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.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
