geraldgiam.sg

Obama praises Singapore’s education system

Senator Barack Obama mentioned Singapore at a Democratic party rally in Maryland sometime back. Thanks to reader “an old friend” who pointed this out to me.

Obama said, “How can it be that we haven’t made preparations to make sure we’re providing math instruction and science instruction for our children that matches countries like Taiwan and Singapore.”

Oops…he called Taiwan a country. Good for him! For one thing it shows that he is at least aware of Asia, a region that the Bush administration has largely ignored (except for North Korea).

Unfortunately some of our leaders do not think as highly of him as he does of us. Speaking at a recent IPS Forum, MM Lee Kuan Yew questioned the wisdom of supporting leaders like Barack Obama. He described Obama as a one-term senator with manifest intelligence and a gift for getting the right pitch.

“But you ask yourself: Is it going to be a safer world with McCain or with Obama?” he wondered aloud.

Maybe MM Lee forgot that he himself had only been MP for four years, and was only 35 years old when he became PM of Singapore.

I respect McCain and would support him if Obama wasn’t in the picture, but experience isn’t everything. In fact, sometimes the wrong experience can be worse than no experience. MM might have to eat his words if Obama really wins in November.

Means testing or comprehensive medical insurance?

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has announced that means testing will likely be implemented in restructured hospitals by the end of this year. Although the details of how it is going to be administered have not been confirmed, one fact seems clear: Many middle-income Singaporeans are going to have to foot larger medical bills in the near future.

Low income Singaporeans can probably breath easy as means testing is unlikely to negatively affect them, since the Minister has said that only the top half of income earners who stay in Class B2 or C wards will undergo a means test.

Currently, patients admitted to Class C wards in restructured hospitals enjoy an 80 per cent subsidy on their hospital bill. With the introduction of means testing, many of them may no longer receive that subsidy, or may have to accept a lower subsidy.

The Government’s rationale for introducing means testing is to reduce overcrowding in Class C wards and ensure a sustainable healthcare financing system by providing heavy subsidies to only deserving low income patients.

Having heard the government’s arguments for means testing, many Singaporeans may be questioning whether it is really necessary, and if there are other better ways to contain rising healthcare costs.

Show us the numbers

The means testing concept makes sense in theory: Rich folks ought to be subsidised less than poor folks. Means testing could prevent “cheapo” rich people from consuming taxpayer funded subsidies when they can well afford to pay for their own medical expenses.

However I wonder whether the rate of abuse of the system is really as high as the government makes it out to be. Singaporeans have been presented with the rationale for means testing, but not the numbers to back it up.

The Minister has said that means testing is likely to be administered only for patients in the upper 50^th percentile income bracket. How many patients currently in Class C wards are in the upper income bracket?

The median monthly income for Singaporeans last year was $2,330. That is not very much. Is it fair to consider a sole breadwinner who earns $2,400 a high income earner not entitled to Class B2/C ward subsidies?

Will the cost of planning and administering means testing exceed any savings for the government? These costs could be significant. They could include extra medical social workers to conduct assessments and investigations, new computer systems to manage the data, and time and effort spent by officials to respond to questions and complaints.

Mr Khaw, in fact mentioned that he is considering a graduated reduced subsidy from 80 per cent, point by point down, to 60 per cent for the top 20^th percentile income earners. So after all this debate, we may be looking at just a 20 per cent reduction in subsidies for top income earners.

At the end of the day, the savings from means testing may not even justify implementing the system. It may be more efficient to keep the current system of letting patients decide which ward they want to go to, based on their own assessment of what they can afford.

Medical insurance and Medisave

Since means testing will be targeted at middle income earners, it is important to look into why so many of them would rather stay in Class C wards rather than more comfortable and less crowded B1 or B2 wards. Why do they still have to depend on government subsidies and why can’t their health insurance adequately cover their costs?

Most Singaporeans are insured under MediShield, Singapore’s national insurance scheme. MediShield helps cover the costs of catastrophic illnesses which require long hospital stays and result in crippling medical bills. The premiums for MediShield can be paid using Medisave, the national medical savings scheme. Typically, employees contribute 6.5 to 8.5 per cent of their wages to their Medisave accounts.

Unfortunately, MediShield’s coverage does not cover the entire hospital bill. For patients staying in Class B2 or C wards, an average of 40 per cent of their medical bill must be paid using cash or Medisave. Class A, B1 or private patients can expect to pay even more. Most of this payment is due to deductibles and co-payment. The deductible ranges from $1,000 to $3,000, depending on the ward chosen. Co-insurance will be 10 to 20 per cent of the claimable amount.

This means that for a claimable amount of $8,000, a Class A patient will have to pay a deductible of $3,000 and co-insurance of 10 per cent on the excess of $5,000. Hence, he will have to fork out $3,500 on top of the portion of the medical bill that wasn’t claimable under MediShield. Is it any wonder then that many relatively well-off people choose to be warded in Class C where the base charges are lower?

There are riders offered by private insurance companies to offset the co-payment and deductibles, but the premiums for these riders cannot be paid using Medisave. Consequently, most people do not take them up as it involves having to fork out additional cash.

This results in a vicious cycle of large hospital bills that MediShield doesn’t adequately cover, leading people to try to incur smaller bills by staying in Class C wards and costing taxpayers more.

To help to lessen this problem, the government should allow Medisave to be used to purchase not just MediShield, but also the riders to offset the deductible and perhaps even part of the co-payment. If CPF members are allowed to use Medisave to pay for these riders, surely many more will sign up for them. After all, many of them have more money stashed in their Medisave accounts than in their Ordinary accounts, as the latter is usually used to pay for their HDB mortgage.

This proposal was raised in Parliament by Nominated MP Cham Hui Fong during the budget debate in 2006. The Health Minister’s response then was, “This is not wise and we do not encourage this. That is why we do not allow Medisave to pay for the premiums of such riders, as proposed by NMP Cham Hui Fong. But if Singaporeans want to buy such riders out of their cash savings, I cannot stop them.”

I can imagine what the government’s concerns with this proposal might be: Excessive drawing down of one’s Medisave; over-consumption by patients and over-servicing by hospitals, leading to higher premiums across the board; and people buying unnecessary policies from aggressive insurance agents.

Fears that people will exhaust their Medisave by paying medical insurance premiums don’t make sense when Medisave can already be used make direct payments for huge hospital bills, and even the bills of one’s family members (including parents). These direct payments surely amount to much more than insurance premiums.

The concern that patients will opt to stay in hospitals for longer than necessary won’t apply to the majority of patients. Who in the right mind would want to stay in hospital if they have recovered from their illness? There may be exceptional cases, but these can be dealt with by doctors who have the authority to send patents home after they have recovered, or to step down care in community hospitals. As for over-servicing, surely we should have a little more faith in the integrity and professionalism of our doctors!

Lastly, to lessen the confusion about which rider to purchase, the government could simplify things by opening a tender for private insurers to provide a single, low-cost MediShield rider that people can choose from — much like how MediShield Plus was transferred to a private insurer (NTUC Income) through a competitive tender in 2005.

If most Singaporeans and permanent residents sign up for this proposed MediShield rider, the insurance companies may be able lower their premiums. With a system like this in place, Singaporeans will benefit from low cost and more comprehensive coverage and the government too will spend less on subsidies. Even insurance companies will find something more to cheer about.

Conclusion

Means testing is probably going to be one of the hot button political issues this year, as would any issue that involves the removal of key government subsidies. The Health Minister has got his work cut out for him convincing Singaporeans that it is the right way to go. Less than two years ago, his first attempt to impose it got beaten back during the heat of elections. This time, he will need to present more convincing arguments to an increasingly sceptical populace, or better still, explore a win-win solution by allowing Medisave to be used to pay for more comprehensive health insurance.

This article was written for theonlinecitizen.

Complaints Choir "firing cheap political shots"?

Straits Times Forum, 8 Feb 2008

‘Uniquely Singapore’ does not mean embracing all things uncritically

I FULLY support the decision of the Media Development Authority (MDA) not to grant a licence to organisers of the Complaints Choir Project.

This, despite the views of certain netizens that MDA should have allowed the public performance of this choir, since a version of this performance could be made available on the Internet.

Not all kinds of ‘arts and entertainment’ have artistic value. While it is true that an excessively heavy-handed approach towards censorship may stifle creativity and artistic expression, this does not mean that there should be no censorship or licensing at all.

Censorship has a legitimate purpose. We live in a community and we should be mindful of what may undermine the common good.

The Complaints Choir Project puts forward a version of common grouses in our society. Foreigners are involved in this project.

Lau Ai Ling and Lee Siew Peng, writers of the ST forum letters ‘Complaints choir penalised undeservedly’ (ST, Feb 1) and ‘Why squash singing bird amid renaissance drive?’ (ST, Feb 2) respectively, asserted that MDA’s decision undermines Singapore’s initiatives to become a ‘global’ and ‘renaissance and graciousness’ nation.

This reference to the term ‘cosmopolitan’ is a frequently misused and misunderstood refrain. Totally free ‘arts and entertainment’ does not necessarily advance our society’s interests, nor does it reflect an arts renaissance. Not all forms of expression are of value in terms of communication of ideas or even of artistic value.

‘Art’ is not defined exclusively through its ‘shock quality’; whether it is edifying is also a relevant consideration. Freedom of expression in all societies has limits and, to ascertain these limits, we need to examine the specific content of each expression and ascertain its artistic and social value. Firing cheap political shots in the name of ‘art’ or providing entertainment that titillates does not automatically qualify as creative and worthy ‘art’.

It is prudent to draw a line against certain initiatives involving foreigners who seek to impose their opinions and their own version of morality on our society. These foreigners leverage a small select group of disgruntled individuals who masquerade their grouses as views of the average Singaporean. Contrary to their misrepresentation, their values and opinions are not widely held and remain controversial even in their respective countries. We welcome foreign talent and perspectives only to the extent that our society’s interests are advanced.

Clearly, being ‘Uniquely Singapore’ does not mean embracing all things in an uncritical and unthinking fashion. One hopes that Singaporeans as a cosmopolitan people exposed to a wide range of ideas will preserve the discernment to consider what best serves the good of our society where we live and build our lives.

Christine Ang Cheng Moy (Ms)

Well written Ms Christine Ang! Get ready for an invitation to tea by the PAP!

Come on! Who is being uncritical and unthinking? Has Ms Ang even seen the lyrics of the Complaints Choir’s jingle? They are so benign it makes the police ban on it seem ludicrous.

“…this does not mean that there should be no censorship or licensing at all.”

I don’t think netizens are asking for no censorship at all. To make that assumption to counter criticism of the govt’s decision on the Complaints Choir is to cast a hyperbole.

“Firing cheap political shots in the name of ‘art’…does not automatically qualify as creative and worthy ‘art’.”

Spoken like a true minister in the making! But wait…that kind of accusation is supposed to be used only against opposition politicians, not a group of amateur singers which includes even civil servants.

“Totally free ‘arts and entertainment’ does not necessarily advance our society’s interests, nor does it reflect an arts renaissance. Not all forms of expression are of value in terms of communication of ideas or even of artistic value. It is prudent to draw a line against certain initiatives involving foreigners who seek to impose their opinions and their own version of morality on our society.”

I agree that free-for-all arts is not necessarily in Singapore’s interests — but where it concerns public morality, not in the context of the Complaints Choir, which is political expression. Ms Ang is conflating immoral expression with political expression — a common and convenient line of argument used by the governing elite to justify the continued restrictions protecting themselves from criticism.

Censorship is supposed to protect the weakest members of society (e.g., children), not the strongest (e.g., the political elite).

Prime Taxi still the cheapest cab — until end Feb

I’d just like to make a pitch for Prime Taxis for the benefit of all Singapore commuters.

Not many people (including myself until recently) are aware that Prime Taxi is the only cab company in Singapore that has not raised its prices yet. The flag down fare is still $2.50 compared to $2.80 for all the other companies. Their booking number is 67780808 (booking fee is the same as the rest — $3.50).

Here’s a picture of what Prime Taxi cabs look like:

A Prime Taxi driver recently pointed this out to me: According to LTA rules, although cab drivers are not allowed to pick and choose passengers, passengers are allowed to pick which cab they want to ride in. This means that if you are at the front of a taxi queue, you are not obliged to get into the first cab in front of you. You can choose to get into a Prime Taxi even if it is at the back of the taxi queue.

I haven’t verified this with LTA, but it certainly makes sense. What use would competition be if passengers are not allowed to ride in the cab of their choice?

Unfortunately there are only 200 or so Prime Taxis on the roads and their fares are set to increase by end-February. I think this is really unfortunate and I wish they weren’t following suit. It would have provided some real choice for commuters. It’s just a shame that they didn’t publicize enough that they are the cheapest, resulting in most Singaporeans being unaware of the fact.

Perhaps we can blame the media and the Consumer’s Association (CASE) for not alerting us, although I just found out through a web search that CNA actually did run a report on this. Blogosphere should have also done a better job at highlighting this, instead of pouring all our energy into criticizing the decision of the other cab companies to raise fares.

For this I apologize for the oversight on my part.

Countdown to America’s Super Tuesday

The US elections have on occasion been called the most undemocratic in the world. Less than 130 million Americans choose a leader whose decisions will impact 6.5 billion people around the world for four to 8 years. (In the 2004 elections, only 122 million Americans, or 57 per cent of eligible voters, bothered to cast their vote.)

On Tuesday 5 February, Americans in over 20 US states will go to the polls to nominate their party’s candidate for the Presidential election this November. The result of “Super Tuesday” is likely to reveal who the eventual President will be. With support for the Republicans at a low, it is the Democratic Party candidate who stands the best shot at the White House come November.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running neck to neck in the race, with Obama currently trailing just a few percentage points behind the former First Lady, but fast catching up.

As a Singaporean who spent his college years in the US (in Los Angeles) while the Clintons occupied the White House, I am convinced that Obama is the better choice not just for America, but also the world. I see Obama as an inspirational leader who can unite not just America, but also go a long way to bring the world together.

What the world badly needs right now is a United States that can provide not just military leadership, but also moral leadership based on the strength of its ideals of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. These ideals have been badly battered in the last eight years, especially after 9/11, but the world would be worse off without an America that can champion these ideals both in word and deed.

I hope my American friends and readers will begin to fathom the weight of responsibility that rests on your shoulders, and vote on Tuesday for a man who can not only lead America into the future, but also deal with the rest of the world with newfound understanding and respect.

Here’s an editorial from The Los Angeles Times, a major daily in the US, endorsing Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency:

The Los Angeles Times

Editorial

Barack Obama for Democratic nominee

Endorsements for president 2008

February 3, 2008

Democrats preparing to vote in Tuesday’s California primary can mark their ballots with confidence, knowing that either candidate would make a strong nominee and, if elected, a groundbreaking leader and capable president. But just because the ballot features two strong candidates does not mean that it is difficult to choose between them. We urge voters to make the most of this historic moment by choosing the Democrat most focused on steering the nation toward constructive change: We strongly endorse Barack Obama.

The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics. He electrifies young voters, not because he is young but because he embodies the desire to move to the next chapter of the American story. He brings with him deep knowledge of foreign relations and of this nation’s particular struggles with identity and opportunity. His flair for expression, both in print and on the stump, too easily leads observers to forget that Obama is a man not just of style but of substance. He’s a thoughtful student of the Constitution and an experienced lawmaker in his home state and, for the last three years, in the Senate.

On policy, Obama and his rival Democratic candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, are a hairsbreadth apart. Both vow to pull troops from Iraq. Both are committed to healthcare reform. Both offer candid critiques of the failed George W. Bush presidency, its blustering adventurism, its alienating stance toward other countries and its cavalier disregard for sacred American values such as individual liberty and due process of law.

With two candidates so closely aligned on the issues, we look to their abilities and potential as leaders, and their record of action in service of their stated ideals. Clinton is an accomplished public servant whose election would provide familiarity and, most important, competence in the White House, when for seven years it has been lacking. But experience has value only if it is accompanied by courage and leads to judgment.

Nowhere was that judgment more needed than in 2003, when Congress was called upon to accept or reject the disastrous Iraq invasion. Clinton faced a test and failed, joining the stampede as Congress voted to authorize war. At last week’s debate and in previous such sessions, Clinton blamed Bush for abusing the authority she helped to give him, and she has made much of the fact that Obama was not yet in the Senate and didn’t face the same test. But Obama was in public life, saw the danger of the invasion and the consequences of occupation, and he said so. He was right.

Obama demonstrates as well that he is open-eyed about the terrorist threat posed to the nation, and would not shrink from military action where it is warranted. He does not oppose all wars, he has famously stated, but rather “dumb wars.” He also has the edge in economic policy, less because of particular planks in his platform than because of his understanding that some liberal orthodoxies developed during the last 40 years have been overtaken by history. He offers leadership on education, technology policy and environmental protection unfettered by the positions of previous administrations.

By contrast, Clinton’s return to the White House that she occupied for eight years as first lady would resurrect some of the triumph and argument of that era. Yes, Bill Clinton’s presidency was a period of growth and opportunity, and Democrats are justly nostalgic for it. But it also was a time of withering political fire, as the former president’s recent comments on the campaign trail reminded the nation. Hillary Clinton’s election also would drag into a third decade the post-Reagan political duel between two families, the Bushes and the Clintons. Obama is correct: It is time to turn the page.

An Obama presidency would present, as a distinctly American face, a man of African descent, born in the nation’s youngest state, with a childhood spent partly in Asia, among Muslims. No public relations campaign could do more than Obama’s mere presence in the White House to defuse anti-American passion around the world, nor could any political experience surpass Obama’s life story in preparing a president to understand the American character. His candidacy offers Democrats the best hope of leading America into the future, and gives Californians the opportunity to cast their most exciting and consequential ballot in a generation.

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long — a sense of aspiration.

Bill Gates calls for "creative capitalism" at WEF

Microsoft chairman Bill Gates delivered a groundbreaking speech at the recent World Economic Forum (WEF) about “creative capitalism”. He argued that corporations have the potential to do great things for the poor, but only if they are given the incentive to do so. Here is his full speech and Q&A with Klaus Schwab, the conference organiser. Excerpts of his speech from his website are highlighted below the video.

Pure capitalism not benefiting everyone

The world is getting better, but it’s not getting better fast enough, and it’s not getting better for everyone.

The great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least—in particular the billion people who live on less than a dollar a day.

There are roughly a billion people in the world who don’t get enough food, who don’t have clean drinking water, who don’t have electricity, the things that we take for granted.
Diseases like malaria that kill over a million people a year get far less attention than drugs to help with baldness.

Climate change will have the biggest effect on people who have done the least to cause it.

Why do people benefit in inverse proportion to their need?

Market incentives make that happen.

In a system of pure capitalism, as people’s wealth rises, the financial incentive to serve them rises. As their wealth falls, the financial incentive to serve them falls—until it becomes zero. We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve wealthier people serve poorer people as well.

Capitalism harnesses self-interest in helpful and sustainable ways, but only on behalf of those who can pay. Philanthropy and government aid channel our caring for those who can’t pay, but the resources run out before they meet the need. But to provide rapid improvement for the poor we need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

Recognition as an incentive for corporations

At the same time, profits are not always possible when business tries to serve the very poor. In such cases, there needs to be another market-based incentive—and that incentive is recognition. Recognition enhances a company’s reputation and appeals to customers; above all, it attracts good people to the organization. As such, recognition triggers a market-based reward for good behavior. In markets where profits are not possible, recognition is a proxy; where profits are possible, recognition is an added incentive.

Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations wrote, “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.”

Creative capitalism

Creative capitalism takes this interest in the fortunes of others and ties it to our interest in our own fortunes—in ways that help advance both. This hybrid engine of self-interest and concern for others serves a much wider circle of people than can be reached by self-interest or caring alone.

A Dutch company, which holds the rights to a cholera vaccine, retains the rights in the developed world, but shares those rights with manufacturers in developing countries. The result is a cholera vaccine made in Vietnam that costs less than $1 a dose—and that includes delivery and the costs of an immunization campaign. There are a number of industries that can take advantage of this kind of tiered pricing to offer valuable medicine and technology to low-income people.

Role of Governments

The highest-leverage work that government can do is to set policy and disburse funds in ways that create market incentives for business activity that improves the lives of the poor.

Under a law signed by President Bush last year, any drug company that develops a new treatment for a neglected disease like malaria or TB can get priority review from the Food and Drug Administration for another product they’ve made. If you develop a new drug for malaria, your profitable cholesterol-lowering drug could go on the market a year earlier. This priority review could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Connecting the poor with rich word markets

Another approach to creative capitalism is simply to help businesses in the poor world reach markets in the rich world.

A few years ago, I was sitting in a bar here in Davos with Bono. After Asia and most of Europe and Africa had gone to bed, he was on fire, talking about how we could get a percentage of each purchase from civic-minded companies to help change the world. He kept calling people, waking them up, and handing me the phone. His projections were a little enthusiastic at first—but his principle was right. If you give people a chance to associate themselves with a cause they care about—they will pay more, and that premium can make an impact. That was how the RED Campaign was born, here in Davos.

Corporations sharing their brainpower with the poor

I hope corporations will consider dedicating a percentage of your top innovators’ time to issues that could help people left out of the global economy. This kind of contribution is much more powerful than simply giving away cash, or offering your employees time off to volunteer. It is a focused use of what your company does best. It is a great form of creative capitalism, because it takes the brainpower that makes life better for the richest, and dedicates it to improving the lives of everyone else.

When you look on a global basis…at the tough problems of the poorest, a company really should stick to what it knows well. Does it know food, does it know distribution, drugs, media, cell phones? You are developing something that’s lower cost and are true to the identities of that organisation.

On the Gates Foundation’s goals

I’ve set very ambitions goals. Of the 20 diseases that our global health program goes after, for over half of them we could make a very significant impact. Reduction in the mortality rates in developing countries has an effect of reducing population growth, which then makes other things like education and nutrition a lot easier.

I think these are great ideas that we should try to push for in Singapore. There is little doubt that our country is marching forward towards capitalism, with lower income tax, more regressive taxes like the GST and now means testing. We will no longer be able to rely on just the government to foot the social bill. This makes it all the more important for corporations and wealthy individuals (and there are a lot of them in Singapore) to do their part to uplift those in our society who have been left behind by globalisation and economic progress.

Suharto dead

From Reuters/Straits Times:

Indonesia’s Suharto has died: police

JAKARTA – INDONESIA’S former president Suharto, who ruled with an iron fist for 32 years, has died, a senior police official told reporters on Sunday at the hospital where he was being treated.

‘Indonesia’s second president Haji Muhammad Suharto has passed away at about 13.10,’ Major Dicky Sondani told reporters.

Mr Suharto was 86 years old, and had been in critical condition in a Jakarta hospital since Jan 4 suffering from heart, lung and kidney problems. His doctors said he suffered from multiple organ failure and went into a coma on Sunday. — REUTERS

That’s not the way to build confidence in youths

I was disappointed to read about the school principal (of a mission school, no less) telling her Sec 5 students that they might as well apply now for places in ITE because as they were unlikely to do well in the ‘O’ levels at the end of the year. However, I was even more disappointed to read Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew’s reaction to the public uproar about the principal.

In the Straits Times report, Principal’s ‘wake-up call’ to Sec 5 students had to be ‘conveyed’, RAdm Lui was quoted as saying, “Principals need to do their job to convey this message to the students and teachers to do their part to challenge them, set high goals and to help them achieve these goals.”

The principal was clearly in the wrong and it would have been better to just admit it and move on.

What is the point of telling Sec 5 students at the beginning of the school year that basically you all cannot make it and better give up? So what if statistically 40% of them end up not making it to poly, as RAdm Lui said. That shouldn’t stop them from trying their level best in their O levels at the end of the year to overcome the odds.

If they don’t do well enough to qualify for poly, then they can go to ITE after that. No shame in having tried but “failed”. But was the principal expecting them to quit Sec 5 and go straight to ITE?

For RAdm Lui to come in and say that the principal was just challenging her students to “set high goals” is to completely overlook the fact that she had just implied that they should set lower goals for themselves.

I’m all for not mollycoddling our youths. Discipline them when they misbehave. But insulting their intellectual abilities is the wrong way to spur them on to achieve greater heights. That approach to motivation is so ‘yesterday’.

————–

That tearful answer that won Hillary New Hampshire

I don’t think I was the only one who was a little surprised and disappointed to learn that Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, edging out the pre-poll favourite Barack Obama. Many have attributed her win to an answer she gave to an independent voter who asked her how she managed to carry on doing what she did. Here it is:

The results speak for themselves. Women in NH chose her over Obama by almost a 10 percentage point difference. I must say that watching this video leaves me little doubt that Hillary really does love her country and want to lead it forward. But I believe so do the other leading candidates.

Nevertheless this is an important lesson for politicians not to hold back showing their soft side. After all, people vote for a human being, not a policy wonk.

Cabby’s actions now not "illegal". He only "flouted rules"

Last night (this morning actually), I wrote a post commenting about the article, Discount ads on taxis illegal: LTA, which appeared in the late Monday night (7 Jan) edition of the Straits Times. The sub-header was, “Marketing tactics and soliciting are against company rules and the law“. The ST usually publishes a teaser of a breaking story for the next day’s print edition.

In my blog post, I had questioned how the actions of the taxi driver could have been illegal. He had simply placed a handwritten cardboard sign at his windscreen offering to waive the new peak hour surcharge.

Surprise, surprise….In today’s ST, the headline changed. It now reads “Cabby who advertised discounts flouted rules“. The sub-header is now, “LTA backs cab firm and says such tactics may lead to soliciting, which is illegal” (emphasis mine).

There are two possibilities:

Either:

(a) LTA ordered the ST to make those changes after realising that there was no basis for pronouncing the cabby’s actions illegal, or that the taxi driver was conclusively “soliciting”; or

(b) the ST was irresponsible and untruthful in using the word “illegal” twice when LTA never used it, and implying that the cabby was “soliciting”.

No responsible media or government agency should use the word “illegal” lightly. If what the cabby did was really illegal, then that means he had broken the law and the police should have taken action against him to enforce our much vaunted “rule of law”.

The change should have been marked as a correction with apologies, as is the usual practice with credible newspapers.

In any case, there doesn’t appear to be a hint of contrition for the error on either LTA’s or ST’s part. In today’s article, they were still trying to justify why the cabby’s actions could be illegal, because it “may lead to soliciting”.

In Singapore Law, soliciting usually refers to either unauthorised fundraising by charities, selling sex in a public place or unauthorised street collections. Could some legal eagle please explain to me how placing a sign on your own cab window can be deemed “soliciting”? The taxi driver wasn’t asking for donations, prostituting himself (yucks!!!), or busking with a guitar along the street, was he?

The bottom line is that LTA really had no business pronouncing judgment on this minor infringement of a private company’s rules (if at all). It only serves to confirm in many Singaporeans’ minds that the Government is firmly on the side of taxi companies and not consumers or taxi drivers.

Update:

A friend from SPH sent me this clarification:

STI works independently of the newsroom in that the reporter writes for the print version of the paper. STI takes the draft of the story and puts it up online when it is done. It writes the headline and the summary. Because of the demands of instant news that needs to go out, sometimes the copy may not be perfect and the headline written hastily.

If you read the story, it is exactly the same. In the story, there is no mention of LTA saying that the action was illegal. So the “official and correct” headline is the one you spotted after the fact.

You are right about writing a correction. I have no idea what the policy is for online news. If that had been written in the print headline, for sure ST would have to run a correction. But I suppose they have different rules online.

ST is still trying to converge its newsroom with its online site, so mistakes will be made. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying “give them a break”. I think its great that people like you point out the mistakes. Hopefully this will get the attention of the editors and tighten rules around the editorial process.

I have forwarded your blog post to the guy in charge of STI fyi.