It's been a year since I've written. So why suddenly the resurfacing of kuey?
Thanks for Otto, referred to many as a hero for his courageous coming out. (Hence, my title...) I guess this was something which affected me enough that I had to write about it. Or I would just bottle it up inside. Again.
At one level, I do admire him for coming, something that I've been unable to do, at least not to his extent. Being a fellow teacher, I certainly understand the double life that we lead, the constant I-must-be-a-good-example-to-my-students-and-i-have-to-lead-a-double-
life-or-at-least-a-secret-one feeling, the fear that not only will my career will go down the drain but that I would make front page news (on The New Paper, no less) for "GAY TEACHER CORRUPTING YOUNG BOYS!!!"
At one level, I try to make excuses for myself. He's in (the more understanding) Raffles Institution, and I'm in a typical neighborhood school. I've got more to lose, I tell myself - he's only a teacher but I'm a HOD.
Excuses, excuses...
This episode has triggered other thoughts, some already simmering for a while. How long more do I want to stay with MOE? There's much in the existing system that I'm unhappy about, the usual that you hear about when you talk to any teacher. But on top of that, now I'm asking myself how long more I want to stay with an organisation that forces me to constantly hide myself, check what I say and do, distance myself from my colleagues (to avoid the "oh when can we see your girlfriend" or the "show us a photo of her). Something which every other colleague can "out" themselves as straight automatically and unthinkingly everyday. I want to be able to put a photo of my boyfriend on the computer screen, too.
So, there. Thanks Otto.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The Irony of trains, wires and fares
Happened to glance at ChannelNewsAsia (CNA) yesterday, reading the little news blurbs that scroll across the screen. One of the first I noticed was how the train service along the North-East Line (NEL) line of our mass transit system was disrupted since about 1pm due to a wire fault. My thoughts were, "Sigh, once again."
Then most interestingly, one of the blurbs following reported that SMRT was proposing to raise its taxi and train fare. What a most unfortunate coincidence.
True, the NEL line is run by SBS Transit, not SMRT. Nonetheless, I don't think the everyday passenger would not notice details like this. And it's certainly understandable. I'm fortunate to drive (but don't get me started on the CTE jams) but I can remember what it was like to have to take public transport everywhere. To have your travel plans disrupted by train failure on one hand then told that the fare prices are being increased on the other hand just doesn't gel.
I recall a while ago, a driver who lost control of his car drove onto the railway tracks between Yio Chu Kang and Khatib MRT stations. The resultant disruption caused massive train disruptions and road jams on Lentor Ave for many hours during the evening peak hours. He was eventually fined for the disruption to the traffice. My question is - shouldn't train operators similarly be fined for disruptions to the train service? What costs to the economy when the trains break down like this? Wouldn't that serve as an incentive for these companies to clean up their act and be more vigilant?
Then most interestingly, one of the blurbs following reported that SMRT was proposing to raise its taxi and train fare. What a most unfortunate coincidence.
True, the NEL line is run by SBS Transit, not SMRT. Nonetheless, I don't think the everyday passenger would not notice details like this. And it's certainly understandable. I'm fortunate to drive (but don't get me started on the CTE jams) but I can remember what it was like to have to take public transport everywhere. To have your travel plans disrupted by train failure on one hand then told that the fare prices are being increased on the other hand just doesn't gel.
I recall a while ago, a driver who lost control of his car drove onto the railway tracks between Yio Chu Kang and Khatib MRT stations. The resultant disruption caused massive train disruptions and road jams on Lentor Ave for many hours during the evening peak hours. He was eventually fined for the disruption to the traffice. My question is - shouldn't train operators similarly be fined for disruptions to the train service? What costs to the economy when the trains break down like this? Wouldn't that serve as an incentive for these companies to clean up their act and be more vigilant?
Thursday, July 20, 2006
(Another) Reason Why We Shouldn't Have Religion...
Yes, many would accuse me of being ungodly with such a statement. And I hope I don't get hit with the Sedition Act, but sometimes, events around me just make me question, objectively, whether religion has benefited the world at large or not.
I mean, I have great respect for many religious individuals, and the individual good that they do can indeed be very inspiring, and sometimes nationally, as evidenced by people like Mother Theresa.
Yet, organised religion seems to overwhelm and negate all these individual good being done on a day by day basis.
What sparked off this chain of thought? Well, as of now, Israel has just murdered 352 people in Lebanon, most of them innocent civilians. Israel has declared an all out war against Lebanon, firing missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas, and last I've heard, have started invading the country.
And what does the rest of the world do? Discuss what sanctions to impose on North Korea for firing a few dud missiles into the sea.
Might I add that this is led by the US.
I can't help but ask myself what would it be like with organised religion. Israel wouldn't have gotten the strong support of the US, through aid and other support, with the strong support of the Christian Right group there. Actually, without religion, Jews would have been absorbed into the surrounding people thousands of years ago after their kingdom fell. Genetically, Jews have largely been indistinguishable from the community they live with, then with each other.
Many of you would say that it is not the fault of religion, that it is the result of politics. But would politics have the power to generate that kind of devastating power without religion?
I mean, I have great respect for many religious individuals, and the individual good that they do can indeed be very inspiring, and sometimes nationally, as evidenced by people like Mother Theresa.
Yet, organised religion seems to overwhelm and negate all these individual good being done on a day by day basis.
What sparked off this chain of thought? Well, as of now, Israel has just murdered 352 people in Lebanon, most of them innocent civilians. Israel has declared an all out war against Lebanon, firing missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas, and last I've heard, have started invading the country.
And what does the rest of the world do? Discuss what sanctions to impose on North Korea for firing a few dud missiles into the sea.
Might I add that this is led by the US.
I can't help but ask myself what would it be like with organised religion. Israel wouldn't have gotten the strong support of the US, through aid and other support, with the strong support of the Christian Right group there. Actually, without religion, Jews would have been absorbed into the surrounding people thousands of years ago after their kingdom fell. Genetically, Jews have largely been indistinguishable from the community they live with, then with each other.
Many of you would say that it is not the fault of religion, that it is the result of politics. But would politics have the power to generate that kind of devastating power without religion?
Saturday, July 08, 2006
I Am Singaporean
This is inspired by the "I Am Singaporean" project by Mr Brown (http://mrbrown.com) and Mr Miyagi (http://miyagi.sg).
My name is kuey, because that's a play on my name, and also because I like eating kueys.
When I was young, I loved eating the kau teng kuey, or the nine-layered kuey. I used to peel them off layer by layer when I eat them. Nowadays though, I just munch them up.
I lived in a one-bedroom apartment until I was 10. My dad got to sleep on the queen-size bed in the bedroom, while my mom, my gor and I slept in the living room. We had to lay our mattresses out every night and keep them every morning. I was very happy sleeping and rolling around on the floor then, and I don't understand why now, I need a queen-size bed all to myself.
I am the son of a once odd-job worker turned full-time taxi-driver, and a housewife turned housewife cum factory-worker. We were very poor but I was happy. I sometimes wish though that my mom didn't have to abort my younger sibling. I know it still hurts her sometimes.
And ma, even though I'm not home very often, and even though we don't talk very much, I will be eternally grateful for the sacrifices you have made. Even though you infuriate me sometimes, I will never forget that you gave up your life so that I can have mine.
I know you don't approve of my dear even though you haven't met him. Even though he infuriates me sometimes, too, I love him very much. And I know he loves me very much, too. We have been together more than a year, and we still have a long way more to go.
I am more than 30 years old already, and I still haven't voted. I am disappointed that the Parliament is closed till November, and I am wondering why we are paying the MP I didn't choose to take a 8 month holiday.
Actually, I'm forgetting whom my MP is.
My name is kuey. I have a blog and I am anonymous, because my career would suffer if I am not.
I am Singaporean. Although I can choose to live anywhere else, I don't. This is where I grew up, this is where my parents will live the rest of their lives, this is where my friends are, and this is where I want to spend my life with my dear.
For better or worse, this is my home.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Civil Servants in the Clouds
I had recently started reading regularly the blogs of various well-known bloggers. Yes, terribly behind times but busy lah...
Must say that I was quite surprised and, I must say, flabbergasted, to read the reply of Ms Bhavani, the Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, on July 03, 2006 in response to Mr Brown's article on Today on 30 Jun, 2006. The details can be found at Mr Brown's blog site (http://www.mrbrown.com/) or specifically to the blog article (http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/letter_from_mic.html).
I can accept that the results of the General Household Survey (GHS) were only available after the GE. The survey was started in Mar 05, and I think ran til Jun 05. I can Having been involved in mass surveys like this previously, I do know how long it can take to consolidate findings and prepare the report, so I would give SingState the benefit of the doubt. (I mean, the Household Expenditure Survey (HES) was conducted between Oct 02 to Sep 03, and the results was released in Jun 05, so the GHS was actually quite fast!)
However, I have some issues with this line from Ms Bhavani:
But similar data from the Household Expenditure Survey had been published last year before the election.
I decided to take time out to go through the HES (you can, too, at http://www.singstat.gov.sg/press/hes.pdf), especially para 14-19. I quote the following from the report:
Must say that I was quite surprised and, I must say, flabbergasted, to read the reply of Ms Bhavani, the Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, on July 03, 2006 in response to Mr Brown's article on Today on 30 Jun, 2006. The details can be found at Mr Brown's blog site (http://www.mrbrown.com/) or specifically to the blog article (http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/letter_from_mic.html).
I can accept that the results of the General Household Survey (GHS) were only available after the GE. The survey was started in Mar 05, and I think ran til Jun 05. I can Having been involved in mass surveys like this previously, I do know how long it can take to consolidate findings and prepare the report, so I would give SingState the benefit of the doubt. (I mean, the Household Expenditure Survey (HES) was conducted between Oct 02 to Sep 03, and the results was released in Jun 05, so the GHS was actually quite fast!)
However, I have some issues with this line from Ms Bhavani:
But similar data from the Household Expenditure Survey had been published last year before the election.
I decided to take time out to go through the HES (you can, too, at http://www.singstat.gov.sg/press/hes.pdf), especially para 14-19. I quote the following from the report:
- All households, including those in lower income groups, have achieved a higher standard of living during 1993 - 2003.
- For example, after taking into account the rebates and waivers on rent and utilities... , per capita income of households in all the quintile income groups registered positive rates of growth between 1998 to 2003.
- The per capita income of households in the lowest quintile income group which registered a decline of 1.6 per cent per annum during the same period, showed a gain of 0.1 per cent per annum after rebates and ERS were taken into consideration.
Compare this with the GHS report (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/press/ghs2.pdf), especially para 12-17):
- Compared with 2000, the average household income from work declined for households in the 2nd and 3rd decile group in 2005.
I don't know about you but the impression I got from the HES and GHS are quite different. True, both seemed to have presented the same facts, but the connotations between the two seem quite different. The GHS is definitely more stark in terms of how badly the poor are doing in terms of income. Specifically, the 2nd decile group's income dropped by 4.3% while the 3rd decile group's dropped 0.5% between 2000 to 2005. (The 1st decile group's average monthly household income dropped from $90 to $0.) And based on what I can understand from the Annexes, I believe these have not accounted for inflation (although I can't be 100% sure).
My other main concern is with this line:
It confirmed what we had told Singaporeans all along, that globalisation would stretch out incomes.
I find this line may be underplaying the issue - the GHS clearly indicates not just a stretching of income, but that the poor are actually getting poorer in real terms. It is not simply just the rich making money at a faster rate than the poor.
My other issues with her reply are more general, and really just a matter of difference.
- poured sarcasm on many issues - Can't a intellectual article be couched in sarcasm to more effectively highlight the issues?
- He offers no alternatives or solutions - Must a careful analysis of problems also bring up possible solutions or lose credibility? (This reminds me of the now-infamous slap on the wrist Ms Catherine Lim got quite a few years ago.)
- It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues - (Notice the mention of "in Singapore".) Why not? When journalists write pieces to champion greater accessibility for the disabled and elderly, are they wrong? How do you write an opinion piece without championing issues?
- he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics - Does criticising the Government or some of its actions become a political action? When did the Government = party politics?
And of course, my biggest issue against her reply was this:
And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly.
Anyone who takes the trouble to just visit mr brown's blog site would know that he has never hidden behind his pseudonym. I can excuse the average reader of the Today to not bother doing this but for the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, the very Ministry in charge of the medium that he works on, it seems quite bizarre. Could the Ministry be totally unaware of that he quite openly posts his name and face pictures (including pictures of his adorable children)?
From what I know about the civil service, replies to this would usually be first crafted by a junior staff, which would then be cleared up succeeding levels, and it would like reach the Permanent Secretary (the highest level civil servant), and perhaps even the Minister. I wouldn't know how far this reply might have reached in the Ministry before clearing for release, but it would definitely would have gone through a number of hands. And none of them know that mr brown is not actually anonymous?
The Gay Gene?
There was a brief discussion on Signel a while ago on the biological causes of homosexuality and I posted this.
I think that homosexuality survives only BECAUSE it aids a particular species. Otherwise, it would been discarded by evolution long ago. Someone posted an article a while ago on the theory of homosexuality's role in strengthening social bonds. Although that is true in many animals, e.g. bonobo chimpanzees, I'm personally not quite sure this is the primary reason, or was it simply a evolutionary development that got tapped on for other uses. (This is not uncommon in evolution - scientists postulate that wings of birds evolved first as a tool for heat regulation, for example.)
Those of you who have read Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene would be familiar with his theory of how altruistic behaviour (e.g. female meerkats staying celibate to look after their nieces and nephews) can arise out of "selfish" genes, i.e. genes whose primary purpose is to seek to replicate into next generations. Essentially, it rests upon the fact that genes that occur in a particular animal is also likely to reside in their relatives, and this probability increases the closer the relationship.
My take is that something similar has ensured that homosexuality has survived to this day. Genes that causes an animal to be exclusivelyhomosexual would make no evolutionary sense since they would never reach the next generation but genes that causes an animal to be homosexual a certain X% of the time, or causes X% of the populationto be homosexual all the time (or some other combination in between) could survive and propagate, provided that this gives these genes a higher chance of survival into next generation. Especially for animals that live in close proximity with their relatives and/or in areas that face resource constraint, even if the gay animal doesn't take care of the offsprings of its relatives, a few animals giving up the chance for reproduction can greatly reduce the dangers of overpopulation and its resultant environment depletion in the locality of the species. Environment depletion due to overpopulationis seldom gradual - it usually occurs after being apparently stable for some time until pushed past the tipping point following which everything comes crashing down. (Thus the reason for concern by many environmentalists.) Thus, my theory is that the genes that predisposes some homosexual behaviour provides a pressure relief for overpopulation.
This would also work for genes that predisposes animals to asexuality, and this does occur in nature, e.g. celibate meerkats, worker termites (i.e. other than the queen), but it is probably easier to subvert a particular evolutionary development (in this case sex drive) than to de-evolve it. Besides, sex drive is still needed in general to propagate the species. Of course, there could be other benefits to the genes, e.g. increasing social bonds, gay animals who do take care of the children of their relatives, but to me, it seems that population control would be the primary reason. It appears that the prevalence of homosexuality is higher for social animals (i.e. animals that live in close proximity with each other), and also higher when animals are placed in caged settings (simulating limited environmental resources - how would the genes know that the animals they reside in are actually being artificially fed). For example, among the apes, homosexual behaviour is much less reported for gorillas, where each troup consists of a dominant male and his harem occupying a large territory with the other males roaming separately between unclaimed territories, as compared to bonobo chimpanzees, an extremely social species of ape.
I think that homosexuality survives only BECAUSE it aids a particular species. Otherwise, it would been discarded by evolution long ago. Someone posted an article a while ago on the theory of homosexuality's role in strengthening social bonds. Although that is true in many animals, e.g. bonobo chimpanzees, I'm personally not quite sure this is the primary reason, or was it simply a evolutionary development that got tapped on for other uses. (This is not uncommon in evolution - scientists postulate that wings of birds evolved first as a tool for heat regulation, for example.)
Those of you who have read Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene would be familiar with his theory of how altruistic behaviour (e.g. female meerkats staying celibate to look after their nieces and nephews) can arise out of "selfish" genes, i.e. genes whose primary purpose is to seek to replicate into next generations. Essentially, it rests upon the fact that genes that occur in a particular animal is also likely to reside in their relatives, and this probability increases the closer the relationship.
My take is that something similar has ensured that homosexuality has survived to this day. Genes that causes an animal to be exclusivelyhomosexual would make no evolutionary sense since they would never reach the next generation but genes that causes an animal to be homosexual a certain X% of the time, or causes X% of the populationto be homosexual all the time (or some other combination in between) could survive and propagate, provided that this gives these genes a higher chance of survival into next generation. Especially for animals that live in close proximity with their relatives and/or in areas that face resource constraint, even if the gay animal doesn't take care of the offsprings of its relatives, a few animals giving up the chance for reproduction can greatly reduce the dangers of overpopulation and its resultant environment depletion in the locality of the species. Environment depletion due to overpopulationis seldom gradual - it usually occurs after being apparently stable for some time until pushed past the tipping point following which everything comes crashing down. (Thus the reason for concern by many environmentalists.) Thus, my theory is that the genes that predisposes some homosexual behaviour provides a pressure relief for overpopulation.
This would also work for genes that predisposes animals to asexuality, and this does occur in nature, e.g. celibate meerkats, worker termites (i.e. other than the queen), but it is probably easier to subvert a particular evolutionary development (in this case sex drive) than to de-evolve it. Besides, sex drive is still needed in general to propagate the species. Of course, there could be other benefits to the genes, e.g. increasing social bonds, gay animals who do take care of the children of their relatives, but to me, it seems that population control would be the primary reason. It appears that the prevalence of homosexuality is higher for social animals (i.e. animals that live in close proximity with each other), and also higher when animals are placed in caged settings (simulating limited environmental resources - how would the genes know that the animals they reside in are actually being artificially fed). For example, among the apes, homosexual behaviour is much less reported for gorillas, where each troup consists of a dominant male and his harem occupying a large territory with the other males roaming separately between unclaimed territories, as compared to bonobo chimpanzees, an extremely social species of ape.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Teachers make a difference
Saw this forum letter and really liked it.
Jan 10, 2006 Dead-end job? Teachers make a difference
I AM appalled by the comment by Everitt Road man Chan Cheng Khoon that teachingis a dead-end job ('No worries even if daughter loses teaching job, says dad';ST, Jan 6). The remark does great injustice to all the great teachers out there.
I would like to share the following excerpt from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's speech at the commencement of Williams College on June 5 lastyear.
It goes like this: 'The dinner guests were sitting around the table discussing life. One man, a CEO, decided to explain the problem with education. He argued this way: 'What's a kid going to learn from someone who decided his best option in life was to become a teacher? You know, it's true what they say about teachers: Those who can do, do, and those who can't do, teach.'
'To corroborate his statement he said to another guest, 'Hey, Susan, you're a teacher. Be honest, what do you make?'
Susan, who had a reputation for honesty and frankness, replied, 'You want toknow what I make? I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could and I can make kids sit through 40 minutes of study hall in absolute silence.
'I can make a C-plus feel like the Congressional Medal of Honor and an A feel like a slap in the face if the student didn't do his or her very best.' Susan continued, 'I can make parents tremble when I call home or feel almost like they won the lottery when I tell them how well their child is progressing.'
Gaining speed, she went on: 'You want to know what I make? I make kids wonder, I make them question, I make them criticise, I make them apologise and mean it, I make them write and I make them read, read, read. I make them show all their work in maths and hide it all on their final drafts in English.'
Susan then stopped and cleared her throat. 'I make them understand that if you have the brains, then follow your heart. And if someone ever tries to judge you by what you make in money, you pay them no attention.'
Susan then paused. 'You want to know what I make?' she said. 'I make a difference. What about you?'
I hope Mr Chan will reflect on Mr Friedman's words. To all the great teachers out there, you make a difference!
Ng Tze Yik
Jan 10, 2006 Dead-end job? Teachers make a difference
I AM appalled by the comment by Everitt Road man Chan Cheng Khoon that teachingis a dead-end job ('No worries even if daughter loses teaching job, says dad';ST, Jan 6). The remark does great injustice to all the great teachers out there.
I would like to share the following excerpt from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's speech at the commencement of Williams College on June 5 lastyear.
It goes like this: 'The dinner guests were sitting around the table discussing life. One man, a CEO, decided to explain the problem with education. He argued this way: 'What's a kid going to learn from someone who decided his best option in life was to become a teacher? You know, it's true what they say about teachers: Those who can do, do, and those who can't do, teach.'
'To corroborate his statement he said to another guest, 'Hey, Susan, you're a teacher. Be honest, what do you make?'
Susan, who had a reputation for honesty and frankness, replied, 'You want toknow what I make? I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could and I can make kids sit through 40 minutes of study hall in absolute silence.
'I can make a C-plus feel like the Congressional Medal of Honor and an A feel like a slap in the face if the student didn't do his or her very best.' Susan continued, 'I can make parents tremble when I call home or feel almost like they won the lottery when I tell them how well their child is progressing.'
Gaining speed, she went on: 'You want to know what I make? I make kids wonder, I make them question, I make them criticise, I make them apologise and mean it, I make them write and I make them read, read, read. I make them show all their work in maths and hide it all on their final drafts in English.'
Susan then stopped and cleared her throat. 'I make them understand that if you have the brains, then follow your heart. And if someone ever tries to judge you by what you make in money, you pay them no attention.'
Susan then paused. 'You want to know what I make?' she said. 'I make a difference. What about you?'
I hope Mr Chan will reflect on Mr Friedman's words. To all the great teachers out there, you make a difference!
Ng Tze Yik
Ben Stein's Last Column
I'm as atheist as it gets (but agnostic when I'm with religious friends). But I still find the below worth reading. It's everything I believe humanists believe as well.
For many years Ben Stein has written a biweekly column called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of Steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.) Now, Ben is terminating the column to move on to other things in his life.
How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?
As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.
It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.
Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.
How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we meansomeone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.
They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.
A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.
We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.
I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.
There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.
Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.
I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin...or Martin Mull or Fred Willard - or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.
But I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.
This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human.
Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.
For many years Ben Stein has written a biweekly column called "Monday Night At Morton's." (Morton's is a famous chain of Steakhouses known to be frequented by movie stars and famous people from around the globe.) Now, Ben is terminating the column to move on to other things in his life.
How Can Someone Who Lives in Insane Luxury Be a Star in Today's World?
As I begin to write this, I "slug" it, as we writers say, which means I put a heading on top of the document to identify it. This heading is "eonlineFINAL," and it gives me a shiver to write it. I have been doing this column for so long that I cannot even recall when I started. I loved writing this column so much for so long I came to believe it would never end.
It worked well for a long time, but gradually, my changing as a person and the world's change have overtaken it. On a small scale, Morton's, while better than ever, no longer attracts as many stars as it used to. It still brings in the rich people in droves and definitely some stars. I saw Samuel L. Jackson there a few days ago, and we had a nice visit, and right before that, I saw and had a splendid talk with Warren Beatty in an elevator, in which we agreed that Splendor in the Grass was a super movie. But Morton's is not the star galaxy it once was, though it probably will be again.
Beyond that, a bigger change has happened. I no longer think Hollywood stars are terribly important. They are uniformly pleasant, friendly people, and they treat me better than I deserve to be treated. But a man or woman who makes a huge wage for memorizing lines and reciting them in front of a camera is no longer my idea of a shining star we should all look up to.
How can a man or woman who makes an eight-figure wage and lives in insane luxury really be a star in today's world, if by a "star" we meansomeone bright and powerful and attractive as a role model? Real stars are not riding around in the backs of limousines or in Porsches or getting trained in yoga or Pilates and eating only raw fruit while they have Vietnamese girls do their nails.
They can be interesting, nice people, but they are not heroes to me any longer. A real star is the soldier of the 4th Infantry Division who poked his head into a hole on a farm near Tikrit, Iraq. He could have been met by a bomb or a hail of AK-47 bullets. Instead, he faced an abject Saddam Hussein and the gratitude of all of the decent people of the world.
A real star is the U.S. soldier who was sent to disarm a bomb next to a road north of Baghdad. He approached it, and the bomb went off and killed him.
A real star, the kind who haunts my memory night and day, is the U.S. soldier in Baghdad who saw a little girl playing with a piece of unexploded ordnance on a street near where he was guarding a station. He pushed her aside and threw himself on it just as it exploded. He left a family desolate in California and a little girl alive in Baghdad.
The stars who deserve media attention are not the ones who have lavish weddings on TV but the ones who patrol the streets of Mosul even after two of their buddies were murdered and their bodies battered and stripped for the sin of trying to protect Iraqis from terrorists.
We put couples with incomes of $100 million a year on the covers of our magazines. The noncoms and officers who barely scrape by on military pay but stand on guard in Afghanistan and Iraq and on ships and in submarines and near the Arctic Circle are anonymous as they live and die.
I am no longer comfortable being a part of the system that has such poor values, and I do not want to perpetuate those values by pretending that who is eating at Morton's is a big subject.
There are plenty of other stars in the American firmament...the policemen and women who go off on patrol in South Central and have no idea if they will return alive; the orderlies and paramedics who bring in people who have been in terrible accidents and prepare them for surgery; the teachers and nurses who throw their whole spirits into caring for autistic children; the kind men and women who work in hospices and in cancer wards.
Think of each and every fireman who was running up the stairs at the World Trade Center as the towers began to collapse. Now you have my idea of a real hero.
I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters. This is my highest and best use as a human. I can put it another way. Years ago, I realized I could never be as great an actor as Olivier or as good a comic as Steve Martin...or Martin Mull or Fred Willard - or as good an economist as Samuelson or Friedman or as good a writer as Fitzgerald. Or even remotely close to any of them.
But I could be a devoted father to my son, husband to my wife and, above all, a good son to the parents who had done so much for me. This came to be my main task in life. I did it moderately well with my son, pretty well with my wife and well indeed with my parents (with my sister's help). I cared for and paid attention to them in their declining years. I stayed with my father as he got sick, went into extremis and then into a coma and then entered immortality with my sister and me reading him the Psalms.
This was the only point at which my life touched the lives of the soldiers in Iraq or the firefighters in New York. I came to realize that life lived to help others is the only one that matters and that it is my duty, in return for the lavish life God has devolved upon me, to help others He has placed in my path. This is my highest and best use as a human.
Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Singapore - The Curfew State
In the papers today, it states "Police to act to keep teens off streets after 11 pm".
I must have missed the mass riots, burning of cars, torching of buildings by our unruly juveniles, that has prompted the police to impose a curfew. Wow, Singapore, a state in curfew! Cool...
I pity all those poor early enlistee NSFs who would no longer be able to book out when training runs over time (and when has it ever not done so?). And no more lights out, or at least, they would have to book in by 2259, not 2359 anymore.
Wait a minute, what about the early enlistees who go to the SPF? So ironically, those officers would not be able to be activated to impose the curfew. Oh wait, so long as they tell their parents, then its okay. :-)
I must have missed the mass riots, burning of cars, torching of buildings by our unruly juveniles, that has prompted the police to impose a curfew. Wow, Singapore, a state in curfew! Cool...
I pity all those poor early enlistee NSFs who would no longer be able to book out when training runs over time (and when has it ever not done so?). And no more lights out, or at least, they would have to book in by 2259, not 2359 anymore.
Wait a minute, what about the early enlistees who go to the SPF? So ironically, those officers would not be able to be activated to impose the curfew. Oh wait, so long as they tell their parents, then its okay. :-)
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
BB Mountain in Singapore
Went to the Yahoo! movie website to check out the timing for the above, and stumbled across their blurb for the movie.
A raw, powerful story of two young men, a Wyoming ranch hand and a rodeo cowboy, who meet in the summer of 1963 sheepherding in the harsh, high grasslands of contemporary Wyoming and form an unorthodox yet life-long bond--by turns ecstatic, bitter and conflicted.
Sheesh! Couldn't they just come right out and say they fell in love with each other!??!?!
A raw, powerful story of two young men, a Wyoming ranch hand and a rodeo cowboy, who meet in the summer of 1963 sheepherding in the harsh, high grasslands of contemporary Wyoming and form an unorthodox yet life-long bond--by turns ecstatic, bitter and conflicted.
Sheesh! Couldn't they just come right out and say they fell in love with each other!??!?!
Friday, January 20, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Liberty League and the Forces of the Dark (Ages)
Caught snippets of a programme on Channel 5 last night. Wasn't sure what the programme was exactly, but there was a panel discussing the gay issue. The segment was apparently sparked off by the recent media stirrings caused by the upcoming launch of Liberty League, for Leslie Lung, the founder, was one of the panel members.
What bothered me tremendously wasn't what he said because I was already moderately conversant where he was coming from. Instead, it was this supposed-expert from KKH, a reproductive specialist that got to me. I couldn't believe it when she said that homosexuality was lifestyle choice, and was a psychological problem. True, she was trying to draw the distinction between homosexuality and ambiguous gender anatomy (i.e. unclear gender identity at birth) but to hear such complete rubbish from a mouth of a supposed-expert was simply mind-boggling!
I mean, come on, even China has removed homosexuality from its list of psychological illnesses quite a few years ago. Which medieval country was this expert from?
Well, Singapore, I guess.
Hail our global city...
What bothered me tremendously wasn't what he said because I was already moderately conversant where he was coming from. Instead, it was this supposed-expert from KKH, a reproductive specialist that got to me. I couldn't believe it when she said that homosexuality was lifestyle choice, and was a psychological problem. True, she was trying to draw the distinction between homosexuality and ambiguous gender anatomy (i.e. unclear gender identity at birth) but to hear such complete rubbish from a mouth of a supposed-expert was simply mind-boggling!
I mean, come on, even China has removed homosexuality from its list of psychological illnesses quite a few years ago. Which medieval country was this expert from?
Well, Singapore, I guess.
Hail our global city...
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
1 in 25 gay men has HIV? Come on, brush up your statistics!!!
It was (quite prominently I must add) reported in today's Straits Times, the main English papers in Singapore, that 1 in 5 gay men in Singapore has HIV! First, the article.
Almost immediately, I noted that the data was gleamed from an HIV testing clinic. Alarm bells rang, but it was a split second later before I realised what was wrong. Spotted it?
If not, well, let me explain. This figure of 1 out of 25 was based on a sample population, not of the general public, but of people who have gone to the HIV testing clinic. And what do people go to a HIV testing clinic to do? Well, let me guess. To test whether they have HIV??!?!?!?
Of course the figure would be skewed grossly higher than reality. People go to the HIV testing clinic if they suspect that they are at risk of having caught the virus. Naturally, the proportion of with the virus would be higher among this at-risk group than in the general gay population. Those who practice safe and/or monogamous sex (or no sex) would be of much lower risk and less likely to turn up at the centre.
It's like trying to find out the proportion of alcoholics in the population by sampling in bars. Of course you would get a figure skewed on the high side.
What happened to basic statistical understanding? Actually, what happened to common sense?
Of course, it was quickly pointed out that data from which the figure was arrived at was questionable, as I have pointed out. But in that case, why was it used it the first place?
I do try to see things in a positive light (sometimes). Perhaps the Government wishes to shock gay men out of their complacency about AIDS. And I must admit that evidence increasingly shows that the gay population, both locally and overseas, are becoming more blase about the disease.
But the damage is tremendous. This only perpetuates the stereotype, prejudice and discrimination against gay men. Imagine the damage done to young souls struggling to come out into a community that he perceives cannot even take care of itself. Imagine the conversation he would have to face coming out to his parents.
However, my advice for all gay men in Singapore: go test. Whether or not you think you might be at risk. Go and "unskew" the data. I plan to do so.
1 in 25 gay men here may have HIVI must say I was totally appalled when I read the headlines. This was horrendously high! Does this mean that at least 2 of my gay friends are HIV+? Was it really true? Then I read further...
ABOUT one in 25 gay men in Singapore is HIV-positive, said Dr Balaji Sadasivan yesterday. Researchers came to that conclusion based on the data gleaned from the anonymous human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing clinic at Kelantan Lane.
However, the Senior Minister of State for Health was quick to point out that the data used to come up with the figure is far from perfect.
Dr Balaji explained: 'There are many, many questions about this data.
'Is this representative of all gays? Or is it representative of a sample of gays? We can't answer this question unless we do more detailed studies which may invade into people's privacy.'
Action for Aids (AFA), a non-governmental organisation which runs the anonymous testing clinic, also has no idea how accurate the figure cited by Dr Balaji may be.
AFA's programme manager Abdul Hamid Hassan said the figure could be an overestimate, or an underestimate.
However, the figure here is definitely much lower than in Thailand, where one in four gay men is HIV-positive.
To prevent a similar scenario here, the Health Ministry has held many dialogues with gay activists and others in the know about gay lifestyles to discuss Aids prevention efforts among gays.
Dr Balaji added: 'At this point in time, we are very fortunate that gay activists and those interested in the issue are working with us as partners to bring HIV under control.'
The Health Ministry will work with non-governmental organisations such as the AFA to develop customised Aids education programmes for gays, setting aside about $250,000 for this effort next year.
Almost immediately, I noted that the data was gleamed from an HIV testing clinic. Alarm bells rang, but it was a split second later before I realised what was wrong. Spotted it?
If not, well, let me explain. This figure of 1 out of 25 was based on a sample population, not of the general public, but of people who have gone to the HIV testing clinic. And what do people go to a HIV testing clinic to do? Well, let me guess. To test whether they have HIV??!?!?!?
Of course the figure would be skewed grossly higher than reality. People go to the HIV testing clinic if they suspect that they are at risk of having caught the virus. Naturally, the proportion of with the virus would be higher among this at-risk group than in the general gay population. Those who practice safe and/or monogamous sex (or no sex) would be of much lower risk and less likely to turn up at the centre.
It's like trying to find out the proportion of alcoholics in the population by sampling in bars. Of course you would get a figure skewed on the high side.
What happened to basic statistical understanding? Actually, what happened to common sense?
Of course, it was quickly pointed out that data from which the figure was arrived at was questionable, as I have pointed out. But in that case, why was it used it the first place?
I do try to see things in a positive light (sometimes). Perhaps the Government wishes to shock gay men out of their complacency about AIDS. And I must admit that evidence increasingly shows that the gay population, both locally and overseas, are becoming more blase about the disease.
But the damage is tremendous. This only perpetuates the stereotype, prejudice and discrimination against gay men. Imagine the damage done to young souls struggling to come out into a community that he perceives cannot even take care of itself. Imagine the conversation he would have to face coming out to his parents.
However, my advice for all gay men in Singapore: go test. Whether or not you think you might be at risk. Go and "unskew" the data. I plan to do so.
Friday, October 14, 2005
What D&D Character Am I?
I Am A: True Neutral Elf Ranger Druid
Alignment:
True Neutral characters are very rare. They believe that balance is the most important thing, and will not side with any other force. They will do whatever is necessary to preserve that balance, even if it means switching allegiances suddenly.
Race:
Elves are the eldest of all races, although they are generally a bit smaller than humans. They are generally well-cultured, artistic, easy-going, and because of their long lives, unconcerned with day-to-day activities that other races frequently concern themselves with. Elves are, effectively, immortal, although they can be killed. After a thousand years or so, they simply pass on to the next plane of existance.
Primary Class:
Rangers are the defenders of nature and the elements. They are in tune with the Earth, and work to keep it safe and healthy.
Secondary Class:
Druids are a special variety of Cleric who serves the Earth, and can call upon the power in the earth to accomplish their goals. They tend to be somewhat fanatical about defending natural settings.
Deity:
Silvanus is the True Neutral god of nature. He is also known as the Patron of Druids. His followers believe in the perfect balance of nature, and believe that nature's bounty is preferable to any other 'civilizing' method. They wear leather or metallic scale mail, constructed of leaf-shaped scales. Silvanus's symbol is an oak leaf.
Find out What D&D Character Are You?, courtesy of
NeppyMan (e-mail)
Alignment:
True Neutral characters are very rare. They believe that balance is the most important thing, and will not side with any other force. They will do whatever is necessary to preserve that balance, even if it means switching allegiances suddenly.
Race:
Elves are the eldest of all races, although they are generally a bit smaller than humans. They are generally well-cultured, artistic, easy-going, and because of their long lives, unconcerned with day-to-day activities that other races frequently concern themselves with. Elves are, effectively, immortal, although they can be killed. After a thousand years or so, they simply pass on to the next plane of existance.
Primary Class:
Rangers are the defenders of nature and the elements. They are in tune with the Earth, and work to keep it safe and healthy.
Secondary Class:
Druids are a special variety of Cleric who serves the Earth, and can call upon the power in the earth to accomplish their goals. They tend to be somewhat fanatical about defending natural settings.
Deity:
Silvanus is the True Neutral god of nature. He is also known as the Patron of Druids. His followers believe in the perfect balance of nature, and believe that nature's bounty is preferable to any other 'civilizing' method. They wear leather or metallic scale mail, constructed of leaf-shaped scales. Silvanus's symbol is an oak leaf.
Find out What D&D Character Are You?, courtesy of
NeppyMan (e-mail)Washing in the Rain...
When I was out out for lunch today, saw this guy washing the inside of a fountain in the rain. Just kind of struck me as somewhat ironic.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
"Good" Protectionism? Perhaps not...
There was this article on Straits Times which I wanted to reply to, so much so that I started drafting my reply to it. That is, until I realised that as a public servant, I'm not allowed to write to the public without seeking clearance internally. So let my draft response lying gathering dust, until today, decided to finish it up, and post it. Hey, no point wasting those brain cells, man.
First the actual article...
March 2, 2005
Protecting jobs?
It may not be a bad thing
by Chua Mui Hoong
ADAM Smith, the 18th-century proponent of the free market, would have turned in his grave.
The dreaded 'P' word popped up repeatedly yesterday, on the second day of debate on Budget 2005.
Several MPs wanted measures to encourage employers to protect jobs for Singaporeans, especially older workers; measures to favour Singapore companies in government procurements; and measures to get consumers to 'Buy Singapore'.
Issues of protectionism of one kind or another cropped up at least half a dozen times in the seven-hour debate.
There was the stark warning by labour MP Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) that unless something is done for the legions of 40-somethings laid off one job and told they are 'too old' for another, pressure will mount for legislation to prevent discrimination against older workers, as in Australia.
Then opposition MP Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) jumped in with a call to have a minimum wage for 'dirty' jobs, so workers will want to take them up.
Dr Amy Khor (Hong Kah GRC) echoed a call from participants of a feedback group recently which advocated a 'Buy Singapore' campaign to boost demand for local goods and services.
Consumers and government agencies alike should be urged to 'Buy Singapore'.
'I urge the Government not to view this as protectionism, but rather as a means to nurture our SMEs,' Dr Khor said.
Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar GRC) wanted incentives to encourage companies to redesign jobs.
He said: 'Tax breaks can be given for effectively employing more Singaporean workers and raising productivity. Favouring local content and raising productivity are not sins of commission even in a globalised market economy. They make good sense.'
The fact that some MPs chose to advocate some form of protection of jobs for older workers is a sign of the severity of the problem.
In Singapore, only 25 per cent of those aged 60 to 64 hold jobs. Among those above 65, only 18 per cent are employed. In Japan, the figures are much higher: 55 and 29 per cent respectively.
But how feasible is it to reserve jobs for this group?
MPs were not slow in coming up with a range of creative proposals to encourage employers to hire older workers.
Take the suggestion from Mr Chay to give incentives to companies to redesign jobs, and Mr S. Iswaran's (West Coast GRC) call on Monday for double tax exemption on older workers' salaries.
Both of these have the advantage of using free market principles to protect jobs, and are what I would call 'good' protectionism (if such an oxymoron can be said to exist).
Fiscal tools like these are flexible in spurring companies to innovate, yet not too burdensome on the economy as a whole.
Good protectionism allows market forces to play out in the larger arena, but targets specific sectors, or jobs, with measures.
For those who may decry any labour protection as distortion of the market, let me just point out that the labour market in Singapore, with its state-mandated provident fund contribution by employers and complex system of levies and quotas for foreign workers, is not exactly free.
Even Nobel prize-winning economist Robert Solow has acknowledged that the labour market cannot be judged on purely economic considerations because of issues to do with equity and fairness.
Bad protectionism, in contrast, seeks to impose blanket bans or requirements which stymie the profit motive or work incentive.
An example would be banning the hiring of foreign workers in the retail sector, to force companies there to hire older workers.
Ms Ho Geok Choo's (West Coast GRC) well-meaning proposal on Monday to require those vying for government contracts to hire older workers, is another example of bad protectionism, because it imposes an additional cost on contractors which will ultimately be passed on to the purchasing Government.
Good protectionism, in contrast, will reward companies for hiring older workers.
A tripartite committee has been set up to look at ways to help older workers stay employed.
In addition, several MPs have proposed that a multi-agency committee of relevant ministries be set up to address the needs of the older Singaporean.
Setting up a committee is an easy task.
Coming up with workable solutions that save some jobs for older workers without crowding out efficiency or investment, is the tough part.
To Chua Mui Hoong,
This is in reference to your piece, "Protecting jobs? It may not be a bad thing" that appeared on 2 March, 2002, in response to various calls by MPs to implement various protectionism measures to protect jobs of the elderly, etc.
Your article suggests that "good" protectionism measures "have the advantage of using free market principles to protect jobs" and "are flexible in spurring companies to innovate, yet not too burdensome on the economy as a whole."
I may not have studied economics formally before but I do disagree with your point.
First on the issue of protecting the jobs of elderly. Although not stated explicitly, the article seem to support measures to protect the jobs of elderly using "good" protectionism. However, it would seem like any measures, "good" or "bad", to help the elderly retain their jobs would on the hand deprive the rest of the working population jobs, if the job market is not similarly expanded. Employers in choosing to let go an older worker versus retaining a younger one does so in consideration of the economic benefits of doing so. Thus, in addition to shifting the disgruntleness from the elderly to the general population, protectism (of any kind) would also increase the operating costs of the employers.
The other labour pool to "protect" the elderly from would be foreigners. Creating disgruntled foreigners in this case would probably be fine, at least for us Singaporeans, but this does seem to go against our policy of attracing foreign talent. Besides, the types of jobs that the elderly are losing are not quite those that foreigners are taking over.
It would seem to me then that the ensuring jobs for the elderly should not lie in a noble yet simplistic mission to "protect" their jobs but in enlarging the job market through growth of the economy, and in job restructuring to make hiring the elderly as attractive as, if not more than, hiring foreigners (and possibly even younger generations).
A second, more fundamental, point I wish to make is regarding your article's distinction between "good" and "bad" protectionism. It implies that "good" protectionism consists of providing incentives for companies to act in certain ways (hiring elderly in this case) while "bad" protectionism involved banning or increasing the costs (e.g. taxes) of doing the undesirable (not hiring older workers, in this case). Well, I feel that "good" protectionism is not necessary such a good thing for everyone after all.
The provision of incentives to companies would come at some cost to some other entity, i.e. the government, through providing tax breaks, etc. This incentive to the companies (and cost to the government) to hire older workers would have to be at least as high as the cost incurred by said companies if they were instead taxed for not hiring older workers. This cost would be paid for in terms of increased taxes by the government on the people. In other words, the average person on the street is paying companies to hire older workers, including those younger ones who lose their jobs to the elderly. I think people usually forget that the government doesn't actually make any money, but simply move money from one group of the population to another.
I would also like to argue that the final costs to the society of "good" or "bad" protectionism is prety much the same, and could possibly be worse.
Case 1: To illustrate, if a company incurs $5 more in hiring an older worker as opposed to a younger one, e.g. higher expected income, slower productivity, etc, it would need to be incentivise with at least $5 to hire the older worker. This $5 comes from the government, and ultimately you and me in terms of taxes. Net result: employed older worker, unemployed younger worker, unhappy you and me (for higher taxes), and a neutral company (remember that the $5 the company gets compensates for the higher costs).
On the other hand, if "bad" protectionism is implemented, what would have been the amount needed to tax the company to "force" it to hire the older worker? Well, at least $5, too, or otherwise, the savings from hiring the younger one would more than compensate the tax.
Case 2: If the company chooses to go ahead and hire the younger one, good for us! That $5 that company pays as tax to the government would (presumably) be used to fund programmes to benefit you and me. Net result: umemployed older worker, employed younger worker, happy you and me (because of increased programmes), and unhappy company (for paying the $5).
Case 3: If the company chooses instead to hire the older one to avoid the tax, that is not cost-free, too. Remember that the company would incur $5 more in hiring the older worker as compared to the younger (otherwise, there wouldn't have been a need to incentivise them). Net result: employed older worker, unemployed younger worker, neutral you and me, and unhappy company (for having to incur the $5 cost).
So if the end result is to ensure the older worker is employed (at the expense of an unemployed younger one), i.e. comparing case 1 and case 3, it is merely a difference of whether you and I are unhappy (case 1) or the company is unhappy (case 3).
And I had discussed the issue of whether it is good to deny the young employment at the expense of the elderly.
My point is that the cost of the "good" vs "bad" protectionism is the same. The only difference is who pays for that cost. In fact, "good" protectionism may not be that good. The tax burden is shifted from one company to every single individual, not exactly a popular move.
I also want to add that protectionism of any form is bad. Whether through incentivising companies for desired behaviour or taxing them for undesired ones, to take my illustration above further, the economy would have lost $5 either way, if we desire the end result of an employed older worker. In case 1, net loss is $5 taxed from the whole population. In case 3, , the company, in avoiding the tax, would have lost $5 due to greater cost in hiring the older worker. Only in case 2, in which the company ignores the tax and hires the younger one, would it balance out, i.e. $5 from company goes to us. Why? Simply because the fundamental problem is not solved - older workers incur greater costs. And that is the issue that needs to be tackled, not whether to protect there jobs or not. Which was the very first point I was making.
Okay, there it is. Welcome comments, especially from those trained in Economics. Well, at least from those who had the patience to read through the entirety. :-)
First the actual article...
March 2, 2005
Protecting jobs?
It may not be a bad thing
by Chua Mui Hoong
ADAM Smith, the 18th-century proponent of the free market, would have turned in his grave.
The dreaded 'P' word popped up repeatedly yesterday, on the second day of debate on Budget 2005.
Several MPs wanted measures to encourage employers to protect jobs for Singaporeans, especially older workers; measures to favour Singapore companies in government procurements; and measures to get consumers to 'Buy Singapore'.
Issues of protectionism of one kind or another cropped up at least half a dozen times in the seven-hour debate.
There was the stark warning by labour MP Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) that unless something is done for the legions of 40-somethings laid off one job and told they are 'too old' for another, pressure will mount for legislation to prevent discrimination against older workers, as in Australia.
Then opposition MP Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) jumped in with a call to have a minimum wage for 'dirty' jobs, so workers will want to take them up.
Dr Amy Khor (Hong Kah GRC) echoed a call from participants of a feedback group recently which advocated a 'Buy Singapore' campaign to boost demand for local goods and services.
Consumers and government agencies alike should be urged to 'Buy Singapore'.
'I urge the Government not to view this as protectionism, but rather as a means to nurture our SMEs,' Dr Khor said.
Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar GRC) wanted incentives to encourage companies to redesign jobs.
He said: 'Tax breaks can be given for effectively employing more Singaporean workers and raising productivity. Favouring local content and raising productivity are not sins of commission even in a globalised market economy. They make good sense.'
The fact that some MPs chose to advocate some form of protection of jobs for older workers is a sign of the severity of the problem.
In Singapore, only 25 per cent of those aged 60 to 64 hold jobs. Among those above 65, only 18 per cent are employed. In Japan, the figures are much higher: 55 and 29 per cent respectively.
But how feasible is it to reserve jobs for this group?
MPs were not slow in coming up with a range of creative proposals to encourage employers to hire older workers.
Take the suggestion from Mr Chay to give incentives to companies to redesign jobs, and Mr S. Iswaran's (West Coast GRC) call on Monday for double tax exemption on older workers' salaries.
Both of these have the advantage of using free market principles to protect jobs, and are what I would call 'good' protectionism (if such an oxymoron can be said to exist).
Fiscal tools like these are flexible in spurring companies to innovate, yet not too burdensome on the economy as a whole.
Good protectionism allows market forces to play out in the larger arena, but targets specific sectors, or jobs, with measures.
For those who may decry any labour protection as distortion of the market, let me just point out that the labour market in Singapore, with its state-mandated provident fund contribution by employers and complex system of levies and quotas for foreign workers, is not exactly free.
Even Nobel prize-winning economist Robert Solow has acknowledged that the labour market cannot be judged on purely economic considerations because of issues to do with equity and fairness.
Bad protectionism, in contrast, seeks to impose blanket bans or requirements which stymie the profit motive or work incentive.
An example would be banning the hiring of foreign workers in the retail sector, to force companies there to hire older workers.
Ms Ho Geok Choo's (West Coast GRC) well-meaning proposal on Monday to require those vying for government contracts to hire older workers, is another example of bad protectionism, because it imposes an additional cost on contractors which will ultimately be passed on to the purchasing Government.
Good protectionism, in contrast, will reward companies for hiring older workers.
A tripartite committee has been set up to look at ways to help older workers stay employed.
In addition, several MPs have proposed that a multi-agency committee of relevant ministries be set up to address the needs of the older Singaporean.
Setting up a committee is an easy task.
Coming up with workable solutions that save some jobs for older workers without crowding out efficiency or investment, is the tough part.
To Chua Mui Hoong,
This is in reference to your piece, "Protecting jobs? It may not be a bad thing" that appeared on 2 March, 2002, in response to various calls by MPs to implement various protectionism measures to protect jobs of the elderly, etc.
Your article suggests that "good" protectionism measures "have the advantage of using free market principles to protect jobs" and "are flexible in spurring companies to innovate, yet not too burdensome on the economy as a whole."
I may not have studied economics formally before but I do disagree with your point.
First on the issue of protecting the jobs of elderly. Although not stated explicitly, the article seem to support measures to protect the jobs of elderly using "good" protectionism. However, it would seem like any measures, "good" or "bad", to help the elderly retain their jobs would on the hand deprive the rest of the working population jobs, if the job market is not similarly expanded. Employers in choosing to let go an older worker versus retaining a younger one does so in consideration of the economic benefits of doing so. Thus, in addition to shifting the disgruntleness from the elderly to the general population, protectism (of any kind) would also increase the operating costs of the employers.
The other labour pool to "protect" the elderly from would be foreigners. Creating disgruntled foreigners in this case would probably be fine, at least for us Singaporeans, but this does seem to go against our policy of attracing foreign talent. Besides, the types of jobs that the elderly are losing are not quite those that foreigners are taking over.
It would seem to me then that the ensuring jobs for the elderly should not lie in a noble yet simplistic mission to "protect" their jobs but in enlarging the job market through growth of the economy, and in job restructuring to make hiring the elderly as attractive as, if not more than, hiring foreigners (and possibly even younger generations).
A second, more fundamental, point I wish to make is regarding your article's distinction between "good" and "bad" protectionism. It implies that "good" protectionism consists of providing incentives for companies to act in certain ways (hiring elderly in this case) while "bad" protectionism involved banning or increasing the costs (e.g. taxes) of doing the undesirable (not hiring older workers, in this case). Well, I feel that "good" protectionism is not necessary such a good thing for everyone after all.
The provision of incentives to companies would come at some cost to some other entity, i.e. the government, through providing tax breaks, etc. This incentive to the companies (and cost to the government) to hire older workers would have to be at least as high as the cost incurred by said companies if they were instead taxed for not hiring older workers. This cost would be paid for in terms of increased taxes by the government on the people. In other words, the average person on the street is paying companies to hire older workers, including those younger ones who lose their jobs to the elderly. I think people usually forget that the government doesn't actually make any money, but simply move money from one group of the population to another.
I would also like to argue that the final costs to the society of "good" or "bad" protectionism is prety much the same, and could possibly be worse.
Case 1: To illustrate, if a company incurs $5 more in hiring an older worker as opposed to a younger one, e.g. higher expected income, slower productivity, etc, it would need to be incentivise with at least $5 to hire the older worker. This $5 comes from the government, and ultimately you and me in terms of taxes. Net result: employed older worker, unemployed younger worker, unhappy you and me (for higher taxes), and a neutral company (remember that the $5 the company gets compensates for the higher costs).
On the other hand, if "bad" protectionism is implemented, what would have been the amount needed to tax the company to "force" it to hire the older worker? Well, at least $5, too, or otherwise, the savings from hiring the younger one would more than compensate the tax.
Case 2: If the company chooses to go ahead and hire the younger one, good for us! That $5 that company pays as tax to the government would (presumably) be used to fund programmes to benefit you and me. Net result: umemployed older worker, employed younger worker, happy you and me (because of increased programmes), and unhappy company (for paying the $5).
Case 3: If the company chooses instead to hire the older one to avoid the tax, that is not cost-free, too. Remember that the company would incur $5 more in hiring the older worker as compared to the younger (otherwise, there wouldn't have been a need to incentivise them). Net result: employed older worker, unemployed younger worker, neutral you and me, and unhappy company (for having to incur the $5 cost).
So if the end result is to ensure the older worker is employed (at the expense of an unemployed younger one), i.e. comparing case 1 and case 3, it is merely a difference of whether you and I are unhappy (case 1) or the company is unhappy (case 3).
And I had discussed the issue of whether it is good to deny the young employment at the expense of the elderly.
My point is that the cost of the "good" vs "bad" protectionism is the same. The only difference is who pays for that cost. In fact, "good" protectionism may not be that good. The tax burden is shifted from one company to every single individual, not exactly a popular move.
I also want to add that protectionism of any form is bad. Whether through incentivising companies for desired behaviour or taxing them for undesired ones, to take my illustration above further, the economy would have lost $5 either way, if we desire the end result of an employed older worker. In case 1, net loss is $5 taxed from the whole population. In case 3, , the company, in avoiding the tax, would have lost $5 due to greater cost in hiring the older worker. Only in case 2, in which the company ignores the tax and hires the younger one, would it balance out, i.e. $5 from company goes to us. Why? Simply because the fundamental problem is not solved - older workers incur greater costs. And that is the issue that needs to be tackled, not whether to protect there jobs or not. Which was the very first point I was making.
Okay, there it is. Welcome comments, especially from those trained in Economics. Well, at least from those who had the patience to read through the entirety. :-)
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Virgin Territory
Well here I am. Yet another foray by yours truly into the untamed wilderness of the internet. Since the advent of the web, I've taken the occasional dips. Can still remember the first website that I did, which then languished in obscurity for eternity. Wonder if it's still floating in the internet limbo anywhere? Wonder if that would also be the route taken by this blog?
Of course, there are the somewhat more successful web presences on Fridae and sgboy, but admitably, those are for quite different purposes. :-)
One wonders though why this drivng need faced by millions(?) of us to stake a territory in the vast unknown of internet? Perhaps it is indeed the very last frontier for us, at least one in which the average Mr Couch Potato can still aspire to conquer his own territory, albeit a virtual one. Perhaps it is part of human nature to see what is over that next hill... And stake claim to it.
Or perhaps, it is a random and wild cry into the vastness of humanity to say "Hey! I'm here! I exist! I'm unique! I'm me!" 6 billion people. Can anyone actually twist your mind around that? I can't even imagine 600 people in my head. So perhaps this cry is futile indeed. Yes, you are here but so what? Who cares? 1/6,000,000,000 is a very small number. Most people would simply round off that error. To round off you. And me.
So then why am I here? Despite everything, well, all of the above reasons I guess. I am human after all. The rationale mind can boom and thunder with its chains of logic, but we are fallible. And thus human. It's nice to know that when things get to me, there might be someone out there, a 1/6,000,000,000 that might stumble across this, read and maybe for a second or two, empathise before moving on. Other than myself, that is.
Welcome me.
Of course, there are the somewhat more successful web presences on Fridae and sgboy, but admitably, those are for quite different purposes. :-)
One wonders though why this drivng need faced by millions(?) of us to stake a territory in the vast unknown of internet? Perhaps it is indeed the very last frontier for us, at least one in which the average Mr Couch Potato can still aspire to conquer his own territory, albeit a virtual one. Perhaps it is part of human nature to see what is over that next hill... And stake claim to it.
Or perhaps, it is a random and wild cry into the vastness of humanity to say "Hey! I'm here! I exist! I'm unique! I'm me!" 6 billion people. Can anyone actually twist your mind around that? I can't even imagine 600 people in my head. So perhaps this cry is futile indeed. Yes, you are here but so what? Who cares? 1/6,000,000,000 is a very small number. Most people would simply round off that error. To round off you. And me.
So then why am I here? Despite everything, well, all of the above reasons I guess. I am human after all. The rationale mind can boom and thunder with its chains of logic, but we are fallible. And thus human. It's nice to know that when things get to me, there might be someone out there, a 1/6,000,000,000 that might stumble across this, read and maybe for a second or two, empathise before moving on. Other than myself, that is.
Welcome me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
