AWARE caught unaware: The names of the team
AWARE had been “hijacked” by a new unknown group. What are their motives and who are they? We have a list of their names from the Straits Times article on The new team.
So far, the new unknown group’s response is no comments. But, is the group really unknown?
The new team
April 10, 2009 Friday
THE Straits Times understands that the following were elected to Aware’s new committee on March 28, 2009.
President: Claire Nazar
Vice-president: Charlotte Wong Hock Soon
Honorary secretary: Jenica Chua Chor Ping
Assistant honorary secretary: Sally Ang Koon Hian
Honorary treasurer: Maureen Ong Lee Keang
Assistant honorary treasurer: Chew I-Jin
Committee member: Caris Lim Chai Leng
Committee member: Catherine Tan Ling Ghim
Committee member: Josie Lau Meng Lee
Committee member: Lois Ng
Committee member: Irene Yee Khor Quin
Committee member: Peggy Leong Pek Kay
But new president Claire Nazar has just quit her post. She confirmed this, but declined to comment further when contacted by The Straits Times.
Of the other committee members, only Ms Chew I-Jin and Ms Caris Lim are longtime members of Aware.
Ms Chew had been nominated by the Aware old guard for the vice-president’s post but she was trounced by newcomer Charlotte Wong, and had to settle for the assistant treasurer’s position, which she won without a contest.
The Straits Times e-mailed Aware this week requesting interviews with members of the new committee, but did not receive a reply.
The newspaper also tried contacting some of the members - Jenica Chua, Josie Lau and Lois Ng - on their mobile phones, hoping they might shed light on who they are, how they are connected to other newly elected office-bearers, or what they are planning to do now that they are in charge.
Ms Lau and Ms Ng could not be reached.
Ms Chua confirmed that she was on the new executive committee and said Aware would be releasing a press statement in ‘the next few days’.
But she flatly refused to take any more questions.
The Straits Times also contacted two other new members who were at the AGM: Ms Angela Thiang, who spoke up in support of the newcomers who stood for election, and Dr Alan Chin, who helped to count the votes.
Ms Thiang said she would return the call, but did not. She could not be reached subsequently.
Dr Chin confirmed that he was an Aware member but, like the others, refused to answer any questions.
New guard: No comment, for now.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26736.1
Sunday, April 12, 2009
National Service and the open door policy
National Service and the open door policy
SINGAPORE - On the way back home on the bus from work one day, I overheard a conversation between a Singaporean and his foreign counterpart (FC). It went like this:
FC: What is the purpose of Singaporeans doing National Service?
Local: Supposingly to defend Singapore against perceived threats.
FC: So you will be trained to defend Singapore against potential enemies?
Local (in a cynical, albeit jovial tone): If Singapore has a war, I will not be around to protect you. I think you better make your own life raft so that you will be able to jump the Singapore ship and go somewhere safe.
This conversation sums up the deep resentment among NS men towards the open door policy towards foreigners. A typical Singaporean with NS obligations is disadvantaged vis-a-vis his foreign counterparts because of the need to serve yearly in-camp trainings (ICT), which can be up to the maximum of one month. If ICT is not enough, those who fail to pass their physical fitness test (IPPT) have to attend Remedial Training (RT). If the RT is scheduled on a week day, the NS man has to leave his office early. And there has been feedbacks that employers do ask prospective employees their extent of NS obligations during job interviews. This has happened before in my case, and my peers had the same experience.
Thus, it is not surprising that NS obligations are seen as a form of liability in the face of competition from foreigners who do not have such obligations. I managed to do some catching up with my fellow NS peers when I went back for my annual ICT last week. The news wasn’t that rosy. A good number suffered pay cuts. One got retrenched. On top of ICT, this chap for one reason or another couldn’t pass his IPPT despite the RT training. His work place brought in cheaper foreign workers, and he was unceremoniously told to leave. Now, he is working for a fast food chain, earning $3.50 an hour.
It is not far from the truth to assert that the sight of the SAF100 (an SAF form notifying NS men of their upcoming ICT) is a morale sapper. On the ground, it is not uncommon for NS men to find ways and means to obtain excuse from their NS duties firstly (read MC), and attend to their work committments next.
Ironic, isn’t it? The point of NS is to protect the livelihood of Singaporeans. Except that now it is perceived as a form of threat to livelihood. And it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to assert that this question has gone through the heads of a number of our NS men at one point of time or another - what’s the point of doing NS when my livelihood is already threatened (by the open door policy towards foreigners)? For the cynical ones, they are already asking this question - why should I protect foreigners who threaten my livelihood?
The sad thing is that despite the fanfare of the Five Pillars of Defence, the intertwining of NS with the open door policy towards foreigners is surely not doing any favors to our Psychological Defence (one of the five pillars).
With the current fallout from the global financial crisis, the retrenchment exercise will undoubtedly go into overdrive mode. Due to the downsizing of the current work force, employees are saddled with increased workloads and responsibilities. The last thing on their mind is an SAF100 telling them to report for an ICT or a reminder to attend their RT. And for those keeping their fingers crossed in the hope of keeping their jobs, they wouldn’t want their NS liabilities to affect their evaluation.
Surely now would be the time for our Ministry of Defence (Mindef) to exercise some form of flexibility. For starters, Mindef can exercise more leeway in granting deferment, especially in the case of NS men who have to take on additional responsibilities and workload due to the down-sizing of the work force. Ditto for IPPT training where NS men can be given flexibility to select schedules that best fit the interests of their work place instead of sticking to one chosen fixed schedule under the current system. In fact, the system can be made NS men-friendly in allowing them to pick their most convenient dates.
During this period when the economy is in its downward spiral, shouldn’t MINDEF adopt a flexible approach and assist our NS men instead of hindering them during moments of such crisis? Granted that MINDEF can always come up with this arguement that operational readiness will be affected if it adopts a flexible approach, a good rhetorical question would be - would our military want to appear operationally ready on the surface, but with its soldiers already deflated psychologically? What then is the difference between an army of deflated soldiers and a non-existent army?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26727.1
SINGAPORE - On the way back home on the bus from work one day, I overheard a conversation between a Singaporean and his foreign counterpart (FC). It went like this:
FC: What is the purpose of Singaporeans doing National Service?
Local: Supposingly to defend Singapore against perceived threats.
FC: So you will be trained to defend Singapore against potential enemies?
Local (in a cynical, albeit jovial tone): If Singapore has a war, I will not be around to protect you. I think you better make your own life raft so that you will be able to jump the Singapore ship and go somewhere safe.
This conversation sums up the deep resentment among NS men towards the open door policy towards foreigners. A typical Singaporean with NS obligations is disadvantaged vis-a-vis his foreign counterparts because of the need to serve yearly in-camp trainings (ICT), which can be up to the maximum of one month. If ICT is not enough, those who fail to pass their physical fitness test (IPPT) have to attend Remedial Training (RT). If the RT is scheduled on a week day, the NS man has to leave his office early. And there has been feedbacks that employers do ask prospective employees their extent of NS obligations during job interviews. This has happened before in my case, and my peers had the same experience.
Thus, it is not surprising that NS obligations are seen as a form of liability in the face of competition from foreigners who do not have such obligations. I managed to do some catching up with my fellow NS peers when I went back for my annual ICT last week. The news wasn’t that rosy. A good number suffered pay cuts. One got retrenched. On top of ICT, this chap for one reason or another couldn’t pass his IPPT despite the RT training. His work place brought in cheaper foreign workers, and he was unceremoniously told to leave. Now, he is working for a fast food chain, earning $3.50 an hour.
It is not far from the truth to assert that the sight of the SAF100 (an SAF form notifying NS men of their upcoming ICT) is a morale sapper. On the ground, it is not uncommon for NS men to find ways and means to obtain excuse from their NS duties firstly (read MC), and attend to their work committments next.
Ironic, isn’t it? The point of NS is to protect the livelihood of Singaporeans. Except that now it is perceived as a form of threat to livelihood. And it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to assert that this question has gone through the heads of a number of our NS men at one point of time or another - what’s the point of doing NS when my livelihood is already threatened (by the open door policy towards foreigners)? For the cynical ones, they are already asking this question - why should I protect foreigners who threaten my livelihood?
The sad thing is that despite the fanfare of the Five Pillars of Defence, the intertwining of NS with the open door policy towards foreigners is surely not doing any favors to our Psychological Defence (one of the five pillars).
With the current fallout from the global financial crisis, the retrenchment exercise will undoubtedly go into overdrive mode. Due to the downsizing of the current work force, employees are saddled with increased workloads and responsibilities. The last thing on their mind is an SAF100 telling them to report for an ICT or a reminder to attend their RT. And for those keeping their fingers crossed in the hope of keeping their jobs, they wouldn’t want their NS liabilities to affect their evaluation.
Surely now would be the time for our Ministry of Defence (Mindef) to exercise some form of flexibility. For starters, Mindef can exercise more leeway in granting deferment, especially in the case of NS men who have to take on additional responsibilities and workload due to the down-sizing of the work force. Ditto for IPPT training where NS men can be given flexibility to select schedules that best fit the interests of their work place instead of sticking to one chosen fixed schedule under the current system. In fact, the system can be made NS men-friendly in allowing them to pick their most convenient dates.
During this period when the economy is in its downward spiral, shouldn’t MINDEF adopt a flexible approach and assist our NS men instead of hindering them during moments of such crisis? Granted that MINDEF can always come up with this arguement that operational readiness will be affected if it adopts a flexible approach, a good rhetorical question would be - would our military want to appear operationally ready on the surface, but with its soldiers already deflated psychologically? What then is the difference between an army of deflated soldiers and a non-existent army?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26727.1
Our bloated defence budget: A swift and decisive victory
Our bloated defence budget: A swift and decisive victory
By Darth Vader
The need for deterrence against potential aggressors is indisputable for this city state. In fact, there is a very strong case for deterrence and there is historical precedence that small states in the correct context with the right capabilities can achieve this. During World War 2, land locked Switzerland avoided Nazi Germany’s invasion through its difficult mountainous terrain, its citizen army, sheer grit and pride and without doubt a little complicity.
Yet, it would be interesting to see how the SAF might attempt to achieve a swift and decisive victory should deterrence fail. A military victory is usually defined as meeting military objectives that would fulfil political objectives. Thus, we would need to estimate what might be the SAF’s military objectives.
For this, Tim Huxley’s “Defending the Lion City” is revealing. Singapore’s leaders evidently believe that the best defence is offence and this is reflected in the order of battle of the SAF: amphibious landing ship tanks; heavy troop lift helicopters; F-16s and F-15s with conformal fuel tanks (increased striking range), the latter being F-15E Strike Eagles on steroids; air refuelling tankers; main battle tanks etc. The concept of “forward defence” described by Tim Huxley is therefore quite apt. With such offensive and power projection capabilities, she is probably more keen on punishing an aggressor, hitting where it really hurts and causing some long term damage rather than just beating off an attack.
This concept becomes even more credible when the nature of the national service is considered. Previously two and a half years of service for most young men, it was shortened a few years ago to two years. However, this should be considered a very lengthy period for a country outside a war zone or hot spot. Taiwan has only a 1 year conscription period and are considering a fully professional military force by 2014. Furthermore, the conscripts are not only trained in basic warfare but probably go through at least one exercise at the brigade or even divisional level.
On the MINDEF website, you would find information on overseas training exercises such as Wallaby in Australia resembling major combat operations. With emphasis on combined arms and integrated air force army operations, it is not unfathomable that the SAF’s defensive doctrine involve invading an aggressor. After all, Singapore’s urban areas are hardly the best places to run divisional level combined arms, with air force support.
The necessity of a short and brutal war is obviously not lost on Singapore’s Ivy League leaders. This is reflected in the SAF’s mission, doctrine and composition. It is unlikely that the SAF would or could persecute a protracted war. After all, mobilising her entire reserve forces would grind her economy to an abrupt halt. The composition of the RSAF’s offensive capabilities is also probably scaled to inflict maximum damage in the shortest time possible.
Geopolitics have immense influence in this region where one of the world’s most important shipping lanes passes through. Today, an estimated 80% and 90% of China’s and Japan’s energy supplies respectively pass through the Malacca Straits. Singapore is also a vital port and transit point for American forces between the Indian and Pacific oceans. Any armed conflict will certainly invite “international” condemnation, swift economic sanctions, international pressure and even military intervention.
MINDEF constantly reminds the Singapore public (through their website) about the British failure to defend Singapore during WW2, and that the SAF is the only guarantor for security. While there is some truth in it, they also conveniently avoid mentioning that Singapore would probably have been a much easier target without the British. They also forget to add that all countries will dash headlong to protect their own vital interests. The international community will not allow the Malacca straits to be turned into a war zone as too much is at stake for them. International action against piracy at the Horn of Africa and Japanese proactive participation in keeping the Malacca straits free of pirates are further proof. Numerous factors converge to limit the scale of a armed conflict that would threaten trade through the Malacca Straits.
Using Israel’s latest experience in Gaza and in Lebanon in 2006, the SAF would have no more than about 3 weeks to 1 month to achieve her objectives before being forced to the negotiating table for a ceasefire. This is an optimistic estimate given that Singapore does not have much leverage over the major powers nor does she have the powerful congressional lobbies that Israel possesses and uses to great effect.
Given the need to achieve a “swift and decisive victory” in this short time frame, the SAF faces a nearly impossible task although this article does not intend to cast doubt on her doubtlessly impressive operational capabilities. In fact, we shall assume that the SAF would face little opposition in a conventional face off with the Malaysia armed forces.
Yet, the ultra urbanisation of Singapore and to a lesser extent southern Johor poses immense problems to any invading army. Civilian casualties and collateral damage are almost impossible to avoid, resulting in loss of legitimacy and increased pressure to end hostilities. Case in point, the Israelis had to stop their operations in Lebanon in 2006 due to international pressure although they had international support at the beginning of the war.
Armies also advance at a snail’s pace in urban areas. The Pakistani army took more than 6 months to rout the Taliban in the tribal controlled areas which are dotted with little villages, unlike the dense cities in Singapore and southern Johor. In the process, they also had to bulldoze most of the villages. The SAF is therefore faced with a quagmire : avoid the urban zones and risk artillery and rocket attacks fired from these areas or enter the zones and fight protracted bloody battles.
Neither option is pretty. While the attacks may not do serious physical damage, the psychological damage could be severe, demonstrating the inefficacy of the SAF in defending against primitive rocket or artillery attacks. So in fact, the SAF would be forced to enter these zones to attempt to control them and stop the attacks. However, the recent Israeli wars have shown that it is impossible to stop them, despite the fact that the Israelis possessed one of the most effective armies in the world as well as the most technologically advanced weaponry available. They fared better recently in Gaza but at immense cost in terms of collateral damage and legitimacy of their cause. The ensuing international outrage is now threatening their trade status with the European Union.
A conventional conflict also assumes that both parties are intent on pitting their conventional forces against each other. An opponent can choose to prolong the conflict while preserving her forces. Such a strategy will bear down on Singapore’s weaknesses, wearing down her forces and economy while rallying for a strategic attack at the right time.
This strategy (not tactic) is in fact employed throughout the world by terrorist organisations. The Malaysian armed forces already appears to understand the concept of preserving forces, placing her most valued military assets out of easy reach from Singapore. Their newest Sukhoi-30MKM will be based in northern West Malaysia, yet they still have the range to strike the city state. Their new state of the art Scorpene submarines will be based in Sepanggar Bay in Sabah.
Even in the unlikely case where Singapore does achieve a “swift and decisive victory”, the effects of a war will have far greater and longer lasting effects on her than on any of her neighbours even after a cease fire. Wanting to avenge themselves, an intelligent adversary will bleed Singapore slowly to economic disaster with occasional skirmishes and plenty of rhetoric.
Without a hinterland or natural resources, she will be forced to look further afield to import her daily needs. The increased cost of doing business would drive away investors. Local SMEs already deprived of an adequate domestic market will be put out of business. Increased security measures needed to guard against ex-enemies will strain resources. In this context, war is not the best way to bring down Singapore. Bleeding her to death would be much easier and cheaper. This has not yet happened because it is much more profitable to cooperate with her.
This does not mean that Singapore is not defendable. It is certainly defendable. As an island, invading forces need to possess a significant amphibious or bridging capability since trying to dash the causeway or the second link, which might be blown up, under fire is suicidal.
The urban environment is a huge booby trap and makes it difficult for an invader to control the terrain and progress quickly to key objectives. These are “natural” obstacles that are extremely difficult to overcome even without significant participation of armed resistance. But this article is long enough, and I will present an alternative defence policy later and an alternative NS policy. For now, it suffice to say that MINDEF’s policies are misguided, do not take into account today’s realities and will not bring “swift and decisive victory”. Taxpayer’s money has been wasted in pursuing this current defence strategy and our youths do not need to go through a 2 year NS period.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26649.1
By Darth Vader
The need for deterrence against potential aggressors is indisputable for this city state. In fact, there is a very strong case for deterrence and there is historical precedence that small states in the correct context with the right capabilities can achieve this. During World War 2, land locked Switzerland avoided Nazi Germany’s invasion through its difficult mountainous terrain, its citizen army, sheer grit and pride and without doubt a little complicity.
Yet, it would be interesting to see how the SAF might attempt to achieve a swift and decisive victory should deterrence fail. A military victory is usually defined as meeting military objectives that would fulfil political objectives. Thus, we would need to estimate what might be the SAF’s military objectives.
For this, Tim Huxley’s “Defending the Lion City” is revealing. Singapore’s leaders evidently believe that the best defence is offence and this is reflected in the order of battle of the SAF: amphibious landing ship tanks; heavy troop lift helicopters; F-16s and F-15s with conformal fuel tanks (increased striking range), the latter being F-15E Strike Eagles on steroids; air refuelling tankers; main battle tanks etc. The concept of “forward defence” described by Tim Huxley is therefore quite apt. With such offensive and power projection capabilities, she is probably more keen on punishing an aggressor, hitting where it really hurts and causing some long term damage rather than just beating off an attack.
This concept becomes even more credible when the nature of the national service is considered. Previously two and a half years of service for most young men, it was shortened a few years ago to two years. However, this should be considered a very lengthy period for a country outside a war zone or hot spot. Taiwan has only a 1 year conscription period and are considering a fully professional military force by 2014. Furthermore, the conscripts are not only trained in basic warfare but probably go through at least one exercise at the brigade or even divisional level.
On the MINDEF website, you would find information on overseas training exercises such as Wallaby in Australia resembling major combat operations. With emphasis on combined arms and integrated air force army operations, it is not unfathomable that the SAF’s defensive doctrine involve invading an aggressor. After all, Singapore’s urban areas are hardly the best places to run divisional level combined arms, with air force support.
The necessity of a short and brutal war is obviously not lost on Singapore’s Ivy League leaders. This is reflected in the SAF’s mission, doctrine and composition. It is unlikely that the SAF would or could persecute a protracted war. After all, mobilising her entire reserve forces would grind her economy to an abrupt halt. The composition of the RSAF’s offensive capabilities is also probably scaled to inflict maximum damage in the shortest time possible.
Geopolitics have immense influence in this region where one of the world’s most important shipping lanes passes through. Today, an estimated 80% and 90% of China’s and Japan’s energy supplies respectively pass through the Malacca Straits. Singapore is also a vital port and transit point for American forces between the Indian and Pacific oceans. Any armed conflict will certainly invite “international” condemnation, swift economic sanctions, international pressure and even military intervention.
MINDEF constantly reminds the Singapore public (through their website) about the British failure to defend Singapore during WW2, and that the SAF is the only guarantor for security. While there is some truth in it, they also conveniently avoid mentioning that Singapore would probably have been a much easier target without the British. They also forget to add that all countries will dash headlong to protect their own vital interests. The international community will not allow the Malacca straits to be turned into a war zone as too much is at stake for them. International action against piracy at the Horn of Africa and Japanese proactive participation in keeping the Malacca straits free of pirates are further proof. Numerous factors converge to limit the scale of a armed conflict that would threaten trade through the Malacca Straits.
Using Israel’s latest experience in Gaza and in Lebanon in 2006, the SAF would have no more than about 3 weeks to 1 month to achieve her objectives before being forced to the negotiating table for a ceasefire. This is an optimistic estimate given that Singapore does not have much leverage over the major powers nor does she have the powerful congressional lobbies that Israel possesses and uses to great effect.
Given the need to achieve a “swift and decisive victory” in this short time frame, the SAF faces a nearly impossible task although this article does not intend to cast doubt on her doubtlessly impressive operational capabilities. In fact, we shall assume that the SAF would face little opposition in a conventional face off with the Malaysia armed forces.
Yet, the ultra urbanisation of Singapore and to a lesser extent southern Johor poses immense problems to any invading army. Civilian casualties and collateral damage are almost impossible to avoid, resulting in loss of legitimacy and increased pressure to end hostilities. Case in point, the Israelis had to stop their operations in Lebanon in 2006 due to international pressure although they had international support at the beginning of the war.
Armies also advance at a snail’s pace in urban areas. The Pakistani army took more than 6 months to rout the Taliban in the tribal controlled areas which are dotted with little villages, unlike the dense cities in Singapore and southern Johor. In the process, they also had to bulldoze most of the villages. The SAF is therefore faced with a quagmire : avoid the urban zones and risk artillery and rocket attacks fired from these areas or enter the zones and fight protracted bloody battles.
Neither option is pretty. While the attacks may not do serious physical damage, the psychological damage could be severe, demonstrating the inefficacy of the SAF in defending against primitive rocket or artillery attacks. So in fact, the SAF would be forced to enter these zones to attempt to control them and stop the attacks. However, the recent Israeli wars have shown that it is impossible to stop them, despite the fact that the Israelis possessed one of the most effective armies in the world as well as the most technologically advanced weaponry available. They fared better recently in Gaza but at immense cost in terms of collateral damage and legitimacy of their cause. The ensuing international outrage is now threatening their trade status with the European Union.
A conventional conflict also assumes that both parties are intent on pitting their conventional forces against each other. An opponent can choose to prolong the conflict while preserving her forces. Such a strategy will bear down on Singapore’s weaknesses, wearing down her forces and economy while rallying for a strategic attack at the right time.
This strategy (not tactic) is in fact employed throughout the world by terrorist organisations. The Malaysian armed forces already appears to understand the concept of preserving forces, placing her most valued military assets out of easy reach from Singapore. Their newest Sukhoi-30MKM will be based in northern West Malaysia, yet they still have the range to strike the city state. Their new state of the art Scorpene submarines will be based in Sepanggar Bay in Sabah.
Even in the unlikely case where Singapore does achieve a “swift and decisive victory”, the effects of a war will have far greater and longer lasting effects on her than on any of her neighbours even after a cease fire. Wanting to avenge themselves, an intelligent adversary will bleed Singapore slowly to economic disaster with occasional skirmishes and plenty of rhetoric.
Without a hinterland or natural resources, she will be forced to look further afield to import her daily needs. The increased cost of doing business would drive away investors. Local SMEs already deprived of an adequate domestic market will be put out of business. Increased security measures needed to guard against ex-enemies will strain resources. In this context, war is not the best way to bring down Singapore. Bleeding her to death would be much easier and cheaper. This has not yet happened because it is much more profitable to cooperate with her.
This does not mean that Singapore is not defendable. It is certainly defendable. As an island, invading forces need to possess a significant amphibious or bridging capability since trying to dash the causeway or the second link, which might be blown up, under fire is suicidal.
The urban environment is a huge booby trap and makes it difficult for an invader to control the terrain and progress quickly to key objectives. These are “natural” obstacles that are extremely difficult to overcome even without significant participation of armed resistance. But this article is long enough, and I will present an alternative defence policy later and an alternative NS policy. For now, it suffice to say that MINDEF’s policies are misguided, do not take into account today’s realities and will not bring “swift and decisive victory”. Taxpayer’s money has been wasted in pursuing this current defence strategy and our youths do not need to go through a 2 year NS period.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26649.1
Probably no elections until end 2010
Probably no elections until end 2010
A little more than a month ago, I was contemplating in a post here if there will be a general election (GE) at the end of this year. Since then, after all the "hints" I've see in the global economy, I have come to a conclusion that there will not be a GE end of this year. I see the next GE at maybe somewhere end of next year earliest, which is 2010.
Initially, I thought that a GE this year is almost certain. Our MM has pointed out that the current climate will persist for a minimum of 2 or 3 years. Either that or it will persist for more than 4 years. Our MM has also gave a dismal GDP growth prediction of -10% for this year. Furthermore, I have also spied improvement works being done in many estates. At that point in time, I really see the worse end of the prediction coming through.
However, there are a few indications that I've seen which points to a "NO GE" this year:
1. The original global crisis came about due to the collapse of the housing market in the US. If anyone noticed, they would have seen recently that the fixed mortgage and ARM rates in US going down to below 5% (Before, it was above 6.x%). The rates has even went down to almost 4.5%.
This would bring a welcome relief to many of the prime borrowers. This however does not point to a recovery, but instead I would say this is an indication that the market is finding a bottom.
Everyone is worried that the toxic assets in all the major banks balance sheets will be further written down. The problem is still there, with all the record job losses. But I suspect in the coming months, the jobless rate will start to decrease. I do not see the US jobless rates going above 9%. In fact, I will not be surprised that the 2Q jobless rates go below 8%.
In short, I find that the global economy is establishing a base, on which it can grow upon. Things seem to be slowly recovering after President Obama took over. This is not a time for conservatism.
2. Singapore recently did a "portfolio reshuffle" where some key personnel shifted to other portfolios. From a corporate perspective, this will not happen if a GE is coming.
It makes no sense that you will shift personnel around when a GE is around the corner.
3. Our property and stock market have been showing signs of revival. I won't say that it has recovered, but to me, it's an indication that credit is really flowing again after the recent budget measures.
Once credit is flowing, the economy will revive itself, from a business perspective. I also do not see that the Singapore banks are in any sort of trouble, which puzzles me on the valuation the market is giving to the 3 local banks.
In short, Singapore economy seems to be reviving in the 2Q, and the budget measures seem to be working. Therefore, I would see that the economy would somehow find a footing and recover somewhat by next year or 2011.
Of course it's too early to say that we're well on the road to recovery. Many things could still go wrong. People are still worried for example, that GM may file for Chapter 11 for example. However, they should note that filing for Chapter 11, and folding is different. Lehman Brothers folded up.
Judging from my own personal indicators, I think that the economy is finding its footing, and that a GE at this point in time is of no use to any party. In fact, a GE at this time may throw a spanner in the recovery by diverting attention away from the real problems. I also do not see a second budget measure soon, unless things take a turn for the worse after the 2Q.
There's also disenchantment on the ground on the recent Lehman Brothers fiasco. Our own unemployment numbers to be released soon may also cause some areas of concern among all Singaporeans. In fact, I've seen some graffiti with some chosen words about a political party.
A recovery will not be immediate, for Singapore or globally. US is definitely saving more now for their future. I was so surprised last year when I saw the household savings rate for the US. Those countries with high saving rates will have to "earn their keep", so as to speak. This will lead to some social policies change, and mindset change. Products and services will also soon be customised more for Aseans.
This year is definitely a year of change, not only globally, but for Singapore too. However, I do not think that a election will happen this year, as I do not yet see a prolonged recession hitting us.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26717.1
A little more than a month ago, I was contemplating in a post here if there will be a general election (GE) at the end of this year. Since then, after all the "hints" I've see in the global economy, I have come to a conclusion that there will not be a GE end of this year. I see the next GE at maybe somewhere end of next year earliest, which is 2010.
Initially, I thought that a GE this year is almost certain. Our MM has pointed out that the current climate will persist for a minimum of 2 or 3 years. Either that or it will persist for more than 4 years. Our MM has also gave a dismal GDP growth prediction of -10% for this year. Furthermore, I have also spied improvement works being done in many estates. At that point in time, I really see the worse end of the prediction coming through.
However, there are a few indications that I've seen which points to a "NO GE" this year:
1. The original global crisis came about due to the collapse of the housing market in the US. If anyone noticed, they would have seen recently that the fixed mortgage and ARM rates in US going down to below 5% (Before, it was above 6.x%). The rates has even went down to almost 4.5%.
This would bring a welcome relief to many of the prime borrowers. This however does not point to a recovery, but instead I would say this is an indication that the market is finding a bottom.
Everyone is worried that the toxic assets in all the major banks balance sheets will be further written down. The problem is still there, with all the record job losses. But I suspect in the coming months, the jobless rate will start to decrease. I do not see the US jobless rates going above 9%. In fact, I will not be surprised that the 2Q jobless rates go below 8%.
In short, I find that the global economy is establishing a base, on which it can grow upon. Things seem to be slowly recovering after President Obama took over. This is not a time for conservatism.
2. Singapore recently did a "portfolio reshuffle" where some key personnel shifted to other portfolios. From a corporate perspective, this will not happen if a GE is coming.
It makes no sense that you will shift personnel around when a GE is around the corner.
3. Our property and stock market have been showing signs of revival. I won't say that it has recovered, but to me, it's an indication that credit is really flowing again after the recent budget measures.
Once credit is flowing, the economy will revive itself, from a business perspective. I also do not see that the Singapore banks are in any sort of trouble, which puzzles me on the valuation the market is giving to the 3 local banks.
In short, Singapore economy seems to be reviving in the 2Q, and the budget measures seem to be working. Therefore, I would see that the economy would somehow find a footing and recover somewhat by next year or 2011.
Of course it's too early to say that we're well on the road to recovery. Many things could still go wrong. People are still worried for example, that GM may file for Chapter 11 for example. However, they should note that filing for Chapter 11, and folding is different. Lehman Brothers folded up.
Judging from my own personal indicators, I think that the economy is finding its footing, and that a GE at this point in time is of no use to any party. In fact, a GE at this time may throw a spanner in the recovery by diverting attention away from the real problems. I also do not see a second budget measure soon, unless things take a turn for the worse after the 2Q.
There's also disenchantment on the ground on the recent Lehman Brothers fiasco. Our own unemployment numbers to be released soon may also cause some areas of concern among all Singaporeans. In fact, I've seen some graffiti with some chosen words about a political party.
A recovery will not be immediate, for Singapore or globally. US is definitely saving more now for their future. I was so surprised last year when I saw the household savings rate for the US. Those countries with high saving rates will have to "earn their keep", so as to speak. This will lead to some social policies change, and mindset change. Products and services will also soon be customised more for Aseans.
This year is definitely a year of change, not only globally, but for Singapore too. However, I do not think that a election will happen this year, as I do not yet see a prolonged recession hitting us.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26717.1
MM Lee: 'We use the best people'
April 12, 2009
'We use the best people'
| By Li Xueying, Political Correspondent | ||
 |  | Mr Lee was addressing about 450 people - two-thirds of whom are new citizens and permanent residents - at the launch of a new feature section in Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao. -- ST PHOTO: ALAN LIM |
SINGAPORE is a meritocracy that does not distinguish between old or new citizens, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Whether it comes to the giving out of jobs or business contracts or scholarships, whoever excels will be rewarded, he stressed on Sunday.
Mr Lee was addressing about 450 people - two-thirds of whom are new citizens and permanent residents - at the launch of a new feature section in Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao.
Called Crossroads, it is aimed at new immigrants, and will feature news and issues that concern them.
Speaking in Mandarin, Mr Lee, who attended the event as a special guest, said the most important principle of meritocracy is: all citizens are equal.
'There is no difference between races, religions, new or old citizens,' he said.
'Our policy is: whatever your background or race, we use the best people. So, I think, those who choose to emigrate to Singapore, you do so because you understand Singapore does not require guanxi (connections)...They know Singapore's governance is open, transparent and fair.'
However, this also means the immigrants must master English, he cautioned.
'If you want to succeed in Singapore, you need to have a good grasp of English - our common language,' he said. 'So when you communicate with the world or among races, there is no advantage whether you are Malay, Indian, or Chinese.
'Thus, the competition is very fair.'
During his 30-minute session, which included a question-and-answer segment with the audience, Mr Lee also addressed the concern that many new immigrants use Singapore as a stepping stone to other countries. Last year, 20,513 foreigners took up citizenship, while 79,167 took up permanent residency.
With this uptick in numbers come concerns about societal tensions, as Singaporeans grapple with issues ranging from foreign worker housing to competition in schools, hospitals or the property market.
While acknowledging this, Mr Lee also said that the faster the new immigrants meld into society, the better for the society and economy.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26708.1
12 ill after steamboat meal
April 12, 2009
12 ill after steamboat meal
| By Shuli Sudderuddin | ||
 | | 2 people suffered vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain after eating at the Ba Shu Ren Jia steamboat restaurant last Friday night. -- PHOTO: CHAI HUNG YIN |
YET another case of food poisoning has cropped up, this time in an eatery in Lorong 9 Geylang.
A joint statement from the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) said 12 people suffered vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain after eating at the Ba Shu Ren Jia steamboat restaurant last Friday night.
They were all treated as outpatients and one person, who was supposed to be hospitalised, went home to rest.
When The Sunday Times visited the restaurant last night, it was business as usual and it was half-full.
The supervisor, Mr He Min, 27, said the NEA had sent about four or five officers there in the afternoon and had taken food samples.
'They told me some customers had complained about stomach trouble so they checked the premises and reminded me to be more careful about cleanliness,' he said.
'We had about 300 customers between Friday and now, and only 12 have complained. Ma la steamboat can sometimes cause diarrhoea so that may have been the problem,' he added.
Ma la steamboat uses very spicy soup stock. Mr He said the officers later put up a B grade certificate at the restaurant entrance. Customers last night did not seem bothered by the incident.
Said software engineer Ma Liu Chuan, 24: 'My friends and I come every week because the food is good. People may get sick from steamboat as they don't cook the food properly.'
The MOH and NEA are investigating and advise patrons to seek medical attention if necessary.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26629.1
Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang
Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang
Dr Alan Chin is a family physician who graduated in NUS in 1982 (Update 16 Apr 2009, Article has been removed from sma.org.sg website. Click here for a screen shot of the article.). He is not a statistician. He is the person who helped in counting the votes.
He wrote 6 articles to Straits Times
1. Homosexuality: Neither a disease nor an immutable trait, ST Online Forum, May 8, 2007 Tuesday
2. Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV, ST Online Forum, May 15, 2007 Tuesday
3. Aids and gays: A flawed response, ST Online Forum, May 28, 2007 Monday
4. Let’s conserve our marriage constitution as one between man and woman, ST Online Forum, July 16, 2007 Monday
5. Law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with HIV, ST Online Forum, August 7, 2007 Tuesday
6. Beware the high-risk ‘gay lifestyle’, ST Forum, August 8, 2007 Wednesday
Homosexuality: Neither a disease nor an immutable trait
May 8, 2007 Tuesday
I WRITE with regard to the recent discussion on the issue of homosexuality. Homosexuality, until recently, was regarded as a disease.
A disease is defined as an impairment of health or condition of abnormal functioning.
Homosexuality certainly fits the definition of a disease as there is an increased mortality rate mainly from Aids; the life expectancy of a homosexual and bisexual male is up to 20 years shorter compared to a normal male (R.S. Hogg, et al, ‘Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men’ International Journal of Epidemiology 1997).
There is also an increased morbidity rate, with a greater risk of suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids, and increased risk of psychiatric illnesses such as depression, suicides and drug abuse.
Simply put, being a homosexual (statistically speaking) puts one at risk of suffering from poor health and dying early.
In 1973, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
The question we have to ask is: How did this come about? One would think that the APA would not have taken such a step unless there was strong scientific evidence to justify such a move.
A review of the history of events shows that the decision was not based on scientific evidence, but in fact was the response of an organisation under siege by gay activists. Ronald Bayer’s book, Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis, documents the political nature of this battle over DSM.
Dr Bayer defends this move by APA, saying: ‘Psychiatry may, under certain circumstances, act upon society, using its cultural influences to challenge social values and practices.’
It is clear from this that the removal of homosexuality from DSM was a political settlement and not due to scientific evidence. Thus, homosexuality should still be regarded as a disease.
The question is, if homosexuality is a disease, can it be treated?
There have been numerous documented cases of people who have changed their sexual orientation.
Dr Robert Spitzer, who was very much involved in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from DSM, found in a 2001 study, that ‘there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians’.
It follows from this that homosexuality is neither a fixed trait nor is it immutable.
Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV
May 15, 2007 Tuesday
I REFER to Mr Siew Meng Ee’s letter, ‘Doctor using selective material to justify own conclusion’ which was written in response to my letter, ‘Homosexuality: disease or immutable trait?’. I thank him for his views that he has expressed.
Let me clarify what I have written. It is true that not all people who contract Aids are homosexuals and not all homosexuals have Aids.
Let’s look at the statistics from the US’ Communicable Diseases Centre (CDC) - in the year 2005, there were 45,669 cases of newly-diagnosed Aids cases of which 18,938 were from male-to-male sexual contact.
This means that 41.5 per cent of cases of Aids were transmitted by male-to-male sexual contact.
The estimated number of cases diagnosed through 2005 (this means the number of people at the end of 2005 having HIV) is 988,376.
The estimated number of this same group of people having Aids through male-to-male sexual contact is 454,106. This means that of the 988,376 diagnosed cases of Aids in the US, 45.94 per cent of these cases were contracted through male-to-male sexual contact.
The number of homosexuals in the US has been estimated to be 2.8 per cent (’the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey which found that 2.8 per cent of the male, and 1.4 per cent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual.
See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994).
This amounts to nearly four million openly gay men and two million women who are identified as lesbian.
This means that 2.8 per cent of the population in the US accounts for 41.5 per cent of the new cases and of the number of HIV cases in the States, 2.8 per cent of the population accounts for the 45.94 per cent of the people having Aids. When relative risk is calculated, this means that a person who engages in male-to-male sexual contact has a 2,400 per cent higher chance of getting Aids.
If we look at the Singapore figures for 2005, 2.8 per cent of the population accounted for 31 per cent of the new cases of HIV infection, 2.8 per cent of the population accounted for 22 per cent of the number of people diagnosed with HIV.
I believe the figures speak for itself, that practising homosexuals have a far higher risk of HIV with its numerous complications and increased mortality.
There are two main reasons for this.
1) The rectum is physiologically unsuitable for anal intercourse. Its fragility leads to increased risks of trauma during anal intercourse, accounting for the increased risks of infection, both bacterial and viral including HIV.
2) Homosexuals are sexually more promiscuous.
A 1978 study found that 75 per cent of homosexual white males claimed to have 100 male sex partners, 15 per cent 100-249 male sex partners, 17 per cent 250-499 male sex partners, 15 per cent 500-999 male sex partners and 28 per cent more than 1,000 male sex partners (Alan P. Bell et al, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity among Men & Women pg 308 Table 7. New York 1978).
In a local publication, People Like Us: Sexual Minorities In Singapore, gay activist Alex Au Wai Pang wrote frankly about homosexual sexual values being different from that of heterosexual males. Both of Mr Au’s articles in the book talk frankly about how many homosexuals are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts.
With regard to whether homosexuals can change their sexual orientation, this is an issue that arouses the emotions of all concerned. As gay activists see it, if someone can change his or her sexual orientation, then homosexuality can be considered a lifestyle choice and thus does not qualify to be considered as a protected class under the law.
As why Dr Robert Spitzer’s study was quoted, some background information as how this study came about is useful. Dr Spitzer is one of the most renowned psychiatrists in the US, who is called the father of DSM.
In fact, he was one of the key psychiatrists in deciding that homosexuality should be removed from the DSM. However, in the early 2000s, during an APA meeting, Dr Spitzer met some picketers who claimed that they had changed their sexual orientation.
Intrigued, he decided to do a study as, at that time, his view was that homosexuals could not change their behaviour.
He genuinely wanted to know if some homosexual men and women could change from homosexual to heterosexual, and that he wanted science to guide him. Certainly, with more than 275 publications to his credit, this esteemed scientist at Columbia University was more than able to conduct such a study.
With the limitations that are inherent to all such studies, Dr Spitzer employed the best rigours available for such research protocols.
His sample size was larger than those in previous studies. He was very detailed in his assessment and carefully considered the affective components of the homosexual experience.
Any bias in interview coding was virtually eliminated by near-perfect interrater scores. He limited his pool of applicants to those reporting at least five years of sustained change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation.
His structured interview clearly described how the participants were evaluated. His entire set of data is available for scrutiny by other researchers.
If his study methods are considered flawed, then all the original research material used by APA to justify the original change in classification is also flawed using the same argument.
Dr Spitzer’s conclusions are simply this: Based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are also able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies.
His study was not designed to give the percentage of homosexuals that have changed. Dr Spitzer felt the percentage was low as it was difficult to find subjects willing to be interviewed.
One of the few rational, scientific commentaries on the Spitzer study was offered by Scott L. Hershberger. Dr Hershberger, a distinguished scholar and statistician, elected to respond in a Commentary to the Spitzer research (Hershberger’s article was published in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior as the Spitzer study was) by conducting a Guttman scalability analysis. This is a scalogram to determine whether or not reported changes occur in a cumulative, orderly fashion.
Dr Hershberger’s conclusion: ‘The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual sexual behaviour, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Dr Spitzer’s study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation.
‘Now it is up to those sceptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so.’
The Schidlo and Schroeder study, funded by the National Lesbian & Gay Health Association, was originally titled ‘Homophobic Therapies: Documenting the Damage.’
The title was later changed to ‘Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counseling Work?’ because they found that some people reported benefits to reorientation therapy including a change of sexual orientation. Biasness will be an issue as the aim of the National Lesbian & Gay Health Association is to prove that homosexuals are normal and healthy and reparative therapy is harmful.
There are thousands of testimonies of homosexuals who have changed their orientation. Even in Singapore there are testimonies of homosexuals who have changed their sexual orientation.
The point is that even if one person can change, then homosexuality is not an immutable trait and we should not deny anyone the right to change.
Aids and gays: A flawed response
May 28, 2007 Monday
I REFER to the letter written by Mr Wong Suan Yin, ‘Aids: Stop the spread of misinformation’.
The letter misrepresents what I have said. It is not true that I made the statement that homosexuality leads to the spread of Aids and therefore criminalising homosexual sex will prevent the spread of Aids.
My article only mentioned that there is an increased risk of homosexuals engaging in anal intercourse in contracting the HIV virus. The reasons given for this is that anal intercourse is inherently unhealthy and studies have shown that homosexuals are more promiscuous.
Mr Wong has missed the point made by me in the letter and has gone off tangent with his own argument.
Unfortunately his argument is flawed. Let me clarify.
HIV virus is spread in three main ways.
1. From mother to child during birth
2. Sexual contact during intercourse, oral, vaginal and anal
3. Via blood either through contaminated blood, contaminated blood products, contaminated donor organs, tattooing and intravenous drug abuse
According to WHO statistics, there is a higher incidence of HIV in women and children in Third World countries compared to the rest of the world.
It is just as true that in Singapore and in the United States, there is a high incidence of HIV among homosexual men who engage in anal sex.
How do we reconcile this? Obviously there must be environmental factors involved that lead to differences between the two. Unfortunately WHO statistics from most Third World countries do not show the mode of infection.
There are so many unanswered questions. We do not know how many of the mothers contracted HIV because of drug abuse or how many of their husbands were drug abusers.
We do not know how many of their husbands had intercourse with high-risk individuals. We do not know the incidence of bisexual men who are married.
In some African cultures, bisexual behaviour is rampant. Culturally, in some countries, young men are sent by their fathers to prostitutes for their first sexual experience.
Some studies have shown that the incidence of HIV among young children is higher than that of mothers in Africa. This implies that children are getting HIV from sources other than their mothers. Contaminated needles? Contaminated dental equipment?
How many adults are infected through contaminated medical equipment due to poor health care? All these cultural, social and environmental factors affect the behaviour and sexual practices of individuals and therefore account for the different figures seen in different countries.
We cannot apply these figures to the situation in Singapore because the environment is different.
Let me illustrate with an example.
We know that poverty leading to malnutrition and starvation is statistically one of the leading causes of death among children in the world. Obviously it is illogical to put all our resources in eradicating malnutrition and starvation to lower the death rate of children in Singapore. This will not help at all as it is not a leading cause of death in Singapore.
Similarly for the case of HIV infection, we have to look at the local context, what the local statistics are and what the risk factors for our population are. As I have previously stated, our local statistics and those of the US show that the group with the highest risk of being infected by the HIV virus is that of individuals who indulge in anal intercourse.
Currently anal intercourse is a criminal offence. The argument put forward that decriminalisation will make it easier to educate those who engage in such practices and lower the risk of HIV needs to be examined carefully.
As a doctor I wrote in to highlight the public health issues involved in this matter. As for public policy issues, this is not an appropriate forum. Parliament will consider all these issues in due course.
Let’s conserve our marriage constitution as one between man and woman
July 16, 2007 Monday
I WRITE in response to Mr Janadas Devan’s article, ‘Can mum, mum and kids make a family?’ (ST, July 7) and Dr George D. Bishop’s letter, ‘Special-needs kids thrive, thanks to mum and mum’ (ST, July 11).
The main thrust of their letters are that lesbians and homosexuals can and are a normal family unit and can take care of children just as well as any other family unit and thus should be allowed to get married and be one.
The basic building block of society has always been the family which is defined as a married father and mother with children. Without strong family units, society will be fraught with problems. Our Prime Minister has rightly stated that the family unit is the core of our Singapore society.
Now homosexuals and lesbians want to redefine ‘marriage’ and ‘family’. Why so? There is an inherent need for them to be accepted by society that their sexual behaviour is not abnormal but just a variation of normal sexual activity.
Do we want a Singapore where same-sex marriage prevails? If so, one might ask why not incorporate the following as diverse families.
1. two brothers;
2. two sisters
3. a brother and sister (case in German courts)
4. a man and a horse (film ‘Zoo’ shown in Sundance Film Festival - bestiality)
5. why not a combination of three or more?
6. why bother have a marriage or a family?
All these questions are not too remote; because those pursuing a perverted lifestyle must have the endorsement of society to secure their very identity, and the only way to achieve this is to go down the slippery road to establish that perversion is normal like incest is normal; bestiality is normal.
It is an issue of self-autonomy. Self is god. The point made is not academic but it has already happened and will continue to happen. This may be seen in the case of the four legislators in Massachusetts who followed up ‘their success at legalising homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance’ including bestiality viz reducing the penalty to a fine (See First Comes Gay Marriage then comes Bestiality in Massachusetts http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html )
The four Democrat legislators ‘are all vocal supporters of abortion, homosexual unions, and are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts’ gay lobby groups. Family lobbyists opposed to the re-definition of marriage were frequently ridiculed for their warnings that dissolving the natural basis of marriage in law would end with legalising and normalising a host of sexual perversions, including incest and bestiality. The case of the Massachusetts legislators is in point.
Following this, ‘the media has quickly picked up on the trend of acceptance for any and all sorts of conditions that before the 1960’s sexual revolution and the politicising of the psychiatric profession, were universally recognised as serious psychological disorders. New terminology has been established, calling those persons interested in having sexual relations with animals, ‘zoophiles’ or ‘zoos’ for short, and a campaign has been discretely under way for some time to reduce the public ’stigma’ against ‘zoos’.
We, in Singapore, want to conserve our marriage institution as one between a man and a woman so that the needs of our children for a father and a mother are catered for. We abhor any regression into perversity which, as history has shown, has led into the decline and fall of a society.
Law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with HIV
August 7, 2007 Tuesday
I WRITE in response to the letter by Mr Paul Toh, ‘ ‘Bug chasers’ or ‘gift givers’ will not be let off lightly by the gay community’ (ST, Aug 2),
His statement that because of our laws, especially Penal Code Section 377A, the message of ’safe sex’ cannot be effectively communicated to those at risk is flawed.
Take the example of heroin drug abuse; laws prohibit its use. Using the same line of argument as Mr Toh’s, it would then not be possible to effectively communicate the message ‘Do not use drugs’.
However, the message against drug abuse has been effectively communicated to all segments of society. Everyone knows that it is wrong to use drugs and if you are caught you will be punished.
In the United States, 99 per cent of the population understands that you can get HIV through unprotected sex. In the United States’ CDC Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, June 24, 2005, Issue, a study of 1,767 MSM men showed that one in four men had HIV. The number of MSM men getting HIV continues to rise despite all efforts.
This shows that education and awareness of HIV by itself cannot bring down the infection rates of HIV. If it were so, then data from the US should show falling rates of infection rather than rising rates.
An example of the inadequacy of public education and awareness alone is the phenomenon of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ at ‘bug parties’.
This reckless behaviour is found among men who engage in anal penetrative coitus. Men, who knowing that they have HIV, yet still engage in unprotected anal penetrative coitus. This practice of having deliberate unprotected anal sex has the potential to cause widespread HIV infection. These men know that it is wrong and yet persist in doing it.
The number of MSM men having HIV in Singapore is about 1 in 20. It is still unacceptably high. However, compared to the US, we have a five times lower rate of infection.
It is our society’s stance against such immoral and socially irresponsible behaviour and our laws, especially Penal Code Section 377A, that account for this difference.
Evidence in point:
1) Some time ago, the then Senior Minister of State for Health, Dr S. Balaji, stated that the relaxation of our laws against ‘gay’ events led to a spike in the number of HIV cases among MSM men from 2003 to 2004.
2) We have the lowest rate of heroin and drug abuse in the world because of our strict laws and tough stance against drug abusers.
Sometimes tough love is needed for those who, despite their being aware of their irresponsible and reckless behaviour, do not want to change.
The law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with this scourge of HIV.
Beware the high-risk ‘gay lifestyle’
August 8, 2007 Wednesday
IN THE article, ‘Most with Aids virus don’t know they have it’ (ST, July 18), Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan announced that a study of 3,000 blood samples in government hospitals showed that 1 in 350 samples was positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) which causes Aids. The male to female ratio of these cases was 15:1.
What conclusions can we draw?
The 15:1 ratio means that the HIV epidemic is still confined mainly to the high-risk groups (concentrated epidemic) and has not spread to the general population (generalised epidemic). If it were already in the general population, the ratio would be much closer to 1:1.
Therefore we still have time to do something before the situation gets worse.
Who constitutes these high-risk groups?
Data released by the Ministry of Health on HIV last year showed two groups of men were responsible for approximately 83 per cent of HIV cases.
53 per cent of the cases were men who contracted HIV via unprotected high-risk heterosexual sex. This group was infected overseas or by local unlicensed prostitutes; our licensed prostitutes are screened for HIV.
30 per cent of the cases comprised men having sex with men (MSM). Based on the prevalence of 2.8 per cent of men being homosexual or bisexual, there are about 67,000 men in Singapore who engage in MSM.
I highlight this second high-risk group as it is a matter of public interest and concern, given the ongoing debate on the review of the Penal Code relating to Section 377A.
Extrapolating from the infection rate of 1 in 350 and 15:1 ratio of males to females, the conclusion is that among men who indulge in MSM, about one in 20 has HIV and does not know it.
This means that someone who indulges in MSM and has 20 sexual partners would have exposed himself to HIV.
A survey conducted in the United States has shown that 75 per cent of homosexual men have more than 100 sexual partners and 28 per cent of them have more than 1,000 partners.
I feel that not enough has been done to warn our youth that leading a ‘gay lifestyle’ is not cool. On the contrary, it is very unhealthy. There is a very high risk of contracting not only HIV but also a slew of other sexually transmitted diseases.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27360.1
Dr Alan Chin is a family physician who graduated in NUS in 1982 (Update 16 Apr 2009, Article has been removed from sma.org.sg website. Click here for a screen shot of the article.). He is not a statistician. He is the person who helped in counting the votes.
He wrote 6 articles to Straits Times
1. Homosexuality: Neither a disease nor an immutable trait, ST Online Forum, May 8, 2007 Tuesday
2. Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV, ST Online Forum, May 15, 2007 Tuesday
3. Aids and gays: A flawed response, ST Online Forum, May 28, 2007 Monday
4. Let’s conserve our marriage constitution as one between man and woman, ST Online Forum, July 16, 2007 Monday
5. Law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with HIV, ST Online Forum, August 7, 2007 Tuesday
6. Beware the high-risk ‘gay lifestyle’, ST Forum, August 8, 2007 Wednesday
Homosexuality: Neither a disease nor an immutable trait
May 8, 2007 Tuesday
I WRITE with regard to the recent discussion on the issue of homosexuality. Homosexuality, until recently, was regarded as a disease.
A disease is defined as an impairment of health or condition of abnormal functioning.
Homosexuality certainly fits the definition of a disease as there is an increased mortality rate mainly from Aids; the life expectancy of a homosexual and bisexual male is up to 20 years shorter compared to a normal male (R.S. Hogg, et al, ‘Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men’ International Journal of Epidemiology 1997).
There is also an increased morbidity rate, with a greater risk of suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids, and increased risk of psychiatric illnesses such as depression, suicides and drug abuse.
Simply put, being a homosexual (statistically speaking) puts one at risk of suffering from poor health and dying early.
In 1973, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
The question we have to ask is: How did this come about? One would think that the APA would not have taken such a step unless there was strong scientific evidence to justify such a move.
A review of the history of events shows that the decision was not based on scientific evidence, but in fact was the response of an organisation under siege by gay activists. Ronald Bayer’s book, Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis, documents the political nature of this battle over DSM.
Dr Bayer defends this move by APA, saying: ‘Psychiatry may, under certain circumstances, act upon society, using its cultural influences to challenge social values and practices.’
It is clear from this that the removal of homosexuality from DSM was a political settlement and not due to scientific evidence. Thus, homosexuality should still be regarded as a disease.
The question is, if homosexuality is a disease, can it be treated?
There have been numerous documented cases of people who have changed their sexual orientation.
Dr Robert Spitzer, who was very much involved in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from DSM, found in a 2001 study, that ‘there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians’.
It follows from this that homosexuality is neither a fixed trait nor is it immutable.
Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV
May 15, 2007 Tuesday
I REFER to Mr Siew Meng Ee’s letter, ‘Doctor using selective material to justify own conclusion’ which was written in response to my letter, ‘Homosexuality: disease or immutable trait?’. I thank him for his views that he has expressed.
Let me clarify what I have written. It is true that not all people who contract Aids are homosexuals and not all homosexuals have Aids.
Let’s look at the statistics from the US’ Communicable Diseases Centre (CDC) - in the year 2005, there were 45,669 cases of newly-diagnosed Aids cases of which 18,938 were from male-to-male sexual contact.
This means that 41.5 per cent of cases of Aids were transmitted by male-to-male sexual contact.
The estimated number of cases diagnosed through 2005 (this means the number of people at the end of 2005 having HIV) is 988,376.
The estimated number of this same group of people having Aids through male-to-male sexual contact is 454,106. This means that of the 988,376 diagnosed cases of Aids in the US, 45.94 per cent of these cases were contracted through male-to-male sexual contact.
The number of homosexuals in the US has been estimated to be 2.8 per cent (’the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey which found that 2.8 per cent of the male, and 1.4 per cent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual.
See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994).
This amounts to nearly four million openly gay men and two million women who are identified as lesbian.
This means that 2.8 per cent of the population in the US accounts for 41.5 per cent of the new cases and of the number of HIV cases in the States, 2.8 per cent of the population accounts for the 45.94 per cent of the people having Aids. When relative risk is calculated, this means that a person who engages in male-to-male sexual contact has a 2,400 per cent higher chance of getting Aids.
If we look at the Singapore figures for 2005, 2.8 per cent of the population accounted for 31 per cent of the new cases of HIV infection, 2.8 per cent of the population accounted for 22 per cent of the number of people diagnosed with HIV.
I believe the figures speak for itself, that practising homosexuals have a far higher risk of HIV with its numerous complications and increased mortality.
There are two main reasons for this.
1) The rectum is physiologically unsuitable for anal intercourse. Its fragility leads to increased risks of trauma during anal intercourse, accounting for the increased risks of infection, both bacterial and viral including HIV.
2) Homosexuals are sexually more promiscuous.
A 1978 study found that 75 per cent of homosexual white males claimed to have 100 male sex partners, 15 per cent 100-249 male sex partners, 17 per cent 250-499 male sex partners, 15 per cent 500-999 male sex partners and 28 per cent more than 1,000 male sex partners (Alan P. Bell et al, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity among Men & Women pg 308 Table 7. New York 1978).
In a local publication, People Like Us: Sexual Minorities In Singapore, gay activist Alex Au Wai Pang wrote frankly about homosexual sexual values being different from that of heterosexual males. Both of Mr Au’s articles in the book talk frankly about how many homosexuals are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts.
With regard to whether homosexuals can change their sexual orientation, this is an issue that arouses the emotions of all concerned. As gay activists see it, if someone can change his or her sexual orientation, then homosexuality can be considered a lifestyle choice and thus does not qualify to be considered as a protected class under the law.
As why Dr Robert Spitzer’s study was quoted, some background information as how this study came about is useful. Dr Spitzer is one of the most renowned psychiatrists in the US, who is called the father of DSM.
In fact, he was one of the key psychiatrists in deciding that homosexuality should be removed from the DSM. However, in the early 2000s, during an APA meeting, Dr Spitzer met some picketers who claimed that they had changed their sexual orientation.
Intrigued, he decided to do a study as, at that time, his view was that homosexuals could not change their behaviour.
He genuinely wanted to know if some homosexual men and women could change from homosexual to heterosexual, and that he wanted science to guide him. Certainly, with more than 275 publications to his credit, this esteemed scientist at Columbia University was more than able to conduct such a study.
With the limitations that are inherent to all such studies, Dr Spitzer employed the best rigours available for such research protocols.
His sample size was larger than those in previous studies. He was very detailed in his assessment and carefully considered the affective components of the homosexual experience.
Any bias in interview coding was virtually eliminated by near-perfect interrater scores. He limited his pool of applicants to those reporting at least five years of sustained change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation.
His structured interview clearly described how the participants were evaluated. His entire set of data is available for scrutiny by other researchers.
If his study methods are considered flawed, then all the original research material used by APA to justify the original change in classification is also flawed using the same argument.
Dr Spitzer’s conclusions are simply this: Based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are also able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies.
His study was not designed to give the percentage of homosexuals that have changed. Dr Spitzer felt the percentage was low as it was difficult to find subjects willing to be interviewed.
One of the few rational, scientific commentaries on the Spitzer study was offered by Scott L. Hershberger. Dr Hershberger, a distinguished scholar and statistician, elected to respond in a Commentary to the Spitzer research (Hershberger’s article was published in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior as the Spitzer study was) by conducting a Guttman scalability analysis. This is a scalogram to determine whether or not reported changes occur in a cumulative, orderly fashion.
Dr Hershberger’s conclusion: ‘The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual sexual behaviour, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Dr Spitzer’s study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation.
‘Now it is up to those sceptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so.’
The Schidlo and Schroeder study, funded by the National Lesbian & Gay Health Association, was originally titled ‘Homophobic Therapies: Documenting the Damage.’
The title was later changed to ‘Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counseling Work?’ because they found that some people reported benefits to reorientation therapy including a change of sexual orientation. Biasness will be an issue as the aim of the National Lesbian & Gay Health Association is to prove that homosexuals are normal and healthy and reparative therapy is harmful.
There are thousands of testimonies of homosexuals who have changed their orientation. Even in Singapore there are testimonies of homosexuals who have changed their sexual orientation.
The point is that even if one person can change, then homosexuality is not an immutable trait and we should not deny anyone the right to change.
Aids and gays: A flawed response
May 28, 2007 Monday
I REFER to the letter written by Mr Wong Suan Yin, ‘Aids: Stop the spread of misinformation’.
The letter misrepresents what I have said. It is not true that I made the statement that homosexuality leads to the spread of Aids and therefore criminalising homosexual sex will prevent the spread of Aids.
My article only mentioned that there is an increased risk of homosexuals engaging in anal intercourse in contracting the HIV virus. The reasons given for this is that anal intercourse is inherently unhealthy and studies have shown that homosexuals are more promiscuous.
Mr Wong has missed the point made by me in the letter and has gone off tangent with his own argument.
Unfortunately his argument is flawed. Let me clarify.
HIV virus is spread in three main ways.
1. From mother to child during birth
2. Sexual contact during intercourse, oral, vaginal and anal
3. Via blood either through contaminated blood, contaminated blood products, contaminated donor organs, tattooing and intravenous drug abuse
According to WHO statistics, there is a higher incidence of HIV in women and children in Third World countries compared to the rest of the world.
It is just as true that in Singapore and in the United States, there is a high incidence of HIV among homosexual men who engage in anal sex.
How do we reconcile this? Obviously there must be environmental factors involved that lead to differences between the two. Unfortunately WHO statistics from most Third World countries do not show the mode of infection.
There are so many unanswered questions. We do not know how many of the mothers contracted HIV because of drug abuse or how many of their husbands were drug abusers.
We do not know how many of their husbands had intercourse with high-risk individuals. We do not know the incidence of bisexual men who are married.
In some African cultures, bisexual behaviour is rampant. Culturally, in some countries, young men are sent by their fathers to prostitutes for their first sexual experience.
Some studies have shown that the incidence of HIV among young children is higher than that of mothers in Africa. This implies that children are getting HIV from sources other than their mothers. Contaminated needles? Contaminated dental equipment?
How many adults are infected through contaminated medical equipment due to poor health care? All these cultural, social and environmental factors affect the behaviour and sexual practices of individuals and therefore account for the different figures seen in different countries.
We cannot apply these figures to the situation in Singapore because the environment is different.
Let me illustrate with an example.
We know that poverty leading to malnutrition and starvation is statistically one of the leading causes of death among children in the world. Obviously it is illogical to put all our resources in eradicating malnutrition and starvation to lower the death rate of children in Singapore. This will not help at all as it is not a leading cause of death in Singapore.
Similarly for the case of HIV infection, we have to look at the local context, what the local statistics are and what the risk factors for our population are. As I have previously stated, our local statistics and those of the US show that the group with the highest risk of being infected by the HIV virus is that of individuals who indulge in anal intercourse.
Currently anal intercourse is a criminal offence. The argument put forward that decriminalisation will make it easier to educate those who engage in such practices and lower the risk of HIV needs to be examined carefully.
As a doctor I wrote in to highlight the public health issues involved in this matter. As for public policy issues, this is not an appropriate forum. Parliament will consider all these issues in due course.
Let’s conserve our marriage constitution as one between man and woman
July 16, 2007 Monday
I WRITE in response to Mr Janadas Devan’s article, ‘Can mum, mum and kids make a family?’ (ST, July 7) and Dr George D. Bishop’s letter, ‘Special-needs kids thrive, thanks to mum and mum’ (ST, July 11).
The main thrust of their letters are that lesbians and homosexuals can and are a normal family unit and can take care of children just as well as any other family unit and thus should be allowed to get married and be one.
The basic building block of society has always been the family which is defined as a married father and mother with children. Without strong family units, society will be fraught with problems. Our Prime Minister has rightly stated that the family unit is the core of our Singapore society.
Now homosexuals and lesbians want to redefine ‘marriage’ and ‘family’. Why so? There is an inherent need for them to be accepted by society that their sexual behaviour is not abnormal but just a variation of normal sexual activity.
Do we want a Singapore where same-sex marriage prevails? If so, one might ask why not incorporate the following as diverse families.
1. two brothers;
2. two sisters
3. a brother and sister (case in German courts)
4. a man and a horse (film ‘Zoo’ shown in Sundance Film Festival - bestiality)
5. why not a combination of three or more?
6. why bother have a marriage or a family?
All these questions are not too remote; because those pursuing a perverted lifestyle must have the endorsement of society to secure their very identity, and the only way to achieve this is to go down the slippery road to establish that perversion is normal like incest is normal; bestiality is normal.
It is an issue of self-autonomy. Self is god. The point made is not academic but it has already happened and will continue to happen. This may be seen in the case of the four legislators in Massachusetts who followed up ‘their success at legalising homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance’ including bestiality viz reducing the penalty to a fine (See First Comes Gay Marriage then comes Bestiality in Massachusetts http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html )
The four Democrat legislators ‘are all vocal supporters of abortion, homosexual unions, and are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts’ gay lobby groups. Family lobbyists opposed to the re-definition of marriage were frequently ridiculed for their warnings that dissolving the natural basis of marriage in law would end with legalising and normalising a host of sexual perversions, including incest and bestiality. The case of the Massachusetts legislators is in point.
Following this, ‘the media has quickly picked up on the trend of acceptance for any and all sorts of conditions that before the 1960’s sexual revolution and the politicising of the psychiatric profession, were universally recognised as serious psychological disorders. New terminology has been established, calling those persons interested in having sexual relations with animals, ‘zoophiles’ or ‘zoos’ for short, and a campaign has been discretely under way for some time to reduce the public ’stigma’ against ‘zoos’.
We, in Singapore, want to conserve our marriage institution as one between a man and a woman so that the needs of our children for a father and a mother are catered for. We abhor any regression into perversity which, as history has shown, has led into the decline and fall of a society.
Law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with HIV
August 7, 2007 Tuesday
I WRITE in response to the letter by Mr Paul Toh, ‘ ‘Bug chasers’ or ‘gift givers’ will not be let off lightly by the gay community’ (ST, Aug 2),
His statement that because of our laws, especially Penal Code Section 377A, the message of ’safe sex’ cannot be effectively communicated to those at risk is flawed.
Take the example of heroin drug abuse; laws prohibit its use. Using the same line of argument as Mr Toh’s, it would then not be possible to effectively communicate the message ‘Do not use drugs’.
However, the message against drug abuse has been effectively communicated to all segments of society. Everyone knows that it is wrong to use drugs and if you are caught you will be punished.
In the United States, 99 per cent of the population understands that you can get HIV through unprotected sex. In the United States’ CDC Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, June 24, 2005, Issue, a study of 1,767 MSM men showed that one in four men had HIV. The number of MSM men getting HIV continues to rise despite all efforts.
This shows that education and awareness of HIV by itself cannot bring down the infection rates of HIV. If it were so, then data from the US should show falling rates of infection rather than rising rates.
An example of the inadequacy of public education and awareness alone is the phenomenon of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ at ‘bug parties’.
This reckless behaviour is found among men who engage in anal penetrative coitus. Men, who knowing that they have HIV, yet still engage in unprotected anal penetrative coitus. This practice of having deliberate unprotected anal sex has the potential to cause widespread HIV infection. These men know that it is wrong and yet persist in doing it.
The number of MSM men having HIV in Singapore is about 1 in 20. It is still unacceptably high. However, compared to the US, we have a five times lower rate of infection.
It is our society’s stance against such immoral and socially irresponsible behaviour and our laws, especially Penal Code Section 377A, that account for this difference.
Evidence in point:
1) Some time ago, the then Senior Minister of State for Health, Dr S. Balaji, stated that the relaxation of our laws against ‘gay’ events led to a spike in the number of HIV cases among MSM men from 2003 to 2004.
2) We have the lowest rate of heroin and drug abuse in the world because of our strict laws and tough stance against drug abusers.
Sometimes tough love is needed for those who, despite their being aware of their irresponsible and reckless behaviour, do not want to change.
The law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with this scourge of HIV.
Beware the high-risk ‘gay lifestyle’
August 8, 2007 Wednesday
IN THE article, ‘Most with Aids virus don’t know they have it’ (ST, July 18), Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan announced that a study of 3,000 blood samples in government hospitals showed that 1 in 350 samples was positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) which causes Aids. The male to female ratio of these cases was 15:1.
What conclusions can we draw?
The 15:1 ratio means that the HIV epidemic is still confined mainly to the high-risk groups (concentrated epidemic) and has not spread to the general population (generalised epidemic). If it were already in the general population, the ratio would be much closer to 1:1.
Therefore we still have time to do something before the situation gets worse.
Who constitutes these high-risk groups?
Data released by the Ministry of Health on HIV last year showed two groups of men were responsible for approximately 83 per cent of HIV cases.
53 per cent of the cases were men who contracted HIV via unprotected high-risk heterosexual sex. This group was infected overseas or by local unlicensed prostitutes; our licensed prostitutes are screened for HIV.
30 per cent of the cases comprised men having sex with men (MSM). Based on the prevalence of 2.8 per cent of men being homosexual or bisexual, there are about 67,000 men in Singapore who engage in MSM.
I highlight this second high-risk group as it is a matter of public interest and concern, given the ongoing debate on the review of the Penal Code relating to Section 377A.
Extrapolating from the infection rate of 1 in 350 and 15:1 ratio of males to females, the conclusion is that among men who indulge in MSM, about one in 20 has HIV and does not know it.
This means that someone who indulges in MSM and has 20 sexual partners would have exposed himself to HIV.
A survey conducted in the United States has shown that 75 per cent of homosexual men have more than 100 sexual partners and 28 per cent of them have more than 1,000 partners.
I feel that not enough has been done to warn our youth that leading a ‘gay lifestyle’ is not cool. On the contrary, it is very unhealthy. There is a very high risk of contracting not only HIV but also a slew of other sexually transmitted diseases.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27360.1
Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Obama and Eric Hobsbawm
Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Obama and Eric Hobsbawm
I was surprised to learn Singapore does not have a minimum wage for workers.
The late Singapore opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam's son, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, a British-educated hedge fund manager who has joined his father's Reform Party, made an important point to The Online Citizen.
“Generally I think that the government focuses too much on GDP growth for its own sake where it should be focussing on things like GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans,” he told the Singapore blog.
Whether the government focuses too much on GDP per se is open to question.
But it's true GDP growth is not an accurate measure of people's wellbeing.
It's possible for a country to have high GDP and a large low-income group at the same time. China is the most obvious example, the third largest economy in the world, but with a per capita GDP of less than $6,000 in terms of purchasing power parity. Singapore's per capita GDP is nearly nine times more.
However, the income gap is increasing in Singapore, according to the official Statistics Singapore:
"The Gini coefficient, which is a summary measure of income inequality, increased from 0.472 in 2006 to 0.485 in 2007."
That means Singapore has a greater income gap than Britain and America, which have Gini coefficients of 0.35 and 0.45 respectively, leave alone Scandinavia, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands – countries with Gini coefficients ranging between 0.25 and 0.3, according to a UN-Habitat report.
The Singapore government is trying to help the people cope with the recession. So are governments in other countries – and for a very good reason. A country's economy depends on all its people.
It's interesting what Kenneth Jeyaretnam had to say about "GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans".
He may sound a bit like his father.
But President Barack Obama also expressed a similar view in his inaugural address:
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As did the British historian Eric Hobsbawm in the Guardian two days ago:
Look at London. Of course it matters to all of us that London's economy flourishes. But the test of the enormous wealth generated in patches of the capital is not that it contributed 20%-30% to Britain's GDP but how it affects the lives of the millions who live and work there. What kind of lives are available to them? Can they afford to live there? If they can't, it is not compensation that London is also a paradise for the ultra-rich. Can they get decently paid jobs or jobs at all? If they can't, don't brag about all those Michelin-starred restaurants and their self-dramatising chefs. Or schooling for children? Inadequate schools are not offset by the fact that London universities could field a football team of Nobel prize winners.
The test of a progressive policy is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the "capabilities" of all through collective action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26619.1
I was surprised to learn Singapore does not have a minimum wage for workers.
The late Singapore opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam's son, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, a British-educated hedge fund manager who has joined his father's Reform Party, made an important point to The Online Citizen.
“Generally I think that the government focuses too much on GDP growth for its own sake where it should be focussing on things like GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans,” he told the Singapore blog.
Whether the government focuses too much on GDP per se is open to question.
But it's true GDP growth is not an accurate measure of people's wellbeing.
It's possible for a country to have high GDP and a large low-income group at the same time. China is the most obvious example, the third largest economy in the world, but with a per capita GDP of less than $6,000 in terms of purchasing power parity. Singapore's per capita GDP is nearly nine times more.
However, the income gap is increasing in Singapore, according to the official Statistics Singapore:
"The Gini coefficient, which is a summary measure of income inequality, increased from 0.472 in 2006 to 0.485 in 2007."
That means Singapore has a greater income gap than Britain and America, which have Gini coefficients of 0.35 and 0.45 respectively, leave alone Scandinavia, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands – countries with Gini coefficients ranging between 0.25 and 0.3, according to a UN-Habitat report.
The Singapore government is trying to help the people cope with the recession. So are governments in other countries – and for a very good reason. A country's economy depends on all its people.
It's interesting what Kenneth Jeyaretnam had to say about "GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans".
He may sound a bit like his father.
But President Barack Obama also expressed a similar view in his inaugural address:
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As did the British historian Eric Hobsbawm in the Guardian two days ago:
Look at London. Of course it matters to all of us that London's economy flourishes. But the test of the enormous wealth generated in patches of the capital is not that it contributed 20%-30% to Britain's GDP but how it affects the lives of the millions who live and work there. What kind of lives are available to them? Can they afford to live there? If they can't, it is not compensation that London is also a paradise for the ultra-rich. Can they get decently paid jobs or jobs at all? If they can't, don't brag about all those Michelin-starred restaurants and their self-dramatising chefs. Or schooling for children? Inadequate schools are not offset by the fact that London universities could field a football team of Nobel prize winners.
The test of a progressive policy is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the "capabilities" of all through collective action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26619.1
Without elites, we will all go hungry?
Why the elites have to keep telling us without them, we will all go hungry, so forget about 1st world rights!
At first, the message forwarded seems innocuous enough –sensible even in its carriage of though as it goes on to highlight some well established motifs – we are small country; and like small fries in a pond; it pays to get along with the big fishes; otherwise things just doesn’t come around – but where the message in my humble opinion degenerates into plain back slapping endorsement of the status quo ante is when lashings of, “we are so good in what we do; even the Chinese have seen the wisdom of learning from us” – “if good wins over evil; then we need to sacrifice our sense and sensibilities on the altar of necessity” – “good life doesn’t come for free; it comes with a price; and we would do well to dig into our pockets,” begin to filter through.
Am I imagining it? You know what I am going to give Ah Pek Lee the benefit of the doubt; I don’t doubt for one moment; I could have very well confected all these Da Vinci code connotations – so its best if you do me the courtesy of re-reading what he said and judge for yourself whether I am spot on or just making a mountain out of an imaginary mole hill.
Besides this essay this isn’t about what Ah Pek Lee said; rather why and how do elites go about the business of mythologizing their existence? – why for example do they keep telling us without them, we are all going to be toast? Why do they keep repeating the trite warning – if good is going to win over evil, then it always has to come at a heavy price – and no matter what the sacrifice it’s worth paying it – including set aside all our illusions that we could for moment even have real “rights.” Instead of the zoo keeping variety that we have to settle.
Now if you really want to know why elites say the things they regularly do - then you need to suspend disbelief long enough to consider how most of our perceptions in life may be shaped by myths rather than fact.
Don’t believe me? Then just take a look at how myth making is so often pursued unabashedly, even against the face of incontrovertible evidence – like how the MSM keeps trying to sell themselves as the next best thing since sliced bread as the one and only reliable purveyor of the truth. Never mind that our beloved rag languishes somewhere below the Timbuktu daily post – in the land of mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all - self praise is always good to go 24/7.
But why is cult of mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all so corrosive? In what way does the myth making machine work against society? Some may chide me for being defeatist or even overtly critical; after all, lets say a kid with carrot fingers tells you his dream is to play Rachmaninoff to a packed audience in Carnegie hall – what would you say to him?
My answer is, I dunno – all I know whatever response it is; it pays to be measured and this may mean sticking as astudiously to the truth as possible - no one denies a bit of myth making can motivate and even edify encouraging others to strive towards excellence. I know this only too well; it doesn’t always pay to be brutally honest, not if the truth disables and demoralizes – only my point is; if the myth making is taken too far, it can lead to complacency or worse still a false sense of confidence – that incidentally, is how the world tripped and promptly broke it’s neck in this recent global economic meltdown – now if you really want to understand the global financial crisis; believe me - you don’t even need to do know what are sub primes, derivatives, CDO’s and the rest of those gobble d guck like inverse repayment and equity based costing regressions.
Believe me, you could just as well throw all this out of the window and wipe the board clean and start with this ONE assumption - at the center of the anatomy of disaster that made possible failure on such a grand scale there had to be a Rolls Royce myth making machine (in some cases it may embody the persona of larger than life persona like Bernie Madoff; or even take the form of a century old firm like Lehman Bros) – the whole idea of a machine that can always be relied on perpetuate the good life that so many people bought lock, stock and barrel into – and what was it? It’s only this: house prices will always go up and up and up / and there is no end to good times – and for a very long time, that myth even turned out to be a self fulfilling prophecy as when so many people buy into a myth; its even conceivable they may even have the power to inadvertently shape their version of reality – but a failing that is common to every myth is it cannot be sustained in perpetuity; that’s to say at some point intervening events will cause it to become so unhinged from reality that the whole edifice just comes crashing down – it matters little whether it’s the myth of the cult of the sword that Samurai once ritualized to perpetuate their class politics by imposing a country band on gun powder – at some point, a boatful of brigands are going to show up bearing muskets and when that happens it’s just going to be a be a game leveler; or as the Ottomans say, “hark-met-ther,” when the armies of Sulaiman came across cross bow for the first time to turn back their siege machines – that in the nutshell is how the world suddenly found itself knee deep in shit.
That’s has to be a sobering thought; one that should prompt us all to ask whether it’s even wise for us to keep the myth making machine of mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them – if we are really serious about the whole business of craving out competitive advantage after the dust has settled on the global economic carnage – its something to consider very seriously; when you consider the last time someone looked at a mirror – she ended up as an old witch peddling poison apples – like I said, it’s a fools game, that we can ill afford in such testing times.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26614.1
Widjaja family visit Prof Chan’s condo
Widjaja family visit Prof Chan’s condo
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Choo Zheng Xi & Deborah Choo
Desperate for information on the circumstances surrounding their son’s death, David Widjaja’s family arrived in Singapore on Wednesday hoping to meet with Professor Chan Kap Lup. The Professor was David’s mentor at the Nanyang Technological University who was allegedly stabbed by David before the latter fell to his death on March 2.
On Friday, David Widjaja’s parents, brother and an uncle paid a surprise visit to Professor Chan Kap Lup’s home, accompanied by several members of the Indonesian press.
The group arrived at the professor’s condominium in the afternoon at about 3.30pm, hoping to meet with the professor to ask him about what had taken place on March 2 at his office in NTU which led to the alleged stabbing and David’s death.
Affixed to the top right corner of the entrance outside Professor Chan’s house was a small CCTV camera. William rang the doorbell and the family waited expectantly. They were answered with silence.
It was the second time that the family of David Widjaja was in Singapore. The family’s first visit was on March 3 – the day after the stabbing incident.
Expressing his disappointment, William Widjaja, David’s brother, told TOC outside Professor Chan’s house that all he wants is clarity on what took place in the professor’s office on March 2. “I just want to ask him what exactly happened in the room”, said David’s father.
In an interview with TOC earlier in the day, the family said they had also planned to meet several of David’s friends, NTU President Dr. Su Guaning, the police and the press.
David’s relationship with his friends were very good, his father said. “It’s impossible that he committed suicide by jumping down a building and he wouldn’t use a knife to stab anyone,” he insisted. “Definitely, he won’t.”
“We want to find proof that David did not commit suicide”, said William.
Earlier, they told TOC that they were paying the Straits Times office in Toa Payoh a visit as well. William said the purpose was to “clarify” certain reports carried by the local media which they felt were “misleading”. These included assertions by the media that David Widjaja had stabbed the professor, slit his own wrists, and committed suicide by jumping to his death. ”The police are still investigating this case and the results [have not been] released yet,” explained William. “So how can the media report that David stabbed the professor, slit his wrists and committed suicide?” Asked if they were considering taking legal actions against the Singapore media, William said they were not and only wanted to clarify some “wrong statements in the Singapore media.”
The family feels that many questions are still unanswered. Having received the autopsy report via the mail on April 4 from NTU, they were puzzled at why the autopsy was not sent directly to them. Asked if they had authorised NTU to collect the report on their behalf, William said, “We didn’t.” His father also insisted that the family did not give any such authorisation.
“The police only told us when they would be giving us the autopsy report,” said David’s father. “They said it would take one month.” He explained that the report should have been passed to the Indonesian embassy in Singapore and the embassy would then be the one which passes it to the family. “It is strange why the autopsy report was given by the police to NTU and not the Indonesian embassy,” said William. They were told by experts in Indonesia that the report would have to be “legalised” first by the embassy before it could be given to the family.
They have sent the autopsy report to medical experts in Indonesia. “The report mostly contained medical terms. Thus, we will seek professional help to decipher them,” William had told The Jakarta Post. The results are yet to be released.
William mentioned that his cousin knew a friend in NTU who told him that there was an Iranian girl who witnessed David’s fall, and that the family would like to get in touch with her but have so far not been able to. William, however, said they did not know if the story was true. They are also appealing for eyewitnesses to step forward and contact them.
The family returns to Indonesia on Sunday morning.
As of now, TOC has not been able to contact NTU because of the holiday. A separate notification will be put up once we have managed to contact NTU.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26612.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)