Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Speculation over anti-gay conspiracy is unhelpful

Speculation over anti-gay conspiracy is unhelpful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yap Li Gin (Mdm)

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

Further restrictions on peaceful assembly in Singapore

Further restrictions on peaceful assembly in Singapore

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

PUBLIC STATEMENT

AI Index: ASA 36/003/2009

For immediate release: April 22 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Notice: Join AWARE and Vote

Notice: Join AWARE and Vote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
(name removed to protect identity).

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

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

April 22, 2009
GP struck off 2nd time
By Diana Othman
The disciplinary committee of the SMC held an inquiry against Dr Tan Bin Seng (left) in August and March last year, and again in March this year, after which it decided to remove him from the Register. --PHOTO: ST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Ming Yi: Not 'aware'

April 22, 2009
REN CI HOSPITAL CASE
Ming Yi: Not 'aware'
By Selina Lum & Carolyn Quek
Former Ren Ci Hospital Chief Ming Yi (right) is accused of misappropriating $50k of Ren Ci's funds by approving a loan to his former personal aide Raymond Yeung Chi Hang (left). --PHOTO: ST
WHEN Ernst and Young auditors moved in to check Ren Ci Hospital's finances in late 2006, they could not reconcile two loans made to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No linking of hygiene ratings to food stall licence

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

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


Hawker centre (file picture)

Video
No linking of hygiene ratings to food stall licence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- CNA/ir

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

EYES ON AWARE

EYES ON AWARE

Global

Basic Info

Type:
Description:
The Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) is one of Singapore's best-known women's groups, dedicated to supporting gender equality.

On March 28, Aware was taken over by a group of newcomers who had only recently joined the organisation. 102 people turned up for Aware's annual general meeting (AGM), which had been relatively less well-attended in the past. 80 of these attendants had only recently joined Aware between January and March 2009.

When the election of office bearers began, almost every position was challenged by a member of this group. 9 out of 12 of the executive committee memberships went to newcomers, who were voted in by wide majorities.

Mrs Claire Nazar - one of the few old members of Aware to be voted in - became President. She resigned a week into her new term and declined to make any public comment. It is not yet known who will become President.

There are wide-ranging suspicions that this "leadership grab" has been orchestrated by conservative Christians seeking to use the name and the resources of a well-respected institution to further their own agenda.

These concerns have been expressed not only by onlookers, but by older members of Aware.

WHY SHOULD I CARE?
------------------------------------
Besides the fact that Aware is one of the most well-respected and well-run institutions in Singapore dedicated to helping women? And the fact that its takeover, while ostensibly democratic, has more to do with a military coup than an actual legitimate democratic process?

1. Gender Equality
Aware is one of the leading voices for gender equality in Singapore, and has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of this cause. Its full list of achievements can be seen here (http://www.aware.org.sg/?page_id=19).

When the newcomers were asked whether they believed in gender equality, they refused to answer and "kept repeating they were there to support women and to make sure they got ahead and got all the opportunities given to them" (Dana Lam).

We say: This is ridiculous. Aware was set up to promote gender equality. It is completely absurd for it to be taken over by a new executive that not only refuses to state whether it supports the basic principle of the group's existence, but then issues vague, supposedly comforting platitudes about making sure women get what they deserve.

2. Freedom of Sexuality
The blog Alice Cheong in Wonderland has found that the new Honorary Secretary, Jenica Chua, has written in to the Straits Times supporting the criminalisation of homosexual acts. Other new members present, Angela Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, have written similar letters to the Forum pages.

As Fridae.com has noted, Aware was "one of a number of non-governmental groups in Singapore [...] which have called for both Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code to be repealed completely in 2007". In other words, Aware supports sexual equality as well as gender equality - it actively aligns itself against homophobia and anti-gay legislation. None of this sits well with the apparent inclinations of its new members.

However, when asked whether or not the newcomers shared Aware's vision and values, Thiang stated that "questions about the new office bearers' religion and their stand on homosexuality were not relevant".

We say: That's not what you want to hear from people whose personal beliefs appear to run contrary to the values of an organisation they have been elected to lead. We say: If these people are willing to publicly express these beliefs in the ST Forum pages, then they won't exactly be able (or willing) to put these away in order to run Aware the way it should rightly be - according to values of gender, sexual, racial and religious equality.

3. Outreach and Support
Aware runs a comprehensive sexual education programme in Singapore schools, teaching youths how to have responsible, healthy and mature sexual and romantic relationships. It does not support abstinence of "scare tactics" and seeks to "bring sexuality out into the open" (aware.org.sg). We say: If Aware has been taken over by conservative Christians, how long do you think this programme will last?

Aware also runs Direct Services, which provides helplines, counsellors, legal advisors and support groups for all women, regardless of race, religion or sexuality. We say: The objective, non-judgemental and welcoming approach of Aware is what distinguishes it from other women's groups, which often align themselves with religious or ethnic organisations. Singaporean women need an organisation like this to exist, and for its agenda to be unspoiled by those seeking to hijack it for their own means.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
-------------------
Do you agree with this group? Join it. Invite your friends and your family - Singaporean or not, male or female, Christian and non-Christian, gay or straight. We want to be as inclusive as the new executive is turning out not to be.

More importantly, keep watching Aware. Email or write letters to the new executive and let them know that you are concerned for the organisation and hope that its new executive will remain true to the values of Aware. Attend open meetings and express your concerns. (We recommend asking new members of the executive if they believe in feminism. Then watch them try to ramble their way out.)

Better yet, become a member. Yearly membership costs $5 if you're a student below the age of 25, or $40 otherwise. (You can join if you're a man.) You can then vote in elections (or stand for election yourself). Voting keeps the new executive accountable to its members and the organisation itself. Guess what? If there are enough of us, voting also has the handy function of kicking out members of the executive.

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

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