Rilek1Corner

Tag: Singaporeans

  • Taxi Driver Racially Abuses Indian Passenger

    Taxi Driver Racially Abuses Indian Passenger

    Hello SMRT, I just encountered a very racist taxi driver, licence plate SHC 4460T today at around 6pm. After I got into the cab, he asked me if I’m Malay. I said no, I’m Indian.
    He scoffed and said, “No you’re not Indian. Indian people are BLACK you are not black.” I replied that that wasn’t true and decided not to engage him in further conversation.
    Then he asked me if I speak Malay or Chinese. I said, no I don’t, I speak Tamil.

    “Tamil is most useless language. Even all Indian people here speak Malay. If you are in Singapore you must speak Chinese or Malay not Tamil” Again I said, that’s not true. I’m Indian and I don’t speak Malay or Chinese.

    Then we passed a stall selling durians along Serangoon Road and he remarked that the durians at this stall are very cheap but “Chinese people don’t buy from here because Indian people buy.”  He continued and said, “You know in Singapore Chinese people hate Indian people.” And he made hand gestures as if he’s drinking a bottle. “All Indian people know to do is”- continues making those hand gestures. “They don’t know to help” – I’m assuming he meant that Indian people do not contribute to society apart from paying alcohol tax.

    At this point I had had enough and told him I did not appreciate the comments he had been making about Indians and told him to drop me off by the side of the road. As I moved to get out he said “where are you going pay the fare first”. This was still along Serangoon Road and nowhere near my house where he was meant to drop me off, so I told him if he wants the fare he can drive me to the nearest police station where we can both make reports. Needless to say, he must’ve known what he had been saying was clearly wrong because he then told me to get out of the cab.

    It’s a very sad state of affairs, when just less than a week ago we celebrated 51 years of coming together as a nation regardless of race, language or religion.

    I’m sure that SMRT does not condone such racism amongst any of its employees and I would very much appreciate if this matter is followed up with and the taxi driver in question educated on the need to keep his opinions on certain races to himself.

    Thank you.

    EDIT: Hi guys, SMRT has followed up regarding this incident. I’ve attached a screenshot of their response in the comment section. SMRT thank you for assisting me with this. I have no doubt that this was an isolated incident and in no way represents the entirety of your company or employees. 🙂

     

    Source: Peshhalaa Davendran

  • Topless Woman On Nicoll Highway Arrested

    Topless Woman On Nicoll Highway Arrested

    She was spotted walking topless in the middle of the busy road.

    A witness, who wanted to be known only as Madam Yu, 51, told The New Paper that the woman caused a traffic jam along Nicoll Highway towards Mountbatten Road at around 5.45pm yesterday.

    The senior personal assistant, who was in a car driven by her husband, said: “The woman was carrying her bra in her right hand. She was strolling calmly towards the city near The South Beach hotel. Many vehicles swerved to avoid her.”

    TNP understands that there was no accident during the incident, and the woman is a China national.

    Responding to queries from TNP, police said they received a call about the woman at around 5.40pm.

    A spokesman added that officers arrived at the scene and arrested the 38-year-old under the Mental Health Act.

    Madam Yu, who has two adult children, said her husband had picked her up near her workplace at Clarke Quay Central shopping mall at around 5.30pm.

    They were heading home to Tampines when they were caught in a traffic jam near Raffles City shopping centre.

    She said it usually takes three minutes to travel about 1km from Raffles City to Nicoll Highway. But due to the jam, the journey took 10 minutes.

    Madam Yu said: “I was shocked when I later spotted the topless woman. I could have stepped out to help her but my husband could not stop the car.”

    Police investigations are ongoing.

     

    Source: The New Paper

  • Private Schools Need MOE Permission To Admit Singaporean Children

    Private Schools Need MOE Permission To Admit Singaporean Children

    The Ministry of Education (MOE) is keeping a closer watch on children who are not part of the mainstream school system.

    Previously, permission from MOE was needed only for Singaporean children who wished to be homeschooled or attend Foreign System Schools such as the Singapore American School.

    But smaller, full-time private schools, some of which base their programmes on overseas education models, will also now need to get permission from MOE if they wish to admit Singapore citizens at the primary and secondary levels.

    The Sunday Times understands that at least six private schools here are affected by the new rule.

    These include Victory Life Christian School (VLCS), Heritage Academy and TLS Academy, all private schools offering the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curriculum widely adopted in the US. All are registered with the Council for Private Education, and admit a mix of local and foreign students.

    Asked about the new rule, MOE would say only that it “would like all Singaporean children to attend our mainstream schools to acquire a common set of core values, knowledge and skills”.

    Mrs Jan Boey, 62, VLCS’ founder, said she worried about the new rule at first but now welcomes it after seeing that Singapore students who do not fit the mainstream can still be admitted to the school.

    “MOE wants national education for all Singapore citizens. It is good for the ministry to know which are the students who pull out from the mainstream, and that there is a place where students who cannot fit into the system can turn to,” she said.

    Under the Compulsory Education Act, a child must attend a national primary school. Only those with special needs or attending designated religious schools – the six madrasahs for primary school-going children and San Yu Adventist School – may be exempted.

    The period of compulsory education is limited to Primary 6. On average, there have been about 50 homeschooled children per cohort in the past five years, the MOE said.

    VLCS, located in Balestier Point, has grown from having only 17 students in 2002 to about 130 now. There are currently 42 Singaporean students enrolled in grades seven to 12. They earn an American high school diploma based on their school credits and can take the Scholastic Aptitude Test.

    Mrs Boey said: “Some parents feel that their children need a safer environment that teaches values alongside religious education.

    “Other children were bullied in school, and did not like going to school, and their parents had to look for an alternative.”

    Last month, three Singaporean siblings who relocated here after growing up in Japan were given the nod by the MOE to join VLCS.

    Mrs Candy Yim, a missionary in her 40s, said she decided to send her three children, aged 12 to 15, to VLCS even though they had considered public schools.

    “The standards of English in Singapore are very high, compared to Japan, and my son would have entered the Normal (Technical) stream if he joined a public school.

    “Under the ACE curriculum, the students can get school credit for Japanese, and the Christian environment is also good for them.”

    Heritage Academy in Yishun will welcome its first students soon. Most students are foreigners from regional countries, though a few Singaporean parents have asked about its secondary curriculum.

    Said education policy expert Jason Tan of the National Institute of Education: “Mainstream education is seen as a prime means of socialising young people and preparing them for adulthood. The authorities want to regularly monitor students who are not part of the mainstream system. Even one child who slips through the cracks could be one child too many.”

     

    Source: The Straits Times

  • New Law Meant To Deter Public From Expressing Views, Says WP

    New Law Meant To Deter Public From Expressing Views, Says WP

    The Workers’ Party (WP) slammed the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill in Parliament yesterday as its members unanimously voted against it, with party chief Low Thia Khiang accusing the Government of “double standards” when it comes to fair comment on cases before the courts.

    Speaking in Mandarin, Mr Low said the real purpose of the new law — which was eventually passed with 72 votes for the Bill and nine against — was not to protect the fairness of judicial proceedings, but to “deter members of (the) public from voicing their views, although they may be reasonable and legal”.

    The new law, he said, would effectively give the Government or minister “unlimited rights”, such that “whatever statement which a member of the public makes can be considered as contempt of court”.

    “Yet, when it (comes) from the mouth of the minister, it becomes completely legal, so long as the Government can say that this is in public interest,” Mr Low said, referring to a provision under the new law that would allow the Government to make a statement on a case if it is deemed necessary for public interest.

    “The question is: What is in public interest? There’s no clear indication in this Bill, so who decides? Of course the Government decides,” he said.

    He added: “This is double standards, giving the Government all the rights but not the people … The court has become the Government’s tool to suppress freedom of speech and to deal with the people opposing the Government.”

    The newly passed Administration of Justice Act consolidates key elements of the law of contempt into statute.

    Until now, contempt was based on case law, and was not a criminal offence.

    Under the new law, the main types of contempt are disobeying court orders, publishing material that interferes with ongoing proceedings, sub judice and scandalising the court, such as by accusing a judge of bias without basis.

    Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC), who is chairman of the party, said the existing contempt of court law “already protects the due administration of justice”.

    “The law is to be found in case law, and has worked well thus far. I have seen no evidence of law inadequacy,” said Ms Lim, adding that she has not come across courts recommending the need for more protection in this regard.

    Asking if the Ministry of Law was “chasing shadows”, Ms Lim pointed out that Law Society’s president Thio Shen Yi was “strongly criticised” by Law Minister K Shanmugam for commenting on the Benjamin Lim case, but public officials such as Mr Shanmugam “could make statements”. Benjamin, 14, was found dead shortly after returning home from a police interview over an alleged molest case, and his case sparked much public discussion.

    “Has he (Mr Shanmugam) been facing accusations that he acted in contempt of court, and wants a blanket licence to say what he likes?” charged Ms Lim.

    The WP parliamentarians were also concerned that there was insufficient public consultation before the Bill was introduced in Parliament on July 11. Ms Lim pointed out that the Bill was put on the Reach website — where the public can provide feedback — a day after it was tabled.

    Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh felt the new law would undermine people’s trust in the Government. Pointing out that trust is a “two-way street”, he said he would like to be able to “express fair criticism and fair comment on events of public interest” that concern him.

    Responding, Mr Shanmugam dismissed the argument that the new law clamps down on free speech. “It doesn’t really affect what (people) can do or what they have been doing. Unless they want to think in terms of going public and attacking witnesses and judges, and trying to get certain results from the court,” he said.

    He reiterated that the sanctity of the judiciary had to be weighed against “some people’s desire to launch personal attacks against judges”.

    “Remember, those who attack the judges fall within a wide spectrum — from the idealistic, to those who are constitutionally sour, to those who are outright dishonest,” he said.

    Responding to NCMP Leon Perera’s suggestion that the Government was trying to rush the new law through, Mr Shanmugam said: “I didn’t know you’ll consider six years a rush to legislate. It is slow by the Government’s standards.”

     

    Source: TODAY Online

  • Mohamad Jonit Adnan Dituduh Bunuh Bekas Isteri Di Yishun Ring Road

    Mohamad Jonit Adnan Dituduh Bunuh Bekas Isteri Di Yishun Ring Road

    Seorang lelaki berusia 37 tahun didakwa dengan tuduhan membunuh pada Isnin (15 Ogos), setelah seorang mangsa berusia 29 tahun meninggal dunia di hospital semalam (14 Ogos).

    Mohamad Jonit Adnan didakwa membunuh Sri Idayu Ghazali di sebuah flat di tingkat tiga Blok 342B Yishun Ring Road pada Sabtu (13 Ogos) sekitar pukul 9.00 malam.

    Mediacorp difahamkan, pasangan itu sedang dalam proses untuk bercerai.

    Cik Sri Idayu dijumpai cedera di rumah tersebut dan dikejarkan ke Hospital Khoo Teck Puat, menurut polis.

    Bagaimanapun, beliau meninggal dunia beberapa jam kemudian sekitar pukul 4.30 pagi semalam.

    Mediacorp juga difahamkan, saudara perempuan Cik Sri Idayu, yang juga merupakan jiran sebelah rumah beliau, menghubungi ambulans dan polis.

    Di mahkamah pagi tadi, Jonit tidak menunjukkan sebarang emosi apabila pertuduhan terhadapnya dibacakan.

    Pendakwa raya polis meminta supaya dia ditahan reman untuk membantu siasatan.

    Kes Jonit akan dibicarakan lagi pada 22 Ogos.

    Jika sabit kesalahan, Jonit boleh dijatuhi hukuman mati.

    Source: Berita MediaCorp

deneme bonusu