Free market and the common people

Categories: Singapore

Starting a business has always been difficult. This is because one must have a sum of money before one can get started. In Singapore it is no different. Two of the most substantial recurrent cost are rental and staff salaries. Staff salary can be regulated but shop rental is different.

Housing and Development Board (HDB) used to set a fixed rental for the people. For new premise, anybody who wish to set up a business will subscribe to a balloting or 'lucky dip' system. In this way, there is a level playing field for the common people. In the older premise, such rented shop can transferred to another person who will then pay the same rental rate as set up by HDB. Of course the new tenant will have to 'compensate' the previous owner for the transfer.

However things change a few years ago when the HDB started the bidding system. In this system, those with deep pockets will have an advantage. To the common people, this add to an already big hurdle they have to clear. How are these people going to compete with the big players in bidding for a shop space? They can't compete for shops in the open private establishments. Unlike before, where the only avenue is the HDB shops, now this avenue is also closed to them. Starting a new business just got that much more difficult!

In fact now the big players can decide the fate of the common people. Whether the common people can open a business depends on the 'goodwill' of the big players. It is as if the big players are the hunter and the small common people the scavengers. Whatever is left behind by the big players, will be taken up by the small people. Luckily the large players has essentially shy away from the heartland. However when the turf gets smaller and smaller, there is nothing to stop these big players from squeezing out the small common people.

Free market is only good when the competing parties have similarly deep pockets. Once there is too much of discrepancy, the smaller player will be elbowed out of competition.

Should the government control the market again? Answer is no. The irony is that Singapore needs free market to compete internationally. On the other hand at the micro-level, such practice will put further pressure on the poorer segment of society. Starting a business becomes more and more difficult. Even those small businesses will be at the mercy of the larger controlling party. There is nothing to stop such party to increase the rental or even increase a bid for an already occupied shop space thereby displacing the original tenant.

In the attempt to narrow the widening gap between the rich and the poor, it is hoped that the government bring back the balloting system for its shop space and hawker centres. This at least will give the poor common people a chance to compete 'equally'. Otherwise, one day we may see a whole hawker centre being run by Kopitiam or Banquet. Already these once classy foodcourt establishments has slowly muscles into the heartland and there seems to be nothing the poor common people can do to stop them.

History in nation building

Categories: Malaysia

The recent furore over the use of a textbook on ethnic relations by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) have created a debate on the role of history in nation building.

In a move to promote racial harmony, public universities are required by the government to teach Ethnic Relations. Although guidelines have been issued by the government, each university is allowed to publish their own textbook. However, instead of promoting racial harmony, it caused a controversy to the extend that the de facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz called it "seditious" even as Datuk Mustapa Mohamed, the Higher Education minister defended the book.

History is a record of past events. What has happened cannot be changed. Why the need for history then? History can explain how the current environment comes about, what previous leaders had done and gone through. However, the way it is reported can be coloured by one's bias, beliefs and political leanings. Hence, the interpretation of events may not be objective or unbiased. Therefore, when presenting the history of a country, it is important that the interpretation is accurate and generally acceptable to the academia. Otherwise, history is no different from a fictional work based on a true incident.

This fact is very important in nation building especially in Malaysia. Malaysia's politics and religions are unfortunately tied to racial group. Any wrong or inaccurate interpretation of history especially those based on race is a sure way to ignite an already simmering racial unease. Hence, in nation building, the interpretation of history should be as accurate as is possible without the need to find scapegoat. What is important is to learn from past mistakes so that true nation building can be achieved.

It is good that even the academia in Malaysia opposed the 'history' as interpreted by the two UPM lectures. Some felt that if the intention of history is to understand and to promote the creation of a true Malaysian, then "Any review must therefore be collective, consultative and knowledge-based, not based on emotion."

The accurate interpretation of Malaysian history as a way to create a true Malaysian identity cannot run away from the fact that Malays, Chinese and Indians had come together and agreed upon a social contract that brought about the creation of Malaya. If the three major racial group could not agree on a social contract, the British would not have granted Malaya its independence. Hence the understanding and acceptance of the sacrifices and goodwill of the leaders that brought about our independence - Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Sambanthan - is important for the creation of the Malaysian race. If their goodwill is hijacked by any racial zealots, then the social contract would be broken and chaos will ensue.

I hope that Ethnic Relations should emphasise more on how the social contract drawn up by the pioneers are achieved. Emphasis should also be given to the contribution of each racial groups in Malaysia towards nation building, no matter how big or small. Divisive events should be relegated to the experts where facts can be discussed, not to find scapegoats but with the intention to teach. By emphasising on the importance of each community towards nation building and the goodwill and sacrifices of our leaders to achieve independence, hopefully this will remind us of the importance of each and every individual regardless of race or religion and put us back on the right track towards nation building.

Related
Making sense of the Ethnic Relations course
We still have room to find solutions
Reinforcing the positives
Historic lies in university textbook - stop "brainwashing"

Cost cutting may cost more

Categories: Singapore

This report by Today concerning how TB was spread from an in-patient of a nursing home to the nursing staff and later trying to forbid them to voice their concerns is a sad reminder of how bottom-lines can sometimes be counter-productive.

In the incident, "the use of masks and gloves was discouraged for activities like bathing, cleaning and changing patients' diapers" by the nursing staff. This was done to reduce wastage. I find this totally unacceptable.

Nursing is a dirty job. Nursing staff are required to bathe, clean up patients and changing diapers, among others. All this involve some degree of dirtiness. Wearing gloves is not only expected but a must for hygiene. How can the management refused such basic hygienic measures for its staff?

According to the senior executive officer, "it was a "no wastage project" where "we reduce as and where is necessary." Reducing wastage is certainly encouraged but it should be done with prudence and common sense. To reduce as and where necessary is certainly the right approach but it should be looked at from the point of the users. If management staff who works behind the desk wishes to use the glove to protect the the hands from getting rough or dirty; or if the nursing staff asked for more stapler so they don't have to spend time looking for one, then these should certainly be stopped. As far as using gloves and masks are concerned, this is a standard teaching as far as basic hygiene is concerned. Therefore to deny the nursing staff from using these protective gear is certainly wrong and improper.

The way the management is trying to cover up the incident is also wrong. I can understand why the management wanted to prevent the nursing staff from talking to the press. Obviously the management is afraid that the fallout from this episode will harm the image of the nursing home, if not reprimands from the Ministry. Anyone with some grey matter will tell you that goodwill is the best policy when dealing with mistakes. I am sure if the management has apologised or showed more concerned to their staff, this unfortunate incident would not have been reported and lessons that could be learned will be lost.

The nursing staffs were not upset about contracting TB from the patient. They are rightly upset about how they were not given the necessary protective gear even after the patient was diagnosed to have TB. Risk of exposure to disease comes with the job. However, if a risk is present, nursing staff should be given adequate protection to minimise the likelihood of disease spread. By so doing, the staff can give their best in their duty as they do not have to worry too much of their own safety.

This episode has reminded me of the contrasting ways SARS crisis was handled between Singapore/Hong Kong and Taiwan back in 2003. In Singapore and Hong Kong, hospital staffs were given adequate protection before they were deployed to the front line. This was in contrast with the Taiwanese, with many of the hospital staffs and relatives who were just quarantined within the hospital ground to fend for themselves without the provision of adequate personal protection. The results were clear for all to see - hospital staffs in Singapore/Hong Kong performed admirably, carried out their duty with commitment, dedication and pride; whereas those in Taiwan were seen trying to 'escape' and break the quarantine. I think the question here is not about personal integrity or commitment. It is a question of taking calculated risks.

Another lesson here is that bottom line should be achieved with common sense. It is true that everything costs money and to cut cost, use less of everything. This is too simplistic because every profession has its own peculiarities and priorities, hence sometimes administrators need to go to the ground to learn and discuss how best bottom lines can be achieved. Like this case, because of the wrong priorities and the lack of understanding of the nature of the profession, this has created health hazards, loss in work-hours and the extra cost of medical treatment and poor publicity.

Hopefully this incident would serve as a timely reminder to all medical facility administrators on the importance of common sense and priorities when trying to cut cost. This is especially pertinent with today's shadow of a possible bird flu pandemic.

Problem of lonely death

Categories: Singapore

The Today Online's report on the finding of a human skeleton in an 'abandoned' house raises the question of care for the elderly in our society.

A background to the story. National Environment Agency officers found the skeleton lying on the toilet bowl in the kitchen toilet when they carried out an investigations into complaint about mosquitoes in the area. It was later revealed that this 'abandoned' house was the home of two sisters. Whereas the whereabout of one of them is not known, the deceased was probably last seen last year. According to an ex-neighbour, the sisters generally kept to themselves and seldom mixed around.

As Singapore is greying, the likelihood of such unfortunate occurence is only getting more likely. There are a few contributory factors.

Singlehood is getting more and more common nowadays. Hence as one gets older, there is no one to take care of them. The luckier ones have siblings and friends but this can not be relied upon. Some will go to old folks home but currently old folks home is still a taboo in our society. Hence a lot of singles will live out their lives alone creating a potential for lonely death.

Even those who got married are having less and less children. Some opted for only one child. When the child grows up, he may be working overseas leaving the old folks at home. If only one is around, there may not be anyone who can look after the remaining one. This effect can be lessen with the availability of maids.

As Singapore is getting more global, more and more are working in multi-national companies. Hence there is greater likelihood for Singaporeans to be transferred to other countries as part of their job options. This may leave the old folk alone at home. The situation is worsen if they have only one child.

Nuclear family is a norm nowadays with parents tending to stay on their own. Sometimes there is minimal communications between the child and the parent. As a result, if anything happens, the children may not know what happened until it is too late.

How can this problem be reduced? Certainly in Singapore context, there are always maids available. However this only applies to those who can afford it. For those who can't afford it, there must be other solutions.

In Henderson estate, the RC has installed an emergency panic button which will alert somebody so that help can be accessed. All the old folk have to do is to pull a cord and help will be available. This is a very good method for those who refuses to stay in old folks home. It is also cheaper than hiring a live-in maid. However using this system, there must be volunteers in the same area who will look into the old folks when an alarm is sounded.

Having more subsidised old folks home is another possible solution. However this alone may not solve the problems because of poor perception of such homes. Such perceptions have to be changed so that those without any next-of-kin may move to such homes where care and friendship is available.

Another hurdle to counter is the lack of information on old folks home for those who are not well-versed. Even if they wanted to, if they are ignorant of where to go and what to do, these old folks may be left in the lurch. The challenge here is how to reach out to such old folks so that help can be rendered. Thankfully, this may be less of a problem as society becomes more informed with the rising standards of education.

Neighbours are also important in this respect. Having good neighbourliness can be helpful in times of emergency. At least there is someone who can raised the alarm if he sense something is wrong. However neighbourliness nowadays is something that is seen less and less. This is partly blamed on the busy schedules we live our lives and is unfortunate. In the reported case, a neighbour actually called the police last year after he sensed that something was wrong when he had not seen the occupants for sometime; but unfortunately the case was followed up completely.

As the population is aging, there is a greater challenge for the society to look after itself. Decrease in family size and the trend towards globalisation means that more and more old folks will have to fend for themselves. Until and unless some solutions are found, this incident unfortunately will not be the last.

Compromised justice?

Categories: Singapore

Today reported that the courts will no longer wait for big name litigation lawyers to fit a case into their packed schedules. This was stated by CJ Chan in an interview published by a magazine by Singapore Academy of Law. Chief among the reasons is to increase the efficiency of the Law Courts. An indirect effect of this ruling is the spreading out of litigation cases especially to the younger lawyers.

The CJ has a good reason for the change. Currently, cases got postponed because lawyers were too busy with a packed schedule, causing cases to be postponed sometimes up to 9 months. This make the court inefficient and cases got dragged on longer than it should reasonably be. However a 'fallout' of this ruling is that such big names lawyers are unable to take further cases, thus denying litigants a chance to hire what they deemed as the best lawyers. The CJ accepted this and was quick to add that "but it may very well be that others are just as good, if given the chance to demonstrate it."

But is the real need to increase efficiency of the Courts be made at the expense of justice? In our society, justice is based on facts and also to how well these facts are presented and how persuasive the lawyers are. Sometimes a case is won because of a very persuasive lawyers. Such lawyers are good because of years of training and experience. Therefore it is not surprising that big names lawyers get bigger with bigger and more serious cases fought. A younger lawyer maybe good academically but still lack the persuasive power or the sharpness of mind that is associated with years of experience. Hence it is not surprising that the outcome of a case maybe different if handled by different lawyers. Because of this, by implementing such measure, is justice served?

I was even more alarm when the CJ said that "What is also happening is that where counsel from a big firm appears against counsel from a small firm, the chances are that the former is better prepared than the latter, if only because he has more resources at his command." This is precisely the reason why litigants employ lawyers from big firms because of the resources available, not to mention the well-grind and experience lawyers. Because facts has to be presented in Court, the more facts one can present, the better the outcome for him. This should be ultimate standard the Court should base its verdict on and not on how persuasive a lawyer can be. If a litigant is even denied this basic right to hire a lawyer with large resources at his disposal, is this a denial of justice?

One of the positive outcome of this decision is the spreading out of cases to younger lawyers. I am not sure whether this was one of the intended outcome but the CJ certainly spoke positively about this. I find this as akin to an 'affirmative' action. Don't get me wrong. I am all for help for the 'small' people. However in this case, apart from financial might, this is as level a playing field as can be. If you are good, you excel. By having to fight tooth and nail also, makes one a better lawyer, able to sharpened the mind and grow with the experience. It is true that if most cases go to the big firms, these lawyers will not have the necessary clientele to improve. This argument is somewhat flawed because even the big firms employ young lawyers. Therefore the door is not entirely closed to young lawyers, just that much tougher.

Whatever the reasons for the change, the CJ certainly has a good reason - to increase the efficiency of the Courts. If a positive outcome is a more level playing field for younger lawyers, without any compromise in justice, then this change should be supported wholeheartedly. This process will enhance the renewal process so that when big names lawyers retire, there will not be any vacuum created resulting in a drop in the legal standings of the country.

PS: I am not a lawyer and receive no renumeration in voicing my concerns other than for upholding the standard of justice.

What next for Badawi-Mahathir's confrontations

Categories: Malaysia

Now that the Badawi administration had declassified some official documents pertaining to the discussions of the scrapped Scenic Bridge, a full scale war with Tun Mahathir had been declared. Somebody is bound to be hurt whatever the outcome. Will the release of these documents placate Tun?

It depends on what the reasons behind Tun are. If his outburst is because he felt slighted that his legacy had been slowly dismantled then Tun is an angry man indeed. In his later years he had build many buildings, like the international airport (KLIA), the Twin Towers and the administrative capital of Putrajaya. Maybe it was an attempt to revitalise the economy; but maybe it is an attempt to immortalise his contribution to the country. When the Badawi administration took over, his emphasis had been towards the upgrading of the rural areas, and as a result he started to halt the building of such grand structures and channel the money to the rural areas. Because of the style by which Tun has governed, he see this as an attack on him. From a man who is not adversed to a challenged, this is the predicted results.

When Tun Mahathir announced the building of the crooked bridge, he proudly announced that Malaysia does not need the agreement of Singapore if it wants to demolish and replace the Causeway in its territorial waters. Therefore from day one, Tun has already stake his reputation and pride on the building of the bridge. As a result when the building of the bridge was called off, his pride has been dented. When a person's pride and reputation had been tarnish, it is more difficult for him to accept any explanation contrary to his belief. If this is the reason for the outburst, then I am sure the Mahathir-Badawi confrontation will linger until and unless one party has fallen.

There were rumours that Tun was upset because his son was by-passed in the last UMNO general election in favour of Badawi's son-in-law. How true the rumour is, is anybody's guess, but Tun did fire his salvo towards Badawi's son-in-law. If this is true, then probably Tun is only making things difficult for Badawi so that his administration will falter, resulting in his ouster as party leader. With Badawi out of the way, Tun's son can mount a challenge on a more equal footing. In this scenario, Tun will only be placated once Badawi's popularity and power base has been eroded.

If Tun really felt that Badawi has erred and truely has a case to answer, then once all Tun's queries had been successfully rebutted, he will accept the explanation and go back to his retirement. However, knowing Tun's personality, it may not be easy to satisfy him and the controversy will linger on for sometime more.

The controversy may be just a front created by Tun for Badawi to show some respect for Tun. After Badawi took office, he had cancelled some of Tun Mahathir's mega-projects. This, to Tun may be a sign of disrespect. Tun may have created this controversy with the hope that Badawi will answer to him, like before, just to show that Tun is still in 'power'. Badawi has thus far refuses to address Tun personally and this may have cause Tun's criticisms to be more harsh and personal. Maybe all this disputes will just end if Badawi made a personal visit to Tun to trash out the problems, like what many UMNO leaders had suggested.

Now with an open war being declared, what next? This will surely depends on who is the eventual winner.

If Badawi win, he will have the mandate of UMNO and the moral authority to govern Malaysia anyway he likes. His son-in-law Khairy's position will also be stronger within UMNO and his ascend within the ranks of UMNO will surely be smoother.

However if he loses, Badawi will have lost the strong mandate given to him in the last general election. Tun will have gained a higher moral authority and will be the guardian of sorts to the government, effectively making him governing Malaysia by proxy. With UMNO National Assembly coming soon, surely this will affect Badawi's position as the President of UMNO. Najib's supporters may be in a hurry to promote him to take over as he will be seen as the stronger leader especially after he was publicly named by Tun as the first choice candidate when he was to name his successor.

The stakes are bigger for Tun. If he loses, his whole premiership and policy-making will come into question. He will be seen as someone who is autocratic who bulldozed everything through so as to achieve his vision, regardless of legality. Already Tajudin has accused him and Zaim of 'coercion' when he bought into MAS, allegedly an effort to keep the central bank afloat after a disastrous investment outcome. Maybe Tun has already felt the heat when he claimed that Badawi's government will falsely accuse him as a way to get back at him in this ongoing controversy.

However if the is no winner, with the constant badgering of the Badawi's government. Tun may risk sounding like a broken record, always harping on the same old issues despite explanations by the government. In the event, he may lose the respect of UMNO and most Malaysians. He may even played into the hands of the Oppositions. Already Badawi has hinted that he is 'truer' UMNO than Tun because he had never spoken on an opposition platform. Tun apparently spoke on a PAS platform after he was expelled from UMNO by Tunku.

Whatever the outcome, both parties will come out bruised. ln the short term, only personal pride will be dented. In the long run, however, it is the country that will suffer. The government cannot run efficiently if it has to address Tun's charges at every turn. The open confrontations may also be worrisome to potential investors, who may place their money elsewhere. In the end it is the people's, especially that of UMNO's, acceptance of the explanation that is important. If the people decides that Badawi has won the case, then Tun's voice will get softer and softer.

Press Statement on Declassified Documents Pertaining to the Crooked Bridge

Categories: Malaysia


PRESS STATEMENT ON DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CROOKED BRIDGE

The Government has declassified several relevant confidential documents and extracts to allow Malaysians to understand why it has reached the decision to abort the bridge project to replace the Johor Causeway.

And in doing so, it has put the record straight on a string of allegations raised by the former Prime Minister, YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, namely that:

- The Singapore government accepted Malaysia's proposal to build a crooked bridge.
- The bridge was not part of the package of outstanding bilateral issues.
- Malaysia is a“half past six country with no guts” by not going ahead with the crooked bridge project.
- Malaysia put the issue of selling sand and allowing the Republic of Singapore Airforce to use its air space on the negotiating table.

This is only the second time in recent history that information protected by the Official Secrets Act 1972 has been declassified and approved for public consumption – an indication of the Government's seriousness in wanting the people who voted it into power to have the full facts, so that they can appreciate why the Government decided to abort the bridge project.

In the package of documents released are correspondences between Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and two of Singapore's former prime ministers, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and Mr. Goh Chok Tong.

Also made public are extracts of the record of the meeting between Prime Minister Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Mr. Goh Chok Tong in Kuala Lumpur in March 2005.

The contents of these documents contain three key facts:
1. Discussions with Singapore on the airspace issue are not new and were not mooted by the current Government under Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad himself included this issue as a trade-off and as part of the package of issues to be resolved with Singapore during negotiations from 1998 to 2002. This is evident from Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's letter to Senior Minister Mr. Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002.

This same issue was raised by Senior Minister Mr. Goh Chok Tong during a meeting with Abdullah on March 1 2005.

This fact nullifies the suggestion by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad that it was the present administration that offered RSAF jets use of Malaysian airspace.

2. The sale of sand to Singapore was raised by the Republic during a meeting between Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Abdullah Badawi and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on March 1 2005.

This nullifies argument that the Government put the issue on sand on the negotiating table.

3. Comprehensive advice by the Attorney General’s Chambers showed that Malaysia should not proceed to build a bridge unilaterally without complying with our legal obligations.

In particular, Malaysia had obligations under the Johor-Singapore water agreements 1961 and 1962, the Wayleave Agreements and the Separation Agreement 1965.

The main obstacle was that the construction of the crooked bridge will involve the demolition of the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway. The said demolition would directly affect the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway and water pipelines straddling the Johor Causeway in which the ownership thereof vests with the Public Utilities Board of Singapore.

The Attorney General’s Chambers also stated that under the 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore Water Agreements, “Malaysia is required to obtain approval of PUB in relation to the alteration of water pipelines as a result of the construction of a full straight bridge or a scenic half bridge.”

The 1961 and 1962 Johor-Singapore Water Agreements are guaranteed under the 1965 Separation Agreement. The water pipelines located inside the Johor Causeway is governed by the 1961 Johor Singapore Water Agreement.

Therefore, the provisions of the Wayleave Agreements which is applicable to the water pipelines straddling along the Johor Causeway is not applicable to the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway.

These facts nullify the allegation that the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway could be relocated unilaterally after giving six months notice to Singapore.

Taking into consideration these facts, the present Government had to make a firm decision to reject Singapore’s quid-pro-quo proposal on sand and airspace as it would have compromised Malaysia’s national sovereignty.

It had to make the political decision to abort the bridge project as this was consistent with the sentiment of Malaysians and the interest of Malaysia.

In conclusion, the issue boils down to one simple fact – Malaysia wanted the bridge, and Singapore did not want it.

The full straight bridge that was proposed by Malaysia would have been a symbol of friendship and would have benefited both countries. Nevertheless, the responsibility for achieving this aim does not lie with Malaysia only.

Note: Please refer to Appendix A for further information.



*****
APPENDIX A
Former Prime Minister, YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has raised several allegations on the Government’s decision to abort building a bridge to replace the Johor Causeway.

Below, the Government sets out facts and sketches the historical backdrop in which this decision was reached:

The Allegation: That the Singapore Government accepted Malaysia’s proposal to build a crooked bridge to replace the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway.

The Facts: On March 4 2002, Tun Dr. Mahathir wrote a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew regarding Malaysia’s proposal on the package of outstanding bilateral issues.

Among other things, he proposed to build a new bridge on the Malaysian side at its own cost while Singapore would build the bridge on the Singapore side at its own cost. Once the bridge was completed, the Johor Causeway would be demolished.

Tun Dr. Mahathir further proposed that if Singapore did not build a bridge on its side, Malaysia intended to build a bridge on its side. Once this bridge was completed, the Johor Causeway on the Malaysian side would be demolished.

On April 11 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong replied and agreed, although his preference was for a full bridge.

However, that proposal was made in the context of the package approach for the outstanding bilateral issues which would be further discussed at ministerial and senior officials’ level.

On October 7 2002, Tun Dr. Mahathir informed Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that Malaysia had decided to discontinue discussions on the outstanding bilateral issues as a package and to give the highest priority to resolving the long delayed water issue, particularly the price review of raw water supplied to Singapore.

This move came because there appeared to be no agreement in resolving the issues as a package.

On October 14 2002, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong agreed to discontinue discussions on the outstanding bilateral issues as a package.
Singapore withdrew its agreement on the crooked-bridge in the context of the package and stated that its earlier agreement to the bridge project was now not applicable.

Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong wrote: “… I had been prepared to make concessions in varying the Points of Agreement (POA) with extra pieces of land, allowing early withdrawal of Central Provident Fund (CPF) deposits and building our part of the bridge to replace the Causeway at our expense, as trade offs, so that you give us airspace and future water at a fair price… Since you now want to deal with the water issue separately and discontinue the package approach, these trade offs are no longer possible.”

In effect, this letter signalled a return to a status quo position. Prime Minister Goh’s statement was not challenged by Tun Dr. Mahathir. In fact, there was no reply to Prime Minister Goh’s letter by Tun Dr. Mahathir.

Singapore reiterated its position in a diplomatic note on November 29, 2004 while the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) Complex in Bukit Chagar was being built.

It said: “ … These negotiations on a package basis were unilaterally terminated by the then Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on 7 October 2002.”

With the termination of the negotiations on the package of issues, Singapore’s agreement for the construction of the crooked-bridge no longer exists.

Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that Singapore accepted Malaysia proposal to build a crooked bridge within its own territory. Singapore’s acceptance for Malaysia to build a crooked bridge was at most a reluctant acceptance based on the package approach.


*****
The Allegation: That the letter from Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong on April 11 2002 was the final commitment by the republic on the bridge proposal by Malaysia.

The Facts: During negotiations between the two countries, there was an understanding that any proposal would not become final unless it was concluded in an agreement signed by leaders of Malaysia and Singapore.

This was explained in a letter by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew to then Minister of Special Functions & Minister of Finance, Tun Daim Zainuddin on August 24 2000.

The letter read: “To make it easier for us to write to each other, to test various options, all notes or letters I send to you or Mahathir, or vice-versa, will be treated as Without Prejudice: that there is no agreement until all points are agreed and signed by the two PMs.”

Conclusion: It is incorrect to say that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had given a commitment on the bridge in his letter on April 11 2002. There was no signed agreement between the PMs of Malaysia and Singapore on building the bridge.


*****
The Allegation: That the bridge was not part of the package of bilateral issues.

The Facts: At first, the outstanding package of issues only covered four areas – water, Central Provident Fund, airspace and the relocation of KTM’s CIQ complex in Singapore. This was agreed to by both countries in Hanoi on December 27 1998.

But later, the bridge project was inserted into the package of issues. Tun Dr. Mahathir did so in a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002 and the bridge issue became one of five issues in the package titled “MALAYSIA-SINGAPORE PACKAGE OF FIVE ISSUES – MALAYSIA’S PROPOSALS”

Conclusion: The bridge became part of the package of unresolved bilateral issues as a result of Tun Dr. Mahathir’s letter.


*****
The Allegation: That the government’s decision to abort the bridge project will cause billions of ringgit in losses.

The Facts: The total cost of building the CIQ, the crooked bridge and the new KTM line across the Johor Straits was RM2.379 billion.

At this moment, the Government is still working out compensation payment to Gerbang Perdana Sdn Bhd. But the fact is that the decision to abort the bridge was not an economic decision.

Once it became clear that Malaysia could not build the bridge unilaterally or accede to Singapore’s requests, calling off the plan to build the bridge was the most financially responsible decision to make.

Conclusion: It would not have been advisable to spend RM1.13 billion on a structure and be stuck in limbo over its use.


*****
The Allegation: That Malaysia is a “half past six country with no guts” by calling off the bridge project.

The Facts: Simply put, the Government had to make the right decision, taking into account the interest of Malaysians. It revisited the unilateral proposal by Tun Dr. Mahathir to build the crooked bridge but came to a finding that this was not an ideal solution.

A crooked bridge is not a legacy to leave for future Malaysians. In coming to its decision to abort the bridge project, the Government studied not only the Wayleave Agreements but also the Johor-Singapore Water Agreements 1961 and 1962, the Separation Agreement 1965 and took into consideration advice by the Attorney General’s Chambers.

This is what the Attorney General’s Chambers said: “ … the construction of the scenic half bridge to replace the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway must be studied in a holistic manner in view of the fact that the scenic half bridge would have international legal implications in particular environmental impact to Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor.

“Apart from the above, the construction of the scenic half bridge will involve the demolition of the Malaysian side of the Johor Causeway. The said demolition would directly affect the water pipeline located inside the Johor Causeway and water pipelines straddling the Johore Causeway. In this regard, legal implications thereof would have to be studied based on the 1961 and 1962, Johor-Singapore Water Agreements, Wayleave Agreements and Separation Agreement 1965.

“Malaysia as a sovereign and independent state has complete power and authority over its territory and in exercising the said power and authority, no other state may interfere with its affairs. Nevertheless Malaysia cannot take unilateral action without taking into consideration international law principles and requirements, amongst others, taking into account the rights and interests of its neighbouring states.”

Conclusion: With so much uncertainly, it made sense for the Government to take a step back and do the right thing.

Running the government is not about scoring points or engaging in brinkmanship. It is about weighing the pros and cons and reaching a decision that is good for Malaysia.


*****
The Allegation: That Malaysia offered its airspace and sand to Singapore.

The Facts: The issue of allowing use of Malaysian airspace has been on the negotiating table between 1998 and 2002.

Tun Dr. Mahathir himself inserted this issue in a letter to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew on March 4 2002.

He offered it as a trade-off during negotiations on the package of unresolved issues. With the de-packaging of the bilateral issues, the proposal made by Tun Dr. Mahathir is no longer relevant.

Singapore used to enjoy five flight privileges until 1998. It sought all those rights to be re-inserted but the Government of the day was only prepared to offer Search and Rescue and the Northern Transit Corridor rights on terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon.

The rights of Search and Rescue was offered on the basis of reciprocity and is consistent with international practice. As for Northern Transit Corridor, it only allows RSAF jets to transit over the South China Sea. The jets will not be allowed to roam the Malaysian airspace.

Conclusion: The use of Malaysian airspace was raised by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong during a meeting with Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on March 1 2005 in Putrajaya.

Singapore said that this issue was of importance to them and said that it would make selling the bridge idea to Singapore more palatable.

Remember, as far as the Republic was concerned, it did not see the need for a bridge to replace the Causeway. It wanted something in return for agreeing to the bridge deal and requested for sand and the use of airspace.

But once it became clear that the Malaysian public was strongly opposed to selling any sand or allowing RSAF jets to use its airspace, the government moved firmly and made the only acceptable decision – it aborted the plan to build the bridge.

Going ahead to satisfy the two conditions the Republic put forward would have meant going against the wishes of many Malaysians.

The Government has always stated that its decision is a political decision, based on the sentiments, sovereignty and integrity of the people of Malaysia.


PRIME MINISTER'S DEPARTMENT
PUTRAJAYA

Wealth does not equate happiness

Categories: Singapore

A UK-based think-tank, New Economics Foundations had published the the Happy Planet Index (HPI) which attempts to log the progress of nations based on amount of resources used compared to the length and happiness of people's lives. Singapore was ranked 131 out of 178 countries. This is the worst within ASEAN. Vietnam, the best within ASEAN is ranked 12. Malaysia is ranked 40.

The HPI was created with the aim to "address the relative success or failure of countries in supporting good life for their citizens, whilst respecting the environmental resource limits upon which our lives depend." It shows the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet's natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens. The nations that top the Index aren't the happiest places in the world, but the nations that score well show that achieving, long, happy lives without over-stretching the planet's resources is possible. The HPI is calculated based on official figures on life expectancy, an index of people's happiness and the ecological footprint.

This HPI is timely because the world is facing a crunch on resources. Our way of live, with its excesses and mainly destructive in nature, cannot be maintained forever. While other indices measure success based on wealth and GDP, which unfortunately seemed unfriendly ecologically, this index attempts to show that success can also be measured in an ecologically-friendly way.

The results is quite revealing. The most developed country, US, only ranked a dismal 171. Japan, most advanced economy in Asia only ranked 153. In contrast, Vanuatu, a tiny island in the Pacific, ranked number 1. This is despite Vanuatu's per capita GDP of US$2900 as compared to US's US$41000. This show that although wealth is important, it is not the key to happiness. Wealth can bring you a lot of things but not quite the happiness we all aim for. Two of the richest man, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, had aptly demonstrated that money is not everything when they pledge their money for charity.

Another conclusion is that the more you have the more you want to have and that means the less happy you tend to be. This may explain why Vanuatu's people are happy with their simple life. To borrow a word from the Buddha, craving does not necessarily bring more happiness, but distress and discontent. This is aptly seen in the modern world where people are materialistics. The more possession one has, the more one wants. However when what is craved for is in possession, then the next craving starts, a never ending circle.

Great infrastructure at the expense of the environment is not the only way to a fulfil happy life. Great pleasure and happiness can be had by just enjoying the natural beauty of the environment. Every tree has its beauty. Even the simply dragon fly has its place in beauty.

No matter how revealing and how much approval is given to the HPI, it is important to note about the deficiencies of this index. By using the life expectancy as an indicator, there is an assumption that longer life span is an indicator of good well-being. This may not necessarily be true. Life satisfaction also does not equate happiness, because "you maybe satisfied with your pay but you may not be happy with it."

Such 'minor' details aside, the HPI is a useful tool to highlight the fact that one can be happy or at least satisfied without the need of a lot of money or at the expense of natural resources. I hope that the HPI will be published at the same time other economic indices are published so that the people can be made to realise that there is another aspect to life's happiness.

Links:
The Independent
Happy Index Map
World Changing

Football World Cup - a look back

Categories: Wormie Says

With World Cup football just concluded and the trophy being won by Italy, life should be back to normal. My own prediction was wrong and I am sure I am not the only one. While now is the time to catch up on sleep, be 're-united' with family and get re-acquainted with friends, here is a look back at this grand event.

For the first time, previous soccer greats, participated in the opening ceremony which was held on June 9. Amongst them were Pele of Brazil and Maradona of Argentina. Looking at them, reminded me of the very different paths each has taken since stardom. Pele, who lead the Brazilian team to 3 World Cup successes had kept to a clean and normal life, never letting his success goes to his head. He later was appointed the Sports Minister of Brazil. On the other hand, Maradona, who shot to fame in the 1982 Spain World Cup tournament, was consumed by his fame, leading him into alcoholism and drug addiction. Although both individual started their football career at age of 16, why has similar fame brought about such different end results? Could a person's temperament be a contributing factor? Maradona has short tempers as seen in the football field, with red cards for dangerous play not alien to him, whereas Pele was largely on the receiving end.

The South Korean-France match, brought back memories of the 2002 Korea/Japan World Cup. The reason why the South Korean reached the semifinal then was because of their motivation. No doubt their Dutch coach, Guus Hiddink should take some of the credit for their incredible run. However looking at the way they played, one realised that they were very motivated, chasing for every ball for the whole ninety minutes of play. Not many countries can pride themselves with such achievement. Of course, home ground advantage and nationalism plays a crucial part. In the game against France this time round, again the South Koreans displayed similar motivation. The South Koreans had shown that motivation and hard work can bring you far. Maybe sportmen from our countries can learn from them in their quest for sport excellence.
Although first-timer Togo fared poorly in this tournament, they can hold their heads high for their good and spirited performance on the field. However off field is a different matter. There were threats to boycott the game over unpaid bonuses. What distress me is not the unpaid bonus but rather the amount. In a country where the per capita income is less than US$1000, the demand for a bonus of US$199000 each to play and US$38,000 for each win and half for each draw is definitely too much. It is true that most of the players are playing in European clubs and hence earn a handsome sum, but they should not use these salaries as a benchmark for their own country. I think that the chance to play for the country is a good enough reward, for their names will be forever be recorded in their country's history. I cannot fathom what they were thinking when they were dribbling the ball towards the goal or when trying to stop opponent's attack. Is it money or national pride? How are they going to answer for those few fans who supported them and their country at their own expense? I am also curious as to who came up with such exorbitant prize money for a country which is ranked 137 in terms of world GDP.

The infamous game between US and Italy saw 3 red cards being shown - 2 to US and 1 to Italy. Here the differences in philosophy of both countries is clear. US glorified and rationalised their 'robust' play when goalkeeper Kasey Keller said: "These guys bled for our country and our team". Probably the events in Iraq was on his mind when he said those words. The coach, Bruce Arena, blamed the Uruguayan referee Jorge Lorrionda, as have lost control and "referees are not according the Americans the same respect that they gives to big soccer powers like Italy." This is in stark contrast to Italy who confessed to Daniele de Rossi's elbow strike against Brian McBride's left eye which literally drew blood, as in excusable. This sentiments were also echoed by Italian's newspaper. When will the Americans realised that sports is unlike war and there is such a thing as sportsmanship.

This tournament also saw many 'foreign born' players playing for their adopted country. The most prominent must surely be Birchall, the only white player for Trinidad and Tobago. Although he was born in England, he represented Trinidad and Tobago because his mother was born in Port of Spain, its capital. Before his inclusion, he had never set foot in the country he is now playing for. Other less dramatic examples are Petit of Portugal and Alessandro Santos of Japan. The traditional demarcation based on citizenship now seemed rather artificial. Players with certain skill were accepted. This is very different from being born into a country because then one will have to go through the same path as any other native. So for all intent and purposes, these 'migrant' are as native as can be. Christopher Birchall would never have represented Trinidad and Tobago had he been named to the English team. Santos migrated to Japan 4 years ago because he knew that he would not make the Brazilian team. Therefore it can be seen that the football prowess based on the traditional views of a nation no longer holds true. This 'foreign' effect is thankfully diluted because football is a team game of eleven players, otherwise we may have countries like Singapore holding the trophy overnight!

The game's unfortunate quarter-final encounter between Germany and Argentina needed the dreaded spot-kick to settle the tie. However this unfortunate event turn out to be display of fine sportmanship as shown by Oliver Kahn. He was the goalkeeper who played in the last World Cup and won the Yashin Award for top goalkeeper, a recognition for his splendid performance. In this tournament, however, Jens Lehmann was chosen over him. This had created a degree of displeasure from Kahn and some animosity towards Lehmann. Just 5 days before this quarter-final game, he again expressed his displeasure when he said he would never accept Klinsmann's decision to replace him with Arsenal's Jens Lehmann as the country's number one keeper and that Klinsmann owed him an explanation. However in a show of sportsmanship, Kahn hug Lehmann after Germany won the penalty shoot-out which saw Lehmann saved 2 penalty shots. He was also seen giving advice to Lehman before the shootout. Whatever misgivings Kahn had of Lehmann had obviously been put aside, only the admiration and appreciation of the skill displayed prevailed. This is sportsmanship at its best.

Following the loss of the Argentinians to the Germans, there was a fracas involving players from both sides. Although this took place after the official games, it was caught on camera. FIFA had decided to take actions on those involved. German Torsten Frings was suspended as a result. What is memorable about this incident is what was aptly said by FIFA President Blatter to the players: "You must not only know how to win but also how to loose."

The finals between Italy and France will probably be remembered because of the 'butt head' incident. Zidane, the French captain, seemed to have lost his cool and butt his head against the chest of Italian defender Materazzi after the later said something to him. We will never know the truth about the incident. However a player of his caliber and his maturity, Zidane should have shown more restraint. Yes he may have been provoked, but that did not give him the right to retaliate. If this incident happen with Wayne Rooney, it is probably more understandable. Because of this incident, Zidane unfortunately will be remembered more for the 'butt head' incident than for his illustrious past. What a way to end a carrier.

A saving grace was when he was voted the winner of, and to the dismay of FIFA, the Golden Ball, despite the red card he received for the head butt incident. This has make a mockery of the award. How can a person who lacks discipline be voted as the most outstanding player? How is he going to explain to the millions of children who will look up to him for their inspirations?

The team I like best in this tournament must surely be Germany. They have displayed commitment and professionalism in their play. They play cleanly and sportingly without the rough tackling and the diving theatrics of the other teams. Unfortunately they did not win the Fair Play which was won jointly by Brazil and Spain.

As usual the referees got the brunt of the blame for any outcome of a game. This unfortunately has always been part of the game and is to be expected. After all these officials are only human and human are not infallible. I guess what is important is the consistency on the part of the referees. Similar offences must be treated similarly, so that the players know exactly where the line is drawn. There had been calls to use video technology to resolve ambiguous fouls, but this had so far been turned down. I guess this is an European traits, where tradition is more important than change, even if there are faults in the traditions. Surely, the most uncalled for and inexcusible mistake must have been committed by Graham Poll of England, who showed Croatia's Josip Simunic three yellow cards during their final group game against Australia before flashing the red. This incident was later nicknamed 'the hattrick'!

The likelihood of a drawn game increases as the tournament progresses. Out of the 48 games in the group round, only 10 game ended in a draw (20%); whereas from the round of 16 till finals there were 5 drawn games out of 15 at end of regular time (33%). Is this because after the group rounds, the teams took less risks because of knock-out format? Or is this an indication that the teams were more evenly matched? It is sad to see good teams being knocked out based on penalty kicks which is very much based on luck.

This World Cup had been very interesting because the hot favourates were defeated leaving predictions wide open as to who the ultimate champions will be. In 4 years's time, a new chapter will be written in the history of FIFA for the game will be host by South Africa, the first time it will be held in Africa. Although hiccups are expected, nonetheless it should bring hope and pride to the people of Africa.

Can pei du mama problem be curtailed?

Categories: Singapore

The PRC Chinese pei du mama (study mama) demonstration outside their Embassy two days ago demanding that they be allowed to work certainly raised eyebrows. Pei du mama, are mothers who accompanied their children to study in Singapore. The rules are clear - they are not allowed to work in their first year here, but after that they are allowed to work in any job except in massage parlours, bars and karaoke lounges, food stalls or as domestic maids. Despite this, it is not hard to see such study mamas working in shops fronting as massage parlour. Things changed after the police tightened the rules, coinciding with the murder of a study mama in a massage parlour here known to give 'extra' services. This was what had prompted the demonstration two days ago.

The rules were in placed since 2003, but why are there study mamas still working in massage parlour? Various reasons were cited. Often heard are claimes of unscrupulous study mamas agents. They either tricked them into believing that they can work in Singapore or never tell them the whole truth. The study mamas's poor comprehension in English did not help either as official documents are in English. Since they don't have much skill other than being a masseur, they cannot work in jobs allowed by government and only options left to them are the massage parlours. Some came here because of the 'promise' of a good life in Singapore from other study mamas. Often these are friends and relatives; of course the whole story wasn't told.

From news reports it seems strange that a lot of these study mamas said they were tricked into coming to Singapore. True some of them are duped by unscrupulous travel agent, but I find it strange that such bad experiences were not conveyed to their family members. Maybe by exposing their bad experiences, they may 'loose face'; but by not revealing the truth, they are only doing their compatriots a disservice. These false pretences and falsehoods must have elevated an already unsubstantiated high expectations about study mamas' life in Singapore. Hopefully the good that come out from this demonstration is to highlight the less than rosy study mamas' life in Singapore.

Whatever the reasons for their coming to Singapore, should they expected to be able to work here? I find this idea ludicrious because the main, if not the only reason, for their coming here is to take care of their children who is studying here. Any chance to work should be viewed as a privilege. I can understand the need to work because of boredom at home, just like any housewife in Singapore. And it is not as if there are no work for them to do. I have seen many working as cleaner in food courts, some giving tuitions. Why some of them demand to work in massage parlour fronting as a vice-den is beyond me.

Is there a solution to this study mamas' problem? Maybe there are.

If the problem is due to less-than-honest agents, why not accredit these agents working from China? The government has successfully protected the people from bird flu by only importing fowls from accredited farms in Malaysia. So similarly, this scheme probably can be implemented as well. As these Chinese agents work with counterparts in Singapore, the noose can be further tightened if the Singapore agents are regulated and held accountable for any proven mislead by their Chinese counterparts. This way potential study mamas and Singapore's own reputations can also be protected.

One of the ways to reduce the dependancy on study mamas agent is to enable potential study mamas to understand official documents. Hence, have official documents written in Mandarin for the benefits of this group of people. Further when a study visa is given to their children and their study mamas, these rules can be further re-inforced with further pamphlets in Mandarin highlighting the restrictions. This way, no study mamas can claim ignorance.

The government can also set up government-run hostels targeting these foreign students. Such hostels is regimented, with time to study, play and leisure. This way study mamas can be reassured that their children are in good hands. This may alleviate the need for real study mamas from accompanying their children to stay in a foreign land and suffer the prejudices brought about by a handful of their 'lesser' compatriots who are ever ready to provide special services in shops fronting as massage parlours, who give 'generously' to anyone able to pay the highest price, who are fast to disrobe just for a few bucks, and who have no qualms to be in a relationship as a third party.

To make such hostels even more attractive, the duration of stay for study mamas maybe curtailed to specific duration - longer visa for children of younger age group and short visa for the bigger kids. The durations can range from say, one to three years, so that ample time can be given for the child to adjust to the environment here and for the parent to make arrangements for their children's future stay.

I am not against the idea of study mamas and I do sympathise with the real study mamas who cannot find work of their choice. It is the demands by some so-called study mamas that irks me. When their male compatriots can toil away under the hot sun in the constructions industry, why do these 'study mamas' demand that they be allowed to work in vice dens fronting as massage parlours? Like a lady PRC Chinese friend of mine said: there are money to be made in Singapore as long as you work hard, there is no need for one to choose the easy way out and degrade herself! I can't agree more.

Non-Muslims have less risk of HIV/AIDS?

Categories: Malaysia

Muslim couples in all States will soon have to undergo compulsory HIV/AIDS screening before they can marry. This was reported by the 5th July edition of New Straits Times. Although such ruling is welcome, it has however raised some questions.

Premarital sex is now common, given the ample opportunities for couples to be together. Therefore if anyone is inflicted with HIV/AIDS, he/she would have passed his/her disease to the partner even before marriage. Hence, a screening test before marriage maybe too late. Despite this, because of the counselling given as follow-up, there is some merit in this move although not the intended one.

The target population for the screening test and the reasons behind the move - part of measures being introduced to curb the spread of the disease - certainly raised eyebrows. The majority of Malaysians are Muslims and almost all are Malay. Is this target population chosen based on demographics or politics? If it is based on demographics, then screening test may not be the ideal way to curb the spread of disease. Education, inculcating some discipline, and strengthening religious beliefs would probably be more appropriate as the strength of character can better able to withstand temptations. If such measures succeed, then the screening test becomes irrelevant because the risk factors - intravenous drug use and promiscuity - would be minimised, hence the risk of spread.

What about the other segment of the society? Are Christians, Buddhist and believer of other faiths less likely to get HIV/AIDS? I hope and believe that this is not true. If this is so, why aren't they included in the premarital screening test? Although religious teachers may frowned on inter-racial relationship, the truth is, it happens. Love and lust overcomes all barries. Pretending that such relationships do not happen is not going to help this issue. Hence, a non-Muslim is as likely as a Muslim in getting and transmitting the disease. No doubt that non-Muslim will have to convert to Islam prior to marriage, but by the same argument above, by then it may be too late.

Since HIV/AIDS inflicts all people - irregardless of faiths, religions or race - I cannot understand why it is only compulsory for Muslims to be screened. Is this an admission of the scale of this problems involving the targeted population or the lesser importance placed on the other segment of the society, all equally Malaysians? If this is the trend the government is taking in formulating its policy, then I fear for the future of Malaysia; as another artifical demarcation based on religion will complicate an already complicated race-based politics.

Illegal loans legalised?

Categories: Wormie Says, Malaysia, Penang

Recently while in Penang and Ipoh, I noticed something that is very troubling. Pasted prominently on lamp posts, bus stops and walls are flyers advertising loans. What caught my eyes were the exorbitant interest charged.



One flyer advertised an interest of just RM30 for a loan of RM1000. This works out to be 3%. Trouble is the loan duration is not specified, and is highly unlikely that this represents a monthly interest. A hint at the actual monthly interest can be gathered if one read the small print which says the go-between gets a 2% commission. Further hints are provided by other flyers, with one having a monthly interest of 5%.

The most ridiculous must surely be this one (photo below). Here a 5% interest is chargable for a 3-day loan of RM5000. And this increases 3 times for a 10-day loan, or 45% per month or 540% per year! (As a contrast credit card company charges 24% interest per year.) Therefore, a RM5000 loan becomes RM5250 after 3 days; RM5750 after 10 days; RM7250 after 1 month and RM32000 after 1 year if the loan terms had not changed!! Only Bill Gates can afford this kind of interests. But then, if you are Bill Gates, there is no need to take such loan in the first place.

I cannot ascertain if such loans are legal or not. Friends and relatives give different answers. In a way, I hope these are flyers from loan sharks because at least an illegal activity is not being legalised. However, if these were illegal, why were such activities so blatantly advertised? Even their phone numbers can be prominently seen. There don't seem to be any attempt to be discrete; as if to torment the police.

If such loans are legal, then how can the authority allow such exorbitant interests to be charged? They are just legalised loan sharks! Their licences should be revoked and the people charged.
It is especially sad because the victims are usually people who are desparate for cash and has nowhere to turn to. Taking loans from these illegal or legalised loan sharks will only worsen their plight. They will just spiral deeper and deeper into poverty and become vulnerable to criminal activities. Hopefully the authorities will crack down on such activities soon, otherwise more and more lives will be ruined.

'License' to molest?

Categories: Singapore

A High Court judge had on appeal reduced a sentence meted out to a cancer-stricken molester from jail term of 4 months and 3 stroke of the cane for touching the breast and S$6000 for touching the backside to that of a mere S$5000 fine. This was after it was revealed that he had terminally-ill advanced neck cancer. Is this fair?

This molestation occurred in August last year when the unmarried man asked his maid whether he could touch her breasts while flashing a 50000 rupiah note (S$10). However before the maid could give an answer, he molested her. On several occasions that month, he also touched her on the buttocks.

The reasons cited for the reduced sentence was reported to be compassion because the presiding judge felt that the molester had suffered enough and wanted him to spend more of his remaining time with the family. The judge is indeed compassionate and is laudable. However should having a terminal cancer be used as a mitigating factor? It is true that the man is already serving a "sentence", but the cancer had not affected his mental faculty. Therefore, removing the neck cancer as a mitigating factor, he is no different from the next molester. If this is so, why should the jail sentence and cane be commuted to just one of fine? I do agree that because of his health, he should be spared the cane, just like what is stipulated in the law. Even with compassion which I readily agree, the jail sentence should not be spared but only reduced. A message has to be sent out that molest is a serious crime and warrants a jail sentence.

It is unfortunate that the judge failed to consider the feelings of the maid when making a judgement. This poor maid came to Singapore to make an honest living. Instead of being rewarded she was molested and insulted. If the man needed to satisfy his lust, he should go to one of the many other foreign women who will readily let him has his day for a fee. Why pick on one who is trying to etch out an honest living? There may be no physical harm, but mentally, she was abused. This episode has cut short her stay here and she had since gone home. It was not reported if she was compensated for her ordeal. Think of how much she can earn (by their country's standard) if she continued to work here. I do not know or understand what it is liked to be molested but I can imagine it cost much more than any monetary terms.

It is not that I lack compassion. I totally agree that sentencing should be laced with compassion. However, I felt that this case may set a precedent for future cases. What is there to stop a defence lawyer to quote this case for his HIV-client charged with molest? I am not a lawyer and I have no answer.