True to expectations, the ACS Board of Governors comprising the panel investigating former school principal Dr Ong Teck Chin is closing ranks and will not be making public the much anticipated findings of their report. They merely stated that "The report reinforces the original allegations." Their statement also said some of those interviewed are teachers who are still at ACS, "and would avoid Dr Ong when he was still in school," providing the tantalising nugget that there could be more than one victim in the target rich environment of the boys' school at Dover Road.
Surely a revelation like that will generate a firestorm, outscaling the conflagrations of the Sumatra agricultural practices. Given the recent plethora of lurid headlines, which should sell lots of newspapers, imagination can only run riot with the plausible permutations of sexual impropriety.
One end of the spectrum has an ex-banker charged for insulting the modesty of a woman. One of the offences, which is documented as asking his female companion whether she was a virgin during a drive to Keppel Club, carries a potential jail term of up to one year. His string of credentials challenge that of Dr Ong's - Vice-President of volunteer organisation Pertapis, chair of the Pertapis Centre for Women and Girls, and founder of Ikhlas Catering, a catering setup staffed by former offenders and single mothers. Sounds like he had a target rich environment too, albeit of the female species. Plus, he was on the select 11-member Primary Education Review and Implementation Committee set up up in 2008, under the auspices of the Ministry of Education, no doubt.
The other extemity has an ex-hotel General Manager spiking the drink of a job seeker with Zolpidem and accessing her room uninvited. For causing the woman to take poison [the Zolpidem sleeping drug for insomnia is classified under the Poisons Act and is available only through prescription] to facilitate an offence [the G-rated report mentions only kissing], the ex-GM can be jailed for 10 years, and fined, or caned.
A few years ago, Dr Ong presided over a public caning, under closed doors of course, of errant school boys, including the victim of a bullying session in the boarding school dormitory who unfortunately chose to defend himself from bodily harm with a chair. The desperate local MSM offered a free Nokia handphone to any student willing to share snippets of the indoor proceedings. They will definitely have to up the ante if they expect to get anything out of the ACS Board. Perhaps a fancy sports job like those preferred by Singapore Land Authority (SLA) officers might loosen lips a little.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
The Safe Streets Of Singapore
In the 1997 defamation suit against Tang Liang Hong, Lee Kuan Yew applied to the court to remove certain words in his own affidavit which cast derogatory comment about the Malaysian state of Johor, words which caused a diplomatic row between Singapore and Malaysia:
"I was baffled. He (Tang) claimed that his life was under threat. But, of all places, he went to Johor.That place is notorious for shootings, muggings and car-jackings. It did not make sense for a person who claims to be fearful for his life to go to a place like Johor…"
The world must be baffled now, especially in the wake of recent comment by Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam who trumpeted, "Anyone can walk along most streets in Singapore, day or night. Any child can take public transport, and many do - parents will not have to worry too much". Notice the qualifier "most" in the sentence. Parents please take note, not all streets are safe in Singapore.
Less than 2 weeks after a Republic Polytechnic student was hacked to death at Downtown East, a Pasir Ris destination "synonymous with family-friendly recreation", 7 youths were slashed by a group of parang-wielding men in Bukit Panjang on Monday night. The first victim was 20 year old technician Jayasiva, who was walking home along a jogging track near 418 Fajar Road. When challenged whether he was a member of the Pak Hai Tong gang, Jayaysiva's "No" answer set them off, triggering the rain of vulgarities and 16-inch long parangs. The attackers next picked on a group of 20 teens at a basketball court at 505 Jala[ang Road, which happened to include an 8 year old. Frustrated again by their failure to locate Pak Hai Tong members, parangs were unleashed in a slashing frenzy. Before they left, the gang shouted "Sah Lak Kau", Hokkien dialect for "369". Unfortunately for the wounded youngsters lying in hospitals, the incident was not a advertising attention grabber of the fake bear type. This is Feddy Krueger type blood-letting in Singapore neighbourhoods.
Meanwhile ex-Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng looks pleased as punch on the front page that out of 7,200 people who walked by a smoking car in busy Shenton Way, only 52 bothered to report the "suspicious" vehicles. And oh, a handful who stopped by did so to the take pictures or pose beside the smoking car, which had a gas cylinder in the back seat and wires sticking out under the door. "However, the fact that there were those who were alert and noticed the suspicious vehicle quickly and acted on it... give us cause for some satisfaction," Mr Wong said in his maiden speech to 320 civil servants as the Co-ordinating Minister for Nartional Security. Don't you think the bar could have be set a wee bit higher?
"I was baffled. He (Tang) claimed that his life was under threat. But, of all places, he went to Johor.That place is notorious for shootings, muggings and car-jackings. It did not make sense for a person who claims to be fearful for his life to go to a place like Johor…"
The world must be baffled now, especially in the wake of recent comment by Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam who trumpeted, "Anyone can walk along most streets in Singapore, day or night. Any child can take public transport, and many do - parents will not have to worry too much". Notice the qualifier "most" in the sentence. Parents please take note, not all streets are safe in Singapore.
Less than 2 weeks after a Republic Polytechnic student was hacked to death at Downtown East, a Pasir Ris destination "synonymous with family-friendly recreation", 7 youths were slashed by a group of parang-wielding men in Bukit Panjang on Monday night. The first victim was 20 year old technician Jayasiva, who was walking home along a jogging track near 418 Fajar Road. When challenged whether he was a member of the Pak Hai Tong gang, Jayaysiva's "No" answer set them off, triggering the rain of vulgarities and 16-inch long parangs. The attackers next picked on a group of 20 teens at a basketball court at 505 Jala[ang Road, which happened to include an 8 year old. Frustrated again by their failure to locate Pak Hai Tong members, parangs were unleashed in a slashing frenzy. Before they left, the gang shouted "Sah Lak Kau", Hokkien dialect for "369". Unfortunately for the wounded youngsters lying in hospitals, the incident was not a advertising attention grabber of the fake bear type. This is Feddy Krueger type blood-letting in Singapore neighbourhoods.
Meanwhile ex-Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng looks pleased as punch on the front page that out of 7,200 people who walked by a smoking car in busy Shenton Way, only 52 bothered to report the "suspicious" vehicles. And oh, a handful who stopped by did so to the take pictures or pose beside the smoking car, which had a gas cylinder in the back seat and wires sticking out under the door. "However, the fact that there were those who were alert and noticed the suspicious vehicle quickly and acted on it... give us cause for some satisfaction," Mr Wong said in his maiden speech to 320 civil servants as the Co-ordinating Minister for Nartional Security. Don't you think the bar could have be set a wee bit higher?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
First World Economy, Third World Press?
At a public lecture entitled “Universities for a Global Society” at the LKY School on 27 Oct 2009, Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, argued that the world needs a free and independent press to “serve the needs of a global society.” “A lot of the world views this as potentially dangerous and counterproductive,” he said. “My attitude is that the world needs to be helped towards that kind of value system. It is the most vital and exhilarating kind of world to have.”
We have read how Shanmugam opined that such a system "a large, rich counry like the US can afford, (but) the cost will be to high for some of us." ("The Role of the Media: Singapore's Perspective", Columbia University, 4 Nov 2010). This came after he boasted about our per capita GDP that has vaunted from US$512 in 1965 to US$41,000. Then he segued into the line that our fabric of society, now conveniently grouped with that of developing countries, does not have the in-built stability of mainstream America. So where are we, First World status, or third world pariah? If all the economic laurels do not translate into a functional glue for binding the tribal, ethnic and religious fault lines in society, what were the sacrifices for? Were the last years spent on nation building, or creating a gigantic piggy bank for a select coterie?
Invoking the ghosts of communist spectres past, Shanumgam attempted to draw up a case for a muted press. Lee Kuan Yew did same at the General Assembly of the International Press Institute at Helsinki on 9 Jun 1971, but at least he was more forthcoming about media elements who allegedly make political gains by shaping opinions and attitudes:
"My colleagues and I have the responsibility to neutralise their intentions. In such a situation, freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government."
On shaping opinions and attitudes, Shanmugam did quote that Gallup polls in 2005 and 2006 showed 69 per cent of Singaporeans trusted the local media compared with only 32 per cent of the Americans. Guess what? The winner of that poll was Rwanda. 86 per cent of the Rwandans said they trusted the local media. If "Singaporeans trust our media", as Shanmugam maintains, it makes one wonder why certain leaders like to air their views to Charlie Rose and the National Geographic. Didn't he also say, "People are more cynical about the media in the US"?
We have read how Shanmugam opined that such a system "a large, rich counry like the US can afford, (but) the cost will be to high for some of us." ("The Role of the Media: Singapore's Perspective", Columbia University, 4 Nov 2010). This came after he boasted about our per capita GDP that has vaunted from US$512 in 1965 to US$41,000. Then he segued into the line that our fabric of society, now conveniently grouped with that of developing countries, does not have the in-built stability of mainstream America. So where are we, First World status, or third world pariah? If all the economic laurels do not translate into a functional glue for binding the tribal, ethnic and religious fault lines in society, what were the sacrifices for? Were the last years spent on nation building, or creating a gigantic piggy bank for a select coterie?
Invoking the ghosts of communist spectres past, Shanumgam attempted to draw up a case for a muted press. Lee Kuan Yew did same at the General Assembly of the International Press Institute at Helsinki on 9 Jun 1971, but at least he was more forthcoming about media elements who allegedly make political gains by shaping opinions and attitudes:
"My colleagues and I have the responsibility to neutralise their intentions. In such a situation, freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government."
On shaping opinions and attitudes, Shanmugam did quote that Gallup polls in 2005 and 2006 showed 69 per cent of Singaporeans trusted the local media compared with only 32 per cent of the Americans. Guess what? The winner of that poll was Rwanda. 86 per cent of the Rwandans said they trusted the local media. If "Singaporeans trust our media", as Shanmugam maintains, it makes one wonder why certain leaders like to air their views to Charlie Rose and the National Geographic. Didn't he also say, "People are more cynical about the media in the US"?
Monday, November 8, 2010
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost....
It's not unexpected that Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan came to the defence of Thomson Medical so quickly. After all founder Dr Cheng Wei Chen did parlay his $10 million investment into $513 millions. It was also Khaw who read out the letter from TT Durai's daughter in parliament, an appeal to PM Lee to help restore her father's honour. And it was Khaw to whom TT Durai and his chairman Richard Yong turned to in person as a life buoy of last resort. The man definitely has a kindly ear for the rich, and teetering on the verge of notoriety.
Khaw is asking that a "systemic approach" be used to look into the IVF bungling at Thomson Medical. He knows that a witch-hunt will ultimately finger the man in charge, where the buck should really stop. And that's awkward with the imminence of coming elections. Laying blame on the system implies no individual is accountable or responsible. Like cussing at God for the Orchard Road floods.
Unfortunately the "systemic approach" will not be utilised for the 4 youths, age 18 to 20, involved in the fatal rumble at Downtown East. Did the education system fail them? Were they and/or their family victims of the unemployment situation? Was the lax security system at a public shopping mall at fault? None of these issues will be explored, they will simply hang. For them, rehabilitation is not an option.
In 2005 Dinesh Bhatia was sentenced one year of jail for consuming cocaine. Then MP K. Shanmugam appealed and had it reduced to 8 months, by arguing that Bhatia "did not know that it was cocaine, and had a 'fleeting suspicion' the substance could be illegal". We get it. This one deserved rehabilitation because he might just grow up to be a High Court Judge like his father Amarjeet Singh, or a Nominated Member of Parliament like his mother Kanwaljit Soin.
Khaw should really heed Amarjeet Singh's own words, "It doesn't pay to mess around with the system". By letting off one rotten apple, the whole bushel may end up being rejected by an outraged public.
Khaw is asking that a "systemic approach" be used to look into the IVF bungling at Thomson Medical. He knows that a witch-hunt will ultimately finger the man in charge, where the buck should really stop. And that's awkward with the imminence of coming elections. Laying blame on the system implies no individual is accountable or responsible. Like cussing at God for the Orchard Road floods.
Unfortunately the "systemic approach" will not be utilised for the 4 youths, age 18 to 20, involved in the fatal rumble at Downtown East. Did the education system fail them? Were they and/or their family victims of the unemployment situation? Was the lax security system at a public shopping mall at fault? None of these issues will be explored, they will simply hang. For them, rehabilitation is not an option.
In 2005 Dinesh Bhatia was sentenced one year of jail for consuming cocaine. Then MP K. Shanmugam appealed and had it reduced to 8 months, by arguing that Bhatia "did not know that it was cocaine, and had a 'fleeting suspicion' the substance could be illegal". We get it. This one deserved rehabilitation because he might just grow up to be a High Court Judge like his father Amarjeet Singh, or a Nominated Member of Parliament like his mother Kanwaljit Soin.
Khaw should really heed Amarjeet Singh's own words, "It doesn't pay to mess around with the system". By letting off one rotten apple, the whole bushel may end up being rejected by an outraged public.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
The Devil Is In The Details
Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore were ranked top of Transparency International's 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), all 3 tied with a score of 9.3. Since corruption rears its ugly head in myriad forms, blatant or subtle, it's no wonder this number has been referred to as the "murk meter" in the 5 Nov issue of The Economist. Perceptions, after all, can be so subjective.
One criticism levied is that the Berlin based TI singles out poorer countries since the organisation mirrors the ethos of wealthier nations. And there is their methodology of 13 surveys of experts and business people, which varies from country to country, and over time, making year to year comparisons misleading.
TI claims that a combination of sources measuring the same phenomenon is more reliable than each source taken separately. Their evaluation of the extent of corruption in countries/territories is done by two groups: country experts and business leaders. PERC (Political and Economic Risk Consultancy) is in the business group. It was PERC who once reported that Singaporean wages are higher than that of America and Australia, which then Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan Tony Tan cited to justify the 1 Oct 2003 CPF cut. A cruel cut from which Singaporeans have never recovered. PERC's CEO Broadfoot defended the validity of his company's findings thus: "More often than not, business decisions are made based more on perception than facts." So much for objective professional research.
The other source aggregated for the CPI indicator is provided by country/risk/expert analysts. One of them, Freedom House - Nations in Transit 2010 (FH2010), uses scores derived from pretty tough questions like these:
1. Has the government implements executive anti-corruption initiatives?
2. Is the country's economy free of excessive state involvement?
3. Is the government free from excessive bureaucratic regulations, registration requirements, and other controls that increase opportunities for corruption?
4. Are there significant limitations on the participation of government officials in economic life?
5. Are there adequate laws requiring financial disclosure and disallowing conflict of interest?
6. Does the government advertise jobs and contracts?
7. Does the state enforce an executive legislative or administrative process - particularly one that is free of prejudice against one's political opponents - to prevent , investigate, and prosecute the corruption of government officials and civil servants?
8. Do whistle-blowers, anticorruption activists, investigators, and journalists enjoy legal protections that make them feel secure about reporting cases of bribery and corruption?
9. Are allegations of corruption given wide and extensive airing in the media?
10. Does the public display a high intolerance for offical corruption?
Since we do have members of parliament who collect company directorships like Imelda acquires footwear, or office holders who have benefitted from substantial discounts from property magnates, a perfect score of 10 looks hardly achievable. Question 5 looks particularly dicey.
One criticism levied is that the Berlin based TI singles out poorer countries since the organisation mirrors the ethos of wealthier nations. And there is their methodology of 13 surveys of experts and business people, which varies from country to country, and over time, making year to year comparisons misleading.
TI claims that a combination of sources measuring the same phenomenon is more reliable than each source taken separately. Their evaluation of the extent of corruption in countries/territories is done by two groups: country experts and business leaders. PERC (Political and Economic Risk Consultancy) is in the business group. It was PERC who once reported that Singaporean wages are higher than that of America and Australia, which then Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan Tony Tan cited to justify the 1 Oct 2003 CPF cut. A cruel cut from which Singaporeans have never recovered. PERC's CEO Broadfoot defended the validity of his company's findings thus: "More often than not, business decisions are made based more on perception than facts." So much for objective professional research.
The other source aggregated for the CPI indicator is provided by country/risk/expert analysts. One of them, Freedom House - Nations in Transit 2010 (FH2010), uses scores derived from pretty tough questions like these:
1. Has the government implements executive anti-corruption initiatives?
2. Is the country's economy free of excessive state involvement?
3. Is the government free from excessive bureaucratic regulations, registration requirements, and other controls that increase opportunities for corruption?
4. Are there significant limitations on the participation of government officials in economic life?
5. Are there adequate laws requiring financial disclosure and disallowing conflict of interest?
6. Does the government advertise jobs and contracts?
7. Does the state enforce an executive legislative or administrative process - particularly one that is free of prejudice against one's political opponents - to prevent , investigate, and prosecute the corruption of government officials and civil servants?
8. Do whistle-blowers, anticorruption activists, investigators, and journalists enjoy legal protections that make them feel secure about reporting cases of bribery and corruption?
9. Are allegations of corruption given wide and extensive airing in the media?
10. Does the public display a high intolerance for offical corruption?
Since we do have members of parliament who collect company directorships like Imelda acquires footwear, or office holders who have benefitted from substantial discounts from property magnates, a perfect score of 10 looks hardly achievable. Question 5 looks particularly dicey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
