Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts

Thursday, March 5, 2015

When a Sociologist is a Victim of Crime

Last Sunday, my apartment was burgled while I was asleep. The thief took my bag, along with my wallets, my keys and my car keys. That night (or should I say early morning) three other units in my building were burgled.

As a sociologist in risk governance and a victim of crime I feel like I should somehow be able to rise above the fear, anger and frustration of the event. I have in the last five days thought about what I would do or say to the boy who broke into my apartment and my car.  I am filled with a deep sense of anger, frustration and disdain towards him (indeed her). As the stories start to emerge from my neighbours and friends who also had their houses burgled and their cars stolen, the picture I am getting is that of a bunch of young kids – between the ages 13 and 19 – just bored, looking for thrills. They are not violent people, and they are not always interested in money. Sometimes they just want to go for a joy ride, trash up a car and walk away with no consequence.

My first reaction to these stories is – the damn fuckers. But my next question is why are they not in school? Where are their parents? What kind of family background do they come from? Are they doing this because their family needs the money? Do they not realise they are gambling with their future? Why do they not consider this a morally wrong thing to do? What does this say about the moral compass of society in this little city?

The police have reported the spate of break-ins as the fault of residents for not locking up their properties. But they miss the point. That is – or should I say was – the beauty of our area that people trusted each other enough to leave their doors unlocked at night. That trust is now lost – and it’s the most valuable thing that these young thieves took – social trust.

When I think about how this trust might be restored, my thoughts go back to these young burglars. As a sociologist, I am compelled to see beyond the individual and look to the wider social context in which he/she exists. Somewhere along the life of this young individual, society failed him/her. Perhaps, he was not taught to respect private property; perhaps his own personal space has been violated many times in life that he no longer sees it necessary to accord the same respect to others. Perhaps he has done poorly in school and teachers unintentionally make him feel worthless, and therefore he must prove himself in other ways. Perhaps he comes from an abusive family and this is how he gets relieve from the anger inside him.

There are a myriad of possibilities, multiple pathways that lead up to the choice that he/she made to be a burglar. But one thing is clear, burglars are not born, they become one. And somewhere along the life of this young person, he chose the path of crime over a path of education, gainful employment and a future that is meaningful. I have always been inclined to believe that even if one chose a wrong path at some point in life, there will always be one back to the right one. We all make mistakes and bad choices in life, and if society is kind enough to not define us by those bad choices, then I must return the favour. 

So if I meet the kid who burgled my house, I will not be angry. I might, in fact, sponsor his/her education, be his/her tutor, give him/her options other than that of crime. Maybe that is the only way social trust may be restored. For sure he/she is just one person, but I'm saving him and his children and his children’s children from generations of crime. In the longer scheme of things, that’s not such a bad achievement.


Thursday, December 30, 2010

Love and Biology

This is a short entry I found in my journal archives back in my journalism days:

I was doing some research for a story about the science of love and attraction, I realised something: the scientific community here is not quite interested in Romantic Love.

I was not able to get a scientist (apart from the social sciences) or a neurologist in Singapore to comment on what goes on in the brain and the body when a person is in love.

Perhaps I did not search hard enough, but if I had to spend more than a week to find such a person in Singapore, it would also indicate the amount of importance the research community gives to the study of romantic love.

In Singapore, we seem to be more interested in 'fertility' more than the stuff that leads to fertility. Young couples seemed to be more concerned with missing the biological boat than getting on the boat together with the love of their lives and enjoying the ride.

Have we as a society become too occupied with the practicalities of love that we have forgotten that it is a process and experience that is meant to be savoured, relished and, yes, sustained?

We always seem to be in a rush. We rush to get a job after graduating. Then we rush to get married. And then rush to have kids. We almost forget what the rush is for.

Social scientists often argue that social pressures should be reckoned with in the human psyche. Perhaps it is time we recognise that biology is crying out for us to let some love into society.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Rave Church: Getting High on Stupidity

Even the old man on the right is totally getting into the techno...walking stick and all...hahah!

Hilarious...21st Century Christianity for you.


<a href="http://video.xin.msn.com/?mkt=en-sg&amp;vid=079b2e78-efaa-463f-835f-60345aca9e0d&amp;from=en-sg&amp;fg=dest" target="_new" title="Techno Church Rave">Video: Techno Church Rave</a>

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Chance Favours the Connected Mind

This is a brilliant lecture by Steven Johnson about where ideas come from: "the architecture of space where ideas can have sex"

Our offices should be designed based on this fundamental philosophy! :)


Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Malaysia going Nuclear

So it's official. Malaysia, along with many of its Southeast Asian neighbours are going nuclear - what they consider to be part of the "green energy" family.

The New Straits Times reported today that the government has identified several sites, including one or two currently uninhabited islands, to locate Malaysia’s nuclear power plant.

Why are we investing so much money and expertise in a fuel that will 1) produce so much heat it will require a lot more water to cool, further adding to the lack of water for agriculture and basic utilities esp for the urban poor 2) produce a whole lot of toxic waste that we still don't know how to dispose of without poisoning our land and our people?

How nuclear power came to be regarded as a 'clean energy' is even more confounding.

And let me guess...the report says that these islands where the nuclear plants are going to be built, they're uninhabited, which means the natural life and biodiversity is pretty well preserved there. So we are once again going to deforest the land, kill off the life there, so we can built a "clean energy" plant that's going to poison us and the land even more...and for what? So that our factories can continue to increase production and present nice growth figures for the structurally poor to admire and hope to one day enjoy the fruits there of?

Oh please...give me a break! The idiocy is simply unfathomable.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Party Against Poverty III @ Timbre @ The Substation

Hi guys!!

I'm organising a third fundraiser party next Wed (28 July) for a
Medical and Nutrition Project for Burmese Street Kids in Thailand I started with some friends.

You can find out more about our project on facebook (join us here).

10% of all food and beverage sales from the night will go to our project, so just by being there you'll already be contributing to the kids.

Details of the fundraiser are:

Venue: Timbre @ The Substation [45 Armenian Street]

Date: 28 July (Wed)

Time: 6:30pm onwards



HIGHLIGHTS!!

Our home grown local talents, Jack and Rai will be doing a special 30 min acoustic set from 8.15-8.45pm before their usual set just to support this project, so COME EARLY!!

After that, the full band will play another set from 9.15-10pm where they will do “DONATIONS BY REQUEST”. This means you can get song donation coupons from us in exchange for a donation to the project, and the band will play your song request. Our guys will be going around with the coupons and donation boxes.

10% of all food and beverage sales between 6-10pm from that night will go to our Medical and Nutrition project, so come ready to eat and drink loads!!!

Bring friends, spread the word and hope to see you there!

Cheers!

Carpe Diem

P.s. When you arrive just say that you're there for Party Against Poverty and they'll direct you to the reserved sitting area :)

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

How about wakeboarding in Orchard Road

Wonder what will happen if we tried this in Orchard Road or Bukit Timah...heeeheee...

Eh Wakeboarders in Singapore!!! Wake up your idea!!! Give us some urban action leh!!! Lookin forward to the next flood! :D


Sunday, July 18, 2010

The Orchard Wave

Nice one by Mr. Brown. I say this beats the ridiculous Youth Olympic Song hands down. They should have just commissioned Mr Brown to write the song and save us the national embarrassment we have to endure for the next few weeks.

I think it's rather condescending for the government to straight out say Singaporeans should not expect a flood free Singapore when they've been boasting all these years about their impeccable drainage system and risk planning foresight. Singaporeans don't expect a perfect government, but we don't appreciate an arrogant one either. Just admit your shortcomings where they exist, work on it and move on...


Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Singapore cuts funds to theatre company

True to the government's lack of tolerance to alternative views and social and political critique, they've cut funds to local theatre company, Wild Rice, for daring to do what theatre is suppose to do...(read ST article below)


At least they didn't shut the company down entirely...


NAC cuts funds to company

THE National Arts Council (NAC) has cut the annual grant given to local theatre company Wild Rice. It will get $170,000 this year, down from $190,000 the year before.

It is the lowest annual grant that the company has received from the council. Artistic director Ivan Heng says the council told him funding was cut because its productions promoted alternative lifestyles, were critical of government policies and satirised political leaders.

In April last year, Wild Rice staged an all-male version of Oscar Wilde's The Importance Of Being Earnest, which had a sold-out two-week run at the Drama Centre. It was given an advisory of '16 years and above' by the Media Development Authority because of its all-male cast.

It also organises the OCBC Singapore Theatre Festival, a biennial festival showcasing local scripts, some of which take on political issues in a cheeky way.

Heng, 47, tells Life! he is disappointed with the council's decision. 'Shouldn't NAC be funding people's experience of theatre? What does support of the arts mean? What does moving into a more progressive society entail?'

He says he will continue to create works that are true to his beliefs. 'This is what artists do. We question how we live our lives in Singapore.'

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Party Against Poverty

Hey guys,

Want to party for a cause? Some friends and I started a medical and nutrition project for Burmese street kids and orphans in Thailand.

So we're hosting a party at Handle Bar next Saturday, 17 April, from 6pm to 1am to raise funds for the project.

In short, the project aims to provide 200 children with one year's supply of food, multivitamins, crucial medication and sanitary items.

10% of all beer sales that night will go to the project, so come with your beer caps on. It'll also be a good chance for you to meet like-minded people, have good quality conversation, and enjoy one of the most unique bar settings in Singapore.

For more information on the event and to join us, click here.

For more information on the project and who we are, click here: Party Against Poverty

Look forward to seeing you there! :)

Carpe Diem


Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Enough with the affairs

Ok so Tiger Woods and Jack Neo had multiple affairs. And before that, the hyper-conservative British politician in Northern Ireland cheated on her husband with a boy half her age.

It happens, and it happens a lot because people marry the wrong person, married on a whimp, married on social pressure, or they plain and simple changed (or didn't).

This is life and this is human nature. You marry with both eyes open, and after that you keep one closed if you want it to last.

A friend once told me that guys marry the woman hoping she doesn't change, and women marry men hoping they will. There in lies the root of disappointed expectations and inevitable failure in marriage.

But who am I to speak. I'm not married. I'm not close to it and I certainly am not going to.

What's with marriage anyway? It's like marking your territory in the eyes of the law. What has the law to do with my personal life? As it is it's invaded enough of my personal space. It's unnecessary pressure to make sure the relationship works, otherwise there will be FINANCIAL penalties, as if the emotional ones are not enough.

In the past I can understand why the law had to step in because women were financially dependent on men. But we live in different times. In fact I know of many women who use the law to milk their ex-husbands for money.

This of course is not to say there aren't genuine cases. But seriously, if you want to be with the person, then be. Why let something that's meant to be between 2 people, become the State's business...and for the unfortunate Woods and Jack, it's now the whole damn world's business.

Give 'em a break. There are bigger things happening in this world.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Upping productivity in S'pore is absurd

I find the latest obsession with raising efficiency in Singapore as a "new economic strategy" rather absurd.

Productivity is such an elusive concept, and can be used as an excuse to shed more labour in place of machinery (to "increase productivity"), or make people work longer hours (not shorter) because the spreadsheets need to show that the department can now do 5 projects in one month instead of just 3 in the previous month.

In the end the segment of society that will lose out most are (as usual) the working class, blue collared, less skilled workers (and now increasingly the middle class skilled workers too) because they've been made redundant by machines and technology. But that's the whole point, because the government says it wants to make Singapore a service and financial hub, right?

The government also says they have a solution for that, which is more training and reskilling. Hmmm...That'll work just perfectly because a machine operator can totally be "reskilled" to be a service personnel or financial adviser. And by the way, you will be paid as poorly as before, if not worse, cos you'll have to work longer hours, and you don't really have the relevant working experience. But you'll have a nicer title and get to work in an air-conditioned room.

This productivity solution to Singapore's lack of competitiveness is a clear sign of the lack of innovation in policy thinking and an obsession with micromanaging the citizenry.

Now for my second gripe - the media.

I find it even more disgraceful that the papers went on for over a week, wasting page space singing the same government tune and reproducing the party line without giving alternative perspectives or any form of questioning whether this is what Singapore really needs.

It's not about criticising for the sake of criticism, but showing both sides of the coin like any good journalist would do. Where was the counter argument to this whole policy in the one and a half weeks of coverage? Who are the potential losers in this kind of policy and what do they have to say about it? What do the sociologists and political scientists have to say about it?

If the straits times wants to stop being seen as a government newsletter then it needs to stop acting like one. Or maybe that's just how it wants to be...

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Homeless in Singapore - the real story

So while our dear mainstream newspapers went on about how much people have to pay for welfare housing last Sunday, they conveniently skirted about the bigger more pertinent question of why the hell there's been more homeless people in this country when the government's been boasting about fabulous growth rates.

The truth is, Singapore is one of the most unequal countries in the world! Our gini coefficient (the measure of inequality in the country) is even worse than China (reported in The Economist some months back)!!!

Anyway, The Temasek Review wrote a way more perceptive piece on the homeless situation in Singapore (attached below). Hopefully we will all be more informed about what's really happening in our society and not be so easily taken in by all the talk of "increasing productivity" and "securing healthy growth rates".

The Temasek Review, Singapore - 31 Jan 10

MCYS: Increase in number of homeless people in Singapore not linked to financial crisis

Written by Our Correspondent

More and more Singaporeans are becoming homeless, but there is no direct evidence to link this with the financial crisis, said the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports.

As of last year, 253 homeless people were picked up by MCYS officers, up from 123 in 2007 with more than half of them found sleeping in the void decks of HDB blocks. Most of them were sent to destitute homes where they get free shelter, food and clothes with curbs to their freedoms.

The actual number may be higher. Homeless Singaporeans, especially the elderly are ubiquitous throughout the HDB flats in Singapore.One need only take a tour at night to find them sleeping at the void decks, parks and even in the open:
The increase in the number of homeless people in Singaporeans coincided surprisingly with its high growth rate of between 5 to 8 per cent over the last decade which is fueled largely by the relentless influx of cheap foreign labor.

At the same time, the median wages of ordinary Singaporeans have remained stagnant at $2,600 monthly and the income gap between the rich and poor have widened. Singapore now has the highest income gap among the thirty most developed nations in the world.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, the ruling party’s liberal immigration policies have depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, lowered labor productivity and led to an overall decline in the standard of living. (read article here )

While the poor has become poorer in Singapore, Singapore’s ministers have given themselves a big pay rise for their managing of the Singapore’s economy. A significant proportion of their multi-million dollar salary package is pegged to Singapore’s GDP growth – the higher the growth, the more money they take home.

When asked about the widening income gap in Singapore during a ministerial forum last year, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew dismissed it as an “inevitable” consequence of globalization and that it “matters little” so long the government continues to create jobs for Singaporeans.

Though Singapore is the second richest country in Asia after Japan and its two sovereign wealth funds Temasek Holdings and GIC can afford to lose millions of dollars overseaas, its citizens enjoy few social welfare benefits from the government.

Kishore Mahbubani, the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy wrote famously in 2001:

“There are no homeless, destitute or starving people in Singapore. Poverty has been eradicated, not through an entitlements program (there are virtually none) but through a unique partnership between the government, corporate citizens, self-help groups and voluntary initiatives. The state acts as the catalyst-matching financial support, sponsoring preventive and social care, and ensuring that basic needs are provided for.” (read here )

It is about time he retracts his statements and re-orientate himself to a new reality in Singapore.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

What good is being knowledgable if you're Stateless?

I have just returned from a trip to Mae Sot, a Thai-Burma border town where many illegal migrants from Burma live and work. Mae Sot is also full of foreigners working for various NGOs supporting these illegal migrant communities as well as the refugee camps in the surrounding areas.

I spent a couple of days in one of the camps and what I saw there, simply blew my mind away. Coming from Singapore, I had a certain perception of what refugee camps are like - dirty, unsafe, and full of idle people sitting around waiting to be resettled in the U.S. or waiting for handouts.

Nothing could be further from that. The camp was bustling with life. There were schools for the children and everywhere you go, you hear the sound of children reciting something in the classroom, or laughing and playing when the teacher's not in class.

There streets with little shops selling food, meat, veggies, nick nacks, CDs, DVDs (!!!) etc. There were tea shops that served the most amazing Yu Tiao (YES! They had yu tiao in a muslim tea shop!!) and teh tarik (though it was on the sweet side).


The camps were divided into zones and then districts and each district had a leader, and all the leaders would gather every month or more frequently to discuss problems and issues, sort out logistics and even disciplinary cases, and vote on the decisions to be made.

The whole camp was a fully functioning eco-system of trade, economy, eduction, recreation and social ordering. It was simply amazing.

The youth I met and spoke to were very well read. They had read about Lee Kuan Yew and they could tell me how great he was making Singapore a great nation out of nothing, especially when it comes to water. They knew very well what was happening in the world outside the camp, in the U.S., in Europe etc.

The basket ball courts and takraw courts you see around the camp were projects created, managed and funded by the refugees themselves. They even organise talent competitions, sporting events etc. These were highly motivated individuals, with a drive to make life as normal as possible in a situation that is far from normal.

My translator told me one evening over dinner that what I saw while in camp - the smiles, the positive energy, the optimism - all of that was a mask for a deeper internal frustration that many of them suffered because they are Stateless.

"Mentally, they are destroyed. Our morale is destroyed. Because we know we are nothing. We have no country. We cannot get proper jobs with no papers and no identity. Everything is no to us. We are just pawns in a big political game," he told me.

I couldn't help but feel a pang of guilt somehow. Here I was, a girl from a developed country, 10 years younger than him, earning 10 times more than him, buying him a dinner at a seafood restaurant that would have cost him an entire month's salary, and talking to him about how amazing I found life was in camp.

The few days in camp, was for me a novelty, a cultural capital that I accumulate through the stories I bring home and the photos I show off to my friends. It was part of my personal desire for adventure and out-of-the-norm type of traveling experience.

But for people like my translator, and all the kids I met in camp, that is their reality. That is their jail.

What did I have to offer them? Nothing.



Sunday, January 3, 2010

Responses to MM Lee's NatGeo Interview

Something I chanced upon...

__________________

The Temasek Review, Singapore - 1 Jan 10
CNA’s spin on MM Lee’s NatGeo interview, minus the “hide” remarks

Written by Our Correspondent

Stung by the massive outcry in cyberspace over MM Lee Kuan Yew’s disparaging remarks about Singaporeans, the state media moves into a damage control mode in a lame attempt to limit the fallout from the PR disaster by omitting the actual words used by Lee in the interview with National Geographic magazine in July 2009.

Though NatGeo journalist Mark Jacobson’s article which was based largely on the interview first appeared in the online version of the National Geographic magazine on 20 December 2009, it made the headlines only after The Temasek Review had highlighted Lee’s words 5 days later.
In an article titled “Social cohesion key to keeping Singapore going: MM Lee” published on CNA yesterday, Imelda Saad tried to lessen the negative publicity surrounding Lee’s message with a toned-down version:

“Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has expressed concerns over how the younger generation may be less driven compared to the growing number of foreigners in the country…..Mr Lee noted that if Singaporeans do not work hard, they may lose out.”

[Source: Channel News Asia ]

Channel News Asia is owned by MediaCorp, the sole broadcasting company in Singapore. It is in turn controlled by Temasek Holdings whose CEO is Ho Ching, the daughter-in-law of Lee.

Contrast this to Mark Jacobson’s passage in his article “The Singapore Solution”:

Over time, the MM says, Singaporeans have become “less hard-driving and hard-striving.” This is why it is a good thing, the MM says, that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants (25 percent of the population is now foreign-born).

He is aware that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the influx of immigrants, especially those educated newcomers prepared to fight for higher paying jobs. But taking a typically Darwinian stance, the MM describes the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.” If native Singaporeans are falling behind because “the spurs are not stuck into the hide,” that is their problem .”

[Source: National Geographic ]

Nowhere did Lee express his concerns about the younger generation. In fact, he said plainly that it is their “problem” if they are falling behind the Chinese immigrants.

If Mark Jacobson had misquoted Lee in anyway, he would have been sued for defamation a long time ago. Since Lee has not taken legal action against him, we can safely assume that Lee had meant what he said and the article is a fairly accurate reflection of Lee’s thoughts about Singaporeans and the new Chinese immigrants.

Furthermore, the words “less hard-driving and hard-striving” and “the spurs are not stuck in the hide” were indeed mentioned by Lee as recorded in the full transcript of the media interview as well.

It is unbecoming of Channel News Asia to deliberately distort the words of Lee in order to lessen their impact. Perhaps Lee had wanted to send a wake-up call to young Singaporeans who are getting “complacent”?

CNA should interview Lee and asked him to clarify what he has meant exactly in the interview instead of trying ways and means to twist and turn his words in order to salvage his embattled image.

In the past, Lee’s words would have gone unnoticed if the state media did not report on it. With the continued growth of the new media and socio-political news sites with a large readership like The Temasek Review, it is foolhardy to continue to practice self-censorship to pull a wool over the eyes of the people.

Note - the bold red words by Temasek Review

Thursday, November 13, 2008

DBS blaming the wrong people

I'm sorry, but is it me who's missing the point here or the DBS bank (Singapore's largest bank)?

The front pager on The Straits Times on Wednesday said "DBS overhauls sales tactics" - "CUSTOMERS will be asked tough questions before investing".

Should not the customers be the ones asking the tough questions? And since many of the banks investors are pensioners who don't know two cents about how the financial market works, shouldn't the bank's buddies in these failed financial companies be the ones getting asked the tough questions?

The bank is shifting the blame on the customers for "ignorant" investment? Hello, but this is their hard earned savings you're talking about, which the bank just lost thanks to some great decision making.

The customers didn't lose their money because they made the wrong decision to trust Singapore's biggest and most reliable bank. They lost their money because THE BANK made the wrong decisions.

So why is the bank saying now that investors will be scrutinised for wanting to invest? It just doesn't make sense.

And given DBS's strict regulation, the source of investor's money is hardly a problem in this country. One could hardly spit in the streets without getting fined, much less invest money obtained by illegal means with the biggest bank of Singapore.

I'm thoroughly disappointed with the way the bank is handling this. And more so with The Straits Times for reporting this without any critical voices. The only people quoted in the article were DBS chairman and the chief executive officer of the securities investors association of Singapore - all in favour of the new "sales tactics".

Did the paper not think it necessary to get sentiments from 'the investor'?

I think we're putting the blame on the wrong people here and also asking the wrong questions. It's no use making sure customers read the summary sheet before they say yes they want to invest because reading it doesn't mean they understand what they are reading. And all this while, they've been trusting the bank sales personnel to be implicitly honest with them when explaining the returns and the risks of investing.

It's bad enough that the bank's gone and lost their customers' savings. The least they could do is not blame them for a mistake they didn't commit.



Thursday, September 18, 2008

Are we desensitising our readers?


It can be quite dehumanising working in the newsroom, where the availability of news - often the more harrowing the better - determines whether you have a good front page or not.

When I made the decision to choose journalism as a career over research, I had in mind the idea that I could make a difference by what I write and by joining the newsroom, I will have greater impact. But after being here for just a couple of months, I begin to realise that news today, not just in Singapore, is rife with macabre reports.

Are we as journalists, desensitising our readers with our constant flow of negative reports. Are we creating a humanitarian fatigue among our readers to the point where they no longer want to read about starvation in Africa or human rights abuse in Myanmar, or protests against forced evictions in China?

I was reading a book review by Stephen Wolgast on a book called "My Brother's Keeper" which tracks the emergence of human rights photography. Wolgast brought up the same issues - What is the function of photographs and what is the role of photographers?

Wolgast sited examples of photographers whose work "shocked audience[s] and led to social reform".

Should that not be what us journalists aspire to as well?

Susie Linfield, photography scholar, also brought up a dilema faced by photographers that we reporters also encounter - how to show suffering without demeaning the subject. For reporters, how do we write about someone's plight without taking away his/her dignity as a human being, with a God given right to be seen as a person and not an object of pity?

In the end, Wolgast contends that "instead of making us immune to the suffering of others, the proliferation of images has made us more aware of inequality in the world".

I hope he's right. And I hope it's the same for news. It is at least heartening to see that the youth in Singapore are at least more active in overseas volunteer activities today. But whether it springs from a genuine desire to make a difference, or the glam factor of being a do-gooder in a third world country, is another story altogether.

For the most part, Singaporeans are happy to observe and acknowledge poverty from a distance. We feel sorry for a moment, shed a tear or two, and then proceed to shed many more dollars at a spa, restaurant or boutique to soothe our aching conscience. After all, if we're not buying these products, those poor child labourers will be out of a job.


Picture source: http://www.ac-nancy-metz.fr/enseign/languesLP/anglais/dr_hom_child_work.htm






Monday, August 25, 2008

Only Fruitcakes demonstrate


Hong Lim Park is to be (once again) the oasis of public political expression here in Singapore.

According to the
PM's recent National Day Rally, Singaporeans will now be allowed to demonstrate publicly, but only at the the Speaker's Corner, located at Hong Lim Park.

I spoke to some of my peers and the sense I got from them is that there is huge skepticism. Simply changing the legislation will do little to encourage Singaporeans to engage in political activities in public.

A professor from NUS said that demonstrating is still stigmatized in the country and the real protesters will not choose this as an avenue for political expression because they immediately lose credibility by going to the speaker's corner.

Demonstrations are in essence anti-establishment activities. To then obediently follow the rules that are aimed at controlling scope and nature of such activities revolts against every notion of a demonstration.

It's like taking the venom out of a snake's bite. It not only takes the kick out of demonstrating, it presents the impression that the whole affair is simply staged.

Take a step back. How many political speeches have ever been made at the speakers corner since its inauguration in 2000?

In 2003, the Agence France-Presse reported that the speaker's corner attracted fewer than four speakers a week, and only 140 speeches were held between October 2002 and June 2003

In 2004, the London Telegraph quoted an officer describing the general interest in the facility as "less than zero".

Consider the Singaporean lifestyle, where people either work or study or shop 90% of their waking hours a day. Who would travel all the way to Hong Lim Park in the heat of the afternoon, or even the cool of the evenings to listen to random people rant and rave about the dismal state of politics in Singapore, when they could simply click away on google and immediately have access to an array of political views from blogs to news websites?

You've got to be either inordinately naive or simply a fruitcake to go demonstrating at the speaker's corner...unless you've got your party crew ready, with a DJ, good speakers and a bunch of fun loving friends, up for a good party in the park.

And if things get a bit boring, there's always Boat Quay to hop over to.


Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Babies are not a money issue


Last week The Straits Times published a few articles comparing fertility rates in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the UK and Singapore (see: Baby Perks: Do they really work?)

There is no doubt that finance is a key concern among young couples today when considering whether to set up a family. Like in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, the Singaporean government has dangled carrot after carrot in front of couples to procreate to very little effect.

The question here is not whether these financial perks are too small to lure couples into a life time of monetary responsibility, but WHY are we even thinking about babies in financial terms. Is the decision to have a baby a rational choice? And can we really measure the opportunity costs to having a child?

Paulin Straughn, Sociology professor at NUS told me that it is a fairly recent trend that Singaporeans started thinking about children in financial terms. She says we are being bombarded by ads everywhere by banks and various financial institutions about how responsible parents should start planning and saving for their childrens' education. This has reinforced the notion of cost consequences of having a child.

A colleague of mine also told me that when a couple applies to the bank for a house loan, they ask how many children they have and vary the size of the loan accordingly, creating a competition for financial resources between the parents and their children.

At the end of the day, having children is not a rational choice, and simply cannot be one. How does one measure the happiness a child brings to a parent by a simple hug or chuckle? How does one measure the pride a parent feels when his/her child wins an award?

There can be no matrix to measure the costs and benefits, much less the opportunity costs of having a child.

Maybe the government is dangling the wrong carrots in front of its young couples.