Of migration and the Singaporean diaspora
SINGAPORE - A survey conducted by the Singapore Polytechnic revealed one sobering statistic - more than 50% of youths aged between 15 and 29 years old want to migrate overseas if given the chance. Another ironic piece of statistic is that despite going through National Education in their schools, 37% admitted that they are not patriotic. Another interesting number is that despite 60% of the youth not being interested in local politics, half of them want to see more opposition in parliament.
And this migration statistic is worrying our leaders. Senior Minister (SM) Goh Chok Tong admitted in a meeting with Iranian leaders that Singapore is leaking talents, especially the top notch ones. And this leakage of talents extended to the civil service as well. This was ironic considering the fact that SM Goh fired a rhetorical salvo in challenging Singaporeans’ resolve to stay to fight for the nation instead of taking flight at the first sign of trouble, ending with a famous question - “are you a quitter or a stayer?”
Admittedly, this rhetorical question triggered an emotional response. The quitter reference didn’t go down well amongst a number of Singaporeans, especially those who have migrated or have already considered migrating. A variety of reasons were offered to explain their unhappiness. Be that as it may, sometimes it would be interesting to dwell on the causes behind Singaporeans’ decision to migrate rather than the furore over the stayer-quitter remarks.
Mr Seah Chiang Nee, in an article published in the Sunday Star, attributed one of the causes to a self-centred generation with no personal bond to the nation. Half of it is figured by Mr Seah. The other half is possibly attributable to the fact that Singaporeans are rarely offered a part to play in the running of the nation. Singapore has always been run in a top-down approach, the catch phrase for that is a paternalistic form of governance. Basically, Singaporeans have not much say in the running of Singapore.
Thus, there is a need to engage Singaporeans in the sense that they should be given a say in the direction that Singapore should take, and in doing so, shoulder more responsibilities. When citizens are given more responsibilities in running the country within a decentralized system of governance, the national bond naturally comes. In fact, this engagement should be extended to Singaporeans who have left our shores.
The case study of India has taught us that despite the brain drain, the Indian diaspora worldwide has benefitted India in terms of cash injection and technology transfer. It would be tragic if the Singapore government fails to engage the Singaporean diaspora worldwide.
One solution to the brain drain in SM Goh’s words is “to turn to talented people from other countries, get them to work here and eventually turn them into Singaporeans”. That in itself is a gamble because not all foreigners would end up taking up Singapore citizenship.
However, the pertinent question is - has the government completely forgotten the former sons of Singapore? It appeared that SM Goh’s reference to them as “quitters” will only further alienate them. One really wonders if it has ever occurred to the Singapore government that the Singapore diaspora worldwide can still be considered a valuable resource in terms of knowledge and finance. Even SM Goh conceded that these talented former Singaporeans are “harvested straightaway by top companies and institutions”. Thus, wouldn’t a friendly engagement allow Singapore to tap on their expertise or benefit from their cash injection? Alienation would only burn the bridges for eternity.
When there was talk about building up a knowledge-based economy, the government rolled out the red carpet in welcoming foreign luminaries. Perhaps, the same red carpet should also be rolled out to welcome overseas-based Singaporean or ex-Singaporean experts too.
Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong envisioned Singapore as “an inclusive society where no one will be left behind”. It is a beautiful vision worth attaining. However, former Singaporeans should also be included in this vision. Even as they have left our shores, they are still a part of us nonetheless. Instead of burning bridges, more bridges should be built to reach out to such Singaporeans.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26997.1
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Policies for greater equity?
Policies for greater equity?
SINGAPORE - It is said that National Service (NS) is a necessary evil. One of the popular arguements raised by the establishment is that economic security is tied in with national security. Thus, NS forms this bedrock of our national security.
However, Singapore’s open door policy to foreigners have made the equation more complex. First and foremost, employers are not required to make CPF contributions for foreign employees without Permanent Residency status. Secondly, foreign employees are not required to serve NS, and do not have reservist duties and physical fitness tests to worry about. Thus, there may be a perceived disadvantage that NS men employees have in comparison to their foreign counterparts. And socially, this may lead to discontentment among NS men who feel marginalized by their perceived disadvantages.
Our foreign counterparts can be said to benefit from the security provided by our NS men. Some have even feedbacked that they found Singapore to be safer than their own countries. However, at the other side of the spectrum, locals may feel that their rice bowl is threatened by their foreign counterparts, and the negative emotions will be acute if these locals have to fulfill NS duties, providing security to those who will eventually compete with them for their rice bowl.
Perhaps, policies for greater equity can be considered to level the playing field. One suggestion is to get foreigners to serve NS. A rhetorical suggestion it is, but an untenable one at best because it presents another set of difficulty. The military for instance would be hesitant in having foreign presence amongst its ranks because that would mean that the latter would be able to gain access to highly classified information.
What other policies towards achieving equity can be considered? The first policy would be to increase the tax burden on foreigners. The reasoning is simple. They are after all beneficiaries of the security provided by our NS men. It wouldn’t seem equitable if they do not ‘pay’ anything in return for the security, and this looks almost as if they are ‘freeloading’ on the efforts of our NS men. This tax again can be implemented according to various income brackets. There may be difficulties in its implementation but at least it is a more reasonable approach than getting foreigners to serve NS. And the returns from the increased taxes can be directed towards welfare for Singaporeans, for instance helping NS men who are retrenched and other needy Singaporeans.
Under the current system, foreigners who stay and work in Singapore for 183 days or more are considered tax residents, like other Singapore citizens. All tax residents are subjected to the same tax rates. Increasing the tax burden on foreigners would mean increasing the tax rates for the latter, and this perhaps can be implemented according to different income brackets. Whilst foreigners may be less happy with the increase in taxation, this is a necessary return for the security they enjoy.
And more can be done to increase the attractiveness of hiring NS men. Fiscal incentives can be offered to employers who employ a sizable portion of NS men within their work force. They can come in the form of tax reliefs or tax reductions for instance. And such a move will be welcomed by employers who have to bear the costs of their NS men employees’ absence especially when they have to go for Remedial Training or annual In-Camp Training.
Thus, a two-pronged approach that achieves equity would be increasing the tax burden on foreigners and providing incentives to companies who hire employees with NS obligations. Our national security is a necessity, and thus, those who make sacrifices shouldn’t be placed at a disadvantaged position.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26995.1
SINGAPORE - It is said that National Service (NS) is a necessary evil. One of the popular arguements raised by the establishment is that economic security is tied in with national security. Thus, NS forms this bedrock of our national security.
However, Singapore’s open door policy to foreigners have made the equation more complex. First and foremost, employers are not required to make CPF contributions for foreign employees without Permanent Residency status. Secondly, foreign employees are not required to serve NS, and do not have reservist duties and physical fitness tests to worry about. Thus, there may be a perceived disadvantage that NS men employees have in comparison to their foreign counterparts. And socially, this may lead to discontentment among NS men who feel marginalized by their perceived disadvantages.
Our foreign counterparts can be said to benefit from the security provided by our NS men. Some have even feedbacked that they found Singapore to be safer than their own countries. However, at the other side of the spectrum, locals may feel that their rice bowl is threatened by their foreign counterparts, and the negative emotions will be acute if these locals have to fulfill NS duties, providing security to those who will eventually compete with them for their rice bowl.
Perhaps, policies for greater equity can be considered to level the playing field. One suggestion is to get foreigners to serve NS. A rhetorical suggestion it is, but an untenable one at best because it presents another set of difficulty. The military for instance would be hesitant in having foreign presence amongst its ranks because that would mean that the latter would be able to gain access to highly classified information.
What other policies towards achieving equity can be considered? The first policy would be to increase the tax burden on foreigners. The reasoning is simple. They are after all beneficiaries of the security provided by our NS men. It wouldn’t seem equitable if they do not ‘pay’ anything in return for the security, and this looks almost as if they are ‘freeloading’ on the efforts of our NS men. This tax again can be implemented according to various income brackets. There may be difficulties in its implementation but at least it is a more reasonable approach than getting foreigners to serve NS. And the returns from the increased taxes can be directed towards welfare for Singaporeans, for instance helping NS men who are retrenched and other needy Singaporeans.
Under the current system, foreigners who stay and work in Singapore for 183 days or more are considered tax residents, like other Singapore citizens. All tax residents are subjected to the same tax rates. Increasing the tax burden on foreigners would mean increasing the tax rates for the latter, and this perhaps can be implemented according to different income brackets. Whilst foreigners may be less happy with the increase in taxation, this is a necessary return for the security they enjoy.
And more can be done to increase the attractiveness of hiring NS men. Fiscal incentives can be offered to employers who employ a sizable portion of NS men within their work force. They can come in the form of tax reliefs or tax reductions for instance. And such a move will be welcomed by employers who have to bear the costs of their NS men employees’ absence especially when they have to go for Remedial Training or annual In-Camp Training.
Thus, a two-pronged approach that achieves equity would be increasing the tax burden on foreigners and providing incentives to companies who hire employees with NS obligations. Our national security is a necessity, and thus, those who make sacrifices shouldn’t be placed at a disadvantaged position.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26995.1
The Public Order Act: What it is all about
| The Public Order Act: What it is all about [2009] 14 Apr_ST |
Legal News Archive
Rationalised permits regime
1. Demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government;
2. Publicise a cause or campaign; or
3. Mark or commemorate any event.
Commercial, recreational and sporting activities organised by statutory boards and charities with Institution of Public Character status. This means about half the activities that now require permits.
Special events
The POA empowers the Minister to declare certain events of national importance as 'special events'. The upcoming Apec summit in November is expected to be one such.
All assemblies and processions within a special event or special event area will require a permit.
Move-on powers to deal with disruptive behaviour
1. For non-seizable offences, observe and warn a person, and follow up with a post-event investigation. The police cannot stop the offence from taking place.
2. For seizable offences, arrest the person.
1. interfering with trade or business at the place;
2. disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening;
3. disrupting the peaceable and orderly conduct of an event.
It can also be issued to someone whose behaviour shows he is about to commit an offence, has just committed or is committing an offence.
Filming of security operations
Reason: Such acts can compromise the effectiveness of security operations, jeopardise rescue operations, and blow the covers of covert officers.
These officers can search a person without a warrant if the latter is suspected of having such a film, and even take him into custody.
They can also enter premises to conduct such a search. Equipment used to make such a film may be seized.
The powers cannot be used to prevent filming of police abuse.
Property owners
The onus will be on owners or occupiers of a property to prevent an unlawful activity from taking place on the property, if the police inform them that such an activity is going to take place there. Otherwise they will be guilty of an offence.
Sound principles, evolving framework, Review Page A23
The POA moves away from proscribing based on the number of persons involved in an activity. It focuses instead on whether the activity may have a disruptive effect on the public.
ALLOW STREET PROCESSIONS
'We have been fairly successful with our experiment at Speakers' Corner. The protests there have been peaceful thus far.
We should take that experiment further and allow certain streets which lead up to the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park to be designated safe for processions. Not completely unrestricted as in the Speakers' Corner, but less restricted in that approvals are granted more easily. The procession routes so designated should pose minimum disruption to the public and have permanent security cameras mounted along the streets.'
Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC), suggesting some streets be opened for protests
NO CLEAR-CUT DEFINITION
'The definition of 'cause-related events' is not always clear or easy.
For example, a condom company decides to hold a large-scale outdoor activity to raise funds for patients suffering from debilitating sexually transmitted diseases. Would this require a permit?
On the surface, it is a social activity, a charitable event for a good cause - raising funds to help patients with their medical needs. Ostensibly, it is also a commercial activity to increase brand awareness and sales. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a cause-related activity, promoting a certain kind of lifestyle which may go against society's more conservative values.'
Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar GRC)
OPENING UP
'I see this Bill as continuing the process of opening up that begun a few years ago.
Since as a country we want a more open and free society, and are moving towards more openness, we should not allow any legislation to hinder our growth and development towards active citizenry and civil rights participation.'
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang GRC), applauding the new Public Order law
HIS WORRY: MORE 999 CALLS
'My concern is that the new 'move-on' powers given to police officers will generate an even higher number of 999 calls - for example, people will think it appropriate to call the police to have noisy groups 'move on' from the vicinity of their homes.
'Move-on' directions should be used sparingly and not for non-urgent cases involving, for example, neighbourhood noise.'
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC)
BACK-HANDED COMPLIMENT
'The amendment, she suggested, was made in respect of cause-based activities to placate international public opinion. The first point I take away from that is that it is a back-handed compliment and it is an acknowledgement that in fact this amounts to a relaxation on the current position, which is why she thinks that we are doing it to get some kudos from international public opinion.
But the second point I make to her is, would the Singapore Government introduce legislation to placate international public opinion? She really thinks that? We are not in such a weak position, nor is such conduct usually associated with this government.'
Mr K. Shanmugam, in response to a point made by NCMP Sylvia Lim
BIRTHDAYS AND BIRTHDAYS
'I think Ms Thio will accept there is a difference between a birthday celebration of (the) Prophet (Muhammad) which was celebrated in 1964 and a birthday celebration of Ms Thio's that might be held in a public place.'
Mr Shanmugam, responding to NMP Thio Li-ann, who had asked if a birthday celebration in a restaurant might require a permit, given an assembly was defined as one 'to mark or commemorate an event'.
In 1964, riots broke out when troublemakers instigated a procession to mark Prophet Muhammad's birthday
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26994.1
Straits Times Changes Headline 4 Times Today!
Straits Times Changes Headline 4 Times Today!
There are possibly three reasons why I continue to pay money to read the Straits Times online. The first reason is that I want to know what others are reading daily, the second is I want to know what I'm supposed to know, and the third is that I get to experience pure journalistic gems like what has happened today.
In a continuing episode of Stop The Presses, we shall look at an article that is about foreigners who are going to be hired by one of the two new casinos to be opened here. The Sentosa Integrated Resort (IR) seems to be hiring a lot of foreigners rather than locals, and people are seemingly complaining about this. Mr Wang has the full text reproduced in his blog.
The problem is that the title of the article published this morning, "Singaporeans will get most IR jobs", does not seem to indicate what the rest of the article is trying to convey (because Singaporeans will not be getting the most IR jobs, it seems). Coincidentally, it was just today that I explained to my students that a newspaper article's headline is very important. In situational writing, if the exam question requires the student to write a report/article with a particular title, then the rest of the article should be adjusted accordingly. Mr Wang hypothesizes that in this case, the headline was done perhaps separately from the article. The problem was that the article id not say what the headline tried to suggest!
Now at this point in time, if I were the reporter who wrote the story, my head will probably just explode. How can I possibly reconcile this intractable dilemma? So, the only ethical thing to do was to change the headline a few minutes after the first version went online, as Mr Wang suggests. The second iteration of the headline reads "IR jobs for foreigners?"Indeed, I think that the reporter might have been trying to send a coded SOS message out to alert readers: as pointed out by a commenter, he spelt his own name wrongly to accompany the first unreasonable and erroneous headline, only to correct it later to accompany the more reasonable amendment. (This need not be true; I just thought it would be funny if this really was what happened!)
Anyway, the title didn't seem to satisfy some people, and it was changed yet again to "Buzz Over Resort Jobs". I was just checking the STReader, and the title is now "Uproar over reports of IR jobs going to foreigners". I think this is a reasonable headline. At the very least, it isn't factually wrong!
There are possibly three reasons why I continue to pay money to read the Straits Times online. The first reason is that I want to know what others are reading daily, the second is I want to know what I'm supposed to know, and the third is that I get to experience pure journalistic gems like what has happened today.
In a continuing episode of Stop The Presses, we shall look at an article that is about foreigners who are going to be hired by one of the two new casinos to be opened here. The Sentosa Integrated Resort (IR) seems to be hiring a lot of foreigners rather than locals, and people are seemingly complaining about this. Mr Wang has the full text reproduced in his blog.
The problem is that the title of the article published this morning, "Singaporeans will get most IR jobs", does not seem to indicate what the rest of the article is trying to convey (because Singaporeans will not be getting the most IR jobs, it seems). Coincidentally, it was just today that I explained to my students that a newspaper article's headline is very important. In situational writing, if the exam question requires the student to write a report/article with a particular title, then the rest of the article should be adjusted accordingly. Mr Wang hypothesizes that in this case, the headline was done perhaps separately from the article. The problem was that the article id not say what the headline tried to suggest!
Now at this point in time, if I were the reporter who wrote the story, my head will probably just explode. How can I possibly reconcile this intractable dilemma? So, the only ethical thing to do was to change the headline a few minutes after the first version went online, as Mr Wang suggests. The second iteration of the headline reads "IR jobs for foreigners?"Indeed, I think that the reporter might have been trying to send a coded SOS message out to alert readers: as pointed out by a commenter, he spelt his own name wrongly to accompany the first unreasonable and erroneous headline, only to correct it later to accompany the more reasonable amendment. (This need not be true; I just thought it would be funny if this really was what happened!)
Anyway, the title didn't seem to satisfy some people, and it was changed yet again to "Buzz Over Resort Jobs". I was just checking the STReader, and the title is now "Uproar over reports of IR jobs going to foreigners". I think this is a reasonable headline. At the very least, it isn't factually wrong!
4th Headline
So, what can we learn from this? Well, we learn that it is not easy to write newspaper headlines sometimes! Secondly, the various attempts to change the headline is a story in itself. I hope the reporter will continue to be on the case and will look forward to more updates. It's a most fascinating way of presenting a story!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26832.2
4 month delay in food grading label & 61 rats at Geylang Serai market: Has NEA been complacent?
4 month delay in food grading label & 61 rats at Geylang Serai market: Has NEA been complacent?
According to the NEA website here, it is the “leading public organization responsible for improving and sustaining a clean and green environment in Singapore.”
Two of its stated missions are:
1. Public hygiene and cleanliness: Conducts regular checks on food establishments, cooling towers, swimming pools, and public toilets to ensure a high standard of hygiene is maintained.
2. Management of hawker centers: Oversees the licensing, management and regulation of hawkers to maintain and promote good hygiene practices and public health standards in government hawker centres.
It was revealed that the Geylang Serai stalls were told about their new food hygiene grades last December, but had not received their labels until now.
An NEA spokesman said it viewed the four-month delay ’seriously’ and had tightened its operations to prevent a recurrence, adding that the new labels marked a ‘fresh start’ following the market’s two-day spring cleaning and pest control works last week. (read article here)
We are glad NEA has the decency to admit that the four month delay is unacceptable unlike the PAP leaders who have been quick to shift the blame for the disaster to Singaporeans.
On hindsight, the Indian rojak stall should have been failed in the grading and not allowed to operate till it improved on its hygiene standards.
It is a joke that it was still displaying its old “B” grade which might have given its customers a false sense of security. A “B” grade implies a “greater than average” standard of hygiene.
How a stall given this grade turns out to be a culprit for causing the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore leading to two deaths is anybody’s guess.
It is clear that NEA has been complacent in the following aspects:
1. Frequency of spot checks on eating outlets is inadequate.
2. Hygiene grading system has failed to reflect the true state of hygiene at the implicated food stalls.
3. Failure to detect the presence of rats at the Geylang Serai market only till now.
To compound matters, while the updated hygiene grade labels were collecting dust in NEA’s office, customers were misled by the old labels to patronize stalls which they would otherwise avoided.
It is not true that most diners are not bothered by the labels as reported by the media. There will be Singaporeans who deliberately avoid those stalls with a “C” grade and below out of hygiene concerns.
As Deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and the Environment Lee Bee Wah rightly pointed out: ‘By the time the results of the grading are out, conditions at the stalls could have changed’.
The hygiene grading system was put in place to serve two purposes:
1. To increase the standard of public hygiene at food outlets.
2. To enable Singaporeans to make an informed choice.
The unfortunate Geylang Serai food poisoning episode has exposed the flaws of both NEA’s grading system and its enforcement.
How can food stalls infested with rats be given a “B” or even “C” grading? Does NEA consider dining with 61 rats an acceptable standard of hygiene?
Why did NEA take so long to give out the new labels? Surely it defeats the purpose of conducting spot checks and grading the stalls in the first place if the updated labels are not displayed in time. Can we blame the Indian rojak stallholder from displaying the old label when the new one was not sent to him?
As always in the past, a major damage control operation will be instituted only after a terrible blunder has been made. Without the incident being put under intense public scrutiny by the mainstream media, will the new labels been given out and the rats caught in double quick time?
Some stallholders who were downgraded to a C saw the move as a knee-jerk reaction to Singapore’s worst case of mass food poisoning and rightly so.
Instead of reacting immediately to salvage its battered reputation, NEA should wait till its own internal investigations are complete before releasing a report to the public. What are the areas of inadequacies and what have been done to address them?
It is really quite pointless to “show” Singaporeans that they are doing “something” only after two deaths are lost. As a public agency paid for by taxpayers, Singaporeans have the right to demand for the highest degree of accountability and transparency for NEA.
Who is responsible for this delay in the giving out of the new hygiene labels? Who has been conducting checks at the Geylang Serai market? The implicated officers should be sacked or at least demoted to send a warning to others that such sloppy work will not be tolerated in the civil service.
Nothing less than an open and complete report on what went wrong in the process of enforcement can NEA assauge public fury and disappointment over this preventable tragedy.
The Minister of Environment Dr Yaacob, his Permanent Secretary Mr Tan Yong Soon and NEA CEO Andrew Tan owe every Singaporeans, especially the families of the deceased a public apology.
Mr Tan Yong Soon wrote in the Straits Times last December that “Taking five weeks leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks. Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.”
This is the result of a “good” leader who has built up a “good” team to cover his duties when he was away for 5 weeks which is more than enough time for NEA to send the updated food hygiene labels to the stallholders.
In all fairness, Singaporeans have not been “complacent” in maintaining public hygiene as insinuated by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.
It was NEA which had been complacent in the discharge of its duties. They must have assumed that such an outbreak will never happen in a first world country like Singapore. It did and it is time we review the performance of every ministry, statutory board and quasi-government agencies like NEA to ensure that we are paying the right price for the right man to do the right job.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26856.1
According to the NEA website here, it is the “leading public organization responsible for improving and sustaining a clean and green environment in Singapore.”
Two of its stated missions are:
1. Public hygiene and cleanliness: Conducts regular checks on food establishments, cooling towers, swimming pools, and public toilets to ensure a high standard of hygiene is maintained.
2. Management of hawker centers: Oversees the licensing, management and regulation of hawkers to maintain and promote good hygiene practices and public health standards in government hawker centres.
It was revealed that the Geylang Serai stalls were told about their new food hygiene grades last December, but had not received their labels until now.
An NEA spokesman said it viewed the four-month delay ’seriously’ and had tightened its operations to prevent a recurrence, adding that the new labels marked a ‘fresh start’ following the market’s two-day spring cleaning and pest control works last week. (read article here)
We are glad NEA has the decency to admit that the four month delay is unacceptable unlike the PAP leaders who have been quick to shift the blame for the disaster to Singaporeans.
On hindsight, the Indian rojak stall should have been failed in the grading and not allowed to operate till it improved on its hygiene standards.
It is a joke that it was still displaying its old “B” grade which might have given its customers a false sense of security. A “B” grade implies a “greater than average” standard of hygiene.
How a stall given this grade turns out to be a culprit for causing the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore leading to two deaths is anybody’s guess.
It is clear that NEA has been complacent in the following aspects:
1. Frequency of spot checks on eating outlets is inadequate.
2. Hygiene grading system has failed to reflect the true state of hygiene at the implicated food stalls.
3. Failure to detect the presence of rats at the Geylang Serai market only till now.
To compound matters, while the updated hygiene grade labels were collecting dust in NEA’s office, customers were misled by the old labels to patronize stalls which they would otherwise avoided.
It is not true that most diners are not bothered by the labels as reported by the media. There will be Singaporeans who deliberately avoid those stalls with a “C” grade and below out of hygiene concerns.
As Deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and the Environment Lee Bee Wah rightly pointed out: ‘By the time the results of the grading are out, conditions at the stalls could have changed’.
The hygiene grading system was put in place to serve two purposes:
1. To increase the standard of public hygiene at food outlets.
2. To enable Singaporeans to make an informed choice.
The unfortunate Geylang Serai food poisoning episode has exposed the flaws of both NEA’s grading system and its enforcement.
How can food stalls infested with rats be given a “B” or even “C” grading? Does NEA consider dining with 61 rats an acceptable standard of hygiene?
Why did NEA take so long to give out the new labels? Surely it defeats the purpose of conducting spot checks and grading the stalls in the first place if the updated labels are not displayed in time. Can we blame the Indian rojak stallholder from displaying the old label when the new one was not sent to him?
As always in the past, a major damage control operation will be instituted only after a terrible blunder has been made. Without the incident being put under intense public scrutiny by the mainstream media, will the new labels been given out and the rats caught in double quick time?
Some stallholders who were downgraded to a C saw the move as a knee-jerk reaction to Singapore’s worst case of mass food poisoning and rightly so.
Instead of reacting immediately to salvage its battered reputation, NEA should wait till its own internal investigations are complete before releasing a report to the public. What are the areas of inadequacies and what have been done to address them?
It is really quite pointless to “show” Singaporeans that they are doing “something” only after two deaths are lost. As a public agency paid for by taxpayers, Singaporeans have the right to demand for the highest degree of accountability and transparency for NEA.
Who is responsible for this delay in the giving out of the new hygiene labels? Who has been conducting checks at the Geylang Serai market? The implicated officers should be sacked or at least demoted to send a warning to others that such sloppy work will not be tolerated in the civil service.
Nothing less than an open and complete report on what went wrong in the process of enforcement can NEA assauge public fury and disappointment over this preventable tragedy.
The Minister of Environment Dr Yaacob, his Permanent Secretary Mr Tan Yong Soon and NEA CEO Andrew Tan owe every Singaporeans, especially the families of the deceased a public apology.
Mr Tan Yong Soon wrote in the Straits Times last December that “Taking five weeks leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks. Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.”
This is the result of a “good” leader who has built up a “good” team to cover his duties when he was away for 5 weeks which is more than enough time for NEA to send the updated food hygiene labels to the stallholders.
In all fairness, Singaporeans have not been “complacent” in maintaining public hygiene as insinuated by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.
It was NEA which had been complacent in the discharge of its duties. They must have assumed that such an outbreak will never happen in a first world country like Singapore. It did and it is time we review the performance of every ministry, statutory board and quasi-government agencies like NEA to ensure that we are paying the right price for the right man to do the right job.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26856.1
Parliament passes the Public Order Act 2009
Parliament passes the Public Order Act 2009
Parliament passed on Monday 13 April 2009 the Public Order Act of 2009.
Unlike previous legislation which defines an illegal assembly or illegal procession as one that involves 5 or more persons, the Public Order Bill criminalizes public activities held without a police permit by ANY number of people which in the view of law enforcement authorities compromise public order.
Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Parliament on Monday that the Public Order Act is needed prevent trouble at major conferences such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit to be held in Singapore in November this year.
The Law Minister also cited the recent example of political unrest in Thailand in which protesters eager to compel the ousting of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva laid siege on the ASEAN Summit hotel, Royal Cliff Beach Resort, as well as other top-end popular resorts along the Pattaya Beach.
“The backdrop of current events in Thailand, with the international leaders having to leave the conference by helicopter hurriedly, showed very tellingly the need for this legislation,” said Mr K Shanmugam.
He also said that “the approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability”.
However, opposition NCMP Sylvia Lim offered her view that the Government was taking advantage of political struggle in Thailand to “justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of Singaporeans further.”
She said: “As long as this Government respects and upholds democracy, the problems now we are seeing in Thailand will not happen here … … But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.”
I fully concur with Sylvia Lim, who has put across the main point of contention very succinctly. I am also pleased to know that Sylvia Lim voted against the Bill.
A summary of what is involved in the Public Order Act 2009
1. The new Public Order Act rationalises the existing two Bills — the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). According to media reports, under the new Bill, three types of activities will require permits: those that demonstrate support for or against views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; those that publicize a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.
In reality however, public actions made to promote a cause or campaign, or commemorate any event, are ALREADY subject to the need for a police permit, as explained here, here, here, here, here and here. The new Public Order Act thus merely formalizes existing subsidiary legislation in this area, which the authorities have already been selectively using against peaceful demonstrators, and manifestly for political reasons rather than for reasons involving public safety.
Many sporting and recreational activities will be exempted.
2. The penalty for participation in an assembly or procession without permit has increased. The maximum fine for first time offenders is raised to $3,000 and that for repeat offenders is now $5,000.
3. The Act will also give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive “move-on” orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.
A Channel News asia report claims that currently, police can only observe and warn a person if an offence has been committed and follow up with investigations after the event. The report further claims that the police can only arrest the person on the spot if it is a seizable offence such as for carrying weapons. (See here.)
The media report however is misleading. Police have already made on-site arrests of peaceful protesters, such as the Tak Boleh Tahan protest on 15 March 2008, or the protest by four SDP CEC members outside the Istana in 2007 concerning Singapore’s military weapons trading with the Burmese junta.
4. The police will also formally get special powers for international events, which Mr Shanmugam describes as “trophy targets for terrorists”, where they can search people and personal property, including articles of clothing and the contents of vehicles. Law enforcement personnel can also require entrants of designated areas to declare their names and place of residence, as well as the reasons for their presence, before they are permitted entry.
Again, I must point out that law enforcement personnel have already been using such powers before the Act was introduced. For example, Ms Chee Siok Chin of the SDP was abducted by the police, bundled into an unmarked van, and unceremoniously driven away while she and John Tan were on their way to Shangrila Hotel on the evening of 20 November 2007. (See here.) The police used the excuse that Shangrila Hotel had been gazetted as a Protected Area under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chapter 256) in connection with the ongoing ASEAN Summit that was held in Singapore at that time. Other passersby could proceed without hindrance at the same location. Clearly the law applies only to some and not to all.
5. The police will also have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials. The police can also take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this rule does not apply to routine police duties, which means citizen journalists are now prohibited from filming civil disobedience acts, but can continue filming law enforcement personnel giving summons to illegally parked cars or scenes of police officers lazing on the job, for instance.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26833.1
Parliament passed on Monday 13 April 2009 the Public Order Act of 2009.
Unlike previous legislation which defines an illegal assembly or illegal procession as one that involves 5 or more persons, the Public Order Bill criminalizes public activities held without a police permit by ANY number of people which in the view of law enforcement authorities compromise public order.
Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Parliament on Monday that the Public Order Act is needed prevent trouble at major conferences such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit to be held in Singapore in November this year.
The Law Minister also cited the recent example of political unrest in Thailand in which protesters eager to compel the ousting of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva laid siege on the ASEAN Summit hotel, Royal Cliff Beach Resort, as well as other top-end popular resorts along the Pattaya Beach.
“The backdrop of current events in Thailand, with the international leaders having to leave the conference by helicopter hurriedly, showed very tellingly the need for this legislation,” said Mr K Shanmugam.
He also said that “the approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability”.
However, opposition NCMP Sylvia Lim offered her view that the Government was taking advantage of political struggle in Thailand to “justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of Singaporeans further.”
She said: “As long as this Government respects and upholds democracy, the problems now we are seeing in Thailand will not happen here … … But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.”
I fully concur with Sylvia Lim, who has put across the main point of contention very succinctly. I am also pleased to know that Sylvia Lim voted against the Bill.
A summary of what is involved in the Public Order Act 2009
1. The new Public Order Act rationalises the existing two Bills — the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). According to media reports, under the new Bill, three types of activities will require permits: those that demonstrate support for or against views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; those that publicize a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.
In reality however, public actions made to promote a cause or campaign, or commemorate any event, are ALREADY subject to the need for a police permit, as explained here, here, here, here, here and here. The new Public Order Act thus merely formalizes existing subsidiary legislation in this area, which the authorities have already been selectively using against peaceful demonstrators, and manifestly for political reasons rather than for reasons involving public safety.
Many sporting and recreational activities will be exempted.
2. The penalty for participation in an assembly or procession without permit has increased. The maximum fine for first time offenders is raised to $3,000 and that for repeat offenders is now $5,000.
3. The Act will also give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive “move-on” orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.
A Channel News asia report claims that currently, police can only observe and warn a person if an offence has been committed and follow up with investigations after the event. The report further claims that the police can only arrest the person on the spot if it is a seizable offence such as for carrying weapons. (See here.)
The media report however is misleading. Police have already made on-site arrests of peaceful protesters, such as the Tak Boleh Tahan protest on 15 March 2008, or the protest by four SDP CEC members outside the Istana in 2007 concerning Singapore’s military weapons trading with the Burmese junta.
4. The police will also formally get special powers for international events, which Mr Shanmugam describes as “trophy targets for terrorists”, where they can search people and personal property, including articles of clothing and the contents of vehicles. Law enforcement personnel can also require entrants of designated areas to declare their names and place of residence, as well as the reasons for their presence, before they are permitted entry.
Again, I must point out that law enforcement personnel have already been using such powers before the Act was introduced. For example, Ms Chee Siok Chin of the SDP was abducted by the police, bundled into an unmarked van, and unceremoniously driven away while she and John Tan were on their way to Shangrila Hotel on the evening of 20 November 2007. (See here.) The police used the excuse that Shangrila Hotel had been gazetted as a Protected Area under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chapter 256) in connection with the ongoing ASEAN Summit that was held in Singapore at that time. Other passersby could proceed without hindrance at the same location. Clearly the law applies only to some and not to all.
5. The police will also have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials. The police can also take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this rule does not apply to routine police duties, which means citizen journalists are now prohibited from filming civil disobedience acts, but can continue filming law enforcement personnel giving summons to illegally parked cars or scenes of police officers lazing on the job, for instance.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26833.1
Aren't They Quick to Change Their Headlines?
Aren't They Quick to Change Their Headlines?
Around 7:30 am I was reading the Straits Times online and came across the following article:
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story
April 13, 2009
S'poreans will get most IR jobs
By Lee Wei Chean
TWO reports circulating on the Internet that half of the 10,000 jobs at Sentosa's upcoming integrated resort (IR) have been set aside for foreigners have created a furore among some Singaporeans.Two publications in the Philippines - the Manila Standard Today and the Philippine Star - on April 4 quoted the country's President Gloria Arroyo as saying she has secured 5,000 positions at the casino-resort - opening next year - for Filipinos.
She was quoted as saying she had sent a delegation to Singapore last month to explore job opportunities for Filipino nationals here, and added that Labour Secretary Marianito Roque met Resorts World at Sentosa chief executive officer Tan Hee Teck to talk about opportunities for Filipinos.
Read the full story in Tuesday's edition of The Straits Times.
I found it somewhat suspicious that an article should be entitled "Singaporeans Will Get Most IR Jobs" when in fact, there's absolutely zero content in the article which tells you that this is so.
I got the feeling that the title reflected the conclusion that our obedient, nation-building press had already decided to convey. It was just that the unfortunate journalist just hadn't yet been able to find any facts to substantiate such a conclusion. I quickly saved a screenshot:
Fifteen minutes later, I checked the ST website again and I found that the title had suddenly changed.
Evidently the journalist gave up. He obviously couldn't find any real facts to substantiate the conclusion that "Singaporeans Will Get Most IR Jobs". So now the title had changed to "IR Jobs for Foreigners?".
The best thing the journalist could do was stick in a carefully-posed photo of three very Singaporean-looking Singaporeans. Then he added a caption to say that these are three Singaporeans that Resorts World has hired.
LOL. That's media for you - it's all about creating impressions. Well, I guess some readers will be fooled.
April 14, 2009
IR jobs for foreigners?
Resorts World reassures S'poreans that bulk of the jobs will go to them
By Lim Wei CheanTWO reports circulating on the Internet that half of the 10,000 jobs at Sentosa's upcoming integrated resort (IR) have been set aside for foreigners have created a furore among some Singaporeans.
Two publications in the Philippines - the Manila Standard Today and the Philippine Star - on April 4 quoted the country's President Gloria Arroyo as saying she has secured 5,000 positions at the casino-resort - opening next year - for Filipinos.
She was quoted as saying she had sent a delegation to Singapore last month to explore job opportunities for Filipino nationals here, and added that Labour Secretary Marianito Roque met Resorts World at Sentosa chief executive officer Tan Hee Teck to talk about opportunities for Filipinos.
Manila Standard Today also quoted administrator Jennifer Manalili of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration as saying: 'They are expanding and there will be openings for workers for hotels, casinos and performers.'
Ms Manalili, who was part of the delegation here last month, added: 'Universal Studios will also have a theme park so they told us they want to hire Filipino talent and performers...They might come here to conduct auditions either next month or in June.'
She also told the Manila Standard Today the government will send another team here next month to 'finalise discussions and requirements for Filipino workers'.
The reaction on online forums here to the reports has been furious. Some said setting aside so many jobs for foreigners amounted to 'betrayal'. A netizen going by the nickname likedatosocan wrote on one local forum: 'I am jobless now and Singaporean. Why am I not employed? I can go low as well, I mean on salary. I speak English without accent. Why not hire me?'
Others questioned whether the service provided by the growing number of Filipino service staff here is better than that provided by Singaporeans.
When asked about the Philippine media reports, Resorts World spokesman Robin Goh would only confirm a meeting had taken place. 'The Philippine Embassy requested a meeting with Resorts World at Sentosa, which Resorts World hosted. Jobs for Filipinos were discussed during the meeting, in which Resorts World stated our commitment to hire Singaporeans first, particularly in this recession.'
He added: 'Resorts World will offer 10,000 jobs when we open, and we expect the bulk of them to go to Singaporeans.' He said the resort currently has 500 employees, of whom 80 per cent are Singaporeans and residents here. The remaining 20 per cent hail from countries like Australia, Britain, Malaysia and the United States.
The critical points of the story were left unaddressed. And the critical points are, of course - Why did Arroyo say that 5,000 jobs at Resort World are going to Filipino citizens? How can this statement be reconciled with Robin Goh's statement that the "bulk" of the 10,000 jobs will go to Singaporeans"? How many jobs are REALLY going to Singaporeans?
If there are 10,000 available jobs, and 5,000 of them go to Filipinos, then at best 5,000 of them are left for Singaporeans. That's half. That's not the "bulk".
Is the Straits Times not going to probe deeper and investigate WHY this inconsistency has come about? Was Arroyo lying or misquoted in the Philippine press or did she somehow misunderstand what Resorts World and the Sentosa CEO had told the Philippine delegation?
Or is the truth of the matter just something that happens to be too inconvenient for the Straits Times to talk about?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=26832.1
Opening up of political space
April 14, 2009
Opening up of political space
By Jeremy Au Yong
THE space for political expression in Singapore has expanded substantially since 2000, and it is in this context that the new public order rules should be viewed.
Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said this when responding to Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong on the Public Order Bill which gives police more effective powers to maintain public order.
Mr Siew had contended that the need to obtain permits for assemblies - though a long-standing rule - 'emasculated' the right to freedom of assembly.
Mr Shanmugam, who is also Law Minister, disagreed.
He said: 'I hope Mr Siew would be generous enough to accept that... since 2000 there has been a series of changes that have substantially liberalised the political space.'
In opening the debate on the Public Order Bill, he charted the path to liberalisation taken by the Government, adding that it was a continuing process.
He earmarked the opening of Speakers' Corner nine years ago as the start of the process. In 2000, Hong Lim Park was opened up to allow citizens to speak in public without a permit, except on race or religion issues.
That same year, restrictions were also lifted on speeches by elected MPs at community events. The events had to be constituency events, organised for their constituents and where the intended participants were from that constituency.
A year later, constituency activities organised by or on behalf of MPs and held in the constituency were exempted from having to obtain police permits. However, these must comprise only of music, singing or dancing, any magic show or comedy show, transmission of recorded music or organised competition at games of skill.
In 2004, the exemptions at Speakers' Corner were extended to performances and exhibitions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26831.1
Opening up of political space
By Jeremy Au Yong
THE space for political expression in Singapore has expanded substantially since 2000, and it is in this context that the new public order rules should be viewed.
Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said this when responding to Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong on the Public Order Bill which gives police more effective powers to maintain public order.
Mr Siew had contended that the need to obtain permits for assemblies - though a long-standing rule - 'emasculated' the right to freedom of assembly.
Mr Shanmugam, who is also Law Minister, disagreed.
He said: 'I hope Mr Siew would be generous enough to accept that... since 2000 there has been a series of changes that have substantially liberalised the political space.'
In opening the debate on the Public Order Bill, he charted the path to liberalisation taken by the Government, adding that it was a continuing process.
He earmarked the opening of Speakers' Corner nine years ago as the start of the process. In 2000, Hong Lim Park was opened up to allow citizens to speak in public without a permit, except on race or religion issues.
That same year, restrictions were also lifted on speeches by elected MPs at community events. The events had to be constituency events, organised for their constituents and where the intended participants were from that constituency.
A year later, constituency activities organised by or on behalf of MPs and held in the constituency were exempted from having to obtain police permits. However, these must comprise only of music, singing or dancing, any magic show or comedy show, transmission of recorded music or organised competition at games of skill.
In 2004, the exemptions at Speakers' Corner were extended to performances and exhibitions.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26831.1
Call for checks and balances
April 14, 2009
Call for checks and balances
Move-on order and restrictions on filming are most contentious
| By Jeremy Au Yong | ||
 |  | Mr Low Thia Khiang (above), Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Siew Kum Hong raised objections to two provisions in the new Public Order Act, saying they curbed civil liberties excessively. |
THREE Members of the House yesterday opposed the new public order rules, arguing that these gave overarching powers to the police without sufficient checks and balances.
The trio were Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang), Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim and Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong.
At the heart of their objections were the two most contentious provisions in the new Public Order Act: the move-on order and restrictions on filming of certain security operations.
The first enables the police to order a person to leave a designated area if they determine that he is about to break the law.
The second allows the police to stop people from filming, distributing or exhibiting films of security operations.
Both provisions, the trio said, went too far in curtailing civil liberties, while leaving the door open to abuse.
Both Ms Lim and Mr Siew cited the case of Mr Ian Tomlinson to illustrate the potential pitfalls of filming restrictions.
Mr Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor, died from a heart attack two weeks ago, after getting caught up in a protest while on the way home.
The incident took place in London on the eve of the G-20 summit.
Ms Lim pointed out that British police initially said he had not clashed with them. This claim was disproved by a passer-by's video clip showing a policeman shoving him in the back.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26830.1
FOOD POISONING: More ill from steamboat
April 14, 2009
FOOD POISONING
More ill from steamboat
 | | Business at the popular Ba Shu Ren Jia steamboat restaurant has dropped by close to 50 per cent since reports of food poisoning surfaced. -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM |
ANOTHER three patrons who ate at Ba Shu Ren Jia steamboat restaurant last week have come down with food poisoning.
This brings the total number of those affected after eating at the Sichuan restaurant located at 233, Geylang Lorong 9 to 17.
Like the previous batch, the latest three diners to fall ill ate at the restaurant either on Thursday or Friday.
They developed symptoms of food poisoning - vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain - over the long weekend.
Two of the 17 had to be hospitalised but they have been discharged.
A spokesman for the restaurant said that it had assured the two that it would pay their medical charges if it was found to be responsible for the poisoning.
Thirteen food handlers from the steamboat restaurant are undergoing screening at the Communicable Disease Centre.
No update on their condition or the cause of the poisoning is available yet.
Officers from the Ministry of Health and National Environment Agency
had checked the the premises of the restaurant and found no hygiene lapses, said the ministry.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26818.1
MM Lee shares experiences with Viet Nam
Singapore minister shares experiences
(14-04-2009)
HCM CITY — Visiting Singaporean minister Mentor Lee Kwan Yew has been sharing his country’s experiences with tackling the global economic crisis with Viet Nam.
Lee arrived in HCM City yesterday for a five-day official visit to Viet Nam at the invitation of Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung.
Lee told HCM City’s Party Secretary Le Thanh Hai that the Singaporean Government had put forward a programme to re-train its workers for when the economy picks up in the future.
He estimated that the present economic downturn would last until 2010. He shared with Vietnamese officials his country’s experiences with mitigating the negative impacts of the global economic crisis.
He said the crisis had provided the government with an opportunity to re-structure its economy, build new and creative economic and financial policies and produce new commodities for consumers.
In addition to measures to offset the adverse effects of unemployment, Singapore had also introduced incentives to help people return to education to boost skill levels, Lee said.
Lee said Viet Nam was in a better position than Singapore to tackle the crisis and advised the country to take advantage of the present economic downturn to train workers and improve English language levels by sending good students and lecturers abroad.
Hai said he appreciated the useful comments Lee and his colleagues had made.
He said HCM City had effectively implemented agreements signed between Viet Nam and Singapore.
He also discussed with the Singaporean guest measures that Viet Nam was introducing to boost social welfare, reduce poverty, stabilise society and stimulate investment.
Lee plans to visit the Viet Nam-Singapore Industrial Zone in Binh Duong Province before flying to Ha Noi. — VNS
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26955.1
(14-04-2009)
HCM CITY — Visiting Singaporean minister Mentor Lee Kwan Yew has been sharing his country’s experiences with tackling the global economic crisis with Viet Nam.
Lee arrived in HCM City yesterday for a five-day official visit to Viet Nam at the invitation of Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung.
Lee told HCM City’s Party Secretary Le Thanh Hai that the Singaporean Government had put forward a programme to re-train its workers for when the economy picks up in the future.
He estimated that the present economic downturn would last until 2010. He shared with Vietnamese officials his country’s experiences with mitigating the negative impacts of the global economic crisis.
He said the crisis had provided the government with an opportunity to re-structure its economy, build new and creative economic and financial policies and produce new commodities for consumers.
In addition to measures to offset the adverse effects of unemployment, Singapore had also introduced incentives to help people return to education to boost skill levels, Lee said.
Lee said Viet Nam was in a better position than Singapore to tackle the crisis and advised the country to take advantage of the present economic downturn to train workers and improve English language levels by sending good students and lecturers abroad.
Hai said he appreciated the useful comments Lee and his colleagues had made.
He said HCM City had effectively implemented agreements signed between Viet Nam and Singapore.
He also discussed with the Singaporean guest measures that Viet Nam was introducing to boost social welfare, reduce poverty, stabilise society and stimulate investment.
Lee plans to visit the Viet Nam-Singapore Industrial Zone in Binh Duong Province before flying to Ha Noi. — VNS
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26955.1
Keen to know what Aware's plans are now
Keen to know what Aware's plans are now
April 14, 2009 Tuesday
I READ with interest Wong Kim Hoh's article last Friday, "Unknowns knock out veterans at Aware polls".
I noticed the names of members of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), namely, Jenica Chua, Alan Chin, Claire Nazar and Angela Thiang.
These are individuals who contributed to the 2007 debate in The Straits Times Forum on gays and Section 377A of the Penal Code.
They share the same position, and do not condone homosexuality.
It is difficult to speculate whether ex-co or ordinary members' identities, beliefs and other organisational affiliations might have an impact on the leadership and direction of Aware.
At the same time, we should applaud the effort and passion of the newcomers, who want to take on more responsibility and leadership in championing Aware's vision for Singapore, which is "gender equality for all".
I am interested to know what Aware's plans are now for our community.
What is its stand on minority integration and equality? For instance, will it champion the cause for social inclusion and acceptance of trans-identified women?
What is the organisation's current interpretation of "gender equality for all"? Are gender and sexual identity included under this banner?
What is Aware's position on sex education? For example, will it propose and promote a larger sex education syllabus that is relevant and empowers our youth to make responsible decisions?
I wish the organisation well.
Ho Chi Sam
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_363159.html
Changing the pitch
Straits Times can't decide how to convey bad news to the people.
Should it be straight-forward:
Or should it just try not to state the obvious:
Eh LHL, when you announced the IR project you kept saying jobs will go to Singaporeans leh! I didn't know you also meant half the jobs will also go to Filipinos!!!
Should it be straight-forward:
Or should it just try not to state the obvious:
Eh LHL, when you announced the IR project you kept saying jobs will go to Singaporeans leh! I didn't know you also meant half the jobs will also go to Filipinos!!!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26911.1
Slight devaluation to keep foreign money in Singapore banks
Slight devaluation to keep foreign money in Singapore banks
Now I am scandalized by the Wall Street Journal just like the Singapore judges had been in the past.
Here I was, saying a silent prayer of thanks to the Monetary Authority of Singapore for not forgetting us poor folk in the hour of economic crisis and devaluing the Singapore dollar only slightly, by about 1.7 percent or so, so we can continue to eat our imported rice and chicken and practise daily hygiene with foreign toothpaste, soap and shampoo. (Almost nothing is made on this island except exports.)
The Wall Street Journal poured a bucket of cold water on this notion of a people-friendly devaluation.
The central bank did not further devalue the Singapore dollar for a different reason, it claims – to prevent foreign money from flowing out of the Singapore banks.
It won't help Singapore exporters compete with the Koreans and the Taiwanese – that requires a "monumental devaluation" of the Singapore dollar, says the article.
But it can help keep foreign money in Singapore banks.
Mark Cranfield writes in the Journal:
The central bank made a point of highlighting its view that there's "no reason for any undue weakening of the Singapore dollar."
In other words, Singapore isn't willing to step onto the slippery slope of competitive currency devaluation. By ceding that it can't control external demand for its goods, it's being as clear as it can that it doesn't want foreigners to lose confidence in the Singapore dollar and take their wealth elsewhere.
Financial services, led by a huge private banking and asset management industry, are crucial to the economy and confidence in the Singapore dollar underpins this structure. Funds under management in Singapore are around $800 billion, according to Monetary Authority data.
On top of the vast deposits lodged in Singapore by wealthy individuals, the island state has also become home to thousands of executives helping to provide those financial services.
The money these temporary residents spend in the local economy has become significant in the past five years, and a driver of the near doubling in residential property prices between 2006 and 2008.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26906.2
Family to take legal action to investigate David's death
Family to take legal action to investigate David's death
The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Tue, 04/14/2009 2:56 PM | National
The family of David Hartanto, an Indonesian student accused of stabbing his professor at Singapore's Nanyang Technology University (NTU) before committing suicide, will take further legal steps to investigate his death.
"We are planning to hire a Singaporean lawyer to take this case to court," David's father, Hartono Widjaja, said in Jakarta on Monday, following the family's recent seven-day visit to Singapore to gather more information on the incident.
On March 3, David was found dead, after he plunged from the third floor of a building on the NTU campus.
NTU Director Su Guaning told the Singaporean media that David allegedly stabbed professor Chan Kap Luk before slitting his wrists and jumping to his death.
David's family has rejected the story, saying that the statement was based on the professor's words only and that the director gave the statement before police completed their investigation.
Blogger Iwan Piliang, who accompanied the family on their trip as the head of the case's verification team, said that the family might hire lawyer Shashi Nathan to take the case to Singapore's Coroners Court, which processes cases involving unnatural deaths before they are brought to the criminal court.
"We are hoping to gain an open verdict in the Coroner Courts," Iwan said.
He explained that an open verdict will open the gates for a further investigation of the case.
"We are 99 percent sure that David was murdered," David's older brother William said.
According to William, there is a number of suspicious facts regarding his brother's death. "David's autopsy report revealed that there were 36 wounds to his body. Fourteen of them were knife-inflicted," he said.
Last week, the Singaporean police sent David's autopsy report to his family. However, it was not sent through the Indonesian Embassy but through NTU, thus negating its legality.
"But we still have the autopsy photos," Iwan said, adding that the photos, which were made available on Facebook, contributed to suspicion surrounding the case.
During their trip to Singapore, the family also tried to meet Su Guaning. The director was not available and offered his senior associate provost in his place, but the family declined.
"We also tried to meet professor Chan Kap at his residence, but he too refused to meet us," William said.
The family also paid a visit to Singapore daily The Strait Times, in hopes of changing the public's view on the incident, Iwan said.
David's death received wide attention domestically and internationally after two other members of a NTU research team were found dead.
Five days after David's death, 24-year-old Chinese national Zhou Zheng, an NTU project officer, was found hanging in the balcony of his apartment.
Then, a 29-year-old student was struck and killed by a vehicle near the campus.
Some members of the House of Representatives have demanded the government directly file a complaint with the Singaporean government. (dis)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27010.2
The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Tue, 04/14/2009 2:56 PM | National
The family of David Hartanto, an Indonesian student accused of stabbing his professor at Singapore's Nanyang Technology University (NTU) before committing suicide, will take further legal steps to investigate his death.
"We are planning to hire a Singaporean lawyer to take this case to court," David's father, Hartono Widjaja, said in Jakarta on Monday, following the family's recent seven-day visit to Singapore to gather more information on the incident.
On March 3, David was found dead, after he plunged from the third floor of a building on the NTU campus.
NTU Director Su Guaning told the Singaporean media that David allegedly stabbed professor Chan Kap Luk before slitting his wrists and jumping to his death.
David's family has rejected the story, saying that the statement was based on the professor's words only and that the director gave the statement before police completed their investigation.
Blogger Iwan Piliang, who accompanied the family on their trip as the head of the case's verification team, said that the family might hire lawyer Shashi Nathan to take the case to Singapore's Coroners Court, which processes cases involving unnatural deaths before they are brought to the criminal court.
"We are hoping to gain an open verdict in the Coroner Courts," Iwan said.
He explained that an open verdict will open the gates for a further investigation of the case.
"We are 99 percent sure that David was murdered," David's older brother William said.
According to William, there is a number of suspicious facts regarding his brother's death. "David's autopsy report revealed that there were 36 wounds to his body. Fourteen of them were knife-inflicted," he said.
Last week, the Singaporean police sent David's autopsy report to his family. However, it was not sent through the Indonesian Embassy but through NTU, thus negating its legality.
"But we still have the autopsy photos," Iwan said, adding that the photos, which were made available on Facebook, contributed to suspicion surrounding the case.
During their trip to Singapore, the family also tried to meet Su Guaning. The director was not available and offered his senior associate provost in his place, but the family declined.
"We also tried to meet professor Chan Kap at his residence, but he too refused to meet us," William said.
The family also paid a visit to Singapore daily The Strait Times, in hopes of changing the public's view on the incident, Iwan said.
David's death received wide attention domestically and internationally after two other members of a NTU research team were found dead.
Five days after David's death, 24-year-old Chinese national Zhou Zheng, an NTU project officer, was found hanging in the balcony of his apartment.
Then, a 29-year-old student was struck and killed by a vehicle near the campus.
Some members of the House of Representatives have demanded the government directly file a complaint with the Singaporean government. (dis)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27010.2
Singapore dollar devalued after worst ever slump
Singapore dollar devalued after worst ever slump
It's hard to say anything more about where the Singapore economy is headed since the experts keep changing their tune. Even fortunetellers will be embarrassed if they flopped like the Ministry of Trade and Industry's recent economic forecasts.
Meanwhile, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) devalued the Singapore dollar today but, thank goodness, only by about 1.7 percent, according to Bloomberg.
That's only an estimate since MAS uses a secret currency exchange rate trading band that goes up and down with trade and the economy, or so it is believed.
But thank goodness anyway because a sharper drop would have hurt consumers since everything has to be imported including chicken and rice.
This is the second time MAS has changed tack in six months. It stopped letting the Singapore dollar rise against other currencies in October last year to help Singapore compete in the world market. But with exports continuing to fall, it has now devalued the Singapore dollar.
MAS sees no reason for any further weakening of the Singapore dollar because the economy has "sound fundamentals and a resilient financial system".
That's nonsense as far as the economy is concerned – it's in free fall.
Gross domestic product plunged unexpectedly sharply – by 19.7 percent --in the first three months of this year compared with the previous quarter, the Ministry of Trade and Industry reported today. That's worse than the 16.4 percent slump between October and December.
Never before has the Singapore economy contracted so sharply since the government began compiling such data in 1976, says the Wall Street Journal.
The ministry now forecasts the economy will shrink by six to nine percent this year.
This is the third time it has lowered its forecast in recent months. First it forecast between two percent growth and one percent slump this year. Then on January 21, it said the economy would be shrink by two to five percent this year.
Will it be right this time?
God only knows.
The ministry's powers of economic divination seem to have been rattled by the crisis as the economy gets worse and worse.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26906.1
It's hard to say anything more about where the Singapore economy is headed since the experts keep changing their tune. Even fortunetellers will be embarrassed if they flopped like the Ministry of Trade and Industry's recent economic forecasts.
Meanwhile, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) devalued the Singapore dollar today but, thank goodness, only by about 1.7 percent, according to Bloomberg.
That's only an estimate since MAS uses a secret currency exchange rate trading band that goes up and down with trade and the economy, or so it is believed.
But thank goodness anyway because a sharper drop would have hurt consumers since everything has to be imported including chicken and rice.
This is the second time MAS has changed tack in six months. It stopped letting the Singapore dollar rise against other currencies in October last year to help Singapore compete in the world market. But with exports continuing to fall, it has now devalued the Singapore dollar.
MAS sees no reason for any further weakening of the Singapore dollar because the economy has "sound fundamentals and a resilient financial system".
That's nonsense as far as the economy is concerned – it's in free fall.
Gross domestic product plunged unexpectedly sharply – by 19.7 percent --in the first three months of this year compared with the previous quarter, the Ministry of Trade and Industry reported today. That's worse than the 16.4 percent slump between October and December.
Never before has the Singapore economy contracted so sharply since the government began compiling such data in 1976, says the Wall Street Journal.
The ministry now forecasts the economy will shrink by six to nine percent this year.
This is the third time it has lowered its forecast in recent months. First it forecast between two percent growth and one percent slump this year. Then on January 21, it said the economy would be shrink by two to five percent this year.
Will it be right this time?
God only knows.
The ministry's powers of economic divination seem to have been rattled by the crisis as the economy gets worse and worse.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26906.1
Rojak stall owner faces court action over mass food poisoning
Rojak stall owner faces court action over mass food poisoning
By Lynda Hong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 April 2009 2229 hrs
 | ||||||
| ||||||
SINGAPORE: Authorities have decided to prosecute the rojak stall holder at the centre of a food poisoning outbreak in Singapore.
The "Rojak Geylang Serai" stall owner's licence will be suspended pending the outcome of the court action, said a joint statement by the Ministry of Health (MOH) and National Environment Agency (NEA).
The MOH said it has concluded its investigations into the food poisoning cases linked to the stall at Geylang Serai Temporary Market.
"The cause has been identified as a common source outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus traced to the cross-contamination of rojak and raw seafood ingredients harbouring the bacteria," said MOH.
"Laboratory investigation confirmed 13 of the cases to be positive for Vibrio parahaemolyticus, including the first fatal case," it added.
There were altogether 154 cases. Forty-eight of the patients had to be hospitalised, two of whom died. The MOH said death associated with the bacteria is rare, and it is awaiting the coroner's report on the two deaths.
No food remnants were available for microbiological testing because the "Rojak Geylang Serai" stall had been cleared out by the operators and the rojak food items and gravy discarded as soon as they received customer complaints.
Nonetheless, MOH and NEA investigators detected some lapses in food and environmental hygiene.
While the exact steps leading to the contamination of the rojak food items or gravy are still unclear, MOH and NEA said their investigators could draw some insights from a previous case on how this could have occurred.
In 1983, a similar outbreak of food poisoning involving 34 cases was traced to the consumption of Indian Rojak from a market stall, also at Geylang Serai. In this case, the food was prepared at an unlicensed premises at Joo Chiat, where abundant drippings from raw cuttlefish were found to have contaminated the rojak gravy in uncovered containers on the lower shelves of a refrigerator.
As for the food poisoning outbreak at the steamboat restaurant in Geylang, the authorities have been notified of another two cases, bringing the total to 19.
13 food handlers at the steamboat restaurant have also been directed to undergo screening and their results are pending.
The authorities advise the public to take note of personal hygiene and the area's cleanliness, especially when eating out. - CNA /ls
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26884.1
Ming Yi's former aide confesses to a cover-up
Ming Yi's former aide confesses to a cover-up
By Ong Dai Lin, TODAY | Posted: 14 April 2009 0717 hrs
 | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: He claimed trial confidently when his criminal hearing began two weeks ago.
Now, the fourth day of the hearing against former Ren Ci Hospital chief Shi Ming Yi brought the revelation that his former aide Raymond Yeung had confessed to investigators months ago about borrowing S$50,000 from the charity for personal use - and lying about it.
The prosecution called to the stand on Monday a new witness, Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) officer Tan Fong Chin, who had recorded an admission from Yeung about approaching Ming Yi for a loan "for some personal expenses in Hong Kong" arising from financial difficulties.
Yeung had actually wanted to pay for the renovation of a good friend's flat in the Chinese territory, where he used to stay whenever he visited, according to the statement taken in March last year. But he apparently did not tell the monk this.
Then began an intricate tale of cover-up, going by the confession.
Yeung had suggested using the Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre's name to borrow the money. Ming Yi supposedly agreed and approved a payment voucher.
But the Australian national "forgot to record this amount" in Mandala's accounts as planned. When audit inquiries into Ren Ci's finances began in 2006, it was Yeung's idea to say the money was used to pay a company called Jing Yi for wood to carve statues.
He "begged" Ming Yi to help him cover up the matter. Yeung said in the statement: "He did scold me for not recording the loan properly, but he did agree to help me."
Yeung evidently approached the brother of the owner of Jing Yi to draft a delivery letter so that he could account to the auditors about the loan. He also "begged" one of the two registered owners of Mandala, Mr Wee Beng Seng - who is a former Ren Ci board member - to help him go along with the story. He claimed that the latter agreed, but also "scolded" him.
But Yeung told the CAD officer there was "no intention to cheat any party of this S$50,000".
He further told Mr Tan he was unaware if Ren Ci forbade loans to non-employees, but felt that as he was not yet officially employed by Ren Ci, it was "inappropriate" to borrow money from the charity.
"I decided to record the amount as a loan to Mandala because I helped out regularly in the running of Mandala," Yeung said in his statement. The Singapore permanent resident only got his employment pass in the third quarter of 2004. At the time of the loan in May that year, Ming Yi apparently paid his salary.
When asked by the investigator why he repaid the loan only in 2007, Yeung had attributed it to "tight" cash flow because his stock investments were "stuck, as the prices were down". He evidently sold some of his shares in Hong Kong to repay the loan.
While Mr Tan has been cross-examined by counsel from both sides, Yeung has yet to take the stand to be questioned about the allegedly conspiracy to forge the Ren Ci payment voucher by falsifying accounts and giving false information to the Commissioner of Charities.
Meanwhile, the court granted an application by Ming Yi's lawyers to return the monk's passport so he can pay respects to his mentor who died in Kuala Lumpur. He will be back when the hearing resumes Wednesday. - TODAY
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26881.1
160 AWARE members call for meeting to question new ExCo
160 AWARE members call for meeting to question new ExCo
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 April 2009 2057 hrs
SINGAPORE : 160 members of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have submitted a request to call an extraordinary general meeting for the society, where a motion of no confidence in the newly-elected Executive Committee (ExCo) will be considered.
It all started at the AWARE annual general meeting on March 28.
Nine of the 12 Executive Committee positions went to newcomers during that meeting. Over 100 people had turned up to vote and many of these voters had only just joined AWARE.
Some of the newcomers have previously written to the media speaking against homosexuality. AWARE, on the other hand, is known for its liberal stance.
"It (AWARE) stands for choice, it stands for gender equity, it stands for democracy, it stands for diversity, plurality. That's why our membership has always been open," said Corinna Lim, a former Executive Committee member and AWARE member since 1992.
When asked for their reasons for seeking leadership, the new ExCo members declined comment.
"We told you that ExCo is going to be meeting sometime this week, after which there will be a press release. So there is no comment," said Charlotte Wong, VP of AWARE.
Its newly-elected President, Claire Nazar, a longtime member of AWARE, resigned barely two weeks after being voted in.
Some past presidents in the meantime, have been collecting signatures to call for an extraordinary general meeting - prompting some observers to comment that they are behaving like sore losers.
"We welcome change, it is not about losing at all. Someone from a different group came in, have certain ideas about what AWARE should be doing and hasn't communicated it, and all we want to know now is what this is about," said Lim.
"The extraordinary general meeting is an opportunity for the new guard to explain their position and win the members over. We can't really comment whether they will hold fast to the traditional line of AWARE, but I can't imagine why not, if they chose to enter AWARE and run for office there," said political analyst Gillian Koh.
The current committee has not replied to members' request to hold the meeting.
AWARE has about 500 members. - CNA /ls
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26880.2
By Pearl Forss, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 April 2009 2057 hrs
SINGAPORE : 160 members of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have submitted a request to call an extraordinary general meeting for the society, where a motion of no confidence in the newly-elected Executive Committee (ExCo) will be considered.
It all started at the AWARE annual general meeting on March 28.
Nine of the 12 Executive Committee positions went to newcomers during that meeting. Over 100 people had turned up to vote and many of these voters had only just joined AWARE.
Some of the newcomers have previously written to the media speaking against homosexuality. AWARE, on the other hand, is known for its liberal stance.
"It (AWARE) stands for choice, it stands for gender equity, it stands for democracy, it stands for diversity, plurality. That's why our membership has always been open," said Corinna Lim, a former Executive Committee member and AWARE member since 1992.
When asked for their reasons for seeking leadership, the new ExCo members declined comment.
"We told you that ExCo is going to be meeting sometime this week, after which there will be a press release. So there is no comment," said Charlotte Wong, VP of AWARE.
Its newly-elected President, Claire Nazar, a longtime member of AWARE, resigned barely two weeks after being voted in.
Some past presidents in the meantime, have been collecting signatures to call for an extraordinary general meeting - prompting some observers to comment that they are behaving like sore losers.
"We welcome change, it is not about losing at all. Someone from a different group came in, have certain ideas about what AWARE should be doing and hasn't communicated it, and all we want to know now is what this is about," said Lim.
"The extraordinary general meeting is an opportunity for the new guard to explain their position and win the members over. We can't really comment whether they will hold fast to the traditional line of AWARE, but I can't imagine why not, if they chose to enter AWARE and run for office there," said political analyst Gillian Koh.
The current committee has not replied to members' request to hold the meeting.
AWARE has about 500 members. - CNA /ls
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26880.2
150 AWARE members seek vote of no confidence in new executive committee
150 AWARE members seek vote of no confidence in new executive committee
By Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 April 2009 1435 hrs
SINGAPORE: Some members of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have sought a vote of no confidence in the newly elected executive committee.
In a statement, 150 AWARE members said they submitted a request to the society's current executive committee to call for an extra-ordinary general meeting (EOGM) as soon as possible.
The meeting will be asked to consider a motion of no confidence in the executive committee, as a result of the "unusual nature of the annual general meeting last month” when a large number of new members turned up and appeared to have voted for several office bearers, all of whom are also new members.
Barely two weeks after the AGM, the newly elected president, Claire Nazar, resigned.
The statement said AWARE members are concerned about these developments, and that the EOGM will be an opportunity for members to raise and discuss their concerns with the executive committee directly.
The group has asked that the notice for the EOGM be issued no later than 14 days from Tuesday.
- CNA/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26880.1
By Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 April 2009 1435 hrs
SINGAPORE: Some members of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) have sought a vote of no confidence in the newly elected executive committee.
In a statement, 150 AWARE members said they submitted a request to the society's current executive committee to call for an extra-ordinary general meeting (EOGM) as soon as possible.
The meeting will be asked to consider a motion of no confidence in the executive committee, as a result of the "unusual nature of the annual general meeting last month” when a large number of new members turned up and appeared to have voted for several office bearers, all of whom are also new members.
Barely two weeks after the AGM, the newly elected president, Claire Nazar, resigned.
The statement said AWARE members are concerned about these developments, and that the EOGM will be an opportunity for members to raise and discuss their concerns with the executive committee directly.
The group has asked that the notice for the EOGM be issued no later than 14 days from Tuesday.
- CNA/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26880.1
Singapore’s Shame 3 - Singapore’s political history
Singapore’s Shame (Chapter 3 - Singapore’s political history)
By Dr James Gomez, Author, Self-Censorship: Singapore’s Shame
The present state of political culture in Singapore is the accumulated result of a one-party rule by the PAP. It is a culture breed via the control, suppression and persecution articulators of alternative political expression and action. The development of this political culture can be understood by tracing the island`s historical connection to the Riau Sultanate and how it evolved into the current polity.
During the times of the Sultanate, it was a loose system of patronage that allowed different hierarchies of authority to co-exist. Apart from the royalty, there were village chieftains and pirate chiefs. As long as the weaker paid tribute to the stronger, there was much autonomy within various nexuses of power. Authority was often enforced according to military strength.
The arrival of the British altered this arrangement significantly. After neutralising royal and village authority over the island through the signing of a treaty, the centre of final authority shifted to the colonial representative in 1819. There were several changes in the following years in the reporting authority of the different colonial sub-jurisdictions in the region.
Nonetheless, political authority and sovereignty of the island were effectively in the hands of the crown or its representatives. As long as the natives or immigrants did not directly pose a political threat or become a source of inconvenience to the colonial agenda, there was ample room for political expression at the local and community level.
The British were primarily concerned with the entrepot trade and their strategic interests. Thus, social, cultural and religious organisations and concerns were allowed to exist and operate (Lee and Chiew, 1991). From 1900 to 1941 much of the politics that did not directly affect British interests was allowed to operate unhindered. For instance, the Chinese focused on developments in mainland China, and the Indians - who were active slightly later - had their interest rooted to the independence movement developing in India.
The Malays, following Islamic revivalism and developments in Malaysia, Middle East and Indonesia, were concerned with issues affecting their community. Evidence of visits by representatives from abroad of different political persuasions that contributed to the “homeland” interest of local and migrant communities’ show that political expression was relatively free. Many of these political activists were able to organise and advocate for their various causes.
The presence of a politically censorial behaviour was largely insignificant and has not been recorded as an issue in much of Singapore’s early history. This is different now. Unlike the migrants` experience of Singapore`s early history, the PAP government in contemporary times has instead taken action to curb the homeland interests of settled migrants, new migrants and resident workers in Singapore such as the Sikhs, Burmese and Falun Gong activists to name a few incidents.
The situation of political laissez-faire changed in 1942, when war broke out and the Japanese occupied Singapore for three and a half years. The limited tolerance of the new imperial masters was clear. The Chinese were systematically persecuted and were not allowed to organise in any way. They were only allowed some limited organisational opportunities towards the end of the war, out of Japanese necessity.
The Malay and Indian communities were treated differently: they were allowed to organise with the blessing of the Japanese under the scheme of Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Indians were assisted in setting up the Indian National Army. The Malay community was allowed to retain its leadership over religious matters pertaining to Islam. This was possible because the Japanese saw such political provision for these two communities as commensurate with their own political agenda of combating Western colonial interests across the Causeway and in India.
While the Japanese kept a tight fist on things, given their political plan at that time, Singapore was used as a hub to organise or co-host meetings on the Greater Indonesia-Malaysia project. Japanese military and co-ordination activities with their political allies abroad were also conducted on the island. However, in spite of the special condition accorded to the minority communities, alternative political expression and action under the Japanese military regime was generally heavily circumscribed. There were mass arrests, massacres, suspension of habeas corpus, torture during interrogation and fear was induced among people in Singapore that they could be taken away at anytime.
There was self-censorship due to the plethora of informants that reported on individuals and organisations. The situation created an anxiety from fear, similar to that detectable now in contemporary Singapore. However, the basic fear apparatus has been expanded and built upon by the PAP government.
The end of the Japanese occupation and the return of the British resulted in more opportunities for political expression. The eroded myth of British invincibility, the desire on the part of the British to push for some kind of local political autonomy that might be favourable to British interests as well as the euphoria following the removal of strict Japanese control over the people led to a rise in the number of political parties.
The space to organise and contest local elections became bigger after the British introduced new laws to facilitate elections. The opportunity for greater political expression was also in part aided by the presence of a free press. The leftist elements, however, had a tougher time as the British were especially restrictive towards the communists and their activities.
The British placed restrictions on trade unions, declared an Emergency, banned the Malayan Communist Party and allowed preventive detention of communists. Thus political freedoms were biased towards non-communists and pro-British elements. It made the communists cautious but it did not prevent them from taking risks. A similar strategy of bias has also been adopted by the PAP in contemporary Singapore. You will find that “neutrals”, those advocating “non-partisanship”, conservatives and pro-PAP elements are encouraged, given more political space to manoeuvre or are not actively persecuted. This is different from those who directly oppose the PAP or pursue regime change.
In the mid 50s, partly to check the communist elements, but also due to developments in British Malaya and the desire to safeguard British interests, more space was accorded to local political parties that were to pave the way for self-government in Singapore. There was contest for elections and the media was free to report on events. There was space to organise politics and to go about such business without being under undue pressure to conform, in spite of the British agenda. Even when the PAP, under Lee Kuan Yew, managed self-government in 1959 and was taking political action against opponents, the situation was still fluid. It was a period where fear and the practice of self-censorship were not overriding issues.
Historical narratives represent those times as being quite unlike the Japanese occupation and contemporary Singapore. This state of political affairs remained the case until 1965 when the Republic separated from the Malaysia Federation. The Barisan Socialis, a pro-communist split from the PAP, failing to influence the earlier decision towards merger with Malaysia in 1963, abandoned parliament and decided to take their struggle to the streets.
Barisan’s decision to leave parliament paved the way for the PAP to take effective control of the country. Starting from arrests and detention of political actors in the 60s, it began to get rid of its political opponents and consolidated power. Since the mid ‘1960s, the PAP has encroached into every sector of the country. In politics, it has brought the grassroots organisations under its ambit and consolidated the political elite. The People’s Association with its Residents’ Committees, Community Clubs, Central Committees and now Community Development Centres give it a powerful grassroots reach. That apex of such grassroots structures are headed by a PAP MP or party member makes the link between the party and the grassroots organisations concrete.
Similarly, trade unions were brought under the control of the NTUC through arrests, intimidation, legislation and politicking. Great concern is placed on worker control and how they channel their disgruntlements. The party by penetrating almost every work place and including management level workers onboard the union structure maintains an effective reach over workers. Similarly the trade union movement is often headed a by minister, MP or party member. By displacing civil leaders traditionally occupied these and other networks, the PAP, through its cadres and party members, directly controls the machinery for political mobilisation. On the labour front, the PAP`s contemporary concern is how to manage the rise in foreign workers since 2000s as their numbers increase and problems emerge with regards to working conditions, pay and other entitlements.
Through the introduction of legislation and penalties, it has also reduced both local and foreign press’ ability to comment freely on local politics. The local press was, through a series of legislation, eventually amalgamated under Singapore Press Holdings. Along the way, the PAP accused family owned newspapers of meddling politics and others of receiving foreign funds, or of meddling in local politics on behalf of foreign powers. Legislation has been used to effectively control all aspects of information flow. It has placed special restrictions on foreign stations based in Singapore, which prevents them from giving any political party a media advantage during elections. In this way, the ruling party can block media from airing opposition views, while maintaining its hegemony through the local media.
The freedom of speech within Parliament has been seriously eroded by amendments to the Parliamentary (Privileges, Immunity Powers) Act, 1986 in reaction to former opposition parliamentarian JB Jeyaratnam`s persistent questioning in parliament. Apart from stiffening penalties for “abuse” of the privilege of free speech in parliament, it enables the traditional immunity of a parliamentary member from legal action to be removed if he is thought to have abused his privilege of free speech. The existence of this provision undermines the principle that at least in Parliament speech must be free.
Libel laws in Singapore are restrictive compared to countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand and India, all of which have extended and developed defences to libel action where the individual allegedly defamed is a political figure whose political conduct is in question. However, these laws have been relied on by PAP leaders in numerous law suits against political opponents. International human rights NGOs and lawyers` associations have issued statements and spoken out against using libel suits to cripple political dissent in Singapore.
Political opponents of the PAP have been detained without trial throughout its stay in power. A high profile series of arrests took place in 1987, when 22 people were detained for being part of an alleged Marxist conspiracy. The detainees went through psychological and physical torture and many continue to be traumatised after their release. Connected to the incident, lawyer for the detainees, Francis Seow was also detained and later found guilty of tax evasions. Many associated in the periphery of the Marxist conspiracy, but never detained, continue to exercise extreme caution and to some extent are a source of self-censorship that continues to permeate onto emerging Singapore civil society.
Other individuals such as Chee Soon Juan and Tang Lian Hong who took the political party route and contested in local by-elections and general elections, separately became targets of PAP`s negative campaigning and legal suits. A compliant local media were ready partners in the PAP`s smear campaign. Both individuals lost much money and in the case of Chee, he later was bankrupted through the lawsuits. Additionally, Chee based in Singapore and active in opposition politics needs to continuously manage negative perceptions instilled into a sizeable portion of the local and foreign population in Singapore and abroad.
The PAP government has also used legislation and rhetoric to keep distinct religious, social and cultural groups out of political matters. This followed in the wake of the Marxist conspiracy, when the PAP tried to separate religious institutions and politics as it did not want an alternative grassroots base to form outside the one that it controlled through its network in the People’s Association and NTUC. In 1999 Fateha.com was founded to air Muslim views and issues online, but soon events escalated. In 2002, its CEO, Zulfikar Mohamad Sharif was investigated for
criminal defamation for making online comments against PAP leaders and its associates (see Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff 2004). Zulfikar, fled to Melbourne in 2002 and has been living there since (accurate during the time of writing).
Changes to the electoral law have been another tool of control for the PAP government. Apart from the constant gerrymandering that served to weaken strong opposition wards and techniques used to gauge voting sent more accurately, it introduced the Group Representative Constituency, which has been expanded from three to six members each. This has effectively reduced the single constituency to nine out of 83 seats in parliament. Three Non-Constituency MPs were constituted to provide supplementary seats for the opposition in the event that there was no opposition candidate elected to parliament during a general election.
Nominated MPs adopted at the start of each parliament following general elections stand at nine for a multiple of two-year terms. Through these mechanisms the ruling PAP has sought to provide for a semblance of alternative voices, minus their political weight and the threat they may pose to its hegemony. Another electoral innovation was the introduction of the Elected President and the first election held in 1993. Implicit in this institution was its role as a check on the executive. However, this was soon reduced to a “custodial” role, when it was shown that
the powers of the president if creatively used can be a source of a “hindrance to the ruling party. Since, 1993, there has not been a contest for the Elected President. The PAP government appointed Presidential Elections Committee has to date disqualified all but one candidate.
There have been attempts also to foster a certain kind of political culture through ideological means from the late 1980s. Following incursions of a two digit vote swing against the ruling party in the mid-eighties onwards, a grand debate on Confucianism finally culminated in the formulation of Asian values that was widely promoted as Shared Values. Via this ideology, the party advocated non-adversarial politics and denounced liberal democracy as alien to Eastern culture. It attempted to legitimise an Asian democracy that would allow the PAP to be ideologically hegemonic and justify its high-handedness in politics.
The use of public consultation mechanisms to gather people and collect their views has been a PAP tool to demonstrate that it listens to its citizens. Permanent mechanisms such as the Feedback Unit (its approach modified over the years) plus one-off national consultations such as the Singapore 21 initiative (The Singapore Government, 1999) or the Remaking Singapore Committee set up in 2002 are part of such efforts. Many Singaporeans do take part earnestly in these exercises only to find out that in the end what is crucial and missing in reports from these consultations is the absence of a clear statement on political reform. Such exercises only confirm the truth that at the end of the day it is difficult to include meaningful political reform ideas via these consultation mechanisms.
Since the mid 1990s, the PAP government has been increasingly having to contend with online and offline civil disobedience. Developments in information technology offer new opportunities for political expression, dissemination and mobilisation making many of the existing rules of political control redundant. However, the PAP government`s response has been nevertheless to try to control it. But such controls have become problematic because of resistance to such laws. Many have anonymously distributed alternative political content online in spite of restrictions. Hence, resistance has led to online civil disobedience. This in turn has also to some extent also let to a limited amount of public offline civil disobedience acts further adding to and widening the depth of civil
disobedience in post-independence Singapore. The internet has forced the PAP to concede some ground and it has “liberalised” that it can no longer control. Nevertheless, the PAP endeavours to control as much as it can especially with regards to offline civil disobedience acts. It has introduced stiffer penalties and conditions to such acts and tightened rules on distribution of online political video content.
The attempt to control, in particular, alternative political expression has paved the way for a narrow definition of politics in Singapore. It has legitimised the type of political activity that the ruling party willing to condone. Such a condition has given rise to a recognisable political culture in Singapore - one that has problems with alternative political expression. But it has also given rise to another approach to politics called the neutral or non-partisan approach. The next chapter explains the rise of non-partisan ship and how this has contributed to self-censorship in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27012.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)