"Triple Whammy" attacks on Singapore: What have we done wrong?

2 articles titled “What’s behind ‘triple whammy’ attacks on S’pore?” by Warren Fernandez and "Let's all bash Singapore" highlighted 3 instances of bad relations with our neighbours all of a sudden.

1) Thailand:

Thailand had accused Singapore spying on Thai leaders through phone lines after a controversial purchase of Shin Corp by Tamasek Holdings. It was followed by the controversial Asean Football Championship finals, in which the Thais staged a 15-min walkout.

2) Malaysia:

Johor’s leaders claimed that Singapore’s land reclamation at Pulau Tekong had caused massive floods there. However, Malaysian Environmental Minister later state that it was caused by high rainfall and excessive logging.

3) Indonesia:

Indonesian authorities announced a sudden blanket ban on sand exports to Singapore, much to the dismay of Singapore, whose land reclamation works was greatly affected.

Ironically, all these came just days after declarations of goodwill and fraternity by Asean Leaders at the summit in Cebu.

Our fault? Maybe.

Let’s see it from our neighbour’s perspectives; I believe even some Singaporeans might agree with this. It is no doubt that Singapore’s ‘kiasu’ negotiating style and hard-headed approach brought things towards our favour. However, it is also no wonder that our neighbours might be unhappy with us. So, we are not completely out of fault.

Reasonable excuse? Maybe not.

Now, let’s see it from Singapore’s perspectives; Jealousy… Sour-grapes we might say. The bases of the attacks are unreasonable, with unfounded accusations and sudden blanket ban. Some of us might even see them as relentless attempts to throw us off-course, of which are ultimately futile.

We had come up with NEWater, which some bluntly put it off as “toilet juice”, but which is now a multi-million dollar industry. As Warren Fernandez humorously put it across, we might come up with NEWsand and NEWisland as well. It is this resilience that Singaporean leaders have shown, that Singapore is able to be so successful.

Perhaps it is true; they are finding trouble for this successful know-it-all “little red dot” and perhaps, adding a dash of their own “nationalism”. Of course, historical differences still exist, namely Malaysia, who is always up for a row with their “ex-spouse” after an unhappy “marriage”.

It is also not the first time that our neighbours have been stirring up problems. Take the dispute over the Singapore-occupied islet known as Pedra Branca and threats to cut off Malaysia’s water supply for example. So, with all these disputes within the region, the problem might lie with ALL of us. I believe all these can be resolved with mutual respect and a sense of rationality.

I have to say I do not follow politics closely, but these issues are something that catches the attention of everyone, something that taxi drivers will go on and on throughout my ride. I believe as Singaporean citizens, we should, at least, know about our country’s foreign relations and see what is really behind all these disputes.

-Finance and Law-

Organ Trading in Singapore: Should it be allowed?

An article titled “Should organ trading be allowed? No, says poll” by Melissa Sim and Vincent Leow appeared on the Sunday Times on 4th February 2007. It was published after a heated debate on this issue was sparked off in the ST Forum.

One may agree with the article that life is precious and brings up the issue regarding the sanctity of life. This side of the debate argues that organs, unlike medical technology and drugs, are not commodities that the public should sell away. They argue that we are not born to sell our organs and we will not be able to put a price tag on ourselves.

Others might argue that organ trading should be allowed to save more lives. Sources state that there were 543 end-stage renal patients on the waiting list for kidneys while only 85 kidney transplants were performed last year. Selling organs can save even more lives.

Much as I agree that life is precious and that morality and ethic issues regarding organ sales exist, I believe that organ trading should be allowed. It is a known fact that organs, in this case, kidneys from the deceased are never enough to satisfy the demand, and by giving out a kidney, we are able to end the suffering of many diabetic or other patients. By doing so, instead of conflicting with morality issues, we are saving many more lives. Also, even if Singapore does not allow organ trading, the patients would still go overseas for cheap, risky transplants.

Things are never perfect. The poor will never be able to afford an organ and social issues will emerge. It will be a situation whereby all the organs will go to the rich or prominent patients, leaving the poor with nothing. Black markets can be eliminated, though strict government regulations, such as performing operations only with organs that are certified by hospitals and the purchase clearly documented.

Then came along the issue on the willingness of Singaporeans to sell their organs. Majority of the citizens would buy organs without hesitation if they need it, but are generally unwilling to sell them. Explanation? The Human Nature to put self before others.

They ask questions like, “Why should I sell my organs? I have enough money..." but have they ever empathized with the suffering patients? Those who have a bloated stomach, legs that hurt all the time, going for long term dialysis treatment… Such is our selfishness.

In conclusion, this is an extremely complex issue, involving both social issues health care issues. There may be no right or wrong. The government may not come up with a decision. My stand is this: Life is precious, but saving lives is priceless. Yes, this is a bit too ideal. I still hope that the society will have more social awareness and consciousness, to help the less fortunate, but, I understand that it is not easy to give up any part of your body.

So, what is your stand in this?

-Finance and Law-