I left the meeting feeling cautiously hopeful.

Imagine my horror when I opened the papers the next morning.

When you turn to the page of the report by Godfrey Robert, a veteran sports writer, this was the headline:

In his report, Robert laid out the foreign talents who had represented Singapore in the past, such as our first individual Olympics medal winner, weightlifter Tan Howe Liang, in the 1960 Rome Olympics.

Feng Tianwei, ironically and despite the title of the report, was only mentioned at the beginning and the later part of the report, and even then only briefly.

In the Straits Times, a report by the paper’s Sports Editor, Marc Lim, carried this quote from a Facebook posting:

Reading the two reports from the New Paper and the Straits Times gave rise to a sense of anger – and disappointment at not only how these reports were putting down Singaporeans and how they seem to imply that Singaporeans somehow need to be led by foreign talents, but also how the reports are fanning the anti-foreigner flames here.

Also, if one were a supporter of the Government, one might feel that these reports were scuttling the Government’s efforts at integration. They make Singaporeans more angry at the Government’s immigration policy, and programmes like the Foreign Talent Scheme (FTS).

In short, the mainstream media is shooting the Government in the foot, and getting away with it.

The presence of some 2 million foreigners (including permanent residents) on our island is the biggest issue we are grappling with. It has given rise to all sorts of problems which many have already expounded on.

So, one would expect that any responsible newspaper would be more circumspect and aware of how its reports could reinforce anti-foreigner sentiments. Apparently, however, the New Paper especially, seems bent on doing just that by adopting a headline – on its front page, no less – which is a direct slap in the face, if you will, of Singaporeans who are already upset with the number of foreigners here.

“Feng Tianwei shows us FT is the way” is potentially an epitaph on the tomb of any Government effort in persuading Singaporeans to accept new citizens such as Feng. And if you need a nail as a final confirmation, the Straits Times’ use of a Facebook posting would be it:

“To those who questions her nationality: she has a pink nric [sic] like you and me. She did more than the average Singaporeans [sic] by putting Singapore on the world map and makes Singapore proud. You? What have you done to make Singapore proud of you? Shame on you.”

Yes, use a quote which ridicules and castigates Singaporeans and you expect Singaporeans to rally round Feng, or the Government’s efforts? I mean, how stupid can you be? It boggles the mind how an editor could even conceive that this would be helpful and decided to include this in his report.

But to bring the issue back to a more rational level, the National Population and Talent Division (NTPD), under the Prime Minister’s Office, is consulting and inviting feedback, suggestions and ideas on how we should deal with the population challenge. It is not a trivial matter and we should, as much as we can, try and understand the issues we are facing.

Unfortunately, the stupidity (yes, I will call it what it is) of mainstream papers like the New Paper and the Straits Times is not helping – not helping either the Government or Singapore address the serious issues we face.

Instead, these papers seem to want to take pot shots at the genuine unhappiness expressed by many Singaporeans, resorting to ridicule and sensationalism to sell a few more copies of their respective rags.

“Lets cheer foreign talent”? Not in this way and most certainly not when national papers are making fun of Singaporeans who have genuine concerns and putting them down in such an irresponsible manner.

Is it any wonder then that some have called on the newly-formed Media Literacy Council (MLC) to focus its spotlight on the traditional or mainstream media, instead of trying to police the online media?

In April 2012, innovation and design firm IDEO Singapore mentioned Back To School (‘Andrea Kershaw of IDEO on Creativity In Education’) on DesignTAXI.com, which was tweeted to more than 154,000.

We started receiving anecdotal feedback that this was something that teachers found interesting and useful. Also in April, Singapore’s National Institute of Education (NIE) featured Back To School on its website as a resource for trainee teachers.

Launch of SchoolAsia.org

Today, six months later, we’re keen to test new waters. Our new website SchoolAsia.org aims to crowd-source a rich collection of lesson plans, opinion pieces and educational events to support educators in Asia. Our content deals with current affairs, humanities and the arts – and in particular, Asia-focused educational materials for teachers at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. (Read more here)

We now have 30 lesson plans and 11 opinion pieces – and gearing up to crowd-source much more, from more individuals, non-profits, theatre companies, museums, corporates, government organisations etc in Singapore and beyond.

As a non-profit, our mission remains the same – to support educators in our local and regional communities through a vibrant exchange of ideas. We are a volunteer-run group with zero funding, so we need all the help we can get. Please view, share, modify, use and contribute to the content at SchoolAsia.org – we hope to hear from you soon!

The Editors,

SchoolAsia.org

Visit us at: http://schoolasia.org/

Join us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/schoolasia

While it may be too early to judge the MLC, there are probably two main doubts about the new body.  The first is the question of its composition: it is dominated by the education and traditional media establishment, with only one member that fits the description of a blogger, and even then, not a fairly well-known one. Though the MLC has promised to consult more widely among the online community, it would not be surprising if the latter does not vest the MLC with a good deal of legitimacy.

The second is that the MLC’s stated remit seems to overlap considerably with that of the now defunct Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS), a body set up in 2007 to advise the Government on how to deal with new media that submitted its report in 2008.  There does not seem to be much substantive difference between the two bodies, despite the MLC’s supposed inclusion of traditional media as well, and it is difficult to see the MLC renewing AIMS’ more adventurous suggestions for online engagement that were rejected by the Government in 2009.  Furthermore, it is noteworthy that some of the AIMS’ recommendations that were accepted seem to have fallen by the wayside, such as the "dedicated coordinating agency" for the protection of minors from ‘harmful content’ on the Internet.

The worry is that the MLC could recommend further regulation of the Internet to the Government under the guise of paternalistic attempts to safeguard civility on the Internet.  Cyberbullying is an obvious target, but there is no strong indication that the current self-regulatory model does not work: all but the worst cases can be handled by forum moderators deleting hate comments or by Facebook users deploying tighter filter controls on their pages.

On a broader level, initiatives such as the MLC are patently unnecessary.  The online community is more or less a reflection of its underlying real world society, albeit an unfiltered version because of the lower costs of speaking up and the immediacy in which that speech is recorded and transmitted for all to read.  Hence the task of raising “media literacy” – that of encouraging people to think more critically about content put out in the media – should be centred in the offline world, in schools that encourage children to read more widely and think critically about issues, or in newspapers that question Government spin and have the courage to undertake investigative journalism.  Trying to encourage more ‘literacy’ on the Internet is unlikely to have much effect if no attempts are made to change offline institutions such as schools and the media.

[Click here for slideshow of male athletes at the London Olympics ]

Lusting after women is socially acceptable male behaviour. And why shouldn’t it be? At a base level, we are creatures of instinct who need this drive so that we will do what Mother Nature programmed us to do—find mates we are attracted to, have sex and keep the human race going.

But lusting after men, at least openly, is not quite socially acceptable female behaviour. We all know that a man who is highly sexed is called a stud, whereas a woman who is the same—is called another four-lettered word beginning with ‘s’.

And why? Women need and have sexual urges too, because, last time I checked, they make up half of the ‘sex’ bit.

Not surprisingly, gender attitudes come into play.

Emancipation has come a long way since the advent of the birth control pill gave women more sexual choices, but the stain of guilt and shame still hangs over the heads of women in society.

If a man manages to make it with any of the women’s beach volleyball teams, he is going to be one massive hero in the locker room or on his whatsapp group. If a woman boasts of a similar conquest (“I did the US swim team!”), she might not find herself the object of such favour. Remember the scorching former porn star Grace Quek a.k.a. Annabel Chong received at the hands of the tabloids in 1997, when she gangbanged 251 men? Quek’s intention was to subvert gender stereotypes, as she explains in the documentary Sex: The Annabel Chong Story: “I hope to complicate people’s basic assumptions about … the nature of female sexuality.” Her message never properly got across, partly due to her own misguided choice of media—pornography—but also because her extreme act was completely overshadowed by the moral scandal of a woman—an upper middle class, educated Singaporean woman, no less—having a voracious sexual appetite and being audacious enough to flaunt it.

Although deeply embedded patriarchy in most societies has a hand in this (men traditionally have had more power through holding positions of authority and controlling finances), men are not to be bashed for these double standards. Unfortunately, a woman’s harshest critics are usually other women; and the first person to sling the ‘s’-word at a woman is, sadly, likely to be a woman herself.

This is not about the now outdated feminist cliché of ‘if men can do it, women should be able to do it to.’ It’s not about having the freedom to have indiscriminate sex. There are matters of conscience at hand—like, if you are in a relationship, to remain true to the level of commitment you and your partner have agreed upon. And of course there are health and safety issues.

It’s about normalising a woman’s sexual desire so it can live in the open and not hide under a veil of bashfulness or shame. It’s about both men and women acknowledging and being comfortable with female desire so we see just as many images of gorgeous men as we do gorgeous women, all the time and not just on occasions like Olympic season. It’s so the ‘s’ word disappears from our vocabulary.

And, should a change like this fully come about, I can foresee good things stemming from it. Female desire can be a powerful force. For instance, if you want me to buy a car, drape one of those Olympic male divers on it, and I’m halfway sold.

On one hand, there are compelling Christian reasons to retain tithing. It’s a way of training generosity and checking self-centredness. It teaches Christians to put God first in their lives, and their own material needs second. Tithing loosens one’s attachments to worldly comfort and possessions. It reminds one that such possessions are not ‘mine’ because all good things rightfully belong to God, thus forcing one to be less selfish. Tithing can, if motivated by the right reasons, be quite admirable and morally idealistic.

There are practical reasons for regular tithing as well. Simply put, if a church wants to maintain and expand its charitable activities, it needs a regular income. The more ambitious its mission, the more money it needs. And CHC is nothing if not ambitious – annual blood donation drives, multiple programmes to help the disadvantaged and marginalised of society, and massive recruitment ambitions like wanting to expose 50,000 new friends to Christ, are just some of its goals. Blogger Yongsheng also notes that land prices are rising, making it more expensive to find space for an ever-expanding congregation.

So when does tithing cease to be good or pragmatic?

Tithing based on the prosperity gospel, for instance, is questionable. Prosperity theology is a worldview some Christian churches like CHC subscribe to. It emphasizes God’s approval of material prosperity, asserting that people should tithe because doing so will earn them material rewards from God. Pastor Kong says in one sermon that “prosperity is our rightful inheritance” and in another that “God will reward those who faithfully give their tithes and their offerings.”

[Watch these sermons here and here.]

While it is valid for prosperity theology to celebrate honestly acquired wealth, portraying material reward as an incentive to tithe undermines the very purpose of tithing. Tithing becomes motivated by self-interest rather than selflessness. And while the Bible doesn’t consider prosperity immoral in itself, it doesn’t promote it as the main goal in life either, much less the main goal of tithing. After all, as Randy Alcorn – an American Protestant author and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries - says, “Instead of assuming that God wants us healthy, we need to realize that he may accomplish higher purposes through our sickness than through our health” , through our poverty than through our prosperity. Every life, whether lived in poverty or wealth, can be meaningful. Hence those who tithe as a means to prosperity do so without truly understanding biblical values. The prosperity gospel has been accused by many Christians such as Alcorn of distorting biblical teachings, of worshipping money and not God.

Churchgoers therefore should be more wary of what their leaders’ priorities are. Materialistic or spiritual? Having a lot of money isn’t inherently unreligious, but the way you use your money is a sign of what your priorities are.

There is a lot of potential for money to be used inefficiently or dishonestly in organisations like churches or religious organisations. Effective fund-raising creates the problem of excess. If you can raise so much money so easily, why bother using it carefully and efficiently?  The power of charisma and the ability to evoke God’s name to support whatever you do throws in another problem: if you can command unquestioning trust, are there any moral limits to how you use your funds?

Given such potential abuses, here’s what churchgoers and churches can do to keep things on track.

Firstly, churchgoers need to be more open to the idea that their religious leaders have vices as well as virtues. As CHC member Joseph put it, “The main thing to remember is that we come to serve God, not man.” We must not take it as a given that religious leaders always have good intentions, and we should express our doubts when their activities appear questionable.

Secondly, churchgoers should demand more financial accountability from their leaders. Robert Kee, founder of Operation Hope Foundation which seeks to “transform the lives of orphans and the poor in developing countries” suggests that we demand more information about exactly how our money is spent, since charities often “write about what they do but not how” they do it.

Andy, an ex-member of CHC, confirms that members often don’t expect business-like accountability from the church ― they don’t insist that if “you tell me to donate to the Building Fund, it must go to the Building Fund, or I will sue you.” Many are fine with CHC sharing its funds between the Crossover Project – which is at the centre of the controversy surrounding CHC leaders - and the Building Fund and don’t press for details on where exactly the money goes, highlighting the trust they have in their leaders. It is this trust that Kee would like to see replaced with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Thirdly, on an organisational level, churches can help keep their finances in line by appointing an independent audit committee, possibly consisting of members from other churches, or by engaging independent companies to do the audit and management checks. Such committees will ensure that there are proper invoices for every transaction, insist the projects be closed rather than open-ended with fixed annual budgets, assess any requests to change the budget, and so on.

Ultimately, in a money-driven world where financial resources affect our ability to improve our surroundings, ambitious churches understandably need lots of money to fund their projects. They naturally turn to their people because, due to the separation of church and state, they don’t get funding from the government. It is their people whom they need to survive, and it is therefore only their people who, by calling for change for within, can make them sincerely reconsider their practices.

In April 2012, innovation and design firm IDEO Singapore mentioned Back To School (‘Andrea Kershaw of IDEO on Creativity In Education’) on DesignTAXI.com, which was tweeted to more than 154,000.

We started receiving anecdotal feedback that this was something that teachers found interesting and useful. Also in April, Singapore’s National Institute of Education (NIE) featured Back To School on its website as a resource for trainee teachers.

Launch of SchoolAsia.org

Today, six months later, we’re keen to test new waters. Our new website SchoolAsia.org aims to crowd-source a rich collection of lesson plans, opinion pieces and educational events to support educators in Asia. Our content deals with current affairs, humanities and the arts – and in particular, Asia-focused educational materials for teachers at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. (Read more here)

We now have 30 lesson plans and 11 opinion pieces – and gearing up to crowd-source much more, from more individuals, non-profits, theatre companies, museums, corporates, government organisations etc in Singapore and beyond.

As a non-profit, our mission remains the same – to support educators in our local and regional communities through a vibrant exchange of ideas. We are a volunteer-run group with zero funding, so we need all the help we can get. Please view, share, modify, use and contribute to the content at SchoolAsia.org – we hope to hear from you soon!

The Editors,

SchoolAsia.org

Visit us at: http://schoolasia.org/

Join us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/schoolasia

Are we thus just throwing around phrases like “true Singaporean” without knowing what they mean? Are they excuses to belittle those who have come from afar to be among us? Are we pretending to be “patriotic”, and take the “higher moral ground” simply by the virtue that we – by nature’s hand or by a twist of fate – are indeed Singaporean?

The vitriol targeted at all and sundry involved in this “sham” of winning the Olympic medal, the critics point out, are justified. And those responsible, these same critics point out, is a long list, at the top of which is the Government, its policies, the Sports Council, the Singapore Table Tennis Association, the Sports School, the “unreasonable” or “misguided” desire to “win medals”, the “failure” of the meritocratic system, the lack of support for sports in Singapore, the privileged or biased attention given to foreign talents, etc etc. The list of allegations is indeed a long one.

But really, much has been done for sports in Singapore. Just go ask those who are involved in it, and look around you. Of course, there are issues and problems which need to be dealt with but generally, sports have been given a leg up in the past decade.

But the important question is: who are we? What exactly makes us Singaporean?

Feng Tianwei has been a Singaporean since 2008. Does that not qualify her? What would, then? Li Jiawei and Jing Junhong have also been here for a while. Jing Junhong has been here for more than 10 years. Does she qualify to be a “true” Singaporean?

Yet, here is a question which perhaps will provide some clue to the answer we seek to the question of who we are, or who we are not: Is the way some of us have gone about abusing Feng Tianwei, at times in the most vile of fashion, something which is part of this Singaporean identity we want to see or be?

Yes, we can rationalise it and perch ourselves up on higher ground and defend such behaviour by saying it is because of many other matters and issues. And you would, actually, not be entirely wrong. But this does not justify such behaviour.

The controversy over Feng Tianwei, in fact, is not about her. It is instead about us.

Blogger, Singapore Armchair Critic (SAC) raised the same question about identity, the Singaporean identity, and he had this to say:

“Nationalism that is ‘thin’ in content, and stoked whenever a people feel insulted by criticisms and stinging remarks, can easily degenerate into xenophobia. That is not a path Singaporeans want to take.”

And from the reaction of Feng’s critics, our sense of identity – or nationalism, if you want to call it – is thin, indeed. Superficial, almost. Expressed in childish diatribes and irrational ourbursts.

We apparently do not know who we are, and that sense of insecurity is demonstrated in the way we behave towards a woman – one woman – who came to our shores to seek an opportunity to do what she is passionate about and to achieve her dream.

I agree with SAC that there are no easy answers to what constitutes being a Singaporean. But with National Day just around the corner, perhaps we would be better off using our time and energy to ponder on this, rather than to perpetuate false nationalism when we “true Singaporeans” do not ourselves know who we are, or at least be able to articulate this.

And perhaps when we have taken time to ponder on this, we may realise that the first thing about being Singaporean is that we hold on to certain values, as indeed people everywhere do. And we may also perhaps realise a simple truth: that human beings naturally gravitate towards where they can have a better life and that there is absolutely nothing wrong in this – for indeed our forefathers did too, and many Singaporeans do every year when they leave us for other pastures.

If we are to celebrate National Day, perhaps we should celebrate the fact that our home, Singapore – for all its faults, and it has faults – is a place which others admire and envy and want to lay down roots in. This is no mean feat for a tiny island like ours to achieve. I would also like to add that this is not due to only the Government’s efforts either. Each of us has made this possible.

I believe that Singapore, having come so far, does need foreigners if we are to run the next course of our history-in-the-making, but we need to get some things right first. I urge the Government to therefore take a serious look at some of its policies and change them or improve on them. [I am assured that they are indeed looking into these. So I remain hopeful.]

At the same time, I hope that we ordinary Singaporeans will give some thought to the kind of future we want and how we can achieve it – and what kind of Singaporeans we want our children to be in time to come.

But in order for our children to be this, we ourselves need to know who we are.

One thing is for sure, however: no matter how hard we bang the drums of nationalism, and however high we wave the flag of being “true Singaporeans”, these will not give us the answer to the question of identity.

Taking our anger out on Feng Tianwei, and pretending that we are the “true” Singaporeans, will not give us the answer either.

We would only be fooling ourselves.

Thankfully, I attended a lecture at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), by the Nepali Novelist, Manjushree Thapa, recently. One of the attendees asked her whether the Gurkha reputation for being fiercely loyal was an intrinsic characteristic of the Nepali people. She replied that she did not think it was so. However, she went on to point out that there was an intrinsic need for Nepali people to seek out just treatment – ie, they would be loyal to those who treated them fairly.

This comment struck me. Singaporeans have been going on and on about the loyalty of our new citizens, or lack thereof. We’ve questioned the need for our new arrivals to serve National Service. More recently, we’ve questioned whether our Olympians are truly Singaporeans and by definition loyal to Singapore. Questioning of loyalties has become so common that it’s time we asked ourselves what exactly makes us loyal to something at all.

We talk a lot about being “native” born as opposed to being born elsewhere. However, does being native born to a country make one more loyal than an immigrant? If one looks at the record of the Gurkhas the answer is no.

Let’s face it; I’ve met more than my fair share of native born Singaporeans who are quite open about not wanting to fight a war for the country. I’ve written commentaries on the value of National Service and had youngsters comment that I was being “naïve” or “old-fashioned” because the US and China would always keep Singapore safe. I know of a young PAP grassroots activist who, when asked what he’d do if there was a war, said with great certainty, “I’ll run away.” (This particular activist served his national service in the comfort of an air-conditioned office.)

By contrast, I’ve never met a Gurkha who has thought of running away. As one of them once said, “It’s part of our oath to die for Singapore.” It’s not just the ones in Singapore who are committed to die for a foreign country. Nobody questions the bravery and loyalty of the Gurkhas in the British or Indian armies. Ordinary British citizens have even lobbied their government for better treatment for the Gurkhas.

So, if being a native born and breed person does not make one loyal to a country, could it be something else? Could money be a major factor?

To a certain extent, money does buy a certain amount of loyalty. One needs money to survive and so one goes to where the money is. Many of us stay loyal to our employers because we are loyal to our livelihood.

However, if you look at the increasing “job mobility” in the modern world, you’ll realize that money isn’t everything. Employees will happily jump to another employer who offers them more money at the drop of a hat, just as employers are happy to sack employees the moment they find a cheaper alternative. It’s not just companies that suffer this problem. Even professional armies have the same issues in retaining staff.

Well, this doesn’t happen with the Gurkha units around the world. If there’s one place where people serve for two-decades, it’s in the Gurkha units. Furthermore, the Gurkhas don’t get lavishly rewarded for their services. The British Army, for example, pays the average Gurkha far less than what it pays the average British squaddie. You can argue that what they get is better than in the villages in Nepal. However, when you get paid less than someone else for doing the same job, often with less enthusiasm than you do, the human instinct is not to feel terribly loyal.

So, if being native born and paying exceptionally well are not sure fire ways to make people loyal, could Ms Thappa be right? If she is right in the assumption that people are loyal to those who make them feel valued, then it throws light on the way countries will need to relate to their citizens. This issue will become increasingly important as people have greater mobility to pick and choose countries in ways which their forefathers could never even have dreamed of.

It remains important to have a sound economic climate with economic growth. People will flock to where they can get the best chances to build a decent life for themselves.

However, economic growth is not the be-all and end-all in creating loyalty among people. Governments will need to find something else to inspire loyalty from their citizens. This is a challenge that governments will need to look at with increasing vigour as people develop more choices in where they call home.

It seems apparent from the reshuffle that the post-Lee generation of leaders will probably be spearheaded by several from the 2011 batch of freshmen MPs, who have been judged by the powers-that-be to possess more promise than their predecessors in the 2006 batch.  Compared with the latter, more of the 2011 freshmen will now be helming their own ministries: Tan Chuan-Jin (Manpower Ministry) and Lawrence Wong (the new Culture, Community and Youth Ministry) will be joining Chan Chun Sing (the renamed Social and Family Development) and Heng Swee Keat (Education Ministry) as de facto full ministers, while of the 2006 batch only Lui Tuck Yew (Transport Ministry) and Grace Fu (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office) have comparable stature.  There is little surprise about this, given that Messrs Chan, Tan and Wong have been singled out by the powers-that-be for their potential for high office since they were introduced in last year’s polls.

But the emerging shape of the next generation leadership is disheartening in several ways.  First, it seems likely to be dominated by ex-soldiers and bureaucrats, like the current leadership.  Only two ministers in the present Cabinet – both of whom were from the 2001 batch of MPs – come from the private sector, with the rest having either served in the bureaucracy or in bodies closely associated with the state, such as state-owned companies or the state universities.  Few of the 2011 batch of MPs from the private sector, and even fewer of those from the preceding batch, seem marked for high office.  While there is little doubt that the next generation of leaders will be well-qualified technocrats, the worry is that the lack of diversity could promote groupthink and dull the leadership’s ability to adapt to a fast-changing and manifold nation.

The second questionable aspect is the perennially patriarchal tone of the Cabinet.  Ms Fu, a two-term MP and only the second woman to be promoted to full ministerial rank in the nation’s history, is nevertheless yet to be given a ministry of her own, though she will play second fiddle in two different ministries.  Like her predecessor Lim Hwee Hwa, who was vested with almost identical portfolios in 2009 before she lost her seat in the 2011 polls, Ms Fu’s elevation may inadvertently be read as a tepid attempt at ensuring a more representative Cabinet.

Surely Ms Fu, who performed her duties as a minister of state (and subsequently as a senior minister of state from 2008 onwards) in several key ministries with poise and confidence, has proven that she deserves the opportunity to take the helm of a ministry. Even if she does eventually get the chance, the leadership will continue to be overwhelmingly dominated by men – at this rate, promising female politicians such as Amy Khor and Sim Ann are unlikely to be in line for promotion to full ministerial rank for a long time yet.  This seems out of place in a country that has the highest rate of female participation in the workforce in the region and which is supposedly more forward-thinking than most.

Leadership issues aside, the reorganisation of several ministries in the reshuffle is also a mixed bag.  The breakup of the sprawling Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, that previously covered a disparate variety of issues, is overdue.  Still, it is curious that no ministry will bear the word “Sports” in its name, despite the ostensible efforts of the government to encourage sports in the country.  But while the new Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) will take charge of sports, the inclusion of culture and the arts in its portfolio seems incoherent.  Arts and culture warrant a dedicated ministry of their own, as they do in most other countries, and lumping them with sports and youth is likely to be taken as another indication of the relative lack of priority accorded to them.

Ironically, while the government has emphasised the need to engage the young as the reason behind establishing the MCCY, the fact is that, given the country’s demographics, in the next decade or so youths are likely to become a shrinking constituency compared with the elderly.  It may therefore be time to consider having a dedicated agency which is more ostensibly focused on elderly issues.  Taking the helm of such an agency might be a good proving ground for one of the aspiring next generation leaders.  After all, the forthcoming demographic reality will perhaps be one of the most important issues that the post-Lee leadership will have to deal with.

Baer and Parkes have conducted background research, attended meetings with established organizations doing work on trafficking in Singapore, and even co-convened the very first forum of anti-trafficking advocates.  The most visible element of TTRP is its blog which features its findings, opinions, and publications. Posts range from their response to the United States Trafficking in Persons Report to guest contributions from experts working in the field.  Baer and Parkes believe there is plenty of work for TTRP to do given the lack of information on the types of trafficking which exist, the numbers of victims and the victim’s treatment.  They go on to say, “With well-conducted research, we would be better able to assess who is affected as well as developing a systematic process for gathering data.”

One example of an area where there is a need for further research is the issue of fisherman. While there is no official data on the scope of trafficked fisherman in Singapore, John Gee of Transient Workers Count Too, (TWC2) says, “Yes this is a problem. It is hard to quantify but we have handled a case [involving crew members].”  Trafficked fisherman in Singapore have also been recognized in the 2012 United States Trafficking in Persons Report.  It says  “there was greater reporting on victims of forced labour identified by NGOs and foreign missions on long-haul fishing boats that dock in Southeast Asian ports, including Singapore. Workers reported severe abuse by fishing boat captains, the inability to disembark from their vessels, the inability to terminate their contracts, and the non-payment of wages”.

However, the Singapore Inter-Agency Taskforce on Trafficking in Persons claims jurisdiction is a key difficulty in addressing these concerns: “While we share similar concerns about their work conditions, Singapore does not have jurisdiction over foreign fishermen working in off-shore waters on non-Singapore flags”.  Gee says, “Last year's State Department TIP report contained an inaccuracy… implying that Singapore companies operated the boats. In fact, in all the cases we know of, the boats were Taiwanese-owned.”

In addition to the need for further research on human trafficking, TTRP has found that assumptions made about trafficking and ways to tackle it are rarely challenged by existing programs and organisations targeting the issue. For instance, the trafficked population in Singapore extends from sex workers to domestic workers, construction workers and fisherman. Although the types of trafficked persons are varied, the group most often in the news and attracting the most attention are usually the sex workers. TTRP believes that the reason sex trafficking victims make it to the news more than fisherman is because sex sells. TTRP blog says, “Images of [fisherman] trafficking don’t conform to the established ‘picture’ of trafficking… the impact of under-aged sexual exploitation is often sold as the story of human trafficking.” Media portrayals of young women who have been sex trafficked is very widespread. Regrettably these reports, documentaries, and photographs, while altruistic in nature and often interesting in themselves, do help reinforce a one dimensional perception of trafficking that potentially ignores a broader population of trafficked persons.

Currently, Singapore does not have a specific anti-trafficking law. However, the government is actively working to change its approach to the issue of human trafficking. The National Plan of Action was unveiled in March which centers on a 4 ‘P’s strategy : prevention, prosecution, protection and partnership. Baer and Parkes firmly believe that if the government works with local NGOs to develop systems now, it would be possible to ensure that the needs of those who have been exploited are addressed. “Singapore is in a good position to engage with all stakeholders regarding issues of labor exploitation and human trafficking and should continue to do so in keeping its commitments outlined in the National Plan of Action”, says Baer.

But I don’t think we are more divided. What has happened is that Singaporeans are expressing themselves more vocally. Being divided carries a heavier meaning – like, we can't get along with each other for whatever reasons. I don’t think that’s the case, even if we’re talking about the different races or people of different religions.

What Singaporeans are unhappy with are policies which do not seem to have been for the greater good. But these have been said enough already. So I won’t repeat them.

For all its faults, and contrary to what some may say, Singapore does possess many attributes which stand it in good stead to move forward. As I have said before, all we need is leadership – leadership which is certain, open-minded, and courageous. What we want to see is a leadership which allows itself to embrace new ideas, and listen to the voices of the common man.

In short, for me personally, I would like to see our leaders embrace the things which it has so far avoided, or ridiculed, or dismissed.

I am talking about civil liberties, a level playing field in politics, the respect for free expression, and the recognition of citizens’ rights.

These things have very much been cast aside in the chase for economic growth all these years. And it is a race which has exhausted Singaporeans. Everyone can feel the strain. While the Government sets about reviewing these, as PM Lee said in his National Day message, it is time also to review these other things which have hitherto been anathema.

In short, it is about empowerment - not only of the economic kind but more so that of the human spirit.

Without an empowered people, Singapore will find it hard to engage and compete with the rest of the world. A people which is dependent on one entity (the Government) cannot be expected to have the resilience, the strength and the wherewithal to withstand the challenges which a changing world will bring, as indeed it already is bringing.

Thus, my sincere wish for National Day is that Singaporeans will – at last – be given their rights, and have spaces which were once closed opened to them to explore, to create, to express themselves in. To dare. And to do so knowing that they do not have to constantly look over their shoulders for the bogeyman.

This is how Singapore can find itself.

Our identity and the meaning to our lives as Singaporeans must be decided or determined by each Singaporean. They can only do so if they are allowed the space to do so, and not from top-down, bureaucratic decrees.

I am confident that in the years to come, we will find ourselves and finally know what it is to be Singaporean – and so will our children.

For those who feel all is hopeless, our job is not to sit and lament but to go out there and create, in spite of the odds, as our founding fathers once did.

Residents spontaneously approached Mr and Mrs Chiam to shake their hands as they made their way through the estate. The Chiams, accompanied by party members, were clearly still much loved by residents there. "Everywhere I go," Mr Chiam told us later, "people received me like a long-lost brother."

Mr Chiam later took a short break and had "chwee kueh" and coffee at the coffeeshop for breakfast, before making his way with his party members to Toa Payoh for another round of visits.

Mr Chiam, though weakened by his two strokes he has suffered, was evidently in good spirits and good physical health.

Publichouse.sg was there and here is a short video of the Chiams' morning visit.

{youtube}jNr8AQ-nnp8|600|450|0{/youtube}

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

36 hours before the campaign took off at the Youth Park, the organisers gathered in Tong Yee’s house to apportion the badges into bags of 20. They also had to load 500 T-shirts emblazoned with “StandUP For Our Elderly/Mothers” onto a lorry. Area coordinators planned the execution using paper cut-outs representing train stations and carriages. The organisers pooled together the capital to finance the badges, which would hopefully receive the sponsorship of the National Youth Council, and T-shirts, whose partial costs would hopefully be recouped from each volunteer’s $5-contribution.

With this degree of investment and deliberation, it is little wonder that an official from the Ministry of Communications, Information and Arts called Tong Yee and repeatedly sought confirmation that the organisers were just a group of friends: not a religious organisation, charity or educational institution.

Over a dinner of chicken rice and Ribena at Tong Yee’s house, I attempted to trace the web of friendships that netted this group of Singaporeans from all walks of life: educators, an architect, a videographer, students. There were housemates from their university days in London, church members, chanced encounters in corporate settings, etc.

On National Day, volunteers for StandUpFor.SG trickled into the Youth Park. The diversity of volunteers was quite remarkable. There was a little girl donning a red volunteer t-shirt that engulfed her diminutive frame. There was Raimi who brought his girlfriend to this event to celebrate not only the nation’s birthday but also the couple’s 59th month anniversary. The fasting stricture during Ramadan did not faze the smiling Muslim couple.

As I explained the vision of the campaign and handed out the cute badges exhorting Singaporeans to stand up for the needy, I had my fair share of rejections. An uncle in his seventies was standing in the crowded train. He declined the badge as he believed its message was futile.

“It’s useless! (没有用的!)” he remarked. The uncle subtly flicked his head towards a teenager who was seated and plugged into her iPhone and dozing off.

Yet, another rejection did not dampen my optimism. This time, an aunty who was proudly wearing a white scarf adorned with wispy red patterns chuckled and said she had enough red and white covering her body. In fact, she felt the badge was unnecessary as most people would automatically relinquish their seats for her.

The movement’s significance rippled beyond the allocation of scarce seats in our buses and trains brimming with commuters. People who flout the rule of giving up the seats risk becoming targets of vigilante photography on STOMP, the website which some describe as a voyeuristic platform. Wielding the big stick of shoot-and-shame does not appear to be a durable and coherent way of fostering a gracious culture. Badges identifying pregnant mums and the elderly are kinder means of tweaking our norms.

StandUpFor.SG also stood out because a group of friends rallied around a cause and rallied together more friends. Together, they took a stand on National Day. Such is the nourishing of a democratic virtue. Voting not simply at the ballot box but also voting using actions that draw attention to issues that matter to us.

The organisers left a farewell note on the Facebook page after the pockets of volunteers dispersed to catch the fireworks:

Hey Peeps,

Today you made a stand. It took guts and a stubborn belief in your fellowman.

We hope you saw the joys of taking a leap of faith, to make a connection with another person come alive even if it was for the briefest moment.

We need as many Stand Up citizens as we can get, keep at it, keep practicing what making change feels like.

You made a stand & we hope it won't be your last.

We're so proud of all of you.:D

Love,

The StandUpFor.SG Team

---------------

All pictures from StandUpFor.SG Facebook page here.

So far, besides the rhetoric, only one thing is certain – as with Remaking Singapore, this new committee is headed by a new minister. Vivian Balakrishnan, who had just been inducted into politics and won in the General Election of 2001, was given the task of Remaking Singapore. Similarly, a newly-elected minister is heading this new committee. Incidentally, this new committee has not been given any name.

More than a decade after Remaking Singapore, will Heng’s committee really review and, in the words of PAP MP Inderjit Singh, make “radical changes” to policies?

“If the committee comes out with incremental changes which are not significant, we would have wasted our time with this exercise,” Inderjit said in the Straits Times on 11 August 2012.

Below is an article I wrote back in 2007, with regards to how the Government continues to protect “sacred cows”, instead of slaughtering them.

————————–

The following article was first published on 6 September 2007.

Andrew Loh

“Singapore‘s political and social climate needs to give space for more ventilation and variation. Diversity will affect how the people and the Government relate. If Singapore is to become a place where people can fulfill their aspirations, where they can explore many different things, it will no longer make sense for the Government to always control and regulate every activity.”

- Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, in a speech at The Remaking Singapore Report Presentation and Appreciation lunch on Saturday, 12 July 2003, at 12 noon, at Fullerton Ballroom.

Singaporeans who took then-PM Goh’s words to heart and tried to “fulfill their aspirations” would have found out that the words spoken by our government ministers don’t necessarily sync with the reality on the ground.

Remaking Singapore

When the Remaking Singapore Committee was formed in Feb 2002, led by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan with “about 100 people on the sub-committees”, there was great expectation. The media was like a circus, feverish in its coverage of what ministers were saying, trumpeting the beginning of a new dawn.

The government was going to open up spaces, sacred cows would be slaughtered, Singaporeans were urged to “just do it”.

Expectations were of a Singapore finally coming of age – politically, socially, as a nation. Indeed, many encouraging statements were made by government ministers – painting a picture of a Singapore which is more open, vibrant and inclusive. A City Of Possibilities!

“Engage your ideals!”, cried prime minister Lee Hsien Loong only 3 years ago. “Just do it! Nike says Just Do It!… Find your own leaders! Organise your own solutions, move!”, he admonished Singaporeans.

Ministers Vivian Balakrishnan and Khaw Boon Wan were reported to have said that “there will be no sacred cows” and that policies which has become outdated will be “updated”:

“The operating principle is that there will be no sacred cows. And if a policy has become outdated and is stifling new growth, we will have it updated.” – Khaw Boon Wan (21 Jan, 2002).

“There will be no sacred cows…there will have to be a systematic willingness to go through all policies and programmes we’re about to embark on.” – Dr Vivian Balakrishnan on Remaking Singapore, Straits Times Feb 15 2002.

It has been 5 years or so since those statements were made. (And ironically, the Remaking Singapore website is no longer available, when checked on the 6th of Sept, 2007.)

What has taken place, however, is contradictory to what the ministers have said – especially in the civil society and political sphere, and this has been proven in very recent events too.

“No longer makes sense”

Despite then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong saying that “it no longer makes sense for the Government to always control and regulate every activity”, the opposite is true.

The government’s idea of opening up more spaces, alas, seemed to only apply to The Speakers Corner where PM Lee wanted a “hundred flowers to bloom”, allowing a stripshow from Paris and more recently, casinos and F1 races.

If The Workers’ Party’s application to hold a cycling event isn’t even allowed, then all talk and promises of “Singapore’s political and social climate” being given more space is just that – empty talk and hollow promises. The sacred cows are still fenced up behind those electric fences. Untouchable.

The litany of recent bans and disallowed events speaks for itself.

One would by now be familiar with the ban on the picnic and the jogging activity which People Like Us wanted to hold, the ban on Martyn See’s films, the termination of Alfian Saat’s employment at a secondary school without any explanation, the rejection of a permit for The Workers’ Party to hold a cycling event, the rejection of Alex Au’s application for a foreign speaker to speak at a seminar, the rejection of the Singapore Democratic Party’s application for members of the CALD to speak at a public forum, the rejection of Alex Au’s application to hold a photo exhibition, a story telling event by Ng Yi Sheng was banned, and more recently, police were sent to stop a small group of Singaporeans protesting against the anime distributor Odex. The list goes on.

On occasions, these citizen initiatives were met with a number of buses of riot police, with truncheons and full riot gear.

(For a more comprehensive list of events banned in the last few years, please visit Singabloodypore’s blogsite.)

The saddest thing about all these rejections and bans is that obscure, nonsensical and poor excuses/reasons are given. Hypotheticals. Imagination. Machinations of a paranoid State.

Sacred cows, sacred excuses

Along with the sacred cows come sacred excuses – excuses which are so full of holes you can drive a 3-tonner right through it.

“Not in the public interest” is a favourite one with the authorities. “Contrary to public interest” comes in second. If these do not suffice, then threats to “public order” or “potential public disturbance” are offered. Of course, the authorities will also throw in the “permit is required” cliche. That always clinches it. If it doesn’t, there is always the terrorism bogeyman since 911.

Electric fences jolts you back into reality before you get too carried away with wanting to be a part of an “active citizenry” and get too close to the electric fences which protect the “sacred cows” of “no public assembly” and “public order”.

To ridicule or ignore the reasons or excuses given by the authorities would be to underestimate the serious consequences which would result – especially when we want to be a nation where citizens feel a sense of belonging, of identity and nationhood.

The rejected or banned events may be small or even insignificant by themselves, but taken as a whole such denial sets the tone for all of society.

People become disinterested, cowed, afraid even. They withdraw into the predictable paths laid out by the State – work, pay your bills, be happy. Don’t try and do anything for yourself.

And this is where the government should and must realize that a brush-off has consequences which stifle the activism, involvement and participation of citizens.

Ultimately, it creates disenchantment and disenfranchisement among Singaporeans. Why would anyone feel that they belong to a place which bears no identity to what he or she believes in?

Sacred cow – only PAP/govt is given green light

It is rather curious to see government agencies (with participation from government ministers and PAP MPs) taking part in very public mass activities. For example, the Consumer Association Of Singapore (CASE) held a “Walk With CASE” not too long ago, as proudly reported on its website.

The large group of participants even carried placards and looked strident and loud. One would imagine some shouting were involved as well, perhaps?

Weren’t the police concerned about “public disorder” or “public disturbance”?

If only events organized by the government – or the PAP – are given the green light, then Singapore will be nothing more than just a one-dimensional city, with a one-track mind, so to speak. Fluff City – skyscrapers and F1 races or not.

The very diversity which the Remaking Singapore initiative was supposed to encourage is sacrificed at the altar of conformity and uniformity – or if you like, blandness.

A new rallying cry

The new rallying cry of a “City Of Possibilities” follows “Remaking Singapore” in 2002. One can only hope that this new and latest initiative will see more substance and that the government will put its money where its mouth is.

That A City Of Possibilities means that citizens are the ones who initiate participation – and not just the government.

The government must stop behaving like a political party which puts its own self-interest and survival above that of Singapore and Singaporeans. For is this not the fundamental reason why so many events – especially the political ones – have been disallowed?

And this curtailing of civil society – which, essentially, means citizens doing things for themselves – will result in an uninteresting, uninspiring society.

Giving space to mavericks and “troublemakers”

Catherine Lim said it best, as in this quote by TODAY on Jan 13, 2006 :

“The need for authentic expression was too important, she said. ‘It can neither be intimidated into permanent silence nor seduced by material wealth. And if it is, we are all worse off for it.’

She called on the government to let mavericks and “troublemakers” play their roles, as they give society a certain rambunctiousness.

That kind of environment, she noted, nurtured a leader like Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

The alternative, she said, is a monolithic society, which makes standard copies of its leaders.”

Time for substance

It is time for the government to stop making meaningless statements which bear no resemblance to the reality being implemented on the ground. If they do not mean what they say, they should not say it at all.

But if they do say it, let their words be backed up with changes to legislation – the Penal Code, for example – so that everyone is certain that the government is committed to its declarations and, more importantly, citizens are unequivocally and unambiguously protected by the law.

Perhaps it is time to stop protecting the sacred cows with those barbed wire and electric fences.

Nah, not perhaps. It is time to do so, especially when our senior government ministers keep making public statements such as the ones below.They only serve to show up the emptiness of their words. It is truly unbecoming for a government which regularly trumpets its own integrity.

“I agree that Singapore must be a place where people care deeply about what goes on around them. Singaporeans need to speak up, or better yet, do something. This is the hallmark of a nation. This is what differentiates a home from a hotel.” – SM Goh Chok Tong, 2003.

“Don’t ask what the Government is going to do. I read that some people are asking, now that you want young people to get engaged, what is the Government going to do to get young people engaged? Actually, we are going to wait. No, get up, do it. Nike says, “Just Do It”. Engage your ideals, your ideas, your energies, build a new generation, build tomorrow’s Singapore. Don’t wait or depend on the Government. Find your own leaders, organise your own solutions, move.” – PM Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally, 2004.

“We’ve got to support Singaporeans being spontaneous, being unconventional. We should not put obstacles in their way.” – PM Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally Speech, 2004.

“If the entire population needs to be protected from their own choices, then we’ll be in a very, very sorry state in the future.” – Vivian Balakrishnan, 2004 (Nov 17, 2004, Straits Times)

“We should have an open society which is welcoming of talent, which welcomes diverse views, is yet cohesive and has a sense of common purpose.” – PM Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally Speech, 2004.

“You can get anything you want in Singapore. You can travel, you can bring it in. You can – you can organize what you want. You can say anything you want, and all sorts of things are said and debated in Singapore.” - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, interview with Charlie Rose, Aug 2005.

“One does not develop a conviction and commitment to a society without first questioning and pushing the boundaries.” – Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 2005.

“As for political dissidents, there will always be a place for them. But up to a point, they have to ask themselves: Are they willing to take responsibility, do more, get their hands dirty and have their results judged in real life — tangible outcomes, not mere theories.” – Vivian Balakrishnan, TODAY, 2006.

“That’s the right spirit we want. We want people to participate, we want people to get engaged, do it within the law, you can do a lot within the law and if your motives are good and you want to do good for your people, for the community, for Singapore, you can do it and you ought to do it.” – PM Lee Hsien Loong, during General Elections, 2006.

“The reason why the US got into the predominant position (in the world economy) is because it was prepared to allow a whole host of citizens to try, experiment, to do it yourself.” – SM Lee Kuan Yew, Asian Wall Street Journal, June 19 2001.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Naturally, critics are sceptical about the latest initiative, given that they do not see past effort yielding any meaningful results.

Member of Parliament, Inderjit Singh, who had been involved in Economic Review Committee and the Remaking Singapore Committee, fingered the problem - that the Government perhaps had "raised expectations" only to later disappoint the public because these expectations were not met.

"First and foremost," Mr Inderjit told the Straits Times on 11 August, "be sure you are prepared to make significant changes before consulting the public."

That is good advice and Mr Heng should keep this in mind.

And the committee should also go beyond just the economic and delve into civil liberties and political issues as well, areas which have been neglected for a long time. While economic issues would be the committee's main focus as they affect the majority more intimately, the other so-called "softer" issues have increasingly also become more important - and Singaporeans, especially after the General Election last year, are more aware of this.

An example which resulted in scepticism - after a whole year of consultation - was the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMs) in 2007/8. What we eventually saw was the Government accepting only 17 out of the 26 recommendations by the committee. The Government eventually also tightened and amended the Films Act on "party political films."

It bred cynicism and the perception, which is not unreasonable, that the entire AIMs exercise was a farce. The newly-formed Media Literacy Council (MLC), seen as a similar attempt by the Government to further dip its hands into the new media landscape, is also being met with scepticism and suspicion. The MLC being headed by a senior counsel is part of the reason for this cynicism.

Having said all that, reviewing policies itself is a good and indeed necessary thing to do. While each Singaporean will have his pet topic or issue which he would hope the Government take a relook at, the initial challenge for Mr Heng's committee is to establish trust, especially from cynics and critics. If the committee is able to do this, it will go some way in getting more Singaporeans involved in the engagement process.

What Mr Heng might want to do is to "go into the lions' den", as it were, and reach out to the Government's harshest critics, which of course would involved the opposition parties as well. This group seems to have been left out in all previous initiatives, leading to criticism that such committees are only echo chambers, offering the Government only what it wants to hear. In short, meaningless exercises which are a waste of resources.

Perhaps, however, things are different now. The "re-awakening" of the public's consciousness to things political has evidently given the ruling party a wake-up call of its own. And to be honest, the past year has seen the Government doing more to engage and listen. Indeed, some of these have led to changes, albeit small ones, in certain areas.

Now, one would hope that Mr Heng's committee (which incidentally has not been given a grand-sounding name like previous committees) would take on major issues and be courageous to recommend "radical" changes, as Mr Inderjit said. And there are many areas where such "radical" changes could be introduced - in civil liberties (gay rights, for one), the political sphere (take the Election Department out of the Prime Minister's Office, for example, and make it an independent department), and in social policies such as giving and recognising the rights of singles to public housing.

Singapore is at a turning point - one where the Government's vision forward will either inspire Singaporeans, or one which will be seen as nothing more than a public relations exercise.

For Singaporeans themselves, who have been critical of the Government not engaging them, perhaps it would be good to set aside the cynicism for the time being and see if there is nothing to contribute to the engagement process. After all, what is there to lose?

There is great opportunity for our people and the Government to speak to each other on the important and serious issues we face. There must come a time when we move beyond the diatribes and the criticisms. Both sides will have to be willing to meet each other half way - for the sake of our own future and that of our children's.

For at the end of the day, it is not about who you support politically but about the real life issues faced by each of our fellow citizen.

It will be interesting to see how all this pan out eventually.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

So the government continues to crack its brains to devise new ways to urge the island’s married couples to reproduce. It is forming the new Ministry of Social and Family Development in November, which will be headed by current MCYS Minister Chan Chun Sing. Mr Chan said that he will be seeking feedback from various sources over how to tackle this worrying trend.

For our birthrate to go up, Singapore must be a place where people want to have babies and raise families. And right now it just isn’t.

At risk of launching into a litany already well-rehearsed, the reasons for that are many and well known. The cost of providing a child with just a basic standard of living is too high for the average wage earner; our welfare-adverse model means that much of this pressure falls on the shoulders of the parents; space is a premium, many couples live in flats barely big enough for themselves never mind a family; education is stressful and work-life balance is an uphill battle.

Like an animal that disappears as its habitat is under threat, the stork has fled town.

In a society with more options for career and lifestyle options than before, it’s easy to choose not to have children—or delay having them, which means having fewer or none at all, if the delay is left too long.

To reverse this, or at least some of this, Singapore needs an overhaul. Not another scheme or policy or committee, but a total makeover—of how we are run as a country, our priorities and the way we live. This encompasses a multitude of things, from schools to health to housing to transport to work ethic.

For families to grow in Singapore, we need to be not just a prosperous place, but a better place to live on an everyday level—for our own citizens. Our leaders need to prioritise this as much as they prioritise our GDP. Make it a collective goal. To be honest, if making Singapore a more livable place for families had been of as much importance as being a successful nation, if the government had invested the same drive and focus on this as they do on creating wealth and achievements, we might be faced with a very different scenario.

For a start, I would seriously look at the housing situation. There is a terrible dearth of adequate family-size housing in Singapore. HDB flats are well built but they are generally meant for very small households—or built against old standards of living that we have long outgrown. Private property for the most part is built for maximum yield and not for families to make long-term homes in; profit not livability is the goal—and so we have squishy condos with ridiculous layouts, and equally ridiculous price tags. Good-sized, good quality accommodation is rare, and none of it is affordable.

I would also take even more of the weight of educating children off the backs of parents—both the material and mental weight. Fewer high-stakes exams, less streaming, more room for each child to develop at his own pace; makes school less daunting, reduces the pressure to spend thousands of dollars on tuition, and contributes to making raising children here a more balanced experience.

Singaporeans workers put in a lot of hours. Many companies expect that employees regularly go beyond the call of duty and be good soldiers that do whatever needs to be done, whether during or after hours. Fear of losing one’s job or falling out of favour with one’s employer if one does not fully comply is a real factor. You can’t blame the employers, they have to remain competitive and get as much out of their staff as they can. Needless to say, this mode of working is not compatible with raising a family.

This is really where our government can take the lead. There are many, many family-friendly work practices that can be implemented viably in dozens of roles and which will still keep a workforce strong, such as part-time work, working from home, flexi-time and job sharing, which make it much easier for parents to balance working with raising a family. Seeing as the civil service is Singapore’s single largest employer, if it started to adopt this work culture—make it acceptable, a norm—it helps chip away at one more obstacle between couples and babies.

The exorbitant cost of owning even a basic car also needs to be reassessed as the only feasible way of controlling congestion. High COE prices means that while the young adult son or daughter of a wealthy family can zoom around town in a fancy sports car, the parent of a family with three young kids and grandparents struggles to own even a normal saloon. Good public transportation helps, but when you have a family in tow, with your assortment of barang barang and a pressing need to get to school, doctors, run errands or even just enjoy a day out, a vehicle is less of a luxury and more of a necessity.

One alternative to the COE is to curb car ownership—which will reduce demand and lower prices—and get rid of the bidding war. It’s been argued that this will not sit well with those who don’t see why they can’t have as many cars as their money can buy, but which is more important—ensuring that someone can buy multiple Ferraris or that your regular Joe can get his family around?

And the list goes on.

These problems—and their solutions—are nothing new. It’s all been said before. What we need now is the political will to make some of these changes - at a deep, cultural level. Not a lecture on how people need to change their attitudes towards marriage and parenthood, and have babies to serve their nation—because no one on earth will have a baby for that reason.

Our government needs to recognise, prioritise and respect the real needs of everyday Singaporeans. We can go on and on about being a world-class country, but we need to start by believing that our own people deserve an accessible, world-class standard of living.

And then, it’s more likely, the stork will come back to roost.

Elaine Ee is expecting her fourth child.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

On the MCYS website, the scheme is described as one which "provides comprehensive benefits to young, low-income families who choose to keep their family small. Families receiving assistance under the scheme are committed to keeping their families small and investing their limited resources in education and skills upgrading to achieve self-reliance."

In other words, the low-income should not be having too many children.

Such thinking harks back to the stop-at-two policy in the 1970s.

Read the full article by Andrew Loh on Yahoo Singapore here: Want more babies? Change mindset towards less educated.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook: