TR EMERITUS

President Tony Tan I refer to President Tony Tan’s opening address for the 2nd session of the 12th Parliament. Dr Tan said that every Singaporean can take pride in our survival and prosperity against long odds since independence. Dr Tan cannot be more wrong; Singapore had been thriving and prospering for more than a hundred years before our independence in 1965. Dr Tan said that at 50, we are a young nation. But the Singapore today has continuously evolved since 1819 for nearly 200 years already. We should be celebrating our Bicentennial, not Silver Jubilee. While extolling the pioneers of 50 years ago for overcoming formidable obstacles to build Singapore, Dr Tan forgot to mention the pioneers’ pioneers who overcame even greater odds to lay the strong foundation underpinning our success today. If the honouring of our pioneers is confined to just the last 50 years, we risk being disrespectful to pioneers’ pioneers like Tan Kim Seng and Lim Bo Seng who came before. Dr Tan urged us to always uphold the ‘founding ideals’ in our pledge written in 1966. But 1966 is 147 years after our founding in 1819. How can we be founded again 147 years after our founding in 1819? What ideal of a fair and just society was Dr Tan pledging to uphold when he allowed the PAP to disadvantage opposition wards in HDB upgrading while serving as Deputy Prime Minister? Dr Tan claimed that no other country in the world has, through the promotion of home ownership, leveled up society and enabled Singaporeans, especially the poor, to build up significant assets and have a tangible stake in Singapore’s progress. What supposed leveling up is Dr Tan talking about when Singapore has one of the highest GINI inequalities amongst First World nations? Our homes cannot become significant assets without also becoming expensive liabilities that will lock up even more of our precious income and lower our standard of living while requiring our children to pay even more for their homes in future. It is a zero sum game that merely transfers wealth from future generations to present ones. It is not leveling up but pricing up of the most important component of our cost of living. Dr Tan stressed the importance of constructive politics where the nation and its people are put first. Can Dr Tan explain: How constructive is the politics of making use of supposedly politics blind national bodies like NEA and MND to attack or to disadvantage Aljunied Town Council and how that supposedly puts people first? How constructive is the politics of threatening Singaporeans with 5 years of repent and insulting Singaporeans with names like quitters, champion grumblers, spurs not stuck deep enough in the hide and how that supposedly puts people first? How constructive was the politics of disadvantaging opposition wards in HDB upgrading and how that supposedly puts people first? How constructive was the politics of locking political opponents without trial longer than Nelson Mandela was and how that supposedly puts people first? Dr Tan warned against the hurly burly of politics in many other countries that have resulted in short term populist measures, sometimes gridlock and paralysis that will weaken Singapore. But isn’t the government busy implementing supposedly populist politics like increasing housing supply, improving public transport and controlling foreigner influx after the hurly burly of the last election? Do we see Singapore being weakened by these measures? No. So in the case of Singapore, the hurly burly of politics strengthens, not weakens Singapore by forcing the government to implement popular yet right measures. Dr Tan emphasized the need for Singapore to have the best ideas and best leadership. But who is best qualified to decide who has the best idea and the best leadership? Those who decided that Saw Phaik Hwa was best turned out to be wrong. So how do we know whoever is deemed best today is actually best? Dr Tan urged all sides to take a long-term perspective for the common good. Dr Tan should realize that it is the government that is taking the short-term, instant tree perspective of mass import of population without first making adequate provision for housing, transportation, healthcare and so on. He should therefore thank the non-government side for nudging the government towards a long-term perspective for the common good. Dr Tan exhorted all to come together and move ahead as one united people once the debate is settled. But how can the debate be settled when we do not have referendums on important issues like casinos and 6.9 million population? If the Swiss whom we supposedly model after have referendums on major issues despite a larger population spread over a wider logistical space, why can’t we? How does Dr Tan expect Singaporeans to move ahead as one when our wishes have not been respected? Dr Tan claimed that our pioneers fought for our independence. Actually those who fought for our independence were collectively known as the Leftists. It is they we should honour for our progress towards self-determination. LKY and the PAP fought to merge us with Malaysia and in so doing, made us lose some of that self-determination. I refer too to the 17 May 2014 Straits Times report “An invitation to renew vows”. Straits Times compared the relationship between government and citizens to that of a marriage and characterised Dr Tan's speech as an invitation by the government to renew wedding vows by pledging as husband to woo Singaporeans with good education and so on. Straits Times can't be more wrong, the relationship between government and citizens is a servant master relationship, not a husband wife relationship. A husband doesn’t have to renew his status every five years. A husband doesn’t threaten his wife with 5 years of repent if she doesn’t choose him. A husband doesn’t insult his wife with words like spurs not stuck deep enough in the hide. A husband doesn’t declare the house belongs to everyone who steps into the house. The Singapore society has turned topsy turvy because the servant government thinks he is the husband master and decides rather than follows instructions. Thank you Ng Kok Lim * This article is intended for consumption on TRE only and shall not be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author or TRE. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Straits Times, An invitation to renew vows, 7 May 2014 IF THE relationship between government and citizens can be compared to a marriage, then the President's speech last night was an invitation to renew wedding vows as the couple prepare to celebrate their 50th anniversary. The occasion itself, the Opening of Parliament, is a formal ceremony at which by convention, President Tony Tan Keng Yam, as the head of state, reads out a speech prepared for him by the Government setting out its agenda for the rest of its term. Last night's speech though reached out to touch not just the intellects but also the hearts of Singaporeans. It recalled the depth of feeling and the shared dream that started the Government and people on this journey together. Back in 1965, when President Yusof Ishak opened the first Parliament of a newly independent Singapore, he held out the hope of a "tolerant society, multiracial, multireligious, multilingual, welded ever closer together by ties of common experience", President Tan said, addressing a packed chamber that included Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the only member of today's Parliament who was present when those words were first spoken. The pioneer generation of Singaporeans who took the plunge with the old guard ministers and parliamentarians, toiled to create "something special and precious for all of us to enjoy". "Our Golden Jubilee will be an occasion for us to re-dedicate ourselves to building a better Singapore," President Tan said. For the next part of their journey together, the Government as husband wooed Singaporeans with a vision of a life where each person will be valued and respected, regardless of status, where the young can flourish in an education system that gives them second chances, and opportunities to fulfil their potential and pursue their dreams, where the old will enjoy security in their retirement, and where all will enjoy a high quality of life with good homes and transport options. But as in any partnership, both sides must pitch in to make it work. Singaporeans cannot afford to just sit back and take what the Government has to give. They should involve themselves in the work of building a home where all feel a sense of responsibility for each other, all working together to create a shared future, the President said. As for what could threaten the success of this union, he highlighted the dangers of competitive politics, which in some countries has led to short-term populist measures and even gridlock and paralysis. "This sort of politics will weaken Singapore," he said, adding that it was important to keep politics constructive. Even as he acknowledged the importance of vigorous debates to ensure the best ideas and best leadership for Singapore, President Tan said: "While we may have differing views, all sides must take a long-term perspective for the common good. And once the debate is settled, we must come together again, to move ahead as one united people." This section of the speech acknowledged implicitly the electorate's growing desire for opposition representation in Parliament, to provide checks and balances on the People's Action Party, which despite a setback in the last General Election in 2011, still controls 80 of the 87 elected seats in the House. In this changed political landscape, the Government must work even harder to connect with citizens and keep society pulling together in the same direction. The President's speech highlighted two areas in which collaboration continues to be vital: working together to keep Singapore safe against external threats, and constantly adapting to changing circumstances so as to keep the economy growing and society inclusive. While acknowledging the challenges and the hard work that lies ahead, the President was emphatic that Singapore's best years are yet to be. "At 50, we are still a young nation, with great promise ahead," he said. He urged all Singaporeans to keep faith with the pioneers and their dream of what this nation could be, and to honour it by daring to dream and fight for an even better Singapore. Those are inspiring words but a question mark hangs over whether they will stir many to action, because after many years of an unequal marriage where one partner was far more dominant than the other, citizens too need time to get used to the idea that they should step up more and take charge of their own destinies, and that of Singapore's.  Read More →

Let me continue with Caveman’s story. I just met him only yesterday. He shared some of his very interesting real life stories with me. Encik was also present. I’ll try my best to recollect here. Caveman was beaming with joy when he told me that NEA has decided to issue him a warning instead. They have decided not to proceed a charge of breeding mosquitoes but they remain silent on the improvisation suggested by him. Pls refer to my previous blog on this subject to understand the issue. Link He also told me that ICA has also not decided to proceed a charge of harboring illegal immigrant against him. It seems that Caveman has the habit of getting into trouble with the law. I was curious of his latest case. Caveman’s 94 year old father is a Malaysian. He is on long term visit pass. Caveman forgotten to renew his social visit pass. Caveman was called up by ICA and investigated. Initially they decided to prefer a charge of harboring illegal immigrant against him since his father is living with him without any valid document or rather expired social visit pass. As usual, he refused to admit to the charge when he was offered a compound fine of $500. Either he paid up or had to go to court to answer to the charge. He was prepared to go jail for that. Caveman was furious and challenged them to haul him to court for the said charge. How could he harbor his own biological father as an illegal immigrant? Given the fact that his father is already 94 yrs old and still living with him, what kind of illegal immigrant they are talking about? Anyway, any charge ought to be sanctioned by AGC. Do you think AGC is so daft as to proceed with such ridiculous charge? After many visits to ICA with to-ing and fro-ing here and there, they finally decided to waive the charge. A written warning was issued to him instead when he refused to accept the compound fine. As usual, whenever Caveman was in trouble, Encik accompanied him throughout his ordeal. Caveman and Encik are secondary school friends for more than 40 years. They came from Penang here to join the RSAF. They belong to a group of Penang boys who helped built up our formidable air defense system. Later in the night, Caveman related another interesting story about his 94 year old father. Caveman was drinking plain water throughout the evening and he was definitely sober. Even though Caveman and Encik have become citizens, his 94 year old father is still a Malaysian. As such, Caveman has to keep renewing his long term social visit pass. He had forgotten to renew only once and that got him into trouble with ICA. The problem is that ICA like any other govt agency just go by the rule book. They just don’t bother if the illegal immigrant is your own father or to pleas of reason. Anyway, the case is now over. He will have to be careful the next time. I’m not worried about his brief skirmishes with the law. I am more concern about his next story he’s relating to me. Caveman told me that about 3 yrs ago, his 90 over year old father had a fall resulting in a broken hip. He then summoned Encik who is living nearby to assist him to haul his father to his car to be conveyed to TTSH. Encik was present when Caveman related this incident to me. Having conveyed his father to TTSH, Caveman was told to pay a deposit of $2,000. When Caveman asked how much would be the ultimate costs of the hip surgery? There is no limit and they wouldn’t know. It could be 10K or even 20K depending on the nature of the case. Caveman was outraged. He refused treatment for his father. He and Encik had to struggle to haul back his father to his car despite warnings given by the doctors that his father needed immediate medical attention. Exasperated, Encik had to call on three young men in the area to assist to haul his nearly immobile father back to the car. On the same day, Caveman whiffed off his own father with Encik in tow to Tun Aminah Hospital in JB. According to Caveman, it took only 30RM for admission fee. Another 800RM for the piece of metal to be used in the hip surgery which he had to pay immediately in the ward. Lastly, another 300RM for the operation, blood transfusion & tests and other miscellaneous items to be paid at the cashier. Total costs – 1,130RM. That was 3 years ago in a major government hospital in JB. It is simply incredible. I just could not believe him. He had Encik as a witness when he swore it to be the truth. Quite sometime ago, I was told a similar story. My ex-colleague who is a Malaysian working here sent his own father to a government hospital in KL for a stent operation. He only paid less than 1,500RM for the entire operation. Caveman says that his own father is now as fit as a fiddle. The old man could even walk for about 600 metres from his house to Kovan despite the up gradient slope. Do we need such expensive medical treatment? – in Caveman’s own words. The question is why our own Singapore being one of the richest countries in the world still charges her own citizens such high medical costs. Nearly every local Singaporean is complaining about the high medical costs despite massive government subsidies. Get warded for a major operation in our government hospital and your CPF will also be wiped out! Ask yourself and look around you to understand what I’m talking about. Years ago, there was no budget airline. Air travel was never cheap. Very few could afford such luxury until recently when there is a sudden mushroom of budget airlines. For less than $100, one could travel in a plane to any neighboring countries. Even established airlines had to set up budget airlines to cater to this growing segment of consumers. No frills travel where travelers only interested in getting from point A to point B. The objective is the same as the more expensive airlines. Could we also go along the same principle or business model like those budget airlines? No frills and basic medical attention – budget hospitals? Do we need such expensive and luxurious looking hospitals. We don’t need our government hospitals to look like hotels. Look at the high tech costly screening equipment and the extra guards deployed whenever we visit patients in hospitals. I remember those old hospitals in my younger days – the old Changi hospital, Toa Payoh hospital, TTSH etc. Simple and basic affordable health care where few complained so much about the exorbitant medical costs. Compared to today, we are so much richer than before with so much cash in our CPF, yet we find our present medical costs a huge burden. It’s quite logic defying right? Common sense tells us that we cannot expect the same medical costs as them but then the gap is too huge. That’s the issue. Will it keep on rising to a breaking point? Gintai_昇泰 * Gintai tweets on current affairs & inspirational quotes. He likes to share interesting jokes, stories, observations and anecdotes from friends on his blog. He blogs at gintai.wordpress.com. Related: Who is the biggest mosquito breeder in Singapore?  Read More →

The SDP launched our alternative education policy paper yesterday presenting the many issues and challenges that our present education system faced and spelling out alternative ideas to overcome them. Ms Chee Siok Chin presented the primary and secondary school system which stifled creativity in out students and causing the widening inequality in Singapore. She presented the following measures to remedy the faults: 1. Cultivate creative minds Build confidence in children by help their students adopt an attitude of independent thinking, willingness to make mistakes and learn from them, and persevere in the face of failed attempts. Teachers must be trained to help students develop creative skills by: encouraging students to ask questions and express their views rather than passively absorb classroom material discouraging punitive action and criticism for mistakes made by students facilitating discussions of ideas and possibilities among students teaching skills to critically evaluate ideas raising the awareness that creative work takes time for development 2. Remove PSLE and delay streaming The effort to cultivate creative skills will be undermined if we continue to emphasise on intense competition among students in the form of examinations and streaming. There is no benefit by insisting on assessing the abilities and talents of primary schoolchildren from how they perform on a single examination. By removing the PSLE and delaying streaming until upper secondary school, students will receive a well-rounded education and not suffer the horrific psychological trauma and suicides that are current taking place. (Read Why do we do this to our children?) 3. Broaden curricula, reduce syllabi The SDP will introduce a wider range of subjects including allocating time for music appreciation, speech and drama, literature, art, and physical education. Traditional subjects will have roughly the same amount of class time (about 3 hours) per week. Regular periods will also be set aside for students for collaborative and interactive activities where the children are encouraged to communicate with each other and work in teams rather than compete with each other as individuals. This is crucial to developing creativity. The content for each subject will also be reduced so that students are not saddled with homework. Teachers will be required to assign revision and exercise work that must be completed in school under staff supervision and guidance. When students are dismissed, they should spend the time at home with their families and for recreation. Students should also be able to go to bed early. 4. Reduce class size Research has shown that smaller class sizes promote better quality educational experiences for teachers and students. The SDP will reduce class size in our schools to 20 pupils per class. Currently, many schools have nearly 40 students per class. The reduction will be able to provide students with the necessary attention to help them develop academically. Also with less students to take care of, administrative work will be reduced which will free up more time for educators to concentrate on teaching. 5. Encourage reading Reducing the syllabus will also free up time for students to read for pleasure. Students, under the present system, develop an aversion for books because they are associated with examinations. It is the love of reading that encourages life-long learning and cultivates a creative mind. Under the SDP policy, MOE will, in collaboration with the National Library Board (NLB), make the books available in school libraries. The NLB, through the Community Libraries, will make regular visits to schools to give talks and encourage the habit of reading among students. 6. Lengthen school hours All schools will adopt single sessions. School hours will be extended to eight hours starting at 8 am and ending at 4 pm. As mentioned, time will be put aside for students to complete their assignments within school hours. This will also allow teachers to provide guidance for their students in their school work thereby ruling out the need for private tuition. 7. Provide school lunch The MOE will arrange for schools to provide healthy lunches for students. This will ensure that students from poorer families are not deprived of nutrition needed for healthy development. 8. Introduce Dedicated-Teacher System The SDP will introduce the Dedicated-Teacher System where a teacher will be assigned to a class and that same teacher will take the set of students from Primary 1 to 3 before another teacher is assigned to teach the students from Primary 4 to 6. This will not only allow the students to build up better bonding with the teacher and their classmates, it also provides more time to build trust and cooperation between parents and teachers. 9. Scrap school and class ranking Classes will not be ranked with better performing students placed in separate classes from weaker ones. Parents are driven to push their children to out-score their peers so that they can get into good classes and, eventually, good schools which will determine their streams and, consequently, their career paths. Such a practice is detrimental to the psychological and physical health of our children. Comparing examination results between individual students and classes will only result in principals, teachers, parents (and even students themselves) competing in a way that detracts from the real purpose of education which is self-improvement and self-actualisation. Ms Chee also highlighted other measures including upgrading teacher status and training, reinstating aptitude testing, organising secondary schools according to strengths, and involving parents more. You can read the entire paper Educating for Creativity and Equality: An Agenda for Transformation here. Early childhood and special needs education SDP Treasurer, Ms Chong Wai Fung, spoke on early childhood education and special education. She said that education in these two areas should be nationalised. Presently, many poor families don't send their children to kindergarten because they cannot afford it. This puts the children at a disadvantage when they enter Primary 1. By nationalising pre-school education, we will ensure that every child will get the start they need and enter primary school able to compete fairly with everyone else. Also, pre-school educators will be trained at the NIE with graduates having extensive training in educational psychology and early childhood development. Presently, many caregivers in our kindergartens are not adequately trained and do not possess the necessary qualifications. Similarly, under the SDP plan, education for children with special needs will be taken over by the Government from VWOs in order to provide the necessary backing for mainstream education for these students. Tertiary education Dr James Gomez presented the SDP's alternative in tertiary education. He said that universities must be completely independent from Government interference. Currently, the MOE still dictates how many graduates Singapore can produce. In a leaked document from Wikileaks, the PAP stipulated that our universities can only produce 23%-25% of graduates of the population per year. He also cautioned about the influx of foreign students. He cited alarming figures that showed that since 2010, foreign students came in at about 50,000 per year while outbound Singaporean students occurred at around 20,000 per year. The SDP will also abolish the Tuition Grant Scheme (TGS) for foreign students. The TGS gives out about $200 million per year to foreign students studying in Singapore. While foreign students enjoy such a benefit, many Singaporeans cannot afford the university education because they are poor. The SDP will scrap the TGS and instead introduce an interest-free student loan scheme for Singaporean students. Dr Gomez also highlighted the concern of local academics about the disproportionate number of foreign staff in our universities. To right the imbalance, the SDP's Singaporeans First policy will be used to ensure that Singaporean academics are given priority for academic positions and grants be provided local students who wish to pursue an academic career. Read the entire paper Educating for Creativity and Equality: An Agenda for Transformation here. Singapore Democrats  Read More →