Straits Times named Ris Low’s photo as “sg-stupid.jpg”

From our Correspondent

The digital edition of the Straits Times has labelled one of the photos of ex-Miss Singapore World 2009 Miss Ris Low as “sg-stupid.jpg”!

The Straits Times has been conducting a media witch-hunt on Ris Low and the organizer of the pageant ERM World since SPH journalists dug out her past conviction last Friday.

To ensure that Straits Times does not try to wriggle its way out by changing the name of the photo later, we have taken a snapshot here:

 

 Straits Times Photo link:

http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20090925/sg-stupid.jpg

What exactly does Straits Times mean by “sg-stupid”? Is it casting aspersions on the intelligence of Miss Ris Low by labelling her photo as such?

It is utterly despicable, disgusting and disgraceful for a supposedly professional national English Daily like the Straits Times to give such a derogatory name to the photo of a person.

Though Miss Low may not be blessed with impeccable command of the English language and she had a history of a psychiatric disorder, it doesn’t mean that she is less intelligent than the average Singaporean.

Even if it is really so, the media has no right to shame her in front of the public. The journalist responsible for naming and uploading the photo should issue a public apology to Miss Low and the public.

Miss Low should consult her lawyers to see if there are any legal grounds for suing the Straits Times for libel. She is still young and has a long way to go in her life.

The Singapore media should let her off and stop harrassing her like some public enemy when there are more pressing issues like hand to deal with.

Unlike some public officials, Ris Low did not cause the deaths of any person nor did she lose billions of taxpayers’ monies. When asked about her past conviction, she was perfectly open and candid about it. She also expressed her remorse over her mistakes and seek forgiveness from Singaporeans.

Did any of our millionaire ministers apologize for their mistakes? Instead of chasing after the people of real importance, the Singapore media found fit to bully a defenceless young girl whose only mistake is to sign up for Miss Singapore World without revealing her past convictions to the organizers.

‘Paranoid’ mainland ramps up firewall on anniversary

Press rights group Reporters Without Borders said on Tuesday that a “paranoid” mainland had blocked tens of thousands of websites ahead of the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic.

The Paris-based group said that authorities in Beijing had targeted Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and other ways that residents, including foreign reporters, used to circumvent controls on the internet.

The group said that “government security paranoia” in the run-up to Thursday’s anniversary was “turning into a major headache for internet users and reporters.”

It estimated that tens of thousands of web addresses had become inaccessible in recent days and said it was even more difficult to reach Facebook, Twitter and other social networking and blogging sites that were already blocked.

“The Electronic Great Wall has never been as consolidated as it is now, on the eve of the October 1 anniversary, proving that the Chinese government is not so sure of its record,” the group said.

It said that authorities particularly clamped down on websites linked to ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia. Xinjiang in July saw the mainland’s deadliest ethnic unrest in decades that pitted the majority Uygur population against the nation’s predominant Han ethnicity.

Beijing’s military plans a show of force on Thursday and is likely to parade its new intercontinental ballistic missiles as the Party highlights the nation’s transformation into a world power. – SCMP

Source: South China Morning Post

Malaysia: Court strikes out Chin Peng’s suit against government

By Debra Chong from The Malaysian Insider

The High Court struck out today Chin Peng’s suit against the federal government for going against the spirit of the peace treaties signed with communist insurgents two decades ago.

Judge Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi agreed with the government’s lawyer that Chin Peng, once Malaysia’s most feared man, was suing for defamation and not breach of contract.

Chin Peng’s latest defeat in court came even though former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor and other former security officers were in court today ready to testify on his behalf.

It is unclear if Chin Peng will appeal the decision. Lawyers for the former Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) secretary-general said they would revert to their client for further instructions.

The judge noted that Chin Peng’s claim that his reputation had been tarnished by the then deputy information minister’s allegedly slanderous statements portraying him as the bad guy was without basis.

He ruled that it was common public knowledge and a historical fact that Chin Peng carried out criminal acts.

The judge also agreed with the government’s argument that Chin Peng had no legal standing to sue because he is not a registered member of CPM.

The basis for Chin Peng’s suit was that the peace treaties signed with the Malaysian and Thai governments promised that former communist cadres could return to their homeland and live the rest of their lives in peace.

Earlier this year, he lost his last bid to return home in the country’s top court.

Chin Peng, born Ong Boon Hua, claims that the government breached the two contracts it signed with the now disbanded CPM in Haadyai on Dec 2, 1989.

In a statement of claim first filed in June 2005, the Perak-born octogenarian accuses the government of continuing to persecute former CPM members in the media by publishing “slanderous” articles.

Now 85, Chin Peng wanted the government to stop producing slanderous statements and pay damages but he stopped short of stating the amount.

Earlier this morning, the lawyer from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Amarjeet Singh, representing the government, argued that Chin Peng was suing for defamation and not breach of contract.

Amarjeet pointed out that the newspaper articles which Chin Peng is claiming to contain slanderous statements by the then Deputy Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Maidin never singled him out by name and did not contain any slanderous words — said to be limited to “mass surrender” and “capitulations”.— spelled out in the treaties.

He added that under both common law and the Societies Act, no social body can sue for defamation. Instead, the society must do so through its appointed representative, who must be registered with the Registrar of Societies.

The senior federal counsel said neither Chin Peng nor the CPM is registered.

Amarjeet advised the High Court to strike out the suit because it was not supported by law and was an abuse of the court process.

Chin Peng’s team of lawyers, headed by constitutional law expert Tommy Thomas, countered that the trial should proceed and they would prove their claims when they call their witnesses to testify.

Among the notable witnesses they had planned to put on the stand were Rahim, who was one of the people who signed one of the two formal treaties on behalf of the government with the CPM. – Malaysian Insider

Singapore may not host 2013 SEA games due to delay in sports hub

From our Correspondent

Singapore may not host the 2013 SEA games as the S$1.87 billion dollars Sports Hub may not be completed in time following repeated delays due to the global economic downturn.

It is unlikely to be completed in time for the 2013 South-east Asia Games, said Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan.

He said the Government will not be rushed into completing the $1.87 billion project at Kallang, which has been plagued by repeated delays since a private consortium won the bid to build the 35ha facility in January last year.

‘Quite frankly, I think it is unlikely that it will be ready for the 2013 SEA Games,’ Dr Balakrishnan told reporters at a Youth Olympic Games event on Wednesday.

‘We’re still discussing with the Singapore National Olympic Council and we’ll take a decision later as to whether we’ll put our hands up to host the 2013 SEA Games or to consider offering ourselves as a venue in the subsequent series of Games.’

The consortium which is constructing the Kallang Sports Hub is having difficulty in raising the necessary funds to start the project.

A consortium led by a subsidiary of France’s Bouygues Construction won the tender early last year to build the S$1.2 billion complex, including a dome—shaped national stadium, with a retractable roof, able to seat 55,000 people.

It was also to feature a 6,000—capacity indoor aquatic centre, an artificial river offering whitewater rafting, and a 3,000—capacity multi—purpose arena.

During a parliamentary sitting in February this year, West Coast GRC MP Madam Ho Geok Choo pressed the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports for a final deadline beyond which the Sports Hub cannot be further postponed. She also asked the ministry to provide an analysis of the potential loss of revenue from deferred or lost sporting events because of these delays.

In response, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan said: “I hope members will appreciate the negotiations are still ongoing and I do not want to make any public announcements on deadlines or on analysis of losses because that will compromise our negotiating positions.”

The outcome of the negotiations is still not known and the proposed Sports Hub continues to be left in limbo.

Dr Balakrishnan sought to explain why the delays were inevitable because the Government did not want to over-spend on the facility, which includes a 55,000-seater dome-shaped National Stadium with a retractable roof.

‘I’d rather be cautious and deliberate moving forward, but not be rushed into making hasty decisions or making decisions which will cost the tax payers more in the long run,’ he added.

Since Dr Balakrishnan does remember the existence of taxpayers, perhaps he should first reveal to Singaporeans the amount of money the government has spent so far on the Sports Hub.

Why peg prices of new HDB flats to market rates?

By Ng Kok Lim

I refer to your letter “Why we peg to market rates” to Today dated 25 Sept 2009. (read letter here)
 
You wrote that the HDB incurred an average deficit of $1,045 million a year on home ownership programmes.  However, if we refer to Page120 of HDB’s 2008 annual report, $625,102 was spent on “upgrading, improvements and demolition”. 

Surely upgrading doesn’t count as home ownership but perhaps home improvement instead?  It gives the false impression that the HDB is subsidising new homes at a cost of $1,045 million when in actual fact the amount is much less.
 
On the same page is another $783,757 item called “provision for loss for properties under development / for sale”. 

Presumably, HDB foresees the price of unsold HDB flats to fall short of construction costs by $783,757.  But by claiming to price HDB flats at market levels, its hard to imagine how HDB can foresee prices of unsold HDB flats to dip below costs by so much.
 
If we put these two items aside, HDB actually made a profit of $363,859 instead.
 
Instead of repeating its market pricing rationale yet again, it would be more helpful if HDB can address the issue of positive feedback between resale flat price and new flat price. 

As market price of resale flats soar, so too does the price of new HDB flats since the latter are pegged to market prices.  But the increasing price of new flats makes them less attractive to buyers and does nothing to abate the demand for resale flats and so demand for resale flats continues and the whole cycle repeats itself.
 
The price of many resale flats have jumped by $100,000 in a matter of one, two years. 

Can HDB explain why the $30,000 government subsidy is considered ’significant’ compared to a typical $100,000 rise in flat prices?  HDB claims that market pricing allows all to receive similar subsidies regardless of market movements.  But the $30,000 subsidy is not even enough to make up for the loss incurred by a would be buyer when the market goes up by $100,000.
 
HDB claims it is illogical for Mr See to attribute property price increases to the HDB because the recent asset appreciation is not unique to Singapore. 

This is like saying that the banks in Singapore are not responsible for losses arising out of the recent Lehmann Brothers collapse since similar losses have occurred elsewhere too.  But banks here are being ordered to put their houses in order.  Surely there is something that the HDB can do as well?
 
HDB should explain what being below the international benchmark of 30% means in terms of how much one gets to keep in one’s pockets.  For example, HDB has demonstrated that a 3-room flat costing $150,000 and sold to a household with income of $2,000 only requires a monthly instalment of $460 and a resulting ratio of 23%. 

But for a typical family of four with a monthly sustenance need of $500 each perhaps, the total cash required is already $2,000.  Where is the family going to find money for the $460 monthly instalment?  So the 23% ratio is meaningless as far as one’s own pockets is concerned.

Town Council took unemployed man to court for S&C arrears

From our Correspondent

Jalan Besar Town Council had took an unemployed man to court for arrears S&C arrears of $432!

In a letter written to the Straits Times Forum, Mr Lim Beo Thiam, a 52 year old who has been unemployed for 18 months and lost part of a leg through diabetes relates his unhappy experience with his Town Council. (read letter here)

He claimed that this is the first time he did not pay the S&C charges due to financial difficulties and he was taken to court by Jalan Besar Town Council.

His new debts now ballooned to more than $1,000 which included court penalties and late payment charges.

“When I tried to settle subsequent S&C charges to avoid a fresh spiral of hefty penalties for non-payment, I was rejected. The town council ruled that I had to settle the old debt before I could pay the new charges. Naturally, this led to more penalties as my fresh S&C arrears spiked. So, I am now some $3,000 in debt to my town council,” he added.

Mr Lim wrote that he has appealed to his Member of Parliament for help many times but the final reply invariably remained unchanged: pay up.

He lampooned the Town Councils for hoarding extra revenue collected instead of helping needy residents like himself:

“Town councils shouldn’t be surprised if residents like myself, who face tough times, wonder why we aren’t being helped via the excess revenue collected; revenue which is instead ploughed into loss-making investments. Shouldn’t any excess revenue be refunded to residents via rebates? If town councils are keen to invest, set up a fund offering soft loans to residents to tide them over tough times and pay service and conservancy charges.”

His letter attracted a fresh barrage of criticisms at the government with many netizens expressing their support and sympathy for him.

Wrote between777:

“seems the govt is pushing the buck and trying to get town councils to make more money as it focuses even on getting town councils to recover arrears – which in these times, there are a fair number who cant barely afford to pay – but yet this is on the agenda – whereas Investments by town councils are NOT graded – and this is especially impt bec the town councils LOST some nearly $20 million in the lehman fiasco! And the govt can spent $100 million just to host a 3-day APEC Summit! which is more to a ego trip – as in all honesty such APEC or even ASEAN have all along been making alot of talk but never walk their talk – and in fact even within ASEAN there are many issues yet to be even worked on and the many barriers to free trade within the group.”

Added anlibeth2000:

“Having a report card to monitor the town council’s performance is a good ideal but collecting of the outstanding arrears is otherwise. Whoever owes the town council are likely to be the poor of the poor. Fancy writing off 16 millions in lost of investment and here they are squeezing your poor citizen till the last drop of blood. Not only that , if for any reason you happen to owe them they will impose penalties, late payment charges, court charges, so that they are quite similar to the loan shark charges.

12 months outstanding of $36 x 12 = $432. Penalties $561 plus $50 legal fees. Total to claim $1043. If these don’t work they will get a court action to seize your household items until you have nowhere to run. Yes I had personally experienced it. Forget about seeking your MP’s help because they are of the same office. (N/B The MP take charges of the town council) After auctioning your item that will not be enough they will start the proceduring all over again. One would have been better off if they borrowed from a loan shark to pay them off. However the SPF had cleared a lot from their business and seeking a loan shark is not easy nowaday.”

iamgoondu wants the Town Councils to accout for the fees collected and sent:

This situation becomes even more unthinkable when the People realize the huge reserves that the town councils have amassed, enough to write off large investment losses. It means that the town councils have collected too much S&C fees. Where is the promise by the MND to address accountability in the aftermath of the investment fiasco now? The People are not so forgetful.

I challenge the town councils to provide more complete statistics on this matter. Maybe then, the PAP government shall be less quick to proclaim the job credit scheme a success when it is obviously NOT and faces squarely the root issue, i.e. the structural unemployment problem which has escalated over the years.”

State media tries to cover up GIC’s gigantic S$109 billion loss in two years

From our Correspondent

In an article published on 29 September 2009 in the Straits Times with the misleading title – “GIC claws back loss”, Alvin Foo claimed that the sale of some shares before market crash had mitigated the fall of GIC’s portfolio. (read article here)

It quoted GIC Deputy Chairman Tony Tan saying that GIC has “weathered the financial crisis well” because it “had anticipated the crisis and taken precautionary action which mitigated losses in the ensuing bear markets.”

According to GIC’s latest annual report, its investments – valued at well over US$100 billion (S$141 billion) – slumped more than 20 per cent in Singapore dollar terms for the year ended March 31.

The loss dragged down its 20-year nominal annual rate of return in Singdollar terms from 5.8 per cent to 4.4 per cent.

Its real rate of return, after accounting for global inflation, tumbled from 4.5 per cent to just 2.6 per cent.

The article also claimed that GIC had reaped a handsome profit of USD$1.6 billion dollars by selling half its stake in Citigroup lately to give readers the impression that it had recouped much of its losses.

However, throughout the entire article, the most important figures are missing – the real loss suffered by GIC.

Alvin Foo had deliberately chosen not to report the real figures and use vague indicators such as annual rate of return to mask the extent of GIC’s loss.

The entire article was slanted in such a way to GIC to exonerate its executives from any blame for the decrease in its portfolio by attributing it to the global financial crisis and instead praised them for having the “foresight” to limit the loss.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the same day that GIC suffered a gigantic loss of USD$41.6 billion dollars or SGD$59 billion dollars in the fiscal year ended March! This was not reported in the Straits Times at all. (read article here)

It quoted a person familiar with the situation as saying that 2009 was one of the worst years ever for GIC.

Earlier in the year, people familiar with the situation told Dow Jones Newswires that in calendar year 2008, GIC had lost around S$50 billion. This means that GIC has lost an estimated total of SGD$109 billion dollars over the last two years!

Naturally, such staggering loss must be kept from the public in case Singaporeans start asking serious questions about the management of the fund.

A loss is a loss, period. It will take GIC a few years or even longer to recoup it. The state media has done Singaporeans a great disservice by hiding the truth from the public.

Why Singapore “meritocracy” isn’t meritocracy

By Abdul Gafoor, Social Correspondent

Singapore is a strange country where everything suggested, which is contrary what the government, politicians and policy makers claim, has to be “substantiated with evidence” even though the same government, politicians and policy makers are not required to substantiate their claims with any evidence. No other country has such an idiosyncratic attitude which was introduced by Lee Kuan Yew given his background as a lawyer.  He tries to make the country a court room where the rules apply to everyone except government, politicians and policy makers.

The claim that meritocracy exists is one of the various notions that PAP has successfully marketed to the people even without having gone the length to ever proving it actually exists. Other such successes include Singapore being a developed country, education system being one of the best in the world etc. However PAP has had its fair share of failures in some of its baseless claims such as in eugenics where in order to produce smart kids, graduate men should marry graduate women.

The reason why many Singaporeans want to accept this baseless claim that meritocracy exists instead of rejecting is because they are afraid to deal with the factual situation where meritocracy does not exists.

The majority Chinese are afraid that they will fall into the shallowness as the majority Malays of Malaysia. The minority Singaporean leaders are afraid that they have not responded to a situation for fifty years where their bright and smart have been sidelined.

The minority Singaporean masses are afraid to even imagine they may have been systematically marginalized in last five decades because it shatters their crystal image of their state. Furthermore since they are clueless of how to respond they rather imagine it does not exist pretty much like how a person at health risk refuses to go for a screening test because they are not sure how to cope if they are diagnosed with a condition.

I have talked to so many academics, writers and thinkers around the world and everyone tend to point out to two characteristic in Singapore which will never allow meritocracy to exist.

Firstly income inequalities across the ethnic groups. Most Singaporeans even policy makers do not seem to understand what this means. Income inequalities across the ethnic groups does not mean a Chinese, a Malay, a Tamil and an Eurasian are earning not the same dollar as lame cynical Singaporean critics will foolishly claim.

Income inequalities across ethnic groups mean, the difference in incomes across ethnic groups is too large and significant. This is too visible and obvious to deny.  Given this reality, meritocracy cannot exist  even if you say the highest marks get the scholarship blah blah. You will have to level the playing field before you let them compete.

With the perverse income inequalities, the minorities will not be able to achieve equivalent or better successes than Chinese masses in examinations and job interviews even though they may have the capacity and potential.

What many Singaporeans tend to naively say is that because the minorities do not achieve as much, that is why their representations in ministries, scholarships etc etc are lower than their population proportions and they claim therefore their “meritocratic” system based on “scores and results” qualify as meritocracy.

This then brings to the second reason why meritocracy cannot be existing in Singapore. The way Singapore implements meritocracy is invalid. You cannot use past “scores and results” which is the main method in Singapore used to award scholarships, jobs etc. What you instead require is past, present and future performance because meritocracy is supposed to be based on potential not past achievements.

What someone achieves in the past indeed shows his potential but what someone does not achieve in the past does not show his potential.  Therefore assessments have to be based on potential and for that past performance alone cannot be used. Secondly the proper assessments must be used for to evaluate a person for the job or scholarship.

In Singapore a government scholar typically gets to become a senior military officer or police officer not because he is brilliant in military work or police work but because he scored high marks in GCE O and A level examinations and managed to complete his degree on scholarship and survived through the fast tracked career. That is not meritocracy.

Singapore employers are also extremely subjective when assessing employees. I have seen far too many non-Chinese friends applying to banks only to be rejected. The reasons the employers give are that these friends do not have relevant experience if they are crossing over from say engineering industry. However many (a large number) of Chinese friends who were formerly working as engineers have crossed over into banking industry within the same banks and same departments which rejected those non-Chinese friends.

I also have seen non-Chinese friends with business and finance degrees not even getting interviews whereas their Chinese classmates do. Almost all my non-Chinese friends from JC who got straight As in GCE A Levels are now working as teachers as they could not find employment in the industry for which they were trained for. Likewise I have seen so many non-Chinese friends who have migrated being able to secure jobs in banks which in Singapore rejected them, in industries which in Singapore also rejected them.

What is clear is employers are not giving fair and equal opportunities to minorities in Singapore. What is also clear is that assessment and evaluation of candidates for scholarship and jobs in Singapore is not consistent. Race is a factor.

For many years, there have been calls to set up a labour laws and labour courts to address this just like in any developed and civilized country. Every PAP labour minister over last 50 years have refused. The fact they refused only shows they know the above problems exists and that they are not confident in tackling them.

Singaporean politicians, policy makers and ordinary people refuse to acknowledge these realities and instead insist on imagining Singapore offers a level playing field for all races. The problem is they fail to realize they are unnecessarily creating instabilities into the country with this. A small country like Singapore despite its size does have the capacity to offer sufficient opportunities to everyone in education and jobs.

Having a kiasu attitude and creating unleveled playing fields and believing the whole system functions as a meritocracy only makes Singapore an unsafe place because social unrest will eventually be the natural outcome as proven in so many cases around the world in just the history of the last 100 years.

Part of the problem is fueled by Malaysian Chinese who want to create an impression that what exists in Malaysia does not exist in Singapore. The forms of the problems that exist in the two strange twin countries maybe different but essentially they are the same. They are two sides of the same coin.

What change is required basically in Singapore or even in Malaysia is a leveled playing field for everyone. The governments will have to work towards eliminating income inequalities across the ethnic groups.

Opportunities for education need to be created such that dreams and potential be the criteria for selection. Opportunities also need to be created for promising students who are caught in the storms and shortcomings of their family backgrounds. These opportunities should be available, accessible, universal and abundant such that should any student with potential can reach and attain them easily. Sometimes opportunities should be extended to test to even identify where the brightest and smartest are.

In terms of employment same criteria for evaluations need to be put in place. The culture of rewarding and measuring a person through relationships should be stopped. Instead workplace should be about performance and potential. Legal safeguards must be put in place to make every employer a fair and equal opportunity employer.

Courts must be there to strike fear in those employers who want to select one over the other based on instincts, relationships and subjective evaluations. None of solutions I have said is utopian. They basically are the realities that exist in the developed and civilized world.

 

About the Author:

Abdul Gafoor is a researcher based in the United Kingdom

Singaporean upset that his children are considering migrating

From our Correspondent

A posting on the CNA forum by a forumer lamenting about his children considering migrating has attracted over 2,000 views and 100 replies in less than a day!

The forumer which uses the moniker of “Iwin” wrote that his children are thinking of leaving Singapore permanently to settle down in another country because of a multitude of push factors such as sky-rocketing public housing prices, competition with foreigners, lack of job security, low wages, expensive healthcare, stressful work place and the CPF scheme.

He added that he feel very sad that after serving national service and contributing to the nation, his children are now leaving him to migrate elsewhere.

TehOkosong felt that foreigners are the root cause of Singapore’s problems:

“The present problem we face is singaporeans are 2nd class, and FT’s first class. Singaporeans have to do NS to defend the FT’s, give them jobs, have to embrace them and let them call us stupid.”

Cow suggested sarcastically that he may consider migrating and returning to Singapore as a “foreign talent” or FT in short:

“How about giving up your singapore citizenship, and coming back to Singapore as an FT?  Since so many people think govt take so good care of FT. You can come back and take our jobs away and our property too… and it’ll be easy too, since you are already familiar with Singapore.”

Kamono doubts if migration is a wise choice:

“I believe your children is the infamous Gen Y who wants instant gratification without any hard work. I guess you have given them everything and spoilt them since young. If they think migration is the solution, then, u should encourage them to give it a shot but it doesn’t guarantee them better quality of life. Racism is rampant in many countries, and cost of living in European countries are extremely high as well. Can be worse than SG. If they cannot cope in SG because they were spoon fed and treated like prince/princesses since young, chances are they might even have a worse time if they migrate without daddy and mummy to finance them.”

Seehum urged fellow Singaporeans to “fight” against the government’s pro-foreigner policy:

“I think Singaporeans should stay united to fight off this threat from the foreigners to steal our jobs and over crowd Singapore. Many people have already voice their resentment towards these foreign rejects in public forum and newspaper. More and more people are coiming out to question this ridiculous policy, why must we embrace someone who is from foreign land with totally different culture from us and equip them with the means to fight with our ricebowl. By the way, Singapore is the only country in the world now with a pro foreigner policy.”

triage supported the children’s desire to leave Singapore for greener pastures:

Actually, it’s good that children consider migrating overseas. If they think overseas is good let them go.  The reasons for migrating are good. of course overseas will have problems but as long as they are happier, i say, let them go.

As parents I think we should consider this point. Will they be happier staying in Singapore? If life overseas is good, go! I have relatives who migrate to perth Australia and they have a very good life there. They have a house overlooking the Swan River and on a given Sunday, we can see 50 yachts sailing by. They have cars with no COE. Their children speak with an Aussie accent and have pink cheeks. The family has time for other considerations other than just money. There’s quality time. When they feel like they want to visit Singapore, they just fly down and take the local food.

Every year, about 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenship and migrate to other countries for good. Another 150,000 Singaporeans are working or living overseas.

The country’s low birth rate has prompted the government to open the floodgates to allow more foreigners to take up PRs and citizenships. More than 79,000 foreigners become PRs last year. The number of PRs becoming citizens is not known. (Source: nps.sg)

The relentless influx of foreigners have prompted calls from Singaporeans to limit the inflow. The government has set up a National Integration Council to promote integration between foreigners and locals, including a $10 million “integration fund”.

While other countries require foreigners to pass a compulsory English proficiency test before they are allowed to work there, the Singapore government is sponsoring foreigners who can’t speak English for language courses.

Source: CNA Forum

Singapore poly student Vincent Chia Ming Jin dies in nightclub brawl in China

From our Correspondent

Mr Vincent Chia Ming Jin, a 19 year old student from the Singapore Polytechnic in his second year as a mechatronics student died in northeast China from stab wounds after being assaulted by three China nationals in a nightclub.

Mr Chia was in the remote city of Jiamusi in the province of Heilongjiang on an industrial attachment together with 41 other students. He had gone to the Action Zone nightspot at around 11pm with nine fellow students.

Chinese-language news website Northeast reported that he had invited a woman, known only as Miss Wang, along. She, in turn, had brought four other friends. Three of her friends have been described as his attackers.

It is not known how Mr Chia knew Miss Wang, or whether he knew the three men who attacked him.

It is believed that while the group was drinking and singing, they had a dispute over the service staff. At around 11.30pm, when Mr Chia went to the toilet, the three men are believed to have accosted him.

They began raining blows on Mr Chia, who fled the scene. The three chased after him and one of them stabbed him in the right thigh with a switchblade as he tried to get into a taxi. He was taken to hospital, but died from his injuries.

Mr Chia’s father had flown to China accompanied by an official from the Singapore embassy in Beijing. His mother was too distraught to speak to the state media when interviewed at her home.

Friends described him as having an outgoing personality. Some of them had offered condolences on their blogs.

Next Page »