Of migration and the Singaporean diaspora
SINGAPORE - A survey conducted by the Singapore Polytechnic revealed one sobering statistic - more than 50% of youths aged between 15 and 29 years old want to migrate overseas if given the chance. Another ironic piece of statistic is that despite going through National Education in their schools, 37% admitted that they are not patriotic. Another interesting number is that despite 60% of the youth not being interested in local politics, half of them want to see more opposition in parliament.
And this migration statistic is worrying our leaders. Senior Minister (SM) Goh Chok Tong admitted in a meeting with Iranian leaders that Singapore is leaking talents, especially the top notch ones. And this leakage of talents extended to the civil service as well. This was ironic considering the fact that SM Goh fired a rhetorical salvo in challenging Singaporeans’ resolve to stay to fight for the nation instead of taking flight at the first sign of trouble, ending with a famous question - “are you a quitter or a stayer?”
Admittedly, this rhetorical question triggered an emotional response. The quitter reference didn’t go down well amongst a number of Singaporeans, especially those who have migrated or have already considered migrating. A variety of reasons were offered to explain their unhappiness. Be that as it may, sometimes it would be interesting to dwell on the causes behind Singaporeans’ decision to migrate rather than the furore over the stayer-quitter remarks.
Mr Seah Chiang Nee, in an article published in the Sunday Star, attributed one of the causes to a self-centred generation with no personal bond to the nation. Half of it is figured by Mr Seah. The other half is possibly attributable to the fact that Singaporeans are rarely offered a part to play in the running of the nation. Singapore has always been run in a top-down approach, the catch phrase for that is a paternalistic form of governance. Basically, Singaporeans have not much say in the running of Singapore.
Thus, there is a need to engage Singaporeans in the sense that they should be given a say in the direction that Singapore should take, and in doing so, shoulder more responsibilities. When citizens are given more responsibilities in running the country within a decentralized system of governance, the national bond naturally comes. In fact, this engagement should be extended to Singaporeans who have left our shores.
The case study of India has taught us that despite the brain drain, the Indian diaspora worldwide has benefitted India in terms of cash injection and technology transfer. It would be tragic if the Singapore government fails to engage the Singaporean diaspora worldwide.
One solution to the brain drain in SM Goh’s words is “to turn to talented people from other countries, get them to work here and eventually turn them into Singaporeans”. That in itself is a gamble because not all foreigners would end up taking up Singapore citizenship.
However, the pertinent question is - has the government completely forgotten the former sons of Singapore? It appeared that SM Goh’s reference to them as “quitters” will only further alienate them. One really wonders if it has ever occurred to the Singapore government that the Singapore diaspora worldwide can still be considered a valuable resource in terms of knowledge and finance. Even SM Goh conceded that these talented former Singaporeans are “harvested straightaway by top companies and institutions”. Thus, wouldn’t a friendly engagement allow Singapore to tap on their expertise or benefit from their cash injection? Alienation would only burn the bridges for eternity.
When there was talk about building up a knowledge-based economy, the government rolled out the red carpet in welcoming foreign luminaries. Perhaps, the same red carpet should also be rolled out to welcome overseas-based Singaporean or ex-Singaporean experts too.
Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong envisioned Singapore as “an inclusive society where no one will be left behind”. It is a beautiful vision worth attaining. However, former Singaporeans should also be included in this vision. Even as they have left our shores, they are still a part of us nonetheless. Instead of burning bridges, more bridges should be built to reach out to such Singaporeans.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26997.1
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Policies for greater equity?
Policies for greater equity?
SINGAPORE - It is said that National Service (NS) is a necessary evil. One of the popular arguements raised by the establishment is that economic security is tied in with national security. Thus, NS forms this bedrock of our national security.
However, Singapore’s open door policy to foreigners have made the equation more complex. First and foremost, employers are not required to make CPF contributions for foreign employees without Permanent Residency status. Secondly, foreign employees are not required to serve NS, and do not have reservist duties and physical fitness tests to worry about. Thus, there may be a perceived disadvantage that NS men employees have in comparison to their foreign counterparts. And socially, this may lead to discontentment among NS men who feel marginalized by their perceived disadvantages.
Our foreign counterparts can be said to benefit from the security provided by our NS men. Some have even feedbacked that they found Singapore to be safer than their own countries. However, at the other side of the spectrum, locals may feel that their rice bowl is threatened by their foreign counterparts, and the negative emotions will be acute if these locals have to fulfill NS duties, providing security to those who will eventually compete with them for their rice bowl.
Perhaps, policies for greater equity can be considered to level the playing field. One suggestion is to get foreigners to serve NS. A rhetorical suggestion it is, but an untenable one at best because it presents another set of difficulty. The military for instance would be hesitant in having foreign presence amongst its ranks because that would mean that the latter would be able to gain access to highly classified information.
What other policies towards achieving equity can be considered? The first policy would be to increase the tax burden on foreigners. The reasoning is simple. They are after all beneficiaries of the security provided by our NS men. It wouldn’t seem equitable if they do not ‘pay’ anything in return for the security, and this looks almost as if they are ‘freeloading’ on the efforts of our NS men. This tax again can be implemented according to various income brackets. There may be difficulties in its implementation but at least it is a more reasonable approach than getting foreigners to serve NS. And the returns from the increased taxes can be directed towards welfare for Singaporeans, for instance helping NS men who are retrenched and other needy Singaporeans.
Under the current system, foreigners who stay and work in Singapore for 183 days or more are considered tax residents, like other Singapore citizens. All tax residents are subjected to the same tax rates. Increasing the tax burden on foreigners would mean increasing the tax rates for the latter, and this perhaps can be implemented according to different income brackets. Whilst foreigners may be less happy with the increase in taxation, this is a necessary return for the security they enjoy.
And more can be done to increase the attractiveness of hiring NS men. Fiscal incentives can be offered to employers who employ a sizable portion of NS men within their work force. They can come in the form of tax reliefs or tax reductions for instance. And such a move will be welcomed by employers who have to bear the costs of their NS men employees’ absence especially when they have to go for Remedial Training or annual In-Camp Training.
Thus, a two-pronged approach that achieves equity would be increasing the tax burden on foreigners and providing incentives to companies who hire employees with NS obligations. Our national security is a necessity, and thus, those who make sacrifices shouldn’t be placed at a disadvantaged position.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26995.1
SINGAPORE - It is said that National Service (NS) is a necessary evil. One of the popular arguements raised by the establishment is that economic security is tied in with national security. Thus, NS forms this bedrock of our national security.
However, Singapore’s open door policy to foreigners have made the equation more complex. First and foremost, employers are not required to make CPF contributions for foreign employees without Permanent Residency status. Secondly, foreign employees are not required to serve NS, and do not have reservist duties and physical fitness tests to worry about. Thus, there may be a perceived disadvantage that NS men employees have in comparison to their foreign counterparts. And socially, this may lead to discontentment among NS men who feel marginalized by their perceived disadvantages.
Our foreign counterparts can be said to benefit from the security provided by our NS men. Some have even feedbacked that they found Singapore to be safer than their own countries. However, at the other side of the spectrum, locals may feel that their rice bowl is threatened by their foreign counterparts, and the negative emotions will be acute if these locals have to fulfill NS duties, providing security to those who will eventually compete with them for their rice bowl.
Perhaps, policies for greater equity can be considered to level the playing field. One suggestion is to get foreigners to serve NS. A rhetorical suggestion it is, but an untenable one at best because it presents another set of difficulty. The military for instance would be hesitant in having foreign presence amongst its ranks because that would mean that the latter would be able to gain access to highly classified information.
What other policies towards achieving equity can be considered? The first policy would be to increase the tax burden on foreigners. The reasoning is simple. They are after all beneficiaries of the security provided by our NS men. It wouldn’t seem equitable if they do not ‘pay’ anything in return for the security, and this looks almost as if they are ‘freeloading’ on the efforts of our NS men. This tax again can be implemented according to various income brackets. There may be difficulties in its implementation but at least it is a more reasonable approach than getting foreigners to serve NS. And the returns from the increased taxes can be directed towards welfare for Singaporeans, for instance helping NS men who are retrenched and other needy Singaporeans.
Under the current system, foreigners who stay and work in Singapore for 183 days or more are considered tax residents, like other Singapore citizens. All tax residents are subjected to the same tax rates. Increasing the tax burden on foreigners would mean increasing the tax rates for the latter, and this perhaps can be implemented according to different income brackets. Whilst foreigners may be less happy with the increase in taxation, this is a necessary return for the security they enjoy.
And more can be done to increase the attractiveness of hiring NS men. Fiscal incentives can be offered to employers who employ a sizable portion of NS men within their work force. They can come in the form of tax reliefs or tax reductions for instance. And such a move will be welcomed by employers who have to bear the costs of their NS men employees’ absence especially when they have to go for Remedial Training or annual In-Camp Training.
Thus, a two-pronged approach that achieves equity would be increasing the tax burden on foreigners and providing incentives to companies who hire employees with NS obligations. Our national security is a necessity, and thus, those who make sacrifices shouldn’t be placed at a disadvantaged position.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26995.1
The Public Order Act: What it is all about
| The Public Order Act: What it is all about [2009] 14 Apr_ST |
Legal News Archive
Rationalised permits regime
1. Demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government;
2. Publicise a cause or campaign; or
3. Mark or commemorate any event.
Commercial, recreational and sporting activities organised by statutory boards and charities with Institution of Public Character status. This means about half the activities that now require permits.
Special events
The POA empowers the Minister to declare certain events of national importance as 'special events'. The upcoming Apec summit in November is expected to be one such.
All assemblies and processions within a special event or special event area will require a permit.
Move-on powers to deal with disruptive behaviour
1. For non-seizable offences, observe and warn a person, and follow up with a post-event investigation. The police cannot stop the offence from taking place.
2. For seizable offences, arrest the person.
1. interfering with trade or business at the place;
2. disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening;
3. disrupting the peaceable and orderly conduct of an event.
It can also be issued to someone whose behaviour shows he is about to commit an offence, has just committed or is committing an offence.
Filming of security operations
Reason: Such acts can compromise the effectiveness of security operations, jeopardise rescue operations, and blow the covers of covert officers.
These officers can search a person without a warrant if the latter is suspected of having such a film, and even take him into custody.
They can also enter premises to conduct such a search. Equipment used to make such a film may be seized.
The powers cannot be used to prevent filming of police abuse.
Property owners
The onus will be on owners or occupiers of a property to prevent an unlawful activity from taking place on the property, if the police inform them that such an activity is going to take place there. Otherwise they will be guilty of an offence.
Sound principles, evolving framework, Review Page A23
The POA moves away from proscribing based on the number of persons involved in an activity. It focuses instead on whether the activity may have a disruptive effect on the public.
ALLOW STREET PROCESSIONS
'We have been fairly successful with our experiment at Speakers' Corner. The protests there have been peaceful thus far.
We should take that experiment further and allow certain streets which lead up to the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park to be designated safe for processions. Not completely unrestricted as in the Speakers' Corner, but less restricted in that approvals are granted more easily. The procession routes so designated should pose minimum disruption to the public and have permanent security cameras mounted along the streets.'
Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC), suggesting some streets be opened for protests
NO CLEAR-CUT DEFINITION
'The definition of 'cause-related events' is not always clear or easy.
For example, a condom company decides to hold a large-scale outdoor activity to raise funds for patients suffering from debilitating sexually transmitted diseases. Would this require a permit?
On the surface, it is a social activity, a charitable event for a good cause - raising funds to help patients with their medical needs. Ostensibly, it is also a commercial activity to increase brand awareness and sales. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a cause-related activity, promoting a certain kind of lifestyle which may go against society's more conservative values.'
Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar GRC)
OPENING UP
'I see this Bill as continuing the process of opening up that begun a few years ago.
Since as a country we want a more open and free society, and are moving towards more openness, we should not allow any legislation to hinder our growth and development towards active citizenry and civil rights participation.'
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang GRC), applauding the new Public Order law
HIS WORRY: MORE 999 CALLS
'My concern is that the new 'move-on' powers given to police officers will generate an even higher number of 999 calls - for example, people will think it appropriate to call the police to have noisy groups 'move on' from the vicinity of their homes.
'Move-on' directions should be used sparingly and not for non-urgent cases involving, for example, neighbourhood noise.'
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC)
BACK-HANDED COMPLIMENT
'The amendment, she suggested, was made in respect of cause-based activities to placate international public opinion. The first point I take away from that is that it is a back-handed compliment and it is an acknowledgement that in fact this amounts to a relaxation on the current position, which is why she thinks that we are doing it to get some kudos from international public opinion.
But the second point I make to her is, would the Singapore Government introduce legislation to placate international public opinion? She really thinks that? We are not in such a weak position, nor is such conduct usually associated with this government.'
Mr K. Shanmugam, in response to a point made by NCMP Sylvia Lim
BIRTHDAYS AND BIRTHDAYS
'I think Ms Thio will accept there is a difference between a birthday celebration of (the) Prophet (Muhammad) which was celebrated in 1964 and a birthday celebration of Ms Thio's that might be held in a public place.'
Mr Shanmugam, responding to NMP Thio Li-ann, who had asked if a birthday celebration in a restaurant might require a permit, given an assembly was defined as one 'to mark or commemorate an event'.
In 1964, riots broke out when troublemakers instigated a procession to mark Prophet Muhammad's birthday
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26994.1
Straits Times Changes Headline 4 Times Today!
Straits Times Changes Headline 4 Times Today!
There are possibly three reasons why I continue to pay money to read the Straits Times online. The first reason is that I want to know what others are reading daily, the second is I want to know what I'm supposed to know, and the third is that I get to experience pure journalistic gems like what has happened today.
In a continuing episode of Stop The Presses, we shall look at an article that is about foreigners who are going to be hired by one of the two new casinos to be opened here. The Sentosa Integrated Resort (IR) seems to be hiring a lot of foreigners rather than locals, and people are seemingly complaining about this. Mr Wang has the full text reproduced in his blog.
The problem is that the title of the article published this morning, "Singaporeans will get most IR jobs", does not seem to indicate what the rest of the article is trying to convey (because Singaporeans will not be getting the most IR jobs, it seems). Coincidentally, it was just today that I explained to my students that a newspaper article's headline is very important. In situational writing, if the exam question requires the student to write a report/article with a particular title, then the rest of the article should be adjusted accordingly. Mr Wang hypothesizes that in this case, the headline was done perhaps separately from the article. The problem was that the article id not say what the headline tried to suggest!
Now at this point in time, if I were the reporter who wrote the story, my head will probably just explode. How can I possibly reconcile this intractable dilemma? So, the only ethical thing to do was to change the headline a few minutes after the first version went online, as Mr Wang suggests. The second iteration of the headline reads "IR jobs for foreigners?"Indeed, I think that the reporter might have been trying to send a coded SOS message out to alert readers: as pointed out by a commenter, he spelt his own name wrongly to accompany the first unreasonable and erroneous headline, only to correct it later to accompany the more reasonable amendment. (This need not be true; I just thought it would be funny if this really was what happened!)
Anyway, the title didn't seem to satisfy some people, and it was changed yet again to "Buzz Over Resort Jobs". I was just checking the STReader, and the title is now "Uproar over reports of IR jobs going to foreigners". I think this is a reasonable headline. At the very least, it isn't factually wrong!
There are possibly three reasons why I continue to pay money to read the Straits Times online. The first reason is that I want to know what others are reading daily, the second is I want to know what I'm supposed to know, and the third is that I get to experience pure journalistic gems like what has happened today.
In a continuing episode of Stop The Presses, we shall look at an article that is about foreigners who are going to be hired by one of the two new casinos to be opened here. The Sentosa Integrated Resort (IR) seems to be hiring a lot of foreigners rather than locals, and people are seemingly complaining about this. Mr Wang has the full text reproduced in his blog.
The problem is that the title of the article published this morning, "Singaporeans will get most IR jobs", does not seem to indicate what the rest of the article is trying to convey (because Singaporeans will not be getting the most IR jobs, it seems). Coincidentally, it was just today that I explained to my students that a newspaper article's headline is very important. In situational writing, if the exam question requires the student to write a report/article with a particular title, then the rest of the article should be adjusted accordingly. Mr Wang hypothesizes that in this case, the headline was done perhaps separately from the article. The problem was that the article id not say what the headline tried to suggest!
Now at this point in time, if I were the reporter who wrote the story, my head will probably just explode. How can I possibly reconcile this intractable dilemma? So, the only ethical thing to do was to change the headline a few minutes after the first version went online, as Mr Wang suggests. The second iteration of the headline reads "IR jobs for foreigners?"Indeed, I think that the reporter might have been trying to send a coded SOS message out to alert readers: as pointed out by a commenter, he spelt his own name wrongly to accompany the first unreasonable and erroneous headline, only to correct it later to accompany the more reasonable amendment. (This need not be true; I just thought it would be funny if this really was what happened!)
Anyway, the title didn't seem to satisfy some people, and it was changed yet again to "Buzz Over Resort Jobs". I was just checking the STReader, and the title is now "Uproar over reports of IR jobs going to foreigners". I think this is a reasonable headline. At the very least, it isn't factually wrong!
4th Headline
So, what can we learn from this? Well, we learn that it is not easy to write newspaper headlines sometimes! Secondly, the various attempts to change the headline is a story in itself. I hope the reporter will continue to be on the case and will look forward to more updates. It's a most fascinating way of presenting a story!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26832.2
4 month delay in food grading label & 61 rats at Geylang Serai market: Has NEA been complacent?
4 month delay in food grading label & 61 rats at Geylang Serai market: Has NEA been complacent?
According to the NEA website here, it is the “leading public organization responsible for improving and sustaining a clean and green environment in Singapore.”
Two of its stated missions are:
1. Public hygiene and cleanliness: Conducts regular checks on food establishments, cooling towers, swimming pools, and public toilets to ensure a high standard of hygiene is maintained.
2. Management of hawker centers: Oversees the licensing, management and regulation of hawkers to maintain and promote good hygiene practices and public health standards in government hawker centres.
It was revealed that the Geylang Serai stalls were told about their new food hygiene grades last December, but had not received their labels until now.
An NEA spokesman said it viewed the four-month delay ’seriously’ and had tightened its operations to prevent a recurrence, adding that the new labels marked a ‘fresh start’ following the market’s two-day spring cleaning and pest control works last week. (read article here)
We are glad NEA has the decency to admit that the four month delay is unacceptable unlike the PAP leaders who have been quick to shift the blame for the disaster to Singaporeans.
On hindsight, the Indian rojak stall should have been failed in the grading and not allowed to operate till it improved on its hygiene standards.
It is a joke that it was still displaying its old “B” grade which might have given its customers a false sense of security. A “B” grade implies a “greater than average” standard of hygiene.
How a stall given this grade turns out to be a culprit for causing the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore leading to two deaths is anybody’s guess.
It is clear that NEA has been complacent in the following aspects:
1. Frequency of spot checks on eating outlets is inadequate.
2. Hygiene grading system has failed to reflect the true state of hygiene at the implicated food stalls.
3. Failure to detect the presence of rats at the Geylang Serai market only till now.
To compound matters, while the updated hygiene grade labels were collecting dust in NEA’s office, customers were misled by the old labels to patronize stalls which they would otherwise avoided.
It is not true that most diners are not bothered by the labels as reported by the media. There will be Singaporeans who deliberately avoid those stalls with a “C” grade and below out of hygiene concerns.
As Deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and the Environment Lee Bee Wah rightly pointed out: ‘By the time the results of the grading are out, conditions at the stalls could have changed’.
The hygiene grading system was put in place to serve two purposes:
1. To increase the standard of public hygiene at food outlets.
2. To enable Singaporeans to make an informed choice.
The unfortunate Geylang Serai food poisoning episode has exposed the flaws of both NEA’s grading system and its enforcement.
How can food stalls infested with rats be given a “B” or even “C” grading? Does NEA consider dining with 61 rats an acceptable standard of hygiene?
Why did NEA take so long to give out the new labels? Surely it defeats the purpose of conducting spot checks and grading the stalls in the first place if the updated labels are not displayed in time. Can we blame the Indian rojak stallholder from displaying the old label when the new one was not sent to him?
As always in the past, a major damage control operation will be instituted only after a terrible blunder has been made. Without the incident being put under intense public scrutiny by the mainstream media, will the new labels been given out and the rats caught in double quick time?
Some stallholders who were downgraded to a C saw the move as a knee-jerk reaction to Singapore’s worst case of mass food poisoning and rightly so.
Instead of reacting immediately to salvage its battered reputation, NEA should wait till its own internal investigations are complete before releasing a report to the public. What are the areas of inadequacies and what have been done to address them?
It is really quite pointless to “show” Singaporeans that they are doing “something” only after two deaths are lost. As a public agency paid for by taxpayers, Singaporeans have the right to demand for the highest degree of accountability and transparency for NEA.
Who is responsible for this delay in the giving out of the new hygiene labels? Who has been conducting checks at the Geylang Serai market? The implicated officers should be sacked or at least demoted to send a warning to others that such sloppy work will not be tolerated in the civil service.
Nothing less than an open and complete report on what went wrong in the process of enforcement can NEA assauge public fury and disappointment over this preventable tragedy.
The Minister of Environment Dr Yaacob, his Permanent Secretary Mr Tan Yong Soon and NEA CEO Andrew Tan owe every Singaporeans, especially the families of the deceased a public apology.
Mr Tan Yong Soon wrote in the Straits Times last December that “Taking five weeks leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks. Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.”
This is the result of a “good” leader who has built up a “good” team to cover his duties when he was away for 5 weeks which is more than enough time for NEA to send the updated food hygiene labels to the stallholders.
In all fairness, Singaporeans have not been “complacent” in maintaining public hygiene as insinuated by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.
It was NEA which had been complacent in the discharge of its duties. They must have assumed that such an outbreak will never happen in a first world country like Singapore. It did and it is time we review the performance of every ministry, statutory board and quasi-government agencies like NEA to ensure that we are paying the right price for the right man to do the right job.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26856.1
According to the NEA website here, it is the “leading public organization responsible for improving and sustaining a clean and green environment in Singapore.”
Two of its stated missions are:
1. Public hygiene and cleanliness: Conducts regular checks on food establishments, cooling towers, swimming pools, and public toilets to ensure a high standard of hygiene is maintained.
2. Management of hawker centers: Oversees the licensing, management and regulation of hawkers to maintain and promote good hygiene practices and public health standards in government hawker centres.
It was revealed that the Geylang Serai stalls were told about their new food hygiene grades last December, but had not received their labels until now.
An NEA spokesman said it viewed the four-month delay ’seriously’ and had tightened its operations to prevent a recurrence, adding that the new labels marked a ‘fresh start’ following the market’s two-day spring cleaning and pest control works last week. (read article here)
We are glad NEA has the decency to admit that the four month delay is unacceptable unlike the PAP leaders who have been quick to shift the blame for the disaster to Singaporeans.
On hindsight, the Indian rojak stall should have been failed in the grading and not allowed to operate till it improved on its hygiene standards.
It is a joke that it was still displaying its old “B” grade which might have given its customers a false sense of security. A “B” grade implies a “greater than average” standard of hygiene.
How a stall given this grade turns out to be a culprit for causing the worst food poisoning outbreak in Singapore leading to two deaths is anybody’s guess.
It is clear that NEA has been complacent in the following aspects:
1. Frequency of spot checks on eating outlets is inadequate.
2. Hygiene grading system has failed to reflect the true state of hygiene at the implicated food stalls.
3. Failure to detect the presence of rats at the Geylang Serai market only till now.
To compound matters, while the updated hygiene grade labels were collecting dust in NEA’s office, customers were misled by the old labels to patronize stalls which they would otherwise avoided.
It is not true that most diners are not bothered by the labels as reported by the media. There will be Singaporeans who deliberately avoid those stalls with a “C” grade and below out of hygiene concerns.
As Deputy chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and the Environment Lee Bee Wah rightly pointed out: ‘By the time the results of the grading are out, conditions at the stalls could have changed’.
The hygiene grading system was put in place to serve two purposes:
1. To increase the standard of public hygiene at food outlets.
2. To enable Singaporeans to make an informed choice.
The unfortunate Geylang Serai food poisoning episode has exposed the flaws of both NEA’s grading system and its enforcement.
How can food stalls infested with rats be given a “B” or even “C” grading? Does NEA consider dining with 61 rats an acceptable standard of hygiene?
Why did NEA take so long to give out the new labels? Surely it defeats the purpose of conducting spot checks and grading the stalls in the first place if the updated labels are not displayed in time. Can we blame the Indian rojak stallholder from displaying the old label when the new one was not sent to him?
As always in the past, a major damage control operation will be instituted only after a terrible blunder has been made. Without the incident being put under intense public scrutiny by the mainstream media, will the new labels been given out and the rats caught in double quick time?
Some stallholders who were downgraded to a C saw the move as a knee-jerk reaction to Singapore’s worst case of mass food poisoning and rightly so.
Instead of reacting immediately to salvage its battered reputation, NEA should wait till its own internal investigations are complete before releasing a report to the public. What are the areas of inadequacies and what have been done to address them?
It is really quite pointless to “show” Singaporeans that they are doing “something” only after two deaths are lost. As a public agency paid for by taxpayers, Singaporeans have the right to demand for the highest degree of accountability and transparency for NEA.
Who is responsible for this delay in the giving out of the new hygiene labels? Who has been conducting checks at the Geylang Serai market? The implicated officers should be sacked or at least demoted to send a warning to others that such sloppy work will not be tolerated in the civil service.
Nothing less than an open and complete report on what went wrong in the process of enforcement can NEA assauge public fury and disappointment over this preventable tragedy.
The Minister of Environment Dr Yaacob, his Permanent Secretary Mr Tan Yong Soon and NEA CEO Andrew Tan owe every Singaporeans, especially the families of the deceased a public apology.
Mr Tan Yong Soon wrote in the Straits Times last December that “Taking five weeks leave from work is not as difficult as one thinks. Most times, when you are at the top, you think you are indispensable. But if you are a good leader who has built up a good team, it is possible to go away for five weeks or even longer.”
This is the result of a “good” leader who has built up a “good” team to cover his duties when he was away for 5 weeks which is more than enough time for NEA to send the updated food hygiene labels to the stallholders.
In all fairness, Singaporeans have not been “complacent” in maintaining public hygiene as insinuated by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan.
It was NEA which had been complacent in the discharge of its duties. They must have assumed that such an outbreak will never happen in a first world country like Singapore. It did and it is time we review the performance of every ministry, statutory board and quasi-government agencies like NEA to ensure that we are paying the right price for the right man to do the right job.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26856.1
Parliament passes the Public Order Act 2009
Parliament passes the Public Order Act 2009
Parliament passed on Monday 13 April 2009 the Public Order Act of 2009.
Unlike previous legislation which defines an illegal assembly or illegal procession as one that involves 5 or more persons, the Public Order Bill criminalizes public activities held without a police permit by ANY number of people which in the view of law enforcement authorities compromise public order.
Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Parliament on Monday that the Public Order Act is needed prevent trouble at major conferences such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit to be held in Singapore in November this year.
The Law Minister also cited the recent example of political unrest in Thailand in which protesters eager to compel the ousting of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva laid siege on the ASEAN Summit hotel, Royal Cliff Beach Resort, as well as other top-end popular resorts along the Pattaya Beach.
“The backdrop of current events in Thailand, with the international leaders having to leave the conference by helicopter hurriedly, showed very tellingly the need for this legislation,” said Mr K Shanmugam.
He also said that “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”.
However, opposition NCMP Sylvia Lim offered her view that the Government was taking advantage of political struggle in Thailand to “justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of Singaporeans further.”
She said: “As long as this Government respects and upholds democracy, the problems now we are seeing in Thailand will not happen here … … But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.”
I fully concur with Sylvia Lim, who has put across the main point of contention very succinctly. I am also pleased to know that Sylvia Lim voted against the Bill.
A summary of what is involved in the Public Order Act 2009
1. The new Public Order Act rationalises the existing two Bills — the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). According to media reports, 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 publicize a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.
In reality however, public actions made to promote a cause or campaign, or commemorate any event, are ALREADY subject to the need for a police permit, as explained here, here, here, here, here and here. The new Public Order Act thus merely formalizes existing subsidiary legislation in this area, which the authorities have already been selectively using against peaceful demonstrators, and manifestly for political reasons rather than for reasons involving public safety.
Many sporting and recreational activities will be exempted.
2. The penalty for participation in an assembly or procession without permit has increased. The maximum fine for first time offenders is raised to $3,000 and that for repeat offenders is now $5,000.
3. The Act will also give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive “move-on” orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.
A Channel News asia report claims that currently, police can only observe and warn a person if an offence has been committed and follow up with investigations after the event. The report further claims that the police can only arrest the person on the spot if it is a seizable offence such as for carrying weapons. (See here.)
The media report however is misleading. Police have already made on-site arrests of peaceful protesters, such as the Tak Boleh Tahan protest on 15 March 2008, or the protest by four SDP CEC members outside the Istana in 2007 concerning Singapore’s military weapons trading with the Burmese junta.
4. The police will also formally get special powers for international events, which Mr Shanmugam describes as “trophy targets for terrorists”, where they can search people and personal property, including articles of clothing and the contents of vehicles. Law enforcement personnel can also require entrants of designated areas to declare their names and place of residence, as well as the reasons for their presence, before they are permitted entry.
Again, I must point out that law enforcement personnel have already been using such powers before the Act was introduced. For example, Ms Chee Siok Chin of the SDP was abducted by the police, bundled into an unmarked van, and unceremoniously driven away while she and John Tan were on their way to Shangrila Hotel on the evening of 20 November 2007. (See here.) The police used the excuse that Shangrila Hotel had been gazetted as a Protected Area under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chapter 256) in connection with the ongoing ASEAN Summit that was held in Singapore at that time. Other passersby could proceed without hindrance at the same location. Clearly the law applies only to some and not to all.
5. The police will also have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials. The police can also take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this rule does not apply to routine police duties, which means citizen journalists are now prohibited from filming civil disobedience acts, but can continue filming law enforcement personnel giving summons to illegally parked cars or scenes of police officers lazing on the job, for instance.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26833.1
Parliament passed on Monday 13 April 2009 the Public Order Act of 2009.
Unlike previous legislation which defines an illegal assembly or illegal procession as one that involves 5 or more persons, the Public Order Bill criminalizes public activities held without a police permit by ANY number of people which in the view of law enforcement authorities compromise public order.
Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Parliament on Monday that the Public Order Act is needed prevent trouble at major conferences such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit to be held in Singapore in November this year.
The Law Minister also cited the recent example of political unrest in Thailand in which protesters eager to compel the ousting of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva laid siege on the ASEAN Summit hotel, Royal Cliff Beach Resort, as well as other top-end popular resorts along the Pattaya Beach.
“The backdrop of current events in Thailand, with the international leaders having to leave the conference by helicopter hurriedly, showed very tellingly the need for this legislation,” said Mr K Shanmugam.
He also said that “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”.
However, opposition NCMP Sylvia Lim offered her view that the Government was taking advantage of political struggle in Thailand to “justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of Singaporeans further.”
She said: “As long as this Government respects and upholds democracy, the problems now we are seeing in Thailand will not happen here … … But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.”
I fully concur with Sylvia Lim, who has put across the main point of contention very succinctly. I am also pleased to know that Sylvia Lim voted against the Bill.
A summary of what is involved in the Public Order Act 2009
1. The new Public Order Act rationalises the existing two Bills — the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). According to media reports, 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 publicize a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.
In reality however, public actions made to promote a cause or campaign, or commemorate any event, are ALREADY subject to the need for a police permit, as explained here, here, here, here, here and here. The new Public Order Act thus merely formalizes existing subsidiary legislation in this area, which the authorities have already been selectively using against peaceful demonstrators, and manifestly for political reasons rather than for reasons involving public safety.
Many sporting and recreational activities will be exempted.
2. The penalty for participation in an assembly or procession without permit has increased. The maximum fine for first time offenders is raised to $3,000 and that for repeat offenders is now $5,000.
3. The Act will also give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive “move-on” orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.
A Channel News asia report claims that currently, police can only observe and warn a person if an offence has been committed and follow up with investigations after the event. The report further claims that the police can only arrest the person on the spot if it is a seizable offence such as for carrying weapons. (See here.)
The media report however is misleading. Police have already made on-site arrests of peaceful protesters, such as the Tak Boleh Tahan protest on 15 March 2008, or the protest by four SDP CEC members outside the Istana in 2007 concerning Singapore’s military weapons trading with the Burmese junta.
4. The police will also formally get special powers for international events, which Mr Shanmugam describes as “trophy targets for terrorists”, where they can search people and personal property, including articles of clothing and the contents of vehicles. Law enforcement personnel can also require entrants of designated areas to declare their names and place of residence, as well as the reasons for their presence, before they are permitted entry.
Again, I must point out that law enforcement personnel have already been using such powers before the Act was introduced. For example, Ms Chee Siok Chin of the SDP was abducted by the police, bundled into an unmarked van, and unceremoniously driven away while she and John Tan were on their way to Shangrila Hotel on the evening of 20 November 2007. (See here.) The police used the excuse that Shangrila Hotel had been gazetted as a Protected Area under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chapter 256) in connection with the ongoing ASEAN Summit that was held in Singapore at that time. Other passersby could proceed without hindrance at the same location. Clearly the law applies only to some and not to all.
5. The police will also have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials. The police can also take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this rule does not apply to routine police duties, which means citizen journalists are now prohibited from filming civil disobedience acts, but can continue filming law enforcement personnel giving summons to illegally parked cars or scenes of police officers lazing on the job, for instance.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26833.1
Aren't They Quick to Change Their Headlines?
Aren't They Quick to Change Their Headlines?
Around 7:30 am I was reading the Straits Times online and came across the following article:
Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story
April 13, 2009
S'poreans will get most IR jobs
By Lee Wei Chean
TWO reports circulating on the Internet that half of the 10,000 jobs at Sentosa's upcoming integrated resort (IR) have been set aside for foreigners have created a furore among some Singaporeans.Two publications in the Philippines - the Manila Standard Today and the Philippine Star - on April 4 quoted the country's President Gloria Arroyo as saying she has secured 5,000 positions at the casino-resort - opening next year - for Filipinos.
She was quoted as saying she had sent a delegation to Singapore last month to explore job opportunities for Filipino nationals here, and added that Labour Secretary Marianito Roque met Resorts World at Sentosa chief executive officer Tan Hee Teck to talk about opportunities for Filipinos.
Read the full story in Tuesday's edition of The Straits Times.
I found it somewhat suspicious that an article should be entitled "Singaporeans Will Get Most IR Jobs" when in fact, there's absolutely zero content in the article which tells you that this is so.
I got the feeling that the title reflected the conclusion that our obedient, nation-building press had already decided to convey. It was just that the unfortunate journalist just hadn't yet been able to find any facts to substantiate such a conclusion. I quickly saved a screenshot:
Fifteen minutes later, I checked the ST website again and I found that the title had suddenly changed.
Evidently the journalist gave up. He obviously couldn't find any real facts to substantiate the conclusion that "Singaporeans Will Get Most IR Jobs". So now the title had changed to "IR Jobs for Foreigners?".
The best thing the journalist could do was stick in a carefully-posed photo of three very Singaporean-looking Singaporeans. Then he added a caption to say that these are three Singaporeans that Resorts World has hired.
LOL. That's media for you - it's all about creating impressions. Well, I guess some readers will be fooled.
April 14, 2009
IR jobs for foreigners?
Resorts World reassures S'poreans that bulk of the jobs will go to them
By Lim Wei CheanTWO reports circulating on the Internet that half of the 10,000 jobs at Sentosa's upcoming integrated resort (IR) have been set aside for foreigners have created a furore among some Singaporeans.
Two publications in the Philippines - the Manila Standard Today and the Philippine Star - on April 4 quoted the country's President Gloria Arroyo as saying she has secured 5,000 positions at the casino-resort - opening next year - for Filipinos.
She was quoted as saying she had sent a delegation to Singapore last month to explore job opportunities for Filipino nationals here, and added that Labour Secretary Marianito Roque met Resorts World at Sentosa chief executive officer Tan Hee Teck to talk about opportunities for Filipinos.
Manila Standard Today also quoted administrator Jennifer Manalili of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration as saying: 'They are expanding and there will be openings for workers for hotels, casinos and performers.'
Ms Manalili, who was part of the delegation here last month, added: 'Universal Studios will also have a theme park so they told us they want to hire Filipino talent and performers...They might come here to conduct auditions either next month or in June.'
She also told the Manila Standard Today the government will send another team here next month to 'finalise discussions and requirements for Filipino workers'.
The reaction on online forums here to the reports has been furious. Some said setting aside so many jobs for foreigners amounted to 'betrayal'. A netizen going by the nickname likedatosocan wrote on one local forum: 'I am jobless now and Singaporean. Why am I not employed? I can go low as well, I mean on salary. I speak English without accent. Why not hire me?'
Others questioned whether the service provided by the growing number of Filipino service staff here is better than that provided by Singaporeans.
When asked about the Philippine media reports, Resorts World spokesman Robin Goh would only confirm a meeting had taken place. 'The Philippine Embassy requested a meeting with Resorts World at Sentosa, which Resorts World hosted. Jobs for Filipinos were discussed during the meeting, in which Resorts World stated our commitment to hire Singaporeans first, particularly in this recession.'
He added: 'Resorts World will offer 10,000 jobs when we open, and we expect the bulk of them to go to Singaporeans.' He said the resort currently has 500 employees, of whom 80 per cent are Singaporeans and residents here. The remaining 20 per cent hail from countries like Australia, Britain, Malaysia and the United States.
The critical points of the story were left unaddressed. And the critical points are, of course - Why did Arroyo say that 5,000 jobs at Resort World are going to Filipino citizens? How can this statement be reconciled with Robin Goh's statement that the "bulk" of the 10,000 jobs will go to Singaporeans"? How many jobs are REALLY going to Singaporeans?
If there are 10,000 available jobs, and 5,000 of them go to Filipinos, then at best 5,000 of them are left for Singaporeans. That's half. That's not the "bulk".
Is the Straits Times not going to probe deeper and investigate WHY this inconsistency has come about? Was Arroyo lying or misquoted in the Philippine press or did she somehow misunderstand what Resorts World and the Sentosa CEO had told the Philippine delegation?
Or is the truth of the matter just something that happens to be too inconvenient for the Straits Times to talk about?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=26832.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)