TR EMERITUS

作者:雷风雨 李光耀认错的秀(Show)旨在合理化全面以英语教华文，并为彻底把华文降为方言铺路，这秀主要是做给英文背景的家长看的，当然也包括许多华校出身但子女搞不好华文的 家长。这几天海峡时报就刊登好些读者来函，有说早年因孩子的华文问题备受困扰，最后毅然移民，此后孩子如鱼得水，学有所成，有说孩子华文如何使孩子身心受损云云，证明双语政策确实害人不浅，看来这场“文化革命”受害者还是英校生呢。毫无意外，也有歌颂李光耀为国为民、勇于认错，堪为领袖楷模...一致的看法，不出所料，照例是政策英明，皇恩浩荡。 类似的话李以前也说过，只是没明明白白认错，要求教华文要FUN也要求许多许多年了，其实并无新鲜之处。这一次的不同是，李认的错正式宣告华文只能是方言，单语社会将水到渠成，同时也反映了华文背景的选民已不足以左右语言政策。这是李光耀当初订下的蓝图，多年政策好不容易盼来的结果，实在不是李的顿悟，自然谈不上错。 多年前曾读到一则小新闻，说印尼某华文报（不知是否有官方背景）读者渐少最后宣告关闭，报社同仁大肆庆祝，原来这是该报当初报办的宗旨。李的认错也预示早报同仁可以向印尼华文报看齐，将来也许不必关闭，但沦为服务中国移民的小报指日可待。 吴明盛为了华文把女儿送往国外求学，出发点和以前印尼家长把子女送来新加坡求学一样，而印尼是实施“排华”政策、有过排华历史的国家，而新加坡，“排华”？ 其实，华文英文都不是问题，正如吴明盛所说，国家必须给人民有所选择的余地，尤其是关系到个人安身立命身份认同的语言文化方面，即使“弱势族群/社群”也不能例外。 来源：大马论坛  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Singapore Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong has become the first Asian jurist to be given the International Jurists Award by the International Council of Jurists (ICJ) for outstanding contribution in the area of administration of justice on Saturday, 21 November 2009. The award was presented to the Chief Justice by Her Excellency the President of India, Mrs Pratibha D Patil, at the International Conference of Jurists on International Terrorism at the Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. Chief Justice Chan gave an address before he received the award. The event was part of the ICJ's conference on 'Terrorism and the Rule of Law' attended by some 3,000 delegates from several countries. ICJ president Adish Aggarwala said the award was given to CJ Chan in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the administration of justice. 'His achievement has enhanced the dignity of the Asian judiciary,' said Dr Adish. The other recipients of the award are the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom , Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Canada's Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. After being admitted to the Bar on 31 January 1962, CJ Chan practiced for a number of years before being appointed the first Judicial Commissioner of Singapore on 1 July 1986. Two years later, he became a Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore and in 1992, he was appointed Attorney-General of Singapore. During the 1997 General Elections, then Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong and his two deputies Dr Tony Tan and Mr Lee Hsien Loong gained entry into a Cheng San GRC polling station, all of whom were not candidates for Cheng San GRC. Section 82(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act reads: “No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote. No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day.” The Workers’ Party complained to the police that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day. Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong ruled that there wasn’t any violation of the act on the part of the PAP MPs because they were within the 200 metre boundary of the polling station. The act explicitly stated that those outside the radius were in violation, but it wasn’t applicable to those within the radius. In his letter to then Law Minister Jayakumar in 1997 on the case, Mr Chan concluded: "There is a consistency in the rationales of the regulatory schemes governing activities inside and those outside polling stations on election day. Waiting outside a polling station is made an offence because it gives rise to opportunities to influence or intimidate voters: see paragraph 99 of the Elias Report. Hence, the Act has provided a safety zone which stretches outwards for 200 metres from the polling station. In contrast, the possibility of a person inside a polling station influencing or intimidating voters in the presence of the presiding officer and his officials, the polling agents etc was considered so remote that it was discounted by the Act. I therefore confirm my opinion that the Parliamentary Elections Act does not provide for any offence of unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station. Accordingly, those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act." Related articles: >> Singapore Chief Justice: no basis for allegations that Singapore's judiciary lacks independence >> CJ (then AG) Chan Sek Keong’s letter to Law Minister Jayakumar in 1997 >> Shanmugam peeved at Singapore media’s pathetic rankings on the World Press Freedom Index >> Correcting Minister Shanmugam’s misperception that Singapore is  a “stable democracy” EDITORS’ NOTE: If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account ([email protected]). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you! Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent A resident by the name of Eileen Tan had written in to the Straits Times Forum asking where the funds will come from to replace the 1,260 lifts in Tampines. Ms Tan is responding to an earlier article published by the Straits Times which lauded Tampines Town Council for scoring "top marks" for its lifts. The Town Councils in Singapore will be graded by a nationwide benchmarking exercise and the report will be released in June next year. The Tampines Town Council gave its residents a peek at its preliminary results in a bid to them more involved in the running of the estate. It did best on lifts, recording nearly no breakdowns and also for arrears management, with overdue payments making up only 27.4 per cent of the conservancy fees collected each month. Its worst grade was in estate maintenance. With an average of 5.7 defects per block, it scored only a level three. Cleanliness got a level two, with an average of 3.1 cleanliness problems per block. Ms Tan expressed concerns that the town council did not reveal how much it spent on maintaining these lifts, nor give an estimate of their future replacement cost and, more importantly, how this cost will be financed. She asked the town council to reveal how it intends to fund future lift replacements: "The council now has about 1,260 lifts and the replacement cycle is 28 years. The council keeps a sinking fund for such replacement works. At the current replacement cost of $100,000 for a lift, the council needs $126 million to replace all its lifts. But according to its latest financial statement, it has only $32 million in its residential sinking fund, an annual contribution of $11.8 million and an annual expenditure of $24 million. Considering this, the town council should tell its residents how it intends to fund the future lift replacements. With advancement in technology, there is no doubt that lift performance is getting better and better, but there is a price to pay for the maintenance and replacement. Will future generations bear the burden of paying for these costs?" Needless to say, the costs will be bored by the residents via their monthly conservancy charges. Over 85 per cent of Singapore's population lives in public housing built by the HDB, a government agency under the purview of the National Development Ministry. The funds used for maintenance and upgrading of estates are disbursed from the government's coffers which was used perennially by the ruling party to intimidate Singaporeans into voting for them in past elections. The residents of the two opposition wards of Potong Pasir and Hougang have been denied essential upgrading of their estates till lately though they pay income taxes and serve National Service like the rest of the population. As the value of HDB flats is partially dependent on the estate's amenities, many Singaporeans are persuaded to cast their votes for the ruling party though they may not have any affinity for it. This enables the ruling party to romp home with "landslide" electoral victories one after another. Even with this obvious advantage, the ruling party managed to garner only 66.6 per cent of the valid votes during the 2006 elections. In spite of one-third of the population voting for the opposition, they are represented by only 2 out of 84 seats in parliament.  Read More →