Foucault and Ideas

"If you say something often enough, it becomes the reality."
No, Foucault didn't say this, though Foucault really meant this.

I was admitted to USP as a Science student. Had I not been talking to people, I wouldn't have known of this programme's existence from that part of the world that I came from. In class, I was presented "Power/Knowledge" as my first reading. I learnt about the Panopticon and Foucault's "Power of the Gaze". I read that paper more than ten times, and felt demoralised that I still couldn't really understand everything.

Now that I'm in my Fourth Year, I was presented, yet again, Foucault. Such a brilliant man, I assumed. I heard much about him. Into Foucault's work I jumped, "The History of Madness".

Can "Madness" have a history? Isn't it a condition, a mental/psychological condition? Isn't it a sickness of sorts? How can a person write a History of Madness (or Happiness, or Loneliness)? 

His way of writing history is, to say the least, weird. Brilliantly weird. As a deconstructionist, he attempts to move away from "chronology". There isn't any teleology, no past, no future, lots of present looking into the past, and bits and pieces of the past that are haphazardly stitched together. But nonetheless, brilliant.

Madness, to my understanding of him (because no one can truly understand him, I think), is a form of the powerful subjugating those who are too liberal, those who do not follow norms. What do we call madness? Why is madness a medical condition? Why confine mad men and alienate them so much, to the extent one keeps thinking "the mad man may hurt me!"? Why confine them like a prisoner? If they can't restrain themselves like how criminals can't, do we lump the two together? They seem to be punished in the same manner (at least in the beginning of that history).

He mentioned, that physical sickness suddenly became a private affair and madness a public affair. It is true. Leprosy was a disease that was "deserving" of confinement for as long as Christiandom was hegemonic.

He writes in power/knowledge that power creates knowledge, which is a notch above "knowledge is power".

I then went back to the Discipline/Punish ( where the Benthamite Panopticon was situated). Discipline doesn't make one conform, he says. Discipline separates, distinguishes, and sieves out. Punish those who are different from others.

A global identity: paradoxical?

A year back, I led a city tour and asked an international student - "where are you from? *smiles*" She frowns back, "I hate it when people ask this question. I don't know; it's a long story." "Tell me?" SHe then went on about how both her parents are Indians (one from North, one from South) and worked in Bahrain. They met in Bahrain. Her mother became pregnant with her, and rushed back to India to ensure her daughter would get an Indian passport. When the child was a week old, they flew to Sri Lanka and stayed there till she was 9. They then migrated to Bahrain and stayed there till she was 17. She then flew to London for her further education, before coming on an exchange to Singapore.
I probed further, "But surely there was a place you felt closest to?"
She replied, "Yes, Bahrain. But I went to an international school in Bahrain, so I wasn't acquainted with Bahrain per se. But I identify with that place the most. It was where I grew up in."

There's nothing wrong with that. Or is there? Why was the term "third culture kid" invented?
I write today with the aim to tell third culture kids that there is really nothing wrong, and perhaps they were made to believe that there is something wrong with them because the world doesn't see a horizon as broad as theirs, and could never half comprehend their world.

Wiki "Blind men and the elephant." That is a story originating from India about how different people only see part of a picture. Perhaps like kids born in the same land as their parents, they cannot comprehend an elephant, and bring with them a small skewed picture of their perception of what a third-culture kid may feel like. And hence "Snobbish? Slack? Spoilt?" are words that "local kids" use to perceive TCK.

Singapore is a young nation and many of its citizens still hold skewed stereotypes of its fellow counterparts, in terms of races, religion, gender, age, dialect group, ... This may have been a Confucian tradition of hierarchy, core-periphery, and stereotypes. I sometimes struggle with trying not to stereotype and giving the benefit of doubt too. My parents' perception of other races and religions are unfortunately not as cordial and all-embracing, and I lived with them for the past two decades. It would have rubbed off somehow. This is not uncommon in Singapore too.

Sorry... We didn't know International Baccalaurate was difficult, even more difficult than A Levels in many respect. We only knew that we are constantly compared to "Raffles" and "Hwa Chong" and striving towards the Ox-bridge or Ivy League schools - and then be ashamed if we cannot speak Standard English, or study much harder, or speak up in class only to find that we speak nonsense. For those who are luckier, they may migrate there, get a passport there, marry a Caucasian/non-Singaporean Asian and settle down overseas. That was what many parents of JC kids aspired towards. All JC kids know is that "ethanol + ethanoic acid = ethyl ethanoate" and "glocalization (quote localization of McDonalds) is a phenomenon to suggest that globalization is not all culture-antagonizing". Many of us didn't really truly understand what we were memorizing. A science student like myself and many of my peers wouldn't know what's the link between USSR and Russia, nor Cold War in general. We used the term Cold War when our good friends don't talk to us after some dispute. God knows how it was related to USA, let alone democracy and communism. (I didn't have the luxury of taking History in Secondary School and read only Geography, so I probably knew land forms and tectonics better than my History counterparts).

Third culture kids, we have lots to learn from you, but we do have a lot on our mind as well. We don't know if you would leave us jobless like what our parents often complain about ("expats!"). We don't know if you understand day-to-day struggles like squeezing up an SBS bus or MRT. We don't know if you actually have tasted chicken rice, actually, or if you live on spaghetti and ratatouille on a daily basis (I learnt the latter dish only from the rat movie; how "educated" I am!). We sometimes don't understand what's with democracy (ok I identify with this quite a lot) and why should we fight for freedom and individual rights. We don't really know what our political system is about - but we know enough not to question it if we don't know anything. We know stuff. We know how molecules interact, how we can calculate the conservation of mass and energy, and recite the proton number of elements in periodic tables. We know how to "differentiate" and "integrate" functions, how to draw a logarithm graph and what are the causes, advantages and disadvantages of globalization and technology (we learnt that in General Paper). We don't really know where Bahrain or Sicily is (at least for myself and my peers when we were in JC).

We know "ang mohs" and kids of expats go to international school. They are expats and must therefore be rich. They are rich and therefore must be snobbish (because our parents told us how snobbish their bosses are!). They are "ang mohs" and therefore have school politics that are similar to Gossip Girls, Friends, and other American dramas and we think they eat McDonalds and potato everyday. Not that we don't. But we don't really know. Really.

There's nothing wrong with a global identity, I think. My friends feel more Korean than Singaporean after watching tons of Korean dramas. And most of us Uni students prefer Starbucks (if we can afford it). Some of my friends took French. I went to India. I think NUS has a mix of just everything, and you are a global citizen par excellence, something Singapore is striving towards.

Some thoughts on Singapore

Having read some newspaper dated Feb 2012 when the General Election hype was roaring, I wondered why Singapore continues to feel hopeless.

As a student, I worry about the ever-increasing tuition fees. I've two brothers - age 12, and 20. Will my brothers be deprived of university education because the family hasn't enough money to support them? They are deserving high B low A students - certainly insufficient to get a scholarship, yet they are still full of potential, and are constantly improving daily. The family already struggles to pay bills from day to day, and we have barely enough, not to mention, savings. I'm in University now, and my father paid for it with his CPF.  The government only allows a certain percentage of the CPF be used. When my brother finally gets into University, there wouldn't be enough.

As a daughter, I worry for my parents' retirement and rising healthcare costs. My mother has cataract, and visited the National University Hospital in early March 2012, when she was already almost blind in one eye. She dared not see the doctor at first for fear of the expensive healthcare costs. When she went to the polyclinic, the doctor told her she had just astigmatism, and so she waited, and sought no further treatment. She lost more and more of her sight, and banged into walls while working as a cleaner, at a PAP kindergarten. The staff showed no sympathy, and questioned her reduced speed of working, sometimes even threatening her. She went back to the polyclinic, and the clinic finally referred her to the hospital. The hospital scheduled her appointment in end of May, and made her wait for almost three months. She suffered more frequent injuries while working, and because she is a part-timer, she has no leave she could take. My question was:
1. Why did the hospital make her wait so long? If they have their constraints, their lack of doctors, why wasn't the intake of Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine increased 10 years ago, when the problem of ageing population first surfaced?
2. Because my family is bigger than others, my father has only a PSLE certificate and my mother doesn't even have that, can my mother afford not to work, since she's ailing and having aches in her knee and back?
3. If she does stop working, will my grades at NUS and my brother's grades at Ngee Ann Poly suffer if we have to take on more employment just to support the family? Why make meritocracy such a vicious cycle packaged in a glitzy wrapper?


Moving on from my family matters, I worry about the education of the future generation. As a future educator, my heart sank when I read the newspaper that "students are tested on much more than what the school teaches." Private tuition is essential. However, my question is - can the poor afford tuition? The school has forgotten that Financial Aid is insufficient to cover just the books, uniform and school fees. Can more be done to bridge the widening gap by ensuring that deserving students from less privileged backgrounds can receive quality education? It saddens me that schools only remember and invest in their cream of the crop (yes, I was part of the cream all my life) and forget that most of the students in the top classes can afford tuition outside, while most students in the bottom classes cannot.

==> Can teachers be better trained to help such students, or schools implement schemes where students can look up teachers at a specific time slot at a specific place on any day to ask questions on any subjects?

The government has invited people of all nationalities (many Indians and Chinese) to partake of our great nation-building project, but hasn't provided the infrastructure to support the huge influx in population. Take the public transport for instance. The buses/MRT are consumed by the blue collar, and a large percentage of the white collars. Buses are so packed when they leave the interchange they do not stop at any bus stops until they reach the industrial parks where everyone get off the buses. More buses please! The transport companies reply that they are doing what they can. Could the government intervene, either through forums with the transport companies, or by engaging top economists to see if the transport companies could in fact do more, or enforce sanctions to protect the basic needs of citizens? Note: I haven't a big issue with foreigners, and foreigners or Singaporeans, we need to get to work on time in order not to get fired. We could leave the house 15mins early, but the situation isn't any better. We could leave the house 1 hour early, but what do we do when we get to work so early?
==> Could we encourage the staggering of working hours? While the Budget 2012 focuses on building the Downtown Line, can we pause for a moment and improve what we have instead of building more?


As a citizen of Singapore, I understand the twin problems we have - an aging population, and a shrinking workforce. The former requires fiscal investment which the latter is unable to provide. To bridge the gap we have the foreigners joining us in both blue-collar and white-collar sectors. I also understand, and sympathize with the blue-collar workers - while we think that they have a good life in Singapore and would be a rich man when they go back, most of them got conned/lured to this place and realise only when they reach that whatever they thought was far from reality. While we think the Banglas are disgusting and dangerous, most that I've met were very polite and respectful of ladies. Not far from my home is a Bangla/Indian quarter, where hundreds to thousands of them are housed. They rather stand on the bus than sit next to me. And while I do get stares of curiosity, I don't remember being leered at. Many of them are also very, very educated, and speak fluent English.
==> Could we make them love Singapore, instead of fear Singapore, and increase their productivity by making them love the job they have and giving them a decent standard of living? Do we really need to make them remember that Singaporean employers hurl nothing but threats of repatriating them, of docking their salary?

Supposedly, the aging population problem can be alleviated by an increased birth rate. I don't fancy the Baby Bonus idea, and instead prefer the grant of privileges for bigger families. The rising standard of living has made life more expensive to maintain, but above all, it's evident that the largest expenditures come when one's children enter the tertiary education. Most of the developed world also believe that having one -elite- child is better than having 3 not-so-elite ones. Yet, having one is better than having none,which is what many Singaporeans are steering towards. I think the government could get the public, the policy makers and the academics to air their views on how this problem can be best solved.

is there hope for... me, humanity, the world?

many think that these two animals are bought by my boyfriend for me. contrariwise, they aren't. My little brother, being a reserved child, is deeply acquainted with the little Pooh bear in the picture. Big sister me spotted Big Pooh, and together with my boyfriend, we brought the Big Pooh back home to my little brother. He was flabbergasted. "Ahhhh!!!!" He couldn't stop grinning. It has since become his new best friend. The Big Pooh's his girlfriend, and the little Pooh his little boy. He's only 12.

Lab report. Screwed because my extremely brilliant partner spilled the DNA over to the other lane. He airbrushed it away on photoshop. We scored an A for the report. All I did was to check the grammar. *grins* [An 'A' grade in NUS is extremely hard to get by the way.] I got to keep this photograph, the DNA fingerprint in which I argued on and on, "I'm dead sure there's ethidium bromide in it!" There isn't. There's only agar, and it isn't edible.

A slice of rainbow cake, compliments of my hostel neighbour. Being the extremely shy/asocial new addition to the block, I was not invited to any celebrations of birthdays. Not that I really care, actually. I was studying hard for my exams. Then came a knock at the door, and a slice of cake. It did cheer me up from my lulls of work, and for a split second, the world didn't look as dystopic as education has made it out to be.

I love this photograph. It's badly taken, i know. I took it during a visit to a nursing home with my boyfriend. I saw that possibly 80 year old man feeding his wife food. They didn't speak much, but the love in his eyes surpassed any words that the universe could describe. There she was, in the nursing home. Rain or shine, he would be there to visit. Almost brought tears to my eyes.

Gender stereotypes, seen in these little ten-year-olds. "Boys eat more what!' They were buzzing away. Truth is, I thought so, when I was 10, but now that I'm so much older, I realised boys only eat much more after puberty, not at such a tender age. Their fascination with almost everything strikes me. Little Einstein, a boy in the crowd of 39, answered every single question like reading a Britannica with a twinkling in his eyes. Plump girl got scolded by teacher, and started crying and withdrawing from the crowd. "The girl in yellow", the teacher said, "watch out for her." I thought she was a monster. She wasn't. She was a little autistic, and could not relate well to her peers. It's most unfortunate that children are "marked for destiny" at such a tender age. And equally unfortunate is that they would grow to be who the society expects of them. At least, according to Psych, a lousy capability paired with high hopes makes a child a "high ability kid" as opposed to a normal capability paired with low hopes.

This is the most epic photo of my life's collection. Snapped in Singapore, this photograph is a lift that's shut down. The paper writes, "The management didn't treat us like humans... [the rest I couldn't read cus it's too cursive]... B**tard!" It might not be a big deal, but because it's Singapore and I literally walked up the stairs with other residents of the block, I was quite startled that such a protest was launched. In Singapore, workers always do as told. In Singapore, there hasn't been a strike for more than half a century. In Singapore, the government believes in efficiency and protection of labour welfare. Is there a slice of population that we have forgotten, or the workers are being overly demanding? But anyway, I smiled to myself that something extraordinary has happened right before my eyes.

Is there hope? Of course! Agency vs structure. The world's a bizarre, yet dazzling place.

forgone conclusion?! but...

what do you do when faced with a forgone conclusion?
This is inspired by an academic interest, as well as a personal interest.

I'm reading Military History: The Battle of Hong Kong. It is generally understood that Hong Kong, being such a small island with little resources (military or other supplies like water) can never defeat the Japanese in face of an invasion. It occurred, in 8 Dec 1941. General Christopher Maltby however was confident that he could hold Hong Kong, for a few months at least. But he did not; it was lost, with extremely heavy casualties, in about 17 days. Why fight, and to what end was the garrison supposed to fight? Till the last man? Why send 2 untrained Canadian battalions who thought that they were not going to fight to Hong Kong, and why was it not communicated to them that Hong Kong was an outpost, and had little chance, if any, of survival? Some scholars have argued: "There's no difference if one were to send them into a meat grinder."

Alas, Maltby, and Brooke-Popham, (Air Marshal? C-in-C of Far East Asian Command?) believed that the enemy was weak.
Murfett's law: "Never underestimate your opponents."

Knowing your enemy is deadly, how do you make preparations to fight it?

Knowing that I might fare reasonably badly for this module, how do I try to save myself? Or do I suffer from inferiority complex? Am I panicky and reactionary, such that I can't think of the "best solution"?

==fight or die==
That was what the Japanese were faced with. Either you die gloriously, or you die pathetically. Either way, you die. But with a little bit of luck, you might survive.

To what extent is a "back door" a hindrance? Do people divorce because that is their back door? If there wasn't any divorce possible, could people love more, or try harder?

Surprisingly, what I learnt from this module is how willpower can triumph over dire circumstances. Amazing leadership, according to my Prof, does wonders. It can resurrect the dead even (no, it can't, i'm kidding), turn the tides, and make all things possible.

Could it be well-calibrated, cautious confidence, that leads one to victory? well-calibrated here means knowing your own strengths and weaknesses, and knowing the demands of your task ahead. Cautious is self-explanatory; always be prepared, for the worst scenarios. And whatever the case, have faith in victory - otherwise, "the battle is half lost."

And it all seems so paradoxical. How can one be cautious yet confident? How can one be confident in being well-calibrated enough? Having done all, resign to fate? >.<

Murfett's law: Luck. Machiavelli's favourite word: Fortuna. She only sticks to the bold, those who afford to take a calculated risk.
(And of course, what is a calculated risk? Does it factor in how dire the situation is?)

Actually, there's something I haven't spoken about.

First, I noticed that humans admire those who recognise and are not afraid to admit they have weaknesses.

Second, sometimes the conclusion isn't so much in winning or losing. George Osborne, a soldier, threw himself on a grenade and saved 6 lives. He lost his life. But he won in many ways. He won my respect, the respect of the soldiers around him, and he won a Victorian Cross, the highest ranking medal.

Thirdly, while victories are often clear-cut, defeats aren't. Because there are many levels to being defeated.

Hmm...

love (and politics)

Such were the two things that inspired this post today.

After tuition, I headed home and it felt really good to be back. Everyone was around; laughed at my little brother's increasingly oily face (he's starting puberty, and by talking about it I help him transit), at my father's listening to radio and youtube stuff (he seemed to pay such attention to every word I said to him, it's really nice) and my mother (who told me about her work and asked if I wanted food).

And I thought about Clarence, and how blessed I am, to have found a man who makes life a heaven on earth, in every sense. He understands me, cares for me, surprises me, listens to me... He asked if I wanted to go catch a movie with him. I haven't done that, mainly because my lack of interest does not justify my ticket purchase. And I was so surprised, that he asked, even when exams are looming. So adventurous, though he seemed so mundane at first sight.

I thought about being a teacher, and that vaguely reminded me of the previous guy I dated. "Just another HDB light," he sniggers. Being a teacher is all too normal, it's becoming the 80%, the mediocre. But Clarence shares such a powerful insight.

Would you rather be born into an upper-middle class family, do well in school, find the love of your life, get married, have kids, get promotion in work, get rich, grow old, and die at 70, have lots of people remembering you... or would you rather be...

a slum kid, who often got beaten, had only an illiterate mother, who fights his way up the rungs of his realm, gain respect, get into drugs and quit, grow up, start a small business and fund his own university education, fails in business, then having tried many times, succeeded, gain prominence and got into politics, got married to the girl he'd been chasing for 10 years, child dies, and finally become the president of the State, then have an illness which renders him crippled, but nonetheless he continued and impacted the world greatly?

Some would choose the latter, but most would choose the former. There's a difference between happiness, and fulfilment. A difference between having a good/happy life, and a meaningful one. I had felt ashamed to become a teacher despite really passionately liking the experience, because it makes me "just another HDB light". That was also another thing my previous church taught - being a light on the hill. It's a tall order and not everyone attains it. Having found Clarence, I really don't care what others are doing. I'd rather be a happy person, HDB or not, than have a meaningful life without the immense happiness. I just met a friend who kept joking that he'd be the next prime minister. He, however, has a love-life problem. My question to him was: What's the point of life if you, having become the Prime Minister, has a dysfunctional home?

Brings me to my next point. Home. And freedom. I posted a question to Clarence, asking what would he recommend a person who desires freedom but also wants to settle down.

Birds are symbols of freedom. I wonder who first came up with that. If there were no branches, no place for the birds to rest their weary wings, they may even regret having wings to fly with in the first place. Perhaps true freedom simply means having a place you can return to...

I didn't agree at first, thinking that it didn't address the question of freedom. But it's legit. And maybe he's right. Love, and freedom, need no logical-mathematical reasoning.

Is Singapore degenerating?

Some has written that Singapore is getting from first-world to third-world with the MRT power outage, flooding, ministerial scandals.

The government says this is normal in other countries. We face a huge percentage of migrant workers, because Singapore is unable to support itself. And the citizens are blamed for the falling birth rate.

On birth rate: The government was the one who introduced the stop-at-two campaign. It was overwhelmingly successful, because of many reasons. The three-or-more campaign started did not work because:
1. not enough effort is put into it - in publicity, incentives, etc
2. the primary incentive of having a child is gone - mothers have to work and take care of the child, worry about his/her grades, send him/her to tuition and a range of whatnot classes, from ballet to arithmetic
3. it's too stressful to live in Singapore, so why create a human to suffer with you?
4. (most important) It's too costly to support a child while having to support a house, (car), bills (utilities, phone/internet), parents (father and mother). It's actually more dystopic than this, because one cannot afford to be ill because healthcare is so expensive it wipes out all your savings. And if one is on long-term healthcare support, then... Who's even thinking about getting married, which costs?

It all boils down to money. And society.

If conditions favour having children, why not have them? It's precisely because the structural support isn't there. Very strangely, it's far more favourable to have children in India (esp boys), because all one has to think of is to send the child to a public school, and ensure that the child gets married, work, and support his parents. And not be a wife-beater. There aren't so many considerations - if the child fails in school, then too bad; he's not cut out for it, God has a way for him.

In Singapore, everywhere you go, it shouts, "If you've no certificate, you're dead." No, you aren't. You just have to find out what you're good at. But wait a minute, everyone else has a certificate, whether it's a good or lousy one. There comes the big problem. You're not ahead of others if you have a cert, you're behind everyone else if you don't (C.Seow, 9/2/2012).

Is Singapore degenerating?

What about the poor people in Singapore? Arguably, the poorest of poor isn't the foreign labourers. It's fellow Singaporeans, those who are at the bottom of the Gini coefficient. And it's quite apparent that these Singaporeans are either old, or do not have a good qualification, or for some reason are unable to give as much manual labour (arthritis, deformed backbone, or anything else). Such Singaporeans have to compete with the much cheaper foreign labour. There aren't any incentives to hire Singaporeans in this case, unless the person is willing to be paid as much as the foreign labour. The pay difference, if I'm not wrong, is around $21 (foreign) vs $50 (local) per day in a construction site. It's about the same in factories.

So what now? The progress which was much celebrated around the world has created a vicious cycle, and only the government can help, by either giving more incentives to employers for hiring locals (eg in tax-relief), or disincentives (not preferable, but quite a Singaporean method). This is important because this affects how we see our leaders of the country. This is exceptionally important because from 1965 to 2007, Singapore has been progressing linearly, save for the 1998 Asian financial crisis, and it's a consensus amongst the public that life is unhappier as compared to yester-years.

The government says we shouldn't compare ourselves with US president, or even other Asian ministers, regarding pay. Should we compare ourselves against ourselves, and strive to be the utopia of the world again, for a greater Singaporean population?

And every sound politician knows this: you can't afford to do worse; you can only do better. Better than other countries, or preserve status quo in the country's standing against the world. And even Machiavelli knows this: you keep the people happy, well-clothed and well-fed, and you as the leader won't be questioned.

That was why Lee Kuan Yew was such a great man. He gave the poor a real chance, and real help, to stay in HDB, have a toilet of their own, schooling opportunities for everyone, and made sure the entire island had affordable and comfortable transport, when there was nothing except debris and riots to begin with (post-WWII). Hell-yeah, there was no free press, no free-and-fair election, high ministerial pay. But few made noise.

We're losing our transparency, efficiency, accountability, and social security for the poor. We're slowly losing our friendliness as well. The world looks and feels treacherous, we can't get married, we don't want children, and we want to migrate to a less stressful place, after years spent on this island. Unless something can be done asap, politics is going downhill from now on.

Wahh! Millionaire! - Ministerial Pay cut

I posted on 18 Jan. Today (27 Jan), I decided to include a link over here, which talks about free press and corruption, and I'm even more uncertain of Singapore's political future.

I couldn't resist myself from blogging about this, so here I am. I am POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC - I see individuals rather than parties, for good reason.

Chen Show Mao's debate in ministerial pay cut was fantastic. I heard some really unintelligent debates on the ruling party's side, and was disappointed. Disappointed because it didn't produce as many political eagles as they had decades ago. Disappointed because I do think its contributions - or track record - in Singapore, was admirable. Let me sidetrack and come back. Ms Grace Fu is most admirable, and here's why.

My mother, unlike most privileged NUS students' parents, is a cleaner, at PAP Kindergarten (PCF). She's old, weary, and aching everywhere. She's working after 18 years of housewife-ship, because Singapore's increasingly expensive to live in. I'm studying in NUS. My father earns less than $1.5k. My brother is in Poly. And my little brother (yes, I've a big family), is only 12.

Cut the long story short. Grace Fu invited staff of PCF my mother to her house during Chinese New Year last year. My mother was ashamed to turn up, but she did anyway, and she was accepted amidst a myriad of political hotshots at Ms Grace Fu's home. That to me was impressive.

What's more impressive. My mother, as a staff of PCF, had the chance to travel to a nearby island for retreat with Ms Fu. In my mother's words, "I was sitting around with other aunties, chatting. Grace Fu walked up to us, carrying a big plate of food, and served us, telling us 'Eat! Eat'. I was so embarrassed, and so were my colleagues. Fancy an MP serving food to cleaners... But she did it very sincerely, with a broad smile and enthusiasm..."

My mother tells me Ms Fu speaks good mandarin. That's quite amazing, considering that many undergrads now, not to mention the very educated, do not.

Every year, Yuhua would host some Chinese New Year celebration the Sunday morning after Chinese New Year week. She would always be there, EARLY, to shake hands with every old folk who queues up for free mandarin oranges and lucky draw tickets. And she does it excitedly and warmly. I know it cuz I've been there many times.

I do not know if she helps the homeless, jobless, or hopeless in my constituency. I do know she is a good MP in many ways.

Let me now come back. Should ministers be paid that much? Firstly, why the debate now?
1. It will never happen again. Once everything is set in stone, life moves on, and citizens can never influence ministers' pay again.
2. Privileges can never be withdrawn. The pinch is very, very great. It's understood. Who in Singapore likes pay cuts? "Kee Chew!" (Raise your hand! A tribute to our dear MG)
2a. Those who are new feel it less, but given the plans they have, just like the plans we all humans have about our little bonus end of every year, it's still painful.

I'm not here to say whether it should be further cut, or not. I'm still confused in that sense, though Chen Show Mao made a great case. The premise of a politician:
1. It's not for the money
2. It's the willingness, coupled with ability, to serve.
[3. They represent the people.]

Point 3 means that if politicians are paid that much, they cannot empathise with citizens' financial woes. But most politicians don't empathise with citizens' woes in this manner. Not Obama, not Aroyo, not Lee Hsien Loong. Let's delve a bit deeper.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
According to the Social Contract (which arose from Hobbes and Locke, and evolved since the Enlightenment era with Rousseau), citizens give up a bit of their freedom for order and security, and if ever, prosperity as a nation. However, it's very difficult to measure order in Singapore - it's a culture to be ordered! We don't need politicians for that now. Security? Singapore's very safe. Social security? Hardly any [AND IT'S A BIG PROBLEM.] Prosperity? Yes to the top 10% of Singaporeans, no to the lower 50%. The income gap is widening, and the median income of Singapore $2.5k. GNP per capita is $52,000. That's a problem. Singaporeans don't feel rich enough to support high paying ministers. The prosperity of the nation's secure though, but that's another business for another day.

No one would admit they join politics for money. No one with brains would join politics for money, because one's life is suddenly scrutinised, and that means wearing a mask every second which also includes your children performing well in school, lest he/she gets questioned by the public. Strange, but true. The good thing (and actually bad thing) about Singapore is that THERE IS NO FREE PRESS. So that's not so bad, as compared to UK or US.

But Singaporeans, being Asians, hate being publicly scrutinised, because of our Confucian-influenced culture (or Chinese cultures). That's still a big sacrifice to make. Let me add that there are endless people enticed by fame and glory, but those aren't all good. Even the best fall from grace sometimes, as my study of British Prime Ministerial history has proven.

So I'll leave a few questions here:
1. To what extent is the pay necessary to attract talents who are headhunted into politics, people who are capable, but shun politics because they hate the entanglements that come with "serving the people" (eg being publicly scrutinized, having to answer to the nation, etc)?Those who are USELESS AND THERE FOR FAME or money and produce nothing amazing, GET OUT.
2. How good are all our ministers and members of parliament? - Scrap the GRC to find out, and keep only the VERY BEST in the Cabinet. No Mas Selamat, No SMRT vandalism... Security of the nation should not be compromised, and keep people who genuinely want to (and have the ability to) serve the nation. Those who are USELESS AND THERE FOR FAME or money and produce nothing amazing, GET OUT.
3. Confucian tradition - To what extent is our politicians capable and virtuous? In medieval China, those who are CAPABLE (passed the imperial exams) and VIRTUOUS were selected as officials. They were respected, and therefore unquestioned.
3a. It's a question of faith - Singaporeans feel that our politicians aren't as fantastic as to deserve being paid that much.
3b. Assumptions like that aren't baseless. Truth is, Singaporeans are feeling compromised in their lives. Gone were the days of 1980s when Singaporeans felt like they were in the best country in the entire world - safe, clean, green, efficient, wealthy, morally upright.

Virtue - If politicians are virtuous, they would not take public funds for themselves. If politicians are virtuous, they wouldn't even need to be paid that much. Very unfortunately, to err is human, and the mass media makes a mistake really big, and virtue really small. Money's the only compensation. How much? I don't really know. But if you did read closely, I wasn't questioning how much they should be paid. I was questioning whether they deserve to be paid as much as they currently are.

Grace Fu is a good minister. I would close an eye if she's paid very highly (sigh, but I'll still accept it). But not all ministers and MPs are that good. My friend's constituency has a really incapable MP who couldn't help her and her family and she has to stop school to earn money for the family.
REMEMBER, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT - If you make sure citizens are happy, citizens will close an eye as to how much politicians are paid.