F1 Racing in Singapore

China:
At the end of October, a batch of almost two million tickets was put on sale. Millions of people applied online, or on the phone - or else they queued up from dawn at bank branches.

But the ticketing system crashed within an hour. The head of ticket sales has now been fired, and the Olympic committee has changed its ticketing system.

What then has Singapore done in the face of their own crash in the ticketing system?

Community Legal Clinic

In the five months since it opened its doors, a free clinic for those seeking legal advice has been inundated with more than 1,100 clients.

Run by the pro bono service of the Law Society, the Community Legal Clinic is open four nights a week and serves as a first contact point for people wondering whether a dispute or grievance they have could stand up to scrutiny in court.

The society's pro bono service director Lim Tanguy told The Straits Times that the clinic was set up to help more poor and middle class people gain access to justice.

http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/legalnews/55867.html

Such an initiative has been long overdue. Kudos to the kind hearted lawyers who have decided to help the poor. While such efforts are admirable, a complimentary program of education might actually come in handy.

Given the situation where so many people are unaware of their legal rights, perhaps the government could introduce a new campaign that educates the local populace of their legal rights, and maybe distribute information booklets clarifying gray areas in legal issues. After all, the comparative advantage for lawyers is in doing actual legal work rather than merely giving basic advice. It should instead be the duty of the government to educate and inform its citizens of their rights and how exactly they may be exercised in court.

Damages

Festive seasons, with the exception of Chinese New Year, have so far had the tendency to result in me incurring damages of significant proportions. Todays damages for the upcoming heavily sensationalized event amount to the figure of 40.80.

Not to say that this isn't money well spent, but I certainly could do without being expected to spend so much on gifts, and I'm pretty sure this would apply to most other non-working people with better things to spend their money on. For instance, I could have bought 2 new books with that money, or Sloman's textbook on economics. Oh well, this is the price to pay for being a conformist.

Chinese Values for a Moral Education Lesson?

I simply cannot believe this. It's regression.

Starting from 2009, 15 SAP schools will incorporate traditional Chinese values into their civics and moral education classes. This approach may be adopted by other SAP schools in the future.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/print/328169/1/.html

This is so obviously flawed i'm quite sure it's self-evident. Never mind the fact that civics and moral education classes are probably the most ineffective and useless lessons, what's more is that MOE is now attempting to set Chinese values as the agenda for these moral education classes. Assuming that civics and moral education classes have any use at all, there are obvious implications of only imparting such a narrow set of values to students that are supposed to be part of a wider government education. So much for racial harmony eh? What kind of message exactly does such a move send?

Message 1: Chinese values are more desirable than anything else.
This is the message that will ultimately be drawn when we consider that these Moral Education classes are after all a government effort. One question that will inevitably be raised is this - Why Chinese values? Are they better for any particular reason? Why are we adhering to a particular set of values instead of the simple notion of being law-abiding citizens? After all, I'm pretty sure somewhere within the big set of Chinese values lies the idea that the self is not as important as the collective group we owe ourselves to. (This is one of the main ideological factors justifying human rights abuses in China. I'm not so sure we want that here.)

On one side the government preaches the importance of racial harmony, on the other, it takes a bigoted stance and tells the world that Singapore wants to mould its students based on Chinese values. Sure, China is gaining economic clout. Yet there are certainly better ways to sucking up to the Chinese then changing the moral education syllabus flat out to kiss their asses.

Message 2: Western values = bad, Chinese values = good.
Such a move threatens to perpetuate the artificial dichotomy that is already prevalent in the mindsets of many people. This dichotomy is simply not true for the very basis that values in themselves cannot be good or bad, but rather values are yardsticks by which we determine whether the actions of society are good (as having conformed) or bad (as not having conformed). Perpetuating such a misconception is meaningless and is in fact a waste of resources.

Finally, I personally find it ludicrous for a GOVERNMENT to support CHINESE values in a multi-racial society, more so since it is only applying this to a SELECT bunch of schools. It totally contradicts the fundamental idea of moral education, which obviously should be a standardized one, lest our future generations start polarizing themselves using their different sets of moral values. That, would be scary.

Turkey and Headscarves

Recently, Turkey is attempting to ease the ban on headscarves for universities, and has in fact made quite some progress. Yet, the ban in itself has yet to be challenged and the concessions being made are minor and at best cosmetic.

The ban on headscarves in Turkish universities came about after an overly Islamist government was ousted by the secularist military.

This secular move by the mainly secular military and bureaucratic establishment has angered a great deal of people and remains a contentious issue. Not only are headscarves banned for civil servants or pupils in state-run schools as in France, but also in private colleges, driving license courses, court rooms and even some hospitals.

This move seems counter to the notion of liberty, yet, it has been upheld by even the European Court of Human Rights, with the justification of it being to maintain equality regardless of religion and to keep society as secular as possible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4424776.stm

On the principle level, scholars have disputed the notion of whether Muslim women have to cover themselves up and the extent of this coverage. I quote from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5411320.stm

"Muslim scholars have debated whether it is obligatory to don the niqab, or whether it is just recommended without being obligatory.

There have also been more liberal interpretations which say the headscarf is unnecessary, as long as women maintain the sartorial modesty stipulated in the Koran.

The holy text addresses "the faithful women" who are told to shield their private parts and not to display their adornment "except what is apparent of it".

Scholarly disputes revolve around what this last phrase means.

Does it refer to the outer surface of a woman's garments, necessitating that she cover every part of her body - ie don the full niqab?

Or does it give an exemption referring to the face and the hands, as well as conventional female ornaments such as kohl, rings, bracelets and make-up?"

The implication of this ambiguity is that there is no longer a clear distinction between simply practising your religion and attempting to fuel the encroachment of Islam in a secular society.

In light of the theological dispute and biblical ambiguity that is illustrated above, it has become clear that it is unclear whether headscarves are mandatory. This however does not mean that headscarves need to be banned, since it is after all still up to the individual to decide since this individual should at least be given this fundamental freedom that supposedly does not impose on the rights of anyone else. Yet, the secularist military decided instead that a ban was necessary in order to protect the rights of women they were now infringing upon.

There are only 2 reasons i can think of for such a paradoxical move.

The first is that women there and then were facing societal pressure, from families, heretics or churches to wear headscarves against their will. Of course this reason is a valid one, but to simply impose a blanket ban just because there exists a portion of society who were being forced to wear headscarves does seem a little overboard.

The second could be that the government didn't want racial differences to be exemplified through dressing. No doubt racial harmony is of great importance, yet this simply cannot be a justification.

To compound this further, the notion of equality being best demonstrated through dressing is a fallacy on all counts. Not only is dressing so grossly superficial it doesn't really matter at all, especiall

Parliament voted 403-107 in favour of a first amendment, which will insert a paragraph into the constitution stating that everyone has the right to equal treatment from state institutions, Parliament Speaker Koksal Toptan was quoted by AP as saying.

MPs then backed by 403-108 votes a second amendment stating "no-one can be deprived of [his or her] right to higher education", AP said.

Ang Baos

In the midst of this festive season, ang baos exchange hands at a rate more frequent than genuine advice from meddlesome relatives. It is time to question this age-old tradition of wrapping up the economic gift of cold hard cash in nicely decorated red paper.

Ang baos are of course an excellent way to conceal one's generosity or miserliness for that matter, allowing one to escape the cold hard stare of disappointment or for some, questions of their sudden wealth. They allow one to give freely without having to be placed in the awkward position of explaining the exact amount. But above all, ang baos serve as a symbolic reminder of our traditions. Till this day, people are still giving out ang baos, and for whatever the reason, it is definitely a strong symbol of a lasting Chinese tradition. This tradition not only represents the Chinese values of our forefathers, but rather they represent an acceptance in society of traditional norms, and also a reluctance to let go of them. It represents a respect for age-old values, one that will hopefully last.

No one knows what an Ang bao may bring, but for most, it brings wealth. Hopefully, these ang baos may continue to bring the wealth of values to a rapidly modernizing society.

The Internet and Bomb Making

Bomb making or any crime for this matter has undoubtedly been made much easier to commit with the prevalence of the internet. Do a google search and you can find instructions to cook up homemade bombs, pick locks, rob ATMs or even hack into the computers of others. The internet has made it far too easy to commit such crimes. However, is he who provides the tools to committing a crime any more vile than he who decides to actively seek out these tools, suppress his conscience and lash out at innocent people with his new toys. Therefore, is the internet to blame?

Taking the side of the internet for a moment, let us consider that first and foremost, the problem lies with the person who committed the crime, or at least the other social factors around him that might have pressed him to do so. If a person decides to blow up his school because he suffers from continual abuse both at home and in school, feels neglected and frustrated and as a consequence wants to blow up the world he has come to hate, is it the fault of the internet, or is it the fault of society. While one might argue that without the internet, this person would not have committed such a grievous crime, it is unfair to assume that this dejected individual would not have obtained such information through other means, or at least chosen to carry out his crime in a way he would have known of even without the internet. Let's face it, no one in the right mind would go learn how to build a bomb and detonate it in the hopes of killing thousands of people, with or without the internet, he would have blown up somewhere.

Further, such a simplistic explanation to a crime veils the actual underlying problems, preventing more realistic solutions. In laying all the blame on the Internet, society gets away scot-free for producing such homicidal people. It also gets away with not bothering to deal with the root causes such as broken homes which is inevitably a result of eroding moral values.

Moreover, such an assumption neglects the consideration of the reasons why the Internet came into being or has developed into this mega networking tool in the first place. If the Internet was meant to meet the demands of humans such as that of communication, how can it now be blamed for fulfilling this demand? What is after all a desired consequence cannot be deemed as unwanted.

Finally, as widespread as the internet may be, regulation is indeed possible and effective. In 2007, the EU made it a criminal offense to place instructions on how to make a bomb on the internet. In many other countries such as Singapore and the USA, regulation of the internet has been proven to work. In these countries, there are laws mandating that ISPs block undesirable content from websites. While new websites could come up just as quickly as we block them, these new websites are at the same time equally unknown to many and therefore not as likely to achieve their intended aims. Whatever the case, new technologies are being developed to tackle this problem both on the side of the user, and on the side of the provider. For example, parents can install net-nanny on their computer to prevent their child from accessing undesirable websites.

Having dealt with the negative side of the internet, it is time to look at the benefits and determine if the benefits are still greater.

Assuming for one second that the internet allows previously toothless cats to turn into ferocious blood-sucking beasts, we have to consider the fact it does at the same time help counter these problems by the very virtue of its widespread accessibility.

First, the countervailing effect of moderate groups can negate this problem, or better still, create a net benefit. With more easily accessible bomb making instructions comes a stronger response from societal groups that hope to counter this effect on society. These groups have realised that bomb making instructions are bad, and thus lobbied for legislation against this. We see this happening in the EU. These groups also realise as a result of further investigation that bomb making is not the sole factor behind an increased number of terrorists. It then attempts to create greater awareness and understanding of the religions which are used as a tool to propagate terrorist ideologies. In doing so, these groups have not only removed the existing problem, but have helped to stamp out the underlying problem as well. And this is only made possible through a widespread internet that provides access to viewers across the world.

Second, the internet has been an important economic tool, connecting countries across regions. Without a doubt, impoverishment is one major reason why young people are so readily indoctrinated by terrorist organisations and are that willing to give up what little they have for an agenda they reckon would probably make the best economic sense for them. With the internet, many impoverished nations have begun to obtain access to better education material, allowing schools to be set up and the poverty cycle to be stopped through education. These economic benefits brought about by the internet thus leads to a greater pull for would-be terrorists to continue working instead of sell their lives to a cause they previously would never have considered.

Pfizer, Singapore, and World Peace

okay world peace was irrelevant, but anyway,

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/327088/1/.html

Singapore aims to be centre for first phase of clinical trials

A few questions here. First, do these clinical trials pose any health risks, and what safeguards does the government have to ensure that these trials are safe? Second, what benefits does holding the trial in Singapore provide?

On the first question, a few things have to be ascertained. What is Pfizer's track record like? What are the possibilities of regulatory capture by Pfizer? Does the Health Sciences Authority of Singapore have a stringent enough check? Or are they being overwhelmed by the economic stimulation they expect to gain. Also, what happens to the patients who are being put through clinical trials? Do they receive the proper compensations if the trials fail? Is it right to treat them as guinea pigs?

For one, Pfizer's track record isn't exactly stellar, while I can't exactly provide statistics to back this up, there have been instances of Pfizer undermining the FDA in USA, and supposedly independent scientific journals. These instances demonstrate Pfizer's willingness and ability to bring the relevant Singapore authorities under a situation of regulatory capture. Nevertheless, Singapore does seem rather corrupt free and unlikely to lose their senses in the face of dollars being flashed at them, as was the case with the FDA, where much of their funding essentially came from drug companies such as Pfizer. This is especially so given that unlike the FDA, the regulatory arms of our government don't seem to be suffering from a lack of funding.

The next issue is of whether the rights of patients will be protected. There is probably little point worrying about this since patients do consent to begin with, and such drugs are probably not deadly since they have already been tested on lab mice before. However, the fact that the FDA has not approved many clinical trials in the USA does raise questions. While it may be possible that the FDA is simply inefficient, their failure to approve these clinical trials could be due to the fact that these trials are to begin with, not trustworthy.

On the next big issue, what benefits are there for Singapore? One of them is obviously having a headstart in this industry, especially so in the region. However, Singapore's small population as well as composition does indeed pose some problems for any clinical research. Apart from the fact that Pfizer probably did their research before deciding to settle here, Singapore's small population severely limits the people for Pfizer to choose from. While it is possible to have people from other countries fly in, there might be some legal issues when it comes to failed experiments. Given these limitations, what benefits might there be left for Singapore in terms of this industry?

Further, any botches by Pfizer would probably see Singapore's reputation as a corrupt-free state being tarnished. Economically beneficial as Pfizer might seem to be, I prefer to think of it as being highly likely of dragging Singapore down with them.

Lastly, clinical trials by a drug company with all the vested interests in showing positive results does seem a little suspicious. Given that this is true, there are two possible outcomes.
1- Someone reveals the flaws in the clinical trials, ruin the reputation of Pfizer, and dragging down Singapore along.
2- No one reveals the flaws in clinical trials HERE, but they do elsewhere, and demand for clinical trials is reduced. While this may not have a severe effect on us in the short term, it does seem untenable to invest so much in an area we know is going to fail