TR EMERITUS

I read with much sadness that a 14 years old boy has been arrested for the murder of his father. I do not know what exactly happened between them but reading that news evoke many sentimental feelings and thoughts in me that I would like to share. The children of my generation largely came from poor families and many of those families had many children. Many of my teenage friends never missed any opportunities during our school holidays to do temporary jobs. Some worked as operators in factories and some worked as waiters/ waitresses in hotels etc. I worked during all my school holidays too. The money that we earned, although little but they certainly helped our parents to some extend, gave us plenty of joy and satisfaction, made us much more appreciative, sensible people, street-smart and toughened us both physically and mentally. Children today grow up in a period of peace, plentiful and modern conveniences. Almost none of them experience real hardship and as a result, over time, grow up to become obese, selfish, self-centred, inconsiderate, entitled strawberry youngsters. Don't agree? Ask Ng Eng Hen. During my NS time, we had no obese soldiers. Today, fat NS enlistees are not uncommon. I put the blame equally on the schools and parents for bringing up and developing many of our youngsters into book-smart but character deficient and defective young people and we see them every day and everywhere. The days when our youngsters truly understand and realise that the world doesn't owe them a living, when papa and mummy are no longer around to shelter and sayang them, never mind who they maybe and if they are not equal to the survival game in the real harsh world...but then, that is life. Singapore under the current pap government is going down, albeit slowing but definitely going down. In a going down ship, opportunities for all will shrink and the day will come when 'man will eat man'. Even now as I compose my commentary, foreigners are eating away our lunches in our own country. I wish our young people well. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →

One cruise was called back a day earlier due to an infected passenger (it turned out to be a false alarm). 1,600 passengers spoiled their holiday. The next cruise was cancelled. Perhaps another 1,600 passengers spoiled their holidays. All for what? For over reacting to a mild infection. The common sense approach is to confine the passengers and their close contacts to the isolation cabins. I am told that the cruise ship have these isolation cabins for such purpose. But the captain is probably forced to follow the protocol put forward by insane minsters! Hello, it is more than 3,200 spoiled holidays. Quite likely, the experimental cruise to nowhere will be stopped. A few thousand jobs will be lost. What is the lesson? There is no need to over react to a mild infection. There is no need to return the cruise ship to the port prematurely. If several passengers are found to be infected, or if the infection is serious, it may be necessary to call off the cruise. But there is no need to take this action too early. Agree or not?   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

Say what you like about the Singapore government but it is, for certain issues consistent. The famous issue is the issue of drugs. The government makes it very clear that it has zero tolerance for drugs on Singapore’s sovereign territory and the death sentence was until recently mandatory for all “drug dealers.” We make this point very clearly to every tourist entering the country. The warning is printed in thick bold face on the landing card. So, whether you agree with the concept of the death penalty or not, you know where the Singapore government stands and if you get caught with the stuff while in Singapore, you know what to expect. The results of this policy are not bad. We do not have apartment blocks with Junkies and the “killing” of drug dealers has always been within the scope of the judicial – Singapore does not have the vigilante shoot-out that is Duterte’s “War on Drugs.” Singapore, as one Englishman used to say to me, “Is the freest place on earth because it gives – safety.” One of the strangest things about being Singaporean in the West, whenever we’ve had to cane or hang a Westerner, and having Westerners come up and tell you that your nation is doing the right thing. Having said that, there comes a point when sticking to particular stance is stupid, especially when evidence indicates that your stance may not be as “right” as you think it is. Like or not, knowledge about certain things is growing and innovation can and does change certain truths. What was seen as gospel in the 1960s should not necessarily be so in the year 2020 and beyond. Sticking to what you knew to be absolute in the 1960s and trying to force through in the year 2020 is what you’d call insanity. The most recent example of this was when the United Nations (“UN”) decided to remove cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention – the global text governing drug controls. The UN vote came in on 3 December 2020 and two days later, our “least conflicted” Minister (somehow being both the maker and enforcer of laws is not a conflict of interest in Singapore’s magical political world), Mr. K Shanmugam expressed great unhappiness with the UN’s decision. Mr. Shanmugam complained that “profit-driven” companies were pushing the idea that cannabis was not harmful. Mr. Shanmugam was very upset that “the power of money” had come into play. The story can be found at: [LINK] Mr. Shanmugam’s outrage at this “travesty” is funny. If there is another consistency about the Singapore government it is the fact it has never had an issue with things that are “profit-driven.” If anything, the government regards being profitable as a divine right. Our public housing provider is famously profitable as are our transport operators and the supermarket run by the trade union. When the media companies stopped being profitable, the government rushed to remonopolise things regardless of the harm is caused the media consumer. So, one might want to ask what Mr. Shanmugam has against things being “profit-driven,” when the government that he so actively serves is obsessed with profits. Then there is the assumption in Mr. Shanmugam’s argument that being “profit-driven” is somehow incompatible with creating good stuff, particularly in the area of scientific research. Whatever one might think of the capitalist system, history has shown that the “profit-motive,” is exceedingly powerful in getting things done. People invent and create things in the hope of getting profit from them. The record from government funded or non-profit driven things in the area of producing innovations is paler. Non-profit or government funded works best when it limits itself to regulation or cases where neutrality is required. Then there is the issue of the evidence of Marijuana and what it actually does. Mr. Shanmugam quoted the medical journal, the Lancet as showing that marijuana use was harmful and therefore something that should never be allowed to exist and Singapore was doing sparklingly wonderful job at keeping marijuana and all other drugs out of Singapore. However, while nobody doubts that there is some harm done by marijuana use, Mr. Shanmugam failed to address the issue of whether marijuana use was any worse than say tobacco, alcohol or even gambling, all of which have been proven to be far more addictive and more likely to cause criminal behavior as a December 2018 study indicates: [LINK] This study indicated that while alcohol and tobacco had very little redeeming features, marijuana had some proven therapeutic value. So, question remains, is Mr. Shanmugam taking a hard stance of something that is actually harmful to society or is he merely taking a tough stance because that’s what he’s been conditioned to do or he only does it because it makes him look tough. Perhaps marijuana is too extreme an example. Another example of what can only be described as “pig-headedness” can be found with what the tobacco companies would call “alternative” products. I think Philip Morris, which is effectively the world’s richest drug pusher, which is doing its best to push “alternative” products and even as far to claim that it is working to “deliver a smoke free future.” If there’s anything that the world agrees on, is the fact that the tobacco companies are “evil.” This is an industry that sells a product that kills its customers with nasty diseases. To add insult to injury the majority of customers fall into the lower income brackets, thus making the tobacco industry the only one that makes a fortune from killing the less well to do with diseases they cannot afford to have. So, it goes without saying that one should be inclined to disregard anything that the tobacco industry claims about its new desire to move away from cigarettes. There have been articles about the science of smokeless products being ….well, less than kosher too. If there’s one tax that nobody complains about, it is the tax on tobacco because no sane person can be against anything that hurts the tobacco industry. Singapore is famously “anti-smoking.” As well as the usual high taxes of tobacco and limited sales, Singapore was a pioneer in gruesome packaging (which had the adverse effect of turning cigarette packets into collector items). Being famously anti-smoking is actually something to be proud of and one can almost argue that the government’s firm stance in being against vaping and other alternative tobacco products as part of this anti-smoking image. There’s only one problem. The current stance against alternative products sounds more like an “anti—tobacco companies” than actually being “anti-smoking.” While the science on alternative tobacco products is far from perfect, the one thing that everyone who has been involved in the science behind these products can agree on is that they are far less harmful both to the consumer and to the dangers of second-hand smoke than cigarettes. I stress that even Philip Morris admits that the products are “LESS HARMFUL,” rather than “HARMLESS.” Having said that, the logical assumption about an “anti-smoking” government, that in a world of imperfect solutions, the government would, rather than wiping out alternative products but keeping cigarette selling healthily, they would ban the harmful product and ease people to a less harmful alternative before trying to get them to the non-harmful option of not smoking at all. However, they can’t do that because, well that would make the tobacco companies look like responsible people and more importantly, it might make politicians less tough on an obvious villain. Unfortunately, looking tough on tobacco companies instead of looking for plausible ways of getting less people to take up cigarettes, Singapore has actually plateaued in the number of people quitting tobacco. There’s much to admire in people who stick to their guns, especially in a climate where things don’t seem to go their way. One could argue that it is principled. However, there’s also a point where sticking to a position regardless of the obvious makes you look stupid or to make matters worse, a prisoner to your own beliefs. The later should never be acceptable for a convenience store owner let alone a minister in the “world’s most efficient” government.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.        Read More →