Opinions

Every school is a good school. Or so says MOE. Regardless, every year, anxious parents and prospective primary school students pray for divine intervention to ensure that they get into a good school.

Archbishop William Goh came across one such request at a recent event.

The young girl asked for prayers to enable her to get to her primary school of choice, CHIJ Toa Payoh.

The Archbishop took the opportunity to ask Catholic parents and children to re-look at what it means to be a good Catholic, and a good Catholic school. Beyond good grades, such schools, according to the Archbishop, must impart the right ethos that do not contradict the Catholic values.

All parents, regardless of religion, want the best for their children. In Singapore, it means getting their children in a school that has consistently produced good academic results.

Seeking divine intervention wouldn't do your chances any harm.

A post from an American, Soxna S. Dice, recently surfaced to the anger of some Singaporeans. Soxna S. Dice is allegedly a former Government Regulatory and Environmental Attorney. You can read the full post in the image above. 

In the post, she mentioned that it's dangerous to get a piercing in a lesser devloped country such as Singapore. She also mentions that if people were to get a piercing in a poorer country like Singapore, they have a higher risk of getting diseases such as AIDS.

Now the question is this.Why is our government always trying to put foreigners first when all they do is think badly of us? Should the not put Singaporeans first? Why is our government trying so hard to please them? There are millions of Singaporeans who need the help and effort they put into foreigners. We take in so many of them every year and this is how they see us. I don't get what our Government is doing seriously. Maybe we need to try something new. A party that would put Singaporeans first.

A video showing a Malay-speaking man's reaction to a random screening carried out by Police TransCom (Public Transport Security Command) officers recently went viral. The clearly agitated man questioned the purpose of sceening and asked why Chinese people were not screened.

It sparked debate on the issue of security, individual liberty, racial profiling, and the impartiality of police officers. In particular, many netizens, largely from the Malay community, felt that the community was unfairly being singled-out for such security screenings.

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) issued a strongly-worded statement to debunk the myth. The allegation that officers were screening individuals by virtue of their race or skin colour, was dismissed as baseless, and irresponsible, that were designed to stir racial tensions.

According to SPF, most of the persons checked that day were non-Malays.

Nevertheless, the organic reaction to the video was very clear in their interpretation - that Malays were being targeted. Why was this the case?

Before we address that, it is important to qualify that we understand that we do not have access to SPF's statistics on screening of individuals. Only the SPF has it. If it does keep such a record, then it would be in the interest of the public for them to reveal the actual numbers screened, according to the race. 

Such statistics can help to positively dispel any myths or fake news with regard to SPF's alleged targeting of the Malay community. They tell us that the majority of those screened that day were non-Malays.

Give us the numbers. For instance, out of 20 persons screened, only 3 were Malays while the rest were none-Malays. Out of the 3, it so happened that the guy in the video was most vocal about being screened and therefore attracted the attention of passers-by.

Instead, we get a statement that we've come to expect from SPF.

The main crux of the matter here is the issue of perception.

In sociology, there term 'persecution complex' is used to refer to behaviours or mindsets that deals with the perception, real or imagined, of being persecuted. While the catalyst can be imagined, the effects can be real. 

Historically, the local Malay/Muslim (MM) community has lagged behind the other communities in terms of economic and educational standing. This is an oft-repeated "truth", a stereotype that has taken on a life on its own, to the detriment of the community, as well as the overall social compact of the community at large.

The government has learned the folly of their approach. More recently, senior political figures have lauded the progress made by the community. In Apr 2017, the MM community was hailed as potential beacons for Muslims around the world. 

Nevertheless, even in praising the community, the stark realities were laid out to them. Among the key challenges highlighted were the issues of radicalisation, as well as the issue of the over-representation of Malays being caught for crimes and drug abuse.

These are perennial problems that the community struggles to come up with solutions for. However, to have the government to harp on these issues is exhausting, and adds to this perception of persecution. What does the MM community gather from this? We are good, but not good enough. We are good, but still problematic. The positive endorsements is perceived as a backhanded compliment. Hollow and not to be believed.

Celebrate the community for their contributions, for the positives that they bring. If you focus on the weakness, a child will always think they are not good enough. 

The other issue of perception is that SPF, and by extension, civil servants, are "government dogs" who are an extension of the ruling party.

It does not help that civil servants are told to refrain from discussing issues that affect them as normal citizens. There are also false rumours that civil servants can only vote for the PAP.

The way to improve this misperception is to allow civil servants to engage constructively in discussions pertaining to policies that have a bearing on the country's future. Having more diverse opinions can offset groupthink, making policymaking better, and more informed.

It may not be neat and there needs to be exceptions For instance, discussing military strategies in the public domain may undermine the security of the country. 

Neverthesless, an engaged civil service would, invariably result in a more engaged citizenry because the civil service is the largest employer in Singapore. This would only benefit the country and help dispel the perception that all civil servants are dogs of the government.

Modifying perceptions is a tricky business. It can be time-consuming. However, the positives outweigh the cost. The day that such a video does not lead to an outcry of police unfairness, that is the day that you know that Singapore has arrived as a truly free country.

A general practitioner (GP) from Wan Medical Clinic, Dr Muhammad Iqmal Bin Abdullah, is livid with the East Coast-Fengshan Town Council (ECFTC) after being fined for placing chairs outside the clinic overnight. 

According to Dr Muhammad, this has been a long-standing problem that he's had with ECFTC.

The chairs, Dr Muhammad says, are placed within a yellow box that is paid for by the clinic. They are meant for use by the sick and elderly as they wait their turn at his clinic.

He points out that Khaw Boon Wan, in his previous stint as Minister for Health, instructed for chairs to be placed outside Polyclinics so that they can rest. He was just following the example set by Khaw.

After finding out, Dr Muhammad, who was actually warded at Sengkang General Hospital (SKGH), ran away from the hospital to remove the chairs concerned. This was to prove his point to ECFTC that there are more important things in the estate to be concerned about. All this was captured on his FB live feed.

ECFTC clairified that they did not request Dr Muhammad to remove the chairs while he was in hospital. However, they urged him to keep the chairs in after business hours.

The town council seemed to have missed the point. The point is that the chairs are there to serve a purpose - to help the sickly and elderly patients. Do they really need to be removed after business hours and how does it affect the safety of the community?

A taxi driver took to Facebook to express his relief that he has not been charged for his involvment in a road-traffic accident (RTA).

The accident, involving a cyclist, happened along Jalan Eunos in January this year.

A letter from the Traffic Police notified the driver of the completion of the investigations.

In what sounds like music to the ears of the taxi driver, the letter also indicated that action has been initiated against the cyclist for committing an offence fo "Riding other than in an orderly manner without due regard to the safety of others under Rule 10 of the Road Traffic Rules". 

What did the driver had to say? He feels that as long as you drive properly and arm yourself with a dashcam, accidents involving cyclists are not a lost cause anymore.

There is this long-standing perception that cyclists are protected because they are vulnerable.

With dashcams, such misperceptions can be addressed. 

How many times have you seen cyclists running red-lights? 

Now, cyclists can no longer regard themselves above the law.

Hopefully this will result in a better and safer experience on the roads for all road-users.

Member of Parliament Lee Bee Wah has recently started an initiative, 50 cents for a cup of coffee/tea for the elderly in her constituency, Nee Soon South. The discount is available for the elderly that are of the Merdeka and Pioneer generations. They would pay $0.50 for a cup of kopi-o kosong or teh-o kosong. The offer is only available on every Wednesday up to 12 noon. This discount would end in June next year.

Lee Bee Wah has managed to rope in 10 privately owned coffee shops to join her scheme. 

Lee Bee Wah was on fire previously for calling Singaporeans Si Gui Kia for wanting to get back their CPF monies. Insinuating that we are all asking for too much from our Government who has always "helped" us citizens.

Now one can only wonder if she is indeed doing this for the citizens to alleviate their monetary problems or just simply vote buying. As everybody always says, they are always giving out chicken wings so that they can take back the whole chicken if you continue voting for them. 

If she was really trying to help the citizens, why is the discount only on one day each week and only for a year?

So what happens after a year? The elderly citizens who are led to believe that she is doing good for the community through this discount for a year will continue voting for her? With people like her in the seats, they continue to increase our cost of living in other ways. If she is indeed trying to help us citizens, isn't there more that can be done? Why are our transport fares, electrical tariffs, GST, all increasing? 

Simply put, she is just trying to buy votes from the elderlies who might not think much of it right now. I say, we use the discounts to our fullest advantage, and kick them out after. Yes, prove her right that we are all "si gui kias" who don't appreciate what she has done for us. Because really, what has she really done to help us?

Credits: Facebook