Today, 11:35 AM
——————————————————————————–
I don’t think you understand my postings at all.

1. I objected to the original posting that a mountaineering expedition only benefits the mountaineers.
2. I objected to the suggestion that mountaineering is a waste of time and money.
3. The late Sir Edmund Hillary and other mountaineers are some of Nepal’s the biggest benefactors.
4. I pointed out that the majority of Singaporeans are not mountaineering fans are just a tiny drop in the ocean.
5. I corrected the misconception that mountaineering and help for the poor/needy are mutually exclusive.
6. I pointed out that people who have less material stuff than we do always need our help.
7. I pointed out that developed countries do not need to wait till they have completely eradicated poverty before they embark on “grand” projects.
8. I highlighted the fact that some Singaporeans often like to play consultant when they don’t really understand foreign cultures and non-mainstream activities.
9. I wish the public can be better educated on the various positive and negative aspects of mountaineering so that they do not draw their conclusions and condemn so quickly.

1. I have never said that public funds should be used to finance mountaineering expeditions.
2. I have never said that social welfare is less important that mountaineering.

In fact, I’m quite against using public funds to finance mountaineering expeditions. Ideally, the sport of mountaineering or recreational climbing should be supported by climbers themselves, fans, enthusiasts and NGOs - not the government. NATAS is an association of commercial entities. If you’re suggesting that they donated the money instead of sponsoring the expedition, that would have been charity, would it not?

Nobody has the right to tell NATAS what they should have done. If the members feel that sponsoring an expedition is good for business, so be it. Anything wrong? Are they obliged to contribute to the government’s welfare programmes so that you would not accuse them of seeing mountaineering as more important than welfare? I happen to agree with you that the welfare part should be handled by the government. Not NATAS, by the way. Our special schools should certainly receive a lot more government funding than what they are getting now. I also agree that subsidies at government hospitals are insufficient. Medisave is our own money. So what are you disagreeing with.

Space programmes are a good comparison because they have generated much public outcry. Like you, activists in America have protested against using tax dollars. They could prove that you are wrong that these programmes generate positive returns. In case you try to pick a bone here, I’m not against space programmes. I agree with you on the intangible benefits that space programmes can have.

I used to conduct trips to Thailand and I often feel embarrassed by some of the things that our uncles and aunties say when they see poverty, inefficiency and other things they feel could have been done better. You missed the point completely. It’s not about Ayuthaya making money or not. It’s the shallow Singaporean aunty’s suggestion that it would look “nicer”, be more comfortable and generate more income if the Thais demolished the whole thing and put an artificial theme park in its place. This seems to be the attitude adopted by some people here who always have ideas on how money could be better spent. Not everybody thinks this way. Building an artificial “historical” park will remove all mystical and romantic appeal. Life is not just about ROI.

Yesterday, 12:38 PM
——————————————————————————–
chomulungma,

oh yes, of course we cannot feed every hungry person on the street. but you know, if everyone thinks that way, no one wil be helping these people at all. you cannot make a difference to every person, but you can at least make a difference to one, or two, or ten people. haven’t you heard of this simple principle before?

do you think your comparison of the everest expedition and china or america’s space programme is justified? if you do, then i think you obviously don’t know what a space programme is. you may want to go and up more about what space programmes involve, the number of people it hires to do the jobs, the technological inventions it brings about and the far reaching consequences it has for a nation.

i am not talking about “charity work” here. you need to distinguish between what is considered “charity” and what is considered “welfare”. the word “charity” is applicable only to individuals who can choose whether or not they want to help a fellow human being. however, a government does not do acts of “charity”. it would be silly to think that. at the government level, it is a responsibility, a duty of the people that we vote into office. i am talking about basic social welfare that any government, especially one that aspires to be a good government, ought to provide for its citizens.

as for ayuthya, i am not sure why it was brought up. if you are alleging that the ruins are around to protect the country’s heritage, may i point out to you that these very same cultural ruins is also a tourist attraction that makes money for the country? would the govt maintain the ruins if they were not of any monetary value? there are enough “demolished” historical temples around to suggest that this is not the case.

again, i am sorry that you seem to take the view that social welfare is less important than a mountaineering expedition. if i were an “ultra-pragmatic” singaporean then i would not be suggesting that the government gives priority to giving more help to the needy instead of funding expeditions. because, in hard financial terms, funding the needy also does not give any good returns for the government. they have no money, many of them are old, they cannot attract any investors.

in essence, i think we are two idealists supporting different stands. i guess we shall just have to agree to disagree. hopefully, the everest climbers can be much more active in sharing their experience with the rest of singapore, such as through schools, so that at least, what they have gained doesn’t just remain in the exclusive circle of the mountain climbers.

Yesterday, 11:21 AM
——————————————————————————–
Let’s not talk about “tens of thousands of needy people here suffer from the lack of health care and poor living conditions.” If you’ve travelled to Third World countries, you’ll realise that there are hundreds of millions of people who suffer from the lack of healthcare and poor living conditions. Even if you’ve saved up on all the mountaineering expeditions in the history of mankind, you won’t be able to feed and heal every single unfortunate person on this planet.

So should China have postponed their space programme until there are no more Chinese suffering from the lack of healthcare and poor living conditions? Would the poor and needy people in Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos thank you if you remove all the gold from their temples and buy essential items for them? People don’t just need food for their stomachs. They also need food for their “souls”. And many of these “less fortunate” people are actually happier than most 5C Singaporeans.

Charity work can never be finished. Every moment, people are falling ill, deformed babies are born, people are getting disabled due to accidents and sickness, businessmen and gamblers going bankrupt etc. Must we wait until such misfortunes stop happening before we engage in “grand” projects? Why should people involved in “grand” projects feel guilty about it when charity and inspirational projects can coexist and make life more complete and balanced? Which developed country in the world puts “grand” projects on hold until there is no more charity work to do?

Not everyone in the world thinks like an ultra-pragmatic Singaporean. In fact, not many people in the world do. Imagine the shock on a few Thai faces when a Singaporean suggested that the ancient ruins at Ayuthaya should be demolished and nice “historical” theme park built in its place. The more “sensible” we think we are, the more the rest of the human race will find us difficult to understand.

By the way, casinos, resorts and big malls are commercial buildings that generate income for its investors. They are not “grand gestures” in the same vein as mountaineering expeditions. Just because we’ve built an IR doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a mountaineering expedition.

Yesterday, 11:10 AM
——————————————————————————–
One main issue - like the 400lb gorilla sitting in the room but being ignored completely is the question of why there has to be justification for mountaineering on a recreational basis, and climbing at an ‘elite’ basis? If you consider climbing to be a sport with technical grades of difficulty and challenge, quite well documented in the climbing world, I thin perhaps the objections by some here is that public funding goes to support mountaineering, without distinguishing between recreational climbing and top level ( in the SG context anyway ) climbing.

Looking at it this way, the climbing that often makes the news is climbing that is breaking new ground in the context of the climb. So while climbing Everest by the usual Nepal route has been done previously by SG teams, the all-womens team set a new standard in that context for their gender. In that light to ALWAYS demand justification , and comparisons, and community ‘ payback’ is applying double standards - demanding so much more from climbers (while giving less) than other sportsmen and women.

I’m not even referring to sports here than get MILLIONS annually from taxpayers fund while producing mediocre results, carry large numbers of admin staff and the usual ‘expenses’.

On a world-level, Everest climbing is NO longer cuttiing edge, but in our context, it still represents and enormous challenge. So I suggest we save the pontification for sports where it participants are often poor role models, suck up large amounts of public funds, and dont quite produce the results expected of them

Cut some slack to mountaineers who train and coach themselves, raise most of their own money, voluntarily do inspiring talks and workshops of climbing skills, And handle of the PR as well

Yesterday, 12:22 AM
——————————————————————————–
it remains to be seen whether the mountaineers are willing to use the experience they have gained from climbing everest to help others.

the letter writer stated that they have organised inspirational workshops and so on. are the workshops organised for free or for profit?

perhaps the ST could help them by publicising their charitable work more.

of course everest is a major feat. but after they have finished climbing the mountain, they are basically done with it. do they need to suffer the cold and harsh weather every day?

before you come to the defence of such expeditions, you might want to think about the tens of thousands of needy people here suffer from the lack of health care and poor living conditions. and they have to live like this for the rest of their lives (and not just the short duration of a few mths like the adventurers).

there are people here who are neglected, need basic medical attention but not even have the money to pay for it… some do not even have a roof over their head and have to live out their days sleeping in void decks. and i’m sure you;ve all seen some of them hobbling about or amputees going ard in wheelchairs in hawker centres selling cheap tissue paper.

of course i greatly admire the adventurers, but who do you think is ought to be the priority for government funding?

i believe that singapore needs to strike a balance between doing grand things with a short-lived impact, and small acts of greatness that have real impact on the lives of its people.

looking at the casinos, resorts, the big malls that are built… and the competitions, the international festivals that many singaporeans have been involved in and have received funding for, don;t you think that singapore has done enough “grand” gestures?

isn’t it time to channel more funds to help people on the ground?