Charging teachers for carpark.

Actually, it is defensible to charge teachers for carpark fees in schools' carparks. 

Recall that MOE said it is a taxable benefit. This means that it ought to be added to a teacher's monthly pay and then declared to the Inland Revenue to be taxed. 

This higher amount would mean more tax revenue for the government. That's added tax lost if the benefit is not included in the declaration of a teacher's pay. 

So, the next sensible thing to do is to charge teachers for it. At an annual rate of $960 for cars, MOE can't complain that it is a loss of taxable benefit anymore. 

In fact, the government would reap even higher revenue from the parking charges than merely including the benefit in the teacher's pay to be taxed. 

Should MOE then notationally add the parking charges to a teacher's income for tax rather than make each of them pay for it? Mm...

It is thus hoped that these parking collection from 360 primary and secondary schools and junior colleges would be put to charitable use for more equal redistribution of wealth. Fingers crossed?

Then comes the Auditor-General's Office when they scoured the economic grid of our little red dot and noticed that teachers are getting away with free parking. 

It reports that "the fact that teachers have never had to pay for parking in schools came under the spotlight in 2015 when Auditor-General's Office report faulted some educational institutions for allowing their staff to park for free, or at fees below the market rate."

Again, that's revenue lost and it is unfairness detected since lecturers at Poly had to pay for parking. 

So, the above explains why teachers have to pay parking charges come this August. 

At this point, I recall the management guru Peter Drucker once said that "if you don't measure it, you can't manage it."

And from an economic point of view, our government has measured everything to the tee, and all the dots neatly placed on the "i". 

Nothing escapes their vigilant eye from their panopticon tower. Nothing that can be technocratically harvested for income is to be missed. 

Their sense of fiscal responsibility is not only sharp, but defensively high. And their dedication to economic growth is of a high standard of exactitude. 

Lesson? Mm...I always wonder, Is our government willing or prepared to sacrifice economic growth for X?" 

This "X" can be anything, but intangible and immeasurable. 

For example, it can be the value of a housewife who stays home to nurture her children, the value of a man who gives up his job to do community work, or the value of a teacher who works long, thankless hours to build up the self-esteem of students so that they may contribute to society, not just economically but socially and spiritually. 

Now let me be clear that I am not saying that our government is not helping these groups of people in society, that is, the disadvantaged and poor. There are undeniably many programs to reach out to them. 

But what I am asking goes deeper, that is, how much more is our government seeking to raise the economic tide in a hopeful bid to redistribute the fruits of economic growth more equally to all and sundry? 

That is also related to my question above, "Is our government willing or prepared to sacrifice economic growth for X?" 

Here I recall this saying, some attributed it to Albert Einstein, who once wrote on a blackboard: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Yes, there are many value-added activities in our society that cannot be measured (or counted) in an Auditor-General report or captured in our GDP. And they count a lot to the people. 

We may charge teacher the use of a parking lot in a school and deem that as a plus for government revenue and growth. 

But how do we put a price on sacrifices, learning, encouragement, inspiration and guidance that teacher give to each child that makes their way to school?

And by extension, we can put a money value on psf (that is, per square feet), charge a cubic meter of space in a land strata title, or even penalise companies for carbon emission, but how do we put a money value on psi (that is, per social impact) that teachers, educators and school counsellors render tirelessly just to bridge the gap of learning and character growth in our future generation? 

Should our government pay them much more per social impact to offset the charge for per square feet of parking space they use to educate our children?

While making them pay for parking lots makes sound economic sense, and is a defensible economic policy to increase our reserve, does it send a signal to the society at large that we are forward looking, wise (not just a smart nation), understanding and gracious? 

Or does it send a signal to society that as far as our government is concerned, only what can be counted counts, and what cannot be counted, well, it just doesn't count?

Alas, the inventor of the holy grail of measurement of all economic activities known today as "GDP", Simon Kuznets, (who regretted how it was misused), once asked this: "What are we growing? And why?"

Mm...I think that question is still very relevant to our society, our government and our technocratic leaders. 

Sometimes, it would really help to have a government that inspires hope, and not just one that is ruthlessly efficient. 

That is, a government that treasures "X" at times, and not just measures everything by "$". Cheerz.

The sexual revolution redux - metoo movement.

Is a touch on a lady's knee or a playful message with some suggestive sexual connotation to one's love interest a form of sexual harassment?

When Adam Sandler repeatedly placed his hand on actress Claire Foy's thigh in an interview on The Graham Norton Show, with Claire politely taking his hand away, is Adam a sexual harasser? 

He was criticised for that, but Adam defended his actions by saying that it was a friendly gesture and he had done the same with Dustin Hoffman in the Jimmy Fallon Show. 

Today's Straits Times talks about a counter-movement of the #metoo movement. 

It has pulled in Actress Catherine Deneuve, who "joined more than 100 other Frenchwomen on Tuesday in arguing in a public letter that men should be free to hit on women, and denouncing the #metoo campaign against sexual harassment as "puritanism" fuelled by a "hatred of men"".

Mm...we are "free to hit on women"...?

One must understand, this is France, the torchbearer of the French Revolution chariot led by the Enlightenment, and the breeding ground for international liberal order. 

Now back to the letter...

One part of the letter reads: "Rape is a crime. But insistent or clumsy flirting is not a crime, nor is gallantry a chauvinist aggression". 

Another part reads: "This expedited justice already has its victims - men prevented from practising their profession as punishment or forced to resign - while the only thing they did wrong was touching a knee, trying to steal a kiss or speaking about intimate things at a work dinner or sending messages with sexual connotations to a woman whose feelings were not mutual."

What is most provocative in this movement is that it raised the challenge that "a woman can, in the same day, lead a professional team and enjoy being the sexual object of a man, without being a 'promiscuous woman' nor a vile accomplice of patriarchy".

But what is disconcerting for me is how the Frenchwomen in this movement defines sexual freedom. 

It reports: "The philosopher, Ruwen Ogien, defended the freedom to offend as essential to artistic creation. In the same way, we defend a right to pester, which is vital to sexual freedom."

Now I know there is a lot to process here. 

Is the #metoo movement getting out of hand, an overkill, overreaching, becoming vindictive, overly misogynistic, and sweeping perverts and innocent flirters into the same bin of sexual predators? 

Or, should we do what the French do, live a little, enjoy life with some well deserved self-indulgences, even if it means being flirtatious with the opposite sex because the opposite sex views it as a form of complimentary gesture affirmimg their self-worth and self esteem? 

Recall, it is okay to hit on someone and the freedom to offend is excusable. And some people may find it a compliment when we view them as a sexual object.

So, if you have it, flaunt it with carefreeness? And if you don't have it, well, don't be too sensitive about it?

Lesson...?

Alas, what lesson can we ever learn here when even adults, like kids, are living in a world partly of their own creation and partly as a result of an emergence (convergence) of innumerable factors and values clashing together that are more complicated than what we adults can pinpoint, isolate and remedy? 

Undeniably, there is such an onslaught of libertarian and postmodern values against the timeless values that we traditionally hold dear in our hearts, until a stage or point where we no longer recognise what is right or wrong anymore, or what is good and what is bad for us and our children. 

It seems that the liberal phrase "Do as thy wilt" applies more to ourselves than others, and when the others do as they will, we criticise them for being too self centered, vindictive, prejudicial, one-sided and misguided. 

Self-awareness may be fast going extinct in our society. 

I guess I can't sieve through much of a lesson here this morning except for an incident my wife told me about returning from school with my girl who is 12 years old. 

My wife and daughter was with her classmate, a Malay boy. The boy was with his mother. They were walking together in a carpark. 

At this time, a car was approaching, and the Malay boy immediately held my girl's shoulder and pulled her away from harm's way. 

After that, the boy turned to my wife and daughter and sheepishly said, "sorry." His mother then came over and apologised too for the inappropriate conduct. 

The boy felt that he shouldn't have touched my girl. But my wife tried to explain that it was alright as he may have just save my daughter's life. He was merely being protective, without any thought for himself. 

My point? 

Sometimes you learn more from kids than the adults. 

Putting aside the two movements above, I learn from the boy's actions the timeless values of chivalry and selflessness. The latter virtue is self-explanatory, and chivalry is definitely not dead. 

From a 12-yr-old, I learn that it is definitely not right to hit on women. On the contrary, we must be like him, chivalrous in protecting a woman, her modesty and all. It is also not alright to express your freedom to offend others, but to care and show concern for them instead. 

And although the apology is not necessary from the boy (and his mother), I also learned that one (regardless of age) must always come from a position of humility and respect, and not from a position of making wild presumptions and taking liberties of another. 

A world that operates on the values of that little boy as seen from his actions is a world that is surely a better place for all. 

For it will be a world that chooses to exercise her freedom to put others first before self, respect and protect another's modesty in all circumstances, and always stand from the position of humility and integrity. Cheerz.