A brief note on Article 15(2)

Recently I been looking at Article 15(2) of the Consitution and wondered what it is all about. A word of warning, my intepretation here is largely based on a literal reading of Article 15(2). My conclusion from reading Article 15(2) is that the use of public reason in determining public policy is very important. Here it goes:

Article 15(2) in essence prevents state taxation for the purposes of a religion that one does not subscribe to. (See possible exceptions in footnotes)

(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

This means there is no compulsion of others for the purposes of a religion by way of financial penalties in Singapore. The state cannot compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of another person. This is a very important protection of the individual and is a secular guard against the tyranny of having to financially support someone's else beliefs, or for that matter, anyone's belief at all.

One might ask, if religion sucessfully determines (say wholly) a particular public policy, can I object and not pay taxes based on Article 15(2)? As an illustration, say Religion Pasta has successfully petitioned to Parliament based on their own religious rules that all children age 7 should wear a blue jacket. State funds have then been allocated to the Ministery of Education to buy blue jackets to compel all children to wear a blue jacket. For clarification sake, there appears to be no reason for this public policy save for the Religion Pasta rulebook that all children must wear blue jackets when they are of age 7 years.

This appears to be a “purpose of religion” under Article 15(2) and one might have a good argument that taxes cannot be so compelled to buy blue jackets from anyone save of those who subscribe to Pastafarianism. After all, why should I pay for someone's else religious beliefs?

From this reading of Article 15(2), the Constitution invites people to use what John Rawls calls “public reason” when discussing policy changes. It is fair and promotes peace and good order as hurting a person's pocket against his beliefs does little good to his temper. It is also neutral between religions and belief systems.

---------


Note: It appears that Public Reason is getting to be more and more and controversial. I think it was previously contrasted with religious reasoning but it appears that some critics are suggesting that liberal conceptions of the good life are not neutral (“public reason”) either. All this is rather confusing really.

FN1: It is probably important to note that it allows the state to compel a member of one religion to support financially the religion of that person. Hence, it is possible to impose, in Malaysia for example, a tax on Muslims to support their religion.

FN2: Another exception will probably be the Malay minority. Article 152(2) provides

The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.

As most Malays are Muslims, it is likely that their “religious... interests” will be read as the interests of Muslims in Singapore.

An Eventual Gambling Problem : Insights from Genting

I read the Time Magazine article “Asia Growing Gambling Addiction” [1] with a heavy heart. I find Casino seriously distasteful because it is mere exploitation of the irrational, the superstitious and usually, the uneducated. This might be considered racist, but when it comes to gambling, the average Asian cannot count. Don’t think. And frankly, stupid.

If you have been to Genting, you know what I mean. Genting casinos games have the tables with one of the the worst odds in the world. Just take the “Pontoon” tables for example.

First, Genting does not have Blackjack tables, which is the only beatable game in Casinos through card counting (which is possible if the dealing is not done through a continuous shuffle system). In its place in Genting is called “Pontoon”. This is basically blackjack without the 10s in UK. If you understand blackjack, the more 10s and Aces in the deck, the higher the odds for the player. Pontoon is also the game that the Royal Statistical Society concluded can’t be beaten. If you have access to JSTOR, you might look at an article on this. [2]

The beauty about this is that in Genting, their variant of Pontoon is actually not the unbeatable English Pontoon above. It is worse than that. It is actually a variant of the American game Spanish 21. By calling it Pontoon confuses people, and the Genting dealers will describe the rules as “similar to blackjack.” However, Genting does not even use standard Spanish 21 rules. It only allows doubles on two hands. This is significant for two reasons. To apply a successful basic strategy in Spanish 21 games, one must double and double often, and on many cards. Without card counting (impossible under a continous shuffle system), you can reduce the house edge to about 2.08% which means you will lose less in the long run. But because 99.9 % of the gamblers in Genting (mostly Singaporeans) are still under the impression this is Blackjack or UK Pontoon, they refuse to double save on 8-9-10s, which means they are seriously in trouble – which gives them worse odds than random play.

Already lost? Yes. Most gamblers don't even bother knowing the rules of the game.

According to Edward Thorpe (who I really respect, not only because of his mathematical ability in the casino, but also in the stock market [3]) if you play without any strategy in Pontoon, the house has nearly a 30% edge (if I don’t remember wrongly). This means that if you Randomly play a 100RM a hand (which is the minimum bet sum for Pontoon in Genting) for 100 hands (one hour) you will lose about 3000 RM. And if you are "lucky", you will lose about 1000 RM. If you are unlucky, about 10000 RM.

And these “Pontoon” tables in Genting are so popular that on weekends due to the Singaporean crowd, you can forget about finding a seat, with Singaporeans clamoring to lose their money. So when Genting won the bid for the IR in Sentosa, I was pissed. If Singaporeans clamour to lose 3000 RM per hour in Genting, they will pay the entrance fee and lose more, this time in SGD. Maybe that is why Genting won the bid. They sure can lure those with money to burn. Who knows?

This is seriously an Asian problem, not an Asia one. If you go to casinos in British Columbia, Canada, you will see Chinese, Chinese, Chinese. I hope this is not taken to be racist, but the Chinese seemed more predisposed to getting addicted to gambling. Same thing for The Crown, Australia, which is supposed to be the largest Casino in the Southern Hemisphere. Same thing for Star City, Syndey. One seems to find unusually a large percentage of Chinese. Perhaps the locals prefer betting on sports than on cards, but I won’t know. I see Chinese.

So I really hope that Singapore apart from those psychological and family-centric help efforts – they must ensure that house edges are displayed at every table. Currently, I think only odds and payout might be provided. Actually odds as these people understand will be provided in any case because it is part of the rules of Gambling (Casino pays 3 to 2 on Blackjack is “odds” to the layman). This helps no one except the casinos. Gamblers will ask in any case. I hope I am not seen to be dissing the psychological and family-centric help thing here. Look, all those things are great, but - for cigarettes - you do put the warning labels right? And in this case, because the risk is mathematically quantifiable, that should be provided. Not everyone should end up in the addiction clinic. That might be too late. Information as any economists will tell you, will help a lot in making rational choices - or at least make irrational choices in the least irrational way.

So we should put house edges (Display "House has edge of 15 percent even if you use optimum strategy" - aka "everyone at this table is a rich fool").

But Gamblers tend to blow their fortune tables with a relatively low house edge too ( they think they can beat the house - aka at about the very high 5 percent house edge) because that is when it gets really addictive. When a player gets punished too much, the non-pathological tends to quit. So it is not enough to display the House Edge alone.

Another thing the state can do is to follow British Columbia Casinos where they provide basic strategy tables for games like Blackjack where if you just follow blindly, the house edge will significantly reduce – about 3 percent. Otherwise, all these family-centric and psychological help is useless to aid the "My-Mind-Can-Change-Card-Outcome" or "I-just-have-to-pray-harder" variety. Gamblers are traditionally masochistic. They have traditionally embraced relatively better odds games but make their odds worse by playing lousily. The classic example is Blackjack and more recently, Caribbean stud poker (which already has bad odds in the first place) comes to mind. Where the odds are about even, they tend to choose side bets with terrible odds.

Personally, I think gambling against the odds not wicked or immoral per se. And I won’t really call Gambling a disease per se. After all, it is beneficial when it can be beaten. Won't think that a disease in that case, will you?

But my point here is that the average Singaporeans who is addicted to bad odds in Genting already, is seriously quite screwed when the IR arrives. Someone should really tell them the house edge, the odds, and if he still chooses to play, the optimum strategy. And if he still does not follow that, nothing will save him.


[1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1678672-1,00.html

[2] http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0035-9238(1972)135%3A2%3C221%3ACP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

[3] http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/thorp/paper.htm


________________________________________________________________________________


There are actually far worse odds in the world than at the tables of Genting. Lotteries typically have worse odds, but I feel its level of harm to individuals much less. Other terrible bets:

1) Keno, a popular casino lottery game boost a house edge of 25 percent. Unsurprisingly this was invented in China.
2) Betting ties in Baccarat is horrible in Genting too. It is so bet that if you bet it, the dealer might sneer at you. (At about 14.5% house edge - I think Ties pay 1:9 in Genting, is higher than the average 1:8 payout in other Casinos).
3) Insurance in Pontoon. (Its so bad I could scream. 30 percent house edge)
4) Roulette with O,00 (5.6 percent. Not terrible but why bother when you can find one table with only one 0 making it half the edge)
5) One of the Chinese Favourite with various names "War" or "Tie War" (About 19 percent)


________________________________________________________________________________

Eavesdropping : Sex and Abstinence

I was momentarily surprised when the conversation turned to sex. After potential for eavesdropping on discussions about sex was not that common, especially while drinking coffee at Coffee Bean. These two young girls (one looks 19, the other looks 17) were initially talking about relationships {and here note inaccuracies of memory, poor hearing and paraphrasing}.

The older looking one said; “We were discussing relationships during our cellgroup meeting. Between us and the external world and God. You know, like how our parent’s love is perpendicular and the relationship with boys are horizontal. And you know how our relationship with God is forever and vertical.”

As she was telling the younger looking girl this, her hands were drawing lines in the air. The older looking girl continued, “I am at the point now where my relationship with God is good. Celibacy. We are walking together. Sex will corrupt this relationship. Heaven and Hell are parallel lines. They will never meet. The relationship with God is like a vertical line. He knows what we are going to do every step of the way.”

The other young girl started giggling, and said, “So you not going to do that…ever..?” The older girl quickly said, ““Everyone does not seem right for me. Hah, I know how a single woman feel. Free of worries and horror. Besides, sex outside marriage is sinful. My cellgroup leader can tell you more. You can join me. Give me your telephone number.”

There are many things one can hazard from this conversation. First the lines metaphor. Horizontal, vertical, perpendicular. Parallel? It probably means she comes from a non-traditional Church where the more common metaphor will probably be "Father""Lover""Husband or Wife" to describe relationships with the external and internal world. Either that, or she comes from a cellgroup with members from a Church which in recent years been active in spreading the “abstinence” message.

I was just wondering then whether her message to her friend is in fact useful.

Taxi Touting : Greed and Naivety

Enforcement but is the underlying problem resolved?

I have read various lamentations by online folks "whacking" taxi drivers for touting. The result - mainstream media picked it up and it is now a serious issue. Frankly, I don't know what these people are angry about. The penalties are already very harsh - with loss of income and livelihood for very long periods. But yet taxi drivers are still taking the risk. The most immediate solution on the head of these people? Tighter Enforcement. Ridiculous if you ask me. I am not saying touting is right - or that law breaking ought to be encouraged. I think the situation is one of a combination of greed and naivety - rather than anything immoral or wicked.

Lets start with what I consider a reasonable assumption. I assume that the average driver works reasonably hard and attempt to earn as much as reasonably possible within the human spirit. With the recent rise in diesel prices, the average driver will have to work much harder. We also know a few things. Mercedes Cab drivers pay from $120-$150 a day for their rental. Compared to one of the cheaper options available ($90 SMART Volkswagen Touran), we are looking at a $900 monthly difference.

This $900 monthly should reflect a premium which Mercs cab driver can obtain somewhere. There are naturally some "advantages" which one can easily envisage from driving a Mercs. There are a class of taxi drivers which this will appeal to. For exmaple, many of these Mers Cab drivers are also part time insurance agent or property agents or have other businesses - where a Mercs will "help" their image.

Yet not all have a sideline. Most will have to rely on other sources of income. Some rich Corporates will hire them to drive special corporate folks around. They were also the choice of top notch hotels (5, 6 stars variety) when the hotel staff call a Mers cab for their choice customers (negotiated rate). Yet, the corporate/s in the new wave of cost cutting philosophy eschew from such "ostentatious" display and hotels realize soon enough their choice guests are not willing to pay so much even if they are choice customers, when the alternative is far cheaper and widely available. Then there is the boycott due to the bad reputation. Some Singaporeans now snide Mercedes Cabs and refuse to board it. I heard this is also the case for certain hotels. Touting = criminal = bad rep = image drop = less business.

Why then is anyone surprised/shock/disgusted that Mers Cab Drivers are the ones that are touting?

The situation is a result of naivety on the part of the Mercs Drivers because many of the Mercs Drivers who signed the contract with the Taxi Companies still believe that there is a "premium" on the "image". I think there still is, but it has definitely deflated to far less than $30 a day. In order to reflect that premium today ($30 a day), the Mercs Cab driver must do 4 to 5 trips per day more than the average cab driver. To ask the average Mercs Cab driver to work so much harder than the average driver which we assume already works reasonably hard today will be very difficult. Sure, they will have no choice when the enforcement kicks in or take greater risks (which means asking for more during touting).

We could also price how much "risk" costs for them to make it worth it. It is very important for the touts to avoid getting caught for a suitably long period for this to be profitable. That is probably the key reason why they don't take locals - because of that naive belief that locals are more prone to complain.

But as we have read, many indeed choose to do not tout rather than tout. So there is also the greed element to it. Compare that strenuous effort additional 4-5 trips a day to touting. Little wonder the quoted rate is 30-50 dollars. As long as the Mercs Cab driver gets one short trip on that rate a day, it will suitably reflect the premium he had paid for the cab. But this is not greed as we normally condemned it to be, this is not an attempt to become rich, but more akin to a hungry man stealing bread. Any more will be greed.

So enforcement has begun. This is very easy really.

"SINGAPORE: The Land Transport Authority (LTA) has intensified its crackdowns on taxi drivers who commit offences. It caught 41 taxi drivers committing offences during a four-day operation conducted at popular nightlife areas such as Clarke Quay, Boat Quay and Orchard Towers from October 24 to 27. Twenty-two of them were found touting; eight had overcharged; the rest had refused to pick up passengers."

So it is indeed, as I suggested already, a very common practice. And despite enforcement, is the underlying problem resolved? So I think we must give them some advantages. I suggest that perhaps some authority like the Airport give them some privileges (like special queues for Mercs Cab) which will indeed reflect their premium, etc. Then it will help reduce the incentives to tout. Or else in the long run, it will just mean there will be less Mercs Cabs, and hence less cabs on the streets.

Random thoughts on the usual things

377A outcome

I have heard that two of my friends who are gays will like to leave Singapore if they can. At least one of them is a very nice person and I hate that he might feel this way.,etc. These two gays friends could well be representative of how Singaporean gays in general feel (not sure about that). Some of those who like to leave will eventually do so. The inability to pursue one's version of happiness without being labeled a criminal is one thing, a stream and barrage of torrid and unwarranted abuse in the public arena is another. One is somewhat institutional - the other, deeply personal. IF the state does not want our smart, intelligent, creative, educated Singaporeans to have another good reason to leave the country...I think they probably need to do more than say "there is space." Getting insulted so badly is psychologically rather scarring, especially when the state seems to be siding with those doing the 'insulting'. Sadness.

Put it this way. People who oppose the repeal really have no where else to go to find such a law in place. Lets face it, there are few modern countries left in this world who have such a law. On the other hand, those who are gay have lots of 'first world' countries to go to.


Religion and Public Reason

I will like to know how does one "reason" that gays are immoral or perverse without resorting to religion. The word from nature is at best ambiguous and likely to show that there are lots of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom. It is also not considered a medical illness, and little evidence sexuality can be "changed". Have not heard any "public reason" save for appeal to authority (say Kant)

The NIL religion

Apparently lots of Singaporeans belong to the Nil Religion. Census 2000 actually puts this figure at 14.8 percent. This figure has probably has decreased since the NIL religion type since it is probably fertile grounds for conversion but it probably is still huge. In the year 2000, there were more people who were NIL religion than Christians, and just a little less than the number of Muslims (14.9 percent). Surely one should consider the feelings of such a group of people in any debate when religious voices grow too strong.

Warick University

I also just learn that one of the reasons why Warick University did not come to Singapore was because of legislation against gays. Well, as Molly Meek puts it, it just does not make sense to send students to be labeled as criminals. Well, no big deal. Just a few million dollars. What's that education hub thing again? Perhaps it is no big deal during the voting process of whether to bring Warick to Singapore but if you know liberals, I am sure the fact that legislation like 377/A represents real regression. Besides, how many gays voted during the process?

Buddhism and Singapore Buddhists

I will like to know why the Singaporean Buddhists I speak to don't seem to really understand what Buddhism is. Well, at least their version seem to depart quite a bit from what Wikipedia describe Buddhism to be. Do Buddhists believe in a Hell/God/a pantheon of deities? How does Buddhism actually 'spread' in Singapore?

Stomp: Singapore Seen

Random Singaporeans doing random acts like not giving up their seats in trains have their photos taken of all the time it seems. Then there are also the usual photos of Public Display of Affections of varying degrees. The above acts are not illegal. Who are these people who photograph other people doing legal acts which they find "uncomfortable"? I think that taking photos of people who are not in any official capacity "without their knowledge or permission" when they are not doing anything illegal (or for evidence in a trial) is far worse than not giving up seats. In that sense, I find every Stomper who took a photograph of an act which is not illegal without the knowledge of the people (who are not in some official capacity) far more disgusting than their victims. Those Stompers who do so clearly lack basic respect for other human beings. Perhaps its about time schools teach what underlies respect and not rules.

Sunshine Empire

Why do so many Singaporeans buy into Sunshine Empire? I have seen the terms, the plan, and in my opinion, it has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. I actually wrote about this company (and how shifty the terms offered were) about 1 year ago on another blog (already closed) and to my amazement it is growing in strength. Gone were the days of grainy presentation though. Now apparently, it is all Hi-Tech and in many countries. Still the same old idea though. The only difference it is now on MAS investor alert list. High time if you ask me.

Casual Sex and Love

I have always thought that the fact that Casual sex as is name suggest should be casual and no love should be involved. Recently learn (not through experience) that it is not as simple.

Of Oranges and Milk and Worms

What if Sodomy was Oranges and 'Normal Sex' was Milk?

In Country Durian, a group of concerned citizens have asked that for a repeal of section 881B.

Section 881B
Whether in a private or public place, a Male person shall not drink of orange juice, with another Male person.

A loud outcry ensued and the nation is divided.

Members of the Vanilla camp have argued that drinking of orange juices unlike drinking that of Milk is a Public Health Threat. "Drinking Oranges is far riskier than drinking Milk. If we allow section 881 to be repealed, we will fail to prevent orange related diseases. ", said Dr. Dolittle.

Orange seller Mr O, argued that this does not make sense. "If drinking oranges were so dangerous, we should prohibit both males and females from drinking oranges. That must mean prohibiting drinking of oranges between males and females too! Currently, what we have is just discrimination." Mrs O agreed, "I really love to drink Oranges with Mr O. Its fun and we take precautions. Hee. Its not fair that males and males cannot do it."

The Vanilla camp however were also adamant that it is immoral for males and males to drink oranges together. Mr Green said, "For years drinking Milk between males and females have resulted in a strong family goodness that only Milk can bring. This is the kind of goodness that those drinking orange types like to see end. How unvanilla of them."

Uncle Lee, sipping coffee alone at a Kopitiam, winked at this female reporter and said, "I don't agree. I can drink any liquids - Milk and Oranges - all also can - with any other female of adult age who consented under the current law. Like your good self. Nothing to do with the goodness of the family. But if my wife knows, I will kena slapped - male or female - milk or oranges."

But Cat interjected and purred, "The majority is of the opinion that drinking oranges between males and males is wrong. Further arguments will only cause the Vaniila camp to be angrier. We will not actively enforce the law against drinking oranges between males. You will have space to be orange drinkers."

Uncle Lee blinked and wiggles his tongue at Cat, "Huh? I have been drinking orange juice with so many females for many years now. It might be a little naughty but not criminal. The majority probably thinks I am wrong too. But, I only need permission from Ms. Hot for example." At this point in this, the reporter slapped Uncle Lee.

But he continued "Why then should male and male Orange drinking permission have to receive "space" from you? You are just being cattish lar."

An anonymous male to male orange drinker from across the table commented, "Yucks. Cat, you mean you agree with the reasoning of the Vanilla people? Or you disagree but you decide to follow in any case?"

The debate continues.

Oh yes, BTW, Sexual Orientation Is Genetic in Worms

And lots of homosexual activity among animals

Peace Out

Respect Differences: Some thoughts on the Keep "377A" movement

For many of us, sexual orientation is an important component of our personal identity. Hence, section 377A not only disregards but in effect, prohibits and demeans one’s key aspect of personal identity. It does so by criminalizing consenting acts in private on the basis of sexuality. 

Today, this oppression continues because of majority disapproval. As the MHA Summary of the Key amendment to the Penal Code describes, “Public feedback on this issue has been emotional, divided and strongly expressed with the majority calling for its retention. MHA recognizes that we are generally conservative society and that we should let the situation evolve.”

The PM had said similarly: “The tone of the society, the public, and society as a whole, should be really set by the heterosexuals and that's the way many Singaporeans feel.”  He added, "Our view, as a government, is we will go with society ... What people do in private is their own business; in public, certain norms apply." 

 The fallacy of such an approach to criminalization is apparent. These statements above do not even implicitly recognize that there is harm done (as some ultra-conservatives continuously allege) but resort to appeasement of what they consider an “emotional” and “strongly” expressed response. A criminal law ran by the emotions of people will be quite unpredictable and uncertain. No modern country has such a criminal law basis of feelings - do I need to say this, it is embarrassing. Besides, Section 377A does prohibit consenting acts in private. And if we agree with PM Lee that what people do in private is their own business, then section 337A should not criminalize “consenting acts in private.” Furthermore, the fact that it only applies to males makes obvious the inherent inequality of s 377A.

Many feel that the values they hold and cherish will be destroyed by the repeal of section 377A. I respectfully disagree. This has not been the case in the myriad countries, both Asian and Western. Family and communal values have continued to be freely expressed in those nations. Besides, the weight of mainstream scientific opinion is that homosexuals are born the way they are. [FN1]  I am heartened that many who oppose the repeal say they are in fact “tolerant” of homosexuals and that they “love” them; but it is difficult for me to reconcile this goodwill with continued efforts to make criminals of the same people they say they are “tolerant” of. 

The “attack” against gays during this period of debate has been horrific. I wish to express my dismay at how gays have been unjustly compared to pedophiles and those who commit incest or bestiality, during this debate. They have also been unfairly demonized as threats to families and the future of Singapore. I feel that there is little appreciation of that simple fact “Gays are human too” by the opponents of the repeal. While I respect their right to speech, I will like to say that those allegations are baseless and does not stand up to scrutiny. The criminal law clearly takes exception to pedophiles and incest due to the potential of harm. It has also not been demonstrated or shown how homosexuals by private consenting acts could harm families and our future as a nation. In contrast, many vibrant cities in the world are known for their acceptance of homosexuals. There are also many examples where in the most war torn, poor and repressive countries, where such oppressive legislation exists. One might easily make a case that continued repression of homosexuals is not good for our country.

We derive our identities from so many things we choose to do, from other people, from the society around us. And we could be so many things in this world. We could be mac users, introverts, like birds as pets, prefer not to read, enjoyed maths. We could have been the roundest child, the one with the funny hairdo. 

We could have been the nerdy one, the one who danced alone to music without anyone knowing. We could have been the one who is under-dressed, over-dressed, the one that cannot play the popular sport at all. We could have been the odd ball, the crazy one. We could have liked uni-cycling. We could have been the one who preferred to stay at home, who did not want children. We could have been the one with the late pregnancy, the one with the shot-gun marriage. 

We could have chosen to have taken art, took the path less traveled. We could have disliked traveling. We could have been the failure, the one that never made it; the one who tried but failed, who did not want it but succeeded all the same. We could have been many things. We could have been gay. In this huge world, we could have been different. 

We are different. Sometimes, we do wrong things, sometimes we do noble things. Sometimes we trip up. We been there. We have been different. We have all been falsely accused before. We should know how that feels. We should know how gays feel.  Respect differences. 

[FN1] This is not true or simplistic. See comments. 

 

First World : A good article

and some thoughts on social control

Bernard wrote in an excellent article entitled: Further than Closer to a First World Nation

The immediate solution that any law-abiding Singaporean would do is to call the police and find out who did it, and possibly charge the person who did it with a sedition law. Yes, the law is able to handle this efficiently, but it does not solve the underlying problem that we cannot correct the attitudes of a few closed-minded individuals other than by fear. The solution should be a combined effort of the law and community pressure.

The community pressure is the missing part of the solution that we cannot identify individuals who are close minded. The lack of faith in community to resolve problems is reminiscent of the current "light touch" approach to the internet and new media. A lot of times, the establishment came in to resolve the problem with the heavy legal hand instead of letting the community put social pressure on people (who are clearly making offensive remarks) to back off or take them down. "

Such an analysis appeal to the liberal for it speaks little of the role of punishment and celebrates man's ability to change for the better; appeal to the community because it places great faith in the ability of communal groups and social institutions to affect change without the use of the law. It also suggest that given the right conditions, we can come to a conclusion of what is right and what is wrong. The heavy legal hand, all pervasive in Singapore, it seems, should have a rightful slap on its wrist.

Yet, and here is where I depart from Bernard, I think the 'lack of faith' in the community comes not from the state, but from the community itself. After all, the legal hand, as much as one of political power, is also one which social groups and individuals exercise their powers on other social groups and other individuals. Take Bernard's standard case:

"Let me put forward a standard situation, suppose you see a graffiti on public property that totally represents racial hatred, what's your first reaction? The immediate solution that any law-abiding Singaporean would do is to call the police and find out who did it, and possibly charge the person who did it with a sedition law."

Let us say Mr. Tan sees the graffiti and gets very angry. What happens next? The police gets his call, sends someone down. They interview Mr Tan. In the usual case there is little evidence *unless CCTV* there is little chance of apprehending the vandal , there is nothing much to be done. Perhaps HDB or the management council will be notified and a process taken to remove the graffiti is set in motion.

But let us say the Vandal got caught. Lets say he was sorry and said that it was done out of sheer angst of a moment. Vandalism is already a very serious crime and considering racial hatred, the investigation officer might decide to press serious charges to give this vandal a real lesson. The charges reaches the Attorney General chambers and say a young recently graduated legal officer looks at the charges. He personally thinks that this incident is minor. Also he does not wish to attract public attention as a sedition charge might. His superior might concur. So the vandal is charged with vandalism instead of sedition.

I described the above hypothetical process in massive detail but one must realize that in relation to crimes and anti-social behavior in general - shop theft, molest, voluntarily causing hurt - the process takes place over and over again for each incident. We have all heard reports about how this power is exercised by daughter against mother, mother against son, son against father, father against son, husband against wife, brother against brother. Our most intimate relations appear governed precariously and implicitly by the call to the police. The police are at best an instrument of control in this regard. Besides, individuals working this system are usually less intent on social control than those who made the call in the first place.

In other words, this strong legal handedness represents people intent on the control of others more than the state heavy handedness per se. This is very much the norm in our country - this picking up of the phone. And because we use it so often, it is no wonder the police and the laws are in a position of great power. When the police send 4 anti-riot vans to the Odex protest, and filmed everyone during the signing of the petition against the evil military junta at St. Martin Drive; it merely represents I believe the same thing - a desire for some people to control other people. Even before the 4 anti-riot vans and the filming of everyone, there were already those in the respective communities urging others NOT to join the protest or the petition. Social control on one level had already begun before social control on an another.

Why do we want to control others so much? That we sanction the use of legal powers over others? What if that vandal was not willing to stop being a "racist" but willing to stop vandalising? What's wrong with that? Why do anti-gay people want sex between males to be a crime? Look at Stomp and the constant display of that vulgar desire to control others through public "expose" and shaming. If there were anti-social or moralistic legislation, our crime rate will skyrocket and I imagine people calling the police for every other act. We live in a country where social control is believed possible (and good)- and regularly effected. In schools, workplace, families, online and even on stomp. The state is one big social control giant. And the people - they are giants in their own way in that regard with their desired effect magnified by the efficiency of state appartus. We are not a first world country. How is that even possible? There are people among us who appeal to authority so quickly that one questions whether they appreciate the possibility of a civilizing discourse. Bernard is right. But not only do we have to have an avenue to think for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, we should also think that when faced with what we think is wrong, what should the appropriate response be. But there will always be those whose first reaction is to call the police.

Hijacking the Debate?

Are Middle Class Concerns now at Forefront of Compulsory Annuities

In a strange twist in the compulsory annuities debate, protestors have attempted to compel the state to perform better in terms of CPF returns. If it (the proposed compulsory purchase of annuities) is, as some critics might allege, a draconian encroachment on their compulsory savings, then what the so called critics are asking for, sustained higher interest returns at a rate far higher than SGS long term bonds, appears to my mind at least oppressive. And I don't mean oppressive against the state.

Besides, they have hijacked the debate - a debate I believe was initially and predominantly for the benefit of the lower income group. It appears to my mind now to be one which is largely of middle income group concerns.

After all if what is asked for is granted – this demand for increase interest rates - it will be a windfall for the middle income group, who have relatively more money in their CPF accounts. This is compared to the lower income group who simply have no money, or no contributions, or the upper income group, who do not put as much percentage of their wages in their CPF account. It is quite clear that an increase in interest rates for every dollar benefits the middle income group the most.

And what about the poor and old? If interests rates in CPF accounts indeed increase for everyone, my simplistic belief is that that will lead to inflationary pressures and the poor will indeed suffer more. If that is indeed true, so much for the critics’ desire to represent the interests of the old. But I am not sure about this part. (What the effect of giving the middle income group more money is exactly requires more thought)

However, the Government’s initial idea that interest rates should increase only for the first X dollars is much wiser but was not applauded. Perhaps that interest rate for the first X dollars should increase more to protect more of the poor – that will be indirectly/directly welfare for those with eyes to see. But is that what the critics are seeking?

Nay. They want it provided for every single cent. The middle income group is truly wise.

Then there is this idea bandied around that the poorer will die earlier, and those who die early will invariably fund the richer who will die later. This perspective is simply the idea that we should tax the rich instead of the poor. It ignores the reality that the poor who live to the old age, while in the minority, will also benefit. It just means that people who die early will help to assist people who die later. One can divide it by sexes too. Males tend to die earlier. So man are taking care of woman? Or those whose parents die below 70 fighting those who parents lived pass 80 in a genetic battlefield? Thats why it must be compulsory. The risks differ too widely and if it is not compulsory, the costs of the insurance will be too expensive, especially for the poor.

Well, if these critics are indeed angels and represent the middle income group perspective, an alternative paradigm of higher taxes for the richer (and themselves) will indeed be possible. But they lack both political power and perhaps altruism to support policies to increase taxation and protective employment legislation for the lower income group.

Indeed, as income and corporate taxes reach historical lows, the middle classes merely shrug. Some even applaud. The underbelly of lowly paid workers in our economy made possible by our ‘liberalization’ of the employment market has meant that lower income group employment is under pressure. But this have in general meant cheaper goods and increased living standards for the middle income group.

Besides, the population increase as a result of a liberal immigration policy has also “increased” the value of the property the middle classes own. Will the middle income group take a hit in their living standards for the poor? I strenuously doubt it. While most outspoken critics speak for the lower income group in this respect - they might argue for increased taxation and for more employment legislation; in this debate on compulsory annuities- I think they miss the point by asking for more interest rates for CPF.

Does the middle class majority want to take care of anyone except themselves and their families? Does not seem to be the case. The shift to the welfare paradigm despite all that talk is not supported by the darkest recesses of the critic’s soul. The critic today seems merely to represent the middle income group angst because the state is concerned about the widening income gap and the middle class does not seem to be benefiting as much from the latest proposals. The recent CPF change by the Singapore government represent a shift towards a more welfaristic course – with keen awareness of the social strain (plus lost of political support) a widening income gap can bring. Little must they have expected the middle classes to get so angry and demand more despite growing prosperity. The best way to stop all these critics is not to give in to their demands, but to provide more assistance to the lower classes, and considering the ambit of debate as defined, this increase assistance to the truly poor should be provided through topping up the CPF accounts of those who belong to a lower economic strata.


___________


Add: The more polite way to say this in this century in not "lower classes" but lower income groups. I have changed it accordingly.

Add2: Whether there are any elements of 'welfare' of course is merely speculative. The point of the post in case people get angry is that: welfare is not being asked for and people are angry over its compulsory nature. What is being asked for has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. What is asked for is more money for the middle classes. And I think that's a wrong way to look at it.

The increase of interest rates on the first $X in the CPF represent distribution of wealth in a certain way and is essentially welfare. However, CPF money come from work and some of the poorest members of society will not have work. Perhaps the state can look at ensuring they have $x in their CPF accounts too.

Add3: On the question of fairness. See here

Woman and Progress

a history of unhappiness

One of my favorite books is "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why some are so Rich and Why some are so Poor" by David Landes. He has described how early-Japanese industrial revolution (in textiles, silk, and cotton) was largely built on a workforce made up of woman. And that role was very important. In his words, "factory enterprise had the best of both worlds: labour cheap and yet industrious, committed to task, to group, to family."In some sense, that was true. It also meant that the worse conditions of the industrial revolution was suffered by Woman rather than man. Women did far worse than men during both the European and Japanese industrial revolution. They got the brunt of the abuse but less of the reward.

Ironically, compared to the previous norm of family-exploitation, one can even describe it as progress.

The movement of the textile industry from cottage (family) to factory was a shift from exploitation within the family to one which was external. Landes recounted a rather popular story about a woman who was a weaver at home, and what happened to her at pages 384-388. (Source: Hane, Peasants, Rebels and Outcastes: The Underside of Modern Japan (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982). The story is heart wrenching, but for sheer length, the rendition here will be rather impossible. But this was Landes' version of the conclusion:

"No one came her to see her in prison. She sat there huddled against the cold and the wind and comforted herself with songs about rhubarb shoots pushing through the snow - the same shoots she once picked for her own mother when she was a little child and her mother in her illness got comfort from them. Her son Mii wrote her only once: a family that brutalizes its women does not make men of virtue and gratitude. It was a prison mate, Yamashiro, who heard her out and preserved her story. The orphan mother and wife was then fifty years old." (at 388)

Even till today, what we cannot pay others to do, we will enslave/force/compel/influence others to do [FN1]. Slavery was condemned partly because it became increasingly inefficient for the exploiters considering the alternative (very very cheap but obedient labour). Appeal to kinship, nationhood, manhood, womanhood, family, and society itself have fared better. As Landes described, "Those who wonder at the resistance opposed by Japanese armed forces in the closing months of World War II and ascribe it to fanaticism or suicidal impulse are missing the point. This is a society whose sense of duty and collective obligation, in all realms, sets it apart from the individualism cultivated in the West." Back to woman.

In a recent NYTimes article (also featured in the Straits Times), it was reported:

"Two new research papers, using very different methods, have both come to this conclusion. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, economists at the University of Pennsylvania (and a couple), have looked at the traditional happiness data, in which people are simply asked how satisfied they are with their overall lives. In the early 1970s, women reported being slightly happier than men. Today, the two have switched places."

In other words, man report being happier while woman report being unhappier. What is happening is not that "woman are working more" but "that they are doing different kinds of work". I am not surprised. I believe Singapore is following the way of United States. And unlike the individualism US is associated with, Singapore's communalist tendencies will definitely place greater pressures on womanfolk.

Larger expectations invariably leads to the potential for greater unhappiness. As a result, unlike the proverbial advice, one should aim steadily higher and not the moon at once. Or at least not the moon, the sun, and all the planets at once. Woman also seems to be doing better at school and the workplace. Purely on observation, there seems to be more girls in poly, more girls in JC, more girls in Uni. In Singapore, very unAsean, we have a larger number of woman in the legislative/executive wing of the ruling party. Woman also have equal political rights, and have participated in a larger say in the country in the US. Yet, unhappiness is greater.

"A big reason that women reported being happier three decades ago — despite far more discrimination — is probably that they had narrower ambitions, Ms. Stevenson says. Many compared themselves only to other women, rather than to men as well. This doesn’t mean they were better off back then."

Although I grew up with the impression that my father worked very hard, while my mother worked less hard (but made up in ways that cannot be quantifiable) I increasingly realize that this was probably not going to be the rule in my generation. Increasingly, woman are required to build the 'GDP' of both country and home. Yet, the role of child bearer can only be undertaken by woman. At the same time, the role of home maker is primarily on the shoulders of the woman. The ideal woman the state has can be observed from one of those Mediacorp dramas. Ambitious, good of character, successful, wants to have a family and puts family before career. And then there are Western lifestyle pressures. Consumerism for the sake of happiness is getting really popular.

I can imagine (but not have sympathy) with the pressure. Woman are supposed to compete within the traditional male idea of "career" and "independence", play the traditional/Confucian/Asian role of dutiful daughter to the family, live the "exciting" life of a Western free "liberal" "individual", become the Mediacorp infused role of wife and home-marker, keep up with the fashion and dress sense of the fashionable and cool "woman, ad infinitum.

For man, if you don't want to drink beer, appreciate fine wine, enjoy soccer, be a ladies man, a womanizer, rich, drive a sports car, a family man, a dutiful husband, provide for children, family and yourself, somewhat angry, succeed in your career, be the envy of your peers and your own father, be able to fix electronic appliances and have a six-pack all at the same time - it seems okay - there is somewhat less pressure.

What happened perhaps was the realisation that people should not be forced to live similar lives and pursue similar objects. Perhaps it was the ability of man to succeed in achieving the above 'ideals' which revealed that those were not as good as they might seem. Perhaps its a matter of time that girls realise that the the ambitious career woman who looks very happy, pretty and young, smart and intelligent in that MediaCorp drama, with her three children in tow - still looking cool - is a myth, a path that she need not follow.

"What has changed — and what seems to be the most likely explanation for the happiness trends — is that women now have a much longer to-do list than they once did (including helping their aging parents). They can’t possibly get it all done, and many end up feeling as if they are somehow falling short."

I suppose its about cutting ourselves and others some slack.


[FN1]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1408233

[FN2] The NYTimes Article I quoted extensively from.
[FN3] Another interesting NYTimes article about Amazing Girls who feel inadequate

Our Social Identity

Who the state tells us we are

A warning - this post is written largely tentatively. It does not suggest anything constructive or desires to. This post considers how the State through its institutions - namely the school - manages the 'truth'. I was feeling rather troubled after reading what happened to Otto Fong. I thought, why does a school care whether a teacher is gay? To me, if the purpose of a school is "education" , whether a teacher is gay or not, is insignificant.

It should be insignificant for colleagues, for parents, for the Christian right, and for the conservative majority. 1 + 1 does not make a difference if the teacher is gay. Nor will evolution become less plausible than intelligent design (Considering the number of creationists today, this should be a might). But, of course, there are those who have problems with gay teachers. There are those who might say that by Otto Fong coming out, he was trying to spread homosexual values. And some say that is really bad for an educator because he is in the position of authority.

If it was indeed possible to have and transmit "homosexual" values, who constructs these values? The argument that one's identity (especially sexual identities) can be associated with certain values have to be critically examined. Yet, more importantly, who says what values "homosexuals" have? Who controls what make up those values? Who determines what identities represent what values (I am a Buddhist and therefore I am good?)? What kind of values do heterosexual males have? Will it be better if the teacher was a gay Christian? Who determines them? It is bad science to think that "homosexual" lifestyles can be "transmitted", but more than that, to suggests "homosexuals" values are somewhat contrary to education, I think, is insulting.

In Singapore, while we have an overarching quasi-secular constitution, the idea that certain identities have certain "values" are taught in our schools. The MOE has deemed that "homosexuality does not offer a complete, natural life experience, because the human physique is not designed for homosexual intercourse. Moreover a person cannot conceive through homosexual intercourse." (Sex Education Package, See Alex Au's article for a full critique). There have been also various suggestions in the media by rather important people that somehow "homosexual" values are not good for schools. In other words, there are two implicit assertions here. First : that there is such a thing as "homosexual "values, and second: that those 'values' are not 'good'. The Ministry judges its teachers, and have the ability to punish, reward, evaluate and classify. Like a teacher who has a power to send a child out of his classroom by his position of power and his ability to enforce what are reasonable explanations, MOE can set the standards and apply them. In other words, the relationship here is not one of superior logic or reason, but of power. The power to punish, reward, evaluate and classify 'homosexuality'. A gay man, however, cannot. He cannot speak of his own values in schools. No. The MOE can. In other words, the standard bearer of truth is power. The attempts to argue "reasonableness" with the MOE is very idealistic.

Instrumental reasons have also been given why it was not unreasonable for MOE to ask/pressurise Otto Fong to take down the letter. From this perspective, Otto Fong coming out has upset too many people, there has been too much attention and this thing is probably not good for the kids etc. It has caused too much controversy, some whisper. From this perspective, when an individual joins an institution like a school and becomes part of a group, control becomes possible. As an individual, Otto Fong can be gay, can say he is gay. From that kind of logic, as a teacher, he cannot. At least not under present circumstances. He now serves other purposes. Institutional purposes. It may be that many teachers are willing to serve and sacrifice for those institutional purposes. And Otto Fong might so have chosen. A survivalist-pragmatic mindset advocate in like vein might argue that our social cohesion is so threatened that if there is so much controversy - it will split society apart, and that is why gays who are within institutions should not be allowed to tell others who they are. While one might argue that calls to violence and racism should be prohibited for such survivalist reasons, this argument can simply be flipped around to say that Singapore must learn how to tolerate gays because to survive - we must learn how to be tolerant - when there is no harm done and we must encourage 'creativity'. I have sympathy for survivalist arguments but I cannot believe it applies to gays. To label gays as "dangerous" individuals requires bad science. And if one accepts the science that gays are born that way, and grow up that way, boys growing gay already confused by being different should require support. Especially from institutions. But what is education?

If education, and that is a big IF, is about the "Truth" as scientifically/liberally determined, then it can be seen as unreasonable to ask Otto Fong to bring down the letter. It can be seen as censorship. It can be seen as false. It depends where you come from. But what kind of truth should education be concerned about? That is a question that has yet to be answered. What kind of truth was MOE concerned about? In other words, even from the argument that individuals can be seen as means to an ends, the ability to choose what determines which standard to judge the ambit of an individual's rights is a matter of power.

The Disapproving 70 percent

and how decriminalizing sex between males will change attitudes and win votes

For those not already in the know, apparently 7/10 Singaporeans "frown on Homosexuality." Mr Wang dissected this latest statistic and compared it to other acts many disapprove of, arguing, and he puts the case very high, that therefore homosexuality should be decriminalized. I think its very logical and sound.

Some have suggested Mr Wang has employed false analogies.

I believe that from their perspective, "homosexuality" is unnatural and morally depraved. In their brain, "homosexuality" falls under an entire different class altogether. It is unlike unlike premarital sex which is merely sinful in the "lust" aspect, or like theft, which is merely sinful in the "greed" aspect. I feel that their aversion to "homosexuality" is much greater, and from their perspective, to compare it with other "acts" which they also disapprove of, is somewhat misleading. They might have no answer to why, apart from their subjective feelings, the analogy is not acceptable but whether one should have sympathy with their worldview depends largely on how much you are willing to tolerate intolerance.

Public opinion polls in the US also suggest that a person's disapproval of premarital sex/adultery have no necessary correlation with their disapproval of same sex relations. (See below).

But one way to convince some of that 70 percent, is to ironically, change the law.

Learning from US History
Today, one might think that desegregation of schools and racial communities in the US is a given. Most White Americans today support desegregation. This was not the case in the past. What happened? The Civil Rights movement has a lot to do with it, but one should not forget the role of the law. The decision in Brown v. Board of Education had a huge impact. The Supreme Court found that desegregation was inherently unequal. Early reaction to that decision was very bad.

"Gov. George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students. This became the infamous "Stand at the Schoolhouse Door," during which Wallace declared "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."[15] He moved aside only when confronted by federal marshals and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach." [Link]

Yes. Racists do become politicians and Governors. So might homophobes. But when this law came down, attitudes change pretty quickly. Then the Civil Rights Act was passed. This was way back in 1964. "I have a dream."? Remember?

10 years after 1964, 'the percentage of White Americans who said that Blacks should be allowed to live in any neighborhood increased from 65 percent to 87 percent (ISR Newsletter, 1975) (Myers, Social Pyschology). As time went by, the KKK fell from grace, and their racist ideas seen as wicked. One should never forget that in the 1920, " the organization included about 15% of the nation's eligible population, approximately 4–5 million men." Things can change very fast.

Today most Americans are arguing whether affirmative action should be a right. How far they have progressed! One can legislate against prejudice, and that will shape attitudes. That is why our Ministers should not be afraid of that so called "moral majority." When the law is passed, the moral majority might be one which is against "prejudice" based on sexuality. The law should do the right thing. And the powers that are might actually win support because of it.


____


FN1 [The US public disapproval ratings and other ways to change public opinion]
Even today, a large percentage of Americans disapproved of same sex relations. In fact between 1973 to 1991, those disapproving of same sex sexual relation in Americans stand at 71 percent and it was only until 2002, that it was about 55 percent. (Public Opinion Pros) . If you read that link carefully, you might find some interesting nuggets.

"Remarkably, this shift cannot be due to a widespread change in traditional sexual mores. In the same period, the share of Americans saying premarital sex is always wrong stayed just about constant (ranging between 26-28 percent), and the proportion of Americans saying adultery is always wrong has, if anything, risen (from 76 to 80 percent)....In sum, Americans have not become more accepting of nontraditional sexuality in general; rather, they have become more tolerant of gay sexuality in particular."

"Two concurrent phenomena may well account for much of this change—as they may also account for the changing levels of affect measured by the feeling thermometers. First, the proportion of Americans who said they had a close friend or acquaintance who is gay or lesbian more than doubled in a decade, from one in five in 1985 to a majority in 1996. Much of this, no doubt, is a function of the willingness of gay people to come out to friends and family and to put a human face onto something that had been an abstract taboo. Second, Americans increasingly believe that homosexuals are born, not made: In 1983, only 16 percent agreed that homosexuality was something people were born with, while in 2004, 32 percent held that belief. Those attributing homosexuality to upbringing dropped from 25 percent to 14 percent, while the share of Americans saying that gayness was a choice remained steady."

Unrepresented Litigants in a Complex system

Are Lawyers' Fees to Blame?

I have little use for legal services (thankfully). My mother has a bad impression of lawyers though. One of her girlfriends had a lawyer who was dealing with her divorce. That lawyer then ran to Australia with millions. I think he was later caught. We learn later it was because that lawyer lost heavily in casinos.

Since then, my mother decided that when dealing with a lawyer, one has to be extra careful. This is terrible, since a lawyer, if anything, should have the trust of a client. And the trust of the public

Then of course that was before David Rasif. That man took the hefty sum of $12 million dollars. And more recently, a David Khong was alleged to have skipped town with about $68,000. The picture painted was that David Khong had some debts to pay. Thanks to these two folks, my mother now thinks that lawyers are generally criminals. The list continues as it seems that lawyers are caught in crime after crime.

Thankfully, there are now new rules that have come into place to ensure that lawyers will not be able to handle too much of a client's money. But I think everyone recognizes, that the end of the day, no matter how you fix the rules, as long as a lawyer acts in a position of an agent, the lawyer will come into a position where beyond the ambit of restrictions, trust is required.

And the truth is this - in order to ensure that your agent does his job well and not be tempted to steal your money - more than rules and professional responsibility (and basic human decency) is required. Lawyers acting as your agents must also be well remunerated.

Lawyers get it bad too
In the conveyancing field, what I understand is that clients have recently become stingy, demanding and greedy. Conveyancing is what many in the legal sector consider one "that is long on boredom and short on glamour and cash." (Business Times, August 4th 2007, Lawyers swamped as home sales soar).

This I understand was a result of liberalizing in the conveyancing sector. When guidelines fees replaced fixed fees for property transactions, small firms quickly enter the market to undercut, and promise clients the sky and the moon for very lower and lower fees. That was in 2003. Today, many believe that standards have fallen, as firms are compelled to cut costs and take on more work per lawyer. Some admirably do it very well and flourish. Some cannot. That is the nature of the market.

And this is in a bustling property market. One can expect pressures on costs to increase in a downturn.

So there is at least one sector in the legal service that is not perceived to be hunky dory.

Many lawyers are leaving practice too. Long hours, stress and no sense of accomplishment. Standards come at a price. It is going to hurt standards or the person doing the work. It is silly for lawyers to cut costs to the point that standards are compromised. That option to breach the trust becomes more and more alluring as good hard work is not remunerated. Many members in the public are also very unwise in this regard. Saving 2000 dollars on your 1.8 million sale of your house is somewhat penny pinching. One should pay well and expect high standards. Not pay little, expect high standards, and bitch about it anyway.

That is why financial institutions are very willing to pay a premium for legal services.

But what about poor litigants who have no access to justice

"The CJ himself "noted that more convicted offenders are appearing in High Court appeals without lawyers." (Business Times, August 09, 2007). The same articles states that "figures from the Supreme Court show that for this year, about 24.8 per cent of magistrates’ appeals by the accused for the first five months of the year on average were unrepresented."

It is because I believe that lawyers have an important role to play in the justice system that I believe that we must try to correct this trend. This important role I think is very much to do with our ideas of what justice is - but also because unrepresented litigants, to my mind, will strain and test the ideas which underlies our legal system.

The rules, procedure, evidence confuses most of us. We do not know the intricacies of this and that. The layperson might blunder and does not do things that he realise only later that are consequential to his own case. Then it only becomes a drag on the system. He feels what he is saying when dismissed as irrelevant is a slight on him. He feels his efforts against the machinery hopeless.

In a criminal matter, his freedom might be at stake. The police thinks that he has committed so many serious offences. He disagrees but he is not sure what to do. He is lost, sick, afraid and tired. He is an individual against a complicated and efficient system. A lawyer will do him a lot of good. A lawyer will do the system a lot of good.

The adversarial system was designed as a contest where in the battle, truth emerges. If the other party is still figuring out the rules of the games, this contest might be seen as a farce. And that is something that is really bad. And there is only so much a judge can do about it, no matter how sympathetic. That we know. We know that no matter how talented a person is in sports, a new game will have its challenges.

The trouble in this system is not expensive lawyers. The trouble with this system is that the kind of trial a person experiences varies on whether he can afford a lawyer. There is nothing radical about that, although it is not exactly the ideal. At the end of the day, we all believe that a better lawyer can help us, and that is why we pay that lawyer more. We fundamentally accept that assumption in the system. But that means that many simply cannot afford this "privilege" of an "equal" trial. Besides, a day in court (in a civl matter) is not cheap. Pursing a civil matter is not cheap. For the poorest - and some argue, more vulnerable members - the law is often unavailable.

Who then to blame and suggestions
Hence, lawyers are not to blame. If blame is the game, then it is simply how the common law system is structured. This has nothing to do with having a heart or not. Not much to do with the state even. There are unrepresented litigants in every common law country. The complexity of the legal system for the layman means that agents charge a lot for grappling with that system. What the state can do keeping within their framework of justice is to provide incentives for pro-bono work, to increase access to rules and procedure of courts, train court officials better to deal with unrepresented litigants. Blaming lawyers is simply a knee-jerk reaction that fails to appreciate the trouble laypeople encounter in an adversarial system.

To think out of the box, perhaps this model of justice is no longer appropriate. Perhaps a new kind of "occupation" that merely defends accused persons can be created. It will focus on criminal matters and rules and procedure of the court. But his duties should be different. His education can be a much shorter one, and he too can represent accused persons in court. He need not be the best. He can even be a court official.

In civil matters, many laypersons unable to afford a lawyer will choose not to proceed with a claim, no matter how good his case is. The day in court, the legal fees, and the time required, are factors that stop him. To persuade lawyers to take up such cases, a contingent fee should be allowed. When the claimant finally succeeds, the court will give him (the winner) the settlement fee, and out of this, the lawyer will get a percentage. If the lawyer loses, there is no fee payable or a very low fee. This will allow claimants who have a strong legal right access to the the system.

Not in Jesus Camp

But what if they took over

If you are like me, you might feel that religious voices, especially Christian voices, in recent years have been embolden. A senior Paster of a Church, Derek Hong, in Singapore has suggested that gays are out to destroy churches. Then just at city hall, a poster within a glass building (a church property) facing the public reads, "Are they making a monkey of you?". Such suggestions imply that those who believe that gays should be accorded equal treatment, that those who believe that evolution is a theory that best explains where we comes from, are somehow 'wrong'. And sometimes the churches are even provocative. There was this sign hanging outside a church, very visible to all taking the mass public transport system that screamed "Homosexuals can change."

On the other hand, religion also have a very special place in Singapore. There are laws protecting them even against satire. Although charges against the Singaporean blogger who placed caricatures of Jesus Christ was dropped, the 21 year old was warned. He had faced a maximum of three years in prison and a fine of 5000 Singapore dollars under the Sedition Act.

But to certain religious leaders, the law should be used in such cases. In a Straits Times Report (June 18, 2006). Father John-Paul Tan, parish priest of the Church of St Mary was reported as saying "The right to free speech stops when it begins to hurt the religious sensitivities of others." The key word is religious. The Anglican Bishop John Chew had this to say, 'We cannot say that just because the West has allowed these pictures to be freely available, we should accept them.'

And Dr. Thio Li-Ann, now an NMP in Parliament, was reported to have said, "Given that 80 per cent of Singaporeans subscribe to some kind of religious faith, it is not conducive to denigrate any faith." Ted Young, writing for Trevvy, described Dr Thio Li-Ann as having "alleged that the gay community has an organised agenda". She was also said to have "implied that Singapore's newspapers were populated by biased liberals, whose unfair reporting paint the conservative Christians as homophobic fundamentalists, while portraying the pro-gay camp as progressive", during a forum organized by Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family is a controversial organisation which have been promoting social conservative public policy in the US.

Following in the Footsteps of United States?
Is Singapore following the footsteps of the United States, where a strong and vocal religious right seek to tap into the conservative middle for political gain and to influence public policy? Are we having our own "Jesus Camp" in Singapore? Is religion threatening the secular nature of state?

I doubt it. Abortion laws are still relatively liberal. The Singapore Government decision to open up two IRs and the embracing of biotechnology (and all its moral hazards) reflects that any vocal and religious right voice will be yet unable to overcome the pragmatic-utilitarian-survivalist mindset of many leaders. Even the founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, decided that gays are natural. At the same times, gays parties and gay runs are still banned. The state has yet to make any comments on evolution, but one can hazard that Lee Kuan Yew, a man who have spoken quite a bit about culture and genes, should be a shoo-in for one who accepts the underlying premise of evolution.

It will still be a few years more before public policy is monopolized by any religious agenda. Yet, demographics in Singapore is ripe for such a scenario. A large group of older and socially conservative Chinese, Indians, and Muslim population can easily support a strong and vocal social conservative religious leaders and public policy. This I think is an obstacle to progress. More so, for individual non-believers, it might mean further alienation and demonization.

There is no equivalent of the British Humanist Association in Singapore. Atheist associations in the United States, while literally struggling against a rabid Christian Right in United States, still manages to provide organisation and comfort. September 11, has unlike in Singapore, been a showcase for many an American, that religion can be really bad. Nearly 50 percent of British people think that their government pay too much attention to religious leaders. Books which debunk the claims of Christian empirical claims and claims of being forces of good are best sellers in both UK and US. Secular organisation have exploded (in numbers) as a counter-reaction to religious forces which have taken it upon themselves to lobby their government for their respective agendas. Singapore have no such equivalent secular organisation.

There is perhaps no need to. But I wonder, do Singaporean non-believers need such an institution to protect themselves against the scenario where religion starts to dominate public policy?

1. History of Homosexuality in Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality_in_Singapore_(2000s)
2. Derek Hong's Sermon's about Homosexuality
http://yawningbread.org/arch_2007/son-788a.mp3
http://www.coos.org.sg/sermons/files/sermonMP3/200708190830n.mp3
3. Straits Times Report, June 18 2006, Divided News over Police Checks on Bloggers, Zakir Hussain
4. Trevvy Article ( Prominent Gay Opponent appointed to Singapore Parliament) http://www.trevvy.com/scoops/article.php?a_id=94&c_id=3
5. Found a picture of the "Are they making a monkey of you" sign which is at ST Andrew's Cathedral from Fresh Brainz : Creationists are Here

Finland's Egalitarian Shadow

what can we learn from Finland's Education System?

Singapore's Maths and Science scores have been the very envy of the world. In the United States and Israel, schools use Singapore maths textbooks. Like the United States, Singapore's education system thrives on meritocracy. As Singapore's Minister of Education quipped, ""Yours [the US] is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy." Mr Shanmugaratam praised the American system as one that imbued "creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition." But is meritocracy always that appealing? 

Not if you ask my mother. As a parent of two (then) young boys, she was worried her sons might not get into the right streams and the right schools. A movie which highlights the effects of streaming in Singapore "I not stupid" is generally popular.  In that movie, students' self esteem are seen to be unhealthily tied to their examination results and the stream they are in.

And if that sounds convoluted and odd to you, wait till you hear the details. At the top of the pyramid was the Gifted Education System, aimed at the top 1% of the cohort. Then there are the different bands catering to different abilities: EM1, EM2, EM3. These "streaming" takes place before the tender age of 10.

Then at age 12, the PSLE exam will determine whether one will end up in the special stream, express stream, normal academic, or the normal technical stream. At 14, within schools, there will be usually another round of internal streaming, which will determine what subjects you might take. For the budding doctor of age 14, not been able to do well to take biology might prove stressful. 

Each stage is intensely competitive. Students are under intense pressure to excel. Learning merely for the sake of the "exam meritocracy" is common. Moves towards a "talent meritocracy" meant greater focus on "creativity". That too however can be pressurizing in its own way, as creativity is less 'objective' and hard work might not necessarily bring out results. For parents and children, this represents another source of pressure.

Schools are also unequal. They are widely acknowledged to produce different academic standards and cater to different academic groups. Hence intense pressures to get into the right primary school mean long lines outside popular primary schools every start of the registration period. At the secondary school level, due to streaming, only those with the best academic scores end at various "better" secondary schools. Many end up at "better" JCs.

Finland's Shadow
Compare this with Finland. Finland too has produced very good Maths and Science scores. It has consistently been ranked as Europe's best education system. Finns are also very literate. Finns read newspapers, borrow books at public libraries, and train more musicians per capita, than any other OCED country. It is an education system, that although not perfect, have been widely acknowledged as being one of the best in Europe, and among OCED countries.

Finland education system is surprising for the outsider because of this one rather impressive (and rare) achievement: Schools are generally no better or worse. They just are generally good. Generally there is only a 4% variation in standard (based on student performance) between schools. This is very surprising since in other countries, schools fail when their students come from the surrounding poor communities. 

As one happy Finn parent say, "This is one of those big Finnish Principles that people adhere to and we really believe in it and that equity ... equality ... equal treatment for everybody. Nobody is left behind." And it is not very costly for taxpayers either. OCED figures rate it as only slightly above average.

And that is despite the high quality of teachers. The basic qualification to teach secondary and elementary school is a Master's degree. There are also a lot of applications for the teaching job. It is a respectable job and seen as a high quality ethical profession. Teachers are also given quite a bit of freedom to teach what they want, especially when the kids reach 16-17 years old. Teachers are very much seen as friends and partners both by the students and the community. In the words of one Finnish teacher, they are "trusted."

And the children have fun in a very relaxed environment. One trainee teacher described in her teaching experience of some months that the "toughest" thing she had to do to discipline a student was to send a student out of class. And she sounded quite regretful.

Elitism in Singapore : More than Stress
What Singapore can learn from Finland is not the wholesale import of her values. Equality has served Finland well, but only because it is generally accepted in Finland as a value. In Singapore, grudgingly or otherwise, meritocracy is generally accepted. After all, education policies can only properly serve a society when its underlying values are not antithetical to society's practices. Many in Singapore generally believe that ability should be well rewarded.

But this meritocratic ideal has drawbacks. Most scholarship holders - scholarships are available only to those who represent the best and brightest in the education system -  come from much better family backgrounds than the average Singaporeans. This has lead to envy, jealously and increased tensions. 

Advantages from being born in a rich family is significant from this perspective. It can translate to access to resources, better schools, and even access to quality overseas education and job. This quickly numbs the notion that ability is all that matters, and quite naturally, feelings of betrayal takes root. On the other hand, wages of the lower middle classes suffer due to globalization. Calls for a more equal society becomes more common in an increasingly unequal society.

As Young warned when he coined the term meritocracy, it can quickly become corrupted. ""So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves." His fear is shared by many Singaporeans. And no better place than in education to solve and nip any problem in the bud.

Singapore challenge is to tweak the education to not serve the interest of the elites but those of meritocracy. The best way to do so is to keep an eye of Finland's example and their practices. This must mean that standards within schools should not vary dramatically. The Ministry should aim that variation of standards within schools should not be more than 20%. This is still a far cry from the 4% that Finland has achieved, but I supposed we have different priorities. Success in this area is cumulative. As more parents recognize that the school of choice will not affect the child's ability to perform, they will be more comfortable in sending a child to any Singaporean school.

In order to do this, affiliation between primary schools and secondary schools which give advantages to old school boys and girls should be abandoned. The Gifted Education is already being phased out. Streaming should also be phased out. Every school should not have more than a fixed percentage of students coming from the top 20 percent of the PSLE exams.

Schools, if they are not doing so already, must start to work more effectively with the community leaders and interact more with families. Community leaders should work with teachers to spot social problems and counsel the families with school going children. Families should be encouraged to work with teachers.

Selection of teachers should be more rigorous. Teachers should at least possess a good honors degree before they teach primary and secondary school. This will ensure that all primary and secondary schools in Singapore get teachers who are well qualified. These suggestions are not unworkable in practice. Most people from the establishment will probably reject such ideas as fanciful or unworkable. It might be decried as expensive. Some, especially teachers who do not meet these standards, might think that the standards excepted of teachers are too high. It is no doubt difficult and goes against the grain of "old-networks" and the regurgitation of an elite class. 

Yet the advantages, as Finland examples shows, are manifold. Higher esteem for individual students, the resolution of tension, the restoration of meritocracy, and greater happiness for the greatest number. Finland example is not perfect, and our culture might mean we cannot follow most of it. But what we can follow will require commitment to an education that reward ability with an eye towards Finland's egalitarian example. 

Notes:
Quotes from the Singapore Education Minister : Newsweek (Jan. 9, 2006; page 37)

Quotes from Finland Students and Teachers from this BBC Podcast Top of the Class 1 available here.