Rilek1Corner

Tag: Singaporeans

  • Lee Hsien Loong: Roy Ngerng Not Remorseful

    Lee Hsien Loong: Roy Ngerng Not Remorseful

    The hearing on the assessment of damages that blogger Roy Ngerng has to pay to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong — after he was found guilty of defaming the Prime Minister — began today (July 1), in front of a packed courtroom with queues forming outside the courtroom hours before the session started.

    However, there were few fireworks during the six-hour hearing, with the judge repeatedly interjecting Mr Ngerng’s cross-examination of Mr Lee as a witness and bringing him back on track, despite giving the blogger — who was representing himself in court — more leeway in his questioning.

    On several occasions, Mr Ngerng tried to argue that his blog posts have no malicious intent, despite the fact that he was already found guilty of defamation. This prompted Mr Lee to remark that “we are not here to play games”, while his lawyer Davinder Singh objected to Ngerng’s comments and questions as being irrelevant.

    Both sides also crossed swords on whether there was malice in Mr Ngerng’s conduct, whether he was sincere in his apologies and whether his subsequent actions aggravated the injury to Mr Lee’s reputation.

    While Mr Ngerng started his cross-examination by apologising to Mr Lee at least three times, and pointing out that he had posted an apology on his blog for 405 days as of yesterday, his other actions suggested there was no remorse, Mr Lee pointed out. For instance, he posted a YouTube video repeating defamatory allegations against Mr Lee after he was served a letter of demand to remove the offending blog posting, and later set the access to the clip to private instead of removing it.

    That was not the end of it, added Mr Lee, who noted that Ngerng also went on to email the media on how to access offending posts on another website, among other things.

    “The issue is your motive and your purpose, having committed to take down the video, having committed not to repeat the libel, you have gone instead to make maximum effort to distribute as widely as you can to all editors in Singapore and overseas, and tell them where they can find it after you have taken it down,” said Mr Lee, who had offered not to claim aggravated damages if Ngerng removed the clip.

    Mr Ngerng argued that he meant no malice, adding that since Mr Lee had not met him before yesterday’s hearing, he had no basis to come to that conclusion. “If need be, you can put me on a lie detector and I can prove to you that there is no malice on my part,” he told Justice Lee Seiu Kin.

    He also questioned why Mr Lee had decided on suing instead of trying other means of recourse. To which, Mr Lee said he consulted his lawyers and saw the need to defend himself in this instance, after having observed Mr Ngerng’s blog for some time, which had previous postings on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system.

    “You have been skirting closer and closer to defaming me for a long period, I have been watching this. I have not responded … eventually it was unambiguous (and) I decided that I have no choice but to act,” added Mr Lee.

    When Mr Ngerng sought to show that parts of his article contained factual statements, even pressing Mr Lee on issues pertaining to the workings of the CPF, Mr Singh objected, calling it a “thinly-disguised attempt to try to introduce issues not relevant to this hearing”.

    Both Mr Lee and his lawyer also pointed out that Mr Ngerng was straying into challenging the issue of defamation that had already been settled by the court. Mr Lee added: “We are not here to play games, the meaning of these offending words have already been settled … there is no point going through again other than to aggravate damages”.

    On Mr Ngerng’s question of why his initial offer of S$5,000 in damages was rejected even though it was an amount higher than his monthly salary then as a healthcare worker at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Mr Lee responded that it was “not a sincere offer” because Mr Ngerng had aggravated the matter through his conduct.

    “He was not serious or worried of how much he was earning … He wanted to make as big a dent in my reputation as he could,” added Mr Lee.

    The hearing continues tomorrow (July 2), with Mr Singh expected to cross-examine Mr Ngerng.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • 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

  • 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

  • Niche Schemes In Primary School To Be Phased Out

    Niche Schemes In Primary School To Be Phased Out

    The niche scheme was introduced 10 years ago to help every school develop excellence in a particular field but it has attracted its fair share of controversy. And schools are now starting to move away from the achievement-oriented scheme.

    Parents had in the past voiced concerns about children being barred from taking part in activities because they are deemed not good enough to participate competitively. A co-curricular activity (CCA) could also be sidelined for not bringing in awards for the school.

    Now, primary schools are moving away from this scheme, TODAY has learnt. Instead, the schools are shifting towards creating an environment that will allow every child to try his hand at a sport or activity regardless of ability.

    In response to queries, the Ministry of Education (MOE) confirmed that as of last year, primary schools here have begun transiting from the niche scheme — also known as the School-Based Excellence initiative — to develop the Learning for Life and Applied Learning programmes, which MOE had unveiled in 2013 for secondary schools to create “a colourful landscape of distinctive schools to choose from”, as Education Minister Heng Swee Keat had put it.

    This means that over the next few years, the niche scheme will be gradually phased out from the entire education system here.

    Learning for Life programmes are meant to instill life skills and socio-emotional competencies, and could be in the areas of sports or the performing arts. Applied Learning programmes teach students to apply learning in real-world settings and schools can focus on areas such as logical thinking or problem-solving.

    The MOE said the programmes will “provide all students with more varied and authentic learning opportunities”. With these initiatives, schools can consider learning opportunities for all pupils, intended student outcomes and the quality of initiatives.

    The niche scheme was introduced in 2005 for schools to build their brand in an area such as the sports or the arts through a maximum S$100,000 grant yearly for primary schools. One of the evaluation criteria for fundings was the “strength of the school in the proposed school-based excellence”.

    However, this has resulted in schools having to chalk up awards to maintain their niche status. Educators also shared that this led to schools concentrating their resources on a relatively smaller portion of talented students.

    With the new programmes, educators also pointed out schools will now be evaluated primarily based on the pervasiveness of their programmes instead of achievements alone.

    The MOE said 176 out of 187 primary schools currently have at least one Learning for Life, Applied Learning programme or a niche and all primary schools will eventually move towards the Learning for Life and Applied Learning programmes.

    Some could have one of each type of programme, while others may choose to have two Learning for Life programmes.

    EXPOSURE, NOT ACHIEVEMENT, THE FOCUS

    Parents interviewed felt that children should be exposed to a range of activities regardless of their abilities, to discover new interests and skills.

    Mr Jack Kang, a father of two boys, pointed out that some children may only show their potential in later years but they should have a chance to try different activities. “They may just be playing the sport for fun but they may acquire a hobby and not only sitting in front of the computer all the time,” he said.

    Mountbatten Member of Parliament (MP) Lim Biow Chuan, who chairs the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Education, said giving every student a chance to participate alleviates concerns of parents who felt their children are disadvantaged because they lack talent in that activity.

    He, however, cautioned that schools must still ensure that different interests are being catered for through CCAs, for example.

    Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng, who also sits on the GPC, welcomed the shift in primary schools. “It is a good move as it is additional exposure for the student without necessarily having the pressure to achieve awards,” he said.

    Primary school leaders interviewed also applauded the change. Concord Primary principal Tonnine Chua said: “In the past, to prove our strengths in a niche area, the most tangible way would be through results such as achievements. But now, we will instead submit a report explaining how we develop every child and the distinctive features of our programmes.”

    West View Primary vice-principal Quek Swee Nee agreed it means “not only helping the talented students achieve, but also exposing the whole student population to the various educational experiences”.

    Instead of striving for results in competitions, schools can focus on the learning process. In the case of West View’s Learning for Life programme in brass band, the school looks at helping students appreciate music. “For the majority of the student population, the message is they may not be good at the activity now, but because of the exposure in primary school, they may eventually pursue it as a hobby or even a career,” added Mr Quek.

    Nanyang Primary School principal Lee Hui Feng said the new programmes allow schools to pay more attention to character development.

    Echoing a point made by other school leaders, she said the new focus does not mean pupils who show talent in a particular area will be neglected, as CCAs are still a channel for students to specialise and build their strengths.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Insurers Should Assess If Rise In IP Premiums Warranted

    Insurers Should Assess If Rise In IP Premiums Warranted

    Any future premium increases in Integrated Shield Plans (IPs) would be a commercial decision insurers have to make, as they consider factors such as business costs and claims experience, said Minister of State for Health Lam Pin Min.

    But as MediShield Life would cover a higher proportion of the IP payout and future claims would differ, IP insurers should take this into consideration when reviewing the premiums. “(Twelve) months is a reasonable time frame for (insurers) to assess the situation and see whether an increase will be warranted,” Dr Lam said yesterday, noting that the Ministry of Health (MOH) is in discussions with the LIA on keeping premiums affordable.

    Noting that there are five insurers providing IPs, he said: “They have to be competitive as well, so they do not price themselves out of the market.”

    Dr Lam was speaking to reporters in response to a statement issued by the Life Insurance Association (LIA), in which it had revealed estimates as to how much less in IP claims payouts would come from the “top-up” portion.

    The “top-up” refers to the additional private-insurance portion of IPs that covers stays in private hospitals and Class A and B1 wards in public hospitals. For IPs that target Class A and B1 ward users, the proportion would fall by an estimated 14 percentage points, said LIA, which represents the five insurers: AIA, Aviva, Great Eastern, NTUC Income and Prudential.

    LIA also reiterated that it would maintain premiums for a year after the implementation of MediShield Life, but noted that an upward adjustment of premiums would be needed.

    Dr Lam also provided updates on the implementation of MediShield Life, saying that the ministry is reviewing the list of pre-existing serious medical conditions that would warrant additional premiums, and would announce details in one to two months.

    MediShield Life is set to cover all Singaporeans when it kicks in at the end of the year, including those with pre-existing conditions, but some who are not covered under MediShield and have serious pre-existing conditions would pay higher premiums.

    Conditions that may mean higher premiums include chronic renal failure, but Dr Lam said the MOH would be “very fair and compassionate” in the review. He added that an announcement on the standardised IP plan for treatment at Class B1 wards could be expected early next year.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

deneme bonusu