-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chitchat Why Jamus Lim join Workers' Party ?
- Thread starter batman1
- Start date
PHd =/= Private Hire Driver
Jamus invites you for a celebration. 
Just one more weekend before our #ColorsInThePark festival at #Compassvale! Signups for our coloring and drawing contests have now filled, but there yet is room for our poetry competition. So do consider putting your wordsmithing skills to the test, and join Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威, He Ting Ru 何廷儒, and I at our annual #SengkangGRC National Day celebrations next weekend. And of course, even if you’re not participating in the creative segments, do swing by and soak in the patriotic party atmosphere, filled with song, dance, and food.
Jamus Lim
21h ·Just one more weekend before our #ColorsInThePark festival at #Compassvale! Signups for our coloring and drawing contests have now filled, but there yet is room for our poetry competition. So do consider putting your wordsmithing skills to the test, and join Chua Kheng Wee 蔡庆威, He Ting Ru 何廷儒, and I at our annual #SengkangGRC National Day celebrations next weekend. And of course, even if you’re not participating in the creative segments, do swing by and soak in the patriotic party atmosphere, filled with song, dance, and food.
Jamus attended the National Day Rally. 
Last night, I attended PM Lawrence Wong’s first National Day Rally, since he took on the role of Prime Minister. I’d attended a couple of these previously, delivered by ex-PM Lee Hsien Loong, and as someone who lectures for a living, I had always been impressed by the polish that is exuded by the entire event (I was told by several sources that I was caught on camera looking bored, but I promise I was paying attention).
The Workers' Party has already put out a press release (see here: https://www.facebook.com/share/vub7xejK2tgDYyx3/?mibextid=WC7FNe), on how a number of the proposals that we had been fighting hard for—such as redundancy insurance and shared parental leave—will now be formally adopted by the government. These are issues that we went to the polls with in GE2020, and I believe that the passage of these, along with others (such as an effective minimum wage for Singaporeans via the revised Local Qualifying Salary scheme), are a testament of the importance of alternative policy ideas and voices in Parliament.
I was also happy to hear the announcement—made during the Chinese segment of the speech (which I was listening to as well, I swear)—that there would be improved access to higher mother tongue languages (HMTL) for kids who may be strong in a certain language, but not necessarily in their other academics. The current policy requires students who wish to take HMTL to achieve at least a certain score for their PSLE. But not everyone who is linguistically gifted need do well in their other school subjects (I’ve met blue-collar workers who tell me that they didn’t do all that well in school, hence their profession, but then go on to amaze me by telling me that story in 3 different languages and 2 more dialects).
Based on what was shared last night, this will now be revised. I’m heartened, in no small part because I do sympathize with those who acquire language more readily than other subjects. That said, the current approach to language learning in schools still tends to stress academic achievement over functional literacy—something that PM Wong himself admitted last night—and this makes even those who may be fluent in a spoken language struggle with testing protocols. So while I certainly welcome the move, I think we can still refine how we deal with languages, and their emphasis, in overall student assessment.
Postscript: the parliamentary question I filed on the matter was actually inspired by a conversation I had (at a lift lobby, if I recall correctly) with a resident, who had flagged the issue. In my view, this underscores the importance of continuing to walk the ground, and listening to residents as they share their thoughts and concerns. Here’s the link to the original PQ: #makingyourvotecount
MOE.GOV.SG
Higher mother tongue languages in secondary schools
Higher mother tongue languages in secondary schools
Jamus Lim
10h ·Last night, I attended PM Lawrence Wong’s first National Day Rally, since he took on the role of Prime Minister. I’d attended a couple of these previously, delivered by ex-PM Lee Hsien Loong, and as someone who lectures for a living, I had always been impressed by the polish that is exuded by the entire event (I was told by several sources that I was caught on camera looking bored, but I promise I was paying attention).
The Workers' Party has already put out a press release (see here: https://www.facebook.com/share/vub7xejK2tgDYyx3/?mibextid=WC7FNe), on how a number of the proposals that we had been fighting hard for—such as redundancy insurance and shared parental leave—will now be formally adopted by the government. These are issues that we went to the polls with in GE2020, and I believe that the passage of these, along with others (such as an effective minimum wage for Singaporeans via the revised Local Qualifying Salary scheme), are a testament of the importance of alternative policy ideas and voices in Parliament.
I was also happy to hear the announcement—made during the Chinese segment of the speech (which I was listening to as well, I swear)—that there would be improved access to higher mother tongue languages (HMTL) for kids who may be strong in a certain language, but not necessarily in their other academics. The current policy requires students who wish to take HMTL to achieve at least a certain score for their PSLE. But not everyone who is linguistically gifted need do well in their other school subjects (I’ve met blue-collar workers who tell me that they didn’t do all that well in school, hence their profession, but then go on to amaze me by telling me that story in 3 different languages and 2 more dialects).
Based on what was shared last night, this will now be revised. I’m heartened, in no small part because I do sympathize with those who acquire language more readily than other subjects. That said, the current approach to language learning in schools still tends to stress academic achievement over functional literacy—something that PM Wong himself admitted last night—and this makes even those who may be fluent in a spoken language struggle with testing protocols. So while I certainly welcome the move, I think we can still refine how we deal with languages, and their emphasis, in overall student assessment.
Postscript: the parliamentary question I filed on the matter was actually inspired by a conversation I had (at a lift lobby, if I recall correctly) with a resident, who had flagged the issue. In my view, this underscores the importance of continuing to walk the ground, and listening to residents as they share their thoughts and concerns. Here’s the link to the original PQ: #makingyourvotecount
MOE.GOV.SG
Higher mother tongue languages in secondary schools
Higher mother tongue languages in secondary schools
Jamus invites you to Kluang.
How about a one-day trip up north to visit a farm and get some shopping therapy? Join #TeamSengkang as we head up to Kluang. Tickets will be up for sale at the respective #SengkangGRC divisions, and for #Anchorvale, we’ll commence next Monday. More details are available via WhatsApp, at the usual hotline number.
Jamus Lim
11h ·How about a one-day trip up north to visit a farm and get some shopping therapy? Join #TeamSengkang as we head up to Kluang. Tickets will be up for sale at the respective #SengkangGRC divisions, and for #Anchorvale, we’ll commence next Monday. More details are available via WhatsApp, at the usual hotline number.
Jaums invites you up north.
How about a one-day trip up north to visit a farm and get some shopping therapy? Join #TeamSengkang as we head up to Kluang. Tickets will be up for sale at the respective #SengkangGRC divisions, and for #Anchorvale, we’ll commence next Monday. More details are available via WhatsApp, at the usual hotline number.
Jamus Lim
·How about a one-day trip up north to visit a farm and get some shopping therapy? Join #TeamSengkang as we head up to Kluang. Tickets will be up for sale at the respective #SengkangGRC divisions, and for #Anchorvale, we’ll commence next Monday. More details are available via WhatsApp, at the usual hotline number.
Jamus is concerned about the DSA scheme. 
Recently, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing explained, in a response to questions on whether there would be a review of the Direct School Admissions (DSA) scheme, that “[t]he answer must be yes….. Never believe that any system is perfect” (https://www.straitstimes.com/.../direct-school-admission...). I emphatically agree with this, not least because we had previously received feedback from parents that the system appeared to be rigged to favor student athletes with coaches that appeared to offer preferential access for their trainees. This prompted the #workersparty to raise concerns in Parliament about DSA standards, and potential abuse. I filed a pair of questions early this year (https://www.moe.gov.sg/.../20240207-direct-school...), and my #SengkangGRC teammate Louis followed up this month (https://www.moe.gov.sg/.../20240806-conflict-of-interest...).
But my early call for a more thorough review of the system was met with a more cavalier reply by Minister Chan. Previously, he indicated that concerns would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and gave the impression that the system was otherwise sound (https://www.todayonline.com/.../moe-will-investigate-any...). Even in light of the more recent revelations—of alleged corruption by a basketball coach—the official response was only slightly more open to an evaluation of the system, where Minister Chan assured us that “MOE reviews… selection guidelines regularly.”
I believe that one important role of opposition in Parliament is to hold the government to account. We do so, in part, by asking questions that we hope will prompt greater reflection on various matters of public concern, especially those that have been raised on the ground. When we receive seemingly evasive or nothing-to-see-here responses, it is difficult to shake the sense that there is some gaslighting going on. This is frustrating, not least because it prevents a more earnest discussion on how we can improve policy.
The DSA program, announced around two decades ago by then-acting Minister of Education Tharman, was meant to diversify the routes of entry into secondary schools, to diversify away from a solely academic focus on stellar grades. Few would dispute that this is a laudable objective. After all, we want to allow those who excel in non-assessment areas of life—like sport, or public speaking, or leadership—to also have a shot at using these talents for entry into schools of their choice. This is especially so for kids that may not do well in standardized tests, or who may be late bloomers, or who simply have been endowed with different gifts that are not evaluated by the PSLE or “O”-levels. I personally know students that have accessed DSA, and subsequently went on demonstrate that the faith in their broader abilities were not misplaced. But of course, we don’t want the system to be gamed, especially by those who are already advantaged in other ways.
That’s what has some up on arms about how the DSA system may have veered away from its original intent, by providing an outlet for rich parents to train their kids in obscure sports or expensive-to-learn performance arts, or worse, buying the recommendations of biased coaches. This would reinforce the sense that the system—which already mildly favors children from more well-resourced households (who can afford more tuition)—is even more rigged against the poor. That would be an erosion not only of equality, but also meritocracy, which we so often celebrate. That’s why we shouldn’t shy away from a thorough, systematic review of a 20-year-old program, to see if it’s still functioning as intended. #makingyourvotecount
TODAYONLINE.COM
MOE will investigate any allegations of unfair practices in direct school admission exercise: Chan Chun Sing
SINGAPORE — The Ministry of Education (MOE) will thoroughly investigate any allegations of unfair practices in the direct school admission (DSA) exercise, said Minister for Education Chan Chun Sing on Wednesday (Feb 7).
Jamus Lim
10h ·Recently, Education Minister Chan Chun Sing explained, in a response to questions on whether there would be a review of the Direct School Admissions (DSA) scheme, that “[t]he answer must be yes….. Never believe that any system is perfect” (https://www.straitstimes.com/.../direct-school-admission...). I emphatically agree with this, not least because we had previously received feedback from parents that the system appeared to be rigged to favor student athletes with coaches that appeared to offer preferential access for their trainees. This prompted the #workersparty to raise concerns in Parliament about DSA standards, and potential abuse. I filed a pair of questions early this year (https://www.moe.gov.sg/.../20240207-direct-school...), and my #SengkangGRC teammate Louis followed up this month (https://www.moe.gov.sg/.../20240806-conflict-of-interest...).
But my early call for a more thorough review of the system was met with a more cavalier reply by Minister Chan. Previously, he indicated that concerns would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, and gave the impression that the system was otherwise sound (https://www.todayonline.com/.../moe-will-investigate-any...). Even in light of the more recent revelations—of alleged corruption by a basketball coach—the official response was only slightly more open to an evaluation of the system, where Minister Chan assured us that “MOE reviews… selection guidelines regularly.”
I believe that one important role of opposition in Parliament is to hold the government to account. We do so, in part, by asking questions that we hope will prompt greater reflection on various matters of public concern, especially those that have been raised on the ground. When we receive seemingly evasive or nothing-to-see-here responses, it is difficult to shake the sense that there is some gaslighting going on. This is frustrating, not least because it prevents a more earnest discussion on how we can improve policy.
The DSA program, announced around two decades ago by then-acting Minister of Education Tharman, was meant to diversify the routes of entry into secondary schools, to diversify away from a solely academic focus on stellar grades. Few would dispute that this is a laudable objective. After all, we want to allow those who excel in non-assessment areas of life—like sport, or public speaking, or leadership—to also have a shot at using these talents for entry into schools of their choice. This is especially so for kids that may not do well in standardized tests, or who may be late bloomers, or who simply have been endowed with different gifts that are not evaluated by the PSLE or “O”-levels. I personally know students that have accessed DSA, and subsequently went on demonstrate that the faith in their broader abilities were not misplaced. But of course, we don’t want the system to be gamed, especially by those who are already advantaged in other ways.
That’s what has some up on arms about how the DSA system may have veered away from its original intent, by providing an outlet for rich parents to train their kids in obscure sports or expensive-to-learn performance arts, or worse, buying the recommendations of biased coaches. This would reinforce the sense that the system—which already mildly favors children from more well-resourced households (who can afford more tuition)—is even more rigged against the poor. That would be an erosion not only of equality, but also meritocracy, which we so often celebrate. That’s why we shouldn’t shy away from a thorough, systematic review of a 20-year-old program, to see if it’s still functioning as intended. #makingyourvotecount
TODAYONLINE.COM
MOE will investigate any allegations of unfair practices in direct school admission exercise: Chan Chun Sing
SINGAPORE — The Ministry of Education (MOE) will thoroughly investigate any allegations of unfair practices in the direct school admission (DSA) exercise, said Minister for Education Chan Chun Sing on Wednesday (Feb 7).
Jamus comments on CHT's speech. 
Last night, I attended the Economic Society of Singapore’s Annual Dinner, a gathering of economists from myriad sectors across the country. The keynote speech was delivered by Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat, who spoke about transport infrastructure and public policy.
This morning, more than one colleague asked me what I thought of the speech (a number of eyes at my table also cast knowing glances in my direction last night). Truth be told, I agreed with the substantive parts of Minister Chee’s talk, such as the challenges of balancing mass transport needs against rising transportation expenditure, and the role of government in providing support for rising costs of living. I was also excited to hear about the progress made in realizing the Johor-Singapore rapid transit system.
At one point, however, Minister Chee’s speech veered from presentation to polemic. He castigated “some parties” for “indulging in fiscal fantasies” that is “neither politically responsible nor economically sound.” Minister Chee is entitled to his opinion, of course, but I feel that rhetoric like this is itself irresponsible, because it frames moderate differences in policy positions as irreconcilable stances. This then perpetuates a sense of fear, and risks transforming a policy disagreement into one governed by emotions.
Besides, if Minister Chee was talking about the #workersparty, a blanket claim like how we shouldn’t “propose spending more on one hand, and then criticise the government for raising taxes” severely mischaracterizes our alternative fiscal approach (had we said the same thing, we would likely be POFMAed). After all, where we differ isn’t that we believe in unfunded liabilities. Rather, what we have proposed is an alternative slate of taxes—on the extremely wealthy, on large corporations, and on activities that have negative effects on society—rather than those that place greater burdens on the struggling middle-class household.
And I would hardly think that reasonable increases in expenditure—aimed at elevating the educational experience of our children, or improving the safety net of our workers—constitute some petulant wishlist; they are a simple call for sound policies, commensurate with our nation’s level of development, which also have the potential to pay for themselves in the long run.
Personally, I would much rather focus the discussion on whether we agree with these sorts of choices, as a society, rather than throw around unjustifiable accusations like “fiscal fantasies,” which only serve to scaremonger, rather than engage in genuine debate over philosophical and policy differences.
Source:
STRAITSTIMES.COM
Key to use S’pore’s resources responsibly, rather than indulge in ‘fiscal fantasies’: Chee Hong Tat
Higher spending is possible only if society is prepared to foot the bill, said the transport minister. Read more at straitstimes.com.
Jamus Lim
6h ·Last night, I attended the Economic Society of Singapore’s Annual Dinner, a gathering of economists from myriad sectors across the country. The keynote speech was delivered by Transport Minister Chee Hong Tat, who spoke about transport infrastructure and public policy.
This morning, more than one colleague asked me what I thought of the speech (a number of eyes at my table also cast knowing glances in my direction last night). Truth be told, I agreed with the substantive parts of Minister Chee’s talk, such as the challenges of balancing mass transport needs against rising transportation expenditure, and the role of government in providing support for rising costs of living. I was also excited to hear about the progress made in realizing the Johor-Singapore rapid transit system.
At one point, however, Minister Chee’s speech veered from presentation to polemic. He castigated “some parties” for “indulging in fiscal fantasies” that is “neither politically responsible nor economically sound.” Minister Chee is entitled to his opinion, of course, but I feel that rhetoric like this is itself irresponsible, because it frames moderate differences in policy positions as irreconcilable stances. This then perpetuates a sense of fear, and risks transforming a policy disagreement into one governed by emotions.
Besides, if Minister Chee was talking about the #workersparty, a blanket claim like how we shouldn’t “propose spending more on one hand, and then criticise the government for raising taxes” severely mischaracterizes our alternative fiscal approach (had we said the same thing, we would likely be POFMAed). After all, where we differ isn’t that we believe in unfunded liabilities. Rather, what we have proposed is an alternative slate of taxes—on the extremely wealthy, on large corporations, and on activities that have negative effects on society—rather than those that place greater burdens on the struggling middle-class household.
And I would hardly think that reasonable increases in expenditure—aimed at elevating the educational experience of our children, or improving the safety net of our workers—constitute some petulant wishlist; they are a simple call for sound policies, commensurate with our nation’s level of development, which also have the potential to pay for themselves in the long run.
Personally, I would much rather focus the discussion on whether we agree with these sorts of choices, as a society, rather than throw around unjustifiable accusations like “fiscal fantasies,” which only serve to scaremonger, rather than engage in genuine debate over philosophical and policy differences.
Source:
STRAITSTIMES.COM
Key to use S’pore’s resources responsibly, rather than indulge in ‘fiscal fantasies’: Chee Hong Tat
Higher spending is possible only if society is prepared to foot the bill, said the transport minister. Read more at straitstimes.com.
Jamus distributed food and groceries.
Recently, I joined the folks at 慈善团 to assist with their food and grocery distribution efforts at 350 #Anchorvale. The group has routinely been involved in forms of community outreach such as this, and I was both grateful and happy to be invited to lend a hand, and to encourage the group as they did their thing.
Bottom-up initiatives such as these are always an important part of the network of support for the less fortunate in #SengkangGRC. When I or my #workersparty teammates receive invitations to participate in such events, we always do our level best to lend any support we can.
Importantly, we try to do so in a hand-on fashion, to the extent that we are able. For me, it also reminds me to ever take any material position one may have achieved for granted, since it is so easy for an unexpected turn of events to bring us to a position of need. But that’s what community is about; to help those who may, for whatever reason, be down on their luck.
(For the Mandarin writeup on their end, see here: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/ubMJSZQvXSzobieQ/?mibextid=WC7FNe)
Jamus Lim
4h ·Recently, I joined the folks at 慈善团 to assist with their food and grocery distribution efforts at 350 #Anchorvale. The group has routinely been involved in forms of community outreach such as this, and I was both grateful and happy to be invited to lend a hand, and to encourage the group as they did their thing.
Bottom-up initiatives such as these are always an important part of the network of support for the less fortunate in #SengkangGRC. When I or my #workersparty teammates receive invitations to participate in such events, we always do our level best to lend any support we can.
Importantly, we try to do so in a hand-on fashion, to the extent that we are able. For me, it also reminds me to ever take any material position one may have achieved for granted, since it is so easy for an unexpected turn of events to bring us to a position of need. But that’s what community is about; to help those who may, for whatever reason, be down on their luck.
(For the Mandarin writeup on their end, see here: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/ubMJSZQvXSzobieQ/?mibextid=WC7FNe)
Jamus had fun singing. 
Over the past weekend, #SengkangGRC celebrated our annual #ColorsInThePark National Day fiesta, at the Sculpture Park in #Compassvale. We were joined by residents hailing from across the divisions, and especially parents and their kids, who braved the slightly iffy weather to participate in our coloring, drawing, and poetry competitions.
It’s always fun to soak in the carnival atmosphere, and to see kids really getting into their artwork—some even tried subtle (and not-so-subtle) lobbying for their own creations during the judging phase! And of course, the various food n’ fun booths—from kompang music to the ever-popular candy floss makers to the caricature artist station—were much appreciated by the crowd. Balloons were a hit, too, although I did spy more than a few that floated away into the cloudy gray skies.
My favorite moment, however, was unmistakable: when we gathered to sing various national songs. Beyond how these songs—drawn from those that would be familiar to different generations—inevitably conjure up a nostalgic mood, they also uniquely manage to bring us together, as a multicultural and multiethnic nation that identifies with the themes weaved together by the music. This year’s song, “Not Alone,” also brought the kids (including my daughter) en masse to our makeshift stage, where they throatily belted out how this house would feel like a ho-oh-ome if we we just to look to each other. It is in the same spirit that #TeamSengkang serves the people that have put their trust in us, and is the reason why we continue to work hard to keep uplifting those in our community and society, each and every day.
We could not have pulled off this festival—the most major grassroots event on our calendar—without the time, energy, and dedication of our small platoon of volunteers, for which we are deeply grateful. Thanks as well for all those who contributed to the activities: those who stepped up to compete, those who served as judges or presenters, and of course, to everyone who came down to celebrate our nation’s birthday together.
Jamus Lim
10h ·Over the past weekend, #SengkangGRC celebrated our annual #ColorsInThePark National Day fiesta, at the Sculpture Park in #Compassvale. We were joined by residents hailing from across the divisions, and especially parents and their kids, who braved the slightly iffy weather to participate in our coloring, drawing, and poetry competitions.
It’s always fun to soak in the carnival atmosphere, and to see kids really getting into their artwork—some even tried subtle (and not-so-subtle) lobbying for their own creations during the judging phase! And of course, the various food n’ fun booths—from kompang music to the ever-popular candy floss makers to the caricature artist station—were much appreciated by the crowd. Balloons were a hit, too, although I did spy more than a few that floated away into the cloudy gray skies.
My favorite moment, however, was unmistakable: when we gathered to sing various national songs. Beyond how these songs—drawn from those that would be familiar to different generations—inevitably conjure up a nostalgic mood, they also uniquely manage to bring us together, as a multicultural and multiethnic nation that identifies with the themes weaved together by the music. This year’s song, “Not Alone,” also brought the kids (including my daughter) en masse to our makeshift stage, where they throatily belted out how this house would feel like a ho-oh-ome if we we just to look to each other. It is in the same spirit that #TeamSengkang serves the people that have put their trust in us, and is the reason why we continue to work hard to keep uplifting those in our community and society, each and every day.
We could not have pulled off this festival—the most major grassroots event on our calendar—without the time, energy, and dedication of our small platoon of volunteers, for which we are deeply grateful. Thanks as well for all those who contributed to the activities: those who stepped up to compete, those who served as judges or presenters, and of course, to everyone who came down to celebrate our nation’s birthday together.
Jamus continues house visits.
Over the past couple of weeks, we wrapped up our #TeamSengkang visits to 332B #Anchorvale, as well as most of 318A. We also continued with our WCYH engagements, at the Place cluster. Beyond questions about the possibility of an impending election (we really don’t know when!), we had conversations on both estate and national matters.
One discussion stayed with me. It is common, these days, to receive comments that the cost of living has risen too fast, too far. But this resident lamented about how, with especially house prices becoming unbearably high, that people were moving to nearby Malaysia to live. This has always happened, of course; it is especially so for either those who are Malaysians to begin with (but working in Singapore), or for those seeking to stretch their retirement dollar. But she felt that it was now happening even for regular Singaporeans, who simply cannot make the sums work, especially when it comes to a reasonable cost of housing.
Notwithstanding how widespread this phenomenon may be—it strikes me as extremely costly, time-wise, to endure a daily commute across the causeway—it got me wondering about what the high cost of living means for our sense of rootedness and belonging to Singapore society. After all, one of the key tenets of HDB, when it was first formed, was to provide housing for the masses, so that they may have a real stake in the fledging nation. Is this hallmark of national identity being exchanged for a transactional one, with the ownership of a flat becoming a means of extracting government grants, or reaping rent?
I don’t really have a satisfactory answer, and I suspect there isn’t a simple response. I do meet many Singaporeans who are proud of their homes, and happy with living in #SengkangGRC. But it’s useful, from the purpose of public policy, to also recognize how the high cost of living can be corrosive, beyond the economics, to our social and cultural ties, too.
Jamus Lim
·Over the past couple of weeks, we wrapped up our #TeamSengkang visits to 332B #Anchorvale, as well as most of 318A. We also continued with our WCYH engagements, at the Place cluster. Beyond questions about the possibility of an impending election (we really don’t know when!), we had conversations on both estate and national matters.
One discussion stayed with me. It is common, these days, to receive comments that the cost of living has risen too fast, too far. But this resident lamented about how, with especially house prices becoming unbearably high, that people were moving to nearby Malaysia to live. This has always happened, of course; it is especially so for either those who are Malaysians to begin with (but working in Singapore), or for those seeking to stretch their retirement dollar. But she felt that it was now happening even for regular Singaporeans, who simply cannot make the sums work, especially when it comes to a reasonable cost of housing.
Notwithstanding how widespread this phenomenon may be—it strikes me as extremely costly, time-wise, to endure a daily commute across the causeway—it got me wondering about what the high cost of living means for our sense of rootedness and belonging to Singapore society. After all, one of the key tenets of HDB, when it was first formed, was to provide housing for the masses, so that they may have a real stake in the fledging nation. Is this hallmark of national identity being exchanged for a transactional one, with the ownership of a flat becoming a means of extracting government grants, or reaping rent?
I don’t really have a satisfactory answer, and I suspect there isn’t a simple response. I do meet many Singaporeans who are proud of their homes, and happy with living in #SengkangGRC. But it’s useful, from the purpose of public policy, to also recognize how the high cost of living can be corrosive, beyond the economics, to our social and cultural ties, too.
Jamus is looking forward to the procession around these central gathering areas of these clusters, where the combination of sparkling lanterns, children’s laughter, and chiming music will certainly prove to be most magical.
As we slide into September (really? Where did the year go?), we head into the season where there will be a host of harvest festivals pulling up in the months ahead. The first of these we will celebrate in #SengkangGRC is Mid-Autumn. The #Compassvale and #Anchorvale divisions will host this year’s event at Cape and Gardens, respectively. I’m really looking forward to the procession around these central gathering areas of these clusters, where the combination of sparkling lanterns, children’s laughter, and chiming music will certainly prove to be most magical. #TeamSengkang
Jamus Lim
1 September at 17:19 ·As we slide into September (really? Where did the year go?), we head into the season where there will be a host of harvest festivals pulling up in the months ahead. The first of these we will celebrate in #SengkangGRC is Mid-Autumn. The #Compassvale and #Anchorvale divisions will host this year’s event at Cape and Gardens, respectively. I’m really looking forward to the procession around these central gathering areas of these clusters, where the combination of sparkling lanterns, children’s laughter, and chiming music will certainly prove to be most magical. #TeamSengkang
Jamus met a gentlemanly runner.
During our #TeamSengkang house visits this past week, I met a gentleman who is an avid runner, racking up an entire wall of marathon and other long-distance running medals. He said that he has slowed down recently—which just means that he now does “shorter” 5k and 10k runs—but his dedication is just a reminder that, regardless of the distances we do (or even the speed we do it at), what matters is just that one is willing to just keep at it.
It is an apt metaphor for life. When folks ask me how it’s like to get a doctorate, I always tell them that I was far from the smartest or most hardworking kid in school; what differentiated me—or anyone who wishes to do a PhD—is that I love what I study, and simply decided to keep at it, while my peers moved on to other things. Even today, I’m still learning on a daily basis, but it’s not a chore. Thankfully, it is also my job, and I get to use the knowledge I have acquired in economics in other arenas, too, such as analyzing policy for the #workersparty.
And since it’s the first Saturday of the month, you can join us in our regular #SengkangGRC #RiverRun. Whether for the first time, or if you’re a regular, do come down this evening and help us keep at it!
Jamus Lim
·During our #TeamSengkang house visits this past week, I met a gentleman who is an avid runner, racking up an entire wall of marathon and other long-distance running medals. He said that he has slowed down recently—which just means that he now does “shorter” 5k and 10k runs—but his dedication is just a reminder that, regardless of the distances we do (or even the speed we do it at), what matters is just that one is willing to just keep at it.
It is an apt metaphor for life. When folks ask me how it’s like to get a doctorate, I always tell them that I was far from the smartest or most hardworking kid in school; what differentiated me—or anyone who wishes to do a PhD—is that I love what I study, and simply decided to keep at it, while my peers moved on to other things. Even today, I’m still learning on a daily basis, but it’s not a chore. Thankfully, it is also my job, and I get to use the knowledge I have acquired in economics in other arenas, too, such as analyzing policy for the #workersparty.
And since it’s the first Saturday of the month, you can join us in our regular #SengkangGRC #RiverRun. Whether for the first time, or if you’re a regular, do come down this evening and help us keep at it!
Jamus discusses boundaries. 
Residents of landlocked neighborhoods in Upper Serangoon may have wondered what wild magic conspired to have led them to becoming a part of the voting district of Marine Parade GRC. Those living in Fernvale have often also asked why they aren’t part of #SengkangGRC, after having identified with the town since the beginning.
The carving of electoral boundaries can, indeed, appear to be a dark art. The exercise is inherently political—it will, after all, be key to the voting outcome—and all the more so if voters that support one party live in a different place from those that support another. The process of drawing these bounds in a way that advantages one party over another is known as “gerrymandering”: after a former American vice president, Elbridge Gerry, who signed a bill that created a district looking like a salamander.
But must odd-shaped boundaries necessarily be nefarious? Often, the common-sense answer rings true (“if it looks like a ducks, and quacks like a duck…”). Still, the complexity of the task means that it needn’t be. After all, the math is itself daunting. A simple 4x4 grid will offer 117 ways to subdivide the 16 squares into 4 districts (with at least 4 adjacent squares), while a 9x9 grid increases the options to 700 trillion possibilities.
Okay, so with this dizzying array of boundaries, should we just accept whatever is drawn up? Thankfully, no. Just as math presents us a conundrum for boundary drawing, it also offers us a way out, with various methods for ensuring fair boundaries. One way is to use geometry to ensure that maps are simple and coherent (these have precise mathematical definitions, but they are what they sound like in English). Odd-looking, snaking districts are unlikely to fulfill these criteria.
Another way is to minimize what’s known as an “efficiency gap”—basically, to keep wasted votes (those that aren’t needed to determine the winner of a district) to as few as possible. This is also intuitively appealing, since we’d like everyone’s vote to matter. I did some basic calculations along these lines and this approach suggested that, for #GE2020, the PAP had an electoral advantage of 17 percent, due to districting alone. That’s larger than the final tally that would swing the outcome in most SMCs and GRCs.
A third relies on theories developed to ensure fair division (think of how one might design a system to split a cake equally between two people). One way to do this is to allow both sides to take turns with proposing and accepting splits. Interestingly, Singapore used to have such a system, in the early years. In the 1950s, boundary committees included representatives from various parties. In 1963, the PAP even invited opposition parties to submit proposals for how constituencies would be delineated!
Advances in computing power essentially now allow thousands of mathematically-fair boundaries to be simulated in finite time, and used to draw actual boundaries. These can even be adapted to constraints, like balanced ethnic composition, which we want to have in Singapore.
It’s puzzling that we don’t seem to have deployed these methods for our Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC). So when Singaporeans express distrust in the shapes of our electoral districts (see: https://mustsharenews.com/gerrymandering-poll-singapore), we shouldn’t be surprised. If we truly want to convince Singaporeans that our boundaries are not drawn in a politically-motivated way, the tools are available for the EBRC to do so. It’s low-hanging fruit for electoral reform.
More generally, we should ask what sort of political values we reflect, when we condone intentional gerrymandering. Are we a meritocracy? If we are, does it extend to the political arena? Do all parties get an equal shot, and voters all get an equal voice, in Singapore? #makingyourvotecount
Jamus Lim
13h ·Residents of landlocked neighborhoods in Upper Serangoon may have wondered what wild magic conspired to have led them to becoming a part of the voting district of Marine Parade GRC. Those living in Fernvale have often also asked why they aren’t part of #SengkangGRC, after having identified with the town since the beginning.
The carving of electoral boundaries can, indeed, appear to be a dark art. The exercise is inherently political—it will, after all, be key to the voting outcome—and all the more so if voters that support one party live in a different place from those that support another. The process of drawing these bounds in a way that advantages one party over another is known as “gerrymandering”: after a former American vice president, Elbridge Gerry, who signed a bill that created a district looking like a salamander.
But must odd-shaped boundaries necessarily be nefarious? Often, the common-sense answer rings true (“if it looks like a ducks, and quacks like a duck…”). Still, the complexity of the task means that it needn’t be. After all, the math is itself daunting. A simple 4x4 grid will offer 117 ways to subdivide the 16 squares into 4 districts (with at least 4 adjacent squares), while a 9x9 grid increases the options to 700 trillion possibilities.
Okay, so with this dizzying array of boundaries, should we just accept whatever is drawn up? Thankfully, no. Just as math presents us a conundrum for boundary drawing, it also offers us a way out, with various methods for ensuring fair boundaries. One way is to use geometry to ensure that maps are simple and coherent (these have precise mathematical definitions, but they are what they sound like in English). Odd-looking, snaking districts are unlikely to fulfill these criteria.
Another way is to minimize what’s known as an “efficiency gap”—basically, to keep wasted votes (those that aren’t needed to determine the winner of a district) to as few as possible. This is also intuitively appealing, since we’d like everyone’s vote to matter. I did some basic calculations along these lines and this approach suggested that, for #GE2020, the PAP had an electoral advantage of 17 percent, due to districting alone. That’s larger than the final tally that would swing the outcome in most SMCs and GRCs.
A third relies on theories developed to ensure fair division (think of how one might design a system to split a cake equally between two people). One way to do this is to allow both sides to take turns with proposing and accepting splits. Interestingly, Singapore used to have such a system, in the early years. In the 1950s, boundary committees included representatives from various parties. In 1963, the PAP even invited opposition parties to submit proposals for how constituencies would be delineated!
Advances in computing power essentially now allow thousands of mathematically-fair boundaries to be simulated in finite time, and used to draw actual boundaries. These can even be adapted to constraints, like balanced ethnic composition, which we want to have in Singapore.
It’s puzzling that we don’t seem to have deployed these methods for our Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC). So when Singaporeans express distrust in the shapes of our electoral districts (see: https://mustsharenews.com/gerrymandering-poll-singapore), we shouldn’t be surprised. If we truly want to convince Singaporeans that our boundaries are not drawn in a politically-motivated way, the tools are available for the EBRC to do so. It’s low-hanging fruit for electoral reform.
More generally, we should ask what sort of political values we reflect, when we condone intentional gerrymandering. Are we a meritocracy? If we are, does it extend to the political arena? Do all parties get an equal shot, and voters all get an equal voice, in Singapore? #makingyourvotecount
