TR EMERITUS

By Eric Ellis from The Age Life's daily drama that is modern Indonesia can be boiled down to an arm-wrestle between goodies and baddies. The reformist goodies are gathered under the moral and electoral authority of the President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, now a year into a second five-year term and as popular as ever. Reform is sclerotic, but it is happening and Indonesians are starting to believe that democracy delivers not just a vote, but credible institutions. The baddies are the remnants of the Suharto era, wealthy political and business cronies and their heirs who loved the old Indonesia, where business was corruptly transacted in kretek-laden shadows, where justice was for sale to the highest bidder. Indonesians often ruefully joke they have the best legal system money can buy. And the tax system is the stuff of comedy skits. Rarely has that been better exposed than in the scandal that has gripped Indonesia and which neighbouring Singapore, with its squeaky-clean image, must wish wasn't happening. The case centres on a whistleblowing cop, Susno Duadji, once Indonesia's most senior detective, who, after being picked up for questioning at the airport, began telling tales of institutionalised corruption. They included the story of a mid-ranking tax department official, Gayus Tambunan. Susno is accused of trying to destroy Indonesia's anti-corruption authority, while Gayus allegedly accepted black money from some of Indonesia's wealthiest people in return for favourable tax rulings - this in a country where the tax take is about 15 per cent of what's due. There's complex domestic politics in all of this, not least the apparent hand in the machinations of SBY's political opponents, led by the country's richest man, Aburizal Bakrie, the head of Suharto's old political fief, the Golkar party. He seemed intent on destroying SBY's star cabinet performer, the Finance Minister, Sri Mulyani, but has been thwarted in that aim with Mulyani's move to be one of the World Bank's three managing directors. Read rest of article here  Read More →

A former PRC bus driver was let off with only a $5,000 fine and banned from driving for three years for causing the death of a Singaporean scooterist Mr Oh Yam Seng. 33 year old Zhou Yunpeng, a Singapore PR admitted to causing the death of Mr Oh by failing to give way to him when he made a right turn from Ang Mo Kio Ave 5 into Ave 8 last year, the Straits Times report. It is not revealed how Mr Zhou managed to obtain his Singapore PR. He told the judge that he had been driving the bus for only one and a half months before the accident. Though bus drivers are jobs which can be taken up by Singaporeans, there is an increasing number of PRC bus drivers in Singapore, some of whom are unfamiliar with the bus routes and are unable to speak even simple English. A Sichuan newspaper reported two months ago of a Singapore bus company putting up job ads in Chengdu to recruit PRC bus drivers to work in Singapore. (read article here) The applicants must have a Chinese class “A” driver and three years of driving experience of public transport in China. On top of the attractive wages, they are also given free lodging, transport allowances and medical insurance coverage. During the recent May Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called on Singaporeans to accept a higher "inflow" of foreigners as the economy "improves". Singaporeans should prepare themselves for more PRC bus drivers like Mr Zhou Yunpeng. As for the non-Chinese, it is time to pick up some simple Mandarin in order to communicate with these "foreign talents" from mainland China.   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us  Read More →

Dear Mr Shanmugam,   I refer to your comments in parliament as reported by Straits Times on 28 Apr 2010. You reportedly accused the opposition of being unable to come up with a single argument based on principle. That accusation is more suited for yourself. Ever since you became a minister, the arguments you have come up with have hardly ever been based on principle.   You said there is a logical disconnect to the argument that since Singaporeans are rational, they do not need an extra day to think. But there is nothing illogical about it. If you are rational and have clearly thought through, do you need to ask the house for an additional day to think through while you prepare answers to questions from the parliament?   You said rational people do not suffer from being given an additional day to think. But not suffering is not a reason for anything except to avoid suffering. You do not suffer from becoming a minister, therefore you become a minister? You do not suffer from becoming a lawyer, therefore you become a lawyer? We do not suffer from an additional day, therefore we are given a additional day? How about giving us an additional day of holiday since we do not suffer from it? You said that Ms Lim has wrongly accused the PAP of saying that voters are irrational because the PAP never said that voters are irrational. You went on to quote PM Lee of saying that the cool-off day allows voters to analyse what is at stake rationally. But if voters are indeed already rational, why would they need another day to analyse rationally? So the fact that the PAP thinks that voters need another day to analyse rationally shows the underlying concern that without the extra day, voters may not analyse rationally. Thus, Ms Lim is right in pointing out the PAP's underlying concern that voters are irrational.   You referred to Ms Lim's argument of 'why now' as a schoolboy debate. You reply in turn is a schoolgirl cat fight. Your counter question of 'why not now' betrays your lack of understanding of the most fundamental law concept that you so often tout - the presssumption of innocence. The onus is always upon the accuser to prove his case and not the other way round. It is not up to the defendent to prove the accuser wrong. Applying that concept to our situation, the onus is on you, the challenger of the status quo to prove your case that it indeed should be 'now'. The onus is not on Ms Lim to prove that it shouldn't be 'now'.      Thank you  Ng Kok Lim   Editor's Note: Letter is contributed and printed as is without any amendment or modification.  Read More →