Receiving a new kidney or heart is receiving a gift of life. Those on the receiving end are generally patients who are facing a life or death situation — people who have had to endure a long long wait for an available organ for transplant into their bodies.  The lucky ones at the front of the queue get a chance at a new lease of life. The others have to hope against hope that they will be able to live to see the day when an organ transplant becomes available for them. In many cases, it is a wait in vain.

So, it doesn’t come as a surprise to me to hear of patients trying to secure an organ illegally here in Singapore. These patients have exasperated all ways and means of getting an organ transplant legally and have found themselves in a desperate situation in which their health has deteriorated to such a stage that they are now being kept alive with the help of machines and medication. In other words, they won’t be able to live a day longer without such things. Simply put, they are at the end of life itself.

The recent news about CK Tang chairman Tang Wee Sung is an account of a man trying to prolong his life with a gift of life from a willing seller who will be well paid for parting with a kidney. It is willing-seller-willing-buyer situation. The seller willingly parts with a kidney and gets an amount of money which helps put him and his family into a better standard of living. The buyer willingly parts with a sum of money in exchange for a gift of life. Both parties stand to benefit. No one is exploited here.

But the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA) makes it an offence for such a transaction to take place and so Mr Tang has found himself in court. Sadly, the law is punishing a man who has done no criminal act. He has not deprived anyone of his rights. What he had done was something that anyone of us healthy chaps would also have done if put in his shoes — he was merely a dying man clutching at a straw. But though he was desperate, he had not pushed anyone underwater in order to reach the straw which could save his life.

So, I think it is time for the law to be changed so that it allows the ethical sale of organs. It would significantly increase the number of lives that can be saved. There are people among us who would disagree with my suggestion. Some may feel that everyone should queue up and get an equal chance. That’s typically Singaporean. But I wish to remind these people that this is not about queueing up for an HDB flat or the latest iPhone. Lives are at stake here. And there are people who may think that it is morally wrong. I venture to ask if these persons would still hold such a view if they find themselves in similar dire straits and stand to lose their lives.

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said recently that ‘even as we take action against those involved in illicit organ trading and unscrupulously exploiting the desperate and the vulnerable, we will take a sympathetic approach to the plight of the exploited donors and the basic instinct of kidney failure patients to try to live’.

But, we should do more. And quickly. Mr Tang needs our help. So do more than five hundred patients waiting for a kidney. Live and live live, I say.

We are supposed to be in jubilant mood here in Singapore today, for our triumphant Women’s Table Tennis Team is due home this afternoon with Singapore’s first Olympic silver medal since 1960. The Straits Times has several full-page advertisements welcoming home Team Singapore, particularly the women silver medalists, Wang Yuegu, Feng Tianwei and Li Jiawei.

Yet, the island is abuzz with talk about some goings-on in the Singapore Table Tennis Association. This morning, as I write this article, I hear Glenn Ong of the Morning Express radio programme saying that some higher-ups must have had a hand in toning down the remarks of the table tennis association president who earlier brought down the high spirits of the table tennis olympic team with her harsh remarks about the team managers.

Chef de Mission of the Singapore Olympic contingent, Dr Tan Eng Liang, rightly said that ‘Any bad news could have waited until after the celebrations.’ In fact, I think Dr Tan should have been consulted before the table tennis association officials made public any bad news, for as head of the Singapore Olympic team, he should have been accorded this respect in the very least. And I venture to say that Dr Tan, with his wide experience in the sports arena, would have dished out graceful advice.

But, it’s too late. What’s done has been done. The Straits Times today has two pages on the matter. In an article headlined ‘untimely and ungracious’, it mentioned having received ‘nearly 200 e-mails and letters from readers — almost all of whom voiced disbelief and outrage’ at the timing of the bad news.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong went out of his way to let Singaporeans partake in the historic moment by postponing the English telecast of his National Day Rally speech by a day so that they could watch the Olympic final of the women’s table tennis team. Along with most Singaporeans, he knew we had a slim chance of winning an Olympic gold for the event. But, he understood that the need for the nation to bask in the rare sporting moment took precedence over serious national issues which – though needing urgent public airing – could wait. Why then, couldn’t our table tennis association wait?

Source: The Straits Times 25 Aug 2008 Pages A4, A5, A11, A20

I just came back from the coffeeshop in the next block of flats. For breakfast this morning, I had bought some fried dough fritters for S$0.70 each. I had also bought a packet of fried beehoon with some longbeans and a piece of luncheon meat for S$2.10.

Not so long ago, these breakfast stuff were so much cheaper. But, then this is 2008 — the year when food stuff prices shoot up, not only in Singapore but also in countries around the world.

Here in Singapore, the price of rice has gone up. Perhaps, because of this, nowadays I do not get the usual generously heaped bowl of rice that I get from my favourite food stall in the foodcourt at Hougang Mall.

I just opened a letter from the government which tells me the total amount of money that I will be receiving this year from the GST Offset Package and Growth Dividends. These will be paid to me on 30 April, 1 July and 1 October 2008. The money is good news to everyone of us grappling with the spiralling cost of living.

Should I expect more from the government? I should not. I should take things in my stride and tighten my belt. Already I have not been taking taxi rides for the past four or five years. I also do not smoke or drink. Nor have I been visiting restaurants in recent memory. Therefore, I am at an advantage compared with many others. What more can I do to help myself cut costs? I can do without the morning visits to the coffeeshop. I can cook instant oats for breakfast instead. It’s good for health and so much cheaper.

Yesterday, on the frontpage of the New York Times, I read about the slump in consumer spending in America which has resulted in some large retail stores filing for bankruptcy protection and some others downsizing.

The NYT report said that ‘Even retailers that can avoid bankruptcy are shutting down stores to preserve cash through what could be a long economic downturn.’ Yes, that’s a good measure — preserving cash. And the advice does not only apply to retail stores and companies. It also rings true for us individuals. I say, keep the cash that you have in your hands and resist splurting on unnecessary things. We really do not need to upgrade our handphone again.

While what is happening in America is far beyond our shores, it may not be long before we and the rest of the world feel the after-effects of a drop in American demand for goods. We Singaporeans have been fortunate to have the best that life can offer. We live in far better conditions than do our neighbours. But, let us not be complacent. Let us tighten our belts and help the government help us ride out this storm which may last quite a while.

The dust seems to have settled on the Section 377A debate — at least, in Parliament anyway. Despite a citizens’ petition to repeal Section 377A, The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill has been passed; Section 377A stays. But, the Prime Minister has also pointed the Government’s stand on homosexuality in Singapore with the following comments:[1]

“Homosexuals work in all sectors, all over the economy; in the public sector as well, and in the civil service as well. They are free to lead their lives, free to pursue their social activities.

“But there are restraints and we do not approve of them actively promoting their lifestyle to others or setting the tone for mainstream society.

“They live their lives, that’s their personal life, it’s their space. But the tone of the overall society, I think it remains conventional, it remains straight and we want it to remain so…

“De facto, gays have a lot of space in Singapore. Gay groups hold public discussions, they publish websites, I’ve visited some of them. There are films, plays on gay themes… There are gay bars and clubs… Everybody knows where they are. They don’t have to go underground. We don’t harass gays. The Government does not act as moral policeman. And we don’t proactively enforce Section 377A on them…

“It’s a difficult subject. Not everybody supports the Government, but we decide what is right, we move.”

Elsewhere, in the newspapers and online, both pro- and anti- gay individuals and groups have had their say on the subject. The chairman of National Family Council said in the forum page of The Straits Times [2] that “the majority of Singaporeans would be concerned about exposing their children to alternative family values that they themselves do not espouse”.

A Straits Times reader wrote that “Husband and wife in a family setting is the foundation of our society. Destroy that unit and we destroy our society. To push their cause will further allienate gays from society.”[3]

Another, who took issue with NMP Professor Thio’s comments in Parliament, said that “It was entirely unnecessary to highlight bedroom practices and refer to anal sex between men as ’shoving a straw up someone’s nose to drink’.”[4]

It seems there can be no end to the debate. But, move on we must. We have to get on with daily living and not let such things distract us from living our lives to the fullest every single day. It’s great to be able to wake up to a bright new day. Some of us might not get to see tomorrow. But, for the rest of us, homosexuals and non-homosexuals, moving on with our personal lives is important. So is not stirring the dust on the ground on which we stand. We all share the same ground. Let us not try to affect each other with our emotions. Live and let live, I say.

Sources:

[1] The Straits Times 24 Oct 2007 (H5) “Why we should leave Section 377A alone: PM”

[2] The Straits Times 20 Oct 2007 (H16) “Not the right time to review Section 377A”

[3] The Straits Times 25 Oct 2007 (H14) “Govt did the right thing in keeping gay-sex law”

[4] The Straits Times 25 Oct 2007 (H14) “NMP Thio’s comments were inappropriate”

I was at the library near home yesterday, accessing the Internet on one of its multi-media workstations. It was noisy as there was chattering from three middle-aged aunties and their young children all of whom were hovering around one of the workstations.

Despite this, I managed to shut out the noise from my mind as I concentrated on reading a Website I was visiting. When I next looked up from the screen, I realised this group was now occupying three workstations — two of which were on my side of the counter.

But, the children seated at each of these two workstations were not using the terminals — they weren’t even logged in. They were just plain sitting there, playing on the keyboard. Standing around the workstations in the multi-media section were some teenagers waiting for their turn to use the Internet. But the young children did not bulge from their seats. Apparently, they were under instructions to ‘chope’ the seats till 3.30pm when they would need to use the Internet.

It was only 2.50pm then. So from 2.50pm to 3.30pm nobody else could use the two unused workstations. At about 3.10pm, some of the teenagers were ‘negotiating’ with one of these aunties for the use of the workstations. The auntie would only agree to letting these teenagers use the two workstations provided the teenagers logged out at 3.30pm — the time when the aunties would need to use these two workstations.

I was appalled at such selfish behaviour. It was bad enough when you saw these chaps ‘chopeing’ the seats at hawker centres and food courts. But, this one took the cake.

What could I do? It wasn’t my business. The teenage girls were meek. When I had finished using the Internet, I logged out and stopped by the customer service counter on my way out of the library. I approached a librarian at the counter to voice my displeasure that such things were happening in the library. Another librarian, sitting next to the one I was talking to, immediately leapt to her feet, saying these people had no right to do such things. I saw her walk briskly towards the group of aunties.

Having said my piece, I walked out of the place. This certainly was home here in Singapore.

‘chope’: reserve (local slang)

auntie: housewife (local slang)

The property market here in Singapore is getting hot. In Hougang, where I live, I get flyers screaming ‘Hougang 3-room flat $200,000′ thrown at my doorstep every other day. In the lift the other day at Hougang Mall, two women were in animated conversation about their HDB flats. One was lamenting that she had sold her flat a year ago and could not cash in on the current good prices.

Just imagine, a year ago, a 3-room resale flat in Hougang fetched $145,000 and last month, a similar flat behind my block was sold at about $200,000. The market’s so good that everyone wants to jump in.

A brother-in-law of mine has been spending the evenings and weekends looking at 3-room flats near my block. He currently lives in a 4-room flat across the street and intends to downgrade to a 3-room flat. And he hasn’t even found a buyer for his 4-room flat yet! His wife has been talking about taking a holiday overseas with the proceeds from the sale of the flat.

In all the euphoria, perhaps, he might have forgotten that he just may not make any money from the downgrade. Granted the property market has shot up the last few months, but he is not selling his present flat and moving in with relatives so that he can pocket the money. Instead, he is buying another smaller resale flat. It is true that his 4-room flat has moved up in value, but so has the 3-room flat that he wants to buy.

The present flat was bought at a premium in the resale market. My brother-in-law did not buy it from HDB directly. So, in the end, after paying back the interests to his CPF account, is there any surplus left? He also has to do some renovations to make the new place comfortable for the family. Have both husband and wife factored these in their calculations before making the plunge?

Also, this chap took a subsidised HDB loan for the present 4-room flat. So, when he buys the resale 3-room flat, he has to take up a bank loan. In future, if he cannot cough up the monthly loan instalments, he could find himself in trouble — his 3-room flat could be repossessed. I wonder whether the couple have thought of all these nagging details.

I have another brother-in-law who had sold his 4-room flat in the vicinity some years back and bought a 3-room flat two blocks away from my block. The family made some money from the transaction, but that was because the flat they had sold was bought directly from the HDB many, many years ago. It has been three years since this brother-in-law moved into the 3-room flat. He is now a casual worker with no stable income. His wife is a housewife. The money from the proceeds of the sale is almost running out. Nowadays, the couple are worried that the money they have may not last till early next year. They are afraid the flat may be repossessed by the bank if they fail to meet the monthly instalment payments.

Why do we people think of short term benefits and neglect to look at the bigger picture? Here I have an older brother-in-law having bank mortgage loan problems weighing heavily on his mind. And there I have another one who could, some years ahead, be in similar dire straits. Mind you, both meet each other every single week without fail. Yet, this one living across the street doesn’t seem bothered by the other’s predicament as he goes on his flat-hunting rounds.

Are you also thinking of selling your HDB flat? With the current property craze getting into everyone’s head, some may have lost sight of reason and come scrambling aboard lest they get left behind.

Last evening, I attended the wedding dinner of a cousin of my wife. The event was held at the Ritz Carlton in a 12-table Chinese dinner setting in one of the banquet rooms. This cousin, an overseas graduate now in her late 30’s, married a Dutchman who is some ten years older. I am told he is a divorcee.

For one of her tying the knot, there remains many others in their 30’s who are still unmarried here in Singapore. The recent Population Trends 2007 statistics which came out just this week pointed to a three-fold increase in the number of unmarried Singaporean women in the 35-39 age range compared with their peers of the 1970’s. For men in the same age group, the increase is two-fold[1].

Strangely, the statistics also show the increase levelling off in this decade. Does this spell good news in that more such women are heading for the wedding aisle nowadays? This cousin of my wife married out of her race. Are there more like her? I am not saying these women are not choosing our local men. After all, marriage is a personal thing. You see, you like and you want to spend the rest of your lives together so you get hitched. In her case, I hear she studied at an overseas university. So, she has seen more of the world than her peers in local universities and this could be an influence factor.

One thing’s for sure, more Chinese grooms are getting hitched in inter-racial marriages[2]. Whatever the case, it’s a good thing that more Singaporeans of marriageable age are getting married. For the newly-weds, it means they are able to find a companion to live and enjoy life with. For the Government, this means the possibility of more babies to boost Singapore’s population.

So what about me? Am I one of those I have been talking about? I got married at the age of 37 — rather late in life I would say. My wife is 13 years my junior. We are both local Chinese. We have no children. But I consider myself fortunate — some schoolmates are still single today at age 49!

—————————————— 

Notes

1. Population Trends 2007:

Source: www.singstat.gov.sg An Excerpt

Proportion single (resident population) 1970     1980     1990     2000     2006

Aged 35-39 years (%)

Males                                                10.8     10.5      18.1     19.7      19.4

Females                                              5.1       8.5      14.8     15.1      15.5

2. Statistics on Marriages 2003:

Source: www.singstat.gov.sg An Excerpt

“In 2003, about 33 per cent of couples in their first marriage involved partners within one year of each other. This was an increase from 29 per cent in 1993. Couples with large age differentials also increased over the decade. Couples with partners aged 10 years or more apart increased from 6 per cent in 1993 to 8 per cent in 2003.”

“Of the 1,621 non-Muslim inter-ethnic marriages registered in 2003, those contracted between Chinese grooms and brides of ethnic groups other than Indian, Eurasian, Caucasian or Malay form the largest single combination of 33 per cent.” 

On 8 Sep 2007, in an entry entitled “AN OPEN LETTER FROM OTTO FONG” on his blog, an RI teacher went into the open about being gay.

Otto said that “Recent events have made me decide to write this open letter. In April this year, Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew – one of the school’s greatest alumni – called homosexuality a ‘genetic variation’, questioning the validity of criminalising gay sex. In July, MP Baey Yam Keng expressed support for the repeal of Section 377A of the penal code (which criminalises gay sex acts). In August, Malaysian columnist and ordained pastor Oyoung Wenfeng released his inspiring new Mandarin book ‘Tong Gen Sheng’, encouraging gay men and women to come out of the closet.”

He also said, “I am not going back in the closet. When you ask me who I am, I will answer: I am a son, a brother, a long-time companion, an uncle, a teacher, a classmate, a colleague, a part of your community, a HDB dweller, a Singaporean. And I am also gay.”

Otto has since removed the article from his blog but a copy of this article is available online at The Online Citizen.

In a dialogue session with 400 Young PAP activists on 21 Apr 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had said in reply to a question on homosexuality, “If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual — because that’s the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes — you can’t help it. So why should we criminalise it?”

Then, in an interview with local paper Berita Harian, published on 2 Jul 2007, MM Lee was also reported as saying, “We must take cognisance of the contemporary world that has become more accommodating…Homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their lives.”

Here in Singapore, the Establishment has pointed the way ahead. The Civil Service is hearing and so are our sons and daughters who are caught in this bind.

But the move ahead will be slow and, perhaps, torturous. After all, Singapore is a conservative society situated in an even more conservative region.

Some of our sons and daughters are opening up. But will they give up in despair and leave their native land if they find the going tough thereafter?

Only time will tell. But we are all moving in the right direction — the Establishment recognising there is a place in sunny Singapore for everyone, and our sons and daughters doing their part to ensure Singapore stays ahead of the competition.

Perhaps, in time too, other Singaporeans living overseas will see that there is room in Singapore for all our sons and daughters and then decide to come home for good.

The increase in GST from 5% to 7% takes place from today, 1 July 2007. It’s early morning and already I have had a run-in with a market effect of the increase.

You see, I was down at the coffeeshop behind my HDB block buying breakfast for mywife and myself. As I stood waiting for my turn for a packet of mee-kia tah (dry fishball mee) and koey-teow tng (rice noodle fishball soup), the stallowner turned to me and, with a sheepish grin, announced to me that the price of a bowl of fish-ball mee had increased from S$2.00 to S$2.50.

What could I do but smile back at her and say, “It’s Okay.” It’s a typical Singaporean response — giving an outwardly polite answer but resenting the whole thing inside. Why, that must be the reason why I am now rambling on about this episode on the blog though the incident happened barely an hour ago. I must be trying to let out steam on the blog.

One thing’s for sure — it’s going to be more expensive living a resident’s life in Singapore. With some hawkers already moving in to take advantage of the GST increase so that they can increase their daily earnings by a whopping 25%, we residents certainly have to dig harder into our pockets to come out with more money for daily living.

And there’s no turning back — the Government certainly won’t bring the GST back to 5%. GST increases need to take place so that corporate taxes can be reduced. Corporate taxes need to come down so that foreign companies will continue to find it meaningful to remain sited in Singapore. Don’t forget, we have no natural resources to speak of. The only thing natural that we have are our people. But, people need jobs in order to feed their families and these foreign companies bring in much needed jobs.

Hawker food price increases are no stranger to older Singaporeans like me. I was a teenager in the 1970’s when the economy was steaming ahead. Every Chinese New Year would see a price increase of about 50 cents per bowl of fishball noodle soup. You see, it is a local tradition for prices of hawker food to go up just before Chinese New Year and to come down to the original levels when the Chinese New Year celebrations come to a close. But, in those years — from 1970 to 1974 — hawker food prices kept going upwards and remaining there even after the celebrations had drawn to a close. That was how a bowl of fishball mee went from 20 cents to S$2.00 in the space of just five years.

If I remember correctly, when the price hit past S$2.00 to S$2.50, there was market pressure and further price increases could not be sustained. The price has since then hovered around S$2.00.

Come to think of it, the price has remained largely the same since the late 1970’s — more than 25 years ago. If this is the case, then I shouldn’t be getting mad over this 50 cent increase — after all, there hasn’t been any increase the last 25 years!

I guess I will just have to take things in my stride — grind my teeth, bear with the pain and move along with daily living here in Singapore.