Open letter to AWARE President Dana Lam on the sexual exploits of PBM Jack Neo

To: Ms. Dana Lam
The President of AWARE

Dear Dana,

Singaporeans are very disappointed that your association AWARE still prefers to remain silent till today.

The local news reported that both, Ms. Maella Meurzec and Ms. Foyce Le Xuan were subjected to sexual harassment during their encounter with Singapore most successful film-maker, PBM Jack Neo on different occasion (please refer to TR or ST news).

As an organisation supposedly to represent female equality in workplace environment as clearly stipulated on your official website:

http://www.aware.org.sg/

The general public certainly deserved the right to know your stand on this matter that is still hot on the agenda.

We expect you to make a public statement soonest as any further delay might reflect your credibility to represent all female workers in this clean and corrupt free island, Singapore.

Thank you and best regards

Peter Su

Life’s a beach but it’s no holiday

Dear Radha Basu,

I read with great concern your article “Life’s a beach but it’s no holiday” published in the Straits Times on March 9, 2010.

It is an article that talks about an issue which is very important to Singapore, and yet is often side-lined in the rat race, or maybe an issue that the government does not want to admit, face up to, or address.

I find it highly insensitive, irresponsible and inappropriate for you to suggest that “homelessness in Singapore is often the result of personal irresponsibility, stemming from avarice or divorce and dysfunction”. With growing divorce rates in Singapore, you probably know someone who is a divorcee. Would you still say that that is a result of “personal irresponsibility” or “reckless misdeeds”? Divorce is the last resort for many couples, and whilst I may not condone it, I do not think it apt to blame it on the persons involved.

There are the poor living in rental flats, and there are the poorer still, who cannot even afford rental flats. If you are prepared to say that those who are camping out on beaches are irresponsible, then by the simplest logical derivation, you will also be prepared to say that anyone except the richest few living in mansions or bungalows are irresponsible, albeit to a lesser extent.

Why do you think people sell off their apartments? Because they want to splurge it on luxury goods? I think not! Whilst you may put it in that manner to suggest that these people are irresponsible, it does not paint the full picture as it neglects to study the underlying causes behind that move – be it rocketing costs of living, a poor job market, a job market skewed by a huge influx of immigrants, etc – causes which I will be very hesitant to blame on the victims of our government’s ill-managed macro-economic policies.

I apologise if I do come across unduly harsh, for I know not the extent of political or bureaucratic pressure under which you are. But I do appeal very strongly to your sense of professionalism to issue a statement of regret, and also to refrain from allowing yourself to be, consciously or otherwise, an automatic mouthpiece of the government – and in the true spirit of journalism, I hope you can explore and bring out to the public a facet of Singapore we are ignorant or apathetic about, and come up with impassioned opinion pieces that are not simply a rehash of government rhetoric. There is a very mistaken yet pervasive idea that even opinion pieces have to be “balanced” for the sake of it – but what can be more personal than an opinion?

Some ideas for you to consider are why the government view HDB flats as an investment asset, instead of a necessity which provides a roof over the heads of citizens? Regarding your example of Britain’s situation, is welfare not a matter of balance? Yes, the British government may have probably gone over, whilst our government is obsessively allergic to providing even the most basic of welfare to vulnerable groups – and maybe to help too much is better than to help too little.

Maybe you could also consider whether the salary formula for our ministers are less-than-ideal, since their salary are pegged to the top earners in the country, and hence there is no pecuniary incentive at all for them to look after the welfare of the poor. Perhaps you could study how the government’s policy of awarding generous bonuses to themselves based on economic growth would create a strong monetary incentive for them to bring foreigners in to grow the economy for its end, even if per-capita income or standard of living is not improved.

I thank you for your kind attention and time in reading this, and I hope that you will consider my points.

 

Best Regards,

Gordon Li

Email to PAP MP Lim Biow Chuan expressing outrage at his insensitive remarks on the Jack Neo scandal

Mr Lim Biow Chuan
Member of Parliament
Marine Parade GRC

 

I read with disbelief and shock AND outrage, that you, as a Member of Parliament, actually condone what Jack Neo has done – that you are telling us that it is permissible for Jack Neo to take advantage of his position, as one with so-called, to quote you, ‘good career development’ and use the casting couch to lure aspiring starlets, one reportedly as young as 16 years old, to satisfy his lust???!!!

As a civil servant and a Member of Parliament, what you verbalise represents the views and policies of the Singapore Government.

By making a scurrilous statement as this, you have literally put your foot in your mouth! I think this has practically put paid to your political career!

My advice – please stick to your constitutional duties for the rest of your term in Parliament.

 

Sarah Leong

“Employ Singaporeans First” Petition

Do support my petition to “Employ Singaporeans First” -

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Employed/petition.html

Due to the recent high influx of foreigners, many of our own  people are been sidelined  by employers. Many new graduates are also  jobless now as they have to compete with  thousands of foreigners for jobs.

Our people are also not protected by any minimum wage policy here and their salaries have being pressed down by cheaper foreigner imports. Employers are kings now as they have a host of choices now whenever they advertise for positions. Many who apply  for jobs are foreigners.

This petition urges all employers in Singapore to consider employing Singaporeans FIRST despite the slightly higher cost and their older age. If not, we will see ourselves being over-run by foreigners in time to come.

If you support this cause, do sign on the peition so that we can rally together and bring hope to those who are jobless and struggling.

Do also spread this cause to your friends for active participation! We need to send the right message out to our government!

Singapore for Singaporeans!

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Gilbert Goh

Why Lee Kuan Yew is not the father of modern Singapore

Dear Mr Sam Tan (MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC),
 
I refer to your comments in parliament as reported by Straits Times on 5 Mar 2010.
 
You quoted Mr Otto Fong as saying that Lee Kuan Yew is the father of modern Singapore and that Singaporeans are his children. 

MM Lee has referred to Singaporeans as descendents of peasants and as (working animals) whose spurs are not stuck deep enough in the hide.  Contrast this with what MM has to say about his eldest son: considerable intelligence; as good as his generation of leaders. 

The stark contrast clearly shows that MM doesn’t treat us like his children, neither should we treat him as our father.  We have no such father who belittles us as though we are mere workers and slaves.
 
Throughout our formative years as a new nation, it was Goh Keng Swee who steered our economy under the guidance of Dr Albert Winsemius. 

With or without Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore would have succeeded given the strength of its people, the strong foundations laid by the British and the good steering of Dr Goh and Dr Winsemius.  It would be difficult to credit someone as our founding father for merely sitting on the throne.
 
While Otto has wisened up to the truth that his future rests with himself, there is no evidence that he has come to terms with his difficult youth and childhood. 

Particularly, does he still blame his father Mr Fong Swee Suan and MM Lee for the difficulties he had while growing up?  If so, what exactly should he blame his father and MM Lee for?
 
In the case of his father, the only thing Otto can blame is the fact that his father lost, not his father’s convictions and determination.  He needs to understand that no one should be blamed for having tried and lost, only for not trying.
 
In the case of MM Lee, Otto needs to understand that his father and countless others were arrested without trial and incarcerated for extremely long periods of time despite the lack of irrefutable proof that they were communists as MM had made them out to be. 

If there is anything Otto should blame, it would be the fundamentally wrong and grossly unfair treatment of the losers in the political battle for Singapore.
 
 
 
Thank you
 
 
Ng Kok Lim

Mah’s story is also Singapore’s story?

Dear Madam Low,
 
I refer to your Straits Times letter dated 8 Mar 2010.
 
I understand your empathy for Mr Mah since both of you grew up in very overcrowded conditions.  However, you need to understand that the improvement in each family’s living conditions over the years is not just a matter of studying hard and working hard but more importantly of diminishing family sizes encouraged in no small part by our “stop at two” policy.
 
The supposed Singapore story of studying hard and working hard to pull ourselves out of poverty is no different from the stories in other East Asian societies. 

Studying hard is not the sole premise of Singaporeans, it is the premise of East Asians in general.  Furthermore, Mr Mah’s success is fundamentally different from those of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs since Mr Mah merely took over the reins of an already successful organisation whereas Bill Gates and Steve Jobs created something out of nothing. 

In other words, it really didn’t matter whether we had Mr Mah or not, his existence as far as the HDB or Singapore is concerned, is non-essential.  Bill Gates and Steve Jobs on the other hand are essential without which there would have been no Microsoft or Apple respectively.  Therefore, Mr Mah’s story is far from Singapore’s story since the former created nothing as far as the latter is concerned.  Mr Mah builds flats that are smaller, far from the city centre that took longer to build and are a lot more expensive.  His ’success’ turned out to be the sorrow and nightmare for many Singaporeans.
 
It is not enough to remind the younger generation of where we come from.  It is more important to let them understand that in an increasingly competitive world, it is not enough to simply ace one’s exams just so as to win a privileged seat to rot in.  Being in a privileged position calls for a sense of duty to fellow Singaporeans, to create something for the benefit of all.
 
So while you give thanks to Singapore for living in a maisonette today, think about who you would thank if you were to start all over again by drawing today’s starting salary and paying today’s price for a maisonette.  I can guarantee you, your tears will be no less than those you shed for Mr Mah last Saturday which you have no one else but Mr Mah to thank for.
 
 
Thank you
 
 
Ng Kok Lim

Taxpayers’ monies should be speak in a socially responsible manner

I read with GREAT CONCERN, “Shark’s fin a matter of moral suasion” posted on ST on 7 Feb 2010.  (Read here)

The article suggested that sharks’ fins were served at constituency dinners, and two of our MPs saw no need to lift a finger to support shark conservation efforts, despite Singapore being listed as one of the top traders of sharks’ fins.

As many may know, consumption of shark’s fin is a leading factor to the steep decline of shark population – the current population of different species is estimated to have fallen between 90-99% of what was about 20 years back. This means that if we have 100 sharks in the past, we are now left with between 1 – 10 sharks, depending on the species.

Conservationists and scientists around the world have warned of the nearing potential collapse of the entire marine system, due to the decline of key species. Already more than 10 of sharks’ species have been listed as endangered however, Singapore is playing the waiting game, possibly for another country to take action before we react to what may be too late.

The lackadaisical stand made during the Youth Forum is nothing but tremendously discouraging.

While wildlife organizations and other social groups (divers, etc) step up on efforts to educate about ecological impacts caused by a non-staple such as sharks’ fins, it is of great concern if the MPs were speaking for themselves or if they were speaking from their capacity.

Why should tax payers be indirectly paying for sharks’ fin to be served at constituency dinners, when a growing number is against the short-sighted continuation of this tradition?

It is easy, for one of the MPs to verbally “encouraged” animal welfare activists to raise public awareness about their cause, but he failed to recognize that perhaps the government could take on a more proactive approach through leading by the simple act of removing fins from constituency dinners and all other government related dinners.

Action should be taken in alignment with these verbal encouragements, and perhaps this could start by putting the power of the dollars to better use, instead of having it spent on sharks’ fins at constituency dinners.

Jennifer Lee

Check us out on Facebook

For your reading pleasure: here

Wrong of Tharman to compare wages of Singaporeans with workers elsewhere without taking into account the cost of living

I refer to the recent comments made by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam regarding the issue of wages of lower skilled workers, which I read with reservation.

Mr Tharman made comparisons of wages between Singaporean workers and that of Taiwan, Malaysia and China. He concluded our local workforce commands a “significant premium” over our regional counterparts. A more rigorous comparison will be needed should Mr Tharman want to convince discerning citizens that all is indeed well.

The issue is not about compensation rates but whether wages are sufficient for a decent standard of living. In line with that, there is a need to compare not only wages, but also the cost of living in the various countries. Such a more comprehensive look will paint a more accurate picture about the situation of Singapore’s lower skilled workers.

A quick check revealed that Singapore is ranked 10th by the Economist Intelligence Unit World Cost of Living Survey 2009/2010. Kuala Lumpur in contrast is ranked 90th. From this example, it show how naive it would be for us to hastily conclude just on salaries alone, the quality of life our fellow citizens are leading.

Another interesting observation I made from the same survey is that Hong Kong is ranked 11th, behind Singapore. Considering that Singapore and Hong Kong share many economic similarities, I would have liked the comparisons made by Mr Tharman to include Hong Kong as well. And by extension, it will also be very useful to compare the wages of lower skilled workers in the 9 countries ranked ahead of Singapore i.e. Japan, France and Switzerland.

A “significant premium” must be translated into a better standard of living, for it to have any value. It will be on all our conscience should we dismiss the plight of lower skilled workers with an over simplified approach.

Best Regards,

Mr Thng Zheng Xian

Ng Kok Lim rebuts Halimah Yacob’s assertion that Singapore workers can afford more

Dear Madam Halimah,
 
I refer to your comments in parliament as reported by Straits Times on 4 Mar 2010.
 
Despite the ‘puzzling’ decrease in Singapore’s gross wages from 2006 to 2009 as you have pointed out, the ball part figure is largely correct so the picture of relative income vis-a-vis other countries is still valid.  Adopting the government’s hourly wage estimate of $14 an hour instead of $10.85 an hour would merely boost Singapore’s gross hourly wage from 32.7% that of New York’s to 42.2% that of New York’s.  Are we that much more proud that our gross hourly wage is 42.2% that of New York’s instead of 32.7%?  Or should we be asking ourselves why our gross hourly wage is not even half that of New York’s?
 
You said professionals, managers and executives accounted for only 9% of the workforce in the UBS figures whereas they actually make up 52% of Singapore’s workforce.  But most of the first world cities ahead of us in the list also have large percentages of professionals, managers and executives in their workforces so any disadvantage that we suffer due to percentage discrepancies would likely be suffered by them as well.  So this does not explain why our gross hourly wage is not even half that of New York’s.  Hence, your assertion of significant underestimation due to flawed assumptions does not hold water.
 
You said the UBS comparisons omitted CPF payments which can amount to 20% of our income and can be used to pay for our homes.  But Singaporeans have no social security to depend on and must pay for our medical and retirement needs out of our own pockets.  It’s the same whether we use 20% of our income to pay for homes and use the rest of our disposable income to pay for medical and retirement needs or in the case of the Western nations, use 20% of their income to pay for medical and retirement needs and use the rest of their disposable income to pay for homes.  There is no difference, so again, this is a non-issue.
 
Finally, you argue that expensive Western goods like steak and frozen pizza are not part of the average Singaporean’s expenditure and so should not count towards the calculation of price levels.  Going by your logic, it would be all the more better if Singaporeans can afford to buy only the cheapest of goods.  If we can’t even afford the same quality goods that people in Western nations enjoy, how can we profess to have achieved the same standard of living as they have?  So it makes sense comparing ourselves against the Western nations on how well we can afford the same basket of goods.
 
Hence, despite the issues you have brought up, the study’s conclusion is fundamentally sound and that the UBS figures do reflect the actual situation to a high degree.
 
 
Thank you
 
 
Ng Kok Lim

MP Ong Ah Heng snubbed our local old workers for being lazy

I refer to the leeching MP Ong Ah Heng’s comment in the Parliament yesterday. He said in Mandarin: ‘I know of one family who complain the cleaners in their precinct are lazy and too old. They don’t want local workers who are old, they want young foreigners.’ His comment was posted in the internet today here.

1. How can an MP conclude such a sweeping statement that our old local cleaners are lazy by hearing just from one family’s complaint. The family must be the Lee family. I stand here to contradict him that when I saw those old Ah Pehs and Ah Mahs scurried around in the food courts for hours cleaning up the tables, my tears just wanted to flow out  from my eyes. How on earth can anyone label them as lazy.

2. How can our old local cleaners be lazy when they continue to work hard jobs at old age. My friend’s retired parents from China were really surprised to see so many old Singaporeans  in their 70’s and 80’s still working as cleaners and toilet attendants. My friend’s parents are only in their late 50’s. They said that in Asia, especially for the chinese culture, it is really inhumane for a family to let their elderly parents continue working at such old age. They added that young Singaporeans must be very unfilial.

3. These old workers may be slow but definitely not lazy. Slow they must because they are old. Ong Ah Heng must be expecting that all Singaporeans must work like a slave, even at their old age. Mind you, Ong Ah Heng, not many old people can command million dollars salary a year by just using his mouth to work as forecaster.

I think Ong Ah Heng should publicly apologize for snubbing our local old workers.

CHE

Next Page »