Heavenly Sword posted his views of the nation being likened to three metaphors – a person, a place and a club.
On the issue of Singaporeans leaving, he mentioned that a country ‘loses’ only if the person who left is ‘professionally skilled and talented’.
Perhaps because of my background, I would interpret this term in the broadest sense to mean 'Everyone'.
To me, a kway teow man is as talented as an IT engineer, or a doctor, or a lawyer. And even the handicapped would be considered talented for they bring joy, bonding and happiness to those around them.
I hold the view that a country should not 'evaluate' its citizens based only on the 'level' of skills they have. An individual brings a package of offerings to his world. Economic value-add is only one of these components.
Perhaps because of the emphasis on the primacy of economics, we tend to ignore the social value-add of our people.
To me, this is an important aspect of creating a sense of belonging beyond the dollars and cents.
I have appended my rather long comment to Heavenly Sword’s post below:
Hi, Master Heavenly Sword,
I would suggest that 'loss' is function of both the quality of the people leaving and the quantity of the people leaving.
For example, if the top kway teow man leaves Singapore for Perth. This would be a loss for Singapore and a gain to the Singaporeans (and others) living in Perth. This would fit the case of 'loss' you had mentioned because someone talented (in whatever 'profession') has left us.
On the other hand, suppose we are left with only a handful of kway teow men and none of them fries good kway teow. If any one of them leaves, it would still be a loss because we now have one fewer person to serve Singapore's kway teow needs. So, a not-so-highly-skilled person can also cause a 'loss' to Singapore because he is a 'scarce' resource.
Even if one is not part of a scarce resource now, if enough of them leave, the remaining becomes 'scarce'.
And I would go to the extent of suggesting that even if one is not a scarce resource, eg a low-skilled worker, his departure can still bring ‘loss’ to a country.
This is because no man is an island. A child brings joy and happiness to his parents, in spite of his zero economic value-add in much the same way a low-skilled worker brings joy to his parents and family.
When such a person leaves, taking the laughter and happy moments that his/her parents would have enjoyed had he/she remained, has the country ‘lost’ anything? To the extent that the total level of ‘happiness’ has come down, I would say yes.
Happiness is not as easily quantifiable as GDP per capita. But, since management gurus consistently tell managers that a ‘happy’ workforce is a productive workforce, happiness probably has a knock-on effect on economic activity. Even if there isn’t, happiness itself is something that all pursue and what all governments aspire to help its people achieve.
As such, I think that it does not matter whether one is 'professionally skilled and talented' or otherwise. Any departure causes a country to ‘lose’ something, whether this be ‘economic capital’ losses or ‘social capital’ losses, or both.
Of course, one can question the size of these losses. While any departure causes losses, is the loss from one segment 'more significant' than that from another?
Perhaps because of the primacy of economics, it is easy to be more concerned over the departure of the top-earners, which are often the ‘professionally skilled and talented’.
But I fear that in doing so, a country risks deepening the fault lines between its haves and have-nots and causing more losses all round.
GOING by events of the past year, one thing is becoming clear: First World is so passé.
Singapore's next objective is to reinvent itself into a Vibrant, GlobalCity. Last year, we hosted the International Olympic Committee. Next month, we welcome the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and some protesters.
But as Singapore peers into its future, complete with one of the great shopping streets of the world, two iconic integrated resorts and three world-class gardens, how excited or worried are its citizens about the transformation of their homeland?
To get a feel of their pulse, Today conducted a poll of 201 Singaporeans. We asked them to rate the developments coming to our shores and about the depths of their roots in Singapore.
One thing that the average Singaporean was emphatic about was that he wasn't about to up and leave the country for good.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most appealing, the average Singaporean gives emigration a 4.0 score. It was the lowest score of 14 items on the survey in total using the scale.
Respondents gave the highest score — a 7.26 — to the possibility of keeping their roots here while having more opportunities to live and work abroad.
They gave a 6.53 score to the option of living in a Singapore that promises to strive to become vibrant and global.
If you can’t have the opportunity to work abroad, then, I guess the next best thing would be to transform Singapore. This will require less ‘adjustments’ than say, emigration.
The appeal of that promise seems to be very much linked to the confidence we have in our city-state's chances of succeeding in its GlobalCity goal. Here, the survey pointed to a confidence factor of 6.52 on the scale of 10.
From the buoyantly upbeat to the downright pessimistic, the survey captured the opinions of ordinary people on this particular issue.
The more optimistic put their faith in the Government's ability to deliver results.
"Singapore is an oasis for calm, stability, high performance, excellent governance, reliability and consistency. Short of a prolonged worldwide recession, natural calamity and revolution, I have every confidence we can make it," said retiree Ho Kong Loon, 59.
But whether they believe Singapore can make it or not, a common thread to the comments we received is that the buzz of a global city must come from its people much more than from its physical developments.
Product manager Gary Chan, 31, said, "Transformation doesn't happen simply when we complete projects or bring in talents and attractions to add to Singapore as a product. Transformation needs to happen in the hearts and minds of the people before Singapore can truly become a vibrant, global city that competes with the best."
In the same vein, several respondents commented that the upcoming developments in Singapore would succeed only if Singaporeans take to them well.
"All these developments are largely external and the effects of these projects will only last as long as people are excited by them," said analyst Chin Yingwen, 24.
So, how excited are Singaporeans about the various plans in store for our city-state?
Our survey results say that the Garden City at MarinaBay — including three gardens, watersports and a giant Ferris wheel — gets the best response from the public, out of nine types of developments designed to bring the world to Singapore.
Coming in second is the Sports Hub at Kallang and the possibility of Formula 1 racing coming here.
The Integrated Resorts ended up at the bottom of the Excitement Factor. "It shows we've got our priorities spot on," said Mr Tay Kheng Soon, principal partner of architectural firm Akitek Tenggara. "The Gardens by the Bay really represent the things that people can participate in – its festivals, its green loop for people to jog, the water sport activities there. And sports at number two? That's public participation, too, whether the active or spectator sort."
Rounding off the top three most exciting developments in the eyes of our respondents is the Intelligent Nation 2015 Masterplan, which aims to transform Singapore into an "intelligent nation and global city powered by infocomm", including a faster broadband network, by 2015.
Dr Ooi Giok Ling, associate professor of humanities and social studies at the National Institute of Education, is not surprised that it edged out the "rejuvenation" of Orchard Road among our respondents, two-thirds of whom hail from the post-65 generation.
"I suspect they will shop on the Internet and they will shop from everywhere," said Dr Ooi, who is also an Institute of Policy Studies adjunct fellow.
"We're one of the most globalised countries in terms of SMSing, Internet usage, the number of overseas telephone calls. We are so hooked up, and these networks are so central to us … and the Internet space is also the new civic space."
The IRs had their supporters, too, like undergraduate Lim Wen Ying who is excited about "lots of tourists, investors and jobs" coming this way.
Others were less upbeat. "To make Singapore more attractive to tourists, the developments must be innovative. Singapore needs to get an edge over other countries, but this cannot be possible if what it is developing already exists in other countries," said Abdul Shariff Aboo Kassim, 40.
In a way, it seems our thoughts about Singapore as a vibrant, global city depend largely on what we view as the most positive or the most worrying aspects of these developments, and how likely we will feel the impact.
Our survey respondents rank a stronger economy and a higher GDP as the most promising impact of all the changes planned. More than 56 per cent of them had this in their top three choices and almost 32 per cent put it as number one.
A close second, and also in the top three of more than half of the respondents – and number one for 18 per cent of them – is the prospect of a greater variety of lifestyles.
On the flip side, the average Singaporean worries most about cost of living rising faster. This is the top concern of close to half our respondents and one of the top three concerns of about 83 per cent of them.
About 16 per cent of them rank a more stressful rat race as their second biggest worry, with close to half of them ranking this in their top three.
Dr Kevin Tan, president of the Singapore Heritage Society, said that on the surface, our respondents seem to be "thinking along municipal lines".
"It seems people are fairly parochial and haven't caught on to the vision of a vibrant, global," he said.
"People must feel that like the global city is part of their country and not to a country where someone else calls the shots. A global city must benefit them, be within reach and is worth having. The more organic it is, the more these two factors will be satisfied."
According to architect Mr Tay, the biggest challenge will be to expand the scope and benefits of a "global city sector" so that most people do not miss out.
In the ride to DestinationGlobalCity, most respondents mentioned the need to adapt to changes, to work hard to keep our values.
But as NIE's Dr Ooi pointed out, global cities are such. "No one is going to say life in New York is laid back and sedate. It's just go, go, go. With globalisation, there's no help for that and Singaporeans will have to get used to it. But I'm quite confident they can be resilient. After all, look how much we've changed over the years."
I love statistics. To borrow the quote that wert left the other day in one of his comments to my blog entry: "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital" ~Aaron Levenstein
According to the TODAY survey, the Singaporeans polled had placed emigration in the bottom of a list of 14 items in the survey (emphasis mine).
It is not clear what the 14 items are. But, it is not difficult for any item to be ranked top of any list, or for that matter, bottom of any list. Simply come up with a list of items where all of these items are 'inferior' (or 'superior') to the item you want to rank against. Voila, you will then have your item ranked top (or bottom) of the list.
It is also not clear how much difference there is between the item ranked in the 14th place and the one ranked in the 13th place. Depending on the size of this difference, it might or might not be significant in statistical terms. For example, I could have earned $20,000 last year, better than my neighbour who earned $19,999. Sure, I did earn more than my neighbour. But, I would be delusional if I considered myself better-off than my neighbour.
It seems the respondents ranked the top option as 'keeping their roots here while having more opportunities to live and work abroad'. Surprise, surprise!
All things being equal, one would expect any rational person to want to have the best of both worlds. People want to have the cake and eat it too, if they can help it.
And so, what do we find? Lo and behold, the option of keeping our roots here but being able to latch onto the dynamism in the region comes up tops.
Actually, those were not the biggest piece of news to me. I reserved that for the finding that 'Intelligent Nation 2015 Masterplan' was ranked 3rd most exciting amongst all the developments that will bring the world to Singapore (emphasis mine). The Integrated Resorts was ranked last.
That is BIG news to me. I had not known Singaporeans to be so knowledgeable. I heard that many people had trouble identifying their MPs and Ministers from photos. Yet, all of them knew enough about an IT plan to rate it 'more exciting' than the Integrated Resorts? Who had they been polling? The IT technicians and programmers working on the project?
Anyway. Now, who was it who had recently complained about our Intelligent Nation Masterplan? Whoever that was - you are WAY out of touch with the public.
Ok, enough said.
I think I shouldn't be so critical. To be fair, TODAY did have a brush with MICA over some column just last month, and today being National Day, does seem like a pretty auspicious day to make the appropriate offerings.
Kway Teow Man's post on loyalty led me to think a little further on my earlier post.
I must have mis-read his post. For I seem to get the impression that to get more loyalty from its citizens, besides being gracious to those who left, the government should also put up a better 'wayang' show. This would help satisfy the group of Singaporeans who feel that their feedback had not been taken in.
I am not sure if I had understood him correctly on this.
In a sense, the government's current wayang had already garnered the support of the majority of the population (about 67%). That, by global standards, is already a pretty good show(ing).
Will a better wayang garner more support from the remaining 33%? How many are at the margin?
I don't know. Going by the comments in the blogosphere, I will speculate that a number of bloggers will not be thrilled by more wayang. In fact, some might say that more wayang might even cause some from amongst the 67% to lose heart, as insincerity is not the mark of someone trustworthy.
Marketing texts often say that if one has a poor product, no amount of marketing can sell it. Now, I am not suggesting that the government is a poor product. But the point from these texts is that marketing can only do as much as the product's features can support.
It is in this context that I am suggesting going back to fundamentals. This fundamental I am referring to is part of the Confucius quotation that Kway Teow Man had cited in his post. And that is 'xiu shen' - 'cultivate one's self'.
According to Confucius, 'xiu shen' should take place before setting one's house in order, governing one's country and bringing peace to the world.
To Confucius, 'xiu shen' would be the source of any government's credibility and moral authority. Has a government been aboveboard in all its dealings? Where trade-offs have to be considered, whose interests are being traded off against whose and are the reasons for these trade-offs sound and reasonable?
But, what seems reasonable to one may not be to another. So, where is the benchmark for making assessments of 'reasonableness'?
I don't know. I heard there is such a thing as the 'rational man' in the eyes of the court. I heard also that since a government is 'for' the people, I guess the opinions of the public should count somewhere. So, perhaps public opinion can also help to provide a good benchmark. As an example, in the NKF case, I thought the public's opinion over the issue provided one with a good idea of what some of the benchmarks could be.
Since values differ from one group to another, whose values should it be pitched at? Should a government be looking only at the majority values? How can a government also consider the minority's values? How much should it do in 'leading' change rather than merely following the wishes of the majority?
Perhaps it is a matter of following the majority sometimes and the minority for others. But which times?
I don't know.
waterchild is only a child. It knows nothing about the world of governance. What waterchild knows is which adults it likes to play with and which it shuns away from.
In waterchild's simple world, everything revolves around only one thing. Its heart.
Its heart not only gives it life. It also guides its life.
I once asked my Filipino friend — who was a tutor at a local university — how he addressed his Singaporean students' grouses about their country. His solution: Send them to the Philippines and they will see the cruel reality of human existence, and how trivial their concerns are.
I feel we should benchmark against the best, instead of comparing only to the less fortunate.
Living in London where temperatures in the London Underground (which has no air-conditioning) have reached a suffocating 40°C, and delays last year were estimated to have cost commuters 1,800 years — makes reading about the outrages over the rare hiccup on the North East Line seem surreal.
In spite of the fact that luxuries unimaginable to many — such as electricity and air-conditioning — are taken for granted in Singapore, many of my fellow countrymen are very unhappy and more than half of the younger ones are even considering emigrating, according to recent reports.
To many who visit and stay in other developed countries in Western Europe and North America as wealthy tourists, students and expatriates, instead of as migrant labourers and asylum seekers, the images of these societies are definitely rosy.
Compared to the nanny state of Singapore, there seems to be so much more sun, sand, sea and freedom in these places, where life is apparently more relaxed. But while I belong to this category of overseas Singaporeans, I have no illusions about the social realities in these countries.
I am not implying that we should not be moving out of the little red dot, nor should we complacently fold our arms in gratitude. As Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once advised, Singaporeans with the opportunity should spend about six years working outside the country and bring their experiences back.
What is more important to note is that the grass will always seem to be greener on the other side. The contrast between Singapore and the "greener pastures" exists more in our minds.
At this moment, when the poorly-maintained grounds of Hyde Park in London resemble a desert in this unusually hot summer, I am sure that the grass in our parks in Singapore is still lush and green, and that we can slip into air-conditioned places and sheltered walkways quite quickly away from the equatorial sun.
Only when Singaporeans realise and appreciate that their surroundings are tirelessly man-made rather than God-given, will they stop ranting about emigrating.
Given the current situation of small countries in the Middle East, we should be thankful that Singaporeans can still afford the luxury of feeling angst and that our fighter jets and new Apache Longbow helicopters are used as government "propaganda" for celebrating Singapore's 41st birthday.
Reading the various posts by Xenoboy, Heavenly Sword and Singapore Serf on the topic of emigration started me thinking more about the topic.
This letter-writer highlighted why the ‘grass is always greener on the other side’ exists only in the mind and not in reality. Those who are contemplating emigration had taken for granted the many luxuries that we have, eg electricity, air-conditioning, lush greenery, sheltered walkways and the security afforded by our Apache helicopters and fighter jets. In addition, they had not factored in the social realities of a migrant worker that would not normally be experienced by the casual tourist.
The writer’s main line of argument is called the ‘halo effect’ in psychology terms. This is used to describe a situation where one particular aspect or feature of something has disproportionately influenced its overall assessment. This often happens in recruitment interviews where the candidate’s dressing can sometimes heavily influence (positively or negatively) the overall assessment of the person.
What I had some trouble with was the writer’s implied message that emigration is an act of ingratitude (2nd-last paragraph, emphasis mine). That despite what had been ‘tirelessly’ done for its citizens, some still chose to complain and emigrate.
To me, emigration is an integral part of living.
Each of us plays several roles in life. Besides being individuals in our own right, we are also children to our parents, spouses to our partners, parents to our children, members of our community and citizens to our country.
Each of these roles carries a distinct set of responsibilities. For example, as an individual, we have to make a living and meet our basic needs. As a parent, we provide for and educate our children. As a citizen, we contribute to the well-being of Singapore.
Most of us want to do the best that we can within each of these roles. Joseph said that as Singaporeans, we want to be heard. If you are a parent, you want to provide your children with the ‘best’ environment; however you define ‘best’ to be. Some believe in sending their children to the top schools. Some believe in letting their children develop at a slower pace.
The world is not static. As our environment changes, we respond to these, keeping in mind our responsibilities for each of these roles. As we grow older, our values system may also change along with our experiences. And this might affect the way we discharge these responsibilities. For example, we might have placed a lot of value achieving the 5Cs at the start of one’s working life. Years later, we might abandon that altogether.
At each point in life, we evaluate how well we are discharging each of our responsibilities. If a person believes that he cannot fully discharge his responsibilities in Singapore, he would start to look elsewhere.
Of course, in doing so, he should be aware that the adage ‘Nobody’s perfect’ applies to countries too. When he emigrates, he has to take the new country as a total package – wart, gloss and all.
But, in the migrant’s reckoning, there is probably a certain component in this new package that is better than his current package. And this component is something he values more than any other components in the entire package and for which he is prepared to trade-off the other components against.
This component can be different for different people. It could also depend on the life-stages of the individual.
I used to think that only retirees and those facing mid-life crises emigrate. Reading the forum discussions on this topic, I found that even those in their late-teens have put in place plans for their emigration. I came across a teenager who is currently studying hair-dressing in the ITE because a certain country is in dire need of hairdressers. Some in their twenties left in search of a better livelihood. Others left in search of a ‘better’ future for their children, where ‘better’ could be employment prospects, a less-stressful education system, etc. In emigrating, each is trying to fully discharge his responsibilities in his respective roles.
So, is emigration an act of ingratitude? If emigration is being ungrateful to the country, then, non-emigration could mean being irresponsible to the emigrant’s other constituents. When the various ‘loyalties’ (to himself, his family, community and country) clash, how should he decide?
I think emigration is very much an integral part of a person’s life journey. It is a path that he had chosen in fulfilling the expectations derived from his various roles. It is a gamble, for no one is sure, at the point of emigrating, if it is the right path. Much like nobody is sure if the person you are going to marry is the right one for you. After the necessary ‘due diligence’, the final decision is always a leap of faith.
But, not emigrating is also a gamble. If emigration is no certainty of ‘greener pastures’, then, non-emigration is no certainty of ‘security’ (which seemed to be what the letter-writer valued most). If anything, the 9-11 incident and the London Underground bombings had shown us that no country is free from security threats, in spite of the best technology and weapons that its military could buy. I am not suggesting that Singapore is vulnerable to security threats. But this is a point that our Ministers had consistently been drumming into our heads.
To me, whether emigration is an act of ingratitude is irrelevant. Instead, what matters more is whether the emigrant continues to contribute to the well-being of Singapore and Singaporeans even after leaving the country.
In the words of Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, can we build a nation bigger than our country?
According to Zaobao, MP Seng Han Thong had urged Comfort-Delgro to release the reasons why it terminated the contract of the ex-cabby so that the public is aware of what transpired 4 years ago.
This is alarming news. From what I understand, such matters are private and confidential. In fact, I was surprised a Comfort spokesperson actually told the press why the ex-cabby was terminated when the news first broke last week.
The question I have is : Does the 'private and confidential' contract continue to hold even after one had left the company? If not, this will be a watershed development.
By releasing such information, Comfort-Delgro will be signaling a new employer-employee compact.
If ex-employers start releasing private and confidential information, you can expect ex-employees to jump into the fray, releasing information about their ex-employers. The mainstream media will have a field day covering the juicy inside news about the practices of employers and their management, some of which you can be sure, would not be very flattering. The blogosphere will also be on fire with posts and comments.
What would it mean for Singapore?
If such a day comes, productivity will fall for 2 reasons: (1) the level of motivation falls as mistrust rises Knowing that your ex-employer may one day decide to 'taint' your name breeds mistrust. Job commitment and performance will suffer.
(2) the total time for productive work drops Time that could otherwise be spent on productive work is instead directed towards the collection and organisation of information. Employees will keep copies of emails, documentation and recordings of events that may be used in their 'defence' (or 'offence' if necessary). In turn, employers will also impose measures to counteract any damage that an ex-employee may launch. This may include preventative ones restricting the keeping of copies of emails and documentation. It might also include the monitoring of those it deemed to be 'troublesome'.
For consumers, it may signal the onset of video cameras monitoring your every move. Imagine stepping into a taxi and having your every word and action being recorded by a video camera in the taxi in case of disputes and wrongful dismissals.
Who knows? In future, even a 'bak-chor mee' stall might have video cameras installed. And I am not being sarcastic here.
Of course, if an employee had not done anything wrong, he should not be concerned over this greater transparency.
Unfortunately, those who had worked long enough will know that in most staff matters, there is usually no right and wrong, unless a criminal offence (eg fraud) is involved. In such a case, the issue would be best left to the judicial system where we will defer to its considered judgement.
In non-criminal matters, it can sometimes boil down to a difference in priorities or values between the two parties. The employer may not always be right in terminating the employee's services. As the employer holds the executive power and authority over decisions, so long as there had been due process and the decision had not contravened any legal or contractual obligations, the employer has every right to make these decisions.
To be sure, some employees deserve to have their services terminated. But, if employers pursue an approach of 'transparency' of work performance, then, it is only fair that the same level of transparency be given to employees to reveal the employment and management practices of their employers. This is very much what the government had always advocated as the 'right of reply'.
This brings me to the other issue. A-Star and Johns Hopkins had decided to go their separate ways after 8 years. Going by the press release by A-Star and media reports, the separation boils down to a difference in perspectives. A-Star wanted big brand names to reside and do research in Singapore, Johns Hopkins preferred to deploy and nurture younger un-established talents. Intelligent Singaporean has a fuller write-up. takchek also has a list of reasons why having bio-science R&D in Singapore has its problems.
To me, this is another example of the mobility of capital. Foreign investors can locate in Singapore because of incentives. They can also calibrate their level of commitment according to the attractiveness of our incentives vis-a-vis what they may receive from other places, including their home countries. Is it possible that Johns Hopkins could have deliberately withheld its more established talents from Singapore because deploying them elsewhere was more 'lucrative'? I don't know.
A talented R&D professional who is blazing the trail in his research efforts derives his motivation from the stage that he is performing in, the environment that he works in and the kinds of people he interacts with in his learning and discovery process. If he were to move to Singapore, he must see Singapore giving him that platform and environment. Perhaps the reason why Johns Hopkins had not deployed any established scientists here is that these scientists did not think Singapore could provide them that platform?
Our strategy so far is akin to building a big mansion, complete with luxury facilities and a dedicated group of butler and servants to see to one's daily needs. And then, we have an open house and invite world-class tenants to take up accommodation in these huge and fully-equipped mansions.
It had worked 30-40 years ago when Singapore first embarked on its industrialization program. Then, Singapore was what many would consider a third-world country with low labour costs.
Fast forward 40 years. Singapore is still using the same strategy, although the mansions are now far more hi-tech and the butler and servants much more sophisticated. Unfortunately, we are now competing in a much more competitive league. Our costs are also higher.
The Johns Hopkins incident seemed to indicate that this strategy had hit a snag. Perhaps it is a transient one. As with all relationships, one can expect disagreements and separations.
For the sake of Singapore, I hope so too.
Otherwise, we have a problem. And it is a big problem.
We want to play in the big league. We do not have the talents to play in this big league, so, we try and attract top talents to help us break into this league. Unfortunately, the others in the league may not want to play with us.
There is a price to pay to enter this league. And the Johns Hopkins incident is an example. Here, even after paying this 'membership' fee, we are still not accepted as a player because we are not seen as possessing the credentials for a big league player.
To be fair, the government is trying to solve this problem, even if it may not know if it is the right answer. It seems to me that their approach is to trade-off time with money. It does not intend to spend time to build up a local industry (or perhaps it might think it cannot afford the time to do so). So, it 'buys' this time by attracting investors to come, hoping to short-cut the process. Hopefully, the money we had spent in attracting and working with these investors would have helped given us a leg up in terms of time.
Had we? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that we are back to where we were 8 years ago?
AN elderly man was arrested for punching Member of Parliament Seng Han Thong on Thursday evening and leaving him with a bruised lip.
The punch came during Mr Seng's meet-the-people session, when the Chinese man — a former taxi driver — came to seek the Yio Chu Kang MP's help to reinstate his terminated taxi contract.
When it was his turn to see the MP, he reportedly raised his voice at Mr Seng and stunned those present by hitting him.
In a statement, the police said it received a call for assistance at about 9.35pm on Thursday. And when its officers arrived, the staff at Ang Mo Kio's Community & Education Centre — where the session was conducted — had already detained the man, who is in his 70s.
Mr Seng had "suffered a bruised lip and had declined medical attention", the police added. The man, who was arrested for assaulting a public servant, cannot be named as the case is under investigation.
Today understands that the 74-year-old man, who is currently out on bail, was formerly a taxi driver with ComfortDelGro and was unhappy with the company for terminating his contract.
When contacted, ComfortDelGro spokesperson Tammy Tan confirmed that the man's contract was terminated in February 2002 for "rude behaviour and for a threat made against a customer".
Said Ms Tan: "As (he) is no longer a hirer with the company, we are not able to go into details about the case. We however stand by our decision to terminate him based on the threats he made to the customer in a letter he wrote."
On the assault, Ms Tan added: "The police is currently investigating the matter and we are rendering them all assistance."
Mr Seng is currently in Shanghai on business. When contacted, the divisonal director for the National Trades Union Congress' administration and research unit told Today that he was "all right" but declined to comment further. Nonetheless, he said that he was not unduly shaken by the assault.
"I continued meeting the residents until around 11pm and then went to board my flight at midnight," he added.
— Loh Chee Kong
Mr Seng was a journalist with Zaobao before entering politics. He is probably best-known for his role as the editor of MM Lee's memoirs. According to the NTUC, he is also an advisor to the taxi operator associations.
This incident interested me for two reasons.
Firstly, this is probably the first time anyone had ever punched an MP in Singapore. Secondly, and more importantly, was that a man as old as 74 years old, having been unemployed for the last 4 years, was still desperately looking for help to secure employment.
I would be interested to understand his financial situation.
Is he single? Or had he been neglected by his children?
Are his children still dependent on him? Or are his children already financially independent but are themselves also struggling?
Had he been living beyond his means? Had he exhausted all his savings in the 4 years of unemployment?
Is he mentally unstable? Or driven to rage by his circumstances?
Does he have any other siblings or relatives? Who else can he turn to for help?
Does he qualify as a 'needy'? Where is our safety net for people like him?
Until more facts emerge, it would be difficult to comment on his actions. But, given that this is probably the first time anyone dared to punch an MP, is this a sign of times?
Something must have cracked inside a person to cause him to punch someone whom he is asking for help. I have many questions but no satisfactory answers.
Is there a group of low-income badly hit by cost of living pressures and unemployment? How do they perceive the help that had been given so far?
Had their MPs been helpful? Are they seen as giving voice to their concerns or had they been perceived as being the government's voice instead?
The prevailing assumption is that the support base of the PAP is those born before 1970. Is this an indication that the older generation is also unhappy with the PAP?
For me, this incident is a wake-up call.
Will I be financially independent at 74? Can I afford medical expenses?
I value my financial independence very much. Many Ministers had suggested that one should rely on your family as the social safety net.
In an increasingly volatile environment, I think it is unrealistic to expect your children to be able to support their families and you. I had come across several taxi-drivers who resumed driving taxis after a break of 5-10 years when their children went out of work.
Well, as the Ministers urged, we should all continue to work for as long as we can. Yeah, right. Not many organisations are prepared to employ people well into their 80s.
Workgroup to look into financial security of kids with special needs By Noor Mohd Aziz, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 19 July 2006 1806 hrs
SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) has formed a nine-member parents' workgroup to look into the financial security of children with special needs.
President of Autism Resource Centre and MP for Jalan Besar Denise Phua has been appointed to lead it.
To ensure a good representation, the workgroup comprises parents who have children with disabilities.
Ms Phua is herself the mother of a 10-year-old child with autism.
The workgroup will gather and analyse the views of parents of children with different special needs through focus group discussions.
Based on the feedback, it will recommend initiatives on howsuchparents may enhance the financial security of their children.
The workgroup is expected to submit its recommendations to the Ministry in September.
When I read the headline, I thought the government has finally decided to do something for the needy. But after reading the text, I was disappointed. (Please see bolded text, emphasis is mine)
It looks like the message continues to be : 'You look after yourselves, ok.'
I had always thought that as a nation, we don't look after our needy enough. I used to have a colleague with an autistic child. Seeing her shuttling all over the island putting her child through the various institutions every week while meeting work targets was heart-wrenching. Despite these demands, she faced life stoically.
According to the MCYS, the subsidy given to families under its 'Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children' (EIPIC) this year is between $368 - $506. This programme is targeted at children under the age of 6 who are diagnosed with a handicapping condition or special need that will affect his or her development.
This works out to a total subsidy of about $36,500 for the entire 6-year duration.
Contrast this with the amount spent on a government scholar. The A-Star had just given out 40 scholarships this year. Each overseas scholarship is valued at more than $200,000 - $300,000 (tuition fees, allowances, airfares, etc).
Now, I fully support the importance of nurturing our local talents. But, I also believe that those who are blessed should help the others around them. As a tax-payer, I will have no qualms if more of my tax money is diverted towards helping those in need. As it is now, the relativity of spending between our talents and our needy is skewed in favour of our talents.
I know that the government had always been concerned about creating a moral hazard in drawing up its financial assistance programmes. I fully support that. I would not want to see a society reliant on welfare instead of individual efforts. I would not agree for my tax money to be given to those who can work but choose not to. These are people who can control their own fates but had opted for the easy way out.
But, in the case of those diagnosed with palsy, autism or other learning disabilities, how much control do they have over their conditions, much less their fates? What moral hazard is there if we set aside more money to help them?
The views expressed here are based on facts and entirely the personal opinions of the author. If anyone is slighted or offended by any of these comments, I apologise unreservedly. You are also requested not to visit this site again to avoid being offended. While all are invited to post comments to any of my entries or those of others, they are the opinions of their authors and do not represent my views. In the event that any of these posts are deemed to be offensive, as the author of this blog, I reserve the right to remove them.
