Study says many Singaporeans speak non-standard English By Valarie Tan, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 18 July 2006 1640 hrs
Singaporeans generally may say they speak English but a survey shows that 6 in 10 of them actually speak non-standard English in their daily lives.
The study by the Singapore Polytechnic involved some 3,000 English-speaking Singaporeans.
So this year's Speak Good English Movement hopes more Singaporeans make it a habit to speak standard English.
Students will be roped in to help highlight the importance of communicating in good English.
Ashraff Abdul Samad, Student, Ang Mo Kio Secondary School, said: "Now I would say "How are you doing? Is everything great?" instead of "What's up la? Relax la" that kind of stuff. It's not difficult. When you speak standard English, you need to watch your grammar, there will be no Singlish 'la'."
And that is exactly what the movement hopes to encourage in all Singaporeans, especially the students.
Organisers say a recent poll might have indicated that many are still comfortable in Singlish.
But Good English is the way to go to give Singapore a more competitive edge, especially in the service industry.
Professor Koh Tai Ann, Chairman, Speak Good English Movement, said: "We would need workers who can communicate with not only the non-Singaporeans among us but all the visitors we are attracting to Singapore - tourists, those who come for conventions, meetings and so on. It would so ironic if we find many Singaporeans' English not suitable and we have to bring in foreign workers to work in these industries who can speak better English than we do."
The straw poll of students also showed that more students speak better English only in formal settings like a class presentation.
So this year's movement hopes to encourage them to speak standard English even casually like during recess with their friends.
This year's Speak Good English Movement will be officially launched on July 25.
I did a double-take when I first read this.
Yes, the government is all-pervasive. But, I had not thought that they would also want to have a say in how we talk to our friends.
Sigh.
No wonder foreigners have the impression that Singapore is a police state. We cannot tell the Government we are unhappy without providing the solutions to our unhappiness. We cannot laugh. We have to smile when the government says so.
And now, we can't even speak to our friends the way we had always been!
What will they think of next?
I can see a few coming in my crystal ball: (1) All SMSes must be in proper English (2) You must speak proper English to your parents and children (3) Eating establishments will have a Proper English section and a non-proper English section. Patrons at the Proper English section will be given headphones. These headphones will play recorded speeches by Queen Elizabeth II to prevent the "2nd-class" language wafting around them from 'contaminating' them. Patrons sitting at the non-proper English section will have to pay more for their food to help defray the costs of these headphones (and for the royalties of the speeches).
I do not know what seems to be the problem here.
I assume that the standard of our English is poor.
If so, should we not be looking at the way English is taught in schools? Unless we are saying that yes, we are already looking at that issue, employing native speakers is one strategy. But, we think that alone is not enough.
Ok. But, if the standard of English in a formal setting (in the classroom) is already poor, how will the students know what is proper English during their recess? Wouldn't you be much better off tackling the problem at its source (in the classroom)?
Unless we are saying that "No, the students already know what is good English. We score well in literacy tests compared to some OECD countries. But our students are 'lazy' to practice them during informal occasions".
This is where it escapes me altogether. If the students already know how to speak proper English, then, what is the problem here?
Is it the case that the frequent use of Singlish had been causing problems for our standard of English? If so, this is no different from 40 years ago when most students spoke dialects at home and with friends. And I think our standard of English seemed to be ok, without the Speak Good English campaign.
Having said that, I do sense a slip in the standard of English amongst the young these days. My view is that it could be due to several reasons: (1) More are graduating from the universities these days. It used to be the top 15%. Now, it could be closer to the top 40%. The 'average' of each cohort is now lower than the 'average' of the past, compared to their peers (2) A generation of students did not do grammar in their English studies (3) The standard of English amongst teachers is now more variable. I think teachers of 40-50 years ago seemed to speak better English than the current average. This is probably a result of (1) and (2).
As an educator, I would have opted to pay more attention to what is taught in the classroom. Have teachers model good English speech. Actively point out the right speech or grammar whenever you hear students speaking improper English. Show students how to distinguish between informal settings and formal settings where proper English should be used. Have some fun activities 'translating' proper English and improper English to reinforce that each has a different platform and audience, etc.
But if it is the standard of written English we are concerned about, then, it is another story altogether. Perhaps more about this on another occasion.
For now, I feel sad for students. Even that little space where they can be themselves has to be governed by the norms set by the government.
I refer to the recent issue of "study mamas". The question is not what jobs they are or are not allowed to work at, but why they are even allowed to work here in the first place.
Will banning these mothers from masseuse jobs simply mean they will find other ways to "service" men here? It's just a matter of time before these "foreign talents" get creative and find other loopholes to exploit.
My Indonesian maid has been of great help to us, and she (and many other maids in Singapore) has the right to be with her children. Yet, are Indonesians allowed to bring their children here to study while they work as maids? Why not?
They don't work as masseuses, so they don't cause any trouble. In fact, they will work harder if their children are here.
My wife and I are willing to let my maid's child live with our family. We are most willing to pay for the child's expenses because our maid deserves this form of assistance.
When my wife and I were studying in New York, we had to show our bank accounts to the authorities as proof that we had enough funds to survive in the United States. Our tuition fees were approximately $15,000 per quarter, yet we were only given an F1 visa, which allowed us to work only within the university campus. A student's accompanying spouse was given an F2 visa, which didn't allow any sort of employment. Spouses were regarded as dependents.
There are many other types of visas, but my point is this: The Ministry of Manpower needs more sophisticated policies that cater to different situations and nationalities. The study mamas should never be allowed to work here in the first place.
Another concern: Should not the children of these foreigners be enrolled in international schools here? Why let them into our public schools, and on what criteria do they get accepted?
The letter-writer too questioned the level of sophistication of our visa policies. The way it is currently drafted, our policy of granting work visas for student guardians effectively means that Singaporeans are funding the education of these foreign students. And I thought the Government had been promoting our education services as a means to earn foreign exchange and boost our GDP!
Going by the Australian and the US examples, Singapore's policies on student guardians could well be one of the most liberal around.
This is yet another example why Singaporeans feel that foreigners receive very good treatment, sometimes even better than locals.
So, money isn't everything after all — even when it comes down to determining how committed one is to a job.
Just one in four employees said money was an important factor in driving job satisfaction, compared to 56 per cent who chose having a good working environment as their key motivator.
A new survey on employee engagement released yesterday by the Singapore Human Resources Institute (SHRI), which involved 127 companies that employed between 50 and 800 people, found that monetary rewards may have played a significant role in attracting people to a company, but in driving employee loyalty and commitment, cash plays a small role.
Instead, topping the list of motivators are: A good working environment and bosses who involve staff in decision-making.
Indeed, there seems to be a large gap between what workers truly want and what bosses are willing to offer. Take good career prospects, for example. In the poll of 127 workers, more than half ranked this of third in importance, out of a list of 10 job satisfaction factors (see table). In contrast, nearly four out of five companies (78 per cent) placed this value second-last in importance.
This indicated a distinct lack of awareness on the management's part of the wants of the workers, said the institute.
Its executive director, Mr David Ang, said: "Companies in general are not up to the expectations of their employees. Perhaps companies don't regard things such as career prospects very highly because they eat into business costs. But now that they are starting to realise the worth of their employees, perhaps things will change."
Such disparities in perception are believed to have an adverse effect on staff turnover, too.
In another SHRI workforce survey released yesterday, nearly half of the 61 respondents said their company has difficulty retaining staff, citing three top reasons: A better paying job in another company (71 per cent), better prospects (71 per cent) and failure to move up the corporate ladder (44 per cent).
And when it comes to hiring older workers, Singaporean employers are, surprisingly, more than happy to do so.
A key reason is that most bosses have fewer problems with a mature workforce. Four in 10 companies said they are keen to redesign jobs to meet the needs of older workers.
SHRI also found that 75 per cent of workers describe themselves as "engaged" in their work, meaning they are committed to their work and enjoy it.
The most engaged employees are those working either at universities or voluntary welfare organisations (83 per cent).
Only 55 per cent of workers at small and medium-sized enterprises say they are engaged in their jobs.
I had been daydreaming.
I dreamt that I was heading a Department. I was giving good results, meeting targets aggressively and paid well. Unfortunately, I had a nagging feeling of restlessness. What's wrong with me?
Maybe it was the departure of my good friend Mark who was made redundant last month. Big Boss said market was tough, need to cut costs to stay 'competitive'. So, half the Department was 'outsourced' to external contractors who could do it at 70% of the costs of doing it ourselves.
Maybe it was the talk in the grapevine about the company re-locating to China. The engineers in China cost one-fifth that in Singapore.
Maybe it was the letter inviting me to sign up for "Eldershield". I am now officially a statistic of the 'elderly'. And the elderly in Singapore are not particularly popular.
No. I think I know what's wrong. It is my mother. She's been watching these serials about "Yue Fei" recently. And the politics in the serials bear such a striking resemblance to what is happening in my company that I am beginning to see shades of "Yue Fei" in some of my colleagues. They are not quite popular with Big Boss.
We all know what happened to "Yue Fei". Loyalty has its costs. And I don't fancy being a "Yue Fei" for anyone.
So. That's why I am restless. In the past, I had pledged company loyalty in return for lifelong employment. Now, with the rapid pace of change, the adoption of hire-and-fire practices and outsourcing, this compact is shattered.
It would be too onerous to expect any company to look after me under an increasingly competitive environment. Even if your direct boss wants to, his boss might not. Likewise, I don't think any company should expect company loyalty from me too.
Instead, I will look after myself, whether the company involves me in decisions or promises me excellent career prospects, or otherwise.
Which is why I am quite puzzled by the findings of SHRI. Issues like involvement in decisions and career prospects had been highlighted as the most important components of an employee retention strategy.
Perhaps the respondents were all young workers, who look forward to being heard and promotions ahead of them. For me, "Cash is King", as Oscar Wilde once said: "When I was young, I thought that money was the most important thing; now that I am old, I know that it is."
Of course, it does not mean that money can solve all problems. But, money forms the base. Without the right salary, you cannot even start to talk about recruitment or retention.
To be sure, strategies like involvement in decisions and career prospects help. But, if the SHRI is trying to advise employers that the way to secure employee loyalty is to involve staff in decisions and enhance their career prospects, then, I think it is too naive. I do not think any employer can expect employee loyalty, regardless of what they can do.
And there is sometimes very little an employer can do. In an environment as competitive as we are now, employers are sometimes as much a victim of the larger environment as employees are. So, if they cannot look after themselves, how can you expect them to look after you?
For me, the bottom-line is still Cash. It's the only thing that counts.
MM Lee clarifies GIC's earnings not linked to CPF interest rates By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has clarified that GIC's earnings are not connected to the interest paid on CPF accounts. He was speaking at GIC's 25th anniversary dinner at the Ritz Carlton.
The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) is a global investment management company established to manage Singapore's foreign reserves.
MM Lee said that the GIC invests the government's reserves abroad in assets which carry higher risks like equities, bonds, real estate. Therefore these are expected to earn higher returns on average over the long term.
The returns are not related to CPF investments. "The CPF invests members' savings only in absolutely risk-free Singapore government bonds," MM Lee said.
"CPF members are paid market-related interest rates based on the 12-month fixed deposit rates and the savings account interest rates of the major Singapore banks, subject to a floor," he said.
"CPF members who are willing to accept higher risks for higher returns have many channels to do so on their own through the CPFIS scheme," he added.
Mr Lee said that the GIC has significantly enhanced the value of Singapore's savings.
But the growth of China and India will present more opportunities in the future. So he feels that the GIC needs to continue to build up the quality of people as one of its success factors. But it is not just about retaining home-grown talent.
"We need to create an environment where professionals can be deployed where they can best exercise their skills and maximise their contribution," MM Lee said. "As a global investor operating in many asset classes across 40 countries, GIC can offer abundant opportunities for exceptional professional growth and experience," he added.
Mr Lee also said that the training opportunity and exposure at GIC are probably unmatched among large investment firms in Asia. He hopes that the professionals will view their work at GIC as a long-term career.
Over 25 years, GIC has grown to an outfit that invests in over 40 countries through nine asset classes, handling over a hundred billion dollars. And its track record has been good.
Over a period of 25 years to March 2006, the annual rate of return on the foreign reserves managed by GIC averaged 9.5 percent in US dollar terms, and 8.2 percent in Singapore dollar terms.
The average rate of return over global inflation was 5.3 percent per annum.
The CPF Board invests our CPF funds in Singapore Government Securities (SGS) issued by the Government. The Government then passes this money over to GIC to invest on its behalf.
When MM said that our CPF money is invested in 'risk-free' instruments, he meant that our CPF money will definitely be refunded, because SGS are 'guaranteed' by the Government.
However, when the GIC loses money on its investments, where would the Government find the money to repay us our CPF?
It can do so through several means. For example, it could increase taxes, eg GST. It could devise new sources of government revenue, like the COE did for the Government when it was first introduced.
"There is no free lunch.", Mr Mah Bow Tan once said. Any loss made by the GIC has to be made good elsewhere. I fear Singaporeans would ultimately have to cough up this difference. And it would be those working who would be 'paying' for the CPF of the retirees.
Of course, the Government could cut down on Government expenditures (eg salaries for civil servants and politicians). It could also consider deferring or cancelling projects like HDB or school upgrading projects. Given the kind of candidates (please see blog entry below) that the PAP had been getting these days, I do not think salary cuts woud rank high on their list.
Which brings me to the other point in the article. The GIC had been making an annual return of 9.5% in US dollar terms over the last 25 years. Is this a good or bad return?
If you look at the S&P 500 index over the past 25 years, it had been making an annual return of about 10.5%. This means that if we had just parked the entire sum of US$100 billion in the S&P 500 shares and left it there for 25 years, we would have done better than the GIC.
Of course, the GIC could have done worse. Temasek recently had to quickly 'off-load' its investments in ShinCorp and Southern Bank Bhd when it found that these investments went above the limits specified by the respective local authorities governing foreign investments.
What puzzled me when I read MM's announcement is : The GIC had always been operating under a climate of secrecy, why did MM talk about its returns all of a sudden? I hope it's not the Chinese proverb – 'There are no 300 taels of gold here'.
Could it be that what happened at Temasek had also been happening at GIC and that had prompted the Government to 'pre-emptively' assure Singaporeans of the security of their CPF?
Perhaps I had been too cynical. It could very well be the start of a 'more transparent' era as far as our investment decisions go.
That would be good news. For most Singaporeans, the CPF is their main, if not only, asset. God forbid if anything were to happen to it.
Last week, a particular community living in Singapore achieved a milestone for itself. It organized a protest for what it saw as an injustice committed by the Government. The community was outraged that the Government had taken a heavy-handed approach in regulating the industry. It was also unhappy with the majority of Singapore for siding with the authorities.
I was, of course, talking about the 'Study Mamas'.
Oh yes, before I forgot. The community of bloggers too achieved a milestone last week with their silent protest at the MRT station. They managed to round up about 30 protesters, compared to the 100 that the 'Study Mamas' managed to mobilize.
Back to the 'Study Mamas'.
Study mamas in embassy protest
Loh Chee Kong cheekong@newstoday.com.sg
Upset with the negative glare cast on them in recent weeks, close to 100 study mamas gathered at the Chinese Embassy to register their unhappiness on Friday.
Their grouse: The "unfair" accusations heaped on study mamas ever since a high-profile murder of a Chinese national masseuse exposed the sprouting of sleazy massage parlours in neighbourhoods.
It is alleged that many study mamas — a term for foreign women accompanying their children who are studying here — drive these parlours, which have now come under tighter regulations.
Mdm Lee, who had worked as a technical officer in China and has a 10-year-old son studying here, told Today: "We came here to show our unhappiness with all the unfair accusations hurled at us.
"Many of us are not doing anything shameful or improper, yet Singaporeans seem to view all of us through tinted glasses after what happened. In one fell swoop, all study mamas are accused of being involved in indecent activities and it seems they want to drive us out."
The 38-year-old masseuse was among the steady stream of study mamas who gathered in front of the embassy from 9am on Friday, after being notified through SMSes by their peers. Barely two hours later, the gathering along the narrow Tanglin Road swelled to almost 100 of them, prompting police officers and embassy staff to disperse the crowd.
They left after an embassy official assured them "their concerns will be reflected to the Singapore Government", said Mdm Lee.
As of July last year, there were about 6,800 study mamas here, mostly from China. Since August 2003, following revelations that some of them were giving sexual favours for cash, the Ministry of Manpower stopped granting work permits for study mamas in the massage industry.
It is understood that while study mamas can work after staying in Singapore for a year, they cannot operate in "objectionable occupations" such as massage parlours and food stalls, or as bar or dance hostesses.
But another study mama at the protest, who gave her name as "Alice", said: "We don't really have a choice in working as masseuses.
"We can't work at coffeeshops or as toilet cleaners as employers think it's troublesome that we need to renew our work permits from time to time."
Singapore had chosen the education services as one of its key economic pillars. It is a relatively new-comer in this game, compared to countries like US, UK and Australia, for example.
Like Australia, Singapore allows the student to be accompanied by a student guardian. To accompany a foreign student in Australia, the student guardian must show proof and declare that she has the means to support herself and any other dependent (eg children) that she may bring along to Australia.
Depending on the country of origin, this 'financial capacity' should provide for her living expenses ranging from 1 year to the entire duration of the student's programme. The amount set by the Australian government includes a living expense of A$12,000 per year (for self) and A$1,800 – A$2,400 per year for each dependent child that she may bring. Student guardians must also declare that they have enough funds to pay for return airfares for both self and each child.
What is important to note is that this 'financial capacity' is over and above the 'financial capacity' required for the student that the guardian is accompanying. For the student, this 'financial capacity' will include the tuition fees and living expenses for this student for the entire duration of his/her studies.
Suppose a foreign student enrolls in a 2-year high school programme in Australia, which may charge A$5,000-A$15,000 in school fees annually. If he were to bring along a guardian, the total 'financial capacity' of both could amount to as much as A$75,000.
In Australia, student guardians are not allowed to work, although the foreign student may engage in part-time work of at most 20 hours per week during his studies.
In contrast, a foreign student in Singapore needs a local sponsor who must post a security deposit of at most S$5,000. The student guardian can work after 1 year in Singapore, although not in the 'objectionable occupations', as determined by the Government.
It seems to me that Singapore is more 'lax' than Australia in granting student and student guardian visas. Lest you have the wrong impression about me, I have nothing against foreign students and their guardians. They help bring about a more cosmopolitan and vibrant Singapore. I have many non-Singaporean friends and had always found them to be a refreshing change.
We all know that price conveys the market segment one is targeting. Looking at the 'price', my guess is that Singapore is targeting a different market than, say, Australia. It could be a deliberate policy, as Singapore is new to the game and sets out to capture greater 'market share'.
In my view, as far as the China market is concerned, it is such a huge market that there is sufficient volume in every segment of its market. In any case, a small market like Singapore can never cope with nor absorb the 'volume' that China has to offer. With rising income levels, a Chinese friend commented that the current 'fine' for having more than 1 child in China of 50,000 RMB had become less effective in birth control as the amount had become pretty affordable to many Chinese nowadays.
As such, we need not be so concerned about 'pricing' ourselves out of the market. By re-defining our target market, Singapore can also reinforce its standing amongst an increasingly sophisticated international student market.
Otherwise, for as long as government has to define a list of 'objectionable occupations', the unhappiness that some Singaporeans have over student guardians who flout the immigration laws may escalate. As will incidents like the protests by the student guardians who feel 'wronged'.
Mainstream media has role in ensuring quality of debate: Dr Balakrishnan By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia
Singapore's mainstream media has a crucial role in ensuring the quality and standard of discourse and national debate, says Second Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.
And he says as long as everybody understood their respective roles and respected each other, Singaporeans can have a useful dialogue going forward.
Dr Balakrishnan made these remarks when asked to comment on reactions by the foreign media to a recent decision by MediaCorp's TODAY newspaper to stop publishing a column by "Mr Brown" who was one of its regular columnists.
A recent article by the columnist about the cost of living in Singapore had drawn a sharp rebuttal from a government spokesperson.
Dr Balakrishnan said: "I am not at all concerned at all about what the foreign media thinks. We are not here to fulfil their agenda. Let me put it to you this way. We are all entitled to express our opinions.
"But we also have to be accountable for our opinions and to be prepared from time to time to stand by them or be called to answer them and from time to time to be rebutted. So I see this as part and parcel of the consistent position which the government and people of Singapore have taken."
He added that what is important for Singaporeans, particularly on serious issues, is to have an honest constructive debate with no extraneous agendas involved.
Dr Balakrishnan said: "If you feel there is a problem with cost of living, say so, let's collectively explore solutions. But don't in the name of humour distort or aggravate on an emotional level. That sort of discourse does not generate solutions. It generates more heat than light.
"So we should put this in its proper context. If someone says something which we disagree with, we will say so. If someone says something which is unhelpful we have a right to say it is unhelpful. We have a right to remind everyone that at the end of the day, this is not a fight.
"We are in search of solutions and by working together and by engaging in an honest constructive dialogue we can do so and we want our newspapers to be a part of that process and also to be aware that, the mainstream media in particular. You are not an internet chat room."
The 2nd Minister for MICA says that the mainstream media must ensure the standard and quality of discourse and national debate, in response to the mr brown episode.
I find this an interesting perspective to the episode. What MICA seems to be saying is that TODAY's publication of mr brown's letter had 'downgraded' the quality of discourse and national debate.
It would be most enlightening if MICA could outline what it considered as 'quality' discourse.
Based on the mr brown episode, this is what I inferred as not 'quality':
(1)'Blaming the Government for one's unhappiness'
(2)'Not offering alternatives or solutions'
(3)'Encouraging cynicism and despondency'
Of the 3, 2 of them [(1) and (3)] seem to say: "We must always treat the government with respect". It seems that to the Government, 'respectful' discourse would meet 2 out of its 3 criteria for 'quality'.
I think that's where the gap is. The government expects to be given 'respect'. We all know that 'Respect' has to be 'Earned', not 'Given'.
I am reminded by a scene in "A Few Good Men" where Jack Nicholson's character told Tom Cruise's character to give him due respect and to "ask him nicely" if he wants permission to do something.
Perhaps amongst the older generations of Singaporeans, the government had already 'earned' it, for having brought Singapore through its darkest moments in the 60's and 70s.
But, amongst the young, particularly those born after 1970, if the government wants respect, they should 'earn' their respect with this group of Singaporeans. And I think there is a difference in the interpretation of 'Respect' between the young and the old.
Amongst the old, 'Respect' is intimately tied to gratitude. The PAP Government had delivered Singaporeans from the difficult times in early-independence days. Without the PAP, Singapore would not be what it is today.
Amongst the young, 'Respect' and 'Gratitude' are mutually exclusive. For example, the young could be grateful to a teacher for giving them 'tips' for their examinations. But, they might not 'respect' this teacher if he does not practice what he preaches, practices 'favouritism' or does not consistently apply the class or school rules.
This can be seen in the gaming arena, where 'respect' is given to those who play fair, and to those who help others, especially those deemed 'weaker' than themselves.
Going by the mr brown episode, is it just me or do I detect that it seems that they are not getting the 'respect' they once commanded, especially from the young?
If so, this is worrying, going by Dr Catherine Lim's opinions in "An Affective Divide", which she wrote in 1994 as a columnist for the Straits Times. In the column, she said that while the government has the respect of Singaporeans, it could do with some 'regard'. It is her opinion that 'Respect' alone is not sufficient. Singaporeans should also 'feel' emotionally attached to the government, what she termed as 'regard' for the government.
12 years later, I do not know if the government had attained a higher 'regard' from Singaporeans. But, if I had been correct in interpreting this episode, then, it seems that the Government is also losing 'respect' amongst the young.
If I were the government, I would be very depressed. Imagine being part of a team which has no respect and no regard from its citizens. What am I toiling for?
If I had not done anything to cause Singaporeans to lose 'respect' and 'regard' for me, I think Singaporeans do not deserve such a 'world-class' government. I would be better off climbing my 'corporate ladder' in the civil service or the private sector.
But, on the other hand, if I had done something to cause such a situation in the first place, I would want to make changes to my approaches.
Yes, Tom Cruise's character did 'obey' Jack Nicholson's character to talk to him nicely, as Jack Nicholson 'out-ranked' him. But, in the end, it was the pride of Jack Nicholson's character that brought him his just deserts.
I dreamed that I was running my own pretty successful company. Unfortunately, there was this one columnist that absolutely hated my product. He makes use of his regular columns to criticise them. And, I fear, this had affected customer perceptions of my products. I thought hard. In addition to writing in to address his peeves, are there any other options available to me?
Well, I could ask myself if there had been any truths in the columnist's comments. If so, I could ask the Engineering Department to look into enhancing the product features. If the faults lay with perceptions, I could ask the Marketing Department to look into the right campaigns to address these. Of course, I could also get to know the columnist better. With a more open exchange of views, I could hopefully correct any misperceptions he may have of my products.
Had there been another media company, I might also try and 'influence' the other media to write good stories about my products. Hopefully, positive reviews will then outnumber negative ones.
But, in the case of the Government, it probably has several more options than a company does.
For one, as the regulator of the media industry, it could exercise controls through the law or licensing requirements on the media company. For example, it can set rules on how the media industry is supposed to operate. In this case, the government could decide that no media company is to 'champion' against the Government, as a rule of operations. I am no lawyer. I understand some had questioned the legality of such a requirement. But, I believe this rule could have been in existence since independence. Given the recent episode with mr brown, this rule is very much in force, and I think, will continue to be the guiding principle of governance in Singapore for a while yet.
The new Government, under the leadership of PM Lee Hsien Loong, talked about heralding a new era of 'inclusiveness' and 'participation' from all. To some bloggers, this episode had set this 'promise' back by at least 12 years (In 1994, Dr Catherine Lim's column in the Straits Times was similarly terminated after she wrote a series of critical articles about the Government).
I believe the Government could consider this episode as clearly breaching the 'OB' markers and so, has nothing to do with the concepts of 'inclusiveness' and 'participation' that it envisions. Its vision about 'inclusiveness' and 'participation' relates to an active citizenry contributing ideas to make Singapore a better place to live in. Not a group of citizens who complain and 'campaign' against the good work that the Government had been doing without any constructive suggestions.
What puzzles me is how a person would be able to contribute ideas to make a place better if he has no complaints/criticisms in the first place. They say that "Necessity is the mother of all inventions". If I have no complaints about a place, then, wherefore my suggestions to improve the place?
I believe, therefore, that active citizenry must be founded upon a certain level of 'unhappiness' about the present state of affairs. That might help explain the high level of 'apathy' amongst Singaporeans as perceived by observers. In a sense, most things are already working pretty well in Singapore.
I think the Government accepts that there are differences in opinions. For if it is not, then, I think Singapore will be in deep trouble. With technology facilitating more interactions, perspectives will diverge. Not just amongst its citizens, but also amongst the many foreign peoples that Singapore relates to – in business, in international affairs, etc. Ego-centricity does not bode well for Singapore – both domestically and internationally.
I think the Government also does not mind people being unhappy or complaining/ criticising the Government. The "Ah Pek" in the coffeeshops had been complaining for ages and there had, as far as I know, not been any public Governmental reaction towards them.
The issue, it seems to me, is over the use of the mass media to criticise the Government. The mass media, as a channel of communications, is 'sacrosanct'. No one should be 'abusing' this channel. Any potential transgressor must be re-directed to the political arena to be managed within the framework defined by the political system.
This brings to mind the theories of cognitive development espoused by Piaget, one of the 3 titans in the field of study of Psychology. According to Piaget, children (and adults by extension) learn through a process of 'assimilation' and 'accommodation'. Children construct 'cognitive schemas' to explain what they see around them. When a new experience presents itself, children will 'assimilate' this new experience to an existing schema. If that presents a conflict, then, it would create new schemas to 'accommodate' the new experience.
In describing MM Lee's leadership style in "Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas", the biographers said that MM concluded that Singapore and Asian societies required firm leadership to produce social and political stability.
To me, the letter from MICA is an indication that this 'schema' had prevailed. Assimilation had been deployed. Yet again. If the approach had been less 'firm', we might have seen a more toned-down letter asking mr brown to come up with constructive suggestions in his next column. And if mr brown continues to take a 'sarcastic' tone the following week, we might have seen the government escalating the tone of that letter. Instead, the government had decided to come up with a 'firm' letter straight away.
Will we likely see 'accommodation', the construction of a new schema to deal with future such occurrences? Does the government see a need to, in the first place?
There are many related questions to this. For example:
"Will firm leadership continue to be a pre-requisite for 'social and political stability' in an Asian society increasingly being exposed to Western media influences?"
"How does 'firm leadership' square with a generation of Singaporeans who had been brought up differently by their parents who may not value nor practise 'firm leadership'?"
"What would happen to Singapore if it were to experience social and political instability?"
"Would we not see the foreign investors taking their money out of Singapore?"
"Would we not see thousands of Singaporeans losing their jobs?"
If the Government 'relaxes', investors may lose confidence. On the other hand, if the Government continues to run Singapore tightly, then, the more liberal citizens lose confidence.
Damned, if you do; damned, if you don't.
It's not an easy decision.
That's why Singaporeans want to have a world-class government who can make the right decisions.
What do the public feel about this episode?
At the extreme ends of the spectrum, I think this episode had merely reinforced their perceptions about the Government.
At the margins, however, with due respect to my fellow Singaporeans, I think most of them cannot see that clearly what is so 'special' about the print media. Most of them will likely see this as a reinforcement of the government's firm control of the media (and probably infer that the Governmet has a low tolerance for disagreements) and a step back in encouraging greater 'participation'.
At the end of the day, it is a judgement call.
For now, the Government's assessment could be that the fallout from this episode (if any) is small and most likely transient, compared to the benefits of maintaining 'social and political stability'.
Only time will tell if this episode will become a turning point in Singapore's future growth and development.
For me, this episode had illustrated clearly Piaget's theories in action.
The processes of 'assimilation' and 'accommodation' take place throughout a person's life. The pace at which they take place depends on the intensity of a person's experiences and varies from one person to another.
For the progress of our nation, I hope to see this pace quickened for all concerned - for a person who is not quick in 'assimilating' and 'accommodating' can be seen as inflexible and proud.
When a columnist becomes a 'partisan player' in politics
Letter from K BHAVANI Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts
Your mr brown column, "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" (June 30) poured sarcasm on many issues, including the recent General Household Survey, price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares, our IT plans, the Progress Package and means testing for special school fees.
The results of the General Household Survey were only available after the General Election. But similar data from the Household Expenditure Survey had been published last year before the election.
There was no reason to suppress the information. It confirmed what we had told Singaporeans all along, that globalisation would stretch out incomes.
mr brown must also know that price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares are the inevitable result of higher oil prices.
These were precisely the reasons for the Progress Package — to help lower income Singaporeans cope with higher costs of living.
Our IT plans are critical to Singapore's competitive position and will improve the job chances of individual Singaporeans. It is wrong of mr brown to make light of them.
As for means testing for special school fees, we understand mr brown's disappointment as the father of an autistic child. However, with means testing, we can devote more resources to families who need more help.
mr brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worse, not better, for those he professes to sympathise with.
mr brown is entitled to his views. But opinions which are widely circulated in a regular column in a serious newspaper should meet higher standards. Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly.
It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics.
TODAYVoices, 3rd July 2006
Just when I thought I could go for a holiday as there seemed to be nothing to blog about these few days…
This is a most interesting response from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts to a letter from mr brown published in the Voices section of TODAY (30 Jun 2006).
I have learnt many new lessons today:
(1)That you may be 'rapped' for giving honest feedback. Mr brown was exercising his right, as a citizen, to voice his concerns. Unfortunately, the government chose to 'whack' him hard.
(2)That when you have a very popular blog with 'cynical' pieces and when you write to the print media as a citizen about your concerns, the government cannot distinguish between these two roles and takes it out on you for your role as a blogger.
(3)That the Singapore Government is one of the very, very few in the world which ticks its citizens off instead of empathising with them for the predicament that they are in.
(4)That with its recent 'strong mandate' of 66.6%, the Government is worried that the 'polemics' of mr brown will 'undermine' this strong standing.
(5)That 'polemics' is the opposite of the term 'apologia'. And 'apologetics' is the "field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position". (Wikipedia).
(6)That the majority of Singapore (66.6% to be exact) welcome the increase in fees and fares. If all can write in English, they would have written to TODAY to sing praises about these increases.
(7)That the other 33.4% who are unhappy with increase in fees and fares should provide 'constructive criticism and alternatives'. They can then share out the wages of all the Ministers, MPs and senior civil servants and be able to afford these increases.
(8)That mr brown has just become a 'columnist'.
(9)That you must be a 'partisan player in politics' to talk about issues of concern to you. This means that those 'ah pek' in coffeeshops must stand for elections before they can talk about politics. Who says there is a dearth of political activism in Singapore? We will soon see a proliferation of political parties when everyone registers himself/herself as a politician.
(10)That the Government has no clue who mr brown is, how he looks like and which special school for autistic children is his daughter enrolled in.
On a more serious note though, the Government had gravely mis-read mr brown's letter and mis-calibrated its response. It seems that since the elections, it had become more 'paranoid', behaving like a 'jing gong zhi niao' (a bird petrified by the sight of a bow).
To the ordinary citizen, mr brown's letter is just putting on paper what people are generally already feeling. With due respect to mr brown, his letter does not have much 'substance'. It is more like one of those 'mindless rantings' on a bad hair day.
To come out so strongly on such a letter shows that the government is out of touch with its people on this issue.
I am so excited to see what other bloggers will be saying to this in the next few days. What will I do without the Government?
GRCs make it easier to find top talent: SM Without good chance of winning at polls, they might not be willing to risk careers for politics
By Li Xueying
SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday gave a new take on the role of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in Singapore politics.
Their role is not just to ensure minorities are adequately represented in Parliament, he said. They also contribute to Singapore's political stability, by 'helping us to recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.
'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics,' Mr Goh said at an event marking the appointment of members to the South East Community Development Council (CDC).
'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?'
I can't remember who it was who mentioned that Singapore is run like a company. As successful companies go, GE, which is often touted as one of the most successful global companies, had always attributed its success to the "Passion" in its employees.
What SM said seemed to indicate that whatever is driving the PAP candidates to enter politics, "Passion to serve" is not one of them. When a person only ventures into something because of a good chance of success, what can we expect of him when he becomes a Minister? Would we expect him to maintain status quo and go for the tried-and-tested because that is a safe approach? Or, perhaps, he might, all of a sudden, become a risk-taker and come up with new and out-of-the-box policies?
Given the increasingly intense economic competition that Singapore faces, it needs leaders who are passionate about serving its people and bold enough to challenge the status quo. The last people it needs are those who want to be guaranteed success, because these are the ones who will stick around only for as long as the times are good. If they are so uncomfortable with uncertainties, how can they be entrusted with the responsibility of charting Singapore's path into the league of developed nations, a role with even greater uncertainty?
What saddens me is that Ministers consistently tell workers to change their mindsets, embrace change and adjust to the economic realities around them. Yet, they fight to retain a "no worse-off" situation for themselves.
I wonder if the candidates that WP found were like that too. Of course, some of them might not be drawing the kind of salaries that the civil servants and private sector candidates PAP found had been drawing. So, their 'sacrifices' might not be comparable with those by the PAP candidates.
But, then, since the PAP candidates would have been making more money than the WP candidates before they stepped into politics, we would expect them to have correspondingly bigger 'reserves'? Unless the issue here is not about 'size' per se, but about 'sufficiency'?
So, the bottom-line could be that PAP candidates need more money than others? Perhaps they could have bigger families and/or bigger family commitments. Or, could it be that PAP candidates need more re-assurances of success? Or, to use the term SM Goh once used on Singaporeans, PAP candidates are more 'kiasu' or 'kiasi'.
Either way, if this is what PAP candidates are made of these days, then, they are not as good as they used to be. If MM Lee had gone for the money or for a high chance of success some 50 years ago, there would have been no PAP and Singapore would not have been what it is today.
And if the WP candidates can bring with them the passion to serve like the PAP first-generation leaders did, we might very well see the WP sweeping into power the same way the PAP did many, many years ago.
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.
