Neighbours The Online Citizen (TOC) spoke to said that the man who lived with his mother (in her seventies) is unwell, unemployed and has been depressed for some time.

A neighbour who did not want to be identified said that the mother and son seem to live alone.  ”It is strange that more than an hour after the suicide, no relatives have come to assist the family”, she adds.

Although attempted suicide is an offence punishable with jail under section 309 of the Penal Code, suicide remains one of the top causes of death in Singapore.

In 2006, an Asia-Pacific conference on suicide prevention said that 1700 people killed themselves between the years 2000 and 2004.

What is more alarming is that for every suicide , there are seven unsuccessful attempts.

——————————-

Note: We have edited this article following Samaritans of Singapore’s (SOS) email to TOC.  SOS emphasises that there are helping organisations for people who may need assistance in times of distress, such as the following:

• 24-hour helpline: 1800-221-4444

• Email: pat@samaritans.org.sg

__________________________

By Ravi Philemon

Related posts:

1. Gerard Ee – right in slamming physician assisted suicide
2. Suicide statistics – the young and the stressed?
3. Kin outraged, distraught over teen’s cyber suicide (US)

Ambiguous clauses and the problem of interpretation

Far from providing clarity, the latest statement issued by the National Arts Council (NAC) has farther mystified the supposed guidelines that are adhered to in awarding grants, by throwing out a set of ambiguous clauses that masquerade as objective markers. What on earth are “alternative lifestyles”, this perpetual staple of conservative discourse? What are these “core values” that appear to possess us? These supposed guidelines are based on definitions that are susceptible to arbitrary readings and political manipulation. The council speaks of “core values” as if they could be identified with a litmus test.

Then of course, there is the even bigger conundrum of interpreting a work to determine its compatibility to these ambiguous guidelines. How do we ascertain the target and extent of a play’s political critique? Is it something we can judge from the programme booklet? Do we judge by referring to explicit, visible signals? Would The Necessary Stage’s production Can Change, staged in January, be considered a defender of government policy or its parody? Clearly such a system puts the works of W!LD RICE, with its broad mainstream appeal and its more demonstrative methods of satire at a clear disadvantage.

The fact is that the nuances of art will always present a challenge towards ascertaining its intentions with definite certitude. But the futility of attaining objectivity does not mean that it is impossible to create a set of guidelines that is at least functional. The key to this is communal dialogue. Any proclamation on objectivity is at best specious if the plurality of opinions coming from the various stakeholders of the art world (which includes the audience) is not even engaged. To carry out such deliberations within an exclusive group behind closed doors is to claim absolute authority over thematic and artistic interpretation.

A fundamentally problematic philosophy

But of course, the bigger question is, why bother even clarifying the definitions when the very nature of the guidelines is deeply problematic? Wouldn’t it be a mere refinement of the tools of oppression and a farther elaboration of a misguided philosophy? Before we even go about reestablishing the rules of governance, it is paramount to correct the fundamental misconceptions that inform the NAC’s approach towards the arts.

First, the notion of “alternative lifestyles” needs to be relooked. The authorities invoke the term as a preacher would speak of an absolute sin. But is there anything inherent wrong with the term “alternative”? The term has been rhetorically conflated with malicious abnormality through its appropriation in the anti-gay speeches of religious fundamentalists. Even if we were to consider the alternative as a deviation from a specified norm, why should difference be condemned? Why is the term, “alternative lifestyle” used to denigrate homosexuality but not vegetarianism or alternative spirituality?

In this light, hasn’t theatre always been about the alternative? Isn’t it the necessary responsibility of art to think, to question and to challenge the normative? The very nature of theatre has been built upon the alternative. It isolates the particular and personal and accentuates its individuated identity upon the stage. It functions within a fundamentally decentered space where a displacement of the universal enables new possibilities to be negotiated and expressed. Its ultimate utilitarian value towards society is thus its capacity to imagine and stimulate progressive change.

In the report by The Strait Times on 13 May 2010, a statement by Nancy Lim, the NAC’s assistant finance manager reveals the authorities’ critical misconception of theatre and the arts, claiming that “there is a wide range of topics” in the arts and that “we don’t have to go into the grey areas”.

But aren’t these “grey areas” precisely the province of the arts? What is the critical value of an arts scene which only performs staged readings of government rhetoric? The authorities appear to envision theatre only as a form of recital, determined only to fund productions that serve as pretty vignettes of creativity to populate our aspiring Renaissance City.

Next, the concomitant problem that comes with the problem of “alternative lifestyles” is that of “core values”. In an email to the arts community, poet-playwright Alfian Sa’at has expressed that “there has been no articulation of what Singapore’s ‘core values are’” and associated the term with “glittering generality”. Indeed, how can we even speak of an “alternative” with such confidence if the centre is not even defined? (Not that there is really a necessity for it.) The “core values” are a mythical and rhetorical construct that needs to be radically deconstructed.

In the combined statement by the arts community, it is expressed that there seems to be some confusion between “core values” and “mainstream values”. Effectively, the word “core” suggests a certain fixity that needs to be governed aggressively at all costs. Its very nature is steeped in the political. On the other hand, mainstream values can shift over time. In fact, why do we even need to designate such “core values”? And even if they do serve a functional purpose, why should it be the obligation of the arts to articulate such constructed values that don’t even serve as an accurate mirror of society?

Lastly, the flagrant demand that the arts abstain from works that criticise government policy is both impossible and dangerous. This brand of apolitical theatre that the authorities valorise simply does not exist. Particularly in a city-state where the government attains an omnipresence, is it remotely possible to examine the issues of society, culture or that of everyday life without any form of critique of government policy? The council curiously appears to be undermining the very influence of the state upon its people. Theatre does not reside in its own ivory tower and cannot exist without a context. There is no detour to social or cultural critique without the implication of government policy.

More importantly, this act of depoliticising theatre is inimical to the values of democracy that our society upholds. What is to happen if we were to lose this final bastion of criticality within a society that is already unapologetically censorial? This is a point that Alfian Sa’at has reinforced in the aforementioned email:

“Government is not beyond criticism. The mandate to govern is not equivalent to immunity from critique. If the citizenry has a right to vote, then it also has the right to express its opinions on the performance of the elected during their term. Reputation is built from one’s ability to counter (or even ignore) criticism, rather than one’s ability to silence it.”

Transparency and Accountability

In Heng’s response to TOC, he revealed that the company has met with NAC on several occasions over the years. Several of these “negotiations” resulted in the NAC’s logo being removed from all publicity materials, signalling the council’s desire not to be associated with the productions. In these instances, the funding remained intact.

More recently in March, the NAC warned the company that should it persist in doing plays “which promoted an alternative lifestyle, and which were contrary to the core values of society, or were critical of the Government, [its] funds would be cut”. The company subsequently requested for a meeting with the board but was told that it would not make a difference. There was essentially no right of appeal or recourse.

The company later received assurance that the funding would not be cut for the 2010 season, given that the company was staging revivals that had received funding previously. The contrary happened within a month.

Such accounts undeniably cast doubts upon the integrity of the NAC as an institution of public character. In the first instance, while what happened is clearly a lesser evil as opposed to cutting the funding outright, it is still a form of public deceit. Is this how the NAC ensures its accountability to the public? More crucially, it also reveals that the NAC possesses a clear awareness of the contradictions inherent in its approach towards arts funding, which it evidently attempts to keep out of public view.

Furthermore, why is there so much furtiveness in the council’s management of arts funding? Why are the funds, which in effect come from the tax-paying audience, disbursed in such an arbitrary fashion? How did the council come to decide upon these elusive funding guidelines in the first place?

The Conservative Renaissance

Perhaps the most befuddling aspect of this debacle is the awkward timing of the move. Companies like W!LD RICE have engaged in various forms of political theatre since its inception and rarely have any of these works provoked any form of public backlash. There appears to be no particular production in recent memory that could serve as a plausible trigger for such a reactionary move. The oft-mentioned The Important of Being Earnest can hardly compare with the company’s earlier works in terms of raising the hairs of fundamentalist crazies and The Campaign To Confer The Public Service Star On JBJ was staged way back in 2007. Particularly, why is funding being cut for the company’s tenth anniversary season which features revivals of old works that had previously received funding during their original runs?

Can it thus be inferred that it is the NAC and the government that have become more conservative? There are telling signs that they have. Last August, we saw the appointment of Benson Puah as the council’s CEO when he was already holding on to the same appointment in The Esplanade. On 12 May 2010, it was announced in TODAY that the NAC and The Esplanade, both led by the same man, will “explore a strategic partnership” to manage both the Victoria Theatre and the Drama Centre when The Esplanade takes over the management of both venues. Poet-playwright Ng Yi-Sheng has also posted a series of commentaries on the official Singapore Arts Festival blog (http://singartsfestival.wordpress.com/) on the recent developments concerning the festival which opens this weekend. Are we moving towards an arts scene that is gradually moulded to become more centralised and controlled?

The only Renaissance that appears to be happening is that of conservatism. The tools of oppression have been quietly reinvented to operate insidiously beneath a liberalising social and cultural scene. But the blatancy of the NAC’s recent statement signals the alarming ambitions of this conservative rebirth: it no longer seeks to function beneath the veil of euphemism and disguise, but aspires legitimisation as the righteous crusader, valiantly safeguarding a mythical set of “core values” that is made to possess us from within.

____________________________

By Ho Rui An

_________________________________________

Related posts:

1. The conservative renaissance – part 1
2. When saying “traditional, conservative society” doesn’t cut it anymore
3. State’s decisions threat to secular society

“And I think censorship takes many, many forms. It may not be as blatant as cutting your words but they certainly give you a rating, which severely limits your audience. And ratings prevent you from reaching out to a younger audience who may also need to hear these things. But this is the whole idea of nanny-ing, isn’t it? You are not old enough. You are not capable of making these decisions cause you may make the wrong decisions and then where will we be?”

These words which come from theatre director Ivan Heng just weeks ago become uncannily prophetic given the recent turn of events. As reported by The Strait Times on 6 May 2010, the National Arts Council (NAC) has cut the annual grant given to W!LD RICE, the theatre company which Heng helms as Artistic Director.

It will get $170,000 this year, down from the previous $190,000, effectively the smallest annual grant it has received since 2006. TheatreWorks, a company led by artistic director Ong Keng Seng, also experienced a similar decrease, receiving $280,000 this year, as compared to last year’s $310,000. A group of artists from the theatre community, which includes Heng, Ong and The Necessary Stage artistic director, Alvin Tan has since issued a statement and has requested for a meeting with the NAC.

While the issue of funding cuts is not new, it deviates from the council’s usual practice of cutting funds for specific productions. In a reply to The Online Citizen (TOC), Heng has described the measure as “punitive and vindictive”.

“This cut did not occur for a specific production, but is a signal to express NAC’s displeasure, and also a warning against transgressing the arbitrary boundaries that it has laid down. In effect, it is an action that is both punitive and vindictive.”

The veteran theatre director was told that funding was cut because the company’s productions promoted alternative lifestyles, were critical of government policies and satirised political leaders. In the words of NAC’s arts development director, Elaine Ng, ”funding guidelines clearly state that we will not fund projects which are incompatible with the core values promoted by the Government and society or disparage the Government”.

The blatancy of the statement is a cause for alarm. It abandons the usual euphemisms and excuses to disseminate a self-righteous, unabashed and undisguised call for conformity, or in other words, for self-censorship. (Or are we supposed to feel relieved that at least it has not given the economic downturn as a convenient excuse?) As it seems, this is the state that our censorial society has degenerated into: protracted arguments are no longer necessary for censorship has become the de rigueur. Is this what all the talk about reviewing censorship has amounted to? In fact, in a separate article in The Strait Times a week later, Ng even called NAC’s issued statement a move towards “greater transparency”. How is it that an official articulation of a problematic policy can be construed as progressive change? If anything, it serves only to reinforce that council’s self-imposed blindness towards its own systemic failures.

Perhaps what is most pitiable is really the folly and self-deceit at the heart of the issue. The council appears indifferent to the sheer gravity and moral deplorability of its proclamations. Does it not realise that such a statement is tantamount to an official disapproval of political critique, which happens to be the very raison d’être of contemporary art? Are they not even remotely aware of its Orwellian overtones?

It is indeed incredulous that an organisation consisting of educated individuals, some of whom have worked in the arts and culture industry, would be oblivious to the connotations of their official statements. One is reminded of Alex Au’s critical piece, Sucking Demigod’s Toes (http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1081.htm) which speaks of the “sycophantic prose” civil servants and the like have been conditioned to produce. This is a systemic flaw that permeates all levels of society.

A flawed method based on a flawed philosophy

However, the more specific problem at hand here is the relationship between the artist and the state, which has been historically fraught with anxieties. The artist needs the financial support from the state as much as it needs to maintain its integrity. Meanwhile, the state needs the creative culture generated by the arts as much as it fears that it will eventually undermine its powers. It is a delicate balancing act that Singapore has yet to master – an impossibility, perhaps, in a country where the state is only determined to engage the arts in its own, mono-logic terms. The only strategy it has adopted thus far is that of willing, authoring and managing creativity as opposed to truly engaging it. Such a contractual relationship has negated the chance to negotiate and reconcile the inherent tensions and has only served to escalate them.

In this particular instance of funding the theatrical arts, it is really a case of a flawed method based on a flawed philosophy.

_______________________________

By: Ho Rui An

______________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. The conservative renaissance – part 2
2. When saying “traditional, conservative society” doesn’t cut it anymore
3. Director Ivan Heng of W!ld Rice on his Animal Farm

Despite requesting Joe to edit the letter into a 300-word article, Today subsequently refused to publish it.

Today refused to publish the letter as they claimed that they had checked with the Ministry of Health (MOH) on the statistics and MOH replied to Today that the data were flawed (even though there were gotten from MOH’s own website).

Today also allegedly mentioned in the reply refusing to publish Joe’s letter, that MOH has communicated (with Today) that some children with special needs are beyond help even with Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC).

Joe claims that in a phone conversation with an editor of Today, the editor tried to rationalise with him that his figures were probably wrong, even though Today did not have any hard facts to back up that rational from MOH.

In the phone conversation, the editor also allegedly claimed that the government and the editor’s friend Member of Parliament Dennis Phua were doing a lot for children requiring early intervention.

Joe further claims that in the phone conversation with him, the editor advised him to go and see his MP instead.

Joe writes in his email correspondence with The Online Citizen (TOC) that during the phone conversation with Today, he felt like he “was talking to an agent of MOH and not a reporter of a newspaper.” He adds, “But why can’t Today publish (the letter) and let MOH respond to clear all doubts?”

TOC wrote in to Today to verify these claims by Joe 3 days ago. To date, there has been no reply from Today.

MOH did subsequently get back to Joe, at the request of the editor in Today.

In the email response to Joe, MOH said that the matter has been referred to its Quality Service Managers and that they are looking into it, further adding that they will get back to Joe on his concerns in due time.

TOC publishes Joe’s unedited letter here:

——–Joe’s letter——–

The Ministry of Health reported that it was injecting S$46 million over the next four years to expand its early intervention services for special needs children. It ultimately aimed to serve 6,000 cases yearly, and to bring down waiting times for key services [1].

This is grossly under-budgeted.

The Health Ministry reported an addition of 2,000 new cases of special needs children yearly [1]. In 2008, total resident births in Singapore were 37,277, as reported by the National Population Secretariat [2]. This means more than 5 in 100 (5+ %) births require special needs education or early intervention every year.

About 18.4% of Singapore resident population is age 0-14. Total resident population in 2008 was 3.6 million [2]. That means an estimate of about 32,400 (age 0-14) children may have special needs, and require special education (i.e. 3.6M x 18% x 5%). Assuming slightly less than half (of 32,400 ) is age less than 7, the number of children requiring special needs education and early intervention program is about between 10,000 and 13,000 yearly. This is 167-217% more than what the Health Ministry plans to cater for (6,000)!

Another perspective is based on “2,000 new special needs cases a year” as reported by the Ministry. Assuming on average a child is diagnosed with some developmental disabilities at age 2. The child requires 5 years of early intervention program (until age 7). With 2,000 new cases added every year, Singapore really needs to cater to about 10,000 special needs student population [see Table]. Again, this proves that this Government is under-investing in special needs education!

In January 2010, I called up a few “Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children” (EIPIC) Centres to ask for an estimate of waiting time for enrolment. The estimated waiting time ranges between 1 and 9 months then. Very recently, I called the same EIPIC centres again. Now, the estimated waiting time ranges between 3 and 12 months. The waiting time has gone up by at least 2 months! This is anecdotal evidence that the Government is not doing sufficiently for our special needs children.

In fact, some medical workers I spoke with revealed that they had made repeated calls to their Ministry to add more early intervention resources. Yet, the ground feedback had not been heeded enough. This is regrettable.

The Health Ministry and other relevant ministries need to clarify on this government’s commitment to special needs children and education.

Is the government unwilling to invest in children with special needs because it sees these children more a liability?

If the estimate of 32,400 (age 0-14) children (who may have special needs) is true, this utilitarian government needs to consider the loss of economic opportunities if these children do not receive early-enough intervention, sufficientintervention, or affordable intervention programs.

When the Health Ministry said it would “bring down waiting times for key services”, it needs to state clearly and commit to a much shortened waiting time.

It needs to prove that the budget for facilities to support only 6,000 annual cases is sufficient.

————

References
[1] Health Ministry injects S$46m to expand services for special needs children, By Hwee Goh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 09 March 2010 2150 hrs, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1042526/1/.html

[2] POPULATION IN BRIEF : 2009, National Population Secretariat (NPS).
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/popinbrief2009.pdf

By: The father of a child with special needs

———–

Further discussions on similar topics here.

————-

Related posts:

1. Danger in our education system
2. AWARE dropped as sex education vendor
3. Children with disabilities & the Compulsory Education Act

Singapore is a nation of homeowners, largely thanks to a comprehensive system of government subsidised housing.

But despite the system’s overall success, the strict rules also mean that some people fall through the cracks.

For example, anyone selling their government subsidised house is not allowed to rent one within 30 months. That policy has had unexpected repercussions for divorcees, as Laura Kyle reports.

Read also: Raiding the homeless – part two

Related posts:

1. Singapore Police Force – stretched and fatigued
2. Six months on the streets
3. TOC takes to the streets on Saturday

The Online Citizen (TOC) sent in the following opinion to The Straits Times (ST) Forum on 30 March 2010. At the time of putting this up on TOC, ST had not responded if they would put this up in their papers. So, we publish our opinion in full here.

On March 29, I emailed the Commissioner of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), CP Ng Joo Hee in my capacity as the Joint-Chief Editor of The Online Citizen, enquiring about the report on Bangkok Post titled, “Candy’s special customers: the bribe-taking, sex hungry policemen”.

In the email, I enquired if the report in Bangkok Post was true and if true, had the SPF identified these rogue officers and what action(s) have been taken against them.

On March 30, I received a reply from Mr Paul Tan, the Quality Service Manager of SPF.  In his email reply Mr Tan said that my enquiry was receiving due attention and that SPF will reply me in due course.

I was relieved to read in ST on 31 March, that responding to questions from The Straits Times, SPF confirmed that the officers mentioned in the article were not members of SPF and that the allegations by Bangkok Post against the officers of SPF are unsubstantiated.

It is inevitable that even a highly reputable force like the SPF will have some rogue elements in them.  And SPF has rightly dealt with such rogue officers in the past in a firm manner and in accordance to the law; for the integrity of SPF could only be maintained by flushing out such officers and exposing them for the sake of openness and accountability.

But what troubles me is, why did SPF choose not to respond to the queries of TOC on this issue, but was quick to respond to ST?

No doubt ST is a mainstream media and SPF may have deemed that there is a greater urgency in disseminating appropriate information to them on this issue, but could not SPF have extended the same courtesy to TOC, in the interest of letting as many people as possible know that there was no basis to the allegations of Bangkok Post.  After all, the issue concerns the incorruption of SPF and they should have made use of as many platforms as possible to put this message through.

Net-savvy citizens are often the first to read such articles in cyberspace and the writers at TOC (even though being all volunteers) often take it upon ourselves to verify the authenticity of such news thoroughly before commenting on it, for the sake of keeping our readers responsibly informed.

SPF should have also used our platform to dispel that their officers are not implicated in this issue.

Come to think of it, what is SPF’s position on engaging Net-savvy citizens, especially Net-savvy citizens who put their real names, contact details and other personal information out there, when they raise such legitimate questions?

Even if SPF had not responded to the query of TOC appropriately and in a timely manner because we are not part of the mainstream media, they could have at least responded to me in my personal capacity.

Not every Net-savvy citizen reads the mainstream media and so SPF should not assume that by quashing such allegations on the mainstream media, they have done their part in denying such allegations.

With the rapid evolution of new media and the hastened, radical shift of media consumption from traditional media to new media, SPF should build strong community partnerships in cyberspace to spread crime alerts, crime prevention advisories and counter-terrorism messages.

________________________

Afternote

After sending this email to Straits Times Forum, SPF responded to me via email on 1 April 2010. An officer by the name of Junaina Juhari acting for SPF’s Quality Service Manager responded to my query saying, with “regards to the queries that you have raised, kindly refer to Police’s response published in the Straits Times, The New Paper and TODAY newspaper dated 31 Mar 2010”.

When I asked her if she would either confirm or deny the allegations of the article in the Bangkok Post without referring me to the mainstream media, she wrote back to apologise for assuming that I have access to the local media and quoted their response to the mainstream media:

In response to media queries on the Bangkok Post article dated 28 March 2010, “Candy’s special customers: the bribe-taking, sex hungry policemen”, Police spokesman Inspector Mohd Hamizyam said, “While the Police do not condone any acts of corruption and abuse of power, our investigations have revealed that the allegations made by Bangkok Post against our officers are unsubstantiated. Instead, one auxiliary police officer and three private security officers are currently assisting in ongoing investigations after the arrest of three men on 16 March 2010 for an offence under the Women’s Charter.”

________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. Big Brother in cyberspace – anonymously
2. A justice system to protect the strong or the weak?
3. PKR first off the block in cyberspace battle

From next month, supermarket chain Sheng Siong will increase the stall rentals by a whooping 30% at five of the wet markets it purchased last year.

The five wet markets are in Choa Chu Kang, Bukit Batok and Serangoon. The current monthly stall rental ranges from $2000 to $3000. Stallholders would likely have little choice but to pass on the cost to consumers, or risk going out of business.

Sheng Siong told Channel News Asia that it had no choice but to increase rental rates, as it had to pay bank interest fees, property tax and maintenance fees, after buying over the five wet markets for about S$25 million. [1]

Sheng Siong’s explanation unfortunately betrays the company as having engaged in predatory business tactics.

If the cost of acquisition of the wet markets was high, why did Sheng Siong commit to the purchase, only to pass on the cost to stallholders?

The answer in my opinion is as clear as daylight. Sheng Siong completed the business transaction because it knew that with its new monopolistic position, it could raise prices to maintain its bottom line without losing market share to competitors.

The Housing and Development Board allowed the sale of the wet markets to go through despite objection from both residents as well as stallholders. The Singapore Democratic Party also wrote letters to Sheng Siong highlighting the plight of residents and stallholders, but to no avail. [2]

The Members of Parliament of the constituencies in which those wet markets are located ignored the obvious warning signs and failed to speak out on behalf of residents and stallholders who voiced legitimate concerns about possible price increases – fears that have now been fully realized.

Those MPs have reneged on their duty to represent the interest of their constituents, and must be held accountable. They include Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong, MP for Choa Chu Kang, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC which includes the Bukit Batok area, as well as Dr Teo Ho Pin, MP for Bukit Panjang.

Dr Teo in particular had received letters from the SDP raising concerns about the possibility that after taking over the wet markets, Sheng Siong might convert the wet markets into supermarket chains, a move that would force existing stallholders out of business and greatly increase costs for residents who rely on the wet markets for cheap and fresh produce. However, he paid no heed to them. He merely replied with a one-liner:

“Residents in Fajar area prefer a wet market and I have conveyed their preferences to HDB. Thanks for your concern.“ [3]

_____________________________

References:

[1] Channel News Asia, “Sheng Siong raises rent at 5 wet markets by 30%“, 24 March 2010

[2] SDP website, “SDP’s worst fears about Sheng Siong come true“, 25 March 2010

[3] SDP website, “SDP calls on Dr Teo to stand with Bukit Panjang residents “, 11 October 2009

_________________________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. TOC Editorial: PAP, ignore Sheng Siong debacle at your risk
2. The Singapore Story – A failure of pragmatism
3. Copenhagen: failure or success

In late January 2010, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in announcing the increase in the Additional Housing Grant from the previous S$30,000 to S$40,000, said that with the increase, some 8,000 households annually would benefit.

What does “8,000 households annually” mean? What percentage of Singaporeans would qualify for the Additional Housing Grant? Is that a large percentage or not?

In attempting to grasp the significance of this figure, I tried to compare it to the annual demand for ownership flats as reported by the HDB in their Annual Report. Over the last three years, this has averaged about 10,000 flats per year. The HDB defines “demand” as “bookings received by HDB for 2-room and bigger flats under the various allocation exercises, as well as bookings for Design, Build and Sell scheme flats.”

At first glance, 8,000 eligible out of an annual demand of 10,000 suggests that even the Additional Housing Grant is a scheme that throws money like confetti to all and sundry.

However, the details complicate such a simplistic conclusion. The Additional Housing Grant can be used for resale flats, but not for second-time purchases, whereas HDB’s 10,000-figure for demand includes second-time purchases, but excludes resale transactions. Hence, it is not possible to compare the two figures. Nevertheless, one is left with the distinct impression that not only do all Singaporeans’ first-time flat purchases get an assist from the first grant, perhaps a majority also get the Additional Housing Grant.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the great majority of Singaporeans depend on subsidies to get a roof over their heads. We’re breeding a culture of dependency.

This cannot be tenable. I’m not against subsidies in principle, but it should only be for a small percentage of the population to mitigate extremes of poverty. Dishing out subsidies — and the schemes are permanent — to well over half the population cannot be fiscally responsible.

Unless…. they are not subsidies.

_________________________________

Read the entire article at Yawning Bread

_____________________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. HDB housing policies – tilting the advantage towards PRs?
2. Year In Review: HDB flats – subsidy, affordability, prices.
3. “Homing instinct” requires fundamental shift in mentality

Social Workers are evolving into “care coordinators”, according to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sport, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. By adding, “coordination then means you need to be able to communicate with all the other stakeholders in our society”, Dr Vivian actually meant that social workers are evolving from being case managers, into being care coordinators.

This evolvement of social workers is good, for as long as social workers are going to work as case managers, their focus will be on containing costs, utilisation management, prior authorisation, welfare context, services that are covered and on promoting coordination and communication across disciplines within the organisation. Case management is about social work in the micro level.

When social workers move from being case managers to care coordinators, they move from the micro to the mezzo level; for care coordination is about facilitating access, quality assurance, problem-solving, psychosocial context, covered as well as non-covered services and more importantly promoting coordination of social support services across different organisations and providers.

But there is yet another level for social workers to evolve into – the macro level. The macro level involves society or communities as a whole. This type of social work practice would include policy forming and advocacy on a national or international scale.

One can only wonder if the government of Singapore will encourage the evolvement of social workers to go from the mezzo level to the macro level.

When most national bodies of social work are members of the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW), Singapore’s very own National Council of Social Services (NCSS), renounced its membership of ICSW not too long ago.

ICSW states in its website that their basic mission is to:

“Promote forms of social and economic development which aim to reduce poverty, hardship and vulnerability throughout the world, especially amongst disadvantaged people. It strives for recognition and protection of fundamental rights to food, shelter, education, health care and security. It believes that these rights are an essential foundation for freedom, justice and peace. It seeks also to advance equality of opportunity, freedom of self-expression and access to human services.”

This mission statement is loaded with quite a bit of ‘macro’ ingredients – rights, advance equality of opportunity and freedom of self expression.

Did NCSS withdraw its membership from ICSW some years ago also because it was not ready to allow social work to develop to a macro level?

Social work can be a thankless career. It is perhaps more a calling than a career. Anyone who has spent any amount of time working in the social services sector is probably familiar with the concept of burnout. Burnout destroys the social workers motivation, work ethics and, most of all, the inner hope, that the work they do makes a difference.

Although raising the salaries of social workers is a move in the right direction, doing so to keep them motivated can only go so far, as extrinsic motivations like higher salaries are only temporary.

The government should not stand in the way for the intrinsic motivation of the social workers to evolve to the macro level. Give them a sense of feeling that they too can make a difference in the national and even international level.

_________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. CPF – social security or social bondage?
2. TOC Feature: Social work – a human rights framework
3. Giving equal access to social benefits

Compassion remains scarce in Singapore. The status quo prevails for the government: public transport concessions will remain elusive for the almost 120 000 disabled people.

Addressing the plight of the disabled was Workers’ Party Non-Constituency MP Ms. Sylvia Lim, who advanced in Thursday’s Parliamentary session that public transport concessions for the disabled are “a necessary step towards integration, to work, to socialise and to be consumers”.

The Responsibility to Include

Citing the “low earning capacity” of the disabled and their lack of bargaining power, Ms. Lim exhorted the government to live up to its rhetoric of building a truly “inclusive society”.

Transport Minister Raymond Lim however cautioned that mandating the provision of concessionary travel for the disabled as a licensing prerequisite for transport companies was not viable as the Ministry “would be very slow in stipulating (to operators) how best to run the concession policy”.

Supervising the expansion of the road and train network must have taken a toll on Mr Lim for him to comprehensively fail to empathize with a marginalized community already facing social estrangement from their lack of physical mobility and lack of access to public infrastructure.

However much pride the Transport Ministry derives from its engineering marvels in building underground MRT lines in urban-dense Singapore, they should similarly feel disappointed that they lack the capacity and resources to conduct a feasibility study to discern an appropriate concessionary plan.

Indeed, for much of the government’s communitarian eloquence, such a policy position is contradictory as it betrays the policymakers’ unwillingness to fulfill its moral imperative to provide for a marginalized segment of the community.

Our failure to ameliorate the burdens of the physically- handicapped suggests the dearth of our societal conscience, and the stranglehold of the corporatist logic that fails to acknowledge minority groups as legitimate stakeholders of society rather than vested interest groups – thus perpetuating their marginalization.

Reclaiming Welfare

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Teo Ser Luck reaffirmed the government’s laissez-faire approach, confirming that the government would not intervene in the commercial operations of the public transport operators, but merely “encourage” the operators to grant concessionary travel.

He further advised that financial help can be obtained by the disabled community through Workfare and Comcare. Asking the disabled to apply for the aid – instead of proactively providing the means of help – conforms to the government’s persistent diffidence with welfare. It is as though the proactive provision of aid would engender a sense of entitlement that erodes the meritocratic ethic that we so highly espouse.

It is unfortunate that our discourse of welfare and meritocracy has been severely distorted – for rather than being an incompatible element, welfare is in fact integral to sustaining a meritocratic structure. Political philosopher John Rawl has stated that ensuring a fair equality of opportunity requires society to be cognizant of, and compensate for, social contingencies. It is insufficient that we institute a formal structure of equal opportunity, as such a system would favour those who are already ahead in social circumstances.

Although Rawls demurs from extending this argument further, it is not hard to conceptually include compensation for the physical-disabled as a form of social justice. The absence of welfare for the physically-disabled inevitably results in ‘crass meritocracy’ – a system blind and unsympathetic both the unique needs of its constituents suffer and the individual talents they could potentially offer to  society.

In reclaiming and re-situating welfare as a necessary societal obligation, the half-hearted commitment in supporting our disabled is a damning testament to our collective deficit in morality and social justice.

Concessionary travel for the disabled is merely a question of moral imperatives that strikes deep into our hearts, and the answers in Parliament on Thursday suggest that we have none.

__________________________________

Headline picture courtesy of Straits Times

_____________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. 1.8% cap on any bus, train fare hike this year
2. Heroes are lonely creatures
3. Train squeeze – “cannot be helped”?

Animal activists have raised legal and welfare concerns about the impending transfer of 18 bottlenose dolphins to Marine Life Park Resorts World Sentosa. These wild dolphins, caught from the Solomon Islands, are currently being trained in Ocean Adventure Park in Subic Bay Freeport of the Philippines, while awaiting the completion of the integrated resort.

Illegality

As a signatory of CITES, Singapore must ensure that its animal trade activities conform with CITES regulation principles. Since the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin comes under Appendix II of CITES, international trade of the dolphin can only take place with export permits and a valid Non-Detriment Finding (NDF) given out by the Scientific Authority of the country of export.

However, the Cetacean Specialist Group (CSG) of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) determined in 2003 and in 2007 that the Solomon Islands government cannot issue a legitimate NDF. As valid local dolphin population estimates do not exist, so it is not possible to verify whether the export of dolphins will exhaust the dolphin population. The CSG reported that “therefore, CITES Parties should not issue permits to import dolphins from the Solomon Islands”.

As a result of the CSG findings, the Philippines CITES Scientific Authority had announced that the dolphin imports to Subic Bay were illegal. The CITES Secretariat however did not declare it so, allowing Mr Danny Cham of Weber Shandwick, which represents Resorts World Sentosa, to maintain that “animals required for its Marine Life Park are in accordance with CITES.”

That being said, Ms Jaki Teo of Sea Shepherd Asia opined that ‘this does not mean that the trade was legally conducted in accordance with CITES principles.’

There is also another legal problem in that the Solmon Islands has not issued phytosanitary/veterinarian certificates, which are required under Philippines law for the imports of cetaceans to testify that the dolphins are not carrying bacteria.

Animal rights concerns

Ms Teo also fears for the general welfare of the dolphins, observing that wild dolphin populations are dwindling due to habitat destruction and incidental catches. She believes that the capture of wild dolphins exacerbates this problem.

Indeed, some like Mr Louis Ng, executive director of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres), feels that “it’s not necessary to take them from the wild” as “there are so many captive-bred dolphins.”

Captivity is another cause for alarm for activists.

Ms Deirdre Moss of the SPCA has raised concerns about the strain of transportation and long holding periods. Forcing them to adapt to life in a man-made structure is also an issue.

Ms Moss said that “For wild caught dolphins, there are major concerns in that they have had to deal with sudden confinement, forced association with humans, and lack of various stimuli provided by their natural environment.”

Ms Teo also warned that “killing a dolphin and keeping it in captivity is exactly the same,” as wild animals lose its purpose when taken into captivity and displaced from their role in the ecosystem.

The chairman of the Mexican Congress Committee of Environment, Senator Jorge Legorreta Ordorica, had written a letter to National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, cautioning him on the dangers of captivity. Out of 28 captive dolphins, “Twelve of the dolphins eventually died which we see as an appalling mortality rate”.

In response to these concerns, Marine Life Park issued a statement in 2009 defending their actions. They argued that having the dolphins in the park would educate the public on the beauty of marine animals, particularly among urban-bred Singaporeans. Further, evidence has shown bottlenose dolphins adapt easily to ‘controlled environments’.

Marine Life Park similarly believes that there is a sustainable population of dolphins in the wild, numbering at least 600 000. The capture of wild dolphins was unavoidable due to lack of surplus dolphins in other aquariums. Mr Cham added that the dolphins are in good condition, and are “being looked after according to international standards.”

The SPCA however remains “firm and objects strongly to dolphins being taken away from their natural habitat”, saying that evidence has shown dolphins in captivity to experience depression. Even if they do adapt, it is not without harm, as the Mexican case demonstrated.

Ms Teo also derided how, “for the sake of educating the public about the species”, Marine Life Parks has had to “… capture dolphins from the wild, ship them halfway across the world, force them to perform unnatural tricks for food, and have them in a captive environment for the rest of their lives.”

Significantly, UPS, which shipped 7 of the dolphins to the Philippines, had since declared that it would not transport such cargo in the future on the grounds that it contravened their environmental principles.

However, despite these strong objections from animal activists, the dolphins’ dubious path to Resorts World Sentosa continues. What will eventually happen to them remains to be seen, but the picture isn’t rosy.

_______________________________________________

Related posts:

1. Activists want dolphins destined for S’pore returned to Solomon Islands
2. First ever animal lovers gathering at Speakers’ Corner
3. Undercover investigation on illegal tiger parts trade

Shravasti Dhammika writing in his blog on Pastor Rony Tan’s saga says that the government sanctioned inter-religious dialogues do not work because those that really need such dialogues, “the bigots, zealots, fundamentalists and the evangelicals, won’t come.”

What Shravasti Dhammika fails to realise is that there is nothing wrong in being a ‘zealot’ – someone with zeal; that there is nothing wrong in being a ‘fundamentalists’ – someone who goes back to the fundamentals; and that absolutely no apology is needed to be an ‘evangelical’.

One question Shravasti Dhammika failed to ask himself when writing his blog is “How does negative labelling help the inter-religious dialogue?” How will this labelling help the almost 50 percent of Christian clergyman who are wary of inter-faith talks?

Of course a spade has got to be called a spade so that the waters are not muddled unnecessarily. But labelling groups that have very exclusive view of their faith as ‘bigots’, is not going to be very helpful; especially not when these groups do not see themselves as such, or even mean to be condescending or disrespectful.

One could say that a Buddhist could explain to death the ‘true’ understanding of core Buddhist concepts to an ‘evangelical’ Christian, but that he is not going to get it, as he is assumed to believe only in the ‘exclusive truth’ of the Bible.

But how can one tell another what is the ‘right’ view to have and what is not? As long as the view held, does not instigate violence (e.g. jihad), everyone should be entitled to his or her opinions and views. No matter how ’skewed’ it may appear to another.

Of course in a society as diverse as ours, all ‘types’ of zealots and fundamentalists need to practise restraint. But then, one should exercise caution that even the call for ‘restraint’ is not an over-zealous one.

It is unfortunate that Shravasti Dhammika has allowed one Pastor Rony Tan to colour the entire evangelical community as ‘bigots’.

Although the ‘evangelical’ label is used to distinguish conservative protestant Christianity from liberal Christianity, the spectrum of theology within the ‘evangelical’ circle is too diverse, for they include many from the Methodists, to the Anglicans, to the Baptists, to the independent and small family churches.

In singling out the evangelicals in his “one or two particular groups (that are not) amiable and respectful towards each other”, Sharavasti Dhammika has done a great disservice to the inter-religious dialogue. He must surely realise that two wrongs do not make a right.

But perhaps the bigotry of one is the faith of another.

______________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. How the lack of common sense can destroy a faith
2. Many investors have lost faith in Government and MAS: Tan Kin Lian (Updated)
3. Not your ordinary chit-chat session

By Alvin Phoon

For most, the Rony Tan issue is resolved. Apologies have been made, hands have been shaken and people have been humbled. However, what this issue has successfully accomplished is to further expose the perils of religion in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society. It has also, sadly, brought out the worst in Singaporeans, and displayed openly their lack of ability to participate in intellectual discourse.

For the record, I never called for an apology to be made. I called for Rony to think before he said anything at all. The difference is this: With regards to his comments, I am not upset per se. In fact, it amused me that a pastor would willingly subject himself to humiliation via such an open display of stupidity. And anytime any religious entity decides they want to be embarrassed, I’m all for it. What bothers me, immensely I might add, is how the issue has been completely exploited by the media, mainstream or alternative, by the people, for or against Christianity, to promote their own interests.

When news broke that the ISD called Rony up, the headline should have read “ISD Finally Participates In Crowd Pleasing Activity“. While my criticism of the mainstream media has been no less ambiguous than it has been scathing, I surprised even myself by wondering what exactly the Temasek Review’s intentions were vis-à-vis its article entitled “Pastor Rony Tan visited Phor Kar See temple today to apologize to head of Buddhist Federation Venerable Kwang Sheng“.

The inclusion of words of praise for Buddhism seemed to imply a slanted view. The subsequent text on not bearing wicked ideas against your enemy, which by the way is preached in possibly every mainstream religious text, further presents the Temasek Review’s stance. To be fair, however, they have been very respectful in the way they conduct their business, and is something I have the utmost respect for.

Extremists vs Opportunists

Moving on, I find myself in terribly distressed over the views of two specific groups of people. The first are the ones calling for his resignation and even prosecution. Has it come to that extent? Who are we to demand the imprisonment of anyone who speaks ill of anything?

I find this to be the direct consequence of government influence. When people began sticking gum on train doors and on lift buttons, instead of educating the population, the government banned it. As if it wasn’t important to them at all that we were taught why vandalism was bad. It is a notable trend. Anything they can’t handle, or they feel we can’t handle, they refuse to permit. Knuckle dusters, firecrackers, politically and religiously sensitive material, and even Playboy – all banned.

It should come as no surprise then that Singaporeans would try and get rid of that which they do not understand. Instead of seeing the need for civil discussions, intellectual debates and exchange of ideas, most Singaporeans jump straight into “apologise and arrest” mode. And it is precisely because the education system has not managed to cultivate in them an inquisitive mind. It has not managed to convince them that the acquisition of knowledge is far more important, and far more satisfying than the acquisition of say… fancy branded wallets and expensive jeans. Sexual and romantic conquest has jumped ahead of thirst for wisdom in our list of priorities, and it is this superficial culture, undertaken by most, that has led us to the state we’re in.

As for the second category, they are the ones who see this pastor’s faux pas as an opportunity to glorify their own religion; the ones who shamelessly promote their beliefs in an effort to trump someone else’s. I really cannot decide whether to consider them more benign than the first. I feel at this point of time, the need to clarify something. I am not preaching my religious belief. If anything, I’m preaching religious disbelief.

These people, these opportunists, don’t seem to realise how much their actions reveal of their personalities. I equate shredding the religion of Rony Tan, after he’s already been publically shamed, to kicking a man in the nuts after he’s been run over by his own runaway, brake-less car. Instead of proactively promoting inter-faith harmony by either lecturing Pastor Tan, or educating him about their own religion, these people refused to take a stand when the video was first released. Instead they preferred to sit down, watched as the chaos unfolded, fanned the increasingly raging flames at whim, and continued watching as the religion of another got crushed. Then they swooped down to salvage the remains. This hypocrisy disgusts me to no end.

“We want to co-exist. But see how much better my god is than yours?”

Bigots of different religions and persuasions squabble all the time. Normally I’m happy to sit back and watch because they make for good entertainment. However, in this case, threatening legal action against one party for making religiously insensitive comments is rash and will bear serious future consequences. Instead of being so adamant on imprisoning a man for mere words that were probably not even well thought out in the first place, why can’t we just take a step back, and move on with our lives? Pile on the humiliation if you must. But remember that the day Rony Tan goes to prison is the day religious tolerance and freedom of opinion ceases to exist.

___________________________________________________

Related posts:

1. The Rony Tan in each of us
2. Rony sticks to his guns
3. TOC Developing Story: Fleshing out the NTU stabbing incident

When the Internal Security Department (ISD) called up Pastor Rony Tan to talk about his callous comments on Buddhism, it was no ordinary chit-chat session.

Pleasantries might have been exchanged and the obligatory coffee proffered, but this was not a case of two grown men sitting down to discuss contractual terms on equal footing.

The contract was already favouring the ISD. What they presented, by virtue of their contact with Pastor Tan, was a timely reminder that the full brunt of the law would bear down on him if he did not comply.

Pastor Tan’s recent incendiary comments on Buddhism are certainly a cause for concern. As the leader of a large megachurch of over 10,000 members, the government had every reason to sit up when complaints about his remarks reached their letterbox.

Equally as worrying is the fact that the ISD has such broad powers that allow it to act as it did.  Certainly, there is an obvious need to protect religious harmony in Singapore. This is indisputable fact that few will argue against. As such, many have also lauded the government’s swift action.

But are we too quick to celebrate?

Vague laws lead to confusion

Let us be reminded that we have a government that wields a plethora of legislature to keep its citizens in check. The Sedition Act is an example of one such law. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA), no doubt drafted to deal with recalcitrant religionists, is another.

Both have one thing in common: the wordings drafted out in the legislation gifts the government with overbearing powers of control.

The Sedition Act grants the state the right to arrest anyone who promotes “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.” The MRHA has a similar phrasing, threatening to restrain anyone that is “causing feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups.”

Is this a good thing? On one hand, it does give them broad power to maintain harmony and keep the peace. But on the other hand, such a blunt instrument has created a chilling effect over religious and political debate. Such phrasing gives the Minister too much latitude to act while providing religious and political leaders with too little clarity in what they can or cannot do.

There is another common flaw in the Sedition Act and MRHA. Both legislatures, if one studies them closely, place an emphasis on maintaining societal harmony at the expense of truth or justice. When placed in the hands of a hypothetical corrupt regime, the consequences could be disastrous.

The MRHA compromises religious truth just like how the Sedition Act jeopardises political justice. Suppose that a Muslim imam decides, as a matter of conviction, to speak up against a Buddhist group. This would inevitably cause “feelings of ill-will, hatred, enmity, and hostility” between the two groups, even though the imam may be right. How would the government rule in this case?

What I am seeking to illustrate is this: if the Sedition Act and MRHA are not amended, religious groups could use it as a weapon to oppress one another, putting the government in a bind.

Let us come back to the present crisis involving Pastor Tan. Suppose that Pastor Tan, in criticising Buddhism, did so with well-researched substantiation and in a non-patronising tone. No attempt was made to ridicule the faith, but every effort was made to encourage a genuine debate about the issue at hand. Would he be reprimanded by the government as well?

The fact is that we simply do not know. One possibility is that overzealous Buddhists and Taoists could become oversensitive and sound the alarm bells to the authorities. The ISD could then be forced to act for fear that tensions could escalate.

Understanding religious beliefs

Of course, I have much faith in our Buddhist and Taoist brethren. But the above scenario could become possible if religious groups continue to be ignorant about one another’s beliefs.

It could also happen if we hold to unrealistic expectations about religious believers, such that the ideas that religious belief is private and that one faith should not interfere in another. I believe such reasoning is utter nonsense for two reasons.

First, the separation of church and state is only an organic divorce; actual division do not exist in reality. Our religious values (or lack thereof) influence our worldview, which in turn influences policy-making. A debate about religion has an influence on debate about policy matters like abortion, social welfare, and even education (sex education and evolution comes to mind).

As such, religious debate should have its rightful place in the public sphere; nothing less.

Second, all religions ultimately contradict one another, even as they share similarities. All are in contention for the truth. The Buddhist belief in reincarnation is incompatible with mainline Christian and Islamic beliefs. And while many Christians claim that their religion is the only path to god, Islam will eagerly dispute that.

Christians, therefore, should not be denied their right to evangelise, given that it is a fundamental tenet of their belief. Evangelism is also not an imperialist act as some might paint it to be. Any pastor will tell you that evangelism must ultimately be practiced with love, compassion, and sensitivity. Whether they live it is another thing altogether.

Both religious groups are engaged in fundamentally the same task: influencing others. Evangelism is simply a more proactive way of doing so, although Christians themselves have different ways of practicing it.

At the risk of oversimplifying things, we can liken Buddhists to a computer stall that seeks to convert potential customers who pay a visit; Christians can be seen as the door-to-door salesmen. And as most salesmen will understand, just as they have the right to peddle their wares to you, you too have the right to reject them.

Maintaining a balance

With this framework in mind, we can then analyse Pastor Tan’s predicament for what it is: An attempt at influencing the public to his religion that ended up becoming crude, insensitive, and misleading.

The government needs to strike a balance when it intervenes in religious affairs: the maintenance of religious harmony on one hand and the need to foster intelligent religious debate on the other.

Some will no doubt question: Was the government too harsh by handing Pastor Tan the yellow card?

That, however, is not the main issue. What we should question is their use of vague legislature as a blunt instrument to protect harmony while giving up the chance to give citizens an opportunity to learn how to better deal with insensitive religious remarks.

Micromanaging public debate may deprive Singaporeans the chance to develop genuine religious tolerance that comes from the bottom up rather than the top down. It also creates another dilemma: The government is forced to continually use the heavy hand of the law to maintain control over its people. If they start letting up, chaos might erupt as the people are not trained to handle disruptive remarks in a mature way.

One can only speculate as to why the government chose to react in the way they did. It could be due to the religious tensions that erupted in Malaysia. The fact that Pastor Tan was a pastor of a prominent church is another consideration.

But the Aware saga, in which a group of Christians took over a secular feminist organisation for allegedly promoting pro-gay views, has proved that Singaporeans can resolve disputes among themselves in a mature, civil manner with minimal intervention from the Singapore government. So why intervene this time?

Perhaps the messiness of the Aware saga made them realise that a laid-back approach was too much of a risk. Perhaps they did not want to see another protracted saga happen on our shores. Or maybe the government just did not want to be seen as promoting a pro-gay cause then.

But whatever the reason, by resorting to blanket laws as a means of control, the government is sending the unfortunate message that it does not trust community moderation as a means of conflict resolution. These laws, although unlimited in scope, also opens up the opportunity for hate groups to exploit it to their advantage.

This incident can be seen as another opportunity lost for Singaporeans to step up to the plate. By intervening early, the government had deprived the Buddhist authorities the chance to take the initiative and engage Pastor Tan on a direct level. It has also deprived the pastor an opportunity to show humility without the urging of the government.

Ultimately, we are not horses that obey the whims of our masters. When push comes to shove, the people of Singapore knows how to react in a way that ultimately contributes to religious harmony. But it seems that the government does not have the same faith in its people.

Photo 1: Taken from The Straits Times

Photo 2: Wikimedia

Related posts:

1. My awakening: political education of an ordinary Singaporean student
2. “The strength is in the ordinary people” – JB Jeyaretnam
3. George Yeo’s Meet the People Session at McDonald’s

By Kamal Mamat

Amidst the gloom of inflation and concerns over spiky social issues, one can sense that generally, 2007 has been a positive year for the Malay community. Of course, the rising costs of goods and services dent this sentiment.

But, lest we forget, the five years preceding 2007 were pockmarked by the scars of 9/11 and the subsequent economic recession, which impacted the already economically-disadvantaged community most.

Considering the stigma of having to deal with the extremist elements within, worsened by the economic downturn of those years, the Malays have reasons to cheer, no matter how muted, to what 2007 has brought upon.

A recap of the year 2007 necessitates a detailing of both highs and lows within and surrounding the community.

An optimistic outlook

In an October speech, Minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim painted an optimistic outlook, highlighting the community’s progress in education, employment and quality of life, as well as the good economic growth.

The community beamed with pride in November when Natasha Nabila of St Hilda’s Primary School was named the top PSLE student for 2007 with an impressive 294 aggregate score, shattering a 1993 record.

Likewise, writer-architect Isa Kamari’s Cultural Medallion is a source of excitement in an otherwise quiet Malay literary scene.

Throughout the year, many other Malays’ successes were featured in the media, vindicating Dr Yaacob’s assertion.

While many see these as inspiring role models needed to stimulate the community forward, there are an equal number of cynics who view the successes as tokens rather than norms, noting that the community is still lagging behind in both economic and educational terms.

Another important milestone is the introduction of the Joint Madrasah System, essentially a restructuring of the present Islamic schools’ system in response to the Compulsory Education Act of 2003. Under this new initiative, Madrasah Al-Irsyad will focus on primary education and the other two, Madrasah Aljunied and Madrasah Al-Arabiah, will re-channel their resources to secondary education. Many herald the timely changes.

Nevertheless, the exclusion of three other madrasahs (Al-Maarif, Wak Tanjong and Alsagoff) causes concern amongst the community, witnessing a fairly heated debate in Berita Harian over their ability to meet the stipulations of the Act. (Read the Straits Time’s report here.)

Integration

The issue of Malay-Muslims’ integration within the wider community is amply addressed this year. Different socio-religious organisations conducted outreach activities to promote greater understanding of the community, including inviting non-Muslims to events in mosques and initiating inter-faith dialogues.

The opening of the Harmony Centre at An-Nahdhah Mosque is a strong indicator of the community’s desire to place Islam as a progressive and tolerant religion, very much aligned to the needs of a plural society.

Similarly, 2007 sees an increased number of Malays’ involvement in CC-organised activities, from 232,000 in 2003 to 525,000 this year (as reported in Berita Harian, 3/12/2007). What is more encouraging is that there is an increased number of Malay participants in what is traditionally seen as Chinese –dominated activities, such as qiqong and tae-kwon-do.

Problems

It is easy to overlook these facts and figures when the current inflation problem is taken into account. Arguably, the Malays are most affected today, judging by a 2005 statistics that the median monthly household income for Malay families is the lowest at $3,050, compared to $4,570 for Chinese and $4,120 for Indian homes.

Moreover, there are pertinent issues which remain to be tackled. Central CDC Mayor Mr Zainuddin Nordin succinctly highlights these problems in a recent article in the Straits Times. Chief amongst these include problems of dysfunctional families, which is associated with doubling in divorce rates and high teen pregnancies.

The emergence of Subutex as an addictive substance and the high number of Malay abusers poses another challenge to the community.

These issues, among others, should never be under-emphasised.

Notwithstanding the difficulties, a comparative analysis points to an overall positive year, fueled by sparks of optimism. The achievements I have stated earlier reflect the renewed confidence of the community, more so its desire to break out of its contentious communal shell.

At the same time, it can be seen as a response to our government’s erstwhile call for integration. Therefore, in what I have discussed at length in an earlier article (“Beyond Tokenism – Malays, integration and the SAF“), it is hoped that the government will reciprocate this desire by opening more avenues for integration, units within the SAF and the elite Administrative Service as two key examples.

Visit Kamal’s personal blogsite for more of his writings.

——————————

Related posts:

1. Beyond Tokenism- Malays, Integration and the SAF
2. Affirmative action for Malays
3. 2007: The year virtual reality shaped reality – A review of the new media landscape in 2007

Below is a video of Indian Idol contestant Meiyang Chang, third generation Indian citizen fluent in Hindi.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SEEmIfXf-s

Related posts:

1. Growing the economy – Indian style
2. Singapore: Multiculturalism or the melting pot?
3. Woman died in Indian Rojak food poisoning case

I would like to propose several hypotheses which I gathered after conducting a series of intense and scholarly empirical research on the levels of representation of the Malays in the SAF.

Due to space constraints, I will only list down three of them.

1. Malays’ absence in the Navy. Malay men generally cannot swim because they cannot afford the swimming lessons when they were young. In any case, they have to attend mengaji (Quranic recitation) classes in the afternoons, soccer training on Saturdays and wedding invitations on Sundays at different void decks.

2. Malays’ absence in the Armour unit. It is medically proven that Malay men are more likely to be afflicted with claustrophobia. They hate enclosed spaces, which unfortunately include the armoured vehicles of the SAF. Their propensity for spatial wealth instead of material wealth can be seen in their natural ability to congregate at void decks and the beaches of East Coast Parkway and Changi.
 

3. Malays’ nominal presence in the Air Force. This is the simplest one- Malay men don’t aim for the sky, they aim for the stratosphere after the sky, a.k.a. the hereafter. A Malaysian Malay proved it recently by being the first Malay to space. Coincidentally, the word hereafter can be referred to in spiritual terms. This hypothesis strongly correlates with hypothesis 2.

 I don’t mean to mock the serious nature of this forum. Let me say that that I really cannot find other reasons to explain why the Malays are under-represented in the Navy, the Air Force and key, presumably sensitive, units of the Army. Bearing in mind that the Malays make up almost 15% of the population, the lack of corresponding representation in the SAF in this day and age begs questions on why tokenism persists.

When the SAF celebrated forty years of National Service recently, you cannot help but notice that in the early years of NS, the Malays were conspicuously absent. Those black and white photos that were shown was a trip down memory lane for those who had been in it, those who had experienced it. Alas for us Malays, the lane did not exist. It begs my question, what should the Malays do to convince the government that we’re ready to be deployed fully in the armed forces?

Before anyone shout cliché or label me outdated, let me assure you that there is no better time than now to resurface this prickly issue of Malays in the SAF. The events of the recent past provide new impetus for changes to be made and the issue of integration to be taken more seriously. Inherent in this are questions of security and trust, which I am going to discuss here.

Integration

The events of 2001/2002 surrounding the Malays have been the clarion call for the government to pay close attention to the issue of integration. If one were to recall, the WTC collapse of September 11, 2001, the crackdown of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in December 2001 and the tudung (headscarf) affairs of January 2002 came like a fusillade which left an indelible mark in the consciousness of the Malay/Muslim. Throughout this period, the Malay community was put in a spot by virtue of its ethno-religious association to the events.

Malay leaders scrambled to denounce those events and call for greater understanding amidst increasing suspicions about Islam, fundamentalism and ultimately, Malays’ loyalty to the country. In one report, it was highlighted that an elderly Chinese lady refused to take the same lift with a Malay man, presuming that he was a potential terrorist. This is just one instance of the fear the events have unfortunately created among the wider society then.

It was to its credit that the government responded quickly in suppressing any signs of inter-ethnic tensions. Over the years, the Malay community itself responded by using different platforms to promote greater understanding about Islam.

However, while asserting that extremism is an exception rather than the norm within Singapore’s Malay community, the pressure on the Malays not to isolate themselves from the wider society was simultaneously made. Essentially, it is a call for the Malays to participate actively in national and grassroot activities, noting its under-representation.

Judging from this call, it is only logical for the government to take the first step and reciprocate by opening more avenues for integration. The SAF, one of the key symbols of the nation, is one avenue which can and should be fully opened to every Singaporean, including the Malays.

In fact, in a report on ethnic relations conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies in October 2002, it noted, albeit subtly, that ‘posting a mandatory percentage of minorities into each army unit could further ethnic cohesion’. I’ll put it more bluntly. It is the sine qua non to further integration. It is in the government’s hand now to take this recommendation seriously.

Security and trust

Security and trust are two narratives our leaders trumpet to account for the under-representation of the Malays in the SAF. But these narratives do not hold water anymore. Singapore is an island nestled between its two dominant countries, Malaysia and Indonesia. One draws similarity to Israel, a small Jewish nation in the middle of the Arab world.

Our founding leaders drew upon their experience to develop a siege mentality which, for reasons of security, prevented the Malays from partaking in the defence of Singapore. In fact, Israel has been instrumental in the formation of our armed forces and the development of our defence capabilities.

But this mentality is flawed when one looks at the different historical contexts. On the one hand, the birth and the subsequent history of Israel was a contentious and complex one, full of bloodbaths and cycles of violence.

Singapore, on the other hand, has seen relatively trouble-free years of independence. Except for the Konfrontasi episode of the late sixties, we have gone through a relatively peaceful forty-two years of co-existence with our neighbours. The parallel between Singapore and Israel ends here.

The siege mentality must go.

Granted, the geopolitics of ethno-religious identities, shared memories and historical proximity between Singaporean and Malaysian Malays necessitate a cautious approach in the conscription of Malays in the SAF. This explain why up to the 1980s, the Malays were hardly enlisted into National Service.

However, since the mid-90s, we saw a small but increasing number of Malay men in more sensitive units such as the air force and the commando units. If this trend is any indication of the government’s plan for integration of the Malay community, it is now the right time for this plan to go further and support full integration of the Malays in the SAF.

What about the question of trust? Wouldn’t a Malay man be put in a dilemma when asked to fight his brethren? The history of the world has shown us that common identity does not prevent people from killing each other. We have seen the two Koreas and northern/ southern Vietnam at war in spite of their commonalities.

It all boils down to ideological differences. And ideologies can be propagated when a society is more cohesive, more integrated. What better ways can the government think of other than allowing our Malay men to fight, not just in the infantry but the first lines of defence? Wouldn’t the ideology be more easily disseminated? After all, the Malays want to embrace Total Defence in its totality, not a fraction of it.

In a passionate plea written during National Day many years back, Zuraidah Ibrahim, now the political editor of The Straits Times, argued for Malays’ trust to not be questioned. I share her sentiments. Let’s dispense with tokenism, please. After which, we can truly say Majulah Singapura.

About the author: Kamal is the latest addition to the TOC’s writing team. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Politics at Queen’s University in Belfast. Kamal describes himself as “your typical brudder, typical Mat, typical Singaporean. Also a son, husband, father and a student of politics.”

Kamal has a blog here.

————————–

Related posts:

1. Malays in 2007: Renewed confidence amidst turbulence?
2. Affirmative action for Malays
3. Of concessions and tokenism, worrying trends in policy making

This evening I had quite a conversation with an elderly day nurse. She’s from China and she was asking me for directions. I don’t know her name, never asked for it, for convenience lets just call her Xiaomin.

I first noticed her at the bus stop just outside a posh condo near the Singapore River. She seemed a little bit anxious, fidgety, looking at the bus number.

The bus I was waiting for had just left, so I knew it was going to be a long wait for the next one (IRIS said 17 minutes). She approached me, and in her heavily accented English, asked me whether the bus stopped at any MRT stations. I said yes, pointed to the bus guide and showed her Aljunied station. She then sat down, still anxious.

I told her that I could speak Chinese which seemed to put her at ease somewhat. She told me that she is working as a day nurse for an elderly Singaporean. She’s been here for 2 years, and she didn’t really have to keep extending her social visit pass herself because the hospital she was attached to was doing all these for her.

Back in China she was a fully qualified staff nurse, and having to come here meant a demotion, job wise. But the money was good. Here she could earn $1k per month, a sizeable income compared to what she was earning back in China. Her lodging was a condominium in Ang Mo Kio. She told me that she didn’t have to pay rent but did not elaborate.

She shares it with 3 others – 2 from Myanmar and the third also from China. The work was all they did and they mostly stayed at home, hardly went out. The family that she was working for had told her that most families wouldn’t be able to afford such a condo. And Xiaomin herself knew that only rich families could afford to hire nurses like her.

In demand

She was aware that people in her profession were in high demand here in Singapore – she had read the papers about Singapore’s ageing population and had understood the opportunities. Chinese nationals like her in particular were especially liked – since most of the employer families were Chinese themselves.

She spoke of her training which she received from nursing institutes in China. She is also officially registered with a Singapore hospital as well. In other words, she was a professional nurse.

She compared herself with other nurses who came from other countries and commented that most of them were really poor and weren’t properly trained – they don’t have the education and the training which she did. And she knew demand for nurses like her would surely rise.

Family

She is married and has a seven year old son, who is back home in Xian. She treasures hope of being able to bring her boy to Singapore with her one day, and is aware of the challenges her son will face in adapting to Singapore’s education system. Her son is learning English back home, she tells me and yes, it was hard, since there are hardly any English speakers back in Xian.

I enquired about her husband. She merely smiled. I had hit upon a sensitive question, so I didn’t probe further. She wanted to give her boy a chance in life. Xian was too inland, too backward, too few opportunities. She offered that she would gladly give up her Chinese citizenship if she could.

I asked her about the family she was working for. The place where she is working belongs to the youngest of three sisters. She didn’t say much more. Perhaps she wanted to protect her employer’s privacy. She did say however that her employer was married, but they had no kids.

“It must be stressful,” she said, “to own such a luxurious house, having to fork out so much every month for the mortgage. Must be the reason why they don’t have kids. Such a home costs at least a million, right? Well in China, if you had that kind of money, you’ll be set for retirement. Lower costs, yet still the same quality of life. The countrysides would be perfect for retirement.”

I replied that my parents sometimes thought of retiring in some countryside in China. Yes, that would make sense too, she agreed. And then she said she would go back to China one day, even if only to retire.

In her way, she’s living the Singapore dream, and pursuing her happiness. Singapore has welcomed her with open arms.

Despite Singapore’s progress, one truth remains the same: Singapore is still dependent on immigrant/foreign labor. And with one of the fastest ageing population in the world, people like Xiaomin will continue to be in demand here.

Related posts:

1. Woman protests against DBS at Raffles Place
2. Who really is “not ready” for a non-Chinese PM?
3. Crass woman

Historically, it has been well documented and proven that no man is perfect. Everyday in the papers, we see politicians, religious leaders and top corporate executive officers embroiled in controversial scandals.

These examples depict how higher accountability and governance should be upheld for those especially in authority as these leaders have direct influence over lives. And this is more critically so for a government that governs a nation as every decision made affects the livelihood of many.

The NKF Scandal Lesson
When the NKF scandal unfolded within our shores, it was claimed that the lack of governance and accountability led to this unfortunate occurrence. The remedy was the government’s heightening of governance within the charity sector to ensure credibility and transparency for the beneficiaries and the donating public.

Now the charity sector has the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) as its ‘watch dog’ to guard against ambiguous charitable organisations. Similarly for consumers, we have the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to turn to, to alert and protect the consumer community from any unfair or unethical trade practices.

These are but only a couple of cited ‘watch dogs’, but I believe you would agree with me that it is common to find an institution or body which exists to uphold good practices and benchmarks in the various industry/profession in our marketplace.

Taking No Chances

But surprisingly, there is no such institution or body in Singapore – with regards to ensuring good governance and accountability by our government. Thus it may appear that the government operates above the law.

Over the years, Singapore has prided itself on having an uncorrupted ruling government, but just like the NKF scandal that ‘exploded’ in our faces, we should never leave anything to chance.

Therefore, we should learn from this as our government can also go down that slippery slope with no proper governance and accountability in check.

Being pro-active

Though I do not foresee how such a body/organisation can take place in Singapore, for a start, Singaporeans should take a more pro-active stance in socio-political issues in our nation.

Why? Simply because it affects you and me.

Practically we can not only read but critique more of our government’s policies and initiatives, so that with better understanding of their consequences and effect, we can better provide constructive feedback to our government from the ground. This might give our government options to evaluate their decisions and their impact on us.

The consequences of us not doing so would eventually see every decision made by the government deemed acceptable and in the worst scenario our consent or our opinions would no longer bear any weight in decision-making as it would appear that we have given the government full control to do as they wish or please.

Let’s build our nation

I hope this article would not be misconstrued as one accusing our government for being a corrupt party or be misinterpreted as one written with anti-government sentiments.
The purpose of this article is in fact to encourage us Singaporeans to build our nation in partnership with our government. And as Singaporeans, we should not leave room for complacency to seep in.

Let us not confine our contributions towards nation building with the mere mandatory tax payments. I believe that we Singaporeans are capable enough to do more than is required for our future.

About the author: A true-blue Singapore heartlander, Andrew Ong is presently working in the Research & Corporate Communicatons division of an NGO which represents the manufacturing sector in Singapore. Other than his work, he enjoys serving others through his church and community work. In his free time, he fuels his passion for writing through his personal blog.

Related posts:

1. Reform Party hopes to “level the playing field”
2. Destruction of herb garden contradicts active ageing message, says resident
3. Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment

My first foray into grassroots work was in September 2005.

Bored with the run of the mill MOE-mandated community service activities organised by my school, I decided to get involved in something which would have a broader impact on the community.

Raising funds and selling flags was not my idea of meaningful and purposeful community work.

Joining the Youth Executive Committee (YEC) of my constituency appealed to me greatly as I believed it would have more far-reaching effect in terms of having a positive impact on the lives of citizens.

Passion for serving the community

I chanced upon the website of the Punggol Community Club YEC and decided to join it, purely out of my passion for serving the community. Altruistic as it may sound, that is the reason many of my fellow committee members joined the YEC.

Sadly, after a term of two years in the YEC, I am not satisfied with how it works. I feel that many YECs exist mainly to organise activities for citizens but nothing is done to help improve their lives or address the more fundamental problems they may have.

Recreational games, sports, children’s parties etc do serve to enrich the people’s lives, but I believe they can only enjoy these fully when their basic needs and fundamental difficulties are addressed.

I speak of the lower-middle income and low-income families whose interests are often overlooked as the rich get richer and the country is focusing much more on how it can ride on the economic boom.

Grassroots and politics

Currently, there are channels for these families to seek help, and one of them which I would like to commend is the regular Meet-the-People sessions held by Members of Parliament of various constituencies. However, these sessions have a political slant to it and the people involved are members of the PAP or the Young PAP. Many people firmly believe that grassroots and politics should not mix.

I beg to differ. I am one of them. I have not joined the YPAP yet but I am currently involved in its activities and am likely to become a member, because I feel the government can improve on its policies and can do more to engage certain strata of society such as the youths and the poor. I am hoping that being part of YP can open up doors for more efficient and effective communication.

The YEC comes under the umbrella of the People’s Association Youth Movement which is not affiliated to the People’s Action Party.

Misconception

Grassroots work is often viewed as either blindly carrying out tasks for the ruling party or doing volunteer work with a seemingly altruistic aim but actually harbouring thoughts of entering politics in the future. This may be a gross generalisation but judging from the response I received when I told others about my involvement in the grassroots arena, this is sadly a misconception held by many.

Grassroots and politics should remain separate entities, but I feel that it is only with knowledge and involvement in both areas that one can have a better perspective of things and be better able to effect change.

I believe that one can affect change through both the grassroots and politics. However, it is important that those who aspire to do both should be candid about the nature of the intertwined interests of the needs of the community and how it relates to the political process.

Jorina Chai is a first year law student who has just served her first full term on her constituency’s YEC. She’s also contemplating joining the Young PAP.

Related posts:

1. Human Rights in ASEAN: An Economic Perspective
2. A psychological perspective
3. Student activism – what’s next?