For some reason that I cannot understand, most netizens seem to oppose the government in everything it does. A psychologist looking at this behaviour will probably understand it better but I'm not a psychologist. It may very well be that we humans naturally take the side of the underdog and the government of any country is never seen as the underdog.
Take the example of the SMRT bus drivers from China who participated in a strike recently. A few of them were prosecuted and some of them were repatriated. Going on a strike is illegal in Singapore. One may or may not agree with such a law. The same applies to all laws. Not everyone will agree with them. But laws are not laws only because there is a universal consensus among all citizens. And besides, these bus drivers are all foreigners from China. Personally, I like many of the laws in Singapore but I don't like some. It's the same with everyone and in every country. But my duty to obey the law is not restricted to only laws that I personally agree with.
These China workers came to Singapore for an obvious economic reason. They love it here. They are paid considerably more here. When their Malaysian counterparts are paid slightly more, they hit the roof. They forget they are given accommodation while Malaysian bus drivers are not. In their utter selfishness and egocentricity, they didn't factor in this additional cost. They take it upon themselves to break Singaporean law.
I laud the government for taking a firm stand against these miscreants. If the government hadn't done anything, it would mean that the laws in Singapore can only be broken by foreigners with impunity. That would be totally unacceptable. I have read what some Opposition parties have said regarding this matter and I think they should be ignored. They will take a stand against the government anyway. I don't care two straws about Hong Kong workers demonstrating in front of the Singaporean embassy. They can stop work in Hong Kong for a year and demonstrate day and night for all I care. Going on a strike and demonstrating are things up their street anywhere so they should go ahead and do what they are good at. This is a free world. Nobody forced these China workers to come to Singapore. If they don't like it here, they can get the hell out and a repatriation order does precisely that - it tells them how to get the hell out in the speediest possible way. They can't come here to work, enjoy the much higher remuneration, break the law here and hope to be let off because they are foreigners.
Singaporeans who take the side of these migrant workers should ask themselves what it is they really want. Are we cutting our nose to spite our face? I know there is a rabid, anti-government and anti-establishment culture among netizens everywhere in the world. Let's be rational. If we oppose a particular law, it's Parliament that should change it. To allow foreign workers who come here for monetary reasons to break the law with impunity is to show scant respect for the process of law in Singapore. The voice that decries our easy immigration policy and denounces foreign talent is the same voice that now says it's all right for foreigners to break our law. Even if we must be insanely anti-establishment and contrary, we should at least, be consistent.
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The Grass is Not Always Greener on the Other Side
It is common for people of any nationality to think that the grass is greener elsewhere. That's because it's natural for us to see other people's lives through rose-tinted glasses but when it comes to our own problems, we magnify them. Singaporeans are no different. You hear the most complaints from taxi drivers. The government is blamed for just about anything that happens. We have no natural disasters and things really are hunky-dory here unlike in Malaysia where everything that can possibly go wrong in a third-world nation goes wrong there. And yet people here continue to complain. Even minor floods become a big issue and the government is given a rap on the knuckles.
I used to say that complaining Singaporeans should be made to live in Malaysia for a year and they are sure to return with gratitude in their hearts for all that they are blessed with here.
Before I go on, I must make it clear that I'm not a pro-government man. By nature, I tend to be anti-establishment and I do have a lot of respect for many Opposition Party members in Singapore. When I hear of someone joining the Opposition, I KNOW he's not doing it for selfish or monetary reasons because in my books, selfish and money-minded people don't join the Opposition. But at the same time, I believe in being truthful. Things are wonderful here and when you look around you, there really is no place on this planet that most of us would rather live in than good old Singapore. Forget politics, forget how "paternalistic" the government may be. The fact is they have done a good job. OK, they are paid a lot but they have done a good job. Just look across the Causeway or look at Indonesia and think. Our leaders may be paid a lot but they don't take a penny more than what they are legally entitled to. I prefer this sort of open honesty. But the bottom line is they have done a really good job. And is it so wrong to reward those who have done an excellent job?
And I'm not the only one who says this. The Economist has just reported that Singapore is now the 6th best country to be born in. Just look at the list:
If this is not a firm and unequivocal affirmation of how well Singapore has done, I don't know what will satisfy people who refuse to see that the grass here is the greenest in the whole of Asia and it's the 6th greenest on the planet. If you throw in the other factors which I'm sure the Economist Intelligence Unit failed to consider such as how delicious our food is, I think Singapore will easily outstrip Switzerland.
But there will always be the rabid naysayers who can't see anything good about Singapore even though you have shown them the facts and I always wonder why they remain here if they dislike this place so much.
I will show you one more piece of evidence and this time, I believe even Chee Soon Juan will concede that the government has done a fantastic job.
In 1988, the Economist Intelligence Unit did the same assessment and Singapore ranked 36 together with East Germany. Malaysia followed at No. 38. USSR was No. 21 and even India beat us and tied with Mexico to stand at No 27! China (yes, Commie China) then ranked 32.
What does that tell us? In just 25 years, Singapore managed to raise itself to No. 6 in the list of the best countries to be born in. I don't know about you but I think anyone with an ounce of gratitude in his system will have to acknowledge that the government of Singapore has done a magnificent job. And the next time there is a minor flooding in Orchard Road, just smile and remind yourself that we're No. 6 and kudos to the leaders for this.
NOTE: The above information is obtained entirely from the Economist. At least there can be no dispute as to the reliability of the facts stated.
I used to say that complaining Singaporeans should be made to live in Malaysia for a year and they are sure to return with gratitude in their hearts for all that they are blessed with here.
Before I go on, I must make it clear that I'm not a pro-government man. By nature, I tend to be anti-establishment and I do have a lot of respect for many Opposition Party members in Singapore. When I hear of someone joining the Opposition, I KNOW he's not doing it for selfish or monetary reasons because in my books, selfish and money-minded people don't join the Opposition. But at the same time, I believe in being truthful. Things are wonderful here and when you look around you, there really is no place on this planet that most of us would rather live in than good old Singapore. Forget politics, forget how "paternalistic" the government may be. The fact is they have done a good job. OK, they are paid a lot but they have done a good job. Just look across the Causeway or look at Indonesia and think. Our leaders may be paid a lot but they don't take a penny more than what they are legally entitled to. I prefer this sort of open honesty. But the bottom line is they have done a really good job. And is it so wrong to reward those who have done an excellent job?
And I'm not the only one who says this. The Economist has just reported that Singapore is now the 6th best country to be born in. Just look at the list:
If this is not a firm and unequivocal affirmation of how well Singapore has done, I don't know what will satisfy people who refuse to see that the grass here is the greenest in the whole of Asia and it's the 6th greenest on the planet. If you throw in the other factors which I'm sure the Economist Intelligence Unit failed to consider such as how delicious our food is, I think Singapore will easily outstrip Switzerland.
But there will always be the rabid naysayers who can't see anything good about Singapore even though you have shown them the facts and I always wonder why they remain here if they dislike this place so much.
I will show you one more piece of evidence and this time, I believe even Chee Soon Juan will concede that the government has done a fantastic job.
In 1988, the Economist Intelligence Unit did the same assessment and Singapore ranked 36 together with East Germany. Malaysia followed at No. 38. USSR was No. 21 and even India beat us and tied with Mexico to stand at No 27! China (yes, Commie China) then ranked 32.
What does that tell us? In just 25 years, Singapore managed to raise itself to No. 6 in the list of the best countries to be born in. I don't know about you but I think anyone with an ounce of gratitude in his system will have to acknowledge that the government of Singapore has done a magnificent job. And the next time there is a minor flooding in Orchard Road, just smile and remind yourself that we're No. 6 and kudos to the leaders for this.
NOTE: The above information is obtained entirely from the Economist. At least there can be no dispute as to the reliability of the facts stated.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Why I disagree with Tan Jee Say
I have just read Tan Jee Say's facebook post, "Is Every School a Good School?" and I must say I disagree with him in two major areas. First, this is what he says:
He then goes on to say this:
In his post, Tan says that some traditionally good schools have become second tier or even third tier. He implies that something should be done by the education minister to stop the increasing disparity between schools.
The two major areas I disagree with him are:
1. The income gap - that a widening income gap must necessarily mean a bad thing and
2. The disparity in talent between schools (ie. all the talent seems to be concentrated in one or two schools) is "harmful to [Singapore's] long term development".
I will deal with the income gap first. I don't see how a widening income gap can necessarily mean that something is amiss and the government has to take active steps. There is no denying that the rich are getting much richer but the proper question to ask is are the poor getting poorer? In other words, is the standard of living of the poor in Singapore worse than it used to be 30 years ago or even 40 years ago?
I don't have hard statistics but I'm willing to bet that the poor in Singapore are now far better off than they used to be. Almost every household now has a tv set and a computer. Just look around you and you will be amazed to see cleaners and construction workers with iPhones. Let's not even talk about luxury goods. Malnutrition used to be a major problem among the poor in the past. Today, nobody is malnourished in Singapore. It would be ridiculous to pretend that the poor in Singapore are worse off now than they used to be 30 years ago. That just simply doesn't square with our daily observation.
But what if the rich are getting richer? Frankly, I don't see a problem with that. If I were the kind of person who would allow the green-eyed monster to grow within me, of course I would be furious that the rich are getting richer. But I'm not the jealous sort and I'm happy to see my neighbour zooming by in his Ferrari while I ride my trusty bicycle so long as he doesn't run into a puddle and splash water on me!
Let me give a simple example.
Assuming Mr Chan is a poor man in the 60's or 70's and he earns $200.00 a month. I have increased the earnings of the poor in the 60's to take into account inflation. The poor probably earned much less in those days but then things were cheaper so the figure of $200 would be about right after taking into account inflation. The sum of $200 represents his purchasing power in today's terms.
Now, let's assume Mr Wong is a rich man in the 60's or 70's and he earns $3000.00 a month. Again, I have increased the sum to take into account subsequent inflation.
The income disparity between Mr Chan and Mr Wong is only $2800.00 a month. But Mr Chan is probably malnourished and is very much deprived of all the comforts of life. Mr Wong has a good life but still, it isn't what we today would consider a luxurious lifestyle. In other words, people in those days generally were worse off irrespective of whether they were rich or poor.
Let's say the government does nothing in terms of investment and development. The income disparity between Mr Chan and Mr Wong probably wouldn't differ very much even today.
Now, let's turn to today's world and look at what Mr Goh (a poor man) and Mr Sim (a wealthy man) earn today. Mr Goh earns $1,000.00 a month (which is what would be considered poor by Singapore standards today). But Mr Goh has an iPhone, an iPad, a computer, a lovely tv set and he goes on a holiday once a year. His lifestyle has improved tremendously.
Mr Sim, the rich man of today, earns $300,000.00 a month. Of course his lifestyle exceeds the wildest imagination of average folks. He's the typical chap who zooms past my bicycle in his Ferrari.
The income disparity between Mr Goh and Mr Sim now stands at $299,000.00. It's a huge income gap but what does it tell us? It tells us that the country has undergone a huge development and both men are happy and well. It tells us that the government has done a great job and the country enjoys a plump and healthy economy.
But you may say that Mr Goh has every right to complain about the huge disparity between his income and that of Mr Sim. But has Mr Goh the right to begrudge Mr Sim his wealth? Let's assume that Mr Sim is one of the deserving rich who earns his money legally. He has worked hard all his life. He had excellent PSLE results, went to the top school, then to a top faculty in a top university. He's got a high IQ too and he has business acumen and he knows how to invest his money. Should Mr Sim's income be reduced so that we can have a smaller income gap? Of course not.
The income gap is really a red herring when we are looking for clues of a mismanaged society or a society that is unjust in its distribution of income. The income gap is not a good indicator of these things. Rather, the proper question we should ask is whether the poor are taken care of. If the poor aren't better off today than they used to be before, then I agree that something ought to be done. But that is not the case in Singapore.
The same applies to schools. I have spoken at great length in other posts on this blog about the PSLE and schools in Singapore and I won't repeat myself. What I want to say is the Minister of Education is honest when he says all schools are good. It all boils down to the definition of "good". If your idea of a good school is a school that wins top international awards, has more than half its students with straight As in the A-levels and beats all other schools in the world when it comes to getting places in Ivy-League universities and Oxbridge, then yes, RI is the ONLY really good school in Singapore. But that is not how we should determine if a school is good.
The wonderful thing about the Singapore government is its belief in meritocracy. That's what makes Singapore such an enviable country internationally and it's what makes Singapore such a great nation. I have listed the many achievements of RI on the international stage and it's very hard for me to think of any school in other countries achieving that sort of greatness and this is an indictment on the other countries. Imagine an RI in Malaysia. Can there possibly be an RI in Malaysia? Of course not. The bumiputra policy will ensure that a large percentage of the students are admitted on the basis of race and not merit. Within a year, the Malaysian RI will probably do worse than our worst Secondary School.
For me, a school is good if the right students are in it. RI is only a good school if top students are enrolled in it. Average students should go to schools that are catered for their needs. Viewed this way, every school in Singapore is a good school, even a school for students with mental impairment because such a school is good for such students. Each school is tailored to the needs of different segments of society and no one school is better than the rest. In that sense, all schools in Singapore are good. It is when we want RI to take in mediocre students as well that we are trying to ruin RI and turn it into a bad school because that's not what RI is meant for. I have explained elsewhere in my other blog posts that nothing hampers teaching as much as having students with a hugely diversified intellectual capacity. Teachers will have to pitch their lessons somewhere at the average level and still, good students will be held back by the slower pace of learning and they will be bored while slow students will find the lessons too difficult. That is why I have said elsewhere that the PSLE is a time-tested gauge of which secondary school a student should rightly go to. It redounds to the credit of the Singapore government that it could come up with an school-placement examination that is so impartial and incorruptible. I really hope the government will re-consider any plan to shelve or revamp such an excellent and fair gauge that has served the nation well for decades.
If we are honest about it, it's really jealousy that makes us rebel against a system that has worked so well for Singapore. Whether it's the question of the income gap or the differences in schools, we should be honest and ask ourselves what it is that we really want. Do I want RI to admit mediocre students only because I know my kid will do badly and yet I want him to be in RI? But is it fair to put my kid in RI and displace a student with a better PSLE score? Some parents have suggested that we look at education in a holistic way and we should value "other" aspects of education and not just academia. But we know that's being hazy and unclear. How does one have a fair test that measures the "holistic" and non-academic part of education? Of course it's impossible and in the end, the selection of a student becomes arbitrary. It will be open to corruption and abuse. The PSLE is the only fair and impartial test that we can possibly have. Nothing else will do.
The same questions should be asked when we clamour for a reduction in the income gap. Do I want the deserving rich to be deprived of some of their wealth because I haven't got it? Do I want his Ferrari to be taken away because it's so much faster than my bicycle?
We'll never be happy if we are always consumed by jealousy and envy. We really should just take it easy and enjoy life. Life can be pretty good when you get around on a bike. Besides, cycling greatly reduces your carbon footprint and it increases your cardiovascular health too!
The widening gap between the top and other schools mirrors the increasing income disparity in Singapore. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, it reflects an unequal society that is harmful to its long term development. Similarly when talent is retained in just one or two top schools rather than spread among many schools, the development of our young becomes lop-sided and works against a balanced and holistic development of society.
He then goes on to say this:
The first step for the education minister to take is not to pretend that every school is a good school. He will then re-discover what his school teachers used to tell him and what teachers everywhere tell their pupils, that honesty is the best policy.
In his post, Tan says that some traditionally good schools have become second tier or even third tier. He implies that something should be done by the education minister to stop the increasing disparity between schools.
The two major areas I disagree with him are:
1. The income gap - that a widening income gap must necessarily mean a bad thing and
2. The disparity in talent between schools (ie. all the talent seems to be concentrated in one or two schools) is "harmful to [Singapore's] long term development".
I will deal with the income gap first. I don't see how a widening income gap can necessarily mean that something is amiss and the government has to take active steps. There is no denying that the rich are getting much richer but the proper question to ask is are the poor getting poorer? In other words, is the standard of living of the poor in Singapore worse than it used to be 30 years ago or even 40 years ago?
I don't have hard statistics but I'm willing to bet that the poor in Singapore are now far better off than they used to be. Almost every household now has a tv set and a computer. Just look around you and you will be amazed to see cleaners and construction workers with iPhones. Let's not even talk about luxury goods. Malnutrition used to be a major problem among the poor in the past. Today, nobody is malnourished in Singapore. It would be ridiculous to pretend that the poor in Singapore are worse off now than they used to be 30 years ago. That just simply doesn't square with our daily observation.
But what if the rich are getting richer? Frankly, I don't see a problem with that. If I were the kind of person who would allow the green-eyed monster to grow within me, of course I would be furious that the rich are getting richer. But I'm not the jealous sort and I'm happy to see my neighbour zooming by in his Ferrari while I ride my trusty bicycle so long as he doesn't run into a puddle and splash water on me!
Let me give a simple example.
Assuming Mr Chan is a poor man in the 60's or 70's and he earns $200.00 a month. I have increased the earnings of the poor in the 60's to take into account inflation. The poor probably earned much less in those days but then things were cheaper so the figure of $200 would be about right after taking into account inflation. The sum of $200 represents his purchasing power in today's terms.
Now, let's assume Mr Wong is a rich man in the 60's or 70's and he earns $3000.00 a month. Again, I have increased the sum to take into account subsequent inflation.
The income disparity between Mr Chan and Mr Wong is only $2800.00 a month. But Mr Chan is probably malnourished and is very much deprived of all the comforts of life. Mr Wong has a good life but still, it isn't what we today would consider a luxurious lifestyle. In other words, people in those days generally were worse off irrespective of whether they were rich or poor.
Let's say the government does nothing in terms of investment and development. The income disparity between Mr Chan and Mr Wong probably wouldn't differ very much even today.
Now, let's turn to today's world and look at what Mr Goh (a poor man) and Mr Sim (a wealthy man) earn today. Mr Goh earns $1,000.00 a month (which is what would be considered poor by Singapore standards today). But Mr Goh has an iPhone, an iPad, a computer, a lovely tv set and he goes on a holiday once a year. His lifestyle has improved tremendously.
Mr Sim, the rich man of today, earns $300,000.00 a month. Of course his lifestyle exceeds the wildest imagination of average folks. He's the typical chap who zooms past my bicycle in his Ferrari.
The income disparity between Mr Goh and Mr Sim now stands at $299,000.00. It's a huge income gap but what does it tell us? It tells us that the country has undergone a huge development and both men are happy and well. It tells us that the government has done a great job and the country enjoys a plump and healthy economy.
But you may say that Mr Goh has every right to complain about the huge disparity between his income and that of Mr Sim. But has Mr Goh the right to begrudge Mr Sim his wealth? Let's assume that Mr Sim is one of the deserving rich who earns his money legally. He has worked hard all his life. He had excellent PSLE results, went to the top school, then to a top faculty in a top university. He's got a high IQ too and he has business acumen and he knows how to invest his money. Should Mr Sim's income be reduced so that we can have a smaller income gap? Of course not.
The income gap is really a red herring when we are looking for clues of a mismanaged society or a society that is unjust in its distribution of income. The income gap is not a good indicator of these things. Rather, the proper question we should ask is whether the poor are taken care of. If the poor aren't better off today than they used to be before, then I agree that something ought to be done. But that is not the case in Singapore.
The same applies to schools. I have spoken at great length in other posts on this blog about the PSLE and schools in Singapore and I won't repeat myself. What I want to say is the Minister of Education is honest when he says all schools are good. It all boils down to the definition of "good". If your idea of a good school is a school that wins top international awards, has more than half its students with straight As in the A-levels and beats all other schools in the world when it comes to getting places in Ivy-League universities and Oxbridge, then yes, RI is the ONLY really good school in Singapore. But that is not how we should determine if a school is good.
The wonderful thing about the Singapore government is its belief in meritocracy. That's what makes Singapore such an enviable country internationally and it's what makes Singapore such a great nation. I have listed the many achievements of RI on the international stage and it's very hard for me to think of any school in other countries achieving that sort of greatness and this is an indictment on the other countries. Imagine an RI in Malaysia. Can there possibly be an RI in Malaysia? Of course not. The bumiputra policy will ensure that a large percentage of the students are admitted on the basis of race and not merit. Within a year, the Malaysian RI will probably do worse than our worst Secondary School.
For me, a school is good if the right students are in it. RI is only a good school if top students are enrolled in it. Average students should go to schools that are catered for their needs. Viewed this way, every school in Singapore is a good school, even a school for students with mental impairment because such a school is good for such students. Each school is tailored to the needs of different segments of society and no one school is better than the rest. In that sense, all schools in Singapore are good. It is when we want RI to take in mediocre students as well that we are trying to ruin RI and turn it into a bad school because that's not what RI is meant for. I have explained elsewhere in my other blog posts that nothing hampers teaching as much as having students with a hugely diversified intellectual capacity. Teachers will have to pitch their lessons somewhere at the average level and still, good students will be held back by the slower pace of learning and they will be bored while slow students will find the lessons too difficult. That is why I have said elsewhere that the PSLE is a time-tested gauge of which secondary school a student should rightly go to. It redounds to the credit of the Singapore government that it could come up with an school-placement examination that is so impartial and incorruptible. I really hope the government will re-consider any plan to shelve or revamp such an excellent and fair gauge that has served the nation well for decades.
If we are honest about it, it's really jealousy that makes us rebel against a system that has worked so well for Singapore. Whether it's the question of the income gap or the differences in schools, we should be honest and ask ourselves what it is that we really want. Do I want RI to admit mediocre students only because I know my kid will do badly and yet I want him to be in RI? But is it fair to put my kid in RI and displace a student with a better PSLE score? Some parents have suggested that we look at education in a holistic way and we should value "other" aspects of education and not just academia. But we know that's being hazy and unclear. How does one have a fair test that measures the "holistic" and non-academic part of education? Of course it's impossible and in the end, the selection of a student becomes arbitrary. It will be open to corruption and abuse. The PSLE is the only fair and impartial test that we can possibly have. Nothing else will do.
The same questions should be asked when we clamour for a reduction in the income gap. Do I want the deserving rich to be deprived of some of their wealth because I haven't got it? Do I want his Ferrari to be taken away because it's so much faster than my bicycle?
We'll never be happy if we are always consumed by jealousy and envy. We really should just take it easy and enjoy life. Life can be pretty good when you get around on a bike. Besides, cycling greatly reduces your carbon footprint and it increases your cardiovascular health too!
Photo taken in Utrecht, Holland.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Medical costs in Singapore and how to get the best deal.
The queue in the Blood Test unit at the Heart Centre,
Singapore General Hospital. I took this photo at 8:15am.
There were already about 50 other people ahead of me when I arrived at 8am.
If you need to do a simple investigative medical test, say, a blood test to ascertain the level of your cholesterol, where would you go in Singapore if you want it cheap? Such tests can't vary very much in quality. After all, how different can a blood test be? Most people will assume that a public hospital like the Singapore General Hospital will be the best bet for a cheap blood test. And they can't be more mistaken than that.
A friend of mine has naturally high cholesterol from birth. It's a congenital condition and he has to go for a blood test at least twice a year. He tells me that he goes to Gleneagles Hospital for his regular cholesterol blood test because it's the cheapest. I know that sounds surprising to you just as it did to me when I first heard it. Gleneagles is a private hospital and one would expect blood tests done there to cost a lot more.
I just did my blood test for cholesterol at the Heart Centre in the Singapore General Hospital yesterday and the bill for the test alone came up to $62.49 (SGD). Now, that's about twice what my friend pays for his blood test in Gleneagles Hospital. I had to wait for an hour and a half just to get a sample of my blood taken. In Gleneagles, the waiting time is probably about 10 minutes.
So, next time, don't just rule out a private hospital because you think everything there is bound to be more expensive. It may not be. Some of the investigations may be a lot cheaper than in public hospitals and the waiting time is always much shorter in private hospitals.
But there can be many other factors that will determine which hospital you go to for your blood test. I chose a public hospital because my cardiologist is there. I have a lot of faith in my cardiologist who is honest and competent. That rare combination of competence and honesty in a medical practitioner is very important to me and when I have found one who has it, I usually stick to him. It's just that when I was waiting for my turn (and let's not forget that I waited for an hour and a half - from 8am to 9:30am) and I looked at the huge number of patients also waiting to have their blood samples taken, I could not help wondering if they were aware that at least for the blood test alone, they could get it faster and cheaper in a private hospital.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)