Ours is an ongoing narrative
Weekend • April 18, 2009
Letter from Sabina-Leah Fernandez, Leigh Pasqual, Shivani Retnam, Tan Qiuyi
(Aware members and volunteers)
WE REFER to the comment, “Ladies, have you forgotten your narrative?” (April 13).
As Aware members and volunteers we were shocked by the planning and coordination behind the recent Executive Committee election.
It is always good to bring balance to any form of advocacy and any volunteer group — and we look forward to hearing new voices and new opinions, and debating issues in meetings to come. But while we’re thrilled that so many people are getting passionate and involved, we can’t help but ask: Why the secrecy? How long had this been in the works? What is the agenda?
Aware has done great work in its 20-odd years. Former NMP Kanwaljit Soin rallied in Parliament to change laws surrounding domestic violence, Aware presented the 2008 Cedaw shadow report to the United Nations, it runs programmes that educate women on financial independence, provides free legal advice and counselling to people in need, and actively campaigns against domestic abuse and marital rape.
The implication that over 20 years of work to remove discrimination against any gender or orientation has gone up in smoke is unfounded.
This exco takeover may have been a surprise, but it’s hardly the end.
Saleemah Ismail, president of Unifem Singapore, said: “Women today are standing on the shoulders of giants who came before us and waged wars in their time to make things better.” We tend to agree.
In Singapore, our giants are early parliamentarians like Sahora Ahmat, Chan Choy Siong and Seow Peck Leng, whose work on the legislative assembly led to the 1961 Women’s Charter, or founding members of Aware like Hedwig Anwar, Constance Singam, Kanwaljit Soin and Lena Lim. Nothing and no one can cancel out what these giants have done for women in Singapore.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27546.1
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Searching for Singapore's soul (Part 2): A losing battle for our dialects
Searching for Singapore's soul (Part 2): A losing battle for our dialects
I am truly appalled by the recent speak Mandarin drive. It says two main things:
1. that dialects are a negative interference on the learning of English and Mandarin
2. that it is restrictive because it only confines us to our ancestral village, town, or at best the province.
And to compound the absurdity of this argument, the Straits Times published a letter in the forum by an Ong Siew Chey who said:
Chinese should forget about dialects and stick to mandarin. Language is a tool and we should use the best tool available. Cultural and other values can be dissociated from languages...we do not lose much if we discard dialects
These arguments are highly flawed.
Firstly, a person's ability to learn a language is not a zero-sum game. The government should give Singaporeans greater credit for their capacity to learn. Any doctor will tell you that we do not have a fixed number of brain cells for the learning of languages and should therefore conserve them for only the languages that matter. If anything, my learning of a second and third language helped me appreciate the different languages more.
Granted, with limited time, one may argue that we should be focusing on the languages that matter. But being able to speak a language well has less to do with the number of hours one spends STUDYING it, than with the person's opportunity to practice it and understand the cultural significance of the language.
Which brings me to my next point. How can a person say that: "Cultural and other values can be dissociated from languages"???!!! Language and Culture are intrinsically linked! Good heavens! Which planet is this person coming from?!
Chinese opera sung in Mandarin as opposed to Hokkien can NEVER be the same. There are idoms, terms and phrases used in Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka etc that you cannot fully translate into Mandarin, and which are unique to the historical development of the dialect. You lose the dialect, and you lose the legends, myths and folklores of these communities.
Language is a tool, yes! But who ever said we should only work with one tool. Different tools are designed for different functions, so why rank them as best and second-best? And what's wrong with working with more than one tool?
Lastly, to say that dialects restrict us to only our ancestral town, or province is to have a very limited understanding of the function of language. Can and should we measure the value of a language based on the number of people who speak it? Must everything be valued by a quantifiable measure?
So what if only a village of 20 people speak that dialect? If one of that 20 is my grand father, that ONE person means a lot to me. And he is a part of my history and my family, which I will lose if I don't speak that dialect.
I speak from experience because my late grandparents were from Guang Zhou (a city in China), but I never learnt to speak cantonese. And I grew up very much detached from them, and I never bothered spending time with them because - "What would we talk about when I don't even speak their language?"
Nothing can be sadder than being total strangers with your own family and even when they passed on, I didn't really feel like I had lost a close family member.
Is this the kind of young generation the government really wants to nurture?
Dialects, like language, are a means of communication, and along with communication, peoples' ability to form relationships, identify with each other, and express feelings to each other. You take that away, and you break more than just the language, but the social bonds, sense of community and one's roots.
Did the government not once advocate Singaporean's living overseas to value one's roots and come back to Singapore instead of deserting? We were labeled "stayers" or "quitters".
Do our roots only stop at 1979 when the Speak Mandarin campaign was launched in Singapore?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27266.2
Should we be searching for Singapore's soul?
I had just finished reading a book by Philip Pan, Out of Mao's Shadow: The struggle for the Soul of a New China.
The book started with a powerful presentation of the Tiananmen Massacre and a very stark contrast: before the communist revolution, the Nationalist party used water jets to quell student protests. But when the communist party came to power, they used guns and tanks in response to the students' demand for democratic reform and an end to corruption.
But what hit me harder, was the conclusion of the book, which I felt mirrored some of the issues we face here in Singapore. This is what he said in the concluding chapter:
The internet has emerged as an important venue for people with shared interests...to gather, talk and organise...The hard truth, however, is that many people aren't looking...[the communist party's] "patriotic education" classes in the schools have dulled the public's curiosity...the government has grown expert at manipulating public opinion, especially rallying nationalist sentiment to its side...The party's most important advantage, of course, is the wave of prosperity that it has been riding for more than a quarter century...the wealthiest and most influential tycoons...are the most likely to owe their wealth to the one-party system and the least likely to challenge it.
Indeed, this paragraph can be used to describe exactly Singapore. Singaporeans are very much plugged in to the world wide web, but yet to find people interested in discussing social issues in Singapore - the wrong attitudes we are having towards fertility and aging population problem, the importance of preserving our dialect as a fast disappearing link to our history and ancestry - is not so easy.
Indeed, from the western point of view business development is supposed to be good for democratic development. But the nature of business development in Asia is so different and they fail to understand that in a country where the private sector is nurtured by the state, the business community will be the last people to champion democratic reform.
A friend recently commented to me: "I'm less concerned with saving the world than saving my bank account". Indeed, the government has done a good job of setting the priorities for Singaporeans.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27266.1
I had just finished reading a book by Philip Pan, Out of Mao's Shadow: The struggle for the Soul of a New China.
The book started with a powerful presentation of the Tiananmen Massacre and a very stark contrast: before the communist revolution, the Nationalist party used water jets to quell student protests. But when the communist party came to power, they used guns and tanks in response to the students' demand for democratic reform and an end to corruption.
But what hit me harder, was the conclusion of the book, which I felt mirrored some of the issues we face here in Singapore. This is what he said in the concluding chapter:
The internet has emerged as an important venue for people with shared interests...to gather, talk and organise...The hard truth, however, is that many people aren't looking...[the communist party's] "patriotic education" classes in the schools have dulled the public's curiosity...the government has grown expert at manipulating public opinion, especially rallying nationalist sentiment to its side...The party's most important advantage, of course, is the wave of prosperity that it has been riding for more than a quarter century...the wealthiest and most influential tycoons...are the most likely to owe their wealth to the one-party system and the least likely to challenge it.
Indeed, this paragraph can be used to describe exactly Singapore. Singaporeans are very much plugged in to the world wide web, but yet to find people interested in discussing social issues in Singapore - the wrong attitudes we are having towards fertility and aging population problem, the importance of preserving our dialect as a fast disappearing link to our history and ancestry - is not so easy.
Indeed, from the western point of view business development is supposed to be good for democratic development. But the nature of business development in Asia is so different and they fail to understand that in a country where the private sector is nurtured by the state, the business community will be the last people to champion democratic reform.
A friend recently commented to me: "I'm less concerned with saving the world than saving my bank account". Indeed, the government has done a good job of setting the priorities for Singaporeans.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27266.1
Singapore Government’s Solution to Loansharks
Singapore Government’s Solution to Loansharks
Seriously, I wondered why are the people paying so much money to the tune of 1-2million/minister when they can’t even offer proper solutions. Oh. By the way, make a guess who took this picture. It was taken by a stomp reader. This plus last Sunday news paper where a journalist “manage” to sneak a exclusive peek into the shady world of Geylang makes me wonder… Are normal citizen better than the police in finding crooks? Maybe that is the reason why we can’t find Mas Selamat after so long.
Anyway, was wanting to post this up yesterday. Felt I just saw crap plastered all over ST yesterday. Anyway, for those who have read yesterday paper, it was on the front page on how our still can’t catch Mas Selamat Minister saying on loanshark and those chronic gambler who borrow from it.
Loanshark cases up
Seriously, I think the people are tired of minister sprouting nonsense here. Seems like the minister are trying to outdo each other, Health Minister with his “please send your useless elderly to JB” gaffe, Lui Tuck Yew and his “ internet is not an effective self regulated regime” gaffe and now, we have our high and mighty Mr. Wong saying we should catch those idiots who borrow from loansharks gaffe. I wonder what is the flavor next month? Maybe like half way through the year I’ll come up with a post on the darnest things our highly talented ministers said so we can better emulate them. Anyway, sorry for digressing. :)
Said Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng yesterday: 'This will hold borrowers accountable if their reckless borrowing or gambling habits endanger the safety and security of the community.'
I was speechless when I read this. Can he work some brain? Supply and demand my friend! If there is no one wanting to borrow money, you think the loanshark will stuff cash into you to ask you borrow from them? But I believe my highly talented minister see it from a different angle. This is what I think:
Our dear minister is sick of lesser mortal using the police to guard them against the loanshark. His message for lesser mortal like us is:”Please don’t disturb me with your problems. The government is not interested in solving it for you. We are a meritocratic society, if you have the talent, you solve the problem without the government help. If you can’t, it means you’re just lazy. GET OUT OF MY ELITE UNCARING FACE!”
He is so so sick of having his police force entertaining 4,000 police call regarding loanshark activities. Making so much loanshark call. How to properly go and catch that Mas “Houdini” Selamat?
So, realising that it’s always the borrower that calls the police for help… Highly talented minister got an idea. If I prevent the borrower from calling the police, I’ll cut police call by 4,000. Therefore, the solution was to penalise the borrower when they report to police. After a few public cases, borrowers will wisen up and not bugger the police anymore. Ta-da! Problem solved!
He can’t really be bothered if the borrower are protected. As long the loanshark don’t harass the government, all is peace. 井水不犯河水。 Afterall, his pay is pegged to the highest earner, not the lowest earner. Why content and bother with people who don’t determine how much he’ll get? Lesser mortal can only blame them self for not working/retrain hard enough and being such a lazy bum. The government is right not to provide welfare. Bloody lazy blood sucking lesser mortals!
Ok. Puns aside. The triad are doing their age old job. Providing services where the government fails to provide. If the people are being looked after by the government and is contented with what they have, you think who will still go and look for loanshark? And not all borrowers are gambling addicts. What a degrading stereotypical comments from the thou-holier-than-God men-in-white. To quote from the movie V for Vendetta:
How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
paying peanuts to keep monkeys!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27265.1
Seriously, I wondered why are the people paying so much money to the tune of 1-2million/minister when they can’t even offer proper solutions. Oh. By the way, make a guess who took this picture. It was taken by a stomp reader. This plus last Sunday news paper where a journalist “manage” to sneak a exclusive peek into the shady world of Geylang makes me wonder… Are normal citizen better than the police in finding crooks? Maybe that is the reason why we can’t find Mas Selamat after so long.
Anyway, was wanting to post this up yesterday. Felt I just saw crap plastered all over ST yesterday. Anyway, for those who have read yesterday paper, it was on the front page on how our still can’t catch Mas Selamat Minister saying on loanshark and those chronic gambler who borrow from it.
Loanshark cases up
Seriously, I think the people are tired of minister sprouting nonsense here. Seems like the minister are trying to outdo each other, Health Minister with his “please send your useless elderly to JB” gaffe, Lui Tuck Yew and his “ internet is not an effective self regulated regime” gaffe and now, we have our high and mighty Mr. Wong saying we should catch those idiots who borrow from loansharks gaffe. I wonder what is the flavor next month? Maybe like half way through the year I’ll come up with a post on the darnest things our highly talented ministers said so we can better emulate them. Anyway, sorry for digressing. :)
Said Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng yesterday: 'This will hold borrowers accountable if their reckless borrowing or gambling habits endanger the safety and security of the community.'
I was speechless when I read this. Can he work some brain? Supply and demand my friend! If there is no one wanting to borrow money, you think the loanshark will stuff cash into you to ask you borrow from them? But I believe my highly talented minister see it from a different angle. This is what I think:
Our dear minister is sick of lesser mortal using the police to guard them against the loanshark. His message for lesser mortal like us is:”Please don’t disturb me with your problems. The government is not interested in solving it for you. We are a meritocratic society, if you have the talent, you solve the problem without the government help. If you can’t, it means you’re just lazy. GET OUT OF MY ELITE UNCARING FACE!”
He is so so sick of having his police force entertaining 4,000 police call regarding loanshark activities. Making so much loanshark call. How to properly go and catch that Mas “Houdini” Selamat?
So, realising that it’s always the borrower that calls the police for help… Highly talented minister got an idea. If I prevent the borrower from calling the police, I’ll cut police call by 4,000. Therefore, the solution was to penalise the borrower when they report to police. After a few public cases, borrowers will wisen up and not bugger the police anymore. Ta-da! Problem solved!
He can’t really be bothered if the borrower are protected. As long the loanshark don’t harass the government, all is peace. 井水不犯河水。 Afterall, his pay is pegged to the highest earner, not the lowest earner. Why content and bother with people who don’t determine how much he’ll get? Lesser mortal can only blame them self for not working/retrain hard enough and being such a lazy bum. The government is right not to provide welfare. Bloody lazy blood sucking lesser mortals!
Ok. Puns aside. The triad are doing their age old job. Providing services where the government fails to provide. If the people are being looked after by the government and is contented with what they have, you think who will still go and look for loanshark? And not all borrowers are gambling addicts. What a degrading stereotypical comments from the thou-holier-than-God men-in-white. To quote from the movie V for Vendetta:
How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
paying peanuts to keep monkeys!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27265.1
New Aware head's job at DBS at risk
| New Aware head's job at DBS at risk | |||||
| After just one day, she faces flak from bank and Aware veteran members | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
ONE day into the presidency of a women's group and DBS bank officer Josie Lau Meng-Lee, 48, is feeling the heat of the seat.
Ms Lau, who was elected president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) late on Wednesday night, faces heat from her employers and questions from her Aware predecessors and members. Ms Lau is DBS' vice-president and head of marketing, cards and unsecured loans. Shortly after her Aware election, DBS issued a statement saying that although the bank supports her involvement as an Aware council member, it believes that the role of president would demand too much of her time and energy. Yesterday, when it became clear that Ms Lau was president, DBS issued another statement - this time for her disregard of the bank's staff code of conduct twice. The bank said it was reviewing the matter. The first time was when she became an Aware committee member without informing the bank; the second when she ran for Aware president. The heat from the other side comes from Aware members who told The New Paper that they were unhappy over comments made by the new committee on Wednesday night. Ms Margaret Thomas, 57, a founding member of Aware, felt that the press statement did not address the key concerns of the 160 members who signed a requisition to the new committee. It called for an immediate extraordinary general meeting to clear the air over the way the new members were elected on 28Mar. It also voiced members' concerns that Ms Claire Nazar, who was initially elected president, resigned barely two weeks later. Ms Thomas, a media consultant and a former Aware vice-president, listed the concerns: 'Who are they? What do they want? 'If they remember and honour the work of past Aware members, why did they see the need to come in those numbers, to come and take over the executive committee? 'What are they going to do that is so different from what is being done now, that they felt they had to gain control?' She suggested that the new committee could have worked with, and alongside, the old guard. 'If you join Aware, we take it that you support our principles, our views, feel we're doing a good job and you want to participate.' 'The press release, if anything, just raises more questions.' Even former Aware president Constance Singam, 72, who was to have sat in at the meeting of new committee as its adviser, was initially kept out. She told The New Paper that when the meeting began, she was not allowed into the room. She just sat outside. She said: 'They (the new committee) said they had to deal with some sensitive issues and didn't need my presence there.' Ms Singam was there to ensure continuity between the old committee and new one. Ms Lau is married to Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang, a medical doctor, and has two daughters, aged 17 and 15. According to Ms Lau's CV, she is most concerned about work-life balance and the role of mothers as a stabilising factor in the family. At press time, she could not be contacted for comment. |
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27264.1
AWARE: Demonstration Of Democracy
AWARE: Demonstration Of Democracy
The recent developments at AWARE have been most fascinating. To have an understanding about the official point of view and preference about what we're supposed to think, it's useful to refer to the Straits Times. Today's newspaper is full of stories about the negative aspects of the 'hostile takeover' as well as a negative portrayal of the new executive committee of the women's group. The unorthodox public scolding from the new President's boss DBS bank has also raised an eyebrow or two. Whether this is is just a good news story or whether this is a concerted effort to discredit the new team remains to be seen.
I believe that the new executive committee did nothing wrong per se to get elected. They followed the rules. They planned, they strategised, they got many people to attend the AGM, and they managed to get themselves voted in with their (and other unrelated people's) help. This is how one obtains power; any capable politician knows this.
Most of us are not aware that such a thing can be possible (as seen from the shock expressed by the existing members of the organisation). A change in leadership requires people to vote. Firstly, a lot of locals don't get to vote due to realities of electoral rules. (My father hasn't voted in parliamentary elections for 30 years, for example.) Second, when they do have a chance to vote, they should have some sort of expectation that they might be successful; that some things can, and might, be changed. Usually in this country, that doesn't happen (or at least change happens very slowly). That's one reason for the apathy of young people; they just don't believe that they can do anything to change things.
So, out of the blue, we have this AWARE snafu. A few people who did their homework, obeyed the rules and simply just showed up proved to the rest of the other members who chose to stay at home that change is indeed possible. It's not a mathematical, nor practical impossibility. But more than that, these people who planned the 'coup' at AWARE managed to do something far more psychologically significant. They demonstrated that it is possible to change the status quo, and to do it in just one AGM.
Now, this surely will result in a 'disturbance in the Force', a challenge to our existing paradigm. Do we sit on our lazy butts and wait for others to change things, or do we try to change some things ourselves? Now, one can carry this possibility into national elections, and the thought of it can be a little... disturbing, at least to some. Why might happen if more people thought that it is possible to enact change by voting? This might explain the current backlash against the new executive committee in the official press.
On a different note, I guess this development might be the beginning of the emergence of the right wingers I wrote about 4 years ago. This country cannot really afford this sort of thing, and I'm comforted that the man upstairs probably doesn't want it to happen too. There seems to be an EOGM next month. May the Force be with them...
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27250.1
The recent developments at AWARE have been most fascinating. To have an understanding about the official point of view and preference about what we're supposed to think, it's useful to refer to the Straits Times. Today's newspaper is full of stories about the negative aspects of the 'hostile takeover' as well as a negative portrayal of the new executive committee of the women's group. The unorthodox public scolding from the new President's boss DBS bank has also raised an eyebrow or two. Whether this is is just a good news story or whether this is a concerted effort to discredit the new team remains to be seen.
I believe that the new executive committee did nothing wrong per se to get elected. They followed the rules. They planned, they strategised, they got many people to attend the AGM, and they managed to get themselves voted in with their (and other unrelated people's) help. This is how one obtains power; any capable politician knows this.
Most of us are not aware that such a thing can be possible (as seen from the shock expressed by the existing members of the organisation). A change in leadership requires people to vote. Firstly, a lot of locals don't get to vote due to realities of electoral rules. (My father hasn't voted in parliamentary elections for 30 years, for example.) Second, when they do have a chance to vote, they should have some sort of expectation that they might be successful; that some things can, and might, be changed. Usually in this country, that doesn't happen (or at least change happens very slowly). That's one reason for the apathy of young people; they just don't believe that they can do anything to change things.
So, out of the blue, we have this AWARE snafu. A few people who did their homework, obeyed the rules and simply just showed up proved to the rest of the other members who chose to stay at home that change is indeed possible. It's not a mathematical, nor practical impossibility. But more than that, these people who planned the 'coup' at AWARE managed to do something far more psychologically significant. They demonstrated that it is possible to change the status quo, and to do it in just one AGM.
Now, this surely will result in a 'disturbance in the Force', a challenge to our existing paradigm. Do we sit on our lazy butts and wait for others to change things, or do we try to change some things ourselves? Now, one can carry this possibility into national elections, and the thought of it can be a little... disturbing, at least to some. Why might happen if more people thought that it is possible to enact change by voting? This might explain the current backlash against the new executive committee in the official press.
On a different note, I guess this development might be the beginning of the emergence of the right wingers I wrote about 4 years ago. This country cannot really afford this sort of thing, and I'm comforted that the man upstairs probably doesn't want it to happen too. There seems to be an EOGM next month. May the Force be with them...
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27250.1
Ong Seh Hong: It was a staff loan
It was a staff loan
Weekend • April 18, 2009
Dr Ong Seh Hong,
MP for Marine Parade GRC
IN THE on-going trial of Reverend Ming Yi, my name was mentioned in relation to a loan made to me when I joined Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre as a staff. I am writing to state the facts of the loan and the events leading to it.
I had an outstanding staff housing loan from my previous employer, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) in 1999. I was offered a job by Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre to be Director, Medical and Paramedical Services in January 2000. This was before I was elected as an MP in October 2001.
To join Ren Ci, I had to settle my housing loan with the GIC. One of the conditions for accepting the job in Ren Ci was that Ren Ci was to grant me a loan of $60,000 as a staff loan, to pay off in part the outstanding loan I owed to GIC.
I repaid the sum of $60,000 within three years by December 2002 as per the terms on which the loan was given to me.
When I borrowed the sum of $60,000 from Ren Ci, I was not an MP. Ren Ciextended the loan to me as a staff.
These are the facts surrounding the staff loan extended to me as an employee of Ren Ci Hospital.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27249.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)