Fined $200 for sleeping

This takes the cake, it really does. Make us a laughing stock too. The worst kind of law is the one filled with loopholes and inconsistencies, and so it proves.

A man was fined $200 for snoozing at Sun Plaza Park. It was raining at the time and I guess he was just waiting it out. As you know, there really is no better time to sleep when it is raining. And so he did, on a sheltered bench. Two NParks officials came along, told him to get up, and here's where the story gets complicated.

The officials claim he didn't obey; the man claims he did. Regardless of that, they both agree that it was the man's first 'offence', if you can call it that.

Some of this may sound reminiscent of Mr Murali's excellent editorial, but I guess great minds think alike.

If it's his first offence (undisputed fact), why the heavy-handedness. Wouldn't a verbal warning or (harshly) warning letter suffice?

Besides, at no place in the park was there a sign prohibiting a snooze. In their great esteem, NParks couldn't find it either, and helpfully informed us that it wasn't on their website, but that the public could read about the offence in the Parks Act or something like that.

Hmmm, let's picture this:
Child: Hey Dad, let's go to the park!
Dad: I know, wait. Let me read the latest edition of the Park Act first, in case flying a kite that looks like a hammer is illegal. Might look like Workers' Party.
Child: Oh I see. Where do you find that Act? Maybe the NParks website?
Dad: Nope, not there.
Child: Ministry of Environment?
Dad: Nope.
Child: Google Parks Act?
And so on.

Next time you go to the funfair, better check the Funfair Act first. Sekali you drink water while on the ferris wheel and get fined for drinking at the wheel.

Moreover, motorists are fined relative pittances for putting motorists and pedestrians in danger, like by parking along double yellow lines, speeding etc. The message? Sleeping on a bench is a greater sin than hogging a busy road. Tsk. Just imagine the number of people he inconvenienced while sleeping - all those people walking in the park while it was raining - all two of them. Oh wait, those were the officials.

The biggest loser in the whole sordid affair must be NParks and its lawmaking. Forget Henderson Waves and all its good work. One PR disaster and all the public sees is a ponderous, heavy-handed government body bound with red tape that bullies tired people.

All this proves that laws are useless unless you have civil servants with the initiative and common sense to implement them.

Another conundrum: The law against homosexuals is loosely applied but this is not. What is a matter of greater importance then? People sleeping on the wrong bench or people sleeping with the wrong sex?

Malaysia Boleh!

They've outdone themselves again - this time with three New Paper stories in a row!

1. They've suddenly sprung a surprise and relaunched the white cards again. The Johor immigration department was contacted and, get this, they directed the call to the checkpoint. That's like, hey PM, I have a question about Singapore. Oh here, talk to my MP. ?!?!
Immigration oficer Shahrul Nazrie (poor soul) said that he didn't know why the white cards were being introduced, and that he was just following instructions from the Putrajaya immigration department.
That's right, make a decision, but don't tell your people why.
Finally, to all you white-card hoarders - bad news - it might not be the same white card.

2. Malaysia's Women, Family and Community Development (hmmm, no mention of men, there) Minister Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen has suggested castrating repeat rapists.
The female minister did clarify that she was advocating more research in this area. Yes, Dr Ng, castration DOES prevent rape. No need to risk any male guinea pigs for this one.

3. Finally, a non-Muslim reporter in a knee-length skirt was barred from Malaysian parliament after guards objected to her attire. She was sent home to change to pants. Hello, we don't even do that to children nowadays.
Those who failed the "skirt test" were told to pull their skirts down a bit. Another reporter was sent home for having too-tight pants.
Some female MPs were spotted in similar attire but the guards didn't stop them. Their explanation? "We can't tell them off as they are MPs."
A Malaysian minister promptly over-declared: "To me, as long as you don't some dressed in only your underwear, I'm fine with it." Anything except underwear, you say?
------------
Jan 22 2008, 2259hrs
Malaysian bureaucracy's finest hour.

Singaporeans do not need to fill out white cards on entry to Malaysia because, wait for it, they've run out of them. Apparently they decided to start a new system, as yet unnamed and undescribed (or indescribable), but have not bothered to inform, errr, anyone at all. Some officers stamp the white cards, and some don't.

Mr Johari of the Johor Immigration said that Singaporeans would still be asked the location and duration of their visit. I quote, almost verbatim: "It would be quite troublesome for our officers to keep asking them for the location and duration, so we may get them to write this on little pieces of paper, but it's not confirmed yet."

Whoa. Like such a groundbreaking decision. So you replace the white card (a form) with a piece of small paper (another, albeit smaller, form). Apart from this lunacy, everything else is status quo, of course.

How do you change the system and inform no one? How do you remove the old system without the new one in place, and tell no one? How do you all that, and stil not be sure about what to do with little pieces of paper?

Am I the only one who doesn't get it?

'Kota Baru bans noisy high heels'

I'm beginning to suspect certain states in Malaysia are run by aliens. Check out this insightful article in The New Paper:

"Authorities in Kota Baru have banned Muslim women from wearing bright lipstick and noisy high-heeled shoes to work. The ban will enhance thir dignity and prevent them from getting raped, Bernama said."

The government went on to say, kindly, that they may wear them if the heels are padded with rubber. A RM500 fine awaits any violator.

Ban, ban, ban. Fine, fine, fine. Is this the only thing they know how to do? Oh wait - that's the island down south.

But seriously, I agree that heels are noisy and irritating, but to say they facilitate rape? Unfortunately, such sweeping and extreme statements are already commonplace.

What nerve!

I refer to Woo Jia Wei, Jayern's letter "Why just fine us but not give advice?" published on p22 pf The New Paper on 7 Apr 2008.

I read the letter in disbelief as Jayern contrived to view jaywalking advice as something the police officers were compelled to do. Going by his logic, police officers should stop every passer-by holding a drink can in case he litters. I've not heard such fanciful nonsense in quite a while.

He makes several assumptions:
Firstly, that the officer knew he was going to cross the road illegally. We are well aware of the adage "innocent until proven guilty". I have little idea why Jayern prefers to be proven guilty in the first place.
Secondly, he assumes he is not aware of jaywalking as an offence. If primary school children can raise their hands at zebra crossings without their parents, I think we can expect the same if not more of our dear jaywalker. It is common knowledge that you have to use a pedestrian crossing if you are within 50m of it. For him to claim ignorance is blatantly pretentious.
Thirdly, he claims that the officer was "merely concerned about noting down" his particulars and informing him "about the fine". Assuming that Jayern is longer a primary school student since he knows how to write a letter to the press, this represents the third time in this sorry issue that he has claimed that he needs hand-holding in crossing the road.

He claims he's not asking for leniency and that may be true. In writing this ill-advised letter though, I think he has contrived to make himself a veritable laughing stock.

Non-Mandarin speakers lose out in job market

I refer to Nur Rashidah's letter "Non-Mandarin speakers lose out in job market?" in The New Paper on 26 Mar 2008.

I think it is important to distinguish between preference and necessity, and blind equality and common business sense. I believe that most companies that stipulate prospective interviewees to be proficient in Mandarin are doing it out of necessity and are exercising their business sense. Although English is taught as first language in schools, it is also common that many Singaporeans are more proficient in their mother tongue. Given that there are over 70% Chinese in Singapore, it is fair to assume that a fairly large number of these companies' customers or clients are more comfortable in speaking Mandarin. It would be remiss of them to ignore that telling statistic and not ensure that most of their staff are proficient in their customers' lingua franca.

It is true that this requirement does not "benefit" non-Mandarin-speaking job-seekers, and they probably are losing out. It may also be "unfair" to them, but until Singapore truly manages to make English its first language in reality rather than ideology, I'm afraid this is likely to perpetuate.

Honesty

Letter published in The New Paper, 17 Mar 2008, p26
Some furore in The New Paper over how netizens were only to keen to say that they would not donate money to a Chinese national suffering from leukemia simply because he wasn't Singaporean. The crux of the article was the discrepancy between Singaporeans' opinion on an online poll and in a face-to-face (F2F) poll.

In the online poll, 80% of respondents said they WOULDN'T donate. In the F2F one, 90% said they WOULD. This is a swing of opinion that is unfathomable. Psychologists say that this is a result of something they call social desirability - interviewees give answers they think the interviewer wants to hear, so as to be accepted by him/her. Even if this was true, this is virtually a 180-degree turnaround!

I don't think by any measure that netizens are more honest - on the contrary, I think the World Wide Web's anonymity has conceived a very vocal minority emboldened by a false sense of bravado to respond to all issues cynically, so as to gain the approval of their peers. It's apparently a popular thing to be anti-establishment, so we hear. Press these people in a F2F interview, and you'll hear a different story.

I conclude that in a poll of opinion, the medium is very important. While anonymity has been proven to be important to honesty in an interview, the rather flippant nature of the netizens' response suggests that online polls and forums aren't the way to go either. Netizens (I hate that word) can easily hide behind fictitious nicknames and avatars and post whatever they want, which is what has happened here. Are they more truthful? No.

I believe the answer lies somewhere in between - an anonymous phone interview perhaps? That's one for the researchers to think about.
Source: The New Paper, 14 Mar 2008, p10

The South African petri dish: The sexist culture thrives

Sexism is well and truly alive in the world. If you want to find the hotbed of it, look no further than the sunny climes of South Africa, previously home to apartheid and now the breeding ground of worryingly sexist behaviour.

Apparently, South African women have had enough, with hundreds of them marching through Johannesburg with signs declaring "We Love Our Miniskirts!". The spark that lit the tinder was an incident at a taxi stand where a young woman was unceremonially disrobed by taxi drivers and hawkers, apparently for showing too much skin. They went on to touch her private parts, taunting her while pouring alcohol on her head. The alcohol, of course, is another problem for another article that probably fuelled this disparate reaction.

What's even more shocking than this is the prevailing apathy and narrow-minded view that the high incidence of rape in South Africa (50,000 reported annually, with some activists claiming as many as 1,000,000) is the fault of women who express themselves over-zealously through fashion. That is to say, mini-skirts.

One such idiot is taxi driver Thulani Nhlapho, 21. "If you are wearing a mini-skirt, you give the impression you want to be raped. You respect yourself when you wear a longer skirt. We respect women who respect themselves."

Going by his flawed reasoning, men in running shorts and little else better watch out or they are really asking for it.

Another such Neanderthal is car guard Edwin Ndlovu, 29. "We laugh because they are naked. As a person, you have to control your feelings. It is difficult when women are naked. That's how some men end up raping women."

I really hope he isn't speaking from experience, because it really is a poor excuse. Maybe jewellers should stop displaying their wares because robbers can't control their feelings? Made-up excuses aside, he really needs to check the dictionary to distinguish between underdressed and naked.

I am shocked that such blatant sexism still exists in the 21st century, but there you go. If there's one country that needs sex education, South Africa should be right at the head of the queue.
Source: The New Paper, 6 Mar 2008, p. 22

Folding the best paper airplane

Doing an activity on origami so I thought the children should learn how to make the best paper airplane ever. The first one here was featured in the Times:


This next one was looks so weird, I don't know where to begin. You can find it here:


This one is called the Dragon. Who knows why.

Men, men, men

According to The New Paper, 51% of Singaporean men would carry their girl's handbag. Sissies.

80% of men would pay for the date. Well, if women want equality they'll need to pay for it.

91% of men would send the girl home. I assume they have a car?

Total Defence Day

Two readers have replied to the sweet potato article, saying exactly what I wanted to say if I had mustered the courage to go against MOE policy and write to The New Paper. Kudos to Kiara Chua and Matthew Lee, who basically said that it was unfair to stereotype students as spoilt due to the different lifestyles they have, and that the academic staff should have been put through similar treatment to prevent hypocrisy. I rest my case.
-------------
28 Feb 2008, 1834hrs
Read in our favourite TNP today about Total Defence Day. You know, for a front page headline and page two story, I thought they'd entrust it to someone better than two newsroom interns. I do know how difficult it is to write a piece in a few hours, so my sympathies there.

But what followed was a very biased piece whining about how soft and spoilt our children are nowadays. The blame was laid very squarely at the children's feet, but I feel this is very unfair. While I agree that some of them do have life good and could be taught better manners and behaviour, is it really the children's fault that they don't know how to eat sweet potato? Or that they complain when there is the fan in the classroom is turned off? Children nowadays have a very "different lifestyle", as a vice-principal astutely put it. The children can only experience what they are put through. If the parents do not put them through relative hardship, are the children to go looking for it? Don't blame them for being spoilt when there are people more than willing to spoil them with air-conditioned comfort and domestic help.

And please don't blame them for complaining at being hot after PE or recess in a stuffy classroom. Classrooms are relative heat sinks; having been in front of one many times, I know how it feels even with the fan on. On a hot afternoon, it can really stifle the life out of you. I actually pity the children, especially those with skin-related problems. I can imagine how they would have itched and scratched. It is really unfair to put them through such discomfort and imagine that they will accept it gratefully as a lesson. I'm sure our pioneers did grumble here and there about the discomfort as well.

Personally, I can identify with the students who complained about the staff room having air-conditioning. Is Total Defence something only our young should learn about? What does it say to them when the teachers justify the importance of Total Defence in the sweltering classroom and then retreat to the cool climes of the classroom to curse Total Defence Day? It's like justifying talking during the national anthem and then pulling out children for talking.

How can children be content with what they have when they haven't had the opportunity to compare it to anything else?

Now, regarding the sweet potato. Personally, I don't mind the stuff. But you are comparing an adult to primary school children. Surely they are allowed to protest if they are given something they've never tasted before to eat? I imagine that adults would complain at being given fried grasshoppers, so why do we expect a different reaction?

It's simple really. The New Paper has always been willing to treat our education system and children as a ever-present story generator. They rise up in mock outrage when mundane things happen and stir up a hornet's nest at the slightest inkling of a story. It is unfair, unhelpful and honestly irritating.

Bad English

If our newspapers are the paragons of good English, then I'm afraid we are doomed. Just within two sports pages in The New Paper, I found these gems:

"We received an overwhelming number of mails for the question: Who would you want as striker in your team - Wayne Rooney or Fernando Torres."

OK, since when is mail countable? And when does a question not have a question mark?

"This match will be free entry to public, compliments of SAFFC."

So much for the S-League.

"Matches as follow:"

Is the letter 's' at a premium here?

Disgusting.

Principals

Wel, well, well! The New Paper is getting more interesting! A letter in the forum about how principals need to improve on their people skills. I'm glad to have had good principals so far, but have heard enough horror stories from colleagues and friends. Firstly, let me say that they have a really difficult job on their hands, though they are paid to do so. But my point is that just as football players don't necessarily make the best managers, teachers don't necessarily nake the best principals. It's almsot a totally different set of skills. While they may be excellent educators with a genuine heart for children, they may not be the most skilled in dealing with employees and parents. If courses would help them in this blind spot, then why not? But please don't make it another superfluous and run-of-the-mill thing. That's too much of that floating around in TRAISI.

Let's face it: results are more important than staff well-being. The school will always come first. It's just dumping more work on you in a mroe civilised way.

The New Paper's Santokh Singh on teacher ranking

I like this guy. He always has something fresh and interesting to say about our education system.

This time round, he champions a 360-degree ranking system, which includes one's superiors, peers and subordinates. For teachers, these are their principal, HODs and level heads (though not necessarilt the most level-headed), fellow teachers and students respectively. Oh well, as long as it doesn't degenerate into a farcical popularity contest. Some would say being the best does not make you the most popular, but I say it is possible to do both.

Secondly, he suggests that D-grade teachers be given the option of moderation by MOE. What good this will do I don't know, but at least it allows the avenue of appeal and belays the excessive authority of the principal. S/he has that much of variable wage component to give out to her staff leh.

Safety on Ubin

Just read in the New Paper today that FM93.3 DJ Dennis Chew got into a very bad biking accident on Pulau Ubin. He broke his jaw and fractured his arm. He probably pressed his front brake instead of his back and flipped over.

So all the more we have to be careful when we're there.

I also think those of you who are keen to take some photographs can take your camera along and take photos of nature etc.
---------
So ironic. For all of my foreboding, it was yours truly who got into the biggest accident after all. Went down a slope too quickly, my back brake didn't catch well enough, hit the hump and flew off course towards the beach, hit the kerb and damaged my front wheel, flew off my bike to the ant-infested beach where my bike landed nicely on my right arm. If it sounds bad, that's because it was. And yet God protected me and I ended up with only a few abrasions. Amazing. I believe that was God's way of telling me to ride carefully, seeing how He gave a near-accident earlier on another down-slope.

God is indeed looking after us. He gave us a brief shower when we prayed for some, found CK when we prayed after he got lost etc. God is truly amazing.

Kaka thanks Jesus

I saw a picture of Kaka in The New Paper praising God after his victory. Let's follow his example and praise Him in good times and bad.