TR EMERITUS

作者：南洋視界07/03/2010 新加坡讯，新加坡政府宣布，在政府组屋区设立永久居民配额。较早前，新加坡政府官员表示，实行这个配额制，是要防止新移民的群居现象。 据联合早报报道，从即日起，购买组屋的永久居民须符合这个配额，确保住在同个邻里及同座组屋的永久居民不超过5%及8%。来自马来西亚 (Malaysia) 的永久居民不受此限制，因为他们与我国公民在历史及文化上相似。 联合早报说，这项举措，是要避免许多永久居民同居一处，难以融入本地社会。 报道说，新加坡有162个组屋邻里，其中13个已超过5%永久居民配额，最高比例更达6.5%。这些邻里包括裕廊、蔡厝港、武吉巴督、三巴旺、盛港、金文泰、淡滨尼和兀兰等。 也就是说，如果永久居民要在这些邻里购买组屋，就必须向同为永久居民的屋主购屋，而不能向新加坡公民购买，以避免住在同区的永久居民不断增加。 较早前，一些新加坡的政府官员指出，新加坡实行永久居民购买组屋的配额制，是要防止新移民的群居现象，以便让新移民融入新加坡社会。 国家发展部长马宝山昨天在宣布这项立即执行的配额制时表示，虽然新移民群居现象现在还不严重，但必须采取预防措施。 海峡时报报道说，在昨天的国会辩论中，一些国会议员提出了外国人购买政府组屋的关切。 西海岸区国会议员符致镜指出，一些房地产经纪公司已经观察到这样的趋势，来自缅甸的永久居民希望购买裕廊西的政府组屋，而来自菲律宾的永久居民，希望购买武吉班让的政府组屋。 新加坡目前有50多万名永久居民，占居民人口的14%。组屋屋主当中，约5%是永久居民，其中2.8%来自马来西亚以外的国家和地区。 来源：http://www.nanyangpost.com  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent During his speech on the Budget, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam repeated the circular argument mentioned earlier by other PAP ministers like PM Lee Hsien Loong that foreign workers are needed in sectors shunned by Singaporeans: “If we had not brought them in, we would not have been able to ease the supply bottlenecks in the private property markets, build HDB flats, or expand our MRT network,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. If this is really so, then why are foreigners being preferred over locals in jobs which can otherwise be taken up by them as shown by the job ad below posted on a Singapore job portal: Customer Service Assistant is an office job which Singaporeans will not shun. The pay and working hours offered by the above company at Ubi are quite reasonable and it should have not difficulties getting Singapore workers, however it is clearly indicated that ONLY Filipino need apply. Do Filipinos possess certain special skills which Singaporeans lack? What does the company need a Filipino specifically to as customer service assistants? The mainstream media kept portraying Singapore workers as being choosy about jobs such that employers have no choice but to turn to foreign workers, but the reality is that Singaporeans are being shut out of many jobs they will have no qualms doing. Singapore's labor policies are incredibly lax and allow companies to employ as many foreign workers as possible so long the dependency ratio of local to foreign workers is met. However, as "local" consists of both citizens and PRs, the rule can be easily circumvented by getting earlier arrivals to apply for Singapore PR. Obtaining Singapore PR is also amazingly easy and lax by any standards as there is no minimum period of residency needed. For example, the Professionals/Technical Personnel & Skilled Worker scheme (or simply PTS scheme) is the easiest and most assured route to Singapore PR. It’s estimated that more than 90% of the people obtain their Singapore Permanent Residence through this scheme, many of which are approved in less than a year. The key requirement under this scheme is that a foreign worker must be working in Singapore for at least six months on either an Employment Pass, Entrepreneur Pass, or S Pass. [Source: Guide me Singapore] The company above is likely to help its Filipino Customer Service Assistant apply for a PR which will free up another slot for a foreign worker. Therefore it is thereotically possible for companies to have 100% foreigners and 0% Singaporeans on its payroll! It is quite obvious from the recent "parliamentary debates" on the Budget that the PAP is either still clueless on what is happening on the ground or is acting blur to cover up its atrocious mistakes. Had the above advertisement been posted elsewhere, it would have sparked a massive public outcry with the government being forced to take action against the errant company. Singapore employers have the audacity to discriminate against Singaporeans precisely because they know they have the tacit support of the pro-foreigner PAP government. Unless Singaporeans send a strong message to the PAP in the next election, they will always be powerless second class citizens in their own country.  Read More →

By Richard Lu In liberal democracies, citizens are mandated to obey the rule of law.  It stands to reason that the independence of the judiciary is not only an important part of a liberal democracy, but some might suggest it is essential.   To understand why an independent judiciary is an important part of a liberal democracy we must briefly acknowledge what a liberal democracy is.  A liberal democracy, at its purest, is a democratic government that seeks to represent the will of the people through the entrenchment and protection of individual rights and freedoms.  It is of the utmost importance to maintain independence of the judiciary in order to prevent the possibility of undue influence exerted by other governmental agencies on the courts.   Within the Singapore Constitution are the essentials for a liberal democratic system including the rights and freedoms and the powers of Government and its commitment to the rule of law.  The rule of law applies not only to the people, but also to the government.   We have chosen to protect the ability for the judiciary to maintain the rule of law, independent of undue external influence, and thereby protect some of the core aspects of our liberal democratic framework.   The Singapore Judiciary   The full Judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court as well as subordinate courts by the Constitution of Singapore.   ·         The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court.  The Court of Appeal exercises appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction, while the High Court exercises both original and appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction. ·         The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judicial Commissioners and High Court Judges are appointed by the President from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister. ·         The Prime Minister must consult with the Chief Justice before recommending the Judges. ·        Singapore practices the common law legal system, where the decisions of higher courts constitute binding precedent upon courts of equal or lower status within their jurisdiction. ·         The President has the power to grant pardons on the advice of the cabinet. Recent milestones   ·         Jury trials were abolished in 1969; ·         The Criminal Procedure Code was amended in 1992 to allow for trials of capital offences to be heard before a single judge;. ·         In 1986 the Legal Profession Act was amended to only allow the Law Society to speak on legal issues upon request by the Government; and·         The Court of Appeal is Singapore's final court of appeal after the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London was abolished in April 1994. Judicial independence in Singapore - recent comments* In 2004, the US Department of State claimed that: ·        Although Singapore's judicial system provides citizens with an efficient judicial process, the judiciary is largely compliant and the Government often uses defamation suits or the threat of such actions to discourage public criticism and intimidate the press;·         The President of Singapore and the Minister for Home Affairs have substantial de facto judicial power, leading "to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases."; and ·         Singapore's "judicial officials, especially the Supreme Court, have close ties to the ruling party and its leaders". Notable cases include those against opposition leaders J. B. Jeyaretnam, Law Society ex-President Francis Seow and Dr. Chee Soon Juan. * Available in the Internet.   Conclusion   ·         Adherence to the rule of law is crucial to a liberal democracy; ·         It is importance that the laws are correctly interpreted and applied within the context of a liberal democracy; ·         Within a liberal democracy, governmental powers are not above the scope of the law.; ·         It is therefore essential that the judiciary, as the vehicle for enforcement of the law, be at arm’s length from other pillars of government that may come under legal question; ·         Immunity from legal liability for Judges while performing their duties; ·         Guarantees of tenure; ·         Salary protection; and ·         Judicial appointments, free from political interference, is therefore a central tenet of an independent judiciary.       Notes:   Constitution of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore and it is a codified constitution. The constitution cannot be amended without the support of more than two-thirds of the members of parliament on the second and third readings. The president may seek opinion on constitutional issues from a tribunal consisting of not less than three judges of the Supreme Court. Singaporean courts cannot offer advisory opinion on the constitutionality of laws. Part IV of the constitution guarantees the following: Liberty of a person (limited). Prohibition of slavery and forced laborProtection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trialsEqual protectionProhibition of banishment and freedom of movementFreedom of speech, assembly and association (limited) Freedom of religionRight to education Part XII of the constitution allows:   The Parliament of Singapore to enact legislation designed to stop or prevent subversion. Such legislation is valid even if it is inconsistent with Part IV of the constitution. The Internal Security Act (ISA) is a legislation under such provision.     Further reading   http://www.singapore-window.org/1028judi.htmhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/business/suffering-singapores-slings-arrows/2006/04/18/1145344082712.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/3939236/Rule-of-Law-in-Singapore-Independence-of-the-Judiciary-and-the-Legal-Profession-in-Singaporehttp://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/pmo/press_release/P-20091111-1http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121674589942074015.html  Read More →