Mr Sitoh, say it like this lah

The Straits Times today honoured PAP Sitoh Yih Pin by excerpting his speech in Parliament for its Speech of the Day column. Mr Sitoh spoke about trust between the government and the government. Interesting. A few days ago, ST carried a report on the level of trust between the parties. While Singaporeans trust the G as an institution, they don’t trust the leaders when it comes to breaking bad news. Mr Sitoh didn’t mention the survey carried out by public relations firm Edelman, by the way. My guess is that he probably read the findings.

Anyway, he said the G should be courageous enough to tell the truth, even if it is unpleasant. No one can quarrel with that. Straight talk is always appreciated. Methinks it can be more hard hitting. So I will list his six hard truths – and with tongue half in cheek, rewrite them – and respond to them.

1. We will increase the number of places in universities and polytechnics and 60 per cent of Singaporeans will become PMETs, but some graduates will never stay in private housing or own a car. This is because 85 per cent of housing are HDB flats and only one-third of families have a car presently and these numbers will not change drastically.

Re-written: Hey, I know most of you young people are going to be university graduates, but face it, just because you have a degree, doesn’t mean you get to stay in a bungalow and drive a Ferrari. I mean, for every one of you, there are five others with your qualifications. How to give all a bungalow and a Ferrari? Remember that 85 per cent of people live in HDB flats and one in three families have a car now.

Response: Orh ok. Then I study for what? At least, can make the HDB flat bigger or nicer? And make sure the HDB price is not the price of a bungalow or private property? I don’t need a Ferrari. I don’t mind taking public transport. I hope by the time I start work, the trains and the buses are running properly. I mean, have you seen how jam-packed it is at peak hour? I can’t even get to school on time some days.

2. This country needs to continue to be run as a meritocracy. There is no other feasible alternative. The best will get more. One may rightly question the norms of meritocracy, as in what makes a person more meritorious? One may even ask why there are so many brand-name schools in the more affluent areas in Singapore and not in the new HDB estates. And in the harsh reality of meritocracy, we also expect the meritorious to do what is necessary for meritocracy to remain relevant – they must contribute more than others to the betterment of the society and maximise welfare for everyone living and working in Singapore. Meritocracy cannot be “take and take” by the best and the ablest without any obligation to serve and contribute.

Re-written: Man, you tell me lah, what to replace meritocracy with? If you work hard, you can get far and you get rewarded. That’s how it’s always been here. I think, I’m not sure, I mean… you go figure why the brand name schools are in rich people’s neighbourhood. But just because you are among the best, it doesn’t mean you think you are entitled to all good things in life. So give more of your time to the community, more of your money, more of your whatever…

Response: I can take meritocracy lah. But now I live in an HDB estate, and went to the school near my home. That school ah can’t be compared to the brand name ones, which got swanky buildings and smarter teachers. So these people don’t start from the same line as me, and therefore, can probably run faster and further from me. I get left behind how? Of course, if I become a doctor or lawyer, I definitely will do more for the HDB people, like give free legal advice or free medicine. (Even if I don’t, how can you tell?)

3. Even if we increase our total fertility rate to 2.1 in 2013 suddenly, we will need to import labour to care for the elderly over the next 20 years. The babies born now or in the near future will not be ready to look after the 900,000 baby boomers retiring over the next 20 years.

Re-written: You know, even if every couple have two children from now, we still won’t have enough people to take care of the old. People like your parents, you know how many there will be over 20 years – 900,000! So can stop grumbling about foreign workers and nurses and care-givers or not? You think you can take of so many people by yourself?

Response: You think my parents are what kind of people? They are educated, got degree, got savings, got medical insurance. They know how to keep healthy. Anyway, are you trying to scare me with 900,000 old people? For all you know, they will move to Johor or somewhere not so expensive. They are already complaining its crowded here.

4. Our public hospitals will continue to give good care that is accessible and affordable to all. But we will have to continue to have waiting times and the latest high-tech expensive care options will not be available to all.
Ultimately, health care is a trade-off between affordability, accessibility and quality. Usually, quality in terms of expensive care is of a lower priority, although we will not compromise patient safety. This is true for most developed countries in the world.

Re-written: When you get sick and go to hospital, you know you can pay your bill. Really! Believe me! Okay, so you have to wait a bit to see a doctor, and maybe that expensive drug or machine cannot use Medisave to pay for. But what to do? Everywhere else, the same.

Response: Touch wood! I don’t want to get sick at all. And are you sure I can still pay for medical bills when I get older? I don’t think the Medisave is mine. I mean, it’s mine but I can’t use the money for some things unless the Government says so. I suppose I can buy a lot of health insurance policies or just go somewhere else where it is cheaper to get the drug or medical treatment. Wait a minute! What if I can’t afford the drug? I will probably die? Cannot be.

5. We will make our public transport reliable again and increase capacity. But COEs may never go back to the days of old again. There are limits to our car population just as there are limits to our human population.

Re-written: Face it, kid. You might not even be able to buy the COE, much less the car. You think you can turn back the clock and get $1,000 COE? Fat hope! Anyway, can you imagine how crowded the roads will be? You might as well take public transport. Don’t worry it won’t have so many breakdowns and you will be able to breathe on the bus and train.

Response: You sure bus and train fares will still be cheap? I mean, someone has to pay for the drivers and all that right? COE? Huh, already given up hope.

6. We will limit the influx of foreign labour to Singapore, but we cannot shield our workers from competition. The reality is that our workers will still be competing day and night, 24/7 with workers in China, India or Indonesia

Re-written: We heard you. So we’re going to scale back getting foreign workers in. But, you know what? Don’t think just because there will not be so many of them here, you can sit back and relax and collect your pay cheque every month. Don’t forget that the Chinese, Indians and Indonesians are working very hard in their own countries. If they make your company go bankrupt, then what you do?

Response: Yah lah. Yah lah. How many times you must repeat this?

Go to http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg for the New Normal Labour Market, What’s all this about giving transport operators money and the very minimal explanation against a minimum wage scheme

The curious case of Cherian George Part 2

SOME local luminaries have weighed in on controversy over the Nanyang Techonological University’s decision to decline Mr Cherian George’s application for tenure a second time. You know, so far, the suspicion has been over whether he was denied tenure because of his outspokenness, but another facet that hasn’t quite been explored was whether what his work as an academic fits the NTU’s criteria on who gets tenure.

The group said in its open letter to NTU’s top brass: “Singapore universities have made impressive strides of late and have drawn faculty and students from all over the world. They have adopted international benchmarks in faculty assessment that emphasize teaching and research excellence. However, commentators worldwide have noted that such benchmarks, which measure academic publication in specialist journals and expensive scholarly books, discourage the engagement of academics with their immediate social context.’’

Breaking this down, I suppose the subtext is whether NTU thought that “publication in specialist journals and expensive scholarly books’’ as more important than having academics who can promote public discourse in their area of expertise. In other words, maybe Dr George didn’t have stuff printed in the right journals, even if he is known as intellectual busy (or maybe too busy) in the public arena raising the level of political discourse.

“If NTU’s tenure criteria are not seen to support such engagement it will impoverish Singapore’s intellectual community and raise a troubling future scenario. Social transition in the next decades will bring robust public debate among an increasingly diverse populace. Promotion and tenure criteria that do not appear to value public engagement will discourage academics from speaking up.’’

There have been suggestions Dr George could have been disadvantaged at the outset because of his field of expertise in a university that is still predominantly “technological’’.
One former academic explained it this way to me: “The nature of the engineering/science fields and journalism (or the social sciences/humanities for that matter) result in very different types of research done, and therefore the volume of publications produced, the reach they have (or “impact factor”) and where. Furthermore, non-research contributions might be valued differently. In engineering/sciences, it might be the number of patents or products put into the market. But in other fields like journalism, it could be service as role as a public intellectual, as George was.’’

In other words, there are certain qualitative differences in disciplines which should be acknowledged and accounted for in the granting of tenure. The question then is whether NTU’s top brass is applying the same standards to all in NTU seeking tenure, regardless of disciplines. Looks fair, but is it?

Apparently, the NTU top brass and the faculty which Dr George belongs to, the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information have different ideas about tenure. According to Yahoo, his colleagues have decided that a collective formal letter of concern would be written to the school chair, Associate Professor Benjamin Detenber, over George’s “implicit’’ dismissal.

NTU has confirmed that “those who do not obtain tenure on the second attempt can continue to teach for up to one more year at the university”. While the schools initiate the nomination process for tenure, it is “very common’’ for nominations to be rejected at the college and higher levels of review.”

By the way, the 2013 Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings released this morning showed that NTU moved to the 71th-80th band, up from the 81-90th band last year. Among universities in Asia, NTU came in 13th. Urrrhhh… congratulations NTU. The rankings are based on 16,639 responses from senior academics around the world. The poll asked academics to nominate no more than 15 of the best institutions in their narrow field of expertise, based on their experience and knowledge. I wonder if the “narrow field of expertise’’ included communications and information.

Dr George has kept a prudent silence so far. According to Yahoo, following notification of his rejection slightly more than a week ago, he will have another four days to decide whether or not to appeal the decision. Stay tuned for Part 3.

More on http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg
- How different media reported the announcement that a monthly adult travel pass may be introduced.
- Is the G’s use of TFR and dependency ratios right for population projections?

The curious case of Cherian George

The Nanyang Technological University probably has its reasons for denying Cherian George tenure a second time, but in the public interest, it might want to make its reasons known. Those who have been tracking the matter online – not on MSM – may know by now that Dr George might have to leave the university within a year, according to NTU rules.

That’s what students who met Dr Benjamin Hill Detenber, chair of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, told yahoo news.

“Dr Detenber said tenure-track professors employed in NTU first get a three-year contract before they are put up for consideration for a tenure contract. If they fail to get a tenure contract at the first attempt, they would then be granted another three-year contract. If they fail at the second attempt, they would be then allowed to stay in the University for another year, before being asked to leave,” the students said in a statement.

What’s the reason for the outcry?
Academics seek tenure for job security reasons among other things, and rejections are common. According to NTU, close to one in two applications get rejected. But word that Dr George was rejected because he was not “up to standard’’ (I am using the word loosely here) has been greeted with disbelief. Even an academic on an external panel of reviewers thinks the proposition was ridiculous. One foreign academic even labelled him a “superstar’’. As for his students and ex-students, more than 800 were upset enough to pen a petition in his favour.

Going by what the students said, it was the University (capital U) which turned down the application – twice, even though the Wee Kim Wee school and the Faculty had endorsed it – twice. The School thought well enough of him to nominate him for a teaching scholarship in 2009 and put him in charge of the Asian Journalism Fellowship. Seems that the buck on who gets tenure stops at the Academic Affairs Council, a subset of the university’s board of trustees.

Now, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room: Does Dr George’s political views, including those of the state control of the media, have anything to do with denial of tenure? He has written two books, Contentious Journalism and the Internet, and Freedom from the Press, which do not put the State in a favourable light, but doesn’t paint the State all black either. (Yes, I’ve read both, even his earlier Air-conditioned Nation). I think he’s only outdone by Cheong Yip Seng, the former Editor-in-chief of SPH English and Malay Newspaper Division, in giving as accurate a picture of government-press relations as is possible. Go buy Cheong’s book, OB Markers. Of course, Dr George’s books are grounded in academic analysis, while Mr Cheong’s was more anecdotal.

So, clearly, one suspicion that arises is that his political views, including his presence at opposition forums, might have influenced the University’s decision to reject him. Fair or not, he has been put into an “anti-Estab’’ box, so to speak. In fact, endorsement of foreign academics might not even be good for his case!
To be sure, Dr George is no soft touch. Even in his journalist days, some newsmakers do not like views very much and, if I recall correctly, his last week as a journalist before he embarked for further studies was marked by an exchange between him and the Prime Minister’s Office over one of his articles.

Of course, there is no evidence that his political views have anything to do the tenure decision. How could anyone know of what happens in the room in which the University held its discussions – except the proverbial fly on the wall?
But his case has caught the eye of foreign academics who now gleefully point at Yale’s decision to site a campus in Singapore. You know the cause of the opposition: why would a university like Yale, a liberal arts institution, have anything to do with a place where academic freedom is not prized. Not good press for Singapore at all.

Dr George hasn’t said a word about the controversy surrounding his tenure which makes one wonder if he was actually expecting the rejection. I suppose he is in an uncomfortable position. If the University makes a U-turn and gives him tenure now, it would seem like it caved in to public pressure. If it really has proper academic grounds for the rejection, then making it public would embarrass Dr George who would have had to defend his record. As for whether the rejection was politically motivated, does anyone really think it would come out to say “yes’’ and tell “why’’?

I’ve changed my mind about suggesting that the University make its reasons known. Because whatever it says now, it might not be believed and might even worsen things for Dr George.

Whatever happens, my best wishes to Cherian. May you always keep the flag of journalism flying.

Go to http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg for
- The like-able Ms Lee Li Lian
- City Harvest trial delay
- Operators paying for the mess that people make

Shifting into reverse gear

Open the newspapers today and it’s all about cars. First-timers can’t afford cars, car calculations, car history, exploding car (Ferrari exploded in Teban Gardens)

What’s interesting is that there are ways to drive a car, even a sports car, without owning it. BT reports that leasing is back in vogue and will be even more popular. So instead of putting 50 per cent cash down for a new car in the hope of finally owning it, why not just pay “rent’’ every month and the car returns to the leasing company when the lease is up. A German full-sized sedan costing about $340,000 will require a $170,000 cash down, with monthly instalments of about $3,100 over the newly imposed five-year tenure. But it can be leased for between $5,500 and $7,200 a month over four years, BT helpfully reported. Then the car goes back to the leasing company.

What about leasing a Porsche? You can do that too, provided you put down a cash deposit (at $83,000 for a Porsche Cayenne). You pay about $3,000 a month. After two years, the company will buy the car back from you – at 40 to 50 per cent of market value.
Leasing rates have gone up over the years apparently, so you’d better be getting a move on if you want your butt on the driving seat, although I wonder how many Porsche drivers will admit to having their supercar on a lease…But I guess it’s better than wearing a fake Rolex.

Then over in ST is another story about how an online car rental portal that is just 15 months old is doing big business. It gives the driver access to about 30 car rental companies, so you just click, pay and then drive. The article doesn’t tell you how much it costs to rent a car though, except that the business is about $400 to $500 yearly.

I was tempted at first to view these articles as puff pieces or free ads for the companies but they do serve a function. These stories serve the information needs of the time-deprived reader. They tell about options.

As usual, ST correspondent Chris Tan does a brilliant job of putting out a chart on what the OMV, ARF etc of different makes of cars will be under the new regime. There’s even a bit of interesting history to put things in perspective: Between 1983 and 1990, all cars were subject to a flat 175 per cent ARF, which means a Rolls Royce Phantom would incur ARF of $1.16 million, a BMW 520i would be taxed at $72,000 and a Toyota Camry at $41,000.
Back then, luxury car buyers complained that the tax was unfair to them. Hmmm.
Under the new tiered system, that Phantom would incur ARF of $1million. So luxury car buyers are hit but not as bad as they were in the past.

Chris Tan is complemented online by a commentator who breaks down the numbers even further, a most helpful tool to understand what a car buyer is really paying for. Go look at http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg and get the link.

I was waiting to see another aspect of the car business being reported – the used car market. With new cars shifting into reverse gear, the used car business must be looking forward to accelerating. Time to trade in my car for a used one?

Then I read in today’s Today that they had worries too, particularly on loan curbs imposed by the G. The Singapore Vehicle Traders Association (SVTA) has appealed to the MAS and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), not to apply the new measures “so strictly” to loans for buying used cars.

SVTA President Neo Tiam Ting said: “Used cars are already in the system, there is no need to tighten their supply if one of the reasons for this move is to curb the high COE (Certificate of Entitlement) premiums.”

In any case, just like “cooling measures’’ for property, it seems that aspiring car owners can still exploit some loopholes – like going to unregulated finance or credit companies for a loan. Doubtless, they will be plugged.

More on http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg :
- Dear SAF: Is it more important for soldiers to finish an exercise or to make sure no man gets left behind.
- Unequal coverage of corporate charity in the Chinese and English media
- What the global media think about Singapore’s Budget 2013

Shift gears = New fears

I reckon that the best thing about the debate on the Population White Paper is that most of us will be able to comprehend the Budget 2013 much better than in the past, when we will probably be zooming in to see what’s in it for us.
So many reactions now, so here’s a summary of some new points that have emerged following DPM Tharman’s speech yesterday culled from media reports.

- The construction sector, that really unproductive part of the economy, is going to be hit so hard that it will be a wonder if we can get our infrastructure plans in place. Construction companies which have been going around the quotas by paying a $650 monthly levy for every additional foreign worker will have to pay more, $950 next year and $1,050 in 2015. Now that’s a psychological barrier that’s being breached. Smaller companies are expected to fold or merge.

- The retail and restaurant business people are extremely angry that they have been hit so heavily with higher levies and lowered quotas on foreign workers. Some operations simply cannot be automated, they say, and no matter how much you pay, Singaporeans just won’t do certain jobs. Seems though that there is some kind of workaround: A flexible job scheme that was piloted in the hotel sector to get foreign workers to multi-task will be extended to the whole services sector. So a waiter can double as a dishwasher in this new scheme (hate the word!) that will have its own quotas? Seems we’ll hear more about this later.

- That Wage Credit Scheme in which the G foots 40 per cent of pay rises for those earning less than $4,000 a month might well prove to be a double-edged sword. Bosses may feel compelled to pay people more than they are worth; people would start expecting higher pay even though there is no increase in productivity. And what happens after Year 3, when these credits stop? Can companies afford to foot the wage bill? Would their companies have had enough time to re-structure and raise productivity by then to justify the cost of manpower? The opposition parties, the Singapore Democratic Party and Reform Party, have weighed in too, suggesting a minimum wage law would be a better instrument.

- Some real drama is playing out in car companies. First, they had to deal with last minute orders with people started shopping on Monday night to beat the clock – higher cash payments, ARF etc will kick in. Now, people who had ordered cars are calling to cancel because they don’t know how the new figures will play out. There’s a shift of gear here: the G seems to be moving from curbing car usage to restricting car population. Not fair, the car people say.

- The Workfare Income Supplement to give cash/CPF support to those with low-paying jobs should be extended to part-timers, said an economist. Calculate the income support on a per hour basis, he suggested. This might well bring in more workers into the fold and up the resident workforce numbers.

I’m looking forward to the debate. Stay tuned to this blog and http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg

A ground level look at Budget 2013

What’s there not to like about Budget 2013? That depends on what’s your instinctive reaction after hearing/reading DPM Tharman speech yesterday?

Aspiring first-time car owner: “What? Forty per cent cash down for a car? How can? Can those China-made cars please come back? Wait, the COE will be higher than the price of the car..’’

Rich guy: “How dare they tax my second home at the Sail, my third at Sentosa Cove and my fourth in Bukit Timah! Time to buy a building at Iskandar.’’

Befuddled economist/pseudo economist: “The government is paying employers to pay workers who get a pay rise? Why not just implement a minimum wage scheme?’’

Sandwiched class: “Damn! More income support for the lower-income. From MY taxpayer money. Why don’t just cut GST and everyone will be happy since it’s most regressive tax around and G made so much surplus already?’’

Big -flat homeowners: “Again five-roomers and executive flat people lose out. The Government think we all not poor just because we live in bigger places ah? Better downgrade and use the Silver Housing bonus – but I love my big place!’’

About-to-be bankrupted restaurant owner: “I will now close my restaurant. I can’t get foreign workers and the Government not even doing anything about my rent. At least can tahan if rent not so high.’’

Earning below $4,000: “My boss had better give me a pay rise now since the Government is subsiding 40 per cent. Actually it means my pay rise can be higher BY 40 per cent from whatever my boss thought. But I bet the stingy fella will just save the money for himself.’’

Panicked mother: “At least got more kindergartens than just the PAP and NTUC one. MOE also starting its own. I think everybody is going to go to the MOE one. Sure got standard, got subsidy. Better queue now while Ah Boy is six months old.’’

I don’t mean to pour cold water over the Budget which I think is pretty cool. This is a G with ideas taking a big picture look at the present and the future. The budget is characterised as a shifting of gears and I so agree. We’ve been in cruise-control for too long – or running ragged at top gear?

How people react will depend on what bit bit them most. Hard to look at the big picture when you see your new car disappearing into the distance. That promise to fix the transport infrastructure MUST come true! Hard to be happy when you are facing the prospect of closing down your business. I mean, which retailer or restauranteur will say: Actually, this isn’t for me. I should change lines. (And become a cigarette smuggler: sure got demand! Kidding ok…)

I liked that steps are being taken to address income inequality; whether they are bold enough is the question of course. But, at least, something is being done to raise their incomes while at the same time sustaining the smaller enterprises who scream about lack of foreign manpower.

My worry about such handouts have always been whether the enterprising enterprises will find a way to “game’’ the system, not just the Work Credits scheme but also Workfare Income Supplement and Productivity Innovation and Credits scheme. Big money is being paid out, what are the checks and balances and at the end of the day, how do we measure results?

Popping the Population myths

A story in Today caught my eye: It was about reactions to two commentaries on the Population White Paper which appeared on the Institute of Public Policy website over the past fortnight. The pity is that the article didn’t give me enough of what the commentators said, before zooming into the reactions. The article should have been excerpted for wider circulation, especially the one by four economists writing in their personal capacities on the four economic myths in the population debate.

I’ll try to sum up the myths here and my apologies to the four authors if I didn’t capture everything or over-simplified stuff.

Myth #1: If we don’t have sufficiently large injections of foreign labour, business costs will rise, some businesses will shut down or move out of Singapore, and Singaporean workers will be laid off.

The economists say that this is akin to protectionism and subsidising inefficient companies which should really shut down so that more resources can be freed for higher value-added work. Direct help to those who are laid off with one-off transfers, unemployment protection and get them to re-train. Why protect the companies which rely on cheap labour to stay afloat?

Myth #2: Economic growth is a zero-sum game

The economists say that it is not necessarily true that Singapore must maintain a certain growth rate or will stagnate and become irrelevant if other countries sped up. More likely, other countries’ growth will spur our own. And if foreign investments won’t come to Singapore, it might not be a bad thing if they are investments we wouldn’t want anyway – like those which require plentiful cheap (foreign) labour.

Myth #3: Denser, larger populations create significant economic benefits for cities

The economists say there is some truth in this, but it really depends on the type of population. If more brains are clustered together, then innovation is spurred. But what is being advocated is the inflow of foreigners to fill lower end jobs. How is this good?

Myth #4: Spending on healthcare and social services are costs which have to be financed by higher taxes, and are therefore a drain on the economy

The economists say that healthcare and social services shouldn’t be viewed as costs. Someone’s costs is someone else’s income. Why isn’t spending on MRT lines and public housing viewed as costs then? They are viewed as productive investments although they are likewise financed by taxpayers. We can afford higher healthcare costs since we have large surpluses and if incomes and productivity increase. But the real issue is who should pay for rising healthcare costs? If the G “knee-jerks’’ and shifts most of the costs to consumers, then sure it would be a problem. The economists didn’t quite say it, but they seem to be calling for a review of the current healthcare financing scheme to make sure out-of-payments won’t kill the patients.

Here’s what the four said in their conclusion: “These myths exist because they seem to be intuitively correct. They appeal to our everyday experiences, and are consistent with popular accounts of the economy. These popular accounts include the idea that cities or countries are locked in economic competition with one another, or that jobs must be protected in order for workers to be protected. Our experience with health and social care as costs we try to avoid also explains our intuition that at the national level, this must also apply. But these stories, although consistent and coherent to us, are neither correct nor valid. As cognitive psychologists have found, people tend to rely on explanations that are consistent with their own experiences or with conventional wisdom, rather than on careful deliberation and reasoned analysis.

“Economics is not, and should not be, the only lens through which we examine, analyse and debate our country’s population policies. But when we do apply economics analysis, we should try to get it right.’’

Ouch!

But what an interesting paper! Here’s the link http://www.ipscommons.sg/index.php/categories/featured/118-economics-myths-in-the-great-population-debate It was published on Feb 8, just a day before the Parliamentary debate on the Population White Paper ended. I wish it was out sooner so that MPs can mull over it and raise questions beyond: Why 6.9million? Today captured some reactions to the paper. Generally other economists agreed with its contents and “proposed revisiting fundamentals needed for future economic growth and greater focus on building local talent’’. Hmm. Now what?

In any case, thank you Donald Low, Yeoh Lam Keong, Tan Kim Song and Manu Bhaskaran. Now why don’t you do us all a favour and take a look at the Department of Statistics latest Household Income report released earlier this well and tell us what the hell is happening.

See http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg for a Chef’s Special on City Harvest Church versus Commissioner of Charities.

Better in jail than dead or Better dead than in jail?

An interesting discussion has been taking place in the Voices pages of Today. It concerns the de-criminalisation of, not the infamous Section 377A, but Section 309 of the Penal Code. This punishes those who attempt suicide with a year’s jail or a fine.

There is something similar between the two sections. They are rarely enforced. The reason for not throwing an already suicidal person in jail is so as to not aggravate the person’s emotional state. I suppose you can’t tell what such a disturbed person might resort to if imprisoned.

But representatives of two groups, Aware and Silver Ribbon, have written to talk about a woman who was jailed after repeated suicide attempts. They did not elaborate on the case. They released some figures: From 2010 to 2011, the suicide mortality rate doubled among those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 85 and above. From 2008 to 2009, suicide among those aged 10 to 29 rose by 40 per cent, increasing from 64 to 91 deaths.

For every suicide death, there are seven suicide attempts. Arrests for attempted suicide have increased, from 706 in 2007 to 986 last year. Gosh! Now these figures I didn’t know. I believe Singapore’s suicide numbers are like one a day. So times seven…

They acknowledged that most arrests do not lead to charges, but argued that the arrest and investigation processes are traumatic enough for the individual and the family. Also, this sword hanging over their heads might actually deter the suicidal from seeking treatment or they would make sure they do the deed, hmm, properly. It’s a public health problem, not a criminal case, they argue.

The “relative infrequency of charges’’ reflects the “tacit understanding’’ that criminal law is the wrong tool for this problem, they said. As for the discretion given to police and magistrates to lay charges, the process iis “neither transparent nor reassuring’’ to those in distress.

You know what all this is leading up to: The section should be repealed.

Another letter-writer counter-argued, citing British law lord Patrick Devlin, He propounded that the legal enforcement of morality is necessary for the survival of society, which is constituted of ideas about how its members should behave. So if citizens are free to end their lives, society’s moral structure may crumble. Suicide then becomes not only an offence against an individual, but one against society.

“While there may be cogent reasons for decriminalising it, we should not view Section 309 of the Penal Code as nothing more than a law that penalises a person. Otherwise, we risk oversimplifying why criminal law is justified in our society.’’

He was joined by another letter-writer, who referred to what jurist A L P Hart said: That although people should be free to do as they please if they do not harm others, it is justifiable to criminalise certain acts to prevent people from making choices without adequate reflection or appreciation of the harm they may do to themselves. Examples of these laws include the mandatory use of motorcycle helmets or even the laws against drug abuse.

The letter-writer said that most cases of attempted suicides are referred to institutions for medical treatment, which makes it clear that the focus is on the medical, not the criminal aspects of the person’s failed attempt.

“Even so, the legislation itself meaningfully reflects our morality and how our society values life. Most of us do not attempt suicide, not because of the law but because we want to live. For a small segment of the population, the law deters and, in extreme cases, punishes. In this sense, it has instrumental value.’’
What are we to make of this discussion?

I dug up the case of the woman who was jailed. She is an 18 year old who received an eight-week jail sentence in November last year. She had tried to kill herself 13 times. The news report said that her family called the police after attempt No. 10 because they believed it was the only way to keep her safe.

She then spent 31/2 months remanded in custody before a judge placed her on a year’s probation, on condition that she sought treatment at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). Apparently, she wasn’t found suitable for a mandatory treatment order (reason not stated) but the judge was convinced she needed medical help.

Three days after she was released from remand, she tried to kill herself again, before going on to make two more attempts.) That’s how she got jail-time, for breaching probation and Section 309, among other things.

The young woman didn’t exactly serve the eight-week jail time, as her sentence was backdated. She went home after the judge admonished her to “get treatment’’. As far as the family was concerned, they wanted her to live, even if it meant calling the police on her.

If this was the case cited in the letter calling for Section 309 repeal…well, I think the circumstances are rather more complex than what the letter writers let on.

Notwithstanding the case, I suppose one issue is: why is it even in the books, if it’s not enforced, just like the other infamous section which I will not name. As for the argument that it’s in the books as a marker of society’s values, that has a familiar ring to it too.

Actually all I want to know is: How many individuals have been charged for attempting suicide over the years? How does the police decide whether to arrest someone, or let him/her go (a lot of people are probably let off given the high attempted suicide numbers). What is the investigation process that follows arrest like? How many are referred for medical treatment?

Some transparency would be good.

A Singaporean in Johor

When I grow old(er), I will move to…Johor! I mean, have you seen the stuff that’s coming up in Iskandar region? More importantly, did you read about what those homes could be priced at?
Go buy BT.

There is this place called the Oasis, a 147-unit development of premium strata residences consisting of studie, 1, 2 and 2+1 bedroom units. Priced at RM700 – 800 psf, a 500 -1,000 sqf studio could cost RM350,000 – 800,000. (Hmm…what’s the price of a COE?)

Oh! Oh! And then there is this other place called Avira, with bungalow, terrace houses, semi-ds, condo units and service apartments. A double-story terrace house of 2,200 sqf will cost RM924,000. RM is Malaysian ringgit for those who are really, really blur. Go get your own calculator and work out the exchange rate.

Okay, I know there are plenty of Singaporeans with homes next door but these places come with a Singapore stamp. Temasek Holdings has sunk a foot in these developments. Other Singapore developers are also in the fray. Plus these places seem designed for people like me – I almost make the grade as a post-war baby boomer. Living there means being surrounded by what is known as “wellness’’ amenities plus plenty of hospitals with familiar Singapore names.(I THINK can use Medisave there.)

The announcements by the two Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia look like the best news in recent time. For both leaders, it’s probably great timing. Malaysia has a general election due by middle of the year. Singapore is screaming about lack of space. So Johor is …our hinterland? I will do my patriotic duty and move over so as not to be a burden on the state, dependent on the ever small-group of younger Singaporeans and a strain on our infrastructure.

Go further up by fast-speed rail and KL is… our playground? I think plenty of people are excited by this prospect. I know the costs haven’t been worked out, but I sure hope the ticket is less than the price of admission into Gardens by the Bay.

But wait a minute. What if the Malaysians decide to treat foreigners differently? You know, levy higher charges on non-Malaysians in healthcare? Or impose a national service tax of sorts because we are leeching on their resources? Or complain that we are raising property prices and the price of everything else? Cannot be right? What if Malaysians say they should have first dibs who gets to stay there? I suppose I’ll have to pay some additional stamp duty to own a property. You think I can get part-time employment there? Or is there a levy/quota?

Oh wait. What if the rules change?

I also read in BT that there will be an “airport city’’ around Senai. Hmm…so if I live around there, I go Senai for my travels? Wouldn’t this be competition to our own Changi airport? I am real proud of Changi, so I guess I’ll travel back into Singapore so that Changi can keep boasting about its arrival/departure figures.

But why I am pouring cold water over such news? I shouldn’t. At the very least, it shows that bilateral relations are blossoming. I don’t have to read about the haggling over water prices or railway land or a crooked bridge to replace the Causeway although I’m quite intrigued about the “third link’’ that’s proposed.

I also hope Mr Najib stays in power because I don’t know how a new leadership would act. New broom, you know, sweeps clean and we might just be some dust in the corner.

And as non-citizens, we wouldn’t have any speaking rights no matter if Temasek or Capitaland has a say in Iskandar. Hmm… I sound like a foreigner.

Maybe I should stay at home. At least I have voting rights, even if whatever I say isn’t loud enough to be heard.

A home I can defend

There is this piece in ST’s Opinion pages today, by a German journalist and urban design expert, that resonated with me. He talks about creating meeting places for Singaporeans, a place for the growing community spirit. No, I don’t think he was talking about Hong Lim Park at the time of writing…

He talked about our fantastic CBD skyline, the Marina Bay area, Gardens by the Park – you know those things that we pass by along the East Coast Parkway and which can still take this Singaporean’s breath away. He said that the “philosophy’’ behind such projects as is the case in Hong Kong and Sydney “steers our aspirations in the wrong direction, with casinos, glamour and international luxury lifestyles’’.

This is an excerpt: “Visible structures throughout town have to offer different characteristics where you can generate a “home” feeling and identify yourself as well as with your neighbourhood and Singapore in general.
“At stake is much more than “green, clean and safe” – it is social cohesion.
“Every environment, especially a town, forms its inhabitants. It is like a didactic tool; it gives you orientation and tells you with thousands of images and signs what kind of game is on and who will be among the winners. We should not underestimate strong messages that come from the visual landscape. The main zeitgeist-philosophy of a glamorous illuminated city is like a permanent brainwash, weakening our relationship with traditional values. The impressive CBD skyline and exciting Marina Bay are icons defining Singapore’s main messages.
“Urban designers have to change priorities, as Singapore needs “Our Singapore plaza”, a new central location like a Greek agora or a civic forum in the heart of the city.’’

He wants some kind of meeting place which says “We in Singapore’’. I don’t know about the meeting place idea, but I do agree that those images along the ECP are something which I am really proud of – but which I don’t belong to. Singaporeans have to pay leh to get into these places which look like they cater for the world at large, especially the rich and famous, and not us common folk. Yet we are proud of it because of what it says of us as a collective: Look how far we have come!

The writer thinks there should be a public square which is distinctively Singaporean for important festivals and communications, where people do not get told what they have to do but where they can feel at home.

You know, I feel at home in HDB neighbourhood centres, hawker centres and coffeeshops. I see no need to dress to impress. My family took my mother to a Bedok coffeeshop for her birthday dinner which was just a week before CNY. There were plenty of families there, extended families, enjoying an early reunion dinner. Food was cheap and good. Ambience was noisy, but familiar. The majority looked to be Singaporeans. I go to Orchard Road or a drinking place in town, and I can count the number of Singaporeans I see.

I don’t suppose the writer is talking about meeting places in the heartland, although that is where the heart of Singapore is. He says no city has ever developed the model meeting place which he suggested and that Singapore could be the first with its civic plaza (and I don’t think he meant the Ngee Ann City one).

It is an interesting idea but what I took away from the piece is this: “Visible structures throughout town have to offer different characteristics where you can generate a “home’ feeling and identify yourself as well as with your neighbourhood and Singapore in general’’.

I read that Minister Chan Chun Sing agrees with the importance of balance in pursuing redevelopment and preserving heritage. Wonderful. Sometimes though we shouldn’t be thinking of preservation only in terms of big iconic areas and historical landmarks. We should be thinking about the little things that matter and that will keep Singapore households rooted in one place instead of upgrading all the time in pursuit of more dollars.

Home ownership as a concept that we can defend as Mr Lee Kuan Yew had hoped? Homes, for some, are more like investment opportunities than a “my house is my castle’’ which I will defend to the death. As for that magnificent skyline and Marina Bay etc, are those some things we will defend? Places that we don’t always step in? And looks so out of reach for most of us?

As I said, I don’t know where this people’s square should be (Hong Lim Park?) but I agree that signs of “home’’ should be everywhere, to remind us of who we are and the values we hold. That say We in Singapore.