TR EMERITUS

A TALE OF TWO COMMITTEES NS: Medication and Treatment Without Diagnosis of Condition Dr Ng Eng Hen correctly observed ‘…Others have dismantled their NS systems, not because threats disappeared but because public support waned.’ He also reportedly asserted that the ‘Committee to Strengthen NS (CSNS), recommendations are a comprehensive package of significant measures to strengthen NS for future generations and provide SG with a strong defence’. The CSNS was formed in Mar 2013 ‘to examine how the NS system can be strengthened for the future, to better serve Singapore and Singaporeans’. It comprised 2 working groups with their respective focus; a) Support for NS : examined how we can better motivate our servicemen and maximise their contributions. The WG also studied measures to strengthen support for NS among the community. b) Recognition & benefits: examined how we can better recognise and show appreciation for the contributions of our servicemen. From the given info, the need for such a committee appears not to arise from a desire to build on an already strong ‘public support’ but to arrest what may be a public growing weary or wary of NS for our sons… even as the PM himself declared that the Singapore they are sworn to defend ‘belongs to everyone’, including PRs whose sons get to chose whether or not to do NS when turning 18. No such luck for true-blue born ones. We would logically think that even before deliberating on Support and Recognition & Benefits, CSNS members must surely ask themselves first and foremost the question, ‘How did we go from strong, unquestioning public support to hearing voices, albeit in the extreme, calling for ‘Abolish NS’? If such a fundamental question is ignored, if no diagnosis has been made, and correctly made, what good are all the recommendations (treatment)? Isn’t it common sense that the govt would first try to identify, understand and discard or rejig those policies that have, over time, caused erosion of the support for NS amongst citizens? Little India Riot: Forensic Criminalistics – With Preferred Witnesses Of the 5 terms of reference, the first 2 are most important since they determine what the next 3 ought to be. 1. Establish the ‘factors and circumstances’ that led to the riot and 2. Establish how the riot unfolded and how the response forces managed the incident. Our purpose, as with the CSNS, is to examine if this committee has got their fundamentals right in the first place. Otherwise, whatever followed would again simply be the wrong medicine or recommended treatment from a misdiagnosis (or a no-diagnosis for CSNS). We would think that for any COI to be able to get a fairly accurate picture of the ‘factors, circumstances and events unfolding’ in the riot, ALL WITNESSES prior to, at the point of, during and after the rioting must be called for questioning. Did the COI do so? Apparently not. Consider; - All the MSM reports were confined to the bus driver and his assistant, personnel from the SCDF & the Police as witnesses. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the driver and assistant could only view things from within the bus and not outside where the real action was? And those sent to quell the riot, didn’t they only come AFTER the riot started and could shed no light whatsoever as to what happened prior to, at the point of and, indeed, during the first early critical moments when matters got out of hand? - As reported, 53 of the alleged perpetrators were summarily ‘repatriated to their home countries’. All within a matter of 12 days. - Another 200 were given stern warnings for their ‘passive and incidental role’. - Yet another 2 dozens or so were charged in court. Only 8 (9%) out of 93 witnesses were ‘foreign worker’, of which 2 served jail terms. But NONE were from the 53, neither was it clear if any of the 200  – all closest, physically and time-wise, to the real action – were called to testify. Wasn’t the 53 being repatriated akin to ‘destroying or removing evidence from the crime scene’ by no less than the Singapore Police themselves recommending it to the Manpower Ministry? Therefore, how credible, trustworthy could the COI findings and recommendations be based on procedural and substantive considerations? And we have the Chair, Hri Kumar, of the relevant parliamentary committee describing the report as ‘robust’. Bad joke. CONCLUSION Without belittling the sincere efforts of those who sat on the CSNS and the COI, Singaporeans must honestly and vigorously question the MPs they have elected and the Cabinet that initiated the two committees; 1. Are Committees formed to determine already pre-determined or preferred outcomes of the sitting government? 2. Or to determine the factual realities upon which useful conclusions are drawn and actions can be correctly taken for the good of Singapore, not a particular political party? If we continue down this road, Singapore will lose all our hard-earned credibility as a nation under the rule of law. 2cents *  The author blogs @ 2econdsight  Read More →

A remark by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Science Centre Singapore (SCS) has been nominated for this year’s sexism award by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). The award, named The Alamak Award, is the association’s “annual search for the most annoying, face palm, gut wrenching, you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me instance of sexism in Singapore.” Associate Professor Lim Tit Meng is one of the four nominees this year for his remarks in an email which he had apparently sent out to his staff on International Women’s Day in March. In a rather awkwardly written letter, Assoc Prof Lim began by saying that some women would say the day is not for them “because they are not ’3-8′”, a reference to the date of 8 March which the International Women’s Day fall under. “3-8″ when pronounced in Chinese sounds like the descriptor that means “a busybody” or “a nosey gossiper”, Assoc Prof Lim explained. “Women are complicated beings and they often say that men don’t get it – it being the reason for their complication, or the insight linked to their female instinct,” he continued. “On the other hand, in many civilizations, women are considered the lesser gender. In Aristotle’s era, females were reasoned as the outcome of imperfect or incomplete embryonic development, resulting in the failure of a certain anatomical structure protruding before birth.” Referring to the corporate world, Assoc Prof Lim said “we know that many women feel they are not given the equal status enjoyed by men.” “In recent times, there is an increasing trend for corporations to set a minimum number of females in their board as directors,” the SCS CEO said. He pointed out that at the SCS, “women seemed to out-number men in management positions.” The chairman of the SCS is a woman, Ms Tan Yen Yen, and there are a total of 5 women on its Board of 22 members. “The newly appointed ArtScience Museum Director being a women shows that holding the top position is not biased by gender,” he added. Assoc Prof Lim then gave his own personal views on the reasons why “not many women can have the stature to hold the highest position.” He said: “One of them is simply about the complex nature of women which challenges them with communication barriers in even understanding their own gender well, let alone having to compete or co-labour with the men at work.” “Understanding women and women understanding [sic] is an ongoing lesson not just for men, but for everyone, to continually learn, unlearn and relearn,” he said. Assoc Prof Lim concluded his letter to his staff by saluting “all our female colleagues for holding up more than half of SCS’s heaven.” You can read the email in full here. The email to the staff of SCS was forwarded to Aware “anonymously by an employee of the Science Centre who felt belittled by this email from her boss.” “It made her feel her hard work was of little value,” Aware said. “We are choosing to publish this email since the Science Centre is a public organisation – a statutory board under the Ministry of Education – and the chief executive of such an organisation must be held to high standards.” Assoc Prof Lim’s comments have raised howls of protest and disbelief online. In February, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Grace Fu revealed that six out of 10 companies in Singapore have all-male boards, and only 8 per cent of board directors in the country are women. She said that effort to get companies to improve gender diversity on their boards have been slow. “We’re not happy with the progress,” said Ms Fu. “For a company to say that I value women as employees is one thing,” she said. “But when there’re no board appointments, it sends the wrong signal to women working in that company.” Assoc Prof is not the first high-ranking official or public personality to be caught in controversy over their seemingly sexist views or comments. In 2011, during the election campaign in Hougang SMC, the candidate for the People’s Action Party (PAP) also received brickbats for his remarks about women. “If your wife is unable to cook, there’s no point. You must choose a wife who is able to do things for you,” Mr Desmond Choo, the PAP candidate, said at a rally, recounting a meeting with an elderly Hougang resident who told him that choosing an MP is like choosing a wife. Mr Choo later told the media that his remarks were “quoted out of context”, that his remarks were not meant to be sexist, and that he has always believed in gender equality. Mr Choo was nominated for the inaugural Alamak Award in 2011 – but he didn’t win. In the 2012 edition of the awards, two of the four presidential candidates – Tan Cheng Bock and Tan Jee Say – were joint-winners. While running for President, both managed to find words to annoy half the electorate. “I would like to go back to the days when women can afford to be housewives,” Mr Tan Jee Say said, when asked about his views on the Baby Bonus. When asked how to encourage female participation in politics, Dr Tan Cheng Bock replied: “The political arena is a difficult area for women in Singapore because the commitment is really very heavy. So you got to get the permission of your husband.” Vote and voice your views on Public Opinion: “SCS CEO’s sexism should be condemned“. —————- UPDATE on 5 July: Mr Lim has apologised for his remarks “unreservedly”. He said: “My objective was to contextualise how women have been discriminated over time and across cultures. I wanted to motivate and challenge my colleagues to break the shackles of any stereotype and emerge the winner that they all can be.” “I am proud to be part of a great team at the Science Centre and I deeply regret any distress caused to my colleagues by my words.” Assoc Prof Lim is currently in the lead, having received the most votes for the Alamak! Award among four nominees.   * Article first published on The Online Citizen    Read More →

A reader sent the following photos to TRE today (5 Jul). The reader was in Chong Pang near the market, which is located in Yishun. He came across a large board probably setup by grassroots leaders in the area, asking for feedback from the residents. It said: "Tell Us About Your Ideal Elderly Wellness & Care Centre" Indeed, according to a ST report last month ('Three new wellness and care centres for the elderly in Nee Soon'), 3 new wellness and care centres for the elderly are slated to be setup in Nee Soon GRC, with the first of these expected to be operational by early 2015. The three centres will be located in Housing Board void decks in Chong Pang, Nee Soon Central and Nee Soon East. Besides wellness services such as health screenings and exercise facilities, the centres will have day care, dementia care and nursing care for the elderly. The first centre is a partnership between St Luke's ElderCare, Ministry of Health, Agency for Integrated Care, Alexandra Health System, HDB and the Chong Pang grassroots organisations. This is part of Nee Soon GRC's campaign to celebrate the Pioneer Generation. As it turned out, instead of giving suggestions as to what kind of facilities and services the Nee Soon residents want for their elderly wellness and care centres, they were pouring out their anger on the board. Following are some of the photo shots taken of the board, forwarded by the TRE reader: "(Giving) more care centre(s) not enough now" "Should not control CPF too much, should not raise minimum sum every year, CPF is people's sweat and blood money! Hope PAP listen to people, don't be too bureaucratic!!!" (in Chinese). "Don't make them work till they die" "Reject PWP, return our CPF" "CPF is people's hard earned money" "Care for the elderly" "No Filipinos" (in Chinese) "Organize activities such as (for example), visit to SPCA if they like pets, visit to orphanage if they like children" "Please love your parents and take care of them" "Tie up with schools for students to volunteers at the centres" "Provide more free TCM medical services..." "Indian foreign workers too many" (in Chinese)            Read More →