Silenced, defenceless

Silenced, defenceless

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

- Jim Morrison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because freedom is not a lofty word.

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

What should the Indian rojak man be charged for?

What should the Indian rojak man be charged for?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if this happens in Singapore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taiwan World Class Medical Insurance

Taiwan World Class Medical Insurance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign workers are included in the Medical Insurance Scheme.

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

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

Taiwan Medical Insurance is very Cheap!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goh Meng Seng


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

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

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

Aware's old guard have alienated many women

Aware's old guard have alienated many women

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

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

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

Ng Boon Sin (Ms)

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

Why Aware is important to ordinary Singaporeans

Why Aware is important to ordinary Singaporeans

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yap Ching Wi (Ms)

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

Aware should neither promote nor reject homosexuality

Aware should neither promote nor reject homosexuality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Tan

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

Speculation over anti-gay conspiracy is unhelpful

Speculation over anti-gay conspiracy is unhelpful

I AM concerned by the repeated emphasis in newspaper reports and cyberspace discussions on the religious beliefs of some of the newly appointed Aware committee members and their apparent position on homosexuality.

In many articles, there is mention of how most of the new leaders are Christians and that Dr Alan Chin, husband of new Aware president Josie Lau, has petitioned against homosexuality.

There is also an article, "Claire Nazar: Why I quit as Aware president", on Sunday which touched on the beliefs of Mrs Nazar, who resigned as Aware president.

Is there discrimination of people who are against homosexuality? In Singapore, everyone is entitled to his religious views and we should respect one another's views.

With regard to the issue of homosexuality, it has been discussed at length previously when the Government was reviewing the necessity of repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code.

After much discussion and engagement with the general public, the Government has not done so as it feels that our society is not ready for it. Dr Chin's stance against homosexuality is also a position that is consistent with other major religions in Singapore.

I hope that Singaporeans will continue to uphold our multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. I feel that speculation about an anti-homosexuality conspiracy is not constructive and might lead to unnecessary religious conflicts.

Instead of participating in and encouraging such speculation, the Aware executive committee should be given more space and time to set directions for the society

Yap Li Gin (Mdm)

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27571.1

Further restrictions on peaceful assembly in Singapore

Further restrictions on peaceful assembly in Singapore

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

PUBLIC STATEMENT

AI Index: ASA 36/003/2009

For immediate release: April 22 2009

On 13 April Singapore’s parliament passed a new Public Order Act, which further restricts the human right to freedom of peaceful assembly and enhances policing powers to the exclusion of adequate safeguards to prevent abuse.

The government stated that the Act was needed in advance of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit to be held in Singapore during November, when heads of state from member countries will meet. It claimed that such legislation was needed to combat the threat of terrorist acts during the summit.

Amnesty International recognizes the security concerns and the challenges of policing such a large event. However, this development has the potential of further constricting freedom of peaceful assembly in Singapore, which is already compromised. This law should be amended to ensure full compliance with international human rights standards.

The law complements and strengthens provisions of existing legislation, including the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) which have been used previously to suppress peaceful demonstrators.

These include prominent opposition leader, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. He was sentenced in November 2006, under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, to five weeks in jail after refusing to pay a S$5,000 fine for speaking in public without a permit, prior to the country's general election in May 2006.

Amnesty International calls on the Singapore government to meet its legal obligations under Article 14(1) of the Singapore Constitution to preserve freedom of speech and expression; the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and the right to form associations.

Amnesty International also calls upon Singapore to abide by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. While this right, as well as the right to peaceful assembly (in Art. 20(1) of the UDHR) may be restricted for purposes such as national security or public order, these restrictions can only be applied narrowly and to the extent necessitated by the specific circumstances.

A law which defines as few as two persons moving “substantially as a body of persons” in order to show opposition or support to somebody’s view, publicise a cause or commemorate an event (Sec. 2(1) of the Act) - as “a procession” which needs a permit and on which restrictions may be applied cannot be seriously considered as falling within internationally accepted limitations on these rights.

The circumstances under which permits may be denied are stated in Section 7(2), using vague language that can be broadly interpreted. This includes where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the proposed assembly or procession may “create a public nuisance” or “cause feelings of … ill will … between different groups in Singapore”.

The government can, under Sections 12, 25 and 28 of the Act, give enhanced powers to the police by declaring an event to be a prohibited one. This would enable police to stop and search any person who is entering or about to enter such an area. They may also search any person who is already in this area. They may question an individual’s reason for wanting to enter a venue and also deny entry to such a venue. Failure to comply will subject the individual to a fine and imprisonment. Amnesty International is concerned that these powers are excessive and open to abuse, which could result in violations of the rights to privacy and freedom of movement, as well as arbitrary detention.

Under Section 40 of the Act, police may arrest individuals without a warrant for contravening any of the Act’s provisions, which would include anyone who “assists or promotes… any assembly or procession” (Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Act).

Rather than restricting further the rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, Singapore should revise its laws and policies to accord with international human rights standards, including by ratifying international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The government should also seek guidance from international human rights monitoring bodies and experts on maintaining security while respecting and protecting human rights.

Background

Singapore imposes significant restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, particularly on critics of the government, the media, and peaceful demonstrations. In 2008, 18 activists and members of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party faced charges for holding unauthorised protest marches against the rising cost of living. In October 2008, already bankrupt Secretary-General of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, Dr. Chee Soon Juan and activist Chee Siok Chin were ordered to pay S$610,000(approximately US$406,000) in defamation damages to current and former government leaders. They were subsequently sentenced to prison for contempt of court after criticising the conduct of their trial. Although they have since been released, as bankrupts they were barred from seeking parliamentary seats or leaving the country without permission.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27814.1

Notice: Join AWARE and Vote

Notice: Join AWARE and Vote

There has been a flurry of activity and posts here at KRC regarding the coup at AWARE. I leave it for the the reader to judge if the new EXCO really has a religious agenda, but in any case here is an email going around which I thought might benefit from some publicity here.

I have reservations about the allegation that the organisation “Focus on the Family” is homophobic, but otherwise it seems likely that the new EXCO at AWARE might really harbour unfriendly attitudes towards the lesbian community! The email is as follows:

Dear Reader ,
AWARE is a leading advocacy group in promoting gender equality. They have never been explicitly pro-gay but they are definitely very gay friendly (they were strongly seen to support Repeal 377A last year). Their visions are such that a woman should not be discriminated against, regardless of her gender, race, religion, age and sexuality. However, this may not be the case anymore.

In an election last week within AWARE, 9 out of 12 seats within its exco went new faces. Among these 9 new faces, most of them have something in common. They have either written pretty homophobic stuff to the Straits Times Forum or they are from the same church, the Anglican Church Of Our Saviour. In other words, many of them hold a strongly religious and an anti-gay stance. These new members were also people who were never AWARE members previously but have only joined within the last few weeks or months to vote in the last election.

Most importantly, the new president of AWARE, Josie Lau, is also the VP of the credit card department in DBS. Some of you may recall reading about DBS credit card promotion last December where DBS/POSB card holders who spend up to $300 would assist DBS in donating up to $15,000 to the homophobic organization - Focus on the Family. During an interview shown on Channel News Asia on Sunday 19th April, Josie Lau also stated that AWARE will step in if a woman is being discriminated against due to her race or religion and hinted that the new AWARE may have to discuss whether they would step in to interfere if she was discriminated due to her sexuality.

NGOs (non-governmental organizations) should ALWAYS be secular but now it is being hijacked by these Christian fundamentalists who have a religious agenda. One of the reason why AWARE was hijacked because it is very established as an NGO and the government does listen to AWARE at times when it concerns gender issues. Secondly, if these Christian fundamentalists were to start their own organization, it would be labeled a Christian organization and hence it would be seen as being biased and its credibility greatly diminished.

I am urging all of you as part of the LGBT community do your part by JOINING AWARE as members and casting a no-confidence vote against the new administration during the EGM meeting. The EGM meeting will be held on the 2nd of May.

… Many of you may be apathetic about such issues, but gay-friendly organization such as AWARE which has been helping the LGBT community throughout the years has made our lives easier and better and also the community’s presence more visible too. It is about time that we help Constance Singam (the old president of AWARE) help AWARE get back on track.

Regards,
(name removed to protect identity).

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27734.39

Workers Party veteran Dr Tan Bin Seng struck off from Register of Medical Practitioners

April 22, 2009

GP struck off 2nd time

By Diana Othman
		The disciplinary committee of the SMC held an inquiry against Dr Tan Bin Seng (left) in August and March last year, and again in March this year, after which it decided to remove him from the Register. --PHOTO: ST

GENERAL practitioner Tan Bin Seng, 58, has been struck off the Medical Register for a second time after the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) found him guilty of over-prescribing benzodiazepines, a hypnotic drug.

GP is Woker's Party veteran Dr Tan Bin Seng is a Workers' Party (WP) veteran who first joined the party in 1985. He was its vice-chairman from 2003 to 2006. ... more

The disciplinary committee of the SMC held an inquiry against Dr Tan in August and March last year, and again in March this year, after which it decided to remove him from the Register of Medical Practitioners on April 13.

Dr Tan, who was practising at Occupational Health Clinic in Block 537 Bedok North Street 3, faced 21 charges of professional misconduct, all of which related to precription of bensodiazepines to 21 patients.

Benzodiazepines are drugs that may be prescribed for patients who have insomnia, or for the short-term relief of anxiety in patients.

Long-term use of benzodiazepines may lead to serious drug dependence, psychomotor impairment, tolerance and depression in patients.

Dr Tan was also accused of improper documentation of his patients' details, diagnosis, symptoms, conditions and management plans for these patients to justify the continued prescription of the medicine over the period of treatment, said SMC in a statement on Wednesday.

He also did not refer these patients to a medical specialist and psychiatrist.

He contested all 21 charges. The committee found him guilty of 20 counts and acquitted him of the remaining charge.

Dr Tan was previously convicted of seven charges of over-prescribing drugs and one charge of failing to keep proper records.

His name was struck off the Register in 1993 but restored in 1995 after he re-applied and assured the council that he would manage and treat his patients better.

Dr Tan could only apply for his name to be restored on the Register after at least three years from the date of being struck off.

He can only resume his practice if the application is approved by the council.

According to SMC, seven doctors were suspended in 2007 and 10 in 2008. Dr Tan's case is the first suspension this year thus far.

It added that the majority of such cases involved 'inappropriate drug prescribing', principally hypnotic drugs followed by Subutex.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27654.1

Ming Yi: Not 'aware'

April 22, 2009

REN CI HOSPITAL CASE

Ming Yi: Not 'aware'

By Selina Lum & Carolyn Quek
		Former Ren Ci Hospital Chief Ming Yi (right) is accused of misappropriating $50k of Ren Ci's funds by approving a loan to his former personal aide Raymond Yeung Chi Hang (left). --PHOTO: ST

WHEN Ernst and Young auditors moved in to check Ren Ci Hospital's finances in late 2006, they could not reconcile two loans made to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre.

Both sums - for $300,000 and $50,000 - were in Ren Ci's books, but not in Mandala's.

Taking the stand for the second day yesterday, Ming Yi, former chief executive of the charitable hospital, said: 'I was very worried because I did not know what had happened... I have said and mentioned to many people that whatever amounts from Ren Ci to Mandala and Bodhicherie, I would be responsible. So I was very worried.'

Mandala is a shop selling Buddhist artefacts while Bodhicherie is a vegetarian food business. Both are affiliated to Ren Ci.

The $50,000 loan is at the heart of the criminal trial now into its ninth day. Ming Yi has been accused of making a loan to Yeung, which both men later tried to cover up.

On Tuesday, Ming Yi dwelt at length on his life story and the difficulties he faced raising funds for Ren Ci. At the end of the day, District Judge Toh Yung Cheong suggested that he confine himself to broad points.

Ming Yi's lawyer, Senior Counsel Andre Yeap kept his client to point on Wednesday, questioning him on the $50,000, how he met Yeung and why he hired him without an employment pass initially.

Ming Yi said that during the probe, he was not aware that the 'missing' $50,000 had been used by Yeung for anything personal.

Ming Yi said Yeung repaid him in November 2007 from the sale proceeds of his property in Melbourne, which was given to him by an elderly monk.

It was only in January last year that Yeung 'confessed'', said Ming Yi without elaborating.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27646.1

No linking of hygiene ratings to food stall licence

No linking of hygiene ratings to food stall licence
By Hasnita Majid, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 22 April 2009 1818 hrs

	Photos 1 of 1 > " onclick="Next();" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_next.gif" type="image" width="18" height="15"> Hawker centre (file picture)
	Video No linking of hygiene ratings to food stall licence

SINGAPORE: The National Environment Agency (NEA) has no plans to link the grading system of food stalls to the renewal of their licence.

It will continue to use the system to gauge the cleanliness and hygiene at hawker centres.

Hygiene at food stalls has been in the spotlight following the recent mass food poisoning case at the Geylang Serai Temporary Market.

The Health Ministry has also suggested that the renewal of food stall tenders at hospitals be linked to their hygiene ratings.

However, Environment Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said that while he welcomed the suggestion, such a measure will not be implemented at hawker centres.

He said: "Mr Khaw has made some very helpful comments about hospital canteens, that's his prerogative and we welcome such a move. If more food establishments want a higher benchmark, then it's their prerogative.

"If we just penalise them just because they are (graded) Cs and Ds, there may be other implications. I think some hawkers have already mentioned... that this may affect their livelihood.

"So, rather than make it a legal requirement, we will work with them. On the part of NEA, we will continue to work with the hawkers and hawkers' association to improve their hygiene standard."

Dr Yaacob said the grading system is a sound and robust one. And because of the system, more food stalls are now graded A or B, compared to 1997 when the scheme was started. Currently, only seven out of 5,000 hawker stalls are graded D.

The environment minister added that consumers also play an important part.

"If the consumers decide that 'I'm not going to patronise a C (graded stall) but I'm going to patronise a B (graded stall)', then the signal sent (to the hawkers) is that 'Hey, at the end of the day, I better improve'," said Dr Yaacob, who is also the Water Resources Minister.

Dr Yaacob said one way of improving hygiene standards is to implement the Hawker's Upgrading Programme. In fact, 99 per cent of all stalls in the programme have received an A or B grade.

"So it shows that as we begin to improve the ambience... better design, better layout, more places for cleaning, they (stallholders) can do a better job in terms of improving their hygiene standard. But whatever we say, lapses can occur whether you are an A or C," he said.

Dr Yaacob said NEA is also finalising enforcement action against the owner of the rojak stall in the Geylang Serai food poisoning case.

The minister was speaking at the launch of an S$8 million 3R Fund, as part of Earth Day. The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (3R) Fund aims to co-pay up to 80 per cent of the costs of new projects that can lead to waste minimisation and recycling of products.

The Regent Singapore, which already has a recycling programme since 2007, plans to apply for the fund.

The hotel's recycling programme has helped to reduce the amount of waste disposed by more than 40 per cent - from 720 tonnes to 400 tonnes per year.

The Fund is open to all companies and Singapore-registered organisations.

The Regent Singapore's director for engineering, Lee Baharuddin, said: "We are looking for a machinery that can compact all the recycled waste, because currently we are using a lot of waste bins, almost 200 waste bins in the hotel. We are trying to reduce that."

The Regent said recycling has helped to reduce its waste disposal costs by 12 per cent every year. This is because it receives a S$7,000 rebate yearly for the wastes collected.

The government is expected to release soon a blueprint that sets its long-term recycling target.

- CNA/ir

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27636.1

EYES ON AWARE

EYES ON AWARE

Global

Basic Info

Type:

Organizations - Political Organizations

Description:

The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) is one of Singapore's best-known women's groups, dedicated to supporting gender equality. On March 28, Aware was taken over by a group of newcomers who had only recently joined the organisation. 102 people turned up for Aware's annual general meeting (AGM), which had been relatively less well-attended in the past. 80 of these attendants had only recently joined Aware between January and March 2009. When the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by a member of this group. 9 out of 12 of the executive committee memberships went to newcomers, who were voted in by wide majorities. Mrs Claire Nazar - one of the few old members of Aware to be voted in - became President. She resigned a week into her new term and declined to make any public comment. It is not yet known who will become President. There are wide-ranging suspicions that this "leadership grab" has been orchestrated by conservative Christians seeking to use the name and the resources of a well-respected institution to further their own agenda. These concerns have been expressed not only by onlookers, but by older members of Aware. WHY SHOULD I CARE? ------------------------------------ Besides the fact that Aware is one of the most well-respected and well-run institutions in Singapore dedicated to helping women? And the fact that its takeover, while ostensibly democratic, has more to do with a military coup than an actual legitimate democratic process? 1. Gender Equality Aware is one of the leading voices for gender equality in Singapore, and has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of this cause. Its full list of achievements can be seen here (http://www.aware.org.sg/?page_id=19). When the newcomers were asked whether they believed in gender equality, they refused to answer and "kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them" (Dana Lam). We say: This is ridiculous. Aware was set up to promote gender equality. It is completely absurd for it to be taken over by a new executive that not only refuses to state whether it supports the basic principle of the group's existence, but then issues vague, supposedly comforting platitudes about making sure women get what they deserve. 2. Freedom of Sexuality The blog Alice Cheong in Wonderland has found that the new Honorary Secretary, Jenica Chua, has written in to the Straits Times supporting the criminalisation of homosexual acts. Other new members present, Angela Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, have written similar letters to the Forum pages. As Fridae.com has noted, Aware was "one of a number of non-governmental groups in Singapore [...] which have called for both Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code to be repealed completely in 2007". In other words, Aware supports sexual equality as well as gender equality - it actively aligns itself against homophobia and anti-gay legislation. None of this sits well with the apparent inclinations of its new members. However, when asked whether or not the newcomers shared Aware's vision and values, Thiang stated that "questions about the new office bearers' religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant". We say: That's not what you want to hear from people whose personal beliefs appear to run contrary to the values of an organisation they have been elected to lead. We say: If these people are willing to publicly express these beliefs in the ST Forum pages, then they won't exactly be able (or willing) to put these away in order to run Aware the way it should rightly be - according to values of gender, sexual, racial and religious equality. 3. Outreach and Support Aware runs a comprehensive sexual education programme in Singapore schools, teaching youths how to have responsible, healthy and mature sexual and romantic relationships. It does not support abstinence of "scare tactics" and seeks to "bring sexuality out into the open" (aware.org.sg). We say: If Aware has been taken over by conservative Christians, how long do you think this programme will last? Aware also runs Direct Services, which provides helplines, counsellors, legal advisors and support groups for all women, regardless of race, religion or sexuality. We say: The objective, non-judgemental and welcoming approach of Aware is what distinguishes it from other women's groups, which often align themselves with religious or ethnic organisations. Singaporean women need an organisation like this to exist, and for its agenda to be unspoiled by those seeking to hijack it for their own means. WHAT CAN YOU DO? ------------------- Do you agree with this group? Join it. Invite your friends and your family - Singaporean or not, male or female, Christian and non-Christian, gay or straight. We want to be as inclusive as the new executive is turning out not to be. More importantly, keep watching Aware. Email or write letters to the new executive and let them know that you are concerned for the organisation and hope that its new executive will remain true to the values of Aware. Attend open meetings and express your concerns. (We recommend asking new members of the executive if they believe in feminism. Then watch them try to ramble their way out.) Better yet, become a member. Yearly membership costs $5 if you're a student below the age of 25, or $40 otherwise. (You can join if you're a man.) You can then vote in elections (or stand for election yourself). Voting keeps the new executive accountable to its members and the organisation itself. Guess what? If there are enough of us, voting also has the handy function of kicking out members of the executive.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=164268800267

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27549.1