Category: Komentar

Send in your opinion to [email protected].
Kirimkan pandangan anda kepada [email protected].

Stop Allowing Maids To Be Preyed Upon By Sexual Predators

I am filing this report as my concern to what is happening every Sunday at our parks and public places. I hope the authorities and the public will look into this issues.

Every Sunday, Paya Lebar and Lucky Plaza have become a ‘flesh market’ for thousands of Banglas to gather, stalk, prey and pick maids for their lust and sexual desires.

Also check-out every Sunday at the East Coast Park, Carpark D, Banglas and maids pitch tents for their ‘sex love nests’ for their immoral activities. Right in a public recreational park and beach areas that are meant for family outings. I am sure making love in a public area is a punishable offence.

The open space between Kallang Airport Drive and Kallang Airport Way is littered with couples, Banglas and maids. Openly displaying ‘intimate and sensuous’ behaviours.

This are not a normal boy/girl relationships of love and marriage, these are clear cut issues of sex predators taking advantage of naïve, vulnerable maids for their sexual pleasures. As we know the Banglas/Indians come from a country where women are subservient to men, a male chauvinistic society, a rape occurs every 15 minutes.

Our maids have become the weekend ‘comfort women’ for these Bangla sex predators. Both Banglas and maids have it free and easy for sexual misconduct in Singapore.

As we know hundreds of maids are pregnant every year, as always the girls get used and abandon.

Sexual offences goes unreported.The maids do not how to complain and address their problems, They are easily exploited. On numerous occasions I have heard of maids after booking a hotel room with their Bangla boyfriends, find their money and possession missing along with their boyfriends. I also heard cases of sexual offences, forced sex, spiked drinks and broken promises

When molest and rapes do happen, most maids are too scared to report , whatever happens these girls will never ever report to the authorities or police let alone inform their employers. They are the silent victims.

There are more sinister intentions besides a normal Bangla and maid relationship. Willing or unwilling the line must not be crossed, all this must be within the boundaries of Singapore laws. I believe these foreign workers have contravene and defy their working contract which requires good behavior and not to cause public unease. These foreign workers have displayed bahaviours that have been very disconcerting and caused unease and disgust among Singaporeans.

Action must be taken to apprehend these sex predators, curtailed such abuses and protect our maids.

After taking care of liquors and drinkers, its time to reprimand and discipline Banglas/Indians sexpredators of stalking, preying and sexploiting our maids.

My suggestions,
• Every Sundays, the authorities, Police and MOM must check-out and record Banglas/Indians and maids booking into cheap hourly rates hotels, eg Hotel 81,involving in “illicit, inappropriate and unacceptable sexual relationship”.
• The National Parks authority must keep track of park users and camp sites not for sinister activities.
• Bangla/Indian drivers must not use their employers vans, on Sundays for making love. ( recently I saw a van with mattress, maids in East Coast Park)
• Banglas and maids who display ‘flirtatious and indecent behavior’ in public.
• In Sentosa, Banglas/Indians taking photos or oggling at bikini swimmers must be apprehended.
This is a problem that needs to be addressed by the authorities. If nothing is done, then this will continue to happen indefinitely, Banglas will become more bolder and more innocent maids will fall victims indefinitely.

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

March 19, 2015
HSA Warns Of Eight Illegal Health Products Available Here Through Online Sites
The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) on Tuesday warned the public not to buy or consume eight illegal health products which are available here through online sites.

The products, marketed as dietary and sports nutrition supplements, were found to contain “potent Western medicinal ingredients” which are not allowed in supplements sold in Singapore, HSA said.

The products are:
1. Nutrex Research Lipo 6 Black Ultra Concentrate;
2. Nutrex Research Lipo 6 Unlimited;
3. Primaforce Yohimbine HCL;
4. Muscletech Neurocore Grape / Muscletech Neurocore Fruit Punch;
5. Muscletech Hydroxycut Hardcore Elite;
6. Xenadrine XT Xtreme Thermogenic;
7. BSN N.O.-Xplode 2.0 Advanced Strength;
8. Skinny 22
The products were detected through HSA’s ongoing surveillance of Internet sales activities.

“Our investigations show that some consumers in Singapore may have bought the products online. A number of sellers are currently assisting HSA with investigations,” said the agency.

The eight products were marketed for energy boosting, muscle building or weight loss purposes.

The Western medicinal ingredients present in the eight products may cause serious adverse reactions and interact with other medications that consumers are taking, HSA said. The ingredients and their possible ill effects are as follows:

– Yohimbine may cause insomnia, anxiety, palpitations, chest pain, sweating, blurred vision and high blood pressure;

– Raubasine may cause gastric discomfort, dizziness, hypotension, confusion and rapid heartbeat;

– Vinpocetine may cause facial flushing, decrease of blood pressure, dizziness, headache, insomnia, sleep disturbances and rapid heart rate;

– Deanol may cause constipation, itching, insomnia, restlessness, and headache; and

– Phenolphthalein may cause rashes, abdominal cramps, breathing difficulties and kidney disorders.

HSA advised those consuming these products to stop immediately, and to consult a doctor if they feel unwell.

Anyone convicted of selling these illegal products may face a penalty fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for a period of up to two years under the Poisons Act, or both.

Under the Medicines Act, they may also be fined up to $5,000, jailed for up to two years, or both.

Source: www.straitstimes.com
March 18, 2015
Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party Narrowly Wins Israeli Elections

(Reuters) – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed victory in Israel’s election after exit polls showed he had erased his center-left rivals’ lead with a hard rightward shift in which he abandoned a commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state.

Difficult coalition talks still lie ahead. Isaac Herzog, Netanyahu’s chief opponent and head of the center-left Zionist Union, said “everything is still open” and that he already had spoken to party leaders about forming a government.

But after days in which Zionist Union appeared poised to defeat Netanyahu’s Likud, the exit polls late on Tuesday put the two parties in a dead heat. Netanyahu could have the easier path to forming a cabinet, which would put him on course to becoming Israel’s longest serving leader.

He pulled off the feat with a pitch for ultranationalist votes in the final days of the hard-fought campaign, using tactics that could deepen a feud with the White House, at least as long as President Barack Obama remains in office.

Netanyahu has focused on the threat from Iran’s nuclear program and militant Islam. But many Israelis had said they were tiring of the message, and the center-left campaigned on social and economic issues, surging in polls as election day neared.

An exit poll for Channel 2 TV gave Likud 28 seats and Zionist Union 27 in the 120-member parliament. Channel 10, revising its survey several hours after voting ended, put that margin at 27 seats for Likud to 26 for Zionist Union. Channel 1 had both parties tied at 27.

“Against all odds: a great victory for Likud,” a beaming Netanyahu told cheering supporters in a speech at party election headquarters in Tel Aviv. He said he had spoken to leaders of other right-wing parties and urged them to form a “strong and stable” government with him without delay.

“He’s a magician, he’s a magician,” the crowd chanted.

Opinion polls in the run-up to the ballot had shown Zionist Union with a three- to four-seat advantage over Likud, suggesting the public had warmed to Herzog, who won over voters with flashes of wit after enduring being lampooned for his short stature and reedy voice.

Final results are not expected until early on Wednesday.

COALITION BLOCS

A new centrist party led by former communications minister Moshe Kahlon could be the kingmaker in coalition talks. After the balloting ended, he said he did not rule out a partnership with either Likud or Zionist Union.

The exit polls gave right-wing and religious parties – Netanyahu’s traditional partners – about 54 seats, and left-leaning factions, 43 – both figures still short of a governing majority in the 120 seat parliament.

Turnout was around 72 percent, higher than the last election in 2013.

No party has ever won an outright majority in Israel’s 67-year history, and it may be weeks before the country has a new government. Netanyahu will remain prime minister until a new administration is sworn in.

Naftali Bennett, leader of the ultranationalist Jewish Home party, said he had spoken with Netanyahu within minutes of the exit polls and agreed to open “accelerated” coalition talks with him.

“The nationalist camp won,” Bennett, who advocates annexing parts of the occupied West Bank, told supporters.

But Zionist Union could find a lifeline from Kulanu and from Arab parties that united for the first time in a joint list of parliamentary candidates and came in third in the exit polls.

While they are unlikely to join a government, the Arab parties could give a center-left coalition tacit support and create a block against Netanyahu.

If the center-left is to assemble a government, it will also need the support of ultra-Orthodox parties, which the polls said would win 13-14 seats.

After the final results are in, and following consultations with political parties, it will be up to President Reuven Rivlin to name the candidate he deems best placed to try to form a coalition. The nominee will have up to 42 days to do so.

Rivlin has called for national unity, signaling he favors a government that would pair both Likud and Zionist Union.

Ramping up his bid for right-wing votes, Netanyahu on election day accused left-wing groups of trying to remove him from power by busing Arab Israeli voters to polling stations, a statement that drew a sharp rebuke from Washington.

“We’re always concerned, broadly speaking, about any statements that may be aimed at marginalizing certain communities,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Some political rivals accused Netanyahu of racism over the remarks.

The Obama administration has been angry at Netanyahu since he addressed the U.S. Congress two weeks ago at the invitation of Republican lawmakers, to oppose ongoing U.S. nuclear negotiations with Iran.

In the last days of campaigning as he sought to persuade supporters of smaller right-wing parties to “come home” to Likud, Netanyahu promised more building of Jewish settlements and said the Palestinians would not get their own state if he were re-elected.

Those sweeping promises, if carried out, would further isolate Israel from the United States and the European Union, which believe a peace deal must accommodate Palestinian demands for a state in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

When Netanyahu called the election in December, two years early, he looked set for an easy victory. But in the final weeks there has been a sense that change could be in the air. Some voters spoke of Netanyahu fatigue.

Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian negotiator in peace talks with Israel that collapsed in April, told Reuters: “It seems to me that Mr. Netanyahu will form the next government in Israel and we all heard what he said yesterday … Mr. Netanyahu has done nothing in his political life but to destroy the two-state solution.”

Source: www.reuters.com

March 18, 2015
The Big Tent Approach To Ensuring Singapore’s Survival

Let me suggest three concrete ways in which Singapore can increase its chances of survival.

First, Singapore can take the “Big Tent” approach that its founding fathers adopted. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S. Rajaratnam were the pioneers of this approach. As Singapore is small, its pool of top talent is naturally also small. Hence, our founding fathers knew that they must be prepared to work with all Singaporeans, even those who had been critical of the PAP and its leaders.

As an undergraduate at the National University of Singapore, I myself had written several articles criticising the Government and its leaders. These included a very strongly worded piece which warned that Mr Lee could be on a “slippery slide to dictatorship”. (Those who are interested in witnessing this youthful indiscretion can read this article in Can Singapore Survive?) Even so, Dr Goh offered me a place in the Defence Ministry (which I turned down in another act of folly).

Professor Tommy Koh, my predecessor as Singapore’s ambassador to the United Nations, and Professor Chan Heng Chee, my successor, also wrote articles criticising the Government in their youth. Prof Koh challenged the PAP’s claim that a political union with Malaysia was necessary for Singapore’s survival. He also advocated that an ombudsman be set up in Singapore “because in Singapore, the exercise of discretionary power by the Government is not subject to judicial review”, and spoke out in defence of The Necessary Stage in the wake of Josef Ng’s arrest. Meanwhile, Prof Chan’s first book was seen as an attempt to discredit Mr Lee. Her second book criticised the PAP for weakening democracy in Singapore in order to consolidate its own power.

Many other critics of the PAP and its policies have been invited to join the “Big Tent” over the years. These include Mr David Marshall, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Mr Raymond Lim. I firmly believe that we must continue with this “Big Tent” approach to politics. If not, Singapore society is likely to become more politically fractious and divided in the coming decades.

Second, the survivability of Singapore can be enhanced if we become the biggest cheerleader of Asean. It is truly sad that so few Singaporeans are aware that one reason Singapore remains so peaceful and safe today is because a giant political umbrella called Asean has been erected over South-east Asia, including Singapore. South-east Asia is incredibly diverse. In a relatively small geographical space, we can find Muslims, Christians, Hinayana Buddhists, Mahayana Buddhists and Hindus. This range of religious diversity is remarkable.

Given this diversity, wars of separation should have emerged as a natural consequence in South-east Asia. As the Balkans of Asia, it should have been the natural epicentre of separatism and conflict. Instead, over the past five decades, it has emerged as one of the global epicentres of peaceful resolution of conflicts. Any objective audit of Asean and its contribution to South-east Asia would show that Singapore is probably the biggest beneficiary from Asean’s success.

As a small state, Singapore has benefited the most from the culture of peace Asean has introduced into the region.

On the economic front, Singapore may have also benefited the most from the gradual opening up and liberalisation of the Asean economies. Singapore’s trade with the nine other Asean member states is larger than that of any other Asean country. Therefore, given the huge political and economic benefits that Singapore gets from Asean, Singapore should become the chief cheerleader and champion of Asean.

The third thing that Singapore can do to enhance its long-term survival is to go back to its roots, follow the examples of its founding fathers and go for bold, even risky, public policies. Our founding fathers were prepared to take big risks because they knew Singapore had no choice. Instead of being paralysed with fear, they displayed extraordinary courage. As a result of their courage, we have succeeded. Success, in turn, has led to a natural result of success: a culture of risk aversion. Indeed, this culture of risk aversion is one of Singapore’s biggest challenges in the coming years.

The best way to change this culture of risk aversion is to launch bold, iconic and heterodox policies that will catch the attention of our entire planet.

This is one reason I have advocated in my Big Ideas series that Singapore should strive to be the first city in the world to move towards a zero-car ownership city. This world of zero-car ownership is already on the way.

Well-known futurist Paul Saffo said in the National Geographic that within just five to 10 years, “Driverless cars will share roadways with conventional cars. This will happen in urban areas first and will take a decade to fully diffuse. In the long run, people will not own cars at all. When you need to go somewhere, you will have a subscription to an auto service, and it will show up at your door”.

By displaying extraordinary courage in going for such a bold new policy, Singapore will also help to ensure its long-term survivability because it would demonstrate that the culture of risk-taking was not confined just to the generation of the founding fathers of Singapore. Instead, it would demonstrate that the culture of risk-taking has been hardwired into the DNA of Singapore.

This culture of risk-taking may well be the best way to ensure Singapore’s long-term survivability as many new challenges will come our way. We must develop the culture of courage to respond boldly to each new wave of challenges. If we do so, the final answer to the question “Can Singapore survive?” may well be “Yes, we can”.

*This essay is adapted from the introduction to the latest book by Kishore Mahbubani, Can Singapore Survive? Published by Straits Times Press, Singapore Press Holdings, it retails for $25 before GST and is available at leading bookstores or from the website www.stpressbooks.com.sg. The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

Source: www.straitstimes.com

March 16, 2015
Helping Women Under Pressure At Home And At Work

At a speech at last week’s The Singapore Woman Award ceremony, Minister for Foreign Affairs K Shanmugam spoke of his surprise when he found out about the low percentage of women in top corporate management here. In his speech, he also outlined some of the measures that are being taken to address the challenges women face at work and at home. Below is an excerpt.

Most of us are aware, generally, of the difficulties women face in trying to have a successful career and of the hard choices that society forces upon them. I became more aware a few years ago when BoardAgender came to meet me. They highlighted the low level of representation of women in corporate senior management.

It was a surprise to me at that point in time because of my own experience in my law firm. If you look at my then-partnership, two-thirds (of lawyers) were women. In law school, two-thirds (of students) were young women. From the ages of 19 to 21, you know how boys are. The women turn up nicely dressed, mature, they speak well and they are prepared. Boys come in sandals and they are monosyllabic. So if we did not do positive discrimination, the entire law school would be full of women.

And likewise in Allen and Gledhill, where I was doing recruitment, we had to actively look out for some boys to employ. The women just outperform at interviews, at that age anyway. And if you look around, in accounting, medicine, you would normally not think of Singapore as a society where women are discriminated against. But BoardAgender showed me the figures in corporate board representation and they were sobering.

Before I deal with these issues, let me recount an anecdote that I think touches on a fairly fundamental underlying issue. I met the Norwegian Foreign Minister; he highlighted the approach in Norway. The men are expected to take time off to look after the children when they are infants. If they do not, their bosses will ask them why not? And that will have an impact on promotion.

New employers will look at your CV to see whether you have taken a year off to look after your children. If you have not, that would count against you. With that as a background, let me touch on four issues that affect women. One, the corporate boardroom; two, the issues women face at the workplace; three, some structural impediments that women face in the family justice system; and four, expectations placed on women at home.

BOARDROOM AND WORKPLACE CHALLENGES

Credit Suisse issued a report in September last year. It said female representation at the board level in Singapore companies fell from 8.6 per cent in 2012 … to 7.9 per cent in 2013. We are below the global average of 12.7 per cent, which itself is low. And if you compare among Asian countries, others in the region, we are also below them.

There was a recent survey by Hays. It showed that only 25 per cent of management positions in Singapore were held by women. We were the second-lowest among the Asian countries surveyed, behind China, Malaysia and Hong Kong.

Beyond fairness, there are actually good business reasons to reverse this trend. Studies suggest that female representation on boards is generally good for the firms. It usually translates to higher profit margins. Women probably temper the alpha male behaviour a little bit. An analysis of 1,500 Standard & Poor’s firms over 15 years showed that the more women they had in top management, the more market value they generated.

On March 6, Germany passed a law. It required some of Europe’s largest companies to give 30 per cent of supervisory board positions to women. The law will come into force next year. Germany joins Norway, Spain, France, Iceland, Belgium and the Netherlands in setting quotas for women in the boardroom.

Here in Singapore, we have not gone for hard, legally-mandated quotas. But the Government has been trying to encourage greater women representation on boards to shape norms. Last year, the Ministry of Social and Family Development accepted 10 recommendations by the Diversity Task Force, including programmes and training to help qualified women take on senior management positions. I think we have to keep emphasising the need for change and the need to set new norms.

Aside from the boardrooms, women have to contend with a variety of challenges in the workplace. I will only touch on one aspect, which is harassment. AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) did a study in 2008 that involved 500 respondents and 92 companies. AWARE found that 54 per cent of those surveyed had experienced some form of workplace harassment. 79 per cent of the victims were women, 21 per cent were men. This is sexual harassment. This harassment is unacceptable. Women need more protection.

The Ministry of Law passed the Protection from Harassment Act in March last year. It is now in force. This will help protect women better at the workplace, from stalking and (from those) trying to embarrass women online, shame them, which happens all too frequently. This Act has a lot of teeth. You can go to court, get remedies quickly and inexpensively. We made it easy to use, we made it inexpensive. It is a tool for protection and it is a tool that we hope can help slowly change behaviour.

Difficulties in the legal system and at home

No one wants a marriage to end in a divorce. But when it does, we have to make it easier for women to cope. There are several difficulties. I will mention two: One is maintenance; the other is getting an HDB (Housing and Development Board) flat.

We have now changed the laws (for divorce proceedings). We have made sure that divorce disputes will be handled quickly and led by judges. The lawyers will no longer dictate the rounds of affidavits.

Basically, divorce proceedings are seen by parties as a way of rearguing the 10, 15 or 20 years of marriage. This is unnecessary. There are only three issues: What happens to the children, how the assets are to be divided and how much maintenance is to be paid. So we focus on that.

We tell the judge to lead it, we prepare a short template affidavit, everybody has got to fit (their arguments) into that one-page template, you do not need 200 pages. It reduces legal costs. (We have) specialised family courts where the judges will be very knowledgeable about the issues and you will get a clear standard approach.

So all those changes have been made; they will be rolled out and the impact will be felt on the ground from this year onwards. And women will find it much easier. (As for) maintenance, we will also make changes over the next two years to make it much easier to recover money that has been ordered to be paid.

HDB flats post-divorce is another big issue. Eighty per cent of our population lives in public flats. And the issues are usually that after divorce, the former wife might find it difficult to get a flat because you are entitled to subsidies only twice. If she has used it up, there would be difficulties. You also do not want the system to be gamed, but the HDB now exercises flexibility in genuine cases. And we will do more in that area.

Dr Vivienne Wee from AWARE said women face unequal expectations as compared with men; are seen as having a duty to reproduce and take on “natural responsibilities” of caring for the elderly and children.

I think many of us realise that men do need to step up to share the domestic chores with their wives.

Again, research shows that in families where men share the housework with their wives, the wives are happier and less depressed. Divorce rates are lower in such households. Both also live longer.

But on that note, if I may share something else, research also shows that married men and unmarried women are the ones who live longest. So you can imagine who passes the stress to whom.

Another study shows that if you look at daughters of fathers who helped around the house, they were more likely to have higher aspirations. They are more likely to break the mould.

But both partners doing housework together is, of course, not always easy. There will be many cases where either the man — culturally usually the man — or the woman will have very demanding jobs.

And sharing equally is not possible. In such cases, there has to be an agreement, some sensible arrangement. It may have to involve the in-laws to get additional support. Sometimes both may hold such demanding jobs. What can be done? I think we have to be more understanding of the pressures that women face.

Source: www.todayonline.com

March 16, 2015