Just.

I find it ludicrous that we are being told what our Mother Tongue is. As far as I am concerned, my Mother Tongue is Cantonese.

It would be stupid ignorant of Mr Chee Hong Tat (or anyone else for that matter) to assume that the learning of dialects will automatically be at the expense of our mastery of English and Mandarin. For all the government’s monetary efforts (S$8 million, anyone?) to ‘preserve our heritage’, a move to eradicate our ancestors’ language, culture and customs is painfully contradictory. Gievn the fondness for degree holders and scholars in the government ministries, the lack of understanding and respect for the Chinese culture, heritage and linguistic history is rather unforgivable.

It’s crystal clear that we have been screwed over for political and economic manipulation. So frankly, they should stop screwing with our heritage and do what they do best – losing a couple more billions in portfolios.

And. I am still awed by how a senior civil servant could find no better word than ‘stupid‘ to articulate his arguments.

Foolish to advocate the learning of dialects

I REFER to yesterday’s article by Ms Jalelah Abu Baker (‘One generation – that’s all it takes ‘for a language to die”). It mentioned a quote from Dr Ng Bee Chin, acting head of Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies: ‘Although Singaporeans are still multilingual, 40 years ago, we were even more multilingual. Young children are not speaking some of these languages at all any more.’

To keep a language alive, it has to be used regularly. Using one language more frequently means less time for other languages. Hence, the more languages a person learns, the greater the difficulties of retaining them at a high level of fluency.

There are linguistically gifted individuals who can handle multiple languages, but Singapore’s experience over 50 years of implementing the bilingual education policy has shown that most people find it extremely difficult to cope with two languages when they are as diverse as English and Mandarin.

This is why we have discouraged the use of dialects. It interferes with the learning of Mandarin and English. Singaporeans have to master English. It is our common working language and the language which connects us with the world.

We also emphasised the learning of Mandarin, to make it the mother tongue for all Chinese Singaporeans, regardless of their dialect groups. This is the common language of the 1.3 billion people in China. To engage China, overseas Chinese and foreigners are learning Mandarin and not the dialects of the different Chinese provinces.

We have achieved progress with our bilingual education in the past few decades. Many Singaporeans are now fluent in both English and Mandarin. It would be stupid for any Singapore agency or NTU to advocate the learning of dialects, which must be at the expense of English and Mandarin.

That was the reason the Government stopped all dialect programmes on radio and television after 1979. Not to give conflicting signals, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew also stopped making speeches in Hokkien, which he had become fluent in after frequent use since 1961.

Chee Hong Tat
Principal Private Secretary
to the Minister Mentor

Singapore – A 35 year old single man tries to perform hypnosis in MSN.. with hilarious results. (Via TK)

His conversation with Olivia, a mom of 2 (who supposedly provided some false information to him)
Click for the MSN conversation (more…)

The gulf is getting wider, that’s why.

I don’t condone the act of violence to another human being, (provocation being another issue), but I think this incident says something about MP Seng Han Thong.

Either he is really very suay (he was punched by a 74 year old taxi driver in 2006) or he has EQ problems.

In both cases, the attackers are elderly men in their 70s. Interesting.

She had to use son’s diapers
Pregnant housewife stuck for almost seven hours on stalled Singapore Flyer
By Teh Jen Lee
December 25, 2008

IT was her first time on the Singapore Flyer and she says it will be her last.
Click to see larger image
STUCK: Passengers trapped in the stalled Singapore Flyer had to wait for up to seven hours before they were rescued. TNP PICTURE: MOHD ISHAK

Madam Yohana Husin, 32, who is six months’ pregnant, went up on the Flyer at 4.30pm with her husband and 4-year-old son.

The Indonesian housewife, who’s a Singapore permanent resident, had enjoyed 20 minutes of the ride when the Flyer stalled around 4.50pm.

‘We were in the 24th capsule with two other visitors from London. The capsule was near the top when the wheel stopped moving.

‘I called through the intercom many times asking how long they would take and they didn’t give me any answers.’

After holding her bladder for four hours, she couldn’t hold it any more and had to use her son’s unused diaper to relieve herself.

‘Luckily, we had packed extra diapers. I couldn’t take it so I went to one corner and slipped one into my underwear.

‘I felt very uncomfortable. It was very hot in the capsule, I was very tired and I also had gastric pains,’ she said.

Around 10pm, climbers delivered bread and Coca-cola to the people trapped in the capsules.

Madam Yohana said: ‘They were like Spider-Man. But my son can’t drink Coke, they should have given us plain water.’

She didn’t know that some people were lowered down with harnesses and ropes.

‘I wouldn’t dare to risk it, I would rather be stuck up there,’ she said.

Her husband, a technician who gave his name only as Mr Loh, 46, said in Mandarin: ‘I hope this never happens again because it’s very bad. When we finally got down, I felt a bit giddy, probably because we had been in there for too long.

‘It was almost seven hours. It would have been worse for kids. My son didn’t cry, but he could hardly walk when we finally got out.’

Worried

He was especially worried about his pregnant wife.

‘My friend who watched the news at home told me that people were abseiling down. There was no way I would have let my family do that and be in danger.

‘From the lower capsules, people’s legs were already shaking, how can they expect to get people down from the higher capsules?’

The family was given a full refund of their ticket price, which was more than $40.

Madam Yohana said: ‘I’ll monitor how I feel tomorrow, I may need to see a doctor. I know I will never want to go up on the Flyer again.’

Lack of foresight or poor planning?

When I first heard of the news, I was stumped that there was no provisions made for such an incident. You mean to tell me that no one in the entire company, the panel of experts and consultants and what nots had ever thought of the possibility of a stall or a technical glitch?

Oh, actually they had?

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) activated in the event of wheel stoppage

There is a set of SOPs in place in the event of wheel stoppage. The SOPs (see below) were carried out when the rotation of the wheel stopped on 23 December, 2008.

• Notify the wheel contractor Mitsubishi Heavy Industries about the wheel stoppage and work to re-start the rotation of the wheel as soon as possible. The top priority is to resume the rotation of the wheel in any incident of stoppage.
• In the event of wheel stoppage, Singapore Flyer staff will notify and communicate with passengers inside the capsules via a 2-way intercom system.
• Inform TÜV SÜD, an international certification organisation, and PELU (Public Entertainments Licensing Unit), Singapore Police Force’s licensing authority.
• TÜV SÜD and PELU will be notified when the wheel starts rotating again. Singapore Flyer will only be able to resume wheel operations to the public when TÜV SÜD and PELU have given their approval that the wheel is safe to carry passengers.

In the event of 23 December 2008,

• Measures were taken to isolate the technical malfunction. The wheel contractor, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, was notified immediately to restore power for the rotation of the wheel.

• Singapore Flyer called in Dive-Marine Services Pte Ltd, and subsequently the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), was called to assist in the evacuation of passengers.
• The top priority is to resume wheel operations in any event of stoppage. Efforts to restore wheel movement were underway throughout this entire duration.
• At 11.15 pm, the wheel resumed movement and passengers disembarked from the capsules.

I have five questions.

1. Was there any drill held beforehand to familiarize the staff with these procedures in the case of the real emergency? It’s not rocket science, seeing that this was being touted as the world’s biggest wheel and as one of our major tourists’ attractions, right?
2. If the need to ‘notify and communicate with passengers inside the capsules via a 2-way intercom system’ was duly noted in the SOP, why was there no response to the pregnant passenger’s repeated enquiries- ‘I called through the intercom many times asking how long they would take and they didn’t give me any answers.’? I imagine she must have been frantic with anxiety and panic.
3. Were the passengers expected to do their toileting in an extremely exposed and enclosed space? Note that each capsule was not only extremely space constrained, it was also transparent on the six panels on the right and left side of each capsule. Not everyone packs a spare diaper in their handbag, in case they haven’t noticed.
4. Bread and Coca-cola were only delivered to the trapped passengers five hours later. Did no one think that they might need food and water? Was it an after thought (and a rather thoughtless one at that)? Did anyone stop to think that Coca-cola was not so suitable in this instance and water would be a much better option?
5. Do they actually realize that the respond time of seven hours is not a remotely acceptable time frame to a trapped situation crisis? ?????? I am appalled. They need a PR miracle pronto.

So who is to be accountable?

• The architects – Kisho Kurokawa Architect & Associates and DP Architects Pte Ltd?
• The engineers – Arup?
• The builders – Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd and Takenaka Corporation?
• The leading international service organization that certified (and which ‘constantly monitored‘) the flyer – TÜV SÜD?
• PELU (Public Entertainments Licensing Unit), Singapore Police Force’s licensing authority?
• STB (Singapore Tourism Board)?

Well, they did indeed deliver the promise of a  ‘capsule of memories for a lifetime’. What an apt tagline though they could not have imagined in their wildest dreams that it be used in such a situation. Again, who and where on earth is their PR company to salvage this crisis?

Compensation

No, refunding the tickets is hardly the first step of the grand plan. And I don’t think offering them free flights on the Singapore Flyer quite works the trick.

How does one’s time, comfort and dignity be compensated adequately? Let’s wait and see how creative the suits can be.

And for crissakes, remove that embarrassing promotion – All you want for Christmas is at the Singapore Flyer, still unwisely and proudly displayed on the website. Hell, no. All I want for Christmas is to be at home with my family, and not stuck in the air with stale hot air, starved for five hours and then rewarded with bread, no water and having to hold in my bladder and bowel movements in a claustrophobic capsule with other strangers – kids fly free or not.

In fact, I was very glad that our first and last time at the Singapore Flyer was determined by a lack-lustre experience and boredom.  If we had been involved in this whole fiasco – especially if the kids were with us – I will unite all my fellow passengers and perhaps even the ones in the other capsules in a collective suit.

**

Check out Nelson’s video about the Drama at the Singapore Flyer.

Yes, I am so sick of this government I have to remind myself what I love about Singapore.

1. Food – good and relatively cheap hawker food
2. Healthcare – at least there is an A&E when I need it
3. Libraries – everytime I go to a library, I almost forgive the incompetence of the government. Almost.
4. Parks – I wanted to say parks but I remembered that I could be fined for dozing off if I get too relaxed.

I tried to think of more but seriously, I am too peeved by two incidents to think of more.

Free lunch – but just not for the Singaporeans

2 China scholars from Anderson Junior College were found absent from class for several days. When school staff checked their hostel, they found that the students had packed up and gone to USA!

Apparently these ’smart’ students found out that they don’t need A level results to gain entry into US universities. They secretly applied for an American University. When they got accepted by one, bought their air-tickets and then run!

What can the Singapore Government do? Sue them? Recover our money? They were not bonded wor.

While locals hanker and bleed their brains out for a place in the ’space constrained’ education institutions here, the government is giving out places to foreigners on a platter and basically whoring out for a hope that these people will stay. Well, here’s a reality check. These people don’t owe you anything and they won’t hesitate to kick you in the face if need be.

Our government should know better. After all they are champions at advocating the dog-eat-dog system where welfare is the most vulgar word possible.

Town Councils sink S$12 million in structured products

I wonder what our dear MM Lee will say about town councils who have also ‘went in with their eyes open’ when he had previously commented the same about ‘educated and young investors’. Town councils who are trigger happy with lawsuits when people fail to make their conservancy payments – just look at the queues at the Night Court every Tuesday. Town councils which are apparently cash rich with their massive sinking funds and what nots. Town councils which have made staggering losses in these investments which they have ‘went in with their eyes open’. So how now brown cow?

Time for someone to come out and say, “It’s an honest mistake, let’s move on”.

So yes, the two party system won’t work in this case – the incumbent might be too easily toppled, what with such an impressive array of red marks in the report card.

Change must come to PAP

By Li Xueying

PM Lee said it not PAP’s job to build up the opposition or to split the party into two because ‘it’s hard enough to find one team’ to take charge of the country. — ST PHOTOS: LIM WUI LIANG

CHANGE must come to Singapore – but within the ruling People’s Action Party rather than in the form of having a two-party system.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday stressed that the PAP must constantly evolve to keep up with the times. This means renewing its membership and leadership ranks, and coming up with fresh ways to engage Singaporeans.

Mr Lee, who is secretary-general of the PAP, said: ‘Change has to take place in Singapore but change must take place not (between parties) but within the PAP.

‘As long as the PAP changes itself, and continues to provide clean and good government, and the lives of Singaporeans improve, the country is much better off with one dominant, strong, clean, good party.’

Addressing over 1,000 cadres at the annual PAP Conference at the Toa Payoh sports hub, Mr Lee acknowledged the desire for change among electorates across the world.

‘It has happened in Australia, it’s happened in New Zealand recently,’ he noted. And most notably, in the United States too, where Democratic candidate Barack Obama swept to victory on his campaign platform of change.

Observed Mr Lee: ‘So the country is set on a new direction. And if Obama succeeds, that’s good.

‘If he doesn’t succeed after four years or eight years, the Americans will try again with a new President, change party, the Republicans set a new direction.’

But while the US is a big country with a big pool from which to find political talent, there is no such guarantee in smaller countries, he said.

‘In Asia, it very seldom works because having two or more parties has not guaranteed good governance or progress,’ he added, citing Taiwan as an example.

In the last decade, its unhappy voters had swung from the Kuomintang (KMT), to the Democratic Progressive Party, and back to KMT again.

‘By Western definitions of democracy, Taiwan qualifies because it’s got two changes of government – in, out, in.

‘But it is not a political system which is working properly. And I don’t think you want that kind of political system in Singapore,’ he said.

He added however that this doesn’t mean that the PAP has a blank cheque: It has to account to voters at the polls every five years. New parties will emerge quickly to take it on if ’something goes wrong with the PAP’, he said.

Neither did it mean it was the job of the PAP to build up the opposition, he added. ‘It’s hard enough to find one team to look after the country. How can you find two? As a small country, we must have a first division team, an outstanding group of people who can make up for our many limitations,’ he said.

The PAP has managed to survive more than 50 years because it kept itself ‘vigorous, lean, relevant, able to win elections’, and adjusting its leadership styles to ’suit new generations of Singaporeans,’ he noted.

He cited initiatives such as the PAP Policy Forum in which younger party members discuss policy making issues, intra-party elections to district committees, and establishing a presence in the new media.

It is difficult for political parties to stay vigorous, he allowed.

In Japan for instance, the Liberal Democratic Party has been in power for half a century, but ‘has not sustained its vigour’. With no nurturing of younger talent, there is a loss of energy and fresh ideas, observed Mr Lee. ‘So for more than a decade Japan has had a series of weak governments.’

China’s Communist Party, on the other hand, is trying to keep itself strong, vigorous and tied to the ground. This was why it was very interested in Singapore’s political experience, and sent many study teams here.

Mr Lee cautioned however that this did not mean the PAP had found the magic formula to keep itself strong. ‘It is always difficult to carry out self-renewal, to respond creatively to new challenges, to reinvent ourselves. But it is vital for the PAP to make every attempt,’ he said.

You have heard some about my views on press in Singapore. Admittedly, I have found some local journalists, particularly in ST, to display rather questionable and fudgy journalistic principles. With the candid (almost brutal) honesty of this piece, some readers have told me that I might be ‘blacklisted’. That would be rather lamentable and petty if it was true. In any case, I weigh my options and I still consider telling the truth as it is as my utmost priority. That is also one of my beliefs in life – to be true to myself. I simply cannot pander to any authority for some benefits or because of some hidden political or career agenda.

I look at some of the quotes picked out from bloggers in the Sunday Times and cannot help but share another brutally honest thought – I wish that they will feature insightful and thought provoking quotes from bloggers instead of the usual inane lack lustre words which might as well not be featured at all. I suspect that there was a certain condescension or even discredit in featuring them. Stomp is another media platform that displays the local blogosphere in a bad light – it allows for petty connivance and mudslinging. With such a positioning, do they not realize that it reflects badly on themselves too?

The relationship between the press and bloggers will continue to be a delicate one. While we have the benefit of speed on our part, they have the resources. This might evolve with time and planning, as can be seen with Malaysiakini. Once upon a time, their local press and even Mahathir then scoffed at them for being a blogging platform. Now Mahathir is practically begging to be interviewed by Malaysiakini. As opposed to viewing each other with hostile wariness, I feel that we could do well to complement each other if we could overcome the trust issue. Cultivating a press-blogger dichotomy serves no purpose at all.

In any case, to say that all the ST journalists are unprofessional or that all local press is not trustworthy, would be to unfairly tar them all with the same brush – what would that make of us? To be fair, writing from reporters like Melissa Lim, Kor Kian Beng, Lee Siew Hua and Andy Ho have so far been balanced and integral. Lydia Lim had also penned an excellent article on capitalism last Saturday, which I append below.

Capitalism needs a new culture

Nov 8, 2008

Individualism must be replaced by personal and social responsibility

By Lydia Lim

DARE we hope that Singapore’s economy, and that of the world, will emerge stronger and better from the ashes of the current financial crisis?

In a week when citizens of the United States elected as their first African-American president a man whose campaign was founded on hope, a fitting answer seems to be: Yes we can, we must.

The Wall Street culture that preached ‘greed is good’ and celebrated individual profit at others’ expense has been on the ascendant for over two decades.

It spread to Singapore, which like many other countries, was led to believe that capitalism as practised in America was the fastest, surest way to economic growth.

It was a culture that encouraged those who mastered the markets to believe they operated in an amoral realm, where old-fashioned notions of right and wrong simply did not apply.

The princes of this universe were those who knew how to gamble with borrowed funds and pass off financial risk to others more ignorant than themselves.

Such values permeated society. As people watched investment bankers grow obscenely rich, they too wanted in. Who could afford to pass up the tantalising opportunities to make a pile overnight?

In recent years, the more perceptive among us began to detect signs of trouble.

I recall one local employer complaining that each time there was a bull run on the stock market, his employees got lazy.

They lost their desire to do real work, preferring instead to sit around the office exchanging notes on market movements and placing bets on stocks and shares.

Many older Singaporeans bemoaned the younger generations’ lack of thrift but were dismissed as fuddy-duddies.

Rising asset prices lent credence to the belief that the more one spent, the more one stood to gain.

There seemed no reason to hold back – even if one lacked funds, one could always borrow to finance one’s purchases.

Not any more.

The credit crisis that began when some US home-owners failed to meet payments on their sub-prime mortgages, is now set to cause millions around the world to lose their homes, their savings and their jobs.

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has diagnosed the problem as a lack of alignment between private rewards and social returns.

Financial markets, he said in his testimony before US lawmakers on the future of regulation, exist to enable the real economy to be more productive, by mobilising savings, allocating capital and managing risk, transferring it from those less able to bear it to those more able.

Instead, financial markets in the US and elsewhere encouraged spendthrift patterns which led to near-zero savings; they misallocated capital and instead of managing risk, they created it, leaving huge risks with ordinary Americans who are now bearing huge costs because of these failures, he said.

Despite failing the society they were meant to serve, executives in the financial sector continued to reap huge rewards for themselves.

They were also allowed to exploit the ignorance of others through means such as securitisation – the process of taking an illiquid asset and turning it in a security, that is, a contract that can be assigned a value and traded.

‘In the old days, those originating mortgages held on to them; banks knew the people to whom they had lent money,’ Professor Stiglitz said.

‘When there was a problem in repayment, they could understand its nature and work with a family on a payment plan. It was in everyone’s interest for the family not to be thrown out into the street.

‘Securitisation was based on the premise that ‘a fool was born every minute’. Globalisation meant that there was a global landscape on which they could search for those fools – and they found them everywhere.

‘Mortgage originators didn’t have to ask, is this a good loan, but only, is this a mortgage I might somehow pass on to others,’ he added.

With the meltdown, the theory that markets know best and must be left unfettered to work their magic has been well and truly discredited.

Governments need to step in to regulate and ensure financial markets work the way they are meant to.

But beyond that, the world needs a new culture to replace that of Wall Street.

Businessman and Singapore Management University chairman Ho Kwon Ping believes East Asia should forge its own form of neo-Confucian capitalism that is communitarian in ethos, as opposed to the excessive individualism propagated by Wall Street.

The world has suffered a terrible setback to growth and development, but it has also been presented with a chance to seed a new culture of personal and social responsibility.

We need to build a new consensus that true prosperity is shared prosperity, because only then is it sustainable.

We need a new understanding of what it means to really master financial markets.

It cannot mean the kind of innovation that allows a few to sell junk bonds to others for personal profit. It must mean the kind of creativity that paves the way for people and businesses to be secure and flourish.

Surely that is a far worthier goal for young bankers to work towards than their next posh car.

In his testimony before the US Congressional Committee, Prof Stiglitz argued that the regulations he recommended would not stifle but encourage real innovation.

Too much of the American financial sector’s creativity had been directed towards circumventing regulations, he said.

‘Elsewhere there has been real innovation – the Danish mortgage market is an excellent example, with low transaction costs and much greater security,’ he added.

The credit crisis has led to a renewed recognition of the need for markets to promote human values – integrity, fairness, protection for the vulnerable.

That is cause for optimism.

These values may be just what capitalism needs to reinvigorate itself.

lydia@sph.com.sg

John McCain’s gracious concession speech – possibly one of his best speeches.

Honestly, though I think McCain is a good old chap with an evil sense of humour, his choice of Palin ultimately did him in good. The gaffes, the cluelessness on foreign policies and the wardrobe – too much to stomach. I shudder at the thought of her being remotely close to being the next President of America.

Also, after what Bush did to America’s economy, what with subprime loans, war policies and what nots, America is ready for a necessary change, a change which might be too radical for McCain and his conservative Republican policies and ideas. And so that change came in the form of Barack Obama.

Though our dear MM Lee once dismissed Obama as being too inexperienced and a ‘flash in the pan’ and that America is not ready for a bi-racial President, he is once again being proven wrong in the landslide votes – America had spoken and had spoken very clearly.

Part 1 of Barack Obama’s Victory Speech

Part 1 of Barack Obama’s Victory Speech

Difference between the two Presidential candidates and our politicans

When I was following the speeches on Wednesday, I was struck by the difference in the two politicians campaigning and fighting with so much passion for the presidency and our very own ministers and leaders, who were, for want of a better description, enticed and bought with money.

The jarring difference is painfully obvious. McCain, in his concession speech, pledges his full support to his opponent who had won. He said “the failure is mine, not yours.”

Our Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, urges us not to vote in too many opposition politicians lest he has to spend more time thinking about how to ‘buy votes and fix the opposition‘.

Obama said to the red voters, “And, to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too.”

Our Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, said ‘we decide what is right. Never mind what people think’ in 1987, while the opposition wards like Potong Pasir seem to have been marked off the property radar of Singapore.

Great world of difference – and we are constantly being fed nuggets of wisdom on how dangerous the Western liberation and democracy is and our MM Lee even said that the ‘one man one vote system is too dangerous’. Just look how dangerous and gracious McCain and Obama became. Don’t worry – our own leaders are not remotely even close to that kind of ‘danger’. Our leaders are incapable of being gracious even when talking about a dead opponent, much less one he would have to spend time ‘fixing’.

Indeed, if the political climate in America was like that of our country, Obama will not be given the opportunity to even serve in Senate. His family circumstances, the race issue, his radical ideas and thinking not in line with ruling party’s – all these would have worked against him here but not in America where the people have spoken.

Why the glaring difference

I believe it lies in one single factor – passion. Obama and McCain may have had different convictions and political beliefs but the common denominator was that they campaigned hard for the presidency. Obama particularly, harnessed a creative use of social media to speak to the masses. Were they enticed with a million dollar salary to run for presidency? Were they promised a nanny in the form of the GRC protection in their election? Nothing was handed to them on a silver spoon.

They battled hard and in some instances, fought dirty and showed grit and tenacity in their quest of ‘may the best man win’. I respect that deeply.

Our ministers, who have to be persuaded in tea sessions and monetary offers so that they will leave their ‘lucrative practices’ and promised candidacy where a heavyweight big brother will take care of you in the elections – forget it. What passion? What fiery oratory can these people be capable of? MM Lee loves to justify the ministerial salary to how much ministers like Ng Eng Hen and Vivian Balakrishnan were making in their practices before. Were Obama and McCain not wealthy before they chose to run for presidency?

When Obama spoke, the hair on the back of my neck stood and I felt awed, hope, comforted and inspired by the power of his conviction and the change that is to come. When McCain spoke, I felt humbled by his graciousness and respect for his consideration of the bigger picture.

When our ministers spoke, I usually feel nothing but anger and contempt, or at best – nonchalance.

Dr Terence Chong of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies told ST that ‘while Singaporeans cheer and dream along with Americans as global citizens, when it comes to local politicians, they just want them to make sure that the street lights work in the evening and there are jobs in the morning‘ and that we ‘accept that Singapore leaders don’t do inspiration, they do competence and reliability‘.

Really? Why is there a mutual exclusivity between ‘inspiration’ and ‘competence and reliability’?

Also, with the recent financial saga and with Singapore being the first Asian country to go into recession, it seems that the claim of ‘competence and reliability’ is pretty dody, much less the hope of being inspiring.

Yes, we can

In a nation where the mantra of the leadership is ‘we decide what is right. Never mind what people think”, we have to accept that there will only be concessionary change – Speakers’ Corner, political films (like we care, they were being distributed anyway) etc, just to wayang a little. The leadership style, the iron arm tactics, the ‘we know what is best’ authoritarian style  – I doubt these will change.

But we can. We, as a people, can change to be less apathetic and more socially conscious. When will we ‘cast off the slumber into which you have been led into for the last 10 years. Wake up to your rights as a human being, to your proper role as citizens of this country.’ – in the words of JB Jeyaretnam?

I believe that we, as a people, do want change. Just look at the turnout in the WP rally in the 2006 elections.

When will our people speak? When will we stand out and stand as a people, ‘Yes, we can’ or most importantly, ‘Yes, I can’?

CNA reports that ‘on a lighter note, the Minister Mentor touched on what he calls assortative mating, that is, finding a spouse at your level – something he strongly believes in.

He said: “I have explained this. I think I lost votes after I explained the awful truth. Nobody believed it, but slowly it dawned on them, especially the graduates, that yes, you marry a non-graduate, then you worry about whether or not your son or daughter is going to make it to the university.’

Our Minister Mentor is at it again. He had concerns about breeding a society of ‘the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic’ in 1967. He proclaimed ‘without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervene on very personal matters’ and that ‘we decide what is right. Never mind what people think’ in 1987.

Well, that supreme, almost egoistical confidence and absolute belief that he is never wrong seemed to be unjustified on at least two matters – eugenics/ assortative mating and population control.

He initiated the ‘Stop-at-Two’ population control campaign in the 60s. Couples were urged to undergo sterilisation after their second child. Children born after the second child were given lower priorities in education and such families received less economic rebates.

In 1983, his eugenic belief showed up when he encouraged Singapore men to choose women with high education as wives – sparking the ‘Great Marriage Debate’. He was concerned that a large number of graduate women were unmarried and thus not giving birth to babies. Incentives, such as tax rebates, schooling, and housing priorities, were reserved for graduate mothers who had three or four children, in a reversal of the over-successful ‘Stop-at-Two’ family planning campaign in the 1960s and 1970s. By the late-1990s, birth rates had become so low that Goh Chok Tong (then Prime Minister) extended these incentives to all married women, and gave even more incentives, such as the ‘baby bonus’ scheme.

We now have the benefit of hindsight. The ‘Stop at Two’ campaign and the ‘Great Marriage Debate’ were major flops. They have us clamouring madly to correct the population ratio by waving more monetary incentives and encouraging the influx of ‘foreign talent’. To bring up the idea of eugenics, social darwinism and selective breeding again is so surreal that it is anachronistic.

There also seems to be a dissonance between his stance on ‘assortative mating’ and education. In his recent speech at the Human Capital Summit, he said that talent and aptitude, and not grades should be the measuring yardstick in education systems. And yet this strange fascination with a degree, a form of certified grades, seem to have taken grip in him. A case of cognitive bias?

**

Elsewhere:

Benjamin wrote an excellent article from the socio-economic angle and Nelson asked aptly, “Is not the ability to effectively and efficiently use one’s available knowledge and resources, a better measure of success than academic achievements?”

The recent media coverage on Generation Y set me thinking. Is there much difference in the values and urban culture between the Generation Y and Generation X (like myself)?

I have been independent since 16. I will shamefully admit that I experimented with Sonia Rykiel, Thomas Chantal and Jean Paul Gaultier in secondary school (ah lian!) but I never had the cheek to ask my parents to fund my frivolousities. After I moved out and rented my own pad, I was flying solo all the way. Whenever I hear of people in their 30s still reaching out their hands to their parents to pay for loan instalments or credit card bills, I’d get very bemused. I also cannot reconcile with the fact that some youngsters are being totally spoonfed by their parents – nurtured to be soft spoilt individuals.

Ms Agnes Lin seems to fit the profile of the soft spoilt Gen Y very well.

She thinks a friend of hers, who is left with $20 to last until the end of the month, is silly to consider taking up a part-time job to earn some extra cash.

‘I don’t understand why she cannot just ask her parents for money,’ sighed Miss Lin.

I thank my parents for bringing me up in a sensible ‘tough love’ manner. They provided us children with the necessities like food, clothing, education etc and we have never lacked. When I demonstrated a gift at music and playing the piano, my parents bought a piano for me and started me on lessons. My brother trained in martial arts because that was his interest. My point is, my parents never ever stinged on us but they also never spoilt us in the ridiculous manner some parents are guilty of. Most importantly, we grew up to be independent and tough adults who can survive on our own without handouts from anyone.

So what happens if her monetary source from her parents should get unexpectedly cut off one day? Would she turn to easy money, given her propensity for materialistic indulgence?

With her first pay packet, she will buy a $4,000 Chanel bag. ‘After that, I will probably get more bags and watches,’ she added.

There is nothing wrong with spending your own money. However, there is no mention of contributing towards the household expenses or any gestures to her parents. As a student, she is already wrapped up in materialism and shows much potential for credit debt (which her parents will no doubt pay for). Congratulations to her parents for raising a spoilt brat seemingly detached from the reality of the real world. I know my own mother would have given me two tight slaps (and rightfully so) if I had demonstrated such idiotic behaviour. Hell, I would give my daughter two tight slaps if she ever pulled such a stunt.

**

*Update* : This is Agnes Lin’s blog – where she stated that she was misquoted. If that is so, there is grounds for legal action because it is defamation, and not a simple case of mistake by omission.

I would like to reiterate that I do not know Ms Lin and do not dislike her per se. I dislike the behaviour as alleged in the report.

*Further update* : If this is true, ST would have stooped to a new low. I am very appalled. Makes me question if we can trust what we read these days.

Let’s see if Agnes Lin is going to sue. I would if I were in her shoes.

ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM

For 20-year-old undergraduate Agnes Lin, the recession could just be academic.

The Nanyang Technological University first-year student has never been in need: She carries a $2,000 Louis Vuitton handbag to school and uses only Shiseido cosmetic and skincare products.

She carries around the latest mobile phone and goes on overseas vacations with her friends where she would bust $1,000 on shopping alone.

Twice monthly, she shops at her favourite stores – Topshop, Zara and Forever21.

Mum, a private tutor, and Dad, a businessman selling polythene bags, pay for her expenses.

Miss Lin is aware that Singapore faces a recession but the news does not bother her.

She said: ‘I think it is okay for me to maintain my current lifestyle. I may be spending a little bit more than my friends but I don’t think I’m overspending.’

At the moment, she has her eyes on the latest mobile phone in the market, the HTC Touch Pro, which costs about $700.

Although her mother has said ‘no’ to her buying yet another mobile phone, Ms Lin has an inkling she will still get it.

‘I think my mum will still buy it for me. My birthday is coming up!’ she said with a giggle. She confessed that since young, she has never run out of cash. Her parents give her money whenever she asks.

Since she was 16, her monthly pocket money has been $500.

She has an older brother, also an undergraduate. The family live in a four-room flat in Marine Parade.

She thinks a friend of hers, who is left with $20 to last until the end of the month, is silly to consider taking up a part-time job to earn some extra cash.

‘I don’t understand why she cannot just ask her parents for money,’ sighed Miss Lin.

She will enter the working world only after three years but she is already planning ahead.

With her first pay packet, she will buy a $4,000 Chanel bag. ‘After that, I will probably get more bags and watches,’ she added.

I had written here about Chua Li Hoong’s article in the Straits Times about JB Jeyaretnam.

And now, her sister, Chua Mui Hoong has written an article on Friday about how the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) was not negligent in the Lehman saga, but that Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) is.

How wonderful.

Now let’s see how it is never the government’s fault, but always someone else’s fault.

Again, like her sister’s article, the title of the article seems innocuous enough. ‘Lehman saga shows need for consumer body’ – how sinister can that be?

‘Since the issue was reported on Sept 16, the state regulator MAS has been active on this issue, ordering banks involved to appoint a thrid party to investigate claims of mis-selling – although anxious investors dub its response tardy and subdued.

The truth is that there is a limit to what MAS can do, beyond using its moral authority.’

Look, I know they may not have taught this in Journalism 101, but surely after years in the workforce, Ms Chua would know that even if you are busting your ass and pulling out all the stops to get stuff done, but if your boss or client doesn’t know that, everything else is moot. So even if MAS had been active, the point is moot if the investors are not informed. If there was one thing MAS should have done, it was to stand out and assure the people that something will be done – right from the start. Don’t try to lay it on the people.

‘The main consumers’ group, the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE), was active in pushing for financial services and products to be included under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act enacted in 2004. The law was revised just two months ago to cover precisely this…Case’s silence on the Lehman saga, given its active interest in the financial industry, is thus deafening.’

Now, everything is clear. It is all Case’s fault for not addressing an issue in government jurisdiction . Thank you Ms Chua for the illumination!

It gets even better.

‘The Securities Investors Association of Singapore has spoken on the issue, but not played a leading role. It could justifiably say it represents securities investors, not purchasers of structured products. But then again, its stated objective includes educating investors on all types of investors.’

OK it’s not all Case’s fault now. SIAS and Case can share the blame.

‘Instead, the leaders in trying to resolve the issue have been the state – in the form of MAS – and individuals.’

Wow, once again the technique of weaving truth into something questionable to make it look credible! I swear they have it down pat.

What I really cannot stomach is the despicable pretense of praising Mr Tan Kin Lian as a ‘champion of investors seeking redress’ while taking a cheap shot under the cloak of ‘humour’ in a cartoon.

I guess it is hard to hide derisive scorn after all. In any case, it is in poor taste and definitely not what I expect from a state journalist.

More melamine products:

View previous list here

Bank’s effort to address investors

I received this from one of my readers – L (thanks!). It’s a questionnaire given to the affected investors by one of the banks as an investigative effort.

Now is not the time to do a freaking survey. They should not put people through hoops and circles when they had just been through a difficult time, which was brought on by the greed of banks and the absence of fiduciary duty.

It is painful even for me to look at it, much less fill up the whole freaking questionnaire.

**

1. Please provide a brief description of your complaint/feedback

2. How did you find out about the product? Please tick all that are relevant.

• Newspaper/print advertisements
• Recommendations from family or friends
• Financial institution’s (FI) representative / relationship manager told me about the product (please also describe how the product was introduced to you):
• Others :

3. How did you come to know the FI representative / RM that you bought the product from?

• He/she is my RM / regular representative
• He/she was recommended by family/friends
• He/she contacted me
• He/she was introduced to me when I walked in to the FI

4. Before you spoke to the FI representative / RM, were you planning to place your funds in another product? If so, what product did you have in mind? Why did you change your mind about buying that product?

5. During your meeting with the FI representative / RM, did you:

• Seek additional information / explanation about the product
• Complete a questionnaire to assess how much risk you can take
• Seek advice on whether the product is suitable for you
• None of the above. Please indicate why:
• I already knew about the product and intended to purchase it.
• I was not comfortable divulging information about my income & financial situation
• Others (please specify).

Please tick all that are relevant.

6. How long was your meeting with the FI representative / RM before you agreed to purchase the product? Approximately how much time did the FI representative / RM spend to explain the product to you?

7. How long did it take you to decide to purchase the product? Was it during the same visit or a subsequent visit to the FI?

8. What was the source of the funds invested in the product?

• Recently withdrawn CPF funds
• Transfer from savings / fixed deposits
• Switch from unit trust / other investment products
• New funds
• Others (please specify):

9. Did the FI representative / RM explain the product to you? If so, what did he/she say? If you have any records of written correspondences, please attach a copy for our reference.

• Characteristics of the product such as sources of returns, and the mechanics of the products
• Risks that you may receive nothing or significantly less than your original principal amount invested due to the default of any one of the reference entities, the swap counterparty, the default of the underlying collateral and other risk factors.
• Benefits / returns: The amount you stand to receive, including the computation methods and whether that amount is guaranteed or non-guaranteed
• Type of consumer the product is suited for [e.g. aggressive/moderate/low risk appetite]
• Fees and charges
• Right to cancel your purchase
• Warnings, exclusions and disclaimers
• Reports that you will receive

10. What made you decide to purchase the product?

• Higher returns (e.g. returns are better than savings or deposit rates)
• Low risk (e.g. principal is guaranteed or protected, there is a low risk of default)
• Regular income in the form of interest payments
• Product was available only for a limited promotion period
• To diversity my investment portfolio
• Others (please specify)

11. Please indicate which documents were given to you when you purchased the product.

Please tick all that are relevant.

• Base prospectus (this is xx-page comprehensive formal legal document that provides details of the product offering, including a description of the product and the risk factors.)
• Pricing statement (this is xx-page document that sets out a brief description of the product.)
• Marketing materials (e.g. brochure, fact-sheet)
• Others (please specify):

12. Please indicate when the following documents were given to you.

· Base prospectus

Before or at the point of sale/ After the sale had been concluded

· Pricing statement

Before or at the point of sale/ After the sale had been concluded

· Marketing materials

Before or at the point of sale/ After the sale had been concluded

13. Please indicate the documents that you signed when you purchased the product.

Please tick all that are relevant.

• Application form
• Fact-find/Needs Analysis forms
• Risk disclosure statement
• Others (please specify):

14. If you were not given a Prospectus and Pricing Statement, were you told where you could get one? Did you proceed to get a copy before you applied for the product? Did you read the Prospectus and Pricing statement?

15. Are you aware whether you signed any statement that states that you are aware of and understood the risks associated with this product? Did the FI representative / RM explain what this means to you?

16. Are you aware whether you signed any document that states that you are not relying on advice provided by the FI representative / RM or FI in purchasing the product? Did the FI representative / RM explain the document to you?

Speaking to investors at Speakers’ Corner

Pictures below

It was an eye opener for me. To personally speak with old folks who can’t speak English – and to be told about promises of ‘guaranteed principal’, ‘interest at the end of tenure’, ‘low risk’ and even a case of the product sold as a government bond made me see red.

Every single investor I spoke with told me that they were reassured that the product they were buying was ‘very safe’ and ‘principal guaranteed’. Some even said that they were told it was like a fixed deposit – ‘interest will be paid at the end of tenure’. In every case, they had either wanted to re-invest in a fixed deposit product upon expiry of their previous deposit (which should tell you volumes about their risk appetite) or they had wanted to invest in a fixed deposit with their cash. Instead, they were waylaid into investing in mid – high risk structured products. In all the cases, the forms were either never mailed to them at all, or sent long after the cooling off period. Many of the relationship managers involved had either resigned or are refusing to return any calls. Class act.

Cases of outright cheating

One old lady teared up when she told me that the relationship manager assured that she was buying into a government guaranteed bond. Since when the minibond become a government bond is beyond my minuscule financial brain. She does not understand English and was told to ‘just sign here’ and that the ‘bank will not cheat old folks’. She was not given any copy of the forms she signed because the relationship manager told her that they had to be sent to the government for record keeping. She had lost $40,000 of her life savings – an amount which she had repeatedly told the bank staff was her ‘coffin fund’ and that it needed to be contained in a safe investment vehicle.

Another lady in her 50s was edgy when I first approached her if she needed help. She had already attended an interview and was waiting for a reply from the bank. She felt little hope of being vindicated in this matter. She angrily recounted to me how she was duped into investing ‘a minimum of $50,000′ when she could have chosen to invest a minimum of $5,000. The usual spiel of ‘guaranteed principal, interest, fixed deposit, very safe’ and even ‘low risk’ was applied.

The worst thing was – the sales representative deliberately left out two pages when he sent the document copies to her. She was not aware of the missing pages until recently – in the interview with her bank, the staff showed her the pages. She then realized why the two pages were not sent to her. Some written content was added after she had signed on the forms. Content like the financial mechanics had been explained to her by an accompanying relative (not true) and that she understood the product carried certain risks (she was told it was low risk and principal guaranteed).

Bristling with anger and indignation, she shared about how she was paid only a salary of $80 in the 60s and that she had been working for the last 40 years – scrimping and saving to have that amount of money. In her words (Cantonese) – ‘?????????????’ – at this point, she started to cry. I had difficulty fighting back the tears that threatened to well.

I was strangely reminded of my mum perhaps from the similarity of their saving habits, thriftiness and being Cantonese. I wonder how I would feel if my mum had been duped into buying ‘government bonds’?

Politicians like Mr Goh Chok Tong, who said ‘That’s life, if you want good rewards, you have to take risks. Otherwise, leave your money with the CPF‘ are extremely lucky that the political climate here is engineered to be tamer and definitely less feisty and confrontational than say, that of Hong Kong. If he had been in Mr Joseph Yam’s position, I have no doubt that he would have been taken apart.

Joseph Yam Chi Kwong, Chief Executive of HKMA, had stressed that HKMA ’sympathise[s] with investors who have been affected by the collapse of Lehman Brothers. [Their] priority now, is to consider the complaints as quickly as possible. Within the authority of the HKMA, this is the action that will be most helpful to the aggrieved investors.’

Even so, Mr Yam, who earned more than S$2 million last year, was not exempted from a sharp criticism from Legislator Raymond Wong Yuk Man for “sitting still to wait for a salary”, while minibonds victims “sit still to wait for death”.

(In Cantonese)
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Translations:
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
“A salary for a national class treasure with an international class laziness.”

?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
“You sit waiting for your bi (?), which is the word for money! We sit waiting for our bi (?), which is the word for death!”

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
“This is your responsibility. It does not mean that you were unaware beforehand. You were hired at such a salary and you failed to even do this. You should go home and sleep!”

I am so grateful that I can understand and speak Cantonese well – because the beauty of the dialect often gets lost in translation.

Here’s the video (in Cantonese) [Thanks to Nelson and igp for sharing the video!]

Note 1.03 – 2.38 and 4.03 – 5.14

**

Mr Tan Kin Lian giving a volunteers’ briefing

While we were fresh at this volunteering stint, the enthusiasm and the can do spirit of the volunteers were really inspiring to me. It was inevitable that we felt a little lost and disoriented in the beginning but soon we were too busy to feel lost.

CNA crew working the grounds

Deputy editor of TOC, Mr Andrew Loh (left) with Mr Tan Kin Lian (right)

A member of the public giving a ‘certificate’ to Mr Tan that says
‘Thank you Mr Tan Kin Lian Champion of the underdog’

Expressing his anger with the authorities

Mr Goh Meng Seng translating Mr Tan’s speech in Mandarin

Board of grievances

An investor who invested $100,000. She will speak next Saturday and share about her experience.

ECL (in blue cap) helping out at event. I was too busy to even have time to speak with her as investors were taking up all my time but it was no issue for her – she very quickly took charge of the situation. Kudos!

Another reader of mine, Lilian, also came by to help out. Thanks Lilian!

The MP Chan Soo Sen had written to ST about this

I REFER to Wednesday’s report, ‘Fancy setting, worthless degrees’.

I was invited to the ceremony through one of my grassroots leaders who was a graduand. I checked the website of a West Coast University, an institution based in Los Angeles accredited for health-care subjects. I subsequently received an invitation printed on a West Coast University letterhead with a Los Angeles address. I have thus been misled into attending the ceremony on Monday.

I have not been associated with the West Coast University mentioned in the report. Nor was it my intention to lend credibility to its courses and degrees.

Chan Soo Sen
Member of Parliament
Joo Chiat Constituency

Credit to ST – Cassandra Chew

I have never been an advocate of degrees or graduates. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t doubt or dismiss their ability or intelligence. Rather, I feel that the existence of a degree should not be the basis on which a person’s ability and proficiency should be solely judged on.

Indeed, the feedback that I get from some entrepreneurs and business people I spoke to is that they prefer to employ people who are diploma holders with more internship/ work experience and who tend to be more humble, more open to learning and proactive in finding solutions. In other words, they tend to have a higher EQ and possess more street smarts. Graduates, especially fresh graduates, tend to be cocky, unwilling to ‘get their hands dirty’ and have a know-it-all attitude. Again, this is their observation of common traits and not a prejudiced stereotyping.

I am not a graduate (yet), but I’ve been told by people from all walks of life including recently, a senior reporter, that I ‘write very well’. This is not to toot my own trumpet. It is to say that I believe a person is more driven by his or her interest and passion to excellence than a piece of paper who merely says that you have spent a certain amount of classroom hours. I have also met many people who are not graduates but you don’t mess with them because they definitely knew their stuff – I have personally seen a few ‘old gingers’ taking quite a few pegs off some young ‘hot shots’.

There are professions of course, like law, medicine, accountancy etc, where the clients need the reassurance of that paper (though I personally wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if David Marshall had a degree or not, he was that good), but I think you might agree with me that fields like music, art, writing, social work, advertising, PR etc call for a natural talent and passion more than a mere piece of paper.

Why then do I want to pursue a honors program reading English? The reason is achingly simple. This country is obsessed with degrees to the point of ostracizing people who do not have that piece of paper, regardless of their ability or experience. Essentially, a potential employer can look at all my work (here and here), the articles I did for government agencies like NCSS, newsletters, agencies, magazines etc but it will only be magically deemed good work if I simultaneously produce that piece of paper. Of course, I am referring to big players and not dodgy agencies or websites who don’t mind paying peanuts bananas for monkeys.

And so, you will have people who are willing to go through the wayang process of getting that paper, and those who just, well, want to take a short cut.

What I found extremely amusing was that one of our dear MPs actually agreed to be the guest of honor for the ceremony of an unaccredited university (aka degree mill) and even gave speeches in English and Mandarin. He said that he had not been given any information about it and that ‘if [his] presence there had given the university credibility, that was not [his] intention,’

And therein lies my dislike of the spoon-feeding habit in our culture. “Nobody told me”, “nobody showed me” and “I didn’t know” are all catch phrases of the spoon-feeding culture that is so prevalent in our society that the MP is not exempted.

After all, he had once ingeniously said, “What can I do? I’m only an MP!” So I guess now he will also be famous for “that was not my intention”.

(Article archived in case the above link does not work anymore)

*UPDATE: The MP Chan Soo Sen had written to ST

I REFER to Wednesday’s report, ‘Fancy setting, worthless degrees’.

I was invited to the ceremony through one of my grassroots leaders who was a graduand. I checked the website of a West Coast University, an institution based in Los Angeles accredited for health-care subjects. I subsequently received an invitation printed on a West Coast University letterhead with a Los Angeles address. I have thus been misled into attending the ceremony on Monday.

I have not been associated with the West Coast University mentioned in the report. Nor was it my intention to lend credibility to its courses and degrees.

Chan Soo Sen
Member of Parliament
Joo Chiat Constituency

*****

Worthless degrees
By Sandra Davie and Cassandra Chew

Students of the unaccredited West Coast University, garbed in full academic regalia, celebrating after their graduation ceremony at Old Parliament house on Monday, which even came with an inspiring speech from the university’s honorary president. — ST PHOTO: CASSANDRA CHEW
THE ceremony in the Old Parliament House had all the pomp and circumstance associated with any graduation.

The professors and graduands were in full academic regalia. Speeches flowed in English and Mandarin. And afterwards, a gala dinner at a hotel.

Cash for paper in some cases
THE term ‘degree mill’ is used widely to refer to institutions that offer degrees to students who do not have to do much work to graduate.

Some operate with no more than a mailing address to which people send money in exchange for a piece of paper that looks like a degree. Others require some nominal work to be done but do not require college-level coursework.
… more
At the ceremony, the university’s honorary president, a Professor Bernard Cadet, delivered an inspiring speech, urging graduands to transform the world.

‘Believe nothing is impossible. West Coast University (WCU) will be proud of you in the future,’ he told the 76 graduands from Singapore, Indonesia and China, before handing them their doctorates, master’s and bachelor’s degrees.

But this was a ceremony for an unaccredited university based in Panama, not Los Angeles, as its school in Singapore had claimed.

The Asia-Australia School of Management (AASM), a Case-certified school in Middle Road, offers West Coast University programmes here with a related company, Huanyu Training Expert.

At least two American states have outlawed degrees from WCU, describing it as a ‘degree supplier’ that offers ‘fraudulent or substandard degrees’.

The Texas State Higher Education Coordinating Board warns on its website that WCU ‘is used by multiple unaccredited entities. The extent to which they are related is unknown, but more than one operator is suspected.’

In some parts of the United States, it is a criminal offence to use degrees from unaccredited institutions.

‘Dr’ John Huang, one of the owners of AASM and Huanyu, insisted that the university is based in Los Angeles and faxed The Straits Times documents showing West Coast University International registered as a business in California.

But he confirmed that it was not the California-based West Coast University reputed for nursing and health science-related degrees. He admitted that WCU was unaccredited, but said his students had been given the facts.

His doctorate is from Ashwood University, the same degree mill that granted this reporter’s pet dog a doctorate for US$599 (S$886) just two months ago.

The guest of honour at Monday’s ceremony was MP for Joo Chiat Chan Soo Sen, who delivered a speech in Mandarin and English.

Contacted afterwards, he said he had been invited by a grassroots leader and accepted as he wanted to encourage the habit of life-long learning.

Told that WCU was unaccredited, he said he had not been given any information about it. ‘If my presence there had given the university credibility, that was not my intention,’ he said.

Several graduates interviewed after Monday’s ceremony believed the university was based in Los Angeles and that it was a proper institution.

They had paid between $13,000 and $19,000 in fees to take up bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate courses lasting one year to 15 months.

Those who took up the doctorate programme said they attended classes two days a month, from 9am to 5pm.

Several said they did not know a university can be registered and yet have no academic accreditation, where it is subject to quality checks by an independent body. It also means employers may not recognise the degrees.

An electronics factory quality controller who paid $13,000 in fees for her bachelor’s degree said: ‘I was hoping to get a better job in logistics with this degree, but now it may not be possible.’

Ms Ho Fee Men, director of a Chinese medical hall, said she had heard rumours that the university was unaccredited, but continued with her PhD programme anyway. To get her doctorate, she paid $19,000 in fees, attended classes twice a month over 15 months and wrote a 50,000-word thesis.

Two businessmen said they knew their doctorates were worthless but took up the programme to learn about business management.

Mr Chang Chia Sheng, 55, managing director of X.L. Handle, which makes industrial fasteners, said he gained from discussions with other businessmen.

At least 218 people here have been found with degrees from dubious universities such as Preston, Wisconsin International and Kennedy-Western.

Business owners make up one of three groups here who have degrees from unaccredited institutions and degree mills. For many of them, an honorary PhD has become a must-have symbol of success.

Another group comprises consultants and private school lecturers who may have a first degree and some expertise in a particular area, but seek a master’s degree or doctorate to bolster their credentials.

And lastly, there are those who pay for undergraduate degrees and transcripts – usually non-graduates who want qualifications to gain jobs or promotions.

This is good news. Singapore’s parliament voted yesterday to amend the constitution to allow the government more access to the returns on country’s reserves to cope with a faltering economy.

State broadcaster ChannelNewsAsia reported that the extra funds would be spent on research and development projects and medical care for the aged.

I hope that people who need help will get it without the usual bureaucratic red tape nonsense. I hope that there will be transparency in how much money is touched and the percentage of the money going to medical care for the aged. I hope that money from the reserves are not somehow funding the third phrase of ministerial salary increments. I hope that research projects will not be cutting edge projects like “Renaming the Marina Bay”. After all, hope springs eternal in the human heart.

I also found this little snippet by Reuters writer, Melanie Lee, rather amusing:

The changes to the constitution will allow the government to draw on more returns from investing the reserves, so that its income can keep pace with rising expenditure, reported the pro-government newspaper The Straits Times on its website.

Ooh, are they going to let it go or will they sue?

But wait a minute, it is true.

Mr Tan Kin Lian will be talking at Hong Lim Park this Saturday at 6pm. Prior to the talk at 5pm, some of us will be helping investors draft their statements of claim to their respective financial institutions. We are volunteers – any persons who might offer to help you for a sum of money (with the exception of lawyers preparing Statutory Declarations) are not from our team. In the meanwhile, you can also email me at me@rachel.sg

Please bring your relevant papers and the statement will be drafted on the following basis -

• Your name, NRIC, address, telephone
• How did you get involved in the investment?
• Which financial institution, branch, amount invested, date
• What happened when you purchased the investment?
• Were you alone or accompanied by another person? Who?
• What did the representative (who sold the investment to you) tell you about investment?
• Did the representative tell you about any guarantee on your investment?
• Did they make you sign any form regarding the investment? Did you understand the content of the form? Was it given to you before or after you agreed to make the investment? Did you read the form? Did you understand the content?
• Did you rely on the advice of the representative in making the investment? Which were the important aspects of the advice?
• Do you have any other statements to make regarding this matter?

Mr Tan Kin Lian has a comprehensive help list here.

If you are keen to help out, please see Mr Goh’s post here and email him, or you could email your particulars (i.e. name, e-mail address, telephone number, and postal code, language) to kinlian@gmail.com. Thanks.

**

In the event that the banks do not handle your complaints satisfactorily, you can write to FIDReC.

Registered Address
112 Robinson Road #13-03
HB Robinson
Singapore 068902

Tel: (65) 63278878
Fax: (65) 63278488
Email: info@fidrec.com.sg

Opening Hours:
Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays 9.00 a.m to 6.00 p.m

Tuesdays, Thursdays 9.00 a.m to 7.30 p.m
(prior appointment required after 6.00 p.m)

FAQs

1. When can I go to FIDReC?
A: If you have a dispute with your financial institution that you haven’t been able to resolve or that hasn’t been resolved to your satisfaction, you should approach FIDReC within 6 months after you received the final reply letter from the financial institution.

2. How much can I claim?
A: The jurisdiction of FIDReC in adjudicating disputes between consumers and financial institutions is as follows:
(1) For claims between insureds and insurance companies: up to S$100,000
(2) For disputes between banks and consumers, capital market disputes and all other disputes (including third party claims and market conduct claims): up to S$50,000
At present, FIDReC’s services are available to all consumers who are individuals or sole-proprietors.

3. How do I file a complaint?
A: Filing a complaint is simple and free of charge. You may lodge your complaint in person, or by fax, post or email. If you have any queries or difficulties in lodging the complaint, you may contact FIDReC at 6327 8878.

4. How much will it cost?
A: Filing a complaint is free of charge. Where a Case Manager takes your complaint up with the financial institution concerned and is unable to facilitate a resolution, you can then choose to refer your complaint to adjudication. If you choose to do so, you need to pay an adjudication case fee.

5. What if I am not happy with FIDReC’s ruling?
A: The decision of the Adjudicator or panel is final and binding on the financial institution, but not on you. If you are not happy with the decision, you are free to reject the decision and pursue your complaint through other avenues. This essentially means that there is no disadvantage at all for you if you choose to lodge your complaint with FIDReC.

6. How long will it take for FIDReC to resolve my dispute?

A: The length of time needed varies with the complexity of each case. FIDReC seeks to resolve all disputes as expeditiously as possible.

I did not want to write about this issue earlier because I did not want to pre judge how MAS and the government will handle this issue. But as it is, the silence, the position to distance itself, the local media blackout on HKMA decision and the eventual “breaking news speed” of the local media coverage had once again spoken louder than words could.

Media Coverage

I am disgusted with how sensational journalism is being lent to invoke cheap emotions when there was very real sorrow involved. These photos are splashed across the front page of ST just to show Mrs Ling “looking visibly less upset than last week..welcomed the Government’s move to help”.

‘Looking visibly less upset than last week (pictured below), Mrs Ling, who with her husband sank $100,000 into Minibonds, welcomed the Government’s move to help.’

– ST PHOTOS: CHEW SENG KIM, DESMOND FOO

I am also disgusted at how the government is depicted as a “hero” again. Well, get this straight. MAS only stepped out and issued a statement after Tan Kin Lian’s event to help the affected folks drew thousands. It took a citizen to do the duty of what government people should do. The alarm bells must have gone off in a few government sectors. The government only issued a guarantee of deposits after HKMA pressured their banks to buy back minibonds products.

This is to ensure Singapore’s competitive advantage in the banking and finance sector and I believe, not out of any real sympathy for the people. And have the ministers or MAS ever stopped to ponder about why the banks in Hong Kong would agree to buy back the products? Why did their government or HKMA not pander to the banks?

And please. The ST headline on 18 Oct 08 made me want to vomit. “MAS to Banks: Do the Right Thing”. It was Tan Kin Lian who first blogged and told MAS to do the right thing!

The accountability of MAS

A financial dodo like me might not know how to read a financial product sheet but any qualified and probably overpaid snazzy economist or finance expert in MAS should know and should have known that the product sheets for Minibonds were dodgy. Time for the blame game soon.

The government likes to proclaim that it has no power or control over Temasek Holdings – would it be another skit about how MAS has no jurisdiction or power over banks? In the bid to whore out to banks making their global presence here, are we prepared to screw our people over offending them?

Difference between Hong Kong and Singapore

While Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Donald Tsang “pledged to help those caught up in the Lehman Brothers minibond row get justice if any criminal or civil liability is identified“, our MAS chairman, Mr Goh Chok Tong says that “that’s life, if you want good rewards, you have to take risks. Otherwise, leave your money with the CPF.” and that “MAS is a very professional, rational institution” Oh yes, that I have no doubts about. The MAS is indeed extremely professional and rational towards banks. What is the stance of MAS towards the people?

MAS managing director, Mr Heng Swee Keat, says “We expect them to do the right thing” … “to be accessed on a case-by-case basis“. Am I the only person who feels that such a statement is not straightforward and can be interpreted in creative ways?

While Mr Joseph Yam, Chief Executive of the HKMA, said that the role of the HKMA is to investigate complaints of mis-selling against banks - “The HKMA is dealing with the complaints as quickly as possible.  It is, of course, very important that we do this objectively and without pre-judging the issue.  If, after investigation, we find cases of mis-selling, we will treat them very seriously“; our MAS says that it has “asked the chief executive officer of these [financial] institutions to personally chair internal review panels to look into these complaints.” I am sure these CEOs will be totally impartial and there will be no conflict of interest to consider.

Scorn versus sympathy

The feedback we have been getting is that mis-selling is rife. I have been getting calls from investors who say that their relationship managers told them it’s like a fixed deposit and that at the end of 5.5 years, they are getting 5% returns. Tell me that is not mis-selling.

Those people who are all smug and arrogant about how they “would not be cheated” or “would not buy something they do not understand” seem to have missed the point that the product was angled to be deceptive or dodgy in the place. Yes, at this point of time, we are all so interested to know your wisdom of diversified investments and how you are not so dumb like some old uneducated folks. Haven’t heard of saying the right thing at the right time?

Yes, I run the risk of sounding stupidly sentimental for objecting to such callousness, but look – gloat privately if you have to instead of rubbing salt in others’ wounds.

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

Media Articles to archive for record

Oct 19, 2008
Look beyond retirees: SM
By Kor Kian Beng , Francis Chan

WHILE financial institutions (FIs) ought to focus on the vulnerable group of retiree investors who sank money into Lehman-linked products, they should also look at less clear-cut cases, said Mr Goh Chok Tong yesterday.

The Senior Minister said these cases might involve heavily invested professionals or people who have invested only a part and not their entire savings.

‘For other, less clear-cut cases, the financial institutions may also want to think of ways to retain their customers’ trust and confidence,’ he said at a grassroots event.

‘Such gestures will go a long way to maintaining customer loyalty, and pay off in the long term.’

He noted how some 10,000 Singaporeans had invested over $500million in structured products linked to the collapsed US investment bank Lehman Brothers.

He said that at the time, investors of these products would not have thought the bank would collapse. ‘But this is no consolation. Those who have invested in these products stand to lose a large part of their investment.’

To help them, he said the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) had been actively and quietly working with the FIs which sold these products to ensure that any complaints by investors are given a fair and independent hearing.

‘MAS is a very professional, rational institution,’ said Mr Goh, who is MAS chairman.

He reiterated what the authority said last Friday: that FIs ought to pay particular attention to those from the vulnerable group of investors, such as retirees with poor knowledge of investments in financial products, and who were investing significant sums in them for the first time.

If the investors had been mis-sold the product or where the product was clearly inappropriate to their circumstances, ‘MAS expects the FIs to take full responsibility and reach a fair settlement with them. This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis’. If an investor is still not satisfied, he can take the matter to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre.

But he also said everyone must see the losses in perspective. ‘The global financial crisis came without warning, like a tsunami,’ he said. ‘Banks have collapsed. Stock prices have plunged. Millions of people in the world, not just in Singapore, have lost money. So we must be realistic in our expectation of recovering all our losses.’

At a second gathering of investors at Speakers’ Corner yesterday, Mrs Ling Ah Moi, who is in her 70s, said in Teochew that she welcomed the Government’s latest move to help ‘older people’.

But her husband, retired shop owner Ling Jun Zhi, 78, felt it was important for the Government to be more proactive in its help, as it was difficult for retirees to know who to turn to.

The couple sank $100,000 into Minibonds in July when they visited a Hong Leong Finance branch. They were featured in The Straits Times when they showed up at a meeting between DBS High Notes5 investors and the bank last week.

Visibly less upset than last week, Mrs Ling added: ‘It’s good that the Government can help.’
**

Oct 18, 2008
Ready to help in bad times
By Kor Kian Beng

BAD times may lie ahead but the Government is ready to help, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong on Saturday night.

He sent out this message of hope even while he gave a realistic sense of the possible fallout from the global financial crisis.

He named three reasons Singapore, as it prepares for a global downturn, can be confident of emerging from the crisis stronger than ever.

First, the Government is ready to provide help if bad times come, he said at a Marine Parade GRC celebration of Hari Raya Aidilfitri.

In fact, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has asked Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to start thinking of ways to help Singaporeans and companies in the Budget next year, he said.

‘We must do this in a way that not only eases the pain, but also positions ourselves to take advantage of the recovery later on,’ Mr Goh said.

Second, he reminded Singaporeans of past crises they had overcome – the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2003 Sars attack.

‘Those were the days when it seemed like the crisis would never end, but it did, and we bounced back,’ he said, and urged the nation to ’stick together’ to tackle the financial upheaval if it is prolonged.

And third, Singaporeans can take heart that economic fundamentals are strong. The nation will still draw ‘a healthy pipeline’ of investments through the Economic Development Board.

He cited a recent report by OCBC Bank that rated Singapore as the best-equipped among 50 global economies to overcome a serious economic crisis.

The Singapore economy is also more diversified compared to 10 years ago, he said, adding that the heavy national investment in education will help Singaporeans survive the downturn.

‘With education, skills, and a determination to work hard and succeed, we need never fear the future,’ he said.

‘We can survive the temporary difficulties.’

The bigger worry for the Government is whether there will be a global recession, he said. There are signs that this is impending, with the plunge in stock prices worldwide as one indication.
**

Oct 18, 2008
Do the right thing
MAS says priority will be given to lowly-educated retirees who lost money in its probe into mis-selling.
By Ignatius Low & Francis Chan

LOWLY-EDUCATED retiree investors who put their savings in structured products linked to the collapsed Lehman Brothers have been singled out by the Government for special attention.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) wants banks and financial institutions to give this group top priority when investigating complaints of mis-selling.

It also added that banks should not take an ‘overly legalistic’ approach in dealing with such cases.

And in situations where the product was mis-sold or was clearly inappropriate given the investor’s profile and circumstances, MAS wants the financial institutions to take full responsibility.

‘We expect them to do the right thing,’ declared MAS managing director Heng Swee Keat at a press conference yesterday.

Asked what he means by this, Mr Heng later told The Straits Times in an e-mail reply that ‘the financial institution should reach a fair settlement in full or in part’.

‘This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis,’ he added.

Calling them ‘vulnerable customers’, Mr Heng said at the press conference that this group of retirees would be typically be above 55 years of age and have minimal education.

They may also be blue-collar workers or unemployed. Some may not be proficient in English and may be unable to read the structured product’s prospectus, where the risks and mechanics of the investment are spelt out.

But he also added that not all investors fitting this profile would necessarily be inexperienced.

‘We are focusing on cases of mis-selling to vulnerable customers and on cases where the products were clearly inappropriate for them given the circumstances,’ said Mr Heng.

According to MAS, about 10,000 retail investors had pumped over $500 million into structured products linked to the US investment bank Lehman Brothers.

Lehman’s bankruptcy last month has meant that investors holding products such as Lehman Minibonds, DBS High Notes 5 and Merrill Lynch Jubilee Series 3 Linkearner Notes could lose most of their money.

On Wednesday, The Straits Times highlighted the plight of retiree investors who have stopped work and therefore have little hope of recouping their nest-eggs in their lifetime.

Yesterday, MAS reiterated that it will come down hard on anyone who has been found to have mis-sold these products to them. Many retirees say they did not fully understand the products and claim to have been wrongly assured that they would not lose their principal sums.

‘MAS confirms that we have been conducting formal inquiries into allegation of breaches of the law, inadequate internal controls by the financial institutions, or poor sales practices by their representatives,’ said Mr Heng.

‘We will make an announcement on any actions we are taking when our inquiries are completed.’

MAS also said that a ‘number of possible cases’ have already been found by independent parties overseeing the complaints process at each of the financial institutions that had sold the Lehman-linked products.

It added that it is following up on these cases, but gave no further details.

In the meantime, it is urging those affected who have a genuine claim that they were mis-sold their investments, to lodge their complaints with the financial institution they dealt with.

MAS said that it has asked the chief executive officers of these institutions to personally chair internal review panels to look into these complaints.

In each case, MAS wants the panel to decide what to do within four weeks and communicate its decision to the customer.

If investors are still not satisfied with the decision, they can take their case to the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre (Fidrec).

Mr Heng emphasised that the Fidrec mediation process is free of charge and if the case goes to arbitration, the cost to the customer is just $50.

Fidrec normally deals with claims not exceeding $50,000. But in the case of structured products, the centre has agreed to hear all ‘deserving cases’.

Responding to the MAS’ statements yesterday, DBS Bank said it is ‘now reviewing all concerns raised on High Notes 5 in a prompt and comprehensive manner, and will not hesitate to take responsibility in instances where evidence of mis-selling is established’. The Straits Times understands that the bank has already given special attention to retirees.

Hong Leong Finance, which distributed Lehman Minibonds, said it ‘will focus special attention on those above 55 years old, less educated and first time investors in structured products’.

Maybank said that it has to date, contacted 50 per cent of customers with complaints to schedule interviews. It told The Straits Times that it is also dealing with ‘vulnerable customers’ first.

Investors and investor advocates applauded the MAS move, with Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, saying that it is ‘obvious that this group needs more help’.

But Aljunied GRC MP Cynthia Phua also added that while it is a ‘good step forward’, MAS still needs to address deficiencies at the bank level in selling these products.

**

THE Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has decided against following Hong Kong’s lead in requiring banks to buy back Lehman Brothers-linked Minibonds at market price from investors.

MAS managing director, Mr Heng Swee Keat, told reporters at a media conference yesterday that one of its key priorities now was to ensure that HSBC Trustee, the trustee for the Minibond programme, carefully considers all options and acts in the interests of investors.

He said that the trustee, which is now working on finding a new swap counterparty to replace collapsed Lehman in the programme, was already acting on the requests of investors who had submitted a petition to the MAS on Sept 24.

If a new swap counterparty is found, investors will be given the opportunity to vote on this option, he said.

Such an option raises the possibility that investors might eventually get some of their money back.

In the meantime, the MAS will also appoint an independent financial adviser to assist investors in making an ‘informed decision’.

‘Many individuals who purchased structured products linked to Lehman Brothers are worried about their investments,’ said Mr Heng.

‘MAS has been actively working to ensure a fair resolution for these investors…Our first priority has always been to help affected investors.’

Last week MAS disclosed that 8,000 retail investors had spent a total of $375 million on the Minibond programme.

Yesterday, Hong Kong Association of Banks chairman He Guangbei said that banks said they will buy back Minibonds from investors in the territory at ‘market value’ as proposed by the Hong Kong government.

An independent financial adviser was also appointed to handle the buyback process, including the valuation of toxic structured products that have been the bane of many disgruntled retail investors both in Hong Kong and Singapore where nine banks and financial institutions had distributed Minibonds.

Investors in the product in both markets have protested in recent weeks demanding compensation.

Many claimed they were told that Minibonds were a low-risk product when they were in fact complex derivatives which many did not fully understand.

Last week, the MAS had also announced that HSBC Trustee had informed the central bank that that ‘a few financial institutions are currently considering taking on (the) role’ of the swap counterparty and should there be a firm offer from an appropriate party, the trustee would seek the necessary approval from investors.

Mr Heng said the MAS expects the trustee to know whether options will be available to Minibond investors by the end of next week.

**

WHAT IS EXPECTED OF BANKS

‘Where a customer has been mis-sold the product or where the product was clearly inappropriate to his circumstances, the financial institution should reach a fair settlement in full or in part. This has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.’

MAS managing director Heng Swee Keat in an e-mail reply to The Straits Times

A GOOD MOVE, BUT WILL IT BE ENOUGH?

‘This group obviously needs more help…as far as I know, during last Saturday’s rally, this was the group of people that came shouting or crying. I do not think it’s the right approach to deal with this on a case-by-case basis… But I like what MAS is saying that they are asking the banks and FIs to do the right thing.’

Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals

‘I think it is a good sign that the MAS is finally putting more emphasis on this particular group of investors, but I am 54 now and still working – so it is a grey area for me. Let’s hope they will examine each case by its merit.’

Mr L. Tan a DBS High Notes 5 investor. Yesterday, he lodged a case of mis-selling to DBS Bank

‘If you look at the words ?do the right thing’, I actually put in my blog to appeal to the MAS to do exactly that. Now that we all know that this issue is so serious – something we didn’t know before – we should now come in and say: ?Hey, we made a mistake, let’s all come together to solve this.’…I think this is a good step and of course we should help the vulnerable [investors] first. But the other people are also equally misled… although they too should have been more careful – so it’s a matter of the extent of compensation.’

Mr Tan Kin Lian, 60, the former chief executive officer of insurer NTUC Income

**
Oct 18, 2008
Swap counterparty for Minibonds programme?
By Francis Chan

THERE is good news for investors of Minibonds, a structured product linked to bankrupt US investment bank Lehman Brothers – A bank based in Hong Kong has expressed an interest to replace Lehman as the swap counterparty for all series of the Minibond programme.

Former chief executive officer of insurer NTUC Income, Mr Tan Kin Lian, shared the good news with about 600 investors who turned up at Speakers’ Corner again on Saturday to hear him speak.

Although he declined to reveal further details of the arrangement, he said the bank had approached him after learning about him from his blog.

He also said that he had already referred the Hong Kong bank to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and HSBC Trustee, which is the trustee for Minibonds.

Last week, the MAS announced that HSBC Trustee had informed the central bank that ‘a few financial institutions are currently considering taking on (the) role’ of the swap counterparty and should there be a firm offer from an appropriate party, the trustee would seek the necessary approval from investors.

On Friday, managing director of MAS, Mr Heng Swee Keat also said that the MAS expects the trustee to know whether options will be available to Minibond investors by the end of next week.

New laws that may be coming up soon in Singapore -

1. No apparels, or any other items that may or may not be worn on the body, that depict kangaroos in a legal context, kangaroos in a judge’s robe, kangaroos in a judge’s wig or kangaroos in any other related or implied legal paraphernalia will be allowed.
2. Possession of such substances will be illegal in Singapore, Sentosa, St John’s Island, Kusu Island, Sisters’ Island and Pedra Blanca and is punishable by law.
3. Any implied or non implied, assumed or perceived connection to kangaroos (that includes the whole of Australia, Australians, joeys, people named Joey) mentioned or depicted in the same context with judges (that includes lawyers, paralegals, legal secretaries, cleaners of legal firms, the aunties who washes cups) will be deemed as criminal. These lists are not exhaustive or intended to be a complete list of the prohibitions or regulations governing the protection of the Singapore judiciary.

And hor, I never knew the act of wearing tee shirts can be so powerful. Apparently, it can be a ‘deliberate and calculated course of action to impugn the reputation of and undermine public confidence in the Singapore Judiciary, and to lower its authority in the administration of justice in Singapore.‘

Power.

3 to face contempt charge
A-G says the kangaroo T-shirts they wore scandalises the judiciary.

By Goh Chin Lian, Political Correspondent

The A-G said the three men had ’scandalised the Singapore Judiciary by publicly wearing identical white T-shirts, imprinted with a palm-sized picture of a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s gown, within and in the vicinity of the New Supreme Court Building.’ — ST PHOTO: TERENCE TAN

THREE people who wore T-shirts in the Supreme Court building depicting a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s robes are being taken to court.

The Attorney-General is accusing them of scandalising the Singapore judiciary, and on Tuesday the High Court gave the go-ahead to start proceedings against the trio for contempt of court.

The accused are: Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) assistant secretary-general John Tan Liang Joo, 47, full time national serviceman Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Sariman and activist Isrizal Mohamed Isa.

They wore the T-shirts during a hearing from May 26 to 28 that involved the SDP, its chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Siok Chin, a member of SDP’s central executive committee.

The hearing before Justice Belinda Ang in Court 4B was to assess defamation damages the party and the Chees had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

Tan allegedly said ‘This is a kangaroo court’ to MM Lee when the minister walked past him outside Court 4B, said a statement on the website of the A-G Chambers on Tuesday.

In a separate statement to the media, the A-G said the three men had ’scandalised the Singapore Judiciary by publicly wearing identical white T-shirts, imprinted with a palm-sized picture of a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s gown, within and in the vicinity of the New Supreme Court Building.’

By this, they meant to imply that the Court was a kangaroo court, the AG added.

A kangaroo court is generally understood as being a court characterised by unauthorised or irregular procedures, or sham and unfair legal proceedings, said the website statement.

It also said that Tan, as the SDP’s assistant secretary-general, was also responsible for the appearance of an article, ‘Police question activists over kangaroo T-shirts’, as well as a photograph of the three men in the T-shirts on the SDP website on July 27.

‘The article and the photograph…were meant to give wider publicity to their allegation that the Court was a kangaroo court,’ said the AG website statement.

The AG accused them of engaging in a ‘deliberate and calculated course of action to impugn the reputation of and undermine public confidence in the Singapore Judiciary, and to lower its authority in the administration of justice in Singapore.’

The High Court’s approval to start contempt proceedings is the first of a two-stage process.

In the next step, the three men will be officially notified of the lawsuit, and a hearing date will be set for both sides to present their arguments in open court.

Tan and Muhammad Shafi’ie are also facing separate charges in court, with 17 others, for their involvement in an illegal assembly and march on March 15.

See now, it is the patient’s fault for not describing in detail how the injury happened – she also should have told the doctor that there might be a twig in her foot. The referral letter which said she was cut by a twig was evidently not clear enough. It’s also her fault for not going back to the very same doctor who was unable to diagnose her condition when the same foot condition worsened.

At some point, Associate Professor Eillyne Seow might want to take her foot out of her mouth when she’s done with the blame game.

I also question why she was only cited as the “Divisional Chair of Ambulatory Medicine and Diagnostic Radiology” and not the HOD of the Emergency Department, a position which she also held. After all, commenting as the HOD might seem like it was a biased attempt to cover up for the Emergency Department. Positioning herself in the media as an expert in that medical field also somewhat gives her opinion “credibility”. Interesting.

The New Paper – Ho Lian Yi (12 October 08)

TTSH: Hard to detect wood in X-rays

TAN Tock Seng hospital said Mrs Jacqueline Huang visited its Emergency Department with a referral letter indicating that she had a cut on her foot by a wooden splinter.

‘We conducted an X-ray to check for foreign objects, fracture and dislocation. As the X-ray did not show presence of any material, her wound was cleaned and dressed,’ it said.

The hospital’s Divisional Chair of Ambulatory Medicine and Diagnostic Radiology, Associate Professor Seow, said: ‘A month later when Mrs Huang returned to our emergency department with a swollen foot, we learnt that she had a wooden splinter which was not detected by the initial X-ray.

‘The detection of wood or plastic in X-rays is often limited as both materials can be hidden by overlying bones in our bodies. The rate of detection of these materials is poor especially in cases of minor injuries.

‘It would have been easier for the doctor to treat Mrs Huang if she had described in detail how her injury happened. We would have also performed a minor surgery to remove the splinter if she had come back to us when her foot condition worsened.’

It is important that patients go back to the same doctor or hospital when their condition deteriorates. This will allow doctors who are aware of their history to recommend the subsequent treatment. (more…)