TR EMERITUS

OPINION A seemingly innocuous article from a Lianhe Zaobao journalist expressing doubts about the NCMP scheme was sufficient enough to draw an immediate rebuttal from Law Minister Shanmugam who castigated the hapless writer for her "cynicism" in Parliament. While Mr Shanmugam has the right of reply, the journalist is entitled to her own opinion and it does appear an overkill by the minister to "correct" her supposedy "flawed" reasoning in the House. In other democratic states, it is common to see government leaders being grilled and peppered with tough questions from journalists, but not in cosmopolitan Singapore where it is considered heresy to disagree with PAP ministers. In Singapore, there is only one acceptable authority of truth - that from the PAP. All the other alternative or dissenting voices are mere nuisance and not permitted to co-exist within the establishment. Witness how quick the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official rebuttal to the UN special envoy Mr Githui's comments on racial relations in Singapore whereas it procrastinated for months before releasing a press statement on the double hit and run accident involving a Romanian diplomat. Or how the Minister of Community, Youth and Sports Dr Vivian Balakrishnan attacked Qatar-based broadcaster Al-Jazeera for spreading misinformation about homeless Singaporeans when he had earlier refused to be interviewed by its journalists. This utter desperation to appear "right" all the time betrayed a deep sense of insecurity and uneasiness in the government. Confident leaders are not afraid to have their words and actions scrutinized, questioned and criticized by the people. There is absolutely no need to be on the defensive on the time. In a functioning and healthy democracy, there should be a large enough common space to accommodate differing views and allowed them to be aired, discussed and debated at the same time. Nobody has the monopoly on truth and certainly not the PAP leaders who are wont to make terrible faux pauses from time to time. Why then are PAP leaders so intolerant of criticisms or divergent views? One reason is that they are extremely concerned about their "face" and the need to maintain an aura of "invincibility" in the eyes of Singaporeans. The official propaganda has been going on for ages that PAP ministers are the "best" talents that Singapore can afford and as such they need to be paid out of the world salaries in order for Singaporeans to retain their services in Parliament. That explains the reluctance of PAP ministers to engage in public debate with opposition leaders or to have the parliamentary sessions screened live on TV out of fear of exposing their deficiencies. Imagine if they fumble and embarrass themselves in front of the public, questions will inevitably be raised on whether they deserve their million-dollar salaries. The recent U.K elections debate between Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown and David Cameron which saw dark horse Clegg overtaking Brown in the opinion polls on the basis of his strong oratorical skills will not be too far from the mind of PAP leaders who have constantly argued that debating skills are not essential in governance. Yet isn't clear articulation of one thoughts a reflection of one's intellectual abilities as well? If a minister cannot even defend his own policies against detractors, how can he ever justify the astronomical salary he is commanding? This ingrained mindset with the PAP that it must have the last right of say is choking both the party and the government of the intellectual stimulus they need to formulate and implement better thought policies for Singapore. Without constant challenges from opponents, how can one ever improve and refine one's own ideas and initiatives? Being a trained lawyer himself, it is a shame that Mr Shanmugan found fit to tick off a hapless journalist for merely expressing her own views about the political process in Singapore. Our society will become poorer for it so long the PAP and Singaporeans continue to be led blindly by the myth that their leaders are right all the time and cannot be wrong.     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 →

Singapore's second integrated resort Marina Bay Sands (MBS) was launched amidst much fanfare and promise last month only to stumble on the very first event held there. The Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) Conference was the first event hosted at the Marina Bay Sands IR, but obviously it had not been a pleasant experience for the organizers and delegates judging from their feedback. According to the Straits Times, the organizers are "looking into taking action" against MBS for failing to deliver the "unmatched guest experience" it promised when the deal was signed last year. At the end of the event, the delegates had even compiled a list of complaints about MBS, the details of which were not revealed. MBS was plagued by repeated delays for months due to financial constraints of the parent company Las Vegas Sands. There were no immediate reply from MBS whose boss Sheldon Adelson had earlier expressed confidence that he will recoup his $5 billion dollar investment in MBS within 5 years. Another IR - the Resorts World Sentosa also encountered some problems when its Universal Studios Singapore theme park’s main attraction has to be shut down indefinitely due to a technical glitch found in the Battlestar Galactica roller-coaster ride a few weeks ago. There were frequent complaints that only half the casino’s gambling tables were available and the place was flooded with foreign workers especially on the weekends making it difficult for punters to place their bets. Once the initial novelty wears off, it remains to be seen if Singapore's two IRs will withstand the test of time.   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 →

作者：谢燕燕 2010-05-05 本地华社组织和领袖对李显龙总理昨天重申母语教育是我国教育至关重要特色，纷纷表示高兴和欣慰，并希望政府能继续推广母语的政策。 新加坡福建会馆署理会长兼通商中国主席蔡天宝在吁请大家冷静、理智看待这一问题的同时指出，任何对母语政策的检讨，都须与目前的推广母语政策步伐一致，才不会发出不同信息，让人们无所适从。 目前人在台湾的新加坡中华总商会会长张松声，对总理昨天发表的文告感到高兴与欣慰，并表示总商会正准备写信给总理，表达总商会对这一课题的看法。 张松声是通过中华总商会文化与教育委员会主席许廷芳，向本报传达上述看法。他正率领总商会代表团访台湾。 许廷芳说，总商会的文教委员会前天开会讨论这一课题。他对总理再次强调政府重视母语教育感到欣慰，下来就要看政府如何在重视母语与调整比重之间做平衡的安排。 宗乡总会在五一劳动节当天，举行了闭门会议，近80名会馆领导人，提出了他们对教育部准备调整母语在小六会考比重的看法。 宗乡总会秘书长林方华说，大家都有些担忧，担心会进一步削弱华文的水平与地位，但看到总理再次肯定母语教育后，感到高兴，也放心一些。他希望政府能继续目前的双语政策。 新加坡华文教师总会本月3日与教育部长黄永宏和职总助理秘书长杨莉明，与多名理事进行一个半小时对话，向部长反映他们对调整小六会考母语比重的担忧，也提出改善华文教学的建议。 华文教师总会理事长林振南说：“总理再次重申他对新加坡双语、母语教育的坚定信念，给所有母语教师打了一支强心针。前两周大家的担心、议论纷纷、不稳定心情，现在应该比较稳定了。” 马来教师联合会秘书长阿都马力阿末（Abdul Malek Ahmad）对总理的讲话感到欣慰。他说，马来文教师很担心降低小六会考母语所占的比重，对马来学生会造成一定影响，也可能对未来的母语教学带来负面的效果。 蔡天宝昨天受访时指出，华社确实非常重视教育部打算调整母语在小六会考比重的问题，这一点可从报章、电视、电台、乃至各个角落的热烈讨论看出来。他希望政府能尽快让大家明确了解具体内容。 他认为大家应冷静和理智的看待这个问题，指出学生认为华文难学，部分家长担心孩子成绩，另一些人担心华文水平下降等，都是实际存在的问题，但政府和民间团体已尝试在各个领域推动华文的学习，这方面的努力已在不同层面看到效果。 蔡天宝还表示，通商中国将继续秉持原来宗旨，为新加坡造就更多双语双文化人才。 许廷芳受访时说，政府至今还没公布调整母语在小六会考比重的细节，却已引起诸多猜测。 他指出，从历史大背景来看，过去报读大学，华文必须及格，后来华文变成可有可无。中四进入高中也一样，从必须及格演变成可有可无。这次宣布即将调整母语在小六会考的比重，大家因此怀疑会不会又是华文可有可无的前奏。 许廷芳说，减轻比重后，其实可能出现三种局面：“比重减轻，华文水平不变”、“比重减轻，水平降低”、“比重减轻，水平提高”。他说，姑不论第三种情况会不会出现，第一种情况还可以勉强被华社所接受，第二种情况则是大家所担心的。 他问道，如果不断降低母语水平，我们日后是否能培养出足以应付需求，能到中国发展、工作、经商或进行交流的人才？ 来源：《联合早报》  Read More →