Monday, May 12, 2025
31.1 C
Singapore
type here...
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 5199

Gay debate: Who should take the lead?

The Independent
-
0
Gay debate: Who should take the lead?
It is time we talk more about our approach towards homosexuality. MP Hri Kumar Nair said that instead of looking to the government, “it is for the society to set the direction” on this matter.

“The furore over Health Promotion Board’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) raises the issue of the Government sending mixed messages to the public,” he wrote on a Facebook note on Friday.

“Taking one side, whatever the reason will alienate the other. That is why you have not heard a peep from the Workers’ Party MPs on this issue,” he said.

But, he said, taking sides would not solve the issue.

“The battle will not be resolved by the attacks that are usually associated with this issue – one side calling the other “evil, paedophiles and deviants”, and the other responding with comments like “ignorant, religious bigots”.

Hri Kumar remained convinced that neither side will bend to the will of the other.

“Let us not forget the reason for the FAQs in the first place: there are people in our society who have questions concerning their sexuality and who are deeply affected by it,” he added, insisting that HPB should not retreat from its role to educate and help them.

While many among the 50 odd netizens who have commented on Hri Kumar’s note applauded him, some netizens questioned why the government should not lead in this matter .

“I read the comments by Mr Hri Kumar with much concern. I thought our government has always taken a more paternalistic role but now it is saying: ” Let our society decide”?

“Some things don’t change and they shouldn’t; for example, values. If even core values that define the way of life are ever changing, what do we as parents teach our kids?” wrote Amy How.

Another netizen, Emeritus Robox, also remained adamant that the government should be the “catalyst” on the LGBT issue.

He noted that if the government were to take the lead on the matter, it would give the LGBT community a sense of acceptance.

“We could begin – just begin – to reverse the effects of decades of deliberate exclusion, marginalisation, and demonisation that we have been subjected to. Only then can they [the LGBT community] begin to feel like they BELONG in Singapore, as it should have been all along,” he said.

Survey: Insights on race, gambling, Singlish and even Orchard Road shopping

The Independent
-
0
Survey: Insights on race, gambling, Singlish and even Orchard Road shopping

Race and religion matter to Malays more, Singlish has popular support, gambling is wrong, and English-speaking helps in Singapore 

 

Race & religion

 

race.png

The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in its insights from a survey of 4,131 Singaporean residents (most citizens) on race, religion and language, revealed in January that 51.9% Malay respondents felt that race is important to them in their overall sense of identity. The percentage for Indians and Chinese on the same question of importance of race was 28.4% and 22.8% respectively. The survey was conducted between December 2012 and April 2013.

 

religion.png

In terms of religion, the percentage rose to 70.1% for Malays, who felt religion is important to them for their overall sense of identity.

 

Language

 

english speaking.png

 

Of all the respondents, 36% believed that English-speaking people have to work “much less/less hard than others” in order to have a prosperous life in Singapore. Contrarily, percentage of respondents who believed that Malay-speaking and Tamil-speaking people have to work “harder than/much more than others” for a prosperous life was 41% and 44% respectively.

Notably, just a little over half (51.9%) of the respondents felt fine if people around them speak a language other than theirs.

 

orchard.png

A telling insights was on the question put to university-educated respondents, which was – “I am fine if a service staff does not speak to me in English in a shop on Orchard Road”. While 65.4% Malays and 66.8% Indians “strongly disagree/somewhat disagree” with the statement, 48.6% Chinese respondents “agreed/strongly agreed” with it. If this was because Indians and Malays felt that the service staff not speaking in English will invariably be speaking Mandarin, and thus showed disagreement, was not clear in the survey findings.

 

Singlish.png

 

Also, a majority of respondents across all races showed support for Singlish, the unofficial national language of the country. When asked whether “the government should do more to curb the use of Singlish in Singapore”, only 29.3% Chinese, 40.9% Malays, and 40.6% Indians agreed or strongly-agreed with the statement.

 

Gambling

 

gambling.png

A majority (69.2%) of the total respondents saw gambling as “almost always or always” wrong, indicating that the opening of two casinos in Singapore in recent years is yet to influence the local opinion in their favour.

 

Preference to minorities

 

minority preference.png

 

On the question whether “the government should give preferential/special treatment to minority groups”, the answers were much along the racial lines. Among Malays, 40.8% agreed and 25.5% disagreed. In Indians, 33.6% agreed, and 29.7% disagreed. But among the Chinese respondents, the trend was reversed. While only 23.5% Chinese agreed, 52% of the Chinese respondents didn’t feel that the government should give any preferential treatment to minority groups.

Note: All graphs in this story are courtesy IPS

Credit: Newzzit

 

PAP’s point man in Aljunied speaks up

The Independent
-
0
PAP’s point man in Aljunied speaks up

When the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis hit, many Singaporeans lost their jobs. Victor Lye was a managing director of a Spanish investment bank at that time. He only knew too well as he watched his colleagues lose their jobs due to credit lines being pulled.

Lye was concerned about the situation and reached out to his ex-colleagues in government. He started his career at the Ministry of Trade and Industry as an administrative Officer and left shortly after for the private sector.

“When I asked my ex-colleagues in government to do something for the many Singaporeans who were losing their jobs, the message was, ‘don’t look to the government, look to your friends and family, be self reliant,” Lye says.

“That did not strike a chord with me so I decided to go to the ground to help. I wrote letters for people who lost their jobs, to help them find something else they could do,” he says.

And that was the beginning of Lye’s life as a grassroots leader.

“Frankly, you need to get your hands dirty and stop talking about policies and big ideas when you have not rolled up your sleeves and gone down to the ground to help someone,” the 51-year-old gestures as he speaks.

Lye is a straight talker and hard hitter. His recent letter to The Straits Times attacking the Workers’ Party for what he said was the party’s attitude towards the shopkepers at Aljunied raised eyebrows. Previously the town council had insisted that the grassroots groups had politicied the problem in Aljunied while Lye claims that the town council has sacrificed the interests of shopkeepers for their own interests when the town council started the trade fair last year.

Lye’s sharp tongue can also be blunt when it comes to the PAP.

HERE is what Lye told The Independent about the shopkeepers:
[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=ERfwjmlHSmo”]

1. What made you write that letter to The Straits Times?

My position was that  the affected shopkeepers should approach the town council and not the grassroots organisations  because I didn’t want people with their own agenda to colour and twist the issues.

[Previously, Lye had said he met Ms Sylvia Lim of the WP to discuss the shopkeepers’ concern. He also insisted that he told the shopkeepers to approach the town council]. “Despite my good intentions, they [WP) claimed at a NUS seminar that the problem in Aljunied was due to the politicisation of the grassroots groups. What does that mean? The grassroots prevented them from functioning? I have to stand up to tell the truth.”
2. What would you do if you were running the town council?

I would have spoken to the shopkeepers and looked at myself in the mirror and said: “Wait a minute, I am the town council and I am using common property paid for by my tax payers and residents and renting them out to stall holders as a rental business.”

Why is the town council renting out common property to make money? A town council should maintain common property. They are not supposed to engage in commercial activities.

If I were running the town council, I would not do the trade fair. We don’t take a common property to tender out to the highest bidder and it is no risk to the town council. The bidder takes all the risk and that is what they call a trade fair organiser. They pay a certain amount of money to the town council and organise the itinerant stallholders and charge them for their stalls and hopefully make a profit. But the town council gets the money upfront at no risk using common properties. If I were in the town council, I wouldn’t do that.

 

3. How would you defend the grassroots link to the government? Is it time to re-examine that?

It is not for me to defend. I state it as a fact. The People’s Association is a statutory board and is part of the government. What links are we talking about?

The PA’s volunteers are representatives of the government. They are a bridge between the government and the people. We help to explain government policies, but that does not mean we agree with all its policies.

For example, I disagree with the privatization of mass public transport. It is a public good. When there is a problem with the transport system, people expect the Government to solve it. So, the Government might as well own public transport and let a corporatised entity run it efficiently.

I also believe the government need to have more compassion for Singaporeans. It has to be prepared to subsidise a bit more.

But as the grassroots officers, it is our duty to explain the government’s policies to the community. It also means we have to understand them ourselves. But let me be frank, many of our grassroots leaders are still not able to fully understand the policies. So my view is that perhaps our government needs to work harder at communication.

But let me ask you a question, if you separate the grassroots groups from the government, what do you get? Are you going to create another grassroots group outside of government? That is what you call a non-governmentl organisation. You can do that today. Why would you want to separate. After all the grassroots groups are part of  the government; why separate them from the government? That does not make sense at all.

It looks like an extra advantage for the government if you look at it from the opposition’s standpoint. But the grassroots groups are transparent. They are part of the government. Let me ask you a question. In an opposition ward, does the government still have the responsibility to look after the people? “The answer is yes. So the grassroots groups must still serve in the opposition ward. Why must they withdraw?”

 

4. Would you run in the next general election?

I believe that if you want to serve, you do not ask for a position. If it happens, it happens. But if I were not open to it, I would not be here; I have not run away. [What I am doing right now as a grassroots leader] this is what makes me who I am. I can feel that it makes me whole.

I am already doing something for the people and that is what matters. Of course, I believe I can do more. If the people were to support me, certainly.

Watching LKY grow old

The Independent
-
0
Watching LKY grow old

By Augustine Low

At 90, Lee Kuan Yew’s public appearances are understandably rare. It has become a question of will he, or won’t he attend a key event. Earlier this month, he skipped the Tanjong Pagar constituency Chinese New Year dinner but five days later, he attended the CNY party at the Istana.

The big question is whether he will attend the National Day parade in August. As Singapore’s founding father, he always receives a rousing welcome at every parade. And he has attended every single one since 1966.

Next year will be even more momentous. LKY’s presence will be the icing on the cake for Singapore’s 50th birthday celebration, and for him personally, it must mean absolutely everything.

Minister Heng Swee Keat said in a tribute speech to LKY last September that “his every waking moment is devoted to Singapore”. I believe there are few who doubt the truth of this assertion.

LKY is still a topic of discussion among friends and family, and the usual refrain is that “he has done his part for Singapore.” To see him age before our very eyes is therefore a little painful, because we see the slow but sure decline of a man who has devoted his life to Singapore. The contrast is especially stark because ever so often, we see television footage of him in his younger days – with a timbre and resonance in his voice, with clenched fist, and with an unmistakable aura of authority.

To see him age is also a blessing. He has remained relatively healthy till the age of 90 (he turns 91 on Sept 16), so he has been given the gift of old age. And that is a gift that cannot be taken for granted.

There are those who fear old age, and those who embrace it.

In the past year, one of the most beautiful lines I read was from Caroline Heilbrun, who wrote in a memoir on growing old: “Since we do not wish to die, surely we must have wished to grow old.”

Those words ring truer each time I read them.

Old age is a curse because we decline physically and mentally. But it is a blessing in more ways than we can count.

Info-graphics on Singapore’s arms imports, exports and ownership

The Independent
-
0
Info-graphics on Singapore’s arms imports, exports and ownership

After seven long years of negotiations, the United Nations in April last year overwhelmingly adopted the first ever treaty to regulate the US$70 billion global trade in conventional arms such as tanks, warships, attack helicopters, as well as small arms and light weapons (SALWs). Here, we present a few tables to demonstrate Singapore’s ranking in terms of arms ownership, imports and exports worldwide.

While US tops, SG lags far behind

– in gun ownership

table 1

Note: The above data is courtesy Small Arms Survey, whose most recent data on gun ownership is from 2007.

While Switzerland tops, SG lags far behind

– in small arms trade transparency barometer

table 2

Note: The above data is courtesy 2013 edition of the Small Arms Trade Transparency Barometer, which has a seven categories assessment: timeliness, access and consistency in reporting, clarity and comprehensiveness, and the level of detail provided on actual deliveries, licences granted, and licences refused. Major exporters are countries that export—or are believed to export—at least USD 10 million worth of small arms, light weapons, their parts, accessories, and ammunition in a given year. The 2013 Barometer includes all countries that qualified as a major exporter at least once during the 2001–11 calendar years.

While India leads, SG follows suit

– in arms import

table 3

While China leads, SG stands third

– in arms export from Asia

table 4
Note: The above data is courtesy the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Yearbook 2013. The report says “China may represent the vanguard of an increase in the significance of Asian suppliers in the international arms trade, as South Korea is an emerging arms supplier and Japan and Singapore have potential to become major suppliers”.

http://newzzit.com/stories/info-graphics-on-singapores-arms-imports-exports-and-ownership

Is Singapore’s Healthcare System Better Than Other Countries?

The Independent
-
0
Is Singapore’s Healthcare System Better Than Other Countries?
healthcarex-2

Whether you believe it or not, Singapore’s healthcare system is not only one of the best in the world statistically, but it’s also envied worldwide for its efficiency and low cost. Whoa! No need to toss rotten tomatoes at me and brandish pitchforks! It’s true!

In fact, even Forbes and Slate have reported how even the United States looks at Singapore as a healthcare model to follow.

And if you look at the infographic below (taken from Bloomberg’s Most Efficient Health Care statistics), you’ll see why other countries hold Singapore’s healthcare system in such high regard:

Should Singaporeans Complain About Healthcare?

Why then do people complain so much about the healthcare system? Simple – people feel the government is being too stingy efficient with healthcare spending. At only 4.4% of GDP, you’ll find no argument there.

But on the other hand, the government subsidizes up to 80% of your healthcare expenses and forces you to save for future health-related expenses through your CPF (Medisave) – limiting your out-of-pocket expenses.

So who’s right?

Well… that might not matter much in the coming decades, because regardless of your opinion, costs will skyrocket for everyone involved. All you have to do is look at the infographic’s last statistic – the rapid ageing of Singapore’s population.

Once Singapore starts going “grey,” citizens will need to pay higher taxes and Medishield contributions to cover increasing medical costs while the government will have no choice but to up its GDP spending to meet the growing demand for healthcare services.

Only time will tell if Singapore can hold onto its status as one of the world’s most efficient healthcare systems. Stay tuned with us on Facebook as we keep you up to date on developments in Singapore’s healthcare system.

What do you think about these healthcare statistics? Do they change your mind about Singapore’s healthcare system? Share your comments here!

Image Credits:
Fotos GOVBA

Homelessness: 404 families and 565 individuals supported in the last three years

The Independent
-
0
Homelessness: 404 families and 565 individuals supported in the last three years

Singapore’s ministry of social and family development (MSF) acknowledged providing shelter to the needy in the recent sitting of the country’s Parliament

Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing in an oral reply to a question by member of Parliament for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap recently informed the Parliament, “Between 2011 to 2013, MSF provided support and shelter to 565 individuals and 404 families. About 80% are of low-income and have weak social support.”

“Three out of four were previous flat owners who had sold their flats for a variety of reasons, such as settling financial or debt problems, divorces, cashing out to make a profit, etc. After the sale of their flats, they find themselves not being able to afford to buy or rent another flat. Another one-quarter had fallen out their families and friends whom they were living with, due to reasons such as strained relationships, anti-social behaviour or addiction-related problems.”

Enumerating the assistance his government gives to these individuals and families in exploring “sustainable housing options”, the minister added, “Sometimes, social workers help them to reunite and stay with their family members. For those with no options, the Housing Development Board (HDB) will assist them with rental flats under the Public Rental Scheme. For those who need temporary rental accommodation while they wait for or work out their longer-term housing option, HDB may refer them to interim rental housing.”

Additionally, the government also provides financial assistance and social support to enable the families to regain their independence, Chan said. Importantly, “efforts are taken to ensure the children continue to attend school and that the safety, welfare and interests of vulnerable family members are taken care of”.

Finally, the minister emphasised on the role of cooperation and positive action by such families, and concluded, “Homelessness is a complex problem. We want to provide help to families facing housing issues. But there will be little progress if families are unwilling to work with government officials and social workers to resolve their problems.”

Credit: Newzzit

How TOTAL is Total Defence?

The Independent
-
0
How TOTAL is Total Defence?

by Michael Y.P. Ang

The Government appears to be using the word “inclusiveness” often in recent years. We are repeatedly urged to accept immigrants, hire workers regardless of birthplace or age and embrace naturalised athletes as our own.

Why is it then that when it comes to the one thing that helps to maintain the existence of Singapore as an independent nation – defence – the Government bends over backwards to exclude certain Singaporeans based on birthplace and age, making those who are naturalised during adulthood exempt from national service, even if they are not above the NS age (below 40).

If the Government wants us to embrace naturalised citizens, why are some excluded from crucial roles in national defence? And why are we building a non-inclusive society through two-tier citizenship?

Exempting adult naturalised citizens from NS appears to also contradict the Government’s national defence strategy, outlined in the Five Pillars of Total Defence.

Pillar 1 (Military Defence) proclaims: “To defend ourselves when attacked or, more importantly, to deter foreign intervention and prevent ourselves from being attacked”.

If we are serious about defence and embracing social inclusiveness, why are some citizens excluded from such a vital duty even when they meet the physical and age requirements?

Pillar 2 (Civil Defence) states that “During times of crisis or disaster, resources will be strained and we will need everyone to pitch in”.

What has happened to the concept of needing “everyone to pitch in”? For those unsuitable for military service, could they not be posted to the Singapore Civil Defence Force?

Pillar 3 (Economic Defence) calls on Singaporeans to “play a part by retraining and upgrading” to “remain employable as the economy changes and old jobs give way to new ones”.

Adult naturalised citizens do play a part in this, but doesn’t every other working person (male or female, young or old) in Singapore do the same to the best of his or her abilities?

Pillar 4 (Social Defence) reads: “We befriend, accept and help people of different ethnicities. We show consideration for one another, respecting and being sensitive to the needs and religious and cultural practices of others”.

Although integration of naturalised citizens is not the purpose of NS, is there a better way of promoting integration while meeting our national defence needs at the same time?

Is there another regular activity that allows new Singaporeans to engage their fellow Singaporeans of various ethnicities, religions, social statuses (white-collar or blue-collar workers, managers or non-managers), and income levels as equals?

We are asked to invite new citizens to our social gatherings, but isn’t it silly that because of their presence, we need to make it a point to refrain from reminiscing about our NS experiences so as not to make them feel socially excluded?

Pillar 5 (Psychological Defence) says, “While being prepared is the key to Total Defence, it is always the fighting spirit… that determines whether or not our nation will overcome a crisis.”

By excluding new adult citizens from being trained and prepared, we are essentially prohibiting them access to “the key to Total Defence”. Will this not dampen their fighting spirit?

Yes, imposing a two-year NS stint on adult naturalised citizens is impractical, but why not a modified form of NS where individuals learn basic combat or civil defence skills over a number of weekends, so they can play a meaningful role in defence if and when the need arises?

It is meaningless for the Government to exhort inclusiveness when, in practice, it is selective inclusiveness. The Government should not exclude new male citizens, based simply on age, from a deeply Singaporean activity, lumping them together with those not equipped to engage in that activity – the elderly, medically unfit, mentally ill, physically disabled, and kids.

It is true that adult naturalised citizens did not enjoy the fruits of our nationhood during their younger years, but are they not going to enjoy the benefits of Singaporean citizenship for the rest of their lives?

Perhaps we could get the ball rolling by requiring them to meet the fitness standards of the Individual Physical Proficiency Test. Surely, this is not too much to ask on Total Defence Day.

An Ex-CPF Employee Exposes the 3 Biggest Complaints Singaporeans Have About Their CPF Accounts

The Independent
-
0
An Ex-CPF Employee Exposes the 3 Biggest Complaints Singaporeans Have About Their CPF Accounts

Few questions divide Singaporeans as much as this one – What is CPF used for? As you process your own answer to that question, chances are the words “retirement,” “housing,” healthcare” and maybe “Ponzi scheme” are running through your head.

But no matter what function(s) you think CPF serves, everyone faces the reality of having to pay their “dues” to keep the system going. That means contributing 20% of your salary (up to age 50) every month to a scheme that only benefits those who vastly surpass the current minimum balance of $144K. Sadly, more Singaporeans who have money in CPF and need it can’t even touch it.

An ex-CPF employee named “Brian” (who wishes to remain anonymous for very obvious reasons), who deals with the valid concerns of Singaporeans daily, was kind enough to help us shed some light on what Singaporeans complain about most when it comes to their CPF accounts.

Here are Singaporeans’ 3 biggest complaints about their CPF accounts:

1. It’s Nearly Impossible to Access Your Retirement Account (RA) Funds

The biggest limiting factor people have when it comes to their CPF accounts is the fact that their Retirement Account (RA) funds are about as inaccessible as Area 51 until you reach the drawdown, which varies from 62 to 65 depending on your year of birth.

The problem with having an inaccessible RA account is that it leaves Singaporeans still servicing their home loan with their CPF in a helpless situation because:

  1. Retrenchment: No income means they can no longer make contributions into his/her Ordinary Account (OA).
  2. Contribution level: The contribution level decreases significantly after 55, making it harder to meet the minimum cash component in RA.

“It’s sad, there were several occasions when we had to direct Singaporeans to HDB or the banks because our hands were tied – we couldn’t release their funds to them even though they may have thousands in their RA to help with their home loan repayments,” says Brian.

Ironically, the only exceptions for using your RA funds involve purchasing property under the following conditions:

  1. You can only use the excess in your RA AFTER setting aside the minimum cash component, which is currently $148K.
  2. Of that $148K, you’ll need to maintain $74K in your RA, with the excess (excluding annual interests) being available for the purchase of property.

*Note on property purchases: According to Brian, there is a way for you to use your OA towards purchasing property. If you have booked a BTO flat before turning 55, you can write in to CPF to have funds from your OA reserved for the purchase. In fact, Singaporeans have been successful in having these requests approved.

2. You Can’t Withdraw As Much from CPF at Age 55

Just a few years ago, if you turned 55 before 2009, you could have withdrawn 50% of your combined OA and Special Account (SA) funds! So if you had today’s current minimum sum of $148K, you could withdraw $74,000.

Then in 2009, the limit dropped to 40%. And then… well, I think you know where this is going right? Let’s just say that CPF reduced the withdrawal limit faster than an Indonesian palm plantation owner reduces forestland.

Today, if you don’t have the full minimum sum of $148K – you ONLY get $5K. The rest gets sent over to your RA, which you probably won’t see for another 7 to 10 years.

The biggest complaints Brian received about the inability of some Singaporeans to get more than $5K were:

  • Couldn’t pay off debts: Singaporeans who were financially troubled and had debts to pay off could not pay them even though they had thousands of dollars in their RA.
  • In danger of home repossession: Singaporeans who were having trouble keeping up with their home loan repayments due to retrenchment or financial difficulty couldn’t access the money they needed to maintain their repayments even though they might have had $50K in their RA.
  • Couldn’t go on pilgrimage: Many elderly Muslims who were waiting till age 55 to use their funds to go on pilgrimage (Hajj) were left disappointed when the amount they could withdraw wasn’t enough.

*Note on pledging your property: Brian points out that if you’ve used your CPF to purchase a home, you can opt to pledge or increase the pledge of your property. So if you just turn 55 this year and you’ve got the full minimum sum of $148K, you can pledge your property up to $74K, freeing up the “excess” $74K in your CPF for withdrawal.

3. There Are Times When You CAN’T Use CPF for Housing

When you buy a home, there’s a limit to how much CPF you can use to purchase a home, called the Valuation Limit (VL). The VL is determined by the lower value of either the market price or the valuation price of a home, and you cannot withdraw more than 120% of the VL, which is called the Withdrawal Limit (WL).

So what happens when you reach the VL of your home?

If you’re below 55, you’ll need to maintain either half the prevailing minimum sum cash component (Your OA+SA+SA investments) or the minimum sum cash component in your RA if you’re over 55 (and you can only use your RA excess to service your home loan). If you don’t follow these conditions, you CAN’T use your CPF to service your home loan.

Not knowing when you can’t use your CPF to service your home loan is a huge reason why people contact CPF, especially when Singaporeans:

  • Reach their VL before age 55 and haven’t maintained half of their prevailing minimum sum cash component (OA+SA+SA investments).
  • Reach their VL after age 55 and haven’t maintained their minimum sum cash component in their RA (only RA excess can be used!).
  • Surpass their WL.

CPF Staff Are There to Help, But They Don’t Make Policy

“We understand that CPF needs to be more flexible in allowing Singaporeans to use their funds. What’s the point of having thousands of ‘untouchable’ dollars set aside for retirement when Singaporeans are dealing with financial difficulty now? But we do our best to help people out as much as possible,” says Brian.

Brian also stated that the complaints above made up about 70% of their total communications. That’s A LOT of daily gripes to deal with.

Most Singaporeans have their reasons to complain about CPF. If you’ve read Dear CPF: Give Me Back My Money, you know just a few of the many grievances people have with the scheme. But before you call up or email CPF to give them a piece of your mind, please remember that the hard working employees don’t set policy – they’re there to help you as best as they can.

What complaints or praise do you have about CPF? Share your experience on Facebook! And to find even more useful information on everything personal finance, visit MoneySmart today!

Image Credits:
fox2mike

MARUAH mulls over the future of Little India

The Independent
-
0
MARUAH mulls over the future of Little India

Human rights group MARUAH held a forum on Feb 12 to discuss the hastily-tabled Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill.

The Bill will be discussed in parliament next Monday, Feb 17.

The civil rights group raised some issues of concern: possibility of abuse in implementation, relevance of creating a new Public Order Bill, the effect on local businesses and the loss of a recreational area for migrant workers.

The Bill allows the police to conduct strip searches, dispose of liquor and ban those who are deemed a public threat from the area.

However Dr Kevin Tan, a law professor of National University of Singapore, highlighted that the police must satisfy specific criteria before using the search powers granted by the Bill. According to Tan, the police must have “a reasonable suspicion” that a person is carrying alcohol before they can strip-search him or her.

“What are the chances of abuse? When you use phrases like, ‘if they think it is necessary or in the best interest of everyone’ there is the danger the Bill will become very subjective,” he added.

Tan further questioned if the existing framework is not adequate to prevent another riot from taking place.

“One reason I suspect is they are afraid that it is too difficult to police the area. Rather than wait until something is likely to go wrong and then act, you just prevent things from going on so you do not have to act,” he said.

Tan also said that the Bill has an “underlying assumption” that alcohol was the primary cause of the Little India riot. He added that it is problematic to talk about this as the official Committee of Inquiry’s work is not over. “It could be multiple causes…The danger of this Bill is that you end up targeting a wider range of people who may have no connection with any of the causal links that led to the riot,” he said.

Also a panelist at the forum, journalism student Prabhu Silvam, who independently took pictures and wrote stories of those who witnessed the riot, said that many who sold alcohol in the district were losing money.

About 20 shop owners and other businesses in the special zone, who did not identify themselves, turned up for the forum. Already feeling the pinch from rental costs, employee wages and dwindling weekend crowds, all reacted with dismay to the restrictive aspects of the proposed Bill.

Panellst T. Satisharan said some shop owners were resigned to the eventuality of  some businesses moving out of the area. The co-founder of the Inter-Cultural Theatre Institute recounted how a liquor shop owner in Little India for the last 20 years told him that he would have to move out of the area because he has already incurred losses of $40,000 since the alcohol ban was announced.

Apart from businesses, MARUAH also raised the worry about the well-being of the foreign workers.

The civil group asked: Where can South Asian foreign workers hang out during the weekends if such the Bill becomes law? Apart from Little India, where can this group of people go to, where is that place that feels like home?

WATCH THIS for more on foreign workers and alcohol:

[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=jAz2loLLMP8″]

1...5,1985,1995,200...5,256Page 5,199 of 5,256

The Independent SG

Singapore News

‘Do you check your helper’s luggage on her last day of employment?’ — Maid’s employer seeks advice

0
SINGAPORE: An employer took to social media to seek...

Singapore richer, healthier than most English-speaking countries?

0
SINGAPORE: Singapore is getting so accustomed to superlatives that...

Singaporeans more open to talking about death, but few take concrete steps to prepare

0
SINGAPORE: A recent survey by the Singapore Management University...

‘This is daylight robbery’: Toast Box patrons upset with difference in menu pictures and actual items

0
SINGAPORE: Some Toast Box patrons have raised concerns over...

Business

Singapore Politics

© The Independent Singapore