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

Homesick China bride of opposition politician thinks mum-in-law favours her sis-in-law

Just looking at 'happy family' makes me JEALOUS

By Chong Shin Yen

April 19, 2009

IT WAS an arranged marriage and Chinese national Wu Yun Yun, 26, was a reluctant bride. --PICTURES: CHOO CHWEE HUA, THE STRAITS TIMES, LIANHE WANBAO, SHIN MIN DAILY NEWS She was miserable after she married Singapore opposition politician Tan Lead Shake. She had no friends here and had problems adjusting to her new life. To make things worse, Wu felt her mother-in-law favoured her sister-in-law, Madam Huang Mei Zhe, 36, who was married to her husband's younger brother. Consumed by jealousy and resentment, she snapped on 28 Jun last year. Around 5.30am, Wu crept into the couple's bedroom and stabbed Madam Huang, who is also a Chinese national. She then turned the knife on her brother-in-law, Mr Tan Lead Sane, 33, a computer engineer. He died shortly after. Madam Huang, who suffered a stab wound to her neck and cuts on her chin, survived. Yesterday, Wu pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter and another charge of attempted manslaughter. A third charge of voluntarily causing hurt to her mother-in-law, Madam Ng Bee Hion, 63, will be taken into consideration during sentencing. Court documents showed that Wu left her family and friends in her hometown, Putian, Fujian province, and came to Singapore in 2001, when she was only 19. Before that, she studied at a vocational school, which she enjoyed. But she had to quit school because of her family's financial difficulties. Short-lived happiness Wu worked as a telephone operator and was happy in her job. But her time there was short-lived as her parents were arranging to marry her off to a Singaporean. Mr Tan Soo Phuan, 73, the former chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party, had proposed the marriage to his son in 2001. He was also from Putian and had gone there to scout for a daughter-in-law. Wu, the second of three children, was reluctant to give up her job. She had developed a close relationship with a colleague who was interested in her. Wu confided in her mother that she had doubts about an arranged marriage and said she was not keen to marry Mr Tan Lead Shake, a senior network administrator. She also told the elder Mr Tan that she did not wish to marry his son. But all this fell on deaf ears. The Tans had paid her dowry and Wu had no choice but to go ahead with the arrangement. Later that year, she flew to Singapore and moved in with the Tans. A psychiatric report by Dr George Joseph Fernandez from the Institute of Mental Health stated that Wu found life meaningless when she first got here. Wu told Dr Fernandez: '(I felt that) all the people in the world had left me. (I) lost interest in everything. Life had become meaningless.' She was not accustomed to her life here. She could not adapt to the food, had difficulties communicating in English and had no friends. She was sad, tearful and had suicidal thoughts. Six months after arriving, she married Mr Tan, who was nicknamed the 'Slipper Man' after he showed up in slippers on Nomination Day for the 1997 general election. Wu's family was not invited to the wedding. The reason was not mentioned in court papers. The couple lived in a two-storey bungalow on Paya Lebar Crescent, together with her parents-in-law, her elder brother-in-law, Mr Tan Lead Hand, who is single, and Mr Tan Lead Sane and his wife. Wu's role was to do the housework and subsequently to look after her children - a son, 5, and a daughter, 3. She did not get along well with her mother-in-law. She felt she was treated differently and was jealous of Madam Huang. She told Dr Fernandez: 'I hated to stay at home. I'm very unhappy there. 'People at home make me unhappy. (My) mother-in-law and sister-in-law are very calculative. They say things to hurt me.' When asked, her husband told Dr Fernandez that he also felt it was true that his mother favoured Madam Huang. Wu returned to China four times during her seven years here, staying for a few months each time. She made the first trip with her husband and their son, who was then 7 months old. Wu stayed with her family, who noticed that she was unhappy. She made a second trip in November 2004, and said her real purpose in doing so was to escape from the Tan family. Wu's father told Dr Fernandez that the family noticed the change in her behaviour. She had lost weight and became more hot-tempered. She did not go out much and even her friends there commented on how she had changed. Wu said: 'I felt unhappy. I felt my jealousy getting worse. My mother-in-law nagged at me almost daily. 'When (my) mother-in-law and sister-in-law returned from work, I would get anxious. I felt they were going to scold me.' Wu returned to Singapore in January 2005. But three months later, she quietly packed her bags and flew back to China with their son. She did not inform her husband, and when her father found out about it, he scolded her. This time, her change in behaviour was more drastic. Wu became easily irritable and lost even more weight. She would cry whenever her mother-in-law was mentioned and she refused to go out with her friends. Wu also had difficulties sleeping and wanted her mother to sleep with her because she was scared. She stayed in China for almost 41/2 months before returning. When she finally came back, she asked her mother to accompany her to Singapore. Wu said it was because she 'can't survive any more'. Her mother came twice, once for 45 days and the second, for 11 months. Meanwhile, Madam Huang got pregnant and her own mother came from China to help her out. Wu's jealousy festered. She told Dr Fernandez: 'Everything for her (Madam Huang) is smooth. Nothing was going well for me. My husband was cold to me. 'Everything done by them made me jealous. I live in jealousy.' Wu last went back to China in July 2007, for six months. She complained of aches and pains in her body, had gastric problems and felt very tired. She also developed the odd idea that she was suffering from cancer and that she would not recover. Wu went to see various doctors, who reassured her that she was not ill. One of them recommended that she see a psychiatrist, but she did not do so. After she returned to Singapore, her husband said she became tearful and was quieter. But he added that when she got angry, she was 'like a volcano'. Then, in June last year, Wu bought a fruit knife, intending to use it to hurt Madam Huang or Mr Tan Lead Sane. By then, her jealousy towards the couple was reaching boiling point. 'When I look at them, I get jealous. I feel like hurting them,' she said. 'I couldn't bear that their family was so happy, while I was unable to enjoy. All did not treat me well. My life was worth nothing.' Dr Fernandez diagnosed Wu to be suffering from major depression. This qualified her for the defence of diminished responsibility. Her original charges of murder and attempted murder were reduced as a result. Her father, Mr Wu Jin Chi, 57, a farmer, and his son-in-law arrived from Putian on Tuesday night and were in court yesterday to support Wu. Mr Wu told The New Paper that she had been writing to them regularly since she was arrested. 'Every month, she would write two letters - one to us and the other to her children,' he said. 'She told us to take care of ourselves and not to worry for her. She also said that she misses her two children a lot.' Wu told her father that her husband had visited her in prison twice, but he did not turn up yesterday. His mother and Madam Huang did show up and sat in the row in front of Wu's family. Before the proceedings started, Madam Huang turned around and scolded them, accusing them of breaking up her family. For manslaughter, Wu can be jailed for life. For attempted manslaughter, Wu can be jailed 15 years.

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

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

Slipper Man's Wife in Jealousy Killing China wife resents mum-in-law but attacks favourite daughter-in-law, son, instead

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

By Chong Shin Yen

April 19, 2009

SHE resented her mother-in-law, whom she blamed for her unhappiness and jealousy. IN TEARS: Madam Ng Bee Hion was seen crying in a car after her youngest son was stabbed to death. --PICTURE: LIANHE WANBAO But Wu Yun Yun, 26, chose not to harm Madam Ng Bee Hion, 63. Instead, she attacked Madam Ng's son, Mr Tan Lead Sane, 33, and his wife, Madam Huang Meizhe, 36. This was because she wanted Madam Ng to suffer the pain of seeing her loved ones hurt, according to court papers. Yesterday, Wu, a Singapore permanent resident, pleaded guilty to manslaughter for killing Mr Tan and attempted manslaughter for injuring Madam Huang. Monitor mental state Justice Kan Ting Chiu adjourned the case for six months to allow psychiatrist George Joseph Fernandez to monitor Wu's mental state before he passes sentence. The senior consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Mental Health said that he needed time to see if Wu's mental condition would improve. Wu, a housewife, was represented by Mr Subhas Anandan and Mr Sunil Sudheesan. The court heard that she was jealous of Mr Tan, a computer engineer, and Madam Huang. She felt that unlike her, the couple was living a blessed life with love and strong support from Madam Ng. Wu began harbouring thoughts of killing either Mr Tan or Madam Huang. For several weeks, she struggled with these thoughts. Then, in early June last year, she bought a fruit knife from a market in Lorong Ah Soo for $2.50, intending to use it to carry out her plan. When she got home, she hid it in a styrofoam box which was placed under the kitchen sink. Wu decided to strike on 28 Jun. She chose to do it on a Saturday because she knew that her husband, Mr Tan Lead Shake, 40, a senior network administrator, would be at home and could take care of their two children following the attack. The plan was to do it during the early hours of the morning, while the couple was sleeping in their bedroom on the second storey of the house. The night before, Wu took the knife from the box and hid it on top of her wardrobe in her bedroom, also on the second storey. She went to bed at 10pm. Wu woke up at about 5.30am the next day and retrieved the knife. She then walked to the couple's bedroom, which was not locked. Madam Huang was sleeping on the bed with her 2-month-old son while Mr Tan was asleep on a makeshift bed at the balcony. Wu walked towards Madam Huang and called out her name before stabbing her twice on her neck. Madam Huang shouted for her husband, who woke and sat up on the bed. Wu lunged at him and stabbed him twice in his chest and once in his abdomen. Madam Huang tried to stop Wu in vain, then left the room to seek help from Mr Tan Lead Shake, who called the police when he saw his brother lying in a pool of blood. Meanwhile, Wu left the couple's bedroom and went downstairs. She took her jacket, umbrella and wallet from the kitchen before trying to flee. Wu went to the front gate but could not remember the number combination for the lock. She then ran to the back of the house and climbed over a gate. Madam Ng had tried to stop her and suffered some cuts during the brief struggle. Wu threw the knife into a drain as she ran off. Mr Tan and Madam Huang were taken to Tan Tock Seng Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Madam Huang underwent an emergency operation. Wu walked to Serangoon Shopping Centre, where she washed the bloodstains off her body using water from a drain behind the centre. After changing out of her bloodstained T-shirt into the jacket, she took a bus to Toa Payoh Central, where she discarded her T-shirt and socks. She then walked around aimlessly until a passer-by told her that her pants were torn at the back. Buy new clothes As the shops were not open yet, Wu took a taxi to the market at Block 105, Hougang Avenue 1, to buy new clothes. She then changed before taking a bus to Bugis Junction, where she wandered aimlessly again. Wu called her husband from a public phone around 12.15pm. He persuaded her to surrender and she said she would wait for him at the National Library building at Victoria Street. About an hour later, her husband, accompanied by police officers, arrived there and she was arrested. Madam Huang, also a Singapore permanent resident, was in hospital for more than a week. The mother of two has since recovered.

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

Constance Singam’s letter to AWARE

Constance Singam’s letter to AWARE

Sunday, 19 April 2009

Dear AWARE member,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the EXCO said in the press release issued on 15th April was a sharp contrast to the behavior of many of its members at our internal EXCO meetings. In their public statement the EXCO said: “The New Team at AWARE wishes to remember and honour the work of past AWARE members for their vision and endeavours to advance the cause of women in all areas of society through advocacy and community work.” But in private meetings the EXCO showed a complete lack of respect for me, ignoring my advice and even keeping me out of an EXCO meeting when I had the right to be there as stated in the constitution.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Constance Singam

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

Yaw Shin Leong's interview

工人党秘书饶欣龙　“先思后冲”不当“小怒汉”

 

工人党秘书饶欣龙。

 

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

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

33岁的饶欣龙，目前在私人学校担任讲师，也是一家生物认证科技公司的合伙人。

9年前加入工人党的他，“热血青年”形象鲜明。

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

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

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

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

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

可能参加来届大选

不排除来届大选会应战，饶欣龙婉转表示，一切听从党的指示。

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Constance Singam quits as Aware adviser

Constance Singam quits as Aware adviser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The exco ignored her advice, she said.

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

She told The Sunday Times she was not abandoning ship.

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

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

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

The takeover was like a bolt out of the blue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, news of her resignation upset many longstanding members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business Degrees Not In Demand Anymore

Business Degrees Not In Demand Anymore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too Many foreign workers in Singapore

Too Many foreign workers in Singapore

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

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

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

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

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

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