March 27, 2017

14
PSI
CONNECT WITH US
 
 

by -
0 1

TECH, tapping, theft. It seems that progress has given humans more ways to steal information and more ways to screw up and leak information online, like the SAF did this week. Here are some of the incidents that occurred across the world this past week that stand as a testament to the need for better cyber security, whether it be from leaks within or threats without.

You, our readers, are the reason we exist. Your contributions allow us to bring fair and balanced news to everyone, regardless of the ability to donate. Support us by being our patron.

.1. Washington, United States – WikiLeaks publishes trove of CIA documents

Image by user:Duffman from Wikimedia Commons

On Mar 7, WikiLeaks released a data trove of secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents, revealing the agency’s hacking operations and spying capabilities. Codenamed “Vault 7”, the release involved 8,761 classified documents. Most security experts agree that the information appears legitimate, but does not reveal any groundbreaking secrets.

If the leak is accurate, it means the CIA has the ability to hack into a variety of internet-enabled platforms – your phone, smart TV, computer, and router. In fact, it seems that the CIA can even read encrypted messages sent on otherwise secure apps like WhatsApp and Telegram. The CIA does this by exploiting iOS and Android vulnerabilities to hack into a user’s phone, allowing them to see what’s on screen, listen to the user typing or dictating words, and capture the original data before it is encrypted.

However, the documents only represent three years of alleged data. It is possible that technology companies have updated their firmware and other data protection measures to deal with these vulnerabilities. It is also possible that the CIA has developed new hacking tools beyond those described in the Vault 7 leaks.
.

2. Taipei, Taiwan – University graduate arrested on charges of spying for China

Image from Pixabay

Last week, Taiwanese authorities arrested Chinese national Zhou Hongxu, a graduate of Taipei’s prestigious National Chengchi University (NCCU). Zhou has been accused of attempting to organise a spy ring inside the Taiwan government – he allegedly tried to recruit a foreign service officer by offering him a free trip to Japan in exchange for classified information. Prosecutors believe that Mr Zhou was instructed by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office to enrol at NCCU where he could make friends and develop a spy ring.

Beijing, meanwhile, has protested the detention. Mr Ma Xiaoguang, a spokesman for China’s Mainland Affairs Office, dismissed the allegation as “pure fabrication intended to stir up trouble.” Criticising the Taiwanese authorities, Mr Ma said the arrest has come at a time when Taiwanese independence forces have been hyping up a “serious infiltration by Chinese spies in Taiwan.”

Citing an anonymous government official, the Taipei Times reported that there are an estimated 5,000 individuals harvesting classified information in Taiwan for Beijing. Chinese nationals who go to Taiwan for business or to study may sometimes be of use to China’s intelligence apparatus.
.

3. Washington D.C, United States of America – Accusations and allegations 

Image by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos from Wikimedia Commons

President of the US, Donald Trump accused former president Barack Obama of wiretapping him. Mr Trump tweeted early in March that Mr Obama wiretapped him towards the end of his presidential campaign but had no evidence to support. However, a spokesman for Mr Obama said that it was “simply false.”

Mr Andrew Napolitano, a Fox News analyst while on the Fox & Friends programme said that, instead of asking US agencies to spy on Mr Trump, Mr Obama obtained transcripts of Trump’s conversations from Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the equivalent of the US National Security Agency (NSA).

The Secret Intelligence Service commonly known as MI6 has denied the charge of eavesdropping on Donald Trump pre- and post-US presidential election. The charge was made on Tuesday by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano. A British official who is familiar with government policy and security operations described the charges to be “totally untrue and quite frankly absurd.” The US has since apologised to the UK for the statement and promised not to repeat such unfounded claims again.
.

4. Ottawa, Canada – Sex-toy manufacturer pays C$4m (S$4.23m) to American users due to privacy concerns

Image from Pixabay 

Canadian sex-toy maker Standard Innovation has agreed to a collective payout up to a total of C$4m (S$4.23m) for users in the US, after it was accused of tracking data on the intimate habits of thousands of its customers. A class-action lawsuit was filed last year by American customers who alleged the company violated their privacy rights.

Users took issue with an app – called We-Connect, which connected to the company’s We-Vibe vibrator. The data collected was sent back to the company, including details on temperatures, settings, and usage. Standard Innovation claimed the data was for market-research purposes, but some users felt violated, due to the personal nature of the information. They also voiced concerns that the data could be linked to the email address they provided to the company.

The company has since claimed that there has been no breach of our customers’ personal information or data. Under the settlement agreement, those who used the We-Connect app will be paid up to C$10,000 (S$10,563) each. Customers who bought the toy, but did not activate the accompanying app, will receive up to US$199 (S$280) each.

 

Featured image by Flickr user geralt. CC0 1.0.

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

 

skillsfuture_300x250

police car, law and order

by Daniel Yap

THE Singapore Police Force has come under fire of late for how its officers followed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and arrested a 74-year-old woman for her summons over a Town Council fine. The Singapore Prison Service (often and easily confused with the Police) then bound her hand-and-foot to transfer her from custody to a cell.

SOP again, and surely excessive for a geriatric with no criminal past, wanted for putting potted plants in the wrong place. But rules are rules.

But are SOPs rules? Not really. In the army, it is military law that governs us, and then every unit has its standing orders – formally given down the chain of command. An SOP, on the other hand, is simply a set of default reactions and decisions we use when faced with common situations.

Here’s where Robocop steps in to be the hero we deserve, but not the one we really need right now (or is that someone else?). The parable of the police-man-made-machine, and I’m talking about the glorious artistry of the 1987 film, is pit against not just all manner of criminality and pseudo-criminality, but held in contrast against ED-209, the completely robotic but massively powerful law enforcement droid.

ED-209 only reacts to rules and set-in-stone procedures, but Robocop, with the frailty and power of a human mind and emotion, is the hero that saves the day. Our everyday heroes at the Police need to be able to apply Robocop’s humanity, lest they be seen as the cold, marginally vile, by-the-book-only ED-209.

To support TMG, visit our Patreon page. Thanks!

An SOP is a great thing. Like Robocop’s “prime directives”, it saves us the trouble of having to hum and haw excessively over each case. Like Robocop’s targeting computer, it helps speed up our reaction time and decision-making. Like Robocop’s armour plating, it is something to fall back to when things get too complicated or too risky. But SOPs can’t possibly cover every contingency. Things can still go wrong.

Following SOPs does mitigate our actions when things go wrong, but it does not mean that what we did wasn’t wrong. It acts as a reasonable explanation for our chosen actions, but doesn’t absolve us from responsibility.

In other words, the thinking person is not slave to his or her SOPs, and commanders should not teach their charges to become slaves to an SOP. Everyone at all levels of an organisation should be told to think for themselves and then take responsibility for their own decisions.

An SOP is supposed to be a tool that enhances the thinking officer’s effectiveness, not a crutch for mindlessness or a machine to set in motion and forget about. That would make us no better than robots, and in today’s technological world, we really need to differentiate between man and machine, lest our jobs be on the line.

So henceforth let, “we followed procedures” never again be an excuse for not engaging the brain, or doing things with a heart. We’ve got to ask ourselves: what would Robocop do?

 

Featured image from Flickr user Vetatur FumareCC BY-SA 2.0

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

 

skillsfuture_300x250

by -
0 0

by Ryan Ong

BUSINESS Times just published a report on how Singapore may be experiencing a two-speed economy. By that, it means our entire economy is not operating at the same pace; one side of it is doing very well, and the other side is about to grow its hair long and drop out of school. The divergence seems to be between export oriented businesses, which mainly make money from customers abroad, and domestic businesses that rely on a local customer base. Here’s what it all means:

by Lee Chin Wee

CAN you imagine a Singapore where students aren’t defined wholly by their grades?

ST ran a thought-provoking piece on Mar 16, calling on the G to be bold and take in all students through aptitude-based university admissions. The proposal runs completely against the grain of our grades-centred university admissions model, but that’s the entire point. If we are to be serious about transforming education and skills acquisition in Singapore, it’s time for some sacred cows to be slaughtered.

Many of the world’s top universities have already implemented a holistic, aptitude-based admissions model. Among employers, there is also a growing recognition that academic performance is an insufficient and inaccurate barometer for professional success – Google, for instance, has moved away from hiring based solely on GPAs and IQ tests.  As Senior Education Correspondent Sandra Davie points out in the ST article, “(Imagine) choosing our doctors based on grades alone. Considering how expensive medical training is in terms of taxpayers’ money, wouldn’t society want future doctors to be compassionate and caring?”

As the G seeks to prepare young Singaporeans to face the varied challenges of our future economy, it makes sense to distribute talent to where it can be best developed rather than sort students to universities based on test scores. Why, then, am I not optimistic about change?

To support TMG, visit our Patreon page. Thanks!

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

Our political and civil service leadership are the least likely to take issue with the current model. Why would they, if they have been (and will continue to be) the largest beneficiaries of a highly-intense, elite-tracked, grades-centred education system?

There exists a cognitive effect known as Survivorship Bias. It simply means that, when we are evaluating the success of a policy, there is a tendency to concentrate on the people or things that “survived” the process and inadvertently discount those who did not due to their lack of visibility. Mr Michael Shermer explains this effect in an article written for the Scientific American, where he discussed the public interest in Walter Isaacson’s 2011 best-selling biography of Steve Jobs:
.

Want to be the next Steve Jobs and create the next Apple Computer? Drop out of college and start a business with your buddies in the garage of your parents’ home. How many people have followed the Jobs model and failed? Who knows? No one writes books about them and their unsuccessful companies.

.Similarly, no one listens to someone who failed to enter university under a grades-only system. The people who are heard are the survivors: the 21-year-old Public Service Commission scholars who scored perfect grades in their youth and went on to be Deputy Secretaries, Permanent Secretaries, and Ministers.

The simple fact is that there is a lack of educational and academic diversity within the ranks of our top leadership. How many of them studied in polytechnics, or barely made the cut for university? The homogeneity of their experiences may blind them to the harms of a grades-only admissions policy.

 

Parents, social attitudes and the politics of education

Miss Davie admits that she “can already hear the howls of protest from parents paying thousands of dollars to top tutors to ensure that their kids ace the A levels.” And she’s right – Singapore is not called the “Tuition Nation” for nothing. It is estimated that over S$1 billion is spent on tuition each year, with the figure steadily increasing.

Many parents have bought into the Confucian ethos that hard work and good grades will lead to a well-paying job. It is a mantra that the G has reinforced over the years, from aggressive academic streaming that began as early as in primary school (remember the now-discontinued EM1/2/3?) to public sector scholarships awarded to top exam performers at ages 18 and 19.

Particularly for the older generation of Singaporean parents, grades are a non-negotiable aspect of school life. Co-curricular training can be missed, enrichment activities can be skipped, but exams must be passed, if not aced.

It’s more than just the idea of shifting values. Many parents and families have been financially and personally investing into a future-by-the-grades for their children. If they realise that a grades-based future is no longer as good as it used to be, you can expect some outcry.

For the G to overturn this deeply-ingrained orthodoxy is to invite backlash and scepticism – parents want less stress for their children, but they also want a fair and meritocratic university admissions process. It is easy to see how an aptitude-based system, with its numerous interviews, focus on interviews and portfolios, and discretionary admissions policies could be seen as subjective and opaque, even though it need not be.

 

The irritating, but simple, cost argument

A final consideration is that of cost. A 100 per cent aptitude-based admissions system is not going to come cheap – it means expanding the university admissions office, more time spent interviewing prospective candidates, longer hours reviewing each application.

MOE statistics indicate that in 2015 alone, the six autonomous universities in Singapore received a combined 70,000 applications from A-level and polytechnic diploma holders. Assuming that an aptitude-based admissions system increases the time taken to assess each student by 15 minutes (a conservative estimate), that is 17,500 hours of additional work in total.

This subsequently gets priced into university application costs. American colleges, which recruit students on a holistic and broad-based set of criteria, are an example. As someone who applied to a number of American colleges in 2014, I know first-hand how expensive these costs can be – even as a domestic US student, applying for one college costs around US$60 (S$85). Imagine if you applied to six colleges! That’s S$510 down the drain before you even go for any interviews.

Application fees in Singapore are, on the comparative, very cheap. A local student applying to NUS, for example, only need to pay $10. It is entirely possible to apply for all six autonomous universities in Singapore for the price of applying to one or two US colleges.

 

Change is still worthwhile

Such considerations, however, should not prevent us from seeking real change to the university admissions process. While it may mean that change progresses at a slower rate – the quota for discretionary admissions could be gradually increased over a period of 10 years – it should not detract from the key points made by Miss Davie. The world will not wait for Singapore to change. If we continue to drag our heels instead of trying to find new ways to maximise our human capital, then prepare to be left behind.

 

Featured image by Sean Chong.

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

 

skillsfuture_300x250

by -
0 0

by Bertha Henson

WE’LL all be hearing more from Mr Peter Ho, the former head of Civil Service, because he’s been picked to give the Institute of Policy Studies series of lectures. TODAY ran an interview with him on aspects of the civil service. Perhaps, he could expand on some points he made in his interview when he gives his lectures.
.

1. Mr Ho said that increasing complexity of policies and higher order needs of the populace means coming up with new ways, such as more risk management, to solve problems.

”It’s not that traditional tools are no longer important; tools like cost-benefit analysis are still relevant. But cost-benefit analysis in a complex environment, in and of itself, may not provide you with the complete answer. Cost-benefit analysis is quite linear, and traditional tools don’t help you get your arms completely around complex problems.”

(What traditional tools are less important then? Can he cite instances when the solution did not address the problem because traditional tools were used? Was there a moment of epiphany for him?)

You, our readers, are the reason we exist. Your contributions allow us to bring fair and balanced news to everyone, regardless of the ability to donate. Support us by being our patron.

2. We don’t know when the interview was conducted, whether before or after the Prime Minister said that he didn’t want to be surrounded by naysayers. But clearly, he agrees that the rules-bound culture has to change, going by his message to the younger generation of civil servants.

”Your job is to find ways to improve Singapore’s position and the lot of Singaporeans in a period of accelerating change and uncertainty. Of course, you’re not going to be criticised for following the rules, but if you want to lift the quality of your policies and plans, and raise the level of good governance practised in Singapore, then it cannot be just about saying: “I followed the rules.” Instead, it should be that “I tried to make things better.” The basic misconception some younger civil servants may have is that what worked well in the past will be what propels you into the future successfully. Our civil servants must be able to keep up with the pace of change. You have to ask yourself if the rules, plans and policies still serve the purpose for which they were designed, or if we need to change them in order to do things better. ”

(There’s no point speaking in generalities. Can he enlighten with examples when sticking to the rules is to the detriment of policy outcomes? Or when rules work against the desire of the public service to be emphatic or to “have a heart’’. Can he also tell what rules have been changed because they are no longer relevant. Would policies on single mothers be one of them?)
.

3. Mr Ho talked about the need to be bold which is more difficult now because the basics have been achieved and Singapore is now “competing at the top’’.

”Today, of course, you still want that spark — that ability to think boldly about the future. But the big challenge now is, how much risk are you prepared to take? These are serious risks because we’ve achieved so much, that a bad miscalculation can mean losing it all. The stakes are much higher.”

(Can he give examples of what areas require bold but risky changes? Would the report of the Committee of the Future Economy or the reserved Presidential Election be among them? If so, what are the risks involved? Also, the general perception is the G prefers to make “tweaks’’ rather than take bold steps – or is this the wrong perception?)
.

4. Mr Ho talks about how many ingredients go into making a judgment call.

“…every major decision and every major policy are not an exercise to find the right answers. They are always an exercise in making the right judgment — not a hard right or hard wrong — but a balanced one that serves the best interests of the majority and the country. You cannot make everybody happy. Also, judgments always have to be revisited now and then — to go back to my point that things are changing. What seems to be sensible now may in a few years’ time no longer be sensible. You have to be prepared to constantly change.”

(Again, examples are needed. But there’s another point to consider: The public service shouldn’t think that a change is an acknowledgment of a mistake and therefore paper over the “change’’ as something that is a natural follow through of the old policy. When policies make a sharp turn, the people must be brought on board in understanding the changed circumstances or even objectives. Would he consider that enough explanation was given for the sudden announcement of the increase in the water price? Could Hong Kong’s seizure of the Singapore’s Terrexes be better explained to the people as an example of the changed geo-political realities that Singapore faces?)
.

5. This wasn’t touched upon but hopefully, Mr Ho will pick up the subject in one of his lectures. The civil service has always been accused of “group think’’ with its top echelons being a closed circle of like-minded individuals. That so many top civil servants cross into the political sphere doesn’t add to people’s confidence that radical or bold ideas can surface from the G. One example is how the Committee for the Future Economy is stuffed with Old Economy members. Singapore’s Establishment seems to be a closed rank of people who went to the same schools and move in the same circles with very few gaps allowing for “mavericks’’. Please do not use the sole example of Mr Philip Yeo. He’s just one man.

 

Featured image from Facebook.

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

 

skillsfuture_300x250

by -
0 0

by Bertha Henson

a. IT’S the end of Housing and Urban Development Company (HUDC) because the last bastion, Braddell View, is going en bloc. Don’t remember HUDC? It’s the predecessor to the executive condo, except that it’s still built by HDB. It’s for those who just missed out of a new flat because they earned too much to be eligible for one. Oh, and if you’ve been to a HUDC flat, you know the apartment sizes are bigger than those in exec condos. Seriously worth paying for…then.

b. Paying for a taxi ride is going to be a different experience soon. You can pick to pay by the meter or have a fixed payment set at the start of the ride. The cab companies, minus the biggest player ComfortDelGro, are joining up with Grab to launch JustGrab for the fixed payments. There’s still the usual GrabTaxi if you want to pay by taxi. So you’d better have the app on your phone because you might just be standing along the road, hoping to flag a taxi down and finding that they’re passing you by. 

Patrons of The Middle Ground enjoy priority access to our best stories. To become a patron, click here.

c. UniSIM is now SUSS. This is not a joke. The former little private institution which is gearing up to be Singapore’s sixth university will be re-named Singapore University of Social Sciences to reflect its focus on social courses. Not everyone is enamoured of the name change with some people pointing out that SUSS also has finance and business degree courses. Seriously, that’s a small thing. Look at Nanyang Technological University which keeps adding non-tech courses all the time…

d. Businesses are getting more help. More than 85,000 employers here will receive about S$660 million in Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) payouts, with small and medium-sized enterprises getting 70 per cent of the sum disbursed the end of this month. Not a big deal you say because you’re just a paid grunt? Well, you’ll have to remember that some of this money should go into supporting the wages of those who earn $4,000 a month and below. For them, it’s something.

e. We’re into fake news big-time. Thirteen People’s Action Party politicians, including a Cabinet Minister, have had their Facebook profiles faked. They look like them but aren’t by them, in what is known as a phishing attempt to get data. They’ve all been taken down so you can’t see what the fake Chan Chun Sing said and how it compares to the real Chan Chun Sing’s tone of voice. It isn’t known who’s behind this prank/attack. Needless to say, the politicians AREN’T laughing.

 

Featured image by SmrtBusesLuver from Wikipedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

 

skillsfuture_300x250

by -
0 0
A group of employment pass workers at Changi Business Park during lunchtime.

by Suhaile Md

SINGAPORE is too small a base for global-minded businesses to experiment and refine innovative ideas. At least that’s the view of tech entrepreneur Mr Tan Min-Liang and venture capitalist Mr Isaac Ho, reported the Business Times (BT) on Monday (Mar 13). If entrepreneurs intend to expand beyond Singapore, they should test-bed in larger markets from the start.

Simply put, a test-bed is a space to experiment and develop innovative products before bringing to market. Last month (Feb 7), the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) proposed in its report that the G set aside “special test-bedding zones” for Singapore based enterprises to develop products that can be exported.

You, our readers, are the reason we exist. Your contributions allow us to bring fair and balanced news to everyone, regardless of the ability to donate. Support us by being our patron.

But there are three reasons why Singapore might not be the best place to test-bed.

First, you need entrepreneurs and Singaporeans are not “hungry” enough, said Mr Ho. “Most entrepreneurs know there’s always another job for them… Singaporeans are well taken care of by the government.” Which is why he proposed that the G focus on youth exposure to technology and innovation through overseas attachments for instance. That way they “will be exposed to real hunger and passion, and see how fast the other countries are racing ahead”. Mr Ho is the CEO of Venturecraft, a Hangzhou based biotech and medtech incubator.

Second, to grow the business, an entrepreneur will eventually have to enter larger markets like the United States (US) or China.”By the time you’re done with test-bedding in Singapore, somebody’s already tested” the same idea in China or the US. So “you’re better off starting in the US or China from the get-go”, said Mr Tan. In other words, being based in Singapore could make startups too slow to capture a large global market share. Mr Tan is the CEO of Razer, a San Francisco based gaming hardware company.

Third, a product catered to the Singapore market may not be suited for larger markets. “If startups test-bed here, they will need to expend effort to undo what they’ve built for use in other markets,” said Mr Ho. This raises business costs. Besides, delivering products in Singapore does little to develop a start-up’s capacity to handle “large volume transactions”. This could “result in under-building a product”.

Contrary to Mr Ho and Mr Tan, the G sees Singapore’s size as a selling point. Said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Founders Forum Smart Nation Singapore Reception in 2015: “It’s (Singapore) compact… If you can make it work in Singapore, you can have the chance to adapt and apply to other contexts. If it doesn’t work in Singapore, it’s probably worth a rethink.”

More recently, the CFE report stated that Singapore’s small size has its advantages. Similar firms are found close to each other and so, can “attract talent, create critical mass for shared infrastructure, and generate knowledge spillovers among firms and people”. In other words, it’s easier for ideas to cross-pollinate. When new ideas arise, there’s better coordination between different firms and G bodies to make it work.

Mr Kevin Foo, head of investment at venture capitalist firm Cap Vista Singapore, agreed with the G on this, reported BT on Monday: “The level of infrastructure development within our small cityscape allows for close cooperation between different organisations, public or private, to co-develop and test technologies.”

Last October for example, Straits Times (ST) reported that the Economic Development Board together with national water agency PUB successfully completed the initial stages of its renewable-energy test-beds.

10 different floating solar panel systems, from both foreign and local companies, were installed at Tengeh reservoir. The test-bed will establish how viable the 10 systems are – both in the economic and environmental sense. If viable, then the systems can be scaled up for large-scale use.

There are other test-beds underway too, in water technology, and maritime and port services for instance. As the CFE report states, Singapore can be a “living lab for innovative urban solutions” like experimenting with new modes of transport, sustainable energy usage, and water and food resilience. Read more in the report here.

Test-beds are not to be confused with the regulatory “sandbox” the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) proposed last June.

The financial world is kept in check with numerous regulations. But these can stifle the growth of innovative financial technology, or fintech, startup firms. A sandbox relaxes, for selected fintech firms, certain rules like credit ratings, minimum paid-up capital, and so on, to encourage innovation.

That is not to say however, that the sandbox is exclusive to the financial sector only. The CFE report cited this regulatory innovation by the MAS positively. It suggested that like MAS, the G “design a regulatory environment that supports innovation and risk-taking, even as it balances this against risk” such regulations are meant to reduce.

At the end of the day though, is Singapore’s small size a boon or a bane as a test-bed for global innovation?

It’s hard to answer definitively. But the fundamental issue, it seems, is market access. A mass market app based product like Uber for example, would likely do better to test-bed in a larger market like the US and not in Singapore. Here, the arguments of Mr Ho and Mr Tan would make sense.

But if the product is more complex, requires the coordination of multiple sectors, and the main customers are not mass market individuals, Singapore is likely to run ahead. Singapore helping build the new capital city of the Indian state Andhra Pradesh comes to mind.

 

Featured image from TMG file.

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

 

skillsfuture_300x250

by -
0 0

by Ryan Ong 

LATEST tweaks to property rules are not going to cause prices to shoot up again. There, everyone can relax now. Contrary to the rumours you’ve heard, the cooling measures are not lifted, banks are not giving out loans like door prizes, and you are not going to get a mortgage by replacing your income statement with a pinky swear. The changes will have a positive effect on property prices, but nowhere close to the sudden surge we saw between 2009 to 2013.

by Daniel Yap

SINGAPORE is engaging in a long-term war, with high stakes. It’s the war for our health and overall well-being, and for disease prevention which has long-run payoffs – better quality of life, reduced costs, lower risks. The details of NurtureSG, a Ministry of Health plan to instill healthy habits in our children, will be announced later this year, but any plan needs to consider potential obstacles.

The first thing standing in the way of healthier children is unhealthy adults. We need no reminding that children are most influenced not by what they are told by their parents and teachers to do, but by what they see their parents and teachers doing. Thus, any aim to change the health-wise behaviour of the next generation must take into account the behaviour of this generation.

It may be straightforward enough to try to drill healthy habits into our children, but how then can we incentivise adults, whose habits have already been formed and practiced for decades, to change? We would not want to train our children up a certain way only to have them slip back into an unhealthy adult lifestyle because they were following their parents’ footsteps.

Adults need to replace old habits by forming new ones, and new habits are formed by repetitive behaviour. Without long-term goals, such sustained change would be difficult.

To support TMG, visit our Patreon page. Thanks!

For starters, we need to address the psychology that defeats long-term goals: affective bias, risk discounting, and hyperbolic discounting.

Affective bias, that is, bias that is rooted in our emotions, causes us to hear only what we want to hear. For example, the strong emotion associated with comfort eating can cause us to put too much stock in a “reduced fat” label on an unhealthy snack…and there goes the diet.

Uncertainty about the goals we set is what leads to risk discounting, where we downplay the risky effects of our behaviour. If you didn’t know how much you needed to eat to lose weight, would you have chicken nasi briyani for dinner, and a large bag of potato chips at the movie afterwards? Probably. But if you knew you had to eat under 1700 calories a day to lose weight, then it would be immediately clear to you that the 900 calorie nasi bryani and the 1000 calorie bag of chips would completely wreck your goals, especially if you already had a typical 500 calorie breakfast and “diet” 400 calorie lunch.

Hyperbolic discounting is the cognitive bias that favours short-term gains – why someone would choose to get $50 now than $1,000 a year later. It is why diet plans fail, why savings plans fall through, why we won’t cut our carbon footprint even though we know we put the future in peril.

How can children and adults get past these roadblocks to a healthier life? First, the emotional appeal of a long-term healthy lifestyle needs to stay strong. We need constant reminders that this is good for our family, good for our children and good for our silver years. Strong campaigns and culture-building are key to achieving this.

Then, we need instant gratification for our efforts. This is the short-term counter to short-term temptations, and this has so far been the hardest to achieve on a national scale.

This is why people post their workouts and gym bods on social media – to soak up the likes and encouragement as fuel for the next workout. This is why wearables are effective, because they are a constant reminder on your wrist of whether you’ve covered your 20,000 steps today, or gotten enough sleep, or pushed your heart rate frequently enough this week.

Instant gratification is why we need incentive programmes like the national steps challenge, in-house corporate fitness or weight-loss competitions, or programmes for individuals like AIA Vitality to reward workouts with vouchers, send encouragement, form support groups, set reminders, and do anything necessary to keep our eyes on the short-term goal for as long as it takes to reach the long-term one.

We are all, in one way or another, attracted by short-term gain. And if healthy living isn’t attractive in the short-term, then unhealthy living will win out. And what happens in the short term determines who wins the long-term war for our well-being. If we lose the war for our own well-being, we’ll be putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of the G’s push to make our children healthier.

 

This story is part of a series with AIA Singapore.

AIA Singapore is invested in the health and wellness of Singaporeans and has launched AIA Vitality, a comprehensive wellness programme that rewards members for taking small, everyday steps to improve their health.

 

Featured image by Sean Chong.

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

 

skillsfuture_300x250

Photo by Shawn Danker. Shared Copyright.
A corridor at the campus of NUS Yale.

by Ong Lip Hua

UNIVERSITY admissions season looms again, and as a university admissions professional with over a decade of work experience (in NUS and SIT), I get plied with questions from would-be students and their parents.

What I’ve come to realise is that the questions that potential students ask are usually off the mark. Perhaps it has to do with the media’s fascination with rankings (which reflect research, not teaching quality), graduate pay, and employment numbers.

While these may form a part of the answer to the question “why should I choose this university”, most of us go to the university to pave the way for a future career and the career prospects of a graduate are not sufficiently represented by these metrics.

A successful career is sustained more through a university’s “after sales” service, which most applicants are not aware of. This “after sales” service is performed by several offices in the university that often go overlooked.

The Middle Ground needs your support to continue serving up credible, balanced and independent news. Help us make a difference by being our patron! Thanks!

Here’s what else you might want to ask about at the next admissions talk:

The Placement Office: This is the department that organises career fairs, gives you job advice, and teaches you how to write your resume. They are known by many other names. How strong is the University’s Placement Office? Which sector do they have hiring partners in? What type and amount of assistance does the Placement Office provide?

Internship programmes: The Faculty Office or Placement Office typically handles internship placements. There is only so much you can learn about the working world and an industry from the safe confines of a lecture hall or tutorial room. Before we graduate, we need to be “inserted” into the industry network. An early foray into the environment where you’ll be spending the next 40 years of your life can pay off more than an impressive Grade Point Average.

Internships get you into the network and industry lingo so you can better know what and why is that thing on page 1905 of the reference source number AI76. Great internships put you in the same office as industry leaders and key personalities: distinguish yourself there and you’ll have the makings of a priceless industry network.

The Alumni Office: Getting our first job is only the first step in what we hope will be a long career. Good pay prospects and employment ratios are good to have, but the more important question is: where do I go from there?

Strong Alumni Offices are also good after-sales service centers. They provide you with the network to get into higher level positions, make business connections for you to start or expand your businesses, and can give you access to ideas, funds and links for your project or research break-through.

How active or strong are the university’s Alumni Offices? What events or activities are held? How committed is the alumni community? What are this office’s beliefs and objectives?

One more question: What is your student profile? This is a question especially for universities abroad, or for locally-awarded degrees from overseas institutions. This tells you who you get to network with while you are in school. If you can’t get a straight answer, spend some time roaming the campus talking to, or observing current students.

At some point in life, co-operation becomes much more valuable than competition. The friends and frenemies you have made during your school years can translate into doors that are open or shut to you later in life.

These “after sales” functions of universities will become increasingly important as the world churns out even more graduates, as work/jobs become more transnational, as technology, mergers and acquisitions reduce number of jobs and increase competition.

So at your next university admissions talk or open house, don’t just ask about cut-off points, or why this course is better than another. Ask questions that span 40 years into your future, because that’s probably what you are getting an education for.

Ong Lip Hua was in University Admissions for a decade and being passionate about the career of students he admits, decided to pursue a career in HR Recruitment. He was a minor partner in a recruitment firm before going in-house. He is still crazy about providing education and career advice.

 

This article is part of a series on SkillsFuture, in collaboration with MOE and SSG. Read the other pieces here:

Featured image by Shawn Danker.

If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!

For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.

 

skillsfuture_300x250