Tag: Singapore

LoveSingapore WearWhite’s Message Is Troubling In Multi-Culural, Diverse Singapore

On May 19, the LoveSingapore Christian network released a Facebook post launching the Wear White movement for 2016, calling on churches in its network to wear white. While the Wear White movement was founded last year by a Muslim religious teacher as a counter-movement to Pink Dot, LoveSingapore, as a Christian group, appears to be taking the lead this year. This year, the Wear White movement is scheduled on the same weekend (June 4-5) as Pink Dot, which will be held on June 4 at the Speakers’ Corner.

LoveSingapore’s Facebook post, which they said was addressed to the government, church, press and society, contains several points which are troubling. In the second point of the post, the LoveSingapore network calls for churches to arise and move on their convictions regarding public morality. This was followed by Howard Hendricks’ quote which said, “A belief is something you will argue about. A conviction is something you will die for.”

The juxtaposition of LoveSingapore’s mobilisation call and Hendricks’ quote raises eyebrows. Such rhetoric is questionable, especially in view of this year’s terrorist attacks in Brussels and Jakarta.

The third and fourth point in the message emphasized the importance of listening to Singapore’s conservative majority and keeping with the core values they possess. It also warned that the conservative majority will push against attempts to promote lifestyles and ideologies that openly and outrightly contradict Singapore’s laws, government’s stated policies, national core values, and the conservative majority’s views on public morality, marriage and family.

LoveSingapore’s repeated emphasis on the word “majority” is troubling. In Singapore’s multiracial, multireligious society, no particular religion or group can claim to speak for the majority.
The Humanist Society (Singapore) calls for respectful, informed discussion on the topic, based on reason, evidence, and compassion around the cause.

Executive Committee Humanist Society (Singapore)

Source: Humanist Society Singapore

May 24, 2016
LTA Investigating Deaths From Sudden Acceleration Of Hyundai Cabs

Madam Poh Ah Gin, 78, was killed by a reversing Comfort taxi. The woman, who had been collecting cardboard to recycle, was hit twice.

Reports noted that the Hyundai Sonata was reversing into a parking lot when the vehicle suddenly rolled backwards, mounted the kerb and hit Madam Poh.

Mr Lim Kah Kong, 35, a tow truck driver, told The Straits Times Online that he shouted at the taxi driver to stop when he saw that Madam Poh had been hit.

“But his car continued to lunge back and forth, and he hit her again,” he said.

The cabby’s son, known only as Sam, said his father was an experienced driver with no past traffic offences.

“He repeatedly told me that there was something wrong with the cab,” he said. “But there’s nothing we can do about it now.”

MARCH 17, 2016

A Comfort cab caused a chain collision at Block 702, Bedok Reservoir Road.

The cab was trying to reverse into a parking lot when it surged forward instead, hitting a red car.

The impact caused the red car to scrape the side of a blue lorry beside it, before mounting a kerb and hitting the front of a white lorry on the other side of the car park.

The taxi reversed into the void deck of Block 702, nearly colliding with three teenagers who were there.

Except for the taxi, the three other vehicles were parked.

Madam Sandy Goh, 48, a volunteer at the neighbourhood’s Senior Care Corner, rushed to the scene after receiving a flurry of calls from senior citizens about the accident.

She said the taxi driver seemed to have escaped injury.

“He looked quite confused. I heard the police officer asking him what had happened, but he said he didn’t know,” she said.

DEC 25, 2009

In 2011, a cabby was fined $800 for hitting four pedestrians and crashing into a 7-Eleven store.

The cabby was in the taxi queue at the Tiong Bahru Plaza when his Hyundai Sonata suddenly surged forward.

He ran into a man and three women, before crashing into the entrance of the 7-Eleven store.

His defence counsel said it was his client’s first time driving the Hyundai cab. He was not used to the sudden burst of speed when the accelerator was pressed suddenly.

The court heard that as the cabby was moving forward in the taxi queue, some pedestrians stepped off the kerb. They seemed to be in the path of his taxi.

Instead of hitting the brakes, his foot slipped and he stepped on the accelerator.

Source: www.tnp.sg

May 23, 2016
Cost Of Singapore University Education To Rise

The cost of a university degree in Singapore is set to rise, according to a new study by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

Released yesterday, the study projected that a four-year degree will cost 70.2 per cent of an individual’s average yearly income in 2030, up from 53.1 per cent in 2015.

Since 2010, tuition fees at local universities have gone up every year for most undergraduate courses, mainly due to rising operating costs.

For instance, a local undergraduate entering the National University of Singapore’s faculty of arts and social science this academic year (2016) would pay $8,050 annually, up from $7,950 last year (2015).

Another projection showed that Singapore’s education spending will dip from 3.4 per cent of gross domestic product last year to 2.7 per cent in 2030, largely due to falling birth cohort sizes and a growing population aged over 60 years.

The study, known as the Yidan Prize Forecast, Education to 2030, was released today (May 22) at a press conference held at the Kowloon Shangri-La in Hong Kong.

It was commissioned by the Yidan Prize Foundation, a global education foundation based in Hong Kong and named after its founder Charles Chen Yidan, a Chinese Internet philanthropist.

The EIU study, conducted from January to March, looked at future trends in education across 25 economies including Hong Kong, the United States, Germany, and Japan.

It focused on five indicators: public expenditure on education, youth unemployment, affordability of education, number of graduates in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Stem) fields and the access to Internet in schools.

Historical data was collected from sources such as the Unesco Institute for Statistics, the World Economic Forum, EIU income data, as well as university rankings.

For each of the five metrics, the EIU derived results based on econometric models that would forecast how these trends would continue in the next 14 to 15 years.

For instance, the affordability of a university degree was based on factors such as inflation rates, analyst feedback and research.

According to projections, Singapore’s proportion of Stem graduates in its labour force will grow slightly to 0.4 per cent in 2030, from 0.3 per cent last year.

Mr Chris Clague, editor of the EIU report, said this forecast could be worrying, depending on Singapore’s priorities and if its job market will need Stem skills, as this might mean a skills mismatch.

The report also cited a separate 2015 study by the US National Science Foundation which noted that Stem knowledge and skills are used in more occupations than traditionally thought of, including finance, and sales and marketing.

Such a trend is likely to intensify in the next 15 years and beyond as technology becomes more central to different jobs, it said.

Meanwhile, Singapore’s youth unemployment rate is projected to remain low – from 10.9 per cent last year to 10.8 per cent in 2030.

The Republic is also among the top performers for having Internet access in schools in 2015, coming in joint second with Finland with a 6.4 on a scale of 1 to 7, with the latter being the best.

This improves to 6.5 in 2030, although Hong Kong, Finland and Norway are expected to surpass that level by then.

Yesterday’s event also saw the launch of the Yidan Prize – the largest education award of its kind in terms of monetary value.

There will be two awards each year, – one recognising education research and the other initiatives that promote development in education. Each winner will receive a cash prize of HK$15 million (S$2.67 million) and a fund of HK$15 million based on the principle of impact investment, to be distributed in three instalments over three years to fund research or projects.

Nominations for the prize will open next month (June). Individuals such as teachers, academics, and policymakers, among others, from around the world including Singapore can apply. The first winners will be announced in September next year (17).

Speaking at the press conference yesterday, Mr Chen, who funded the prize, said education is close to his heart as he sees the potential of university education in helping people discover themselves.

“The prize recognises and supports agents of change whose work transforms education in a sustainable way, and encourages innovative approaches to education research and development,” he said.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

May 23, 2016
Indonesian Businessman: Indonesia Needs To Stop Acting Like “Big Brother”

Tensions between Indonesia and Singapore are simmering as a kerfuffle is developing over the decision by a Singaporean court to grant a warrant to the National Environment Agency (NEA) for an Indonesian businessman suspected of involvement in last year’s forest fires. The warrant was obtained after the businessman, whose identity remains hidden, failed to turn up for an interview with the Singaporean authorities while he was in the city-state.

The saga took an interesting twist as Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied its counterpart’s repeated claims that a formal complaint against the warrant had been lodged by the Indonesian Embassy in Singapore.

The reason for Indonesia’s umbrage remains unclear, although implicit in the protest was the notion that Singapore had tried to force Indonesia’s hand in acting against responsible parties for last year’s environmental disaster, which saw much of South-east Asia engulfed in a haze. Jakarta’s reaction suggests that it deemed Singapore to have overstepped its scope of action. By contrast, Singapore’s National Environment Agency (NEA) felt that it had every right to prosecute those deemed responsible, based on the 2014 Transboundary Haze Pollution Act.

To be fair, Singapore’s move was both logical and laudable. However, it was an inadvertent slap in the face for the Indonesian government. Chiefly, politicians in Jakarta were worried that, if successfully pulled off, it was bound to be seen by the public as a derogation of sovereignty: that an Indonesian national could be arrested and even tried in a foreign country.

The swift action was also an embarrassing reminder of Jakarta’s own unmistakable sluggishness in bringing the forest fire perpetrators to justice as a deterrent. Although the Indonesian police did arrest several company executives suspected of wrongdoing last year, no tangible progress has been made with regard to their prosecution so far. A lack of transparency has also marred the process, with Jakarta seemingly intent on protecting the identities of the companies suspected of setting fire to the forests, or negligence in preventing forest fires, in their respective concessions.

STUCK WITH A RESOURCE MENTALITY

Singapore’s foreign ministry has understandably described Indonesia’s reaction as “puzzling”. To any outsider, this view probably holds sway, too. Yet the majority of Indonesians would really see Singapore’s action as an insult.

The main problem here is that post-Suharto Indonesia is still grappling with how to deal and interact with the Singapore of today.

Most Indonesians probably admire the city-state for its efficient bureaucracy, cleanliness and overall orderliness, which are the opposite of how things are in Indonesia.

Our middle class still like to shop in Singapore for luxury goods and, given the choice, most of them, when ill, would rather be treated in Singapore than at home.

Yet for a resource-oriented nation like Indonesia, it is difficult to understand Singapore’s economic success fully, especially as the latter lacks natural resources. The “resource” mentality is after all part of the national myth in Indonesia, with every student taught from an early age how “resource-rich” Indonesia ought to make the country prosperous and how this makes it the envy of the world, even the target for colonial agenda in the past and neo-colonial exploitation subsequently.

It rarely occurs to most of us that today’s advanced economies have gone beyond the exploitation of natural resources and the production of goods as their mainstay in prosperity.

The green-eyed monster is now quite real in the way many Indonesians see Singapore. Coupled with the firmly held belief that many of Indonesia’s super rich park their funds there, it has been conveniently cast as a “foreign” scapegoat for Indonesia’s own failures, even among the educated classes. Singapore is often portrayed as a pushy and cunning little neighbour who takes advantage of Indonesia’s good and gullible nature.

However, many of the accusations against Singapore widely circulated in the Indonesian press could hardly pass the litmus test. For example, the “revelation” by former Air Force chief Chappy Hakim that the airspace above Riau islands falls under Singapore’s Flight Information Region (FIR) — while factually true — neglects to mention that FIRs overlapping national boundaries are more common than he would allow.

Conveniently forgotten is also the fact that Indonesia manages the FIRs for both Timor Leste, a sovereign state in its own right, and Christmas Island, a territory belonging to Australia. The Indonesian press hardly informs the public that revenues derived from managing airspace above Riau are remitted monthly by Singapore to the Indonesian government. Instead the issues of national pride and “unjust” benefits for Singapore at Indonesia’s expense are exaggerated ad nauseam.

It is high time that Indonesians cultivated a new mindset in dealing with Singapore. The Suharto-era self-imposed view that Indonesia must necessarily act as South-east Asia’s “big brother” is no longer relevant in today’s geopolitical realities. Former President BJ Habibie’s jibe at Singapore being a “little red dot” has also gone sour as Singaporeans appropriated the insult as a badge of pride.

In many ways, the consoling myth of Indonesia as “big brother” to the rest of South-east Asia has been a source of great complacency for Indonesians. Rather than chastising us into bettering ourselves, it has lulled us. Isn’t it time for us to wake up? THE JAKARTA GLOBE

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Johannes Nugroho is a writer and businessman from Surabaya.

Source: www.todayonline.com

May 23, 2016
Chee Soon Juan – The Chiam Issue: Why This, Why Now?
Below are some frequently asked questions about Mr Chiam See Tong’s departure from the SDP and why we are raising the issue now. I answer them here:

Why rehash the past over the split with Chiam See Tong? Aren’t there more important issues to discuss?

Many of you are sick of this matter and you don’t want to hear any more of it. I agree. There is nothing that I would love more than to leave this episode behind and get on with the issues that really matter to our nation. This is exactly what we did during the general elections (GE) in 2015 and again at the by-election (BE) in Bukit Batok – campaigning on the issues that voters care about.

It is the PAP that keeps dredging up the issue to attack me and the SDP. Take a look at the following:
- Mr Chan Chun Sing: “Dr Chee then proceeded to betray Mr Chiam, isolate him and force him out of the SDP.” (January 2015)
- Vivian Balakrishnan: “I have just one message to send to the SDP: In the PAP, we do not have a tradition of backstabbing our mentors.” (GE 2015)
- Sim Ann: “Singaporeans of a certain age will know…how he ousted his mentor Mr Chiam See Tong from the party Mr Chiam had built.” (GE 2015)
- The Straits Times: “[Grace Fu] added that it would ‘be very interesting’ to see if there would b referral letter from Mr Chiam See Tong, who had recruited Dr Chee into SDP years ago. Last week, Mrs Lina Chiam had said in a Facebook post that her husband had not given his endorsement to any candidate in the by-election.” (BE 2016)
- Mr Heng Swee Keat: “This means a person can lie, cheat or betray someone with impunity…How are voters to believe what such politicians say or hold them accountable for their actions if they were running a town council?” (BE 2016)
Any fair-minded person will conclude that it is not SDP who is rehashing the saga. The PAP will not let the matter rest because it is to its advantage if it can continue to use this falsehood to attack me.

But as long as the PAP continues to resurrect the matter, the SDP will rebut the lies. We hope opposition supporters will help us disseminate this information and, in so doing, make it counter-productive for the PAP to rehash the issue.

But didn’t the episode take place nearly 25 years ago? Is it still relevant to voters?

A few residents in Bukit Batok raised the subject with me and my party colleagues during our recent campaign. A couple of them indicated that they would not have voted for me had I not personally explained the situation to them. How many more voters are out there who still don’t know the truth?

As much as some people think that the SDP-Chiam episode is no longer an issue, there are many who – with the help of the PAP and the media – still think it is.

As a political party fighting for every vote, clearing up the issue to ensure that we don’t allow our opponent to capitalise on a falsehood to sabotage our effort is the smart and right thing to do.

But why now?

As I mentioned, we did not counter the PAP when it raised the Chiam issue in GE 2015 and BE 2016 because we did not want the PAP to distract the voters from the real issues. But not doing so may have hurt our campaigns because there are voters who still believe that I had betrayed Mr Chiam and, because of this, would not vote for the SDP.

This must change. We cannot wait until elections to counter the lies, we must start now. To prevent these untruths from being reinforced and spread further in future elections, the SDP will counter them whenever they are raised.

Why not just bury the hatchet with Mr Chaim?

We tried – repeatedly. The SDP has invited Mr Chiam on numerous occasions to our functions in the hopes that we can bury the past and move on (see here).

A recent example was our invitation to him to attend our 35th anniversary dinner in August last year. We even approached him to be our guest at our rally during the BE in Bukit Batok. The Chiams turned down our invitations.

We also published an article in our party newspaper written by Dr Wong Wee Nam about how Mr Chiam and the SDP nearly came together in 2015. But Mrs Lina Chiam interpreted that as the SDP trying to use the piece as an endorsement by Mr Chiam of me. We had no such intention, we only wanted to bury the proverbial hatchet and to move on.

For the record, Dr Wong’s article was published in The New Democrat in June 2015. An online version of the piece was published on 2 April 2015 (see here). Why did Mrs Chiam raise it only nine months later during the BE – and on two occasions, one of which was published in the Straits Times during the cooling-off period?

Are you attacking Mr Chiam?

No, not at all. In fact, it has been quite the reverse. Mr Chiam declared in 1993: “He has not been thrust into my position. He has usurped my position!” More recently, the Straits Times reported that “Mrs Lina Chiam accused Dr Chee of ousting her husband from the party he founded in 1980.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. When Mr Chiam resigned as the party’s secretary-general, I, together with other CEC members, tried to persuade him to remain. Even when he went to the Singapore Press Club to criticise us and left us little choice but to expel him, we still tried – right up till the very end – to see if we could effect some form of reconciliation.

But rather than go on a he-said-she-said type of argument, it is best to cite what High Court Judge Warren Khoo wrote in his decision when he presided over the lawsuit which Mr Chiam took against the SDP:

“There were allegations in the pleadings of bad faith and of the defendants (SDP) acting maliciously in order to injure the plaintiff (Chiam See Tong). There were suggestions in plaintiff’s counsel’s questions put to the witnesses for the defendants that the object of the disciplinary proceedings was to make the plaintiff lose his seat in Parliament, that being the consequence of the plaintiff being expelled from the party. I do not think there is very much in these suggestions, having regard to the fact that the CEC even when they had decided to expel him were making efforts to seek a reconciliation with him.”

The truth is that I have always tried to effect a reconciliation with Mr Chiam. I tried it more than 20 years ago and I have tried it in recent times.

The falsehood that I ousted Mr Chiam and usurped his position in the SDP has gone on for too long. It must stop. Remember, a lie, if repeated often enough, becomes truth.

Source: www.cheesoonjuan.com
May 23, 2016