Monday, April 13, 2009

Old and new citizens do not get equal chance in Singapore

Old and new citizens do not get equal chance in Singapore

Singapore is a meritocracy that does not distinguish between old or new citizens, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Whether it comes to the giving out of jobs or business contracts or scholarships, whoever excels will be rewarded, he stressed yesterday at the launch of a new feature section in Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao. (read article here)

While few can refute MM Lee’s claims that Singapore is a meritocracy, whether there is a level playing field for both old and new citizens is a different matter altogether.

Native-born Singaporeans are more than willing to compete with new citizens on an equal footing, however the increasing odds stacked against us is fuelling resentment and disgruntlement on the ground.

I fear for is future generations of Singaporeans who may struggle to achieve the same standard of living as their parents.

During my time when there were less foreigners, the starting pay of an university graduate is $S2,000. A 5 room HDB flat in Bishan cost less than S$100,000.

Nowadays, fresh graduates are finding it difficult to secure a stable, long-term job saved for those in Medicine and Law. Even engineers are being crowded out by the influx of Chinese and Indian engineers.

The salary of the Singapore worker, especially that of the lower income group has remained relatively stagnant for the last few years and being outpaced by the cost of living. Our purchasing power has been eroded to the extent that many are barely making ends meet let alone save enough for retirement.

The reservist obligation of Singapore males is a bane to us. How can we compete with new citizens who do not have to take 14 days off each year to serve national service?

There are many worthy Singaporeans who are denied a place in local universities because their grades were not deemed good enough. Yet we have many foreign students from the region who are being sponsored by our government to study in Singapore. Their tution fees are entirely covered on top of a generous monthly allowance and they are guaranteed a job upon graduation.

A place in our universities occupied by a foreigner is one denied to a local Singaporean who may have to pursue his/her tertiary education overseas or give it up completely.

Are our Singaporean students of inferior quality compared to let’s say, second-rate Chinese students? The top students in China do not come to Singapore. They are either sent to prestigious universities in the West or to the elite Chinese universities like Qinghua and Fudan.

I recognize the need for Singapore to increase its population via immigration. What I can’t reconcile with is the government’s blatant neglect for local Singaporeans. Much more can be done to develop the human capital we already have.

Singapore’s low birth rate is further exacerbated by a brain drain which is getting worse with each passing year. Can the number of new citizens made up for the loss of native Singaporeans to other countries? I seriously doubt so.

Without a core nucleus of locals to retain the unique Singapore identity, we are no different from a hotel where people come in and go. New citizens have little sense of belonging to Singapore and they can always change their citizenship again should they don’t like it here.

The United States became a great nation of what it is today through opening its doors to immigration. Many immigrants who set up their homes in the U.S. stayed there for good and few natives renounced their American citizenship.

It is pointless to dish our PRs and citizenships to foreigners like some freebies while local Singaporeans are leaving for greener pastures elsewhere at an alarming rate.

Foreigners who are contemplating to emigrate here will think: if Singapore’s governance is so open, transparent and fair as boasted by MM Lee, why are we having one of the highest emigration rates in the world?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26712.1

MM Lee: Equal chance for all

April 13, 2009
Equal chance for all
By Li Xueying, Political Correspondent
MM Lee met with applause as he arrives at the Lianhe Zaobao launch of a new feature section, Crossroads. ST PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIA
SINGAPORE is a meritocracy that does not distinguish between old or new citizens, said Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Whether it comes to the giving out of jobs or business contracts or scholarships, whoever excels will be rewarded, he stressed yesterday.

In fact, the idea that guanxi (connections) is not a factor in one's success attracts people to put down roots here.

Mr Lee was addressing about 450 people - two-thirds of whom are new citizens and permanent residents - at the launch of a new feature section in Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao.

Called Crossroads, it is aimed at new immigrants and will feature news and issues that concern them.

Speaking in Mandarin, Mr Lee, who attended the event as a special guest, said the most important principle of meritocracy is: All citizens are equal.

'There is no difference between races, religions, new or old citizens,' he said. 'Our policy is: Whatever your background or race, we use the best people. So, I think, those who choose to emigrate to Singapore, you do so because you understand Singapore does not require guanxi...They know Singapore's governance is open, transparent and fair.'

However, this also means the immigrants must master English, he said. 'If you want to succeed in Singapore, you need to have a good grasp of English - our common language. So when you communicate with the world or among races, there is no advantage whether you are Malay, Indian or Chinese.

'Thus, the competition is very fair.'

During his 30-minute session, which included a question-and-answer segment, Mr Lee also addressed the concern that many new immigrants use Singapore as a stepping stone to other countries.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26708.1

A tale of 2 (kinds of) deaths

A tale of 2 (kinds of) deaths

Mention the name Lo Hwei Yen and nearly everyone will know who she is, and perhaps even have a mental picture of her face. Within Facebook, there are at least 3 groups dedicated to Ms Lo, with one group comprising 15,554 members. Now mention the names Noraini Kasim and Aminah Samijo and what do you get?

Ms Lo was Singapore’s first terror victim so that may explain the media interest and exposure given to her, versus the deaths of Madam Noraini Kasim and Mdm Aminah Samijo who died of food poisoning from eating Indian rojak. That is a story for another day.

For now, I am just amused by how much resources are put into national defence and security, versus public health. I do not know the numbers, but I am sure the total number of Singaporeans who have died from food poisoning is significantly large enough to warrant more and better ministerial oversight and a greater allocation of budget.

As a related point, anti-conscription activists may take issue with the number of servicemen deaths (and women; not forgetting the 4 who served on RSS Courageous) resulting from routine training or peace-time operations despite the huge investments made in perfecting a snazzy ‘3G’ army.

Singaporeans must be discerning on what this top class government ought to be offering its citizens and not be distracted by PAP’s weapons of mass distraction and shadow-play.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26792.1

Blogs and free speech: Report paints sorry picture

Blogs and free speech: Report paints sorry picture

One would think that with advances in technology and its increasing users, freedom of expression would get a boost. But the World Information Access (WIA) Report 2008 paints a sorry picture and brings to the fore the harsh reality since 2003.

CJ: Samiha Nettikkara,

THE INTERNET has opened up many possibilities by allowing people to connect to various causes and mobilise public opinion. Nonetheless, the so-called liberation it had come to represent through blogs and online networking sites has brought into light the controversy revolving around freedom of speech and expression.

The growing reach of the Internet, as a platform for those whose voices had been suppressed for whatever reasons, be it their authoritarian regimes or their own introverted nature, was lauded. Since the early 2000s, net users got a chance to let the whole Internet-savvy crowd be privy to their views and feelings with web logs or 'blogs' as popularly referred to.

Blogging became a global phenomenon, connecting strangers from diverse cultures and nationalities and acquainting them with what is happening at the other side of the world.

Everything seemed all hunky dory. From personal experiences, recipes, films to life under dictatorship, blogs chronicled them all. But as their popularity ballooned to unimaginable proportions and dissident voices increased on online portals, those 'in power' took notice.

Authorities, threatened by the power of a nascent technological medium, resorted to arresting bloggers, even some bloggers who were difficult to trace.

One would think that with advances in technology and its increasing users, freedom of expression would get a boost. But the World Information Access (WIA) Report 2008 paints a sorry picture and brings to the fore the harsh reality, since 2003, in which bloggers faced several arrests. Several bloggers were arrested from countries as diverse as Iran, Nigeria, China and Saudi Arabia in 2009 alone.

The blogs that are targetted the most and see their owners get arrested, according to the WIA Report, are those that expose bureaucratic corruption, human rights abuses, criticise public policies or politicians and report social protests through articles or photographs.

Violation of cultural norms are the other grounds that are considered shaky for a blogger if she/he intends to stay out of trouble with the police. A blogger was arrested in India in 2007 for violating cultural norms. Other countries that have arrested bloggers using this reason are Singapore, Egypt, Greece, USA, China, Egypt, Hong Kong, Philippines and UK.

China, Singapore, Tunisia and Myanmar are the countries where bloggers have been arrested for exposing corruption or abuse of human rights.

China, Myanmar, Egypt and Iran are the countries in which blogs that intended to organize or cover social protests had bloggers in trouble.

According to the list of blogger arrests in the WIA Report 2008, In 2003, five bloggers had been arrested. But thirty-five were arrested in 2007.

China, Egypt and Iran may account for more than half of all the arrests since 2003 but statistics falsify the perception that only the totalitarian regimes and developing countries are plagued by the problem of stifling of freedom of expression.

Bloggers need to be wary on posting opinion about public policies and politicians in France, Iran, Tunisia, Singapore, Egypt, Syria, Fiji, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Kuwait and Russia.

It seems that freedom will always be out of reach.
Other Articles by Samiha Nettikkara

* Dated e-mail forwards fan unnecessary resentment
* Internet Marketing: The new way to make money online
* Quarter life crisis
* P Jayanath speaks on Indian journalism
* Asthma not a deterrent for normal childhood

more >>
Instead of targeting those who have rights to their opinions, it would be more fruitful to take measures to control the rampant piracy and unrestricted child pornography on the Internet.

The irony is that there are other more pressing Internet related issues for governments to care of.

Some believe that the Internet has to be strongly regulated as numerous cyber criminals take advantage of legal and technical loopholes in their countries to commit crime. Apart from cyber scams, criminals have even taken to bragging about their exploits on their profiles.

Recently, a boy from Kerala was summoned to court in Maharashtra for creating an 'I hate Shiv Sena' community on Orkut. He was summoned even though the IT Act 2005 exempts the owner of the website from the repercussions of the content posted by its user. The boy, who feared for his life, petitioned to have his case heard elsewhere but it was rejected.

For an online user, setting up communities to express his thoughts should have been a natural action and not one with such dire consequences.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26791.1

Parliament passes new Bill to manage law and order

Parliament passes new Bill to manage law and order
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 13 April 2009 2057 hrs

SINGAPORE: A new Bill to manage public law and order has been passed in Parliament.

It rationalises current rules for public assemblies and processions by moving away from rulings based on the number of persons involved in these activities.

Instead the focus is on whether the activity may have a disruptive effect on the public.

Scenes of disruption like those at international meetings such as the G20 meeting in London and more recently, the failed ASEAN Summit in Thailand's Pattaya, are common.

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

That is why it is introducing new legislation at this time.

The new Public Order Act rationalises the existing two Bills - the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA).

At the heart of the Public Order Act is one key philosophy.

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, said: "The approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability.

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

"The answer to these questions would be the answer to the main question I asked."

Under the new Bill, three types of activities will require permits: Those that demonstrate support for or against views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; those that publicises a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.

Many sporting and recreational activities will be exempted. This means that 50 per cent of activities that now require permits will no longer be regulated by permit.

There will also be changes to the penalty regime. First-time offenders will be fined and repeat offenders will face stiffer penalties.

The Act will also give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive "move-on" orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.

Currently, police can only observe and warn a person if an offence has been committed and follow up with investigations after the event. The police can only arrest the person on the spot if it is a seizable offence such as for carrying weapons.

Mr Shanmugam said: "If a person complies with the order and leaves the designated area, no offence will be made out against him. By giving the person in the first instance, an opportunity to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities, the move-on powers bridge the current gap of 'doing nothing' and 'outright arrest'."

The police will also get special powers for international events, which Mr Shanmugam describes as "trophy targets for terrorists", where they can search people and personal property.

And learning from the Mumbai terrorist incident, the police will have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials so that operations are not compromised.

Police could even take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this does not apply to routine police duties.

- CNA/ir

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26785.1

SAF allowed three officers to be prematurely released from their bonds since 2000

SAF allowed three officers to be prematurely released from their bonds since 2000
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 13 April 2009 1556 hrs

Photos 1 of 1 > " onclick="Next();" src="http://www.channelnewsasia.com/images/butt_next.gif" type="image" width="18" height="15">


SAF soldiers in training

SINGAPORE: Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean says that since 2000, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has allowed three officers to be released prematurely from their bonds.

Speaking in Parliament on Monday, Mr Teo said the SAF is not an unreasonable organisation when it comes to the issue of officers serving out their bonds.

Mr Teo explained that if an officer did not understand the terms of the bond, he could seek clarifications and was not in any way compelled to sign it.

The issue became a talking point after a bonded officer Dr Allan Ooi was found dead in Australia. He had informed his superior he was unhappy with work and was considering leaving the SAF.

Mr Teo said that any officer who wishes to be prematurely released from his bond could submit a formal application, which will then be assessed on a case-by-case basis with the officer then being counselled and interviewed by his superiors.

Mr Teo added that with substantial public funds invested in an officer, he has not just a legal but also moral obligation to fulfil his bond.

Mr Teo said: "All officers who join SAF and take up a sponsorship know they have a moral obligation to serve out the full period for their sponsorship bond, which goes beyond the legal obligation to pay back the liquidated damages if an officer does not serve out the bond.

"The SAF has a range of important leadership and specialist roles that serve the organisational needs while catering to officers with different interests and aptitudes but officers too are expected to do their best to fulfil their obligations to the organisation unless there are strong and extenuating circumstances such as medical reasons that prevent the officer from doing so."

MINDEF says it has been in contact with CPT Ooi's family since he went AWOL in October last year.

A Board of Inquiry was convened on 11 March.

Mr Teo said if the family were to request for the findings of the Board of Inquiry, MINDEF will make available a summary of the findings to them.

- CNA/ir

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26783.1

Ladies, have you forgotten your narrative?

Ladies, have you forgotten your narrative?

Let there be a clash of ideas and let Aware members decide — that’s the kind ofmaturity Singapore needs

Monday • April 13, 2009

P N Balji

THE ladies at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) do not seem to get it.

Instead of doing some soul-searching on how the old guard at the women’s group got blindsided, out-foxed and out-numbered by a group of newbies at its annual general meeting three weeks ago, they are behaving like a group of sore losers.

Worse still, they are saying things which make you wonder what happened to their often-stated views, articulated both publicly and privately, championing the need for choices in a pluralistic society.

Two responses to the election swoop that saw nine of the 12 executive committee seats going to fresh faces which disappoint:

The insurgents should have been part of the system, working within it and waiting for their time to be anointed as a new generation of leaders. Sounds very familiar.

If you want things done differently, don’t upset the apple cart but go and form your own group. Again, very familiar.

Both reactions are flawed.

Aware has come a long way. In the last 24 years, it has fought suspicions in some places about its beliefs and motives, struggled with the lack of resources and played catch-up with the need to find fresh talent at the top.

What is there to say that a new group from without won’t be able to break new ground by professionalising the outfit even more?

And if they do not, there is the next annual general meeting to expose their shortfalls and make a push for change. Isn’t that what elections are all about?

Yes, there was an element of stealth in how the Group of Nine planned their leadership swoop on March 28. There was a sudden surge in the number of members in the last three months, there was meticulous planning to take everyone by surprise and there was a surgical strike on that eventful day.

All these show that these women are not a motley group but a well-organised and well-orchestrated group who mean business.

The one missing piece of information is their real agenda. Are their beliefs and motives quite different from those of the old guard? If so, what are they?

Heavy hints are already being dropped in the media and in cyberspace about the religious inclinations and anti-gay stand of some of the members of the new group.

If that is what is upsetting the old team, then take them on, show why they are no good for the future of the women’s movement in Singapore.

Let there be a clash of ideas and let the members decide which set they want.

If it is a case of being upset at the way leadership was seized from right under their noses, constitutionally mind you, then they should be magnanimous in defeat, lick their wounds and prepare to fight another day. Whether in politics or activism, it is that kind of maturity that Singapore needs.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26777.1