This article appeared on Channel NewsAsia on 9 January 2009:
Films Act to be amended to allow factual party political films
By Valarie Tan
SINGAPORE: The Singapore government has accepted 17 out of 26 recommendations made by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media Society, or AIMS.
It agreed with the Council that it should take a phased approach to liberalising the Films Act, instead of repealing it immediately.
It will amend the Films Act to allow for certain types of party political films, which means that political parties and their candidates will be able to use films for internet election advertising during an election.
But party political films will have to be factual and objective and not dramatise or present a distorted picture.
In a news conference on Friday morning, Information, Communications and the Arts Minister Lee Boon Yang said that the government will move to amend the Films Act in the next month or two.
The government also agreed to set up an independent advisory panel, which will be made up of citizens of high standing and who are non-partisan.
The panel - to be chaired by a retired Senior District Judge and chairman of the Casino Regulatory Authority, Mr Richard Magnus - will determine whether films are party political films and if they can be aired.
But the Ministry for Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) said it will retain its right to ban films, like "Zahari 17 Years", which it feels are against public interest under Section 35 of the Films Act even though they may be readily available on the Internet.
Under the law, the minister is not obliged to give reasons for the ban.
Dr Lee said: "We know that it's not possible to block everything in certain situations, but that doesn't mean we should give in, be carried along by the tide. We should still state our position."
When asked why a different law is applied for political films compared to, say, films with violence and sex, Dr Lee said: "For political films, we're protecting society, because we want to maintain the political debate as a rational objective debate, not one given to emotional outburst, not one based on distorted presentations of issues."
"There is a danger to allowing such films to be circulated publicly in Singapore. Then, you will actually degrade the level of political debate, and you could bring the debate down to a competition between films," he added.
But the ministry has agreed to relax the Films Act in phases. Responding to the news, filmmaker Martyn See said: "When the government says 'in phases', then the next thing we have to ask is: When? - next five years, next 10 years, when? The government has shown it can act very quickly. So let's act quickly to liberalise political space for Singaporeans."
Mr See also said he would re-submit his two previously banned films -"Singapore Rebel" and "Zahari 17 Years" - once the amended Films Act has been passed.
In terms of e-engagement, the government said it will devote more resources to engage Singaporeans in cyberspace. But to ensure accountability, it will not remove the requirement for political websites to be registered.
The government will also not respond to Internet criticisms outside government sites like REACH. In response to this, blogger Alex Au said: "Is the government going to say 'no, we're going to ignore them because you didn't come into my room?'
"The government has to find ways of addressing some of the issues that are raised in other parts of the Internet, even if nobody brings it up within REACH. It could be in the form of a statement within REACH itself that addresses the stuff that is being talked about outside."
Blogger Gerald Giam told Channel NewsAsia: "By and large, the bloggers who are blogging about social and political issues do want some sort of response. I mean, it's a simple analogy that if I'm talking to you and you ignore me, then how do I feel?"
Dr Amy Khor, chairman of REACH, said: "For serious-minded citizens who are interested to engage the government on various issues they are concerned (about), one of the appeals of REACH is that when he gets into the website, his views will be heard... and there is likely to be a response.
"He may be able to get interaction, especially with the relevant ministries and officers. (This could) possibly even lead to a change, with his ideas."
On the rule prohibiting civil servants from voicing their personal opinions on government policies online, MICA said there will be no change. The ministry said allowing them to do so will compromise trust within the Civil Service.
The government has also accepted almost all the Council's views on protecting minors.
Friday, January 9, 2009
More Space For Political Discourse Expected
Channel NewsAsia ran this article on 9 January 2009:
More space for political discourse expected with liberalisation of online space
By Hasnita Majid
SINGAPORE: The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) has said it views the government's rejection of nine of its 26 recommendations as a reflection of its caution in using new media as a platform for discourse.
Speaking to Channel NewsAsia, AIMS chairman Cheong Yip Seng, however, is optimistic that the government's decision to ease its regulation on party political films and political broadcasts online will open up more space for political discourse in cyberspace.
Mr Cheong believes this will push the mainstream media to keep pace. He said: "It is foolish of the mainstream media to ignore the discussion online because people are going online for information.
"It's a major constituency and it's important for the mainstream media not to be seen as being behind, as in being out of the conversation.
"So, in terms of coverage in mainstream media, for example, on controversial issues, I think it is for their own interest that the mainstream media will have to attack this much more vigorously because of what is happening online."
Mr Cheong said that this is especially so during the general elections.
More space for political discourse expected with liberalisation of online space
By Hasnita Majid
SINGAPORE: The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS) has said it views the government's rejection of nine of its 26 recommendations as a reflection of its caution in using new media as a platform for discourse.
Speaking to Channel NewsAsia, AIMS chairman Cheong Yip Seng, however, is optimistic that the government's decision to ease its regulation on party political films and political broadcasts online will open up more space for political discourse in cyberspace.
Mr Cheong believes this will push the mainstream media to keep pace. He said: "It is foolish of the mainstream media to ignore the discussion online because people are going online for information.
"It's a major constituency and it's important for the mainstream media not to be seen as being behind, as in being out of the conversation.
"So, in terms of coverage in mainstream media, for example, on controversial issues, I think it is for their own interest that the mainstream media will have to attack this much more vigorously because of what is happening online."
Mr Cheong said that this is especially so during the general elections.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
MOM Resolves Salary Dispute
The following article appeared in TODAY on 8 January 2009:
MOM resolves salary dispute
By Leong Wee Keat
Most of the 226 Chinese workers who went to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) last week after a pay dispute with their employer have accepted a settlement.
Of these, 171 workers will continue working here while 53 will return to China. Two workers will have their claims adjudicated by the Labour Court.
MOM advised workers not to take matters into their own hands but to report such disputes or grievances to the ministry for mediation or adjudication in the Labour Court. MOM said it and the police would not hesitate to take firm action if workers violate any laws.
Meanwhile, in a joint statement yesterday, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Singapore National Employers Federation (Snef) urged employers to treat foreign workers — who make valuable contributions to the economy — right.
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, chairman of the Migrant Workers’ Forum, and Mr Koh Juan Kiat, Snef’s executive director, expressed concern over recent media reports.
They reminded employers to comply with the conditions of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, which requires employers of work permit holders to provide adequate housing, food and medical coverage.
Employers also ought to pay their workers on time and settle outstanding salaries before repatriating them.
MOM resolves salary dispute
By Leong Wee Keat
Most of the 226 Chinese workers who went to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) last week after a pay dispute with their employer have accepted a settlement.
Of these, 171 workers will continue working here while 53 will return to China. Two workers will have their claims adjudicated by the Labour Court.
MOM advised workers not to take matters into their own hands but to report such disputes or grievances to the ministry for mediation or adjudication in the Labour Court. MOM said it and the police would not hesitate to take firm action if workers violate any laws.
Meanwhile, in a joint statement yesterday, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and Singapore National Employers Federation (Snef) urged employers to treat foreign workers — who make valuable contributions to the economy — right.
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, chairman of the Migrant Workers’ Forum, and Mr Koh Juan Kiat, Snef’s executive director, expressed concern over recent media reports.
They reminded employers to comply with the conditions of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, which requires employers of work permit holders to provide adequate housing, food and medical coverage.
Employers also ought to pay their workers on time and settle outstanding salaries before repatriating them.
Treat Foreign Workers With Dignity
Dr Lam Pin Min, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, posted this entry on the P65 blog @ p65.sg on 7 January 2009:
I am totally abhorred by the recent reports of foreign workers gathering at MOM to seek redress. Not because of their mass gathering but rather at the plight they are in - the unfair treatment by their employers. Many of these foreign workers’ salaries were not paid to them on time or withheld by these unscrupulous employers. There were also reports of these workers being denied the basic healthcare when they fall ill, told only to sleep it off (for the more “fortunate” ones) and cajoled to continue working (for the less “fortunate” ones).
It is really unfortunate that such practices are happening in modern Singapore. Foreign workers, like any human beings, deserve to be treated with respect, dignity and fairness. Many of them have come to Singapore to work, incurring huge debts for the agent and travel expenses, only to be in a sorry state. They are simple people here to make a honest living, just like our forefathers. They are just like any one of us, somebody’s sons and fathers, with families to support back home.
Errant employers must be severely punished for their malpractices. Not only are the misdeeds inhumane, it will also tarnish the good reputation of our country. Foreign workers should be treated with dignity.
I am totally abhorred by the recent reports of foreign workers gathering at MOM to seek redress. Not because of their mass gathering but rather at the plight they are in - the unfair treatment by their employers. Many of these foreign workers’ salaries were not paid to them on time or withheld by these unscrupulous employers. There were also reports of these workers being denied the basic healthcare when they fall ill, told only to sleep it off (for the more “fortunate” ones) and cajoled to continue working (for the less “fortunate” ones).
It is really unfortunate that such practices are happening in modern Singapore. Foreign workers, like any human beings, deserve to be treated with respect, dignity and fairness. Many of them have come to Singapore to work, incurring huge debts for the agent and travel expenses, only to be in a sorry state. They are simple people here to make a honest living, just like our forefathers. They are just like any one of us, somebody’s sons and fathers, with families to support back home.
Errant employers must be severely punished for their malpractices. Not only are the misdeeds inhumane, it will also tarnish the good reputation of our country. Foreign workers should be treated with dignity.
Singapore Flyer Files Police Report After Information Leak
This story appeared in TODAY on 8 January 2009.
By Derrick A Paulo
SINGAPORE : The Singapore Flyer management has filed a police report after an information leak resulted in a news report on Wednesday on the sudden resignation of its general manager Steven Yeo.
Following his departure this week, TODAY has learnt that a three-man executive committee, comprising former MP Chng Hee Kok, NTUC Club Investments’ ex general manager Shirley Leow and Adval Brand Group managing director Patsy Ong will take the company forward.
The developments come just before a press conference the Flyer intends to hold on Friday, where it hopes to give an indication of its targeted reopening date and its experts will present the back-up solutions it intends to implement to prevent the kind of six-hour wheel stoppage on December 23 from happening again.
But with Mr Yeo leaving immediately - at the request of Flyer’s board of directors - instead of seeing through the full recovery of the stalled wheel, fresh questions are now being asked about the company.
The spokesperson was unable to comment on the decision, out of respect for "the individual's privacy", but said that the company “has the full capabilities to move forward”.
Its new executive committee comprises individuals with strong links to NTUC Club, the leisure and entertainment unit of the labour movement, which manages, among others, two theme parks and the integrated leisure and entertainment complex at Pasir Ris, Downtown East.
Mr Chng used to be NTUC Club CEO, while Ms Ong founded her integrated marketing services company for the tourism industry over a decade ago with an initial partnership with NTUC Club.
It was their appointment, however, that appears to have sparked Mr Yeo’s departure, according to The Straits Times, which obtained a copy of his resignation letter.
The Flyer spokesperson did not want to respond to his comments in the letter, and told TODAY: “We take a very serious view of any illegal breach of confidentiality. We have consulted our lawyers and lodged a police report on the matter.”
She added: “We would like to highlight that measures to strengthen the Singapore Flyer management had already been decided on before the incident on December 23.
“The Singapore Flyer project is a complex one that spanned over two years and different phases of the project required different types of expertise.”
By Derrick A Paulo
SINGAPORE : The Singapore Flyer management has filed a police report after an information leak resulted in a news report on Wednesday on the sudden resignation of its general manager Steven Yeo.
Following his departure this week, TODAY has learnt that a three-man executive committee, comprising former MP Chng Hee Kok, NTUC Club Investments’ ex general manager Shirley Leow and Adval Brand Group managing director Patsy Ong will take the company forward.
The developments come just before a press conference the Flyer intends to hold on Friday, where it hopes to give an indication of its targeted reopening date and its experts will present the back-up solutions it intends to implement to prevent the kind of six-hour wheel stoppage on December 23 from happening again.
But with Mr Yeo leaving immediately - at the request of Flyer’s board of directors - instead of seeing through the full recovery of the stalled wheel, fresh questions are now being asked about the company.
The spokesperson was unable to comment on the decision, out of respect for "the individual's privacy", but said that the company “has the full capabilities to move forward”.
Its new executive committee comprises individuals with strong links to NTUC Club, the leisure and entertainment unit of the labour movement, which manages, among others, two theme parks and the integrated leisure and entertainment complex at Pasir Ris, Downtown East.
Mr Chng used to be NTUC Club CEO, while Ms Ong founded her integrated marketing services company for the tourism industry over a decade ago with an initial partnership with NTUC Club.
It was their appointment, however, that appears to have sparked Mr Yeo’s departure, according to The Straits Times, which obtained a copy of his resignation letter.
The Flyer spokesperson did not want to respond to his comments in the letter, and told TODAY: “We take a very serious view of any illegal breach of confidentiality. We have consulted our lawyers and lodged a police report on the matter.”
She added: “We would like to highlight that measures to strengthen the Singapore Flyer management had already been decided on before the incident on December 23.
“The Singapore Flyer project is a complex one that spanned over two years and different phases of the project required different types of expertise.”
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Crack Down On Abuse Of Foreign Workers
THE BUSINESS TIMES ran this article on 7 January 2009:
IN this recession, as in downturns past, the plight of displaced workers is foremost on the minds of policymakers, with the government having come out strongly and swiftly to declare that saving Singaporeans from job losses is top priority.
Well and good. It's reassuring that, even as retrenchment and unemployment will inevitably rise this year, much is being done to try and help businesses prevent laying off staff, and cushion the impact of the economic woes on both employers and workers. But it's high time too that another key segment of the job market gets some due attention: foreign workers who are mistreated by employers.
The incidence of this misbehaviour may appear to have picked up of late, as the business climate has worsened, but in fact instances of abuse - of workers housed in appalling conditions, not paid their wages, or cheated by unscrupulous labour contractors - have been around, if not rife, for years. Workers packed together atop the back of a pick-up truck, none of them belted up, remains a common sight on Singapore roads. Last November, a cleaning firm was merely fined $20,000 for housing five foreign workers in a disused rubbish bin centre - where they not only slept but also cooked their meals - for at least six months.
Before this, the biggest fine meted out for a similar offence was only $7,500, to another cleaning company that made four workers live in a public toilet.
Another group of foreign workers were found crammed into a bug-infested dormitory.
In all, more than 1,000 companies were caught for housing workers in substandard conditions between January and November 2008 - but the vast majority got off with just a warning letter. If the penalty is not much of a deterrent, there will almost certainly be employers with no qualms about placing foreign workers just about anywhere expediently and cheaply. Then there was, of course, the fracas involving Serangoon Gardens residents who raised a huge stink over the idea of a workers' dormitory coming up in their midst.
As with all groups, there will be some black sheep, but most foreign workers come here to earn a living, not to create trouble. But going by the vehement objections of Singaporeans to having them live nearby, foreign workers are potential thieves or rapists. The concerns go beyond personal security, though, to complaints that a workers' dorm in the vicinity would lower their property value. Their solutions? House foreign workers offshore, or at least have separate access roads for them.
The Ministry of Manpower must get tough on errant, recalcitrant employers and unscrupulous agents who exploit workers and abuse the work permit system, including by, in some cases, barring them from applying for further permits altogether. As for those Singaporeans who believe foreign workers should preferably be seen only within and around their workplaces, just have all the rubbish collectors in their neighbourhood go on strike for a week, or even just a day or two.
IN this recession, as in downturns past, the plight of displaced workers is foremost on the minds of policymakers, with the government having come out strongly and swiftly to declare that saving Singaporeans from job losses is top priority.
Well and good. It's reassuring that, even as retrenchment and unemployment will inevitably rise this year, much is being done to try and help businesses prevent laying off staff, and cushion the impact of the economic woes on both employers and workers. But it's high time too that another key segment of the job market gets some due attention: foreign workers who are mistreated by employers.
The incidence of this misbehaviour may appear to have picked up of late, as the business climate has worsened, but in fact instances of abuse - of workers housed in appalling conditions, not paid their wages, or cheated by unscrupulous labour contractors - have been around, if not rife, for years. Workers packed together atop the back of a pick-up truck, none of them belted up, remains a common sight on Singapore roads. Last November, a cleaning firm was merely fined $20,000 for housing five foreign workers in a disused rubbish bin centre - where they not only slept but also cooked their meals - for at least six months.
Before this, the biggest fine meted out for a similar offence was only $7,500, to another cleaning company that made four workers live in a public toilet.
Another group of foreign workers were found crammed into a bug-infested dormitory.
In all, more than 1,000 companies were caught for housing workers in substandard conditions between January and November 2008 - but the vast majority got off with just a warning letter. If the penalty is not much of a deterrent, there will almost certainly be employers with no qualms about placing foreign workers just about anywhere expediently and cheaply. Then there was, of course, the fracas involving Serangoon Gardens residents who raised a huge stink over the idea of a workers' dormitory coming up in their midst.
As with all groups, there will be some black sheep, but most foreign workers come here to earn a living, not to create trouble. But going by the vehement objections of Singaporeans to having them live nearby, foreign workers are potential thieves or rapists. The concerns go beyond personal security, though, to complaints that a workers' dorm in the vicinity would lower their property value. Their solutions? House foreign workers offshore, or at least have separate access roads for them.
The Ministry of Manpower must get tough on errant, recalcitrant employers and unscrupulous agents who exploit workers and abuse the work permit system, including by, in some cases, barring them from applying for further permits altogether. As for those Singaporeans who believe foreign workers should preferably be seen only within and around their workplaces, just have all the rubbish collectors in their neighbourhood go on strike for a week, or even just a day or two.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Singapore Flyer Breakdown Had Happened Before
The news agency AFP wrote this article on 5 January 2009.
Less than three weeks before 173 people became trapped on the world's biggest observation wheel, dozens were stuck in another incident, the attraction said Friday.
The Singapore Flyer gave AFP details of three previous stoppages at the wheel before the most serious incident on December 23 which trapped most of the 173 passengers for more than six hours.
On December 4, 74 passengers were affected during a stoppage which lasted about an hour, the Flyer said in a statement that cited extreme weather and a short circuit as the cause.
Passengers were not at risk, said the Flyer, which opened last February and is one of Singapore's major tourist attractions.
On July 11, two passengers were on board when the wheel stopped for about an hour because of a minor braking system fault, the Flyer said.
No visitors were aboard on June 18 when the wheel stopped for an hour in an electrical storm. Passengers had been evacuated earlier as a precaution because of the bad weather, the Flyer said.
The wheel has been closed since it stopped turning after a small electrical fire on December 23.
Police are investigating and the Flyer's chairman, Florian Bollen, said international experts had gathered to examine what caused that incident "and to make sure that this will never happen again".
Most passengers were stuck inside the Flyer's enclosed cabins until power was restored but 10 escaped using rescue harnesses. Two were taken to hospital.
Less than three weeks before 173 people became trapped on the world's biggest observation wheel, dozens were stuck in another incident, the attraction said Friday.
The Singapore Flyer gave AFP details of three previous stoppages at the wheel before the most serious incident on December 23 which trapped most of the 173 passengers for more than six hours.
On December 4, 74 passengers were affected during a stoppage which lasted about an hour, the Flyer said in a statement that cited extreme weather and a short circuit as the cause.
Passengers were not at risk, said the Flyer, which opened last February and is one of Singapore's major tourist attractions.
On July 11, two passengers were on board when the wheel stopped for about an hour because of a minor braking system fault, the Flyer said.
No visitors were aboard on June 18 when the wheel stopped for an hour in an electrical storm. Passengers had been evacuated earlier as a precaution because of the bad weather, the Flyer said.
The wheel has been closed since it stopped turning after a small electrical fire on December 23.
Police are investigating and the Flyer's chairman, Florian Bollen, said international experts had gathered to examine what caused that incident "and to make sure that this will never happen again".
Most passengers were stuck inside the Flyer's enclosed cabins until power was restored but 10 escaped using rescue harnesses. Two were taken to hospital.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Singapore Prepares To Gobble Up Its Last Village
This article appeared in The New York Times on January 3, 2009.
By Seth Mydans
SINGAPORE — It is Singapore’s secret Eden, a miniature village called Kampong Buangkok that is hidden in trees among the massed apartment blocks, where a fresh breeze rustles the coconut palms and tropical birds whoop and whistle.
With just 28 houses in an area the size of three football fields, it is Singapore’s last rural hamlet, a forgotten straggler in the rush to modernize this high-rise, high-tech city-state. But apparently not for much longer. Kampong Buangkok is designated by the government for demolition and redevelopment, possibly in the near future. When it is gone, one of the world’s most extreme national makeovers will be complete.
Kampong is a local word for village and also defines a traditional rural way of life that Singapore has left behind.
“The big overhaul began in the early 1960s,” said Rodolph de Koninck, a professor of geography at the University of Montreal and one of the authors of “Singapore: An Atlas of Perpetual Territorial Transformation,” which graphically charts a half-century of change.
As the decades passed, a clamorous tropical settlement reinvented itself as a spic-and-span outpost of the developed world.
Now 90 percent of Singapore’s population has been moved into government housing, and many people have moved at least once again as the city continues to change.
“Everything is up for redevelopment,” Mr. de Koninck said. “Even downtown, things that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s are already being torn down.”
When Sng Mui Hong’s father bought the land in 1956, Kampong Buangkok was a muddy village like hundreds of others around Singapore. No one could have guessed that it would be the last.
Under the city’s master plan, at an unannounced date Kampong Buangkok will be “comprehensively developed to provide future housing, schools and other neighborhood facilities,” said Serene Tng of the Urban Redevelopment Authority in an e-mail message.
Ms. Sng, 55, is now the landowner, wheeling her bicycle among the metal-roofed, one-story homes of her tenants, who are also her friends and pay only nominal rents for their houses.
The government provides electricity, running water and trash collection, and once a day a postman comes by on his motorcycle.
Ms. Sng grew up here, and many of her neighbors were her childhood companions. Few people in Singapore of her generation can say that.
Fruits and flowers cluster in the village like endangered species in a vanishing ecosystem. There are tiny guavas and giant papayas, yams and tapioca plants, dill and edible bamboo shoots, bougainvillea and hibiscus.
Snakes and lizards scurry through the undergrowth, and tiny fish swim in a tiny stream.
Through the trees in all directions, the people of Kampong Buangkok can glimpse the government housing blocks that represent their future.
Under Singapore law, the government can buy the land at any time, at a designated price, and Ms. Sng has already prepared herself.
“If there’s a change, I won’t have my friends any more,” she said, but added: “We must not cling on to things. If the government wants to take the land, they will take it.”
There is no question that Singapore needs the land.
Its population, which was 1.6 million in 1960, has grown to 4.8 million living in an area less than 300 square miles, one of the world’s highest population densities. Planners project a growth of nearly 40 percent by midcentury, to 6.5 million.
“We will need to optimize land use, whether it is though reclamation, building upwards or using subterranean space,” Minister of National Development Mah Bow Tan said recently, in describing the plans for population growth.
To make more space, neighborhoods are razed, landmarks are sacrificed and cemeteries — an inefficient use of land — are cleared away, the buried remains cremated and placed in vaults.
In its most ambitious development project, Singapore has simply made itself bigger. In 1957 its land area was 224 square miles. Since then vast amounts of landfill, dumped into the sea, have expanded it by more than one-third, to 299 square miles.
Few people in Singapore know that one village still survives, hidden in trees 200 yards from a highway.
“Even if I want to show my children how I was brought up I can’t show them,” said Ho Why Hong, 50, a taxi driver, as he searched for Kampong Buangkok. “Everything is torn down.”
“When we were growing up we didn’t lock our doors,” he said. “That kind of trust we had. Everyone knew each other. Any stranger who came into the kampong, we knew.”
In modern Singapore, few neighbors know each other, said Sarimah Cokol, 50, who grew up in Kampong Buangkok and now lives in one of the apartments that people here call pigeonholes.
“Open door, close door,” she said in the terse speech of no-nonsense Singapore. “After work, go in. Close door.”
By Seth Mydans
SINGAPORE — It is Singapore’s secret Eden, a miniature village called Kampong Buangkok that is hidden in trees among the massed apartment blocks, where a fresh breeze rustles the coconut palms and tropical birds whoop and whistle.
With just 28 houses in an area the size of three football fields, it is Singapore’s last rural hamlet, a forgotten straggler in the rush to modernize this high-rise, high-tech city-state. But apparently not for much longer. Kampong Buangkok is designated by the government for demolition and redevelopment, possibly in the near future. When it is gone, one of the world’s most extreme national makeovers will be complete.
Kampong is a local word for village and also defines a traditional rural way of life that Singapore has left behind.
“The big overhaul began in the early 1960s,” said Rodolph de Koninck, a professor of geography at the University of Montreal and one of the authors of “Singapore: An Atlas of Perpetual Territorial Transformation,” which graphically charts a half-century of change.
As the decades passed, a clamorous tropical settlement reinvented itself as a spic-and-span outpost of the developed world.
Now 90 percent of Singapore’s population has been moved into government housing, and many people have moved at least once again as the city continues to change.
“Everything is up for redevelopment,” Mr. de Koninck said. “Even downtown, things that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s are already being torn down.”
When Sng Mui Hong’s father bought the land in 1956, Kampong Buangkok was a muddy village like hundreds of others around Singapore. No one could have guessed that it would be the last.
Under the city’s master plan, at an unannounced date Kampong Buangkok will be “comprehensively developed to provide future housing, schools and other neighborhood facilities,” said Serene Tng of the Urban Redevelopment Authority in an e-mail message.
Ms. Sng, 55, is now the landowner, wheeling her bicycle among the metal-roofed, one-story homes of her tenants, who are also her friends and pay only nominal rents for their houses.
The government provides electricity, running water and trash collection, and once a day a postman comes by on his motorcycle.
Ms. Sng grew up here, and many of her neighbors were her childhood companions. Few people in Singapore of her generation can say that.
Fruits and flowers cluster in the village like endangered species in a vanishing ecosystem. There are tiny guavas and giant papayas, yams and tapioca plants, dill and edible bamboo shoots, bougainvillea and hibiscus.
Snakes and lizards scurry through the undergrowth, and tiny fish swim in a tiny stream.
Through the trees in all directions, the people of Kampong Buangkok can glimpse the government housing blocks that represent their future.
Under Singapore law, the government can buy the land at any time, at a designated price, and Ms. Sng has already prepared herself.
“If there’s a change, I won’t have my friends any more,” she said, but added: “We must not cling on to things. If the government wants to take the land, they will take it.”
There is no question that Singapore needs the land.
Its population, which was 1.6 million in 1960, has grown to 4.8 million living in an area less than 300 square miles, one of the world’s highest population densities. Planners project a growth of nearly 40 percent by midcentury, to 6.5 million.
“We will need to optimize land use, whether it is though reclamation, building upwards or using subterranean space,” Minister of National Development Mah Bow Tan said recently, in describing the plans for population growth.
To make more space, neighborhoods are razed, landmarks are sacrificed and cemeteries — an inefficient use of land — are cleared away, the buried remains cremated and placed in vaults.
In its most ambitious development project, Singapore has simply made itself bigger. In 1957 its land area was 224 square miles. Since then vast amounts of landfill, dumped into the sea, have expanded it by more than one-third, to 299 square miles.
Few people in Singapore know that one village still survives, hidden in trees 200 yards from a highway.
“Even if I want to show my children how I was brought up I can’t show them,” said Ho Why Hong, 50, a taxi driver, as he searched for Kampong Buangkok. “Everything is torn down.”
“When we were growing up we didn’t lock our doors,” he said. “That kind of trust we had. Everyone knew each other. Any stranger who came into the kampong, we knew.”
In modern Singapore, few neighbors know each other, said Sarimah Cokol, 50, who grew up in Kampong Buangkok and now lives in one of the apartments that people here call pigeonholes.
“Open door, close door,” she said in the terse speech of no-nonsense Singapore. “After work, go in. Close door.”
Friday, January 2, 2009
China Construction Workers Still At MOM
The following article appeared in the New Paper on 2 Jan 2009.
Firm's 'new wage structure' halves their pay
Tan May Ping and Shree Ann Mathavan
2 January 2009
The New Paper
JUST a day after they turned out in full force at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), hordes of China workers were there again yesterday.
The workers claimed that their complaints about their salaries being drastically reduced had yet to be settled with their employers.
Their other bone of contention was that their employers were taking too long to pay their outstanding wages from September onwards.
More than 100 workers from Zhonghe Huaxing Development and China Nuclear Industry Huaxing Construction Co showed up yesterday and crowded the main entrance of the MOM building at Havelock Road.
Security personnel and the police gotthem to move to the side, away from theentrance.
About 200 workers had gone to the MOM on Tuesday to complain that they had not been paid for four months.
They had also objected to the many 'unfair' deductions from their salaries.
The ministry said on Tuesday that with its intervention, the issues were amicably resolved.
The employers, it said, had banked the September salaries into the workers' accounts that day and had also undertaken to pay all salary arrears by Chinese New Year.
It added that the employers had also undertaken to pay basic salaries on time going forward, and that the parties had reached an understanding on other differences.
But the workers were still unhappy yesterday.
Speaking to The New Paper yesterday, they said their average monthly salary had been reduced from $1,300 to just $700 plus a variable component that depends on their volume of work.
One construction worker in his 30s claimed they were informed of this only on Monday, when they found posters detailing the change in wage structure posted up in their various accommodations.
He said: 'We were promised before coming (to Singapore) that our pay would be $1,300, now it's completely changed.
'What do they mean by this? We should be paid our entire salary.'
He also said that as the company did not divulge how this variable component is calculated, they would be at the mercy of the company.
Like many of his colleagues, this worker who came to Singapore to work in July last year claimed to have been paid only a fraction of the wages due to him.
'$6,000 still owed'
In the six months he has been here, he claimed he has been paid only $1,000 so far.
Some $6,000 in wages are still owed to him, he claimed.
Workers we spoke to also added that the company's schedule of paying them their overdue wages was taking too long.
A construction worker in his 40s told The New Paper: 'All of us have wives, kids, ageing parents to support and many have borrowed from loan sharks to come here.
'How can they take so long? We are anxious, especially since we want to send money in time for Chinese New Year.'
This worker said that they were informed in a meeting with their employers on Tuesday that the monthly wage deduction of $550 would be discontinued.
This deduction was supposed to be returned to them in a lump sum upon completion of their two-year contract.
However, the $150 deduction for water and electricity would remain.
That is something the workers continue to be unhappy about.
Said the worker: 'We already earn so little and yet they want to deduct this and that.'
The workers hoped that by turning up once again at the doorsteps of MOM, the wage dispute could be settled once and for all.
He said: 'We are hoping for a resolution, so this is the only thing we can do.
'If we go to work or just sleep, the problem won't be settled.'
When contacted, a spokesman for the company said the workers had 'wrongly perceived' that the company's wage structure had changed.
He said the variable component of the wage structure has always been there and is necessary because it takes into account the volume of work that workers do.
'That's our right as an employer. It's not a pay cut, it depends on the work they do.'
He said: 'If workers don't work and keep going to MOM, why should we pay them?'
However, when asked about why the posters clarifying the wage structure were put up, he declined to comment further.
But he noted that the salaries stated by the workers were not listed in the companies' contracts.
He said: 'That is the agents' promise, not ours.'
An MOM spokesman said that some of the workers returned to the ministry to raise additional issues, and it is looking into the matter.
The rest of the workers returned to work yesterday, she added.
Firm's 'new wage structure' halves their pay
Tan May Ping and Shree Ann Mathavan
2 January 2009
The New Paper
JUST a day after they turned out in full force at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), hordes of China workers were there again yesterday.
The workers claimed that their complaints about their salaries being drastically reduced had yet to be settled with their employers.
Their other bone of contention was that their employers were taking too long to pay their outstanding wages from September onwards.
More than 100 workers from Zhonghe Huaxing Development and China Nuclear Industry Huaxing Construction Co showed up yesterday and crowded the main entrance of the MOM building at Havelock Road.
Security personnel and the police gotthem to move to the side, away from theentrance.
About 200 workers had gone to the MOM on Tuesday to complain that they had not been paid for four months.
They had also objected to the many 'unfair' deductions from their salaries.
The ministry said on Tuesday that with its intervention, the issues were amicably resolved.
The employers, it said, had banked the September salaries into the workers' accounts that day and had also undertaken to pay all salary arrears by Chinese New Year.
It added that the employers had also undertaken to pay basic salaries on time going forward, and that the parties had reached an understanding on other differences.
But the workers were still unhappy yesterday.
Speaking to The New Paper yesterday, they said their average monthly salary had been reduced from $1,300 to just $700 plus a variable component that depends on their volume of work.
One construction worker in his 30s claimed they were informed of this only on Monday, when they found posters detailing the change in wage structure posted up in their various accommodations.
He said: 'We were promised before coming (to Singapore) that our pay would be $1,300, now it's completely changed.
'What do they mean by this? We should be paid our entire salary.'
He also said that as the company did not divulge how this variable component is calculated, they would be at the mercy of the company.
Like many of his colleagues, this worker who came to Singapore to work in July last year claimed to have been paid only a fraction of the wages due to him.
'$6,000 still owed'
In the six months he has been here, he claimed he has been paid only $1,000 so far.
Some $6,000 in wages are still owed to him, he claimed.
Workers we spoke to also added that the company's schedule of paying them their overdue wages was taking too long.
A construction worker in his 40s told The New Paper: 'All of us have wives, kids, ageing parents to support and many have borrowed from loan sharks to come here.
'How can they take so long? We are anxious, especially since we want to send money in time for Chinese New Year.'
This worker said that they were informed in a meeting with their employers on Tuesday that the monthly wage deduction of $550 would be discontinued.
This deduction was supposed to be returned to them in a lump sum upon completion of their two-year contract.
However, the $150 deduction for water and electricity would remain.
That is something the workers continue to be unhappy about.
Said the worker: 'We already earn so little and yet they want to deduct this and that.'
The workers hoped that by turning up once again at the doorsteps of MOM, the wage dispute could be settled once and for all.
He said: 'We are hoping for a resolution, so this is the only thing we can do.
'If we go to work or just sleep, the problem won't be settled.'
When contacted, a spokesman for the company said the workers had 'wrongly perceived' that the company's wage structure had changed.
He said the variable component of the wage structure has always been there and is necessary because it takes into account the volume of work that workers do.
'That's our right as an employer. It's not a pay cut, it depends on the work they do.'
He said: 'If workers don't work and keep going to MOM, why should we pay them?'
However, when asked about why the posters clarifying the wage structure were put up, he declined to comment further.
But he noted that the salaries stated by the workers were not listed in the companies' contracts.
He said: 'That is the agents' promise, not ours.'
An MOM spokesman said that some of the workers returned to the ministry to raise additional issues, and it is looking into the matter.
The rest of the workers returned to work yesterday, she added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
