Bank’s public criticism of a senior officer sparks debate
April 19, 2009
DBS Bank was not saying more yesterday about Ms Josie Lau, after it publicly rebuked her for taking on the top post at Aware despite being told not to.
Ms Lau, vice-president in its cards division, reported to work as usual yesterday.
She issued her first statement as Aware’s new president, but said nothing about the criticisms levelled at her by her employer on Wednesday and Thursday.
DBS had revealed that she disregarded its staff code not once but twice, first by not seeking approval before joining the Aware executive committee, and then by defying her employer’s advice against becoming president.
The bank’s action has drawn flak, with some taking issue with the fact that Ms Lau needed approval before taking up a voluntary position.
A female human resources executive at a multinational corporation here said: ‘DBS should be proud that someone from their company wants to take up this position.’
But others noted that Ms Lau flouted a rule staff should have known about.
A senior corporate affairs officer at a large Singapore-based company said that most top companies would have codes of conduct to deal with conflict-of-interest issues. ‘In this case, it seems that she was aware of it and yet chose to breach the bank’s code of conduct.’
Still, Mr Josh Goh, senior manager for corporate services at search firm The GMP Group, pointed out: ‘In most cases, this would have been kept a private issue.’
Asked why he thought DBS reacted the way it did, he said it could be because Aware is an influential group.
‘It seems there are serious concerns over whether she should take up such a major role. So they had to come out strongly,’ he said.
Others felt that DBS acted the way it did because it was unhappy at the prospect of being drawn unnecessarily into controversy.
Ms Lau’s team had been asked last year to identify a suitable charity to benefit from a DBS credit card fund-raising drive.
The bank chose Focus on the Family, and ran into protests from some customers upset that the charity and its American parent group took a strongly anti-homosexual line.
A banker with extensive consumer banking experience said: ‘Given that DBS only recently went through a fiasco when it chose the anti-gay Focus on the Family as the Christmas charity for its credit cards, they would understandably have been very worried about Josie taking a leadership role at Aware.
‘It’s easy to make the link from Josie to the DBS cards division and the Focus on the Family issue.’
So while the bank’s actions may strike some as excessive, she pointed out: ‘It wasn’t just any officer taking on any appointment.’
chanckr@sph.com.sg
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27340.1
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Sacked by a terse e-mail
Sacked by a terse e-mail
April 19, 2009
THERE was no phone call, no reason given, and no thank you.
All Ms Braema Mathi, 51, received was a terse e-mail on Thursday telling her she was no longer chairman of Aware’s Cedaw Committee.
She was told she was no longer in charge effective March 28, the date of Aware’s annual general meeting.
‘Talk about being unceremoniously dumped,’ said Ms Mathi, a former Nominated Member of Parliament and president of Aware.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) is an international convention adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Singapore acceded to this treaty in 1995.
Countries under the treaty submit two reports, one by the state and another by an advocacy group, every four years to a UN expert committee which then issues recommendations on compliance.
Ms Mathi has been involved in preparing the Cedaw report since 2004. She presented one report to the UN in 2007, and is in the midst of finishing a second with the help of more than 20 volunteers.
‘I don’t know what I have done wrong or am not doing right,’ said Ms Mathi, who is currently doing consultancy work for Unifem.
She is not the only one upset.
Undergraduate Chen Siya, 22, who has volunteered on both past and present reports said: ‘It’s very disrespectful and it’s not the right way of doing things.
‘What they did is contrary to Aware values of allowing people committed to advocacy to continue doing such work.’
Repeated attempts by The Straits Times to contact the new Aware leadership for comment were unsuccessful.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27339.1
April 19, 2009
THERE was no phone call, no reason given, and no thank you.
All Ms Braema Mathi, 51, received was a terse e-mail on Thursday telling her she was no longer chairman of Aware’s Cedaw Committee.
She was told she was no longer in charge effective March 28, the date of Aware’s annual general meeting.
‘Talk about being unceremoniously dumped,’ said Ms Mathi, a former Nominated Member of Parliament and president of Aware.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) is an international convention adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Singapore acceded to this treaty in 1995.
Countries under the treaty submit two reports, one by the state and another by an advocacy group, every four years to a UN expert committee which then issues recommendations on compliance.
Ms Mathi has been involved in preparing the Cedaw report since 2004. She presented one report to the UN in 2007, and is in the midst of finishing a second with the help of more than 20 volunteers.
‘I don’t know what I have done wrong or am not doing right,’ said Ms Mathi, who is currently doing consultancy work for Unifem.
She is not the only one upset.
Undergraduate Chen Siya, 22, who has volunteered on both past and present reports said: ‘It’s very disrespectful and it’s not the right way of doing things.
‘What they did is contrary to Aware values of allowing people committed to advocacy to continue doing such work.’
Repeated attempts by The Straits Times to contact the new Aware leadership for comment were unsuccessful.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27339.1
Jackass of the Week award - The Shocking Ignorance from Minister Khaw
Jackass of the Week award - The Shocking Ignorance from Minister Khaw
Health Minister Khaw’s latest comments about how research and progress in Singapore’s medical industry has prolonged the life of a Singaporean to 80 years is incredulous o me.
Would he like to point out and highlight exactly what products or medical procedures developed through research in Singapore have contributed to this age? The groundwork for a better life span was laid decades ago, long before Singapore had a so call medical industry.
The average life expectancy of the country of Andorra is 83.5 years. That is 3.5 years longer than what Minister Khaw claims Singapore’s is. Are we to assume that that small country has poured more R & D into their medical industry than we have? Is the Andorran Health Minister paid more than he is to accomplish this?
Someone from Mr. Khaw’s ministry should vet all his comments before they are made public. They should explain to the Minister that average life expectancy in Singapore is already just under 82 years. He is shortchanging the average Singaporean’s lifespan by 2 years.
The average life expectancy for a Singaporean female has already far surpassed the Minister’s figure at 84.7 years. In addition, the longevity of the average Singaporean is due to our low infant mortality rate, improvement in our diets, and lower poverty levels.
Medical research in Singapore has hardly contributed to any of these. The elimination of many diseases such as polio, and the development of treatment for other common diseases like Diabetes and Cancer, originated from medical reseach in other countries and not Singapore.
It is this medical progress developed elsewhere that has prolonged live everywhere, not just here. All developed countries have shown increases in their life expectancy.
These comments show the ignorance of a Health Minister who is not a medical professional by training. It is typical of the PAP to place unqualified persons in charge of vital ministries who have their training and career in other areas.
In his case, engineering. Perhaps the Minister cares to design a better hospital bed? It is shocking to me that someone who supposedly ran NUH, KK, and SGH can be so ignorant about the average life span os calculated.
This is not the first public misstep that Khaw has made. His handling of the SARs, and Dengue outbreaks are also farcical.
However, the most comical comments of all must be these new ones claiming credit for longevity through Singapore’s medical research, when everybody knows that these have contributed almost nothing to it. He will be claiming credit for the invention of bed pan next.
This is another PAP trait, that is, to claim credit for something that can’t even be remotely link to them, but at the same time to disavow themselves of any blame or cupability when things go wrong. Uniquely Singapore. Mr. Khaw is this week’s Jackass of the Week.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27332.1
Health Minister Khaw’s latest comments about how research and progress in Singapore’s medical industry has prolonged the life of a Singaporean to 80 years is incredulous o me.
Would he like to point out and highlight exactly what products or medical procedures developed through research in Singapore have contributed to this age? The groundwork for a better life span was laid decades ago, long before Singapore had a so call medical industry.
The average life expectancy of the country of Andorra is 83.5 years. That is 3.5 years longer than what Minister Khaw claims Singapore’s is. Are we to assume that that small country has poured more R & D into their medical industry than we have? Is the Andorran Health Minister paid more than he is to accomplish this?
Someone from Mr. Khaw’s ministry should vet all his comments before they are made public. They should explain to the Minister that average life expectancy in Singapore is already just under 82 years. He is shortchanging the average Singaporean’s lifespan by 2 years.
The average life expectancy for a Singaporean female has already far surpassed the Minister’s figure at 84.7 years. In addition, the longevity of the average Singaporean is due to our low infant mortality rate, improvement in our diets, and lower poverty levels.
Medical research in Singapore has hardly contributed to any of these. The elimination of many diseases such as polio, and the development of treatment for other common diseases like Diabetes and Cancer, originated from medical reseach in other countries and not Singapore.
It is this medical progress developed elsewhere that has prolonged live everywhere, not just here. All developed countries have shown increases in their life expectancy.
These comments show the ignorance of a Health Minister who is not a medical professional by training. It is typical of the PAP to place unqualified persons in charge of vital ministries who have their training and career in other areas.
In his case, engineering. Perhaps the Minister cares to design a better hospital bed? It is shocking to me that someone who supposedly ran NUH, KK, and SGH can be so ignorant about the average life span os calculated.
This is not the first public misstep that Khaw has made. His handling of the SARs, and Dengue outbreaks are also farcical.
However, the most comical comments of all must be these new ones claiming credit for longevity through Singapore’s medical research, when everybody knows that these have contributed almost nothing to it. He will be claiming credit for the invention of bed pan next.
This is another PAP trait, that is, to claim credit for something that can’t even be remotely link to them, but at the same time to disavow themselves of any blame or cupability when things go wrong. Uniquely Singapore. Mr. Khaw is this week’s Jackass of the Week.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27332.1
Regressive Public Order Act serves more of a political than security purpose
Regressive Public Order Act serves more of a political than security purpose
The new Public Order Act passed recently in Parliament is a regressive law put in place by the PAP to serve their own petty partisan interest rather than to maintain public order and security as claimed. (read article here)
The Act will give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive “move-on” orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.
Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam quoted the examples of scenes of disruption like those at international meetings such as the G20 meeting in London and more recently, the failed ASEAN Summit in Thailand’s Pattaya to defend the need for the new law.
CNA reported that that’s exactly what Singapore, which will later this year host the APEC meetings where many world leaders are expected to attend, wants to avoid.
I cannot understand how the “move-on” orders will help to prevent large numbers of demonstrators from gathering in the first place. How is the police going to get their message across when they are swarmed by thousands of determined protestors in one go?
It is highly unlikely that we will see hundreds of Singaporeans protesting at the APEC meetings. A more probable group will be foreigners from NGOs and human rights organizations in which a riot police on standby will suffice to maintain public order and security.
Existing laws are adequate to prevent disruption to law and order. The police are well equipped to restrain the protestors and arrest them on the spot. Why then do we need another public order act?
The “move on” order under the Act is deliberately targetted at small numbers of Singapore protestors making use of international events to draw attention to the PAP’s draconian laws curbing civil rights and liberties of Singaporeans.
The SDP had effectively organized and launched small group protests at previous international events held in Singapore such as the IMF meeting much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the PAP.
Photos of the police officers forming a human chain around an unarmed Chee Siok Chin were circulated widely on the internet, disgracing the PAP government in eyes of the international community which explains why under the new law, third parties are not permitted to film the ongoing protests either.
Under the new Bill, three types of activities will require permits: Those that demonstrate support for or against views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; those that publicises a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.
This means that outdoor political activities against the PAP’s interest will be completely outlawed. No Singaporean will be allowed to demonstrate against any PAP leaders, the PAP itself or even a PAP policy.
Mr K Shanmugam, said: “The approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability.
“Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?
The minister’s argument is both shallow and disingenuous. There is absolutely no correlation between the freedom to exercise one’s political right and public safety.
Singaporeans have shown during the minibond rallies last year at Hong Lim Park that we are able to assemble and protest peacefully without endangering ourselves and others.
Besides, there are many measures the police can take to pre-empt public assemblies from descending into chaos such as limiting the number of protestors and searching their bodies for dangerous weapons before they are allowed to gather.
The real motive behind the law is to prevent any public expression of disaffection and anger against the PAP’s governance because not only will it bring shame and disrepute to the PAP, it will also shatter the myth that it is a popular government voted into power by the people.
The PAP knows that People Power is the only way Singaporeans can remove them from power. By curtailing the right of Singaporeans to assemble which is guaranteed under our Constitution, Singaporeans will have no choice but to play according to the rules set by them.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27330.1
The new Public Order Act passed recently in Parliament is a regressive law put in place by the PAP to serve their own petty partisan interest rather than to maintain public order and security as claimed. (read article here)
The Act will give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive “move-on” orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.
Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam quoted the examples of scenes of disruption like those at international meetings such as the G20 meeting in London and more recently, the failed ASEAN Summit in Thailand’s Pattaya to defend the need for the new law.
CNA reported that that’s exactly what Singapore, which will later this year host the APEC meetings where many world leaders are expected to attend, wants to avoid.
I cannot understand how the “move-on” orders will help to prevent large numbers of demonstrators from gathering in the first place. How is the police going to get their message across when they are swarmed by thousands of determined protestors in one go?
It is highly unlikely that we will see hundreds of Singaporeans protesting at the APEC meetings. A more probable group will be foreigners from NGOs and human rights organizations in which a riot police on standby will suffice to maintain public order and security.
Existing laws are adequate to prevent disruption to law and order. The police are well equipped to restrain the protestors and arrest them on the spot. Why then do we need another public order act?
The “move on” order under the Act is deliberately targetted at small numbers of Singapore protestors making use of international events to draw attention to the PAP’s draconian laws curbing civil rights and liberties of Singaporeans.
The SDP had effectively organized and launched small group protests at previous international events held in Singapore such as the IMF meeting much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the PAP.
Photos of the police officers forming a human chain around an unarmed Chee Siok Chin were circulated widely on the internet, disgracing the PAP government in eyes of the international community which explains why under the new law, third parties are not permitted to film the ongoing protests either.
Under the new Bill, three types of activities will require permits: Those that demonstrate support for or against views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; those that publicises a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.
This means that outdoor political activities against the PAP’s interest will be completely outlawed. No Singaporean will be allowed to demonstrate against any PAP leaders, the PAP itself or even a PAP policy.
Mr K Shanmugam, said: “The approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability.
“Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?
The minister’s argument is both shallow and disingenuous. There is absolutely no correlation between the freedom to exercise one’s political right and public safety.
Singaporeans have shown during the minibond rallies last year at Hong Lim Park that we are able to assemble and protest peacefully without endangering ourselves and others.
Besides, there are many measures the police can take to pre-empt public assemblies from descending into chaos such as limiting the number of protestors and searching their bodies for dangerous weapons before they are allowed to gather.
The real motive behind the law is to prevent any public expression of disaffection and anger against the PAP’s governance because not only will it bring shame and disrepute to the PAP, it will also shatter the myth that it is a popular government voted into power by the people.
The PAP knows that People Power is the only way Singaporeans can remove them from power. By curtailing the right of Singaporeans to assemble which is guaranteed under our Constitution, Singaporeans will have no choice but to play according to the rules set by them.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27330.1
Why proper oversight of police powers is important
Why proper oversight of police powers is important
Two articles from The New Statesman and The Economist show that abuse of powers by the police can happen if left unchecked. How does our new Public Order Act square up to this?
After the demonstrations during the recent G20 summit in London, the biggest story is not about the alleged rowdiness of the demonstrators but the possible misconduct of the police in handling the protestors as well as their involvement in the death of a British by-stander.
This goes to show that the law minister’s rhetoric during the recent debate over the Public Order Bill about believing that policemen are “fundamentally honest” is missing the point: given that the latter are the ones carrying guns and batons, it is important to ensure that there is proper oversight over police powers, which is critically missing from the Bill. Instead, what the Bill does is to grant the police even more abitrary powers.
No one would advocate crippling the effectiveness of the police force - but it is crucial to ensure that there is proper accountability when something does go wrong. Worryingly, the government’s track record gives little reassurance that the public can expect such accountability.
The truth of the G20 case of Ian Tomlinson and the other one of Brazillian Jean Charles de Menezes, wrongly suspected of being a potential suicide bomber who was shot by British police, came to light only when video footages (from a by-stander and from CCTVs) revealed that what had taken place were contrary to what the police had first claimed.
In Singapore’s Public Order Act and in the amended Films Act, the police can stop anyone from filming such events and order the person to destroy the recording. What would have happened if Britain’s police too had powers to do the same? (Watch the four videos below)
Excerpts from The New Statesman, “Public enemy number one“:
In the case of de Menezes, the police briefed for a full 24 hours that the victim was an Islamist terrorist – “Suicide bomber shot on Tube” was the Sky News strapline – and only eventually conceded that he was innocent. Andy Hayman, then the Met’s head of counterterrorism and intelligence, was later shown to have concealed his doubts about de Menezes’s guilt from the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, during the hours and days after the shooting. Since then, details have emerged of how the police deleted and selectively presented CCTV footage and photographs of de Menezes. Furthermore, it was said that he had been running; that he had jumped the Tube barriers; that he had been wearing a bulky coat; and that he had been challenged verbally by police. In fact, CCTV footage finally released in July 2007 shows a lightly dressed de Menezes calmly picking up a morning newspaper and strolling through the station barriers on to the escalator.
Similarly, on the day that Tomlinson died of a heart attack the Met issued a wholly misleading statement. A member of the public, it said, told police that “there was a man who had collapsed round the corner”. Officers, it was claimed, had tried to help medics save his life as “missiles, believed to be bottles”, were hurled at them.
The reality, again revealed in video, shows Tomlinson walking with his hands in his pockets, offering neither resistance nor threat to the police line behind him. Next, he is struck around the legs by a baton-wielding Territorial Support Group officer who then shoves Tomlinson to the ground. After “bouncing” – a witness’s word – on the ground, a terrified Tomlinson can be seen looking up in disbelief at the officers, who stand back, leaving the public to tend to him.
What connects de Menezes, Tomlinson and countless other victims of brutality is the fact that the police get away with it. Each outrage is treated as an isolated incident; the link running through them is left unmade.
“I cannot see how the City of London Police could have been expected to be the right vehicle for investigating Tomlinson’s death, when they were part of the same policing operation,” says the former London mayor Ken Livingstone.
For decades, politicians from both main parties have praised the police and bolstered them with new powers. Yet the force remains the one public body in the United Kingdom not subject to the spotlight of scrutiny
Excerpts from The Economist, “The camera is mightier than the sword“:
Despite the threats to destroy capitalism and hang the bankers, the real hero of London’s G20 demonstrations on April 1st may turn out to be an American fund manager. The anonymous capitalist accidentally filmed a policeman assaulting Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor who was making his way home through the protest. Mr Tomlinson was clubbed from behind with a baton and shoved to the ground as he walked away from a line of officers, hands in his pockets. He subsequently died of a heart attack.
Just as the shock of that footage was receding, another video nasty emerged. In it a woman at a vigil for Mr Tomlinson on the following day is slapped and baton-thwacked by a different officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now investigating both cases. Given that most of the 5,000-odd protesters had cameras, more may well emerge.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27329.1
Two articles from The New Statesman and The Economist show that abuse of powers by the police can happen if left unchecked. How does our new Public Order Act square up to this?
After the demonstrations during the recent G20 summit in London, the biggest story is not about the alleged rowdiness of the demonstrators but the possible misconduct of the police in handling the protestors as well as their involvement in the death of a British by-stander.
This goes to show that the law minister’s rhetoric during the recent debate over the Public Order Bill about believing that policemen are “fundamentally honest” is missing the point: given that the latter are the ones carrying guns and batons, it is important to ensure that there is proper oversight over police powers, which is critically missing from the Bill. Instead, what the Bill does is to grant the police even more abitrary powers.
No one would advocate crippling the effectiveness of the police force - but it is crucial to ensure that there is proper accountability when something does go wrong. Worryingly, the government’s track record gives little reassurance that the public can expect such accountability.
The truth of the G20 case of Ian Tomlinson and the other one of Brazillian Jean Charles de Menezes, wrongly suspected of being a potential suicide bomber who was shot by British police, came to light only when video footages (from a by-stander and from CCTVs) revealed that what had taken place were contrary to what the police had first claimed.
In Singapore’s Public Order Act and in the amended Films Act, the police can stop anyone from filming such events and order the person to destroy the recording. What would have happened if Britain’s police too had powers to do the same? (Watch the four videos below)
Excerpts from The New Statesman, “Public enemy number one“:
In the case of de Menezes, the police briefed for a full 24 hours that the victim was an Islamist terrorist – “Suicide bomber shot on Tube” was the Sky News strapline – and only eventually conceded that he was innocent. Andy Hayman, then the Met’s head of counterterrorism and intelligence, was later shown to have concealed his doubts about de Menezes’s guilt from the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, during the hours and days after the shooting. Since then, details have emerged of how the police deleted and selectively presented CCTV footage and photographs of de Menezes. Furthermore, it was said that he had been running; that he had jumped the Tube barriers; that he had been wearing a bulky coat; and that he had been challenged verbally by police. In fact, CCTV footage finally released in July 2007 shows a lightly dressed de Menezes calmly picking up a morning newspaper and strolling through the station barriers on to the escalator.
Similarly, on the day that Tomlinson died of a heart attack the Met issued a wholly misleading statement. A member of the public, it said, told police that “there was a man who had collapsed round the corner”. Officers, it was claimed, had tried to help medics save his life as “missiles, believed to be bottles”, were hurled at them.
The reality, again revealed in video, shows Tomlinson walking with his hands in his pockets, offering neither resistance nor threat to the police line behind him. Next, he is struck around the legs by a baton-wielding Territorial Support Group officer who then shoves Tomlinson to the ground. After “bouncing” – a witness’s word – on the ground, a terrified Tomlinson can be seen looking up in disbelief at the officers, who stand back, leaving the public to tend to him.
What connects de Menezes, Tomlinson and countless other victims of brutality is the fact that the police get away with it. Each outrage is treated as an isolated incident; the link running through them is left unmade.
“I cannot see how the City of London Police could have been expected to be the right vehicle for investigating Tomlinson’s death, when they were part of the same policing operation,” says the former London mayor Ken Livingstone.
For decades, politicians from both main parties have praised the police and bolstered them with new powers. Yet the force remains the one public body in the United Kingdom not subject to the spotlight of scrutiny
Excerpts from The Economist, “The camera is mightier than the sword“:
Despite the threats to destroy capitalism and hang the bankers, the real hero of London’s G20 demonstrations on April 1st may turn out to be an American fund manager. The anonymous capitalist accidentally filmed a policeman assaulting Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor who was making his way home through the protest. Mr Tomlinson was clubbed from behind with a baton and shoved to the ground as he walked away from a line of officers, hands in his pockets. He subsequently died of a heart attack.
Just as the shock of that footage was receding, another video nasty emerged. In it a woman at a vigil for Mr Tomlinson on the following day is slapped and baton-thwacked by a different officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now investigating both cases. Given that most of the 5,000-odd protesters had cameras, more may well emerge.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27329.1
HDB LEASE BUYBACK: 200 signed up
April 19, 2009
LEASE BUYBACK
200 signed up
| By Zakir Hussain | ||
 |  | Some owners of larger HDB homes have asked to be included in the scheme, which is only for owners of three-room or smaller flats. -- ST PHOTO: TERENCE TAN |
In all, about 200 elderly Singaporeans have taken up the offer since its launch last month, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at a roadshow pitching the scheme to his constituents.
Those who qualify will sell to the HDB the tail-end of their lease at market rate, and the proceeds will be used to buy an annuity from the CPF Board.
This annuity could give Mr Adali and his wife, who is 69, a total of about $600 a month throughout their life.
'I consulted my family, and they are all supportive as they feel the scheme is beneficial to us,' said the father of 11 who bought his three-room flat in 1981 for $21,900.
It is now worth $248,000, he said, adding that he makes about $600 a month as a mosque caretaker.
The rise in value of HDB homes over time was also noted by Mr Lee in his speech to some 1,000 elderly constituents at Nanyang Polytechnic.
He said the Lease Buyback Scheme was possible because of Singapore's highly-successful home ownership programme.
'Even now, in an economic downturn, everybody not only has a roof over their heads, but a property which has appreciated in value over the years,' he noted.
Indeed, some owners of larger HDB homes have asked to be included in the scheme, which is only for owners of three-room or smaller flats.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27321.1
'What did she do to deserve position?'
| 'What did she do to deserve position?' | |||||
| Taken by surprise, Aware veterans question merits of new members standing for recent election This is what happened during the Aware AGM, as told to The New Paper by four members who attended the meeting | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
IT ALL began when a hand was raised, innocently enough, by a new member.
Ms Jenica Chua wanted to nominate Ms Charlotte Wong for vice-president. And so began the takeover. That 28 Mar annual general meeting (AGM) was to spark a bitter feud between new office-bearers and the old guard of the Association of Women For Action Research (Aware), one that has split the 24-year-old association. What exactly happened that day? Four different sources present at the meeting have revealed the twists and turns that led to what amounted to the carpet being pulled from under the Aware stalwarts' feet. Ms Wong's nomination raised eyebrows among veterans. A newcomer for vice-president? It was unheard of. When Ms Wong made her pitch and listed her credentials, she hardly mentioned a word about feminism. Said a source yesterday: 'Many of us wondered what has this woman done for Aware to deserve to be second-in-charge?' How do her accomplishments compare to an incumbent, Ms Chew I-Jin, who has been volunteering for more than a decade. How does she compare to someone who has pounded the streets handing out flyers, and manned the phone for hours counselling desperate women? How much did Ms Wong even know about Aware? Did she stand a chance? She did. In hindsight, the first indication that this election would be a watershed was the large turnout. By 2pm, the Aware Centre was teaming with women. In previous years, only about 40 people would show up. But this year, there were over 100 - 80 of whom were fresh faces. Almost all of them were middle-aged Chinese women. They appeared unfamiliar with the Aware Centre.
Both the air-conditioned conference room and the lobby had to be used to accommodate the large turnout. Shock for veterans Ms Constance Singam, 72, the outgoing president and chair of the AGM, nominated Mrs Claire Nazar for presidency. She spoke glowingly about Mrs Nazar's work on the sexual harassment committee. Mrs Nazar was elected unopposed. Next was the vice-president's seat. Ms Singam nominated Ms Chew, who gave a speech about her involvement with feminism. After 15 years in Aware, this was her time to shine. Then Ms Wong was nominated. When both of them left the room, and it was time to vote, Ms Wong won by a huge margin. The veterans were shocked. They did not know Ms Wong. Neither did they know the women who voted for her. That was how Aware's No 2 spot went to an unknown. This process - whereby a new member would nominate another new member, who was then voted in by new members - repeated itself when Ms Jenica Chua was elected honorary secretary. By this time, older members were becoming alarmed. One said she felt uncomfortable with the new members running for positions because they did not understand Aware enough, and had not done enough for Aware. But a new member replied that Ms Singam was looking for new faces, and they were new faces. The pattern continued. All but one of the key positions were won by large margins - through new voters. Only another key position - assistant honorary treasurer - went to Ms Chew, and it was a walkover. When it came to voting in committee members, each of the 13 nominees gave a speech, and the ones with the top six votes were to get in. During the meeting, some veteran members started searching the Internet for background on the more vocal new members. They discovered that many of them had written strongly-worded letters to the press against gay lifestyles. This, combined with the increasingly obvious voting pattern, prompted the veteran members to start asking a lot more questions. A veteran member pointedly asked a new member what she felt about homosexuality. Her reply: She didn't accept it. The veteran member rebutted: 'But in Aware, we do not discriminate.' The new member said she just did not agree with gay lifestyles. Eventually, she got voted in. One nominee, a veteran member, spoke passionately about the need to educate teenagers about safe sex and the dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases. She got one of the lowest number of votes. Throughout the meeting, several veterans said they were happy that so many people were interested in Aware, but advised these members to familiarise themselves with Aware before running for key positions. Their advice went unheeded. When the meeting ended at 5.30pm, only three of the 12 were veterans. And that was how 28 Mar became the day the old guard of Aware was caught unawares.
Questions, questions and more contention Hidden agenda? Ms Josie Lau, Aware president, in a letter to the press: 'Why have some people cast aspersions on our good intentions? Why are they so angry with us? We've only just begun. 'We seek to improve the quality of life in Singapore. We are pro-women, pro-family and pro-Singapore. 'What is so objectionable about that? Does the old guard harbour an alternative agenda? If so, they should disclose their motives and objectives fully and honestly.' Aware veteran members Ms Margaret Thomas, Ms Corrina Lim, Ms Braema Mathi, Ms Dana Lam, and Ms Tan Joo Hymn, representing the signatories of the requisition: 'Our initial questions remain - what do you want to do in Aware that is fundamentally different from what was already being done?
'If you think the work Aware has done all these years is so good and you want to 'honour' and 'build' on it, why the need to muscle your way into the exco? Such a tactic suggests there may be a hidden agenda that may be contrary to the stance and ethos of Aware.' Secular or... Ms Lau: 'Aware is a secular organisation. Its members come from different races, walks of life and hold different belief systems. Our commitment to advancing the cause of women unites us. As a democratic society, we cherish viewpoint diversity.' Aware's veteran members 'We were further alarmed by media reports that the new Aware president led the marketing team in DBS' credit card campaign last year which supported the evangelical Christian organisation Focus on the Family. 'Aware is a secular organisation that embraces diversity of race, age, religion, culture and sexuality. It must remain so.'
WHO'S WHO IN NEW AWARE LEADERSHIP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER Catherine Tan Ling Ghim (above, extreme left): Financial planner. Member of Million Dollar Round Table. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER Peggy Leong Pek Kay (above, second from left): Lecturer at Ngee Ann Polytechnic's School of Humanities. Has 16years of teaching experience. HONORARY SECRETARY Jenica Chua Chor Ping (above, in red top): In her 30s. Management consultant with top business technology company. HONORARY TREASURER Maureen Ong Lee Keang (above, in patterned top): Last appointment was executive vice-president at SembCorp Group. VICE-PRESIDENT Charlotte Wong Hock Soon (above, wearing glasses): Consultant with ExxonMobil, where she worked for 21 years. Former sociology and anthropology lecturer at National University of Singapore. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER Lois Ng (above): 44 Social entrepreneur who runs business that hires disabled people to produce gifts for tourists and corporate markets. Former journalist, with The New Paper 1990-1995. ASSISTANT HONORARY TREASURER Chew I-Jin (above, wearing glasses): Aware member since May 1995. Previously served on Exco in 1995-1996, and as honorary treasurer in 2008-2009. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER Irene Yee Khor Quin (above, in jacket): Over 10 years of professional experience in financial services. ASSISTANT HONORARY SECRETARY Sally Ang Koon Hian (above, in ruffled top): Runs own law firm, Sally Ang Ebenezer and Company. Has more than 30years of legal experience. PRESIDENT Josie Lau Meng-Lee (above, extreme right): 48, vice-president and head of marketing, cards and unsecured Loans, DBS. Mother of two daughters, aged 17 and 15. Married to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang, who owns several clinics under the Lifeline Medical Group. 'Ms Lau is concerned about work-life balance and the role of mothers as a stabilising factor in a family,' an Aware statement said. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER Caris Lim Chai Leng (not pictured): Freelance social worker, counsellor and trainer. Member of Aware since 2000. Exco member in 2008-2009. |
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27320.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)