Category: Singapuraku

  • MOM: Foreign PMETs Have Higher Pay Because They Are Deserving

    MOM: Foreign PMETs Have Higher Pay Because They Are Deserving

    The gross monthly income of full-timed employed residents who are professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) is higher compared to Singaporean citizens, said Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin in Parliament on Monday (Jan 19).

    “As compared to Singaporean PMEs, the gross monthly income of resident PMEs is higher since Permanent Residents typically have to display good employability before they are granted residency,” Mr Tan said, in reply to a Parliamentary question from MP Patrick Tay Teck Guan.

    For instance, the gross monthly income for PRs and Singapore citizens for the 50th percentile is S$7,018 and S$6,886, respectively, according to data from the Manpower Ministry.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com and The Alternative View

  • Dr Ting Choon Meng – The David Who Took On The MINDEF Goliath

    Dr Ting Choon Meng – The David Who Took On The MINDEF Goliath

    A doctor, a professor, a philanthropist, and an inventor. A man who believes in educating young Singaporeans to think and imagine, and not just to follow. A firm believe in putting Singaporeans first.

    That’s Dr Ting Choon Meng. That’s the man that Singapore’s Ministry of Defence cruelly ripped off by stealing the rights to his design for a first-aid vehicle from right under his nose.

    A short rags to riches story of Dr Ting

    From young, he stood in for his seaman father, who was seldom home, while his seamstress mother toiled.

    By age 11, he was cooking, ironing and tutoring his four younger siblings.

    The Pearl’s Hill Primary, Gan Eng Seng Secondary and National Junior College student was the only one in his family to qualify for the University of Singapore medical school.

    During National service, he attended Officer Cadet School as a medical officer, where his right index  finger got sliced off by a bayonet.

    He became a GP at a family health clinic, and later on invented a blood pressure monitoring watch that would shake up the medical world – the BPro.

    In 2007, the device won a World Economic Forum Technology Pioneer award, which counts Google and PayPal among previous winners. Today, all the hospitals here, including some clinics, widely use his wireless monitoring devices.

    Dr Ting has given out some 30 scholarships to students from Singapore Management University and Pioneer Junior College. The only condition – they pay it forward and help other needy students when they are financially-capable.

    A serial inventor, Dr Ting and his partner would go on to develop a mobile first-aid centre in 2004. It was patented in more than 9 countries, including Singapore. That is, until MinDef conspired with an external vendor, Syntech, in 2009 to run with the idea  force him to revoke all rights to the invention. Read the full story here.

    The Great MinDef Heist

    What happens if ordinary citizens really do come up with something novel, and this can be taken away in a flash? Or in this case, after years of legal wrangling?

    Dr Ting received intellectual property rights to his invention in more than 9 countries. Even the SCDF acknowledged this and played fair by demanding that its vendor give Dr Ting’s company, HealthStats, its dues.

    But MinDef and its legal battalion was allowed to run roughshod over this.

    Let’s not forget, this invention received IP rights in more than 9 countries, including Denmark, Britain and the US.

    Are we truly that Uniquely Singapore?

    No Country for Innovators

    “All things being equal, we should get local brands. The Government should be the first and main customer of local enterprises, as in Japan and Germany.”

    Sadly, this wasn’t the case for Dr Ting when he  created his award-winning BPro blood pressure monitor.

    Cardiologists here boycotted his talks. “I’ve been told countless times I’m only a GP… Re-learning is uncomfortable,” he concedes.

    Economic Development Board officers asked him where he took the technology from, implying he copied it, and remarked: “You mean a Singaporean can do this?” Others took issue that he had no PhD, only a medical degree. And that his was a “local company, single product, with no track record”.

    “But you got to start somewhere, isn’t it? It’s called colonisation of the mind.”

    Dr Ting had to obtain patents from the US and other western nations, before the Singapore medical scene even bothered to take notice.

    What does this spell for Singaporean innovators, then?

    Can we blame Singaporeans for wanting to try their luck abroad, if their own country can’t even accept them?

    And if they make it there, should we call them “quitters” or the reason for Singapore’s brain drain if they were to give Singapore the collective middle finger? Their homeland that refused to give them even the slightest of shots?

    In Sum

    The government continues to trumpet its desire for creativity and innovation in Singapore.

    But following Dr Ting’s story, how can any Singaporean feel assured that anything they create will not be laid at the mercy of the bureaucratic meat-grinder, and they’ll be left with nothing except wounds to lick?

    And even if they have the mind for invention, will they be given the support needed to develop their ideas without being stone-walled by unimaginative leaders who are grossly resistant to change?

    It’s probably time to give this machine the collective middle finger.

     

    Source: http://redwiretimes.com

  • MINDEF Rebuts Allegations By MobileStats Technologies

    MINDEF Rebuts Allegations By MobileStats Technologies

    The Defence Ministry, in its online magazine CyberPioneer, has refuted what it said were false allegations in certain online articles that the mobile battalion casualty station (BCS) bought by Mindef had infringed MobileStats Technologies’ patent for its mobile clinic, “Mobile First Aid Post”.

    CyberPioneer team writing in their Facebook post said the articles also wrongly suggested that Mindef was forcing MobileStats to close down, so as take over the patent rights.

    The team members said they spoke to Mindef’s legal team to find out more, and decided to publish the facts to counter the “false and baseless” accusations in the online articles.

    In its Facebook post, CyberPioneer said the recent allegations of patent infringement were not new.

    It said: “Since 2011, the owner of MobileStats has repeatedly turned to the media to accuse Mindef of infringing its patent. Second, these accusations have been deliberated by the High Court and found to be untrue. In January 2014, the Court declared the patent invalid and revoked it.

    “The Court also found that Mindef had not committed any Intellectual Property infringement. We are disappointed that the owner of MobileStats has disrespected the Court’s decision, and continues to make false and unsubstantiated accusations against Mindef.”

    CyberPioneer has regarded the allegations “very seriously” and is referring the matter to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for advice.

    CyberPioneer gave a point-by-point rebuttal to the allegations. The responses are reproduced below:

    #1 Did MINDEF infringe MobileStats’ patent and try to get away with it?

    The Court has considered all factors and ruled that the patent is invalid. Mindef did not infringe any patent as you can’t infringe a patent that was never valid in the first place. MobileStats had patented an idea that has existed since the 1970s (just Google the “mobile medical unit” concept, or see http://youtu.be/evcI-KcZw5E).

    Just as there are many smartphone designs and manufacturers who do not infringe each other’s patents, there are also many ways to design and produce military equipment like the BCS.

    Mindef respects Intellectual Property laws and honours patents that are valid. When there are disputes over the validity of patents, parties can bring the matter to court. Just as you can file patents to prevent unauthorised copying of your inventions, so can others challenge your patents if they do not involve new ideas.

    Most importantly, MINDEF is just a buyer, not the manufacturer. If MobileStats believes it has a valid case, it should pursue the matter with the manufacturer, not the user.

    #2 Did Mindef engage in unfair procurement practices?

    The case was actually a commercial dispute between MobileStats Technologies and Syntech Engineers, which supplied the mobile BCS to Mindef. As the manufacturer of the mobile BCS, the supplier, not the consumer, is responsible for honouring valid patents. Mindef’s actions were correct and above board.

    All of Mindef’s suppliers are required to uphold Intellectual Property laws and obtain the necessary licenses so that Mindef is free to use the products that we have paid for. Mindef simply wants the freedom to deploy our mobile BCS for training and operations and has no interest in acquiring MobileStats’ alleged patents.

    It is unclear why the owners of MobileStats chose to take legal actions against the consumer, instead of the manufacturer. Imagine if Apple sued Samsung handphone users – instead of Samsung Electronics – for allegedly infringing Apple’s Intellectual Property rights.

    #3 Is Mindef out to destroy MobileStats with the prolonged court case and the demand for the payment of $580K?

    This is false. Mindef did not initiate the legal action. It was MobileStats who inexplicably chose to sue Mindef instead of the manufacturer. In defending ourselves, MINDEF’s conduct was in full compliance with court regulations and never found lacking.

    $580K was the amount that the court decided MobileStats should reimburse Mindef for our legal fees. Not a single cent will be kept by Mindef. The money will go to Syntech, the BCS vendor, who honoured their legal obligation to Mindef and bore the cost of the legal proceedings.

    When legal actions are initiated against government agencies like Mindef, these agencies need to respond. Public resources and monies are expended needlessly if such lawsuits are without merit.

    As a government organisation, Mindef has a duty to protect our public monies. We regard such lawsuits taken against Mindef with the utmost seriousness.

     

    Source: http://news.asiaone.com

  • Girl Donning Tudung Gets Intimate With Male In Local Public Library

    Girl Donning Tudung Gets Intimate With Male In Local Public Library

    Stomper was disgusted to see a couple behaving intimately at Jurong East Library yesterday, Jan 18.

    In the photo, the young woman was seen sitting in front of the guy, who has his hands under her shirt.

    According to the Stomper, he was seen massaging her.

    J said:

    “They were sitting in a weird position and behaving weirdly.

    “I was disgusted!”

     

    Source: http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg

  • LTA: We Are Incompetent And Our Employees Don’t Talk To Each Other

    LTA: We Are Incompetent And Our Employees Don’t Talk To Each Other

    Residents in Yishun were confused when they found out that a brand new bicycle path in front of NorthPoint Shopping mall was demolished literally the day after it was completed.

    One resident, Mr Edward Lim Yew Sih, wrote in to ST forums about his observations back in December and his letter was published on Dec 31st.

    Mr Lim explained that he was a cycling enthusiast and so he had been happy to hear of a new bike path and had been following its development.

    He explained that residents were forced to make detours for about 3 to 4 months at the section of road in front of North Point for the construction works but were pleased to see that the works were completed a few weeks early and the barricades came down in December.

    Mr Lim explained that his excitement was short-lived as the very next day, new barricades were put up and the newly completed bicycle path was demolished again to make way for a bus stop.

    Both these issues should be under LTA as they are transport issues and yet Mr Lim pointed out that resources were wasted due to the lack of coordination.

    IT seems that LTA’s lack of coordination runs even deeper than this too as it took them about three weeks to even be able to respond to Mr Lim’s letter.

    In response, LTA admitted that they have a lack of coordination and this had resulted in a waste of resources and time:

    We thank Mr Edward Lim Yew Sih for his feedback (“New bicycle path demolished before being open to public”; Forum Online, Dec 31).

    We admit to an error in coordination on our part.

    The Land Transport Authority works to coordinate infrastructure works in an estate to minimise disruption to residents. This is very important as we are in the midst of a substantial expansion of many commuter, pedestrian and cycling initiatives.

    In the case of the stretch of new cycling path along Yishun Central, we should have ensured more effective coordination internally, to have identified early the eventual necessity for a new bus stop at the same stretch.

    This is an isolated incident. Nevertheless, we have used it as an example to further improve coordination between different projects to prevent inconvenience and disruption.

    Helen Lim (Ms)
    Director, Media Relations
    Land Transport Authority

    LTA also justified its incompetence saying that it is currently doing many “sizable” expansion projects and coordination is difficult.

    “We should have better internal coordination for this new bicycle path along Yishun Central, to discover earlier the need of a new bus-stop along the same stretch of road,” it said.

    LTA also insisted that this was an “isolated incident”.

     

    Source: www.therealsingapore.com

deneme bonusu