Saturday, May 10, 2014

Kindness from strangers made my day

Kindness from strangers made my day

Acts of generosity - of spirit or money - help bind individuals into a cohesive society

 
 
It was late morning and I had boarded bus No. 73 for my daily commute to the office. I tapped my ez-link card on the reader and discovered to my surprise that there was not enough money stored in it to cover my fare.
I dug into my wallet, only to find I had neither coins nor $2 notes.
As the bus trundled on, I stumbled along the aisle asking fellow passengers if they could help me break a $10 note. None could.
Just as I was about to give up and pay $10 for the short ride from Serangoon Gardens to Toa Payoh, two people sprang up and offered to pay my fare for me.
One was a woman in her 40s wearing a shade too much makeup and clothes a tad loud and revealing for her age, someone I would usually have disapproved of at first sight.
But there she was, holding out her coin purse and asking me how much I needed. I looked more closely and saw the kindness in her face and eyes.
The other was a bespectacled man in ill-fitting jeans and polo shirt, who dug out a spare ez-link card from his large haversack and asked me to use it.
He also gave me some advice: I should always carry two ez-link cards as he did, so I would not have this problem again.
He was inarticulate but sincere. I gladly accepted both his spare card and advice.
I was reminded of this incident a few weeks ago when I read Dr William Wan's commentary in this newspaper, "It's time to update the kampung spirit", in which he encouraged us to look on our neighbours as "friends in waiting".
Dr Wan, who is the general secretary of the Singapore Kindness Movement, wrote: "As traditional kinship support weakens, and as our population ages, we need to build bonding communities in which people living near one another are able to give and receive help when needed. It must start with a recognition that we are mutually dependent on those who live around us."
To be honest, if I had not run out of money on my ez-link card that morning, I doubt I would have found much in common with my fellow passengers on bus No. 73, much less thought that I would need to depend on any of them for help.
One of the downsides of living in a rich country is that we have far less need to rely on one another. When we can pay for what we need, we no longer have to depend on the kindness of neighbours and strangers.
So the occasions to get to know one another, to establish ties, to discover what we may have in common, are also diminished.
But seeking common ground is precisely what we need to do as differences in incomes, nationality, political and religious beliefs threaten to pull us further apart.
We need to build solidarity - a sense that we are all in this together, playing on the same team as we face the challenges that life throws up; a sense that there is more that binds us than divides us.
And that solidarity is all the more important as Singapore moves towards social policies that will involve greater risk pooling, such as MediShield Life, and more redistribution of the rewards of economic growth.
These policies cannot work as they are intended to if the social paradigm is every man for himself.
Take MediShield Life as an example. It is a universal health-care insurance scheme that, when launched next year, will cover every Singaporean for life.
The premise of this scheme is that none of us knows what illness or calamity might strike us and when.
Instead of going it alone, which would leave those on lower incomes struggling to pay for health care, and many of us at risk of having our savings wiped out by a catastrophic illness, MediShield Life is a way for everyone in society to pool their risks and share the costs of medical care.
It will mean that some people who pay a lot into the scheme, which is compulsory, may end up claiming very little if they remain healthy.
Others may claim more than they put in, especially if they are already old or sickly.
It is a scheme that depends on everyone chipping in, as the Prime Minister said in a Facebook post in March to mark the end of the Budget debate.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong zoomed in on the Government's plans to strengthen social safety nets and described MediShield Life as a key initiative.
"MediShield Life depends on everyone chipping in to share the burden, to take collective responsibility to protect one another," he said, adding: "While MediShield Life gives us peace of mind for our health costs, let's all do our part to stay healthy and avoid getting sick. This is the best way to keep health costs low, live long and live well."
So what would help build the solidarity that this society needs to thrive?
Shared public spaces are a good starting point; parks, hawker centres, and buses and trains are where Singaporeans come face to face with one another.
People also need opportunities to interact, to work and play together, to discover what they can do together that they cannot do alone. The Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth is taking a stab at growing these opportunities through events such as the annual Community Games, but just as important is giving civil society the space it needs to flourish.
Another change that must take place is the removal of social structures that undermine solidarity.
In a chapter in his new book Hard Choices, Mr Donald Low sheds light on some of these structures as he provides an insightful critique of Singapore's meritocracy.
He contrasts meritocratic competition based on absolute performance and that based on relative position.
The first sets up a positive-sum game that adds to society's well-being. One example of this is the Singapore Armed Forces' Individual Physical Proficiency Test.
The second sets up a zero-sum game where everyone tries to outdo each other in the hope of securing the rewards that accrue only to those at the top. An example of this is the way the education system often grades students on a curve, or ranks them, as in the case of the Primary School Leaving Examination and its T-score.
To build solidarity, we need to do away with forms of competition that encourage people to see each other as foes in waiting, rather than as friends.

Why Singlish has to be discouraged

Why Singlish has to be discouraged

 
 
Author Lee Hui Min argued that the widespread use of Singlish shows up a serious shortcoming in our language teaching and education system ("Singlish shows up a Singapore failure"; last Sunday).
Despite the Government's best efforts to encourage Singaporeans to speak good English, it is true that standards have fallen.
Apart from the lack of emphasis placed on the humanities, particularly literature, in our education system, the onslaught of high-tech gadgets has crippled our verbal communication skills.
We have become so addicted to our tech toys that we have lost the ability to use good English to communicate with one another.
We ought to take a closer look at how English is taught in schools. If students were taught good communication and presentation skills from a young age, enabling them to speak and write good English, it would have mitigated the problem we face today.
As this has not been done, Singlish has become an acceptable mode of communication.
Proponents of Singlish argue that it cuts across racial differences and represents our ethnic diversity and national identity.
But Singlish is characterised by disregard for grammar rules and proper sentence structure, contributing to falling English standards here.
We need to establish a proper foundation of spoken and written English at all levels.
The need to communicate intelligibly is reason enough to discourage the use of Singlish. Such a need cannot be overemphasised in the context of the globalised metropolis that we live in.
V. Subramaniam (Dr)
The Straits Times
www.straitstimes.com
Published on May 11, 2014
 
YOUR LETTERS

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Cyclists versus Pedestrians

1) Do more to protect pedestrians from reckless cyclists

PUBLISHED ON MAY 4, 2014 1:18 AM



Last Sunday's report ("Safe cycling by-laws in Tampines get more bite") is cause for some cheer.
It was mentioned that a more systematic way of going after errant cyclists is being implemented, with volunteer wardens being given the authority to issue written warnings to those who flout safety rules.
However, it remains to be seen if stricter enforcement will indeed translate into safer cycling practices. If so, can this initiative be extended to other constituencies where instances of reckless cycling seem to have become alarmingly rampant?
I wonder if the authorities realise just how dire the situation is. Inconsiderate cyclists are behaving as if they have the right of way on footpaths.
I have witnessed people on motorised bicycles tearing down congested pathways at top speed, almost knocking down children or elderly folk in the process.
Besides pavements and common pathways, the interiors of malls, lift lobbies and coffee shops have also been "invaded" by cyclists.
It is high time pedestrians received greater protection before reckless cycling becomes the norm and there is nowhere safe for one to tread without having to keep a constant lookout for these interlopers whizzing past.
Marietta Koh (Mrs)
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/think/story/do-more-protect-pedestrians-reckless-cyclists-20140504#sthash.BbExOT2p.dpuf

2) Cycling by-laws must be sensible
PUBLISHED ON MAY 4, 2014 1:18 AM



If the Tampines Town Council seriously wants to promote cycling among its residents, it must ensure that its cycling by-laws make sense before it resorts to toughening enforcement ("Safe cycling by-laws in Tampines get more bite"; last Sunday).
It must shake off this fixation with the "dismount-and-push" advisory and avoid the "cat-and-mouse" game with pavement cyclists at bus stops and traffic junctions.
On a typical journey, a cyclist would need to pass five to six bus stops and traffic junctions. To have to dismount and push in each instance turns off cyclists.
It is not difficult to design effective barriers to separate cyclists and pedestrians at these locations. Bollards, advertising panels or planters can be used to divert cyclists from a bus stop to a path behind it. Speed breakers will slow the cyclists further.
At traffic junctions, there is at least 1m of space between the pedestrian crossing white line and the vehicular traffic stop line. This could be converted into a path for cyclists to cross junctions. Some kerb redesign and speed breakers can be incorporated to slow cyclists down.
With more sensible safe-cycling by-laws, more people will take up cycling and Tampines can truly contribute to Singapore's search for a viable and sustainable transport alternative.
Osman Sidek
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/think/story/cycling-laws-must-be-sensible-20140504#sthash.Tj35qEmD.dpuf



Booking apps (for taxis) a boon

Booking apps a boon

PUBLISHED ON MAY 4, 2014 1:23 AM



You cannot say Singaporeans are not resourceful. As phone apps for booking a taxi or a limousine become more popular, some drivers with rental cars are elbowing into the business, according to car rental industry sources. Singapore has about 17,000 rental cars, but only an estimated 500 to 1,000 are registered limousines. Insurance for limousines is three to four times that for a private car, while the premium for a taxi is about five times.
What these opportunistic drivers are doing is wrong. They are breaking the law. Under Land Transport Authority rules, other than taxis, only company-owned vehicles insured as limousines and driven by its employees are allowed to ferry passengers for a fee. Those who are caught flouting the law can be fined up to $3,000 or jailed for up to six months, or both.
Certainly, these new illegal services can help ease the peak-hour demand for taxis. But the customers are not protected by insurance, and the drivers may not have the proper training. Should something go wrong, like an accident, the customer may have no legal recourse. On the other hand, to keep out such services, taxi and limousine companies have to improve their service. Cabbies should keep up with innovations and a changed environment.
Booking apps such as GrabTaxi and Uber and their like should, however, be encouraged. Used legally, they are a boon to both cabbies and commuters. It is counter-productive to crack down on them, as Shanghai and Beijing did because commuters complained it was becoming harder to hail a cab from the kerbside. Cabbies would rather pick up those people who use the apps, especially during peak hours, just as they would those who make phone bookings, because there is a premium. As for illegal rental car taxis, it may be time for the authorities to put in place some safeguards to curb their spread.
- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/think/story/booking-apps-boon-20140504#sthash.L4JjNOH6.dpuf