To Minister Khaw: We need more information and updates on H1N1 The following report appears in the ChannelNewsAsia website November 24, 2009http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1020303/1/.html27 cases of adverse reaction to H1N1 vaccine reported so farSINGAPORE: The Health Sciences Authority said on Tuesday that 27 cases of adverse reactions suspected to be associated with the use of the H1N1 vaccine have been reported so far. But "these reactions are non-serious anticipated side effects such as fever, rashes, flu-like symptoms, headaches, nausea and vomiting", said an HSA spokesperson. "These reactions are commonly expected from all flu vaccines and most of these reactions are resolved within a few days." …..HSA said it is closely monitoring the safety of the H1N1 vaccines that are available in Singapore, and doctors are "strongly encouraged" to report all cases where patients have suffered serious side effects due to the jabs. - TODAY/vmWhen H1N1 first struck, the health ministry and the populace were shaken to action. We took active preventative measures to curb the rise of cases in the country. We were not entirely successful and we were one of the countries with the highest incidence rate on a per capita basis. We reported cases daily and were concerned about the death rates, new cases and recovered cases.However, when the cases reached a significant high level, we stopped reporting. Of course, we followed WHO guidelines and it is now at a community level infection. But should we be given more information on at least a monthly basis.I would like to know the number of new cases each month. This is important information so that we can be constantly reminded on this disease among us. And we continue to take good preventative measures like hand-washing and going out when we are not feeling well.Are we still coping well in the fight against H1N1? How many deaths are there in Singapore as a result of H1N1? Give us a scorecard, because it is good to know. I need to go to the toilet now so as to avoid going to the toilet for a bigger one later I like Singapore leaders' logic.Applying the same logic to a person's life, i can imagine the thought process if the person wants to eat a dinner buffet. Sensing that he is going to have a large bowel to move after the buffet, he starts to take a laxative now, just so to avoid having to move a bigger bowel later (if he indeed have a larger bowel later).Sorry for my shit logic. But I hope you at least appreciate the possible parallels here.http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20091122-181541.htmlReason for property tax hike By Sue-Ann Chia SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENTTHE property tax of HDB flats is being raised next year partly to avoid having to introduce a bigger increase later should home prices continue to rise, said Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lui Tuck Yew.He gave the reason on Sunday when he was asked, at a dialogue with Aljunied-Hougang residents, whether the Government could have delayed it since the recession has just started to ease.Noting that the adjustment had been delayed once, in 2008, Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui said: 'The problem is the longer you defer it, the larger the increase will be in the property taxes if HDB prices continues to go up.' Why I think MM Lee is wrong about the learning of the Chinese language I would like to disagree with some of the comments and conclusions that MM Lee Kuan Yew has drawn over the issue of learning two languages.From Straits Times, 18th November 2009, “MM Lee wants MM Lee wants learning of Chinese to be fun”'I wasn't helped by Ministry of Education (MOE) officials. They were basically two groups of people, one English-speaking, the other Chinese-teaching,' he quipped.Chinese teachers in the 1960s and 1970s were Chinese-educated purists who emphasised character-writing and dictation in the teaching of Chinese as a second language, which 'turned the students off completely', he recalled.According to MM, the reason for the difficulties in teaching Chinese was because of the boring teachers in the 1960s and 1970s. But from what I can recall the same can be said of English teachers back then. This was the way languages were thought; be it English or Chinese. Back in 1960s and 1970s, did MM recall a big difference between the exciting multimedia and sensory enjoyment of teaching English grammar, spelling and vocabulary and the dull and dreary world of Chinese writing, reading and memorizing.For me I cannot recall ever thinking to myself; Chinese was taught by boring Chinese teachers and English were taught by hip and cool English teachers. To me, both the languages consisted of memorizing words, how to spell or write them and also trying to recall how to enunciate them. Both were just as difficult to learn. So why did MM think that the problem with Chinese language education lies with the Chinese educators? Because, it is an easy buck to shift.For me, I think the reasons that lie behind the apparent perception that learning Chinese language is difficult are as follows:1. The lack of a context of Chinese language in our daily lives. We come across multiple races in Singapore, and the use of Mandarin is limited. We speak to our Malay and Indian neighbours in English so that all of us can understand each other. Our road signs are in English. The signs on the buses are in English. Supermarket labels are in English. The lack of Chinese context in the Singaporean lifestyle, I believe, is a severe limitation as our exposure to Chinese language is within the confines of a textbook & classroom situation. 2. English is ‘taught’ not only during English class, but also during Physical Education, Arts, Mathematics, Science and other classes. Not Chinese. Chinese is only taught in Chinese classes. We just simply have more chances to use, learn and improve our English in comparison to Chinese. The same simple logic can also be used to explain why our adults have a hard time remembering all the rich details of our history classes in Secondary schools or the finer points of geographical studies. If we do not use it, we lose it. The more we use it, the better we get.3. During the period of 1960s and 1970s, English use was in its ascendancy. If we look at the entire socio-political context and the cultural background of these two decades, we will understand the ‘emphases of speaking and writing in English. In politics, America and (less so) the UK was seen to be the world power. The US has its arsenal of nuclear and long range missiles. China on the other hand, was a backwater of communism. Shunned by the world and having closed its doors. In the local context, one can even be looked upon suspiciously as a Chinese chauvinist. Or worse one who harbours secret Communist links and of carrying inclinations to overthrow the democratic government in order to install a socialist government. Few wants to be perceived as a communist and many preferred to be ‘Westernised’.4. In economics, English was the dominant language for commerce. I believe MM himself proclaimed the importance of the understanding the West. Of understanding and mastering the language of business, of science and of the future. English was widely seen to be progressive and outward looking. And rightly or wrongly, Chinese was perceived to be regressive. Do you want to learn the language to understand the growth markets which is booming at above 8% or do you want to learn an ancient language which is hardly the one which seems to represent economic regression? Do you noticed how many Japanese schools and Japanese language students there were during the years when the Japan economy was booming?Against these cultural, economic, and social/political backdrop, the ‘boring’ Chinese teachers reason seem so small. The odds were stacked against the ‘boring’ Chinese teachers. They made the students memorise words and paragraphs. Their stories were of ancient teachings. And their lessons hardly made sense outside the classroom. The language of Chinese has no chance to succeed.The English teachers also made the students memorise spelling, grammar rules and also vocabulary. But the English teachers had it good. It was hip then. Beatles, Bee Gees and Deep Purple all sang and rocked in English. It was fun, at least outside the class room. It was useful, because you can get work in the government, Western companies like IBM and General Electric. It may have been just as boring as the learning of Chinese, but the learning of English was set in a context which helped its absorption and transfer. Poor old Chinese did not get a helping hand.Back to the MM’s explanation and his push to get Chinese teachers to make Chinese more interesting. This is a wrong conclusion. The same things that made Chinese dated and regressive are making learning Chinese more interesting now. China has lots of economic growth, wonderful opportunities for employment and jobs. The proliferation of Chinese-culture in Hollywood movies, Canto/Taiwanese pop music is widespread. We have lots of native speakers in the country now as well. These days, if you buy food from a food court or get service in shops, chances are you will come across Mandarin speaking Chinese nationals who worked here. By having more of them here, we have now created a backdrop where speaking Chinese is more common. We use it more in our work (when we communicate with China and Taiwan). We use it when we shop and dine. And we now think of it as a progressive language.All these are much more important factors than the over-simplification of MM Lee.Just like we did not plan for the deterioration of our Chinese language capability, we also cannot plan for the inevitable improvement in our Chinese and Mandarin skills in the next two decades. We, Singapore, can do more for the climate change effort. Here are 8 things I like to put forward I am a bit disheartened by the Singapore government’s decision not to sign the Copenhagen treaty on climate change. I have not read the treaty in detail nor have I read the official reply from the government in any great detail either.However, the non-signing of the treaty seems like a bad gesture on the part of Singapore.Firstly, Singapore is itself not a large nation which has huge industrial and manufacturing facilities which add a lot to the pollution and harm. In fact the signing of the treaty may provide needed impetus to move the economy towards even more service and knowledge intensive sectors.Secondly, the fact that we have given the thumbs down to the treaty for the reason (‘growth’) given is also very myopic. Many people can see that green technology is in fact a budding sector which will grow exponentially in the coming years. Many large conglomerates are now focusing efforts in this area (General Electric and Philips are just some examples). In fact, a small nation like ours can be a hotbed of ideas and prototyping for all of such activities. We have the agility and the appropriate small size for testing all types of new green ideas and products. And we can be in an unique position to blend the innovation and production. But no, we are not keen at this stage.I believe that we can still do a lot for the environment. So here below is a short list of things Singaporeans can easily do to minimize the harmful effects of global warming.1) Reject the use of disposable cutleries. No more wooden chopsticks and plastic forks and spoons.2) Minimize the use of plastic bags. Where possible avoid taking plastic bags from the supermarkets and stores. Don’t do a double bag.3) Do not give out serviettes and wet tissues in restaurants. Use the liquid disinfectants which do not require washing. Learn to use a cotton handkerchief again. Our mothers were right, handkerchief is better.4) Take a shower. Levy a high water tax on developers who install bath tubs and Jacuzzis. Those things use up a lot of water, and take up a lot of space.5) Start a campaign to keep shopping malls and office buildings at 25/6 degrees Celsius. If you need to wear a sweater indoors in Singapore, something is wrong. Levy an electricity tax on additional cooling units needed for buildings to be cooled lower than 25 degrees Celsius.6) Give a tax credit for intelligent building construction. Give double tax credits for buildings installed with motion sensors who will shut off the lights when no one is in room, elevators who will pause if no one is on it, and lifts that will ‘shut down’ based on traffic volumes. Encourage further greening of the office and shopping malls by giving further tax breaks for each additional trees and plants on their premises. Let malls and offices take an extra deduction for LED and other lower energy light source (including sunlight).7) Give town councils the KPI on their carbon footprint. Make sure that they track the carbon footprint and hold them accountable. They should encourage alternative energy sources. For every solar panels installed in their precinct, HDB flat or government building, they get an offset against this carbon footprint. Every HDB flat roof top can be used to position solar panels to at least generate some electricity to power the water pumps or to light the corridor lights.8) Tax the use of fresh-pulp printing paper and use the credit to ‘fund’ the lower prices for recycled printing paper. The amount of paper in use in office is atrocious. It is about time we move away from focusing on the Clean in Clean and Green, and focus on the Green. We should be concerned with skyrocketing HDB prices http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_453762.html$653k for 4-room HDB flat (works out to $674 psf)This report of the record breaking sum exchanged for what amounts to public housing is indeed alarming. Why this is an important issue to take note?The principle of affordable public housing for everyoneThe notion that the government (via HDB) ensures that every Singaporean has a home to call her own is a noble and commendable one. From the onset with HDB's creation, the Ministry of National Development did a wonderful job in developing areas like Kallang, Toa Payoh and Bendemeer in satellite towns. HDB provided affordable homes which are clean and accessible. Besides this, the wonderful planning that goes into it also ensured transportation (public buses), sanitation (URA and ENV), financial (CPF) and other macro aspects were also similarly dealt with. With the initial years of HDB, we see a transformation of Singapore from a kampong to a modern metropolis of clean and admirable public housing.Fast forward to 2009, we see HDB venturing into building 'private' housing. We see HDB doing waterfront living. We see HDB selling its houses at market subsidies (which translates to cost plus 'margins that government wants'). We also see HDB operating at huge deficits. Of course, HDB is still supposed to ensure affordable public housing. The government says so. But why does the HDB put its nose all these pots which do not seem to serve its fundamental mission of affordable public housing. Mis-pricing or Mis-managementWhat happens to Singaporeans' ability to afford public housing when we witness costs of public housing going 2.5 times after the initial sale of the home to the first set of owners? In the short span of four years (eh, I thought we must hold the HDB flat for at least five years??), the price has risen 2.5 times to over S$600,000.This fact alone highlights that we have either mis-price the HDB home when it was first sold to the first owners. Or, that there is a bubble building up in the market. When there is a 250% gain to be had for holding your property for just four years, it is plain that there is something wrong here. The fact that the price for the property was more than S$60,000 than bank valuation means that the buyers are paying in cash S$60,000 over what they must loan/draw from CPF. This sort of money may indicate a loop hole where the buyers are buying into an asset which is clearly not intended for them.According to the article, the new buyers were an Indonesian PR  and his wife. To put down S$60,000 cash, means that the buyers are unlikely to be within the S$8,000 monthly income ceiling.The S$8,000 family income ceiling was set for first time buyers. This cap was to ensure that only 'eligibly' less well-off families are given the opportunity to buy 'subsidised housing from the government. But when the secondary market is not similarly 'capped', there is an inflationary effect because choice units can then be bought be wealthier families who cannot qualify for the first round. Valuations made by banks/property agents are pegged to ongoing resale market prices, and this price gap between the first round and second round purchase creates an inflationary momentum for the price to get even higher.When HDB measures the 'market subsidy' for pricing its public housing, it will then review the prevailing market prices of the units sold and bought in the secondary market. This creates a second wave of inflationary pressure which HDB will then equate as increase value of its property. To the government, this is a form of asset enhancement. Some economists call it inflation, or worse a bubble. So why do we allow ourselves to have moved so far from the core mission of HDB.The fallacy of 'upgrading'Singaporeans are by our nature, very competitive and we struggle to swim upstream all the time.We like the fact that our house is worth more. We like the fact that our CPF has more money than before. We like to know that our HDB homes are better than our father's HDB home. But is it?Sure, the value of the property is higher. It probably has a bigger zero at the back.But think about it, the old four room HDB flat probably has more than 110 square metres. Now, it is probably 10 square metres less (a room no less). In the past, the HDB blocks are build further apart. Look at Sengkang and Punggol, new fangled apartments called Punggol Vista means having four blocks of HDB flats forming a square overlooking a tiny patch of grass, blocking air circulation and view. The older flats were equipped with convenience. If you have garbage, you just walked into your kitchen and you can dump your refuse. Now, you have to take a walk (outside your home).So what is upgrading actually? Have we improved? The numbers stacked up higher but the quality is so much lower now.Singaporeans should be mindful. We have a generation of early leaders who were visionary, bold and meticulous. We should be thankful for that. The new generation in charge of housing and city planning has different objectives. And they probably do not include 'affordable housing' in the same context as before. Loan sharks harrass neighbours into becoming runners I wrote about the high rates of arrest for the runners earlier (see urbanrant blog post), but we seem to hear very little about the actual mastermind being arrested or sentenced.From Straits Times forum: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_453192.htmlNeighbour told to act as loan-shark runnerEARLY this week, my front door and gate were splashed with red paint when no one was at home. The unit number of a flat below my level and two telephone numbers were scrawled on the wall of the staircase landing. I called one of the numbers and a loan shark told me he committed the acts because the debtor had provoked him when he threatened to harass the neighbouring units. He then asked me to get the debtor to pay up or else the harassment would continue. In other words, he expected me to be his runner!I made a police report and the officers also took a statement from the debtor in the other unit.According to her, her husband's friend had borrowed from the loan shark, using her husband's identity card. She told the loan shark to 'do what you like' as her husband's friend was the one who had borrowed the money.She had also made several police reports when red paint was splashed on her immediate neighbours' front doors and gates. If the police had been informed of such harassment in our block, I wonder why patrols have not been stepped up to nab the culprits. Sightings of policemen making their rounds are rare in this vicinity, despite the numerous police reports. We should not be surprised that the thugs are getting bolder and more blatant as they now target flats above the debtor's unit. Furthermore, who is liable for the cost of cleaning up this vandalism? Josephine Tay (Mdm) This forum letter highlights to severity of this loan-sharking epidemic. From the letter, I can gather the following:Innocent neighbours were harassed in order to ensure the ‘actual’ borrower pay money. This means that totally innocent Singaporeans and PRs are now ‘recruited’ by this very brave loan sharks to do their bad deed.In this particular case, the motive of the harassment was made clear to the victim. There is an audacity to get the victim to call a mobile phone number left behind by the perpetrators. This is an outright inducement to commit crime. Reports were made to the police by both the innocent victim as well as by the family of the person whose IC was used to obtain the loan. What have the police done?It is clear that there is a string of leads for the police to follow up?I can count the following:The phone number left behind by the loan sharks. This number works and the victim actually spoke to the loan shark.There is the identity of the ‘borrower’. There is a fair assumption that the borrower knows the friend who borrowed the money. This friend must have known how to contact the loan sharks.The crime scene. The crime of vandalism at both homes will give some evidence of the tactics, materials used. This is a target for the loan sharks to come back for future harassment. A stake-out is necessary but has it been carried out. In the forum letter, apparently, there were already several attacks and several police reports made.Can we count on you to save us from the clutches of the ever-more menacing loan sharks? Will the audacity of the loan sharks grow as they deploy more ways to get innocent victims to do their dirty work? Should we start a citizen vigilante who will band together at every block, armed with brooms, pans, woks and cleavers, to chase down anyone with a pail of paint.So the obvious is to ask the OBVIOUS question again: what now, police? Please act, before it gets out of hand. Status quo gives us 3% growth. The need for new thinking. http://www.straitstimes.com/PrimeNews/Story/STIStory_451975.htmlFrom the article in Straits Times:SINGAPORE'S economy could grow at 3per cent next year, after what currently looks like a 'healthy' fourth quarter, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said yesterday.This is the first time a Government official has put a number to 2010 growth. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) is expected to release its official forecast for next year's growth later this month.Ahead of that, MM Lee's comment - made in a speech last night at a community event - puts next year's growth slightly lower than private-sector economists' forecasts.But slower-than-usual growth is exactly what Singaporeans must expect in the next several years, which is how long it will take Singapore's major trading partners to climb their way back to a full recovery, Mr Lee said.…After convincing the population of the sound PAP team that they have in place which will ensure a high rate of economic growth and also a Swiss standard of living, we are now at a place which languish at a rate of 3% growth (moderate is a understatement) and also a country which has the widest disparity in income levels. Whilst the government will no doubt point to the fact that the big countries are plodding along at 0 to 1% growth in Japan, US and Europe, they have forgotten to look closer to home.Nearer to home, we have Malaysia which has recently predicted a 6% growth despite recent years of political uncertainty, upheavals and losses for the ruling party. In Indonesia, which the PAP government likes to scoff for its poor corruption index, is doing just fine. In fact, Indonesia is expected to grow at 4.5% or more.I do not want to suggest that the opposition will do any better. But the ruling party has for so long likes to boast of its accomplishment in managing the economy well. It seems like Singapore, whether with an able captain at the wheel, still cannot rise/fall without the tide of the sea. Is our economic miracle a factor of the rising tide or the able captain in steering us to the Promised Land? What kind of tradeoffs have we made in this pursuit of 'economic growth'? The point I put forward is that Singapore no longer needs One-ruling party to have economic growth and prosperity. Our people are cosmopolitan, internationally travelled and very well educated. We are no longer the same as four decades ago. The way forward for us as a nation is to be a knowledge intensive, creative thinking and original innovators. We must become a hotbed of new and bold ideas. We must be willing to learn fast and fail faster. Only by experimenting and constant developing, can we survive the changing economic landscape.We can no longer wear the tight corset that makes us attractive to the MNCs. We must be a nimble, agile and quick thinking population of independent thinkers, able and willing to challenge the status quo.Forget 3%, let's dream of 8% growth. And the only way to do it is to be different and daring.And 'different and daring' are rarely the adjectives used to describe people who remain in power for over 40 years. Is the penalty too light for such a crime?   Is the penalty too light for such a crime? 7 employers charged for breaching Employment Act (CNA website, 6 Nov 2009) Posted: 06 November 2009 1041 hrs SINGAPORE: Seven employers were charged in the Subordinate Courts this week for offences under the Employment Act. The Ministry of Manpower said five were charged for failing to provide their workers with the statutory benefits under the Act. These included failing to or under-providing their employees with annual leave, rest day, and other infringements. Two other employers were charged for not paying salaries to their workers. One employer was also convicted this week for infringements under the Act. A cleaning company, Lian Cheng Contracting and its Director Cher Peng Ho, failed to provide annual leave for four employees over a period of two to four years. There were also unauthorised deductions from the salaries of three employees between January and April 2008. Each pleaded guilty to 15 charges. The company was fined S$8,500. Cher was fined S$9,500. MOM said since January, 20 companies had been prosecuted for Employment Act infringements.   I must say that the news report from ChannelNewsAsia website is sketchy at best. In this article, the reporter mentioned that a total of 7 employers were charged in court. Although there was a brief summary of the type of offences, the article switched to a particular case of Lian Cheng Contracting and Cher Peng Ho (its director). A total of thirty charges were levied to both the director and the company and the plaintiffs have pleaded guilty. In all, a sum of S$18,000 was the total penalty for both parties. This worked out to a meager S$600 per charge. It was not reported on how the Ministry of Manpower was alerted to this offence. And whether there was a whistleblower among the employees. Given the nature of the business of Lian Cheng, it is likely that the employees 'cheated' by the company, in terms of denying annual leave benefits and making various illegal deductions, were older and less-educated cleaning workers. Consider this: the company does this to the most vulnerable. Surely, the penalty to the employer who thinks that they can get away with this is too small.  Only S$600 penalty for each offence. The employees of the company are the victims here. In all likelihood, either the cleaning company will fold up or find a reason to dismiss these employees who have given them 'trouble'. In a country, where the labour law does not give sufficient protection to aggrieved employees, the workers are the ones who will be squeezed. In a country which does not set a minimum wage policy, employees are always on the lookout to cut corners employing cheaper labour. Without a minimum wage law, the 'smallest' worker will be paid as much as the next cheaper worker will accept. No wonder we have such a wide wage gap. But our government is pragmatically pro-business.     More youths caught for loan sharking, what about the masterminds behind these operations? In today's Straits Times, it was reported that another young offender was caught and sentenced for loansharking activities.MORE YOUTHS CAUGHT FOR LOANSHARKING* OF THE 505 persons arrested last year, one in eight, or 63, were youths aged 19 and below. Two-thirds of them or 42 were arrested in the second half of last year.* For the first half of this year, 81 youths were nabbed for illegal moneylending-related activities - a 1,350 per cent increase compared to 2006 when there were only 12.I would imagine that young people who caused mischief and harass the debtors are not the mastermind or the 'banker' of the money lending operations. These youths are probably the lowest rung of the organization; paid on a piece meal basis for each 'job' or based on commissions on the amount collected. I have no knowledge of the actual loan sharking operations but these are my 'trying-to-be' guesses.Although the police should be applauded for arresting so many youths, we should question the progress made towards getting to the root of the problem. 1)      Have we managed to get to the chiefs of the operations and whether arrests have been made?2)      Who are these masterminds behind the loan sharking business?3)      Are these loan shark masterminds linked to other types of criminal activities?4)      What is the ratio of the loan shark mastermind arrests as compared to the runners caught?5)      What can we do to further deter youths from becoming a runner?As usual, I have more questions than answers. But it is at least reassuring that something is being done to curb the harassment. The rare treat : Straits Times siding with the opposition MPs' position against the ruling politico I could not have said it better, so let's keep this 'verbatim'.http://www.straitstimes.com/Prime%2BNews/Story/STIStory_444994.htmlTHE official reply from the Ministry of National Development (MND) to justify why opposition MPs should not manage the Government's lift upgrading programme (LUP) in their wards raises many questions.The MND's argument is as follows: The LUP is a national scheme that ought to be managed by government representatives, as elected opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government.So the task falls to government-appointed grassroots advisers in Hougang and Potong Pasir. In this case, both are People's Action Party (PAP) candidates who lost at the polls.To press home the point that opposition MPs have no right to manage the LUP, the National Development Minister's press secretary Lim Yuin Chien said in a reply to Workers' Party MP for Hougang Low Thia Khiang:'Mr Low is mistaken when he cites the 'will of the people' expressed in general elections to justify why he should play a leading role in the LUP in Hougang.'The will of the people expressed in general elections is to elect a government for the country as a whole; and not to elect separate local governments for each constituency.'Mr Lim added in his letter to The Straits Times Forum Page: 'Singapore has a one-level system of government. MPs, whether People's Action Party or opposition, do not constitute a local government in their constituency.'These arguments deserve a closer look. Let us first consider 'the will of the people', as expressed by the votes they cast in elections.The general purpose of general elections here is undoubtedly to elect a national government, as Mr Lim points out. But voters also choose their local representatives: Members of Parliament. The individual who commands the support of a majority of MPs becomes the prime minister and he forms the government. In most democracies, the prime minister is usually also the leader of the party with the most number of MPs in Parliament.The Singapore system is quite different from, say, Israel's, where voters vote directly for political parties - not individual candidates - and parliamentary seats are divvied up according to the proportion of votes each party garners.Here, we elect MPs directly; and the majority among them choose a prime minister. In our system, MPs do have the mandate of voters. We vest in our elected representatives the power to speak on our behalf and act in our interest. They are our particular, local MPs - not the representatives of the amorphous 65 per cent or 35 per cent or whatever who voted for particular parties.Yet Mr Lim said Mr Low is wrong to assume that this gives him the authority to lead the LUP in Hougang. 'MPs - PAP or opposition - do not constitute a local government in their constituency,' wrote Mr Lim.If that is so, it is a principle that should apply to all 84 MPs, equally. But only the two opposition MPs are denied the right to manage the LUP.The MND's justification appears to be that the Government works through grassroots advisers on national schemes. PAP MPs are appointed as advisers to the grassroots organisations in their wards by the People's Association (PA). In the two opposition wards, the PA picked the PAP candidates who contested but lost in the wards in the last two polls as the grassroots advisers. Therefore, the Government should work with them, not the elected MPs, in those two constituencies.This would imply that the Government accords more recognition to grassroots advisers than MPs. If this is the case, Singaporeans may ask: So what happened to their elected representatives?To Mr Lim, the MP's role seems to be confined to that of running the town council: Collect service and conservancy fees from residents and maintain the estate. And yet town councils, he emphasised, should not be considered local government - for Singapore has only 'one level of government'.This statement, however, contradicts statements that senior government leaders have made previously.In the 1997 polls, for instance, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong upped the stakes by getting PAP candidates to come up with detailed plans for their constituencies. The aim was to get voters to decide not just whether a candidate could make speeches in Parliament, but whether he also had concrete plans to improve people's lives, Mr Goh said.'With town councils and community development councils, and my intention to give more power and responsibility to them (MPs), every election in a constituency is indeed a local government election,' Mr Goh explained at the annual PAP conference held before the polls.At another event, he elaborated: 'In every constituency, there will be a local government with a local programme, and how you vote will affect immediately your own interest.'His point was reiterated by then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew when Mr Lee commented on the PAP's 'local government' strategy. 'We know that if there is no direct stake, everything is the same, then the voter does not take his vote seriously. He would if he knows that he has a stake,' he said.Then Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong added: 'They know that the way they vote will influence their own personal well-being - their town, their neighbourhood, their property values.'In the two elections that followed the 1997 polls, PAP leaders continued to invoke the 'local government' argument. Singapore is not a federal state - so yes, there is really only one centre of power. But that does not mean that there is no local government - in practice and by policy.When the Government announced in July that the LUP would be applied to ageing HDB flats in Potong Pasir and Hougang earlier than expected, many Singaporeans saw it as an act of political goodwill, recognising that all citizens - regardless of who they voted for - should benefit from national schemes.Unfortunately, that act of goodwill was marred in its execution: In this case, MND's insistence on working only with the appointed grassroots representatives instead of the elected opposition MPs.sueann@sph.com.sg Is it really a 'fine' or a chunk of change when bus operators do not meet PTC standards? http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/Story/STIStory_442838.html?sunwMethod=GET SBS Transit, which runs about 75 per cent of the services in Singapore, was fined $500 for failing to meet standards, down from $4,500 in the review released in April. Four of its buses were found to be overcrowded on five occasions in the latest review. In the previous assessment, 16 services did not meet the standard. SMRT was fined $200, up from a $100 fine previously, because one service did not leave the terminal on time while another was overcrowded. Previously, one service was overcrowded. The fines are a result of the review conducted from December last year to May this year. Both operators met the other standards of bus availability, bus operating hours and up-to-date bus information, among other things. Mr Gerard Ee, chairman of the Public Transport Council (PTC) which conducts these assessments and sets the standards, said: 'We are encouraged to see the improvements of the operators' performance.' It is quite funny when you read that the Public Transport Council fined the two public bus operators S$500 and S$200 respectively. Both penalties are of such meager amounts. I can imagine that if we have not implemented the cash card payment system on the buses, we could have easily emptied out the coin box in one shift to collect more than S$200 to pay off the penalty. Even now, with the cashless payment facility, I would imagine that it will not be difficult to cough up enough in coins from less than 10 buses in one shift to pay the fines imposed by the Public Transport Council. To have a truly meaningful penalty, the fines must be of sufficient amounts so as to cause the bus operator to pause and consider making an improvement. If I am the CEO of the bus operators, I would have chosen to pay the fine each and every time, rather than have a lower bottom line from increasing capacity (to minimize overcrowding) and ensuring a consistency in bus departing schedules. The costs of implementing these two findings, would have outweighed the fines. So I will choose to ignore the problem and simply pay up. It is so ironical isn't it? When you drive your car in the bus lane, you get a S$80 fine. If you have three cars driving on the bus lane, you would have already paid more than a bus company paying its penalty for overcrowding its buses (at the possible 'risk' of its passengers). Did we misplace our priority here? Thumbs up for abolishing this age-discrimination practice http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1011710/1/.htmlAccording to a Straits Time article on 16th October 2009, the Labour Minister were quoted to be giving notice to companies that he intend to push through changes to prevent pay cuts of employees once they reach age 60.Under current legislation, employers are allowed to reduce the senior workers' salaries by up to 10%. This means that a sixty year old will in all likelihood suffer a paycut because of his age and not because of his abilities or his contribution to the company.I applaud the Minister's comments on this issue, as I find this labour legislation discriminatory in nature.Given the Singapore government's pro-business stance, and its willingness to use a blunt tool to 'protect' jobs, this indeed a welcome reprieve.Whenever, the economy takes a turn for the worse, the Government will swing its big cleaver (i.e. CPF rates) to chop and trim the wage costs burden of employers to ensure that the companies can a reprieve. However, this elasticity applies only in a single direction. The cuts and chops to the employers' CPF rate has not been reinstated. Together with the lowering of the maximum monthly salary attracting CPF deductions, this has resulted in a permanent reduction in salaries, across the board, no matter whether the person or her company is doing well or not.I am glad that another blunt tool to moderate wages are going to be abolish. There is a lot of flexibility accorded to companies to reduce its headcount or let its people go, the government should occasionally take a pro-worker stand too. I am just happy that it is going to stand with the workers this time. Ways to improve the transparency of housing agents in Singapore I was rather intrigued by the calls to regulate the property agents in Singapore. This industry, very much like the life insurance industry in the past, ‘suffer’ from a low barrier of entry.This means that it is easy for a person who wishes to ‘sell’ properties to be able to get in on it.One has to be familiar with HDB rules (assuming the agent wanted to operate in this segment), standard contract law, basic property and estate tax, and also bank and property financing operations. Only until recently, it is also not required for one to have certification or formal training to become a housing agent. This low barrier means that either a lawyer or a clerk can become an agent.So what are the ways we can make the industry more transparent and ‘fairer’ to the people for use their services. These are my suggestions.1) Have agents disclosed their conflicts of interests and include a penalty for errant agents who do not comply. Agents must disclose their own and their families’ interest in the properties that they sell. Under this category, they must also disclose whether they are also representing the other party (the agent need to disclose the fact that he is in fact acting on behalf of both buyer and seller).2) They must disclose whether they have represented anyone else (during the last six months) for the same property that they are selling or buying. This will disclose to the buyer the situation where the agent has been flipping the property from one speculative investor to the next buyer.3) Agents must also disclose the source of other income besides the agents’ commission. This should extend to agents who receive incentives from banks to entice borrowers. The housing agents act like a financial adviser in certain situations when arranging for the buyers to take up a loan, and they have a duty to disclose this fact to the buyer themselves. Who should HDB work with for Lift Upgrading Program Having release a joint-letter by HDB and PA, the MND now claims that this letter should be read in conjunction with the Minister's explanation to the media. Well and good. So let's do it: HDB programmes are carried out and funded by the Government. This is no different from other government programmes such as building of roads and schools. In the case of HDB upgrading, this channel is the advisers to grassroots organisations, who are appointed by the Government. The above statements got me really worried. If the Government can appoint whoever they want to build roads and schools, as they do with HDB upgrading. What can they not do? Well, they can appoint the PAP youth wing (maybe with a re-named moniker, Youth Builders) who are advisers to road building advisers to the Government. And then they award the control and administration to the Youth Builders. Is there any conflict of interest? Of course not. This is silly. The money belongs to the government who generates the surplus and they can jolly do what they want with it. The Government earns it so it decides, but did the government really earned it? The Government pays up to 90 per cent of the cost of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), with the rest shared between the residents (5 per cent) and the town councils (5 per cent). Funding for LUP is possible only because of the Government and the Budget surpluses it has generated through prudent policies. According to the Press Secretary of MND, the cash coughed out for the lift upgrading came from surpluses attributable through prudent policies. Surely the Secretary must have done his sums and concluded that the government surpluses each year are coming from the careful and thrifty habits of the Government. As I have learnt in school, surpluses came from the excess of income over the expenditure for a given period. Of course, it is not likely that the high income of the government came from excessive tax burden on individuals and companies, market-subsidy pricing of government housing and HDB maintenance fees levied at higher than required. But no, the Government is congratulated for stretching each dollar it receives by making sure that everything it spends on is value for money and it has done well. Never mind that occasionally a thorny Auditor-General has the decency to publish its scathing reports across Ministries. Opposition MPs are not responsible for generating budget surpluses. There is therefore no basis for opposition MPs to lead the LUP - a national programme funded mainly by the Government. Mr Low is mistaken when he cites the 'will of the people' expressed in general elections to justify why he should play a leading role in the LUP in Hougang. Surely only the Government is the only reason for Singapore having a surplus. It does not count much that there are almost 3+ million Singaporeans paying taxes. Yes, some do not pay income tax. But surely, you can consider that even the baby wearing diapers are paying taxes each and every time it poops. But no, the Government should get the credit. And generates surpluses, it does. Singapore has a one-level system of government. MPs, whether People's Action Party or opposition, do not constitute a local government in their constituency. In the case of HDB upgrading, this channel is the advisers to grassroots organisations, who are appointed by the Government. Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government, nor are they obliged to carry out and explain the Government's policies. Yes, we can all agree that opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government, but are the grassroots organizations more answerable than them? They are not even answerable to the people whom they court once every 4 years. If the grassroots organization in the opposition wards are more answerable to the Government than the elected MPs, I would like to know how the Government made them more answerable. Is this responsibility spelt out in the Country's constitution, statutes, laws or by-laws. And how are the Government ensuring that what is essentially a not-for-profit organization answers to it? The will of the people expressed in general elections is to elect a government for the country as a whole; and not to elect separate local governments for each constituency. The Secretary is right to point out that in a general election the idea is to elect a government for the country. However, when there is a general election walk-over, the government is 'elected' automatically regardless of individual wards being contested. In this situation, is there still a presumption that people are expressing their 'election' of the government? Or is this more of an election of the individuals whom they want as their MP or those they would like to reject (even if they are part of the ruling party)? What kind of will is being shown in this situation? The letter is a clear indication to the extent for which the civil service believes it is an instrument of the ruling party. The lack of a regular 'check' of the systems causes the system to be rigid and non-responsive. It is like a transmission system of the car. When the car is only driven using the 1st gear forward for 40 years, it is likely the reverse gear is faulty. It cannot engage, even if it should. Home Affairs Minister says the police not doing its job is just a matter of perspective This is an interesting take on law and policing in Singapore.Apparently, in policing Singapore, there can be a bit of give and take. I guess that the minister intended for the statement to meant for normal citizens and surely not opposition political characters.So now, if some one commits a crime, are you sure you want to complain if the act is not caught or responded to by the police. Surely, the police is just giving the person a chance to do nice things the next time around.If someone gets into a fight with another person, and the police does nothing, surely that is the same as a person parking wrongly and ignored by the police.By trying to spin such incidents (minor ones about parking and ambulance speeding) where the police practice leniency (otherwise known as not having caught the criminal), the minister seems to be explaining a slew of police fiascos in the past one year (Selamat, court escapes, Tok getting out of SIngapore via walking, etc)Lest you try to think that I am trying to simplifying the issue, I think I am entitled to that.Afterall, the minister just equated public order and crime to ambulance speeding and parking offences.Straits Times, August 8, 2008Maintaining order a balancing act for Home Team: ministerBy Bertha HensonTHE Traffic Policeman decides not to give you a parking ticket - and you're relieved.But somebody else has witnessed what you consider an act of kindness, and complains that the officer is not policing the law.That's the conundrum the men in uniform face - when to enforce order strictly and when to loosen up to create more space for individuals.The public expects to be 'immunised from the less convenient realities' of modern city living, such as crime, drugs and traffic congestion, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng noted on Wednesday.'Even as such expectations rise, there is in some quarters a contradictory shift in attitudes,' he said at the Ministry of Home Affairs National Day observance ceremony.'As much as there is a desire for order, there is a desire for a loosening of that order.'A balancing act is needed, he said, to satisfy those who argue that Singaporeans can be trusted to manage themselves, and those who demand protection from disruptions in their lives.What this means: Officers on the ground have to make judgments each day, rather than 'follow the rule book blindly'.Not that it is easy.A Civil Defence ambulance driver might well be risking life and limb - and others - if he speeds to the rescue, said Mr Wong giving another example.But if he does not step on the gas, he could be too late to save a life.His speech came after a series of setbacks to the Home team, starting with the escape of terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari from Internal Security detention in February.He acknowledged the anxieties officers now face: that rules and regulations will be tightened even further, leaving little room for judgment calls.Another worry: That penalties for mistakes will be so harsh that officers focus on avoiding errors, rather than do the job of arresting and detecting.Standard operating procedures will always have to be reviewed, but in light of real-life operations - not 'in abstraction'.And while mistakes must be accounted for, he promised that judgments will always be fair and just. We now know that a pair of breasts is worth $710 for 6 months Thanks to CASE and Straits Times reporting it, we have now come to know the worth of a pair of breasts for 6 months.Apparently, this value is ascribed to a lactacting set of boobs by CASE, when it compares the value of various forms of powdered infant formula across the island.I wonder why the newspaper choose to value the mothers' milk on a six month basis. Perhaps there is some study that this is the average period breastfeeding mothers do so for an average of 6 months' period.I prefer a simpler metric.If the value over 6 months is $710, it will be equivalent to $118 per month.Or $3.94 per day.That means, each time i catch a glance (which is 2 seconds, assuming i do not gawk) of a pair, it is worth a measly sum $0.0009.Thanks to the Straits Times, i know the value of a pair of breasts. :)Straits Times, Aug 7, 2008Save $710 by breastfeeding for six monthsMOTHERS who feed their babies breast milk exclusively for the first six months stand to save $710.The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) came up with this figure by comparing the costs of breastfeeding - breast pumps, cooler bags and ice packs - with the cost of six months' worth of formula milk powder.The price survey done last month covered nine brands of infant milk formula at 11 major supermarket chains in Singapore.Karihome Goat Milk Infant Formula was the most expensive, at $1,219.38 for 20kg; the cheapest was Nestle Lactogen 1 Infant Formula, which cost $244 for the same amount.Case executive director Seah Seng Choon, noting that this is World Breastfeeding Week, said consumer feedback on rising dairy prices spurred the survey.He said: 'We have received calls from mothers who say it is now more expensive to feed their children. We want to provide them with cheaper alternatives, and breastfeeding is one of them.'The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's index of dairy product prices for April confirmed that prices are 25 per cent higher than in the same month last year.Mrs Lena Leong, 30, who is still breastfeeding her 21-month-old son, reckons she has saved at least $2,000, aside from giving her child health benefits.She said: 'We mothers are all talking about how it has become much more expensive to have children now. Cutting out the cost of milk powder helped me a lot.'She is a member of the Singapore chapter of the Breastfeeding Mothers' Support Group.JESSICA LIM Interesting tussle between the AG and the judiciary Do you (like me) get a sense that the current AG is edging towards more confrontation with the judiciary here?Or is this impression created by the media?Walter Woon is a highly respected law thinker and it is interesting when we see like-minded brilliant minds in law debate publicly things of interest to the public, like crime, punishment, rights (of the individual and state).I hope the tussle between the executive branch and the judiciary continues to the betterment of our system here.Interesting....From Straits Times: July 29th 2008Sentencing guideline: Point of contentionATTORNEY-GENERAL Walter Woon made a radical call for a long-established sentencing guideline known as the Hodgson criteria to be 'buried' in Singapore's courts.Since 1991, High Court judges here have applied these criteria in determining when a term of life imprisonment should be imposed.These arose out of an English court's judgment, known as Hodgson's case, in 1967.The judge in that case set three broad conditions which justify the imposition of a life term:Where the offence is grave enough to require a very long sentence; when the offender is a person of unstable character who is likely to re-offend; and where the offence is 'specially injurious'.In Singapore, these criteria were accepted by the Court of Appeal, first in a 1991 case and later, a 2005 case.But Prof Woon yesterday argued that Hodgson has been 'wrongly accepted' here.He argued that by 1967, the death penalty had been abolished in the United Kingdom, and life imprisonment was the highest punishment an English court could hand down.But in Singapore, life imprisonment is not the most serious punishment as there is the death penalty, he said, arguing that the threshold for a life term cannot be set so high. 'There is nothing special about the life sentence that requires a special criteria,' said Prof Woon.He likened the conditions to 'a series of hurdles for the prosecution to jump over to justify life sentence'.But Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong pointed out that this case was of manslaughter which is not a capital charge.Judge of Appeal V. K. Rajah also noted that former CJ Yong Pung How had said the criteria were only guidelines.'The key thing is that we don't think we can bury Hodgson because the ghost will continue to haunt us,' he said.If Prof Woon wanted it dropped, then he had to come up with a suitable substitute, the judge added. ST headline paints totally different picture of the going-ons between the AG and the Court of Appeal I read with interest the tos and fros between the current Attorney General and the judiciary.Much has been said in the public domain between the AG and members of the judiciary and there is nothing to add from me on that front.However, today's news paper article on the case of Aniza Essa headlined as " Prof Woon: Trial judge relied too much on mitigation plea" again led me to question either the editorial compentency of the ST's news editors or that they have an embedded tendency to favour the executive branch of the government in Singapore.Whilst Prof Woon claims that the lower court gave too much credence to the defence mitigation plea of being abused and suicidal, the courts and the judges here already responded (as stated clearly in the article) that the onus lies in the prosecution to prove otherwise. In fact, the defence has also shown the prosecution in the lower court that the defence in advance and no objections were raised as to those defences. Now the AG steps in to make reference to those items and states that the Court over-rely on those items. I am not arguing the merits of either Prof Woon's point or the case for the judges opinion.What I am perturbed is the utter dis-connect between the headline and the body of the article's text. The text (if the editor reads carefully) suggests that the court has merit in relying on the defence's plea. Afterall i would like to believe that the onus is on the prosecution to prosecute and to show proof. Otherwise, all of us might as well be presumed guilty at the pleasure of the public prosecutor.Come on, i think the ST can do better than this.From the Straits Times: July 29, 2008Prof Woon: Trial judge relied too much on mitigation plea THE judge who sentenced Aniza Essa relied too heavily on her mitigation that she was a battered wife and suicidal, said the Attorney-General.Professor Walter Woon argued it was the defence's job to prove the claims they used to plead for a lighter sentence.But all three judges of the Court of Appeal disagreed, saying the onus should be on the prosecution to challenge information put forth which it was not prepared to accept.Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong said that if the defence had to prove its mitigation, it would create a huge problem for the court as 'the whole family will have to go into the witness box' to testify.'When the prosecution keeps quiet on everything, it will be very difficult for the court to take it upon itself to say I don't accept this or that,' said CJ Chan.Judge of Appeal V.K. Rajah said the prosecution at the trial had not raised issues with the veracity of these claims which Prof Woon now raised.When the A-G asked for a structure to be put in place so that it is clear whose duty it is to question such claims, CJ Chan said: 'We already have a structure for a long time.'Mr Noor Marican, Aniza's lawyer, said he had shown his mitigation to the prosecution before presenting it to the court. The prosecutor asked for several changes and he had made them. The prosecutor had not disputed the parts about the abuse and the suicide attempts.'They cannot now come and question it,' Mr Marican said.SELINA LUM Straits Times' spin on ERP gantry leaves me in stitches I am continuously amazed by the level of reporting and headline reporting of our beloved Straits Times.Although I no longer subscribe to the print edition of the paper, I do not really miss out on the comic strips found in Life, because sometimes the news reports are even more hilarious.Take the following report which gives the reader the exciting new information that the snazzier ERP gantry information panel.The headline will give the reader the impression that the reader that motorists have just been given the utility of a rear view mirror or when motor-cyclists were given brake pedals.Come on... this is just a glorified sign board to tell you how much to pay for driving pass.For goodness sake, this article is almost telling us how delighted a death-row convict looks when he sees the LED indicator telling him his weight as he steps onto the new and improved fast-action guillotine.From Straits Times (July 20, 2008)http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_259508.htmlSnazzy displays get the nod from motoristsBy Aw Cheng WeiMotorists are giving the thumbs up to Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) charges - at least the way the amount payable is displayed on gantries.Snazzy, colourful icons of vehicles and the amount motorists have to pay at various times are now revealed brightly on a panel at the top of the gantry.First unveiled on July 7 when five gantries downtown became operational, the new-style display has since been set up on 40 of 65 gantries in use.By Nov 3, the panels, each costing about $65,000, will be on 70 gantries. This is when six more gantries will come onstream in places like Commonwealth Avenue, Jalan Bukit Merah and Alexandra Road.Previously, the gantries flashed only one message - ERP in operation - with the fee displayed on a panel at the roadside, and only for some gantries at that.A spokesman for the Land Transport Authority said the fee payable can now be read 100m from the gantry. This means motorists will have an idea of what they will have to pay the next time they travel that way during that time.The move got the thumbs up from 15 drivers whom The Sunday Times spoke to. 'The pictures of the vehicles next to the ERP charges are quite interesting. When I first saw them, I actually slowed down to take a look,' said Mr Lim Yong Han, 30, a sales manager.Some said the information helped them keep better track of their CashCard usage. Said Mr Thomas Sze, 37, a human resource executive: 'Sometimes, you forget how much money is left in the card. The display reminds you of the amount to pay and you can check beforehand if you have enough.'But still, there is no getting away from paying the ERP charges. As taxi driver Tan Keng Lee, 54, said: 'Useful or not, still must pay, right?' Primary One School Registration - Citizens vs Permanent Residents The following post is an article written by a close friend who goes by the pseudonym, Panadol.Under the current primary one school registration system, the child of a citizen is assigned equal ranking as the child of a permanent resident (PR) in getting enrolled into the primary school of choice. This means that the child of a PR, be it from China, India, Malaysia who may have only recently settled in Singapore, will get the same chance of entering into primary school of his/her choice compared to the child of a citizen, who has spent most of his life, borne, grew up and live in Singapore.I wonder if factors such as national service performed by a male citizen (2.5 years of active service and 13 years of reserve services) were ever considered by the government before deciding on such an arrangement.It would be extremely difficult for me as a male citizen of Singapore who has served national service to accept that my child may lose out to a child of a PR in getting enrolled in a school of choice (with better resources and facilities) as we are assigned the same ranking.Some may argue that the PRs also contribute to our economy so they should be allotted equal rankings, but even if we were to disregard or ignore the national services served by our citizens, the question we should still ask ourselves is in times of a national crisis, whose children are more likely to stay behind to defend Singapore.Lately, high profile, ultra rich PRs have been enrolling their children into premier primary schools through participation in parental volunteer programme (PV). PV normally requires 40 to 80 hours of volunteer work and the children of the volunteers will in return get priority during the registration exercise. As PV is opened to both citizens and PRs, it means that the child of a PR who participated in the PV will have priority over the child of a citizen who has not.40 to 80 hours of volunteer service takes precedence over 2.5 years of active service plus 13 years of reserved services, does it make sense? The legalization of organ trading - Government going down a slippery path The recent comment by Minister of Health on the issue of legalizing organ trading sends a shiver down my spine.It seems that no vice is too big for the PAP government.We have already legitimized gambling when we poured time and investments into building a giant infrastructure for Singapore's visitors to gamble. And of course we allow Singaporean with means to do likewise if they were to cough up a miniscule fee (*by these people's standards).But right now, we are now seeming to explore the option of allowing people to 'trade' organs.On the one hand, this practice of life-saving must be applauded because it does allow people to continue to live for a prolonged period if kidney patients can find suitable organs for a transplant. Otherwise, these patients will have a sustained period of dialysis followed by death.However, by allowing organ trading, the Singaporean government seems to be saying that wealthy but otherwise unhealthy people can simply buy a replaceable part from a poorer person.This notion reeks of a form of means-testing to the extreme. Only a mercenary government can allow such idea to be even considered.Any form of organ trading would involve a payment of sorts where a poor sod can sell his organs for a healthy return.By allowing and encouraging this, this government is suggesting a price tag for each of your body part.A very cynical part of me is wondering whether the 'measures to prevent abuse' fathomed by Khaw would be such that a poor Singaporean man may be allowed to 'gift' an organ to a richer foreigner. Is this an early form of extreme' medical tourism or a way to get rich individuals to migrate here with all their wealth.After all, soon we will have the best infrastructure to attract the wealthiest in the world. Security, prosperity, a government that is open to immigrants and pro-business....and with organs available, what's not to like in this island paradise in the tropics.  We did not learn because the punishment was not severe enough We now have another incident where the competence of our security officials are now called to question.Do you wonder why we bother to praise the competence of our men in blue? As a country, we are often lauded for our excellent civil service and top-notch brain power in organising an effective administration.But is such confidence misplaced? Are we, as a nation, tad complacent?So what ills us as a nation, that we have deteriorated to such an extent that we now have official media and PAP members of parliament question whether we have learn any lessons from the escape of Mas Selamat.From: http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/STIStory_247024.html?vgnmr=1Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law Teo Ho Pin said on Thursday: 'When Mas Selamat escaped, that was a wake-up call. But I'm not very sure how many people have woken up. 'There must be checks and balances that the message is conveyed down effectively to the last man in the force. Things mentioned at the management level or in the media may not go down to the last man.' My hypothesis of why this is happening is that the punishment that has been meted so far, has not gone far enough to cause a dent in the psyche of the organisation and shake it out of its complacency. If you look at the punishment for hiring of illegal foreign workers in the construction worksite, the ultimate penalty (for repeat offenders) is the caning of the perpetrators. CEOs of construction company stands to have their bottoms opened up if they decide to hire illegal workers and get caught.As far as I can tell, the practice of the hiring of illegal workers have subsided significantly. Despite the boom in local construction sector, there is little indication that the problem has returned.So, the penalty for the 'illegal act' does deter offenders from even thinking of doing such an act. The government has oftentimes acted (even to the extent of appearing unnecessarily harsh) to meet its ultimate objective to do good.So why does the men in blue appear not to have learnt this lesson?We have not learned the lesson when Tan Chor Jin (one-eyed dragon) fled the country to Malaysia.We did not learn the lesson when Took Leng How (ala Huang Na's case) walk across to Malaysia without even attracting any sort of alert or attention from the border control officers. We also had a known terrorist leader walk out of detention from a Singapore prison and remain at large for more than 3 months.We now have 2 convicted robbers attempt escape from a court of law. One even managed to get out of the building and raced more than 100 metres from his original point of lockup.So why have we not learnt the lessons?I think this is because we have not handed out the punishments where it matter most. At the very top.When CEOs are held accountable for corporate malfeasance during their watch, it does not diminish the guilt we place on the lowly perpetrators. But it does shine a light on the matter s strong that everyone in the organisation sits up and pay attention to internal controls.When the Minister of Home Affairs escapes any sort of punishment and the Director of Internal Security Department walk unscathed after the regional terrorist organisation's leader escape from a facility intended to hold terrorists, people in the organisation will also believe in the words of the leaders.If the Minister and the Director believe that the lapses lie at the foot of the 'little people' who failed to perform their duties and who had lapses of concentration, maybe the rest of the policemen, customs officials, immigration officers and other home team officers will also believe the same.They will think that only the person charged with monitoring the convicts are responsible and not themselves. In the court escape case, the person who buzz open the gates holding the convicts did not bother to check. Why? Because he believes the role is the officer who is monitoring them. He does not believe that that officer could have been hurt and the convicts are ready to escape.If we compartmentalise responsibility and punish each individual act of security lapse, we will not have a systemic approach to ensuring our security. We will assume each compartment works perfectly and that our individual role is only limited to what is in our individual box.Therein lies the problem. No one assumes that overall responsibility. If the leaders continue to believe that they are not responsible for tying up the compartments, we cannot assume that the system will work.So far, the system barely suggests to me it can work.All the individual lapses (bar Mas Selamat) are insignificant on their own. But seen as a whole, I am not so sure whether these incidents should be looked at in isolation. This Lee allows protests. These days, there are lots of Lees in the news.In Korea, thousands of people throng the streets to protest the beef deal inked with US farmers. In South Korea, there is wide spread dissatisfaction with the ruling government and some of the indignation lands squarely on the President himself.So much so, that the cabinet has volunteered to resign to placate the rising tide of uproar against a government whose only 'fault' in this entire episode was to allow much-maligned US beef to be imported into cow-meat living Koreans.Koreans are big time beef eaters and the fact that US beef has in the past been tainted with scares of mad cow diseases has not helped.According to an Economist report (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11527004), 100,000 took to the street to protest the government's stance to allow US beef imports into the country under a free trade agreement.This is an interesting angle. The government in Korea is acting on the 'allegedly' good faith when negotiating a US-Korea free trade deal would benefit Korean companies (and the country in general) boosting the exports of Samsungs and LGs. This is a justifiable cause for a tradeoff in allowing US beef into the local market and if you believe some medical reports, US beef is safe to consume. After all, Americans are also eating the same beef.So what gives the Koreans the right to assembly and protests? Do they not know that their government cares about their financial well-being and the country's economic prosperity?Or they risks spilling blood on the streets over the locale of the item on their daily menu?The Koreans seem to think so as people from all walks of life (even mothers pushing prams) participated in the call to end the beef deal.So what can Mr. Lee do? This Mr. Lee is obviously protecting the economic well-being of the populace and yet is faced with a disenfranchised population.Meanwhile, another one quotes the often mentioned economic performance statistics as a ends-justify-means approach to suppress dissenters, opposing voices and near-pyschopaths.I wonder what is the equivalent analogy is applied to Singapore. Does it simply mean that Singaporeans are willing to take some diseased-beef as long as our wallets are properly lined.I think, some Lees have it good. Singapore courts grants arrest warrant without bail for insulting a judge Insult can be a serious crime.Especially if a public servant is concerned.The reputation of the servant is at stake and no one should question the Singapore justices' inalienable right  to their prestige, reputation and good name.The nature of such a crime is so severe and its consequences so dire that it warrants an immediate arrest to the perpetrator.From the newspaper article, one can infer the lengths which has gone into nabbing this alleged perpetrator.1) Arrest is not adequate; arrest without bail is more appropriate for this heinous crime.2) If you send an email promulgating half-truths, deceit and useless lies, you will be hunted down and arrested. 3) Laws of insult extent to everyone, even a tourist. If you have a foreign friend visiting us, you will be well advised to warn him from talking too much to a local taxi driver. Better still, keep topics to safe topic like the hot weather and how Singapore is such a nice and well developed country.Well paid public servants are entitled to their reputation. We cannot risk putting them at risk.The perpetrator of this alleged crime also posted his email to his blog (http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/05/singapore-judge-belinda-angs-kangaroo.html ).Of course, Gopalan Nair is no ordinary tourist. He is an ex-Singaporean, ex-Workers' Party and ex-politician who has a history of going head to head in contesting local elections.Seems like the authorities took up the challenge that he threw in his email and blog entry; and arrested him as a result.But he did leave an interesting thought; did the course of natural justice prevail? Will the international opinion sit in the corner of the Lees and the esteemed wisdom of Belinda Ang? What will PERC think? What will Amnesty International think about this case?From Channel News Asia: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/351129/1/.htmlSINGAPORE: Police have arrested a former Singaporean for the offence of "threatening, abusing or insulting a public servant". In response to media queries, police confirmed that Gopalan Pallichadath Nair, who is now a US citizen, was arrested at Broadway Hotel along Serangoon Road on Saturday. A warrant of arrest without bail was granted by the courts for the arrest. Nair is alleged to have sent an email to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General which contained statements amounting to the offence of insulting a public servant. The statements were directed against Justice Belinda Ang, a Supreme Court judge. The statements were also posted on Nair's blog. Nair is presently in police custody. He will be charged in court on Monday.  No sign of Mas Selamat, but at least we found a new home for Ge Ge After 3 months of looking for the elusive (and now renowned) terrorist, we are still not able to catch up with him. But I am sure the man in blue is still trying their very best. I hope the police constables and station inspectors are working hard and will soon get lucky in tracing Mr. Limp.After all, I would hate to see that after 120 days, the Minister announce a sacking of another 9 officers who has been tasked to look for the MAN and failed. I hate it when responsible men of uniform tried but failed in their mission.But at least I take comfort in the fact that the abandoned puppy of a once beloved chairman of Singapore's most prominent charity is now taken care of. And our local daily found it necessary to report this important piece of news.It is a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that our canines are taken care of in this beautiful tropical paradise of ours.(See Asiaone:  http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20080531-68168.html) New home for ex-NKF chairman Richard Yong's dog IT has been a year since Richard Yong's dog, Ge Ge, was put in the care of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The 13-year-old shih-tzu now has a new, doting, mistress who calls her Moby. Last month, Yong, 66, a bankrupt who fled Singapore and was jailed for 15 months last year but is on the Home Detention Scheme since Jan 10 this year, had inquired about Ge Ge's well-being through this newspaper. When the former chairman of the National Kidney Foundation fled in May last year for Hong Kong after failing to pay nearly $1 million to the NKF arising from a civil suit, he left Ge Ge behind in the care of his Filipino maid. She has since left Singapore, which led to Ge Ge's subsequent adoption by its first owner, nurse Zheng Dexin, 25, in September last year. Aware that the pooch belonged to Yong, Ms Zheng kept the name Ge Ge (which means Princess in mandarin). But Ge Ge wandered out of the house six months later and was found by housewife Madam Ivy Quek, 60 - two blocks away from Ms Zheng's home in Stirling Road. Doc sex on spy cam case: gaps in Straits Times reporting Very often, I will read an article on the Straits Times and be left with a list of questions which pop into my mind.The ST reports often do not address the gaping holes they leave the readers with.The news article on the doctor who claims that he was blackmailed because his partners had video of him having sexual trysts with the assistant in the clinic is an example.He made a police report saying he was being blackmailed. The police took the pictures and video recording, but dropped their investigations last August.- Why did the police investigated but drop the case? Was it because there was a lack of evidence? Nothing was even addressed in the report.- Why did the reporter not speak to the Police about this? If the police cannot comment on the matter because it is now a court case, then the reporter should reflect this.- By stating the fact and yet not address it adequately, the reporter either insinuates that the police dropped the ball during investigation or that this is not a material fact of the case.- The crux of the report is not about the stains on the mattress or about the Dr. Khairul allegedly showing Dr Tam's wife the photos. These are sordid details of a news tabloid. Yet Straits times did not focus on the criminal or civil implications of a police investigation which was dropped.Sadly, i have grown very used to poor reporting from Straits Times. Without a viable alternative, complacence seeps in and coupled with a 'nation building, self-censorship' mentality Straits Times has once again shot a bullet in its already filmsy armour of credibility.Article found in Straits Times:http://www.straitstimes.com/Prime%2BNews/Story/STIStory_239702.htmlDoctor caught having sex in clinicHe claims partner who installed spy camera blackmailed him into selling his share in their businessBy Khushwant SinghA MARRIED doctor who had an affair with his clinic assistant was shocked when his partner installed a spy camera and caught him having sex with the woman.Now, Dr Tam Tak Chuen, 39, is claiming in a civil suit that he was blackmailed into selling his share of the business for $50,000.He says he gave in to pressure to sell, fearing that the affair would be exposed and the film of his tryst would land on the YouTube video-sharing website.He wants the High Court to declare the deal null and void, and wants to get back his share.He was in business with two doctors, Dr Khairul Abdul Rahman and Dr Ashraff Shamsuddin Eilyaas.Dr Ashraff settled with Dr Tam when the hearing began before Justice Judith Prakash on Monday. But Dr Khairul is denying that there was any pressure on Dr Tam to sell his stake.Dr Tam and Dr Khairul were equal partners of the Eden Family Clinic in Jurong West and one-third partners of Eden Medical Aesthetics in Kembangan together with Dr Ashraff.The businesses were worth more than $2 million, and Dr Tam was earning about $250,000 a year.Dr Tam said the woman started working at the clinic in 1999 and their affair started sometime in 2004.It was at a partners' meeting on March 4 last year that everything changed.Dr Tam said that Dr Khairul, who had had the spy camera installed in the clinic, whipped out photographs showing him having sex with the woman.He said that he was given a choice of either selling his share in the Eden Family Clinic, or buying out Dr Khairul.He offered to buy Dr Khairul's share for $50,000 but, he said, he was told he was in no position to negotiate.Dr Khairul did not want them both to sell to a third party, and threatened to apply to wind up the companies and expose the photographs of Dr Tam with the clinic assistant, Dr Tam said on Monday.'I was very afraid as I wanted to save my marriage and reputation by not having the pictures and video out there in public or on YouTube,' he said.Another shock awaited him when he got home that day.He discovered that Dr Khairul's wife had gone to his home, told his wife about his affair and shown her the photographs.He said he felt completely betrayed as his partners had promised to keep the matter under wraps.Fortunately, he said, his wife forgave him.He made a police report saying he was being blackmailed. The police took the pictures and video recording, but dropped their investigations last August.Dr Tam denied that the clinic assistant had been his patient. He said she would consult him about minor ailments and he treated her without charge, like all other staff members.When it was his turn on the stand yesterday, Dr Khairul said that he installed the spy camera when he got tired of Dr Tam denying the affair and wanted to get to the truth.Once he had the proof, he wanted Dr Tam out of the partnership.He believed that the affair began as early as 2000, and added that some staff members said they had seen Dr Tam and the woman heading to the clinic's second floor near closing time, when it had no patients.Dr Khairul said he had found stains on a mattress he kept on the second floor for naps during his breaks.He said that he had confronted Dr Tam with his suspicions, but the latter denied it every time.It was only after the spy camera caught him in the act that he finally came clean, Dr Khairul said.Dr Tam is being represented by Mr Ang Cheng Hock of Allen & Gledhill, while Mr Harish Kumar of Rajah & Tann is acting for Dr Khairul.The hearing continues.khush@sph.com.sg iMacs spotted in the Singapore Airlines Krisflyer lounge in Terminal 2 In the business class section of the Singapore Airlines lounge in Changi Airport's Terminal 2, brand new 20inch iMacs now replaces the older PCs that used to be provided to lounge users to surf the net or check their emails.This is the first time i see iMacs being deployed in Singapore Airlines' airport lounges.I wonder whether there is some underlying shift in corporate attitudes towards using Macs for their computing needs. Read Business Week's article on a shift in the Corporate work place where consumers used to their Macs, iPods and iPhones are now demanding mac machines at work. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_19/b4083036428429.htm?chan=searchI have a MacbookPro at home as well as a Sim Lim Square assemble Windows-Vista machine, I am actually OS-agnostic. That said, I am happier with OS X than Vista. Still happy to see more businesses deploy macs. It just works better. Sydney campus finds potential conflict of interest in the UNSW campus project in Singapore The University of New South Wales wasted a total of A$47m in a botched project to start an Asian campus in Singapore.After the saga unfolded, it was revealed that the Singapore government provided A$26 million in various loans and grants to the University in luring the project to Singapore.When the project was later canned by the University, the Singapore Government asked for the amounts back from the University.The following news article from an Australian news paper (coincidentally, no Singapore media has picked up on this story yet).It tells of an audit report conducted by the New South Wales Auditor-General which reported that the UNSW's Asia president, Greg Whittred was also an EDB board member (which also apapproves and disburses the grant and loan to the campus).As the audit in Australia pointed out, there is a potential conflict of interest for a UNSW official to also sit on the board which it borrowed money and accepted grants. In the words of the vice-chancellor of the University, closing the project was in the "best long term interests of the university". He also commented that the project represented a "unacceptably high level of financial risk".This means that the project was both detrimental to UNSW and also carried significant financial risks. Something which the EDB never recognises before the project being canned. In fact Lim Hng Kiang went so far as to say that the onus lies with the investing party. I am not too sure if he considered the grants and loans as investments, but maybe those were just chump-change to a person familiar with millions.Also ironically, the NSW Auditors-General report also revealed that the document which declared the Fred Wittred's conflict of interests also went missing.I believe as with all cases of potential conflict of interests, the conflict cuts both ways.For the New South Wales government and the university to now call into question the issue of the conflict of interests arising from a person straddling both sides of the fence, we (Singaporeans, but more importantly the EDB and its master) must get answers for our own set of questions.My questions are:1) Was the EDB board aware of Greg's conflict of interests? Was there an obligation imposed on directors of EDB to declare conflicts of interest?It would be difficult for the EDB not to be aware of the conflict, since the party they probably have to negotiate with sits on their own board as well.2) How did the EDB board resolve the issue of conflict of interests? Did the board declare this to the government and possibly to the Singapore Auditor General or the Attorney General? Should this matter of a potential conflict of interest be pre-approved by the Minister of Finance?3) When extending the grants and loans to the UNSW Asia campus, what was the due diligence done? If you recall an earlier blog and also other similar news reports, you will remember that Lim Hng Kiang went on record to say that no due diligence was performed. (See http://urbanrant.blogspot.com/2007/08/cannot-collect-s173m-from-unsw-asia-who.htmlIf you do not perform a financial review, would the EDB have done a conflict of interest review?4) In normal business operations, where a potential of conflict situation arises, the party affected by the conflict should abstain from speaking, influencing or deciding on the matter at hand. I am curious as to whether in the discussions at the UNSW meetings for the Asian campus project whether Greg has excused himself from the discussions and decision making of this matter.5) Also equally important to Singapore is: whether Greg was asked by the EDB board to abstain from attending, speaking, influencing or deciding on the matter of the grant and loans.I am not surprised that there is hardly any news reported in the local papers.But the public deserves to know more.I would like the Singapore Auditor-General office to look into this matter.If the EDB is found to be lacking in its process when reviewing investments and granting incentives to foreigners, Singaporeans would want the EDB to tighten its process.We deserve to know. And Singapore should not wait for Australia to tell us what is truth is.From Sydney Morning Herald:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/failed-asia-campus-cost-47m/2008/05/14/1210444530198.htmlFailed Asia campus cost $47mHarriet Alexander and Brian RobinsMay 15, 2008AdvertisementTHE University of NSW lost $47.6 million through the closure of its Singapore campus, the first official figures to disclose the extent of the financial fallout over the controversial enterprise show.Its Asia campus was the most expensive offshore venture so far by an Australian university.The NSW Auditor-General's annual report on the state's 10 public universities reveals that the University of NSW was forced to repay about $29 million in loans, $13.8 million in grants and $3.5 million in staff payouts when it decided to pull the plug on the campus and its 148 students just 10 weeks after it opened early last year. The Singaporean Government had contributed nearly $26 million in loans and grants towards its establishment, resulting in an ugly dispute over liability of costs when the university pulled out. The audit showed the university was forced to reimburse Singapore the $26 million.The audit raised concerns about a possible conflict of interest when the campus was terminated.The university's Asia president, Greg Whittred, was also a member of Singapore's Economic Development Board, the main creditor when the campus collapsed.The documents declaring the conflict of interest went missing. "We were concerned how the university could satisfactorily conduct a review of its operations in Singapore while the president remained an EDB member," the report said.The auditors were satisfied the matter had been resolved satisfactorily after discussing it with management, but recommended that the university closely monitor other potential conflicts of interest.Richard Henry, the university's acting vice-chancellor, said: "We remain convinced that the decision to close the campus in Singapore was in the best long-term interests of the university."As we indicated at the time, to continue the operation in Singapore would have involved an unacceptably high level of financial risk to the institution."The report also found that Charles Sturt University had a large exposure to the credit crisis that shook world financial markets in recent months, with the value of its $114 million investment portfolio falling to $100.4 million by February.The report said $35.6 million of the total was held in collateralised debt obligations, risky financial instruments that have caused losses running to at least $400 million for local councils, a recent State Government report found.The report argued that the university needed to "re-evaluate its risk management strategy for its investment portfolio".Sydney University and the University of NSW have also suffered large losses on their extensive investment portfolios. Seat belts in school bus: LTA deems it necessary to spend more time to study issue Despite a case of a child's death arising from a lack of safety belt, LTA is still insisting that more time to study the issue is necessary.And what makes it even more irresponsible, is that our well-paid and highly efficient has been studying the same matter since 2006.Is the issue of child safety aboard school buses so complex that our government scholars got stumped?Why then the delay?Why is the matter so difficult?If this is such a complex matter, i wonder how long they took to mull over the even more surprising ruling that taxis should not stop in places other than taxi stands within the CBD.Until the laws are passed, i would like to see the senior echelons of the LTA put their children in school buses without safety belts, instead of chauffeuring them to schools in their BMWs.From Straits Times: May 11, 2008 Seat-belt rule for school buses will take time By Nur Dianah Suhaimi & Tan Dawn Wei MPs may be clamouring for seat belts to be installed in school buses, but this won't be happening any time soon, say the various parties involved. The Land Transport Authority (LTA), which has been studying the issue since 2006, told The Sunday Times that it needs three to six months to consult safety experts and carry out studies before passing a new regulation on seat belts on buses. With 100,000 dead and many more in dire condition, Myanmar can no longer be concerned about politics Myanmar is in a sorry state.Devastating cyclones have ravaged much of the country and have taken more than 100,000 lives to date.Yet whilst aid have been pledged and promised, so far that actual benefits arriving within Myanmar has only begun to trickle in.The military ever so wary of outside interferences and political intervention has once again shut out the world. Visa applications delay and non approvals now result in food and aid immediately earmarked for helping the Burmese now languish in nearby Thailand, Nepal and India.So why the impasse, Junta generals?Is the threat of losing power so great and so fearsome, that you can bear to see thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent countrymen perish because available aid cannot reach them?The Haves often cannot fathom what the HaveNots do not have. Sadly this is the case here again.From http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20080509-64271.html 9th May 2008Myanmar 'not ready' for foreign rescue teamsYANGON - MYANMAR said on Friday it was not ready to let in foreign aid workers, rejecting international pressure to allow experts into the isolated nation where disease and starvation are stalking cyclone survivors.