Monday, May 12, 2025
28.2 C
Singapore
type here...
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 5248

Maslow's tyranny and Singapore's needs

The Independent
-
0
Maslow's tyranny and Singapore's needs

By Nazry Bahrawi
maslow

For his unwitting role in shaping Singapore, Abraham Maslow can be seen as the modern equivalent of Sang Nila Utama. Like the Hindu prince, the American psychologist was central to defining this island-state on the back of something imaginary.

If Sang Nila’s illusionary lion gave us our name, Maslow’s concept of human motivations is imprinted into our soul.

Popularly known as ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’, this theory states that human needs are structured and incrementally fulfilled. We operate by first satisfying our basic physical needs such as sleep and food, then working our way through a series of other needs before finally seeking to attain self-actualisation through the pursuit of virtues like morality and creativity, among others.

Agreeing that material needs matter most when Singapore first gained independence, political elites were quick to profess economic pragmatism as our national philosophy. Policies were crafted to ensure that resource-scarce Singapore attracts foreign investment and stays that way.

Almost 50 years later, signs are suggesting that Maslow was not quite right – people do not necessarily pursue their needs in stages, but all at once.

Take the recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey that found Singaporeans expressing a desire for a less competitive and more compassionate society. Also consider the emergence of a greater number of ordinary Singaporeans championing non-economic, organic causes like the anti-death penalty campaign, LGBT rights and Internet freedom.

Things are changing even in the business sector, as more young Singaporeans venture out to set up SMEs with some degree of civic conscience. A good example is Poached, an online lifestyle magazine that injects their otherwise ‘fluff’ articles with a dose of social commentary.

Despite these indications, policymakers are not quite ready to rethink their appropriation of Maslow’s theory.

Having proposed that Singapore is fast becoming post-pragmatic at a closed-door conference three years ago, a senior political figure said to me that Singaporeans have not fully resolved their bread and butter issues. I distinctly remember him saying with conviction: “Recall what Maslow said.”

Newer political leaders are no different. Reacting to the above-mentioned IPS survey, MP Zainal Saparin was quoted as saying: “When ours was a growing economy, and survival was a key concern, there was a lot of emphasis on being hardworking, accumulating wealth, fighting for a better life.”

But contrary to Maslow’s postulation, Singapore is proving to be a place where even the poor dreams. We are capable of self-actualising even if we have not slept nor ate enough.

One possible way of sidestepping the tyranny of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is to look for alternative measures of progress. A viable example is the Social Progress Index (SPI) introduced just this year. The SPI tabulates national progress by measuring GDP growth in relation to social and environmental outcomes. Some ASEAN member-states like Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia have already become signatories to this index. Why not Singapore?

Another suggestion is to establish a national body that will fund serious study of the arts and humanities in the same manner that the National Research Foundation (NRF) and A*Star sponsor science and technological research. Such an institution will be different from the National Arts Council, which focuses on funding practitioners, because its aim is to build up a repertoire of cultural critics and experts who can help Singaporeans make sense and appreciate this much-ignored aspect of human life.

This disjuncture at this juncture of the Singapore story has placed us in danger of losing the plot. What will be our next move?

Nazry is a lecturer at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, and research fellow at the Middle East Institute-NUS.

Why some drugs cost more in Singapore

The Independent
-
0
Why some drugs cost more in Singapore

By Richard Philip
drugs

You may have noticed that some commonly prescribed drugs for long-term conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure cost more in Singapore than across the Causeway in Malaysia, or other parts of the world. There are a number of reasons why the same drugs are priced differently across countries. 

Drugs fall into two broad categories – generic drugs and branded drugs. Generic drugs, which are copies of branded drugs whose patents have expired, are generally inexpensive throughout the world. Branded drugs are much more expensive because of the start-up investment, research, and marketing expenses that go into producing a new drug from scratch and bringing it onto the market.

Most pharmaceutical companies set the price for a branded drug based on a country’s ability to pay for that drug. So, it can cost more in one country than in another.

Drug makers expect countries with a high per capita GDP to pay more for branded drugs than countries with a low per capita GDP. This can lead to a huge price differential between countries. This price differential is further amplified by the difference in foreign exchange rates. 

Focused on getting a handsome return on their investments, pharmaceutical companies are keen to sell branded drugs at the highest price a market can bear. Say, for example, the best available treatment for a particular condition is surgery that costs $30,000, and there is a 5 per cent risk that the patient undergoing the surgery may die. Now, if a pharmaceutical company develops a drug that is as effective and has only a 1 per cent mortality risk, even if that drug costs 30 cents to produce, the company will price its new drug regime higher than $30,000, because the best available treatment is the benchmark, explains Dr Jeremy Lim. Dr Lim, the principal consultant at Insights Health Associates in Singapore, is the author of the book, Myth or Magic: The Singapore Healthcare System, which will be available in bookstores in mid-September. 

“The pharmaceutical company would think that, if, its drug is as effective as the current surgical treatment and has five times lower mortality risk, it deserves to charge a premium. Hence, the company would charge $30,000 plus whatever premium it deems to be appropriate,” says Dr Lim, whose previous experiences include being a senior consultant with the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Singapore, and director of research and education at SingHealth, Singapore’s largest healthcare group.

Another reason why branded drugs cost less in some countries, and more in others, is that, in certain countries, people can buy prescription drugs over the counter because of lax regulatory controls. Although laws in those countries may state that certain medicines are to be made available by prescription only, or by a registered pharmacist, in practice, it is often possible to get those drugs over the counter. This means, a patient does not have to bear the costs involved in having the drug prescribed to him.

“When it is a prescription-only drug, the administrative cost goes up because you need a doctor to prescribe the medicine, a pharmacist to dispense it and the storage of the drugs needs to be audited and monitored, and you need paper trails. The control mechanisms are tighter and they cost money,” says Dr Lim.

A third reason why drug prices vary from country to country is limited economies of scale resulting from smaller volume drug purchases. The more a healthcare provider, whether it is the government or a private hospital, buys of a particular drug, the cheaper the price gets.

Government subsidies for drugs also play a role in price differences. The Singapore government does not subsidize branded drugs unless they fall within the Standard Drug List maintained by MOH, or come under one of the government’s subsidy schemes. Patients taking a non-subsidized branded drug would therefore have to pay the full price of that drug, and hence, would end up paying more than patients in a country where that drug is heavily subsidized, Dr Lim notes.

Even within a single country, the same drug can cost differently at different hospitals. One reason for this is that hospitals buying more of a particular branded drug can benefit from economies of scale. According to Dr Lim, hospitals mark up the selling price of their drugs up to about 35 per cent to defray operating costs. 

“While this percentage formula is administratively easy for hospitals and healthcare facilities, it can lead to substantial cost pressures on patients. A 30 per cent mark-up of a one-dollar drug is 30 cents, but the same mark-up for a thousand-dollar drug is $300,” he adds.

Marvellous Melbourne

The Independent
-
0
Marvellous Melbourne

By P Francis
picture courtesy of starball.com.au

HATTRICKS are an achievement usually scored by strikers on a football field. So when a city is named the most liveable city in the world by an independent panel for three successive years, then that city must be doing something right to receive such a rare accolade. Melbourne scored 97.5% for stability, healthcare, culture and infrastructure.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) latest rankings of 140 cities, the best ones to live in are Australia, Canada, Austria, Finland and New Zealand – except for Austria and Finland, it is no surprise the other three are huge immigration targets.

Following closely on the heels of Melbourne, were Vienna (97.4%) in Austria – the home of The Sound of Music –Vancouver (97.3%) and Toronto (97.2%), both in Canada, completing the top four. It is significant that four other Australian cities were in the top 10: Adelaide (96.6%) was 5th again (jointly with Calgary in Canada), Sydney 7th and Perth 9th. It is also remarkable that Canada has three in the top 10. Helsinki in Finland was 8th, while Auckland in New Zealand rounded off the top 10.

In Asia, Osaka in Japan managed 12th; Tokyo, Japan 18th; Beijing, China 74th; Mumbai, India 116th. So where was Singapore? Research, unfortunately, could not unearth anything on the island republic, which was ranked by Business Traveller Asia-Pacific last year as “the most livable city in both Asia-Pacific and the world. Within Asia-Pacific, the Lion City is followed closely by Kobe and Hong Kong.”

As expected, prominent Melbournians waxed lyrical about the city’s latest achievement. They pointed to the heritage architecture, lovely gardens and parks, hub of arts and culture, beaches and the string of major events hosted by Marvellous Melbourne. Often dubbed the ‘Sporting Capital of The Word’, it is home to Formula 1 motor racing, Australian Open Grand Slam tennis and the Melbourne Cup – a horse race that stops the nation on the first Tuesday every November.

Add to that the multicultural precincts, such as Carlton, Richmond, Springvale and Boxhill, which offer distinct flavours in cuisine and shopping. The friendly people living in harmony, well-planned streets and expressways, trams, trains and buses are vital ingredients in a success story.

Jumping on the bandwagon were an exuberant Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, Tourism Minister Louise Asher and former premier Jeff Kennett – all singing a litany of praises in rare accord about how easy it was to sell the attractions of the Victorian capital that they love: from the fine hotels to the exhibition venues and sports stadiums.

The Herald Sun reported that Lord Mayor Robert Doyle had said continuing to drive down crime and an underground rail line linking North Melbourne to Domain on St Kilda Rd were crucial to retain liveability status. “Overall it is a remarkable testament to our remarkable city,” Cr Doyle said. “That doesn’t mean there are things we can’t improve.”

Meanwhile, The Advertiser in Adelaide trumpeted that the South Australian capital has overtaken Sydney as one of the world’s most liveable cities, with recent major infrastructure boosting its international profile. Economist Intelligence Unit survey editor Jon Copestake said from London that just 1.6% separated the five Aussie cities surveyed. “’Australian cities continue to thrive in terms of liveability; not only do they benefit from the natural advantages of low population density, but they have continued to improve with some high profile infrastructure investments.”

The release of the EIU rankings has been criticised by the New York Times for being too anglocentric in that “The Economist clearly equates livability with speaking English.” This view may have been goaded by the fact that the best US cities in the survey were far down the list with Honolulu 26th and Pittsburgh at 30th!

The rankings also had the worst city as Damascus (Syria), followed by Tehran (Iran) and Douala (Cameroon). Obviously, cities with war and acute poverty scored very poorly in the survey.

Make no mistake about it, the EIU assessments are not geared to find heaven on earth. On the contrary, they source the ideal places where there is an array of goods and services easily available, effective infrastructure and low personal risk. What is not included is the cost of living.

Yet, more immigrants are arriving Down Under, particularly in Melbourne. Asad Sheikh, of Indian Spice Pavilion in Scoresby Village, was born in India. He moved to Singapore from 2002 to 2008 before emigrating with his family to Australia and is in the process of taking up citizenship. He said that, despite working as a chef in Singapore’s four- and five-star hotels, the lure of Australia was too much to resist: “I wanted better education for my children and a peaceful lifestyle, so I came to Melbourne. I am now building a new house for my family.”

Having lived in the world’s No. 1 city for 23 years, I have seen the Melbourne sprawl extend from a radius of about 30km from the CBD to about 40km. Outer suburbs in the south-east, such as Ferntree Gully, Boronia, Wantirna, Rowville and Dandenong were considered in ‘the sticks’ (rural). Today, property in these areas have more than tripled in price as the newer suburbs of Berwick, Narre Warren, Packenham and Skye are not so desirable because of the peak hour traffic snarl.

Medical facilities, including hospitals and research are well established. Monash, Melbourne and Deakin universities spearhead tertiary education here. Various types of cooked food originating from different immigrant source countries are easily available, while most of the ingredients and spices are sold at the local supermarket and Asian grocery outlets.

Housing affordability is debatable within local circles, but when compared to overseas houses they are reasonable. Singaporeans could buy a house in the outer suburbs for less than the price of a HDB flat.

As for weekend leisure trips or week-long holidays, there are many places on the fringe of Melbourne, including the Mornington Peninsula and its seaside towns, the famous Philip Island and its Penguin Parade, the Bellarine Peninsula on the other side of Port Philip Bay and the coastal towns of Portarlington, St Leonards, Torquay on the Surf Coast, Lorne, the Twelve Apostles and Apollo Bay to name a few. Add the historic regional towns of Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong; the Dandenong Ranges; country attractions in Nurmukah and Lakes Entrance to widen the choice. These enjoyable trips are only a few hours away. For those who have Lady Luck in their pocket, the Crown Casino Complex offers a myriad of food and shopping besides the cards, dice and poker machines.

To be honest, much more can be done to improve Melbourne – from the frequency and quality of the trains and trams to the congestion and high parking costs in the CBD. Perhaps that is the hallmark of a popular metropolis, which also has a very busy container port on its doorstep. With the high frequency of international and domestic flights zeroing in on Tullamarine Airport and the smaller Avalon Airport, perhaps the ‘earmarked’ land for a Frankston Airport in the south-east – to ease the load – should be seriously considered now and work started within the next two years.

Anyone out there fancy a wager that Marvellous Melbourne could steal the coveted crown once again in 2014?

P. Francis is an English tutor in Melbourne, who has more than 20 years’ journalism experience with newspapers, books and magazines in Singapore and Australia.

Ex-Singaporean fights Aussie polls

The Independent
-
0
Ex-Singaporean fights Aussie polls

By Janice Teo
HenryHeng (500x375)

Australia has big dreams and high hopes for Asia. So big that politicians on both side of the fence are calling this the Asian Century for Australia – and they’ve produced a government White Paper called Australia in the Asian Century to prove it.

A government website, asiancentury.dpmc.com.au shows just how serious about it they are – there are links to country strategies and cultural exchange programs with Indonesia, India, South Korea, South-east Asia and of course the grand-daddy of them all, China.

As the website states:  “The scale and pace of Asia’s transformation is unprecedented and the implications for Australia are profound.”

There is perhaps no better time to be an Asian in Australia than now.

Into this fray comes ex-Singaporean and businessman Henry Heng, who is the CEO of Refresh Water, a Perth bottled water company that has six factories in four Australian capital cities.

Heng, 57, was a stockbroker with Singapore stockbroking firm Vickers Ballas and ran a small but successful chain of daycare centres and a bookshop in Singapore as well.

He is a soft-spoken man with a passion for profit whether it be business, politics or his persona life.

“Being a businessman, I don’t like to do something for no results. I decided to go into politics when I realized that today, with the current political climate, I can make a contribution,” he says.

Asians make up 10 per cent of the population in WA. This state, with its mineral wealth, has benefitted more than any other in Australia from resource-hungry China.

“Yet there are no Asians in state government,” says Heng. “With such a large number of Asians here, we could really do with an Asian voice to represent and familiarize Australians with the culture and the politics of the region.

“For instance, it’s quite pointless to try and sell eco-tourism to the Chinese market; generally when Chinese travel, they want to eat, they want to shop. These are valuable insights to a country trying to appeal in a big way to a huge market.”

So this year, Heng  made the big move into politics and stood for election to the WA state government.

In addition to being Asian, Heng is also a Christian, which explains why he is standing with Family First, a party that campaigns for Australia to return to biblical and family values, to its Christian heritage and roots.

“I’ve always been passionate about public service, but being an Asian I never thought there was any hope for me,” he said. “But things have changed.

“Australia is now aggressively building ties with the region on both sides of the political fence I think, and Asian ownership of Australian businesses and cattle stations is becoming quite an issue.

“At the same time, Australia is suffering from an erosion of values and I believe we need to see the country return to its Judeo-Christian roots. Strong families I believe are the foundation of a strong country.”

He feels he has found the perfect platform for these twin passions – business and family values. “A vote for me is a vote for small business and a vote for strong families,” he says.

He was not successful in his bid, even though a simple election jingle written by a friend got more than 40,000 views on YouTube and attracted publicity from all the major media outlets who, never ever having seen this kind of election tactic before, were frankly quite bemused at its corny but catchy Sunday School flavour.

Unfortunately for Heng, the views did not translate into votes even though people in the street were recognizing him as ‘the man with the jingle’ by the end of the campaign, but he is undaunted and has thrown his hat in for a Federal seat by running as second ticket to the party’s primary candidate, Linda Rose, in Australia’s General Election this Saturday (Sept 7).

He knows that he will not win, but under Australia’s system of voting preferences, he can give all his votes to Ms Rose and thus bolster her final count.

But are Heng’s dreams too big? How does such a minority party make any kind of difference in Australia or in its legislation?

The answer lies in Australia’s two-tiered political system – an Upper House and a Lower House.

The Upper House consists of senators from a variety of political parties. It has the power to block legislation initiated by the government. To push legislation through, the government can and does barter terms with minority parties for their support.

This is where Heng hopes he and/or his party, if elected, will have a voice.

When he and his family moved to Perth 17 years ago, entering politics in Australia was the last thing on his mind, though in Singapore he was active in grassroots organization and was vice-chairman of the Queenstown community centre youth group.

“I never entered politics in Singapore because firstly it’s not an easy thing to be selected by the PAP, and opposition parties then are not like they are now. Singapore has become much more open,” says Heng.

“I was in Singapore during the 2011 election campaign and I saw people at opposition rallies unafraid to be seen on camera. In my day, anybody who attended an opposition rally would hide behind their umbrellas, their handbags, anything just to make sure they weren’t seen.”

Whatever the circumstances were that kept Heng out of politics then, he now stands firmly in the spotlight.

Is Capital Punishment Relevant Today?

The Independent
-
0
Is Capital Punishment Relevant Today?

By P. Francis
noose_1909038c1

BARBARIC to some, has capital punishment gone past its use-by date? Is the march to the gallows obsolete? Does the electric chair or death by lethal injection strike fear in would-be criminals? These questions have sparked fiery debates for years between the righteous and the ‘bleeding hearts’.

Today, how many countries still have the death penalty? The USA – the world champion of human rights – is one of 58 countries continuing with it; 97 nations have abolished it and the rest have not used it for 10 years, according to wikipedia. However, Amnesty International has reported 140 nations have abolished the death penalty. Last year, only Latvia abolished it while 21 countries had executions and 63 passed the death sentence.

An eye for eye comes from the best-selling book of all time – the Bible. However, freedom fighter Mohandas Gandhi, who always advocated peaceful means of civil disobedience, has been attributed the quote: “an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind”. The great Mahatma (Sanskrit for ‘Great Soul’) seems to have had a valid point and huge support.

Meanwhile, over seven weeks this year, there has been a strong move to galvanise the world against the death penalty:

12-15 June: Madrid hosted the 5th World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Spain this year – attended by 90 countries. Anabel Sánchez Sierra wrote in Periodismo Ciudadano: “Key issues discussed included the abolition of the death penalty, along with the related issues of adherence to human rights treaties, the procurement of a moratorium on death penalty convictions, and the establishment of penal code reforms. The idea for this international event was generated at the previous convention, held in Geneva in 2010. At that time, Spain committed to creating the ‘Comisión Internacional Contra la Pena de Muerte’, or International Commission Against the Death Penalty (established that same year at the World Day Against the Death Penalty) for the purpose of achieving a universal moratorium on the death penalty within the next five years.”

The attendees at the congress heard messages from South Africa’s Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, Pope Francis, and other influential leaders. Rachel Zeng of the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC), who was there, confirmed: “Ms Ong Xiao Yun from Think Centre and myself from SADPC were in Madrid for the congress. I was there as part of Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN).”

So did Singapore send an official representative to the congress? Ms Zeng said: “Not that I know of.” However, Madasamy Ravi, a lawyer and member of ADPAN, Singapore was involved in the plenary session on Asia.

28 June: The UN News Centre said that Ban Ki-moon urged United Nations Member States to move towards the abolition of the death penalty, and called on countries where the procedure is still practised to increase transparency to allow a serious debate on capital punishment. “The taking of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict on another, even when backed by legal process,” Mr Ban said opening the high-level event and panel discussion at UN Headquarters in New York, on ‘Moving away from the death penalty – Wrongful Convictions’. “We have a duty to prevent innocent people from paying the ultimate price for miscarriages of justice. The most sensible way is to end the death penalty.”

27 July: A report on news.com.au said that fewer executions of death penalties occurred last year according to the Italian NGO Hands off Cain. The report said the worldwide figures fell from 5,004 in 2011 to 3,967 in 2012. The total of nations without capital punishment rose from 155 to 158 for the same period. “The significant decrease in death penalties is to a great extent thanks to China, where they dropped from 4,000 to 3,000 in just a year,” Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said at the presentation of the report. China saw a drop of 10% each year from 2007 because a new law required death sentences to be heard in the Supreme Court, the report added. However, China remains top of the Hands off Cain blacklist, ahead of Iran (580 in 2012) and Iraq (nearly doubled to 129 in 2012). The report added: “Although 33 of the 40 countries that still have the death penalty are ruled by despots, some ‘liberal democracies’ returned to capital punishment in 2012.”

Singapore still enforces death by hanging – the last Australian hanged in the republic was Van Tuong Nguyen on 2 Dec 2005 for drug trafficking about 396.2g of heroin – more than 26 times the amount for which the death penalty is mandatory in the Lion City. Despite pleas for clemency by the Australian Government, the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and Amnesty International and other groups, the Singapore Government stood firm, perhaps on principle – so much so that Australian PM John Howard could not sway his Singapore counterpart Lee Hsien Loong to help the accused, who was remorseful, co-operated with the police and had been baptised as Caleb while in Changi prison.

Australia’s Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) last month screened a two-part dramatised miniseries produced by Khoa Do – called Better Man – which relived the trauma and tragedy of the events and how it affected Van’s mother and twin brother. It was a powerful performance and sent an unmistakable message to those travelling overseas that there are severe penalties in some countries, especially Singapore, and to respect their laws.

However, a minute concession has been made to Singapore’s capital punishment law. On 9 July last year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told parliament that he was easing the death penalty for traffickers, but only if they had acted solely as a courier and did not supply or distribute the drug.

Meanwhile, there will be a stay of executions at Changi since the laws have now been amended to accommodate the tweaking on 14 Nov last year. The more than 30 prisoners on Death Row – mostly on drug offences – will be able to re-apply for sentencing. This could mean life imprisonment with the rotan (caning).

With regard to murder, Law Minister K. Shanmugam told the House – on the same day as the DPM – that the government wished to retain capital punishment only for murders with an intention to kill. If there was no outright motive to kill, the sentence could be either the death penalty or a life sentence.

This begs the rhetorical question: If Van Tuong Nguyen had been arrested in Singapore for drug trafficking this year instead of more than 10 years ago, would he have avoided the hangman? Perhaps not, because nothing may have changed until his case generated wide publicity to prompt the amendment.

Only this week, Gopinathan Nair Remadevi Bijukumar, 37, had his murder conviction reduced to life imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane – the third re-sentencing since Singapore’s law on the death penalty was amended.

Indonesia, too, has a Death Row where two Australians await execution for drug offences committed in April 2005. Ringleaders of the group dubbed The Bali Nine by the media, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, were sentenced to death by firing squad. Appeals for clemency to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono have been in vain and their execution is imminent.

However, some Australians have said: “Do the crime, do the time!” They have argued that these drug mules cause widespread pain, suffering and sometimes death to youngsters and they deserve the maximum sentences.

But, in the Ten Commandments, made famous in the blockbuster movie of the same name by Cecil B DeMille – starring Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Bryner as Pharaoh his half-brother – in 1956, the sixth commandment proclaimed Thou shall not kill.

In Australia, the death penalty was fully abolished in 1985. Last September, the horrific rape and murder of Irish woman Jillian Meagher made headlines around the world. She was attacked as she walked home on a busy street after Friday night drinks with colleagues in inner Melbourne. Subsequently, more than 30,000 people marched down Sydney Road in Brunswick – the scene of the crime – demanding safety for women in the streets. The killer, Adrian Ernest Bayley, had been on parole and sought yet another victim. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 35-year non-parole period. In this instance, some people asked if Australia should bring back the death penalty for repeated offenders or serial killers.

The other high-profile murder happened two months later and centred on Sarah Cafferkey, who was murdered by someone she knew – after a row over drugs in his house at Bacchus Marsh in outer Melbourne. The killer, Steven James Hird, who had killed before and served time in jail, had stabbed the victim 19 times before stuffing her in a dustbin and covering it with cement. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole. “Was that enough?” some concerned citizens have questioned again.

Looking back to 2011, the Herald Sun reported that Victorian Liberal MP Bernie Finn called for the return of the death penalty, especially for drug kingpins. He received a backlash. Opponents of the death penalty said the re-introduction of capital punishment would make Australia a pariah in the eyes of the world. However, Finn found support in Crime Victims Support Association president Noel McNamara, who said: “I think the death penalty should be brought back for anyone who takes a life or causes a (loss of) life like happens with drug traffickers. Of course, there’s nothing like permanent rehabilitation on the end of a rope.”

But Melburnian mother of two girls Ms M Go, who grew up in Indonesia, disagreed. She said: “I don’t believe in capital punishment. You cannot bring back the victims, who died. Instead of capital punishment, they should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. They are the product of parents and society and were not corrected at home and in school. The Bible also said to offer the other cheek and not hit back.”

Ferntree Gully’s Debra Weston, a working mother of three girls, is not comfortable with the death penalty: “Basically, I would like to say ‘yes, bring it back’ – but mistakes can be made. People may be framed or wrongly convicted.”

On the other hand, Wellington Village newsagent Isaac Awat, a Catholic from Iraq, felt strongly about the weak sentencing of hardcore criminals. He said: “Australia should bring back the death penalty for the dangerous people, like those who killed Jillian Meagher and Sarah Cafferkey.”

Basically, there are two schools of thought for and against enforcing the death penalty. In between, there are some who believe that the death penalty still has a purpose as a strong deterrent to serious crime, such as repeat, multiple or serial killers. Under their plan, the condemned would be held on Death Row for a few years until all avenues of appeal are exhausted. This ‘middle’ group believes even a life sentence without parole would be a drain on taxpayers’ funds. More importantly, these high-risk killers have nothing to lose by attempting a jail break and even kill again if they escape.

For the moment, the jury is out on the relevance of the death penalty and in some countries the noose still dangles on the gallows – perhaps even gathering dust. Make no mistake about it, this problem will fester and not go away for a long time!

P. Francis is an English tutor in Melbourne, who has more than 20 years’ journalism experience with newspapers, books and magazines in Singapore and Australia.

Ballot boxes: Tan Jee Say wants thorough police probe

The Independent
-
0
Ballot boxes: Tan Jee Say wants thorough police probe

Tan Jee Say
Tan Jee Say

The empty ballot boxes deserve a thoroughgoing police probe, says Tan Jee Say. Mr Tan, who contested the 2011 presidential election, is surprised by the sudden discovery of two empty ballot boxes. This is irregular. The ballot boxes are supposed to be discarded after the elections, said the Elections Department.
The Elections Department filed a police report after it received an email from a member of the public on Tuesday about the empty ballot boxes found. The Elections Department did not say where the boxes were found or which elections they were used for. But they were purportedly found in a school room and based on pictures circulating online appear to be from two polling stations in the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and were used in the 2011 presidential election.
Mr Tan, who contested the election, said: “I am surprised this has happened.  Looks like there is unfinished work by some people. Now that a police report has been lodged, I hope the police will thoroughly investigate into it.”
The Elections Department, which is under the Prime Minister’ Office, stressed the discovery of the empty, used ballot boxes had no implications on “the secrecy of the vote and the electoral process”.
“They (the boxes) are supposed to have been collected by the Elections Department’s contractor, along with other discarded items, from the counting centres for general disposal,” it said. The discovery of used empty ballot boxes would mean that “these were missed by the contractor at the point of collection for disposal”, the statement added.
Police said: “The persons interviewed by the Police have told the Police that the ballot boxes were empty when they found them, with no ballot papers inside. Preliminary investigations indicate that these were empty boxes left behind in the counting centre intended to be disposed of. ”
Investigations are continuing, police added.

Vincent Wijeysingha and gay activists barred from Russian embassy, cops show up

The Independent
-
0
Vincent Wijeysingha and gay activists barred from Russian embassy, cops show up
jolovan vw yangfa
Yangfa, Vincent and Jolovan

SINGAPORE 30th August 2013: Russian diplomats did not respond with love when gay activist  Vincent Wijeysingha and his friends went to present a petition, “To Russia with Love” on Friday. They were refused entry into the Russian embassy. Fourteen policemen in eight patrol cars showed up as they were leaving. The police filmed Wijeysingha, Jolovan Wham and  Leow Yangfa. They were also asked to produce their NRICs.

The activists went to the embassy to present a petition protesting against laws which discriminate against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community. The petition was signed by 200 individuals at an event, “To Russia with Love”, held at Hong Lim Park last Saturday. It was part of a series of activities organized by Indignation, Singapore’s annual LGBT pride festival.

Vijeysingha resigned from the opposition Singapore Democratic Party earlier this week, saying he was leaving party politics to focus on civil society activities.

UPDATE on 31st August 2013 – Media statement from the activists

Officials of the Russian Embassy in Singapore have refused to accept a petition signed by 200 members of the LGBT community and their allies when four activists visited their premises on Friday morning, 11am Singapore time. Instead, the embassy called the police and the activists were interviewed for almost an hour before they left the scene.
The petition was signed at an event last Saturday (24 August), ‘To Russia with Love’, held at Hong Lim Park as one of a series of activities organised by Indignation, Singapore’s annual LGBT pride festival.
‘To Russia with Love’ was organised in response to the Russian parliament’s adoption of legislation banning the dissemination of information on “non-traditional” sexuality. The Russian government claims that the law will protect children and young people from information and propaganda that are harmful to their well-being and development. There has also been an increase in the number of violent incidents, assaults, harassment and bullying of Russian LGBT people and their allies since the passing of this law. At least two people were reported to have died as a result of homophobic attacks.
Vincent Wijeysingha, who was the first politician in Singapore to come out as gay said ‘This small act will not change the mind of the Russian government. But it should be left in no doubt that people the world over hold it in contempt.’
Russia will host the Winter Olympics next year and its government has banned demonstrations and rallies in the city of Sochi where the games will be held, in a move that was denounced by rights activists.
Last week, an email was sent to the Russian Ambassador requesting a meeting to deliver the petition. The Head of the Consular Section, Bulat Dondukov, replied with this message:

The Embassy has received and considered your request for a meeting with an Embassyofficial with the purpose of submitting a petition from Singapore’s LGBT community.
We believe that your protest is prompted by gross misconception and is ill-advised. You have misconstrued developments in Russia.
First of all, we want to remind that discrimination of any minority is legally prohibited inRussia by the Constitution. Unlike the former Soviet Union homosexual behaviour is not punishable by the Criminal Code. The recently adopted law has one well-defied purpose – to ban promotion of homosexuality among minors, but not “promotion of homosexuality”, as you claim. The law prohibits promotion in aggressive forms of non-traditional sexual practices among minors.
Law enforcement officers now have the right to detain persons who violate the law intentionally (for example, by conducting public actions near schools and other children institutions). And last, but not least: violation of this law is an administrative, not criminal, offence.   
In a joint statement, the four activists said ‘We have been pressing the bell outside the embassy for the last thirty minutes and obviously nobody is coming out to receive us even though they have just let the newspaper man in. So clearly, they are ignoring us which is rather telling, because Putin appears to be a tough man in his own country but his representatives abroad don’t even have the courage to come out to accept nothing more dangerous than a letter. So, we will leave the letter here and go away, but we would like to tell our LGBT friends in Russia from here in Singapore that we support you, and this is done in friendship across the many miles.’

[fvplayer src=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sqo1sud3O8k”]

What is the real story?

The Independent
-
0
What is the real story?

By PN Balji
Vincent Wijeysingha’s story just does not gel. He said he was leaving the Singapore Democratic Party — and politics — because if he continued with party politics “marginal concerns such as those faced by the gay community” would be sidelined.
One of the rising stars of the party also said the discussions that followed his disclosure last month that he was gay show there is a misunderstanding of these issues, primarily because of a “lack of mainstream access to appropriate information.”
That access will be even more difficult with him now out of the political stage. Over the years, the attitude towards gayhood has improved. Goh Chok Tong went public about the decision to have gays in the civil service.
And when Vivian Balakrishnan hinted about Wijeysingha’s sexuality in the run-up to the 2011 General Election, PM Lee Hsien Loong came out quite clearly against such tactics.
The mainstream access to issues relating to gayhood has only increased, not decreased.
Thus, Wijeysingha’s reason doesn’t fit the reality.
Then there is his stated interest in not just issues involving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LBGT) rights, but also those surrounding civill liberties. Civil liberties cover a wide spectrum which Wijeysingha will find difficult to spread if he is out of the political process.
The battle is not going to be easy, of course. The conservative ground is still not sweet for politicians like him.
But why give up at this stage with elections three years away and the national mood changing?
So, we cannot but ask: Is there something more than meets the eye?
SDP’s statement that it was “disappointed” with Wijeysingha’s decision says a lot.
Is there something that both the party and the man are not telling Singapore?

Are our children being tested too soon and their future decided too early?

The Independent
-
0
Are our children being tested too soon and their future decided too early?

By S. Bala

Source: TNP

The primary school education system formally ends with a high-stake national examination (Primary School Leaving Examination) which streams the pupils based on their ability in four core subjects. Those who do well in the examination can go to the better secondary schools. It is a major milestone, affecting a child’s future. The intensely competitive, highly stressful examination impacts on students and their parents alike.

Even Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was moved to complain against it. In his National Day Rally speech, he said:

“Parents think PSLE determines a student’s future; hence there is tremendous stress as the whole family takes the PSLE. Today, parents ask one another, ‘What is your child’s T-score?’ I don’t think this is healthy at age of 12.”

Unfortunately, this is reality. A rose by any other name is a rose. Whether we use T-scores or wider band grades, will the examination be any less grueling?  Isn’t it time we realized that 12-year-olds should not be subjected to a national placement examination. The fault lies not in the way the assessment is made but in the assessment itself. The use of T-scores is just a statistical tool to standardize scores across subjects so that a student’s performance is weighed against his or her peers.

Mr Lee mentioned the use of a grade system to score PSLE, but how is this going to ease the tension of parents who perceive the PSLE as a crossroad to either a bright or a dim future? Do the ‘O’ levels or ‘A’ levels cause pupils any less stress? Whether we use T-scores or grades, the undue stress does not stem from the scoring system but from education policies shaped by global trends that have resulted in a competitive and stressful system.

If PSLE is not abolished, then the government should consider changing the mode of assessment for PSLE as the current mode is a mechanistic and technical process. Ironically, what influences the students is not the teaching but the assessment system. They concentrate on what they are likely to be assessed on rather than learning itself.

Assessment should complement learning and should be aligned with the learning activities.

The Ministry of Education’s vision of ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ was a move to meet the challenges of the future through creativity and innovation. It promoted a shift from “quantity teaching” to “quality teaching” which translates to less rote learning.

However, if learning is geared towards creativity and innovation, then why should assessments be made primarily through written tests? Not all students learn or understand the study materials the same way, yet a major examination such as PSLE uses this method to determine placement in a secondary school?

A new scoring system will not necessarily reduce stress as PSLE in itself is a national placement examination which is norm-referencing – fitting pupils to a rank list. Statistical moderation processes such as T-scores are used to standardize students’ scores to fit a normal distribution. The fault clearly does not lie in the scoring but in the assessment type. The best thing to do would be to abolish PSLE.

Photo courtesy of TNP

New tycoons in Singapore – what do they bring to the table?

The Independent
-
0
New tycoons in Singapore – what do they bring to the table?

News: photo source -therichest.com

Poor Eduardo Saverin. The Facebook co-founder, Singapore’s eighth richest man in 2012, according to Forbes, was dissed by an Independent reader. The reader wrote: “PM Lee said, ‘Billionaires bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs’. PM Lee is right! Saverin, one of Facebook founders who renounced his US citizenship to become a Singaporean PR , invested in Miss Singapore Universe winner Rachel Kum’s cosmetics firm! So I guess Saverin is a jobs creator!”

The reader helpfully linked to a Daily Mail article, published just days before Facebook’s initial public offering (IPO) in May 2012, about Saverin’s “playboy lifestyle” in Singapore and his link with Rachel Kum. The article went on to quote from a Wall Street Journal report which said, “Eduardo doesn’t invest in much. He doesn’t invest in Singapore companies.”

That’s old news. We don’t begrudge the Brazilian his billions and what he chooses to do with them. His name wouldn’t have come up at all unless the Prime Minister had spoken about the benefits billionaires bring.

Speaking at the DBS Asian Insights Conference, PM Lee said: “In fact, if I can get another 10 billionaires to move to Singapore and set up their base here… I think Singapore will be better off because they will bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs…”

That may be so. But with unemployment hovering just around 2 per cent, does Singapore need more foreign billionaires or top-flight executives and managers?

Consider people like Nanyang Technological University president Prof Bertil Andersson, DBS CEO Piyush Gupta, Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore board member Bruno Lanvin, who is also executive director of Insead Lab and has been associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF). Their talents are manifest. NTU has shot up in the world university rankings under Prof Andersson, who was appointed president in July 2011. Lanvin was one of the three editors of the Global Information Technology Report 2013, which ranked Singapore second in the Networked Readiness Index, same as in 2012.

No country should have to choose between tycoons and talented managers. Both are necessary.

Still, it would be interesting to know how much foreign tycoons have contributed to Singapore. Jim Rogers, the American investor, moved to Singapore in 2007 and has been one of its ardent admirers. But he is not another Warren Buffet whose investments are widely reported in the press. Richard Chandler from New Zealand, Singapore’s fifth richest man in 2012, according to Forbes, heads Chandler Corporation. Based in Singapore, it invests mostly in emerging markets.

There is no reason why foreign tycoons moving to Singapore should be expected to make the bulk of their investments in the city-state. That’s not how business operates. Even GLCs like SingTel and DBS have substantial foreign stakes.

Tycoons, local or foreign. are free to live it up in Singapore and scout opportunities abroad.There’s money to be made as the playground of the rich, too.

The ghosts of past Singaporeans may shudder at the changes. But you can’t be the same-old, same-old forever. You have to go with the flow, bend with the winds of fortune. The old Singapore had to go and change into this glitzy fleshpot by the sea, where rich playboys go clubbing while the government collects GST and the tips go to foreign workers.

But is this the Singapore we want?

1...5,2475,2485,249...5,255Page 5,248 of 5,255

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