Showing posts with label societal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label societal. Show all posts

Privileged Communications. Doctors v Lawyers.

Photo Credit : Internet
I have always wondered why thousand dollar a plate charity benefit dinners are always held in the best hotels in town. Food   so gastronomic that it is normally served with silver spoons that most of these guests are born with. Dressing wise, it is the standard tuxedo for men but for the fairer sex, it is a horrendous issue of God knows why?  I am lucky not being a woman. Needless to say, those that would benefit from such proceeds will most probably not get to eat at or dressed in such fashion in the near future. To me, why not cut these cost and donate everything to charity instead. This is sort of like wolves in sheep clothing aka hard core meritocracy dressed in charitable egalitarianism.

The social norm is to have alternating seating arrangements for couples. By the way, if you do not have a partner, you would normally have to go find one of acceptable social standing to accompany you. The intern in the public relations company responsible for this event made a mistake of arranging the wives of a doctor and lawyer to be seated beside each other with their husband to buffer. Their disdain for each other via stiff and acidic upper lip sarcasm was common knowledge in high society. What do you expect leaving arrangements to interns unsupervised! Their doctor and lawyer husbands were made aware of it during the pre dinner cocktail. Both agreed that it would serve their purpose and those in the table for the two gentlemen to be seated beside each other to minimize their feuding wives spoiling the occasion. The lawyer told the public relation staff to make the change and she was very apologetic to him for the fiasco.

After the cocktail, the guests were gracefully directed to their tables and seats personally. Both wives were surprised that they were in the table and threw a dirty look at their fellow spouse but the lawyer was quick to save the day by giving the excuse that he has some matters to discuss with the doctor and has arranged for both of them to be seated beside each other and it was their shout. The situation went extremely well with their wives finding like minded guests seated beside them and there was no sign that a tsunami was within sight between their wives. However, signs of an erupting volcano were showing at the table between the doctor and lawyer to everyone.

Photo Credit: Internet
Between the starter and soup, both gentlemen were engaged in a very plastic social butterfly conversation on which profession is more privileged. Women gossips about people but greater men discuss ideologies. Apparently both gentlemen were highly regarded in their profession and the comparison went on various planes. Just before the main course was served, they exchanged verbal torrent on which profession is older and therefore more respectable. A tolerant and introverted district judge that happened to be seated across the same table spoke louder than normal "prostitution as the oldest profession does not make it more respectable" to everyone surprise. The increasing loudness of their verbal exchange was annoying him. It startled everyone in the table but the judge looked around the table with a stoic and unapologetic manner and ask if anyone disagree speak up or forever hold their peace.

Seizing the opportunity, the lawyer asked the judge if he would referee on which profession is more privileged or honorable. The judge replied that on the count of honor, his answer was neither and it was for this reason he is addressed as honorable in formal occasions.

Photo Credit : Internet
As for which profession is more privileged when in comes to information as he understand it, it is most probably neither as well. He qualified that it could be  a biased opinion being a lawyer before becoming a judge. Doctors are last within the narrow pecking order as it is not difficult for judges to over ride doctor patient confidentiality and demand their testimonial. For lawyers, it is almost next to impossible to direct a lawyer to testify on privileged communication between him and his client but there are exceptions in some countries although in a very narrow manner.

Photo Credit : Internet
Lastly, the judge opined in his personal capacity that the most robust privileged communication is mostly probably spousal in a defining and conclusive manner and carried on working on his main course. In between the marbled cuts, he asked if there are any objections for the two couples to change seats so that everyone in the table can have a peaceful meal and everyone in the table clapped gently in unison and the change was made gracefully without further incidents.





Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Political Theme Song for Singapore Election Results-Bruckner Symphony No. 7 in E Major WAB 107

The recent election results in Singapore have been termed water-shed for the ruling party People Action Party (PAP), opposition parties especially Workers Party (WP) and all voters. The outcome can mean many things to many some of which includes:
  • time and tide might NOT heal everything and over time, people might NOT forget. Politics is no longer a once in 5 year event during election campaigning,
  • whether there is a need to revamp the voting system especially the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system towards a system that moves us towards a more direct form of democracy,
  • what messages are the voters telling both PAP and the opposition parties on the brand of democracy they want to see in Singapore not only in the future but also in the near future within reasonable bounds,
  • last but not least, voters were politically emphatic about the voting scene due to the lack of choice in credible alternatives opposition parties in the past but is begining to realize that every vote counts and it starts with their own vote now that we have more credible, brave and altruistic opposition parties.
My position is not a binary one that runs along party lines of PAP or the opposition but how we as citizens of Singapore can participate more actively in the political process rather than treat it as a once in 5 year event. The fault for current state of democracy lies both with PAP as well as our political empathy in the past 30 years or so creating a vacuum of political power dominated by PAP. Perhaps the one party rule in the last 30 years by PAP has been an accidental fortune in that sense. A focused non-partisan rule could have been one of the major ingredients for our phenomenal economic and social growth achieved mainly by well tried and tested economic development model based mainly on foreign investment, regional service centers and export led of certain industrial clusters likes petrochemical, electronics, disk drive, wafer-fab, pharmaceutical and bio-technology. Leveraging our labour cost advantage, investor friendly policies and good industrial infrastructure, the unemployment problem was plugged by PM Lee Kuan Yew and his team. The foresight and gumption of the second generation leaders lead by PM Goh Chok Tong with the advantage of Lee and his team supporting Goh. The single party enabled Goh to execute a unilateral risky but calculated strategic move away from labour intensive to skill intensive by raising wages, skills and infrastructure in one bold orchestrated move and it worked again.

PM Lee Hsien Loong son of Lee Kuan Yew took over the reign from Goh. Lee jr started his reign with an unfair disadvantage having to defend nepotism right from the start. His father's generation was equated to building the hardware. Goh's dispensation built the software. Now that we have a complete solution in computer speak, Lee jr now is now charged with building the heart-ware to bring it from 3rd world to 1st world. Besides nepotism, Lee jr did not have a good economic and political developmental template to depend on unlike his dad and Goh. His team actually did not have the full mandate with his dad and Goh still looking over his shoulders closely most probably until recent past with his dad and Goh stepping down by exiting the cabinet formally.

Lee jr filled his team with capable technocrats that mostly graduated in the top tier of ivy leagues and I believe that most were well meaning in wanting to bring Singapore to 1st world. Besides the unchartered water that Lee jr and his team were maneuvering into, they also had to face an aging and dwindling population as the total fertility rate headed south to reach 1.2. The technocratic team went into short term mode to cure it in a measurable manner that they knew best and with dated advice from his dad and Goh. Tax incentives and more child friendly policies were put in place to very little effect and the team sent in the crash cart and tried to revive the dying patient by immigration on a massive scale. Being a relatively young emigrant country, it was in the process of building a common identity. The mass immigration created a whole host of issues like depressing the wages of the lower strata of society and lead to a growing GINI index that accompanied good news rise in GDP. All was not exactly rosy on the domestic front for example health care cost faced by the population escalated because of a combination of aging population and public healthcare policies like mean testing. The escalating price of private housing spilled into public housing. Transport system was also facing congestion on public roads as the Electronic Road Pricing and Certificate of Entitlement meant to curtail usage and ownership respectively were not only unable to curb the congestion but lead to an increase in transportation cost overall. Public transportation was faced with sardine packed mass transit railway during peak hours mirroring the situation in Japan.

Many initiatives were put in place in the arena of heart-ware like giving the arts and cultural scene a lift and liberalizing censorship laws. These initiatives not only take relatively more time than hardware and software to show results but is also less measurable.

My reasons for choosing Bruckner as the theme song or symphony for this occasion are due to the following historical insights on this piece:
  • this symphony was the piece that launched the composer Anton Bruckner career into stardom. I sincerely hope that this particular water-shed election results will lead to a right angle turn for our country as a whole,
  • the second movement Adagio was used to announce 2 historically significant turning points like when Admiral Karl Dönitz announced Adolf Hitler death on 1st May 1945 and also just before announcing his defeat in Stalingrad on 31st January 1943. On this note, I do hope that the election results as a clarion call for danger ahead if we maintain status quo and dismiss the election results as noisy crying babies that can be easily pacified and forgotten.
It cannot be business as usual for PAP, opposition parties and the voters all alike and may we have a right angle turn like what Bruckner had with this symphony.

For those that like to have a deeper understanding of Anton Bruckner and Politics, there is a book "Bruckner's Symphonies-Analysis, Reception and Cultural Politics" by Prof. Julian Horton. Cambridge University Press (2004) ISBN-13 978-0-521-82354-8. I have not read the book personally but a cursory browse says it can be quite academic.

Cheers,,,,, Peter Lye


Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

Singapore Election Outcome-Direct or Representative Democracy?

It is evident that democracy has become more eugenic amongst Singaporean for the rulers or rulers wannabe and the citizens of Singapore. Our elder statesman Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has made no bones that we need democracy in Singapore but not as what the West understand democracy to be. Now that that the election results are out, I shall factually attempt to look at the outcome using the dimensional framework of Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy. Direct democracy is loosely one in which the citizens participate more directly in the decision and law making process as opposed to representative democracy where citizens vote periodically for representative(s) to be their proxy for decision and law making. The two is not mutually exclusive but represents a continuum and where each state places itself along the this continuum and the mix of tools like elections, referendum employed in decision making.

The Facts
The election results although a landmark point in time event but what affects the results have to do with relevant happenings in the recent past and people's expectation of the future outcome based on their vote.

1. Creation of the Group Representative Constituencies (GRCs) in 1988 on the basis of ensuring that minority racial communities will be represented in parliament. To ensure this, at least 25% of total number of Members of Parliament ( MPs ) must be from GRCs and each GRC must have at least 1 MP from the minority race. As of now, out of the total 87 electoral districts, 15 are GRCs with 75 MPs another 12 independent electoral districts with the normal single MP or what is called Single Member Constituencies (SMCs).

  • The minority race factor especially for Malays is a sensitive topic as Singapore is a small country with a Chinese majority and sizable Malay minority geographically enveloped by two large Malay/Muslim countries i.e. Malaysia and Indonesia. I have used Malay and Muslim interchangeably as there is almost a direct equation of the Malay and Muslim especially in Malaysia although one recognizes that the former is a race and the latter is a religion. On this basis, I do stand behind the basis on which the GRCs changes were made as an antidote against possible cracks along racial or religious lines and also why a referendum on this issue is not possible because the referendum is likely to run along racial or religious lines rather than a more altruistic note. Just like the various equal opportunity initiatives in USA championed by the Union in the north against the confederates in the south. However, you will notice that there is a lack of a clarion call by the minority within Singapore as well as neighboring Malaysia and Indonesia in and around 1988. It hardly won us any significant brownie points with Malaysia or Indonesia. Is minority representation a reason or an excuse?
  • The creation of GRC could actually have the un-intended effect of making it more difficult for opposition to field candidates for elections as can be seen during the initial days that the un-contested electoral districts tend to come from GRCs rather than SMCs. In 1988 general elections, 3 of the 5 un-contested electoral districts were GRCs and we can say that this is marginal but if we compare the number of MPs it would be 9 out of a total of 11 MPs that belongs to uncontested GRCs. (Source: Singapore Election 1988 parliamentary results). The figures are more telling in the next election of 1991 for which 10 out of a total 11 uncontested electoral districts were GRCs representing a total of 40 of out a total of 41 un-contested MPs were from un-contested GRCs. (Source: Singapore Election 1991 parliamentary results). 
  • One of the basis tenets of democracy embodies choosing a government from the people, by the people and for the people made famous by President John F Kennedy. The opposition parties have raised this point and the incumbent government has challenged them on the basis that it was not the fault of Peoples Action Party (PAP) but that of the opposition not being able to find and field candidates to avoid this problem of un-contested entry into parliament through tail coating on more influential candidates within the GRCs. We cannot deny the fact that the incumbent PAP government have two third majority in parliament to enable the party to change even the constitution of Singapore. We cannot totally exclude that the GRC system might have a more insidious intent of ensuring PAP's share of political power. Political science is rife with such examples of the danger of the incumbent misuse of their power and authority for their own end rather than representing the voice of the people. One good example is the fielding of Ms Tin Pei Ling in the GRC ward of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong. Even before nomination day, the social media has enough noise that it is not probable for PAP not to have heard the voice of the people against fielding a relatively in-experienced person and there were public outcry that if Ms Tin Pei Ling were to stand, it is only fair that she be fielded in a SMC rather than tail-coating under Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong's Marine Parade GRC ward. Even Goh Chok Tong was very candid to have remarked before nomination day that Ms Tin Pei Ling was not really his choice but that of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The reason for fielding a young candidate of 27 years old was for her to connect the PAP to the younger voters. PAP has clearly ignored the voice of the ground by fielding Ms Tin Pei Ling under Marine Parade GRC rather for her to earn her own stripes by standing alone in a SMC. I doubt we can believe when PAP leaders say that they hear the people but perhaps that is where it stops; hearing but not doing enough. Political science is actually clear that political party is one of the necessary evils of a democratic system and this is clearly a case in point where the political party and the people's interest can run counter to each other and yet triumph over it.
2. Contest between local and national interest. Like most Singaporean, I personally feel very sorry for Mr. George Yeo. If the system were to allow the people to choose between Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr. George Yeo, the choice would be very obvious for the latter. The implementation of democracy is far from perfect and this is one of the more "unjust' outcome of the system.
    The positioning of candidates by the party on nomination day can be more important than the outcome on election day itself. One of the key differential in this election was the appearance of a number key influential opposition candidates with stellar background to match or even exceed those of PAP candidates. My admiration goes to these people for choosing to take the more unconventional choice of riding on a lesser opposition vessel instead of the almost guaranteed easier route to power, wealth and glory via the PAP vessel. In the past, the main opposition characters that PAP had to watch carefully were Chiam See Tong, the late JB Jeyaratnam, Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim. This time round, we see more of such new blood like Chen Shao Mao, Kenneth Jeyaratnam,  Vincent Wiseneraya,  Ang Yong Guan etc. With such a backdrop, the stronger opposition parties has decided on a 'show hand' in polker game speak strategy by putting their best candidates into GRC instead of SMC. WP, SPP and SDP had almost all their chips in Aljunied, Bishan-Toa Payoh and Holland-Bukit Timah GRCs respectively.

    PAP was not without choice in my view. They could firstly avoid a clash of the titans by placing all their current and potential cabinet MPs out of these GRCs to ensure minimal disruption to the cabinet lineup post election. This would also mean a very good chance of losing one or a few GRCs making it a history in Singapore as no opposition party has managed to win a GRC until the 2011 general elections. However, this route seems unlikely for the all mighty PAP as my guess is that they want total control of government by occupying all seats in parliament. This can be seen from the post election reaction in 1984 when PAP lost two seats in Tanjong Pagar and Potong Pasir to Jeyaratnam and Chiam See Tong respectively. In other countries, the ruling party would have popped champagne and call it a landslide win but it was a sombre occasion for PAP on why has the people in these two electorates given the man-date to the opposition. If the PAP had taken this route, it would have made it an easier choice for the voters in these 3 GRCs by voting purely on the merits of the candidates and their position on local issues.

    As expected, PAP responded to the opposition 'show hand' by doing the same by fielding part of their cabinet in these GRCs. This put a heavier burden on the voters as theirs is no longer based on the merit of the candidates and local issues alone. Their vote could result in a few cabinet ministers losing not only their MP seats but also their cabinet position as Singapore law makes it mandatory for cabinet positions to be MPs. Now that the election results are out, we know that in the case of Aljunied GRC, PAP lost the battle. To me, this election is water shed for a few reasons. Firstly, opposition party winning a GRC and secondly, cabinet ministers like George Yeo losing both their MP and cabinet position. I can only make a guess on what went on cerebrally for the voters in Aljunied GRC. My guess is that majority of these votes for the opposition was a vote for a more democratic future of Singapore against the shorter term set back of losing a few good man like George Yeo. What was telling was also the drop in the percentage of popular votes from 66.1% in 2006 to 60.1% this time round. I would like to refute the reasons that PAP is facing a younger generation of voters this time round as one only need to look at the population pyramid going more inverted now than previously.

    What if PAP has chosen the second option of preserving their cabinet members by not fielding them in these 3 GRCs? My guess is there is a greater likelihood of PAP losing possibly up to 3 GRCs but all would be well within the cabinet lineup. Even with this worse case scenario, PAP would still have two third majority in parliament with mandate to change anything and almost everything including the constitution of Singapore. Sometimes, it might be better to lose a few battles and win the war but my guess is this is not likely to be within the vocabulary of PAP.

    Finally, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' in animal farm speak but 'democracy without proper law can lead to anarchy' in paraphrase by the Grecian wise sage of old Plato in 'The Republic'. No explanation but fodder for you to consider seriously when casting your vote in the next election.

    Please do circulate to as many friends as possible and can visit my blogfor other writings.

    Cheers,,,,, Peter Lye


    Safe Harbor
    Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

    Plato 'Republic' on Democracy, Freedom, Equality, Anarchy and Corruption-Singapore Perspective

    The ancient philosopher Plato wrote in the 'Republic' to criticize why direct unchecked democracy might not be the best form of government. Firstly, freedom by itself is a laudable value to pursue but the danger of excessive freedom of doing as one likes can lead to lost of freedom for others. One of my friend paraphrase it as 'democracy without law leads to anarchy' and it was this sentence that sets me thinking. Secondly, he espoused that equality is also a value worth pursuing but related to the belief that everyone has equal rights and capacity to rule. This could bring to politics all kinds of power-seeking individuals, motivated by personal gain rather than public good. This he say can make democracy highly corruptible that can lead to demagogues, potential dictators, and can thus lead to tyranny. All these are almost literal quotations taken from the 'Republic' by Plato.

    Tracy Quek who is senior correspondent based in Washington for The Straits Times wrote an interesting article on 1st August 2010 edition of The Sunday Times which is the sister publication of The Straits Times on 'US "undermedia" undermines media' as a reflection on the fiasco in Obama's cabinet leading to the dismissal of Ms Shirley Sherrod a mid level aide and subsequent reinstatement of her job and apology from the president himself when the entire transcript was examined. Since the government in Singapore has openly admitted that unfettered press freedom of the genre of American press freedom is not suitable for the brand of democracy practiced here with an asian culture overtones, I can only guess that the raison d'tre for her article is to showcase how american brand of press freedom can lead to chaos. If this is Singapore's motive, it has strike while the iron is hot.

    Firstly, all these so called evolvement of press freedom and democracy being one of the yardstick of human progress can readily be challenged as thinkers of ancient time like Plato has grasped the implications of such political arena long time ago. I believe that the main differential between ancient and current time lies mainly in the extent and the cultural overtones that has made the canvas of democracy and press freedom a modern art form. This is where we need to separate the ideas and the various adaptation of the ideas in our society and profit much from it in the process of doing so by learning from the thinking these old sages have thought through so that we can be spared the agony of repeating the walk along the same old yellow brick road. It seems that this is an almost an impossibility as each succeeding generation is likely not to heed these learnings and want to experiment in the belief that time and tide has changed and time to toss out the old ideas and start afresh. This is where I would like the government to have a re-think on the de-emphasis they have put accidentally on liberal arts education in favor of more technological and scientific based higher education. I believe that our nation as a whole is no longer living from hand to mouth and can afford time, space, money and a larger sand box on liberal arts. There is room for us to venture out of our more monolithic and almost homogenous pursuit of tangible materials in our society.

    Cheers,,,, Pete aka http://lkypeter.blogspot.com

    Safe Harbor

    Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copy Rights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

    Singapore Women's Charter – Time for a Re-Think

    Sandra Leong wrote on 'Making defaulters pay' in November 1st 2010 edition of The Straits Times which is somewhat connected to the Singapore Women's Charter ( which is commonly known in legal circles as Chapter 353 ). Although the title seems to champion the female half of the population in general but it also included a remark on “wider ranging submissions ..... and the possible renaming of the Women's Charter to the gender neutral Family Charter. To see such opinion in print is to me that Singapore as a nation has grown more matured being a relatively young nation that is about 45 years old.

    This was song to my ears as I have been swimming blindly around on this topic which I have been meaning to write on. It has gone on countless iterations made and un-made after wise counsels from a good cross section of my circle of more opinionated friends consisting of male/female as well as married/singles/divorced. After reading Sandra's article, I was infected with a rush of inspiration on a totally new angle to approach my article. By the way, all these writings are on a pro-bono basis that have no sponsor and I do it as a matter of hobby-craft. It is in that sense quite clear of conflict of interest normally except that I am a married male which could be a potential conflict of interest in this rare case.

    A democratic society like Singapore that has equality as a cornerstone of our core value should never have a partisan act called Women's Charter without a suitable Men's Charter also in place. Perhaps there is cause for it to be deemed unconstitutional and struck off. To even think that it survived the passage of the legislative due process then to become law can be quite un-thinkable. Pardon my strong language and it is not to be taken literally but as a figure of speech as I am cognizant of the social climate of Singapore around 1961 when the act was passed into law warranted it.

    These words sound very derogative and perhaps not respecting of the leaders then who were responsible for the legislative due process then but no dis-respect is intended. Or perhaps quite un-Singapore in a more colloquial sense but allow me to put things back in the balance. I am not an outright bigot that equality only exists in nirvana and all effort in achieving it on mother earth is useless. Or to borrow a favorite phraseology of my friend that “resistant is futile”. On the reverse, it is my firm believe that society as a whole should pursue equality in access fearlessly and not cave in on the reasoning that it is not attainable. Or perhaps delegate it to the 'invisible hands' of Adam Smith to get the job done not that free and sound economic basis is not tenable but we have to use the right tools for the right job.

    There is always room for a partisan act like the Women's Charter and it can be something of permanence like the children or young people's act in many countries to protect children and young people which would never achieve equalization on its own as we live in a predominantly adult dominated world for lack of a more elegant and appropriate term.

    On the other hand, there is room for partisan act as a type of affirmative action with a discernible time horizon for equilibrium equality or self maintaining equality to mushroom. On the same note, I am a skeptic of such partisan acts in the name of achieving equality over time through a serious of measures. Look around the countries that have such practices like the first nation act etc. to help the under class. These acts normally end up as permanent crutches that leaves the under class permanently dis-advantaged as they grow accustomed to these privileges that is enough to sustain them to a level of contentment and not further progress. You could say that the therapeutic treatment to get them well has somehow become an opium that they cannot do without. This normally excavate into generational spiral of being disadvantaged. In the longer term, it might also lead to the general populace to question the need to support their habit and can lead so societal upheaval if not handed properly. There is no easy answer to these issues but we need to tackle them very pragmatically and normally a broad brush legislative or policy have difficulties in being as effective due to the limited flexibility that can normally be built into legislatures and policies. There is a role that NGOs, humanitarian and charity could play a more effectively. Normally, there is an inverse relationship between the effective tax burden and populace participation in charity. Simply put, if the government tax more, they should do more socially. The comparison between Europe and USA in the 1980s is a case in point.

    Along this line of reasoning, isn't it high time that the Women' Charter be re-looked at fundamentally or perhaps be renamed into a more gender-neutral name like what Sandra has listed in her article. Women, in their quest for equality cannot on the the same breadth argue that they need a stronger crutch because they are weaker now than before. I am very sure that the various measures of equality will speak to the contrary. I would support the continuation of the Women's Charter as man and woman are equal but are made differently and therefore have slightly different roles in society. This is not a clarion call for 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' sort of maxim but man and woman are functionally different on some planes that will not change in the foreseeable future like only woman can take on the gestation role in pro-creation.

    On the point of marriage being a sort of special class of social contract with some vital differences like:

        1. Potential off springs from such union become an integral part of this contract not by choice as the contract pre-dates them in most circumstances.
        2. It is a template contract made by the law of the land. In Singapore, it is either the Syriah or civil court.

    I would not open the can of worms on the validity of pre-nuptial agreements under Singapore law.

    I use to joke with my friends in the legal fraternity that in nirvana, lawyers only need to perform priestly duties to bless that new contracts that they have a hand in making. However, more often than not, when things go south on the contract, settlement and litigation lawyers are there also to perform their priestly duties but more akin to last rites metamorpjically speaking.

    Lawyers always draw out the pomp and circumstances leading to the breakdown from their client perspective as ethically as possible. The opposing lawyers would try to out do each other to occupy the higher moral ground for an advantage just like soldiers would do so physically to occupy a higher vantage position on the battle field. Such posturing is important as it is one of key factors in who is whiter than white and who is darker than Darth Vader in StarWars speak. In reality, it is not the opposite end of the axis but the different tone of grey that makes the case.

    Under the current Women's Charter, this attainment of moral high ground seems like a due process that has little or no girth as grounds for divorce can be as flippant as incompatibility for god knows what is the real reason. I am glad that HDB and the courts have decided to open their eyes and reduce the number of divorces on grounds of non-consummation because the legal marriage was to be legible to apply for a HDB housing that takes time to realize and couples could have fallen out of love without going through a customary marriage rite. I believe that the law is very clear that a marriage registered under the law is binding whether or not it is followed by a customary marriage rite.

    Divorce laws can be widely divided into jurisdiction that are 'No Fault' or otherwise. It is difficult to debate on the merits of each type but the execution is important as it affects the outcome. More often than not, when a divorce is in motion, the possibility of saving the marriage is next to nil and what matters most are the terms of separation.

    The compounding factor that makes divorce in Singapore especially for man in general more painful is that the settlement is ruled by the Women's Charter and has little or no regard to the circumstances leading to the divorce especially if the party in default is the woman. This would make it look like double jeopardy of sort as the innocent party not only suffers an emotional and social set back but also financially to continue supporting the ex-wife and losing custody of their children

    I believe that the groundswell in the number of non-conformance by husbands in discharging their court sanctioned maintenance to their ex-wife could be an indication to either the judiciary in their interpretation of the law and/or the legislative responsible for making the laws that 'justice' in how the common man sees it is not serve by the current framework and either of both would have to be tweak.

    Cheers,,,, Pete aka http://lkypeter.blogspot.com

    Safe Harbor

    Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copy Rights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.

    Childhood

    When I was young kid in primary school, friends were people that inject the fun factor into my life mostly and at times a little bit of sorrows when we fight or quarrel sometimes over the most petty of matters. I grew up in public housing in Singapore widely known as HDB where about 80% of the population of Singapore are housed in. During that 1970s, most of these housing were very monolithic and crammed but there were ample open spaces for us kids to amuse ourselves in. When amusement hour comes, you can find the open spaces littered with children out at play. Although we were economically challenged to some extent, there was no lack of fun. With a few marbles, a couple of sandbox ( not of the corporate variant ), holes on the sandy pit and a few play mates and we have a game of marbles. It was to a certain extent an integrated resort for kids as the end in mind was to end up with as much marbles as possible by winning them over from your friends. Of course, there would be winners and losers, good and bad days as in all games. Sometimes, these games do end up in squabbles over whether there is a foul or not or whether there was any cheating by squatting beyond the permitted line in the sand. As we are of varying age and size, normally, the ones with longer limbs have an advantage but shooting skills does play an important part as well. Besides marbles, we also played football but of a different variety. As most of us were too poor to afford a proper football,  a cheap plastic ball with foot wear to mark the goal post with the height element missing. It is normally played on cemented floor or along the corridors.




    I began to recollect my past as I watched China marked the anniversary of the terrible earth quake that took and re-arranged many lives in Chengdu about 1 year ago. A dated news footage of children playing happily against a backdrop of the ruin days after the terrible earth quake  oblivion to the misery all around. In that sense, the poor neighborhood that I grew up was in a sense the backdrop of the ruin with many families literally living from pay cheque to pay cheque and a day's delay could mean much hardship. However, when we kids were at play, I could recall very few if any displayed any of that misery. Perhaps it is a special ability bestowed on kids to enable them to cope better in such situations. Such abilities seems to wear out gradually as we mature with age.

    In that sense, there is something magical about childhood that perhaps we ought not only to cherish but also to preserve and live by as appropriate.

    Dedicated to my two children Deborah Lye and John Ross Lye.

    Peter Lye aka lkypeter
    Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye

    Dichotomy Between Private and Public Thoughts as a Measure of Pluralism

    Recognizing the dichotomy that exists between private and public thoughts suddenly caught my attention as I sorted out the number of occasions in which I myself has on a conscious level attempted to keep my private thoughts from the prying eyes of the public either through a non-participative level or even betray it publicly through sheer denial or expressing a contrarian thought. The frightening thing is that such behavior has at time been a placid involuntary reaction that bypasses the cerebral much like how my eye lids shut in reaction to bright lights. It is only on conscious reflection that I realizes it. So this  dichotomy between private thought and public thought is a reality.

    Pluralism takes many forms like cultural, political, value etc. I am pursuing pluralism in a broader sense of existence, acceptance and real tolerance of differing, alternative or opposing thoughts within a society.

    What are the linkages between the two and why the degree of dichotomy between private and public thought is one of the many means to measure pluralism within a society?

    Firstly, in a more pluralistic society, the dichotomy between private and public thoughts would be narrower as there is more tolerance and therefore removes one of the many barriers for transparency. The populace would be more willing to go public on their private thoughts as the repercussions for doing so is less damming.

    Secondly, on a more positive note, a more pluralistic societal norm also tend to reward divergent thoughts and therefore provide a more fertile landscape for divergent views to not only grow privately but also to come out in the open more readily.

    Thirdly, there is a difference between pluralistic society and a multi-variate society. A multi-variate society is a society where people differentiated along various lines like race, religion etc  exists in a melting pot together and does not necessarily means that it is a pluralistic society. More often than not, a multi-variate society tend to be less pluralistic and tend to exhibit a synthetic tolerance because such divergence without pluralism provides for a potential flashpoint for societal unrest. Therefore, it is not uncommon for laws on equal opportunism, affirmative activism and legal framework to diffuse such differential. Most of these tend to narrow the opportunity for individual to go public with their private thoughts especially if it would lead to trespassing of the legal framework. Synthetic pluralism tend to thrive in such societies with strong fault lines that could fractal easily. Such societies also tend to be either a migrant society that resulted from a convergence of a multi-variate nature often without a strong sense of nationhood as such values takes time to take root. Sometimes, such multi-variate society can also be the result of artificial political delineation that forces such a formation or the close proximity with a history of violence between them.

    Pluralism is not necessarily a final destination nor a nirvana to be pursued with an endless wit but a form of ideal with its root primarily from philosopher Isaiah Berlin.




    Peter Lye aka lkypeter.blogspot.com

    Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye

    Societal Equity, Mobility, Meritocracy and The Population Question: A Singaporean Perspective

    I must begin this note with what it means to be a Singaporean. I am born and bred in Singapore but I do get questions about my nationality now and then and I wonder why. Perhaps it is my mannerism, intonation of my speech or some strange gene in me. This has set me thinking about what defines being Singaporean means to me and the populace at large.

    I grew up in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) housing for most part of my life like about 80% of the population. HDB is government subsidized housing which is made affordable by the government through a series of selective grants ( based on a range of factors like income, marital status, family size etc and a clever structuring to funnel part of personal retirement fund called Central Provident Fund (CPF) to pay for part of it. Actually, it can be generally safe to say that the 80% that live in HDB in Singapore is mostly in the bottom portion of the 80% of the population. The 20% that does not live in HDB are generally and mostly the richer lot who can afford private housing or the destitute that live everywhere on the other end of the spectrum.

    I am also a Chinese race wise but has been labeled openly by my Chinese teacher as a yellow banana that is yellow ( Chinese generally have a yellowish tone to their skin colour) on the outside and white on the inside meaning Anglo Saxon in orientation. I actually do not blame them at all for doing so as I have had occasions during my late teens of not only scoring terribly in my Chinese language tests like in the range of 10 to 20 marks out of a perfect score of 100. To add injury to it, there was once where I scored 11 /100 and wrote my Chinese name wrongly on the test script. When the teacher scolded me in front of the entire class, there wasn't even a shred of remorse in me as the whole class broke out in laughter and I found it hilarious as well. He told me that I ought to be absolutely ashamed of not being able to write my own Chinese name correctly at 15 years old but I could not stop laughing with the rest of the class. I tried to explain to my Chinese teacher that I am far from being a yellow banana but am very Chinese in my outlook and love and appreciate Chinese culture, history and music having acquired these by reading about them from books about Chinese culture written in English. Language of music is very universal anyway. I also challenged him that a good handle or weak handle of the language does not necessarily equal to ignorance or dis-taste of the culture. 

    I just have a mental block when it came to working with block wordings of the Chinese language and was more in tune with the Romanic letter of the English language. I am not ignoring the fact that language, culture and politics are deeply inter-twined but the relationship is more complex than a simple contingo parallel. Anyway, I only need to convince myself and did not feel the need to justify to those around me about my orientation or the seeming lack of it where the Chinese language is concerned. 

    The deal breaker came when the academic results were out for the year and my Chinese language teacher was my form ( mentor ) teacher. I was fourth in class overall but I scored 35/100 for Chinese. I was accorded the honor of being personally invited to his office for a preview of my results before it was made public to all. He asked me a trying question on how he should fill out the form teacher comments. I told him that I would rather have his opinion of me in the raw be it positive or negative and he thought that was a dis-respectful and cheeky response but I looked him straight in the eyes that I meant it. He asked me if I had purposely failed his subject out of spite as I had shown promising results in almost all other subjects. I told him respectfully and factually that it was an improvement as my earlier score for Chinese language was 11/100 and he did not take that very well. A form teacher comment of something very factual that I have done well generally but have to work harder on my Chinese sounds reasonable. I left his office feeling happy that I have done well as I could not be bothered about my Chinese language performance at all. I have given up long ago and was prepared to face the prospect that a University education in Singapore was near impossible as passing Chinese language or your mother tongue was a pre-requisite for entrance into University then but the ruling has since been changed. I did feel bitter about it initially on a personal front and thought that the government could afford a wider spectrum of measurement on University entrance but was prepared to pay the price since I have made a conscious decision to not to pass the Chinese language and there was enough forewarning on this for me not to feel victimized although such feelings do run through me at times. Anyway, I secured a polytechnic education and thereafter went through some trouble to get to University without any remorse and all smiles.

    I think I qualify to brand myself a Singaporean Chinese and proud to be a son of Singapore.

    Of late, there has been very livid debate in our otherwise morsel reporting on Singapore matters in our media on the topic of equity, mobility, meritocracy and our population or the forthcoming lack of it in our society. This got me very interested as I was on the verge of ending my subscription to the our english language daily newspaper called the Straits Times as a means of dealing with inflation to fuel my Coke habit. Some say I have a blood type of neither A,B,AB or O but C for Coke.

    Firstly on societal equity. Here, I do not think in terms of the simplistic far left communist or the far right capitalist or the undecided socialist. I believe that the concept is far more mutli-dimensional to be measured along a single continuum. 

    It is my belief that first of all, it is both a macro viewpoint and collectively measures effort/reward outcomes. On a personal level, it is the level of justice, compassion and humanity that exists in the deep recesses of our being that propels us to equalize it. So what does all these means? 

    Chief amongst them are justice, compassion and firm belief that all men should be born equal although experientially, it seems otherwise. The key operative is should and therefore a need for going beyond birth rights to have in place mechanisms to make the playing field more just and level for all. The less endowed generally have a stronger motivation to overcome their inherited disadvantages. The privileged might in some instance have an equally strong motivation to maintain their lead save for the altruistic ones who would lobby for better societal justice or equity mostly out of their generosity and philanthropic bias. 

    Last but not least, the politicians are also very mindful that one level of wealth for all as in the communist system nor the large rich/poor gap that the capitalistic system tend to produce will do. There has to be  some equalization that has to be done to narrow the rich/poor gap as it tend to create cracks in the society that could make way for widespread revolutions that could cripple a society. This is my starting point for societal equity in my limited intellectual brilliance. It is not meant to be comprehensive but serve as a macro shot into important and defining parts of the picture.

    Social mobility is a great dream maker for the under dog in a society to propel forward and can be a nightmare for the elite not to regress from their high point. I have learnt very early that the concept of wealth and poverty are at times a relative concept rather than a absolute one. For example, a person that has started the race with little living in a poor neighborhood would start to feel very elated as his material dimension improves while still staying in the poor neighborhood but with relatively better house fittings, clothes, food compared to his neighbors. However, should he elect to move to a richer neighborhood for which he has marginally afforded to purchase with a slew of loan instruments that could leave him cash strapped, the feeling could be different. In this new surrounding, he is not likely to ace the neighborhood in terms of material well being as he is now a new entrant to this class and most probably at the bottom of the pecking order of this neighborhood. There could be a sense of regressive feeling wealth/poverty wise which is largely relative rather than absolute in nature.

    Meritocracy is a very noble and just concept in that it pre-supposes no bias whatsoever but pure and blind pursuit of it could result in the opposite. Entrance census of students in ivy league schools that largely operate on a meritocratic basis have proven that a disproportionally large part of the students are from family with better background as indicated by things like income, housing district, paternal/maternal education level etc compared to the general mix of such factors in the general population. Why is this so? Some frame the debate along the lines or nature ( meaning better genes ) or nurture ( better upbringing ). No matter what the reason be it nature or nurture, a dichotomy has happen in terms of ill matching profile. Some recommend affirmative action to keep things in check. I have no easy answers and give it some thought and you be your own judge.

    The last topic pertains to breeding or population or the the lack of it as our birth rate goes into deep dive from a population replacement ratio of 2.1. A whole slew of economic incentives have been dished out by the government to encourage pro-creation. However, if we examine the package as a whole, there seems to be some form of selective breeding in terms of better incentives directed at certain quarters of society. In the name of equity and diversity, I feel strongly that we should remove all such bias for possible selective breeding. The magic of human kind lies partially in its diversity and this could be why incest is an almost universally pungent and criminal act.

    Peter Lye aka lkypeter

    Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye




    Singapore's Missing Stoke - An alternative viewpoint - Oct 2004

    The Singapore government has prided itself for being efficient, clean, very forward looking and almost infallible. It was only during the tenure of our former PM Goh Chok Tong that he has encouraged a more open dialogue with the electorate.

    In the case of population planning, we have started off in the 1960s and 1970s as one of controlling population growth to the current issue of a predicted population decline. Is this a case of administrative over sight or a symptom of the government's Planned Parenthood Department pursuing their mandate blindly without due consideration for the changing environmental landscape that they operate in.

    The original mandate was clearly population control in the face of a possible population explosion problem. The stop at two irregardless of the gender was promoted everywhere and policies were put in place to discourage 3rd or subsequent child in the form of dis-incentives ranging from tax rebates, school admission etc. This was wildly successful for a couple of reasons swinging us to the other end of the spectrum. Firstly, credit must be due to the government for the campaign and policies. Secondly, the result could also be due to a stark change in the attitudes of the population towards pro-creation. Thirdly, the cost of raising children has gone up geometrically compared to the overall rise (or fall) in income levels. Fourthly, on the economic front, the job market has taken a very stark change. The high economic growth years of 1980s with almost full employment has taken sharp turn to slower economic growth and rising unemployment which could be partially structural. Job security becomes an issue for many as the market turns from generally from an employee's market to one where employer's is spoilt for choice. Keeping a job and finding one when one become unemployed became a pre-occupation for many. Coupled with a lack of a formidable social safety net in our meteoritic society could have affected the pro-creation choices for some of us as commitment to a child is a long term one of about 20 years.

    How do we turn the pro-creation tide? This is by no means a simple task. Firstly, it is a very personal choice that is outside the purview of the government. Secondly, demographically, the time effectiveness is quite long as it takes about 18 years from gestation to economic productivity. Thirdly, with an aging population, the number of couple is also dwindling thereby compounding the issue further.

    In my personal opinion, a basic change in the social safety net is necessary and most probably the most effective. I am not advocating a movement towards a social welfare state of affairs. I am in favor of one that is tailored to cover the young and consider it as a form of democraticism that provides our future generation a more equal opportunity in terms of access to education, career choices and their successful outcome in life that can quite independent of their parents' stature in society.

    Peter Lye aka lkypeter
    lkypeter@gmail.com Safe Harbor. Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Peter Lye (c) Peter Lye 2014