Orlando and our Singaporean irony

Frankly, without being too emotional about the inherent vulnerability and dispensability of an LGBT Singaporean in recent times, I find all the reactions by Singapore's political leadership ever so hypocritical.

A journalist called it out for what it is: "Orlando was both a terrorist attack and a homophobic attack on LGBT people. It was both the worst mass shooting in US history, and the worst targeted mass killing of LGBT people in the western world since the Holocaust... If a terrorist with a track record of expressing hatred of and disgust at Jewish people had walked into a synagogue and murdered 50 Jewish people, we would rightly describe it as both terrorism and an antisemitic attack."

Both the Singapore government and the leading opposition party in Parliament today have done their respective calculations. They have, as a matter of political expediency, decided that they are better off not supporting or endorsing what they construe even as a hint of an LGBT issue. 

The Prime Minister's statement (below) and others expressed by the leadership in Singapore are an example of this whole attitude. Condemnations of heinous attack, expressions of condolences, hopes for recovery, etc, but nothing about the significance of this attack on the will and ability of a person to lead their precious life as an LGBT person.

On the one hand, we sanction what some jurisdictions would see as widespread persecution of LGBT persons at all levels of governance that would qualify these same persons as refugees in those jurisdictions. And, on the other, we condemn that very same bigotry that escalates into violence against those persons for whom we ourselves created a culture of persecution against. Oh, wacko the ducks!

What persecution we ask? 

Any attempt to discuss an LGBT matter is seen as an attack of Singapore's heterosexual family unit. The rebuttal to that attempt is often cast as the defence of attacks to the shared values of a young nation state. The harder the attempt, the stronger the push-back, we are told. 

The LGBT person is often characterised as having made a lifestyle choice, which one can easily abandon. The state would rather have an LGBT person grow old as a forlorn single man or woman (in a 2-room HDB flat no less) only to be cremated or buried by an absolute stranger at the end of life! 

The recent attempt to muzzle funding of LGBT causes is another irony for a state that has been happy to be flushed with millions of dollars in foreign funding and other support to run its many banks, companies, schools, hospitals and homes to retain its very sacrosanct heterosexual family unit that, in turn, keep the wheels of its bureaucracy moving.

We can go on.

An LGBT person may want this country but it doesn't necessarily mean the country wants him or her. The whole attitude of this country has been to underscore that its society will be better off without them, and that they will be better off setting up a space, a family and a home they can call their own elsewhere.

There can only be one message to Singapore's present political leadership in such a context. Let's not bandy about sentiments that merely serve to rub salt to a wound and secure your political future. Please save your condemnations, condolences and conveyances about this homophobic hate crime if you can't, in the first place, be fully transparent about what it is.

Happiness,

Dharmendra Yadav

Remembering Lee Kuan Yew

I never got to meet him but I am a beneficiary of all that he did for Singapore. I have been educated extensively about him through different media. 

Today, in honour of all that he did for my loved ones and me, I mourned his loss by laying flowers for him at Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park, Singapore. 

I have written at least twice about him and I believe the views I held then about his legacy to be even more relevant today:

Singapore Not Just Story Of One Old Man

A Cabinet Without Lee Kuan Yew

Rest In Peace, Mr Lee. I will miss you.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

What Singaporeans like me desire from our future MPs

NOTE SENT TO THE HONOURABLE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR TANJONG PAGAR GRC, CHAN CHUN SING, ON 18 JANUARY 2015

My Minister Chan, 

I write to you in my capacity as an ordinary voter of your constituency. 

About two years ago, I moved to take up residence in the area you have been tasked by your political party to care for, having lived for over a decade in an area where the Honourable Tharman Shanmugaratnam was elected to care for.

I write to express my disturbance at your recent comments concerning a politician of a different party. I believe the contents of your comments reflect the kind of politics that constituents like me do not wish you to pursue. I am sure you mean well for our country but you risk turning off voters like me with every less than helpful comment you make on personalities that may not necessarily matter to your constituents. 

As we celebrate 50 years of independent statehood, leaders like you tasked to take us into our next 50 years can certainly be more gracious and, at any opportunity you can, forgiving of the shortcomings of our fellow citizens, especially those that may hold and express divergent viewpoints.

Rather than dedicating your time to such less than savoury purposes, I would like you to convince me on the basis of your constructive work and the strength of your arguments on issues of the day affecting our country. 

Indeed, I came from a constituency where my sitting Member of Parliament impressed my neighbours and me with a great, undivided sense of purpose and attention. Even though appointed at the highest levels of the Executive and holding positions valuable to our little red dot on international bodies, he often used his constituency for important announcements and other key national initiatives. His single-minded focus has always been on the issues that matter to Singaporeans and not personalities. From all that I know of him, he has never indulged in the kind of politics that pains me to see you pursue.

I am sure many Singaporeans will agree that he is the kind of leader we would like to see in Singapore for the next 50 years and I hope, as a fellow member of his party, you will find it worthwhile to perhaps follow his example.

At this point, I will only say that my experience has been contrastingly different as a resident of your constituency. 

Purely to illustrate my point, some of my neighbours tell me that they have not met you since the last general elections, where you were elected through a walkover. While I am appreciative of the national contribution you are making as a sitting Minister, I hope you will come meet your constituents more regularly. 

I am not sure if you will seek to be re-elected from my constituency but I am sure you will agree that there is much more to be done in the area that comes under your care and from which your party is likely to seek a re-election.

Thank you in advance for your kind consideration.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Racist remarks indefensible

NOTE SENT TO MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR JURONG GRC

On his own Facebook page, your comrade and the honourable Member of Parliament, Seng Han Thong has reportedly said: “The staff are not trained for this emergency preparedness, they know how to prevent terrorist but even this one, they are not prepared so they follow a very strict kind of SOP, so they have to be flexible, and especially to deal with different kind of emergency whether it is terrorist attack or internal, system flaw. They are not ready. I notice that the PR mention that, some of the staff, because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, from but I think we accept broken English.” (emphasis mine)

I am reminded of the time when another comrade of your political party, the dishonoured Choo Wee Kiang, abused the privileges of his august office to make similar remarks in Parliament.

Your party leaders at that time were happy to be indulgent and to condone such insensitivity, which strikes at the fabric of what it means to be Singaporean. Choo remained in office, and went on to be a criminal.

Seng has suggested that his comments “were mis-interpreted”. I am not sure how. Whatever way you construe it, his remarks are downright racist.

I still take the MRT. The lack of communication skills is an observation that cannot be limited to particular races within the workforce.

Seng is a highly-ranked member of the labour movement. I am concerned that his remarks will have an adverse effect on the inclusive work policies of a listed company like SMRT.

Seng should resign from his position in Parliament and the labour movement, notwithstanding his constructive contributions to date. These should be no places for harbouring a racist.

I hope, as my Member of Parliament, you will stand up and make this request, rather than follow the example of your predecessors to tolerate such insensitive leaders.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav


Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Maybe, PAP Ministers not so talented - Part 2

Dennis, a reader of this blog, shared these thoughts below in response to an earlier post. I thought it deserves a space of its own.

****

There is a lack of talent of the preferred mound that the PAP traditionally prefers, trained from a certain predictable pool, ex-scholars, first class honours perhaps, subscribed to the same right wing political philosophy, favours the rule of the elite, etc.

It has now reached a time in our country's history when many well-educated Singaporeans do not feel sorry for lack of such talent any more. People coming from this traditional pool have largely run out of passion and ideas.

Obsession with GDP, the yawning gap between the rich elite and the ordinary Singaporeans, consistent failure to do more for our poor and disadvantaged policies, elitist education policies, government making money out of the people at any opportunity, opening of IRs, strange liberal foreigner employment policies, the list goes on and on. We debated over these in the last two elections this year.

Running out of passion

Why passion? Because the ethos of promotion and high pay have become a given in civil service such that many are driven by pay. Ministers do not realise but their frequent admissions of so called talent not joining political service if pay is reduced, is a de facto admission that the people they thought fitted the bill are driven by money, not passion.

Singaporeans should be relieved that these people do not join in the first place as their heart is not with the government and the people. I shudder to think how many 'wrong' people have joined political and administrative service because of the motivation of money and promotion. Maybe that explains the kind of policies we have had over the last 20 years.

"Singapore Inc" is nothing to be proud of. It is an ironic tag symbolising how the PAP government has gone off tangent over the past 20 years because of the love of money. The love of money is the root of all evil. Without the right passion, our people will perish.

Running out of ideas

The PAP government subscribes to a set of right wing politico-economic theories. We cannot assume that the government or the civil service will always be right in their policies. The last 5 years have convinced many people that they are making mistakes in their policies which have serious repercussions for the country be they economic, social, political and even moral.

In the past few months, I met so many educated, well qualified and well placed Singaporeans who have become very concerned with these erroneous policies. Yet post election, basic policy making has remained the same.

PAP is clearly not able to think of their little custom-made box anymore. Clear examples are transport and housing: essentially the government has shirked from taking the hard decisions.

I, like many Singaporeans, are rightly concerned about this business as usual attitude of the PAP government. If the PAP government does not indeed change from within, this serious lack of ideas and the continuance down the same path from last 5 years are quite a worry for our country. Perhaps many other Singaporeans not used to doing their own critical assessment of government policies do not share this view.

However, I take heart that in the past few months, I have met many many Singaporeans who share the same concerns I have (they are well educated and successful in their own careers, well travelled and well versed in world economics and politics).

We are united by one thing: our love for our country and our wish that our country can do better in many areas than under the present regime. There are many Singaporeans whom I am confident will step up to serve because they will not see their country fail or go down a certain undesirable path to which increasingly Singaporeans do not subscribe any more.

There are many Singaporeans who have passion and also, better ideas. We do not need to rely on the current elite in government and administrative service. Many Singaporeans are willing to think out of the box. The challenge for any political party now is how they can harness the passion of us Singaporeans to make a difference, to make Singapore an even better country and nation.

****

Finally, it leaves me to thank my friend and fellow corporate counsel, Chia Lyn Lynn, for permission to use the image that appears in this post.

Perhaps, the committee reviewing ministerial salaries will take a page from Lynn and Dennis.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Has the Prime Minister run out of ideas?

Having sat through about three hours of the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally 2011, I was reminded of some words that an opposition politician had shared at an event a day earlier.

The opposition politician had suggested the ruling party has run out of solutions to offer Singaporeans and, like its dying founding fathers, it is ailing. The Minister present at the event naturally disagreed reflexively, “He has been very political today!”

I thought, “If politicians are not political, who else would be?”

At the National Day Rally, the Prime Minister added new meaning to being political. He had nothing new to offer, except certain enhancements to his policies here and there. The more the Prime Minister talked, the more his words sounded like an opposition party manifesto.

Yet, the solutions he offered fell just short of the solutions proposed by the opposition. Perhaps, just like the blue he wore - some shades darker than the blue of the Workers’ Party - a feeble attempt by the Prime Minister to be different?

If that was not enough, he reverted to the usual fear-mongering tactics, which has become the bulwark of dominant Singapore politics. Investors will pack up and leave. Jobs will be lost. The country will falter.

While emphasising that Singapore is not a welfare state, he announced welfare-driven changes to Singapore’s health policies.

Dismissing the suggestion that the government of the day is not populist, he paved the way for populist measures to improve access to housing and universities. The ultimate populist move came when he pandered to an opposition theme of “putting Singaporeans first” and announced a slew of initiatives to stem the flow of immigration into Singapore.

To me, the National Day Rally did not reflect a Prime Minister speaking from a position of power. It reflected a Prime Minister frightened and bullied by the electorate. His real message to Singaporeans like me was however not lost.

In encouraging Singaporeans to come forward and share ideas, in urging Singaporeans to seek different paths to success, in pleading with young Singaporeans to listen and follow the example of their elders, all the Prime Minister was effectively emphasising was that it is time to be bold and masters of our own destinies.

Behind his words, the Prime Minister was underscoring the urgency of taking a page from our forefathers to allow a new person to bring fresh ideas to the table.

If these are the kinds of things that the Prime Minister is going to champion for the next five years, the only real change likely to happen is the Prime Minister himself or the government in power.

Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Negaraku Singapuraku

In 2005, on the occasion of Singapore's 40th year of independence from colonialism and Malaysian rule, a newspaper asked me about my wish for Singapore.

I replied, "I wish Singapore will be a nation of persons that seek happiness, love happiness and share happiness. As we continue to progress as a country and personally, we must continue to embrace changes (including accepting people with different views) and, above all, not forget the helpless, the needy, the minorities, the victims of unjust deeds or any other person requiring some form of assistance."

I didn't realise at that time how evergreen the wish was.

All Singaporeans must continue to stand up for Singapore, and be counted. Fly the flag proudly, wherever you may be.

*****

If you have a wish for Singapore, share it on the Think Happiness Facebook page from 9 August 2011 to 27 August 2011.

The top six wishes that get the most number of likes and comments, as at 31 August 2011, will each be entitled to a cash or voucher prize worth at least $46!

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Question University Priorities

When a university goes out of its way to wax lyrical about how two-thirds of its graduates have secured jobs before graduation, some tough questions need to be asked about its motivations for doing so.

Insecurity could be one motivation. This was implied in remarks made by its top academic when he touched on the communication or social skills of this university’s graduates as compared to another.

Alternatively perhaps, its actions are motivated to offer cold comfort to those critics disillusioned about the university's ability to attract employers for its students.

Then again, shouldn't such ability to attract employers be inherent and natural for any university of some reputation?

In light of the ‘Singaporeans first’ policy espoused recently by the architect of Singapore’s current tertiary education system, the other question that should be asked is how these statistics compare as between graduates who are Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.

The university has also disclosed that some of its graduates are earning five-figure wages. When figures like these are dished out, what kind of signal is it sending about the values it represents as an institution of higher learning? Is the amount of money a job pays the best way to judge the worth of a job?

Needless to say, employers fire even faster than they hire. As I write this, I know of several employers that presently have hiring freezes in place. The graduates earning five-figure incomes may find themselves at the gates of these employers if they can’t match up to the level expected of them or if the market turns against them. One wonders what the university will do then.

The university should share more about the one-third of its graduates that have not secured gainful employment.

How many of them are Singaporean ethnic minorities? How many of them are foreigners who will not be able to complete their compulsory bonds to work in Singapore?

Some ten years ago, at the time when I graduated, similar bullish sentiments were expressed about its then graduating cohort. I am informed that the reality faced by some of its graduates was a different one.

They did not earn the meteoric salaries purported to have existed. Permanent positions were hard to come by so they settled for temporary or term positions.

A few were extreme cases. For example, despite sending out tens of applications, one of its graduates failed to secure a single job. His first job only came over a year after graduation and that too on a contract basis.

At that time, anecdotal accounts also suggested that Malay graduates had a harder time securing positions.

In recent years, I am told this appears to be changing. As more foreign banks open in Singapore, they are moving away from traditional sources of recruitment. The foreign banks have made no secret of the fact that they want to grow bigger than local banks. Their efforts to challenge the status quo are ruffling feathers aplenty.

There is a greater desire on the part of these financial institutions to tap the Malay hinterland of Singapore and the flow of funds within ASEAN, including those from the Arab world. As such, their recruiters have been scouring the universities for Malay graduates.

Any university of some reputation does not need to brandish employment figures to show how well its students are doing. That is a given. It should focus on helping those graduates that need a leg up in securing suitable employment.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Future of Singapore is mixed

This week, a law student told me about her Chinese friend, who used to date an Indian boy. The parents of this boy found the relationship so objectionable that they used to lock him up to prevent him from meeting his girlfriend. He would be left with little choice but to climb out of windows to meet her.

This difference became a frequent cause of misunderstanding, and eventually her friend ended the relationship.

I asked the law student what she would do if she were in those shoes. She replied that, even though her parents were very liberal, they would not accept an inter-racial relationship. As such, she would give her parents' interests precedence.

I realised things have not changed very much since I left school. Acceptance of our differences remains a relevant issue. In this context, I was reminded of this view I wrote for New Sintercom on 2 May 2006 (updated version below).

*****

There is something consistent about a good portion of the Singaporean Indians that have been introduced by the People’s Action Party to be its parliamentary representatives in the last decade. They either married an individual from another race or they are themselves fruits of an inter-ethnic marriage.

While this increasingly reflects the changing face of the Indian community in Singapore, it is also reflective of an evolving Singaporean identity and the ruling’s party desire to hone bi-cultural or multi-cultural leaders.

Quite a few non-Indians in the current political leadership are likewise married to someone from another race.

There are two primary ways one can get married in Singapore; under the Women’s Charter or Syariah Law. The Singapore Department of Statistics keeps count of both these methods.

Between 2002 and 2004, about 10% of marriages under the Women’s Charter was inter-ethnic, that is where a person married someone from another race. During the same period, about 20% of marriages under the Syariah law was inter-ethnic.

This month, a report of the Department of Statistics noted, "In 2010, 20 per cent of total marriages were inter-ethnic marriages, up from 12 per cent in 2000. A higher proportion were inter-ethnic marriages among Muslim marriages (33 per cent) than among non-Muslim marriages (18 per cent)."

Taking into account these statistics, political and community leaders, who marry a person from another race or are results of inter-ethnic marriages, are in a position to speak for a substantial group of individuals in Singapore.

Some believe that inter-racial marriages represent the glue for bringing our races together, in light of the post-911 years which have been testing times for race relations in Singapore. They tell you colourful stories to persuade you.

A few years ago, one Chinese chief executive officer of an insurance company shared with me how, when he was much younger, he would date non-Chinese girls and bring them home to make his parents more culturally sensitive!

While his first love was an “ang moh”, he respected his parents’ wishes and married within his own ethnicity. (He harbours hopes that his child will “do what Papa couldn’t do”.)

To these people, leaders with inter-ethnic backgrounds are role models.

But to others, questions ruffle:
a. can these leaders appreciate or emphatise with the concerns of the majority, who still marry someone from the same ethnic origin?
b. can these leaders fully relate to the issues affecting their own ethnic communities?

The assumption in such questions is that the problems affecting the people of Singapore can be apportioned along ethnic lines. The people who raise such questions are quick to point to the existence of organisations such as:
1. Mendaki
2. Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP)
3. Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA)
4. Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC)
5. Eurasian Association (EA)

They say, “The fact that these “self-help” groups exist shows that our problems are fundamentally racial. Due to this, it will not be easy for our ‘inter-racial’ leaders to relate to them.”

The assumption however is cursory.

For example, through its programmes, some of SINDA’s priorities can be identified, which include helping:
a. students to do better
b. individuals to manage their finances better
c. women to be more empowered
d. families to become more computer literate and embrace a learning culture
e. displaced / retrenched workers find suitable employment
f. keep vulnerable persons out of trouble

These areas of focus obviously do not just affect one community alone. While it may be true some of these areas affect one community more than others, they are undoubtedly issues affecting Singapore in general. These are issues which any competent leader in Singapore, regardless of background, must be able to handle.

Leaders with inter-ethnic backgrounds have also been able to extend their appeal beyond their community to Singaporeans in general.

At the community level, many of them are highly-regarded. They have displayed a willingness to listen and learn. They have shown that they are capable of translating feedback into policies and actions beneficial for society. Their oratory prowess is what Singaporean legends are made of. Several of them are multi-lingual (or are learning to be multi-lingual). They are sensitive to cultural nuances and cosmopolitan. Their popularity has prompted some to boldly argue that these leaders do not need the constitutional buffer that Group Representative Constituencies provide them to win elections.

Leaders, who either married a person from another race or are themselves fruits of an inter-ethnic marriage, represent a future of Singapore that cannot be ignored. The success of political leaders with such inter-racial backgrounds means we can look forward to more such leaders in years to come.

The future of Singapore is mixed. (To which some of my friends retort, "But you are still looking for your non-Indian bride!")

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Of odd politicians & political office

Two political developments in recent weeks have negatively affected me.

LEE & GOH SECRETARIAT

This should be the new name of a special team in the Prime Minister’s Office, who have been designated to take care of the affairs of two former Prime Ministers: Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong.

I find this extension of services by the Prime Minister’s Office a conceit; we don’t want our former Prime Ministers near us but we will still give them a way to hang around.

Some days ago, I was aghast to watch on television Lee attending a public event surrounded by a battery of security officers. As he no longer holds a ministerial position, it made me ponder who is bearing the cost of such splendid security.

It would appear that, despite not holding any official position in the Executive, our former Prime Ministers continue to enjoy unprecedented privileges, far more than what any sitting Member of Parliament or a former minister would be typically entitled to.

At a talk recently, the Honourable Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh shared how his parent expressed disappointment about the treatment of Lee following the last general election. With respect, in the context of the observations above, the great leader in all probability deserved it.

I am neither ungrateful to our former Prime Ministers nor do I accept that they should be forgotten for what they have done. However, I feel very strongly they should have long followed the example of their peers like the late Dr Goh Keng Swee and left political office totally.

If there is a need to involve them in government matters, they can be appointed independent consultants. It is imperative, given their exit from ministerial office, that they should not be permanently relying on employees of the state.

There are many examples of these in other democracies, where leaders have stepped down but in their independent capacities are tapped from time to time for national duties.

Plus, if they are really needed to support other statutory boards or government-linked companies, it should be those entities that should provide the support rather than that of the Prime Minister.

ALLEGED WRONGDOER TO WATCH INVESTIGATORS

New Government Parliamentary Committees have also just been announced.

In essence, a GPC is a component of the ruling party. It is partisan in nature. Its work is backed by a panel comprising members of the public. GPCs were created "to increase the participation of MPs in policymaking, to give the public a say in government policies through sitting on resource panels, and to strengthen democratic institutions in the country" at a time when there were almost no opposition Members of Parliament.

In carrying out its work, each GPC "examines the policies, programmes and proposed legislation of a particular government ministry, provides the ministry with feedback and suggestions, and is consulted by the ministry on issues of public interest".

It is clear from its work that the GPC enjoys special access to the relevant ministry, including knowledge of matters that may be of a confidential nature. This is something which no other political party enjoys in Singapore.

I therefore found it really odd to learn that a current Member of Parliament, who is reportedly still the subject of a police investigation, has been appointed to deal with matters concerning law and home affairs.

Shouldn’t this put her in a position where her interests conflict with the interests of these ministries?

Notwithstanding this, it certainly puts government officials in the law and home affairs sectors in a very difficult position since they will now have to be accountable to her on top of investigating her.

Lately, odd politicians and political office seem to be the flavours of the month.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

How to marry when no freedom to love?

It was recently disclosed that fewer people in their twenties and thirties are getting married in Singapore, and more are getting divorced. I am not surprised.

Among my friends, I can count an increasing incidence of them, who married early (in their twenties) and have been through their first divorce. A majority of them got hitched after getting to know their partner for a year or two. The problems cropped up after they got married and began staying with each other. They then realised how fundamentally different each of them was from the other. This predictably led to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

I think this problem can be attributed to the social realities created by the government of the day, bowing to pressure from religious groups and other lobbies appealing to a heightened sense of morality.

In most other countries, young people move out their parents’ homes as soon as they graduate. This gives them the opportunity to meet potential partners more actively. When the time is right, they move in together. This enables them to get a feel of what it will be like spending days and nights with each other. Once they get confident and comfortable about living together, they progress from the live-in relationship to marriage.

In Singapore, we impose the burden on our young people of living and caring for their aged parents because, unlike other first-world nations, the government feels it should not be their responsibility. The late David Marshall touched on this.

Public housing policies do not allow young persons to their own homes until they get turn 35 or they get married. Since it will take them longer to such age, more take the latter route as an easy way to secure their own place.

The last minister responsible for public housing in Singapore used to boast about how men would broach buying their first flat to propose marriage. He wrote, “'Shall we apply for an HDB flat?' This is how Singaporean men propose to their beloved. So we are told – I am not sure how common this is. However, this uniquely Singaporean marriage proposal reflects a common aspiration among many young couples intending to wed – getting an HDB flat.”

I guess one should be grateful to the minister for sustaining the relevance of the family justice system, and supporting the countless lawyers, judges and other professionals who rely on this as a source of income.

Beyond such qualifying criteria, if you want to buy your own place, you also need to fork out a huge amount of cash upfront. Renting a place is out of the question since that will only decapitate your ability to raise the cash needed to pay for your first home. As a result, one is left with little choice but to live with one's parents.

A very close friend shares that this creates a further problem. He suggests, as a result of many young persons living with their parents well into their thirties, many of them mature later. They don’t know what it means to live with a new person, and to give and take in a relationship. They find this alien as they are so used to having things served on a platter by their parents.

This is aggravated by the way the sexes are segregated in universities. You can’t share rooms with members of the opposite sex, even if you want to. In some places, there are separate floors for girls and boys, even if they prefer not to live on separate floors. Let’s consider the underlying implications of such policies. Are the universities, in effect, advocating that it is okay to spend your most intimate and private moments with a member of the same sex, but not the opposite?

No wonder Singapore had a historic 10,000 people protesting for the freedom to love some weeks ago. How can we expect more marriages, when we have a climate that stifles the freedom to love?

Interestingly, I do not see the same trend among my school friends, who had moved out of Singapore by the time they reached 21. Many of them have built strong families overseas, having had the opportunity to assess their future partners through live-in relationships. A few of them have returned to Singapore because they felt their children needed to grow up nearer to their grandparents.

The current minister responsible for advocating marriages in Singapore speaks of a need for a mindset change.

Take the bull by the horns. End appeasing religious lobbies and moral policing. Stop segregating the sexes in the local universities. Don't expect Singaporeans to live with their parents till they are in their late thirties. Encourage young persons to move out and build their own lives. Make it possible for Singaporeans to be free to love!

How is this for a mindset change?

Unless this happens, more people like me will be delaying marriages, if not rushing into marriages only to be divorced soon after.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Ministerial Salary for Leader of the Opposition?

ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 26 MAY 2011

At his second swearing-in ceremony as Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong continues the tradition of using that august platform to send a message to Singapore and its citizens.

This time round, he wants a comprehensive review of political salaries. He has appointed the Government's preferred "correctional player", Mr Gerard Ee, to undertake the controversial task. It is the right signal to send.

Firstly, Mr Ee is not in politics. He will be able to reach out to individuals on both sides of the political spectrum.

Secondly, Mr Ee has a track record for plugging areas where the executive has failed. For example, when thousands of people lost millions of their hard-earned savings to shoddy investments dished out by Singapore's financial institutions, Mr Ee was the man tasked to work out amicable settlements and other confidence-building measures in the financial system.

In taking on his latest job, Mr Ee has already indicated that ministerial salaries will likely be cut. He told one journalist: "PM has said in his speech that salaries must reflect the values and ethos of public service ... The final answer must include a substantial discount on comparable salaries in the private sector and people looking at it will say, 'these people are serving and making a sacrifice'."

This is no surprise. There is no other way to deal with the tsunami of discontentment over high ministerial salaries. But should Mr Ee's work be limited to those of appointed ministers and their salaries? The scope of his task, as set out in the terms of reference of his committee, is "to review the basis and level of salaries" of such office-holders.

In his speech, Mr Lee had said that in reviewing existing policies, "nothing should be sacrosanct". Some have observed that the very review of political appointees' salaries shows there are indeed no more sacred cows.

If this is the case, there are two other things Mr Ee should take the opportunity to look into: Pensions for former and current ministers and the additional allowances given to parliamentary office-holders.

During the recent hustings, many were surprised by revelations that members of the top echelons of the public service still continue to draw pensions from the age of 55. People were surprised as pensions have been abolished for most of the public service and that the pension entitlement age remains at 55 even though the retirement age has been increased to beyond that.

The reactions were so strong that efforts were made to allay concerns, with the secretary to the Prime Minister, in a letter to the media, pointing out that the maximum annual pension of a minister retiring today would be 10 per cent of his annual salary, and that the entitlement age would be reviewed.

Surely - notwithstanding that the pensionable component of a minister's salary has remained frozen since 1994 - the new committee, in reviewing the basis and level of salaries to be paid to political appointees, should take into account the effect of pensions on the overall income that an office-holder would eventually receive from the state.

If it deems necessary, the committee should recommend the abolition of pensions for such political appointees, in alignment with the current practice applicable to a majority of civil servants since 1986.

On another note, the recent General Election has been widely described as a "watershed". People within the ranks of the ruling party have attributed this to a clamour for more alternative voices in Parliament. Like the presence of the dominant party, an Opposition voice is likely to be a permanent feature of our Parliament; the Prime Minister has said he wants an inclusive Singapore, regardless of political swing.

Currently, the Party Whip, Leader of the House and Deputy Leader of the House enjoy allowances for the additional duties they undertake on top of being Members of Parliament. The committee could concurrently review the allowances paid to these parliamentary office-holders, as well as the possibility of remuneration for the parliamentary Leader of the Opposition (which, in some other democracies, is considered a political office of stature).

Mr Ee's work in the review of ministerial salaries will have to achieve reconciliation on an issue that has divided Singapore. This will require a comprehensive approach taking into account the pensions and other allowances paid to political appointees.

Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

A Cabinet Without Lee Kuan Yew

Many years ago, I wrote about the legacy that Goh Chok Tong could leave towards the end of his political career. The view, which follows below, was published in Today on 12 April 2003.

It took 8 years for Goh to achieve this, and I am glad he finally persuaded his predecessor to make a grand exit with him. Singapore was ready for a future without Lee Kuan Yew more than a decade ago.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

****

Not too long ago, Ravi Veloo - a product of the Lee Kuan Yew Government - argued the legacy that his Prime Minister (now Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew) could leave behind towards the end of his political career: a split People's Action Party. [For Ravi's view, see here]

Today, as a product of the Goh Chok Tong Government, I wish to argue the legacy that my Prime Minister could leave behind as he gets ready to step down: a Cabinet without Mr Lee.

I do not mean any disrespect to Mr Lee. In fact, I do appreciate what he and the Old Guard have achieved for Singapore.

However, I raise this issue in the interest of the very country his team has dutifully shaped. I also acknowledge that this suggestion may be seen as controversial and, perhaps even extreme or radical, by some circles.

But we are in the business of "Remaking Singapore", aren't we?

During his recent visit to India, Mr Goh announced that he wishes to implement plans for a third generation of leaders to be tested as full ministers.

A Cabinet reshuffle is in the works.

It is no secret that Mr Goh wants a new PAP leadership to be ready by the next General Elections, due by 2007.

Bearing in mind mankind's brutal history of power struggles, Mr Goh's vision is indeed noble.

As such, this seems to be the best time for him to invite and permit Mr Lee to join the backbench. Such a move will allow the Cabinet's level of preparedness to be tested without the presence of a long-serving and seasoned politician.

Consequently, this would establish the Cabinet's ability to perform and deliver tangible results without the guidance of Mr Lee.

On several occasions, Mr Goh has asserted that Singapore can survive without Mr Lee. What better way to prove this conclusively?

Of course, like any change, this will be a difficult process. Nonetheless, true nation states are known to outlast the legacies of their leaders.

Considering the current Cabinet's track record in managing highly volatile uncertainties, it would not be too difficult a process for the Cabinet to adapt to Mr Lee's absence.

In addition, such a move by him, if it does happen, will coincide with a similarly scheduled move by one his political counterparts, Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed.

This may, in turn, enable the leadership of both countries to look at their outstanding problems with a fresh set of lenses and possibly progress innovatively towards resolving these matters.

Furthermore, Mr Lee's skills set can be put to better use outside the Cabinet.

We rarely hear him, the great orator, in Parliament these days. Perhaps, this stems from his desire not to overshadow his Cabinet colleagues.

If former Parliament Speaker Tan Soo Khoon's return to the backbench is a benchmark (don't mind the pun), I dare say Mr Lee's presence there will steer other MPs to perform even better.

After all, some of Mr Lee's more revolutionary speeches were made as an opposition politician. In the backbench, he will also not be bound by the Cabinet principle of collective responsibility.

Plus, a father is often said to be his son's best and most-informed critic. (At least, I know my father is!)

It is now highly likely that, Mr Lee's son, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, is likely to be Singapore's next Prime Minister.

As such, with the Senior Minister as a "check-and-balance" in the backbench, the future PM may perform even better.

Separately, in this post Cold War era, a number of large countries no longer exist.

This has led to the growth of many small countries, which increasingly look to Singapore as a role model.

Similarly, large states in certain countries have also been divided into smaller states.

Such countries and states also view Singapore as an example and often look up to Mr Lee for advice since he is an eminent member of the global community. Freeing him from Cabinet duties will mean that he will be better able to share his expertise with such groups, if he so chooses.

Mr Lee's enhanced commitments in the international scene will not only raise Singapore's international profile but will also effectively position it as a credible knowledge base in an increasingly competitive global economy.

Mr Lee's departure will also clear the way for Mr Goh to test himself as a Senior Minister.

During his tenure as head of Government, Mr Goh was impressive in establishing that his decisions were in the interest of his country. Mr Goh should be encouraged to continue this tradition by serving our country as a Senior Minister. If we truly desire to "remake Singapore", we must quickly get used to a future without Mr Lee.

The time for us to say goodbye to the Senior Minister is drawing close. Will Mr Goh take the opportunity to introduce a Cabinet without Mr Lee?

* The writer is a Singaporean law student in England.

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Feedback to Challenging Times by Aljunied Resident

Thank you to all readers who have offered their feedback on this posting. I am especially grateful to those, who checked the issues raised with the relevant town council and/or provided your own assessment of the situation on the ground. I am also appreciative of the journalists, who helped verify the situation and confirmed that this was not the case.

Based on your feedback, I asked the Aljunied resident for his response, in particular which areas he checked and if he had checked these areas again. He replied, “121 bedok reservoir road in front the coffeeshop... I just went around again... Most workers are back... The chutes have been cleared... Only one with the recycling bins were out.”

Unfortunately, he did not take photographs of what he saw so his views are at best subjective.

On account of your feedback and his response, I think the Aljunied resident was perhaps reacting with mimosa-like sensitivity to the situation.

I should add that, at the end of the day, this is one person's impression of how the estate was managed. I had suggested to the Aljunied Resident that he make himself known but he has some very personal reasons to remain anonymous. I am happy to respect his wish. While I do not agree with all that he has disclosed, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity or intentions.

Some of you have also replied to offer help. For those of you who are keen to offer help, please do contact the new leaders of Aljunied directly.

Some of you have questioned my motivation for making available the posting; my motivation is disclosed here.

A journalist asked what I thought of the situation. I think most of your responses go some way to show that participants of social media are responsible and, contrary to a prevailing view, not necessarily pro-opposition for the sake of being so. It also shows people do approach issues they read on social media critically, which is a positive development.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Update from Aljunied resident: Challenging Times

Some days back, a friend wrote about his choice in Aljunied. Today, he wants to give you an insight into what is happening now that he has exercised his choice. Essentially, they need all the help that they can find. [Note: Please read the follow-up here.]

Many years ago, I told Sylvia Lim, if she were elected in any constituency, I will come help her make a difference on a non-partisan basis. I am pleased that I will finally make good on that word.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

*****

Dear friends of Aljunied and Singapore,

I wish to thank my dear friend, Dharmendra, who has graciously allowed me to voice my thoughts here. I also thank the brave souls of Aljunied who have taken the leap of faith with me. And the many many many of you who have showered us with your blessings, your comforting words and your love. We at Aljunied are indeed a privileged lot. Or are we?

Today, after mulling over for many times over, I decided to write this second essay. This time, addressing what is the situation on the ground and what needs to be done urgently.

So let me start.

When the Workers' Party won by a margin that was more than they probably dreamt of, the only member of the winning team who knew what to expect was Mr Low Thia Khiang. By this, I mean that he and only he alone knew what the PAP would be doing next.

As everyone is aware by now, rumours have been flying around that cleaning services have been terminated and thus, refuse is just lying around, making it a “slum”. And now, the rest of us know.

Now now, my dear friends, this is not the problem. This is a temporary hurdle that we need to cross. And everyone is watching, those who support us, as well as those who deride us.

This piece is from my heart. And I hope you will receive it in faith and address the immediate concerns at hand, which I believe will be solved with everyone's help. Those of you who have friends in cleaning services or any of the activities listed below, please help us out.

Daily Life

On the surface, nothing has changed in Aljunied. But hear hear, a great deal has changed. And not for the better mind you. The day after the Great Day, notice boards were stripped of everything they held save the brackets. I believe even that was due for taking down as I saw some of them trying to remove those boards to no avail.

Rubbish bins placed around the neighhourhood were immediately removed so people now had to go back into their houses to throw things away. Suddenly, everything WAS MADE TO STOP WORKING.

I am only thanking my lucky stars that the water in my pipe and the electricity has not stopped.

I drove around the whole of Aljunied yesterday from 8am to 3pm. The sights of what I saw will be what I will be sharing with everyone shortly.

In a lot of places, rubbish has not been cleared. Cleaning contractors do not don their familiar t-shirts bearing the Aljunied Town Council logo any more. A lot of them (those who I saw working) were wearing their own clothes. The posters of the PAP have been removed. In their places, bare rostrums of steel gleam brightly awaiting their next banners.

A lot of blocks have not been swept. There is litter and leaves and what nots on the grass that the little children play on. The green grass that the elderly walk on. The green grass that the cats eat when their stomachs are in pain.

I do not understand this. Why are the children, the babies, the elderly and the innocent being punished like this? Won't we recoil in horror if we saw our little one walk and pick up a piece of rubbish on the ground and put it in her mouth?

Would we not yell out in horror if our aged mother or father slipped and fell? Or shake our heads in utter disgust when the stench in the air is so powerful and yet our aged parents cannot walk fast enough to escape the smell due to their age?

Is this what we pay our taxes for? Is this what we call a First World Nation? Is this what is called “Care”? What happened to the 45% who voted for PAP? Are they supposed to suffer as well? What about their children? And their parents?

Where are you, George Yeo? Where art thou? He who speaketh of reform!

But frankly, there is no need to panic my dear friends. We have committed on a journey. We will see it through. And we do not need our former poster Ministers to aid us. We will do it ourselves.

But that which unfolds over the next few days and weeks, will reveal to the people, in graphic detail, how we will be chastised by the establishment and yet, how brave a people we are in Aljunied.

And more importantly, how this current Government will “listen” to alternative voices and “care” for everyone. I mean, that is what our pledge says right? Regardless of race, language or religion.

Our immediate concern: We need help in getting some cleaners into our estates really quickly. Those who have the means or contacts or friends, please do so... quickly!

MPS (Meet-The-People Sessions)


Let me touch on this briefly. I will be outlining in a separate piece on the mechanics of it again later.

MPS is currently the only way that our MP can now interact with us. It typically happens once every week and that too, within a certain time period.

We need to find a way to circumvent this limitation. Otherwise, everybody will be overwhelmed. Let me explain.

When a PAP MP writes a letter, residents will accept whatever the petition writers told them.

“They will reply you in two weeks.”

“They will let you know in a few days, you just wait for the letter.”

With our new crop, people will be coming in to DEMAND. And I will naturally think that these will be “orchestrated” for some reason, or genuine, I really don't know.

I expect the first session to be challenging. But hell, we are used to challenges by now. So those of you who can volunteer time, stationery, water, writing materials, printers, laptops and so on, do speak with our team (Mr Low and company) and determine how we can solve this quickly.

Our new MP will need all the help he can get. So those of you who are professionals – lawyers, doctors, lecturers and so on - please put aside time to aid those who need help. People who cannot write letters can type the letters. Those who cannot type can call out the numbers. Those who cannot call out the numbers can do some translation work.

There is work for everyone my dear friends. And we need to turn out in numbers to aid those who need our help. To ensure that NO ONE WILL BE LEFT BEHIND. Even in these trying times.

My dear friends of Aljunied and Singapore, we the residents need you to rally around us to lift us. We have made history by making the impossible possible. Now, join us in our journey to rebuild our country, one step at a time, one person at a time. Join us in our endeavour to never let ANYONE bully us into submission.

I leave you with the wise words of Winston Churchill: "One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

Humbly yours,
An Aljunied Resident

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Send message to leaders of Holland-Bukit Timah GRC

I attended the inaugural Pink Dot because, among other fundamental rights, I believe in the right to life, which to me includes the right to live a life without fear. To me, this is more important than keeping or repealing controversial legislation. I didn’t attend it subsequently because I felt I had no further value to add by attending the event.

This year, I will make it a point to attend Pink Dot because a message must be sent to some of our leaders, in particular the freshly elected leaders of Holland-Bukit Timah GRC.

I was very ashamed to know that a fellow lawyer, in the pursuit of political office, attempted to politicise the issue of what one is and to use that as a tactic to cast doubts on a person’s ability to act in the interests of our country. I wrote to the lawyer, and I have neither received an acknowledgement nor a reply.

Like many other Singaporeans I know, I was sad that this team was eventually elected into political office. Nevertheless, it is the will of the electorate. As an adherent of the rule of law, I must respect that decision.

However, I think it is important to underscore to such leaders that, despite their election to political office, what they did still remains wrong.

We live in a gracious, inclusive society. We want legislators that get elected into Parliament on the basis of the policies they stand for. We want a state of play that is respectful and fair, no matter who stands on the opposite end of the spectrum. Smear campaigns should not be tolerated. They should not divide or even attempt to divide our society more than it is already.

Indeed, a message must be sent to our political leadership to impress upon them that what a person is should not be an impediment to his or her ability to serve in our country.

If you stand for these same values, mark your calendars and come make Pink Dot with me on 18 June 2011 at the Speakers’ Corner.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

When the employer drops by

ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN WEEKEND TODAY ON 18 APRIL 2009

Very rarely does a private sector employer comment publicly about what its employee does in his or her personal time. It is even rarer for a private sector employer to express disagreement about its employee’s voluntary commitments.

DBS did both when it came out to express its view on the personal and voluntary work of its vice-president of credit cards, Josie Lau, who was appointed this week the new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).

Employers generally restrain themselves not because it may come across as downright unprofessional but for other sound reasons. As indicated by DBS’ statement on Wednesday, in which it said the bank requires all employees to obtain approval before running for or taking on an external appointment, most employers have internal policies about such matters.

An internal policy usually allows an employee to do most things with his or her personal time so long as these do not create a real or an apparent conflict of interest by interfering with officially assigned duties.

A 1993 study, ‘The employer as social arbiter: Considerations in limiting involvement in off-the-job behaviour’, by the School of Labour and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University encouraged an employer “to act conservatively in invoking mandatory policies that affect employees’ personal lives unless there is a clear individual employee performance problem or the personal behaviour imposes harm on employees or customers”.

Such internal policies tend to encourage employees to consult their immediate supervisors when in doubt about their out-of-office activities. Legal advice can be sought from relevant counsel where necessary.

In the financial sector, there are governance requirements that require employees to disclose their activities or sources of income outside work on a regular basis.

Employees are often trusted to act in a manner not prejudicial to the interests and reputation of their employers. For example, some years ago, I was involved in a constitutional matter outside work. I knew that my then employer, a cooperative of the National Trades Union Congress, would not tolerate my participation in opposition party activities, as the NTUC unwaveringly backs the governing party.

But certain individuals alleged that I was helping an opposition party. Questions about such involvement naturally flowed from my bosses. It turned out I had in fact helped a politician from the ruling party.

To the credit of my former employer, I was never questioned about my personal activities again. I would like to think my actions had assured them that I had their interests and reputation at heart.

Similarly, cases such as Ms Lau’s are usually privately dealt with by well-oiled internal checks and before they become a public relations nightmare. Thus, when Sylvia Lim of Temasek Polytechnic or Brandon Siow of Singapore Airlines Cargo joined the Workers’ Party before the last elections, no equivalent performance concerns were raised by their employers.

What then are the options available to Ms Lau, now that her employer has said its piece? She can prepare for a baptism of fire. Her employer will scrutinise her more closely to ensure her Aware presidency does not affect her performance at work.

By ignoring DBS’ advice, she appears to have signalled that her presidency at Aware is more important than her work at DBS.

One of my personal advisers best summarised my position when I was subject to unusual scrutiny as such: “You should ask yourself if the values of your organisation complement your own values. If they don’t, the honourable thing for you to do is to resign.” Indeed, if Ms Lau is not prepared to rough it out or finds her personal values diverging from that of DBS, she should leave the bank.

The easy way, of course, is for her to conduct herself like nothing has happened. Arguably, some may submit this is a foolish thing to do.

Over time, however, this incident may pass. But it may be opportune for employers to review their guidelines for the personal activities of their employees. It may also be a good time to revisit one’s personal closets, just in case the employer drops by.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this?

NVPC Reply: Charities Selling Greeting Cards

On 3 November 2008, I asked the NVPC for a comprehensive list of charities that sell festive greeting cards to raise funds for their work. This is the reply I got. I thank the NVPC for its reply.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

REPLY FROM NATIONAL VOLUNTEER & PHILANTHROPY CENTRE ON 3 NOVEMBER 2008

I am afraid we do not collate such list. Here are some of the non-profit organisations who do produce greeting cards.

Society for the Physically Disabled
Tommy Tng
Ability Enterprise
2 Peng Nguan Street
SPD Ability Centre
Singapore 168955
Tel: 6236 6360
Fax: 6222 0637
Email: tommy_tng@spd.org.sg
Website: http://www.spd.org.sg

Bizlink Centre Singapore Ltd
Carol Heng
Manager
Marketing, Business Development & PR
Blk 512 Chai Chee Lane #01-09
Bedok Industrial Estate
Singapore 249028
Tel: 6249 8160
HP: 92968228
Fax : 6446 5825
Email : carol@bizlink.org.sg
Website: http://www.bizlink.org.sg/

Very Special Arts Singapore Ltd
Ms Cynthia Poh
Project Executive
Blk 133 Bedok North Ave 3
#01-138
Singapore 460133
Tel : 6448 6275
Fax : 6441 6403
Email : cynthia@vsa.org.sg
Website: http://www.vsa.org.sg

APSN (Centre for Adults)
Ms Jennifer Lee
Corporate Communications Executive
143 Alexandra Road
Singapore 159924
Tel : 6479 6252
Fax : 6479 6272
Email : Jennifer.lee@apsn.org.sg
Website: http://www.apsn.org.sg/

Metta Welfare Association
Ms Felicia Wee
Events and Publicity Manger
Metta Building
32 Simei St 1
Singapore 529950
Tel : 6580 4688
Fax : 6580 4699
Email : feliciawee@metta.org.sg
Website: http://www.metta.org.sg/

MINDS
Sudha
800 Margaret Drive
Singapore 149310
Tel : 6479 5655 ext 229
Email: Sudha_SMEDC@minds.org.sg
Website: http://www.minds.org.sg/catalogue/product.php?cid=8

Best regards
Andrew Koh
Manager,
Online Services Development
Community Partnerships
National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Charities Selling Greeting Cards

LETTER SENT TO HONORARY LEGAL ADVISER AND BOARD MEMBER OF NATIONAL VOLUNTEER & PHILANTHROPY CENTRE ON 3 NOVEMBER 2008

Every year, a number of charities in Singapore sell festive greeting cards to raise funds for their work.

Can the NVPC provide a comprehensive list of charities doing so and who members of the public can contact for possible purchases?

Ideally, the list can include prices of the cards. It will also be preferable if information can be provided about whether customisation of the cards are available for specific persons.

Also, can the NVPC clarify if such purchases from charities qualify for tax exemption purposes?

I hope the NVPC will be proactive and forthcoming with such information as it fits directly with its mission "to promote and develop volunteerism and philanthropy across all sectors and at all levels of society".

Thank you.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Decline to Return Used Crockery & Trays

DEDICATED TO JAYA DEVI STANLEY

Since the Prime Minister's National Day Rally this year, there has been a concerted effort to get people to clean up after they finish eating at our coffee-shops. This usually involves returning the used crockery and trays you use to designated areas. I am not in support of this initiative.

Returning used crockery and trays is not difficult for my generation of Singaporeans, who had to do the same when we were in school or in national service. In fact, I used to do so judiciously until some 5 years ago.

Then, I had recently returned from England to take up a job in Singapore with a cooperative of the National Trades Union Congress. A new colleague invited me out to lunch.

After lunch, I cleaned up the table and was about to return the tray I had used.

My colleague yelled, "No, don't do that!"

I asked her, "Why? What's wrong?"

She then pointed to an elderly lady who was going round the eatery clearing the tables. She suggested, "If you do this, old people like her will lose their jobs. There'll be less for them to do and therefore less incentive for owners of such eateries to keep them employed."

I questioned my colleague, "Am I not help helping her by doing this?"

She said, "If you really want to help her, clean up the table and place all the things that you need to return or throw away on the tray. But let her take the tray from the table to where it should go. She will be more grateful to you as a person for helping her to do that."

Since that incident, I have followed my colleague's advice. The smile I get from elderly cleaners when I do as advised is an experience to be cherished.

The National Environment Agency, with food court owners and cleaning agencies, has now come out to argue that returning the crockery and cutlery one uses to designated areas will not affect the jobs of such elderly, since they will have other things do do.

Like many other diners and cleaners, I do not buy the NEA's argument.

A table that has not been cleared away leaves the greatest impact on the consumer. Many owners of eateries know this. They therefore undertake great efforts to ensure tables remain clear. It is not unusual for them to employ more than the usual number of cleaners during peak periods so that more consumers will patronise their eateries.

I agree that cleaners have other things to do but these other things can be done by employing more cleaners or getting the same cleaners to do the same during non-peak periods.

It is important here to also note how The Straits Times reported NEA's position on 7 October 2008: "The NEA, foodcourt owners and cleaning agencies have come out to assure cleaners - some of whom are elderly - that they will not lose their sources of livelihoods. The NEA, for example, says hawker centres will always require cleaners, so they will be redeployed to wherever they are needed, if necessary." (emphasis added)

Firstly, I noted, in particular, the absence of any indication of NTUC involvement or support to this initiative. Secondly, the key words in the above paragraph are "if necessary". Need I say more?

If you really wish to help a cleaner, do clean up the table you use and place all the things that you need to return or throw away on a tray. Let the cleaner clear the tray. When the cleaner comes to get your tray, thank the cleaner for doing so and watch out for that appreciative smile from him or her.

By doing so, you will not only be helping eateries to remain clean but also helping cleaners to retain their jobs. This way, we build not just a gracious society but a society that looks out for its needy.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?