Foto Memek Bugil: social issues

Home » Posts filed under social issues

Tampilkan postingan dengan label social issues. Tampilkan semua postingan

How Many Years of Your Life Do You Want to Work?

More on babies and mummies. From the TODAY newspaper:

Baby Woes Not Just Bosses' Fault
By Neo Chai Chin

CHANGE the workplace culture to allow for more family time, some have been saying — but would this truly boost the sagging birthrate?

Out of 1,000 mums surveyed in April by the Working Mothers Forum (WMF), 3 in 5 would say “no, thanks” to having a new bundle of joy in their households, even if they could resolve domestic and work issues. Yet, 86 per cent of these mums agreed that having children was “a bliss”.

What could explain this conundrum?

To mothers like Madam Noroonnessa Begam, 38, factors such as the high cost of raising a child and Singapore’s competitive environment count. “Finances are very important. As you know, there are rising costs and the challenging education system. And if you have one problem child, that will take up a lot of your time,” said Mdm Noroonessa, a childcare teacher with three sons aged 9 to 12.

But the experts say, all is not lost in the push for more babies – after all, the survey (done by research firm Connecting Insights Consultants) found that a quarter of the mums would agree to more kids if work-life balance is achieved.

“I think that’s a good start,” said Associate Professor Daniel Goh, a pediatrician and chair of WMF’s panel of experts. The survey aims to understand the concerns of working and job-seeking mothers, and if it leads to increased flexibility at the workplace, perhaps “some of these people will change their minds”.

The survey also found that one-third of the mothers felt it was impossible to give 100 per cent to both motherhood and career, while 37 per cent felt they could.

About half the mums surveyed said employers play the biggest role – more so than the Government – in helping them manage work-family challenges. Flexible policies would do much to ease their load.

This year, Mrs Wang went part-time. She now works three days a week. Furthermore, for each of those three days, she can work half a day at home, and it's up to her whether she works from home in the morning, or in the afternoon.

This is great for our kids, but logically speaking, a setback for her career. Over the next few years, most likely Mrs Wang is not going to make as much career progress as she would have, if she were working full-time.

I do have two important points to make. Firstly, kids grow up. Secondly, the average lifespan of a modern career is much longer than the time it takes for kids to grow up.

Currently, the official retirement age in Singapore is 62 years. If you are a female graduate, you probably started working around age 21 or 22. That means your career lifespan is about 40 years.

Even if you took, say, five years off to raise your little kids, you still have 35 years left to work. That's a very long time. I think that there must be very few people in the world who can honestly say that 35 years is too short a period for them to pursue their career aspirations.

On the other hand, devoting five years to your kids when they are still very young and need a lot of care will make a very big and valuable difference. When they're older and more independent, they won't need that much attention anyway.

By going part-time (as opposed to quitting work completely), Mrs Wang has more time for the kids, yet at the same time retains enough connection to the working world to know what's happening. When the time comes, and if she wants to, she can make a smooth transition back into a full-time career.

Think about it this way - if she is 40 years old by then, she will still have 22 years left to work, before hitting retirement age. If you can't mentally grasp what a very long time that is, just ask yourself where you were and what you were doing, back in 1986. That was 22 years ago. What a very different world that was, and how very faaaaar you've come since then.

Life isn't a 100-metre race. It's actually a marathon, a slow jog on a long winding road. And its final destination is death. If people actually realised that, then they would be more careful about what they decide to chase. Along the way, they would stop to smell the roses, admire the scenery and try out various interesting experiences that life does offer. Like, raising kids.
Gadis Bispak Imut

A Personal Baby Insight From Mr Wang

The national baby discussion goes on. Every day you can read something more about it in the newspapers.

I have lots of thoughts on this topic. And unfortunately, too little time to blog them all. Today I'll share just one small thought on the "career versus babies" theme.

Many women say that they do not want children because they want to focus on their careers. You must have heard that quite often. What you’ll rarely hear in Singapore is a woman saying that she truly loves her job and is passionate about it. (I should add that the same applies to men).

Gallup’s studies are clear on this. Here's an article which says that Singapore has one of the most disengaged workforces in the world. This means that compared to most other countries, people in Singapore simply aren’t very interested in their work. A human resource study has shown that 82% of employees in Singapore are indifferent about their jobs; 12% strongly dislike their jobs and only 6% love their jobs.

(And if you just look around your own workplace, you’ll probably find that the people who really love their jobs are greatly outnumbered by the people who don’t).

In a future post, it will be interesting to explore the reasons why so few Singaporeans enjoy their careers. Personally, I think it all begins with the way the education system pushes students to choose courses which are "useful", "practical" or "in-demand" (rather than the courses for which the student has a genuine interest). But for now, let's just stick to the baby issue.

So how is this relevant? Well, the next time you meet a woman who has chosen a career over having kids, ask yourself what that really means. It means that the woman has decided not to have kids, so that she can focus on something else.

And 94% of the time, that “something else”, her career, is something that she strongly dislikes, or just doesn't care about.

Sounds like a strange lifestyle choice, doesn’t it? Then again, human beings are peculiar creatures. Meditate on that, the next time you sit in your office at 10 pm working on a useless and painful project for your unappreciative, grumbling boss. This is what you sacrificed your family life for.

A clarification. I am not saying that if you hate your job, you should have children. But suppose you do want children. Then further suppose that you, like most Singaporeans, don’t really love your job. In that case, your career aspirations should not hold you back. In the first place, why aspire to what you find uninspiring?

Gadis Bispak Imut

Chee Soon Juan And Other Illegal Hawkers

It seems that Geylang is getting overrun by foreigners selling illegal cigarettes.

ST May 4, 2008
Cigarette peddlers show up in Geylang
Working in teams, they do their illegal trade in back alleys, side lanes
By Aw Cheng Wei

Peddlers from China and Vietnam are hawking bootleg cigarettes openly in the Geylang area, sometimes in broad daylight, and even stopping cars to sell their stash.

The cigarettes are smuggled in on board cargo ships which dock at Jurong Port, the peddlers claimed.

One seller, who said he was Vietnamese and spoke in halting English, said his shipborne supply comes from Indonesia. His teammate added in Mandarin: 'The ships come in daily and we pay on collection.'

Judging by the figures he gave, it is a lucrative business. The peddlers buy their contraband at about $2 for a pack of 20 sticks and resell them to street buyers. A 20-stick pack of Texas 5 costs $4.50 while a pack of Marlboro Red or Marlboro Menthol costs $5 or $6, half of what a duty-paid pack of Marlboro costs here.

The appearance of the Geylang peddlers comes on the heels of Indonesian peddlers who smuggled in bootleg cigarettes in small boats and sold them to passers-by in Woodlands, Yew Tee and Changi.

Police cracked down on these Indonesian smugglers in January.

Six of the seven peddlers The Sunday Times approached in Geylang last week were Vietnamese. The seventh was a Chinese Singaporean who looked no older than 18.

There are peddlers from China as well but The Sunday Times team did not manage to speak to them.

From this article, we learn that these Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesian foreigners are getting their illegal cigarettes via cargo ships that dock at Jurong Port.

However, I am more interested to know how these foreigners got into Singapore in the first place. Who knows, Mas Selamat may well have gotten out of Singapore in the same way that these cigarette hawkers got in.

It's quite likely that at least some of these cigarette hawkers are illegal immigrants. If they had entered Singapore legally on a work permit, they'd have a job and probably wouldn't risk it by selling contraband cigarettes in broad daylight. They'd have to be at work anyway.

Interestingly, somebody else is in the news for alleged illegal hawking - Mr Chee Soon Juan. From the Today newspaper:

Tak boleh tahan, SDP says it again
Party cadres urge passersby to sign two petitions
Friday • May 2, 2008

WEARING red T-shirts with the Malay words "tak boleh tahan" — which means "cannot take it" — members of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) once again took to the streets, as they had done on May Day in previous years.

Last year, SDP chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin walked around the island to raise awareness about poverty. This year, the pair, joined by other SDP members and supporters, descended on Toa Payoh Central and set up a booth at a walkway near Toa Payoh Community Library.

They then began to hand out leaflets containing accusations of greed and exploitation by the Government.

The SDP members, who were selling T-shirts, buttons and books at their booth, also urged passersby to sign two petitions.

The first, addressed to the Prime Minister, contained five demands relating to ministerial salaries, the entry of foreign workers, the release of Central Provident Fund savings and transparency in the financial dealings of Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC).

The second, to Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, urged him to resign over the escape of Jemaah Islamiyah detainee Mas Selamat Kastari from the Whitley Road Detention Centre — a suggestion that has been dismissed by the Prime Minister.

........ In response to media queries, the police said: "Police received a call from the Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council reporting that Chee Soon Juan was distributing pamphlets, and had set up a table selling books and T-shirts at Toa Payoh Central. Police observation in response to the call confirmed it."

Chee did not stage an unlawful assembly or an illegal outdoor demonstration.

"He was however peddling his books and T-shirts without a hawker's permit."

As this may be a case of illegal hawking, the Police has referred the matter to the National Environment Agency."

Surely it's only in Singapore that such a bizarre thing could happen.

The National Environment Agency was formed in 2002 to focus on the implementation of environment policies. It serves three main functions - environmental protection; maintenance of public health; and the provision of weather information through meteorological services.

The NEA is also in charge of pest control in Singapore. The agency regularly sends its officers around Singapore to deal with pests such as mosquitoes, cockroaches and rats.

It seems that the police authorities want the NEA to take on an additional role - deal with Opposition politicians who cannot be prosecuted for unlawful assembly or illegal outdoor demonstrations.

Chee Soon Juan may soon be treated as a pest - literally. So much for his human rights.
Gadis Bispak Imut

Domestic Maids, Mas Selamat and Why Wong Kan Seng Should Be Fined

Pardon the slightly bizarre title of this post. In a roundabout way, it was inspired by the following article from Today:

2 years on, employers still skirt day-off clause
Should there be a law to get employers to comply?
Friday • April 25, 2008

NEWLY arrived, a maid asked her employer if she could get a rest day. Her employer was incredulous.

"If I wanted to give my maid a day off, I would have hired one from another country," said the employer, who had signed her up on the assumption that maids of some nationalities were more pliant than others.

Faced with an employment contract that requires them to either give their maids a rest day, or compensate them accordingly for working, some Singaporean employers have sought ways to get around the terms or extract the most from their workers.

And this begs the question of how much has truly changed for the 170,000 foreign domestic workers in our midst — two years after the industry association put together a standard contract requiring employers to give maids at least one day off a month.

A Today straw poll of 50 employers found that only 62 per cent gave their maids a rest day.

With some industry watchers criticising the rest-day clause as being too flexible, should legislation be put in place to mandate the issue? ....

There are several simple reasons why many Singaporean employers are reluctant to give their maids a day off.

You see, the maid's work permit comes with numerous conditions. For example, she cannot prostitute herself. She cannot have sex with a boyfriend. She cannot get pregnant. And she cannot (of course) commit any crimes such as shoplifting.

If she does any of the above, then she has breached her work permit conditions and the employer has to repatriate her. And if the maid runs away before the employer can do that, the government will fine the employer $5,000. For that matter, the government will fine the employer $5,000, if the maid runs away for any reason.

If you didn't know any of the above, then either you do not employ a maid, or you didn't read the small print of the Manpower Ministry's work permit conditions.

(On a positive note, maids running away is such a common occurrence that it is possible to buy insurance for it. On a negative note, maids running away is a common occurrence).

Many employers are afraid that if their maid has a day off and gets herself into trouble, the employer will not only have to solve the trouble, but also have to fork out $5,000 as a free gift to the government.

(Not that the government will then help you solve the trouble. It's just a fine, plain & simple).

Intuitively, this smacks of gross unfairness. The employer gets punished not for something he did, but for something that somebody else (the maid) did. Furthermore, once the maid leaves the employer's residence, the employer has no way of monitoring where the maid goes and what she does there.

To encourage employers to give their maids a day off, the government needs to change these ridiculous rules.

I agree that employers should be fined and punished, if they fail to perform their responsibilities as employers - for example, paying the maid's salary on time; providing adequate food and accommodation; and ensuring a safe, secure working environment.

But employers should not be held responsible, for things that a maid may do, of her own free will. When the maid goes out on her rest day, the employer simply has no viable way to ensure that she will not do anything that breaches her work permit conditions.

(Which, by the way, are quite extensive and onerous).

We may draw a curious parallel with Mas Selamat's escape, and PM Lee's determined, if muddled, defence of Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng in Parliament.

Mas Selamat ran away. But PM Lee said that Wong Kan Seng was not at fault and should not be punished in any way. The reason being that Wong Kan Seng personally did not do anything which allowed Mas Selamat to escape.

Strangely, if your maid runs away, it IS your fault and you SHOULD be punished. Even if you did not personally do anything to let her run away (apart from giving her a day off).

Similarly, if your maid becomes pregnant, it IS your fault and you SHOULD be punished. Even if you did not personally do anything to make her pregnant.

Oh well. What can I say? Maids are not terrorists. But then you are not Wong Kan Seng. So the rules remain stacked against you. Wong Kan Seng gets off lightly, but you won't. Even if his lapse has far greater, and graver, implications than yours.

Your runaway maid wouldn't blow up Changi Airport, would she?
Gadis Bispak Imut

A Tale of One Jack Chick and Two Religions

This is going to be quite an interesting case to watch. Since details are not yet available, I'm posting the article below mainly for future reference.

ST April 15, 2008
Couple charged under Sedition Act
By Elena Chong

A COUPLE were charged on Tuesday with distributing a seditious publication to two others.

Ong Kian Cheong, 49, and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 44, are alleged to have distributed The Little Bride, an evangelistic material, to Sembawang resident Irwan Ariffin last Oct 19.

They are also said to have distributed the same publication to one Madam Farharti Ahmad at her home in Woodlands on March 6 last year .

It is not clear why they face the Sedition Act and the Undesirable Publication Act when the publication is the same.

Ong, who works in a telecommunications company, and his wife, a bank employee, were represented by Mr Selva K. Naidu.

The police prosecutor sought an adjournment of the case pending a Health Sciences Authority on handwriting specimen.

The couple were freed on $10,000 bail each. Their passports were impounded.

The case will be mentioned on April 29.

Under the Sedition Act, the maximum penalty is a $5,000 fine and/or a jail term of up to three years.

The maximum penalty under the Undesirable Publication Act is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 12 months.

I had not heard of "The Little Bride" before, so I got curious and decided to google to find out more. After a quick bit of Internet searching, I've found out that it is a evangelical cartoon/comic series produced by an American named Jack Chick, who has a reputation of being very controversial.

Direct access to Jack Chick's official website has been blocked by the Media Development Authority. However, if you google around, you can see some of Jack Chick's works on other websites / blogs. I'm not supplying the links.

I have to say that if I were a Muslim, I would probably be very, very offended by some of these works.

However, at the same time, I am wondering how the Christian community in Singapore would react to the prosecution of Ong Kian Cheong and Dorothy Chan. These two individuals probably saw themselves as faithfully and courageously seeking to spread the word of God (the Christian God, I mean).

This could be a very complex, challenging case for the prosecution, if the accused persons claim trial. Ahh, times like this, I almost wish I was still a Deputy Public Prosecutor.

P.S I am, by the way, neither Christian nor Muslim.

P.S.S Readers who wish to post any comments on this post, please avoid using inflammatory or religiously offensive language.
Gadis Bispak Imut

A Tale of Two Drugs

Which is more dangerous – alcohol or cannabis?

This is a trick question - for Singaporeans. In many other parts of the world, the correct answer is already very well-known. Meanwhile in Singapore, many people would unhesitatingly answer, “Cannabis”.

Wrong. Alcohol is more dangerous.

For an authoritative study on the topic, you can refer to this study commissioned by the UK Science & Technology Select Committee. This study compared 20 legal and illegal stimulants commonly used in Britain. The full report is here.

Heroin is the most harmful drug. Cocaine takes 2nd spot. Alcohol is rated the fifth most harmful drug. Tobacco comes in at No. 9.

Meanwhile, cannabis is rated 11th. Ecstasy comes in at No. 18. If all you knew about drugs was Singapore's drug laws, you'd never have guessed this.

You can buy alcohol and cigarettes at any supermarket. But if you were caught selling cannabis, you could die. They'd hang you.

Why am I writing about this? Just felt like it, after reading the following article in the Straits Times:

ST March 25, 2008
Drinking binge killed China woman

By Elena Chong

A CHINA woman had so much to drink at a pub that she died of acute alcohol intoxication, a coroner's court heard on Tuesday.

Ms Zhu Shaoyun, 31, had been drinking from 5pm till about 9pm at Dong Guang Entertainment Group Pub along North Bridge Road on Nov 12 last year.

In Singapore on a social visit then, she had ordered beer and a bottle of Cordonbleu from waiter Ng Wei Guang, 25.

By about 8pm, she was heavily intoxicated.

At an inquiry into her death, Station Inspector Eugene Lim Kuan Leng from Central Police Division said in his investigation report that out of goodwill, Mr Ng accompanied Ms Zhu back to Lorong 8 Geylang in a cab. She vomited on the way.

When they arrived at Lorong 8, Mr Ng noticed her foaming in the mouth and nose. She was also pale and not breathing.

Mr Ng immediately asked the cabby to take them to Raffles Hospital where she was pronounced dead at 10.50pm.

Ms Zhu's blood-alcohol level was 547mg/100ml - more than 1 1/2 times the lethal range.

SI Lim also told the court that Mr Ng had noticed that Ms Zhu, a married woman, appeared depressed, and that when he approached her, she told him to leave her alone.

Verdict: Misadventure.

Death by alcohol overdose is relatively common. In contrast, it’s practically impossible to die from a marijuana overdose. See Point 2 of the article here.

(Naturally Mr Wang is not suggesting that you go out now and buy cannabis from your neighbourhood dealer. Mr Wang is merely suggesting that you be careful how you drink your alcohol).

Gadis Bispak Imut

The Government Missed By $7,150,000,000. Just Another Honest Mistake.

The Straits Times reported a shocking piece of news yesterday. The article itself did not really highlight the point, but tucked it away somewhere near the end of the article (see bold text below).

ST Feb 26, 2008
BUDGET DEBATE
Rising costs, price hikes top concerns of MPs
They back strategies to keep inflation in check but say individuals and businesses need help to cope
By Lydia Lim

RISING costs and their impact on people's ability to make ends meet dominated the start of this year's parliamentary debate on the Government's Budget.

Many of the 19 MPs who spoke during the five-hour session praised the Budget for being forward-looking and generous, but 13 also voiced concern over a slew of recent price hikes.

MPs from the People's Action Party, Mr Inderjit Singh and Mr Michael Palmer, recited a litany of these increases in the past year alone.

Taking last December as an example, Mr Palmer said: 'The price of luncheon meat went up from $1 to $3, taxi fares went up, school bus fares went up and even the opposition's Potong Pasir Town Council added to the list with an increase in its service and conservancy charges.'

MPs said that businesses have been hard hit by steep hikes in office rents, and asked for tax reliefs to help them cope.

For individuals, Mr Palmer suggested that part of the Budget surplus of $6.45 billion be used to set up a contingency fund to help low-income families should inflation worsen.

Mr Singh, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee for Finance and Trade and Industry, urged a review of the Government's avowed strategy to grow the economy as fast as possible in good years. This had contributed to the current situation of overheating and high prices, he said.

'The 'grow-at-all-costs' policy, with the cost increases triggered or allowed by the Government, have worsened the income divide,' he said.

At the same time, MPs threw their support behind the Government's five strategies to keep inflation in check.

These include allowing a gradual appreciation of the Singapore dollar to rein in imported inflation, and growing the economy so that wages for most workers go up by more than costs.

Nominated MP Cham Hui Fong of the National Trades Union Congress pointed out that last year had indeed been a good year for workers.

Those in the unionised sector enjoyed the highest bonuses since 1990 and the lowest retrenchment rate since 1994, she said.

But fellow NMP Eunice Olsen stressed that in tackling inflation, 'preaching' to Singaporeans to buy cheaper house brands was not a solution, as many people were already buying the lowest-priced options available.

Four MPs - Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang, NMPs Gautam Banerjee and Ms Olsen, and Mr Singh - took issue with the wide gap between the Government's projected $0.7 billion deficit and the actual $6.45 billion surplus.

This showed that the Government's 'Budget marksmanship' had worsened, said Ms Olsen.

The four MPs also questioned whether the Government had been hasty in raising the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 5 per cent to 7 per cent last July, since it did not really need the revenue it generated.

Both Mr Low and Mr Banerjee asked for the GST to be restored to 5 per cent.

But Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment and Water Resources Amy Khor warned against assuming that the economy would prosper and produce a surplus every year.

She said: 'The Finance Minister has been judicious in balancing competing priorities and seeking to invest in the medium- and long-term future, while dealing with the immediate concerns of citizens.'

More than 20 MPs are expected to speak when the debate resumes today.

So early last year, the Government had projected a budget deficit of $0.7 billion. This means that according to the Government's own estimates, in 2007 it would collect $0.7 billion (via taxes etc) less than what it would actually need to spend.

It turns out that the Government scored a massive miss. In 2007, instead of collecting $0.7 billion less than it needed, the Government collected $6.45 billion more than it needed. From who?

You, the people. Of course.

Among other things, it becomes quite evident that the GST need not have been raised in July last year.

In his Budget Speech 2008, the Finance Minister is very quick to try to explain away last year's massive miscalculation:

"We started the year expecting a growth rate of 4.5% to 6.5%, which was also in line with market forecasts. With actual growth at 7.7%, Corporate and Personal Income Taxes came in some $1.0 billion higher than projected. GST revenues also exceeded our projection by about $1.2 billion, mostly from higher consumption.

GST collection arising from the 2 percentage point hike in July is estimated at about $1.4 billion in total, which now just matches the size of the GST Offset Package and Workfare Income Supplement tranches that were distributed in FY2007.

However, the largest boost to revenues came from the exceptionally buoyant property market last year. Prices of private residential units rose by over 30%, much higher than industry forecasts of around 10% to 15% at the beginning of the year. The volume of property transactions went up by over 60%. Stamp duties consequently rose to an unprecedented $3.8 billion, $2.3 billion higher than expected. Other property related revenues were around $1.1 billion above projections. These were large gains, out of the ordinary, and which we cannot expect to see very often.

The overall budget surplus of $6.4 billion was therefore the result of a strong economy and property market."

What is he saying? That the three biggest reasons that the Government collected so much more extra money from the people are:

(1) the property market performed unexpectedly well, leading to a unexpectedly large increase in property-related tax collection;

(2) Singaporeans and companies made an unexpectedly large amount of money, learning to an unexpectedly large increase in income tax collection;

(3) Singaporeans spent an unexpectedly large amount of money, leading to an unexpectedly large increase in GST collection.

By this time, you will conclude that the Singapore government is unexpectedly stupid at managing its own money and making its own financial estimates.

Either that, or you are a very kind person, and always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and you will say that indeed, the property boom and rapid economic growth in 2007 could not reasonably have been foreseen.

But wait, I have more to say.

Click here for the Government's revenue estimates. You'll see that the Government gets its money by collecting nine different classes of tax, namely:

B10. Income Tax
B20. Assets Taxes
B30. Customs and Excise Taxes
B40. Motor Vehicles Taxes
B50. GST
B60. Betting Taxes
B70. Stamp Duty
B80. Selective Consumption Taxes
B90. Other Taxes

Tharman has told you that in 2007, the Government collected much more money than projected, for B10, B50 and B70.

But there's something interesting which Tharman conveniently didn't tell you. The Government had over-collected money, not just for B10, B50 and B70. But for every single category of taxes, from B10 to B90.

Now how could the Government be so completely off the mark?

Personally, I see two possible explanations:

(1) The Singapore government is unexpectedly stupid at managing its own money and making its financial estimates.

(2) In early 2007, it was the deliberate intention of the Singapore government to make low projections for its revenue, so that it could publicly claim that there would be a budget deficit of $0.7 billion. Therefore more Singaporeans would be willing to believe that the 2% GST hike in July 2007 was necessary.

Which explanation do you prefer?
Gadis Bispak Imut

Lives of Dark & Quiet Desperation

ST Feb 15, 2008
Refuse to send your kids to school? Govt may step in
MOE may consider taking parents of six children to court if they do not respond to counselling
By Theresa Tan

THE Education Ministry (MOE) may have to consider court action against some parents who have refused to send their children to school.

The six children involved have stopped school for some time, or only show up for classes from time to time despite extensive counselling and mediation.

If the ministry presses charges, it will be the first time it is doing so under the Compulsory Education Act, which was implemented in 2003.

The Act stipulates that anyone who fails to ensure that his child attends school shall be guilty of an offence.

If convicted, the person may be fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to a year, or both.

The authorities say they may have to consider using 'penal sanctions' because of the parents' poor response to counselling efforts by the schools involved and the Singapore Children's Society, a charity engaged by the ministry to counsel parents who do not enrol their children for Primary 1 classes.

In some cases, social workers have been trying to change the parents' minds for the last three years, but have come up empty.

When contacted by The Straits Times, the Children's Society said it was not authorised to give more details about the six cases.

But according to the ministry, there are several reasons why the children are 'not attending school regularly or stopped attending school for some time':

They come from dysfunctional families.

They have indifferent or lax parents.

They also may be influenced by older siblings who are school dropouts.

Opinion was divided on whether charging the parents would solve the problem or make matters worse.

What kind of parents wouldn't send their children to primary school?

Many kinds, actually. Let's see. Daddy could be dead, in jail, schizophrenic or completely broke. Mummy could be suicidal, alcoholic, disabled or regularly getting beaten up by her lovers. Or any permutation of the above.

So the kids have a big problem and it isn't the kind that is necessarily solved by fining or jailing one or both parents for not sending the kids to school. In fact, criminal punishment could well make things worse.

When I was a Deputy Public Prosecutor, I had sneak peeks into many lives of dark and quiet desperation. There are many people out there with huge personal problems, and some of them would end up in police files, and so I saw my fair share of them.

Today, as I type this, I recall one particular case of mine that crossed my desk many years ago. The man had been arrested for drug trafficking, following a dramatic CNB raid on his HDB flat. He, like his lover, was a drug addict.

The woman was pregnant. We had some suspicion that she too was a drug trafficker, but the evidence was too weak and so we proceeded on consumption and possession charges against her. As she was a repeat offender, she would be spending a long time in jail.

Whatever happened to that baby? Did the woman eventually give birth in prison? Who looks after babies whose mothers are still convicts? And if the baby was born at all, was it born normal? Or was its health permanently damaged by its mother's heavy drug abuse?

I don't know. I get sneak peeks, that is all, into these other lives. I read the police files, I appear in court, I prosecute my cases. Then I close the file and I move on with my own life, just as everyone else has to move on. Criminals and victims included.

That baby, if it had been born and if it had survived, should be a 7-year-old child by now. Time for primary school. Dear baby, do you even know your mother's name?
Gadis Bispak Imut

Suddenly, The Singapore Media Discovers That Gays Are Human Beings After All

A vaguely amusing article from Today:

Banks and the pool of pink talent
Wednesday • January 30, 2008
By Neo Chai Chin

AMERICAN investment bank Lehman Brothers is planning an unusual initiative in Singapore, Financial Times reported recently. It is specifically targeting gay and lesbians who aspire to be bankers. This follows the success of a presentation and buffet dinner for 50 gay students in Hong Kong.

Today has learnt that the banking giant is not alone. Global banks around Asia are breaking new ground to attract and retain the best and brightest. Increasingly, their hiring and diversity policies are taking into account the homosexual community, which makes up as a significant part of the talent pool.

At UBS Singapore, for example, benefits including health insurance are extended to a staff's "significant other", defined as "a person who has cohabited with an employee for a continuous period of 12 months". The couple does not need to be married, and sexual orientation is not an issue.

Money is a factor in the competition for talent, but keeping up with social changes is also important.

"This is why our benefits policy is designed to be as flexible and inclusive as possible," said Ms Leona Tan, UBS Singapore's diversity advisor.

Merrill Lynch, on its part, has four professional networks in the Asia-Pacific region for its staff, one of which is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender network, set up last April. The other networks are for women, young professionals and parents. The firm even has an annual diversity week, when it hosts speakers, events and conferences for the various networks.

"Our efforts in the area of diversity are about how we can create the most effective and inclusive environment, one in which we value diversity rather than simply tolerate it," said Mr Roman Matla, spokesperson for the bank's diversity and inclusion team.

I suppose this article is useful for public education purposes in Singapore. On the other hand, I could not help finding it somewhat funny.

The article suggests that by taking gay people into account in their HR policies, foreign banks are doing something really unusual and innovative – “breaking new ground”.

Actually, this is nothing new at all. Practically all US and European banks have global HR policies recognizing the rights of their gay employees worldwide. Such policies would have been in existence for many years.

For example, my current employer has a HR policy which promotes fair and equal treatment of all employees. Among other things, the policy says that no employee is to be discriminated against on the basis of his race, nationality, age, religion, gender, marital status, disability or sexual orientation.

As a matter of fact, this isn’t even unique to banks. You see it across different industries, among a wide range of global MNCs. Here are a few examples, from the world’s best-known corporate names:

Microsoft: “It is our policy to recruit and hire applicants for employment opportunities based solely on the qualifications. We do not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, marital status, age, or disability in any of our recruitment, hiring, training or promotion practices.”

British Airways: “British Airways offers an inclusive environment to all of our employees, whether gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. British Airways has for many years included sexual orientation in its the diversity policy.”

Deutsche Bank AG: “We think of Diversity in its broadest sense, embracing all of those differences that make up the exciting, challenging world in which we live. These include age, culture, ethnicity, gender, nationality, personality type, physical ability, religion, sexual orientation, and work style."

General Electric: “GE's commitment to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender communities is supported by the GLBT Forum, as well as our offering of benefits for domestic partners.”

BP: “Our code of conduct, distributed to all BP employees, states that the company will not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation and identity.”

Nike: “Nike works closely with Stonewall, Britain’s leading gay equality organization, and other members of the program, to improve the working environment for our lesbian, gay and bisexual employees.”

Nokia: “Among those rights that Nokia views as fundamental and universal are: freedom from any discrimination based on race, creed, color, nationality, ethnic origin, age, religion, gender, gender reassignment, sexual orientation ....”

If the above surprises you, it’s only because you live in Singapore. “Gasp!” you say. “How could all these respectable companies openly employ criminals?!”

Well, yes, the Dark Ages still prevail in Singapore. However, most other developed countries moved on long ago. They already discovered that gays are human beings too, you see.
Gadis Bispak Imut

The Modern Risks of Information and Advice

In my earlier post, I wrote about the school principal who had strongly urged her Secondary 5 students to give up studying for their O-levels and go to the ITE instead. This incident reminded of Freakonomics, a very interesting book that I had read some time ago.

Here's the relevant point from Freakonomics. As society grows more complex, more and more specialists evolve. Doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, property agents, journalists, religious leaders and car salesmen - all of them are specialists of a different kind.

The individual cannot possibly be an expert in every field relevant to his life. So he must often rely on advice from different specialists. For example, if he is ill, he will consult a doctor. If he wants to buy a car or sell an apartment, he will talk to a car salesman or a property agent.

The Freakonomics authors warn us that very often, the specialist's self-interest is not fully aligned with the self-interest of the person seeking information or advice. In other words, it often does not serve the specialist to tell you everything that you should know.

For example, it may take too much time for the specialist to tell you everything you should know, and there is no reward for doing so - therefore he won't.

Or the specialist might deliberately withhold certain information about his product / service, because if you knew all its flaws, limitations or disadvantages, you might not want his product / service any more.

Or he may deliberately slant or angle his advice in certain ways, so that you will be inclined to make a decision that serves his own self-interest.

And there is usually no equal footing, because the specialist, by virtue of being a specialist, already knows more than you. He holds the edge.

Let's now consider our education system. Socially, we are conditioned to think of education as a noble thing, and of educators as noble people. Certainly this view has some validity - some people would say, a lot of validity.

But at the same time, we must realise that there are different actors within the school system. Different actors means different self-interests, and that means the Freakonomics info/advice problem must arise again.

What's good for the Ministry of Education is not necessarily good for the principal. What's good for the principal is not necessarily good for the teachers. What's good for the teachers is not necessarily good for the students.

And what's good for the students may not necessarily be good for the teachers, principal or the Ministry of Education.

(Minor digression - here is a brief account of how I, as a student, went against the government's then-prevailing career advice for young Singaporeans. I thereby became quite rich and successful).

It is very good for the principal, if the school achieves a high overall pass score. An ambitious principal may well aim to achieve, say, a 98% or 100% pass score. It is conceivable that such an ambition may heavily shape a principal's advice to the students or the way the principal runs the school.

For example, the principal may discourage students from exploring knowledge outside the formal school syllabus (such extra learning may be good for the students, but will not help the overall pass scores).

Or the principal may prevent the students from taking subjects which the students are interested in, but which are considered harder to pass (for example, Further Maths, or Art, or Literature).

Or the principal may seek ways to put extreme pressure on the students to work as hard as possible, such that a few of the less-resilient students will inevitably suffer severe stress.

Or the principal may advise the weak students to leave the school and pursue other options elsewhere (if these students stay, and fail their exams, then the overall pass scores would be damaged).

And the students may never realise that their education is being shaped, not by considerations of what is good for them, but of what is good for their principal.

The Freakonomics authors do not say, of course, that in every case, specialists are out to hurt the advisee's position. In many situations, the interests of the advisor and the advisee could be well-aligned - this means that the advisor has a strong incentive to be genuinely helpful.

What Freakonomics does warn us is that when we receive any specialist advice, we should pause to ask ourselves - what are all the possible reasons why the specialist is telling us what the specialist is telling us?

Final food for thought. Here's that Bertrand Russell quote again:

"Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position." - Bertrand Russell.

So beware of the specialists in your life, whoever they may be.
Gadis Bispak Imut

It Will Become Quite Common To Die Alone & Unnoticed

ST Jan 10, 2008
Man's death goes unnoticed for a year in Sydney

SYDNEY - AN ELDERLY pensioner lay dead in his apartment in Australia's largest city for a year before anyone noticed, officials and news reports said on Thursday.

The body of Jorge Chambe, 64, was found on Tuesday in his single bedroom, government-owned flat in the Sydney suburb of Yagoona when police and firefighters broke in, after concerns about his welfare were finally raised.

Decomposition of the body was advanced and bank records indicated Chambe died about a year earlier, officials said.

'It's amazing,' Detective-Inspector Ian Prye told reporters. 'This guy lives in the suburbs and he dies and no one notices for a year.'

The circumstances of Chambe's death triggered calls for a national strategy to better check on elderly people living alone, and worry that Australians were losing their sense of community.

'How can it happen that a person can die in such a lonely way and no one know?' New South Wales state Housing Minister Matt Brown told the Macquarie Radio network on Thursday.

In news reports, neighbors at the apartment block described Chambe as a quiet man who was friendly but who kept mostly to himself. He had received federal government welfare payments and his rent was paid automatically by direct debit from his bank account.

His mailbox had filled to overflowing, but no one had noticed a smell or other clues that he had died, the reports said. A worried neighbour finally called housing officials on Monday, and authorities broke in when Chambe did not respond.

The above event may seem sad and shocking. However as the years go, we may safely expect such incidents to become increasingly common in developed countries with an aging population. Oh yes, that includes Singapore.

This is the simple consequence of having smaller families, or not having children. The older you grow, the likelier it becomes that you have no relatives at all. You just outlive those who used to be around. This isn’t that difficult, because there weren’t many of them to begin with.

In the 1960s, the average 30-something adult would have, say, one spouse, four children, six siblings, eighteen cousins and too many nephews, nieces and in-laws to easily count.

In 2008, the average 30-something adult would have, say, one or no spouse; one, two or no children; and maybe one or two siblings, each likely to have one, two or no children.

So nowadays, the probability of outliving all your relatives (or all relatives who care about you) is much higher.

During the working years, loneliness is not an issue because working life itself provides a human community comprising bosses, peers, subordinates, clients etc.

Senior citizens, while healthy, can also maintain a social network. They move around on their own, pursue their interests and meet other people (mahjong kaki; qigong group; community club etc).

But over the years, the individual gradually grows older and weaker, and becomes less and less able to participate. He therefore slowly withdraws himself from society. Eventually, he becomes so disconnected from other human beings that he could die (as Jorge Chambe did), and for a whole year, no one would even notice.

To me, Jorge’s story is sad not because he died and his death went unnoticed for a year. The sad part is really more how he must have lived, in the years before he died.
Gadis Bispak Imut

The Silent Singaporean

Elia Diodati takes a look at the Malaysian political blogosphere and is impressed by its lively, vibrant nature. He wonders why Singaporeans, in comparison, don't seem to speak up very much on important national issues. There are, of course, various reasons and here's one which Elia offers:

"..... Singaporeans simply work insane hours. If we can’t even get Singaporeans to procreate, despite tax incentives and other carrots, what more to get them to clear out several hours at a time to sit down and write coherent, thoughtful blog posts? Think of the vocal blogs you know of that have suddenly veered into neglected quiescence. I’d bet you that many of them were written by students who have since graduated, gotten sucked into the work-marry-birth-nurture dogma and suddenly find that there is no time or place for that mouthpiece."

Well, I work. I'm married. I have two kids whom I nurture a lot (I plan to turn them into little geniuses). Apart from all that, I not only blog a lot, but still find time to pursue several other interests quite seriously.

My secret is really no secret. If you wander into the 'Self-Improvement' section of the bookstore and pick up a book on time management, you'll know the secret too. But since many of you wouldn't be caught dead in that part of the bookstore, that's pretty much all I'll say about it for now.

For Singaporeans who want to blog more about national issues but feel that they suffer from a lack of time, the alternative strategy would be selective about your topics. Focus on the themes and topics that you already know very well, so that you can complete your posts in minimal time.

"But I don't really know any topics that well." Actually, yes you do. You just don't know it, that's all. Once you start to see that the events and circumstances in your personal life are often just reflections of the broader society in which you live, you will rarely find yourself short of topics to write about.

Angry Doctor is a doctor - he blogs a lot about healthcare issues in Singapore. Stressed Teacher is a teacher - he blogs a lot about education issues in Singapore. Cherian George is an ex-journalist - he blogs a lot about the mass media in Singapore. Yawning Bread is a gay man - he blogs a lot about gay issues in Singapore.

These are examples of bloggers who have converted the very stuff of their daily life experiences into blogging material. Well, actually all bloggers do that - but to go beyond the mundane level of introspective navel-gazing, you'll just have to take one step further. And that is to explore the wider social, political or economic issues behind your daily life experiences.

Do you use public transport every day in Singapore? Are you an SAF NSman? Do you study in a local university or polytechnic? Are you a financial planner who helps clients to plan for their retirement? Do you keenly follow the local sports or arts scene? Are you a working mother busily juggling career and family? Do you regularly volunteer with a charitable organisation such as Mendaki or Action for AIDS? Does your job involve ensuring corporate governance? Do you set PSLE exams?

A positive answer to any of the above makes you potentially an expert blogger in at least one distinct area. If you take that extra step ....
Gadis Bispak Imut

More on Town Councils & Their Sinking Funds

I just received an email from an SPH journalist who wished to interview me about town councils and their gigantic sinking funds.

She says that her likely angle will be about netizens expressing their unhappiness about how town councils are using the conservancy and service charges paid by Singaporeans.

I still do interviews with non-mainstream publications, academic researchers, foreign university students etc. But it has been my personal policy for quite some time now to avoid contact with the mainstream media. So I will decline this interview.

However, if any of you netizens out there feel strongly about this matter and are interested in speaking to this journalist, please email me (memek-bugilin@gmail.com) or leave your contact details in the comment section below. And I will ask the journalist if she would be interested in getting in touch with you.

A reader by the name of Coder had earlier left many detailed comments on my town council post and has obviously done some good research into the matter. Coder, it might be particularly interesting for you to speak to the SPH journalist - do consider.

And thanks for your earlier comments.
Gadis Bispak Imut

You Give Your Money To Your Town Council So That It Can Play The Stock Market

ST Dec 2, 2007
New rule to safeguard council funds
By Tan Hui Yee & Mavis Toh

TOWN councils tempted to play the stock market to increase the returns on their sinking funds will now have to meet a new rule that caps how much they can put into higher-risk investments.

Councils, which have had some leeway when investing their cash, must limit their investments in non-government stocks, funds or securities to 35 per cent of the sinking fund.

This new rule, which kicked in yesterday, applies to more than $1 billion in sinking funds managed by the 16 town councils in Singapore.

The money is collected through monthly service and conservancy charges and government grants and is used for cyclical repairs, such as re-painting or re-roofing.

The Ministry of National Development brought the rule in to strike a balance between councils trying to get good returns on their funds and not taking undue risks with residents' money.

Some council cash has been going into shares and corporate bonds, which are considered riskier than government ones.

The president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals Leong Sze Hian said: 'Corporate bonds are only as good as the company can pay. The risk of a company running out of money is higher than that of the Government.'

Before the new rule, council investments were governed by the Trustees Act, which placed restrictions on some instruments. The new 35 per cent cap is seen as stricter, but no council contacted by The Sunday Times said it would have trouble complying.

The Hong Kah Town Council has about $150 million in its sinking fund, with one-third invested in government bonds returning 2 to 3 per cent. Another third is in short-term fixed deposits with returns of 1.5 to 3 per cent, with the rest handled by fund managers.

The investments can include corporate bonds and stocks, which are riskier. But this portion, handled by fund managers, nets about 8 to 10 per cent in returns a year, said council chairman Ang Mong Seng.

Sinking funds are typically parked in safe investment instruments, such as government bonds and fixed deposits. But a few years ago, many councils felt that they could do better by investing in other instruments, such as shares.

Many then let fund managers invest a bigger portion of their cash and reap better returns.

Something has gone seriously wrong somewhere.

Remember why we pay service and conservancy charges to our town councils every month? So that they can provide public services in our constituencies.

You know, things like getting cleaners to sweep your HDB block; planting trees around your neighbourhood; building a few sheltered walkways; upgrading the children's playground; and renovating the public toilets in your town centre.

Obviously, we have been paying too much.

Why else would the town councils be sitting on more than $1,000,000,000 in excess cash!

And now we see what their big concerns are. Things like how to invest all that money; how much should they dabble in the stock market; how much should be used to purchase bonds; how much should be placed in fixed deposits.

It's as if the town council were a fund manager or a unit trust. Except that you as customer are never going to get a cent back.

They took your cash, and used some of it to maintain the physical facilities of your neighbourhood ... and the rest of your money is for the town council to go and play with, according to their own rules!

And you still have to pay them. Every month.
Gadis Bispak Imut

The Disadvantages of a Pink NRIC

This article illustrates another curious paradox in Singapore, on how citizens are disadvantaged vis-a-viz foreigners.

ST Nov 22, 2007
Jump in locals enrolling in international schools here
Smaller class sizes, less focus on exams and special needs teachers attract Singaporeans
By Sandra Davie

THERE has been a nearly fivefold increase in the number of Singaporean students in international schools here since 2002.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) said 975 Singaporeans are currently enrolled in some of the 40 international schools here, a big jump from the reported figure of 200 five years ago.

Their parents pay as much as $2,000 a month.

This growing number does not include Singaporeans attending the international arm of three local schools - Anglo-Chinese School (International), Hwa Chong International and St Joseph's Institution (SJI) International.

The attraction of the international schools, which cater mainly to children of expatriates, includes smaller class sizes, the broad-based International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum, less emphasis on examinations and wider choice of second-language subjects.

Some parents whose children have special learning difficulties, such as dyslexia, also opt for international schools as they have teachers trained in dealing with special needs children.

However, parents have to seek the MOE's nod to enrol their children in international schools. Approval is given only for exceptional reasons, such as when the child has lived abroad for a long time ...

It is entirely possible for foreigners to enrol in local schools in Singapore - in fact, foreigners now constitute an ever-growing percentage of the student population in our primary schools, secondary schools, junior colleges and universities.

However, Singaporean citizens are not allowed to enroll in international schools in Singapore unless the MOE gives approval. And the MOE gives approval only for "exceptional reasons".

In other words, even if you are very rich and can easily afford the cost of sending your children to an international school in Singapore, you generally won't be allowed to do so.... if you hold a pink NRIC.

Such are the disadvantages of the pink NRIC.

.... the MOE stressed that the Government prefers Singaporeans to attend local schools for the purpose of building a national identity.

'Singaporean children should be educated in an environment that embraces the history and culture of Singapore, in particular, the multi-racial and multi-religious characteristics of Singapore,' said an MOE spokesman, who added that despite the increase, Singaporeans make up only 4 per cent of the total enrolment at international schools.

Gadis Bispak Imut

A New Record for Singapore?

Singapore could be the world's most vocal advocate for the death penalty.

ST Nov 17, 2007
UN resolution calls for capital punishment to be suspended
Singapore leads the charge against non-binding resolution that polarises members

UNITED NATIONS - A UNITED Nations General Assembly committee has passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions with the ultimate goal of abolishing the practice.

The non-binding resolution was given the green light on Thursday after two days of fractious and often bad-tempered debate - with Italy leading the anti-execution camp and Singapore heading the charge for the other side.

The draft proposal was introduced by 87 countries, including 27 European Union (EU) states.

In the end, 99 countries voted for a suspension of capital punishment worldwide, 52 voted against and 33 abstained.

In arguing against the resolution, Singapore said capital punishment is a criminal law issue which should be left to countries to decide.

Singapore's permanent representative to the UN, Mr Vanu Gopala Menon, said ahead of the vote that the EU co-sponsors were trying 'to impose a particular set of beliefs on everyone else'.

'How else can this behaviour be described other than as sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant,' he said.

"You are so intolerant!" Mr Menon cries out to 99 countries in the world. "Why won't you let me kill people just the way I please." No doubt Mr Menon would think that I am sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant too. After all, I am against the death penalty.

There are so many worthy causes in the world that Singapore could potentially champion. Singapore could, for example, use the United Nations to lobby for more coordinated international action to deal with global warming - this is very relevant for us, since rising sea levels pose a threat especially to small island states.

Instead we go to the United Nations, and we forcefully devote our energies into arguing for our sovereign right to kill people. How shameful - and stupid.
Gadis Bispak Imut

Perhaps the Minister is a Little Confused

Either that, or he is engaging in obfuscatory political doublespeak:

ST Nov 13, 2007
Inflation could hit 5% early next year, then taper off
By Li Xueying

AS CONSUMER prices continue to rise, inflation in Singapore will likely surge to 4 or 5 per cent in the first quarter of next year.

But it should taper off by the second half of the year to 'more normal conditions', said Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang yesterday.

The average rate for next year should be around 3 per cent.

Fuelled mainly by rising global oil and food prices, inflation recorded a 13-year high of 2.9 per cent in August. It is expected to dip to 2.7 per cent in the last quarter, Mr Lim told Parliament.

Citigroup economist Chua Hak Bin said that the 5 per cent rate predicted would be a 'historic high' in the 25 years since 1983. The previous high was in July 1991, when it hit 4 per cent.

Most economies, including Singapore's size up inflation by tracking the Consumer Price Index, or CPI. The CPI measures the cost of a basket of goods and services consumed by most households.

Yesterday, Mr Lim cautioned against 'interpreting a rise in the headline CPI as necessarily reflecting an increase in the cost of living'.

It depends on the individual household's spending. 'Switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living despite a rise in the CPI,' he added.

But of course a rise in the CPI reflects an increase in the cost of living. After all, the CPI is meant to track the cost of living. If the CPI does not track the cost of living, then what would you want it for?

As for individual households switching to cheaper products, well, in fact, they have to. That’s the effect of inflation - your dollar has less purchasing power. Therefore with the same amount of dollars, you can only buy cheaper products.

Minister Lim must be confusing “cost of living” with “standard of living”. Cost of living means the cost of maintaining a certain standard of living. In turn, standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services generally available to a certain class of people (for example, average Singaporeans).

Instead of saying that “switching to cheaper products can reduce the cost of living”, Minister Lim would have been more accurate to say, “switching to cheaper products can lower the standard of living”. For example, instead of living in a 5-room HDB flat, you can live in a 1-room HDB flat (a cheaper product). Instead of having chicken rice and vegetables for lunch, you can just eat plain porridge (a cheaper product).

Living in a 1-room HDB flat and eating plain porridge constitutes a lower standard of living. So yes, by switching to cheaper products, you can lower your standard of living. And a lower standard of living does cost less to maintain.

In summary, what is Minister Lim's advice to you? To deal with inflation, lower your standard of living.

Wow, and for telling you that, he even gets a world-class ministerial salary. I bet inflation doesn't bother him much.
Gadis Bispak Imut

Hopping As a Survival Strategy (And I Don't Just Mean Frogs)

For the past five years or so, headhunters have been calling me quite regularly.

Typically, they begin by introducing themselves and their search firm. They then ask if this is a convenient time to talk (they know that you might be in your office area with your boss or colleagues nearby).

If convenient, they say that they have an interesting job opportunity and could they please have a minute to tell you about it.

Next comes a quick rundown on the JD ("job description") - the role, the responsibilities, the required experience, the reporting line and so on.

At this stage, they won't reveal their client's name, but they will give a general description - for example, "one of the biggest UK banks" - which, coupled with the JD, is often enough for you to make a good guess.

If you say you're not interested, they'll ask you why. If your reason is not particularly compelling, they'll persuade you to reconsider.

If your reason is compelling, and furthermore conveyed in a firm, no-nonsense tone, they will say,''Okay, fine then. But do you happen to know anyone else who might be suitable for the role?".

Here you have a choice. Either you can curtly say, 'No, I do not' and hang up, or you can try to be helpful. I always opt to be helpful. If I know of people whom I think could be suitable and interested, I pass their names on to the headhunter.

It is a good idea to be nice to headhunters, because you never know when you might want or need their help in finding a new job.

Just last Friday I had lunch with a headhunter. We have lunch every few months or so.

We have known each other from uni days, so we are also old friends. However, I shall be frank - if I were not currently in the banking sector, and he were not currently a banking headhunter, we would not have bothered to keep in touch with each other.

As usual, our lunchtime conversation was mostly me telling him what I know about who works where now doing what kind of work, and him telling me which kind of banks are interested in hiring what kind of people in the foreseeable future.

It is important for me to get regular updates on such market conditions. If there are really significantly superior opportunities elsewhere, it would be foolish not to try for them.

By "superior opportunities", I don't mean just money (although that is definitely very important) but the total package of all relevant factors. For example, these factors would include the opportunity to learn new skills, join a top brand name, move up the management ladder, join a place with better working culture, and so on.

Contrary to what Minister Lim Swee Say recently said, job-hopping is neither necessarily greedy nor necessarily short-sighted. In fact, it is the far-sighted people who would regularly review their career plans, options and strategies.

Many parts of the banking industry have done very well in the past few years. However, some parts of the banking industry have been doing very badly in the past few months. That's all thanks to the US subprime crisis, and the spillover effects.

As a result, a significant number of very high-flying banking professionals overseas have suddenly lost their jobs. They include no less than Chuck Prince and Stan O'Neal, the now ex-Chief Executives of Citigroup and Merrill Lynch respectively.

And of course, many others lower down the food chain.

So the question is how long the subprime crisis will last; how bad the spillover effects will be; and how severely Asia will be affected.

And whether, say, sometime in 2008, banking professionals in Singapore specialising in certain types of banking work (CDOs; structured finance; credit derivatives; debt capital markets; perhaps even IPO work) will also start losing their jobs or suffering drastic pay cuts.

Of course I hope the answer is no, but at this point in time, well, who can say for sure. So I'm looking ahead, getting news from my headhunter friend, finding out the trends in the banks' hiring plans for 2008.

If I suddenly have to move, at least I have a few backup ideas and I have got some sense of which areas still have demand and where I can quickly try to move to. In other words, I won't be caught off-guard and wrong-footed.

Unlike 2WO Henry Minjoot.

Gadis Bispak Imut

So Mixed-Race Marriages Are Approximately As Bad As Homosexuality

ST Nov 3, 2007
Chinese least open to mixed marriage
Survey finds that race matters more in marriage, less in public sphere
By Jeremy Au Yong

MIXED-race couples may be an increasingly common sight in Singapore, but a new survey shows many are still firmly against it.

According to a study on race and religious relations released yesterday, such marriages continued to be the stickiest point for each racial group.

While nearly everyone was fine with having someone of a different race as their teacher, doctor, boss, co-worker or employee, those willing to marry outside their race were a minority.

And it was the Chinese, according to the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies survey, that were the least open to the idea.

Only 31 per cent, or fewer than one in three, said they would marry a Malay or an Indian. Also, about a quarter would mind their siblings having a Malay or Indian spouse.

Oh, look. The percentage of Chinese who would not marry a Malay or an Indian is almost exactly the same percentage of Singaporeans who do not approve of homosexuality (according to this NTU survey).

Well, interracial couples in Singapore have it lucky. The Chinese may frown on them, just as much as the general public frowns on homosexuals. But unlike the case of the homosexuals, at least no one is arguing that based on the survey, interracial marriage should be criminalised and all the relevant husbands and wives should be thrown in jail.

Duh. Sometimes the world really tires me. So much low-IQ prejudice, everywhere I look.
Gadis Bispak Imut

Dr Thio Li Ann's Infamous Speech

Recently, NMP Thio Li-Ann received what she described as "hate mail". Personally I would describe it as karma.

Looking around the Internet, it appears that a great number of Singaporeans do find Thio Li-Ann's own behaviour quite hateful. Click here, here, here, here, here and here, for a few examples.

What happened? Last week Thio Li-Ann had gone to Parliament on a mission to attack the rights of gay people. I believe that she set a new national record. Her now-infamous speech has probably made her the most intensely disliked NMP in the entire history of Singapore. Among gays and straights.

I am quite serious. Which other Nominated Member of Parliament, past or present, has ever attracted such a storm of angry, negative comments from the general public of Singapore? You tell me.

Even the respectable, gentlemanly Dr Cherian George from NTU (also Stanford, Columbia and Cambridge University) could not find a single good thing to say about Thio Li-Ann's speech. Here's Cherian, in his own words:

" .... more distressing than the final result of the debate was the retrogressive speech by the high-flying legal scholar Thio Li-Ann. Her convoluted, caricatured rendering of political philosophy and comparative politics needed to be corrected by good political science, but she got away with it in Parliament. Her theories about what constitutes a minority could have been debunked by any graduate student of sociology or anthropology, but this did not stop her.

Then there was Thio’s tasteless digs at homosexual sex, which some of her comrades considered witty, but really deserved no place in the highest forum in the land. Thio has been celebrated for supposedly speaking up for the silent majority. This is an insult to the majority, most of whom have the basic decency to know the difference between what should be uttered in public and what should be confined to close friends or private blogs.

Thio also did a disservice to the majority of God-fearing Singaporeans – we who would like to believe that our faiths are ultimately about compassion, not the hateful, hurtful cheap shots that Thio felt compelled to deliver on our behalf. How I wished a theology professor or other religious scholar would have stepped into the debate at that point, to show how it might be possible to express a faith-based objection to homosexuality – minus the hate speech .

"Hate speech". Wow, wow. Isn't that a rather harsh sin for one distinguished professor to accuse another distinguished professor of? I wish I could say that Cherian was exaggerating. Unfortunately I think that Cherian was just being his usual self. That is to say - very perceptive, very accurate and very precise with his choice of words.

See for yourself what hate speech means. Note how the term is legally defined under the laws of Ireland, Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway - "... publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation" etc.

Then ask yourself whether Thio Li-Ann's parliamentary speech would have constituted a criminal offence, if she had made that speech in any of those countries. Although I, as an ex-Deputy Public Prosecutor, have prosecuted crimes only in Singapore, and not in any of those other countries, I personally think that the chances would be ... high!

And so this is a rather sad moment in the history of Singapore. Hate speech has made its own way into Parliament. For so many years, Singapore has placed significant restraints on the freedom of speech, supposedly as a trade-off for ensuring the greater good of social harmony and peace. Yet hate speech has managed to make its own way into Parliament.

And according to reports, it even gained the noisy, boisterous support of some chair-thumping PAP Members of Parliament.

What happened? Where did we go wrong? What a sad moment this is, for Singapore. Prime Minister Lee, you should consider reviewing the selection process for NMPs.
Gadis Bispak Imut