, huge prices, sanctioned by the government, no less. But somehow, I am sceptical that it will make a real difference to the retail scene at all. Plaza Singapura was renovated recently. Its a huge shopping centre, but it has nothing revolutionary to offer, though I must admit that I shop there more often. What the new development will do is to take away one of the remaining spots along Orchard Road that still 'houses' a green park where the air is fresher and people can meet without the distractions of shops and promotions that are a usual feature in any shopping centre. Yes, this may liven up the retail scene, but do we really need another shopping centre with air-conditioned air? Tang's hasn't been doing all that well in recent times and its just across the road. To think that a new development on the other side of the road will do better in the long run is being a tad over-optimistic.

My complaint is that there are too many shopping centres in Singapore already. One more won't make a significant difference. It may provide more choice, but in tiny old Singapore, that is likely to be at the expense of another shopping destination on the island. Of course there is the tourist dollar that they are gunning for, but there will be competition from the IR at Marina Bay and Sentosa to contend with in the long run.

Yet, some experienced property developers must have done their Math and are sinking huge amounts of their own money into this, so what do I know?

Politics set in stone

I am beginning to think that erstwhile Singapore journalists, of current and the former kind, are a bias lot. Ms Tan Sai Siong is correct in that some will comment on her column in Today (14 March 2006). She is wrong, however, about Mr Wang.

I have no issue with what she wrote as a whole. It is a thoughtful article about the Opposition and the coming GE - a subject which is very much on the mind of the public. But I have a slight quibble regarding her statement, that given a prolonged GE, the Opposition's "propositions will unravel with over-airing". Well, wouldn't this be true of the PAP's propositions too? Is Ms Tan suggesting that the Opposition has little substance to start off with, that they are not worth listening to in any case, so why give them more time?

I sometimes wonder if former ST journalists have not all been conditioned to think and write pro-PAP articles, not that I am against the PAP. But since she is freelancing now, she can afford to break free of the ST mold, or is it so ingrained in the unconscious now that its well nigh impossible? Have we been living in Orwell's 1984 in Singapore all these years?

Lest readers of this blog begin to think that I am a closet opposition, nothing is further from the truth. I would like to think of myself as someone who, when he sees or reads something not quite right, would want to exercise his tongue, or rather the fingers on the keyboard, to right the situation, which means pushing the position somewhere towards the centre. How effective this keyboard clicking is, I leave to readers to judge.

Shop that's not a shop

The Singapore Parliament has just concluded its sitting. Like many Singaporeans, I didn't sit in on the proceedings to view history in the making (any decision that comes out of that haloed house is historic). So, besides watching the proceedings on TV news, I did the next best thing - visit the Parliament website.

That's how I found out that the Singapore Parliament website has a Parliament shop. But you can't really shop on this online shop. All it does is display a list of books related to the Parliament and some interesting souvenirs. The prices are quite afforable though, ranging from as low as $1 (a pen) to as high as $37 (a book on the Singapore Parliament written by Sumiko Tan).

Well, ok, so Parliament is not a shop. I can appreciate that, although I suspect that some would disagree, saying that, to a greater or lesser extent, it can be a place where "horse-trading" happens. The only thing is, we probably need more horse-traders who look at horses differently, if you know what I mean.

But why have the 'shop' in the first place, and why list products when you don't bother to inform people where they can be purchased? I assume they can be purchased since all the items comes with a tagged price. I've search through the website and have not found a single alphabet of advice where I can purchase the listed products. Some of the souvenirs are quite nice so its a pity.

There are some things in Parliament that still puzzles common folks like me. But I don't this this will be an issue in the coming General Election, whenever that is.

The Power of Words

Writers, particularly news reporters, should have a healthy doze of balance. I know, sometimes, having drunk in someone else's mesmerising speeches, one can get heady and unbalanced. Not that this is true of Mr Leonard Thomas of Today, but he did tip over to one side when he reported on foreign talent bashing in the front page of Today (10 March 2006 edition). The case was about opposition MP, Mr Low Thia Kiang's questioning the Foreign Sports Talent (FST) scheme - a scheme where foreigners get fast-track citizenship based on their potential contribution to Singapore in the field of sports. Agu Casmir was one of its beneficiaries, but who has proven to be an embarrassment to the country instead.

So there are those who question the FST. In reporting this, Mr Thomas referred to these anti-FST people as having reared their 'ugly heads'. Quite obviously, Mr Thomas is an FST person as I don't think he would describe his own head in such terms. But what's so ugly about the anti-FSTs' head, I wonder, and in particular this opposition MP's no less, questioning a scheme that has produced people like Agu? Do those who support the scheme have beautiful heads? Come now Mr Thomas, you are blatantly bias here. Why bash an opposition politician for expressing an alternative opinion which is based on a glaring fact?

There's this thing about words that one must also be careful about. In describing the punishment meted out to Agu, Mr Thomas reported that Agu has been banned from International duty along with a huge fine. Now, if I were banned from guard duty, I'd thank my commander, if I were banned from class duty, I'd hug my teacher, if I were banned from International (soccer) duty, I imagine that I'd kiss my coach, no?

As I wrote before, I cannot see how being banned from International duty can be a punishment. It isn't a must for a footballer's career nor the development of his soccer skills. Look at Alan Shearer of Newcastle United. He opted out of representing his country a long time ago. Yet I think nobody will disagree with me that Shearer is one of the best and certainly one of the most enduring soccer player England has ever produced. He now holds the all time scoring record at Newcastle United.

Words...they do mean certain things. As wordsmiths, we need to do justice to the language tool of our choice, plus or minus a grammar mistake here or there ;-).

p.s. I leave the reader to draw his/her conclusion whether I am for or against the FST scheme. One hint: my head is not ugly.

Who's that in Parliament?

Parliament has just adjourned till 3 April 2006 - "barring unforeseen circumstances", as the Mah Bow Tan mentioned last night. I have been watching Parliament proceedings on TV news almost every night this past week, and one thing struck me: Many MPs that rose to speak (and some more faces the camera zoomed into) looked new to me. Just last night alone, I found 5 or 6 faces that were totally unfamiliar to me. A name or two sounded familiar, but certainly not their faces. And to think that these elected MPs (err...sorry, some got elected through walkovers) were brought in in the last election about 4 years ago.

I can think of some reasons for my lack of familiarity.

1. I have not been observant enough when Parliament proceedings are broadcast; or


2. Mediacorp has missed them on their cameras all these years; or


3. The newspapers have ignored them completely, in which case they should get themselves noticed somehow; or


4. These MPs have not spoken in Parliament at all - from day one; or


5. They were not in Parliament when Mediacorp was around; or


6. When these MPs did speak, there weren't impactful enough, unlike Tan Soo Khoon, who makes the most entertaining speeches which, and this is important, mirrors the sentiments of the man in the street.

Maybe they are now turning up to get noticed when they have not been noticed before because the General Elections are coming? Hmmm...such last minute effort won't cut it with the electorate. But then, there is the GRC behemoth they can take shelter in, so no worries?

International Women's Say

8th March was International Women's day. I skipped most of the pages in Today that day. There was simply so many pages devoted to women and women issues. No, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against women. Two of the people I love most are women - my wife and my mother. So I am happy that women get a day to declare and celebrate their womenhood.

But I was riled this morning when I read a provocative article in Today (9 March 2006 page 28) where a women lambasted all men for being, well, men. In this article, she declares that men cannot tell the difference between love and sex, that men want to feel they are capable providers, that men view their wives as trophies,that men must be the centre of attention and that men must be made to feel important. There isn't a single kind thing to say about men, as if all men are the scum of the earth. I don't know what this tells me about her marital status. If she is not married, well, a dog is probably a much much better alternative. After all, couples are already adopting dogs in preference to making human babies nowadays. On the other hand, if she is already married, well, good luck - to the husband I mean.

As they say, the truth often lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, some men are cads, some are sex-fiends, rapists, molesters, and child abusers. But you will agree with me that these do not define all men. Similarly, not every women is chaste and innocent - there are the rotten apples among them too.

So let's not play this blame game everytime one party gets lauded. It hasn't got to be a zero-sum game. Men and women can get along very well, outside as well as within the marriage bond. Otherwise, this will be a dreadful world to live in indeed.

$2,200 reward

Agu Casmir is now reportedly paid $2,200 a month for his services as a soccer player for Woodlands Wellington. He is 21 this year. Now, who in Singapore at that age except an extremely small number of wage earners take home $2,200 + CPF? Plus match bonuses, the effective take home pay can be much higher. What we are not told is if WW is providing fringe benefits like rent-free, or at least subsidised, housing and other allowances such as those for travelling, equipment, medical, etc.

Is he very hard up? Is that punishment? Naah...So Agu is a very $ortunate man. He should feel deeply indebted, bound even, to play excellent soccer for WW from now on.

The biggest question remains: What if Agu does not deliver? Heck, what can WW do then except fire him? Can they ask Agu to pay back all those money that WW is throwing now to rescue him? I fear he would have spent all of it by then. Somehow, this sounds familiar, doesn't it?

But then, let's not judge him too early. Let's give him a chance, as WW is doing so now. Let's hope WW is right. Anyway, they've put money where their mouth is, so that's a credit to them.

Blood on the innocent

I cannot understand it. I just cannot. What would a 2 year-old girl have done to deserve death? Kidnap maybe - for being valuable to loving parents, a scolding even for being naughty, but death for a girl who may yet have uttered a full and intelligible sentence to offend anyone? Yet this is the fate of a 2 year-old girl found dead, possibly murdered, near Circuit Road where she lived and was reported to have disappeared. That's where a relative of mine lives.

When the story broke last week, I was puzzled how a 2 year-old girl could have gone missing so fast, and even incredulous that she may have crawled all the way to Bedok from Aljunied. But that was what desparate people were doing to look for the girl. We now know that she was likely murdered by none other than her step-father, a twenty-something delivery man. What led him to do such as thing? I cannot imagine. Now that he has been apprehended by the police, the truth will come out soon enough. The country waits with bated breadth the revelation of the truth behind this sad sad event.

Tipping for Good Service

Well, it came up again - tipping, I mean. One Alvin Gho wrote in to the Straits Times advocating the restoration of tipping as a practice to improve the service standards among our people. I can't agree more. I wrote to Today some time ago advocating the same. Some other letter writers also agreed. But I remember one who expressed horror at the suggestion. I don't understand that sentiment except that the writer is living in the past and change is a very uncomfortable thing for him.

I wouldn't have come to hold this opinion but for the fact that I have done my fair share of travelling, sometimes on pleasure and many times on business. Of course, tipping outside of Singapore is fairly common. While I would not claim that better service came along with it all the time in those countries, I learnt to appreciate the fact that it is a source of income for many of these service people. We should not begrudge a person his/her just desert if the service was performed well. I have also come across people who are generous tipsters - certainly much more generous than I - that I pale in comparison in the tipping 'department'. I blame our 'no tipping' culture for having ingrained in me an inability to reward good service well. That calculator in the head never ceases to function, if you know what I mean.

Well, the world has gotten smaller for a long time now, and if Singapore wants to join the ranks of the global city in respect of service, it is time that we learn how to reward people for good service. A service charge always sounded forced, and we never really can establish an appreciation of the service rendered or the person who rendered it. We'd always feel that the service came packaged, as a matter of course, and the person who rendered the service is collecting on behalf of the establishment he/she happens to work for. It's not personal, and therein lies the problem.

Our economic planners are bullish on the service industry. Like it has always done, it is engineering a major shift of the economy toward the service industry. But service itself cannot be merely engineered. Formulas like 10% service charge + 3% cess + 2% whatever are an anarchronism in a truly service-based industry.

How can the service industry improve if we carry on like this?

It just got bigger

Pasir-Ris Punggol Group Representative Constituency (GRC) just got bigger. With the growth in the population in the area covered by this constituency, it will have 6 MP's to represent the ward in the coming General Election. The opposition parties have always complained about the inequities thrown up by GRCs. So with a giant GRC like Pasir-Ris Punggol, the challenge got bigger - literally. I doubt they will want to add one more person to their team just to fight for this ward. Furthermore, this ward is helmed by a relative heavyweight in the form of Radm Teo Chee Hean.

For me, this means that I can take a rest on polling day, go wherever I want so that I make full use of the public holiday usually declared for such occasions. I do not believe that polling day will be a Saturday because that goes against the family-friendly policy that was enacted not too long ago. Some say this is also one of those election sweeteners, so if it is taken away, some fence sitters might jump over to the 'other' side, if only to register a protest vote?

Well, all these are just speculation. Believe it if you will, spread it if you want, but don't lay the blame on me if none of the above prove accurate.

Virginally yours

These are exciting times for the young, particularly when you are between the ages of 14 and 19. Why so? Because:

1. You are not old enough to earn your keep, but you can get part time jobs that will fund your toys (read top of the line handphones, etc.)


2. You are not old enough to have a family of your own - you know, husband/wife, kids and the dog - but you are obliged to experiment - and hope you won't start one.


3. If hope doesn't hold out, you can't announce to your parents that you have lost your virginity, but that doesn't stop you from telling the rest of the world this fact through those 'for your eyes ony' video of you having sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend.

There are certain things about you that you might want to keep, particularly those things that you can have only once in a lifetime. When it is lost, it can never be recovered, not EVER. One of these is one's virginity. However, today, being a virgin is odd, undesirable even. Instead of admiration, you'd be ridiculed for being one, like what Donald Trump did to one of the project managers on his show last week. Of course, Trump is no paragon of virtue himself, nor does he pretend to be one. But I wonder about a person's value of self-worth when that person feels that he/she must measure up to those of a flawed individual's.

There will always be peer pressure. The measure of your maturity is not to boast that you have lost your virginity before 19, or that you have filmed yourself having sex. Rather, it is to love yourself enough not to succumb to tempations at the spur of the moment. Keep your head on and don't loose those marbles!