TODAY online ran this story today:
AT ONE point yesterday, the group of 179 hungry Bangladeshi workers were not even sure if, by nightfall, they would be turned out onto the streets to spend a chilly December night.
Many had not eaten all day — meals, supposed to have been docked from their wages, were not delivered. For that matter, most claimed not to have been paid for up to three months.
On Monday, the agent they had called “Boss” for the past year told them that he was no longer their “employer”. He emptied his office, kept their passports, and left the workers to their fate at their Tagore Lane dormitory. The next day, the landlord threatened to evict them as the rent was not paid.
Showing this reporter his empty wallet, a tearful Abdul Hamid pleaded for the authorities to step in. “I don’t know what will happen. I have not eaten for a day. If you don’t eat for a day, what will happen to you?”
The 179 are believed to be the largest single group of migrant workers here to have been abandoned by an employer or agent.
And their plight has surfaced just as the world today marks a sober :International Migrants Day, with the International Labour Organisation warning that millions of migrant workers face layoffs and worsening conditions as the global financial crisis deepens.
In Singapore, the Bangladesh High Commission said it has heard over 1,000 salary dispute cases this year — last year, there were some 300. With the downturn, a spokeswoman said, more disputes can be expected. “Contractors and subcontractors have brought in more people than they actually require,” she added.
In recent weeks, migrant workers’ groups have gotten complaints from at least 50 workers claiming they were owed wages; some said their companies had been forced to close down.
Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) president John Gee said: “Contractors large and small are feeling the pinch, and we think that, in looking for ways of trimming costs, they all too often think of foreign workers as those they can pass their problems on to.”
Bad enough, many will lose their jobs; those even less lucky may get sacked without being paid back-wages owed.
MOM comes down on employer
In the case of the 179 Bangladeshis, they told TODAY they had paid between $8,000 and $10,000 to come to Singapore to work. They thought their agent, Mr Uthayanan, was their boss.
Officially, however, their registered employer – which the workers claimed they had never seen, prior to this month – was Tipper Corporation, a marine company.
Tipper said Mr Uthayanan was supposed to look after the workers, and that the workers were supposed to have been on a training programme to pick up job skills, before being brought in to work on a big project for the company in March next year.
However, many of the Bangladeshis have been in Singapore since July last year – going by the date on their work permits – and they claim to have worked for three to six other companies. They also claim to have been paid less than $250 a month.
Tipper said the abandonment saga had arisen from the souring of a business agreement between Tipper and four parties, one of whom was Mr Uthayanan. The company had filed a writ of summons against the four on Dec 2.
When contacted by TODAY, Mr Uthayanan would only say he was not responsible for the workers, and declined to comment further.
In response to queries, a Ministry of Manpower (MOM) spokesman said it is investigating Tipper for the illegal deployment of foreign workers, as well as the failure to pay the workers their salary. “Work pass applications by Tipper Corporation will also no longer be accepted by MOM,” she added. “Tipper Corporation remains responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the workers, and if they fail to fulfil their responsibility, they will be committing further breaches of the law.”
For the 179 workers, the good news is that they will have a roof over their heads at least for now. :Dinner last night – their only meal of the day was catered by TWC2. Tipper also assured them it would resolve the outstanding salary disputes and move the men to new accommmodation on Saturday, and until then they could stay on at the dormitory.
The desperate among them can only hope that things work out. Said Mr Shafique Alomgir: “My father and mother died recently. One dollar also I don’t have to send back.”
Thursday, December 18, 2008
179 Foreign Workers Abandoned By Employer
The Online Citizen website reported this news story yesterday:
Some 179 foreign workers from Bangladesh fear they may not have a place to sleep or food to eat in the coming days. Their employer has basically abandoned them and they are being evicted from their dormitory in two days.
The Online Citizen (TOC) was alerted to their plight and visited them yesterday at Tagore Lane.
The workers had each paid agents some S$8,500 for a 2-year contract to work in Singapore shipyards. The agents said they could earn up to S$18 per day and more if they worked on Sundays. In two years, they could earn some S$15,000, enough to cover the money they paid to the agents and bring home a small sum.
However, they are not employees of the shipyards. The sub-contractor employed them and sent them to the shipyards to work as welders and electricians. Their starting pay was S$16 per day but were paid only if they had job assignments. After being here for more than a year, they had their pay increased by one dollar to $17 per day. For a good period of time, it was not an issue. But in the past two and a half months, many of them did not get any work assignments – some for as long as four months - and thus no pay as well.
Now they are worried and desperate about what will happen next. Their employer has denied responsibility for them and has vacated the office from the factory. The drivers who drove them to work have also vacated the dorm. They have no money and no food and were told that the landlord is going to evict them as the rental period for the dormitory is expiring soon. They have called the police and approached the Ministry of Manpower yesterday for assistance but to no avail. Their next course of action is to seek help from their embassy here.
Some 179 foreign workers from Bangladesh fear they may not have a place to sleep or food to eat in the coming days. Their employer has basically abandoned them and they are being evicted from their dormitory in two days.
The Online Citizen (TOC) was alerted to their plight and visited them yesterday at Tagore Lane.
The workers had each paid agents some S$8,500 for a 2-year contract to work in Singapore shipyards. The agents said they could earn up to S$18 per day and more if they worked on Sundays. In two years, they could earn some S$15,000, enough to cover the money they paid to the agents and bring home a small sum.
However, they are not employees of the shipyards. The sub-contractor employed them and sent them to the shipyards to work as welders and electricians. Their starting pay was S$16 per day but were paid only if they had job assignments. After being here for more than a year, they had their pay increased by one dollar to $17 per day. For a good period of time, it was not an issue. But in the past two and a half months, many of them did not get any work assignments – some for as long as four months - and thus no pay as well.
Now they are worried and desperate about what will happen next. Their employer has denied responsibility for them and has vacated the office from the factory. The drivers who drove them to work have also vacated the dorm. They have no money and no food and were told that the landlord is going to evict them as the rental period for the dormitory is expiring soon. They have called the police and approached the Ministry of Manpower yesterday for assistance but to no avail. Their next course of action is to seek help from their embassy here.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Migrant Workers Under Pressure
This story appeared on BBC News on 16 December 2008 @ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7774180.stm:
Migrant Workers Under Pressure
By Stephanie Holmes
Vast sums of money criss-cross the globe each day, as millions of migrant workers send a portion of their pay packet home.
This surging flow of funds supports one in 10 people on the planet, but the world financial crisis could slam on the brakes.
In some cases it's the workers that are now making the journey home, rather than the money they've earned, month after month, in a foreign country.
"I was in Doha, talking to a guy from Djibouti and he says he makes about $500 to $600 a month and sends about $300 to his family," says economist Dilip Ratha, the head of the World Bank team which studies these money flows, known as remittances.
"Basically, every penny he doesn't spend goes home. And I've heard the same story from Pakistani undocumented migrants in Madrid, from Bangladeshis in Austria, El Salvadorians in Washington - they basically move to send money home."
The World Bank estimates the value of these often invisible cash flows at anywhere between $350bn and $600bn (£236bn - £405bn) per year.
Exact numbers are very difficult to estimate as they are based both on traceable channels - like banks - and cash carried across borders by hand or via informal brokers.
A resilient resource
But the same is estimated at up to three times the amount of money transferred from richer countries to the developing world by governments and international institutions as aid.
The flow of remittances has been rising by as much as 30% year on year in some areas, but the rate of growth has already dramatically slowed.
In 2009, the World Bank predicts, the amount sent home by the world's 150 million international migrants could fall by about 1%.
Mexico - the third biggest recipient of remittances in the world - is forecasting that income will dip in 2008 by almost 8% from the estimated $23.8bn in 2007.
"We are very worried that remittances will not grow in the coming years because of the financial crisis in the developed countries which are the main source of remittances," says Mr Ratha.
Migrant workers - working hard to alleviate need at home - often represent a resilient income source for developing countries.
In 2007, they generated almost half of Tajikistan's Gross Domestic Product and more than a third of Lesotho's, according to the World Bank.
And in the past when times are tough in the receiving country more money, rather than less, has arrived back home.
Spending less
But this new financial crisis is unparalleled in its global scale, warns Pedro de Vasconcelos, an expert on remittances for the International Fund for Agricultural Development, hitting rich and poor countries alike.
"They might lose one. Imagine they have an income of $1,500 and they send 20 - 50% of the money home and live with the rest. When they absorb the shock they just try to live with less so they can maintain the flow of remittances. But they still have to live."
Many migrant workers in the US are employed in the service industry and when richer Americans decide to cut back on their Friday night meal out, or decide that they can't really afford to pay the nanny anymore, he warns, the impact will be direct.
"In the US, there is this electric feeling in the air - nobody knows how it is going to affect their lives. Everyone is frozen, spending less. If the crisis starts settling and being more obvious, it will affect the Latin American communities in the US."
But while remittances are predicted to dip, other sources of income received by developing countries from outside could decline far more steeply.
Experts predict that aid and foreign investment in developing countries, currently standing at $1 trillion per year, could be halved as a result of the financial crisis.
Remittances could therefore become even more important to a nation trying to make ends meet, but there is a debate about how effective they are at promoting development.
Migration culture
Some believe that channelling money directly into the pockets of family members is the most direct form of development available - ensuring the money reaches those who need it most.
But others see remittances as both socially disruptive and even politically dangerous.
"They don't automatically lead to development," argues Stephen Castles, Professor of Migration and Refugee Studies at the University of Oxford.
"There are cases where countries encourage people to emigrate as workers in order to reduce unemployment and political pressure - getting them to move out reduces political discontent," he says, citing the Philippines as an example where a culture of migration has become the norm.
"There are actually colleges in the Philippines where qualified doctors are retraining as nurses because it is easier for them to find work as nurses in the West, so you actually get people being de-qualified in order to migrate," he says.
And because remittances are by their very nature private and often untraceable transfers of money they can end up sustaining fighting, rather than promoting prosperity.
"If you think about Somalia, the only way to send money is through irregular and informal channels. That's the danger, because it isn't controlled, it could fuel further conflicts."
But Mr Ratha is a fervent believer in the transforming power of migrants - and the money they send home - to help move a country out of poverty.
"Remittances can provide food, or clothing, or housing or educational expenses or capital for small businesses for the family," he says. "In the end, people are what we want development for."
Migrant Workers Under Pressure
By Stephanie Holmes
Vast sums of money criss-cross the globe each day, as millions of migrant workers send a portion of their pay packet home.
This surging flow of funds supports one in 10 people on the planet, but the world financial crisis could slam on the brakes.
In some cases it's the workers that are now making the journey home, rather than the money they've earned, month after month, in a foreign country.
"I was in Doha, talking to a guy from Djibouti and he says he makes about $500 to $600 a month and sends about $300 to his family," says economist Dilip Ratha, the head of the World Bank team which studies these money flows, known as remittances.
"Basically, every penny he doesn't spend goes home. And I've heard the same story from Pakistani undocumented migrants in Madrid, from Bangladeshis in Austria, El Salvadorians in Washington - they basically move to send money home."
The World Bank estimates the value of these often invisible cash flows at anywhere between $350bn and $600bn (£236bn - £405bn) per year.
Exact numbers are very difficult to estimate as they are based both on traceable channels - like banks - and cash carried across borders by hand or via informal brokers.
A resilient resource
But the same is estimated at up to three times the amount of money transferred from richer countries to the developing world by governments and international institutions as aid.
The flow of remittances has been rising by as much as 30% year on year in some areas, but the rate of growth has already dramatically slowed.
In 2009, the World Bank predicts, the amount sent home by the world's 150 million international migrants could fall by about 1%.
Mexico - the third biggest recipient of remittances in the world - is forecasting that income will dip in 2008 by almost 8% from the estimated $23.8bn in 2007.
"We are very worried that remittances will not grow in the coming years because of the financial crisis in the developed countries which are the main source of remittances," says Mr Ratha.
Migrant workers - working hard to alleviate need at home - often represent a resilient income source for developing countries.
In 2007, they generated almost half of Tajikistan's Gross Domestic Product and more than a third of Lesotho's, according to the World Bank.
And in the past when times are tough in the receiving country more money, rather than less, has arrived back home.
Spending less
But this new financial crisis is unparalleled in its global scale, warns Pedro de Vasconcelos, an expert on remittances for the International Fund for Agricultural Development, hitting rich and poor countries alike.
"They might lose one. Imagine they have an income of $1,500 and they send 20 - 50% of the money home and live with the rest. When they absorb the shock they just try to live with less so they can maintain the flow of remittances. But they still have to live."
Many migrant workers in the US are employed in the service industry and when richer Americans decide to cut back on their Friday night meal out, or decide that they can't really afford to pay the nanny anymore, he warns, the impact will be direct.
"In the US, there is this electric feeling in the air - nobody knows how it is going to affect their lives. Everyone is frozen, spending less. If the crisis starts settling and being more obvious, it will affect the Latin American communities in the US."
But while remittances are predicted to dip, other sources of income received by developing countries from outside could decline far more steeply.
Experts predict that aid and foreign investment in developing countries, currently standing at $1 trillion per year, could be halved as a result of the financial crisis.
Remittances could therefore become even more important to a nation trying to make ends meet, but there is a debate about how effective they are at promoting development.
Migration culture
Some believe that channelling money directly into the pockets of family members is the most direct form of development available - ensuring the money reaches those who need it most.
But others see remittances as both socially disruptive and even politically dangerous.
"They don't automatically lead to development," argues Stephen Castles, Professor of Migration and Refugee Studies at the University of Oxford.
"There are cases where countries encourage people to emigrate as workers in order to reduce unemployment and political pressure - getting them to move out reduces political discontent," he says, citing the Philippines as an example where a culture of migration has become the norm.
"There are actually colleges in the Philippines where qualified doctors are retraining as nurses because it is easier for them to find work as nurses in the West, so you actually get people being de-qualified in order to migrate," he says.
And because remittances are by their very nature private and often untraceable transfers of money they can end up sustaining fighting, rather than promoting prosperity.
"If you think about Somalia, the only way to send money is through irregular and informal channels. That's the danger, because it isn't controlled, it could fuel further conflicts."
But Mr Ratha is a fervent believer in the transforming power of migrants - and the money they send home - to help move a country out of poverty.
"Remittances can provide food, or clothing, or housing or educational expenses or capital for small businesses for the family," he says. "In the end, people are what we want development for."
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Food Court Outlet to Introduce Biodegradable Disposables
Channel NewsAsia ran this story today:
Come this weekend, ordering your food to dine in or takeaway may leave less of a carbon footprint than in the past.
Import and distribution company CornWare is introducing biodegradable disposable wares.
Made from corn, the prices of these products are comparable to their plastic and styrofoam counterparts.
One outlet of the food court chain Banquet will be using the biodegradable disposable wares from this weekend.
Olive Green Marketing is working with Banquet's other food courts to introduce them at more outlets.
Banquet says the charges for takeaways remain unchanged at 20 cents.
"The biodegradable disposables are carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is quite a simple concept in the sense that the amount of carbon dioxide that it releases upon incineration in Singapore is at most 32 per cent, as compared to the amount of carbon dioxide released by styrofoam and plastics which is almost 100 per cent," said the executive director of Olive Green Marketing, Aloysius Cheong.
Come this weekend, ordering your food to dine in or takeaway may leave less of a carbon footprint than in the past.
Import and distribution company CornWare is introducing biodegradable disposable wares.
Made from corn, the prices of these products are comparable to their plastic and styrofoam counterparts.
One outlet of the food court chain Banquet will be using the biodegradable disposable wares from this weekend.
Olive Green Marketing is working with Banquet's other food courts to introduce them at more outlets.
Banquet says the charges for takeaways remain unchanged at 20 cents.
"The biodegradable disposables are carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is quite a simple concept in the sense that the amount of carbon dioxide that it releases upon incineration in Singapore is at most 32 per cent, as compared to the amount of carbon dioxide released by styrofoam and plastics which is almost 100 per cent," said the executive director of Olive Green Marketing, Aloysius Cheong.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Internet journalists most likely to be jailed
The following article appeared in the online edition of My Paper, Tues, 9 December 2008:
Repressive governments target reporters because of the latter's power and influence. -myp
Tue, Dec 09, 2008
my paper
NEW YORK - REFLECTING the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists today are jailed worldwide than those working in any other medium, reported the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).
In its annual census of imprisoned journalists released last week, the CPJ found that 45 per cent of all media workers jailed worldwide were bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors. It was the first time online journalists represented the largest professional category.
Of 125 journalists known to be jailed as of last Monday, at least 56 work online, the CPJ census found.
Print reporters, editors, and photographers - the largest category previously - were the next largest group, with 53 cases.
Television and radio journalists and documentary filmmakers make up the rest. The number of jailed online journalists has risen steadily, since the CPJ census noted the first jailed Internet writer in 1997.
"Online journalism has changed the media landscape and the way we communicate with each other," CPJ executive director Joel Simon observed.
"But the power and influence of this new generation of online journalists have captured the attention of repressive governments... and they have accelerated their counterattack."
The significance of Internet journalism can be seen in China, where 24 of 28 jailed journalists worked online. They include activist and blogger Hu Jia, who was recently awarded the prestigious Sakharov prize by the European Parliament.
The CPJ list excludes prominent Malaysian blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, who was held briefly under the Internal Security Act, before being freed by a court last month.
http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/News/Story/A1Story20081209-106377.html
Saturday, December 6, 2008
PM Lee: We Will Catch Mas Salamat One Day
AFP ran this story on December 5:
Singapore does not know if the country's most wanted man is still in the country more than nine months after he escaped from detention, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Friday.
Mas Selamat bin Kastari, the alleged Singapore leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militant group, escaped in February from a maximum-security detention centre. The incident badly dented Singapore's reputation for tight security.
"We don't know. He could be here, he could be overseas," Lee told a forum of foreign correspondents.
He said Singapore tried its best "to make sure he doesn't go anywhere" but added: "Short though our borders may be, they are difficult to watch all the time."
Two months after the escape, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng told parliament that security agencies believed Kastari was still in Singapore, but analysts said Kastari had likely fled to nearby Indonesia.
"One day we will catch him," Lee vowed on Friday.
On rumours that Kastari did not escape but was killed in government custody, Lee said: "I have heard that rumour. It's ridiculous."
Kastari was accused of plotting to hijack a plane in order to crash it into Singapore's Changi Airport in 2001 but was never formally charged. When he escaped, he was being held under a law that allows for detention without trial.
Singapore has offered a reward of one million dollars (656,000 US), put up by local businessmen, for information leading to the recapture of Kastari whether at home or abroad.
Born in 1961 in Singapore, Kastari fled the country after an Internal Security Department operation broke up the local JI network with a series of arrests beginning in December 2001, the government said.
He was arrested in Indonesia in 2006 and handed back to Singapore.
Regional authorities have blamed JI for a string of attacks, including the 2002 bombings in the Indonesian resort island of Bali, which killed 202 people.
Singapore does not know if the country's most wanted man is still in the country more than nine months after he escaped from detention, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Friday.
Mas Selamat bin Kastari, the alleged Singapore leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militant group, escaped in February from a maximum-security detention centre. The incident badly dented Singapore's reputation for tight security.
"We don't know. He could be here, he could be overseas," Lee told a forum of foreign correspondents.
He said Singapore tried its best "to make sure he doesn't go anywhere" but added: "Short though our borders may be, they are difficult to watch all the time."
Two months after the escape, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng told parliament that security agencies believed Kastari was still in Singapore, but analysts said Kastari had likely fled to nearby Indonesia.
"One day we will catch him," Lee vowed on Friday.
On rumours that Kastari did not escape but was killed in government custody, Lee said: "I have heard that rumour. It's ridiculous."
Kastari was accused of plotting to hijack a plane in order to crash it into Singapore's Changi Airport in 2001 but was never formally charged. When he escaped, he was being held under a law that allows for detention without trial.
Singapore has offered a reward of one million dollars (656,000 US), put up by local businessmen, for information leading to the recapture of Kastari whether at home or abroad.
Born in 1961 in Singapore, Kastari fled the country after an Internal Security Department operation broke up the local JI network with a series of arrests beginning in December 2001, the government said.
He was arrested in Indonesia in 2006 and handed back to Singapore.
Regional authorities have blamed JI for a string of attacks, including the 2002 bombings in the Indonesian resort island of Bali, which killed 202 people.
Singapore May Face U.S. Challenge On Bank Secrecy Laws
SINGAPORE, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Singapore may face political pressure from the United States over its role as a financial centre for rich foreigners, the country's prime minister said on Friday.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told journalists at a lunch hosted by Singapore's Foreign Correspondents Association that U.S. pressure on some European countries to lighten banking secrecy laws and open their books to greater scrutiny may lead to more European money flowing into Singapore in the short term.
"But I expect Singapore to come under pressure too," he said in response to a question on whether pressure on countries like Switzerland and Liechtenstein will help Singapore.
Singapore's government has previously denied suggestions that the country is a tax haven. It has strict bank secrecy laws and has been promoting itself as a rival financial centre to Hong Kong to attract banks such as UBS (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to manage money for rich local and foreign clients. (Reporting by Neil Chatterjee and Kevin Lim; Writing by Jan Dahinten; Editing by Tomasz Janowski)
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told journalists at a lunch hosted by Singapore's Foreign Correspondents Association that U.S. pressure on some European countries to lighten banking secrecy laws and open their books to greater scrutiny may lead to more European money flowing into Singapore in the short term.
"But I expect Singapore to come under pressure too," he said in response to a question on whether pressure on countries like Switzerland and Liechtenstein will help Singapore.
Singapore's government has previously denied suggestions that the country is a tax haven. It has strict bank secrecy laws and has been promoting itself as a rival financial centre to Hong Kong to attract banks such as UBS (UBSN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to manage money for rich local and foreign clients. (Reporting by Neil Chatterjee and Kevin Lim; Writing by Jan Dahinten; Editing by Tomasz Janowski)
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Ten More Temporary Foreign Workers Dormitory
Channel NewsAsia ran this new today:
The National Development Ministry (MND) has on Wednesday released the details of another 10 temporary dormitory sites for foreign workers.
The 10 sites, comprising 3 vacant state buildings and 7 vacant state lands, will provide an additional 20,000 bed spaces.
The 3 state properties which will be converted into temporary dormitories are the former Queenstown Polyclinic at 51 Margaret Drive, the former CAAS office at 1801 Upper Changi Road North, and the existing CPG Corporation Airport Development Division at 1800 Upper Changi Road North.
The former Queenstown Polyclinic and the former CAAS office will house 150 construction workers each. MND said these two temporary dormitories will be ready in about 3 to 6 months.
After the CPG Airport branch is vacated in 3 to 6 months' time, it will be tendered out for the development of a temporary dormitory for 800 construction workers.
The 7 state lands which can be developed into temporary dormitory sites are located in or near industrial estates. The sites are at Mandai Road, Old Choa Chu Kang Road, Hougang Avenue 3, Seletar West Farmway which is located in Jalan Kayu, Jurong Road and Kim Chuan Road.
Their leases have been kept to not more than 6 years.
MND said it has consulted the area's Members of Parliament (MPs) and grassroots organisations in the past two months on the development of the sites into temporary dormitories.
It added that several measures will be put in place to minimise the inconveniences posed by the dormitory developments. These include requiring the dormitories to have adequate facilities for workers, appointing a liaison officer as a point of contact for the grassroots organisations, and conducting educational programmes to inform workers of the social norms and laws in Singapore.
The government is also engaging the MPs and grassroots leaders of existing areas with very high foreign worker populations to identify and implement appropriate measures.
The temporary dormitories are part of the government's efforts to provide proper housing for foreign workers, while more purpose built dormitories come on stream over the next few years.
The National Development Ministry (MND) has on Wednesday released the details of another 10 temporary dormitory sites for foreign workers.
The 10 sites, comprising 3 vacant state buildings and 7 vacant state lands, will provide an additional 20,000 bed spaces.
The 3 state properties which will be converted into temporary dormitories are the former Queenstown Polyclinic at 51 Margaret Drive, the former CAAS office at 1801 Upper Changi Road North, and the existing CPG Corporation Airport Development Division at 1800 Upper Changi Road North.
The former Queenstown Polyclinic and the former CAAS office will house 150 construction workers each. MND said these two temporary dormitories will be ready in about 3 to 6 months.
After the CPG Airport branch is vacated in 3 to 6 months' time, it will be tendered out for the development of a temporary dormitory for 800 construction workers.
The 7 state lands which can be developed into temporary dormitory sites are located in or near industrial estates. The sites are at Mandai Road, Old Choa Chu Kang Road, Hougang Avenue 3, Seletar West Farmway which is located in Jalan Kayu, Jurong Road and Kim Chuan Road.
Their leases have been kept to not more than 6 years.
MND said it has consulted the area's Members of Parliament (MPs) and grassroots organisations in the past two months on the development of the sites into temporary dormitories.
It added that several measures will be put in place to minimise the inconveniences posed by the dormitory developments. These include requiring the dormitories to have adequate facilities for workers, appointing a liaison officer as a point of contact for the grassroots organisations, and conducting educational programmes to inform workers of the social norms and laws in Singapore.
The government is also engaging the MPs and grassroots leaders of existing areas with very high foreign worker populations to identify and implement appropriate measures.
The temporary dormitories are part of the government's efforts to provide proper housing for foreign workers, while more purpose built dormitories come on stream over the next few years.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Singapore Not Signing Convention on Cluster Munitions
According to the United Nations Development Programme, cluster munitions have caused more than 13,000 confirmed injuries and deaths around the world. Children are among the most common victims.
More than 100 nations have adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions and are due to sign it next week in Oslo.
However, several countries, including Singapore, China, the United States and Russia, will not be signing this convention.
This following article appeared in the Straits Times, Thurs, 27 Nov 2008, Page B6.
More than 100 nations have adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions and are due to sign it next week in Oslo.
However, several countries, including Singapore, China, the United States and Russia, will not be signing this convention.
This following article appeared in the Straits Times, Thurs, 27 Nov 2008, Page B6.
S'pore halts export of cluster bombs
Jermyn Chow
27 November 2008
But it stops short of signing an international agreement on a ban
SINGAPORE yesterday announced an immediate halt to the export of cluster bombs, but stopped short of signing an international agreement to ban the munitions.
Dropped from planes or fired from artillery, cluster bombs explode in midair to randomly scatter hundreds of bomblets, some just 8cm in size, on the ground.
But many cluster bomblets can fail to explode, posing a danger to people trying to resume their lives after war.
According to the United Nations Development Programme, cluster munitions have caused more than 13,000 confirmed injuries and deaths around the world, the vast majority of them in Laos, Vietnam and Afghanistan. Children, who often think the brightly coloured munitions are toys, are among the most common victims.
That is why more than 100 nations have adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions and are due to sign it in Oslo next week.
But several countries, including the United States, China and Russia, like Singapore, will not be signing the convention.
The agreement prohibits the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of cluster munitions, which the United Nations has said 'cause human suffering both during conflicts and long after they have ended'.
Explaining Singapore's position yesterday, the Foreign Affairs and Defence ministries said in a joint statement that a blanket ban on cluster munitions was impractical as many countries still see the need to use them for 'legitimate self-defence purposes'.
'Singapore remains committed to the responsible use of cluster munitions for self-defence and will continue to work with members of the international community to find a comprehensive solution to the humanitarian problems caused by its irresponsible and indiscriminate use,' the statement said.
It added that its immediate moratorium on exports of the bombs will ensure that they are not transferred to others who might use them irresponsibly and indiscriminately.
'Through this imposition, we help stem the proliferation of cluster munitions,' it said.
Singapore, which is said to be a producer of cluster munitions, took a similar position on anti-personnel landmines back in 1996.
While it did not sign the pact to destroy its arsenal of landmines back then, it imposed a ban on selling those without self-destruct mechanisms. The Republic then extended the sales ban to include all types of Singapore-made mines in 1998.
Likewise, other countries that did not sign the mine ban treaty then included the US, China, Russia, India and Pakistan.
'Singapore remains committed to the responsible use of cluster munitions for self-defence and will continue to work with members of the international community to find a comprehensive solution to the humanitarian problems caused by its irresponsible and indiscriminate use.'
Statement from Foreign Affairs and Defence ministries
Jail Term For 3 S'poreans Found Guilty Of Contempt Of Court
Channel NewsAsia ran this story today:
The three Singaporeans who have been found guilty of contempt of court in the kangaroo T-shirt case have been sentenced to jail.
Two of them, 19-year-old Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman and 33-year-old Isrizal Mohamed Isa, received seven days' jail term each, while 47-year-old John Tan Liang Joo was slapped with a 15-day jail term.
Even before sentence was passed on Thursday, the trio refused to apologise to the court.
On May 26, the three men were at the Supreme Court building wearing T-shirts showing a kangaroo in a judge's gown, while a hearing was taking place in the high court to determine damages Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, had to pay.
The two were being sued for defamation by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
The three Singaporeans who have been found guilty of contempt of court in the kangaroo T-shirt case have been sentenced to jail.
Two of them, 19-year-old Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman and 33-year-old Isrizal Mohamed Isa, received seven days' jail term each, while 47-year-old John Tan Liang Joo was slapped with a 15-day jail term.
Even before sentence was passed on Thursday, the trio refused to apologise to the court.
On May 26, the three men were at the Supreme Court building wearing T-shirts showing a kangaroo in a judge's gown, while a hearing was taking place in the high court to determine damages Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, had to pay.
The two were being sued for defamation by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Maid Abuse Up In Asia, Mideast
Reuters ran this news story yesterday:
BEIRUT - MIGRANT and domestic workers still face beatings, rape and sometimes even murder because laws in Middle Eastern and Asian nations do not protect them from abusive employers, a US-based rights group said.
Millions of women from countries such as Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Indonesia and Nepal are housemaids in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Singapore and Malaysia - many of which exclude domestic workers from protection under their labour laws.
'There are countless cases of employers threatening, humiliating, beating, raping and sometimes killing domestic workers,' said Nisha Varia, deputy director of the women's rights division of Human Rights Watch from New York.
The report, published this week to coincide with Tuesday's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, said, 'Most (Middle Eastern and Asian) countries exclude domestic workers from protection under their labour laws.' Human Rights Watch (HRW) said few domestic workers can utilise the justice system in the countries they work in and even those who manage to successfully complain rarely receive compensation.
One reason why housemaids' are at increased risk of abuse is because employers often control a worker's immigration status and ability to change jobs.
'Many employers exploit this power to confine domestic workers to the house, without pay, and commit other abuses,' HRW said in a statement.
'Governments need to punish abusive employers through the justice system, and prevent violence by reforming labour and immigration policies that leave these workers at their employers' mercy.' HRW also said governments should train law enforcement officials on how to appropriately investigate and collect evidence in response to housemaids' complaints.
'2008 marked a year of missed opportunities,' Ms Varia said.
'While most governments have started to think about some level of reform, many of these discussions have stalled.' HRW said in August that in Lebanon, where cases of housemaid abuse make newspapers almost daily, domestic workers are dying at a rate of more than one per week either by committing suicide or while trying to escape from their employers.
BEIRUT - MIGRANT and domestic workers still face beatings, rape and sometimes even murder because laws in Middle Eastern and Asian nations do not protect them from abusive employers, a US-based rights group said.
Millions of women from countries such as Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Indonesia and Nepal are housemaids in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Singapore and Malaysia - many of which exclude domestic workers from protection under their labour laws.
'There are countless cases of employers threatening, humiliating, beating, raping and sometimes killing domestic workers,' said Nisha Varia, deputy director of the women's rights division of Human Rights Watch from New York.
The report, published this week to coincide with Tuesday's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, said, 'Most (Middle Eastern and Asian) countries exclude domestic workers from protection under their labour laws.' Human Rights Watch (HRW) said few domestic workers can utilise the justice system in the countries they work in and even those who manage to successfully complain rarely receive compensation.
One reason why housemaids' are at increased risk of abuse is because employers often control a worker's immigration status and ability to change jobs.
'Many employers exploit this power to confine domestic workers to the house, without pay, and commit other abuses,' HRW said in a statement.
'Governments need to punish abusive employers through the justice system, and prevent violence by reforming labour and immigration policies that leave these workers at their employers' mercy.' HRW also said governments should train law enforcement officials on how to appropriately investigate and collect evidence in response to housemaids' complaints.
'2008 marked a year of missed opportunities,' Ms Varia said.
'While most governments have started to think about some level of reform, many of these discussions have stalled.' HRW said in August that in Lebanon, where cases of housemaid abuse make newspapers almost daily, domestic workers are dying at a rate of more than one per week either by committing suicide or while trying to escape from their employers.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Temasek Bosses Take Pay Cut Of Up To 25%
TODAY ran this article today:
Amid calls for employers to lead by example during these tough times, Temasek Holdings announced on Friday that its senior managers had volunteered to take salary cuts of 15 to 25 per cent as part of a company-wide wage reduction.
At the same time, the company also plans to beef up its staff strength over the next two years.
“We anticipate a global recession in 2009 and beyond,” said Mr Robert Chong, Temasek’s managing director for human resources. He said that nearly 90 per cent of the wage saving will be borne by key managers.
While the company is tightening its belt, it said that as a long-term investor, the current turmoil will throw up “tremendous opportunities”.
It aims to increase its headcount by15 per cent over the next two years. “This is part of our longer term plan to have staff strength of about 500,” Mr Chong said in a statement on Friday night.
Temasek, which manages a portfolio worth $185 billion, has about 350 employees, :according to the most recent annual review on its website.
The voluntary pay cuts by Temasek’s top bosses could be followed by senior executives elsewhere.
Amid calls for employers to lead by example during these tough times, Temasek Holdings announced on Friday that its senior managers had volunteered to take salary cuts of 15 to 25 per cent as part of a company-wide wage reduction.
At the same time, the company also plans to beef up its staff strength over the next two years.
“We anticipate a global recession in 2009 and beyond,” said Mr Robert Chong, Temasek’s managing director for human resources. He said that nearly 90 per cent of the wage saving will be borne by key managers.
While the company is tightening its belt, it said that as a long-term investor, the current turmoil will throw up “tremendous opportunities”.
It aims to increase its headcount by15 per cent over the next two years. “This is part of our longer term plan to have staff strength of about 500,” Mr Chong said in a statement on Friday night.
Temasek, which manages a portfolio worth $185 billion, has about 350 employees, :according to the most recent annual review on its website.
The voluntary pay cuts by Temasek’s top bosses could be followed by senior executives elsewhere.
A Pay Cut For Civil Service?
TODAY paper ran this article today:
A announcement will be made “before long” on whether Civil Service salaries, including those of top political leaders, would be adjusted in light of the economic turmoil, said Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
A third and final phase of the salary revisions in the civil service is scheduled to take effect by the year’s end, to bring salaries of Senior Permanent Secretaries and Ministers to 88 per cent of the benchmark pegged to the private sector.
In recent days, tripartite partners have called on corporate bosses to “lead by example” by taking “similar or deeper” pay cuts than the rank and file.
On Friday, responding to a reporter’s question on whether Civil Service leaders should do likewise, labour chief Lim Swee Say said the labour movement “would not be surprised to see a wage cut in the public sector”, given Singapore’s declining economic growth.
Under the current pay formula, a substantial portion of the annual pay of Senior Permanent Secretaries and Ministers is linked to the gross domestic product growth rate and structured as a GDP bonus.
At the briefing with Mr Shanmugaratnam and Mr Lim were Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong and Mr S Iswaran, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry.
When asked if the four would be willing to take a pay cut,Mr Shanmugaratnam responded: ”We are not here to grandstand ... The principles underpinning Civil Service pay as well as pay of political leaders and people at the top of the Civil Service are well known.”
A announcement will be made “before long” on whether Civil Service salaries, including those of top political leaders, would be adjusted in light of the economic turmoil, said Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.
A third and final phase of the salary revisions in the civil service is scheduled to take effect by the year’s end, to bring salaries of Senior Permanent Secretaries and Ministers to 88 per cent of the benchmark pegged to the private sector.
In recent days, tripartite partners have called on corporate bosses to “lead by example” by taking “similar or deeper” pay cuts than the rank and file.
On Friday, responding to a reporter’s question on whether Civil Service leaders should do likewise, labour chief Lim Swee Say said the labour movement “would not be surprised to see a wage cut in the public sector”, given Singapore’s declining economic growth.
Under the current pay formula, a substantial portion of the annual pay of Senior Permanent Secretaries and Ministers is linked to the gross domestic product growth rate and structured as a GDP bonus.
At the briefing with Mr Shanmugaratnam and Mr Lim were Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong and Mr S Iswaran, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry.
When asked if the four would be willing to take a pay cut,Mr Shanmugaratnam responded: ”We are not here to grandstand ... The principles underpinning Civil Service pay as well as pay of political leaders and people at the top of the Civil Service are well known.”
Friday, November 21, 2008
Changes To Singapore's Employment Act
The speech by Mr Gan Kim Yong, Acting Minister for Manpower for the 2nd Reading of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2008, 18 November 2008 at Parliament can be found @ www.mom.gov.sg.
According to the Ministry of Manpower website, the following changes (in brief) come into effect on 1st January 2009:
(I) Coverage of the Employment Act
Extend coverage to confidential staff.
Protect managers and executives earning a basic monthly salary of $2,500 and below against non-payment of salary and give them access to MOM Labour Court for salary claims.
Raise Part IV salary ceiling for non-workmen from a basic monthly salary of $1,600 to $2,000.
Introduce a new Part IV salary ceiling for workmen at a basic monthly salary of $4,500.
Re-define part-time employees from those who work less than 30 hours a week to those who work less than 35 hours a week.
(II) Employment standards and benefits
Apply paid sick leave and paid public holiday to all employees covered under the Act, and not just those covered under Part IV of the Act.
Reduce qualifying period for paid sick leave from 6 months to 3 months of completed service. Phase in sick leave entitlements between the completion of 3 months and 6 months of service.
Allow employees to obtain medical certificates (MC) from public medical institutions for the purpose of going on paid sick leave, and not confined to MC issued from employer appointed doctors (if there is one) for paid sick leave.
(III) Penalties for infringements of Employment Act
Increase maximum penalty fines for most offences under the Employment Act from $1,000 to $5,000.
Increase maximum penalty fines for most repeat offences under the Employment Act from $2,000 to $10,000.
Increase composition fine for offences from $200 to $1,000.
According to the Ministry of Manpower website, the following changes (in brief) come into effect on 1st January 2009:
(I) Coverage of the Employment Act
(II) Employment standards and benefits
(III) Penalties for infringements of Employment Act
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Government To Announce Plans To Stimulate Economy
Prime Minister Lee said Singapore's economic growth next year could be negative, and to help cushion the slowing economy, Budget Statement 2009 will be brought forward to before the Lunar New Year which falls on January 26.
The government intends to announce plans to stimulate the economy, support jobs and strengthen competitiveness.
Mr Lee said the government is working out the best combination of measures for the coming Budget with the aim of not just helping Singaporeans with the present downturn but also to build up strength for the future.
He was speaking at the annual People's Action Party conference on Sunday.
Mr Lee, who is also the party's secretary-general, said the Singapore recession may last a year, but beyond that there may be several years of slow growth before things get back on track.
Prime Minister Lee noted that it is fortunate that inflation has moderated. He said that for several months, sharp increases in global food and energy prices had led to high inflation in Singapore.
Mr Lee has asked for an update from the Trade and Industry Ministry on the electricity tariffs here. "I asked MTI, they said yes - by January, electricity prices should come down, (and) if you are lucky, below where they were in October this year," he said.
Mr Lee cautioned that the Singapore economy will not do as well as the last few years. But he added that through government leadership and help, and the efforts of Singaporeans, he is confident the country will pull through the global downturn.
Source: Channel NewsAsia
The government intends to announce plans to stimulate the economy, support jobs and strengthen competitiveness.
Mr Lee said the government is working out the best combination of measures for the coming Budget with the aim of not just helping Singaporeans with the present downturn but also to build up strength for the future.
He was speaking at the annual People's Action Party conference on Sunday.
Mr Lee, who is also the party's secretary-general, said the Singapore recession may last a year, but beyond that there may be several years of slow growth before things get back on track.
Prime Minister Lee noted that it is fortunate that inflation has moderated. He said that for several months, sharp increases in global food and energy prices had led to high inflation in Singapore.
Mr Lee has asked for an update from the Trade and Industry Ministry on the electricity tariffs here. "I asked MTI, they said yes - by January, electricity prices should come down, (and) if you are lucky, below where they were in October this year," he said.
Mr Lee cautioned that the Singapore economy will not do as well as the last few years. But he added that through government leadership and help, and the efforts of Singaporeans, he is confident the country will pull through the global downturn.
Source: Channel NewsAsia
Our Very Own "Lipstick On A Pig"
Groundnotes wrote a commentary on PM Lee's recent speech where he said that political change in Singapore cannot come from the opposition but from within the PAP; and that a two-party system is not suitable for Singapore because we don’t have enough talent.
These two arguments have been made over the years ad nauseam in a variety of guises by various ministers and the rebuttal is always the same. But the sheer frequency and insouciance with which they resurface leads one to conclude that our leaders do not really pay attention to these rebuttals. They choose to believe that the PAP will stay corrupt-free and competent for all eternity, ever able to renew itself at will according to the challenges that lie ahead; hence the ability to look inward for change.
They choose to believe that out of 4m Singaporeans we will not be able to sustain a two-party system unlike other small countries, say, Denmark (5.8m), Finland (5.2m), New Zealand (4.1m) and so on. The weight of evidence against their arguments seems lost on these supposedly highly intelligent individuals.
Read the entire article @ groundnotes.wordpress.com
These two arguments have been made over the years ad nauseam in a variety of guises by various ministers and the rebuttal is always the same. But the sheer frequency and insouciance with which they resurface leads one to conclude that our leaders do not really pay attention to these rebuttals. They choose to believe that the PAP will stay corrupt-free and competent for all eternity, ever able to renew itself at will according to the challenges that lie ahead; hence the ability to look inward for change.
They choose to believe that out of 4m Singaporeans we will not be able to sustain a two-party system unlike other small countries, say, Denmark (5.8m), Finland (5.2m), New Zealand (4.1m) and so on. The weight of evidence against their arguments seems lost on these supposedly highly intelligent individuals.
Read the entire article @ groundnotes.wordpress.com
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Responses to PM Lee's One Dominant Party Stance
Two letters published in TODAY, Voices, p. 24, address Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's view that a two-party system cannot work in Singapore.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
What if PAP should falter?
Letter from Gerald Giam
I REFER to “Adversarial two-party system not for S’pore” (Nov 17).
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong feels that the two-party system cannot work for Singapore and that we are much better off with one dominant party.
Mr Lee’s familiar argument is that because we are small and lack talent, if we split our talent into two groups, we will end up with “two second-division teams”. This is akin to saying that it is better to put all our eggs in one basket, than to have two baskets with fewer eggs each. I disagree.
While few would argue that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has performed commendably over the past 40 years, past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investment advisers always caution.
Mr Lee said that if ever the PAP becomes ineffective or corrupt, many opposition parties will spring up to take on the Government.
Therein lies the danger: If the PAP ever becomes corrupt, there will be absolutely no time for a viable alternative party to suddenly “spring up”, since political organisations take years to build up credibility.
Furthermore, a corrupt government with a firm control on the levers of power will tend to use that power to entrench itself, stifling any potential opposition from arising. This is because their corrupt leaders will know full well that they will face prosecution if anyone else takes over the government.
Singapore may then be left in a disastrous situation of having a bad government with no capable alternatives.
For a small city-state like Singapore with little margin for error in governance, this could spell an unrecoverable decline leading to our very obsolescence as a nation.
It is therefore in the national interest for a well-organised, competent and morally upright alternative party to emerge, so that should the PAP falter, there will another party to take over the reins of government at the next elections and ensure that our country continues to prosper without interruption.
Obviously I do not expect support for an effective alternative party to come from the PAP, since it goes against its partisan interests.
However, I hope more Singaporeans will realise that greater political competition can produce not just better governance now, but improved stability for our future as well.
******
Democracy a question of maturity?
Letter from Yak Chin Hua
I REFER to “Adversarial two-party system not for Singapore” (Nov 17).
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was quoted to have commented on the United States presidential election: “The opposition party campaigns on the message of ‘change’: Change, change, change. Never mind change to what — just change ... The new government comes in on that message and then they start to think change to what.”
I believe political leaders should not assert that an adversarial two-party system will not work for nations big or small.
The very preaching in favour of a one-party system contradicts the basic principles and the real beauty of democracy — that such a decision should be left to a politically-mature electorate to decide.
The same applies to political change.
The more important issue is whether the electorate is politically educated, mature and motivated to decide on whether they would want a two-party system and other political change. If the electorate is not ready to decide on this, it undermines the democratic system the political leader governs.
The electorate should be educated to decide on whether they want a two-party system and other political change, and not to get rid of it for the sake of supporting a modified one-party system, even if the latter is sure to succeed.
In this lies the beauty of the system of democracy. I cannot be sure if our political system and electorate match the maturity of the US adversarial two-party system.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
What if PAP should falter?
Letter from Gerald Giam
I REFER to “Adversarial two-party system not for S’pore” (Nov 17).
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong feels that the two-party system cannot work for Singapore and that we are much better off with one dominant party.
Mr Lee’s familiar argument is that because we are small and lack talent, if we split our talent into two groups, we will end up with “two second-division teams”. This is akin to saying that it is better to put all our eggs in one basket, than to have two baskets with fewer eggs each. I disagree.
While few would argue that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has performed commendably over the past 40 years, past performance is no guarantee of future success, as investment advisers always caution.
Mr Lee said that if ever the PAP becomes ineffective or corrupt, many opposition parties will spring up to take on the Government.
Therein lies the danger: If the PAP ever becomes corrupt, there will be absolutely no time for a viable alternative party to suddenly “spring up”, since political organisations take years to build up credibility.
Furthermore, a corrupt government with a firm control on the levers of power will tend to use that power to entrench itself, stifling any potential opposition from arising. This is because their corrupt leaders will know full well that they will face prosecution if anyone else takes over the government.
Singapore may then be left in a disastrous situation of having a bad government with no capable alternatives.
For a small city-state like Singapore with little margin for error in governance, this could spell an unrecoverable decline leading to our very obsolescence as a nation.
It is therefore in the national interest for a well-organised, competent and morally upright alternative party to emerge, so that should the PAP falter, there will another party to take over the reins of government at the next elections and ensure that our country continues to prosper without interruption.
Obviously I do not expect support for an effective alternative party to come from the PAP, since it goes against its partisan interests.
However, I hope more Singaporeans will realise that greater political competition can produce not just better governance now, but improved stability for our future as well.
******
Democracy a question of maturity?
Letter from Yak Chin Hua
I REFER to “Adversarial two-party system not for Singapore” (Nov 17).
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was quoted to have commented on the United States presidential election: “The opposition party campaigns on the message of ‘change’: Change, change, change. Never mind change to what — just change ... The new government comes in on that message and then they start to think change to what.”
I believe political leaders should not assert that an adversarial two-party system will not work for nations big or small.
The very preaching in favour of a one-party system contradicts the basic principles and the real beauty of democracy — that such a decision should be left to a politically-mature electorate to decide.
The same applies to political change.
The more important issue is whether the electorate is politically educated, mature and motivated to decide on whether they would want a two-party system and other political change. If the electorate is not ready to decide on this, it undermines the democratic system the political leader governs.
The electorate should be educated to decide on whether they want a two-party system and other political change, and not to get rid of it for the sake of supporting a modified one-party system, even if the latter is sure to succeed.
In this lies the beauty of the system of democracy. I cannot be sure if our political system and electorate match the maturity of the US adversarial two-party system.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
PM Lee: Two-Party Model Cannot Work In Singapore
Channel News Asia reported this story today:
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said a two-party political model cannot work in Singapore.
Mr Lee, who is also the ruling People's Action Party's Secretary General, added that change must take place not between parties but within the PAP.
Addressing the party's activists on Sunday, Mr Lee explained why tackling the economic crisis needs both a policy and political response.
He said: "We cannot sail through this storm on autopilot. The government has to lead, watch the changing environment, implement the policies needed, mobilise Singaporeans and mount a national response to get us through. It's the party's business to provide this leadership for Singapore."
He added that the country is much better off with one dominant party, as long as the PAP provides clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve.
Mr Lee said: "If the party doesn't work, if something goes wrong with the party, you can be sure new parties will come, new contests will come. People will spring up to take on the government in no time at all.
"But it is not our job to build up the opposition or split the party into two, because it is hard enough to find one team to look after the country. How can we find two?"
Mr Lee said that as a small country, Singapore depends critically on an outstanding team of leaders to make up for the many limitations.
Hence, the country cannot afford to compromise the quality of the nation's leadership.
Mr Lee said that at every general election, the party brings in 20 or more new MPs and ministers.
The progress of leadership renewal in the PAP determines whether Singapore will continue enjoying stability and good government in the long term, he said.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said a two-party political model cannot work in Singapore.
Mr Lee, who is also the ruling People's Action Party's Secretary General, added that change must take place not between parties but within the PAP.
Addressing the party's activists on Sunday, Mr Lee explained why tackling the economic crisis needs both a policy and political response.
He said: "We cannot sail through this storm on autopilot. The government has to lead, watch the changing environment, implement the policies needed, mobilise Singaporeans and mount a national response to get us through. It's the party's business to provide this leadership for Singapore."
He added that the country is much better off with one dominant party, as long as the PAP provides clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve.
Mr Lee said: "If the party doesn't work, if something goes wrong with the party, you can be sure new parties will come, new contests will come. People will spring up to take on the government in no time at all.
"But it is not our job to build up the opposition or split the party into two, because it is hard enough to find one team to look after the country. How can we find two?"
Mr Lee said that as a small country, Singapore depends critically on an outstanding team of leaders to make up for the many limitations.
Hence, the country cannot afford to compromise the quality of the nation's leadership.
Mr Lee said that at every general election, the party brings in 20 or more new MPs and ministers.
The progress of leadership renewal in the PAP determines whether Singapore will continue enjoying stability and good government in the long term, he said.
Peace Vigil For Sri Lanka
Over a hundred people attended the Peace Vigil for Sri Lanka yesterday, an unprecedented public demonstration on this issue in Singapore.
Organised by World Without War, the vigil began with an introductory address by S. Sivabalan, after which organisers and attendees proceeded to light candles to signify their hope for peace in Sri Lanka. They also left their personal messages on the board provided.
Some observed silence throughout as a mark of respect for the deceased. For the full report and photographs of the peaceful demostration, please visit: worldwithoutwar.sg.
Organised by World Without War, the vigil began with an introductory address by S. Sivabalan, after which organisers and attendees proceeded to light candles to signify their hope for peace in Sri Lanka. They also left their personal messages on the board provided.
Some observed silence throughout as a mark of respect for the deceased. For the full report and photographs of the peaceful demostration, please visit: worldwithoutwar.sg.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
New Factory Notification Scheme
With effect from 1 Nov 2008, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will put in place a new factory notification scheme. This scheme will affect new factories and two-thirds of existing factories. Under this scheme, factories will have to declare that they have implemented Risk Management (RM) programs before work can commence. The declaration will strengthen the requirement under the WSH (Risk Management) Regulations so that work risks can be better managed.
The new factory notification scheme streamlines the factory registration process and reduces business costs. Currently, factories are required to renew their licenses every year or every two years. They pay an average of $250 for a one-year registration fee. With the new scheme, factories only need to do a one-time notification which will be free of charge. This is expected to cut business costs by about $3.5 million annually.
Not all factories will be included in the scheme. Construction worksites, shipbuilding and repair companies, metalworking companies, wafer fabrication, petrochemical, chemical and pharmaceutical plants will continue to be governed by the existing factory registration process for the time being. Currently, these factories are already required to submit documents on their RM implementation. A review is currently in progress to further strengthen the implementation of safety measures at these workplaces.
The new factory notification scheme streamlines the factory registration process and reduces business costs. Currently, factories are required to renew their licenses every year or every two years. They pay an average of $250 for a one-year registration fee. With the new scheme, factories only need to do a one-time notification which will be free of charge. This is expected to cut business costs by about $3.5 million annually.
Not all factories will be included in the scheme. Construction worksites, shipbuilding and repair companies, metalworking companies, wafer fabrication, petrochemical, chemical and pharmaceutical plants will continue to be governed by the existing factory registration process for the time being. Currently, these factories are already required to submit documents on their RM implementation. A review is currently in progress to further strengthen the implementation of safety measures at these workplaces.
MOM To Release Guidelines On Management Of Excess Staff
Channel NewsAsia reported the following:
Labour chief Lim Swee Say has expressed his disappointment in the sudden decision by DBS Bank to cut 900 jobs.
In a statement, Mr Lim said that the bank had not consulted with the DBS Staff Union on other alternatives to cutting costs. As a result, the perception on the ground is that DBS Bank decided on retrenchment as a first resort.
He added that this has weakened the trust between the management and union, and that the reaction on the ground is critical and highly negative. Mr Lim said that "trust takes a long time to build, but a short time to destroy."
His message came in an eight-paragraph statement to the media, which urged companies not to use retrenchment as the first resort.
The Manpower Ministry will soon release guidelines on how to manage excess manpower in light of expected increase in retrenchment in Singapore.
The guidelines will include what's called responsible retrenchment, where employers work with unions to explain the situation to workers before serving the termination letter.
The way DBS axed its 900 staff without consulting its union has drawn criticisms from labour chief Lim Swee Say.
He said retrenchment should be conducted in a socially responsible manner, a view which Acting Minister of Manpower Gan Kim Yong shares.
Hence, guidelines will be released in a few weeks on how to manage excess manpower.
For example, companies can inform the Manpower Ministry of job cuts.
Retrenched workers can be retrained or placed in new jobs through the Workforce Development Agency (WDA).
Companies can also leverage on the tripartite relationship, and seek the union's help in explaining measures like wage cuts or implementing shorter work week.
Mr Gan also said that more companies should implement a flexible wage system, adding that companies which have already done so in the last few years are now in a better position to weather the recession.
Labour chief Lim Swee Say has expressed his disappointment in the sudden decision by DBS Bank to cut 900 jobs.
In a statement, Mr Lim said that the bank had not consulted with the DBS Staff Union on other alternatives to cutting costs. As a result, the perception on the ground is that DBS Bank decided on retrenchment as a first resort.
He added that this has weakened the trust between the management and union, and that the reaction on the ground is critical and highly negative. Mr Lim said that "trust takes a long time to build, but a short time to destroy."
His message came in an eight-paragraph statement to the media, which urged companies not to use retrenchment as the first resort.
The Manpower Ministry will soon release guidelines on how to manage excess manpower in light of expected increase in retrenchment in Singapore.
The guidelines will include what's called responsible retrenchment, where employers work with unions to explain the situation to workers before serving the termination letter.
The way DBS axed its 900 staff without consulting its union has drawn criticisms from labour chief Lim Swee Say.
He said retrenchment should be conducted in a socially responsible manner, a view which Acting Minister of Manpower Gan Kim Yong shares.
Hence, guidelines will be released in a few weeks on how to manage excess manpower.
For example, companies can inform the Manpower Ministry of job cuts.
Retrenched workers can be retrained or placed in new jobs through the Workforce Development Agency (WDA).
Companies can also leverage on the tripartite relationship, and seek the union's help in explaining measures like wage cuts or implementing shorter work week.
Mr Gan also said that more companies should implement a flexible wage system, adding that companies which have already done so in the last few years are now in a better position to weather the recession.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Call For Minimum Wage
The ruling Singapore government has always resisted implementing a minimum wage, arguing that wage levels should be left to the 'free market'.
This letter writer to the Straits Times asks for a rethink on this issue.
MR MANMOHAN SINGH: 'I refer to Monday's report, 'Gravedigging a dying trade'.
'The report said that gravedigging is a dying trade and that, despite automation, finding replacements is an uphill task.
'The reason for the lack of fresh recruits is not about whether any of the staff had encountered 'any creepy incidents'.
'The bottom line is the low pay.
'The report said that gravediggers are paid $22.50 per day, and earn a maximum of $31.20. At $22.50 per day, with a six-day work week, a worker earns less than $600 per month.
'His take-home pay is even less if one deducts daily travelling expenses and lunch which are likely to eat into a quarter of the pay.
'A security guard easily earns double the salary of a gravedigger. It does not need a rocket scientist to figure out why no one wants to do this job. That is why a developed country like Singapore should implement a minimum wage. That is how Singaporeans can be assured of earning enough to cover daily expenses and enjoy a reasonably comfortable living standard.
'The United States introduced a minimum wage in 1938, and lately, China did so in 2004.'
This letter writer to the Straits Times asks for a rethink on this issue.
MR MANMOHAN SINGH: 'I refer to Monday's report, 'Gravedigging a dying trade'.
'The report said that gravedigging is a dying trade and that, despite automation, finding replacements is an uphill task.
'The reason for the lack of fresh recruits is not about whether any of the staff had encountered 'any creepy incidents'.
'The bottom line is the low pay.
'The report said that gravediggers are paid $22.50 per day, and earn a maximum of $31.20. At $22.50 per day, with a six-day work week, a worker earns less than $600 per month.
'His take-home pay is even less if one deducts daily travelling expenses and lunch which are likely to eat into a quarter of the pay.
'A security guard easily earns double the salary of a gravedigger. It does not need a rocket scientist to figure out why no one wants to do this job. That is why a developed country like Singapore should implement a minimum wage. That is how Singaporeans can be assured of earning enough to cover daily expenses and enjoy a reasonably comfortable living standard.
'The United States introduced a minimum wage in 1938, and lately, China did so in 2004.'
We Do Not Elect Our PM
After Barack Obama's historical election win to become the first African-American US President, the press and government in Singapore have been talking about whether it's possible that a non-Chinese can become Prime Minister. PM Lee said: "It's possible. It depends on how people vote, on who has the confidence of the population. Will it happen soon? I don't think so, because you have to win votes. And these sentiments - who votes for whom, and what makes him identify with that person - these are sentiments which will not disappear completely for a long time, even if people do not talk about it, even if people wish they did not feel it."
A forum letter, "We're more race-blind than we think", published in The Straits Times today, however, pointed out that the Prime Minister is not elected by the people.
I READ with interest Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's comments on Sunday about how Singapore's race relations interplayed with our domestic politics ('Non-Chinese PM? Possible, but not soon'). While I applaud the call to place our national interests over racial ones, I wonder if the choice really lies with the people or if our political structure itself entrenches such racial policies.
First, Article 25 of the Constitution designates the President as the one appointing the Prime Minister out of those elected into Parliament, who 'is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament'. It would thus appear that the choice of a non-Chinese PM lies not in the people's hands, but in the hands of the President and our elected Parliament.
Second, Article 39A and the subsequently passed Parliamentary Elections Act provide for the creation of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) - and the law provides for the compulsory inclusion of a Malay or an Indian or 'other minority'. A reason offered in support of the system was given by then deputy PM Goh Chok Tong in 1988, who argued that such a system would ensure that Parliament would 'always be multiracial and representative of our society'.
Tris Pruetthipunthu
A forum letter, "We're more race-blind than we think", published in The Straits Times today, however, pointed out that the Prime Minister is not elected by the people.
I READ with interest Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's comments on Sunday about how Singapore's race relations interplayed with our domestic politics ('Non-Chinese PM? Possible, but not soon'). While I applaud the call to place our national interests over racial ones, I wonder if the choice really lies with the people or if our political structure itself entrenches such racial policies.
First, Article 25 of the Constitution designates the President as the one appointing the Prime Minister out of those elected into Parliament, who 'is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament'. It would thus appear that the choice of a non-Chinese PM lies not in the people's hands, but in the hands of the President and our elected Parliament.
Second, Article 39A and the subsequently passed Parliamentary Elections Act provide for the creation of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) - and the law provides for the compulsory inclusion of a Malay or an Indian or 'other minority'. A reason offered in support of the system was given by then deputy PM Goh Chok Tong in 1988, who argued that such a system would ensure that Parliament would 'always be multiracial and representative of our society'.
Tris Pruetthipunthu
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Singapore 18: Prosecution Or Persecution?
The Washington Times published this on November 7, 2008:
The names Gandhi Ambalam, Chia Ti Lik, Chong Kai Xiong, Jeffrey George, Jaslyn Go, Chee Siok Chin, Govindan Rajan, Chee Soon Juan, Jufrie Mahmood, Jufri Salim, Surayah Akbar, Ng E-Jay, Seelan Palay, Shafi'ie, Carl Lang, John Tan, Francis Yong and Sylvester Lim aren't exactly household names -- but they should be. This week 18 Singaporeans -- the Singapore 18 -- are standing trial for purported crimes against America's 11th largest trading partner -- Singapore.
Indicted for violating the Miscellaneous Offences Act for assembling peacefully without a permit to register their concerns over escalating housing costs, they claim that they're innocent by virtue of their right under the Singapore constitution to enjoy the guarantees of freedom of assembly and expression. Historically, however, Singapore has viewed political dissent through a lens darkly, treating protest as a threat to social tranquility and economic prosperity, rather than what it is -- a fundamental right and necessity in any democracy.
While Singapore claims to be a constitutional democracy, it nevertheless routinely arrests Singaporeans for attempting to assert those rights articulated under the constitution in the open light of day. A democracy, it's not quite.
Ironically, while their trial is about their right to public assembly in numbers more than four without a permit, and to free speech, they view it as a test about whether Singapore's judiciary is independent enough to interpret the country's constitution objectively. In effect, Judge Chia Wee Kiat, who's presiding magistrate over the case, is on trial, too. Many Singaporeans will be watching how he rules. Americans should be watching, too.
That's because Singapore's Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, appears to refuse to be bound by the affirmative rights guaranteed under the country's basic law. Last February, he stated that "[w]e have stopped short of allowing outdoor and street demonstration … Our experiences in the past have taught us to be very circumspect about outdoor and street protests." His reference is to the race riots in Singapore during the 1960s -- almost 50 years ago. Which is like saying that because Washington, D.C. experienced race riots in the 1960s, the residents of Washington must be denied the right to protest government policies. That argument simply doesn't wash.
But the judge in the case will likely rule accordingly, regardless of the plain language of the constitution.
The late Singaporean politician, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, stated in an interview shortly before his death that his main concern was that the public had the "perception that its judiciary was not independent." He himself had been made a bankrupt by defamation lawsuits filed against him by his political opponents and the high damages awarded them by Singapore courts. After paying off his debts, he'd recently committed to heading a new political party, whose primary agenda was calling for the independence of the judiciary.
He was not alone. In July, the International Bar Association (ABA) issued a 72-page report on the state of Singapore's judiciary noting that "there are concerns about the objective and subjective independence and impartiality of Singapore judges." The report's final recommendations advocate tenure be granted Singapore judges and that the transfer of judges between "executive and judicial roles" be banned. They also call on the government to prohibit defamation as a criminal offense, and forbid public officials from initiating criminal defamation suits, which detractors claim are used by government to silence its critics.
One of those critics is Chee Soon Juan. He's been jailed seven times on a potpourri of politically-related charges, including speaking without a permit, contempt of court, and even for attempting to depart Singapore in order to attend an international rights conference. He's been fined nearly $1 million to date and made bankrupt by defamation suits brought against him by former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, and Singapore's current Minister Mentor, Lee Hsein Loong. In the next few months, he faces six more trials and an indeterminate amount of jail time. Yet all he wants is for the courts to properly enforce the spirit and letter of the Singapore constitution. Barred from leaving the country, he's been put under country arrest and is a prisoner of conscience.
Were the Singapore 18 living in China or Russia, they'd be enjoying considerable support from the U.S. Instead, they're victims of a sad neglect. They've been cut loose by a nation otherwise preoccupied. But the next Congress and administration should take up the cause of freedom in Singapore. They should exert their influences on Singapore to open up its political space to peaceful dissent and to embrace the benefits of political pluralism. Economic prosperity and political freedoms are not mutually exclusive in Singapore or anywhere else.
Above all, this country should call for judicial reform in Singapore because as J.B. Jeyaretnam would no doubt agree without independence there can be no rule of law.
Timothy Cooper is executive director of the human-rights group Worldrights.
The names Gandhi Ambalam, Chia Ti Lik, Chong Kai Xiong, Jeffrey George, Jaslyn Go, Chee Siok Chin, Govindan Rajan, Chee Soon Juan, Jufrie Mahmood, Jufri Salim, Surayah Akbar, Ng E-Jay, Seelan Palay, Shafi'ie, Carl Lang, John Tan, Francis Yong and Sylvester Lim aren't exactly household names -- but they should be. This week 18 Singaporeans -- the Singapore 18 -- are standing trial for purported crimes against America's 11th largest trading partner -- Singapore.
Indicted for violating the Miscellaneous Offences Act for assembling peacefully without a permit to register their concerns over escalating housing costs, they claim that they're innocent by virtue of their right under the Singapore constitution to enjoy the guarantees of freedom of assembly and expression. Historically, however, Singapore has viewed political dissent through a lens darkly, treating protest as a threat to social tranquility and economic prosperity, rather than what it is -- a fundamental right and necessity in any democracy.
While Singapore claims to be a constitutional democracy, it nevertheless routinely arrests Singaporeans for attempting to assert those rights articulated under the constitution in the open light of day. A democracy, it's not quite.
Ironically, while their trial is about their right to public assembly in numbers more than four without a permit, and to free speech, they view it as a test about whether Singapore's judiciary is independent enough to interpret the country's constitution objectively. In effect, Judge Chia Wee Kiat, who's presiding magistrate over the case, is on trial, too. Many Singaporeans will be watching how he rules. Americans should be watching, too.
That's because Singapore's Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, appears to refuse to be bound by the affirmative rights guaranteed under the country's basic law. Last February, he stated that "[w]e have stopped short of allowing outdoor and street demonstration … Our experiences in the past have taught us to be very circumspect about outdoor and street protests." His reference is to the race riots in Singapore during the 1960s -- almost 50 years ago. Which is like saying that because Washington, D.C. experienced race riots in the 1960s, the residents of Washington must be denied the right to protest government policies. That argument simply doesn't wash.
But the judge in the case will likely rule accordingly, regardless of the plain language of the constitution.
The late Singaporean politician, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, stated in an interview shortly before his death that his main concern was that the public had the "perception that its judiciary was not independent." He himself had been made a bankrupt by defamation lawsuits filed against him by his political opponents and the high damages awarded them by Singapore courts. After paying off his debts, he'd recently committed to heading a new political party, whose primary agenda was calling for the independence of the judiciary.
He was not alone. In July, the International Bar Association (ABA) issued a 72-page report on the state of Singapore's judiciary noting that "there are concerns about the objective and subjective independence and impartiality of Singapore judges." The report's final recommendations advocate tenure be granted Singapore judges and that the transfer of judges between "executive and judicial roles" be banned. They also call on the government to prohibit defamation as a criminal offense, and forbid public officials from initiating criminal defamation suits, which detractors claim are used by government to silence its critics.
One of those critics is Chee Soon Juan. He's been jailed seven times on a potpourri of politically-related charges, including speaking without a permit, contempt of court, and even for attempting to depart Singapore in order to attend an international rights conference. He's been fined nearly $1 million to date and made bankrupt by defamation suits brought against him by former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, and Singapore's current Minister Mentor, Lee Hsein Loong. In the next few months, he faces six more trials and an indeterminate amount of jail time. Yet all he wants is for the courts to properly enforce the spirit and letter of the Singapore constitution. Barred from leaving the country, he's been put under country arrest and is a prisoner of conscience.
Were the Singapore 18 living in China or Russia, they'd be enjoying considerable support from the U.S. Instead, they're victims of a sad neglect. They've been cut loose by a nation otherwise preoccupied. But the next Congress and administration should take up the cause of freedom in Singapore. They should exert their influences on Singapore to open up its political space to peaceful dissent and to embrace the benefits of political pluralism. Economic prosperity and political freedoms are not mutually exclusive in Singapore or anywhere else.
Above all, this country should call for judicial reform in Singapore because as J.B. Jeyaretnam would no doubt agree without independence there can be no rule of law.
Timothy Cooper is executive director of the human-rights group Worldrights.
Friday, November 7, 2008
DBS Cuts 900 Jobs
Singapore's DBS Group, Southeast Asia's biggest bank by assets, said on Friday it would be laying off 900 staff to trim costs amid the global credit crisis. The bank also reported a drop in third quarter net profit.
Chief executive Richard Stanley said most of the cuts, which would be carried out at the end of the month, will come from its offices in Singapore and Hong Kong and will account for 6 per cent of the workforce. He added that this was the largest lay offs ever.
The job cut will be across all businesses and all levels. The bank did not want to specify if the affected staff would come from DBS or POSBank.
Laid off staff will be paid the equivalent of one month's salary for every year of service as per market practice.
"To be a streamlined organisation, I believe we must run a tighter ship," he told reporters.
Source: Channel NewsAsia
Chief executive Richard Stanley said most of the cuts, which would be carried out at the end of the month, will come from its offices in Singapore and Hong Kong and will account for 6 per cent of the workforce. He added that this was the largest lay offs ever.
The job cut will be across all businesses and all levels. The bank did not want to specify if the affected staff would come from DBS or POSBank.
Laid off staff will be paid the equivalent of one month's salary for every year of service as per market practice.
"To be a streamlined organisation, I believe we must run a tighter ship," he told reporters.
Source: Channel NewsAsia
The Contracts Must Be Fair And Just
The Catholic church in Singapore held a World Day of Migrants celebration at the Church of St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) on September 28, 2008.
Singapore's Archdiocesan Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants & Itinerant People (ACMI) organized the event with support from the SVDP Church Migrants' Group.
Besides celebrating the migrants' cultures, it was a day on which Singaporean Catholics "should ponder seriously and see how we can contribute towards a healthy situation for foreign workers," Archbishop Nicholas Chia said in his homily during the Mass that preceded the programme.
"They serve us (in their jobs), but in our own way we must serve them. The contracts we offer them must be fair and just. Do not just look for cheap labour," he told the workers and parishioners.
Contrast that with this letter published in My Paper today:
I NOTE with concern a recent spike in murder cases involving foreign workers.
Recently, a Malaysian prostitute was murdered in Flanders Square.
It was also reported that there was a total of 24 murders in Singapore to date this year, and some which involve foreigners have been brutal and hideous.
There has been a backlash against the influx of foreign workers to Singapore shores.
It is not uncommon for foreigners with criminal records to use false papers and enter Singapore under a different identity.
For this group of foreigners, their past remains hidden from the authorities.
There are many foreigners who enter the country on two-week social passes and work in the flesh trade to earn a quick buck.
After working in brothels and pubs, they are able to recoup the cost of their air tickets.
Much to citizens' dismay, they are openly working illegally in Singapore, Before things get out of hand, the authorities should gradually place restrictions on the inflow of foreign workers.
I see young foreign girls below the age of 20 working in coffee shops.
They are putting Singapore's "aunties" and "uncles" out of a job as they are cheaper to hire and willing to work longer hours.
There should also be a cap on the number of study mamas entering Singapore, as they often do illegal work to make ends meet.
Something should be done before it is too late.
Mr Gilbert Goh Keow Wah
Sydney, Australia
Singapore's Archdiocesan Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants & Itinerant People (ACMI) organized the event with support from the SVDP Church Migrants' Group.
Besides celebrating the migrants' cultures, it was a day on which Singaporean Catholics "should ponder seriously and see how we can contribute towards a healthy situation for foreign workers," Archbishop Nicholas Chia said in his homily during the Mass that preceded the programme.
"They serve us (in their jobs), but in our own way we must serve them. The contracts we offer them must be fair and just. Do not just look for cheap labour," he told the workers and parishioners.
Contrast that with this letter published in My Paper today:
I NOTE with concern a recent spike in murder cases involving foreign workers.
Recently, a Malaysian prostitute was murdered in Flanders Square.
It was also reported that there was a total of 24 murders in Singapore to date this year, and some which involve foreigners have been brutal and hideous.
There has been a backlash against the influx of foreign workers to Singapore shores.
It is not uncommon for foreigners with criminal records to use false papers and enter Singapore under a different identity.
For this group of foreigners, their past remains hidden from the authorities.
There are many foreigners who enter the country on two-week social passes and work in the flesh trade to earn a quick buck.
After working in brothels and pubs, they are able to recoup the cost of their air tickets.
Much to citizens' dismay, they are openly working illegally in Singapore, Before things get out of hand, the authorities should gradually place restrictions on the inflow of foreign workers.
I see young foreign girls below the age of 20 working in coffee shops.
They are putting Singapore's "aunties" and "uncles" out of a job as they are cheaper to hire and willing to work longer hours.
There should also be a cap on the number of study mamas entering Singapore, as they often do illegal work to make ends meet.
Something should be done before it is too late.
Mr Gilbert Goh Keow Wah
Sydney, Australia
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama Makes History
Sen. Barack Obama became the first African-American president in U.S. history. Who would have thought this possible 50 or even five years ago? Thousands of people all over the world rooted for him and wept at his victory. Obama was gracious to his opponent in victory as was McCain in defeat.
Dr Chee Soon Juan used the words "historic", "inspirational" and "change" to describe Mr Barack Obama's election as the 44th President of the United States. Read his full article @ yoursdp.org.
Dr Chee Soon Juan used the words "historic", "inspirational" and "change" to describe Mr Barack Obama's election as the 44th President of the United States. Read his full article @ yoursdp.org.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Judge Makes Major Ruling Without Hearing Defendants
Here's the latest update (on 30 October) from the Singapore Democrats website about the Tak Boleh Tahan! trial:
District Judge Chia Wee Kiat today ruled that the defence could not ask questions to show that the police had unlawfully discriminated against the Tak Boleh Tahan! (Can't take it anymore!) protesters.
He also sided with the prosecution's contention that the Ministry for Home Affairs' declaration that it would not allow protests of any nature is not unconstitutional, this despite Article 14 of the Singapore constitution guaranteeing citizens the right to freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly.
The defendants had pointed out that the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) had also conducted a similar protest outside Parliament House in 2007 and 2008. Why was CASE allowed to stage their protest but not the TBT activists?
To add insult to injury, the Judge made these decisions listening only to the arguments of the prosecution but not the defence.
Yesterday Judge Chia had invited Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Isaac Tan to address him on the question of the constitutionality of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. He also wanted to hear the DPP's arguments on why cross-examination by the defence about the police's handling of the TBT application was irrelevant.
The DPP took the entire morning to research his case and then came back to court to present his findings. The defendants then asked for time to respond to the DPP's arguments.
The Judge had to adjourn the hearing in the afternoon to allow Mr John Tan and Mr Shafi'ie to go the the Hight Court to attend a pre-trial conference regarding their contempt of court charge. The other defendants took the opportunity to prepare their arguments.
When the hearing resumed this morning, Dr Chee Soon Juan asked for more time to prepare his case because of the complex nature of the constitutional arguments: "I am consulting legal experts from overseas and I need more time to put together a proper rebuttal to the DPP on this matter."
The other defendants, including lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik, also requested for more time to prepare their cases.
Mr John Tan, who is acting-in-person, also argued that he needed time to prepare his arguments because he was at the Hight Court the whole of yesterday afternoon. "I did not take the afternoon off to conduct my own affairs. I am being charged for an offence and I had no choice but to go to the High Court," he reminded the Judge. "As such I did not have time to prepare counter-arguments to the DPP's points."
Mr Shafi'ie also made the same point.
All this fell on deaf ears as Judge Chia ruled that no additional time would be given. Worse, the Judge immediately went on to rule in favour of the DPP's arguments.
Dr Chee protested that this was highly irregular and prejudicial against the defendants' cases: "A judge normally hears both sides of the argument before coming to a decision. In this matter you have only heard the prosecution's arguments and come to a decision based on that."
Dr Chee pointed out that the Judge could have ruled that he was not going to give additional time to the defendants but then allow them the opportunity to submit on whatever they had prepared.
Ms Chee Siok Chin asked Judge Chia to reverse his decision, "wipe the slate clean" and hear the defendants first before making his ruling.
The Judge refused saying: "I have made my ruling. You can now say what you want to say."
Mr Gandhi Ambalam then pointed out the obvious: "What's the point of saying anything when you have already ruled?"
Dr Chee reminded the judge that the defence hung on the fact that the police had discriminated against the TBT activists when it rejected the application. This was unlawful under the Article 12 of the Constitution which says that all persons must be treated equally under the law.
"By ruling the way you did, you have cut the legs from under our defence," he told the Judge.
But Judge Chia Wee Kiat remained adamant and insisted the hearing continue over the vehement objections of the defendants.
Hearing continues tomorrow.
District Judge Chia Wee Kiat today ruled that the defence could not ask questions to show that the police had unlawfully discriminated against the Tak Boleh Tahan! (Can't take it anymore!) protesters.
He also sided with the prosecution's contention that the Ministry for Home Affairs' declaration that it would not allow protests of any nature is not unconstitutional, this despite Article 14 of the Singapore constitution guaranteeing citizens the right to freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly.
The defendants had pointed out that the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) had also conducted a similar protest outside Parliament House in 2007 and 2008. Why was CASE allowed to stage their protest but not the TBT activists?
To add insult to injury, the Judge made these decisions listening only to the arguments of the prosecution but not the defence.
Yesterday Judge Chia had invited Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Isaac Tan to address him on the question of the constitutionality of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. He also wanted to hear the DPP's arguments on why cross-examination by the defence about the police's handling of the TBT application was irrelevant.
The DPP took the entire morning to research his case and then came back to court to present his findings. The defendants then asked for time to respond to the DPP's arguments.
The Judge had to adjourn the hearing in the afternoon to allow Mr John Tan and Mr Shafi'ie to go the the Hight Court to attend a pre-trial conference regarding their contempt of court charge. The other defendants took the opportunity to prepare their arguments.
When the hearing resumed this morning, Dr Chee Soon Juan asked for more time to prepare his case because of the complex nature of the constitutional arguments: "I am consulting legal experts from overseas and I need more time to put together a proper rebuttal to the DPP on this matter."
The other defendants, including lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik, also requested for more time to prepare their cases.
Mr John Tan, who is acting-in-person, also argued that he needed time to prepare his arguments because he was at the Hight Court the whole of yesterday afternoon. "I did not take the afternoon off to conduct my own affairs. I am being charged for an offence and I had no choice but to go to the High Court," he reminded the Judge. "As such I did not have time to prepare counter-arguments to the DPP's points."
Mr Shafi'ie also made the same point.
All this fell on deaf ears as Judge Chia ruled that no additional time would be given. Worse, the Judge immediately went on to rule in favour of the DPP's arguments.
Dr Chee protested that this was highly irregular and prejudicial against the defendants' cases: "A judge normally hears both sides of the argument before coming to a decision. In this matter you have only heard the prosecution's arguments and come to a decision based on that."
Dr Chee pointed out that the Judge could have ruled that he was not going to give additional time to the defendants but then allow them the opportunity to submit on whatever they had prepared.
Ms Chee Siok Chin asked Judge Chia to reverse his decision, "wipe the slate clean" and hear the defendants first before making his ruling.
The Judge refused saying: "I have made my ruling. You can now say what you want to say."
Mr Gandhi Ambalam then pointed out the obvious: "What's the point of saying anything when you have already ruled?"
Dr Chee reminded the judge that the defence hung on the fact that the police had discriminated against the TBT activists when it rejected the application. This was unlawful under the Article 12 of the Constitution which says that all persons must be treated equally under the law.
"By ruling the way you did, you have cut the legs from under our defence," he told the Judge.
But Judge Chia Wee Kiat remained adamant and insisted the hearing continue over the vehement objections of the defendants.
Hearing continues tomorrow.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Worthless Degrees
MP for Joo Chiat Chan Soo Sen was the guest-of-honour at a dubious university's convocation, which got The Online Citizen website to comment:
It is thus shocking to learn that instead of pushing to outlaw universities such as WCU, former Minister of State for Education Chan Soo Sen was actually the guest of honour at the "fraudulent" degree seller’s convocation.
His excuse? He had not been given any information about WCU's accreditation, and his presence at the convocation was not meant to give the university credibility.
This explanation might possibly hold water if he was a random member of the public, with no knowledge of issues such as accreditation.
However, given that the Straits Times has previously run several exposes on degree mills (as the article points out, the reporter’s dog was registered to receive a doctorate), and Mr Chan was a former Minister of State for Education up until 2006, to claim ignorance is a poor defense.
Further, to claim that he did not intend to lend WCU credibility is missing the point.
Mr Chan might genuinely have neglected to do his due diligence and been ignorant of WCU's background. However, in the eyes of those receiving the "fraudulent or substandard degrees", as well as their family and friends, the presence of a former Minister of State for Education could only be interpreted as a seal of approval.
* * *
This news story was published in The Straits Times on October 22, 2008:
THE ceremony in the Old Parliament House had all the pomp and circumstance associated with any graduation.
The professors and graduands were in full academic regalia. Speeches flowed in English and Mandarin. And afterwards, a gala dinner at a hotel.
At the ceremony, the university's honorary president, a Professor Bernard Cadet, delivered an inspiring speech, urging graduands to transform the world.
'Believe nothing is impossible. West Coast University (WCU) will be proud of you in the future,' he told the 76 graduands from Singapore, Indonesia and China, before handing them their doctorates, master's and bachelor's degrees.
But this was a ceremony for an unaccredited university based in Panama, not Los Angeles, as its school in Singapore had claimed.
The Asia-Australia School of Management (AASM), a Case-certified school in Middle Road, offers West Coast University programmes here with a related company, Huanyu Training Expert.
At least two American states have outlawed degrees from WCU, describing it as a 'degree supplier' that offers 'fraudulent or substandard degrees'.
The Texas State Higher Education Coordinating Board warns on its website that WCU 'is used by multiple unaccredited entities. The extent to which they are related is unknown, but more than one operator is suspected.'
In some parts of the United States, it is a criminal offence to use degrees from unaccredited institutions.
'Dr' John Huang, one of the owners of AASM and Huanyu, insisted that the university is based in Los Angeles and faxed The Straits Times documents showing West Coast University International registered as a business in California.
But he confirmed that it was not the California-based West Coast University reputed for nursing and health science-related degrees. He admitted that WCU was unaccredited, but said his students had been given the facts.
His doctorate is from Ashwood University, the same degree mill that granted this reporter's pet dog a doctorate for US$599 (S$886) just two months ago.
The guest of honour at Monday's ceremony was MP for Joo Chiat Chan Soo Sen, who delivered a speech in Mandarin and English.
Contacted afterwards, he said he had been invited by a grassroots leader and accepted as he wanted to encourage the habit of life-long learning.
Told that WCU was unaccredited, he said he had not been given any information about it. 'If my presence there had given the university credibility, that was not my intention,' he said.
Several graduates interviewed after Monday's ceremony believed the university was based in Los Angeles and that it was a proper institution.
They had paid between $13,000 and $19,000 in fees to take up bachelor's, master's and doctorate courses lasting one year to 15 months.
Those who took up the doctorate programme said they attended classes two days a month, from 9am to 5pm.
Several said they did not know a university can be registered and yet have no academic accreditation, where it is subject to quality checks by an independent body. It also means employers may not recognise the degrees.
An electronics factory quality controller who paid $13,000 in fees for her bachelor's degree said: 'I was hoping to get a better job in logistics with this degree, but now it may not be possible.'
Ms Ho Fee Men, director of a Chinese medical hall, said she had heard rumours that the university was unaccredited, but continued with her PhD programme anyway. To get her doctorate, she paid $19,000 in fees, attended classes twice a month over 15 months and wrote a 50,000-word thesis.
Two businessmen said they knew their doctorates were worthless but took up the programme to learn about business management.
Mr Chang Chia Sheng, 55, managing director of X.L. Handle, which makes industrial fasteners, said he gained from discussions with other businessmen.
At least 218 people here have been found with degrees from dubious universities such as Preston, Wisconsin International and Kennedy-Western.
Business owners make up one of three groups here who have degrees from unaccredited institutions and degree mills. For many of them, an honorary PhD has become a must-have symbol of success.
Another group comprises consultants and private school lecturers who may have a first degree and some expertise in a particular area, but seek a master's degree or doctorate to bolster their credentials.
And lastly, there are those who pay for undergraduate degrees and transcripts - usually non-graduates who want qualifications to gain jobs or promotions.
It is thus shocking to learn that instead of pushing to outlaw universities such as WCU, former Minister of State for Education Chan Soo Sen was actually the guest of honour at the "fraudulent" degree seller’s convocation.
His excuse? He had not been given any information about WCU's accreditation, and his presence at the convocation was not meant to give the university credibility.
This explanation might possibly hold water if he was a random member of the public, with no knowledge of issues such as accreditation.
However, given that the Straits Times has previously run several exposes on degree mills (as the article points out, the reporter’s dog was registered to receive a doctorate), and Mr Chan was a former Minister of State for Education up until 2006, to claim ignorance is a poor defense.
Further, to claim that he did not intend to lend WCU credibility is missing the point.
Mr Chan might genuinely have neglected to do his due diligence and been ignorant of WCU's background. However, in the eyes of those receiving the "fraudulent or substandard degrees", as well as their family and friends, the presence of a former Minister of State for Education could only be interpreted as a seal of approval.
This news story was published in The Straits Times on October 22, 2008:
THE ceremony in the Old Parliament House had all the pomp and circumstance associated with any graduation.
The professors and graduands were in full academic regalia. Speeches flowed in English and Mandarin. And afterwards, a gala dinner at a hotel.
At the ceremony, the university's honorary president, a Professor Bernard Cadet, delivered an inspiring speech, urging graduands to transform the world.
'Believe nothing is impossible. West Coast University (WCU) will be proud of you in the future,' he told the 76 graduands from Singapore, Indonesia and China, before handing them their doctorates, master's and bachelor's degrees.
But this was a ceremony for an unaccredited university based in Panama, not Los Angeles, as its school in Singapore had claimed.
The Asia-Australia School of Management (AASM), a Case-certified school in Middle Road, offers West Coast University programmes here with a related company, Huanyu Training Expert.
At least two American states have outlawed degrees from WCU, describing it as a 'degree supplier' that offers 'fraudulent or substandard degrees'.
The Texas State Higher Education Coordinating Board warns on its website that WCU 'is used by multiple unaccredited entities. The extent to which they are related is unknown, but more than one operator is suspected.'
In some parts of the United States, it is a criminal offence to use degrees from unaccredited institutions.
'Dr' John Huang, one of the owners of AASM and Huanyu, insisted that the university is based in Los Angeles and faxed The Straits Times documents showing West Coast University International registered as a business in California.
But he confirmed that it was not the California-based West Coast University reputed for nursing and health science-related degrees. He admitted that WCU was unaccredited, but said his students had been given the facts.
His doctorate is from Ashwood University, the same degree mill that granted this reporter's pet dog a doctorate for US$599 (S$886) just two months ago.
The guest of honour at Monday's ceremony was MP for Joo Chiat Chan Soo Sen, who delivered a speech in Mandarin and English.
Contacted afterwards, he said he had been invited by a grassroots leader and accepted as he wanted to encourage the habit of life-long learning.
Told that WCU was unaccredited, he said he had not been given any information about it. 'If my presence there had given the university credibility, that was not my intention,' he said.
Several graduates interviewed after Monday's ceremony believed the university was based in Los Angeles and that it was a proper institution.
They had paid between $13,000 and $19,000 in fees to take up bachelor's, master's and doctorate courses lasting one year to 15 months.
Those who took up the doctorate programme said they attended classes two days a month, from 9am to 5pm.
Several said they did not know a university can be registered and yet have no academic accreditation, where it is subject to quality checks by an independent body. It also means employers may not recognise the degrees.
An electronics factory quality controller who paid $13,000 in fees for her bachelor's degree said: 'I was hoping to get a better job in logistics with this degree, but now it may not be possible.'
Ms Ho Fee Men, director of a Chinese medical hall, said she had heard rumours that the university was unaccredited, but continued with her PhD programme anyway. To get her doctorate, she paid $19,000 in fees, attended classes twice a month over 15 months and wrote a 50,000-word thesis.
Two businessmen said they knew their doctorates were worthless but took up the programme to learn about business management.
Mr Chang Chia Sheng, 55, managing director of X.L. Handle, which makes industrial fasteners, said he gained from discussions with other businessmen.
At least 218 people here have been found with degrees from dubious universities such as Preston, Wisconsin International and Kennedy-Western.
Business owners make up one of three groups here who have degrees from unaccredited institutions and degree mills. For many of them, an honorary PhD has become a must-have symbol of success.
Another group comprises consultants and private school lecturers who may have a first degree and some expertise in a particular area, but seek a master's degree or doctorate to bolster their credentials.
And lastly, there are those who pay for undergraduate degrees and transcripts - usually non-graduates who want qualifications to gain jobs or promotions.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Worker Sues And Gets $100,000
Here are excerpts from a news story in The New Paper today:
Mr Ong Kean Lim, 23, did what few foreign workers would dare to do: He said no to compensation for his injuries from the Manpower Ministry (MOM).
Instead, he took his employers to court.
And won.
He walked away with $100,000. If he had accepted the MOM assessment, he would have got only $4,410 for injuries which have affected his speech and facial muscles.
The Malaysian was lucky to survive when he fell 7m (about two-storeys high) from a platform while doing wiring work on 7 Oct, 2005.
He suffered fractures that required metal plates to be inserted in his face, and neck wounds that led to part of his thyroid gland being removed.
The MOM had assessed last year that he would get compensation of $4,410 because his degree of disability was assessed to be only 3 percent.
In September, he was awarded $100,000 in damages after his former employer Mas Power Engineering accepted 90 per cent of the blame for the accident.
Mr Ong, who was an electrician, told The New Paper: "What I got (from the court) is such a huge difference from what the MOM offered. Till today, I'm wondering if I'm dreaming."
MOM statistics show there were 14,927 work-men's compensation last year.
Accepting the MOM's assessment means the worker cannot pursue legal action against the employer.
Lawyers believe that for every 10 injured workers, at least five would sue their employer for more compensation, if they were aware of their legal rights.
Mr Ong Kean Lim, 23, did what few foreign workers would dare to do: He said no to compensation for his injuries from the Manpower Ministry (MOM).
Instead, he took his employers to court.
And won.
He walked away with $100,000. If he had accepted the MOM assessment, he would have got only $4,410 for injuries which have affected his speech and facial muscles.
The Malaysian was lucky to survive when he fell 7m (about two-storeys high) from a platform while doing wiring work on 7 Oct, 2005.
He suffered fractures that required metal plates to be inserted in his face, and neck wounds that led to part of his thyroid gland being removed.
The MOM had assessed last year that he would get compensation of $4,410 because his degree of disability was assessed to be only 3 percent.
In September, he was awarded $100,000 in damages after his former employer Mas Power Engineering accepted 90 per cent of the blame for the accident.
Mr Ong, who was an electrician, told The New Paper: "What I got (from the court) is such a huge difference from what the MOM offered. Till today, I'm wondering if I'm dreaming."
MOM statistics show there were 14,927 work-men's compensation last year.
Accepting the MOM's assessment means the worker cannot pursue legal action against the employer.
Lawyers believe that for every 10 injured workers, at least five would sue their employer for more compensation, if they were aware of their legal rights.
Singapore Power Breaks Silence
Newspaper TODAY ran this story yesterday:
The uproar began slightly over a month ago when SP Services announced that electricity tariffs would increase 21.5 per cent in the last quarter of this year.
Consumers, already burdened by record inflation, saw red and pointed to profits of S$1.086 billion that SP's parent company, Singapore Power, made last year.
How would the poor cope, and why couldn't Singapore Power use some of its profits to absorb the cost, many asked in newspaper and Internet forums.
But the company remained largely silent, leaving market regulator, the Energy Market Authority (EMA), to respond to news coverage and readers' letters.
On Friday, Singapore Power broke the silence and launched a spirited defence against public anger.
"We have nothing to hide," said group chief executive officer Mr Quek Poh Huat in a media briefing helmed by top management.
The key message was this: Blaming SP Services for high tariffs is akin to shooting the messenger.
"If I'm the lorry driver (delivering) goods to your house, and you ask me how come the (price for) a bag of rice has doubled, I can't explain to you," said chief financial officer Yap Chee Keong.
SP Services does not generate electricity; it transports power from the generation companies (gencos) to end-users, selling to households without any price mark-up.
The transmission charge, together with the fee for billing and reading of meters, makes up 17 per cent of the tariff.
Over the last six years, Singapore Power has reduced transmission charges by 24 per cent through higher efficiency.
The remaining 83 per cent of the tariff – or 25.13 cents out of the current 30.45 cents per kilowatt hour – is paid to gencos.
EMA sets the formula for tariffs, which Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim asked to be revealed in Parliament last month.
Singapore Power's profit from the regulated electricity market here was S$423 million last year, representing a 6 per cent return on total assets (ROTA) – a "reasonable" rate compared to other countries.
In Australia's Victoria state, for example, the ROTA is 9.6 per cent. The rest of its profit was from sale of investments and its Australian operations.
In the briefing, Singapore Power also tackled other thorny questions: How far in advance can consumers know of next quarter's electricity prices? Why can't investments in infrastructure be postponed? Why not ask the government for funding?
Tariffs for Jan to Mar 2009 will be based on October's average forward fuel prices, said SP Services deputy managing director Jeanne Cheng.
The gencos will convert the average forward price to Singapore dollars and use it to set the tariff's fuel component.
"By the end of November, we would submit to EMA for approval the tariffs for (next) quarter.
EMA would require time for checks, but I believe EMA is trying to work to shorten this period to have an earlier announcement," she said.
SP Services had announced this current quarter's tariffs two days before they kicked in, but notice of up to a month is possible, said Mr Quek.
When contacted, EMA said: "We are working with SP Services to shorten the turnaround time, but ultimately, due process is needed to compute, check and confirm the figures."
Singapore Power will invest S$5.1 billion in infrastructure over the next five years, with funds coming from operational cashflows and external borrowings.
It has borrowed S$9 billion from the international markets this year for further investment, said Mr Yap.
It would be unfair to ask the government for funding because that would mean taking from taxpayers, he said.
"We can take the easy way out, but S$10 billion from the Budget would mean S$10 billion less for the rest."
Mr Yap added: "Energy has a direct correlation with gross national product. If you believe Singapore will grow, then you need to plan forward. It's like the airport – you have to build it before planes will come."
Singapore's major industries like the banking and pharmaceutical sectors also require high quality power grids with minimal voltage fluctuations, and "just to maintain the same standard, you have to invest", said Singapore Power's chief operating officer Ong Boon Hwee.
The uproar began slightly over a month ago when SP Services announced that electricity tariffs would increase 21.5 per cent in the last quarter of this year.
Consumers, already burdened by record inflation, saw red and pointed to profits of S$1.086 billion that SP's parent company, Singapore Power, made last year.
How would the poor cope, and why couldn't Singapore Power use some of its profits to absorb the cost, many asked in newspaper and Internet forums.
But the company remained largely silent, leaving market regulator, the Energy Market Authority (EMA), to respond to news coverage and readers' letters.
On Friday, Singapore Power broke the silence and launched a spirited defence against public anger.
"We have nothing to hide," said group chief executive officer Mr Quek Poh Huat in a media briefing helmed by top management.
The key message was this: Blaming SP Services for high tariffs is akin to shooting the messenger.
"If I'm the lorry driver (delivering) goods to your house, and you ask me how come the (price for) a bag of rice has doubled, I can't explain to you," said chief financial officer Yap Chee Keong.
SP Services does not generate electricity; it transports power from the generation companies (gencos) to end-users, selling to households without any price mark-up.
The transmission charge, together with the fee for billing and reading of meters, makes up 17 per cent of the tariff.
Over the last six years, Singapore Power has reduced transmission charges by 24 per cent through higher efficiency.
The remaining 83 per cent of the tariff – or 25.13 cents out of the current 30.45 cents per kilowatt hour – is paid to gencos.
EMA sets the formula for tariffs, which Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim asked to be revealed in Parliament last month.
Singapore Power's profit from the regulated electricity market here was S$423 million last year, representing a 6 per cent return on total assets (ROTA) – a "reasonable" rate compared to other countries.
In Australia's Victoria state, for example, the ROTA is 9.6 per cent. The rest of its profit was from sale of investments and its Australian operations.
In the briefing, Singapore Power also tackled other thorny questions: How far in advance can consumers know of next quarter's electricity prices? Why can't investments in infrastructure be postponed? Why not ask the government for funding?
Tariffs for Jan to Mar 2009 will be based on October's average forward fuel prices, said SP Services deputy managing director Jeanne Cheng.
The gencos will convert the average forward price to Singapore dollars and use it to set the tariff's fuel component.
"By the end of November, we would submit to EMA for approval the tariffs for (next) quarter.
EMA would require time for checks, but I believe EMA is trying to work to shorten this period to have an earlier announcement," she said.
SP Services had announced this current quarter's tariffs two days before they kicked in, but notice of up to a month is possible, said Mr Quek.
When contacted, EMA said: "We are working with SP Services to shorten the turnaround time, but ultimately, due process is needed to compute, check and confirm the figures."
Singapore Power will invest S$5.1 billion in infrastructure over the next five years, with funds coming from operational cashflows and external borrowings.
It has borrowed S$9 billion from the international markets this year for further investment, said Mr Yap.
It would be unfair to ask the government for funding because that would mean taking from taxpayers, he said.
"We can take the easy way out, but S$10 billion from the Budget would mean S$10 billion less for the rest."
Mr Yap added: "Energy has a direct correlation with gross national product. If you believe Singapore will grow, then you need to plan forward. It's like the airport – you have to build it before planes will come."
Singapore's major industries like the banking and pharmaceutical sectors also require high quality power grids with minimal voltage fluctuations, and "just to maintain the same standard, you have to invest", said Singapore Power's chief operating officer Ong Boon Hwee.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Singapore's Carbon Emission Sky High
Human Development Report has released its latest report on Singapore @ hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_SGP.html.
Under the section Climate Change, it says:
With 0.1% of the world's population, Singapore accounts for 0.2% of global emissions - an average of 12.3 tonnes of CO2 per person. If all countries in the world were to emit CO2 at levels similar to Singapore's, we would exceed our sustainable carbon budget by approximately 453%.
High-income OECD countries meanwhile lead the league of "CO2 transgressors". With just 15% of the world’s population, they account for almost half of all emissions. If the entire world emitted like High-income OECD countries -an average of 13.2 tonnes of CO2 per person, we would be emitting 6 times our sustainable carbon budget.
Singapore has signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. As a non-Annex I Party to the Protocol, Singapore is not bound by specific targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
Under the section Climate Change, it says:
With 0.1% of the world's population, Singapore accounts for 0.2% of global emissions - an average of 12.3 tonnes of CO2 per person. If all countries in the world were to emit CO2 at levels similar to Singapore's, we would exceed our sustainable carbon budget by approximately 453%.
High-income OECD countries meanwhile lead the league of "CO2 transgressors". With just 15% of the world’s population, they account for almost half of all emissions. If the entire world emitted like High-income OECD countries -an average of 13.2 tonnes of CO2 per person, we would be emitting 6 times our sustainable carbon budget.
Singapore has signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. As a non-Annex I Party to the Protocol, Singapore is not bound by specific targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Jaslyn Go's Account Of The Trial
One of the Tak Boleh Tahan! defendants have blogged about the trial. Read her full entry @ jaslyngo.sgpolitics.net. Here are excerpts:
The 2nd day of trial started with DPP finally providing some answers to the provision of the video recording which the Police intended to adduce as evidence.
We returned to court at 2pm to view the video together. We all had a good laugh as this is the first time after the protest that the TBT 18 sat down and re-lived the experience of the protest. As we viewed the video. We were laughing away at some of the scenes. e.g. when Seelan was dragged and the police videographer was focusing on Seelan's shoes.. Seelan lifted up his legs and commented that he is still wearing the same pair.
We also laughed at the silliness of ASP Willam Goh insisting that we move from the junction when the traffic light was clearly red.
Jufri Mahmood questioned the witness if she (a Police Staff Sergent) knew what gazetted actually meant but DPP objected to that citing irrelevance to which John made a very good rebuttal as he pointed out that even she as a Police Staff Sergent is not aware of Parliament House being a gazetted area and why are the rest of us laymen expected to reasonably ought to have known, hence he believe the relevance to Jufri Mahmood questioning of her understanding of the word "gazetted".
The 2nd day of trial started with DPP finally providing some answers to the provision of the video recording which the Police intended to adduce as evidence.
We returned to court at 2pm to view the video together. We all had a good laugh as this is the first time after the protest that the TBT 18 sat down and re-lived the experience of the protest. As we viewed the video. We were laughing away at some of the scenes. e.g. when Seelan was dragged and the police videographer was focusing on Seelan's shoes.. Seelan lifted up his legs and commented that he is still wearing the same pair.
We also laughed at the silliness of ASP Willam Goh insisting that we move from the junction when the traffic light was clearly red.
Jufri Mahmood questioned the witness if she (a Police Staff Sergent) knew what gazetted actually meant but DPP objected to that citing irrelevance to which John made a very good rebuttal as he pointed out that even she as a Police Staff Sergent is not aware of Parliament House being a gazetted area and why are the rest of us laymen expected to reasonably ought to have known, hence he believe the relevance to Jufri Mahmood questioning of her understanding of the word "gazetted".
Count On Him PM Lee
The Singapore economy looks gloomy for 2009 but we should trust that our nation's leaders will know what to do. Like Dick Lee sang in this excellent performance, "Count on him PM Lee!"
Singapore Economy To Remain Weak In 2009
Channel NewsAsia reported today that Singapore's economy, which is already in a technical recession, will remain weak in 2009 on projections the global economic outlook will deteriorate further, the central bank said Tuesday.
As a financial crisis evolves to impact economic activity worldwide, the city-state is likely to be hammered given its heavy exposure to external demand, the Monetary Authority (MAS) said in its Macro Economic Review.
"Looking ahead, the outlook for the global economy has deteriorated amidst heightened risk aversion and deleveraging in the financial sector," MAS said.
As a small and open trading economy, Singapore is vulnerable to any downturn in its major export markets such as the United States, Europe, China, India and Japan.
"The risks to external demand conditions continue to be on the downside, and a more severe global slowdown cannot be discounted," the MAS warned.
"Taking all these factors into account GDP growth is expected to be around 3.0 per cent in 2008, and the economy will continue to grow below its potential rate into 2009," the MAS said.
Prospects for a recovery late next year hinge on the performance of key global economies, it said.
As a financial crisis evolves to impact economic activity worldwide, the city-state is likely to be hammered given its heavy exposure to external demand, the Monetary Authority (MAS) said in its Macro Economic Review.
"Looking ahead, the outlook for the global economy has deteriorated amidst heightened risk aversion and deleveraging in the financial sector," MAS said.
As a small and open trading economy, Singapore is vulnerable to any downturn in its major export markets such as the United States, Europe, China, India and Japan.
"The risks to external demand conditions continue to be on the downside, and a more severe global slowdown cannot be discounted," the MAS warned.
"Taking all these factors into account GDP growth is expected to be around 3.0 per cent in 2008, and the economy will continue to grow below its potential rate into 2009," the MAS said.
Prospects for a recovery late next year hinge on the performance of key global economies, it said.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Discord Among Defendants
The Straits Times reported on October 25, 2008 that some of the defendants in the Tak Boleh Tahan! trial could not see eye-to-eye on a number of matters. Excerpts from the news story:
At one point, lawyer Chia Ti Lik, a defendant, interrupted fellow defendant Yap Keng Ho's cross-examination to say: "Your Honour, I do no see the relevance of this line of questioning. And I wonder why the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecutor) has not objected."
Yap had been questioning the police photographer on the type of flash she used to take pictures of the scene. He said it was to establish the authenticity of the photos.
One, 27-year-old Chong Kai Xiong, disagreed with Yap's assessment that there was something wrong with the pictures. Another, 58-year-old Jufrie Mahmood, said, "I'm getting the impression that Mr Yap is applying for a post in the police force."
Earlier in the day, Yap was also rebuked by a fellow defendant, after he accused District Judge Chia Wee Kiat of "giving evidence from the Bench and answering questions on behalf of the witness."
He made the remark after the judge, in response to a question on when the photos were taken, pointed out the date was stated on the cover of the book of photos.
Instantly, Mr R. Thrumurgan, who is representing two of the defendants, stood up and retorted: "I feel compelled to respond to Mr Yap. His submission and objection is of no basis at all."
Towards the end of the day, Yap and several defendants asked the judge that they be tried separately from the others. They had made a similar request a day earlier. The judge turned down their requests both times.
At one point, lawyer Chia Ti Lik, a defendant, interrupted fellow defendant Yap Keng Ho's cross-examination to say: "Your Honour, I do no see the relevance of this line of questioning. And I wonder why the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecutor) has not objected."
Yap had been questioning the police photographer on the type of flash she used to take pictures of the scene. He said it was to establish the authenticity of the photos.
One, 27-year-old Chong Kai Xiong, disagreed with Yap's assessment that there was something wrong with the pictures. Another, 58-year-old Jufrie Mahmood, said, "I'm getting the impression that Mr Yap is applying for a post in the police force."
Earlier in the day, Yap was also rebuked by a fellow defendant, after he accused District Judge Chia Wee Kiat of "giving evidence from the Bench and answering questions on behalf of the witness."
He made the remark after the judge, in response to a question on when the photos were taken, pointed out the date was stated on the cover of the book of photos.
Instantly, Mr R. Thrumurgan, who is representing two of the defendants, stood up and retorted: "I feel compelled to respond to Mr Yap. His submission and objection is of no basis at all."
Towards the end of the day, Yap and several defendants asked the judge that they be tried separately from the others. They had made a similar request a day earlier. The judge turned down their requests both times.
Tak Boleh Tahan! Trial Day 1 Video
Watch this video (put up by Seelan Palay on YouTube) about the 18 Singaporean activists charged for protesting outside Parliament House in March this year aka the Tak Boleh Tahan! trial.
Why Treat Them Like Lepers?
This letter by S. Murali was published in The New Paper on October 24, 2008.
ALL RIGHT, here we go again.
Bright ideas to house foreign workers:
Put them on a floating platform, or perhaps a floating island.
Build separate roads for them. Provide them with their own shops, so that they don't have to mingle with the rest of us.
Hey, why stop there?
Why not dig underground and build them some tunnels to live in?
Better still, to save cost, just build extensions to existing MRT tunnelling.
Then we won't have to look at these workers at all, only when they come up for air and to do our dirty work.
Are you people listening to yourselves?
These are HUMAN BEINGS we are talking about.
Some of you won't even treat your precious pets this way. Is this what it means to become a 'first world' nation?
That you treat everyone else from the 'third world' like lepers?
I'm sorry, but some of the ideas that have been 'floated' on this issue make me nauseous.
Get off my sky-high horse and provide solutions, you say?
Here's a novel idea: Let them live amongst us.
Build good quality dorms in housing estates, so that they can get a good night's sleep and still be near amenities such as shops and post offices.
How would I like it if they built a dorm next to my house? Come do, I say.
There is an open field in front of my house at Block 261, Bishan Street 22, which is earmarked as a possible site to build another condominium.
Build a dorm there.
Could there be inconveniences to me and the others living there, as a result? Sure.
More people in a small area is a hassle.
But it is people that we are talking about here.
And I am okay with people.
It's bigots that I have a problem with.
ALL RIGHT, here we go again.
Bright ideas to house foreign workers:
Put them on a floating platform, or perhaps a floating island.
Build separate roads for them. Provide them with their own shops, so that they don't have to mingle with the rest of us.
Hey, why stop there?
Why not dig underground and build them some tunnels to live in?
Better still, to save cost, just build extensions to existing MRT tunnelling.
Then we won't have to look at these workers at all, only when they come up for air and to do our dirty work.
Are you people listening to yourselves?
These are HUMAN BEINGS we are talking about.
Some of you won't even treat your precious pets this way. Is this what it means to become a 'first world' nation?
That you treat everyone else from the 'third world' like lepers?
I'm sorry, but some of the ideas that have been 'floated' on this issue make me nauseous.
Get off my sky-high horse and provide solutions, you say?
Here's a novel idea: Let them live amongst us.
Build good quality dorms in housing estates, so that they can get a good night's sleep and still be near amenities such as shops and post offices.
How would I like it if they built a dorm next to my house? Come do, I say.
There is an open field in front of my house at Block 261, Bishan Street 22, which is earmarked as a possible site to build another condominium.
Build a dorm there.
Could there be inconveniences to me and the others living there, as a result? Sure.
More people in a small area is a hassle.
But it is people that we are talking about here.
And I am okay with people.
It's bigots that I have a problem with.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Singapore's Press Freedom Ranking Drops From 141 To 144
The World Press Freedom Index 2008 has ranked Singapore 144 out of 173 countries. This is a three point drop from last year. Among the countries ranked below Singapore are Rwanda (145), China (167), Myanmar (170) and North Korea (172). The African nation of Eritrea is bottom of the list. Countries slightly above Singapore in the ranking include Cambodia (126), Malaysia (132), Sudan (135), Nepal (138) and Philippines (139).
The Reporters Without Borders index measures the state of press freedom in the world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom.
The Top 10 countries:
1. Iceland
2. Luxembourg
3. Norway
4. Estonia
5. Finland
6. Ireland
7. Belgium
8. Latvia
9. New Zealand
10. Slovakia
Read the Reporters Without Borders report and view the World Press Freedom Index 2008 at www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031
The Reporters Without Borders index measures the state of press freedom in the world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom.
The Top 10 countries:
1. Iceland
2. Luxembourg
3. Norway
4. Estonia
5. Finland
6. Ireland
7. Belgium
8. Latvia
9. New Zealand
10. Slovakia
Read the Reporters Without Borders report and view the World Press Freedom Index 2008 at www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031
Two Fined For Taking Part In Protest
Ng E-Jay has revealed his reason for pleading guilty to the illegal assembly charge on his blog at www.sgpolitics.net.
Dr Chee Soon Juan applied in court on Friday to the trial judge to dismiss the charges brought against the 17 activists because these charges go against the Singapore Constitution. He made these points to District Judge Chia Wee Kiat. Read his arguments at yoursdp.org.
Channel News Asia ran this story on 24 October 2008:
Two men involved in a protest against recent price hikes have been fined a total of S$1,800.
31-year-old PhD student, Ng E-Jay, and 44-year-old freelance offshore engineer, Jeffrey George, admitted to taking part in an unlawful demonstration dubbed the "Tak Boleh Tahan" protest near Parliament House on March 15 this year.
They, together with 17 other similarly accused persons – including Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan, his sister Chee Siok Chin and lawyer Chia Ti Lik – turned up in full force at the Subordinate Court on Thursday with their supporters.
While nearly all of them claimed trial, Ng and George did otherwise and threw in the towel.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Isaac Tan said the two men took part in the rally even after they found out from the SDP website that a permit was not granted for the event.
In his mitigation, Ng's lawyer, Dennis Chua, said his client took part in the protest as he was "very passionate" about issues on how the rising cost of living affected the average Singaporean.
He told District Judge Ch'ng Lye Beng that Ng was an "offender of conscience" and had no intention to cause any mischief during the rally.
Ng was fined S$600 for taking part in the illegal assembly and George was fined a similar amount for the same offence. At a separate hearing later in the evening, the latter was fined a further S$600 for taking part in an illegal procession.
DPP Tan informed District Judge Liew Thiam Leng that on that day, George had walked from the driveway of the Parliament House towards the nearby Funan DigitaLife Mall.
Police ordered George and the other alleged protesters to halt, but they refused to do so. The authorities arrested them after repeated warnings, said DPP Tan.
The remaining 17 accused persons intend to proceed to trial on Friday.
Dr Chee Soon Juan applied in court on Friday to the trial judge to dismiss the charges brought against the 17 activists because these charges go against the Singapore Constitution. He made these points to District Judge Chia Wee Kiat. Read his arguments at yoursdp.org.
Channel News Asia ran this story on 24 October 2008:
Two men involved in a protest against recent price hikes have been fined a total of S$1,800.
31-year-old PhD student, Ng E-Jay, and 44-year-old freelance offshore engineer, Jeffrey George, admitted to taking part in an unlawful demonstration dubbed the "Tak Boleh Tahan" protest near Parliament House on March 15 this year.
They, together with 17 other similarly accused persons – including Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan, his sister Chee Siok Chin and lawyer Chia Ti Lik – turned up in full force at the Subordinate Court on Thursday with their supporters.
While nearly all of them claimed trial, Ng and George did otherwise and threw in the towel.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Isaac Tan said the two men took part in the rally even after they found out from the SDP website that a permit was not granted for the event.
In his mitigation, Ng's lawyer, Dennis Chua, said his client took part in the protest as he was "very passionate" about issues on how the rising cost of living affected the average Singaporean.
He told District Judge Ch'ng Lye Beng that Ng was an "offender of conscience" and had no intention to cause any mischief during the rally.
Ng was fined S$600 for taking part in the illegal assembly and George was fined a similar amount for the same offence. At a separate hearing later in the evening, the latter was fined a further S$600 for taking part in an illegal procession.
DPP Tan informed District Judge Liew Thiam Leng that on that day, George had walked from the driveway of the Parliament House towards the nearby Funan DigitaLife Mall.
Police ordered George and the other alleged protesters to halt, but they refused to do so. The authorities arrested them after repeated warnings, said DPP Tan.
The remaining 17 accused persons intend to proceed to trial on Friday.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
MM Lee On "Assortative Mating"
Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew first brought this up in the early 1980s but it is possibly the first time he gave it a fancy name: "assortative mating".
According to Channel News Asia, LKY explained to the 700 delegates at the Human Capital Summit in Singapore yesterday that "assortative mating" means "finding a spouse that is at your level".
“That’s the way the world is. If I have explained this, I think I will lose votes after I explain the awful truth. Nobody believes it, but slowly it will dawn on them, especially the graduates, yes. You marry a non-graduate, then you are going to worry if your son or daughter is going to make it to the university,” added MM Lee.
Watch the MM Lee speech on Channel News Asia (thanks to Wayang Party for putting this up)
Also from the Wayang Party website, past reminders that LKY always held this belief (as evidenced by his past National Day rally speeches):
“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society… So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.” - 1983 National Day Rally speech
“We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two… We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic“. - 1967 National Day Rally speech
After the then-Prime Minister's speech in 1983, the government set up the Social Development Unit (SDU) in 1984 to “promote marriage among graduate singles".
According to Channel News Asia, LKY explained to the 700 delegates at the Human Capital Summit in Singapore yesterday that "assortative mating" means "finding a spouse that is at your level".
“That’s the way the world is. If I have explained this, I think I will lose votes after I explain the awful truth. Nobody believes it, but slowly it will dawn on them, especially the graduates, yes. You marry a non-graduate, then you are going to worry if your son or daughter is going to make it to the university,” added MM Lee.
Watch the MM Lee speech on Channel News Asia (thanks to Wayang Party for putting this up)
Also from the Wayang Party website, past reminders that LKY always held this belief (as evidenced by his past National Day rally speeches):
“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society… So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.” - 1983 National Day Rally speech
“We must encourage those who earn less than $200 per month and cannot afford to nurture and educate many children never to have more than two… We will regret the time lost if we do not now take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic“. - 1967 National Day Rally speech
After the then-Prime Minister's speech in 1983, the government set up the Social Development Unit (SDU) in 1984 to “promote marriage among graduate singles".
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Illegal Assembly Trial Begins
The Straits Times ran this story about the Tak Boleh Tahan! trial:
It was a lively start to the first day of court proceedings for 19 people accused of demonstrating in front of Parliament House in March.
The 19, who include Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin, have been charged with taking part in an illegal assembly and a subsequent procession.
The group piled into Court 5 of the Subordinate Courts at 9.30am on Thursday, and extra chairs had to be put in place to accommodate all of them.
The public gallery was filled with about 20 people, including supporters of the SDP and those on trial.
Amid the noise and commotion as the defendants were taking their seats before proceedings started, one of them, blogger Yap Keng Ho, 45, remarked to the rest: 'This is the largest pasar malam in the history of Singapore'.
During the course of proceedings before District Judge Chia Wee Kiat, several of those who were charged rose to ask questions or make applications.
There were requests for copies video clips taken by the police of the March 15 event; one accused sought an adjournment as he wanted to get back to his job; and one asked for the Court to observe a minute's silence for the late opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam, who was to have represented several of the activists.
But the first order of formal business on Thursday morning for District Judge Chia was to deal with the decision by one of the accused, blogger Ng E-Jay, 31, who said that he was pleading guilty.
He told The Straits Times that he had decided to do so just on Wednesday.
Proceedings were then adjourned so that his case could be dealt with before the trial of the remaining 18 accused could continue.
Ng was fined $600, or six days in jail in default, after he admitted to the charge.
From sgpolitics.net: Ng E-Jay wrote that he will be writing a personal statement soon on why he pleaded guilty to one charge (the procession charge was stood down in his case).
It was a lively start to the first day of court proceedings for 19 people accused of demonstrating in front of Parliament House in March.
The 19, who include Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin, have been charged with taking part in an illegal assembly and a subsequent procession.
The group piled into Court 5 of the Subordinate Courts at 9.30am on Thursday, and extra chairs had to be put in place to accommodate all of them.
The public gallery was filled with about 20 people, including supporters of the SDP and those on trial.
Amid the noise and commotion as the defendants were taking their seats before proceedings started, one of them, blogger Yap Keng Ho, 45, remarked to the rest: 'This is the largest pasar malam in the history of Singapore'.
During the course of proceedings before District Judge Chia Wee Kiat, several of those who were charged rose to ask questions or make applications.
There were requests for copies video clips taken by the police of the March 15 event; one accused sought an adjournment as he wanted to get back to his job; and one asked for the Court to observe a minute's silence for the late opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam, who was to have represented several of the activists.
But the first order of formal business on Thursday morning for District Judge Chia was to deal with the decision by one of the accused, blogger Ng E-Jay, 31, who said that he was pleading guilty.
He told The Straits Times that he had decided to do so just on Wednesday.
Proceedings were then adjourned so that his case could be dealt with before the trial of the remaining 18 accused could continue.
Ng was fined $600, or six days in jail in default, after he admitted to the charge.
From sgpolitics.net: Ng E-Jay wrote that he will be writing a personal statement soon on why he pleaded guilty to one charge (the procession charge was stood down in his case).
MOE To Curb Misleading Ads By Private Schools
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has finally come out to say it will have clearer rules in place to curb false and misleading advertisements by private schools.
Channel News Asia reported that the MOE said the rules will cover the proper use of quality labels, symbols and trademarks by private schools in advertisements and promotional material.
The institutions should also refrain from making untruthful claims about the school and its courses.
Education Minister Ng Eng Hen gave this update on Wednesday in a written reply to questions from Members of Parliament on the regulation and supervision of private schools.
This is part of MOE’s efforts to strengthen the current regulatory framework for private education.
MOE announced in March it will set up an independent Council for Private Education to enforce the enhanced regulatory regime.
Dr Ng said the Council will have the necessary powers to direct corrective measures if private school operators publish misleading advertisements.
The Council will also promote a better understanding of private education sector through consumer awareness and public education programmes to help potential students make informed choices when enrolling for private school courses.
News source: Channel News Asia
Channel News Asia reported that the MOE said the rules will cover the proper use of quality labels, symbols and trademarks by private schools in advertisements and promotional material.
The institutions should also refrain from making untruthful claims about the school and its courses.
Education Minister Ng Eng Hen gave this update on Wednesday in a written reply to questions from Members of Parliament on the regulation and supervision of private schools.
This is part of MOE’s efforts to strengthen the current regulatory framework for private education.
MOE announced in March it will set up an independent Council for Private Education to enforce the enhanced regulatory regime.
Dr Ng said the Council will have the necessary powers to direct corrective measures if private school operators publish misleading advertisements.
The Council will also promote a better understanding of private education sector through consumer awareness and public education programmes to help potential students make informed choices when enrolling for private school courses.
News source: Channel News Asia
Singapore Government: Defamation Suits Are Necessary
The Singapore government has defended itself against a charge of using defamation suits to stifle dissent, saying they are necessary for protection against unfounded allegations by political opponents.
In response to Human Rights Watch's appeal for Singapore's leaders to stop using libel suits to silence its critics, information ministry spokeswoman K. Bhavani said, "In Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the government and government leaders, but that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame."
He added, "If they do, the leaders must either sue to clear their names and be prepared to be cross examined in open court, or allow the lies to stand unchallenged and the public to believe that the defamations are true."
A judge this month ordered the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), its bankrupt secretary general Chee Soon Juan and his sister, a party member, to pay 610,000 dollars (413,000 US) for defaming the country's leaders.
Human Rights Watch said using defamation laws against critics "makes a mockery of Singapore's claim to be a model democracy."
In response to Human Rights Watch's appeal for Singapore's leaders to stop using libel suits to silence its critics, information ministry spokeswoman K. Bhavani said, "In Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the government and government leaders, but that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame."
He added, "If they do, the leaders must either sue to clear their names and be prepared to be cross examined in open court, or allow the lies to stand unchallenged and the public to believe that the defamations are true."
A judge this month ordered the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), its bankrupt secretary general Chee Soon Juan and his sister, a party member, to pay 610,000 dollars (413,000 US) for defaming the country's leaders.
Human Rights Watch said using defamation laws against critics "makes a mockery of Singapore's claim to be a model democracy."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tak Boleh Tahan!
The trial for the 18 activists charged for protesting outside Parliament House in March this year will begin this Thursday in the Subordinate Courts. It is scheduled to last till 7 Nov 08. Show your support by attending the trial at Subordinate Court No. 5 at 9:30am tomorrow.
According to the Singapore Democrats website, the hearing is the first in the history of Singapore where a group of activists defied the law prohibiting the gathering of 5 or more persons in public. The protest was part of the Tak Boleh Tahan! (can't take it anymore) campaign to highlight poverty in Singapore and the Government's greed in continuing to raise fees and prices even as wages of the people shrink.
The protesters had gathered outside Parliament House on 15 Mar 08 which is also World Consumer Rights Day (WCRD). They were confronted by the police whereupon 12 of them were arrested. They and six others were subsequently charged on two counts:
1. under Section 5(4)(b) Chapter 184 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public and Nuisance Act) for participating in an assembly,
2. under Section 5(4)(b) Chapter 184 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public and Nuisance Act) for participating in a procession..
The activists are not only challenging the law as unconstitutional but also the selective enforcement of the law by the police. The Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) also conducted protests on the same occasion in 2007 and 2008 outside Parliament House but the police did not act against them. CASE is headed by PAP MPs Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied GRC) and Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang).
To follow the trial proceedings, please log on to http://yoursdp.org.
The 18 activists charged:
Gandhi Ambalam
Chia Ti Lik
Chong Kai Xiong
Jeffrey George
Jaslyn Go
Chee Siok Chin
Govindan Rajan
Chee Soon Juan
Jufrie Mahmood
Jufri Salim
Surayah Akbar
Ng E-Jay
Seelan Palay
Shafi'ie
Carl Lang
John Tan
Francis Yong
Sylvester Lim
According to the Singapore Democrats website, the hearing is the first in the history of Singapore where a group of activists defied the law prohibiting the gathering of 5 or more persons in public. The protest was part of the Tak Boleh Tahan! (can't take it anymore) campaign to highlight poverty in Singapore and the Government's greed in continuing to raise fees and prices even as wages of the people shrink.
The protesters had gathered outside Parliament House on 15 Mar 08 which is also World Consumer Rights Day (WCRD). They were confronted by the police whereupon 12 of them were arrested. They and six others were subsequently charged on two counts:
1. under Section 5(4)(b) Chapter 184 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public and Nuisance Act) for participating in an assembly,
2. under Section 5(4)(b) Chapter 184 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public and Nuisance Act) for participating in a procession..
The activists are not only challenging the law as unconstitutional but also the selective enforcement of the law by the police. The Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) also conducted protests on the same occasion in 2007 and 2008 outside Parliament House but the police did not act against them. CASE is headed by PAP MPs Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied GRC) and Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang).
To follow the trial proceedings, please log on to http://yoursdp.org.
The 18 activists charged:
Gandhi Ambalam
Chia Ti Lik
Chong Kai Xiong
Jeffrey George
Jaslyn Go
Chee Siok Chin
Govindan Rajan
Chee Soon Juan
Jufrie Mahmood
Jufri Salim
Surayah Akbar
Ng E-Jay
Seelan Palay
Shafi'ie
Carl Lang
John Tan
Francis Yong
Sylvester Lim
Racism At Sarah Palin's Rally In Ohio
The US Presidential Election campaigning is heading into its final two weeks and racism is rearing its ugly head. Watch this news report by Al Jazeera.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
