We occasionally head down to Johor Bahru for shopping and with the OPC scheme having been tweaked recently to include full-day use on Saturdays, we went over last Saturday. Our usual haunt is JUSCO Tebrau City located just after the junction of Tebrau Highway and Pasir Gudang Highway, and recently a TESCO shopping centre was built next to this.
The food court at TESCO has roti canai (whilst JUSCO does not) and is primarily the reason we started to patronise the former.
However, we have come to realise that TESCO does indeed have quite a bit to offer the vegetarian and vegan. First off, it supports environmental consciousness and has put in place some energy saving mechanisms (the first time we have come across this level of sensitivity in Malaysia).
Next, the labelling of the house-brand (i.e. TESCO Value) products is rather comprehensive and informative - a welcome change from the typical hard-to-find-and-more-difficult-to-decipher scant ingredient lists that are normally found on most food packaging.
Notably, my wife even let out a yelp when she noticed the labelling includes a 'suitable for vegans' tag - something we'd be hardpressed to find even in sophisticated Singapore! Needless to say we were/are highly impressed with TESCO and hope one day they'll open an outlet here in Singapore.
Some close friends stay at Jitra, Kedah in Malaysia and they are currently expecting their first child. On a whim, we decided to embark on a blitz trip up to Kedah and surprise them with a short visit. Since there is hardly any concrete information on travelling in Malaysia by road, I've decided to chronicle the data and experience so as to serve as a reference point for some firsthand information.
The plan was hatched on Saturday, 13 February, at about 11.00am, and having had some work to tie up, we decided to leave later that night for an overnight drive in our 3-year-old Kia Picanto 1.1L car. In all, 5 of us travelled together on this trip.
We left home in Clementi at 10.55pm and proceeded to the North-South Highway via the causeway. With the evening being the eve of Chinese New Year (i.e. reunion dinner), crossing the causeway at Woodlands was a breeze and we were on the Highway within 30 minutes of departure.
We travelled mostly at about 125kmh (fluctuating between 110kmh and 140kmh) and made 30-minute stops at the Ayer Keroh rest area and Pedas Linggi vista point (just after Ipoh). Leaving with a full tank from Singapore, we stopped a further 2 times to top up our fuel (ExxonMobil Synergy F-1 - RON97 at RM$2.05 per litre) twice near Ayer Keroh (25L) and again near KL (20L) - the fuel tank capacity is about 30 to 35 litres.
The toll charges amounting to about $103 from Singapore to Kedah meanwhile were as follows:
S$1.20 (causeway) + RM$2.90 (causeway)
RM$2.10 (Plaza Tol Kempas)
RM$37.20 (Plaza Tol Skudai to Plaza Tol Sungai Besi)
RM$1.30 (KL) + $0.80 (KL)
RM$43 (Plaza Tol Jalan Duta to Plaza Tol Juru)
RM$13 (Plaza Tol Sungai Dua to Plaza Tol Jitrah)
For the inexperienced, do note that you will need a 'Touch n Go' card for paying the toll charges (except the toll charges at Woodlands checkpoint which needs to be paid via NETS Cashcard).
The journey on the NS Highway (including stops) was about 9 hours in all and we reached our destination (Plaza Tol Jitra) at about 8.30am on Sunday, February 14, travelling about 820km from home (with me alone driving). It must be noted that due to unfamiliarity, I proceeded to Kuala Lumpur (KL) and exited at Plaza Tol Sungai Besi before rejoining at Plaza Tol Jalan Duta towards Kedah. I should have followed the route towards KLIA (airport) instead which would have bypassed KL altogether and continued towards the north without any exit into KL.
We spent the day and night at our friends' place enjoying their company before leaving for home at about 12.30pm on Monday, February 15, after a late breakfast. We drove through the town to Alor Setar (Kedah's capital) about 10km away to top up our fuel (17L) before entering the NS Highway at Plaza Tol Alor Setar North at about 1.20pm.
Following the road signs for Seremban and JB instead of KL, we inadvertently bypassed KL on the journey back. Although not necessary, we also topped up our fuel near Plaza Tol Juru just to be safe (7.5L) and again somewhere near KL (22L). We stopped about 2 times as well - once at a rest stop near Juru and another at the Ayer Keroh Overhead Bridge Restaurant - for about 45 minutes each. The traffic was also notably heavier on the way back during the day than when driving up during the night - we travelled mostly at about 12okmh (fluctuating between 100kmh and 135kmh).
The toll charges meanwhile for the return leg were much more straightforward and amounted to about RM$102:
RM$12.20 (Plaza Tol Alor Setar North to Plaza Tol Sungai Dua)
RM$87.70 (Plaza Tol Juru to Plaza Tol Skudai)
RM$2.10 (Plaza Tol Kempas)
We reached JB at about 10.20pm and bought some food and topped up our fuel (25L) a final time before approaching the CIQ complex (i.e. immigration). After clearing the immigration and customs, there was a bit of a traffic jam entering Singapore in which we were stuck for about an hour. Finally, we reached home at about 12.20am having travelled about 820km (with my bro-in-law driving about 300km of this).
In all, the distance travelled was about 1650km both ways and we used about 116.5L (about 4 full-tanks), giving a fuel consumption of 14km/L (or 7L per 100km) - this is a conservative estimate and actual performance should have been better. The average speed (including stops) on the highway was about 86kmh (1560km/18hrs) and we were on the road for a total of 20.5 hours.
The toll charges were cheaper going up (RM$97.40) as we went through KL city as compared to when we took the detour back (via the KLIA route) and made no exit (RM$102.50) - the difference being about RM$5. However, the fact that we took longer breaks during the return leg and were held back by traffic more frequently yet were able to take the same amount of time to travel back, suggests that it may be the better option as compared to going through KL city.
In all, our blitz round-trip lasted just shy of 50 hours with a total travel cost of about RM$450 or S$186 (not including food expenditure) for 5 adults.
ST's Rachel Chang accuses Singapore government of being polarised
A friend forwarded me the text of an opinion piece that I hear from another friend appears on Page 2 of today's paper - since I no longer subscribe to the paper, I have no idea.
The reporter, Rachel Chang, was apparently tasked to trawl online through forums and blogs that speak ill of the Singapore government to search for news fodder. Well, I must say that the reporter seems to appreciate the dire nature of the Singapore political landscape.
In her article, off the bat she refers to the Singapore government as the proverbial bogeyman and goes on to compliment how “people who oppose the Government have become scary in their own right” – justification that the balancing power of the internet has been able to stand up to this bogeyman of sorts.
Pointing to the recent incident where the boastful Mr Sear Hock Rong, chairman of the Eunos Community Centre's Youth Executive Committee (YEC), had indicated on his website that his clients included Residents' Committees (RCs) in Eunos, she went a step further to actually confirm these very allegations that he had in fact used “his grassroots connections to drum up business for his events management company” - the Eunos constituency office revealed to her that he had indeed taken on “jobs as master of ceremonies at grassroots events”.
Then, using clever comparisons with Malaysia, she contrasts how “the blogosphere in Singapore seems so much more mean, vicious and illogical” and squarely points the finger at the government by declaring this situation “the natural result of a political landscape that has been long dominated by one party”. She also sadly admits that Singaporeans who are “faced with a government-influenced media, have no recourse but to go online”, and with the media not doing its part, she laments how this “distrust of the ruling party and the media often reaches the point of paranoia”.
The reporter then goes on to attack the PAP government outright by pointing to studies done by one American scholar on the American media. Although the almost-extreme opposites of the American and Singapore media climate make the application of American research findings to the Singapore context well-nigh impossible, she nevertheless draws out the fundamental argument of the findings to bring to bear on the PAP leaders.
Defining the situation within the PAP government so succinctly, she states “when people interact with others who share the same views, they tend to become more extreme - in other words, polarised”, and added the stark contrast where “the opposite is also true: people who interact with people who disagree with them often emerge with their views moderated to some degree” – an obvious nod to the fact that more opposition members were necessary within the Singapore government.
And before ending her stinging critique, she candidly admits that “the mainstream media self-censors” and the fact that Singaporeans have “no mainstream channel through which they can criticise the Government freely”. She warns that “the Internet has become an increasingly influential player in politics” and calls on “the online community in Singapore to build up websites that are credible and respected, and pry control of the Web away from the ones who dominate it now”, much like how sites like The Online Citizen (TOC) have been working diligently to break down the barriers put up by the system.
I think it is quite bold of Rachel Chang to condemn the government like this and speak of the truth so openly. It is also commendable that she used a lot of hard data to back up her arguments. I do hope that her career is not unduly affected by her controversial article.
Power of the Net to polarise There is a need to build up credible and respected websites By Rachel Chang
THERE is a cliched warning parents like to use with their kids to discourage wrongdoing: 'You better not do xx, or the police will come after you.'
The Singaporean version of this replaces 'police' with 'the Government', an indication of how the Government is larger than life here.
But that is not the only bogey in Singapore. The people who oppose the Government have become scary in their own right.
Virulently anti-People's Action Party personages on the Internet have claimed victims of their own, including members of the PAP's youth wing, Young PAP.
In recent weeks, one of my assignments has been to cover the public spats such members have had with netizens.
Mr Sear Hock Rong is one.
The chairman of the Eunos Community Centre's Youth Club had boasted on his website that his clients included Eunos residents' committees. Netizens seized on the link, accusing him of using his grassroots connections to drum up business for his events management company.
A check with the Eunos constituency office revealed that his business dealings with it amounted to no more than a few jobs as master of ceremonies at grassroots events.
The vitriol one might face on the Internet is just politics, one might say. By advertising their political affiliations, Young PAP members were asking for their views to be challenged.
But are the actions of some overzealous netizens - doctoring pictures of Mr Sear to look like an animal and a eunuch - challenging his politics?
And what about when netizens attack someone who is in no way an affiliate of the ruling party?
One such victim is Ms Gayle Goh, a former Anglo-Chinese Junior College student who ran a well-written political blog until 2007. Her pieces contained sharply critical observations of Singapore society and politics.
She stopped writing, in large part because of the harassment and abuse she was subjected to by some netizens.
The World Wide Web can be a scary place. It is a no-holds-barred arena, and its denizens have little care for decorum and personal space - or facts, for that matter.
Part of this is the result of the boldness that anonymity bestows. Like driving carefully on Singapore roads but speeding on Malaysian highways, Singaporeans seem to relish lawlessness when they find themselves outside their accustomed boundaries.
The few, such as Ms Goh, who have dared to identify themselves on the Net, have been scarred into retreat. When announcing the closure of her blog, she said that she still had much to say, but she would perhaps now say it anonymously.
A newsroom colleague who hails from Malaysia observed the other day that the blogosphere in Singapore seems so much more mean, vicious and illogical than in Malaysia.
Some say the online vitriol is the natural result of a political landscape that has been long dominated by one party. Dissenters, faced with a government-influenced media, have no recourse but to go online, they say.
Whether or not that is true, it does not justify the malice often displayed on the Net. The distrust of the ruling party and the media often reaches the point of paranoia on political websites and forums.
To be sure, the level of discourse online may have much to do with the nature of the medium itself.
Mr Cass Sunstein, an American legal scholar who now heads the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has written about the phenomenon of 'cyber polarisation'.
Quite simply, when people interact with others who share the same views, they tend to become more extreme - in other words, polarised. Racists, for example, become more racist if they are surrounded by other racists.
The opposite is also true: people who interact with people who disagree with them often emerge with their views moderated to some degree.
The Internet - in making it easy to find people who share your views, and to interact with them with greater frequency - brings polarisation to a new level, Mr Sunstein theorises.
For example, in a 2006 study of political websites, he found that four-fifths linked only to websites that shared the same political slant. It is becoming possible to interact only with people who share, reaffirm and enlarge your ideas, rather than challenge them.
And the same is happening online in Singapore. The political forums and blogs, embittered and united in their detest of the ruling party, egg one another on to mow down minnows like Mr Sear and Ms Goh. It's the cyber equivalent of a witch-hunt, and they are the virtual scapegoats.
Does it matter? The Internet is what it is, some might say; enter at your own risk. Cyberpolarisation happens in all countries; why should Singapore be different?
But I cannot help wondering if the political landscape has contributed to the situation.
Dissent in Singapore through channels such as political parties and the media is seen as weak. Some Singaporeans believe that they can only find fearless discussion of policy issues online. They believe the mainstream media self-censors.
The other extreme, a lack of self-censorship, prevails in cyberspace. In some forums, ugly impulses like a blanket racism towards all foreigners have become de rigueur.
So long as a segment of Singaporeans feel there is no mainstream channel through which they can criticise the Government freely, more will gravitate towards the Net. And once there, they may forever be beyond the reach of the ruling party.
The Internet has become an increasingly influential player in politics everywhere. With a 'mini election fever' in the air as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong noted recently, it is time to ponder its power.
The urgent task for the online community in Singapore is to build up websites that are credible and respected, and pry control of the Web away from the ones who dominate it now - the ones who hide behind nicknames and prefer personal attacks to policy discussion.
The same ones who will probably shoot me nasty, unsigned e-mail messages after reading this column.
One Country's Misfortune is Another's Political Mileage
There are some quarters in Singapore that would be looking at the unfortunate religious tension in Malaysia as an 'opportunity' instead of the sad social dilemma that it is. Rest assured that the references will be made to highlight how 'good' things are here by comparison.
Now, if only such comparisons can extend to issues like welfare...
CNA Teaches You How NOT To Use The Word 'Immolate'
I always thought the word immolate meant to set oneself on fire but apparently Channel NewsAsia knows better. In a report (reproduced below) mildly entitled 'Best friend unable to stop woman from taking own life'- when the fact of the matter is that a desperate old lady who was saddled with debts due to her gambling (addiction?) committed suicide - Shaffiq Alkhatib wows us with his command of the language by bombastically inserting the line "...shortly before she self-immolated".
Unless the poor lady made 'a deliberate and willing sacrifice of herself by fire', it should be just 'immolated' which, at the simplest interpretation, means killing oneself by fire. Mind you though, even using the word 'immolated' is a bit of a stretch as the connotation of the word is that some form of sacrifice was involved - unless the woman was sacrificing herself to the loanshark gods.
Typically, a situation where the word 'self-immolate' would be appropriate is when a devotee sets himself on fire for his god. And whilst we may see people commit suicide by setting themselves on fire, not all is self-immolation. An abused wife who can no longer take the torture and burns herself is different from a wife who burns to exonerate herself from an accusation of adultery (both types of cases do exist in South India).
Well, coming back to the story itself, I wonder why the gambling issue is being glossed over yet again. Whilst CNA focusses on the non-issue of the woman's friend not stopping her from committing suicide, the Straits Times chose to (obediently?) focus on the loanshark problem - i.e. illegal money-lending (where the government doesn't get a cut of the market). At least, Kushwant Singh of the ST had the guts to call it as it is - 'Gambler sets herself ablaze'.
Apparently, a suicide note was found but the report claims that the cause of the suicide is unknown. This is rather confounding as the man admitted to his gambling habit in the suicide note. The fact that any half-wit would naturally make the connection between gambling and money woes, combined with the ease with which the mainstream media here often make ludicrous leaps of logic to make a host of misleading assertions, raises an eyebrow (two even) towards the contradicting headline.
If a suicide note is not to offer some semblance of a reason, then I don't know what is. Quite obviously, the man in this case was a gambler in money trouble, out of a job in these uncertain times - and it is not difficult to make such a suggestion in the report. When one considers how sensationalism drives our mainstream media, it is a surprise that such a suggestive angle was not employed in this article.
On closer inspection though, it seems the fact that a suicide due to gambling would be negative publicity for the soon-to-be-unveiled Integrated Resorts - which would explain the ambiguity in clearly alluding to the cause. Again, we notice selective reporting from the mainstream media that serves propaganda.
On a separate note, the reporter for this story, Ansley Ng, seems to have been watching too much American sports programmes - there is no 'had beat' in British English, only 'had beaten'.
Discovered a good piece of software today called Bitstrips that facilitates creating comic strips online - including unique characters, and started playing around with. Well, here's introducing the Singapore Skeptic then....
Debuting in a brand new comic strip, the Singapore Skeptic gets a taste of democracy, Singapore style...
Disclaimer: I was more preoccupied with creating the comic strip than thinking of a witty storyline!
Anyway, please provide feedback and share your first impressions with me, thanks.
Organization whose membership consists of workers and union leaders, and whose principal purposes are to (1) negotiate wages and working condition terms, (2) regulate relations between workers (its members) and the employer, (3) take collective action to enforce the terms of collective bargaining, (4) raise new demands on behalf of its members, and (5) help settle their grievances. Trade unions are generally classified as: (a) Company union that represents interests of only one firmand may not have any connection with the trade union movement. Also called house union, a company union is often a bogus oneand generally illegal. (b) General union that represents workers from several firms from the same industry. Also called industrial union. (c) Craft union that represents skilled workers in a particular field such as carpentry or welding.
The latest furor stems from an annoyed Mr Khoong who wrote in to the Straits Times Forum page to ask for more sensibility on the part of the NTUC in giving out ‘NTUC vouchers’ (I'm assuming this means NTUC FairPrice department store vouchers) to NTUC members who worked at his firm.
Indeed it seems odd that the NTUC, which represents the interests of entire industries, would act in such an alienating way towards some workers. Would not the non-members be in equal difficulty and feel neglected - even though it may be ‘their fault for not becoming a member’? Conversely, when the NTUC calls for workers and employers to be ‘Cheaper, Better & Faster’ does it only address the members then?
In any case, a grand show of (blind) loyalty to the NTUC led an enthusiastic Mdm Chow to reply in today’s Straits Times Forum with a chiding retort extolling the benefits of being an NTUC member.
Mdm Chow is indeed right as well that Mr Khong ‘missed the point’ that he ‘would have been better off joining the union from day one’. Indeed, the manner in which the NTUC went about giving out the vouchers seems more for the purpose of ‘punishing’ the non-members for their lack of support than to ‘bring joy’ to members. Why else would they so openly ostracise and belittle some workers when a more discreet process would have resulted in the same level of joy for the recipients whilst avoiding the bad aftertaste for others?
The key to addressing the aforementioned furor seems to lie in understanding what it means to be an NTUC member – it certainly affords many privileges such as shopping discounts, special entertainment packages and occasionally, NTUC FairPrice department store vouchers to supposedly help with financial difficulty. This is not unlike other clubs, societies and organisations which gather groups of people and offer them bulk discounts and privileges of all sort.
What the NTUC does not do though is remonstrate any employer for poor practices, organise large-scale negotiations, draw up firm and specific guidelines that champion workers’ causes, or lobby for widespread change in labour practices. In fact, the description on the website of what the NTUC exactly does is quite vague and generic – except for all the wonderful membership privileges it can offer.
For example, it is comical that ‘What We Do’ according to the NTUC includes what workers ought to be, what government and industry players ought to do and what mindset Singaporeans generally should adopt. The only real commitment on this particular webpage seems to be on improving on their recreational facilities and raising money for charity.
Legislatively, the Ministry of Manpower (MoM) already handles the whole gamut of labour matters (even mediation), which makes the NTUC’s involvement in shaping the climate for workers largely ceremonial. What we do observe, however, is a top-down approach where the NTUC, helmed by CEO Lim Swee Say (who is also a Minister ‘kosong’), tells workers and employers to be ‘Cheaper, Better & Faster’ and belts out such ‘hits’ as 'Upturn the Downturn' (see below) to placate the increasingly struggling masses.
Meanwhile, suggestions for radical changes are typically met with the reiteration that the system currently in place is the best - instead of any due consideration for the feasibility or potential benefit in implementing such changes (see Halimah Yacob’s reply to ‘Give women the right to ask bosses for flexi-work' for an example).
Thus, the situation needs to be understood in the proper context and where the NTUC’s actions may have seemingly caused non-members unhappiness, this sentiment is in fact unfounded. Taking into consideration that the average member who was a ‘member from day one’ would have paid thousands of dollars in membership fees over the years, receiving a $300 shopping voucher is still a net loss. The non-members in the case cited would have in fact (rightfully) saved those thousands of dollars and spent the money on things they wanted to instead of (being forced into) just buying more groceries and tidbits.
The NTUC should be allowed to behave as the exclusive members-only club that it is and should not be confused with a union that protects or champions any particular cause, or one that ensures that any worker who is suffering is accorded the necessary financial support. Only then can the action of proudly offering some workers vouchers (never mind if they need it or not) whilst overtly ignoring others (even though they may be in real financial hardship) seem not inappropriate at all.
Recently, the Head of Editorial Systems at SPH remarked in an ST blog post that some bloggers "jump up and down ... when an SPH website changes a headline". Well, although I don't have the habit of doing any physical body movments when I'm typing out a blog post, he may have felt that bloggers like me are nitpicking on the ST due to the sheer volume of ridiculous faux pas it makes in spite of it being "the most widely read newspaper in Singapore" that "strives to be an authoritative provider of news and views" - ST's own claims.
True to form, over the last 2 days, the self-censorship over the Minitor's comments continued to bring out the 'headless-chicken' behaviour at ST. A report carried on Friday (6 November 2009) reported on the China Premier's press briefing before his trip to Singapore and was titled "Controversy is 'normal'", referring to Minitor's earlier comments at an event in the US.
However, the same report appears at a different URL with the exact same text but is dated 7 November 2009 and carries the more vague title "MM's remarks normal".
If one were to read the article, however, what is referred to as 'normal' is actually the controversy and furor - not Minitor's remarks. Thus the 'updated' version of the article is incorrectly titled and is plainly misleading - how can this be a 'correction' by any stretch of the imagination? Unless 'correction' is a pseudonym for 'self-censorship'.
THE recent uproar among Chinese netizens over Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's call for the United States to remain engaged in Asia to balance China is 'normal', the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Friday.
"It is not surprising to see all kinds of comments on his views appearing in the newspapers. That is normal." - Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue
Based on the callousness with which the aforementioned Head of Editorial Systems at SPH makes his observation with regard to taking issue with such senseless changes, it would seem that the ST sees this as part of the journalistic process.
The problem is that changing a headline makes it difficult to trace, hard to cite and is just downright unprofessional. Journalists and media organisations who claim to be credible should research the material thoroughly, make a decision on the text and title, and then stick by it. Changing the material after publication (whether online or otherwise) suggests ineptitude at best - something that an "authoritative provider of news and views" should not be.
Remember the friend who keeps changing his handphone number for god-knows-why? Well, it's equally annoying when today's article cannot be located tomorrow because of the title-change. And just as you would want to slap the friend who justifies the change by saying he liked the new phone number better than the former, frustrated readers are metaphorically slapping the ST's unsavoury behaviour by pointing this out on their blogs.
And since ST is now aware of the 'smoke' (i.e. bloggers "jumping up and down") it should consider putting out the proverbial fire by improving its journalistic integrity rather than be "the most widely read newspaper in Singapore" that only knows how to fan away the smoke.
Recently, there has been some furor over our Minitor's (i.e. short for Minister Mentor) comments:
"The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need America to strike a balance."
- MM Lee, 29 October 2009 addressing a "stellar cast of the US capital's political and business heavyweights (who) turned out to honour him, including three US Presidents who sent messages in writing or via video"
Apparently, The Shangaiist reports that people in China are not thrilled with the allusion and mistrust with condemnation flowing from netizens (harsh) and the mainstream media (mild) in China alike.
Perhaps, Minitor's "surprise that Beijing put on a major military display of home-made weapons at its 60th National Day earlier this month" added fuel to the angry sentiments? Or perhaps it was his observation that a "blue-water fleet with aircraft carriers cannot just be to deter foreign intervention in a conflict between Taiwan and the mainland", addressed to the same crowd at the US-Asean Business Council's 25th anniversary gala dinner, and reported in a separate article entitled "US-China competition yes, but conflict? No".
However, what interests me is the way the headline changed for the first article - which is symptomatic of ST reports these days on sensitive issues. For example, a report on the Malaysian Insider quotes Minitor's words above but attributes the ST headline as "MM Lee urges the US to retain role in Asia to balance China".
But if one were to search for this report, the result is a report mildly titled as "MM calls on US to retain key role in East Asia" - which is only reproduced in full on the PMO's website.
The development of the headline does not end there however, and if you were to visit the ST webpage that carries a snippet of the story now, the headline is a nondescript "MM: US key in East Asia".
Honestly, I have no idea which of these 3 headlines appears in the print edition - please let me know if you do - but the question is whether this is a really necessary exercise. In all 3 cases, the story is exatly the same and the factual accuracy of the headlines remains solid, so why the need to change? This is a question we all need to ask ourselves when reading ST's reports.
I just came back after a week in Phuket to an interesting email from a buddy showing an abysmal error right in the top-middle of Saturday's front page. Unlike previous errors which occurred primarily within the article text, this was in a prominent highlight strip referring to an article inside the paper for that day.
spotted by Mr Lim Wei Teck
Where other mistakes seem to have been a result of logical oversight, this appears to be due to blatant laziness (of writer, editor, intern and even the printing staff) in checking the material.
Perhaps this is the reason (i.e. allowing gross mistakes to run in the paper) why the ST was ranked higher this year (133 from 144 last year) in the Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders?
I chanced upon a good article entitled Wacky ideas to go greenpenned by Ms Ho Ai Li, the Taiwan Correspondent to the Straits Times, that discussed the environmental sensitivity of the Taiwanese as compared to Singaporeans. What caught my eye though was the overly-juvenile oversight of spelling 'refrigerators' as 'refridgerators' (see below).
Of course it's obvious that the word 'fridge' interfered with the longer word 'refrigerator' here but still, this is something I would hardly expect from our self-proclaimed 'best-of-the best' ST journalists. In fact, it's rather incredulous how both the writer and editor missed a mistake which we would chide our secondary school students for.
As usual, another pointless straw poll was conducted and reported in the Straits Times today entitled 'Foreigners welcome, say teens' which comprised asking 100 random (one hopes) youngsters a few questions on their perception of foreigners in Singapore. Then, as if the extremely small number of 100 wasn't already silly enough, this group was inextricably further divided into 2 age groups (13-18 vs 19-24) to arrive at (one can only assume) a positive angle for the story.
Of the innumerable problems with the interpretation of the 'findings', the one that calls for a big fat "what the..." is clearly the age groups selected as categories. The definition of teen (i.e. teenager) is a person in their teens (meaning 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 AND 19, inclusive), so there is no logical reason to separate 19 from the group classified by ST as 'teens'.
Perhaps it is because without this senseless separation of the sample size, the headline would read 'Foreigners NOT welcome, say young Singaporeans'? If we look at the portion circled in red above, not having these silly categories (i.e. 13-18 vs 19-24), causes the findings to show that a clear 38% of respondents felt that immigration rules should be tighter and only 25% wanted to keep them as they are with another 25% wanting them to be relaxed.
Well, going by the way ST's been throwing out these ridiculous polls, I guess it would be alright then to quote TOC's polls which regularly receive 200+ votes each. So, for example, we could say 93% of the blogosphere was not quite impressed with the PAP's National Day Message or 83% of the blogosphere rated MOM's performance as 'poor' or 'bad' (see poll results below).
What an Elaborate Way to Keep us in the Dark, Temasek
Frankly, it has been super-annoying to make sense of the latest figures from Temasek. A lot of questions and head-scratching has been going on and honestly, I just wanted to ignore all the crap and tried hard to suppress the indignity of being treated a fool by my own government. But thanks to being tagged in a Facebook message (*looks at Seelan*) - the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back - I began making sense of the latest statements from Temasek Holdings (a.k.a. the bermuda triangle of taxpayer money).
What I have gathered is as such:
26 August 2008 - Temasek announces its performance for Financial Year (April 2007 to March 2008) and reports that its portfolio value increased 13% from S$164 billion to S$185 billion (source: Temasek Review 2008 & Temasek Holdings)
August 2008 - Annual Temasek Review defines the VaR as a 'statistical model that estimates the potential loss on a portfolio for a given confidence level ... for a 12-month period at an 84% confidence level (and) is derived using a Monte Carlo simulation based on three years of price data'; and estimates the theorectical figure for 2008 to be S$40 billion - as compared to S$24 billion for 2007 (source: Temasek Review 2008 & Temasek Review 2007)
10 February 2009 - Senior Minister of State for Finance, Lim Hwee Hua reveals in parliament that Temasek's 'net portfolio value at 30 November 2008 was S$127 billion', however AFP's request for confirmation of that figure from Temasek goes unanswered (sources: Singapore Parliament & AFP)
28 May 2009 - Minister for Finance, Tharman Shanmugaratnam corroborates Lim Hwee Hua's version by declaring in parliament that the 'full year accounts to end March 2009 have not been audited, but the picture should not be fundamentally different from what I have described as equity markets globally showed no major change as at end March 2009 compared to end November 2008' (source: Singapore Parliament)
29 July 2009 - CEO of Temasek, Ho Ching shares in a speech at a forum that the estimation of the VaR at S$40 billion 'has turned out to be so, and more' (source: Institute of Policy Studies)
So, essentially, nobody is lying about the figures - but they aren't telling the complete truth either. The 'magical' S$40 billion thrown up yesterday is merely a theoretical figure derived from a (purely) statistical estimation.
My speculation is that if the value of the losses was less than the November 2008 figure of S$58 billion (S$185 bilion - S$127 billion), Temasek would have used this opportunity to trumpet this positivity. Therefore, the very fact that no actual figure was mentioned and a wholly-theoretical number was relied upon instead (when concrete figures would be available to the CEO by now) suggests that the losses might very well be GREATER than the recorded S$58 billion.
Of course, a nice capital injection from Temasek's only shareholder, the Singapore Minsitry of Finance could mitigate that value nicely, just like it happened in 2008 - '(p)art of the increase in portfolio size came from a net fresh capital injection of S$10 billion from our shareholder as part of its asset allocation rebalancing' (source: Temasek Review 2008) - which would mean the portfolio increase was actually S$164 billion to S$175billion (6.7% growth) + S$10 billion.
Well, I'm waiting for Temasek Review 2009 which should be out sometime next month to get the actual figures - and all the creative accounting it will contain. I'll be sure to keep you all informed on what I find then but in the meanwhile, don't make too much of the magic S$40 billion figure - focus on the S$58 billion instead as it's closer to the truth.
Want to be High-Class, Don't Make Silly Spelling Mistakes NUSS
The other day I received an unsolicited mailer from NUSS (National University of Singapore Society) offering a discount on their Graduate Club membership. First of all, I have no idea why they would send unsolicited mail aimlessly when they are an exclusive club and why they would, of all places, choose to target a block that is predominately filled with 3-room flats.
The price to join was indicated as S$4,000 - apparently this is a bargain compared to their tariff rate of S$10,000 - which I am sure that Singaporeans tightening their belts in this recession like me would be heartened to consider. Unfortunately, the fine print looked at me disgustingly - 'only open to graduates from local & recognised foreign universities', so there was no chance for a pariah like me.
But just as I was about to put the mailer onto my 'recyclable' stack, I realised something rather odd. Apparently, when you are high-class there is a different spelling system and "price incresses" instead of "price increases" (see image below).
Or... it could very well be that a society/club that has no issues with mass-mailing gloss-finished postcard mailers to households who are unlikely to qualify and/or afford their memberships couldn't be bothered to hire a professional proofreader.
Whilst reading the news on ESPN Soccernet today, I realised something interesting. David Beckham was a home-grown Manchester United player who was sold to Real Madrid for US$41 million and, at the time, I thought it was quite a gamble to sell the team's talisman and star performer. However, I realise now that Christiano Ronaldo was bought just as Beckham left and was duly given the no. 7 jersey (i.e. direct replacement?) immediately as well.
Now, Ronaldo who was bought for US$20.29 million has been sold for US$132 million - a tremendously handsome profit by any standards - and again, many feel that it is quite a gamble to sell the team's current talisman and star performer. However, on closer inspection, it seems as though Federico Macheda has been earmarked to be the direct replacement for Ronaldo.
By the looks of it, it seems Macheda can easily fill the void and if he rises to the heights of Beckham and Ronaldo, Ferguson - and more so the board of Machester United - can look forward to another windfall in 5 to 6 years' time.
We occasionally head down to Johor Bahru for shopping and with the OPC scheme having been tweaked recently to include full-day use on Saturdays, we went over last Saturday. Our usual haunt is JUSCO Tebrau City located just after the junction of Tebrau Highway and Pasir Gudang Highway, and recently a TESCO shopping centre was built next to this.
Source: 
screen capture of 
.jpg)
