TR EMERITUS

The data on SG Live Births and Deaths are out for 2021. The following shows the Deaths caused by "circulatory system" which includes Heart Attacks and Strokes. There is a 11% increase in 2021 compared to 2020 and almost 24% increase if compared to 2019! If we compare the death rates per 100K, then the increase in 2022 compared to 2020 will be 14% and compared to 2019, it is a whooping 27% increase! Is this normal?   Goh Meng Seng      Read More →

Ms Kirsten Han The ‘debates’ over many of Kirsten's issues cited in her article are staged as a way to get attention and/or viewers and we’ve seen many times over what happens with an individual when allowed to freely spread their “alternative facts”. This does not mean censoring those with “unpopular” views is a good idea – but it does mean avoiding giving wider platforms to those who rely upon demonstrably made up “facts”, lies, half-truths, and appeals to racism, xenophobia, sexism, etc. In labelling 'her' and 'ilks' as 'activists' in our societal transfiguration is a grave misnomer. I would prefer the characterization of "snowflakes" to be more apt. These are spoiled brats in love with the sudden power given them by 'western wolves' in sheep's clothing. I’ve seen first hand how this type of thinking actually plays out. eg: Hong Kong 2019-2020 protests. It’s used as a tool for hate-groups, to wield power, control the conversation and spread a distorted views of the world, one where it’s acceptable to sympathize with criminals (MTR/buses vandals, arsonists, etc) but not their victims (commuters, workers, shop owners, etc). Left to their own devices, they are predominantly selfish and shortsighted. They would have us believe that even the Holocaust-denying cranks should be “listened to". After all, their feelings are important. The problem with the 'snowflakes' is that they are unable to discern feelings and emotions from reason. No problem in confronting the law. Reckless 'bravado mentality' where boldness thrives in 'large numbers' to let their beliefs further spread and gain acceptance or legitimization. I think there's a fundamental confusion of the people that argue about the morality of capital punishment. The justice system does not exist to abjectly evaluate right and wrong and keep society as close to moral perfection as possible. Frankly, its much too human for that. Its' actual purpose leans more towards societal cohesion and improvement. That's why it is ruthlessly practical rather than high-minded, and why it is an ever-evolving paradox where it means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Precisely, so if the given view is that "Criminals Lives Matter" do we have an obligation to allow someone to say "All Lives Matter?" The value that the concept of punishment adds to civil society is that it keeps civil society focused on the importance of the victim's loss, which is basically what law is about. If the victim's loss is removed from the equation, then why even bring the person to "justice" (however you define that term)? The ridiculous trendy idea that a person should be incarcerated only so that he/she won't do it again or so that we can "rehabilitate" and then release him/her, confident that we are all safe from future bad actions, has nothing to do with civil society. The logical argument against it is that, if we simply leave the victim out of the equation in the judgment of the crime, how important can it really be then if the criminal/others commits the same crime again? The "hate the action, not kill the actor" school of thought has one glaring fault : it ignores the victim/recipient of the action, who is just pushed into the shadows and ignored. It does? I was of the impression that our legal system aimed to satisfy the sense of fairness in the community; including the 70% Singaporeans that are philosophically inclined and have a strong moral intuition towards retributive justice. This is a fine example of sophistic special pleading by Kirsten in defense of the indefensible.   Sjorne Shen      Read More →

Click to enlarge The story of what happened to Zakir Hossain, the Bangladeshi worker whose work pass was not renewed has reignited the usual storm on who are the foreigners that living and working in Singapore. Mr. Hossain is regarded in some camps as someone who has worked hard in the jobs that Singaporeans were simply not willing to do. However, there are a group who think that Mr. Hossain is an ungrateful SOB who had the audacity to complain about not wanting to live in a place where the Minister of Manpower was only willing to enter if he was in a hazmat suite. So, given that the topic has ignited a few interesting views, I thought it might be worth asking ourselves who these chaps are. It’s a question that needs to be asked because as with passionate debates, both sides become so focused on the debate and their point of view, that they forget that what you’re talking about is a human being. It’s easy to blame your problems on a group when you label them as “illegals” or “criminals,” especially when that group has less than you. However, when you fall into that trap, you lose something important – your basic humanity. I look at the issue of “foreign labour,” from the sad reality of being a “loser” in the capitalist system. Didn’t get a foothold to build a corporate career in a field that I would excel in. When I freelanced, I had a few lucky breaks but couldn’t quite build on it. So, at the age of 38, I ended up waiting tables so that I could pay basic bills and you could say that I should have become the prime target for unscrupulous snake oil salesmen wanting political power (graduate member of the ethnic majority needing to take subsistence job to survive). I didn’t go down the dark path for a simple reason. When I became a “loser” in the economic system, I became a “winner” as a human being. My fellow waiters for Pinoys and the chefs were primarily Tamil chaps from India and Malaysia. These guys became my work mates and I got to know them as people who had things like families. The guy from that period of my life that comes to mind is Rafey, the Pinoy chap who did all the “real” work at the Bistrot for seven-years. He became invaluable to me. I was the one that customer liked but I could only be liked because Rafey did the work. Poor guy had only one problem – he was a bloke and when a little Minx got hired, he suddenly found himself surrounded by rumours that he had made attempts to molest her (which were not true) and he was eventually fired after seven years of loyal service. Working in a restaurant was an eye opener and I remember there were people in Singapore who thought that Trump’s rhetoric in Mexicans was great. For me, I couldn’t understand it because in the Singapore context, it was like saying people like Rafey had “stolen” jobs from me and from my experiences with the guys – this line of thought, simply did not make sense. The guys I worked with, saw an opportunity to earn a bit of money to give their families a better life. The Pinoy and Indian chaps I worked with in the restaurant were just ordinary guys trying to make a living just like me. Then I went to work in the insolvency trade and saw that the “screwing” of the downtrodden wasn’t a text book exercise. If anything, it was perfectly legal and, in many cases, encouraged. One of my early cases was a construction company which had 30 over workers who hadn’t been paid for over five months. As the Company had been liquidated, we had to fire them. A few of the Tremeritus crowd get very upset with me for being “pro-Indian” and “anti-Chinese.” The truth is, I’m particularly pro or anti anybody but the fact remains, many of the people who have blessed me, have inevitably been Indian (and in many cases, Muslim). I’ve mentioned that I was lucky to be on the receiving end of guys in the IIT and IIM Alumni associations. However, you could say that what transpired between myself and the guys with corporate jobs was part of my “good” fortune. My real blessing was dealing with the workers that I sacked and couldn’t help get money that they had worked for but could not claim. These guys have every reason to hate me. I was the public face of the end of their livelihood. Every time they called me to ask for the money they were promised, I was the one with the story. I didn’t believe me half the time, yet the listened to my “excuses.” I did encourage them to harass me. I did tell them they had the right to attend creditor meetings. I did extend loans from personal funds to a few. This last point in particular is “controversial,” in as much as I was violating professional rules of favouring creditors and as a colleague kept saying “You know you can’t trust Bangladeshi Workers,” (her judgement was based on working in a law firm that had to defend workers whom she believed were screwing insurance companies.) It wasn’t easy. I got calls at the most in appropriate moments on a regular basis I had to psychologically write off the pennies I was giving out. Thankfully, humanity won the day. When we finally paid the workers what was due to them, I got most of what I had lent out. Here is a message from Bangladeshi Worker I had lent some money to during that period: In another case, the guy actually called me up to tell me his wife had given birth to twins. I was officially the first person outside his family whom he told. Met him on the day that he was flying back to India and he paid me most of what he owed and I got dinner out of it. It’s like this, these guys were just trying to make a living. They were willing to clean our crap because it pays better than the professional jobs available back home. They’re willing to put up with a lot of crap so that they can get that opportunity to provide for their families (I still get text from these guys asking if I can help find jobs in Singapore). They are, what you would call just acting out like how normal people would react in certain situations. They aren’t passive victims nor are they active criminals. They are merely human beings trying to earn a living and if you look at the instances where they have “rebelled” and “complained” about, its inevitably been in situations where most of us would probably act in that particular way. Think about it, in 2013, when they went riot, they did so because the police seemed more interested in protecting the guy who killed their friend than in solving the problem. The latest instant with Mr. Hossain, is merely a case of a human being stating that he' doesn’t think people should live in a place that causes disease (a fact which the minister in his hazmat suite confirmed). The start of any policy towards our foreign workers should be based on remembering that they’re humans like us who were in a certain situation and will behave accordingly.   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 →