Having scrutinized the Fare Revision news release jointly issued by PTC and MOT , I fail to understand how there is an overall 2.5% reduction in fares in Singapore. If the change in fares can be modeled by a normal distribution, then for people who experience a fare increase of 43.8%, there must be a same number of people who experience a decrease in fare of a similar amount. The normal distribution is a symmetrical graph, and if the overall decrease is 2.5%, then it would suggest that there are people who will experience saving of more than 43.8%.

But given that fare structure is a lot more complicated than that, it would be overly simplistic to model fare changes using a normal distribution. At such, I am curious to the type of statistical model used to derive this 2.5%. I also question the sampling size used in their calculation as the press release did not mention anything about that. I also wonder about the huge standard deviation that could be inherent in the calculation. If there are people who experience a fare increase of 43.8%, it must indicate that the standard deviation is pretty big.

I think it is the big standard deviation that is worrying. And it is even more worrying that it is senior citizens who experienced a fare increase of 43.8%. A retiree traveled from Sengkang to Dhoby Ghaut. It used to cost her 73 cents. Now it cost her $1.05.  The difference of 32 cents brings about a fare increase of 43.8%. So let’s say this person travels on this route once a week. So $0.32 x 2 x 52 (return trip) = $33.28. If she travels on this route twice a week, the fare increase goes up to $66.56. I don’t think it’s very fair that senior citizens should bear the brunt of fare increase, especially since most of them are not working.

Unless of course such senior citizens are in the very rare minority, and that a lot of people experience fare reduction. But I don’t see how the sums add up. I also wonder why people who take buses to town centres would experience should experience fare increase of 17.4% as well. It used to cost me just 69 cents. Now it will cost 81 cents, with a fare increase of 12 cents. So for aunties who need to travel to town centres every morning to do their grocery shopping, this isn’t good news at all.

So, let’s talk about the tertiary student who travels to NUS from Bukit Batok. It used to cost him $0.88. Now it will cost him $1.01 per trip. That’s a fare increase of 13 cents or 14.77%. So he goes to school everyday. That’s a fare increase of $1.30 every week. This is 4.3 times that of the average increase ($0.30) that should be experienced by commuters. Again, the question is not fare increase, but the huge deviation involved, and who it impacts more.

The lowest increase in fare that I found is 1 cent. This person travels from Sembawang to a place in Newton every day. It used to cost this person $1.60. It costs this person $1.61 now. So that translates to an increase of 10 cents a week.

So let’s do some Math to find out the people required to experience fare increase of just 10 cents. Let that be y.

(0.1y + 1.3)/(y+1) = 0.3
0.1y+1.3=0.3y + 0.3
1=0.2y
y=5

So what that means is that for every person who experiences a fare increase of $1.30, 5 people must experience a fare increase of just $0.10 for us to get the average of $0.30. Although this is probable, it does suggest to me that the redistribution effect is quite large.

I hope more information could be released soon, otherwise there should be a centralized location for people to enter their old fares and current fares – and do a proper statistical model. I wouldn’t want to wait till the end of the year to read about huge profit gains for the transport companies in Singapore. Not that they shouldn’t make a profit at all, but the profit shouldn’t be so high. Anyway, they aren’t in the red last year.

Note: I do not have any real life example of people who experience reduction in fares, and thus this analysis is in itself limited. I suspect, however, that people who change bus/trains 2 times or more who may experience a fare reduction.

That saga has spun out of control. I think it has evolved into a meaningless tirade where the new exco and old guard cannot compromise at any point anymore; any time when they compromise and apologize for any fault they have committed would be deemed as an act of failure, inability and will attract only further chastisements and pressure to leave the group. Given that both sides pride themselves on their years of professional experience and their abilities to lead ‘successful’ organizations, they seemed to have tripped at this one point – conflict management. It also seemed to me that both sides probably lacked the ability to handle the situation with tact. The offensive remarks from both sides are unnecessary, unhelpful and unwanted.

While I believe that a woman’s highest calling in life is childbearing, I feel that the new exco may have been too myopic to critique only the issues of family and homosexuality. I also do not think that the stance of the old guard homosexuality is pro-gay as spelled out by the new exco. In my opinion, there is no clear stance, but rather, just being accepting towards people who are different. The organisation is also a highly pluaristic one; not every member subscribes to the same set of values. Indeed, there is a possibility that some members remain there because of other work that that organisation is pursuing. The fact that there is just one issue that members do not agree on does not spell the need to bid each other goodbye.

Yet, the old guard is not without fault as well. Their impatience in waiting for the new exco to issue a statement of purpose and the manner in which they demanded things to be done according to the way in which they are familiar with showed little regard for the constitution – afterall, the new exco was voted in legally, albeit the method was a little different. Yet honestly, how different is it? Governments dangle carrots and engage in gerrymandering prior to election day too. Admitably, it is one of the shortcomings of democratic elections as they may reduce to just a popularity vote, instead of being a means to choose the best and most suitable person into power. The old guard has, in my opinion, showed their unwillingness to give up control and has not stepped down gracefully.

I think such attitudes were exacerbated by an apparent arrogance on the part of the old guard. While it may be in the rules that some forms and reports may need to be submitted by a certain deadline, to punish the subcommitte heads by ‘sacking’ them or replacing them at best when they failed to submit the required documents on time is to harsh a punishment. Afterall, it is an voluntary organisation where people from all walks of life come together to push for the betterment of the status of women in society. It is not a corporate organisation and it need not be run like a company. To do so would only erode the warmth and love such an organisation should epitomize. How much more can we expect to further the rights of women in Singapore if they have already left a bad impressible on people that they are unreasonable and not receptive towards any ideas?

An important point to note is that change in a society doesn’t come overnight. Society needs time to reexamine their values and in fact they are highly resistant to change. There are ulterior motives at times (eg slave trade), but also it takes effort to push society to move out of their comfort zone. But the point is not to moralize people. I don’t think William Wilberforce pushed for the abolishment of slave trade down people’s throat.  On the contrary, it was through clear arguments that convince people, not force people to accept their point of view.

My point is that I’m disappointed by the actions of the so-called Christians in the entire saga. I feel that they have not shown much love to another Christian (the ex-president who resigned after a few days). The disrespect they have shown towards that lady is appalling, especially in the way they have stepped all over her. The Bible clearly commands that we are to show love towards fellow Christians (1 John 4:7-21), what more a Christian who is in authority? They have not shown much love to other non-Christians. This is reflected in their choice of words and the way they treated the asst hon secretary. Jesus, did not, at any point, treated people who were against Him badly. In fact, He called for Christians to love their enemies. If the Christians have truly outlived their philosophy in life, all these nasty things would not have transpired.

The cause that the new exco is technically speaking, a noble one. To push for a pro-family Singapore, and encouraging people not to walk down the path of homosexuality, which obviously is usually a lifestyle choice, is beneficial to Singapore. Research has shown clearly that only a small handful of people are born with different sexual orientation, but that number is disproportionate to the noise the homosexual community is making. However, the approach that the new exco has taken is one that pains me. It pains me because it shows a poor testimony of Christianity to the community at large. Yet, I ask for tolerance from other segments of society as Christians are imperfect beings trying to serve a perfect God. There are many things that need to be addressed before we get to the state of being like John Newton and William Wilberforce.

For Christians, it is high time to ask if we truly live out the Christian faith, and do we treat Christianity as a super culture that permeates every single bit of our life? God is a God of justice, but also a God of Love, a God of Mercy etc. It may be time to examine if a reductionist approach has resulted in a warped view of God.

Finally, this debate, regrettably on the side of the old guard, has evolved into a Christianity vs homosexuality debate. It shouldn’t be. There are many things wonderful with having a normal family that I think nature has set in place for us, and God need not feature in the argument even for it to be persuasive. I am pro-family, but I will not discriminate against any homosexuals as they are also human beings deserving of my respect.

Although I’m not particularly interested in politics, I take a keen interest to keep myself abreast of the political development in various countries. The simple reason lies in that political changes usually make or break an economy. History has proven it time and time again that when politicians are involved in getting themselves re-elected in the next election, they are often preoccupied in making electors happy but not foccused on long term economic development.

In an immigrant society like Singapore, our early forefathers were not natives here. Indeed, a lot of them were born in Malaysia and China. Some were of course born in Singapore. In my case, I’m only a 3rd generation Singaporean. As I was reading the Straits Times article on the life of JBJ, I can’t help but notice that he was borned in Singapore but later chose to make Singapore his home. That was what struck me. What made him, an immigrant, so commited to pursuing his call and pushing his ideas and dreams for Singapore?

I will justapoxe this with naturalised Singaporeans. How many of them would fight for their cause like JBJ? How many of them would pump in the energy and time like JBJ did to do his part for Singapore? I wonder what makes him tick; what made him decide to fight it all out for Singapore? Why do we not see it in new citizens of today? Is it cultural, or is it the set of values he held to?

I can definitely boast about the Singaporean hospitality. After all, I was in hospitality committees of 2 very successful high-profile events held in Singapore in 2005 and 2006. I should know a lot on what it means to display hospitality to guest and visitors. Yet, my trip to Italy and English L’abri showed me how my idea of hospitality was lacking in so many aspects.

Hospitality is something that has been lost due to our culture. The ubiquitous food places made true hospitality that displays warmth hard to come by. Eating out is cheap, and convenient, and oftentimes, the economic cost for cooking at home far outweighs that of eating outside. A good example would be that of a recently married couple. Preparation takes time. Cooking takes time. And washing up takes time. The pressures of society, and the insistence on efficiency means that people hardly ever take pleasure in cooking, because there are more important things to do!

I wonder also if the fact that food is easily available diminishes the way we understand the love that someone puts in in preparing a meal for us. Criticisms roll off our tongues easily when the food is overcooked, too bland, or simply not as good as that we have eaten somewhere else. Yet, wouldn’t the hours and effort put in in preparing the meal be an indication of the person’s love for us? Are we so insistent on eating good food that we fail to see the difference between food produced to earn a living and that produced out of love?

As I sat at a bus stop watching a grandfather ask his granddaughter if the bread was nice, I wonder if the culture of eating out has contributed in part to people tending to trend money as an idol. Here’s my reasoning: to eat good food, you need money. The tastier the food, the more likely is it going to be expensive. So to enjoy good food, we have to work hard. Granted that such a reasoning doesn’t apply only to Singapore; good restaurants all over the world offer attractive prices, but Singapore’s case is more pronounced because we no longer appreciate a well home-made meal. Most people see the only way to enjoy good food is to go out for a meal.

Singaporeans are very task-orientated and can be very helpful when need be. Yet, when it comes to hosting people in homes, even for a meal, we are lacking in many aspects. Perhaps what needs be is simply a desire to invite people over, never mind the inconvenience of preparation, cooking and cleaning up. The fact that one is willing to go all the way to prepare a simple, hearty meal, complete with desert, is enough to show that he cares.

Being the avid beta tester, I am however not the first to adopt new technology usually. I do not believe in paying the money to be the guinea pig. Often, I would advise people to buy only the second release of a new version of software or hardware. I don’t want to pay just to be at the cutting edge of technology. In my opinion, there are two reasons to describe such people. The first explanation is that they like the trill of trying new products. They seek adventure, to be unconventional, unusual. The second group of people is driven by the need to show off. There is a certain amount of insecurity present in this group of people. To me, it’s just absurd to pay just to try out the latest product. It’s absurd to spend my money being at the cutting edge of technology when the money can be better channeled to further God’s works. It’s absurd to invest time and energy following something so transient when God is the only one that can fill the vacuum in our lives. Only through Christ can we have the peace that transcends everything. Only Christ can provide such abundant love that we can be contended with life, and experience no insecurity.

Perhaps the incessant chase after technology can be a bondage or a stronghold afterall.

This article was first posted on the WRPF Developers’ Blog.

The world’s top scientists have joined forces to call for “evidence-based” teaching of evolution in schools.

A statement signed by 67 national science academies says evidence on the origins of life is being “concealed, denied, or confused” in some classes.

It lists key facts on evolution that “scientific evidence has never contradicted”.

These include the formation of Earth 4.5 billion years ago, and the onset of life at least 2.5 billion years ago.

“We know of schools in various parts of the world where the children are told that the Earth is about 8,000 years old,” said Yves Quere, co-chair of the Inter Academy Panel on International Issues, the global network of science academies.

“So in this statement we say you cannot teach this to children, it is wrong.”

Dr Quere said the statement reflected growing concern within the scientific community that children were not being taught basic facts on evolution and the nature of scientific inquiry.

“In some countries, the simple theory of evolution is denied in the teaching of children in schools,” he said.

Design debate

The acadmies’ statement says: “We urge decision-makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.

• The Earth has changed under the effect of numerous forces since its formation, and continues to do so
• Since life first appeared on Earth, it has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve
• Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their primordial origin

Click here to read the statement

“Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.”

Its release follows fierce debate about whether so-called intelligent design (ID) should be taught in biology courses in schools, mainly in the US.Adherents to ID maintain that many features of the Universe and of living things are too complex to have been the result of natural selection.

Instead, they argue, these phenomena must have been designed by a highly intelligent force.

Last year, a group of parents successfully took a school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, to court to stop the teaching of ID in science classes.

Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, UK, was an expert witness at the trial, defending the right to teach alternatives to evolution.

He commented on the statement: “I think it is pretty mild, in the sense that the only people who will take serious exception are the biblical literalist, six-day creationist-type people.

“The words evolve and evolution here are used without any content,” he said. “They do not actually say anything about the explanation or the causal mechanisms that are involved in all of this development of life that has occurred over all of these billions of years.

“It really doesn’t hit on the kinds of issues that would separate either contesting schools within evolutionary theory or evolution versus intelligent design.”

Sometimes, I simply don’t know how to reconcile the clash between the theory of evolution and that of intelligent design. As a budding scientist, I believe in Science, especially Physics. I don’t doubt methods like carbon and uranium dating, in which their discoveries have won some scientists the Nobel Prize. Yet, I don’t understand why there is such a huge divergence between what Biology teaches and what intelligent design teaches. I prefer to subscribe to the former, with views that the word ‘days’ is used in the numerous scriptures loosely.
Essentially, I believe that both scientific truth and religious truth can withstand rigorous investigation and questioning. I believe, that Science and Religion will complement each other one day.

I’m finally back using my computer, having been away from my computer for the past 3 days. It was a good experience, at camp and everything, reminding me that I can survive without a computer and handphone pretty well. Alright, I am not such a technology-addict even at the start, but computers and handphones are nevertheless distractions for me when I’m at home. I love dabbling with new softwares and developments…simply fliddling around with software tools. However, when exams dawn near, I find myself having troubles staying away from the computer. But the camp experience proved otherwise – no withdrawal symptons. Just pure joy studying. It’s quite possible that I’ll be more disciplined when using the computer from now onwards – so that I free up more time to do other more important things.

My computer is lagging now, having downloaded and installed the new Microsoft operating system. The new OS is awesome, and it has many cool, interactive and beautiful features, such as post-its, easier way to manage all the tools to protect your computer, better IE7 (which has RSS feeds finally), user-friendly Window Media Player 11 etc. However, it has some drawbacks. I installed this new OS via upgrade, and I’m wondering if the computer is slow because the old OS is still retained. The computer is unfortunately slow. Alright, I can’t ask for much, since this computer is about one year old now. Furthermore, some of the existing tools are classified different, and my biggest complain is that they are confusing. They link from here to there and sometimes I just cannot remember how to call up a particular function. I need to make my computer faster, but I still don’t find my computer any faster after reading the Windows Help.