Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Great Singaporean Expat Exodus

The Great Singaporean Expat Exodus

If you know a lot of expats based in Singapore, you would also have noted something else: a lot of them are leaving.

Over the years, my wife and I have come to know many people in Singapore's expat community. We are fortunate to have built up friendships with people from all over the world. However, my wife now seems to have a most regular and discomfiting duty to pay attention to: saying goodbye to our friends - for many of them are leaving.

There was always a low level of turnover among the expats, in that some would come to the end of their terms here, and move on. In recent months, however, there seems to be a great upsurge in departures. Companies are simply deciding that they no longer need, or can no longer afford operations in Singapore and are relocating - or firing - their staff. Hence, the expat exodus, with so many leaving the country, often unwillingly (since they have come to like it, for various reasons.)

Another common situation, these days is the company expense cutting ultimatum. It goes a little bit like this: either you accept a local salary package (in contrast to the expat package they are presently on), or you have to go somewhere else (relocate to a different country of operation), or leave the company. The problem with this kind of ultimatum is that they can't afford the international schools for their children and the rent on their homes, on a local package. It is equivalent to telling them, directly, that they must leave Singapore - because the alternative is not workable, for them. Thus, they generally up and leave.

What is usual with these departing expats is that they are highly skilled. Companies are getting rid of good people, because these good people are well paid, to cut their operating costs in difficult times. It seems to me, however, that they are weakening themselves in so doing. The skills of these staff are not being replaced.

Singapore is now the tenth most expensive city on Earth to live in. This information, combined with the upsurge in expat departures amongst our social circle, makes me wonder if Singapore is making itself too expensive to be internationally competitive. If companies can do business just as readily, elsewhere, for less, then they will relocate operations. Singapore will lose jobs and revenues if this happens. It seems on the evidence of what we see among those we know, that this is already happening. Even if companies don't completely pull out of Singapore, they do seem to be downsizing operations. That is, of course, just a first step to giving up operations altogether.

Were Singapore not the tenth most expensive place to live in the world - were it, for instance, the fiftieth or one hundredth most expensive place to live - then I don't think any of this downsizing and relocation would be occurring. (For comparison's sake, London is presently the 27th most expensive city in the world to live in. Singapore is considerably more expensive, now, than London.)

Personally, I don't think becoming one of the most expensive places to live in the world, is a sign of success. To me, it is a sign that something is going wrong. Many companies seem to think so, too...so they are relocating their staff.

As long as Singapore remains expensive to live in and expensive to do business, this expat exodus will continue. I wonder how long it will be, before the powers-that-be, notice that their economy is weakening, as a result of this talent flight? The big question, for me, is whether they will do anything about it. Or even, whether there is anything they can do about it. We will see. In the meantime, my wife and I have more goodbyes to attend to.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27428.1

Tang Shang Jun criticises TOC for use of “divisive labels” in article

Tang Shang Jun criticises TOC for use of “divisive labels” in article

Sunday, 19 April 2009

Dear Sir,

I refer to the report: “TOC Report: 150 call for vote of no confidence” by Choo Zheng Xi.

I write this letter in response to two objections I have about what the author of the article wrote. :

1) Christian Fundamentalism

Firstly, I object to the pigeonholing of AWARE ex-co members as “Christian Fundamentalists”, a term which the author employs in his article. After quoting a statement by Angela Thiang about her stance against homosexuals, Mr Choo then makes the logical leap (and a huge one that is) in the very next line to conclude that AWARE is now run by a group of “Christian Fundamentalists.”

I take issue with making this huge leap because (i) nowhere in the article is there suggestion or evidence that the ex-co is now Christian fundamentalist, (ii) an anti-homosexual stance does not equate to Christian fundamentalism.

True, Jenice Chua and Angela Thiang had both previously attracted attention for their anti-homosexual stance. But is that evidence of Christian fundamentalism? Is that a good ground for labelling them as such? How is the Author sure that they are Christians in the first place? And even if they are Christians, why must they be pigeonholed as being “fundamentalist” as opposed to “misguided” or “uninformed Christians” or “Christians who may not be totally familiar with Christ’s teachings as a whole.”

Attaching the “fundamentalist” label on them just results in tarring public perception of their reputation because “fundamentalist” as a term carries with it a negative connotation. A glance through some of the comments on TOC using the search function to look for the term “fundamentalist” would perhaps make this point of mine much clearer.

Mr Choo needs to be more aware of the implications of using certain terms before using them loosely as he has done.

2) Christianity and Regressiveness

The second grouse I have is Mr Choo’s quoting of the Glass Castle Magazine’s editor, Jolene, whose view is that Christian fundamentalism leads to effects that are “regressive to women’s rights.”

Firstly, I think that there must be more justification on Mr Choo’s part first to show why Christian fundamentalism leads to a regression in terms of women’s rights. Simply putting a quote there will not do. Again, we see here a large logical leap that it unjustified. It seems as though the Author has made the erroneous assumption that Christianity is against women having rights or worse, that Christianity leads to a diminution of women’s rights – both of these are untrue.

Many questions follow from his quoting of Jolene’s views:

- What is the Christian stance on women’s rights?

- Does it in the first place negatively affect women’s rights or does it promote women’s rights?

- Is Mr Choo even aware of how Christianity views the issue of women’s rights? If he does not, is he therefore justified in making such an equation between Christianity and regression of women’s rights?

One perspective that I hope Mr Choo will consider is that Christianity holds women in high regard. The Bible affirms that women are equally valued, equally treated and share the same divine image of men. Husbands are to love and honour their wives just as they love themselves. Let it also not be forgotten that the Biblical accounts of Christ’s resurrection sees women as the first ones at the empty tomb.

From this and from other articles on the TOC website, it seems to me that TOC is trying to side with the old committee of AWARE. Based on what Mr Choo wrote and based on the lack of evidence, it seems very contrived for him to try and link the new committee to anti-homosexual and “Christian fundamentalist” stances, both of which are deeply dividing terminologies.

Concluding, I wish to urge against the use of such divisive labels such as “fundamentalist” as it is unhelpful in promoting civil discourse. Even if one believes bona fide that someone is a “fundamentalist,” perhaps there are other less offensive terms that can and should be used.

Yours Sincerely,

Tang Shang Jun

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27358.1

3 hectic weeks

3 hectic weeks

April 19, 2009

MARCH 28

Aware’s annual general meeting draws an unexpectedly large number of people. Many are new members who joined in recent months. The old guard is shocked when the newcomers defeat more seasoned members to take nine out of 12 positions on the executive committee. The new president is Mrs Claire Nazar, elected unopposed after being nominated by outgoing president Constance Singam. Mrs Nazar nominated six newcomers who became exco members.

APRIL 8

Mrs Nazar resigns as president. No reasons are given. She confirms her exit but refuses to answer further queries from the media.

APRIL 14

The Aware old guard leads 160 members in calling for an extraordinary general meeting, possibly to table a vote of no confidence in the new exco. Longtime members say there are too many unanswered questions about the new women in charge, how they got together to seize power and what they intend to do with Aware.

APRIL 15

# The exco meets to pick a new president. Immediate past president Constance Singam attends but is asked to leave at the start. She is invited back later but walks out shortly. Exco member Caris Lim leaves three hours into the meeting, telling reporters she is disillusioned and disturbed by the proceedings. Ms Josie Lau is made president and makes brief comments to reporters but refuses to answer questions. Her employer, DBS Bank, immediately issues a statement saying it does not support her taking up the presidency and had told her so.

# The new Aware issues a statement announcing its new president and pledging to carry on the good work of the association and its founders.

APRIL 16

# Two-time Aware president and former Nominated Member of Parliament Braema Mathi is told by e-mail that she is no longer in charge of producing a key report on discrimination against women in Singapore.

# DBS Bank issues a second statement revealing that Ms Lau breached its staff code of conduct twice by not informing her bosses that she intended to stand for elections to the Aware exco, and defying advice not to take up the presidency. The sharply worded statement says DBS does not condone such conduct in a leader and will do an internal review.

APRIL 17

Aware president Josie Lau issues a statement emphasising that her exco members were all elected properly according to the association’s rules. She says she does not understand why her team has come in for criticism when they are ‘pro women, pro-family and pro-Singapore’. She questions the motives of the old guard in calling for an EOGM and asks if they harbour another agenda. Ms Lau cannot be reached to answer questions arising from the statement. Other Aware officials say Ms Lau is the only one who can speak about this.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27340.5

Some attend the same church

Some attend the same church

April 19, 2009

EVEN as the Aware saga continues to unfold, it appears that some of the newcomers in its leadership are familiar faces at the Anglican Church Of Our Saviour at Margaret Drive.

Aside from new Aware president Josie Lau and her husband Alan Chin, the others are believed to be Ms Charlotte Wong, Ms Irene Yee, Ms Jenica Chua, Ms Maureen Ong and Ms Sally Ang.

So far, the new Aware leaders have refused to answer questions about whether they knew each other before sweeping the elections three weeks ago.

According to a long-time friend, Dr Chin is related to former law dean Dr Thio Su Mien and her daughter, Nominated Member of Parliament Professor Thio Li-Ann.

When contacted, the NMP declined to answer any questions. Dr Chin did not respond to questions e-mailed to him.

But checks yesterday showed that Dr Thio Su Mien and her husband, Mr Thio Gim Hock, the chief executive officer of property investor Overseas Union Enterprise, attend the church and also hold regular faith-healing sessions at their home.

Senior pastor Derek Hong was not answering any questions about his church members or Aware yesterday.

Asked if any of the new Aware exco members attended his church, he replied: ‘No comment.’

Housed in a renovated former cinema near Commonwealth, the church has a congregation of about 4,000.

It takes a strong stand against homosexuality and states so on its website.

‘Homosexual practice is contrary to God’s Word. So we stand against that and the active and aggressive promotion of such behaviour,’ it states.

It believes homosexuals can change, and has a programme to counsel and help those who want to give up ‘homosexual thoughts, tendencies and practices’.

TAN DAWN WEI

Additional reporting by Jamie Ee

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27340.4

Sociable, chatty and a lover of good food

Sociable, chatty and a lover of good food

April 19, 2009

WHEN Ms Josie Lau Meng Lee has her wonton mee, she likes the noodles cooked in fresh, boiling water. If it is not done right, she sends it back.

That is how finicky the 48-year-old DBS vice- president and new Aware chief is about her food, said those who know her.

None of her colleagues and ex-colleagues who spoke to The Straits Times had heard her speak about involvement in volunteer work.

But they were well-acquainted with her gourmet and jetsetting lifestyle, cultivated in part by her work organising glamorous fashion, food and lifestyle events, and accompanying her doctor-husband to medical conferences overseas.

In previous interviews with this paper, Ms Lau said that she and her husband, Dr Alan Chin, had not missed a single World Gourmet Summit since its inception in 1997.

‘I live to eat, rather than eat to live,’ she said in a 2004 interview, adding that she attended seven Gourmet Summit events that year.

‘I’m the type who would rather go hungry than have terrible food,’ she said then. ‘I send things back to the kitchen if they’re not up to standard, even wonton noodles from hawker stalls.’

She was known to frequent upmarket eateries as well as hawker centres.

Friends describe the well-groomed mother of two teenagers as sociable and chatty. One long-time friend said she was a ‘complete opposite’ of her more serious husband.

Before joining DBS, Ms Lau rose through the ranks at the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), where she spent 15 years, mostly marketing lifestyle events.

Her CV, released by Aware, said she was instrumental in developing high-profile events like the Singapore Food Festival, Great Singapore Sale and Singapore Fashion Festival.

A former colleague at the STB recalled another side of Ms Lau, saying she enjoyed listening to Christian music in her office.

She would also tell single colleagues that if they wanted to find a spouse, the best place to look was in church. And she would encourage them to attend.

As for areas she will be interested in in her new role, the Aware write-up said she was most concerned about work-life balance and the role of mothers as a stabilising factor in a family.

Ms Lau made brief comments to reporters after her appointment as president on Wednesday night, but has otherwise remained uncontactable.

She has not taken questions about herself or her plans for Aware, or DBS Bank’s public criticism of her for flouting bank rules by joining the Aware exco without its approval and defying her bosses’ advice against becoming president.

TAN DAWN WEI

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27340.3

Quiet, devoted to religious activities

Quiet, devoted to religious activities

April 19, 2009

IF HIS wife is a livewire, he is the quiet one.

Friends say Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang, 51, has never been known to be the life of the party.

In fact, he stopped going to parties in recent years, preferring to devote his time to religious activities, said a longtime friend.

Dr Chin made his presence felt at the Aware AGM on March 28 even though he could not vote.

Aware has long accepted men as associate members and he joined recently. His wife joined in January this year.

Old guard members at the AGM said that he was one of the many unfamiliar new faces who turned up and, during the elections, he helped to count votes.

Later, when they checked to find out who he was, all they could find was that he had penned six letters to The Straits Times between May and August 2007 speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle, and citing the higher incidence of HIV cases among homosexuals.

In one letter, he said that homosexuals could change their sexual orientation.

He and his wife, Josie, have been attending the Anglican Church Of Our Saviour at Margaret Drive since 2001.

They were married in the 1980s at the Anglican St Andrew’s Cathedral, soon after he graduated from medical school at the National University of Singapore.

He and three classmates set up Lifeline Medical Group, which has since expanded to encompass nine general practitioner clinics and one aesthetic clinic.

Among the partners is well-known watch collector and horology expert Bernard Cheong, 51, who has known Dr Chin since they were first-year medical students.

‘He’s a nice guy, and he and Josie are a very loving couple. I would definitely want him as my doctor,’ Dr Cheong said with a hearty laugh.

When The Straits Times called him, Dr Chin declined to be interviewed, but asked to be contacted through his e-mail address.

He did not respond to questions nor subsequent messages.

But in an interview published in the Singapore Medical Association’s newsletter in January 2007, he described himself and his interests.

He said his parents had the biggest influence on his early life, and his father told him when he was in primary school that God gave him intelligence and he would succeed if he worked hard, he said in the same interview.

He said that he spent Sunday mornings going to church and spending time with his family, his favourite book was the Bible, and his favourite song was Faith by Jason Upton, an American Christian singer-songwriter.

He also let on some nuggets about himself: his biggest indulgence was buying a BMW Cabriolet and he thought everyone should watch The Lord Of The Rings because it was the ‘best show and trilogy ever!’.

The BMW Cabriolet has since given way to a Toyota MPV, a friend said.

In the same 2007 interview, when asked what he wanted to be remembered for, he said: a loving husband and father and a loyal friend.

dawntan@sph.com.sg

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27340.2

Bank’s public criticism of a senior officer sparks debate

Bank’s public criticism of a senior officer sparks debate

April 19, 2009

DBS Bank was not saying more yesterday about Ms Josie Lau, after it publicly rebuked her for taking on the top post at Aware despite being told not to.

Ms Lau, vice-president in its cards division, reported to work as usual yesterday.

She issued her first statement as Aware’s new president, but said nothing about the criticisms levelled at her by her employer on Wednesday and Thursday.

DBS had revealed that she disregarded its staff code not once but twice, first by not seeking approval before joining the Aware executive committee, and then by defying her employer’s advice against becoming president.

The bank’s action has drawn flak, with some taking issue with the fact that Ms Lau needed approval before taking up a voluntary position.

A female human resources executive at a multinational corporation here said: ‘DBS should be proud that someone from their company wants to take up this position.’

But others noted that Ms Lau flouted a rule staff should have known about.

A senior corporate affairs officer at a large Singapore-based company said that most top companies would have codes of conduct to deal with conflict-of-interest issues. ‘In this case, it seems that she was aware of it and yet chose to breach the bank’s code of conduct.’

Still, Mr Josh Goh, senior manager for corporate services at search firm The GMP Group, pointed out: ‘In most cases, this would have been kept a private issue.’

Asked why he thought DBS reacted the way it did, he said it could be because Aware is an influential group.

‘It seems there are serious concerns over whether she should take up such a major role. So they had to come out strongly,’ he said.

Others felt that DBS acted the way it did because it was unhappy at the prospect of being drawn unnecessarily into controversy.

Ms Lau’s team had been asked last year to identify a suitable charity to benefit from a DBS credit card fund-raising drive.

The bank chose Focus on the Family, and ran into protests from some customers upset that the charity and its American parent group took a strongly anti-homosexual line.

A banker with extensive consumer banking experience said: ‘Given that DBS only recently went through a fiasco when it chose the anti-gay Focus on the Family as the Christmas charity for its credit cards, they would understandably have been very worried about Josie taking a leadership role at Aware.

‘It’s easy to make the link from Josie to the DBS cards division and the Focus on the Family issue.’

So while the bank’s actions may strike some as excessive, she pointed out: ‘It wasn’t just any officer taking on any appointment.’

chanckr@sph.com.sg

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27340.1

Sacked by a terse e-mail

Sacked by a terse e-mail

April 19, 2009

THERE was no phone call, no reason given, and no thank you.

All Ms Braema Mathi, 51, received was a terse e-mail on Thursday telling her she was no longer chairman of Aware’s Cedaw Committee.

She was told she was no longer in charge effective March 28, the date of Aware’s annual general meeting.

‘Talk about being unceremoniously dumped,’ said Ms Mathi, a former Nominated Member of Parliament and president of Aware.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) is an international convention adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Singapore acceded to this treaty in 1995.

Countries under the treaty submit two reports, one by the state and another by an advocacy group, every four years to a UN expert committee which then issues recommendations on compliance.

Ms Mathi has been involved in preparing the Cedaw report since 2004. She presented one report to the UN in 2007, and is in the midst of finishing a second with the help of more than 20 volunteers.

‘I don’t know what I have done wrong or am not doing right,’ said Ms Mathi, who is currently doing consultancy work for Unifem.

She is not the only one upset.

Undergraduate Chen Siya, 22, who has volunteered on both past and present reports said: ‘It’s very disrespectful and it’s not the right way of doing things.

‘What they did is contrary to Aware values of allowing people committed to advocacy to continue doing such work.’

Repeated attempts by The Straits Times to contact the new Aware leadership for comment were unsuccessful.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27339.1

Jackass of the Week award - The Shocking Ignorance from Minister Khaw

Jackass of the Week award - The Shocking Ignorance from Minister Khaw

Health Minister Khaw’s latest comments about how research and progress in Singapore’s medical industry has prolonged the life of a Singaporean to 80 years is incredulous o me.

Would he like to point out and highlight exactly what products or medical procedures developed through research in Singapore have contributed to this age? The groundwork for a better life span was laid decades ago, long before Singapore had a so call medical industry.

The average life expectancy of the country of Andorra is 83.5 years. That is 3.5 years longer than what Minister Khaw claims Singapore’s is. Are we to assume that that small country has poured more R & D into their medical industry than we have? Is the Andorran Health Minister paid more than he is to accomplish this?

Someone from Mr. Khaw’s ministry should vet all his comments before they are made public. They should explain to the Minister that average life expectancy in Singapore is already just under 82 years. He is shortchanging the average Singaporean’s lifespan by 2 years.

The average life expectancy for a Singaporean female has already far surpassed the Minister’s figure at 84.7 years. In addition, the longevity of the average Singaporean is due to our low infant mortality rate, improvement in our diets, and lower poverty levels.

Medical research in Singapore has hardly contributed to any of these. The elimination of many diseases such as polio, and the development of treatment for other common diseases like Diabetes and Cancer, originated from medical reseach in other countries and not Singapore.

It is this medical progress developed elsewhere that has prolonged live everywhere, not just here. All developed countries have shown increases in their life expectancy.

These comments show the ignorance of a Health Minister who is not a medical professional by training. It is typical of the PAP to place unqualified persons in charge of vital ministries who have their training and career in other areas.

In his case, engineering. Perhaps the Minister cares to design a better hospital bed? It is shocking to me that someone who supposedly ran NUH, KK, and SGH can be so ignorant about the average life span os calculated.

This is not the first public misstep that Khaw has made. His handling of the SARs, and Dengue outbreaks are also farcical.

However, the most comical comments of all must be these new ones claiming credit for longevity through Singapore’s medical research, when everybody knows that these have contributed almost nothing to it. He will be claiming credit for the invention of bed pan next.

This is another PAP trait, that is, to claim credit for something that can’t even be remotely link to them, but at the same time to disavow themselves of any blame or cupability when things go wrong. Uniquely Singapore. Mr. Khaw is this week’s Jackass of the Week.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27332.1

Regressive Public Order Act serves more of a political than security purpose

Regressive Public Order Act serves more of a political than security purpose

The new Public Order Act passed recently in Parliament is a regressive law put in place by the PAP to serve their own petty partisan interest rather than to maintain public order and security as claimed. (read article here)

The Act will 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.

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam quoted the examples of scenes of disruption like those at international meetings such as the G20 meeting in London and more recently, the failed ASEAN Summit in Thailand’s Pattaya to defend the need for the new law.

CNA reported that that’s exactly what Singapore, which will later this year host the APEC meetings where many world leaders are expected to attend, wants to avoid.

I cannot understand how the “move-on” orders will help to prevent large numbers of demonstrators from gathering in the first place. How is the police going to get their message across when they are swarmed by thousands of determined protestors in one go?

It is highly unlikely that we will see hundreds of Singaporeans protesting at the APEC meetings. A more probable group will be foreigners from NGOs and human rights organizations in which a riot police on standby will suffice to maintain public order and security.

Existing laws are adequate to prevent disruption to law and order. The police are well equipped to restrain the protestors and arrest them on the spot. Why then do we need another public order act?

The “move on” order under the Act is deliberately targetted at small numbers of Singapore protestors making use of international events to draw attention to the PAP’s draconian laws curbing civil rights and liberties of Singaporeans.

The SDP had effectively organized and launched small group protests at previous international events held in Singapore such as the IMF meeting much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the PAP.

Photos of the police officers forming a human chain around an unarmed Chee Siok Chin were circulated widely on the internet, disgracing the PAP government in eyes of the international community which explains why under the new law, third parties are not permitted to film the ongoing protests either.

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 publicises a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.

This means that outdoor political activities against the PAP’s interest will be completely outlawed. No Singaporean will be allowed to demonstrate against any PAP leaders, the PAP itself or even a PAP policy.

Mr K Shanmugam, said: “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.

“Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?

The minister’s argument is both shallow and disingenuous. There is absolutely no correlation between the freedom to exercise one’s political right and public safety.

Singaporeans have shown during the minibond rallies last year at Hong Lim Park that we are able to assemble and protest peacefully without endangering ourselves and others.

Besides, there are many measures the police can take to pre-empt public assemblies from descending into chaos such as limiting the number of protestors and searching their bodies for dangerous weapons before they are allowed to gather.

The real motive behind the law is to prevent any public expression of disaffection and anger against the PAP’s governance because not only will it bring shame and disrepute to the PAP, it will also shatter the myth that it is a popular government voted into power by the people.

The PAP knows that People Power is the only way Singaporeans can remove them from power. By curtailing the right of Singaporeans to assemble which is guaranteed under our Constitution, Singaporeans will have no choice but to play according to the rules set by them.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27330.1

Why proper oversight of police powers is important

Why proper oversight of police powers is important

Two articles from The New Statesman and The Economist show that abuse of powers by the police can happen if left unchecked. How does our new Public Order Act square up to this?

After the demonstrations during the recent G20 summit in London, the biggest story is not about the alleged rowdiness of the demonstrators but the possible misconduct of the police in handling the protestors as well as their involvement in the death of a British by-stander.

This goes to show that the law minister’s rhetoric during the recent debate over the Public Order Bill about believing that policemen are “fundamentally honest” is missing the point: given that the latter are the ones carrying guns and batons, it is important to ensure that there is proper oversight over police powers, which is critically missing from the Bill. Instead, what the Bill does is to grant the police even more abitrary powers.

No one would advocate crippling the effectiveness of the police force - but it is crucial to ensure that there is proper accountability when something does go wrong. Worryingly, the government’s track record gives little reassurance that the public can expect such accountability.

The truth of the G20 case of Ian Tomlinson and the other one of Brazillian Jean Charles de Menezes, wrongly suspected of being a potential suicide bomber who was shot by British police, came to light only when video footages (from a by-stander and from CCTVs) revealed that what had taken place were contrary to what the police had first claimed.

In Singapore’s Public Order Act and in the amended Films Act, the police can stop anyone from filming such events and order the person to destroy the recording. What would have happened if Britain’s police too had powers to do the same? (Watch the four videos below)

Excerpts from The New Statesman, “Public enemy number one“:

In the case of de Menezes, the police briefed for a full 24 hours that the victim was an Islamist terrorist – “Suicide bomber shot on Tube” was the Sky News strapline – and only eventually conceded that he was innocent. Andy Hayman, then the Met’s head of counterterrorism and intelligence, was later shown to have concealed his doubts about de Menezes’s guilt from the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, during the hours and days after the shooting. Since then, details have emerged of how the police deleted and selectively presented CCTV footage and photographs of de Menezes. Furthermore, it was said that he had been running; that he had jumped the Tube barriers; that he had been wearing a bulky coat; and that he had been challenged verbally by police. In fact, CCTV footage finally released in July 2007 shows a lightly dressed de Menezes calmly picking up a morning newspaper and strolling through the station barriers on to the escalator.

Similarly, on the day that Tomlinson died of a heart attack the Met issued a wholly misleading statement. A member of the public, it said, told police that “there was a man who had collapsed round the corner”. Officers, it was claimed, had tried to help medics save his life as “missiles, believed to be bottles”, were hurled at them.

The reality, again revealed in video, shows Tomlinson walking with his hands in his pockets, offering neither resistance nor threat to the police line behind him. Next, he is struck around the legs by a baton-wielding Territorial Support Group officer who then shoves Tomlinson to the ground. After “bouncing” – a witness’s word – on the ground, a terrified Tomlinson can be seen looking up in disbelief at the officers, who stand back, leaving the public to tend to him.

What connects de Menezes, Tomlinson and countless other victims of brutality is the fact that the police get away with it. Each outrage is treated as an isolated incident; the link running through them is left unmade.

“I cannot see how the City of London Police could have been expected to be the right vehicle for investigating Tomlinson’s death, when they were part of the same policing operation,” says the former London mayor Ken Livingstone.

For decades, politicians from both main parties have praised the police and bolstered them with new powers. Yet the force remains the one public body in the United Kingdom not subject to the spotlight of scrutiny

Excerpts from The Economist, “The camera is mightier than the sword“:

Despite the threats to destroy capitalism and hang the bankers, the real hero of London’s G20 demonstrations on April 1st may turn out to be an American fund manager. The anonymous capitalist accidentally filmed a policeman assaulting Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor who was making his way home through the protest. Mr Tomlinson was clubbed from behind with a baton and shoved to the ground as he walked away from a line of officers, hands in his pockets. He subsequently died of a heart attack.

Just as the shock of that footage was receding, another video nasty emerged. In it a woman at a vigil for Mr Tomlinson on the following day is slapped and baton-thwacked by a different officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now investigating both cases. Given that most of the 5,000-odd protesters had cameras, more may well emerge.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27329.1

HDB LEASE BUYBACK: 200 signed up

April 19, 2009
LEASE BUYBACK
200 signed up
By Zakir Hussain
Some owners of larger HDB homes have asked to be included in the scheme, which is only for owners of three-room or smaller flats. -- ST PHOTO: TERENCE TAN
DRAWN by the promise of an income for life, caretaker Adali Sadap, 74, was one of several Ang Mo Kio residents who signed up for HDB's Lease Buyback Scheme on Sunday.

In all, about 200 elderly Singaporeans have taken up the offer since its launch last month, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at a roadshow pitching the scheme to his constituents.

Those who qualify will sell to the HDB the tail-end of their lease at market rate, and the proceeds will be used to buy an annuity from the CPF Board.

This annuity could give Mr Adali and his wife, who is 69, a total of about $600 a month throughout their life.

'I consulted my family, and they are all supportive as they feel the scheme is beneficial to us,' said the father of 11 who bought his three-room flat in 1981 for $21,900.

It is now worth $248,000, he said, adding that he makes about $600 a month as a mosque caretaker.

The rise in value of HDB homes over time was also noted by Mr Lee in his speech to some 1,000 elderly constituents at Nanyang Polytechnic.

He said the Lease Buyback Scheme was possible because of Singapore's highly-successful home ownership programme.

'Even now, in an economic downturn, everybody not only has a roof over their heads, but a property which has appreciated in value over the years,' he noted.

Indeed, some owners of larger HDB homes have asked to be included in the scheme, which is only for owners of three-room or smaller flats.


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27321.1

'What did she do to deserve position?'

'What did she do to deserve position?'
Taken by surprise, Aware veterans question merits of new members standing for recent election
This is what happened during the Aware AGM, as told to The New Paper by four members who attended the meeting
By Benson Ang
April 19, 2009 Print Ready Email Article

IT ALL began when a hand was raised, innocently enough, by a new member.
Click to see larger image
BEATEN: Ms Chew (above), nominated by Ms Singam, was beaten by Ms Wong (below), who was nominated by a new member, by a huge margin for the vice-president's seat. --TNP PICTURES: MOHD ISHAK

Ms Jenica Chua wanted to nominate Ms Charlotte Wong for vice-president.

And so began the takeover.

That 28 Mar annual general meeting (AGM) was to spark a bitter feud between new office-bearers and the old guard of the Association of Women For Action Research (Aware), one that has split the 24-year-old association.

What exactly happened that day? Four different sources present at the meeting have revealed the twists and turns that led to what amounted to the carpet being pulled from under the Aware stalwarts' feet.

Ms Wong's nomination raised eyebrows among veterans. A newcomer for vice-president? It was unheard of.

When Ms Wong made her pitch and listed her credentials, she hardly mentioned a word about feminism.

Said a source yesterday: 'Many of us wondered what has this woman done for Aware to deserve to be second-in-charge?'

How do her accomplishments compare to an incumbent, Ms Chew I-Jin, who has been volunteering for more than a decade. How does she compare to someone who has pounded the streets handing out flyers, and manned the phone for hours counselling desperate women?

How much did Ms Wong even know about Aware? Did she stand a chance?

She did.

In hindsight, the first indication that this election would be a watershed was the large turnout.

By 2pm, the Aware Centre was teaming with women. In previous years, only about 40 people would show up. But this year, there were over 100 - 80 of whom were fresh faces.

Almost all of them were middle-aged Chinese women. They appeared unfamiliar with the Aware Centre.

Click to see larger image

Both the air-conditioned conference room and the lobby had to be used to accommodate the large turnout.

Shock for veterans

Ms Constance Singam, 72, the outgoing president and chair of the AGM, nominated Mrs Claire Nazar for presidency. She spoke glowingly about Mrs Nazar's work on the sexual harassment committee.

Mrs Nazar was elected unopposed.

Next was the vice-president's seat. Ms Singam nominated Ms Chew, who gave a speech about her involvement with feminism.

After 15 years in Aware, this was her time to shine.

Then Ms Wong was nominated.

When both of them left the room, and it was time to vote, Ms Wong won by a huge margin.

The veterans were shocked.

They did not know Ms Wong. Neither did they know the women who voted for her. That was how Aware's No 2 spot went to an unknown.

This process - whereby a new member would nominate another new member, who was then voted in by new members - repeated itself when Ms Jenica Chua was elected honorary secretary.

By this time, older members were becoming alarmed. One said she felt uncomfortable with the new members running for positions because they did not understand Aware enough, and had not done enough for Aware.

But a new member replied that Ms Singam was looking for new faces, and they were new faces.

The pattern continued. All but one of the key positions were won by large margins - through new voters. Only another key position - assistant honorary treasurer - went to Ms Chew, and it was a walkover.

When it came to voting in committee members, each of the 13 nominees gave a speech, and the ones with the top six votes were to get in.

During the meeting, some veteran members started searching the Internet for background on the more vocal new members. They discovered that many of them had written strongly-worded letters to the press against gay lifestyles.

This, combined with the increasingly obvious voting pattern, prompted the veteran members to start asking a lot more questions.

A veteran member pointedly asked a new member what she felt about homosexuality. Her reply: She didn't accept it.

The veteran member rebutted: 'But in Aware, we do not discriminate.'

The new member said she just did not agree with gay lifestyles. Eventually, she got voted in.

One nominee, a veteran member, spoke passionately about the need to educate teenagers about safe sex and the dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases.

She got one of the lowest number of votes.

Throughout the meeting, several veterans said they were happy that so many people were interested in Aware, but advised these members to familiarise themselves with Aware before running for key positions.

Their advice went unheeded.

When the meeting ended at 5.30pm, only three of the 12 were veterans.

And that was how 28 Mar became the day the old guard of Aware was caught unawares.


Questions, questions and more contention

Hidden agenda?

Ms Josie Lau, Aware president, in a letter to the press:

'Why have some people cast aspersions on our good intentions? Why are they so angry with us? We've only just begun.

'We seek to improve the quality of life in Singapore. We are pro-women, pro-family and pro-Singapore.

'What is so objectionable about that? Does the old guard harbour an alternative agenda? If so, they should disclose their motives and objectives fully and honestly.'

Aware veteran members Ms Margaret Thomas, Ms Corrina Lim, Ms Braema Mathi, Ms Dana Lam, and Ms Tan Joo Hymn, representing the signatories of the requisition:

'Our initial questions remain - what do you want to do in Aware that is fundamentally different from what was already being done?

Click to see larger image

'If you think the work Aware has done all these years is so good and you want to 'honour' and 'build' on it, why the need to muscle your way into the exco? Such a tactic suggests there may be a hidden agenda that may be contrary to the stance and ethos of Aware.'

Secular or...

Ms Lau:

'Aware is a secular organisation. Its members come from different races, walks of life and hold different belief systems. Our commitment to advancing the cause of women unites us. As a democratic society, we cherish viewpoint diversity.'

Aware's veteran members

'We were further alarmed by media reports that the new Aware president led the marketing team in DBS' credit card campaign last year which supported the evangelical Christian organisation Focus on the Family.

'Aware is a secular organisation that embraces diversity of race, age, religion, culture and sexuality. It must remain so.'


WHO'S WHO IN NEW AWARE LEADERSHIP

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

Catherine Tan Ling Ghim (above, extreme left): Financial planner. Member of Million Dollar Round Table.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

Peggy Leong Pek Kay (above, second from left): Lecturer at Ngee Ann Polytechnic's School of Humanities. Has 16years of teaching experience.

HONORARY SECRETARY

Jenica Chua Chor Ping (above, in red top): In her 30s. Management consultant with top business technology company.

HONORARY TREASURER

Maureen Ong Lee Keang (above, in patterned top): Last appointment was executive vice-president at SembCorp Group.

VICE-PRESIDENT

Charlotte Wong Hock Soon (above, wearing glasses): Consultant with ExxonMobil, where she worked for 21 years. Former sociology and anthropology lecturer at National University of Singapore.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

Lois Ng (above): 44

Social entrepreneur who runs business that hires disabled people to produce gifts for tourists and corporate markets.

Former journalist, with The New Paper 1990-1995.

ASSISTANT HONORARY TREASURER

Chew I-Jin (above, wearing glasses): Aware member since May 1995. Previously served on Exco in 1995-1996, and as honorary treasurer in 2008-2009.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

Irene Yee Khor Quin (above, in jacket): Over 10 years of professional experience in financial services.

ASSISTANT HONORARY SECRETARY

Sally Ang Koon Hian (above, in ruffled top): Runs own law firm, Sally Ang Ebenezer and Company. Has more than 30years of legal experience.

PRESIDENT

Josie Lau Meng-Lee (above, extreme right): 48, vice-president and head of marketing, cards and unsecured Loans, DBS. Mother of two daughters, aged 17 and 15. Married to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang, who owns several clinics under the Lifeline Medical Group. 'Ms Lau is concerned about work-life balance and the role of mothers as a stabilising factor in a family,' an Aware statement said.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER

Caris Lim Chai Leng (not pictured): Freelance social worker, counsellor and trainer. Member of Aware since 2000. Exco member in 2008-2009.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27320.1

Wu Yun Yun: Just looking at 'happy family' makes me JEALOUS

Homesick China bride of opposition politician thinks mum-in-law favours her sis-in-law
Just looking at 'happy family' makes me
JEALOUS
By Chong Shin Yen
April 19, 2009 Print Ready Email Article

IT WAS an arranged marriage and Chinese national Wu Yun Yun, 26, was a reluctant bride.
Click to see larger image
--PICTURES: CHOO CHWEE HUA, THE STRAITS TIMES, LIANHE WANBAO, SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS

She was miserable after she married Singapore opposition politician Tan Lead Shake. She had no friends here and had problems adjusting to her new life.

To make things worse, Wu felt her mother-in-law favoured her sister-in-law, Madam Huang Mei Zhe, 36, who was married to her husband's younger brother.

Consumed by jealousy and resentment, she snapped on 28 Jun last year.

Around 5.30am, Wu crept into the couple's bedroom and stabbed Madam Huang, who is also a Chinese national.

She then turned the knife on her brother-in-law, Mr Tan Lead Sane, 33, a computer engineer. He died shortly after.

Madam Huang, who suffered a stab wound to her neck and cuts on her chin, survived.

Yesterday, Wu pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter and another charge of attempted manslaughter.

A third charge of voluntarily causing hurt to her mother-in-law, Madam Ng Bee Hion, 63, will be taken into consideration during sentencing.

Court documents showed that Wu left her family and friends in her hometown, Putian, Fujian province, and came to Singapore in 2001, when she was only 19.

Before that, she studied at a vocational school, which she enjoyed. But she had to quit school because of her family's financial difficulties.

Short-lived happiness

Wu worked as a telephone operator and was happy in her job. But her time there was short-lived as her parents were arranging to marry her off to a Singaporean.

Mr Tan Soo Phuan, 73, the former chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party, had proposed the marriage to his son in 2001. He was also from Putian and had gone there to scout for a daughter-in-law.

Wu, the second of three children, was reluctant to give up her job. She had developed a close relationship with a colleague who was interested in her.

Wu confided in her mother that she had doubts about an arranged marriage and said she was not keen to marry Mr Tan Lead Shake, a senior network administrator.

She also told the elder Mr Tan that she did not wish to marry his son.

But all this fell on deaf ears. The Tans had paid her dowry and Wu had no choice but to go ahead with the arrangement.

Later that year, she flew to Singapore and moved in with the Tans.

A psychiatric report by Dr George Joseph Fernandez from the Institute of Mental Health stated that Wu found life meaningless when she first got here.

Wu told Dr Fernandez: '(I felt that) all the people in the world had left me. (I) lost interest in everything. Life had become meaningless.'

She was not accustomed to her life here. She could not adapt to the food, had difficulties communicating in English and had no friends.

She was sad, tearful and had suicidal thoughts.

Six months after arriving, she married Mr Tan, who was nicknamed the 'Slipper Man' after he showed up in slippers on Nomination Day for the 1997 general election.

Click to see larger image

Wu's family was not invited to the wedding. The reason was not mentioned in court papers.

The couple lived in a two-storey bungalow on Paya Lebar Crescent, together with her parents-in-law, her elder brother-in-law, Mr Tan Lead Hand, who is single, and Mr Tan Lead Sane and his wife.

Wu's role was to do the housework and subsequently to look after her children - a son, 5, and a daughter, 3.

She did not get along well with her mother-in-law. She felt she was treated differently and was jealous of Madam Huang.

She told Dr Fernandez: 'I hated to stay at home. I'm very unhappy there.

'People at home make me unhappy. (My) mother-in-law and sister-in-law are very calculative. They say things to hurt me.'

When asked, her husband told Dr Fernandez that he also felt it was true that his mother favoured Madam Huang.

Wu returned to China four times during her seven years here, staying for a few months each time.

She made the first trip with her husband and their son, who was then 7 months old.

Wu stayed with her family, who noticed that she was unhappy.

She made a second trip in November 2004, and said her real purpose in doing so was to escape from the Tan family.

Wu's father told Dr Fernandez that the family noticed the change in her behaviour.

She had lost weight and became more hot-tempered. She did not go out much and even her friends there commented on how she had changed.

Wu said: 'I felt unhappy. I felt my jealousy getting worse. My mother-in-law nagged at me almost daily.

'When (my) mother-in-law and sister-in-law returned from work, I would get anxious. I felt they were going to scold me.'

Wu returned to Singapore in January 2005. But three months later, she quietly packed her bags and flew back to China with their son.

She did not inform her husband, and when her father found out about it, he scolded her.

This time, her change in behaviour was more drastic.

Wu became easily irritable and lost even more weight. She would cry whenever her mother-in-law was mentioned and she refused to go out with her friends.

Wu also had difficulties sleeping and wanted her mother to sleep with her because she was scared.

She stayed in China for almost 41/2 months before returning.

When she finally came back, she asked her mother to accompany her to Singapore. Wu said it was because she 'can't survive any more'.

Her mother came twice, once for 45 days and the second, for 11 months.

Meanwhile, Madam Huang got pregnant and her own mother came from China to help her out.

Wu's jealousy festered.

She told Dr Fernandez: 'Everything for her (Madam Huang) is smooth. Nothing was going well for me. My husband was cold to me.

'Everything done by them made me jealous. I live in jealousy.'

Wu last went back to China in July 2007, for six months. She complained of aches and pains in her body, had gastric problems and felt very tired.

She also developed the odd idea that she was suffering from cancer and that she would not recover.

Wu went to see various doctors, who reassured her that she was not ill. One of them recommended that she see a psychiatrist, but she did not do so.

After she returned to Singapore, her husband said she became tearful and was quieter.

But he added that when she got angry, she was 'like a volcano'.

Then, in June last year, Wu bought a fruit knife, intending to use it to hurt Madam Huang or Mr Tan Lead Sane.

By then, her jealousy towards the couple was reaching boiling point.

'When I look at them, I get jealous. I feel like hurting them,' she said.

'I couldn't bear that their family was so happy, while I was unable to enjoy. All did not treat me well. My life was worth nothing.'

Dr Fernandez diagnosed Wu to be suffering from major depression.

This qualified her for the defence of diminished responsibility. Her original charges of murder and attempted murder were reduced as a result.

Her father, Mr Wu Jin Chi, 57, a farmer, and his son-in-law arrived from Putian on Tuesday night and were in court yesterday to support Wu.

Mr Wu told The New Paper that she had been writing to them regularly since she was arrested.

'Every month, she would write two letters - one to us and the other to her children,' he said.

'She told us to take care of ourselves and not to worry for her. She also said that she misses her two children a lot.'

Wu told her father that her husband had visited her in prison twice, but he did not turn up yesterday.

His mother and Madam Huang did show up and sat in the row in front of Wu's family.

Before the proceedings started, Madam Huang turned around and scolded them, accusing them of breaking up her family.

For manslaughter, Wu can be jailed for life. For attempted manslaughter, Wu can be jailed 15 years.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27319.2

Killer wants mum-in-law to feel PAIN OF LOSS

Slipper Man's Wife in Jealousy Killing

China wife resents mum-in-law but attacks favourite daughter-in-law, son, instead

Killer wants mum-in-law to feel
PAIN OF LOSS
By Chong Shin Yen
April 19, 2009 Print Ready Email Article

SHE resented her mother-in-law, whom she blamed for her unhappiness and jealousy.
Click to see larger image
IN TEARS: Madam Ng Bee Hion was seen crying in a car after her youngest son was stabbed to death. --PICTURE: LIANHE WANBAO

But Wu Yun Yun, 26, chose not to harm Madam Ng Bee Hion, 63.

Instead, she attacked Madam Ng's son, Mr Tan Lead Sane, 33, and his wife, Madam Huang Meizhe, 36.

This was because she wanted Madam Ng to suffer the pain of seeing her loved ones hurt, according to court papers.

Yesterday, Wu, a Singapore permanent resident, pleaded guilty to manslaughter for killing Mr Tan and attempted manslaughter for injuring Madam Huang.

Monitor mental state

Justice Kan Ting Chiu adjourned the case for six months to allow psychiatrist George Joseph Fernandez to monitor Wu's mental state before he passes sentence.

The senior consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Mental Health said that he needed time to see if Wu's mental condition would improve.

Wu, a housewife, was represented by Mr Subhas Anandan and Mr Sunil Sudheesan.

The court heard that she was jealous of Mr Tan, a computer engineer, and Madam Huang.

She felt that unlike her, the couple was living a blessed life with love and strong support from Madam Ng.

Wu began harbouring thoughts of killing either Mr Tan or Madam Huang.

For several weeks, she struggled with these thoughts.

Then, in early June last year, she bought a fruit knife from a market in Lorong Ah Soo for $2.50, intending to use it to carry out her plan.

When she got home, she hid it in a styrofoam box which was placed under the kitchen sink.

Wu decided to strike on 28 Jun.

She chose to do it on a Saturday because she knew that her husband, Mr Tan Lead Shake, 40, a senior network administrator, would be at home and could take care of their two children following the attack.

The plan was to do it during the early hours of the morning, while the couple was sleeping in their bedroom on the second storey of the house.

The night before, Wu took the knife from the box and hid it on top of her wardrobe in her bedroom, also on the second storey. She went to bed at 10pm.

Wu woke up at about 5.30am the next day and retrieved the knife. She then walked to the couple's bedroom, which was not locked.

Madam Huang was sleeping on the bed with her 2-month-old son while Mr Tan was asleep on a makeshift bed at the balcony.

Wu walked towards Madam Huang and called out her name before stabbing her twice on her neck.

Madam Huang shouted for her husband, who woke and sat up on the bed.

Wu lunged at him and stabbed him twice in his chest and once in his abdomen.

Madam Huang tried to stop Wu in vain, then left the room to seek help from Mr Tan Lead Shake, who called the police when he saw his brother lying in a pool of blood.

Meanwhile, Wu left the couple's bedroom and went downstairs. She took her jacket, umbrella and wallet from the kitchen before trying to flee.

Wu went to the front gate but could not remember the number combination for the lock. She then ran to the back of the house and climbed over a gate.

Madam Ng had tried to stop her and suffered some cuts during the brief struggle.

Wu threw the knife into a drain as she ran off.

Mr Tan and Madam Huang were taken to Tan Tock Seng Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Madam Huang underwent an emergency operation.

Wu walked to Serangoon Shopping Centre, where she washed the bloodstains off her body using water from a drain behind the centre.

After changing out of her bloodstained T-shirt into the jacket, she took a bus to Toa Payoh Central, where she discarded her T-shirt and socks.

She then walked around aimlessly until a passer-by told her that her pants were torn at the back.

Buy new clothes

As the shops were not open yet, Wu took a taxi to the market at Block 105, Hougang Avenue 1, to buy new clothes.

She then changed before taking a bus to Bugis Junction, where she wandered aimlessly again.

Wu called her husband from a public phone around 12.15pm.

He persuaded her to surrender and she said she would wait for him at the National Library building at Victoria Street.

About an hour later, her husband, accompanied by police officers, arrived there and she was arrested.

Madam Huang, also a Singapore permanent resident, was in hospital for more than a week. The mother of two has since recovered.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27319.1

Constance Singam’s letter to AWARE

Constance Singam’s letter to AWARE

Sunday, 19 April 2009

Dear AWARE member,

These past few weeks have been difficult for me, as you can imagine. You all know of my long-term commitment to AWARE and AWARE’s objectives. In AWARE we have created a space where everyone is welcome; where everyone is respected whatever their choice in life; where I have made life-long friends. But I find myself unable to support, participate in or sanction the new approach of the 2009 Executive Committee of AWARE. I have therefore submitted my resignation from the EXCO as Immediate Past President.

I am writing this email to explain to the AWARE members whose email addresses I have in my personal computer why I have resigned from the EXCO.

The AWARE Constitution states that the immediate past president shall be on the EXCO as an adviser. Members of the 2009 EXCO referred to me as a ‘rock’ and ‘the foundation’, and a source of continuity and point of reference to AWARE’s history and culture. But at the first two meetings of the 2009 EXCO, when I offered my advice on a number of issues it was ignored.

I was particularly unhappy that my advice on the subcommittee chairs was totally disregarded. When the EXCO proposed to replace all subcommittee chairs with EXCO members, I protested and said it was AWARE’s long-standing practice to give more women, especially young women, the opportunity to acquire leadership skills and empowering them through experiences in sub-committee work. I reminded them that the coordinators have been working on these issues for some time and that summarily replacing them would be disrespectful and counter-productive. But EXCO ignored my advice.

The removal of the chair of the CEDAW Committee, Braema Mathi, is especially disturbing as Braema is the Singapore expert on CEDAW. Her work on CEDAW is respected internationally and there is arguably no better person in Singapore to lead the effort to produce the CEDAW shadow report. Yet, she was dismissed summarily without any stated reasons or even a simple thank you.

I am also very concerned about the possible ideological opposition of many members of the 2009 Executive Committee to AWARE’s historic fundamental values. The possible opposition to these values, or at least a lack of understanding of them, was obvious at the AGM when these new members failed to affirm Aware’s values. Several times those who were standing for election were asked to declare their understanding of feminism and the objectives of AWARE. The responses were, at best, non-committal.

Our values, which are the essence of this organization, are based on the fundamental rights and responsibilities of women as women. These include being treated as informed individuals capable of choice; being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in education, marriage and employment; and being able to control their own bodies, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health. Upholding and promoting these values is at the core of AWARE, and I expect
members who want to serve on the EXCO, particularly as office bearers, to understand and support this.

What the EXCO said in the press release issued on 15th April was a sharp contrast to the behavior of many of its members at our internal EXCO meetings. In their public statement the EXCO said: “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.” But in private meetings the EXCO showed a complete lack of respect for me, ignoring my advice and even keeping me out of an EXCO meeting when I had the right to be there as stated in the constitution.

News coming to light each day adds to my concern about the intentions and ability of the EXCO to lead AWARE. I was shocked to read the statements made by DBS in the last two days about the conduct of the new AWARE president, Josie Lau. DBS said - “We are disappointed that Josie knowingly disregarded DBS’ staff code of conduct twice. Such an attitude is not one that DBS, or any other organisation, can condone in a leader.” AWARE certainly should not.

I was even more concerned by the reports that Josie led the marketing team in DBS’s credit card campaign last year which supported the evangelical Christian organisation Focus on The Family. And this morning I discover in the media that Josie, Charlotte, Jenica, Maureen, Sally and Irene apparently attend the same church. AWARE is a secular organisation that embraces diversity of race, age, religion, culture and sexuality, and it must remain so. I am not at all confident that the current EXCO intends to ensure this.

Though I am resigning from the EXCO I remain committed to AWARE and its work, and I hope you will too. AWARE’s values and its work over the last 25 years are important for Singapore and we must do all we can to ensure it continues to be a voice for women in Singapore and a champion of diversity, tolerance and transparency.

Yours sincerely,

Constance Singam

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27365.1

Yaw Shin Leong's interview

工人党秘书饶欣龙 “先思后冲”不当“小怒汉”











工人党秘书饶欣龙。







 






理念不同,曾与刘程强起冲突,但工人党组织秘书饶欣龙说,经历9年政治历炼,他已非当年的“小怒汉”!



曾在2006年大选,被工人党派往宏茂桥集选区挑战李显龙总理团队的“敢死队”队长饶欣龙日前接受《联合晚报》专访时说,他从“样样都要冲”,逐渐转变成“先思后冲”。


33岁的饶欣龙,目前在私人学校担任讲师,也是一家生物认证科技公司的合伙人。


9年前加入工人党的他,“热血青年”形象鲜明。


工人党秘书长刘程强从政初期,言论风格具火药味,被华文报称为“潮州怒汉”;后来的饶欣龙,在媒体上,成了“小怒汉”。



回忆起这封号,饶欣龙笑说,“小怒汉”已成熟很多。“我体会到,要在政治发挥实质作用,持之以恒很重要。刘程强就曾对我说:‘你必须学会将火焰,转变成点燃的火炭’,即政治热忱与其烈火狂烧,更应如缓缓燃烧的火炭,才能持久释放热量。”


他回忆,入党不久,他建议把后港的青年基层组织的模式扩大到全岛,遭该区议员刘程强反对。为此,两人曾起冲突。


后来,尝试几个月后,饶欣龙意识到,对资源有限的工人党来说,这作法并不切实际,从而明白要落实任何计划,得先考虑它能否持之以恒。


“以前,我招募党员就好像在‘撒网’;现在我宁愿点花时间,小心物色好的人选。”




可能参加来届大选

不排除来届大选会应战,饶欣龙婉转表示,一切听从党的指示。



2006年大选带队挑战总理选区,回忆起3年前,宏茂桥集选区投票结果宣布那一刻,饶欣龙依然难掩兴奋之情。当时,他带领的工人党年轻团队得票率33.87%,被李显龙总理率领的行动党团队,以66.13%得票率击败。


“近5万张的选票,代表这些选民对我们的期望,这足以激励我继续坚持我们一直在做的事。”


他否认当时挑战总理选区是故意搞噱头,而坚称是要给宏茂桥选民“有机会作选择”。


“若对比各自所投入的资源和最终结果,我认为,我们的投资回报率很不错;见识到对手如何进行选战,对我们是很好的历炼。”


对于是否会参加来届大选,饶欣龙婉转表示,一切听从党的指示,但他相信,党在斟酌时,“会把我长期在基层的工作考虑在内。”



http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27359.1


 

Constance Singam quits as Aware adviser

Constance Singam quits as Aware adviser

Three-time president describes her unhappiness with the new team in a letter to long-time members. Wong Kim Hoh reports.

One voice had been silent in the controversy currently swirling around Singapore’s most well-known women’s group - that of stalwart and three-time president Constance Singam.

Yesterday afternoon, however, she broke her silence in a letter - marked confidential - to long-time members of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware).

She told them she had quit as adviser to the new executive committee steering the group. As immediate past president, Mrs Singam - under Aware’s Constitution - automatically earned an advisory role to the new committee.

The three-page letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Sunday Times, described her unhappiness with the new team, which took office after a leadership grab last month.

Mrs Singam, 72, wrote that although the team had publicly said that they would honour Aware’s founders and build on the good work of past members, their private behaviour suggested otherwise.

‘In private meetings, the exco showed a complete lack of respect for me, ignoring my advice and keeping me out of an exco meeting when I had the right to be there, as stated in the Constitution,’ wrote Mrs Singam who has served three terms as Aware president over the last 20 years.

She told members that she was especially unhappy with the new exco’s proposal to replace all the heads of Aware’s sub-committees with exco members.

There are about half a dozen sub-groups in Aware working on various women’s issues such as ageing, singles, work life, and Cedaw (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women).

Former Nominated MP Braema Mathi was axed by e-mail last week as chair of Cedaw, a position she had held since 2004.

Mrs Singam wrote in her letter: ‘I protested and said it was Aware’s longstanding practice to give more women, especially young women, the opportunity to acquire leadership skills and empowering them through experiences in sub-committee work.’

The exco ignored her advice, she said.

When contacted, Mrs Singam confirmed that she has quit as Aware adviser and that she penned the letter.

She told The Sunday Times she was not abandoning ship.

‘I am still an Aware member. Being outside the exco gives me more freedom and right to speak up, assert and push for the work that Aware has done all these years.’

The events of the last few weeks, she admitted, have been traumatising.

On March 28, the group was taken over by unknown faces who joined Aware only in recent months.

The takeover was like a bolt out of the blue.

‘I spent the first two days crying. It makes you suddenly realise the danger of not being vigilant.’

However, she added: ‘But that’s not the nature of the society. It’s always been open and welcoming and I will continue to fight for it to be open and egalitarian.

‘I’m not going to be defensive. It has happened, it’s a hard lesson, but Aware will continue.’

Mrs Singam is aware that the old guard has been described as sore losers by some who pointed out that the new team was legitimately voted in.

‘Why are we sore losers? We are just fighting and defending our values.

‘They walked in, took over, and they refused to tell us what they were going to do with Aware. They say they would honour the work of past Aware members, and the first thing that they do is to fire Braema.

‘There are just too many questions they are not answering.’

She said their silence has stoked and fuelled too much unhealthy debate, especially online, with speculation about the new team’s religious affiliations and anti-homosexual stance.

‘I am not at all happy where this is going. This is not a gay versus Christian debate,’ she said.

‘It is getting away from what Aware stands for. We have spoken up and initiated discussion on a lot of much broader issues - foreign worker abuse, domestic abuse, financial intelligence, education, body image, sexual harassment.

‘We address issues that have large and wide implications which affect society.’

She is concerned about the ‘possible ideological opposition of many members of the new team’.

She wrote in her letter: ‘Our values are based on the fundamental rights and responsibilities of women as women. These include being treated as informed individuals capable of choice, being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in education, marriage and employment; and being able to control their own bodies, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health.’

Meanwhile, news of her resignation upset many longstanding members.

Lawyer Halijah Mohamad, who is in her late 40s, said she was flabbergasted by the apparent high-handedness of the new team: ‘Bearing in mind that they are very new members, how could they disregard the advice of someone who has been such a long-time member, and who has an institutional knowledge of Aware?

‘By shutting her out, they are just showing that they have absolutely no interest in continuity.’

Madam Halijah was Aware’s vice-president in 1999/2000.

‘She should not have been put in that position to feel compelled to resign. We were aghast.’

Counsellor Ravqind Kaur, 24, a volunteer since 2006, agreed.

‘By keeping her out of decisions, they are showing her no respect. Any little confidence we might have in them has just been washed away.’

Postgraduate student Martha Lee, 32, said: ‘Constance has been with Aware for more than 20 years, and she would never resign without a good reason.

‘She has tried to engage them, reason with them, but they are not listening. They ask why we are being hostile and they said they want to reconcile but I don’t think reconciliation is on their agenda.’

Ms Lee has been a volunteer on several sub-committees since 2001.

Attempts by The Sunday Times to contact the new exco for comments yesterday were unsuccessful.

Mrs Singam said the jolt might have its upside: It has brought Aware members closer together.

It has even rallied new members such as Internet executive Hafizah Osman, 39, who joined Aware yesterday to show her support for what Mrs Singam and the old guard have achieved.

‘I was shocked when I heard she was quitting. I think she is obviously making a statement that she does not want the fundamentals of Aware to be compromised,’ she said.

‘The old guard has done wonderful work and it is so shameful that events of the last week have negated everything to just one issue - sexuality and religion.

‘It is much more. I don’t want Aware’s broad agenda to be lost.’

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27548.1

Business Degrees Not In Demand Anymore

Business Degrees Not In Demand Anymore

The mainstream media is apparently telling us that business degrees are no longer in demand. We are told a law degree can command a salary as high as $8,500 while arts and science courses are getting popular now.

On the front page of yesterday’s Business Times printed edition:

“Trainee lawyer bags $8,500 monthly pay
Foreign law firm pays record starting salary to NUS grad
LAW firms may be trimming costs and easing up on new hires, but a freshly minted young lawyer has just snared a record starting salary. She starts her working life on a pay of $8,500 a month.” (article is now available online)

Also on front page of today’s Sunday Times printed edition:

”Business degrees lose their attraction
Varsity applicants opt for science and arts as they scan the job scene down the road
The eye-popping six-figure salaries that banks were throwing at freshly minted graduates in recent years made business faculties the first choice for many university applicants… But the recession has provided a reality check this year… There is a shift away from business to courses such as arts and social sciences, which offer surer job prospects in teaching and the civil service.”

Before students flock to these other arts and science degree courses, maybe they should take a loot at our Dumping Ground rankings, which we derived from - guess-what - the graduate employment surveys from NUS, NTU and SMU.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27357.1

Too Many foreign workers in Singapore

Too Many foreign workers in Singapore

If you have read my posting before, you would have known my feelings on foreign workers in Singapore. If you do not, here’s my thought on them: There’s too many of them.

I feel that Singaporeans are losing out to foreign workers in Singapore as there are too many foreign workers in Singapore and the foreign workers are taking away jobs that can be taken by Singaporeans. The latest example is the 10,000 jobs at Sentosa's upcoming integrated resort (IR).

The Philippines President Gloria Arroyo has been quoted by 2 of the country's newspapers that half of the jobs on offer at the IR will be going to Filipinos. Singapore has of course denied this and said that the bulk of the jobs will be going to Singaporeans. 2 problems on the denial; one is that the President of the Philippines was the one who said this and she didn’t deny the quote. So if the bulk of the jobs are going to Singaporeans, it means that she was either wrong or lying. Two is that while the President of the Philippines was quoted saying that 5,000 jobs will go to Filipinos, you don’t hear any Ministers on Singapore’s side saying that the bulk of the jobs will be going to Singaporeans.

My latest personal experience on Singapore having too many foreign workers is when I know of a real estate agent working in Singapore…and she is from Japan. It seems that there are many real estate agents from foreign countries working in Singapore. There are Chinese, Indonesians, and evidently at least 1 from Japan. I am sorry but is there really a need in Singapore for foreign real estate agents? I can understand if they are providing service to other foreign Japanese, Indonesians etc foreign workers in Singapore (see, even more foreign workers), but are they providing a service that can’t be done by Singaporeans?

I know this is like talking to the wind but with the jobless rate climbing, maybe it’s high time that the Singapore government actually put some restrictions on the amount of foreigners working in Singapore like you know…every other country in the world right now.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27354.1