Let the Korean wave cheer you up.

First, we have South Korean Traffic Police dancing to Wonder Girls' Tell Me.

The guy on the right is hilarious!

If you are still not happy enough, this will make your day.
South Korean policeman dancing to Wonder Girls' Nobody in the office.


If you are in any of Singapore's uniform services, regular or NS, please do not attempt to make a similar video, save it on your mobile which you will lose, or circulate it on the internet.

As if the above is not enough, here we have a couple of vids of inmates of Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center (CPDRC), a maximum security prison in Cebu, the Philippines, dancing to Sorry Sorry by Super Junior, and Nobody by Wonder Girls.


There are so many inmates involved in the dance that it looks like an NDP display. I cannot imagine TT Durai doing this. Can you?

Why you need 13 boys in a boy band (Super Junior), I dunno...
But the Korean Wave is much more powerful than I thought!

.........................................

Because I'd expected to find a bunch of RI boys dancing to the Wonder Girls, I searched for it on Youtube, but got this instead.

Not Raffles Institution, but Raffles Hall in NUS.
WTF?! Volleyball boys?!
They weren't like that when I used to date one. =_=

A link shared by a former public service colleague of mine on Facebook. I thought, given what we have been discussing about our politician and non-politician leaders, the video is relevant for further sharing.


In reality, one does not have this conversation with his supervisor. One simply bitches about it incessantly with fellow colleagues over lunch, after-work drinks and now on Facebook, then goes back to writing those minutes of meeting. Repeat the cycle for 20 years.

And while you are at it, watch this one too. It's not the sexism, it's the absurdity.

Mediacorp has been showing 3 similar series of programmes which mainly involve the sprucing up of one's home.

RENOVAID
RenovAID is shown on a Channel 5 and an outsourced product. It is also the latest to jump on this bandwagon. Unlike its closest cousin, Life Transformers, this programme attempts to help its target households by extensively improving the living environment. Occasionally, the programme brings in extra help, e.g. a doctor to check on the health of the elderly gentleman you see below.

In the last episode of RenovAID, the host revisited 2 contrasting households to check on the efficacy of the programme's efforts. The first household had reverted to its messy ways, while the second household had maintained the newly decorated space well.

LIFE TRANSFORMERS 心情打动员
Life Transformers is a a Channel 8 product. While the programme does improve the dwelling unit of the target households, the improvements are basic (e.g. cleaning and simple furniture/white goods). Usually, help is given to target other needy areas of the individuals, e.g. finding a job, clearing overdue utilities bills.

This programme does allow Quan Yifeng and Christopher Lee to come across as heart-warming hands-on 'human' characters, despite their 'bad' reputations. I wonder if the effect would be the same if Mark Lee and Bryan Wong took over this programme, instead of Home Decor Survivors.

HOME DECOR SURVIVORS 摆家乐
Home Decor Survivors, also a Channel 8 product, is in its 4th season. The programme is pitched as a 'game' where a host-cum-designer are assigned to a participant family. Within the same time and budget constraints, both are to complete a redecoration of the living room. The winner keeps the new furnishings.


A summary of these programmes' hosts, external source of help, budget per flat decorated and format is as follows:


There has been quite a bit of debate online on these programmes. Mainly about the budget of RenovAID as the base budget is SGD10,000, with excess (another SGD10,000) absorbed by sponsors. Some argue that the 'nice' decorations are extravagant and the budget could be split to help more needy families. Hence, Life Transformers comes across as a more pragmatic approach.

Nonetheless, in comparison with RenovAID and Life Transformers, Home Decor Survivor is a meaningless programme. Not just because the programme hardly helps anyone, but because it's quite clear that Mark Lee has no flair for interior decoration whatsoever and everyone (audience, participants, panel of 'judges', even Mark Lee) knows that. To top it off, both hosts tend to be rude to the home owners and helpers, thinking that their caustic remarks will add to the entertainment value of the programme, which is severely lacking.

Ignoring the absurdity of Home Decor Survivors, the other 2 programmes made me think about the following:

(1) Form & Substance
It's so much easier to help spruce up a person's life in terms of form, e.g. clean out the dwelling, a new coat of paint, new furniture etc. But it's much more difficult to help this person by solving their problems at the roots (substance), e.g. motivating the person to be optimistic, to work etc.

Form and Substance (Function) is a highly useful concept to remind us of our weaknesses, e.g. taking the easy way out. Or worse still, pretending that we have provided a real solution to a problem.

(2) Mental Health
Though the programmes have been too diplomatic to highlight this, it is very clear that, on top of being in poor physical health, quite a few of the individuals are also in poor mental health. As a result (a symptom), they give up on maintaining basic personal hygiene and clean living spaces.

While there are vaccines for physiological diseases, what can be done to prevent mental illnesses?

Before you start to assume that only poor people live in dirty spaces and have mental problems, I have witnessed conditions similar to those in the programmes in a semi-detached house in Singapore. I think people prefer to ignore signs and symptoms of mental illness because they are ignorant of its consequences and mostly selfish.

(3) What are Basic Human Rights?
Life Transformers featured a pair of deaf and dumb parents with 3 kids. The kids are normal children, while the parents, because of their handicap are lowly, if not uneducated, and are jobless/unable to hold onto a job for more than a few weeks/months. The 2 elder children are staying with relatives and are schooling. Meanwhile, the programme found the youngest to lack speech and behavioural developments of a child his age. Part of the help given by the programme was to enrol the youngest in a pre-school. When asked why they have 3 children if they could not afford them, they told the programme that they did not plan for them.

Even the most cold-hearted person would have felt his heart collapsing a little when he watched that episode. The parents have the 'right' to conceive. Do the kids have a right to education, mental development/well-being etc? Our society places a lot of responsibilities on the family unit and assumes that the unit has the ability to handle these adequately. But what happens when the family unit cannot? This is especially plausible as families (nuclear and extended) are getting smaller. The available resources and help from 'families' will shrink accordingly.

It pains me to see fellow Singaporeans living under such conditions. I understand the argument that we would like to avoid over-dependence on and abuse of the system by 'lazy' people. But the fact remains that jobless/clueless individuals will suffer indefinitely.

Whatever happened to 怜悯之心，人皆有之?

Now that you have some idea of:

• Who the leaders in the ministries are
• How policy decisions are made in ministries

Perhaps it is timely to explore these questions:

Qn#1: Since HDB is under Ministry of National Development, should Minister Mah Bow Tan be blamed for HDB policies?

The intuitive answer is yes, because he is the Minister of National Development... mah! He has to be blamed for 'sucky' HDB policies. Just like how CEOs of large corporations resign quite dramatically whenever something goes wrong. This is 'accountability'.

But as you know by now, these policy decisions are not made by one person. There are many people (politician and non-politicians) involved. Each can influence the outcome of these decisions, albeit unequally.

The minister, regardless how brilliant (and highly-paid) s/he is, is merely 1 (wo)man. S/He needs a good team to support him/her. And we like to assume because the minister makes so much money and is so powerful that s/he has all the control in the world to ensure that he has the best people working with/for him.

Hence, it is essential for us to be aware of who else was involved in the decision-making process, rather than put the blame on the most obvious person only.

Qn#2: Why do some ministers get more flak than other ministers? Does this mean they suck more?

The simple answer is that (i) some ministers' portfolios are more obvious than others.

All ministries' work affect Singaporeans, businesses, culture, foreign relations etc. However, some portfolios' impact is felt more directly than others.

Take Ministry of National Development for example. 80% of Singaporeans stay in HDB flats. Hence, majority of Singaporeans have vested interest to sit up and take notice of HDB flat-related policies.

Whereas announcement on amendments of the Penal Code by Ministry of Home Affairs sound alien, and so also uninteresting, to the average Singaporean.

Both ministries could have made equally good/bad decisions affecting you and me, but because we have not been paying attention to Ministry B, we don't realise the impact.

(ii) It is also possible that some ministers are more outspoken or enjoys the attention than others. Hence, attracting more wanted and unwanted attention.

(iii) Lastly, we explore the sickening principle of

In other words, more attempts increases the frequency of failures. Not making any attempts avoids failures altogether.

Hence, while it is more obvious to fault someone for something s/he has done, we often forget to ask:

Qn#3: Despite all the above, I still think Minister Mah sucks badly at his job. Does replacing him guarantee a better tomorrow?

There is a running argument that, because our government has been managed by the same group of people for decades, there is no alternative group of candidates with the enough experience or have relevant knowledge/skills to take over.

Another argument is that because the current political leaders have created such a solid country and its systems, that any change in political leadership, while may result in discomfort due to unfamiliarity, is unlikely to cause breakdown in the fundamentals of our country. Furthermore, if the leaders in government include both politicians and non-politicians, the latter remains unchanged and provides stability. And so, it is ok to vote for someone 'new'.

In my humble opinion, we have been focusing too much on the candidates (old vs new, Harvard vs Kopitiam) and what these people promise/fail to bring us. We like to get personal. Instead, we should adopt an alternative perspective and rearrange our relationship with these candidates.

As the people of Singapore become more educated/exposed, and so 'mature' as the one body of people, we began to (1) want to and (2) acquire the skills to think for ourselves. For decades, we have relinquished activities such as 'thinking about what we want', 'how to implement it' to our elected leaders. In recent years, some leaders may have sought our inputs on certain issues (effectiveness and intentions are debatable), but in general, they have taken it upon themselves to decide most matters on our behalf.

Though we can't get everyone to agree on the same goals before moving on, but that shouldn't mean we skip this step altogether. We need to find a way to establish a clearer idea of what we want as a nation. Participation encourages ownership.

Once we are clearer about our nation's goals, we then choose the leaders who can bring us towards these goals. These leaders are a means to our preferred ends. Notice the difference.

However, because it's likely that every candidate will promise s/he can help us achieve our goals during the election campaign, we will be tempted to take the easy way out when choosing our leaders.

Hence, before we can make a prudent decision, we need to 'date' these potential leaders intensively. And 'dating' is a combination of the following over time:

1. Looking up on your own + asking them about their past and their perceived future
   
2. Observing them in action
3. Corroborating with their stories with their past partners/colleagues etc.

We need to develop the skills to assess these candidates.
While this sounds impossible, it is already happening in a un/sub-conscious manner. Just check out the voices/noise judging our current leaders and potential candidates via various (un)official platforms. Regardless whether these voices/noises are 'right' or 'wrong', we cannot deny that, together, they are building and shaping an informal yet powerful assessment tool in our minds.

A better tomorrow will not fall onto our Singaporean laps by pure luck (again) or by us not doing anything. While all potential candidates will try their best to impress and convince you, you need to be able to tell them apart.

In gist:

1. Know what you want Singapore to become in the immediate and long terms
   
2. 'Date' the potential candidates enough to get to know them
   
3. Make your choice amongst candidates based on (1)

If you have read the previous entry, you'd now be familiar with the 15 ministries and their leaders (politicans and non-politicans).

This entry will bring you through how, in general, policies are deliberated upon and decisions are made in the public service.

Managing a country is a complex task. There are many things going on in our country everyday. Problems waiting to be discovered, explored, deliberated upon, and resolved. In my opinion, managing a country is both an art and a science. Hence, there are many ways for an issue to become significant enough for review.

IN THE MINISTRY

When an issue is identified by the ministry, the work chain will start from the bottom, the staffing officer (in bright yellow border). S/He does the leg work/research and puts up the report or 'paper' as it is called in the service. S/He can be someone who is chosen to be on his/her way to the Admin Service to become an Admin Service Officer (colour-code=blue), or just a regular civil servant (colour-code=pink). Hence, this box is coloured purple. i.e. it can be either. Issues which deemed to be more complex and have greater impact are usually staffed by 'better' officers, e.g. those on their way to the Admin Service.

As the paper moves upwards for support, you see the people involve change from purple to blue. The blue positions focusing on the ministries' core functions are solely for Admin Service Officers (AOs). Individuals who are considered bright, have integrity, and right for the important and higher ranks in the civil service. Some Director positions are filled by non-AOs, but these are usually non-core function portfolios, e.g. Director (HR), or highly specialised portfolios, e.g. a professional function such as Legal.

As the paper clears its way with the AOs in the blue boxes, it gets itself into the in-trays of the political office holders, i.e. the Minister of State and Minister as highlighted in orange.

IN THE STATUTORY BOARD

But not all papers (and its ideas/recommendations) originate from within the Ministry. The Statutory Boards also put up these papers to the Ministry for approval. E.g. HDB will put up papers concerning HDB policies to MND for approval.

Some stat boards are headed by Admin Service Officers. This probably suggests the relative importance of these stat boards. Hence, the CEO box is highlighted in blue like that of the Perm Sec in the ministry.

Similar to the ministry, a stat board staff officer (bright yellow border) will put up the paper with the stat board's recommendations to the ministry. The paper will first make its way upwards within the stat board, going through the pinks. These pinks are officers employed by the stat boards.

Upon the CEO's support, the paper leaves the stat board and heads for the ministry. The staffing officer in the ministry (bright yellow border) will receive the stat board paper, go through it and put up a separate paper on the stat board paper. This second paper will in turn make its way through the ranks, until Minister gives his/her approval.

In such cases, more than 10 people would have spent time and effort on the paper and its content. If the issue cuts across more than 1 ministry, the number of people involved would double, triple, quadruple... accordingly.

WHO CAN INFLUENCE DECISIONS IN THIS PROCESS?

From the layman's point of view, it seems only the Minister (who usually makes the announcements for new policy decisions etc) is made responsible, but if you are familiar with the decision-making process in the public service, everyone (politician and non-politician) in the chain can influence the decision.

Clearly not everyone in the chain can influence the decision equally, but these people have a better chance to influence the outcome before the outcome is cast in stone and hits the streets, than say another colleague in the same organisation or you and me.

This also means that everyone in the chain ought to take responsibility when these decision go wrong. But responsibility is difficult to pin down, because:

1. There is no clearcut way to define a 'good' or 'bad' policy
2. The pros and cons, quantitative and qualitative, of a policy may take time to surface
   
3. There are more than a few people involved
4. People move in and out of their positions quickly

I had some drinks with a few friends on Monday night. One of them mentioned that not everyone is familiar with which Minister does what and/or whether there is only 1 politician involved in each ministry portfolio.

In short:

• There are 15 ministries. And they fall into 3 main categories, i.e. Economic, Defence/Security, and Social.
  
• It is overly simplistic to assume that each ministry is headed by a single person, i.e. the minister. In fact, the leadership of any ministry is made up of a group of politicians who are in turn 'staffed' (in layman terms: advised) by 2 or more top civil servants. A summary of the current office positions as seen on SGDI is as follows:
  

• Government bodies which the layman interacts with regularly such as HDB, LTA, NEA etc are statutory boards. These stat boards report to and get their budgets from their respective parent ministries, i.e. MND, MOT, MEWR etc.
  

Politicians in the Ministry

• Minister - Each ministry has at least 1 minister. Some ministries have 2 ministers. E.g. Ministry of Finance's 1st Minister is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam and 2nd Minister is Mrs Lim Hwee Hua.
  
• Minister of State (MOS) - MOS is a junior minister, i.e. s/he is involved in policy decisions.
  
• Parliamentary Secretary (Parl Sec) - Parl Sec is not a minister. Some ministries have Parl Secs while others do not. To me, it's not clear what a Parl Sec does. I've asked a Parl Sec in person about the responsibilities of a Parl Sec. His answer was kind of vague. He mumbled something along the lines of "I represent Minister at events". I have also heard that the Parl Sec acts as the 'sensors' for the minister.
  

Non-Politician Leaders in the Ministry

• Permanent Secretary (PS) - The PS is the highest ranking civil servant. S/He oversees the ministry, i.e. from policy formulation to organisational development. In private sector terms, the PS is the CEO. He is answerable to the politicians of his ministry, e.g. Minister, MOS etc, and also the leader of all PSes aka Head of Civil Service. One is selected as a PS from the pool of around 200 officers in the elite Administrative Service. These officers are known as 'AOs', short for Administrative Service Officers.
  
• Deputy Secretaries (DS) - The DS is the second-highest rank in the civil service. S/He is like the deputy CEO and is also part of the Administrative Service.

If you are interested in who's responsible for which ministry/stat board portfolio, the easiest source of information is the Singapore Government Online Directory, or read the super long entry on Wikipedia for more details.

'Good Fren' and I went to Tan Tock Seng Hospital this evening, and was greeted by this in the lift.

Who vandalised the 'patient's face with a blue ballpoint pen?!!!

To enter the ward block, I got chopped, tagged and masked. It's kind of like going to Zouk. Coz later, I could 're-enter' the ward block by showing the bouncers guards the chop on my hand and stickers.


Our destination... The Sleep Laboratory.


Where the patient will spend the night... under observation.


And wired to machines...


Of course... the patient started to look a little anxious... holding onto the bed railing tightly.

Heh Heh Heh...

(Btw, we love the hospital bed! The mechanised frame and the bendy mattress. While waiting for the medical technician, we fiddled with the bed and decided it's best for couch potatoes like us.)

More seriously...

No worries... 'Good Fren' does not have a life-threatening condition. He has a snoring problem which the doc is trying to assess whether it is a symptom of something serious, e.g. affecting the quality of his sleep, lack of oxygen etc. Read about sleep apnea.

Going to the sleep lab is the first step.

Before the wiring, he had to fill up a questionnaire to assess his sleeping habits.

Q: Do you grind your teeth?

GF: Yes.

Q: Do you kick in your sleep?

GF: *pause*

BM: *from the side* Duh?! YES!!!

GF: Ok... Sometimes...

Heh Heh Heh... It's so funny, but the person-in-charge kept a straight face.

After that, he got wired to the machine in about 30 minutes, mainly through parts of his head.

I'm sure he's gonna lose some hair getting those wires out. OUCH!

He said, despite feeling weird about the stuff stuck to his face and head, he's confident that he would be able to fall asleep.

While it's weird to watch him get wired, it felt weirder to watch him switch off his mobile phone. He's not supposed to be distracted. I can't call him tonight. *sulk*

Once he got all wired up, he was supposed to get calibrated. I left just before the calibration started, and conveniently got lost in TTSH coz I forgot how to get back to the car. =_=

Hope he's sleeping well now.
See you in a few hours!
....................................................

Everyone whom I know and have read this entry says s/he knows of someone and/or wants to go check out the snoring problem.

Here's the link to TTSH's Ear, Nose and Throat Clinic.
http://www.ttsh.com.sg/new/clinicalspecial/otorhinolaryngology.php

Even if you have not been paying attention to local politics, you would have picked up noises here and there... from online to the Straits Times... It's getting exciting!

And so... I decided to find out which GRC we are registered under, and of course... who my MP is.

I always thought that my MP was part of the Jalan Besar GRC coz the only reference we get in the mail is that newsletter from the CDC. He/she/they has/have not visited us.

But I am so wrong... At least according to this simple search app on parliament.gov.sg. I entered our street name and discovered that we are under Tanjong Pagar GRC.

Does this mean I won't get to vote this time round? =_=
Maybe the boundaries will change?
Even if I do get to vote, the 'extra value meal' arrangment of a GRC does affect my decision. I wish I had an ala carte option.

Do you know who your MP is?
Use the search app as linked above.
Time to start to get to know them in order to make an informed decision.