Moral policing?

I rather enjoyed reading The Sunday Times’ article on Singapore’s top cop, Commissioner Ng Joo Hee. He seemed to have led an exciting life, policing Liverpool matches, sitting in a black-and-white in Los Angeles with an American beat cop (ate doughnuts!) joining the British inspectors for a course in the UK. Then of course, peace-keeping missions in Cambodia and setting up the police Special Tactics and Rescue or Star unit with former members of the British Special Air Service.

So exciting, I thought. Then I got down to the last few paragraphs of the article:

Another battle he fights, aside from crime, is corruption, which he addressed in a recent message to his officers, saying: “From the moment we choose to wear police blue, we also choose to live by a special code.”
It is the same code which he believes former colleague Ng Boon Gay broke when he was charged and put on trial for corruption last year.
“Boon Gay has been found not guilty… but certainly his acts are reprehensible,” he says. “He has broken every one of our values and he has tainted the whole police force by his behaviour and that is very disappointing.”

Now, I wonder why it was necessary for him to say that about his erstwhile colleague (or is Mr Ng still on the force?). Perhaps, he was asked for his view and sought to give a politically correct answer. Sure, policemen must not and cannot be corrupt. And if Mr Ng (the Commissioner) wants to give examples, there are plenty he could have chosen from, outrightly guilty officers who want sex from prostitutes in return for not turning them in for some crime to those convicted of taking under-table money. But Mr Ng (the ex-CNB chief) was singled out for mention instead, although as the Commissioner noted, he was not guilty by law.

By describing Mr Ng’s acts as “reprehensible’’ and that he broke a police code, I suppose the Commissioner meant that Mr Ng should not have been engaging in a sexual dalliance with a woman who is not his wife – or with another man’s wife.

I suppose I can understand a code which says that a policeman should not commit adultery with another policeman’s wife. I can even understand, even if it is not a good thing, if policemen believe they should protect their own (obviously this is not the case here). And I would definitely rather that the police code embraces a value like, every crime is worth our time (rhymes too!) An honour code that I believe exists among soldiers is to leave no man behind – not bad at all. Then there is a journalist’s code to get to the truth without fear or favour – which can be pretty tough to uphold.

In this case, we are talking about a policeman, not a priest. And when we say we want a “good’’ cop, it means we want an able person who enforces law and order. I am not sure I care if the cop indulges in something on the side; but I would care if a cop is slip shod in his investigations, turns a blind eye to some crimes, thinks some types of crime are not worth his time and can’t crack a case in his whole career. I would care if a cop’s work is not up to scratch so much so that a wrong person gets convicted or if he clearly took a bribe to let someone off the hook.

So Mr Ng had an affair and the court seems to agree it was just that – an affair, whether loveless or not. Seems gratuitous for the Commissioner to weigh in after he’s been cleared.

Mr Ng’s past – he probably has a similarly exciting story to tell like the current commissioner – seems to have been forgotten, like he’s an embarrassment. I wonder how many drug syndicates he’s busted, and how many criminals he’s put behind bars while he headed up the Criminal Investigation Department. I wonder if he received any medals in his career. The man dashed his career with his sexual indiscretions not because he was corrupt. He should have, to use a police term, covered his tracks properly (Maybe that makes him a bad policeman?)

In light of his reply on Mr Ng, the Commissioner was asked if his stand was that every police officer must be beyond reproach. He said: “The public expects it and that’s why this is more than any ordinary job. You want to do this job? It’s different, it’s tough.”

How he came to this conclusion on the expectations of the public, I don’t know.

You know, I can (more or less) understand political parties giving philandering members a wide berth, to the point of prompting an election. We are rather more conservative than other countries which give even presidents with a wandering eye (and hands) a pass. That’s because political parties campaign on a platform of moral integrity. I doubt that policemen signed up to be politicians and priests.

In any case, I don’t suppose the Commissioner, in describing Mr Ng’s acts as a taint on the force’s reputation, will be embarking on a “clean-up’’ exercise to police the moral standards of his men.
But if he does take action, good luck to him then. I wish him all Herculean strength.

Dare we talk about abortion?

It seemed like such a no-brainer to me – introduce a culture of adoption to raise Singapore’s people numbers. So I’m glad a few MPs raised it during Parliament’s committee of supply debate although the Population White Paper was deafeningly silent on that score.

The reply from Minister Chan Chun Sing was a little disheartening. He wants to tread carefully. I think it’s a rather more “careful’’ move to encourage adoptions – of unwanted babies here and abroad – than letting in foreigners in the hope that they will take on PR or citizenship as well as understand the responsibilities that come with a new status. After all, we have no clue how foreigners are let through the gates since immigration rules are so opaque.

Do I really have to reprise the benefits of an adoption culture? I mean, don’t we already know of families which want to adopt a child because the couple has missed the biological boat and modern medicine didn’t help? Isn’t it clear that such couples have done their sums and know that they can afford to raise a child? More important, these are people obviously want children, not like others who have to be persuaded to have them.

Sure, checks will have to be made on them as it is already the case. In fact, the checks by accredited agencies who bring in babies from abroad are pretty rigorous from what past media reports have let fall. Once the couples are “cleared’’ and baby comes along – I can imagine the love and attention showered on their new addition.
Voila! An instant Singaporean to be brought up in the Singapore way by Singaporeans.

Sounds good?

I wish someone had asked for an update on the state of adoptions. How many foreign babies are adopted every year? In the hundreds? Are the rules too tight? Is there a waiting list of families waiting to adopt a child? Have there been instances of “baby buying’’?
Now another controversial idea has been thrown into the picture: Discourage abortions and have pregnant women bring their baby to term for adoption by couples who want to have children.

The Sunday Times article which discussed (or tried to discuss) this issue had some interesting statistics. There are about 12,000 abortions in Singapore every year. But before anyone starts screaming blue murder, the number and proportion of Singapore women who head for the clinics have actually come down by about 25 per cent, from about 9,770 in 2003 to about 7,280 in 2011. Most of them are unmarried.

The rest are made up by an increasing number of foreign women.

(For a moment, I wondered at that increasing statistic until it was pointed out to me that Singapore was one of the few places in Asia where abortions can be performed upon request. So I guess we have plenty of desperate women who head over here to have a safe abortion, boosting our reputation as a medical hub. I am being sarcastic here.)

I’m not sure that having fewer abortions would lead to more adoptions. In the middle, a lot more work has to be done to persuade women to stay the course for nine months besides some sort of matching exercise for baby and couple. Doctors and counsellors warn of the emotions that will be involved in such an exercise, pre- and post-birth. I wish though the article had voices of the women, instead of relying on such second-hand sources.

But several suggestions have come up to make it less easy for a woman to abort. Moral considerations aside (let’s not go there please), there are pragmatic reasons for doing so given that raising the TFR has become an all-important national objective.
(Before you start jumping, hear me out)

What was interesting about the Sunday Times piece was how archaic our abortion laws and regulations are. They were intended for a time when couples were not stopping at two and desperate women were resorting to quacks and do-it-yourself methods to rid themselves of their babies.

Mandatory pre-abortion counselling was only for selected groups. The rest get a free pass: Foreigners, rape victims or Singaporeans with three or more children, and those who have not passed the PSLE.
I can more or less understand the reasons for them being singled out, although I think counselling should be mandatory for everyone on moral grounds. (Okay okay, let’s not go there!)

Foreigners: The State is not the church and is in no position to prescribe/proscribe the actions of foreigners who have probably made up their minds if they’ve made the trip here for an abortion.

Rape victims: They would rather not have a reminder of what they had to go through. They need counselling of a different sort.

Three or more children: This is odd. Isn’t the slogan still Have three or more if you can afford it? Seems such couples can be persuaded to keep another child. Aren’t some perks in the Marriage and Parenthood package applicable to such families?

PSLE and less: So the assumption is that a less-educated woman will be a poor mother? Does it matter if she is married to a millionaire? Sounds discriminatory.

There is another category: Unmarried girls below 16 seeking abortions are referred to the Health Promotion Board Counselling Centre for pre-abortion counselling before they can have the procedure. Parental consent is not needed.

I suppose a crime has been perpetrated here – underage sex. I wonder if the girls have to give up the name of who made them pregnant. Probably not since they don’t even have to inform their parents about what was happening to their bodies. The reason, I suppose, is to stop young women who are afraid of their parents’ ire from going for back alley abortions or DIY methods which could endanger their lives. Better a safe abortion than a sorry one? But in this day and age, might it be that parents are more open to having to take care of their grandchild? After all, they have more resources than their young daughter and single mothers have finally made it into the Government’s line of sight.

In any case, mandatory pre-abortion counselling for better educated women doesn’t seem to be working. In 2011, 36.3 per cent of all abortions involved university or polytechnic graduates – more than double the 15.6 per cent in 2003.

Perhaps the greater recognition for single mothers announced during the Committee of Supply would do more to get the better educated women to keep their babies than have to watch a pre-abortion video.

The article also talked about the kind of educational materials that these women are given to read: The Truth About Abortion and Contraceptive Methods – Which One Is Best For Me.
So, the message is: Next time you want to have sex, use protection, you ninny.
Now why not change this to Abortion and Adoption: Which One Is Best For Me?

Some people have asked for other changes, like having a longer than 48 hour “cooling off’’ period for the woman to think about whether she still wants a baby.
Others have suggested that instead of allowing abortions for babies up to 24 weeks of gestation, the period could be shortened to 16 or 20 weeks. So, women have a shorter “cut off’’ date. In fact, 24 weeks is a pretty long time and doctors say the baby might well be able to survive out of the body by then.

Re-visiting this issue, however, is going into controversial ground – like whether abortion is really pure murder at this stage and whether as a country, we should condone such actions.

Nevertheless, it seems to me the abortion laws are worth a re-visit or an update. If public discussion is too controversial, then perhaps some quiet changes to regulations can be made. It is terrible, I know, that the issue has surfaced because we are facing a baby emergency and not because there is a sudden tweak of the national conscience. (Oops! I did it again!)

But the changes can be viewed as a convenient meeting of minds and hearts: among those who think abortion is wrong, those who want women to have children and women who want a say over their bodies.

Dare we?

Cut off a few heads

There was an interesting feature in The Sunday Times today about COE prices by ex-ST editor Han Fook Kwang. In essence, he recounted how various changes to Singapore’s car ownership story has caused the explosion in COE prices. The earth should have moved within the G ranks, he said, when COE prices shot up. It didn’t.

Here is his list of how this happened:

In 2003: car loan restrictions which had been in force from 1995 lifted.
In 2002: ARF reduced from 140 per cent of the open market value of a car to 130 per cent, part of a planned reduction in the tax which was brought further down to 100 per cent in 2008.
In 2009: COE numbers reduced to slow down the growth rate of the car population from 3 per cent a year to 1.5 per cent, and to 0.5 per cent this year.

“Should anyone be surprised then that COE prices exploded, hitting the $90,000 mark?
“In its defence, each of these changes could be justified on its own grounds, as indeed they were. But taken together, it was a recipe to break COE price records. It shows how important it is for policymakers to be clear about what they want to achieve and to be wary of unintended consequences.’’

What he wrote sounded a bit like what National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said about housing policy during the budget debate. So many tweaks over the years that we’ve lost sight of what is the G’s role in providing public housing – hence high HDB prices.

In 1971: HDB flats can be resold for a profit.
In 1989: HDB flat owners can keep their flat, even when they buy a private property.
In 1993: Buyers can take loans based on the prevailing market value of the flat,instead of HDB’s historical selling prices.
In 2003: HDB flat owners can sublet their flats.

In between, the housing policy is used as a social tool for everything from making sure families stay together, encouraging the formation of families, raising the value of housing assets by subsidising upgrading, catering to the accommodation of foreigners and PRs, ensuring the spread of races…You name it, the housing tool can be used to fix everything so much so that the myriad renovations might well damage the supporting beam structure.

So Mr Khaw as well as other MPs are asking for a back to basics look at housing policy.

The trouble is, the genie is out of the bottle. Going back to basics and first principles mean that some groups which had benefited from the changes which made housing policy so complicated will be affected.

Mr Khaw raised the example of the income ceiling for HDB flats.
Should it be lowered, raised or lifted. Should executive condos continue to be offered? (Now we have to remember that ECs were in response to the housing needs of a sandwiched class who were priced out of both public and private property.)

Another example he gave was whether the HDB should return to pre-2003 days of strict owner-occupation. Then what would happen to the many retirees who rely on income from subletting or the younger homeowners who use it to help support their lifestyle?

A third example: Return to pre-1989 days when HDB flat owners have to sell off their flats when they buy a private residential property. What to say then to Singaporeans who aspire to live in a private condo and use their HDB flat for additional rental income?
Mr Khaw has been fighting fires (his words). He’s delinked BTO flat prices from the resale market to make them more affordable although he very cleverly said that those who want to figure out the discount should do the sums themselves (which property analyst will do this please?)

So housing will now be part of an in-depth conversation within the National Conversation. Mr Khaw’s back to basics re-look should apply to other policies as well. For example, have we lost sight of the G’s role in public transport (why should it subsidise transport operators?) and education (with calls now to nationalise pre-school education)?

In fact, one important facet of this discussion is what we, the citizens, want from the G in these areas. Our record is not good – we want the G to do everything. Every segment of the population wants something different that is in its interest, and policies are tweaked to cater to demand. The result is a many-headed monster of a policy. It is a Hydra that will eat the next generation, not mine or my parents’ – since we probably would have got most of what we wanted over the years.

Maybe, we should just do this: Come to an agreement on the G’s role in each area and state its mission and vision in the provision of housing, transport, education and healthcare, plus the underlying principles that will underpin its operations to fulfil its vision. Then we should look at the monster with a view of cutting off some of its heads and making sure they don’t grow back. It’s easier said than done of course.

But it would be an interesting political and intellectual exercise.

The “other” Singapore

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal about Singapore – and it’s a place I don’t recognise. It is about glitzy nightclubs, private jets, fast cars, high fashion and high-life. It talks about beautiful people togged up in clothes and shoes with names I can’t pronounce. About people who jet into Singapore to play and foreigners who decide the little red dot is the best place to park their money.

It’s about a lifestyle that isn’t reported for local consumption. It sounds like Vegas, but it is actually buttoned-down Singapore. My eyes go wider than wide when I weave through the article. Singapore has a nightclub at Marina Bay Sands which is just a year old, but Pangaea (how do you pronounce this anyway?) is now considered the most profitable club in the world with revenues of more than $100,000 per night in recent months.

It’s also one of the most expensive clubs, with tables costing as much as $15,000, with the uber-rich regularly chalking up six-figures. The jet-set of the world jet in on really serious jets, including n A380 which was converted to include a pool and basketball court, according to its owner, Michael Ault, a blue-blooded pedigreed American who moved from Manhattan to Singapore three years ago.

So many of the world’s rich and famous have moved here, as permanent residents or new citizens. Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin. Australian mining tycoon Nathan Tinkler. India telco tycoon Bhupendra Kumar Modi. New Zealand billionaire Richard Chandler. US investor Jim Rogers, who set up shop there in 2007. Indonesian-born millionaire Frank Cintamani. According to the article, Gina Rinehart, one of the world’s richest women, slapped down $46.3 million for a pair of Singapore condominium units last year. Gosh! And we gasp at $1m price tag for an executive condo!

I suppose we have always known that some of the rich and famous have moved here, (remember the fuss when Gong Li became a citizen?) but they were never put under the spotlight as a collective group. This is probably one of the advantages of re-locating to Singapore. Celebrities, billionaires and luminaries are left alone to do as they please; no paparazzi, no protestors, in a place where it is safe to park their money, pay low taxes, with order strictly enforced. (I wonder if they had to go through a Singapore Citizenship Journey, visiting places of civic interest and attend a block party. Whether their children had to do national service.)

I guess we should be glad that we are such a playground, an Asian Monaco. Hopefully, these rich people-turned-PRs, or PRs- turned-new citizens will leave some business or money behind to filter to the rest of us. That they wouldn’t keep to themselves, but would put what they can into a country that provides them with better comforts than their own home country. Wealth-X, a private consultancy that provides intelligence on the world’s uber-rich, estimates some 1,400 ultra-high-net-worth individuals now hold more than $160 billion of wealth in Singapore, reported WSJ.

I mean, there should be a price of entry.
How did they get through the gates in the first place? Up to last year, there was a programme that allowed wealthy foreigners to “fast track” their permanent residency if they kept at least $8.1 million in assets in the city-state for five years. Investors who plan to dedicate a few million to help companies in Singapore grow are still welcomed, according to WSJ. So some big money has to be sunk here first, and hopefully, jobs created.

Do I sound envious? I am – and I don’t quite know why.
Part of the reason is probably that that sort of lifestyle is out of my reach, like I am on the outside of a fish tank looking in. Another part could be a sense that we are building a city for “other’’ people to live, work and play in. Could such PRs and new citizens ever become part of the Singapore core?

This is not to say that as a country, we have not done well for ourselves. WSJ reported that one in six homes has disposable private wealth of at least $1 million, excluding property, business and luxury goods. Add in property, with Singapore real estate among the most expensive in the world, and this number would be even higher. Now, that must include quite a few citizens, I should think. Singapore also now has the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world at $56,532.

Then I think about the debate we are having about the way we should go. All that talk about income inequality (second highest in the world), social safety nets and the need for an inclusive society. We talk about $50 pay increments, jammed roads, trains breaking down, unaffordable cars and the salaries of cleaners and drivers. We live in HDB, travel by MRT, shop at NTUC. We have a sandwich class.
WSJ reported Garry Rodan, a fellow at the Asia Research Center at Murdoch University as saying that the rich in Singapore now find themselves with “new avenues to display their wealth,” while “aged Singaporeans with grossly inadequate savings can be seen on the streets collecting plastic bottles for recycling.”
Ouch! That hurt.

Sometimes I think it’s good that the rich keep to themselves, ring-fenced by high entrance fees. That we see only their cars; 449 Ferraris now and 469 Maseratis.

Now, they should make sure they do not crash them – and stay invisible.

Read http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg for
- So you don’t give a sh** about Lit
- A young Malay’s view on racial strait-jacketing

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?

Where is the “no Lit” camp?

I have been waiting to read a view that opposes the “pro-Lit’’ camp who bemoan the dismally small number of students pursuing Literature as a subject. No dice. Perhaps, the volume level of the “pro-Lit’’ camp has drowned out the “no-Lit” camp; or perhaps, they can’t out-argue the pro-Lit camp, even though there must be oh, so many more of them who think that Literature is, well, rubbish. And even if not rubbish, the subject is simply not good enough for my child to take for his or her O levels.

I wonder why the silence? All this will do is show that the pro-Lit camp is correct. Their views go un-challenged because, having studied literature, they can analyse better, critique better and write better. That’s why the rest, illiterate louts better at the computer or calculator, simple have no response.

Okay, before you get me wrong, I belong to the “pro-Lit’’ camp although I can’t say that I fell in love with the subject in secondary school, where my teachers usually just made us read prose or poetry aloud and asked us to write essays. It was the teachers in junior college who showed me that literature is more than just reading the classics and Shakespeare. That language can be used in many ways, to appease, deceive, placate or outrage. That a story can contain many messages, even contradictory ones. And that there can be many points of view, and all of them could be right.

This is the reason for the perception that it’s hard to score in Lit. Unlike mathematics, there is no formula that leads to just one answer.

I’m glad that the teaching of Literature has advanced somewhat, going by what The Sunday Times reported. One article gave two examples of how lit is taught. For Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, for example, the teacher got his students to compare the “taming’’ with the taming of women in other societies through stories and plays by Jamaica Kincaid, Kyoko Mori, Maxine Hong Kingston and Stella Kon.

Academic Suzanne Choo gave the best reason for the study of literature: “While literature education does foster aesthetic appreciation and a taste for good writing, what we often forget is that when students are asked to respond to questions such as “What makes us sympathise with Okonkwo in Things Fall Apart”, “Is justice served at the end of Macbeth”, or “How does the writer develop the sense of irony in the poem Dulce Et Decorum Est”, they need to consider the underlying beliefs determining a character’s intentions and behaviour, thus affecting our feelings towards him or her, the different social-cultural values influencing how concepts such as justice are perceived, and the ways in which literary techniques contribute to the implied author’s philosophical proposition in the text. In short, these are questions requiring critical engagements with values.’’

The study of Literature isn’t about reading old books with old words. Or even new books with new words. It is about learning to read “critically’’ and to appreciate the way language is used to convey different meanings. I will go so far as to say that a background in literature makes you a bit more media literate (now.. that’s a term that’s terribly in vogue for those who think literature belongs to the Middle Ages or for the middle-aged).

We are surrounded by media and it takes a critical eye to sieve the wheat from the chaff, to grasp underlying messages and to spot flaws in logic. This is a useful skill in any economy. Someone who can do so will usually be able to formulate their thoughts better, organise an argument better or present a case better. They are open to differing views and have the language capacity to take it all in, so to speak. They are comfortable with “uncertainty’’; that there is sometimes no right answer, and we can all agree to disagree. Now if that is not a useful skill in any profession, I don’t know what else is. What is knowledge if you do not have the skill to communicate what you know and make yourself understood?

Enough of that.

I really want to hear from the other side of the fence. The schools which discourage literature as a subject, the parents who prefer that their children do mathematics, the students who think literature is a waste of time – where are you?
If you believe that literature is a “soft’’ subject and waste of time, as compared to say, a “hard’’ subject, tell us why. If you think there’s no money to be made specialising in literature, well, that’s probably true, but what about a basic grounding? If you think the problem is the way schools teach literature, then share with us your story.

We should hear from you too.

Protecting the small guy

Just because someone calls something an initiative, it doesn’t mean you have to use the word and repeat it, repeat it, repeat it. The media reports are full of “initiatives’’, a whole **urrrhhh slew of them (as used in BT) – emerging from the courts. I suppose the word conveys the idea that something new will come to pass, and that it will be “good’’. I mean, is there such a thing as a “bad’’ initiative? If someone showed initiative, it probably means he used his brain quickly and came up with something fast, to the surprise of others. At least, that’s the way I “see’’ the word – and mine is NOT an expert point of view. Just saying…

Back to the subject at hand. So the new Chief Justice wants to do something about making sure people don’t head straight to court too quickly. He wants intermediate checkpoints of sorts along the way. So a core of lawyers will be around to provide legal advice on uncomplicated stuff for a fee. You know, we’ve heard several speeches over the years about making sure disputes are settled without the need to go before a judge and wasting time and money. Other CJs have also emphasised the use of Community Mediation Centres and other structures to reduce the cost of litigation. Whenever I see “new’’ initiatives announced, I keep wondering if this was because the old ones (bad initiatives?) didn’t work – or didn’t work well enough. Anyway, we don’t know.

I’m going to be snarky here and say that a reader in need of legal advice now (for a fee or pro bono) probably isn’t going to understand the media reports, which seem more intent on painting the “big picture’’, use big words like dispute resolution, facilitation and collaboration. What’s the news?

I think it’s something like this:

By the end of the year, a pool of lawyers will be on hand to help people who need basic legal matters sorted out. For a fixed fee, these lawyers also known as Primary Justice lawyers, will handle civil cases involving sums of less than $60,000. They will try resolve the matter so that it doesn’t have to go to court.

This is something new CJ Sundaresh Menon wants to introduce so that more people realise that they do not always have to go before a judge to get a dispute resolved. Cases can then be settled faster, cheaper and more amicably. (I think at this stage I would have said something about how much a basic legal matter – more examples would be good – would have cost someone and how it drains the courts’ time. Also, how heavy the workload of the court is now and how stuff that really, really needs the specialist attention of court gets deferred)

There is a second “initiative’’ that motorists should know about. The CJ wants a guidebook on liability findings on a comprehensive list of motor vehicle accident scenarios. Right now, such claims form 30 per cent of cases in the subordinate courts. With this guidebook, motorists and insurers can decide whether it’s worth their while to bring an accident case to court. Sounds like a good idea. That guidebook should be put online for all to see.

By the way, it was interesting how ST and Today reported the reactions of lawyers. ST said they were “supportive’’ (I mean, what else can the lawyers say right?). There was a lawyer though saying that some people simply die die (my words) want their day in court to see justice done, however small the case may be. Today, on the other hand, asked lawyers whether they think their earnings will drop if fewer cases made it to court (!). One said firms might need to change their “business model’’.

Makes me wonder: Didn’t anyone ask the small guy for his views? Can find plenty of them in the courts, probably pursuing an accident claim.

PS. Please read “cemetery’’ if you’re wondering why I swore at the word slew.

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

A healthcare begging bowl

We’re all talking about healthcare these days and whether we can afford to get sick in our silver years. Economists are wondering if the healthcare system should be reformed – why save so much money in Medisave when some of us need it now? Can’t the G share of the bill be higher? And my own favourite question: Has anyone ever been bankrupted by a medical bill?

So I read with interest The Sunday Times story on Medifund, that last safety net in our 3M system. I gather that this is for those who have depleted their Medisave (and those of their immediate family members?) and who didn’t sign up for Medishield. At least, that’s what I think the criteria is since it hasn’t been publicised with the G seeming to prefer a “case-by-case’’ basis.

I have friends who have been helped by Medifund, for which they are grateful to the G. It’s good that people are “grateful’’ but should it be the case that they look to G largesse to foot medical bills. I mean, no one intentionally gets sick. So I read about Health Minister Gan Kim Yong vowing that no one will be denied healthcare because they can’t afford it. He’s said it before, probably more than twice, and so has every Health minister before him. The ST led with this assurance – again, although the news should really be how many people have been helped by Medifund. I can’t help but think that the problem can be fixed at the root, but I will leave that to health economists.

Anyway, Medifund disbursements have increased from$78.7 m in 2011 to $90.8 m last year. Number of applications approved shot up from 480,869 to 518,389. The rise is attributed to greater flexibility to medical social workers to say yes to applications, although I still don’t know what is “flexible’’. As compared to what?

I tempted to say “wah, so generous now…’’ but I won’t. Because the figures are troubling. So many people need help with their medical bills, so much so that there is a “shortfall’’ – Medifund, an endowment fund, paid out more than its income for the first time. There is one more figure which appals me: That 96 per cent of the applications were for out-patient bills. I mean, so many people cannot afford out-patient bills? Something is wrong somewhere no? Especially since an in-patient received $1,295 while an outpatient get $103. So many people cannot pay $100 or so? How come? Is it because the medical problems aren’t covered by Medisave in the first place? Or they really, really are destitute?

I really think we need to look hard at the figures..

Then I read today in ST about medical centres in the Orchard Road belt. It’s an exclusive by ST I believe, so I’ll just sum it up here: Basically, the Raffles Medical Group wants to convert seven podium floors of Thong Sia building into a medical centre and applied to the URA to do so. As usual, there was a bureaucratic gobblededook response: “We evaluated the new proposed use taking into consideration specific site context, the impact of the proposed use on the amenity and surrounding uses, and the local road infrastructure capacity in that area, and decided to turn down the proposal.” In other words, the URA said no.

The ST has an interesting graphic on all the medical centres in the Orchard Road belt. Go buy ST. Did you know Pacific Plaza is converting the top seven floors of its 12-storey building into 22 medical “suites’’? The private medical centres are everywhere in the shopping district. Raffles wants to use Thong Sia to serve the “significant number of patients who live in District 9, 10 and 11’’ and foreign visitors, its spokesman said.

I don’t know why the URA said no. Apparently no parking space and complaints of residents have something to do with it. I don’t want to be envious, but I am. Nor do I want to say that private sector initiative should be stifled given Singapore’s bid to be a medical hub. But this story coming after the Medifund story really makes you think about the healthcare system in Singapore. Can we look after our needy sick in a better way than have them go with a begging bowl to the G?

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.