In a Facebook post on Friday (5 July), international human rights lawyer M Ravi announced that he has received back his practising certificate from the Supreme Court Registrar after four years.

“After 4 years of being a non-practising lawyer and waiting to return to practise, I am happy to share that my Singapore Law Practising Certificate has finally been granted by the Supreme Court Registrar with effect from today,” he wrote.

In his post, he thanked the Law Society and the Attorney General’s Chambers for their support in his application.

In 2015, the High Court suspended the lawyer from practising until an approved psychiatrist gives him the green light to do so. This is because Mr Ravi was previously diagnosed with bipolar disorder, specifically hypomania – a part of bipolar disorder and characterised by a distinct period of elevated or irritable mood.

During his suspension, Mr Ravi noted that he has “not stayed still” and continued working on his international human rights matters, as well as on various other things like “giving talks and training sessions to lawyers and parliamentarians, giving press interviews and travelling and networking in the region and internationally”.

In addition, he also said he joined Carson Law Chambers, a law firm owned by the chief of People’s Voice Party Lim Tean, and launched his personal website. He also revealed that he will soon be launching his video channel “RAVision to educate and discuss pertinent legal and public interest issues”.

“As I pen this down, I remember everyone who has stood by me – family, friends, clients, peers, international colleagues and my supporters – there are too many of you good souls to mention – you know who you are, and I am thankful and grateful for the different ways you have stood unflinchingly by my side,” he noted.

The post International human rights lawyer, MRavi gets back his practising certificate after four years appeared first on The Online Citizen.

It was reported in the mainstream media today (5 Jul) that a subsidiary of the MES Group of Companies, Labourtel Management Corporation, and its director Parvis Ahamed Mohamed Ghouse, were charged under the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act. The company was charged with 10 counts of offences under the Act while Parvis was charged with 6.

The MES’ company is accused of failing to comply with licensing conditions between Nov 2017 and Jan this year while Parvis is accused of neglect. The charges involved a total of four facilities under its care – Jurong Penjuru Dormitory 1 and 2 at Penjuru Place, the Blue Stars Dormitory around Boon Lay Way and The Leo at Kaki Bukit Road 3.

In a statement, the Ministry of Manpower said, “Investigations revealed that the (dormitories) were poorly maintained. For example, there were missing or damaged light fixtures, faulty shower taps and corroded railings and staircases.”

“The living conditions in (them) were also filthy and unacceptable, such as cockroaches found in the rooms,” it added.

The MOM inspectors even found missing rubbish chute covers in one dormitory. Its toilets also have missing doors meaning that the workers would do their “business” openly exposing themselves. In another dormitory, its stoves and washing basins were found to be damaged.

MES Group’s dormitory fined in 2016

This is not the first time a dormitory company under MES Group was charged for providing poor living conditions to foreign workers. In 2016, KT Mesdorm under MES Group was fined $300,000 for housing foreign workers in an overcrowded dormitory.

At the time, MOM censured KT Mesdorm, “By intentionally taking in more residents than permitted, KT Mesdorm had caused the infrastructure and amenities in the dormitory to be over-taxed, resulting in overcrowded, unsanitary and unhygienic living conditions.”

It was housing 500 foreign workers more than the permitted limit at its Blue Stars dormitory, the very same dormitory currently involved in charges brought by MOM. Somehow, over the last 3 years, the Blue Stars dormitory was switched from KT Mesdorm to Labourtel.

Photos from MOM which inspected Blue Stars dormitory in 2016

MES Group headed by PAP-linked people

The MES Group provides integrated property and logistics solutions. According to its website, MES Group has received many “accolades” from government entities:

• People’s Association Employer Community Spirit Award for outstanding achievements in community service – 2010
• Patron of Heritage & Friend of Singapore Heritage Awards for contributions to heritage causes – 2007, 2008 and 2009
• Total Defence Award from the Ministry of Defence, Singapore, for supporting defence causes – 2003
• Major donor to the Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund, to support needy schoolchildren and youth – 2009 and 2010
• Official Sponsor of the Drink-Drive Campaign by the Traffic Police – 2008 and 2009
• Official Sponsor of the Road Safety Outreach for Foreign Workers Campaign – 2008 and 2009
• Major donor to the “We Are One” Charity Drive with Mediacorp – 2009
• Logistical Supporter for the National Day Parades – 2014 and 2015

And according to an old archived webpage in 2016, MES Group was actually headed by a former PAP Minister and a grassroots leader. The chairman of MES Group was Mr Sidek Saniff, a former PAP Senior Minister of State for Education and Environment, while its CEO was Mr Mohamed Abdul Jaleel, a PAP grassroots leader.

At the time, its webpage said:

“He (Mohamed Abdul Jaleel) is also concurrently active member, advisor and/or patron of a number of community organizations and business associations. Despite his commitments and busy schedules he continues to set aside time for charitable endeavours, humanitarian causes, educational development of children, and cultural and cross cultural engagement. His generosity and sincerity has endeared him to many and he remains a beacon of inspiration for many in business and in life.”

He was conferred a PBM in 2005 for his grassroots activities.

Strangely, shortly after the news broke in social media that MES Group was headed by PAP-linked people, MES Group quietly took away the 2 prominent profiles of Mr Sidek Saniff and Mr Mohamed Abdul Jaleel from its website. It’s not known who is currently heading the MES Group.

The post Workers dorm under MES Group linked to grassroots charged 2nd time in 3 years appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Back in 2015, the Prime Minister’s Office published a video of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong being interviewed by journalists. During the interview, he commented about anti-government protests in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

One of the journalist asked PM Lee if he is worried about the same kind of anti-government movement happening in Singapore seeing as younger people are often unsatisfied by government policies.

The Premier replied that although Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore do share similarities such as having a Chinese majority population and had at one point been referred to as the Four Little Dragons due to their rapid economic growth, he noted that Singapore is not like the other two nations.

“But for a decade I think we had parted ways, Hong Kong is part of China. What are Hong Kongers are worried about? Housing. Young people can’t afford housing, not to mention getting married and having children.”

PM Lee noted that another possible concern for Hong Kong is how the massive mainland Chinese society could overshadow the unique characteristics if the island. So despite the Occupy Central protests against the electoral system, he posited that there were other socio-political factors at play which could have contributed to the cause.

Switching to Taiwan, PM Lee said in the interview that he believed most Taiwanese people would prefer the status quo and political diversity that they have. He opined Taiwan had a slower economic growth compared to Singapore and that while most of their youth are university graduates, may end up in unsatisfying jobs like taxi driving or starting small businesses.

“Some of them even apply to work in our country,” he added.

“Why? Maybe they lack clear economic direction in the past decade,” the Prime Minister elaborated. Mr Lee said that Taiwan faces the conundrum of getting too close with mainland China but it’s difficult for them to resist the attraction of business opportunities that China offers.

Another point of concern for Taiwan, says PM Lee, is the importation of foreign workers which the Taiwanese worry would bring a negative impact on a society that is already dealing with economic stagnation.

“Hence, young people [in Hong Kong and Taiwan] do have reasons to worry and these worries were reflected in election results,” proposed Mr Lee.

Meanwhile in Singapore

Turning to back home, Mr Lee explained that Singaporeans face their own unique set of challenges. One example he gave was that some people felt that the government’s pace on housing is too slow.

“But at least we don’t have issues in buying a house,” he says.

Mr Lee elaborated that if you ask a Taiwanese or Hong Konger when they plan on buying a house, they might think you’re making fun of them because they cannot even imaging owning a house unless they are incredibly rich.

“But Singaporeans often marry after they buy a house, right?” PM Lee chuckled.

In the video, the Prime Minister also mentioned that Singapore’s economic growth has been going well for the past decade, noting that students who graduate from polytechnics and universities always manage to secure a decent job.

“Within six months, 98% [of graduates in Singapore] find employment, and the job is decent.”

However he did add that people still hope for better paying jobs and shorter work hours, something he hopes for too.

In the case of Singapore, PM Lee did note that economic success comes with a price, that is the need to import foreign talent. This, he says, poses another challenge.

While PM Lee did not directly answer the journalists’ question on whether an anti-government protest might happen in Singapore as it did in Hong Kong and Taiwan, we can help to answer that by looking at Singapore’s laws which makes it pretty much impossible. An assembly of any number, even a one man silent protest, is considered illegal in Singapore.

On top of the restrictive Public Order Act, a law was passed by this 13th Parliament last year which gave powers to the police to designate a peaceful demonstration as a ‘special event’ which allows them to use lethal force on protesters and which makes the recording of video and photographs illegal.

The Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act which was passed in 2018, treats peaceful protests the same was as terrorist attacks, giving the police wide-reaching powers. The law makes it illegal for anyone other than the police to make recordings of the event which means any evidence of possible police brutality – such as we’ve seen recently in Hong Kong – would have to be retrieved from the police force themselves at their discretion.

When the law was passed, civil society groups expressed serious concerns about the bill, saying that these so-called special powers are unnecessary given that Singapore already has strict laws against public assembly which empowers the police to respond to them as they would any prohibited activity.

The Human Rights Watch said about Singapore:

Peaceful public demonstrations and other assemblies are severely limited, and failure to comply with detailed restrictions on what can be said and who can participate in public gatherings frequently results in police investigations and the threat of criminal charges.

HRW notes that the Public Order Act has an extremely broad definition of ‘public assembly’ which “has been interpreted to encompass everything from handling out leaflets on the death penalty to an individual standing silently holding a placard.”

Even assemblies at Speakers’ Corner that do not require a permit face numerous restrictions, notes HRW. Foreign companies are prohibited from sponsoring events there and foreigners are banned from participating in assemblies. The area is blanketed with CCTV, so even a foreigner who happens to stop for a minute at Hong Lim Park while an assembly is happening could be at risk of criminal prosecution, as is the organiser.

What’s more, HRW pointed out that “violations of the restrictions on public assemblies are criminal offenses and the authorities routinely question and harass those who participate. As a result, many are afraid to do so.”

One activist was quoted as saying, “There are people who say ‘I support you, but I don’t dare come to your protests.’”

So as you can see, the chances of an anti-government protest in the scale of which we’ve seen in Hong Kong back and Taiwan happening in Singapore is rather slim given the severely restrictive laws.

The post Will Singapore ever see an anti-government protest in the scale of that in Hong Kong? appeared first on The Online Citizen.

On Friday (5 July), former editor of The Straits Times (ST) Leslie Fong wrote an opinion piece regarding the 1 July protest in Hong Kong that saw a group of protesters stormed into LegCo and destroyed the Hong Kong emblem, ruined portraits of political leaders and destroyed furniture.

In his article, Mr Fong called these protesters “rioters” and stated that Singaporeans watched television footage of them “ransacking and vandalising” LegCo in “sadness and bewilderment”.

He also supported Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam and the police, and justified their move to retreat as their “key considerations must be the avoidance of massive bloodshed or, worse, death”.

If that is not all, Mr Fong also stressed that the reason why Hong Kongers are taking the matter to the streets right now is because of the high property prices in Hong Kong as people are not able to own a house.

“This deplorable state was brought about by avaricious property tycoons and their business associates who have made it ruinously expensive for most wage earners to rent, never mind buy, a decent roof over their head,” he explained.

He added, “Tackling this decisively – giving the majority of Hong Kong people a chance to own a home without having to take on the burden of loans that will take two generations to pay off – will be more meaningful and effective in lifting the sense of desperation that many of the young feel than any talk of political reform and more responsive governance.”

Since 9 June, millions of Hong Kongers took to the streets to protest against the controversial Extradition Bill that would allow residents to be extradited to mainland China. Although the government has postponed the bill for now, people are still demanding that it be permanently shelved and that Ms Lam resign.

Lynn Lee’s response

In response to Mr Fong’s article, Lynn Lee, a film producer at Lianain Films, took to her Facebook on Friday (5 July) to slam the former editor for his thoughts regarding the protests in Hong Kong.

The Singaporean journalist who was on the ground documenting the protests, wrote, “Not a single protester I’ve spoken to says they’re out on the streets because of property prices.”

The reason why Hong Kongers are protesting is because they’re “appalled at the steady erosion of the one-country-two-systems framework”, as they don’t wish to lose their freedom, Ms Lee noted. She also mentioned that the people of Hong Kong don’t trust the Chinese Communist Party and “owe it to themselves to say something now even if they’re sure China and the HK government won’t listen”.

Ms Lee also pointed out that its “pure stupidity” to say that the riot took place because foreigners have instigated the locals to protest.

“How much money, Mr Fong, can I pay you to stand on Harcourt Road. In the sun, in the rain, in the humidity, in front of lines of riot-police, amid clouds of teargas?” she asked.

The film producer also said that Mr Fong wrote the article because he sees it as a “teaching moment for a domestic audience” and not so much of analysing the real situation in Hong Kong.

“He’s betting on the likelihood that Singaporeans lack the imagination to understand why anyone would risk so much to stand up for freedom such as democracy and free speech. And so in Fong’s world – in the world he believes Singaporeans inhabit – those who do are “rioters” who must surely be someone else’s puppets,” she noted.

She also added Singapore government is insecure since a lot of freedom is given to the mainstream media to run stories “devoted to faux-analyses like Fong’s”.

“A people who can organise – as the young protesters in HK have organised – is a frightening thing for authoritarian regimes. Some people, somewhere, are getting their knickers in a bunch, not because they care about Hong Kongers, but because they’re afraid of what we might learn from their struggle,” she opined.

The post Film producer Lynn Lee slams former editor of ST for his article that condemns Hong Kong protesters in 1 July protest appeared first on The Online Citizen.

In the wake of the Hong Kong protests, Mr Leslie Fong wrote an opinion piece titled “The view from Singapore: Hong Kong is a city tearing itself apart”. The article, in gist, paints the protests as a city that “smothering itself in full global view, egged on my western media”.

The former Straits Times editor noted in his article that “any fair-minded person who has looked at all the available facts about the extradition bill cannot but wonder why there is so much needless controversy over its proposed enactment.”

He also said that the protests in Hong Kong – which he describes it as street violence – teaches Singaporeans that a government needs to have the “necessary legislative and coercive powers as well as trained personnel” to prevent and eliminate threats against public security.

He said, “By and large, thoughtful Singaporeans, even those with liberal leanings in many areas, have accepted, on balance, the existence of laws that empower preventive detention of those out to foment violence and undermine public security.”

In response to his opinion piece, SCMP published a letter titled “How Hong Kong people standing up for their freedoms can leave some in Singapore puzzled” authored by Hong Kong resident Gauri Venkitaraman which didn’t hold back on her criticism of Mr Fong’s article.

Ms Venkitaraman wrote, “It is deeply touching how he shrouds moral judgement on Hong Kong and its people in a garb of how protests in Hong Kong have served to reinforce the pride among “thoughtful” Singaporeans about their utopian city.”

“Such praise, for a city ranked 151st out of 180 nations in the World Press Freedom Index, is rich indeed,” she added.

Ms Venkitaraman noted that people “shouldn’t be afraid to criticise the government or speak up about political issues” in a country that promotes itself as a modern, democratic nation. She asked, “Can ordinary citizens in Singapore stake claim to such freedom of speech?”

Holding nothing back, Ms Venkitaraman highlighted the Singapore government’s broad powers to limit citizens’ rights and inhibit political opposition. In particular, she pointed out several pieces of legislation that restricts the freedoms granted to citizens under the country’s constitutions.

She wrote, “Does the Internal Security Act not give the Singapore government power to indefinitely detain people without formal charges or recourse to trial? Has this not been used effectively to imprison political opponents of the ruling party and silence dissidents? The Singapore constitution does not even include a right to privacy and the Personal Data Protection Act does not protect Singaporean citizens from government-sanctioned surveillance.”

The author elaborated that while Singapore’s constitution promises freedom of speech, the laws of the land also allow the government to limit that freedom on the basis of protecting and maintaining national security, public order, and morality as well as to prevent contempt of court or incitement of any offence or to preserve parliamentary privileges.

This, she said, is the kind of authoritarianism and autocracy which “thoughtful” people like Mr Fong have ‘decided to accept, tolerate, allow, and preach about’ – the same things that Hong Kongers are protesting against.

Turning her ire towards the ruling party, Ms Ventikaraman said, “The manner in which the People’s Action Party dealt with opposition to POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation) would probably be regarded by “thoughtful” people as a lesson to other nations on how to stifle dissent.”

The Hong Konger finally pointed out that the people in Hong Kong have voiced their opposition towards the proposed extradition law precisely because they have the freedom of speech and expression to do so. She ended with a question to Mr Fong: “Can Mr Fong, who proudly claims to call “a spade a spade”, say the same about Singapore?

The post Protests in Hong Kong may look like chaos to those not used to such freedoms, says Hong Konger appeared first on The Online Citizen.

The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) released a statement on Friday (5 July) stating that it had not received any information on immediate threats to ships sailing through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore (SOMS) or to Singapore-registered ships.

It was responding to media queries after China raised its security warning to the highest level for its ships travelling through the Straits of Malacca.

On Wednesday (3 July), Bloomberg reported that China did not provide a reason for raising its security warning to level three in the strait, which runs along Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, and connects the Indian and Pacific oceans. Level three is the highest security level in Chinese shipping regulations.

A copy of this warning, dated 2 July, was posted on a website affiliated with China’s Transport Ministry.

“The Port of Singapore will maintain the current security level 1 as per the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code and Singapore’s security agencies will continue to be vigilant,” MPA noted.

In spite of the security level, MPA advised that all vessels transiting the SOMS are to be “vigilant” and “implement the relevant security measures”, following ISPS ships security plan.

The post MPA says “no immediate threats” to ships travelling through Straits of Malacca and Singapore appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Shandong Tai An No.1 Senior High School, located in the city of Tai An in Shandong province of China, issued a press release 1.5 months ago (23 May 2019), congratulating its students for being awarded the MOE scholarship to study at universities in Singapore.

This year is the 18th year that MOE has awarded scholarships to senior high school students in China to study at Singapore’s local universities, under the MOE’s Senior Middle School Scholarship (SM2) programme. This scholarship programme only targets at PRC students.

(Photo: TaiAn No 1 Senior High School)

Shandong Taian No.1 Senior High said that 4 of its students were awarded the MOE scholarship on 23 May after passing the written tests and interviews with flying colors.

They would be leaving for Singapore on 24 Jul this month, going to Nanyang Technological University (NTU), National University of Singapore (NUS) or Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) to study. In the first year, they would be focussing on studying the English language before proceeding to undertake their undergraduate study.

The senior high school also revealed that for this year’s SM2 scholarship, 20 students in Shandong province were awarded the scholarship (there are 22 provinces, 4 municipalities and 5 autonomous regions in China). It also said that amongst the 20 scholarship winners from Shandong, 4 were from their school.

The school also revealed that in Shandong, only 8 senior high schools in the province are qualified to recommend students to apply for SM2 scholarship. Each year, each school will send 6 to 8 of their students for the scholarship written tests held at the provincial capital in March. Shortlisted candidates will then proceed to the interview round in May.

For 2019, 58 students from Shandong province participated in the written tests in March. Twenty-nine (29) were selected for interviews. Five were from Shandong Taian No.1 Senior High and the above 4 students were eventually awarded the MOE’s SM2 scholarship.

AG flags lack of oversight in MOE on enforcing scholarship bonds of foreigners

According to Baidu, PRC scholars under SM2 programme would receive an annual allowance of S$6,000. This does not include school fees, food and lodging which are fully paid for by MOE.

And according to NUS’ website, the annual cost for the tuition fees in the school will cost about $39,736 to $48,836. As a student will typically take three years to complete the programme which means a sum of $119,208 to $146,508 will be paid by MOE for the scholars studying in NUS (not including the annual allowance).

However, SM2 scholars would need to “serve” a bond by working in any Singapore registered companies for 6 years. They do not necessarily need to be located in Singapore as long as they are employed by a Singapore registered company.

Baidu also noted that there are a lot of SM2 scholars who would want to go abroad for their graduate studies but couldn’t do so due to the bond restrictions, unless, of course, their family is willing to pay off their bond.

In any case, it has been reported that many of the PRC scholars ended up absconding from Singapore without completing their bond and MOE had a hard time getting them to pay back.

Three years ago, the Auditor-General Office (AGO) criticised MOE and the universities for lack of oversight on enforcing scholarship bonds. It said that MOE did not maintain adequate oversight of NUS and NTU on the monitoring and enforcement of scholarship bonds for a scholarship scheme that disbursed $36.52 million in financial year 2014/2015.

In 16 of the 30 cases that it checked, AGO found that the universities did not take prompt action on foreign scholars who failed to serve their required bonds. “As a result, there was no assurance that the scholarship grants were used optimally,” it said of the grants, which are given to foreign students.

In response, MOE said it has tightened and enhanced processes in monitoring and enforcing scholarship bonds of foreign students.

“For scholars who intentionally default, we will recover liquidated damages with interest from them, failing which defaulters will not be able to work or reside in Singapore,” said MOE.

It’s not known how MOE is going to go after the defaulters given that they could be anywhere in the world. Also, it’s not known how it would go after the parents of the defaulters in China too, who presumably acted as guarantors for their child’s scholarship. Note that Chinese laws are different from Singapore’s.

Meanwhile, it was recently reported that local Singaporean Lim Koh Leong, 60, was not allowed by the CPF Board to fund his daughter’s education despite having more than enough money in his CPF account. He had revealed that he currently has more than $70,000 in his CPF account and he only needs $15,000 for his daughter’s school fees. Mr Lim ended up getting help from his family members to fund his daughter’s $15,000 school fees and would not bother the CPF Board anymore.

The post TaiAn No.1 Senior High: 4 of 20 MOE scholars for Shandong province from our school appeared first on The Online Citizen.

A veteran advocate for the disabled community Mr Nicholas Aw has stepped down from his work with the Disabled People’s Association (DPA) this year. For the past 10 years, Mr Aw has been an active and vocal champion for the disabled community by highlighting the difficulties they face and lobbying for policy changes that would make life a little easier.

In 2011, he was elected president of the DPA. He served until 2017 when he stepped down as president but stayed on as advisor before quitting on 30 June this year. According to Today, Mr Aw remains a member of the DPA but does not intend to be actively involved in any activities by the association.

Voicing his frustrations in an interview with TODAY, the 53-year old lawyer say that the slow implementation of policies and lack of passionate leaders in the sector are major contributing factors.

Mr Aw also said that his cardiologist had advised that he reduce his workload now that he’s been diagnosed with arrhythmia – a condition where the heartbeat is irregular.

“Prior to (the diagnosis), I was speaking with the executive director at DPA about stepping down because I was irritated with what was happening. (The diagnosis) affirmed my decision to step down,” explained Mr Aw.

Another big frustration with the work he was doing was how slow change was brought on when it came to policies for the disabled. An example he gave was the changing of the car park labels in 2017 which only came five years after the first round of consultations in 2012.

“(The process) was too long and I don’t think they really heard us,” said Mr Aw.

The Car Park Label Scheme allows for drivers with disabilities to get a Class 1 label which allows them to park in specially reserved lots for any duration. But with the increasing demand of such lots, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) had to revise the scheme to ensure that those who needed the lots the most would be assured of their availability.

But this then meant that those using less ‘bulky’ mobility aids like quad-sticks and crutches no longer qualified for the Class 1 label. The disabled community was dismayed.

However according to reports, MSF had clarified that the revised criteria was not dependent on the type of mobility aid being used. Instead, a person who is certified by a doctor as needing a ‘bulky’ mobility aid would be able to qualify for a Class 1 label regardless of whether he uses the aid or not.

On that note, Mr Aw elaborated that he had been in consultation with DPA on the issue of these parking lots being abused. For example, he said some caregivers would stay beyond the allowed duration and some would use the lots anyway even when they weren’t ferrying the disabled.

Mr Aw conveyed his frustrations in the interview that the changes to the scheme were just “cosmetic” in the end and that it “didn’t really address the issue of abuse, which we’re still talking about till today”.

Leaders who lack passion

On the issue of leaders who lack passion, Mr Aw said that the car park label problems were due to leaders in the social sector who “did not think in the shoes of a disabled person.”

He continued, “There’s no passion among the people I work with — the people from the various social service organisations or voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), and those who make decisions on policy.”

Declining to name names, Mr Aw did however blame the way leaders in the sector were developed. In particular, Mr Aw highlighted the Sun Ray scheme launched in 2014. Administered by the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), the scheme develops individuals with strong leadership qualities to become leaders in social service organisations who are then rotated between agencies after 2-6 years.

According to Mr Aw, many of the leaders developed under the scheme lacked crucial on-the-ground experience and that the short rotation period wasn’t ideal for continuity in long-term policies and programmes for volunteer welfare organisations (VWO).

Responding to Mr Aw’s concerns, an NCSS spokesperson told TODAY that the Sun Ray scheme is intended to complement other leadership schemes and efforts of social service agencies to hire and develop high calibre leaders.

Said the spokesperson, “As social needs evolve and become more complex, there is a greater need for leaders from varied backgrounds to come together and draw on each other’s skillsets and new perspectives to tackle social issues.

“The scheme is thus designed to bring in people from the corporate sector in addition to those with specialised professional skills.”

Currently, there are 100 Sun Ray staff serving in 35 social service agencies, added the spokesperson. These staff have generalist and specialist backgrounds in relevant fields such as social work and occupational therapy.

As for the job rotation, NCSS said it is vital in order to give these leaders exposure to different areas in social service. They noted that the staff are rotated based on job levels and the need of the agencies, adding that rotations are reviewed in consultation with the agencies to ensure that plans aren’t disrupted.

Problems with the Purple Parade

Another point of contention for Mr Aw was the Purple Parade. It is an annual event to promote awareness and celebrate the abilities of those with special needs organised by the Central Singapore Community Development Council.

According to Mr Aw, the event had “lost its sense of purpose and direction” and did not do enough to make people understand the experiences of the disabled. He explained, “It’s become a circus.”

“When you go there, it’s very noisy, loud and infectious… a lot of people from the sector, such as those who are autistic, say that they do not want to attend as they are sensitive to the loud noise.”

Again, in response to Mr Aw’s comments, a spokesperson for Purple Parade said that the event was to not meant to replace the good work in public education and disability service of the VWOs. The spokesperson highlighted that the parade serves as a reminder to Singaporeans “to support inclusion and celebrate the abilities of persons with special needs”.

The spokesperson also added that the team would strive to make the event more disabled friendly.

Leaders afraid of taking risks

The final straw for Mr Aw was the unwillingness of leaders in the sector to involve themselves in potentially controversial issues. Mr Aw said he had sought the help of leaders from various VWOs to help a disabled young man who was facing a prison sentence for an act of road rage – they refused.

“All these VWOs have access to contacts like doctors who are specialised in the man’s disability. I had a difficult time trying to persuade various VWOs to come forward to provide doctors to write a medical report, which could have been submitted to the courts to give them a better understanding of the disability,” said Mr Aw.

Mr Aw believes that these leaders he approached were unwilling to risk their jobs and reputations by getting involved in what could be a controversial issue even though they were in the position to help. As he said it, ““They have the bullets but they don’t dare to use them.”

Mr Aw says he’s done all he can for the disabled community. “This job doesn’t pay you. It gives you a lot of grief, but we (the volunteers) are here because we care,” he lamented.

Now that he’s stepped down from his advisory role with DPA, Mr Aw wants to spend more time with his six-year old.

The post Veteran advocate for the disabled community steps down as advisor for Disabled People Association appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Members of the public should take caution if they receive any phone calls from people claiming to be from the police department.

In a Facebook post on Saturday (6 July), the police stated that a member of the public had received a phone call from someone claiming to be from the Criminal Investigation Department of the Singapore Police Force.

According to the police, he was asked to show the front and back of his Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card to the scammer through a video call as part of a new regulation to update his personal details. As some ATM cards are known to function as debit cards, the scammer could have been trying to obtain the debit card details.

The Police emphasised that such calls are not made by the Police, therefore, members of the public are advised to take the following precautions when they receive unsolicited calls, especially from unknown parties:

• Don’t panic – Ignore the calls and caller’s instructions. No government agency will request for transfer of money, personal details or bank account login credentials over the phone. Call a trusted friend or talk to a relative before you act. You may be overwhelmed by emotion and err in your judgment.
• Don’t believe – Scammers may use caller ID spoofing technology to mask the actual phone number and display a different number. Calls that appear to be from a local number may not actually be made from Singapore. If you receive a suspicious call from a local number, hang up, wait a while, then call the number back to check the validity of the request.
• Don’t give – Do not provide your name, identification number, passport details, contact details, bank account or credit card details, and One-Time-Password (OTP). Such information are useful to criminals.

The police stated that if you wish to provide any information related to such scams, please call the Police hotline at 1800-255-0000, or submit it online at www.police.gov.sg/iwitness. If you require urgent Police assistance, please dial ‘999’.

To seek scam-related advice, you may call the National Crime Prevention Council’s anti-scam helpline at 1800-722-6688 or visit www.scamalert.sg.

The police also asked members of the public to join the ‘let’s fight scams’ campaign at www.scamalert.sg/fight by signing up as an advocate to receive up-to-date messages and share them with your family and friends.

The post Police warns of phone scams that claim to be from the Criminal Investigation Department appeared first on The Online Citizen.

The CPF Board has rejected a 47-year-old man named Suriia Das’s request to allow his CPF savings in his Ordinary and Special accounts to be transferred to his wife’s Medisave account. This is so the couple can use the money to pay for further treatment and medical expenses that had occurred as his wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2016.

This news was revealed in a video posted in RAVIsion, a personal video channel by international human rights lawyer M Ravi, which was recently launched to educate and discuss pertinent legal and public interest issues.

In the video, Suriia’s wife Sarojini Jayapal, also 47, revealed that she was “devastated” when she first heard about her diagnosis three years ago. Sarojini who is suffering from 4th stage ovarian cancer said that she hopes to overcome her disease, mainly due to the love and support that she has been receiving from her family, especially her husband.

Although she wants to get better and live a healthier life with her husband, Sarojini pointed out that she has no more money left in her CPF account, especially Medisave to pay for her treatment.

“I’ve no more CPF (savings) with me, especially Medisave. It’s all drained out because of my sickness and hospital (stays). We have utilised my husband’s Medisave as well. It has been fully utilised. Now we have no resource to pay those bills in the hospitals,” she said.

Sarojini also stressed that the reason why she chose to receive her treatment at Mount Elizabeth Hospital and not a public hospital is because the former was the only one who gave her the hope that she will survive.

Noting that the couple went for a second opinion at National University Hospital (NUH), Sarojini said that the doctor told her husband to bring her somewhere nice and make her happy, indicating that they can’t do anything to fix her condition.

“So that means they have no hope to cure me and they also claim that they have no medicine to cure me after they’ve discussed whatever medicine I’d taken at Mount E. So we had no choice but to go back to Mount E, to the same doctor,” she expressed.

Undying love

As an operation manager who earns only about S$3000 per month, Suriia noted that life has been tough till the extent that he ran out of cash to pay for his bills, resulting in his house’s electricity being cut off in on a few occasions.

“It’s very tough. But I don’t mind this toughness. I just want her to live until the age of 79, until she sees her grandchildren. And I don’t mind if God takes my life and give it to her. That is what I always pray,” Suriia said in sadness.

However, Suriia’s undying love for his wife is what that keeps him going. In fact, in June 2017, about six months after Sarojini was diagnosed, he organised a surprise birthday celebration for her where he renewed his wedding vow, especially the verse that mentioned that they “will stay together in sickness or health”.

Not allowed to use Ordinary and Special accounts

In an attempt to fund for his wife’s raising medical bills and treatment, Suriia wanted to take money out from his Ordinary and Special accounts in his CPF savings but was not allowed to do so by the CPF Board. Instead, CPF suggested that he uses his Medisave, which is unfortunately empty as well.

“Why (do) I need to keep the Ordinary and Special Accounts when my wife is suffering? My wife is everything to me. She’s my life, she’s everything I’m living for,” he said.

As such, the man had no choice but resorted to borrowing money from various other parties like moneylenders, family, friends, his company, as well as through crowdfunding online.

He also said that he really wants to continue with Sarojini’s treatment so she will have a chance to be cured and be the bubbly person that she used to be once.

“I love her very much but I want her to be very happy. I want her to be cure because (I’m) very sad seeing her suffering every day… Sometimes, I feel like jumping down, you know. Feel very hopeless and helpless. I still got hope that God will cure her, so God must cure her,” Suriia noted.

Legal issues involved

Mr Ravi who is representing Suriia said that there are a few concerns with this case.

The first being that it engages section 18 (d) of the CPF Act which allows a CPF member (like Suriia) to transfer a portion of his fund from the Ordinary and Special account to his loved one’s account. However, there’s a catch here because according to the CPF Board’s policy, the money can only be transferred to someone who is 55 years of age and above.

“Now, to me, this policy is irrational. A policy which is irrational in the administrative law sense becomes unlawful. In other word, what CPF Board is saying is that though they’re sympathetic to the fact that Sarojini is suffering from 4th stage cancer, but she has to wait until 55 for Suriia to then transfer the money out, with the Board’s consent, from his account to Sarojini’s Medisave account. To me, this is mindboggling and to say the least, it rankles the soul,” he explained.

Mr Ravi also highlighted that this policy deprives Sarojini her right to life, under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

Article 9 said that no one should be deprived of his life or liberty in accordance with the law. However, CPF’s action of not allowing Sarojini to receive the money from Suriia’s account to pay for her medical expenses basically “deprives her of her right to life”, Mr Ravi argued.

TOC has contacted CPF Board for their comments on this case.

The post CPF Board denies husband’s request to use his CPF savings from his Ordinary and Special accounts for his wife’s medical treatment appeared first on The Online Citizen.

In order to cope with the expenses for the coverage of the upcoming General Election, The Online Citizen (TOC) held a fundraising dinner on Saturday night (6 July) at FiftyRafflesPlace, which was attended by many opposition party leaders, social activists, and TOC readers.

Among those who were present are former CEO of Singtel and Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) Lee Hsien Yang with his wife Lee Suet Fern who’s a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and director at Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC, Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Founder Dr Tan Cheng Bock, and Workers’ Party (WP) Chief Pritam Singh together with NCMPs Daniel Goh, Leon Perera, Dennis Tan, and former NCMP and co-founder of TOC Gerald Giam.

Not forgetting, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) head Dr Chee Soon Juan along with Chairman Dr Paul Tambyah and Vice-Chairman John L. Tan, People’s Voice Party (PVP) head and lawyer Lim Tean, Singaporeans First (SingFirst) head Tan Jee Say, as well as Singapore People’s First (SPF) member Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss and Jose Raymond.

Other notable attendees are blogger Leong Sze Hian, activist Jolovan Wham, human rights lawyer M Ravi, co-founder of TOC and lawyer Remy Choo Zheng Xi, and former CEO of NTUC Income, Tan Kin Lian – who also ran in the Presidential Election 2011.

In a post on TOC’s Facebook page, Terry Xu, editor-in-chief of TOC, thanked everyone for their warm presence and kind support.

“At first, it seemed as if no one would turn up after we repeatedly made calls for people to support our event and the event was set to be screwed. But that disappointment turned into glee when people started to ask if there were tickets still available and soon enough we had more pax than what we had envisioned for the best case scenario,” said Terry.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, Singapore People’s First member, thanked TOC in a Facebook post for bringing everyone together.

She also encouraged her friends and followers to support TOC by contributing to its running expenses in order “to keep our independent media alive and running”.

What’s more, Taiwan-based Singaporean activist and blogger Roy Ngerng expressed his patriotic and moving sentiments in a Facebook post, accompanied by a couple of “very powerful photos” featuring prominent figures and like-minded individuals “all at one event to support TOC’s fundraising dinner.”

He then added, “This is the Singapore I know. The time has come. For change. For the future of Singapore. The honorable one. Be inspired.”

Additionally, international human rights lawyer M Ravi, who recently announced that he has received back his practising certificate from the Supreme Court Registrar after four years, took to his Facebook to show appreciation to TOC for working hard “to bring us all a great alternative media platform all these years – publishing challenging and controversial truths often when such news was not reported elsewhere in mainstream media”.

He went on to say, “Let’s do our part for TOC by supporting through donation. I have some great memories with TOC and getting to know its co- founders. It provided great support to me when it collaborated fully with me on the campaign to save Yong Vui Kong. Since then, it has also been airing news about the public interest cases I have fought. Kudos to them for being that alternative media provider that has stood steadfastly to give Singaporeans an alternative voice … May we always strive for press freedom!”

Remy Choo Zheng Xi also took to his Facebook to convey his thoughts on the fundraiser event.

“TOC’s fundraiser tonight was great fun, and a reminder of how important independent news media is in bringing people together, and building the community of Singaporeans who believe in a better tomorrow,” he noted.

Ultimately, while our fundraising dinner was a fruitful initiative with the much-larger-than-expected crowd and positive post-event validations, our warchest is still not fully-stocked for the long run as the amount raised is only enough to tide our site’s operation for about three months or so.

Hence, we are still depending on the generosity of citizens for us to maintain our operations as we continue to provide readers with alternative perspectives and to cover stories often ignored or under-reported by mainstream media.

“The sum that TOC wish to raise is more than just maintain operation but to expand our operations in order to contest the narrative set by the state media. We all know how much money the establishment is throwing into supporting the state media in forms of advertisement and subscriptions so it is impossible for us to do much without the support of ordinary citizens who wish to see an improvement or change in the state of affairs in Singapore by having the population better informed. Do kindly support us in our donation drive so that we can make a difference.” – Terry Xu

That being said, for those of you who wish to contribute to our cause, you may do so by means of donation via bank transfer to any of the account below:

i) Maybank account: 04011108619
ii) PayNow account: 201543138DTOC

Once you’ve made the fund transfer, do drop us a message at 91781031 for notice.

For more info on how you can support us, click here.

The post Prominent party leaders and social activists attended TOC’s fundraising dinner to raise funds for upcoming General Election coverage appeared first on The Online Citizen.

While the rest of the world is appalled at the events unfolding at Xinjiang, China where people of Uighur minority are being held in what has been likened to ‘concentration camps’, others appear to be more understanding of China’s approach to the minority community.

Specifically, the Straits Times published an opinion piece that seemed to paint the camps with a different brush than the rest of the world. Written by ST’s associate editor Ravi Velloor, who had visited the camps on the invitation of Chinese state publication China Daily, the article seems to subscribe to the narrative delivered by the Chinese government that these camps are merely facilities to help the ‘radicalised’ minority find their way back to Chinese society.

About eight overseas media outlets were invited to visit two of these camps in Xinjiang in April by the Information Office of the State Council of China. Invitees included the BBC and Singapore’s Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao.

While the BBC reporter, John Sudworth visited the camp as planned, he also attempted a surprise visit off-limit areas of Xinjiang to check out what the camp were really like when they weren’t expecting visitors. What he found was distressing. Mr Sudworth reported that while satellite images shows security fences and barbed wires in the camp, they had apparently been removed before the cameras arrived. He also noted seeing equipment for installing safety nets and watchtowers in areas that they were unauthorised to film.

In his article, however, Mr Velloor wrote that while Western media has vilified the centres as ‘concentration camps’, “it is hard to fault China for wanting to rehabilitate the Uighur if their ideology is anathema to the Chinese state and hostile to other communities”.

The provincial minister and central committee member of the Communist part of China’s Xinjiang Wing Ms Tian Wen apparently impressed on Mr Velloor that ‘nothing will distract the state from its duty to secure its citizens’.

He noted, “if people are led by their religious doctrine into believing you may not celebrate at a wedding or mourn at a funeral, or marry into another community, the authorities will put a stop to it.”

During his visit to one of these training centres, Mr Velloor said he didn’t see any security guards at the door or barbed wires on the walls. He described the place as having “the air of a boarding school” and noted that the inmates could go home on weekends if they wanted to.

Strikingly, Mr Velloor himself noticed that the smartly dressed students and perfectly folded bed linen dormitories suggested that the residents were told to expect visitors. However, he also felt that the stories ‘did not seem contrived’ and that responses to questions ‘flowed in a natural way from students picked at random’.

Mr Velloor adds, “I have little doubt that there was significant window-dressing in the centre I was allowed into. Also, that harsher methods are used on those deemed more susceptible to extremism, or have actually committed violent acts.”

Taken in by rhetoric, the journalist said that “it is not easy to fault a state that will not tolerate significant sections of its people feeling a stronger loyalty to a transnational ideology that is not only alien to its own laws and culture, but also seeks to influence them into violence against non-believers.”

According to Mr Velloor, the camps have been effective as is evident by the fact that the Xinjiang province hasn’t experience a terror strike for the past 30 months.

The whole truth?

Others, however, disagree with Mr Velloor’ take on the situation. Singaporean writer, poet and playwright shared on his Facebook page a video expose by VICE about the ‘nightmare in Xinjiang’. He described the video as ‘frightening and harrowing’.

He notes in his post, “Apparently some Singaporean newspapers have fallen for the lie, uncritically parroting the Chinese government’s line that the concentration camps are necessary for security and unity, and not a form of cultural genocide.”

Though not directly referring to Mr Velloor’s article published by ST, Mr Sa’at added “But it is likely that too many years of lobbing softball questions and reproducing ministerial faxes have blunted the instinct for investigative journalism.”

Another journalist, Kirsten Han, also called our Mr Velloor’s take on the issue. Specifically highlighting several paragraphs in his article, Ms Han noted that while there is “mounting evidence, peer-reviewed research, investigative reporting (in print *and* film), and testimonies from Uyghurs and Kazakhs about what is happening in Xinjiang”, yet ST’s take on the matter was based on the invitation by the ‘Chinese state propaganda publication’ China Daily.

Mr Velloor’s rose-tinted view of the situation in Xinjiang is, as Ms Han said, based on an invitation to visit those camps. Clearly in expecting visitors, they would likely put their best foot forward and throw a proverbial blanket over the unsavoury aspects of the camp.

The post ST journalist finds it hard to fault China for running Uighur ‘re-education’ camps appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Tackling inequality by investing in the bottom to uplift them – that is Singapore’s approach said Education Minister Ong Ye Kung on Thursday (4 July) at the Group of Seven (G7) roundtable discussion for education ministers. The meeting – held in Sevres, France – was the first Singapore has been invited to.

The informal G7 forum of the world’s seven major economic powers – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States – also included representatives from Singapore, Argentina, and Estonia.

During the discussion with his foreign counterparts, Mr Ong impressed that childhood education is the key to tackling inequality and that Singapore had invested heavily on this front to enhance the affordability and accessibility of good quality pre-schools.

In a statement, the Ministry of Education (MOE) said that the G7 countries had, at the meeting, adopted a common declaration to reaffirm the crucial role of education in promoting equal opportunities and addressing inequality in their respective societies.

The irony here is that while Mr Ong spoke about how Singapore tackles inequality at the G7 stage, barely a year ago Singapore was ranked by Oxfam in bottom 10 countries in efforts to tackle inequality.

In October 2018, Oxfam released the Commitment to Reducing Inequality Index 2018 which places Singapore below countries like Niger, China, Kosovo, and Bangladesh.

Of the G7 countries, Japan ranked on top followed by Germany (2) and France (8) in the top 10. The United Kingdom (14), Canada (18) and Italy (16) stayed in the top 20 while the United States ranked at 23.

For Singapore, the Oxfam report cited the introduction of new indicators on harmful tax practices as a contributing factor to Singapore’s decline on the rankings. On top of that, the low score is attributed to relatively low public social spending, and the non-existent equal pay or non-discrimination, no blanket minimum wage, and inadequate laws on rape and sexual harassment.

Is Singapore in the position to talk about effective approaches to inequality?

Now in terms of income inequality, Singapore fares no better. In fact, the country’s Gini Coefficient reveals that Singapore has worse income inequality than almost all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries other than US and Mexico.

The Gini coefficient, for those who are unsure, is a measure used to represent income or wealth distribution of a country’s residents. It is commonly used to measure inequality. The higher the number, the lower the rate of inequality.

Back in March 2018, Straits Times (ST) published a chart to show Singapore’s Gini coefficient relative to other countries. The thing is, the chart favoured the coefficient calculated before taxes and transfers. That puts Singapore relatively low on the ranks (meaning more equality). Transfers generally include rebates as well as subsidies for education, health, reemployment.

But if you look at the coefficient after taking into account taxes and transfers, Singapore is among the worse countries for inequality.

The Ministry of Finance said that the before-tax coefficient is a more valid measure of inequality because the after-tax calculations “do not reflect the full range of government policy interventions that are unique to the Singapore context”.

But Singstat actually included plenty of items that don’t exactly target the poor in Singapore – which naturally skewed their calculations. These things – such as NS50 vouchers, Pioneer Generation Package, and Baby Bonus – are not things that are generally included in the OECD’s calculation as they don’t fall within the definition of transfers. These are social security, social assistance and employment related social insurance. When you take all that away, the amount Singapore transfers to the needy could be much lower.

On top of that, Gini coefficient calculated by Singapore only looks at income from work whereas the OECD also takes into account income from investment and properties. Chances are that this means income among high earner is likely under reported.

The rich can make more money from investments and property as they have the funds to do so, compared to lower income Singaporeans who don’t have access to this avenue of income.

The thing about statistics is that it pliable. You can easily present numbers it in a way that tells the story you want to tell. It’s about how you frame it.

In reality, Singapore is one of the worse countries in the OECD in terms of income inequality and is in the bottom 10 of countries in terms of its commitment to reducing inequality. And yet, the Education Minister spoke to the G7 about Singapore’s approach to tackling inequality.

The post Education Minister says Singapore tackles inequality by uplifting those at the bottom, all while Singapore still ranks low on equality index appeared first on The Online Citizen.

After seismic clashes between protestors and the police that rocked Hong Kong for weeks, the city’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor has announced that the controversial extradition Bill that sparked the protests is now “dead”.

Chairing the Executive Council meeting on Tue (9 Jul), she said: “I have almost immediately put a stop to the (bill) amendment exercise, but there are still lingering doubts about the government’s sincerity, or worries whether the government will restart the process in the legislative council, so I reiterate here: There is no such plan, the bill is dead.”

“Our work on the extradition bill amendment is a complete failure,” she told reporters during a news conference on Tue.

South China Morning Post reported, however, that while her latest statement marks a shift from her earlier stance that the Bill “will die” in 2020, it remains ambiguous as to whether the Bill will be fully withdrawn as protestors have demanded.

The protests that swept across Hong Kong in recent weeks arose out of concerns over the scope of powers that will be granted upon certain jurisdictions Hong Kong decides to extradite crime suspects to – particularly mainland China – should the extradition Bill be passed, as certain factions remain sceptical of Beijing’s capacity to refrain from abusing the extradition arrangements.

Foreign Policy predicts that while such protests are either ignored or condemned by the government, as seen in Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s response as well as that of the police force recently, “a large-scale general strike that gathers people from an array of different industries could be a third way to compel a constructive response from the authorities”.

WATCH: Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam holds Executive Council meeting

BREAKING NEWS STORY – More to come.

The post Extradition Bill is ‘dead’: Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Customers were all smiles over the weekend as Huawei threw an island-wide drink giveaway with homegrown tea joint, Partea. The company also provided complimentary phone servicing for all users during its monthly Service Day – held every first Saturday and Sunday of the month.

Last Wednesday (3 July), Huawei announced that it was giving away free cups of premium tea from Partea as a token of appreciation for its customers’ unwavering support.

Recognising Singaporeans’ love for bubble tea, Huawei is offering this exclusive promotion with Partea for another weekend, from 12 July – 14 July 2019.

What’s more, to reach as many Huawei users as possible after a resounding turnout during the first weekend, the two companies have agreed to increase the redemption limit from 300 to 500 cups per day.

The move by Huawei and Partea had customers smiling from ear to ear, including Mr Kai Loon and his co-worker Mr Tian who are both Huawei users for more than a year.

“There’s excitement among everyone. It’s not often that you get such a freebie from a big company to a customer and it is good move to make customers feel appreciated,” said Mr Kai Loon.

Waiting in line was Ms Chua Mei Yee, who not only expressed her delight at the promotion, but also said that she is proud to be using a Huawei phone due to its camera performance.

“I’m really happy with this offer by Huawei and Partea. It makes me feel valued as a customer and I hope that  Huawei will continue this trend. I’ve been using my P20 Pro for some time now and because of the photo quality, I’ve become the designated photographer amongst my friends,” noted Ms Chua.

In the same weekend, Huawei held its fourth customer Service Day which saw customers patiently queuing outside its service centres; 313@Somerset and Westgate for a complimentary screen protector and phone sanitizing service.

Customers with a Huawei phone can look forward to the next Service Day on 3 August – 4 August 2019.

The post Huawei sweetens the weekend for its customers with free bubble tea and phone servicing appeared first on The Online Citizen.

On Monday (8 July), Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affair Mr Amrin Amin said in Parliament that the government is studying the observations made by the Court of Appeal about the concept of ‘wilful blindness’ and will present its view on whether it is necessary to make legislative amendments.

Mr Amrin added that the Government’s understanding of the law is “not in any way different” from the Court of Appeal’s in relation to the “key issue” of a case in question.

The case in question is that of 36-year old Nigerian, Adili Chibuike Ejika who was condemned to death two years ago for importing methamphetamine into Singapore but was later cleared of his charges by the Court of Appeal on 27 May.

When Mr Adili arrived in Singapore from Lagos in November 2011, his luggage was found to have contained two packets of crystalline substance in the lining. The substance was determined to be methamphetamine. Consequently, he was charged with drug trafficking.

During his trial, Mr Adili did not dispute that he possessed the luggage and drugs contained therein. However, he defence was that he did not know that the drugs were in the luggage in the first place. After a 2-year trial, the Nigerian was found guilty by Senior Judge Kan Ting Chiu.

However, on appeal, the Court set out guidelines and principles as to the doctrine of wilful blindness, i.e. where an accused person did not in fact know the true position, but sufficiently suspected what it was, and deliberately refused to investigate in order to avoid confirmation of his own suspicions.

On that note, the Court of Appeal applied the test to the facts of the case and found that Mr Adili was not wilfully blind as to the existence of the drugs, noting that even if he did open the luggage to look inside, he would have not known the drugs were in there since it was hidden in the lining. With that, Mr Adili walked free.

The government’s response

Now, in response to Mr Amrin’s statement in parliament about the government reviewing the Court of Appeal’s observations and possibly considering legislative amendments, MP Christopher De Souza asked whether there was even a need to review the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act in light of this judgement. He also asked how the presumptions in the Act will continue to function as a legal took in preventing drug trafficking in and through Singapore.

Replying, Mr Amrin noted that the key issue in Mr Adili’s case was whether or not the accused could rebut the presumptions that he knew the nature of the drugs in his suitcase. The Court of Appeal had highlighted that the prosecution had conceded that the accused didn’t know the drugs were in his luggage.

He said, “The presumption allows the court to conclude that the accused did know. But if the prosecution accepts that the accused did not know of that fact, then obviously the presumption cannot be relied upon.”

“This legal reasoning is neither novel nor new, and is not in any way different from the Government’s understanding of the law,” he added.

Lawyers question the need for a review

However, speaking to TODAY on the issue, a couple of lawyers pointed out that there is no real need to review the legislation.

Criminal law practitioner Mr Ramesh Tiwary said that Mr Adili’s case was peculiar, and something he hasn’t seen in his three decade of experience. Mr Tiwary, who is experienced in handling drug cases, emphasised that the Misuse of Drugs Act if ‘rife with presumptions’.

“Presumptions are not evidence…so I don’t think we need to load more presumptions into the (Act) when we are faced with capital punishment.

“You don’t want to hang somebody when you are not sure that a person actually should have known that there are drugs.”

Another lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, echoed Mr Thiwary that the recent case shouldn’t prompt a review of the Act.

“It stands for a very simple proposition. If on the one hand, the prosecution makes an important concession in that they accepted that the person did not know there were drugs in the bag…they cannot then go on to rely on the presumption (that he did).”

This, Mr Thuraisingam said, was “logically inconsistent”. The issue with the prosecution conceding that Mr Adili didn’t know about the drugs.

Activist, politician, and lawyer Teo Soh Lung agreed on with the assessment of her peers. On her Facebook page, she questioned the rationale behind the government’s decision to possibly amend the legislation. She wrote, “Just because one person escapes the gallows our parliament wants to tinker with the law? What kind of leaders do we have? They like to hang people?”

International human rights lawyer from Carson Law Chambers Mr Ravi added, “We need to immediately recognise that the presumption of innocence is taken away from the accused by way of presumptions under the MDA. The accused persons are already prejudiced.”

“Wilful Blindness and Presumption of Knowledge under Section 18(2) of the MDA presents several odds that are irretrievably stacked against the accused. Many face the death penalty,” he continued.

The lawyer added that any amendments proposed to Section 18(2) by Parliament should reflect the positive outcome in the clarifications made by the Chief Justice on the application of the presumptions.

He elaborated, “The court of appeal has set an enlightened path for the legislature to walk through in considering any amendments if it wishes to make.”

The post Government to assess whether Misuse of Drugs Act requires amendments, lawyers say no appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Being arguable the most prominent family in Singapore, people are generally hungry for news about the Lees. Whether it’s the Prime Minister himself or members of his immediate and extended family, news about the Lee family often makes it into mainstream media – be it news of their family spat of the late Lee Kuan Yew’s will to something as quaint as an announcement of PM Lee’s sister in Law Lee Suet Fern winning an international quilting.

However, it appears as though one branch of the Prime Minister’s family is appearing less and less in mainstream media.

We’re referring to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his immediate clan.

When Mr Lee’s second son, Li Huanwu got married to his partner, Mr Heng Yirui in South Africe just two months ago in May, mainstream news outlets neglected to report on it.

Neither Channel NewsAsia nor TODAY or Straits Times published any articles about the joyful occasion or that Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s immediate family attended the ceremony.

The most recent event that CNA, ST, TODAY Singapore Press Holding’s Chinese papers seem to have passed up on is the presence of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his wife at TOC’s own fundraiser on 6 July which was well attended by prominent party leaders and social activists. None of the three big mainstream media articles apparently thought it was worth writing about that the Prime Minister’s brother attended this TOC fundraiser?

Perhaps the most telling moment is the coverage or lack thereof on Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s family’s attendance at this year’s Pink Dot rally just last month. Mr Lee was there with his wife, son and son-in-law to show his support to the LGBTQ community. Notably, Straits Times did at first mention the Lees’ presence at the rally all clad in pink, but the article was later edited to remove any mention of them. And it’s not that ST moved it to a different articles, ST simply erased any mention of the family being at Pink Dot. There was also no mention of Mr Lee and his family at Pink Dot by Channel NewsAsia or TODAY.

Isn’t that peculiar. It begs the question, is there some sort of mainstream media blackout on Mr Lee Hsien Yang? Have these media outlets been instructed to forgo coverage of anything relating to the Prime Minister’s brother? Have they been told to censor any and all news around Mr Lee and his family?

The post Is there a mainstream media censor on news relating to Lee Hsien Yang? appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Over 75% of 1,000 Singaporeans polled in June support the Hong Kong protest against the extradition bill, according to a survey by independent pollsters Blackbox Research. Political analysts suggest that these results reflect the close tied between the two cities. Even so, given Singapore’s laws on public assembly, it is unlikely that Singaporeans will adopt the Hong Kong approach of taking to the streets to voice their unhappiness.

Singapore media – both mainstream and independent – have been covering the protests extensively these past couple of months with varying points of view, from support to disagreement. One article in particular published on South China morning Post by ex-editor of Strait Times Leslie Fong painted the unfolding events as a city that is “smothering itself in full global view egged on by Western media” and that “thoughtful Singaporeans were deeply saddened” by the protests.

In an opinion piece for Straits Times, Mr Fong said that Singaporeans were witnessing with “sadness and bewilderment”, as protesters storming the Hong Kong Legislative Council building on 1 July.

The Blackbox survey results directly contradicts Mr Fong’s take on Singaporean views of the events, however. According to SCMP, a quarter of the respondents said that they strongly supported the concerns of Hong Kongers over the extradition bill while a little over half said that they somewhat supported them. This was in response to a four-choice question on their views of the concerns Hong Kongers have over the bill.

A much smaller percentage (4%) indicated that they strongly opposed the protests while 20% said they were somewhat opposed.

On whether Singapore was attentive to what was happening in Hong Kong, 32% said they were paying very close attention to the story while 42% said they were paying attention but not closely.

Almost 20% of respondents said they have heard of what’s happening in Hong Kong but haven’t been following the story while 5.6% said they haven’t even heard about it.

The post Majority of Singaporeans support the protests in Hong Kong, according to survey appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Food caterer Stamford Catering’s food establishment grading was dismounted to a “C” grade after an incident of 52 persons were reported to have gastroenteritis symptoms, with one case hospitalised, after consuming its food on 2 March 2019.

Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) held a joint inspection which was conducted at the Stamford Catering premises located at 24A Senoko South Road on 5 March 2019.

The authorities said that high bacterial load was detected in food and environmental samples, which could be contributing factors for the outbreak.

“This indicates poor personal and food hygiene practices,” said the agency.

SFA noted that it also found hygiene lapses such as poor housekeeping of appliances during its inspection.

According to the agency, Stamford Catering has since rectified the lapses and stepped up on the upkeep and maintenance of their premises and equipment.

However, SFA will take enforcement action for the lapses and the failed food sample.

The agency noted that the caterer’s grade will be reviewed in 12 months. In the meantime, the agency will keep the premises under the surveillance.

SFA also remind food operators to adhere to good food hygiene and safety processes. Infection prevention practices such as the washing of hands before handling food can greatly reduce the incidence of gastroenteritis when adopted by all key stakeholders, including the industry and public.

Members of the public can view the revised grade after 12 months here under the “Search Track Records of Licensed Food Establishments”.

However, the agency noted that the information provided on this website should not be used as a basis for any legal proceedings.

“Neither SFA nor any of its employee involved in the supply of the above information shall be liable for any loss or damage suffered by any member of the public by reason of any error or omission of whatever nature appearing therein or however caused,” it added.

The post Food caterer “Stamford Catering” downgraded by SFA over food poisoning incident appeared first on The Online Citizen.

British billionaire James Dyson – of Dyson vacuum cleaner fame – has purchased the most expensive penthouse in Singapore. The inventor of the bagless vacuum cleaners bought the three-storey penthouse situated on a 62^nd to 64^th floor Wallich Residence. The penthouse comes complete with a private infinity pool, jacuzzi, barbecue pit, and private lift lobby.

The Business Times reported that Dyson bought the property for a whopping S$73.8 million. Reuters reported that Dyson and his wife became tenants of the 99-year leasehold property on 20 June 2019.

Dyson had announced in January that he is moving his headquarters from Britain to Singapore to be closer to the company’s fastest-growing markets. The company, which also makes bladeless fans, air purifiers and hair dryers, plans on building its first electric car in Singapore.

According to Reuters, before the penthouse was unveiled in 2017, the highest asking price for the property reached S$100 million, making it Singapore’s most expensive penthouse.

“Given the decision to locate the headquarters in Singapore and the growing focus of the company’s business in the region, of course James Dyson has bought a property there,” a Dyson spokesman told Reuters.

According to Bloomberg, as the Dyson couple are reportedly permanent residents of Singapore, they don’t have to pay the increased levies imposed on foreigners buying property on the island.

The post Billionaire James Dyson buys Singapore’s most expensive penthouse at S$73.8 million appeared first on The Online Citizen.