Death is the only truth - watching India's funeral pyres burn

The grim business of organising mass cremations offers a glimpse of the deadly trail left by COVID-19

By Aman Sethi, Published The Straits Times, 3 May 2021

NEW DELHI (NYTIMES) - The first 36 corpses were placed in the designated concrete cremation pits and set ablaze by 10 in the morning. After that, all the extra bodies went to the muddy parking lot, for a mass ceremony later.

Last Wednesday, ambulances doubling up as hearses lined up along the narrow street outside the Ghazipur crematory, on the city's eastern border. There were no cremation pits in the parking lot, so hospital attendants in protective equipment carried out the dead and placed them near the scorch marks left behind by the previous day's pyres.

Mr Ram Karan Mishra, the presiding priest of the parking lot, walked among the corpses unmasked and unafraid. "If I fall sick and die, I will go to heaven," he said, before paraphrasing a popular reading of Hindu scripture: "Death is the only truth."

It is an aphorism that India's government would do well to remember. Two months ago, the ruling party claimed that the country had defeated Covid-19. Today, a deadly second wave of the coronavirus ravages India. Crippling shortages of oxygen and hospital beds have resulted in many deaths, including that of a former ambassador who died in his car while waiting for care for hours outside a fancy private clinic.

The chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state and one of its poorest, has asked officials to seize the property of people he accuses of "spreading rumours" about shortages on social media. (The police in Amethi, a town in northern India, reportedly brought criminal charges against one man for appealing on Twitter for an oxygen bottle for his sick grandfather.) The Indian government has ordered Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to take down dozens of posts criticising its handling of the pandemic.

Counting the dead

But mass cremations have captured what epidemiologists call "excess mortality" in gruesome detail. Everyone I know has lost someone to the virus. Many have lost several members of their family.

But while you are in lockdown, the dead do not feel dead as much as disappeared. So when my father called me last Tuesday to say that his uncle had died of Covid-19, that the uncle's whole family was ill with the disease and that a cousin of my father's was in an intensive care unit (ICU), I sensed the onset of a familiar numbness.

"I might go out for a drive," I mumbled vaguely to my wife. But as I got into my car the next morning and drove out to several crematories, I realised I just wanted to feel something.

The parking lot in Ghazipur is so small and the bodies are so closely packed that the pyres can be lit only all at once. So the corpses are placed on individual pyres through the day and then ignited in one big blaze in the evening. (Other crematories, especially those with pyres powered by electricity or gas, burn corpses from morning to sundown.)

Mr Mishra, the priest, told me that for the past 10 days, the crematory's staff had been burning between 40 and 50 bodies every day in a space no larger than two tennis courts.

A cremation site is a mostly male space. Many Hindus still believe that only a son has the right to light his parent's funeral pyre. At Ghazipur, small groups of young men briefly put their grief on hold to divide themselves into teams and tend to various tasks. One group runs off to stand in the queue to register the corpse of their loved one. Another dashes to the shed to get its allotted share of wood before all the good pieces run out. A third rushes with the body to reserve a spot on which to build a pyre. Everything in this pandemic - medicines, oxygen, ventilators, hospital beds - has been marked by scarcity born of the government's failure to plan for and procure essential supplies. The crematory is no different.

Last Wednesday, Ms Malvika Parakh, one of the few women at Ghazipur, stood alone amid this frenzy, the body of her father, Dr Dattaraj Bhalchandra Parakh, at her feet. He was a plant pathologist at India's National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and was 65 years old when he died of Covid-19. He needed an ICU bed with a ventilator, but she could organise only a hospital bed with an oxygen cylinder.

Ms Parakh's mother died a decade ago; most of her other relatives had Covid-19. A family member who had escorted her father's body from the hospital morgue to the crematory had suddenly felt sick there. So here she was alone, a 32-year-old clinical psychologist standing by her father's corpse in a parking lot-turned-crematory, trying to make sense of it all.

"It's like one of those movies in which the world has been attacked, and there are bodies everywhere," she said, as she looked at the rows and rows and rows and rows of pyres in various stages of completion. "You wait for the superhero to come and save everyone. Only in this case, there is no superhero."

Telling stories of the marginalised in an ethical manner

Netizen meets low-income person and shares story online. It goes viral, with some blaming the Government, which then clarifies. Vulnerable person feels bruised. There are better ways to discuss poverty.
By Yuen Sin, The Straits Times, 13 Aug 2020

An episode involving a low-wage elderly cleaner that went viral last month has shed light on a problematic trend in how we discuss issues of inequality and social hardship on public platforms.

If this continues, it can lead to consequences for all parties involved, particularly vulnerable groups. The incident has also sparked discussion on how Singaporeans can discuss issues on poverty and share stories of the vulnerable in a more responsible manner.

What happened was this: Last month, a young man met an elderly cleaner, who told him that her wages are insufficient for her needs, and that she had lost her husband and only son.

He turned to Instagram and posted a story with photos of her, which gave details of how much she said she was being paid, where her workplace is, and the town where she lives.

He went on to suggest that the progressive wage model - a wage ladder that specifies higher pay for workers as they upgrade their skills - is not working, among other things.

The post was widely shared and went viral. Some concerned members of the public sought the woman out at her workplace, and even managed to trace her to her home, though the young man did not reveal her address.



However, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) later clarified details about the woman's circumstances in a Facebook post.

It gave more information on the wages that she was actually receiving and how her salary had been affected by the COVID-19 situation. It also gave details about her housing and family situation.

It also listed the various forms of financial support that she will be receiving as a permanent resident, including monthly $120 food vouchers for the next six months.

MSF also said the woman "indicated she was unaware of being photographed or that her comments and photo would be shared in public on social media".

The woman later told the young man she was "very stressed" by the unwanted attention received, according to another Facebook post he put up. He also said he apologised to her, and took down his original Instagram post.

Incidents like these are not new; as far back as 2013, online posts about individuals facing hardship have attracted scrutiny. They play out in a similar trajectory. Someone meets a poor or vulnerable person, talks to the individual and posts a story online. After attracting public sympathy, the story goes viral. The authorities then rush to investigate the matter and issue a public clarification, if details of the original post were inaccurate or if it has sparked discussion.

THE DANGER OF RELYING ON A SINGLE STORY

Personal anecdotes and stories help people develop understanding of and empathy for social issues. But it is problematic to rely on a single anecdote to make sweeping generalisations about Singapore's social policies.

After all, the existence of people who need help or fall through the cracks is not evidence of systemic failure on the part of the Government, though there is certainly room for policies to evolve.

In the recent case and other similar episodes in the past, vulnerable individuals whose details are shared online involuntarily get caught in the crossfire between vociferous netizens, who criticise the Government after reading the story, and public agencies, which want to clarify facts to defend themselves.

Their privacy may end up being sacrificed as a result, as various parties share, debate and scrutinise details about them released online. Yet others may question their motives, pronounce judgment or make denigratory remarks.

The energising spirit of empathy stirs in Singapore

Empathy is good for society and for business. It can be a way for organisations to identify and meet unmet needs and for Singapore to stay relevant.
By Richard Magnus, Published The Straits Times, 25 Jul 2020

Sometimes, a struggle can have beautiful results.

Just ask an oyster. It defends itself from an invading parasite by coating itself with layers of a material called nacre. The oyster becomes adaptive and resilient.

In time, this process forms a lustrous pearl, glowing and defiant.

In a strange way, the coronavirus pandemic reminds me of this magical and indomitable quest for survival in nature.

COVID-19 sneaked into our nation, uninvited and unwelcome. It caused major catastrophes that changed our lives. The disease lifted the veil on hidden vulnerabilities. But these grim realities on the ground can translate into opportunities.

The relentless march of the coronavirus was met by an equally determined swell of empathy that lifted the nation. Empathy was manifest in action by thousands of individuals who self-organised efforts to help the vulnerable, and seen in generous donations by organisations and in unprecedented Budget support by the state.

When face masks became the central focus in our fight against the disease, organisations both public and private stepped up to combat a potential lack of supply. There are now 1,200 24-hour vending machines across 800 locations to dispense masks to some five million Singaporeans and residents at the flash of an identity card.

It sounds simple, but using dispensing machines to distribute masks this way is complicated. Security, convenience and the sheer volume of people collecting make the task challenging. More importantly, the insight to deliver masks via vending machines springs from an empathetic understanding of what a customer wants in a pandemic situation: a low-touch, yet reliable way to collect the masks without face-to-face contact, to reduce transmission risks.

For Singapore, this surge of empathy has another far-reaching value. Empathy can lead to innovations for economic recovery, and give us relevance on the international stage.



EMPATHY IN CRISIS

In Singapore, our society has displayed a strong, collective fighting spirit through a heightened sense of empathy at this time of national crisis. It was not only COVID-19 that brought this out.

Throughout our young history, an empathetic response has been part of our arsenal to meet crises. We have had to delve deep into our internal faith - our confidence in destiny - through many years of overcoming pain in our history.

There was the separation from Malaysia after the merger, the British army's withdrawal in 1971, the oil crisis in 1973, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), the Asian financial crisis and then the global financial crisis, and the impact of the Sept 11 terror attacks.

Together, we have built, and are building, a nation. We have kept the covenant made by our founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew that we will be "one united people, regardless of race, language or religion". This is our duty of care to one another.

During this pandemic, there are many stories about how we have gone above and beyond this duty, and extended service to our neighbours. These are promising and powerful energies of empathy stirring in our society.

COVID-19: Show support for healthcare workers on front lines, says Health Minister Gan Kim Yong

Broader community joins battle against coronavirus as infection hits 50 cases as of 12 Feb 2020
By Salma Khalik, Senior Health Correspondent and Timothy Goh, The Straits Times, 13 Feb 2020

As more cases of coronavirus infection surface, this is the time for people to rally around healthcare workers and not shun them, said Health Minister Gan Kim Yong.

He announced yesterday that three more people had been infected, bringing the total here to 50. But as the fight against the virus intensifies, there are signs that the broader community is rallying behind healthcare workers in the front lines.



Mr Gan urged: "Let us come together to show our support for them, and to support their work, so they continue to take care of our patients and families and our loved ones."

"Sometimes, a kind word or a warm greeting will go a long way to make them feel appreciated and give them a morale boost to continue the fight," he added.

Healthcare workers, who had been in the front lines of the fight during the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) outbreak in 2003, had been shunned by those who feared they might pass on the infection. Mr Gan indicated that he does not want this to be repeated.



Meanwhile, one million masks will be distributed to general practitioners and specialists in private practice, who need them to protect themselves, their staff and patients.

"They will get the supplies that they need because they are a part of our team," said Mr Gan.

"In this challenging time, it is important for us to work together as a team, as a community and as a nation, to overcome this infection and to keep Singaporeans safe," he added.

Minister for Social and Family Development Desmond Lee, who was also at the news conference, said 90 per cent of the drivers from private-hire company Grab are keen to join a new service called Grabcare that will "help our healthcare workers get to and from healthcare facilities".

The service will start tomorrow for those working at Tan Tock Seng Hospital and the National Centre for Infectious Diseases, he said.



He said that for Singaporeans who are inspired by such actions, there are opportunities to contribute.

The Courage Fund that was launched for healthcare workers who battled Sars is still active.

Money from the fund helps patients, healthcare workers and their families, as well as the wider community affected by the outbreak.

Donations have started pouring in again.

In a Facebook post last night, President Halimah Yacob announced that the President's Challenge, which has been mobilising resources to help those who may be more susceptible, will be donating $250,000 to the Courage Fund to further support vulnerable groups to tide over this period.

"It is challenging times like this that will truly define who we are as a nation," she wrote.

Another $300,000 has been donated by the CapitaLand Hope Foundation.

Youth Corps will support Willing Hearts, a dignity kitchen, to distribute meals to seniors and the vulnerable, Mr Lee said.



Meanwhile, of the 50 infected, 15 have recovered and been discharged, but eight are seriously ill and in intensive care.

While most infected patients will recover, Mr Gan warned: "Some may get seriously ill, and a small number may succumb to the infection ultimately.

"We have to be prepared for the worst."

The fight against the virus ahead may get harder, he said.

Mr Gan said in Mandarin: "Because we are stepping up our surveillance and doing more testing, we can well expect to see more cases in the coming days and weeks."

The best policies are those with empathy

By Tee Zhuo,The Sunday Times, 15 Dec 2019

Cold, hard logic has a certain appeal, and many public policies in Singapore are successfully guided by it.

Take the principle behind home ownership: Give people a stake in the nation and they will feel invested in it.

The soundness of this principle is demonstrated by the fact that more than 80 per cent of Singaporeans live in public housing.

An August 2015 Business Times piece looking at 50 years of housing policy described Housing Board flats as "the people's equity stake in Singapore".

But Singaporeans are not holding equity in a company. They are citizens of a country, and the notion of co-paying cannot be used as a proxy for pride and loyalty.

Let me use two government responses from last month to illustrate what I mean.

The first response was to a letter on the TODAY news website asking why Singaporeans have to pay $10 to replace their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) when they turn 55.

The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) said the cost of replacing an NRIC is about $60 and the Government subsidises $50.

The remaining $10 is "very manageable for most people" and these fees have been "charged and unchanged" since 2000, it said.

"We believe that a system where the applicant pays a small sum is better: It brings a stronger sense of pride and ownership of the card," the ICA added.

This reasoning seems to have a similar transactional logic as the housing policy: money, for a stake.

But a sense of pride in being Singaporean - which an identity card symbolises - is something intangible.

Linking this pride with a payment, however small, is unnecessary, I feel. In fact, it also has the unfortunate effect of cheapening it.

The second response was to a Facebook post that highlighted how a pupil's original Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results slip was withheld because her family had not paid school fees of $156 for two years.

Among other things, the Ministry of Education (MOE) explained that this was "a longstanding practice" that was "not about recovering the money", but instead a "teachable moment" for children.

It added that the ministry's funding for each primary school pupil comes up to $12,000 a year, and each pupil pays only $13 in miscellaneous fees a month.

"MOE's consideration stems from the underlying principle that notwithstanding the fact that the cost of education is almost entirely publicly funded, we should still play our part in paying a small fee, and it is not right to ignore that obligation, however small it is."

Most Singaporeans would say it is fair to pay school fees. But I doubt many would think it right to withhold the PSLE results slip of an innocent 12-year-old to achieve this.

And how does doing so create a "teachable moment" for the child?

The more likely lesson the child will pick up is that it is shameful to be poor - which would be ironic, given how schools are supposed to be one of society's great levellers.

On the face of it, though, both responses were reasoned, principled defences of the Government's position.

But the problem may be exactly that: The responses came across as being too much about reasoning and appeared defensive.

They followed a familiar formula: Cite longstanding practice, note that most of the fees are subsidised, and highlight financial aid or case-by-case waivers that are available.

But just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it has been right all along.

For example, on the PSLE issue, one could say that while comprehensive, aid options for needy families are not always easily accessible.

My point isn't whether the Government had good reasons for its actions - it almost always does - but how, when and where these reasons are used.

Hands and legs needed for policy measures to be rolled out successfully

Go beyond asking why inequality takes place, to stepping up to help low-income families
By Lim Boon Heng, Published The Straits Times, 22 Dec 2018

During the year, there had been discussions in different forums on inequality in Singapore society. These discussions suggest that the Government has not done enough to uplift the poorer among us.

What has been done to uplift the poor?

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) has published an occasional paper that sets out what the Government does to uplift the poor - wage top-ups for all workers earning less than $2,000 a month, the Silver Support Scheme for seniors, a wage ladder through the Progressive Wage Model, and government transfers (rebates for service and conservancy charges, rebates for rent, utility vouchers, goods and services tax vouchers, and CHAS, the Community Health Assist Scheme).

A fair amount has been devoted to the children of poor families, to bring them as close to the starting line as other children. There are assistance programmes such as the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Child Care and the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, as well as KidStart.

Thousands of children benefit every year. No doubt, there will be families that for various reasons are unable to fully benefit. We can do more, with community support. It will mean people stepping forward to lend a hand to families facing multiple challenges. It is not just money - it also means time, and adjusting our own schedules when help is needed.

One strand of discussion on inequality suggests that mixing the poor with those who are better off leads to the poor losing self-esteem. This set me thinking. How do we bridge the divide?

Segregate, or continue to integrate? Is segregation the answer? If we want those who are better off to be able to help the poor, proximity makes it easier to do so.

For children of pre-school age, NTUC First Campus has made a modest contribution. It has a policy of giving priority registration to children from low-income families.

Today, 15 per cent of its children are from low-income families. It provides further support through the Bright Horizons Fund. It found that it is not enough to get the children to pre-school - there is a need to help families solve other problems, working with government agencies. As for the children, they get the same quality of teaching and care as all other children.

In addition, the Bright Horizons Fund provides well-being and learning programmes to give these children equal opportunities in their pre-school years. And I am sure the better-off children get to learn that in society there are people less well off than they are, and this may help them to appreciate what they have.

So we did not segregate. We think children of diverse backgrounds should study and play together. I believe that the low-income should live side by side with those who are better off. Their environment should not be poorer than the rest of society. Our focus should be on how to give the lower-income a hand.

What about those who falter in school? Does the Government help them when they stumble?

Let me relate two experiences.

A young girl, accompanied by her grandmother, came to see me at a Meet-the-People Session some years ago. Her O-level results were not good enough for her to enrol in a polytechnic. Instead, she was told that she qualified for the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). She wanted to appeal to be allowed to register for a polytechnic.

I could tell that her mood was down. I told her that she could complete her ITE course, and then go on to a polytechnic. "Mr Lim," she said, "ITE - It's The End!" Her whole future seemed to have collapsed in front of her. I told her I would try, but she should keep the ITE option open.

As expected, the appeal to the Ministry of Education (MOE) was unsuccessful. I encouraged her to give the ITE a try. She was dejected, but felt there was no other choice. I think she felt she had a bleak future.

The ITE term opened. She went to ITE College West. On the same night, she came to see me at my Meet-the-People Session, with a smile on her face. She said: "Mr Lim, it's all right, I can do ITE! The campus is fantastic, it's like a university!"

In the months that followed, her grandmother told me that the girl was very happy at ITE. The grandmother had to keep pushing her to study when she was in secondary school, but now there was no such need. The girl was so motivated by the environment and the staff at ITE.

She went on to complete her polytechnic diploma.

Public Transport Workers Appreciation: Thanking the People Who Take Us Everywhere; 19th National Kindness Award - Transport Gold 2018 ceremony held at the Istana

New initiatives aim to encourage commuters to show appreciation for these unsung heroes
Saying thank you to public transport workers
By Zhaki Abdullah, The Straits Times, 13 Oct 2018

From bus drivers to train station managers, public transport workers here help ensure commuters safely get to school and work - and back home again - every day of the week, all year round.

Now, a series of initiatives is being introduced to recognise the efforts of the unsung heroes who make these daily journeys possible.

Among the initiatives is a campaign by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) that will use outdoor posters, walkway banners and bus advertisements to encourage people to thank public transport workers.



Commuters can also show their appreciation online by using the hashtag #ThankYouPTWorkers on social media posts.

The campaign will be launched by Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Transport Baey Yam Keng on Oct 21 with an event at Tampines MRT station and bus interchange.

LTA will partner various community organisations and businesses in these efforts, while the four public transport operators - Go-Ahead, SBS Transit, SMRT and Tower Transit - will organise their own initiatives for employees.

This year, the Singapore Kindness Movement has also been conducting activities at schools and student care centres as part of its Friend of Singa and Seed Kindness Fund Junior programmes.

The annual Transport Gold Awards event, which recognises transport workers who have shown "exemplary acts of service", will also be held at the Istana for the first time this year on Nov 1, with President Halimah Yacob in attendance. Awards will be given to 445 transport workers at the ceremony.



In a Facebook post, National Transport Workers' Union (NTWU) executive secretary Melvin Yong noted that NTWU was the first to suggest an appreciation campaign for public transport workers. It launched the inaugural Public Transport Workers' Appreciation Day in November last year. That effort was "very well received" by transport workers, he said.

"Thus, we are really happy that LTA, working with various partners, is launching a series of initiatives at the national level this year to show appreciation to our workers," added Mr Yong, an MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC.

LTA chief executive Ngien Hoon Ping said: "Our public transport workers are the heart of a people-centric public transport system.

"They work behind the scenes, round the clock, to ensure our public transport system is safe, reliable and comfortable for commuters."

What it means to give

The act of genuine giving is a perfectly rational one and benefits the giver in ways that are often not obvious at first sight
By David Chan, Published The Straits Times, 3 Feb 2018

Earlier last week, I delivered the keynote address at a forum titled Giving Matters, organised by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre.

The cross-sector event brought together more than 300 individuals from government, corporates, social enterprises and non-profit organisations to share their experiences and ideas about giving, which includes volunteering and donating.

After my speech, some participants shared with me why and how they give as well as their personal experiences in interacting with givers and recipients. Many had mixed feelings and unresolved questions. Is giving rational or emotional? Should we remind people to count their blessings to encourage them to give? How do we motivate volunteers?

I hope this essay on the psychology of giving will help shed light on the issues raised. As we reflect on what giving means to us personally, the hope is that we are inspired to do more and encourage others as well.

GENUINE GIVING AND RATIONALITY

We sometimes hear people say they want to volunteer or donate but do not have enough time or money. Yet, across different socio-economic backgrounds, there are people who give a lot of their time, effort or money, and they do so quietly without any tangible rewards or recognition. Clearly, humans are not purely economic beings who spend their lives calculating gains and losses to arrive at decisions.

If you believe humans are homo economicus, then you will find this even more puzzling - studies show that we feel good when we give, and better when we give away something precious to us than something we have plenty of or do not need. Behavioural sciences tell us that this is not irrational, the motivation and decision to give genuinely reflect a core aspect of human rationality.

Volunteers who ensure no one dies alone

NODA members support terminally ill with few or no family members in their final days
By Janice Tai, Social Affairs Correspondent, The Sunday Times, 10 Dec 2017

Mr Tay Cheng Tian, 54, died in a hospice on Nov 4. None of his family members was by his bedside when he took his last breath, but he did not die alone.

In the last few weeks of his life, a bunch of strangers befriended him and committed to spending time with him till the end.

They fulfilled his last wishes and did things such as wheeling him downstairs for smoke breaks.

When Mr Tay started deteriorating rapidly from oesophageal cancer, the volunteers took turns to sit vigil round-the-clock by his bed.

For about two days, they held his hands, whispered to him or played his favourite songs to let him know that someone was there with him.

One saw him take his last breath at 8.30am that Saturday.



"It was a privilege to be with him, knowing that he was comfortable enough with my presence to go at that moment," said Ms Angela Sho, 43, a volunteer with Assisi Hospice's No One Dies Alone (NODA) programme.

It is part of a small but growing movement to support dying people who have few or no family members or friends to accompany them in their final hours. Demand for the service is likely to grow as the number of elderly folk who live alone in Singapore surges.

The General Household Survey, released last year, shows the number of households comprising only residents aged 65 or older stood at 82,600. About half, or 41,200, are made up of residents who live alone. By 2030, the Government estimates the number of seniors who live alone will hit 83,000.

"Given the increasing trends of one-person and two-person households with the head of households over 65 years old, we foresee the number of persons who die alone may increase," said Ms Chee Wai Yee, chairman of the grief and bereavement work group at the Singapore Hospice Council.

Say you're sorry: How to suss out an insincere apology

A chicken rice chain owner, airline CEO and church pastor have been in the news recently, apologising for their own or their organisations' mistakes. How do you say sorry like you really mean it?
By David Chan, Published The Straits Times, 6 May 2017

Many countries, Singapore included, have seen celebrities, politicians and other public figures apologising for causing hurt and violating public trust.

Ordinary folk and leaders of organisations too may find themselves having to apologise - for inappropriate behaviour, making claims that turn out to be false or misleading, or for insensitive remarks.

As the recent slew of social media episodes (a chicken rice chain owner who insulted a taxi driver, a couple's outburst at an elderly man at a hawker centre) show, offending acts and comments can be caught on video and shared rapidly, generating public outrage.

Conversely, when someone caught in such an episode apologises and tries to make amends, as the chicken rice chain boss did by giving away packets of chicken rice to taxi drivers, that apology is also likely to receive wide public exposure.

Then there is the case of the United Airlines chief executive, whose initial apology after a passenger was dragged off a flight earned him only opprobrium, and the church pastor who apologised to his congregation for "all the hurt, all the disappointment and all the painful ordeals you've been through" and for his "unwise decisions".



So what is the psychology of an apology, and how does one decide whether, how, where and what to do to apologise?

First, some common-sense observations. Whether publicly or in private, it is difficult to say sorry sincerely to someone we have offended or wronged. Being sincere requires us to say what we mean, and mean what we say. Many of us procrastinate, and then we regret not apologising earlier or at all, adding to the regret from offending in the first place.

Some apologies are effective while others are disastrous. Then, too, there is the response to the apology: Some are accepted. But others we have wronged and apologised to may be unable or unwilling to let go and move on.

Investing in the ‘little things’ for the benefit of Singaporeans

By Sheila Pakir, Published TODAY, 21 Dec 2016

We were at a jewellery store picking out a Mother’s Day present, and my sister had just told the shopkeeper that I worked at the Pioneer Generation Office (PGO).

“Our Government is so terrible to the elderly, you know,” the shopkeeper exclaimed.

“I must tell you what happened to my husband. All his life he was paying for this ElderShield, then he turns 65 and they send him a letter saying no more coverage.

“How can they do that, right? His whole life, paying and paying, and he never even claimed once.”

This sounded odd. I knew that ElderShield was a Government disability insurance scheme, and it did not make sense for coverage to cease just as a person entered a more disability-prone age bracket. I quietly made a quick Google search on my phone as the shopkeeper continued talking. I glanced through the first result and found a moment to interject.

“I just went to the MOH website … Are you sure the letter said they were ending coverage?” I asked.

She nodded emphatically. “I saw it myself,” she said. I replied: “It’s just that it says here that at age 65, you stop paying premiums … But then your coverage continues for life.”

Her eyebrows shot up. “What?”

“Yes,” I continued, “See, it says so here. Don’t worry. It looks like your husband is covered. They just front-loaded the premiums so he only pays while he’s working, not when he’s retired.” By the end of the visit, we had bought a pair of earrings and the shopkeeper could not wait to get home to tell her husband the good news about his insurance.



To me, the next big thing for Singapore might, paradoxically, be a shift in focus from big things to little things. We do big things well: In policy alone, recent years have seen the rollout of many exciting national-level schemes. Where we now need to spend more energy on are the myriad little things that can make or break these plans.

One key little thing is to ensure that citizens understand the big moves, and know how to access the benefits they offer.

How 'empathy' became a weapon we use against others

By Britt Peterson, Published The Straits Times, 19 Dec 2016

As long as we've had the word "empathy", it's been seen as an essentially positive thing, like kindness. It's the idea of putting yourself in someone else's shoes - intuiting the thoughts and feelings of another person and attempting to do something about it.

Several past Democratic presidential candidates have basically campaigned on empathy. US President Barack Obama talked about an "empathy deficit" among the American people that needed to be filled by attention to those in need.

Over this past election season, however, the concept of empathy has become rather more complicated. Despite coming from an extremely different background from the white working-class voters who made up his base, President-elect Donald Trump connected with them on a gut level while displaying little empathy for anyone else. Mr Trump tugged on the strings of his supporters' empathy for highly effective rhetorical purpose.



This weaponisation of empathy has led to a flurry of questions about whether the concept is still the universal good we all once assumed.

As Yale psychologist Paul Bloom writes in his recent book Against Empathy, the sentiment focuses us on concrete examples rather than the abstract needs. Similarly, studies show that we're much better equipped to feel for someone who looks like us than someone who doesn't.

It also makes it hard for us to evaluate whether the people we feel for actually need our help. For example, millions of Trump supporters watching the Republican National Convention came away deeply concerned - for empathic, and yet still irrational reasons - over the victims of murderous illegal immigrants. No matter that these murders and drink-driving incidents were statistically insignificant. "You don't often hear Donald Trump and empathy in the same sentence, but he was extraordinarily adroit at using empathy," Dr Bloom says.

"Empathy" has often been tossed around in the month since the election as a panacea to heal the country's wounds. And yet in this context as well, it's not clear empathy would be an entirely positive force. As journalist Amanda Hess pointed out recently in the New York Times magazine, empathy has become a Silicon Valley buzzword that describes an understanding of user experience, and the political meaning is very similar. We empathise with someone, frequently, because we want to change his or her mind - whether that person is an undecided voter, a potential customer or a first date.

A helping hand in a foreign land: Kudos to NGOs that help Singapore's migrant workers

There are about 1.4 million foreigners working in Singapore. Most of them are work permit holders employed as construction workers or maids. While they are protected by labour laws, those who are injured or embroiled in disputes with their employers often turn to non-governmental organisations for help. On International Migrants Day today, Insight looks at the NGOs that see to the welfare of these workers and speak up for them.
By Toh Yong Chuan, Manpower Correspondent and Joanna Seow, The Sunday Times, 18 Dec 2016

Migrant workers have been with us for centuries.

When modern Singapore was founded in 1819, migrants came here from across Asia to make a living - some returned home, others stayed on, as did many other migrants all over the world.

But only recently did the contributions of migrants get global recognition.

In 2000, the United Nations proclaimed Dec 18 as International Migrants Day.

On that day in 1990, a decade earlier, the UN adopted the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. The international treaty spells out protections for migrant workers and their families.

Since then, the day has been observed by countries in the world in various ways.

Singapore does not mark the day in a big way. There are no official events held around it and it does not appear on the diary of activities of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM).

However, a number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are celebrating the day by acknowledging the contributions of migrant workers here.

These workers form a significant proportion of the Singapore population and labour force.

There are about 1.4 million foreign workers in Singapore, out of a workforce of 3.7 million and a population of 5.6 million.

This means that about one in four people here is a foreign worker. And about two in five workers here are foreigners.

The bulk of these foreign workers, about one million of them, are work-permit holders doing manual work, for example, as construction workers and maids.

Unlike top-rung foreign executives who come to Singapore on expatriate terms with their families in tow, those doing manual work receive low pay and live in dormitories or others' homes.

Without family support, they turn to non-governmental organisations for help when they run into problems.

Tolerance alone is not enough

By Devadas Krishnadas, Published The Straits Times, 29 Jul 2016

Singapore recently marked Racial Harmony Day. In the midst of the events at schools and in the community, many seem unaware of the reason for the choice of date.

July 21, 1964 was the date of the largest race riots in Singapore, primarily between Malays and Chinese. Thirty six people were killed, nearly 600 injured and, in the aftermath, some 3,000 were arrested.

Racial harmony for a high-pressure, heterogeneous society such as Singapore is an existential consideration. We place emphasis on the need for tolerance between races. This is laudable but, I would argue, is too low a standard for our needs today.

Tolerance is a condition where different ethnicities or religions may either have a weak understanding of one another, or actively dislike and yet mutually agree to put up with one another.

Often, this tolerance is both superficial and limited to public arenas.

The causes for the race riots in 1964 were low trust between the races and the politicisation of race and religion in the context of the fraught politics of the Federation of Malaysia. Singapore had then already a 150-year history as a multiracial society - one where the different communities tolerated one another but often lived separately even if they had to interact daily for practical reasons. The standard of tolerance failed spectacularly then when tensions erupted.

The fear is that tolerance today may mask simmering issues and that when tensions erupt, conflict can emerge even amid a climate of "tolerance".

We must perennially push for a much higher threshold of harmony.

Should we be wary of a heightened sense of entitlement?

By William Wan, Published The Straits Times, 21 Jun 2016

Recently, netizens were in an uproar over a Facebook video which showed a livid female customer berating a deaf cleaner and his manager at JEM food court. What appeared to be a simple case of miscommunication on the part of the cleaner (due to his inability to communicate verbally) escalated into the most talked-about topic in town. It even had our national leaders weighing in.

Such reactions did not come as a surprise. The woman's outburst happened amid a slew of other reports of ill-treatment towards service staff in the healthcare, food and beverage, and retail industries. The Straits Times recently reported that nurses are experiencing more physical and verbal abuse from patients and their family members. In another article by The New Paper, a customer almost turned violent after a restaurant owner told him about their no-split-bill policy.

Reports of such nature seem to be endemic of a society whose sense of entitlement is rapidly peaking.

Barely a year ago, Mr Victor Mills, chief executive of the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce, observed that many people "felt that life, their employer and the Government owe them a living" which gives rise to an overly fussy attitude towards employment and job-hunting.

While Mr Mills specifically referenced workplace attitudes, mistreatment of service staff is an equal, if not greater, cause for concern. If incidents of disparaging remarks and abuse from customers become a day-to-day reality, staff morale can be severely undermined. This will drive Singaporeans further away from industries that are already short of workers. Recently, my friends from Golden Village, a cineplex chain, shared that rude customers are one of the main contributors to the high turnover rate within the industry.

While it is fair to expect a reasonable standard of service one has paid for, it becomes a problem when it slides into an unreasonable sense of entitlement. That said, we should still be compassionate and empathetic in how we respond when the quality of service falls short.

What is more alarming to me is that the way we treat our service staff reflects squarely on our core values, which define who we are as a society. Will those values revolve around self-centred righteousness and being overly sensitive about one's own precious ego - or can we embrace values of compassion, empathy and tenderness in the way we treat one another?

It is disconcerting to note that such instances of ignominious behaviour appear to be more commonplace today, and that some people assume they can demand anything from service staff and launch into long harangues when things don't go their way, just because they are paying patrons of the establishment.

If only we stopped to think about the stress that accompanies the long hours and manual labour that service staff endure. It is erroneous to assume that, as customers, there is no need to practise patience and empathy. The maxim "the customer is always right" ought to have been thrown out the door a long time ago.