Tag: Singapore

  • Amy Khor To Defend Hong Kah North SMC For PAP

    Amy Khor To Defend Hong Kah North SMC For PAP

    The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Amy Khor will defend her Hong Kah North seat in the coming General Election (GE).

    Dr Khor, 57, served as a Member of Parliament (MP) for Hong Kah Group Representation Constituency (GRC) from 2001. For the last GE in 2011, her ward was hived off as a Single Member Constituency (SMC).

    Dr Khor is the Senior Minister of State for Health and for Manpower. She also serves as the Deputy Government Whip. Prior to entering politics, Dr Khor was a lecturer at the National University of Singapore from 1989 to 1999.

    At the last GE, she defeated Singapore People’s Party (SPP) candidate Sin Kek Tong with 70.61 per cent of the vote. This time, the SPP has declared it will contest the Hong Kah North seat once again.

    The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) secretary-general Benjamin Pwee has earlier said the “best candidate” from his party’s partnership with the SPP will be fielded, but SPP later clarified that its alliance with DPP does not extend beyond a joint team for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Public Health England: E-Cigarettes Less Damaging Than Smoking Tobacco

    Public Health England: E-Cigarettes Less Damaging Than Smoking Tobacco

    Vaping is safer than smoking and could lead to the demise of the traditional cigarette, Public Health England (PHE) has said in the first official recognition that e-cigarettes are less damaging to health than smoking tobacco.

    The health body concluded that, on “the best estimate so far”, e-cigarettes are about 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes and could one day be dispensed as a licensed medicine in an alternative to anti-smoking products such as patches.

    While stressing that e-cigarettes are not free from risk, PHE now believes that e-cigarettes “have the potential to make a significant contribution to the endgame for tobacco”.

    The message was backed by the government’s chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, who nevertheless cautioned that “there continues to be a lack of evidence on the long-term use of e-cigarettes”. She said they should only be used as a means to help smokers quit.

    “I want to see these products coming to the market as licensed medicines. This would provide assurance on the safety, quality and efficacy to consumers who want to use these products as quitting aids, especially in relation to the flavourings used, which is where we know least about any inhalation risks.”

    The 111-page review raises concerns about the length and cost of the the government’s licensing process, which is a key part of the revised strategy to cut tobacco use.

    No e-cigarettes have yet been licensed, unlike other nicotine-replacement therapies such as gums, lozenges and patches. Pilot schemes in Leicester and the City of London allow stop-smoking specialists to offer free e-cigarette starter kits, but smokers elsewhere cannot be offered e-cigarettes on prescription.

    The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency began its work in this area more than two years ago, and manufacturers have complained that it costs them millions to go through the process.

    Jane Ellison, the public health minister in England, reminded smokers that the best thing they could do to avoid falling victim to the country’s number one killer was to quit completely.

    “Although we recognise the e-cigarettes may help adults to quit, we still want to protect children from the dangers of nicotine, which is why we have made it illegal for under-18s to buy them,” she said.

    The review found that almost all of the 2.6 million adults in the UK now thought to be using e-cigarettes are current or former conventional smokers, most using them to help them quit tobacco or to prevent them going back to smoking.

    There was no suggestion that the products were a gateway into tobacco smoking, with less than 1% of adults or young people who had never smoked becoming regular cigarette users.

    The PHE decision comes after carefully choreographed moves by anti-tobacco campaigners and public health specialists to help move the NHS towards offering better smoking cessation support and to be less negative about e-cigarettes.

    Services are being urged to follow those in the north-east of England in offering behavioural support to those wanting to quit tobacco and using e-cigarettes to try to do so.

    Smoking kills about 100,000 people a year in the UK, most of those in England where there are thought to be eight million tobacco users. But official figures suggest smoking is now at its lowest prevalence since records started in the 1940s.

    Rates are highest in many of the most deprived areas of England, and getting smokers off tobacco is increasingly seen as one of the best ways of reducing health inequalities.

    Worryingly for many of those behind the policy change, increasing numbers of people – up to 22%, compared with 8% two years ago – think e-cigarettes are equally or more harmful than tobacco. This is leading some smokers to avoid switching, studies have suggested.

    Tobacco reduction campaigners say the public needs to be educated to recognise that although e-cigarettes, like tobacco cigarettes, contain addictive nicotine, they do not contain more dangerous chemicals such as tar and arsenic.

    PHE is also advocating careful monitoring of the e-cigarette market, particularly of companies closely involved with or part of big tobacco companies. It says the government must meet its obligations “to protect public health policy from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry”.

    Kevin Fenton, director of health and wellbeing at PHE, said: “E-cigarettes are not completely risk-free but when compared to smoking, evidence shows they carry just a fraction of the harm.

    “The problem is people increasingly think they are at least as harmful and this may be keeping millions of smokers from quitting. Local stop-smoking services should look to support e-cigarette users in their journey to quitting completely.”

    Peter Hajek, of Queen Mary University, London, one of the independent authors of the review, said: “My reading of the evidence is that smokers who switch to vaping remove almost all the risks smoking poses to their health. Smokers differ in their needs and I would advise them not to give up on e-cigarettes if they do not like the first one they try. It may take some experimentation with different products and e-liquids to find the right one.”

    Ecita, a trade association of e-cigarette manufacturers, said: “There could be huge long-term benefits to taxpayers and the NHS as well as to former smokers and their families. The proposed ban in public places across Wales is very worrying, as are many of the bans in pubs and restaurants across the UK. This appears to be driving a growing number of people to think the harm is the same, deterring smokers from moving to e-cigarettes, and damaging public health.”

    The smokers group Forest questioned whether prescribing e-cigarettes on the NHS would be a justifiable use of taxpayers’ money. Simon Clark, its director, said promoting them “as a state-approved smoking cessation aid ignores the fact that many people enjoy vaping in its own right and use e-cigs as a recreational not a medicinal product.”

    He said e-cigarettes had been successful because the consumer, not the state, was in charge. “If they want more smokers to switch to e-cigarettes, public health campaigners should embrace consumer choice and oppose unnecessary restrictions on the sale, marketing and promotion of this potentially game-changing product.”

    The switch in policy towards e-cigarettes coincided with publication in the Journal of the American Medical Association of research from Los Angeles suggesting that high school students who had use e-cigarettes are more likely to go on to try tobacco.

    But Hajek said this did not show that vaping leads to smoking. “It just shows that people who are attracted to e-cigarettes are the same people who are attracted to smoking. People who drink white wine are more likely to try red wine than people who do not drink alcohol.”

     

    Source: www.theguardian.com

  • 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

  • Engineer And Property Agent Fined For Selling E-Cigarettes Online

    Engineer And Property Agent Fined For Selling E-Cigarettes Online

    An engineer and a property agent who imported and sold electronic cigarettes online were fined a total of $31,000 yesterday.

    Francis Chue Kar Fatt, 33, was fined $16,000, while 32-year-old property agent Zhang Zhaoming, was fined $15,000 after they each pleaded guilty to 10 charges.

    Two of Chue’s charges were for obstructing an authorised officer by deleting the www.thaivape.com website and a PayPal account which housed the evidence to all the e-cigarette sales transactions.

    Another four were for selling and importing e-cigarettes with Zhang.

    Following online surveillance of online electronic cigarette peddlers, Health Sciences Authority officers raided the Woodlands home of Chue and his wife, Ms Rattikan Khamtong, a 29-year-old Thai national, on Jan 7, 2013, for allegedly offering e-cigarettes for sale on the website.

    They seized e-cigarettes, related peripherals and SingPost receipts.

    Investigations showed that Ms Khamtong instructed her husband to delete the website while officers were conducting the search. She gave him her username and password and he did it from his office laptop at his office at Land Transport Authority at Sin Ming Drive.

    On July 18, 2013, when HSA officers raided Zhang’s home in Sengkang, Chue deleted the PayPal account which contained e-cigarette sales transactions from the website.

    Investigations showed that despite knowing it was an offence to deal in e-cigarettes, Zhang was still keen on the business. He started the e-cigarette online business with Chue’s help sometime in June. They agreed on the terms of the business and a profit-sharing arrangement.

    The court heard that the goods were ordered online and payments made via Zhang’s credit card. The e-cigarettes were sold to customers at between $55 and $110 a set.

    A warrant for the arrest of Ms Khamtong was issued last month.

    Both men could have been fined up to $5,000 on each charge of selling or importing. For obstruction, Chue could have been fined up to $10,000 and/or jailed for up to 12 months per charge.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.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

deneme bonusu