What financial model is 'social enterprise' hawker centre following?

STRAITS TIMES

Published

Oct 27, 2018, 5:00 am SGT

When I read that social enterprises were running hawker centres, I wondered if someone had confused them with quangos, or Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations.

According to Britain's national body for social enterprises, a social enterprise makes its money from selling goods and services, covers its own costs in the long-term, puts at least half of any profits back into making a difference and pays reasonable salaries to its staff.

Quangos, on the other hand, are organisations that are funded by taxpayers but not controlled directly by the central government, as defined by the BBC.

There is, thus, no accountability to the taxpayers, because quangos are not controlled by a government body. If things go wrong, it is not the fault of the government.

Thus, I was mystified when I read of hawker centres being run by social enterprises.

Which model of financial governance are they following?

Are at least half the profits ploughed back to the hawkers and associated staff, or directed to other social causes? Or are the profits solely to feed the well-heeled and well-placed owners?

Unlike charities, social enterprises are not required to run annual general meetings, where their finances can be publicly scrutinised.

I have stopped supporting charities whose chief executives are paid salaries several times that of the British Prime Minister. But at least their salaries are published and I can make that choice.

Social enterprises, on their other hand, as privately run companies, are not required to disclose these details.

Will the real social enterprises please stand up?

===

The original here:

What are social enterprises?

According to www.socialenterprise.org.uk , a social enterprise makes its money from selling goods and services, covers its own costs in the long-term, puts at least half of any profits back into making a difference, and pays reasonable salaries to its staff

What it does NOT do is: exist to make profits for shareholders, make its owners very wealthy, and rely on volunteering, grants or donations to stay afloat in the long-term.

When I read of ‘social enterprises’ running hawker centres I wonder if someone (or a group) has confused social enterprises with ‘quangos’.

In the UK quangos stand for Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations. According to this website (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11405840\ ) they are organisations that are funded by taxpayers, but not controlled directly by central government although the government might appoint (sympathetic) senior directors.

There is thus no accountability to the taxpayers, because quangos are not controlled by a government body. If things go wrong, it is never the fault of the government.

On the other hand, the people who run quangos often see taxpayers as a money tree, and there are no mechanisms to stop quango heads from awarding themselves ever higher salaries, or awarding tenders to whomsoever they please.

So I am a bit confused when I read of hawker centres being run as or by ‘social enterprises’? Which model of financial governance are they following?

Are at least half the profits ploughed back to the hawkers and associated staff, or directed to other ‘social benefits’? Or are the profits solely to feed the well-heeled and well-placed owners?

Unlike charities social enterprises are not required to run AGMs where their finances can be publicly scrutinised.

I have stopped supporting charities where their CEOs are paid salaries several times that of the British PM. But at least their salaries are published and I can make that choice.

Social enterprises on their other hand, as privately-run companies, are not required to disclose these details.

Will the real social enterprises please stand up?

Everyone must play a part to help the disadvantaged

Straits Times 

Published

Oct 22, 2018, 5:00 am SGT

Updated

Oct 22, 2018, 9:56 am

Many years ago, our neighbours discovered an elderly couple living in a ground floor flat in complete darkness, with only a piece of mouldy bread between them.

Their water and electricity supplies had been cut off.

This couple were reported to the relevant authorities. But instead of letting them starve before the system kicked in, neighbours rallied around them.

Some took to providing subsidised hawker food food. My father bought a hosepipe that allowed us to run water from our third-floor bathroom tap to this couple's unit.

We must be careful that discussions on subsidised hawker food do not descend into what is so prevalent these days: virtue-signalling.

Sure, we are concerned for the disadvantaged. When was the last time we, each of us, rich or poor, politician or commoner, did something practical for our neighbour or a stranger, to make his life more bearable?

If we are cooking a meal, does it take that much to cook a little bit more and take it to a neighbour who has nothing to eat?

If a community has identified vulnerable individuals needing proper nutrition regularly, would it not be possible to mobilise volunteers to cook on a rota basis?

I believe in small and minimal government that takes care only of life beyond the means of individuals, such as national defence.

But this is possible only when citizens are willing to do their bit.

==

EMBARRASSMENT! This was written in the context of the continuing discussion on hawker centres. But the words in red were inserted by a junior editor (?) into the fourth paragraph after I requested that they gave some context to the edited letter. Only after the print edition was out did I realise that they had made the mistake. Emailed immediately to request a change. This is the online version (minus the deleted words in red). The following is the original letter.

The Good Samaritan strikes again

Many years ago our neighbours discovered an elderly couple living in a ground floor flat with only a piece of mouldy bread between them, in complete darkness. Their water and electricity had been cut off. Apparently they were going to eat that bread and commit suicide.

This couple was reported to the relevant authorities. But instead of letting them starve before the system kicked in, neighbours rallied round.

Some took to providing food. My father bought a length of hosepipe that allowed us to run water from our third-floor bathroom tap to this couple. My job was to turn on and off the tap when I got the signal.

The Chinese have a saying when inviting someone home to eat on an impulse, “It’s just another pair of chopsticks.”

We must be careful that the discussion on NTUC/Foodfare does not descend into what is so prevalent these days: virtue-signalling.

Sure, we are concerned for the disadvantaged. When was the last time we, each of us, rich and poor, politician and commoner, did something practical for our neighbour, or a stranger, to make his/her life that much more bearable?

If we are cooking a meal, does it take that much to cook a little bit more and take it to a neighbour who has nothing to eat?

If a community has identified vulnerable individuals needing proper nutrition regularly, would it not be possible to mobilise volunteers to cook on a rota basis?

Perhaps money could be raised and disbursed to a few stay-at-home parents in the neighbourhood to buy fresh ingredients to cook for these people.

This way the stay-at-home parents get something for their input and the vulnerable gets their meals.

Perhaps there are already social enterprises in Singapore where the vulnerable/disadvantaged are themselves trained to cook for others.

I believe in small (minimal) government where the government only takes care of life beyond the means of individuals such as national defence. But this is possible only when citizens are willing to do their bit and not ‘tai-chi’ this to the ‘gahmen’ or someone else.

Oxford Days/Daze

16th August 2018, the third Thursday of August, was when the 'A' Level results were announced. Imagine my excitement when my son sent me a message to confirm that he had got the grades (and better) to get to Oxford to study Classics.

I probably danced a jig and punched the air a few times. I was alone, in postgraduate accommodation at a Russell Group university in the East Midlands, having decided to take up a contract job teaching English. The years of staying at home to give him the best start in life, and subsequently to manage the son's issues ... vindicated at last! Woohoo! 

Son and husband arrived the following afternoon and we had a great time celebrating at a lovely Thai restaurant. Sadly, the following day, the husband was taken ill, but that is a different story.

On 30th September we dropped the son off at Oxford. Almost literally. We were allowed to stop on a narrow one-way street, unload his gear, and the husband drove off to the Park-and-ride. Meanwhile a couple of second-year students, including the president of the JCR, appeared to help him carry his gear to his room.

Within minutes I was told by the son that it was OK for me to leave. But I could not. I had to find out where the husband was to decide the next step. In the end we decided that it was pointless for him to bus back to the college. I crossed the road to a waiting bus and hopped on it to get to the Park-and-ride.

That was it.

Eighteen years of preparing our child for what he wants to do. He decided that he wanted to go to a boarding school; we created opportunities to get him there. He worked out the scholarship system and got himself there.

Then he decided to get to Oxford, and he's there now. OK, so he wants to be a stand-up comic ....

Over the summer he's learned to cook and proved himself when he became nurse, cook and housekeeper when his dad fell ill and I could not get home. Even after I got home he was keen to show off his cookery skills. (I think God's timing was perfect in this: son did not have a choice but step into the breach.)

Officially he's an adult. He signs all his own contracts. I am now officially redundant from my parenting duties. Though I won't stop being a mother. This was why I decided to get a paid job, even if only for the summer, in the hope that it might open doors to other jobs.

Coincidentally I was at Oxford the week before 'drop-off' to present a paper at an anthropology conference. I sat in a number of sessions which were hugely boring. Ironic, as I had just been teaching incoming postgraduate students how to make effective presentations and here I had numerous PhDs/post-PhDs personify the cure to insomnia.

Anyhow, it was from running around the high street at Oxford that I learned precisely how the 'drop-off' was going to happen, having spoken to a porter at son's college.

Feeling vindicated.

Help from NTUC Enterprise can be a way to ease poverty

PUBLISHED in The Straits times

OCT 3, 2018, 5:00 AM SGT

Singaporeans of my generation associate the NTUC with supermarket chain FairPrice, which, as the name suggests, was started to ensure that ordinary citizens do not have to pay over the odds for staples such as rice.

Should NTUC Enterprise acquire food centre operator Kopitiam, I hope it can exercise its not-insignificant economic muscle to scale up social enterprise via the latter.

For those of us who are unaware or have forgotten, getting a licence to sell cooked food was, for many, a dignified way out of poverty.

Many hawkers and canteen stallholders were often disadvantaged people who worked really hard to provide people with cheap food and, this way, feed their own families.

Families who might have, in another economy, become dependent on welfare benefits, have nurtured doctors, lawyers and other professionals through such hard and sweaty work.

This platform for alleviating poverty disappeared when the Housing Board started awarding coffee-shop leases to the highest bidder. I wonder if the same fate has befallen stallholders in school and university canteens.

The NTUC Enterprise can reverse this trend by setting aside a significant portion of future Kopitiam contracts for Singaporeans who are undergoing financial hardship to operate food stalls or provide related services in their food outlets at affordable rents. They could even be given interest-free loans to start up food stalls.

I have read of single parents who have to make the choice between working several jobs and caring for their children. Running a food (or dry goods) stall is a very good alternative. In many developing countries microloans to widows to start small businesses have helped them cut this Gordian knot.

Such help to these families will not happen if financial profit remains the sole objective. I urge the NTUC Enterprise to consider social enterprise as a way to combat poverty and unemployment.

=====

A response:

NTUC has lost sight of original purpose

Hawker culture reducing people's ability to cook

UPDATE: I'm amused by the interest generated on the Straits Times FB. In answer to questions raised: I do try to grow my own food. Not always successful, but I experiment, any way. My son is trying to cook as much as possible for the family before he starts university in September (see below). I am officially unemployed but I do run a hobby business from home and do a lot of unpaid work for the local community.

What's come out of this discussion is that couples and families are too caught up in jobs. Why? To fund their property. If HDB flats are zero-valued after 99 years, and we live much longer these days, is it worth working so hard, missing precious family times, not eating properly and thus storing up health issues, so that we could … what? I have a vision of guinea pigs in their spinning wheels. Why do we bother?

That said, we have not been on a family holiday for several years.

Maybe we need another model for family life. Perhaps a few mothers or families gather together to provide 'co-operative' childcare, and parents can rotate working so that their skills do not get too outdated. Thinking outside the box ...

===

A funny thing happened on the way to the ST Forum page.

My original letter:

Hawker food is not the root of the problem

When I get home to Singapore I binge on hawker food.

It fills me with sadness to learn that hawker food is being ‘nutritionally sanitized’.

On the rare occasion that I eat cheese I want full-fat cheese, not ‘skinny’ or ‘reduced fat’ cheese which tastes awful and is chewy.

The operative word is ‘rare’.

Hawker food was not designed for everyday consumption. It was a treat for me to have a bowl of wanton noodles, for example.

The growing trend however is for individuals and whole families to eat out most days of the week, and then stuff themselves with even more store-bought confectionaries on others.

The effects of this trend?

(1) Kitchens are shrinking. When trying to buy a property in Singapore I found flats with only galley kitchens, with two gas rings.

“How does one cook a proper meal for a family with only two gas rings?” The agent’s “most Singaporean eat out” did not help.

(2) The ‘variety’ of eating outlets is wider because people are tired of eating the same hawker foods.

My issue with such newer foods is they are not ‘authentic’, but made-up and expensive, capitalizing on the punter’s desire for something different.

Economically, no real money is being generated. It is just shifting money from one pocket (yours) to another (owners of these eateries) who then cry out for more cheap, foreign workers, with which the electorate is unhappy.

(3) Young people have lost the ability to cook. People ‘ooh and aah’ at the fact that I cook rice on the hob. No rice cooker. Because I’ve learned from the best: my mum.

It is not difficult to cook a balanced nutritious meal from scratch. When parents do not cook and/or leave this to a maid, reducing cooking to ‘service’ work unsuitable for young sirs and madams, children stop learning.

What better opportunities for ‘enrichment’ then using a cooking experience to discuss maths (fractions, division, multiplication) and science (states of water, physical and chemical change, esters and aldehydes) with our children?

[For me, this is the most important line.] So please do not ‘skinny’ my lardy char kway teow. I want fat on my Hainanese chicken and oodles of coconut milk on the nasi lemak.

Thanking you in advance.

===

became:

It fills me with sadness to read recent discussions on making hawker food "nutritionally sanitised" (ST looks at healthy hawker eats in first part of series on diabetes; June 19).

Hawker food was not designed for everyday consumption. It was a treat for me to have a bowl of wonton noodles, for example.

The growing trend, however, is for individuals and whole families to eat out most days of the week, and then stuff themselves with even more store-bought confectioneries on others.

One effect of this trend is that kitchens are shrinking.

When trying to buy a property in Singapore, I found flats with only galley kitchens, with two gas rings.

There is also a wider variety of eateries because people are tired of eating the same hawker foods.

My issue with such newer foods is they are not authentic, but are made-up and expensive instead, capitalising on the punter's desire for something different.

Young people have also lost the ability to cook. It is not difficult to cook a balanced, nutritious meal from scratch.

When parents do not cook or leave this to a maid, reducing cooking to "service work", children stop learning.

What better opportunity for enrichment than using a cooking experience to discuss maths, like fractions, division and multiplication, and science, such as states of water, physical and chemical change, with our children?

Son's first attempt at stuffed peppers (with some help from Mum)

UPDATE: 19th July 2018. Son and I made pizza from scratch. I started a dough early this morning. Son had done the shopping yesterday and he chopped everything that needed chopping today. Took turns to cook the pizza sauce. End-result? Delicious pizzas although one got stuck on the tray as I forgot it is not a non-stick tray. With husband, we had such a great meal (plus apple crumble from leftover apples) and we thought hmmm, we must do that again. Now we are left with chopped up vegetables. These will go into a stir-fry with leftover rice from yesterday. Husband is left with a lot of washing-up to do. :)  

Boosting Singapore football has to start with fans (or does it?)

The title to this letter seems completely incongruent to what I had originally written, below:

===
Everyone has hypotheses about Gareth Southgate and the way he had/s brought success to the England football team.

I had stopped watching football for a long time, sick and tired of the thuggery on the pitch.

The last time I saw ‘intelligent’ precision football being played by the England team was a long time ago, under the management of Terry Venables. Southgate was a member of Venables’s team and he famously missed a penalty kick in the UEFA Euro 1996 semi-final against Germany.

Commentators seem to agree that the current young England team have been playing intelligently and with discernible teamwork. My view is that Southgate has managed to transfer some of this intelligent playing learned from the venerable Venables to his current young team.

At post-match interviews after beating Sweden I found the goal-scorers completely without airs and who spoke in good standard English, quite the opposite to the prima donnas that dominated English football post-Venables.

These were young men, intelligent, respectful and skilled, wanting to make the country proud, and they know that the only way to do this is to work as a team, something the aforementioned prima donnas seemed to have forgotten.

What this team has shown is that a game like football (or any equivalent organization) requires not team members that are paid so much money that there is no reason to get out of bed. For so many years, being called up to play for England was an inconvenience to Premier League footballers, not an honour or even duty.

A national team needs a vision (winning the World Cup, or close, as I write), and what could a lowly-paid manager offer players who make so much more money then you?

England had experimented with paying over-the-top incentives to ‘foreign talent’ managers with abysmal results.

Southgate was considered ‘inexperienced’ when he was picked, and he himself pushed the envelope when he picked the current ‘inexperienced’ team.

Southgate’s failure in his Euro96 spot-kick broke him, but unlike Humpty Dumpty, he and those who believe in him were able to put him together again, stronger.

Others who know him better speak of his kindness, compassion and ability to empathize. For me, Southgate is the personification of tenacity, reminding me of an English politician who famously said, “Do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man.”

What lessons might we in Singapore learn from this England team?

Main aim of orientation activities is to help newcomers settle in

This letter published here. The original (hastily written) was:

What is, or should be, the objective of student orientation?

With reference to the recent criticism of errant student activities, let me recount how one young man successfully resurrected a school tradition that was “allowed to go extinct” for good reasons.

This young man observed that to thrive in his school, it was critical that newcomers learned certain basic facts such as locations for various school activities, the names of the other school houses, trivia about the seniors (the best person to go to for specific types of advice), and so forth.

A previous tradition of testing newcomers on these facts had been banned as it had, due to ‘mission creep’, descended into bullying without checks and balances in place.

Having studied the history of this banned practice, he saw the benefits of a good orientation programme. He worked to revive this banned tradition, or at least the good bits of it.

He felt that old-timers and newcomers could enjoy a good orientation not just by having fun at the expense of the newcomers. He proposed modifications to this tradition which has at its core ‘fun at the expense of everyone’.

In translation, both old-timers (the mentors) and newcomers have rights and responsibilities, with the ultimate aim of helping newcomers settle and giving both new and old the opportunities to learn about one another.

After all, these students have to live in close proximity in surrogate sibling groups during term time.

‘Orientation’ is not about humiliation, nor is it bullying. It is about helping newcomers find their feet. It should be measured by how well it prepares them for a successful life in the organization (school, university, office, etc) they are joining.

Time needed to build up a school's brand

The original How to make every school a good school was published here. My original text below:

==

As an anthropologist, I am intrigued as to why old boys and girls of ‘branded’ schools maintain ties and traditions (rituals, songs, ethos) wherever the school is re-located, whilst those from neighbourhood schools don’t, or can’t.

Is it because ‘neighbourhood schools’ lack a ‘creation myth’? Or a sense of achievement, of history, or continuity?

All my schools had been flattened.

Falling enrolment, as will happen in any maturing estate, means that schools that had educated generations of locals are forced to close.

Tiong Bahru Primary, with its unique architecture, is now a power station. My classmate wept the day he watched the buildings come down.

Raffles Girls has a totally new set of buildings on prime land.

Ironically, we are now fundraising again because it is moving to Westlake, where I had spent a year as a pioneering Nanyang Junior College student.

I’m actually pleased that new architecture has replaced the original aesthetically-challenged Nanyang buildings.

How sad it must be for JC pioneers down the years when it was announced that their JCs were going to close or be merged.

A lack of ‘creation myth’ notwithstanding (other than one of need), each batch of JC pioneers had striven to ‘make tradition’.

But why would students and teachers in neighbourhood schools bother to become the good or even elite schools of tomorrow if these schools could be closed at a whim (‘bureaucratic convenience’)?

Large countries have to deal with rural-urban migration. Singaporeans migrate from older to newer estates because of the HDB 99-year lease.

A falling enrolment is the perfect opportunity to extend the JC environment and facilities to secondary and even primary school pupils: show (non-)aspiring children the pathway to higher education.

Why not let neighbourhood schools and JCs age in place and grace?

Instead of closing them, I will reduce class sizes. 

Achievement (not the same as exam results) will improve as children are given their due attention. A ‘brand’ develops.

Previous pupils will send their children there, close to the grandparents, strengthening old school ties. New families moving into the catchment area will rejuvenate the neighbourhood.

If we can have ethnicity-based quotas, we can also have ‘family-age’ quotas, and perhaps even monetary incentives to move into ageing estates.

Schools are not factories. Tradition in schools can happen if there is political will to let it.

Value, develop each child's unique talent

Published in Straits Times here.

The original To dream (too) big:

Until I saw framed photos of people in ‘funny gowns and square hats’ in the Tiong Bahru home of a Christian family hosting local school children in the 1970s, I did not know there was such a thing called ‘university’.

Years later while conducting fieldwork in a factory, Mary asked if ‘big school’ (‘university’ in Mandarin) is the same as ‘secondary four’.

‘O’ levels were beyond the imagination of this incredibly gifted seamstress. How was she to inspire her children to ‘dream big’; aspire to university?

The converse is also a problem: parents forcing their children to dream ‘too big’; aspirational parents who are ignorant of a wide range of careers that their children could aspire to (podiatrists, phlebotomists, paralegal, product designer, personal shopper).

When we insist that anything less than becoming a doctor, lawyer or engineer is ‘failure’, we condemn children to a stressful and unhappy childhood.

We need just as much – and therefore appropriate rewards and respect should be accorded – people with excellent service skills to give customers a memorable shopping or dining experience.

But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. Exams can open doors to ‘poor children’.

Take my English (for speakers of other languages) student Hunta, a refugee and cleaner.

Her sons could have gone to a secondary school assigned by the local council. Instead these aspirational young men chose to sit gruelling exams which gained them admission to possibly the best free grammar school, where 20 boys compete for each place.

Hunta’s older son is already in a Russell Group university. Her younger has been offered a place at Oxford. As a ‘poor’ household, both qualify for substantial financial assistance.

If we view each child as a ‘gift to the nation’, each should be valued for the totality of their natural talents. We need smaller class sizes where professionals (teachers, careers advisers, psychologists) can identify these talents (academic, sporting, artistic, relational or otherwise).

Then, working closely with parents (eg signposting to opportunities and funding), we invest in developing these talents to the fullest.

Only then can we (again) get children of factory workers to top schools and universities, the athletes and artists that make our nation proud, and the service staff who will make it pleasurable for everyone to spend their hard-earned money.

Let children from all backgrounds have access to opportunities to nurture talents

This was published in Todayonline Voices on 14th June. Not possible to give the specific (deep) link. Neither Straits Times nor Todayonline was prepared to use the word 'Marxist' and the guiding light to my social analysis was reduced to nought.

The original here:

According to the “French Marxist* sociologist” Henri Lefebvre, binary oppositions do not always help in social analysis. (*Lefebvre, a scholar of Marxist theory, was expelled by the French Communist Party.)

Instead he formulated a system of triadic dialectics. Like a tripod that holds your camera steady, a triad of concepts – a heuristic tripod – allows us to investigate relationships, causes and effects.

In debating inequalities, the question of whether it is ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’ that brings about social mobility is missing a third leg: ‘opportunities’.

This is what middle-class parents do: buy opportunities (tuition, enrichment, moving into school catchment areas) to maximize opportunities for their children.

I wish for a Singapore where children from the poorest families can access those opportunities.

Take my English (for speakers of other languages) student “Hunta”, a refugee and cleaner who works split shifts starting at 4.30am.

Her sons opted to sit gruelling exams and gained admission to one of the best grammar (free) schools in Britain. Every year, 20 boys compete for each place at this school.

Hunta’s older son now studies in a Russell Group university. Her younger has been offered a place at Oxford. After means-testing, both are eligible for substantial fee reductions and other bursaries are required to pay only one-third of the usual fees.

But not every child is academically-gifted.

Our misplaced emphasis on academic brilliance as the only culturally-acceptable path to success has meant that we have lost some two generations of people who could have been trained to be skilled, well-paid AND RESPECTED artisans, technicians, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, designers, print-makers, chefs, specialist craftsmen (and women) in all areas of life.

Instead we now import people to do this work while our own languish. We had been trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

We have sacrificed the futures of these people at the altar of academic prowess and what parents thought – hoped – it could bring. The cycle repeats, and we wonder why our children are distressed.

My job as a parent is to seek out the opportunities to nurture the natural talents that my child has. The role of the government is to ensure that such access to opportunities is not blocked by the accident of one’s birth or gatekeeping interest groups.

We need a new mindset where we seek to discover – and accept – the natural gifts of our children – academic, sporting, technical, relational, or otherwise – no matter what their background might be, and then supply them with the opportunities to excel.

We need a (Swiss?) school system where small class sizes allow (teaching) professionals to identify talents in children.

How else might a cleaner’s son get to Oxford, or a gifted athlete to the Olympics?

==

The published version:
I refer to the report, "Government aiming for 'best of Singapore and Swiss' education system: Ong Ye Kung (June 7), and the recent discussions about tackling inequalities in our society.

In debating inequalities, the question of whether it is "nature" or "nurture" that brings about social mobility is missing a third leg: "opportunities".

This is what middle-class parents do: Buy opportunities (tuition, enrichment, moving into school catchment areas) to maximise opportunities for their children.

I wish for a Singapore where children from the poorest families can have access to those opportunities.

Our misplaced emphasis on academic brilliance as the foremost, culturally acceptable path to success has meant that we have lost some two generations of people who could have been trained to be skilled, well-paid and respected artisans, technicians, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, designers, print-makers, chefs, specialist craftsmen (and women) in all areas of life.

Instead, we now import people to fill these positions and more. We had been trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

We have directed people to chase after academic prowess and what parents thought or hoped it could bring. The cycle repeats, and we wonder why our children are distressed.

A parent's job is to seek out the opportunities to nurture the natural talents that their children have. The role of the Government is to ensure that such access to opportunities is not blocked by the accident of one's birth or gatekeeping interest groups.

We need a new mindset where we seek to discover and accept the natural gifts of our children — be they academic, sporting, technical, relational, or otherwise — no matter what their background might be, and then supply them with the opportunities to excel.

We need a school system where small class sizes allow teaching professionals to identify talents in children.

Teach disadvantaged families how to help themselves

Published in Straits Times here.

Original as follows:

From my infrequent visits back to Singapore, it appears that the meritocratic system my generation benefitted from has all but disappeared. Boundaries have become entrenched. Upward social mobility has become increasingly difficult.

I agree with Prof Teo You Yenn that we need to understand the individual personal and familial circumstances of those at the bottom of our social hierarchy before we can help them.

In my voluntary role in Greater London I have had to deal with too many clients whose families are trapped in a vicious circle of debt (it usually starts with a small high-interest loan or credit card debt), unemployment (uncompetitive because of their low skills), poor health (depression arising from unemployment, other health issues from abuse of drugs or medicines) and a lack of education which means they did not even know where to start looking for help.

As a result, children suffer from poor housing/homelessness, poor nutrition, poor attendance at school (they do not dare open the doors to bailiffs chasing legitimate debts), and ultimately a lack of qualifications.

Despite all the resources thrown at them by schools which get a ‘premium’ for disadvantaged children, free health (NHS) and free education, these children still fail to thrive.

Meanwhile taxpayers are disbursing huge benefits payments for unemployment, housing, health issues (mental and physical) that seem to offer an abysmal ROI (return on investment).

And we haven’t even touched on the issue of crime that results from such dire circumstances.

In my ideal world, I will send in a mentor – not necessarily a social worker, retired management consultants may apply – to identify what their skills and resources are, why these are under-utilized, and arrive at a holistic 12-/18-/24-month plan to get both the adults and children back onto a level playing field (debt-free, employed, in good physical and mental health).

From my perspective as a social anthropologist, such families cannot be freed from such ‘benefits traps’, ‘poverty traps’ or ‘inequality traps’ until they have been helped to help themselves (ie NOT to reproduce these cultural patterns).

Sometimes it could as simple as knowing how to discipline children, what to feed them, or perhaps even learning how to cook.

Racist? Me?

What a week!

Baffled by the admonition for Chinese in Singapore to make the minorities feel welcome I wrote to Straits Times with a "question-comment". It was published here.

251 words in the original reduced to 174.

The next thing I knew this letter was all over FB because someone had used this letter to define "humblebragging" ( TRY NOT TO OPEN THIS as it will only increase its hit count: https://mothership.sg/2017/10/chinese-sporean-woman-recognised-her-chinese-ness-after-strange-men-hit-on-her-in-europe/) and an award-winning novelist had written a considered FB response as a person in the minority.

How recounting unpleasant experiences pertinent to the discussion on racism in Singapore could be twisted into a piece about humblebragging was quite beyond me.

But never mind. Free speech. He's allowed to state his opinion.

I was curious as to why the people who then came on to FB to comment assumed that I was trying to get the attention of these "white men". So, it was my fault for trying to emulate Suzie Wong, I've been told.

Calm down, people, I will never look like Suzie Wong in a million years. I went to Amsterdam as a missionary in my thirties! By the way, it is never nice to be accosted by strangers. Period.

Yesterday the onlinecitizen published this article, all 1900 words, where I set out what I believe had gone wrong. It's my view. I may be right. I may be wrong.

Ultimately I want us to get back to that kind of Singapore I knew where one's skin colour is not the defining issue.

By sheer coincidence, Mr Lim Siong Guan wrote this commentary piece on building a gracious society on Today on the same day.

 Grace, not race. Let's be gracious, not racist.

Meanwhile, enjoy Bette Midler here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLPj2h0N3bU

SingPass 2FA does 'eff all'

I arrived in Singapore on 4th July. This was published on 7th of July 2017:

Have a new system for public? Test it rigorously first

All my attempts to apply for a SingPass two-factor authentication (2FA) have disappeared into a black hole.

Late last year, I was instructed to obtain a 2FA to make government transactions more secure.

But none of the options on the relevant website applied to me, as I live overseas.

After several e-mails and submitting scans of various documents, my application ground to a halt. I could not proceed with the registration online.

I called the helpline, whereupon a robotic voice took me from one option to another and landed me back at square one.

When I finally spoke to a human officer, I discovered that Assurity, the private company charged with dishing out 2FAs, has no records of my London address to which a token is supposed to be sent, and it insisted that it could not send one to my Singapore address.

I had to go down in person, I was told, and at least this helped resolve the matter.

If I did not happen to be back in Singapore, I would forever be locked out of the Singapore system. I could not even renew my passport.

This is not a complaint about personal inefficiency or individual unpleasantness.

It is a reminder that if the authorities wish to attempt such an onerous exercise, then the system should first be piloted with a group of disparate potential users.

Why allow only users of Singapore-registered mobile phones?

Call in some user-experience experts, test every scenario, and note that Singaporeans living overseas are as varied as they can get.

If the authorities cannot exhaust the ways of dealing with anomalies, then at least have an option within the protocol to deal with such matters satisfactorily.

===

The original:




BLACK HOLES DO EXIST
All my attempts to apply for my SingPass 2FA have disappeared into a black hole.

Late last year I was instructed to obtain a ‘2FA’ to make government transactions more secure.

I get that. My banks require two- or even three-part verification.

But boy! Do they make it difficult for Singaporeans who reside overseas!

None of the options on the relevant website applies to me.

After several emails, and having submitted scans of various documents, my application ground to a halt.

As I am in Singapore, I queued up at a CPF office to resolve this matter.

I could not proceed with the registration online as the (not so) civil servant said I could.

I called the helpline whereupon a robotic voice took me round and around the different options and landed me back at square one.

When I finally spoke to a human being (Daniel) I discovered that Assurity, the private company charged with dishing out 2FAs, have no records of my London address to which a token is supposed to be sent.

First they refused to register my overseas address. Now they insist that they cannot send it to my Singapore address.

Or I must attend one of two addresses in Singapore, which defeats the purpose of going online, surely.

If I did not happen to be back in Singapore, I will forever be locked out of the Singapore system. I can’t even renew my passport.

Am I now a lesser-spotted Singaporean?

This is not a complaint about personal inefficiency or individual unpleasantness. It is a reminder that if you wish to attempt such an onerous exercise, then pilot-test the system with a group of disparate potential users.

Mapping processes on a flowchart is inadequate. Reality does not always fit in with your limited categories. Why only allow Singapore-registered mobile phones?

Call in some user experience experts. Test every scenario. Note that Singaporeans living overseas are as varied as you can get.

If you cannot exhaust the ways of dealing with anomalies, then at least have an option within your protocol to deal with such, satisfactorily.

Incidentally, why ‘2FA’? Have you not heard the term ‘eff (sounds like ‘fook’) all’?

For me, ‘2FA’ = ‘total eff all’. So far.

Homeless in Singapore

This was published in Straits Times Forum (Web) Letters on 15th July 2017:

Difficult for returning S'porean to get HDB flat

When I decided to come home to Singapore after 26 years abroad, I began my search for long-term accommodation for my husband and me.

Years ago, when I tried to apply for a HDB flat, I was made to understand by a HDB officer that I did not qualify because there was no record of my marriage to my husband (who is a non-citizen) in Singapore. Hence, we put off trying to buy an HDB flat.

Friends suggested that if HDB deems me a single, I should buy a resale flat as a single.

But, the HDB now says I am definitely "married".

While it does allow joint applications with a non-citizen spouse, it is only for a two-room flat.

However, I am told that my husband has to sell his overseas property.

But if we do that, where is our teenage son, who could not come back to Singapore because he was not granted citizenship, going to live?

The only possible solution seems to be to divorce my husband - that is, to regain my single status - just so that I can buy a resale flat, after which I can settle to find work here.

With so many foreigners in Singapore, I am sure I am not the only one in this predicament.

===

The original:

Divorce (verb) to return to Singapore

After more than two infuriating hours at the HDB Hub I came to the conclusion that the only way for this reluctant migrant to return to Singapore permanently (after 26 years abroad) is to divorce her husband.

I cannot afford to work in Singapore until I get a home. Thus I began my search for long-term accommodation for my husband and me.

Years ago an HDB officer told my sister that I could not apply for an HDB flat with my husband because there is no record of my marriage in Singapore.

As such we put off trying to buy an HDB flat.

Friends suggested that if HDB deems me a single, I should buy a resale flat as a single.

HDB now says I am definitely “married”.

HDB does allow joint applications with a non-citizen spouse, which seems a very enlightened step, but only for a two-roomed flat.

However it reverts to the Dark Ages by requiring my husband to sell his overseas property.

Where is our teenage son going to live if we are forced to sell this, his only home?

Our son is not coming with us because he has not been given citizenship. (I am an inferior woman Singaporean married to a foreign man.)

The only possible solution seems to be to divorce my husband (ie regain my single status) just so that I can buy a resale flat, after which I can settle to find work.

With hindsight I did not have to declare my married status, nor that my husband owns an overseas property. But we are honest Christians who don’t know how to lie.

Perhaps it is far easier for me to get a divorce from Singapore.

Ethnic enclaves in Britain

Another  letter was published in Straits Times on 8th of June:

The original under-400-word letter reads:

===

My thesis supervisor asked, “Do you think multiculturalism is a good thing?” His tone of voice suggested that he did not approve, which is most unusual for a British academic.

My answer: Multiculturalism is great. Public services can be run on religious holidays as we take turns to go on leave.

What is there not to like?

However British children do not start the school day by pledging unity with fellow citizens ‘regardless of race, language or religion’.

Previously school assemblies were required to be ‘Christian’ in perspective, providing some semblance of cultural glue. These days, liberals, humanists, agnostics, atheists, etc have ensured that religion, and especially the Christian religion, is kept out of the classroom.

An elderly friend was furious on learning that her grandchildren were being taught – at school – that divorce is ‘normal’. (What, I wonder, would she think of same-sex relationships being taught.)

Previously most immigrants chose to integrate. We hear accounts of people changing their surnames (hiding their German/Jewish/Polish/etc roots), adopting Anglicized names (my son says I should call myself ‘Susan’) and adopting western dress, even to the point of cutting their hair and removing their turban, just so to find work.

Even Muslim immigrants adapted, becoming vegetarians as there was no halal food. They worked hard and learned the English language. They needed to feed their families.

Multiculturalism became more prevalent in the late 1990s. Two things happened.

‘White flight’ is the phenomenon of locals (of whatever colour) ‘fleeing’ to other areas to avoid being swamped by people of a ‘wrong’ ethnicity.

The vacuum was filled by new migrants, leading to monocultural ethnic and linguistic enclaves.

Women in particular did not learn to speak/read English and instead became dependent on husbands and so-called community leaders in matters of marriage and politics, including their right to vote (by post).

If children did not have a chance to interact with families outside of their own ethnic group in monocultural schools, how are they to learn ‘British ways’?

If university students are unable to use a knife and fork, how are they going to land (well-paid) jobs requiring fine-dining with clients?

Some insist on wearing Islamic robes to interviews, and then claim racism for their continuing unemployment.

Frustration, boredom, drug addiction, criminal behaviour, and then it’s only one small step to being radicalized by someone who promises an alternative to such purposelessness.

===
Spot the difference. This is the published version:

===

It is not hard to see how someone could be radicalised.

In the past, immigrants to Britain chose to integrate.

We heard accounts of people changing their surnames to hide their German, Jewish or Polish roots, and adopting Anglicised names and western dress.

Some removed their turbans and cut their hair so as to find work. Muslim immigrants became vegetarian, as there was no halal food.

They learnt English and worked hard to feed their families.

When multiculturalism became more prevalent in the late 1990s, two things happened.

Residents in some areas moved en masse to other neighbourhoods to avoid being swamped by people of a "wrong" ethnicity.

This led to a vacuum, which was filled by new immigrants, resulting in monocultural ethnic and linguistic enclaves.

Women, in particular, did not learn to speak or read English, and instead became dependent on their husbands and community leaders in matters of marriage and politics, including their right to vote (by post).

Children did not have a chance to interact with families outside of their ethnic group because the schools were monocultural.

How, then, are they to learn "British ways"?

The isolation brought about by living in ethnic enclaves could provide fertile ground for radicalisation.

===

Benefits of non-integration

Meanwhile in Australia, some psychiatrist noted that Muslims do not integrate well.

Questions have been asked why is it that previous migrants to the UK had integrated so well, whereas the more recent ones seem to have an issue.

I think welfare benefits have a lot to do with this.

I have heard many immigrants who arrived before the 1990s who, because they were not entitled to any benefits, had to work and indeed worked very hard.

They learned the language, took on any work, bought homes and integrated, because they were here to stay. Some changed their names. Most changed the way they dressed, just so to fit in.

Such changes were insignificant sacrifices in return for free education, free healthcare, and if they continued to contribute to National Insurance (NI), these migrants will have a comfortable retirement drawing a perpetual pension which today is just under £160 a week (£159.55  to be precise, or about SGD282).

All this changed some time ago -- I cannot be sure when -- which allows new migrants to draw the same benefits despite not having paid any NI. Yes. You get something for nothing.

Without the need to strive for a living, it was so easy to just sit back, get lazy and get very bored.

There is no incentive to integrate. The more a claimant is unable to function in the UK, the more resources are being thrown at them, such as interpretation services when they go to the hospital.

When the news first emerged, I guessed that the taxpayer must have been funding the lifestyle of this young man. How else was he able to fly here and fly there at will when he was unemployed?

I will not be surprised if his parents continue to draw benefits despite not living in this country. All you need is someone at your address to return documents to the necessary government departments and LIE that you are still resident in the country.

We cannot be sure if this is the case.

However it has emerged that this jihadist could have been funded by a student loan despite not being a student any more.

Why did his university not alert the student loan company?

Two hypotheses:

#1 British universities are renowned for hating to have to 'police' the immigration status of students. They are actually required by law to submit details about whether students registered for courses actually do attend classes in order to eliminate bogus students. They don't, because they are not the 'border police'.

#2 The university funding is dependent on numbers. If they report a dropout, the university loses the money. The administration might have delayed reporting this until the money is given to the university and they can take their time to return it. Meanwhile the student loan company (a separate entity) will assume that the loan is legitimate and hands out the money. Nobody cares whether the money will be returned as the rules are if they fail to pay within a certain period, the loan is written off. It might be that dropouts would have to repay much earlier. I cannot be sure. Again, it is not the university's problem.

All in, my tax is being used to fund these jihadists in Britain and there is nothing I can do about it.

Marijuana and jihadists

Guess what? A Dr  Pemberton also speculates about the connection between drug use and so-called jihadists, although he sees the connection differently from the way I do:

Potheads: DR MAX PEMBERTON asks if marijuana is a factor in jihadi murders as he says the liberal elite who push for looser drug laws should be shamed

Manchester Terror

Another day, another city.

Another former cannabis user.

Another previously purposeless life, now snuffed out, but not before taking more than 20 others with him. Members of the perpetrator's family have been arrested.

But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5:24) 

My prayers for you, Manchester, a city of great significance in my life.

Who would braid my hair?

My latest letter published in Straits Times (11th April 2017). My original submission here, with the three most important paragraphs (in red) edited out:

I was not surprised at all by the headline 12-year-olds in Singapore spend 6½ hours daily on electronic devices. We have all seen families at restaurants, each engrossed in their own device.

Meanwhile a British newspaper reports that “desperate British parents are spending £70,000 a time” on daughters who had “become hopelessly hooked” on “sexting” (sending naked photographs of themselves using their mobile phones and the internet, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4371936/Parents-pay-70k-send-teens-course-stop-sexting.html).

The trend that disturbs me most is that of a baby/toddler in a high chair with a tablet stuck in front of it.

The carers/parents get peace and quiet, but the children will not eat, or will only allow themselves to be fed if the feeder ensures that their line of vision (to the device) is not obstructed at any time.

How in the world can a real-life carer/parent compete with the all-singing, all-dancing graphics on that digital device?

It troubles me immensely that:

(1)  family time out at a restaurant does not encourage family – particularly husband and wife – to communicate face-to-face;

(2)  the joy of eating is not celebrated which could lead to an abnormal [requested change to "unhealthy"] relationship with food in the future (obesity/anorexia);

(3)  little children become addicted to flickering images on a tiny screen at a time when their brains should and could be encouraged to ‘wire-up’ in the areas of problem-solving, communication, self-control and relationship building.

I write as a parent who refused to let her child watch children’s TV for the first two years of his life.

In some parts of the world, hair is braided intricately by elders. This is a bonding activity. More importantly, as children relax and form a captive audience, sometimes for hours, elders impart the cultural values of that society.

I recall the hours my mum spent getting my hair ready at primary school, and the life’s values she shared during those times.

Now that this task is usually delegated to a home helper, eating out is an alternative to hair-braiding.

Is it wise to let such inanimate electronic devices rob our family of such precious times together?

===

The published version here:

I was not surprised at all to read that 12-year-olds in Singapore spend 6½ hours daily on electronic devices (Glued to screen for 6½ hours; April 2).

We have all seen families at restaurants, each member engrossed in his or her own device.

Meanwhile, a British newspaper reports that desperate British parents are spending £70,000 (S$121,600) a time on therapy for daughters who have "become hopelessly hooked on sending naked photographs of themselves using their mobile phones and the Internet".

What disturbs me most is how often I see a baby or toddler in a high chair gazing into a tablet.

How in the world can a real-life carer or parent compete with the all-singing, all-dancing graphics on that digital device?

It troubles me immensely that:

•Family time at a restaurant does not encourage the family - particularly husband and wife - to communicate face to face.

•The joy of eating is not celebrated, which could lead to an unhealthy relationship with food in the future, such as obesity or anorexia.

•Little children become addicted to flickering images on a tiny screen at a time when their brains should or could be encouraged to be "wired up" in the areas of communication, problem-solving, self-control and relationship building.

I write as a parent who refused to let her child watch children's TV for the first two years of his life.

Is it wise to let such inanimate electronic devices rob our families of such precious times together?

London terror attack Day 5

There is no Day 4. It was good to have my son back -- safe -- from an overseas school trip.

Day 5: Mothering Sunday in Britain. This is usually the second week before Palm Sunday (third before Easter) where traditionally children return to their mothers' churches. It is now the official 'Mother's Day' in Britain.

One of the first thoughts that crossed my mind as I settled down in church was that there is one mother in Britain who will not be celebrating Mother's Day.

How could she after what her son had perpetrated on the innocents in London on Wednesday?

Is it her fault?

Of course it is, and of course it is not.

Mothers will always feel that it is their fault if their children do not turn out well. That is why we try our best.

It is not her fault because she probably did not have full control of her own life as a seventeen-year-old (ie herself a child) bringing a mixed-blood baby into being. We do not know exactly what her personal and family (if any) circumstances were at that time, and we must not cast stones.

What we can conclude is this: being a single mother is not easy. Being a single mother at seventeen is not something I would wish upon anyone's children.

What we do know, if this newspaper report is to be believed, is that he took welfare benefits from the taxpayer and then returned this act of kindness by killing innocents. I was angry (see previous posts) precisely because I felt complicit in this crime.

Law-abiding taxpayers are facing higher and higher tax bills to fund the activities of some extremists through the very generous welfare system and there is NOTHING we can do about it.

Every time a politician says we must change this system, they are faced with strong opposition from special-interest groups. Usually people from the welfare/disability/charity industry some of which CEOs are drawing incredibly obscene salaries. "Vested interests", "conflict of interests" come to mind.

Some argue that he is not a good Muslim; he may not even be a good terrorist. He was just a madman.

We must be careful we do not let the 'madman' justification stop us from looking at the whole picture.

I believe that we all have a God-shaped hole in our hearts. We yearn to fill it. Some will find God and rejoice. Others turn to sex, or drugs, and then crime to feed the drugs. When left with too much time to reflect in prisons, they then find a God through other devout Muslim inmates.

At some point the British public will have to choose: all these people going to prison for one crime or another, do we wish them to be radicalized by Islamist extremists in prison, or do we prefer that they turn to a God who commands his followers to 'love your neighbour as yourself'?

When we love ourselves because we know that God loves us, then only will we consider the consequences of our action (or inaction) on our neighbours.

For now, Christianity and Christians are often persecuted in this once-Christian country. While we ostensibly have freedom of speech, Christian preachers are convicted when they inform the public of what is being taught in the Christian Bible.

Are we reaping what we have sown? .