YOG: NSmen become spectators? Leong Sze Hian - I was told that the mother of a Natonal Servicemen (NS Men) was griping about her son not being able to attend a family event because he had been ordered to attend the Youth Olympics Games as a spectator. He will be given an early dismissal from the army camp, to go home to change to civilian clothes to attend a YOG event. She is rather concerned that although her son would normally already be very tired after a day’s training, he would still have to go for the YOG event, which finishes very late. Does YOG or the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) reimburse such NSmen for their transportation costs, to and from the YOG event? Are they reimbursed for any meal and drink during the event? Or are they served free food, like the ones that have been highlighted online? Are their attendance taken at the event to ensure that they turn up? It was reported in The Online Citizen article – “YOG – Another farce?” (Jul 10) – that the sluggish sales of 320,000 YOG tickets on 26 May mysteriously shrunk to 245,000 on 7 July, of which 80,000 of the more than 100,000 sold were purchased by the Ministry of Education (MOE). MOE declined to disclose how much they paid for the tickets, or how much the schools and students allocated tickets may have to pay. Does MINDEF have to pay for the tickets like those bought by MOE? From brisk sales of close to 50 per cent of the 245,000 tickets sold (or about 38 per cent of the original 320,000 tickets figure), it then became 70 per cent sold on 2 August, according to the report “YOG ticket sales picking up, with 70% sold” (Channel News Asia, 2 August). Were any of these tickets taken by MINDEF? If more than 70 per cent had been sold as of 2 August, why is there a need to send NSmen to be spectators? Are the amounts paid by MOE and MINDEF included in the almost-more-than-four times YOG budget over-run of $387 million? If not, then what is the additional sum to the total YOG costs? By the way, I think the media may not know how to count, as every media report said that the YOG budget was three times over-run. $387 million divided by the original budget of $104 million is about four times over-budget, or about 300 per cent over-budget! Why is it that there have been no media reports about MINDEF taking YOG tickets and the costs of these? Are the T-shirts given to all ministry staff the same as those given to volunteers? If they are different, how much do they cost and how many were given away to each of the two groups? Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:YOG – another farce? YOG budget over-run, Comcare budget under-run? YOG – a litany of screw-ups Shanmugam says he had been “misrepresented” Report by Channel Newsasia: SINGAPORE: Law Minister K Shanmugam said Singapore’s constitutional provision for presidential pardons is similar to what’s practised in countries like the UK, Australia and Malaysia. He was responding to media queries on the case of convicted drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong. In 2008, the High Court sentenced Yong to the death penalty for trafficking around 47g of heroin. On Friday, a High Court judge squashed a petition by defence lawyer M Ravi to review the clemency process, saying that under the constitution, the power to grant pardons lies solely with the Cabinet. In court, Mr Ravi had also argued that comments made by the minister in May had prejudiced the case. Asked to respond, Mr Shanmugam said he had been “misrepresented”. “There have been many misrepresentations about what I said. Those were repeated several times and continued even after Ministry of Law issued a clarification. Some people seem to have difficulties with the facts even after the clarification was issued, and the High Court has dealt with it,” he said. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam Lawyer M Ravi files judicial review on Yong Vui Kong’s case High Court reserves judgement on judicial review application When should one retire? By Dr Wong Wee Nam 08 August 2010 “If I’d known that retirement was going to be this good I’d have done it the day after I left school!!!” — Mickey White Flowers know when to shrivel and die. Trees know when to shed their leaves. Animals know when they can no longer hunt. Even elephants know when to die. Do Singaporeans know when to retire? Some of them don’t, many of them just can’t and most just don’t know how to. Those who don’t are obviously the very well-paid. If you are getting an income of millions of dollars from your company, why would you want to give that up? I asked my long-retired mathematics teacher, aged 77, for his view on this and, with a mind still as sharp as his putt, he replied, “This is pure mathematical logic”. Those who can’t are those who have, all their lives, been so lowly-paid that they do not have enough savings to retire. These people just have to continue working at their menial job, on a pay that is continually being depressed by cheaper foreign labour and praying that they would not be replaced. For the Singaporeans who do not know how to retire, it is because all their lives they have only known how to work and slog in the name of productivity, but do not how to live and enjoy a life. Moreover how could they when the retirement age is periodically being extended and our venerated sage has advised that retiring is not the wise thing to do? Happy Retirees There is a time for everything. Retiring at the right time is not necessarily a bad thing. Furthermore, retirement from a job is not the same as retirement from living. A lion which has lost its teeth and can no longer hunt will starve to death. As human beings are capable of having family, friends and cultivating a variety of interests, they need not shrivel and die when they retire from a job. For many of the happy retirees whom I know, retirement is just the beginning of another chapter of their lives. My primary two form master’s wife, also a retired teacher, aged 75, is a good example. She wears brightly coloured dresses and dyes her hair in matching colours. Her exuberant expression and vibrant spirit shows how much she enjoys her retired life. Another is this 85 year old patient of mine who enjoys playing mahjong, helping out in church, meeting friends, cooking and wandering all over Singapore looking for food to eat. She once invited me for supper at 313 (I didn’t even know there was such a place then), knew exactly where to get the desert for me and then insisted on taking the MRT and bus home. Unhappy Retirees However not everyone is so fortunate. There are some who had been forced to retired because of ill-health. Two nights ago, a friend called me up to asked me for some advice regarding a friend of his, aged 52, who went into a coma as a result of diabetes. This person had been unemployed because of a festering gangrene of his foot and he had refused treatment because he did not want to burden his family with hefty medical bills and also having to take care of him for the rest of his life. He would rather die. I advised them to call for an ambulance immediately and bring him straight to hospital. When the ambulance came, he regained consciousness and refused to be sent to the hospital. To him, there is no meaning in retirement or living a life that is going to be very expensive for him. Similarly, there are others who have been forced into retirement because they have lost their jobs during the recession or have been displaced by cheaper labour. Because they are middle aged, these people thus find it very hard to get another job again. This group of premature retirees is likely to lose their self-esteem and become depressed instead of enjoying their retirement. To them, postponing the retirement age and asking them not to retire is totally meaningless. The Government’s Role With an aging population, the number of both happy and unhappy retirees will grow. For their contribution to the prosperity of our nation, this group of citizens is entitled to a life in this country. To achieve this, there must be a change in attitude towards retirees by society, the government and the retirees themselves. Instead of seeing them as economic burdens and discarding them as useless economic digits, the government should look to see how it could provide a favorable environment, a good infrastructure and appropriate social amenities to give a life to these people in their golden years. In the early fifties, the government planned and provided health and social services for the poor and the baby boomers. In the next fifty years, the government should be planning and providing healthcare and social services for the retirees. There must also be social and community programmes to engage the retirees. They deserve all these because it is their blood and sweat in their productive years that have given the country its wealth. Singapore is always building this hub and that hub. Have we ever thought of making Singapore a retirees’ hub? A retirees’ hub need not be detrimental to the country. It can spawn new goods and services that could fuel economic changes and also result in the development of skills and expertise that can be exported. The task may be enormous and challenging, but think of the coffee shops in Geylang and the integrated resorts that have benefited tremendously from the patronage of the retirees. We can certainly do with more of other healthier programmes. There is also the social benefit as well. Instead of encouraging the retirees to migrate or go to JB, such a hub would send a message to young Singaporeans that the State cares for them and it’s worthwhile to stay here for the rest of their lives. Retirement Is Not a Bad Thing Retirement is a fact of life. It is not a bad thing at all. It helps in the renewal of leadership, in rejuvenating the workforce and in the removal of stumbling blocks in the system. All workers have a use-by-date whether they like it or not.  An actress, when she is young and pretty, will get all the lead roles. As she grows older, she will act as someone’s mother. Later on she may still get some cameo roles as a grandmother. She should then retire because beyond that no director will cast her as a great-grandmother as there would be hardly any script for great-grandmothers. However not everyone is aware of his or her expiry date. No one will ever think of himself as a stumbling block. This blind spot is often found in civil and political leaders and patriarchs of family businesses. These people always like to think that without them everything will disintegrate and hence are very reluctant to relinquish their powers. Sadly they often end up being like a goalkeeper who has lost his reflexes, does not realize it and starts to let in goals.  Or they end up like the analogy once used in Parliament: an old 75 rpm gramophone that keeps jumping back to the same groove. The Parable of Zhuang Zi (庄子) There is a Chinese idiom害群之马when literally translated means “a horse that is harmful to the herd”. It is used to describe a person who is detrimental to a team. However, it is not easy for most people, especially powerful people, to realize and accept that they could be a harmful horse and retire gracefully. Only a person as enlightened as the Yellow Emperor will be able to do so. In Chapter 24 of his Complete Works entitled Xu Wu Gui (徐无鬼), Zhuang Zi wrote : One day the Yellow Emperor set out with six sages to seek the advice of a very wise man, Great Wei (大隗) at Mount Juci （具茨山）. In the wild countryside near Xiang Cheng City, they lost their way and could find no one to ask directions from.  Fortunately they chanced upon a young boy herding horses, and asked him for directions. “Do you know the way to Mount Juci?” they asked. “Yes.” “And do you know where Great Wei is to be found?” “Yes.” “What an extraordinary boy!” the Yellow Emperor exclaimed. “You not only know the way to Mount Juci, but you even know where Great Wei is! May I ask you how to govern the empire?” “Governing the empire is no big deal,” said the young boy. “It is just like your excursion. Move on and leave your worries behind. When I was little, I used to go wandering but unexpectedly I contracted a disease that made me giddy and which blurred my eyesight. An elderly man advised me to mount on the chariot of the sun and go wandering about in the wilds and not to worry about it. Now my illness is slowly getting better and I intend to go wandering again. Governing the empire just means doing what I’m doing. No big deal. Just go with the flow.” “I know that governing of the empire does not concern you,” the Yellow Emperor said. “Nevertheless, I would like to ask you how it should be done.” The young boy declined to comment but when the Yellow Emperor remained insistent. So the boy said, “Governing the empire is not much different from herding horses. Just get rid of the horses that are harmful to the herd.” The Yellow Emperor suddenly became enlightened. Addressing the boy as “Heavenly Master,” he kowtowed twice and retired. There must be much wisdom in Zhuang Zi’s parable. Otherwise how could it be around for more than 2300 years? 【原文】Original Text 黄帝将见大隗乎具茨之山，方明为御，昌寓骖乘，张若、謵朋前马，昆阍、滑稽后车；至于襄城之野，七圣皆迷，无所问塗。 适遇牧马童子，问塗焉，曰：“若知具茨之山乎？”曰：“然。”“若知大隗之所存乎？”曰：“然。”黄帝曰：“异哉小童！非徒知具茨之山，又知大隗之所存。 请问为天下。”小童曰：“夫为天下者，亦若此而已矣，又奚事焉！予少而自游于六合之内，予适有瞀病，有长者教予曰：‘若乘日之车而游于襄城之野。’今予病 少痊，予又且复游于六合之外。夫为天下亦若此而已。予又奚事焉！”黄帝曰：“夫为天下者，则诚非吾子之事。虽然，请问为天下。”小童辞。 黄帝又问。小童曰：“夫为天下者，亦奚以异乎牧马者哉！亦去其害马者而已矣！”黄帝再拜稽首，称天师而退 Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Retire later, die earlier Retire? Shrivel and face the wall – Lee Kuan Yew How to stay gainfully retired Offer volunteers a decent meal, at least Letter by Leong Sze Hian to Straits Times forum page published on 14 August 2010: I REFER to yesterday’s report (“Caterer acts after criticism of YOG food”). It states: “The committee did not respond to questions on how much was budgeted for volunteers’ meals and whether there had been any guidelines for food provision.” Since volunteers are not paid, I think the least that organisers could do is provide them with decent meals. As Singapore is hosting the first Youth Olympic Games, which will be reported by media internationally, such news does not bode well for Singapore’s reputation. In the interest of public accountability, and given the fact that the YOG budget is already almost four times over the original budget, the following questions should be answered: - How much was budgeted for each meal of a volunteer? Was it a problem with the budget or a case of the caterer scrimping to make more money perhaps? - Was a tender exercise done to award the catering budget? If so, was it given to the lowest bidder, and what was the second highest bid? Answering the above questions may help to ensure that similar problems do not occur in future events. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:$491 for meal at hawker centre JCI seeks volunteers for climate change event YOG: NSmen become spectators? Reader: too much red tape in government jobs and funded courses Dear Gilbert,   Like  many other unemployed Singaporeans, I’ve been looking for jobs in vain for the past five  months after been asked to go from my last employer due to  ‘FT is cheaper than me’  and organizational  restructuring.   I’m been trying to stay positive and holding on to the determination to do job hunting daily and trying hard to stay  away from frustration, disappointment, anxiety and depression. As each day passes,  I’m becoming less positive and confident  to get back to the workforce. I have sent numerous  resumes out. I’ve even lowered my expectation and applied  for  less senior  or even career  entry level positions. Although I did have a couple of interviews, they  always ended with ‘no news/reply’ from the interviewers.   I’ve also looked into the government sectors for some career change entry position  and always experienced  a lot of red tape  like ‘requires 1 or 2 years’ experiences’ or ‘any diploma from a local polytechnic’, etc. I have an advanced IT diploma (not from local Poly) but was not recognised by these government agencies. This applies to some SPURS  upgrading courses that I applied too. For example, I’m quite keen to take up a DPT course in Early Childhood Education. The qualification for entry is 5 GCE ‘O’ levels and a ‘B3’ in EL1. I could not qualify as I do not have sufficient ‘0’ levels. Another classic example is the SPURS Professional Conversion Programmes – why is this program tailored  for degree holders only?…Why not include diploma holder applicants who have the relevant experiences?   As a mid 40 years old Singaporean, it is almost quite impossible to turn back the clock to retake ‘O’ levels again (which I did not take them seriously in 1984). Why can’t the government sectors or training centers provide other options and consideration to allow middle aged or older group applicants to qualify for the jobs/courses?  Maybe a ‘job proficiency’ test can be an alternative  or even a ‘senior citizen traineeship’ programme can be tailored!   There are definitely quite a lot of middle aged Singaporeans  like me who have developed or accumulated alot of professional experiences and other skill sets over the years and when they  wanted a career change,  there is no second chance given! The government should really address this issue seriously and do more to formulate a better framework and legislation to assist the unemployed  senior Singaporeans to get back to their desired training/ employment options.   I’m confused, lost   and hope to seek advice from you.   I’m considering pursuing an IT degree course in a  private learning centre. I wonder if this is a good move as I’m discouraged and pessimistic to see a lot of middle aged graduates out of jobs due to ‘middle age’ crisis –  especially in the IT sector.  As a degree course is not cheap and I’m running low on my savings, I wonder if it is  still a good investment at this age.  Or should I forgo the degree course and take other IT short courses to upgrade instead, in the hope to get back to the IT sector fast?   Thank you sincerely for your precious time and advice.   Regds, Jimmy (name changed)   ******************************* Hi Jimmy,   Thanks for your mail.   I agreed with you that our government-aided training courses have too much red tape to clear.   They are not flexible enough to help a wider spectrum of the jobless matured citizens out there. Many people were trapped  by the criterion set up by training providers.   Too many foreign workers in our country  now also give  the employers a huge incentive to employ them as they are  cheaper and younger to hire.    As you know, the dreaded Employment Pass allows a company to employ 100% foreigners in their workforce so long they are able to pay a minimum of $2500 salary per month for each worker. This has  kept out alot of local Singaporeans from foreign-funded companies.   I have always advocate that upgrading is the way to tackle our own unemployment issue. However, I think skills-based upgrading courses must be the way to go for matured job seekers.   For example, the healthcare industry is always short of workers and must be an area that you can consider if there are any government-sponsored programmes you can tap on.   The pay I know is quite miserable for new workers but it is rather stable and always in demand. Retrenchment should be seen as minimal in this industry.   If you have the funds to take up a private IT degree programme, I wouldn’t discourage you from pursuing one.   With your vast IT  experience and a degree, I am sure that this will help you stand out from the rest. However, a degree  now is no guarantee that you will get a job. Many jobless graduates have emailed me as you can see.   You will need to listen to your heart and head and do what’s best for youself here.   Let me know if you need to speak with one of our volunteer career coaches and please email me your resume so that I can look out for you.   Lastly, I seek your permission to post this mail on my site leaving out your name to protect your identity.   Take care and never give up. Do stay in touch with me.   Regds Gilbert PS: We have assigned Jimmy a career coach to attend to his re-employment needs.   Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Fastest growing economy – what about jobs and wages? (Part 2) Will the Jobs Credit Scheme save jobs? The jobs we hope to create aren’t going to stick unless they are jobs that people want, says Mike Rowe Straits Times, you don’t have to try so hard lar Kindergarten-standard reporting by the Straits Times’ ROYSTON SIM: Front Page Headline: “YOG football competition kicks off to a rousing start’ Inside Page Headline: “Fans lap up girls’ football” Sub-headline: “About 3,000 of them are treated to exciting action on opening day” Ok. “Rousing start”. “Lap up ..”. “Exciting action.” Got it. The report begins: “It did not matter that the Jalan Besar stadium was half full.” Ok. The stadium was half-full. Meaning: Interest was lacking. “What mattered more was what the spectators did.” Really? And what did they do? “The noise that they generated made it seem as though the venue was totally full.” For all of 90 minutes? “Seem.. totally full”? And what “noise” did they “generate”? “They loudly cheered on the players throughout the match.” Good thing they didn’t quietly cheer on the players. Who made up most of the spectators? Apparently students because…. “The crowd dwindled after the first match, as many students headed home.” What about the second match? “Those who stayed were treated to an enjoyable match…” The rest of the report offers a generous sprinkling of superlatives: “Cheering fans”, “both sides won the hearts of fans”, “a memorable event”, “a dramatic match”, “it’ s an honour”, “impressed by what he saw”, “memorable” (again). Really, the Straits Times should not try so hard to make it seem like the YOG games are more exciting than they really are. Notice how closely cropped the pictures are and notice the empty seats in the background: Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Blog Feature: Straits Times changes headlines 4 times in one day Straits Times – “accurate, timely and balanced”? Straits Times denies bloggers right of reply Seelan Palay goes to jail From the Singapore Democratic Party’s website: Human rights activist Mr Seelan Palay is serving a 12-day prison term for taking part in the Tak Boleh Tahan (Malay for “cannot take it”) protest on 15 Mar 08 outside Parliament House. Mr Seelan was convicted together with 8 other activists by District Judge Chia Wee Kiat in Mar 2010. All of them have appealed the conviction. The appeal hearing date has yet to be fixed. Some of those convicted, including Ms Chee Siok Chin and Dr Chee Soon Juan, have served their two-week sentences. Mr Seelan, who produced One Nation Under Lee (ONUL), is facing another charge of participating in an illegal assembly on 9 Aug 08 together with 10 other activists (see here). The record-breaking video (which has nearly 100,000 views) has awakened many a young Singaporean. In fact, a few of the SDP’s Young Democrats joined the party after watching ONUL. The activist is also behind much of the campaigning against the mandatory death penalty. In fact, he has taken with him Once A Jolly Hangman written by Mr Alan Shadrake into prison to read. The book is for all intents and purposes banned in Singapore and Mr Shadrake himself is being charged with contempt of court. Mr Seelan was taken to court this morning in prison garb and shackled. When the Judge, Mr Kessler Soh, began the session, Mr Seelan said: “Before we begin, I’d like to clarify that I’m in the dock in shackles, cuffs and chains not because I have committed any crime. I am here in this state because of another unjust law administered on behalf of the PAP Government.” Read the full write-up here. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Give S’poreans more information – Seelan Palay A young patriot goes to jail Should Singapore’s Home Minister be thrown into a Vietnamese jail? President has no discretion in clemency appeal (Full report) “I therefore hold that the President has no discretion under the Constitution, and specifically under Article 22P, to grant pardons,” High Court Judge Steven Chong said. “The power to do so rests solely with the Cabinet.” Justice Chong handed down the ruling on lawyer M Ravi’s application for a judicial review of the President’s powers in granting clemency on Friday. Mr Ravi had applied for a judicial review to ascertain where the powers to grant clemency lie. Specifically he asked the courts to decide on certain remarks by the then-Attorney General, Mr Walter Woon, made in March 2010, and comments by Law Minister K Shanmugam, made in April this year. Mr Woon had said, during the appeal of death row inmate Yong Vui Kong : “Although in theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, in fact it is the Cabinet that makes the decision”. The Law Minister’s remarks  - “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?” – made in April, before Yong’s submission of his appeal to the President, had prejudiced and compromised Yong’s constitutional right to an appeal for clemency, Mr Ravi argued. On AG Woon’s remarks, Justice Chong agreed with Mr Woon – that the power of granting clemency rests solely with the Cabinet. Justice Chong said: “It is clear that the framework under the Constitution is such that in situations where the President is empowered to act in his own discretion, the relevant provision provides for the President “acting in his discretion”. This is to be contrasted with Article 22P where a contrary intention appears from the use of the words, “may, on the advice of the Cabinet.” On whether the Law Minister’s comments had prejudiced Yong’s constitutional rights, Justice Chong said, “I can see nothing objectionable about the Minister’s statement, which only restated the Cabinet’s policy that the age of the offender per se should not be a ground for the exercise of clemency for drug trafficking convictions.” He added, “I cannot infer from the Minister’s statement that the Cabinet will not even subjectively consider Yong’s second petition and the materials put before it by virtue of Article 22P(2) when it next advises the President.” The court was also asked to decide if the clemency process is justiciable (or reviewable by the courts) given the remarks by the Attorney General and the Law Minister. Justice Chong dismissed this argument on these four bases: The power to grant pardons under Article 22P is exercised by the Cabinet, and not the President, who has no discretion in the matter; apparent bbias is not an available ground on which to review the clemency process; there is no evidence of a pre-determination of Yong’s imminent petition; there is no basis for a substantive right to the materials which will be before the Cabinet when it advises the President on the clemency petition. “In the absence of any meritorious ground on which judicial review can be sustained, Yong’s application must be dismissed,” said Justice Chong. Mr Ravi had also argued that Yong should have the right to view the materials submitted to the Cabinet from the Attorney General for clemency purposes. The judge ruled that “Yong has no right to see the materials which will be before the Cabinet when it advises the President.” The judge noted that the deadline of 26 August for the filing of the clemency petition to the President “is fast approaching”. “In anticipation of the very likely decision by Yong to appeal against my judgement,” Justice Chong said, “I would respectfully invite the Prison authorities to extend the time limit for the filing of the fresh petition until such time as the Court of Appeal reaches a decision.” Mr Ravi, who is the lawyer for Yong, says he is “deeply disturbed” by the court’s ruling. “This is a presidential process but now we know that Cabinet has the power. This is a significant departure from what we have been told. Because despite what the Constitution says, now we understand the President has no power in these matters. It seems the President has allowed his power to be usurped.” “Lawyers have been sending petitions to the President all these years,” he said. “This is not only an issue for Yong Vui Kong because the elected President’s powers have been taken away from him.” Mr Ravi urges the President to exercise his powers under Article 100 of the Constitution  and convene a Constitutional Court “to decide this vital issue of public importance.” “This is an outrage. If the President does not do so, we will petition the President to convene the Constitutional Court as he is the only person empowered by the Constitution to do so. Until this matter is finally disposed off, all executions ought to be stayed.” Mr Ravi’s next course of action is to appeal today’s judgement. ————— Police try to block media from attending open court Confusion reigned in court this morning over whether or not the proceedings should be open to members of the public. Despite presiding judge Steven Chong noting in his written judgment that lawyer M Ravi’s judicial review application on behalf of Yong Vui Kong raised unprecedented “issues of public importance”, Mr Ravi was not given notice by the Registrar of the Supreme Court that proceedings would be in open court. Court officers seemed to have been similarly unaware that proceedings would be open to members of the public, and tried to block reporters from the mainstream media from entering the courtroom. Mr Ravi said he was informed about ten minutes before the hearing started that proceedings were to be in open court, and told by the court clerk to put on his court robes. Court robes are only required for open court proceedings. Mr Ravi’s paralegal then tried to leave the courtroom to inform the media that they could observe proceedings, but was stopped by the police officers present.  One reporter who tried to enter the courtroom was also stopped by the police officers. Eventually, after Mr Ravi intervened, the public and media were allowed in. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Law Minister’s comments prejudicial to Yong Vui Kong’s clemency appeal President rejects clemency petition for Yong Vui Kong Singapore’s Court of Appeal reserves judgment in Vui Kong’s appeal hearing Letter to Mah Bow Tan on corridor clutter The following is a letter from a Punggol resident to the Minister for National Development. Dear Mr Mah Bow Tan, I have been living in a hdb flat all my life and am very proud of the quality of life it has provided me and my family. I have stayed in various types of housing in Singapore (from Jalan Rumah Tinggi, Kim Pong road, Spottiswoode Park, Everton Park, Punggol). Everything have changed for the better from since the seventies  - from squatting to sitting toilet bowl, from a simple half height louvre window to a full-height condo style window, from a simple cement screed to elegant polished marble floor, much better rubbish chute management system, much better overall design. But one peculiar issue hasnot changed at all – corridor clutter.  In my humble opinion, apart from the hazard which clutter poses and the impact on public health, it has cost much social and racial tension. A google for ‘HDB corridor clutter’ will return countless reports on this issue. Many have expressed   frustration in living with inconsiderate neighbors. In extreme cases, some have resorted to selling their flat and looked for a better environment. In others’ view, it may look impulsive or even silly to do so, but I believe if we were in their shoes, we may do the same. A browse through the forum at www.stomp.com.sg and you will realize that many have in fact first resort to friendly negotiation with the neighbours responsible, then a complaint to the town council. Some have reported that town councils were exercising double standards – sometimes a warning letter was served, at other times it turned a blind eye. Some would clear the clutter after the town council’s intervention. Yes, public education is crucial. But it seems like we are playing tennis without court lines demarcating the rules of the games. We are told  not to obstruct  the corridors with clutter, but what constitutes clutter? A shoe rack? A pot of plant or 10 pots of plants? What started out as the greening of our corridors has transformed  into a jungle, junkyard and in some extreme case, a private garden complete with sofas, carpet and coffee tables. I personally am experiencing this problem with my neighbor. I have friends who have gone through worse. Their encounters would end up with police intervention and eventually have had to settle the cases out of court. In my case, friendly confrontation had failed. My wife and I have been holding back on our next course of action because we know that there will be no turning back . One may ask if I am being petty. While I believe a clean clutterless corridor is good for everyone, others feel common space not fully utilised is wasteful,. Present situation that looks disturbing: 1.    Storing of unused items like furniture, boxes etc along corridor that can cost fire and also hinders fire escape. 2.    Storing of similar items near or against gas meter doors, very dangerous as it’s near gas pipe. 3.    Hanging of laundry along corridor railing. 4.    In some extreme cases, some owner lay large carpet over some odd corridor corner that hinder the routine washing of the floors. 5.    Placement of plant pots poses the danger of mosquitoes breeding. 6.    Fighting over corridor space is pointless and do more harm to our social and racial relationship. 7.    Value of our property: the corridor is the first impression on any potential buyer. A property website I came across (see here) even advised potential buyer to avoid buying houses with such conditions. My humble suggestions : 1.    In the most straight forward case, authorities should ban all clutters along common area, namely common corridors, lift lobbies ,void decks etc 2.    If some items are allowed, owner should take ownership of the items and be held responsible for it by demarcating a small section at the side or front of their main door. Only items like plants and shoe racks will be allowed to be place there. All other items placed outside of the demarcation will be removed by authorities without question. Town councils will have a much easier job. 3.    Strictly no items to be placed near gas meters’ door area. 4.    Strictly no item or laundry to be hanged over corridor railing. 5.    Town councils need to step up effort to do more routine checks and take strict action to remove clutter and not only when residents complaint. 6.    Town councils may even impose higher SC/CC fee for owner violating the law, and reward others who keep their corridors clutter-free. This will certainly motivate everyone to do their part. 7.    As Town Councils performance is now assessed every year, corridor condition should form a big part of the assessment as well. I strongly believe if media exposure was  focused on this matter, corridor clutter will be the thing of the past in no time. And all neighbors will be living under the same guidelines from the authorities. I am deeply concerned about the future of living in a HDB heartland – with the influx of foreigners buying up and making HDB their homes, bringing with them cultures of their own. Without strict laws we may just be living with more tension despite better facilities and architectural aesthetics. Our social graciousness will simply not be keeping pace with the progress in public housing. Nevertheless thank you and good job to HDB for providing many of us quality housing, improved facilities year after year. Best regards BL Lim Proud Punggol resident ———– Read also: Town councils – irresponsible to continue ignoring corridor clutter. ———– PS: Below are some of the links I have came across http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/what_bugs_me/314898/messy_and_inconsiderate_neighbours_make_living_here_hard.html#commentSection http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/in_the_heartlands/401900/why_no_action_taken_despite_complaints.html http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/3552/4132/318006 http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/3552/4126/262814 http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/in_the_heartlands/401746/inconsiderate_neighbour_advised_by_town_council_to_clear_clutter.html http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/3552/4126/294014 http://comment.straitstimes.com/showthread.php?p=68616 http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/02/town-councils-irresponsible-to-continue-ignoring-corridor-clutter/ http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/in_the_heartlands/390820/this_corridor_packed_with_things_is_a_fire_hazard.html http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/in_the_heartlands/390790/neighbor_uses_common_walkway_as_laundryhanging_area.html# http://www.punggol.sg/forum/printpage.html;topic=6523.0 http://www.blowingwind.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10406 http://newspaperclippings.blogspot.com/2009/02/fire-corridor-clutter-major-fire-hazard.html http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1034724/1/.html http://sgforums.com/forums/12/topics/400507 http://smong.net/2009/05/how-to-be-good-neighbour-according-to.html And my favorite of all : http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/stomp/sgseen/in_the_heartlands/386762/inconsiderate_neighbours_treat_ common_corridor.html#commentSection Share this on Facebook Line: 66Message: Duplicate entry 'agth9h' for key 'code'+(via+@tocsg)" title="Tweet This!">Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Town Councils – irresponsible to continue ignoring corridor clutter Dr Teo Ho Pin’s second letter to Straits Times Letter to TOC – An unhealthy speculative practice NDP reflections By Howard Lee A long weekend cooped up at home with a hyperactive toddler is definitely not the best way to go. As such, the evening of National Day 2010 found us footing around Changi Boardwalk. We eventually grabbed dinner at Changi Village, and caught some parts of the National Day Parade on the wide-screens the eating house has hung up for the benefit of their customers. My son was merrily clapping his hands – I couldn’t decide if it was for the light show on television, his many imaginary friends, or the stray cats prowling the grounds. I couldn’t relate with his level of elation. As far back as I could remember, I would watch NDP with a fair degree of skepticism. The enthusiastic overflow of national pride was just a tad too much. I did not doubt the genuine emotions of the performers, only the pervasive blaring of “nation-building” messages. At the back of my head, the words “Is this for real?” (Hokkien translation: “Wah liao, wu yah boh?”) would keep subtitling the images before my eyes. Then there was National Service. My unit was involved in the parade for two consecutive years. The first was for one of the static displays, which really meant endless hours of aching training in unarmed combat. The second was less grueling, from one perspective. My unit was tasked with road marshalling for the armoured mobile column, and one of my unit mates died after being hit by a car. It gave a whole new meaning to what serving the nation is all about. But that was not the reason why, in recent years, I usually watch the parade, if I can bear to catch it at all, with what I can only describe as spiritual fatigue bordering on desperate exasperation. Among the faceless crowds at the Padang this year, I knew my parents will be there. They are active grassroots members, and have always relished the opportunity to participate. My parents typified the generation that quite literally made Singapore what it is today. They might have some misgivings about how the nation is run – fare increases, pace of development, property speculation and the likes – but they generally accepted that it is all done for the benefit of Singapore’s future. They have made the best of their situation, well enough to send both my sister and I overseas for tertiary education. They inherently trust that the governing party is doing the right thing. Not for me. My education overseas was a rude shock as it was an exciting eye-opener. Critical analysis and belief in our own thoughts were the rule of thumb – one of my lecturers stated that quoting from the books won’t get us our grades, unless we inject our own thoughts into our papers. I returned with new definitions for a good measure of things, and questioning everything else. You can decide if that is a blessing or a curse. Do not mistake this for ungratefulness. I still believe that this nation has many good things. We are one of the few rare countries in the world who can claim internationally-recognised education standards and a near-perfect score for providing basic education to all, although how the system achieved that leaves much to be desired. We are one of the most wired nations, although how much the Internet is encouraged to be used for enlightenment and democracy is another dismal topic for discussion. And there are places like Changi Boardwalk that reminds us that we still do our best as Nature’s custodians, although I would argue that more can be done further offshore. But NDP every year just paints a picture that I felt has lost touch with the people, and I would be very surprise if the elation that parade goers felt could last the night, with any remnants surviving the realities of the next day. To me, NDP is a surreal show of successful Singapore on steroids. Without fail every year, the chest-thumping narrative goes something like this: “We used to be a cesspool. Now we are a thriving metropolis. Every one of you should be happy/satisfied/grateful. But don’t get complacent, keep slaving for prosperity, or you will screw it up for us again. Well, back to the feel-good melodies. Yeah, Majulah Singapura!” No one seems interested to point out the ironies. For instance, contextualising the big hoo-hah of the pledge moment in the not too distant past, where a particular senior statesman, seated at the parade’s front row of VIPs nonetheless, called it a highfalutin ideal. Even more worrisome is the meaning of the parade for our younger generation. What exactly is the message they received? Can they read beyond the fireworks, hype and hyperbole? Are they going through the motions? And how long can the moment of elation last? * * * * * The day of activities proved too much for my little one, and his over-stimulated mind struggled for sleep. As he drifted off fitfully, sniffing at my idiotic lecture about being a big boy sleeping without hand-holding, I found myself trying to whisper assuring words into his ear. “Daddy will be here for you. Daddy only wants the best for you.” I caught myself with those words. That same night, I tried to fulfil a bit of that promise, by the only way I know – I wrote. And I wrote this article. For my parent’s generation, this governing party has made them many promises. For the greater part of their lives, these were delivered and they have been on the positive receiving end. My parents are grateful, and there is nothing wrong with that. But in my view, they will likely outlive the completion of those promises, and the end of that road now seems a little bleaker than what they would have originally believed when they first started out. For my generation, every promise has a disclaimer. It has bred a generation that is more independent, for we feel that our greater achievements are not beholden to the state, and the lesser benefits are already paid back in full. This governing party has said, “We have done all this for you, but you need to do the rest,” and we have responded with, “Works fine for me.” Yet, there is every indication that even this might not last, for the tables are always ready to turn against our favour, so long as the nation’s economic progress demands it. Ours is a generation bred from uncertain certainty. For my son’s generation, the game is already different. They are, and will continue to be, encouraged to make Singapore their home, but all the cards on the table have sent a clear signal that it will be at their own risk, at their own cost. The state issues no loyalty points to them, yet might just be silly enough to expect some from them. The lure of Singapore as home will be a vague concept to them, comparable to any other city they visit. At the end of their ventures, they will be true global citizens, without a nation they can still bank on in times of need. Citizenship will only be as valuable as the country that pays them the best. And so, my duty is to the people I hold dear who still believe Singapore to be their home. I need to see this nation deliver what it has promised to our older generation, grasp at my generation’s space for survival, and at the end of the insanity, hopefully salvage some semblance of a home that our children can still call their own, should they choose or need. It is not patriotism that drives this desire. I question my own patriotism incessantly, for I am not sure I have any that remotely resemble that definition. But again, the definition of that word has been so severely mangled in recent times that I sometimes wonder what I can benchmark against. For sure, you will not find the definition at NDP, but you might share a bit of my desire in your own heart. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Reflections on Budget 2008 New immigrants’ loyalty to S’pore – SM Goh’s amazing conclusion Taking care of Singaporeans Doughnut reporting From Yawning Bread: I was speechless after reading the Straits Times’ version of the story about a protest note being lodged at the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur. It told readers about all the stuff peripheral to the main issue but said not a word about Mourthi Vasu’s demand that Singapore acknowledge with contrition committing a miscarriage of justice when his son was hanged in 2003. The story was covered in a timely manner in The Online Citizen yesterday (10 August 2010). Headlined “I want my son’s name back”, the web story made clear that the chief issue was the way the trial of Vignes Mourthi was conducted, leading to his conviction for trafficking in 27.65g of heroin and subsequent hanging. Full article by Alex Au here. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Concerned about procedures for reporting food poisoning cases Debunking the erroneous reporting in the mainstream media: David Widjaja’s brother speaks out No point reporting attack on train, victim told “I want my son’s name back” “I want my son’s name back,” Mr Mourthi Vasu said. “And I want my son back. Can they give me my son? Can they give me? Cannot.” Mr Mourthi is asking for an apology from the Singapore government for the execution of his then 23-year old son, Vignes Mourthi. Vignes was hanged in Singapore in September 2003 after having been found guilty of trafficking in 27.65g of heroin. Vignes had always maintained his innocence till the day he died. Mr Mourthi’s demand for an apology comes after he learned of the circumstances which led to the conviction of his son involving police officer Sergeant Rajkumar. Rajkumar, who was the officer in charge of the sting operation which led to the arrest of Vignes outside the An Nur Mosque in Woodlands, was also the key prosecution witness during the trial proceedings. What angers Mr Mourthi and his family is that Rajkumar, while giving testimony during the trial as the prosecution’s key witness, was himself also being investigated for rape, sodomy and bribery by the authorities.  Neither Vignes’s lawyer nor his family knew about this at that time. Rajkumar’s testimony against Vignes was believed to have largely contributed to the conviction of Vignes. After Vignes’s execution, Rajkumar was found guilty of bribery in a later trial and was sentenced to 15 months in jail. Giving support to Mr Mourthi on Tuesday were members of Lawyers For Liberty (LFL), a human rights and law reform initiative in Malaysia and members of the Civil Rights Committee of Kuala Lumpur and the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.  Mr N Surendran, a lawyer with LFL, presented a memorandum of protest to a representative of the Singapore High Commission. “We now know the key witness in Vignes’s trial was himself being investigated for rape, sodomy and later convicted of corruption,” Mr Surendran said. LFL’s memorandum also highlighted the reported remarks made by then-Chief Justice Yong Pung How in the appeal hearings. “When asked by lawyer M Ravi whether the innocent Vignes can be hanged due to merely procedural matters,” the LFL’s memorandum says, “the Chief Justice replied, ‘Yes, the answer is yes.’” “Here you have an appalling instance of a miscarriage of justice,” Mr Surendran told the media. “Vignes Mourthi was innocent,” he added. In its memorandum of protest, LFL calls for the Singapore government to “[acknowledge] the enormous miscarriage of justice that happened in Vignes’ case” and demand the Singapore government “make amends” to Vignes’s family. The lawyers call for “immediate reforms in the Singapore judiciary to ensure Singaporean judges appreciate and respect human life and freedom; take appropriate action according to the Constitution against Chief Justice Yong Pung How; halt all pending executions in Singapore and commute death sentences to imprisonment” and to “cease immediately the malicious persecution of British author Alan Shadrake.” Mr Shadrake is the author of Once A Jolly Hangman, a book about the death penalty in Singapore. The book includes a chapter on the case of Vignes Mourthi. Mr Shadrake was arrested in July and has been charged with contempt of court. His hearing will take place on the 30th of August. In the meantime, Mr Mourthi says he will appoint a lawyer to seek redress for his son. “I know he is innocent,” Mr Mourthi said of his son. “I want to know what the Singapore government is going to do about this. I hope the truth will finally come out.” ———— Read also: Activists cry murder over Singapore hanging (Free Malaysia Today) ———– TOC’s video report of Tuesday’s events at the Singapore High Commission; ———– The Memorandum of Protest delivered to the Singapore High Commission: MEMORANDUM OF PROTEST Wrongful execution of M’sian Vignes Mourthi and malicious prosecution of Alan Shadrake Vignes Mourthi 1. On 26 September 2003, Vignes Mourthi was hanged in Changi prison for alleged  drug trafficking. 2. The key testimony on which he was convicted was the evidence of one Sgt Rajkumar who arrested Vignes. 3. Alan Shadrake in his book ” The Jolly Hangman” reveals the shocking truth about the trial and conviction of Vignes. At the time Sgt Rajkumar gave the sworn testimony in court which convicted Vignes, Rajkumar was under investigation for rape, sodomy and bribery!  Subsequently he was convicted of corruption and sent to prison for 15 months. Vignes was hanged by the neck until he died on the testimony of this man. 4. In a breathtakingly malcious act, Singapore police and authorities concealed this crucial fact from Vignes’ lawyer M.Ravi. Vignes went to the gallows bitterly denying to the end that he had ever trafficked in drugs. He was only 21 years old when arrested. 5. The callousness and indifference to human life by the Singapore government and judiciary is shown by the now notorious remarks of Chief  Justice Yong Pung How. When asked by lawyer M.Ravi whether the innocent Vignes can be hanged due to merely procedural matters, the Chief Justice replied ” Yes, the answer is yes.” Alan Shadrake 1. On 19 July 2010, a day after Alan launched his book in Singapore, police arrested him for Criminal Defamation and Contempt of Court. 2. Alan was interrogated by police 8 to 10 hours a day despite a weak heart, and now faces  trials which may may send him to prison for years. He remains resolute and has said ” I will not be cowed.” His only crime is revealing the truth to the people of Singapore and the world. We the undersigned demand that the Singapore government: a. acknowledges the enormous miscarriage of justice that happened in Vignes’ case; b. clears the sullied name of Vignes Mourthi and make amends to his suffering family; c. institute immediate reforms in the Singapore judiciary to ensure Singaporean judges appreciate and respect human life and freedom; d. take appropriate action according to the Constitution against Chief Justice Yong Pung How ; e. halt all pending executions in Singapore and commute death sentences to imprisonment; f. cease immediately the malicious persecution of British author Alan Shadrake. LAWYERS FOR LIBERTY Civil Rights Committee KUALA LUMPUR AND SELANGOR CHINESE ASSEMBLY HALL Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Alan Shadrake’s crime? Doughnut reporting Father of Vignes Mourthi seeks redress for son’s hanging in S’pore Father of Vignes Mourthi seeks redress for son’s hanging in S’pore Mr Mourthi Vasu today went to the S’pore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur to seek redress for his son’s hanging in Singapore. Vignes Mourthi, who was 21-years old when he was arrested in 2001 for drug trafficking, was hanged in S’pore in 2003. Mr Mourthi was accompanied by Mr Surendan of Lawyers For Liberty who handed over a memorandum of protest to the 3rd secretary of the Singapore High Commission. TOC will have a report on today’s event soon. Mr Surendan of Lawyers for Liberty, with Mr Mourthi (centre of picture), handing over the memorandum of protest to a representative of the Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:After the hanging…. some reflection…. Angry investors turn up at Hong Lim Park to seek redress YD seeks clarification with NUSPA Censorship is not just about the arts By Ho Rui An A total of 1786 signatures have been gathered in support of the arts community’s position paper against censorship. The position paper put up by ArtsEngage, a network of around 180 arts practitioners, calls for regulation instead of censorship of content. The position paper, together with the signatures, was presented to the Censorship Review Committee (CRC) on 3 August 2010. The move to make censorship history began in mid-2009 when the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) announced a mid-term censorship review. Then, members of the arts community interested in developing a more sustained engagement with the authorities on cultural policy matters came together under the loose name “ArtsEngage” and proposed 22 names for inclusion in the CRC. None were selected. The position paper is only a part of this ongoing dialogue, which has included discussions with individual members of the CRC, participation in CRC focus groups, as well as a survey of censorship accounts experienced by various practitioners. On 6 August 2010, a press conference was held to mark the end of the signatory drive. At the conference, a few recent censorship experiences were recounted. Highlighting the ban on Martyn See’s video recording of former political prisoner, Dr Lim Hock Siew’s speech, veteran arts practitioner, T. Sasitharan, reinforced how censorship is not “just about the arts”. “I’ve always known this, but it has become apparent so clearly now. There is nothing at all about the arts in the move to censor Martyn’s video of Lim Hock Siew. Nothing even remotely concerned with the arts,” said Sasitharan. Theatre practitioner, Zelda Ng also shared a recent censorship incident involving a short play presented at the Arts House’s Short+Sweet Singapore 2010 season. The script for Nuns Gone Wild!, depicting three nuns fantasizing and re-enacting various love/sex scenes, was shortlisted by the organizers of the festival and sent to the festival’s selected directors. However, on the afternoon of the opening, the organisers asked for amendments to be made to the script and presentation, failing which the production would face withdrawal from the festival. The sensitivity of the religious subject was cited as a reason for the move. Eventually, the characters of the play were transformed to three young convent girls instead of the original nuns, and re-titled Good Girls (rated M-18). ArtsEngage reinforced that the position paper only represents one outcome of the group’s ongoing process of consultation and debate. Let Me Decide, a campaign which asserts the ability of society to think for itself, was recently launched as part of ArtsEngage’s next step to further engage members of the public. A website (http://let-me-decide.tumblr.com/) and video have been released to mark the start of the campaign. The position paper and excerpts of the press conference can be viewed at http://sites.google.com/site/artsengagesg/home. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Arts Engage – taking aim at censorship “A voice for the arts and artists” Three tiers of censorship NSP’s National Day message (See video clip below) It has been a frustrating year for many Singaporeans. Although our GDP has grown significantly for the past quarters but the decline in the retail sector speaks volume of the kind of growth we are getting. Our purchasing power is either stagnant or unable to catch up with the inflation caused by various factors. Any GDP growth that doesn’t benefit Singaporeans in terms of higher purchasing power and quality of life is meaningless. It is at best just another justification for the ministers to increase their own pay. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves while our Nation achieves almost 20% growth in GDP for the last quarter but have our income achieve even half of that growth? Besides, the cost of having such high GDP growth is tremendous. We are just increasing more and more foreign labour to achieve growth. This may result in suppressed wages for Singaporeans and at the same time, a more crowded place for everyone else. According to our study and research, the PAP government has consciously embarked on a very aggressive foreign workers policy to help boost the economy since 2006. However, many ministers, including the Ministers for Transport, Health and National Development are basically “Caught off Guard” by such explosive population growth. Our public transport system could no longer cope with the excessive increase of population over such short period of time. The growth in train and bus services is lagging far behind the growth of population over the years. This results in over crowded MRT trains and buses during peak hours. On top of that, the fares have increased for many of us since July, for as much as 7% or more! Our HDB flat prices are shooting off the roof. HDB failed to build enough flats to cope with the population growth. The need of paying a 30 years mortgage for a simple HDB flat is definitely not a sign of affordability. Hospital care is the most important matter of life and death. However hospital beds are in great shortage as the building of the new hospital is delayed for nearly a decade. It seems that the Ministry of Health does not plan ahead. The problem could be so acute that sometimes patients have to be left lying along the corridors of the wards! But yet, our Prime Minister has just declared that we need another 100 thousand more foreign workers! Are we supposed to endure a further deterioration of these problems? The recent floods that we have are creating doubts on the competency of the highly paid PAP government. We do not want to hear excuses from “once in 50 years”, “it is impossible to be flood free” to “it is an act of God”. When we are paying the world’s highest pay to the ministers, we expect such fundamental problems to be solved. To suffer 3 or 4 floods within a couple of months is totally unacceptable to a small island that prides itself as a modern world-class city state. All these happenings come under the charge of the world’s most expensive ministers in Singapore. We need accountability but there is none. We need proper checks and balances but there is little. Singapore needs to progress both economically as well as politically in a balanced way. We should not just aim for some huge GDP growth at all cost. We should also build a political system whereby accountability is effectively in place. It is time for us, my fellow Singaporeans, to reflect upon all these happenings during this National Day. We have to ask ourselves what kinds of living environment and quality of life we want for our children. High GDP growth no longer guarantees better quality of life but in contrary, lower our overall standard of living. We also have to ask ourselves whether we want our children to inherit a political system that is based on total dominance of power by a single ruling party, which will use every means to fix its opponents and those who hold alternative views. Do we want our children to inherit a government which only demands the highest pay in the world but shy away from accountability and responsibility? We need a change to this system and we need courage to change it. Wishing you a Happy National Day. Source: NSP website Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:The Prime Minister’s National Day Message The Prime Minister’s National Day Message Kenneth Jeyaretnam to deliver party’s inaugural National Day message National Day must remain a day of pride Ravi Philemon – It is the season to celebrate the 45 years of independence Singapore has enjoyed.  Being almost as old as Singapore, I have lived through the transformation of this city-state. I remember sitting on my father’s shoulders to catch the march-pass along Tanglin Halt Road in the ‘70s. I have never missed watching a single National Day parade on TV from as far back as I can remember (except for the years that I was away in the USA). This is the season to be proud of being a Singaporean. I pay tribute to my mother this National Day, for she is the type of resilient, selfless Singaporean, who built the Singapore we have today.  When we were rendered homeless through a series of unfortunate events, my mother held down three jobs, to put us three children through school.  She knew that education will provide the chance for her children – her future – to claw back from the misery we were in. This National Day, the more I ponder about the kind of future we will have the more unsure I become of Singapore’s tomorrow. For one, there is the growing income gap – the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. The root cause of this problem I feel is the Singapore education system which has disadvantaged the ‘have-nots’. Even though students in Singapore do exceptionally well in Maths and Science tests internationally, there are just a handful of them who turn out to be ‘world-beaters’. To remedy this, we must move from being an ‘exam meritocracy’ to being a ‘talent meritocracy’. We must move from the culture of “Work hard! Memorise! Test-well!’ to a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority. Only this shift in the learning culture will enable our students, who are the future of Singapore, to be creative, curious, and to have a sense of adventure and ambition.  Streaming which happens at a very early stage of education in Singapore is a major culprit which impedes this shift in the culture of learning. Streaming is a form of social class stratification, where those in the Gifted Education  Programme would go on to be leaders in whatever fields they might enter, be it government, medicine, science or anything, the Special students would go on to earn university degrees and seek well-paid soft collar jobs, and the Express students would go on to Polytechnics and serve as associate professionals and clerical workers, and the Normal stream students would end up as technicians, hawkers, and road sweepers. And this segregation by way of streaming happens at a very young age, based on who is the most ‘exams-smart’. Even those that are smart, but cannot test well despite trying to rote-learn, are streamed down. Those without the ’right’ paper qualifications are labelled as ‘failures’. According to the year 2000 census, there were 116300 such ‘failure’ families in Singapore, who earn below $1000 per month. Six in ten of these households are headed by someone with only primary school education or less. And they work as cleaners, labourers or as service workers. The government’s policy of excessively streaming the students at a very young age and causing unnecessary stress not only to the students but also to their parents, right from primary school to secondary school to places of tertiary education, must be re-looked. And re-look this policy of streaming we must so that we can go daringly into the future Singapore, knowing that we have given the younger generation the gift of being lifelong learners, so that they can adapt and overcome challenges the future may throw at them. Another reason why I look at the National Days of the future with uncertainty is because of those that are over 40 and are (or become) unemployed.  Unlike the time of my mother, it may be more difficult for these to get jobs, so that they could be self-reliant.  I personally know some people who despite going for WSQ courses have not been able to get a job. Although this problem is found in the unskilled workforce, it especially impedes the skilled labour force.  Ironically, it is but the skilled workforce that not only has the right education and skill-sets but also the experience; but there seem to be a prejudice by the employers in hiring skilled workers who are over 40. Those that are in the 40s are in their prime and have many more years of being able to contribute to the growth and well-being of Singapore. We cannot just expect them to take any job that comes by their way; a job which may not pay them sufficiently to meet their burden of living costs and commitments as sons, daughters, fathers and mothers and becomes a cost of opportunity. Besides the relevant ministries embarking on campaigns to educate employers to forgo prejudices of hiring older workers, the older workers themselves must be given time to search for appropriate jobs. Although we see good GDP growth today and seem to have rebounded from the deep economic crisis, as we go into the future, nobody can guarantee that there will not be another economic crisis and no one can guarantee that there will not be another round of lay-offs. The welfare of the workers must be protected when the next down-turn strikes. The government must use part of the CPF restoration exercise for a national employment insurance scheme, where every worker will be insured against job-loss or retrenchment.  The mechanisms of such an insurance scheme to benefit every worker, including the duration and amount of payouts, can be further studied once the scheme is given approval in principal. This will be the best National Day gift to the workers in Singapore, without whom we will not have the Singapore that we have today. Happy National Day Singapore! ———— Picture from jamcansing.com. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:“You are hereby permitted to remain in Singapore…” Political blogs more sophisticated but obstacles remain National service, national responsibilities Reform Party responds to Desmond Lim’s statements The Reform Party has responded to a press release made by Mr Desmond Lim Bak Chuan, assistant secretary-general of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP), made earlier this week. The press release was posted on Mr Lim’s facebook account and copied to the mainstream press. In his press statement, Mr Lim expressed regret at having contributed to what he deemed an “acrimonious atmosphere” at the SPP’s Ordinary Party Conference (OPC) which was held on 25 July 2010. Mr Lim had been re-elected into the Central Executive Committee (CEC) during the party conference despite internal party differences. Mr Lim however continued to express his opposition to the alleged terms attached to the proposed alliance between the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) and the Reform Party. Mr Lim is also the secretary-general of the SDA. Even though the Reform Party has repeatedly asserted that the terms of the proposed alliance are a work-in-progress and there is as yet no formal agreement as to what form the alliance between the two parties would take, Mr Lim held on to his reservations by claiming that the conditions are “lop-sided”, and fail to “form an equitable, healthy and fair basis for a relationship between the two political entities”. In its own press release dated 6 August and signed off by its secretary-general, Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the Reform Party (RP) stated that they believe Mr Lim’s press statement reflects only his personal viewpoint, which has already been superseded by more recent negotiations. (See full transcript of Reform Party’s press release below.) The RP also asserted that the detailed steps in the negotiation process are best kept confidential, in obvious reference to alleged leaks made to the mainstream media in recent weeks. The RP was also of the opinion that the best way to achieve success is for alternative parties to come together in unity, either in the form of an alliance, or at least, in the form of joint statements and activities. The party candidly admitted that it did not expect such unity to come about easily, and that there are even those in the RP who feel an alliance with SDA would not be to the party’s benefit. Nonetheless, the party’s press release said the majority in the party are in favour of the alliance. In a separate interview with the Straits Times, Mr Lim brushed aside criticism coming from Mr Chiam See Tong’s wife, Mrs Lina Chiam, that he was not chosen to take over the helm of Potong Pasir because he lacked the “X-factor” and personality. Mr Lim said that he had never been interested in Potong Pasir, but had instead been working the ground in Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. He also reiterated that he would fully support whoever the party picked to contest Potong Pasir, including Mrs Lina Chiam. Earlier, Mrs Chiam had also blamed Mr Lim for blocking the RP’s proposals for an alliance, as Mr Lim fears losing his position in the SDA. Mr Lim refuted these allegations as well, saying his contention is only with the alleged terms of the proposed alliance. ________________________________________ The Reform Party’s Response to Mr. Desmond Lim’s Recent Press Release With reference to the recent Press release from Mr. Desmond Lim, SPP/ SDA, expounding his reservations on The Reform Party becoming a member of the SDA. We believe that this release reflects Mr. Lim’s personal viewpoint as his objections have already been superseded by more recent developments. In fact the negotiations had already moved on before his statement was released. The RP still continues to believe that, in the best interests of all the stakeholders in the outcome of these negotiations, the detailed steps in the process are best kept confidential, except for joint press releases and outreach activities. The RP is happy to hear that Mr. Lim intends to stand for Pasir Ris- Punggol GRC in the upcoming GE. We believe strongly that to prevent the spread of more walkovers where a large proportion of the citizens of Singaporeans are denied the Democratic rights promised to them in the National pledge, as many wards as possible must be contested. It falls to parties such as RP to uphold the words of our national pledge, “to build a democratic society”, and it is our patriotic duty to strive to develop democracy in Singapore through the parliamentary route. Indeed Singapore, as a (virtual) one party state, will always be out of step with its own citizenry and with the advanced nations of the world. On the current trajectory we run the real risk of becoming, “a land that time forgot.” Competition is as vital in politics as it is in business and without it there can be no successful long term plan for prosperity and happiness. The RP’s view is that the best way of achieving success for the alternative parties in the coming GE is for the disparate elements to come together in unity, preferably through the vehicle of an alliance but even through such moves as joint statements, forums and space for open dialogue. It would be naive to expect this path to be swiftly traversed or without setbacks and obstacles. In general, we feel that strong differences of opinion are to be expected and are not necessarily negative. There are for example, even within RP, members who feel that the alliance will not benefit us. However as of now the majority are in favour, in principle, and all of our members respect this majority decision. The SDA is not one party. It is composed of various member components representing a spectrum of opinions and there is still much negotiating ahead of us. Even though there is no iron clad guarantee that talks will be successful or that there will be an eventual alliance outcome for this GE, it is clear that the foundations for building future unity are now firmly in place. Released by Kenneth Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Reform Party, August 6th 2010 Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:The Reform Party responds to the Economic Strategies Committee Report Reform Party seeking alliance with SDA Reform Party chief on impasse with SDA Couple in rental flat faces eviction Shelley Thio - Sally’s and Jacob’s only wish was to have their own home to raise their family.  When we met up with Sally, she told us they were facing eviction from their temporary home at a block of HDB flats managed by EM Services (HDB owns 75 per cent of the company). EM Services had given the family of 5 up to 4 June to settle their outstanding arrears of S$1,891.41 or Sally, Jacob and their children will be forced out of their home. Both Sally and Jacob are in ill health.  We noticed that Jacob’s ankles were swollen.  Jacob told us that he had an operation last year because he was suffering from slipped disc, a degenerative disease of the spine. Sally has difficulty swallowing and digesting her food.  She cannot stand for too long and suffers from fainting spells and has difficulty breathing.  Sally is unemployed and does not think she would be able to hold down a full-time job because of her health problems.  Jacob does not want her to work as she is too ill. The family is now living on Jacob’s salary, which is approximately $600 per month (net salary). On her doctor’s advice, Sally underwent an MRI scan that about S$300, which was subsequently deducted from Jacob’s salary.  For that particular month, Jacob’s take home pay was S$165.  Sally stopped going to the hospital because they could not afford the expensive medical tests and her medical bills. Their son was recently enlisted into National Service and will be receiving approximately $400 per month. They have a 22-year old daughter who has been unemployed for six months.  Their daughter, when employed, would be assigned to a part-time job or contract work.  The lack of job security and the benefits that come with full time employment – no CPF, no paid sick leave and annual leave, no medical benefits, to name just a few.  As Sally put it to me, “How can our young Singaporeans with low qualifications, like my daughter, going to ever afford a HDB flat when the jobs out there for them are only part-time jobs and also on contract?  No CPF, how to buy a flat?”  And when the CDC sent her daughter for an interview with Certis Cisco, the HR officer told her daughter to “lose some weight and then come back to us.” HDB had rejected Sally and Jacob’s appeals to be eligible for the HDB Public Rental Scheme and also, to make a direct purchase from HDB because both Sally and Jacob had $110,000 in their CPF and so they applied for a loan of $60,000 from HDB.   After several months, HDB finally replied only to approve a loan to them for the amount of $45,000 which by that time was insufficient for them to purchase a flat in the open market because of the recent price hike in COVs in recent years. When they were newly married, Sally and Jacob bought a resale 3 room flat from a direct loan from HDB.  They sold the flat and made S$70,000 from the sale.  With their new family, both Sally and Jacob purchased a 4 room HDB flat. In 2005, Sally lost her job at MOE.  MOE did not renew her contract.  At that time, her kids were still in secondary school.  Sally and Jacob met with their MP at Woodlands to write an appeal letter to HDB to approve their request to downgrade from a 4 room flat to a 3 room flat.  As they did not hear from their MP, they went to see him again only to be told that “he was not in Singapore”.  So, they went to HDB to request for the downgrade and as they received no reply from HDB, Sally and Jacob sold their 4 room flat.  They made $29,000 from the sale of their 4 room flat. Subsequently, they made several appeals to HDB to purchase a 3 room flat. They were informed by HDB that they had to pay a levy of $40,000 before they could purchase a flat directly from HDB. They could not afford to pay the levy and ended up renting from the open market, which consequently exhausted their savings. Eventually they were referred to EM Services and were given temporary housing. On 14 May 2010, EM Services locked the main door to their rental flat.  A notice was pasted on the door and they were given a letter informing them that their tenancy was up.  Sally went to speak to EM Services to let them into their flat.  EM Services agreed but gave them 2 days after which they would have to move out of the flat. When they were told by EM Services that they had to move out, Sally refused to budge and would stay in the house for fear that they would be locked out if they went out.  A maintenance man came by the flat and asked her when they were going to leave the flat.  Sally simply replied that they had no place and nowhere else to go and she won’t be leaving the flat. Jacob and Sally went to see EM Services and asked to be allowed to stay on.  EM Services finally agreed only on the basis that they paid their outstanding rent of $1,891.41 (3 months rental, outstanding utilities and penalties) by 4 June and their lease will be extended until August 2010.  After which there will be no further extensions to their lease and they will have to leave the flat.  They were told “to move out and stay with your relatives.” Subsequently EM Services sent them a letter informing them that their rent will be increased to $480. Jacob and Sally felt it was also unfair of EM Services to charge them $50 for late payment when Jacob informed EM Services that his salary was only paid to him on the 12th day of each month.  This meant that they could only pay their rent to EM Services thereafter.  The rental payment date is from the 1st to the 9th of each month.  After which there will be a late payment charge of $50 (even if the payment was paid one day late). Sally continues to tell us about the frustrations she is facing when she approaches the officers of HDB and CDC for assistance and guidance.  An officer at HDB had told Sally that both Sally and her daughter “should go out to work”.  Sally said, “These people don’t seem to care that we are sick and that my daughter has been trying to look for work for six months.  The HDB officer even asked me to borrow money from our Church!”.  We told him, “We go to Church for worship. Our problem we keep in prayers.” There seems to be too much focus on leaving families to being self-reliant and the Government’s inflexible and stringent policies do not go far enough to address the problems and obstacles that families in similar predicament as Sally and Jacob are facing.  The Government does not take into consideration that these families require more time to get back on their feet again. ———- The Online Citizen’s interview with the couple: Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:HDB replies: Waiting time for rental flat is now reduced TOC Report: Singaporean, 57, employed, married but cannot buy HDB flat Needy waits 2 years under HDB’s Public Rental Scheme Malaysian MPs and senators call for Yong to be spared Andrew Loh – On Friday, 31 Malaysian Members of Parliament and 11 senators gave their support to the Save Vui Kong campaign. Yong Vui Kong is a 22-year old Malaysian who is currently on Singapore’s death row after being convicted for drug trafficking. [Picture left: Vui Kong, extreme right, as a young boy.] The backing from the MPs and senators for the campaign comes at a time when there is growing awareness and support for Yong in Malaysia. According to the “Save Vui Kong Campaign” activists, the MPs include 21 Pakatan MPs, including DAP’s Karpal Singh, and eight MPs from Barisan Nasional, the ruling coalition. MP for Sabah, Datuk Chua Soon Bui, said Yong can give back to society by reaching out to young people who might be vulnerable to drug traffickers. Rather than kill him, he should be allowed to repent and share his story, she said on 25 July. (See here) Datuk Chua said a number of people in the district of Tawau have joined in the task to gather signatures. She herself would conduct her own rounds for the same purpose, she added. Malaysia wrote to the Singapore government in July to appeal for clemency for Yong. “We sympathise with what had transpired and will do everything possible within our powers or diplomatic means to solve the problem,” Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman said. Campaigners have so far collected 14,000 signatures from members of the public in Malaysia. An online petition has garnered almost 15,000 signatures to date. A blog has been created for the campaign: Save Vui Kong. Besides the politicians’ support, non-governmental organizations have also lent their voices in the bid to save Yong from the gallows. These include the Malaysian Bar Association, The Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia and Amnesty International Malaysia. Yong’s family has also made its own appeal to the President of Singapore, SR Nathan. In Singapore, activists took to the city’s Speakers’ Corner last Sunday to add their voices to the clemency plea. A Facebook photo project urging Singaporeans to show their support through pictures have also been set up. In the meantime, the lawyer for Yong, Mr M Ravi, filed an application for judicial review with the Singapore courts on 22 July. Mr Ravi’s application argued that the clemency process has been so prejudged that the court should issue an order of prohibition to prevent the execution and the clemency process from moving ahead. Mr Ravi’s application cites the Singapore Law Minister’s remarks in a public forum and the Law Ministry’s later press statement on the matter as having “irreversibly tainted the clemency process with apparent bias”. Mr Ravi’s application also argued that the Elected President’s powers under Article 22P of the Constitution has been usurped by Cabinet in advance of the clemency petition being received. (See here for a fuller report.) Judgement on the application is pending. The media in Singapore, however, have played down the issue and the Malaysian campaign to  save Yong has hardly been reported. Yong has taken up Buddhist studies while in prison and has pledged, if he is given a second chance, to use his time to counsel those who, like him, have fallen victim to crime. Read also: Family prays for clemency for Sabahan on death row - The Star Online. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Malaysian lawyer denied access to Yong Lawyer M Ravi files judicial review on Yong Vui Kong’s case Malaysian High Commission visits death row inmate The taming of floods By Dr Wong Wee Nam Floods have been China’s sorrow for thousands of years. They have also been Singapore’s talking point for the past few months. In China, people wailed and cried as they lost their loved ones, their properties and the crops to the calamity. Luckily for Singapore, except for those affected, we can still laugh and joke at the excuses made up by people who are supposed to address and solve the problem. The Legend Five thousand years ago, the flooding by the Yellow River was so bad that the confederation of chieftains under the leadership of Yao （尧）decided to appoint Gun （鲧） to take charge of the fight against the flood. When Yao abdicated out of old age to Shun （舜）, his successor continued to attach great importance to flood control. For nine years, Gun and his men built dams, dykes and barrages to try and stop the flow of the rivers, but these efforts only resulted in more disastrous floods and more destruction of lives and properties. For his failure and the increased loss of lives, Gun suffered detention without trial on Plume Hill and he was incarcerated there until his death. Shun then ordered Yü （禹）, who was Gun’s son, to carry on his father’s work of fighting the flood. The Toil and Sacrifice After a careful study of his father’s failures, Yü decided to abandon his father’s method of building dams and barrages to stop the flow of water. Instead, he attempted to divert water into the sea by digging ditches and canals and dredging the rivers. He even cut a canal into the Mount Long Men and other mountain ridges to achieve this. For thirteen years, rain or shine, Yü and his men dug and carried away the soil. He suffered sunburn and poor nutrition. His muscles wasted and hair dropped off from his legs. But he continued to toil and persevere. “Passing his own door three times and refusing to go in” (三过家门不入) is a popular Chinese saying and the story behind it is a tale of Yü ‘s dedication. When he was given the job, he had been married for only five days. During his thirteen years of fighting the flood, he passed by his home three times but refused to go in as he felt it would affect him in dealing with a public crisis. The first time he passed by, his wife was in labour and he heard the baby cried. The second time he passed by, the son was learning to walk and on the third time, his son was old enough to wave to him. Yet each time, Yü walked on, saying that as the flood was rendering countless people homeless, he could not rest in his own. After thirteen years of engineering feat and exemplary determination and perseverance, he finally brought the floods under control. Because of his achievement and selflessness, when Emperor Shun finally retired, he decided to pass the throne to Yü instead of his own son. In the Book of History (书经) he said： “Come, Yü. The inundating waters filled me with dread, when you realized all that you represented and accomplished your task, thus showing your superiority to other men. Full of toilsome earnestness in the service of the State, and sparing in your expenditure on your family, and this without being full of yourself or elated; you again show your superiority to other men. Without any prideful assumption, there is no one in the empire to contest with you the palm of ability; without any boasting, there is no one in the empire to contest with you the claim of merit. I see how great is your virtue, how admirable your vast achievements. The determinate appointment of Heaven rests on your person; you must eventually ascend the throne of the great sovereign.” (James Legge’s translation) 帝曰：「來！禹！降水儆予，成允成功，惟汝賢。克勤于邦，克儉于家，不自滿假，惟汝賢。汝惟不矜，天下莫與汝爭能；汝惟不伐，天下莫與汝爭功。予懋乃德，嘉乃丕績，天之歷數在汝躬，汝終陟元后。 The Lessons There are many lessons we can learn about public duties from the story of Yü’s Great Taming of the Floods. Firstly, there is the principle of accountability. Gun failed in his task and he had to answer for it. This is not surprising. Honour, shame and accountability had been the virutes of Chinese culture and government.  The 5000 years of Chinese history is replete with stories of officials who had to pay for their failures and blunders that included allowing prisoners to escape, security lapses and loss of national stockpile of grains. Secondly there is the indomitable spirit displayed by Yü. The Chinese people at that time believed that the floods were acts of the angry gods. However, they did not wring their hands in despair and look for reasons to explain away the disaster. Instead of being overcome by a sense of hopelessness, they decided they must do what they can to solve the problem and relieve the people’s suffering and not just blame the heavens. Thirdly, Yü also showed that as a public servant, you must put people’s suffering before your own. He showed it with his single-minded dedication and selflessness. As a result, ordinary people loved him because he was so kind and caring. He was also a very humble man, eschewing high rewards or luxuries. When he was first offered the throne, he declined by saying, “My virtue is not equal to the position.” This is why Yü is the only Chinese ruler posthumously honoured with the title “the Great (大禹)”. In The Analects, Confucius has this to say of Yü: “I can find no flaw in the character of Yü. He used himself coarse food and drink, but displayed the utmost filial piety towards the spirits. His ordinary garments were poor, but he displayed the utmost elegance in his sacrificial cap and apron. He lived in a low, mean house, but expended all his strength on the ditches and water channels. I can find nothing like a flaw in Yü.” 子曰：“禹，吾无间然矣。菲饮食而致孝乎鬼神，恶衣服而致美乎黻冕，卑宫室而尽力乎沟洫。禹，吾无间然矣！” Is it any wonder that his name has lived for 5000 years? Yes, a flood may wash away a lot of things but it can also expose merits and flaws. If we have not been humbled, we have learned nothing. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Floods and politicking – which hits worse? Floods – are we prepared? Floods: Monitor or don’t monitor also flood? How to spend your final $30,500 Richard Seah – If you are seriously ill and have a limited time to live, and you have $30,500 worth of savings, how would you like best to spend that money? Hands up those who would spend it in a hospital. Anybody? In the debate about Medisave, some people on this forum have called it a scam. But many people do feel it is both necessary and desirable to set aside money for medical expenses. I remember a few years ago, one newspaper editorial stated that arguing against the merits of Medisave “is a waste of time”. At the risk of wasting both my time and yours, I ask that you reconsider this basic premise. First, is it necessary? Not if you accept the fact – and this is increasingly confirmed by medical research – that the majority of illnesses can be prevented. If you take good care of your health, your arteries will not get clogged up, your liver, pancreas, kidneys and other organs will not break down and your immune system will conquer most bacteria, viruses and even cancer cells. What if you don’t take care? Well, if you have a heart attack or a stroke, there is a good chance that you will die suddenly. So there is again no need for medical expenses. If you develop diabetes, your Medisave fund won’t cover your daily jabs of insulin. The money will come in handy if you need to amputate your leg, but again, not after that when you need to engage a maid to help you move around. Of course, there will be some people who might find their Medisave money useful, such as those who require heart bypass, stent insertion and similar surgery. But hey! The same procedures can be done in Malaysia or Thailand for a fraction of the cost, even after factoring in travel expenses. Using Medisave to have them done in Singapore then becomes like buying expensive items from a department store when those same items are on sale cheaply everywhere else. You do it only because you have a gift voucher that cannot be redeemed elsewhere. But Medisave is not a “gift”. It’s your savings! It was only recently that this “voucher” can be redeemed – and only partially in any case – at some Malaysian branches of the same medical “department store”. If you prefer (or happen to be in) Thailand, Philippines or some other country, sorry, you pay cash… while your Medisave idles away back home, waiting to follow you to your grave. About the only significant group of people who might find Medisave “necessary” are those who spend the final months in and out of hospitals, fighting one medical battle after another. If you belong to this group, you would do well to ask yourself – and your children and siblings, who might be using their Medisave money plus lots more cash since Medisave won’t be enough: Is this desirable? One person who found a more desirable way to use his money was the American journalist Norman Cousins, who was diagnosed with a so-called “incurable” illness. Instead of feeling miserable in a hospital, he decided to check into a hotel. After all, it cost less money. He felt better right away. The service and the food were far superior and there were no nurses to wake him up in the middle of the night to ask him to take his medicines. (As an aside, I still remember when I was in hospital some 35 years ago. I was woken up one night by a nurse asking me to take my sleeping pills! Yes, they do stupid things like this. “It’s the policy,” the nurse had explained to me.) To entertain himself, Cousins rented funny movies. This was in the 1960s, before video, VCD and DVD, when movies came as film and projector. Cousins spent his days watching Groucho Marx movies and literally laughed himself to recovery – and became famous for writing about his experiences in Anatomy of an Illness, Hugh Faulkner, author of Physician Heal Thyself, was a British medical doctor who was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer when he was in his mid-70s. Despite being a medical doctor, he sought alternative treatment through a macrobiotic diet. Faulkner wrote in his book that just before the Christmas after his diagnosis, he drew up a list of “presents” that he had always wanted – either to have or to do. It was a long list. Among other things, he bought a computer and learned to play a musical instrument. These contributed as much to his recovery as his change of diet. He led an active, healthy and fulfilling life for about another seven years, even though the original prognosis was just six to nine months. I had the privilege of meeting this brave man – it takes courage for a medical doctor to seek alternative medical treatment – when I attended the Macrobiotic Summer Camp back in 1993. Recovery is never guaranteed, of course. What is guaranteed is that you will feel much happier spending your final $30,500 on the things that you’ve always wanted, than on drugs and chemotherapy that cause you to lose your appetite, your hair… and your will to live! ———- *The views expressed in this article are the writer’s and do not represent that of The Online Citizen. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:The final nail in the “HDB affordability” coffin? A final farewell to Ms Lo Hwei Yen The final farewell to JBJ Singapore mentors Burma in sham elections Seelan Palay - As preparations for the sham elections in Burma get into full swing, it is not difficult to notice similarities in electoral practices between the Burmese generals in uniform and Singapore’s leaders in civilian clothes. [Picture left: Burma Prime Minister Thein Sein claps as Singapore names an orchid after him at the Botanic Gardens.] The Burmese regime is bending over backwards to stage the fraudulent elections while refusing to respect the results of the country’s polls in 1990 that led to the landslide victory for the National League for Democracy (NLD). Why reinvent the wheel, when what happened two decades ago remains unfulfilled? The same military that massacred thousands of innocent civilians, including Buddhist monks, is now pretending that everything is hunky-dory. It is an undeniable fact that the military regime holds close economic ties to Singapore – the top brass of the Burmese army are known to have parked their ill-gotten millions in Singapore’s banks, while they and their family members own properties in upmarket areas and their children go to top schools and drive flashy cars, flaunting their wealth to the envy of ordinary Singaporeans. Burmese drug lords who are banned from entering the US freely come and go in Singapore and some even have offices in the posh commercial district along Shenton Way. It is no wonder that Singapore is the third largest investor in Burma, helping to prop up the pariah regime. Singapore has even named a hybrid orchid after the Burmese prime minister, General Thein Sein. Orchids in the same Singapore Botanical Gardens were previously named after Princess Diana and Nelson Mandela. The similarities between Burma and Singapore do not stop there. The election process in Singapore is as opaque as it is in Naypyidaw, the new capital of the Burmese regime. Although Singapore claims to hold periodical elections to legitimise the rule of the People’s Action Party (PAP), the exercise itself is highly questionable. To start with, there is no independent elections commission. Only a department that comes under the Prime Minister’s Office that decides on last-minute boundary delineation, exorbitant deposits for candidates (presently $US9,900 but expected to be raised to $US11,000 in the next election), and other regular gerrymandering practices, including what is known as the Group Representation Constituencies (GRC). This so-called electoral system has led to almost half of the seats in parliament being uncontested on Nomination Day. Presently, Singapore’s ‘parliament’ has 84 MPs, of which 82 are from Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP. And that is “democratic elections” in Singapore for you! [Picture left: Singapore's Foreign Affairs minister George Yeo with Thein Sein.] The paradox of Singapore’s elections is that sections of the electorate, some of whom are nearing their 50s, have never voted in their entire lives. This so-called anomaly is glaring in Singapore, where voting is compulsory under the Parliamentary Elections Act. With all these well-entrenched undemocratic practices, it is not surprising to even a distant observer to understand how the ruling PAP has been in power since 1959. What is worse is the irrefutable reality in Singapore that one man, by the name of Lee Kuan Yew, has been in power for the last 51 years. The octogenarian Lee, who is now 87 years old, calls himself Minister Mentor in the cabinet headed by his prime minster son, Lee Hsien Loong. Compare this to the reality in Burma where the army generals have held sway since the 1962 coup, ousting the democratically elected government of U Nu. Even against this, Lee Kuan Yew’s grip on power extends longer by three years, but he continues to claim that elections in his republic are based on the Westminster model of democracy. Anyone who believes in democratic values could easily see that it is next to impossible to continue to have a one-party dominated parliament in the name of freedom and democracy. Obviously the uniformed generals are under tutelage by the authoritarian regime in Singapore, clad in civilian clothes. While the Burmese generals continue to not recognise the results of the 1990 elections, preparations are in full swing to hold yet another elections based on its 2008 constitution, aimed at hoodwinking the people. Singapore too is notorious for amending its constitution just before every general election to give a legal facade to what is clearly an illegitimate exercise. The Burmese generals also appear to have been keen and obedient students to their teacher, Singapore. Burmese intelligence agents are known to visit on a routine basis to study the latest electronic eavesdropping gadgets for their surveillance of Burmese political dissidents, including the NLD leaders. The recent announcement by NLD to boycott the army-orchestrated sham elections is the right move. How can the elections be legitimate when NLD’s leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, remains under house arrest and barred from taking part? Singapore too, has a history of barring genuine opposition leaders who were daring enough to challenge, through constitutional means, the regime of Lee Kuan Yew. Victims of Lee’s political vendetta include prominent figures such as the late J B Jeyaretnam, Singapore’s former solicitor-general Mr Francis Seow (now in exile in the US), Singapore’s leading corporate lawyer Mr Tang Liang Hong (now in exile in Australia), and Dr Chee Soon Juan, who remains bankrupted and unable to stand for elections. These are well-known democrats who stood up against Lee Kuan Yew, who had openly declared in 2003 that: “If we had considered them serious political figures, we would not have kept them politically alive for so long. We could have bankrupted them earlier.” Is this not what the generals in Burma are doing while loudly proclaiming to the world that there will be “free and fair” elections in the country before the end of the year? While Singapore leaders are shedding crocodile tears and sermonizing the Burmese generals on the need for free and fair elections, is it not appropriate for them to look at their own backyard? When Singapore’s Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong met the Burmese generals, including Than Shwe, last year, he urged them not to allow the ongoing trial of Suu Kyi to affect the national reconciliation process and to make sure that the proposed elections are free and fair. It is better for Goh to take a hard look at himself in the mirror: he will then be able to see the ugly features that include a well-documented law providing for indefinite detention without trial, under which detainees are subject to regular physical and mental torture. It is also common in Singapore to prosecute opposition politicians for speaking in public and distributing flyers; laws that are no different from the Burmese junta’s. Goh Chok Tong’s “advice” is double-speak at best. What right has he got to advise the generals when the same despicable acts are committed at every election in Singapore? Are elections in Singapore free and fair in the first place? Is the media in Singapore free and pluralistic for the voters to be informed before they go to the polls to choose their representatives to parliament? Burma’s media laws are the strictest in the world, and so are Singapore’s, the most notorious being the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act that gives sweeping powers, including the appointment of editors to the 14 daily newspapers that are all under the control of the PAP government. Burma is ranked 171 out of 175 countries in the recent Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index. Singapore is also in the miserable position of 133, several ranks below that of even Angola and Congo. The Singapore Press Holdings, whose chairman was a former deputy prime minister, runs all the newspapers of which its flagship daily is the Straits Times. It’s a known fact that intelligence operatives masquerade as reporters and journalists in Singapore’s media scene. The Straits Times has its equivalent in Burma, the New Light of Myanmar, which is nothing but a mouthpiece of the military regime. Similarities between the autocratic rule in Singapore and the equally notorious regime in Burma are endless. Learning from Singapore on how to perpetuate one-party rule through sham elections is a natural progression for Burma under the bloodthirsty generals. Read also: Burma’s sham elections by The Independent. ———— Seelan Palay is an artist and activist from Singapore. He works with Free Burma Campaign Singapore and blogs here. ———— Videos from the US Campaign for Burma: Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Sham elections and the fear of voting for the opposition Free Burma! International bloggers to support freedom for Burma on Oct 4th Al Jazeera reports on Singapore-Burma ties REACH’s new (media) panel – will it work? Howard Lee - REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@ Home) announced on 2 August revisions to its supervisory panel, constituting Parliament representatives, Citizens’ Consultative Committee chairs and industry players. For those unfamiliar with the Singapore government’s official citizen consultation outfit formerly known as the Feedback Unit, REACH fields issues across agencies to seek the views of citizens on public policies. It started off chiefly with face-to-face forums and has evolved (or so it prefers to believes) to online channels as well. For all its efforts in managing its programmes and e-outreach channels, REACH has been lambasted as being the official complaints black-hole for the government, particularly for its online arm. Its foray into Facebook also started off embarrassingly without a firm grasp of how to create the correct identity profile. This latest media release briefly outlines the role of the supervisory panel in providing “strategic guidance” to REACH for the outfit to achieve its milestones. Achievements of the previous panel include the launch of its Youth Ambassador programme, engaging Singaporeans via social media platforms on Facebook and Twitter, and the formation of Policy Study Workgroups. 18 new members to the panel were identified who are, purportedly, more in tune with youths and the online generation. Can they deliver? L to R: PAP MPs Zaqy Mohamad, Christopher De Souza and Baey Yam Keng, & Nominated MP Calvin Cheng So, is the new panel really more capable in engaging netizens? The Straits Time probably did them the greatest dishonour by flagging four of them – Baey Yam Keng, Zaqy Mohamad,  Christopher de Souza and Calvin Cheng – as “post 65” Members and Nominated Member of Parliament. That cringe-worthy association in relation to the P65 blog is really not doing them much credit. It also doesn’t help when Zaqy Mohamad was quoted as saying, “More young people want to be heard but perhaps they are not sure of the channels for it.” (Sorry, Joe, but we know, just concerned if we are talking about the same channels?) And for Baey Yam Keng, likewise: “Young people want to feel valued. They want to feel that the authorities are keen and sincere in working to get their feedback.” (Push it forward a little, Einstein. Listening to our grouses is good, but how about following up on them?) Five new members are also Citizens’ Consultative Committee chairs. I might be casting it narrowly, but these members are more used to citizen consultation in terms of community forums and dialogue sessions, and there is really no indication as to how many are actually in tune with the online scene. Perhaps my greatest pain was to see Chew V’ Ming, Editor of STOMP, and Serene Goh, Editor of The Straits Times’ Youthink, IN and Little Red Dot, among the panel. Youthink is essentially a one-way blog collection of youths which is not getting much dialogue (no offence to the quality of writing, of course, perhaps it is marketing), while IN and Little Red dot are print publications. And I really don’t want to dredge the muck on why STOMP is a poor example of online engagement, as its reputation online speaks for itself, evident here and here. Modus operandi, status quo? Having said that, changing people is one thing, but a change in engagement policy requires more than new people. It requires a new attitude, and that to date is still lacking in the composition of REACH’s supervisory panel, or for that matter, the wider engagement position that the outfit falls within. To give credit where it is due, REACH has been an important step forward in the government’s public engagement efforts. Even if its single point-of-contact position for the whole of government might be questionable, it has been effective as a single rallying point for how public policies have been opened up for the public to debate on. The old Feedback Unit is the poster boy for a more consultative approach to governance, and its traditional face-to-face forums are likely to continue serving a credible purpose. But the REACH we see today cannot fully encompass nor hope to reflect the views of the Internet generation. Partly due to slow inertia – the online forum was started only after Singaporeans have flocked to their favourite forums to discuss national issues, complain or just to coffeeshop talk – it never got off to a good start because it was constrained by its limited rules of engagement. REACH needs to understand that the way to engage online is never the same as the traditional methods it is using. The online world is not your average town hall session. For a start, it is less patient and more opinionated – you will not see people politely raising hands to ask questions, nor unquestioningly take the last words of the panel chairing the discussion as final. For that matter, the panel of experts is actually non-existent online, because the value of expertise is on substance, not position. But while being slow on the start is a valid excuse, slow on catching up is not. As an example, TOC’s Facebook fans number a humble 6,600, yet it still hold commendably well against REACH’s 2,200. What differentiates TOC from REACH is the level of openness to discussion and comments, which REACH can never quite attain, perhaps due to Big Brother associations, but more likely due to the actual level of responsiveness that netizens face when using REACH. So what is really lacking in REACH’s effort to engage? In the public’s eye, it is the lack of true desire, and also the courage to go into unfamiliar territory. Public feedback platforms were already there and active even before REACH attempted to enter cyberspace, but never sanctioned as “legitimate”. No efforts were made to leverage these existing platforms and engage them. Instead, the current behemoth of a portal was create, which till today still struggles to keep up a decent response level to elevate it from black-hole status. You only need to read the number and quality of responses to comments on the portal and its Facebook wall to realise this. By its very nature, REACH is not generating the level and volume of honest feedback that is already prevalent on other online platforms. Add to that the annoying attitude, intentional or otherwise, of not closing the loop on issues raised as important by its users, and you begin to understand why netizens have such an adverse attitude towards REACH. It is even more worrying when you realise REACH is supposed to be the main platform for policy makers to seek the views of the online communities on policies, when its basic mode of engaging these online communities has not changed. Unless REACH truly begins to reach out, changing its supervisory panel might matter very little. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Foreigners here to stay, reach out to them, says Vivian Youthquake 6: Alternative media can’t replace traditional media A government-controlled media is superior to a free media? MOM policy change creating problems for employers Andrew Loh - When the Prime Minister announced on 14 July that Singapore will see a further 100,000 foreign workers in the coming year, it was perhaps thought that this will be a boon to employers. However, it seems that while Singapore will see more of such workers, existing foreign workers’ permits are not allowed to be renewed. This is a policy shift by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), and it is creating problems for employers. Mr Ng runs a restaurant and employs 29 staff. 18 of them are Singaporeans, while 11 are foreigners, mostly Chinese and Malaysians. Two of his workers’ work permits are due for renewal, one of them due by 6 August. When he tried to do so, however, he was told by the MOM that the permits would not be extended. He was advised that if he wanted to keep the two staff, he would have to employ 50 workers under the revised foreign PRC worker quota, which doesn’t make sense to Mr Ng. Why would he want to employ more workers than he would need? “With the pick-up [in the economy], unless they quickly revise this policy, a lot of employers will face the same problem that I’m facing now,” he said. Indeed, several other employers and business owners have told TOC they too face the same problems. The Online Citizen spoke to Mr Ng about his predicament. We also sought the views of Mr Leong Sze Hian, a financial expert: ————— Leong Sze Hian: On Wednesday, I was having lunch with friends at a pub-restaurant in the Central Business District (CBD), when I noticed that the waitress serving us looked rather distraught. I talked to her, and discovered that she is a 21 year old Chinese from Shanxi, China, who paid $8,000 to the employment agent in China in order to come to Singapore to work. When she applied to work in Singapore, she was told that the renewal of her 2-year work permit would normally not be a problem. However, now, after working for 2 years, her employer tells her that due to a change in the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) foreign labour policy, her work permit cannot be renewed, as the number of foreign workers that they can hire has been reduced. As she has barely recouped the $8,000 agent’s fee and air ticket that she paid to come to Singapore, she is naturally disappointed with how things have worked, or rather not worked out for her in Singapore. On Friday, I was lunching at a restaurant when the owner told me that he had to rush to MOM to appeal for a Chinese worker who’s work permit has been denied renewal by MOM, because of the change in the foreign workers quota. Although, his staff strength has remained unchanged, he will have to give up 2 of his Chinese workers because of the policy quota change. I went with him to MOM, where after waiting for hours, he was told by the staff when his turn finally came, that he would have to go back and email his appeal to the relevant department. As his first worker’s work permit is expring in early August, both him and the worker are very anxious. The Chinese kitchen helper is a 23-year old male from Henan who also paid $8,000 to come to Singapore to work. Why say that we need to bring in at least 100,000 more foreign workers so that the economy will not overheat, and then refuse to renew the existing work permits of those wo have paid a lot of money to come to Singapore? This is also causing a lot of headaches for employers, as their foreign worker quotas have been reduced. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Does Singapore have a climate change policy? Employers bear brunt of unnecessary foreign worker levy hike Employers still discriminating against older workers Jurong East station – an absurd situation Andrew Loh – On 6 July, I wrote about why Ms Saw Phaik Hwa, SMRT’s CEO, had missed the point about our trains and train stations being overcrowded. (See here) While she may have said that “people can board the trains, it is whether they choose to”, I felt that she seemed not to be aware of the safety aspects of such crowded trains and stations. The perfect example of a potential safety hazard caused by overcrowding is Jurong East station. Each morning and evening, the station is so packed “that the commuters from the escalator were unable to get off the escalator when they reached the top.” This surely is an absurd situation. According to this report, “[In] the morning at Jurong East station, the crowd transiting from the North-South line to the East-West line towards Pasir Ris had a lot of trouble boarding the train, and trains were not as frequent from that location.” So, what has the SMRT done about this? It seems nothing. The Second Minister for transport, Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa, would only say that “a new platform [is] being built at Jurong East MRT station.” (Today) It is unclear when the platform will be ready or how Mrs Lim recommends the situation at Jurong East station be alleviated. It would seem that the “new platform” is considered the solution.  That’s left to be seen. But what happens in the meantime? Commuters will have to put up with the situation. They have no choice especially when the CEO of the company responsible adopts a nonchalant and arrogant attitude, besides displaying total ignorance and a complete lack of empathy for what commuters have to face each morning. It is time the SMRT took seriously the safety concerns which such overcrowding in stations, especially at Jurong East, poses. If something untoward should happen, who is going to be held responsible? And even if someone were, it may be too late and of little comfort to those who may be affected. For a start, perhaps the SMRT should focus on these problems instead of spending its time on a another absurdity - policing babies drinking from milk bottles in the trains. And lastly, why aren’t the Members of Parliament for the Jurong area speaking up about this? Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Singaporeans want by-election in Jurong GRC Reform Party visits Jurong West Jurong GRC resident takes up minister’s invitation Babies cannot drink on MRT trains?! From Siew Kum Hong’s blog: The clip showed an SMRT inspector asking at least two different adults, each with a baby or toddler in a pram who was suckling from a milk bottle (although one of them appeared to be drinking water not milk), to essentially cease and desist. In fact, the inspector was asking at least one of them to get off the train and go with him to the station staff room, where the baby could drink “in comfort”. WHAT THE…!?? Come on. Surely that has got to be absolutely ridiculous and uncalled-for. First, you are talking about babies and toddlers drinking out of milk bottles — the risk of leakage or spillage is pretty low. Second, you are asking them to get off the train to go with you to your staff room, just so their babies and toddlers can drink — that’s got to take at least 30 minutes, if not more! Third, well, you are talking about babies and toddlers! Read Kum Hong’s blog for the full article. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Drink savvy; drink safe Nanny gets serious about babies but… Feeding our babies to the economy monster Prolonged Jobless Graduate Lowering Her Expectations to No Avail Hi Gilbert , I have been jobless for more than half a year and finding it difficult  to get back to the workforce. One of the problems I am having  is that I am not as technical as I had wanted to be in the field of programming  and hence I am probably not outstanding among the IT talents available for hire.  I also did not manage to stay in one job for long (unfortunately due to the chaotic nature of  foreign work visa based employment) and hence  did not get promoted up the ranks. I am trying to go back to my first field of interest  which is in the area of PR/Corp comms/Editing/Writing. However, employment agents  and friends have perceive me  to be much better suited in the IT field due to my working experience.   Even though I am now ready to accept entry level positions and salary expectations, I am not getting any luck  in getting an interview from potential employers. I feel  that my  experience and  age are working against me. I think  I was “well-connected” during my time in Singapore, but after being away for this long, I think the connections more or less disappeared. I have casually asked them for help or information about openings in their companies  but the usual response is that they  believe  I’m “above” their help (or that might be the polite way to say no).  I have been trying to get feedback as to why I fail to get a call or land the interviews  and many a times the answers can be vague -  “I’m not a good fit”,  ”I’m not qualified enough” or  “Competition is keen”. In fact for the first few months I have concentrated on government jobs  as I perceived there is less foreign competition there. However, I have received many rejections (without interview)  and have in fact only managed to get interviewed once. I have also tried major IT set ups like NCS and Singtel, all to no avail. I have of course ploughed the internet quite thoroughly for the past few months  and many agencies have called me up. The level of professionalism of these agencies is really very varied  and I would categorically  say that about 50% of them are not professionally competent.  Most simply try to match you to a job and close the deal. There is nothing much in terms of career advice that they can offer. As for lowering expectations, I’m going for entry level jobs at about $2.4K (non tech) – $3K (tech).  I believe that is quite reasonable since that is what I heard most  fresh grads will command now.  However, I have also heard that they would rather hire fresh grads  since they are more mouldable and has more potential (i.e. more years that the company can milk out of) than an experienced job seeker like me. As for the job-hopping bits. Actually during my time in Singapore, the work environment at the xxxx  was really quite bad. They were micro-managing and every tongue was  wagging waiting to put a knife on your back. The environment was predatory and unhealthy. Most of the stints actually lasted  more than a  year  except for the internship at xxxx but that’s because it’s an internship. I am wondering if there is any advice that you can give me  in terms of areas that I can try to work towards or improve upon. And of course, if there are any openings that I can try out for. Attached is my  resume. I sincerely thank you for your time and precious advice. Regards, Pauline (name changed)  **************************  Hi Pauline,  Thanks for your mail.  I will forward your resume to a friend who is doing IT recruitment. Hope that you can get something there.  We are always competing against younger fresh graduates and cheaper hungrier foreigners so its a harsh jungle out there.  Staying lean and adaptive is the word for the job seekers now.   One good bet for you is maybe to try our government sector.  Its easier than say of course as the new graduates will be there competing with you for government jobs.  However, I see that your experience may help you to stand out from the rest of the fresh grads.  Try to lower your expectations abit and work yourself up from there.  Your short working stints in each job may have deterred most employers from calling you up for an interview. HR managers are afraid of job hoppers as it drained their resources and training budget.  Do you network socially?  The next job will probably come from connections that you build from social contacts.  Go join a club or have a new hobby so that you can meet more people. People tend to want to help each other if they know them well enough.  Take care and I will link you up with one of my volunteer career coach Reg.  I will forward your resume to her also.  I also seek your permission to post this mail on my site. I will leave out your name to protect your identity.  Take care and never give up.  Regds Gilbert Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Re-thinking our economic expectations The high expectations required of the association Local graduate pessimistic about her future Building a more people-oriented, diverse, participatory and freer Singapore From the Reform Party’s blog: By Alec Tok: I have seen, since the eighties, the slow erosion of our justice system; I have experienced how Singapore became more and more expensive to live in – I had a car accident in 1994, just before I got married; my car was wrecked beyond repair; it had to be scrapped; after that, I could not afford to buy another one – the COE had become beyond my reach. These past few years, on my frequent trips back, most times enroute from Shanghai or Beijing, where the majority of my work is these days, I have experienced the crowded MRT trains, the visible difference in the mix of people around me and the general air of confusion, about why we have come to this state – living seems harder, things seem more expensive, work, not so easy to find and the government, speaking in terms that, I don’t quite understand. “We need foreigners to grow our economy.” Grow for who? “Public housing is still affordable.” Affordable for who? “We are small, so we need to move fast, so we cannot have too much debate.” So fast, for what? Read Alec’s full write-up here. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Nation-building or party-building? The changing face of Singapore – integrating our people Cost of building HDB flats – finally an answer? The Youth Olympic Games – why the great apathy? By Ng E-Jay Why do so many Singaporeans fail to feel a sense of pride at our nation hosting the Youth Olympic Games, slated to take place from the 14th to the 26th of August this year? According to an informal poll conducted at the Channel News Asia website, 90% of the respondents indicated that they were not interested at all in the event. A quick survey of Singapore’s popular internet forums also reveal a general apathy towards the Games, sprinkled with negative comments about how the event has been organized thus far and how far removed the YOG seems from the daily lives and aspirations of ordinary citizens. The Singapore Democrats speculate in a scathing article posted on their website that the YOG has not been as successful as the government wants it to be in part because of poor timing — the World Cup, surely the greatest international sporting event this year, has overshadowed it. The SDP article also lambastes the government’s incompetence at planning the event, citing examples such as the original YOG budget ballooning out of proportion from $104 million to around $400 million, and renowned world athletes and International Olympic Committee (IOC) ambassadors Messrs Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt giving the event a miss. In late June, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan accused Singaporeans of being “small-minded, unfair and very, very selfish”, because of certain remarks directed at foreign-born athletes. Some critics have been complaining that our government spends precious tax-payer dollars importing foreign-born athletes to help us win medals and achieve prestige, rather than spending time and energy grooming home-grown sporting talents. Thus far our government has only chided Singaporeans for displaying what it deems to be a xenophobic mentality, but without explaining why local born-and-bred citizens are not given more attention and resources to help them achieve the same standards displayed by foreign-born athletes. Has our nation really become so superficial, focusing only on winning medals and enhancing our international reputation in the short term, rather than on nurturing our precious stock of human capital for the long run? Is this why so many Singaporeans have become disinterested in the Games, because they sense the superficiality of it all and the fact that the government will easily set them aside once they are deemed of lesser value compared to the foreigners that can be easily imported? In thirteen short years, Singaporeans have been through three major recessions, the income gap has widened considerably, lower income citizens are struggling more than ever before to make ends meet because of rapidly rising prices, and the middle class has been disenfranchised because they are being progressively priced out of the property market which has gone to the stratosphere. It is hard to feel a sense of pride at the Games when the future seems so uncertain, and when the policies of the government seem to be constantly accentuating what author Catherine Lim terms “the great affective divide“. It is hard to feel a sense of pride when the government has been so embarrassingly uncreative in the organization of the Games and has committed such a vast litany of screw-ups. It is hard to feel as a sense of pride when there is the growing recognition that citizens are merely being treated as government fodder for increasing some vague notion of prestige that has nothing to do the real lives and challenges faced by ordinary citizens. It is not difficult to understand why there has been such general apathy and lack of interest for the Games. Our national values, our sense of belonging and identity, the unique sense of camaraderie and kinship that older generations of Singaporeans have shared has been slowly eroded over the years. At the end of day, perhaps Singaporeans don’t feel they are part of the Games because they feel the Games were never meant for them in the first place. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:Youth Olympics can, SEA games cannot? Let the Games continue! Fear, apathy – and being interested Fisherman’s ordeal Joshua Chiang - For 15 months, Mozambican Augusto Faustino Jorges endured frequent beatings, long working hours and dangerous conditions on board a Taiwanese fishing vessel. Had it not been for the sudden death of a crew-mate – forcing the vessel to dock in Singapore – and the timely intervention of a local NGO, Jorge’s ordeal might have lasted much longer. TOC reports. On 10th June 2010, Taiwanese fishing vessel Tai Yuan 111 arrived and docked at Singapore’s Jurong Fishery Port. A few days earlier, the ship’s chief engineer had suddenly died from what was likely a rupture in the brain. A few days later, Jolovan Wham, executive director of H.O.M.E (Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics), a local NGO focused on migrant worker welfare, learnt that some of the Filipino workers on board the ship were not allowed to leave and return home, even though they were promised they were free to go whenever the ship docks. After a month of protracted negotiations, the workers’ local agent, ‘Jet’, finally agreed to release the workers, and allow Jolovan to board the ship. That was when he met Augusto Jorges. Jorges’ story Jorges is from Mozambique, a country in southeastern Africa with a per captia GDP of USD $933, one of the lowest in the world. From Mozambique, he was flown to Johannesburg and from there to Mauritius, where he boarded the Tai Yuan 111, in March 2009. At the time, Jorge’s passport was six months from its expiry date. His agent assured him that he would be at sea for only six months, and could disembark and renew his passport or else fly back before it expired. It was only after the ship set sail that he was told the ship would stay at sea for the next 18 months – a whole year more than what he was previously informed of. But more was to come. The living conditions on the ship were harsh. Everyday, the men were made to work 16 to17 hours at a stretch, with only 4 to 5 hours of sleep in between. Their work comprised of  managing some 3,000  fishing lines, hauling in the lines when the fish bit, and then slicing, cleaning, gutting and then storing the fish in the deep freezer. It was dangerous work. Each fish could weigh as much as 65 kg,. The men were also not given safety vests, or any safety training. The men were also subjected to frequent beatings by senior crew members for lacking experience and not following instructions – which were given in Chinese. Even after a year, the beatings continued. Jorges recalled the captain telling the senior crew that it was ‘no matter’ if anyone of them were beaten to death. For Jorges, the 15 months at sea was ‘like a death sentence’. He feared that he would never see his wife and five-year old son again. Thus it was no wonder that when Jolovan Wham boarded the ship and asked if anyone else other than the Filipino crew wanted to leave, Jorges jumped at the opportunity. But he nearly didn’t make it. “I’m sorry, your passport has expired.” On 20th July 2010, Jorges finally touched land for the first time in 15 months. Jolovan had secured a Special Pass from the Immigration Authority that gave the Mozambican just four hours to get on a flight home. The Special Pass was issued at 10pm, and Jorges’  flight was at 2am. If he were still in Singapore by the time the Special Pass expired, he would be sent to the ship, where he would most certainly face reprisals. A Singapore Airlines ticket was purchased that would take Jorges to Johannesburg where he would take a connecting flight back to Mozambique. But when Jorges – accompanied by Jolovan and a volunteer – arrived at Changi Airport, he was not allowed to check in as his passport had expired. The staff refused to accept his seaman’s book as identification. (A seaman’s book is a record of a seaman’s career certifications and experiences.) Jolovan then negotiated with the Immigrations and Checkpoint Authority (ICA) for an extension of the Special Pass, so that the issue could be sorted out. ICA relented – Jorge’s Special Pass was extended till 5pm the following day. The next day, on 21st July, Jorges and a volunteer went to the South African embassy. The embassy refused to give Jorges a transit visa, but told him that since he would only be in transit at Johannesburg, it ‘should be fine’. The volunteer also called the Mozambique embassy in Jakarta (Mozambique has no embassy in Singapore). The Mozambique High Consulate in Johannesburg agreed to assist Jorges if there was any trouble when he lands in Johannesburg. An email was sent to confirm the arrangement. But upon arrival at the check-in counter at Changi Airport that night, Jorges was told once again that he could not board – apparently, the immigration at Johannesburg has given this directive. The email that was sent earlier could not be accepted as proof of any prior arrangements. There was very little Jorges could do except to renew his passport – but the nearest Mozambique Embassy was in Jakarta. It was unlikely that ICA would extend Jorge’s Special Pass by the several days that would be needed for him to renew his passport by mail.  Jolovan decided to take the next available flight to Jarkata to renew Jorge’s passport, but not before securing another extension – till 2 a.m. on 23rd July – for Jorges’ Special Pass. Jolovan departed for Jarkata the following morning while Jorges waited at a shelter. At 11.30 a.m., the good news came – his passport had been renewed till 2013. Jorges was relieved. He was finally going home. “Just a routine check.” That evening, Jorges, Jolovan and the volunteer returned to Changi Airport.  At 11.30 p.m. Jorges went through the departure gates and approached the immigration counter. His passport and air ticket were taken from him and he was directed to a room and told to wait. When the volunteer called Jorges, he said he did not know why he was asked to wait in the room. Subsequent calls to Jorges by the volunteer went unanswered. It wasn’t until 1 a.m. that Jorges called back. His passport, documents and handphone had finally been returned to him, and he was waiting to board the plane. Jorges has arrived in Mozambique. He is now finally home safe and sound. The episode however has raised several questions: - What are Singapore’s responsibilities regarding seafarers, such as fishermen, and vessels which dock in Singapore? - The workers, as in the above example, can only leave the ship if the agent responsible for them sign a release form. What about workers who want to leave  (for example, because they’re being abused) and the agent does not want to sign any such release forms? - What are the responsibilities and liabilities of the vessel’s local agent, such as “Jet” in the case of the Tai Yuan 111? - Jorges and the Filipino workers were only able to leave after the intervention of aid workers like Jolovan Wham. And Jolovan only came to know of the situation because one of the Filipino workers on the ship had contacted his friend who was already working in Singapore. This friend in turn contacted Jolovan Wham and HOME. What avenues are open to such workers to seek help when they dock in Singapore? - What assistance do the ICA, MOM and other government departments provide in such cases? In the above incident, it was entirely HOME and volunteers who provided Jorges with shelter and helped him with his passport problems. - Lastly, what legal rights does a person like Jorges have under Singapore laws in such a situation? ——– For a more detailed account of Jorges’ ordeal, read “Getting Jorge home” by Little Ms Kaypoh. Share this on Facebook Tweet This! Subscribe to the comments for this post? Blog this on Blogger Share this on Technorati Share this on del.icio.us Post this to MySpace Digg this! Share this on Linkedin Add this to Google Bookmarks Related posts:“I have never even seen a ship in Singapore!” A response to MOM but rejected by the Straits Times TOC Expose: Repatriation companies