By Ravi Philemon and Gangasudhan

I wonder why Channel News Asia has gone for sensationalism in reporting the Singapore Police Force’s (SPF) annual crime brief. SPF’s crime statistics have more important issues such as the increase in petty theft cases, the increase in break-ins at HDB residences and education/care centres and the increase in the number of elderly victims falling prey to cheating and related offences.

Of the 3 main concerns highlighted in the SPF’s brief, CNA chose to focus on the least crime-related issue – statutory rape.

Section 375 of our penal code defines statutory rape as:

“Any man who penetrates the vagina of a woman with his penis (b) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age”.

Statutory rape is actually a social problem not a criminal one. Plus there is no provision in our penal code to protect the penetrator even if he is also under 14 years of age and the sex was consensual.

Here is a hypothetical scenario:

Boy, 14 and Girl, 14 have sex; Girl gets scared when confronted by parents and admits; parents lodge report; boy gets dragged to the Police station and court. I would say the boy is the bigger victim here as both parties were young and ignorant – and had willingly participated in sex (or what could be worse is if the girl had initiated the sex).

With youths continuing to get sexually active at younger and younger ages, and with parents having been brought up in a culture where they have to ‘save face’, it is little wonder that reported statutory rape cases have risen. And when a parent makes a report, the police will have no choice but to take action, even if the sex was based on mutual consent.

Although law enforcement agents and prosecutors view these laws as necessary for the protection of minors, statutory rape law as it stands now is but a paternalistic anachronism.

In an age when the internet gives perpetrators access to children and minors are often treated as knowledgeable adults, is there a need to redefine the statutory rape laws?

Related posts:

1. Petition against ‘marital rape’ off to slow start
2. In S’pore, raping your wife is not rape
3. Marital rape

From: phillip ang Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 9:19 PM
Subject: Town Councils – irresponsible to continue ignoring corridor clutter 20100208
To: mailto: mah_bow_tan@mnd.gov.sg
Cc: lchertan@singnet.com.sg, Rosita_chow@prpg-tc.org.sg, news@newstoday.com.sg, stlocal@sph.com.sg, Teo_Ser_Luck@prpg-grc.sg, theonlinecitizen@gmail.com

Dear Minister Mah

Re: Town Councils irresponsible to continue ignoring corridor clutter

(Please read the feedback in the Forum page of The Straits Times, “All but the kitchen sink” (Feb 6).

I refer to my previous email which I had highlighted neglect by TCs on our common areas in HDB estates

2 I have lived in Pasir Ris for 10 years. Although TC Property Officers are out in the estate daily, they are indifferent to corridor clutter. Most of these objects have been placed along corridors for years, some since 10 years ago. (attitudes of POs must be similar in all HDB estates as no GM of any TCs able to claim otherwise)

3 If my TC were serious, thousands of warning letters would need to be written. Its reluctance is therefore understandable. But should TCs be allowed to continue its neglect?

4 For decades, the relevant authorities have not been able to convince tens of thousands of inconsiderate HDB residents not to treat the corridor as a storeroom or laundry room. Year after year, corridor clutter has continued to contribute to fire statistics. Its a huge waste of resources to deploy the SCDF in such cases.

5 As professional estate managers, TCs have never been , and will likely never be, held responsible despite the fact that they are aware but have chosen not to take action. Blame is, as usual, heaped on residents.

6 The incredible number of objects invisible to TC POs for years speaks volume of the indifference of TCs. Again I offer the example of Senior PO, Mr Yong, who is in charge of my block and other nearby blocks.

I have taken the trouble to include some photos which I hope will convince the MND the need to change TCs’ irresponsible behavior.

These are just some of the objects invisible to Mr Yong.

a Thousands of corridors have been turned into personal laundry rooms which are potential fire hazards.

b thousands have been converted to storerooms

c many are a combination of both

7 Corridor clutter forms part of the 644 cases of fire in common areas in 2009. Is it possible that all the members of the Estates Committee have been sleeping on the job?

Suggestions

a Property Officers be required to inspect corridors on a regular basis.

b Managers should conduct random checks on their subordinates as well as familiarise themselves with their respective estates.

c Action must be taken on recalcitrant residents after ample warnings have been given.

Conclusion

TCs have to acknowledge this problem and not allow it to fester any longer. Common areas are not to be treated as storerooms or laundry rooms. Silence from the estate manager means consent to convert common areas into personal ones. Which is what tens of thousands of residents have done.

The dilemma as to which objects are to be allowed along common corridors needs an answer, not procrastination.

Unlike private estate managers, no one seems to be accountable in this case.

Thank you.

Regards

Phillip Ang

PS

I am afraid it is simply not possible to give feedback to an officer who did not take my feedback seriously.

TCs have contributed to many problems because of a totally HANDS-OFF approach by Property Officers. Are by laws only for knowledge?

Related posts:

1. 20 years of town councils – yet no stake in governance for residents
2. Town councils’ funds – Teo Ho Pin responds
3. KPIs should motivate Town Councils to serve better

By Ng E-Jay

The government appears to be sending out conflicting signals over its foreign manpower policy, a possible indication that rising concerns over the liberal import of foreign workers in recent years are starting to overwhelm decision makers in the PAP cabinet.

Last Sunday, Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong told the media during a visit to Nee Soon Central that when scaling down our dependence on foreign workers, we have to take into account business cycles. [1]

Mr Gan said that when the economy is doing very well, we need to allow it (the import of foreign labour) to expand a little bit within some limits.

In his own words as quoted by Channel News Asia: “In a recession, we have to monitor the situation and allow the foreign worker population to come down, but when the economy recovers, we have to be very careful, (and) calibrate our response carefully, otherwise you may stifle the economic recovery.”

The Manpower Minister appears to be articulating the point that the government will adjust the inflow of foreign workers according to economic conditions so as to balance the supply and demand of labour.

As Singapore is currently embarking on an economic recovery after being severely hit by the global recession in 2008, is Mr Gan suggesting that more foreign workers will be allowed in at this point in time, in response to our new-found economic expansion?

If so, then Mr Gan’s remarks could be in contradiction with the position taken by the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC), as well as the views expressed by the Prime Minister, Senior Minister, and Minister Mentor, who in the past couple of weeks went all out in assuring Singaporeans that the inflow of foreign workers will be moderated.

Speaking at the sidelines of a community function on 24 Jan, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said that “If you want to grow fast, it means a larger foreign workforce, which I don’t think is advisable because already, we have too huge a presence (of such workers) and we’re not emphasizing productivity.” [2]

A day later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong added on to SM Goh’s remarks, saying that “we cannot indefinitely expand our workforce by importing more and more workers from abroad,” and that Singapore is to adopt a new economic growth strategy focused more on improving productivity than pursuing growth at all costs, as we are faced with physical constraints such as limited land. [3]

Assurance that there would be fewer foreign workers in five years also came from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who was the first minister to put a time line on the Government’s pledge since last year to reduce the inflow of foreign workers. Speaking at an event to mark the Housing and Development Board’s 50th anniversary, MM Lee said that “The next five years, we have decided we will tier down our need for foreign workers“. [4]

The suggestion for Singapore to cut back its dependence on, and moderate the inflow foreign labour, with a renewed emphasis on raising productivity in place of mere expansion of the pool of workers, was formally articulated by the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) which released its report in early February.

The ESC report, taken in conjunction with the statements made by the Prime Minister, Senior Minister, and Minister Mentor, clearly indicate that the government is committed to reducing the inflow of foreign labour as the current rate of import cannot be sustained.

Although the ESC had based its report solely on economic considerations, it does not take a genius to figure out that the government, in deciding to fine-tune its foreign manpower policy, must have also taken into consideration rising concerns on the ground concerning foreign workers depriving Singaporeans of jobs or suppressing wages at the lower end of the income spectrum.

Given that the deadline for the next general election is fast approaching, it would be politically foolhardy for the ruling party to ignore the rising groundswell and the legitimate concerns voters have over the impact of the government’s foreign manpower policy on their livelihoods as well as on the social fabric.

Yet, the Manpower Minister has made remarks which suggest that the inflow of foreign workers will be raised if economic conditions warrant it.

This seems to call into doubt the government’s sincerity in reducing the reliance on foreign workers in a five year time-frame.

To add to the confusion, Mr Gan also said that foreigners “abroad” are the real competition, not foreigners who work within our shores. [5]

The Straits Times quoted Mr Gan as saying that everyone working and living here — be they citizens or foreigners — should be considered the “in-group” who are contributing to the country, competing against the real “out-group”, who are those (foreigners) working outside Singapore.

Is Mr Gan therefore suggesting that foreigners working here are to be considered on equal footing with born and bred citizens, by mere virtue of the fact that both groups are collectively competing against the rest of the world?

How can that ever be a realistic or reasonable notion?

The government’s clumsy attempts at addressing voters’ concerns over its foreign manpower policy has created more confusion than clarity.

If this is not cleared up in time, voters may well express their dissatisfaction over the way the government has handled the foreign labour issue at the ballot box.

_______________________________________

References:

[1] Channel News Asia, “Measures to encourage low-wage workers to take up training expected during Budget“, 07 Feb 2010.

[2] Straits Times, “Work smarter, harder to sustain growth: SM”, 25 Jan 2010.

[3] Straits Times, “Grow productivity, not just GDP: PM”, 26 Jan 2010.

[4] Straits Times, “Fewer foreign workers in five years, says MM”, 28 Jan 2010.

[5] Straits Times, “Foreigners abroad ‘are the real competition’”, 08 Feb 2010.

Related posts:

1. Foreign labour policy & income disparity in Singapore
2. Foreign Talent policy: of principle and practice
3. TOC Special Feature: Foreign Talent policy remains contentious, and for reason too

Last week, TOC critiqued the Straits Times’ misrepresentation of the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer report, and soon after managed to get in touch with some Edelman representatives. The localised press release for Singapore was duly furnished and has been attached in full to the end of this report.

As speculated, the press release talks about trust as a factor of corporate reputation – “…trust and transparency are on a par with the quality of products and services as the three most important standout characteristics to a company’s reputation in Singapore.”

It then goes on to discuss ‘Trust in Government’ under which it discusses the high percentage of trust and quotes Bob Grove, Managing Director, Edelman Southeast Asia, as saying, “It is clear that the government has the mandate and ability to influence all aspects of society.” This may be something of a positive statement from a business perspective, but as a citizen, highly worrying.

The comparison of the survey respondents’ response as to who can be trusted more – the government officials (84%) or CEOs (66%) – also paints the context of a business perspective in mind (and not one of citizen opinion). Notably here, the Straits Times’ report conveniently excluded some of the more obvious observations that do not flatter the Singapore government – such as the fact that the pharmaceutical, health care, food and biotech/life sciences sectors which buck the global trend and attract a high level of trust in Singapore, “may also come from the government’s endorsement and promotion of these industries in recent years.”

And most glaring of all was the selective highlighting of the following portion:

“Traditional media, in particular newspapers and business magazines, are the most trusted sources of information in Singapore (equally at 68 per cent). Following close behind are television news and industry analyst reports, both at 66 per cent. Digital channels, including online search engines and free online content from sites such as Wikipedia, also register considerable levels of trust at 43 and 37 per cent respectively. This reflects the shift in media consumption online to complement offline information sources.”

Whilst the Straits Times report gloated about the first half of this, it made no mention of the remaining portion (which was the point) where the conclusion is that there has been a ‘shift in media consumption’. In any case, when respondents can trust Wikipedia at 37% and search engines at 43%, the 68% trust in traditional media does not seem as impressive.

Finally, if at all the Straits Times’ report somehow genuinely took the information in the press release as a reflection of man-in-the-street opinion, then the omission of the last line of the press release is puzzling – where Michael Netzley, Assistant Professor of the Corporate Communication Department at the Singapore Management University says “The Edelman Trust Barometer shows that organisations looking to communicate effectively with stakeholders need to create a multi-channel strategy leveraging mainstream media and online platforms.” If it was truly about Singaporeans trust in the government, would it not be pertinent to mention such advice on how the government can develop its trust better?

The original 2010 Singapore Trust Barometer Press Release can be read here.

Related posts:

1. Annual fees too high in Special Needs Trust Fund
2. Straits Times a brand with a “reputation of trust”?
3. PAP on New Media coverage of General Election 2010

SINGAPORE — Illegal loans rose almost 60 percent last year as Singaporeans reeling from the economic crisis turned to loan sharks to tide them over the tough times, a senior police official said Monday.

There were 18,600 cases of illegal loans made by loan sharks last year, a 58 percent increase from 11,800 cases in 2008, said Ng Boon Gay, director with the criminal investigation department.

Illegal moneylenders lend at exorbitant interest rates and use threats and intimidation to pressure debtors to pay up if they renege on payments.

“We expect loan shark cases to continue to be a concern. We’ll try to take it down, but we’ll see how it will turn out,” said Ng.

Continue here.

Thumbnail from here.

Related posts:

1. Rise of loan sharks sparks wave of violent crime in Singapore
2. Filming an illegal event is… illegal?
3. Singapore Police Force – stretched and fatigued

Made of high-tech polymeric compounds which closely mimic the performance of real ice, synthetic ice is especially suitable for Singapore’s tropical climate as it does not require a climate-controlled environment and is significantly easier and cheaper to maintain compared to real ice surfaces. And although the rink is a temporary fixture for now, Brian Rogove, the Chief Executive Officer of Cognita, Asia Pacific (which runs SAIS) said, “We will certainly take the opportunity to work with SIHA to assess the feasibility and long-term benefits of installing a synthetic ice rink when we move to our Permanent Campus on Upper Serangoon.”

Ice-skating and ice-hockey enthusiasts will be pleased to ntoe that as part of SAIS’ community engagement efforts, it is extending an invitation to the public to try out the rink over two weekends: 13-14 and 20-21 February 2010. The four, half-hour slots per day are available on a first-come-first-served basis through registration. Interested members of the public can pre-register online via SAIS’ website, www.sais.com.sg and confirmation will be on a first-come-first-served basis.

Dates: 13, 14, 20 & 21 February 2010
Time: 2:00pm – 2:30 pm, 2:30pm – 3:00 pm, 3:00pm – 3:30 pm, 3:30pm – 4:00 pm
Fee: $10 per half hour slot, inclusive of skate rental (Skaters need to bring their own socks and are advised to bring gloves for safety reasons)
Venue: Stamford American International School located at 11 Lorong Chuan, Singapore 556821

Related posts:

1. TOC International: Spaced-out in Singapore!
2. Singapore – a timeless zone
3. Appreciating Singapore

Source: TODAY Online

Letter from Kee Lay Cheng, Deputy Director (Land Administration), Housing & Development Board

We refer to Ms Li Shi-En Lisa’s online letter “A flat yes, but not when you need it most?” (Jan 20).

The Housing and Development Board’s (HDB) Public Rental Scheme provides heavily subsidised rental flats to help truly needy Singaporeans who have no other housing options. For example, the rental for a subsidized 1R flat is as low as $26 a month. To safeguard these public rental flats for needy Singaporeans, the eligibility criteria have been revised so that assets, sale proceeds and family support are taken into account. With the revised criteria in place, the waiting time for a rental flat is now reduced. To reduce the waiting time further, we are building more rental flats over the next three years. A large proportion of those currently on the waiting list had joined the queue before the eligibility criteria was revised. Some of them have alternative housing options. HDB has been looking into the circumstances of each case to help those with urgent housing need first.

Ms Li also mentioned “homeless” persons. In many of the cases we encountered, they have sold their flats for sizeable proceeds or have previously enjoyed housing subsidies. In general, families should be the first line of support for those in need. Nevertheless, HDB, other Government agencies and Voluntary Welfare Organisations will assist them if they take personal responsibility for their actions and are prepared to work to stand on their feet again.

As for the two blocks cited by Ms Li, they are vacated flats due for demolition soon. To maximize the use of resources, they are being used for short-term rental in the interim. The current market rental is about $1,500 per month for each 3-room flat. These flats are open to rental to both Singaporeans and foreigners.

We thank Ms Li for her feedback.

Related posts:

1. Needy waits 2 years under HDB’s Public Rental Scheme
2. Is the HDB profiteering from flat owners’ woes?
3. TOC Report: Singaporean, 57, employed, married but cannot buy HDB flat

I refer to the report “Measures to encourage low-wage workers to take up training expected during Budget” (CNA, Feb 7).

It states that “Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong has hinted that issues such as making it easier for low-wage workers to continue to upgrade themselves and making the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme more accessible will be tackled in the Budget later this month”.

Since this statement and the Economic Strategies Committees’ recommendations on manpower are hinged on the rationale that more training, skills upgrading and Workfare will help to solve the problems that low-wage workers face, I think a good starting point may be to evaluate the success of the SPUR scheme.

In this connection, I refer to the articles “Fewer in full-time jobs” (Today, Jan 7), “42,000 workers have found jobs after Spur training” (Today, Dec 22), “42,000 unemployed find jobs through Spur” (My Paper, Dec 22), and media reports that 264,000 people have committed to training under the SPUR programme.

Since two-thirds have either started or completed training, does it mean that one-third, or about 88,000, have not even started training yet, after one year of the SPUR scheme?

So, is it correct to say that the initial goal of having 220,000 training places has been exceeded?

Media reports state that 42,000 who went through SPUR have managed to find jobs.

So, how many people are still unable to find jobs, after re-training under SPUR?

How many of the 264,000 who have committed to training are employees, and how many were not employed when they were on a SPUR course?

If we add the SPUR unemployed trainees to the average number of unemployed residents last year, which was about 87,000, what would be the total figure?

How many of the 87,000 unemployed have gone through SPUR?

The above statistics may help all stakeholders to review, evaluate and re-design SPUR, so that its effectiveness can be benchmarked for analysis in the future.

The rhetoric on more training and upgrading skills to help low-wage workers is not new, but it does not appear to have been very successful, given the fact that 401,600 resident workers earn less than $1,200 a month as of June 2009, and after adjusting for inflation at 1.4% per annum, the real increase in income for the first two quintiles of households from 1997/98 to 2007/08 was -1.7 and 0.9 per cent per annum respectively.

By the way, the CNA report “Survey shows Singapore in bottom 10 of salary rise rankings” (Apr 7, 2009), stated that: “Employees in Singapore will see some of the lowest pay rises this year compared to their counterparts in other places.”

Out of 53 countries surveyed, Singapore is in the bottom 10 — at number 43. Why is this so?

Mr Gan said his Ministry is studying if the qualifying period for Workfare should be shortened.

To qualify, low-wage workers must have worked for at least three months in a six-month period during a calendar year, or at least six months in a year.

Mr Gan said: “Having discussed this at length with our tripartite partners, we feel that an important objective of Workfare is to encourage regular work.”

”As part of the Workfare qualifying criteria, we will still require a minimum qualifying period and hopefully we encourage our Workfare recipients to go for regular work all the time, so that they can receive Workfare on a regular basis”.

I think the logic of the argument may not be quite sound — it may not be so much that low-wage workers don’t want to work for “at least three months in a six-month period during a calendar year, or at least six months in a year”, but whether they can get work in the first place?

Why would any low-wage worker choose not to work “regularly”, as the minister put it?

Perhaps one could get feedback from low-wage workers and apply some common sense rather than rely on “tripartite partners”?

In my view, perhaps the most important consideration may be to ask why should a low-wage worker be penalised by not making him or her eligible for Workfare, just because he can’t get “regular” work?

With 328,000 qualifying for Workfare, if we include those who did not qualify, or the self-employed who may have chosen not to contribute because the entire Workfare goes to their CPF making them even more “cash poor”, how many older (over age 35) workers are there in total?

If not for the temporary assistance during the recession, given to low wage workers through the one-off WIS Special Payment, which was given in cash, instead of CPF, will the number of workers receiving Workfare decline again from the 2006 figure of 362,000 to the 2008 figure of 297,000?

Why did a staggering 106,000 self-employed Singaporeans drop out of Workfare in 2007, after just 1 year?

According to the CPF Board Question and Answer website:

Q: Why do Self-Employed Persons (SEPs) and informal workers not get cash under Workfare but all the Workfare is paid into Medisave instead?

A: A key principle of Workfare is that each beneficiary has a personal responsibility to save for his own future needs. If Workfare for SEPs and informal workers is given in cash, the net result would be that the Workfare recipient would not be saving on his own.
The Workfare payment for SEPs/ informal workers are fully credited to their Medisave Account as SEPs/ informal workers are required to only contribute to their Medisave Account and at much lower rates compared to employees. To benefit informal workers, we have decided to allow informal workers to contribute to Medisave at the rates applicable to SEPs.

I think the answer and consequently perhaps the solution may be obvious — give Workfare in cash to the self-employed and employees too, as putting all or the bulk of Workfare in the CPF Medisave account does not really help low-wage workers in their already very tight cash-flow.

You can’t use Medisave to put food on the table — only when you are hospitalised or need out-patient treatment for a chronic illness!

Related posts:

1. Serving Workfare Bonus to benefit workers
2. Low-wage workers better off – really?
3. Low-wage workers better off, now everybody worse off?

By Edwin S Anthony

“Under the Sedition Act, anyone found guilty of promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore can be fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to three years, or both, if convicted.”

Let me ask this. If someone cries “racism!” would that person be guilty of ‘promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races’? It is a slippery slope indeed when we do nothing about racism and allow everyone to get used to the status quo of racial hierarchy that thus results; when we allow time to turn the characteristics that are thus engendered to become ‘identity’ and ‘culture’; when we then go after those whom highlight it for ‘promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races.’

In such a case, what such a person is actually guilty of is creating hostility between those whom have gotten used to their respective positions within a discriminatory status quo and those whom haven’t.

Racism ought to be dismantled the moment the slightest vestige of its debilitating infrastructure is erected. Over time, various races would become accustomed to their relatively advantaged and disadvantaged position and began to exhibit respective traits.

In other words, in a society where various races are ‘preferred’ vs. ‘less preferred’, the former will over time began to exhibit traits that are distinguishable from the latter. Then it becomes ‘culture’. At this point, due to identification of a particular set of people with said culture (i.e. Americans with capitalism or the Chinese with Confucianism), the critique of the culture becomes the critique of the race.

For instance, if a particular set of people are identified with a particular culture, and then thereafter are discriminated as a consequence, to criticise the latter becomes synonymous with taking issue with the former. That is when it can come across as racism where, in truth, one is taking issue with a culture or policies that promote discriminatory tendencies.

The Sedition Act can be a dangerous stumbling block in the progression towards egalitarian harmony. It can keep people quiet whilst one culture and associated ‘race’ is allowed to gain prominence and dominance over all others. If used irresponsibly, it can see those who attempt to attack discrimination being hauled up for promoting hostility, when in truth the person is not guilty of anything but challenging a seemingly harmonious yet inequitable status quo.

In this case, the people who establish and maintain the discriminatory conditions get away with it.

There is a world of difference between the existence of ‘social harmony’ and the realisation of ‘egalitarian harmony’. Maintaining the former can only be justified if egalitarianism is true.

There is no need for such an Act if people know how to exercise empathy in the face of others’ suffering discrimination. However, where this is absent, as is the case in Singapore, the law steps in and both racists and those who attempt to address systemic inequality are lumped together. It is a lose-lose situation for anti-racists.

Let us imagine that the British National Party came into power in Britain by appealing to the economic interests of the people. Over time, there are efforts to ensure that the ‘whites’ are advantaged over all others – provision of special education; favourable media portrayals; fragmentation of minority communities; celebration of the culture of ‘whites’ with great pomp whilst those of others are kept low-key.

The ‘whites’, over time, would likely get used to such a status quo and expect things their way always whilst discounting all difference as inconsequential. All other cultures would then be relegated to the periphery. The privileged group would likely exhibit an arrogance that goes well in tandem with ignorance or passive ‘tolerance’ of other cultures.

Over time, aspects of ‘white’ culture that do not augur well for the continuation of such a status quo also disappears as the elements of any culture either conflict with the status quo or are redefined or disappear with time unless the people are resilient from the outset. That is why we ought to forward the skeptical eye in the face of ‘ancient cultures’ with relatively continuous histories as they are perfected in delivering the conditions that created them.

Thereafter, if one was to stand up and criticise the ‘whites’ for their arrogance, and the culture they practice for promoting discrimination and self-absorption, would that person be guilty of ‘promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population’? Would the critique of the ‘whites’ not be an accurate one given that they would inevitably have acquired those traits that distinguish them from other minorities?

How about speaking about the class divide, like the growing income gap between the rich and poor? Would that mean that the person speaking about such issues is guilty of ‘promoting hostility between different races or classes of the population’?

How about the anti-colonial movements of the past that sought independence? Were they similarly guilty? Or were they, like all of the above, simply attempting to address an unjust situation before everyone got accustomed to it and perceived the unjust social framework as ‘culture’?

How about the feminist movement? Were they guilty of ‘promoting feelings of ill-will’ between men and women? Were they not right to criticise men for traits that would necessarily become a part of the culture of the relatively advantaged? Were they ‘racists’ for critiquing men as a class or sector of society?

Whom are to be indicted here? Those who seek to privilege one group over others, promote a system that necessarily leads to class divisions, or speak out against it even though most have formulated a culture of doing one’s best within such an iniquitous status quo? Bringing up any issue can ‘promote ill will’ between the advantaged and disadvantaged. But if we just allow the ‘promotion of ill will’ to identify the errantry, then we do so at the price of getting rid of a possibly overarching and extremely iniquitous status quo.

If the Sedition Act was in place since the days of yore, the slaves may well still be in chains, the ‘Son of Heaven’ reigning in China whilst the colonialists pillage the land, women would still be stoking the hearth and remain socially disadvantaged, and everyone whom had sought to address these inequalities would have been guilty of promoting ‘ill-will’.

Before we haul anyone away for doing so, if we cannot at the same time prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we are not simultaneously maintaining non-egalitarian conditions by doing so, it is we whom ought to be hauled away.

Just last week, three youngsters were arrested for making overtly insensible racist remarks online. Perhaps we should refrain from arresting and prosecuting such people unless we can prove that we ourselves did not contribute to the societal framework that engenders such behaviour – by keeping quiet about an overarching racist status quo, which produces people whom might harbour racist inclinations.

If we maintain the said overarching non-egalitarian milieu, we ought not to be surprised that whilst there are some of the advantaged group who would reap the material benefits and apparently vindicate our policies, there would be others who would be inclined to cast slurs. It is not their fault – rather it is that of those who maintain the overarching framework that inclines people to view others in a superficial and reductionist manner. By taking these overt racists to task, we would actually be taking away the more visibly abrasive manifestations of our own policies. Till we can dismantle such a framework or show that this relationship is false, those who cast such racial slurs are as much victims as those whom bear the brunt of their diatribes.

Just imagine a scenario where a ‘white’ gets arrested for calling a black a ‘nigger’, or a black retorts with ‘you white bastard!’ Should either the white or black person be arrested here, or those who maintain the conditions that engender the social and political disenfranchisement of the blacks?

The Sedition Act needs revision, lest it confuses the progressives with the regressives due to the contradistinction of both from the majority whom have gotten used to it all.

Related posts:

1. Declassified documents and a revision of our history?
2. On tolerance, sedition and forgiveness
3. Perdition and sedition

Andrew Loh

If you have always thought the homeless are lazy people or are unemployed on purpose, perhaps you have bought into the stereotype of these people too conveniently. Yet it is not uncommon to find such views of the homeless among Singaporeans.

However, in our visits with the homeless at various places around S’pore it was quite clear to us that these people are no lazy-bones or “beach bums”, as they’re sometimes accused of being.

Indeed, what we saw were people who have, for various reasons, fallen on hard times. But more importantly they are trying to help themselves out of the depths into which they have sunk.

Helping themselves

Take the case of Mohamad Nor, for example. He left his job in F&B to be with his wife and two children at Sembawang Park because he was worried for their safety, particularly for his wife who is pregnant. Their repeated pleas with the HDB for a rental flat were rejected each time. When their story was eventually brought to light through The Online Citizen, they were moved to a shelter and later to a rental flat. Mohamad was relieved and with this peace of mind, he could now go back to work. He started looking for a job – and recently found one. This, hopefully, is the first step of a new beginning for him and his family. All they needed was a little common sense and a little bit of compassion from the authorities to give them a little leg-up.

Khairuddin is 50 years old. He was sleeping at Sembawang Park for seven months before TOC chanced upon him one night. He is an ex-drug addict looking to make a new life for himself. Last year, he suffered a stroke while sleeping at the park. “I could not move the right side of my body,” he says. “I would rather die than be like that.” He was warded for three days in the hospital. He was lucky and has made an almost full recovery. He now works odd jobs such as in delivery but he knows that he cannot do this much longer, given his age and his physical weakness from the stroke. Also, such jobs are ad hoc and not regular. “I hope to work as a security guard,” he says. “But you must go take the course and be certified,” he explains. The problem is that the certification course is about S$1,000 – money which he simply does not have. And so he looks for work wherever he can, which includes visiting construction sites to ask for jobs. “But when they see my age, they say they cannot hire me,” Khairuddin says, his voice trailing off into a sigh.

His next stop will be the CDC. Hopefully, he will be given some assistance to realize his dream – that of having a regular job with a regular income as a security guard and to eventually have a rental flat of his own.

Rahmat does not speak much. He prefers to devote his time thinking of ways to enhance his catch. And so, at his little corner of Changi Beach Park, he lays out the wire mesh, cuts them into appropriate pieces and later joins them to make a cage, a trap for both fish, cockerels and crabs.

When night comes, he takes his canoe (a secondhand one which he purchased cheaply from the canoeing club nearby) and ventures out to sea to lay his traps.

In the morning, he collects his harvest. Sometimes it is substantial, and fetches as much as S$100 when he sells them to the restaurants at Changi Village. At other times, he’d be lucky if it got him S$10. It’s an unpredictable way to make a living but Rahmat does not have many choices. After having been released from prison, it was hard-going looking for a job. In the end, he bought some fishing gear and headed to the beach. He’s been making a living like this for almost a year now.

And then there is Mrs B and her husband, Rahim. Mrs B works as a security guard in the daytime, a job which pays her about $1,300 a month. At night, she returns to her home – a tent in a park which she shares with her husband and her 18-year old son. Rahim, though having contracted colon cancer, works whenever his condition allows. With an ostomy bag attached to his side, to drain his stools, it is not easy for him to find a job. Indeed, he told us that he lost his last job because his employer “did not like the bag”.

Mrs B would help him empty and clean the pouch each night. At times, Rahim’s clothes would be soiled by stools which leak from it. When we met him, he was wearing one of those scrub pants which was given to him when he was warded in the hospital after an operation. “My other pants are dirty. So now I wear this,” he says.

The family is at the park because they were evicted from their rental flats by the HDB for subletting it. “Damn regret now,” Rahim says as he shakes his head. They had rented out the flat so that they could afford another one nearer their children’s school and didn’t know that it was against HDB rules to sublet a rental flat. They are now barred for five years from applying for such flats from the HDB.

In the meantime, they have nowhere else to go except the park.

It is quite clear to us that many of these families are no “free-loaders” looking for an easy way out of their predicament.

HDB’s rigidity

Perhaps one of the main problems faced by the homeless, as is obvious from some of these stories we’ve covered, is the inflexible and rigid rules of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and its policies and practices. While the HDB would, no doubt, assure the public that each case would be compassionately dealt with, more often than not, it would seem the opposite is true.

How, for example, do you explain HDB’s rejection of Rahim’s application for a rental flat? The man is suffering from cancer. Or its rejection of Mohd Nor’s application – his wife is seven months pregnant and they have another two young children.

While the Minister for National Development has promised that the government will build 7,500 more public rental flats in the next three years, one wonders if this will be enough – given that 300 new applicants join the queue every month. That would be 3,600 more applicants this year, on top of the current 4,550 in the queue. With just 2,500 new rental flats to be built each year, clearly the supply will not meet the demand. In any case, where should the homeless stay while these flats are being built?

HDB’s dual roles

The truth is that there is no shortage of rental flats available. TOC has shown that the HDB has converted and reserved two blocks of flats in Toa Payoh, at least one block in Havelock Road, five blocks in Bedok and five more blocks in Tiong Bahru as rental flats for foreigners.

If all these were given, as a priority, to homeless Singaporeans instead, the long queue and waiting time for public rental flats would be very much alleviated.

The problem is that the HDB is not only the sole provider of public housing flats in Singapore, it is also a player in the rental market. As we have shown, the HDB acquires old flats through the SERS programme, and through its subsidiary, EM Services (the HDB owns 75 per cent of the company), refurbishes or upgrades the flats, and lets them out for rent. Perhaps this is one way the HDB circumvents its own rules which say foreigners are ineligible for rental flats offered by the HDB.

Now, the question of conflict of interest arises – would the HDB rent out these flats to those such as the homeless at rents of  between S$26 and S$120 and play its role as public housing provider, or operate as a private company (via EM Services) and rents out the flats to foreigners for profit, fetching anywhere from S$450 per tenant (as in the Havelock Road hostel) to S$5,000 (as in the Global Residence case)?

So, perhaps the question we all should be asking is this: What is the HDB’s priority when it comes to public rental flats? Who should be in front of the queue – Singaporeans who have nowhere else to go but who are working hard to turn their lives around, or foreigners who’re just here for a period of time? Is it the HDB’s role to make flats specially available for foreigners by reserving these public housing flats for them? Or should foreigners, like everyone else, look to the open market for their housing needs?

And should the HDB itself be in the rental market as a player?

The homeless who camp out in public areas have been barked at, have had their rental flat applications repeatedly rejected, fined as much as S$500 for infringing certain park rules, have had their belongings confiscated and told to pay S$300 if they wanted them returned, and generally have been sneered at, ridiculed and treated as outcasts of sorts by the very authorities which could help them.

And the final slap on their faces? Readily available flats are given to foreigners.

Singaporeans come first?

With more than 30,000 homeowners in arrears of three months or more of their mortgage loans, the problem of homelessness is a serious one. How many more will have nowhere else to go and end up in our parks and beaches when their flats are compulsorily acquired by the HDB or the banks?

What is the government’s solution to this potentially widespread problem?

To many of the homeless, a roof over their heads is the start they need to get their lives back together, to have some peace of mind. Yet, many a time, it is the HDB’s strict adherence to its rules – or as in some cases, apparently contravening its own rules –  which is contributing to the predicament of the homeless.

If entire blocks of flats can be reserved for foreigners, it is hard to understand or accept why the same cannot be done for homeless Singaporeans who are desperately pleading for help.

In November 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke about tilting the “playing field in favour of the lower income group.” “Our aim is to help the lower income groups and the elderly, not to increase their burdens,” he said.

The Prime Minister also, in his New Year Message this year, said that the government’s first responsibility is to Singaporeans.

So, with regards to public housing flats being reserved for foreigners while S’poreans have to wait for up to two years to have one, what gives?

—-

All the names in this article have been changed and are not the real names of the people mentioned.

—-

This is the last article in our Special Focus Week on the homeless. TOC, however, will continue to keep an eye on the situation on the ground and will report on it when necessary.

—–

Related posts:

1. SERS flats to be rented out to foreigners again – this time in Bedok
2. HDB’s reply on flats for foreigners – a conflict of interest?
3. Means testing for public housing?

Given the Singapore government’s oft-repeated mantra that it has taken the city-state “from third world to first,” you would not expect to find refugees fleeing the island’s shores and gleaming skyscrapers.

But despite the prosperity, the decent health and education systems and the lack of crime, a steady trickle of Singaporeans have felt the urge to abandon their homeland and seek asylum in nations such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada over the last few years.

(That of course doesn’t count the thousands of Singaporeans who leave every year to settle elsewhere. By one estimate, the number who put the Lion City behind them is as high as 15 percent of annual births. In 2006, the Transport Minister, Raymond Lim, expressed concern that 53 percent of Singaporean teens would consider emigration. One website survey put Singapore’s average outflow at 26.11 migrants per 1,000 citizens, the second highest in the world – next only to East Timor (51.07). )

Continue here.

Related posts:

1. Poly students seek endorsements for fares campaign
2. Seek help when necessary
3. Angry investors turn up at Hong Lim Park to seek redress

At his confirmation hearing before the Senate on 2nd February 2010 the new US ambassador-designate to Singapore, Daniel Adelman, was asked by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jim Webb:

“The Economist Democracy Index ranks Singapore as 82nd in the world in terms of democratic development, below neighbours such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Reporters Without Borders ranks the country 133rd out of 175 for press freedoms. What is your view in terms of whether and how the United States should engage Singapore on these other issues?”

His response was as follows:

“My view is the United States must engage Singapore on these issues. You identified the area where, quite candidly, Singapore needs the most improvement if it were to live up to the ambitions Americans have for democracy. Make no mistake, currently Singapore is not a multi-party democracy, and I intend, if confirmed, to use public diplomacy to work towards greater press freedoms, greater freedom of assembly and ultimately, more political space for opposition parties in Singapore to strengthen Singapore into a multi-party democracy.”

Not surprisingly this was not reported in the ST online today which reproduced only the ambassador’s speech which focused primarily on the closeness of ties between Singapore and the US.

The Reform Party welcomes the ambassador’s statement that he will use public diplomacy to work towards a genuine multi-party democracy in Singapore. As measured by several independent and objective indices such as the Economist Democracy Index as well as the Freedom House report, Singapore does not qualify as a democracy in the generally accepted sense of the term. At the last election nearly 50% of the electorate did not get a chance to vote because, due to the government’s efforts to raise barriers to entry, there were no opposition candidates in those constituencies. In the remainder of the constituencies over 33% of the electorate voted for the opposition but the result was only two opposition MPs out of 84, or only 2.4% of elected representatives.

The Reform Party has effectively changed the mindset of Singaporeans and demonstrated that the opposition can attract high-calibre individuals, that the opposition can put forward credible policies (so credible that the government has now adopted many of them),  and that the opposition can one day be entrusted with the government of Singapore without adverse economic repercussions.  As a result Singaporeans can perceive the current one-party dominance giving way in the not too distant future to a genuine two-party system with both parties alternating in power. This has happened in much of the rest of Asia, in particular in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Indonesia.

We urge the government not to be half-hearted or timid about embracing the need for reform in Singapore and not to swim against the tide of change in Asia. Just as they appear to have incorporated many of our economic proposals in their new economic strategy, the Reform Party calls upon the government to follow up by adopting the political reforms we have been advocating. We detail below some of the important ones:

1.    Abolish the GRC system and return to SMCs (after all if the government can quietly admit that their economic policies of the last ten years have been wrong they can admit that the GRC system is a failure)
2.    Remove the restrictions on freedom of expression and repeal the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act allowing a genuine independent media to flourish.
3.    Remove the restrictions on the activities of political parties and reform the Political Donations Act
4.    Make the Elections Department independent of the Prime Minister’s Office.
5.    Reduce the absurdly high level of deposits required to be an election candidate which undoubtedly contributes to the high number of walkovers.
6.    Remove the draconian restrictions on freedom of assembly and peaceful non-obstructive protest.
7.    Reform the laws of libel and slander to allow much greater latitude to “fair comment” or place a cap on damages and costs that can be awarded.

Related posts:

1. Reform Party ex-chair on his leaving the party
2. We have built a house but not a home, says Reform Party
3. Reform Party: We shall liberate the people

I passed by Boon Lay Ave a few occasions and noticed that Block 216-220 is still intact. The former residents were told to move out due to an “en bloc” development in the estate.

Today, I passed by once again and saw this interesting banners. It seem that HDB does not want to associate itself to the Boon Lay Ave Blk 216-220. I can see that the banner with the wording “HDB” been “Blanko”. I think the managing LHN Group Residential was told to “blanko” the wording “HDB”. After these estate had alrady been “En Bloc”ed. It had nothing to do with HDB.

Singapore Lighthouse Blog

Related posts:

1. SERS flats to be rented out to foreigners again – this time in Bedok
2. SERS flats converted to condo for expats
3. Fallacies of the boon of PAP dominance

It’s the Wedding Planner vs. Bridezilla now.

Celebrity party organizer David Tutera used the B word Tuesday against a woman suing him for bailing out of her lavish Singapore wedding.

“Melissa Chin was looking to turn her wedding into a PR opportunity and … is simply a Bridezilla looking for her 15 minutes of fame,” Tutera said in a statement.

The reality show star of “My Fair Wedding” is being sued by Chin and groom Steve Choi after he failed to show up to their Aug. 22 dream blowout at Singapore’s five star Shangri-La Hotel.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Manhattan Supreme Court, reveals the couple spent close to $300,000 on the Tutera-produced spectacle.

Tutera – whose star clients have included Al Gore and The Rolling Stones – said before the wedding, Chin “so desperately” wanted to conceal the price tag.

“Chin herself asked for publicity but requested that the dollar amount her family spent was not made public in respect to her father’s political position,” he said.

Related posts:

1. What price have we paid for today’s success?
2. S’poreans and foreigners both paying the price
3. Political suicide or political maturity?

Joshua Chiang

The first thing you would  notice about Rahim (not his real name) is the slight bulge on the left side of his T-shirt.

As he lifts  his shirt to reveal an ostomy bag attached to the side of his abdomen, Rahim tells us the pouch collects   his stools. Surgical removal of parts of his colon meant he no longer could ease himself  normally.

You see, Rahim has colon cancer.

It is ‘very troublesome’ whenever he has to change the bag when it got too full, he tells The Online Citizen. The only time he could clean himself up was at night when his wife was back from work, and in the privacy (and darkness) of their tent.

Rahim and his wife, who suffers from asthma, together with their their 18-year old son have been staying at the park for the past six months. Two other daughters (aged 13 and 15) are  in a shelter run by Pertapis Welfare Service, a voluntary welfare organization. He  has two other children from his first marriage but they are no longer in contact with him.

His wife has just started work as daytime security guard in a factory nearby. His son, who is from his second marriage, is awaiting his  enlistment into National Service. He  grinned when we joked that at least he would have beds to sleep on when he gets enlisted.

Unlike many of the cases we’ve met, Rahim and his family are not in the queue  for HDB’s rental flats. They’ve used up all the ‘lifelines’ HDB has to offer.

In 2001, Rahim’s family moved into their first HDB rental flat in Clementi. A few years later, Rahim bought a four-room flat in Woodlands. As both his children from the first marriage were working, they could afford to finance the loan for the flat. According to Rahim, the two soon fell out with the rest of his family and left. Rahim, who  had colon cancer by then, had to surrender the flat to the bank.

They then rented a one-room flat in Marsiling from the HDB. However, the flat was very far  from the school which their younger children were attending. Their agent came up with a solution – sublet the Marsiling flat and use the rent collected to cover the rental for a flat nearer the school.

It wasn’t a perfect solution – they still had to fork out $100 every month to cover the rent for the flat near the school. Rahim says that he didn’t know it was an offence to sublet his rental flat.

In 2008, the HDB found out about the subletting, and evicted and barred them from renting any flats from the HDB for five years. Faced with no other options, the family ended up in the park.

Rahim’s search for help eventually took him to MCYS which arranged for his two daughters to be put in the Pertapis shelter. It was a painful decision, but he agreed because he didn’t want them sleeping in the park. (His son was too old to qualify for a place in the shelter.)

They also advised  the rest of his family to move into Angsana Home where they would get free food and medication for his illness. However, he and his wife would have to sleep in separate dorms. They would also not be allowed to go out. Rahim rejected the offer as it would break up his family and prevent them from working.

“We can work,” he told us firmly. “We don’t need the free food. I just want a roof over our heads so my family can be together again.”

——

Happy Birthday, Mrs B

Lynn Lee

“I’m 47 today!” she exclaims, and her eyes tear up. “I prayed to god for a miracle, and you came along.”

We all make soothing noises. It’s nothing really, aunty. Just a few bags of biscuits. You know, to help you through the long evenings here in the park.

There’s very little light where the family is camping, so we can barely make out the expressions on their faces. Her 18-year god-daughter sits all poised and prim on the grass. She tells us she’s looking for a job, maybe as a waitress at Pizza Hut. Squished inside a smallish tent are her son and his friend. 18, and waiting to enlist in the army. They look like regular kids. One has studs in his ears. Spiky hair. He grins when you ask his name.

The family’s been living rough since 2008. A long, long time. Especially given the government’s claims that people are only ever temporarily homeless in Singapore.

“Void decks, mosques. I’ve slept everywhere,” she says.

“People stare.” Her husband chimes in. He’s a skinny man with tired eyes. A sick man, battling cancer for the last 17 years. He clearly doesn’t think it’s anything to be ashamed of. Even lifts up his t-shirt to show us his stoma bag.

“Three operations,” he tells you. “Colon cancer.”

They lost their HDB flat in 2005. His health was failing and his two children from an earlier marriage decided to stop contributing to the mortgage. The family managed to get a rental flat from the government but made the mistake of letting it out and moving to another apartment much closer to their children’s school.

“After that, they barred us for five years,” she says. Her eyes well up again. “Why so long? All we wanted was shelter.”

It’s Singapore. HDB has rules against subletting flats leased from the government. Did they not know that?

You almost ask the question, but then bite your tongue when you see the look on her face. She is weary. Exhausted. They wanted to be nearer to their children’s school. Surely any parent can understand that?

“I have two other kids,” she says suddenly. “They’re living in a home now. 13 and 14. I’ll see them this weekend.”

“So hard when they left,” her husband interjects.

You ask if they are working. She’s just found a full-time job as a security guard. It pays $1,300 a month. Her husband, on the other hand, can only work part-time. He says he used to be employed by Cisco but in 2004, they told him to leave because of his illness.

“They saw my stoma bag. They don’t like.”

They live from camping permit to camping permit. Once, they say, NParks officials came, took down their tents and confiscated their blankets. They were told they had to pay $300 if they wanted their stuff back.

“I said, OK, take. Give you lah!” For a moment, there is fire in her eyes. Then it is gone and she looks thoughtful.

“You know,” she tells us as we’re leaving, “thank you very much for coming. I don’t want to trouble you. You are here on my birthday. And you brought us this food. A present for me! I thank god for that already.”

—-

Related posts:

1. NMP Siew Kum Hong: Turn our backs on prejudice, discrimination, intolerance and hatred
2. More than a thousand turn up for Aware EOGM
3. Angry investors turn up at Hong Lim Park to seek redress

In a show of scant regard for the intellect of Singaporeans, the Straits Times splashed the authoritative headline “Highest trust level in government” for an article that starts of with “people in Singapore trust the Government here more than the residents of any other country trust their government” and “trust in the Singapore Government was 84 per cent”, followed by a contrast to cement the point – “far higher than the global average of 49 per cent”. The report then reveals that this “survey by US-based PR firm Edelman … polled 200 people in Singapore and a total of 4,875 worldwide”.

Naturally, such outlandish figures that do not fit the ground sentiment aroused our suspicion and the TOC team established the source of this survey to be the 2010 EDELMAN TRUST BAROMETER – An Annual Global Opinion Leaders Study. This survey has been conducted annually by the firm since 2001 and for this particular installment it commissioned the research firm StrategyOne – its subsidiary – to carry out the 25-minute telephone surveys.

The methodology document – all of 109 words – reveals that “all informed publics met the following criteria: college-educated; household income in the top quartile for their age in their country; read or watch business/news media at least several times a week; follow public policy issues in the news at least several times a week”, which means that the 200 persons from Singapore (we are not even certain if they are Singaporeans) were for all intent and purposes, high-income businessmen.

Upon further inspection of the accompanying Executive Summary released by Edelman, it becomes clear that the ‘trust’ they are referring to is along the lines of whether businesses can trust the government to not interfere or disrupt their business operations. So it becomes apparent that is not the ‘people in Singapore’ but the ‘businessmen in Singapore’ who trust the government here more than in any other country.

As the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer website and the documents therein do not refer to Singapore specifically, we are not sure where the reporter might have obtained the Singapore-specific figures from. However, whilst the ST can be proud of having such ‘exclusive information’, a more obvious fact was left out. On page 3 of the Executive Summary, the survey findings include that “the only institution to lose trust around the globe is media. Over the last three years, trust in media has fallen from 48 to 45 percent among older informed publics. With the dispersion of traditional media’s authority and the rise of opinion journalism, trust in the institution as a whole has waned.”

The irony is that the article proves this very statement by employing a misleading slant and omitting pertinent information.

Related posts:

1. Blog Feature: Straits Times changes headlines 4 times in one day
2. Tharman’s “public interest” remark removed by Straits Times
3. Straits Times’ perplexing definition of ‘netizens’

Andrew Loh / Joshua Chiang

Blocks 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 along Tiong Bahru Road were built by the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) which operated between 1927 and 1959. The SIT was a body set up by the British colonial authority to solve the housing problems faced by Singapore in its early days.

SIT was, you could say, the precursor of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) which was formed in 1960. The HDB eventually became Singapore’s sole public housing authority in 1982.

The five blocks of 4-storeys each at Tiong Bahru were selected for the HDB’s Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) in 1995.

However, it was only 12 years later – in 2007 – that the blocks were converted to condominiums. It is unclear what the ‘interim use’ of the blocks was between 1995 and 2007

Presently, the five blocks, now named “Global Residence”, together provides 120 “exclusive” apartments “with 2 to 3 bedroom suites ideal for expatriates and families.” (Source)

It is unclear who the Managing Agent for the apartments is.

According to the Global Residence website,  the rental rates for the apartments are S$4,800 monthly for a 2-bedroom suite, and S$5,000 monthly for a 3-bedroom suite.

As in the case of the flats in Bedok, Toa Payoh and Havelock Road, the question is: Why are so many SERS flats being reserved and rented out to foreigners instead of Singaporeans who are in the queue for public rental flats?

Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan, revealed last month that there are 4,550 people in the queue for such flats.  And as The Online Citizen has shown, some whose applications for such flats were rejected have ended up living in our public parks. Why are public housing flats specially reserved for foreigners? Aren’t they suppose to rent from the open market, just like everyone else?

Who profits from the rental, such as the “S$4,800” and “S$5,000” monthly rents for Global Residence?

Also, under HDB’s own rules, foreigners, expats, permanent residents, students and S Pass holders are not eligible for rental flats provided by the HDB.

Why then is the HDB now apparently contravening its own rules by reserving and renting out these flats to those who are not suppose to be eligible?

Lastly, has Parliament ever been told of this change of policy by the HDB – this policy of converting public flats for rental to foreigners?

Related posts:

1. SERS flats to be rented out to foreigners again – this time in Bedok
2. Yet another set of SERS flats – refurbished & to be rented out – in Boon Lay
3. HDB flats – a precious resource for foreign workers?

Few would know who Samuel Beckett is – well, I didn’t know who he was either. But what caught my attention was his quote “Fail, Fail Again, Fail Better” that I came across whilst reading the book “It’s Not How Good You Are, It’s How Good You Want To Be.”

When I learnt what a failure is or what failing means, it was when a cane-weilding parent was chasing after me in the house. From the very beginning, the word ‘failure’ had been stigmatised with something negative, something feared, something that might look like a cane that leaves me crying in pain. We were taught in school that it is bad to be a failure or anything worse.

But today, as an adult, it seems failure is not the end of the world but part of a learning process – and precisely because it is not the end of the world, many of my generation now seek to unlearn the negative connotation of the word. How many stories have we heard of undying determination and perserverance – with countless failures in between – before ultimate success is achieved? Compare this with the stories of ‘first attempt successes’ and we can see that there is definitely more of the former than the latter.

Personally, I recall a guy called Nick who was born disabled. His philosophy is, “I will try, and try, and try again. It doesn’t matter how many times you fail, but how strong we finish at the end of the day.” I find this to be true even in my own life  where my resolve was strengthened and my threshold increased. In fact, looking back I’ve grown to be a much stronger person after numerous failures in various aspects of my business and my personal life.

Failure is only temporary, for what comes after is of greater value. Besides, life isn’t about the destination, it’s the journey that matters.

No related posts.

See more of Sei-Ji’s work at My Sketchbook…

Related posts:

1. The Reform Party responds to the Economic Strategies Committee Report
2. Paradigm shift in focus required – from economic growth to economic development
3. Gan Kim Yong’s new committee

A friend forwarded me the text of an opinion piece that I hear from another friend appears on Page 2 of today’s paper – since I no longer subscribe to the paper, I have no idea.

The reporter, Rachel Chang, was apparently tasked to trawl online through forums and blogs that speak ill of the Singapore government to search for news fodder. Well, I must say that the reporter seems to appreciate the dire nature of the Singapore political landscape.

In her article, off the bat she refers to the Singapore government as the proverbial bogeyman and goes on to compliment how “people who oppose the Government have become scary in their own right” – justification that the balancing power of the internet has been able to stand up to this bogeyman of sorts.

Pointing to the recent incident where the boastful Mr Sear Hock Rong, chairman of the Eunos Community Centre’s Youth Executive Committee (YEC), had indicated on his website that his clients included Residents’ Committees (RCs) in Eunos, she went a step further to actually confirm these very allegations that he had in fact used “his grassroots connections to drum up business for his events management company” – the Eunos constituency office revealed to her that he had indeed taken on “jobs as master of ceremonies at grassroots events”.

Continue here.

Related posts:

1. Singapore government knew that Mas Selamat had been arrested
2. The Singapore Government – Worth its weight in gold?
3. Singapore Government screw-ups