Graciousness changes people, society

In the course of living in a hectic environment, sometimes it is not difficult to lose patience with other people because they only appear to be getting in the way.

The language barrier, for example, which is increasing showing up due to the influx of foreign workers landing on our shores to carve out a living in the service industry, displays the miscommunication that is often viewed as a kind of hindrance to getting on with everyday living.

Singaporeans can hardly be accused of xenophobia because it is a phenomenon (perceived or actual is disputed depending on who is asked) that is occurring elsewhere overseas and most probably occurred during the time of our forefathers.

However, Singaporeans can have the distinction of being recognised as accomodating to any differences and hindrances brought about by foreign workers and not begrudge them. By exercising a bit of graciousness, people would probably feel that getting along is not too hard to do, and the process can be pleasant.

So do us all a favour and get along by first addressing any issues of perceived or actual points of contention.

Shopping, fashion creates unseen problems

As the fashion season changes every few months, it is difficult to fathom how the piles of unsold merchandise get disposed of and whether everything that is passe will have a new leash of life elsewhere.

Indulging the guilty pleasure of shopping also conceals the fact that most people are not aware as to where the clothes originate from, what is the cost price of making them and how the clothing industry can remain sustainable when retail outlets located on prime land pay exorbitant rent prices.

It only boils down to simple economics. The mass market of consumers are ready to fork out the dough as long as they have the means and it keeps them satisfied. Guilty pleasure, is indeed found to be very guilty, because it entails being ignorant to the mechanisms of the business and not even being consicious as to what drives the whole process and industry.

Great Singapore Sale is indeed great, in that it is one big cover up. Enjoy.

No love for insurance company

So the move to report all accidents to the insurance companies within 24 hours is facing some resistance. No surprise there.

Whenever there is a lack of proper justification on the part of corporations, their actions would be construed as being less than positive and motivated by profits.

Maybe there is a lesson to be learnt here by all those who want to push out unpopular measures. You have to brace yourself for some negative feedback. To try to sell the message as if it was normal or justified is totally lacking in consideration that the very people you serve can turn on you.

The consumers, after all, are the ones being served. Take care of them, and they can be unexpectedly nice as well.

Singapore produces landmines and there is nothing no one can do about it

Once again, the issue of Singapore producing explosive ordnance for sale has cropped up in the press.

And no surprises for guessing why it appeared in the Forum page instead of as a news article. The local press is just too scared to pursue such stories.

But a pat on the back for daring to put out the forum letter in the first place. Its a small start, but there is a feeling it is still too small a start. We need to get the populace thinking about such issues.

Bicycles ride dangerously in city state

I have seen my fair share of bicycles riding dangerously along heavy traffic on the side of the road. Occasionally they would unwittingly swerve sideways into the path of oncoming and narrowly missing getting clipped in the wheel.

Singaporeans are impatient drivers, even though I have seen much worse in overseas countries. Cyclists are always in danger when they travel beside large vehicles that might not see the two-wheelers riding in blind spots, or beside cars that tend to overtake fast in a bid to not get caught driving too slowly behind them.

I have also seen a couple of near misses where cyclists ride against traffic and across cross junctions. And no, not all who cycle in Singapore are foreigners. There are equal share of teenagers, adults and sometimes the elderly.

I got a feeling that the number of motorists and cyclists on the road are bound to increase in the future, and it would be more difficult to keep the accident statistics in check, because statistically, the likelihood of mishaps is set to rise.

Singapore 3 Uzbekistan 7: Ten-goal slugfest a result of tired legs?

The ten-goal match was not much of a thriller. During those minutes when no goals were being scored, the build-up to each goal was totally lacking, unlike English Premier League matches where there are many minutes of fairly intense passing, shuffling and tackling before a goal is scored.

I got a theory for that: It has to be the humidity in Singapore. Temperatures in the evening might be about 26 to 28 degrees Celsius, but under the stadium floodlights it could be at least a degree warmer.

And the players were all perspiring profusely the minute the match got underway. For those familiar with running in warm environments, the high temperature saps away energy and makes activities such as short sprints feel like running with a load. Not to mention, cooler and less humid air might make the lungs burn less.

Two goals that did hit the Singapore net were chaotic and conceded because of a lack of defensive discipline. The laxed marking resulting in one of the Uzbek header goals and the swinging corner kick that found the net were almost comical. We could have gone down by five goals instead of seven.

Maybe the secret to greater footballing success is better fitness among players. It is probably genetic predisposition as well, but Asian players lack a certain dominating build that other bigger players use as an advantage to shoulder and lean their weight on opponents.

But being smaller means being more agile. Nifty footwork and more tactical playing might allow the Lions to win more games, albeit with narrow margins, in the future.

Improve the work rate and make the players outlast their opponents because of improved stamina. If we can't win by natural talent, we can always train it the hard way.

Gopalan Nair arrest suggests Singapore worth fighting for

The Lees vs Chees trial has certainly met with the strangest unexpected turn of events yet.

Gopalan Nair, returns to Singapore from Fremont California, where he practises law after he sought and won asylum status, and demands to be arrested.

In occurrences such as this, it is somewhat heartening to know that there is somebody who is still passionate enough about engaging with Singaporeans and in its affairs, even though he can always choose not to be, and challenge the powers that be based on fundamental rights. Impressive.

In his recent trial, Dr. Chee was portrayed as a pyschopath for his antics in court, but suddenly, he found himself a supporter. I think the issues both of them are championing have merit and reside within the realm that comes before "bread and butter" issues. The mechanisms that run the State lay unconscious and must be brought to mind if Singapore ever wants to join the league of nations that are considered First World (I'm thinking more of Norway and Sweden as bastions of democracy, and not the United States as an example).

The cracks within the present system is indeed showing itself with Gopalan's arrest. Running Singapore based on the legitimacy gained from satisfying the economic imperative so that the needs of the populace are met and imposing fear as a necessary condition to govern that same populace serves to shove aside the nuanced understanding required to enhance the overall quality of life and making sense about why the general well-being in Singapore is not wholly gratifying.

Whether or not Gopalan is making a theatrical political statement is besides the point. Judging by the way Singapore is run, anything associated with politics is made to look theatrical anyways.

Cabby: I don't know why daily rental is $95

Taking a late night cab home some time last week, I got to engage in a somewhat lively conversation with a Mandarin-speaking cab driver. It was lively, considering it was almost 2 a.m. that night.

I generally ask cab drivers who I do talk to, two of three things:
1) How much do you earn a day?
2) How many hours do you work ?

Usually after these two questions, I can hear that they sound nervous and stop talking to me as they think I'm about to rob them or hit the ground running when I reach my destination because I sound like I think they have earned enough for the night.

But sometimes I proceed further and ask whether they know why they are paying close to $100 a day for taxi rental.

And the stock reply is a) COEs are high and cab operators would run a loss if rental was any lower or b) that they were not really sure but thankful for the current rental rates to remain as it is and not rise any higher.

But I never got down to asking the fourth burning question, which I think is highly impossible to answer even if I asked my friend who digs econometrics and financial analysis: Why isn't the onus on cab operators to provide a comprehensive breakdown of numbers on how much they are taking in from rental alone per month, and why is it never an option to lower the rental by, say, $10 a day?

Wouldn't this be a surer way for cabbies to take home more dough? Would they become lazier and services deteriorate just because they were making $10 extra a day?

The best answer I got so far is that the corporations operate according to the money-making ethos that more is never enough. The reason that corporations need to make more money is because there is always an anticipation for quarter-on-quarter profits to rise by its cherished stakeholders. No one is ever going to put a ceiling to how high it can go, but when it starts to go low enough, panic develops.

The health of the corporation is based on its performance, and the present is always spent trying to measure from the foreseeable determinants the likeliest outcome in the future. Issues involving people's disgruntled feelings can hardly be factored in as quantifiable elements and they are not allowed to make those disgruntled feelings known through a systematic and naturalised process of quashing all dissent, or more ingeniously, quashing all developments of dissent.

Which also explains why Singapore is a kind and ideal place for corporate investments. It is comforting for them to know that there is absolutely no hope in unionising blue collar workers such as taxi drivers because that scenario has long been removed from the consciousness of the populace.

So, quite remarkably, the issue at the end of the day really is not about cab drivers. And the way the mainstream media spins it into issues involving bread and butter is sickening. They know that it is about the workings of the money-grabbing antics of corporations, but they can never say it as it is.

From these points I can conclude: There is a need to admit that Singapore is no longer about citizens and identity formation as a nation-state because it has been overrun by businesses and banks and secondly, do tip the cabby the next time you ride a taxi.

That is the least you can do. A little from a lot of people goes a long way.

Chees vs Lees: No clear winner in court of public opinion

Judging by the reports in the national newspapers, the perception that the Chees are as good as buried seems to be the overriding reality. The court of law has almost carried out its due process and the final verdict to be out soon would not come as a surprise.

However, in the court of public opinion, it seems highly unlikely that the winner would be as clear cut as the one in the court of law.

The Internet, being democratic to a fault, opened a floodgate of opinion justifying the motives of the Lees and the Chees, showing that support for both parties is more equal than the mainstream media is willing to give credit for and comment on.

There has also been a strange silence regarding the media's responsibility in educating the populace about the libel laws of Singapore.

Simply put, in Singapore's case, the burden of proof is on the defendant (Chee) to prove that what he said was true. And that is an enormous burden to bear.

In the United States, where it is sort of like the converse being true, the plaintiff (Lee) who sues for libel must prove that what was written about him was blatantly and categorically false with the intention to cause harm (a.k.a malicious intent).

In this sense, it is not hard to see why whistle blowers do not feel as protected as they should in Singapore, and where silence becomes a default accepted condition.

Yet, broaching this topic of libel in the mainstream press seems equivalent to challenging one of the sacred cows that our society holds so dear. If you simply do not have the means and resources to prove what you say, please shut up.

Perhaps a consequence of the communitarian ideology as espoused by Confucianism, and propounded earnestly by the elder and earnest Lee, it is for the collective good that society thrives. Individuals who put themselves first, would instead upset the balance and most likely cause trouble or be of an inconvenience.

Oh dear. What happened to the need to at least be pragmatic and accommodating to modernity and its inhabitants, and admit that the experiences of even the muckrakers cannot be discounted?

The funny thing about the Lees going to court with their defamation suit is that they only served to further publicise the alleged libel by Chee. Probably prior to the trial, not many remembered or bothered about it. Probably also because The Democrat newsletter was not that fantastic a read either.

The concept of libel being exaggerated on the Lees' own accord has also not been taken into consideration and commented on by those high and mighty political commentators on television and newspapers who seemed to have a field day with Malaysian politics, talking about it at lengths and analysing every little detail to death.

Reading the mainstream newspapers and finding the glaring omission of certain information is just as illuminating.

Therefore, even if the courts can make the final verdict and rule it one way, the word on the street is anything but.