Business plummets at Geylang Serai Temporary Market
By Neo Chai Chin, TODAY | Posted: 16 April 2009 0857 hrs
SINGAPORE: At meal times on a typical day, diners would swoop in on just-vacated seats at Geylang Serai Temporary Market. But it has hardly been business-as-usual, since the mass food poisoning almost two weeks ago.
Business has dropped by over 50 per cent, and on Wednesday afternoon, about half the food stalls were not even open.
Because of bad business, Mr Nur Muhammad said the hawkers might have felt it was “better don’t sell than to sell”. The 27-year-old helps out at his mother’s cooked food and his aunt’s dessert stalls, which were open.
The hawker responsible, Mr Sheikh Allaudin Mohideen, has had his licence suspended and will be taken to court by the authorities. Two people died after eating his rojak and 154 were sickened.
At his Eunos Road 5 flat on Wednesday, Mr Allaudin, 70, said he could not comment on the charges until he is officially notified. He opened the door to TODAY with a young boy by his side and only spoke on condition that no photos were taken.
His fellow hawkers have voiced sympathy for him. Some felt that pressing charges against him is too harsh. Others said he should be held responsible for improper handling of food, but not for the deaths.
“I don’t think he intended for all this to happen. It could have happened to any one of us,” said drinks stall assistant Abdul Jaffar, 33.
Sundry goods seller Ong Tiong Gheu, 48, said the confiscation of his hawker’s licence is punishment enough.
But the hawkers are more worried about their own dismal takings. Mr Nur said that his aunt’s chendol stall made slightly more than S$200 last weekend, much less than previous takings.
Many are also unhappy with the “C” grade hygiene rating they received last Saturday.
“We cleaned and did housekeeping before the National Environment Agency officers’ checks, but still got a ‘C’. More customers will surely be put off,” said chicken rice stall owner Mr Nor, 45.
- TODAY/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27114.1
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Rojak food poisoning: Stunned he may face court
April 16, 2009
Rojak food poisoning
Stunned he may face court
| By Sujin Thomas | ||
 |  | Sheik Allaudin Mohideen said he now spends his days at home. 'Where can I go? I just stay home and wait for the authorities' decision. I pray for the best,' he said. -- ST PHOTO: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN |
THE man at the centre of the food poisoning incident at Geylang Serai Temporary Market said on Wednesday he is resigned to having his licence suspended.
However, Indian rojak stallholder Sheik Allaudin Mohideen, 70, was taken aback when told by The Straits Times that he may wind up in court.
Interviewed at his Eunos flat on Wednesday, Mr Allaudin said selling food is the last thing on his mind now.
He said he now spends his days at home. 'Where can I go? I just stay home and wait for the authorities' decision. I pray for the best,' he said.
'I have not heard from the National Environment Agency. They have not called or sent me any letter.
'I don't know what's going to happen to me. If they (the authorities) want to revoke my licence or fine me, then so be it.'
When asked on Wednesday, the NEA said a notice of suspension will be issued to Mr Allaudin shortly.
In a joint statement on Tuesday night, the NEA and the Ministry of Health said investigations into the food poisoning incident, which left two people dead and 152 others ill, have been completed.
They said they had found food and environmental hygiene lapses at the stall, and that they would take Mr Allaudin to court.
When asked if he has visited the families of the two women who died, Mr Allaudin wore a frown and said: 'I really want to visit them, but I don't dare to. I feel very bad about it.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27110.1
The day DBS read, “Don’t Be Silly! Volunteering is hazardous to your career!"
The day DBS read, “Don’t Be Silly! Volunteering is hazardous to your career!"
As some of you may already know the new CEO of AWARE happens to be a banker. She is the vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans for DBS Bank.
What really surprised me was shortly after she announced her new position, Ms Lau qualified herself by sharing she did not have the green light to be Aware president from her employers.
What’s DBS beef with Ms Lau joining AWARE? – it seems, its work related ‘We believe that as a vice-president in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities, and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy,’ a spokesman said last night – I don’t know what to make of this. Really, I don’t. But one thing is for sure I don’t buy it. I just think DBS wants to avoid negative publicity and distance themselves from anything remotely controversial.
Having said that lets give them all the benefit of the doubt; and lets all play charades and assume, its really a work related concern – even so: does an employer have a right to get involved with what an employee decides to do during his or her free time?
I understand; times are hard these days. And firms have to remain focused and get the best possible mileage out of every dollar spent. Only why draw the simplistic straight line assumption volunteer work will get in the way of an employee performance?
Shouldn’t firms during these challenging times be encouraging their employees to give time to nonprofit organizations when money is short? Don’t they have a moral duty to encourage philanthropy and even make it convenient for employees to volunteer their time and expertise?
Why does it have to be an all of nothing calculation? Why can’t firms strike a happy balance between individual performance and still provision enough space for their employees by helping them to find ever more innovative and creative ways to add value to our community?
Some say with the bad economic times; firms both large and small have been making cutbacks due to poor earnings and what they used to give to charities and worthy causes has even gone down dramatically – but shouldn’t this lamentable state of affairs spur them instead to find ever more creative and innovative ways of not putting an end to the charitable work that nonprofit organizations have come to expect from them?
The point I am trying to bring across is as the economic outlook grows more dire each day, firms should be increasingly encouraging their employees to donate their skills for free, rather than narrowing the field of possibilities by discouraging them to do so. Or just resorting to no imagination dollar donations, as it remains the best way to get around the lesser profit still need money for charity paradox.
As it’s precisely because firms are unable to provide grants and bursaries at the same levels of the past. They should be looking for creative ways to continue to help communities and how might this whole idea of shooting down Ms Lau’s new appointment by her employers even add value to the whole idea of volunteerism – it cannot.
What really beggars the imagination is how DBS can so causally discount the obvious benefits to the broader community of women at large; when a highly experienced manager such as Ms Lau decides to helm an organization like AWARE – along with throwing out the merit of skills-based volunteerism that nonprofit organization usually can never afford. As consulting at private sector rates remains impossibly expensive (I should know, I happen to be a lawyer). Along with probably the idea it’s one way for firms to continue playing a meaningful role in giving back to the community while saving some money that would otherwise go to donations.
I hope DBS takes this opportunity to reflect deeply on their short sighted decision to disapprove of what Ms Lau has decided to do by taking up the new challenge in AWARE.
I hope the management of DBS have the imagination to take a broader sweep of the bigger picture and understand how they may even have inadvertently disabled many who may have felt the urge to volunteer their skills and time; but now feel that’s its a disincentive that may even militate against their career prospects.
And I hope DBS reflects on how many who are out there who desperately need help in these dire times; are now increasingly disabled further because of this scardi cat directive – and what was it all for? To side skirt undesirable publicity? To deflect controversy? To make more money?
Well that says a lot about your values. Alot!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27108.1
Naive to expect IRs to give priority to Singaporeans in job applications
Naive to expect IRs to give priority to Singaporeans in job applications
I refer to the letter written by Tan Shao Ken entitled “IR jobs: Are Singaporeans being given priority?” (read letter here)
Mr Tan wrote that Singaporeans must have priority and right of refusal and the Government and the IRs must work to ensure that Singaporeans who are qualified and want a job with the IRs get one.
Mr Tan was referring to the recent uproar in cyberspace over IR jobs going to foreigners. He had the impression that the IRs will create many jobs for Singaporeans.
I am afraid that Mr Tan, like many others before him, has been misled by the mainstream media which had overhyped the recent recruitment drives of the two IRs.
To put it bluntly, the IRs are never meant to create jobs for Singaporeans in the first place. The Singapore government needs the IRs to provide an additional source of revenue for their coffers through taxation and the two consortiums who won the right to build the IRs just want to maximize their profits.
If we take these business considerations into context, there is no reason for either the government or the IRs to give priorities to Singaporeans in job applications.
Besides Filipinos, the IRs are also actively recruiting staff from Taiwan and Malaysia according to insider sources. Filipinos are highly prized for their command of the English language while Taiwanese and Malaysian Chinese are willing to work for long hours with few complaints (I quote a HR manager here)
It is much cheaper to hire a foreigner than a Singaporean in the long run because the employer does not need to fork out another 13% of their basic salaries to pay for CPF contributions.
By the time the IRs are opened end of the year for SANDS and next year for Resort Worlds, the global economy is probably still in the doldrums and it is widely expected they will make a loss in the first few years.
It is therefore predictable that the IRs will want to reduce their overheads by cutting down on manpower costs. I am not surprised if more than half the IR workforce is made up of foreigners eventually.
Can our government force the IRs to recruit Singaporeans? Frankly speaking, I do not think they have the right to do so unless it was stipulated in the contract originally that the IRs need to allocate a certain number of jobs to Singaporeans.
I would advise Mr Tan to stop whining and think of ways instead to upgrade his qualifications and skills so as to improve his chances of being employed.
For goodness sake, the Singapore government does not owe us a living. Since when did it start to favor locals over foreigners?
Between decreasing the profitability of the IRs by forcing them to recruit locals and welcoming more potential PRs and citizens to our shores, the choice is obvious.
If Mr Tan still feel hard done by the government’s pro-foreigner policy, I suggest he casts a protest vote against them in the next general election.
The bitter truth is: Singaporeans only have themselves to blame for the current predicament they are in by forsaking their basic political rights for crumbs thrown at them by the ruling party.
It is the pregorative of the IR to decide on who to employ. Let us not forget that Singapore is where it is today because we practise meritocracy regardless of nationality. Being Singaporean does not confer one any additional advantage. In fact, some are better off being born in China or India.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27107.1
I refer to the letter written by Tan Shao Ken entitled “IR jobs: Are Singaporeans being given priority?” (read letter here)
Mr Tan wrote that Singaporeans must have priority and right of refusal and the Government and the IRs must work to ensure that Singaporeans who are qualified and want a job with the IRs get one.
Mr Tan was referring to the recent uproar in cyberspace over IR jobs going to foreigners. He had the impression that the IRs will create many jobs for Singaporeans.
I am afraid that Mr Tan, like many others before him, has been misled by the mainstream media which had overhyped the recent recruitment drives of the two IRs.
To put it bluntly, the IRs are never meant to create jobs for Singaporeans in the first place. The Singapore government needs the IRs to provide an additional source of revenue for their coffers through taxation and the two consortiums who won the right to build the IRs just want to maximize their profits.
If we take these business considerations into context, there is no reason for either the government or the IRs to give priorities to Singaporeans in job applications.
Besides Filipinos, the IRs are also actively recruiting staff from Taiwan and Malaysia according to insider sources. Filipinos are highly prized for their command of the English language while Taiwanese and Malaysian Chinese are willing to work for long hours with few complaints (I quote a HR manager here)
It is much cheaper to hire a foreigner than a Singaporean in the long run because the employer does not need to fork out another 13% of their basic salaries to pay for CPF contributions.
By the time the IRs are opened end of the year for SANDS and next year for Resort Worlds, the global economy is probably still in the doldrums and it is widely expected they will make a loss in the first few years.
It is therefore predictable that the IRs will want to reduce their overheads by cutting down on manpower costs. I am not surprised if more than half the IR workforce is made up of foreigners eventually.
Can our government force the IRs to recruit Singaporeans? Frankly speaking, I do not think they have the right to do so unless it was stipulated in the contract originally that the IRs need to allocate a certain number of jobs to Singaporeans.
I would advise Mr Tan to stop whining and think of ways instead to upgrade his qualifications and skills so as to improve his chances of being employed.
For goodness sake, the Singapore government does not owe us a living. Since when did it start to favor locals over foreigners?
Between decreasing the profitability of the IRs by forcing them to recruit locals and welcoming more potential PRs and citizens to our shores, the choice is obvious.
If Mr Tan still feel hard done by the government’s pro-foreigner policy, I suggest he casts a protest vote against them in the next general election.
The bitter truth is: Singaporeans only have themselves to blame for the current predicament they are in by forsaking their basic political rights for crumbs thrown at them by the ruling party.
It is the pregorative of the IR to decide on who to employ. Let us not forget that Singapore is where it is today because we practise meritocracy regardless of nationality. Being Singaporean does not confer one any additional advantage. In fact, some are better off being born in China or India.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27107.1
Reading The Riot Act
Reading The Riot Act
Speaking in opposition to the new Public Order Bill, Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim, a former police officer, minced no words when she told parliament:” …. to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word“. The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.
In Singapore, an individual’s right to freedom of expression and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, under Part IV entitled Fundamental Liberties. “Has this Public Order Bill crossed the line, asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-à-vis the State?” Sylvia Lim asked.
While the authorities try to justify this draculian rape of civil liberties with the media frenzy covering the recent events at London’s G20 meeting and Thaksin instigated violence in Thailand, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng was less coy about his true intentions. Speaking at the Internal Security Department (ISD) promotion ceremony, Wong said, “In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing the line of civil disobedience.” Flexing muscles which did not seemed to be diminished by the comic escape of former Jemaah Islamiyah leader Mas Selamat Kastari, Wong issued a stern warning to the “protestors and anarchists”, promising that his version of Brownshirts will come down hard on them.
In retrospect, everything is going to plan if you recall what Lee Kuan Yew said, as an opposition PAP member speaking to then Chief Minister David Marshall (Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October 1956):
“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love - it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.”
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27423.1
Speaking in opposition to the new Public Order Bill, Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim, a former police officer, minced no words when she told parliament:” …. to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word“. The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.
In Singapore, an individual’s right to freedom of expression and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, under Part IV entitled Fundamental Liberties. “Has this Public Order Bill crossed the line, asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-à-vis the State?” Sylvia Lim asked.
While the authorities try to justify this draculian rape of civil liberties with the media frenzy covering the recent events at London’s G20 meeting and Thaksin instigated violence in Thailand, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng was less coy about his true intentions. Speaking at the Internal Security Department (ISD) promotion ceremony, Wong said, “In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing the line of civil disobedience.” Flexing muscles which did not seemed to be diminished by the comic escape of former Jemaah Islamiyah leader Mas Selamat Kastari, Wong issued a stern warning to the “protestors and anarchists”, promising that his version of Brownshirts will come down hard on them.
In retrospect, everything is going to plan if you recall what Lee Kuan Yew said, as an opposition PAP member speaking to then Chief Minister David Marshall (Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October 1956):
“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love - it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.”
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27423.1
Worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits?
Worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits?
SINGAPORE - The most ubiquitous case in which a government body has resorted to the threat of a defamation suit against a particular citizen was a showdown between Acid Flask, a Singaporean blogger by the name of Mr Chen Jiahao, and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
What transpired was Mr Chen claimed that A*STAR had offered lump sums to universities to admit its scholarship holders into their PhD programs. A*STAR felt that Mr Chen’s comments were defamatory because this implied that the former was corrupt in its dealings. After A*STAR resorted to legal action, Mr Chen put up an apology notice. The interesting part was that it was only two years after the incident that A*STAR revealed the basis for their legal action, and put up the evidence alleging Mr Chen’s defamatory writings on its website.
Upon knowing the truth of what transpired between A*STAR and Mr Chen, there was a mixture of responses from the public. Some felt that A*STAR was justified in seeking legal recourse. Others were totally against it. Thus, the pertinent question is - is it worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits? We would revisit this question later on.
Perhaps, we should be examining the main cause that led to the origin of such untrue claims. Many would agree that the largely non-transparent practices that typify how our government bodies work will inevitably lead to speculations. And the thing about speculations is that they may not be true all the time. Thus, the speculations will continue unabated in the face of such non-transparency. It is an inevitable eventuality.
Taking A*STAR as an example, it is known that the latter has signed Memorandum of Understanding with top research institutions worldwide and this led to the establishment of joint PhD programs. However, the fact is that a detailed balance sheet showing the exact breakdown of figures on A*STAR’s investments on scholarships and nurturing research talents is not publicly available. Inevitably, someone might come along and speculate that A*STAR could have paid a certain amount to the partner institutions to establish the joint PhD programs, which may or may not be true in this hypothetical scenario.* And there could be more of such speculators in Acid Flask’s mould.
*Disclaimer: This is merely a hypothetical example, and should not be taken to represent the actual reality on the ground
If one of the speculators made a statement of gross untruth in the public domain, should the government body seek legal recourse? It can be argued that seeking legal recourse may not be a good move after all. If someone stated an untruth about an organization, there are other ways in which the latter can clear its name. One common approach is to make a press release on its website or in the mainstream media and set the record straight once and for all. This is a cheaper approach than consulting litigation lawyers who may charge exorbitant fees. And frankly, not all tax payers are in favor of a government organization using their tax monies to fund a defamation suit when there could be cheaper alternatives.
Some legal observers have also pointed out that a powerful organization who takes legal action against a powerless individual may suffer a big hit in its reputation that it is ironically trying to save. This is akin to a dog biting its own tail. Such a move is seen to be high-handed, and public sentiments can turn against the organization for taking extreme measures against powerless individuals. On the other hand, clarifying on its website or the mainstream media will do much less damage.
Thus, our government bodies have to realize that speculations will continue in the face of non-transparent practices. And if faced with grossly untrue speculations, such bodies should not be quick to press the legal button, but to consider other alternatives of addressing the untruths. After all, clarifications by such bodies will make the issue a little more transparent, and also benefit the public’s knowledge of some aspects of their practices. Such a move bodes well for public discourse.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27105.1
SINGAPORE - The most ubiquitous case in which a government body has resorted to the threat of a defamation suit against a particular citizen was a showdown between Acid Flask, a Singaporean blogger by the name of Mr Chen Jiahao, and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
What transpired was Mr Chen claimed that A*STAR had offered lump sums to universities to admit its scholarship holders into their PhD programs. A*STAR felt that Mr Chen’s comments were defamatory because this implied that the former was corrupt in its dealings. After A*STAR resorted to legal action, Mr Chen put up an apology notice. The interesting part was that it was only two years after the incident that A*STAR revealed the basis for their legal action, and put up the evidence alleging Mr Chen’s defamatory writings on its website.
Upon knowing the truth of what transpired between A*STAR and Mr Chen, there was a mixture of responses from the public. Some felt that A*STAR was justified in seeking legal recourse. Others were totally against it. Thus, the pertinent question is - is it worthwhile for government bodies to resort to defamation suits? We would revisit this question later on.
Perhaps, we should be examining the main cause that led to the origin of such untrue claims. Many would agree that the largely non-transparent practices that typify how our government bodies work will inevitably lead to speculations. And the thing about speculations is that they may not be true all the time. Thus, the speculations will continue unabated in the face of such non-transparency. It is an inevitable eventuality.
Taking A*STAR as an example, it is known that the latter has signed Memorandum of Understanding with top research institutions worldwide and this led to the establishment of joint PhD programs. However, the fact is that a detailed balance sheet showing the exact breakdown of figures on A*STAR’s investments on scholarships and nurturing research talents is not publicly available. Inevitably, someone might come along and speculate that A*STAR could have paid a certain amount to the partner institutions to establish the joint PhD programs, which may or may not be true in this hypothetical scenario.* And there could be more of such speculators in Acid Flask’s mould.
*Disclaimer: This is merely a hypothetical example, and should not be taken to represent the actual reality on the ground
If one of the speculators made a statement of gross untruth in the public domain, should the government body seek legal recourse? It can be argued that seeking legal recourse may not be a good move after all. If someone stated an untruth about an organization, there are other ways in which the latter can clear its name. One common approach is to make a press release on its website or in the mainstream media and set the record straight once and for all. This is a cheaper approach than consulting litigation lawyers who may charge exorbitant fees. And frankly, not all tax payers are in favor of a government organization using their tax monies to fund a defamation suit when there could be cheaper alternatives.
Some legal observers have also pointed out that a powerful organization who takes legal action against a powerless individual may suffer a big hit in its reputation that it is ironically trying to save. This is akin to a dog biting its own tail. Such a move is seen to be high-handed, and public sentiments can turn against the organization for taking extreme measures against powerless individuals. On the other hand, clarifying on its website or the mainstream media will do much less damage.
Thus, our government bodies have to realize that speculations will continue in the face of non-transparent practices. And if faced with grossly untrue speculations, such bodies should not be quick to press the legal button, but to consider other alternatives of addressing the untruths. After all, clarifications by such bodies will make the issue a little more transparent, and also benefit the public’s knowledge of some aspects of their practices. Such a move bodes well for public discourse.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27105.1
Thoughts For The Week: Tyranny
Thoughts For The Week: Tyranny
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." : John Kenneth Galbraith
"Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy" : John Pierpont Morgan
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27102.1
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." : John Kenneth Galbraith
"Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy" : John Pierpont Morgan
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27102.1
A government out of order
The Public Order Act, which was just passed in Parliament on Monday, got me wondering just how far the PAP will go to thumb its nose at the Constitution to serve its narrow political interests.
Among some “highlights” of the law are:
* A demonstration by a lone person is called an “assembly”.
* Two persons walking together form for a common cause is a “procession”.
* Assemblies and processions both need permits from the Commissioner of Police.
* Cause-related activities (i.e., political activities) require permits regardless of the number of persons involved. (I guess that means that zero-person activities can also be banned.)
* An entry-level policeman has the power to order people to “move on” away from an area, even if they are not committing an offence. Those people have to comply, even if that policeman is in the wrong.
* The police have the power to ban ordinary citizens from filming them as they work.
Government lawyers were obviously mindful of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assembly but allows laws to be passed that restrict that right in the interest of public order. This Public Order Act was specifically named and worded to exploit the full letter — but not the spirit — of that provision.
While I may acquiesce to this restriction on civil liberties if it were genuinely for the sake of public security, I am convinced that the purpose of this law is not public security, but to make life easier for the police and to save their political masters from any embarrassment resulting from political protests.
How in the world can a one-man assembly wreck such havoc that we need such a draconian law to deal with him? If I walk hand-in-hand with my wife to commemorate an event, I would be taking part in a procession which needs prior approval from the Commissioner of Police.
It is plain to me that this law was drafted with one event and one person in mind: APEC and Chee Soon Juan.
Firstly, they want APEC to go so smoothly that the delegates, including Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao, will see nothing but happy, smiling faces as evidence of how happy Singaporeans are with our government.
Secondly, they will not have Chee Soon Juan and his people (all 20 of them) ruin their APEC glory by stealing media attention away from them, like they did during the 2006 IMF-World Bank meetings.
Just how much more discretionary powers do the police need to maintain law and order during this “special event”? As far as I’m concerned, the job of a policeman in Singapore is already a walk in the park compared with his counterparts in other countries, including developed countries. Now we need to make it even easier, and in the process curtail our civil liberties even further?
Is President Obama’s psyche so delicate that he will faint if just one person holds up an anti-US placard? Will he really extend his praise to Singapore for clamping down on freedom of assembly just so nobody says nasty things about him?
Or is the government trying to demonstrate to China’s Hu Jintao how well we can implement authoritarianism through “rule of law”, so that he’ll send more of his officials to learn from us?
So what if Chee and his colleagues decide to go on some freedom march during APEC? Are his activities so violent and detrimental to public order that they warrant enacting a whole new law just to deal with him? In fact, I think that devoting police resources to try to contain his movements — with or without this Public Order Act — will unnecessarily divert resources away from the meeting venue.
And finally, the prohibition on filming police in action is clearly meant to prevent films like Martyn See’s Speakers Cornered from being filmed, not to prevent people from filming security forces carrying out an anti-terrorist operation. Do we have such a rambunctious media that will dare to film and broadcast on live TV footage of commandos rappelling down buildings?
I really scratch my head in amazement at how our “brilliant” policymakers can come up with such ridiculous laws. This is not just hardline. It is laughable the kind of somersaults the minister and his MPs had to perform in Parliament to justify this law. To use the situation in Thailand to justify this law shows how shallow an understanding they have (or choose to have) about democracy and freedom of expression.
Please stop making my country a laughing stock in the rest of the world!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27085.1
Among some “highlights” of the law are:
* A demonstration by a lone person is called an “assembly”.
* Two persons walking together form for a common cause is a “procession”.
* Assemblies and processions both need permits from the Commissioner of Police.
* Cause-related activities (i.e., political activities) require permits regardless of the number of persons involved. (I guess that means that zero-person activities can also be banned.)
* An entry-level policeman has the power to order people to “move on” away from an area, even if they are not committing an offence. Those people have to comply, even if that policeman is in the wrong.
* The police have the power to ban ordinary citizens from filming them as they work.
Government lawyers were obviously mindful of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assembly but allows laws to be passed that restrict that right in the interest of public order. This Public Order Act was specifically named and worded to exploit the full letter — but not the spirit — of that provision.
While I may acquiesce to this restriction on civil liberties if it were genuinely for the sake of public security, I am convinced that the purpose of this law is not public security, but to make life easier for the police and to save their political masters from any embarrassment resulting from political protests.
How in the world can a one-man assembly wreck such havoc that we need such a draconian law to deal with him? If I walk hand-in-hand with my wife to commemorate an event, I would be taking part in a procession which needs prior approval from the Commissioner of Police.
It is plain to me that this law was drafted with one event and one person in mind: APEC and Chee Soon Juan.
Firstly, they want APEC to go so smoothly that the delegates, including Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao, will see nothing but happy, smiling faces as evidence of how happy Singaporeans are with our government.
Secondly, they will not have Chee Soon Juan and his people (all 20 of them) ruin their APEC glory by stealing media attention away from them, like they did during the 2006 IMF-World Bank meetings.
Just how much more discretionary powers do the police need to maintain law and order during this “special event”? As far as I’m concerned, the job of a policeman in Singapore is already a walk in the park compared with his counterparts in other countries, including developed countries. Now we need to make it even easier, and in the process curtail our civil liberties even further?
Is President Obama’s psyche so delicate that he will faint if just one person holds up an anti-US placard? Will he really extend his praise to Singapore for clamping down on freedom of assembly just so nobody says nasty things about him?
Or is the government trying to demonstrate to China’s Hu Jintao how well we can implement authoritarianism through “rule of law”, so that he’ll send more of his officials to learn from us?
So what if Chee and his colleagues decide to go on some freedom march during APEC? Are his activities so violent and detrimental to public order that they warrant enacting a whole new law just to deal with him? In fact, I think that devoting police resources to try to contain his movements — with or without this Public Order Act — will unnecessarily divert resources away from the meeting venue.
And finally, the prohibition on filming police in action is clearly meant to prevent films like Martyn See’s Speakers Cornered from being filmed, not to prevent people from filming security forces carrying out an anti-terrorist operation. Do we have such a rambunctious media that will dare to film and broadcast on live TV footage of commandos rappelling down buildings?
I really scratch my head in amazement at how our “brilliant” policymakers can come up with such ridiculous laws. This is not just hardline. It is laughable the kind of somersaults the minister and his MPs had to perform in Parliament to justify this law. To use the situation in Thailand to justify this law shows how shallow an understanding they have (or choose to have) about democracy and freedom of expression.
Please stop making my country a laughing stock in the rest of the world!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27085.1
NTU student's death fall: Family hires criminal lawyer
| NTU student's death fall | |||||
| Family hires criminal lawyer | |||||
| Lawyer will hold watching brief at student's inquest | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
CONVINCED that he didn't kill himself, the family of David Hartanto Widjaja has hired veteran criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan to look after their interests.
Mr Nathan, who heads Harry Elias Partnership's crime practice department, will hold a watching brief at the coroner's inquiry into the Indonesian student's death.
Widjaja, 21, a final-year student in Nanyang Technological University (NTU), died after falling four storeys on campus on 2 Mar, after allegedly stabbing Associate Professor Chan Kap Luk.
Prof Chan, 45, was supervising his final-year project at the time.
Mr Nathan told The New Paper yesterday that the family hired him on Monday and he met officials from the Indonesian Embassy the same day.
The inquiry date has not been set, but there will be a preliminary conference in the Subordinate Courts on Friday.
Mr Nathan said: 'On Friday, I intend to ask for the inquiry to be adjourned as I need time to do my own enquiries and speak to witnesses.
'I have David's autopsy report and I'm also waiting for other forensic test results on the fingerprints and blood at the scene, as well as the knife allegedly used to stab Prof Chan.
'I'll be liaising with the investigators when the test results are out.'
Mr Nathan said his clients are adamant that David did not commit suicide.
He said: 'Since the incident happened, the story is that David jumped to his death after stabbing Prof Chan.
'But we still have to go through the coroner's inquiry so it's still premature to come to any conclusions.
'The forensic reports may shed more light on what actually happened.'
If certain issues arise during the coroner's inquiry, the courts can direct the police to investigate further, said Mr Nathan.
Widjaja's father, Mr Hartono Widjaja, said in Mandarin over the phone from Jakarta yesterday: 'My family doesn't believe David committed suicide after stabbing his professor. '
Mr Widjaja, 56, who works in the electronics sector, said his friends would pay his legal fees.
He said his son's autopsy report showed there were 36 wounds to his body, of which 14 were knife-inflicted.
'I don't believe my son would hurt himself as there was no sign he was troubled. And it's just out of character for him to do that,' he said.
Out of character
'He was a mild-mannered person. It's just too much for us to accept that he whipped out a knife and attacked someone before committing suicide.'
The family is also asking why the autopsy report was given to NTU before it was e-mailed to them.
An NTU spokesman said Widjaja's parents authorised the university to collect the autopsy report on 2 Apr.
When The New Paper told Mr Widjaja of NTU's position, he insisted: 'I never gave NTU permission to collect the autopsy report.
'My understanding is that the Indonesian Embassy would collect the autopsy report, not NTU.'
Attempts to reach the Indonesian Embassy for comment were unsuccessful.
The Widjajas returned to Jakarta on Sunday after a four-day trip to Singapore to find out more about the incident.
Mr Widjaja said: 'We wanted to see where our son died and to see Prof Chan.'
Besides laying flowers at the site where David fell, the Widjajas, including elder son William, 24, a technician, tried to visit Prof Chan at his Jurong East condominium.
What made them think that Prof Chan would welcome them?
Mr Widjaja claimed that a local newspaper quoted Prof Chan as saying he was willing to meet the family.
Puzzled
But he claimed that they rang the doorbell at Prof Chan's unit on the 15th floor for 15 minutes, before a security guard showed up and told them to go to the guardhouse.
The guard then phoned Prof Chan, who said he did not want to see the family.
The Widjajas told a different version to The Straits Times. They said the condo's guard recognised them from their pictures in the newspapers and asked them to wait while he got in touch with Prof Chan.
He returned a while later to say the professor did not want to see them.
Prof Chan declined to comment when The New Paper called him.
Mr Widjaja is puzzled at the professor's reticence.
He said: 'We just want to know what happened that day and Prof Chan is the only witness. We don't understand why Prof Chan won't see us.'
While in Singapore, the Widjajas also tried to meet NTU president Su Guaning.
But NTU could not arrange a meeting as Dr Su was busy and offered to let the family see the senior associate provost in charge of undergraduate education instead.
The family declined NTU's offer. |
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27083.1
China juggles its future in Africa
Apr 16, 2009
China juggles its future in Africa
By Bright B Simons
ACCRA, Ghana - China isn't in Africa merely to snap up raw materials, exploit African labor, or build geopolitical influence. Rather, its goals blend a combination of all the above with a need to beta-test future global brands, open new markets, enhance its soft power through international organizations such as the International Standards Organization - where African votes carry more than a third of the weight - nurture a new diaspora and build a resilient microeconomic bridge by exporting entrepreneurs.
This consensus has taken a while to arrive, and even today there is a residual school of thought still enamored of the old "African commodities for Chinese cash - full stop" theory.
It appears we may have to shatter another myth: China is deserting Africa because its global priorities are changing in the face of the global recession.
China's engagement with Africa has barely begun. As far as the stock of foreign investment in Africa is concerned, the Asian giant is still dwarfed by the West 10 to 1, but not for long if Beijing has anything to do with it. For China, Africa is a strategic play, requiring the stamina for which its strategists have always been famous.
It is true that Beijing is hurting badly from the global economic crisis, much more than its Ministry of Commerce's massaged statistics will let on, but it would be analytically unsound to treat any perceived change in Sino-African trends as a panic-response dictated by the souring global economy. China is engaged in a deliberate, calculated, and carefully scheduled re-pricing of risk in its African project.
Its reversal of investment partnership policy in Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where Beijing had been expected to pour billions of dollars into the mineral-rich but impoverished and poorly governed countries for ambitious infrastructure projects, is being read in some circles to imply a retreat into Western-style, condition-governed, economic partnerships, and a potential continental trend for Chinese investment.
Insofar as Chinese economic partnerships in Africa had always come with strings attached (though certainly not the flocks of consultants and other hangers-on that attend Western-initiated projects), whether in terms of procurement guidelines or Taiwan, any suggestion that China's unease with Guinea's new junta is a sign of recidivism is pedestrian, to say the least. The reference to a global economic crisis, on the other hand, is pertinent, though not in the manner being discussed in some places.
The global downturn will, if it hasn't done so already, further weaken the position of the West in the African investment contest, reducing the cost of viable competition on the African continent in China's view. Prudently, Beijing is re-pricing the risk premium of its projects in Africa, as part of the realization that it need not pay more than necessary to strengthen its strategic position, whether in Congo, Guinea, Ethiopia or elsewhere. The fact that this re-visioning of competition dynamics cannot be uniform across Africa is evident in the observation that while Chinese telecom companies are trying to disengage from Congo, Chinese oil companies are offering a premium for stakes in Ghana's offshore oil sector, and also in the fact that dampening enthusiasm in Eritrea is being matched by growing fervor in Malawi.
Bolting the nail into the coffin of the "China desertion" theory is the clear empirical evidence of China actually expanding its economic engagement with the African continent, beyond the government-to-government, mega-project inspired, relationship of yesteryear. The China-Africa Development Fund (CADF) has already come on-stream, with a medium-term facility of US$2 billion, and a projection of $5 billion under management in five years. About $400 million has already been sunk into an array of prospects.
Rather than focus on the infrastructure behemoths that earlier Chinese inflows helped to put up, the CADF will emphasize entrepreneurial opportunities in a wide range of sectors where private-sector African operators could engage with their Chinese counterparts under the eagle eye of the state-appointed fund managers.
True to fashion, Chinese strategists had long sought to transition the Sino-African partnership to a more pluralistic model, and the CADF is a clear expression of that intent. All the evidence suggests that China has encouraged the continuing flow of Chinese private entrepreneurs into Africa in the clear belief that, as these dynamic opportunity-seekers familiarize themselves with the terrain, they will be "de-risking" the African project in readiness for even greater integration. In many local municipalities across West Africa, the sight of small-scale Chinese contractors working on minor drainage schemes, landfill sites and sidewalk electrification schemes has become commonplace, as has that of Chinese retailers, food vendors and brothel-shack managers.
As far as the impact of the global economic crisis is concerned, it has only served as a stark illustration of why China's perceived model of engagement with Africa couldn't have been sustained for very long, were it indeed the case that it was the model of engagement.
Consider the subprime situation: speculation drove largely imaginary house equity to seemingly unstoppable heights, artificially inflating the credit standing of mortgage borrowers, who could then secure additional debt against this dubious "equity" and thus fuel an artificial expansion of the consumables market, which in turn fed another cycle of "boom". On and on, until a few "improbable events" pulled the rug from underneath the tower of cards.
Now consider the mythological view of the Sino-African economic partnership, which is likewise built on a foundation of "commodity trade leverage": the more China bought, the higher prices rose, the more valuable the reserves became, and the greater the debts that could be secured against said reserves to be subsequently expended on shiploads of foreign junk. The foreign junk, increasingly of Chinese origin, boosted GDP numbers and in turn jacked up the cycle again by justifying the need to borrow more for poorly integrated infrastructure schemes rather than to increase domestic capital formation.
It is a good thing that this picture forms only a part and not the whole of the ongoing and incoming Sino-African economic partnership and that progress towards an increasingly more sophisticated relationship has always been embedded in the post-Dengist structure of Sino-Africanism.
One can only hope that the strategic vision of Beijing's Sino-African thinkers does not fail them before the chips of the unfolding new shape are all in place. Or to use a simpler idiom: that they catch the first set of balls before the next set falls.
Bright B Simons is affiliated with IMANI: The Center for Policy & Education in Accra, a think-tank adjudged the sixth-most influential in Africa by Foreign Policy Magazine in 2009.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27400.1
Fatal rojak: Better feedback system needed
Fatal rojak: Better feedback system needed
IT TOOK almost three days from the first reports of food poisoning from the Geylang Serai rojak stall on April 1 to officials closing the stall on April 4.
According to the report, 'Hospitals and GPs have system to track outbreaks' (April 8), it was only at 10pm on April 3, after doctors at Changi General Hospital had noticed a surge in patients with similar symptoms of food poisoning, that the Ministry of Health (MOH) was informed of this outbreak.
MOH has asserted that there is an 'established system of surveillance and reporting of mass food poisoning cases'.
Unfortunately, it appears this system was neither fast nor effective enough to nip this outbreak in the bud. A major flaw is that it relies on individual doctors to spot trends before reporting to MOH. If 10 patients go to 10 different doctors or hospitals, how can any trends be spotted?
It is possible to develop a system to alert the authorities to food poisoning outbreaks. It will require multi-agency coordination and investment in technology.
An Integrated Food Contamination Reporting System could provide all doctors with a Web-based interface to report all cases of food poisoning they treat. The report could be as simple as stating who was taken ill, what the suspected food was, when the incident took place and where the stall is located. Consumers who fall sick after eating food could also file a similar report. The system will also make it easier for the authorities to contact victims in their investigations.
Once the reports are entered, the system can analyse the data and sound the alarm when a trend is detected. The alerts could be sent to MOH, the National Environment Agency and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority for coordinated action.
Gerald Giam
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27027.1
Time for police and NTU to answer allegations in Jakarta Post article on David Widjaja
Time for police and NTU to answer allegations in Jakarta Post article on David Widjaja
Even before the investigations to the David Widjaja tragedy are completed, both NTU and the state media have already reached an unanimous verdict: that David attacked his professor and slashed his own wrists before plunging to his death.
In a desperate attempt to preserve NTU’s battered image, the state media went on a crusade to smear the name of David Widjaja by protraying him as a depressed, wayward and anti-social scholar who somehow lost himself in computer games.
Unfortunately, SPH’s reach has yet to reach Indonesia where its voracious media had been manufacturing conspiracy theories one after another to debunk its version of events.
In an article published on 14 April 2009, the Jakarta Post reported that the family of David Widjaja will take further legal action to investigate his death.
David’s family has rejected the story reported in the Singapore media , saying that the statement was based on the professor’s words only and that the director gave the statement before police completed their investigation.
David’s older brother William claimed that the family are “99 per cent sure” that David was murdered.
He also took issue with the Singapore police sending David’s autopsy report to them via NTU instead of the Indonesian Embassy as is the standard practice which raised doubts on both the legality and veracity of the report.
The family had unsuccessfully tried to meet Prof Su and Prof Chan during their visit to Singapore last week which raised questions as to Prof Chan’s persistent refusal to talk to the parents of his late student.
The Jakarta report contains a number of unsubstantiated allegations against the professionalism and integrity of the Singapore police and should be rebutted immediately to limit the damage already done to our international standing.
It has been 6 weeks since David’s death and the police has not completed their investigations. Given the intense public interest in the case, the police should step forward to reveal their findings to put the end to these baseless speculations and conspiracy theories once and for all.
The following questions need to be addressed urgently:
1. Were David’s wrists slashed as reported by the mainstream media?
2. David’s autopsy report revealed that there were 36 wounds to his body. Fourteen of them were knife-inflicted - were they all self inflicted?
3. Why did the police send David’s autopsy report to NTU instead of directly to the Indonesian Embassy? What is the usual standard practice in such cases?
4. Did David really jump to his death on his own or is there foul play involved?
While NTU has been most reticient on the matter, the controversial circumstances of David’s unnatural death continues to rag on at least in the internet chatrooms of Singapore and Indonesia.
As for the Singapore media, it will probably lose whatever shreds of credibility they have left if the case is brought up to the Singapore’s Coroners Court and the findings contradicts its original coverage.
A human life is lost. David’s family, as well as the public needs to know the truth. The Singapore media has proven itself to be most unreliable and untrustworthy. Can we trust our police force?
It is time for the police to come clean with us. Further delay in revealing their findings will only fuel more unhelpful speculations causing hurt to all parties concerned.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27068.1
Even before the investigations to the David Widjaja tragedy are completed, both NTU and the state media have already reached an unanimous verdict: that David attacked his professor and slashed his own wrists before plunging to his death.
In a desperate attempt to preserve NTU’s battered image, the state media went on a crusade to smear the name of David Widjaja by protraying him as a depressed, wayward and anti-social scholar who somehow lost himself in computer games.
Unfortunately, SPH’s reach has yet to reach Indonesia where its voracious media had been manufacturing conspiracy theories one after another to debunk its version of events.
In an article published on 14 April 2009, the Jakarta Post reported that the family of David Widjaja will take further legal action to investigate his death.
David’s family has rejected the story reported in the Singapore media , saying that the statement was based on the professor’s words only and that the director gave the statement before police completed their investigation.
David’s older brother William claimed that the family are “99 per cent sure” that David was murdered.
He also took issue with the Singapore police sending David’s autopsy report to them via NTU instead of the Indonesian Embassy as is the standard practice which raised doubts on both the legality and veracity of the report.
The family had unsuccessfully tried to meet Prof Su and Prof Chan during their visit to Singapore last week which raised questions as to Prof Chan’s persistent refusal to talk to the parents of his late student.
The Jakarta report contains a number of unsubstantiated allegations against the professionalism and integrity of the Singapore police and should be rebutted immediately to limit the damage already done to our international standing.
It has been 6 weeks since David’s death and the police has not completed their investigations. Given the intense public interest in the case, the police should step forward to reveal their findings to put the end to these baseless speculations and conspiracy theories once and for all.
The following questions need to be addressed urgently:
1. Were David’s wrists slashed as reported by the mainstream media?
2. David’s autopsy report revealed that there were 36 wounds to his body. Fourteen of them were knife-inflicted - were they all self inflicted?
3. Why did the police send David’s autopsy report to NTU instead of directly to the Indonesian Embassy? What is the usual standard practice in such cases?
4. Did David really jump to his death on his own or is there foul play involved?
While NTU has been most reticient on the matter, the controversial circumstances of David’s unnatural death continues to rag on at least in the internet chatrooms of Singapore and Indonesia.
As for the Singapore media, it will probably lose whatever shreds of credibility they have left if the case is brought up to the Singapore’s Coroners Court and the findings contradicts its original coverage.
A human life is lost. David’s family, as well as the public needs to know the truth. The Singapore media has proven itself to be most unreliable and untrustworthy. Can we trust our police force?
It is time for the police to come clean with us. Further delay in revealing their findings will only fuel more unhelpful speculations causing hurt to all parties concerned.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27068.1
AWARE's New team pledges to work for full equality of the sexes
New team pledges to work for full equality of the sexes
THIS is the statement issued by the new team at Aware shortly after midnight. It included an updated list of the executive committee, but did not provide any details about the women in charge:
'Aware, Singapore's leading women's advocacy organisation, is delighted to announce that its new president is Ms Josie Lau. She is joined by a dynamic, fresh and committed group of women forming the executive committee, who hail from diverse professional backgrounds drawn from the business, banking, finance, legal, education, management, human resource and social service sectors.
2009 marks the jubilee of our nation (50 years of self-government). In this period, the cause of women has made many great strides in many respects. The new team at Aware wishes to remember and honour the work of past Aware members for their vision and endeavours to advance the cause of women in all areas of society through advocacy and community work.
The new team intends to build on the solid foundations laid by the founders of Aware and will continue to promote the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of our society. The goal remains to bring about full equality of the sexes and to end all forms of discrimination against women.
Aware will build on existing advocacy, research (eg. attitude and policies towards singles) and education to empower women to deal with various forms of discrimination, raise their awareness of rights and responsibilities, and promote their welfare in tandem with the standards in the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw). In 1995, Singapore became a party to Cedaw which contains benchmarks against which to measure the elimination of discrimination against women on a national basis.
Singapore has made much progress in areas like education and health but can do better in other respects. In particular, the new team will seek to promote the role of women in politics and public life as Article 7 of Cedaw affirms. We endorse the Cedaw committee recommendation that women's participation in public life should reach a minimum of 30 per cent to 35 per cent, sharing the conviction that this will revitalise political and public life.
The new team will, as a paramount objective, seek to empower women to be leaders in our society, in politics, business, the professions and in all areas of endeavour which will benefit our nation.
President Josie Lau says: 'In these challenging times, the new team will actively seek to collaborate and align Aware with other women's organisations with outreach to girls and women who are affected by the current economic downturn.
'The new team aims to empower women who have been retrenched and equip them with new skills. In this context, we will work with training agencies and launch a series of programmes of practical assistance, such as grooming, budgeting, finance and debt management, career planning and management of change. We will continue to provide emotional, psychological or legal support for women.'
We call on all women of Singapore to rise to the challenge of taking on leadership roles in our nation. We invite volunteers to help make Aware a positive agent of change for the beneficial transformation of our society, where all people, regardless of race, religion or sex, are valued and have a place under the sun.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27061.2
THIS is the statement issued by the new team at Aware shortly after midnight. It included an updated list of the executive committee, but did not provide any details about the women in charge:
'Aware, Singapore's leading women's advocacy organisation, is delighted to announce that its new president is Ms Josie Lau. She is joined by a dynamic, fresh and committed group of women forming the executive committee, who hail from diverse professional backgrounds drawn from the business, banking, finance, legal, education, management, human resource and social service sectors.
2009 marks the jubilee of our nation (50 years of self-government). In this period, the cause of women has made many great strides in many respects. The new team at Aware wishes to remember and honour the work of past Aware members for their vision and endeavours to advance the cause of women in all areas of society through advocacy and community work.
The new team intends to build on the solid foundations laid by the founders of Aware and will continue to promote the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of our society. The goal remains to bring about full equality of the sexes and to end all forms of discrimination against women.
Aware will build on existing advocacy, research (eg. attitude and policies towards singles) and education to empower women to deal with various forms of discrimination, raise their awareness of rights and responsibilities, and promote their welfare in tandem with the standards in the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw). In 1995, Singapore became a party to Cedaw which contains benchmarks against which to measure the elimination of discrimination against women on a national basis.
Singapore has made much progress in areas like education and health but can do better in other respects. In particular, the new team will seek to promote the role of women in politics and public life as Article 7 of Cedaw affirms. We endorse the Cedaw committee recommendation that women's participation in public life should reach a minimum of 30 per cent to 35 per cent, sharing the conviction that this will revitalise political and public life.
The new team will, as a paramount objective, seek to empower women to be leaders in our society, in politics, business, the professions and in all areas of endeavour which will benefit our nation.
President Josie Lau says: 'In these challenging times, the new team will actively seek to collaborate and align Aware with other women's organisations with outreach to girls and women who are affected by the current economic downturn.
'The new team aims to empower women who have been retrenched and equip them with new skills. In this context, we will work with training agencies and launch a series of programmes of practical assistance, such as grooming, budgeting, finance and debt management, career planning and management of change. We will continue to provide emotional, psychological or legal support for women.'
We call on all women of Singapore to rise to the challenge of taking on leadership roles in our nation. We invite volunteers to help make Aware a positive agent of change for the beneficial transformation of our society, where all people, regardless of race, religion or sex, are valued and have a place under the sun.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27061.2
Meet Singapore’s new mascot for the Asian Youth Games!
Meet Singapore’s new mascot for the Asian Youth Games!
The inspiration for Mr. Lye's genius, "Frasia"
The results for the “Name the Asian Youth Games (AYG) Mascot” competition are out: Mr. Lye and his wife have come up with Frasier Frasia, a short form of the words “Friends of Asia”. Here’s the winning address: “Frasia embodies the values and spirit of the Asian Youth Games. We aim to gather youths from around Asia in a celebration of youth, sports and learning, from where they will engage in friendly competition. Frasia exemplifies a spirited representation of young hearts and minds in pursuit of sporting excellence. (Source: CNA)”
Sounds promising, no? Now, behold — FRASIAAAA
I mean, this is one of the biggest regional events Singapore is hosting this year, and this is the best they could do?
From the picture, its really hard to tell if Frasia or Mr. Teo Ser Luck is the mascot here.
Sorry to be negative, but “Frasia” really looks like a mash-up between our Courtesy Lion and Kelsey Grammer. Well, at least this reflects a well-known reality in Singapore: when it comes to efficiency and planning, we’re top drawer, but when it comes to aesthetics and creativity, we’re still… Frasia.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27148.1
DBS exec is Aware's head
April 16, 2009
DBS exec is Aware's head
Josie Lau appointed despite employer's advice not to run
| By Tan Dawn Wei, Wong Kim Hoh & Yen Feng | ||
 | | Aware's new team inlcude (clockwise from left) Catherine Tan (exco member), Maureen Ong (honorary treasurer), Peggy Leong (exco member), Jenica Chua (honorary secretary), Charlotte Wong (vice-president), Lois Ng (exco member), Sally Ang (assistant honorary secretary), Chew I-Jin (assistant honorary treasurer), Irene Yee (exco member) and Josie Lau (president). -- ST PHOTO: MUGILAN RAJASEGERAN |
BANK executive Josie Lau, 48, was appointed the new president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) on Wednesday night at a meeting of the new team in charge.
She is vice-president of consumer banking group cards and unsecured loans for DBS Bank.
But shortly after she announced that she was president, posed for pictures and made brief comments to reporters, her employer expressed unhappiness that she had taken the top post at Singapore's best-known women's group.
DBS Bank said it had told her just before last night's Aware exco meeting that it did not support her running for president. The bank said it supported employees' participation in community work, but they needed approval before taking on external appointments.
And Ms Lau did not have the green light to be Aware president.
'We believe that as a vice-president in DBS, she already has a challenging job with many responsibilities, and the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy,' a spokesman said last night.
Ms Lau could not be reached to comment as the new team wanted media queries to be channelled via the Aware office.
Checks by The Straits Times revealed that she is married to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang, who owns several clinics under the Lifeline Medical Group. They have two teenage daughters, and Ms Lau is also listed as director and shareholder in some of her husband's clinics.
A beaming Ms Lau refused to take questions from reporters when she emerged from last night's exco meeting which lasted nearly four hours. But she said she was pleased and delighted to be president.
'Together with the new exco which was duly elected under the Constitution, I will build on the good work of the past Aware members who advanced the causes for women in all areas of society through advocacy, research and community work,' she said.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27061.1
Former Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi approves several loans to staff
Former Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi approves several loans to staff
By Liang Kaixin, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 16 April 2009 2106 hrs
 | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: The sixth day of the trial against former Ren Ci CEO, Shi Ming Yi, threw light on the way staff loans were granted, even though the hospital did not have a formal policy on it.
The court on Thursday heard that Ming Yi had approved several loans to various staff. Among them, was Dr Ong Seh Hong who is currently the community hospital's chief operating officer and clinical director of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre.
Dr Ong is also a Member of Parliament for Marine Parade GRC. When contacted by Channel NewsAsia, the MP said he is unable to comment as the trial is still ongoing.
Testifying in court, Ren Ci's former human resource manager, Joyce Teng Lee Foong, said the staff loan was made to Dr Ong when he first joined the hospital in 2000.
The S$60,000 loan is understood to be the largest sum approved by Ming Yi. It is not known whether the loan has been repaid.
The court also learnt that Ming Yi's former aide, Raymond Yeung, was offered an employment contract in 2001, despite his unsuccessful application for an employment pass.
Ming Yi subsequently granted Yeung a S$50,000 loan, even though the latter remained without an employment pass until 2004. This was recorded on Ren Ci's books as a loan made to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre.
At issue now is whether Yeung, who is an Australian citizen and only became a Singapore Permanent Resident in 2006, had received the loan as a legitimate Ren Ci employee.
The trial continues.
- CNA/so
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27121.1
DBS “disappointed” with Josie Lau’s disregard for staff Code of Conduct
DBS “disappointed” with Josie Lau’s disregard for staff Code of Conduct
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Darren Boon
Not the first time that Lau had breached the staff code of conduct.
DBS this evening issued a stinging statement rebuking Josie Lau for flouting the DBS staff code of conduct twice.
“Every year, all employees are required to acknowledge that they will abide by the bank’s policies. We are disappointed that Josie knowingly disregarded DBS’ staff code of conduct twice,” the spokesperson said. “Such attitude is not one that DBS, or any other organisation, can condone in a leader.”
In response to TOC queries, DBS spokesperson stated that in accordance to the Bank’s staff code of conduct, employees need to request and receive approval before taking on an external appointment, something which Lau failed to do.
“Josie informed the bank of her appointment as AWARE Ex-co member on 13 April, over two weeks after she was appointed on 28 March. She had not sought prior approval for this appointment and thereby breached the staff code of conduct,” the DBS spokesperson said. “Nevertheless, DBS made a concession and agreed to support her involvement as Ex-co member.”
Lau had informed DBS of her intent to run for President of AWARE early in the week. After a review, DBS replied to Lau that while DBS will continue to support Lau’s involvement with AWARE, DBS could not support her bid to run for President given the demands associated with the top post of a leading advocacy group in Singapore.
“Banks worldwide are facing very challenging times and her role as VP in the credit card space today is even more challenging, given the environment we are in,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson pointed out that DBS takes pride in its employees’ pursuit of individual interests and passions outside work such as involvement in various community, charity and volunteer organisations in a personal capacity. The spokesperson clarified that these employees had sought and obtained prior consent to do so in line with the Bank’s staff code of conduct.
“Approval is granted on a case-by-case basis, depending on the demands of the proposed external appointment as well as the job responsibilities that the individual holds in the bank,” the spokesperson said.
Ms Lau is the Vice President and Head of Marketing, Cards and Unsecured Loans, Consumer Banking Group, and is married to private General Practitioner Dr Alan Chin. Dr Chin is an outspoken advocate of for the continued criminalization of homosexual sex between consenting males.
This comes on the heels of DBS’ controversial support of the anti-gay group Focus of the Family (FOTF) last November. DBS had held a campaign pledging to contribute up to S$15,000 to FOTF when credit cardholders spend a minimum of $300 during weekends at selected malls between 14 November and 21 December.
FOTF Singapore is an affiliate of the American FOTF, which is led by the Christian evangelical James Dobson. FOTF USA is a proponent of school sponsored Christian prayer and is staunchly anti-abortion and anti-gay. The money from DBS’ campaign was intended to support FOTF Singapore building of a new learning centre for children with learning disabilities.
After strong public outcry, DBS rescinded all references of FOTF in its campaign advertising and clarified DBS acceptance of diversity and inclusion.
DBS is currently conducting an internal review into Josie Lau’s breach of the staff code.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27120.1
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Darren Boon
Not the first time that Lau had breached the staff code of conduct.
DBS this evening issued a stinging statement rebuking Josie Lau for flouting the DBS staff code of conduct twice.
“Every year, all employees are required to acknowledge that they will abide by the bank’s policies. We are disappointed that Josie knowingly disregarded DBS’ staff code of conduct twice,” the spokesperson said. “Such attitude is not one that DBS, or any other organisation, can condone in a leader.”
In response to TOC queries, DBS spokesperson stated that in accordance to the Bank’s staff code of conduct, employees need to request and receive approval before taking on an external appointment, something which Lau failed to do.
“Josie informed the bank of her appointment as AWARE Ex-co member on 13 April, over two weeks after she was appointed on 28 March. She had not sought prior approval for this appointment and thereby breached the staff code of conduct,” the DBS spokesperson said. “Nevertheless, DBS made a concession and agreed to support her involvement as Ex-co member.”
Lau had informed DBS of her intent to run for President of AWARE early in the week. After a review, DBS replied to Lau that while DBS will continue to support Lau’s involvement with AWARE, DBS could not support her bid to run for President given the demands associated with the top post of a leading advocacy group in Singapore.
“Banks worldwide are facing very challenging times and her role as VP in the credit card space today is even more challenging, given the environment we are in,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson pointed out that DBS takes pride in its employees’ pursuit of individual interests and passions outside work such as involvement in various community, charity and volunteer organisations in a personal capacity. The spokesperson clarified that these employees had sought and obtained prior consent to do so in line with the Bank’s staff code of conduct.
“Approval is granted on a case-by-case basis, depending on the demands of the proposed external appointment as well as the job responsibilities that the individual holds in the bank,” the spokesperson said.
Ms Lau is the Vice President and Head of Marketing, Cards and Unsecured Loans, Consumer Banking Group, and is married to private General Practitioner Dr Alan Chin. Dr Chin is an outspoken advocate of for the continued criminalization of homosexual sex between consenting males.
This comes on the heels of DBS’ controversial support of the anti-gay group Focus of the Family (FOTF) last November. DBS had held a campaign pledging to contribute up to S$15,000 to FOTF when credit cardholders spend a minimum of $300 during weekends at selected malls between 14 November and 21 December.
FOTF Singapore is an affiliate of the American FOTF, which is led by the Christian evangelical James Dobson. FOTF USA is a proponent of school sponsored Christian prayer and is staunchly anti-abortion and anti-gay. The money from DBS’ campaign was intended to support FOTF Singapore building of a new learning centre for children with learning disabilities.
After strong public outcry, DBS rescinded all references of FOTF in its campaign advertising and clarified DBS acceptance of diversity and inclusion.
DBS is currently conducting an internal review into Josie Lau’s breach of the staff code.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27120.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)