Doing the right thing The Online Citizen has made available in digital format the full version of the Auditor-General’s report of its findings of an audit conducted on 12 ministries and their associated statutory boards. A total of $6.2 million in public monies were found missing, with a large amount still yet to be recovered. $6.2 million dollars is a big sum in absolute terms, but as with the increase in ministerial salary, it is peanuts when considered in the grand scheme of things. The annual budget of the government is around $10 billion, and $6.2 million works out to be around 0.062% of the budget, which really is not that big a sum. The Singapore government has always maintained that paying its civil servants high salaries will enable it to attract more talent, as well as stem corruption. While the amount of public monies found missing is not substantial in relative terms, it is significant because any form of corruption will be seen as a blow to the Singapore government’s image. I remember that on some occasions, Singapore government leaders have trumpeted Singapore’s lack of corruption and attributed it to paying good salaries and having tough laws on corruption. The Auditor-General’s report is certainly an embarrassment, only because the trumpet was blown too loudly. However, I have no intention to nitpick over this matter. I can accept that no system is perfect. However, because anti-corruption is one of the core values of Singapore, I don’t think the matter should be put to rest quietly. The government should be forthright in this matter, ensure that appropriate actions are taken and make a public announcement on the steps taken to remedy the situation. We have to guard our core values religiously, for if we do not, we will just end up making a mockery of ourselves. The current problem really isn’t the missing $6.2 million but rather, the relatively quiet response from the government about it. Besides, this report is on the heels of the public discontentment over increase in ministerial salaries. It is bad timing, although the damage is pretty limited due to the mainstream media’s lack of spotlight on the issue. I am not sure how big of an issue it will become on the blogopshere, but the government does not need to wait until there’s public disquiet to deal with the issue. The Singapore government always like to say that even if a decision is unpopular, if it is the right one, the government will do it. I hope that the right thing will be done. Tomorrow.sg receives legal letter I believe it has to be a first that a local blog aggregating site receives a legal letter. The details of the letter can be found here. How Tomorrow.sg decides to respond will certainly be closely watched by the internet community because the guys at Tomorrow.sg will be setting a precedent. The situation is not unlike the traditional newspaper receiving a lawyer letter. Editors must then decide whether it is worth fighting a lawsuit for the sake of ideals, or just agree to the terms of the person who sent the lawyer letter. The problem with Tomorrow.sg is that it probably has no deep pockets. Granted, most newspapers around the world don’t exactly have deep pockets (probably with the exception of Singapore Press Holdings), but I think Tomorrow.sg seriously doesn’t have the money to fight a lawsuit at all, unless some lawyer is willing to waive legal fees or someone is willing to bankroll the lawsuit. Of course, Tomorrow.sg would have to consider the worst case scenario and whether they would be able to pay the compensation. I do wonder if the lawyers have also sent a letter to the original writer. After all, Tomorrow.sg links and republishes articles written by others and it would not make sense to just go after Tomorrow.sg without going after the original writer. But unfortunately for the law firm, the original entry is hosted on an overseas server, and the WHOIS data of the domain doesn’t list any contact information. There’s an email provided on that blog, but it’s a gmail account which the writer can easily close (or choose to ignore any email that threatens legal action). Perhaps this is why the lawyers decide to go after Tomorrow.sg. The WHOIS data of Tomorrow.sg has an actual contact person and address. Interestingly, the letter requested Tomorrow.sg to disclose the name and address of the writer. I suppose the law firm had run out of ideas on how to get the identity of the writer and resorted to try and get Tomorrow.sg to do the work for them. In anycase, I doubt the people at Tomorrow.sg will know anything at all. If the lawyers had done some homework, they should have known that Tomorrow.sg probably knows as much them and nothing more. Let’s watch how this pans out. In the meantime, I must say that there are quite a few grammatical errors in the letter (and the URL provided in the letter was wrong). Not very impressive, I must say. On Masculism I was just thinking yesterday that in Singapore, women have it somewhat better than men. They have the Women’s Charter, while we men get no Men’s Charter. They have the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) to go to for assistance, while we men have no male equivalent. And perhaps the best thing about being a woman in Singapore is that one doesn’t have to go through conscription. Just a caveat though. I am not an MCP (means Male Chauvinist Pig, a derogatory term for males with do not respect female rights). In fact, I classify myself as a male feminist (more about that in another entry). It’s just that I feel that relative to women, men in Singapore seem to get the short end of the stick in some areas. Therefore, I set out to see if there is the male equivalent of feminism, and boy I was surprised to find that there’s indeed such a thing, and it’s called masculism! According to Wikipedia, Masculism (also referred to as masculinism) is an ideology associated with the men’s movement. It consists of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies primarily based on the experiences of men. Although masculism provides a general critique of social relations, many of its proponents also seek to analyze gender inequality and promote men’s rights, interests, and issues. Masculism is viewed by its proponents as having an egalitarian view of gender issues, even though it focuses on men’s experience. Ok, the last line sounded really MCP. That aside, the idea of masculism is really interesting. While I bet to my last dollar that there are some MCPs masquerading as a masculist as a response to soothe the ego that has been bruised by feminists, nonetheless, with changing gender roles in society, the issue of male rights should be seriously considered. I know that some extreme feminists are going to cry foul at such a suggestion, but I prefer to think that such a move is not mutually exclusive. Fighting for more rights for men does not mean less rights for females. It’s more about a holistic approach where gender roles in modern society are carefully examined and if necessary, certain rights that has historically been accorded to one gender should be accorded to the other as well. For example, the Women’s Charter allows the courts to order maintenance for the wife, but what about the reverse? It’s not unreasonable in today’s context to have women who are out bringing in the bread for the family while the man becomes the homemaker. And of course, there is always some inherent assumption somewhere that women can be raped by men and not vice-versa. I just think that modern society has caused gender roles to change drastically and we should seriously be looking at how best to accord each gender respective rights that would be more egalitarian to both genders. Therefore, the feminist and masculist have much in common. In fact, I don’t see much of a difference since both are working towards a more level playing field. Perhaps the ideas of feminism and masculism should be dropped altogether. It just doesn’t make sense to have two separate labels for two groups that are doing the same things. Of course, in reality, the labels will remain because hawks never know how to stop (think Bush). Public Accounts Commitee findings: a sobering reminder The PAC’s findings presented to the parliament a few days ago reminds us that despite paying top dollar to our civil servants, we are not immune to corruption. Corruption is perhaps too strong a word to use versus the terms presented in the report, such as irregularities, lapses, decifiences, inaccuracy, unfair practices, conflict of interest etc, nonetheless, if left unchecked, a minor issue can easily blow up into a big one. Such findings are especially significant in Singapore, where the government has constantly reiterated it’s abhorrence for corruption and how it has in place many measures to prevent corruption, both in the form of carrots and sticks. High salaries for its civil servants and harsh penalties for transgression are thought to be the panacea for the corruption ill in Singapore. Yet, Singapore is ranked only fifth in the world in terms of being non-corrupt by Transparency International, behind Finland, Iceland, New Zealand and Denmark, where measures to control corruption appears to be less zealous compared to Singapore. While the Singapore system of controlling corruption is laudable in my opinion, there is an Achilles heel in the system. The main watching on corruption in Singapore, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) reports directly to the Prime Minister. If Singapore has a revolving door style of politics where a different party comes into power every few years, this is not a big concern. However, Singapore has had the same ruling party since independence. One cannot help but wonder if the CPIB would be more empowered as an entity with independent powers rather than to report to a representative of a party that has been in power for more than 40 years, and is likely to continue in power for the next 10 - 20 years, barring exceptional circumstances. While I hold the belief that Singapore is generally non-corrupt (which is backed by the accordance of a good rank by Transparency International), nagging doubts still linger. As I have written some time back, I feel that internal checks and balances are insufficient. Human beings, being human beings, are imperfect. It is all too tempting to attempt a cover-up without an external and independent watchdog, since it is much easier to get one eye closed internally. I would be more assured about Singapore’s incorruptibility if there is a truly independent watchdog, which is perhaps hard to achieve since there is no separation of powers in governance in practice. Nonetheless, the findings of the PAC is certainly a good thing. While some may say that their findings have dented Singapore’s reputation, I take a different perspective. I think that this report shows that Singapore is not too perfect. It would be fishy if year after year, Singapore presents a zero-corruption score card. What are the odds of that happening? It would imply some form of cover-up. However, what we have caught appears to be the small fish. I wonder if the bigger fishes are getting away. On whiners and those who whine about whiners According to dictionary.com, the term whine is defined as “to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way“. It would seem that Singaporeans in general like to whine. Just hop on a taxi and chat with the taxi uncle. Chances are, he will regale you with a ton of complaints/whines about the “gahmen”. Sit at coffeeshops for a day and you are sure to hear some negative remarks about the “cheng hu”. Read Singaporean blogs and you are almost definitely going to read plenty of writings slamming the government. For some Singaporeans, such “whines” are viewed with disdain. They think that their fellow Singaporens have a “crutch” mentality, and that these people are better off looking into a mirror to see what is wrong with them instead of blaming the government all the time. There is this typical arrogant attitude with such people, who I think typically are well-educated and well-to-do people. The fundamental assumption of such people is that people who “whine” are lazy, unmotivated and just wants the government to babysit them. This brings into mind the case of the boy who died serving NS because the doctors at the hospital who were attending to him (mind you, they are very senior doctors) accused the boy of malingering (which means pretending to be sick) in order to escape his NS duties. Eventually, the boy died of acute baterial infection, which is something that is likely to have been easily treatable in the early stage with proper administration of antibiotics. I remember reading an article in Time magazine in which a US colonel was quoted to have said, “Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups”. My point here is that we should not put a blanket label of “whiner” when people complain. Sure, there are some people who like to complain for the sake of complaining. However, does this mean that we thus assume that everyone who complains is like that? When we do that, we conveniently cast aside those who might genuinely be calling for help. In some cases, the assumption that someone is whining won’t kill him. In other cases, such as the case of the NS boy, it killed him. And, as some people like to say, to assume is to make an ASS out of U and ME. Besides, for those who like to casually dismiss the complaints of others as “whining”, the act itself speaks volumes about the character of the person. To not want to empathise and start accusing others of whining smacks of arrogance. By empathising, it does not mean that a “crutch” mentality will be engendered as a result. That happens when one sympathise, not empathise. To empathise is to understand the situation and work out a feasible solution with them for them to undertake while to sympathise is to solve the problem for them, which is the thing that causes the so-called “crutch” mentality. The inability to differentiate between empathy and sympathy is perhaps the greatest problem with whiners about other whiners. I bet those whiners about other whiners are going to read this and start saying that I’m a whiner. Their actions are just so predictable. It doesn’t affect me though. I just find it amusing that these people go around so readily pointing their fingers at others and conveniently forget that they too are guilty of the same sin. In anycase, what’s so bad about whining? People need to let off steam sometimes. I think I pretty much let off quite abit of steam with this entry. UNSW follows the footsteps of Warwick I was quite taken aback to read that UNSW has decided to close their Asian (i.e. Singapore Campus). The full announcement is on the UNSW Asia webpage, which can be accessed here. The reason cited by UNSW was that enrollment numbers were insufficient to meet their expectation. This might be a valid reason, but I do wonder if there are other reasons, such as interference with academic freedom (which was given by Warwick when it decided against having a campus in Singapore). Whatever the case is, it is quite surprising to me that UNSW has decided to take such a step after so much fanfare when the agreement was inked a few years back. I really wonder what happened. And, UNSW’s move certainly made a huge dent in the government’s grand masterplan to make Singapore an education hub. To have two universities of good reputation reject Singapore is probably going to cause future problems in attracting other world class universities to set up shop in Singapore. I guess for now, students will have to make do with the joint programmes that local universities have with other top foreign universities. I still can’t believe that UNSW decided to close down the Singapore branch. How safe are our online services? Estonia’s government has been paralyzed by war (read this and this). It’s not the conventional war with tanks, missiles and guns but rather, the government was “brought down” by a cyberwar. It appears that the cyberwar resulted from a conflict with its former Soviet superior, Russia, as the origins of many of the assaults were traced to Russian computers (including state-owned computers). With many government services computerised and made available online, Estonia put itself at risk of being paralysed by cyber-assaults, which of course happened. Reading this piece of news, I wonder if Singapore is similarly at risk. Our government has always been quick to embrace the latest forms of information technology, believing in the potential of IT to help further develop and grow Singapore. While IT indeed has made our lives much more convenient, the Estonian experience has shown that it can make us more vulnerable as well. Estonia prides itself for being a “paper-less” government, relying on technology to deliver most, if not all government services. Singapore is clearly in the same direction and league as Estonia. What happened to Estonia in the past few weeks can possibly happen to Singapore as well. The scary part of the Estonian experience is how easily the attacks can be achieved. It appears that some of the hackers gained control of many “zombie” computers and simply used them to flood the Estonian government servers with requests, overloading the Estonian government servers, causing the system to collapse under the sheer volume. By gaining control of the computers of other people to do the job, it becomes much harder to track down the perpetrators. And, goodness know how many computers can the perpetrators gain control of? Defending such attacks is going to be tough. I seriously do wonder what are our defense strategies against these forms of cyber-warfare. If our government services, financial institution services and other services essential to day-to-day running of the country go down, it will not only cause massive inconvenience, but it can very well cause corporations and investors to lose their confidence in Singapore. I wonder if our multi-million dollar ministers have already put up the required defenses. For this is where I know it’s home? Edmund Ng’s blog entry on Lawrence Leow, a NSF who suffered permanent disability during the course of serving his duty to the nation has drawn quite a few responses on blogosphere. Many commenters feel that the compensation that Lawerence is receiving ($500 allowance and a CSC card) is inadequate. I only found one dissenting view which the author eventually shut down, which I presume is because he couldn’t take the heat of people dissing him for his views. In monetary terms, it is quite a hefty sum of money that the state is spending on Lawerence. He gets free medical services at government hospitals and polyclinics, and depending on how long Lawrence lives, the total amount paid out to him in allowance can be a significant sum. The state is spending a fair bit of money on Lawrence, and according to the dissenting view I found, Lawrence has no cause for complaint. To deny more assistance to Lawrence on the basis that the state is already spending a relative big sum of money on him is morally reprehensible to me. This bright young man took up arms to serve his duty to his country as required by law. Now that he is almost completely paralysed as a result of serving his dues to the country, the country should pay its dues to Lawrence. To be fair, the state is compensating Lawrence. However, the question is, is the state compensating Lawrence reasonably? Looking at his condition, it is clear that he is no longer capable of looking after himself. It is obvious that he needs at least one person to take care of him for his remaining lifespan. Maybe his parents can do the job now, but what happens when they age and pass on? Do we realistically expect Lawrence to be able to take care of himself on $500 a month? It is enough for basic subsistence, but his condition does not permit him to even carry out the basic activities of subsistence (such as buying food for himself unassisted). How then do we expect him to even be able to spend the $500 to sustain himself without a caregiver? I don’t think the state should be counting the pennies in compensating a person who suffered physically in the line of duty. It’s not about the money. It’s about being responsible. Lawrence clearly needs a caregiver, and $500 per month is simply insufficient. If one so wish to argue that $500 per month over say 40 years is a huge sum of money, let me put things in perspective. Had Lawrence been well, he would have likely gone to university. If we compensate Lawrence based on the loss of his potential income, how much would that be? And, how much should the state compensate him for the mental anguish that he suffered? How much should the state’s compensation for the anguish that his parents suffered be? What is the monetary value of the loss in quality of life for his remaining lifespan (such as being a husband and a father)? Whatever happened to Lawrence has happened. We cannot turn back the clock. What can be done is to make sure that he receives a reasonable quality of life. In Lawrence’s case, I think the state should give him a caregiver’s allowance in addition to the $500 for basic subsistence. It is only right to do so. Had Lawrence not survived the ordeal, I am less inclined to argue against a $500 monthly allowance for his family. However, as it stands now, Lawrence is unable to care for himself for the rest of his life and it is only right that the state provides a caregiver allowance for the rest of his life in addition to the allowance for subsistence. If Singapore cannot even reasonably take care of its people who have suffered in the name of duty, this is not a place where I would like to call home. This is why I chose to title this entry with the last sentence of the chorus of Kit Chan’s National Day song, “Home”. As the song now replays in my head, I wonder if Singapore is indeed the beautiful home that the song sings of. Discrimination requires no good reason Heavenly-Sword wrote recently about the issue of “over-qualification” of graduates, resulting in companies being less than willing to hire certain graduates who are deemed to be holding qualifications that are too high for the job that is being advertised. He thinks that it is a very stupid idea, which I somewhat agree with. Maybe there are some employers that are really that stupid to have such reasoning, but I think that real reason in using the term “over-qualification” is just plain discrimination. Employers just don’t want to have to pay more money (or face the potential of having to pay more money) to get the same job done. Job discrimination against those with post-graduate degrees is similar to job discrimination against older workers. Employers just want to pay the lowest dollar. One can advertise to death how much knowledge one has (in the case of over-qualification) or how much experience one has (in the case of age discrimination), but if the company does perceive the marginal utility of such people to be less than that of someone with lower qualification or younger age, it’s just too bad. Money aside, to justify the discrimination, some employers like to hold certain assumptions that might or might not be true. Employers assume that they have to pay a premium for someone with a post-graduate degree over someone with just a bachelors, or they assume that those with post-graduate degrees are more likely to “jump ship” if a better opportunity arises. Such warped thinking is seriously laughable. Whether the company has to pay a premium or not is not dependent on whether the would-be employee wants a premium. If the company is not agreeable to paying a premium, and the would-be employee is not agreeable to accepting a lower pay, the company is not obliged to hire. And, ANYONE would jump ship if a better opportunity arises, be it a diploma holder, a bachelor’s degree holder or a post-graduate degree holder. Indeed, as Heavenly-Sword points out, it is a huge irony that the government is trying to encourage Singaporeans to pursue postgraduate studies but yet firms are unwilling to hire due to the perpetuation of certain stereotypes based on groundless assumptions. There are many ways to combat the perceived negativities associated with people who hold higher degrees. It is a matter of whether firms want to do it. With regards to paying a premium in salary, firms can simply arrange with the post-graduate degree holder that the initial salary will be the same as that of a fresh-graduate, but the advancement prospects would be more rapid if they prove that their post-graduate degree indeed adds significant productivity. With regards to the “jumping ship” issue, it is up to the company how to engender a sense of employee loyalty across the board. I do not believe that post-graduate degree holders are any more likely than other people to change jobs. If employees so choose to discriminate, they can have a hundred excuses to do so. Whoever said discrimination requires a good reason? What it requires is an excuse to somewhat justify the act. For practical purposes, a smart person will play the game in order to be assured of a livelihood. Post-graduate studies will end up being the enclave of those who are interested in academia. Human capital will not improve because people don’t see a need to do so. The monkey-see monkey-do scenario among employers could very well lead to the downfall of Singapore, where high quality human capital has been instrumental in ensuring economic prosperity. Busy I’m in the midst of checking out all that needs to be done for solemnisation, so I might not be able to update for a couple of days. In the meantime, keeping up with the love is in the air atmosphere of the blog, I’m posting the Youtube video that darkness of The Brotherhood left in a comment to my previous post. Making good on a promise 4 years ago, I promised to marry the woman of my life, and I made good on that promise on Tuesday by proposing to her at Istana Park. Here are some pictures: Waiting at Istana Park Omigosh, this cannot be happening! Yes! The original plan was to 1) steal her colleagues’ phone number and then 2) ask her colleagues to suggest an outing to a place where I’ll be waiting to spring the proposal surprise. I managed to execute part 1 according to plan, but part 2 was changed because I found out that they already were going out on Tuesday. I wanted to propose somewhere around mid-May, but she would probably suspect something amiss if her colleagues were to suggest another outing so quickly, so I decided to make use of this opportunity. Since they had arranged to meet in Orchard, I went for a recce of Orchard Road on Sunday, walking the entire stretch from Wheelock to Plaza Singapure before deciding on Istana Park. Istana Park is relatively quiet, and there’s a nice long stretch of trees and flowers along the foothpath. I thought that it would be nice for her to walk in amidst flowers and trees. So, on Sunday night, I messaged her colleague and changed the meeting venue to Dhoby Ghaut. My fiancee actually wanted me to join this outing but I bluffed her that I had another meeting elsewhere, and she gullibly believed. So the stage was set. I went to order a bouquet of tulips (she loves them) on Monday and collected them on Tuesday evening. Thankfully it didn’t rain, although I prepared an umbrella just in case I had to stand waiting in the rain. It was quite hilarious when her colleagues brought her to Istana Park. She saw me from a distance (say about 80m away) but couldn’t make out who it was standing there, nicely dressed and holding a bouquet of flowers. She actually tried to make a detour, which I later understood from her that it’s because she thought that it was someone else’s proposal and the bunch of them should just make a detour. Her colleagues, with their wonderful acting skills convinced her that it’s alright to continue walking down the footpath and when she came closer, she realised that it was me and was completely stunned. Honestly, I have never seen her so surprised before. Then again, I should expect her to be so completely taken aback. After all, I told her I was at another meeting, and logically speaking, there should be no way her colleagues were in cahoots with me because I don’t know them well (I only met most of them once, for a short while) and I don’t have their contacts. Well, to cut the story short, I proposed to her, and despite her dazed state, she said yes (maybe because she was too dazed to say no ). I was wondering if she might make things difficult for me by saying something like “Let me think about it and give you an answer tomorrow” but thankfully, I wasn’t made to stay in Istana Park for a day to get the answer. Now, we’re going to begin the journey of preparing for solemnisation, customaries, housing and everything else that’s necessary for marriage. Special thanks to her colleagues Irene, Wendy, Chailian and Weixing for their assistance, especially Irene whose ingenuity ensured that my fiancee was kept completely in the dark until the actual moment. Also special thanks to Steven who so willingly came down to take a video of the special moment. I am really thankful that there are so many people who so kindly offered their help to make this once-a-lifetime event so memorable for me and my fiancee. Singapore’s class divide When talking about Karl Marx, most people have the idea that he is the ‘founder’ of communism, and since communism has so often been demonised, it is perhaps not surprising that some people have a rather mistaken view of Marx. It is true that Marx is a proponent of the idea of communism, but the communist ideological developments that succeeded Marx were rather different from what Marx envisioned, particularly the development of communism in China. Communism aside, what is more important about Marx is what underlies the concept of communism, i.e. the issue of class divide. According to Marx, human history is nothing but that of class struggles. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx famously wrote: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. In medivial days, it was a struggle between the master and the slave. Then it became a struggle of the lord against the serf. Then, we have the bourgeoisie against the proletariat (aristocrat versus worker). According to Marx, if we examine every period in history, we are bound to see the same dialectic occur over and over again. The form may be different, but the substance is the same: a struggle between those who own the means of production and those who don’t. It seems to me that no matter what kinds of social and political systems human beings come up with, we never manage to escape from the clutches of class struggle. The practice of capitalism makes class inevitable. Even in Singapore, despite the practice of what is called meritocracy, the issue of class struggle is still present. It’s just in a different form. In Singapore’s case, it’s the meritocratic elite versus the meritocratic non-elite. It is true that in Singapore, one is unlikely to be denied basic life opportunities. Quality education is available for everyone, and there are many jobs to go around, especially in the recent years where the economy is doing well. However, if we examine the Singaporean society a little more carefully, the picture isn’t as rosy as it seems. We have on one end rich government officials and business owners, and on the other end, we have everyone else who are dependent on the government officials and business owners for their livelihood. Do not be mistaken. I am not saying that it is a bad thing to have rich government officials or business owners. If they earned their riches honestly, it’s their due reward. What I’m trying to say is that at the end of the day, we see what Marx observed operating again. There’s a small group of people controlling most of the means of production. For those who claim that Singapore has a capitalist head and a socialist heart, they might want to seriously rethink their claim. Singapore is not in the least socialist. The class divide is clearly present. The question now really is whether the class divide will lead to class conflict. Marx thinks so, and he believes that the “oppressed” will rise up in a revolution. Certainly, revolutions have occurred in Russia, China and some other countries. Will Singapore see a revolution? I suppose it all depends on how much longer the ruling party can maintain what Friedrich Engels called “false consciousness”. As long as Singaporeans are willing to continue buying into the ideology that has been perpetuated, all will be well. If not, the predictions of Marx might very well come true once again. A state of disarray? Elia Diodati has written an interesting perspective on the state of Singapore blogosphere, and he surmises that it is declining. He provided a fair number of evidence to prove his point, and it appears to be a pretty compelling argument. Writing is a tough job (a point constantly emphasized by my journalism professor), and only those who have tried their hands at writing regularly will know how hard writing is. To consistently be able to produce “good” blog entries is a huge challenge. It’s small wonder that some will eventually feel fatigued and end up dropping out. Writer’s fatigue is something that is very real. For other bloggers, they cease blogging because they started with unrealistic expectations. Blogging does not change politics or social issues overnight. After ranting and raving for a while and seeing that nothing happens with this new “tool”, it is understandable that one would feel disillusioned. As the saying goes, the higher up one goes, the harder one falls. So, some bloggers cease blogging as a result. Does this mean a state of disarray in Singapore blogosphere? To answer this question, in the very first place, what constitutes “normal” state of blogosphere? Could this “decline” or “disarray” very well be the “normal” state of things? In fact, I am inclined to think that attrition is normal. I am also inclined to think that the lack of updates, or the so-called “self-degeneration” of blogs are normal too. Not everyone wants to say something all the time, and not everyone has something good to say all the time. Bloggers are not paid professionals. They have other things to do as well. It could be that the blogger has hit a rough patch and decided to take a break. Pseudonymity is a good example. Who knows, people like Kitana, Gayle and Zyberzitizen might make a return some day? And, I agree with Mr Wang that bloggers (the content providers) are only one part of the equation. The other part, which is easily overlooked, are the readers. The state of blogosphere cannot be truly assessed without factoring in readers. Even if there are many active bloggers, if no one reads them, what’s the point of them playing to an empty hall? Indeed, as Mr Wang has accurately observed, the whole issue of civil service pay revision (as well as the GST increase + Budget 2007) has resulted in a large increase in web traffic for many bloggers. No one can truly estimate the number of people who read blogs, but I would estimate that more and more people are reading blogs. That in itself is a crowning achievement, for Singaporeans are actively searching for alternative ideas and opinions other than really on the pro-government SPH. And, I believe the existence of blogs have forced some editors in the ST well-known to be pro-government (such as the Chua sisters) to subtly play Devil’s Advocate once in a while. While there has been some movements in blogopshere in the recent couple of months, I don’t think that blogosphere is declining. To assume that it’s declining might be too early a conclusion. In anycase, why is there a need to observe or conclude whether it is declining or not? Let’s take things as they come. In the meantime, just enjoy the going while it’s still good. Do we “lack” resources? We have been told from time to time that Singapore is a small rock with no natural resources of its own. Therefore, we have to invest heavily in our human capital because humans are the only resources that Singapore have. The supposed “lack” of natural resource also provides reasons for the ruling PAP to justify it’s hegemony, such as political and social stability, economic prosperity etc. I have always taken it for granted that our lack of natural resources is a given and never really thought critically about it. I was just lying in bed this morning and somehow the question popped into my head on whether is Singapore really lacking in natural resources? Perhaps we really are lacking natural resources in the conventional sense, i.e. oil, rubber, iron ore etc. In the past, perhaps the lack of such resources is a hindrance to economic prosperity. However, does the lack of such resources pose economic problems for Singapore today? Maybe it is still a problem, but it’s not that much of a problem because Singapore is shifting into services and knowledge industries. The conventional resources that our leaders like to remind us that we lack are of relatively little importance in current and future Singapore economy. While we may not have resources that we can extract from the ground, we have, or at least are developing resources that others can’t extract from the ground, and it is not easy for other countries to develop such resources quickly. Therefore, the whole argument about Singapore having little natural resources and therefore we need a certain government to ensure economic prosperity is really just scaremongering, especially in today’s context. We may lack certain types of resources, but we are not really lacking in all types of resources. There is no country that is completely self-sufficient anyway (and from the economic standpoint, it’s not wise to be self-sufficient because of comparative advantage). I’m not going to buy the argument that Singapore is “poor” in terms of resources and only a certain party is our salvation. Of course, we are not invulnerable but we are not that vulnerable either. Singaporeans perhaps should think about whether the rhetoric regarding our lack of “resources” is indeed as big a problem in today’s context as the government likes to make it out to be, and not just accept the rhetoric blindly. Foray into the world of Linux Since I had an old laptop lying around, I decided to give it a new lease of life by installing Linux on it. The original XP has become unbearably slow, and I’m trying to test if I can live without Microsoft so I thought it would be a nice idea to try out Linux, the much touted free alternative OS to Microsoft. I did some homework and settled for Simply Mepis 6.5, one of the various available Linux distros (think of distros as different brands of the same kind of product). Downloaded the iso image file and burned it onto a CD before popping it into my laptop that was previously cleaned up with Darik’s Boot and Nuke (DBAN). DBAN is a great piece of software that’s free for personal use. It overwrites your harddisk with a string of zeros (all electronic information is stored in binary format, i.e. in combinations of zeros and ones), thus effectively destroying all information on the harddisk, especially if you let it run a few passes. Even data recovery professionals would be unable to recover the data. A nifty and must have tool if you want to donate/sell away an old computer. You don’t want the next owner to do data recovery and steal your passwords. I used DBAN not because I need to destroy data, but I just wanted to get rid of all the data inside. Conventional formatting doesn’t clear out the old contents completely. With a nicely refreshed harddisk, I popped in the disc and it ran automatically. I clicked on install and after filling out some information, the installation detected and set up everything smoothly. Installation was a complete breeze. The Mepis KDE desktop looked neat. It wasn’t hard for a native Windows user like me to use it. All the apps were working fine, except for the darn wireless. Spent a couple of hours looking for a solution online, but to no avail. For some strange reason, the wireless card DID manage to work a couple of times (out of the 40-50 times I tried to connect), so I don’t think the hardware is faulty. I decided to install another Linux distro, Ubuntu, to see if I have the same problem. So I downloaded Ubuntu 6.0.6 (also called Dapper Drake) and installed it. I couldn’t connect at all with Ubuntu. I don’t suppose 2 popular distros are so lousy, so I guess it’s either the wireless card or the router (I’m more inclined to think it’s the former). I read alot of discussions on Linux forums about Cisco 350 series wireless cards being a pain in the neck, and different things work for different people, thus making things worse for a Linux newbie like me. Anyhow, I’m at my wits end now. I like the two distros that I tried, but I can’t use Linux if I can’t solve the wireless issue. The simplest way to prove that it’s the wireless card at fault would be to try another PCMCIA card, but I don’t think I want to shell out the money for another card that I am not sure will work. All said, it’s a pretty good experience playing with Linux, save for this irritating problem. If there are any Linux experts out there who might have an idea about how to handle this issue, please contact me. I would love to tell money sucking Microsoft to kiss my laptop’s ass goodbye, provided I can get the wireless to work. Thoughts on joining an alumni association Now that I’m done with 4 years of university, one thing I’m toying with is joining an alumni association. The most obvious choice for most NUS graduates would be NUS Society (NUSS), since it’s the biggest one with more than 12,000 members. However, the question of need arises. Is there any necessity to joining an alumni association? The single most useful benefit I can think of is networking at events. It might be useful to get to know fellow alumni working in different fields in case you might need their assistance some day. Of course, if one is interested to network, there are many other ways to do so than to join an alumni group. Further, it might be more useful for people to network within certain limited fields that they are likely to encounter in their work. An alumni association, being broad-based, would hardly be ideal for such networking purposes. The next most useful benefit would be membership privileges. NUSS has 3 guild houses, including one in Suntec City. That’s quite an attractive benefit. The guild houses offer pretty nice services, such as gym, swimming pool, tennis courts etc. There’s also the DBS platinum credit card for members, which I think is a very good deal. I would also think that standard club privileges such as cheaper booking rates of facilities and lower prices for courses/workshops also apply. The cost of joining is a one-time $2,000 fee (if you join within first 3 years of graduation), or $3,000 (set to rise eventually to $5,000 in 2009). The monthly subscription fee is now $47.25 a month. The question now for a soon-to-be graduate is whether it is worth taking up a membership, considering both the pros and cons. The benefits are attractive, but what is NOT attractive is the $2,000 one-time fee. It’s almost a month’s salary for most fresh graduates. NUSS makes things easier by offering a 20 month interest-free installment scheme, but $2,000 is hardly spare change for a fresh graduate with study loans to pay, a wife to marry and a house to buy. And, miss the first 3 years, you’ll end up paying $5,000 (that’s the rate in 2009), which is a larger financial disincentive considering that by then, there’s a housing loan and car loan to pay for, and maybe milk powder and diapers too. I guess that the implementation of a one-time fee is to give a sense of exclusivity, but it’s a barrier, especially for fresh graduates. I am not surprised if the take up rate among fresh graduates is very low. The monthly subscription fee is still reasonable, but the one-time entrance fee is not, even with an installment plan. One feasible work-around would be to waive the fee if the graduate remains a member for X years. To me, it doesn’t make sense for an organization to lose potential members because of a high entry barrier. It makes more sense to lower the barrier to entry, get the members in first, and make them want to keep the membership. If the association doesn’t grab the graduate before they step into the working world, it’s going to be hard to get them later. Even if the graduate earns big bucks in future, I’m sure they would go for more prestigious country club memberships (at least I would). All said, I’m undecided for now. The perks are good, but I can do without them. Besides, the NUSS brand doesn’t appear trendy to young graduates, and joining alumni associations is not a fad at all these days. I bet there are many current undergraduates who have not heard of NUSS, which doesn’t really help things either. They should really do something about the way they market themselves. Whatever method they are using now, it isn’t working. I only know of NUSS because I once held student office and had to work with them. The ordinary student would probably not even know of NUSS’s existence (or maybe just vaguely heard about it), much less bother about the perks and what-nots. If I’m not convinced to join now, it’s probably harder to convince me in future. Funny Dick Lee performance Dick Lee pokes fun at Singapore, and in particular, the Lee family. The Malaysian brain drain I read this interesting entry from (presumably) a Malaysian who condemned the Malaysian education system. The blogger was talking about how Malaysia provides free primary and secondary education, only to have its top students then come over to Singapore universities for 4 years and then work in Singapore for the next 30 years. According to the blogger, for every 18 students with 8As and above, 6 come to Singapore for higher education. I am not surprised that many bright Malaysian students are choosing to come to Singapore (especially Malaysian Chinese). Firstly, they are being systematically denied of life opportunities in their home country through the bumiputra system. Due to quotas being placed according to race, the Chinese would need 13 As to enter the top Malaysian universities, while a Malay could get in with Bs and Cs. I’m not making this up; I heard it from a Malaysian friend. I asked a friend who just graduated from Universiti Sains Malaysia, one of the top universities in Malaysia how much would she be getting when she finds a job. She told me RM1,800, and I nearly fell off the chair. That’s about S$800. And, according another Malaysian friend of mine, RM1,800 is considered one of the best salaries for a graduate. The starting salary in Singapore for a graduate is around $2,200 to $2,400 on average, and this is a whopping 3 times more than what a graduate in Malaysia earns. If I were a top student in Malaysia, of course I’ll choose to come to Singapore and work here for my entire working life. With proper savings and investment, most Malaysians who are graduates can go retire back to Malaysia with at least 1-2 million ringgit. It’s a no brainer whether Singapore or Malaysia offers a much better life opportunity. Besides, Singapore is very much culturally similar with Malaysia. It’s not hard for Malaysians to assimilate into Singapore society. There is a discernible difference in terms of the accent, but the differences are very slight. Compared to other foreigners, Malaysians would be most able to integrate into Singapore society without much problems. And, compared to other foreigners, they are less likely to be viewed as “competitors” for jobs. It’s weird, but I see most of the anger towards foreign talent being directed at nationalities other than those from the region. The brain drain is a big problem for Malaysia. If they don’t do something about it, Malaysia will continue to lag behind Singapore in terms of development because its talents are coming into Singapore and contributing to Singapore’s development instead! However, I bet that this brain drain will continue because no Malaysian politician will dare to do away with the bumiputra policy. The Malays in Malaysian have been spoiled by the policy and will never agree to the revoking of the policy. It’s a Catch-22 situation. So, Singapore will prosper at the expense of it’s larger neighbour for many years to come. Public anger influenced court decision? I read with interest in today’s Straits Times the suspension of the driving licence of Regan Lee, the man who caused the death of a Mazda sales executive on a test drive two years ago, and in the process, causing heavy injuries to the passengers of the BMW that the Madza sports car collided into. Lawyers interviewed in the report said that it is an unusual move for the court to suspend the license of an accused before the start of the trial. If it is indeed an unusual move, then there must be some compelling reason behind the suspension. I suspect that it’s probably the publicity and the ensuing public anger over the actions of Regan Lee. The court of public opinion was clear in its verdict on Regan Lee. Few people (myself included) believe that he wasn’t engaging in dangerous driving. How can any car that’s driving safely and within speed limits overturn? As a driver, I know that odds are very unlikely unless one has been speeding or engaging in reckless driving. The public anger, which started on an online forum and made it into the mainstream media subsequently, was undeniable. The court is probably not going to admit that its decision was influenced by public sentiments, but I think the move pretty much speaks for itself. In Singapore where many decisions are made ignoring public opinion (or rather, asking the public for feedback on decided matters instead of engaging the public in the formation of decisions), it is refreshing to see that public opinion still has some influence. Of course, the cynical side of me wonders if the same thing would have happened if it was a politician or some politician’s son. I cynicism is part and parcel of being Singaporean. Ba Chor Mee podcast part 2 Go and download it to listen. Find out why the ba chor mee uncle raises his ba chor mee from $3 to $6 and listen to him justifying to his customers why he had to increase e.g. never increase since 1994, want good ba chor mee must pay more, and that the uncle could have sold chicken rice in another neighbourhood but sacrifice to sell ba chor mee instead. A hilarious parody of the whole furore over the ministerial pay hike issue. If you think the original Ba Chor Mee podcast was good, this one is even better. DO NOT MISS IT. I vote for it to be the best podcast of the year. Go download it from here. Thanks to Bernard for alerting me to this podcast and giving me a good time laughing. You might want to refrain from listening at 3am in the morning in case you wake up neighbours with your laughter. Singapore is bigger than the PAP I wrote an entry with the same title on my Chinese blog following MM Lee’s speech at St James Power Station yesterday. I’m not going to do an exact translation here because it’s not exactly possible to capture the same essence in another language, but I’ll just list down the main points. 1. Does it mean that without the PAP, it will be doomsday for Singapore? 2. We have a far more educated society now. The number of people who are capable of holding public office are much greater compared to the past. Why do we have to worry that there are no people capable of taking over the PAP? 3. Even if Singapore lurches into a real crisis without the PAP, it is not necessarily a bad thing. I would like to see how many million dollar ministers would stay and stake their fortunes with Singapore. 4. In times of crisis, people will stand out to serve the country, whether there is PAP or not. The PAP would do well to be more humble and not think that it is indispensable. In anycase, regarding my last point (which I didn’t write in my Chinese blog), I thought humility is an “Asian value”? Time to move up the ladder I am currently reading “Strategic Pragmatism: The culture of Singapore’s Economic Development Board” by Edgar H. Schien, a prominent American academic. I’m not quite done yet, but I read something of interest, which were two quotes by MM Lee: “one cannot deal with the communists by arguing ideology with them” “the best way to fight communism was by providing people with jobs and housing” I found these quotes interesting because it seems that we are still stuck in the 1960s mode of thinking today, i.e. the best way to deal with political problems is by providing people with jobs and housing. Fundamentally, this principle is not flawed. Of course people need to eat, have a roof over their head and be able to enjoy a life that satisfy their material wishes. However, a cursory glance at a couple of need theories will reveal to us that things such as food, clothing, shelter and jobs are the lowest level kinds of needs. One of the most famous needs theories would be Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, which can be summed up by the image below (taken from Wikipedia): Another needs theory would be the ERG theory proposed by Clayton Alderfer. Maslow had a 6 level categorization of needs, but Alderfer collapsed human needs into 3 categories, namely existence, relatedness and growth (hence the name ERG), with existence being the lowest level of need and growth the highest level. What these needs theories tell us is that there exists somewhat a series of needs on a continuum. Once we have fulfilled a certain level of need, we will yearn for a higher order need. Being stuck at a lower level will result in people feeling inadequate or unhappy. I think this is what is happening to the Singapore population right now. Our GDP per capita shows that we are among the first world countries, and therefore, the existence needs of most Singaporeans are met. Based on MM Lee’s philosophy, Singaporeans should theoretically be satisfied politically. Yet, Singaporeans do not appear to be satisfied. The recent events over GST increase, ministerial salary revisions and perennial issues such as the GRC system and tying of HDB upgrading to election results are some indicators of the dissatisfaction of Singaporeans. It might be a perplexing scenario to those who hold dear to the belief that people with a full stomach and a roof over their head are happy people. However, I think that Singaporeans in general are now clamouring to seek out higher order needs, such as to be able to effect change in public policy. In the quest to satisfy higher-order needs, Singaporeans find themselves hitting a brick wall, thus being unhappy. There is a sense of lack of self-efficacy (the belief that one is capable of attaining certain goals). Some people would point institutional barriers, while others opine that Singaporeans have had too good life and are now weak in the knees from years of good life. I don’t think that such chronic unhappiness is a good thing. A wound if left to fester can turn gangrenous, which might result in an amputation and thus reducing future capability to function. What then is the solution? I think that the average Singaporean need role models. They need to be able to see people whom they can identify with as an ordinary Singaporean folk who speaks up and attempts to create change in the system (and actually succeeding). I think this is the best way to address the lack of self-efficacy in Singapore. If all we see are the treatment along the likes of Chee Soon Juan, it’s small wonder that Singaporeans feel a lack of self-efficacy. Every time Chee puts up his head, he gets clobbered until it’s bloody. And, there are other cases of less bloody clobbering, but still a clobber nonetheless, such as the Mr Brown case. I don’t believe that such examples are encouraging at all. I am of the opinion that we need to move up the ladder of needs if we are to survive and prosper in future. We cannot let ourselves be done in by the philosophy of yesterday. Yes, it might have worked then, but circumstances are different now. We need re-evaluate whether the same principles that have served us well will continue to serve us well in the future. Baby shoes certainly do not fit an adolescent. Interesting news report The Home section of the Straits Times today had a story on the first page of the section (after the Kaplan advertisement) titled “Ex-MP may be charged for not disclosing business stake”. The editors clearly think that it’s an important story, thus putting it on the front page. However, when I read the report, there was absolutely NO mention of who the MP was. The report merely listed the business interests of the person, as well as saying that the ex-MP served four terms of parliament. This is really interesting because I don’t see a reason why the ex-MP should not be named. I can understand that people cannot be named if the case is still under police investigation. However, the article never mentioned that. So, why the secrecy over the name of the ex-MP? The few exceptions I can accept for not publishing names are cases like rape, child molest etc because it’s bad enough that the victims suffered such grief against their will, and the last thing that they need is more spotlight on their grief. What I don’t understand is why a four term ex-MP cannot be named. Chances are, the ex-MP was a member of the PAP. I cannot help but wonder if that is the reason why ST did not publish the name of the ex-MP. And, considering that it’s a four term MP, that person must be pretty high-profile. Perhaps it’s a bad time to disclose names given the current public unhappiness with the PAP dominated government. Whatever the reason, I don’t think it’s good journalistic practice. A first-class country without a first-class newspaper. My Chinese blog is up You can view it at http://aaron-ng.info/chineseblog The price of being an idealist I’ve been wanting to blog about this for a while, but the last term paper of my 4 years in NUS kept me busy. Kitana has announced her intention to close down her blog. Ben has already closed down his blog a few weeks ago. Gayle closed down her blog a couple of months back. I wonder when is it my turn to close. In many ways, I see Kitana, Ben and Gayle as idealists (Ben is so not going to agree with me, but I firmly believe that at the centre of his heart, he’s one). And, idealists suffer the most grief because of their nature to want to make the world a better place. They are most aggrieved when people start questioning their intentions and their ways of doing things, especially when shadows of doubt are cast over their altruistic intentions and character. It is true that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. If it doesn’t kill you that is. Idealists are strong characters, but they are not invulnerable. Even an iron rod can become a needle if you grind it long enough. Idealists can take enormous pressures and attacks, provided that they are able to draw enough strength from the people around them. What makes idealists stronger are not attacks and unreasonable expectations; it is hope and belief in them. I’m not saying that idealists are always right. Even idealists differ in their ideals. Different idealists believe in different ideals and have different ideas about how to make the world a better place. Healthy debates and disagreements are necessary for idealists to remain in perspective. However, non-constructive criticisms do not put things in perspective but rather, they gnaw away at the enthusiasm of the idealist. The biggest blow you can deal to an idealist is to make him or her feel unappreciated for their efforts. I say all these because I am an idealist myself. It’s just so painful to have people belittle you and pour sarcasm on your intentions. It’s also very tiring to have people place unreasonable expectations as well. If something could be done, idealists would have done it long time ago. Idealists have good reasons why they don’t things in certain ways. Yet, this doesn’t mean that they are not giving things a shot. Sometimes, it takes a little time and encouragement. I have no intention to stop blogging. But, it’s tough to read things that people write about you that are plainly unconstructive or a gross misinterpretation. When it accumulates, it can get one really down. When idealists fall, they fall hard because they have high hopes and dreams. I don’t fault Kitana, Ben and Gayle for being disillusioned. I’ve been there myself, but each time I turn my back from the path of disillusionment just as I’m about to reach the end. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s as Kitana says, I’m the eternal idealist. Anyway, I think I’ve ranted enough. I just want to to get this melancholy of the retiring of two bloggers who I read and respect alot out of my system. They may have decided to end their blogging stint, but I’m glad to have been given the chance to read their thoughts, as well as to become friends with them. I think I shall just count the blessings and leave the unhappiness aside. Life is too short to focus on unhappy things. The time can be better spent doing other things that leave a positive impact on another person, another organisation, or the world. Side note: My chinese blog should be up in these couple of days. The process of converting everything in Wordpress from English to Chinese is proving to be a much bigger task than I expected, even with language pack. There are still a bunch of things that has to be manually translated to Chinese, especially plug-ins. The ineffectiveness of abstinence education A study in the United States has shown that abstinence has no impact on the sexual behaviour of teenagers. (See article titled “Abstinence Education Does Not Impact Sexual Behavior”) The results of this study are important because of its longitudinal nature. It tracked the behaviour of youths who had undergone the abstinence programmes for up to six years. It is perhaps ironical to the proponents of abstinence that despite their efforts, youths who had undergone abstinence programmes are no less likely to abstain from sex compared to youths who had not undergone such programmes. On the flip side, those who argue that teaching abstinence will result in youths engaging in more unprotected sex shouldn’t rejoice. The same study found that youths who had undergone the abstinence programmes were no more likely than other youths to engage in unprotected sex. After reviewing the methodology, I’m pretty sure that the study was pretty tight in terms of research design, and the results are indeed valid. Of course, whether the same results are achieved in a similar study in Singapore would be a question mark because of differences in culture. However, given Singapore’s heavy consumption of American media and cultural products, maybe the difference might not be so great. In anycase, assuming that abstinence is ineffective (the worst case scenario), what should we then offer in terms of sexual education? I’ll support teaching youths the importance of having protected sex. At the end of the day, the two biggest problems with teenage sex are unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, all which can be mitigated greatly through having protected sex. There’s also the moral dimension involved as well, i.e. is it appropriate to have sex outside of marriage (the assumption here is that most youths are not married)? To me, I don’t think the answer should be told to teenagers when conducting sexual education. I think they should discover the answers for themselves. As a liberal, I would actually ask teenagers when they think it’s appropriate to have sex and why? Then, I’ll try and play Devil’s advocate to challenge their beliefs and get them to think a little further. At the end of it all, they’ll be in a better position to make their own decision, and whatever decision they make, I think we should just respect it, since it’s not an ignorant choice anymore. (Yes, it’s idealistic I know, but that’s just me) Oh, and another interesting result from the study is that peer support is a significant predictor of sexual activity. Those from the pro-abstinence camps might want to take this into consideration. Abstinence programmes might not be effective, but following up with continued peer support might just tilt the scales back. Lessons from the Qin dynasty I used to be an avid reader of Chinese history and classics, until I left secondary school. Chinese history has always been fascinating to me. I did an European history course in my first year and I didn’t quite like it. Chinese history seems more to my liking. And of course, history is fascinating because of the tendency for it to repeat itself in the course of time. Anyway, of all the various dynasties in ancient China, the Qin dynasty is perhaps one of the most intriguing ones. The founding emperor, 秦始皇 (Qin Shi-huang, meaning Qin, the First Emperor) is an iron-fisted ruler. Some would even call him a brutal tyrant. He abolished the system of feudal lords that caused much of the chaos of the Warring States, and instead divided the country into 36 districts, and he could appoint or dismiss commanders at will. To prevent the building of a base of power, commanders were constantly rotated. Each district also had an inspector to report back to court everything about the district, thus sealing the control of the court over the districts. Unifying the Warring States, Qin Shih-huang ordered all the members of royalty of the conquered states to move to Xianyang so that he could monitor them closely in case they decided to rebel. He was also known for burning most of the books in existence and the live burial of a large number of intellectuals who refuse to conform to state dogma. And, who can forget that he was responsible for the building of the Great Wall of China, which many people were forcibly conscripted to carry out the job? Qin Shih-huang is arguably a very talented person. Yet, the Qin dynasty collapsed within 3 years of his death, and it’s the shortest dynasty in Chinese history, lasting about 20 years. The collapse of the Qin dynasty has been attributed to his harsh policies and iron-fisted rule. In fact, when Qin Shih-huang died (during a tour of the country), his Prime Minister, afraid that the news will immediately spark rebellion and uprising, kept the news from the entire royal entourage until they returned to the capital 2 months later. The inevitable, though delayed, still occurred, and the dynasty fell. The source of the success of the Qin dynasty, i.e. harsh laws and unbearable burdens placed on the subjects (in the form of conscription for the emperor’s various mega-projects and extravagances) eventually led to its downfall. According to Confucius, a government can only last if the ruler is virtuous and win the whole-hearted support of the people. Well, to modify the Confucian idea a little, I would say that a government can only last if the ruler is perceived to be virtuous by the subjects. Therefore, for any government to have a lasting legacy, it would be wise to keep in touch with the ground and understand what the subjects perceive to be a virtuous ruler that they will follow whole-heartedly. Personal Note: I think I’ve re-discovered my passion for Chinese language, culture and history. Unfortunately, I’ve not been doing much reading on Chinese culture and history for many years, and I’ve also let my command of Chinese language rust away. I think I’ll set up a blog in Chinese in a couple of weeks to help me practise and revive both knowledge and command of Chinese language. Small kid to rebellious teenager Watching the developments of Singapore politics since November last year, I’m cautiously optimistic. Other bloggers have also voiced similar optimism in Singapore society, such as Mr Wang. And, it’s not for no good reason. The heated debate over the GST increase and ministerial salary increase would have been unthinkable 20 - 30 years ago. The average Singaporean in the street was like a small kid under the strong thumb of the parents. The kid was weak and relatively ignorant. The adult parents were much stronger and more experienced. They could invent all kinds of ways to pacify the kid, and when the kid sometimes throw tantrums, scoldings and caning threats kept the kid in place. Fast forward to 2006/2007. The average Singaporean is now no longer a kid. It’s a rebellious teenager. The ignorant kid of yesteryear has come to realise that there’s more than meets the eye. The pacifist tricks employed during the childhood years no longer work. Scoldings and caning threats are not as effective anymore, not least because the kid has grown much bigger and stronger. And the rebellious teenager is not about to quietly take no for an answer. The teenager asks more and more tough questions, and sometimes the parents find it hard to answer them satisfactorily, but yet the parents has to try because the old methods don’t work anymore. In 40 years, Singapore grew from an economic infant to an economic adult. Yet politically, the average Singaporean remained a kid that’s firmly thumbed by its parents. But, the kid has finally become a rebellious teenager. Hopefully, the rebellious teenager will soon become a powerful and intelligent adult capable of influencing decisions, or even become the decision-maker. It has taken 40 years for Singapore to grow politically from a kid to a teenager. Hopefully, it doesn’t take another 40 years or more for the teenager to become an adult. Down with racist employers A good Malay friend of mine wrote on her blog about meeting a racist employer. The circumstances of what happened are as follows: My lecturer recommended me for an internship position at an advertising firm. It’s a pretty well-known firm - it’s got a worldwide presence. In Singapore, well, let’s just say that its office is located at Clarke Quay. So yesterday she sent an e-mail to notify me to send my resume over to the guy from the firm. Which I did immediately. This morning, I went to see my lecturer as I had a question about Social Change, the module I take that she’s teaching. After answering my question, she turned all grim and said she had some news for me. She told me the guy from the ad firm called her, saying he did not want to hire me because I am Malay. And those are the exact words that my lecturer quoted. Apparently, he had had bad experiences working with Malays in the past. My blood boiled after knowing about the incident. What the hell is wrong with these people? Are Malays less of a human than other races? It’s not like my friend is a nitwit or moron. She’s smart, articulate and writes well. I wager to my last dollar that she’s probably better than 80% of the people in her age group (of any race), so why is this bloody firm denying her a chance to work just because she’s MALAY? I wish I can expose the name of this company, but I’ve been requested not to reveal the name. To think that it’s an international firm with a worldwide presence. Such a complete shame. I’m never going to recommend anyone to work in that company ever. Who knows who they are going to discriminate against next? PM Lee leads by example It was reported in Channel News Asia that PM Lee will freeze his own pay for the next 5 years and donate away the pay increases in these 5 years. Read the full story here. I am extremely heartened by PM Lee’s move. Maybe some people are still going to blast him for doing it as a belated PR stunt, but I think that as a leader of the country, he has done the right thing. And, I respect him for doing that. It shows that at least the leader of the country is not out of touch with reality. He has reclaimed some of the moral authority that the government has lost regarding this whole ministerial pay increase business. In the Analects, the Confucius said this of a government leader: 子曰：“苟正其身矣，于从政乎何有？不能正其身，如正人何？” Translated, the above line says: “If one is able to correct oneself, what is so difficult about governance? If one cannot even correct oneself, how does he expect to correct others?” Indeed, PM Lee understands the importance of leadership by example. This is the kind of leader that followers will gladly obey and stick with through thick and thin. To quote another line from the Analects: 子曰：“其身正，不令而行；其不正，虽令不从。” Translated, it says: “If one is moral and upright, people will follow without being ordered. If one is immoral and corrupted, people will disobey despite being ordered.” I hope that the other ministers will take their cue from the Prime Minister and do the same. If such are the characters of all our government leaders, then I’m prepared to stake my future and life with Singapore. If not, no amount of money or glory will stop me from leaving Singapore. Afterthought: I hope that SPH and the other MPs DO NOT do the cheer leading like they did for the GST offset package. It will leave a very disgusting aftertaste if it happens and any goodwill from Singaporeans generated as a result of the PM’s voluntary gesture would disappear in smoke.