Indonesia's Warship Naming: A startling reminder (16th February 2014)

Our Singapore Happenings

16th February 2014

Indonesia's Warships Naming: A startling reminder

              Earlier this month, Indonesia announced that they will be naming new warships after their national 'heroes'- Osman Haji Mohamed Ali and Harun Said. These were names of terrorists who bombed the Macdonald House which killed 3 and injured 33 others during the 'Konfrontasi' movement where then Indonesia President, Sukarno, went on the offensive to extend the influence of Indonesia in the archipelago. Singapore's ministers have since asked their Indonesia counterpart to reconsider the move to name the new frigate after these “heroes”. Indonesia replied that 'no intent was meant, no malice, no unfriendly outlook'. They added that each nation has the authority to decide who their national heroes are and who they want to name their warships after. Sure enough, Indonesia is free to decide and regard both terrorists as their national heroes. After all, both men did indeed give their lives in service to their country's national agenda during that period, whether we agree with that agenda is another question altogether. However, what is regarded as a hero by a country may be regarded as a terrorist by another; which is true in this case. And by naming a new frigate, a warship that signifies aggression and militarily supremacy, after two men who have been part of Singapore's dark and turbulent history isn't being sensitive to Singapore. It is reasonable to assume that the Indonesia leadership knew that this decision would reopen old painful wounds that both countries have since put behind. 

                 The reasons for their actions are unknown, we can only guess and speculate. It could be a case of oversight by ill-informed or clueless government officials where the decision was announced and cannot be retracted- though unlikely. Or it could be a naive mentality that this issue is no longer a sensitive spot in the hearts and minds of Singaporeans since it happened so long ago. Or it could be to drum up nationalistic support ahead of the April presidential elections. Any one of these three reasons is plausible. 

                   It is a known fact that leaders from both countries worked tirelessly to improve relationship since the incident; which explains the close economic cooperation and military ties that we share today. However, over the past two years, there have been tricky test-points that have tested Singapore's relationship with Indonesia. A case in recent memory would be the haze problem Singapore faced last year caused by hot-spots in Indonesia. Though Singapore registered its unhappiness and offered its assistance to Indonesia repeatedly, Indonesia ignored Singapore's request to dampen the fire and instead some ministers went on the offensive to say that Singapore should be grateful for the oxygen Indonesia provides or that Singapore was 'behaving like a small child'. The second being the current warship naming issue where they were outright insensitive. 

                   I believe these two cases evidently demonstrate that the 'little red dot' mentality that once dominated the Indonesia government's thinking back in the 60s is, sadly, still present in some fractions of the government. Indonesia may have since decided to establish a good relationship with Singapore with many cooperation initiatives and good will gestures but when it comes to crunch time where the government has to decide between personal political/economic gains and preserving a healthy relationship with Singapore, they will choose the former. The old mindset that the 'little red dot' is a small dot that has no means and/or would not make things difficult for a big country like Indonesia, though unspoken, may very well persist within fractions of the leadership. Though we are a stronger and more economically powerful little red dot as compared to the 1960s, is our military and economic muscle big enough to be a force to be reckoned with in the minds of the Indonesia government? 

                  These two episodes may well serve as a reminder that we have to continue to work towards strengthening our armed forces and our position as an economic powerhouse in the region so that we will not be messed with and that neighboring countries will think twice before making insensitive remarks/decisions. 

                  It is unlikely that the Indonesia government would retract their decision of naming the warships after the two terrorists. It does not help that both countries are on the offensive diplomatically. Singapore has stood its ground and registered its unhappiness, which is important to show that it is no push-over. Hopefully, this incident can be put behind and both countries can cautiously move on to strengthening diplomatic relationships. 

                 In conclusion, this episode has been a good history lesson for the Singapore public for it generated curiosity about what exactly happened in 1965 at the Macdonald house and reminded Singaporeans that peace should not be taken for granted and should continue to be preserved. It is also a startling reminder that Singapore has to continue to strengthen its military competences and economic powers as we may not be exerting the level of deterrence we hope to.

--THE END--

Transport Fare Hikes: A necessary but untimely affair. (2nd February 2014)

Our Singapore Happenings 
2nd February 2014 

Transport Fare Hikes: A necessary but untimely affair. 

                Recently the Public Transport Council (PTC) has approved both Public Transport Operators' (PTO) request of a 6.6% fare adjustment. The PTC then decided to roll over 3.4% of the increase to spread out the impact of any large increase in cost. Thus fares will hike 3.2% this year and kick in on April 16. The 3.2% hike is lower than the expected 4-5% increase in average national wage last year, and thus can be said to be reasonable. However, this announcement was met with an outcry amongst Singaporeans, with many speaking up and some protesting against it. I believe this reaction is expected and understandable from the point of view of a commuter, which I will explore more later. However, if we look from the operators' point of view, this fare hike is necessary and expected. Furthermore, this is the first fare hike since 2011. 

                 This tension between commuters and transport operators can be understood if seen through each other lenses. 

                 Through the transport operators' lenses, over the past two years, their operational costs have sky rocketed. With higher fuel cost and staffing wage increment amongst others, their financial accounts have been in the red over the past years. Thus this fare hike could well be the only way to make this service possible and sustainable. This 3.2% increment will also mean an estimated 53.5 million in extra revenue for these PTOs per year. Hopefully a good part of this 53.5 million will go towards improving transport reliability and systems as well. I believe this increment has been modest. If you look at transport cost in comparison with your wage increment year on year, transport cost has actually gotten more affordable - proportion of total spending spent on transport has decreased. 

                  Apart from the fare hike announcement, a slew of subsidies were also announced. There was a long list of subsidies with two new concession schemes targeted at those suffering from disabilities and those with lower income. These two new schemes are expected to cost the government a good estimated $50 million. Traditionally the government will be the one funding these subsidies, together with funds from the Public Transport Fund (PTF), which is topped up when PTOs are fined with failure to provide reliable service and the PTOs' public service contributions. However, with the fare hike, PTOs have to contribute more to this PTF. They will now contribute 11.58 million in a one-off contribution which is significantly more as compared to previous occasions. Thus this whole scheme may well be a move to build a more inclusive society where the needy and less fortunate are taken care by the working population. 

                Amongst all the new subsidies announced, one of them stands out in my opinion. Prices for concession passes for polytechnic students would be cut by more than 40 percent. This is actually a breakthrough for those who have been urging for transport fares for poly students to be on par with those in Junior Colleges. Simply phrased, the government is acknowledging the equally significant role polytechnics and junior colleges play.

               Next if we look through the commuters' lenses, their anger and frustration is understandable. Few can opine that train and bus service reliability have improved over the past 3 years since the major breakdown in late 2011. Train disruptions have almost become a second nature every few weeks. Bus timing reliability is still an issue. Many commuters are frustrated that the situation is not improving despite it being 3 years and are thus not willing to pay for the fare hikes. It did not help that there was an untimely string of train stoppages during the period when the fare hike was announced. From a private consumer point of view where choice is an option, no rational consumer will pay even more for poor service. The idea that we need to pay more now so that PTOs will have the funds to invest in new technologies and systems is absurd. As private companies, the operators are responsible for providing affordable and reliable transportation to the people. When such objectives are not met, the operators should acquire the necessary resources to fix the problems, instead of relying on hand outs from the government. Furthermore, the government has contributed $1 billion of taxpayers’ money to the private companies to assist them in improving their service. Such an act has provoked a small number of people into calling for the nationalisation of the transportation system.
The PTOs' need for an increment in fare and commuters' resistance to it essentially boils down to the difference between commuters' expectations and the current reality. I believe Singaporeans will be willing topay extra for good transport service. Thus I think now is the time for the PTOs to set things right once and for all and slowly regain the public's trust once again. The first step in this direction is being accountable to the public with its future actions. 

                Firstly, the PTOs have to reassure the public that a good percentage of the fare hike will go towards improving the transport system. They need to explain the specific steps that they will be taking to fix the situation with a time frame and an expected completion date attached to it. They will be held accountable by the PTC which will then monitor their progress and ensure that these measures are effectively carried out. The PTOs can also do a quarterly press release to inform commuters of the progress of these new implementations. As such, commuters can be assured that definite steps are taken to resolve the issue and change is imminent. 

               Secondly, to resolve the issue, the PTC could take up an additional role as an independent investigative auditor to assess the reasons behind these train faults. This investigative body could comprise of international experts on transport systems or retired rail/bus engineers who have the depth of experience and technical skills to assess and diagnose the root cause of these problems. Next, recommendations as to how to resolve the issues will then be submitted to PTOs for implementation. The PTC will then take on a big brother role of overseeing the successful implementation of these recommendations. This is possible as the PTC holds the trump card to the game - any PTOs who fail to comply with the given timeframe of implementation will be denied any request for fare hikes in the future. Definitely, plenty can be done to improve service reliability, such as improving the signalling systems of trains, retraining staff members, increasing the purchase of trains, and replacing worn out rail lines. The options are endless but experts need to recommend what is necessary to nip the problem in the bud. 

                The people have a desire to see that the additional money from the fare hike is put to good use, and that results are obvious. The patience of commuters’ is running thin, with confidence in the system at an all-time low. The PTOs certainly need to be held accountable, and improvements must be clearly shown. One can only wonder the duration which it will take before the system is fundamentally changed in a crucial manner. If there has to be a starting point, I would think it should begin today.

--THE END--

Singapore's Cycling Culture: A Fundamental Shift in Thinking (7th January 2014)

Our Singapore Happenings 

7th January 2014

                    Singapore's Cycling Culture: A Fundamental Shift in Thinking

             The price of cars in Singapore is that of a supply and demand issue. With the ever increasing demand for cars amongst Singaporeans and limited road space available, the cost of cars in Singapore will naturally increase. Singaporeans who can afford a car will usually opt for one given its convenience and ease of travel. Another reason for its popularity amongst Singaporeans who can afford it could be the status symbol that comes with owning a car. However the prices make it inaccessible to some or do not make any economic sense to own one to others. Thus, a cheaper and more economically sustainable solution is sought. Two obvious choices are available for use: Public Transport or another form of private transport in the form of cycling. 

                Recently, there has been a renewed interest in Singapore which led to current discussions between the government and civic groups to explore how to cultivate and facilitate a cycling culture in Singapore. This renewed interest may be due to it being seen as a viable alternative means of transport other than the public transport system which currently has its flaws. It is also a healthier option which may be one drawing factor to cycling. It's essentially killing 2 birds with one stone, being able to reach your destination and yet sneak in a cardio workout at the same time. In addition, it is time efficient which many Singaporeans seek. There are talks about how some may want to cycle to work in the future, I am not too sure if the demand for this is there. If someone lives at Yishun, would he/she cycle all the way to work in the CBD? Unless the route to the CBD from these suburban estates are extremely convenient and cuts down travelling time, I don't think people are willing to travel 30 minutes by bicycle to work daily. So I would say demand is more for inter-town rides, ride to town's amenities and to the closest MRT stations/bus terminals. 

                Cycling has become a culture amongst citizens of other countries such as in London. Cycling brings along its benefits such as a healthier lifestyle for individuals and a decrease in carbon footprint for the society in general. More must be done to promote the use of cycling as a means of transport here. There are several barriers/concerns that are preventing more people from taking it up. Firstly, it is the space contention that cyclists face. In the eyes of the pedestrians, these cyclists who share the pavements with them are reckless and dangerous while in the eyes of motorists, these cyclist who share the roads with them are a nuisance and a hindrance. Since cyclists are unwelcomed on both the pavements and the roads, many would choose the former as it is the safer option despite it being illegal. Thus leading to my next point on safety. Safety is a major issue when cycling on public roads. Realistically speaking, a cyclist stands no chance if it experiences a collision with a motorised vehicle. Ask any frequent cyclists and they will tell you that cycling on Singapore’s public road is downright scary with cars not giving way or drivers being impatient with your slow speed. In recent years, you would remember serious road accidents involving cyclists on the road. A prominent case would be the tragic news of 2 boys who were knocked by a cement truck in January 2013. Safety is a major concern for any cyclist and unless we can assure cyclists of their safety while cycling, I doubt we will see a cultural shift towards cycling. Lastly it is the accessibility of bicycles and the convenience of cycling in Singapore.  The current rules and infrastructure in Singapore has its limitations in accommodating cyclists. There are still overheads bridges with no ramps available, forcing cyclists to dismount and physically lift their bicycles up the bridge. Cyclists are also forbidden from riding over overhead bridges. Also, bike parking facilities are limited and only available at high traffic areas (more to be built in the near future). There are also size restrictions and time restrictions for bringing bicycles on board buses and trains. The time allowed are off-peak hours (9.30am - 4.00pm and 8.00pm to the end of passenger service) which is not attractive for individuals who want to cycle to and from work daily, using public transport as an intermediate means.

                If cycling is going to be part of our culture and lifestyle, a fundamental mind-set shift on both the part of the government and its citizens must happen. On the part of the government, one key issue that must be solved is that of the safety of cyclists. Seeing the space constraints on both roads and walking pavements for cyclists, space for cyclists should thus be exclusive for them only. Some have called for a lane to be dedicated purely to cyclists on public roads. This is a huge fundamental shift in power in flavour of the cyclists, the feasibility of this need to be questioned. Some roads in Singapore are already running at max capacity during peak hours, allocating a lane especially for cyclists may cause massive congestions and bottleneck at these roads.  The frequency of usage of this designated road is also yet to be seen, it may actually prove to be an inefficient allocation of resources.  What can be done instead is a small cemented pavement could be laid out, 3 bicycle width, that runs parallel to public roads. This will facilitate cyclists who use public roads to get around to their destinations. Cyclists will abide by rules for pedestrians, sharing only the traffic light crossing.  This is can in additional to the 700 km of bicycle track that the government is building by 2030.

                 To make cycling more accessible and convenient, rules with regards to cycling or transportation of bicycles should be significantly relaxed. Foldable bicycles should be allowed onto trains and buses even on peak hours with specific cabins (maybe first and last) designated for cyclists to bring their bicycles into. Bicycle parking services could also be provided at more spots, near offices and work places which make it convenient for cyclists. And lastly, shower facilities can be provided at all work places for employees to shower before work if they decide to cycle to work.

                The perception of cycling amongst Singaporeans must be changed as well. Making cycling look “cool” should be the main focus of campaigns to encourage more to take up cycling. This campaign has to make Singaporeans see that it makes economic sense to cycle and that the paths and route provided makes cycling a time-efficient means of transport.  

                Change won’t happen overnight, it will take considerable effort from the government to decide and make fundamental changes to facilitate the grooming of this cycling culture in Singapore. Singaporeans are practical people; they will make sense for themselves if cycling is indeed the way to go about Singapore.  

                                                        --THE END--

MediShield Life: Challenging implementation ahead (29th Dec 2013)

Our Singapore Happenings

29th December 2013

                              MediShield Life: Challenging implementation ahead

                During the National Day Rally earlier this year, PM Lee announced the MediShield Life scheme with 3 key proposed reforms to the current scheme. They are:

(i)                 Better coverage through MediShield payouts. Pay less for large bills

(ii)                Coverage for Life

(iii)               Coverage for Everyone, even those with pre-existing medical condition

                It was naturally a well-received move by the public. There were obvious gaps in the current scheme and these reforms would address the gaps. It was also a morally right decision taken by the government to include everyone under MediShield regardless of pre-existing medical condition. This ensures that all Singaporeans, regardless of age or your medical circumstances, is well taken care of.

                In principle, MediShield is similar to Obamacare in the US where every individual, regardless of age or pre-existing medical condition, is mandated to purchase health insurance with a pre-determined benefit package. Those who cannot afford are then given financial subsidies.

                I believe the first question every Singaporean have on their minds is: “So who is going to pay for all these extra coverage?” There can only be 2 sources of funding for this extra coverage. The government could take up the cost of funding the extra coverage but this may mean higher taxes in the future. Or it can directly translate into higher premiums for all Singaporeans across the board.

                One obvious coverage difference is that MediShield Life will cover Singaporeans above the age of 90. Covering those above 90 will mean heftier medical bills that will significantly increase the premiums for all Singaporeans. The question will then be how high a premium Singaporeans are willing to pay for all these extra coverage. Singaporeans must be able to see this as an investment where they are paying forward so that they can benefit from these benefits in the future when they are old. If those with pre-existing medical conditions are considered in the same pool as other Singaporeans, premiums will sky rocket even higher.

                Thus, it might be wise to separate Singaporeans who have pre-existing medical conditions to be in a separate pool altogether. Premiums for the people in this pool will definitely be higher. However, premium should also vary for the people within the group; premiums could be pegged to the potential medical cost with reference to their pre-existing medical condition since different medical condition could have vastly different potential medical cost. Thus having a personalised premium payment system may be the way to go. Financial assistance can be provided by the government for those who cannot afford the high premium.

                 There is no correct way to do this; there are many options available so it is about weighing which one is most feasible and acceptable by all. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is currently consulting Singaporeans on this. It would be interesting to see what is announced in the near future and how Singaporeans react to it. In principle, it is a great step forward but implementation will be controversial and challenging. 

                                                               --THE END--

PAP Party Convention: The Roadmap for the Future (26th December 2013)

Our Singapore Happenings

26th December 2013

              

                            PAP Party Convention: The Roadmap for the Future

           On 8th December 2013, the PAP Party Convention took place. It was a key event where the party leadership announced the party’s direction leading up to the next general election. It was also apt that this party convention is taking place midway through the government’s 5-year term in office. The party also adopted a significant resolution that will define its cause in a new phrase of Singapore’s development.

           Overall, the key focus of the government in the following years (e.g. Healthcare, Transport, and Housing) and the ways to solve these problems remains unchanged from what PM Lee spoke about during his National Day Rally Speech. There were three main points which I thought was good to point-out.

            Firstly, it was Mr Chan Chun Sing’s speech where he mentioned one of the three priorities at a national level was “Communications”. To quote:

            “This is why we must continuously and strenuously defend the common space for people to speak up. If we do not stand up for what we believe, others will occupy that space and cast us into irrelevance. We must not concede the space - physical or cyber. We will have to learn from the 1960 generation of PAP pioneers - to fight to get our message across at every corner - every street corner, cyberspace corner be it in the mass media, and social media. We will have to do battle everywhere as necessary.”

            The first thing that came into my mind was that of a military general giving order to a battalion of soldiers. Tone aside, who was he referring to when he said “for people to speak up”? And who are the “others” that will occupy that space? Anti-government and extremists views on the net? Or simply those that do not toe to the line of the government? The statement is pretty vague I feel; I just hope that this is not a call for more government hands in the online and offline media scene.

           If we simply look at the underlying message of what he is trying to say, it should be a simple message of asking party members to stand up for what the party is doing and allowing Singaporeans to know that whatever the PAP government is doing is for the eventual good of Singaporeans. This I do agree should be done. Many of times, when the government releases a new programme/scheme, the main headline gets sensationalised without the mass public truly understanding what the programme/scheme seeks to achieve. The headline then gets blown out of proportion with many anti-government sentiments attacking just the headline alone. An evident example would be the population white population released earlier this year. The figure of “6.9 million” was immediately picked up and sensationalised by the media which sent many Singaporeans into a furry. But if you look and read deeper, the core idea was about forecasting Singapore’s future growth and planning the infrastructure and social system to meet the demands come 2030. The 6.9 million was merely used as an estimate for planning purpose. If the issue is framed in such a way, then people may start to understand the purpose behind the white paper; it’s simply what every good government seeks to do.

             Like what Mr Chan said, the party needs to re-examine the way it explain its policy to the masses and it needs to “simplify and customise our messages to the diverse target audiences.” This is an area that the party can work on. Understanding how and where different groups in society consume information is the key to effective information dissemination. For example to reach out to younger Singaporeans, info graphics about key policies changes can be done up and uploaded onto social media for consumption. On the other hand, to reach out to older Singaporeans, TV commercials or newspaper adverts may be the way to go. It is all about displaying information effectively through the correct channel to get the point across.

          Secondly, PM Lee announced the formation of the PAP Seniors Group (PAP.SG) interest group to champion elderly causes. The EXCO will consist of a cross-section of members reflecting our social make-up, needs and aspirations.  Hopefully this make-up will consist of people who know the sentiments on the ground and bring up important issues to be addressed on the national level.  It is said that the committee will consist of the elderly and those who are younger but are interested in ageing issues. I think this a wonderful partnership as it encourages the elderly to step forward to share their wisdom as to how to solve problems that their generation are currently facing whilst working hand in hand with the younger generation. I think this announcement is also timely for party activist and elderly Singaporeans in general, the youths have been a key focus for many government policies recently, with the establishment of PAP.SG, it is a clear signal to the elderly that they are not forgotten and neglected and that their concerns are well taken care of. Politically, it is also a smart move as the elderly group has traditionally been supportive of the party.  This initiative shall seek to secure this voting base and hopefully be a lobbying voice for the party.

            Lastly, there were multiple calls from the government to continuously engage the public on the way forward. This can be seen from the newly adopted resolution where under the theme of “A Democracy of Deeds”, it explains that “We welcome diverse views and robust discussion from all Singaporeans to devise solutions for the good of all.” and under the theme of “Engage and Empower our People”, it explains that “We must improve the way we communicate our intentions and actions to the people, and involve citizens in decisions that shape our nation and our shared future.”  This demonstrates that the government understands the importance of civic engagement on policies and that people’s opinions matters. Head bashing through with an unpopular policy is a no go. Devadas Krishnadas, a risk consultant at Future-Moves, describes this as just Singapore “normalising as a democracy” where every issue has to be debated and discussed whether formally or informally. Of course, this is ideal, but the government knows that this takes extra time – time to consult with different groups with sometimes opposing views, time to understand concerns from stakeholders and time to refine and tweak policies. Efficiency will be sacrificed in the process, so the government has to decide if it is a worthy sacrifice.

              Overall, the main crux of the convention was one of clarifying goals and redefining its cause in a new socio-political landscape. Whatever was stated in the resolution definitely reflects what the general public wants in any democratic government. Now that the government got their goals and cause sorted out, time will tell if their actions embody the key guiding principles laid out in the resolution.

Will the PAP be a “sexier” party come 2015?

It will take effort from every level but I believe it can be done.

                                                         --THE END--

Little India Riots(Part 1): A wake up call to the problems on hand (14th December 2013)

Our Singapore Happenings

Saturday, 14th December 2013

               Little India Riots(Part 1): A wake up call to the problems on hand

                A quiet and slow-news Sunday night was suddenly shaken with the news of a riot which broke out in Little India, the initial reports that came in was of recounts that were in in bits and pieces. Reporters were sent scrambling to the scene; and piecing together the sequential timeline of events was a nightmare. Till date, the many questions still surround the entire episode of events; many whys still unanswered. The police recently released a minute by minute factual recount of what happened but reasons and causes were still unanswered. There are 101 speculations on the net about possible causes for the riots. No one can say for sure what was the exact cause for the riots, which is a discussion for another day – once the Community of Inquiry (COI) report is out. But I think 3 key questions are on many people’s mind (or at least for me):

1)      How exactly did the accident victim end up being run over by the bus after being chased off the bus?
2)      How did a traffic accident lead to a full blown riot? What was the trigger?
3)      Lastly, why did the other South Asians rioters attack first responders and their vehicles that were there to aid the accident victim?

Let’s see what the COI comes up with to explain the causes in the near future. Hopefully, the committee can look to address the root/underlying cause of the issue and not just treat it as a security issue that requires a law and order approach to it.

                In the immediate aftermath of the riot, there was another riot happening – online. Netizens took to social media to express their views about the riot. While PM Lee said that Singaporeans have reacted calmly to the riots, the amount of xenophobic views and racism views online was astounding. It is natural for people’s first response to such incidents to be xenophobic without making clear on what was going on. But this first response is inherent of what the population feel towards these foreign workers and it is indeed worrying. As long as what they see affirms their beliefs and stereotype of a certain group, they are quick to point out the fact and reaffirm their personal beliefs.

Singapore’s infrastructure accomplishments is one known internationally from the Marina Barrage to the Marina Bay Sands, we are proud of these landmarks but the ones that actually make these happen are the foreign workers in the construction industry. Their contribution to the country is immense; I don’t think anyone can doubt that.  But I feel there is a lack of appreciation and understanding towards these foreign workers.
This xenophobic mind-set could stem from a few possibilities.

Firstly, it may be the cultural differences and communication barrier that make locals perceive them as “different” and thus stay away and not interact with them. They may do things differently from us, but it may well be the norm in their home countries, and thus Singaporeans may be upset with such differences and start forming opinions of their own about this group of foreigners.

Secondly, it could be simply a “Not in My Backyard” mind-set that some Singaporean possess. They want their houses to be built, they don’t want to build it and they expect the foreign workers who build their houses to magically disappear at the end of the work day and not be seen in common spaces. It’s simply not possible. You can’t have the cake and eat it! These Singaporeans need to understand that they play a vital role in our society and it is only right that we accord them with the due respect and ensure they have the rights to enjoyment and freedom that they rightfully deserve.

This was coincidentally my Project Work focus area where my team sought to investigate the risk of hiring foreign workers into Singapore. We spoke to residents living in Serangoon Gardens where there was an uproar when a workers’ dormitory was built in the estate. I can safely say that there are residents who completely hate the actions of these foreign workers and cannot even stand the sight of them. But glad to say this is the minority, not the majority.

The sentiments on the ground towards these foreign workers are evident when people took to social media to blurt out spur-of-the-moment comments. Sad but true.

                Through this episode, it has brought to light some of the key concerns that these foreign workers are currently facing that needs resolution. This may or may not have contributed to the riots but if left unsolved may well provide fuel for unhappiness in the future. There are two key areas:

1)      Recreational Space
There is currently not enough covered recreational space for foreign workers to hang out and gather. They often hang out on empty parcels on land which is getting increasingly lesser. And when it rains, they often have to squeeze along the five foot ways to seek shelter. Thus, sheltered recreation spaces could be built for foreign workers to congregate and mingle with friends. These recreational spaces can also be established as activity centers where activities such as baking, art or First Aid Courses can be held for these foreign workers for them to gain essential life skills. These are good activities to keep foreign workers occupied in a meaningful way. With a good recreational place with sufficient space, it can significant reduce the amount of angst that may build up over an overcrowded and stuffy environment.

2)      Auxiliary patrol and treatment of foreign workers
Due to concerns from residents living in the estate of security threats that these foreign workers pose to them, police often patrol the estate. Foreign workers are at times shooed from one place to the other. This intense policing and the way these foreign workers are treated while being questioned may have breed foreign workers'  resentment  to the police. It is understandable that residents are concerned but the police should also be mindful of how they treat these foreign workers. Their attitude towards these foreign workers might backfire one day. It is thus important to strive to balance between maintaining order and treating them with the due respect.

Regardless of the cause of the riots, these are immediate concerns of these foreign workers to be solved. The COI will provide us with an insight on what happened; expect lots of opinions and alternative views from individuals. Till then, we shall wait and reflect.

--THE END--

MDA Licensing Framework: A sad move for active citizenry in Singapore? (4th December 2013)

Our Singapore Happenings 
Wednesday, 4th December 2013 

MDA Licensing Framework - A sad move for active citizenry in Singapore? 

              From 1 June 2013, under the new MDA licensing framework, sites that: 
I) Report an average of at least one article per week on Singapore news and current affairs over a period of two months and 
2) are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over the period of two months may be required to be individually licensed. So far, 10 websites have been identified to be licensed. 9 of which belongs to either Mediacorp or Singapore Press Holdings with the other being Yahoo! Singapore. By being agreed to be licensed, they will have to remove any content which is in breach of content standards within 24 hours. In addition, these sites are required to post a performance bond of $50000; of which may be forfeited if content that breached content standards are not taken down within 24 hours. There are a few main contentious points with regards to this announcement. 

Firstly, the nature of announcement is one that is surprising to many as there were no prior consultation done with industry stakeholders and the public on the move. The new policy was also not discussed with Members of Parliament(MPs) to decide if this new change is really necessary for the country. The announcement also took many by surprise including the Big 4- Facebook, Google, Yahoo! and EBay which expressed their reservations to the minister. The government could have taken time to consult key industry players with regards to the move as this has implications to their business and/or with the parliament to hear the views of MPs on whether this is necessary as this policy shift will inevitably affect what every Singaporean reads, which is of national concern. The consultation may have led to a policy that is more measured and balanced. 

Secondly, if you look at the terms of the scheme as written above, it can be said to be broad and somewhat vague. What is defined as 'Singapore news' is extremely broad as quoted: '“Singapore news programme” is any programme (whether or not the programme is presenter-based and whether or not the programme is provided by a third party) containing any news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any matter of public interest, about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific or any other aspect of Singapore in any language (whether paid or free and whether at regular interval or otherwise) but does not include any programme produced by or on behalf of the Government.' Thus almost everything related to Singapore can be considered as Singapore news. In addition, the announcement mentioned that by agreeing to be licensed, any content that breached content standards will be asked to be taken down. Defining content standards, the ministry stated that content should 'not go against public interest, public order, national harmony and/or offend against good taste or decency'. The definition of content standards are also somewhat vague as it is hard to define what it means to 'go against public interest', leaving editors writing these articles guessing what constitutes a breach.

Thirdly, the government now is essentially taking the stance that what's not on 'offline' should also not be on 'online' as can be seen in its rationale for this new policy - to achieve parity between online and offline media. Well is it true? Rationally I would think so. But is there a space and role that online media can play that is different from offline media? I think there is. The online media can well be a place where independent views and/or unique perspectives on issues be presented and discussed upon. This is something that offline media may not be able to present as these independent individuals are either doing such commentaries pro bono or even if they go offline may not survive the competition from other Mainstream Media. But going online gives them the space for such commentaries to happen. With this new licensing scheme in place, there will be 2 effects that may happen: 
1) It may stifle the vibrancy of the Singapore media scene as it prevents up and coming local news enterprise such as Breakfast Network from growing as they know that once they hit the magic number of 50,000 unique IP addresses visit per month, they may be asked to be licensed needing to pay the $50,000 performance bond. This figure is no small sum and some of these news enterprise may just decide that it's not sustainable and decide to close down. It will be a lose to the Singapore media scene as it is one less voice.
2) Those that are already licensed under the scheme may practice self-censorship on behalf of the government. As mentioned, what constitutes a breach of content standards is vague and there are grey areas. Of course, news inciting racial or religious disharmony should be asked to be taken down. But will views published that differ from the government's official stance be asked to be taken down as well? That's still a question mark. In general, editors may start to err on the safe side as their performance bond is at stake. Is that really healthy? 

Finally, this is seen by some as a move by the government to close in on the net. And from the government perspective, it is understandable why. It would be frustrating to have people criticising every policy that is rolled out and having all that hatred and angst coming your way when your policies are genuinely meant to aid the people. The need to respond to such angst and opposing views can be downright draining and counter-productive. And these angst played up by these online news sites may also negatively influence the views of the mass public. Thus, I would say it is completely understandable.
But, are all views on the internet bad and counterproductive? There is evident extremism on the net but are all online news sites like this? I don't think so. I believe that there are good news sites out there which gives mature, alternative viewpoints to problems on hand. Of course, websites offering extremism viewpoints need to stop as it does not bring us forward as a society but rather make people angry and upset about the status quo. 

In the short run, it may be easy to impose a blanket licensing framework for all these news sites. But do we want to come to a point in the long run where we become a non questioning and critical society where we take whatever that comes our way? Or do we have to cultivate a society where we are mature enough to critically question policies that are proposed by the government and offer productive and feasible counter solutions to issues that the government can take up? If we can progress to such a stage where we are maturely critical, I am sure we can decide for ourselves what's a good read and not be swayed by extremist viewpoints on the net. If we want active citizenry where the citizens literally work hand in hand with the government to make things happen, then I would say the first step would be to allow alternative rationale views online to get people thinking and questioning. Allow the freedom for people to choose and decide what they want to read and allow those who want to share share freely. 

--THE END--