TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent During the National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said his government will study ways to implement the "Maintenance of Parents" Act to get errant children to pay for the medical expenses of their parents including jailing them if all else fails. We must be the only country in the world in which one can be jailed for failing to support one's parents. Criminalizing children who "dump" their parents is another easy way out like many other legislations Singapore has which doe not address the root cause of the problem. As a self-proclaimed Confucian society, it is an expected social norm for children to take care of their aged parents. Most Singaporeans who are obssessed with their "face" will not want to be punished under this law. Yet, more children are reportedly finding it tougher to support their aged parents. One nursing home in Singapore was saddled with $11,576 of unpaid bills, due to family members who could not pay for the care of their elderly folks. At Ju Eng Home for Senior Citizens, the bad debts doubled to $60,000 last year. In the first 5 months of this year, already more than $40,000 is owed the home. The result: more seniors are suing their own children for maintenance through the 14-year-old Maintenance of Parents Act, up from 79 cases in 2006 to 127 cases in 2008. If the children can afford the maintenance fees, will they still be abandoning their parents. In the majority of these cases, the children may have difficulties supporting even themselves or their own children. Though it is not an excuse for not taking care of their parents, the authorities should be examining the crux of the problem. The economic downturn coupled with the high cost of living, retrenchments, influx of foreign workers and decline in median wages has hit the lower income group hard. There are some genuine cases in which the children are no longer able to afford the hefty medical bills. Instead of criminalizing them, the government should be exploring options to help these group of Singaporeans tide over the difficult period, such as providing the elderly a monthly basic allowance and waive off all medical expenses. Surely it is not too much to ask for a government to take care of its citizens who have contributed to the nation in the past? Alas, our government seems to have the propensity to resort to legislation to resolve problems it face without conducting an in-depth study and analysis of its implications. Last year, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng mooted the idea of criminalizing Singaporeans who borrowed from loan sharks which will only drive the problem underground. Who wants to borrow from loan sharks if they are not really in financial difficulties? The government has always insisted that it has sufficient aid programmes in place to help the lower income group, but why are there still so many Singaporeans in dire straits who have to borrow from loan sharks and abandon their parents in nursing homes? When a few activists managed to attract international attention by conducting solo protests last year, the government became up with a brilliant legislation by outlawing all forms of protests without ever examining why there are such protests in the first place. Public assemblies and protests are part and parcel of a healthy and functioning democracy. The paranoid approach by the ruling party to utilize the police to quash all public expression of dissent will only drive the people further into the depths of apathy and cynicism. For a small country, we have quite a number of laws in place to ensure public "order and security". Are Singaporeans really that rambunctious and violent? Or is Singapore turning into a police state? Singaporeans should not accept what the government says blindly like a flock of sheep. It is time to put their laws as well as the actions of the police under scrutiny because ultimately we are paying their salaries.  Read More →

OPINION Most readers of the SPH propagandist book about the PAP - "Men in White" would probably flip through page 441 without much thought. Our correspondent's immediate impression after reading the page was Mr Yoong Siew Wah, then the director of CPIB did a personal favor for Mr Francis Seow, whom he was on good terms with, to sack the four detectives the latter had made a complaint against. Had Mr Yoong not protested against the factual inaccuracy on his blog and we had not publicized the matter, nobody would have known the truth, that Mr Yoong was duty-bound to investigate Mr Seow's complaint and he was appointed as Director of ISD after his stint with CPIB. In fact, few young Singaporeans had ever heard of Mr Yoong Siew Wah, who was only known to his dwindling inner circle. For some strange reasons, Singapore's founding leaders and pioneers were quickly ushered out of stage when they retired and seldom seen or heard again in public. Almost all Singaporeans know who MM Lee is, but very few can identify the likes of Toh Chin Chye, Rajaratnam, Ong Pang Boon, Ong Eng Guan, David Marshall or Lim Yew Hock. In other modern democracies, retired leaders and officials often continue to play an active role in society, but in Singapore, they are kept "out of sight and out of mind" as far as possible. Mr Yoong is already 82 years old this year. He has a wealth of experience and insight to share with younger Singaporeans about the Singapore's early days. Besides Mr Yoong, there are many others who can still serve the nation in one way or another. What do they think about certain government policies? Is Singapore moving on the right track? It is unhealthy for a small country like Singapore to have only one voice - that of the officialdom. We should foster and nurture an environment where all kinds of voices are allowed to emerge and heard in mainstream society without any inhibition or fears. Let there be a free competition of ideas, no matter how radical they are, so that Singaporeans can have a stake in building the nation instead of an one-dimensional world-view imposed onto the citizenry by the government. The government is only a part of Singapore and not Singapore itself. Our country's most precious asset is our human resource which we cannot afford to let it go to waste. Right now, Singaporeans are like a flock of blind sheep being herded around by the government which can do no wrong. If you pick any Singaporean randomly walking in the streets and ask him or her a question on current affairs, chances are he/she will be unable to come up with a decent, let alone an intelligent answer. Can Singapore go far as a nation if we are so politically apathetic, naive and ignorant? The state media becomes a mouthpiece of the government and a conduit for its policies to be aired and explained to the public. There is absolutely no semblance of any political discourse or debate. The feedback and dialogue sessions held by ministers at the grassroots levl are becoming a farce with the usual same faces, most of whom are grassroots leaders themselves. How can we expect young Singaporeans to think, question and challenge when they are brought up in this kind of subservient environment? Recently, the Straits Times published an article written by the former head of the civil service Mr Ngiam Tong Dow who criticized the government's immigration policies. There was no official response from the government, but Mr Ngiam's words carry weight and they will no doubt have an influence on the policy planners. Such frank views are rarely heard among the country's ruling elite. There must be differences in views and they should be expressed publicly instead of being suppressed. The internet has helped to level the playing field in a way - the state media no longer has a monopoly on the flow of information. We hope we can see more Mr Yoongs blogging about their experiences and opinions in the future. It will be a waste if they do not step forward to share their wealth of knowledge with the younger generation which will contribute more to nation-building than SPH's rather biased and sycopantic book on the PAP.  Read More →

From our Correspondent It appears that the sordid Miss Singapore World fiasco will be taking up precious air time in Singapore's august Parliament thanks to the PAP MPs. MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC Baey Yam Keng has asked the Trade and Industry Minister if there is a need for greater supervision by local organisers to ensure that Singapore's brand name will be protected. Three MPs will ask the Acting Information, Communications and the Arts Minister about the recent successful bid by SingTel over the EPL rights. With due respect to Miss Singapore World, it is of little importance or significance to warrant even a brief mention in Parliament which should be reserved for more pressing and urgent matters of national concern. Few Singaporeans have even heard of Miss Singapore World in the first place. It was the state media which made a mountain out of a molehill to boost its flagging readership. Here are a few questions our correspondent suggest that the PAP MPs bring up in Parliament and quiz the relevant ministers: Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco: 1. It was reported that Zhang came to Singapore with only a diploma from China. Which institution did she obtain a diploma from? Does it qualify her to study in Singapore on a student pass? 2. How did she manage to get Singapore PR within 2 months of application? What are the criteria for granting PR in this case? 3. What is the percentage of PRs who choose to return to serve their motherland after studying and working in Singapore? ERA report on PRs forming 40 per cent of buyers of resale flats: 1. What are the actual figures for the number of PRs who bought resale flats from the years 2005 - 2008? 2. How many PRs sold their flats before leaving Singapore and the average amount of profit they made from the sale? 3. Should a capital gain tax be imposed on PRs selling their resale flats? Yoong Siew Wah fiasco: 1. The exact source of the factual error published in the Straits Times report on 10 October 1986. 2. The proceedings of the Parliament Select Hearing on the Legal Amendment Act in 1986. 3. Has the error been rectified in the actual records? The PAP MPs are really making a mockery out of Singapore's parliamentary system by asking such frivolous questions. Then again, they are not expected to ask serious and difficult questions on behalf of Singaporeans when almost half of them got "elected" somehow without actually fighting an election proper. When you occupy 82 out of 84 seats in Parliament, you can afford a little trivialty to pass time.  Read More →