Category: Rants

Random Discourse – Hair Cut and Police Report

2 comments

One of the latest brouhaha has got to be the case whereby a mother made a police report over the matter of a teacher taking her son to a haircut.

I had many discussions with separate friends on the matter of education and discipline in school. One of the things we all agreed on: if we were to let our parents know we have been punished / disciplined in school, we will be given a perhaps even more unpleasant “2nd helping” at home. It doesn’t matter whether we are in the right or wrong, because in our parents opinion, such things simply shouldn’t happen. If the school / teacher chooses to punish us – we must have done something in the wrong. In other words, our parents defer to the decision of the school. Perhaps they believed that above teaching us about how to read and write, and on science and humanities, a school also teaches us on how to be proper human beings. Respecting order and authority was the rule of the day back then, even though as youngsters we often resent that. Yet, as we grew older, we understand the necessity of that even though it maybe fraught with abuse. While abuse must be stopped, it is not by means of ‘throwing out the baby with the bath water’.

At the present, society has downgraded the role of teachers from being a mentor and a moral example to nothing more than an instructor or a trainer. Granted, teachers are definitely no paragon of virtue, but I can bet those of us who remember their teachers fondly would recall how some of the sterner ones left a mark on our values and our world views to shape us into what we have become. These days teachers are no longer accorded a lot of respect because parents with equal or better education no longer think highly of them. Teachers and the school have lost the parents’ backing on disciplinary actions. With that, the meaning of education has been completely redefined to mean nothing more than instructing a person the knowledge to work in society, instead of teaching them what it meant to be a person and to live in harmony with one another and the environment. If we take away the religious aspect of some teachings, like those of Buddha and Jesus, we can see their basic objective was simply to ensure that all human beings follow certain guidelines and recognise what is good and evil. Even the Age of Philosophy which sprouted in China during the Spring and Autumn period of the Eastern Zhou dynasty, was a response to the collapse of order and traditions in that period whereby learned people and scholars (such as Confucius) present their ideas on how order can be restored (either through education, philosophical enlightenment or harsh laws) where man can live in mutual respect of one another and with civility. That is why Confucius is lauded as an educator – because education is not only about understanding the science (e.g. the natural order of the world around us), but also about proper behavior and social order. My point is simply, we have long lost our understanding of what education really should be.

The teaching of values and building character has long been completely displaced in schools. That is why these days we even hear arguments that students are ‘customers’, complete with a sleep inducing narrative on that matter. Thus, the modern day school has generally stopped doing so to avoid unnecessary confrontation with parents. After all, some parents argued that the mentoring of a child, teaching them manners and what is good and evil, and discipline is the department of parenting. In their opinion, the school and / or the teachers should have nothing to do with it. Just teach children the ABCs, the mathematics and the science and ensure they get the straight As and be done with it. In extension, the government has also retreated from that arena as any attempt to do so will be followed by accusation of fascism, and it will be decried for imposing its values on the next generation or attempting to indoctrinate the young.

That maybe partially true, considering how some of us born in the formative years of Singapore are raised and how we have been taught in school. Unfortunately, a lot of parents are unaware of the role they have to play and has thus failed dismally. What follows is that the young and impressionable has no one at home or in school to look up to, and whatever that awes and inspires them – in most cases idols of popular culture, which are some of the worst examples – moved in to fill that vacuum. Worst yet, parents try to make up for the lack of presence in their children’s lives, and to demonstrate their love, by showering their children with material wants. It is of no surprise that some children even refused to sit still to consume their meals without a tablet computer playing their favorite cartoon placed before them.

A sense of entitlement thus take hold, and as children grow older and become bolder in expressing their views, parents find it even harder to punish what is wrong. They believed that the best way to love their children is to make them fell good. Even though I am not a parent, I see that as a kind of dereliction of duty. In my opinion that parents should never shirk from the responsibility of teaching a child what is right apart from what is wrong. In many cases, not only is the wrong not punished but rewarded – for e.g. a father trying to make peace with his son by buying him the latest gadget – which thus renders the purpose of rewarding success and doing right entirely meaningless. Just what incentive is there to make the effort to do the different thing when the current method of getting their way simply works? Even when parents may be rewarding a child for his success, the offer to reward is given before hand to entice the child to do so which thus gives them the impression that there is no reason to do better unless there is a reward. It has become quite a norm for children to demand for a reward when asked to do something. Isn’t it sad, that we need to entice people to do what should be done with rewards, and thus made doing what is right or good the exception other than the norm?

To avoid punishing a child for fear of hurting the child momentarily is not love, it is giving them the false impression that the world which is harsh in nature is a warm and fuzzy place. In effect, parents have denied their children the true joy of learning and growing up. Parents failed to see that they are only setting their children up for greater failures in the future – whereby one simple setback would be good enough to cause them to despair and never to pick themselves up again. For e.g. Eagles pushed their chicks off their nests on high cliffs, and then pick them up at the last moment, to teach them how to fly. If eagles feared that their chicks will fall to their deaths, then the chicks will never grow up to soar the skies.

This is how I see it when I read that the child in this case locked himself up for days after that haircut (a standard 4×2 according to some), which in my opinion was really not so bad at all from the few photos shown on the papers. The mother seems to have simply just allowed the child to throw his tantrums for days without giving him guidance on how to handle the matter or to smoothen things out. While I agree it is within the mother’s right to express her concern for her child and even to protest what she perceived to be the high-handedness of the teacher in handling the matter, a police report was an over-reaction and completely unnecessary. Furthermore, I felt there was no need for the teacher to apologise, since the child was not singled out to be discriminated or punished. To force the teacher to do so would simply immobilise the other teachers, depriving them of the power to act when necessary. While the letter to inform the parent did not effectively reach her, that was a matter of communication failure and not so much the fault of the school or the teacher. In fact, this poor teacher had the very unpleasant task of enforcing the school rules only to be hang out to dry by the school and the Ministry of Education, which clearly has not only failed to provide the guidelines to back the teacher, but also to show them where the line is.

An old classmate who has been in the teaching profession for many years mentioned this, “Why is everyone focussing on the hair? It is just a snip. Did it occur to you that the teacher didn’t want to see the student get kicked out of the exam hall and bit the bullet?”. He has a good point. After all, the teacher has taken an action which is in the best interest of the child. In Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is stated that: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”.

It is of no wonder that my friends who has previously been teachers or police constables have such low morale. Other than the teacher, the police constable who had to record the complaints of the parent probably felt he has better things to do in service of the public. From a certain point of view, I felt even getting caught for sleeping in a patrol car in a deserted corner of a multi-storey carpark would have been better for morale than to handle the mother’s police report.

It is of no surprise why more people seems unable to act, or simply refused to do the right thing. After all, if doing something comes with the risks of taking the rap when it goes wrong, then it is best to just do nothing. It reminds me of Pigsy in the “Journey to the West” story, which often did nothing and is the fastest to take credit. Meanwhile, Wukong (the monkey god) often gets the rap and punishment from the Monk Tripitaka (Xuanzang) for doing what is right and necessary, and in the best interest of the party. But that will be for another post, when I get my thoughts more organised to put that down in writing.

Disjointed Thoughts – August 2012

Leave a comment

I have been noticing that there is increased amount of unsafe driving on our roads. Today, my wife was driving and I was in the passenger seat. During the 2 way trip, there were 3 incidents. First, as our lane was blocked for work, my wife tried to pull into the next lane, after indicating. A van which was well behind then deliberately moved much much faster, and to make sure we couldn’t pull into the lane. Second I saw a SUV zip in and out, almost causing an accident – without bothering to indicate. Third, a lorry simply came into our lane, without indication and without giving enough allowance – almost an accident. The driver simply didnt care because of the lorry’s size. I wonder if it is the case that we are simply noticing this more, or if indeed our driving habits have become worse.

The above status update was posted on a minister’s Facebook page. It is true that the driving habits of some people are atrocious, but what took the minister so long to notice? As far as I am concerned, it’s a clear sign that he has been out of touch for too long.

Though many had lauded him for his opinion simply because of his office, I looked at it as just another whining motorist. First of all, the information that a particular lane is blocked for roadworks (or whatever) is often displayed on the Expressway Monitoring Advisory System [EMAS] quite a distance away. In most cases, a motorist would have passed under at least one of those EMAS electronic signboards, and thus have ample time to switch lanes. Unfortunately, a lot of people often ignored the information on EMAS and stayed on their lanes until too late – i.e. when there simply isn’t enough road left to do so safely while maintaining speed. As a result, an entire lane often comes to a complete halt. The chain reaction that followed causes the entire stretch of the Expressway to become congested because everyone would be attempting to change lane, with the vehicles nearest to the block doing so from a stationary position. Now, if I am moving along the next lane and someone tries to filter into my lane from a stationary position, that other driver can do so after I have driven past. Otherwise, I would have to slow down and suffer the inconvenience of being delayed. Just because someone has indicated that he wants to switch over to my lane doesn’t mean I am obliged to do so even though it is a gracious thing to do. Thus, I can understand why the van driver deliberately drove faster. That’s not mentioning, if the road has been congested, the van driver might have been frustrated with the slow moving traffic for a some time already and could tolerate no further delay. Unless the minister wasn’t traveling on the Expressway, the fact that the minister’s wife ignored those notices on EMAS and changed lane only when it is too late would suggest to me that she is among one of those people with a bad driving habit as well.

Next, I wouldn’t condone the action of the SUV driver who zip in and out of traffic. However, that points out another issue. A lot of people drives on the rightmost lane (or lane 1) on any road at speed limit. They drove like that lane belonged to their grandfather, and they are completely oblivious to the concept of an overtaking lane means nor have the common sense to leave that lane even when they noticed a fast oncoming vehicle. Granted the other driver maybe speeding and driving dangerously, it takes just a few seconds to get out of the way and let the other fellow overtake and be on his merry way (or rush on to his death, if you will). I have come to believe many drivers are in a world or their own, or they simply have an ego too big for their own good. That in itself is not surprising, since Singaporeans also behaved the same way when walking in a crowded passageway or shopping mall. That’s not forgetting that everyone paid a king’s ransom to own a vehicle for 10 years.

Slow moving lorries leaving the leftmost lane only make it worse. Not only are they a hazard to other road users, they simply slow traffic down. It is my considered opinion that the SUV driver is not solely responsible for his behavior. He may not have been driving that way had everyone been more considerate. In fact, we should subject a lot of drivers to a annual re-certification driving test since a lot of them apparently throw their highway code out of the window after they get their driving license. But I doubt the minister would care about the finer details of the can of worms he just opened. Frankly, I think this is just the excuse for the traffic police to take strong action against “errant motorists” and increase the revenue of the state coffers.

~ * ~

I think there is a little bit of disconnect between a very vocal small groups online and what I see on the ground… two examples you gave – housing and foreigners… you know, the common appeals I get at MPS, housing is one of them… No one… oh, I won’t say no one, but very very few people are coming forward and complaining that the housing issue is that they can’t afford a flat. Actually it’s the other way around. They are complaining that they can afford a flat but they’re not getting one fast enough…

Take foreigners, for example. I don’t have people coming to me and say there are too many foreigners… but the people that I speak to are asking for the reverse. Most of the residents who are coming to me, their appeals are the reverse, they are asking for help in bringing their relatives in, on a long-term pass, or to get PR or citizenship. A significant number are business owners asking for help in bringing in foreign labour because they just can’t employ Singaporeans.

If there is any disconnect, that disconnect exists between this People’s Action Party [PAP] Member of Parliament [MP] and a large portion of the electorate. Then again, what can we expect from Mr Puthucheary, who has never served National Service? While it is true that Khaw Boon Wan – the current Minister of National Development – is increasing the number of flats built in the next few years to increase availability, it is clear to most people that affordability of the flats is a separate matter entirely. Unless Mr Puthucheary has done some calculation on his own for those residents, I am not sure how he could assert that those people who came to him complaining about the lack of flats really could afford it. That’s not forgetting that if I am telling someone to increase the supply of something, I would definitely be talking about the people who can afford it but not able to get it due to the supply issue.

Few would deny that some employers wants very badly to employ foreigners, and they are not getting enough of them. Has Mr Puthucheary find out whether they can’t employ Singaporeans, or they just won’t? I doubt he bothered. He simply want to portray reality in a way favorable to his party. Since he also mentioned that those seeking his help are asking to bring their relatives into Singapore, wouldn’t that indicate these aren’t local-born Singaporeans? So, why would they be complaining about… themselves? Even if these are new citizen, are they indicative of most Singaporeans in general?

Mr. Puthucheary not only showed the disconnect between the PAP and the people, he has reinforce what some of us have known for some time – i.e. the PAP’s claims that only it has the best candidates is an utter farce. In his haste to try and refute what a large number of people already know and experienced, and in his vain attempt to discredit opposing views as just vocal small groups online, he has forgotten that 39.9% of voters – which certainly isn’t just vocal small groups online – felt very differently and voted the other way in the last General Elections.

Try “try harder”, Mr Puthucheary. Or just continue to serve National Serivce as a doctor.

By the way, saving lives is the duty of a doctor. To argue it is a form of national service is to suggest that a life-saving doctor is an exception rather than the norm. I simply can’t think of a greater insult to the other doctors who are tirelessly doing their part to save lives.

~ * ~

Declaring the issue to be “of real public interest”, the Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision and allowed an application to proceed to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men. In a 106-page written judgment, Justice Rajah said:

We emphasise that we are not deciding here that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 12 as that goes to the merits of the Application, but are instead merely deciding that it is arguably so, which suffices for the present appeal on the preliminary issue of whether the Application should be struck out. The constitutionality or otherwise of Section 377A is thus of real public interest. We also note that Section 377A has other effects beyond criminal sanctions. One unwanted effect of Section 377A is that it may also make criminals out of victims.

The judge has a good point. The fact that Section 377A is vague means that if a victim is being forced to perform fellatio or is violated in his anus, he may also be charged under Section 377A. As such, I believe the law itself needs to be amended and refined to protect victims.

Since the Attorney-General position is there is “no real and credible threat of prosecution” under Section 377A for private consensual sexual acts between two adult males, and that there are ministerial statements made in Parliament indicating the law will not be “proactively” enforced, then Section 377A should explicitly indicate that anyone who does so in public places like a public toilet (even while in the privacy of a cubicle) should be punished, even when both are in mutual consent.

However, the matter of whether the provisions of Section 377A affects the lives of “a not insignificant portion of the community” is actually irrelevant. In any case, any figures – either official or estimates – are open to debate. If the figures are too low, homosexual lobbyists will insist many remained in the closet and refused to be counted. If they are too high, conservatives will challenge that those figures are inflated.

Just as not every heterosexual who engages in sex are doing it because they have any feelings for one another, the same goes for some who engage in the activities stipulated under Section 377A. In other words, I see no reason why this particular group should go unpunished – the same way the law punishes someone who patronises an underage prostitute, or someone who have sex in public. If this judicial decision results in the repeal of Section 377A, it would be the equivalent of throwing out the baby along with the bath water.

~ * ~

Current Affairs – Feng Tianwei and Olympic Medals

2 comments

There are good reasons to celebrate Feng Tianwei’s bronze medal at the Olympics, as much as not celebrating it. But for anyone to shame their detractors with the comment in the picture shown here, it will only strengthen the resolve of those who felt no pride to not support foreign-born Singaporean sportsmen. It does nothing to reconcile and unify us, other than to continue to tears us apart.

To the person who said this, please don’t forget a lot of Singaporean males gave 2 years of their valuable life to serve National Service, even though I have read on Facebook the comment of a certain Balaji Narasimhan – if I am not wrong, a second generation immigrant – who considered that as nothing but a walk in the park. It begs the question, has the person who made this comment (in the picture) done something spectacular to put Singapore on the world map and make Singapore proud? If he was just another who did fairly much “nothing”, then who the hell is he to berate us when he is the same? Shame on this self-righteous hypocrite who has taken shamelessness to a even higher level.

Back to the matter of feeling no pride over Feng’s win. In my case, there is no reason for me not to cheer for her win. Beyond the politics, it was a personal achievement – one that her own hard work has paid off. I wouldn’t deny I would have felt a lot more pride had a local-born Singaporean won. An old primary school classmate and I had a discussion separately on this matter, and one of things that came up during the discussion was that a lot of Singaporeans had no reason to feel pride in her win because they felt Feng does not represent us. He has a good point, and from a certain perspective I agree because I also felt Feng does not represent the Singapore that I grew up in – i.e. the Singapore where we have our emotional attachment as our place of birth. Above that, it is the Singapore that we grow up in it and one we felt grew up together with us. When we feel proud of the person we grow up into, we also feel proud of Singapore. Feng Tianwei, unfortunately, cannot and will never be able to represent that emotional Singapore – the one in our hearts is very different from the one we lived in. She represented a Singapore that we could no longer feel emotionally attached to. In a certain sense, Singapore and many Singaporeans are now like two friends who has grown up together and yet become alienated. It is a matter of national identity and not so much an objection to Feng’s foreign-born status.

Fellow blogger Darryl Kang (more well known as DK) mentioned in his comment on one of my status, he would have felt better had Feng only discovered her talent after coming to Singapore instead of being “cradle-snatched from China” (in my words). His comment reminded me of another reasons by those who felt no pride – that Feng could leave Singapore and return to China at the first sign of trouble. Meanwhile, there is of course the question of priority, as some felt we have more pressing concerns than winning an Olympic medal. Thus, there is the question of who really desired an Olympic medal – is it Singaporeans, or just the People’s Action Party [PAP] government which has generally nothing to show for their mediocrity?

All of these are good and valid reasons. Something that the PAP leaders have obviously chosen to overlook as now they come out full force to try and vindicate their so-called “foreign talent” policies. The PAP tries so hard to vindicate it that they lumped them together into one homogeneous group. When Goh Chok Tong was confronted with the question, he replied with the comment “Who’s going to build your HDB flat?” When Ng Eng Hen talked about it recently, he said “… for example in essential services, we need people to build our homes, man our hospitals, so on and so forth.”

It is utmost insulting that the PAP continues to try and befuddle the people. A lot of people I talked to, have a clear idea the difference between the foreign investor, the foreign migrant worker and then the so-called “foreign talent” competing with Singaporeans on the PMET level. It is shameful and appalling that those who claimed to the top talents and cream of the crop of this country failed to see that even while the people could. Singaporeans do appreciate the foreign migrant worker building our homes, keeping our estates and food courts clean. We also welcome foreign investments and in particular tourists who will be a boon to our country. But it is on the PMET level that we Singaporeans have been asking all along whether Singapore has failed to produce the numbers to fill the jobs that have been created, and whether truly that all of these filling PMET roles are truly the talent they claimed to be. Except for the unreasonable, Singaporeans can understand that if 10000 jobs are created and we can only fill 8000, then 2000 foreigners are needed to make an investor set up shop here. When Singaporeans see that 6 out of 10 jobs are going to foreigners, then Singaporeans have a right to question the policies because the facts obviously doesn’t match what we have been told. Is that so hard for the Men-In-White to understand? Using Feng Tianwei to say that “Foreign Talents is the way to go” is not only an insult to Singaporeans, it betrays the contempt the PAP leaders have towards native-born Singaporeans. That, is yet another reason why some of us rejected Feng Tianwei, even when it is probably of no fault of her own for those to dislike her. Native-born Singaporeans felt aggrieved because of this blatant unequal treatment coming from those who claimed they have been elected to serve. But who, and what, are the PAP politicians really serving?

Feng Tianwei, and some of those “foreign talents” that we rant often about, are really different matters entirely. Feng Tianwei, does not compete with most Singaporeans for a job even while she might add on to the strain in housing and transportation. She (and in fact a lot of other foreign-born athletes) did not wake up one day and decided she wants to come to Singapore to be a sportsmen and pursue her dreams. In fact, agents from Singapore probably go to a foreign country and made some of them an offer, “Your talent can bring Singapore something that we desired. If you forsake your homeland and be one of us, you get a shot at personal glory and a better life.” Offered something similar, a lot of us would have grabbed that opportunity as well. It was a chance and an offer she took, but don’t forget it is not an easy decision to make. Some of us often talked about how we wouldn’t hesitate to leave and work in another country if given the opportunity, but when that comes by we also turned it down because of our attachment to our family and home. What I am trying to say here, is that it is not easy for someone to make that decision.

I will stand firm on my opposition to this so-called “foreign talent” and immigrant policy which affected us the most, but that would not include the part on sports. Call me an hypocrite, but let me point out that an old friend for almost twenty years reminded me that Tan Howe Liang (the other Olympic medalist) was born in Swatow and came to Singapore at the age of 4 (refer to Wikipedia). Let us all be honest with ourselves. Would we have at the present day celebrated his win if he won his medal today when he is often cited as an example of a “true local talent”? Or would we have instead said, “Chey, born in China what!?”

That brings me to the next part of this post. Whatever anger we have at this sham of a “foreign talent” and immigrant policy, it should be directed at the policy makers. We should avoid directing at the entire community of foreigners. There are of course black sheep among them, but let us be very specific about who and what we are angry about. That is why I generally avoid the garbage that is on all flavors of those political and current affairs websites bearing the name “Temasek”, or claiming to be presenting the views of “The Real Singapore”. Having an opinion, and being a bigot are distinctively different matters entirely.

Back to the matter about Feng Tianwei and foreign born sportsmen. Another reason why some Singaporeans are not happy (if not upset) about her win is the prize money she has won. My colleague was helpful enough to show me the Wikipedia on her. The girl has won an impressive number of medals and this isn’t the only one she won. Granted, she probably get other awards for those wins, I have to point out that an athlete is a profession that very much relies on ones youth and vigor. To put it in an analogy, just like a shooting star they often burn bright but they burn out fast. Once they are past their prime there are really very little option left for them and thus they have to make as much money as possible in that short span of time for their entire lifetime. Those who succeed may become coaches or trainers, but those who failed can only fade into obscurity. Consider again Tan Howe Liang, what else did the nation do for him?

Anyway, the colleague who sent me the Wikipedia page on Feng mentioned that Ronald Susilo also runs a small shop selling badminton equipment in her neighborhood. On looking up the Wikipedia page on him, I can see that he is at least not doing too badly. Meanwhile, I see a number foreign-borns in our national squad. So for those who are saying how Feng Tianwei are ripping us all off, consider the plight of those who may never have made it at all. They may possibly return home because they are not welcomed here, and perhaps even live with shame while their former countrymen looked upon them as traitors who paid the price for failing to make it. My plea is that we take note of that while we lash out, because it does us all no good to hurt some people who might really want to make their new home here. Frankly, why do we begrudge Feng Tianwei for the prize money she won, when very few of us would bat an eye when soccer players are paid top money to play in a foreign football club, while at times not live up to their part of the bargain?

My point is this. It maybe probably true that when Feng is past her prime, she might return to her land of birth. But it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy when we continued to treat her as the other. I am not asking anyone to embrace her simply because she has won, but to at least offer our hospitality to her so she would stay and pass on her experiences and skills to the next generation of players. Regardless of what our opinion about her is and how we felt about the thrice-damned, infernal “foreign talent” policies that has brought hardships upon us, ensuring that Feng Tianwei feels at home and remain behind maybe our best shot to fulfilling our dreams of having a native-born Olympic medalist. My opinion is, even when we don’t like something, we Singaporeans have a heart big enough to accept something that has already happened and try to make the best out of it.

That said, we also need to change our mindset that there will only be a life with academic qualifications. As long as we continue to believe that the people who don’t study hard will end up as road-sweepers, and that there are alternate career options in the minds of parents, then we can more or less forget about having our native-born Olympic medalist. In fact, most of us heartlanders can forget about that aspiration because it simply means only people with the money and wealth can pursue such a dream.

Disjointed Thoughts – July 2012

Leave a comment

Well, it’s been a busy month. I haven’t had time to blog, and couldn’t think of a lot to say of each of the following. But I do have something to say and I finally found a window to put it down in writing.

A Wang Quancheng, chairman of the Hua Yuan Association, the largest organization representing mainlanders said this: “Of course, the new arrivals are rich or else the government would have to feed them. Some locals are very lazy and live off the government. When new immigrants come, they think it is competition, taking away their rice bowls.”

Some times, it is hard not to hate some of these people. First of all, it is my considered opinion that social assistance is next to non-existent in Singapore. And I said it is next to non-existent because you may argue that there’s a myriad of such assistance around but it means shit to the needy when they don’t know where, or how, to get it. On top of which, that’s not mentioning the “hoops of fire” they need to jump through like some circus animal just to qualify for them.

Indeed, if it is true that lazy locals can live off the government, I wouldn’t be seeing old folks going around collecting paper boxes, or some aunties and uncles going around asking us for the tin cans on our tables in hawker centers. Mr Wang can also explain to me why I saw this old lady who looked unwashed and does not seem to be of sound mind walking around Ayer Rajah Food Center drinking leftover coffee. Maybe she’s not of sound mind, but perhaps she might not have gone bonkers if she didn’t have too many concerns.

Government lackeys and PAP supporter can go ahead and call me a xenophobe for all I cared. it is my considered opinion that perhaps Wang Quancheng need to understand why some of us hate the likes of them. That said, I am not surprised that Wang has a low opinion of some Singaporeans. After all, who has been spinning a tale that Singapore can’t do without foreigners? Who, has been telling the foreigners that without them we will lose our jobs? Who, has always sing the praises of “foreign talents” and made it sound like Singapore are all incompetent good-for-nothings and yet at the same time say our great our universities are and giving bursaries to train the very people who would look down on us later?

What happened to the spirit that we sang of in the patriotic song ‘We are Singapore’?

Please, don’t play this song in the National Day Parade this year. It’s a joke to sing it with its original lyrics. The lion no longer roars. In fact it whimpers in anguish, agony and pain. It has how retreated into a den and awaits its death while hyenas like Wang Quancheng circles and laugh (in true hyena style) victoriously at its plight. Now, we longer dare proudly say we made it even when people don’t think we can. Now, we are officially saying that we will never make it on our own. How pathetic have we gotten?

When will we awaken from our slumber, Singaporeans? We might be wounded and in pain, but we should have more fight left in us. Hyenas can be numerous, but WE. ARE. LIONS. (Now where is that big hole for me to kick this Wang in?)

~ * ~

Someone by the name of Rachel has written to ask Ion Orchard and LTA whether the weekly gathering of foreign (Filipino) women dancing around Orchard Road is… legal.

Thank you very much, Rachel for proving to the world just what kind of idiots some of you are. I certainly have my own gripes about too many foreigners taking up some of the jobs which manpower Singapore can provide, and foreign assholes like Wang Quancheng above. But what you did really takes the cake in racism and xenophobia, even when I think my gripes are actually justified.

There isn’t a finer example of what scoring an own goal looks like than this. Just what exactly is the point of making this complaint? For your information, I noticed that a lot of old folks gathered at void decks to do their morning taichi as well, and in one case I even saw women practicising in sync with swords to loud Chinese music in the evening. A lot of our teenagers gathered at the large underground “cavern” (i.e. the underground crossing) near the Esplanade to do break dancing too.

Had there been a case whereby Singaporeans are disallowed from doing the same I would have understood the point you are trying to make, Rachel. After all, everyone of us have problems with unfair and unequal treatment from the government and the authorities (in particular the law enforcers) towards Singaporeans – such as how that Romanian trash got away after a hit and run, and how two foreigners managed to jump bail after beating up some of our fellow countrymen. That said, I must point out that we all have a problem generally with just unfair and unequal treatment whether it is real or perceived and regardless of their nationality – take for example the case of Woffles Wu. But in the continual discussion and discourse of this matter, we should not allow the PAP or its lackeys to label us all as “xenophobes” and use that as a means to shut us all up using that as a label much like how homo-nazis silence their detractors by labeling them as bigots, haters or homophobes.

I noticed that some of us are also angry with how the PAP labels anyone who has a problem with its immigration and labor policies as “xenophobes”. And knowing that, just why the hell are some of us still walking into the trap? What good is going to forums of Chinese nationals for e.g. and then digging up their anti-Singapore postings? Note, while Obi-Wan Kenobi once said the best thing to do to a trap is to spring it, the point I am trying to made is there is no need to spring the same trap all the time. That’s not forgetting that those traps may hurt some of us who are trying to get to the same destination using another route or from another direction.

~ * ~

Singapore Ducktours will be stopping its HiPPO River Cruises in the area after it did not win the bid to run water taxi services. It took issue with the emphasis on bid price instead of the bidder’s track record and argued that the requirements – including the S$3 price cap on the standard service. The bid was awarded to Global Yellow Pages Limited & Leisure Empire Pte Ltd and Singapore River Cruise Pte Ltd.

Interestingly, the Non-Executive Chairman and Independent Director of Global Yellow Pages Limited is Mah Bow Tan. So that probably explains why he has been absent for 12 out of 25 Parliamentary sessions from the inauguration of the 12th Parliament last year until May 14th this year. He is almost as busy as our ex-Minister Mentor.

A URA spokesman explained that the price cap on the river taxi services were needed to ensure affordability and encourage people to use the services when moving around the Singapore River and Marina Bay area. He reiterated that the provisions of other services such as sightseeing cruises and themed boats were not subjected to price control under the URA’s tender. This was to allow the interested operators to work out a financially viable proposal, he added.

Let’s look at the facts for a moment. There is more reason for tourists than locals to use the river taxis because of the sights in that area – the Merlion, the floating platform at Marina Bay. Marina Bay Sands, the Helix Bridge, and even a view of the Gardens by the Bay. If tourists can get that from these river taxis, then Ducktours’ gripes have merit since it would be driven out of business unless it can provide a more personalised service to them (e,g, like taking the tourists under the Merlion’s water jet for a splash). But if river taxis are going to take us on a roundabout route around these, then they are of no use for our day to day commuting since it’s clearly not going to operate like buses on water?

The URA spokesmen is farting out of his mouth, it appears. If the river taxis are going to be a mode of transport for locals, then it must take us across from Marina Bay Sands to Clifford Pier in under a minute and it should be air-conditioned. Otherwise I can just walk for 15 ~ 20 minutes to get from MBS to Raffles Place. Preferably, it should be able to take me from Marina Bay Sands to Riverside Point at Clarke Quay or to the future Sportshub near Tanjong Rhu in less time I would take to transfer from MRT to bus or a taxi. If not just why the hell I want to dally my time away on it and pay $3 when I could do so in better comfort on alternatives?

I don’t see how are the winning bidders going to survive. I would be pissed if public monies are used to save the operators when the current winning bidders go bust. Still, I think Ducktours just sealed its own fate by making a fuss out of it. It should have just make contingencies to scale down its operations and find creative ways to stay profitable. When the current winners go busts, it can then come back with a vengeance and take over the assets. At that point, it should be able to dictate terms and even get all the existing equipment for fire sale prices. The government might even have hailed them as a savior since it would be helping the government cover up the consequences of yet another of their stupid decisions.

~ * ~

These town councils will be raising the service and conservancy charges (S&CC): Bishan-Toa Payoh, Choa Chu Kang, East Coast, Holland-Bukit Panjang, Tanjong Pagar, Tampines and West Coast. Oh dang, that includes mine.

By the way, the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council was reported to possibly lose its S$8 million investment (6.7% of its sinking funds available for investment) on invested in Lehman Brothers’ Minibond Notes, DBS High Notes 5 and Merrill Lynch’s Jubilee Series 3 Notes. I am not surprised that it is raising the S&CC at all. Ironically, I recalled that when Dr. Teo Ho Pin was confronted in November 2008 about these losses he said, “They (residents) should thank the Town Council for working hard to come up with a diversified portfolio to generate income so that residents do not have to fork out more money.” Guess that didn’t work too well these days. Work harder, Dr Teo! I don’t really care about the whopping rise in electricity tariffs or the spending on lift maintenance post-upgrading. After all, those guys in Aljunied-Hougang apparently didn’t have to pay more. But from your previous answer I guess you will be telling all your constituents that they should be grateful that the increments aren’t more than what they are right now.

As for the spike in cleaning costs with efforts to improve standards and the lot of workers, well… I recalled someone was telling me that we need low costs foreign workers to maintain our living standards. I suppose that didn’t work as planned. Of course, the PAP will tell me that low cost doesn’t mean no cost and costs will always increase. Meantime, we should bite the bullet and keep our wages low because that would drive inflation. I am not really sure how the logic here works but I am quite sure if I have a lot less money to spend then I won’t be consuming the goods that are produced which means companies are not going to make enough profits to increase wages and… erm, nevermind. Feth! That probably explains why they can consider removing GST for gold purchases but not that for food stuffs.

Either way, I have expected the S&CC increment to come sooner or later. After all, I have never truly imagined that the money from the GST vouchers really go to alleviate our lot in life. When the idea for the GST voucher was conceived, the plan to “recover” that money has always been in place. Just look at the electricity bills for starters.

Did anyone really think this government will give us money? I am quite sure only a particular Wang Quancheng thinks so. But then again he’s probably so rich he gets no GST vouchers at all. And I sort of understand why he is unhappy with poorer or the so-called “lazy” Singaporeans. Sour grapes, man!

Commentary – Sex Education and Liberalism

The following is first posted on A Wretch Reformed by a brother-in-Christ. It is reproduced here with his permission and without modification.

Much has already been said about the new sex education curriculum that the Ministry of Education of Singapore (MOE) announced in early July. A cursory glance at the commentaries seems to indicate that a majority disagree with the MOE’s approach, taking specific aim at what the curriculum will teach, i.e. “the importance of the heterosexual married family as the basic unit of society”, and that abstinence is “the best option”.

I must say that I am not surprised at the number of liberal responses out there berating and ridiculing the proposed curriculum. After all, we live in a world that is increasingly sexualized, and where the sacred union called marriage and the family unit are attacked daily and re-defined.

So, faced with the choice to either hold my peace and say nothing at all or utilize my blogging privilege to point out the foolishness of the liberal camp, I chose the latter and that’s why you are reading this post.

Let’s start with this “progressive society” that some love to point to. They contend that if the schools were to teach abstinence, it would set our society back to (gasp!) the Stone Age. It seems that a society or culture is only progressive or advanced if we let teenagers or people do as they please when it comes to sex. The teenagers are going to do it anyway, they say, so why not just teach them the proper method of putting on a condom?

First off, how does this tacit encouragement of premarital sex make us a progressive society? Perhaps they count teenage pregnancies, single mothers, and the murder of countless unborn human beings through abortion, progress? Really?

In her commentary Sexuality education in Singapore – Whose values are we teaching?, Kirsten Han of the Asian Correspondent asserts that abstinence would foster a generation of adults who will think sex and sexuality are dangerous and shameful things, and encourage an environment where those who don’t practice premarital sex are morally better than those who do.

Don’t you find it ironic that while Ms Han is questioning why the MOE would want to impose these “mainstream” values on others, she is actually trying to impose her own set of “mainstream” values on others? I would love to see the statistics on the mental state of these adults who were taught abstinence as teenagers with regards to sex. Without those figures, that’s just her assertion.

Is it such a bad thing to label premarital sex as being immoral? Since when have we as a society begun to call evil good and good evil?

I believe that teaching abstinence to teenagers also teaches them responsibility and respect for another. It takes a strong mind and someone with moral backbone to say “no” to premarital sex when all around you, everyone’s doing it and encouraging you to do it. Not teaching abstinence but tacitly encouraging premarital sex is teaching the young to always find the easy way out–it is always easy to just give in to temptation!

In other words, we cannot start off with the supposition that teenagers are ruled by hormones that cannot be curbed, or that they cannot be brought up with a healthy attitude towards sex in such a way that they understand sex to be sacred between a man and a woman in a marital covenant.

This is where parental oversight is necessary and important–with the increasing sexualization of our society, young people are constantly bombarded with images of sex everywhere. Advertisements, movies, and the easy availability of pornography on the Internet are all contributing to a generation treating sex as nothing but a pastime in an age where the gratification of the “me” is infinitely more important than the collective.

Is abstinence easy? No, but that’s no basis for us not to teach abstinence as the best option against engaging in premarital sex. Here’s a question for those who disagree: knowing that children will lie, do you teach your child how to lie without batting an eyelid or do you teach them to not lie at all? If we follow the liberal logic stated above, then parents and teachers should start classes on “effective” lying.

Secondly, following their logic that we should just provide condoms and teach teenagers how to use them since they are going to engage in premarital sex anyway, we should do the same for other forms of sexual vice, don’t we? After all, the other choice word that liberals love to throw at you is “inclusive”. We aren’t really being inclusive if we leave out the pedophiles, those that practice bestiality and necrophilia and so on, are we?

In the same article mentioned above, Ms Han seems to think that 15,000 people who gathered for Pink Dot 2012 at Hong Lim Park on 30 June more accurately define the “mainstream” values of modern Singapore than, say, the majority of the population who didn’t attend the event. The 15,000-strong turnout, she says, can be “seen as a sign of increasing acceptance of LGBT communities”, and goes on to question if the mainstream heterosexual family unit is still to be considered “mainstream” when seen in that context.

Huh? Really?

I seriously doubt that “mainstream”, God-ordained values such as the heterosexual family unit will be thrown out of the window just because 15,000 people went to support “the right of everyone to love and be part of society, regardless of sexual orientation.” at Hong Lim Park. If nothing else, this assumption of hers was just another push for the LGBT agenda. Again, note the irony I pointed out above.

In conclusion, I applaud the Ministry of Education for doing the right thing. The teaching of abstinence as the “best option” and the importance of the “heterosexual family unit” are, in my opinion, all the more important in this day and age. In a society where social mores are eroding and in a world where even the sacred institution of marriage and gender identity are being redefined, we need to continuously uphold these pillars of a strong and healthy society. There is no turning back the clock once the pillars crumble, and the consequences of a total breakdown will be dire.

The above post has expressed my views too. To add, can it be denied that abstinence is the most effective in deterring sexually transmitted infections and diseases, and unwanted pregnancies (and the horrific consequence of abortion that often comes with that)? While abstinence is the hardest to achieve, that doesn’t mean we forego it entirely even though I am not against teaching male teenagers how to use a condom. But we shouldn’t go so far as to provide the condoms.

As for Pink Dot, another acquaintance wrote on his blog that he hoped that one day we will all accept the freedom of people to love. That, is a fallacy. There has always been a freedom to love. We are all free to love our friends, our pet and even our gadgets. But there are different levels of love and there are boundaries to them. For e.g. if I have a brother, I will love him as one because we are kin. But I will not consider marrying him. I can love another male as a good friend, a good brother, maybe even a good mentor, but I won’t consider marrying him either. In fact, I won’t considering marrying my pet, or my tablet either even if I loved them as dear as my life. So why are we even talking about accepting the freedom to love when there was never in fact, any objection in the first place?

Since I am now on the matter of Pink Dot, I would also like to address the comment of that same acquaintance who further wrote that he hope to see Section 377A repealed one day. I am curious that the matter of Section 377A always come up when matters of homosexuality are discussed. First of all, Section 377A does not affect lesbians. Though it would also subject homosexual and bisexual males to punishment under the law, the law did not specifically single just them out for punishment when it would also punish any other man who would ‘just stick his penis into someone’s anus’ for sexual pleasure or humiliation, and also those who are offering sexual services to other men with such desires.

Now, if Pink Dot is all about the freedom to love then Section 377A should not even be on its agenda since love and sex are not one and the same even though they are not mutually exclusive. Even if I grant those behind the Pink Dot movement that their main objective is about love, and removing the social stigma and discrimination of homosexual people, the impression they are giving me is that they are also promoting the rights of those whose would love to see Section 377A repealed for some other, more personal agenda (see the screen capture of an SMS received by a friend).

It is these people I object to. Is this what you would call love? I am sure not every homosexual person is like this, but if you don’t consider the proposal in this SMS to be plain wrong, then let us agree to disagree. Call me a homophobic hater for all I cared, but over here in my country, homosexual people have equal rights to health care and jobs opportunities, and also universal suffrage. Those who are clamoring loudly against discrimination here would be a lot less hypocritical if they are fighting for any homosexual person’s right to live in those countries that would execute them.

1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 99