This is one of the topics that most Singaporeans would not bother enough. There are plenty of issues to bother that are closer to their hearts, as pointed out during a correspondence with an online friend. Such issues include the loose immigration policy, high COE prices, high HDB prices etc. But yet in my opinion, such issues are no less important, for such matters affect the image of our society in the eyes of the world, and such matters also determine to what we are as a society and what we believe in.

I always believed that all laws are implemented because they are reflective of majority intent. Or that was what I thought the ideal state was. For example, the act to repeal 377A (The law against homosexual committing unnatural sex acts) was never repealed under the argument that the majority was not able to accept the idea. I can accept that as our society isn’t that liberal, especially when we have an ageing population, which means even though the young are liberal, we have to consider the needs of the older folks, who form the majority. 377A is also hard to repeal because it is also linked to a person’s religious views.

In the past, I would have also agreed that the mandatory death sentence is something that should remain, given the argument that a majority of people in Singapore also accepts the mandatory death sentence. A survey indicates that a “95% margin of support among 425 respondents” for the mandatory death penalty (Taken from TOC).

But yet now I question that statistic. Upon looking at the videos made by TOC, I realized that plenty of people have in fact no idea what mandatory means, even though we claim to be a bilingual country. Given that there exists people who do not understand the word mandatory, how is it possible that their support is valid? There exist a chance that the support might change upon understanding what mandatory truly means. I had always bought the argument that the mandatory death sentence is crucial in ensuring that Singapore remains drug free; that a strong deterrent is required to stop people from delivering drugs into Singapore.

However, each drug case is unique and has to be considered separately. Let’s ignore whether the death sentence is effective for the moment and consider whether making the death sentence mandatory reeks of inhumanity. In most other cases, the court usually looks into a variety of factors before deciding on a sentence. But when it is made mandatory, it means that the death sentence has to be given under all circumstances. The situation in reality is that there might be chances for rehabilitation. There is always compassion even in the arms of justice.

What we want to do is to crush criminal organizations who deal with drugs and cause harm to lives. But what if the drug mule has no link to the drug organization, but is merely forced by circumstances to deliver the package? Such question makes me wonder if mandatory is truly required.

If an individual is young, foolish, does not know that Singapore has a mandatory death penalty and delivers drugs in, I wonder if the mandatory death sentence has played its part in being a deterrent. Would there be cases that another sentencing would be considered fairer?

In addition, is the death sentence truly effective? I would think so, to a certain extent. I do agree that it is a fearful thing, and people would think twice before doing it. As mentioned before, what if the mule has no link to the organization but is merely forced by circumstances? It only prevent people from wanting to make a quick buck by using the fear of a possible death penalty when caught, but it does not deter the organizations from making use of people.

On the other hand, I wonder, if mandatory death sentence is lifted, will there be abuse of the system? Will drug mules all claim to be forced by circumstances? Is there a true way to judge which persons are forced and which are not? What is the proper way to decide?

But after thinking about it, I think the courts should be given the chance to decide what sentencing to be used. I really hope that we could show compassion if possible. Even life imprisonment sounds like a better deal than death sentence. The drug mule, when rehabilitated, could help promote the cause against drugs and educate people about it’s ill effects.

But I think the main issue is this: People need to realize that the argument against the mandatory death sentence isn’t an argument against the death sentence, but in the word mandatory.

What do you all think?

I’ve come across this article on “The Ridge”, which is the magazine that a bunch of NUS students wrote and published and it is free waiting to be collected at several locations in campus. The title of this article is “Confessions of a Single Freshman”, which I found a little amusing because it is slightly different from what I experienced in university. I will write my thoughts after each chunk of text.

Guys, hands up if you have heard the advice that your best time in university is the best time to find “the other half”. Faced with a potent mix of raging hormones, female deprivation (an unfortunate consequence of fulfilling National Service) and a series of orientation games that bring intimacy to a whole new level, it is no wonder that there is a spike in the number of new relationships on campus at the start of the academic year.

Somehow I wonder since when we have orientation games that bring intimacy to a whole new level, and since when had such games led to a spike of new relationships on campus. It is in my opinion that the games are just meant to facilitate bonding amongst larger groups. Besides, the beginning of a relationship is due to a multitude of other factors that has nothing to do with “female deprivation” or “orientation games”. One gets attracted to someone not because they have not seen any females in their 2 years of life, or that they like how the opposite sex plays a game, or how you get to be intimate, if any.

But I did hear about the best time and the other half part, which has it’s pros and cons.

For the other freshmen who had initially wanted to remain single, they stand little chances against the pressure to get attached. And as if peer pressure is not enough, I can personally attest to the numerous times lecturers have alluded to this matter during their lectures, invoking nervous laughter from the crowd.

Personally I never thought as undergraduates with an average age of 19 for female freshies and 21 for male freshies, we would be so childish to get attached cause our friends are attached. We stand little chance against the pressure to get attached? I laugh, for I think we stand a greater chance of feeling so depressed that our friends are scoring better than us in tests and examinations than to feel peer pressure regarding being in a relationship. Lecturers in Engineering though, have not mentioned anything on this topic.

The burden to conform to an idealized state of being attached is so overwhelming that one wonders whether the Social Development Network (SDN) is slowly but surely making an impact on every aspect of the university student’s life.

Yet, what’s wrong with being single, really?

Let no one lie to you. The idea of “the other half” is a myth conjured by deluded Greek philosophers. Some feel a sense of emptiness which they believe can only be filled by “the other half”. But the reality is that you do not need to be attached to feel satisfied about your life! You do not need “the other half” to define who you are as a person; you are a complete being.

What’s more, trying to find fulfilment solely through a romantic relationship more often than not turns out to be a pointless quest that ends in disappointment.

Not much comments there, as the author does make some sense that there are indeed other sources of fulfilment that one could attain to feel good about himself/herself.

For me, staying single is a rational choice. We often underestimate the amount of time and energy we need to invest in a relationship. Take me for an example; the opportunity cost of me getting into a relationship is the time and energy I could have spent on achieving my first-class honours.

Don’t jump onto the relationship bandwagon before you have decided for yourself whether you are ready for this extra commitment and whether you understand the impact it will have on your academia.

I understand the opportunity cost part, but this begs the question: How many people who remain single, manage to achieve first class honours? I don’t think that getting the first class honours is such a simple process. There are plenty of factors to think about. Neglecting a person’s natural ability to absorb material, we have to consider other factors like the amount of time spent on CCA, on going out with friends, on resting and watching dramas and anime and what have you that has nothing to do with academic matters.

I would rather push forward the notion that we must learn better time management for our activities. The author seems to suggest that relationships are the only source of distraction, and that undergraduates must spent ALL their time studying just to get first class honours.

And I say that’s a load of bullshit. The curriculum is structured for you to have a good social life on top of your studies. You might need to spent more time to understand the lectures compared to smarter friends, but you don’t have to neglect your social life. University is about striking a balance.

What is the point of achieving a first class honours but you lack social life?

I think the best advice for people going into a relationship is to be mature about it. Recognize that there are other priorities in life that needs to be managed, and that your other half does not fill up your world entirely. Perhaps that the author, a freshman, is mixing around with other female freshies of age 19, who have a different opinion about priorities as compared to a, say, year 4 female. Of course, there are varying degrees of maturity even in a group of people in the same age, but ignore that for a while and take the general route. At 19, perhaps it is more important to play and enjoy and having fun. After a few (failed) relationships, people do grow up and understand better about themselves.

If you desire companionship and a shoulder to lean on, you can always start by making friends.

Sometimes, we forget that the first step towards a great relationship is to learn first what it means to be a good friend.

That’s the end of the article. The last portion makes sense too so there’s nothing much I want to comment.

That’s all from me today.

Have you all read the news about the I hate yog facebook group that surfaced? As well as this single person calling for the burning of the minister whose ministry oversees the yog? Well that guy has been arrested and I would have thought that singaporeans by now would have realized about the level of the freedom of speech in Singapore.

Before you start agreeing and say that we don’t have freedom of speech in Singapore, let’s just clarify that I think we have freedom of speech, just a more specific one, the freedom of irresponsible speech. As long as you can back up your facts and play the game maturely, you’ll be fine. Calling for the burning of a minister is disrespectful, illegal and childish. Not to mention utterly irresponsible. I think he deserves it. No pity from me there.

I don’t really know why freedom of speech is said to be inexistent here. I find myself living in a comfortable environment, and there are plenty of opinions on the Internet criticising the government for the sake of criticising. It seems they still function pretty well, perhaps they don’t make statements that are of such a horrid nature.

Plus I don’t believe that we should have freedom to the extent we call for violence against anyone or against any partiular religious or racial group. And that falls under irresponsibility.

Hence, the freedom of responsible speech is enough, isn’t it?

Distance Based Fares kicked in since the 3rd of July this year, and so far it has generated plenty of discontent among passengers. I had been very supportive of distance based fares, because in a logical manner, distance based fare would make everything more fair. The move to distance based fares was said to help those who travel long distances, and is probably step one of any plan to remove long distance buses. It is said that about a third of the passengers would see an increase in fares, with the rest either maintaining or having a reduction in the fares.

But yet if Distance Based Fares were supposedly fairer, why are we generating much complaints? For the purpose of this discussion, let us ignore complains that the current statistics involving people with increased fares is much higher than 33%. This is because, surely, people with a reduction in fares would be less inclined to share the information, and people who saw an increase would be unhappy and hence be more proactive in dishing out the info. In addition, most of us do not really remember the fare before. We only have a bit of a rough idea, and hence we cannot be sure the exact increase / decrease in the fare.

The sad thing about the Distance Based Fare in Singapore is that it is really not entirely distance based. There seems to be some other variable that affects the fares. For one, it seems that amongst my circle of friends, that multiple transfers is better than a single bus trip. I am not entirely sure if the distance covered in both instances are the same, but assuming that they are roughly the same, then it makes no sense that we are encouraging multiple transfers, unless it is part of a wider plan to remove long distance bus services.

However, I do have proof that the formula does involve something other than distance. If distance based fares are only based on distance, then my MRT trip from Clementi to Lakeside should have the same cost. This is not the case. I have two scenarios drawn out, with both scenarios requiring me to take bus 96 from two parts of NUS to Clementi Interchange before changing to the MRT to go back to Lakeside. Assuming it is entirely distance based, I should get the same cost for the MRT part of the journey, and different costs for the bus leg.

The above shows the fares if I took the bus at the first stop in NUS, at Engineering LT7A.

The above shows the fares if I took the bus from Computer Center, 3 stops away from LT7A. Hence this is the one with the shorter bus journey. Looking at the bus fares, it seems to be distance based. However, why is the MRT fares different? Although I still pay cheaper for shorter distance travelled (as compared to scenario 1), it makes no sense that the MRT fares would differ.

Surely this is proof that there is some other variable at work?

I took the above screenshots from the Distance Fares Calculator provided at PublicTransport.sg.

The idea behind distance based fares is noble. The anger against distance based fares has, honestly, nothing to do with the concept of distance based fares, but how distance based fares were implemented. Surely, when transparency is touted as one of the pillars of our governance, that we should see some transparency in how the fares are being calculated? This is because when a noble idea is tweaked, it would cease being noble and become unfair instead.

The ethics of insurance agents have always been in question, ever since we hear stories of how bad agents sell policies to people who dont really need it, just so that they can earn the commission. Whilst such cases are now few and far between, they still do exist. Thankfully the measures undertaken to regulate this industry worked to some extent.

I did write about the lousy standards of testing done to ensure an agent understands any new plan rolled out by their company. Hence, I would not touch on it further although this is one issue on the integrity and ethics of the insurance agent.

The view I am going to write about might not be really an ethical issue, as it depends on peoples opinion. I find that it is an important issue to raise, and I would try to explain my stand. Hopefully at the end of this post, people will concur.

The issue I am raising was talked about in the papers yesterday. In it, agents were reportedly poached by rival agencies with cash incentives. The paper acknowledged that it is an agents right to switch companies, which I have to reluctantly agree. But I feel that it would be good for agents to keep to their parent company.

Back when I was in the Great Eastern internship programme, I remember an agent telling me that he chose to work full time and not part time as a form of responsibility and commitment towards his client. Financial advisory is not only just a product being bought and sold; it includes the relationship aspect.

Most of the time, we buy policies from relatives and friends; not so much the man on the street. We trust our relatives and friends to give us the best advice, more so than the person cold calling my house or approaching me at mrt stations. This belief is not accurate, but that is the topic for another post.

Additionally, the policies of the company might not be very different than what other insurance companies are offering. Hence what we are buying is not a policy, but a responsible agent or advisor we can trust. An agent that we can trust to settle our hospitalization claims when the need arises.

Hence, isnt it unethical for agents to jump ship, resulting in our policies beig transferred to someone that we do not know of? That sense of trust is being betrayed, especially when the next agent is unwilling to provide the same service the original agent provided? This is not surprising because the new agent will not earn any commission on the premiums the policyholder pays! As such, why would he want to spend time explaining the policies when we are not going to buy a policy from him?

In such a case, changing of company or even changing of a career is unethical. It would be even more so when the agent who jumped ship then asks his friends to end the old policies and take up new ones.

For sure, if you end a life policy prematurely, it wouldnt be in the clients best interest. This is accepted to be unethical by the regulatory bodies. But they do allow the agents to change companies.

Perhaps when one day all agents are dedicated and responsible, this issue would cease to be unethical.

Recently my friends elder brother graduated from university and he got hired by a Singapore company. Sadly, as he is a foreigner, MOM has to approve his employment pass before he could officially work here.

His company has also kindly agreed to wait until the proper approval is given, but MOM kept rejecting his application. Even a letter from the MP couldnt help.

Now, he studied in university paying the same fees that we Singaporeans do. Hence he actually had the same MOE tuition grant as us. The only difference is that he has to work in Singapore for 3 years, something like a bond.

I think this is absurd. You subsidise his education, but you do not allow him to work in Singapore. The guy has got a job offer, and the employer actually waited until they decided not to hire him anymore. Why deny him a chance to work here? I rather we not subsidise his education in the first place. MOM told him to go back to his country and work for a Singapore company.

Are the policies of MOM and MOE out of sync? If we want to tighten our intake of foreigners in our workforce, then dont give out so many subsidies! Whats the point of subsidizing and then not allowing him to do his duty in the contract? Its not as if no Singapore company wants to hire him here.

Bleah. Why not subsidise my MBA instead? I would continue to work here. Isnt it better?

I saw a video from razortv and they were discussing about a stomp post where a girl was found asking her maid to take out the beansprouts from her bowl of noodles. When the maid didnt do her job properly, she scolded the maid?

Is this wrong? RazorTV seems to think so. Yet since when can our media claim that a particular action is right or wrong? Morality in plenty of cases are not so clear cut.

One thing for sure, plenty of bosses scold their employees too when they make mistakes. Unless we censure such actions too, Im afraid its plain wrong to suggest that reprimanding a maid be wrong. In the eyes of the law, reprimanding is not maid abuse!

Stompers also took the moral high ground and said that such princesses are spoilt. Whilst I would not allow my future children to do this, I doubt I can say that it is wrong. Is it in the maids job scope or is it not?

Can we safely accuse someone of being spoilt just like that?I mean its just a different way of living, and is it called being spoilt? Women who hire part time maids to clean the house cause both husband and wife are at work, are they spoilt? What if their jobs are very important and many peoples survival depends on them running the company properly? As such time is better spent on business and recharging rather than slogging on housework during the weekends?

Can we honestly claim a moral high ground based on an aspect of the truth?

It often puzzles me on how we refuse to see the right person when we have troubles. When we are sick, we go to the doctor right? Using his expertise, were able to gain a deeper insight on the problems that plague our body, and he might send us to a specialist if need be.

However this is not the same for our financial health. We do not see a financial advisor when we have questions regarding our insurance and financial planning aspects of our lives. Once I read on hardwarezone, a local popular forum, that someone has questions regarding purchasing of private shield plans. A financial advisor offered to help, but the threadstarters reply was that she dont need or want to see a financial advisor. And this reply of hers garnered popular support.

It sure is sad to see how the reputation of a financial advisor stink like that, but unfortunately I think that the smart man or woman would consult an advisor rather than asking clueless people on forums because they do not have any idea on the clauses in the insurance contract.

Whilst it is sad, nobody can blame these people for feeling that financial advisors are just out there to con their money. To put it simply, the name stinks. How many advisors are genuinely there to help a client? The number of people who do a fact find before proceeding to recommendations are considered to be extremely rare.

There are a couple of reasons why I would think that financial advisors have a hard time, and I believe that the industry has to improve for its reputation to go up. But the smart move now would be to find a trustable advisor to begin advising you on any matters.

1. It is easy to be a financial advisor
A doctor has to undergo specific training up to 6 years in duration before he is allowed to practise. An advisor only needs a pass in o levels? Furthermore, how convinced can you be of an advisor selling you an investment plan in a mutual fund if he has no qualifications regarding finance? Only a handful of financial advisors proceed on to get their CFAs. Can you imagine your advisor recommending you to select a fund, but he does not really understand how it works? Telling me it will go up does not convince me at all.

2. Lousy standards with respect to learning about new products
I have participated in the launch of new financial products. Advisors have to sit in for a few hours of lessons and then take a mcq test. Throughout the lesson, certain words are emphasized in a different colour to signify that it would be tested. When the mcq is being taken, people discuss despite being told not to. If our A levels are conducted like this, Im sure no one would have any faith in our qualifications. Similarly, how much faith can I put in my advisor if their knowledge on new products are built on shaky foundations?

3. Not following proper procedures
Do you know that advisors are supposed to get your financial details like salary, CPF contributions, dependents details, monthly expenses, existing insurance plans etc before recommending you any product? However, how many advisors truly adopt such a measure? How many times has your advisor called to say that theres this new product and arranges for a meeting? As opposed to having yearly reviews before saying I think this product suits your current needs or I have a new product, but I dont think it suits your needs at all. This layer of transparency and integrity would go a long way in improving the reputation of financial advisors.

Although there are many black sheep in the industry, there are good ones too. Ask your trusted friends if they have any advisors they trust. I do not like talking to agents on roadshow particularly because I do not know them enough to trust them. But the main lesson of the day is to seek proper help and never ask a completely untrained person for financial advice.

A few months ago our education minister seemed to have suggested reducing the weightage of mother tongue in our school examinations, resulting in plenty of discussions that led to an apology of not choosing the right words which led to a misunderstanding. Recently our dear MM Lee also spoke on the topic of our mother tongue, highlighting the issue that very few Singaporeans actually manage to master both languages, and that compared to English, our mother tongue is used less frequently. English is still the medium of instruction in subjects like math and physics. He is also right to point out that university students do not get exposed to mother tongue unless we choose to take related modules.

I agree that most of us cannot master both languages, myself included. Ever since NS, I have had difficulty remembering how to write Chinese words, but I can type farely well. My vocabulary is limited to those that I use frequently; only when I get into a more poetic mood do I have an improvement in the choice of words used.

But like a friend pointed out, just because it is hard, should we stop trying? Although I was exposed less to Chinese ever since I became an undergraduate, I felt that I could better relate to the language, and accept the language more than I was in school. In fact, I discovered I enjoyed the process of learning the Japanese language in my adulthood more than chinese in my kid days.

Yes, perhaps I am much more older and more matured, hence I could enjoy it more than anything I studied whilst I was young. However this does not mean that no steps could be taken to possibly improve our current methods of teaching mother tongue.

Perhaps a revamp of the education method with regards to the mother tongue should be adopted before we give up and throw in the towel. For us Singaporeans should be more resilent and stronger than that. If the problem was the method, and we chose to give up now, we would be denying our children the chance to have a greater mastery of both languages compared to my generation.

Hence before we adopt the drastic measures of reducing the weightage of mother tongue, we should consider adopting better systems to teach the language.

The reason why I enjoyed learning Japanese is simple. I had access to the Japanese dramas, which, in my own biased opinion, is more entertaining that local productions. I loved the Japanese anime, and their songs are nice too. I loved visiting the country, and I loved the food. What this means is that I had viewed the language as a pathway to embracing the rich culture of the Japanese. Now that the focus is on the culture and not the language, learning becomes more fun.

So this is what we should do. Whilst we cannot transform china because we have no right to, what we can do is to make people interested in the Chinese culture. The stories of legends, history of the emperors, even popular works like Legend of the Condor Heroes etc could help in teaching the language.

myPaper has done it. In the paper, certain english words are in bold, meaning their Chinese equivalents would be shown somewhere in the article. Since reading newspapers is not what most students consider entertaining, I would suggest putting the focus on television dramas instead.

For a start, we could focus on dramas with potentially high viewership. Selected words in the script could be displayed in a different colour in the subtitles with their Chinese equivalents stated. Since these dramas are in the chinese language, pronouciation would be taught too. The list of words could be provided in MediaCorps website.

Additionally, we could change the system in the classroom, but since it had been discussed at length, I shall not mention it.

The point of this post is this: we should exhaust all means necessary to improve the learning process before deciding to play with the weightage.

Note: I know the proper word is Mandarin, but most of us use Chinese as if it was the right word to use. It has already become part of our language.

I think being in a government is a tough job. No matter what you do, there will be people complaining about your governance. As long as someone’s life is hard, they will complain. When you say CPF is there to provide for old age, they will complain and say people now know how to save. When you say the purpose of raising GST is to help the poor, they only think of how raising GST will increase the prices of the goods they are buying.

As long as you are at a higher position over someone else, you will be bitched about. Even in the working environment. Sometimes it might be due to a miscommunication, but most of the time people at the bottom just bitch to feel better. Even managers, yes, as long as there is someone above, most people will complain and complain. There is just no satisfying everyone.

The CPF is there to save money for you. Just treat it as auto saving 20% and more (since there is employer contribution). Even if the government give you the money, you will still save the 20% up in the bank isn’t it? This is because you want to buy a house etc. And the interest rates in CPF is 4% (conditions apply. Only first $x in OA), which is better than the pathetic 0.01% in banks?

Put it simply, the government cannot end up in a situation where retirees have no money and start asking money from the government. When that situation occurs, the tax money would be used, and hence now we get a situation of the young paying for the old. CPF is NOT taking the young’s money to put in the old’s account. We cannot afford to have everyone on social support, so for those idiots who cannot save money properly, the rest of us have to suffer the inflexibility. Yes some of us might be able to generate better returns, but sadly most of us cannot. Hence for the majority, it is logical for the minority to have to sacrifice. Balancing the needs of everyone and the needs of the few is a delicate task the government has to do.

On another topic, how many times have we seen fellow Singaporeans take up our minister’s quotes to make fun of? Especially the one about social support, about how much do you need? Hawker center food, food court food, or eating in a restaurant.

I don’t think our minister was wrong at all in saying that. For a person living on social support, how much does one really need? Do we need to give them enough money so they can have a super comfortable life? Eat at Jacks Place everyday? Watch movies at GV Gold Class? As long as they have enough to live on, with a roof over their heads and food to eat, I think, we have done our part as fellow Singaporeans. After all, we work hard for ourselves, not to benefit other people who don’t.

Sometimes I wonder, what is the government’s role? We elect representatives of us as our leaders, to go to places like the Parliament and discuss things for the benefit of the country. However, might I ask, whether their role is to represent public opinion and implement popular policies for the masses, or to move with unpopular policies that will inconvenience the masses but is good for the country subsequently? Both are logical. And what is popular with the masses might be detrimental for the nation.

Take for example, National Service. If we allow the citizens to vote, we’ll probably scrape it. But is it vital? Is it really needed? I don’t know the information the government has, but I guess they do look into it and determine if we have this level of threat existing in the region. But I guess it is always good to question the government, so there’ll always be a thinking process there. But sadly most of the questions are noise. Lacking in standard and are mostly whine.

Should we inconvenience the minority who know how to save for the majority who don’t?

Should we implement NS to deter aggressors or cancel it to lessen the inconvenience for the Singapore born males.

Should we invite FT to play for us in sports, so that the excitement generated would be good enough to produce our own talents in 30 years time, or should we use our talents now who might not win anything, hence not generating enough excitement and not changing the situation? FT now and local later, or local forever?

They are all difficult choices to make, and so many things to think about. But at least when I am able to feel secure about myself and my future, and I can live happily here, to me, I guess that’s great. We’re already so fortunate compared to other places. Caning vandalisers, hanging drug murderers. Cruel? Draconian? I guess, I like this Singapore.