National Day Rally 2007 Commentary

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stressed in his entire speech that education is the way towards a better future for the younger generation and put forth several ideas and plans regarding education. In my opinion, some of them can be carefully considered as they are important for the future of the country but others are simply unrealistic.

Take for example the idea of raising the proportion of every cohort that receives subsidised education in the three state funded universities from the current 25% to 30% by 2015 as well as building a forth state-funded university. I think this is a fantastic idea and is no doubt an important decision that can shape the future of Singapore. By raising the proportion of students that are eligible for subsidy, more students can afford to pursue their university education in Singapore while building a forth university would mean that there would be more places in every courses, providing a wider variety for students to choose from. Such a move would see an increase in the number of university graduates in Singapore in the future. Even though more state funds would be transferred for such a cause, I believe that it is a worthwhile investment. More opportunities for Singaporeans to pursue a higher degree of education would equip them with the necessary skills before they enter the workforce and put them in a better position in terms of job prospects.

On the micro level, it would be great to see more people having better education and job opportunities. However, the situation would be even better on the macro level. Better employment rates would mean good social stability within the country because less people become unhappy regarding job opportunities. Whereas better education for more people would mean that the workforce is more highly skilled in general and this would attract investors to open firms here as well as aid the growth of our local Multi-national Companies, which would help develop the country further and allow the economy to scale greater heights.

Unfortunately, not every idea proposed should be seriously considered like this one. As quoted from PM Lee,"First, the Malay Special Programme to study Malay as a third language. It’s there already in all the schools, but it’s not very popular. So, we’re going to introduce incentives to encourage more students to do the Malay Special Programme. Singaporeans like incentives, so we’re going to have small incentives -- two bonus points for JC admission and a few more things".

If this Language Special Programme were to go ahead, imagine to number of students who would choose to study the language for the 2 bonus points instead of due to genuine interest for the language. Cynics would argue that not all students take up languages only for easier entry into junior colleges but the fact that the Malay Special Programme is not popular says it all. Singaporean students do not have the interest to study Malay and even if small incentives were given, students would simply study for the sake of studying, which defeats the purpose of grooming students who can communicate effectively in Malay.

Moreover, if 2 bonus points were to be given to students who take up languages, does this apply to all languages? It would be blatantly unfair if students currently studying a third language are not given the same incentive. I, for the record, am a student who take the Japanese Elective Programme, yet no additional bonus points were awarded and I can only curse and swear at my peers who enter better junior colleges because they were given an additional 2 points for taking up the Chinese Elective Programme. Is learning the Japanese, French and German language less of an advantage to Singapore compared to learning Chinese and Malay? There is no doubt the need to have people being able to communicate effectively in the mother tongue of the greatest populated race as well as in the National language. However, we should not forget the rationale of implementing third language courses in the first place, which is to groom students to become future delegation to these superpowers. In what way should students taking up these languages deserve less of a merit as compared to those who study Chinese and Malay? I am sure that implementation of the above idea would be met by huge outcries from students like me and hence I believe that it is not realistic to go ahead with such an idea.

The Singapore education scene has the makings of a great success with some of the ideas proposed by PM Lee. However, it has to be kept in view that only the pragmatic and important ones should be implemented, if not we could well see Singapore's education moving in the opposite direction.

Can poverty ever be eradicated?

Looking at the billions of people around the world living in abject poverty and having to be content with their squalid living conditions, one cannot help but wonder what is the cause of this enigma and whether there is any action that can be taken to eradicate it. In my opinion, there are things that we can do to lessen poverty but there is no way to eradicate it completely.

Kamala Sarup blamed poor geographical location of a country, political and social issues, as well as feudal cultural ideologies as the root causes for poverty in his article "Can a poor country become rich?", dated March 16,2007.

Poor geographical location means that the country is generally inaccessible, making it extremely difficult to transport goods and services within the country and across other countries. As such, people do not have the necessities they need while the country's economy takes a beating when trading cannot be completed between countries. Bad economy means that many people become unemployed and without work, these people cannot support their families. They are also deprived of the daily necessities, and hence have to suffer poor living conditions as they slump deeper into the mire of poverty. According to the U.N list of country's GDP, countries which are surrounded by high mountains and have few water ways always linger at the bottom, with the exception of Switzerland. A way to help these countries pull themselves out of poverty is to introduce technology to the people. Better technology helps build up an effective transport network even in rough terrains, allowing vehicles to manouevre their way through and improving transportation and trading. However, this will require a lot of funds which without the largesse of other countries, cannot be materialised and thus poverty cannot be eradicated.

Political and social issues also contribute to poverty in a country. In totalitarian societies such as China of the past and North Korea, people do not have any incentive to work hard to climb up the social ladder because there isn't one. Classless societies derived from political ideologies of communism and socialism make everyone equal regardless of what they do and only the government is given the authority to have a say in everything. As such, there is no improvement in the countries and people have to support themselves with the pittance they are given while having to struggle with the rising inflation in the price of goods due to development in other countries. In addition, different ideologies between these countries and the richer ones mean that the richer countries are reluctant to provide aid, leaving the poorer countries to struggle on their own. For example, America, a country based on democratic principles, was unwilling to provide aid to China, a communist country, in the mid-20th century. Only after much negotiation did America pledged to help China, albeit reluctantly. Even today, aid is only given to North Korea to thwart its nuclear ambition, which the hermit nation constantly uses it as a leverage during negotiations. Steps should be taken to improve bilateral ties between countries so as to improve the chances of aid provision to these poor countries. However I cannot see how poverty is going to be eradicated because leaders of such nations just do not seem to be keen on moving in this direction.

Culture is also a cause of poverty, so says Kamala Sarup. Certain cultures emphasise religious values more than pragmatic survival tips. Thus, schools focus more on religion than mainstream education. As such, people who go through such education are poorly skilled and are mostly unable to gain employment with their skills. More attention has been called for on this issue, and Kamala thinks that the way to solve poverty is to change the way schools teach. I am in favour of that. Not that I am casting the importance of religion aside. What I am saying is that schools should strike a balance between life skills and religious values. Only through this can these people find their place in society and gain employment to support their families and get out of poverty.Again, it is unlikely that focus in school curriculum will shift immediately. Hence poverty cannot be eradicated completed in the short run.

Jeffrey Sachs, on the other hand, blames gender discrimination, poor health and bad weather for poverty.

Many countries, particularly those in the Middle-east, forbid females from getting the education they need. As such, more than half of the population of some of these countries are illiterate and this is taking a toll on the economies of these countries. This is especially when potential investors face many problems in communication and written agreements. As such, the nations can only rely on themselves for survival and the lack of education among the people means that these countries are unlikely to prosper on their own. Thus, many human rights organisations have pushed for more education opportunities for women in these countries, but looking at the how these oppressive governments work, it is unlikely literacy rate will rise in the near future.

Another reason for poverty is the bad weather in some countries. Extreme weather conditions such as droughts and floods damage everything a country has, from farms to plantations, from houses to the cities' infrastructure. People are living in poverty because they do not even have enough food for subsistence, let alone things that they can trade to earn money. Some also do not have proper accomodation as their houses get destroyed from time to time. Steps can be taken to help these people. Jeffery Sachs is calling for countries to pledge a small percentage of their national income to help provide the poor with fertilisers and irrigation techniques so that they can plant new crops even in adverse weather. In my opinion, the money can also be used to built dams to prevent floods and to induce artificial rain to solve problems caused by droughts. However, many countries are not fulfilling their pledge to help and this proves to be a stumbling block for countries affected in their bid to get out of poverty.

Extreme weather also exposes people to diseases and epidemics easily occur in these poor countries. As a result, many people are too sick to work and therefore do not have the money to support themselves, let alone get out of poverty. Malaria for example, is widespread in these countries and to solve the problem, countries have pledged to send bed nets to keep the mosquitos away. Cholera and Typhoid are also common diseases among the people because of consumption of unclean water. These poor countries should consider using the Newater technology used in Singapore or use the Pur powder, a powder that can separate water from its sediments, to purify the water so as to allow more people to have access to clean water. As a result, less people will be down with such diseases, and countries can look forward to a heathier workforce. However as said earlier, such technology will be expensive and countries will have to rely on foreign aid.

Even if all the above problems were solved, it is still unlikely that poverty can be eradicated completely. This is because there are other reasons such as racial discrimination and corruption in governments that are not taken into account.

Racial discrimination can occur in any part of the world. In certain countries, some races are not given equal employment opportunities because they are deemed inferior by the rest. Even in today's America, some Afro-Americans are marginalised from the mainstream society and because they are unable to gain employment, they live in poverty. This is despite the fact that America is the world's richest country. This shows that poverty do not have to occur in poor countries and only when racial discrimination is eradicated will these people be emancipated from poverty.

Corrupt regimes are also another source of poverty. In countries such as China and Vietnam where corruption is rife, many people are suffering. Despite having vast natural resources that can be tapped on as well as enjoying booming trades, commoners in these countries do not see any improvement in their pathetic lives. This is because most, if not all, of the revenue earned from these economic activities are not returned to the people. Instead, they are kept by high ranking officials. As a result, there is a concentration of wealth at the top of the level while everyone else lives in poverty. Given the oppressive nature of these governments and their refusal to open up for monitoring by international watchdogs, it will be extremely difficult to curb corruption within these governments unless the leaders themselves take action.

As shown above, despite having so many solutions to solve poverty, there is no guarantee that they will work. In addition, there are also many problems that will most probably remain unsolved. Therefore, it is a foregone conclusion that poverty can never be eradicated completely.

Death Penalty

Many countries in the world still practise the death penalty and Singapore is one of them. Over the years there have been controversies over the use of death penalty with its supporters claiming that it deters crime while its detractors critising it for being immoral and ignoring human rights. I, for the record, is in support of the death penalty, having witnessed the low crime rates in Singapore as compared to many other countries which do not pracise the death penalty. In fact, Singapore has the lowest murder rate per capita in the world, according to wikipedia and I am convinced that the death penalty has the ability to deter crime.

In "The Morality of Capital Punishment" by Gary S. Becker, the death penalty is said to have a deterrent effect because humans have a natural horror for death and therefore will resist the notion pf committing crimes that warrants the death penalty. However, the author did admit that the death penalty has its weaknesses. For example, it will make murderers more determined to escape detection and thus take drastic actions to prevent being caught, such a killing a rape victim. I think that this should not be a point that opponents of the death penalty should capitalise on because as correctly pointed out by the author, advanced forensic technology and knowledge of DNA through various samples should be enough to nab the criminals. Just like in Singapore, where criminal cases are more often than not solved within 24 hours using such advanced technological equipments to capture criminals. In addition, the author also pointed out another limitation of the death penalty, that is it might possibly kill innocent people wrongly convicted of crimes that warrants the death penalty. There might be such a possibility in actual fact but I staunchly believe that the legal system of today protects the rights of criminal suspects and there are many avenues for appeal if the verdict do not go the convicts' way. Therefore, such a possibility of wrong judgements is extremely rare and thus should not be a reason to argue for the abolition of the death penalty.

In "Beyond The Death Penalty Debate" by Antonio Cassese, the author states that the death penalty is against human rights as no one has the moral authority to take the life of another person. I personally believe that people should be responsible for what they do and should accept the penalty if they flout the rules, be it death or not. Besides, the author also said that convicts might receive degrading treatments and other acts of inhumanity in prison. Wouldn't it be better for the convicts to be put to death rather than make them suffer more pain? The death penalty would be a more humane choice in this case as the pain of the convicts is shortened.

There is only one conclusion to this issue. The death penalty should not be abolished because it plays a big part in deterring crime rate and as argued above, all the limitations and criticisms of the death penalty have been duly addressed and it seems that they can be easily overcome. Hence, I am in favour of the death penalty.

Are career demands killing marriages in Singapore?

That's the question for the people living in the highly competitive society of Singapore where good jobs opportunities up for grabs are far and few. There have been many reports of Singaporeans succumbing to unreasonable career demands such as spending more than 12 hours a day at work and force themselves to undergo streneous programmes to upgrade their skills while struggling to juggle with their already heavy workload. As a result, these people get so stressed out from work that they have little or no energy left for their marriage and family, eventually leading to breakdowns in marriage and communication problems within the family.

For a small country like ours, divorce rates are already at alarming altitudes. According to a government report, divorce cases have tripled over the past two decades, from 2313 in 1983 to 6561 in 2003 and it is still growing at a alarming rate. In the past few years after the Asian ecomonic crisis struck, people were clinging on ferociously to their iron-turned-styrofoam rice bowls as if a gust of wind has threatened to blow them away. All attention was placed on jobs security such that everything else automatically became secondary. People started to shift their time spent with family to office matters in a desperate bid to save their jobs and the outcome was predictable.

Of course there are still cases where couples managed to pull through everything, but it has to be agreed that career demands have take a toll on marriages, in one way or another and to different degrees. I guess that the government understands the repurcussions of the increasing divorce rates to our already ageing-population as high divorce rates mean less families and less children. Therefore the government should take the first step to save marriages by doing something to the unreasonable career demands that compel people to put their jobs in front of their families.

To do this, it is important for the government to impose laws and regulations banning employers from making their employees work unreasonably long hours and make sure that there are duly compensated for the extra work they have done. In addition, it is also a feasible idea that companies organise more family day activities so as to improve family ties while not neglecting work. Lastly, it will also be good that employees be given the liberty to choose a flexible working schedule, so as to ensure that employees strike a balance between work and family so that neither one is chugged aside while the other gets all the attention.

We have to realise that human resource is the only resource that we have. If we cannot protect the communion between two human beings when we put the significance of occupation above that of family, then it will be an inevitable fact that Singapore will eventually lose out in terms of its global competiveness. This, the government has to think about it carefully and consider the above suggestions.

Embracing Otherhood

Over the years, Singapore has seen a huge influx of foreigners coming to Singapore for various reasons. No, I am not talking about your typical tourists who wear flowery clothes and visit Singapore's places of attractions. I am actually referring to foreigners who come here with the intention to stay for quite a while, be it due to work commitments, study or even the want to settle down here permanently. As Singapore plays host to this ever increasing group, it is no doubt that there will be more cultural diversity among the people such that Singapore can continue to live up to its multi-racial and multi-cultural tagline.

To an outsider, it is great for Singapore to have such racial and cultural diversity because it only adds to the unique attractiveness of this island. However on hindsight, the government is facing numerous challenges to assimilate these foreigners into the mainstream and at the same time, placate the locals who feel the presence of these foreigners is a threat to their statuses in society.

While there is no doubt that foreigners contribute to our econonomy, we still have to wary of the problems they cause. For example, as employment rules relax, more employers in Singapore turn towards foreign workers for labour because they command less wages compared to Singaporeans and thus directly reduce the production costs of the company. This results in many Singaporeans losing their jobs, who find it impossible to live on such low wages, unlike foreign workers who send most of their money home where the conversion rates make such pittance look so much. Hence, we see an increasing resentment of the locals towards these foreigners.

The story does not end here. Over the years, there have been numerous news reports of these foreign workers causing troubles here, such as being involved in brawls and partake in shady activities such as drug trafficking and conning people out of their money. The most prominent example, of course, are stories of Chinese women accompanying their children seeking education in Singapore who do odd jobs by day and throw themselves in the sleazy business by night. Such behaviours of these foreigners are destabilising the country and adding to the moral decay of society as crime rates soar. It is therefore up to the government to rack its brains to ensure that foreign workers are not given jobs oppurtunities at the expense of locals, so as to prevent anti-foreign sentiments to rise. At the same time, the government also has to take the rap for failing to cope with the troubles these foreigners cause and must take responsibility to clear up the mess, lest a outbreak of a full scale social unrest.

Apart from foreign labour, the government also faces similar problems in foreign students in its education system. For many years as far as I can recall since the introduction of scholoarship programme for foreign students in Singapore began, the scholars often, if not always, outperform local students in national examinations. This has led to an outcry from many local students and parents, who feel that Singaporeans are not given a level playing field, especially since many of these scholars are older in age yet are competing in a lower age group. Such a scenario only aggravates the competition among local students for a place in top schools and strain relationships between local and foreign students. Although I have to admit that these foreign students are extremely hardworking and diligent in their bid for academic success, I am afraid if this goes on, sooner or later most local students will just concede that they are not as good as these scholars instead of challenging for top honours. I am not saying that having competition is detrimental. I am just saying that in a bid to attract and groom foreign talents, the government should also make sure that Singapore students do not lose out in the process because ultimately the locals will be the ones who shape the future of the country.

In conclusion, as Singapore play host to more people from other countries, the government has to weigh its priorities correctly and not let the notion of foreign talent get over its head when making crucial decision which might put local Singaporeans on the losing end of the game.

World in the balance

Judging from the patterns of demographic change, it is imminent that we are going to face a major population crisis. There is no doubt that both the developed and the developing countries are behind this and that the population policies introduced to solve the problem seem to have hit a snag.

Just take a look at China, the world's fastest developing country where GDP continues to enjoy growth of double digit percentage points every year. Despite having the one-child policy around for decades, the population continues to grow at exponential rates, partly due to lack of reinforcement of the law as well as rampant corruption among officials. Continued population growth will bring about high unemployment rate in the country as the country would not be able to generate enough jobs for the entire country. Instead of serving its purpose of controlling the population, such policies brought about adverse effects to the society. Rooted to their Confucianism ethics, Chinese are bound to the obligation of having a male offspring so as to continue the family line and with the one-child policy in place, many of the less-educated peasants from rural villages would rather end a baby girl's life or desert her for a second chance of conceiving a boy. This leads to serious gender inbalance in the country, which will eventually lead to more social problems such as difficulty for a man to get a wife and shortage of female workers in related industries.

If the problems caused as as result of overpopulation are disturbing, the consequences of an ageing population would be disastrous. Ageing population is a common trend seen in many developed countries such as Japan, Italy, Germany and yes, Singapore. In Singapore, in spite of repeated calls for people to have more offsprings and incentives targetted at those who respond to these calls, there seem to be only a minor blip in an otherwise downward population trend. This might not be serious enough to press the emergency button for now but there are serious repurcussions for these countries in the future. With an ageing population, a country will face a shortage of labour, which will lead to it losing its economic competitve edge and eventually failure to sustain the economy. After which, future economic powerhouses such as India and China will take over, usurping the country's position of leader in the economical rat race. This may look like a case of winning or losing on the macro level, but when zoomed to the micro level, such a scenario would probably mean that the country will undergo recession, leading to high unemployment and a considerable drop in the standard of living.

As such, countries should take the initiative to make sure that population policies are effective in solving the two population issues. Only then, the standard of living of the people can be maintained and we would not have to see such unwanted possibilities materialise.

Warning! Rogue vendors on the prowl.

I read with disgust the news about the recent case in China where an unscrupulous street snack vendor mixed chemically softened cardboards into his pork buns so as to cut down on production cost and increase profit. The cardboards from discarded boxes were first softened using industrial chemicals before being mixed with low quality pork in the ratio of 6:4, and then stuffed into buns and steamed, before being sold to the customers. The audacious vendor even showed how the process is done and claimed that most people cannot tell the difference in taste.

It is horrifying to see that the food we eat might be posing a health hazard to us, especially when we are unsure about the process of making the food behind the scenes. The prospect of eating cardboard doused with chemicals will definitely not go well with the consumers. That brings me back to the topic on mind. Is the food we are eating nowadays killing us?

First, there have been allegations that genetically-modified food, which promised to alleviate hunger with higher yield and faster growing crops and claimed to taste better, is actually a danger to human health because genes that are not present naturally are introduced, leading to unknown health effects that might trigger allergies more easily.

Secondly, there have been reports claiming that seafood we eat are contaminated due to their consumption of toxic materials released into the waters by polluting factories, posing a health risk to people who indirectly ingest the toxic materials.

Now, we have increasing numbers of cases of food that has atrocious safety and hygiene standards. This makes me wonder whether we are doing enough to ensure the food we eat is safe.

I attribute the problem of unsafe food to 3 reasons: Insufficient knowledge of food biology, the extensive damage of the environment by humans and lastly, the lack of inspection on safety and hygiene of food sold.

Insufficient knowledge of food biology. Before we even get a full picture of how the ecosystem works, we rush to come up with genetic modifications and claim it to be a scientific breakthrough, where in the real case the genetically modified food may turn out to be detrimental for health. More research has to be done in this area so as to ensure that genetically modified food does not have any side effects on human health and that its benefits outweigh that of conventional food.

Extensive damage to the environment is a dire situation faced by many countries in the world, typically developing countries. Firms simply release their untreated sewage into nearby rivers and lakes, polluting the waters and contaminating marine life. As a result, many sources of food dependent on these waters, like fish and prawns which are contaminated with toxic materials are unwittingly consumed by people, leading to various ailments such as birth deformation and even death. More controls should be imposed 0n these firms over the pollution issue, so as not to pollute seafood habitat and thus make food consumed safer.

Lack of inspection on safety and hygiene of food sold. Government officials are to be blamed for this fiasco. Despite having many cases of food poisoning across the world, individual countries have done little to step in the solve the problem. As a result, rogue vendors mentioned above thrive in the market, plunging the society's health problems to the worst. The report on the street vendor might just be the tip of an iceberg. Therefore, health officials should treat every complain of food standards seriously, and make an effort to record down information of licensed food sellers and arrest those who continue to sell food illegally.

If the above three problems are solved, I do not see why unsafe food should be haunting us today.