Here is a letter from Braema Mathi, president of Maruah, to The Independent Singapore.
Maruah is deeply concerned at the closure of Breakfast Network’s website as a result of their decision not to submit the registration forms required by the Media Development Authority (MDA).
MDA had, in a statement to The Independent published on Dec 4 2013, responded to Maruah’s earlier statement about MDA’s move to require Breakfast Network and The Independent to register, as well as the pending contempt of court charge against Mr Alex Au. In that response, MDA stated that foreign entities may not be allowed to control local media platforms; registration does not “seek to affect what The Independent and Breakfast Network can publish on their site”, similar to how MARUAH — who have also registered with MDA as a political website — has been able to freely comment on issues and policies; and registration does not prevent the two sites from receiving “bona fide commercial revenue, foreign advertisers included” and does not require the two sites to “provide detailed information of their subscriber base”.
The closure of Breakfast Network’s website demonstrates that regardless of MDA’s stated intent, the registration requirement has chilled and reduced the space for free expression in Singapore. As a regulator tasked with developing the media landscape in Singapore, MDA should consider the substantive impact of its decisions, not just its own subjective intent. Registration requirements can operate to censor free expression as effectively as, and more insidiously than, outright demands to remove content.
The forms published by Breakfast Network also show that MDA has asked them, if not The Independent, to identify every person who has provided funding to them, as well as every subscriber and advertiser who contributes 5 per cent or more of their subscription or advertising revenue. As we stated previously, these requirements, in particular the former, are overly intrusive and go far beyond what is necessary to satisfy the stated objective of preventing foreign influence over the media. Even the Political Donations Act, under which Maruah has been gazetted as a political association and which also regulates political parties, does not require every person who has provided funding to be specifically identified.
Finally, MDA’s statement raises questions about its inconsistent application of policy on foreign entities in local media, given that Yahoo! Singapore, which is individually licensed by MDA, is a US-owned operation.
We again call on MDA to reverse its actions against Breakfast Network and The Independent. A thriving online media environment benefits Singapore and Singaporeans, and those actions are clearly regressive moves.
MDA's Move Overly Intrusive, says Maruah
Wish our people can speak like this
The first thing they tell you on the Foreign Office media training course is that there is no such thing as off the record. This is definitely true, especially in India. But at least Indian journalists do us the courtesy, when they write about something which was meant to be off the record, of telling their readers that it was off the record. It’s important that your readers understand what they are and are not supposed to know.
The second thing they tell you is to always put the media bus in the middle of the Prime Minister’s convoy, because if the media get left behind they get mad and they write even worse stories about you than usual. I hope you won’t get mad with us today. If there is anything wrong with the food or drink, please complain to Marcus.
And the third thing they tell you on the Foreign Office media course is to always be friendly to journalists, because they have a tough life and most people dislike journalists almost as much as they dislike diplomats. So I am delighted to be able to welcome you fellow sufferers – Indian, British and international media – to my Residence for our annual media lunch.
People think that being a diplomat is glamorous, and that being a journalist is glamorous too. Wrong, as we all know. The British writer G.K. Chesterton knew that too. He observed: “Journalism largely consists in saying “Lord Jones is dead” to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive.”
Nor, I fear, are you in the media any more popular with commentators than those of us in diplomacy. Indeed when I was preparing for this speech I was surprised – and a bit shocked – to find that most sayings about your craft are not complimentary.
Oscar Wilde thought that journalism was a good thing, but only because: “By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.”
Norman Mailer was even more brutal: “If a person is not talented enough to be a novelist, not smart enough to be a lawyer, and his hands are too shaky to perform operations, he becomes a journalist. “
Humbert Wolfe, the early 20th c British writer, is remembered today primarily for producing this little verse:
“You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God!/The British journalist/But seeing what the man will do/unbribed, there’s no occasion to”. We even find this deplorable view of the media in one of the UK’s greatest cultural exports, Yes Minister – which you Indians and we Brits both know is not in fact a comedy but a documentary.
In one scene Sir Humphrey, the devious Permanent Secretary, is instructing the Minister’s young private secretary Bernard on procedure. Sir Humphrey says: “Bernard, always remember that as a matter of principle, Ministers should never know more than they need to know. “Why is that?” asks the innocent Bernard. “Well”, says Sir Humphrey, “Ministers are like secret agents. They might be captured and tortured”. ‘By terrorists?’ asks Bernard. “No”, says Sir Humphrey, ‘By the BBC.”
And Karl Kraus, the Austrian writer, went so far as to offer this definition of a journalist: “a person without any ideas but with a great ability to express them”. He added a second definition later: “a writer whose skill is improved by a deadline: the more time he has, the worse he writes”.
I don’t buy this. I like and respect most journalists. And though the relationship between us diplomats and you media folk is occasionally adversarial, we actually have a lot in common. We are both interested in the truth. We are both trained not to believe everything we hear. We both want – perhaps even without admitting it – to make the world a better place.
But there is one area I have noticed where you media types and we diplomats do have a different approach. And that is in how we say things. As a general and wholly unfair rule, the broadcast media and print journalism tend to simplify and overstate things, while diplomats tend to complicate and understate them.
The Brits are naturally understated anyway, and when you combine being British with the natural understatement of diplomats, you get a kind of understatement squared. In fact in the British diplomatic service we are actually trained to understate things. I was told on my very first day in the Foreign Office, well over 30 years ago now, that in expressing yourself you should never shout, you should never be emotional, and above all you should always be understated in what you said. They gave us an example to illustrate this principle.
If you were the British Ambassador in Moscow (this was during the Cold War) and you were called into the Kremlin to be told that Russia had just launched nuclear missiles at Britain, then what you should do was this. You should draw yourself up to your full height and say: “This is a matter to which Her Majesty’s Government cannot remain indifferent.”
So, ladies and gentlemen, without shouting, emotion or overstatement, I just want to say how pleased we are to have you all here with us, how much we have enjoyed working with you over the last year, and to wish all of you a happy and successful 2014.
Don’t simply blame the booze
By Augustine Low
The booze did it, as far as the government is concerned. From day one, it has singled out alcohol as the likely cause, while asking Singaporeans to stop speculating why the Little India riot took place.
In the immediate aftermath, Lui Tuck Yew, MP for the area, said “it was quite evident in smelling the environment” that alcohol contributed to the riot. Since then, others including PM Lee Hsien Loong have joined in the chorus of government voices in pointing to alcohol as the culprit.
For the government, alcohol is the factor with least repercussions – just clamp down on the sale and problem solved! The authorities are already giving themselves a pat on the back because the weekend alcohol ban resulted in calm and serenity.
It may be expedient for the government (and some Singaporeans) to blame alcohol, but that’s naïve and foolhardy.
I live a five-minute walk from the scene of the riot so I know the territory. I am not a teetotaller so I know the watering holes. For years, I have also been fascinated by the culture of drink – in my possession are books which exquisitely document the psyche, the joys, the sorrows of the drinking habit. They include Pete Hamill’s A Drinking Life, a poignant portrayal of one man’s struggles and eventual success, and Caroline Knapp’s Drinking: A Love Story, about how alcohol became a shield against the difficult realities of life and the heartbreak it gave her.
I am 100 per cent convinced that alcohol per se does not cause people to riot. It has never been documented anywhere in the world. Let’s take the football hooligans in Europe who go on rampages – they already have the motive to inflict harm and damage, and if they drink, alcohol becomes the conduit, not the cause of their errant behaviour.
People drink for different reasons, out of sheer force of habit or to celebrate and commiserate. It could be that for the migrant workers, drinking becomes a coping mechanism, a shield against whatever is ailing them – such as homesickness, overwork, frustration, unhappiness, even resentment.
So even if alcohol is a factor, there are possible underlying causes and it is simplistic to divorce the two – i.e. to say it’s one or the other, because it could be a combination of alcohol along with festering resentment, and social concerns and struggles.
The government is right in saying let’s not speculate, so it is premature for it to bring up data and surveys and conversations to show that the migrant workers had no reason to riot, and they were likely undone by alcohol.
It is also damning to think that the majority of migrant workers descend on Little India every weekend to drink. The majority go there for reasons other than drinking. On my regular jaunts, I am as likely to encounter Indian tourists, white collar Indian workers and Singaporeans of all walks of life who enjoy a tipple with their fish head curry, tandoori chicken or mutton masala.
It is also racial stereotyping to imply that Indian migrant workers are more prone to be drunk and disorderly. The Thais have been drinking copious amounts in Golden Mile and at HDB void decks in Beach Road for as long as they have been working in Singapore. Chinese nationals have their drink enclaves in Geylang and Chinatown. And to catch an eye-popping sight of Singaporeans (mostly Chinese) drinking in droves, you only have to pay a visit to the sprawling Smith Street hawker centre (Red and Yellow zones) any night of the week, where over 20 beer promoters peddle any brand imaginable.
The Committee of Inquiry has been formed. I hope the members apply empathy, sensitivity and street smartness – not mere textbook knowhow. If factors like alcohol, mob mentality and social struggles are to be probed, they need to put themselves in the shoes of the migrant workers, they need to seek out the silent cries and sieve out the untold stories – not jump to conclusion as some of our politicians are wont to do.
MDA astounded by Cherian's comment
On 10 December, Dr Cherian George wrote an article titled ‘Online freedom: time to revise the Singapore report card’. Published on his website Freedom from the Press, Dr George argued that the recent closure of online news website Breakfast Network marked an end to 17 years of “light touch” regulation. He said: “Blogs could be punished if what they published broke the law – but they were never expected to persuade regulators that they deserved the right to publish before they were allowed to do so.”
George added: “Through the government’s clumsy handling of one site that didn’t even pose a serious threat, Singapore has now stumbled into the company of authoritarian regimes that are prepared to outlaw politically inconvenient blogs. What the latest move portends for internet freedom in Singapore is still unclear.”
Four days later, the Media Development Authority replied. “You characterise the registration process as an exercise for the Breakfast Network to “persuade regulators they deserve the right to publish before they are allowed to do so”. This is an “astounding” description, it said. The registration merely requires the provision of names of persons involved in the provision, management and/or operation of the Breakfast Network, and an undertaking by them not to receive foreign funding.”
The MDA also addressed allegations that the registration process was “unnecessarily onerous”. “The Breakfast Network shut down because its editor and owner chose not to register, as required by MDA. Ms [Bertha] Henson claimed the requirements were onerous, citing the need to register volunteer contributors to her site. MDA issued a statement on 13 Dec 2013, refuting her claim. At no point was Ms Henson told that contributors needed to also register. She was only told that editors, including pro bono editors, had to register.”
Current regulations require the naming of people involved in the “provision, management and/or operation” of a website, and an undertaking to avoid receiving foreign funding.
The full article and MDA’s response can be found here.
Questions COI should ask
By Mary Lee
It doesn’t take much to turn a disorderly group into a raging mob. Ask any driver who’s had to go down Race Course Road on a Sunday evening and you’ll hear that it is as packed as Chinatown’s sidestreets before every Chinese New Year. Except that most of Chinatown’s sidestreets are closed to traffic and filled with stalls. On a Sunday evening, you can only inch along Race Course Road and its sidestreets if you are driving. It’s only a two-lane road, after all.
So all it took was the sight (and sound) of a fellow Indian national being run over by a presumably slow-moving 40-seater bus to anger the drunk and disorderly who witnessed the accident. It would have been a fracas if the angry group had merely thrown bottles at the bus lady and bus driver who got off the bus to see what the vehicle had hit. The spark was lit and the explosion — that’s been waiting to happen every Sunday evening — followed.
Now that a Commissioned of Inquiry (COI) is to be convened, here are some basic questions it should ask:
1) Of the 400 people said to have taken part in the riot: Who are they? How long have they worked in Singapore? Who do they work for? How many are unemployed? Where do they live?
2) Are they unhappy with their working conditions/ employers? What complaints do they have about working conditions/employers?
3) Why did they overturn cars and generally go “crazy”?
4) What’s the relationship between the private bus personnel and their passengers?
The Home Minister announced the composition of a four-member COI and its scope last week. From what Teo Chee Hean said, I find it problem-ridden. The chairman, Justice P Selvam, is highly respected. But what about the two men who are linked to the government in some way.
Where’s the independence? Why is a former chief of police necessary? The police are conducting their own investigations, as Minister Teo has referred to a number of times in his announcement. So every other question that should be asked of witnesses will probably get the ex-cop on the COI saying: “Oh, the police will deal with that.” So Singapore won’t get to hear simple questions asked and answered.
Minister Teo also said that he appointed committee members who are experienced with the law (you don’t need a judge!), understand security requirements (why can’t cops be questioned as witnesses? Why does an ex-police chief have to be in the COI?), and are familiar with workers’ issues and with managing relations between the community and workers (government-linked men? Oh dear).
He said this is to allow the committee to study the issue thoroughly, come to a fair and objective assessment, and make its recommendations.
Most disappointing, however, was his reply to the question whether the COI will look into the general grievances of foreign workers. The Minister said the committee is empowered to look into the factors which had led to the riot. As for larger issues, he said the government already has an inter-ministerial committee which looks at foreign worker welfare issues. Honestly, Minister, Singapore doesn’t treat foreign workers with the sort of respect they deserve.
Also, will the workers be represented by lawyers who can ask police officers, dormitory landlords, employers and transport companies questions? How else will we arrive at a report that goes beyond finding how a group of disorderly Indian workers got so out of hand?
Singapore snapshot: A glimpse into Yung Kuang flats
By Elias Tan
Stepping into Yung Kuang Residence is like stepping into a ghetto.
The group of four diamond-shaped blocks of HDB flats along Yung Kuang Road in Taman Jurong offers a glimpse into the lives of the city state’s poor. The minute you set foot onto the compound, you are greeted by the stench of waste. Bird droppings can be seen almost everywhere. Clothes are strewn all over the compound. Garbage chutes are left uncleared. People sit around the compound’s quadrangle square, staring straight into the open sky. During rainy days, rainwater pours in from all directions.
Once a pinnacle of urban architecture in Western Singapore, the diamond-shaped block of flats pales in comparison to its cleaner neighbours. It is now occupied by foreigners and low-income Singaporean families under the HDB’s Interim Rental Housing scheme.
The first two blocks, 63 and 64, are used to house low-income Singaporean families who are either waiting for their Built-to-Order flats to be ready, or have no place to stay. And rental does not come cheap; families pay S$300 each a month.
At least three Singaporean families are squeezed into a two-bedroom apartment that measures 678 square metres, while some units house more than five families.
The remaining blocks, blocks 65 and 66, are rented out to foreign workers between S$1,600 and S$1,800 per unit per month.
Surprisingly, some white-collar foreigners holding ‘S’ and ‘EP’ passes who are working in the vicinity choose to call the Yung Kuang flats home.
That is the plight of Singapore’s poor – they live in cramped state-owned rental apartments that are also inhabited by foreign workers, and it seems that they have long been forgotten, in part because affordable housing means having a roof over their heads.
And with more than 80 per cent of the population living in HDB flats, it seems like everyone is pretty well to do. But if you were to look beyond the brick and cement walls, you will find poor people.
A Malay Singaporean resident told The Independent Singapore that her family have been living in Yung Kuang for the past five months and do not mind the squalid living conditions. “What can we do? We have no choice,” said the 50-year-old housewife and mother of five whose husband works as a welder in a nearby factory.
For Singapore’s poor, having a roof over their heads is a priority. Without a place to stay, they cannot move on in life.
But having a house to live in does not mean they are free from trouble. The same resident also worries about safety issues, saying that she worries a lot for her daughter who frequently returns home late from school. “There’s a lot of people workers loitering around the compound. Some sit around the stairwell chit-chatting on their phones. I’m frightened that she might get molested or robbed.”
According to a representative from LHN Group, the leasing agent appointed by HDB to manage and look after the four blocks of flats, there are about over 210 low-income Singaporean families living among some 150 foreigners at Yung Kuang.
“We rent these units only to ‘S’ pass holders, Singaporean PRs and Singaporeans.”
When asked how often cleaning is conducted in the compound, the group representative initially declined to comment before saying that the management is not responsible for cleaning.
“It’s the job of the Town Council. We don’t provide cleaning services. We go door-to-door to repair things and mend faulty air-conditioners only when a resident calls us for help.”
What left The Independent Singapore team aghast was the A4-sized flyer their representative handed to us, which portrayed Yung Kuang as a cosy and liveable area. What we saw was something very different.
Little India riot: A case of self denial
By Tan Bah Bah
News of the riot in Little India on Dec 8 first reached me when someone flashed me what looked like headlines, with pictures and a video. That was how quick the social media picked up the action. The event did not “break” on mainstream media, as far as I know. Once again, the power of alternative media was on awesome display, just as it was in the 2011 and 2012 elections – General Elections, Presidential Elections and Punggol East by-election.
Far from causing confusion and panic, the relaying of on the ground information to the general population who could be reached was helpful.
People did not have to rely on rumours and controlled news. They were sophisticated enough to see through distortions and concoctions. More remarkably, the major portion of the social media acted with restraint.
They knew what was at stake if they stoked the fire. Should they have tried, for whatever stupid reasons, they would have lost all credibility anyway with readers or viewers.
The role played by the social media would already have made the Sunday =riot very different from those which took place in the 1950s and 1960s. =We shall talk about only four of them.
The Hock Lee bus strike began peacefully on April 23 1955 but escalated into a violent riot on May 12 in which four people were killed and 31 injured. At issue was a battle over who had the right to represent the bus workers – a trade union sanctioned by the bus company management or a rival pro-communist union.
During the strike, large numbers of dismissed bus workers (belonging to the pro-communist union) locked themselves in the Hock Lee garages at Alexandra Road and picketed at the gates. On May 10, the pickets rioted when they were forcibly removed by the police. On May 12, they were joined by several lorry loads of Chinese school students and the violence that followed led to the death of two police officers, a journalist and a student.
Chinese middle school students continued to play a part in subsequent =riots in what was essentially a struggle for power between more moderate =political forces, including the Lee Kuan Yew team in the PAP leadership, =and the leftist faction of the PAP.
The 1964 and 1969 racial riots were the third and fourth sets of serious riots in recent history which saw the loss of lives. Both were a spillover from the racial tension and riots between the Malays and the Chinese north of the Causeway. In the 1964 riots, 23 people were killed and 454 injured. In 1969, four were killed and 80 wounded.
Unlike these previous riots, which we could attribute to the troubled post-independence settling down phase, Sunday’s riot was not unavoidable.
It was coming. All the ingredients have been there every weekend waiting for an incident to happen. Busy sales of alcohol, thousands of people squeezed in one tight area, traffic congestion (cars and coaches practically honking and fighting for space with a sea of pedestrians), and so on. And we are not talking about tourists out to have a good time, all fresh from their four-star or five-star hotels descending down onto an ethnic enclave to savour the sights and sounds of the enchanting locals.
These tired workers have been ferried from their non-luxury dormitories, where sometimes eight workers are placed in one room, all the way to Buffalo Road to let their hair down. They are in a good mood insofar as venting their frustrations could make them forget their problems in a tough life an Indian Ocean away from their homes.
The question is: How did our efficient police ignore what has been taking place in Little India?
Anybody on the ground would have told you of the proliferation of liquor stores in Little India. For example, out of 23 shops in Chander Road alone, seven sell liquor.
And has there been accurate ground feedback on what some say were reports of rowdy behaviour?
The whole idea of allowing thousands of foreign workers to congregate in one cheek-to-jowl spot – in Little India and overall on this small island – is untenable in the first place. I think most Singaporeans do not wish to pay the price of a lower quality of life and potential unending social tension.
The Little India riot is NOT an isolated incident. It is a symptom of a false hope that everything is alright if you just continue to be in self-denial.
This is not being xenophobic or racist. It is a cry to stop turning what was once an exhilarating dream – of a great city – into a nightmare.
After all, no one else could be more racist than PAP MP, Choo Wee Khiang, who said this in Parliament in 1992: “One evening, I drove to Little India and it was pitch dark but not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around.”
Debts, high borrowing leads to lending curbs
With both public and household debts on a high, concerns are expressed if it’s sustainable
AFTER Standard Chartered published its report in July noting that Singapore households had borrowings worth 151% of their annual income in 2012, making them among the most indebted in Asia, the bank warned that as interest rates rise, debt servicing may become difficult for home owners.
Housing
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) responded quickly, assuring that the local banking system was sound, while cautioning “about 5% to 10% of borrowers have a monthly debt servicing burden greater than 60% of their monthly income. It is reasonable to consider them as over-leveraged”.
Thus to mitigate risk on housing loans [housing loans make up more than 70% of household debt], MAS decided to apply the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) framework to the granting and re-financing of property-related loans for a start. “A large property-related loan can lead to serious over-borrowing, and applying the TDSR will mitigate that risk,” noted the authority’s spokesperson.
Credit card
The credit card default rate in Singapore is below 0.2% across all age groups. To ensure that it remains like this, MAS has imposed a minimum income eligibility criteria for the issue of credit cards. Individuals who are 55 years old and below must have an annual income of at least $30,000 before they can qualify for credit cards; those above 55 years of age must have an annual income of at least $15,000. In addition, MAS has a limit of up to four months’ income on the total amount of unsecured credit that can be extended to any credit card-holder.
Furthermore, the latest measures implemented on September 11 include the introduction of an industry-wide aggregate cap on individuals’ unsecured borrowings. “With this cap, financial institutions will not be allowed to grant further credit to individuals whose aggregate unsecured borrowings across all financial institutions exceed 12 months of their income for 90 days or more. This cap is designed to discourage individuals from prolonged reliance on credit cards and unsecured credit,” said the MAS.
Additionally, financial institutions will not be allowed to grant further credit to individuals whose debts with a financial institution are more than 60 days past due.
“Ultimately, while MAS has rules in place to help Singaporeans avoid accumulating excessive debt, Singaporeans have to take personal responsibility for their finances. They have to exercise prudence when deciding whether to sign up for a credit card, understand their ability to repay the debt incurred when they use the card and ensure that they do not incur excessive debt,” said Tharman recently.
“Local banks are sound”
In reply to a parliamentary question on the most recent stress test conducted for banks in Singapore, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, deputy Prime Minister and in-charge of MAS said, “Earlier this year, MAS completed a stress test exercise based on end-2012 data. The results showed that the banking system as a whole remained sound, and able to withstand adverse scenarios. The local banks in particular would be able to maintain adequate financial buffers above MAS’ regulatory requirements under the prescribed stress scenarios.”
“Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s (S&P) reached similar conclusions. Moody’s found that the three local banks have enough capital to withstand even the severe stress test scenarios the agency considered. Moody’s continues to assign the local banks the highest average credit ratings (Aa1) amongst banking systems globally, but has placed this rating on a ‘negative’ outlook, i.e. to indicate the possibility of a downgrade, especially if loan defaults were to rise when interest rates go up. S&P recently affirmed the local banks strong AA- ratings and a ‘stable’ outlook, based on their strong financial profiles and prudent management strategies.”
Public debt – 111.4% of GDP
According to US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) public debt factbook, Singapore’s ranks 11th in the world with its public debt 111.40% of GDP, according to 2012 estimates. The factbook adds, “For Singapore, public debt consists largely of Singapore Government Securities (SGS) issued to assist the Central Provident Fund (CPF), which administers Singapore’s defined contribution pension fund; special issues of SGS (SSGS) are held by the CPF, and are non-tradable; the government has not borrowed to finance deficit expenditures since the 1980s.”
This anomaly is because of Singapore’s unique system, where the government doesn’t borrow to fund its budget [prevented by the constitution as well as the Government Securities Act]. To add to it, the government is required to run a balanced budget over its every five-year-term. Government debt issuances are therefore invested and not spent on the budget.
The government explains it further, “Singapore has no net debt. Its large gross debt position is due to the issuance of government securities. However, the government’s assets substantially exceed these debts. This can be seen from the fact that the government has significant net investment returns that can be spent on the budget each year. Under the constitution, the government is able to spend from the net investment returns only if it enjoys a positive net asset position. In other words, if the government’s assets fall short of its liabilities, there can be no contribution from the investment returns on reserves in the government budget. After deducting all the government’s liabilities (including CPF monies), the remaining net assets produce significant returns. The net investment returns contribution (NIRC) is about $7 billion; it should be further noted that the NIRC only comprises up to 50% of the returns earned on the reserves.”
As on December 2011, total outstanding government borrowing stood at S$354 billion. Of this, SGS stock is valued at S$79 billion, the stock of Treasury-Bills is valued at S$59 billion and SSGS stock is valued at S$216 billion.
Courtesy: Accountant-General’s Department
http://newzzit.com/stories/debts-high-borrowing-leads-to-lending-curbs
Two leaders who shaped their respective countries have very different legacies
SHE is called “Mother Suu” and he was till recently the “Minister Mentor”. She is the living icon of non-violent struggle for democracy against the military tyranny in Myanmar, and he, acknowledged even by his most ardent critics, has made Singapore one of 20th century’s most famous economic success stories. She, Aung San Suu Kyi – the leader of Myanmar’s opposition, was in Singapore last month for her first-ever visit here, and he, Lee Kuan Yew – the former Prime Minister of Singapore, celebrated his 90th birthday on September 16.
Early years
Both, Suu Kyi and Lee, went to UK for studies and returned home to form their respective political parties. While Lee co-founded the People’s Action Party in 1954, Suu Kyi on returning home in 1988, established the National League for Democracy (NLD) the same year.
But the similarities end here.
While Lee was at the helm of Singapore’s government for almost three decades, between 1959 and 1990, Suu Kyi would go on to spent almost 15 years, between 1989 and 2010, under house arrest. She also wins the Nobel Peace Prize “for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights” in 1991.
Differences
While none can deny Lee’s contribution in Singapore’s economic growth – no. 1 in investment potential, world’s easiest place to do business, second most competitive city, most stable business environment in Asia-Pacific; one work that remains unfinished by his own admission is the falling fertility rates of Singapore. “I cannot solve the problem, and I have given up. I have given the job to another generation of leaders. Hopefully, they or their successors will eventually find a way out,” Lee candidly admits in his just-released book, One man’s view of the world. [For a detailed story on Singapore’s fertility history, please click here]
Other common criticisms of Lee, as noted by The Economist newspaper, in its Banyan Asia column, What’s the big idea, include the provisions of Internal Security Act and defamation lawsuits.
In contrast, for 68-year-old Suu Kyi, the journey has probably just begun with next milestone being Myanmar’s general election scheduled in 2015, which she has repeatedly demanded should be “free and fair”, making Myanmar “a real democracy”.
Interestingly, she has already indicated her desire for Myanmar taking a very different path from that taken by Lee when he shaped Singapore. During her visit, she spoke on how Myanmar and Singapore can learn something from each-other.
“I would like to say that I have in the last year been to many affluent societies, but I still think that we have something to offer that the richer countries don’t have. We still have spiritual values. We still have a certain spirit of generosity, of believing in the possibility of human beings to rise above themselves that we can offer to the world. So even now, although we have not made the transition to a genuine democratic society, I am confident that we have something to offer to the world and of course the rest of the world also has much to offer to us. So let it be a mutual give and take. It is not that we are a poor nation asking for help and assistance, which we need. But we are also a nation, rich in certain values that we would like to share with the rest of the world,” she said in her speech at the Singapore Summit on September 21.
credit: newzzit
Will Insurance Cover the Extensive Damage from the Little India Riots?
It was a night to remember. It was a night to forget. Regardless of whatever the cause or reason, the riot at Little India was something no decent human being would have wished for. We are deeply thankful for the brave men and women who, in one way or another, stopped the situation from becoming worse than it was.
Even though the riot was quelled in a relatively short time, the extent of the damage was significant. Cars parked by the side of the road as “innocent bystanders” were damaged, as were some of the outer parts of some shops. Here are some lessons we learnt about insurance in the aftermath of this event:
1. Car Insurance Does Not Cover Riots
While car insurance in Singapore is mandatory, most basic insurance packages don’t cover events such as riots. In fact, even if you have a comprehensive car insurance policy, it may not cover damage caused by civil disobedience or rioting. Instead, this kind of coverage is often classified as an optional benefit under “Damage arising from riot, strike and civil commotion,” requiring a little extra on your premium.
Who This May Be Useful For
In the case of the Little India riots, the incident happened on a narrow two-way street that’s often congested with foot and vehicle traffic. As such, when the incident broke out, collateral damage to the surrounding buildings and vehicles was bound to happen.
Nobody wishes for or expects these things to happen, but this incident proved that riots can happen even in a “safe” place like Singapore – making riot coverage a real necessity. However, there are other instances (not requiring rioting) where this coverage may be necessary.
For example, let’s say you like leaving your car in areas such as Boat Quay (we’re old school that way) late at night while you go out to enjoy your evening. Areas such as Boat Quay prime locations for drunkards start fights, and your car might suffer some “collateral damage” as a result.
If you leave your car in places where large groups of people tend to get drunk and rowdy, you should think about getting additional coverage for your car. And if your insurance is up for renewal and you’re totally confused about car insurance, you can compare competitive quotes at SmartInsurance.sg.
2. Fire Insurance Does Cover Riots
Basic fire insurance policies on the other hand do cover damage caused when “peaceful” protest turn sour and degenerate into rioting or strikes. Of course, this coverage only protects the structure of your home, not the contents within it. But many people wrongly assume that their basic fire coverage protects everything within their home – and that’s a mistake that can be VERY costly.
To understand the difference between fire insurance and home contents insurance, we suggest you check out our previous article. You can also find out more about your Fire Insurance options here.
3. Personal Accident Insurance is Quite Important
While the riots were contained in a relatively constricted area along Race Course Road, there were many other civilians, both workers and Singaporeans, around the area. With things being thrown around, you could never tell what was going to come flying at you.
This is where Personal Accident Insurance comes in to play. For a full rundown on the coverage and benefits, you can check out our article explaining everything. This is perhaps the equivalent of what we mentioned in Point 1, but for human beings rather than cars, and if you happen to have to frequent areas where people tend to be a bit rowdier, or your job presents some form of physical hazard in one way or another, this would be good. Stay tuned with us on Facebook as we bring you some interesting cases of Personal Accident claims you have never heard of before!
A Final Note
On a more light hearted note, there was one other financial lesson we learnt from the riots: Invest in a good camera phone. Perhaps blogger Mr Brown sums it up best with his Facebook Post:
While people were quick to chastise all foreign workers with silly xenophobic and racist remarks online when the incident first sparked, some were equally scathing in their criticism of the mainstream media news coverage (or lack thereof). News sites were directing people to individually-owned Youtube channels for coverage of the incident. With a good camera phone, who knows? You could be the next big news reporter. Just stay away from Stomp.
Who This May Be Useful For
Kaypohs (busybodies).
What are your thoughts on the incident? Were there any other financial lessons learnt? We’d love to hear your thoughts here.
Image Credits:
EPA, Mr Brown’s Facebook Page
Source: http://www.moneysmart.sg/insurance/will-insurance-cover-the-extensive-damage-from-the-little-india-riots/