ST-upidity Forum
For the record, Ace Kindred Cheong who thinks that “running naked from one hostel to the next is something all schools and universities must prevent” because it “can lead to other crimes” also believes that hawkers “should have an 'A' grade (for hygiene) before they are allowed to operate.” (No wonder he's called Ace.)
It's not the grade that counts, silly. It's the minimum standard met before hawkers are allowed to operate that counts. If standards are so low that even a dirty stall can ace a hygiene examination, there is no point having that 'A'. On the other hand, if standards are so high that even a sterilized stall might score a 'B' because of other shortcomings, then there is nothing wrong with having a 'B' grade. (After all, it does seem to me that, for some strange reason, a C-grade hawker can get an 'A' grade after his hawker center has been upgraded even though I have no reason to believe that his practices have changed.)
Nevertheless, the questions should really be what the B- and C-grade hawkers are lacking compared to their A-grade counterparts-and whether food safety is compromised at all in any way. The NEA grades hawkers based on hygiene, cleanliness and housekeeping. I don't know how a hawker is assessed for hygiene and housekeeping. Does the NEA seek the help of the ISD and send someone to hide somewhere and observe hawkers in action? Or can hawkers wayang whenever they are being assessed? What is “housekeeping”; why and how is it being assessed?
Elsewhere in the ST forum, Dr. Hoe Wan Sin (who perhaps doesn't want any sin), says, “I am puzzled as to why official approval was given for the pro-euthanasia group, Exit International, to run a workshop here, considering that it promotes a subject that is against public policy.” Excuse me, but why can't a workshop that advocates something than runs contrary to public policy be held? Isn't this a . . . free country? And it's not as if a seditious workshop on civil disobedience is being held. Dr. Hoe's ultimate purpose of writing the letter is ultimately to say that euthanasia should not be legalized. So why pretend to be puzzled over the approval of the workshop?
In another letter regarding euthanasia, Kelvin Wong thinks that “[l]egalising euthanasia will lower our quality of life.” Whose quality of life would be affected? Really? When I'm euthanized, I think there wouldn't be any quality of life to speak of . . .
The title of Kelvin Wong's letter (which could have been invented by a journalist) is even better. “Euthanasia robs terminally ill and their loved ones of precious moments.” I would have thought that when something is given up voluntarily, the word “rob” should not be used.
Then there are what I think could be acts of journalistic rape. In a letter to the Forum, Ms. Yeo Gek Noi writes about the pay cuts that her company has implemented. She believes that “If employees are not represented by a union, there is one less hassle to deal with. If any employee is unhappy and resigns, the company saves more money because his workload can be spread out to the remaining staff. If a replacement is required, it will not be difficult to find one at a lower pay, now that so many people are looking for jobs.” However, the heading goes “Why SMEs resort to pay cuts”, which sounds as if Ms. Yeo was trying to explain or even justify why there are pay cuts in SMEs.
A Teo Kueh Liang who “read with concern” Ms. Yeo's letter has this to say: “The Government has implemented the Jobs Credit scheme and tax rebate incentives to help businesses and employers tide over this difficult period . . . However, some petty-minded, over-calculating and over-pessimistic employers still exploit such measures to cut staff pay or freeze increments and force employees to take unpaid leave.” I don't really see why the letter is given the heading, “Pay cuts are a fact of life, especially in a recession.” Couldn't the title have been “Employers should not reduce workers' benefits unnecessarily” or something?
It's not the grade that counts, silly. It's the minimum standard met before hawkers are allowed to operate that counts. If standards are so low that even a dirty stall can ace a hygiene examination, there is no point having that 'A'. On the other hand, if standards are so high that even a sterilized stall might score a 'B' because of other shortcomings, then there is nothing wrong with having a 'B' grade. (After all, it does seem to me that, for some strange reason, a C-grade hawker can get an 'A' grade after his hawker center has been upgraded even though I have no reason to believe that his practices have changed.)
Nevertheless, the questions should really be what the B- and C-grade hawkers are lacking compared to their A-grade counterparts-and whether food safety is compromised at all in any way. The NEA grades hawkers based on hygiene, cleanliness and housekeeping. I don't know how a hawker is assessed for hygiene and housekeeping. Does the NEA seek the help of the ISD and send someone to hide somewhere and observe hawkers in action? Or can hawkers wayang whenever they are being assessed? What is “housekeeping”; why and how is it being assessed?
Elsewhere in the ST forum, Dr. Hoe Wan Sin (who perhaps doesn't want any sin), says, “I am puzzled as to why official approval was given for the pro-euthanasia group, Exit International, to run a workshop here, considering that it promotes a subject that is against public policy.” Excuse me, but why can't a workshop that advocates something than runs contrary to public policy be held? Isn't this a . . . free country? And it's not as if a seditious workshop on civil disobedience is being held. Dr. Hoe's ultimate purpose of writing the letter is ultimately to say that euthanasia should not be legalized. So why pretend to be puzzled over the approval of the workshop?
In another letter regarding euthanasia, Kelvin Wong thinks that “[l]egalising euthanasia will lower our quality of life.” Whose quality of life would be affected? Really? When I'm euthanized, I think there wouldn't be any quality of life to speak of . . .
The title of Kelvin Wong's letter (which could have been invented by a journalist) is even better. “Euthanasia robs terminally ill and their loved ones of precious moments.” I would have thought that when something is given up voluntarily, the word “rob” should not be used.
Then there are what I think could be acts of journalistic rape. In a letter to the Forum, Ms. Yeo Gek Noi writes about the pay cuts that her company has implemented. She believes that “If employees are not represented by a union, there is one less hassle to deal with. If any employee is unhappy and resigns, the company saves more money because his workload can be spread out to the remaining staff. If a replacement is required, it will not be difficult to find one at a lower pay, now that so many people are looking for jobs.” However, the heading goes “Why SMEs resort to pay cuts”, which sounds as if Ms. Yeo was trying to explain or even justify why there are pay cuts in SMEs.
A Teo Kueh Liang who “read with concern” Ms. Yeo's letter has this to say: “The Government has implemented the Jobs Credit scheme and tax rebate incentives to help businesses and employers tide over this difficult period . . . However, some petty-minded, over-calculating and over-pessimistic employers still exploit such measures to cut staff pay or freeze increments and force employees to take unpaid leave.” I don't really see why the letter is given the heading, “Pay cuts are a fact of life, especially in a recession.” Couldn't the title have been “Employers should not reduce workers' benefits unnecessarily” or something?