Gerald Giam

Japan quake: Buildings swaying for 2 minutes

More than 150 injured in quake in Japan: hospitals

From Channel NewsAsia, Posted: 16 July 2007 1135 hrs

TOKYO – A powerful 6.8-magnitude earthquake rattled Japan on Monday, injuring more than 150 people as it toppled houses, triggered mudslides and set off a blaze at a nuclear power plant.

In areas northwest of Tokyo, which were hardest hit, houses were reduced to rubble and a bridge was nearly cracked in two by the force of the mid-morning quake, Japanese television footage showed.

The government set up a crisis-management centre after the quake, which was powerful enough to shake skyscrapers and send goods flying from the shelves of stores in Tokyo more than 200 kilometres (125 miles) away from the epicentre.

Read more at Channel NewsAsia

I just contacted my friend in Tokyo. He said the buildings were swaying for two whole minutes and that it was “quite scary”. Two minutes in earthquake time must have seemed like eternity when you are in a high rise building in downtown Tokyo.

CNA reported that about 150 people were injured and there have been two reports of deaths. If a 6.8 magnitude earthquake happened anywhere else in the world so close to cities, that country would be facing a major catastrophie with hundreds, if not thousands of people killed or injured. I really take my hat off to the Japanese for making all their buildings so earthquake resistant.

Chain of command might have led nowhere

In response to my article, PM’s son’s email saga a heartening development for Singapore, which I contributed to TheOnlineCitizen.com, a reader, Jon, asked some very pertinent questions:

1. If 2LT Li had followed the “proper channel”, what makes you think the 3rd senior officer up the chain of command will do anything?

2. Will Li Hongyi be charged if he merely sent his letters to everyone directly above him (ie, Defense Minister, CDF, CoA, Chief Signal Officer, etc)?

He recalled that there were two senior officers who were issued warning letters for not meting out the appropriate punishment when the offence was first reported to them by Li Hongyi.

These two officers were probably his OC and his unit CO (the same guy who told the whole unit the next day that they must follow the chain of command).

The “proper channels” that Mindef referred to probably would have required Hongyi to patiently go rung by rung up the ladder…CO, CSO, ACGS, COS, COA, CDF, Min. (I’m just guessing. I don’t know the hierarchy — there are probably more “crabs” and “stars” in between.)

If he waited just 3 weeks before before escalating to the next level, that’s 18 weeks before he can email the Minister. He was scheduled to disrupt very soon (he said it was his last email). So he would not have had the time to wait around.

Furthermore, 3 weeks may or may not be an appropriate length of time to wait for a response. If at any point he got impatient and decided to escalate up the issue too soon, he could have gotten charged for not following the chain of command.

So I think he would never have gotten the Lieutenant to face court martial had he not shot the email all the way up to the CDF and Minister.

Now, about the Cc list, which probably included all the enlisted men, drivers, clerks, etc in the whole unit — If he didn’t cc all of them, the letter would never have leaked, and no one would have blogged about it in the first place. In which case, there would be no public pressure on Mindef to act.

So my conclusion is that the outcome — LTA charged, OC and the other senior officer (probably the CO) warned — would not have happened if Hongyi didn’t shoot both up and down.

Perhaps this is what Hongyi himself calculated before he even sent out the email. If so, then maybe he wasn’t so brash after all.

PM’s son’s email saga a heartening development for Singapore

Army Second Lieutenant (2LT) Li Hongyi’s June 28 email complaint sent to all the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) head honchos has caused ripples on the Internet for the past two weeks. Much mud has been slung at 2LT Li for his brash act.

“Who does he think he is anyway? He thought he could go to Uncle Chee Hean and complain,” said one of my friends. (Teo Chee Hean is Singapore’s Minister for Defence.)

A “blatant abuse of family ties,” cried another blogger.

As it turns out, the son of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did end up getting formally charged and was administered a reprimand after a summary trial by the military for not adhering to the chain of command when making his complaint.

This incident has also made its way to the international news wires, with Reuters having reported it this morning. Despite all the brickbats that Li Hongyi, Mindef and the “Elite Establishment” are receiving over this incident, I feel that the way this saga has played out is actually quite heartening for Singapore.

White Horses not immune from punishment

Firstly, the fact that the son of the prime minister got charged for contravening a relatively minor military General Order shows that not even a “white horse” (the son of a VIP) is immune from punishment for wrongdoing. I say “relatively minor” because 2LT Li’s misdemeanour was his overzealousness in reporting an offence.

He was not derelict in his duties as a soldier, nor did he cause any injury to anyone. Furthermore, he sent his email only to fellow servicemen within the Mindef Intranet, and not to anyone outside Mindef.

Nevertheless, he was wrong to have emailed the Minister for Defence, the Chief of Defence Force, the Chief of Army and so many other servicemen (possibly hundreds, based on the distribution lists in his carbon copy list). There are many more senior officers in the chain of command above his Officer Commanding (OC) that he could have reported this incident to.

Public spiritedness

Secondly, after reading 2LT Li’s email, one can discern that it wasn’t just some immature rant against the army (like so many of us, myself included, like to write). It was a detailed account of what is wrong with the system of enforcing discipline in his army unit. It demonstrates that this young man was intent on setting things right before he disrupted his service for overseas studies.

Our views of government ministers’ children are probably coloured by Wee Shu Min (pictured left), the daughter of a PAP MP who wrote a very haughty blog last year. 2LT Li’s email is different. It shows a degree of public spiritedness that is sorely lacking in most of our young Singaporeans nowadays.

Complaint taken seriously by Mindef

Thirdly, Mindef took this complaint seriously. The lieutenant that 2LT Li complained about will be court martialled soon and will probably be sentenced to Detention Barracks (DB) for a couple of days. The lieutenant’s superiors were also issued warning letters for not meting out harsh enough punishment when the infraction was first reported to them.

Critics would say that Mindef took action only because the son of the PM made this complaint. If this was the case, why didn’t 2LT Li’s OC and Commanding Officer take appropriate action when he first reported it?

Mainstream media, New Media

Fourthly, 2LT Li’s wrongdoing was not exactly covered up because of his status as the son of the PM. Even before the mainstream media reports came out today, and the chatter on the Net took off a week earlier, the Commanding Officer of 2LT Li’s unit had given a speech to the entire unit the next day (presumably the day after he wrote the letter) about “following the chain of command”.

That in many ways amounted to a public, albeit informal rebuke. Today’s mainstream media’s reports about 2LT Li’s punishment (complete with pictures of the young officer) all signal a gradual relaxing of the Singapore media’s unofficial policy of self-censorship to avoid embarrassment to senior government officials.

It is unclear whether 2LT Li’s charge was issued before or after the news got leaked on the Net. It appears that his email only got circulated widely on the Net late on Thursday, 12 July.

But given that he committed his offence on June 28, and Mindef announced to the press less than two weeks later (on July 12) that he had already been charged at a summary trial, indicates that relative quick action was taken against this offender.

Lastly, there is no doubt that the new media helped to highlight this matter to the public. There would be no Straits
Times or Channel NewsAsia report, nor would Mindef have issued a statement, if not for the fact that this was already a widely discussed issue on the Net.

It is heartening to note that the new media is fast becoming an effective watchdog on the powers-that-be in Singapore.

———

This article was first contributed to The Online Citizen

Sponsor a Child, Change a Life

Dear friends and readers,

I have been a child sponsor with World Vision Singapore for over five years and have personally found it very meaningful. The Child Sponsorship Programme has given me a precious opportunity to invest in the development of a child, his family and his community in a poor country like Vietnam, where my sponsored child lives. It’s a joy to receive regular news about my sponsored child and learn about how he is progressing because of the development work run by World Vision in his community.

World Vision Child Sponsorship addresses the root causes of poverty and points children and families towards fullness of life — physically, emotionally and spiritually.

When you sponsor a child, World Vision helps your sponsored child through implementation of an Area Development Programme in his or her community. This programme ensures that basic infrastructure such as access to nutritious food, clean water, basic healthcare, education, increased food security and household income is available to the child and his community.

If you would like to find out more about how to change a life through World Vision’s Child Sponsorship Programme, click here to visit the World Vision Singapore website, or you could email me at sgpatriot [at] gmail.com or post a comment on this blog.

A simple gesture of compassion can make a huge difference in the lives of these children.

Regards,

Gerald

Simple explanation from Raffles Hospital does not suffice

Blood shortage was not cause of death: Raffles Hospital
By Ng Baoying/Chua Su Sien, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 11 July 2007 2214 hrs

The woman who died after giving birth to twins over the weekend was not denied blood, and her death was not because there was insufficient blood available at the time, according to Raffles Hospital.

It explained that an emergency blood transfusion was immediately started for Madam Swee Lay Kuan when massive bleeding occurred during surgery.

More blood was also immediately obtained from the blood bank.

The hospital said Madam Swee’s death was due to Disseminated Intra-vascular Coagulopathy (DIVC), an acute blood coagulation problem arising from massive bleeding and transfusion.

On Tuesday, it was reported that her husband had been told by hospital staff that if the family wanted more blood, they would have to round up others to donate some at the blood bank.

But Raffles Hospital clarified that while it is common practice to ask relatives and well-wishers to help replenish stock, it is never a requirement for blood to be released by the blood bank.

This is a stand supported by the blood bank.

Dr Diana Teo, Bloodbank@HSA, Centre for Transfusion Medicine, Health Sciences Authority, said: “It is not customary for the blood banks to request that hospitals ask family and friends to come forward to donate blood.

“However, we do know that some hospitals do try to help the blood programme by asking some of the patients to ask their family to come and support us. But I assure you that this is never a requirement from the blood bank.” – CNA/yy

I watched the original Channel 8 interview with the poor, sobbing husband as he described how the blood could not be released to his wife because of bureaucratic red tape. The next day, after reading the TODAY report, I got confused.

Raffles Hospital claims the patient was not denied blood. So why did the husband claim otherwise? Are they saying he was lying? Why then would he round up 200 of his friends and family (no easy task, if I might add) to donate blood to the blood bank so as to replenish its stock?

I don’t think Raffles Hospital should get off so easily with this simple explanation. It might be true that Mdm Swee died of causes other than a blood shortage, but sometime during the saga, one of its staff must have given the husband the impression that his wife had exceeded her limit. The hospital needs to explain in more detail why this happened. Is the hospital sure that all its staff are aware that no management authorisation or family blood donations are required to release more blood for emergencies? Or were they just reiterating a policy?

My deepest condolences to the family of the late Mdm Swee, especially her husband.

I hope this tragedy will spur more people to donate blood. I’m guilty of not doing donating for the last few years and really should do so soon.

Are Singaporeans chicken, or simply bo chap?

Straits Times Forum, 10 July 2007

Tirade of racial abuse aboard bus and no one bothered to act

ON JULY 4, while travelling on bus service 16, my fellow passengers and I were the victims of racial abuse.

The incident was sparked by a person who boarded the bus but had no change for bus fare. At that moment, an elderly Caucasian woman came up and offered to pay the fare for that person.

She did this while raising her voice and commenting that Singaporeans will never help anyone but themselves and that all Singaporeans were money-minded.

She even went so far as to add a four-letter vulgarity before the word ‘Singaporean’ in every sentence she uttered.

At that moment, I could not remain silent any longer and I interrupted her, merely uttering the words, ‘excuse me’. It was then that her racial slurs began, referring to Chinese people as ‘chinks’ and how she hated all of them.

I then accused her of being a racist which she freely admitted to being, all the while adding again the four-letter vulgarity directed at all ‘chinks’.

She then remarked to the entire bus how Chinese people could not speak proper English, adding that she did not know how they could see owing to their small eyes.

To say the least, I was shocked and horrified by her bigotry. Being lost for words and disgusted at her deplorable behaviour, I just called her a disgrace.

After the dust had settled, I found myself utterly disappointed at how such a small and hateful person was allowed on our shores, if in fact she was in Singapore on a long-term basis.

However, I was even more disappointed in the extreme apathetic nature of my fellow Singaporeans. This racial abuse lasted a good five minutes on a bus packed full of Singaporeans who had just finished work, and no one except me had shown disapproval of this verbal abuse.

Everyone just sat there without saying a word. If we Singaporeans do not stand up for ourselves in the face of such blatant tyranny, who will? The ironic thing is that I am Eurasian and my girlfriend is German and I was the only one who said something when she went on her racial tirade.

This debacle has left me with the opinion that our Government’s drive towards attracting foreign talent needs to be approached with great caution.

More stringent checks on potential immigrants are required, which should not be solely based on paper credentials, but on their sentiments towards Singapore and their people. One bigot allowed to grace the country I love is one too many.

Shaun Jalleh

I think that old woman is a little off her rocker. I’m sure she does not represent all Caucasians in Singapore, whom I’ve noted are generally less bigoted than the majority of Singaporeans.

What I’m more concerned about is how Singaporeans are so averse to standing up against racism and injustice, that they just set Shaun Jalleh defend Singapore on his own. I think that is the real disgrace about Singaporeans. Perhaps it’s our education system, our political emasculation or simply our bo chap (indifferent) attitude to everything other them ourselves.

Terrorist doctors and radical lawyers

UK shock: Most bomb suspects are doctors
Worryingly, the eight held are professionals linked to the National Health Service By Mark

Rice-Oxley, For The Straits Times

LONDON – THE terrorist threat confronting Britain has taken a disturbing new twist, with the revelation that almost everyone arrested over last week’s car bomb attacks were foreign-born doctors working in the National Health Service (NHS).

The BBC reported yesterday that of the eight people detained over the failed bombings, seven are thought to be doctors or medical students and the eighth a lab technician.

Read the full article here.

Reading this just makes you throw up your hands in despair and wonder: who is not susceptible to Islamist radicalisation? The poor with nothing to lose? High flying lawyers who are supposed to have been trained in the art of reason? Now doctors who are supposed to save lives are instead plotting mass murder.

I hope there is a really deep investigation into the route that these doctors took on their path to radicalisation. There must be a lot more than meets the eye. In the case of Abdul Basheer, the young lawyer detained in Singapore, I think Singaporeans deserve more answers regarding how he got convinced of this destructive cause that he felt was worth dying for. Frankly I don’t buy the simplistic “radicalised by Internet” postulation. I’ve obtained a list of some of the radical websites that are being tracked, and I really don’t see anything remarkably convincing there. And it’s not because I don’t sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

How to deal with workplace discrimination

I’ve been reading Tough Choices, a memoir by Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of HP. She gives lots of good advice through the experiences she went through navigating the minefields of corporate politics and workplace prejudice. There’s one section which I found particularly instructional. It was a conversation she had during a dinner with a senior executive in AT&T, where she was a young manager who was about to make an important presentation for a multi-billion dollar contract with the US government:

“Carly…I was just wondering: maybe you shouldn’t be one of our presenters. I know some of you women can’t take the pressure. We don’t want you losing your cool in there. Why are you doing this anyway? Don’t you want to spend more time with your husband and have children?”

The executive wouldn’t get off it. He kept asking me about my husband, what he did for a living, how long we’d been married. He did not ask my male colleagues about their wives or their marriages. Finally, I excused myself from the table and walked outside. I found myself crying alone in the parking lot…I was demoralized that I was once again underestimated…

That night, after I’d cried long enough, I made a decision. I would not cry again over others’ prejudice…Life isn’t always fair, and it is different for women than for men. I decided to accept that reality and refuse to be diminished by it….

Since 1986, I have saved by tears for more important things: my family, the beauty of nature, Beethoven, a dear friend, the goodness of people, their wisdom, their tragedies or their triumphs.

I think this is good advice for anyone who is faced with discrimination. Although it is important to challenge the discrimination, what is more important is not to let that diminish oneself.

Good leaders can make a difference

I just finished my reservist today. For those of wondering, my comrades and I did not get to greet that same warrant officer and give him the pleasure of yelling at us again the next morning for not wearing a beret in camp. But being an obedient soldier, I did go to the eMart the next day to buy myself a new beret and jockey cap so I won’t have to break camp rules (albeit dumb ones) again during my next ICT.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe it is possible for NSmen (reservists) to put in their best effort into training, given the right leadership and guidance. My unit is a good example. Although I am not particularly fond of scrambling around in the hot sun, staying up all night to help prepare battle plans, and doing sai kang (unpleasant tasks) after the training is over, one thing that I like about ICTs is seeing my fellow soldiers cooperating so well to get the job done well and trying so hard to complete our training to a satisfactory standard.

Conventional belief is that NSmen are always just trying to keng (malinger). In my unit, chao keng soldiers are the rare exception rather than the rule. And this is not because we have some guai lan Commander barking at us all the time.

On the contrary, our Commander (a lieutenant colonel) tries his best to get us out of the “excused from thinking” mindset that many other soldiers have, and to put into practice the innovation and work ethic we are used to in our civilian jobs. He genuinely believes that innovation and improvements can come from even the lowest levels of the organisational hierarchy. Hence, it is not unusual to see him chatting one-on-one with drivers and clerks to get their feedback on how training can be improved. And we actually tell it to him like it is. Just last night he went out for supper with one “lowly” corporal (an IT manager in civilian life), who gave him an earful of feedback which he promised he would look into.

He also affords us a great deal of trust, even to the point of giving us tips on how to get our deferments approved quicker if we have urgent personal or work commitments. In return, I think our unit’s deferment rate is quite low, as my platoon is usually almost fully staffed at every ICT.

Some time ago, I wrote this in an article on this blog:

In recent years, lots of resources have been poured into recognising reservists’ contributions to “Total Defence”, including larger Progress Packages, NS tax relief, SAFRA recreational facilities and even a new golf course. While most reservists probably appreciate these measures, no amount of “welfare” will address the more critical need for a mindset change among many of our citizen-soldiers. There is a common joke that many reservists go into “excused (from) thinking” mode the moment they don their camouflage uniforms. Perhaps this is due to the rigid military culture that they are not used to at their workplaces in the corporate world.

The SAF needs to find more engaging and innovative ways to explain to all reservists — from officers down to enlisted men — the geo-strategic realities that compel us to maintain a strong defence capability. Reservists (and for that matter, all soldiers) should be given more in-depth briefings on our vulnerabilities as a little red dot in a potentially hostile region. These insights should go beyond the typical National Education lessons taught to secondary school students. Soldiers should be given more privileged information and analyses regarding the latest threats facing Singapore, of course without compromising state secrets. By doing so, the SAF will help our soldiers to better appreciate how they contribute individually to national defence.

I believe that if a leader leads by example, gets his followers to see the purpose in what they are doing, and acknowledges them as equal human beings deserving of respect, there is nothing he cannot inspire them to do for the cause he is leading. And yes, this works even for our men in green.

–

M’sia’s bumi policy threatens ASEAN-EU FTA

Last week, Thierry Rommel, the European Union (EU)’s ambassador to Malaysia, openly criticised Malaysia’s New Economic Policy (NEP). The NEP (commonly termed the “bumiputera policy”) is a 37-year old affirmative action programme in Malaysia that favours ethnic Malays and other indigenous groups in government contracts and education.

While the criticism and the perfunctory backlash from Malaysian leaders is rather unremarkable, what caught my eye was when Rommel warned the NEP could “lead to problems” in free trade negotiations between the EU and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which Malaysia is a key member. The EU and ASEAN agreed last month to launch free trade talks, which could raise ASEAN’s exports to the EU by up to 20 percent. Senior officials are expected to hold their first meeting in Vietnam next month.

While I believe that the NEP is something for Malaysians to argue about amongst themselves, I am concerned that this policy may affect a very important free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU, which is the world’s most important trading bloc. I do not think Rommel would have risked the wrath of Malaysia if he didn’t think this was a serious enough issue. As if ASEAN didn’t already have enough roadblocks to the FTA like Myanmar’s military junta and EU agricultural protectionism, now it appears Malaysia’s NEP threatens to be another roadblock to sealing this important FTA.

Links: Malaysiakini report