Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Perspective
Chickening your way out of bilingualism
May 11th
It’s been a while since I’ve blogged, and it’s not because that I’ve been served with a gag order or something; it’s simply just that I’ve been busy doing loads of other things. I should be writing a little more often now.
There’s been quite a huge uproar over Education Minister Ng Eng Hen’s proposal to reduce the weightage of the mother tongue component in the PSLE. It seems to me that one of Ng’s priorities as education minister is to figure out how to reform mother tongue education in Singapore, and I’m most definitely against his current line of thought, which is to make the education path easier for students who are weak in their mother tongue.
The reason for me opposing his current line of thought is simple. Education is one of Singapore’s core competencies as a nation, and we cannot let education standards slide. Sure, I recognise the fact that some students have a genuine issue with bilingualism, but that doesn’t mean opening a backdoor for everyone because of a minority of students. Besides, if we have a problem, shouldn’t we solve the problem rather than changing the problem to make the problem easier or removing the problem altogether?
I’m wondering if MM Lee is privately rolling his eyes at Ng’s proposed ideas. When Singapore became independent, how many Singaporeans could speak and write English? English education was forced onto Singaporeans in order to get Singapore to succeed. Imagine if Singapore had decided to abandon learning English because Singaporeans felt that it was difficult to learn.
Besides, I think we shouldn’t be going soft on students. They have to learn that nothing in life is easy. If something is tough, then we should strive to be tougher. Imagine if your boss hands you a difficult task and you tell your boss it’s too difficult for you. Do you think he’ll make the task easier for you? I don’t think so. It’s either you find out how to do it, or he’ll get someone else to do it.
If we don’t find out how to effectively teach our children to be bilingual, other countries will find out how to do it for their own children, and guess who loses?
Tackling the Malay-Muslim underclass issue
Jan 5th
The moment I thought about writing on the topic of the Malay-Muslim underclass issue after reading this article by Zul Othman in TODAYonline, I knew that I’m going to have to walk the tightrope really carefully. Some people might not take kindly to someone of an ethnic group commenting on the problems of another. So, before I continue, I would like to clarify that what follows are comments based on the standpoint of an outsider, and if my observations are wrong, I am more than happy to stand corrected.
In his article, Zul Othman notes the many problems of the Malay-Muslim underclass, such as “the high number of Malay-Muslims in drug rehabilitation centres and prisons, or rampant youth delinquency, promiscuity and teen pregnancies.” A social worker who was interviewed for the article said despite their best efforts, there are just too many families to help and too few resources available to help everyone.
I guess the problem is pretty much overwhelming, but I do think the situation is going to get worse in the future, unless something can be done about the size of the families of the Malay-Muslim underclass. It is my personal observation that, relative to other Singaporean ethnic groups, Malay families tend to be much bigger, and it is going to be much more difficult to give necessary parental guidance to a large number of children, especially for the poorer families where the parents probably have to spend most of their time working to make ends meet in the family.
I’ve talked to Malay-Muslim friends about the relatively large size of their families, and hearing their explanation, I appreciate why Malay-Muslims value large families. However, from a pragmatic outsider standpoint, it seems to me that having many kids is likely to result in insufficient parental supervision, and that is a probable reason as to why the Malay-Muslim community is currently experiencing such issues.
I personally see no reason why the Malays should lag other ethnic groups in areas such as education. I think the biggest problem really is that resources within the Malay-Muslim underclass family have been stretched too thin, thus hindering the development of the children in these families to their fullest potential. A generation ago, the Chinese folks had pretty large families too, but it appears there was a paradigm shift (largely helped by the stop at two policy) and Chinese families tend to be very much smaller nowadays, so each child gets more resources to develop his/her potential.
If there is one thing that must be done now, it is to encourage the Malay-Muslim underclass to have a more manageable family size. All things being equal, a smaller number of kids will mean that each child will get more resources and attention, which may reduce the number of delinquent youths. In fact, it’s not just the Malay-Muslim underclass that should keep family size manageable; everyone who’s intending to start families should give some thought about what’s a manageable family size.
And personally, I think three kids, plus minus one, is a nice number. 
Why Singaporeans need to generate more babies
Dec 22nd
The most common reasons cited by Singaporeans for not wanting to have more children are that they are too busy with building a career and that it is expensive to raise kids in Singapore. It is clear that economic realities of living in modern day Singapore makes couples think a lot more about having kids. However, the other costs of a low national fertility rate to the native Singaporean is much higher.
The main reason is simple. Low birth rates means that the government will continue to be more liberal in allowing foreigners to come here as PRs or citizens. And, unlike the times of our forefathers, Singapore today is unlikely to allow the naturalization the peasant, the construction worker or the cleaning lady. The Singapore government wants talents, or in the absence of talent, rich people.
The natural result is that native Singaporeans get squeezed in the job markets and the housing markets. Young Singaporeans like myself are now squeezed particularly hard in the housing markets because these PRs or new citizens come in either not knowing the local real estate market or having too much cash to burn, start offering high prices for property, driving property prices upwards. As for the employment landscape, that doesn’t need much explaining; it’s a demand and supply problem.
It’s not just the jobs and ever rising property prices. Later on, the kids of native Singaporeans are going to face fiercer competition for good Singaporean schools. Parents will have to end up forking more money for tuition classes and other enrichment classes to improve the odds of their kids getting into a good school. The PRs and new citizens will probably do the same thing too, so the only winners will be tuition teachers.
I am not against a liberal immigration policy, nor is this blog entry intended to engender any form of discrimination against PRs or new citizens. In fact, I like a more diverse Singapore, but the speed at which we are allowing immigration in order to counter low birth rates is certainly detrimental to native Singaporeans, especially those on the lower rungs of the education ladder or the workforce, and the best solution is to bring Singapore’s fertility levels back up.
So, if you want your kid to have a better chance of going into a good school in future, to have more affordable HDB flats and to get good jobs, do him or her a favour by giving your kid a few more brothers and sisters.
The thin line between education and propaganda
Dec 17th
Reading what Law Minister K Shanmugam is proposing for our education system, the alarm bells went off in my head. He’s proposing to educate Singapore students about politics, and while he has added a disclaimer that he is not in favour of championing a political system over another, it seems to me that ultimately, the aim is to influence students to think that the liberal democracy practised in Europe and America is not applicable to a city-state such as Singapore.
Part of Shanmugam’s remarks can be found here: http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_467653.html. For the full story, you’ll need to buy a copy of the Straits Times.
Please leave political education out of the mainstream education system. The reason why I say this is simply because no matter how well meant the intentions are, I believe that it will turn into political propaganda, and putting politics into the classroom is very dangerous. I’m sure the PAP leaders know this very well from Singapore’s experience with communism and Chinese schools a few decades ago. I firmly believe that sensitive topics such as politics and religion should be left out of the mainstream education system.
And besides, engaging in political education is a double edged sword. The PAP seems to be getting unsettled and nervous at how younger and better educated Singaporeans are embracing the liberal democratic style of governance in other countries. The way to tackle this is not political education, but rather to understand the reasons behind such a trend and address those reasons. Otherwise, the PAP is risking a backlash of magnitude that is unpredictable, especially if people perceive the education effort to be propaganda and increase their resistance to the political status quo.
Political education in schools is not the magic bullet to resolving dissatisfaction by younger Singaporeans with the current style of governance. This approach is fraught with huge political risks and openly hands other political parties a loaded gun to shoot the PAP with, especially when it’s so poorly disguised.
HDB flats and the illusion of wealth
Dec 15th
The escalating prices of HDB flats is in the spotlight once again with MM Lee’s remarks about HDB flats increasing in price since independence, and that the upward climb will continue into the future.
The Singapore government, from time to time, uses the rising prices of HDB flats as an indicator of the rising affluence of Singaporeans. Most Singaporeans own at least one piece of property, the HDB flat, and with the increasing prices of HDB flats, the implication is that Singaporeans are becoming more and more affluent. I personally think the rising prices of HDB flats across the board is merely an illusion of wealth for the owner.
The reason is pretty simple. The flat is worthless in actual monetary terms unless it is exchanged for cash, i.e. sold. Paper value isn’t exactly real money. The best part is that, most Singaporeans only own ONE HDB flat. If they sell their HDB flat, they’ll need another one to stay in. If the price of HDB flats keeps climbing upwards, even if you make a profit from selling, because of the fact that you have to buy another flat to get a roof over the head, most of that profit will vaporise because you have to pay a high price for a new flat.
If people keep on believing that their flats are worth lots of money, the logical result is that there will be an upward spiral in flat prices. How sustainable this upward spiral is, that’s anybody’s guess. With an upward spiral of flat prices, the biggest winners are not the people who own HDB flats, but the government and property agents.
I personally do not see a solution for this upward spiral of prices, other than trying to contain the speed of the increase. The reason is because it is politically suicidal to force down the prices of HDB flats after years of telling Singaporeans that their flats are valuable assets. Furthermore, with all the upgrading schemes that’s going on that are being marketed as flat value enhancers, even an old HDB flat will not be cheap. Cheap public housing is not possible in Singapore anymore. This is why the ministers are very judicious in their choice of words these days, describing HDB flats as “affordable”.
If you own one HDB flat that’s worth a few hundred thousand dollars, you are not wealthy at all, especially when most flats are around the same price. You are only wealthy if you can make someone cough out 600 to 700 thousand dollars for your flat and then buy one for 300 to 400 thousand dollars. What are the odds of that happening?
Our One-Party Democracy
Sep 11th
The title of this entry was copied word for word from the headline of Thomas Friedman’s op-ed column on the New York Times a few days back, and the reason for borrowing his headline word for word is because it aptly describes the situation here in Singapore too, although there are definitely some differences.
In his column, Friedman acknowledged that a one-party autocracy by an enlightened group of leaders can have enormous benefits for citizens, and he used China as a shining example of the advantages of having a one-party autocracy, contrasting it with the currently dysfunctional (at least in my opinion) two-party democracy in America where the smaller party is constantly obstructing progress for the sake of obstruction while the bigger party is trying to create progress for the country, hence the term one-party democracy.
Actually, the one party democracy Friedman describes is not exactly unworkable. The problem in the United States now is that the Democratic Party is not dominant enough to completely ignore the Republicans. In Singapore, we have a one-party democracy that provides the same benefits as a one-party autocracy as stated by Friedman. Singapore does not have a problem with policy obstructionism simply because the Other is simply too weak to provide any decent challenge.
Does this then mean that a one-party democracy, Singapore style, is the ideal form of governance? Actually, I think so, provided that voters can cause the political pendulum to swing the other way when the need arises, for example, like what has happened in Japan recently. The only dangers in the Singapore-styled one party democracy are acts behind the shadows that are against the values of democracy.
Don’t be mistaken, though. There are great benefits of Singapore’s one-party democracy, but I still believe that the two dominant party democracy of the United States is still slightly better. However, after further contemplation, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s one-party, two-party, multi-party democracy, or even a monarchy, for so long as those in power use their positions to create a better life for everyone in society. At the end of the day, perhaps it’s pointless to argue over which style of governance is best, for everything is moot if those in power possess narrow, selfish interests.
Tolerance versus understanding
Aug 18th
This year’s National Day Rally speech is interesting because of the amount of time devoted to the topic of racial and religious pluralism in Singapore. There is no doubt that many people are still concerned about the state of the economy, and the prime minister would do well to dwell on that issue at length, but instead, a choice was made to devote a considerable amount of time on the issues of race and religion, issues which have not been publicly dealt with by the head of our government for a good number of years.
I am most certainly pleased that the prime minister has chosen to discuss the topic candidly and respectfully. Racial and religious harmony can never be taken for granted, and it is necessary to bring this topic onto the public agenda from time to time, lest we forget the painful lessons of our history. However, the content was pretty much predictable, toeing established government lines on race and religion, but well, what else can we expect from this occasional flogging of a dead horse?
The prime minister has outlined the various government efforts to maintain race and religious harmony in Singapore in terms of the punitive legislative measures, behind the scenes efforts to engage religious leaders and mediation efforts to amicably resolve conflicts, nipping potential flash points in the bud. However, I think what is more important is to cultivate a sense of understanding in Singaporeans with regards to race and religion, and not just mere tolerance.
Tolerance in my opinion, especially in the context of race and religion, simply means suppressing one’s objections or discomfort. A person can be racially tolerant, but it does not mean that person is not a racist. I am willing to bet to my last dollar that there are racists and religious extremists in Singapore who do not express their feelings outwardly because they don’t want to be thrown into jail under Singapore’s strict racial and religious harmony laws. These people can be said to be tolerant, but is this a satisfactory outcome? What will happen if the strong mandate of the state vanishes?
What we need is to engender understanding rather than tolerance. Easier said than done. It’s really about getting the individual to step out of their comfort zones. A person who always surrounds himself or herself with people of the same race or the same religion is very much less likely to be understanding of other races and religion. The association with people of similar traits is likely to result in the narrowing of one’s thought and thus resulting in diminished racial and religious understanding ability.
Forcing people to mix together, especially adults, isn’t a very good idea. It’s easier to do so with children, though. I remember I went to a government primary school, and many of my current friends from other races were made from back then. We played together, laughed together and were punished by our teachers together. At least for me, I didn’t care about race or religion; all I knew was that it was fun to be with everyone, regardless of race and religion.
I think the best starting point for racial and religious understanding is during childhood, and the government has to try and make sure that children experience racial and religious plurality at a young age, no matter which schools they are in. I generally don’t support government propaganda and ‘brainwashing’, but I am willing to make an exception for the sake of developing of religious and racial understanding.
From iron fist to velvet gloves to boxing gloves
Jul 7th
Ever since changes to Singapore’s political system was announced a few months back, I’ve been thinking about why the Lee Hsien Loong government has decided to do all these when it is obvious there’s little tangible gain to the PAP from taking a small, liberal step towards reforming our political system. Reactions that followed the announcements of increasing the number of NCMPs, reducing the size of GRCs, increasing the number of single seat constituencies and permanently entrenching the NMP scheme as part of the Singapore political space were drawn along familiar battle lines, with the more belligerent cyberspace facing off against the cheerleading mainstream media.
I believe that most arguments for and against these changes have been exhausted, so I’m not going to comment about that. What piqued my curiosity regarding these announcements was the purpose behind them, and I came up with two possible explanations. It’s either the PAP has come to realise that being too politically dominant is is potentially threatening to their own political survival or Lee Hsien Loong is starting to move his chess pieces to secure his legacy in future annals. The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to believe the latter reason is more plausible.
Singapore’s first post independence Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, is most remembered for his iron fisted style of governance. In his drive to move Singapore from Third World to First World, Lee adopted a ‘my way or the highway approach’, and while this approach has had admirers, with the more recent ones being the Chinese Communist Party cadres, it has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Singaporeans.
After Lee Kuan Yew came Goh Chok Tong, a leader with a softer personality but with the previous Prime Minister still sitting in Parliament and Cabinet as Senior Minister, and wielding extremely strong influence to boot, there was little Goh could do, so he built his legacy as a Prime Minister by masking the entrenched iron fisted style of governance with a velvet glove.
It seems that Lee Hsien Loong has decided against being a carbon copy of Goh and wants to carve out his own unique legacy. My guess is that the announced political changes are part of his plan to cushion the entrenched iron fisted style of governance, changing not just the look but lowering the pain of being punched by an iron fist. I believe there’re probably more changes afoot as Lee Hsien Loong continues to think about his place in future history books.
The real question I would like to see answered in the coming years is whether Lee Hsien Loong is willing to stop at donning boxing gloves, or would he be willing to replace the iron first with a gentle fist? Well, maybe he should go the whole nine yards. If everything ends up being upended by the end of Lee Hsien Loong’s tenure, his successor is going to have a difficult time.
The meaning of death
Jun 11th
I’m supposed to be working hard on my Masters thesis, but for the past week, I’ve been spending some time pondering the meaning of death because my wife’s co-supervisor at MIT, Professor David Schauer, suddenly passed away.
I’ve not had the chance to know him very well, but the few times I’ve met him and talked to him, it’s clear as day to me that he’s a wonderful person. He’s soft-spoken, patient, kind and caring towards people. He was due to spend a year in Singapore in a few months, and I was looking forward to knowing him better and showing him around Singapore.
His departure came as a shock to me, although I’m definitely not as badly affected as my wife and the other members of his lab. However, it did make me ponder the meaning of death, a topic in the deepest recesses of my mind in recent times. And, I think I’ve decided what death means to me.
Death is not the mourning of demise, but a celebration of having lived life.
When it’s my turn to leave, I hope people who still remember me will smile, and for those who have to shed tears, let it be tears of joy.
No frills housing? Don’t have upgrading lor.
Feb 15th
The recent discussions in Parliament had two pretty interesting topics that I’ve been wanting to write about, but I’ve not gotten down to doing so because of the whole JCS debate. The first one is the no-frills HDB flat, which I will address in this entry, and the second is the proclamation that Singaporeans are untalented in procreation, which will be saved for another day.
I don’t quite get why the suggestion of no-frills HDB flats was even brought up in the first place. This suggestion flies directly in the face of what the PAP has been doing for years: upgrading HDB estates to increase their value. Twenty to thirty years ago, HDB flats were indeed almost no-frills until the upgrading frenzy started. If we didn’t have upgrading, there will be plenty of no-frills HDB flats out there on the market.
Besides, HDB has flats available for rent (at hugely subsidised prices) for those who are unable to afford owning their own roof over the head. So, what’s the purpose of having no-frills HDB flats? It doesn’t seem to serve any purpose at all. This is an extremely strange proposition coming from PAP MPs.
It is indeed very interesting to me that some PAP MPs don’t seem to even understand rationale of the policies set by their own political party. Instead of no-frills housing, from a logical standpoint, the government will actually want to INCREASE the frills so that the market value of the HDB goes up. This is because a) the current ruling PAP can use increased values of HDB flats as election propaganda, and b) HDB can pocket more from the sale of a new flat, since the subsidy is pegged to market prices.
I think sometimes, not saying anything is a better option than shooting oneself in the foot. But I must say that this suggestion is a whole lot smarter than suggesting the abolishing of the five day work week because the birthrate has not gone up. 
Recent Comments