Silenced, defenceless

Silenced, defenceless

I found an island in your arms,
a country in your eyes,
arms that chain, eyes that lie.
Break on through to the other side.

- Jim Morrison

The Public Order Act is not just about maintaining our racial and religious ‘harmony’. Harmony can be maintained, if it must, with the existing laws, as they always have been maintained, with a grip so ironical that one wonders if our vaunted ‘harmony’ even exists.

The POA is also not just about the impending APEC meetings or Youth Olympics and the protesters that accompany these events, for the POA is here to stay.

The POA is about preserving the dominance of the PAP. For this reason, the POA is about us, the citizens.

With the Internet, citizens have managed to reclaim some of their voices, and they are starting to speak and be heard. Nary a week now goes by without the government’s mis-steps being exposed and scrutinized by netizens, and the mainstream media’s chicanery continually unmasked. Now, the PAP’s pedigree no longer appears so distinguished and its record no longer that sterling, and the mainstream media little more than a lackey of the government. That is, a government whose largely fabricated aura, abetted by the media propagandists’ daily worship, has been diminished exponentially.

And right that it has. Our government is just like any good government there is elsewhere – filled with fallible men, prone to err. And like any government there is elsewhere, its natural impulses are to power and tyranny.

This is why democracy, and the structures that uphold it must be built, must prevail. Democracy is vital, it is neither a distant promise nor a compromise. It starts with having free and fair elections, that will give rise to a strong Opposition, and it ends with a freer people. Currently, all three elude us.

With the Internet, awakened and enlightened citizens who can now see the government for what it really is, might be galvanized to action, and threaten the PAP’s hold on power. This is why the POA is enacted, to contain dissent, to suppress action, to shackle the citizen.

But this absolute ease of tyranny – see how the POA was like an edict read out in parliament to overwhelming ‘ayes’, rather than being the contentious piece of legislation that must be deliberated and debated over – did not emerge overnight. The government’s successive legislations and insidious tweakings over the last four decades – on public order, on defamation rulings, on the GRCs, the plethora of licensing and restrictive laws governing the broadcast and print media, ‘public entertainment’ and civil society, not to mention the enormous discretionary powers the government has behind those laws – have gradually but surely strengthened the PAP’s grip on the country, entrenched its power in- and outside parliament, weakened the key institutions of the state, and silenced the citizen. In that sense, we have already been muzzled long ago. Taken together, they create for better and worse, the Singapore that we live in today.

It is this absolute ease of tyranny that manifests itself in the stark but facile choice (or is it a playful taunt?) posed to us by the law minister: “Well, ask yourself two questions: in our region, which country would you rather be in? And among the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 1960s, which country would you rather be in?”

You would rather live in Singapore, wouldn’t you? Anyway, where else can you go?

There are those who simply cannot leave, there are those who truly want to remain. But to remain is to perpetually duel, conscience with cowardice, conscience with contentment. To be made to sing its cadaveric songs of nationalism. To remain is to live in oppression. This is sad, and this is wrong.

From the law minister once more, as reported by TODAY: it boils down to how much Singaporeans trust the Government – bearing in mind the limitations and geo-political challenge that a small country faces.

This is not pleading trust. This is delivering a thin-veiled threat, once more playing the vulnerability game, and inciting the siege mentality created by them – trust us, or else.

For you would rather live in Singapore, wouldn’t you? Anyway, where else can you go?

Trust them, or live in oppression. What a generous choice. What a mockery of trust it makes. And what does it make of us?

Rather, it is the government itself who does not trust its people. From our NRICs to our health records on public computers, from racial profiling to academic streaming, from NS disciplining to scholarship bondage, from HDB flat allocation and CPF lock-ups, to the neighbours’ constant gaze through grilled-windows from the opposite block, to how to love our lovers so as to propagate the state’s ideal family structure, to 24/7 surveillance online and offline, all with the threat of the ISA and the knocking in the night a recurring spectre in our minds. All culminating in this country’s pervasive, undignified, climate of fear, every step a landmine of a legislation, every step the high wall of state condescension, every step once more into the inescapable arms of the government.

This is not about trust. It is about the regime’s ability to exert and collect power. Power undergirded by a politics of deep mistrust, subjecting citizens to living in a prosperous state of constant intimidation and surveil. While they pry into all our personal affairs and indiscretions that everyone has, threatening to expose them, incarcerating you for them. Everyone a potential hostage, while their own infractions are placed above their panoptical power, beyond scrutiny. While they gently cajole: Trust us, or else.

Or else, the government can trust us for once, no? The docile, disciplined, depoliticized Singaporean, produced, processed, labeled and sorted, all for the benefit of Singapore Inc. And to whom does Singapore Inc. benefit?

If we bemoan our current state, it is also because we have ourselves to blame.

Honour freedom. The POA and those who support it, dishonour it.

Freedom is not, unless you have bought into the government’s rhetoric, a lofty word – it is a basic need, without which citizens are bereft of dignity. The so-called politics of bread and butter is at one with the right to liberty: together, they constitute a proper, fuller life. One less, and it’s half a life. Why would dignity discriminate?

Albert Camus once observed: there are no two politics, there is only one, and it is the one that makes a commitment – the politics of honour. And indeed there can be no freedom without honour. Honour in words, honour in deed, honour in our hearts.

No heart, no honour. Not unlike those moneyed men in white.

Honour freedom. Today the government goes for them whom you think isn’t about you. (Where were we when the Opposition members were intimidated and bankrupted?) As if it’s none of your business, as if oppression is just fine. Tomorrow they’ll come for you, and you alone. They will, simply because they can, and they will, because you had let them.

Remember the saying: a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves? See how quickly the laws are amended and passed. This is our parliament of men in white, representing not the people but themselves. See how swiftly your basic rights have disappeared.

And why? Because we blind ourselves to the fact that the numerous laws passed ostensibly to maintain peace and prosperity, also invariably constrain the Opposition, crush dissent, and ensure the continued dominance of the PAP. Because you have been trained to disdain freedom, and because you have been encouraged to love your own servitude and bondage. This is the most powerful form of control, indoctrination at its best.

If we bemoan our current state, it is also because we have ourselves to blame.

The Opposition is weak because we kept silent, and so we kept them weak. Taunting them, we bluffed ourselves, feeling secure in our hypocrisy and timidity. Serves them right, we chide. In the end, this has not served us well. And now when we speak, if at all, we speak the language of disappointment, of anger, of disillusionment, of despair.

Each law that is passed is a gag and a tightening of the noose around your necks. The POA is only one of many examples, and no doubt many more will come, cumulatively, oppressively.

Forty years of independence, and we’re as dependent as ever if not more. Our nation-building efforts built a tyrannical regime instead. This is what happens when you remain silent. You will be silenced, and you will be defenceless.

The Opposition has spoken out against the POA – they always have. Go with the Opposition, that’s a start. Honour those who honour freedom, their strength lies in your hands.

Honour your own freedom too, for much is at stake. To be able to walk free and be heard, with fervour without fear.

Because freedom is not a lofty word.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27627.1

What should the Indian rojak man be charged for?

What should the Indian rojak man be charged for?

The Geylang Serai mass food poisoning saga appears to be drawing to a close with the charging of the Indian rojak stallholder Sheik Allaudin Mohideen who was taken aback when told that he may wind up in court and rightly so.

Both NEA and the Ministry of Health said investigations into the food poisoning incident, which left two people dead and 152 others ill, have been “completed”. (read report here)

They said they had found “food and environmental hygiene lapses” at the stall, and that they would take Mr Allaudin to court.

The question is: did alleged lapses lead directly to the food poisoning incident and was Mr Sheik Allaudin responsible for the lapses?

Even MOH and NEA admit that they are unclear about the exact steps leading to the contamination of the rojak food items or gravy.

Neither was the bacteria Vibrio parahaemolyticus established as the cause of the two fatalities as their coroners’ reports are yet to be finalized.

I am perturbed that NEA went ahead to prosecute Mr Allaudin with such flimsy evidence at hand anyway.

Are the alleged “lapses in food and environmental hygiene” sufficient grounds to charge Mr Allaudin?

It is still not known if the bacteria originates from the rojak, raw seafood or the gravy itself.

Mr Allaudin might have been negligent in the handling and preparation of his rojak, but that alone does not constitute a criminal offence since it has not been proven that his actions had led to the mass food poisoning.

As for lapses in environment hygiene, should Mr Allaudin be responsible for the spring-cleaning when it has not been called by the management committee?

What about the 100 or more rats which were captured at the market’s premises last week? Who is going to be responsible for the lapse in environmental hygiene?

Since NEA is one of the involved parties, it should not be allowed to conduct any investigations at all.

In fact, an independent panel should be set up to probe the possible lapses by the market’s management committee and NEA itself.

There is obviously a general failure of enforcement here which cannot be attributed solely to the hawkers alone.

While the stallholders of the Geylang Serai temporary market owe a duty to their customers to practise food and environmental hygiene at all times, the maintenance of the market as well as the surveillance process lies solely with the management committee and NEA.

The members of the market’s management committee should be charged in court for gross negligence in discharging their duties. The errant NEA officers who failed to detect the hygiene lapses and the presence of rats should be punished too.

The haste in which Mr Allaudin was charged seemed to give one the impression that he was being made a scapegoat to take the rap for others.

Till today, we have not the slightest idea on the identities of the management committee’s members. Who is in charge of the management committee? Is he a member of the Kampong Ubi CCC too? Why aren’t they taken to task for mismanaging the Geylang Serai temporary market?

Regardless of the verdict passed on Mr Allaudin, the management committee and NEA should be hauled up to courts as well to account for their mistakes which may have played a contributory role to Singapore’s worst food poisoning outbreak.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27608.1

What if this happens in Singapore?

After the Public Order Bill has been passed, I wonder what will happen if this happens in Singapore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXFMIbkKMMc

In an ideal world, police officers are supposed to uphold the law and order in a fair manner. But we all know that we aren’t living in Utopia. Not all police officers will follow the law. There are bound to be some black sheep in the law enforcement agencies. And the youtube video is just one of the many examples that not all police officers are good guys. In fact, if you were to browse youtube, you will find more of such video. The recent one was during the G20 meeting where Ian Tomlinson was violently pushed by a police officer even though he was just passing by. He collapsed and died of a heart attack a few minutes later.

Some of the victims are fortunate because there are video camera recording nearby. Complains can be lodge and an independent team will investigate into the matter. At least the citizen has a level of protection against rogue police officer. But with the new Public Order Bill, things might change. Police officers now have the power to stop someone filming any law enforcement activity and destroy the video recording on the spot. Failure to do so is a criminal offence.

I’m not saying that I have no confidence in the Singapore Police Force. But having this law in place makes one feels uneasy. What if one day, a police officer did something wrong and they use this law to stop witness from recording the deed? Are we safe? Is there really a need to have this Public Order Bill?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27699.1

Taiwan World Class Medical Insurance

Taiwan World Class Medical Insurance

The article written by Dong Qing Feng published in the most recent issue of Asiaweek has pointed out that Taiwan's Medical insurance system is regarded as one of the best model for the world. From Medical demand, Medical supply etc. it has been praised and ranked second only to Sweden. Few of the main reasons for such high ranking include the hardworking doctors, low wages for medical staffs, few medical disputes and compensations and most importantly, most of the medical institutions are run and controlled by the government.

The report points out that last year, Nobel Prize winner, Economic Professor of US Princeton University and column writer for New York Times, Professor Paul Krugman, has praised Taiwan's Medical Insurance system in New York Times and urged the Americans to emulate such system.

Krugman believes that the Taiwan Medical Insurance system can provide a good example for all Americans to be insured within their economic means. He reiterates that within a short period of six years, the growth in the number of Taiwanese being medically insured has raised from less than 60% to 97%. Besides, the cost for all Taiwanese to be insured is very low and it takes population and income growth into account. Even if the cost of medical care increase, the increase will be insignificant.

The Taiwan medical insurance system was implemented in 1st March 1995. It was one of the greatest achievement of the KMT when Lian Zhan was the Prime Minister then. It becomes famous in the world for providing low medical insurance premium, wide medical coverage and convenience resulting in high subscription rate by Taiwanese. Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme consolidated workers, laborers and farmers medical insurance payment and created a single entity medical insurance for all. It implements a single payment channel and a gross payment system.

This National Medical Insurance scheme embrace the spirit of social insurance, which is risk sharing and under the fundamental guiding principle of mutual help, the young will earn money to take care of the medical risks of the aged. In doing so, it achieves mutual aid across different generations and races. It also creates a huge health database that could be used by healthcare research. On the other hand, the administration cost has been kept under 2% and that is why it has been praised internationally.

In 2000, EIU has ranked Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme as number two under medical demand and supply, second only to Sweden in the whole world. The ABC has praised Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme in one of its program broadcast in 2003, pointing out the fact that with a monthly medical insurance premium of US$20 and an average cost of US$4 to US$10 for every medical visit, you could make appointment to any hospital with any preferred doctors of your choice in Taiwan. There are at least 50 countries around the world that have paid visits to Taiwan to study its Medical Insurance scheme in recent years.

Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme has been well known to be value for money. Base on their income, Taiwanese will pay a token amount of insurance premium every month and they will be able to enjoy all kinds of medical services. Regardless of rich or poor, big hospitals or small clinics, all will receive the same level of medical services. All will receive equal treatment. Even if the rich wish to pay more for additional privileged services, it will be prohibited. Besides, it is very convenient to get medical services there, with big number of hospitals and clinics availability all throughout Taiwan. You can pick and choose your choice of hospital or clinic without any need of doctor's recommendation.

The Medical Insurance is not solely born by the people. Private companies and the government will have to share the cost of the premium as well. Those companies that bought workers' insurance for their employees will have to pay for their medical insurance as well. This is due to the fact that such insurance premium will include workers' insurance and medical insurance. The present law dictates that employers will have to bear 60% of their workers' medical insurance, employees and their family members will bear 30% while the government will bear 10%.

Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme's premiums are based on income classification. The premiums are charged according to 10 different classes of income. For example, those who earn less than NT$17280 (about US$500) will pay only NT$600 as monthly premium. Those with monthly income more than NT$131700, they will pay a monthly premium of NT$5400.

Foreign workers are included in the Medical Insurance Scheme.

Due to the fact that the National Medical Insurance Scheme is compulsory for all, everyone will have to be admitted into the Medical Insurance Scheme. This will include foreign students, migrants and even foreign workers. Its core value is “Big illness for Hospitals, small illness for small clinics” . Everyone who seek medical care, apart from paying the basic administration fee, patients will have to bear part of the medical cost.

Ex-DPP Legislative Yuan member Sheng Fu Xiong has a heart operation, warded for 4 days. The operation implanted a blood vessel widener for him. He paid about NT$20000 (about US$600), the medical insurance has helped him paid a few hundred dollars. Such operation will cost more than a million of New Taiwan dollars without medical insurance.

Taiwan Medical Insurance is very Cheap!

As a medical doctor, Sheng Fu Xiong is one of the few in Legislative Yuan who are regarded as those who have put in lots of effort in researching on the Medical Insurance Scheme back then. He pointed out that the insurance premium that each Taiwanese has to pay is about one sixth to one eight of US medical insurance premiums and this is very cheap!

Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme is the creation of Harvard professor Xiao Qing Lun and this creation is based on the study of Canada's united insurance system. However, Canada's medical insurance scheme is basically a failure, why does Taiwan's scheme a success then? Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that firstly, Taiwan doctors are just too hardworking. Many doctors has to see 120 patients a day (while in US, the average is only 30), this is very rare and unique in the world. Secondly, Taiwan's medical staff, apart from doctors, like nurses, physiotherapists, nutrionists, psychiatrists, pharmacists etc., are fewer in comparison and their wages are lower. Take nurses for example, their pay is only 20% of US nurses. Thirdly, there are few medical disputes in Taiwan, there are less medical related lawsuits. Even if there are, even if the doctor lost the case, the compensation amount is not high. Compensation for death caused by erroneous diagnosis is at most NT$1m to NT$2m, some are even below NT$1m. Forth, all American medical institutions are listed company, the pressure of profitability is higher. Taiwan's medical institutions are prohibited from listing in the stock exchange, most of them are run and subsidized by the government.

In comparison, Canada's medical insurance system does not have all these advantages. Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that most important of all, Canada does not have efficiency. If a patient needs an operation that is deemed as non-urgent, like an operation on hip joint, they will need to wait for at least 6 months. In Taiwan, the same operation will only take 1 week to be completed.

Sheng Fu Xiong revealed that a few years ago, Hong Kong government was considering of implementing a system similar to Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme. Xiao Qinglun has travelled to Hong Kong to explain the scheme to the Hong Kong officials. He was engaged by the Hong Kong government to do a feasibility study there but in the end, he recommended against implementing such a scheme in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government has accepted his recommendation. “I feel that it is right not to implement it” This is because this system could only be successful in Taiwan, it will fail in other parts of the world. “This is the fruit of Taiwan's special circumstances”.

Hong Kong's system is the middle path between Taiwan and US.

Sheng Fu Xiong said that one of the main reason that it is not suitable for Hong Kong to emulate Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme is that Hong Kong doctors are not as hardworking as Taiwan's, there are more medical staffs than Taiwan, salaries are higher than Taiwan and there are more medical disputes than Taiwan.” He said that Hong Kong's system is a middle path between Taiwan and US. It has all the bad points that US has but the problems are not as serious as US. Hong Kong does not have the good points that Taiwan has, like hardworking doctors, low compensation for medical dispute, medical institutions are not listed on stock exchange...etc.

Sheng Fu Xiong criticize Krugman as an amateur. Although Krugman is a Liberal but he has socialist influence in his heart. Thus, he does not discount government intervention totally. However, Taiwan's Medical Insurance scheme is a single provider and it under heavy influenced by the governmental system. Besides, it is not a multi-insurance scheme but a unison insurance scheme and this is the role played by the government. He only sees the beauty of Taiwan's Medical Insurance Scheme but not the potential problems. It is due to the fact that the Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme is based on a collapsible structure that it needs to be reformed.

Taiwan government has paid nearly NT$400Billion per year but medical experts criticize that the medical wastage every year amount to Nt$10billion resulting in the Medical Insurance scheme recording deficits every year. Sheng Fu Xiong pointed out that the potential worries of the Medical Insurance scheme is “the growth of our premium collections could not catch up with the growth of the medical expenses.” Thus every time when the accounts are balanced, 3 years later it will become a deficit again. In another words, expenses are always bigger than premium collections and this is due to the lack of restrains and the spirit of free market principles. Taiwanese like to visit hospital, even for a small flu, they would visit the big hospital. Some mother would bring their children to GP in the morning. If there is no significant improvement, they will bring them to otolaryngology in the afternoon. This is almost impossible in US.

One of the main reason for such high medical expenses for the Medical Insurance Scheme is that Taiwanese are used to taking medicine. For the whole of last year, the expenses on medicine by the Medical Insurance scheme has reached NT$125Billion, an increase of 6.9% from the previous year. Among these expenses, medicine for hypertension, glucagon and statin has amounted to NT$32.3Billion. The top medicine “MaiYou” alone, which is used mainly for treatment of hypertension and strengthening the heart functionality, has consistently top the list of medicine for 8 years, cost almost NT$4.5Billion per year.

Due to popular demand, I have decided to spend some time in translating the Chinese article on Taiwan's World Class Medical Insurance here.

Goh Meng Seng


Taiwan Medical Insurance scheme has the mission to provide healthcare for everyone in Taiwan. Although the government has claimed 70% approval rate from the people, but it could not just brush off the potential threats of deficits. The problems of limited medical resources, deficits of the Medical Insurance scheme etc has cast doubts on how long this Medical Insurance Scheme could last.

There are merits in Taiwan Medical Insurance Scheme but we should not just look at the glamorous flowers that it glooms and try to copy it wholesale. We must do thorough examination of its specialty, learn from its good points and try to manage the bad. Only then could we avoid deficits and improve on providing healthcare to all Taiwanese.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27697.1

Aware's old guard have alienated many women

Aware's old guard have alienated many women

WHY are the recent goings-on at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) seen as a "hostile takeover"? It was legitimately executed and the old guard lost an open election.

The association should consider why it has lost the trust and support of women. The fact is, over the years, its activities have alienated many women whom they claim to represent. The old guard supported causes that many women do not identify with, yet all these were done in the name of sexual equality.

If the old guard members have ceased to speak for women in the mainstream, I guess it is time for them to go.

Ng Boon Sin (Ms)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27571.4

Why Aware is important to ordinary Singaporeans

Why Aware is important to ordinary Singaporeans

WHEN I was in primary school, my father rounded up his three daughters and asked if we wanted to learn how to change a light bulb.

We were not enthusiastic, so my father asked if we would rather our mother cooked for us in the dark. We quickly learnt that girls can and have to do "boy things".

I discovered the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) in the National University of Singapore library. Its views and initiatives were so refreshing and empowering. They actually provided explanations behind seemingly natural feminine behaviour such as wearing high heels and keeping quiet.

After graduation, I joined Aware and volunteered in its advocacy initiatives and helpline. I have become so much more confident and alive thanks to the friendships of so many great women at Aware. It has groomed me into a more competent worker, caring daughter and respectful wife. It has also given me the inspiration to contribute towards Singapore's nation building.

In its 24 years, Aware has also contributed towards changing the way the police handle rape cases, laws allowing women to sponsor their foreign spouses for citizenship or permanent resident status, and bringing about a constitutional amendment to accord the same citizenship rights to the children of Singaporean women.

A lot more can be done to improve gender equality, encourage change and achieve gains for women - not at the expense of men, but in ways that benefit families and society as a whole. Aware's takeover is a wake-up call to Singapore. Living in a society that Aware has helped made more inclusive and diverse, how can we show our gratitude?

Yap Ching Wi (Ms)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27571.3

Aware should neither promote nor reject homosexuality

Aware should neither promote nor reject homosexuality

I READ with great interest the continuing Aware saga, and the opinions held by some that religion and homosexuality are irrelevant to the roles of the new executive committee.

I do not believe that the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) should be in the business of promoting or rejecting homosexuality. In its 24-year history, homosexuality has never been an issue of contention on Aware's agenda.

As it sought to protect and promote the rights of women, Aware respected the existence of individuals with alternative lifestyles and diverse religious backgrounds, without calling undue attention to these differences.

It is fair to say that accepting and tolerating homosexuality are not equivalent to the promotion of it. Call it the "live-and-let-live" stance, one that is also taken by the secular Singapore Government. To put the issue at the forefront of Aware's charter would have been wrong.

The current cloud of suspicion arose not because of the personal beliefs held by members of the new exco. They are entitled to these opinions. It is the possibly the means by which the new exco took office that have caused the current controversy.

The spirit of democracy has an underlying assumption: that the electorate is legitimate. If there was election engineering at work, and members have not been completely forthcoming about their motives, democracy would have failed in its purpose, and Aware will suffer as a result over the long term.

While Aware should not be a proxy for gay interest groups, neither should it stand for the rejection of homosexuality. Being "pro-women, pro-family, pro-Singapore", in the words of newly appointed president Josie Lau, does not mean one is anti-gay. Likewise, I hope people pause to recognise that being gay does not mean one is anti-women, anti-family and anti-Singapore.

In an educated society, people should be free to speak for or against the issue of homosexuality, as long as they do it in the spirit of peace, order and responsibility. Both points of view need to be heard so that balance and consensus can be achieved.

Aware is Singapore's most established non-governmental organisation, and it is unfortunate that the spirit of unification that has long been the hallmark of its reputation has been shredded to pieces within a matter of weeks.

Daniel Tan

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27571.2