the govt is listening

there is a thread in the ypap forum asking 'does the govt listen?' i think it is listening. or at least in some places. take for instance the nkf issue. it listens and it acts. though the public may still be angry and accuses the govt of acting too slowly and taking too long to disclose its finding, it listens. then the people's unhappiness with the astronomical cost of car ownership. so the coes and prices of cars are coming down to facilitate ownership, but the people must still pay for usage. then the public cannot complain about high car prices. but still not low enough. those days when a second hand car can be had for $3,000 or a new ford escort for $5,600 when a fresh graduate's salary was $1,300. and the people's complain that the govt is treating the foreigners better than singaporeans. so foreigners now will not be subsidised for medical fee at govt polyclinics. govt hospital subsidies will also be cut. and this will affect prs too. but the cost of singaporeans using medical facilities still remain the same. with the economy not doing so well the govt is setting up comcare and workfare to help the people. on the other hand the govt is doing so well with their investments that it is willing to share the profits with the people. and buangkok station is opening! but this one got nothing to do with the govt listening. it is a business decision. then, does the govt listen? in many areas it still chooses to close its ears, eg cpf, public transport fares, hdb prices, foreign talents....maybe i amend this. it is listening but not responding or not changing its policies or rulings.

mandarin as second language

some chinese singaporeans find this language very difficult to study. and some parents and their children suffered because of this and led to them migrating overseas. there are many reasons why the learning of this language is difficult to some and easy to others. i will just discuss on the economic usefulness of this language. in european countries, the goal is to acquire at least two or three languages for economic reasons. english, french, spanish or even mandarin. they called the language chinese language. for those who have an interest in a language, like a hobby, or for selfish economic interest, the learning of another language becomes that much easier. yes, learning chinese can also be easy for those who want to learn it. there are a few hundred thousand south koreans enrolled full time in chinese schools in china, in primary and secondary schools, just to be proficient in a language which they find it economically useful in the future. learning chinese, a foreign language is definitely not an emotinal choice but a practical one. in singapore, and strangely among some of the chinese, learning mandarin/chinese language, is also an emotional and painful one. the singapore chinese find it so difficult and tortuous, and not useful to learn the chinese language. some are contented and would like to stick to just knowing their dialects, which they deemed as good enough. and mandarin is a foreign language. the other races too did not want to learn chinese, could not see any need for it now or in the future, except for a very small minority. despite the strong encouragement from the govt and many years of govt policy to promote the study of the language, in a way, the study of the language is deemphasised to minimise the trauma of the children and their parents, and at a time when the economic advantage for those who wish to engage in china is getting more real. for the time being, learning mandarin is not attractive to some singapore chinese and to the other races, some for personal and emotional reasons. will there be a revival of interest to learn the language? though some statistics from the ministry of education have shown an increase among the chinese to take higher chinese, there is still no great influx of students for this subject. the reasons for learning a language are many, economic, personal, emotional, ethnic etc. whatever, it is a personal choice and decision to make. some will make a conscious decision based on their own assumptions and the value of the language. some will not think about it and let things happened. some will take a bet, some will hedge, some will just watch and would not play.

press freedom and simpleminded singaporeans

in today's straits time forum there were a few exchanges of letters on the issue of press freedom. one singaporean was so happy with our state of affair and would not mind having no press freedom. he simply accepted choktong's statement that press freedom did not necessarily equate to good government. another forumer rebutted him rightly that a free press does not necessarily lead to bad govt. likewise, a controlled press can be badly abused by a bad govt. the equation is not simply no press freedom equals good govt and press freedom equals bad govt. when there is bad govt and a controlled press, the badness can be very oppressive. the points should be responsible press and responsible govt. don't go for half baked options and be happy with it. some singaporeans are really dull and easily contented.

stonefish, one of the most poisonous and deadly fish

following my earlier article on this deadly fish there is a report of a victim suing sentosa in today's straits times. this guy got stung in his sole, sent to the general hospital, operated, but subsequent pain cost him $20,000 with follow up treatment. the pain is still recurring. he even lost his job as a result of the pain. i had the pain for about a month and a recurring twitch and slight pain at the wound for more than a year. i must thank shell again, and all those people who helped me on that fateful day, for the treatment and antidote. the medical staff in charge just jabbed the needle with the antidote into the wound/hole, cleaned it up and i was home. no further complication. so guys, if you got stung by a stonefish, reputed as one of the deadliest fish, people have died by its sting, please go to the shell refinery in the nearby island. they are the experts. i too might have to spend $20,000 if treated elsewhere.

corporate governance without responsibilities

an article by adrian tan on corporate governance in today newspaper questioned the responsibilities of parties involved in doing due diligence on a company before being listed or being bought over. his findings, after interviewing experts in the business, discovered that for the huge sums of money being paid to the managers of public issues or those who arranged the sale of a company, the job done is elementary and without responsibilities. what these people did was to established and confirmed what the company said about it's business model, its management and their qualifications and the assets they have. and they charged quite a handsome fee for doing these. and when the company was eventually found to be misrepresented to the extend of declaring bankruptcy or declaring big losses within a few months after due diligence was done, just too bad. not their problem. if this be the case, then these kinds of work could be done by a lawyer's clerk like doing conveyancing checks and for a small fee. all the regulators needs to do is to haul up the offending company's management and charge them. and this is what they are doing. so why dispense with so much money and time doing due diligence that is just the verification of data and facts but with no responsibilities? is this what corporate governance is all about?