Category: Politik

  • SDA Establishes Alternative Association For Taxi Drivers

    SDA Establishes Alternative Association For Taxi Drivers

    Members of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) have registered a new Singapore Cabbies Association (SCA), aimed at protecting the rights and welfare of taxi drivers here.

    The SCA will serve as an “alternative” to the National Taxi Association (NTA), said founding adviser and SDA chairman Desmond Lim, by fighting for stronger regulation of third-party applications such as Uber, enhancing training for taxi drivers and public education.

    For example, it wants the authorities to push for Uber drivers to undergo formal training and comply with the same regulations as taxi drivers, and ensure Uber drivers have up-to-date Medisave contributions to renew their vocational licences.

    Added founding president and SCA assistant treasurer William Lim: “The NTA is only one single association. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and taxi companies are not taking into consideration their suggestions enough.”

    Mr William Lim, a full-time taxi driver, said the SCA also intends to engage veteran taxi drivers and traffic police officers to provider training for new cabbies. The current training that taxi operators provide is very basic, he said.

    The 200-member-strong association also plans to offer legal advice and financial education for cabbies, and educate the public on, for instance, the safe spots to flag cabs.

    The SCA’s annual membership is open to taxi drivers who hold valid taxi driver vocational licences and costs S$60. Mr Desmond Lim submitted the application to the Registry of Societies yesterday.

    When contacted, NTA executive adviser Ang Hin Kee told TODAY many agencies and authorities, including the LTA, Traffic Police and Central Provident Fund Board, work with the NTA because of its existing vast network and membership. “Importantly, there is an ongoing, continual effort on our part to reach out, so it is not a once-off event,” said Mr Ang, who is a Member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio GRC.

    While Mr Ang did not directly comment on the SCA, he questioned: “What do you bring new to the scene? … I still feel it is may be more effective (if) we can channel our resources through existing networks so that (NTA) can benefit the drivers.”

    Mr Ang added that the NTA is looking to leverage technology and work with companies managing third-party booking apps to facilitate better matching of cabbies and commuters.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Separation 1965: The Tunku’s ‘Agonised Decision’

    Separation 1965: The Tunku’s ‘Agonised Decision’

    Did Singapore ask to leave Malaysia of its own accord or was it forced out against its will?

    Fifty years after Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, the question is still moot. This review of the events leading to the separation seeks to throw light on the conundrum.

    Singapore separated from Malaysia on Aug 9, 1965, by a constitutional fiat that formalised an agreed settlement between the state of Singapore and the federal government.

    The act of separation was effected by the Malaysian Parliament adopting an Amendment to the Malaysian Constitution and ratifying an Agreement on Separation signed by the governments of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. It was put into action by a Proclamation of Independence of Singapore by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew that was read over Radio Singapore.

    That agreement was negotiated by leading members of the two governments to bring about an amicable solution to an increasingly bitter and intractable conflict between their ruling parties.

    However, it was then Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman who initiated the move to “hive off” Singapore from Malaysia.

    As he explained at a press conference after the passage of the Separation Act: “It was my idea that Singapore should leave the federation and be independent. The differences between the state government of Singapore and the central government of Malaysia had become so acrimonious that I decided that it was best that Singapore went its own way. Otherwise, there was no hope for peace.”

    This confirms that Singapore was forced to leave Malaysia at the Tunku’s behest. It was not Singapore that sought to secede or initiated the negotiation to separate from Malaysia, as some scholars seek to argue.

    Indeed, in the months leading to its constitutional eviction, Singapore had been warned by Malaysian leaders against seeking secession or a partition of Malaysia between the former states of Malaya and the new states – Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, as well as Penang.

    That partition had been proposed by Singapore as an alternative constitutional arrangement for a looser confederation. The proposal had developed from the call made by political parties grouped in the Malaysian Solidarity Convention for a “Malaysian Malaysia” that would ensure equality among all the states and ethnic groups in the country.

    This dual demand infuriated the ruling Alliance in Malaysia, especially the dominant Umno. Sections of the ruling parties called for strong retaliation against Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), which they accused of treason for seeking secession. Some “ultra nationalists” called for the arrest of Mr Lee and even imposing direct central rule on Singapore.

    As the conflict of words raged and Malay passions were roused, Malaysia’s senior leaders feared that violence might break out, leading to racial clashes across the whole country.

    Tunku’s surgical solution

    It was against this deteriorating political situation that the Tunku began to consider a surgical solution to this intractable problem, to cut the Gordian knot, as it were.

    The Tunku had left for London in mid-June for a Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference.

    I interviewed him on behalf of Radio Television Singapore (RTS) before his departure at the Paya Lebar International Airport, but he declined to say anything about the altercations between Malaysian politicians and Singapore leaders.

    In London, the Tunku was hospitalised with shingles and he thought long and hard about the problems with Singapore. His conclusion: “There would be no end to the bickering with Singapore except perhaps if Mr Lee Kuan Yew is made prime minister in the real sense of the word.”

    Indeed, the Tunku asked Minister Lim Kim San, who had gone to London with him, to tell Mr Lee (“your PM”) that “he can attend the next Prime Ministers’ Conference on his own”.

    That was the first indication by the Tunku that he would give Singapore independence, Mr Lim later said, although he missed the implication of the Tunku’s cryptic remark at the time.

    The Tunku wrote to his deputy, Tun Abdul Razak, telling him how he felt about the relations with Singapore and to talk things over with Mr Lee. Tun Razak met Mr Lee on June 29, but found it impossible to reach any meeting of minds. In Mr Lee’s recounting of the meeting in his memoirs The Singapore Story, Tun Razak went back on his previous agreement to consider a looser arrangement for Singapore and insisted on total capitulation in political activity, defence, foreign affairs, security and finance.

    However, as recounted by Dr Goh Keng Swee, when he met Tun Razak and Dr Ismail (Abdul Rahman), the Home Affairs Minister, in Kuala Lumpur on July 13, Dr Goh proposed that Singapore leave Malaysia to become an independent state. This proposal jived with the Tunku’s idea for Singapore to leave the federation.

    At a second meeting on July 20, Dr Goh told Tun Razak and Dr Ismail that Mr Lee was in favour of secession of Singapore and it should be done quickly, by Aug 9 when Parliament was to reconvene.

    On his return from London on Aug 5, the Tunku was asked by pressmen at the airport, including me, if he would be meeting Mr Lee to discuss the political differences raging between the two sides.

    His reply was non-committal, almost nonchalant, saying he would meet Mr Lee if there was anything to discuss. Little did we know that serious talks between Tun Razak, Dr Ismail and Dr Goh were going on in Kuala Lumpur, with Mr Lee in the Cameron Highlands consulted, on the total hiving off of Singapore from Malaysia.

    Tun Razak gave a full report to the Tunku on his return home. After Tun Razak and Dr Ismail had negotiated the terms of separation with Dr Goh and Mr E.W. Barker, the Tunku held an emergency meeting of his core Cabinet members on Aug 6, and approved the draft Bills to amend the Constitution and get Singapore to withdraw from the federation.

    On Aug 7, the Tunku said, the “big shots” of the PAP (meaning Mr Lee), called at his residency and signed the Separation Agreement, while other members of the Singapore Cabinet signed it in Singapore or at Singapore House in KL.

    Even at the last minute, Mr Lee asked the Tunku if he really wanted to break up Malaysia, which they had spent years to bring about. Would it not be wiser to go back to their original plan for a looser federation or confederation?

    But the Tunku demurred. “There is no other way out. I have made up my mind. You go your way and we go our own way,” Mr Lee recalled him saying.

    Secrecy had to be of the essence on both sides of the Causeway for fear of opponents of the separation reacting with violence to the agreement.

    Special Parliament session

    The first inkling we in RTS had that something was happening was the departure of several ministers from Singapore to KL on Aug 7. I was instructed to fly to KL on Aug 8 to cover the special session of Parliament on Aug 9, a Monday.

    I was joined in KL by fellow reporters Lim Kit Siang and Fuad Salim. In Parliament, we found only Mr Devan Nair, PAP MP for Bungsar, present. Some of the Singapore MPs were at Singapore House. Mr Nair and I listened to the Tunku’s speech moving the Separation of Singapore Bill on a certificate of urgency, via the in-house sound system in his office.

    When the session was adjourned, we learnt the Bill had been passed without opposition, although Umno Secretary-General Syed Jaafar Albar had left the chamber before the vote and expressed his disagreement with the separation. He, like the other ultras, wanted to maintain Malay rule over Singapore, forcibly if need be.

    When Separation was announced by the Tunku over Radio Television Malaya and the Proclamation of Singapore’s Independence read over Radio Singapore at 10am, Singaporeans received the news with a mixture of relief, regret and foreboding, although some quarters in Chinatown let off firecrackers in celebration.

    And when Mr Lee went on Radio Television Singapore to explain the circumstances leading to the separation, it was clear that he had been forced to accept Singapore’s eviction from Malaysia.

    It was, he said, a moment of anguish for him, having devoted his whole life to bringing about a united Malaysia, whose people were bound by ties of kinship, geography and history.

    He and Dr Goh had negotiated the terms of Separation to ensure that Singapore would be truly independent while continuing to have access to the water supply from Johor for its survival.

    And Singapore would be on its own for all its multiracial population, living in peaceful amity with the rest of Malaysia. Thus did Singapore achieve independence while avoiding a forcible integration in a Malaysia riven by interracial tension and hostility from a communal political system.

    That is the “coup” that Mr Lee and his PAP colleagues carried out for the people of Singapore, to achieve an independent and sovereign Singapore.

    However, it was the Tunku who played the decisive role in this saga.

    It was his agonised decision to let Singapore go that tipped the scales in favour of separation. Otherwise, the fracas between the state and central governments could well have become more intense and impossible to resolve, with no way out but an inevitable forceful denouement, that is, the arrest of Mr Lee and his senior lieutenants and the imposition of direct federal rule by the central government on Singapore.

    The Tunku was magnanimous in telling Mr Lee to leave Malaysia. If there is one person that Singapore should thank for its independence, it is Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, the first prime minister of Malaysia.


    •The writer, Mushahid Ali, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, was a reporter with Radio Television Singapore from 1963 to 1966 and later with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1970 to 2001.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Elections Department Announces Changes To Elections-Related Processes

    Elections Department Announces Changes To Elections-Related Processes

    The Elections Department (ELD) on Thursday (Aug 20) announced a series of revisions to some elections-related processes, “as part of ongoing efforts to update and enhance election processes”.

    Increase in Parliamentary Election Expenses Limit

    To account for inflation, the maximum spending limit will be raised from S$3.50 to S$4.00 for every voter on the register of electors for the electoral division in which a candidate is seeking election to be a Member of Parliament, the ELD said.

    “The law imposes a ceiling on a candidate’s election expenses to ensure a level playing field. Spending in excess of the maximum amount in the law is an illegal practice.”

    Maximum number of posters and banners in Electoral Divisions

    A maximum number of posters and banners that can be displayed is set for each candidate or group of candidates contesting in an electoral division. In past elections, candidates were provided this maximum number after the close of nomination proceedings (on Nomination Day).

    “To better facilitate candidates’ planning, ELD has published on its website in advance the formulae to compute the maximum number of posters and banners for each electoral division,” the department said.

    The maximum number of posters and banners allowed is:

    1 poster to every 50 electors in the register (rounded to nearest 100), subject to minimum of:

    • 500 per SMC,
    • 2,000 per 4-MP GRC,
    • 2,500 per 5-MP GRC, or
    • 3,000 per 6-MP GRC.

    1 banner to every 5,000 electors in the register (rounded to whole
    number), subject to minimum of:

    • 5 per SMC,
    • 20 per 4-MP GRC,
    • 25 per 5-MP GRC, or
    • 30 per 6-MP GRC.

    Closer placement for the display of posters and banners

    Candidates are not allowed to display posters and banners within a designated radius from a polling station, to minimise undue influence on voters.

    As there has been a significant increase in the number of polling stations to improve voter accessibility, the current 200-metre prohibition zone has resulted in limited areas for the legitimate display of posters and banners, especially in built-up residential estates, the ELD said.

    “Hence, the radius of the prohibition zone for the display of posters and banners will be reduced from 200 to 50 metres.”

    Malay Community Committee and Indian and Other Minority Communities Committee

    Every group of people who wish to stand for parliamentary election in a group representation constituency (GRC) is required to have at least one candidate belonging to either the Malay community, or the Indian and other minority communities.

    In addition to the nomination paper and Political Donation Certificate, the group is required to produce a Certificate of the Malay Community Committee (MCC) or a Certificate of the Indian and Other Minority Communities Committee (IOMCC) to the Returning Officer on Nomination Day, the ELD said.

    To be issued the certificate, the person must apply to the appropriate committees by submitting the completed forms (hardcopy) to the Elections Department.

    Ballot Paper to include candidates’ photos

    To make it easier for voters, especially the elderly, to identify the candidates they wish to vote for, candidates’ photos will be included in the ballot papers for the next General Election, ELD announced.

    The new ballot papers will be larger to accommodate the photos.


    Candidates’ photos on the ballot papers were introduced for the first time at the 2011 Presidential Election, garnering generally positive public feedback.

    Other format changes to help voters mark their choices clearly include white boxes against a darkened background, and wider gaps between the boxes to mark “X” to prevent voters from marking across boxes of different rows.

    Details of the format changes will be made known closer to Polling Day of the General Election.

    CHANGES REQUIRE CANDIDATES TO BE VISIBLE TO VOTERS: ANALYST

    Political analyst Eugene Tan, an Associate Professor at the Singapore Management University’s School of Law, said the changes would require candidates to be visible to the voters.

    “That just means having to walk the ground, not just during the hustings but also in between elections. I think this will help the candidates be more recognisable, and I think that is very important because you are choosing a representative to represent you in Parliament and I think it’s important that the candidates are people who are familiar with the issues, and with the voters,” he said.

    “I think having the photos on the ballot papers would also remind voters as to who precisely they are voting for. In the past, there’s been a lot of reliance on the party name, party logo – but I think with this change, it’s not just the party that matters, but also the candidates, because ultimately it’s also about putting in place people in Parliament,” he added.

    When asked if the change will benefit the incumbents since their posters and banners are displayed in their constituencies, Assoc Prof Tan said the change would be benefit the People’s Action Party because “of the fact that they are represented in most constituencies”.

    “But it will also benefit any other party that conscientiously walks the ground in between General Elections,” he added.

    “I see the changes as an attempt to raise the standards – trying to ensure that people do not just vote for the parties, but also for the candidates. I think it is important that the two go hand in hand,” Assoc Prof Tan said.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Toastbox Staff Burns Incense Paper In Within Premises, Whole Store Very Smokey

    Toastbox Staff Burns Incense Paper In Within Premises, Whole Store Very Smokey

    Dear ToastBox,

    There is no sense of customer-orientedness in the companies in your chain. I was at Toastbox at Rail Mall this afternoon and found that the store was very smoky.

    At first I was alarmed because I thought it was a fire but later my colleague told me it was because a staff member had been burning incense for the Hungry Ghost Festival inside the hidden kitchen area or immediately outside it (he had been told by the PRC kitchen assistant).

    Is this really proper behaviour in an eatery?

    If true, this seriously violates hygiene standards and is a major fire safety offence. NEA and SCDF should step in immediately to investigate the case.

    In response to this complaint, ToastBox said:

    “Hi Caroline, We apologize for the unpleasant experience you encountered at our Rail Mall outlet. Could you also let us know the time of your visit so our team can investigate this immediately. Thank you.”

    <Facebook complaint by Caroline Ning>

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • 16 Quotes By Your Out-Of-Touch PAP MPs

    16 Quotes By Your Out-Of-Touch PAP MPs

    I came across the following quotes in an article by Chan Joo Yee. The questions for you to ask and ponder are:

    a) Do these people really understand you and your plight?

    b) Does some introductions in a coffee-shop, old age home, hawker centre mean they are now ‘closer to you?’

    c) Is your estate and Town Council management much more important than the national issues that will not only affect you, but your children and their children in future?

    d) Are you prepared to gamble 5 more years with them in the hope that they will change overnight and abandon policies you don’t want?

    Consider the following quotes by these very men and women who are urging you – to quote the PM, ‘not weaken the PAP team.’ This is what the so-called strong team you elected into power in 2011 had to say about you:

    The Quotes:

    1. “Singaporeans first policy would not benefit the economy in the long term.”

    2.“It’s not the government’s duty to love Singaporeans.”

    3.“Contrary to public perception, the White Horse classification is not to ensure that sons of influential men get preferential treatment. Instead it is to ensure that they do not get preferential treatment.”

    4.“Retrenchment is good for Singapore. If there is no retrenchment, then I worry.”

    5.“NSman’s service to Singapore cannot be measured in dollars and cents.”

    6.“Well, everybody has a car, we have two — my wife drives one, I drive one. We are both professionals, we need to travel.”

    7. “If you’re lazy and work less, you’ll have less Medisave.”

    8.“Save on one hairdo and use the money for breast screening.”

    9.“If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communications and the Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discusses policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals.”

    10.“Some cardboard collectors treat it (collection of cardboards) as a form of exercise and activity rather than being cooped up at home.”

    11.“How much do you want? Do you want 3 meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”

    12.“It’s not for the money (multiple directorships) because some of the companies pay me as little as $10,000 a year.”

    13.“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action.”

    14.“It would be stupid for any Singapore agency or NTU to advocate the learning of dialects, which must be at the expense of English and Mandarin.”

    15.“CPF is not your money.”

    16.“If chicken is expensive, eat fish.”

    There’s probably a lot more, but you get the idea. This is the thinking and mind-set of the men and women you sent to Parliament the last time. They can scold, mock and try to do the opposition in – but do remember – who’s the cause of your all your problems now? Is it the opposition or the Govt you have routinely given a blank cheque to do whatever they want, when ever they want? And now they are telling you to consider ‘an enlightened self-interest when you go and vote.’ Is your self interests vis-à-vis your estate amenities, which don’t forget is what is expected of any Govt in power anywhere in the world, or is the national interests and your future as Singaporeans in your own country, more important?

    You have a tough choice and decision to make – think carefully and vote wisely.

    Sir Nelspruit

    The author blogs at Anyhow Hantam.

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

deneme bonusu