Singapore for Lease

The government of Singapore just announced that its target population growth number, right up to 2030, will be 6.9 million. No one can fault this government for being forward thinking. In fact, right from the very beginning, in 1959, Singapore has been led by a group of highly capable people who put policies into place that has brought it first world status in less than 40 years. You can't take away this achievement. I grew up under this government, and I must say, benefitted from these policies. There may be many naysayers. I suppose they might have had a vastly different and likely unpleasant experience compared to mine, but I would venture to say that for most of us citizens, life has become good. This is brought home the more you travel outside the country.

But I come not to praise the past, important as it may be. Let us not forget history, how we got to where we are lest a collective amnesia comes to haunt us one day. I come to consider how the current leaders appear to have a plan to lease out the entire country to foreigners come 2030. I quote Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister for the Environment & Water Resources, about the rationale for this policy Whitepaper:

"...we will need some kind of 'top up' over the next two decades - foreigners to work with us, care for us, pay taxes and to help create opportunities...".  (Today, 31 Jan 2013, page 4).

If this doesn't sound like renting out our country for monetary returns, I don't know what is.  According to the numbers worked out in this scenario, by 2030, we will have 2.5 million foreigners gainfully employed in our midst whereas citizens will make up 3.8 million working people. That's roughly a 40% foreigner and 60% citizen-working population. Well, if you think about it, this scenario is based very much on our experience today. The older citizens among us are well endowed with residential properties. Many rent part or even all of these out to foreigners. It does not take a leap of imagination to arrive at the thought that we can rent out the entire country, much as we do our houses in order for our tenants, the foreigners, to "care for us" and "pay our taxes".

My worry is that this assumes the foreigners amongst our midst are stupid enough to support us in our "old age". Why should they? They come here to make money for themselves, to live for themselves, and to leave when things don't go right. Otherwise they won't be foreigners, would they? They'd would have traded in their foreign citizenship for Singapore's. But our government is an optimistic lot, and they think they can hook these 2.5 million foreigners, hook, line and sinker, to support the old folks in Singapore, willingly or unwillingly.

The optimism expressed in the White Paper goes beyond belief. And given that the current government has messed up the triumvirate policies on foreign workers, transport and housing in the past ten years, it doesn't give me any confidence in the robustness of the policy proposals. The White Paper would likely turn out to be largely a work of fiction.

Hazarding a guess

Ms Lee Li Lian, opposition Workers' Party candidate for the Punggol East By-Election, was elected MP last evening. Congratulations to her!

It is said that her margin of victory was unexpected. In fact, it was astounding. I had earlier said to some colleagues that Dr Koh will be elected, no doubt about that. Well, it just shows how bad I am about politics and predictions. I am glad I stayed away from making too many predictions, and making them openly, unlike Mr Desmond Lim who, unwisely, put himself up for election and lost his deposit for the second time. I appreciate his wanting to "stay faithful", but I thought it was foolishness. When people have all but said they are not interested in you (he garnered only 4.45% in the last General Elections (2011), he should have seen the writing on the wall. Numbers do tell a story, pity that he cannot or refuse to see it. How to be a leader like that? Who dare follow you to the edge of a cliff?

At least Chee Soon Juan of the SDP has better sense, and perhaps, in the longer run, timing. But well, Mr Lim's deposit money will go to government coffers, and that will benefit the people, right?

But back to Ms Lee, whom the press has described as a "feisty" women. Indeed, she had the guts to stand against a much more highly educated specialist doctor. Of course she benefitted from the strong support of WP's leadership and machinery, but nevertheless, it is Ms Lee who is putting her head on the chopping block. She reportedly work tirelessly, visited every apartment block in the constituency, and made hard hitting speeches in the rallies. Perhaps not the best, not the longest and not the most inspiring. She might have had a lot of coaching, But then, who doesn't get coached? So you must give it to her for running a tireless campaign. And I salute the 54.52% of the voters who threw in their lot with her.

They were not seduced by the PAP's rash of "special offers" leading up to and during the political hustings. They were not distracted by other fringe candidates. They did not have a lot of amenities. But they placed their trust in this erstwhile Normal Stream and subsequently Polytechnic graduate (she also earned a business degree from Curtin University). Nowhere comparable to an MBBS and whatever other letters after Dr Koh's name. That's either faith or foolishness, only time will tell.

But I surmise that she will do well. But then, that's me with my predictions again. However, I am entitled to be right at least for once?

Two for one

Two for the price of one. The PAP candidate, Dr Koh Poh Koon, for the recently vacated constituency of Punggol East is promising that he will still serve the constituency in the unlikely event of not being elected. That's what all candidates seem to be promising nowadays. If you win, you serve, if you don't win, you'd still want to serve. Happened in Potong Pasir constituency where the PAP slogged for 30 years as a non-representative before narrowly wresting it back from the Singapore Democratic Party/Singapore Democratic Alliance in 2011. I suppose the electorate needs to be wooed, not just with carrots for today but the entire carrot farm. People just don't like "professional parachutist" who come by to win elections but otherwise cannot be seen nor heard. Happened in Hougang constituency too. Mr Desmond Choo promised to continue serving the residents even after his defeat at the polls last year. I am sure both men are sincere, and that's a bonus for the electorate. So does it matter anymore if the PAP candidate wins at all?

But of course. Singaporeans are not dumb. It has been demonstrated many times over that a PAP MP is best able to erect buildings such as community spaces, hospitals, sports complexes, wet markets and the like at greater speed and certainty than any opposition party candidate can. They don't have to content with dirty tricks blocking their way. Don't get me wrong. I am not urging voters to vote PAP in the Punggol East by-election on 26 January 2013. I am not writing about a situation that has not already been practiced and proven elsewhere. It is just a fact of life in Singapore for years now. That's the benefit of having been in power for so long. The civil and social infrastructure virtually belongs to one party - the PAP, so much so that the PAP cannot see it being used, nor shared, by any other party, never mind that tax-payers' money enabled these to be realized in the first place. The AIM-AHTC saga has demonstrated this.

So the opposition parties have their work cut out for them. And from the look of things, every opposition party wants a piece of this pie. They can use this platform to blow their trumpets but not necessarily to win. So when you know that the chance of winning is slim, you don't need to shy away. Take the opportunity to hold rallies, trumpet your policies, reach out to people, blast the competitors and prepare for 2016 when the next GE is scheduled to be held. The people of Punggol East appear to have been quite happy with the performance of its last PAP MP. Why would they want to change, anyway? It is really local bread and butter issues that most electorates are concerned about, not freedoms of expression and greater opposition representation in Parliament and the like. But who knows the minds of the electorate?

But strange things can happen...stay tuned.

Suspect body of work

Here it goes again, another sordid account of sex and lies rolled into a case of corruption in "squeaky clean" Singapore. This time, a law professor stands accused of favouring a student through an illicit sexual relationship. The student reportedly gained from the tryst through better grades in the professor's classes. The Court is now called upon to decide if there is any truth to the allegations.

Once again, the CPIB's "star" witness, the student in question, has given evidence in Court that contradicts the statements she gave to the CPIB during its investigations and upon which the same body has proceeded to charge another with corruption. Why again? Because in another case of corruption with illicit sex, CPIB "star" witness, a Ms Cecilia Sue, also offered contradictory evidence in Court - accounts that did not square with the statements she gave the same CPIB officers.

I am leaving the Courts to decide, as I must, the merits of each of these cases. But my question is, what is wrong with the CPIB? Surely having its star witness perjuring themselves in Courts once is an aberration, but when it happens again, you begin to wonder how CPIB obtains the written evidence upon which a case is made. From what I have learnt so far from the press, it appears that such evidence may not have been given entirely voluntarily, which explains differing accounts proffered in a Court of Law and the CPIB statements. For the second time in as many months, CPIB has had to decide if it is going to impeach the evidence of its main witness. The greater question is if CPIB has not lost its credibility as an investigating body that aims to uncover corrupt practices. Can CPIB bring another case to court without the same thing happening again? The likelihood, going by the two recent cases, suggests that it is not high.

We shall soon know as there are two pending cases that will be brought to Court in the coming weeks, that of the corruption cases of Mr Lim Sin Pang, formerly chief of the SCDF, and Rev Kong Hee of the City Harvest Church. Well, maybe not the latter as it does not involve sex. But one never knows.

Mind your own IT business

Singaporean, or at least those politically-aware, would have seen it coming. A reportedly shell company owned entirely by the PAP buying up a software system that was developed with tax-payer money for the sake of maintaining a software system that experts have judged as "obsolete and unmaintainable" defies every rule of business logic. But let me not be accused of repeating anything libelous. After reading through whatever is there on the internet regarding the AIM-AHTC saga, both from AHTC and AIM, I came away with the distinct impression that AHTC has not explained the situation clearly and fully, and AIM has not been convincing at all with its explanation.

This is why the blog posts on this subject by Mr Alex Au on his Yawning Bread blog has not only captured the attention of the social media, it has been vetted through a fine toothcomb by the PM's lawyers, who have determined that parts of the posts are libelous and threatened to sue. Truth be told, I don't read Yawning Bread at all, but due to the publicity that has been stirred up, I have also begun my "fine toothcombing" of the posts, some of which are quite lengthy and appears to have been a product of extensive research. Dr Teo Ho Pin's explanation (defence) of the issues raised by both WP's Sylvia Lim, bloggers and social media, pales in comparison. To me, his explanation raised more questions that it answered. Quite obviously, he has never been an IT professional, but trying to explain an IT business. It's like expecting Ms Saw to run a train company, no?

I do not propose to jump into the fray to add my 2 cents worth, for it is only 2 cents after all. I have no first hand contact with either party that I can add meaningfully to the unfolding events. The only thing I want to say is that it appears that the PAP has become rather petty of late. It used to be that they were focused on winning the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, never mind that similar libel laws have been used in the past. I don't know about Mr Au's political affiliations, but he appears to be a private citizen expressing his opinion publicly in a medium that even PAP stalwarts and Ministers have embraced with a vengeance. And anyone who have read those posts will come away with the impression that it is not all rant. Is this precisely the reason why he is being sued, that he is being too honest? (Brazen is another word to substitute for honest).

Unfortunately, those who are late to the "game" will never be able to judge for themselves as the offending post has been removed from the blog. How to have a conversation like that?

Read AsiaOne for reports around this saga. Then trawl the internet for the details.
Is this AIM or is that AIM?

Unhappy in Singapore

Much has been made about Singapore being a place with many unhappy people. I overhead some Singaporeans talking about it, and came to realise that there are indeed many things that Singaporeans are not happy about. And these are not new. They have been there, festering as it were, and the powers that be thus far can only suggest that Singaporeans talk about it, perhaps even talk its way out of its unhappiness. Someone pointed out that the sexual and financial shenanigans may even be symptomatic of the underlying stress and unhappiness that Singaporean's in general feel. They may be right. Money and sex often go together, and even if they don't, each is able to raise the emotions a couple of notches in the direction of delirium, at least for a moment. Then you need to go back for more...

But seriously, there is a lot to be unhappy about in Singapore. For motorists, it is the sky high Certificate of Entitlement (COE), which is priced around $80,000 - $90,000 now. People whose current car entitlements are nearing 10 years fret about the prospect of spending $130,000 for a car which they got for $40,000 (with COE) the last time. That's exacerbated by noticing that their richer neighbours own 2 or even 3 cars. No wonder we can never earn enough on this island. Is it any wonder that making money is the top priority over having children? How can anybody be happy chasing after an elusive car?

Then there is the perennial concern of parents over their children's education, in ensuring that they ace their exams so that they gain admission to prestigious schools. How can anyone be happy over the stress of the competitive educational environment?

And then there is the public transport squeeze, which hasn't abated much, with trains continuing to break down at a stretch. How to be happy when you suffer from claustrophobia every day you go to work in a bus or train?

And then there is the perception that while rich foreigners who prefer PR status are lapping it up both sides of the Causeway in perks, entitlements and loopholes, Singaporeans live with so much restrictions each side of the Causeway. You begin to wonder if Singapore citizenship is a hobble than a privilege. The thought that you have to squat 2 years in uniform doesn't help to assuage the discontent with rich foreigners who get PR at a drop of the hat. How to be happy when you thought that you were the privilege ones because you are citizens?

And then there is the continued high cost of living. Though inflation has abated somewhat, it is still above 3%. That is 3% too much already for Singaporeans whose pay has stagnated or will soon stagnate going into the new year. How to be happy when your money keeps shrinking?

And who can forget that public housing is now virtually out of reach of a couple starting life together in their twenties. Hold on, nobody gets married in their 20s anymore. If you can't afford to buy public housing, you don't want to get married. And when you do get married when a house is affordable (because you earn more and not because the housing prices have fallen), you would have missed the period where you can have children, which may or may not be a good thing. The upshot? Nobody is happy.

There is really no good news going into the last mile of 2012. Singaporeans are probably expecting more of the same next year.

How to be happy like that?

Unhappy Riches

It is sad that Singaporeans don't feel happy. According to a recent Gallup Poll, not only are Singaporeans emotionless, they feel less positive compared to people in countries where war is, or at least recently has been, the norm.

Actually, it is not difficult to understand this result. Singapore is a goal-oriented high performing country with an almost religious bent on efficiency, in terms of the economy, education, healthcare, finance, infrastructure, and whatever else it feels it must be first in, which just about includes everything. We have been brought up with a siege mentality - either we make the island succeed as a nation or we are consigned to the dustbin of history, easily absorbed by our neighbours, Malaysia or Indonesia. If this were to happen, we would be consigned to the backwaters, controlled by others where discrimination is the constant monotonous tune.

No, we don't want that, and therefore, we strived hard and succeeded. But success breeds success, and soon, we find ourselves condemned to a life of ever striving after the best. There is just no going back. Yes, we became rich, materially, but something had to give. And what gave was a simpler lifestyle where people and not money, matters more, where the simple things of life will suffice on the happiness index.

But it is not really our fault. As they say, we are victims of our circumstances. Perhaps now that we know how miserable we are compared to the rest of the world, we can engineer a lot more happiness and emotions among ourselves. It is ironic that we have to do this because we thought that our strivings for a better life will give us happiness, but it turned out to have the opposite effect. Is happiness and economic growth inversely related? Maybe someone economist or sociologist somewhere at sometime studied this and has the answer. In characteristic fashion, we need to study this carefully so that we can tune the system to yield more happiness though not at the expense of economic growth and efficiency.

Given Singapore's track record, I have no doubt that this can be done. Then we can share the formula with the Gallup organization.

By-election effect

A by-election afoot again! And the cause of it? Sex. Singapore is beginning to look like a sleazy place for people in high err, places.

Mr Michael Palmer, erstwhile MP for Punggol East, has suddenly and unexpectedly resigned both his Parliamentary seat and his membership of the PAP. What triggered this is a reportedly illicit sexual affair he was having with a female (what else) member of the Pasir-Punggol GRC office. The end came about as swiftly as it was sudden. The talk on the streets, of course, is when, and not if, the by-election will be held. I say when because of the hooha over a similar incident at Hougang not too long ago. The drama then was that a citizen sued the PM for his ambiguous stance on the need for a by-election. It was eventually held, with the Workers Party retaining its seat in Parliament. Since there is a precedent, it will be very difficult for the government to deny the people of Punggol East of proper representation.

What's that again? The government has more important things to take care of? National issues and the budget next year? The same old excuse. Surely they can be more original and not treat its citizens like children. There will ALWAYS be national issues to handle, and the budget is an annual affair. I assume that the process is already in place that it does not require resources that is not already deployed for this purpose? So this reason, really, cuts no ice. A simple reply, that the government will consider a by-election, without going into details, would have sufficed. I wonder why, with the benefit of hindsight and the experience gained not too long ago, that they are repeating the same misstep in its stance and communications with the people of Singapore?

Which of the Opposition Parties will throw their hats in the ring? Will more than one contest the ward, split the vote and hand the ward back to the ruling PAP? When will the by-election be held? After Chinese New Year? After the Budget announcement, which may have a sweetening effect? The country waits with bated breadth.

A raw deal

Goodness gracious me, did I hear wrongly or is it just a nightmare? According to reports, the Transport Minister appears to be blaming, albeit indirectly, the long-suffering public transport commuting public of being responsible for the unhappiness of the China bus drivers, and eventually their strike action. Oh no, its not the management of SMRT, you see. They are just trying to run a bus and train company, like any other profit making entity. They need to minimise cost and thereby increase profit. And it is not the innocent shareholders of the public-listed SMRT. They just want SMRT to make money so that they get their money for their money. And it is certainly not the government. See how they have virtually given away S$1 billion of taxpayers money to the public transport operators, of which SMRT is one of them, because these operators probably claim they cannot afford to buy their buses, never mind that they report profits every year. Yep, there is no better business than public transport in Singapore. The authorities have made owning a car so exorbitantly expensive that folks like you and I have no choice but to give over part of our pay to these companies every day. And now we learn that they have been squeezing every last cent out of its drivers, especially from those long-suffering China drivers. After all, isn't it the responsible thing for a listed company to do? Maximise profit? CSR? Yah, that's what you do AFTER the profits roll in.

It would appear that the management of SMRT can sit around twiddling their thumbs and whatever else they can touch in ecstasy as they look at the cash rolling in every second, from the commuters, from the government, and from its own employees. We'll just call this reverse cash flow. But the flow ends up with the company. Heck there is no real need to think. And that's when we now get trains and tracks malfunctioning for extended periods of time, with buses and trains overflowing with people. I can just hear the curses under everyone's breadth. The commuters who are just trying to get to work, or home. The transport operators' management, for having their mid-afternoon breaks interrupted rudely.

Its all the common folk's fault, you see. They just don't pay enough for their bus and train trips. When we trace the problem to its root, it is we, the common folks, who are the bloodsuckers, and the cause of all the transport problems we have been having. That's why they are looking to raising the bus and train fares, and not cutting the big fat bonuses of the kopi-drinking senior management. Yep, there is one who broke the management, took the money and has now fled the coop. And who allowed this to happen?

So, if I follow the logic correctly, we eventually have to pony up more cash from own pockets to pay for increasing the salary of its bus drivers, which by the way is shrinking as inflation stays at 4-5%. This whole thing is now so convoluted that I cannot believe this is the Singapore I grew up in. How did we arrive at this situation, anyway? And we are paying millions more to people who are suppose to protect the people's interest?

Give me a saw so that I can sink my teeth into it. It is probably more bearable than witnessing the farce taking place in front of me.

A whistle stop

A police whistle hung on the wall in my boyhood house in the Naval Base. It was made of brass, so it wasn't a toy. I didn't think much more about it, until years later, after the family had moved away, my mother reminisced about those days. Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, there were a lot of labour unrest. Workers were going on strike. This also happened in the Naval Base. These agitators came by our house to persuade my father to join their cause, to strike. My father was steadfast in his refusal to make common cause with them. I learnt that they subsequent threatened my father and the family with harm if he continued to hold out. So any time these rabble-rousers came by again, my father would just blow the police whistle in an effort to summon the authorities. I am not certain if the police were responsive then, but I understand that it had the effect of scaring these bunch of people away. That whistle was still hanging off the wall in the late 1960s into the early 1970s, when labour unrest had subsided significantly.

So I can sympathize with the small number of SMRT's Chinese bus drivers who were reportedly forced to go on strike recently. They could possibly have been faced with harm if they had not gone along with those who initiated the strike action. To its credit, the government took the effort to investigate and separate the perpetrators from the willing and those others who were forced. One should not, to use a Chinese saying, apply the same brush to one and all.

When something works, although not to perfection, you think nothing of it. But when your daily work and routine is threatened, that's when I can understand why people are calling for the heads of all the Chinese bus drivers. I think this labour unrest was handled in an even-handed, deliberate and wise manner. Due process was followed to determine the facts of the case, and action taking accordingly. At no time did the situation get out of control. Otherwise, many commuters' lives would have been seriously disrupted. And I am glad that both the workers and the employer were taken to task. If one was favoured over the other party, this episode would have been left to fester, and the symbolic whistle would still have to be left hanging on the wall. But I suppose, given the paranoia this latest episode of industrial action has created, that whistle must  be readily available when called upon.

Fright train - the Zombies

A China national playing
Chinese Chess with his
companion in a very crowded train

This is an all too common sight on the subway trains nowadays. Not only do you have to contend with the crowd, you also need to contend with a crowd which is oblivious of the crowd. Why so? When you have commuters glued to their videos, and music, and games on their *pads and phones, you know you are beginning to witness a zombie nation. A place where people are becoming impersonal and insensitive. I am sure if somebody committed a crime in the train, most will be non-plussed. They'd probably glance up, look around and then just go back to their movies or games. How sad that people don't want to look at each other anymore, not that that makes them more gracious and sensitive as a people. Yes, some people don't like to be looked at, though I wonder why they even dress up anyway if this were the case. Some people, when they see an old lady in need of a seat, would just stare for a moment and then go straight back to their gadgets. I wonder sometimes, if they would recognise their own mothers standing next to them in the train and vice versa the son/daughter. And that's not all. These zombie-like creatures continue in their virtual worlds when they disembark, walk to the escalator, and onto the travellator, and then into the next connecting train. It is a wonder that they find their way home everyday, without fail. But then, that's the perfect description of a zombie, isn't it?

But I must be fair. All is not lost. There are the occasional kid who gets up the moment they see someone in need of a seat. And some, bless their souls, even offered me a seat just because they see a few more strands of white hair on my head, or the wrinkles that have become quite pronounced over time on my face. At least, that's why I think they think I am elderly probably in need of crutches all too soon. I am not yet that old, but the gesture is much much appreciated. There is hope yet.

Cleaning after

Are you going to pick up the crud left
by the previous diner?

Singapore wants its people to clean up after themselves. After so many years, it has become routine that diners at its public dining areas, commonly referred to variously as Foodcourts, Hawker Centres and Coffee Shops, expect cleaners engaged by these Foodcourts to do the dirty work, i.e. clear the dishes and collect the cups from the tables so that it can be occupied by the next diner. After all, doesn't the price of the food already include these cleaning services? Singaporeans, you see, are very pragmatic people, and they can count.

But now, there are increasing calls for diners to do the cleaning up themselves. Some have questioned whether this is fair as the price of the food probably already includes the cleaning services. Paid for or not, another group of people feel that it is gracious for each and every one of us to do the cleaning up. In principle, I agree. But in practice, we are not equipped to do so, much as we want to do so. And I am not trying to give any excuse. Just look at these 2 pictures which I snapped the other day. The previous diner just left the remains of his meal on the table expecting that someone else will clean it up. They didn't bother to pick them up to at least put them into the plate so that it can be cleared quickly, easily and cleanly. I thought it would have been more sensible if they had at least put the remains into the plate or bowl so that the next person can just clear the plate without having to handle the leftover food, if they don't clear the plates themselves, i.e. Restaurants such as McDonalds make it even more convenient for us to do this with the trays and bins. But even then, people just bring their bad habits from the foodcourts to the restaurants.

 So long as these bad habits persist, it is going to be a tough sell to get people to clean up the tables.

Clearly building return trays and pumping out messages isn't going to be enough. The problems really lies with ourselves. It is a habit of the mind. Do we ever really think of the person who will next occupy our seats? If they did, they wouldn't have left all that crap behind. Do they ever think that the mostly elderly cleaners can do with a little bit of help with less messy eating habits on our part, never mind that they are paid to do the cleaning? What if that elderly cleaner were your mother, or father?

So a first step towards cleaning after yourself and thus being more gracious is to get people to leave their tables in a more "cleanable" state. Fine if you want to leave something for the cleaners to clean so that they won't lose their jobs. It just doesn't take us a  lot to have cleaner eating habits, does it? In fact, for such a highly educated people that Singaporeans generally are, it is surprising that they do not already practise these sensible, tidy, clean yet simple habits. Maybe what it take is to set a compulsory exam question in primary school around this. This will ensure that parents take the effort and time to teach their young so that they can 'score' in these types of questions. Hopefully, parents also learn in the process of teaching these gracious habits.

Fighting fire

I spoke to a few teenagers the other day about Sam Bacile's "Innocence of Muslims" and the widespead violent response to it. Imagine my surprise when they asked me what it was all about. With this news hogging headlines in every print and internet publication, it was incredible these youth of the internet generation were not all that aware of what was going on. I can understand it if they didn't know about the Chinese and Japanese tussling over an island somewhere between China and Japan. It is between 2 close neighbours who have had a long history of conflict. This latest demonstration over a amateur movie has been widely publicized and correspondingly vilified by adherents to the Islamic faith. Google has reportedly blocked the video to countries such as Libya, Egypt, Indonesia and Malaysia - countries with large numbers of Muslims. Although Muslims in Singapore do not form the majority, the government has also asked for it to be blocked and Google has reportedly obliged. Or has it?

There are now many versions of the movie. So much so that the movie, in part or in whole, is still accessible in Singapore. This goes to show that it is very hard to censor anything on the internet. Even countries which block access to Facebook, like China, fight a losing battle. It is relatively easy to bypass the restrictions with counter technologies. That's why I think that the best way to fight fire is with fire. This is what some Muslims have done, by putting up videos that counter the message of the "Innocence of Muslims". In my opinion, this is a far more rational and effective way of responding to something you don't agree with and not by staging violent and deadly demonstrations all over the world. These demonstrations only serve to prove that Islam is a certain type of religion, justifying the very accusations made of it.

But the mob is often unreasonable and, frankly, ignorant. Ask how many of those demonstrating have actually seen the movie and I will wager that not one of them has seen it. They may have heard about it, perhaps from many quarters. It is typical of people to exaggerate as they denigrate others. It works both ways. Sadly the net result is the death of Muslims rather than a real chastisement of the perpetrators of the video in question.

Yes to dress

I rarely, well come to think of it, never, comment on fashion, and especially the way women dress. I'll make an exception because, like many, I am impressed with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's dress sense when she visited Singapore between 11 and 13 September 2012. The press and fashion people noticed and were generally full of praise for the dresses she wore on the many occasions she was in Singapore. I must admit, I was mesmerized. Sure those dresses would have cost quite a sum of money, but simple well designed ones can be quite affordable, especially in affluent Singapore. How do I know? When you have to accompany your wife out, you inevitably end up looking at dresses. Not that I care, i.e. But it did lead me to thinking how dressed down Singapore women are. I mean, its really boring.

The standard tog? Short shorts that expose the entire thigh. Period. Hello, doesn't anyone of you have anything else in the wardrobe? It's getting a bit boring, you know. Sexy yes, but boring nonetheless. Women 'throwing' their breast out in extreme figure hugging Ts swing heads, yes, but ultimately boring. They a dime a dozen nowadays. And don't start down the path of putting on less. It becomes slutty looking.

Singapore women have forgotten how to dress. They have forgotten the dress. And I don't mean mini dresses. One piece full length (down to the knees) type. Whether it is flared out A-lined or cheong-sum tube. Truth be told I have seen some women in beautiful dresses in the subways. They really are head turners, well at least mine, because they look so elegant and beautiful in their dresses. And knee length dresses are escalator-friendly too.

Say what you will, when you have the figure, a dress will accentuate it and put you in the best possible light. Over time, shorts just makes you look like a stick. The difference is whether your are a thick stick or a think stick. Heck sometimes the look is so androgynous.

Girls have the best figure when they are in their teens and into their twenties. No matter how much they eat, they'll maintain that figure. Its biological, really. Metabolism and all that. That's when they should put on dresses, and not wait until their inevitable pounds (its biological again, really) distort the body as they push into their 30's and beyond.

Educating the parent

The Ministry of Education (MOE) didn't disappoint. Apparently it heard from the ground about some of the grouses about the way children are taught in schools and the school system itself. So in its last policy revision, it is no longer ranking (banding is the word used by the MOE) schools. Indeed it now says that all schools are good schools, whatever that means. We know this is not true, but it doesn't harm to be ambiguous, does it? I suppose not. The MOE says that academic results is not the be all and end all of learning. I will agree wholeheartedly with them, except...

But I wonder if parents who still have school-going kids and who still face 2 major national exams - the PSLE and the GCE 'O' Levels, think they can go along, even against their best wishes? Look, so long as these exams exist in their present form and purpose, parents will still engage tutors, send their children for enrichment classes, and God knows what else, to give their children that extra edge. These latest initiatives will mean little. As they say, the devil is in the details. How will this policy be implemented? How extensive will be be? Will the MOE implement communist-style uniformity? What do we mean by unique programmes? Do they matter when its comes to these major exams? After all, the Education Minister didn't say that these national exams will be reformed. The PSLE, we can control and dictate. But we are apparently not touching. The GCE - well you have to call London.

So while I congratulate the MOE for admitting it had been wrong all along, it hasn't gone far enough for these changes to make any significant difference. If I were a private tutor today, I wouldn't worry about my rice bowl a single moment.

But we, the parents, should also do some deep reflecting. Because a large part of the blame for how we educate our children goes to us.