Lee Kuan Yew the “forecaster” – but doesn’t even know what happened last year. Property prices went down last year?? “Let me tell you what happens when we slow down too much. You get the reverse spiral. Low growth, maybe even zero growth. Last year we had minus two per cent. Prices go down, property prices go down, incomes go down, you can’t refurbish your houses, no new SERS, no upgrading and the country goes down.” MM Lee Kuan Yew 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:Property prices “madness” High property prices cloud the view of a generation Higher property tax from next year Recession over: Really? Time to increase fees? By Leong Sze Hian I refer to the reports “MM Lee warns of dangers of slow growth if productivity does not increase” (CNA, Feb 18) and “S’pore income gap narrows” (ST Breaking News, Feb 19). The former article reported MM Lee as stating that “The island state has a growing economy, increasing real incomes, better homes which are rising in value, and citizens are generally better off”. Well, the next day, we had the news that the economy contracted and nominal and real incomes shrank. According to an Occasional Paper released by the Singapore Department of Statistics (DOS) on February 19, under the section “Key Household Income Trends, 2009”, household income from work declined in 2009. The decline in household income from work reflected the weaker labour market conditions in 2009, which saw higher unemployment and lower wages. It was further stated that “Median monthly household income from work among all resident households declined by 1.9 per cent from $4,950 in 2008 to $4,850 in 2009. After adjusting for consumer price inflation in 2009, median household income from work saw a decline of 2.5 per cent”. On the same day (Feb 19), the DOS released a report on the Performance of the Singapore Economy for 2009, which said that “Singapore’s economy contracted by 2.8% on a quarter-on-quarter, seasonally adjusted basis, in 4Q2009″, and that “the economy contracted by 2.0% in 2009”. So, were we in a way overly optimistic when “Singapore declared the recession (was) over in November last year”, according to the CNA article “Singapore economy to grow up to 6.5% this year: govt” dated 19 Feb? It was announced by the press that “in the past few months, the government has taken further steps to widen the differentiation between citizens and Permanent Residents and to slow down the inflow of foreigners”. Furthermore, on the same day (Feb 19), it was also announced that Polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education (ITE) fees will be increased from April. The press reported that “The Government decided to keep fees at the status quo last year because of the economic recession but this year, as the economy turns, it is timely to raise the fees” (“Fees for poly and ITE students going up in April”, ST, Feb 19). If we really want to widen the distinction between Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners, why can’t we just raise fees for PRs and foreigners, instead of raising fees for Singaporeans too? Since we want to take on the “challenges such as increasing productivity and raising skills across the board” and the government has acknowledged that “every worker also has to be re-skilled, re-trained and re-educated to achieve higher standards of capabilities”, why are we raising vocational education fees so soon before wage cuts are restored? In this connection, another example is the reduction of the subsidy by five per cent for PRs in Class C wards in hospitals from next year, and by another five per cent the following year. Actually, a five and 10 per cent reduction in subsidy from the current 70 per cent subsidy, translates to a 16.7 and 33.3 per cent increase in medical fees, respectively. With regards to the assertion that “we always give preference to our own citizens”, with the total increase at 100 per cent, from the former 80 per cent subsidy to 60 per cent eventually, many Singaporeans may bear the brunt of the increase if they have PR or foreign spouses, dependents or employees. So, why not increase medical fees for PRs and foreigners, but reduce fees for Singaporeans instead of maintaining the status quo? So, incomes are down, GDP has contracted in the last quarter, but fees are going up. Let’s hope that other fees and costs will also not start to go up, citing the reason that the economy is recovering. Those who may suffer the most when costs go up and incomes go down may be the poor. On the same issue, there have been media reports that charities need more donations. For example, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) had a budget deficit of $0.9 million, its biggest shortfall in 10 years, for the 2008/2009 financial year ended in June (“NKF to dip into reserves of $270m: Charity hit by economic downturn and drop in donations”, ST, Nov 29, 2009). According to its annual report for 2007/2008, the surplus was $9 million, and the surplus for 2006/2007 was $19 million. Does this mean that the 2007/2008 net surplus of $9 million alone, not counting the 2006/2007 surplus of about $19 million, may be enough to cover about ten times or ten years of the current year’s $0.9 million deficit? There has been a significant reduction in investment income from $11.6 million in 2006/2007 to $3.2 million in 2007/2008, and to just $80,000 now. What has NKF been investing in such that its investment income can fall from $11.6 million to $80,000, a drop of more than 99 per cent in two years? NKF has $270 million of reserves now, compared to $262.8 million in December 2005. When the NKF saga broke in 2005, one of the issues which riled Singaporeans was that it had some 30 years or so of reserves instead of the three years that the public was led to believe. Its 2007/2008 report states that “After adjusting for inflation, the existing surplus fund is expected to last for only seven years”. Now, it says that its current reserves of $270 million can only last for five years or so. I am somewhat puzzled by the figures — if $262.8 million in 2005 was deemed to be about 30 years of reserves, why is it that $247 million in June 2008 was expected to last for only seven years, and now $270 million for just five years, despite cost-cutting measures like giving cubicles instead of rooms to managers? How does the NKF fare in the light of the new guidelines for charities on the accumulation of reserves? Despite the current year’s $0.9 million budget deficit, is NKF still the largest charity with the most reserves, and the most number of years of reserves? Finally, with regards to the statement “Without growth, Singapore will not be what it is and the key to our growth is a government taking right decisions and labour unions, employers, and the government working together. No other country in the world has got this combination”, let the following statistics speak for themselves: There are 24,000 needy residents in just one CDC — North East Community Development Council. How many needy in total in Singapore? Singapore’s workers continue to lead the pack when it comes to the number of hours they put in at work, according to a report by the International Labor Organization (ILO). The report puts them at the top of 13 economies in the group’s Global Wages Report for 2008-09, surpassing even the notoriously hardworking Japanese and Taiwanese. Only 60 per cent are projected to have at least $67,000 in their CPF in 2013, according to a CNA report. 60,000 flat dwellers were given financial counseling by the HDB as a result of having difficulty in paying for their flats in 2008, and 30,770 flat-owners were in arrears over three months as of September 2009. According to the Department of Statistics’ Household Expenditure Survey released in December, the Average Monthly Household Income by Income Quintile for 2008, was $1,274 and $3,476 for the 1st–20th and 21st–40th quintiles respectively. 105,965 households earn below $1,000. 116,092 households earn $1,000 – $1,999 Yhe bottom 20% of households’ monthly income declined by minus 1,4 per cent per annum in real terms from 1998 to 2008, and the 21st to 40th quintile of households’ income increased by only 0.9 per cent (2.3 per cent increase less 1.4 per cent inflation) in real terms. The unemployment rate for cleaners, labourers and related workers was the highest across all sectors in June 2009 at 8.3 percent, according to the MOM’s Workforce 2009 report released last year. Part-timers’ median income in 1999 was $600. The increase for the last 10 years was only $20, or an annual increase of only 0.3 per cent, without adjusting for inflation. And it is important to consider that a possible reason for the $20 increase may be that a part-timer is now defined as one working 35 hours or less, instead of 30 hours. 401,600 resident workers earned less than $1,200 a month as of June 2009. The number of children applying for the Straits Times Pocket Money Fund reaching an all-time high of 11,642. For the poorest 20% of households, their Expenditure at $1,760 in 2008, was 38% more than their Income of $1,274. Singapore was ranked very high at No. 10 in Mercer’s 2009 Cost of Living Survey. —— Headline picture from quachee’s blog. —— _________________________________________________________________ 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:Annual fees too high in Special Needs Trust Fund Medisave contribution may increase to cover costs – Leong Sze Hian replies Fare increase not fair to lower income Singapore accused of launching ‘Sand Wars’ From The Telegraph The island city-state’s size has increased by over 20 per cent since the 1960s and demand for sand for lucrative land reclamation and development projects is higher than ever. However, recent bans on exporting sand introduced in Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam have cut off supplies and opened up a thriving smuggling trade. Thieves have begun making night-time raids on the picturesque sandy beaches of Indonesia and Malaysia, carving out millions of tons of coastline and leading to fears of an imminent environmental catastrophe on a swath of tropical islands. Singapore’s land developers are now pitted against environmental groups, who claim several of the 83 border islands off the north coast of Indonesia could disappear into the sea in the next decade unless the smugglers are stopped. “It is a war for natural resources that is being fought secretly,” said Nur Hidayati, Greenpeace Indonesia spokesman. “The situation has reached critical levels and the tropical islands of Nipah, the Karimun islands and many small islands off the coast of Riau are shrinking dramatically and on the brink of disappearing into the sea. “The smugglers have no problem getting it into Singapore and these boats are rarely intercepted by customs boats or the navy. The supply is constant.” Read the full report 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:Singapore accused of land grab as islands disappear by boatload Heads in the sand & National Education Singapore to name orchid after Burmese junta leader RWS A look inside Resorts World Sentosa. 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 No related posts. Growth at all cost Let me explain what happens when we make progress. HDB prices go up, private home (prices) go up, all asset prices go up. Everybody finds he owns something more valuable in the house, his shares are worth more and he can live a good life. Of course we have to put up with more crowded trains, more crowded buses, (but) it cannot be helped. MM Lee Kuan Yew 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:Myths and misconceptions about pursuing high growth indefinitely High cost of living – what the government can do Economic growth fell well below expectations Town Councils – a more responsible attitude needed From: phillip ang pipakh@singnet.com.sg> Date: Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:09 AM Subject: Town Councils – a more responsible attitude needed To: mailto:mah_bow_tan@mnd.gov.sg, Teo_Ser_Luck@prpg-grc.sg, Pasir Ris Office PasirRis@prpg-tc.org.sg>, Rosita_chow@prpg-tc.org.sg Cc: weichean@sph.com.sg, theonlinecitizen@gmail.com, stlocal@sph.com.sg, stanleysandosham@hotmail.com, news@newstoday.com.sg, limjess@sph.com.sg, lchertan@singnet.com.sg, jayakumar89@hotmail.com, dillonangweijie@hotmail.com, bok koh bokkoh@hotmail.com>, czhimin@sph.com.sg Dear Minister Mah I refer to the article in The Straits Times, ‘Cabby hit on head by falling laundry pole’ (Feb 13), and my correspondence with my TC 5 years ago, with attachment to the MND (please see edited attachment showing photos only). The precarious manner in which residents hang their laundry is simply an accident waiting to happen.   Regardless of how the laundry pole was positioned before it fell and hit the cabby, I would like to highlight the fact that TCs are aware but seem to have turned a blind eye to this issue.  Below are still common sights in just about every HDB estate (similar to those in attachment). Even though feedback was given to the MND years ago,  TCs seem to be taking this issue lightly.  It usually gets a little more serious only after another accident occurs. Suggestions Since this involves only a minority of residents, Property Officers must engage them individually.  A verbal warning should usually suffice.  Please do not allow TCs to seek the lazy and easiest way out by printing posters/flyers for every HDB unit/void deck as the majority of residents are not involved. Conclusion Six years since my feedback, hanging laundry precariously is still a common sight in our public housing estates. GMs appear to be totally in the dark where the inaction of their subordinates is concerned. Thank you. Regards Phillip Ang PS: The root of our problems is the attitude of TCs which have never been accountable for the lack of a solution.  Feedback must be given for issues which are obvious, which POs seem to have the choice to acknowledge.  It appears that residents are doing the job of POs. The basics of estate management seems to be lacking. TCs appear to be willing to overlook safety issues. Many objects have fallen but go unreported, especially in a windy estate like mine.   It is understandable that a solution may take months or years for a problem which had been left to fester for decades.  But we are not even closer to a solution.   The TC approach, if any. has already been shown to be ineffective.  But residents are forced to accept its incompetence. **I do not mean to be disrespectful.  It is frustrating to receive replies from TCs which are but a template to justify its incompetence/for its PR. _______________________________________________________ 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:Town Councils – irresponsible to continue ignoring corridor clutter 20 years of town councils – yet no stake in governance for residents Town councils’ funds – Teo Ho Pin responds On the beat to the hustings? By Ng E-Jay On Wednesday 17 Feb, PM Lee Hsien Loong called for the Registers of Electors to be updated, exactly one year after the Elections Department had conducted the previous revision. [1] The Registers of Electors contain the particulars of all eligible voters at the time of revision. There is one Register maintained for each electoral division. According to Section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap. 218), a person must be a citizen of Singapore, be not less than 21 years of age, and be an ordinary resident of Singapore in order to be a qualified elector. The latest update of the voter rolls would allow people who became new citizens since the time of the previous revision to be eligible to vote. There seems to be a consensus in cyberspace that new citizens would tend to vote for the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) out of gratitude at having been given a chance to live and work in Singapore. According to the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA), a revision to the Registers of Electors has to occur not more than three years after each general election. The previous revision was completed in April 2009, almost three years after the last general election in May 2006, within the timeframe stipulated by the PEA. The current revision however is occurring at a time when not required by law. This has fueled speculation that elections are due soon as the ruling party would want to include as many eligible voters as possible, especially new citizens. Are we on the beat to the hustings? On 18 Feb, a day after the Elections Department announced that the Registers of Electors were being revised, the government gazette also published the boundaries of altered polling districts pertaining to the current 14 group representation constituencies (GRCs) and 9 single-member constituencies (SMCs). [2] However, prior to the publication of the Electoral Boundaries Report which is normally released shortly before the general election, opposition candidates will have to continue to play the guessing game as to whether the constituency they are targeting will remain intact or be absorbed into other constituencies. The government announced last year that the number of single seat wards would be increased and the average size of the GRCs would be reduced. Other proposed changes to the electoral system include having up to 9 non-constituency members of parliament from the opposition camp should there be insufficient opposition MPs to make up the number. However, fundamental defects to Singapore’s electoral system remain. Elections are currently under the sole purview of the Prime Minister’s Office and there is a complete lack of independent oversight. Election deposits which currently stand at $13,500 per candidate make barriers to entry unreasonably high for the opposition. Without a free and pluralistic mainstream media, and without any independent body overseeing the conduct of elections, these changes to our electoral system are merely cosmetic makeovers that bear the semblance but not the substance of liberalization. Former PAP stalwart Lee Khoon Choy wrote in the preface to his autobiography that “It is often said that one must write history from a distance”. With the current monopoly that the ruling party has over political discourse in Singapore, it is often hard to envision a political destiny different from what the PAP has laid out. Yet I am sure that if the PAP does not level the political playing field and bring fairness and transparency back into the game, history will not judge it kindly even if it is written from a distance. _________________________________________ A note for overseas voters: Shortly before the 2006 general elections, the laws were amended to allow citizens living overseas to vote. When the revised Registers of Electors are exhibited for public inspection, Singaporeans residing abroad may apply to be overseas electors by registering online at the Elections Department website, or by submitting an application form by registered mail or by hand to the Elections Department or to any of the overseas registration centres as stated on the Elections Department website. [3] Registration for overseas voters will remain open until the writ of election is issued, and will resume after the election. Once an applicant has been successfully registered, his or her status as an overseas elector remains valid until the Registers of Electors are next revised. _________________________________________ References: [1] Channel News Asia, “Electoral rolls to be updated“, 18 Feb 2010. [2] Channel News Asia, “Government gazette publishes boundaries of altered polling districts for GRCs, SMCs“, 18 Feb 2010. [3] Elections Department website: http://www.elections.gov.sg ___________________________________________________________ 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:Don’t beat down activists TOC Blog Feature: UK election vs S’pore election Fairness – not patronage! More poor people helped with less money? By Leong Sze Hian I refer to the article “$2m fund to help 24,000 needy residents” (ST, Feb 18). It states that “More than 24,000 needy residents from the North East District stand to benefit from a $2 million community partnership between the North East Community Development Council (CDC) and religious society Zhi Zhen Tan Dao Xue Hui”. If there are 24,000 needy residents served by just one CDC, how many in total are there in Singapore, since there are five CDCs? With 24,000 needy residents benefiting from $2m, does it mean that on the average, each needy resident may get only about $7 a month ($2 million divided by 24,000 residents divided by 12 months)? I also refer to media reports (“33,000 turn to ComCare”, ST, Jan 27) stating that a record 33,000 households were successful applicants for ComCare schemes last year, an increase of 47 per cent compared to 2008. As the ComCare budget was $63.7 million in 2008, with an increase of 47 per cent, on a proportional basis for the first nine months of the current financial year, the amount disbursed should be about $70.2 million ($63.7 million 2008 budget x 1.47 x 9/12 months). So, why is it that only $51.3 million of this year’s $77 million budget has been used? Does it mean that on the average, each needy household received about $173 monthly ($51.3 million divided by 33,000 households divided by 9 months)? Using the same methodology, the average assistance per household per month in 2008 was $236 ($63.7 million divided by 22,449 households (33,000 divided by 1.47) divided by 12 months). Why is it that the average monthly assistance appears to have declined by 27 per cent from 2008 to 2009 ($173 out of $236)? The above is a very rough analysis based on the statistics publicly available. Of course, applicants will be approved on a rolling basis in the course of a year, and assistance for some existing needy households will terminate when they are deemed to be no longer requiring help. So, what we need to know is the average assistance per month per household for these 33,000 households, instead of just the total figure of $51.3 million used to-date. _____________________________________________________ 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:Household Expenditure Survey 2007/08: How many poor people in Singapore? More than just money needed to help poor Why the poor needs help now Ants at the feet of prosperity Fang Shihan Photo was taken with a camera phone. This space is open for readers to submit their own interpretation of CNY. Click here for another classic pic. 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:“We deserve prosperity and emancipation” – Kenneth Jeyaretnam Free Burma! International bloggers to support freedom for Burma on Oct 4th Number of comments on TOC surpasses 100,000 Bigotry of one – faith of another Ravi Philemon Shravasti Dhammika writing in his blog on Pastor Rony Tan’s saga says that the government sanctioned inter-religious dialogues do not work because those that really need such dialogues, “the bigots, zealots, fundamentalists and the evangelicals, won’t come.” What Shravasti Dhammika fails to realise is that there is nothing wrong in being a ‘zealot’ – someone with zeal; that there is nothing wrong in being a ‘fundamentalists’ – someone who goes back to the fundamentals; and that absolutely no apology is needed to be an ‘evangelical’. One question Shravasti Dhammika failed to ask himself when writing his blog is “How does negative labelling help the inter-religious dialogue?” How will this labelling help the almost 50 percent of Christian clergyman who are wary of inter-faith talks? Of course a spade has got to be called a spade so that the waters are not muddled unnecessarily. But labelling groups that have very exclusive view of their faith as ‘bigots’, is not going to be very helpful; especially not when these groups do not see themselves as such, or even mean to be condescending or disrespectful. One could say that a Buddhist could explain to death the ‘true’ understanding of core Buddhist concepts to an ‘evangelical’ Christian, but that he is not going to get it, as he is assumed to believe only in the ‘exclusive truth’ of the Bible. But how can one tell another what is the ‘right’ view to have and what is not? As long as the view held, does not instigate violence (e.g. jihad), everyone should be entitled to his or her opinions and views. No matter how ’skewed’ it may appear to another. Of course in a society as diverse as ours, all ‘types’ of zealots and fundamentalists need to practise restraint. But then, one should exercise caution that even the call for ‘restraint’ is not an over-zealous one. It is unfortunate that Shravasti Dhammika has allowed one Pastor Rony Tan to colour the entire evangelical community as ‘bigots’. Although the ‘evangelical’ label is used to distinguish conservative protestant Christianity from liberal Christianity, the spectrum of theology within the ‘evangelical’ circle is too diverse, for they include many from the Methodists, to the Anglicans, to the Baptists, to the independent and small family churches. In singling out the evangelicals in his “one or two particular groups (that are not) amiable and respectful towards each other”, Sharavasti Dhammika has done a great disservice to the inter-religious dialogue. He must surely realise that two wrongs do not make a right. But perhaps the bigotry of one is the faith of another. ______________________________________________________ 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:How the lack of common sense can destroy a faith Many investors have lost faith in Government and MAS: Tan Kin Lian (Updated) Not your ordinary chit-chat session Singapore ranked 70 in Quality of Life Index By Gangasudhan International Living, a magazine whose business for the past 30 years has been to inform readers on the best places to live and work, released its 2010 Quality of Life Index last month. This year’s index places Singapore at Number 70 out of 194 countries. From a statistical perspective, it has been ranked 21 (i.e. countries with the same score ranked equally) with a score of 61/100 with the highest score (France) at 82/100. The manner in which the index is tabulated is interesting, with firsthand perception given more weight than statistical figures. This means that if one of the editors happened to live in the country and disagreed with a certain official reported value, they would choose to go with experience rather than the value provided. To use an example, whilst the government may claim that there are no homeless in Singapore, anecdotal firsthand experiences of VWOs would suggest otherwise and would consequently overrule the official stance. The editors of the index also make no apologies and are frank and upfront about their ‘bias’ – they declare outright that they favour their own judgement over any official figure. And with the experience in the field to back up such an approach, it seems a logical way in tabulating the index. Singapore’s Poor Score Over 9 categories, the countries were ranked in relation to one another – meaning, the best for the category was given a score of 100 whilst the worst was given a score of 0. The 9 categories then contributed to a total score over 100 – which is what determines the rank. Singapore scored 61/100 (see image below) – the highest was France with 82/100 and the lowest was Somalia with 30/100 – with its well-documented security earning it a top score for Safety & Risk. However, its other notable pillars such as the Infrastructure (69/100), Economy (68/100) and Health (74/100) do not score as highly as one would expect. And perhaps most telling of all was the fact that the Environment (39/100) component scored more poorly than the Freedom (42/100) category. Whilst it is well known that civil liberties here take a relative back seat to economic goals, the fact that our “population density per square kilometer, population growth rate, greenhouse emissions per capita, and the percentage of total land that is protected” can score worse than the level of “citizen’s political rights and civil liberties” is rather worrying. In last year’s survey (see comparison below), Singapore scored 58/100 and came in at 80 out of 194 countries (statistical rank of 23) – which makes this year’s score a clear improvement. However, the salient point is that the Quality of Life Index reflects our general feeling that our cost of living has gone up significantly as our day-to-day comfort level has deteriorated – in layman terms, we (have to) spend more now whilst having to live in cramped or worse conditions. ______________________________________________________ The full Quality of Life Index 2010 is available at http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010 The full Quality of Life Index 2009 is available at http://www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2009 The Quality of Life Index methodology and report are also available for inspection. ______________________________________________________ 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:Life in Singapore Freedom Press Index divorced from reality? Foreign workers are akin to the lowest life forms in Singapore The repression of ethnic minority activists in Myanmar The government of Myanmar violates the human rights of ethnic minority political opponents and activists in a myriad of ways, including torture and other illtreatment; discrimination on the basis of religion and ethnicity; unlawful killings; and arbitrary detention for short periods or imprisonment. All of those detained or imprisoned were or remain among Myanmar’s large population of political prisoners (hovering around 2,100 prisoners) — detained because of their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs, ethnic origin, language, national or social origin, birth, or other status. Most are prisoners of conscience; they have expressed their beliefs peacefully.Many such political opponents and activists told Amnesty International that they faced government repression as part of a larger movement, as in Rakhine State during the 2007 Saffron Revolution, while others said that the authorities pursued them for specific actions, such as organizing a small anti-dam signature campaign in Kachin State. Even relatively innocuous expressions of political dissent, as when Karenni youths were detained for floating small boats on a river with “No” (to the draft constitution) written on them, faced repression. In view of Amnesty International’s findings, it recommends that the government of Myanmar, among other measures: Lift restrictions on freedom of association and assembly in the run-up to the elections, including by refraining from penalizing peaceful political activities. Release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners arrested solely on the basis of their peaceful political activity, ethnicity, or religion. Remove restrictions on independent and objective media, including international journalists, to cover the campaigning and election process. Read the full report here: Amnesty International 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:Political repression – S’pore govt responds to Canadian law firm Crisis in Myanmar and the responsibility to protect Amnesty Int’l calls for support for “peaceful activists” Malay sketches By Alfian Sa’at Jason wanted the whole works for his wedding. Hawa, his wife-to-be, was actually nervous about having the bersanding ceremony, where bride and groom would sit side by side on a dais. She thought that too much attention would be focused on the fact that he was a Chinese man, dressed in traditional Malay garb. However, when they were choosing her bridal baju kurung, Jason had marveled at the exquisite designs on the songket. Hawa told him, “The silk is from the Chinese, the gold threads from the Indians, and the craftsmanship is Malay.” “Do I get to wear it too?” Jason asked, clearly excited. “Muslim men can’t wear silk. But you can have the cotton songket to wrap around your waist.” “And do I get to slip in a keris too? With the handle sticking out at the waist? I’ve seen it in photos.” “Don’t be ridiculous. What for? You want to circumcise yourself under your songket is it?” For the akad nikah ceremony, Jason had memorized the words he was to say in one breath, while shaking the hand of his father-in-law. It could have been uttered in English, but Jason wanted to impress his prospective parents-in-law by doing it in Malay. “I, Jamal Bin Abdullah (his Muslim name), receive the hand of Hawa Bte Iskandar, with a dowry of $200, in cash.” The kadi, a stern-looking man, made him repeat the line, but this time replacing the word ‘ringgit’ with ‘dolar’. Jason glanced at Hawa, who had taught him the words the night before. She blushed, realizing her mistake. Jason sped through his sophomore effort with ease, and there were smiles all around. A few months later, Jason was informed by his superior that he was to be transferred to another unit. No explanations were forthcoming. He was told that he could still keep his First Sergeant rank, but that he would now be trained as an Infantry Specialist. “But I’m a Combat Engineer,” was all Jason could say, blinking at the letter in his hands. His superior sighed, avoiding Jason’s eyes, and said, “It’s a directive from Manpower. But you shouldn’t worry, you’ll still be getting the same pay.” It was only later that night, lying beside his sleeping wife that Jason thought of an answer to his superior: “I never went around telling all of you to call me ‘Jamal’. I’m still Jason.” But was he? He turned towards his wife and kissed the back of her neck. She stirred and arched her back to rest in the concavity of his body. Two years later, in an editing room, a producer was reviewing rushes to be used for a montage for the National Day Celebrations. Ordinary Singaporeans were asked to respond to the question, ‘What will you defend?’ A yuppie-type with black-framed glasses said, ‘My job.’ A scout hesitatingly said, ‘My future?’ A woman at a food centre said, ‘Myself’. And then Jason appeared on the monitor. He was wearing his army uniform, with his green infantry beret. He stared straight into the camera, and in a slow, measured tone, said, ‘I will defend my family. My beautiful wife, and my one-year-old son.’ The producer thought this was the most heartfelt and sincere testimony, and slotted it right at the end of the montage. It helped that one could almost detect tears filling up the soldier’s eyes. Note: Alfian Sa’at was inspired to write this fiction after being inspired by Amir in A City of Shared Stories 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:Why the need to be “proud” of being a Malay Singaporean? Singapore’s first Malay general – a star of things to come? Stop nannying Malay-Muslims and discard old suspicions ‘Tiger Show’ by Cat Welfare Society! The Cat Welfare Society will be hosting a week-long event from 21 – 28 February 2010 provocatively titled ‘Tiger Show’. The event, held in conjunction with the birth of the Year of the Tiger, welcomes the lunar new year in celebration of our humble Community Cats and aims to bring together people from all walks of life that have a passion for animal welfare, as well as a soft spot for our feline friends. The CWS envisions this year to be one where sterilisation is fully supported by AVA and all Town Councils responsible cat owners show that cats should and must be allowed to be kept as pets in HDB flats there is less intolerance for community cats, hence less abuse _________________________________________ The line-up for this exciting week is as follows: 21 Feb (Sunday) 7.30pm – The Tiger Show Opens (by invitation only) 21 Feb to 28 Feb – Exhibition opens from 6pm-10pm from Tuesday to Friday and 12pm-10pm on Saturday and Sunday (free) Join us for the opening of our week-long feline-inspired Art Exhibition and Bazaar! The show is a gathering of renowned cat artists like Paul Koh of Catmasutra, Ng Ling Tze of Sloth Studios, the team from Cats of the World as well as other local artists like multi-disciplinary visual artist,Tay Bee Aye and ceramist, Michelle Lim. Many feline-inspired collectibles will also be on sale at the show! 25 Feb (Thursday) 8.00pm – “I am Cat. Hear Me Roar” An advocacy and mediation workshop for the welfare of cats. Be part of an open and honest discussion with SPCA, Action for Singapore Dogs, Cat Welfare Society and guest panelist Mr Siew Kum Hong about where animal welfare, especially for domestic animals, stands in Singapore – our progress and our stumbling blocks, with insights into the role of new media in advancing our collective cause. Our line-up of speakers include Jaipal Gill from SPCA who will be speaking on animal sentience, Kelly Then on managing disputes and November of Leafmonkey Workshop on new media advocacy. $8 with a non-alcoholic drink $12 with an alcoholic drink 26 Feb (Friday) 7.30pm Animal People Singles’ Night! It’s a party so let the fur fly. It’s time to break out the alcohol and the party heels. If you have ever lamented that you met this wonderful person to find out they hate your dog or your hamster, you won’t have this problem here. And did we mention the vivacious Maia Lee is performing? (Strictly humans tonight, please!) $12 with first drink 28 Feb (Sunday) 12 – 5pm Cat’s Day Out We are reviving this popular gathering of cat people and their cats! Join our favourite host, Melody Chen in search of the most beautiful domestic cat that day! Also look out for cat grooming services, cat and owner photo portraiture taking, cat training workshop and a very special symposium cum visual performance by the one and only Smiling Yogi Bala Matchap — Cat Yoga! $30 per ticket includes entry for one person accompanied with or without one cat (ticket for each additional cat is $5) Register early! Space is limited so do register with cwstigershow@gmail.com early by indicating: Your Name: Number of Cats: (for Cats’ Day Out) Mode of Payment: Bank Transfer (transaction no) or Cheque (indicate name and event) Which event(s) you are attending: OPENING / WORKSHOP / SINGLES’ NIGHT / CATS’ DAY OUT How to make payment: Bank Transfer Bank: DBS Current Account Account number: 065 – 013507 – 8 Bank Code: 7171 Branch Code: 065 Please email transaction no. with your registration to cwstigershow@gmail Cheque or Money Order Make a cheque or money order out to Cat Welfare Society and send it to: Cat Welfare Society, Orchard Road P.O. Box 65, Singapore 912303 Please indicate name and event on back of cheque _________________________________________ More information available at Cat Welfare Society ______________________________________________________ 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:Come and show support for four fellow Singaporeans! Rethinking welfare Tiger baby blues Why the vote is not ‘daft’ Sylvia Lim Last Nov, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak addressed APEC delegates in Singapore. When asked if he was confident that his economic reforms and stimulus packages would work for Malaysia, he quipped: “Well, it better work. Otherwise, you won’t see me around for long”. While his quip drew laughter from the audience, there was obviously a serious side to this. Politically, the ruling Barisan Nasional’s pole position had been significantly eroded in the General Elections, and the balance of power could tilt in favour of an opposition bloc if the people became more dissatisfied with the ruling coalition. The threat of being voted out of office is a real driver to perform, and to be seen to perform. Over in the USA, the stunning loss this month of just one Senate seat – Ted Kennedy’s seat in a blue state like Massachusetts – was a slap in the face for President Obama and the Democratic Party. It sent a clear message that there were serious public misgivings about the President’s priorities. Moreover, the Democratic Party’s majority in the Senate became one seat short of the “supermajority” of 60, which meant it could no longer prevent the Republican Party from using (filibuster) procedures to block the Democrats’ agenda. Thus this week, when Minister Mentor warned Singaporeans not to cast protest votes against runaway HDB prices, at the risk of being `daft’, he was telling Singaporeans that they should not use the vote the way the rest of the world did. Continue 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:DAB, DAMN, DAFT – some ideas to help foreign workers TOC Blog Feature: 10 reasons why I cannot vote for the PAP in the next election Obama wins early vote in New Hampshire The irony of being Singaporean Sei-Ji Rakugaki illustrates the sad state of being Singaporean – where you have less access than foreigners. See more of Sei-Ji’s brilliant work at My Sketchbook… ________________________________________ 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:Singaporean activists protest orchid naming for Burma’s PM By-election denial a sad case of irony Singaporean students to be re-valued monthly Cultural revolutions, wilting flowers By Choo Zheng Xi (Editor-At-Large) and KJ We wonder if Rear-Admiral Lui Tuck Yew knows that our city was the subject of a Hollywood film. No, not Ivan Heng’s cameo in Luc Besson’s Fifth Element, but a full Hollywood film shot on scene in Singapore. In 1978, Hollywood director Peter Bogdanovich adapted Paul Theroux’s novel “Saint Jack” to screen. Set in Singapore, the story’s protagonist Jack Flowers is a pimp who markets Singaporean girls for an international clientele. His grand scheme is to set up a posh brothel to service expatriates. In 2010 Singapore, an admiral is tasked to dress up a repressed and repressive country’s arts scene and pimp it to the world. Yes, truth is indeed stranger than fiction. With no hint of irony, Rear-Admiral Lui wants to launch a “sophisticated branding and marketing campaign” to sell Singapore as a Cultural Hub. Another Hub in the Singapore four-wheel drive, along with our Medical and Pharmaceutical Hub, Sports Hub and Technology Hub! But what if there is nothing to sell? Never mind, to spearhead the Singaporean Cultural Revolution, private business to the fore! And we know the tragedy of Cultural Revolutions. Might this cultural revival from our Economic Strategies Committee be the ominous start to the tragicomedy of Rear-Admiral Lui? Everyone in his audience knows that Art in Singapore is damned to be nailed to the cross of financial imperative, a mere prop in the great play of The Singapore Economy. Only that mere props and utilitarian motives don’t make great plays. Yet the déjà vu! This plays on and on in repeat mode! Talk of a “knowledge-based economy” and “creative nation” is as old the 1997 financial crisis. Then in 2000, a “Renaissance City” masterplan was unveiled, throwing big money to grow culture. And in 2002, an Economic Review Committee sat and smoked, hoping to establish for Singapore “a reputation as a vibrant and exciting New Asia creative hub.” The ESC 2010 is fully entitled to dust off this ancient storyline and adapt it to the times, no matter how hackneyed and insipid the dialogue, or how moth-eaten and ill-fitting the theatre costumes are. But maybe it’s time to ask why the Revival simply never came. The recycling of stale methods and ideas aside, where have we failed in our numerous attempts in the last fifteen years? Are such government diktats counter-effective? Is the overbearing PAP government and its self-serving system of governance the very source of Singapore’s cultural impotence? And what of the role of the mainstream media in contributing to this sad predicament? Singapore might have succeeded if the media had not been creatively castrated, but had instead stroked up some hard questions. A vibrant cultural city can hardly be built with a media curtailed by PAP-apparatchiks and strict publishing laws. Cultural landmarks in New York like Greenwich Village and Harlem did not owe their international renown to government micromanagement and media censorship. The one unifying characteristic that defines the boroughs of New York and the subcultures in every borough is a spirit of freedom, dynamic social movements, and organic communities. The Village was the epicenter of the counter-culture movement birthed in a historical moment where the tension of extreme societal disaffection intersected with a spirit of freedom, and that gave succor to the eternal Bob Dylan, Allen Ginsberg, and Jack Kerouac. Similarly, the Harlem Renaissance of the early 1900s traces its roots to a culture of defying hegemonic social norms, manifested in the lyrical longing for social change that exploded into an apotheosis of expression. In the absence of freedom and play, no amount of government grants and top-down directives are going to “create” creative spaces. As the Nobel laureate Toni Morrison once observed, authoritarian regimes and dictatorial despots are often fools, but not foolish enough to give artists the freedom to follow their creative instincts and to publish their judgments. “They know they do so at their own peril.” To Morrison, this specter of unwritten novels, swallowed poems, whispered fear, outlawed languages, upstaged plays and canceled films, is “as though a whole universe is being described in invisible ink.” Morrison’s words reveal such a Singapore. In truly vibrant cities, the only ink that remains invisible, and should remain invisible, is the government’s. When Bogdanovich and his crew filmed “Saint Jack” in Singapore, it was never cleared with the Ministry of Information. They knew it would be no-go. So instead, they submitted a bogus script entitled “The Jack of Hearts”, and then filmed “Saint Jack” under cover. Predictably, “Saint Jack” was banned in Singapore after its international release. If Bogdanovich had not his guts and guile, the acclaimed “Saint Jack” would never have seen the light of day. It has been thirty years since, and the movie was un-banned only in 2006. Yet, the script of PAP governance and censorship can hardly be said to have changed. Singapore’s cultural failure cannot be separated from its illiberal regime and climate of insularity: a wishful utopia haunted by a litany of laws. Unless the very structures that constrain our creativity and stunt our growth are removed, we can only wish good luck (once again) to the uncommon courage of our rare Admiral, the Jack Flowers of our art industry. And we would have enjoyed his tragicomedy even more if we weren’t ourselves his real victims. 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:Have suggestions for the Govt? Disadvantageous Mandarin The “hongbao” dilemma: No place for divorcees during Chinese New Year? By Martha Lee (Dr) Chinese New Year is otherwise known as ‘Lunar New Year’ because of the lunisolar Chinese calendar, beginning on the first day of the first month in the Chinese calendar and ends on the 15th day. One popular tradition concerning the celebration of Chinese New Year is the presentation of monetary gifts in a red envelope or red packet (known as Hóng Bāo in Mandarin, Ang Pao in Taiwanese Hokkien and Lai See in Cantonese, and “lì xì” in Vietnamese). The red color of the envelope symbolizes good luck and is supposed to ward off evil. The money is believed to ward off evil spirits, but more commonly regarded as an expression of well wishes and luck for the new year. It is usually in the form of a single note – in an even digit such as 10 – to avoid heavy coins, and to make it difficult to judge the amount inside before opening. It is tradition to put brand new notes inside red envelopes. Money should not be given in fours, or the number four should not appear in the amount, as the pronunciation of the word “four” in Chinese resembles that of the word “death”, and signifies bad luck for many Chinese. These red packets are typically given to the unmarried by the married. Believe it or not, the ability to give red packets (or free money) is considered a privilege and honour. Newly-wedded couples (especially those still in their first year of marriage) are also usually expected to be extremely generous with the amount offered in the red packets, so as to receive blessings for a blissful marriage. If you have an big extended family, your ’bestowment of blessings’ can easily run into the hundreds or thousands which is why more Chinese couples are taking overseas vacations, spending their hard-earned pennies on themselves, and avoiding the whole holiday altogether. This is where it gets tricky. If you are the giver: How do you know when one is married? What happens when this is a relative whom you do not know well and meet once a year in this contrived get-together? Rather than assume, do you ask? However if you broach the topic, it might come across as insensitive, offensive or downright rude. So you ask your parents or your relatives before presenting your hongbao with the words: “Just a small gesture. Best of luck for the new year.” A more tactless person might say something along the lines of, “Will we be seeing you give hongbaos next year?” or “Don’t wait too long to get married.” Even then it is not fail proof: You are only as accurate as the person you ask. What if the receiver is separated or divorced? How would you know? What do you do then – to give or not to give? Many moons ago, for reasons I will not go into for this article, I was separated from my then husband, and divorced a year later. I wanted to skip Chinese New Year but at my mother’s insistence, I showed up. She claimed that my relatives knew about my situation and that nobody would question why I don’t give red packets. She lied. I had one young niece come up to me, look expectantly at me for her red packet, only to walk away in frustration when I didn’t produce one after a long pause. From a distance, I could see that her parents were just as confused when she asked them why I won’t give her a red packet, obviously having sent her my way. I was furious. My mother didn’t tell. And later when I confronted her, she said there was no need to tell as it was none of their business – but this was at my expense! Where was my place now? There are those who give (the married) and those who receive hongbaos (the singles). Nobody ever said what you do with those who have ‘disgraced’ the family name by getting divorced. Since red packets are intended only for the unmarried, surely you don’t want to risk inflicting any bad luck upon the giver? Embarrassed, I swore not to attend any of these annual family reunions. I relegated myself to the position of outcast and uninvited myself since I felt there was no place for me. Years later, attending such get-together is now a non-issue because I have made peace with past ghosts, but more importantly because I know they know and they accept me the way I am: divorced but still deserving of luck, love and blessings. I sit quietly in a corner, go through the motions of saying pleasantries and yes, I will take the hongbaos anybody gives. —— Source for Chinese New Year Facts is Wikipedia here and here; headline picture courtesy of Wikipedia. —— Dr. Martha Lee is Founder and Clinical Sexologist of Eros Coaching. She is a certified sexologist with a Doctorate in Human Sexuality. She provides sexuality and intimacy coaching for individuals and couples, conducts sex educational workshops and speaks at public events. For more, visit www.eroscoaching.com or email drmarthalee@eroscoaching.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:Litter at the Istana — on Chinese New Year Theonlinecitizen is taking a break for Chinese New Year Fish more expensive during Chinese New Year Economic Strategies Committee: Real change or just words? By Dr Wong Wee Nam, Guest Contributor “Entrepreneurial culture is about challenging the authorities, questioning the existing ways of doing business, moving away from the routines and norms. It’s about the unconventional, rebellious and diverse.” — Professor Huang Yasheng of MIT. After many months of deliberation on how to improve the economy of Singapore, it was a disappointment that the high-powered committee made up of ministers, business leaders, corporate leaders, union leaders and top civil servants could only come out with a report that said nothing really new. Productivity, innovation, vibrant place, global hub, etc — all these are tunes that have been sung before by other equally high-powered choirs at one time or another since the late ‘70s. These textbook answers have not worked before. What makes the Economic Strategies Committee so sure they will work this time? Is it just going to be a big public relations exercise, full of headlines, plenty of talk, but with little achieved? There is no doubt the Economic Strategies Committee wants to make Singapore rich. However there is nothing in the report that says the proposed “changes” will make things equitable for all Singaporeans. The Corporate Influence Singapore’s economy is largely determined by big corporations. Our economy has always been touted as a capitalist economy where there is free competition and absence of governmental interference. This is in fact not so. What we have is actually corporate socialism where the PAP government’s policies have always favoured the large corporations with good tax rates, contracts from the government, support for training of workers and regulations to help protect them in times of crisis. These big businesses are given preferential treatment to stop them from relocating elsewhere and they are a great beneficiary of the safe and clean environment that our tax money provides. The aim of corporations is not to provide social services but to make money. Don’t expect this to change. The bigger they are the more say and the more influence they will have on business policies. They will continue to influence policies to protect their investments and maximise profits. Thus, whenever there is a recession or when the big businesses face stiff competition, their response is through cost-cutting measures like getting concessions from workers or laying them off. These measures cause hardship to their employees but protect their own bottom lines. In Singapore, wages are not determined by supply and demand. If there is a shortage of workers in any sector, the policy is not to raise wages to attract workers but to import cheap foreign workers and keep the wages down. All this is done in the name of globalisation, free market enterprise and competitiveness. The wages of the lower income group will always be kept low because there will be no shortage of low wage foreign workers in a world where many people are still hungry. In the end the workers most affected are the manual and the lower-skilled workers. Globalisation and competition mean big businesses and corporations will always be able to get concessions from workers by resorting to the constant threat of relocation. What makes us think that the new proposals will result in any real difference? From Rags to Riches Singapore did not become a modern city from a pirate’s nest overnight. It did not become rich just because of big corporations. It only became what it is today through the enterprise and sweat of the previous generations that have been here. Without the constant remaking by our forebears, Singapore would still be an island of fishermen and villages. The health and vitality of the country depends on the quality and state of its component parts. The most important of its components, especially in a city-state like Singapore, is its people. Ultimately, no matter how Singapore goes about rejuvenating itself, it has to take into consideration the physical well-being, the mental inventiveness and the social stability of its people. For all these three conditions to be met, the most fundamental principle is that wealth in a country must be distributed fairly. Each and every one of its citizen must be ensured a fair share of the pie so that physically, he and his children can reach their full potential to function optimally; mentally, he is free from anxieties to be inventive; and socially, he harbours no animosity against any group in a way as to divide society. In a country where the income gap is widening, it is more crucial to reflect how the income should be distributed. Blaming globalization for the income disparity is just an excuse for not doing anything. If a smaller and smaller percentage of the population is getting a larger and larger proportion of the national income and assets and a large percentage of the population are sharing a meager proportion of the leftovers, then there is going to be a potential social problem. The only way to re-distribute income is through public policies. Unfortunately the problem is that the people who are in the position to initiate and influence the changes are members of the tiny apex who have the largest share of the national income. It would be difficult for these people to come out with an equitable system especially when it means affecting their self-interest. It is natural for anyone in this position to believe completely in the virtue of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” and the so-called system of meritocracy. It is only natural for anyone who has benefited from the system to want to maintain the status quo, saying that the policies work and the rest have only to blame themselves for their misery. Conditions Needed for Productivity Singapore’s education system and political climate are good for an industrial age. The system creates efficient digits and the stifling political climate produces obedient workers. All this is good while industrialization lasts, but not any more. If we proceed the same way, we will always produce the same amount in the same time and remain dependent on cheap foreign labour to remain competitive. The system does not produce productive workers. In the new economy, to be productive, a worker must now be able change his skills continually and move to where he can contribute more to production. This means a person must be mentally and socially flexible. At the moment, the government thinks that we can solve this problem by just re-training our workers. Unfortunately, if a person has been taught to be obedient and to follow others all his life, how much more mentally and socially flexible can he be made to be? It is so much harder to re-train an adult when the mind has already been primed to be obedient and to be a cog in the machinery. Because of this, the re-training of manual and lower-skilled workers often end up with them taking up “bad jobs” of poor pay, low job security and little advancement prospects. Where Do We Start? If we want a working population that is mentally and socially flexible, we need to start in the schools and improve the political climate outside them. Children should be taught to think and question, have their diversity of thoughts and opinions accepted, and their strengths recognized and allowed to develop. Outside schools, the political environment must encourage people to think and offer an opinion if they have one without fear or favour. Everyone should be allowed to object or resist any change that he thinks would be disastrous to his or to society’s well-being. There is no doubt that different people would have different opinions, but in an atmosphere of freely expressed opinions, each opinion will become part of the driving force of public opinion that will form the foundation of any new law or public policy. In order to achieve this, we must, first of all, accept the fact that all of us who have a head on our shoulders would have opinion inside it. No one has an empty head. The second condition is that those who think only their ideas count and are in a position to impose their opinion on the rest must now try to open their minds to opinions and ideas that are different from theirs and try to look at problems from a different perspective. A society with a workforce where the majority do not think and whose heads are only filled with opinions of those who have the power to impose will not have the variety of ideas, the innovativeness and the dynamism to reinvent and rejuvenate itself to the fullest potential. For many years, we have been so used to being herded and enjoying the abundance of green pastures that we have forgotten that situations are constantly changing. The economic recession showed that new formulae have to be found if we do not want to decay. If we continue the way we are, people will want to be herded, their minds will refuse to think and they will not want anything more than basic material needs. How then can we produce workers who can give us the productivity that the country needs? Mental and social flexibility produces creative workers who can create new opportunities for themselves. This provides the foundation for people to innovate and move in new directions. To have a more productive society in the new economy, there must be a people who are not contented with the status quo. There must be a people who do not just sit down and be told what to do. There must be a people who are willing to challenge old ideas even if they are from the bosses. Case Studies In such an economy the small businesses and the individual must also be given space to develop. How did Singapore become a food paradise? This came from ceaseless innovations and changes that started with the large numbers of hawkers that we have plying their trade along the road to the present food courts. Why then could we not allow budding entrepreneurs some latitude to start small and let inventiveness change them into big enterprises along the way? Many years ago I knew of an old lady who knitted hats and mittens in an attempt to make a living for herself. She displayed her handicraft in a quiet corner near the market. But the land cows or tigus came and confiscated her goods and warned her not to do such a thing ever again. If a person is not allowed to display and sell his creations, what motivation would society give for anyone else to create? I also knew of a poor old lady who made home-made kuehs and sold them through a provision shop trying to feed herself. Of course, she was stopped and told that she had to do it in a factory if she wanted to carry on. Did the authorities try to improve things by recommending her to a factory as a consultant? Did anyone try to sit down with her and see how things could be worked out without flouting the laws? How do we encourage enterprise when we continually suffocate it? If we want life and creativity in our country we should allow these people to flourish in the streets. The artists, the writers, the poets, the performers and the craftsmen should be given a start in life there, like the old hawkers of the past. As long as an activity is clean, poses no health and safety hazards and causes no public nuisance, we should allow it. We should allow public atria and spaces for the use of performing artistes and craftsmen liberally. Would this not also build a more vibrant city as well? The Elitism Problem The danger of a wide income gap is that the top strata of society will get the good and expensive education, the top posts and the top income. They will be enriched by the best of arts and be able to influence the policies that benefit them. This is only a small percentage of the population. There is a big pool of population whose potential needs to be tapped. Everyone has a potential and we do not know where the next gem will come from. I knew Wil when he was a little patient of mine. He came from a neighbourhood school that hardly produced distinction students. When he grew up, we lost contact. Some years later, when he was in his late twenties, he called me up to invite me for lunch. He wanted my advice on some investments he wanted to make. On the appointed day, he came in a chauffeured-driven Mercedes to pick me up. I thought he worked for an investment company and had used the company car to pick me up. He told me he had to employ a driver because he could not drive. At lunch, he filled me in on his rags-to-riches story. He told me he had continued his secondary education in a neighbourhood school and had spent most of his time daydreaming in class. When he was in secondary four, his teacher got irritated by his inattentiveness and told him if he wanted to daydream, he might as well think of something and take part in the Young Inventor’s Competition. He did and invented a walking stick that produces warning flashes of light when tapped. This would be useful for the blind at night. He won an award and the results were posted on the Internet. There was no follow-up from anyone until a big US multinational shoe company read about his invention and persuaded the school to let him take leave from his studies for a few months and allow them to bring him to New York to see if he could come out with something commercially-viable with his idea. He did. He invented a sports shoe that could emit light at the heel when a runner walks or jogs. The shoe became a worldwide phenomenon and the rest is history. He became a millionaire. He planted his idea in Singapore but it took an innovative company in US to germinate it. He won an award in Singapore but no one in Singapore was innovative or cared enough to nurture him. Perhaps no one paid attention because he came from a neighbourhood school and was not a scholar. Sim Wong Woo, too, was ignored in Singapore and only blossomed in the US. If we continue to let the elites decide what is good, who has potential and which is the right way forward, we will never be a nation of producers. To be a nation of producers, we must be a nation of mentally and socially flexible workers, who are entrepreneurs and initiators at every level. In order to do this our minds and thoughts must be made free. This is the most important recommendation that the Economic Strategies Committee has completely missed out. What a pity. 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 In bed with the Economic Strategies Committee Paradigm shift in focus required – from economic growth to economic development TOC now has a logo After three years, The Online Citizen finally has a logo. We conducted two online polls on our website in January with a total of 35 logos submitted by our readers. The first poll went smoothly with a total vote count of 302. (See here) Logos 3 and 9 emerged as the top two favourites among our readers in this first poll. The second poll, which asked readers to vote on the top 10 logos from the first poll, however, was interrupted by the DDoS attacks which we experienced. The interruption lasted almost a month. We then decided to hold the voting on our Facebook page instead – with just the top two logos. The poll was conducted from 1 to 7 February. The results of this poll are : We thus hereby declare that the original Logo 9 (extreme right)  is the winner of our poll for a TOC logo. Logo 9 is designed by Jeremy Philemon. We will be presenting Jeremy with a S$100 Kinokuniya Gift voucher as a token of appreciation. We will present the designer of the second-placed Logo 3,  Han Thon , with a $50 Kinokuniya Gift voucher as appreciation for his contribution. We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to everyone who took the time to design and submit their logos for the poll. 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:TOC Poll – Pick your favourite logo! TOC Polling Day – final poll to pick your favourite representation Number of comments on TOC surpasses 100,000 Tiger baby blues I am worried about this year too. Some Chinese couples prefer not to have children during the Year of the Tiger. In each of the last three Tiger years (1998, 1986 and 1974), the number of births dipped by 7%. It is one thing to encourage ourselves with the traditional attributes of the zodiac animals. But it is another to cling on to superstitions against children born in the Year of the Tiger, who are really no different from children born under other animal signs. PM Lee Hsien Loong 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:Made to pay MRT fare for baby stroller Red Tiger Superman in Tiger Airways? The stingy nanny From the Economist: FOND of having the last word, Singapore’s government can nevertheless be flexible. Who would have thought it would be building casinos? But one policy that shows no sign of reversing is Singapore’s antipathy towards public welfare. The state’s attitude can be simply put: being poor here is your own fault. Citizens are obliged to save for the future, rely on their families and not expect any handouts from the government unless they hit rock bottom. The emphasis on family extends into old age: retired parents can sue children who fail to support them. In government circles “welfare” remains a dirty word, cousin to sloth and waste. Singapore may be a nanny state, but it is by no means an indulgent nanny. The aftershock of a deep recession, which pushed unemployment among citizens up to 4.1% in September—high for Singapore—has not altered the popular belief that the dole is bad for society. The casinos, which open on February 14th, have already helped reduce unemployment, which by December had fallen back to 3%, seasonally adjusted. The government does run a handful of schemes directed at some of the needy, from low-income students to the unassisted elderly. But these benefits are rigorously means-tested and granted only sparingly. The most destitute citizens’ families may apply for public assistance; only 3,000 currently qualify. Laid-off workers receive no automatic benefits. Instead they are sorted into “workfare” and training schemes. Read the full article 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:Nanny gets serious about babies but… Nanny doesn’t want physical contact Time for the government to re-look “no-welfare state” policy Mah Bow Tan, the God of Wealth? Joshua Chiang I was on bus service 39 going towards Tampines Ave 2 when I suddenly spotted this. Like most town centres, there is this arch where on it they will put the MP’s photo, which in this case is Mr MBT. So, nothing surprising there. But what’s striking is that right behind (actually about 20 metres) the arch stood this huge statue of the God of Wealth. The perspective-juxtaposition is too ironic to miss. Don’t blame me. Blame the enthusiastic decorators who didn’t think beforehand about how they place their decorations. 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:Who holds the sovereign wealth of this nation and why? Number of comments on TOC surpasses 100,000 A response to Straits Times forum page letter – by a TOC reader Iranian students protest at Speaker’s Corner Fang Shihan About 30 Iranians gathered at Speakers Corner on Thursday in a worldwide coordinated opposition movement against the current Iranian government. Held in conjunction with the regime’s celebration of its own revolution against the Shah 31 years ago, the group of mostly PhD scholars from Nanyang Technological University (engineering faculty) joined like-minded Iranian communities globally to commemorate those killed by the regime. Dressed in green to remind the Iranian government how much they have deviated from Islamic values, the group said that they were angered by the clear human rights abuses committed against opposition supporters within Iran. Anti-regime sentiments have been intensifying since the allegedly rigged elections in June last year. A quick glance into opposition blogsite www.balatarin.com showed blog entries and videos of military brutality as well as pre-arranged pro-government rallies in Teheran. The government is clearly worried about the power of the Internet to facilitate the growth and coordination of the opposition movement. Internet services within Iran were blocked to disrupt communications in anticipation of the protests. Upon questioning, the protesters denied any notion that they wished for another violent revolution, or for the U.S. to step in to foster democracy, as they did in Iraq. Reforming the government by putting pressure through peaceful protests, would be the best, they insisted. Below: Clips of Iranian protesters brutalised by the current Iranian government. Military violence Neda, a young girl brutally killed in Iran during protests. She has now become an international symbol of the pro-democracy Iranian movement worldwide. 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:NTU students protest at Speakers’ Corner “Free Education for All” – students protest in London Raffles Institution’s students take to Speakers’ Corner this Sunday Punish Pastor Tan By Shawn Lim, Guest Writer By now, most of us would have watched the videos in which Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Evangelism, an independent church, made some nasty comments on Taoism and Buddhism. He was called up by the Internal Security  Department and was warned about his comments. Thereafter, he apologised to both the Taoist and Buddhist Federations. My question is, should he have been let off with only a warning? Pastor Tan obviously knew what he said was wrong, which explains why he took the initiative to apologise. He also knew that this is Singapore, where different religions co-exist and there is racial harmony. Therefore, why did he post the video knowing that what he said had, in his own words, ‘done a great deal of harm to the Buddhist and Taoists’? As a Christian myself, I was taught to love my neighbours, which would include people of other faiths. One only needs to look to our neighbouring country, Malaysia, to see what misunderstandings of religious practices can do to a country. So I find it disturbing that the the ISD and various Government officials chose to adopt the stance of ’since he has apologised, let’s move on’. I don’t know the main reason why the ISD chose to intervene when it had previously ignored the AWARE saga. Maybe it was because of the religious tension in Malaysia, or because of the public’s reaction. What they should have done, instead of warning him, was to punish him. Fine him; send him to jail, whatever. If it takes a show of power to prevent this kind of incidence from happening again, by all means, do whatever that is necessary. Strangely enough, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng pointed out that not only the Buddhists and Taoist were offended, but this incident had “angered even Singaporeans”. So why are the authorities so lenient when what Pastor Rony was clearly out of line with the first rule of religious harmony; which is to show respect for other religions? Do they not realise that a ‘warning’ in an increasingly vocal society is not enough? Sometimes, an apology is simply not enough. In Pastor Tan’s case, he is an ‘opinion’ leader, which means he has more influence than the common man. 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:Pastor Derek Hong apologises for misusing pulpit The Church (not the Bible) discriminates against gays, says pastor “I hope Singapore government punish them” Punish Pastor Tan By Shawn Lim, Guest Writer By now, most of us would have watched the videos in which Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Evangelism, an independent church, made some nasty comments on Taoism and Buddhism. He was called up by the Internal Security  Department and was warned about his comments. Thereafter, he apologised to both the Taoist and Buddhist Federations. My question is, should he have been let off with only a warning? Pastor Tan obviously knew what he said was wrong, which explains why he took the initiative to apologise. He also knew that this is Singapore, where different religions co-exist and there is racial harmony. Therefore, why did he post the video knowing that what he said had, in his own words, ‘done a great deal of harm to the Buddhist and Taoists’? As a Christian myself, I was taught to love my neighbours, which would include people of other faiths. One only needs to look to our neighbouring country, Malaysia, to see what misunderstandings of religious practices can do to a country. So I find it disturbing that the the ISD and various Government officials chose to adopt the stance of ’since he has apologised, let’s move on’. I don’t know the main reason why the ISD chose to intervene when it had previously ignored the AWARE saga. Maybe it was because of the religious tension in Malaysia, or because of the public’s reaction. What they should have done, instead of warning him, was to punish him. Fine him; send him to jail, whatever. If it takes a show of power to prevent this kind of incidence from happening again, by all means, do whatever that is necessary. Strangely enough, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng pointed out that not only the Buddhists and Taoist were offended, but this incident had “angered even Singaporeans”. So why are the authorities so lenient when what Pastor Rony was clearly out of line with the first rule of religious harmony; which is to show respect for other religions? Do they not realise that a ‘warning’ in an increasingly vocal society is not enough? Sometimes, an apology is simply not enough. In Pastor Tan’s case, he is an ‘opinion’ leader, which means he has more influence than the common man. 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:Pastor Derek Hong apologises for misusing pulpit The Church (not the Bible) discriminates against gays, says pastor “I hope Singapore government punish them” Take a stand for moderation, liberty, and genuine understanding By Choo Zheng Xi, Editor-At-Large I felt deeply angry when I saw the videos of Pastor Rony Tan deriding Buddhists in his church. A place of worship was used to propagate misinformation and ignorance. A faith of love and acceptance was being used as a vehicle of intolerance. Other Singaporeans were angry too, so angry that a large number were calling for Pastor Tan to be jailed under the Internal Security Act or the Sedition Act. But I held myself back. I know how deeply religion can inspire. A Catholic friend of mine told me how he teared when he first saw the grandeur of St Peter’s Basilica on visit to the Vatican, and I’ve seen the peace my mother draws from Buddhism when I went to Guan Yin Miao at Waterloo Street with her as she prayed for my safety before I left overseas to study. Pastor Tan has shown Singaporeans how deeply religion can hurt. But do Singaporeans really need the Sedition Act to heal? Strong communities aren’t built on strong prisons Many questioned why the authorities let Pastor Tan off while three teenagers posting comments on Facebook were arrested. While they were later released, there appears to be a glaring double standard being applied. Lock him up, many cried out. But two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s telling that when controversy like this occurs, Singaporeans immediately look to a punitive measure to solve the problem. That’s how simplistic our attitudes towards faith and ethnicity have become. Sadly, laws like the Sedition Act encourage Singaporeans to take the path of least resistance, short circuit important social dialogue, and retard the process of seeking richer inter-faith/cultural confidence building. I understand that to say to someone that he should heed Voltaire’s dictum to “disagree with what you say, but defend to the death your right to say it” sounds hollow if his belief system has been insulted. And I disagree with Voltaire. I believe that some societal interests need to be protected by the government at the expense of completely free speech. Every democratic society negotiates its comfort zone based on its historical experience. Every society has its taboos: you cannot publicly deny the Holocaust in Europe, and even the American Supreme Court draws the line at inflammatory speech that directly incites violence. However, in contrast to the democratically negotiated boundaries these countries have evolved, the charge of sedition originated in 14th Century England as a means to protect an insecure State against a broad array of political crimes. A United Kingdom Law Commission Report called for it’s abolition as long ago as 1977, and the crime of sedition was recently expunged by an Act of Parliament. Singapore’s version of this relic now stubbornly remains, standing in the way of a genuine grassroots attempt to define the limits of speech in Singapore, a threatening tool to be unequally applied. Laws like the Sedition Act would be unnecessary if ordinary Singaporeans and community leaders took a stronger role in promoting moderation. Where were the community organizations that are supposed to build inter-faith trust like the Inter-Religious Organisation? Disappointingly, there was also no intra-faith peer pressure from senior Christian leaders who could have stepped forward to denounce his views and call on him to apologise. The Internal Security Department (ISD), not the community, took centre stage. Ironically, resorting to the coercive power of the State as a first resort is likely to encourage moderates to continue sitting on the sidelines. Even more horrific is the misapplication of police power against teenagers. A friend of mine was investigated several years ago for Sedition. His computer was confiscated and he was interrogated by police at Cantonment station. Although charges were never brought against him, it’s an experience he found traumatic. The search for inter-cultural understanding should not begin with imprisonments and arrests. In fact, they are counter-productive. Dialogue at dagger’s end is seldom sincere — peace procured by duress is damned to be brittle. The heavy hand of the law should be the last resort of a confident and harmonious Singapore: moderates in our community have to step forth first. Forgive, but never forget Forgiveness is inherent in all beliefs and cultures, but forgiveness would be an empty gesture if we did not keep the principles in which it’s based firmly in mind. In 1944, the famous American jurist Judge Learned Hand addressed a crowd of 1.5 million strong in Central Park on the annual “I am an American Day”. He said: “What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.” Some might think moderation means taking the middle ground, not taking a position. But in an age of extremes, to hold the principled position of understanding and tolerance is to be brave. A successful Singapore regardless of race, language or religion has to be constructed on the principles of a democratic country, based on justice and equality. Never forget. 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:A note about moderation on TOC Letter of clarification: Leslie Lung of Liberty League High HDB prices driven by speculators, hurting genuine home seekers Homeless people are “defective”, needs “rehabilitation”? Andrew Loh The response from the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the National Parks Board (Nparks) to a letter by Mr Joshua Chiang on the issue of the homeless is, to say the least, appalling. (See here.) While it is not surprising that these government departments would defend the government’s stand on the issue, the manner in which Mr Chiang’s points were summarily dismissed or ignored shows the insignificance the officers who signed off on the response give to the issues raised in Mr Chiang’s letter. But what really takes the cake is the reply that: “Pursuant to the Destitute Persons Act, anyone found in a public place with no means of subsistence or accommodation will be admitted to a welfare home for evaluation and rehabilitation.” First of all, why do the officers, in quoting the Act,  immediately assume that there is somehow something “defective” about homeless people, so much so that they have to undergo “evaluation” and “rehabilitation”? The reply does not indicate or explain what these “evaluation” and “rehabilitation” mean. More importantly, such a reply smacks of an appalling lack of understanding of what being homeless is and who these homeless people are. The reply seems to indicate that anyone found to be destitute will automatically undergo such a process of “evaluation” or “rehabilitation”. The starting point, clearly, for these government officers is that once you’re destitute, you need to be “rehabilitated”. In short, is the government saying that homeless people are somehow “defective”? In our interaction with the homeless, they indeed are quite normal people. They have families. They laugh and cry as ordinary people do. They worry and yes, they do have jobs as well. And they aspire to better lives for themselves and their families – just as everyone does. While they also may have been less than prudent in their plans for their lives or livelihood, this however does not mean they are any less ordinary, or that they are indeed abnormal and in need of “rehabilitation”. Finally, the government’s reply, unwittingly or not, will contribute to the stereotype of the homeless as “lesser Singaporeans”. Perhaps what is needed is for government officials to be more careful in their choice of words in describing certain segments of Singaporeans – especially the less fortunate. And also for these officers to understand that while they may be acting according to the law, the law is not carved in stone or should be applied without compassion and common sense. It would have been good if the reply had addressed the particular examples raised by Mr Chiang – instead of saying that all is fine and dandy and that the government departments are on top of things. Clearly, the rising number of homeless people taking shelter in our public areas (which do not just mean our public parks) shows that MCYS, the HDB and NParks are not addressing the issue effectively, despite its claim to the contrary. Again, in our interaction with the homeless, the behavior of some of these officials, especially those from NParks and the HDB, leaves much to be desired. The reply may paint these government departments as being caring and wanting to help the homeless, from our observation however, this is far from true in many cases. For if the claim was true, there wouldn’t be so many homeless people camping out in parks and beaches for months before MCYS, the HDB and Nparks decided to “help”. Did these departments suddenly become “caring” overnight? 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:ST Forum letter on homeless situation and official reply Raiding the homeless – in the middle of the night Homeless in the parks – a symptom of flawed housing policies? Aftermath of the Rony Tan incident: it has only just begun By Alvin Phoon For most, the Rony Tan issue is resolved. Apologies have been made, hands have been shaken and people have been humbled. However, what this issue has successfully accomplished is to further expose the perils of religion in a multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious society. It has also, sadly, brought out the worst in Singaporeans, and displayed openly their lack of ability to participate in intellectual discourse. For the record, I never called for an apology to be made. I called for Rony to think before he said anything at all. The difference is this: With regards to his comments, I am not upset per se. In fact, it amused me that a pastor would willingly subject himself to humiliation via such an open display of stupidity. And anytime any religious entity decides they want to be embarrassed, I’m all for it. What bothers me, immensely I might add, is how the issue has been completely exploited by the media, mainstream or alternative, by the people, for or against Christianity, to promote their own interests. When news broke that the ISD called Rony up, the headline should have read “ISD Finally Participates In Crowd Pleasing Activity“. While my criticism of the mainstream media has been no less ambiguous than it has been scathing, I surprised even myself by wondering what exactly the Temasek Review’s intentions were vis-à-vis its article entitled “Pastor Rony Tan visited Phor Kar See temple today to apologize to head of Buddhist Federation Venerable Kwang Sheng“. The inclusion of words of praise for Buddhism seemed to imply a slanted view. The subsequent text on not bearing wicked ideas against your enemy, which by the way is preached in possibly every mainstream religious text, further presents the Temasek Review’s stance. To be fair, however, they have been very respectful in the way they conduct their business, and is something I have the utmost respect for. Extremists vs Opportunists Moving on, I find myself in terribly distressed over the views of two specific groups of people. The first are the ones calling for his resignation and even prosecution. Has it come to that extent? Who are we to demand the imprisonment of anyone who speaks ill of anything? I find this to be the direct consequence of government influence. When people began sticking gum on train doors and on lift buttons, instead of educating the population, the government banned it. As if it wasn’t important to them at all that we were taught why vandalism was bad. It is a notable trend. Anything they can’t handle, or they feel we can’t handle, they refuse to permit. Knuckle dusters, firecrackers, politically and religiously sensitive material, and even Playboy – all banned. It should come as no surprise then that Singaporeans would try and get rid of that which they do not understand. Instead of seeing the need for civil discussions, intellectual debates and exchange of ideas, most Singaporeans jump straight into “apologise and arrest” mode. And it is precisely because the education system has not managed to cultivate in them an inquisitive mind. It has not managed to convince them that the acquisition of knowledge is far more important, and far more satisfying than the acquisition of say… fancy branded wallets and expensive jeans. Sexual and romantic conquest has jumped ahead of thirst for wisdom in our list of priorities, and it is this superficial culture, undertaken by most, that has led us to the state we’re in. As for the second category, they are the ones who see this pastor’s faux pas as an opportunity to glorify their own religion; the ones who shamelessly promote their beliefs in an effort to trump someone else’s. I really cannot decide whether to consider them more benign than the first. I feel at this point of time, the need to clarify something. I am not preaching my religious belief. If anything, I’m preaching religious disbelief. These people, these opportunists, don’t seem to realise how much their actions reveal of their personalities. I equate shredding the religion of Rony Tan, after he’s already been publically shamed, to kicking a man in the nuts after he’s been run over by his own runaway, brake-less car. Instead of proactively promoting inter-faith harmony by either lecturing Pastor Tan, or educating him about their own religion, these people refused to take a stand when the video was first released. Instead they preferred to sit down, watched as the chaos unfolded, fanned the increasingly raging flames at whim, and continued watching as the religion of another got crushed. Then they swooped down to salvage the remains. This hypocrisy disgusts me to no end. “We want to co-exist. But see how much better my god is than yours?” Bigots of different religions and persuasions squabble all the time. Normally I’m happy to sit back and watch because they make for good entertainment. However, in this case, threatening legal action against one party for making religiously insensitive comments is rash and will bear serious future consequences. Instead of being so adamant on imprisoning a man for mere words that were probably not even well thought out in the first place, why can’t we just take a step back, and move on with our lives? Pile on the humiliation if you must. But remember that the day Rony Tan goes to prison is the day religious tolerance and freedom of opinion ceases to exist. ___________________________________________________ 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:TOC Developing Story: Fleshing out the NTU stabbing incident A brief incident which says a lot Online petition set up on hit-and-run incident involving Romanian diplomat MFA update on accident involving Romanian embassy vehicle The Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned HE Aurelian Neagu, the Romanian Ambassador to Singapore (who is based in Tokyo), to MFA on 11 February 2010 on the matter of the two hit-and-run traffic accidents on 15 December 2009 that involved the Romanian Embassy vehicle S3401CD. MFA stressed to Ambassador Neagu that the matter is of the highest concern to the Singapore Government and yet again reiterated that it was most important that the Romanian Embassy cooperate fully with the Singapore authorities on this matter. MFA informed Ambassador Neagu that the Coroner’s Inquiry into the death of Mr Tong Kok Wai will be held from 3 to 10 March 2010. It was explained to the Ambassador that the Inquiry is not a trial, but a fact-finding inquiry to establish the facts where there has been an unnatural death. MFA handed Ambassador Neagu a diplomatic note seeking the Romanian Embassy’s assistance in requesting Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore to attend the Coroner’s Inquiry. MFA noted that it would appear from Romanian media reports that Dr Ionescu was still maintaining that the car had been stolen and that he was not the driver at the time of the two accidents. MFA pointed out that if Dr Ionescu was maintaining that he was not responsible, it was all the more reason why he should come back to Singapore to give his version at the Coroner’s Inquiry. This will help the State Coroner to ascertain the facts relating to the two accidents. At the Coroner’s Inquiry, Dr Ionescu can also question the witnesses. MFA also pointed out to Ambassador Neagu that Dr Ionescu was welcome to engage a local lawyer to examine the witnesses and put forth his version of the events at the Inquiry. Alternatively, the Romanian Embassy could engage a local lawyer on Dr Ionescu’s behalf. Noting media reports of Dr Ionescu’s claim in a recent Romanian television interview that there was a witness who could exonerate him, MFA asked the Romanian Embassy to request Dr Ionescu to give the Singapore authorities details concerning the identity of this witness. The witness can then be required to give evidence at the Coroner’s Inquiry. MFA also handed Ambassador Neagu a second diplomatic note informing the Romanian Embassy that the State Coroner has issued a witness summons for Mr Marius Trusca, Administrative Officer at the Embassy, to give evidence at the Inquiry and assist the State Coroner in establishing the true circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Tong Kok Wai. The witness summons was issued because Mr Trusca’s evidence is directly relevant for the Coroner’s Inquiry. MFA noted that under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Mr Trusca is not obliged to give evidence as a witness. MFA therefore requested the Embassy to let Mr Trusca’s immunity be waived so that the witness summons may be served on Mr Trusca. MFA referred Ambassador Neagu to Romanian media reports that in his recent interview by a Romanian television station, Dr Ionescu had also alleged that this was a case of a “set-up” by the Singapore Government because he had been reporting on political activities in Singapore. Dr Ionescu had alleged that there had been a similar case in 2007, when he was also accused of being the driver in a hit-and-run accident, but was eventually let off as he had an alibi at that time. MFA told Ambassador Neagu that if these media reports had accurately quoted Dr Ionescu, then he had made very serious allegations against the integrity of the Singapore Government which MFA categorically rejected as lacking any basis in fact. These allegations were also a gross insult to the victims of the two accidents. Dr Ionescu’s claim that he had been accused of being the driver in a hit-and-run accident in 2007 is entirely false. Our records show that the Romanian Embassy vehicle S3401CD was involved in two traffic accidents in 2007. The first was a minor non-injury accident where the driver was not Dr Ionescu and the other driver did not wish to pursue the matter. In the second case, it was established then that Dr Ionescu, who was the driver, was not at fault and action was taken against the other driver involved in the accident. These facts clearly show that Dr Ionescu’s claims are fictitious and at no time was he ever accused by the Police of being the driver in a hit-and-run accident in 2007. MFA also asked Ambassador Neagu for more information on the status of the criminal proceedings in Romania against Dr Ionescu, and on the Romanian system of investigations and prosecutions. The next step will depend on the Romanian Government’s response to our requests and the outcome of the Coroner’s Inquiry. source: http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/press/view_press.asp?post_id=5787 __________________________________________________ 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:Online petition set up on hit-and-run incident involving Romanian diplomat Embassy car in hit-and-run Breaking News: Burmese nationals throng embassy in S’pore