DPM Teo on Workers' Party Hougang by-election

 

Reference:
DPM Teo questions if Hougang voters being taken for granted 

Just some comments on the lines from DPM Teo

Mr Teo said the Workers' Party has now put up another candidate, and its secretary-general Low Thia Khiang is acting as if "nothing has happened" and is "pulling on the emotions" of voters.

 Shouldn't we just move on? Isn't that what we did when Mas Selamat escaped?

"If he was their best man, why didn't they choose him?" Mr Teo asked.

 Because he isn't the best man then. That's why he wasn't chosen.

"Is it possible that they are pulling on your emotions, and really taking you for granted?" Mr Teo questioned.

Singaporeans are being taken for granted. Just look at basic necessities like public transport. How does it feel to squeeze into a crowded train every morning? How does it feel to miss 2 to 3 trains every morning because you can't get onto it?

These include building more new flats to stabilise property prices and schemes such as the Workfare Income Supplement to raise the wages of low wage workers.

Talking about wages, I just read an article that infuriates me:
SMRT raises bus drivers’ basic salaries by 35%
I thought bus drivers were earning at least $2000. It was actually $1375 before other additions. This is just ridiculous. Like there aren't enough customers, I mean passengers, using the buses to pay for their wages. So where does the money go? More pay should be going to people who are actually doing the work rather than management. 

And the priority should not be on stabilizing property prices. It should be on lowering them.

Education standards in Singapore unrealistic

 
An ex-colleague of mine Ian Tan wrote an article for Today titled 'Standards are unrealistic' recently.

He said that the standards of Singapore education is too high. I agree.

Many parents who commented on that page also agree.

But MOE has the audacity to disagree, saying standards have remained the same. I guess that means Singapore parents are more stupid now.

There's no point in setting such standards so high that they become ridiculous. After all, most of the things you learn in primary and secondary school will be forgotten, except the languages.

The unrealistic standards create a stressful learning environment. It kills the passion to learn. The most important thing schools can impart to students is the passion to learn. When you force people to learn, it makes learning less attractive. You won't see a lot of people taking initiative to learn on their own. Or to take initiative, for that matter.

I want to make special mention on the point of problem solving as mentioned in the article. When you have kids that just follow stipulated route to finding answers, they won't be able to think creatively to solve problems in the future, in life.

• Standards are unrealistic  
• Primary school maths: A vicious circle
• MOE ‘dismissed’ public feedback: parent

Myopic Singaporeans

Just read an interesting article:
Why Are 90% of Asian Schoolchildren Nearsighted? From Doing What You’re Doing Now

Lots of young kids in Singapore are myopic. You can see them on the trains. They are everywhere.

It's easy to understand why it's so. Parents either don't have time to bring their kids out, or the kids would be too busy studying to go out.

Such is the life of a typical Singaporean kid.

No point dissuading S'poreans already set on leaving

  I agree with one of the letter writers who wrote the title above.

There's no point dissuading Singaporeans who are set on leaving, or persuading them to come back. When they have reached that point, you've already lost them. It's not like they made the decision to leave overnight.

It's all the little push and pull factors that made them leave.

Look towards making the people we still have stay instead.


And yes, the $4 million dollar is wasted. No problem. Singapore is rich.

By the way, there's a good set of photos of Singapore Day 2012 on Flickr.

Reference:
S’pore Day in New York a hit but will it bring home local talent?
New York to draw 4,000 on Singapore Day
No point dissuading S'poreans already set on leaving
Status Updates

From Old School to No School

I was reading about the story of how Old School at Mount Sophia is being forced out of her home after spending more than a century being on the hill. The school has been there since 1887.

URA has decided not to extend the lease and now all the tenants have to move out by June 30, 2012.

All this is part of the URA's 2008 Master Plan. They have slated the site for residential development.

In other words, my words, the current Old School is unable to generate enough revenue in that prime piece of land to justify it being there. Selling property in that neighborhood is more profitable than having some group of people going about doing their art stuff.

It's like there's no where else in Singapore to develop property and this is the last place in Singapore.

In the distant future I imagine, Singapore will just be filled with housing blocks and shopping centres. The only places that will be preserved will depend on their ability to attract tourist.

Is that the Master Plan?

Source:
Old girls of MGS fight to save Old School on Mount Sophia 
No lease extension for arts enclave at Mt Sophia

http://heritagetrails.sg/content/691/Methodist_Girls_School.html

Online code of conduct is stupid

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, has suggested an idea for an online code of conduct on 23 April 2012 at the Singapore Press Club.

Looks like the amount of online criticism has grown to an extent that we have to spend time to address this issue.

The idea is stupid.

Current laws are more than adequate enough to be applied online. The internet is just another communication medium. Technically speaking, there should be no difference if you slander someone online or offline.

All you have to do is to enforce the laws for those who break it. If there's no consequence to saying whatever you want online, then people will just continue. The act on enforcing will make people think more before they say something.

I hope no more manpower is wasted on discussing this non-problem.

Sources

• Online code of conduct? 'No thanks'
• Is there really a need for an Internet code of conduct?
• What is the point of an internet “Code of Conduct”?

Little to be desired from SMRT management

Two train disruption in two days. Each took a few hours to resolve. Hundreds of thousands of commuters were affected. While you can refund people back their money, you can't refund them back their time.

Trains can break down. It inevitable, sometimes.

What's appalling is how SMRT handled the situation. They had no contingency plans for such a large scale disruption. To top that off, they can't even react to the situation properly.

The first thing you should do during disruption is to communicate to people. If it's going to be a long delay, communicate often every 5-10 minutes. These are really basic.

If their PR is so bad, then don't hold a press conference to make a fool of themselves. Find out what really happened so you can answer the grilling questions.

And then there's the "Income Opportunity" message sent out to taxi drivers. That's just stupid. Any person with basic comprehension skills will know that's going to be insensitive.

On the person who broke the train window to get ventilation, SMRT has decided not to take the case up. It should be the other way round. Commuters should take action against SMRT for endangering their lives. Ventilation even on working trains can be quite bad on some days because there are just so many people. I can't even imagine what it's like to be packed in a train with no ventilation.

All these just goes to show that the management is only good when nothing happens. When nothing happens, any person can run SMRT. It's how you react to unexpected situations that counts. And now we know exactly how capable they are in this regard. Incapable.

I've never understood why the government themselves don't run public transport. It's a public good — if you remove it, the country grinds to a halt. So why run it as a for-profit corporation?

And of the recent SMRT & Comfort price hike, wait, aren't they a cartel - not in the strictest sense - but they are behaving like one in public. When you raise prices, your competitor also raise prices. So where are the market forces? They can basically raise prices whenever they feel like it, and the public won't be able to do anything — since they are the only taxi providers, they can't take other transport unless they want bus or train.

I do understand that taxi drivers need that fare hike to maintain their living though — everyone's complaining about cost of living.

Reference:
Second train disruption in two days draws ire
As criticism mounts, SMRT explains
SMRT should be surrendered to a new Statutory Board
Public inquiry to look into MRT disruptions: PM Lee
Disruption on North-South line enrages rush hour commuters

The unintended consequences of smaller HDB flat sizes

So now they are using the argument that you have more space per person because there are less people in the flat.

That's true, technically speaking.

However, when you're thinking of having a baby in that smaller flat, you'll immediately be tipped over into the less-space-per-person category. At which point, if you want to have a more spacious and comfortable life, you've to upgrade and buy a new property at ridiculously high prices.

I think that shrinking household sizes, falling birth rate and high HDB flat prices are somewhat related. I hope the government knows which affects which.

Reference:
Honey, I shrunk the flat, but it's just us now
Use space well and small flats can be comfy too
Smaller flats have not lowered quality of life: HDB CEO
'More space per person despite smaller HDB flats'

SingPost overcharging for passport collection

SingPost is charging $10 for collecting the passport.

A registered post for sending something like a passport into your hand is no more than $3.

So basically SingPost is overcharging for this service.

Thai Girl should get compensated

Source:

• Thai teen’s family sues SMRT for S$3.4 million
• Thai girl receives S$250,000 donation from S’pore Red Cross

I've read some of the comments from readers on the Thai family suing SMRT. Some are pretty amusing. Just from reading the comments, you can tell who has knowledge of the law, and who are arguing based on their common sense.

So the question really is if SMRT was negligible?

I think so. It's SMRT's property so it's their duty to keep their passengers safe.

Of course, the girl's actions have to be taken into account as well - I'm guessing no one in the right mind will jump onto a track. Well, the video evidence will come in handy.

SMRT has been slow to install those platform gates. I've always been wondering about past suicide cases of people who flung themselves onto the track. SMRT could have installed those gates to make it difficult for people to jump onto the track. It's not as if they don't have the money.

After many years, they finally started putting up the gates, but it seems that they didn't do so at Ang Mo Kio station.

The principle of law is to restore value - to restore the victim into the condition he/she was previously in. If there's one thing I can remember about law - back when I was studying business law in NTU as a course - it's about the very basic principle of law.

SMRT only offered $5000.

The family is only suing for damages amounting to the replacement limbs. They would have sued for real legs if they could.

I think the case will be settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money.