We refer to Ms Julia Ng’s letter “Stricter enforcement, checks needed to ensure quality flats” (May 20).
Under Section 18(1) of the Town Councils Act, town councils are required to manage and maintain common property in public housing estates, including Design, Build and Sell Scheme projects. Thus far, all other town councils have done so without issue.
Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) statutory duty to manage and maintain Parkland Residences’ common areas commenced on Nov 12.
It refused, however, to perform its duty until the developer handed over a list of documents and items specified by AHPETC.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has clarified that these were not required for AHPETC to do its day-to-day cleaning. Even so, the HDB has assisted by liaising with the developer to provide AHPETC with the documents and items.
The HDB also asked the developer to clean the estate in the interim to ensure the hygiene of residents’ living environment would not be compromised. The developer agreed to this and has been cleaning the estate since Nov 12.
We wish to clarify that service and conservancy charges collected by AHPETC are not collected on behalf of the HDB. We understand that AHPETC has agreed to manage and maintain Parkland Residences’ common property from June 1.
Pending AHPETC’s execution of its duties, the HDB will work with the developer to ensure the estate is maintained for the benefit of residents.
Thursday, 28 May 2015
[Today] To cut costs, install solar panels around reservoirs
I refer to the report “Bugis Junction installs 1,000sqm of solar panels” (May 26). I hope the Government will consider using the land surrounding the reservoirs to install solar panels and gather solar power in a bigger way than from rooftops alone.
There is a limit to our reliance on oil and gas to generate electricity and we must rely not only on fossil fuels to fire our power stations, but also on cheaper electricity from solar power, et cetera.
It is a competitive world and the cost of energy is one of the business costs we must do more to reduce. To remain competitive, we must stay ahead of other countries in the use of green energy.
This would also reduce our carbon footprint and pollution, which affects our health although it is an unseen factor. This is even more important to consider, as people are our only precious resource. We must not take pollution lightly.
There is a limit to our reliance on oil and gas to generate electricity and we must rely not only on fossil fuels to fire our power stations, but also on cheaper electricity from solar power, et cetera.
It is a competitive world and the cost of energy is one of the business costs we must do more to reduce. To remain competitive, we must stay ahead of other countries in the use of green energy.
This would also reduce our carbon footprint and pollution, which affects our health although it is an unseen factor. This is even more important to consider, as people are our only precious resource. We must not take pollution lightly.
[Today] Fluid approach now needed in career planning
The Big Read article “As graduate numbers grow, a hard truth: Not all degrees are equal” (May 23) points to the threat of underemployment and the imperative of matching graduate skills to the workforce.
I believe a shift in expectations and more fluid approaches to career planning are critical here. A recent article in Fast Company magazine spoke of radical changes to be expected in the job market, such as the replacement of private bankers and wealth managers with algorithms, and how artificial intelligence is threatening to make lawyers and accountants redundant.
Essentially, traditionally “safe” career choices, pegged to decades of conventional degrees, are changing.
Technology is giving birth to novel solutions to problems even as it precipitates more complex ones. How do we come to terms with this? How might the human brain figure into this equation?
This month, online magazine TechCrunch shared Infosys COE Vishal Sikka’s thoughts on the future of work: “In Sikka’s view, in the not-too-distant future, systems will do much of the problem solving and people will need to engage in ‘problem finding’.”
Hence, preparing graduates for the future may lie in cultivating their ability to take ownership of their careers and chart trajectories that will get them there. Many toolkits, coaching professionals and articles out there offer ways of doing this.
However, what I have found to be particularly useful is a framework known as design thinking, which is a continuous, interchangeable process of empathising, defining, ideation, prototyping and testing.
For graduates, this means beginning with a plethora of career-option ideas that converge gradually into a testable plan of action. Internships and part-time stints would be useful here.
After ascertaining which particular careers or companies align best with one’s abilities, one should channel one’s energy into connecting with a handpicked few. A deep understanding of oneself and where one can best create value is integral here.
One should think seriously about where one stands in this regard, at the start of one’s career planning. As we continue in the knowledge economy, graduates can and should look to new opportunities to learn and grow.
Indeed, the time of “getting a degree (to) move up” is dissipating and it is timely to look beyond the status quo. Our future industry-shapers and professionals are directly responsible for what will come to fruition.
They should maintain their thirst for knowledge and take courses in their free time, such as the myriad of free online courses available from vendors such as Coursera. The world is changing, and pining for graduates to craft it.
I believe a shift in expectations and more fluid approaches to career planning are critical here. A recent article in Fast Company magazine spoke of radical changes to be expected in the job market, such as the replacement of private bankers and wealth managers with algorithms, and how artificial intelligence is threatening to make lawyers and accountants redundant.
Essentially, traditionally “safe” career choices, pegged to decades of conventional degrees, are changing.
Technology is giving birth to novel solutions to problems even as it precipitates more complex ones. How do we come to terms with this? How might the human brain figure into this equation?
This month, online magazine TechCrunch shared Infosys COE Vishal Sikka’s thoughts on the future of work: “In Sikka’s view, in the not-too-distant future, systems will do much of the problem solving and people will need to engage in ‘problem finding’.”
Hence, preparing graduates for the future may lie in cultivating their ability to take ownership of their careers and chart trajectories that will get them there. Many toolkits, coaching professionals and articles out there offer ways of doing this.
However, what I have found to be particularly useful is a framework known as design thinking, which is a continuous, interchangeable process of empathising, defining, ideation, prototyping and testing.
For graduates, this means beginning with a plethora of career-option ideas that converge gradually into a testable plan of action. Internships and part-time stints would be useful here.
After ascertaining which particular careers or companies align best with one’s abilities, one should channel one’s energy into connecting with a handpicked few. A deep understanding of oneself and where one can best create value is integral here.
One should think seriously about where one stands in this regard, at the start of one’s career planning. As we continue in the knowledge economy, graduates can and should look to new opportunities to learn and grow.
Indeed, the time of “getting a degree (to) move up” is dissipating and it is timely to look beyond the status quo. Our future industry-shapers and professionals are directly responsible for what will come to fruition.
They should maintain their thirst for knowledge and take courses in their free time, such as the myriad of free online courses available from vendors such as Coursera. The world is changing, and pining for graduates to craft it.
[Today] Backyard breeding more than just a pet peeve
In the light of the report about an investigation by the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (“Many top-graded pet shops ‘fail in animal welfare’”, May 21), I wish to highlight that there are many backyard breeders in Singapore.
I want to focus particularly on the issue of illegal cat breeding. A quick search online would show a slew of pages with animals put up for sale and with promises that the cats are registered with world-recognised cat associations.
However, what these breeders do not have are licences issued to the relevantpet businesses under the Animals and Birds Act, legislation that duly penalises businesses and their employees for errant practices and neglect of animal welfare.
There are also many non-internationally-approved breeders, whose inappropriate breeding practices often lead to genetic health issues for cats.
A look at numerous websites would show that none of them have a business registration address, which means they are effectively not registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority.
Hence, they would not be subject to taxes and other matters such as manpower and hygiene.
With prices of cats ranging anywhere from S$100 to S$10,000 in the market, I am amazed that individuals are not only profiteering, but are also not required to be accountable for their actions while subjecting buyers to strict, confidential terms.
This would surely not be approved for most legal businesses here. A particular breeder even uses the word “adoption” instead of “sale” in a blatant case of false advertising.
Backyard breeding is also feeding the continued abandonment of cats, which increases the stray population, something the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) is trying to halt through various programmes.
While the AVA has done a commendable job working with organisations such as the Cat Welfare Society on efforts like the Trap-Neuter-Return-Manage campaign, it must stop the problem at the source: Pet shops and, more importantly, illegal backyard breeders.
I want to focus particularly on the issue of illegal cat breeding. A quick search online would show a slew of pages with animals put up for sale and with promises that the cats are registered with world-recognised cat associations.
However, what these breeders do not have are licences issued to the relevantpet businesses under the Animals and Birds Act, legislation that duly penalises businesses and their employees for errant practices and neglect of animal welfare.
There are also many non-internationally-approved breeders, whose inappropriate breeding practices often lead to genetic health issues for cats.
A look at numerous websites would show that none of them have a business registration address, which means they are effectively not registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority.
Hence, they would not be subject to taxes and other matters such as manpower and hygiene.
With prices of cats ranging anywhere from S$100 to S$10,000 in the market, I am amazed that individuals are not only profiteering, but are also not required to be accountable for their actions while subjecting buyers to strict, confidential terms.
This would surely not be approved for most legal businesses here. A particular breeder even uses the word “adoption” instead of “sale” in a blatant case of false advertising.
Backyard breeding is also feeding the continued abandonment of cats, which increases the stray population, something the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) is trying to halt through various programmes.
While the AVA has done a commendable job working with organisations such as the Cat Welfare Society on efforts like the Trap-Neuter-Return-Manage campaign, it must stop the problem at the source: Pet shops and, more importantly, illegal backyard breeders.
Wednesday, 27 May 2015
[Today] Attitude, character outweigh any degree
I cannot disagree with the content of the letter, “Degree inequality should motivate, not deter, us” (May 26). Those who fail once should not give up but keep trying.
Singapore is, however, an unforgiving society where parents are spending thousands of dollars on tuition and enrichment classes due to the pressure to succeed; hence, the chase for degrees. Children hardly enjoy the process of learning today.
Let us not forget that the degree is merely a stepping stone to fulfilling one’s dreams. Those who succeed in life are those who apply what they have learnt, be it through formal education or the school of hard knocks.
The ability to apply knowledge that has been imparted and the ability to adjust are more important than the paper stating that one has a degree.
Society must change the way it looks at non-graduates. The right attitude is more important than aptitude, and one’s character outweighs any degree one may have.
Singapore is, however, an unforgiving society where parents are spending thousands of dollars on tuition and enrichment classes due to the pressure to succeed; hence, the chase for degrees. Children hardly enjoy the process of learning today.
Let us not forget that the degree is merely a stepping stone to fulfilling one’s dreams. Those who succeed in life are those who apply what they have learnt, be it through formal education or the school of hard knocks.
The ability to apply knowledge that has been imparted and the ability to adjust are more important than the paper stating that one has a degree.
Society must change the way it looks at non-graduates. The right attitude is more important than aptitude, and one’s character outweighs any degree one may have.
[Today] Open up all bus routes to competition
The Government has introduced the bus contracting model, under which it will own and fund the bus infrastructure while contracting route services out via a competitive tender process.
It believes this will help raise service standards by increasing competition and creating more flexibility in response to changes in ridership and commuter needs.
Three packages, making up about 20 per cent of routes, will be tendered out first. The inaugural package of 26 routes went to London-based operator Tower Transit. This has been well received, generally (“Foreign bus operators will help push up standards”; May 14).
The irony is that the remaining 80 per cent will be grouped into nine packages and run by incumbents SBS Transit and SMRT on negotiated contracts under the contracting model for about five years, after their Bus Service Operating Licences expire next year.
Why the double standards? And if all remaining route parcels end up in the hands of the existing players, the exercise would be futile. If the incumbents could fulfil their roles satisfactorily, why is a new model needed?
It appears the Government wants competition but also sees the need to protect the existing operators. This will lead to the latter being complacent.
If it is believed that the competitive tender process will improve service standards, all bus routes should be opened up for tender. This would really shake up the current privatised model.
Also, all bus fares will go to the Government, which could thus make a possible profit or loss from the bus contracting. It will bear the burden of justifying any fare adjustments.
Accordingly, it should strive to maintain a break-even position as far as possible and adjust bus fares. Commuters would then benefit further from the new model.
It believes this will help raise service standards by increasing competition and creating more flexibility in response to changes in ridership and commuter needs.
Three packages, making up about 20 per cent of routes, will be tendered out first. The inaugural package of 26 routes went to London-based operator Tower Transit. This has been well received, generally (“Foreign bus operators will help push up standards”; May 14).
The irony is that the remaining 80 per cent will be grouped into nine packages and run by incumbents SBS Transit and SMRT on negotiated contracts under the contracting model for about five years, after their Bus Service Operating Licences expire next year.
Why the double standards? And if all remaining route parcels end up in the hands of the existing players, the exercise would be futile. If the incumbents could fulfil their roles satisfactorily, why is a new model needed?
It appears the Government wants competition but also sees the need to protect the existing operators. This will lead to the latter being complacent.
If it is believed that the competitive tender process will improve service standards, all bus routes should be opened up for tender. This would really shake up the current privatised model.
Also, all bus fares will go to the Government, which could thus make a possible profit or loss from the bus contracting. It will bear the burden of justifying any fare adjustments.
Accordingly, it should strive to maintain a break-even position as far as possible and adjust bus fares. Commuters would then benefit further from the new model.
[Today] Allow CPF cash top-up withdrawal from age 55 as incentive
As it stands, Central Provident Fund cash top-ups are channelled to the CPF Life scheme even if the member meets the Basic Retirement Sum with a property pledge. To incentivise Singaporeans to make cash top-ups, I suggest that withdrawal of such top-ups be allowed anytime from age 55 if the member meets the Basic Retirement Sum.
Some may now be put off by the fact that they can enjoy the fruits of their labour only from the payout eligibility age, which has risen over the years.
Some may now be put off by the fact that they can enjoy the fruits of their labour only from the payout eligibility age, which has risen over the years.
(Page 1 of 1) - PAGINATE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)