Very Poor Service By The Straits Times

I think MM Lee will be quite angry with the Straits Times, when he reads this ST article.

ST April 5, 2008
JI MAN MAS SELAMAT'S ESCAPE
Guards were negligent, says MM
His message: Those who think nothing can go wrong are being complacent
By Sue-Ann Chia & Goh Chin Lian

FUGITIVE Mas Selamat Kastari was 'an escape artist' who had evaded arrest many times, and Singapore's security officers knew this, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said yesterday.

Yet, the Jemaah Islamiah terrorist leader was able to lull his minders at the Whitley Road Detention Centre into believing that they had him under control, before he gave them the slip.

'When you are complacent in handling a wily detainee, then you have been negligent,' Mr Lee told The Straits Times in an e-mail interview.

He responded to questions on the issue of complacency for today's Insight feature which takes off from his earlier comments on Mas Selamat's disappearance.

He said last month that the break-out was a 'very severe lesson in complacency'.

Mas Selamat, 47, who had planned to crash a plane into Changi Airport, escaped from Internal Security Department custody on Feb 27. He is still on the run.

The Government has promised a full account of how he escaped, after a three-member panel completes its investigations.

In answering questions posed by The Straits Times, Mr Lee addressed the issue of complacency among citizens, saying: 'Anyone who believes nothing can or will go wrong in Singapore is living in a make-believe world.'

He said Singaporeans are being complacent when they believe that the Government will take care of all security matters.

MPs and political observers interviewed for the Insight feature said decades of peace and prosperity could have caused some Singaporeans to believe the Government had everything under control and nothing could go wrong.

How did complacency creep in? Some observers like former MP Augustine Tan blamed indifference or lack of understanding of the Government's workings.

Others felt the Government was partly to blame.

People's Action Party MP Lim Wee Kiak called complacency a 'side-effect' of an overly successful Government and civil service.

'This has bred a dependency mentality in our population who will blame the civil service and Government if any of their needs are not met,' he noted.

But MM Lee disagreed that the Government deserved to be blamed. He said: 'Complacency sets in when a people have not suffered any shock or setback for a long time.'

Hence, his warnings against complacency over the years, 'because most people believe that bad things will happen to others, not to themselves'.

Let's put it this way. MM Lee is an extremely prominent government leader. Now a terrorist has run away from prison - no matter how you look at it, this is a very major mess-up. One of MM Lee's key tasks is therefore to manage public perception of this matter.

It seems to me that MM Lee is opting for a fairly sophisticated communications strategy to do this. He's striving to place Mas Selamat's escape in a much wider broader context - about the complacency not of his government, but of the entire nation of 4,000,000 Singapore citizens.

Thus MM Lee wants to say that yes, there was a bungle-up at the detention centre; BUT no, it was not really the government's fault (he'll gloss quickly over this part); INSTEAD let's talk about the wider, more-important and very urgent issue of national complacency (that means you, me, Tan Ah Kow and the neighbourhood kopi tiam man - not Wong Kan Seng).

And then the government PR machinery will launch into the "broad complacency" theme - and discuss our complacency about our economic competitiveness; our water supplies; our lack of natural resources; and of our young generation of Singapore citizens who never experienced the racial riots of the 1950s etc.

With perhaps just a little lip service to the real matter - Mas Selamat and MHA's complacency, in February 2008.

(Remember? Or were you successfully distracted already).

Now why did I say that I think MM Lee will be angry? Basically, this communication strategy is quite elaborate. It is not that easy to push this one through. No doubt - MM Lee will have the nation-building cooperation of the nation-building press. But technically speaking, it will still not easy to push this one through; it requires quite a lot of skilful spin on the local media's part.

And the Strait Times really did a bad job. This particular article failed to sell. It is just outright illogical & unpersuasive. Yes, many Singaporeans are dumb enough to be duped by anything. But many other Singaporeans who aren't even particularly bright will go, "Harrrh? What is MM Lee trying to say? Mas Selamat run away, is MY fault arh??"

Yes, that is exactly what the article is trying to say - see these excerpts:

He said last month that the break-out was a 'very severe lesson in complacency'.

...... Mr Lee addressed the issue of complacency among citizens, saying: 'Anyone who believes nothing can or will go wrong in Singapore is living in a make-believe world.'

He said Singaporeans are being complacent when they believe that the Government will take care of all security matters.

... People's Action Party MP Lim Wee Kiak called complacency a 'side-effect' of an overly successful Government and civil service.

... MM Lee disagreed that the Government deserved to be blamed.

When you break down the message like that, it becomes quite obvious how nonsensical it is. Of course citizens should expect their government to take care of a security matter like detaining Mas Selamat - were you going to entrust that task to the security guards at your private condo.

The article is just doing a very bad job of subliminal persuasion, that is all. MM Lee will be very disappointed with the Straits Times.

The Elusive Nature of Medical & Other Truths - Part 1

Recently, the practice of "aesthetic medicine" in Singapore received a lot of media attention. Since I like my own face as it is, I did not really pay much attention to the specifics of the debate.

However, I did gather that some doctors in Singapore have been offering beauty treatments which are "scientifically unsubstantiated". The issue is whether these doctors should be stopped, and if so, how.

For more background, refer to these doctors' blogs - Angry Doctor; Alien Doc; and No Fear Singapore. (Notice how doctors tend to choose such unusual blogging names for themselves).

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has taken the position that the Ministry will step in only as far as invasive, high-risk procedures are concerned.

Thus the Ministry will not bother to intervene with non-risky beauty treatments, even if their benefits are not scientifically proven. Instead the Ministry will leave it to the medical profession to regulate itself on such matters, through organisations such as the Academy of Medicine.

In my opinion (although Angry Doctor would furiously disagree), Khaw's approach is very sensible.

I am quite confident that most, if not all, the aesthetic treatments offered by your neighbourhood HDB beautician are also "scientifically unsubstantiated". This does not mean that all these aesthetic treatments do not work.

It merely means that the treatment either does not work, or the treatment works, but has not been "scientifically" proven to work. And most of the time, the latter simply means that scientists have not bothered to do research on that particular treatment.

Which is quite alright, if the treatment does not harm or hurt you. It just means that you may have wasted some of your money on your neighbourhood HDB beautician. Your loss. Next time, try some other fruit or vegetable.

"Mr Wang is wrong. Chillis would hurt.
And durians could be downright dangerous."

Now the question then is whether we should regard doctors who provide aesthetic treatments in the same light as neighbourhood HDB beauticians.

Obviously there is some risk to the reputation of the medical profession, if many doctors go around offering beauty treatments which are non-risky but scientifically unsubstantiated to be beneficial.

The reputational risk to the medical profession would decrease, if these doctors offer beauty treatments which are non-risky and scientifically unsubstantiated, and actually work. (Happy patients don't file complaints).

But either way, the potential damage is only to (1) the medical profession's reputation, and (2) the patient's purse.

If you're not a doctor, well, frankly, who cares about Risk (1). And if you're the patient, well, Risk (2) is no different from the kind of risk you face, going to any beauty salon or parlour.

So I think Khaw is quite wise to leave it to the medical profession to regulate itself.

How The Government Helps Singaporeans Cope With Inflation

ST March 29, 2008
SM signals a lid on govt fees for now
By Ravi Velloor

NEW DELHI - SINGAPORE may postpone increases in government charges as an inflation-taming measure.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong disclosed this yesterday in response to media queries on what steps the Government could take to alleviate the impact of rising prices.

He said: 'Government fees, although their going up is justified, may be restrained for a few months, postponing the increases to next year or so.

'Where it is within our control, we will try to do what we can.'

Mr Goh was speaking to the Singapore media at a press conference wrapping up a five-day visit to India.

Consumer price inflation in Singapore hit 6.5 per cent last month from a year ago. In particular, food prices have gone up sharply.

This is a little sad. The government's best idea for helping Singaporeans cope with inflation is - nothing, really.

That's right. The government's plan is just not to raise its own fees. It won't raise fees and it won't lower fees - it will leave the fees exactly as they currently are.

In other words, the government will do nothing.

Well, brilliant idea *clap, clap, clap, clap*. I wish someone would pay me a multi-million dollar salary for coming up with ideas that revolve around the concept of doing nothing.

A Tale of Two Drugs

Which is more dangerous – alcohol or cannabis?

This is a trick question - for Singaporeans. In many other parts of the world, the correct answer is already very well-known. Meanwhile in Singapore, many people would unhesitatingly answer, “Cannabis”.

Wrong. Alcohol is more dangerous.

For an authoritative study on the topic, you can refer to this study commissioned by the UK Science & Technology Select Committee. This study compared 20 legal and illegal stimulants commonly used in Britain. The full report is here.



Heroin is the most harmful drug. Cocaine takes 2nd spot. Alcohol is rated the fifth most harmful drug. Tobacco comes in at No. 9.

Meanwhile, cannabis is rated 11th. Ecstasy comes in at No. 18. If all you knew about drugs was Singapore's drug laws, you'd never have guessed this.

You can buy alcohol and cigarettes at any supermarket. But if you were caught selling cannabis, you could die. They'd hang you.

Why am I writing about this? Just felt like it, after reading the following article in the Straits Times:

ST March 25, 2008
Drinking binge killed China woman

By Elena Chong

A CHINA woman had so much to drink at a pub that she died of acute alcohol intoxication, a coroner's court heard on Tuesday.

Ms Zhu Shaoyun, 31, had been drinking from 5pm till about 9pm at Dong Guang Entertainment Group Pub along North Bridge Road on Nov 12 last year.

In Singapore on a social visit then, she had ordered beer and a bottle of Cordonbleu from waiter Ng Wei Guang, 25.

By about 8pm, she was heavily intoxicated.

At an inquiry into her death, Station Inspector Eugene Lim Kuan Leng from Central Police Division said in his investigation report that out of goodwill, Mr Ng accompanied Ms Zhu back to Lorong 8 Geylang in a cab. She vomited on the way.

When they arrived at Lorong 8, Mr Ng noticed her foaming in the mouth and nose. She was also pale and not breathing.

Mr Ng immediately asked the cabby to take them to Raffles Hospital where she was pronounced dead at 10.50pm.

Ms Zhu's blood-alcohol level was 547mg/100ml - more than 1 1/2 times the lethal range.

SI Lim also told the court that Mr Ng had noticed that Ms Zhu, a married woman, appeared depressed, and that when he approached her, she told him to leave her alone.

Verdict: Misadventure.

Death by alcohol overdose is relatively common. In contrast, it’s practically impossible to die from a marijuana overdose. See Point 2 of the article here.

(Naturally Mr Wang is not suggesting that you go out now and buy cannabis from your neighbourhood dealer. Mr Wang is merely suggesting that you be careful how you drink your alcohol).

Return of the Poor Little Blog

So I have an auntie who reads my blog regularly. Recently she was travelling in Hong Kong and tried repeatedly to access my blog from there. She failed, and was aghast. She feared that the Singapore government might have shut down my blog due to my recent posts about Mas Selamat.

Well, I thought this was rather funny. Singaporeans are too paranoid about the government, methinks. Then again my auntie, now retired, was a very senior civil servant. So perhaps she knows better than me.



I've not posted much this month. Come to think of it, I've not been posting much for the past few months. I'd like to be able to say that work has been keeping me busy, but the truth is that work has recently been very slow. On many days this year, I've gone to work and basically twiddled my thumbs all day. There simply hasn't been much to do at work. If the IT guys hadn't blocked access to Blogger from the office server, I'd have written enough posts in the past month to compile a book.

On the positive side, we actually managed to successfully close a few quite sizeable deals last year (the difficult market conditions notwithstanding). Therefore for 2007, I collected the biggest annual bonus (by far) of my life. Wowee. Work-wise, it was also a very interesting year and I learned a lot.

On the negative side, the continuing fallout from the US subprime crisis is hurting many areas of the banking industry quite badly. And mine is one of the most badly-hurt areas. Hence my recent thumb-twiddling. I can't say that this is a surprise. By nature I'm rather prophetic. Luckily for me, clairvoyance is a very useful tool for the formulation of Plan B's.



Anyway, back to my poor little neglected blog. Why haven't I been posting? Well, there have been various reasons. One is that I've been occupied with personal projects. Readers who've been following my blog for some time will know that I have an interest in the mysterious workings of the human mind - and recently I've just been doing a lot more exploration in the areas of meditation and self-hypnosis. Perhaps I'll blog more about this. And perhaps I won't.

"Bah. Humbug."
The other reason for my lack of posts has, surprise, surprise, got to do with my life audit. Yes, I've taken an extraordinarily long time to get it done, and in fact perhaps I should view it as an ongoing exercise rather than an annual one-off event. A big part of the life audit involves looking at different aspects of my life, and thinking about why I am doing what I am doing; should I go on doing it; and if so, the why's and how's; and are there any other things I should be doing.

As far as this blog is concerned, I've asked myself whether I should go on blogging; or whether my time and energy is better spent on other things; and if I do go on blogging, whether I should continue to write about issues where change is unlikely to occur, due to the pig-headedness of our very well-entrenched government.

Well, for now, the blogging will go on. But don't be surprised if you detect changes in theme and content.