The morning train crowds are getting a little out of hand – as compared to 5 years ago- I get that.

Standing at the platform this morning, I only managed to squeeze into the 3rd train. But instead of getting grumpy, I felt thankful. 

I give thanks to the minimal waiting time (1-1.5 mins intervals between trains, that adds up to no more than 5mins between 3 trains). I mean seriously, how much faster are Singaporeans expecting? This is a public transport – meaning it does not wait for you outside your door. So yes you have to wait.

I appreciate the hard work of the staff in red uniforms, ensuring that passangers already packed in the train will not be pushed further by eager passengers from the platform.

I thank fellow Singaporeans (most of them), for queuing and moving in an orderly manner. I’m happy to share that we, Singaporeans, are not as barbaric and out-of-control during peak hours as the social media has portrayed.

This turned out to be longer than intended. But I think it is necessary to share some positivity, to point out the good and changes that SMRT has been doing. There are enough people spamming the social media with their complaints and unfulfill-able expectations.

Life can be a lot better, if you start highlighting the good instead of the not-so-good.

Have a good day people 

*****************************

Source Link :  NTU builds its first overseas water treatment plant in Vietnam

Remote-monitored one-man operation is the first such plant in South-east Asia

A Nanyang Technological University (NTU) start-up has successfully launched its first overseas water treatment plant in Vietnam on Friday, 10 May 2013.

Located at Duc Hoa, at Long An province near Ho Chi Minh City, the newly built plant is about the size of a 5-room HDB flat (120 square metres) but has an output of 1 million litres of drinking water daily (equivalent to 6,600 Singaporeans’ daily water consumption).

Compared with water plants in the area, the high-tech remote-monitored plant built by NTU’s new start-up, De.Mem Pte Ltd, will supply cleaner and cheaper potable water at just two-thirds of current prices there.

The first of its kind in South-east Asia, the plant is unique because it requires just one person to operate, and will be linked wirelessly via an NTU-designed network back to the Singapore office, which will oversee and manage its daily operations.

This new plant, a joint venture between De.Mem and Vietnam company GD Wasser, is backed by Singapore-based investment firm, New Asia Investments, which had invested S$300,000 into De.Mem.

A subsidiary and partner of MINT (Membrane Instruments & Technology), an NTU spin-off company supplying water quality sensor technologies for water treatment plants, De.Mem’s (short for Decentralised Membranes) role in the joint venture is to design, build and operate the water treatment plant.

Superior technology

The NTU start-up had leveraged on superior membrane technologies from Singapore to deliver cleaner yet cheaper water. It uses MINT’s patented membrane integrity sensor technologies developed at NTU’s Nanyang Environment and Water Research Institute (NEWRI), which is able to monitor the plant’s performance, allowing for early detection of issues to keep it operating at optimum levels.

General Manager of De.Mem, Dr Adrian Yeo, said the innovative water network model is a combination of the latest in info-communications technology, MINT’s patented sensors, and Singapore-developed membranes and treatment processes.

“This model is a new form of de-centralised water treatment plants, where we can control the quality and operations of dozens of small water plants simultaneously while only needing very few skilled workers locally,” said Dr Yeo, who is also General Manager of MINT.

“It allows us to supply clean water to nearby communities and industries at a low cost as lesser energy is needed to distribute the water over short distances, as compared to those of a centralised water distribution network.”

Dr Yeo, who is also a Research Fellow at NTU’s Singapore Membrane Technology Centre, an offshoot of NEWRI that focuses on membrane research, said that as water infrastructure is being developed in countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and Cambodia, the concept of decentralised plants are becoming increasingly popular, since membrane technology has a small footprint and is modular.

Future expansion in Vietnam

Riding on the successful launch of this first plant, four more water treatment plants are being planned for Vietnam by the end of this year, which will be based on De.Mem’s decentralised water network model. The upcoming plants include a retrofit of an existing 2,000 square metres facility, which will also be a joint venture with GD Wasser and financed by New Asia Investments.

Andreas Kroell, Director of New Asia Investments said MINT’s new model is very appropriate for developing countries such as Vietnam, as it reduces cost for communities and companies, while supplying better quality water.

“Our investment in De.mem and GD Wasser meets a strong market need for modern, but cost-efficient de-centralized water treatment technologies in SE Asia,” Mr Kroell said. “The synergies with the know-how of MINT and the leading expertise of NTU in this space provide an excellent basis for further expansion of the business model.”

***END***

Singapore’s food courts, known as hawker centres, are one of the country’s most-loved institutions, providing meals and local delights for as little as S$3 ($2.4; £1.5).

Outside the most famous hawker stalls, you can find long queues of customers willing to wait for up to 30 minutes to be served – even though it’s relatively inexpensive street food that they’re waiting for.

Singapore’s hawker dishes

Singapore’s popular street foods include (clockwise from top left):

• Char Kway Teow - fried noodles with soy sauce, meat and bean sprouts
• Bakkut Teh - pork bone soup, accompanied by a cup of tea
• Rojak - a salad dish mixing fruit, vegetables and dough fritters
• Nasi lemak - a coconut rice dish normally accompanied with anchovies and spicy sauce
• Murtabak - a crispy pancake wrap served with onion or meat
• Stingray - fried stingray served with spicy sauce

But now there are fears that this aspect of Singapore’s culinary heritage is on the wane.

The government has warned that there is a “real chance” that there will not be enough new people joining the industry to maintain Singapore’s hawker centres.

“We can build many more hawker centres, but will we be able to get the hawkers?” Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, the minister responsible for Singapore’s hawker centres, said recently, sparking concern amongst food-lovers.

Hawker centres are immensely popular – a 2010 government survey suggested that nearly half of Singaporeans eat at hawker centres six times a week or more.

Yet young people today are less willing to join a trade viewed as manual and relatively unglamorous.

“There are still negative stereotypes about hawkers, for example that they are less well-educated,” says Hazel Tan, a Nanyang Technological University student who is behind Youth Hawkerprise, a campaign to encourage young people to join the hawker trade.

Singapore is an achievement-oriented society, and the goal of many parents is for their children to secure a white-collar job.

It’s a view shared even by many of Singapore’s successful hawkers.

‘Hot and oily’

Seow Lai Hao, 58, runs Chai Ho Satay, a hawker stall selling grilled chicken and pork satay sticks. The stall has a loyal following, and long queues in front of the stall are a common sight.

Yet although she enjoys being her own boss, she also thinks that working in a hawker stall is not a job for young people.

“It’s an old people’s job,” she says. “It’s hot and oily and your hair smells of food when you go home.”

Seow Lai Hao says it took her years of trial and error to make her satay stall a success

Young entrepreneurs joining the trade will also face challenges – such as building up a customer base.

“I’ve been making satay for 30 years,” Ms Seow says. “When I started my stall it had no customers. It took a lot of trial and error to get the fire and charcoal [for grilling the satay] just right.”

The home-grown nature of the hawker trade, and many famous recipes, is a source of pride for many Singaporeans.

Yet it may also make it difficult for young people to join the industry.

KF Seetoh, a street food consultant and founder of the World Streetfood Congress, says there is a lack of continuity. “A lot of hawkers are very successful, but many don’t look at how to turn their business into an enterprise… the hawker trade isn’t institutionalised.”

Even if young people want to join the trade, it is difficult to find the right teachers to introduce them to the trade, as “master hawkers won’t be willing to share their own recipes”, he says.

‘Culinary prejudice’

Singapore’s Work Development Agency launched its first official hawker training programme earlier this year. Its progress will undoubtedly be watched closely.

For younger people who are already in the industry, their reasons for joining the trade can be varied.

Salam, 27, graduated with a degree in engineering and worked for two years in the semi-conductor industry. He decided to change careers and work in his father’s food stall after he saw that his father found it difficult working alone.

“My parents’ dream was for me to be in a ‘reputable’ position, which I achieved by getting my degree,” he said. “But as the eldest son in my family, I also felt a duty to help my parents.”

He now hopes to franchise the business, and preserve his family recipe for Indian rojak, a mixture of dough fritters, seafood and vegetables.

Meanwhile, brothers Cai Wei Li (29) and Cai Wei Shing (26) say they first gained a passion for cooking when trying to lose weight.

“We started making our own food because it’s much healthier to cook your own food, and then we developed a passion for cooking,” says Cai Wei Li.

The brothers now run a stall selling Japanese ramen noodles and cookies – an unconventional combination that older-generation hawkers are less likely to consider.

Despite the recent drive to encourage more young people to join the trade, it is still associated with older generations.

“When [potential customers] see that you’re young, they assume that you’re less experienced and don’t know how to cook,” Cai Wei Sheng says.

Brothers Cai Wei Shing (left) and Cai Wei Li say it is challenging being a young hawker

Ultimately, the challenges facing the sector may boil down to a contradiction in Singapore’s attitudes to hawker food.

“We all love hawker food, but our aspiring chefs are being taught about westernised food and ways of cooking,” says Leslie Tay, a prominent Singaporean food blogger and author of several books on Singaporean food.

“We have this culinary prejudice where we are willing to pay S$20 for a pasta carbonara but will complain when the price of a plate of Hokkien Mee [fried noodles] increases from S$3 to S$3.50. So we do need to place our own Singaporean heritage and hawker culture on a higher level.”

In other words, if Singaporeans want to continue eating the street food they love in the future, they may need to put their money where their mouth is – either by pay

By Helier CheungBBC News, Singapore

*********
History of Singapore’s hawker centres

• Many migrants in the 1950s and early 1960s took up street hawking
• The Singaporean government became concerned about hygiene standards and conducted an island-wide registration of street hawkers from 1968-9
• The government started building food courts with cleaning facilities and basic amenities in the 1970s
• All street food traders were relocated into newly built hawker centres close to residential areas in the 1980s

Source: National Environment Agency; Daniel Wang, former Public Health Commissioner

• ‘You could see rats and cockroaches running around’

source link : Can Singapore’s hawker food heritage survive?

WHEN Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim brought up the Action Information Management issue last year, she surely expected the People’s Action Party and the Government to come clean on the matter.

And they did come clean, first with a comprehensive report by the National Development Ministry and then the debate in Parliament on Monday (“Khaw: Town councils political by nature”; Tuesday).

In fact, it was revealed that the WP-appointed managing agent, in the form of husband-and-wife company FM Solutions and Services, was set up just four days after the WP won Aljunied GRC in the 2011 General Election.

Just who are this couple? Shouldn’t they speak up for themselves in the face of so much public discussion?

Perhaps it is time for Ms Lim to call a press conference and introduce the couple to the public, and let them answer all the burning questions that have been raised in the media and, most importantly, come clean, like what the Government did in Parliament earlier this week.

Accountability and transparency have to work both ways – not just for the government of the day but also for the opposition parties.

S. Ramamirtham

***************************************************************************************

Singaporean says :

I think we have all been led further and further away from the original issue.

The original issue is that WP run TC has been issued with a poor rating report and WP refuse to just admit they did not ensure a smooth take over from the PAP. I believe if they just admit that mistake right from the beginning, their supporters will still support them since their are a smaller political party as compared to the PAP who has more resources.

However, instead of just admitting mistake, they have chosen to play the victim card and throw smoke bomb.

Now it becomes a total waste of parliament time and public resources. They have turn Singapore political scene to that similar of Taiwan where politicians are more interested to focus on petty and trivial stuffs instead of focusing on policies to run Singapore better.

***************************************************************************************

Singaporean says :

I only have two points of contention.

1) When the people running the thing were your proposer and assentor, they’re definitely affiliated. May not have run, may not be part of the party, but it’s affiliation. Anyone who follows politics anywhere else knows what I’m talking about.

2)The paid up capital amount is in and of itself a non-issue, considering the backing behind it. If FMSS was a $2 company but could still provide all that needed to be provided, who cares? I know how it looks, but the paid up capital is not the total capital. Nah -http://www.rikvin.com/faq/singapore-company-paid-up-capital/

The biggest(only?) issue is the last point, the TC software being owned by them and the one month termination clause.

And that last para? Aiyah, the minister and all are not saying WP is in the wrong. What they’re saying is that if WP thinks PAP is in the wrong, then WP how? And a lot of issues are very similar. 

SO FOCUS ON THE ISSUE. Was the insertion of that clause to sabo any of the other parties should they win the GRC, or not?

***************************************************************************************

Singaporean says :

Here’s an interesting theory.

A)If WP thought there was something illegal about the AIM transaction, whether or not the FMSS transaction was legit, they would have thought it wasn’t. They would have thought they were doing something wrong with their own transaction. And did it anyway. They were willing to sneakily get their close friends and supporters and employees the TC the contract. 

Unless B)of course. You assume that they knew the aim transaction was legit, hence theirs would be ok too, and so just knowingly blew smoke up everyone arse about something that they knew to be breaking no laws, in order to get out of the red banding news.

You can’t in fact have it any other way other than A or B.

They either knew aim was fine which was why they did the same. Or they thought it was not legit, and went ahead with something they thought wasn’t legit and just tried to cover their tracks by fudging how close to the the owners are to them.

Oh and before anyone throws nonsense about $2 companies they might like to remember that png eng huat is a $2 company.

***************************************************************************************

Singaporean says :

Let’s talk about facts. FMSS formed just 4 days after Alj was won. Slyvia said it is because all other company are doing PAP tc so she think no one will dare tender WP.

How does she know? You mean 4 days, she one day go ask one company and then they tell her this ah? 4 days leh my friend. wahhh. So fast one ah? 4 weeks I believe, 1 week ask one Company. 4 days form Fmss.

You think voters are children ah? Voters are children in your eyes? Now… In our hearts, including WP MP’s heart, we all know the OBVIOUS.

I no need to say so much lah ahhh. You all know, I know, they know and We ALL KNOW. . . . . ONLY WP THOUGHT WE DON’T KNOW. BUT THEY DON’T KNOW THAT WE KNOW. THEY ALSO DON’T KNOW THAT WE KNOW THEY KNOW WE DON’T KNOW BUT ACTUALLY WE KNOW. SO IT MEANS THAT ACTUALLY WP DON’T KNOW ANYTHING. BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPEN. NO NEED TO SAID SO MUCH ONE LAH…

***************************************************************************************

Singaporean says :

Its quite interesting to see how their supporters find all means to defend in this matter….

Back in last GE, when PAP understand they did not heard their people enough, what did they do? They apologise, move on and improved in their policies.

And now its merely a poor performance in town management, WP deny, accused and use punk like style to handle the matter.

If only they say “we will improve or we will do better next time”. They could have put time into better use.

netizen

***************************************************************************************

Singaporean says :

People who voted for them are at losing end?? I beg to differ!

We all repent together with these people who voted for them, cos our parliamentarians are wasting precious parliamentary time, and resources to talk endlessly about this matter, where the important thing now is really focus on the economy and jobs.

Everywhere else in the world, people are splitting their heads on how to create more jobs for the high percentage of unemployed.

But here, we are like circus , all of us eating pop corn!

The level of complacency, taking things for granted is disgusting.

Yes , we all in Singapore should repent!!

***************************************************************************************

Singaporean says :

I am pretty sure that everyone of you have been in the know about the whole debacle around Town Council Management. All thanks to our WP friends in parliament, a number of things have come to light about the way Town Council’s being managed.

As a ordinary citizen who pays the monthly dues to the Town Council, I have a vested interest in how the TCs are being managed. So asmuch as WP is trying to be the “citizen’s hero” in trying to ruffle the feathers of the powers to be, it would also pay for them to pay attention on whats happening in their own back yard and come clean to the people. 

Enter FMSS.

In Parliament recently, Minister Khaw asked Sylvia Lim on how she would “characterise the FMSS transactions and if public interest has been protected”. Ms Lim has not answered these queries.

The award of contracts expected to be worth $26 million by the Workers’ Party (WP) run Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) to long time supporters and close business associates of WP, through FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS), raises serious questions about public interest and transparency.

FMSS was set up on the 15 May 2011 – just 4 days after WP won Aljunied GRC on 11 May 2011. One, Mr Danny Loh and Ms How Weng Fan (who are husband and wife) own FMSS who incidentally happen to be the Assentor and Proposer for the WP team of candidates who contested in Ang Mo Kio GRC in 2006 General Election. They were clearly close and trusted supporters of the WP.

It is also important to note that How and Loh are also Secretary and Deputy Secretary/General Manager respectively of AHTC. (so how does this work, I supply materials and services to a public entity and I sit in the organisation as officials as well – mama says that does not sound right!)

Here are the supposed list of transactions that have taken place between AHTC and FMSS:

1) One 15 July 2011, a $5.2 million contract to FMSS without calling a tender.

2) In August 2012, another contract worth $16.8 million to FMSS to manage AHTC. This time AHTC called a tender, and FMSS submitted the only bid.

3) In 2012, FMSS was awarded another contract for the Essential Maintenance Services Unit to, worth $3.9 million.

In total, AHTC has awarded $25.9 million worth of contracts to FMSS.

Here the best part! FMSS charged AHTC $7.87 per property unit in July 2011 to be its Managing Agent (MA). This was 20% higher than the rate charged by the previous Managing Agent ($6.51 per unit per month) before the GE. In the August 2012 tender, FMSS increased the unit rate to $8.04. This is more than 50% higher than the unit rate ($4.99 in 2012) paid by Tampines TC, a comparable-sized estate, to its managing agent.

At this point, I can only laugh at my fellow residents of AH and myself. Coz we voted for a bunch of heros but sounds like we got a bunch of jabronees.

Coz when asked in parliement, Ms Sylvia Lim, who is the Chairman of AHTC, said she is not sure about the unit rates that AHTC paid to FMSS!!?!! (Err…shouldnt the chairperson know?)

And so the debate begins – clarifications, accusations, more clarifications and finally acting blur. One fails to realise that at the end of it all, its the people who voted for them, who are on the losing end of the deal.

***************************************************************************************

Singaporean says :

There is a saying” 见好就收不要太过份” WP always use the tactics of stirring our Singaporean anger against the PAP and shoot, WP had been doing that and getting support smoothly for many years they thought that is a sure work technique

so WP please don’t go too over board after all you are Singaporean too don’t abuse the trust of your fellow Singaporean that support your party.

***************************************************************************************

images from “Photos of Squeaky”

 image by Fabrications About The PAP

May 26, 2013

FMSS

1. In Parliament, Minister Khaw Boon Wan revealed troubling facts about FMSS. He then asked Sylvia Lim directly how she would “characterise the FMSS transactions and if public interest has been protected”. Ms Lim has not answered these queries.

2. The public deserves to know because the award of contracts worth $26 million by the Workers’ Party (WP) run Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) to long time supporters and close business associates of WP, through FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS), raises serious questions about public interest and transparency.

3. Ms Lim and WP MPs have not disputed the following facts:-
a) WP won in Aljunied GRC on 11 May 2011.

b) Four days later, on 15 May 2011, FMSS was set up.

c) Mr Danny Loh and Ms How Weng Fan (who are husband and wife) own FMSS.

d) Mr Loh and Ms How were Assentor and Proposer for the WP team of candidates who contested in Ang Mo Kio GRC in 2006 General Election. They were clearly close and trusted supporters of the WP.

e) How and Loh are also Secretary and Deputy Secretary/General Manager respectively of AHTC. How had been an employee of Hougang TC.

f) AHTC, headed by Ms Sylvia Lim, gave a $5.2 million contract to FMSS on 15 July 2011 (soon after the General Election) to manage AHTC, without calling a tender.

g) One year later, in August 2012, AHTC awarded a contract worth $16.8 million to FMSS to manage AHTC. This time AHTC called a tender, and FMSS submitted the only bid.

h) AHTC also gave another contract in 2012, for the Essential Maintenance Services Unit to FMSS, worth $3.9 million. In total, AHTC has awarded $25.9 million worth of contracts to FMSS.

4. FMSS charged AHTC $7.87 per property unit in July 2011 to be its Managing Agent (MA). This was 20% higher than the rate charged by the previous Managing Agent ($6.51 per unit per month) before the GE. In the August 2012 tender, FMSS increased the unit rate to $8.04. This is more than 50% higher than the unit rate ($4.99 in 2012) paid by Tampines TC, a comparable-sized estate, to its managing agent.

5. Instead of trying to obfuscate the public with wrong calculations on how much FMSS charged AHTC, Ms Sylvia Lim needs to explain clearly why a WP run Town Council gave more than $26 million of public funds in contracts to close associates. And why it paid management fees significantly higher than normal, and 20% higher than its previous managing agent?

6. Three key questions of public interest arise:
a) Did AHTC secure the best possible deal by awarding an MA contract worth over $5 million to a company formed by close WP supporters just days after the 2011 GE, and without a tender?

b) Did AHTC exercise due diligence when they awarded not one but two contracts worth over $21 million to the same company a year later in 2012?

c) Has AHTC protected the interests of Aljunied and Hougang residents?

7. Ms Sylvia Lim is Chairman of AHTC. Presented these facts in Parliament, her first response was that she was not sure about the unit rates that AHTC paid to FMSS. She had awarded contracts at significantly higher prices to close and trusted party supporters, and she did not know the facts?

8. Ms Lim then said that the high price could be due to inflation. Really? Can inflation explain the huge difference in rates with Tampines Town Council?

9. On Tuesday 14 May, the WP issued a statement in Ms Lim’s name disputing MND’s figures for MA rates and providing her own figures. But for some inexplicable reason, Ms Lim had left out commercial units and only included the residential units. Her figures were therefore erroneous and misleading.

10. On Wednesday, Ms Lim issued another statement to explain the MA rates. She raised her estimate of the MA rate for FY2012, from $7.01 the previous night to $7.58. This is indeed more than 50% higher than the Tampines rate ($4.99). Further, as MND pointed out, even at $7.58, the MA contract value for the whole estate for 3 years would only be $15.8 million – $1 million less than the $16.8 million that Ms Sylvia Lim herself had declared to HDB last year. Where is the missing $1 million?

11. One possible explanation is that AHTC has staggered the MA rate with increments each year starting with $7.58 this year. If so, it is bad news for residents – it means simply that their current MA rate, which is already high, will rise even higher each year. By my calculations, it will increase her figure of $7.58 in 2012, to $8.00 this year and $8.50 next year!

12. Beyond these specific problems with WP’s claims, more basic questions must be asked:
a) Mr Loh and Ms How are Secretary and Deputy Secretary/ General Manager of the AHTC. Do they draw salaries as employees of the Town Council?

b) As Mr Loh and Ms How do business with the TC through FMSS which they own and profit- do they get paid twice?

c) What was the need to form FMSS just a few days after WP won Aljunied GRC? If urgency was the chief consideration, as Ms Lim claims, would it not have been easier for AHTC to have employed Ms How directly and managed the town itself, just as Hougang TC had done, without having to form this for-profit company?

13. These questions raise serious issues of financial probity and transparency. The WP MPs in AHTC owe it to the residents of Aljunied and Hougang, as well as Singaporeans in general, to give full answers to them.

************************************************************************************************

Teo Ho Pin

My response to the WP’s statement on Town Council Management as follows:-

The facts are clear. Based on their own calculations, their MA unit rate for 2012 was $ 7.58, 50% higher than the MA rate of Tampines TC which is of similar size. Based on their staggered pricing, their MA rate will be even higher in the following years. In fact by 2014, their MA rate will be about $8.50 or 70% higher than Tampines TC’s rate. Why doesn’t Ms Sylvia Lim admit these facts?

I asked serious questions about the financial probity of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, which Ms Sylvia Lim chairs.

Why did WP award multi-million dollar contracts to its close associates and supporters? No answer.

Are the Secretary and Deputy Secretary/General Manager, cum owners of FMSS, paid twice? No answer.

Ms Lim has not answered a single question I asked.

When questions were raised about AIM, I gave a full public explanation and answered all the questions by the MND Review Team. Parliament held a full debate on the matter and the Minister for National Development answered all the MPs’ questions, including from Workers’ Party MPs.

Why is Ms Lim reluctant to answer questions? What is she afraid of?”

Dr Teo Ho Pin
Co-ordinating Chairman of PAP Town Councils

*************************************************************************************************************

Key phrases: “The fact that the serious questions that Mayor Teo has asked have not been answered – and they have refused to answer them – is telling.” Minister K Shanmugam Sc

Source : Fabrications About The PAP

*************************************************************************************************************

Source :  Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP)

*************************************************************************************************************

As a Singapore citizen, and student of politics and security, it was gravely troubling to witness the knock-on effect of the Malaysian general election on Singapore.

Not only were some Singaporeans partaking in Malaysian politics, but Malaysians working and staying in Singapore also chose to actively express their political views on Malaysian politics through public protests. This is something that should not be encouraged or condoned as there will be grave consequences for both societies.

The 13th Malaysian general election held on May 5 was dubbed the mother of all elections. It was one of the most competitive elections with the opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) believing that it could capture power from the Barisan Nasional (BN), in power since 1955. By the early hours of May 6, the BN was returned to power, capturing 133 of the 222 parliamentary seats, winning all except three of the 13 states but with only 47.3 per cent of the popular vote compared to the PR’s 50.8 per cent. Compared to many functioning democracies, the BN’s 60 per cent stranglehold of parliamentary seats was emphatic though short of winning a two-third majority with seven fewer seats than the 2008 elections.

The PR’s leaders, especially Mr Anwar Ibrahim, who had earlier declared victory barely hours after the polls closed, refused to accept the outcome and started a nation-wide protest movement. The rights and wrongs of Mr Anwar’s move are up to the Malaysian government and people to decide.

How this will eventually be resolved, through due legal process or people’s power street protests, is something only Malaysia and Malaysians should decide.

BOOMERANG EFFECT

In an unprecedented move, Mr Anwar’s protest movement in Malaysia had a direct boomerang effect in Singapore when some Singaporeans and Malaysians decided to use the Republic as an overseas platform to endorse and support his political agenda and goals post-election.

On May 8, about 100 Malaysians gathered at Merlion Park to support Mr Anwar’s call to annul the election results. Police warned nine of the organisers. On May 11, 21 Malaysians were arrested for staging illegal protests at Merlion Park. On May 12, about 200 people gathered at the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park, a platform meant strictly for Singaporeans and permanent residents, to hear protests against the BN-led victory in support of Mr Anwar and the PR.

The downside of Singaporeans getting involved in Malaysian politics and permitting Malaysians in Singapore to do likewise is limitless, not to mention dangerous. The raison d’etre of Malaysian and Singaporean politics are diametrical. Since 1965, Singapore leaders have assiduously tried to disentangle Singapore politics from Malaysia’s, especially following Singapore’s Malaysia experience.

Today, involving Singaporeans in Malaysian politics and vice versa will only bring more harm than good. Yet, in the post-election setting, some Malaysians were prepared to advance their home political agenda by using Singapore, often with the support of some Singaporeans.

As a small, heterogeneous society, Singapore can ill-afford to import dangerous foreign politics. Singapore is politically different! Just as Singaporeans respect and abide by the rules of engagements, so should foreigners. Foreigners should be mindful of the political culture, norms and mores in Singapore, and should act in consonance with Singapore’s laws rather than try to impose confrontational political culture and norms that are alien to our society.

USE HOME-BASED CHANNELS

If Malaysians strongly feel about the rights and wrongs of their politics, they should not use the space of Singapore to do so.

One needs to be mindful, sensitive and sensible. If they feel strongly about their national politics and issues of justice, etc then they should use their home-based channels to resolve their grievances and not break Singapore’s law to do so.

Foreigners, while benefiting from Singapore as a good host, should not pursue their political agendas that can harm Singapore, Singaporeans and the Republic’s interests.

Equally troubling was the role of the Singapore organisers of the protest movement in Hong Lim Park. Selectively hiding behind universal norms and laws, and repeating that the rally was an event by Singaporeans and permanent residents, one cannot run away from the fact that it can have serious deleterious consequences for the well-being of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Whatever interests these organisers had, they should not put Singapore in harm’s way. It has taken more than four decades to build trust, confidence and good neighbourly relations with Malaysia. This is non-negotiable and no one should be permitted to undermine these hard-earned assets that benefit Singapore’s politics, economy and security. Clearly, Singaporeans have benefited immensely from the good Singapore-Malaysian relations and these should not be undermined at any cost.

AVOIDING SLIPPERY SLOPE

If today, Singaporeans and their Malaysian counterparts based in Singapore can attempt to undermine the Malaysian government, what is there to prevent Malaysians and Singaporeans based in Malaysia from doing likewise to Singapore in future?

Clearly, this is a slippery slope that common sense dictates one should avoid. Politics is more than simply organising a rally to express a viewpoint. Politics, especially involving a proximate neighbour, is closely intertwined with key economic, social and security linkages, especially for a small state such as Singapore, which is highly dependent on Malaysia for many of its basic necessities.

Both the Malaysian and Singaporean governments have worked hard to develop a resilient, win-win relationship. This should be calibrated to move up the ladder and not undermined.

In the final analysis, do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. The 13th Malaysian election was strictly a Malaysian affair. If Malaysians based in Singapore are unhappy with the outcome, they should find avenues back home to redress them and not the political space of Singapore.

Similarly, Singaporeans should be mindful that we should not give anyone an excuse to interfere in our domestic affairs. The first rule of ensuring this is that we do not interfere in the affairs of others, especially an immediate neighbour such as Malaysia.

There is simply too much at stake — it has taken too long to reach this current state of relations — and no one should be allowed to undermine this to the detriment of Singapore and its security. If anyone wants to speak on behalf of the Singapore Government, it is the duty of the duly elected officials to do so, and not any ordinary organiser(s) of a public rally.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Bilveer Singh, PhD is Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Centre of Excellence for National Security, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.

Source Link : Today : Singapore cannot afford to import Malaysian politics

***********************************************************

image souce from net

Operation ‘K’ began just after 9 pm. Together with our team of more than 20 officers, we inspected five units in the area till after midnight.

Four of the factory-converted dormitories were clearly overcrowded, had poor ventilation and unacceptable housekeeping standards.  In the other unit, we found two workers staying in a makeshift shed at the entrance with no proper sanitary facility. This is clearly wrong.

Dormitory inspection 

The employers of these workers have been told they cannot house any more workers in these overcrowded premises. We are currently investigating this closely with other government agencies. The employers were also given notices to move their workers to proper housing within the next two to four weeks.

Our work is important and we welcome the co-operation and help from the public. In the first four months of 2013, MOM conducted about 300 inspections, or around 70 each month. Last year, we took action against 1,062 employers for housing their foreign workers in unacceptable housing. They were either warned, offered composition or charged in court.

Besides proactive and targeted inspections, MOM also responds to specific complaints of poor housing from both foreign workers and the public. Operation ‘K’ was mounted as a result of a public tip off.

But it is not always the case that every public tip off will result in the detection of non-compliance with regulations. There are cases where false tip-offs are made, driven by malicious intent to sabotage or cause harassment. Sometimes it is due to misperceptions. Which is why it is important that tip-offs give accurate information about the non-compliance. In fact, we welcome good information as it helps our enforcement work.

We will take concrete actions when we assess the information provided to be useful and reliable. As you can see, we run many operations and we cannot afford to go on wild goose chases based on inadequate or erroneous information.

This is where everyone can play a part. You can tip us off if you come across poor housing conditions for foreign workers by giving us, where possible, specific information such as: 

We receive an average of 20 such tip-offs a week via email and on the phone. Detailed information allows us to sieve through the various tip-offs to find out which ones require more immediate attention, and which may be false.

Recently, a blogger who had highlighted some possible dormitory violations publicly questioned why we needed such specific information. When asked to give more information, the blogger asked us to refer to his earlier blog post.  However, the blog post only had the name of the street, where other dormitories and residential premises could be found. Without specific addresses, it would be time consuming and unproductive for MOM officers to expend resources to check every residence or unit along the same street.  The blogger knew the details but chose not to share it. And when he eventually did, he chose to publicly mock the process. It was unfortunate, but we appreciate the fact that the information was finally shared with us. 

If we feel strongly about helping affected workers, it is important to understand that more specific information means more timely interventions. With less specific information, it may take longer to locate the dormitories concerned or it would be disruptive to innocent business owners, when our housing operations team descends on their doorstep, even though they may not house a single foreign worker.

Although we spend much time on our investigations and inspections, often into the late hours as we have to wait till the workers come back, my colleagues and I are deeply committed to protecting the well-being of our foreign workers. We do believe in upholding the Public Service values of Integrity, Honesty, Objectivity and Impartiality.

At the end of such operations, when we see that irresponsible employers are taken to task, and the workers re-housed in proper housing, it gives me and my team a sense of satisfaction that we have made a difference in the lives of these workers. 

If you have any information, please do email us at mom_fmmd@mom.gov.sg with the specific information as soon as you can. This will ensure we are able to activate an inspection team to check on the premises, and prevent the employer/dormitory operator from getting away with such offences.

Yusri
Senior Housing Enforcement Officer
Foreign Manpower Management Division, MOM

Source link : Behind-the-Scenes of Operation ‘K’