myth 18

'All Singapore households own a TV' For a super rich Singapore where all household gadgets are part and parcel of life, owning a tv, radio, fridge, washing machine, hifi etc is now taken for granted. Every household should have these equipment. And so the story goes. This guy was fined by MDA for not reporting that he did not own a tv set. And the onus is on Singapore resident to inform MDA or else they will be fined. Why is there such a regulation? Isn't it enough when asked to pay for the licence, for the house owner to confirm that he does not own a tv set? This must be the problem of a super rich country. Maybe next time they will fine people for not owning a tv set. Maybe...below is copied from Singaporesurf. RECENTLY I received a summons sent by the Media Development Authority (MDA) for having a 'broadcast television receiver without a valid licence'. I called up Licensing Services (Broadcasting) to inform the staff that I have not had any television set in my house from at least last year, so how could I be guilty of the offence? An officer from the licensing unit told me: 'You did not inform us that you did not have a television set, so you have to pay the fine.'.... N. Stanley Jeremiah

do we need native angmo teachers?

We need angmo teachers to teach us English. Our standard of English has declined. A few immediate thoughts came to my mind. 1. Fire all the staff in MOE. All these high payment morons have failed the education system miserably and do not deserve to be there. 2. This is a case of pocket too much money. So fingers itchy and must find ways to spend them. Or something like if we want good sportsmen, just buy them. 3. Local talents are never good enough, so must pay for imported quality. Locals going to lose some jobs to foreigners again. 4. We are paying for quality foreign talents, so school fees must go up. Quality does not come cheap. After 40 years of excellence in our first class education, after 40 years of almost 100% literacy rate, after ramming our population with English in all major media and means of communication, from pop culture, fashion, literature, movies etc,... and our standard of English got from bad to worst? Why don't we look at it in a different way? Before, Ah Lian and Ah Beng only swore in Hokien or whatever dialects. Today they can swear in English. And they could do a little bit more. They can use words like auntie and uncle! Our society is anything but homogenous. The languages or dialects spoken are poles apart in terms of grammar, sentence construction etc etc. Do we really believe that with native angmo teachers our standard of English will be as good as England or America? And we believe that the mases will speak Queen's English like native English gentlemen? Even in England, many native English speakers speak in a variety of dialects and accents that are incomprehensible. The good English speakers are there, and those who need to speak and commnunicate in good English will possess the skills and abilities to do so. It is unnatural to expect the pork sellers and fishmongers in the market to speak good English. On the reverse, we could expect them to speak good dialects or their mother tongues. If we are thinking of having a nation of native English speakers, the only solution is to ban all other languages. Then we can proceed from there to make everyone a native English speaker. In reality, many Singaporeans are already native speakers and English is their mother tongue. English is not only their first language, the language they were born with and spoken at home, but also the only language they converse in daily. Want good native English teachers or not? Want, got or not? With our openly admitted position that our English Language is of sub standard, how are we going to attract foreign students to come here for a good English biased education? And how are we going to become a centre of excellence in Education? When foreign parents know that our English standard is half past six, no come anymore.

stomp, stomp, stomp

The Straits Times is stomping all over the cyberspace for the last few days. With the muscle of the the main paper, its advertising resources and the money it has, it is using all its marketing power to stage a claim to be the number one player. And it has been very successful in promoting itself, with free gifts being thrown at their visitors. I think the budget must be pretty substantial. The conquest and claim for a presence in cyberspace is on. The Straits Times means business, to gain its market share and readership in no man's land, in a new frontier. In the fun, pop culture and entertainment fields, there is no doubt that the Straits Times will have an upperhand over the other blogs and forums. These are fadish and politically neutral areas and are easily embraced by anyone who are in it. The true test of influence is in the social and political fields, providing views in these areas are politically sensitive. And as long as the Straits Times is seen as an official mouthpiece, its penetration in these areas are bound to be inhibited by its own history and background. The cynical, questioning, non conformist and rebellious readers will still seek the unregulated and freer blogs and forums for more refreshing views. What ever the Straits Times objectives, it is a welcome player in cyberspace and will make the scene more colourful, vibrant and interesting. Huh, more choices. Interest in cyberspace has blossomed and is now an area to be reckoned with. It now has a noticeable presence.

there must be distinction between state and party

Mah Bow Tan contributed an article in the Straits Times forum today to explain his stand on lift upgrading and the criticism by Sylvia Lim and some other letter writers. On this issue many people disagreed with him. His explanation is that the money used for the upgrading were earned by the PAP govt and thus can be used for party interest. How blind and misguided this kind of thinking can be. The whole nation's resources are available to whoever is in power and at their disposal. It is so because there are managing the nation on behalf of the people as one nation, one people. The nation's wealth and resources and revenue generated, belongs to the nation, not to the party in power. Otherwise the party might as well use it to build a monument or a huge party complex since it is now deemed the party's money and they use do it to serve party interest. This is the failure of being too long in power and unable to draw the line between the nation/state and the party. Can't blame him as many people have treated the govt as the PAP and also synonymous with the country. That's why you have people who are unhappy with the PAP and ended up being unhappy with the govt and the country. But the line must be drawn clearly just like personal selfish interest and interest of the country. For the good of the country or for the good of self or party. They are not necessarily complementary.

myth 17

'One party govt is bad.' This is a very familiar saying. Throughout the election, all the opposition parties and individual citizens were calling for a multi party govt, vote for more oppositions in Parliament. We have practically a one party govt for 40 years. The legacy of these 40 years is growth and growth and more growth. The standard of living of the people has been spiralling all the way up. Even after the latest financial and oil crisis, generally the lives of the average people are still resonably comfortable. There will be pockets of desperate cases that need assistance. But on the whole, things are manageable and still looking good. Compare this to the world, we are second to none in terms of progress and development over the last 40 year period. Then why the call for a multi party system? The one party system has done us well. People getting richer. The able and well position just get more and better than the not so well placed. But crumbs aplenty for those who are prepared to pick them up. Not that a one party system is all virtues. The fear of a one party system turning bad is there. The effectiveness and dominance of a one party system, under clean, honest and enlightened leadership, can do a lot of good to the nation and people. This same effectiveness and dominance can do equally or more harm to the nation and people if it is turned against the people. We have seen and heard nuances of how to fix, deal, manage or regulate those who disagree. This is what power can do. The question is how far it will go and when will things go bad. If the govt continues to be in the hands of good people, people who have a heart, selfless and not selfish people, magnanimous and not petty and mean people, there is nothing wrong with a one party government. But can anyone guarantee this happy state of existence to continue into the future?