Over the last days there’s a lot of news in #Singapore about new Covid cases linked to KTVs. Now there are many family karaoke lounges but the more obscure version is deeply embedded in Singaporean Chinese business culture and is basically a sex club where business partners bring their business relations to enjoy drinks in the company of often young and illegal women.

Containing the covid clusters related to these cases is hard, because of the very nature of the business; neither the business owners, nor the patrons or the staff want to be too open about having been present…
All this sparked a lot of discussion online so what’s at the core of the debate?

Paying for or getting paid for sex is not a shame as long is it is a fair and honest transaction. That’s the thing: in KTVs it often is not; it’s shady, workers are often here illegally, pay and working conditions are poor and for most staff this really is not their preferred career. No doubt there will be entrepreneurs that run a proper business but many do not and don’t take employee welfare and regulations very serious.

The second point runs deeper. In Singaporean Chinese local businesses the practise of entertaining customers and relations in a KTV is still customary. However, after the #metoo movement it should be questioned if this is considered a sound, sustainable and ethical part of doing business and related to that: should the government, employees and business federations take steps to eradicate it?

Welcome to #Singapore….

We’d like to hear from you and understand your views. We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

In Singapore mainstream media is controlled or even owned by the  government. An example of what that can lead to - and this is a harmless example – is this a recent article about Phuket opening up… 

The headline looks objective enough stating that travellers will likely not be willing to pay for the compulsory covid test they will have to take before travelling. However, what is the cost of a test on a week holiday? That’s only a small price compared to the trip itself and can hardly be the real reason for not travelling.
The real reason - and the elephant in the room that the government and main stream media avoid talking about - is that going to Phuket is easy and cheap, coming back is not. Simply because Singapore makes it close to impossible to come back into the country. If you’re a citizen or permanent resident you can come back but have to be quarantined for 2 weeks. If you’re here on a work- or employment-pass you cannot come back into the country at all.

On top of that the word quarantine is avoided, instead it’s called Stay Home Notice or even more obscurely referred to as ‘SHN’… the thing is though you’re not at home at all but in solitary confinement in a government facility at your own costs. That’s often a good hotel but who wants – after a week holiday on Phuket – be locked up (food is brought to the room and you’re not allowed to leave your room) for 2 weeks at your own costs?
That all even if you’re fully vaccinated and test negative.

Welcome to Singapore….

​We’d like to hear from you and understand your views. We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/spore-travellers-not-flocking-to-reopened-phuket-costly-covid-19-tests-shn-among?utm_source=emarsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ST_Newsletter_AM&utm_term=Costly+Covid-19+tests%2C+SHN+deter+S%27pore+travellers+from+flocking+to+reopened+Phuket&utm_content=02%2F07%2F2021

In behavioral theory there are 2 schools of thought – one is about nudging, the other about teaching.
In the latter approach the idea is to teach people a deeper understanding of ‘why’ certain behavior is preferred, appeal to their integrity and common sense and in general show implicit trust.
In a nudging approach an institution or government tries to push people into  certain behavior by strict rules and regulations, control, surveillance, threats and punishment.
 
That second method is less effective. In Singapore – a ‘fine’ country in which a nudging approach across all society is prevalent – the shortfalls are easy to find: people forget the adage ‘don’t drive and drink’ if they know there are no police checks, littering is widespread in remote areas where there is no control, safe distancing under the Covid-19 measures is only practised if enforced etc. etc. That perhaps explains also the reaction on the recent rise in covid cases (although the number of daily cases can hardly be called a spike) where the discussion is continuosly about what the government should do. In a mature and self controlling environment where people understand the needs, ‘no’ government intervention would be needed: people would work from home, go out less, don’t frequent bars or areas with lots of people, keep a safe distance etc. In short: they’d know what to do.
 
In a rules based approach people follow rules, in a risk based approach people are taught underlying principles and asked to use their common sense. Not only is a risk based approach more effective, it’s also preferred from a respect and trust point of view… only regimes with a level of distrust and disrespect for their residents will prefer a rules based, nudging approach built on command, control and repression.
 
We’d like to hear from you and understand your views. We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

The pandemic is still here but life continues relatively normal in Singapore. Masks are compulsory, you need to scan in everywhere with your smartphone or government provided token, your temperature is taken in all shops, malls and restaurants. Travelling is hardly possible but restaurants, offices and all sorts of public facilities are open and at home you can have up to 8 visitors per day. Events with up to 250 people are being organized again, churches hold their ‘crowd controlled’ but otherwise normal services and the vaccination drive runs smoothly.
That’s the good news but there’s a flipside as well.
Last week the 2020 World Freedom of Press index was publised which features Singapore at position 160 out of 180 countries https://rsf.org/en/singapore, something that didn’t get a lot of coverage in local media but is a clear indication of the desire to control every aspect of daily life.
Another flipside relates to the fact that the entire country depends heavily on cheap labour from less developed countries. Permits to stay in the country are linked to labour contracts, domestic workers need to stay at the premises where they work and blue collar workers are housed in dormitories. When the pandemic raged in Singapore last year, the spread in the dormitories was contained by limiting free movement of migrant workers. At that point also the term ‘Communion Cases’ was minted, to separate infections in dormitories from infections among residents. Several cases were found over the last weeks triggering anew the discussion about foreign workers’ dwellings which are clean and decent but make it hard for people to keep a safe distance. That combined with measures to limit the movement of foreign workers has kept and will keep the spread of the virus under control but clearly at a price.
We’d like to hear from you and understand your views. We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

Eating is important and yes of course the food needs to taste good but apart from ambience and food, company and the way we share a meal is maybe even more important as this article once more describes https://monocle.com/minute/2021/03/28/with-gusto/#6.
We’d like to hear from you and understand your views. We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

 
So an island and even a nationstate cannot produce everything locally; it isn’t  even wise as the competitive advantage of nations theory by David Ricardo explained that a long  time ago ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage )
 
But that doesn’t mean a country – like Singapore - shouldn’t try – specifically for fresh goods. It’s just dumb, uneconomical and unhealthy to have ‘organic’ produce from New Zealand in supermarkets 10 hours flying away… that’s not organic in my view. Food and fresh produce should be produced locally.
​
Right? We’d like to hear from you and understand your views. We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

We found this initiative in The Netherlands https://knarrenhof.nl/ - small scale projects for people young and old, in-house developed in cooperation with local communities.
That’s the way to go in our view. Clearly economic reasons exist for big scale developments and in densely populated cities perhaps high-rise buildings are the smartest solution but… most people prefer to live in a small scale community.
Right? We’d like to hear from you and understand your views. We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

Communal living is not big – yet. But for everybody who doesn’t have family to live with it’s something to consider.
Read this article for some ideas on a trend – spotted in 2016 – among millennials https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/millennial-housing-communal-living-middle-ages/501467/
Interested? To join us, invest, rent rooms or share ideas? We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

We’ve been talking about communal living on various occassions. It is now time to start putting our money where our mouth is.
The plan is to find a property in the Netherlands to live with several couples or families, have a multi-functional space for meetings and courses, maybe an orchard and vegetable garden, a professional kitchen to host dinners table d’hôte style and organise cooking classes and a few guest rooms or cabins.
We’re looking someplace central – in the middle of the country - not too far from civilisation yet in a rural setting.
Interested? To join us, invest, rent rooms or share ideas? We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour

 
Little or large droplets that’s the question. Now. Because our knowledge on the corona virus is still evolving and what measures are best taken to contain the spread of the virus is still hotly debated.
Irrespective of the exact causes and government guidance following the advice from experts or – like in the US – completely in contradiction with it, there is the question of rules or risk based guidance.
If a government trusts it’s citizens shouldn’t it be enough to explain the risks, give advise and only issue a few rules. The underlying premise is that citizens are responsible and knowledgable.
If a government issues detailed regulations and follows a ‘command and control’ policy, it’s basically indicating that it doesn’t trust its citizens.
Right or wrong? What do you think? We welcome your ideas, links and feedback.
 
The Neighbour