Thoughts on the NLB book removal issue

I would like to write my thoughts about the NLB controversy that has been taking place recently in Singapore. The NLB is the National Library Board in Singapore, and it had drawn flaks from pro-LGBT and humanist circles for its removal of 3 children books featuring homosexual themes from its libraries. Just last weekend or so, pro-LGBT activists staged a protests outside the National Library by bringing the books removed and reading them there together with their children. Then there was the boycott movement by pro-LGBT writers to host their events under the premises of NLB. On the social conservative front, petitions numbering to about 26,000 or more were garnered to present support for the NLB decision. There has been many letters written in from both camps criticizing and supporting the NLB decision.

I suppose this NLB issue and controversy is simply a facet in a much larger cultural tussle that is happening within Singapore about the homosexuality issue. I just hope to be able to put some perspective on the issue by articulating the possible sentiments held by both sides, and proposing a way in which the issue can be dealt with in a more amicable manner.

Foremost, I think that the homosexuality issue is one that is not easily resolved, and is going to last for a long long time, perhaps even past the lifetime of people within this generation or the next few generations or so. Different people would have different sentiments of homosexuality and ideals on how it should be treated in society. A person with pro-LGBT sentiments probably sees homosexuality as an innate characteristic of a person, as much as is a person’s personality or preference. They thus view a person’s homosexual desires as something to be sympathetic about, and even condoned as a normal and acceptable aspect of human nature. A conservative on the other hand probably sees homosexuality as a deviant sexual orientation, as much as pedophilia or bestiality are considered deviant amongst the majority of society at this contemporary point of time. Even if a social conservative were to be sympathetic to the innate desires for same-sex relationships of a homosexual, such desires would still be considered as deviant and unacceptable for him or her.

I suppose the way in which conservatives and liberals view homosexuals is in part responsible for the vastly diverging approach in which they treat homosexuality. Conservatives view homosexuality as a reprobable lifestyle choice, as much as how they see people who would choose to lead a promiscuous or sexually licentious lifestyle. For conservatives, the ideal sexual relationship is a monogamous marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Liberals probably see sexual relationships as something that is acceptable as long as it between any consenting individuals. And with regards to homosexual relationships, a liberal probably wishes to allow for such desires to be expressed without being disapproved as morally unacceptable. More moderate individuals will probably differ about their opinions on the matter depending on whether they identify more with the arguments sympathizing a person’s homosexual orientation, or those professing a monogamous heterosexual relationship as the ideal of a family structure.

With such vastly differing view on homosexuality, I believe that the best way that society can deal with it is to first of all acknowledge and respect the existence of the opposite view, instead of simply belittling the other view as unintellectual or bigoted. I believe those with liberal sentiments struggle with the need to be sympathetic to the plights of those with homosexual orientation. On the other hand, conservatives probably acknowledge such sympathies, but still feel strongly that there is an appropriate cultural norm to which society should preserve or aspire to. It is ultimately a difference of ideals of what society should be like.

I think that as far as possible, a society affirming some degree of libertarian values of allowing individuals to lead life the way they wish to as long as it does not harm other individuals is the best and most peaceful approach to which people of differing views and sentiments can live amicably with one another. Homosexuals should be allowed to conduct their personal relational lives without fear of prosecution by the state, while conservatives should be free to express their disapproval of homosexuality without fear of being censured for hate speech by the state. There are the iffy grey areas where disagreements are to be expected, but as far as possible, we should try to be as amicable and congenial in the way we approach our differences. The proselytizing of views from either camps should be kept out of public institutions, such as our schools or our media. The matter is controversial enough such that should either a liberal view normalizing homosexuality or a conservative view condemning it be advanced in such public institutions where people of different faiths exists, it is bound to offend or incur the ire of another individual. So why not let’s agree to keep our moral views to ourselves, and speak of them only in appropriate occasions where people are agreeable to discuss and debate the issue. As much as one does not like it if someone from another camp forces his or her views down upon him or her, he or she should likewise not force his or her view on another person.

My view for the NLB matter is thus that libraries should be keeping away books professing either moral positions from either camps away from the children bookshelves. As much as liberals would not want homosexaul-condemining children books like Alfie's home on the shelf, conservatives do not want homosexual-normalizing children books like And Tango makes Three. If there is anything that is really discomforting to people from either moral ideological camp, it is that their children are exposed to and being indoctrinated with views from the opposing camp without their knowledge or supervision. Perhaps books pertaining to such controversial issues may be included in the adults section where readers are of more discerning characters. But when it comes to children, let’s keep our public sphere neutral to the controversy by agreeing to not allow books aimed at a children audience and espousing a certain position on the moral issue away from the children bookshelf. I think that if liberals or conservatives can affirm on a value to preserve this middle ground in our public institution, and take their cultural war away from the public’s sphere, especially where children are the subjects caught in the crossfire, it would make for a slightly more comfortable co-existence between members of the two camps in society.

Visit to Malaysia - Genting Highlands and Pulau Ketam

I just came back from a 3 days trip to Malaysia over the weekend, during which, my parents and I went with a tour group to Genting Highlands and Pulau Ketam. Despite having visited Malaysia quite a number of times, this was my first time to the two places. I like the food in Malaysia. It is definitely better and cheaper than what can be had in Singapore. There are many Chinese restaurants around Malaysia which you can visit for decent food at affordable pricing. It is more difficult to find good restaurants in the heartlands of Singapore, and they do come at a high price. I had plenty of seafood during my trip.

There is something about travelling in Malaysia that is quite stress-relieving. There are plenty of land, and the landscape is much less developed than what you have in Singapore, although I wish that Malaysia was a little more developed, somewhere along the standard of Japan or Taiwan where there are plenty of goods and services, and places of attraction. Malaysia certainly feels more spacious than Singapore. You can drive for miles seeing only forest and mountains on your peripherals. A Malaysian friend of mine who came to work in Singapore complains that Singapore is too congested for her liking, and that she intends to go live in Australia in the future. I am relatively comfortable with the way Singapore is, and don’t find myself being as stressed up about living in Singapore as my friend does. I like the area in Singapore where I live, which is relatively sub-urban in nature, and less populated than the more heavily resided areas. I just wish that there was better food around because I think that the food fares at the shopping malls or at the hawker centres can be pretty sub-standard. My complain is that food prices seem to be going up, while food quality seem to going down. I wish that there were more quality western and Japanese food stalls around, and at affordable pricing. I also wish that stalls serving Chinese mixed dishes served healthier and more palatable varieties. I usually find the Chinese stalls serving mixed dishes in Singapore too salty and oily for my liking.

Housing and insurance loopholes

A friend of mine who works in insurance recently got some certificate enabling him to provide legal consultation on certain matters. He was telling me about how it is possible to exploit certain legal loopholes in the housing and insurance industry. One example he gave was about how a person can own 2 HDB flats at the same time. This is a strategy, he says, that is necessary if one were to inherit a HDB flat from one’s parents when one already has a HDB flat for himself. Otherwise, under prevailing laws in Singapore regarding the ownership of HDB flats, it is necessary for the house owner to sell one of the HDB flat within a period of 6 months.

 

The strategy is to continually apply for extension of the period to hold onto the extra HDB flat. I think I remember him mentioning about how the owner can extend the period for up to 20 years. The application to extend however, requires the applicant to cite reasons for the extension. A good lawyer, he says, would be able to help the applicant extend his application for quite a long time.

Another example was on how a house owner living in a HDB flat can own a private house even if he had not reside in the HDB flat for the requisite 5 years. This, he says, requires the homeowner to incorporate a private limited company to buy the private house under the company’s holding. The incorporation of the company for this purpose can be done for quite a low cost of $11. Next, the owner makes himself the sole shareholder of the company, and appoint himself director of the company. He can vote to allocate rights to the private house on the basis of director’s benefits. The drawback however with this method is that the owner has to pay company taxes.

 

My friend mentioned something about a particular type of insurance that pays out the insured on the simple basis that the insured admits into a hospital for more than a week. He says that this can be exploited by some freeloaders, who check in to a hospital indefinitely after obtaining the insurance. In particular, these people would check into private hospitals which are profit-making, and which would not refuse admission on a needs-based basis. The payout from the insurance would cover the hospital cost, and have leftovers that the insured can keep. The insurance company would however be able to refuse to renew the insurance contract with the insured after the insurance expires at the end of the year.

Addressing Singapore’s rising food cost

During a break session at the Meet the People Session, MP Faishal talked about the undergoing efforts by the government to address the rising cost of food. He thought that one of the reasons for the rising food prices is vendors raising their food prices to increase their profits. I pointed out that at NUS, food prices at canteen are regulated to ensure that vendors do not raise the price of the food they sell beyond a certain cost. MP Faishal concurred that that is one of the measure that a committee addressing this issue is considering, and it seemed like a good idea to him. Another resident volunteer at the session on the other hand felt that the price of food ultimately boiled down to rental cost, and that regulation has limited ability to curtail food prices from rising. MP Faishal mentioned though how certain food vendors who owned their outlet had taken advantage of a renovation of the food centre where their stalls are to make an excuse to increase the price of their food, even though the entire renovation had been funded by the town council. I could imagine that a food vendor would readily defend his pricing policy by saying that this is to recoup losses and opportunity costs while their stall was unable to operate during the renovation phase, but it seems that the increase in food prices is more likely going to be permanent than especially if it increases profits for them.

I had learnt while studying theory of firms for economics in my junior college days about how a firm’s ability to set prices depends on the type of market in which the firm is in. The theoretically ideal perfect market conditions where there are so many firms in the market competing selling the same good and barring for market imperfections like transaction costs would give a firm no ability to set its price. I think that a food vendor have market power and some ability to set prices of its food once it becomes an owner of an outlet at a food centre. By contracting for price regulation at the leasing stage, the pricing would be factored in the bidding process where there are more competitors, thus providing a more market competitive environment.

A friend whom I was discussing this issue with pointed out however how it would be difficult to regulate food prices. For one, vendors could start using poorer quality ingredients rather than increase prices in order to cut cost and increase profits. Moreover, regulation probably comes with its own costs as well, especially if regular audits have to be made.

The price of rental for food vendor is also another factor in the food pricing issue. I have heard about how middlemen subleasing the food vendor outlets drive up rental costs. For quite some time now, the Singapore government has adhered to a free market philosophy in addressing food prices. I heard that in the past, there were regulations for owners to tend the outlets that they own, but that this has been done away with by the government. Perhaps the difficulty in regulating middlemen is to distinguish between middlemen owners who add value to the industry by managing the food centre outlets. Moreover, perhaps the government think that free market conditions would be self-regulating if there are enough food centres around as middlemen owners can’t raise the prices of sub-leases without food vendors choosing other areas to operate where the rental is lower. But could it have been a mistake on their part to allow middlemen from coming into the food business in the first place?

What I have written so far pertains to competitive market pricing rather than the cost of food itself. I was wondering whether there are supply issues of food in Singapore that causes cost of food to go up, and whether this is the case worldwide or in surrounding neighbouring countries. My personal observation is that prices of food in Singapore is higher than those in comparatively similar developed country such as Hong Kong or Taiwan.

It’s been a long time since I read up on economics, and I suspect that the issue is much more complex than what I have written in my blog post here and requires extensive economic analysis, and there is unlikely to be an easy solution that will cure the high food price problem.

The Hard Truths 1 - The sustenance of Singapore's survivability

I am trying to develop an interest in politics and world affairs so that I can have more content that I can blog about. Moreover, I figured that I should start being a politically engaged member of society, if there is any purpose to being one, perhaps so that I will vote correctly in the next general election. I doubt I will make a career in politics, but I guess if ever I become good at blogging about politics, I can become a political commentator. Now, I am really a newbie at politics and might be ignorant about many things regarding the state of affairs. The information that I will read about comes from the straits times and alternative medias like the online citizen. But let me start my endeavour to be a more informed political citizen by learning the views of our first prime minister of Singapore – Lee Kuan Yew. I suppose I wish to form a more objective evaluation of the man, his character, and the work he has done in building up Singapore. So I will blog more about this political personality, that is, if I can keep a sustained interest in politics. And if I can, I will try to proceed to blog on other political personalities of Singapore, such as former deputy prime minister Goh Keng Swee and S. Rajaratnnam. I suppose before I read his critics, I shall try to understand what the man himself has to say.

With that, let me start on my reading on the book the Hard Truths featuring Lee Kuan Yew’s views on what it takes to keep Singapore going. Each chapter is presented in a question-and-answer format preceded by an introduction.

In the first chapter of the book, Lee Kuan Yew gave his views on the trepid state of Singapore’s security given our geopolitical location and belligerent neighbouring countries, especially from Malaysia.

At Page 18 - “In Singapore, we are in a very turbulent region,” he would remind us. “If we do not have a government and a people that differentiate themselves from the rest of the neighbourhood…Singapore will cease to exist.” He recounted commenting to his Australian hosts in 1988 after a visit to New Zealand, that “I could come back here in 100 years and I’d be sure to find this place, still green grass, still sheep and cows and wheat and fruit trees…When I project myself forward 100 years for Singapore, I cannot tell you that it will exist.”

I remember reading for social studies lesson during my secondary school days on the nation state of Venice as a case study of small nation states, and its rise and fall. It held a prominent position as a centre of international trade, but subsequently declined from external threats from its neighbouring state powers, as well as from other circumstances such as the onslaught of the black plague. I suppose there is a concern by Lee Kuan Yew as to whether the narrative of the rise and fall of a nation state would similarly apply to Singapore. For now, Singapore is an economically strong nation amongst its neighbours, and holds many hub statuses, but would there come a day where Singapore would decline, or even become non-existent?

Lee Kuan Yew highlights the threats that Singapore experience within the geographical region from neighbouring country, and points out the vulnerabilities given Singapore’s dependence for resources which it imports from surrounding neighbours. In the past, we used to import water from Malaysia, and there were repeated threats from then Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohammad about breaching the water agreement and cutting off supply of water to Singapore. From what I read about in the Singapore newspapers, Mahathir was making statements like, “To skin a cat, there are many ways, to skin Singapore, there are also many ways.” I wondered then why Mahathir would take such a hard-ball approach towards Singapore.

I kind of got some information for the reason for such animosity when Former law minister Jayakumar came to give a talk over at the law faculty of Singapore. According to him, Malaysia during the time of Mahathir Mohammad, was put off by Singapore turning down Malaysia’s request for financial aid during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Subsequently, Mahathir started taking a hard-nosed approach in dealing with Singapore, bargaining for hard deals in the Malaysia-Singapore Points of Agreement of 1990 such as a 60-40 percent owernship in favour of Malaysia for in exchange for selling back the area at Tanjong Pagar where the railway line was. There is an endnote snippet at page 39 of the Hard Truth which states that “Malaysia banned all snad exports to Singapore in 1997, saying that It needed to conserve resources and protect sea and river beds. Indonesia banned sand exports to Singapore in 2007, citing environmental concerns. Singapore uses sand in construction and land reclamation; Indonesia’s ban caused construction activities to grind to a halt as sand prices trebled in 2007. Singapore now buys sand from further afield.”

I heard the reason why Indonesia was quite unhappy with Singapore was because of the outflow of capital after racial riots caused Chinese businessmen to park their money into Singapore. Singapore’s initial refusal to sign an extradition treaty led Indonesia to mete out a sand ban. Of course, the reasons given was masked as environmental concerns about eroding shore lines.

For now, it seems like Singapore’s foreign relationships with its neighbouring countries are more amicable, especially with the passing of leadership to the current leaders of Singapore and Malaysia. I do hope that the various leaders in the region would be sensible and peaceful in dealing with one another, and not allow their personal gripes to affect foreign relations in a negative manner. After all, there are many people that lives in each country, and they would suffer if the leaders of the various neighbouring countries take a hard-ball attitude towards one another.

My impression of Lee Kuan Yew is that he is a tough man who takes a tough attitude towards ensuring the success of Singapore, and he has no qualms about resorting to tough measures to address his concerns. After all, Singapore is his legacy, and what history shall ever make of him will depend on whether Singapore stands the test of time.