TR EMERITUS

The 24 year old lady who was the victim of YPAP member Mark Chow in his second molest case has written about her traumatic experience on her blog. Calling herself as "Shirley Zhuang", she described Mark as an "asshole" who should be locked away in prison, if not a mental hospital for good. According to information posted on his blog, Mark is a YPAP member of Pasir Ris-Punggol South and was nominated for Spirit of Enterprise Awards. Mark’s YPAP membership was not reported in the press. The case occurred in 2006 when Mark Shirley for an interview as the owner of a model agency. He then told her that he had to “examine” her body as a “standard” protocol. When Shirley stripped to her underwear inside a unisex toilet, Mark put his left hand into her bra and caressed her breast. Below is an excerpt of what Shirley wrote on her blog: "On the first day I made contact to join his agency, he asked me to be his gf in the first 5 minute after i see his stupid face on this earth. In year 2006, Mark Chow is already obese and distorted. Which girl in the right mind wouldn't get a nasty shock. He kept pinching my backside like a horny Kopitiam 60 year old Ti Ko Pek. Then he told me it was mandatory in the modeling industry to check out my bod. I already thought it was fishy. He got me to strip down to my lingerie for a make believe FHM assignment and he caressed my breast inside my brassieur! I pushed his hands away. He even tested the water and ask me to strip naked. I rejected him OUTRIGHT and I was already angry but I did not know what to do, I was so young! When I left the stupid pub, he pestered me like a horny prick to give him a farewell kiss or else he wouldn't let me go home. He wanted me to go to his place. I did not want to make a scene. So I relented reluctantly to just a 'kiss' and almost threw myself into a taxi to escape this slimy cockroach. Yuck!" Mark was earlier fined $6,000 for molesting a woman by touching her breasts, buttocks and calves. District Judge Sarjit Singh said in his verdict that since the touch of the chest was a “fleeting” one, a “stiff” fine would do. Read rest of Shirley's blog posting here.   Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans.   Related articles: >> Mark Chow admits to second molest charge >> Mark Chow escapes jail term >> Mark Chow convicted of molest  Read More →

Your Excellency Mr. Githu Muigai, UN Special Rapporteur on Racism 22 April 2010 Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances in Singapore Welcome to Singapore and thank you for meeting with Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD). We like to highlight the main points in written form below and articulate examples during our face-to-face meeting. Overview In 1992, Choo Wee Khiang who was then People's Action Party Member of Parliament, made disparaging remarks about Indians and "Little India". He told Parliament: "One evening, I drove to Little India and it was pitch dark but not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around." Race exerts a marked influence upon public policy in Singapore. The PAP government`s race related policies has resulted in a high consciousness of an individual`s race. The main example is the statement of race on Singaporean identity cards. This accentuates racial categorization and gives rise to racism and racial discrimination. Existence of discrimination and intolerance PAP government approach to race　is one of `tolerance` and frames it within the ideas of multiculturalism and meritocracy which are contested notions in Singapore. The PAP government is nevertheless expected to use the Singapore visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism to focus mainly on its `experiences and efforts at combating racism and racial discrimination` and its `policies to encourage racial and religious tolerance and harmony`. We expect the UN Rapporteur in return to highlight some of these as `good practices to be shared by other States`. However this does not mean racism and discrimination are non-existent in Singapore hence this is where SFD`s focus will be. We will like to draw your attention to some of the issues below. Racialist Policies and its representatives Several of the PAP government`s key policies surrounding immigration, language and public housing are viewed by ethnic minorities in Singapore as being in favour of the majority Chinese. Racially-motivated national policies include the HDB ethnic quota system, ostensibly to prevent estates turning into ethnic ghettos, but it discriminates against minority race families from living in areas of their choice, and also redistributes anti-PAP votes, as the racial minorities are traditionally seen to be pro-opposition voters. The GRC system is also ostensibly designed to give minority representation in parliament, but is a law that discriminates against fair elections, resulting in less opposition candidates contesting since its implementation. The hegemony of the PAP in government, through an electoral system that it has designed to ensure its own dominance, also does not make its ethnic MPs the sole policy representatives for the respective ethnic communities in Singapore. Ill formulated immigration policy Recently, the PAP government`s ill formulated immigration policy in its pretext `to tackle falling birth rates` has also created tensions between foreign workers, permanent residents, new citizens and Singaporeans. Of special concern is the policies of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) in the way it issues employment pass and work permits and how it apportions foreign labour from different countries into the different sectors of the economy. We want to highlight that MOM hides behind a `country specific` policy to mask what is essentially a race based policy. This is an area where transparency and accountability is needed and we would like the Special Rapporteur to pay great attention to it and raise it with the Ministry of Manpower during this visit. Discussion on Race relations The PAP government constrains discussion of race issues by legislation. Instead it uses its access to media to run one sided information campaigns marketing Singapore as a model of racial harmony. In actual fact, the PAP government legislates prohibitions, such as the Sedition Act, against its citizens engaging in any public discourse of race and religion. For example even at Speaker`s Corner public discourse on race and religion are outlawed and `infringements` prosecuted. Additionally, it employs negative campaigning (via the media) against groups and individuals who highlight and raise race related issues. As a result, there is little critical debate and discussion on racism, inter-cultural tension and disaffection in Singapore. Some of this discussion is shifting onto the Internet however it is still not mainstreamed. Other forms of discrimination We also want to highlight other forms of discrimination such as those suffered by: 1  Foreign workers, PR and new citizens 2  People with various forms of disabilities 3  The elderly when it comes to employment 4 Civil and political activists International Conventions on Racism One of the key issues put to us is that Singapore has not signed and ratified United Nation's International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966). And that Singapore is still not a signatory party to United Nation's Amendment to article 8 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1992). We like to ask the UN Rapporteur what is the status with regards to Singapore and these International Conventions? And if he will be raising this issue with representatives of the PAP government as Singaporeans want to know where their country under the management of the PAP government stands on this issue. Future UN Missions to Singapore In the lead up to this UN mission, there has been little awareness locally that the Rapportuer will be meeting representatives from academia, civil and political society. We note that such meetings have now been taking place and will take place some more over the course of this mission. There are individuals and groups who would still like to meet with the UN Rapportuer and we urge that where feasible this is facilitated. We also want to highlight that there has been little cross-communication between these different groups. We hope in the future there will be more advance notice so that more prior cross-communications within the non-governmental sector can take place in order to better prepare and responded to future UN missions. Attendance at UN Meetings We note that the findings of the Rapporteur will be publicly presented before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva (in June 2011) and the UN General Assembly in New York (in November 2011). We would like to know how SFD and other individuals and groups from Singapore`s civil and political society can attend/observe or speak where appropriate at those meetings. Credibility of this UN Mission While Singaporeans are optimistic in seeking to engage the UN and its representatives, (this can be discerned by the interest shown by various non-governmental individuals and groups to meet the Rapportuer) they are at the same time concerns that after the mission nothing will happen. We hope the Rapporteur will provide the appropriate assurances to Singaporeans at the-end-of-mission press conference. Further and most importantly we hope your report to the UN does justice by accurately reflecting the voices of the discriminated in Singapore. The credibility of the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism`s mission will depend on this. Other Missions to Singapore SFD would like to ask what other UN missions are planned for Singapore? What other missions can the PAP led Singapore government be expected to invite the UN to undertake. Please take note that there is a great desire among Singaporeans for an independent election observation mission. We hope the framework we have provided in this submission can help you contextualise some of your findings during this mission and help you in organising your submission to the UN. The examples provided in this report and those verbalized during our meeting are not meant to be exhaustive. Please supplement them with the other examples of racism and discrimination you will hear from those you meet while in Singapore. We wish you a successful mission.     Yours sincerely,   Dr. James Gomez Mr. Martyn See Ms Rachel Zeng Mr. Seelan Palay   (On behalf of Singaporeans for Democracy)  Read More →

Speaking in Yan'an, China, Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean heaped generous self-praise on Singapore as well as China for winning the "trust" of their people. DPM Teo was recounting to a group of Chinese officials of his earlier encounter at Beichuan county, one of the worst-hit areas of an earthquake in 2008. He claimed that he saw modern apartments built by the Chinese government to house the displaced people and a new high school for students, using that to illustrate the example that "that a good government must not only plan for the future, but also deliver on its promises." "They must have integrity and act in the long-term interest of the people and country rather than their own self-interest. In the era of new media, they have to communicate openly and honestly with the people, especially when there is bad news," he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. DPM Teo does not seem to be aware of the fact that the death toll of Beichuan students was astonishingly high due to shoddy work in the construction of the schools. A group of parents had tried to bring the local officials responsible for the construction to justice but their efforts were thwarted by the state police. DPM Teo added that both Singapore and China have done reasonably well in earning public trust so far, citing the most recent survey by international public relations company Edelman in which both Singapore and China scored well, with 84 per cent of Singaporeans and 74 per cent of Chinese saying that their respective governments were "trustworthy". The results are not surprising as the media of both countries are completely controlled by the government which churns out only good news and censors negative publicity. China and Singapore are ranked 168th and 133th respectively in terms of press freedom by international media watchdog Reporters without Borders in 2009. Furthermore, Edelman was embroiled in a heated controversy with climate activists two years ago which cast doubts on its credibility. In July 2008, activists from Oxford Climate action staged a protest at the London office of Edelman, alleging a massive ‘greenwashing’ campaign by the agency’s energy client E.ON. (read article here) DPM Teo should think twice before opening his mouth and embarrassing himself again. In the era of the new media, it is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible to hoodwink the people anymore.   Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans. This page is maintained independently by a TR reader.   Copyright © 2009 – 2010 The Temasek Review (If you are going to reproduce this article on your blog or forum, please provide a link back to ours)  Read More →