SAGA

White Techniques

Saga — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 04:20:57 +0000

I mentioned earlier that it was the PAP’s strategy to lose many votes in order to secure the country’s future. This, they have managed to do – although the opposition was unable to claim as many seats as could have been possible. Currently the PAP holds 93.1% of the seats in Parliament. It is important for the PAP to have some opposition MP’s in Parliament – not just as a checking mechanism, but also as a competitor of sorts, so that the public can compare and agree that only the PAP can do it’s job well. Sure, opposition representives criticize, but when they make mistakes, it is more difficult to cover them up – therefore the opposition can be controlled too. Anyway, it is important for a one-party leadership, such as in Singapore, to focus on it’s key strength: decision making. Therefore, as long as PAP holds the majority of the seats, this strength is not diminished. The opposition voice desired by the population must be there, but it must not be too great. Perhaps between 10% to 25% would be ideal.

The idea that the PAP wanted to give some ground to the opposition during this election is supported by several avoidable mistakes made recently.

We have heard (and seen) some of the MP Tin Pei Lin’s politically-wrong moments. This has dented Goh Chok Tong’s reputation somewhat, especially when he called voters’ complaints ‘noise’ (though to be fair, much of the online hate-speech were made by anonymous trolls). Alhough she is probably a capable lady off the camera, she is a negative example on media. This means that Singaporeans, in order to compare, have been nudged to see positive examples.

Former Minister Mentor Lee released a new book ‘Hard Truths to keep Singapore going’ several months before the General Election. In this book, he lamented that the Malays were not well integrated into Singaporean society. This, of course, provoked a response because it implied that the Malays were not trying to fit in. From this, MM Lee may have the intention of stumbling the Malay voters, making them rethink why they would vote the PAP. This is ideal (although at his expense), because blind voters could very well vote in an incompetent government, and lead to the fall of Singapore.

At another time, Lee also warned voters in Aljunied that they would have to ‘repent’ if the PAP did not win. It is quite a strong word, and apparently has been successful in creating both outrage and reflection amongst citizens. Anger may or may not last long, but at least Singaporeans have been caused to think of politics as a serious matter which can affect their livelihoods.

In conclusion, the PAP probably knows the limits to it’s power, and is trying to hand over some decision making to citizenry. In this way the country can really belong to it’s people. However, the first step would be to ‘awake’ the population from political slumber/apathy, no matter who is the leading party. Has this been successful? Only time will tell.

White Strategems

Saga — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 14:00:08 +0000

Democracy is, in the end, an ideal – because we can never achieve it. How can the apolitc represent themselves? Is it fair that only the top 1% can qualify to be elected? By choosing the best candidates we adhere to meritocracy, and trump true democracy – for we cannot allow incompetent leadership. Our society is therefore led by a group of people who can never perfectly represent the whole population.

Nevertheless, the article is about choosing a party, rather than the concepts of democracy. Underlying the public opinion is the necessity of progress which, I suspect, even the PAP leaders recognise. Therefore I summarise here briefly: The PAP wants to lose.

Now this may just be a conspiracy theory sprung from the confused depths of my mind, but if the leaders of the PAP actually place the wellbeing of Singapore before their party, then perhaps they may have realized it is time to lose the seat and win the country’s future. This I say, because there has never been a better time in our short histry of PAP to lose.

I will continue this discussion after the results are known, because if this is a scheme, I cannot let it’s revelation affect the result. If it is but a imaginative story, then it should definitely not be allowed to affect your vote.

10] Free Childcare up to Age Three

Saga — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:20:00 +0000

Possibly only women who already have had their firstborn, or are about to do so, would be tempted by this offer. Nonetheless if it helps young mothers find children to be a light burden, then they may very well have more. Other women could see this and so feel encouraged to have children of their own. If this effect snowballs, then the total fertility rate will be increased.

The cost society would have to bear will be large, in terms of government spending. It is likely to cost more to operate a childcare centre than say, the cost to educate a class of primary school students. However, it will probably not be comparable to the total amount of taxpayer dollars spent on education each year, and certainly pales to the defence budget. Fortunately Singapore is currently prosperous, and able to afford it.

There are, however, questions. Why three years? Does it apply to the first 3 children only? What will be the standard of quality? These issues the government will have to look into. Anyway, there is a danger in free childcare. Some people believe that it is still best for mothers to raise their own children, or at least play a big role. By handing over toddlers to childcare centres, some parents may be abdicating their responsibility, and will find it difficult to connect with their children when they are older. Thus while childcare is probably useful to working parents, there has to be a limit so that parents can bond with their children.

>>Return to Project ADD

9] Promote Early Marriage

Saga — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 07:30:02 +0000

Of all the suggestions put forth in the newspaper, this will probably be the most effective, were it not so difficult to carry out.

Singaporean society is changing. People tend to marry later and have fewer children. Unfortunately, circumstances often prevent couples from marrying earlier. Decades ago, the average man in his early 20′s had a relatively stable job and could support a family with his income. Nowadays, the perception that educational qualifications and career are important has grown, so young people do not feel established or financially secure enough to pursue marriage early.

Undoubtably the busy lifestyles of young Singaporeans prevent them from spending more time to socialise. However, it is also possible that this generation has an unhealthy obsession with money such that they prioritise their financial future over starting a family.

It is therefore very difficult to persuade people to accept themselves marrying younger. Nonetheless the common complaint is that these young people are unable to meet their future spouse. Unfortunately matchmaking is largely taboo – to be matchmade by an aunt is the stuff of modern horror. In the past, a youth’s family would know him best, this is quite different for many youths today, and so traditional matchmaking is outdated. Fortunately, there is some interest in matchmaking events in the community or by private enterprises, though most singaporeans still shy aware from being seen as desperate.

In the end, most people probably know at least one person at work or from the past with whom they could have got together with. Unfortunately these people either do not take the time to be better acquainted, or simply set unrealistic standards for their partners. So it is a matter to opening our youth’s eyes so that they can learn to love the imperfect, because nobody is perfect anymore.

>>Next

8] Scare Couples into having Kids

Saga — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:10:19 +0000

This suggestion was fortunately dismissed by most of the people interviewed by the Straits Times. Most people are already aware of the loneliness they may experience when they become elderly; using this sto scare them will only increasing the perception of a ‘culture of fear’.

Singaporeans already have too many reasons to be scared of having children. Most of them are about money – what they have to pay for each child’s care and education, as well as the opportunity cost for time spent raising the child. Other people fear they are not competent to nurture a child, while some women are simply put off by the pain of childbirth.

Scare tactics of not having children are unlikely to work, seeing there is so much inparenthood to be scared of. Perhaps focusing on the joy and positive emotions is better. Drama shows on television already do this, but campaigns must reach out to people who use other forms of media too.

>>Next

7] Have Four months of Paternity Leave

Saga — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:00:38 +0000

Many singaporean families still exist with a working father and a housewife, due to the conservative asian culture from centuries past. However, this is changing, as young women commonly wield their qualifications and join the workforce, putting career ahead of family. Then they get 4 months of maternity leave when they finally marry and have children – because they want to return to their jobs. So we see many families with both parents at work, but in either case, the father works away from home.

So it seems 4 months of Paternity leave is an excellent proposition at first. After all, who wouldn’t like an extra 4 months of leave? What more, the father is able to be at home to help care for the baby.

Nonetheless there are economic ramifications, as the report described. Employers can’t have their workers disappear every other day – it would be a major inconvenience to find temporary replacements. otherwise the rest of the staff will have to take over extra work left from the man on leave. Enough such workplace disruptions occur because of NS reservist call-ups.

What about gender equality? Ultimately that is an illusion. Men and women are different – biologically and in the roles that they play. As it is laid out in theBible, it is primarily the man’s role to take leadership and work to provide for the family. On the other hand it is no shame for the woman to remain at home and raise the children - not precluding other forms of work. As long as both parents carry out their roles faithfully (but not to the point of pre-occupation), that is the way the family unit was designed to function, and that is nothing wrong.

>>Next

6] Don’t Discourage Single Mums

Saga — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 02:40:13 +0000

There are many reasons why a woman is a single mother, most of them sad ones. However, they often do not receive all the benefits which married parents do. This is not because the government wants to discourage them, but because that would border to encouraging single parenting.

As the article mentions, research has shown that children fare better in family units with one father and one mother. Why should it not? It was meant to be like that since the beginning. Therefore, to encourage single parenthood would be risking proper development of children. Yes, the country needs babies, but why risk giving the next generation a future less bright?

Looking deeper into this topic, often women become single parents because they had engaged in premarital sex. Were benefits extensively offered to this group, conservative factions of society might ask if the government is condoning such behaviour. Nevertheless, citizen benefits must be granted to the children, if not the single parent. The children might be facing a very uncertain future, so the government should do more to help those in need.

>>Next

5] Promote IVF

Saga — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:20:54 +0000

IVF is described as unlikely to increase birth rates very much, simply because infertile couples who want biological children aren’t a very significant fraction of the population. However, this response recommends caution in the usage of IVF, because it is unknown if lives are at stake. The question is, when does human life begin? At birth, implantation, or conception? On this hinges the point where laws protect the sanctity of human life.

Current laws protect the child from abortion in the later stage of pregnancy, when the foetus closely resembles a baby. This is already a gross assumption, that a younger foetus can be considered less human. A foetus is either fully human or else is is a soulless cellular mass! Nonetheless, it is established that life starts before birth.

Concerning IVF, if the life of a person begins at conception, than IVF is wrong. About half a dozen fertilized zygotes are actually implanted into the uterine lining during IVF, and usually only one or two is expected to survive and develop into babies. The other fertilized eggs eventually disintegrate – meaning that IVF has more than 50% chance of killing each zygote.

However, if the life (soul) of a person enters him at the point of successful implantation, then IVF is alright, especially because it is God who causes life to begin, and it is His choice to let the zygote develop. Nonetheless, since the Bible is silent on precisely where life actually begins, except that it begins in the womb, so it is advisable for infertile couples to refrain from using IVF. Instead, they can serve God in ways other than raising a family, or else consider adoption.

>>Next

4] Tie Citizenship and PR to Babies

Saga — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:50:19 +0000

This is a most curious suggestion! Especially considering that young men have to serve years of National Service keeping the country safe, whereas young ladies have absolutely no obligation to contribute to the nation! What if it were compulsory for Singaporean women to serve by having at least 2 babies in their life? Actually, this notion remains a joke – raising children is infinitely more complex than raising an army, and nobody should be unduly forced to start a family.

Anyway, the article described tieing fertility to non-residents who wish to live in Singapore. This is obviously unrealistic, because foreigners come here to join our workforce, not to start a family. Requiring new residents to get married and have children will only repel talent from our country. Conversely, the government could further raise the benefits for citizens with large families, because it is their children who are more likely to stay here and contribute.

>>Next

3] Allow Surrogate Pregnancies

Saga — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:30:27 +0000

On the surface there seems little problems with the notion of paying someone else to give birth to your chile. Is it not like childcare and tuition, where somebody is paid to take over a role you normally do?

Two methods of surrogacy are mentioned. The first involves using IVF, only that the embryos are implanted in the surrogate mother. There are certain ethical questions with IVF which will be coverd later.

The second method involves using the man’s sperm fertilizing the surrogate mother’s eggs. This is hardly suitable for a moderately conservative society such as ours – would this be perceived as a hi-tech form of adultery? In any case, the ideal scenario is that infertile couples come to accept themselves, and consider if there is a reason why God let them be childless. If not, there are always orphans and other children whom such couples can foster as their own.

>>Next