By Zach Isaiah Chiah
Bukit Brown is the largest Chinese cemetery outside of China.
In 2012, the Land Transport Authority announced the decision to build a road across the cemetery, so as to ease congestion on Lornie Road. Heritage enthusiasts together with concerned Singaporeans petitioned against the decision. Groups such as All things Bukit Brown were set up to educate the public and petition the government not to destroy a national icon. In August 2013, the Land Transport Authority awarded a tender to build a road across Bukit Brown; part of the road was tendered as a bridge instead.
It was viewed in some quarters as a government concession to NGOs. SMU Law Professor and NMP Eugene Tan says, “They didn’t get their way 100% but I think there is reasonable success in attaining some outcomes.”
Terence Chong, vice president of the Singapore Heritage Society, disagrees.
“I think the bridge was less of a compromise in the face of heritage concerns than it was an engineering and financial decision. The number of graves exhumed [was] not significantly reduced by the decision to build the bridge.”
In October 2013, Bukit Brown was listed on the World Monument’s Watch 2014. That, says Chong, was “a real shot in the arm for those of us who have worked tirelessly in Bukit Brown and behind the scenes”.
Shift in public thinking
The SHS’ work has been helped by a recent shift in public thinking with locals becoming more concerned about the preservation of heritage in Singapore. “This groundswell is not surprising. We are becoming more educated, better travelled and more sensitive to any loss of heritage,” said Chong. “SHS wants to debunk the myth that we can either have development or heritage. This is a false dilemma.”
“If we as a people can overcome natural obstacles like water supply, why can’t we come up with innovative ways to accommodate both development and our heritage?”
Chong’s view is indicative of how NGOs view their role – supportive of Singapore’s overall development.
To do anything they believe to be beneficial to Singaporeans, though, NGOs need to work with the government.
How NGOs should work with the government
But how should an NGO work with the government?
“Be open, honest, and frank. It’s not about scoring points. Often, there is a common goal but the differences cohere in how to get there,” says Asst Prof Tan.
John Gee from Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) adds, “Positive outcomes are more likely if an NGO has proposals for change, backed by solid reasoning, rather than just a string of complaints against government policy or action that offer no indication off what might sensibly have been done instead.”
Constant dialogue even when there are no major issues is important, says Dr Geh Min. “If we only communicate when there is a pressing and potentially controversial issue at hand, there is less likelihood of a positive resolution.”
Two-way street
Engagement, however, is a two-way street. It requires dialogue and not monologue. The onus cannot be on the NGOs alone, says Damien Chng, founder of We Believe in Second Chances, a group working for the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore. The government has also to be willing to cooperate with the NGOs,
This then begs the question, how has the government fared in its engagement with NGOs?
The report card on this is mixed.
How the government is doing
The government is working in a new area and is feeling its way around the issue. Asst Prof Tan explains, “They are learning. They know there is a need to work with them rather than against them. It’s a steep learning curve but I see the government is trying to work with [NGOs].”
Dr Geh agrees government engagement is “much better than before” but adds: “NGOs have to be responsible [and] credible partners as well. It all goes back to both partners developing trust but maintaining independence.”
Asst Prof Tan cautions: “We should not measure success by outcomes alone but also (by) how the government is engaged and sensitised to the concerns of NGOs and interest groups.”
Other NGO representatives, however, worry about the possibility of not having anything substantial to show for such engagement.
“There is a concern amongst groups that their existence will become cosmetic, just as a show of engagement and diverse voices in Singapore without the substance.” says Kristen Han from Second Chances Singapore.
So how can the government allay those concerns and move on to a more cooperative model?
“We’d like to see a readier response to requests for meetings and to letters that raise questions about policy matters.” says John Gee. He adds that there is good contact over migrant worker cases. While the organisation is not totally happy with all the outcomes, they are pleased that the communication channels are open.
Focusing on the issue of the death penalty, Damien Chng says, “The government can do more to involve the NGO community in its decision-making process, and also in terms of providing the NGOs with information and statistics on the relevant issues.”
Throughout the world, NGOs and governments have rarely been considered friends; some have even said that such cooperation is impossible.
Better NGO-Government cooperation can only be good for Singaporean society by providing more rounded considerations to policy. “After all,” says Dr Geh, “we are working for the same goal which is the long-term good of Singapore.”
Would Singapore be able to accomplish the ‘impossible’ where others have failed?
Perhaps Terence Chong summed it up best: “The Singapore story is about accomplishing the impossible.”
See also NGOs: Why some succeed, some don’t
NGO-government relations: The art of the possible
Time to protect victims of cyber-harassment in Singapore
By Choo Zheng Xi
A difference in two landmark cases on the tort of harassment in Singapore suggests that it’s time for the government to reform the law.
Recently, AXA Insurance went to the High Court to seek an injunction to prevent a disgruntled customer from harassing their staff. AXA claimed that the former customer was sending abusive correspondence to its staff.
In dismissing AXA’s claim, Justice Choo Han Teck declined to grant the injunction on the basis that the law as it stands does not provide for an award for a civil remedy in harassment. He took the view that Parliament is better placed to introduce such laws, and was hesitant to judicially introduce an amorphous tort of harassment.
Justice Choo’s approach is a departure from the last landmark case on harassment in Singapore.
At the turn of the century, in 2001, Justice Lee Seiu Kin decided the case of Malcomson v Mehta. The case granted injunctive relief to a Malcomson, an employer who was being stalked and harassed by an ex-employee, Mehta. Mehta used emails, SMSes and phone calls and trespassed on Malcomson’s property. Most alarmingly, Mehta sent a card with a picture of a baby rattle on the death anniversary of Mehta’s infant child.
Behind the differences
The differences in the approaches of Justice Choo and Justice Lee can be understood given the particular facts of the two cases.
Justice Choo was naturally hesitant to set a precedent of allowing better resourced institutional plaintiffs to prevent individual complainants who might be unreasonably persistent in fighting for their rights as a consumer.
On the case before him, Justice Lee understandably saw a need for the law to protect individuals from the sort of insidious, aggravated harrassment Malcomson experienced.
Still, two differing High Court cases in over a decade are a poor roadmap for the ordinary Singaporean who might be at the receiving end of harassing activity.
Criminal law
Unfortunately, criminal law does not provide much more consistency than the civil recourse.
Currently, law enforcement is constrained to rely on a mishmash of different legislation to prevent varying modes of harassment, particularly in the sphere of online harassment.
The Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting” words and behaviour with the intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress. However, it is not clear that the statute would apply to harassment by phone and email.
The Computer Misuse Act has been used to prosecute cases where an individual gains access to the email of someone else to stalk and harass the person. In the case of Lim Siong Khee v Public Prosecutor, a disgruntled ex-boyfriend who had used his ex-girlfriend’s email account to send out lurid details of their relationship to her friends was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.
However, neither of the two pieces of legislation above covers situations where an individual has his or her personal details exposed online, nor does it cover situations where an individual becomes the target of anonymous poison pen email campaigns.
The reality for the man in the street is that the cost and expense of the civil remedies that Malcomson and AXA tried to obtain in the High Court would be a deterrent to commencing a civil suit.
In some situations, the police have difficulty acting on complaints of harassment by email because of a lack of a framework in this area. This sends the incorrect impression that such crimes are relatively “low signature” offences.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment can be more traumatic than other kinds of harassment or stalking. The ease with which the internet allows perpetrators to stalk and harass their victims makes the crime easier to commit, and the ubiquity of the internet makes victims of such crimes all the more insecure.
The United Kingdom has a Malicious Communications Act which makes it an offence to send letters or electronic communications (whether oral or written) to another person which is false, contains a threat, or contains indecent or grossly offensive material. Federal law in the United States prohibits cyber-stalking, and several states have prohibitions against cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment.
Early last year, the government indicated it was reviewing cyber-crime laws. Justice Choo’s decision in AXA’s case is a timely reminder that we need to get such legislation off the runway.
The writer is a lawyer at Peter Low LLC specializing in civil and criminal litigation. He was the the founding editor-in-chief of The Online Citizen.
Five hundred petition Singapore government to reopen prison death inquest
Singapore – A petition signed by more than 500 people both here and abroad has called on the Singapore ministers for law and home affairs to reopen an inquest into a prison death here.
Last night, activists from the Justice for Dinesh Campaign released a video interview with Madam Selvi filmed in September. She said, “The other seven persons must come to the court. The judge must give good reasons; what type of punishment to give to the seven persons.”*
Madam Selvi, who is represented by human rights lawyer, Mr M Ravi, goes to the High Court here today to petition for the reopening of the inquest.
Dinesh Raman, who was due for release in December 2010, died of positional asphyxiation in September 2010, following what the Prison Service claimed was an unprovoked attack on a prison officer.
The slim, 51kg 20 year old was subdued with pepper spray and overpowered by eight officers. He was left unresponsive in a prone position in an isolation cell. The Prison Service admitted it did nothing beyond splash water in his face. Shortly before lunch on the same day, he was pronounced dead at a local hospital. Cause of death was recorded as “cardio pulmonary failure, pending investigation”.
Photographs of the deceased released with the family’s permission showed extensive bruising to the face and body.** Speaking of the photographs, mother, Madam Selvi Narayanasamy, said, “I can feel how my son suffered before he died.”*
Research funded by the US Department of Justice in 2004 have produced tentative findings that positional asphyxiation can be a contributor to death.*** Rachel Zeng, a spokesperson for the Justice For Dinesh Campaign, noted, “Given the lack of information available, contradictory media reports, and fresh data such as this, the circumstances leading up to the tragedy remain unclear.”
The Home Ministry conducted an internal Committee of Inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against the eight officers. Neither report was made public.
Subsequent government statements and media reports contained contradictory accounts of the death.
One prison officer was convicted of negligence and fined S$10,000. The Home Ministry claims the other seven have been redeployed to non-operational duties.
Following the criminal proceedings, the State Coroner decided to abandon his inquest.
Government officials met with the family on numerous occasions to attempt to convince them to give up their desire for an inquest. A government press release in August claims the mother sought “windfall damages”. Madam Selvi strongly denies this: “I want to know what happened to my son,” she said.
In June, Madam Selvi petitioned the Attorney General to reopen the inquest on the grounds that with a guilty plea entered in the criminal proceedings, the cause and circumstances of Dinesh’s death were never established. She was turned down.
* Video interview with mother available for viewing at: http://youtu.be/rlRExTSMnZs
** Detailed timeline dossier of the case (with photos) is available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/175887807/Dinesh-Raman-Timeline-With-Photos
*** Deaths in Police Confrontations When Oleoresin Capsicum is Used by Charles S. Petty M.D. Published by USA Department of Justice, February 2004. Available at http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/showdoc.html?id=4705
NGOs: Why some succeed, some don't
By Zach Isaiah Chiah
It was like Lazarus rising from the dead.
“We were stunned at the announcement from Minister Mah. So was everyone else in the room when he said that the Cabinet had decided to defer land reclamation…”
“It was one of the most moving and memorable moments because it was something we had all been working so hard for but never really expected could happen. Really like the miraculous recovery of a loved one whom you had given up for dead.”
That was the recollection of Dr Geh Min to the Chek Jawa reclamation decision in 2001.
In early 2000, the government announced plans to reclaim Check Jawa for development. It sparked a spontanoues outpouring of support and emotion in the normally passive Singapore population. A group of botanists had discovered the rich diversity of Chek Jawa (located near the tip of Pulau Ubin) in December 2000 and a documentary was made. A report was compiled and sent to the government. In December 2001, Singapore awoke to the stunning news that the government had accepted the proposal and had put aside reclaimation of Chek Jawa for 10 years.
To Dr Geh, “the episode signified that civil society was alive [and] well… [and] that the government recognised its role [and] potential contributions [and] was prepared to listen to [and] work with us.”
When people are moved about something, passion drives them to do something about it. For some this means setting up organisations to advocate for what they believe in.
These are called Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
What is an NGO?
An NGO is a legally-constituted organisation that is distinct and independent from the government of the country. NGOs are usually non-profit and pursue wider aims. In Singapore that can range from single issue groups such as All Things Bukit Brown (see Correction below) to groups with a wider focus such as the Singapore Heritage Society.
An NGO is not a lobby group. A lobby group attempts to influence lawmakers to support or oppose an issue or legislation. Advocacy, on the other hand, focuses on education and creating awareness among legislators and the general public about an issue.
Lobbies tend to be viewed negatively because of a perceived narrow focus on legislation to serve the groups’ interest. In Singapore, NGOs tend to mostly be advocates and not lobbies.
SMU Law Professor Asst Prof Eugene Tan says: The line can sometimes be very thin between advocacy and lobbying. But these NGOs are true to their raison d’etre and they are not lobbying because they are being “paid” to do so. They are very often cause-driven, and very much driven by volunteers.”
An NGO has two main partners that it works with, the public and the government.
All NGOs have a reason and a cause they believe to be just. But not every cause is viewed with equal friendliness by the authorities, or any political group for that matter.
John Gee, of Transient Worker’s Count Too (TWC2), elaborates, “Elected politicians are inevitably sensitive to public opinion. They tend to take a more positive interest in matters on which there is strong public feeling and very cautious about issues that raise controversy.”
“NGOs are political by nature – political in the sense that it seeks to influence policy-making decisions based on what we feel is right and good for society as opposed to what will win votes – so the strategies they adopt will inevitably be determined by political considerations; how best to make policymakers or the public see the merits of what they are arguing for.” says Damien Chng, Founder of Second Chances Singapore.
Dr Geh agrees that NGO’s are political, “in that the issues raise have socio-political implications. We aim for public awareness but we are certainly not trying to manipulate public response.”
What this means is that some groups end up being more successful than others. Asst Prof Tan lists Nature Society and Heritage Society as examples of more successful groups.
Why are they more successful?
Four reasons for success
Four reasons have been suggested: public support, alignment with the authorities, style of advocacy and personalities involved.
Public support is vital to the work of any NGO. “NGOs will try to show that there is public support for the cause or position they are advocating,” said SMU’s Asst Prof Tan.
Terence Chong, Vice-President of the Singapore Heritage Society, concurred, “Without public support, SHS can do little. As a civil society group we can offer intellectual arguments and research but if the public is not on board there will be no traction.” His view was supported by Kirsten Han of Second Chances Singapore. “If you can get more people participating then there is more pressure for change,” she said. This explain why many NGOs emphasise the need to reach out to the public.
Having said that, there is more to public support then merely policy change. “Change is not only about government policy and regulations; it is about public attitudes too,” said John Gee, “In any country, an enlightened government policy can be undermined if there is no public support for it and likewise, a negative government policy can be undermined by a public that favours a more compassionate and rights-respecting position.”
Gee points to the issue of migrant workers. “There are many issues involving migrants’ experiences that are largely invisible to the public. In addition, there are sectors that do not wish to understand, because it would inconvenience them… these people do not want to hear anything that contradicts their prejudices, we think that most of the public is more open-minded, but it is just very hard to put themselves in a migrant worker’s shoes.”
How the public views things sometimes also affects how the government reacts and responds.
Dr Geh elaborates: “The [government] has its own agenda [and] if there is synergy then of course they are happy to have you work with them or better still, take over from them.”
In the final analysis, a politician’s aims are focused on the vote bank. “Migrant worker issues [are seen as a vote loser], which is why not one single party in Singapore takes a robust stand in favour of migrant workers’ rights.” Says John Gee.
Gee should know.
TWC2 is at the forefront of one of the hot button issues in social advocacy – transient workers. In recent years, transient workers have conducted a number of large and small scale protests over perceived ill-treatment by their employers and it has affected how advocacy works. “The going has got harder on some issues, though on questions of extremely harmful behaviour towards migrant workers, public opinion and government action continue to move in a positive direction.”
Even if the broad aims are in line with the government, an NGO may not be well received because it is perceived as being obstructive.
A lot of this has to do with how ‘loud’ the voice is. “Megaphone engagement often gives rise to the government being concerned about an issue being politicised. Or that they are other ulterior motives. So there is a preference for the low profile approach that is more focused on positive outcomes”, explained Asst Prof Tan.
The NGOs, however, disagree with the softly, softly approach all the time.
When asked if quiet diplomacy worked better than loud advocacy, Han replied: “Different NGOs have different methods in advocating for their cause.
“Different causes require different methods; for example, when it comes to death penalty cases, where there is almost a countdown to an appeal or even an execution date, we are required to act in a way that takes into account this urgency. In such situations it wouldn’t be useful to want to take a “softly, softly” approach – there might not be time for it.”
Would the authorities view it kindly though?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no seems to be the answer, Dr Geh mentions that there are also elements of luck and personalities involved that matter as well as whether the policy is likely to be controversial at that time. “The important thing is to look for commonalities with the other party and try to develop a sense of trust.”
It should not be surprising that trust involves not just the logical argument but also the personalities involved.
These factors are important, but just as Lazarus rose from the dead and Chek Jawa was saved from the brink, sometimes there are other unseen factors involved. Tomorrow
Tomorrow: NGO-government relations — the art of the possible
Correction
All Things Bukit Brown is not an NGO. We are a loose group of volunteers, strangers who became virtual friends and eventually guides and helpers at Bukit Brown. We are dedicated to the cause of public awareness and education of the value of Bukit Brown as our national heritage, habitat and history. You can find out more at our blog site.<>Best regards,
Claire Leow
All Things Bukit Brown.
Heritage. Habitat. History.
Woes of the middle class
By Augustine Low
Not much has changed in the last ten years since this piece was first published. Some great points here to think and ponder about. What exactly are we fighting for?
Middle-class parents walk a constant tightrope. One the one hand, there is the need to cope with Singapore’s over competitive education system. On the other, there is the danger of our children taking extravagance and self-indulgence for granted.
I hear that kids as young as six or seven already engage in one-upmanship about family holiday destinations.
My son, who is 13, claims that many of his classmates change their smartphones every year. I use a six-year-old model, so it’s not that hard convincing him that his three-year-old one is more than adequate. But I don’t know how much longer I can delay getting him that $500 pair of Beats headphones which are apparently a must-have.
It can only get more trying for the middle class, with Singapore being modelled as a hotspot for the super rich. PM Lee Hsien Loong himself has said as much – he would find it hard to resist opening the door to the super rich who want to come here.
Already, we have Singaporeans who become an Internet sensation showing off Hermes home and designer bags that each cost a year’s income for many people. With more super rich in our shores, they could bring with them their extravagant lifestyle and excessive culture of consumption.
At best, this breeds envy. At worst, this weakens social fabric and breeds discontent.
Beyond ostentatious spending, what else do the super rich, especially the mega entrepreneurs, bring to Singapore? Conventional thinking is jobs creation. But it may not be so. In a provocative new book Who Owns The Future?, author Jaron Lanier says that the digital revolution has led to wealth concentration in fewer people, with fewer jobs than ever before.
Lanier cites the example of Instagram, the new face of digital photography, which was sold to Facebook for US$1billion last year. It employed a total of only 13 people! Not that the 13 were extraordinary employees, but the value of companies like Instagram come from the millions of users who contribute to the network without being paid for it.
So the super rich, especially those who make their bucks from the digital revolution, do not necessarily spur the economy.
In fact, Lanier argues that the concentration of wealth in fewer people has led to the collapse of middle-class financial security in the US and many parts of the world.
What about Singapore?
If you are rich (foreign passport accepted), the government will be happy to work with you and woo you to set up home and business. You are also welcome to enjoy the tax breaks.
If you are poor, the government will give you grants and put you on some form of welfare or credit scheme. But you will lead a life of hand-to-mouth and may have to clean public toilets or clear food court tables in your old age.
But, if you are in the middle? The term “middle-class squeeze” then applies to you.
You will be straddled with housing and car debt. You expect your two (or maybe just one) children to enter university from the time they were born. So you give them the best, you invest heavily in enrichment classes and tuition and try to get them into what you think is a good school – although MOE says every school is a good school.
You and your spouse work really hard, maybe on a salary of $5,000-$6,000 each a month.
Some of it probably goes to the maid every month. And if you live in a condominium, it’s your maid (and pet dog/children) who spend more time enjoying the facilities than you and your spouse because you are both too busy working.
Your hope is that you will save enough money for your retirement (by 60 or 65, because you do not wish to think about living till 90, or worse still, work till that age). And you worry if you are able to see your children through university, if they can’t make it to a local one.
Good old-fashioned financial security for the middle-class? It could just be a pipe dream now.
Augustine Low is a communications strategist.
A tongue-in-cheek look at the teaching profession
By Harphal Singh
How do I even begin! Teachers are gurus. They are the spark that light passion of their charges. They are not supposed to do wrong. Unfortunately, the “guruship” has been tainted. We are only human gurus with all the pockmarks of life, usually well-camouflaged with our own brand of makeup. I was one such teacher.
Most, if not practically all, teachers have been good students either from “good” schools or are found in good classes of the so-called neighbourhood school. These academically successful students decided to join the noble profession, once called a vocation. I shall elaborate more on the concept of nobility in my next article (if I get positive responses and hopefully the editor of The Independent Singh rewards me well).
Let me begin with the truth and I hope the truth will not make me a lesser being. Academically, if I had been born later, I would have been placed in the Normal Technical Stream. Yes, the Normal Technical and not even the Normal Academic Stream. I was a student of average intelligence – and would like to thank God for the education system then, and was posted to a secondary school.
I did ‘extremely’ well in my secondary school, by my standards of course. I went from Secondary 1 to Secondary 4 without repeating any year. “So, what’s the big deal in that?” Yes, I am a mind reader too. I am quite sure that thought crossed your mind. The education system and the school were extremely kind to me. Now, this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (Just as an aside, our religious gurus preached and practised the value: The Highest Virtue of All is Truth. Higher Still is Truthful Living. I confess, I have fallen short of this expectation.)
Let me continue. The truth is that I received an overall FAILED grade every year of my secondary school life. The authorities ADVANCED me to the next grade every year. I believe they felt it was the best way to get rid of a student from the school system. I was not RETAINED and, thank God, we did not have the system where you were laterally transferred to either a more challenging or, as for me, a less challenging stream. Simply put, if I had been born much later, I would have moved from Secondary One Express to Secondary Two Normal Academic and then, from Secondary Two Normal Academic to Secondary 3 Normal Technical.
The basic truth is that I would have never become a teacher. Believe me, I was a great teacher, who even taught in one of the top schools in Singapore, helping to grow my pupils and at the same time guiding them to get their academic distinctions. One of my students who did extremely well at Stanford University identified me as the teacher who most influenced his life (definitely positively) and I was invited to Stanford University on an all-expense-paid trip to receive the Frederick Emmons Terman Engineering Scholastic Award for impacting my student’s life. I taught the student, Justin Tan Kah Hoe, when he was a student at The Chinese High School. I predicted that he could possibly be the next Prime Minister in Singapore but he broke his bond. I do not view him as a bond-breaker as defined by the establishment. There was a price on the bond and the price was paid. Enough said.
While I am writing this article, I received a message from one student whom I taught in The Chinese High School. This is his message verbatim:
Hallo Mr Singh
Here is wishing you a happy belated Teachers, Day!
I was just telling my wife that if not for you teaching us “Fair is foul and foul is fair” and “Kill the pig, cut her throat, bash her in”’ I don’t think I would want to read and could enjoy English books until now. May you continue to have many rewarding returns in your teaching career and life.
Keep in touch!
Regards
Liao Jinzhao
The Chinese High School, 1986 -1989
Thank you, Jinzhao. I shall reply to you soon. Just to update all, I am only 56 and I retired last year after 35 years of service. Why I retired is another story. I will come to that one day. Yes, one day.
Harphal Singh is a retired school principal.
Where are the engineers?
By Robin Low
Many agree that before we can become a start-up hub, we must first become an engineering hub. Singapore must reach a stage where companies like Apple, Facebook and Google open development centres here instead of just sales offices. No tech startup can happen without the right people.
Even with the increasing number of craft events and HackerCamps happening in Singapore, many companies still claim there aren’t enough good engineers here. However, NUS produces about 1,500 engineers a year. This does not include computing graduates. If the education system produces enough engineers, then where are they going?
Engineers in Singapore always like to say there is no future in engineering. I contacted several of my engineering classmates to find out why.
The top graduates went on to high-paying jobs in finance. Others became public servants. With limited job opportunities for engineers, this is not surprising.
Afterwards, those engineers who did find local engineering jobs, went on to advanced degrees. Most got MBAs, becoming managers and project managers. I do have several friends who got their MEng. However, they still opted for a more managerial position. On receiving PhDs, they then left industry to become academics.
My peers in the US however, fared differently. Of eight who joined Intel, all of them are still working there, even after getting their post-graduate degrees. They said they had challenging work in research and design, and were well paid. All were making 3 times more than their starting pay, and had flexibility working hours.
In Singapore, an engineer’s work is more like maintenance. Hours are long, even after years of service. Salary rarely exceeds twice their starting pay. However, when leaving engineering, their compensation can be on par with their counterparts in the various fields. When they become managers, their salaries are about 3 times their initial salary.
Sometimes it is not the company’s fault, as many average Singaporeans underperform in their knowledge role compared to their paper credentials. In particular, when compared to similarly-qualified engineers from other developed countries, the average Singaporean is: less willing to challenge convention or question authority; more afraid to take risks and move out of the comfort zone; and more likely to display a silo mentality with poor cross-collaboration skills.
Average Singaporeans can thus appear more concerned with guarding and nurturing their own turf rather than being adventurous and exploring other opportunities. In short, Singaporeans’ risk aversion and inability to move out of their comfort zones can translate into professional inflexibility and a lack of ambition—which, again, may seem better suited to “entry level engineering” than “innovative work”.
Singaporeans are academically brilliant and they have a high respect for authority. A similar team in the US would keep questioning and want to have a healthy dialogue every step of the way. This is good for “maintenance works” in engineering, hence the industries which “do not need innovation” thrive.
When the demand for project managers exceeds that of engineers, something isn’t quite right. When an engineer’s innovation is not considered as important as a manager’s, something is wrong. Technical skills are not being valued by the business community. The largest number of job vacancies in Singapore is in engineering, but the compensation is not sufficient to attract and retain the exceptional ones.
As there is a big demand for talented engineers overseas, an experienced engineer from Singapore could get a higher salary even in China. There is no reason why good engineers should stay in Singapore. Until the engineering industry and the business community can appreciate and reward good engineers fairly, there will always be a brain drain – either out of Singapore or to other industries.
There is no lack of good engineers in Singapore, just a lack of challenging jobs or jobs that compensate good engineers well enough for them to stay.
Robin Low is a young Singaporean living in Boston. He is the founder of a nanotechnology company in the US.
Executive condo or BTO flat: Some painful differences
By Ryan Ong
Why does everyone assume you’re rich if you buy an EC? That doesn’t make sense. By the time you make the down payment and cover the instalments, the EC means you’re pretty much the opposite of rich. Here’s a run-down on the painful differences, when you choose an EC over a BTO flat:
Why executive condominiums are different
Executive Condominiums (ECs) are another class of “sandwich” flats, like maisonettes or DBSS flats. They cater to a higher class of poor people: those who can afford better than public housing, but still can’t afford private property. And it would appear that this number is not an insignificant number, with nearly 2,500 units sold as at August this year.
Unlike BTO flats, ECs are built by private developers. They are built by the same companies that put up “real” condominiums, with vast expertise in architecture, lifestyle accommodation, and pretentious French words. And while ECs begin as subsidised housing, they all turn into private housing after 10 years.
This results in four main differences, compared to BTO flats:
- No HDB Concessionary Loan
- Resale Rules from the 11th Year Onward
- Fewer ECs are in Mature Estates
- Less Predictable Resale Value
1. No HDB concessionary loan
If you buy an EC, you need to use a bank loan. A private bank loan only covers 80% of the valuation. Of the remaining 20%, up to 15% can come from grants and your CPF. That means ECs have an absolute minimum of 5% down payment in cash.
For a BTO flat, you have the option of a HDB concessionary loan. That’s why buyers of a BTO flats don’t have to give down payments.
2. Resale Rules from the 11th year onward
This is where ECs differ the most value as compared to BTO flats.
From their sixth to 10th years, ECs are sold like regular resale flats; only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents (PRs) can buy them. But from the 11th year, ECs go “fully private”. They can then be sold to foreigners and companies. This is a big deal, because it opens up the range of prospective buyers.
The downside is that, when buying resale ECs after the 11th year, buyers can no longer get housing grants for them. They are well and truly private property by then.
According to Kenneth Kok, who invests in properties in Singapore and Malaysia, this “can make a big difference in resale value.”
“Under the new rules, PRs have to wait three years before they can buy a resale flat”, Kenneth says, “But after 11 years, your EC is private property, so PRs can buy without waiting.”
Kenneth adds that the eligibility of foreign buyers also helps:
“In general, a bigger pool of prospective buyers bodes well for capital gains. If you are selling a resale flat, you have no chance of tapping into foreign demand for local properties.”
3. Fewer ECs are in mature estates
Maybe the builders assumed that, if you can afford an EC, you can afford a car. Whatever the reason, many ECs are located in places where you’d expect to see pack mules or a passing jungle expedition.
“A lot of ECs are not in mature estates,” cautions Charlie Sng, a local landlord, “they tend to be in places like Punggol or Woodlands. In 11 years, maybe those places will be more developed. But for now, you should consider the convenience issues of staying there.”
Charlie suggests you consult the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Master Plan, if you’re worried about resale value.
“If it’s about comfortable living,” he adds, “don’t just think about barbeque pits and condo clubhouses. Those will be small consolation, when you need to choose between buying a car or a one-hour commute to work.”
4. Less predictable resale value
This is where the debate starts. ECs are new as a property type, so there’s a lot of argument about their resale value. The main question is this one:
Will ECs sell for the same value as private condos?
There are two opposing camps on this. Kenneth feels that “There is no reason why they will not… ECs are built by private developers; they have the same amenities and same quality of finishing. That they are subsidised at the start is completely irrelevant. Why will this matter to future buyers?”
Charlie, however, thinks there is a psychological barrier to EC prices.
“Based on the mindset of the market, I don’t think it will be easy to sell an EC as if it were a real condo,” he says, “The fact is, the thinking of most Singaporeans is that ECs are one level ‘below’ condos. They may not be able to accept that they have to buy ECs at the same price as real private property.”
Regardless, both investors agreed that the market is too new; we’ll have to wait for a few years, and see what happens when all the ECs start hitting the open market. Also, both Charlie and Kenneth agreed that most ECs will appreciate better than their BTO counterparts.
“An EC is bought at a subsidised price, but sold like a condo,” Charlie says, “and they can be sold on the open market, where PRs don’t have to wait and foreigners are eligible to buy. How not to win in capital gains?”
Ryan Ong is the editor of MoneySmart,sg
Source: http://www.moneysmart.
Singapore Day in Sydney, attended by DPM Teo, slammed for ban on whites
Singapore Day organizers in Sydney were accused of racism after Caucasians were allegedly barred from the event attended by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on Saturday.
The event held at the Domain adjoining the Royal Botanic Gardens was organized by the Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU), a directorate under the National Population and Talent Division of the Prime Minister’s Office.
About 6,200 Singaporeans showed up for the event where hawkers were flown in from Singapore, reported Channel NewsAsia.
Singapore Day is for Singaporeans only, said the official I♥Sg website. “Singapore Day aims to bring a slice of home to Singaporeans abroad so as to emotionally connect them back to Singapore,” it added. DPM Teo urged those present to stay connected to Singapore.
[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=QG4LAx8U4q8″]
Anthony Sim, who attended the event, said it was heart-warming to see such a large gathering of Singaporeans and added, “ There were no PRCs, India Indians, Bangla or Pinoys to annoy us.”
“Driving home, I was struck by guilt,” wrote Sim. “The Singapore government must have put a lot of thought and spent a huge amount to organize this event. And overseas Singaporeans do not pay tax nor contribute to its local economy, so why are we deserving of such a generous gesture that would have never been given when we were living in Singapore?”
But seriously, is Singapore Day supposed to be racist/discriminatory?
— Joyce Chng (JDamask) (@jolantru) October 15, 2013
As an event, can’t organisers have a say on guests? MT @corrietan: Singapore Day in Sydney guilty of discrimination? http://t.co/DYbWIPnluD
— me.dha (@greyskies) October 15, 2013
“Irate people phoned radio station 2GB talkback host Ben Fordham to complain that white people had been turned away in droves,” reported The Telegraph.
Royal Botanic Gardens acting executive director Brett Summerell said the event had created concern and he would consider whether it would be appropriate for the park to have any further association with the event organizers.
“My understanding was it was a private event and they paid a fee to hire out the area,” he said.
“We had initial concerns over people not being let in but they had told us only people would only be turned away if it reached full capacity or they didn’t pre-register online.”
“Obviously it has created a bit of community concern and that is enough for me to review it and see if it’s appropriate for the Botanic Gardens to be involved with them in the future,” he said.
A man who identified himself as “James” told the radio station 2GB that he and his father were turned away because they were not Singaporean, reported ninemsn.
In conversation with host Ben Fordham, James said he went with his father hoping to enjoy some “authentic Singaporean food” but were not allowed to attend the event.
“We were just stunned and angry that this had happened to us in a public space in the middle of Sydney,” James told 2GB.
If it was a private event, it should have been held in a hotel and not in a public park funded with taxpayers’ money, he said.
We screwed up in Japan, says Tony Fernandes
AirAsia founder Tony Fernandes (pic) admits that the low-cost carrier failed in its ventures in Japan and Europe.
“Japan was a disaster. Our partner didn’t understand what we wanted,” said Fernandes at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit 2013 in Kuala Lumpur today.
AirAsia parted ways with Japan’s All Nippon Airways (ANA) when it sold its 49% stake in AirAsia Japan to ANA in June this year.
Both airlines had clashed over management and operational differences followed by losses amounting to ¥3.5 billion (RM113 million).
Fernandes, 49, has publicly said that he wants AirAsia to re-enter the Japanese market and is on the lookout for financial partners.
“We’ve just got to look for the right one this time because we screwed up the last time,” he added.
He also spoke on the airline’s failed routes in Europe, citing multiple factors for the axing of the carrier’s European routes in March 2012.
“We pulled out of London because we had the wrong aircraft, the A340. The price of oil was US$80 (RM254) at the time. Then it went up to US$130 (RM413). With a four-engine aircraft, it was just not feasible,” Fernandes said, adding that the UK government’s green tax is “discriminatory against ultra-long-haul airlines”.
But Fernandes is keen to revive AirAsia’s previously axed routes, specifically to London.
“We’ve got to be in Europe. There’s a huge demand for London,” he said.
He said in June this year that the company was looking into commencing its flights to Europe once it receives its Airbus A350 aircraft, which are expected to be delivered beyond 2017 — a timeline that Fernandes says may be too late for the carrier to re-enter the European market.
“We may change the seating configuration and have business class, but we do have to fly to London,” he added.
He also rubbished rumours that low-cost carrier Malindo Air poses a threat to AirAsia, saying: “I have zero interest in Malindo… our competition is ourselves.”
Malindo is a new joint-venture between Lion Air, Indonesia’s low-cost carrier, and Malaysia’s National Aerospace and Defence Industries (NADI). The airline started operating in March this year.
From The Malaysian Insider