Friday, May 23, 2025
30 C
Singapore
type here...
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 5269

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

By
The Independent
-
0
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?

By
The Independent
-
0
The way we see it, The Independent Singapore News

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?

By
The Independent
-
0
Source: TNP

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?

By
The Independent
-
0
News: photo source -therichest.com

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?

Asia focus for Aussie who wants to be PM

By
The Independent
-
0

By P. Francis
Melbourne
3-Alan-with-Tony-Abbott (500x333)

RHODES scholar, swimmer, runner, cyclist, ex-seminarian, journalist and politician are just some of the threads weaved into the many-coloured coat of Tony Abbott, leader of the quietly-confident Liberal opposition Down Under as D-Day 7 September approaches.

No, he is not exactly like Joseph – the favourite son of Jacob – who was given the unique coat by his father as a sign of future leadership over his brothers, as related in Genesis.

Abbott is married to Marg and has three lovely daughters. He had to work very hard in opposition against two different PMs and now, some critics claim, it is his election to lose as the weekly polls have swung Abbott’s way. (Some polls have even dared to say – and newspapers have published the prediction – that PM Kevin Rudd could lose his Brisbane seat of Griffith.)

This Rhodes scholar, who studied at The Queen’s College in 1981, is one of the high achievers in the Australian political arena. Other Australian products of the premier scholarship, which has strict criteria, sharing a special ‘thread’ are Labor PM Bob Hawke (1983-1991), Kim Beazley (deputy Labor PM) and former Liberal opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull.

Even Singapore has its share of Rhodes scholars. Former Singapore Sports Council chairman and senior minister Dr Tan Eng Liang won the scholarship through Malaysia in 1981. The rumour mill had it in the late 1970s that “this man was being groomed to be the next Singapore PM”. History shows his career went a different way. Today Singapore has two serving MPs of that calibre – Raymond Lim (PAP) and Chen Show-Mao (WP), while Malaysia has MP Sivarasa Rasiah of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (People’s Justice Party).

Among Abbott’s plans for the future is integrating further into Asia by building from the ground up.

The Australian newspaper reported on 25 Feb this year: “The business community has swung behind Tony Abbott’s pitch for a new Colombo Plan, which would see thousands of Australian undergraduates undertake a semester of university work in the Asia-Pacific. Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has been the driving force behind the new policy for scholarships paying travel, tuition and living expenses for Australians to study in Asia.”

Ms Bishop, a former education minister in the Howard government, had said that the scholarships would require recipients to work one day a week as interns for Australian businesses and non-government organisations in Asia. She said it was crucial to link the scholarships to career prospects for the students selected. Business Council of Australia president Tony Shepherd gave a big tick to the opposition’s plan and called it “a great idea”. “The original Colombo Plan (which brought Asian students to Australia) was very beneficial to Australia,” he said. “It formed fantastic alumni links to Australia.”

Brighton Secondary Year 10 express student Evelyn Lieng, of Melbourne, gave the plan an emphatic nod and said: “It would be a good opportunity to work in Third World countries and developing nations in Asia because many of us take what we have here for granted.” Lieng, who has a grasp of conversational Japanese and French – learnt in Years 7 and 8 at school – also had the impression that “Locals think the immigrants work too hard at school and employment, but just can’t be bothered to match the pace.” Perhaps that is why Australia lags behind some Asian countries in the academic stakes.

Meanwhile, Isabelle Weston, a Year 10 Student at Fairhills High in Knox, has hosted three different Japanese students in her home and will go on a study trip to Japan in mid-September. She said: “Guess it is a good plan to experience the culture, lifestyle and learn new ways of working. The Federal Government should select suitable students and teach them to pay their way.”

A Malaysian teacher, enjoying his retirement in Melbourne but wanting to remain anonymous, commended the plan: “Good idea.  What is needed now is to identify the Australian businesses and NGOs willing to host the interns and to participate in the programme. While the Aussies might be willing, I doubt if the Asian businesses or NGOs would give their full support. They might have reservations. Asian businesses, in particular, rely very strongly on personal commitment and loyalty, as you know. Their business culture especially, is very different from that of the West.”

Abbott has another plan – announced in a White Paper on 21 June this year: “With Asia’s real GDP expected to grow from US$27 trillion to US$67 trillion by 2030 and Northern Australia’s proximity to the tropical region, Northern Australia is well placed to capitalise on the significant economic, strategic and environmental macro-trends that will shape both the Asian and tropical regions.  We are determined to break the ongoing development deadlock that has held Northern Australia back for so long.  For too long, families have been reluctant to move to Northern Australia because of the absence of adequate infrastructure; and governments and the private sector have been reluctant to invest in major projects because of insufficient population.’’

Abbott’s vision is to use the north of the continent as a springboard for trade into Asia, where many countries are rapidly developing under the shadows of the economic giants, such as China, Japan and Korea. Highly-populated India could be called the sleeping giant, closest neighbor Indonesia has a huge market, Thailand is popular with Aussie tourists and Myanmar is slowly opening its doors.

In the past, Australian military forces have served in Singapore, Malaya, Borneo, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Korea and Vietnam to help maintain peace and freedom.  It is a well known fact that Asian countries, including Singapore, Indonesia and the US have ventured Down Under and used the vast and rugged terrain of Australia for military training exercises.

Today, many people accept Australia as part of Asia. Even in sport, the Socceroos, Australia’s national football team, has paved the way into Asia by playing in the Asian Group for the past two World Cup qualifying rounds. They have been great ambassadors for the country. Melbourne, regarded as the sports capital of the world, will be in the limelight once again when the Aussies host their inaugural Asian Cup tournament in 2015.

The links are already there laid in stone and Abbott’s plan to further strengthen the bonds with Asia is another step in the right direction. The changing face of Australia is mirrored in the number of MPs with Asian heritage, who are involved in government at federal and state level. It is only a matter of time, maybe decades, when – just like President Obama in the US – a Prime Minister with Asian heritage is sworn in by the Governor-General of the day!

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.

Vincent Wijeysingha resigns from SDP

By
Kumaran Pillai
-
0
Vincent Wijeysingha
Vincent Wijeysingha

By Kumaran Pillai

Vincent Wijeysingha
Vincent Wijeysingha

Outgoing Singapore Democratic Party treasurer Dr Vincent Wijeysingha gave this exclusive, no-holds-barred interview to The Independent Singapore before his resignation from the party. He spoke openly about his journey through the political landscape, the prejudices he faced and the need for greater gay awareness and advocacy.
He was a rising star, holding key appointments as party treasurer, head of communications, author of SDP’s shadow budget and prime contributor to SDP’s policy position papers.
His decision to quit electoral politics seems to follow the outing of his gay orientation on Facebook just before the Pinkdot event this year.
One party member said, “Vincent’s resignation is a loss to SDP.”
Dr Wijeysingha is the third to resign of the four-member SDP team that stood for election from the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in the 2011 general election. Tan Jee Say and Michelle Lee have already left the SDP and Ang Yong Guan, the fourth member, is no longer seen at party events.
Here’s what Dr Wijeysingha had to say.
The interview
You’ve had an incredible journey in Singapore’s socio-political scene. First of all, how did you get involved in mainstream politics?
It’s an exciting journey, even if not entirely trouble-free!
Entering politics was fairly straightforward. During the first year after I came back to Singapore, I was looking at civil society initiatives. There was a lot of good work going on.
I sensed that, for me at least, a focus on wider politics would be worthwhile. It felt the right thing to do, engaging in the broader political spectrum.
What were some of the prejudices that you faced in your political life?
The most immediate prejudice I experienced was in the silence that surrounds homosexuality – it means that people like Vivian Balakrishnan can use it as a trump card during elections.
The existence of Section 377a implies that prejudice against the gay community is institutionalised in Singapore. And it permeates every aspect of our lives – through the school system, the army and the workplace. LGBT people end up hiding their true selves and living a life of silence in isolation. Dr Balakrishnan then uses it against us.
Tell me more about this video that was circulated. Was that taken at a private event?
It wasn’t a private event, it was a forum organised by M Ravi to discuss the Section 377a constitutional challenge that he was taking – the Ivan Tan case. I spoke at that event.
Was that before you decided to enter politics?
No, about the same time. Roy Tan, who has done a great job of chronicling the work of the gay community over several years, recorded the forum and uploaded it to YouTube. It was a useful contribution to the public debate.
It may have been a concerted plan on the part of some PAP supporters: the video was publicised about a fortnight before the general elections and then Dr Balakrishnan made a statement about it.
But my sense is that, in any case, the issue is complex: there are layers of prejudice and layers of commitment to democracy. There are those who are committed to democracy but struggle with the extension of rights to gay people.
What’s interesting was SDP’s response to Vivian’s statement about your “gay agenda.” SDP was quick to say that they do not have a gay agenda. But the larger question is, why not? If they are championing for full democracy, why leave the gays out?
This one is a semantic problem…
The term ‘gay agenda’ was coined by American evangelical churches to describe what they see as a nefarious plot by gay people to take over the world!
Dr Balakrishnan may have heard the term being used in similar fashion and then used it in the same way.
In fact, the term doesn’t have any substance to it – when you think about it – what is a gay agenda?
So when the SDP responded during the elections, we said that we don’t have a gay agenda – what we have is an agenda for the poor and an agenda for democracy.
Justice Quentin Loh said that in Singapore’s legal system, whether a social norm that has “yet to gain currency” should be discarded or retained is decided by Parliament. So shouldn’t you be championing the gay issues in Parliament instead?
As far as I perceive it, the Singapore courts don’t interpret the law. We don’t appear to have a natural justice approach to the law but follow what Parliament has prescribed. I call this the Yong Pung How Doctrine; he articulated it often during his tenure as Chief Justice.
In England, you will sometimes find judges saying emphatically that Parliament must look again at a particular issue. Our judges don’t do that.
But neither is Parliament the place where social change is initiated. It is the place where social change is ratified.
Social change occurs in the community. When a question arrives on the floor of Parliament, it has already been progressed outside.
A small number of non-government MPs does not change the legal framework but rather responds to public sentiment outside which, to be sure, is the task of politicians but, more importantly, of social activists, to shape.
What made you post about your sexual orientation just before the Pink Dot event this year?
As far as I am concerned, I was outed during the GE. It was already a known fact…
My post was rather tongue-in-cheek but it made an important point: that one should attend Pink Dot if one is, like me, committed to the equal rights of all people.
Speaking openly against a prejudice that has thrived in silence is part of the process that dispels the silence.
I understand that you are resigning from SDP…
Yes, after that post on Facebook, I received hundreds of ‘Likes’ and messages. Some wrote to congratulate me for coming out. And it really surprised me.
It struck me that LGBT people may have been lulled into a sense of security. The police do not raid our social spaces anymore; it does not use agent provocateurs. Several MPs including the two former Prime Ministers are on record as saying that no moral attitude should be assigned to homosexuality.
I was certainly lulled into a sense that all is well. That when Section 377a is removed from the statute book – and eventually it will – things in general will be okay.
But the sentiment is split: many of the comments in the social media were supportive but some were highly prejudiced.
The volume of misinformation and misunderstanding suggested to me that there is a major task ahead to address these negative views because they contribute to the very real discrimination in daily life. So that forced the question on me: how should I respond.
If I remained in party politics, I would focus on mainstream issues, ie. those at the political middle ground. This could result in the sidelining of marginal concerns such as those faced by the gay community – I faced a dilemma.
Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that I might be of better use if I engaged these marginal concerns, particularly since they impact on me and therefore have deep meaning for me as an individual.
Will you be joining any gay advocacy group or starting one on your own?
I haven’t thought that far. I do need to get involved, wherever it might be.
My values remain the same; they are the values the SDP inculcated. The SDP has provided a much-needed voice to place the issues of personal liberty firmly in the political arena.
I take those values with me; they form a key element of my values apparatus.
You see, in fact there is a “gay agenda”, but not in Dr Balakrishnan’s sense. It is an agenda for equal protection of the law, for respect and amity.
I’m sure that when people get over their initial prejudices through access to better information, the so-called gay agenda will be no more of a threat than the agendas for equal rights for women, for ethnic minorities, for disabled people that at one time were also viewed with suspicion and fear but which today are entirely mainstream.

Sports and politics: do they mix?

By
The Independent
-
0

By Michael Y.P. Ang

basi_yeo_teo_chee_heanIt is fairly common for Singapore’s sports organisations to be run by politicians. So we have

Senior Minister of State for Trade & Industry and National Development Lee Yi Shyan serving as president of Singapore Badminton Association,

MP for Toa Payoh East (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) Zainudin Nordin as president of the Football Association of Singapore, and

MP for Nee Soon South (Nee Soon GRC) Lee Bee Wah as president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association.
A person should not be excluded from presiding over a national sports organisation simply because he is a politician. That would be discrimination.
However, if a person with no prior experience in sports administration or as a competitive athlete becomes the chief of a national sports organisation, primarily because he is a politician, it raises the question: is this in the best interest of the sport or that person’s political career? (Being prominently involved in national sport raises a person’s public profile.)

Politicians running sports bodies per se is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be a very good thing.

Politics and sport seem like a good mix in Japan

Japan, a global sports powerhouse with 139 Olympic gold medals (of which nine came from the Winter Olympics), also has politicians running some of its sports organisations. For instance, Seiko Hashimoto, a member of Japan’s House of Councillors (the Upper House), is president of the Japan Skating Federation (JSF).

However, unlike her Singaporean counterparts, Ms Hashimoto is a former Olympic speed skating bronze medallist. Clearly, she has first-hand knowledge of what her sport needs to flourish. This is perhaps why the JSF continues to produce Olympic medallists in both speed and figure skating.

The ideal sports administrator

China’s Olympic and world champion Lin Dan recently told the AFP news agency, “Many people, including those from the BWF (Badminton World Federation), don’t really understand what the main problems in badminton are, and what it most needs, because many officials are not competitors.”

Former national athletes with an aptitude for sports administration are the ideal people to manage the sport they had competed in.

A great example is Singapore’s two-time world silat champion Sheik Alau’ddin, who went on to become the national team head coach and, later, technical director. Armed with experience as an athlete and coach, Sheik became the chief executive officer of the Singapore Silat Federation (SLF) in 2005.

Under Sheik’s leadership, the SLF continued its proud tradition of producing world champions and South-east Asian Games winners. At the inaugural Asian championships two years ago, Singapore won four gold medals.

Is sport the best use of Singaporean politicians’ precious time?

Not every former athlete is suitable for or interested in sports administration. Nevertheless, it is counter-productive for national sports organisations to pick only politicians as their presidents, especially if they have more pressing national matters to focus on.

For instance, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean is also Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs. These portfolios are in addition to the six constituencies within the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC he oversees. Given his full-time work commitments, is he really the most suitable person to be president of the Singapore National Olympic Council?

Unless a politician brings with him a wealth of sports experience, Singapore sport is better served by having qualified, passionate sports administrators who can commit full-time to running national sports organisations.

It’s Singapore, not Swingapore

By
The Independent
-
0

By Abhijit Nag

sgconversation

“What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty!” said Hamlet.  He wouldn’t have been so sure about human rationality, though, had he gone around taking opinion polls.

Did you see the survey findings of Our Singapore Conversation?  Forty-five per cent of the respondents agree, and another 33 per cent strongly agree, that the government is managing Singapore well.  But only 42 per cent agree, and 22 per cent strongly agree, that the government is doing what’s right for Singaporeans. How can the number of people who think the government is doing a good job exceed those who think the government is doing what’s right for the people? Go figure.

That’s not the only puzzle posed by the report. It also makes you wonder how popular is the government’s new move for strengthening social safety nets. What’s crystal -clear is that Singaporeans want slower growth, fewer foreigners and tend to be conservative.

And you have to take your hat off to the old man for (a) knowing his people so well and (b) having such a big influence on them.

LKY values

Guess what matters most to Singaporeans. “Across age groups, filial piety and safety and security for their families were regarded the most important,” says the report.

LKY would approve. Filial piety, self-reliance, family ties, Mr Lee Kuan Yew never tired of upholding these while propagating what he called “Asian values”.

And they still resonate with young Singaporeans.

Tellingly, it’s people over 50 and those earning less than $1,000 a month that want the government to take more responsibility for providing for the people, says the report. The majority of teenagers, on the other hand, feel the people, not the government, should be more responsible for themselves.  And that view is shared by a sizable section of under-50-year-olds.

The influence of LKY shows in other ways, too.

Most Singaporeans would like to keep taxes low even if it means limiting support to the needy. More affluent Singaporeans, earning over $7,000 a month or living in private property, “seemed more willing to pay higher taxes to support the needy”, says the report. But that may be because they are in a better position to pay. Flat-rate indirect taxes such as the GST impose a heavier burden on lower-income groups.

“Bleeding heart liberals” most Singaporeans are not.  Gay lifestyles are acceptable to only 34 per cent of teenagers and 35 per cent of 20- to 34-year-olds – and even fewer older Singaporeans. Same-sex marriage is unacceptable to most.

It’s Singapore, not Swingapore.

Bright young things and the hip and the cool may lament, “Say it ain’t so, Singapore.”

People may wonder whether all the fuss over social welfare, gay rights, freedom of expression (apparently not a big deal, curbs acceptable to the majority) is much ado about nothing.

Here’s what we do know.

 “Sing” or “Swing”, if the people have their wish, this will still be a Garden City with green, open spaces for years to come. And who wanted Singapore to be a Garden City? Mr Lee Kuan Yew, of course.

Banned in Joo Chiat

By
The Independent
-
0
The way we see it, The Independent Singapore News

Street walkers are not the only ones who are banned in Joo Chiat, the URA has also banned new diners from operating as sit-in restaurants.

Relational Goods was told by URA, which is in charge of issuing dine-in licenses to pack up its tables and chairs in anticipation of increased congestion at the intersection of Joo Chiat Place and Everitt Road.

The place has other popular eateries and restaurants like Fei Fei Wan Tan Mee King and Smokey’s.

In the past, the residents in this area have complained that their driveways have been blocked by cars driven by patrons of these eateries.

To mitigate this problem, the owners of Relational Goods negotiated with the nearby Church to use their parking lots for their customers in order to ease the parking menace in the vicinity.

Despite their efforts, URA did not budge and said that they can only operate as a take-away outlet.

But wouldn’t take-away outlets compound the issue further?

It would only encourage more drivers to park indiscriminately so that they can grab their food on the run.

Where’s the spirit of entrepreneurship that the government is encouraging?

What Sentosa Cove says about Singapore

By
The Independent
-
0
Property News

If you want to have a snapshot view of how dramatically Singapore has changed politically, economically and socially just take a drive around Sentosa Cove, the only residential enclave that boasts exclusive oceanfront living for Singaporeans and foreigners.

Executive Adrian Tan, who had the rare chance to drive in, described it this way: “It is like driving into Beverly Hills. The bungalows don’t have fences and the beach is all yours and only yours.”

Throwing S$30 million at a bungalow is quite common. That is also the only place where foreigners can buy a landed property without asking for permission.

The Merdeka Generation that joined in the gamble with Lee Kuan Yew to build a “democratic nation based on justice and equality” might wonder if this is the Singapore they had put their money on.

Politically, the country has moved so far away from the socialist roots the ruling party was embedded on.

The PM’s recent speech has given some hope that this shift could change.

The white and white attire (to show a sense of ideological purity) worn by the People’s Action Party politicians at party functions, the official dictate for ostentatious (including waterfront) living and the principle of giving every Singaporean a good life were examples of its socialist ideals.

Economically, the country was Singaporean-centric that made sure every citizen had a decent-paying job and equal opportunities. As it transformed itself from marshland to metropolis with foreigners, especially the super rich, cruising in to work, live and play here the national core is showing signs of distress.

It is the social sphere that is seeing the biggest impact. As the Sentosa Cove people float in their private yachts enjoying champagne and caviar, a growing group of Singaporeans are struggling to make ends meet.

Singapore’s Gini coefficient, designed to show income inequality, was 0.452 last year, say OECD reports. It is the worst in the developed world.

At the other end of the scale, the country has the dubious distinction of being a place where the super rich amass their wealth super fast.

A Barclays report in 2013 showed that 51 per cent of high-net worth individuals in Singapore became rich in less that 10 years, topping the world’s charts.

The number of people with more than $1million in investible assets reached about 133,000 in 2015, about double the level in 2010.

Singapore is becoming one big party town with people like Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook, and Australian mining tycoon Nathan Tinkler setting up home here and entertaining their friends and clients in trendy nightspots where their bills can go up to tens of thousands of dollars.

But not everybody is part of this party as the everyday stresses of living in a tight squeeze of a city are more in many people’s minds.

So, when PM Lee Hsien Loong said if he could persuade 10 more billionaires to move to Singapore, he would, even if that worsened the income divide, there was a sense of resignation all round.

“…billionaires bring business, they will bring opportunities, they will open new doors, they will create new jobs,” said the PM.

No one, not even the Merdeka Generation, would want a return to the backwater days of old Singapore.

But the question is whether this relentless pursuit of the fleshy and the flashy should continue at such full speed – and whether

Singaporeans should be allowed to claim back some aspects of the nation’s old-world charm.

A fitting time to reflect as Singaporeans look towards marking the country great again.

This article was first published in 2013 and updated in 2021. 

1...5,2685,2695,270...5,276Page 5,269 of 5,276

The Independent SG

Singapore News

Business

Singtel launches first share buyback programme of up to S$2B after fivefold rise in net profit

SINGAPORE: Singtel has launched its first share buyback programme...

SME Association warns some Singapore firms could enter ‘life support mode’ as US tariff pause nears end

SINGAPORE: Some Singapore firms could go into “life support...

Sick employee feels guilty taking MC after boss says she falls ill too often

SINGAPORE: When you're genuinely ill, the last thing you...

Over 80% of Singapore companies expect US tariffs to hurt business

SINGAPORE: More than 80 per cent of Singapore companies...

Singapore Politics

‘Gradual, not radical’: NUS political economist weighs in on cabinet reshuffle

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s latest cabinet reshuffle, announced earlier this week,...

RDU chief Ravi Philemon calls new Cabinet ‘disappointing’ as more women, youth should be given seats at the table

SINGAPORE: After Prime Minister (PM) Lawrence Wong announced his...

PM Wong’s New Cabinet: Masagos loses Muslim Affairs portfolio, first-term MP Jeffrey Siow and David Neo take Transport and MCCY roles

SINGAPORE: Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has unveiled his...

Andre Low, Eileen Chong say they’re ‘humbled’ and ‘honoured’ to serve as NCMPs

SINGAPORE: The Workers’ Party (WP) announced on Monday evening...

© The Independent Singapore