TR EMERITUS

Even though the Wuhan virus originated from China and created an international pandemic, the world should be grateful that China quarantined the province of Hubei - and the city of Wuhan - in particular. Had it not done that, given the mobility of people these days and the contagion of the virus, many countries could have suffered a tsunami of infections. Instead, less than 1% of the infections have occurred outside of China. Locking 11 million people together in Wuhan with a highly contagious disease increases the chances of infection and death dramatically. For one, the people are confined and it becomes easier to catch the virus. For another, when the infections multiply, resources will be stretched thin. Indeed, many people died not because the virus was deadly, but because there weren’t enough medical supplies, medical personnel and hospital beds. The number of people infected with the virus in Wuhan was reported as 4,100 and the number of people who died as a result, is 224. That puts the death rate at 5.5% as against the national rate of around 2%. The people of China, and Wuhan in particular, bit the bullet for the rest of the world. In contrast, during the 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu Virus contagion, which was first detected in California on 15 April 2009, no American city was ordered on lock down even though WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Instead, life carried on more or less as usual but with precautions like screening of passengers at immigration points, quarantine of affected people, public education, development of antibodies and release of emergency stockpiles etc. The result was that by the end of the contagion in late 2010, more than 700 million people worldwide were infected, almost 200,000 people died and 214 countries were affected. The Wuhan virus, on the other hand, has been dealt with responsibly, almost to the point of being self-sacrificial, by the Chinese government, with the result that 99% of the infections have been kept within the country.   Foong Swee Fong      Read More →

The last time we had a referendum was when the govt proposed to join Malaysia with Singapore becoming a state of Malaysia. In such an arrangement, we lose our sovereignity, our future will be decided not by us but by the Malaysian govt that could be part Singaporeans, if Singaporeans were able to get elected into the Malaysian Parliament, or be wholly under the control of Malaysians like what is happening to Malaysia today. The surrendering of a country's sovereignty is a very serious matter as it affects the life and future of all Singaporeans. Singapore belongs to the Singaporeans, and giving away Singapore to foreigners is an equally serious matter. Singapore can lose its sovereignty to foreigners through an act of war and conquest. Singapore can also lose its sovereignty to foreigners through its own stupidity by inviting foreigners to take over the country. If the Singapore population consists of 50% foreigners, through immigration, the granting of citizenship to foreigners, Singaporeans would have given the foreigners half the share of the island. If the proportion of foreigners gets bigger, it is as good as surrendering our country to foreigners. No govt should be allowed to make such a decision to give away Singapore and Singapore's sovereignty to foreigners. No political parties or individuals elected to form the govt of the day, temporary custodians, should be given this right and authority to give Singapore to foreigners. This is an act of treason. As the number of foreigners keeps on increasing and with the silly population policy of wanting to increase the population to 6.9m, mainly by bringing in foreigners to occupy and take over this island, soon Singapore will be in the hands of foreigners called Singaporeans by freely giving away our citizenship. Should Singaporeans allow this to happen? Can the govt of the day make this decision for all Singaporeans and future Singaporeans? This island country belongs to every Singaporeans, not to any political party or individuals. Anyone wanting to give this island away to foreigners by whatever deceptive means must get the approval and consent of all Singaporeans. Before Singapore ended up in the hands of foreigners, called new Singaporeans, we need a referendum to decide this, if this is the intent of the govt of the day. Daft Singaporeans cannot afford to be daft and allow this to happen in their time. If they do not do anything, they are being irresponsible to fellow Singaporeans and future Singaporeans, to their children and grandchildren. Our parents did not fight for this island to be given to people from all over the world. Our parents fought for this island to be handed down to their children and descendants. We need a referendum now before the rice is cooked beyond recognition. Singaporeans need to decide if they want to give this island to foreigners, to share this island they built with foreigners, to allow foreigners to take over their homeland. Did the opposition parties see this development and making this their mission to prevent it from happening? Even if they don't, could not see this is happening, all Singaporeans must call for a referendum on this. This is our island, our homeland and we must not allow a few individuals, people elected for a few years, temporarily govt of the day, to decide this fate for us. This island did not belong to them but to us. Wake up daft Singaporeans. You have been sleeping for too long and could lose your country if you keep on sleeping and do nothing to stop this trend. How big is the percentage of foreigners now called new citizens in our population? Are we now a minority and it is too late to do anything? Are the foreigners already a majority and taking over our country? PS.  There are many stupidity has no cure type telling Singaporeans to treat foreigners well, welcome them and help them to assimilate into our midst. Mind you, the foreigners are not here just to steal your jobs, steal your lunch, your country is at stake when they eventually take over everything that once belong to us, and make them theirs. Get it? We owe it to our children and descendants to keep this island country for them, not to hand it on a silver platter to foreigners. Chua Chin Leng The author blogs at http://mysingaporenew.blogspot.com/   .    Read More →

An article publicised by The Online Citizen led to some recent discussions in Parliament. A lady named “Ms Soo” was allegedly denied access to savings in her CPF’s Medisave and Special Accounts to pay the hospital bills. But this was subsequently clarified by various government agencies, including CPF, that she was allowed access to her CPF funds. The TOC website was inaccurate to that extent and that should be the end of it. The full picture of what really happened was made public, for the public to move on. But the ministry made public the complainant’s name, age and even what she was admitted into the hospital for. The government cited public interest to defend their action, and Senior Minister of State for Communication and Information Janil Puthucheary outlined three conditions whereby intended anonymity of private data can be made public by public agencies. First, “personal data will be disclosed only if the Government’s clarifications can be disputed or would not be sufficiently clear without it.” I would have thought that applying POFMA to issue corrective notices (i.e. by chopping a “FALSE” sign on the article and putting side by side a contrarian report) would be such that the government’s stand would have been sufficiently clear, without having to disclose more. Further, I understand that once CPF clarified that the funds were not denied, the complainant did not dispute it. Although she said that she was shocked that her personal details were made public without her consent, she did not challenge the facts. That should be the end of it? That is, it has duly satisfied Minister Puthucheary’s first condition that the government’s clarifications cannot be disputed - at least to the discerning majority. So, if that is the case, is it necessary that more ought to be done to “crack the nut”? I mean, is there a need to use a Tomahawk blade to mow the lawn? Or, to travel to the North Pole to freeze a steak, sirloin notwithstanding? Second, “such data should be specific enough for the relevant individual to challenge the Government’s account of the case, if necessary.” Is it necessary then to make full disclosure in the TOC’s case? This follows from my first point. No specificity is thus necessary if it was not necessary from the start. That is, if what is inaccurate can be corrected with indisputable data, like facts or reports to show conclusively that she had accessed to her CPF funds, then naming her, revealing her age, and even making public her medical condition only makes what is from the start unnecessary even more unnecessary, right? In fact, going further (by making it an exception to PDPA) may be perceived by some to be acting in contrary to what Michelle Obama once said: “When they go low, we go high”. So, taking from Michelle’s cue, does the action of the government risk public perception of this, “when they go low, we go lower?” Finally, “personal data that is irrelevant to the case will not be disclosed.” This goes without saying, but not saying it will risk misunderstanding. Yet, what if, in this case, saying too much of it risks deepening the misunderstanding? I felt that (as Professor Eugene Tan had stated it) if the government is applying the public interest to justify such full disclosure of private data, then one should articulate the public interest fully so that it goes beyond just a justification to winning the public acceptance of such action. Instead, in my view, the three conditions, adds little to the articulation, but goes further to sharpen the tomahawk blade with an eye for one’s neighbour’s lawn. And when Dr Theseira asked whether there ought to have been a protocol to allow the one affected to agree to a statement to clarify matter, and should that fail, “the agency could clarify matters without that person’s consent,” Minister Puthucheary replied that “the nature of such public complaint does not lend itself to a protocol”. He explained that “it would be inappropriate for us to constrain the agency’s response to an inaccurate or outright false public statement.” In any event, if it is “outright false”, would revealing the name, age and sickness lend itself to make it even more “outright false”? And from my understanding, I note that the government agency did try to get the complainant’s consent, but she was overseas at that time. So, even though there was no outright protocol, there was at least some implied courtesy to notify the complainant. But alas, when they could not get her, they publicised it nevertheless. That accounts for the fact that the complainant said she was shocked by the disclosure. So in my humble view, the three conditions are not completely satisfied in this CPF case, and if so, we may have lower the bar for future cases. And this is disconcerting, because if they should ever go low in the future then I am afraid our government may shuffle to the limbo rock and go even lower. Michael Han    Read More →