Healthcare Insurance – Slowly (?) But Surely Rising Costs

TODAY carried an exclusive article on August 18th 2006 relating how managed healthcare providers provided medicine in lower doses after the patient showed her a medical management company card of which her employer was a participant.

This does not bode well for the medical consumer in Singapore. We will either get shortchanged in terms of medication as suggested by the article or conversely expect to pay more for ‘proper’ medication. And as will be expounded on later - risk pooling will not help in anyway.

Managed care, managed healthcare, medical management company, medical management scheme are all fancy phrases to describe a phenomena which rocked the American medical, legal and social order as recently as the last decade. The dirty phrase in America was: Heathcare Management Organisations or HMOs in short.

HMOs in the U.S. started out with blatantly social aims of pooling risks and delivering affordable healthcare costs for all Americans. It gradually grew into a monstrous behemoth that not only controlled sectors of the government but worse, had government agencies inevitably condoning practices that would generate profits for the pharmaceutical companies that were eager to make a few more bucks.

Costs began escalating out of control as the pharma giants plumbed the HMOs and government agencies with junkets and retreats ostensibly selling their drugs. These drugs are often newly developed and recently passed by the American Food and Drug Administration for public consumption. Actual healthcare providers were economically and otherwise incentivised not to prescribe or utilize generic drugs for those whose seven year patent life span has run out. (Thereafter which any company in the world can produce this drug and sell it at a dramatically reduced rate of profit due to either lower cost of production or simply not attempting to earn on patent royalties – royalties are what one pays for the ‘intellectual property’ required to develop drugs, much like what you pay for an original music CD. Currently the ‘owners’ of “Tamiflu” are under severe international political pressure to allow the drug to be produced elsewhere and sold at a lower cost then normal due to the incidences of bird flu surfacing internationally.)

The rationale was simple. It only costs each end consumer a few dollars more each year in terms of ‘pooled risks’ and doctors who prescribed the drugs had nothing to lose with a slight possibility of gain while the pharmaceutical firms stood to gain massive market share and therefore profits both locally and internationally.

“In 2005, employer health insurance premiums increased by 9.2 percent - nearly three times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,000. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,000 (3).

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.*

Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 73 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 14 percent and cumulative wage growth of 15 percent during the same period.

Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by 2008.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising five times faster on average than workers' earnings since 2000.

The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 143 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.

The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, exceeds $2,000 a year rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 - a 16 percent increase.” *

* http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Can Singaporeans withstand such increases in cost in such a short span of time? Can you? Why then is the PAP government backing calls for a managed healthcare scheme for the nation when overseas first world experience shows that the system is open to mis-management and costs which spiral out of control?

But cost is only one factor in a HMO setting. Socially, America began seeing higher and higher incidences of those who are treated and those who are not – medically treated of course. Every sane person of reasonable economic means is enrolled in some sort of managed healthcare program in the U.S.. If you have a card showing you are in a program you are treated, if not, show your credit card, if not ……. And if only it ended there. Healthcare costs, under the HMO scheme for decades has escalated to a point where even credit cards may not be accepted as a form of payment for medical treatment in some instances in the U.S.


Later in the week the Sunday Times, 20th August 2006, carried an article on how the Minister for Health is beaming with the success of his plan to turn Medishield around. The claims for success rests on that fact that consumers now have a choice of insurers and plans while government regulations prevent or attempt to prevent cherry picking so as to maintain the risk pool. Alongside these successes were a statement that Medishield is running in the black, by some $100 million, as opposed to running in the red just a year ago. Makes one wonder if premiums collected are too high or payouts are too low resulting in a surplus within one year of running a deficit in the national healthcare plan.

The article goes on to lists examples of how one would pay less for hospitalization stays compared to the ‘old’ plan as the present plan pays out more from insurance therefore requiring less from the consumer. Funny how the article does not also mention if the total bill for hospitalization stays have been going up or down over the past years. What difference does it make if the 3Ms cover more of a medical bill but if the medical bill rises beyond the original quantum then someone, somewhere, somehow has to pay more.

For example, let’s say insurance covers 50% of a bill of $1000 and your deductible (amount of cash you have to pay) is 10% then the insurance plans pays $500, your Medisave gets $400 deducted and you pay $100 in cash. Now insurance covers 60% of $2000 and your deductible is 5% this means that your Medisave account will be poorer by $900 while you are still paying $100 out of pocket – and in the meantime, the insurer has to fork out $1200. With rising medical costs who will ultimately pay despite insurance schemes that claim to pay out more?

Insurance, as a method of pooling risks, simply means that it will be easier for healthcare providers to charge “each patient” or “each insured person” just a few dollars more as in the example above. It is a national plan and no one can really opt out of it. Not every who buys car insurance ‘uses’ it in the form of a claim but everyone has to buy insurance as a pooled risk for motoring and therefore has to pay for all the risks inherent in motoring. Premium increases affect all motorists despite huge improvements in vehicle safety. Could the same thing happen in healthcare? Perhaps the authorities in all their wisdom could incentivize the population further to stay healthy by offering a ‘no claim bonus’ scheme similar to one for motoring rather then just talking about healthy living?

While government administered (public) healthcare schemes can afford to run in the red every now and then with an eye to recovering the losses later. Private firms cannot afford to do so. They are answerable to their shareholders whose only concern is profit. If government bodies insist on running in the black with a ‘healthy surplus’ at all times it mimics a business model and I would then have to ask if surpluses collected have any impact on civil servants bonus structures.

The Minister topped off his speech with a claim that competition is always good – I wonder if he had political competition in mind as well?

This articles carries three sources of information. TODAY’s article points out a loophole that insurers are taking to lower their cost; the website which statistically lists the cost of insurance on the economy (the employer and the employee) demonstrates ridiculously rising healthcare cost under a privately managed healthcare insurance scheme; the ST article tells us how Medishield is now in the black and how private insurers are actually better for the health of Singaporeans healthcare.

A Response to the National Day Rally Speech

While it is imperative that Singapore addresses the lack of manpower situation in the near and medium term with augmentation by foreign talent we should not overlook local talent as well. All this chatter of foreign talent should come with strings attached to those who are first Singaporean. Recognition and retention of local talent should and always be foremost in the minds and hearts of the government and the people of Singapore. There must exist a dual standard for labour in Singapore - Singaporeans must come first.

The dearth of birth rates are a result of our progress in one way or another. That cannot be denied. The thrust of the globalization argument in the local context is that it leaves Singaporeans with perceived little time for family since we are all in constant pursuit of the best, the brightest, the highest and other such world class achievements. As a people we need to take stock of what is of true importance to us in the spectrum of life and not just passing material requirements though they are important. It is my belief that the behaviour and policies of the government and the PAP, written and otherwise, have played a large part in the shaping of what Singapore is today. Credit given where it is due along with its attendent consequences.

One also wonders if the low birth rates is a result of the PAP's Stop-at-Two programme of the 1980s? You reap what you sow. The PAP is not always correct. It is human and makes mistakes. This underscores the need for a responsible Opposition in parliament to challenge and check the excesses of government policy before it is too late.

Relaxation is required in the out-of-control rat race that we are immersed in and it does not bode well that the ruling party, the PAP and its ever efficient and well oiled machinery are constantly pressing all the competitive buttons at all levels of society. The PAP has been wonderfully successful at imposing and inculcating all the 'right' values to make Singapore what it is today.

That the digital generation needs to be engaged via use of technology simply points to the fact that policy makers are out of touch. Engagement with the populace, no matter which generation, should remain a constant activity of a self-professed democratic government. Technology is the great leveller of the 21st century and it is telling that a policy needs to be crafted to utilise it for engagement. It simply demonstrates a strictly top down mode of governance where the court awaits the mandarin's orders.

Quotes - From Mindblogging Stuff

Taken off MINDBLOGGING STUFF - shocking when viewed in the right context. And yet 66.6% of Singaporeans .............. you decide.

http://mindbloggingstuff.blogspot.com/2006/05/mindboggling-quotes-by-politicians-in.html

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Mindboggling quotes by politicians in Singapore

"Retrenchment is good for singapore. If there is no retrenchments, then I worry." - SM Goh

"The opposition's plans to 'give and give' will lead to Singaporeans having to pay higher taxes in order to foot the bill." - then DPM Lee at a rally in Tampines, in 2001. ............ "$2.6b 'Progress Package' for lower-income groups, elderly, NSmen" - now PM Lee, in 2006

"Contrary to public perception, the White Horse classification is not to ensure that sons of influential men gets preferential treatment. Instead it is to ensure that they do not get preferential treatment." - Cedric Foo

"I don't think that there should be a cap on the number of directorship that a person can hold." - PAP MP John Chen who holds 8 directorships.

"It's not for the money because some of the companies pay me as little as $10,000 a year." - PAP MP Wang Kai Yuen who holds 11 directorships.

"We are not considering a casino but an IR - an integrated resort. IRs are quite different." - George Yeo

"If you want to dance on a bar top, some of us will fall off the bar top. Some people will die as a result of liberalising bar top dancing... a young girl with a short skirt dancing on it may attract some insults from some other men, the boyfriend will start fighting and some people will die." - Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports

"I would want to form an alternative policies group in Parliament, comprising 20 PAP MPs. These 20 PAP MPs will be free to vote in accordance with what they think of a particular policy. In other words, the whip for them will be lifted. This is not playing politics, this is something which I think is worthwhile doing." - SM Goh

"If you sing Jailhouse Rock with your electric guitar when others are playing Beethoven, you are out of order. The whip must be used on you." - SM Goh again, on a dramatic u-turn, rethink or backtrack, whatever you call it.

"The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) spends more than 80 per cent of its funds on its beneficiaries." - Lim Hng Khiang

"Save on one hairdo and use the money for breast screening." - another gem from Lim Hng Kiang

"We started off with (the name) and after looking at everything, the name that really tugged at the heartstrings was in front of us. The name itself is not new, but what has been used informally so far has endeared itself to all parties." - Mah Bow Tan on the $400,000 exercise to rename Marina Bay as Marina Bay.

"Having enjoyed football as a national sport for decades, we in Singapore have set ourselves the target of reaching the final rounds of World Cup in 2010." - Ho Peng Kee

"Only 5% are unemployed. We still have 95% who are employed." - Yeo Cheow Tong

"Singaporean workers have become more expensive than those in the USA and Australia." - Tony Tan

“People support CPF cuts because there are no protest outside parliament." - PM Lee

"No, it was not a U-turn, and neither was it a reversal of government policy. But you can call it a rethink." - Yeo Cheow Tong

"...I regret making the decision because, in the end, the baby continued to be in intensive care, and KKH now runs up a total bill of more than $300,000..." - Lim Hng Kiang, regretting the decision to save a baby's life because KKH ran up a $300,000 bill

"If we want to be a world-class city, if we want to be a nation that has got very good standards of public hygiene and cleanliness, the best place to start with is the public toilet." - Amy Khor, PAP MP

"Restoring the pay cuts of civil servants and ministers is reasonable as Singapore's economy has now regained momentum." - Ng Eng Hen ............. "I don't think my reading for the economy is strong enough for us to even consider asking for the restoration of the cut in CPF." - Lim Boon Heng

"If we ever introduce anything like quotas or incentives based on race, it will reinforce the perception that Malays and Indians have low skills and can only get jobs because of an incentive or quota." - Tharman Shanmugaretnam ...................."These schools (SAP schools) need to remain essentially Chinese to give the edge in interacting with China..." - self contradictory statement made by Tharman Shanmugaretnam again

"We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two... We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellecually and culturally anaemic." - MM Lee in 1967 .............. "If you don't include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society...So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That's a problem." - MM Lee in 1983

"The PAP Government has always thrived on its ability to anticipate problems." - Wong Kan Seng .........."We are not able to be everywhere as a government to know everything in Singapore." - PM Lee

Singapore, Singaporeans, Singaporeaness

The last showing of Wild Rice's production, directed by Ivan Heng: The Campaign to Confer the Public Service Star on JBJ was wonderfully executed. Hats off to Pam and Rodney for pulling off the grueling feat of running a two person show casting a variety of characters.

The play is reflective of what's going on in Singapore I would say. A playing out of the public's deepest political fears and insecurities vis a vis the government. And some local stereotypes. Sadly if any other political party were to stage a play as such they would surely be hauled off to court in no time flat.

It was a sell-out performance and quite a few members of the press were there in their personal capacities. Also easily identifiable were quite a number of senior (in every sense of the word) civil servant types (my assumption).

I understand a forum was conducted after the Satuday evening performance. Pity to have missed that. The PAP's dramatic silence is deafening ... in the underhanded promotion of these 'age old' political fears and insecurities.

PAP: your silence advocates consent for those practices. I do not condone practices that insinuate political subjugation of the civil service as caricatured in the play.

Thank goodness for the Art's scene this play has not been bhavanised!

Suggstion to stage and play directors for future performances: kindly stage your plays so that members of the audience who happen to be in the top rows of the circle seats are able to see beyond those in front of them who lean out and obscure the views of everyone else.

JC Project

As promised earlier: transcript of interview with some JC students doing a project related to politics in Singapore

Their questions in blue.


1. Our group realises the potental your organisation has with respect to increasing political awareness of youth in singapore. In the email dated 20th July you specified that the levels of apathy are decreasing in today's youth, could you please comment on that?

Thank you for attributing potential to the Workers’ Party Youth Wing in terms of being able to increase political awareness to youth in Singapore. It is rather apparent to me that the levels of apathy are on the wane with younger Singaporeans such as yourself and your project team mates taking up this challenging assignment related to politics. Also present at the NUSSU post election forum were some youth of, roughly your age group, who asked very direct and piercing questions of some members of that evening’s panel of speakers. This would have been almost unthinkable just one election ago. What this demonstrates to me is a political maturing of society at large where those who socialize you (those who condition you and provide the environment in which you are conditioned – parents / teachers / friends etc) are opening up as well. They are truly promoting a questioning society where relative to the times I was in school it was rather truly more rote learning, period.

2. Singapore's position in South East Asia obviously makes her very vulnerable to attacks from neighbouring countries, and thus she has to be strong internally, so that she can stand up against an external threat. This is linked to an effective and stable government. To what extent do you think our youth of today can provide that "stable and effective" government?

If I may I would like to first point out a fallacy in thought. Your first statement on internal strength is premised upon the assumption that a ‘stable and effective’ government would fulfill those conditions required to repel an external threat. Is it really necessary for a strong government to repel an external threat? Secondly, a ‘stable and effective’ government will tend, over time, to degenerate if there are no external checks against its efficiency. Thus human nature is. Complacency will almost automatically set it if you aren’t checked periodically. Consider if you do not have any exams at all to determine your movement forward in the educational system. What would happen and what could happen? Not only to you but also to those around you?

History has demonstrated repeatedly that if a group of people believe in the concept of a ‘nation’ they will never be truly wiped out. They will adapt and prosper elsewhere. Or in the case of a threat, will form a very strong resistance based on their core beliefs. In protracted wars, governments typically fall first – no matter how strong. But it is the underground resistance movements, or their equivalents, that keep the idea of the ‘nation’ alive.
With today’s governmental policies do you think Singapore is or can be a strong nation? Or do you truly believe that a strong nation must equal a ‘stable and effective’ government?

3. It has been said, and even mentioned by MM Lee that our youth are constantly surrounded by messages of materialism, this effectively hinders them from what really matters in our country and blinds them from the stake of which they are involved in Singapore, what are your views on this, and how do you think it can be overcomed?

Materialism is a necessity in as much as the country has chosen to engage the world based on the model of free market capitalist economics. (You may ask your lecturer or do some research on Paul Krugman’s latest diatribe against free market capitalist economic principles and how they are actually inefficient.) Does it hinder anyone from thinking about anything else? Truly? Has it hindered the thoughts of you and your friends who are on this project together?
What counts, to me in terms of this question, is a matter of prioritization along with social engineering.

In life, as one grows physically, mentally, emotionally and in other aspects, one’s priorities changes. And your priorities in life are lined up by both your natural environment as well as your nurturing environment.

An example of the former (genetics): if your parents are both long sighted, chances are you will be long sighted too. An example of the latter (environment): if during your formative and educational years you are caused to engage in activities which train to diminish your long sightedness you may achieve near perfect eyesight by the time you reach adulthood. At the end of this process, as an example, your priority in life (assuming all else is constant) will not be on correcting your eyesight. Your energies will be focused elsewhere instead – whatever you deem to be important at that particular point in time.

Let’s move this discussion into the political domain. Politics dictates virtually every facet of your life, and that of your parents. It is my opinion that an entire generation of Singaporeans have been ‘socially engineered’ to treat politics as dangerous and dirty. Ask your elder uncles and aunts of friends who are in their 50s and 60s about their impression of the Internal Security Department. On their impressions of opposition politics and how others might view opposition politics. Their collective answers translate into what would be equivalent to the environment in which you grew up.

It is well known that in the early 80s MM Lee made a statement to the effect that: “if I find a nail that sticks out I will hammer it down with such force that it will be level with all the other nails ….” Now what do you think of social engineering and how it has made you what you are today? Can you attribute what MM Lee said about materialism being a hindrance to being a [an informed] stakeholder in Singapore or the fact that you have to be an unquestioning stakeholder that promotes political apathy? Which is the more likely causative factor?

4. Our group is thus considering implementing political studies, a reduced adaptation of political science, as an integrated subject in our secondary schools, possibly social studies, students will learn about (a summary of our proposed syllabus), do you think this is an effective counter against political apathy in youth, and to what extent?

A programme as you recommend will be as effective as those who draft the syllabus want it to be as well as those who ‘teach’ it. My take is that the most effective counter against political apathy in anybody is to educate them on the fact that politics plays a role in every facet of a citizen’s life. Beginning from pre-school, children should be taught (and they are already taught in some aspects) that their choices generate outcomes which they will have to ‘live’ with.

Do you realize that your parents are paying GST for the electricity you consume (if you turn on your air-conditioning) even when you are asleep? And property tax for the place you live in even if you spend half your life in school? Have you asked your parents if their decision to have a child/children have been impacted by governmental policies? Has your educational life been impacted by governmental policies? Will who you marry be possibly influenced by governmental policies (fyi, graduates who marry graduates and produce children are granted greater tax reliefs – you pay less taxes)? Has governmental policies dictated how your parents earn and spend money in all areas of life that require spending? How has governmental policy on transport in general affected the way your parents behave and the way you behave toward the issue of transportation?

Having said thus, yes, the programme you are advocating would be a counter against political apathy in youth. How effective it is depends on how the syllabus is written, how the course is taught and above all, if the PAP can dictate that ‘history’ is written to omit facts that are deemed ‘irrelevant.’

Let’s do a quick experiment here. You, or your team mates, go find a teacher/lecturer who is in his/her early to late 50s. Ask about the true history of how Nantah Univeristy became today’s NTU. Then correlate and corroborate your findings with any available material you can find including those archived at NTU and at the National Library. You may find that history has been re-written.

5. The WP Youth Wing was set up with the purpose of:
o (1) increasing awareness among youths in political and social processes in Singapore and educating them of the importance and significance of serving the people so as to achieve a more vibrant civil and civic society;
o (2) putting thoughts and plans into action by playing a role in organising national, constituency, community and grassroots level projects; and
o (3) creating a platform and network for youths to achieve a genuine and fair objective of serving the people of Singapore.
what are some of the specific activities the WP organises for the youth and how is this related to combatting political apathy in youth?

The WP Youth Wing organizes activities along several lines.

- Socially we promote interaction among members and engage on recruitment drives along the way. These interactions are also platforms for interested members to informally raise ideas on future activities and directions. Under the social wing there are also welfare-like activities where Youth Wing members get a chance to interact with the under-privileged and therefore learn about how governmental policies can affect the lives of people either intentionally or inadvertently.

- Politically we promote an understanding of fairer governance with a keen eye toward a more democratic society where in a true majority of opinions count in an unfettered manner. Meaning there are no particular incentives or disincentives to vote either way and that citizens should vote what they think best represents their interests in the long term, not just the short term. There are also groups which are formed to discuss, critique, and propose policies which may be tabled by either Mr. Low or Ms. Lim in Parliament.

- All these are conducted alongside public dialogues and forums held occasionally to foster a better understanding of the democratic process as well as promoting stakeholdership in Singapore.

- Most importantly, the Youth Wing comprises members who organize themselves along their lines of interest with the support of the Party at large. This is the largest initiative in terms of combating political apathy. That you have a say and a corresponding responsibility in what is going on is the biggest carrot we can dangle. As such, specific activities may range from the intensely personal to the largely societal where reach is concerned. And activities may also range from the purely social to the purely political – again based on what the Youth Wing of today wants.

- Lastly but by no means least importantly, the Youth Wing supports the Party in community based events such as public outreach programmes and ground work for elections. Through these events we hope to enable Youths, once again, to see for themselves how governmental policies trickle down the the ground and how it ultimately impacts the behaviour and priorities of the citizens.


6. Let's assume a scenario 20 years from now, where nothing has been done about the youth and these youth are about to assume leadership over Singapore, what are the possible problems that Singapore may face, from the government's point of view, and society's point of view?
Simply put, the government will end up likely being out of touch with the ‘ground.’ Governments have a habit of trying to control citizens lives through a variety of measures at their disposal. What do you think today’s youth are likely to do 20 years down the road?

I believe that problems of various natures and proportions will arise. On the one hand we will have a government that makes policy decisions without consultation. This is premised on the fact that in today’s society the scholar is valued over all else in the public service sector. Scholars, while nice individuals, may not possess sufficient private sector experience to effectively formulate good policies which benefit all without hurting any. Governing a country is not a zero sum game.

Tomorrow’s government, if we continue with today’s government, is also less likely to try to explain policies to the people. The same style will continue and all the good and bad traits inherent in today’s system will be amplified. In the worst case scenario, Singapore will be saddled with a group of adults who, having grown up apathetic, will continue to be apathetic and will govern based only on selfish interests and individual motivations whatever those may be.

Society at large will suffer through the lack of a competent and caring government. By then, as it may be now, society may lack the social will for change and depression will be a national illness as citizens view their lives going down the drain due to national policies which do not offer them any hope.


7. This proposal deals with 15 and 16 year olds, whose main concern is mainly whether they can score an A in their next exam, or coming up with ways to date the person they are interested in, do you think an interest in politics can be generated and sustained in such a group, and how could the subject be modified to better suit this particular age group's needs?
Yes, I do believe an interest in politics can be aroused and sustained as stated above. Each age group must be ‘taught’ in a way that reflects best on their particular interest. If you interest is in scoring As in the next exam – a course syllabus might be taught on how educational policies allow you to score that A or not. A more liberal syllabus might encompass questioning the requirement to score an A whether or not you like the subject.

Allow me to present you a conundrum of sorts. I left Singapore with 3 O level passes (1 B, 2 Cs). Yet I graduated from UC Berkeley with an honors degree (not lower). What does this tell you of our local educational system in terms of grade requirements for a degree? Is it in your power to change Singapore’s educational policies? Why not if no? Why if yes? What can you do in the future to govern the lives of your children? Do you think it is healthy for youth of your age group to focus on scoring As only?

As for dating the person they are interested in: if educational policies dictate that you spend 12 hours a day in school followed by another 4 hours of tuition and follow up classes for enrichment do you think you will have the time to even contemplate a date? I didn’t have any problems in this area as I belong to the era where school was half a day (that’s half of daylight hours). Do you now think that governmental, in this case educational policies, dictate the way you live your life even to the point of having the time to date?

Let’s take the dating game one step further. Back to point 4 above. When you get to a marriageable age – your call on when that is of course – would you consider marrying a graduate because of tax perks or not? Would you considering dating and marrying a person who may be able to provide you with better ‘genetic material’ so that you can further utilize governmental policies or not? If yes, why? If no, why?

8. (This question deals with our survey results which we have conducted with 65 students and 30 teachers, as I do not have the results at hand I cannot display it here, however it will be produced at the interview) Our survey results show a certain percentage of students are interested in political studies, the teachers we surveyed have also expressed enthusiasm of enrolling their students in such a subject if it was to be taught. However many students and teachers alike have expressed their fears over the subject, for example some students felt that the usual teaching style would be too boring and suggested mock parliament sessions in order to get a feel of what happens in our country's deciding process, some teachers also felt students still dare not speak up in class, and that would only serve as a hindrance to such a subject. What inference can you draw from these conclusions?

I shall have to point you back to the issue of socialization. It’s a vicious cycle perpetuated by the older folk or those in authority. A climate of fear is never conducive to true learning. And true learning can only take place when inquisitiveness is unfettered and answered truthfully. Are you encouraged to question in school or just ‘sit down shut up and listen?’

Allow me to present you with a few obstacles you will have to work through first. Does our educational policy encourage or discourage political discourse as a matter of education? Why? Are our teachers encouraged or discouraged to address the issue of political apathy in youth today? If yes, either way, how? Is the educational system incentivised (does your teacher receive any incentive or dis-incentive) to make politics or an understanding of politics an integral part of your educational curriculum?

Have the teachers who expressed that students may not dare to speak up in class tried to find out why that is so? Is it because of the way other teachers teach? Is it because of the way the youth is socialized at home to be non-questioning in nature?

All children are born inquisitive, is my opinion. What happens thereafter is a product of years of socialization. In the Singapore educational context, much socialization takes place within the bureaucratic structure of the Ministry of Education where many fear to rock to boat so as to ‘protect their rice bowls.’ With this attitude in mind what do you think your (or your teacher’s) chances are of reaching out to those youth who may one day be fine bureaucrats?

9. Implementing this project brings many benefits to society and the ruling party alike. For one thing, when society is aware of what goes on within the government, an effective check is already in place to ensure the government is continually effective and useful. This project could also generate interest in youth, who would later on progress to become great leaders. By exposing them at a young age, there is a greater chance Singapore can nurture her future leaders early to prepare them for the distresses of tomorrow. How far do you agree with our statement and do you think there are other possible future benefits which could arise out of implementing this project?

You have premised this question on the fact that history as it is written is 100% true and unquestionable and hence the present government must by fiat of association with continuity possess the same attributes. Or am I mistaken?

The implementation of this project as a form of ‘check’ is admirable. My question would be – so what happens after school?

I fully agree with your statement on generating interest and later on progressing to leadership positions. But I should caution you that many aspects of life are not covered in textbooks. And it is precisely these aspects of life that require prudent and careful governance with a compassionate understanding of those around you.

As for preparing for the distresses of tomorrow …. Allow me to raise a long but perfectly sound example of dealing with distress as times change:

Along with the progress of the computer age Singapore has implemented stiff penalties for ‘hacking’ or what is known in legal circles as the ‘computer misuse act.’ The law was enforced not only in legal circles but also outside of it in schools and so on. It was a national effort. Let us assume this law is 100% enforceable and therefore 100% effective – which is what Singapore is known for internationally as well. So we have no hackers. And without hackers we do not have anyone who is capable of understanding the process and dealing with the problem when it does arise.

What do Singaporean computer users then do when faced with a hacking attempt? Do we have local experts who are able to help us deal with these hacking incidents and prevent further incidents? Or do we have to now rely on ‘foreign’ expertise to deal with this problem since we do not have any local ‘talent’ due to the 100% effectiveness of the law (national policy)?

While hacking may not be as serious as dealing with future distresses which may rock the nation or the economy, the mind set which promulgated the law and its enforcement is prevalent in our society and effectively prevents us from learning to be an adaptable and nimble society to deal with the increasing uncertainties that lie ahead.

So while I agree with some parts of your statement as an ideal I have to disagree on the realities on which you have premised those statements. These underlying factors have to begin to change before your project will pay off handsomely.

But if you like - the PAP or even possibly myself may arrange for press coverage of your project to the point where it is deemed the next greatest invention since sliced bread. But the proof lies in the eating of the pudding … not the amount of cream on the top. Pun intended both ways.
10. In conclusion, we would like to find out your overall opinion of our project, (note that on the day itself we would provide you with details as to how conducting this subject should be attempted) and how it can be better improved. Also, we would like to know if you have anything to add, any comments or opinions regarding this interview.

Let’s talk about this when we meet so I may view the data you have collected.

I’m not apologetic if some of my replies get you down. Just pick yourself up and move on.

Political realities are the first thing you should understand if you would like to embark on a project of this nature. And while I am not the Educational Minister at this point in time and therefore cannot grant you any promises of action or otherwise I can advise you on what you may not see yet. And I can also help you along in whatever ways you may find me to be of assistance.

Personally I’m committed to changing the educational system. Are you?

ST Education Survey Debacle?

ST sent me an email with the following questions (in white) and none of the responses got published. To be fair, to the best of my knowledge, neither did the PAP's. The politically correct article appeared in the Sunday Times 30th July 2006. According to the journalist who was writing the story the Editor decided not to use any of the political parties' responses as they were 'too political.' Self-censorship at its very best eh?

The Straits Times had conducted a survey on Asian youths and their attitudes towards life. It's thrown up some interesting findings about young Singaporeans. So it'll be great if you can share your insights and thoughts in your capacity as a young politician, as the one in charge of the youth wing in WP. The survey was conducted among youths between the age of 13 and 19, from five countries - Singapore, Msia, China, India and Japan.The general feeling you get from the figures is that Singapore youths do not seem to have a very strong sense of ownership towards the country. For instance:- 53% of them said they would consider emigrating, the highest among the respondents from the five countries. When asked why, besides citing the pull factor of more jobs/business opportunities in other countries, a substantial proportion were also influenced by the push factor of "life being too stressful" here.
- Even among those who do not want to emigrate, the most popular reason is that of family/friends/relatives here, rather than the nationalistic reason of "I love my country" (which is generally the most popular reason for the same group of youths from the other four countries)
- When asked which of the following is the most important to them, the overwhelming majority put family and self before country (only 4% chose the latter, compared to 35% in Msia, for instance. Singapore is the lowest among the five countries).
- However, the level of their interest in political issues is fairly on par with that of youths from other countries. 66% are interested in political issues while 33% would consider taking part in political issues.1) Do you find this worrying? What do the statistics show? To you, what is the most surprising finding?

Yes, it is certainly worrisome that greater then half the respondents indicated that they would consider migrating. The statistics demonstrate the lack of emotional attachment to the country as an idea of a nation. It could well be that there is less of an emotional attachment to Singapore as a country because we are socialized and socially engineered to not have a care about the direction of the country from the personal perspective. I attribute this to several factors:

a. Active participation in politics and a questioning attitude have been discouraged for the longest time. This breeds a mentality of caring only for one’s immediate family or oneself. On the one hand it shows that the government might have been efficient to the point where the necessity to care for others is diminished or even perhaps discouraged. On the other hand it truly demonstrates the level of ‘ownership’ in Singapore that our youth have. Very little. They are not made to feel that they belong in terms of decision making and they are most certainly not consulted if governmental and educational policy implementation styles are anything to go by. These two factors are the greatest mitigators to the first statistic relating to the desire to migrate.

b. The other factor to consider in terms of ‘stress’ is one where the government, through its various programmes, constantly strives to be first in everything. Life is more then being first at everything and I believe that today’s and tomorrow’s youths have already found that out. Variously and inevitably being first at everything does not guarantee a job for life or a career since Singaporeans are deemed easily replaceable by, in fact at times looked down on relative to, foreign talent in both the economic and non-economic areas of life. While the government may respond otherwise it is a matter of perception.

What is of surprise to me is that a good two thirds of the respondents indicate that they have an interest in political issues. This bodes well, as a first step, in establishing an emotional bond with Singapore as their nation of birth. The other statistic of political participation is insufficiently specific to dwell upon.

Moving on from political participation it is no surprise to see that youth want to move away physically as the local market for talent (as witnessed by local pop stars) of most aspiring talents are typically considered by our society to be inferior. This is most likely a societal issue where someone is considered talented only if he or she has made it abroad before returning home or visiting Singapore. It is a vicious cycle that needs to be broken both through governmental policy and societal behaviour. Is this paradigm attributable to a ‘colonial mindset’ perpetuated by governmental policies of hiring foreign talent and scholarship destinations? For me the jury is out on this particular question.


2) What are the repercussions of such opinions being held by Spore youths? What are the implications for Singapore?

Firstly, we will witness a dramatic brain drain. Sooner or later those who are able to establish themselves overseas will not even contemplate coming back due to the small size of the market in Singapore. This applies to all forms of talent.

Ultimately we will have to import every single kind of talent required. By then it will not be a matter of choice but one of survival for the idea of the nation to continue.

3) What do you think accounts for this seeming bochapness among Spore youths towards the country?

Back to the first point. A whole host of societal factors including governmental policies. A typical mindset might be: “If I don’t own (or am discouraged to even attempt to own) a place or a process why should I even bother about it?” Simple example. If I am made to work to own my first handphone relative to having it given to me would I take more care of it?

4) What can be done to increase the sense of ownership among the youths towards Singapore? (Eg change in educational system? Political system?)

A sense of ownership comes with the requisite responsibilities of making policies that govern that which is owned. Education is a key among others to promote that sense of ownership but it all boils down to what is delivered and how it is delivered. Very much like how a good teacher is able to promote an interest in a given subject. In my opinion, this can only occur with the provision of truthful and complete answers to an unfettered inquisitive mind – which by default all youth have. This may eventually translate into changes in the political system as youth come to be a defining force in politics.

But education alone is insufficient. There has to be a broad based societal consensus on educating our young to be ultimately responsible for the future of the nation. The loose confucianistic ideal of ‘sit down, shut up and listen’ needs to give way to one where youth are encouraged to question as a form of learning. When one finds an answer to a question, burning or otherwise, one owns the answer for life – there is no more need for rote learning.

The old form of evasion for which an answer is not available to a question in the form of “you do not need to know about this” has to give way to one where the elder should be perhaps saying something akin to: “I do not know the answer but perhaps you can find it here (or there, or with someone else).” With this mindset change and where youth are encouraged to ‘own’ their answers is more likely to generate a sense of emotional attachment and ownership.

Most importantly, some of our elders need to understand that they way forward into the future is not to be found in any textbook. The Mandarin adage of: ‘ren shi huo de, shu shi si de’ [the mind is alive whilst books are but dead text] comes to mind.

Another part of the survey pertains to the youths' attitudes towards education. - 82% of them said that they are either bored in school, most of the time, or sometimes. 17% say that what they learn in school will be of little/no use. 1) Is this troubling to you, and if so, what do you think can be done to remedy the situation?

It is certainly mind boggling to know that one is putting so much effort into something that will be of little use along the path of life. Could it be that that our educational system might have gotten some fundamentals wrong?

The original British ideal (on which our educational system is based) of an education is to provide for a well rounded individual. The grades assigned were an example of where an individual might be stronger at compared to another. The British system produced a lot of ‘generalists’ who could adapt to many tasks and few specialists to augment the generalists. The direction in which the Singapore educational system is heading is one of producing many specialists and few generalists – who are typically more adaptable to life’s changing requirements. The socio-economic and political considerations of this event are not to be taken lightly.

While I agree that basic education should remain a national goal the question should be one of what constitutes ‘basic education.’ Do I need to spend time on Higher Chinese just because it will get me into the JC of my parent’s (or my) choice when ultimately I plan to work or live in Europe or the US? Do I need to really spend time learning something which I deem to be of little use or no practical use whatsoever?

To ease the boredom I suggest watered down electives and even some major classes at the University level be introduced at the upper Secondary school level in lieu of some of the more hard core science and math classes. This serves several purposes:

a. youth will get a taste of what they might want to do professionally and pursue an academic career thereafter in accordance with the requirements of the day to meet their ideal destination. They will own their educational process and will have a keen interest in the subject matter since it is of their own choice and therefore a reflection of their desire.

b. youth will be more engaged, and hence less bored, with a variety of courses instead of the staid staple of examination based courses.


My present understanding with the full day program at many schools including the polytechnics and universities are that students are made to essentially ‘wait’ for the next activity be it a class or a CCA depending on the institution in question. Almost everyone gets bored waiting. It is a game of logistics where customer service levels should be much higher. In this case, the provision of sufficient teaching or coaching staff to ensure that students spend their time productively in school instead of having to wait an hour or more for the next activity. Yes, it costs more to have more teachers around the clock to cater to the students needs but this, in my opinion, is a far better investment then throwing away billions of dollars into construction projects to edifice government departments.

Continuing Education ....

No doubt the title of the post is somewhat a misnomer. Nevertheless apt for what has been happening these past 2 weeks.

First my article on Education got published in The Hammer and is now being sold. Next AJC students are embarking on a project to bring politics into the classroom (to put it loosely) and have sent me a questionaire which is being followed up by an interview later today. Very shortly thereafter ST also sent me a questionaire re the propensity of youth to migrate relative to our neighbouring countries as well as boredom in school. And today, ST ran more then 2 full pages of articles on education!

Hectic.

The ST article will be published on Sunday following which I will post my full and unadulterated responses here. I will also seek the ok of the AJC students to similar post my responses to their questionaire in full up here - later today or at a date with which they feel comfortable.

Suddenly it seems like education is THE HOT BUTTON TOPIC for the month prior to NUS / NTU re-opening their doors for the school year. Coincidence or?

Straddling [the] Income Gap

Straddling [the] Income Gap – ST Editorial July 12, 2006: A response which will never be published in the MSM.

First and foremost an editorial like this chooses which statistic to use. Secondly it chooses how it wants to interpret and project the chosen statistic. Commonly known as propaganda … here I present another way to interpret the data presented and how to question such statistics in this editorial and in future publications of this nature:

Why is a dollar amount used to demonstrate the rise in income from “$4,940 in 2000 to $5,400 last year” while a percentage is used to demonstrate “the income of the top 10 per cent of families [which has] increased by 14.7 per cent between 2000 and 2005, the income of families in the 11th to the 20th percentile fell by 4.3 per cent? The income of the top 20 per cent of households is now 31 times that of the bottom 20 per cent.”

Is it because the top earners wages are so obscenely high that publishing the figures would foment a revolution? Or is it because of who are in the top wage earner category? Numerous ministers? Executive Officers of TLCs and GLCs? Both put together – which in recent years have seen a large number by appointment thinly disguised behind the veil of meritocracy?

This is quickly followed up by an explanation for the disparity in income: “One explanation for this growing gap is the increasing number of retiree households. In 1990, there were 164,400 people over the age of 65; in 2004, there were 296,900. Most in this age group do not earn wages - the only source of income the survey measured - but live off their savings. The Department of Statistics also noted that the higher unemployment rate in 2004, compared with 2000, might also explain the drop in wages for the bottom 20 per cent.”

What I do not get from this collection of statistics is that while it attempts to reflect the reality on the ground and is presented as such in mainstream media it does not take into account the full picture. For instance we now can legally have taxi drivers up to the age of 73. Whereas the ‘cut off’ age for this General Household Survey in terms of wage earning is 65? And the official retirement age according to the CPF Board is 62?

So which age should be used to estimate or aggregate number of people who could be employed but are not? Are the numbers real or ‘manipulated’ to paint a certain picture? Because by including all those to the age of 73 or dropping it down to 62 would change the difference in wage earning capacity dramatically increasing it and decreasing it respectively.

But before anyone can digest or make sense (or nonsense) of the statistics provided so far the editor/writer claims that: “The chief explanation for the phenomenon, however, is globalisation. The income gap is widening in Singapore for the same reason it is widening in other advanced economies: The entry of low-cost countries into the global marketplace has meant intense wage pressure at the low-skilled end of the job spectrum in countries like Singapore.”

There are a few issues in the statement above on globalisation. Let’s go back some 40 years to the modern ‘founding’ of Singapore. Did we not enter the global market as a ‘low cost country’ which provided ‘intense wage pressure at the low-skilled end of the job spectrum in countries’ like America (pick your favourite first world economy here)? Did Americans blame globalisation then for the ascent of low cost economic centers outside of its territories? Doesn’t this sound familiar? Like it was repeated over and over again by the PAP during the recent Elections? To which my response was: you have all the ‘scholarly’ material in your stables and you choose to hike your inability to deal with change on ‘globalisation?’ The problem is in the system here in Singapore being not nimble enough to adapt to change – as much as it is with this phenomenon called ‘globalisation.’

Globalisation has been with us since the heydays of the East India Trading Company and are not likely to go away in the near or distant future. The questions should be: are our leaders fit and nimble enough in thought and deed to embrace it and move on to more creative enterprises which will overcome the effects of globalisation and which will ensure the future political and economic independence of Singapore and Singaporeans? If others can find a way to exploit or appear to be exploiting globalisation as a formula why are we stuck in a rut and using the phenomenon as a lame excuse like this editor/writer has?

And in line with governmental ‘regulations’ on writing in criticism the editor/writer has duly noted the possible solutions of skills upgrading and restricting lower cost migrant labour. Sounds suspiciously like party line the first one does doesn’t it? While the second smacks of protectionism in the name of keeping wages up? Thus ensuring the further rise in cost of living for Singaporeans?

Credit given where it is due and both the editor/writer, who is anonymous to date, rightly argue and cite that welfarism is not a long term solution nor a panacea despite the handing out of the Progress Package just prior to the recent Elections. But then what is? Should not MICA apply the same standards it did to Mr. Brown by coming down hard on this article for bringing up the issues but not supplying any issues? Or should MICA come down even harder since the writer is essentially anonymous, save to the editorial staff of the Straits Times, and who has written on a national agenda without properly presenting the whole facts? (Does not presenting all the facts constitute not telling the ‘truth’?)

Perhaps it would behoof the editor/writer to utilize his/her brains to make real propositions for change to deal with globalisation instead of just parroting what PAP has been propagating.

Such as the true release of government funds to help local SMEs instead of subjecting these small companies to ridiculous red tape like: “in order for us to disburse the grant of $100k to you you must first prove that your board of directors have the same amount in reserve.” Grow our local firms and let them compete on the worldwide stage. Spare some of the billions of dollars used to buy up shares in overseas companies and banks, which may have untold political consequences, to help our local firms stand up tall in this small world. Growth of local SMEs will engender more employment of Singaporeans which would generate a symbiotic relationship ensuring the further rise of local enterprises.

Stop the ‘parenting’ attitude that is so pernicious of the Singapore government to the point where now as third or fourth generation overseas Chinese entrepreneurs we have been ‘cut down to size’ as simply obedient Singaporeans for your own political expediency. (Remember LKY’s speech on hammering down every nail that sticks out? Now there are no more nails that stick out and we are just plain flat with not an iota of independent intellectual geography to speak of. Yeeaahh, count on me Singapore.)

Finishing off, the editor calls for a reconsideration of policies which heretofore have been ‘open’ in terms of low cost labour. Protectionism, in any form, doesn’t bode well for a country which has to rely on the free flow of trade. Singapore, as often claimed, with no natural resources has to, unfortunately, rely on free trade in order to sustain her economic impetus. What better way then for home grown companies / industries to foray out into the world and bring back the currency to pay lower waged workers?

Re-designing or re-designating jobs that are of zero or low value add should be slowly stopped as it is a tremendous waste of public funds which should go to insuring the future of Singaporeans and Singapore as a value-added service sector provider. Singaporeans should be encouraged to think critically, to explore without fear in all aspects of life.

Anguish. My country can treat the [modern] founding members of her society in such a manner. What will it do to me?

Necessity is the mother of invention. This adage has been bandied around for a long time and will remain valid for a long time more. But it is more important to note that dreams and aspirations go a longer way in terms of inventions or you would not be reading this article on a blog which has some nebulous origins in a garage in Palo Alto, California some 40 odd years ago.

Can I as a Singaporean, if I toe the government line and all the propaganda fed to me as a tool of socialization all through school and through ‘afraid to die’ parents and grandparents who have lived through the ‘ISD will come for you at 3am’ era, succeed in today’s world? Tomorrow’s world? Be a sufficiently independent and daring thinker who goes beyond thinking?

Politics affects everything without exception. Just like bullets do not have eyes.

Your vote, while you still have one, and the votes of those around you, counts immeasurably for the future of Singapore. Vote wisely always.

Of Mother Tongues, The Economy & State Control

The halcyon 80s, barring the slight recession in the early 80s, Singapore was an economic miracle with manufacturing and exports as well as tourism driving a vast majority of the local economy. Proof of economic interdependence on Asia was somewhat low relative to the same interdependence on American and European business and economies. In short, if America or Europe grew, Singapore would also grow. And vice-versa. China was slowly opening up to visitors and the like though commerce was primarily export driven (remember how long we have been eating ‘Ma Ling Luncheon Meant’ in round cans? Almost like forever for me.).

Our leaders then, and the political regime then probably viewed China as a potential burgeoning market that would very shortly yield fantastic economic returns if we could engage them in trade and commerce. And to effectively do this we should be able to utilize their business lingo – Mandarin, which is originally a northern Chinese dialect, enforced as a national language due the political center of China being in the north. This thinking yielded an eventual wholesale destruction of our cultural heritage vis a vis our original roots going back not too many generations (most can count this on one hand even today). This was enacted through a series of programmes exhorting only the use of Mandarin for all. “Speak less dialect, speak more Mandarin” was one of the slogans used. I should know, I was in secondary school then. Even the use of dialect was frowned on and in some cases, prohibited, in school and official settings.

This programme of Sinicization was highly successful as the State had penultimate control being that it was predominantly a single party government. One result is that today’s young adults and teenagers who are able to converse in some semblance of dialect number in the minute – soon to be non-existent. Are we economically successful in China as a counter-balance to this loss of heritage? I am not sure. I grew up reading and hearing about numerous investments, national and private, in China but have yet to hear of numerous successful returns on these investments. It has been twenty years now.

While there is no doubt that Mandarin is a requirement to do business in China could there have been a lighter hand in the implementation of learning the language to the point where our original (for mostly 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation Chinese in Singapore) heritage and dialect is not lost? Today, we have an entire upcoming generation bereft of their true mother tongue. Our mother tongues if we were to individually trace our lineage back to China not so many generations ago. A true loss in heritage and more.

Let us flip back the dusty pages of recent history and quickly review the general trend of economics and commerce in Asia in the 20th century. Numerous publications have pointed out that due to political unrest and persecution some Chinese were driven south. Their dialects and culture followed or in some cases assimilation to the local cultures took place. These Chinese were then the ones who took to the seas in search of a better life away from natural and political persecution. Some went to ‘Nanyang’ or the south seas and this includes Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand predominantly. Others choose to stay on in Hong Kong which was under British rule. In the later years Taiwan as a political entity was formed. China closed up then under Communist rule.

Officially, commerce flourished between the different Chinese communities around the Asian region. China always had some way of conducting commerce even though in most cases it was officially prohibited (I will leave the details to your research capabilities or imagination). Post World War 2 onwards the Asian economies sans China enjoyed an unprecedented amount of growth with parts of the growth engines driven by these overseas Chinese. Commerce was conducted in dialects and English. Recently several authors have chronicled the economic adventures and struggles of the Teochews (though I am sure they are not the only dialect group to be successful) in particular and how the dialect and ‘relationships’ with their hometowns or villages actually drove commerce to an international level beyond Asia and into the then reclusive China. These economic power houses revolving around dialects or home towns still stand today.

Let’s put the situation of Singapore today in contrast with Hong Kong and Taiwan. Unequivocally these two historic and present economic power houses of Asia (barring Japan and Korea) that are closely related to China due to geography, history, culture and language. For all intents and purposes these two territories are Chinese which have maintained their local customs and cultural heritage including what Singaporeans would call ‘dialects.’ Namely Cantonese and Mei Nan Yu (closest to Hokkien as we know it in Singapore) although Taiwan does utilize Mandarin it adamantly adheres to what the traditional written form in stark political and cultural protest to the modern written form practiced in China.

They have attained globe spanning economies that until today bear no equal in Asia. Does their success have anything to do with the fact that the de facto language of commerce for both of them at home are their own ‘dialects’ and English for international commerce? Perhaps it might be more instructive to look at the successful diaspora of the Chinese people worldwide. Even today the language of choice in most major cities in the world where there is a sizeable Chinese population remains Cantonese and or Mei Nan Yu. Why is it not Mandarin? All one has to do is visit Chinatowns in New York, Los Angeles, San Franciso, Vancouver, Sydney, Melbourne (Perth has apparently been over-run by Singaporeans!), London, Paris and even Budapest or Moscow.

Would Singapore have been better off economically in dealing with China if we had a strong mix of dialects (although mostly southern Chinese) as well as Mandarin to deal with the bureaucrats and the northerners? The economic end of this debate would have to be more extensively discussed. Would we be a more cohesive society that is culturally vibrant in the local Chinese context? Will our customs and festivals lose their meaning soon? This is, by my observation, a sure fact. We are losing our heritage and with it some economic clout to engage in some business fronts.

For most 3rd generation Chinese we are culturally bereft due to a State imposed programme ostensibly for economic gain for which materialization is suspect. Are we better off economically due to the opening up of China? Are the young brought up only to value material and economics above all else? What are we becoming as a people and a nation? All this while MM Lee opines that Singaporeans are being ‘lost’ to the world?

The political regime of the 80s, very much the same regime today as a choice of the apparently popular vote, had in mind a growing China and her adoption of a northern dialect (called Mandarin). With a vast economic market at Singapore’s doorstep the prevailing thinking was that Singaporeans should be linguistically equipped to barge into the Communist market which was slowly liberalizing. No fault in that mentality except that the leaders of the day chose to ignore the fact that a majority of international ‘chinese’ commerce was from Hong Kong (pre-SAR) and Taiwan where mother tongues of Cantonese and Mei Nan Yu (close relative to Hokkien as it is known in Singapore) as well as the real 20th century Chinese diaspora of whom very few spoke Mandarin.

No doubt we conducted commerce with Hong Kong and Taiwan to a large part but we, as a nation, democratically, voted for and bought into the vision of China as an economic saviour of sorts in the future. Today they are a net selling market (export oriented) with little to show for Singapore in terms of true economic benefit in bottom line terms.

We are where we are today due to the choices made then. And ultimate state control in one Party, as voted for by most Singaporeans, may be very fast in making decisions that result in policy often lack the usually better judgment afforded by time. Time that is found from responsibly debating national issues and policies prior to legislation where the interest of all are taken into account as far as is reasonably possible within the entity called a country. This is contrary to what PM Lee believes in when he criticized the Australian government for not opening up the lucrative flight routes from Australia to the US due to party politics. Colloquially put: the Australians do not owe SIA a living. If the PM is keen to comment on the standard of housekeeping done by others he should extend the same courtesy all around!

Today we are looking at India as a potential growth center. I hope we do not commit the same folly and overnight enforce a ‘national’ language program on Indian Singaporeans. India has a multitude of dialects just like China has and it would forbear policy makers, who, in some cases are voted in, to not impress a programme that kills off the various Indian dialects in use in Singapore today. Let us have a good and true discussion with the stakeholders prior to making policies on what today’s policy makers deem to be their utopian views.

Some lip service was provided in 2005 when Prime Minister Lee commended the Hokkien Huay Kwan (Hokkien clan) for attempting to keep the culture and language alive. But in schools, where we are all socialized and educated, culture (original culture that is) bashing is still the modus operandi.

Growing up in a generation whose parents were ‘strongly encouraged’ to study English as it was deemed prudent I was exposed only to Channel 5 so to speak. They were discouraged from using any other language while in school (unless they were in a Chinese school) and at work. China and Chinese was not the ‘in’ thing in the 60s and 70s. They still retain their ability to speak dialect as it was not slammed on. Brought up by my grandmother who spoke only dialect (not written – remember Redifussion!?) that exercise at ‘linguistic choice’ was then repeated on me but it was Mandarin over and above English, the only language my parents conversed in with me. I speak market Malay as a result of playing, after school, with lots of other kids, around where I lived growing up. No wonder I failed Mandarin at every turn then. I wonder what my children will face when they go to school? English, Mandarin and the language flavour of the day? And my grand children? Will my children and grandchildren, if they are Singaporeans ever know their true cultural heritage?

Today I work for a multi-national consulting firm that appreciates my ability to conduct my work in English and still be culturally and linguistically effective in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia and yes even China even though I do not have academic ‘A’s in Hokkien, Cantonese and Bahasa and Mandarin at any mentionable educational level. Ironically the young elite Chinese are now rushing to learn English and will use it at every opportunity they have and refuse to converse with you in Mandarin if they can help it. That I understand a smattering of local dialects and languages in Singapore has also helped tremendously in helping me quickly pick up and use simple French, Polish, Hungarian and Korean while working in those countries – all because I am not dead set on one set of rules about language.

Singapore policy makers often make policies based almost solely on economic needs and as if all Singaporeans lived a perfect life with no worries about, in this instance, taking up another language. As if we live to fulfill the ideals and dreams of policy makers and not much more when in a democratic society, as laid claim to by one star on our Flag (http://www.sg/explore/symbols_flag.htm), and the National Pledge, the policy makers should be reflecting the desires of the populace and guiding us with wisdom that does not come in a rush or overnight.

In diversity lies strength and resilience. Celebrating diversity instead of killing it off for the pragmatic convenience of policy makers only serves to strengthen the nation. Nation building is something which takes time, perhaps generations even with minimal social engineering, and cannot be enacted overnight as is favoured by the ruling regime.

Vote wisely! Your vote not only puts someone in government, it also dictates how you and your family will live in a variety of ways.

Introduction

I am a Singaporean writing in my personal capacity. The recent "demise of Mr. Brown" has prodded me to start a blog though I've known of the technology and existence of such a medium for more then several years now.

With the apparent state control over the traditional avenues of mainstream media (MSM) those who wish to express opinions that may not gel with the PAP's mode of thought have only the cyber world left to turn to.

I maintain that I am fully responsible for only my postings on this blog and not any comments directly or indirectly attributable to this space of free expression. That this blog has not been sanctioned by any political party or external body that may be deemd a society under Singapore laws.

The existence of this blog serves as a protest against the various forms of censorship espoused by (self-censorship) and enforced by (external parties) on the various media in Singapore. If you are irritated or find any articles in this blog not to your taste you are at full liberty to not visit this blog. Exercise your rights by keeping them to yourself.

~~

dum spiro, spero

veridicus lux