Rilek1Corner

Category: Singapuraku

  • 81 Year Old With Fractured Arm Waited For 6 Hours At SGH A&E Before Being Treated

    81 Year Old With Fractured Arm Waited For 6 Hours At SGH A&E Before Being Treated

    My 81-year-old mother had a fall on Jan 19 and I took her to a polyclinic, where an X-ray showed she had fractured her left hand.

    The doctor referred us to the accident and emergency (A&E) department of Singapore General Hospital to get her hand set in a cast.

    We arrived there at 1.35pm and waited for 5.5 hours before she was seen by a doctor. After the 15-minute consultation, we had to wait another 40 minutes before a nurse was available to assist the doctor to place my mum’s hand in a cast.

    During the time we were at the hospital, I noticed many other elderly people waiting for hours to see the doctor. They did not dare to leave the area in case their numbers were called, and the staff had no idea when they would be seen.

    The experience raised several questions and observations.

    First, why was my mum referred to the A&E when she was a non-critical case? I am quite certain she would have been seen earlier if she had been referred to a different department.

    Second, there were not enough chairs or wheelchairs in the A&E waiting area. My mum had to remain standing after her X-ray and also to collect her medicine.

    Third, the staff should be more helpful and sympathetic to the waiting patients, especially the elderly. Perhaps hot drinks like Milo could have been provided, especially if patients have waited for hours.

    Lastly, since it is known that the wait at the A&E can be long, why hasn’t anything been done about it? Although there are 10 consultation rooms, only five were used. Is there a critical shortage of doctors?

    Something is seriously wrong if we have such an inefficient A&E system in a country known for its efficiency. I hope the Health Ministry will look into this.

    Jill Hum (Ms)

    * Letter first appeared in ST Forum (1 Feb).

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • Former Civil Servant Understands Pain Of Having To Compete With Foreigners For Jobs

    Former Civil Servant Understands Pain Of Having To Compete With Foreigners For Jobs

    Transitioning: First of all, thanks for allowing us to interview you online and can you provide us with some background information on yourself?

    Linus: I am a 38-year-old Singaporean, currently living and working in Phnom Penh, Cambodia as a Director of Business Development with a Singapore-owned company. Until the middle of 2014, I was government officer, and my last appointment was Senior Assistant Director at one of the Ministries.

    I was forced to resign from the Ministry following an incident where one of my subordinates was charged for alleged CBT, and my superiors thought someone had to take the fall for the failure to discover and report the breach. I found myself out of a job for six months following my resignation, and I was lucky to have met my current employer, and here I am in Cambodia.

    Transitioning: What was your last occupation and you have told me that you were unemployed for a few months, can you tell us more about this and also your job search experience?

    Linus: It’s never easy to be out of a job in Singapore, especially in such a challenging economic climate. I had to rely on savings that both me and my wife had painstaking built over the past 13 years. I had written to a number of foreign-owned and local companies only to hit a wall each time as they came up with all sorts of excuses, from me being ‘overly-qualified’ for some of the positions I’d applied for, or that they were still “interviewing other candidates”. There were even a few who out-rightly said I was above their budget based on my last drawn salary without even asking what I was expecting, and then I was shown out of the room (literally).

    Transitioning: You have told me that you are currently jobless for more than six months, what did you do in order to survive? Did you also approach the CDC for assistance?

    Linus: I didn’t approach the CDC but instead relied on savings. I was originally confident of getting a job based on my qualifications and experience, and thought our savings could see through a couple of months while waiting. What I didn’t count on was a prolonged job search.

    There were times when I found myself not even having $10 in my pocket for meals outside because I would rather save and spend the money on other necessities. I didn’t go out and meet people and became a sort of a semi-recluse, often locking myself at home and having instant noodles for lunch.

    Transitioning: Did you attend any interviews during the past few months and why do you think you are unsuccessful so far?

    Linus: I think the reason why I had not been successful in finding jobs while in Singapore is because it’s just too competitive when you have locals and foreigners chasing after the same basket of jobs in a challenging economic situation.

    There are 2 areas in which local Singaporeans lose out to the foreign candidate, in my opinion: (1) some foreigners, especially those from the Philippines, China and India are able to accept lower salaries for the same job roles and responsibilities; (2) in the case of Caucasian FTs, I think there is still very much a “colonial mentality” where local bosses will think the “ang moh” possesses more superior skills, while the foreign employer simply doesn’t bother with local candidates.

    Of course, that’s only my view.

    Transitioning: Tell us abit more about what you have learnt from your jobless experience and how it has impacted your family.

    Linus: Remember that old adage “save up for a rainy day?” Guess what, it’s a myth. We had quite substantial savings, but because of the ridiculous and ludicrous living expenses in Singapore (I can say that now comparing the lifestyle I am enjoying in a seemingly “less developed” country), unless you had a million dollars in your savings, I’d say it doesn’t help much, because these days, we don’t know how long you have to remain unemployed for.

    It was stressful for me and the wife. We try not to discuss hardship in front of the kids, but the kids can sense something is wrong — they’re usually sensitive to such things.

    Transitioning: What do you think you could have done to shorten the unemployment period?

    Linus: Nothing much except wait and hope for the best.

    Transitioning: Do you think that Singapore is now a more difficult place to make a living?

    Linus: Yes, definitely.

    Transitioning: What do you think the government can do to alleviate the current employment situation?

    Linus: Well I think they should take seriously the cries from the ground with regards to foreigners competing for jobs with us — it’s something that’s real, and not just some urban myth. Secondly, it doesn’t help too that we have ministers like Tan Chuan Jin coming out to justify why they think foreigners should be paid more than Singaporeans, and making it sound like Singaporeans are lousier in comparison.

    Transitioning: Many people have blame foreigners for competing jobs with us, what is your view on this?

    Linus: See the above. Many people will read my comments on the foreigners and say “there you go, another one of those”. But I can tell you from where I was previously, the statistics we get tells exactly that story: it’s the government officers who paint a different tale because it’s their job to convey the messages that the leaders want them to say.

    Transitioning: Lastly, whats your advice for those who are still jobless and feeling down?

    Linus: Don’t give up on yourself. And it helps if you go out there and talk to more people, unlike what I did; these days, finding jobs is a lot more to do with networking than it is about searching on jobsites.

    Thanks and end of interview

    Source: www.transitioning.org

  • Temasek Yang Dulu Bukan Seperti Singapura Sekarang

    Temasek Yang Dulu Bukan Seperti Singapura Sekarang

    Temasek yang dahulu bukan lah Singapurak yang sekarang…

    1. Populasi imigran Cina di Temasek berjumlah kurang 100k di Pulau Singapurak pada tahun 1700an. Kebanyakan menjadi peniaga dibawah koloni pemerintahan Syarikat Indian British dan buruh kasar kongsi ladang di Johor.

    2. Kemerosotan populasi Melayu semakin merosot akibat kemasukan besar besaran imigrasi etnik Cina semasa berlaku revolusi dan perang di Benua China pada tahun 1800-1900. Populasi etnik Cina di Singapurak meningkat naik kepada 900k.

    3. Peperangan dunia kedua membawa masuk lebih ramai etnik2 Cina dari seluruh benua Cina. Tempias juga kepada populasi di Tanah Melayu dengan kaum cina semakin menjadi jadi menguasai segala serba serbi sektor ekonomi.

    4. Salah satu sikap peniaga Cina yang mendatangkan ketidakpuasan hati rakyat asal Tanah Melayu dan Singapurak Melayu ini adalah kelicikan mereka menguasai dengan pantas jaringan perniagaan. Tiada ruang diberikan langsung kepada peniaga Melayu untuk berkembang. Ini kerana peniaga Melayu kekurangan modal dana untuk berkembang dimana jaringan peniaga Cina bekerjasama sesama sendiri memberi bantuan kewangan menyebabkan mereka pantas menguasai segenap ruang yang ada.

    5. Tahun 1900 banyak bank bank dikuasai etnik Cina ini membuka cawangan berkembang di Tanah Melayu dan Singapura. Dengan licik mereka mula berpakat dengan British untuk menguasai Tanah Lombong dan Perladangan. berjuta juta hektar tanah dimiliki oleh pelabur peniaga Cina tersebut.

    6. Itu bab sejarah asal usul perkembangan ekonomi kaum Cina. Sekarang kembali kepada topik asas Cina Kiasu di Singapurak.

    7. Kaum Cina ini golongan yang sangat licik sekali. Mereka yang akan timbulkan masalah dan mereka juga yang akan kedepan seolah olah sang penyelamat dengan memberikan penyelesaian kepada masalah. Sebab itulah orang Eropah menggelarkan bangsa Cina ini sebagai Virus Yahudi di Timur Dunia.

    8. Contoh paling kritikal adalah kemunculan Komunis Cina di Tanah Melayu dan Singapurak. Orang Cina yang mewujudkannya. Kemudian mereka juga menubuhkan parti radikal perkauman Cina seperti MCA, DAP dan PAP seolah melawan komunis tersebut. Walhal seumpama pepatung puppet sahaja. String atau talinya tetap dimainkan belakang tabir oleh elitis2 Cina tersebut.

    Orang Melayu buta berpolitik. Maka termakan dakyah tipu helah sebagaimana beratus ratus tahun sudah ditipu hidup hidup oleh sang penjajah2.

    9. Kesannya?… Singapurak secara halus dilepaskan (Expulsion) dari genggaman pemerintahan orang Melayu dari Tanah Melayu selama lamanya. Tertubuhlah Republik Singapurak purak.

    10. Pada awal penendangan Singapurak dari Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaysia) pada 1965, populasi orang Melayu hanya 15%. Buddha Cina menguasai Singapurak dengan 75% populasi.

    11. Julat yang sama seperti Pulau Pinang dan bandar bandar ekonomi utama di Malaysia skang ni. Nampak tak plot trend disitu?…

    12. Sekarang ini, julat populasi masih kekal sama dengan Melayu penduduk asal Singapurak hanya kekal berjumlah 15%. Macam mana boleh terjadi perkara begini?… Sedangkan populasi jumlah kaum cina di Malaysia sudah pun meningkat naik mencecah 45%?…

    13. Bagaimana kerajaan cauvinis perkauman Cina yang menguasai Republik Singapurak menjalankan operasi mengawal populasi kaum Melayu dengan berjaya?…

    14. Mudah. Kerajaan Cina Buddha Cauvinis Singapurak selama ini menjalankan dasar licik :

    – Dasar Ketat Peneutralan Imigrasi untuk orang Melayu
    – Mengetatkan undang2 perkahwinan campur antara Muslim dan non Muslim di Singapurak

    15. Di Singapura orang bukan Islam dilarang keras oleh undang undang untuk berkahwin dengan orang Islam (MELAYU). Tetapi dibenarkan oleh liberal law untuk berkahwin tanpa bertukar agama. Sama seperti yang terjadi di Indonesia juga sekarang ini. Anak2 golongan kawen tanpa asas agama ini sekarang semakin ramai di sana. Secara harafiah institusi ke Melayuan sudah pun dirosakkan dengan sistematik.

    16. Peneutralan kerakyatan Melayu juga diperketatkan. Dasar berbeza digunapakai terhadap golongan Cina yang mahukan kerakyatan Singapurak dengan dilepaskan secara mudah didalam sistem imigresen. Kesannya populasi kerakyatan baru Singapurak dikalangan etnik Cina semakin meningkat berpuluh2 ribu setahun.

    17. Dasar perundangan antara Melayu dan Cina juga berbeza. Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) dan Registry of Marriage (ROM) untuk non-Muslims. Poligami juga diharamkan terus di Singapurak.

    18. Dari sejumlah 6 juta warga Singapurak sekarang, hanya 15% saja Melayu Muslim. Itu berjumlah 900k semenjak 50+ tahun yang lepas. Selagi menjadi MINORITI, maka nasib orang Melayu kerap lah tertindas dan tidak terbela.

    19. Apakah mungkin nasib orang Melayu di Singapurak boleh berulang di Malaysia kelak?…

    20. Dan orang2 Cina di Malaysia tidak habis habis mencari pasal dengan hak keistimewaan orang orang Melayu yang termaktub didalam Kontrak Sosial dan Perlembagaan Malaysia.

    21. Apa yang menjadi polemik bukan hubungan antara kaum Melayu dan Cina yang menjadi masalah. Tetapi sikap tamak dan keinginan kaum Cina yang mahu menapau semua saki baki kek yang ada seolah tidak mencukupi amatlah menakutkan orang2 Melayu skang ni.

    22. Jika tidak dirawat masalah ini, tidak mustahil akan terjadi protest besar besaran anti Cina berulang lagi pada masa depan. Amuk itu ayat khusus alter terahsia orang Melayu.

    23. Jika Melayu mengamuk dah berubah fikiran dengan menyatakan tegas bahawa cukup lah sudah perkongsian selama ini dengan kaum Cina dan mahu kod perkongsian selama ini dihapuskan… Soalan lain yang tak mustahil akan timbul masa depan :

    DIMANA KAUM CINA MALAYSIA MAHU BERPINDAH?…

    24. Terlalu lama memberi ruang dan berkongsi lama kelamaan orang Melayu juga yang kena pijak. Hanya masa saja menentukan tahap kesabaran orang Melayu boleh bertahan berapa lama lagi.

    Kami sayangkan senyuman manismu,
    Tetapi Kami juga bencikan kelicikan kamu memijak menindas kepala kami…

    Fikirkanlah…

     

    Source: Amzarul Yuzrin Bin Mohd Yusof

  • URA Deputy CEO – Conservation Had To Take A Backseat To Development In The 1960s

    URA Deputy CEO – Conservation Had To Take A Backseat To Development In The 1960s

    In an exclusive interview with Channel NewsAsia, the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Chief Planner and Deputy Executive Officer Lim Eng Hwee said URA intends to intensify efforts to decentralise business activities and commercial centres outside the city.

    Decentralisation is a way to achieve a more sustainable growth by distributing commercial activities to various parts of the island, such as Tampines, Jurong and Paya Lebar – as well as an upcoming one stretching from Woodlands to Punggol, called the North Coast Innovation Corridor.

    Q: What is URA’s key strategy for the next decade?

    A: Broadly and conceptually, we have always talked about decentralising activities, but we think there is opportunity for us to really intensify, to work across all the agencies to make it happen – and in the process create something that is quite unique.

    Take Jurong as an example. Before we launched the development, the masterplan in 2008, people’s impression of Jurong is: It is near an industrial area; it is not attractive; there is only one shopping mall. With Jurong East today, once you have coordinated effort across agencies, partnerships with the private sector to try to integrate things together, it can take a very refreshing look.

    Tampines Regional Centre has achieved a certain critical mass, it right now has a couple of hundred square metres of office space; it has three significant malls. So in terms of serving the residents’ needs it is adequate for now, but Tampines is still being developed. We see the Tampines regional centre and Changi Business Park – which is right next to the new SUTD University – as a twin hub that anchors major business and commercial activities.

    The location of these two twin centres, in particular the Business Park, is right next to Changi Airport. In time, the next 10 years or so, Changi Airport will be expanded and there will be a lot more activities happening in Changi. The whole of Singapore’s East will be a very significant hub.

    Q: Long-term and forward-looking planning has been entrenched in the land use development process in Singapore. How has this enabled Singapore to be more nimble in seizing opportunities?

    A: I would say it is a very strategic advantage to Singapore. We were talking to some of the financial institutions and even sharing, doing exchanges with other cities. You realise that for other cities, when it is time for them to seize opportunities and obtain investments to expand, they were hindered by the availability of land. It is not just land – many cities are much bigger than Singapore, so it is not difficult to find land – but having land in a right location, at a right time that allows you to expand your business investment. To us that gives us an opportunity.

    Planning is neverending so these are the type of questions we ask ourselves. Among the agencies we sit down together and brainstorm – whether there are new ideas, whether we can leverage on some of these opportunities.

    We know in the longer term, the port will be consolidated in Tuas for example, so there must be a lot of opportunities for us not only to take away the freight traffic now in Keppel, Pasir Panjang, where there’s haulage in that area. When you consolidate, you take away that traffic and when you have so many trucks moving around serving the port, surely the logistics industry can find some way to extract maximum efficiency. It can create a logistics hub; it can create things which companies can share the services.

    Likewise, the same concept can apply to Changi, when we start to grow aviation not just for passengers, but also the cargo, the aviation industry. Whether it is maintenance, repair and operations or logistics companies, when they start to congregate around the airport, again there will be opportunities for us to do something.

    In planning what we can do is discuss with agencies, including economic agencies, to look at what some of these opportunities are, and make sure there is land safeguarded for these new ideas to take place.

    Q: Were there any “planning mistakes” and what has been done to rectify them?

    A: I am not sure if this is a mistake. Often you make certain decisions in the context of the situation at that point in time. One particular area is perhaps in the area of conservation. For obvious reasons, in the 60s and 70s, we were faced with huge challenges – unemployment, the acute housing shortage, and the city centre was so crowded.

    The focus was not on whether heritage buildings should be conserved. So you see a lot of massive, comprehensive redevelopment, where so many old buildings were removed. Looking back in hindsight of course, we say some of these unique buildings ought to be kept.

    Starting from the 80s, the planners and the decision makers at that point in time started to think about whether we should start to retain these heritage buildings which are important anchors for future generations. The buildings will provide a link for them to identify with their past. So the conservation journey really started in the 80s.

    Having kept these buildings is not enough. Having retained them, I think we should now think about how can we help people to understand more of the history behind these buildings. We have to encourage people to start talking about the buildings, and share their personal stories so that the younger generation, when they look at the building, they understand the history behind them. I would not think that the decision made then to demolish the buildings as mistakes – it is really contextual.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Life Corporation: Conduct In Winning Tender Was Open And Transparent

    Life Corporation: Conduct In Winning Tender Was Open And Transparent

    Life Corporation, the parent company of Eternal Pure Land, has defended its conduct in winning the tender for a Fernvale Link site where it had originally planned to build a commercial columbarium.

    Making its first comments since news emerged last week that it had ignored land use gazettes by planning to build a commercial columbarium even though it is not affiliated to any religious organisations, the company said yesterday in a filing with the Australian Securities Exchange that the tender process was open and transparent. “Life Corporation provided all information required and requested in accordance with tender conditions,” it said. It added that it understands recent public sentiment that ownership of such land development should be by a non-profit religious organisation.

    “It has always been (the company’s) intention that the temple component of the development … be headed by religious individuals,” Life Corporation said.

    Repeated calls and email queries sent to the company by TODAY have gone unanswered.

    The plans to build the commercial columbarium had riled some would-be residents of the Fernvale Lea Build-to-Order (BTO) project, so much so that they asked the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for a refund on their flat. An online petition was also started by current and would-be residents around Fernvale Link, where the proposed temple site is, in a bid to stop the development.

    Last Thursday, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan revealed in Parliament that the HDB awarded the site to Eternal Pure Land “under the impression that the company (was) a vehicle for a religious organisation to build and own a Chinese temple”.

    Mr Khaw said the HDB officers made the wrong assumptions and awarded the tender to Eternal Pure Land, which made the highest bid.

    The Government will ensure that the original plan of building a Chinese temple is reinstated. It is also in discussions with the company. The authorities have also embarked on a review of its land-tender process for places of worship, prompted by feedback.

    Life Corporation had announced the successful tender on July 21 last year. Adding that it has made preliminary plans regarding the operation of the temple, the company said in the filing that it is “sensitive to recent public and Government comments”, and it is exploring with the Government whether a “mutually satisfactory and viable solution can be found in due course”.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

deneme bonusu