Aaron Ng

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.

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.

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.

I’m taking out the new figures for senior civil servants and political appointees from the speech by Mr Teo Chee Hean. All figures quoted are annual salaries (inclusive of all bonuses and allowances).

President – $3,187,100 (24.9% increase)
Prime Minister – $3,091,200 (25.5% increase)
Senior Minister – $3,043,300 (13.5% increase)
Minister Mentor – $3,043,300 (13.5% increase)
Deputy Prime Minister – $2,452,500 (18.8% increase)
Minister/Senior Perm Sec – $1,593,500 (32.5% increase) [MR4 Grade]
Entry Superscale Grade – $384,000 (3.3% increase) [SR9 Grade]
Member of Parliament – $216,300 (23.2% increase)

I’m not going to say too much about the increase. I think it has come to a point where it’s just numbers.

Anyway, it seems that the public sector is really losing lots of talented and experienced people. Mr Teo said the following:

As I informed the House in March, the Civil Service is experiencing the effects of the tightening labour market. Our overall resignation rate has increased from 4.8% in 2005 to 5.7% in 2006. We are losing our lawyers, accountants and management executives. The resignation rate of the Management Executive Scheme (which employs graduate officers across the ministries) was 10.6%, up from 7.4% in 2005. At some of our entry grades, the situation is quite serious, with resignation rates as high as 25%. Members of the House would also have read from the newspapers that for our Home Team, there has been a 40% increase in the resignation of junior officers in January and February this year, compared to the same period last year.

To address the issue, Mr Teo outlined the measures to be taken:

Graduate officers on the Management Executive scheme work across all ministries performing a wide range of jobs, including policy development and implementation, corporate services and operations work. Salaries for this group of officers have fallen behind the market. We need to make an upward adjustment of 16% this year in order to level up. As a first step, we will halve the gap through a 5-8% adjustment. This will be in the form of a performance-based payment of 0.75-1.25 months of salary. Good performers will receive up to 0.75 month, which is equivalent to a 5% increase, and the better performers will receive up to 1.25 months.

The Home Affairs Uniformed Services, comprising the Police, Prisons, Civil Defence and Narcotics services, are lagging their benchmarks by up to 26% in certain grades. As the gap is large, these services require major adjustments. These services are now dealing with more complex and challenging tasks given the threat of terrorism and the increased security measures required. We need to pay our home team officers competitively, so that the uniformed services will be well-staffed, and able to address any emergency. The first step of this adjustment will be carried out now, amounting to 10-13%.

Senior officers in the Home Uniformed Services will receive a performance-based payment of 1 – 1.5 months, with the higher quantum going to better performers. Junior officers will also receive performance-based payments ranging between 0.75 to 1.5 months. In addition, to address the market pay gap, we will increase their monthly salaries by 4% – 5%.

It’s perhaps fair to increase the salaries of civil servants by a high margin as one of the means to retain people in the public sector. What I don’t understand is that why are political appointees having such extremely high margins of increase as well. Is there an exodus of MPs and Ministers from the Singapore government over “insufficient” salary? If there are such MPs and Ministers, I don’t think the average Singaporean would really want them in government anyway.

I might really be kicking up a fuss over peanuts. As MM Lee recently said, what’s the big deal with paying $46 million to ensure that an economy of $210 billion functions properly? If governance is like private enterprise, then there’s no problem. The problem is that governance is NOT private enterprise. To serve as a minister, one needs to be elected, not employed. Public office is more about calling than financial incentives. If we are going to pay competitive market rates, then why bother to even elect ministers? Let’s just employ the smartest lawyers, bankers and CEOs to become ministers. In fact, why bother to have a government? Let’s just turn Singapore into a mega-corporation.

I appreciate the rationale that we need to remunerate talented people enough. However, the rhetoric will not do, especially when it’s taxpayers’ money that’s in question. I don’t oppose the increase for the average civil servant because there’s really a problem of exodus. I’m not convinced there’s such a problem among the political appointees. I worry that by continuously increasing and emphasizing the monetary rewards, motivation for political office in Singapore becomes primarily about money, and not duty to serve. One day, we might really be putting out advertisements for the position of Prime Minister instead of holding an election.

Addendum:

Seiji-Rakugaki has drawn a brilliant cartoon about the direction of Singapore’s governance titled “$INGAPORE”. A light-hearted piece of enjoyment for all the anger.

Original Source: http://seijieiga.blogspot.com/2007/04/ingapore.html