Category: Singapore

Opposition wards achieve more with less

The Straits Times carried a commentary by one of its journalists today criticizing the Government’s handling of the Town Council Management Report (TCMR). The journalist gave the Government “at best an E -” grade for “effort”. In other words, the Government failed miserably. (In the ‘O’ levels, a ‘D’ is already a failing grade.)

My 13 June blog post, Underwhelmed by town council report, was quoted in the ST article:

Workers’ Party member Gerald Giam wrote on his blog: ‘Why does the MND suddenly feel the urge to tell residents what they should think of their town councils, and by extension, their MPs?

‘Residents are personally affected by their town council’s performance. If they feel that their MPs are not performing, they would have voted them out long ago.’

— “Perception of bias dents report’s credibility”, Straits Times, 3 July 2010.

Continue reading “Opposition wards achieve more with less”

“You may wish to get involved in…political organizations”

It is my hope that despite the practical restrictions, with better access to alternative political ideas through the Internet, more of our undergrads will have their political awakenings while on campus, just like I did 13 years ago while studying at USC.

As I was doing some house cleaning this afternoon in preparation for the delivery of my books tomorrow, I chanced upon one of my university admission letters dated 14 March 1994. It was from one of the universities in California which I didn’t end up enrolling in. What struck me, which I had never noticed before, was this paragraph:

“From your first week on campus, you will also have the opportunity to apply your talents in areas outside the classroom. You may wish to get involved in student government, service and political organizations, academic clubs, support groups and more.”

Continue reading ““You may wish to get involved in…political organizations””

Where have all the engineers gone?

Have we gotten to a point where our employers and the government don’t even bother recruiting local engineers and immediately recruit from overseas? Will this not create vicious cycle whereby bright Singaporean students avoid studying engineering in university because they know that once they graduate they will have to compete with an onslaught of cheaper foreign engineers? Can we really build up and sustain a knowledge based economy without a core of local scientists and engineers driving it?

A reader forwarded me this press release from Contact Singapore, announcing that Economic Development Board and the Ministry of Manpower are hiring 250 China engineers this Saturday in Shanghai. Here’s the catch: If don’t read Chinese, too bad for you–the press release is written only in Chinese with no English translation. It is quite obvious that the ad is targeted only at China engineers, and not at Singaporeans.

My reader wondered why priority was not given to Singaporeans. I think it is a valid question to ask. Can EDB and MOM confirm that no effort was spared in recruiting locally before going to China to recruit?

Continue reading “Where have all the engineers gone?”

A “learning experience” for weak leaders

Is this what we pay our Ministers millions of dollars a year to do? To deflect responsibility to their subordinates when things go wrong, but bask in the limelight and taking credit for the hard work those same civil servants put in on other occasions?

To say that the past week has not been a good one for the PAP government is a gross under statement. First, was the continuation of the saga involving the break-in to the government-owned MRT train depot in Changi. Then the release of the Town Council Management Report (TCMR) provoked a much stronger than expected reaction from opposition MPs which they could not satisfactorily respond to. Finally, the most appalling was the massive flood in Orchard Road and Bukit Timah after just a few hours of rainfall, that caused millions of dollars in damages.

Although the three incidents are not connected, there seems to be a common thread running through all of them. In all of them, Singaporeans neither saw nor heard from the Cabinet ministers in charge for days on end.

Continue reading “A “learning experience” for weak leaders”

High-level Ministry departures a sign of impending election?

Perhaps one of the clearest signs that an election is looming, apart from the release of the Electoral Boundaries Report, are the sudden resignations of senior civil servants. This week, we saw one such resignation. After a game of musical chairs at the Ministry of National Development (MND) and its agencies, URA and HDB, it has emerged that BG Tay Lim Heng, deputy secretary at MND, has “left to pursue other interests”.

Singaporeans are quite well-versed at keeping an eye out for the political rituals that the PAP government embarks on in the lead up to elections. This time round, the PAP is hardly even making an attempt to conceal its intentions: Glowing press reports about a Minister returning to work after his MC, positive reports about PAP town councils (especially those helmed by PM, SM and MM), negative reports on the opposition, sharp rebuttals of opposition MPs’ remarks, training of civil servants to be election officials, etc.

But perhaps one of the clearest signs that an election is looming, apart from the release of the Gerrymandering Report Electoral Boundaries Report, are the sudden resignations of senior civil servants. This week, we saw one such resignation. After a game of musical chairs at the Ministry of National Development (MND) and its agencies, URA and HDB, it has emerged that BG Tay Lim Heng, deputy secretary at MND, has “left to pursue other interests”. It was later reported that BG Tay has been appointed deputy CEO of Keppel Integrated Engineering (KIE), a subsidiary of government-linked Keppel Corporation.

Now I’ve never heard of KIE before, perhaps due to my ignorance of the local corporate scene. But it strikes me as rather odd that a guy with a likely CEP (currently estimated potential) of permanent secretary of a Ministry would quit to be a No. 2 guy in a lesser known company.

This pattern played out the same way in the lead up to the 6 May 2006 General Election. On 11 April that year, RAdm Lui Tuck Yew resigned from his post as CEO of HDB after just 10 months on the job. On 2 April 2006, Lee Yi Shyan resigned as CEO of IE Singapore. Both were fielded as PAP candidates and promptly appointed as junior ministers after the GE.

The PAP always accuses the opposition of showing up just before elections, but they overlook the fact that many of their new candidates have barely started climbing down from their ivory towers when they are fielded as candidates under the wings of powerful Cabinet ministers in a GRC (Group Representation Constituency). Although the Singapore Civil Service is supposed to be politically neutral, the PAP unabashedly uses the Civil Service as a harvest field for its political candidates, and doesn’t even bother portraying a semblance of separation of the two. For example, Lee Yi Shyan’s candidate write-up for GE 2006 started with the sentence, “Mr Lee Yi Shyan is currently the Chief Executive Officer of International Enterprise Singapore” (emphasis mine).

Mr Lee Yi Shyan is currently the Chief Executive O

So keep a watch out for further movements in the Ministries and statutory boards. They could provide a peek into whom our next millionaire ministers may be.

‘Underwhelmed’ by Town Council report

Residents are personally affected by their Town Councils’ performance. If they feel that their MPs are not performing, they would have voted them out long ago. But the two opposition MPs have been returned to office again and again for the last 18 to 25 years–longer than any other PAP MPs save one. Why does MND suddenly feel the urge to tell residents what they should think of their TCs?

It is hard to contain one’s scepticism when reading the news about the Town Council Management Report (TCMR).

The Straits Times reported on Friday:

The two best performers are Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and Tanjong Pagar headed by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, according to the government’s Town Council Management Report.

The two worst performers are run by the opposition: Hougang, by the Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang, and Potong Pasir by the Singapore People’s Party’s Chiam See Tong.

Isn’t it interesting that the two Town Councils (TCs) that “top” the report are the ones “headed” by the PM Lee and MM Lee, and the two “worst performers” are those headed by opposition MPs? (Technically the two Lees do not head their Town Councils. They have delegated that less glamorous job to their backbencher MPs.)

Continue reading “‘Underwhelmed’ by Town Council report”

MINDEF’s culture of secrecy

While obviously I do not expect MINDEF to be open and transparent about its military strategy, doctrine and operational plans, I don’t see why they cannot be upfront about training accidents or incidents where soldiers are seriously injured. It’s bad enough that they took two months to report the first incident, but why couldn’t they report the second incident without being asked?

A letter to the Straits Times today as well as a post by Mr Wang reflect the indignation which I feel too, regarding the Ministry of Defence’s culture of secrecy revealed in the reports about the shootings of two servicemen during a military exercise in Thailand.

On 25 May, the Straits Times reported that commando 1SG Woo Teng Hai suffered head injuries after being shot with a shotgun by a Thai villager. The incident took place on 13 March–more than two months ago. A day later, the paper reported that in fact another serviceman had been shot, this time a full-time national serviceman, PTE J. Pritheery Raj. The news of this second incident would not have occurred if not for a relative of PTE Raj calling the paper after reading the first report. The paper noted that MINDEF “admitted yesterday that another soldier had also been hurt in the same incident”.
Mindef’s failure to admit that not one, but two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) soldiers were shot in Thailand, until a relative of the second injured soldier approached The Straits Times, has demonstrated the ministry’s basic reluctance to tell the public the truth about military casualties.
The second case also was a matter of genuine public interest, especially since a full-time national serviceman was involved.
As citizen soldiers and taxpayers, we have a right to expect that Mindef will account for all military casualties – whether in training or actual operations -where there are no national security implications.

On 25 May, the Straits Times reported that commando 1SG Woo Teng Hai suffered head injuries and lost sight in one eye after being shot with a shotgun by a Thai villager. The incident took place on 13 March–more than two months ago. A day later, the paper reported that in fact another serviceman had also been shot, this time a full-time national serviceman, PTE J. Pritheery Raj. The news of this second incident would not have surfaced if not for a relative of PTE Raj calling the paper after reading the first report. The paper noted that MINDEF “admitted yesterday that another soldier had also been hurt in the same incident”. Continue reading “MINDEF’s culture of secrecy”

Need a seat? Just ask for it!

By asking people for a seat, you are doing other needy people a favour by reinforcing social norms that able-bodied persons are obliged to give up their seats those who need it more. If these people know that they are going to be asked, they are more likely to pro-actively do it next time.

A lady wrote this letter to the Straits Times today:

Pregnant, but she has to ‘fight’ for priority seats

I AM eight months pregnant and I commute to and from work by the MRT daily.
As my pregnancy progressed, so too did the intensity of backaches and tiredness. I have now resorted to unabashedly asking commuters to give up their priority seats to me. But how does one ask for seats occupied by people who are apparently in deep sleep?
A couple of times, I found myself having to “fight” for the priority seat with other women. Needless to say, I lost the battle, but the women did not appear to be embarrassed that someone else had to give up their non-priority seat to me.
While I hate to make expectant mothers sound vulnerable and frail, the fact is we are more tired and in greater discomfort than any healthy, non-pregnant person at any given time.
The authorities should consider blocking those reserved seats so that pregnant women will no longer need to fight for them or bear with other people’s selfishness.
Seow Shih Wee (Ms)

I AM eight months pregnant and I commute to and from work by the MRT daily.

As my pregnancy progressed, so too did the intensity of backaches and tiredness. I have now resorted to unabashedly asking commuters to give up their priority seats to me. But how does one ask for seats occupied by people who are apparently in deep sleep?

A couple of times, I found myself having to “fight” for the priority seat with other women. Needless to say, I lost the battle, but the women did not appear to be embarrassed that someone else had to give up their non-priority seat to me.

While I hate to make expectant mothers sound vulnerable and frail, the fact is we are more tired and in greater discomfort than any healthy, non-pregnant person at any given time.

The authorities should consider blocking those reserved seats so that pregnant women will no longer need to fight for them or bear with other people’s selfishness.

Seow Shih Wee (Ms)

Ms Seow, there is no need to “resort” to unabashedly asking commuters to give up their seats if you need it. It is your right and it should be done as a matter of course.

My wife is 6 months pregnant with our second child. Often when she boards the always-crowded MRT with our 19-month old daughter in tow, she encounters commuters sleeping or busy playing with their phones while seated on the reserved seat. She just gently taps them on their shoulder, gives them a smile and asks politely if they would mind giving up their seats. She has never been rejected. After they give up their seats, she flashes another nice smile and thanks them. Easy!

In fact, research has shown that even if you are able-bodied and you ask for a seat, the majority of people will still give it up. This was documented in a “breaching experiment” conducted 30 years ago by Dr Stanley Milgram. He asked his graduate students to go into the New York City subway and ask someone for a seat. As it turned out, 68 per cent got up willingly when they were asked directly.

By asking people for a seat, you are doing other needy people — who may not have the ability or courage to ask — a favour by reinforcing social norms that able-bodied persons are obliged to give up their seats those who need it more. If these people know that they are going to be asked, they are more likely to pro-actively do it next time.


Is Clause 258 really a reproduction of a section of the Evidence Act?

Clause 258 appears to be a reproduction of s.29 of the Evidence Act (SG). However, s.2(2) Evidence Act (SG) clearly provides that it is a “subordinate Act”. Legally, it means that when part of the provisions of the Evidence Act is inconsistent with other Acts of Parliament, the affected part would be deemed repealed for that purpose (or as far as the subject matter of the trial goes). The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which is a full Act, will therefore prevail against s.29 of the Evidence Act.

My lawyer friend wrote an interesting comment on my last blog post, in which I had questioned the introduction of Clause 258 in the new Criminal Procedure Code. The Clause allows for statements from an accused person to be admitted as evidence in court even if he was drunk or the recording officer did not fully comply with the rules governing the way statements are collected.

I have tried my best to translate the “legalise” into plain English:

——————-

I refer to the CNA online report dated 18 May 2010 and I quote, “the minister emphasised there was no change in the law but a reproduction of a section in the Evidence Act.”

First, there are balancing provisions in the Evidence Act i.e. s.24, s.25 and s.26.  The court can assess the facts in a way it deems appropriate for the situation. Enacting the same provision in the CPC will force the court to approach the evidence in only the manner which the CPC demands.

Secondly, clause 258 will tilt the Prosecution’s claims in their favour, suggesting more than before that if the statement was presented by the Prosecution, then it must be true. This puts into question whether it adheres to the foundational legal requirement to prove the guilt of the accused “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Thirdly, the proposed clause dehumanises the accused/suspect by allowing such statements to be admissible, regardless of the person’s mental capability at that time (e.g., being drunk).

Therefore, the proposed clause in the CPC is in conflict with the tradition and spirit of the common law system, and certainly defies the logic and soul of liberty and democracy.

[Note: Edited on 25 May at the request of the author.]

——————-