Saturday, January 31, 2026

全场惊为天人!40岁酒吧歌手颜值身材碾压明星,开嗓唱哭孙悦!#妈妈来了

当“舍不得”遇见“断舍离” 大扫除是门代际共修课

当“舍不得”遇见“断舍离” 大扫除是门代际共修课

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/lifestyle/familynlove/story20260118-8086297?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-01-18

======


新春将至, 大扫除不只是家居清理,更可以成为许多家庭审视情感、沟通代际的契机。年长者因成长记忆与安全感而形成“舍不得”的囤积习惯,往往与子女“断舍离”的整理需求产生碰撞。理解长辈行为背后的心理,将整理转化为全家参与、充满故事分享的家庭活动,其意义远超大扫除本身。

农历新年将至,许多家庭已开始大扫除。清理居家空间,做断舍离,整理的不仅是住家空间,也能借此调整生活习惯。


曹氏基金会“活跃年长者系列:‘断舍离’整理术”课程的两名讲员纪维春(57岁)和杨时中(51岁),接受《联合早报》访问时指出,人们之所以习惯囤积物品,往往不只是生活习惯,也与心理、安全感及人生经历相关,尤其在年长者身上更为明显。


纪维春说:“对很多年长者来说,囤积物品带来安全感。他们经历过物资匮乏的年代,觉得东西好好的为何要丢掉,先收着日后或会用得上。”他回忆小时候曾到亲戚家吃年菜,对方拿出一罐早已生锈的鲍鱼罐头,“那是舍不得用,也舍不得丢的典型例子。”


旧物品承载身份认同

物品承载个人身份认同,例如奖状、奖杯,或与过去职业相关物品,对某些人是人生阶段的象征。纪维春指出:“如果一个人退休后,被要求把这些东西丢掉,似乎否定他过去的角色与价值。”


虽然囤积行为背后往往存在心理因素,但整洁的居家空间,不但卫生安全,还能带来优质生活。


杨时中说,杂物堆积容易造成跌倒风险,在紧急状况下,可能阻碍救护人员进出。他提出一个简单的整理检验方式:想象若家中放一台扫地机器人,若它能够在不碰撞障碍物的情况下绕行一圈,即代表空间充足。


杨时中(面向镜头)在主讲断舍离课程时,强调整理居家应以卫生和安全为出发点。(受访者提供)

杨时中补充,空间腾出来后可发展个人爱好,如在家中种植植物,重拾烹饪兴趣;孙子来探访时,也有更多活动空间。 

长辈或有心无力

很多人都知道断舍离,但如何去实践,家人之间必须好好沟通。


纪维春举例,有的子女认为母亲厨房的锅铲和用具过多,担心成为安全隐患,但母亲却样样不舍得丢。双方各有观点,容易引发冲突。


有时长辈并非不愿意整理,而是有心无力。随着年纪增长,爬高、弯腰、搬重物都变得困难。杨时中指出,独居老人或只和老伴同住的家庭,通常只能做较简单的整理。

许多家庭在新年前大扫除时,往往由母亲一手包办,其他成员缺乏行动力。纪维春建议,不如把整理变成家庭活动,家有小孩的话,可发动他们一起动起来。

在多代同堂的家庭中,每个人有自己的生活空间,但共用的客厅和入门处,应合作保持卫生整洁。杨时中说:“或许能拿个回收盒子,让家人各自整理物品后放入其中,齐心合力为整理屋子尽一份力。”


在具体方法上,杨时中建议桌面只摆放一至两样必要物品,衣物则以“直立式收纳”取代层层叠放,减少翻找的负担。


针对情感价值高的物品,纪维春分享个人做法。例如,女儿小时候学画画,留下大量画作,本来放在床底下,最后只精选部分保留,其余拍照留存后处理转送;旧照片、账单也可透过数码化保存,减少实体空间负担。

反向思维帮助放手

对于“明明用不到却舍不得”的物品,纪维春提出一种反向思维:把物品放在显眼处。“每天看到,看久了,就会发现其实没有再用到,反而更容易放下。”他笑说,太太至今仍保留几十年前上班时的衣服,但经过反复审视,逐渐淘汰部分。

他强调,判断是否该留下的核心原则很简单:“现在,对你有没有用处?”

有人不愿随意丢弃,是担心物品找不到合适的去处。他以儿子收藏的《哈利波特》书籍为例,这些书当年是用零用钱购买的,儿子想转送给真正想阅读的人,而不是随手扔弃。

在纪维春看来,新年大扫除的意义不仅是清理空间,也能作为世代交流的机会。“长辈可以趁这个时候,把物品背后的故事讲给晚辈听。”整理的过程,既是取舍也是回顾。

他平日有定时整理习惯,例如利用环保箱分类物品。近期他趁整理屋子时换了一个较小的书柜,借此重新检视藏书,淘汰不再需要的书籍。“断舍离不是否定过去,而是决定什么继续陪你走向未来。”

居家整理从冰箱开始

要开始整理居家,应该从哪里着手?两名受访者不约而同提到冰箱。

杨时中说,冰箱里的物品几乎没有所谓的情绪联结,过期了就丢,相对最容易处理。

各家庭成员常随手把食品往冰箱里放,应定时清理自己的食品。(特约沈康雄摄)

纪维春说,冰箱由家人共用,随手买了东西就往里放,时间久了,大家也应各自处理自己的食品。他分享,一名朋友曾提醒他,冰箱里应该永远留个空位,以便有访客时能放蛋糕,这个观念也促使他养成定期清理冰箱的习惯。


家人同时能反思消费习惯,譬如是否真的需要购买大瓶装食品,“有时候一小瓶就足够了。”


断舍离的概念也能延伸到生活习惯层面。杨时中说,随着智能手机普及,不少年长者的手机存有大量照片、影片和应用程序,尤其是社交平台互传的图片,容易造成数码杂乱。不妨适度做数码整理,减少无谓的社交与信息负担。

他不忘提醒,平日要谨慎面对促销折扣、买一送一或活动赠品,否则好不容易清空的空间,很快又会重新填满。


▲活跃年长者系列:“断舍离”整理术


2026年1月29日(星期四)
早上9时至傍晚6时
地点:9 Bishan Place #10-02 Junction 8 Office Tower S579837
电话:87330194(只限WhatsApp)
收费:$69.60(可使用技能创前程SkillsFuture补助)


Despised cleaner turned out to be a Tsinghua top graduate – next second,...

我每天做的事


1. 每天做必须做的事

2. 每天做应该做的事

3. 每天做喜欢做的事

4. 每天抽空无所事事

AI成医护“第三只眼” 伤口护理更快更准

AI成医护“第三只眼” 伤口护理更快更准

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/lifestyle/health/story20260127-8157860?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-01-27

传统依赖肉眼判断和手工测量伤口,不仅费时费力,也易产生主观差异。如今,随着人工智能走进病房,医院借助伤口护理管理应用,实现伤口数据的自动化、标准化与可视化,为患者带来更安心、更精准的照护体验。

在医疗资源日益紧张,慢性病患者以及术后康复需求不断增长的今天,伤口护理——这一看似基础的临床环节,却长期面对患者居家自我管理的困难,以及换药依赖经验等问题,不仅给医护人员带来更多挑战,也影响病人的康复情况。


在传统模式下,护士须要通过频繁的肉眼观察,记录伤口变化。这不仅效率受限,更可能因主观判断存在差异,影响治疗的连续性。随着人工智能技术的发展,一种更精准、高效且人性化的伤口护理模式正在重塑临床实践。人工智能工具已成为医护人员的“第三只眼”,让患者的康复之路更清晰、更安心。

识别并分类伤口组织类型

测量伤口是患者护理的重要环节。护士和临床医生通过伤口测量追踪愈合进程,以此指导治疗决策。樟宜综合医院推出了伤口护理管理应用,辅助医护人员开展患者的伤口护理流程,提升精准度与效率,让病人受惠。

护士每天可记录并追踪各类伤口愈合进程,相关数据同步纳入综合医疗档案,供新保集团旗下各医院和机构无缝调取。(樟宜综合医院提供)

此前,医院护士须使用纸尺手工测量患者伤口,或借助透明胶片勾勒伤口轮廓进行评估。如今,借助人工智能和机器学习(machine learning)驱动的应用,伤口测量的精确性大为提高。该应用通过数码标尺与三维成像相机自动采集测量数据,不仅能够提供伤口深度估算值,还可识别和分类伤口中的各组织类型。这种自动化测量流程,既减少护士之间测量结果的不一致性,又避免采用探针等侵入性评估手段来判断皮下伤口的状况,从而降低了对患者造成的不适。

朱家倪说,要让每位病人获得最优质护理,必须深入了解护士和临床医生在伤口评估中的实际挑战,从而提升伤口管理效率。(樟宜综合医院提供)

樟宜综合医院智能医疗转型部门助理处长朱家倪指出,医院与时并进,这是护理转型团队与医护理人员紧密合作,梳理现有病人伤口评估工作流程取得的进程。团队设计出既能充分发挥应用优势,又能确保跨部门顺畅实施的新流程。

她说:“每个病人理应获得最优质的护理,这需要我们专业医疗团队的全力配合与支持。首先,须深入了解护士和临床医生在伤口评估所面临的挑战,探索优化工作流程的方法,以实现更高效的伤口管理。”

数据贯通提升医疗服务

方月卿副教授说,借助人工智能应用,专科护士得以聚焦复杂伤口病例,进一步提升患者的护理质量与体验。(樟宜综合医院提供)

参与医院这个项目的临床护理导师王玲指出,伤口护理管理应用通过标准化摄影技术,指导护士采用统一的拍摄角度和操作流程,从而更精准地追踪患者的伤口愈合进程。她说:“建立照片对比基准后,护理团队就能更高效地评估患者伤口状况,并快速识别愈合进展或恶化的明确指标。”

这个应用能够追踪这些变化,并自动生成报告,帮助护士更好地向患者及其护理人员讲解伤口进展和管理方法。除自身免疫性疾病引起的伤口以及清洁手术伤口外,护士每周都会记录各类伤口的变化状况。护理人员只须扫描患者腕带,电脑系统便能自动将伤口数据衔接到对应的病历,有效降低数据错误风险。这也显著缩短了伤口测量与电子记录所需时间,使医护人员能将更多精力投入在直接护理患者的工作上。

负责主导开发该应用的樟宜综合医院首席护士方月卿副教授指出,专科护士因此能将更多精力转向更复杂的伤口病例,或在整个护理过程中为患者提供更全面的支持。“通过为护理团队配备智能工具,不仅提升效率,更能增强为每位患者提供的护理质量和体验。”


除了在病房层面的直接效益外,采集到的病人伤口数据还会纳入其综合医疗档案,使新保集团(SingHealth)旗下所有医院和机构都能无缝获取患者伤口的信息。这种互联互通的操作确保了患者在不同医院和诊所转诊时护理的连续性,也促进患者伤口管理的整合化。


人工智能伤口护理管理并不止于“工具升级”。未来,随着技术与临床更深度地融合,智能护理或许将成为慢性伤口管理中不可或缺的“标准配置”,让更多患者在细微之处切实感受到医疗进步的温暖与力量。



餐馆营造“回家吃饭”幸福感 免费续添不怕食客吃太饱

餐馆营造“回家吃饭”幸福感 免费续添不怕食客吃太饱

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/lifestyle/food/story20260131-8192419?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-01-31

本地餐饮业正兴起一股“免费无限续添”风潮,从白饭、汤品、小菜、甜点到一整排自助沙拉吧,吃多少都不另收费。尽管餐馆成本节节攀升,却仍愿意让顾客“吃到饱”,这背后不仅是行销手法的变化,也折射出餐饮业竞争策略与用餐文化的转向。 

近年来,多家进军本地市场的中国餐饮品牌以免费且可续添(free-flow)的米饭、小菜、水果或甜品作为卖点。事实上,早在十多年前一些日本餐馆已提供类似优惠,只是当时并未刻意强调或作为主打策略。

随着这种行销模式更广泛采用,餐饮业的竞争焦点会否逐渐从价格与菜品本身,转向“可免费续添”等用餐体验与消费满足感的比较?食客的用餐预期正在重塑,对市场竞争结构多少产生影响。

Grilled Fish Keisuke附送多款小菜和高汤,顾客可根据当天心情自由搭配。(餐馆提供)

日本餐馆创造“食乐园”

竹田敬介(Keisuke Takeda)2010年在本地创立Keisuke集团,如今全岛已开设18家餐馆,如豚骨王(Tonkotsu King)和饺子王(Gyoza King)。集团从一开始就在不同概念店提供一些可无限添加的免费食物,包括米饭、面条、鸡蛋和沙拉吧,点一份主食即可享有。


2025底,竹田敬介在丹戎巴葛路开了一家主打烤鱼的Grilled Fish Keisuke,桌上有多款免费任拿小菜,如明太子鱿鱼、酱油焖牛肉、辣渍高菜、腌大白菜和海苔。


Grilled Fish Keisuke的免费小菜明太子鱿鱼、酱油焖牛肉和辣渍高菜,以及腌大白菜和海苔,给予食客许多“食趣”。(陈爱薇摄)

竹田敬介接受《联合早报》访问时说:“我们这么做的主要目的并不为吸引顾客,而是创造一个‘美食魔法乐园’,让顾客通过不同组合和变化,体验日本料理的乐趣。顾客可根据当天心情和感觉,选择自己喜欢的搭配和数量,享受自由的喜悦。而且每次光顾都可创造不重复的新组合,还有新发现和惊喜。”

可无限添加手法在日本并不常见,这是Keisuke集团围绕创意和以体验为本的独特理念。竹田敬介说,不会将成本转嫁给顾客,因为企业的首要考量是丰富顾客生活,利润居次。


“宴美豚”大多数主食可续添米饭、包菜丝加芝麻菜和猪肉味噌汤。(陈爱薇摄)

在日本,炸猪排店(Tonkatsu)提供免费白饭和包菜丝的做法倒是相当普遍。新加坡多家炸猪排店也引进这种文化,包括2023年开业的“宴美豚”(Tonkatsu ENbiton)。

“宴美豚”的可续添包菜丝很清脆,许多食客为此一再光顾。(陈爱薇摄)

EN集团经理克里斯特尔(Krisstle Ganison)告诉记者,旗下品牌“宴美豚”在全岛的六家门店,点指定主食不仅可续添米饭、包菜丝和猪肉味噌汤,还在包菜丝内加入芝麻菜,确保顾客有更完整用餐体验。据她观察,客人反应都很正面,喜欢新鲜包菜丝带来的清新口感,可洗涤味蕾及解腻。


中国品牌行销出大招

中国餐馆品牌登陆狮城,为原本的“隐藏版福利”打开新格局。

2012年,“海底捞”在新加坡初试啼声时,只须多付几元就能享用小料台的所有小菜、水果、甜点和调料。这几年落户本地的中国品牌更是完全不另收费,只要在店里光顾,便提供一些可续添食物。以称重结算食物价格的中餐馆“百米香”,顾客可任取米饭、粥和饮料;在“西塔老太太”泥炉烤肉,则能从冰箱自取水果和杯装冰淇淋。


“米为先拌饭”为顾客免费续添五常大米、海带汤、泡菜和大麦茶。(陈爱薇摄)

朝鲜族拌饭将附送前菜的韩式用餐体验进一步升华。“敏丁拌饭”打出“米饭随便加、海带汤随便喝、朝鲜族泡菜随便吃”的口号。“米为先拌饭”除了五常大米、海带汤和泡菜,还让顾客任饮大麦茶。这两家的拌饭一份不到10元,对食客而言,性价比极高。


“金筷子”云贵川餐馆希望通过免费软冰淇淋和小零食,提升顾客幸福感。(叶振忠摄)

汲取云南、贵州和四川三省美食文化灵感,同时迎合本地口味的新加坡首家云贵川餐饮概念店“金筷子”(Golden Chopsticks),提供免费软冰淇淋和小零食。大多数顾客在用过“干版”椒盐水煮鱼和鹿茸菇小炒肉等正餐后,会自己去挤压一两杯软冰淇淋,有抹茶和草莓两种口味。

“金筷子”的顾客自己动手挤压软冰淇淋,有抹茶和草莓两种口味。(叶振忠摄)

餐馆董事长庄乾华说,这种做法在中国餐饮比较常见,新加坡相对少。他说:“现在做餐饮竞争很大,希望软冰淇淋和小零食所带来的欢乐,让顾客感受到高价值和高质量体验。顾客幸福、员工幸福和社会美好,是我们经营餐饮的终极使命。”餐馆下来准备推出免费汤品。


Bari Bari Steak沙拉吧提供多种选择,让顾客享有均衡餐食,也体现日本餐饮文化多样性。(叶振忠摄)

食客自在用餐无须计价

2025年底开在淡滨尼1号(Tampines 1)的Bari Bari Steak,一整排逾30种冷热食自助沙拉吧让人惊艳,将免费续添的福利推向新高度。

这家来自香港的日式铁板牛排餐馆,会先将牛排煎至五分熟,再放上300摄氏度的热石盘,食客可根据个人喜好自行加热至理想熟度。菜单上也有猪肉、鸡肉和三文鱼等铁板烧选项。铁板烧端上桌时,热盘内只有肉排和炸薯块,因为沙拉吧上一整排食物正等着食客自行取用。


沙拉吧的热食有米饭、意大利面、炸薯块和炸薯圈等,还有冷面、通心粉、蔬菜、水果,以及酱料如自制Bari Bari招牌酱、宫崎烧肉酱和柚子洋葱酱等。

Bari Bari Steak由EN集团引进本地,集团经理克里斯特尔说:“我们的着重点是提升全面用餐体验,而非限制消费。通过提供多种选择,顾客可享受一顿均衡餐食,也体现日本餐饮文化对多样性和呈现方式的重视。只要物有所值,顾客自然乐意回头。”

“肉肉大米”食客可要求添加米饭、蔬菜和味噌汤,并自取水果片浸泡在冰水内。(餐馆提供)

莆田集团旗下三个品牌也提供可无限续添品项。2025年引进的日本品牌“肉肉大米”(Niku Niku Oh!! Kome),个人份套餐包括牛肉汉堡肉、温泉蛋、米饭及味噌汤,食客可要求添加米饭、蔬菜及味噌汤,还可自取水果片浸泡在冰水内。“莆田妈妈”供应无限量续添的汤和小菜,三龙街海南鸡饭则备有一锅清汤供食客自行添加。


莆田集团副总裁方泽嘉说,品牌希望带出“回家吃饭”的家常感。他进一步说明:“美味应该是简约而充实的。在家里如果没吃饱,肯定会再盛一碗饭或续一碗汤。我们希望顾客在这里也能同样感到自在,所以省去计价繁琐,专注于物超所值体验,致力成为大家心目中那个‘想回家吃饭’时的首选。”


美味应该是简约而充实的。在家里如果没吃饱,肯定会再盛一碗饭或续一碗汤。我们希望顾客在这里也能同样感到自在,所以省去计价繁琐,专注于物超所值体验,致力成为大家心目中那个‘想回家吃饭’时的首选。——方泽嘉

节约与高营收抵销成本

无论是小菜、甜点或米饭汤粉,还是重量级自助沙拉吧,餐馆成本肯定因此上扬。然而,大多数餐馆的价格仍具竞争力,似乎并没有将太多成本转嫁给消费者。


Bari Bari Steak将铁板烧端上桌时仅有肉排和炸薯块,顾客可到沙拉吧自取喜欢的配菜。(叶振忠摄)

Bari Bari Steak铁板烧从一份$19.90起,200克牛肩肉$25.90,令食客十分心动。克里斯特尔说,这样的定价是餐馆通过运营效率和供应商合作伙伴关系,精心管理得到的成果。


方泽嘉提出,复购率可解决这方面的问题。一旦顾客增加,固定成本比例自然随之下降。一顿内容完整、品质稳定的用餐体验,吃得满足还无须过多计算或比较价格,这种轻松省心的用餐模式,会吸引更多顾客回头,餐馆从而获利,是个双赢结果。


其他受访餐馆也都在不影响食物品质的前提下,节约运作成本作为抵销,并希望借此让顾客获得更圆满的用餐体验。


免费无限量续添手法以较低的边际成本,成功让消费者直接被“老板不怕我多吃”的诚意感动,是一种成熟的市场学逻辑。食客光顾前已抱着“赚到”心态,甚至不介意点价格较高的菜品,之后还会主动替店家宣传。受访业者也说,食客最多续添一两次,不会报复性用餐。 

全服务型餐馆严阵以待

免费续添策略未必适用于所有餐馆,莆田(Putien)餐馆就没有复制。方泽嘉解释道,上述三家餐馆属于快速休闲餐饮经营模式,莆田是全服务型餐馆。两者的市场定位与顾客的消费行为有所不同,用餐场景与需求也不尽相同。莆田餐馆以另一种方式诠释相同的待客之道——为幼儿准备免费健康宝宝餐,让家长更安心用餐,并感受到孩子同样获得细心照顾与重视。


其他全服务型餐馆也感受到这种行销浪潮来袭,严阵以待。

新加坡姑苏(慎敬堂)餐饮协会会长蔡华春接受早报访问时说,中国餐馆的价格战已让许多老行尊写个“服”字;按一般进口程序操作,食材成本难以降得太低,本地餐馆老板自认摸不清门道,价格上难以硬碰硬。这几年,不少餐馆进一步推出“有吃有送”策略,同行生意难免跟着受累。


蔡华春说:“经营数十年的老字号有各自特色和熟客,生意还能维持。一些只有五到十年的餐馆就比较困难,价格拼不过,客源又还没建立起来。”

餐馆为了生存,纷纷出招。蔡华春在坎贝拉广场的潮州餐馆“深利喫茶添味”,就增添一个可任取免费冰淇淋的冷柜。据他观察,一些较高端餐馆认为不适宜走免费续添路线,会选择其他方式,如特价$28北京鸭或送水果甜品。

另一方面,也有小贩在能力许可范围内,为顾客提供类似福利,但实施起来有一定挑战,毕竟小本生意的利润本来就不高。大巴窑一个2025年赶上蒸鱼套餐热潮的档主,一开始摆出四种小菜供食客任取,之后减至两种,最后由档主加在套餐里。


加东美味鸡饭随餐供应免费阿渣和家常汤。(陈爱薇摄)
加东美味鸡饭的阿渣秀色可餐。(陈爱薇摄)

加东购物中心底层的美味鸡饭,很多人知道有免费阿渣(achar)和汤的“好康”。档位前一碟碟的阿渣秀色可餐,随餐附送的一大碗家常汤,经常是莲藕花生或包菜鸡汤。坊间说阿渣和汤是可多次添加,记者以食客身份上前询问时,负责点菜阿姨比了“一次”手势。个人份鸡饭从$7.70起,价格比一般鸡饭档高,但鸡肉和鸡饭分量都很大。加上阿渣和有妈妈味道的汤,支持者认为值得。


全岛有五个档位的乐达鸡饭(Le Da Chicken Rice)也供应免费例汤,如老黄瓜、西洋菜、榨菜、萝卜马铃薯番茄汤。老板王威达大方地说:“顾客要续添我们都会加,最重要是顾客满意开心。”


▲Keisuke集团
网址:keisuke.sg

▲Tonkatsu ENbiton
网址:tonkatsu-enbiton.com.sg

▲金筷子
地址:2 Tampines Central 5 #02-07/28 Century Square S529509

▲Bari Bari Steak
地址:10 Tampines Central #01-24/25/26 Tampines 1 S529536

▲肉肉大米
地址:26 Sentosa Gateway #01-228 Weave at Resorts World Sentosa S098138

交流站:咳嗽时应捂住嘴巴

交流站:咳嗽时应捂住嘴巴

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/talk/story20260131-8234998?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-01-31

张国城

=====


有些国人有个坏习惯,那就是在大庭广众打哈欠或咳嗽时,不捂住嘴巴。打哈欠时不捂住嘴巴会影响个人仪态,咳嗽时不捂住嘴巴则涉及公共卫生,因为细菌会从口腔散播到周围环境。如果刚巧站在旁边的是免疫系统较弱的老人或孩童, 就很容易受感染而生病。人们应在咳嗽时捂住嘴巴,或在咳嗽之前赶紧戴上口罩,这是大家应该有的基本卫生意识。

我到日本旅行时发现,当地人一般上在拥挤的公共场所,如乘坐公交时,会自动戴上口罩。日本社会整体公民素质较高,日本人的文明行为常被视为典范。他们高度自律,自幼就被灌输遵守公共秩序和社会规范的观念,学习如何与他人互动及和谐共存,尽量不要给别人带来不便。这种根深蒂固的礼貌和素质,不仅限于打哈欠与咳嗽时捂住嘴巴,也充分体现在他们处理垃圾和保持公厕清洁方面。

日本人的优点值得我们积极学习与仿效,希望我国也能迈向优雅而文明的社会。

逾六成本地劳动力拥大专学历 持大学文凭全职居民名义收入中位数9038元

=====
逾六成本地劳动力拥大专学历 持大学文凭全职居民名义收入中位数9038元
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/singapore/story20260130-8232447?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-01-30

去年,本地劳动人口中,超过六成拥有高等教育学历。其中,持大学文凭的全职就业居民,每月总收入中位数达9038元,创下新高。


根据人力部星期四(1月29日)发布的《2025年劳动力报告》 ,若把雇主公积金缴交额计算在内,全职就业居民的名义收入(nominal income)中位数,从2024年的5500元,上升至5775元。持大学文凭者的收入水平则明显更高,中位数达9038元。


不过,尽管大学学历居民的名义收入中位数,近年来持续上升,若计入通货膨胀因素,他们在2020年至2025年的实际收入,年均增长率只有约0.7%。这比2015年至2020年的1.3%来得低。


数据显示,这类居民中,有近八成从事专业人士、经理、执行人员与技师(PMET)相关的白领工作,主要集中在金融与保险服务业,以及专业服务业。


在就业情况方面,25岁至64岁、持大学文凭者的就业率达88.1%,高于同年龄层、教育程度较低者。


本地劳动力学历水平 过去10年明显提升

过去10年,本地劳动人口的受教育程度持续提高。去年,有64.1%的居民拥有高等教育学历,如大学学位、文凭或专业资格,比2015年的51.5%,增加超过10个百分点。


其中,持大学文凭者在本地劳动人口中的占比,也从2015年的32.2%,上升至去年的43.7%。


居民指的是本地公民和永久居民,就业居民则包括受雇居民与自雇居民。

女性与年长者参与率同步上升

除了学历水平提高,女性的劳动参与率,在过去10年也稳步上升。

25岁至64岁女性的参与率,从2015年的74.1%,提高至去年的80.5%;同年龄层男性的参与率,则维持在91.8%的高位。


另一方面,60岁及以上者在劳动力中的占比,也从2015年的12.3%,增至2025年的19.3%。


高技能人才需求强 AI带来分化

新加坡国立大学商学院策略与政策系讲师徐乐博士,星期五(1月30日)受访时说,劳动市场对高技能人才和专业人士的需求,依然强劲。她说,人工智能(AI)、金融科技、企业数码转型,以及大数据安全与分析等领域,预计仍将持续吸纳人才。

“由于相关专业的培养需要时间,短期内供给有限,这些领域的人才,未来仍有较高的薪资溢价空间。”

不过,她也提醒,个人薪资表现,仍与企业的经营状况密切相关。若经济增长放缓,整体商业活动受抑制,薪资增长空间也可能受到影响。

此外,薪资前景也与岗位是否容易被人工智能取代有关。随着人工智能在各行业加速应用,一些以流程管理和重复性决策为主的中层岗位,未来可能面对被取代,或工作被重塑的风险。


至于女性和年长者劳动参与率上升,徐乐认为,这反映我国为女性创造更公平就业环境,也为年长者提供较灵活的工作模式,这有利于缓解本地人口结构,对就业市场形成的压力。

Friday, January 30, 2026

女人只是在路邊散步,竟被車里的董事長看上,下一秒娶她當董事長夫人平分上億財產!#chinesedrama

海南二街 at Bedok Mall(鸡饭/暖炉)311 New Upper Changi Rd B2-05/34 Bedok Mall Singapore 467360


交流站:提升长者的口腔健康意识

交流站:提升长者的口腔健康意识

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/talk/story20260130-8216067?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app


2026-01-30

张泽润


一项全国长期纵向调查显示:新加坡只有约四分之一的老年人在过去六个月内看牙医,近三分之一的长者甚至超过五年没有看过牙医。这表明仅有约三分之一的老年人维持较近期的牙科访问,在口腔脆弱性(oral frailty)的预防性牙科服务方面,属于较低比例或水平。

许多长者,尤其那些缺乏天然牙齿或戴假牙的长者,会觉得没牙痛就没必要看牙医。许多老年人不经常看牙医是因为过去的痛苦经历或对牙医“疼痛治疗”的恐惧。另外,行动能力下降、缺乏陪同、交通不便等因素,使得一些长者即使知道须要看牙医,也难以付诸行动。这显示意识与教育不足:部分老年人对口腔健康知识与预防检查的重要性认识不够强,缺少定期口腔健康保健的习惯。

其实,口腔脆弱性对老年人的健康影响重大。口腔脆弱,即咀嚼、吞咽、口腔健康功能下降,被证明是身体整体脆弱、行动能力下降及死亡风险的一个预测指标。缺牙或咀嚼困难会改变饮食结构,可能导致偏食高糖、高脂食物,增加营养不均衡、体重下降或慢性病风险。另外,龋齿、牙龈疾病若未及早处理,可能恶化并引发疼痛、感染、牙齿脱落甚至影响心血管健康。

为改善老年公民看牙与口腔健康,我提出以下建议:

一、增强意识与教育:在社区中心和老人活动中心举行讲座,讲解口腔健康与全身健康的关联,以及定期推广口腔健康教育,如正确刷牙方法、假牙保养、营养、跌倒风险等。另外,鼓励年长者使用“健康伙伴”(Health Buddy)等手机应用中的自助检查功能,自己先评估口腔健康状态。

二、改善医疗访问与支援:在社区里或老人活动中心增添牙科筛查点。目前已有社区牙科护理服务为50岁以上患者在家中检查口腔健康,因此也应该考虑为行动不便的长者提供上门牙科筛查或移动诊所服务。另外,若加强养老津贴在牙科护理上的覆盖,就能让更多长者负担得起定期检查与治疗。譬如,为持社保援助计划(CHAS)蓝卡老者提供免费检查。

三、提升护理与专业支持:培训护理人员及家庭照护者学习日常口腔护理方法,以助他们为依赖他人照护的长者刷牙与保持口腔清洁。完善与跨专业团队合作,让医生、营养师、牙医及社区工作者合作,为年长者制定全面健康方案。

四、健康系统综合预防计划:与国家推行的健康SG计划(Healthier SG)结合,将口腔检查纳入老年人基本健康检查的推荐流程。这包括长期跟进与预防优先,鼓励老人每半年做一次口腔检查。另外,通过社区关怀日与口腔讲座活动,让口腔健康成为社区关怀的一部分,减轻年长者的心理障碍。

新加坡的老龄人口虽然面临减少牙科就诊、口腔脆弱性增加的问题,但通过上述四点协作,应该可以显著提升长者的口腔健康与整体生活质量。总之,促进定期检查、鼓励预防护理及提供便利的牙科服务,是改善长者口腔脆弱性和延缓长者全身衰弱的重要关怀策略。

联合早报社论(五):移民融入是必要社会工程

社论:移民融入是必要社会工程

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/editorial/story20260130-8216780?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-01-30

星期五

======

副总理兼贸工部长颜金勇1月26日在新加坡政策研究院的论坛上,坦率谈到新加坡持续面对总体生育率下滑的严峻挑战,以及我们有必要协助新移民融入本地社会,以缓解严峻的人口替代率不足问题。


我国在历史上一直是个移民社会,但经过独立前到今天的发展,已经形成几百万土生土长的新加坡人口,以及不断成形的独特社会文化与国民身份认同。然而,进入21世纪以来,总体生育率每况愈下,连传统华人视为生育好年头的2024龙年,也只达到0.97,几乎和2023兔年持平,对于即将公布最新人口数据的2025蛇年,恐怕也无法乐观。面对这个局面,我国阻止生育数字进一步下滑的各种政策努力须坚持继续,甚至加强,要尽最大努力鼓励和支持国人成家立业,养育下一代。


然而,我们又不能不面对现实,生育率下滑是当今几乎所有发达经济体都面对的问题,即使我国在1990年代就注意到这个隐患,但就算使尽浑身解数,也难以根本逆转这个趋势,因此接受持续引进移民是不得不为之举。人口基数是维持一个国家经济与社会活力的关键,移民除了填补多方面的人才缺口,创造新的机会和可能性,更根本的是维持国家人口稳定,包括我国人口多元结构的稳定。


另一方面,我们也必须清楚看到,很多先进国家在引进移民问题上因为规划不当,处理手法偏颇粗糙,造成新旧居民之间龃龉日深,埋下社会长期动荡的种子,因移民问题引发政治问题,在欧洲与美国都有鲜活例子。因此,如何以正确态度去应对移民课题,以积极而务实的措施创造融合条件,是必要的社会工程,也是社会成功的关键。


要让新移民顺利融入本地社会并被接受,我国基础设施等硬件完善与更新,是一个可能被忽略但不得不提的基本前提。2010年前后因为地铁系统多次故障,又因班次跟不上人口增加速度而在高峰时间极为拥挤,引发民怨,一些民众把矛头指向外来人口与移民,舆论出现对立气氛,这个经验教训许多人应该记忆犹新。


我国吸收移民近年来已逐渐转向较高水平的人才,在节奏上也更重视对本地社会带来的观感。为此,必须创造条件让本地人感到自己就业与上升通道有所保障,才能避免导致本地人产生误解或感觉受威胁,有效鼓励国人放开心胸支持移民政策,进而才能谈到接纳、建立互信与相互融合。


来自不同文化与价值体系的移民能否落地生根,一方面取决于整体环境是否友善,能不能在长时间的生活中建立情感,本地社会能不能发挥同理心等人性元素;另一方面,移民本身是否愿意以行动参与社会的其他活动,也是关键。在社交媒体时代,移民如果固守熟悉的传播渠道,不接触本地主流信息平台,将会如同生活在隔离空间,与本土社会产生隔阂,造成身在新加坡、心在他处,身心异处的结果。如果在社交乃至居住方面也以同质化的移民群体为主,在物理空间与心理空间都自成一格,更可能不利于融合。


在这方面,1989年推出的组屋种族比例政策或许值得参考。这一政策避免单一族群过度聚居,维持组屋区多族群共处的生态,为族群的融合创造有利条件。组屋种族比例制的政策思路也可以探讨是否适用在新移民群体中,促进新移民与本地人在共同空间生活。


探讨移民课题总是敏感的,但公开谈论可以避免社会积累不必要的心结,也有助于各方建立更清晰的认知与共识,包括各方面政策制定的可能性。


建国以来,我们展开过很多社会工程,协助移民融入或许是新时代的需要,但过程必须更谨慎务实,节奏上要循序渐进。新移民要主动融入、培养本地人的意识与认同;本土民众也需要成熟地明白,新移民生长于不同的社会文化背景,与我们难免有所不同,双方需要共同努力,才能让融合新移民的社会工程开花结果。值得庆幸的是,在新加坡土生土长和自幼在本地长大、受教育乃至服兵役的二代移民,大多都能自然归属本土,形成国家认同意识。这是移民融入问题的希望所在,道路尽头的曙光。

Thursday, January 29, 2026

MISDIAGNOSED IN EUROPE, SAVED BY SINGAPORE A TRUE MEDICAL MIRACLE STORY

What's value?

价值:什么叫价值?

早安 2026-01-29

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

早安 2026-01-28

Why Is UMC Betting Its Largest Overseas Fab on Singapore? The "Safe Have...

My Weight Statistics (2026-01-28) --Monthly Measurement on the 28th of Each Month Since 28 May 2007

My 18-year Weight Management Records from 2007-05-28 to 2026-01-28 (by Calorie Restriction, i.e. Dietary Energy Restriction):

 


My 18-year Weight Management Records from 2007-05-28 to 2026-01-28 (by Calorie Restriction, i.e. Dietary Energy Restriction):

Note: According to the Singapore Health Promotion Board, a Healthy BMI is greater than18.5 and less than 23.0. A BMI less than 18.5 would mean that the individual is at risk of nutrition deficiency diseases and osteoporosis. 

A BMI equal or greater than 23.0 would mean that the individual is at risk of obesity-related diseases. (Ref: DD-Md2022J28)

As of 2026-01-28,

Note: ### indicates BMI = 23 or > 23

Total number of Monthly Weight monitored was 224 (100%)

The no. of times my healthy BMI between 18.5 and 22.9 was 219 (97.767%)

The no. of times my unhealthy BMI equal or more than 23.000 was 5 (2.253%)

=======================

2007

2007-05-28 morning, my weight = 65.0 kg, BMI = 23.588###

2007-06-28 morning, my weight = 61.0 kg, BMI = 22.136

2007-07-28 morning, my weight = 59.0 kg, BMI = 21.410

2007-08-28 morning, my weight = 58.7 kg, BMI = 21.302

2007-09-28 morning, my weight = 57.5 kg, BMI = 20.866

2007-10-28 morning, my weight = 57.5 kg, BMI = 20.866

2007-11-28 morning, my weight = 56.2 kg, BMI = 20.394

2007-12-28 morning, my weight = 55.5 kg, BMI = 20.140

2008

2008-01-28 morning, my weight = 54.8 kg, BMI = 19.886

2008-02-28 morning, my weight = 54.8 kg, BMI = 19.886

2008-03-28 morning, my weight = 54.5 kg, BMI = 19.777

2008-04-28 morning, my weight = 54.4 kg, BMI = 19.741

2008-05-28 morning, my weight = 54.1 kg, BMI = 19.632

2008-06-28 morning, my weight = 54.6 kg, BMI = 19.814

2008-07-28 morning, my weight = 54.5 kg, BMI = 19.777

2008-08-28 morning, my weight = 54.3 kg, BMI = 19.705

2008-09-28 morning, my weight = 54.9 kg, BMI = 19.923

2008-10-28 morning, my weight = 55.3 kg, BMI = 20.068

2008-11-28 morning, my weight = 54.5 kg, BMI = 19.777

2008-12-28 morning, my weight = 55.6 kg, BMI = 20.177

2009

2009-01-28 morning, my weight = 54.8 kg, BMI = 19.886

2009-02-28 morning, my weight = 55.9 kg, BMI = 20.285

2009-03-28 morning, my weight = 54.8 kg, BMI = 19.886

2009-04-28 morning, my weight = 55.3 kg, BMI = 20.068

2009-05-28 morning, my weight = 55.4 kg, BMI = 20.104.

2009-06-28 morning, my weight = 55.2 kg, BMI = 20.031

2009-07-28 morning, my weight = 55.1 kg, BMI = 19.995

2009-08-28 morning, my weight = 55.2 kg, BMI = 20.031

2009-09-28 morning, my weight = 56.3 kg, BMI = 20.431

2009-10-28 morning, my weight = 55.8 kg, BMI = 20.249

2009-11-28 morning, my weight = 56.2 kg, BMI = 20.394

2009-12-28 morning, my weight = 56.1 kg, BMI = 20.358

2010

2010-01-28 morning, my weight = 55.6 kg, BMI = 20.177

2010-02-28 morning, my weight = 56.5 kg, BMI = 20.503

2010-03-28 morning, my weight = 56.4 kg, BMI = 20.467

2010-04-28 morning, my weight = 55.7 kg, BMI = 20.213

2010-05-28 morning, my weight = 55.1 kg, BMI = 19.995

2010-06-28 morning, my weight = 56.4 kg, BMI = 20.467

2010-07-28 morning, my weight = 55.5 kg, BMI = 20.140

2010-08-28 morning, my weight = 55.8 kg, BMI = 20.249

2010-09-28 morning, my weight = 55.8 kg, BMI = 20.249

2010-10-28 morning, my weight = 55.4 kg, BMI = 20.104

2010-11-28 morning, my weight = 55.6 kg, BMI = 20.177

2010-12-28 morning, my weight = 55.5 kg, BMI = 20.140

2011

2011-01-28 morning, my weight = 55.4 kg, BMI = 20.104

2011-02-28 morning, my weight = 56.5 kg, BMI = 20.503

2011-03-28 morning, my weight = 55.6 kg, BMI = 20.177

2011-04-28 morning, my weight = 55.7 kg, BMI = 20.213

2011-05-28 morning, my weight = 55.6 kg, BMI = 20.177

2011-06-28 morning, my weight = 56.3 kg, BMI = 20.431

2011-07-28 morning, my weight = 56.5 kg, BMI = 20.503

2011-08-28 morning, my weight = 56.9 kg, BMI = 20.649

2011-09-28 morning, my weight = 56.2 kg, BMI = 20.394

2011-10-28 morning, my weight = 56.8 kg, BMI = 20.613

2011-11-28 morning, my weight = 59.0 kg, BMI = 21.410

2011-12-28 morning, my weight = 60.3 kg, BMI = 21.882

2012

2012-01-28 morning, my weight = 61.5 kg, BMI = 22.318

2012-02-28 morning, my weight = 62.7 kg, BMI = 22.753

2012-03-28 morning, my weight = 62.5 kg, BMI = 22.681

2012-04-28 morning, my weight = 61.3 kg, BMI = 22.246

2012-05-28 morning, my weight = 60.7 kg, BMI = 22.028

2012-06-28 morning, my weight = 60.6 kg, BMI = 21.992

2012-07-28 morning, my weight = 61.2 kg, BMI = 22.209

2012-08-28 morning, my weight = 60.8 kg, BMI = 22.064

2012-09-28 morning, my weight = 61.5 kg, BMI = 22.318**

2012-10-28 morning, my weight = 62.3 kg, BMI = 22.608

2012-11-28 morning, my weight = 63.4 kg, BMI = 23.008###

2012-12-28 morning, my weight = 62.9 kg, BMI = 22.826

2013

2013-01-28 morning, my weight = 63.0 kg, BMI = 22.863

2013-02-28 morning, my weight = 62.1 kg, BMI = 22.536

2013-03-28 morning, my weight = 61.5 kg, BMI = 22.318

2013-04-28 morning, my weight = 63.1 kg, BMI = 22.899****

2013-05-28 morning, my weight = 62.3 kg, BMI = 22.608

2013-06-28 morning, my weight = 62.2 kg, BMI = 22.572

2013-07-28 morning, my weight = 62.4 kg, BMI = 22.645

2013-08-28 morning, my weight = 62.6 kg BMI = 22.717

2013-09-28 morning, my weight = 62.4 kg BMI = 22.645**

2013-10-28 morning, my weight = 62.3 kg BMI = 22.609

2013-11-28 morning, my weight = 63.1 kg BMI = 22.899

2013-12-28 morning, my weight = 64.4 kg BMI = 23.371###

2014

2014-01-28 morning, my weight = 63.6 kg, BMI = 23.080###

2014-02-28 morning, my weight = 63.3 kg, BMI = 22.971

2014-03-28 morning, my weight = 62.7 kg, BMI = 22.753

2014-04-28 morning, my weight = 62.7 kg, BMI = 22.753

2014-05-28 morning, my weight = 62.9 kg, BMI = 22.826

2014-06-28 morning, my weight = 63.1 kg BMI = 22.899

2014-07-28 morning, my weight = 62.7 kg, BMI = 22.753

2014-08-28 morning, my weight = 62.2 kg, BMI = 22.572

2014-09-28 morning, my weight = 61.2 kg, BMI = 22.209

2014-10-28 morning, my weight = 61.4 kg, BMI = 22.282

2014-11-28 morning, my weight = 60.2 kg, BMI = 21.846

2014-12-28 morning, my weight = 60.8 kg, BMI = 22.064

2015

2015-01-28 morning, my weight = 61.3 kg, BMI = 22.246

2015-02-28 morning, my weight = 61.8 kg, BMI = 22.427

2015-03-28 morning, my weight = 61.8 kg, BMI = 22.427

2015-04-28 morning, my weight = 62,5. kg, BMI = 22.681

2015-05-28 morning, my weight = 62.4 kg, BMI = 22.645

2015-06-28 morning, my weight = 63.6 kg, BMI = 23.080###

2015-07-28 morning, my weight = 62.3 kg BMI = 22.609

2015-08-28 morning, my weight = 62.2 kg, BMI = 22.572

2015-09-28 morning, my weight = 63.0 kg, BMI = 22.863

2015-10-28 morning, my weight = 63.2 kg, BMI = 22.935

2015-11-28 morning, my weight = 62.6 kg, BMI = 22.717

2015-12-28 morning, my weight = 62.3 kg BMI = 22.609

2016

2016-01-28 morning, my weight = 63.0 kg, BMI = 22.863

2016-02-28 morning, my weight = 62.8 kg, BMI = 22.790

2016-03-28 morning, my weight = 62.0 kg, BMI = 22.499

2016-04-28 morning, my weight = 62.0 kg, BMI = 22.499

2016-05-28 morning, my weight = 62.4 kg, BMI = 22.645

2016-06-28 morning, my weight = 62.1 kg, BMI = 22.536

2016-07-28 morning, my weight = 62.2 kg, BMI = 22.572

2016-08-28 morning, my weight = 62.6 kg, BMI = 22.717

2016-09-28 morning, my weight = 62.8 kg, BMI = 22.790

2016-10-28 morning, my weight = 62,5. kg, BMI = 22.681

2016-11-28 morning, my weight = 62.1 kg, BMI = 22.536

2016-12-28 morning, my weight = 62.3 kg, BMI = 22.608

2017

2017-01-28 morning, my weight = 62.9 kg, BMI = 22.826

2017-02-28 morning, my weight = 62.4 kg, BMI = 22.644

2017-03-28 morning, my weight = 62.8 kg, BMI = 22.789

2017-04-28 morning, my weight = 62.3 kg, BMI = 22.609

2017-05-28 morning, my weight = 62.2 kg, BMI = 22.572

2017-06-28 morning, my weight = 62.6 kg, BMI = 22.717

2017-07-28 morning, my weight = 62.4 kg, BMI = 22.645

2017-08-28 morning, my weight = 61.9 kg, BMI = 22.463

2017-09-28 morning, my weight = 62.0 kg, BMI = 22.499

2017-10-28 morning, my weight = 62.0 kg, BMI = 22.499

2017-11-28 morning, my weight = 61.5 kg, BMI = 22.318

2017-12-28 morning, my weight = 61.5 kg, BMI = 22.318

2018

My Weight 2018-01-28 0934 hr 61.0 kg BMI 22.136

My Weight 2018-02-28 0915 hr 60.7 kg BMI 22.027

My Weight 2018-03-28 0620 hr 61.0 kg BMI 22.136

My Weight 2018-04-28 1005 hr 61.7 kg BMI 22.390

My Weight 2018-05-28 0856 hr 60.5 kg BMI 21.955

My Weight 2018-06-28 0600 hr 61.4 kg BMI 22.281

My Weight 2018-07-28 0600 hr 62.2 kg BMI 22.572

My Weight 2018-08-28 0720 hr 61.4 kg BMI 22.281

My Weight 2018-09-28 0805 hr 62.1 kg BMI 22.535

My Weight 2018-10-28 0750 hr 61.3 kg BMI 22.24

My Weight 2018-11-28 1000 hr 61.5 kg BMI 22.318

My Weight 2018-12-28 0650 hr 62.5 kg BMI 22.681

2019

2019-01-28 at 1000 hr 60.9 kg BMI 22.100

2019-02-28 at 0946 hr 61.0 kg BMI 22.136

2019-03-28 at 0700 hr 62.4 kg BMI 22.644

2019-04-28 at 0828 hr 62.9 kg BMI 22.826

2019-05-28 at 0745 hr 62.4 kg BMI 22.826

2019-06-28 at 0650 hr 62.4 kg BMI 22.644

2019-07-28 at 0736 hr 62.8 kg BMI 22.789

2019-08-28 at 0629 hr 62.4 kg BMI 22.644

2019-09-28 at 0644 hr 61.9 kg BMI 22.463

2019-10-28 at 0740 hr 62.5 kg BMI 22.681

2019-11-28 at 0632 hr 62.8 kg BMI 22.789

2019-12-28 at 0726 hr 62.5 kg BMI 22.681

2020

My Weight 2020-01-28 0625 HR  62.6 kg BMI 22.717

My Weight 2020-02-28 0728 HR  62.3 kg BMI 22.608

My Weight 2020-03-28 0649 HR  61.4 kg BMI 22.281

My Weight 2020-04-28 0810 HR  62.0 kg BMI 22.499

My Weight 2020-05-28 0714 HR  62.3 kg BMI 22.608

My Weight 2020-06-28 0757 HR  60.2 kg BMI 21.846

My Weight 2020-07-28 0715 HR  61.6 kg BMI 22.354

My Weight 2020-08-28 0707 HR  61.1 kg BMI 22.173

My Weight 2020-09-28 0609 HR  60.8 kg BMI 22.064

My Weight 2020-10-28 0818 HR  60.7 kg BMI 22.027

My Weight 2020-11-28 0706 HR  60.9 kg BMI 22.100

My Weight 2020-12-28 0631 HR  60.5 kg BMI 21.955

2021

My Weight 2021-01-28 0638 HR  61.3 kg BMI 22.245

My Weight 2021-02-28 0741 HR  61.2 kg BMI 22.209

My Weight 2021-03-28 0659 HR  61.3 kg BMI 22.245

My Weight 2021-04-28 0659 HR  61.1 kg BMI 22.173

My Weight 2021-05-28 0618 HR  61.1 kg BMI 22.173

My Weight 2021-06-28 0604 HR  61.3 kg BMI 22.245

My Weight 2021-07-28 0642 HR  61.2 kg BMI 22.209

My Weight 2021-08-28 0653 HR  61.5 kg BMI 22.318

My Weight 2021-09-28 0618 HR  61.5 kg BMI 22.318

My Weight 2021-10-28 0549 HR  61.0 kg BMI 22.136

My Weight 2021-11-28 0630 HR  61.3 kg BMI 22.245

My Weight 2021-12-28 0528 HR  61.6 kg BMI 22.354

======================================

2022

My Weight 2022-01-28 0910 HR  61.1 kg  BMI 22.173

My Weight 2022-02-28 0642 HR  61.2 kg  BMI 22.209

My Weight 2022-03-28 0649 HR  61.4 kg  BMI 22.281

My Weight 2022-04-28 0649 HR  61.4 kg  BMI 22.281

My Weight 2022-05-28 0549 HR  61.0 kg  BMI 22.136

My Weight 2022-06-28 0549 HR  61.0 kg  BMI 22.136

My Weight 2022-07-28 0700 HR  60.6 kg  BMI 21.991

My Weight 2022-08-28 0640 HR  61.3 kg  BMI 22.245

My Weight 2022-09-28 0738 HR  61.7 kg  BMI 22.390

My Weight 2022-10-28 0708 HR  61.5 kg  BMI 22.318

My Weight 2022-11-28 0706 HR  60.9 kg BMI 22.100

My Weight 2022-12-28 0722 HR  61.1 kg  BMI 22.173

========

2023

My Weight 2023-01-28 0537 HR 60.9 kg BMI 22.100

My Weight 2023-02-28 0515 HR 61.4 kg  BMI 22.281

My Weight 2023-03-28 0606 HR  61.3 kg  BMI 22.245

My Weight 2023-04-28 0738 HR  61.3 kg  BMI 22.245

My Weight 2023-05-28 0721 HR  61.0 kg  BMI 22.136

My Weight 2023-06-28 0641 HR  61.2 kg  BMI 22.209

My Weight 2023-07-28 0700 HR  60.9 kg BMI 22.100

My Weight 2023-08-28 0655 HR  61.3 kg  BMI 22.245

My Weight 2022-09-28 0738 HR  61.7 kg  BMI 22.390

My Weight 2022-10-28 0708 HR  61.5 kg  BMI 22.318

My Weight 2023-11-28 0612 HR 61.4 kg  BMI 22.281

My Weight 2023-12-28 0734HR  61.3 kg  BMI 22.245


========

2024

My Weight 2024-01-28 0734 HR  61.3 kg BMI 22.245

My Weight 2024-02-28 0510 HR  61.6 kg BMI 22.354

My Weight 2024-03-28 0642 HR  60.9 kg BMI 22.100

My Weight 2024-04-28 0721 HR  61.1 kg BMI 22.173

My Weight 2024-05-28 0537 HR  61.3 kg BMI 22.245

My Weight 2024-06-28 0651 HR  61.5 kg BMI 22.318

My Weight 2024-07-28 0612 HR 61.4 kg  BMI 22.281

My Weight 2024-08-28 0747 HR  61.1 kg BMI 22.173

My Weight 2024-09-28 0640 HR  61.1 kg BMI 22.173

My Weight 2024-10-28 0546 HR  61.5 kg BMI 22.318

My Weight 2024-11-28 0706 HR 61.4 kg  BMI 22.281

My Weight 2024-12-28 0649 HR 61.9 kg BMI 22.463

=======================================

2025

My Weight 2025-01-28 0625 HR  61.6 kg BMI 22.354

My Weight 2025-02-28 0742 HR  61.5 kg BMI 22.318

My Weight 2025-03-28 0640 HR  61.6 kg BMI 22.354

My Weight 2025-04-28 0734 HR  61.7 kg  BMI 22.390

My Weight 2025-05-28 0738 HR  61.8 kg  BMI 22.427

My Weight 2025-06-28 0606 HR  62.6 kg  BMI 22.717

My Weight 2025-07-28 0757 HR  62.7 kg  BMI 22.753

My Weight 2025-08-28 0546 HR  62.6 kg, BMI 22.717

My Weight 2025-09-28 0540 HR  62.2 kg BMI 22.572

My Weight 2025-10-28 0516 HR  62.4 kg BMI 22.644

My Weight 2025-11-28 0810 HR  62.1 kg BMI 22.535

My Weight 2025-12-28 0702 HR  62.2 kg BMI 22.572

=========================

2026

My Weight 2026-01-28 0733 HR 61.9 kg BMI 22.463


=========================


Note:

My current BMI is within the healthy range of 18.5 to 22.9.

For me, the range of healthy weight is 50.9786 kg (BMI = 18.5) to 63.10324 kg (BMI = 22.9).

People with BMI values of 23 kg/m2 (or 25 kg/m2 according to some sources) and above have been found to be at risk of developing heart disease and diabetes.

To be healthy, I must have a healthy weight.

Be as lean as possible without being underweight, as recommended by World Cancer Prevention Foundation, United Kingdom.

=================================

Note: On 2021-05-28, I removed the unimportant details of old records from My Weight Management Records.

=================================


Ref. WeightManagement



My Weight 2026-01-28:



My Weight
2026-01-28
0733 HR 
61.9 kg
BMI 22.463

For students to feel seen, class size matters

For students to feel seen, class size matters

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/for-students-to-feel-seen-class-size-matters

2026-01-28

By--- Jacqueline Ho is assistant professor of sociology at Singapore Management University. She studies education and inequality, with a focus on families’ experiences of education reform.

=====

In her best-selling memoir Totto-chan, Tetsuko Kuroyanagi tells the story of how she was expelled from school as a first-grader for her disruptive behaviour, but eventually flourished at Tomoe Gakuen, an alternative school.

Whereas she was distracted and disengaged in her old classroom, her new school gave each student the flexibility to begin the day with whatever learning activity most appealed to them. Totto-chan formed lifelong friendships at Tomoe, and even made a promise to her headmaster that she will return to teach there as an adult.

As someone who studies education, I can’t help but ask: What explains the contrast between her two experiences? The pedagogical philosophy of Tomoe’s headmaster is no doubt a core ingredient. But class size was likely also a key factor.

In the 2023 film adaptation of the book, there is a scene of Totto-chan’s old classroom that has exactly 40 students in it. At Tomoe, there are no more than 50 students in the entire school.

The policy question

What class size is appropriate? This is a perennial question in education policy. In Singapore, it has been debated in Parliament since at least the 1980s. It has once again surfaced amid concerns about teachers’ workloads.

The Ministry of Education’s (MOE) latest numbers show that our pupil-teacher ratio is 15.6 in primary schools and 12.7 in secondary schools. This is the total number of students enrolled across schools divided by the total number of teachers.

Our ratios are respectable by Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) standards. But low ratios may not translate to small classes.

In Primary 1 and 2, class sizes have been capped at 30 since 2006. Between Primary 3 and 6, average form class sizes range from 35 to 37. Between Secondary 1 and 4, they range from 33 to 35.

While class sizes may be smaller for higher-needs students and for specific subjects, we should focus on what the typical class size is for the modal student taking a core subject.

In the recent debates about teacher workload, class size reduction (CSR) has been absent from the menu of solutions offered by MOE. Instead, technology has been offered as an alternative. The recent introduction of AI-powered tools is intended to reduce workloads while customising teaching to individual learners’ needs.

Nonetheless, CSR continues to have strong advocates. Some teachers have voiced their opinion on social media, while parent group EveryChild.SG has proposed a plan to reduce class sizes in primary schools.

What the research says – and doesn’t say

Those arguing against it cite studies finding that class size is not actually that consequential when it comes to academic outcomes.

In recent years, MOE has repeatedly cited the OECD as an authority on this issue. The OECD’s reports argue that policymakers would see greater improvements in student outcomes if they invested in higher teacher quality rather than smaller class sizes.

Yet, given the methods used to arrive at this conclusion, our confidence in it might be misplaced.

The OECD reports are based on comparisons of all countries taking part in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), and identify factors that are correlated with their PISA results. It turns out that teacher salary is highly correlated while class size is not.

Mr Andreas Schleicher, who directs the PISA studies, illustrates it this way in his 2013 TED talk: South Korea does well in PISA, despite its large classes. It also pays its teachers well. In contrast, Luxembourg performs below average, has small classes, and does not pay its teachers well. Thus, teacher quality trumps class sizes.

The problem is that we don’t have a complete picture of all the other factors that may be affecting PISA performance in these countries. Something else – for instance, its competitive educational culture – could be driving South Korea’s students to do well despite studying in large classes.

More On This Topic

Class sizes matter as teaching workload changes, say Singapore teachers

Inside Singapore’s education ‘arms race’: Stress, inequality and the push for change

The most rigorous studies use methods that help ensure that class size is the only factor that varies between comparison groups. This set-up gives researchers greater confidence that variation in outcomes is specifically due to variation in class sizes.

A prominent example is Project STAR (Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio), a large-scale, randomised controlled trial conducted in the 1980s in Tennessee that placed young students in classes of different sizes. Several studies using STAR data have found sizeable, positive effects of smaller classes.

Other studies using quasi-experimental methods have also found positive effects of varying sizes, while some have found no effect.

Overall, the literature does not argue that class size is an unimportant factor. Instead, it suggests that reducing class sizes may have a positive impact, under specific circumstances.

Beyond test scores

Even so, what we can learn from the literature is limited, because of its overwhelming focus on the impact of class sizes on academic outcomes.

By now, we can all agree that the goals of education stretch far beyond test scores. In this context, a country’s PISA performance cannot be the only barometer for evaluating the benefits of smaller classes.

Here are some other questions we should also be asking. Does class size influence whether students love learning, develop confidence, and learn to communicate their ideas?

If large classes mean that students and teachers cannot learn and teach in the ways they want to, is this what drives them towards the tuition industry or international schools?

Given that a third of our youth report poor mental health, and more students with special educational needs are enrolling in mainstream schools, how does class size impact teachers’ capacity to care for their students?

The research on these questions is limited. Nonetheless, we can make some educated guesses based on the data we have right before us: the lived experiences of teachers and families.

In my own research, I interview parents to learn about their experiences of the education system. The issue of class size regularly emerges, unprovoked. “The child feels lost,” as one mother said, explaining that children in large classes do not receive enough individual attention.

Her children say that their teachers are “very shouty”, which may be because classroom management is often more difficult in large classes.

Many parents say their parent-teacher meetings are 10-minute Zoom conversations, which simply cannot be very meaningful.

As a teacher myself, I know why this happens.

Last year, I had 15 students in my first semester and 41 the next. In the larger class, I sometimes had to deny students the opportunity to participate so we could end class on time.

More On This Topic

Still don’t get it? Here’s why teaching doesn’t always lead to learning

Is the focus on performance killing students’ curiosity?

My students wished they could write longer papers, yet I could not afford more time to grade these. By the end of the semester, I had got to know – as humans, not just as members of a class – a smaller fraction of the students than I had the previous semester.

To state the obvious, there is a mechanical relationship between the number of students a teacher has and the amount of attention they can give to each student.

Learning not just a cognitive process

Attention matters not simply because it enables students to get the academic support they need. It matters because relationships are foundational to a student’s learning and development.

Recent research in neuroscience, led by Professor Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, finds that learning is a deeply emotional process, not just a cognitive one. And students become more emotionally invested in their work if they can see its relevance to their lived experiences and identities.

This research provides evidence in support of what many teachers intuitively know: to get students engaged, make the material relevant to their lives. But to do this well, we first need to pay attention to our students and understand who they are.

Can we do this with technology, instead of smaller classes? That is a question for the teachers and students currently experimenting with AI-powered tools. But we would do well to heed sociologist Allison Pugh’s warning about a possible “depersonalisation crisis”. As more job functions are delegated to AI, Professor Pugh argues that we risk losing the “connective labour” that those in the caring professions provide – the seeing, the listening, the being with the other person that is as much a part of their value to society as is their technical function.

Connective labour is what the headmaster of Tomoe Gakuen provided when he listened to Totto-chan talk for four hours the first time he met her. “You’re really a good girl,” he told her at the end. This was news for Totto-chan, who had known herself to be a “bad girl” before that.

When we consider a change like reducing class sizes, we pay a lot more attention to the cost of the change than we do the costs of the status quo.

What is lost when a student is turned off from school because her teachers are “shouty”? Or when she misses out on chances to develop supportive relationships with adult mentors? What is lost when a burnt-out teacher misses a student’s distress signals, delaying the necessary interventions?

Thinking through these questions, we might ask how many Totto-chans sit quietly in our classrooms today, waiting for the time and attention that would allow them to flourish.

Jacqueline Ho is assistant professor of sociology at Singapore Management University. She studies education and inequality, with a focus on families’ experiences of education reform.

More On This Topic

Back to school? Let’s approach education in a new light – minus the glare

Don’t let AI change what it means to teach

蔡艳君博士:让乐龄人士跨越最后的数码鸿沟

蔡艳君博士:让乐龄人士跨越最后的数码鸿沟

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/views/story20260128-8192044?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-01-28

作者是新加坡科技设计大学李光耀创新城市中心研究员。本评论基于“与人工智能同行的乐龄生活”(Ageing with AI)研究项目的相关发现

=====

从提取公积金到医疗预约,每一项基本的公共服务,都必须长期保留健全的非数码替代方案。这不应被视为过渡安排,而应成为数码社会的永久设计原则。一个睿智的国家明白:有时候,最聪明的技术,是一张真实的脸与耐心的交流。

76岁的陈先生居住在欧南园的租赁组屋。几十年来,他一直独立打理个人事务,用现金买咖啡、缴费,从不假手他人。如今,他默默站在一个数码自助服务机前,手里拿着一个他不理解的二维码,不敢按下任何按钮,因为他听说过朋友因诈骗而失去毕生积蓄。在一个因“智慧”而享誉全球的城市里,陈先生所面临的困境并非个例,尤其是在乐龄人士群体中 。

随着新加坡持续推进智慧国战略并加速人工智能(AI)的整合,国家正走到一个关键的矛盾点。一方面,我们正在建设一条承诺高效与便利的数码高速公路;另一方面,我们可能在无意中,将最脆弱的群体——尤其是70岁以上的乐龄人士——留在后面。我们近期对欧南园规划区213名55岁及以上的居民展开问卷调查显示,当下的数码鸿沟,早已不再是能否拥有智能手机的问题,而是在于谁拥有参与现代社会生活的能力与信心。如果我们不能从智慧国迈向睿智国(Wise Nation),就可能造成一个这样的社会——乐龄人士不仅在老去,更在我们的数码未来中逐渐隐形。

不仅仅是均值:沉默的鸿沟

新加坡人通常会从全国统计数据中获得一种心理上的安慰。我们看到60岁及以上人群的互联网普及率高达93%,便以为任务已经完成。然而,对全国社会经济弱势指数最高的欧南园深入研究,会为新加坡超级老龄化的未来揭示不同的景象。

在高楼林立的城市阴影之下,新加坡科技设计大学李光耀创新城市中心的一项研究发现,12%接受问卷调查的乐龄人士,完全没有任何数码设备。这一现实强调为什么必须避免并积极解决向“仅限数码”(digital only)倾斜的趋势。对效率的推进,促使我们关闭实体柜台,但对公平的追求,要求我们保持这些实体设施和服务的开放。从提取公积金到医疗预约,每一项基本的公共服务,都必须长期保留健全的非数码替代方案。这不应被视为过渡安排,而应成为数码社会的永久设计原则。正如城市为不同的出行者修建不同的出行通道,我们也必须在数码路径之外,持续建设“人的通道”。一个睿智的国家明白:有时候,最聪明的技术,是一张真实的脸与耐心的交流。

即便拥有智能手机,也不代表具备有意义的使用能力。全国数据显示,78%的乐龄人士使用线上银行或电子支付,但在欧南园的研究中,这一比率仅为26%。高达52个百分点的差距表明,更快的5G或更多应用,并不能自动跨越这最后的数码鸿沟。对于很大一部分新加坡乐龄人士,尤其是那些70岁及以上、收入较低、独居以及住在租赁组屋的群体来说,社会须要理解并尊重:他们是一群学得慢、经常忘记,以及在每一步骤都须要寻求确认的乐龄人士。

学习科技:信心的危机

问题的核心并非乐龄人士不愿学习。我们的研究显示,71%的研究对象从未接受过任何正式的数码或人工智能培训,在这些未受过培训的乐龄人士中,有40%明确表明愿意学习。

真正的问题在于:我们教导他们的方式或使用的语言可能并不正确。

我们往往将数码素养视为一种纯技术技能,就像学习修水龙头一样。于是我们开设“网络安全101”或“生成式人工智能入门”等传统课堂式课程。然而,对一个担心“点错一下就倾家荡产”的乐龄人士来说,科技更像是一个心理战场。如果我们要求他们在没有安全网的情况下,不断适应变化频繁的界面,我们并非赋权,而是在消耗他们。这也正是为何“数码优先”(digital first),在许多乐龄人士心中,变成“仅限数码”。系统的效率,可能转化为用户的焦虑。

此时,甘榜精神这种社区支持和邻里互助的价值观,恰恰可以成为数码普及的秘密武器。科技必须被日常化,成为社区对话的一部分。这意味着,应将更多资源投入到高度本地化、高度互动的介入方式,让乐龄人士在一个安全、联结、从容的环境中,通过反复尝试来学习。“数码大使”的角色应在乐龄人士的社区网络中成倍增加,赋能具备数码技能的乐龄人士去帮助同龄人。当陈先生的手机须要更新应用时,他可以走到最近的乐龄中心,找一位记得他名字,并会不厌其烦且毫无偏见地向他解释多次的数码大使。

这将使数码支持转化为日常的社区互动,显著降低焦虑与恐惧。

睿智国:在AI新前沿不落下任何人

来自欧南园的发现及时提醒我们,在推进数码化的过程中,不能假设所有人站在同一起跑线上。科技行业和政府必须在设计应用与技术时,与乐龄人士并肩同行。我们建议实施一项制度性的“乐龄用户验收测试”(Silver User Acceptance Testing)。任何面向公众的数码服务上线前,应由欧南园等老龄化社区中70岁以上的人群进行压力测试。如果乐龄群体无法顺利使用,代表这个产品尚未准备好发布。这也包括默认设置上的适老化:更大的字体、更高的对比度、更少的步骤、多语言选项,以及内置的可轻易撤销错误的容错设计,这些乐龄友好设计不应深藏在子菜单之中。

新加坡的叙事内核一直是“没有人会被落下”。当全球城市——从巴塞罗那到上海——同时应对快速老龄化与人工智能转型的挑战时,新加坡面临着重新兑现这一承诺的紧迫性。

欧南园的乐龄人士提醒我们,障碍从来不是年龄,而是设计与支持。他们愿意参与,但需要一个能与他们双向奔赴的系统。

我们的研究表明,具包容性的人工智能素养建设计划是必要的下一步。但这种素养必须建立在以人为本的设计原则之上。人工智能工具不能只是简单地空降到乐龄人士的生活中,他们也必须参与到设计过程中。

智慧国令人赞叹,而睿智国,则以尊严、联结与信任为核心,确保我们在迈向未来时,像陈先生这样的乐龄人士,始终与我们并肩同行。

======

作者是新加坡科技设计大学李光耀创新城市中心研究员。本评论基于“与人工智能同行的乐龄生活”(Ageing with AI)研究项目的相关发现

Helping Seniors Cross the Final Digital Divide*

Helping Seniors Cross the Final Digital Divide*

Translated by ChatGPT 

https://www.zaobao.com.sg/forum/views/story20260128-8192044?utm_source=android-share&utm_medium=app

2026-01-28

By Dr. Cai Yanjun

The author is a researcher at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design. This commentary is based on findings from the research project “Ageing with AI”


=====

From CPF withdrawals to medical appointments, every essential public service must, over the long term, retain sound non-digital alternatives. This should not be seen as a transitional arrangement, but as a permanent design principle of a digital society. A wise nation understands that sometimes, the smartest technology is a real face and patient communication.

Seventy-six-year-old Mr Chen lives in a rental flat in Outram Park. For decades, he managed his personal affairs independently, buying coffee with cash and paying bills without relying on anyone else. Today, he stands silently in front of a digital self-service machine, holding a QR code he does not understand, afraid to press any button because he has heard of friends who lost their life savings to scams. In a city globally renowned for its “smartness”, the predicament Mr Chen faces is not an isolated case, especially among seniors.

As Singapore continues to advance its Smart Nation strategy and accelerates the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), the country has arrived at a critical point of tension. On one hand, we are building a digital expressway that promises efficiency and convenience; on the other, we may be inadvertently leaving behind the most vulnerable groups—especially seniors aged 70 and above. Our recent survey of 213 residents aged 55 and above in the Outram Park planning area shows that the current digital divide is no longer about whether one owns a smartphone, but about who has the ability and confidence to participate in modern social life. If we cannot move from a Smart Nation to a Wise Nation, we may end up with a society in which seniors are not only ageing, but also gradually becoming invisible in our digital future.

Not Just the Average: The Silent Divide

Singaporeans often derive psychological comfort from national statistics. When we see that internet penetration among those aged 60 and above is as high as 93%, we assume the task is complete. However, an in-depth study of Outram Park, which has one of the highest socio-economic disadvantage indices nationally, reveals a different picture of Singapore’s super-ageing future.

Beneath the shadows of towering buildings, a study by the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities at the Singapore University of Technology and Design found that 12% of surveyed seniors had no digital devices at all. This reality underscores why we must avoid and actively address the drift toward “digital-only” models. The drive for efficiency pushes us to close physical service counters, but the pursuit of equity requires us to keep these physical facilities and services open. From CPF withdrawals to medical appointments, every essential public service must, over the long term, retain sound non-digital alternatives. This should not be seen as a transitional arrangement, but as a permanent design principle of a digital society. Just as cities build different pathways for different types of commuters, we must also continue to build “human pathways” alongside digital ones. A wise nation understands that sometimes, the smartest technology is a real face and patient communication.

Even owning a smartphone does not equate to having meaningful usage capability. National data shows that 78% of seniors use online banking or e-payments, but in the Outram Park study, this figure was only 26%. The 52-percentage-point gap demonstrates that faster 5G or more apps do not automatically bridge this final digital divide. For a large segment of Singapore’s seniors—especially those aged 70 and above, with lower incomes, living alone, and residing in rental flats—society needs to understand and respect that they are a group who learn slowly, forget easily, and need reassurance at every step.

Learning Technology: A Crisis of Confidence

At the core, the issue is not that seniors are unwilling to learn. Our research shows that 71% of respondents have never received any formal digital or AI training, and among these untrained seniors, 40% explicitly expressed a willingness to learn.

The real problem lies in how we teach them, or the language we use.

We often treat digital literacy as a purely technical skill, like learning to fix a leaky tap. Hence, we offer traditional classroom-style courses such as “Cybersecurity 101” or “Introduction to Generative AI”. However, for a senior who worries that “one wrong tap could wipe out everything”, technology feels more like a psychological battleground. If we require them to constantly adapt to frequently changing interfaces without a safety net, we are not empowering them—we are depleting them. This is also why “digital first” has, in the minds of many seniors, become “digital only”. System efficiency may translate into user anxiety.

Here, the values of kampong spirit—community support and neighbourly help—can become the secret weapon of digital inclusion. Technology must be normalised and become part of everyday community conversations. This means investing more resources into highly localised, highly interactive interventions, allowing seniors to learn through repeated practice in a safe, connected, and unhurried environment. The role of “digital ambassadors” should be multiplied within seniors’ community networks, empowering digitally skilled seniors to help their peers. When Mr Chen needs to update an app on his phone, he should be able to walk to the nearest senior activity centre and find a digital ambassador who knows his name and is willing to explain things patiently, repeatedly, and without prejudice.

This would transform digital support into everyday community interaction, significantly reducing anxiety and fear.

A Wise Nation: Leaving No One Behind at the New AI Frontier

The findings from Outram Park serve as a timely reminder that, in advancing digitalisation, we cannot assume everyone is starting from the same line. The technology industry and the government must walk alongside seniors in the design of applications and technologies. We propose implementing an institutionalised “Silver User Acceptance Testing”. Before any public-facing digital service is launched, it should be stress-tested by people aged 70 and above from ageing communities such as Outram Park. If seniors cannot use it smoothly, it means the product is not ready for release. This should also include age-friendly default settings: larger fonts, higher contrast, fewer steps, multilingual options, and built-in error-tolerant designs that allow mistakes to be easily undone. These senior-friendly designs should not be hidden deep within sub-menus.

Singapore’s core narrative has always been that “no one will be left behind”. As global cities—from Barcelona to Shanghai—grapple simultaneously with rapid ageing and AI transformation, Singapore faces an urgent need to re-deliver on this promise.

The seniors of Outram Park remind us that the barrier has never been age, but design and support. They are willing to participate, but they need a system that meets them halfway.

Our research shows that inclusive AI literacy programmes are the necessary next step. But such literacy must be built on human-centred design principles. AI tools cannot simply be parachuted into seniors’ lives; they must also be involved in the design process.

A Smart Nation inspires admiration, but a Wise Nation places dignity, connection, and trust at its core, ensuring that as we move toward the future, seniors like Mr Chen walk alongside us every step of the way.

The author is a researcher at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, Singapore University of Technology and Design. This commentary is based on findings from the research project “Ageing with AI”.

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Sunday, January 25, 2026

新加坡英語為什麼這麼強?是 Singlish 救了它!

Singapore tops global list again! From "Rainforest Wild" to Disney cruis...

​有和我一样喜欢独来独往的吗?

2026-01-10

我今年六十岁,我突然发现,以前追着热闹跑。同学聚会,同事聚会,舞蹈队年会,有邀请必到。酒桌上相互恭维 ,称兄道弟,议论他人,现在回过头看看,...


https://m.toutiao.com/is/XQPIbzV7410/?share_token=190ef1dd-d19a-456d-9cf4-138ab2102abb

我今年六十岁,我突然发现,以前追着热闹跑。
​同学聚会,同事聚会,舞蹈队年会,有邀请必到。
​酒桌上相互恭维 ,称兄道弟,议论他人,现在回过头看看,那些都是无效的社交,不仅花钱,而且经常惹出烦恼。
​最近一年我看透了人情世故,选择独来独往。
​早上睡到自然醒,把家里收拾干净,出去买点菜,顺便扔了垃圾,回家坐在阳台上晒晒太阳,刷个手机,听个音乐,舒服的不得了。
​而且我把微信上一年没聊过天的好友全部删除,不和任何人发早上好 等废话,留下几个亲戚好友,有事直接打微信电话,无事互不打扰。
​我这种不合群,不代表我没有社交能力,只是我看透了人情世故,活得通透了。
​60岁的人了,不愿意和他人接触太多,遇到没品位的人说话好呛人,与其生闲气,真的不如在家里,听听音乐,看看电视,练练毛笔字,做做饭,把家里打扫干干净净。
​不与世俗争长短,这就是最好的生活,这就是通透的人生。

​有和我一样喜欢独来独往的吗?

Saturday, January 24, 2026

總裁逛商場竟再遇當年初戀,得知她已是寡婦多年,再也抑制不住淚水

为什么我愿意在新加坡生活20年

What are the meanings of PP and 12x18 and 0.04 of the label of a plastic bag " PP12x18x0.04"?.

No results found for What are the meanings of PP, 12x18 and 0.04 of the label of a plastic bag " PP12x18x0.04"?.
Results for What are the meanings of PP, 12x18 and 0.04 of the label of a plastic bag PP12x18x0.04 ? (without quotes):
+15
The label 
PP12x18x0.04 on a plastic bag refers to a specific type of transparent, rigid plastic bag often used for food packaging and display. 
Here is the breakdown of the meanings:
  • PP (Material): Stands for Polypropylene. This is a, thermoplastic polymer known for being crystal clear, stiff, and having high heat resistance (up to 150°C). PP bags are generally used to enhance product display, such as for snacks, stationery, or apparel, and are stronger/less flexible than polyethylene (PE) bags.
  • 12x18 (Size): Refers to the dimensions of the bag, typically 12 inches in width and 18 inches in height.
  • 0.04 (Thickness): Refers to the thickness of the plastic film, measured in millimeters, as 0.04mm (or 40 microns). This is considered a standard, somewhat thin, but durable gauge for packaging, sometimes referred to as "04" or "40 microns". 
Summary Table of Specifications
Component Meaning
MaterialPolypropylene (Rigid & Clear)
Size12" x 18" (Width x Height)
Thickness0.04 mm (40 microns)
Key Characteristics
  • High Clarity: Offers superior transparency, making it ideal for displaying products.
  • Moisture Barrier: Good at resisting moisture and vapor.
  • Safety: Non-toxic, odorless, and suitable for food storage.
  • Heat Resistance: Suitable for high-temperature sealing (up to 150°C). 
Description. ... 🔥 A polypropylene bag is high clarity and crystal clear in order to enhance the image of whatever product is inside. 🔥 This PP bag offers a h...
Dive deeper in AI Mode
Style Degree
https://styledegree.sg
A Complete Guide To Plastic Identification Codes
19 Oct 2020 — The 5th plastic identification code is Polypropylene or PP. This plastic is lightweight, strong, heat resistant and it provides a good barrier ...
Missing: 12x18 ‎0.04 ‎label ‎PP12x18x0.
People also ask
Feedback
YesStraws
https://yesstraws.com
Types of Plastic - A Complete Plastic Numbers Guide | 2020
17 Jan 2020 — You always wondered what all these plastic numbers mean? Read our article on plastic numbers and you`ll have no questions left!
Missing: 12x18 ‎0.04 ‎PP12x18x0.
Oreate AI
https://www.oreateai.com
Decoding Plastic Labels: What Does 5 PP Mean?
30 Dec 2025 — The 'PP' stands for polypropylene itself—a polymer that is both lightweight and strong. But why should we care about this label? Understanding ...
Missing: 12x18 ‎0.04 ‎bag ‎PP12x18x0. ‎04 ?
City of Burnside
https://www.burnside.sa.gov.au
PDF
What do the numbers on plastics really mean, are they recyclable?
The number to found on the bottom of plastics is not a recycling symbol but rather a plastic or resin identification code. It advises what type of plastic ...
2 pages·1 MB
Missing: 12x18 ‎0.04 ‎label ‎PP12x18x0.
HowStuffWorks
https://science.howstuffworks.com
Plastic Numbers: Breaking Down Recycling Codes
16 Oct 2023 — There are seven different numbers you might see on a plastic container. And each number has its own meaning.
Missing: 12x18 ‎0.04 ‎PP12x18x0.
Alta Plastics
https://altaplastics.vn
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS ON COMMON TYPES OF PLASTIC
19 Oct 2023 — No. 5 – Polypropylene (PP) ... This type has a high melting point and is heat resistant up to 167 o C so it can be used in microwaves or it is ...
Missing: 12x18 ‎0.04 ‎label ‎PP12x18x0. ‎04 ?
The number advises what type of plastic the item is made from, but not whether it's recyclable. Most hard plastics coded 1 to 7 can be recycled in your yellow- ...
Missing: 12x18 ‎0.04 ‎label ‎PP12x18x0.
youbeli.com
https://www.youbeli.com
Transparent PP 04 Plastic Bag / 12 x 18 inch Clear PP 04 (0.04mm ...
04 grade, ie 0.04mm (4 micron) is the thin PP thickness for plastic bag. It make us able to see thorough very clear what is inside the bag.
MYR 16.00
Missing: label ‎PP12x18x0.

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 8 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.