Most incompetent group of PAP leaders ever in power?

[theDoors]

After watching the documentary on Dr Goh Keng Swee, there is no doubt on my mind that the current PAP leaders are the most incompetent group that ever took power.

Serving up a dish of slow-cooked frog leg stew, Singapore style

June 12th, 2010 | Author: Your Correspondent
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/0...of-slow-cooked-frog-leg-stew-singapore-style/

Government or government-linked organizations have been making the news very regularly over the last few years, very often for the wrong reasons. Unsurprisingly, these failings have caused a fair amount of disquiet among the general population and have seriously undermined public confidence in the Civil Service and government linked companies (GLCs). These blunders have led to many Singaporeans wondering what has gone wrong in the country, where the Civil Service had previously been known for its efficiency, and what direction it appears to be heading.

SMRT Corporation

In the most recent incident, two expatriates broke into SMRT Changi Depot and vandalized a train. The incident was only discovered after a video of the vandalized train was posted on popular Internet video-sharing site Youtube. Laughably, the company first claimed that its staff thought that the graffiti spray-painted onto the side of the train was an officially-sanctioned work of art, which was why it was put into service. Later, in an even more ridiculous comment, company president Mdm Saw Phaik Hua stated that the incident proved that the public should maintain vigilance in the MRT system, totally ignoring (or perhaps ignorant of) the fact that Changi Depot, the scene of the crime, is not accessible to the public.

Perhaps Mdm Saw should set an example for the public and all SMRT staff by patrolling the depot herself. And perhaps she should also offer unlimited free rides on the trains and TIBS buses for all passengers, the same benefit that all SMRT staff receive since she expects them to perform the duties of her company’s staff in maintaining security for them.

Marina Bay Sands

This is just the latest embarrassment to hit a GLC or the Civil Service. In a previous incident, integrated resort (IR) Marina Bay Sands (MBS) suffered a series of humiliating power failures that disrupted the Asia-Pacific Bar Conference (APBC) that was being held there. MBS has filed a lawsuit against the APBC for non-payment of $300,000/- for hosting the seminar. In response, the APBC countersued MBS for the fiasco, not unreasonably claiming that the onus was on the company to ensure that its facilities were able and ready to host such an event. One wonders why MBS was allowed to open when it is very clear that it is far from completed. After all, construction sites aren’t exactly the safest places to be around.

On the other hand, construction sites do have lots of holes in the ground in which to hide objects one does not want found, and there’s plenty of concrete around should one feel a need to give a debtor a pair of concrete boots so that he can go sleep with the fishes…….

Resorts World Sentosa

MBS wasn’t the only IR to suffer high profile public humiliation shortly after its opening. Just two weeks after the opening of Universal Studios at Resorts World Sentosa (RWS), its popular roller coaster ride Battlestar Galactica was closed down due to unspecified safety issues. There is still no word from RWS as to when the ride can reopen.

One can’t help but wonder if the Cylons have won the war against the Colonials here just like in the blockbuster TV series it was based on.

Battlestar Galactica wasn’t the only high profile ride that had to shut down because of safety considerations. On 23/12/2008, a fire broke out in the power room of the Singapore Flyer, causing a 6-hour breakdown that trapped 173 passengers. In the inquiry that followed, it was found that safety features that are standard in other observation wheels like the Flyer were missing. The Flyer was ordered shut down until repairs were completed and the safety features installed.

It is true that the Singapore Flyer is not a GLC, nor technically are either MBS or RWS. However, it is also equally true that the Flyer has the official endorsement of the Singapore government, which has also invested heavily in the two IRs. Is the government connection the reason why all three were allowed to open and operate when they clearly weren’t ready to do so?

Temasek Holdings

Temasek Holdings (TH), the Singapore government’s sovereign wealth fund lost $48,000,000,000/- dollars in failed investments, prompting CEO Ho Ching to step down. Incredibly, just five months later, she was reappointed to the post after her successor Charles “Chip” Goodyear resigned in protest over bureaucratic meddling in his work. Unbelievably, she was later assigned a highly-paid advisor to advise her on which companies to invest in despite Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s claim that he reappointed her to the post because she is the best person for the job.”

Perhaps Mr. Shanmugaratnam would like to answer this question. If Mdm Ho really is the best person for the job, then why does she need the advisor to tell her which companies to invest in? Conversely, if all she is doing is to approve decisions that were actually made by her advisor, then why not fire her and replace her with the advisor instead?

It really boggles the mind trying to make sense of Mr. Shanmugaratnam’s oxymoronic logic.

It isn’t only GLCs that have committed high profile blunders. Several ministries have also committed them. One wonders how exactly these fiascos could have happened given the government’s oft-vaunted claim that they practice meritocracy, and that the ministers and senior civil servants running the culpable ministries are the best people for the job in the country. After all, if they’re really as good as is claimed, then the question of why they failed to take actions to pre-empt these blunders should be asked, as the following cases demonstrate.

Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)

2 years ago, terrorist mastermind Mas Selamat Kestari escaped from the maximum security Whitley Road Detention Center (WRDC). Despite a massive manhunt, Kestari managed to swim to Malaysia where he remained in hiding until his arrest by the Malaysian police a year later. So how did he manage to pull off his Houdini act? Why, with the unwitting cooperation of his jailers of course.

First, the commander of the WRDC repeatedly ignored warnings from his subordinates that the design of the toilet Kestari escaped from was flawed. Second, he was left alone in the toilet by his Nepalese Gurkha guards. Third, the WRDC guards obviously had never been drilled in proper procedures to deal with escaped prisoners since they ran around like chickens with their heads cut off instead of launching an immediate search party. Fourth, the search party only searched above ground even as Kestari was making his way through the country’s drainage system. Fifth, the hunt for Kestari was limited only to Singapore.

One wonders why none of the elite scholars in the top ranks of the ISD, SPF and SAF ever thought of putting themselves in Kestari’s position to second guess his probable courses of action when planning the manhunt for him. Probably none of them thought that Kestari, a secondary school dropout could ever possibly outwit elite scholars like themselves (something he did succeed in doing, incidentally).

In light of Kestari’s escape, one would think that the MHA would tighten up its act in the immediate aftermath. Regrettably, it apparently failed to do so. In another embarrassing incident, a man actually managed to get through immigration and board an aircraft at Changi Airport while mistakenly using his son’s passport. He was then correctly stopped at his destination Vietnam where he finally discovered his mistake. He was then sent back to Singapore where once again he managed to waltz effortlessly through immigration with his son’s passport!!!! He later made his story public, resulting in disciplinary action being taken against the immigration officers who made the mistakes.

Considering that Mas Selamat Kestari had planned to crash an airliner into the Changi Airport Passenger Terminal Building, one only hopes that MHA has finally learnt its lessons and has cleaned up its act.

Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR)

The MHA wasn’t the only ministry to have committed high profile blunders in recent years. About a year ago, more than a hundred people fell ill after eating Indian rojak at the Geylang Serai temporary market, resulting in the deaths of two elderly women. In the subsequent clean up, the press reported that more than fifty rats were captured within an hour.

Following a public outcry, the National Environmental Agency said that it was not responsible for maintaining the market since it was only a temporary one. What the NEA failed to account for satisfactorily was why its update on the hygiene status of the various stalls at the market were long overdue, and why it failed in its duty of ensuring that the market was kept in hygienic conditions.

The Public Utilities Board (PUB), the NEA’s sister agency at the MEWR scarcely faired any better in recent years. On December 19, 2006, the country was hit by one of the heaviest storms it had ever endured, resulting in widespread flooding. The hardest hit area was Joan Road, where virtually all the nurseries there suffered heavy financial losses as a result of the canal passing through them bursting its banks. MEWR Professor Yaacob Ibrahim later issued a statement explaining that the storm was a one-in-fifty year event, while the Joan Road canal was subsequently enlarged and deepened. Why the PUB never thought of doing this before is unknown, considering the fact that the canal is the emergency hugh water discharge outlet for MacRitchie Reservoir.

Just three years later, the country was lashed by another severe storm that resulted in widespread flooding. This time, the worst hit area was Bukit Timah, where the Bukit Timah Canal burst its banks. Once again, Professor Ibrahim explained that it was a one-in-fifty-year event and announced plans for the PUB to enlarge and deepen the canal. The PUB later admitted that it had been caught off guard by the fact that the large scale urbanization of the previously largely natural area had resulted in a much higher level of rainwater runoff instead of being naturally soaked up by the ground.

Two one-in-fifty-year events in three years. While a one-in-fifty-year event usually takes place only once in every five decades (hence the name), apparently in Singapore, 50 years can pass by in only three. How Uniquely Singapore!!!!

The above-listed debacles are only a sampling. There are far too many such incidents to be covered here. Taken individually, they all appear to have little to do with one another. Taken together though, and a disquieting picture emerges. Viewed together, these incidents appear to indicate that some very serious cases of apathy, indifference and complacency has set in the GLCs and Civil Service, from the lowest-ranking frontline staff to the highest-ranking senior officials.

“Deaf frogs”

deaf-frogProbably the best example of the sort of complacency that would lead to such debacles if left unchecked was demonstrated by NTUC chief Lim Swee Say. In response to criticisms leveled against the government’s unrestricted immigration policy made by Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang, Mr. Lim said that the government was made up of deaf frogs that simply ignore all criticisms. This is an extremely foolish attitude to say the least: nobody possesses a monopoly on wisdom, and if someone chooses to ignore all criticisms and listen only to yes-men, then one day that someone may end up making a very major blunder that could even cause the deaths of innocent people. The best example of just such a “deaf frog” was Captain E. E. Smith of the Titanic, who ignored repeated warnings to change course and slow down because of icebergs in the region. And everyone knows how that particular story ended.

Just imagine what could have happened had JI chief Mas Selamat Kestari and his merry men had known about the shoddy security at Changi Depot; in such an event, the country would probably be mourning scores if not hundreds of dead instead of being entertained by SMRT’s increasingly ridiculous attempts to explain away the vandalism fiasco. After all, if one chooses to be a deaf frog and ignore all feedback, then one would never realize one’s own mistakes. And failures to acknowledge one’s own mistakes were responsible in one way or another for the all debacles listed above.

It is about time that the government realizes that it is not omniscient, and that negative feedback is actually a good thing. Without negative feedback, one would never be able to correct one’s own mistakes and improve. The government is supposed to be made up of elected officials who are supposed to serve the needs and wants of the people and to do this, it should listen to them and not play “deaf frog” and ignore them.

If the government refuses to heed the people’s will, then a replacement should be elected instead for the good of the country. For if the country was to continue in its present path of complacency and apathy under the leadership of “deaf frogs” who actually know far less than their overbloated egos had led them to think they do, then one day the country will eventually end up becoming a giant bowl of frog leg stew. And the people of the country will be the vegetables in the stew made from the legs of the elite “deaf frogs”.

Tan Keng Leng

 

[theDoors]

Excuse me, have you seen Raymond and Kan Seng?

Posted by theonlinecitizen on June 12, 2010
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/06/excuse-me-have-you-seen-raymond-and-kan-seng/#comments
Andrew Loh –

Almost a month ago, on 17 May, Swiss national Oliver Fricker and his suspected accomplice, Briton Lloyd Dane Alexander, allegedly breached the perimeter fence at the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT) Changi Depot. The two men are alleged to have then spray-painted graffiti on one of the carriages of the trains.

A video of the incident was reportedly posted on Youtube the next day – 18 May – and the online community quickly picked it up and the video went viral on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, and also on blogs and forums.

Amazingly, SMRT staff only discovered the act of vandalism two days later – on 19 May – after the act was first committed.

While online Singaporeans and netizens were shocked by the security breach, the SMRT kept its silence. And it continued to do so for the next three weeks. It was only on 8 June that it finally broke its silence on the incident with a press release (click here) which threw up even more questions about SMRT’s operational and security capability.

Many other questions have been raised by Singaporeans, both online and in the mainstream media and I shall not go into them here.

The SMRT’s three-week silence, however, is not what is alarming to me. The total absence of any comments or explanations by the Minister for Transport, Mr Raymond Lim, and the Minister for Home Affairs (MHA), Mr Wong Kan Seng, is what is more disconcerting.

Since the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001, the London bombings in 2005, and the escape of terrorist-suspect Mas Selamat Kastari from a Singapore detention centre in 2007, the government here, especially the MHA minister himself, has continually and regularly warned of the threat of terrorism in Singapore.

The government, in a 2003 White Paper on the threat of terrorism, revealed that members of the Jemaah Islamyah terrorist group had planned, as far back as 1997, to bomb Yishun MRT station in the northern part of the island.

The SMRT, in its press release about the security breach at Changi Depot, cited the London bombings as one of the reasons why it had beefed up security measures for our public transport system.

Indeed, constant daily announcements on our trains keep commuters on their toes and they are urged to keep a lookout for “suspicious articles” and to report them to SMRT staff. A video of how a would-be terrorist would carry out his plans is also shown in our stations.

Singaporeans can be forgiven if they felt a sense of siege with all these admonitions and incessant reminders.

It is in this context that the breach at Changi Depot should be seen – and why the prolonged silence of the two ministers who would be most alarmed at the security lapse at Changi is unacceptable.

While it may be explained that the ministers would be working behind the scenes to put things right, one would think that reassuring a jittery and concerned public would also be one of the ministers’ top priorities – and that they would do so promptly. After all, millions of Singaporeans use public transport each day.

The two ministers’ absence from the public eye the last three weeks reminds one of the Prime Minister’s silence for the first 11 days after Mas Selamat escaped in 2007 and the PM’s one-month absence after the minibond saga, which affected some 10,000 Singaporean investors, first came to light in 2008.

The Land Transport Authority, which owns Changi Depot, is under the purview of the Ministry of Transport. The minister thus should assume responsibility and assure the public that the security of our public transport system is sound, especially when we are told that it is a target for terrorists.

Keeping silent for such a long time brings into question the transport minister’s leadership in a time of uncertainty for Singaporeans and a trying time for the staff of SMRT.

Domestic security is the domain of the Minister for Home Affairs who has repeatedly reminded Singaporeans of the terrorist threat and of the need to be vigilant. The minister was roundly castigated when Mas Selamat gave his guards the slip and escaped to Malaysia. There were even calls for the minister to resign then.

Now, his leadership in this latest incident is called into question again.

As Minister for Home Affairs, no one is better placed than Mr Wong to assure Singaporeans that the nation’s security has not been compromised and that everything possible is or has been done to make it so, in light of the Changi Depot incident.

It would seem, however, that instead of taking proactive steps to reassure the public, the two ministers by their silence are raising questions about their competence instead.

Isn’t it strange that the government would constantly raise the issue of terrorism and national security but seems to have gotten all silent when a security breach has occurred?

Besides being shocked by the security lapse at Changi, Singaporeans should also be asking: “Where are Raymond Lim and Wong Kan Seng?” And for that matter, where indeed is the Prime Minister, who has not said anything about the incident as well.

Ironically, at the moment it seems Singaporeans are taking the issue of security more seriously than the two ministers are.

 

[theDoors]

Friday, June 11, 2010
A Comic Opera

http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com/2010/06/comic-opera.html

It's uncanny that it was a Swiss national Oliver Fricker who showed how easy it was to breach the so-called unbreachable security of the SMRT's Changi depot to spray graffiti on an MRT train in the middle of the night. What made it all the more comical was that the train was allowed to ply its services for two days without anyone's being the wiser although SMRT now claimed that its staff thought it was an advertisement. Is the claim not a bit far-fetched?

Fricker may not have realised it at that time but his impetuous artistic painting, though may have appeared to him to be an innocuous caper, is certain to have caused great consternation to the powers that be. They may have been probably woken to the harsh reality that their elaborately laid out security of protected places could be breached by some foreign prankster out to make fun of the hubristic PAP government.

By his caper Fricker has knowingly or unknowingly caused the government to lose face and public confidence. Does he seriously think that the PAP government will show magnanimity and let him off lightly? Fricker may not have realised that his folly could have brought him serious consequences or he might have had second thought about going through with his prank. Then there is an alleged accomplice and the government is not going to let him off either. What part the alleged accomplice had played in this prank may only be known when he is arrested and brought back to Singapore. He is believed to have fled to Hongkong.

DPM Wong Kan Seng cannot be amused at the ease with which Fricker had breached the security at the SMRT's Changi depot. It is fortunate that it was just a prank for DPM Wong will be singing a different tune if it had been done by a Jemaah Islamiah (JI) terrorist group. Because what the JI terrorists would have done would not be just spraying amusing graffiti on the train. The scenario could be quite devastating.

We wonder if the SMRT's chief exective Saw Phaik Hwa really realised the gravity of the SMRT security gaffe. It is quite flippant for the CEO to just say she deeply regretted the "serious lapse" (here some people said that she tried to ape DPM Wong Kan Seng) and tended to shift responsibility to SMRT staff.

Another glaring fact is the complete silence of the Minister for Transport on this SMRT security lapse. It does not seem to concern him and he does not consider it important for him to reassure the commuting public that security of the SMRT is being reinforced for their safe travel.

Neither have we heard anything reassuring from DPM Wong Kan Seng who is the Home Affairs Minister. Are we to assume that the government is complacent about the present SMRT security lapse until a real terrorist incident explodes in its face?

 

[theDoors]

The Star Online > Insight down south
Saturday June 12, 2010

Going public with grievances
http://thestar.com.my/services/prin...tdownsouth/6455622.asp&sec=insight down south

Insight Down South by SEAH CHIANG NEE

Singaporeans are resorting to stronger displays of dissatisfaction over issues by assembling on the Internet or at Speakers Corner to protest instead of meekly complying as they used to.

WITH the city easing up on protests, more people are going public with their grievances – the latest being thousands of football fans.

Singaporeans, young and old, are increasingly assembling on the Internet or at Speakers Corner to protest and galvanise support for a wide variety of causes.

It is no revolution, though. The scale pales in comparison to other countries where peaceful protests have long become a way of life. For Singapore, it marks a bit of a benchmark.

The perimeters drawn up by Lee Kuan Yew’s People’s Action Party are slowly being pushed back. They are far short of what liberal Singaporeans want to see, but a long way from Lee’s early days.

The latest are thousands of unhappy soccer enthusiasts, who are revolting against higher cable TV charges for screening of the 2010 World Cup tournament, which has just kicked off.

Football has won a wide following among Singaporeans, and many fans feel that the S$90 charge (RM210) (without GST) for viewing all 64 matches an act of profiteering.

Even the earlier promotion offer of S$70 (RM164), was seven times higher than the fee four years ago.

A decade ago, Singaporeans would probably have swallowed their anger, grumbled and paid up, but this is 2010.

Nowadays with the help of the Internet, Singaporeans are taking their complaints public to seek a solution, especially if they think the government is the cause.

A Facebook campaign calling for a World Cup subscription boycott was said to have attracted 27.500 members.

And a week before kick-off, 200 disgruntled fans – the type that once made up the Kallang Roar – last week staged a demonstration at the Speakers’ Corner.

The TV providers say they are just breaking even and blame the rise on FIFA’s higher demand.

Many fans disagree. They say that that many countries, like England, Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia, were also subjected to the same negotiations but their fans do not have to pay a cent more.

The conflict is not just about football.

Both the TV providers, Starhub and Singtel, are government controlled and this raises the question whether the public would be better served if private enterprise were allowed to operate TV.

As a result of the high costs, many poorer fans may be sidelined.

Coincidently, the Speakers Corner is marking its 10th year of existence. Despite the restrictions it faces, the Hong Lim Park has seen more weekend rallies in the wake of greater financial hardship.

In the same week, thousands of people supporting gay rights had gathered.

It had also been the venue for people who want to see an end to maid abuse or to recover unpaid wages or get back money invested in toxic financial investments, allegedly due to misleading selling.

Since 2000, the Hong Lim Park has been the only venue where Singaporeans - not foreigners - are allowed to hold peaceful demonstrations under strict regulations.

Speakers must register their names, subjects and times in advance with the park administration.

Banners are allowed, but hailers are forbidden. Talk on race and religion is banned.

These rules, especially the banning of loudspeakers, are significantly limiting the impact of public protests in Singapore and effectively ensuring the crowd remains small.

For a wider reach, Singaporeans with a message are turning more to the Net. Online petitions are becoming a way of life that may eventually leave its mark on society.

Activists have petitioned for a boycott of a bakery-and-food chain following remarks allegedly made by an executive that it was employing Malaysians, not locals (mainly for costs), for a position.

That and other allegations of job discrimination have led to yet another campaign: “Employ Singaporeans First.”

In separate events, thousands wanted a cut in bus fares as well as cabinet ministers’ pay.

In an unprecedented case, a 15-year-old student recently started a petition to get Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to apologise to Singaporeans for making ‘disparaging’ remarks against them.

(Lee had remarked that people here had lost their drive, and it was good to bring in foreign workers to act as spurs to force them to strive harder.)

Society has become more diverse; a buzz is around where there was none before.

Singaporeans have protested against whale killing, advocated animal rights or campaigned to save a 100-year-old Boddhi tree from the axe.

One group pressurised a credit card company to stop financing Singaporeans getting mail order brides from Vietnam, while another – supported by a Catholic priest – petitioned against marital rape.

Most of issues are, however, not about politics (not directly, anyway).

They are related to bread-and-butter issues, such as jobs, wages, cost of living and the public housing squeeze. Even on politics, not everything is against the government.

Recently, a former Singaporean, now an American citizen came under attacks from all sides when he posted a hoax on the web that Lee, Singapore’s founding leader, had suffered a heart attack.

Gopalan Nair, a lawyer, stirred outrage even from staunch Lee critics, who called it a sick idea and in ‘very bad taste.”

No one believes all this will herald in a new era of unfettered politics in Singapore.

The average Singaporean is more concerned about getting a degree and a good job than he is about political reforms.

A commentator said, “Can political issues engage their hearts and minds, when their stomachs are kept well-fed and the standard of living remains high?”

That does not mean, however, that public protests against bad policies will not continue to grow. It’s human nature that even compliant Singaporeans have.

© 1995-2010 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd

 

[theDoors]

Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Statistics on House Prices

http://hazelpoa.blogspot.com/2010/04/statistics-on-house-prices.html

Another graph from the Minister for National Development to show that house prices have not outstripped income growth. Another careful selection of base year. This time it is 1995. The graph is presented despite the absence of 1996 income data, resulting in an incomplete and rather odd looking chart. [ Cannot find another appropriate base year is it? ]

Sigh. I could of course as someone suggested show the charts of all the different base years, most of which would show the Resale Price Index (RPI) increasing more than the median household income(MHI) , but I fear that would make me appear rather juvenile. Many netizens already know the truth. As others have already pointed out, using all the others years from 2000 to 2008 as base years would show RPI increasing faster than MHI. This can be easily proven if challenged.

And, judging from the fact that the chart presented by M for ND is a since-1995-but-minus-data-for-1996-due-to-lack-of-info chart, I will hazard a guess that using 1998 and 1997 as base years would similarly show RPI outstripping MHI. Reasonable guess you think?

And for those who clamour for longer years of data, Lucky Tan has a chart going back to 1990.

But enough of charts. My intention when I blogged about the misleading chart was to show that there are many ways of interpreting and presenting statistics. Charts for 2000, 2001 and 2006 were chosen as examples to illustrate that point, not to advocate them as suitable base years. We need to look at data more holistically. Statistics should be used to understand, not to justify.

In fact, there are more problems with the comparison of RPI vs MHI apart from the base year:

1) Other netizens have pointed out that the RPI does not take into account the differences in sizes of the same flat type over the years. As flats get smaller over the years, the price in terms of per-square-foot (psf) basis increases by more than that indicated by the RPI.

2) According to the Department of Statistics:
“Household income from work refers to the sum of income received by all working members of the household from employment and business but excludes the income of domestic helpers. For statistical purpose, a household refers to a group of persons living in the same dwelling unit and sharing common living arrangements. A household may comprise related or unrelated members. Resident households are households headed by Singapore citizens or Permanent Residents. This category includes employed households and households with no working person.”

This would mean that household income would increase without any increase in individual wage levels under the following circumstances:
a) More households with both husband and wife working
b) More working children staying with parents for longer periods due to later marriages or no homes of their own
c) Later retirement
d) Relatives without homes of their own moving in
e) Renting out of rooms to other working adults. The incomes of the tenants are included in the household income as well according to the above definition.

All of these make it difficult to understand the people’s pain if we merely look at RPI vs MHI. In fact, this creates a vicious cycle whereby if prices increase, making homes more unaffordable, we will have more people crammed in each household therefore pushing up the household income, which then seemingly justify the higher prices!

Hopefully DOS will start to release / collect data on median income for individuals and use that for comparison instead. DOS currently publishes data on average income of individuals, but average values can be skewed by extremes and hence would not be ideal.

I am happy to read that HDB will be looking at shortening the waiting time for new flats by moving away from the BTO scheme. Much of the frustrations of home buyers arose from the fact that waiting time for new flats is too long and prices of resale flats are too high, making them feel sandwiched between a rock and a hard place. The long waiting time also channels demand towards resale flats, applying upward pressure on prices. If this can be done, it will make the lives of many young couples easier.
Posted by Hazel Poa Koon Koon at 11:00 AM

 

[theDoors]

Softening the 'stresses and strains'

Remaining a 'community of families' will be difficult, says Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, but Singapore must try its best not to become a 'society of individuals'
10:31 AM Jun 12, 2010
by Loh Chee Kong

SINGAPORE - One of the twin tenets of Singapore's approach to helping Singaporeans help themselves is under siege. And Dr Vivian Balakrishnan knows it better than most.

In fact, it is one of those things that keep the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports awake at night. The institution of family, as Dr Balakrishnan put it, is under "great stresses and strains" - and should it continue to fragment in the decade ahead, the DNA of Singapore society could be fundamentally altered.

"Having smaller nuclear families, higher divorce rates, (people) working overseas ... all of this taken in combination will erode the institution of family. We are trying our best not to become a society of individuals. We still want to remain a community of families but I acknowledge that's going to be difficult," the minister told Weekend Today in a recent interview as part of a series on the challenges facing Singapore's development in the next decade.

The widening income disparity, an ageing population and the integration of foreigners, who are still viewed by some Singaporeans as a threat to their livelihood, are obvious issues social policymakers here have to deal with.

And at the heart of the myriad of challenges is Singapore's unique brand of social safety net - one woven out of the principles of personal and family responsibility.

Call it the inevitable extension of the Government's robust belief that these two principles are the foundation on which Singapore has been, and will continue to be, built on.

"The question I always ask myself is, how is it this place got to where it is now? The answer that I keep getting is that (it is) a place that was open to people who were willing to work very hard not for their own sakes but for the sakes of their families, and were operating in a system which was fair and distributed opportunities," said Dr Balakrishnan.

WHAT'S HAPPENED TO FILIAL DUTY?

But Singapore's remarkable economic growth in the past five decades, while it has brought about prosperity, has also engendered a whole new generation of Singaporeans who are wired differently from their forebears.

It seems not so long ago that citizens were praised by Government leaders for having a certain sense of pride in refusing to ask outsiders for help when in financial hardship.

These days, the minister said: "I speak to the older Members of Parliament and they tell me with great alarm that that has changed. In the past, a person will not go for help until he has exhausted his family because when I ask for help from an outsider, I embarrass my family.

"Today, that stigma seems to be eroding and people are even willing to come out and say, 'my son or my daughter doesn't look after me well enough' or 'we don't get along, so will you look after me instead?' Of course, in some of those cases, we do have to help. But, again, what's happened to filial piety and family responsibility?"

Rather than feeding a social malaise by simply doling out money when someone doesn't get along with his family members, the Government will nurture and protect the institution of families, said Dr Balakrishnan.

Still, by insisting that Singaporeans only turn to the community or the Government as the last resort, would it be too late to help those genuinely in need?

After all, by the time these Singaporeans shout for help, their children or themselves could be near desperation.

Declaring himself reasonably satisfied with not just the responsiveness but also the effectiveness of the Family Service Centres (FSCs) and the Community Development Councils, Dr Balakrishnan said: "I don't think anyone can say in Singapore if you really need help, you can't make a phone call or you can't go to a void deck where one of these social agencies are present ... (We) also ensure that there's no wrong door policy and passing the buck around."

THE 'NOT MY FAULT' MENTALITY

There's another dangerous mindset that could take root - that of fault-finding and abdicating personal responsibility.

In one instance, his ministry received queries from a local newspaper regarding a family in distress.

"What really alarmed me was the tone of the journalist's questions: Whose fault is it? Is it the family's fault for not looking after the children? Was it the FSC's fault for not reaching out to them? Is it the Government's fault?" Dr Balakrishnan said. "This, to me, is the reason why I'm very worried about our future - because what has happened to personal responsibility?"

"We decide who to marry, how many children to have, what job to work at ... even how much money we want. We are responsible for our children. If we neglect our children, it is a crime morally and legally. If we forget those fundamentals and instead, say 'who owns the problem?' or 'whose fault is it?', I think we'll be in big, big trouble."

But what if some Singaporeans just cannot find work, even if they are able and willing to? The volatility of the new economy has led some experts to conclude that more workers could be unemployed for longer periods due to economic dislocation.

Dr Balakrishnan countered: "You look at the Singapore economy. How many people do we have who are unemployed? It's in the tens of thousands. How many foreigners do we have working in Singapore? In excess of a million. With that kind of numbers, can we honestly say that we are short of jobs or is there, in fact, a mismatch of expectations, qualifications and abilities with the jobs that are available?"

While globalisation and technology have eroded the market value of certain jobs, the Government has responded with Workfare, which is in effect a wage subsidy, Dr Balakrishnan pointed out.

"We must not fall into this easy trap of saying, 'oh, this is a new economy, there is nothing that I can do.' What you're really saying is that there is nothing that I'm willing to do at the level of pay that is being offered by the market," he said.

MOVE AWAY FROM US-VS-THEM

Make no mistake, the widening income gap and foreign influx will continue to present immense social challenges ahead. And how the country will respond, depends on Singaporeans' attitudes, said Dr Balakrishnan.

"Do we react with envy, or with dreams and determination of our own? I just wish we had more of the latter, rather than to resort to playing on people's fears and accentuating differences and division."

Indeed, the sizeable foreign presence here has been a sticking point for a number of Singaporeans. And in April last year, the Government devoted massive resources - including the setting up of a National Integration Council chaired by Dr Balakrishnan and a $10-million fund - to get Singaporeans and foreigners to mingle.

As at the end of the first quarter this year, $1.03 million has been disbursed to 39 projects. Dr Balakrishnan reiterated that the numbers "don't turn me on", nor has he set any target as to how much of the fund will be tapped.

"At least, now people are making the effort ... Whenever they can find a way in a so-called natural setting to include newcomers, they are doing so," he said.

Dr Balakrishnan sees integration as a "work that can never be completed". It is anyone's guess how far attitudes and mindsets can morph in the next decade - although one hopes the economic recovery will "lower the temperature" of what was a hot button issue during the downturn when people felt "even more insecure", he said.

"All this talk about us-versus-them makes me very uncomfortable. How do you make yourself an attractive and compelling case for others if you are talking in such insecure, sometimes parochial and almost offensive ways about others?" he added.

With immigration and integration being challenges that all countries face, Dr Balakrishnan reiterated that a welcoming stance would give Singapore a keen competitive edge in the decade ahead.

And even as it strives to attract the best from around the globe, the Minister conceded the Government must work at getting young Singaporeans to take ownership of the country.

"It's got to be a place of opportunities ... a place where (they) can feel that they can be themselves and leave their mark. That's one area we have to change. It cannot be a 'conform-or-else' kind of society," he said.

The writer is a freelance correspondent at Today.
URL http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100612-0000092/Softening-the-stresses-and-strains

Copyright 2010 MediaCorp Pte Ltd

Take ownership we must. Change we must.

We need a new social contract.

 

[halsey02]

Deaf Frogs? no, but oversize toads are rampant in the government..and short oversize toads wearing a crown are aplenty.

You wake up each morning and you shudder!, to think that we had placed your life & your family in the hands of these oversized toads wearing a crown...

Please call the SMRT or SBS Transit, if you see and garish painted carraiages, please call the police if you see any suspicious characaters hanging outside your door, & especially near to election time...please do your duty as a citizen while they collect good pay that prevent them from being corrupted but not necessary efficient; thus breeding short oversized toads wearing crowns...

SINgaporeans...please shudder!

 

[Watchman]

.... shudder shudder with beads of sweat ....

 

[kingrant]

All our leaders at various levels are clueless and have lost touch with the ground. Our so-called leaders having insulated themslves from the peasantry in lofty offices now have to wait days if not weeks for an update from the lower rungs for fear of speaking too early and stepping into their mouths. Ministers fear getting recognised by the stern Old Man and earning his wrath for incompetence and flakiness and therefore risk getting passed over when they rushed in where angels fear to tread, thus requiring weeks and months to check and crosscheck their investigations. Even in tiny red-dot peesai S'pore, the mountains are high and the emperor is far away. It thus shows that after 50 years, our institutions, our Ministries, and our Stat Boards and GLCs have deteriorated in standards and service levels. This is because for the past 5 decades, this people has simply been ruled by one man and by fear of making enemy of him, who has increasingly apppeared senile, impotent, redundant and isolated. Now his charlatans around him are just waiting for him to die before fighting for power and so are not doing anything that will only jeopardise their positions.

 

[halsey02]

.... shudder shudder with beads of sweat ....

but the MIW's are shuddering in pleasure on how to screw the voters; as election frenzy is in the air, with all the oppositions bashing are out in the open...

the 66.6% are also shuddering in ecstasy on where to place that "X" again...

Shudder please..shudder!..in every which way you turn...you shudder!

 

[Watchman]

shudder shudder as we mutter

do you dare choose thunder

as they plunder ...while we shovel ...

 

[johnny333]

These past 2+ years many Sporeans are suffering but low & behold PAP still giving themselves $$$ & bonuses, & ignoring the peasants in need. Ignoring them is bad enough but they are increasing prices

We can see worldwide gov'ts & businesses tightening their belts. Even in the US the country with so many millionaires, the people are holding those execs responsible. People like Madoff, Stanford are being put away. Strange that everyone outside Spore is talking about austerity but no such concerns in Spore

PAP continue paying themselves out-of-world salaries. If this continues Spore Inc will go bankrupt. Wait, I think Spore is already bankrupt, we are are already over leveraged & have to borrow billions.

Someone get the tar & feathers ready, we can start with the village idiot

 

[zhihau]

After watching the documentary on Dr Goh Keng Swee, there is no doubt on my mind that the current PAP leaders are the most incompetent group that ever took power.

Serving up a dish of slow-cooked frog leg stew, Singapore style

definitely the most over-paid if you may like to add

 

[Getloud]

I dpn't think they are the most incompetent.
WORST is yet to come.

 

[theDoors]

I dpn't think they are the most incompetent.
WORST is yet to come.

You are right.

 

[hypocrite999]

Well, Singaporeans get the Government they vote for. From past experiences, even if PAP does worse, they will still be voted in.

 

[hypocrite999]

I voted for the Oppos, i was just surprise that so much more voted for the PAP...