4/25/2016

Fixing Singapore’s meritocracy for the good or bad?


Kenneth Paul Tan wrote an article titled ‘How Singapore is fixing its meritocracy’ in the Today paper on 22 April. He described the history of how meritocracy first started in Singapore when education was the first leveler, where everyone of merit could get a scholarship and rose through the ranks and became a mandarin in the civil service.  He then went on to describe how this innocent brand of meritocracy got corrupted and drawing cynicism when meritocracy transformed into elitism and cronyism of the elite. Here I quote him, ‘Today, the Singaporean idea of meritocracy is criticized for entrenching structural limits on mobility, for its overly narrow idea of merit and success, and for an increasingly self regarding elite that seems too interested in staying in power and that citizens perceive as arrogant and unresponsive to their needs.’

The powerful political elite took notice of the growing discontent and have put in some measures to redistribute the wealth by straying into a taboo area called welfarism, a slightly leftist leaning policy that was once frown upon.  What is strange is this comment about anti welfarism. ‘To discourage free riding and maintain business competitiveness, the Government developed a strong anti welfare state rhetoric. It started to pay its top officials and political leaders some of the highest salaries in the world…’  Now what is he saying? To me isn’t this welfarism at the highest level, welfarism for the elite? It is a matter of perception of course.

What many knew but refused to talk about in the fixing of meritocracy is the entrenchment of wealth and power of the elite through the abolition of estate duty. Now the elite could own as many properties as they want, in the tune of hundreds of millions or billions to be willed to their natural aristocratic scions.  The act of self preservation and protecting their wealth for generations to come, a practice that eventually led to the revolution in Europe, Russia and China and the rise of Communism, is now fixed into the Singapore version of meritocracy. A meritocratic family could now be meritocratic for generations to come with their wealth preserved and protected forever and ever, to live happily ever after, unless a bloody communist revolution cut them down to ground zero.

This piece of fixing appears to be well received by the landed gentry and elite, all owners of large properties and land and have nothing to complain about.  They would not complain about its negative repercussion to the social cost of the people. When the rich know that they could go on buying up all the land and landed properties for safe keeping and to perpetuate their wealth to eternity, it simply leads to the hoarding of properties and the rise of property prices.

The poor and not so rich would never ever to be able to catch up with the runaway prices of landed properties hoarded by the landed elite. The elite know the rules of the games and how to protect themselves and their wealth. Landed properties are now worth several tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and would soon be the most expensive real estate on earth.

Social mobility and meritocracy appear to be thriving. But how many of the nouveau riche could make that kind of money in a life time to afford landed properties in the future, now in the hands of the rich elite, entrenched and enshrined as their inheritance for generations and generations to come? Even the civil servants and politicians of the future would have a hard time paying for such out of reach landed properties with their million dollar salaries.

But not to worry, the politicians of the future will know what to do if they want to lay their hands onto these prized and exorbitant pieces of landed properties. They could simply reintroduce estate duties all over again to level the playing field. In a democracy, this is the easiest part. Even dynasties could not hold on to their fortune forever.  The landed gentry class of medieval era were wiped out when the extremism of inequalities reached a point of no return. The unproductive land and property owners would not have their cake and eat it. Les miserables would rise to overthrow a decadent system of wealth preservation at their expense.

4/24/2016

A strange assurance from the MOE

MOE assures a concerned parent that creationism ‘is not part of syllabus’


BY ARIFFIN SHA ON APRIL 23, 2016
In a series of sermons addressed to the megachurch Faith Community Baptist Church, Pastor Lawrence Khong launched a tirade against the Theory of Evolution. In one such sermon, which you can view a snippet of here, he argued that Darwin's brainchild was "a real deception from the Devil."

“Every day we are subjected to a worldview that is a real deception from the devil. For example, I mean the world is telling us that evolution is a fact, undisputable. It is taught in schools. But the fact of the matter is I will be exploring with you that you could hardly find any evidence of true evolution. And in fact, evolution is based on faith and not facts.  In fact, if we study the different theories, we find that creation has the most evidence to show us that indeed there is a God who created us.”
-          Lawrence Khong

The above quotes were from TOC.

I am not sure why MOE has to assure the parents that creation is not part of the syllabus in schools. For MOE to state this implies that this must have crept up somewhere in their discussion or creation has been discussed by some quarters.

A truth is a truth. A scientific truth is a scientific truth and can be verified. If it is not it is not. If a scientific truth cannot be verified, I can say for sure, the scientist is the wrong that is making the wrong assertion, not the devil.  

A belief is a belief. No need any verification. Just belief. That is why it is called a belief. That is why it will always be a belief and subject to controversies and discussions with one side trying do shout down another in order to claim that it is the truth. A scientific truth is just that. No need to shout at everyone and forcing others to believe that it is the truth. Is that simple enough to separate truth from a belief?

I have no quarrels or issues with people who want to spend their lives fearing the Devil and loving God and explaining everything in life as a tussle between the Devil and God. These two beings have been fighting since time immemorial and will still be fighting in the lives of those who chose to take sides and think everything in life is either the work of God or the work of the Devil.

I think there is more to life than just fearing the Devil and loving God. Let the two giants fight their everlasting battle of existence. The small little human beans have a life to live, to make meaning of live, to experience and grow, to feel the goodness, the bad, the pain, the sorrows, the joy and ecstasies of life, of being alive, to have a chance to live to know what life is and being alive is all about.

For those who chose to live life fearing the Devil and loving God, as long as you are happy that that is the meaning of your life, good for you. Do not impose or expect others to live your life and your beliefs. It is a choice, a personal choice, to live one’s life the way one wishes.  If your belief is the truth, after so many millennia, the truth should become unquestionable, and not still a controversial belief.


1 + 1 = 2. That is the simple truth. If people are still not sure and just believing that 1 + 1 = 2, then it cannot be the truth. If 1 + 1 is not equal to 2, I will not believe that it is the work of the Devil for being so. If my life is not going the way I want it, I will not blame the Devil. Neither will I thank God if my life is a little better than it should be. My life, how I live my life, has nothing to do with the Devil or the God. I don’t have to blame the Devil if things did not go well, and I don’t have to give credit to God if things go well. If the belief is what it is, the two would be too busy fighting each other in their unending battle of Creation.

Bukit Batok By Election – One simple question

Bukit Batok residents should ask the two MP wannabes one simple question. We are going to pay you $16,000 a month, plus bonuses and other tangible and intangible perks. Would these be good enough for them to serve full time?

If the answer is yes, good. Vote for him. If not, ask him why? Money not enough? $16,000 plus plus not good enough for an MP to serve the people full time? Hey, $16,000 is a lot of money you know. The cleaners only earn less than $1000. The sweepers also earn less than that amount, so do the toilet cleaners and security guards. Even an estate manager in any big development would barely be paid half of this sum.

$16,000 not good enough? How much do you want to serve full time? $20,000, $50,000 or $100,000? An MP’s job is very important you know. You don’t think an MP job is masak masak, can do part time, walk about only on weekends and at night.

With $16,000 we want a full time MP. Take it or leave it. We want full commitments and conviction and dedication to do the job, as an honourable MP. We are voting for more than just an estate manager, an MP that looks after us and national issues and represent us in the Parliament, not absent from Parliament. An MP’s job is not chasing after soiled pampers or kissing dogs and cats, or kissing babies only.

The people of Singapore must raise their expectations of what an MP is all about if they are going to be paid $16,000! Of course lah, to some $600,000 also peanuts and would not be able to appreciate how much is $16,000 or $1,000.  Such amounts are small change, not worth a second look, not worth a full time devotion to the job, got more important things to do to make more money. When people look down on $16,000, you know what kind of people they are or what is in their minds, what is more important to them.


Who would you vote for, an MP who would serve you full time or one saying he could only spare you some of his time, part time? Just ask, $16,000 full time, want or not? If not, next please. Have you heard of people sneering, ‘What is $10 million?’

4/23/2016

China should tell the American gangster to ‘Fuck Off’

China used its military plane to ferry some injured workers from the South China Sea. And the American gangsters think it is their right to demand an explanation from China as if they own the islands and China is one of its colonies. China should simply send them a letter with two words, ‘Fuck Off’.

Who do the Americans think they are? The Empire of the world and can go around demanding other sovereign countries to explain what they do in their own countries? China and countries of the world should not fall into the trap of responding to the demands of the international gangsters. By replying and explaining what they are doing is in de facto acceptance of recognizing the power of the Empire and to submissively try to explain and justify their actions. Malaysia did the right thing by telling the Americans, yes, fuck off, on the American reports on human rights abuses in Malaysia.

China and countries of the world might as well start to question the Americans for everything they did inside America, like the silly presidential candidates meddling with other countries domestic affairs and criticizing and attacking the rights of other countries and the wars all over the world, the killing of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. The thing is that most countries did not have the time to bother with this international gangster and just let the Americans behave like rogues all over the world.


How about China and Russia conducting freedom of navigation around Guam, Diego Garcia, Hawaii and the Carribeans?  Of course they are not so silly to want to waste their resources and tax payer’s money on such silliness. Both did not have wild ambitions to want to rule the world. Only the Americans can make their tax payers pay for such nonsense and counterproductive acts, freedom of navigations, conducting war games all over the world, raising tensions and inciting wars.

Rail Academy to train more rail engineers

Former NTU president Cham Tao Soon has been appointed to assist in the setting up of a Rail Academy to train rail engineers. He said we have lost time and needed to catch up to train rail engineers and develop a workforce for the industry. This new approach of planting our own timber instead of hiring ready made talents from other countries would also serve the goal of building a Singaporean core in the industry.

The SGX also set up a SGX Academy to train better remisiers and specialists for the stock broking industry. Hopefully after all the training the remisiers will be earning more than the cleaners. It would be funny if remisiers have to attend so many courses and training and acquiring so many certificates and qualifications to become specialists and earning just as much as a cleaner. The effort would be a big waste of time and resources, might as well enjoy the more easy and carefree life of a cleaner, no need to attend courses and worrying about the punitive fines for making trading mistakes or violating trading rules and regulations. Anyway it is always good to go for training when one has nothing better to do.  Oh today they call this upskilling. Maybe remisiers should be encouraged to upskill, to multi task and multi skill and acquire a taxi driving licence as well.

With this great interest in training as if training is the solution to all our problems, it is strange that the banking and finance industry is still not moving to set up a banking and finance academy to train bankers and finance specialists. Isn’t Singapore experiencing a dearth of good bankers and shouldn’t the banking industry exercise some initiative, be pro active and join the academy bandwagon? At least it cannot be accused of not doing anything after being found sleeping for the last 3 decades. Or the industry is still thinking of hiring the best foreign talents regardless of nationalities?


Oh, Yaacob should think of setting up an IT or Infocomm Academy with the big budget at his disposal. Academy trained graduates would sound so much better. It just sounds right. At the very least their certificates would be more useful than the degrees that cannot be eaten.  They should convert all the universities to academies that are producing graduates with the relevant and not irrelevant skill sets.