"I know this confession will more or less creates some kind of disagreement, but it really seems that smokers have the 'privilege' of having more breaks compared to the non-smokers.

"From my experience, some smokers, especially in the Food and Beverage (F&B) industry, tend to have more breaks compared to the non-smokers.

"Sometimes, they would go off for 10 to 15 minutes for a “short smoking break” every hour or two, which can add up to an hour of break in a day.

"Adding that to the hour-long meal break they are entitled to everyday, they will have an additional hour of break.

"As a non-smoker, I do not think it is fair for the non-smokers who do not have an excuse to take a 'short break'.

"What’s worst is that some of these smokers are actually the superiors like restaurant managers or supervisors.

"I, mean to be fair, some interns or workers get lesser pay but they actually do the same amount of work, or even more, compared to those who smoke."Why can’t everyone just be fair?

"So, will companies like to see their workers become smokers so that they can have that 'smoking breaks' too?"

Larry

MEDIA RELEASE

We refer to NEA’s “Advisory on Maintenance of Hawker Centres” dated 31 May 2013 which was sent to the email address of our Managing Agent at 8.05 pm on the same day, and promptly reported in the Straits Times and Zaobao on 1 June 2013.

We are pleased that the NEA Advisory has finally clarified the following regarding hawker centres :-

1.            Spring cleaning is expected to be carried out on a quarterly basis; and
2.            The ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts are to be cleaned at least once a year. 

It is clear from the Advisory that Town Councils do NOT need to clean the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts at each spring cleaning exercise, but annually. It is also clear from the Straits Times’ article dated 1 June 2013 that the Town Council had carried out cleaning of the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts last year. We reiterate that no authorized TC staff told any hawker or anyone of any additional charges to be imposed for the cleaning.

We hope this clarifies to the public that AHPE TC has duly carried out its responsibilities as required.

Since the beginning of the year, AHPE TC had been in discussions with NEA to work out arrangements on the cleaning of hawker centres in Bedok North. In fact AHPE TC had proposed a meeting on 31 May 2013 at 2.30 pm to resolve outstanding issues. However, NEA re-scheduled to 6 June 2013. There was no need for NEA to issue the Advisory of 31 May 2013 in the meantime.

AHPE TC is mindful of its responsibilities for the maintenance and cleanliness of common properties, including HDB-owned markets and hawker centres to safeguard public hygiene and safety. We will use our best endeavors to work with all stakeholders to bring any outstanding issues to an amicable resolution.

MR PRITAM SINGH
MP FOR ALJUNIED
VICE-CHAIRMAN, ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL

1 June 2013

Taking on the Internet | The government’s censorship target is probably less the online news than the fiery anti-government comments that usually follow. By Seah Chiang Nee
Jun 1, 2013

(Synopsis: For better or worse, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will go into history as the leader who censors Internet news coverage on Singapore). 

IT is happening! 

In a historic move, the Singapore government is moving into the Internet to regulate news reporting by requiring – for a start – the 10 biggest news-sites to be licensed.

From today, these websites must renew their registration every year if they want to continue to report on Singapore news and current affairs.

Some observers believe that the principal target is the rising number of Singaporeans who post comments attached to, rather than, the news reports themselves.

These public reactions and discussions are overwhelmingly anti-government.

Many Internet users have accused the government of trying to dampen free discussions.

A performance bond of S$50,000, similar to that required for TV broadcasters, is required.

Offenders will be ordered to remove portions assessed to be “in breach of content standards” such as undermining racial or religious harmony, within 24 hours.

There was no mention of political boundaries, but given the tradition here, dissent is likely to be a top target.

A survey by The Straits Times had found 36.3% of people between the ages of 21 and 34 cited the Internet as their top source of domestic political news, compared with 35.3% who preferred newspapers.

Failure to do so could be severe.

The owner may be fined a whooping S$200,000 or imprisoned up to three years or both.

Legislation will probably dilute the intensity of online discussions since all are commercial enterprises.

If it works, it may create history, not only here but possibly elsewhere too.

The Singapore experiment will undoubtedly be watched with interest by Governments outside Singapore, particularly China, to see if they can also adopt a similar method of controlling web dissent.

A bigger issue will be if – and when – the measure to regulate is extended to cover blogs that are operated by small groups or individuals. A few are highly popular with Singaporean Internet users.

Presently, they are excluded said a spokesman nut he added: “If they take on the nature of news sites, we will take a closer look and evaluate them accordingly”.

Some bloggers are already discussing possible options to take in case the authorities move against them. One was quoted by a news agency as saying: “You can try to shut us up. We will find a way around it.”

The chosen 10 are obviously easier targets, vulnerable because they are large commercial enterprises.

But blogs, which exist like little cells, are another matter. Many are anonymously edited; some may operate from outside Singapore.

Some bloggers say if the crunch comes, they rely more on FaceBook and Twitter.

People who have their own pages – including Prime Minister Lee and several cabinet ministers – are already writing and posting without control.

Another possible means could be mass e-mails, in which a writer can send articles to a designated list of thousands of people simultaneous with a press of a button.

Of the chosen 10 websites, nine belong to the two giant media companies, Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Mediacorp.

Since both are staunchly pro-government, they are unlikely to be the principal targets since any reporting excesses can easily be rectified by a phone call without resorting to laws.

The tenth, Yahoo Inc Singapore, however, is a different kettle. In the past few years, this US-based web browser has gained rising popularity among Singaporeans for its objective news coverage.

It has reserved comment pending receipt of details of the new regulations.

The sweep may be extended to include foreign websites that regularly report on the city, like The Financial Times, CNN and BBC. This means that they, too, like Yahoo Inc will have to obtain a license or stop reporting on Singapore.

According to AFP, Yahoo has a team of reporters whose coverage of Singapore’s major news has become “a magnet for anti-government comments posted by readers in reaction to local news.

Actually, this is a similar problem for many operators, including the pro-government media. 

Quite often, it is not their reporting, which is pro-government, but the critical comments it attracts from angry readers.

It is understood that the new measures will attribute any “excessive” or “extremist” reader comments to the web operators.

Early this year, PM Lee had given a strong hint that such legislation was forthcoming when he warned that sensitive, extremist views were being raised over the web.

“We don’t believe the community in the social space, especially online, moderates itself. It doesn’t happen anywhere in the world.”

“It’s in the nature of the medium, the way the interactions work and that’s the reason why we think it cannot be completely left by itself,” he added.

Apparently, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has a slightly different view.

Some bloggers were quite thoughtful, said Tharman, who is also Finance Minister, though more balance is needed.

“Well, it cannot be ignored and I think so far, on balance, the fact that you’ve got an active social media is a plus. It’ll go through phases,” his deputy PM told The Straits Times.

Politically for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), moving to stamp out web dissent is a tempting proposition with the general election due in 2016.

The party has been losing popularity among its core supporters who had kept it in power for nearly half a century.

But for PM Lee Hsien Loong, there are political risks. He had obviously acted out of conviction that it is necessary.

A journalism student remarked: “Now people are saying half-jokingly that father started to control the print media, now son wants to do the same with Internet news media.

Seah Chiang Nee

Chiang Nee has been a journalist for 40 years. He is a true-blooded Singaporean, born, bred and says that he hopes to die in Singapore. He worked as a Reuters corespondent between 1960-70, based in Singapore but with various assignments in Southeast Asia, including a total of about 40 months in (then South) Vietnam between 1966-1970. In 1970, he left to work for Singapore Herald, first as Malaysia Bureau Chief and later as News Editor before it was forced to close after a run-in with the Singapore Government. He then left Singapore to work for The Asian, the world’s first regional weekly newspaper, based in Bangkok to cover Thailand and Indochina for two years between 1972-73. Other jobs: News Editor of Hong Kong Standard (1973-74),  Foreign Editor of Straits Times with reporting assignments to Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East and The United States (1974-82) and Editor of Singapore Monitor (1982-85). Since 1986, he has been a columnist for the Malaysia’s The Star newspaper. Article first appeared in his blog, http://www.littlespeck.com.

Motorola’s forthcoming phones could use electronic tattoos or pills to identify users, it has been announced.

The technology, which aims to remove the need to enter passwords and replace them simply with a phone being close to a user’s body, was one of the suggestions made by Mr Dennis Woodside, Motorola’s chief executive, at California’s D11 conference yesterday.

The tattoos have been developed by Massachusetts-based engineering firm MC10, and contain flexible electronic circuits that are attached to the wearer’s skin using a rubber stamp.

Nokia has previously experimented with integrating tattoos into mobile phones, and Motorola’s senior vice president of advance research, Regina Dugan, a former head of the United States Pentagon’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, demonstrated the silicon-based technology that uses bendable electronic circuits. Initially designed for medical purposes, Motorola hopes the “Biostamps” could now be used for consumer authentication purposes.

Motorola is also investigating the Proteus Digital Health pill, which has already been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and was given European regulatory approval in 2010. Its computer chip is powered by a battery using the acid in a user’s stomach.

The pill creates a unique signal like an ECG trace that can be picked up by devices outside the body and which could be used to verify a user’s identity, the Daily Telegraph reported. It can be taken daily for up to a month, it has been claimed.

Mr Woodside admitted that such experimental ideas were not going to be on sale soon. But he claimed Motorola had “tested it authenticating a phone, and it works”.

The former Google employee, however, who was parachuted in to Motorola after its acquisition in 2011, said: “Having the boldness to think differently about problems that everybody has every day is really important for Motorola now.’”

Ms Dugan added “Authentication is irritating. In fact it’s so irritating only about half the people do it, despite the fact there is a lot of information about you on your smartphone, which makes you far more prone to identity theft.”

She said authentication takes 2.3 seconds each time for existing users, some of whom log in to their phones a 100 times a day and added Motorola would not be put off by those who felt that the new technologies were “creepy”.

Source: AGENCIES

As every Singapore netizen knows, the government is trying to force upon the country a licensing scheme that will allow it to regulate online news sites. This will give the government even more power to restrict citizens’ freedom of expression, as if this freedom were not already so severely curtailed. At this point, I think it is important to emphasize just how important the right to freedom of speech is.

Do you think freedom is intrinsically important? I do, and so do many others. Personally, I like freedom – I want to decide for myself how to live my life. I’m sure you, too, like being able to speak your mind freely, or to be able to choose whom you want to marry, or to decide whom you want to work for. You don’t live life to the fullest unless you get to make the choices that shape it.

But perhaps you object to such liberal hippy philosophizing. I’m sure Lee Kuan Yew would. But there are further benefits to society that can be had by respecting the right to freedom of speech. First and foremost, free expression allows us to ensure that the government knows what the interests of the people are. When we the people are able to openly express our interests and preferences, the government will be better informed about what the public wants. This is not unimportant – I find that those in power, and those who will one day be in power (i.e. scholars), are rather disconnected from the lives and concerns of the ordinary people. This isn’t necessarily because they are callous or uncaring. It’s just that they don’t live the kind of life that heartlander Singaporeans do. They don’t live in the same neighborhoods; their kids don’t go to the same kinds of schools; they don’t take the same kinds of transportation to work.

The elites in power live in their own social circle and they don’t come into frequent contact with people from less privileged backgrounds. I studied at an elite school myself, and some of my classmates were the sons and daughters of high ranking civil servants and ministers. They are my friends, and they’re nice people, but they don’t know what it is like for the rest of Singapore; one of my friends didn’t even know what Mee Poh was. Yet they are the elite scholars who will one day rule this city-state. You don’t have to imagine the result; just remember Lee Hsien Long’s remark about “mee siam mai hum” – we all laughed, but of course Lee wouldn’t know much about mee siam, and would never have spoken the phrase in daily life. Neither he nor people in his social circle actually eat such food. They don’t go to hawker centres – they don’t see the constant inflation of prices, and how that eats into your daily budget. And it is precisely because the elite can be ignorant of the citizens’ concerns, that the right to freedom of speech is paramount – without it there is no guarantee that the people who have so much power over our lives know what to do with that power.

Secondly, free expression allows for the public to contribute to the construction of government policy. It is healthy for there to be open and vigorous public debate over important issues and policies. Why is this? It may as well be said that most people aren’t experts in (say) national security or economic policy. Why not just leave it up to the experts, to the highly-educated public officials? The reason why we ought not do this is that no matter how clever or knowledgeable a person is, they can still be wrong. Intelligence is pointless unless it is used to doubt and critically assess one’s own beliefs. Unfortunately, the government – especially the civil service – is self-selecting. That is, the people that get in and get entrusted with positions of responsibility tend to share the same ideas and beliefs; they tend to think in similar ways; they share the same assumptions and the same prejudices.

People who think differently – the mavericks and the dissidents – are either not hired, or are not given any real positions of power, because they tend to rock the boat. What we get is an echo chamber, where biases reinforce biases and everyone shares the same beliefs uncritically. The officials with SAF-backgrounds tend to be the worse, because they are surrounded by people who dare not disagree. Listen to Chan Chun Sing speak on any issue, say, national defense – he is so utterly arrogant and so utterly convinced that he is right. It is no surprise that he is the way he is, because his men and commanders would never have dared disagree, and now that he is in government, his civil servants will be no less obsequious. Thus, it is important for policies to be subjected to public assessment and critique. The right to freedom of speech helps ensure good governance.

Thirdly, and most importantly, free expression allows us to deter governmental misconduct. Without the ability to criticize the government openly, or the ability of the news media to run exposes, how can we keep our governmental officials clean and honest? I find the PAP’s claim to be incorruptible, incredibly bizarre and breathtakingly arrogant. They are ultimately human and humans are flawed. No one is perfect; no one is incorruptible, especially not in an environment where there are no real checks and balances.

In a democracy, free expression is key in preventing governmental abuse of power. When public officials do not face the possibility of withering public condemnation or media investigation even when they commit wrongdoings, what stops them from abusing their positions and privileges? This calls to mind the recent AIM scandal where the PAP Town Councils sold their computer systems (built with taxpayer money) to PAP-affiliated Action Information Management (AIM). Even if the proceedings were entirely legal, as the government claims, there could have been impropriety involved – surely the government acknowledges that. Public criticism and journalistic investigation help to get to the truth of the matter, and are needed to deter any future possible incidents where public officials might improperly dispose of public funds, or inappropriately use public power for private ends. Look at China – look closely – it is precisely because the mainstream media cannot criticize or attack the government, that officials think they can get away with corruption and embezzlement. Free speech deters governmental misconduct – from America to Australia, free speech and a free press help to keep politicians honest and on their toes.

But aren’t there legitimate reasons for restricting free speech? Yes, there are. Inciting others to violence shouldn’t be legal, for example. But such exceptions are exactly that – exceptions. This doesn’t justify bankrupting people who disagree with you, or banning books and films you don’t like. The restrictions must be clearly and narrowly defined – as it stands, the government’s ability to curtail free speech is both too sweeping and too obviously motivated by politics. Singaporeans should not be treated like children. We can decide for ourselves what books to read, what films to watch, and what ideas are acceptable.

I think Lee Kuan Yew, when an opposition MP back in 1956, says it best:

“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love – it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.”

Joel

<Pic credit: Newpaper>

SMRT will be required to carry out more stringent checks and replace the running rails earlier where necessary, the Land Transport Authority said in a statement today.

LTA said it is concerned and is investigating the root causes of rail cracks after the latest incident occurred on the North-South Line earlier this week.

LTA added that it is too early at this stage to determine if there is any underlying link or systemic issues that contributed to these four recent rail cracks.

LTA also said SMRT, which operates the North-South/East-West Line, has a system of running rail replacement similar to the approach adopted by operators in other cities - whereby individual running rail segments are replaced when there are defects, or when the wear and tear for that rail segment warrants it.

To better determine what further measures can be taken to address the situation, LTA will be appointing an international trackwork specialist to assess the condition of the rail and to advise on possible changes to the operator’s running rail maintenance regime.

Source: CHANNEL NEWSASIA

It is timely that we take stock of our tobacco control efforts on World No Tobacco Day (May 31).

Singapore has one of the toughest smoking control laws in the world, yet its smoking rate continues to climb, from 12.6 per cent in 2004 to 14.3 per cent in 2010.

Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s smoking rate fell to a historic low of 11.1 per cent in 2010.

One of the reasons attributed to the success of Hong Kong’s tobacco control efforts is the setting up of a dedicated team of tobacco control enforcement personnel by the government, with the support of the Hong Kong Police Department, to carry out enforcement of smoking bans. Fines were raised to HK$1,500 (S$244) for each smoking offence. Last year, Hong Kong’s tobacco control office carried out enforcement action against 8,198 smoking offences.

I agree with experts to raise the legal age for smoking from 18 to 21 to deter young men from lighting up during national service - that is the proposal a non-profit organisation submitted to government agencies early last month.

Sata CommHealth chief executive K. Thomas Abraham noted that it was common for young people to pick up smoking during NS, sometimes due to peer pressure. He said: 'If we push the legal age up to 21, most people would have finished their NS by then.'

He also observed that more young women had started smoking, without providing figures.

According to the 2010 National Health Survey, the proportion of smokers among young Singaporeans aged 18 to 29 stood at 16.3 per cent in 2010 - a 33 per cent increase from 12.3 in 2004.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) started publishing the number of smoking offenders nabbed in 2011 and issued 3,800 fines last year. Many smokers defy public smoking bans as enforcement remains lax. Managers of buildings also do not take action against smoking offenders, even though there are stiff penalties for failing to intervene and report such cases.

The NEA should focus on tightening enforcement lest it becomes the weakest link in our multi-agency fight against tobacco.

LIU

Editor's Note: Being a smoker myself, it is very interesting to note that the sale of E-cigarette (Electronic Cigarette) is actually banned in our country. It is supposedly healthier for the body (Only nicotine and water vapour present if i am not wrong) and safer  (no fire hazard at all).

There are many speculations that the ban is because it is harder to tax than normal cigarettes and the government is actually making so much money from taxing tobacco companies. What do you think?

In the latest update from the family whose son, Ang Yong Han, died from dengue fever, the father told the media that he has sought a lawyer to sue Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) for negligence.

According to a posting on Wanbao’s Facebook page today (1 Jun), Yong Han’s father felt indignant over the sudden death of his son. He felt that his son had died needlessly. He told Wanbao that he had already sought a lawyer to sue TTSH for negligence:

Yong Han, the only child in the family, fell ill on Wed (22 May) with a high fever. He then went to TTSH’s emergency department the next day (23 May, Thu) and was diagnosed with viral fever. However, he was given Panadol tablets and sent home. He was told to see a doctor in three days’ time, or to return if his condition worsened.

However his condition did not improve and went back again in the wee hours of Fri (24 May). The mother, Mdm Yap, told the media that after waiting for five hours, he left to go to a general practitioner near his home.

But TTSH said he arrived at 3am and was seen by a nurse within five minutes but didn’t get to see a doctor after waiting for more than two hours. The hospital said he approached a nurse at 5.18am to cancel his registration, and left.

Around Sat midnight (25 May) and in the early hours of Sun (26 May), Yong Han came back to TTSH with fever, body aches and vomiting and was finally admitted to TTSH. He was later transferred to the Communicable Diseases Centre (CDC).

He died three days later (29 May, Wed) of dengue shock syndrome.

When the family asked whether Yong Han could have been saved if he had been admitted to hospital earlier, Associate Professor Lim Poh Lian, head of infectious diseases at TTSH, said that his condition deteriorated on Mon, and it would not have made any difference if he had been admitted to the hospital a day or two earlier.

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

Local blogger Belmont Lay lets loose on local politics, culture and society. To be taken with a pinch of salt and parental permission is advised. In this post, he talks about how to deal with the latest MDA licensing scheme for online news sites.

If you haven't heard, the Media Development Authority of Singapore has come up with a poorly-formulated licensing scheme.

They have demanded that "online news sites" put up a "performance bond" of $50,000 from June 1 and comply within 24 hours to remove content that is found to be in breach of MDA content standards.

Although it has been clarified that blogs are exempted from licensing, this has caused a lot of unhappiness.

A group of bloggers, collectively called Free My Internet, will be organising a protest and online blackout next Saturday, June 8, to protest against what they believe is a clampdown on online speech.

And they want the withdrawal of the licensing scheme.

But what if you are just a regular Internet user, who might or might not own a blog or website? What can you do if you are against the licensing of sites but too lazy to join the protest?

Well, here are three ways you can contribute to the cause.

1. Interact and comment more

Regardless of whether you own a blog or website or none, just continue to write, publish, interact and comment on other people's blogs and websites like your life depended on it.

This is the best approach you can take. Especially if you don't feel particularly angered or threatened by the new regulations, but still feel indignant about how such rules are imposed arbitrarily without a proper public or parliamentary debate.

It is also the best way to show the authorities your voice will not be culled.

Always remember: words are free. The Internet is a network dependent on your participation. And participation begets more participation.

Websites and blogs can be shut. But the spirit of conversation can't.

2. Use non-website platforms

The next most effective way to expose how poorly thought-out the new licensing rules are is to use platforms that are not websites to propagate content.

This is to show that the MDA is operating on archaic terms.

From now on, if you read or see anything interesting online, share it with everyone you know.

Email it, Facebook it, re-post it in forums or tweet about it.

If you feel that a piece might potentially be taken down because its content might breach the standards set by the MDA, take a screen shot for posterity.

Any time you take any of these steps, you are potentially circumventing what is obviously impractical rules that don't jive with how Singaporeans use media in this day and age.

Most importantly, show the authorities that there is a real insatiable appetite for news -- something that all the mainstream media outlets cannot even begin to fulfill.

3. Act indifferently

Last but not least, you can always choose to act indifferently because that is exactly how the rest of the PAP MPs are behaving right now.

Since the licensing scheme was announced last week by Minister for Communications and Information Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the majority of PAP MPs have not said a word about it.

So, same to you. There is no better way to deal with the licensing scheme than to act as if there is no licensing scheme. That would really show them.

But there's an even better reason that bears repeating: it is one thing for the MDA to come up with rules and quite another for them to enforce them.

Look, unveiling the rules has already led to significant backlash. Wouldn't it be fun to watch how they actually go about enforcing it?

Because if the MDA cannot reconcile the objectives of the rules with the promotion or protection of any real social good, bloggers and website owners should continue to write and publish stories and reports that are of public interest.

That should trump all considerations.

Ultimately, it is the public who will decide whether their interests are being served.

But if all else fails and we're out of ideas, you can all continue to make the MDA the subject of satire.

Belmont Lay is the editor of New Nation, an online publication that will need to post a $25,000 bond because it is only 50% real news.

*Article first appeared on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-flipside/deal-mda-licensing-scheme-031909933.html#more-id

I refer to the following article about the new Public Service Leadership (PSL) programme.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/govt-launches-new-public-service-leaders/684518.html

It is timely to increase the pool of civil servants

PSL is a good initiative in addition to the existing Administrative Service Programme (AO). Those who do not qualify for the exclusive AO programme can attempt to qualify for PSL, which provides 4 years on the job learning followed by potential sponsorship for a Masters Programme.

It is timely to increase the cohort of civil servants who are responsible for drafting policies for Singapore through PSL. The Singapore Public Service employs some 136,000 officers, of which 80,000 are in the Ministries, and an estimated less than 1,000 are responsible for drafting policies.

http://www.psd.gov.sg/content/psd/en/home/singaporepublicservice/overview.html

Whereas the population has increased to 5 million from 3 million, the policy branches of the government may not have expanded to keep in pace. Like the transport, housing and medical sectors, the policy teams might be over stretched and find it hard to cope with a flood of issues arising. The recent Population Paper is a case in point.

The devil is in the details

While I agree with the intent of the PSL, I am concerned with the finer details of the PSL. If we look closely at the requirements, citizens (SC) or PR who have intention to become SC can apply.

http://careers-gov-jobs.jobstreet.com.sg/jobs/jobdesc.asp?eid=1612&jid=91053417&did=103&type=0&its=0&src=8&itn=0

Currently, PRs can work in statutory boards. However, the PSL seems to suggest that now PRs can also assume positions in the Ministries. My understanding is that only SC can work in the Ministries.

What happened to Singaporeans first?

Since the recent elections, government has stressed that Singaporeans will be given additional priority for housing, education and healthcare. These moves are welcome as needless to say; citizens should be accorded priority access to resources and services, although it is yet to be seen if the government intends to give priority to Singaporeans for COEs.

As such, the move by PSL to accept PRs along with citizens is unsettling. Including PRs who are citizens of other countries in the civil service leadership roles can have negative implications for us.

Problems with PRs in PSL

Some Ministries such as MTI, MOF and MINDEF are responsible for charting the economic and defence strategies for Singapore. Would it not be a national concern allowing PRs to have access to sensitive information in some of these Ministries? It is akin to Apple allowing Samsung engineers to take up part time positions or vice versa. In the event of a breach, what is the government’s plan for damage control? Is it necessary to invite such a possibility?

PSL has not spelt out what if a PR applicant fails to complete the 4 years training or decides not to be SC eventually and therefore drops out from PLS programme, what is the government’s damage control plan? What would be the penalty PRs doing so? Again, why would the government want to invite such a possibility? Even if the government recovers liquidated damages from the PR, would it not be better for the opportunity to be given to a SC from the start?

Is it not better to give unemployed PMETs priority?

Currently Singapore PMETs are facing unprecedented challenge with employment. About 6,000 PMETs were retrenched in 2012.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/more-workers-laid-off-in-2012-mom/652548.html

From my earlier post, there are least 18.7% Singaporeans aged 25-64 deemed economically inactive, ie not working.  http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/05/25/unemployment-and-minimum-wage/

Hence, PMET unemployment or inactivity is a growing problem with no clear solutions in sight. Many of these retrenched PMETs are in their 30s or 40s with family to support. Is it not better for PMETs who are SC to be given priority for PSL? Unless the government has already decided that Singapore PMETs are not qualified?

Ironically, one of the top criticisms of policy-makers is that they lack private sector experience to introduce relevant policies to address concerns on the ground. Is it not a golden opportunity to grab some of the PMETs who have had private sector experience and therefore possess a different policy perspective?

So we end up with PR governing SC?

If the government continue with the plan to recruit PRs into the civil service, SCs need to be mindful of the implications which may arise later. With more PRs helming the civil service, how would future policies be influenced against native citizens? Will the concerns of SCs be neglected in favour of PRs and foreigners? Is it not odd to have a situation where SCs are governed by PRs? What is the logic behind such an arrangement? Is it acceptable?

Level the playing field for SCs

Government has always maintained that Meritocracy is an important principle for Singapore. Any job should go to the most deserving candidate. However, no two candidates are identical and recruitment process can be very subjective. Has the government decided to introduce fair employment laws to protect Singaporeans?

To level the playing field for SCs, PSL should insist that Singapore Citizenship is the first and foremost criteria for application. PRs should become a Singapore Citizen first before they can apply for PSL. After all, PRs already enjoy a 2 year advantage from not having to serve NS. Our NSMEN sacrifice 2 years full-time, and at least 10 in camp trainings and annual IPPT after ORD. The least the government can do for SC (men) is to allow a fair match.

Lastly, PSD should give the public a full disclosure once the recruitment process is completed. The public has the right to know the profile distribution of candidates recruited under PSL, especially the number of citizens hired vis-à-vis PRs. Singapore for Singapore Citizens, is it too much to ask for?

Chin Wei

Singapore is a strange country, politically speaking that is. The signals it sends out one day can send you the wrong way the very next day if you follow them blindly.

Like this one: Just one day after a smiling Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, had tea and a tete-a-tete with 15 guests from the online world, a government press release announced rules to license news websites.

As the rules began to sink in, the light touch the authorities had kept insisting on that it will use in its internet policy began to morph into a sinister hard knock that can be used if these websites step out of line.

Although opacity was written over most of the rules, three areas were clear enough to have a chilling effect on netizens and opposition politicians.

Such websites will have to apply for individual licences if they have more than one news story on Singapore per week and attract more than 50,000 unique visitors from Singapore per month -- all this over a period of two months.

There is also a Sing$50,000 performance bond they have to put up with the government.

Questions there were many: What is a news story? Who decides what is one? Aren't there enough laws to deal with outlets that cross the strictures on areas like race, language and religion?

And finally, what is the real intent of this new licensing regime?

The government's explanation is that the rules are intended to put the websites on some kind of an equal footing with the mainstream media, which has been governed by licensing rules soon after the ruling People's Action Party established its grip on politics in Singapore in the 1970s.

But many see other motives. One, the coming general election -- which must be held by 2016. The 2011 election and the two by-elections after that were game changers for a political oasis called Singapore.

In 2011, PAP's popular vote hit a historic low of 60.1 per cent and three ministers in a Group Representation Constituency were booted out. In the two by-elections after that, a sitting Opposition MP's sacking because of an extra-marital affair had no real effect on the standing of the Workers' Party and its girl next door candidate who handsomely defeated a high-flying surgeon representing the PAP.

The latter result caused such a stir that even the Opposition party had to temper voters' expectations when it said it was not ready to run the country.

Despite a think tank and other establishment figures trying to douse the enthusiasm and jubilance of an internet world's reporting of the election and by-elections, there was no doubt that it played a major role in the embarrassment for the ruling party.

The mainstream press tried to keep pace with its election coverage, but the political genie was already out of the bottle.

Two, uncertainty. The real sting in the new rules is the sword that hangs over those running the websites. The announcement names 10 websites that qualify to be licensed -- the nine websites of the two mainstream media powerhouses and that of yahoo.

The others have not been touched, yet. But the announcement made it clear that it was not ruling out other popular socio-political sites if they meet licensing criteria. That is government speak for those who misbehave.

The net result is likely to be an online world that is likely to second guess the government and maybe even err on the side of caution when it comes to putting out its content.

Three, money power. Putting up a Sing$50,000 deposit is a huge undertaking for many of these websites as they are run on a voluntary basis with concerned citizens coming together for a cause and a passion.

One has already reacted by saying it might have no choice but close down if it is licensed. Others are already talking about going underground or putting up servers in places untraceable and unreachable.

Four, mainstream media's plight. Readership and advertising decline is beginning to take hold as Singaporeans, especially the young, are dumping print and advertisers are asking serious questions about the high cost of advertising in mainstream papers,

It was a political master stroke by Mr Lee Kuan Yew to give both print and TV a monopoly, with The Straits Times riding a profit wave for the last 40 years. That was one way to buy the print giant's loyalty.

The gravy train is now under threat with the Singapore Press Holdings' latest quarterly results showing a double whammy: readership revenue of its papers, including The Straits Times, declining by Sing$2.4 million and advertising dollars going down by Sing$13.9 million.

For the government, this is a big worry because it does not have another strong platform to get across its messages.

But what should really worry many Singaporeans is how the rules were introduced with no debate in Parliament, no discussion outside of it and no regard for public sentiment.

This especially after the Prime Minister kickstarted a Singapore Conversation soon after the GE 2011 seeking views from all sections of society on the nation they want to build.  Yes, Singapore is a strange country.

The Independent - Singapore

Also Read:

Netizens told to put their money where their mouth is

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-independent-singapore/netizens-told-to-put-their-money-where-their-mouth-is/256304054511244

Like us: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Independent-Singapore/250525018422481

Is it possible to create a nation of stupid people? I don’t think this is an easy task. You can train people to do things but training people to be stupid is quite a remarkable call. The more formidable task is to educate them, give them the best tertiary education, let them think they are smart, but actually stupid without knowing it? Now that is really something isn’t it?

In communist, totalitarian or authoritarian countries, I think the task is so much easier. Just clamp down on the news and information and feed them with all the information that the state would want them to see and hear. Keep repeating that their lives are the best in the world, everything is fine, and the rest of the world are suffering, in poverty, with bad govt, and no dear leaders to help them. After a few generations of not knowing what is happening to the outside world and only seeing a world within, the people will be convinced that they are living in paradise.

Now, how can this situation be recreated in a cosmopolitan and open democratic country? Can it happen, that people living in a democracy, cosmopolitan, well travelled and well informed, and stupid at the same time? Really, it is impossible to do so. Such well educated and informed people will not be gagged, will not be fooled, will not allow to be blinkered. Any attempt to do so will be met with violent protest, unless they are really stupid.

A stupid people will elect a govt to be their masters, to control them, manage their lives, squeeze every cent from them, and tell them it is for their own good. And only a stupid people will believe such things without questioning and live happily ever after, and keep going to the poll to elect the same people to be their masters, to control them, to threaten them, to sue them, to keep them in fear, to keep their money from them, year after year.

It will be one of the major wonders of civilization, an achievement no one has ever done in human history. I am still wondering if it is possible, to train or create a nation of stupid people.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean

* The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

We have two main telcom providers in Singapore, Singtel and Starhub. Every month, we have to pay hefty bills to watch tv programmes etc. With the recent pay per minute change for our phone bills, older events like the soccer price war and today's event, i am starting to wonder if it is worth it.

I'm really pissed and frustrated now. My Starhub internet has been down for almost 24 hours already. 

Called them more than 3 times today. Keep saying they'll get the Support team to call me back within 2 hours. No calls at all. Zero. 

This is really unproductive. I work from home and I can't get any proper work done the whole day. End up need to use 3G to connect. Why should I need to use my iPhone to go online when i'm at home? This is really absurd.

Something is seriously wrong at Starhub. Since last week, the internet speeds for international sites have been seriously erratic. Suddenly everything was super slow. Sometimes cannot even resolve the site at all. Go to speedtest.net sometimes cannot even load the site properly, but when using iPhone got no problems loading.

Furthermore, today my parents were supposed to get a new Starhub cable tv box installed for renewing our contract with said company. It was supposed to arrive at 11am to 1pm, with installation included i believe. We requested for the technician to arrive earlier as our family had plans to go out. We dialled 1633, and was greeted with a familiar "please hold" tone. We held the line for almost 15 minutes before one service operator picked up.

The person did not have the technician's contact number, and suggested that the would "email them" our request. We asked them if the people would actually see the email and arrive sooner, but that was all they could do, they said. They also said our timing was 2-6pm when it was 11-1pm. They had looked up our particulars too. We were a tad frustrated, but we waited.

It was 1.30pm and they still had not arrived to install the "free" box. We dialled the number again to check and wow, they said that our timeslot was 6-8pm? Upon further checking they said that we had a late timeslot in their records. We were really shocked as we had waited for nothing as the man was not even told the correct time to come. Apparently, they could not make the 11am-1pm timeslot they had allowed us to choose and simply picked another time without letting us know or declining at the onset. In the end we had no choice but to stick to the 4-6pm timeslot. We were unable to go out anywhere on one precious and rare weekend as a family. Our day was promptly ruined because of this poor customer service.

I do wonder if the amount we pay per month is worth this type of service we are receiving.

Anyone experiencing similar problems recently?

StarFire

Personally this is my take. I do not believe that switching in and out of these companies will make any difference at all. 

I've been a faithful and loyal Starhub Customer since 1998 or even earlier when they are launching their first 56kpbs free internet connection plans and they were giving out CDs to install programs to run the connection.till date. the family has 7 mobile phone plans, an almost complete range of Starhub Cable TV programme channels and even a 300mpbs Fibre Broadband plans and a home line. I can truly say.. our family is supporting Starhub ALL OUT. 

In the recent months. We have issues with billing with Starhub where there are amounts ( not exceeding $100 ) per month bills where it cannot be explained. Where we have payments to this company of B-Link Pte. Ltd of some kind amounting of $50 per month and it is something we do not know how it got inside. 

There are also additional unknown Broadband charges which cannot be explained by their telephone operators, customer service counters and anybody. All shared similar replies ( I am not sure ) 

Last month. Internet speeds has been crawling to a new low, with as slow as 0.5mpbs for downloads and 1mpbs for upload.... (FROM THE LAN CABLE) and when we called up for support, they mention that they will refresh the system and inform us immediately. First i understand that they are just the service providers, the problem still lies with OpenNet. But still problems are not solved till even today. We are paying so much to Starhub Every Single Month, Yet they cannot even deliver a decent 50-100mpbs speed when we even paid for a 300mpbs connection ? 

We are a first world country. Yet we lacked so much in telecommunication services. South Korea have internet services way faster then Singapore. and even Malaysia and certain parts of Taiwan have internet speeds faster then Singapore. Its shameful for Singapore to claim and PROCLAIM so many 1sts.... but a simple Telecommunication infrastructure matter, they are just as good as a 3rd world country. 

I've written in to Starhub many times, and NONE was replied or even explained to me to why there was a lapse in service. 

There is 10000001 things i can whack Starhub for. But please.... People from the marketing side of Starhub. Its time and HIGH time to stop using terms like "Up to 100mpbs" or similar terms to MISLEAD the public audience. UP TO 100MPBS means its actually 56kpbs to 100MPBS or greater... so we maybe paying for 100MPBS but in fact only get an average of 1-10MPBS on a normal average day. 

Do you think this is fair for the consumer ? 

And please. Starhub. I've also received a comment from one of your telephone operator "MANAGERS" they mentioned: Not happy can also change service. Starhub did not gunpoint you to stay on if you didnt like the service. 

CAN YOU IMAGINE THIS ??? I am not trying to be unreasonable here. but I have been very nice and tolerant and yet Starhub continues to treat it's customers this way. 

Many users from Singtel and M1 also faces similar problems, the lack of competition between the telecom companies is certainly the main reason why they can provide such terrible service and still survive and not close shop. Our government should step in to intervene and ensure Singaporeans will be able to enjoy good phone networks comparable to Japan, Taiwan and Korea.

Is it because all 3 telcos cant do much ? or is this a common scheme that all of them do this to MAXIMISE profits ??

Glenn Yong

*Comment first appeared on www.Facebook.com/TheRealSingapore

According to BusinessWeek, Mrs Koh-Lim Wen Gin was URA’s Chief Planner and Deputy Chief Executive Officer from 2001 to 2008. She has also been an Independent Director of Keppel Land Ltd since January 20, 2010.

Mrs Koh-Lim’s daughter, Ms Koh Lin-Net, has been granted options to purchase a unit or units at Corals at Keppel Bay. 

Ms Koh Lin-Net is none other than the CEO of MDA. She has been MDA Chief since 1 November last year. She has also been Director of Singapore Health Services Pte Ltd since 1 July 2012. Ms Koh Lin-Net serves as a Director of The Esplanade Co Ltd and Singapore Land Authority.

Koh Seow Chuan, married to Lim Wen Gin, is founder of DP Architects which built Esplanade.

Mommy proposed an idea. Daddy got the contract. Daughter takes charge. Huat ah !!!

How? like that kelong or not? So coincidental whole family involved ???

This is one way to manipulate the market to keep the property market high for a self-interest group.

Somemore Corals at Keppel Bay is developed by Keppel Land....sure big discount for director n family lor....

Millionaire

*Article first appeared on http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/showthread.php?776592-Another-AIM-saga...this-time-3-family-members...

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed by author(s) within the website are solely that of the contributors and in no way reflects the views of TheRealSingapore.com. 

The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has planned for six runs of the Family Recreation & Fun (FRF) Carnival.

NTUC said that low-income union members and their families can look forward to not one but six carnivals this year.

The first FRF Carnival was held today (2 Jun) at NTUC Downtown East. Five more will be held in June, September, November and December.

The FRF Carnivals are expected to benefit about 60,000 low-income union members and their families.

According to its factsheet [Link], the FRF Carnivals aim to strengthen family bonding and promote a greater work-life balance & better well-being by enabling low income union members to “enjoy a day of fun with their families at Downtown East at no cost”.

The eligibility criteria are listed as:

• Total Monthly Gross Household Income of $3,500 and below; OR Per Capita Income of $875 and below if gross household income exceeds $3,500.
• Members must not be in arrears of membership dues.

Each successful applicant will receive the free family recreation package comprising the following at the registration counter at FRF Carnival:

(a) Admission tickets to Wild Wild Wet
(b) Bowling game coupons
(c) F & B vouchers
(d) 1 hour free play at eXplorerkid (for children aged 12 and below)
(e) Wristbands for unlimited play of games and activities
(f) Lucky draw coupon

Free shuttle bus service to and from Downtown East will also be provided at specific times and locations.

Rather than spending money to let low-income union members “enjoy a day of fun with their families at Downtown East at no cost”, wouldn’t it be better for NTUC to put more effort into finding ways to increase the salary or income of this group of people so that they can do whatever they like with more money at their disposal?

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

The newly announced requirement for online news sites with more than 50,000 viewers a month to put up a bond, and to comply within 24 hours to remove any content that Media Development Authority finds objectionable, marks yet another encroachment into the public spheres of Singapore.

The move reminds one somehow of the 1980s, when all major newspapers were incorporated under the control of a single Singapore Press Holdings, following PAP’s loss of one seat to the opposition in 1980, with WP’s J.B. Jeyaretnam capturing Anson in a by-election.  How would it augur this time for democracy in Singapore?

As it is, Singapore as a city-state has been conspicuous as a bonsai showcase of cosmopolitan life, but one hardly known for providing public places for freedom of speech and assembly. Anywhere downtown that resembles a public square is usually reserved for commercial activities of sales promotion, while the location of Hong Lim Park as Speaker’s Corner seems relatively isolated and apparently not very hip.

This marginalisation of the public sphere works to place Singaporeans in a mental loop that is hard to break free from. Surely the young and trendy Singaporeans would prefer to congregate around Greek-God-like posters of A&F in Orchard Road, and shop for cheap but fashionable outfits from H&M, made in Bangladesh it may be? Why travel in the direction of Chinatown where you may only find old men carrying their miserable bird cages, when life in Singapore already calls to mind the misery of a bird cage? Don’t we all need an escape from a boring life, where every other locality in Singapore seems like the exclusive territory of People’s Association?

A similar effect may be intended with the latest control over the social media this time, which has managed to sneak through the back door by gazetting it under the Licensing Regime, without public consultation or parliamentary approval. The new rules will serve to deter bloggers in Singapore from discussing social and political issues, and encourage people to blog about facial cream or their pet dogs instead.

This would presumably help create a ‘safe’ environment for the ruling party’s continual domination in Singapore, free from criticisms. All they need to do would be to stage a little ‘national conversation’ before asserting that they are working as ever to the best interest of the people, be it in the wage scheme or the population policy or the land use in our country. We may not find the precious little information to contradict them anymore.

The question is: would this be a miscalculation on the part of the PAP government? Will the same tactics that worked before Singapore’s first economic downturn in the 1980s work again now, with the new generation of electorate? Or will it lead to further distrust of the regime and force Singaporeans in the direction of civil disobedience, into more creative spheres of resistance?

The assumption seems to be that online voices of dissent reflect an anti-government sentiment that is purely irrational, and the only way to deal with it is to stamp it out before it spreads further like a disease. Well this is an inaccurate picture that they are seeing with their blinkers on, which may just lead to their own tumble. A good 40% of Singaporeans are not ‘anti-government’ as such. They are simply against the government being anti-democracy and anti-community. Does the regime want to push on with a de-humanising approach of treating the electorate as fools, and see how they react?

As post-GE2011 surveys have indicated, cost of living and job situation have been major concerns among voters. Smear tactics as perpetuated with the help of local press do not seem to work well anymore. At the end of the way, would people really be so interested in the sex lives of MPs, ministers, law professors or activists, when bread and butter issues are at stake? Would digging that little dirt alarm Singaporeans so much that they would run back into the arms of authoritarian rule immediately? You can only fool some people some time, not all the people all the time.

In a way, the secret ballot has made cowards of many a Singaporean. Hence there are those who would vote for the sake of upgrading in their constituency or for rubbish-clearing by the town council, instead of for how the economy will be run in the whole country. But how much upgrading does one really need before the bubble bursts? What we need is a more open society where people can stand up for their own political orientation in debates on the common good of Singaporeans as a whole.

Lest we forget, the PAP rose into power because it was a progressive party back in the 1950s. Today people just assume that going on strike is un-Singaporean, or that street protest is unheard of. But the PAP itself would walk down the streets with a banner in those days. Things changed of course. In the words of our first Culture and Foreign Minister S. Rajaratnam in 1969: “We started off as an anti-colonial party…”

The 50s of course belong to a chapter in history that is still recovering from collective amnesia and whitewash, and scaremongers would still cite chaos at the time to scare the chicken back to the fold. But there is clearly a new spirit of awakening among Singaporeans now, which may yet be steered in a positive direction. One aspect may be an ‘anti-globalisation’ consciousness – at least, that is how I would prefer to characterise the ‘fashion punk’ who was carrying the banner ‘Singapore for Singaporeans’ in the February protest against the population white paper, instead of dismissing it as ‘xenophobia’.

 ‘Globalisation’ is of course a very complicated word, and what we must realise is that it is not a matter of a ‘tidal wave’ coming to our shores, but a many-headed monster which includes the roles played by our trade unions and our manpower ministry in their peculiar practices. It is also a matter of the state ideology, down to the claim by some politicians that there is no local identity in Singapore as such, apart from the belief in meritocracy or the ‘Confucian ethics’ of diligence - as if Confucius said 2,500 years ago that you don’t really need a university education for self-improvement, you just need to work overtime for better pay.

So what is a ‘real’ Singaporean? Let’s just say that one does not need to prove himself or herself as Singaporean by citing how differently a person from another country would behave. If ever there are ‘real Singaporeans’ as such, I would say it should refer to people who truly care for Singapore as part of a community.  It would include people who may sound ‘subversive’ to the authorities, but really have the interests of Singaporeans at heart. Unfortunately, it is exactly such a sense of community that is being targeted by censorship.

Hence this latest instrument is indeed a test for us. Should Singaporeans not sense a foreboding of what this will mean for each and every citizen? One just needs to reflect a little more to learn from history: in the 1960s, the ISA came for the Chinese-educated who were ‘communists’, people kept silent, because they were not Chinese-ed; in the 1970s, the ISA came for the English-educated ‘communists’, people kept silent, because they were not leftists; in the 1980s, the ISA came for ‘communists’ who were supposedly embedded in Catholic church, people kept silent, because they had nothing to do with the church or the social activism; in the 2000s, the new excuse for ISA was the threat of terrorism identified with Muslim extremism, people kept silent, because they had nothing to do with such terrorism. And now, will people say it doesn’t concern them, because it is only the bloggers who will be affected? Who will speak for the people then when the bloggers are gone?

The defeatist attitude may say that there is nothing one can do, because there is no democracy in Singapore anyway. But that is simply mental slavery. One has to recognise that there is at least some semblance of democracy, at least a symbolic space for voices of dissent - Hong Lim Park is such a space, and judging by the latest trends, it will become the ‘fashion’ of true-blue Singaporeans.

Will the internet remain such a space too? It is now up to us, to express ourselves or share the opinions in whichever way we can, to make our presence felt. Think on what it will mean for yourself, your loved ones and for fellow Singaporeans. Think on many future generations of Singaporeans to come - assuming of course, that Singapore as a nation is not auctioned away in the global market soon. Get up, “Stand up, for Singapore”, shall we say?

Z'ming Cik

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/zming-cik/singapores-public-spheres-between-keyboard-warriors-and-v-for-vendetta-in-hong-l/10151391792515806

It's up to you whether you want to believe whatever I say in this post. But I know it for myself that what I say below is true, as well as my friends who were with me.

I arrived at Punggol Point Jetty this morning at 8am+ for a jog with a few friends. From the carpark we walked towards the water edge where there was a very WIDE cycling/jogging pathway (at least 5, 6 metres wide. Refer to pic below). That particular area didn't have anyone else at that moment, except us. We were standing between the edge of the steps and I stood the furthest away from the steps about 3 metres away? And I wasn't even in the middle of the pathway.

Pic credit: http://punggolend.files.wordpress.co...55d.jpeg?w=630

So, suddenly came this caucasian guy on his bike. As he was nearing he shouted "GET OFF THE PATHWAY!" Not wanting to overreact, and also for the safety of my friends, I stepped aside quietly letting him cycle pass, when all he could do, was to veer to the side like just a mere metre? And he would still have SO much space on the other side (just look at how wide that pathway is, and no other people were around).

I was furious. I was furious because, yes I may have been standing near to the centre of the pathway, but he could have been more polite other than shouting the above. And there was so much space on that pathway!

Anyways we just ignored it and started our jog. BUT about 30 minutes later into our jog I bumped into him at a traffic light stop. Decided to confront him. I got his attention by waving my hands right in front of his face (as he was on his earphones). He took his earphones off. 

I told him very calmly 'Excuse me, could you be more polite next time? I know I was near the middle of the path and should have been closer to the side. But you could be more polite next time." 

He replied with a expression like it wasn't his fault at all, "You were in the wrong, you should have stepped aside!" 

I said "Yes but you could have been more polite!"

As I was saying that he wore back his earphones and said with the same expression on his face, shaking his head "I can't hear you."

And with that our conversation ended. I was angry. For no particular reason, I took out my phone and took a snapshot of him. He KNEW I was taking a photo of him because, obviously as you can see in the photo below, there was nothing else to capture a photo of at that traffic light. He looked directly into my camera (ok good, easier for me to take a photo of you).

I was like whatever lah! Green man light came on and I continued jogging. He stayed behind at the light for who knows what reason.

Anyway many may not see any point in me posting this info. But I just freaking HATE inconsiderate people like that to the core. Some people just need to be taught a lesson. What an impolite prick that guy was (trying to use more polite words here).

Anyway just a word of warning. If you do bump into this cyclist one day with his brownishMOTOBECANE mountain bike, beware of him, you might just become another victim of this inconsiderate and rude fellow.

FrankLHY