SINGAPORE: In Rwanda, being caught with a plastic bag is a crime. The African nation is so serious about tackling the global plastic pollution crisis that since a decade ago, it is illegal to import, produce, use or sell plastic bags and plastic packaging except for specific industries such as healthcare and pharmaceuticals.

Those caught carrying illegal plastic are liable to be fined, jailed or forced to make public confessions, the New York Times reported last year. In 2017, another African nation, Kenya, also enacted a law to punish anyone making, selling or importing plastic bags with as much as four years in jail or a US$19,000 (S$26,140) fine.

While their measures to combat plastic pollution are not as drastic compared to Rwanda or Kenya, more than 40 countries the world over including China, the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia have banned, restricted or taxed the use of single-use plastics. The European Union (EU) is planning to enact a ban on such use among its member countries by 2021.

Meanwhile, Singapore has so far not gone down that path. Nevertheless, several policies have been put in place to tackle plastic waste such as the Singapore Packaging Agreement.

The Republic is also looking to introduce an Extended Producer Responsibility framework to hold organisations accountable for the collection and proper treatment of electronic waste.

There have been ground-up efforts in the Republic as well: For example, on Wednesday (Dec 12), four major supermarket chains announced that they will be working with the Singapore Environment Council (SEC) and DBS Bank to encourage customers to take fewer single-use plastic bags and opt for reusable bags instead.

PLASTIC SCOURGE

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), plastic production around the world saw a dramatic increase from 15 million tonnes in 1964 to 311 million tonnes in 2014. The number is expected to double again over the next 20 years.

The polymers, which can take up to 400 years to decompose, have been blamed for the negative impact they have had on the global environmental landscape, such as making their way into the stomachs of whales and seabirds, and polluting the oceans.

In this war to save the environment, it would seem that plastics are the scourge of the Earth.

As to how to wage the battles, however, the jury is still out. Do punitive measures against the use of single-use plastics address the root causes? Or are they merely attempts by governments or corporations at “greenwashing”” — in other words, to appear to limit the environmental impact without actually doing so? 

Singapore Institute of Technology assistant professor Seck Tan, for one, believes that the real culprit is a global economy “pursuing growth and development”.

“Consumers and producers are in an intricate relationship … Consumers purchase what producers manufacture, and producers manufacture to meet the needs of consumers,” said Prof Tan, whose research focus is on environmental economics. He added:

An economy is an aggregation of humans — with intellect and knowledge, humans can dictate a moderate pace of growth.

While consumers need to be on the frontline, Professor Suresh Valiyaveettil, a chemist from the National University of Singapore, said that if public mindset and behaviour do not change, governments have to intervene by enacting laws against the use of single-use plastics, for instance.

Mr Kim Stengert, chief of strategic communication and external relations at the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Singapore, reiterated that “long-lasting change at scale is always driven by regulation and good policy interventions”. But he warned against an outright ban on single-use plastics, which could trigger consumer outcry or see companies turning to alternatives which could harm the environment as well.

READ: Dear Singapore, a plastic future is not fantastic, a commentary

PRICE OF CONSUMERISM

Asst Prof Tan, Prof Suresh and Mr Stengert were among the experts who spoke at the International Conference on Plastics in the Marine Environment (ICPME), which was held from Dec 5 to 7.

The conference saw international experts gather in the Republic to discuss the issue of plastic debris in the marine environment.

Even if a company’s decision to ban the use of straws is just an attempt at greenwashing, there is still a positive outcome, the experts noted.

Using Singapore’s population size of 5.8 million people as an example, Prof Suresh, whose research focus includes materials for environmental applications, said: “If we can just reduce the use of a single plastic straw per person per day … we can keep a huge amount of plastics away from the environment. The same is the case with plastic bags.”

The widespread use of plastics was said to have started in the 1960s after high-density polyethylene was invented.

Due to plastics’ low cost, it soon became acceptable to throw away these highly durable products, said a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) report. Consequently, the throwaway culture led to its effects being felt on the environment.

The SEC, in a position paper released in August, noted that the global production of plastics had surged over the past 50 years.

And based on its figures, Singapore today is a nation heavily dependent on single-use plastics.

The SEC’s study showed that people here use at least 1.76 billion plastic items each year: 820 million plastic bags from supermarkets, 467 million PET bottles and 473 million plastic disposable items.

Simply put, these figures mean a person in Singapore would be using at least one to three disposable items per week. Ditto with PET bottles.

While the environment council found that plastic bags are regularly re-used by Singaporeans, other single-use plastics such as stirrers have a lifespan of just 10 seconds, or five minutes in the case of straws.

A 2016 WEF study said that plastics are entering the oceans at the rate of one dump truck every minute. At this pace, it estimates there will be more plastics than fish in the ocean by 2050.

READ: The monstrous scale of plastic bag wastage in Singapore

The impact ocean plastic pollution has on marine creatures has been well documented and shared on the virtual sphere – often accompanied with statements of outrage and dismay, and even led to some corporations jumping into action.

The most-cited example is the heartbreaking viral video of sea turtles with straws stuck up their nostrils. 

Following the video, global coffee roaster and retailer Starbucks announced that it would be banning plastic straws in its stores globally – effectively reducing more than a billion plastic straws per year from their stores. Other corporations soon followed suit.

Even if someone has little interest in the plight of marine creatures, he or she should still be concerned — plastic pollution has a direct impact on humans as well.

Plastic waste in the ocean breaks down over time into tiny particles that range from the size of a grain of rice to something on a microscopic level. These microplastics are easily ingested by a range of marine creatures, including those within the human food chain.

A 2008 study by Dr Mark Browne, an ecotoxicologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, discovered that the particles do not always pass harmlessly through the human body. 

In fact, it found that microplastics can physically damage organs and leach hazardous chemicals that can compromise the body’s immune function and even stymie growth and reproduction.

In landlocked Rwanda, authorities told the New York Times that plastic bags contributed to flooding and prevented crops from growing because plastic bags littering the fields stopped rainwater from penetrating the soil.

READ: Skipping plastic straws might not do much to stop marine pollution, experts say

‘DON’T MAKE PLASTICS THE SCAPEGOAT’

Despite the negative environmental impact caused by plastics, they should not be demonised, some experts were quick to point out. 

Professor Richard Lampitt, a visiting researcher from the United Kingdom’s National Oceanography Centre, said recently at a public talk in Singapore on ocean plastic pollution that plastic is a wonderful material, but the problem lies in “how we deal with its end of life”.

“It is inexpensive. It is durable. It is versatile. It is in every part of our life and if we didn’t have 20 to 30 per cent of our cars made out of plastic, then we burn more petrol and end up with more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere,” said the English observational biogeochemist at the Botanic Gardens talk on Dec 7. He was also one of the ICPME’s keynote speakers.

The professor’s remarks mirrored what Dr Amy Khor, Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources, said in Parliament in October.

“Marine pollution is caused by improper disposal of plastic waste, and not the use of plastics per se,” Dr Khor said in response to an adjournment motion by Nee Soon GRC Member of Parliament Louis Ng to make Singapore a “plastic-lite nation”. Mr Ng had spoken about the  urgent need to tackle the issue of plastic waste which had “reached a turning point”.

While banning single-use plastics outright might seem to be the easiest solution in dealing with plastic waste, Mr Stengert cautioned against the move as it would “obviously frustrate consumers a lot”, and cited Australia as an example.

In July, Australia banned the use of single-use plastic bags at a majority of its supermarkets, sparking a “bag rage”. Irate customers, angry about having to bring their own sacks or pay A$0.15 (S$0.15) for a reusable plastic bag, abused check-out staff and vented on social media.

Was the furore worth it? About five months later, the country’s National Retail Association said that plastic bag consumption went down by 80 per cent.

Prof Tan said: 

This is a classic nudge in behavioral science for a short-run win.

However, he added that “long-run success will require consumers to exercise environmental stewardship”.

Mr Stengert said that a single-use plastic ban will force businesses to come out with an alternative solution, such as paper bags or straws, which may not necessarily be better for the environment.

The authorities in Singapore had said earlier that paper and biodegradable bags may require as much resources to produce as plastic bags and have a similar environmental impact.

Dr Khor, in her parliamentary speech, also noted that the British government estimated that a cotton tote bag must be used 173 times before its greenhouse gas emission impact improves beyond the plastic bags which people use to line their bins.

Prof Suresh suggested that countries considering banning or restricting the use of single-use plastics should emulate what the EU has done: Giving businesses ample time — until 2021 — to find suitable alternatives.

“This period can be used to educate people on the issue and possibly try imposing a levy on such items as well,” he said.

While the Government said in March that it would not impose a charge on plastic bags, Mr Ng had felt that it was still something worth pushing for in his adjournment motion in October.

He said that unlike a total ban, a levy would provide an ideal middle ground as it gives customers a choice to use the plastic bags if they have to, while encouraging them to bring their own reusable bags at the same time.

A levy also forces the customer to think twice about taking more plastic bags than necessary as it would lead to a bigger grocery bill.

Though it might be a bitter pill to swallow at first, Mr Stengert said the pinch in the wallet can be assuaged if customers know where the money raised by the levy is going to.

He cited a WWF case study which noted that if the money “went to a charitable cause instead of profit for the company”, customers would generally be more accommodating.

“The plastic bag charge is really to shape behaviour,” Mr Ng stressed.

READ: What will it take for Singapore to give up plastic? A commentary

NO SILVER BULLET

Mr Stengert said that people are already using more resources than the planet can provide, and there is a need to rethink their consumption patterns.

Agreeing, Prof Tan said that as plastics are essentially derived from fossil fuels, “consumption and utilisation of plastics is indirectly depleting a finite resource”.

“Unless we move to circular systems, we will not be able to deal with the needs of the growing global population,” said Mr Stengert.

READ:  We can tackle climate change without stunting economic growth, a commentary

In theory, adopting a circular economy would remove the dependence on finite resources by recycling old products. Rather than having them destroyed when they have reached the end of their life cycle, these products can be broken down to their base components – such as metals and plastics – to create something new.

The SEC estimated that 95 per cent of plastics globally, valued at around US$120 billion, is discarded after the first use.

“Plastics hold a high economic value and effective recycling ensures we do not lose their value,” said the SEC.

One factor contributing to the worrying state of Singapore’s plastic waste is a low recycling rate.

The SEC put the figure at 6 per cent in 2017.

In comparison, the SEC said that out of 335 million tonnes of plastic produced globally in 2016, only 9 per cent was recycled.

However, there are multiple obstacles hindering the successful adoption of a circular economy.

Mr Stengert, whose work sees him engaging with companies to act on plastics as they move towards a circular economy, said that one of the obstacles faced by business owners is the cost of recycled materials as feedstock.

Agreeing, Prof Suresh said it is costly to physically sort out different plastic items, and that they cannot be used in certain products due to perceived contamination.

“Contamination in recycled products is a problem — it is a global issue with the existing technologies,” said Prof Suresh. This is mainly because current technologies are unable to separate different polymers and remove all additives, labels and even bottle caps from plastic waste before recycling.

REFUSE, REDUCE, REUSE

The issue of contamination among Singapore’s recyclables was raised in a recent video by sustainability news site Eco-Business. It showed that people were tossing in clearly non-recyclable items such as mattresses, plants and even soiled diapers into recycling bins.

The site said that as a result, 40 per cent of the items received at recycling facilities here are not recycled due to contamination, which could be caused by various factors.

The SEC study shed some light as to why many Singaporeans had yet to get their recycling right.

One key finding from the study was that most respondents, 70 per cent, were not fully aware of what types of plastics could be recycled.

Close to 36 per cent of the respondents also said they found it inconvenient to clean their recyclables, with many indicating that they were unable to remove food and oil contaminants.

While the National Environment Agency (NEA) states that the recyclables should be cleaned when necessary, it does not require them to be done to perfection. However, if this step is not taken, it renders the recyclable obsolete. There is also a chance that it could contaminate otherwise suitable items through leaks and spills.

The location of a recycling bin also determined if a person was likely to recycle a suitable item or not. The SEC said about 21 per cent of the respondents felt that walking down to search for a recycling bin within an HDB estate was not as convenient as just tossing everything into a rubbish chute.

Mr Ng said there is a need to “change the narrative” in how Singapore tackles plastic pollution.

“It sounds very weird, but people need to understand that recycling has become this harmful thing,” he said, adding that because the bulk of contaminated recycled plastics is incinerated, it increases the carbon footprint. 

Prof Tan said that since it is not easy to solve the problem of contamination during the recycling process, government policies should aim to highlight environmental degradation and slow the rate of plastic use.

Mr Ng suggested that Singaporeans should shift their focus instead. For instance, he said, they should refuse single-use plastics where possible. If not, they should reduce the amount of plastics needed and reuse them whenever they could.

Improving social awareness among Singaporeans of the environmental impact of plastic waste will also be helpful, said Prof Suresh.

A spokesperson for Gone Adventurin, a consultancy firm involved in promoting the circular economy in Asia, said reduction of waste through both improved design and consumer awareness is also part of the circular economy model.

The spokesperson said there are many repair, refurbishing and second-hand shops for electronics in Singapore.

While rare, the spokesperson said such shops are now growing in Europe due to “direct efforts” that incentivise these practices.

“Where Singapore can step up is (through) incentives and regulations that encourage reuse, setting of circular targets and monitoring the developments to make this shift (reduction in plastic consumption) happen,” said the spokesperson.

Prof Tan said that public education “as well as (a) little nudging from behavioral science can skew consumption patterns for less plastics”.

The onus lies with responsible consumption habits and patterns.

On their part, groups such as ZeroWasteSG and Plastic-Lite Singapore have been conducting outreach programmes to educate the public on the importance of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle).

Zero-waste grocery stores, Unpackt and Reprovisions, said they have noticed an increase in the number of customers since they opened this year.

While opinions remain divided over punitive government policies against the use of single-use plastics, some firms and academic institutions in Singapore have implemented some form of regulations on their own.

Fast-food outlet Kentucky Fried Chicken has stopped issuing straws, while food delivery company Foodpanda gives customers the option to say no to disposable cutlery.

Both NUS and the Singapore Management University (SMU) have placed a straw ban on their respective campuses, while the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) introduced a levy on plastic bags issued by retailers on campus.

MIXED PUBLIC REACTIONS

Consumers’ reaction to the initiatives has been mixed. The ban on straws, for example, created unhappiness among some undergraduates.

SMU student Leonard Wong said the straw ban caused some inconvenience for him and his friends when it was first introduced on campus. But six months on, he feels that they have gotten used to it.

Still, the information systems undergraduate said that more thought could have been put into the implementation. “Sometimes we buy packet drinks and we can’t drink it (if we don’t have reusable straws),” he said.

Singaporeans spoken to were generally lukewarm towards a ban or surcharge on the use of single-use plastics.

Madam Ang Kim Hing, 70, said: “If it’s 10 cents a bag and I buy a lot of groceries, I could be adding at least 50 cents to my bill.” She pointed out that it is not as if the bags go to waste as she uses them to dispose her garbage at home.

While she was aware of the push for recycling, the Yew Tee resident noted that there were no conveniently-located recycling bins near her flat.

Data scientist Allan Chua, who has been actively trying to lead a plastic-lite lifestyle with his wife for the past five years, felt that public acceptance of any policy restricting the use of plastics will take some time.

“But we need to get everyone to play their part. We can — by educating people to understand that we shouldn’t always think about ourselves,” said the 31-year-old.

Among those playing their part is Ms Sophia Huang, 33.

She has made it her mission to upcycle — also known as creative reuse — everyday household items into toys for her five-year-old daughter and two-and-a-half-year-old son.

Among her creations: A marble track set made out of cardboard rolls; a racing car created with a plastic bottle, straws, bottle caps and a balloon; and a model of the solar system out of a mishmash of materials.

For this festive season, the children’s book author and her daughter created a nativity scene out of toilet rolls and an old box.

For store-bought toys that are given to the children only on special occasions, Ms Huang repairs them when they are spoilt.

READ: Sophia Huang’s commentary on turning trash into treasure, teaching kids upcycling

Besides serving as a bonding session with her children, she sees it as a way to teach them the value of rejecting a throwaway mindset.

“Now my daughter knows that we can fix things when they are broken, and not just throw them away,” said Ms Huang, who tries to teach other children about upcycling at her school talks.

When you appreciate nature … you develop an emotional connection and you’ll be more likely to protect it.

SINGAPORE: Singapore Silat exponents won seven gold medals in the 18th World Pencak Silat Championship held here over the weekend, the team’s best-ever showing at the event.

The team wrapped up with four more golds on Sunday (Dec 16) after winning three on Saturday in the artistic category of the sport.

Singapore’s Sheik Ferdous on Sunday beat Asian Games gold medallist, Vietnam’s Nguyen Van Tri, in Class I (85-90kg).

Sheik Ferdous, 22, said: “The Vietnamese opponent was very determined to win against me … I just had to hold my ground and not let the pressure get to me.”

His brother Sheik Farhan, 21, claimed his third world title after successfully defeating Pham Khac Troung from Vietam, in Class J (90-95kg) with a score of 5-0. 

“It’s nice to hear the crowd cheer when you win and see familiar faces, with our families and friends here to support us,” he said. 

Singapore’s Nurul Suhaila claimed her first world title after beating Thailand’s Janejira Wankrue in Class D (60-65kg). 

The 23 year-old athlete was in tears when she was announced as the winner.

“Before I entered the arena I was calm and a little nervous as usual, but I was confident that I would not let this chance slip through my fingers again,” she said.

Team Singapore’s youngest member, 17-year-old Muhammad Hazim Mohd Yusli, won Singapore’s last gold of the tournament in Class B (50-55kg).

Singapore’s medal tally over two days of competition is seven golds, six silvers and seven bronzes.

More than 300 athletes from over 40 countries competed at the tournament, which was co-organised by Singapore Silat Federation and Aladdin Street Singapore. 

SINGAPORE: Singapore Silat exponents won seven gold medals in the 18th World Pencak Silat Championship held here over the weekend, the team’s best-ever showing at the event.

The team wrapped up with four more golds on Sunday (Dec 16) after winning three on Saturday in the artistic category of the sport.

Singapore’s Sheik Ferdous on Sunday beat Asian Games gold medallist, Vietnam’s Nguyen Van Tri, in Class I (85-90kg).

Sheik Ferdous, 22, said: “The Vietnamese opponent was very determined to win against me … I just had to hold my ground and not let the pressure get to me.”

His brother Sheik Farhan, 21, claimed his third world title after successfully defeating Pham Khac Troung from Vietam, in Class J (90-95kg) with a score of 5-0. 

“It’s nice to hear the crowd cheer when you win and see familiar faces, with our families and friends here to support us,” he said. 

Singapore’s Nurul Suhaila claimed her first world title after beating Thailand’s Janejira Wankrue in Class D (60-65kg). 

The 23 year-old athlete was in tears when she was announced as the winner.

“Before I entered the arena I was calm and a little nervous as usual, but I was confident that I would not let this chance slip through my fingers again,” she said.

Team Singapore’s youngest member, 17-year-old Muhammad Hazim Mohd Yusli, won Singapore’s last gold of the tournament in Class B (50-55kg).

Singapore’s medal tally over two days of competition is seven golds, six silvers and seven bronzes.

More than 300 athletes from over 40 countries competed at the tournament, which was co-organised by Singapore Silat Federation and Aladdin Street Singapore. 

SINGAPORE: When her two sons – aged four and six – misbehave, Therese Tay either smacks them on the bum or palm, or chooses to send them to a “naughty corner” to reflect on themselves.

But just like all but one out of 10 parents interviewed by Channel NewsAsia, the 38-year-old is unaware of the point where physical discipline becomes illegal and potentially a criminal act.

“Lawfully and technically, no,” said Ms Tay. “But personally, I think it would be where it is repeated, causes or is likely to cause grave injury, and is not really done to teach the child anything but rather to relieve anger or gain a feeling of power.”

Any act that causes injury to a child – including deliberately causing bruises, cuts and others by actions such as beating, shaking and “excessive discipline” – constitutes physical abuse, according to the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).

And under the Children and Young Persons Act, physical abuse – and the causing of “unnecessary” physical pain, suffering or injury – amounts to ill-treatment. This was the charge levelled at a 35-year-old man for beating his son, nine, last year.

The father had held the boy upside down by one leg, hit him with a hanger and kicked him among other acts. A neighbour called the police when he heard a child crying out, thinking it was child abuse. 

Some lawyers, however, acknowledged the legislation as “quite broad” and potentially confusing for the average parent.

“There is no clear demarcation when punishment crosses the line,” said Shashi Nathan, the regional head of dispute resolution and partner at law firm Withers KhattarWong. “What is looked at is whether the punishment is appropriate and reasonable. Obviously when real and long-term harm and physical injury is caused, then the line is clearly crossed.”

Lin Xiaoling, the deputy director of advocacy and public education at the Singapore Children’s Society, said: “There is often a very thin line between discipline and child abuse.

“Rather than debate on where to fix the line before punishment becomes illegal, our focus can instead be on helping families become safer and stronger … The simple rule to remember is: ‘Every child has the right to feel safe all the time.’”

“A SOFTER APPROACH” THESE DAYS?

When he first heard of the case of the father imprisoned for ill-treating his son, veteran family lawyer Rajan Chettiar said he was “a little taken aback”.

“Such behaviour was very common during the days when I was a kid – which is about 40 years ago,” he said. “Now, this is seen as child abuse and illegal.”

All the parents Channel NewsAsia spoke to were physically punished by their own parents too – whether by hand, cane, ruler or belt – and one said: “In those days, it was quite normal for my sister and I to be beaten into submission.”

“My siblings and I grew up perfectly fine,” said Michelle Ang, editor of The New Age Parents online magazine and community. “Now we are older, we understand it was my mother’s way of teaching us right from wrong. We don’t blame her for the ‘hurt’ she inflicted, because we know it comes from good intentions.

“Of course, not everyone who grew up being caned by their parents might feel the same way as me and my siblings, because we all receive and internalise these experiences differently.”

Yet what was once a strictly private family affair can easily spill into the open today, when filmed and uploaded to social media.

Last month, a child was videoed kneeling and being slapped in a car park – prompting outrage online as well as MSF and police investigations. And earlier this year, a Facebook clip of a man caning and kicking a boy also sparked polarising debate over whether it was plain abuse. 

“I do see today’s parents taking a softer approach when it comes to disciplining children,” said Ms Ang. “This could be why, when such cases of corporal punishments get leaked on social media, they generate a stronger reaction from the public.”

Asked for their thoughts on potentially being filmed punishing their children, one parent said: “If this saves a kid from abusive parents, then it’s not a bad thing at all. And if you’re not unreasonable, then you should have nothing to fear.”

But another slammed the practice, saying there are “too many keyboard warriors sharing incidents where there is usually more than meets the eye”.

Ms Tay commented: “People need to do less of the showing – on social media – and more of the doing, for example approaching the family and asking if they can help (or) asking what’s wrong.”

CROSSING THE LINE

Parents also revealed their internal safeguards for ensuring they do not cross the line while punishing their kids, with some choosing to restrict the volume or intensity of caning while others make it a point to remind themselves of the purpose – to discipline rather than express anger.

“I try to keep my emotions in check and be rational,” said a mother of two daughters. “And verbal warnings are given before any caning, to make sure the child understands the next course of action will be the cane if she doesn’t behave.”

Said Ms Lin of the Children’s Society: “Many parents’ intention may be to discipline their child, but asserting power using brute force means one can easily cross the line, simply because the child is much smaller and weaker than the adult.

“There are alternatives to physical punishment when it comes to discipline,” she added. “We urge parents to explore and try other methods and logical consequences, including withdrawal of privilege, reasoning and explaining.”

Speaking in her personal capacity, Ms Ang said: “I don’t think corporal punishment is totally wrong or should be banished or totally frowned upon. How a parent chooses to discipline their child is their choice – and not for me to judge or intervene, unless it crosses the line of unlawful territory.”

Should a member of the public be worried about a child’s safety, there is a range of reporting options (see below) – but MSF noted that in the event a life is in danger, people should immediately call the police.

“The urgent question to ask ourselves is: ‘Could this child be in danger, whether now or later?’” Ms Lin advised. “And the next is: ‘Should I be worried that the child could possibly be harmed, in any way?’

“Injuries could both be seen and unseen. So if we are unsure, it is always safer to tell or ask someone who can help.”

She said: “Informing the authorities of a case does not mean an immediate report. It can be to voice out your concern and seek advice on what to do next … Don’t wait until it becomes too late.

“Families, neighbours, schools, agencies, the public. We all make up the village that keeps our children safe.”

To report concerns over a child’s safety, the public can dial MSF’s Child Protective Service Helpline (1800 777 000) or ComCare Call (1800 222 0000).

They can also contact any of the Child Protection Specialist Centres (Big Love, HEART@Fei Yue and Safe Space), Family Violence Specialist Centres (PAVE, TRANS SAFE Centre and Care Corner Project StART) or visit breakthesilence.sg.

Children who need support can call Tinkle Friend (1800 2744 788).

CONNECTICUT: There is a crisis in American undergraduate higher education requiring a shift away from spurious magazine rankings, unacceptable graduation rates, inequitable admissions selectivity, rising costs, and administrative and faculty inefficiency to a more fundamental problem: Students do not learn enough in college, period.

This higher learning crisis is not unique to the United States, although there it is more documented and publicly discussed. For the past several decades, high costs and unemployment catalysed public demand for greater accountability and learning assessment.

Many countries, unlike the United States, rely on exit exams, but only recently have researchers studied institutions’ impact on learning compared to appropriate peers – how much, for example, is institutional quality a measure of learning caused by attendance at a specific institution versus entrance selectivity, what is known as the “diamonds in, diamonds out” phenomenon.

Other countries have emulated American universities because of prestigious worldwide rankings, but such emulation may be hollow as rankings are based on scholarship and research prowess, measured by numbers of publications and scholarly citations, not undergraduate learning.

READ: Singapore and Singaporeans lose when universities chase after world rankings, a commentary

Indeed, higher education globally continues to follow a relatively passive learning tradition with full responsibility for learning placed on students. 

Ironically, some of the world’s best teaching and learning now happens on campuses jointly run by host countries and American universities, like Yale and the National University of Singapore. 

A new beginning allows faculty the freedom and creativity to develop more efficacious, learner-centred curricula and pedagogy.

GRADUATES STILL FAILS TO THINK CRITICALLY

Too many graduates are not prepared to think critically and creatively, speak and write cogently, solve problems, comprehend complex issues, accept accountability, take the perspective of others, or meet employer expectations. 

In their 2010 book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa provide statistical evidence that most students do not make significant gains in critical thinking, problem solving, analytical reasoning and written communication skills while in college – showing that the gap between what institutions promise and what they deliver has become a chasm.

In 2006, the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education scathingly labelled higher education as “risk-aversive,” “self-satisfied,” “unduly expensive” and “ineffective.”

In a landmark study, Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College, the Association of American Colleges and Universities relayed the urgency:

Even as college attendance is rising, the performance of too many students is faltering.

This costly failure – in the face of a seemingly inexorable precipitous rise in tuition costs and student loan burden – must be resolved to sustain political, social, economic, and scientific leadership. 

The claim that the American system of higher education is the “best in the world” has become an empty accolade masking inadequate quality and quantity of learning.

Culture off and on campus is at the heart of the matter. The United States has bastardised the bachelor’s degree by turning it into a ticket to a job. 

Meanwhile, the academy has adopted an increasingly customer-based ethic reaping costly effects: “Professional training” has displaced the expectations and standards of a rigorous liberal education – with teaching and learning devalued, deprioritised and replaced by an emphasis on simpleminded metrics that feed magazine rankings, enrolment, winning teams, facilities, with more revenue from sideline businesses.

Teaching duties are increasingly left to adjunct faculty with few incentives for tenure-track faculty to spend time with undergraduates or improve teaching. 

Expectations for hard work in college have fallen victim to smorgasbord-style curricula, large lecture classes, institutional needs to retain students in order to make the budget and inflated grades for minimal student effort. 

None of this makes for higher learning.

READ: Time for Singapore universities to switch gears, a commentary

DISCONNECTED FROM LEARNING

The prevailing academic culture purveys a curricular and teaching model of credit hours per course founded on the presumption that topics and skills should be packaged into one or two courses, such as freshman composition, or a series of courses in a major or minor. 

Each course or series, presumed to stand alone, signifies a module of learning achievement.

That module – even if it comprises the requirements for a minor or major – is too often compartmentalised and disconnected from other learning during that semester. 

This system conveys to students and teachers alike that learning occurs best when students stack individual courses like building blocks – as if learning becomes greater as the pile grows. But that assumption is false. No mortar connects these blocks; they topple easily, and the learning is disconnected and ephemeral.

A renewed academic culture must embrace the cumulative and collective nature of higher learning. 

The core learning outcomes proffered by higher education – critical thinking, effective written and oral communication, the ability to use rather than simply acquire knowledge to solve problems – are ineffectively attained in one or two required courses or random out-of-classroom learning experiences. One or two writing seminars are insufficient for producing competent writers.

A required general education course in critical thinking alone cannot teach how to evaluate credibility of information and solve problems. Students do not learn qualities of effective leadership solely by serving as an elected officer of a student organisation. 

It is not surprising, then, to hear faculty lament, “They were supposed to learn how to ___ before they got to my course,” filling the blank in with any number of skills.

Autonomy of disciplines, lack of true investment in general education, absence of faculty consensus about what students should learn across the curriculum, and weakness of academic advising undermine any sense of coherence in students’ learning. The consequence – and working assumption – is that constructing coherence among individual courses and learning experiences is the student’s responsibility alone.  

Success in achieving core higher-learning outcomes requires an approach best accomplished cumulatively – requiring more instruction, practice, assessment and feedback than is now provided, or expected, within single courses or other isolated learning experiences.

Learning how to think and write creatively, for example, are skills optimally learned over the span of an entire undergraduate programme intentionally planned and assessed by faculty and staff across all courses and programmes. Writing-across-the-curriculum initiatives are one example of the application of this idea, but the concept can also include across-the-curriculum demand for critical thinking, problem solving and ethical development.

This is not to suggest that such core outcomes are content free. One must think and write about something, and subject-matter expertise is a necessary, contextual condition.

CUMULATIVE LEARNING

Offering a smorgasbord of course offerings in the name of “student interest” only serves to reify the belief that the student as customer knows best. Knowledge acquisition by itself is not sufficient; higher learning entails the ability to apply such knowledge, using it to inform one’s thinking, writing or discourse.

While disciplinary competence necessarily differs across courses and programs, the core work of higher learning becomes cumulative when coursework reinforces common outcomes, intentionally progressing in complexity and sophistication towards collectively established learning goals.

For example, a well-written paper in history offering a critical analysis of the causes of World War I would share standards for critical thinking and effective writing with a paper analysing threats to biodiversity. A cumulative approach to higher learning requires that students are taught to an increasingly higher standard of competence – thus, a more integrative, stable and coherent education

Cumulative learning requires faculty to collectively agree on which outcomes, expectations and standards to share and endorse, reinforcing them throughout all courses. 

Faculty must provide timely and appropriate feedback to students. Understanding “faculty” as a collective noun responsible for outcomes involves a substantial institutional culture shift.

READ: University professors must teach more, have industry experience, a commentary

A college education that fails to ensure that students learn is not worth the cost at any price. High cost plus poor quality equals low value. The answer is not throwing money at problems. Societies must take steps to improve the quality and quantity of learning, changing the very culture of higher education as a whole.

Richard H Hersh was formerly president at Trinity College and Hobart and William Smith Colleges. He now teaches at Yale University’s Education Studies Programme. Richard Keeling is president of Keeling and Associates, a higher education consulting practice, and formerly vice president for Student Affairs at the University of Wisconsin.

They are authors of We’re Losing Our Minds: Rethinking American Higher Education. This commentary first appeared in Yale Global Online. Read it here.

SINGAPORE: He sustained his first fracture three days after he was born, spending nine days in hospital then. The 13-year-old has since suffered more than 50 fractures of his legs, arms and spine.

All his life, Tamimi Pohan has been unable to walk by himself. He has brittle bone disease (osteogenesis imperfecta), which means the bones are deformed and break easily. There is no cure.

His mother Sarina Siregar admitted: “My heart was broken when I heard this news (of the diagnosis).”

But she put that heartbreak aside to be a pillar of positivity in bringing up her son.

As Tamimi himself said: “My mother’s always telling me to be positive. She always tells me, ‘If others can, surely you can. Never give up.’”

Indeed, perseverance is a must-have not only for him, but also his parents. For it takes a lot to care for children with disabilities, as the programme On The Red Dot finds out in following the lives of three families. (Watch this episode here.)

They have to battle disappointment, face up to their limitations and beat the odds as a family.

TRIAL AND ERROR

One of the reasons it has been a “struggle” for the Pohan family is that it has been a process of “trial and error”, with no one to teach them, said Mdm Siregar.

For example, one time when they used a baby carrier to take Tamini out, he suffered a fractured leg. “So from there, we learnt what we could do and what we couldn’t,” she added.

They must be “extra careful” not to let him fall, said his father Muliadi Pohan. But even holding him too hard would break his bones.

It was a bit easier before last year, as Tamimi was not fully wheelchair-bound. But after a spinal injury, it became safer for him to stay in his wheelchair instead of trying to walk with assistance.

“When he moves, there’s a pain,” said his mother. “So now, since he can’t move much … we have to shower him.”

He must also wear diapers owing to the difficulty of going to the toilet.

Every morning, his father carries him out of bed on to the floor, and then he crawls to the bathroom. Mr Pohan, who has had a heart attack, cannot carry his son much more than that.

Said the teenager: “Crawling on the floor to the bathroom is dirty, but I have no choice.”

Added his father: “When I see Tamimi dragging himself across the floor, I feel sad. But I also have to let him be independent for the sake of his future.”

His mother sometimes feels another kind of sadness when they go out and she hears certain remarks people make.

“They say that this boy is naughty. That’s why he fell down and he’s in a cast,” she cited. Then there are others who say her son’s illness must be “karma for what (we’ve) done”. This, she said, “really hurts”.

MONEY MATTERS

At the same time, Mdm Siregar has felt the kindness of strangers. She uses the crowdfunding website Give.asia to raise money for Tamimi’s transport, tuition and diaper expenses. And there have been willing donors.

Her son needs wheelchair-accessible transport like vans or London cabs, and the family spends S$1,600 a month on his rides alone.

With a combined monthly income of around S$5,000, they are middle-income parents – she does administration work, and her husband is a production operator – so getting help from agencies for their family of four “isn’t easy”, she said.

In the months when they are short of money, the couple must decide what payments to make and what to defer.

On one occasion, for example, they paid half of the utilities bill, hoping to pay the balance the next month. That was the same approach Mr Pohan suggested when it came to the day-care centre fee for his mother-in-law.

“Call them and ask if we can pay for a month first. When we have the money later, we’ll pay for the second month,” he told his wife.

Tamimi is well aware of the financial situation. Around seven months ago, he made a video to thank his Give.asia donors. And more recently, after his Primary School Leaving Examination, he suggested staying at home, instead of going to school.

“No need (for me) to go to school because there’s nothing there to do,” he told his parents. “There are no lessons. Why not … keep the (transport) money for the future?”

Sharing his thoughts later, he said: “I feel sorry for my parents because they have to take care of me all the time.”

FAMILY TIES

Despite the challenges, Mr Pohan is not the kind to complain. “As the head of the family and the husband, I’ve tried my best,” he said. “For the sake of my family, I’ll keep on fighting.”

There are times when he has money to spare, and can pay for a taxi to take Tamimi fishing. The fare can go up to S$50, he said, but fishing is one of the things both father and son enjoy.

“When I see him catch a fish, he’s happy and I’m happy for him too,” said Mr Pohan. “I’d lose all my worries and problems that I keep inside … when I see Tamimi enjoying himself.”

The two have a “very close relationship”, he added. “I don’t regard him as a son but more as a friend.”

Just as both parents show Tamimi their love in ways big and small, he does the same to them. “I’d hug them and kiss them and say that I love you,” he said.

While he may be suffering from a rare genetic disorder, they take care of him “as if he’s a normal person”, said his father.

“It’s just that sometimes we cannot but think about how his future would be like when we’re old,” added Mr Pohan.

“I feel sad wondering how he’d manage after I’m gone, how he’d live, what his future and his marriage life would be like. Whatever happens, we’ll accept it and continue to live our lives on a day-to-day basis.”

Tamimi has an 18-year-old sister, Tiurma. And there is a fifth member of the household, their domestic helper Dwi Lestari. Having the latter around, said Mdm Siregar, “isn’t a luxury but a need, for looking after Tamimi”.

After about nine years of working for the family, however, Ms Lestari does not see him as just a boy she takes care of.

“Tamimi knows I’m only the helper, but Tamimi always tells me, ‘You’re not my helper, you’re my sister,’” she said. “He’s like my friend, my brother. I can talk to him (about everything), when I’m sad and when I’m happy.”

Agreeing that they are close, he said: “We watch television together … and we’d always share our thoughts.”

WISHES COME TRUE

One group whom Tamimi is not close to are his classmates. “I don’t have any good friends in school. I think I’m physically different from them. It makes me feel sad,” he said.

“When others see me, they’d give me a weird face and stare at me. I’d just ignore and not think about it any more because it’s better to ignore.”

He had always wanted to share with them how he felt as a pupil with disabilities. And he finally did so after deciding to give a speech to his school, Gan Eng Seng Primary, on its graduation day.

“Sometimes I don’t feel like going to school because during recess, when all of you play in the canteen, I was in the classroom having food with my helper. When you all went for swimming lessons, I was left alone,” he told them.

“I hope that the school can give support to special needs people, especially those who are in a wheelchair, like me.”

To the On The Red Dot team, Tamimi and his family were an inspiration. So on his birthday, the team offered to pay for a professional photoshoot, as none in the family have ever had a family portrait.

“I didn’t think that we could do a photoshoot, as it’s not really affordable for my parents,” he said.

Besides getting the portrait of their dreams, they also got to cherish “family bonding time” on the day of the photoshoot, said Tiurma.

Watch this episode here. New episodes of On The Red Dot air on Mediacorp Channel 5 every Friday at 9.30pm.

SINGAPORE: My family and I found ourselves among the toy aisles of a shopping centre on Orchard Road over the Black Friday weekend. Bad idea. 

The five-year-old started whining to buy a toy. 

“Let’s get her out quickly,” said the hubs. “Before she gets sucked in to all the consumerism.”

It is a constant daily battle that I fight as a parent to two young children in a land of plenty. My children are so blessed, it would not be an exaggeration to say they receive gifts from friends, families or teachers once or twice every week.

Against this backdrop, I started to question how I could inculcate a sense of gratitude and appreciation in my children for the gifts they receive so easily and the hard work that earned the money to purchase them.

READ: This festive season, parents should exercise self-control in giving, a commentary

TURNING TRASH INTO TREASURE

Since day one as a parent, I’ve tried to pinch pennies whenever I can to save costs. At the same time, I’m always on the lookout for activities that I can do to spark their interest and develop their creativity.

I found a happy way to merge both these goals when I started upcycling.

The first major project that I attempted was a cardboard kitchen, inspired by the many parenting posts on social media. 

I worked late into the night, gathering different sized boxes and old CDs, cutting, glueing and pasting. It cost me about S$8 – for kitchen paper, metal racks and magnets – but brought my kid the same amount of joy as a similar one that costs around S$200 and up.

After that, upcycling became fun and additive even, and I would often be brimming with ideas on how to turn trash into treasure. 

We turned toilet rolls into gift packaging and even a nativity scene, while plastic bottles became maracas or balloon cars. Cardboard boxes were the holy grail of upcycling – their versatility allowed them to be transformed into food stall stands, dog houses or whatever we could imagine.

One day, I was in for a surprise. On her own accord, my daughter used takeaway chopsticks, bubble wrap and rough paper and turned them into a family of puppet rabbits and ducks!

My older child has learnt that we don’t just consume but we can also create things. Through this process, we have learnt to appreciate that it takes time, effort and energy to create products. 

Making things by hand has also made us less likely to discard something without any thought. The best part about doing these activities with my kids was that it bonded us as a family.

INVEST IN TIME, AND LESS IN MONEY

I’m far from an eco warrior – I still shop online but try to buy only what I need. However, collecting and transforming trash has created in me and my kids a certain mindfulness about the environment and the waste that we generate.

We accept hand-me-down clothes, toys and books with open arms, try to buy used instead of new, and regularly collect recyclables that we can use for crafting projects.

I’m hoping my children will catch this philosophy – that we don’t just spend money accumulating stuff, but spend time building relationships.

After all, the love that we give them will never go to waste.

Sophia Huang is a children’s author, copy editor and mother of two. She runs a Facebook page called Craftcycle for Kids.

SINGAPORE: Viewing property, be it an HDB flat or a condo unit, is a big deal. One thing’s for certain: it’s not just about walking into rooms, feeling the vibe or looking out of the window.

To really know if a property is worth your consideration, prospective buyers must become a property detective.

Include these must-dos in your checklist when you go property hunting and before you sign the legal documents, and save yourself some precious time and headache.

And if there are any issues that you’re okay to deal with yourself, spotting these will also give you the leverage to negotiate the property’s price downwards.

THE FIVE THING YOU MUST CHECK WHEN VIEWING PROPERTY

1. The piping

The kitchen may look nice, but it’s what lurks beneath that really matters.

Don’t feel paiseh (“shy” in Hokkien) when viewing property; just ask for permission to open the cupboards and check the pipes.

Make sure that there are no leaks, mould or cracks, as any defects would necessitate a costly and/or troublesome repair.

Mould will also emit a pungent smell if left untreated, and is unhygienic for the family. Check metal piping for any evidence of corrosion.

The same goes for pipes in the bathroom and the service yard. Pipes connected to floor drainage, as in the case of a bathtub, must be visually inspected for any defects.

2. Scan the flooring

Remember to look down when viewing property. If the apartment has hardwood/parquet flooring, check that there aren’t any loose pieces, or areas that are rotting from water seepage (pieces that have signs of water damage will have blackened edges).

You’d also want the wood to be smooth and well-maintained. In particular, the varnish (smooth protective coat) shouldn’t have worn off, exposing the actual wood to wear and tear.

If the flooring is tiled, tiles should not be missing, chipped, cracked, or popped out. (Damaged tiles are the most difficult to fix; you might not even be able to find a replacement tile!)

For vinyl/laminated flooring, make sure that are no uneven spots, which you can feel under your feet.

3. Inspect cabinets/wardrobes for termites

If the apartment comes with wooden cabinets in the kitchen and built-in wooden furniture such as wardrobes, ask to check the insides for signs of termites and other insects.

Signs of termites include the presence of wings, holes, sawdust and/or termite droppings. When viewing property, bring a torchlight to illuminate those dim cupboard corners.

4. Flick the switches

No, it’s not itchy fingers. When viewing property, try every switch to see if it works. If the lights or water heater doesn’t come on, it could be that a new bulb is needed, or there are some wiring problems that require an electrician’s attention. The sooner you realise it, the better.

5. Study the walls and ceilings

Walls and ceilings should be stainless and without cracked paints or exposed concrete. If the wall or ceiling has a yellowish/brownish/greenish stain or paint that looks like it’s peeling, flaking off or bubbling, it means that there’s probably a leakage problem.

For ceilings, this could mean the problem originates from the unit directly above, which will be near impossible to solve without involving the resident in the above unit (usually with the intervention of HDB or condo management, depending on the property).

If the owner has hacked existing walls in the apartment you’re viewing, make sure you check against the floor plan and make sure the wall that’s hacked isn’t a load-bearing wall.

Meanwhile, check partition walls (drywalls) for any dents. Holes where paintings or hooks used to be will need filling. Again, be sure to check behind furniture.

You might also want to ask the agent or homeowner about the type of paint used as it might be material that isn’t child-friendly.

This article first appeared on 99.co.

SINGAPORE: When buying a car, many individuals think about getting a used car because it is cheaper than a spanking new one.

At our car dealership company, we have seen a rising interest in used cars as the number of enquiries surged over the years. Every month, we get hundreds of calls from enthusiasts looking for used car options. On the other hand, we get approximately 50 enquiries about new cars every month.

Used cars are a popular option because of their affordability. The price difference is substantial. A very new car can be bought for as low as S$80,000 given prevailing record low COE prices. However, depending on how many years you want on your car, you can get a used car for as low as S$10,000.

Used cars give people more options because there are various models that you can buy at different price points that feed different needs. For example, if you want to drive a Toyota Altis because it’s a fuel-efficient option, but find a brand new one too expensive, you can always find a used model in the market, which will cost much less, depending on its age and condition.

Despite this, we advise people to buy new cars if they can afford it, because a used car may incur hidden expenses along the way.

THE UNKNOWN HISTORY OF A USED CAR

The problem with used cars is that you will never really fully know the true history of a used car before you buy it. Every owner uses their car differently, and as such the mechanical components of the car go through different rates of wear and tear. 

For example, some owners might just use the car as a daily commute to work, clocking less than 50km a day, whereas some other owners have to drive around the whole day as part of their job as an outdoor salesperson, doing as much as 100 to 200km a day. 

There are also limitations to a mechanic’s inspection. It is impossible to inspect certain parts such as the engine and transmission interiors for any signs of wear and tear, or worse still, cracks and damaged parts, without having to tear them apart.

Consumers might think that the Lemon Law that protects consumers against defective goods including used cars, but there are some difficulties in enforcing this. For a start, certain mechanical faults may not be covered under lemon law. Wear and tear issues are not be covered under lemon law. Even the definition of “wear and tear” itself is also subject to debate.

The Lemon Law is also not valid if you were informed about of these faults before the purchase. So it’s no surprise that car dealers try to cover themselves as much as possible, by getting customers to sign checklists that state that the car is in good condition during the purchase.

As such, when an issue crops up after the purchase, from small issues like light bulb failures, to the more serious engine, transmission, suspension noises, and even air-conditioning failures, the dealer will not entertain claims as customers had confirmed that goods were in order when the deal was made.  

Customers are signing up for a big risk when they purchase a used car, problems that don’t present if they bought a new car covered by warranties instead. 

For example, an engine oil leak might require a top engine overhaul, which might cost you hundreds of dollars in repairs. Also, problems like air conditioner compressor failing, radiator coolant leaks, alternator failures are all common in used cars, and all costs hundreds of dollars each to rectify, and there is a high probability of these problems occurring.

Car maintenance can also be an ongoing process. Once an issue has been fixed, another issue may emerge in another part of the car. Used car owners have to live with the nagging feeling that they could have chosen another way instead of having to pay maintenance fees as and when such issues emerge.

CYCLICAL NATURE OF COE IS A BOON

This is the best time to buy a new car because the current Certificate of Entitlement (COE) is at a record low in over eight years. 

The transacted COE price for Category A cars of 1,600cc and below was at S$25,000 in end-November, compared to the peak of S$92,100 in January 2013. 

Cars with 1,600 cc and above in Category B fetched S$31,101, compared to the peak of S$96,210. That means saving almost S$60,000 alone in COE if you were to buy the same make and model today compared to just six years ago.

Individuals who buy new cars during this period will also benefit from the cyclical nature of COE. If customers buy a new car now, in the next ten years when it’s time to buy another new car, COE will very likely be low too, since the supply of COEs is dependent on the number of cars deregistered each month assuming demand holds constant. 

In fact, the reason for the current low COE is the relatively high supply of COEs now. 10 years ago, in 2008, there was an ample supply of COEs, and Category A COE prices came crashing down to S$2 in November 2008 amidst weak consumer sentiment during the Global Financial Crisis.   

These COEs from a decade ago must be deregistered and pumped back into the supply of COEs, and are more or less a direct cause for the low prices we are seeing now.

AFFORDABLE NEW CARS IN THE MARKET

A brand new Honda Fit Hybrid for example, is about S$74,800 with COE. This means that the depreciation is only about S$7,000 a year. A used 2010 Honda Fit petrol, for example, is selling at S$8,000 depreciation a year.

Due to the low COE prices, many new cars are relatively more affordable now, compared to a few years ago and are not that different in price from the average used car after you factor in the costs of maintaining an older one.

READ: As reality dawns on consumers, time to question if private-hire cars advance our car-lite drive, a commentary

At the end of the day, when buying a car, it’s important to keep in mind their functionality and consider if you really need a car given your budgetary constraints first and foremost.

If you’ve done your calculations and conclude that you still want to own a car, investing in a durable mode of transport for the next ten years by buying a new car is definitely a better long-term option over buying a used car in today’s market.

Paying more for a new car will give you a greater peace of mind, and save you significant maintenance fees in the future.

Galvin Khong is Group Director at Vin’s Automotive Group, which offers vehicle rental, leasing and financing services, in addition to the sales of used and new cars.