Inflation is up 1.6%
These are the Singapore inflation rates for 2009:
January: 2.9%
February: 1.9%
March: 1.6%
Food and Housing is leading the charge, rising by 4.6% and 5.5% respectively year on year. Surprisingly, compared to February, food prices has risen for March. This proves that Singaporeans do not stinge on food. Housing prices has been moderating downwards, as expected. Transport & Communication prices has dropped the most, which is similar to last month. The rest of the CPI basket did not vary much compared to last month.
Transport & Communication, and Housing will most probably go down a fair bit in April, and will continue to tread downwards. Judging from the trend, it also seems that food prices is quite resilient, and will remain stable for at least the first half of the year. I'm still of view that inflation will still be positive in April to June, ranging around at least 1%.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27985.1
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Embrace Foreigners, and Screw the Locals(NSmen)
Embrace Foreigners, and Screw the Locals(NSmen)
All this talk about National Integration and integration of foreigners into Singapore misses the mark. We are talking about welcome others when we treat our own so poorly. What am I talking about?
I am talking about National Service. I am talking about mandatory 2 years (formerly 2.5 years) of conscription of Singaporean male citizens into the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
I am talking about the 10 years of reservist obligations comprising but not limited to:
* annual in-camp training lasting 2 to 21 days (in practice but legally up to 40 days under the law)
* annual individual physical proficiency tests (IPPT) for those medically fit NSmen (those who fail to clear their tests are subject to Remedial Training of twice/thrice a week)
* notifying Mindef Notification Centre for any overseas trips exceeding 24 hours
* need to apply for exit permit for trips of 6 months or longer
* annual operations manning or mobilisation exercises than can happen 2-3 times a year
To be male and Singaporean is to serve and f*** off
These obligations are not new. They have been imposed on NSmen since the whole NS system was developed just after Singapore gained independence and as the British withdrew their military forces out of Singapore not long after.
What is new is that the pace of immigration to Singapore has increased tremendously. It has created a truly global city, Singapore Inc, with the implications of a labour market that is competitive in every sense of the word.
I saw it during my days working in the IT industry. Singaporeans have virtually no real advantages and in fact, Singaporean males who are NSmen are DISADVANTAGED because to employers, they come attached with annual ICT obligations that leave the company WITHOUT the services of their employees even if Mindef does reimburse them for the wages they continue to pay for their staff. Ceteris paribus, if I were an employer, I would choose a permanent resident or Employment Pass holder over a male citizen as I don't suffer as many disruptions to my use of this factor of production.
Competition is not wrong. I welcome it. It makes you upgrade yourself, not to take the status quo for granted and not to think you are entitled to anything unless you are smart and work hard for it. But to compete on unequal terms is simply unfair.
Discrimination in your own country
How can it be fair to Singaporean male citizens who are:
1) discriminated against female citizens who do not have NS?
2) discriminated against as compared to 1st generation Permanent Residents and newly minted citizens who do not have to serve NS (for those older)?
Let me share with you specific examples of discrimination.
During my 7th ICT, one of my unit reservists died during the 2.4km run. He died for the country. He died because of some underlying heart condition that surfaced during the run. He died because he was a citizen and was born male in Singapore Inc.
I was running a big project in my department. A few months into the project, I received the SAF 100 for a 3 week reservist doing operational duty protecting key installations in Singapore. I duly informed my bosses about it.
Guess what happened?
Yes, I was allowed to go for my reservist duty... BUT, my boss took the project away from me and gave it to my female colleague who did not have any reservist obligation.
How do you think it would affect my year end appraisal to have a significant project taken away because I wouldn't be around for 3 weeks because of service to the COUNTRY?
So if I had been killed during the operational duty (and mind you we carry live rounds and execute rules of engagement that involve the real possiblity of stopping potential terrorists or be injured or a target of attacks) my female colleague would get a shot at a better portfolio of work for her annual appraisal while I would have enjoyed a military funeral at taxpayers expense.
So now we have a new "Integration Council" helmed by not one, not two but seven ministers.
Their objective is to,
"... promote and foster social integration among Singaporeans and with new citizens and permanent residents."
May I make a small suggestion?
Can we start by treating our reservists better? This will lessen the discrimination AGAINST our own male citizens. It's bad enough that I had 2.5 years of my youth wasted in the Singapore Armed Forces.
I entered the workforce 2.5 years later and have reservist liabilities that made me less competitive vis-a-vis my competitors in the workforce who are on employment pass or permanent residence tickets into Singapore Inc. I fought hard in the workplace, I have a recognised degree from NTU, with relevant work experience and I did my duty to my country only to have it spat back into my face.
Immigration has been so pervasive that the criteria seems to be very easy. I noted that even your friendly neighbourhood hawker assistant in food courts can get permanent residency status!
That really cheapens the entire Singapore Citizenship. Don't forget, male citizenship is earned using tears, sweat and blood. Can my female citizens claim to serve their country up to the point of risking DEATH and INJURY? Who sees the pain when I was running standard obstacle course? Who empathised with me when I was insulted by regulars in the army with epithets such as "gu-niang", "cheese-bye" or having an Captain say that he will "crucify" the next recruit who said something stupid? Who shared my fear when seeing my fellow reservist COLLAPSE and DIE during his 2.4km run.
Integrating immigrants - has the Government looked at how and why it is screwing its NSmen?
The National Integration Council doesn't have to look far to uncover the seething resentment among many NSmen and NSF.
Singapore Inc runs 1st and foremost by economic considerations. I accept that. But why is the Government screwing us NSmen by imposing obligations in a way that is both disruptive and detrimental to our economic competitiveness.
They expect us NSmen to grin and bear it when we know we are competing on an unequal playing field? How can you expect us to embrace immigrants who are fighting for the very same rice-bowls and who do not need to make similar sacrifices to preserve it? I have risked my life every time I report for my annual in-camp training to protect and defend our way of life only to find that sacrifice entails having me risk my livelihood?!
This country is losing its identity and social cohesiveness even as this post is written. We are a country that now worships money. The economic imperative is the be-all and the end-all. Thus, we embrace immmigrants because they contribute to the economic fabric of the nation. They help keep the wheels of commerce and industry churning with the accessible foreign labour. Integrating them helps Singapore Inc. purr smoothly even as individual citizens get squashed in the MRT and bus during peak hours.
Embrace them even as the SAF/SPF and SCDF embraced our NSmen, sometimes to the point of losing their lives for duty, honour and country.
And that is why I am so glad that my daughter was born into Singapore Inc. She doesn't have to serve and gets to COMPETE on more equal terms to permanent residents, foreigners and the rest of her competitors in future for a piece of the pie in Singapore Inc.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27901.1
All this talk about National Integration and integration of foreigners into Singapore misses the mark. We are talking about welcome others when we treat our own so poorly. What am I talking about?
I am talking about National Service. I am talking about mandatory 2 years (formerly 2.5 years) of conscription of Singaporean male citizens into the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF).
I am talking about the 10 years of reservist obligations comprising but not limited to:
* annual in-camp training lasting 2 to 21 days (in practice but legally up to 40 days under the law)
* annual individual physical proficiency tests (IPPT) for those medically fit NSmen (those who fail to clear their tests are subject to Remedial Training of twice/thrice a week)
* notifying Mindef Notification Centre for any overseas trips exceeding 24 hours
* need to apply for exit permit for trips of 6 months or longer
* annual operations manning or mobilisation exercises than can happen 2-3 times a year
To be male and Singaporean is to serve and f*** off
These obligations are not new. They have been imposed on NSmen since the whole NS system was developed just after Singapore gained independence and as the British withdrew their military forces out of Singapore not long after.
What is new is that the pace of immigration to Singapore has increased tremendously. It has created a truly global city, Singapore Inc, with the implications of a labour market that is competitive in every sense of the word.
I saw it during my days working in the IT industry. Singaporeans have virtually no real advantages and in fact, Singaporean males who are NSmen are DISADVANTAGED because to employers, they come attached with annual ICT obligations that leave the company WITHOUT the services of their employees even if Mindef does reimburse them for the wages they continue to pay for their staff. Ceteris paribus, if I were an employer, I would choose a permanent resident or Employment Pass holder over a male citizen as I don't suffer as many disruptions to my use of this factor of production.
Competition is not wrong. I welcome it. It makes you upgrade yourself, not to take the status quo for granted and not to think you are entitled to anything unless you are smart and work hard for it. But to compete on unequal terms is simply unfair.
Discrimination in your own country
How can it be fair to Singaporean male citizens who are:
1) discriminated against female citizens who do not have NS?
2) discriminated against as compared to 1st generation Permanent Residents and newly minted citizens who do not have to serve NS (for those older)?
Let me share with you specific examples of discrimination.
During my 7th ICT, one of my unit reservists died during the 2.4km run. He died for the country. He died because of some underlying heart condition that surfaced during the run. He died because he was a citizen and was born male in Singapore Inc.
I was running a big project in my department. A few months into the project, I received the SAF 100 for a 3 week reservist doing operational duty protecting key installations in Singapore. I duly informed my bosses about it.
Guess what happened?
Yes, I was allowed to go for my reservist duty... BUT, my boss took the project away from me and gave it to my female colleague who did not have any reservist obligation.
How do you think it would affect my year end appraisal to have a significant project taken away because I wouldn't be around for 3 weeks because of service to the COUNTRY?
So if I had been killed during the operational duty (and mind you we carry live rounds and execute rules of engagement that involve the real possiblity of stopping potential terrorists or be injured or a target of attacks) my female colleague would get a shot at a better portfolio of work for her annual appraisal while I would have enjoyed a military funeral at taxpayers expense.
So now we have a new "Integration Council" helmed by not one, not two but seven ministers.
Their objective is to,
"... promote and foster social integration among Singaporeans and with new citizens and permanent residents."
May I make a small suggestion?
Can we start by treating our reservists better? This will lessen the discrimination AGAINST our own male citizens. It's bad enough that I had 2.5 years of my youth wasted in the Singapore Armed Forces.
I entered the workforce 2.5 years later and have reservist liabilities that made me less competitive vis-a-vis my competitors in the workforce who are on employment pass or permanent residence tickets into Singapore Inc. I fought hard in the workplace, I have a recognised degree from NTU, with relevant work experience and I did my duty to my country only to have it spat back into my face.
Immigration has been so pervasive that the criteria seems to be very easy. I noted that even your friendly neighbourhood hawker assistant in food courts can get permanent residency status!
That really cheapens the entire Singapore Citizenship. Don't forget, male citizenship is earned using tears, sweat and blood. Can my female citizens claim to serve their country up to the point of risking DEATH and INJURY? Who sees the pain when I was running standard obstacle course? Who empathised with me when I was insulted by regulars in the army with epithets such as "gu-niang", "cheese-bye" or having an Captain say that he will "crucify" the next recruit who said something stupid? Who shared my fear when seeing my fellow reservist COLLAPSE and DIE during his 2.4km run.
Integrating immigrants - has the Government looked at how and why it is screwing its NSmen?
The National Integration Council doesn't have to look far to uncover the seething resentment among many NSmen and NSF.
Singapore Inc runs 1st and foremost by economic considerations. I accept that. But why is the Government screwing us NSmen by imposing obligations in a way that is both disruptive and detrimental to our economic competitiveness.
They expect us NSmen to grin and bear it when we know we are competing on an unequal playing field? How can you expect us to embrace immigrants who are fighting for the very same rice-bowls and who do not need to make similar sacrifices to preserve it? I have risked my life every time I report for my annual in-camp training to protect and defend our way of life only to find that sacrifice entails having me risk my livelihood?!
This country is losing its identity and social cohesiveness even as this post is written. We are a country that now worships money. The economic imperative is the be-all and the end-all. Thus, we embrace immmigrants because they contribute to the economic fabric of the nation. They help keep the wheels of commerce and industry churning with the accessible foreign labour. Integrating them helps Singapore Inc. purr smoothly even as individual citizens get squashed in the MRT and bus during peak hours.
Embrace them even as the SAF/SPF and SCDF embraced our NSmen, sometimes to the point of losing their lives for duty, honour and country.
And that is why I am so glad that my daughter was born into Singapore Inc. She doesn't have to serve and gets to COMPETE on more equal terms to permanent residents, foreigners and the rest of her competitors in future for a piece of the pie in Singapore Inc.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27901.1
Our bloated defence budget: To be a Porcupine or a Poisoned Shrimp?
Our bloated defence budget: To be a Porcupine or a Poisoned Shrimp?
In an marine ecosystem, the big fish eats the small fish, which eats the shrimp. The original defence strategy of Singapore, taking into account its size was to be a poisonous shrimp. A predator would be contemplating suicide unless it was sufficiently large, in which case, it would be weakened and could be eaten by another otherwise benign fish. Yet, the then BG Lee Hsien Loong remarked in 1982 in an interview that one cannot threaten a shrimp, but one can threaten a nation with destruction and when given a choice, the nation would choose to capitulate over suicide.
This is however contrary to many examples in history. It is difficult to imagine that the Swiss could survive the German war machine during WW2 but they managed to keep themselves out of the conflict. The Americans could also have threatened the Soviet Union with nuclear destruction prior to the latter’s successes in developing sufficient arms but this was not done, and the Cold War raged for half a century.
BG Lee had already perhaps envisaged the future lack of will among Singpaoreans to defend the nation and thus needed to compensate with a more offensive “porcupine” strategy, which according to certain scholars have already been in place for many years.
This new strategy however ran into difficulties over the next few decades. While Singapore armed herself with arguably one of the most potent western oriented air force in the region, Malaysia possibly responded by acquiring Russian jets with more advanced weaponry than the Americans were willing to sell.
While the Singapore government lobbied for more advanced American weapons, the Malaysian army bought highly advanced Brazilian multiple rocket launcher systems that can threaten airfields and military installations to neutralize the Singaporean superiority in the air. More recent purchases were highlighted in the previous article. SAF acquisitions appears to be countered by asymmetrical acquisitions requiring extraordinary effort by the SAF to counter.
Can the “porcupine” strategy de disassociated from the regional arms race? In fact, Singapore’s leaders recognized in 2000 that the “porcupine” strategy has ruffled a few regional feathers. Yet, it seems that this strategy has continued and not ceased even during times of recession. Can Singapore’s GDP and defence budget grow adequately at the required pace to continue this approach indefinitely?
To delve into this topic, we must explore first and foremost the grand strategy, as coined by Liddell Hart, that Singapore needs to take. Unlike military strategy, grand strategy must consider the interplay of political and military action.
Military strategy cannot be divorced with national or grand strategy. To defend itself, a nation must rely equally on both strategies. It is also said that during the winter wars against the Soviet Union, the Finnish rejected German demands to attack Leningrad although the former were only tens of kilometres away because they saw the political ramifications of attacking the prized city of their bitter enemy.
In the end, their calculations were proven right as the Soviets eventually overran eastern Germany to end WW2. It can be thus argued that employing the right grand strategy is as important or perhaps even more important than the right military strategy. Just imagine the world today without Nokia had the Soviets decided to punish Finland as well for attacking Leningrad.
The grand strategy that Singapore should adopt consist of several principles: make Singapore economically and politically too costly to attack; assure great power intervention in the event of armed conflict; avoid a regional arms race which she cannot keep up indefinitely; and maintain legitimacy in action.
Singapore’s current grand strategy is a result of cross breeding Swiss complicity and Israeli hostility. So it is perhaps by no accident that Singapore is a regional financial hub, and often the subject to accusations of being a money laundering centre, a tax evasion haven, as well as the place for regional personalities to park ill gotten gains. More recently she was on OECD’s blacklist (subsequently “greylist”) of non cooperative countries that aided tax evasion.
The presence of CISCO guardhouses in uber safe Singapore for certain unofficial VIPs in certain areas also supports the illicit funds theory. Regardless of the real reasons, Singapore’s tax friendly environment and her continued ability to maintain strict banking secrecy laws outside Europe must also have featured strongly in a certain Swiss bank’s decision to move its headquarters here.
If true, there is very little incentive for rational leaders of neighbouring countries to attack. Even if the allegations are untrue, the value of a functional financial centre is much greater than a bombed out skyscraper. Thus the Singapore’s government has done well in developing the financial services rendering an armed attack economically costly.
But this strategy is being threatened by the lack of legitimacy as seen from OECD action and it does not win favours with the peoples of the neighbouring countries. Singapore’s policies need to be seen to be fair and just. Arrogance and controversies involving Temasek Holdings in Thaksin’s Thailand and Indonesia should be avoided.
Temasek and GIC are sovereign wealth funds, and profit cannot be the only guiding principle as they represent Singapore. If Singapore is generally in the good books of her neighbours, it becomes extremely difficult for their leaders to create the necessary political conditions and support to sustain an attack without losing political ground, even if they are military despots.
Global trade patterns, Singapore’s strategic position, and current vested interest by the US already assures prompt action by the international community in the event of an armed conflict. To assure that the intervention benefits Singapore, legitimacy of action is primordial.
The globalized nature of Singapore’s economy and her dependency on trade for survival makes her extremely vulnerable to sanctions of any kind. Achieving a military victory without legitimacy could well spell the end of this Asian Tiger and pave the way for overall defeat and loss of sovereignty.
The accompanying military strategy must support the overall grand strategy and should focus on developing an extremely hard shell aimed at preventing a land invasion, securing Singapore’s lifeline - the sea lane of communications -, and preventing incursions or attacks from the air, while being able to perform stand off retaliation and some surgical long range attacks at centres of power.
For this, the RSN should provide the geographical depth that the island lacks. The current RSN should focus on controlling the sea lanes, and if necessary, to covertly block the sea lanes in order to speed up international intervention.
Some amphibious capability is desired to add complexity to the aggressors plans and these crafts are often also useful for humanitarian operations, which raises the prestige of the SAF and is great for building goodwill regionally. Some strategic attack capability should also be added.
The RSAF should focus on gaining control of the air with a small fleet of multirole fighters and replace her antiquated HAWK surface to air missile batteries with modern variants. Like the Swedish concept of operations, RSAF’s fighters should not depend on airfields like crutches.
The Swedish modus operandi was so successful during the Cold War that the Soviets drew up a plan to assassinate the pilots in their homes. Another important role for the RSAF would be of surveillance, a role that she presumably already excels in.
The army should be made up of mostly conscripts but specialising in coastal island defence, urban, anti tank and anti aircraft operations mostly on foot or highly mobile platforms. Heavy tank and artillery units and could be professional forces or a mix but again they should focus on operations from the homeland.
Using the Taiwanese and Swiss army as a guide, a 1 year NS period with regular local ICTs should be sufficient to train a army for essentially defensive duties. Current 2 year training plans are probably designed to train complex brigade and occasionally divisional level combined arms, inter army competencies, which is not required for most defensive duties.
Instead of deploying so regularly for training exercises, the SAF should increase her international commitment of volunteer forces (professional forces who personally volunteer) to peacekeeping and peace support operations. The objectives are two fold.
Firstly, to increase operational experience to debunk the non-combat tested hypothesis that is always floating around defence circles, and secondly to support the purported deterrence and defence diplomacy policies. Other regional armed forces have the dubious benefit of regular conflicts as well as regular operational stints, including Malaysian soldiers in Mogadishu where they heroically rescued US Marines.
Without the necessary data and expertise, it is impossible to gauge the exact cost of equipping and maintaining such a SAF. However, with a reduction in heavy offensive weaponry, amphibious capabilities, and conscription training durations, an overall reduction in defence expenditure is not unimaginable.
Today, Singapore should have enough water to last a short conflict with reserve to spare. Furthermore, the geopolitical realities of the region will not permit a prolonged armed conflict. Despite the widespread destruction in the Gaza, the Israelis did not damage any water infrastructure. Any action otherwise would cause an immediate loss of legitimacy, international condemnation and its repercussions.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the threat to cut water supply is anything more than rhetoric. However, Singapore’s lack of water is a strategic vulnerability that must be addressed and is already currently being addressed.
What is proposed is extremely brief and cannot and will not attempt to pretend that it covers all areas. However, it proposes a departure from the “porcupine” strategy by reducing the SAF’s offensive posture, by avoiding a arms race, and by accepting the realities of armed conflict in the 21st century. It also highlights the importance of other non military factors to secure Singapore’s sovereignty.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27897.1
In an marine ecosystem, the big fish eats the small fish, which eats the shrimp. The original defence strategy of Singapore, taking into account its size was to be a poisonous shrimp. A predator would be contemplating suicide unless it was sufficiently large, in which case, it would be weakened and could be eaten by another otherwise benign fish. Yet, the then BG Lee Hsien Loong remarked in 1982 in an interview that one cannot threaten a shrimp, but one can threaten a nation with destruction and when given a choice, the nation would choose to capitulate over suicide.
This is however contrary to many examples in history. It is difficult to imagine that the Swiss could survive the German war machine during WW2 but they managed to keep themselves out of the conflict. The Americans could also have threatened the Soviet Union with nuclear destruction prior to the latter’s successes in developing sufficient arms but this was not done, and the Cold War raged for half a century.
BG Lee had already perhaps envisaged the future lack of will among Singpaoreans to defend the nation and thus needed to compensate with a more offensive “porcupine” strategy, which according to certain scholars have already been in place for many years.
This new strategy however ran into difficulties over the next few decades. While Singapore armed herself with arguably one of the most potent western oriented air force in the region, Malaysia possibly responded by acquiring Russian jets with more advanced weaponry than the Americans were willing to sell.
While the Singapore government lobbied for more advanced American weapons, the Malaysian army bought highly advanced Brazilian multiple rocket launcher systems that can threaten airfields and military installations to neutralize the Singaporean superiority in the air. More recent purchases were highlighted in the previous article. SAF acquisitions appears to be countered by asymmetrical acquisitions requiring extraordinary effort by the SAF to counter.
Can the “porcupine” strategy de disassociated from the regional arms race? In fact, Singapore’s leaders recognized in 2000 that the “porcupine” strategy has ruffled a few regional feathers. Yet, it seems that this strategy has continued and not ceased even during times of recession. Can Singapore’s GDP and defence budget grow adequately at the required pace to continue this approach indefinitely?
To delve into this topic, we must explore first and foremost the grand strategy, as coined by Liddell Hart, that Singapore needs to take. Unlike military strategy, grand strategy must consider the interplay of political and military action.
Military strategy cannot be divorced with national or grand strategy. To defend itself, a nation must rely equally on both strategies. It is also said that during the winter wars against the Soviet Union, the Finnish rejected German demands to attack Leningrad although the former were only tens of kilometres away because they saw the political ramifications of attacking the prized city of their bitter enemy.
In the end, their calculations were proven right as the Soviets eventually overran eastern Germany to end WW2. It can be thus argued that employing the right grand strategy is as important or perhaps even more important than the right military strategy. Just imagine the world today without Nokia had the Soviets decided to punish Finland as well for attacking Leningrad.
The grand strategy that Singapore should adopt consist of several principles: make Singapore economically and politically too costly to attack; assure great power intervention in the event of armed conflict; avoid a regional arms race which she cannot keep up indefinitely; and maintain legitimacy in action.
Singapore’s current grand strategy is a result of cross breeding Swiss complicity and Israeli hostility. So it is perhaps by no accident that Singapore is a regional financial hub, and often the subject to accusations of being a money laundering centre, a tax evasion haven, as well as the place for regional personalities to park ill gotten gains. More recently she was on OECD’s blacklist (subsequently “greylist”) of non cooperative countries that aided tax evasion.
The presence of CISCO guardhouses in uber safe Singapore for certain unofficial VIPs in certain areas also supports the illicit funds theory. Regardless of the real reasons, Singapore’s tax friendly environment and her continued ability to maintain strict banking secrecy laws outside Europe must also have featured strongly in a certain Swiss bank’s decision to move its headquarters here.
If true, there is very little incentive for rational leaders of neighbouring countries to attack. Even if the allegations are untrue, the value of a functional financial centre is much greater than a bombed out skyscraper. Thus the Singapore’s government has done well in developing the financial services rendering an armed attack economically costly.
But this strategy is being threatened by the lack of legitimacy as seen from OECD action and it does not win favours with the peoples of the neighbouring countries. Singapore’s policies need to be seen to be fair and just. Arrogance and controversies involving Temasek Holdings in Thaksin’s Thailand and Indonesia should be avoided.
Temasek and GIC are sovereign wealth funds, and profit cannot be the only guiding principle as they represent Singapore. If Singapore is generally in the good books of her neighbours, it becomes extremely difficult for their leaders to create the necessary political conditions and support to sustain an attack without losing political ground, even if they are military despots.
Global trade patterns, Singapore’s strategic position, and current vested interest by the US already assures prompt action by the international community in the event of an armed conflict. To assure that the intervention benefits Singapore, legitimacy of action is primordial.
The globalized nature of Singapore’s economy and her dependency on trade for survival makes her extremely vulnerable to sanctions of any kind. Achieving a military victory without legitimacy could well spell the end of this Asian Tiger and pave the way for overall defeat and loss of sovereignty.
The accompanying military strategy must support the overall grand strategy and should focus on developing an extremely hard shell aimed at preventing a land invasion, securing Singapore’s lifeline - the sea lane of communications -, and preventing incursions or attacks from the air, while being able to perform stand off retaliation and some surgical long range attacks at centres of power.
For this, the RSN should provide the geographical depth that the island lacks. The current RSN should focus on controlling the sea lanes, and if necessary, to covertly block the sea lanes in order to speed up international intervention.
Some amphibious capability is desired to add complexity to the aggressors plans and these crafts are often also useful for humanitarian operations, which raises the prestige of the SAF and is great for building goodwill regionally. Some strategic attack capability should also be added.
The RSAF should focus on gaining control of the air with a small fleet of multirole fighters and replace her antiquated HAWK surface to air missile batteries with modern variants. Like the Swedish concept of operations, RSAF’s fighters should not depend on airfields like crutches.
The Swedish modus operandi was so successful during the Cold War that the Soviets drew up a plan to assassinate the pilots in their homes. Another important role for the RSAF would be of surveillance, a role that she presumably already excels in.
The army should be made up of mostly conscripts but specialising in coastal island defence, urban, anti tank and anti aircraft operations mostly on foot or highly mobile platforms. Heavy tank and artillery units and could be professional forces or a mix but again they should focus on operations from the homeland.
Using the Taiwanese and Swiss army as a guide, a 1 year NS period with regular local ICTs should be sufficient to train a army for essentially defensive duties. Current 2 year training plans are probably designed to train complex brigade and occasionally divisional level combined arms, inter army competencies, which is not required for most defensive duties.
Instead of deploying so regularly for training exercises, the SAF should increase her international commitment of volunteer forces (professional forces who personally volunteer) to peacekeeping and peace support operations. The objectives are two fold.
Firstly, to increase operational experience to debunk the non-combat tested hypothesis that is always floating around defence circles, and secondly to support the purported deterrence and defence diplomacy policies. Other regional armed forces have the dubious benefit of regular conflicts as well as regular operational stints, including Malaysian soldiers in Mogadishu where they heroically rescued US Marines.
Without the necessary data and expertise, it is impossible to gauge the exact cost of equipping and maintaining such a SAF. However, with a reduction in heavy offensive weaponry, amphibious capabilities, and conscription training durations, an overall reduction in defence expenditure is not unimaginable.
Today, Singapore should have enough water to last a short conflict with reserve to spare. Furthermore, the geopolitical realities of the region will not permit a prolonged armed conflict. Despite the widespread destruction in the Gaza, the Israelis did not damage any water infrastructure. Any action otherwise would cause an immediate loss of legitimacy, international condemnation and its repercussions.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the threat to cut water supply is anything more than rhetoric. However, Singapore’s lack of water is a strategic vulnerability that must be addressed and is already currently being addressed.
What is proposed is extremely brief and cannot and will not attempt to pretend that it covers all areas. However, it proposes a departure from the “porcupine” strategy by reducing the SAF’s offensive posture, by avoiding a arms race, and by accepting the realities of armed conflict in the 21st century. It also highlights the importance of other non military factors to secure Singapore’s sovereignty.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27897.1
A Malay dilemma
A Malay dilemma
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Why the PAP struggles to renew its class of Malay leaders
The issue of race has always been a dicey one in Singapore politics, stemming partly from the heavy historical baggage of race riots and Singapore’s unanticipated separation from Malaysia. The official approach has to try to minimise debate on such sensitive matters while emphasising the government’s successes in its nation-building efforts.
Even so, the prime minister’s Cabinet reshuffle of 26th March has triggered some consternation in the Malay community, which was picked up by the vernacular press and even acknowledged by the prime minister. No Malay politician was promoted in the reshuffle; in fact, one – Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed – made way in the Northeast district for a Chinese mayor, though he retained his position as senior minister of state in the foreign ministry. More significantly, what the reshuffle seemed to have shown was that none of the Malay leaders appeared to be closing in on a key post such as deputy premier or at the helm of defence and foreign ministries.
On the surface though, there were outward shows of support: the Berita Harian, the country’s leading Malay paper, commented on 28th March about the efficient nature of the reshuffle and carried letters of support from the public. Yet that may mask a deeper anxiety: the same commentary expressed belief that the day would come when there would be a Malay deputy prime minister, though it also noted that the US took over 200 years to produce a black president. Perhaps the unspoken point was that the chances of having a Malay prime minister in Singapore were even more remote.
Another commentary in the Berita Harian by Maarof Salleh on 3rd April was more telling. Mr Maarof observed that the reshuffle had raised questions in the community about whether the present Malay leaders in the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had the requisite quality for national leadership. For example, there was apparently disappointment that senior parliamentary secretary of education Masagos Zulkifli had failed to advance while his counterparts who were similarly elected in 2006 surged ahead to become acting ministers and ministers of state; there were even worries about the existence of a quota for Malay MPs. In the longer run, Mr Maarof argued, such perceptions may discourage Malays from even joining politics.
There might be some justification for such worries. For one, there is usually some anxiety in the community about being under-represented in government, particularly when compared with the smaller Indian community: the speaker, along with a senior minister of state, two senior parliamentary secretaries, one parliamentary secretary and a mayor are Malay, but these are all arguably portfolios with limited clout compared with the Indian community, which occupies the presidency, along with a senior minister and three ministers in the Cabinet.
Furthermore, the prospects of any Malay politician occupying one of the key posts in Cabinet do not appear particularly positive. For example, it seems unlikely that environment minister Yaacob Ibrahim, the community’s sole representative in the Cabinet, will advance much further. At this point it is also hard to imagine the crop of younger Malay politicians (which includes Mr Masagos) doing any better than merely replacing Dr Yaacob at their current rate of advancement – they seem unlikely to bag anther Cabinet post, particularly since the last time the community had two ministers was before ex-environment minister Dr Ahmad Mattar retired in the mid-1990s. It might be similarly difficult to replace the current speaker – which is the next most important position held by the Malays – who is probably due to retire soon.
The obvious disconnect
The ruling party is no doubt aware of the Malay community’s dissatisfaction: fielding a question about why no Malay politicians were promoted in the reshuffle, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong assured the press that the current crop of Malay MPs will be advanced if they “measure up”, but alluded to the party’s recruitment difficulties when he stressed that he was “personally focused” on attracting Malay professional into politics. That is clearly a problem: if the PAP is having difficulty getting Chinese and Indians to join the party, it is finding it even harder to induct Malay recruits. That said, it is a problem faced by the opposition as well: at the last election, the biggest opposition party, the Worker’s Party, fielded mostly candidates with professional backgrounds and tertiary qualifications, something that its Malay candidates conspicuously lacked. But it is the PAP who should be the natural receptacle for Malay political talent, given its record in improving the community’s standards of living, its efforts to accommodate the community’s sensitivities and the overwhelmingly Chinese and Indian character of opposition movements in Singapore.
But that does not appear to be the case. One difficulty with trying to recruit Malay professionals is that the pool is relatively small compared with the other ethnic groups – the 2000 census indicated that only 2% of the community attained tertiary qualifications, compared with 16.5% and 12.6% of the Indians and Chinese respectively. Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that the profile of Malay graduates might tend towards being more liberal and less religious. Those are traits that the conservative PAP leadership could find unacceptable, particularly when, unlike the Chinese or Indians, Malay politicians are often seen as Muslim leaders as well. Dr Yaacob, for example, is also the Minister of Muslim affairs; Mr Zainul had served previously as president of the Islamic Council of Singapore.
Furthermore, the PAP’s target pool of recruits might not be that inclined towards joining the party anyway. For example, Mr Nizam Idris, an economist whom the PAP tried to recruit in 2006, told the press in a recent interview that he had turned the PAP down partly because he “could not live with” the requisite “cheerleading” that was expected of PAP MPs, implying that he did not want to be in a party that demanded strict conformity with the official line. In this regard the party’s innate conservatism might be turning off those with a more liberal bent and who might not share its values, which are likely to be those in the PAP’s target pool of recruits. The situation would also not be helped by perceptions that Malay politicians can’t seem to advance to the top posts in the Cabinet.
More disconcertingly, there might also be perceptions that political engagement seems to be increasingly on the terms of the dominant ethnic group. For instance, Berita Harian’s commentary of 28th March expressed hope that Singapore could develop a team of Malay leaders who were fluent in Mandarin; on the same day it reported Dr Yaacob’s comments that the Malay community had to accept newcomers who neither spoke Malay nor knew the local culture. That might not be something that younger generation of Malay graduates are entirely comfortable with.
It therefore seems likely that the PAP will continue to struggle to renew its class of Malay leaders, though this is helped by the fact that other political parties are probably faring even worse. Still, this is somewhat ironic for a party that first came to power in the 1950s and 1960s with the help of some critical support from the Malay community – one article has highlighted the important role played by the progressive Malay nationalists and trade unionists in the PAP’s rise, particularly during the pre-merger and merger periods1. The PAP may find that it needs such support again to offset disaffection from other quarters should it decide to make good on its hints about calling for snap polls in the current economic gloom.
***
1 Lily Zubaidah Rahim, “Winning and losing Malay support, 1950s and 1960s”, Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-war Singapore (Singapore, NUS Press: 2008), pp. 95-115. Dr Lily Zubaidah was also the author of the “The Singapore Dilemma”, a book on the alleged marginalisation of Malays in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27896.1
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Why the PAP struggles to renew its class of Malay leaders
The issue of race has always been a dicey one in Singapore politics, stemming partly from the heavy historical baggage of race riots and Singapore’s unanticipated separation from Malaysia. The official approach has to try to minimise debate on such sensitive matters while emphasising the government’s successes in its nation-building efforts.
Even so, the prime minister’s Cabinet reshuffle of 26th March has triggered some consternation in the Malay community, which was picked up by the vernacular press and even acknowledged by the prime minister. No Malay politician was promoted in the reshuffle; in fact, one – Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed – made way in the Northeast district for a Chinese mayor, though he retained his position as senior minister of state in the foreign ministry. More significantly, what the reshuffle seemed to have shown was that none of the Malay leaders appeared to be closing in on a key post such as deputy premier or at the helm of defence and foreign ministries.
On the surface though, there were outward shows of support: the Berita Harian, the country’s leading Malay paper, commented on 28th March about the efficient nature of the reshuffle and carried letters of support from the public. Yet that may mask a deeper anxiety: the same commentary expressed belief that the day would come when there would be a Malay deputy prime minister, though it also noted that the US took over 200 years to produce a black president. Perhaps the unspoken point was that the chances of having a Malay prime minister in Singapore were even more remote.
Another commentary in the Berita Harian by Maarof Salleh on 3rd April was more telling. Mr Maarof observed that the reshuffle had raised questions in the community about whether the present Malay leaders in the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) had the requisite quality for national leadership. For example, there was apparently disappointment that senior parliamentary secretary of education Masagos Zulkifli had failed to advance while his counterparts who were similarly elected in 2006 surged ahead to become acting ministers and ministers of state; there were even worries about the existence of a quota for Malay MPs. In the longer run, Mr Maarof argued, such perceptions may discourage Malays from even joining politics.
There might be some justification for such worries. For one, there is usually some anxiety in the community about being under-represented in government, particularly when compared with the smaller Indian community: the speaker, along with a senior minister of state, two senior parliamentary secretaries, one parliamentary secretary and a mayor are Malay, but these are all arguably portfolios with limited clout compared with the Indian community, which occupies the presidency, along with a senior minister and three ministers in the Cabinet.
Furthermore, the prospects of any Malay politician occupying one of the key posts in Cabinet do not appear particularly positive. For example, it seems unlikely that environment minister Yaacob Ibrahim, the community’s sole representative in the Cabinet, will advance much further. At this point it is also hard to imagine the crop of younger Malay politicians (which includes Mr Masagos) doing any better than merely replacing Dr Yaacob at their current rate of advancement – they seem unlikely to bag anther Cabinet post, particularly since the last time the community had two ministers was before ex-environment minister Dr Ahmad Mattar retired in the mid-1990s. It might be similarly difficult to replace the current speaker – which is the next most important position held by the Malays – who is probably due to retire soon.
The obvious disconnect
The ruling party is no doubt aware of the Malay community’s dissatisfaction: fielding a question about why no Malay politicians were promoted in the reshuffle, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong assured the press that the current crop of Malay MPs will be advanced if they “measure up”, but alluded to the party’s recruitment difficulties when he stressed that he was “personally focused” on attracting Malay professional into politics. That is clearly a problem: if the PAP is having difficulty getting Chinese and Indians to join the party, it is finding it even harder to induct Malay recruits. That said, it is a problem faced by the opposition as well: at the last election, the biggest opposition party, the Worker’s Party, fielded mostly candidates with professional backgrounds and tertiary qualifications, something that its Malay candidates conspicuously lacked. But it is the PAP who should be the natural receptacle for Malay political talent, given its record in improving the community’s standards of living, its efforts to accommodate the community’s sensitivities and the overwhelmingly Chinese and Indian character of opposition movements in Singapore.
But that does not appear to be the case. One difficulty with trying to recruit Malay professionals is that the pool is relatively small compared with the other ethnic groups – the 2000 census indicated that only 2% of the community attained tertiary qualifications, compared with 16.5% and 12.6% of the Indians and Chinese respectively. Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that the profile of Malay graduates might tend towards being more liberal and less religious. Those are traits that the conservative PAP leadership could find unacceptable, particularly when, unlike the Chinese or Indians, Malay politicians are often seen as Muslim leaders as well. Dr Yaacob, for example, is also the Minister of Muslim affairs; Mr Zainul had served previously as president of the Islamic Council of Singapore.
Furthermore, the PAP’s target pool of recruits might not be that inclined towards joining the party anyway. For example, Mr Nizam Idris, an economist whom the PAP tried to recruit in 2006, told the press in a recent interview that he had turned the PAP down partly because he “could not live with” the requisite “cheerleading” that was expected of PAP MPs, implying that he did not want to be in a party that demanded strict conformity with the official line. In this regard the party’s innate conservatism might be turning off those with a more liberal bent and who might not share its values, which are likely to be those in the PAP’s target pool of recruits. The situation would also not be helped by perceptions that Malay politicians can’t seem to advance to the top posts in the Cabinet.
More disconcertingly, there might also be perceptions that political engagement seems to be increasingly on the terms of the dominant ethnic group. For instance, Berita Harian’s commentary of 28th March expressed hope that Singapore could develop a team of Malay leaders who were fluent in Mandarin; on the same day it reported Dr Yaacob’s comments that the Malay community had to accept newcomers who neither spoke Malay nor knew the local culture. That might not be something that younger generation of Malay graduates are entirely comfortable with.
It therefore seems likely that the PAP will continue to struggle to renew its class of Malay leaders, though this is helped by the fact that other political parties are probably faring even worse. Still, this is somewhat ironic for a party that first came to power in the 1950s and 1960s with the help of some critical support from the Malay community – one article has highlighted the important role played by the progressive Malay nationalists and trade unionists in the PAP’s rise, particularly during the pre-merger and merger periods1. The PAP may find that it needs such support again to offset disaffection from other quarters should it decide to make good on its hints about calling for snap polls in the current economic gloom.
***
1 Lily Zubaidah Rahim, “Winning and losing Malay support, 1950s and 1960s”, Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-war Singapore (Singapore, NUS Press: 2008), pp. 95-115. Dr Lily Zubaidah was also the author of the “The Singapore Dilemma”, a book on the alleged marginalisation of Malays in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27896.1
“Singapore penalises you if you are too weak or too strong.”
“Singapore penalises you if you are too weak or too strong.”
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Jonathan Koh
“Singapore penalises you if you are too weak or too strong,” said Dr. Roland Cheo, one of the 4 speakers, at the Workers’ Party YouthQuake Forum Series. The topic was on Singapore Education, and it marked the start of the second series of forums organized by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing.
Dr. Cheo, a visiting fellow with the Department of Economics at NUS, was rejected 4 times by the National Institute of Education after he graduated from an US university with a double degree at the tender age of 19. At his 4th rejection, he was told by an insider that “it’s because you did not do your A levels”. Disillusioned, he stopped, applying after that. Speaking to an attentive crowd, he argued that outliers tend to get ignored in our system. While the norm tends to perform very well, the outliers are often left behind by the system.
It is a view that Miss Kuik Shiao Yin, creative director of a collective of social enterprises including the well-known education institution School of Thought, concurred with. She also believes that another problem with the education system is how too many students are afraid of failing - a problem perpetuated by a success-driven society and demanding parents. This has bred a generation of Singaporeans too scared of taking risks. Singaporeans are very exam-smart and have fared well consistently when it comes to international rankings of math and science, but generally, not enough focus is placed on providing a creative education. Teachers are constrained from teaching creatively, in part because they are taxed too heavily already, she said.
A more personal opinion was provided by Mr Bernard Chen, secretary of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing, who has experienced both JC and polytechnic education. He thinks that the academic benchmark of university admissions is placed too high for polytechnic students - with the average GPA (Grade Point Average) of polytechnic students who have gained entry into local universities at 3.5 to 4 (out of 4). Furthermore, the system seems to be biased - for polytechnic students, 20% of their O Level results determine whether they get into a local university, which seems to be “penalising late bloomers”. JC students’ admissions, on the other hand, depend entirely on A levels. Bernard considers himself fortunate that he’s been accepted into a local university as the top 10% in his cohort - but he believes more can be done for the other 90%, a group he said would be caught in the debt cycle - if they do not receive subsidised university education.
This intellectual forum had its fair share of fun and laughter. For example, when Mr Chia Yeow Tong, a Ph.D Candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, shared his research dissertation on history education in Singapore, he mentioned how there used to be a subject called Education For Living (EFL). Miss Sylvia Lim, chairman of Workers’ Party, who was sitting in the audience appeared to be nodding. Mr. Chia later added that EFL is a subject that “most of us don’t know”, which triggered Miss Lim’s witty comment: “What are you implying?” The audience broke into laughter. Later on, in a response to a question an audience member posed, Mr. Chia also argued that citizenship education in Singapore typically does not have enough focus on teaching democratic principles and individual rights, unlike in Canada.
There were other relevant questions brought up by the audience too. One of them pointed out that some students who have been rejected by local law schools have gotten into top law schools overseas, and quizzed whether that particular acceptance letter from top law schools should be used to appeal for local entrance.
Another pointed out that perhaps Singapore lacks the critical mass and resources to cater to outliers. In response to this, Miss Kuik argued that the problem is not so much that, but that Singaporeans need to champion that it is okay if “you are outstanding beyond the pack” and it “is okay to stand out (in a different area). You can be the David Gan of dog grooming and claim that niche. The question is: do you have the guts?”
On the nature of holding such forums, Mr. Bernard Chen said that YouthQuake Forum Series is about “healthy and constructive policy discourse”, and is not politically motivated.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27895.1
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Jonathan Koh
“Singapore penalises you if you are too weak or too strong,” said Dr. Roland Cheo, one of the 4 speakers, at the Workers’ Party YouthQuake Forum Series. The topic was on Singapore Education, and it marked the start of the second series of forums organized by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing.
Dr. Cheo, a visiting fellow with the Department of Economics at NUS, was rejected 4 times by the National Institute of Education after he graduated from an US university with a double degree at the tender age of 19. At his 4th rejection, he was told by an insider that “it’s because you did not do your A levels”. Disillusioned, he stopped, applying after that. Speaking to an attentive crowd, he argued that outliers tend to get ignored in our system. While the norm tends to perform very well, the outliers are often left behind by the system.
It is a view that Miss Kuik Shiao Yin, creative director of a collective of social enterprises including the well-known education institution School of Thought, concurred with. She also believes that another problem with the education system is how too many students are afraid of failing - a problem perpetuated by a success-driven society and demanding parents. This has bred a generation of Singaporeans too scared of taking risks. Singaporeans are very exam-smart and have fared well consistently when it comes to international rankings of math and science, but generally, not enough focus is placed on providing a creative education. Teachers are constrained from teaching creatively, in part because they are taxed too heavily already, she said.
A more personal opinion was provided by Mr Bernard Chen, secretary of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing, who has experienced both JC and polytechnic education. He thinks that the academic benchmark of university admissions is placed too high for polytechnic students - with the average GPA (Grade Point Average) of polytechnic students who have gained entry into local universities at 3.5 to 4 (out of 4). Furthermore, the system seems to be biased - for polytechnic students, 20% of their O Level results determine whether they get into a local university, which seems to be “penalising late bloomers”. JC students’ admissions, on the other hand, depend entirely on A levels. Bernard considers himself fortunate that he’s been accepted into a local university as the top 10% in his cohort - but he believes more can be done for the other 90%, a group he said would be caught in the debt cycle - if they do not receive subsidised university education.
This intellectual forum had its fair share of fun and laughter. For example, when Mr Chia Yeow Tong, a Ph.D Candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, shared his research dissertation on history education in Singapore, he mentioned how there used to be a subject called Education For Living (EFL). Miss Sylvia Lim, chairman of Workers’ Party, who was sitting in the audience appeared to be nodding. Mr. Chia later added that EFL is a subject that “most of us don’t know”, which triggered Miss Lim’s witty comment: “What are you implying?” The audience broke into laughter. Later on, in a response to a question an audience member posed, Mr. Chia also argued that citizenship education in Singapore typically does not have enough focus on teaching democratic principles and individual rights, unlike in Canada.
There were other relevant questions brought up by the audience too. One of them pointed out that some students who have been rejected by local law schools have gotten into top law schools overseas, and quizzed whether that particular acceptance letter from top law schools should be used to appeal for local entrance.
Another pointed out that perhaps Singapore lacks the critical mass and resources to cater to outliers. In response to this, Miss Kuik argued that the problem is not so much that, but that Singaporeans need to champion that it is okay if “you are outstanding beyond the pack” and it “is okay to stand out (in a different area). You can be the David Gan of dog grooming and claim that niche. The question is: do you have the guts?”
On the nature of holding such forums, Mr. Bernard Chen said that YouthQuake Forum Series is about “healthy and constructive policy discourse”, and is not politically motivated.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27895.1
Questions the new AWARE exco must tackle before the EOGM and lessons we can learn
Questions the new AWARE exco must tackle before the EOGM and lessons we can learn
SINGAPORE - The plot surrounding the new AWARE executive committee members’ takeover plans has further unfolded with their mentor, Dr Thio Su Mien coming out of the darkness into the broad daylight. Following their rise to the leadership, events came and went at a dizzy speed. As of now, all eyes will be focused on the 2nd May EOGM, which is a showdown between AWARE’s old guards and the new exco members. That being said, there are certain questions that the new AWARE exco must tackle. The benefits of pondering over such questions is that they allow us to reflect on their implications on our society.
Question 1: If it is the intention of the new AWARE exco to pursue the said agenda (as highlighted by Dr Thio) of presenting the negative side of homosexuality in a revised AWARE sexuality program, how will they achieve this without going against the national educational curriculum objectives of developing attributes such as objectivity, inquisitiveness and integrity in our students? In short, how can the new AWARE exco achieve this agenda of theirs using a pedagogically sound approach without affecting the students’ development as independent enquirers?
Lessons we can learn: In a bid to instill reforms within our education system, our Ministry of Education has taken positive steps to reform the science syllabus at lower secondary level. Thus, in grappling with any biological phenomenon such as sexual preferences for example, the student has to pursue this like any other typical scientist do in making use of core skills involved in scientific research with the correct attributes as mentioned above. The student must be inquisitive, researching on the subject at as many levels as possible, from genes to anatomy and finally at a social level. The student must be objective in assessing whatever findings they have collected. And the student must practise integrity, they cannot be selectively including data which justify their bias and excluding others, which may be relevant and have an impact on their findings. Data manipulation to justify bias should be shut out at all costs. Furthermore, they should be making only conclusions based on the indication of their findings, and not make exaggerated ones beyond the limits of their experiment. An example would be a single observation of a seed’s failure to germinate at a temperature of 18 degrees celcius leading to an exaggerated conclusion that this seed cannot germinate under all temperatures.
Question 2: If there are current AWARE members who are lesbians and/or are supportive of homosexuality, how would their interests by represented?
Question 3: What form of governance does the new AWARE exco prefer?
Lessons we can learn from questions 2 and 3: There are many forms of governance, ranging from theocracy to autocracy and finally democracy. To elaborate further on specific democratic practices, I will only focus on two different aspects of voting - “first past the post” (FPTP) voting system and proportional representation. In the FPTP voting system, it’s a case of winner-takes-all for the majority. The main criticism against the majority winning FPTP system is that the interests of voters, who supported a different proposition from the majority, will never be represented. Proportional representation counters the disadvantages of the FPTP voting system in which the polling outcome is based on the percentage of votes received for each entity. For example, an outcome of an election based on proportional representation practices is that the proportion of seats allocated is based on the proportion of votes received. Thus, if AWARE members are to vote on the issue of homosexuality for instance, much depends on the voting system in place. If it is FPTP, the majority voters win out, but if it is proportional representation, the outcome is completely different. Our Parliamentry Elections system practises FPTP, but it doesn’t mean that civil societies are bound to follow suit.
Question 4: How independent will be AWARE under their stewardship?
Question 5 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Is this AWARE takeover a slippery slope that can encourage other institutions (governmental and non-governmental) to indirectly control civil societies?
Lessons we can learn from questions 4 and 5: It is possible to exploit legal loopholes to launch a takeover of any organization, let alone a civil society. And such can happen if the entity launching the takeover aims to use the civil society to fulfill its own agenda. During such a takeover, the fact that the leadership positions are filled with those who hail from the same organization will inevitably lead to questions regarding the independence of the invaded civil society. Thus, the events at AWARE as a watershed within the civil society scene, albeit a negative one, because it is one on a slippery slope that may lead to more of such attempts to launch “takeover bids”. The good thing about this episode is that it can send out a clear signal to existing civil societies out there to be more savvy with their drafting of constitution to deter such takeover bids. This point has been elaborated on tenuously by my fellow writer, Azfar. For instance, in the case of AWARE, they can be more stringent with their qualifying criterias to vote like the clocking of a certain minimum hours of volunteering experience or membership spanning a minimum period of time.
Question 6 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Are we on a slippery slope that can lead towards the pursuit of religious agendas on a national level, e.g. the potential introduction of creationism within our science curriculum?
Lessons we can learn from question 6: Currently, attempts have been made to influence sexuality education in schools (30 of them to be specific), especially with regards to shifting towards a negative bias against homosexuality. There is no doubt of the religious influence behind the move. Today, we are at the slippery slope with concerted attempts to reform certain aspects of our education in line with the agenda of certain religious groups. What goes tomorrow? Religious-based movements getting their call in reforming our science education curriculum by removing evolution and introducing creationism? The efforts of religious movements in attempting to reform the respective science syllabi according to their agenda has been ongoing in the US. In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science syllabus by removing any references to the evolutionary theory. Could that happen to us too? If that really happens, our science education standards will take a backseat.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27963.1
SINGAPORE - The plot surrounding the new AWARE executive committee members’ takeover plans has further unfolded with their mentor, Dr Thio Su Mien coming out of the darkness into the broad daylight. Following their rise to the leadership, events came and went at a dizzy speed. As of now, all eyes will be focused on the 2nd May EOGM, which is a showdown between AWARE’s old guards and the new exco members. That being said, there are certain questions that the new AWARE exco must tackle. The benefits of pondering over such questions is that they allow us to reflect on their implications on our society.
Question 1: If it is the intention of the new AWARE exco to pursue the said agenda (as highlighted by Dr Thio) of presenting the negative side of homosexuality in a revised AWARE sexuality program, how will they achieve this without going against the national educational curriculum objectives of developing attributes such as objectivity, inquisitiveness and integrity in our students? In short, how can the new AWARE exco achieve this agenda of theirs using a pedagogically sound approach without affecting the students’ development as independent enquirers?
Lessons we can learn: In a bid to instill reforms within our education system, our Ministry of Education has taken positive steps to reform the science syllabus at lower secondary level. Thus, in grappling with any biological phenomenon such as sexual preferences for example, the student has to pursue this like any other typical scientist do in making use of core skills involved in scientific research with the correct attributes as mentioned above. The student must be inquisitive, researching on the subject at as many levels as possible, from genes to anatomy and finally at a social level. The student must be objective in assessing whatever findings they have collected. And the student must practise integrity, they cannot be selectively including data which justify their bias and excluding others, which may be relevant and have an impact on their findings. Data manipulation to justify bias should be shut out at all costs. Furthermore, they should be making only conclusions based on the indication of their findings, and not make exaggerated ones beyond the limits of their experiment. An example would be a single observation of a seed’s failure to germinate at a temperature of 18 degrees celcius leading to an exaggerated conclusion that this seed cannot germinate under all temperatures.
Question 2: If there are current AWARE members who are lesbians and/or are supportive of homosexuality, how would their interests by represented?
Question 3: What form of governance does the new AWARE exco prefer?
Lessons we can learn from questions 2 and 3: There are many forms of governance, ranging from theocracy to autocracy and finally democracy. To elaborate further on specific democratic practices, I will only focus on two different aspects of voting - “first past the post” (FPTP) voting system and proportional representation. In the FPTP voting system, it’s a case of winner-takes-all for the majority. The main criticism against the majority winning FPTP system is that the interests of voters, who supported a different proposition from the majority, will never be represented. Proportional representation counters the disadvantages of the FPTP voting system in which the polling outcome is based on the percentage of votes received for each entity. For example, an outcome of an election based on proportional representation practices is that the proportion of seats allocated is based on the proportion of votes received. Thus, if AWARE members are to vote on the issue of homosexuality for instance, much depends on the voting system in place. If it is FPTP, the majority voters win out, but if it is proportional representation, the outcome is completely different. Our Parliamentry Elections system practises FPTP, but it doesn’t mean that civil societies are bound to follow suit.
Question 4: How independent will be AWARE under their stewardship?
Question 5 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Is this AWARE takeover a slippery slope that can encourage other institutions (governmental and non-governmental) to indirectly control civil societies?
Lessons we can learn from questions 4 and 5: It is possible to exploit legal loopholes to launch a takeover of any organization, let alone a civil society. And such can happen if the entity launching the takeover aims to use the civil society to fulfill its own agenda. During such a takeover, the fact that the leadership positions are filled with those who hail from the same organization will inevitably lead to questions regarding the independence of the invaded civil society. Thus, the events at AWARE as a watershed within the civil society scene, albeit a negative one, because it is one on a slippery slope that may lead to more of such attempts to launch “takeover bids”. The good thing about this episode is that it can send out a clear signal to existing civil societies out there to be more savvy with their drafting of constitution to deter such takeover bids. This point has been elaborated on tenuously by my fellow writer, Azfar. For instance, in the case of AWARE, they can be more stringent with their qualifying criterias to vote like the clocking of a certain minimum hours of volunteering experience or membership spanning a minimum period of time.
Question 6 (not to AWARE exco specifically but it is something we should ask ourselves): Are we on a slippery slope that can lead towards the pursuit of religious agendas on a national level, e.g. the potential introduction of creationism within our science curriculum?
Lessons we can learn from question 6: Currently, attempts have been made to influence sexuality education in schools (30 of them to be specific), especially with regards to shifting towards a negative bias against homosexuality. There is no doubt of the religious influence behind the move. Today, we are at the slippery slope with concerted attempts to reform certain aspects of our education in line with the agenda of certain religious groups. What goes tomorrow? Religious-based movements getting their call in reforming our science education curriculum by removing evolution and introducing creationism? The efforts of religious movements in attempting to reform the respective science syllabi according to their agenda has been ongoing in the US. In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science syllabus by removing any references to the evolutionary theory. Could that happen to us too? If that really happens, our science education standards will take a backseat.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27963.1
Updates on PothePanda case: Police yet to reply to blogger’s complaints
Updates on PothePanda case: Police yet to reply to blogger’s complaints
The PothePanda case has stirred considerable controversy in blogosphere ever since we broke the story. While many believed his allegations that he was arrested and interrogated by the police, some were sceptical and even accused us of concocting the story to boost our readership.
Lawyer Chia Ti Lik is currently handling the case. He has posted a brief update here. Will Mr Chia put his reputation at stake if there is no case at all? For those of you who still doubt the claims of PothePanda, please contact Mr Chia directly at his blog to verify for yourself.
Dear readers,
As some of you should know by now, there was an infamous incident in March 2009,where a blogger & regular forumer Gary Tan Yeong Hong,who writes under the moniker “PoThePanda”, was arrested and subjected to a highly unusual interrogation by the Singapore Police Force(SPF).
Gary Tan released a short statement on his blog on the 13/03/09 which detailed the events of 02/03/09.He then conducted a video interview with Wayang Party which was broadcasted on the 23/03/09.
Subsequently, he was informed by the administrator/moderator of Hardwarezone via email,that the SPF had requested the article to be taken down from the website. SPF stated that the reason was because that Gary Tan was lying.
Now this was very unusual, as Gary had demanded the SPF, the ISD and the PAP government to respond publicly if he was lying.
In a police state like Singapore,why didn’t the SPF,the ISD or the PAP government respond to Gary’s statements publicly if they were untrue?
Since that day,Gary had been waiting for the SPF to contact him to follow-up but they did not. Apparently,they had the time to contact Administrators on Internet portals,stating that Gary is lying but they did not have time to contact Gary himself.
After a discussion with his lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik, a prominent human rights activist in Singapore, Gary decided to file an official complaint with the SPF. He did so on the 16/04/09 at Paya Lebar NPP.
Subsequently,on the 17/04/09,Gary sent in his statements on the events of 02/03/09,10/03/09 and 01/04/09 to the SPF/CID via their website.He requested an official case to be opened, and stated that he wished to pursue the matter.
He then received an auto-generated reply by the SPF.
It has been more than a week (almost 2 months if you count the day since the video interview) and up till today, nobody from the SPF has contacted Gary Tan Yeong Hong.
For the full details of the statements Gary sent in to the SPF, please visit his blog here
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27935.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)