Sex bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee have claimed trial to three charges for posting a controversial Ramadan greeting on facebook last week and for the sex video clips they posted online last year. They have pleaded not guilty to all three charges and were denied bail.

The couple -- known collectively as Alvivi -- first sparked controversy when they posted photos and videos of them having sex online.

Last week, they drew widespread criticism for posting a picture on facebook of them eating bak kut teh, or pork rib soup, with the words "Selamat Berbuka Puasa" (Happy Breaking Fast) and a "halal" logo.

Alvin Tan Jye Yee, 25, and Vivian Lee May Ling, 24, were charged under the Sedition Act, the Film Censorship Act, and the Penal Code on Thursday after media regulators and the police wrapped up their investigations this week, reports The Straits Times.

The judge contemplated both arguments and has decided that all three charges will be heard simultaneously.

Alvin and Vivian were charged for posting up a controversial “Selamat Berbuka Puasa” greeting on their joint Facebook account where the couple is clearly eating bak kut the, a traditional pork dish.

Since then their Facebook account has been taken down.

The news of Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee’s fate circulated the net as they were charged under the Sedition act for their “Halal Bak Kut Teh” picture and under the Film Censorship act for their Sex Blog. Both can face up to 10 years in jail and up to RM 60,000 in total.

But aside from them, another prominent figure in the Malaysia was raised in Alvin’s lime light.

Dato Ibrahim Ali is a Malaysian politician and a former member of Malaysia’s parliament. He is a rather infamous figure in Malaysia’s politics and has made SEVERAL racist comments and acts during his career. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Ali_(Malaysia)

Some of the most infamous acts are:

(1)     In April 2011, he made perceived sexist remarks in Parliament, blaming
"wives who neglect their responsibilities" for Malaysian men having extramarital sex.

(2)     In May 2011, following the controversy over an alleged plot by Christians
in Malaysia to supplant Islam as the official religion in Malaysia which was
reported by Utusan Malaysia, Ibrahim threatened to wage "holy war" against
Christians.

(3)     In June 2011, he allegedly warned the Chinese community not to turn up in
support of the 2011 Bersih 2.0 rally, saying that "untoward incidents" may occur.

(4)     In January 2012 during an event celebrating the Chinese New Year, in an
incident which has come to be known as "white ang pow", he distributed small
monetary gifts that were contained within white envelopes instead of red

ones. White ang pows are customarily handed out only at funerals.

(5)     In January 2013 Ibrahim Ali again courted intense public outrage when he
called on Muslims to burn Malay-language bibles containing the term "Allah"
in their texts. (Allah is not the name of the muslim faith’s god but rather
the Arabic language for god. Arabic Christians and Jews also used the word
Allah in their Holy text)

Till today, there has been no criminal prosecution made against him and authorities are reluctant to press any charges against him despite numerous police report made against him.

Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party (PAS) parliamentarian members are questioning the ruling party’s swift and harsh action against Alvin Tan but neglect to do the same against Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali and his deputy Zulkifli Nordin.

“To maintain religion harmony, Muslims must respect the non-Muslims and vice-versa,” Mahfuz told a press conference in Parliament House today. http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/07/17/pas-take-action-against-ibrahim-too/

Dato Ibrahim Ali made a statement in light of the recent case stating that his case is different from Alvivi’s case. In his statement, he defended that he is simply correcting an error in the Malay version of the Bible and burning it is the proper way to do so, just as one would do with the Quran, while Alvin has attacked another religion and threatened the interfaith harmony in Malaysia. He also added that his true intention was misinterpreted by the many internet news portals. http://my.news.yahoo.com/cant-compare-ibrahim-ali-alvivi-says-minister-104544748.html

I guess this just goes to show that your riches and status plays more key role in the justice system than the actual act itself. I would say that Malaysia’s politics are really corrupt if a bad dark humor gets severe punishment while REAL hate speech goes unpunished.

Mike

TRS Contributor

The debate some months ago regarding SMRT’s announcement of station names in only English and Mandarin threw up some interesting views.

Proponents raised arguments that there was nothing wrong in catering to the linguistic needs of elderly Singaporeans and Chinese tourists. Those in opposition contended that it neglected our Malay and Indian communities. Some groups wanted all four official languages to be used. The incident was a microcosm of different groups in Singapore with competing linguistic interests and ideologies.

Of course, the social and economic dominance of English in Singapore is not new. Both the Government and various groups have long been trying to reverse the declining use of mother tongue languages. However, for the first time in our history, those who use and see English as their de facto mother tongue, are becoming the majority of the population.

There are implications for all of us.

CONTRADICTIONS WITH POLICY

After two generations of the bilingual policy, many Singaporeans are increasingly using English as their principal home language. This shift towards English is prevalent in all racial groups, but most apparent amongst young Chinese families. According to Ministry of Education figures, the proportion of Chinese students entering Primary 1 who speak predominantly English at home, rose from 36 per cent in 1994 to 50 per cent in 2004.

At the same time, surveys suggest that as younger Singaporeans grow up as native speakers of English (ie, English being the first language they acquire as a child), they will increasingly claim ownership of English, with the language being core to their identity. This is not to say that Singaporeans are becoming monolingual English-speakers — it simply suggests that many increasingly count English, among other languages, as integral to their identity.

On one hand, we have Singaporeans who claim English as core to their sense of self. On the other, the Government’s official position is that English cannot be our mother tongue. While there might be some Singaporeans who can accommodate both ideas, not all can or will do so.

Government rhetoric of how Mandarin, Malay or Tamil is a link to cultural heritage, rings hollow to those who have grown up more accustomed to a Singaporean way of life. This is partially why educators face an uphill struggle in trying to interest young pupils in mother tongue learning.

These are challenging times for governments and individuals who still view the links between language, culture and race as enduring and immutable.

Local academics generally agree that language policies based rigidly on ethnicity may appear increasingly unsustainable. The bilingual policy need not change, though the justification for it will have to. This is in light of a progressively diverse and cosmopolitan Singaporean population that does not fit conventional Chinese, Malay and Indian categories.

LINGUISTIC DIVIDES

The demographic trends also suggest that the linguistic and ideological divide is generational. Older Singaporeans are the ones who tend to believe in the enduring links between one’s biological heritage and cultural practice.

This means that conflicts between groups of differing linguistic interests and ideologies will decline in aggression and regularity. This is as linguistic practices among younger Singaporeans converge, and as we evolve a Singaporean identity that clings to English.

The current influx of new immigrants might have a substantial impact on our linguistic and cultural ecology. Growing numbers of Mandarin-speaking immigrants will boost flagging figures among Singapore-born speakers.

Even so, the public and state consensus thus far is that new citizens should adapt to local linguistic practices, with proficiency in English being of utmost importance. This to avoid the development of linguistic enclaves, and prevent segregation between new immigrants and other Singaporeans.

‘NATIVE’ SPEAKERS?

There is, however, a substantial obstacle to our claim of English as our mother tongue. The notion “native speaker of English” is tied to particular nationalities and ethnicities — that is, Anglo-Saxons — and this is still prevalent throughout the world.

It is partially reinforced by our own Government’s rhetoric of English as not mother tongue, as well as campaigns such as the Speak Good English Movement that contribute to our inferiority complex regarding English.

For instance, Singaporean students who apply to universities in North America and the United Kingdom are not exempt from submitting TOEFL and IELTS scores. The requirement is automatically waived for British/American “home” students or international students from countries such as Australia. This is despite the fact that Singaporean pupils consistently outperform most nations (including the UK) in international tests in English literacy and proficiency.

Those who argue that Singaporeans lack intelligibility in spoken English must not have heard the British in their “Cockney”, “Geordie” or “Brummie” dialects. Yet, these are considered “native speakers of English”, while Singaporeans are not.

Yes, many young Singaporeans grow up speaking English, are more proficient in English than British children, and are emotionally attached to the language. Many Singaporeans can and do identify with English as part of our selves, but this identity is constantly undermined by a lack of institutional recognition (both within and without Singapore).

Any prospect of developing a Singaporean “core” cannot be realised without the acknowledgement of English as one of our mother tongues. A step forward may be for Singapore’s own language policies and official stance to reflect our sociolinguistic reality. It is only then that we may expect international acceptance.

Luke Lu

*The author is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Language, Discourse and Communication, King’s College London

So, someone came along and did a National Day song – in Tamil. It’s something not done before (as far as I know).

Titled “Singai Naadu”, the song is so much more soulful than the plastic and trying-too-hard-to-impress English one. You can view that terrible video here.

“Singai Naadu” is such a breath of fresh air. It really is time that we stop having Chinese peeps all the time sing about all things Singapore.

Our nation is made of other races too, you know?

Lyrics with English translation:

Verse 1

Boomi, Unnai Azhaikkuthu x 2 Vaa Vaa

The Australian police has a brochure to explain Positional Asphyxia (restraint asphyxia) as a form of asphyxia (from Greek α- "without" and σφύξις sphyxis, "heartbeat") which occurs when someone's physical position prevents them from breathing adequately.

The following factors are listed as contributors to positional deaths:

Obesity - a large abdomen means that when a person is prone, the contents of the abdomen can be forced upwards under the diaphragm restricting breathing;

Psychosis - stimulation of the heart under drugs can produce cardiac disturbances which combine with difficulty in breathing to lead to fatal results;

Pre-existing physical conditions - any condition that impairs breathing under normal circumstances (heart disease, asthma, emphysena, borobchilities and other chronic lung diseases) will put a person at higher risk when they are physically restrained;

Pressure on the abdomen - even a thin person will have difficulty breathing if there is pressure on the abdomen. The more security officers there are holding a person down in a prone position, the greater the risk that there will be pressure on the abdomen, making it difficult to breathe.

The brochure identifies one of the symptoms and signs of improper restraint as sudden tranquility - an active, loud, threatening, violent, abusive person suddenly becoming quiet and tranquil, not moving.

Slim built 21-year-old Dinesh Raman Chinnaiah had kicked a prison warden while exiting his cell, was subsequently subdued, as they say in the movies, with extreme prejudice by unknown number(s) of officers, before being dumped into the disciplinary housing unit (DHU) cell "in a prone position". You don't need an IQ 0f 180 to appreciate that Dinesh was manhandled with retribution intent in mind. You can read volumes into the startling brevity of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) statement concerning how a young life was snuffed out.

While it was admirable of Deputy Superintendent Lim Kwo Yin to assume personal responsibility for the thuggish tactics of his men - did Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen own up for Private Dominique's death? - there is no account/autopsy of how Dinesh was asphyxiated. If he was conscious and unrestrained while being ferried to his cell, he could have rolled over to gasp for life sustaining breath intakes.

We are simply told the inmate was restrained "according to protocol", left unattended, until Lim re-entered the cell later to check, and found him to be unresponsive.

The family of the deceased is upset that the senior prison officer charged with causing death through negligence received only a $10,000 fine. Three years on, they are still not sure exactly how Dinesh died, and have yet to decide on a legal course of action. If the Shane Todd investigation is anything to go by, the odds are definitely not in their favour. Don't waste money.

Tattler

Or so the government and its mouthpiece want you to believe.

I am referring to the recent onslaught of insults hurled at the Singaporean PMETs (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) in a string of articles published by our national mouthpiece, insinuating or blatantly accusing us of not deserving our wages; not being “hungry” enough, and being “pampered, mediocre, expensive and timid.”

Apart from being a self-corrective measure to counter the arguments of an earlier, relatively critical (by Straits Times’ standards) commentary “When wages fail to grow along with economy,” these write-ups are yet another low blow at ordinary Singaporeans to absolve the government of any blame for the problems we face today.

Yet if we look at Straits Times reports on the job situation of our PMETs from the 1990s, it becomes very apparent that the plight of today’s PMETs is a result of myopic government policies since the 1990s, i.e. its pro-immigration policy, the consistent kowtowing to businesses that fed off cheap labor, and re-training that had failed to equip workers with the necessary skills.

PMET Retrenchment in the 1990s

Amid concerns about how companies were “delayering” or removing middle level executive positions due to technological advancements[1],  employment pass holders in Singapore increased from 50,000 in 1994 to 70,000 in 1997 while work permit holders surged from 300,000 to 450,000 over the same period.[2]

As the floodgates opened wide, Singapore saw 10,956 workers being retrenched in 1996 – a record since the 1985 economic recession during which 19,529 workers lost their jobs.[3]

When many began to question if foreign workers were taking away the jobs[4], then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong repeatedly justified the government’s decision to import foreign workers in 1997 and 1998.

In his 1998 National Day Rally speech, he said:

“We must continue to bring in international talent…In today’s much harsher environment, some Singaporeans are questioning whether this is still the right policy. Workers have asked union leaders why we do not cut down the number of foreign workers here, and save jobs for Singaporeans.

I know many Singaporeans are concerned about their jobs. Architects are having a tough time and many of them cannot find employment. Likewise lawyers and doctors. I have met recent graduates who have applied for several jobs in the last two months but have not been called for a single interview…

There will be more retrenchments before we come out of the slump. But chasing away foreigners, hoping to free up more jobs for Singaporeans, will only make our problems worse…”

And so in 1998, 29,000 workers lost their jobs, among whom 5,830 were PMETs. The PMET job loss was three times higher than that of 1997.[5]

Amid the soaring PMET layoffs, a concurrent report made baffling claims that there were more job openings for PMETs in September 1998, “due to an on-going restructuring towards higher value-added and knowledge based activities.”[6]

In 1999, the Manpower Ministry revealed that there were 530,000 foreigners in Singapore, among whom 80,000 were employment pass holders.[7] There were another 14,622 people laid-off in the same year, among whom 24% (3,509) were PMETs.[8]

Retrenched PMETs in the 2000s: A Permanent Fixture?

From 1990 to 2000, Singapore’s total population surged by one million. Of this, the number of citizens grew from 2.6 million to 3 million while that of permanent residents grew from 109,872 to 287,477. The non-resident population increased from 311,264 to 754,524 over the same period (source).

In the first half of 2000, 7,903 workers lost their jobs and about 24% (1,896) were PMETs.[9] This trend persisted and worsened in the first half of 2001, when 38% of those axed were PMETs.[10] Over four years, the number of unemployed degree and diploma holders aged 40 and above increased three-fold.[11]

Despite all the schemes, retraining and skills upgrading to help PMETs,[12] the jobless rate of PMETs continued to climb.[13]

By September 2002, unemployment hit a 15-year high of 4.8%. As many as 12,900 graduates could not land a job, doubling the number in 1998.[14] A resumé  to a human resource company reads, “I am a system engineer and I have been job hunting for months. My last salary was $4,800 but I will work for $1,800.”[15]

A total of 40,903 jobs were axed in 2002.[16]

Curiously, a 2003 report claimed that “The share of jobs for managers, professionals and technicians, rose from 29.5 per cent in 1992 to 41.6 per cent last year.”[17]

Yet thousands of degree holders could not land a job.[18] And middle managers were also vulnerable, many mired in long-term unemployment.

So the question is: where did the increasing share of jobs for PMETs go to?

Jobs Vanished? Or…

By March 2003, 89,400 people were out of job, and more than 50% were PMETs.[19]

Reports claimed, yet again, that technological advancements were “leading to the demise of droves of middle managers.”[20]

A former bank manager with an annual pay packet of $60,000 was unable to find a job even though he was willing to go for a $1,000-a-month sales clerk position. Some of his retrenched banker friends had become taxi drivers in desperation.[21]

Another 55-year-old former bank assistant manager took a pay cut from $4,000 to $1,100 to become an assistant cleaning supervisor.[22]

In July 2003, two Nanyang Technological University (NTU) economists suggested that foreigners took three out of four jobs created in the last five years.

The government swiftly denied this and claimed that out of 10 new jobs, nine went to Singaporeans and PRs and only one to a foreigner (??!!).[23]

When some MPs demanded, rightfully, for a breakdown of the number of jobs that went to citizens and PRs, this was what Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said:

“What difference does it make? The ratio is unimportant when jobs are created.”[24]

Effective from October 2003, the CPF rate was cut again from 36% to 33%.[25] In December 2003, it was reported that 95,500 people were jobless, with a record of almost three in 10 seeking jobs for at least six months.[26]

In the first quarter of 2004, PMETs again formed the biggest chunk (45%) of the 2,962 laid off.[27] In 2005, an estimated 30,000 PMETs were out of job.[28] According to a ST report dated 16 June 2005:

Employers have been lambasted for discriminating against them [retrenched middle managers] in favour of younger, cheaper recruits – essentially getting two, three energetic workers for the price of one … prejudice against retrenched executives aged between 40 and 50 is real…[there] is ample evidence of axed professionals who are ready to take huge pay cuts and still are jobless.[29]

In December 2006, 8,100 PMETs were still unemployed.[30] This was despite MOM figures which showed that PMET share of jobs had risen from 39% in 1996 to 47% in 2006 and that 173,300 new jobs were created.[31]

Said Mr Sim, a retrenched IT manager who used to earn $7,500, “The pool of people looking for the same job is quite big now, compared to previously. There’s also competition from IT workers from China and India willing to do it for much less.”[32]

In 2007, official figures showed that six in 10 of the new jobs went to foreigners, up from five in 10 in 2006.

The report claimed that “this has more to do with insufficient Singaporeans being available to fill the rising number of new vacancies, according to the report giving a breakdown of jobs held by citizens, permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners” (emphasis mine).[33]

So what happened to the 8,100 unemployed PMETs who needed a job?

Whose Fault?

According to employers, the Singaporean PMETs could only blame themselves, of course.

Because local PMETs lacked the “skills relevant to the industries of the day,” “Bosses in trading houses and the infocomm, hospitality and retail sectors were thus hiring foreigners for middle management positions” (emphasis mine).[34]

And hey presto! The “redundant” middle management positions that were supposedly vanishing in droves in the mid 1990s and early 2000s made a miraculous comeback.[35]

The only problem is these positions were not for Singaporeans, who, after undergoing years and a myriad of skills upgrading, still did not make the cut in the eyes of the employers.

Is it because, as former National Wage Council chairman Lim Pin said, “Worker training is like trying to hit a moving target. The technology and skills required today are likely to be different from those needed five to 10 years from now”?[36]

Or is it simply because employers prefer cheaper foreign workers?

Today, our national mouthpiece is hinting that Singaporeans do not deserve our wages. This is rubbing salt into wound because our wages had been stagnant for years.

We know that there are around 128,100 S-pass holders with a qualifying salary of $2,000 in Singapore in 2012. Their number has also grown by 14,200 from December 2011 to June 2012 (see Chart below). I have raised this question in an earlier blogpost and I will ask it here again:

Are cheaper foreign workers taking away jobs from Singaporeans?

Even Goh Chok Tong, who so strongly advocated bringing in foreign workers in the late 1990s, wasn’t sure anymore.

(Sources: MOM and DOS)

Source

Singapore Armchair Critic

*The writer blogs at http://singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com/

References

1. All sources are from The Straits Times unless otherwise stated. Executives focus on challenging wages to develop competitive edge, 27 May 1995. Preparing older execs for rapid changes – employers group to help mature executives cope, 18 Sep 1995.

2. Foreigners can propel two S’pores, 20 May 1999.

3. More older workers seek help to find jobs, 3 Jul 1997.

4. Manpower dilemma in an economic slowdown – Are the foreign workers taking away local jobs? 6 Sep 1998.

5. 5,800 execs lost their jobs last year, 16 Apr 1999.

6. Singapore labour – more jobs for those with higher skills, 5 Feb 1999.

7. Foreigners can propel two S’pores, 20 May 1999.

8. Paying what it takes for a first-class civil service, 30 Jun 2000.

9. NTUC to help execs cope with job changes, 13 Oct 2000.

10. More help for bosses hiring retrenched, 4 Oct 2001.

11. Downturn hits mature grads, 14 Sep 2001.

12. Courses launched to help laid-off workers. 19 Dec 2001; New scheme to help white-collar workers, 24 Nov 2001; More help for bosses hiring retrenched. 4 Oct 2001; NTUC to help execs cope with job changes, 13 Oct 2000.

13. More executives facing layoffs, 4 Mar 2002; No offer for 3 in 4 of those retrenched, 12 Jul 2002.

14. What do the grim figures mean to you? 23 Nov 2002; Record number of grads cannot find jobs, 14 Dec 2002.

15. What do the grim figures mean to you? 23 Nov 2002.

16. Another bad year ahead for the jobless, 15 Mar 2003.

17. There is no magic cure as lower-end jobs vanish, 15 Feb 2003.

18. You’ve got a degree. So What? 31 Jan 2003.

19. Job scene change, 7 Jul 2003.

20. Down but not out, 29 Jun 2003.

21. A year later, still a survivor, 29 Jun 2003.

22. Job-seekers, fussy? Not when reality bites, 12 Jul 2003.

23. Let us focus on getting jobs – Minister, 15 Aug 2003.

24. Let us focus on getting jobs – Minister, 15 Aug 2003.

25. CPF- 33% from October, 29 Aug 2003.

26. Labour market on the mend, 16 Dec 2003.

27. How older workers bounce back after they’ve been laid off, 15 Aug 2004.

28. Help wanted for white collar jobless. 14 Jun 2005.

29. White collar crunch, 16 Jun 2005.

30. The middle-aged, middle management squeeze, 16 Dec 2006.

31. More grads and skilled workers in workforce, 27 Jan 2007; How will Singaporeans react to influx of foreigners? 28 Feb 2007.

32. The middle-aged, middle management squeeze, 16 Dec 2006.

33. S’poreans losing out in job boom? Not so: MOM, 1 Mar 2008.

34. How will Singaporeans react to influx of foreigners? 28 Feb 2007.

35. Down but not out, 29 Jun 2003.

36. Should low-wage workers be afraid? 11 Jun 2005.

Source: Strait Times 19 Jan 1989

Cheng Bock tells of S’poreans who fear to speak up

The fear of retribution often cited by Singaporeans reluctant to speak their mind was highlighted by Dr Tan Cheng Bock yesterday.

Recounting instances when he detected such apprehension in Singaporeans he had met, he said the thoughts that crossed his mind were: “Are we so bad? Are we so feared?”

The MP for Ayer Rajah, in sharing these thoughts with his colleagues in Parliament, asserted that if there was to be consultation and participation in the Government’s decision-making process, then ways must be found “to ally the average Singaporean of this unhealthy perception”.

“For we can never get true consensus if our citizens fear to speak alternate views,” he said.

“Their resentments would only be suppressed.”

‘All the woes of a taxi driver’ 
The perception about the fear of retribution came across to him in two recent encounters, one with a taxi driver, the other with a group of young educated Singaporeans.

On a taxi ride home last week from Raffles City, he spoke to the driver, who complained about the hike in diesel tax and “all the woes of a taxi driver”. 
But when they reached Dr Tan’s home and the driver turned around to collect his fare and recognised Dr Tan, his immediate reaction was to apologise for his remarks.

“What caught my attention was his repeated call not to report him or blacklist him and to allow him to earn his living.” Dr Tan recalled. 
“I want him to know that I did not take down his taxi number nor did I intend to report him.”

Dr Tan said he was disturbed not by what the driver said about government policies but by the fears the cabby expressed. 
“He may not be representative of all taxi drivers but it got me to ask myself: “Are we so bad? Are we so feared?”

At a recent discussion with some young adults on the SBC programme, Contact-Y, the fear of retribution also emerged as a main topic, Dr Tan said. 
These incidents were used by Dr Tan to illustrate his earlier comment that to get participation there must be a conducive climate for expression and freer exchange of ideas”.

Further, he suggested that the Government could, for a start, “learn to accept criticism without being too upset”.

Throw of brickbats 
In this, he noted how “upset”, “defensive and protective” Communications and Information Minister Yeo Ning Hong had been when “a brickbat or two” was thrown at his ministry, adding however that he did not blame the minister for “it is his job”.

Dr Yeo had responded to Arthur Beng (Fengshan) who was speaking about consensus and consultation style of Government on Tuesday, lamented at the lack of enthusiasm shown by certain ministries.

Dr Tan told his backbench colleagues, especially the newer ones, not to be intimidated by ministers and to speak their minds. 
“Throw a few brickbats at them to remind them when they are about to stray away from consultation or (they) take for granted that because the subject matter was raised before there was no further need to consult. Consultation is not a one-time affair. Ministries must not assume that,” he said.

*Article appeared on http://www.tanchengbock.org/speaking-up/tan-cheng-bock-tells-of-singaporeans-who-fear-to-speak-up

Construction vehicles accidents, worksites accidents and more unsupervised workers are on the rise. We heard of Cement trucks killing school children, speeding construction vehicles due to many young and new workers, accidents involving carelessness and negligence in crane operators and heavy equipments.

.....

What's wrong with the Construction industry? Shouldn't we have a more stringent Safety and Work Standards?

Nowadays, we hear of many accidents involving construction vehicles. 

Recently, an excavator toppled into Bangladesh House at Barker Road causing severe damages and road closure.

Where are the Inspectors of Safety?

If safety and care are not being enforced properly in the contruction process, it makes you wonder about the quality of work also being delivered.

Does some more severe disaster have to happen before this type of carelessness is addressed? 

Worriedparents

Two American fighter jets dropped four bombs on the Great Barrier Reef after a training exercise went wrong, it has emerged.

US officials said the pilots of two AV-8B Harrier jets were forced to jettison the unarmed devices on Tuesday because both aircrafts were running low on fuel and could not land with the bombs on board.

The pilots intended to drop the munitions on a designated bombing range on Townshend Island but aborted the mission when controllers reported the area was not clear of hazards.

Instead, they jettisoned two bombs from each aircraft on the World Heritage-listed marine park off the coast of Queensland state.

The pilots tried to minimise the damage by releasing the devices over deep water of more than 164 feet (50 meters) and away from coral reefs, officials said.

All four bombs were inert and so did not explode. It is unclear whether any environmental damage was caused.

An Australian Defence Force spokesman was quoted as saying the bombs posed "minimal risk or threat to the public, the marine environment or civilian shipping transiting the reef area".

The two jets were launched from aircraft carrier USS Bonhomme Richard during a three-week joint military training exercise involving around 28,000 US and Australian personnel.

Graeme Dunstan, who is among the environmentalists and anti-war activists protesting against the joint exercise, claimed the US military could no longer be trusted to protect the environment.

"How can they protect the environment and bomb the reef at the same time? Get real," Mr Dunstan said from the Queensland coastal town of Yepoon near where the military exercise is taking place.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world's largest network of coral structures rich in marine life that stretches more than 1,,800 miles (3,000 kms) along the Australian northeast coast.

Muslim’s all around the world will participate in a month of fasting from dawn to sunset, during which time they cannot eat or drink. This can make it difficult for some people to go about their normal activities around the workplace, so here are some ideas on what employers can do to accommodate their Muslim staff over the month of Ramadan: 

• Permit Muslim staff to avoid (if they so desire) workplace events involving food e.g. lunchtime briefings, business lunches with clients;
   
• Consider allowing Muslim staff to adopt flexible working during the month.
   
• Allow regular short breaks – when blood sugar drops so does concentration but a short break e.g. five minutes fresh air or splashing your face with water can help;
   
• Consider the re-allocation of heavy physical duties if possible

For more information and some more useful tips, go to http://www.pannone.com/media-centre/blog/employment-blog/an-employer%E2%80%99s-guide-to-ramadan

The shitty times wrote an article about how traffic offenses by heavy-vehicle drivers went up by 16% without giving the full picture.

What they have failed to mention is that the main cause of this traffic offenses is by those China drivers - and this is not even because of a lack of local drivers. My friend who works in the construction industry told me that these construction companies like to hire these cheap PRCs from the countryside since they get a salary of only about $1.2k and are willing to be put up in dorms unlike the local workers who get about $1.6 to 1.8k and can drive less as they are usually older.

I have personally witnessed some accidents and near misses which are caused by these PRCs, and this isn’t even reported in the Shitty times article. I wonder if it’s because of their master’s pro-foreign-trash policies? Last year, I witnessed the China driver of a commercial bus beat the red light alone AMK Ave 5 and smashed into the side of an SBS bus 103 which just took off from the green light, and claimed that it was the SBS bus driver’s fault. Thankfully there were witnesses.

Also, the area is where my girlfriend stays and I go there pretty often. There is a fair share of construction and I noticed that these PRCs like to drive and park their vehicles recklessly. If you look at the new flats at the cross-junction of Serangoon North and AMK Ave 5, then you will noticed a lot of heavy vehicles parked illegally along the private estate and I have several instances of china drivers anyhow swerving into the oncoming lane despite a private car having a right of way.

This is the real reason why traffic offenses by heavy vehicles are going up: the PAPaya government has been taking in low grade foreign trash and they don’t bother much about our safety. I ask my fellow Singapore-loving brothers and sisters who drive and have in-car cameras to save evidence and share them if they encounter such incidents.  

Thirupathivasan

TRS Contributor

A Foreign Talent is one who contributes to the economy, who initiates ways and means to sustain the economy and to further expand it by their initiative,talent, creativeness,ideas,suggestions, implementations, and make critical decisions regardless of what trade or profession they are in.

There are only two talents that all countries have either it is manufacturing or services.

Decades ago we had these foreign talents most were Caucasians, and all had disappeared, one by one.

These FT’s were not as what we have today, they were the highly educated ones with experience in their various fields.

They had never given us many or no problems in social issues, and were in fact well behaved.

They were not elites, or rich but who wanted to make a living and an impression as they were highly qualified. They had all gone for good.

The elites will only come here to invest only if they are rich and connected or invited.

So ,what really happened to these qualified FT’s is anyones guess? Frankly, knowing anything in Singapore governance is always a mystery.

All Singaporeans know that unless you are daft.

Fast forward today, we have foreign talents, but, they do not possess all the credentials of the former.

They are simply employees with no teeth. They surely lack all creativeness or initiative but, are all employees willing to work their ass out to make a living for themselves only, in Singapore and for their well being back home.

There is totally no contribution to the economy to the citizens well being at all except for the MIW, only.

Otherwise why are our jobs had been taken by them so easily when Singaporeans are highly educated till this day?

They do not even speak our languages, their English is horrendous, so how did they became a FT.

Today, we have 25 of them being caught with their pants down with fake documents, which we never had such incidences decades ago.

Singaporeans do not brush this aside as another 6.9 millions FT’s are on the way to our shores.

Mr Ministers could you please explain to the citizens what is really going on in your heads and the ministries governing Singaporeans well being.

Thank you.

Dead Horse

 ... a 'shove down the throat' democracy to bring Singapore to soaring heights.

Sometimes we wonder why these States Times journalists find it hard to keep their writings simple and easily understandable. Take a look at today's Think article by Elgin Toh. The title reads: "Let's strive to be a non-populist democracy". How many subtle messages does the statement suggests?

Striving to be .... means that we are pushing an objective. What might this objective be we ask. According to Elgin, it is to be "non-populist", as if to say we have been populist all this time. We shall get to this. The last word in the statement is "democracy". Now, how does democracy sit in with a non-populist type of governance? 

The first half of his article presented the same old boring tune of how the PAP was able to introduce difficult policies without the fear of having to be popular, how these policies have brought us to where we are now, how in the process we became the envy of the world, both by our successful progress and our politics. 

After playing that old tune from the broken record, he asked how did it all changed. His direct answer was "GE2011". As if to pin the blame on the people for having the gall to rock a steady boat, he argued that the aftermath of GE 2011 effectively ended the old way of doing things. Decisions over projects and policies were now being put through a second thought-process before they were implemented. This has resulted in the loss of project timeliness, which in turn aid in the adding up of time and resource wastages.

The subtlety continued when he shared that the outcome of GE 2011 had originally created in him a sense of welcoming the change with open arms. However, as he thought deeper about "the implications", he began to shudder. He didn't exactly say what had caused him to shudder except to say "the PAP made populist promises in its early years that it would have preferred not to, and that it was in the nature of democratic elections that they generated populists pressures to which parties had to respond to win votes". 

Again, he did not cite any example to back up what he deemed as populist politics of that era. Older generation Singaporeans have known that the early politics of governance in the LKY-led PAP government were wrought with strong arm wranglings with various bodies which it needed to bring under control. Populism was the furthest from his mind. The press, the unions, the opposition are but a few of the enemies it needed to get a grip of. The manner in which they were eventually suppressed was in no measure popular. It was an era where many came to know as the era where "walls have ears". It was definitely not a time where populist politics reigned, as Elgin Toh has suggested. It was the politics of fear.

One wonders how he could have written it otherwise, when he said: ".. even with the conviction to get things done and to get things done right that we know Mr Lee (KY) to possess, he found it necessary, in the face of the pluralistic climate of the 1950s and 1960s, to be populist". Mr Lee Kuan Yew and populist politics? tsk, tsk, tsk.

The funny thing about this funny guy, or a guy trying to be funny, is that after he has taken the trouble to make us believe that the old PAP was a populist government, it is time for the new PAP to be less so. In fact, he encouraged this PM Lee Hsien Loong led government to be, what he deemed, a "non-populist" democracy. Of course, he didn't say what democracy means to him, thereby making him as foolish as a dead fish in the market. 

No "forced-through" or "shove down the throat" politics can ever hope to stand side by side with democracy. Who is so dumb to even suggest it? Oh yes, a desperate press would do that. They print it as well.

The Alternative View

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=552173818177288&set=a.360220640705941.85354.358759327518739&type=1

As early as 2010, the Workers' Party had argued against growth for the sake of growth and cautioned on the increasing income inequality. 

Friday, 5 March 2010

Straits Times: Growth for whom, asks Sylvia

Budget debate
BY ZAKIR HUSSAIN

WORKERS’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim cautioned yesterday that as Singapore pursues economic growth, the average citizen must also feel that he gains.

The Non-Constituency MP cited three areas of concern as she noted that “our ultimate aim of growth is to improve the welfare of all citizens”.

One was how much locals benefited from rising gross domestic product. She cited an article last July by economist Manu Bhaskaran which noted that profits took an extraordinarily high 46 per cent of GDP, almost half of which went to foreign-owned companies.

Two, the quality of life for many had fallen in the past five years. Business costs had escalated; an influx of foreigners had worsened congestion and made locals feel like strangers in their own neighbourhoods; and property prices and rentals had shot up.

She took issue with Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam’s claim that median incomes had risen between 2005 and 2008, saying that the benefits of growth had not been spread evenly.

For instance: foreign workers had depressed the wages of lower-skilled Singaporeans, especially the older and more vulnerable.

Her claims built on those made a day earlier by WP chief Low Thia Khiang, who had lashed out at the strategy of maximising growth, saying it kept low-wage workers’ pay down and widened the income gap. Said Ms Lim: “While I agree that we need foreigners to augment our population and talent pool, the pace and scale of the influx in the last few years was wrong.”

Her third area of concern: income inequality at a level more commonly found in developing countries.Singapore’s Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, had risen steadily in the last decade and was now at 0.478, or 0.453 after government transfers – a figure Ms Lim said was way below nations like Japan and South Korea.

“We should not dismiss increasing inequality as inevitable,” she said, as prolonged disparities could reduce social mobility.

She pointed to a recent book by British social scientists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, titled The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. Singapore did not fare well in it.

“If inequalities in Singapore continue at such levels, we should seriously question whether our policies of promoting equality of opportunity are really working,” she added.

Addressing her criticisms, labour MP Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) said: “The greatest dignity that we can give anyone is the dignity of having a job.”She pointed out that the Budget itself was geared towards making sure Singaporeans got better jobs and incomes.

“Although there may be a widening Gini coefficient, there are also tremendous social transfers that the Government has provided to those who need help.”

A statistic she cited: Government spending on assistance schemes rose by 30 per cent to 40 per cent during the recession.

*Article appeared on https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=551782004883136&set=a.360220640705941.85354.358759327518739&type=1&theater

There is still a lack of broad social consensus and acceptance of gay rights in Singapore and this might not lead to a happy state of affairs in Singapore. Differing views amongst Singaporeans on whether homosexuality is acceptable or morally right still exists to a large extent.

However like it or not and let’s face it, Singaporeans, no matter how indignant some of us are against LBGT and Gay Rights in Singapore, things are now slowly changing as public awareness and official acceptance becomes gradually more apparent.

Singapore may at first appear to be a “buttoned up” country with strict laws on homosexuality but in truth Section 377A is not proactively enforced by the government, and the Government does not act as moral policemen.

With the advent of social media especially Twitter and Instagram, many popular gay personalities and bloggers are coming out from the dark and openly declaring themselves gay within their own circle of friends or to the public.

Combined with recent articles in Yahoo Singapore that Singaporean women are difficult to please, are complaining that they are not getting enough sex and want more sex, as well as Singapore being ranked as the world’s most pessimists countries, below are some reasons why more men are turning gay in Singapore.

1.              Gay Men Make Best Friends

While gay men love, love, love straight women, they never trade in being gay. Why you may ask? Because being a gay man is the best of two worlds: they can borrow the best from masculine and feminine stereotypes. And they're dependable and are fierce advocates. They'll hold your hair when you're puking. Tell you you're thin when you need to hear it most. They'll dance with you and celebrate with you and fight for you. They'll protect you from asshole straight men and dress you up and take you out. And most importantly they'll always be there. Like Tom Jones, they too, never go away.

2.              Gay Men Don't Objectify Women

They may want to doll you up in pretty Barbie doll dresses and up-dos and false lashes. But when they look at you straight women they see who you are, not what they want to do to you. And that is why you need them in your lives. They love women. Their mothers were their best friends. And they love and appreciate you for who you are. Straight guys, even the good ones, are looking at your ass. And chest. They're not. Believe me. So know you're safe from those stares with them. They're good like that.

3.              Gay Men Are Dancing Machines

Think of the last wedding you attended. When The Bee Gees burst from the stereo who was the first person out on the floor giving Travolta a run for his money? Not your grandmother, I bet! Gay guys are always the first, and last, on the dance floor. They're a party wherever they go. It is almost impossible to outlast them.

4.              Gay Men Make People Laugh

I often say gays are angels on earth. They're here to cheer you up and make you laugh and get you singing. They love life, love meeting new people, and they love to laugh at you, with you, and even at themselves. Straight girls are funny too. But, sorry, they're funnier. Though they're best with partners who match them blow by blow: think Gary and Kenneth.

5.              Gay Men Have No Kids

Why do they have more money? Easy one. They don't have kids. Straight women get burdened down with those little beasts. Not them. Well, not all of them. There are some gays with babies, but, um, they're the exception to the norm. They normal gays are good in the presence of kids for about an hour. So keep your babies. They'll keep their cash.

6.              Gay Men Can Travel And Enjoy More

Disposable incomes. Yes. They make more money and have more discretionary income. All marketing studies point to this. And just look at your homo friend's Facebook walls. They travel the globe, often times in Speedos and in groups, and it's expected. It is their gay duty to cover the world in glitter and fun.

7.              Gay Men Can Have Casual Sex Without Headaches

There I said it. Gay men are lucky. They have the sex drives of their straight male counterparts, without the emotional attachment their lady friends have to sex. That's a win-win situation. They hook up often and without any headache.

Mr Style King

MrStyleKing.com is one of the best and leading food and travel blogs in Singapore, and has won the ‘Best Food & Travel Blog’ and ‘Best Lifestyle Blog’ from Singapore Tourism. The chief editor behind the articles is the man who has an inexplicable love for food, travel and the finer things in life.  

Shannon, or better known as his Online moniker name, ‘MrStyleKing.com’, writes about his personal experiences from his daily life, dishing out honest reviews about food and dining places, countries and cities that he travels to and visits, and generic lifestyle products.

Mr Style King blogs at www.mrstyleking.com

Disclaimer: TheRealSingapore.com is a platform for users to submit content and all content remains the property of the individual contributors. 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.

"Many restaurants give you toothpicks, but the toothpick is so big it can never go through, but this one is so fine that whatever is inside sure can come out," he said on Monday.

In fact, he revealed with a laugh, the Din Tai Fung toothpicks are so good, he "can never resist" - he always takes half a box of them during each visit.

So says the article by Amelia Tan [link] from Straits Times, the bearer of right news. I bled my eyes as a sacrifice by reading the article over twice. Mean feat, I deserved to be knighted just for that. Are SPH hard up to use up precious space in their newspaper? Can't they insert more ceiling cleaning articles or something? This might be an indicator I should sell up my SPH shares.

My beloved primary school English teacher Miss Ong used to grind us through reading newspaper articles like that and writing our thoughts on them. I didn't even know where to start. Normally I could pick up any sort of propaganda by running my Bullshit Detector V1.4 software over the article but it failed me badly for the first time today. What was the message that Amelia Tan encrypted in her article? She must be a master in this trade. I'd love to meet her up for a cup of coffee during my return to Singapore soon.

Is this one of those clever advertising ideas by our creative gurus? Viral advertising or something, is that what they call it? I'm sure Din Tai Fung will get plenty of business after this. They might even put up Lim Swee Say digging his cavity with their perfect toothpick as their poster boy. I'm sure that will boost the appetite of the silent majority who dine there, going by the fact how much they enjoy Nasi Lemak, Chikus, Abalone porridge and other whatnots.

Or is that a hint that Singapore are rejuvenating our manufacturing sector to bring it back to its glorious past. We are going to mass produce quality tooth picks for a start. I'm sure there is a masterplan for these grand scheme of things. What do I know? It will be called Integrated Construct or something.

Or is this another annual haolian show by Lim Swee Say who previously told us he felt rich just by looking at his CPF account. Yeah he can afford to eat at Din Tai Fung every meal, he doesn't belong to that group that Three-Meals-Vivian was unwilling to help out. We know that already. Or is Lim Swee Say trying to tell Singaporeans his dentures are very well maintain with gaps so tiny that no common toothpick can go through. Let's hope this story is not a build up to the main point in an upcoming article that he only paid $8 to get his teeth perfect and so can all Singaporeans.

"They always serve in a pack," he told reporters at BreadTalk Group's new headquarters in Tai Seng. "And because I go there very early - 10.30 in the morning - always full right. And guess what? By the time I left, normally right, it's half left. The other half is in my pocket." - Labour Chief Lim Swee Say, July 2013

I'm really not sure what Lim Swee Say should be doing at Din Tai Fung at 1030 hrs in the morning where he should be knitting his brows over worker's rights and welfare in his office. He should be doing that too regularly to know that it was always full. Perhaps our labour chief is finally relaxing on his "Cheaper, Better, Faster" motto and was hinting to Singaporeans that there should be a work/life balance so that Singaporeans can find meaning in living, such as having breakfast with friends at 10.30 am and report to work after that.

Maybe it isn't quite right thing to tell Singaporeans that snitching accessories from eateries is a good thing to do, even if they are of an irresistible world class standard. I'm not sure about that bro. So. What did Amelia Tan tell Singaporeans what her article was all about?

"Sucess never happens by chance," he said

Sure, Mr Lim Swee Say. We can see that. Very clearly.

asingaporeanson

*The writer blogs at asingaporeanson.blogspot.com

Maybe the former Presidential-hopeful didn't realize he needed to upgrade to the Pro version of the app. Then his iPhone would not only measure temperature, it would also measure current PSI (PM2.5 included), tell you if you are having your period, and cook instant noodles.

Good thing he didn't try to measure boiling water.

In the comments which ensued, a commenter pointed out, "The phone is not a thermometer. The app merely gathers temp data from other sources."

Mr Tan replied, "You got the right answer. I realized it after a while. Haha."

Mr Tan went on to quip, "My $700 iPhone cannot measure temperature. A $3 thermometer can. What an irony." #fail"

Fail indeed.

Source: Mrbrown.com

Zhang Kun, 39, driver of  SMRT bus No.700 that flipped on its side after negotiating the sharp corner from Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) slip road into Daisy Farm Road, told Zaobao that he had applied the brakes but the bus “went crazy” and sped up. “I had no control,” the Chinese national from Henan insisted. “Crazy” is hitting a kerb, skipping four lanes across a divider, and wiping out a barrier on the opposite side of the road.

Given the parsimony of information provided by SMRT – they even declined to confirm the nationality of the bus driver – one can think of several possibilities:

• He stepped on the accelerator instead of the brakes;
• The tyres were bald, and wheels lost traction;
• Bus was travelling too fast to make the 90-degree turn;
• Brake line was cut due to sabotage by disgruntled employee (skid marks on the road make this a highly dubious scenario);
• F-1 is hiring.

Sheer speculation of course, fuelled by lack of disclosure and trust in public institutions.

Quick on the defensive, Kalai Natarajan, Vice President of Corporate and Marketing Communications at SMRT covered all the standard bases: “SMRT has a fleet of 1,137 buses, which undergo strict and thorough preventative maintenance checks. These include mandatory LTA inspection repair, as well as predictive and corrective maintenance of components such as braking and steering mechanisms. The bus involved in this morning’s accident was last maintained on June 21, and was given a clean bill of health. No brake or steering related problems were noted during the inspection.”

One passenger, trapped in the bus, was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics, and his body had to be extracted from the mangled bus.

Another death of an individual by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Not to worry, there’s a new precedent, fine is $10,000.

Don’t waste money on an independent Committee of Inquiry to look into the circumstances surrounding the accident, and to recommend improvements to existing systems, protocols and processes. The outcome is a foregone conclusion. The “buck stops here” sign is definitely not on the CEO’s desk. Zhang Kun may insist his brakes failed, but the system will beg to differ.

Tattler

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