Category: Politik

  • Deepavali vs Diwali Debate Explains Singaporean Tamils’ Unhappiness With Foreigner Influx

    Deepavali vs Diwali Debate Explains Singaporean Tamils’ Unhappiness With Foreigner Influx

    A Channel NewsAsia’s Deepavali special got my attention today for two reasons. One the news presenter said: “Deepavali also known as Diwali”, and secondly because the presenter also referred to Deepavali as a “Hindu New Year”.

    (You can view the entire segment here: http://bit.ly/2e3oc2T)

    Just like a friend who commented on my Facebook post on the topic, I too have an issue with our national broadcaster needing to translate Deepavali (as it is said in Tamil) into Diwali.

    My friend said: “Tamil is one of our National Languages. I would rather they stick to Deepavali. I am not Tamil myself but grew up with it. I know many don’t see it the way we do and that is their right, But i would like the media to stick with Deepavali.”

    I think my friend is absolutely right when she added: “I don’t think the sudden use of Diwali has anything to do with the considerations of the Singapore bred North Indians…It has to do with the new citizens from North India who have come here.”

    Responding to my post, another friend asked if it was offensive to say ‘seng jia jiu yi’ instead of ‘xing nian kwai le’ (Happy Chinese New Year). I think it is different.
    2Yet another friend chimed in and said that CNA did mention ‘Deepavali’ as well as ‘Diwali’ and so it is ok. He said that if an organisation totally replaces ‘Deepavali’ with ‘Diwali’ it would be wrong and that Jurong Point Shopping Centre has done precisely that.

    Considering that Jurong has Tharman Shanmugaratnam as its anchor-Minister for the constituency, I am surprised that Jurong Point Shopping Centre has done that.

    Some in the Singaporean Tamil community have felt unhappy and sidelined by the non-inclusion of Tamil in certain prominent spaces (like the Changi Airport), which has also made international news. CNA’s production has got to be called out at least for that – because if we keep quiet then it may be accepted as a norm.

    My friend Gangasudhan writing on the same topic last year said that he felt like a second class citizen in his own country.

    “In recent days, many in the Tamil community have had their panties in a bunch because some shopping centres and even Changi Airport have started putting up Christmas decor even though Deepavali is right around the corner – in other words, not a single F was given for this festive occasion. While there is good reason to feel marginalised by this callous attitude in multiracial Singapore that champions racial harmony – complete with a special day each year to wear ‘costumes’ and ‘celebrate’, I am surprised that anyone is surprised by this.”

    The larger issue of course is how uninformed the majority in Singapore is despite 50-years of the Government promoting multi-racialism and multiculturalism. If the national broadcaster can be confused if Deepavali is a Hindu New Year, is it any wonder that local websites like The Smart Local will try and tease a laughter out of its audience by comparing laddoo (a popular Indian sweet) to diarrhoea?

    Yes CNA, Even if the Marwari, Gujarati, and Nepali of the Indian community celebrate their new year around Deepavali they are not the majority even in India.

    Deepavali is not a Hindu New year.

     

    Source: http://theindependent.sg

  • RM20 Road Charge For Foreign Vehicles Entering Johor From November

    RM20 Road Charge For Foreign Vehicles Entering Johor From November

    Foreign private-registered vehicles entering Malaysia via Johor will be subjected to an RM20 (S$6.60) charge from Nov 1, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) announced on Friday (Oct 28).

    The road charge (RC) will be collected each time motorists enter Malaysia via Touch n’ Go cards, according to the statement. The RC system has been activated at the two land entry points in Johor – the Causeway and the Second Link – and will be extended to the 10 other entrances into the country in stages.

    “Initial collection exercise will only involve foreign private-registered vehicles excluding foreign registered motorcycles,” MOT added.

    The ministry said the RC is not to be confused with the Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP).

    It described the VEP, which requires foreign vehicles entering Malaysia to be registered via an online portal for an RFID tag costing RM10, as “part of ongoing efforts by the Government of Malaysia to improve border control and monitoring”.

    The VEP tracking system is not yet in force, but MOT said the vehicles should go through the registration as required “nevertheless” to ensure “smooth entry” once it is implemented. The VEP will also initially only apply to the two entry points, before being introduced at others.

    On Friday evening, Singapore’s Ministry of Transport issued a statement to say that it has “noted” Malaysia’s plans. “If it discriminates against Singapore-registered vehicles, we will match it in some form,” said a spokesperson.

    At the moment, Singapore imposes a S$35 VEP fee on foreign cars entering the island, though each vehicle is given 10 free days per year and there are no charges during the weekends. VEP is also exempt on cars entering Singapore between 5pm and 2am from Monday to Friday.

     

    Source: ChannelNewsAsia

  • The Decline Of True Singaporeans In Our Local Workforce

    The Decline Of True Singaporeans In Our Local Workforce

    Singapore’s business model is now in such a mismatch and the impact of this is that it will eventually impact Singaporeans in a bad way.

    Back in the 80s and 90s, Singapore tried to encourage MNCs from setting up businesses here in Singapore by promising them quality workers at a reasonable cost. The model worked for awhile but as our wages rose, MNCs then complained and asked for cheaper labour.

    What Trump is shouting about is true: Corporate leaders (about 5 percent in any population) out of sheer greed move their businesses to other countries, manipulate to outwit escape local tax laws and continually looking to exploit and take advantage of cheap labour anywhere.

    The government then responded with an open policy that was implemented without much publicity. LKY started to say that they are necessary whether we like it or not but things were not as upsetting as they are today because the rate of inflow was much slower. MNC employers are happy to have Pinoys, Indians, and Ah Tiongs to fill the vacancies at a lower cost.

    It is only a half-truth that there are lots of job vacancies since the PAP does not qualify what jobs are these. Some jobs pay so low that even you want to take up the job, you are barely surviving. $8 an hour as an admin staff? $1200 a month as a hawker assistant? These may be attractive to foreign workers but not viable to locals.

    Slowly but surely, Singaporeans are edged out because of higher salary expectation, CPF contributions and their NS obligations. The Employer credits your CPF every month but the next day, monies in the OA are channeled to HDB to service the mortgage loan. How much is left at 55? Everyone ‘bochap’, because the HDB repayments do not come from their take home pay.

    No impact. Life as usual until they are replaced and made redundant. This is our new Singapore brand that the PAP team created after the old guards left.

    *Comments first appeared on TRE and have been merged and edited for clarity’

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Are Malay Graduates And Job Seekers Being Discriminated In Malaysia? Yes, They Are

    Are Malay Graduates And Job Seekers Being Discriminated In Malaysia? Yes, They Are

    The high number of unemployed graduates, especially Malay graduates is not news in this country. We hear them blaming everything but themselves. But what if the Malays are indeed being discriminated against?

    “Yeah right,” I muttered at first as someone who is sometimes ashamed by my own race. How could I not, when I’m assumed to be ‘easily swayed and confused’ half the time?

    Trying to keep an open mind, I read this study, and was quite puzzled by the findings. It was entitled ‘Discrimination in high degrees: Race and graduate hiring in Malaysia‘ and was published in the Journal of Asia Pacific Economy by UM and UKM researchers. Here’s the paper abstract (bold is my own):

    This paper investigates racial discrimination in hiring fresh degree graduates in Malaysia through a field experiment. We send fictitious Malay and Chinese resumes to job advertisements, then analyse differentials in callback for interview attributable to racial identity, while controlling for applicant characteristics, employer profile and job requirements.

    We find that race matters much more than resume quality, with Malays, Malaysia’s majority group significantly less likely to be called for interview.Other factors, particularly language proficiency of employees, language requirements of jobs and profile of employers, influence employer biases.

    Applicants fluent in Chinese fare better, and Chinese-controlled and foreign-controlled companies are more likely to favour Chinese resumes, indicating that cultural compatibility explains part of the discrimination. Malay resumes tend to be perceived and prejudged adversely, and employers’ attitudes towards public policy outcomes, particularly pertaining to education quality and employment opportunity in the public sector, also account for the observed racial disparities.

    Let me simplify that for you:

    When researchers sent fake resumes of Malay and Chinese fresh graduates, the Malay applicants are much less likely to be called back for an interview. Employers perceive Malays negatively, think that they have lower-quality education and always have the safety net in the form of government jobs to fall back on.

    Huh. I’ve never been pro-Malay, but I hate discrimination more. How was the research conducted to come to this conclusion?

    How the research was conducted

    The research:

    • Sent over 3000 fake resumes, divided into 4 categories: AA Malay, AA Chinese, BA Malay and BA Chinese (AA = Above average; BA = Below average).
    • CGPA, university, language and technical skills were randomly assigned.
    • Sent the resumes to job vacancies in finance and engineering sector.
    • Did not include other races.

    The researchers:

    • Found that in general, AA applicants get more callbacks than BA applicants. Interestingly, AA Malay have lower callback rate than BA Chinese.
    • Showed that Chinese resumes received a 22.1% callback rate on average while Malay resumes received 4.2% callback rate on average.
    • Malay applicants for engineering jobs get the lowest callback rate at 2.9%.
    • Malay graduates from private universities get the lowest callback.
    • Showed that UTAR graduates get higher callback rates, but there is no penalty for UiTM degrees.
    • Malay resumes stating proficiency in Chinese get higher callback rates.
    • English and Malay proficiency and good English in cover letter have ‘negligible impact on call rates’.
    • Calculated callback rates among Chinese, foreign and Malay-controlled companies. Malays get lower callback rates in ALL of them.
    • Even Malay-controlled companies favour Chinese applicants 1.6 times more than Malays.

    As I read, it dawned to me the long-forgotten early struggles in my career, where I struggled to hear back from potential employers despite sending job applications after job applications. I thought it happened to everyone. I thought all job seekers faced the same problem.

    Was it… caused by my (very Malay-sounding) name instead?

    What caused this?

    The research said that the data generated cannot give conclusive reasons. But some important points to highlight:

    • Cultural compatibility and language ability matters. Employers with predominantly Chinese employees perceive that Malays are less likely to take jobs offered anyway (or quit within a few months), as Malays have the tendency to feel uncomfortable in these settings. The researchers theorise that Malays prefer environments where their religious customs and spoken language in work environment are catered to.
    • Malay applicants are negatively prejudged. This explains why BA Chinese get higher callback rates than AA Malays. No conclusive reasons are given, except that the negative stereotypes may be reinforced by past experience and lack of contact between these two groups to prove otherwise.
    • Appears to be the result of pro-Malay affirmative actions. People tend to think that Malays have lower-quality education and higher opportunities in the public sector anyway. This is a very complex issue, and further research are needed, but the researchers suggest that pro-Malay policies may in fact hurt Malay graduates’ job prospects.

    What does this mean?

    For the longest time, I thought, “Man, Malays are complainers,” when they say they can’t get jobs or get high pay or have limited opportunities. I thought: ‘The PM is Malay, the Parliament is majority Malay, the Kings are Malay, the policies are pro-Malay… what more do you want?’

    There’s substantive proof now to back up this discrimination claim. 22.1% callback rate vs 4.2% callback rate is a big difference. 1 in 5 Chinese applicants get called for interview, while less than 1 in 20 Malay applicants get the same. Remember that the quality of resumes were already factored in.

    Less callbacks means less opportunities, more likelihood to take lower-salary but stable jobs, and being stuck in lower-economic power for longer time.

    This is only one research though, and I’m happy to be pointed to other studies to disprove this or question the methodology of this research (for example, I didn’t like that it only compared Malay and Chinese resumes). But until then, won’t you agree that discrimination is discrimination?

    How now, brown cow?

    I hate the blame game, so I’m going to end this with a few suggestions on how can we level the playing field a bit more, so deserving Malay candidates get equal and fair chance in the job market, too.

    Employers (of ALL races):

    • If your employees are predominantly composed of a single race, get more diversified. Diversified workplaces earn more profits. It’s literally to your advantage to have a racially-balanced workforce.
    • Know that you (even Malay employers) have negative bias against Malays, and that potentially makes you lose out on those good Malay candidates.

    Malay graduates and job seekers:

    • If you have Chinese proficiency, put it in your resume. If you don’t and have difficulty getting callbacks, take Mandarin classes at the same time. This research proved that Chinese proficiency increased callback rates.
    • Make more friends outside of your race. Make more friends outside of your race. Make more friends outside of your race. You’re the majority. It’s up to you to reach out to others, not the other way around. Actively attend and network in events, not just Malay-organised events. Be a good friend, be a respectful person.
    • Even though you believe in your faith and race 100%, stop making remarks that make you sound stupid, non-accommodating and even violent. Be easy to work with.

    HXSM does this best so I’m just going to leave these examples of Malay-spewed absurdity to end this. If you’re gonna comment, be nice.

     

    Source: https://vulcanpost.com

  • M Ravi Barred From Applying For Certificate To Practice For 2 Years

    M Ravi Barred From Applying For Certificate To Practice For 2 Years

    The Court of Three Judges has decided that lawyer M Ravi who was ordered to stop practising in Feb 2015 should be prohibited from applying for a practicing certificate for a period of 2 years. In its judgment released today (27 Oct), the Court said that this was necessary to safeguard the interests of the public and to uphold public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession.

    Mr Ravi’s case was brought before the Court of Three Judges after he pleaded guilty to four charges of misconduct before a disciplinary tribunal last year. The tribunal, in its report released in December 2015 said that a prima facie case had been established against Mr Ravi since he had “pleaded guilty to the four charges and his mental condition as per the evidence of Dr (Tommy) Tan (a psychiatrist) does not exculpate him for his various acts of misconduct but are mitigating factors only”.

    Mr Ravi had earlier pleaded guilty to four charges of misconduct, which include creating a ruckus at the Law Society premises on 10 Feb 2015 and another charge of making inappropriate statements against the Law Society president and his family members in a Facebook post. He was also found guilty of  making false allegations against two lawyers in Feb 2015.

    The tribunal referred Mr Ravi’s case to the Court of Three Judges as it had no power to penalise a non-practising lawyer.

    On 6 Sep, Mr Ravi’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam sought an overall fine of $10,000 ($2,500 per offence) and pleaded for the Court to take his client’s mental illness into account.

    The Law Society’s lawyer, Mr Sean La’Brooy, did not object to a fine. He however, in arguing that Mr Ravi’s condition should not “exonerate” him, sought a higher quantum of at least $5,000 for one of the offences.

    The three judges that heard the case — CJ Menon and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Tay Yong Kwang – described Mr Ravi’s conduct as “reprehensible” and “disturbing”.

    CJ Menon had then asked: “(Are we) not going to hold a solicitor to the standards expected of him? … The whole thing may have been avoided if (Mr Ravi) had taken the doctor’s advice … Should we say because he has a medical condition, we punish him differently?”

    The Court had other sentencing options besides prohibiting Mr Ravi from practicing. Among these options are to censure him, to order him to pay a penalty of not more than $20,000, or to strike his name off the roll of lawyers.

    In delivering the verdict today, CJ Menon said that the Court was presented with a situation where Mr Ravi has a mental condition which has in the past caused him to act in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer. He said that there is a possibility that this may happen again in the future.

    “In this circumstances, we consider that anything short of prohibiting the respondent for a substantial period of time from applying for a practicing certificate would be inadequate,” the verdict read.

    Commenting on the verdict Mr Ravi said the following in his Facebook:

    “The Court of Appeal handed out a judgement today prohibiting me from practising law for a period of two years. I have already been out of practice for more than 18 months. My doctor had certified me fit to practice since December last year.The Law Society had approved my application for Practising Certificate in August 2016. However the Attorney General objected to my Practising Certificate. During the hearing before the Court of Appeal the Law Society had agreed that a fine is an appropriate penalty in line with the recommendation made by the Disciplinary Tribunal below.

    I accept that I did not behave appropriately when I was unwell. However, the Court of Appeal’s Judgment is acutely disproportionate in view of the Disciplinary Tribunals recommendation of a fine. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment means I am put (out) of Practice of Law for close to 4 years.

    However in as much I am devastated, this will not deter me from continuing my work in the field of international human rights and constitutional law and contribute to society where I can. To this extent, I will continue my work by assisting the firm of Eugene Thuraisingam LLP in my current role as a Head of Knowledge Management and Strategic Alliance Division.”

     

    Source: http://theindependent.sg

deneme bonusu