If the women in Singapore were looking for an champion for singlehood, this wasn’t it.
Writing another eye opening contribution that provides a peek into the life and times of a super talented family in Singapore, she revealed that as late as 10 years ago “there was a slim chance I might have got married.” Meaning, at age 44, Lee Wei Ling was still trying to stave off a lonely conclusion to a physical existence. Her rationalization that “better one person feeling lonely than two people miserable because they cannot adapt to each other” is as good a self denial as any. Probably never heard of couples who kiss and make up, in bed, under satin sheets. Dad didn’t exactly help by saying that “Your mother and I could be selfish and feel happy that you remain single and can look after us in our old age.” Especially when dad had earlier told the world she couldn’t cook to save her own life. Her repartee to that was, as the eldest son in a typical Peranakan family, father “cannot even crack a soft-boiled egg.”
All that material may make a great soap opera, but definitely not healthy ingredients for nationhood building. At least not for a nation of happy, well-adjusted, family orientated citizens.
You puzzle at her logic when she told of a first date at 21, when she dropped her doctor suitor (”like a hot potato”) because he brought her to a dinner party of rich socialites. Is she blind to the crowd that her father and brother rub shoulders with? The types that probably makes Obama a pariah because their take home pay is several times over that of the President of the USA?
Thankfully she was honest about her mistake telling a young single woman to spend 8 years pursuing a neurology course overseas. Poor dear returned to Singapore at her late 30s, and worries she may have missed her chance to get married. Perhaps her brain could not multi-task swotting and canoodling while on campus.
Once a senior management consultant, married and in her late 20s, confided that if she was still single, she wouldn’t have the confidence to rejoin the dating game. She was a pleasant and attractive lady, maybe not in physical attributes, spoke and dressed well, and it was tempting to tell her that should her ungrateful spouse dump her, she needn’t look far for another life partner. It boils down to a matter of choice. And freewill. Elements that separates civilised humans from the lower animals. And damn all those that try to take it from us.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26065.1
Monday, April 6, 2009
PAP has not learnt the lessons from AIG
The ruling party has not learnt the lessons from AIG
At the launch of this year’s Singapore Kindness Month on Saturday, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Lim Boon Heng said that the word “bonus” has become a dirty word, with its meaning highly misunderstood. He said that “companies’ bonuses are part and parcel of the overall wage package“, that “we now operate differently from the past“, and hence we should not “get overexcited whenever we see the word ‘bonus’ being used“. (ST, “Bonus need not be a dirty word”, 05 April 2009)
It is surprising that Mr Lim Boon Heng should use Kindness Month as an opportunity to speak about executive compensation and the uproar that it has engendered in recent days. At first glance I simply cannot see any connection between the two, unless Mr Lim is trying to hint to us that we should be kind to CEOs who get paid fat bonuses, as well as politicians and Ministers who get paid multi-million dollar salaries.
Mr Lim said the uproar over bonuses paid by troubled firms like AIG was because the American public perceived these to have come from Government bailouts, but that “people should not mistake a bonus as somebody getting something extra and undeserved and out of line with the current economic situation“.
Mr Lim Boon Heng has gotten his case wrong. The outcry over the mega bonuses paid by AIG was not simply due to the fact that AIG had been bailed out by American taxpayers’ money, but also due to the fact that managers and executives at AIG had, for the past several years, indulged in highly speculative and risky activity that brought down the whole company and threatened the entire financial system when the US housing market collapsed. The traders and executives at AIG essentially turned the company into an enormous hedge fund that placed highly leveraged bets on exotic instruments connected to subprime mortgages, credit default swaps, and other highly risky instruments that imploded when the US housing bubble burst. The immense anger and frustration over the fat bonuses paid to AIG executives, which run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, is due to the perception that these executives simply don’t deserve to be enriched for causing such extensive damage to the financial system and yet get compensated using taxpayers’ dollars.
In this case, it was sheer greed that brought down AIG, and there is a very strong case to be made that AIG’s executives did indeed obtain compensation that was undeserved and out of line. Interestingly, this is the exact same criticism that has been leveled at Ministerial salaries in Singapore.
We do not need Mr Lim Boon Heng to remind us that bonuses are part and parcel of the overall wage package, and neither will I begrudge anyone getting adequately paid for outstanding work or service rendered. However, the issue here is whether the compensation paid is just, especially when taxpayers’ dollars are involved, and it should not be swept under the carpet merely by appealing to the notion that “we now operate differently from the past”. It would be abhorrent to cover up wrongdoing or unjust compensation merely by proclaiming that times are different now.
The issue of fair compensation has cropped up recently in Singapore as well, with an outcry over two CDC officers allegedly receiving up to 8 months worth of bonuses at a time when the local economy is spiraling downwards and job losses are mounting. To add salt to injury, the People’s Association (PA), which manages the staff at all 5 CDCs, as well as Northwest District Mayor Dr Teo Ho Pin, who is in charge of the CDC where those two officers allegedly came from, refused to provide any concrete information on the case. Dr Teo even said that it was “not unreasonable for CDC staff to receive 8 months of bonuses“. (See here.)
Sheer greed and the lack of transparency and accountability to stakeholders was what brought down the insurance giant AIG. From the remarks made by Mr Lim Boon Heng and Dr Teo Ho Pin, it seems that the ruling party has not learnt the lessons from AIG, but seems ever intent on perpetuating those conditions that resulted in AIG’s collapse, for their own selfish ends.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26063.1
At the launch of this year’s Singapore Kindness Month on Saturday, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Lim Boon Heng said that the word “bonus” has become a dirty word, with its meaning highly misunderstood. He said that “companies’ bonuses are part and parcel of the overall wage package“, that “we now operate differently from the past“, and hence we should not “get overexcited whenever we see the word ‘bonus’ being used“. (ST, “Bonus need not be a dirty word”, 05 April 2009)
It is surprising that Mr Lim Boon Heng should use Kindness Month as an opportunity to speak about executive compensation and the uproar that it has engendered in recent days. At first glance I simply cannot see any connection between the two, unless Mr Lim is trying to hint to us that we should be kind to CEOs who get paid fat bonuses, as well as politicians and Ministers who get paid multi-million dollar salaries.
Mr Lim said the uproar over bonuses paid by troubled firms like AIG was because the American public perceived these to have come from Government bailouts, but that “people should not mistake a bonus as somebody getting something extra and undeserved and out of line with the current economic situation“.
Mr Lim Boon Heng has gotten his case wrong. The outcry over the mega bonuses paid by AIG was not simply due to the fact that AIG had been bailed out by American taxpayers’ money, but also due to the fact that managers and executives at AIG had, for the past several years, indulged in highly speculative and risky activity that brought down the whole company and threatened the entire financial system when the US housing market collapsed. The traders and executives at AIG essentially turned the company into an enormous hedge fund that placed highly leveraged bets on exotic instruments connected to subprime mortgages, credit default swaps, and other highly risky instruments that imploded when the US housing bubble burst. The immense anger and frustration over the fat bonuses paid to AIG executives, which run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, is due to the perception that these executives simply don’t deserve to be enriched for causing such extensive damage to the financial system and yet get compensated using taxpayers’ dollars.
In this case, it was sheer greed that brought down AIG, and there is a very strong case to be made that AIG’s executives did indeed obtain compensation that was undeserved and out of line. Interestingly, this is the exact same criticism that has been leveled at Ministerial salaries in Singapore.
We do not need Mr Lim Boon Heng to remind us that bonuses are part and parcel of the overall wage package, and neither will I begrudge anyone getting adequately paid for outstanding work or service rendered. However, the issue here is whether the compensation paid is just, especially when taxpayers’ dollars are involved, and it should not be swept under the carpet merely by appealing to the notion that “we now operate differently from the past”. It would be abhorrent to cover up wrongdoing or unjust compensation merely by proclaiming that times are different now.
The issue of fair compensation has cropped up recently in Singapore as well, with an outcry over two CDC officers allegedly receiving up to 8 months worth of bonuses at a time when the local economy is spiraling downwards and job losses are mounting. To add salt to injury, the People’s Association (PA), which manages the staff at all 5 CDCs, as well as Northwest District Mayor Dr Teo Ho Pin, who is in charge of the CDC where those two officers allegedly came from, refused to provide any concrete information on the case. Dr Teo even said that it was “not unreasonable for CDC staff to receive 8 months of bonuses“. (See here.)
Sheer greed and the lack of transparency and accountability to stakeholders was what brought down the insurance giant AIG. From the remarks made by Mr Lim Boon Heng and Dr Teo Ho Pin, it seems that the ruling party has not learnt the lessons from AIG, but seems ever intent on perpetuating those conditions that resulted in AIG’s collapse, for their own selfish ends.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26063.1
A good and competent government is no longer enough for Singaporeans
A good and competent government is no longer enough for Singaporeans
When asked by the media if he felt that younger Singaporeans could want change in political leadership like in the United States, newly anointed Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean replied that what voters young or old want is good and competent government. (read article here)
Singaporeans do want a good and competent government, but to many of them, especially the younger generation, it is no longer enough just to be “good” and “competent”.
Singapore is fortunate to have such a government in the early years of independence which laid down the foundations of our nation, transforming us from a third world outpost of the British colonial empire to an affluent developed country in the span of two generations.
After 44 years of nationhood, it is no longer good enough for Singapore just to have a good and competent government.
Nazi Germany was a good and competent government too. Under the Third Reich, crime was almost non-existent, the economy grew at a frantic pace and Germany managed to repay its foreign debts incurred during World War I to become a major European power again under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.
The Republic of Korea under the President Park Chung-hee was considered a good and competent government as well. Park oversaw the modernization of the Korean economy and transformed a rural, backward country to one of the wealthiest country in the world today.
Yet, these good and competent governments do not last long because they lack accountability, transparency and responsibility to the people. They may prosper for a period of time, but will never leave a long-lasting legacy behind to future generations as the real power behind their reign does not lie with the people, but dictators.
On the whole, the PAP government has been a relatively good and competent government, but it fails miserably in other critical attributes such as accountability and transparency.
A responsible government is one which dares to admit its mistakes to the public, learn from them and rectify them immediately to prevent a recurrence.
The Minister of Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng should have at least offered a public apology to the people for the escape of JI terrorist Mas Selamat Kasteri last year.
We have lost quite a substantial amounts of our reserves in ill-timed investments in ailing U.S. and European banks which would have called for an inquiry in other countries, but nobody has stepped forward to accept responsbility for the error.
What’s so difficult of saying “I am sorry, but I screw up”? Even United States President Barack Obama, the most powerful man in the world has the humility and decency to admit and apologize for his mistake over the appointment of his Treasury Secretary.
To err is only human. No man is infallible. An culture permitting deficiencies to be aired openly in public is important in any governments so that inadvertent mistakes made can be revealed and rectified instead of being swept under the carpet.
Accountability in governance means to give an explanation to the people for every single action, major or minor, taken by the government and the explanation must be as complete, detailed and truthful as possible.
While it may appear harsh to criticize the Singapore government for a lack of accountability, there are many areas in which its response has been found pretty wanting.
Why did GIC decide to invest billion of dollars in Citibank last year in the midst of the financial crisis? Who made the decision and what was the rationale behind?
Why do Singapore need to have two Senior Ministers and two Deputy Prime Ministers in the cabinet? What does the Minister Mentor do to deserve his high salary?
Till today, we have no idea about what happened.
The PAP government has always defended the need to peg their salaries to the private sector in order to attract the best talents to join them. It is both disingenuous and unreasonable for them to demand private sector salaries and not adhere to good standards of corporate governance at the same time.
Public-listed companies release the salaries, bonuses and perks receive by its top honchos. As SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa puts it succinctly, ‘I think disclosure is very important . . . deliberate omission is as sinful as telling a lie sometimes.’ (read report here)
The Singapore government is often described as Singapore INC to reflect the corporate style in which it is run. The people of Singapore are the stakeholders in Singapore INC. We should hold it to higher standards of transparency than a public-listed company.
Transparency demands a timely release of information. We have been kept in the dark on so many issues of national importance for far too long.
How much money did GIC lose exactly? What is the size of our reserves now? How many months of bonuses did the ministers receive last year? What are the salaries and bonuses of the CDC staff? What is the cost price of one HDB flat?
The list goes on. Just because there is no opposition MP to ask these relevant questions in Parliament doesn’t mean the government can conveniently ignore our concerns and turn a blind eye to them.
A good, honest and competent government has nothing to hide from the people. It is always forthcoming in the release of information and responsive to queries from the people.
DPM Teo Chee Hean should know better himself if the PAP government is a responsible, accountable and transparent government.
To cosmopolitan Singaporeans who are widely traveled, even possessing all these three qualities may no longer be enough.
When I was in Xiamen in 2007 on a business trip, I found myself in the midst of a protest march by residents to protest against a chemical plant which is planned in the vicinity.
The protestors were allowed to march peacefully to the municipal office to shout slogans and invectives at the city’s mayor before dispersing on their own accord. There was a sizable police force outside the building, but no arrests were made. I was flabbergasted and wondered if I was indeed in a communist country.
In March last year, 18 activists of the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign were stopped and arrested by the police for holding an “illegal procession”. And just recently, I read a law will be passed soon to forbid the assembly of even one person in public. Are we living in Stalin’s Soviet Union or a first world country?
At that particular moment, I feel ashamed to be a Singaporean citizen. I have never voted in my entire life. This is not the type of government I want and I did not even vote for it.
In his first speech as Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Hsien Loong pledged to build an “inclusive” society for all Singaporeans. He did not live up to his promise at all.
An inclusive society is one which embraces diversity and tolerates dissenting voices, not one which makes use of the law to clamp down on the opposition in order to preserve the ruling party’s political hegemony and interests.
Competence and democracy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they cannot do without each other. Democracy holds political leaders accountable to the people which ensures they exercise due diligence and competence in the discharge of their duties.
Without democracy as the whip to check on the government, it will be like a wild horse which can gallop at dazzling speeds, but is unwilling to be brought to a halt at will.
In his parting shot, Mr Teo said “‘Any political party, any government who wishes to stay in power, has to continue to be able to meet those challenges, the needs, the requirements of the population, young or old.”
I cannot agree with him more. The PAP has failed to meet the needs and aspirations of the population so far. Without the GRC system, a weak opposition and a compliant media under its thumb, it would have been booted out of office a long time ago.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26054.1
When asked by the media if he felt that younger Singaporeans could want change in political leadership like in the United States, newly anointed Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean replied that what voters young or old want is good and competent government. (read article here)
Singaporeans do want a good and competent government, but to many of them, especially the younger generation, it is no longer enough just to be “good” and “competent”.
Singapore is fortunate to have such a government in the early years of independence which laid down the foundations of our nation, transforming us from a third world outpost of the British colonial empire to an affluent developed country in the span of two generations.
After 44 years of nationhood, it is no longer good enough for Singapore just to have a good and competent government.
Nazi Germany was a good and competent government too. Under the Third Reich, crime was almost non-existent, the economy grew at a frantic pace and Germany managed to repay its foreign debts incurred during World War I to become a major European power again under the leadership of Adolf Hitler.
The Republic of Korea under the President Park Chung-hee was considered a good and competent government as well. Park oversaw the modernization of the Korean economy and transformed a rural, backward country to one of the wealthiest country in the world today.
Yet, these good and competent governments do not last long because they lack accountability, transparency and responsibility to the people. They may prosper for a period of time, but will never leave a long-lasting legacy behind to future generations as the real power behind their reign does not lie with the people, but dictators.
On the whole, the PAP government has been a relatively good and competent government, but it fails miserably in other critical attributes such as accountability and transparency.
A responsible government is one which dares to admit its mistakes to the public, learn from them and rectify them immediately to prevent a recurrence.
The Minister of Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng should have at least offered a public apology to the people for the escape of JI terrorist Mas Selamat Kasteri last year.
We have lost quite a substantial amounts of our reserves in ill-timed investments in ailing U.S. and European banks which would have called for an inquiry in other countries, but nobody has stepped forward to accept responsbility for the error.
What’s so difficult of saying “I am sorry, but I screw up”? Even United States President Barack Obama, the most powerful man in the world has the humility and decency to admit and apologize for his mistake over the appointment of his Treasury Secretary.
To err is only human. No man is infallible. An culture permitting deficiencies to be aired openly in public is important in any governments so that inadvertent mistakes made can be revealed and rectified instead of being swept under the carpet.
Accountability in governance means to give an explanation to the people for every single action, major or minor, taken by the government and the explanation must be as complete, detailed and truthful as possible.
While it may appear harsh to criticize the Singapore government for a lack of accountability, there are many areas in which its response has been found pretty wanting.
Why did GIC decide to invest billion of dollars in Citibank last year in the midst of the financial crisis? Who made the decision and what was the rationale behind?
Why do Singapore need to have two Senior Ministers and two Deputy Prime Ministers in the cabinet? What does the Minister Mentor do to deserve his high salary?
Till today, we have no idea about what happened.
The PAP government has always defended the need to peg their salaries to the private sector in order to attract the best talents to join them. It is both disingenuous and unreasonable for them to demand private sector salaries and not adhere to good standards of corporate governance at the same time.
Public-listed companies release the salaries, bonuses and perks receive by its top honchos. As SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa puts it succinctly, ‘I think disclosure is very important . . . deliberate omission is as sinful as telling a lie sometimes.’ (read report here)
The Singapore government is often described as Singapore INC to reflect the corporate style in which it is run. The people of Singapore are the stakeholders in Singapore INC. We should hold it to higher standards of transparency than a public-listed company.
Transparency demands a timely release of information. We have been kept in the dark on so many issues of national importance for far too long.
How much money did GIC lose exactly? What is the size of our reserves now? How many months of bonuses did the ministers receive last year? What are the salaries and bonuses of the CDC staff? What is the cost price of one HDB flat?
The list goes on. Just because there is no opposition MP to ask these relevant questions in Parliament doesn’t mean the government can conveniently ignore our concerns and turn a blind eye to them.
A good, honest and competent government has nothing to hide from the people. It is always forthcoming in the release of information and responsive to queries from the people.
DPM Teo Chee Hean should know better himself if the PAP government is a responsible, accountable and transparent government.
To cosmopolitan Singaporeans who are widely traveled, even possessing all these three qualities may no longer be enough.
When I was in Xiamen in 2007 on a business trip, I found myself in the midst of a protest march by residents to protest against a chemical plant which is planned in the vicinity.
The protestors were allowed to march peacefully to the municipal office to shout slogans and invectives at the city’s mayor before dispersing on their own accord. There was a sizable police force outside the building, but no arrests were made. I was flabbergasted and wondered if I was indeed in a communist country.
In March last year, 18 activists of the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign were stopped and arrested by the police for holding an “illegal procession”. And just recently, I read a law will be passed soon to forbid the assembly of even one person in public. Are we living in Stalin’s Soviet Union or a first world country?
At that particular moment, I feel ashamed to be a Singaporean citizen. I have never voted in my entire life. This is not the type of government I want and I did not even vote for it.
In his first speech as Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee Hsien Loong pledged to build an “inclusive” society for all Singaporeans. He did not live up to his promise at all.
An inclusive society is one which embraces diversity and tolerates dissenting voices, not one which makes use of the law to clamp down on the opposition in order to preserve the ruling party’s political hegemony and interests.
Competence and democracy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they cannot do without each other. Democracy holds political leaders accountable to the people which ensures they exercise due diligence and competence in the discharge of their duties.
Without democracy as the whip to check on the government, it will be like a wild horse which can gallop at dazzling speeds, but is unwilling to be brought to a halt at will.
In his parting shot, Mr Teo said “‘Any political party, any government who wishes to stay in power, has to continue to be able to meet those challenges, the needs, the requirements of the population, young or old.”
I cannot agree with him more. The PAP has failed to meet the needs and aspirations of the population so far. Without the GRC system, a weak opposition and a compliant media under its thumb, it would have been booted out of office a long time ago.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26054.1
Lee Wei Ling: The day Michael Fay saved me from jail
The day Michael Fay saved me from jail
Even in the US, some believe that giving up a bit of freedom can serve the greater good
By Lee Wei Ling
Someone e-mailed me an article from the San Francisco Chronicle titled 'Singapore blooms as lush as Eden itself', by Linda Watanabe McFerrin, about our city in a garden.
'Unfortunately, what most Westerners know about Singapore,' she notes, 'is limited to the restrictions imposed on its citizens by a repressive government that dictates the mix of races; regulates reproductive matters, public housing and other seemingly personal matters; bans chewing gum, canes kids and keeps a stranglehold on the media.'
I read the article with amusement and recalled the day Michael Fay saved me from being thrown into jail in New Hampshire. For those too young to remember Fay, let me relate his story.
In 1993, the then 18-year-old and his friends damaged 18 cars in a 10-day spree of vandalism and mischief.
Stolen road signs and Singapore flags were also found in his home. Fay was caught, charged and pleaded guilty.
The judge sentenced him to six strokes of the cane and four months in jail.
The American media went berserk; then US President Bill Clinton appealed to then President Ong Teng Cheong to pardon the teenager; the Singapore Government agreed to reduce the sentence to four strokes of the rotan; the
US media was not satisfied.
At the time of his arrest in Singapore, Fay was living with his mother and stepfather. On his release from prison in June 1994, he returned to the US to live with his father.
A few months later, the US press reported that he had come home intoxicated late one night and had charged at his father. A month later, he was badly burnt sniffing butane when a friend struck a match.
He admitted that he had been a butane addict while in Singapore.
Fay was far from my mind when I spent three wonderful days hiking in the White Mountains of New Hampshire in October 1995.
It was fall and the mountains were covered with red, yellow, rust and gold foliage with tiny flecks of green - a work of art which no human painter can ever equal either in magnitude or splendour.
Just before heading back to Boston, I stopped at a tiny souvenir shop. I bought a sweatshirt with a moose printed on it for my mother.
I then saw a T-shirt with the New Hampshire state emblem, the head of an eagle, and the words 'Live Free or Die' printed around the emblem.
I have always avoided wearing anything which makes a statement. But I could not resist buying this T-shirt.
Then I hit the highway again, heading for Boston.
The highways in America are wonderful. They are multiple-lane affairs, with a physical separation between the traffic going in opposite directions. This makes speeding on them safer than in Singapore.
Soon, I was cruising at 195kmh with Scottish music playing at full blast in the background.
Because of the loud music, it took me some time before I noticed a police siren and slowed down.
With its red, white and blue lights flashing, the police car overtook my vehicle and signalled for me to pull over. I did so and the police car stopped ahead of me.
The policeman walked over to my car, demanded to see my driving licence, then yanked me out, saying: 'I am bringing you to the police station to be locked up.'
I protested: 'I was only speeding. I will pay the fine and you should let me off.'
He shot back: 'You were not only speeding. You disobeyed the law by not stopping immediately when I flashed the light to signal you to stop.'
He shoved me into his car and drove off, leaving my rental car by the roadside with all my belongings, including my newly purchased T-shirts, in it and the car door still open.
He radioed back to the police station, saying he was bringing someone in to the lock-up.
'What do you work as?' he asked me.
I replied: 'I am a doctor.'
'I hope you are a better doctor than a driver. Are you on drugs?'
'No. Do I look as though I am on drugs?'
'No, you look as though you were concentrating on overtaking every car ahead of you.'
That was indeed what I was doing. How often in Singapore can one drive at 195kmh? But I chose not to voice that thought.
Suddenly he asked: 'What do Singaporeans think of Americans?'
I replied quite sincerely: 'We like Americans. Hewlett-Packard, IBM and other multinational companies create jobs for us. But you probably don't like Singaporeans because we caned Michael Fay.'
His whole demeanour changed when I mentioned Fay.
'Michael Fay deserved to be caned,' he said firmly. 'He has been causing trouble since he returned to the US.'
He told me how his best friend, also a policeman, had been shot point-blank and died that morning when he stopped a speeding car. That was why he was in such a foul mood.
From that point on, our conversation got friendlier. We talked about hiking in New Hampshire, how we drove on the left in Singapore and so on.
Without my realising it, he had turned around and had driven back to where my rental car was. A tow truck had just arrived, but my policeman shooed it away.
He walked me to my car, told me to 'drive safely' and walked off. He did not fine me, nor did he charge me for activating the tow truck.
I drove back to Boston hardly believing my good luck.
American journalists may flog Singapore because of its perceived limitations on personal freedom, but there are some Americans - even in 'Live Free or Die' New Hampshire - who feel that a compromise in personal freedom to prevent anti-social behaviour is necessary for the welfare of society.
Most Singaporeans and many Americans would agree with that sentiment.
The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute. Send your comments to suntimes@sph.com.sg
Even in the US, some believe that giving up a bit of freedom can serve the greater good
By Lee Wei Ling
Someone e-mailed me an article from the San Francisco Chronicle titled 'Singapore blooms as lush as Eden itself', by Linda Watanabe McFerrin, about our city in a garden.
'Unfortunately, what most Westerners know about Singapore,' she notes, 'is limited to the restrictions imposed on its citizens by a repressive government that dictates the mix of races; regulates reproductive matters, public housing and other seemingly personal matters; bans chewing gum, canes kids and keeps a stranglehold on the media.'
I read the article with amusement and recalled the day Michael Fay saved me from being thrown into jail in New Hampshire. For those too young to remember Fay, let me relate his story.
In 1993, the then 18-year-old and his friends damaged 18 cars in a 10-day spree of vandalism and mischief.
Stolen road signs and Singapore flags were also found in his home. Fay was caught, charged and pleaded guilty.
The judge sentenced him to six strokes of the cane and four months in jail.
The American media went berserk; then US President Bill Clinton appealed to then President Ong Teng Cheong to pardon the teenager; the Singapore Government agreed to reduce the sentence to four strokes of the rotan; the
US media was not satisfied.
At the time of his arrest in Singapore, Fay was living with his mother and stepfather. On his release from prison in June 1994, he returned to the US to live with his father.
A few months later, the US press reported that he had come home intoxicated late one night and had charged at his father. A month later, he was badly burnt sniffing butane when a friend struck a match.
He admitted that he had been a butane addict while in Singapore.
Fay was far from my mind when I spent three wonderful days hiking in the White Mountains of New Hampshire in October 1995.
It was fall and the mountains were covered with red, yellow, rust and gold foliage with tiny flecks of green - a work of art which no human painter can ever equal either in magnitude or splendour.
Just before heading back to Boston, I stopped at a tiny souvenir shop. I bought a sweatshirt with a moose printed on it for my mother.
I then saw a T-shirt with the New Hampshire state emblem, the head of an eagle, and the words 'Live Free or Die' printed around the emblem.
I have always avoided wearing anything which makes a statement. But I could not resist buying this T-shirt.
Then I hit the highway again, heading for Boston.
The highways in America are wonderful. They are multiple-lane affairs, with a physical separation between the traffic going in opposite directions. This makes speeding on them safer than in Singapore.
Soon, I was cruising at 195kmh with Scottish music playing at full blast in the background.
Because of the loud music, it took me some time before I noticed a police siren and slowed down.
With its red, white and blue lights flashing, the police car overtook my vehicle and signalled for me to pull over. I did so and the police car stopped ahead of me.
The policeman walked over to my car, demanded to see my driving licence, then yanked me out, saying: 'I am bringing you to the police station to be locked up.'
I protested: 'I was only speeding. I will pay the fine and you should let me off.'
He shot back: 'You were not only speeding. You disobeyed the law by not stopping immediately when I flashed the light to signal you to stop.'
He shoved me into his car and drove off, leaving my rental car by the roadside with all my belongings, including my newly purchased T-shirts, in it and the car door still open.
He radioed back to the police station, saying he was bringing someone in to the lock-up.
'What do you work as?' he asked me.
I replied: 'I am a doctor.'
'I hope you are a better doctor than a driver. Are you on drugs?'
'No. Do I look as though I am on drugs?'
'No, you look as though you were concentrating on overtaking every car ahead of you.'
That was indeed what I was doing. How often in Singapore can one drive at 195kmh? But I chose not to voice that thought.
Suddenly he asked: 'What do Singaporeans think of Americans?'
I replied quite sincerely: 'We like Americans. Hewlett-Packard, IBM and other multinational companies create jobs for us. But you probably don't like Singaporeans because we caned Michael Fay.'
His whole demeanour changed when I mentioned Fay.
'Michael Fay deserved to be caned,' he said firmly. 'He has been causing trouble since he returned to the US.'
He told me how his best friend, also a policeman, had been shot point-blank and died that morning when he stopped a speeding car. That was why he was in such a foul mood.
From that point on, our conversation got friendlier. We talked about hiking in New Hampshire, how we drove on the left in Singapore and so on.
Without my realising it, he had turned around and had driven back to where my rental car was. A tow truck had just arrived, but my policeman shooed it away.
He walked me to my car, told me to 'drive safely' and walked off. He did not fine me, nor did he charge me for activating the tow truck.
I drove back to Boston hardly believing my good luck.
American journalists may flog Singapore because of its perceived limitations on personal freedom, but there are some Americans - even in 'Live Free or Die' New Hampshire - who feel that a compromise in personal freedom to prevent anti-social behaviour is necessary for the welfare of society.
Most Singaporeans and many Americans would agree with that sentiment.
The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute. Send your comments to suntimes@sph.com.sg
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26052.1Publish Post
Judge informs that Iskander Tang has been placed under detention!
Monday, April 06, 2009
-
[OFFICIAL]Judge informs that Iskander Tang has been placed under detention!
Statement on Court Appearance 01/04/09I was required to attend court on the 01/04/09 for Pre-Trial Conference,it was scheduled at Court 3 for 10am.
The hearing was conducted in chambers.The judge and i had a close discussion about the alleged shoplifting case,the police death threats case and my video interview.
During this discussion,the judge,the Honorable Mr Ng Peng Hong had this to say about my video interview,"You were supposed to ignite a bomb,but you defused it instead."
After i stated that my instructions from my lawyer was to claim trial and see the evidence the police have against me,the Judge had this to say,"Maybe you should just plead guilty.What your lawyer want may not be what you want."
After i made repeated requests for SSGT Iskander Tang of CID Bomb Investigation Squad to appear as a witness,the Judge had this to say,"I cannot allow you to call on Iskander Tang as a witness because he has been placed under detention.Since he's under detention,how to get him out as a witness?"
At this point,i made a request of the Judge,i requested that the Deputy Public Prosecutor(DPP)was NOT allowed to withdraw the charges and that this case must go to trial and that i would be calling upon Mr Iskander Tang as a witness.The DPP's face turned ashen,he mumbled something and the Judge granted me the request.
The Judge also announced that the case was adjourned for me to get my lawyer to attend court together with me,next court appearance was to be on the 07/04/09 for PTC.
As i walked out of chambers,i noticed that there were 2 other persons in addition to the 2 court clerks.The 2 new persons were a male and female,both dress in white/light peach coloured attire.
The minute i stepped out of the door,the female went,"Great,now we've got him.Prepare the documents and hand him over to us."
I was thinking,"Huh?WTF?!"
The female court clerk went,"Didn't you hear?The case has been adjourned."
The male court clerk went,"He has a lawyer,the case has been adjourned.You guys are not going to get him."
I wonder who and where these 2 persons are from,and how they know the "verdict" before the Judge made any ruling.
As i left the court room,IO Makmur,who is in charge of the shoplifting case,beckoned me over.He had a chinese colleage with him,i do not know his name.They asked me various questions about the cases.
When we reached the outside of the Sub Courts,i enquired the chinese officer as to whether Iskander Tang was really under detention,he affirmed that it was so.IO Makmur asked me what i was going to do,and i said the same thing as i did to the Judge & the DPP,that i wanted to go to trial & that i wanted to call upon Iskander Tang as a witness.
The chinese officer seemed overcome with emotion at this,as he closed his eyes tightly and visibly shook.
IO Makmur turned and looked me in the face,"You think you can get him out of detention?"
I said to him,"I don't know what the current culture in the SPF is,but where i come from,we don't leave our people behind."
IO Makmur,"Oh,so he's your people ah?"
I said,"Whoa,don't get me wrong.We are not together in some conspiracy against the state of Singapore.What i am trying to say is,metaphorically speaking,Iskander took a bullet for me and for the thousands of netizens out there.So it is not right for us to leave him behind.Maybe you feel that Iskander has betrayed the SPF and deserve to be punished,but i feel that maybe he feels he is doing his duty,which is protecting innocent citizens of Singapore."
We parted ways.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26158.1
A flexible national service policy to allow our male graduates to enter the workforce early
A flexible national service policy to allow our male graduates to enter the workforce early
Writer’s forward: National Service is an issue that is close to the heart of every male Singaporeans. Thus, any change in National Service policies will affect those whom are currently doing their National Service and those who have yet to fulfill their obligation.
SINGAPORE– One of the main grouses of National Service (NS) is that the latter takes up two years of our lives, which could be spent doing more productive things. Compared with our female peers from the same batch, we typically enter the work force two years later.
The reduction of NS term for full-time NS (NSF) men from two and a half years to two years was seen as a welcome change. However, more can be done to give NSFs the flexibility to disrupt their full-time NS in order to pursue their studies.
If the disruption policy was made more flexible, NS men can save up to one year, entering the workforce one year behind their female peers from the same batch. Consider this example of a male and female peer both graduating from their pre-university course at the end of december 2009.* The female peer will commence the first year of her university studies in August 2010. The male will typically enlist for his national service in January 2010. By July 2011, the female would have completed her first year of studies while her male peer would have completed one and a half years of his NS.
If allowed to disrupt after one and a half years of NS, the male peer will commence his university studies in August 2011, exactly one year behind his female peer. A typical undergraduate program lasts from three to four years. The male peer will use his long semester break after the second semester to serve his remaining NS term. He will typically require up to two long semester breaks, each about three months long, to complete his NS obligations. By his third year in university, he would have completed his mandatory two years term of NS.
Whilst it is understandable that some students will still want to enjoy their semester breaks without the hassle of serving the rest of their NS term, this flexibility in disruption policy is meant to cater to those who want to make the best use of their time and enter the workforce early. They stand to gain from an extra year’s salary from their profession and necessary working experience compared to their same peers who did not take the same route as them. They will also not lack that far behind their females peers.
Ultimately, NS is a form of sacrifice that Singaporean males must make. However, the lawmakers in charge of planning NS policies should provide more choices to NS men so that the latter can chart their career path to their best advantage.
*EDITS: Polytechnic students typically finish their diplomas during the month of march, and not at the end of the year as mentioned earlier. “A” levels are completed by the end of the year.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26134.1
Writer’s forward: National Service is an issue that is close to the heart of every male Singaporeans. Thus, any change in National Service policies will affect those whom are currently doing their National Service and those who have yet to fulfill their obligation.
SINGAPORE– One of the main grouses of National Service (NS) is that the latter takes up two years of our lives, which could be spent doing more productive things. Compared with our female peers from the same batch, we typically enter the work force two years later.
The reduction of NS term for full-time NS (NSF) men from two and a half years to two years was seen as a welcome change. However, more can be done to give NSFs the flexibility to disrupt their full-time NS in order to pursue their studies.
If the disruption policy was made more flexible, NS men can save up to one year, entering the workforce one year behind their female peers from the same batch. Consider this example of a male and female peer both graduating from their pre-university course at the end of december 2009.* The female peer will commence the first year of her university studies in August 2010. The male will typically enlist for his national service in January 2010. By July 2011, the female would have completed her first year of studies while her male peer would have completed one and a half years of his NS.
If allowed to disrupt after one and a half years of NS, the male peer will commence his university studies in August 2011, exactly one year behind his female peer. A typical undergraduate program lasts from three to four years. The male peer will use his long semester break after the second semester to serve his remaining NS term. He will typically require up to two long semester breaks, each about three months long, to complete his NS obligations. By his third year in university, he would have completed his mandatory two years term of NS.
Whilst it is understandable that some students will still want to enjoy their semester breaks without the hassle of serving the rest of their NS term, this flexibility in disruption policy is meant to cater to those who want to make the best use of their time and enter the workforce early. They stand to gain from an extra year’s salary from their profession and necessary working experience compared to their same peers who did not take the same route as them. They will also not lack that far behind their females peers.
Ultimately, NS is a form of sacrifice that Singaporean males must make. However, the lawmakers in charge of planning NS policies should provide more choices to NS men so that the latter can chart their career path to their best advantage.
*EDITS: Polytechnic students typically finish their diplomas during the month of march, and not at the end of the year as mentioned earlier. “A” levels are completed by the end of the year.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26134.1
What happened to Orchard Road?
What happened to Orchard Road?
Orchard Road is one of the premier shopping streets in the world and it is know to some Singaporeans as the heart of Singapore. In an effort to make Orchard Road a better place, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has announced its plan of a $40 million makeover for Orchard Road. However, I feel that the money pumped into this expensive project has not been put into good use because this project has a minimal impact on tourists and may even backfire. I will show that there are more important priorities for Singapore instead of a lavish Orchard Road facelift, and that the project will have a minute impact and what it achieves will eventually contradict its aims.
In these tumultuous years, where unemployment cases are rising due to the economic recession, it is very essential that the government should budget more funds for improving the welfare of the community, and also to secure jobs and stimulate the economy. According to the minister mentor and previous Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, GDP could fall 10 per cent this year. The father of modern Singapore is so concerned about this issue, that he issued a warning this month for people to ready themselves for tough times ahead, which suggests the scale of the recession is gigantic and it can impact many people lives very enormously and negatively. Furthermore, this seems to be a bigger priority than to lavishly spend to beautify the already largely decorated Orchard Road, creating no need to further spend on another makeup of Orchard Road. Hence, the money put into the $40 million makeover has not been put to good use and should be instead allocated to more pertinent issues like securing jobs for those breadmakers and improving the economic situation.
This makeover also has minimal impact. This is seen as very few people notice the changes in Orchard Road despite the extreme makeover. For example, some comments made were that there was "no big difference" and this minute change can only be noticed if you"looked closely". Furthermore, many people were shocked that such a huge amount of money was allocated for the makeover. Some even thought that the changes only amonted to a cost of about "1 million dollars". Instead, many people agreed that "they should have left Orchard Road as it was" and the STB should have focused more into maintaining the area and cleaning up the area. A concern was that although there were some changes, the "pavement still looks so dirty", like it was floored "three decades ago". Such comments made by Singaporeans show us that this change did not achieve the great impact it was supposed to have, and hence and was no worth the effort put into this makeover, and all these effort established for this ridiculous caused can be diverted to neglected first priorities.
However, one may argue that these changes help to beautify and improve the place, making it more appealing for tourists to come to Singapore. For instance, there are the widening of pavements, the glass panels and there are also new street lamps, coordinated street furniture and potted flower totems. An important incentive is that there will be more new malls to shop in te future, and this would lure tourists. However, the Orchard makeover may backfire. Tourists have been complaining about the construction sites at Orchard Road. For example, a certain tourist expected Orhard Road to be prettier and nicer", and yet what they see is just "noise and construction". This has also impeded many Singaporeans to go to Orchard Road, as they complain that these construction sites "block their way". This results in a less crowded Orchard Road which is opposite of the tourists' expectations of Orchard Road to be a bustling place in the centre of Singapore. Hence, instead of attracting tourists, this makeover may cause tourists to cancel their plans after learning that Orchard Road is "nothing like what [they] see in [their] travel books", and we can conclude that the makeover will achieve in a result contradictory to its aims.
Therefore, I will conclude that the Orchard Road makeover and facelift is not a smart decision made by the authorities. This is because it is completely wasteful as such a plan would have a small impact and would not achieve its aim, especially when the country is going through difficult times as it is experiencing an economic recession. Maybe the government needs to be prodded to rethink on its priorities and decisions, and spend more time caring about its citizens than daydreaming on how to attract tourists in vain.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26224.1
Orchard Road is one of the premier shopping streets in the world and it is know to some Singaporeans as the heart of Singapore. In an effort to make Orchard Road a better place, the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has announced its plan of a $40 million makeover for Orchard Road. However, I feel that the money pumped into this expensive project has not been put into good use because this project has a minimal impact on tourists and may even backfire. I will show that there are more important priorities for Singapore instead of a lavish Orchard Road facelift, and that the project will have a minute impact and what it achieves will eventually contradict its aims.
In these tumultuous years, where unemployment cases are rising due to the economic recession, it is very essential that the government should budget more funds for improving the welfare of the community, and also to secure jobs and stimulate the economy. According to the minister mentor and previous Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, GDP could fall 10 per cent this year. The father of modern Singapore is so concerned about this issue, that he issued a warning this month for people to ready themselves for tough times ahead, which suggests the scale of the recession is gigantic and it can impact many people lives very enormously and negatively. Furthermore, this seems to be a bigger priority than to lavishly spend to beautify the already largely decorated Orchard Road, creating no need to further spend on another makeup of Orchard Road. Hence, the money put into the $40 million makeover has not been put to good use and should be instead allocated to more pertinent issues like securing jobs for those breadmakers and improving the economic situation.
This makeover also has minimal impact. This is seen as very few people notice the changes in Orchard Road despite the extreme makeover. For example, some comments made were that there was "no big difference" and this minute change can only be noticed if you"looked closely". Furthermore, many people were shocked that such a huge amount of money was allocated for the makeover. Some even thought that the changes only amonted to a cost of about "1 million dollars". Instead, many people agreed that "they should have left Orchard Road as it was" and the STB should have focused more into maintaining the area and cleaning up the area. A concern was that although there were some changes, the "pavement still looks so dirty", like it was floored "three decades ago". Such comments made by Singaporeans show us that this change did not achieve the great impact it was supposed to have, and hence and was no worth the effort put into this makeover, and all these effort established for this ridiculous caused can be diverted to neglected first priorities.
However, one may argue that these changes help to beautify and improve the place, making it more appealing for tourists to come to Singapore. For instance, there are the widening of pavements, the glass panels and there are also new street lamps, coordinated street furniture and potted flower totems. An important incentive is that there will be more new malls to shop in te future, and this would lure tourists. However, the Orchard makeover may backfire. Tourists have been complaining about the construction sites at Orchard Road. For example, a certain tourist expected Orhard Road to be prettier and nicer", and yet what they see is just "noise and construction". This has also impeded many Singaporeans to go to Orchard Road, as they complain that these construction sites "block their way". This results in a less crowded Orchard Road which is opposite of the tourists' expectations of Orchard Road to be a bustling place in the centre of Singapore. Hence, instead of attracting tourists, this makeover may cause tourists to cancel their plans after learning that Orchard Road is "nothing like what [they] see in [their] travel books", and we can conclude that the makeover will achieve in a result contradictory to its aims.
Therefore, I will conclude that the Orchard Road makeover and facelift is not a smart decision made by the authorities. This is because it is completely wasteful as such a plan would have a small impact and would not achieve its aim, especially when the country is going through difficult times as it is experiencing an economic recession. Maybe the government needs to be prodded to rethink on its priorities and decisions, and spend more time caring about its citizens than daydreaming on how to attract tourists in vain.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26224.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)