Category: Sosial

  • N Ganesan, The Man Behind The Kallang Roar, Dies Aged 82

    N Ganesan, The Man Behind The Kallang Roar, Dies Aged 82

    N Ganesan, the man widely credited as the driving force behind Singapore football’s golden years of the 1970s, died yesterday morning.

    He was 82.

    He suffered a stroke in March 2011, which left him bedridden and confined to the Good Shepherd Loft nursing home in Bukit Timah.

    He collapsed yesterday while having breakfast around 7.45am. Paramedics later failed to resuscitate him.

    Ganesan, who was divorced and has no children, worked as a successful lawyer but is best known for his time as chairman of the Football Association of Singapore’s (FAS) from 1974 to 1981.

    He made a bold decision to switch Singapore’s “home” games in the Malaysia Cup from the 10,000-capacity Jalan Besar Stadium to the 55,000-seater National Stadium in Kallang, despite naysayers predicting the crowds would not turn up.

    But they did, and Singapore, backed by the Kallang Roar, reached seven Malaysia Cup finals in the eight years he was in charge, winning two, in 1977 and 1980.

    The national team also did well on the international stage, reaching the play-off final of the 1980 pre-Olympic qualifying tournament, beating the likes of China and North Korea before losing to giants Iran.

    Local footballers like Samad Allapitchay, 
R Suria Murthi, Quah Kim Song, Dollah Kassim and Fandi Ahmad, to name just a few, became household names.

    Midfielder Suria, 57, said: “Even though he was busy as a lawyer, he would come down to Jalan Besar to watch the national team train every evening.

    “He was very, very passionate, and he was one of the best officials we ever had.

    “He’d go out of his way for the players. He would do anything for football. He was a great man.”

    Striker Quah, 63, added: “He was charismatic, and walked the talk.

    “He was not the type to just sit in the office all day, he often personally made sure every small detail was right.

    “He even helped some players who had financial difficulty, out of his own pocket.”

    Defender Samad, who captained both Malaysia Cup-winning teams, praised Ganesan’s personable character. The 66-year-old said: “Over the years, many officials have come and gone, but Mr Gani was the most passionate. And he just had a way with people.

    “Once, Uncle Choo (Seng Quee, legendary national team coach) walked out of a training session and said he would not coach us again, after a misunderstanding with some players.

    “Mr Gani was the one that drove to his place, chatted with him for four or five hours, and talked him into returning.

    “That was how he was. You find it easier to talk to Mr Gani than anyone else. He really listens to you.”

    A former goalkeeper for the Singapore Indians team, Ganesan also made a difference at local club level, revamping the National Football League from a bloated 118 clubs to a strong 30.

    He helped create the Lion City Cup, an Under-16 tournament that unearthed talent like Fandi, and subsequently became the model for Fifa’s U-16 World Cup.

    Ganesan was awarded the Public Service Medal (Pingat Bakti Masyarakat) during the 1978 National Day Awards, and he also served as legal adviser to the Asian Football Confenderation (AFC) for almost a decade.

    Former AFC general secretary Dato Peter Vellapan, who led Asia’s football body for three decades, hailed Ganesan’s reforms.

    “He rewrote the history of Singapore football with his leadership,” Vellapan, 79, told TNP.

    “He was very honest, transparent, and goal-oriented. He wanted to raise Singapore football to be one of the best in Asia.

    “His commitment to improving Singapore football was very sincere. These days, many go into football for selfish reasons. But he was committed, dedicated.

    “His passing is a great loss to me, as he was a dear friend, and to Singapore football.”

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

  • HDB Flats For Even Rich Kids’ Children?

    HDB Flats For Even Rich Kids’ Children?

    It’s difficult for a heartland born-and-bred Singaporean like me to imagine, but there are apparently people in Singapore who have never lived in, or even stepped into, a Housing Board flat.

    When I was discussing property purchases with a group of friends, one of my girlfriends confessed she would not buy a HDB flat because she wouldn’t feel safe in one. She grew up in private property and her first purchase was a condominium.

    I got to thinking about this issue, following reports that National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan wants to make it easier for all couples, including high-earning ones, to own and live in a HDB built-to-order (BTO) flat.

    In a live radio talk show on Chinese-language station Capital 95.8FM, he is reported to have said: “If you ask for my personal opinion … I generally prefer to give every Singaporean couple a chance of living in HDB.

    “You may come from, say, an upper-income group. You do not need an HDB flat. But I feel that it’s good for … almost all Singaporeans to have a chance of living in HDB for five years, and interact with the community.”

    He added: “It’s part and parcel of the Singaporean way of life. It’s just like males go for National Service … If we can give them this opportunity of staying in HDB towns, I think there are more positives than negatives.”

    His remarks were made in the context of raising the income ceiling for HDB flats, which he said could happen by Sept.

    Now, a married couple with a joint monthly income of up to $10,000 can buy a subsidised, new HDB flat. It was raised from $8,000 in 2011.

    This isn’t the first time Mr Khaw made such a comment. In an exclusive interview with The Straits Times in April 2013, he had broached the idea of scrapping the income ceiling to allow even couples with very high incomes to own HDB flats, as living in HDB flats would give people more chances to interact with others of different races and incomes. But the lower-income households ones would still get bigger housing grants.

    Mr Khaw said then: “If a rich man’s kid wants to apply for a BTO flat, provided he stays the five-year minimum occupation period, there’s nothing wrong with that to me”.

    My reaction both times was bemusement.

    For most Singaporeans, HDB living is part and parcel of being Singaporean. Most live in HDB estates. Those of us who grew up in one, and moved on to private property, will probably always hanker after the bustle of HDB life.

    You see all the BMW-driving businessmen in long-sleeved shirts wiping away beads of sweat as they wolf down their bak chor mee or mee goreng at their favourite HDB coffeeshop and hawker centre, and you see the looks of blissful content on the well-dressed women as they buy their cheap laundry baskets or pick up kitchen utensils at the household sundry shop, and you know you can take the boy or girl out of the HDB estate, but you can’t take the HDB out of the boy or girl.

    So the idea that a special policy is needed to encourage people to live in and interact with HDB residents will appear slightly surreal to some. On my Facebook, a friend commented that she felt insulted, as though HDB residents were creatures in a zoo that the rich are being encouraged to visit to see.

    I empathise with that comment. It’s like having a special policy to encourage those who live with a permanent bubble around their heads to take their heads out of the bubble and breathe normal air like the rest of us.

    Breathing normal air is the default, and should be so. But I can see that if segments of our population have become so used to living in that bubble of air, it would take concerted policy action to persuade them to try normal air for a change.

    The truth is that Singapore society is stratifying. Whereas many of today’s middle-aged professionals grew up in HDB flats, it’s probably the case that more of today’s 20-something year old professionals and managers grew up in private housing. So the idea of having them live in and experience HDB life, isn’t a bad one. From the point of view of social cohesion, it makes sense.

    In Singapore, public housing caters to the majority of the population – 80 per cent of Singapore resident households live in HDB flats. The idea is precisely that we would all grow up in mixed neighbourhoods that jumble up people of different races, different income groups, and different socioeconomic status.

    So it makes sense to encourage the small minority who never had a chance to do that when they were growing up, and encourage them to do so in their young adulthood.

    I often wonder how many of today’s young Administrative Service civil servants, and the smart youngsters who enter the banks, the legal profession, and even the media, have lived in HDB flats, and if they have empathy for the average Singaporean who does. These people are future leaders and decision-makers.

    If too many of them come from privileged families, they would never have experienced poverty, or suffered from want or anxiety over money problems. But if they had a friend in school or in their neighbourhood who did, and were close enough a confidant to share vicariously in the friend’s struggles, their worldview will be more rounded than the wealthy child who lives with, plays with and goes to school with only other wealthy children.

    If raising the income ceiling to allow more young couples to live in HDB flats can help reduce the social gap that can exist between the privileged and the masses, then there are reasons to do so.

    I know some readers will argue that HDB flats should be reserved for the lower-income. Let the high-income earners who want to live in HDB estates buy flats on the resale market.

    But the fact is that, with 80 per cent living in HDB estates, HDB flat owners already include the high-income. Increasingly, the subsidised HDB flat is being viewed as the birthright of every Singaporean couple. The HDB gravy train gives them a ticket to an affordable first home – and a firm step up the ladder of financial success, if they are lucky enough enough to make hundreds of thousands of dollars subsequently by selling it on the open market.

    But opening up the floodgates this way will inevitably lead to demands from other groups to be given the same access to HDB subsidised flats. Mature couples who missed out on buying HDB flats earlier will also want to be allowed to buy subsidised flats. And singles will demand more leeway to benefit from housing subsidies too.

    The arguments about the social benefits of having every Singaporean experience HDB living applies equally to them.

     

    Source: http://business.asiaone.com

  • Man In Khoo Teck Puat Shooting Faces Two More Charges

    Man In Khoo Teck Puat Shooting Faces Two More Charges

    The man accused of firing three rounds from a police revolver at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital was charged with two more offences on Monday.

    Muhammad Iskandar Sa’at, 23, faces the death penalty for allegedly discharging three bullets from a .38 inch calibre Taurus revolver with intent to cause physical injury to Staff Sergeant Mohammad Sadli Razali, 31, on June 20 between 7.03pm and 7.06pm.

    He is now charged with hitting Mr Sadli multiple times with t-baton and with a metal pole used for securing an IV drip at 6.53pm and 7pm the same day, with intent to deter the policeman from discharging his duty.

    The other fresh charge states that he tried to escape from police custody after he was arrested for stealing a lorry.

    The prosecution applied for him to be remanded at a medical centre for psychiatric evaluation.

    His family members have instructed lawyer Shashi Nathan to act for him. Mr Nathan’s colleague, Ms Tania Chin, appeared for him in court on Monday.

    Muhammad Iskandar will return to court on July 20.

    The maximum punishment for causing hurt to a public servant is seven years’ jail, a fine and caning. The punishment for attempting to escape from legal custody is one year’s jail and a fine.

     

    Source:www.straitstimes.com

  • Problems With Increasing Housing Grants

    Problems With Increasing Housing Grants

    I disagree with the calls to increase the Higher-Tier Central Provident Fund Housing Grant for young couples who wish to buy a resale flat in mature estates so as to live close to their parents (“Buy resale flat near parents? Financial help is key: Experts”; last Tuesday).

    There are problems with increasing the grant.

    First, it could lead to a mentality among the younger generation that living close to their parents is an entitlement, and if they cannot live near them, then that is an excuse to not look after them.

    Second, raising the grant would lead to an increase in property prices in mature estates, and could trigger a vicious circle where the Government constantly has to raise the grant for young couples as the property prices in mature estates keep rising.

    A better idea would be to give the seniors incentives – not limited to monetary ones – to move out of mature estates to live near their married children in new estates.

    When elderly couples move out of mature estates, it increases the supply of resale flats available in these estates, thus lowering the asking price of these units and making it more affordable for young couples who wish to live there.

    Ultimately, young couples should not be encouraged to buy a flat in a mature estate where decades of the lease have already expired.

    Singapore will face a major challenge in future when there are too many couples outliving their property lease because they bought a property with a shorter remaining lease.

    Chan Yeow Chuan

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Singaporean Youth Put On Restriction Order Under ISA After Probe Into Extent Of Radicalisation

    Singaporean Youth Put On Restriction Order Under ISA After Probe Into Extent Of Radicalisation

    A Singaporean youth who was arrested so that investigations could be carried out into the extent of his radicalisation, has been placed on a Restriction Order (RO) under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for two years starting this month .

    The 17-year-old youth, who was arrested last month and was not named, has been released from custody but is required to abide by conditions specified in the RO, the Ministry of Home Affairs said in a statement on Monday.

    The ministry said investigations showed that the youth had become radicalised after viewing videos and materials on websites and social media materials propagated by “radical ideologues and terrorist elements”.

    “He had wanted to engage in armed violence alongside the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and had started making preparations to carry out his plans,” the statement said without elaborating on what these plans were.

    Having been released from custody, the youth is required to abide by a series of conditions.

    He will have to attend religious counselling and must stop accessing violent or extremist online material. He will also not be allowed to leave Singapore without permission or be able to issue public statements.

    The ministry said that the youth’s release on a Restriction Order with conditions attached, “provides a balance between rehabilitation and preserving public security”.

    “Further measures will be taken against him if he breaches the conditions of the RO, or if it is assessed that further measures are needed to protect public security.”

    In April 2015, another youth was detained under the ISA for terrorism-related activities.

    M Arifil Azim Putra Norja’i, 19, had planned to carry out violent attacks in Singapore and to assassinate President Tony Tan and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong if he was unable to go to Syria to join ISIS.

    In its statement on Monday, the ministry reiterated that the community has an important role to play in protecting fellow Singaporeans from radicalisation and terrorism.

    Family members and the public can call the Internal Security Department Counter-Terrorism Centre hotline at 1800-2626-473 should they know of or suspect that someone is radicalised.

    “This could save such individuals and allow them to be helped and counselled, so that they are prevented from engaging in violent activities that may cause harm to themselves and others,” the statement added.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

deneme bonusu