Breaking Laws in Bid for Top World Universities Ranking

Did NTU break Laws to win Top Universities Ranking?

The Great Purge of Singaporean Professors and Lecturers was somehow deemed necessary in order to meet a Key Criteria – “International Staff Ratio” - of bogus World Universities Ranking Standards of Dubious Excellence. The Great Purge took place from 2007-2010.

A little Background History will provide some Context for understanding. NTU Global Ranking had plunged 16 places from 61 in 2006 to 77 in 2008, or 29 places from 48 in 2003, to join the ranks of relative unknown and undistinguished Universities.  A study into the Ranking Criteria easily revealed the actions needed to climb to the “Top” (of what?).  Never mind that these Criteria are bogus and invalid factors having no bearing on teaching or research excellence and learning impact on the students.   

The great Purge was conducted under the pretext of Tenure Evaluation from 2007-2010, during which mostly Singaporean Professors and Lecturers, including many already qualified for Tenure previously, were dismissed.  And when the dusts settled in 2010 after the Purge, NTU proudly announced that Singapore citizens including new citizens formed ONLY 44% of the faculty; 56% of NTU faculty are foreigners from 56 countries worldwide including Singapore PRs. Never mind the fact that most Universities in the World actually have a majority of local Professors.

ALL Singaporeans have the SAME inherent and inalienable rights to Non-Discrimination during employment. The violated rights as enjoyed by Singaporean Professors and Lecturers were found in the following Laws, among others:

1. The Constitution of Singapore
2. The Retirement Age Act 2006 [Renamed in 2012]
3. The NTU (Corporatisation) Act 2006
4. International Labour Conventions – United Nations

The outcomes of the Tenure 2007-2010 Exercises discriminating and separating tenured academic staff into those retiring at 65 years old and 55 years old respectively was illegal, according to Section 4 and 5 [Invalidity of term of contract of service] of the Retirement Act.  

NTU action in setting differential mandatory retirement age of 55 and 65 years old without any job relevance or distinction for tenured academic staff had discriminated arbitrarily and therefore violated the “equal protection” provision of Article 12 of The Singapore Constitution.  It was again Unlawful, and illegal.

NTU also demanded that those staff desiring to continue working beyond 55 years old, if they had not already been selected for the 65 year old retirement age group, MUST accept a Mandatory 50% pay reduction.  This forced a Hobson’s choice especially for Singaporeans rooted here with families and children attending local schools.   

In doing so, NTU contravened the International Labour Conventions of the United Nations of which Singapore is also a signatory. The 50% Mandatory pay reduction was a clear violation of the Core ILO Convention 100 on Equal Remuneration. No staff, whether Singaporean Professors or foreigner, should have been forced to take a 50% paycut just to be able to report the day after “retirement at 55 years old” to teach the SAME subjects to the SAME Classes of students and perform the SAME duties.  That’s the employment abuse addressed by ILO Convention 100, which was ratified by Singapore, was designed to Prevent.

Kopi Level - Green

Read Full Analysis with References here:

Laws broken for Top World Universities Rankings

Breakdown of family support system

Save, save and save for the golden years is the mantra that has been hammered constantly on the Sinkies. To more than half of the people of the world, maybe 70% of the people of the world, the amount we have saved or set aside for old age could be the equivalent to their income of a life time, or their equivalent of millionaires. The irony, no matter how much we have saved, it is NOT ENOUGH. Why?
 
There are three major factors contributing to this vain effort to provide for our golden years. The first is high inflation and cost of living. We are not saving but losing the value of the money we are saving for tomorrow. It sounds really silly, saving but losing our money at the same time. To have 200k Sing dollars in the savings is huge, big money, but more like a con game. And $200k is not the only asset that the Sinkies have. In fact it is over saving.
 
The big problem is the destruction of the family structure as a support unit for the oldies. In our haste for economic growth, our family unit is getting smaller and smaller and in some cases, there are no children to depend on, childless. People in this category would not be around after one generation.
 
On the other hand, those with one or two children, unless they are exceptionally endowed or blessed to earn big money, many are just making ends meet and looking after parents, providing for parents, will put a severe strain on their limited financial resources. It is a case of heart willing but unable to do so.
 
Why is living, buying a home, bringing up children, so bloody expensive that one is left with nothing to look after parents? Is it the policy of affordability that everyone would just have enough to buy a flat and to pay for the children’s education, not enough for their retirement? Forget about taking care of their parent’s well being, especially those who did not have enough in their savings.
 
And thirdly, the super rich govt with about the highest reserves per capita, did not see it as its responsibility to provide some support to the needy oldies. It is a case of to each his own unless one is so broke, so broken down, before the govt is willing to hand out a few dollars and sarcastically ask how much do you want, to eat in hawker stalls, foodcourts or restaurants.
 
How much is enough to save for the golden years? And there is this grave assumption that people have the money to save. In many cases, many could not even have enough for their daily needs. If we have not destroyed the family unit in our social fabric, there is no need to be so obsessed about savings. Many people around the world could get by living with their families with very little or no savings. It is a heavy price to pay for many for progress and economic growth when raising a family is so costly and time consuming that many choose not to have.
 
Yes, many will live their last lives of being, no new generations to continue in the family. Many families will simply disappear after they passed away. What is the point of saving?

Kopi Level - Green

Gopalan Nair - Singapore a dictatorial and repressive state

‘Singapore's dictatorship today has reached a fork in the road. Do you take the road that continues the repression and persecution and continue to rule through fear, and thereby antagonize every single Singaporean? Or do you take the road of restoring democracy and the peoples freedoms. Either way the Singapore dictators don't stand a chance. By cracking the whip even more, you sow the seeds for an overthrow. And if you allow their freedoms, you do the same. It is a no win situation for these tyrants as it is everywhere. It is a hard rock or a hard place and nothing in between.
 
Singapore's state controlled newspapers can go on as if nothing is amiss. But we know that there is a great deal amiss in that tiny island with a tiny population. ‘
 
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont California USA
Facebook: www.facebook.com/singapore.dissident
 
The above statement made by Gopalan Nair is self explanatory. What he said is very strong and would obviously raise a lot of eyebrows and ruffled feathers the wrong way. The question is how much truth is there in what he wrote. Was it an exaggeration of things on the ground? How could a universally acclaimed democratic state be seen as a dictatorial and repressive state in the eyes of a dissident?
 
Gopalan Nair also quoted the recent harassment of two critics of the govt in Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui. Roy is now facing a libel suit for defamation against the Prime Minister. Both have been accused of heckling Special Needs Children in a Park designated for free speech and demonstration. Hui Hui had been called up in the middle of the night, gestapo style, by the Police and had undergone a police investigation for7 hours for a possible charge of illegal assembly in a Park where it is not illegal to have such an assembly.
 
Would these two minor incidents be sufficient to support Gopalan’s case that Singapore is a dictatorial and repressive state? Did Roy and Hui Hui feel oppressed? Did the people of Singapore think likewise that they indeed are living in a dictatorial and repressive state?
 
Different people will have different views and perceptions of things. Some will think and believe that Roy and Hui Hui did heckle the children or even held an illegal assembly in Hong Lim Park. At least the police thought so or else there would not be such a serious investigation going on. At least the main media and some politicians believed that there was heckling of Special Needs Children at the way it was reported and the strong accusations. Others would not believe a wee bit that these were so.
 
Strange that the truth is so difficult and so different even in broad daylight. How is that so? Or is it a matter of whose truth is the truth and should rule the day?
 
What do you think of Gopalan Nair’s assertion? Is there any grain of truth?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Lawrence Wong – The citizens must play their part by offering alternative solutions

Leong Sze Hian was so pissed off by the comments of Lawrence Wong that opposition parties were opposing for the sake of opposition and not offering solutions to help the govt that he wrote an article addressing the remarks directly. This is what Leong Sze Hian wrote:
 
I refer to the article “Citizens should be active in seeking solutions to improve Singapore: Lawrence Wong” (Straits Times, Oct 17). “This goes beyond partisan politics. It’s about the kind of democracy we want to be, and that I hope we can be – a democracy of integrity, and a democracy of deeds, made up of an active citizenry who get involved in developing solutions for a better society.” Lawrence Wong
 
Quoting Lawrence Wong, Leong Sze Hian said, ‘In the last 15 years or so – I have written a few thousand articles, a few hundred letters published in the newspaper forum pages, about 50 videos on youtube, more than a hundred radio talkshows, made scores of suggestions, etc.
 
In particular, I do not think I have hardly had any response to my suggestions.’
Leong went on to list 12 of his suggestions on healthcare. And it is not only Leong Sze Hian that had been making suggestions to the govt, here is a list of the suggestions or alternate policies put up by SDP.
 
- on Healthcare (http://yoursdp.org/_ld/0/5_sdp-national-he.pdf, http://yoursdp.org/publ/sdp_39_s_alternatives/healthcare/31)
- on Housing (http://yoursdp.org/_ld/0/7_Housing_a_Natio.pdf, http://yoursdp.org/publ/sdp_39_s_alternatives/housing/32)
- on Population (http://yoursdp.org/_ld/0/8_Building_a_Peop.pdf, http://yoursdp.org/news/sdp_unveils_six_point_plan_to_control_population/2013-02-14-5548)
- on Ministers' salaries (http://yoursdp.org/_ld/0/2_ethical-salarie.pdf)
- on Economy (an update coming soon, http://yoursdp.org/publ/sdp_39_s_alternatives/economy/25)
- on Education (http://yoursdp.org/news/scrap_psle_delay_streaming_and_foster_creativity/2014-05-18-5827, http://yoursdp.org/_ld/0/12_SDP_Education_P.pdf)
- on Malay issues (http://yoursdp.org/_ld/0/10_A_Singapore_for.pdf, http://yoursdp.org/news/sdp_holds_historic_malay_discussion_in_dignified_manner/2012-09-08-5341)
- on the Budget (http://yoursdp.org/_ld/0/9_Transforming_Ou.pdf, http://yoursdp.org/_ld/0/4_sdp-shadow-budg.pdf)

I can see the glaring problems in Lawrence Wong’s complaint about opposition and citizens not offering solutions to the govt. He or the govt did not receive the above suggestions and solutions put up by Leong Sze Hian and the SDP. The two parties are thus also at fault. They must send their solutions to the govt for considerations, by SingPost courier service to make sure that they are received. They must know that suggestions or solutions put up in opposition party websites and social media may not reach the govt as they are very busy and unlikely to have time browsing the net or going to read opposition party websites. Maybe if they put them up in Reach then the chances of the govt reading them would be good. At least Amy Khor will read them and maybe make a summary of the number of suggestions put up. Then Lawrence would not make those complaints and acted ignorant of all the suggestions and solutions available.

It is thus unfair to blame Lawrence Wong for not knowing that Leong and the SDP have put up a lot of suggestions and solutions. I have a win win suggestion. Leong Sze Hian and the SDP should quickly submit all their 10 years of solutions and suggestions to the govt so that Lawrence Wong and his colleagues can read them and use them to make improvements on govt policies.

What do you think? Good suggestion or not?

PS. I have a confession to make. I am one of those that never offer solutions or suggestions. But I have my reasons. I need to work for a living, so have no time to help the govt solve national problems. I am just being pragmatic. I also don’t believe in working for nothing or being paid handsomely for not working.

Kopi Level - Yellow

World Universities Rankings trivialise Research Excellence

By MIKOspace

Bogus World Universities Rankings promote Mediocrity and Worthless Value as Excellence

True research excellence is the product of passion and genuine scientific investigative efforts directed at purposeful outcomes in the form of “discoveries that will benefit Singaporeans and humankind globally” (Dr Tony Tan, 29 Jul 2006).   The desired goal of NTU research is “the harnessing and capturing of value” (Dr Tony Tan, 29 Mar 2007). This is our Definition of “Research Excellence”.

Singapore Universities NUS and NTU were recently ranked among the Top by THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings. The London-based Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) ranked NTU as the World’s Youngest Best University.

For QS Rankers, Research “Excellence” is measured by a questionable proxy measure called “Citations per faculty (20%)”.

Their “Citations” indicator aims to assess Universities’ Research Output. A ‘citation’ means a piece of research being cited (referred to) within another piece of research. Generally, the more often a piece of research is cited by others, the more influential it is. A rather simple but nonetheless naïve and invalid construct of “Research Excellence”, revealing QS’ ignorance and lack of understanding regarding Universities Research Excellence.  

Popular facts mentioned that Albert Einstein only published 3 papers.   Many NTU and NUS professors however, like many of their counterparts elsewhere, actually publish more journal papers than Nobel Prize potentials and winners!  

For QS Rankers, the winning Soccer Team is determined by counting the number of passes and ball possessions instead of the overall goals score impact!  Seriously, how VALID or Significant would this be?

There should be clear, ample proof that “new” knowledge contained and “cited” in these journal and conference papers is in fact of some degree of significance public value.

QS Rankers failed to evaluate the extent to which NTU had attained its Goal directive to “harness and capture value” (Dr Tony Tan, 29 Mar 2007).

Such glaringly blatant and obvious defects should NOT have escaped the penetrative professional scrutiny of NTU Senior Management and Administrators, many of whom eminent Professors and Researchers themselves, who had pronounced and unashamedly embraced the spurious and bogus QS Rankings to position our University in spite of its lack of validity and reliability of their Criterion measures.

In doing so, irreparable damage was done to the great authentic reputation of Singapore. Singapore universities should no longer participate in any Global Universities Ranking scams, no matter what other “famous” Universities had been included.  All Marketing collaterals making references to the bogus University Rankings should also be cleansed of the lie and return our Institution to Authentic levels of transparency and integrity. 

Kopi Level- Yellow 

Read Full Article:

Research Excellence Trivialised by Universities Rankings

UK going after Internel trolls

‘Internet trolls will face up to two years in jail under tough new laws proposed by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling following a number of high profile cases.

The sentence for internet abuse is presently six months but under the plans Mr Grayling is proposing to take a hard stance and quadruple it…

The Justice Secretary told the Mail on Sunday: "These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life.

"No-one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media.

"That is why we are determined to quadruple the current six-month sentence."’

The full article is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11172231/Internet-trolls-t...

Raymond, the resident troll in mysingaporenews, this article is targeted at you. I am collecting hard copies of all your postings here. When the law is passed and also introduced here, you will be hanging on the laundry wire for drying. The law will catch up with trolls like Raymond and he has nothing to protect him.

Just keep on with your heckling and harassment here, don’t let up.

Kopi Level - Yellow

The Americunts reviewing sale of Waldorf to Chinese firm

Apologies to Americans for using the term Americunts in this case. There is a huge trade deficit in America’s trade with China and this is giving the Americans a lot of excuses to complain against the Chinese Govt. But what would the Americans expect the Chinese to do with the money from their trade surplus when they could not buy anything that the Americunts considered as militarily sensitive or strategically unacceptable? Do they expect the Chinese to buy root beer, hamburgers and chew gums when they are banned from buying military equipment and high tech stuff that have potential for military use? Everything has a potential to be used in military equipment, like a simple magnet or a solar cell.

So the Chinese bought a hotel, an American icon no doubt. And this is also prohibited for security reasons as the rich and famous and powerful Americans like to stay at the Waldorf. And hey, the management and operations of the hotel will be in the hands of Americunts for  another 100 years. What security risks are they talking about? It is in American soil and the secret police and FBIs would have all the say about security matters in the hotel. Or at worse, American politicians should not be allowed to stay at the Waldorf and there are plenty of other good hotels available.

Come on Americunts, stop being a bitch. Stop bitching in every little things. The Cold War ended decades ago. Oops, the war for world dominance is still hot and getting hotter. Free trade? Liberty?

PS. China is going buy up the Liberty Statue. Any problem with that?

The Hong Lim Affair – What’s it all about?

Many have rightly pointed out that this Hong Lim Affair has distracted many people from the real issues of CPF, influx of foreigners, PME jobs, Yang Yin, lawyers over charging clients by the millions, and many other major issues that were really hot with the people. Now everyone is engrossed first with the heckling of children and now with unlawful assembly, and the two main charactors of the Hong Lim Affair were kept very busy trying to shake themselves loose. Ariffin Sha is taking a long leave with no intention of coming back after being invited for kopi.

What is happening now is that Roy and Hui Hui would be so disturbed, troubled and preoccupied by the pressure mounting on them by the investigation. They would be kept very busy trying to ward off all the unnecessary attention and demands on their time. In a way they are now under attack instead of preparing their attacks on the CPF issues in the next rally on 25 Oct.

Tactically this whole drama is a good move, from defence to offence. Never mind if the charges or investigations would not come up with naught. And it has been quite successful with the netizens too being involved in trying to block all the attacks and throw back everything thrown at Roy or Hui Hui. They too did not have time to concentrate on the real issues at hand.

It is now a different agenda not set by Roy or Hui Hui.  Would they be able to circumvent this new battle field, seize back the initiative and return to their own battle field unscathed, and in the right frame of mind to do battle again? It is a test of their resolute and resilience and how they face off with the authority. If they could survive the drama they would come out very much tougher and stronger to face more challenges and gruelling charges and arrows coming their way.

Could Roy and Hui Hui call upon more resources and supporters to their side? They need everyone to shield them from the assault. Would the people form a barricade around them? At the moment only the netizens and social media are taking up the challenge to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. It would be good if some of the political parties would speak out and join battle together. The job is cut out for the opposition parties to come forward and stand on the side of the people, to be seen to be doing something. Would they?

The last thing to happen is for the people to desert Roy and Hui Hui and leave them on the lurch when they needed their support badly.  Could these two youngsters stand bravely against GPMGs, tanks, bazookas, sniper bullets, mortars, rockets, artillery and bombs raining on them from the air and everywhere and survive?

Would there be a bigger turnout on 25 Oct at Hong Lim? Or would the rally on 25 Oct not even take place? Would the two be able to stick to their agenda and pursue the CPF cause tenaciously to the end and not be driven by other people’s agenda?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Hong Lim Affair – What do you think, how do you feel?

So many things have happened since the last Hong Lim Protest Rally on 27 Sep. So many things have also been said and done, from the moment the NPark Director and Police officer approached Han Hui Hui to the protest march around the YMCA tents, the jeering at Teo Ser Luck, the heckling accusations, the midnight calls and the investigations at the police station of protesters, including Hui Hui for illegal assembly. And then the confistication of Hui Hui’s note book, the legal letter by her lawyer Ravi and the return of the note book, what do you think?

How many of you think that the police and NPark Director were doing the right thing? How many don’t think so? How many are feeling very comfortable, joyous and confident that our country is in good hands? How many are shaking their heads in disbelief and bewilderment? How many are proud of what had happened, how many would like to hide their heads in the sand in shame?

How many feel that it is all about rule of law and justice? How many feel that it is all about the abuse of rule of law and injustice?

I am very sure many people are upset, disappointed or elated and encouraged by what had happened over the Hong Lim Affair. Is it a good thing to have happened like it happened that way? Do you have confidence in the govt or otherwise?

Is the hierarchy of the govt in jeopardy as a result, caused by the social media, protesters or civil servants/police?

Kopi Level - Yellow

The Desired Outcomes of Singapore Universities.

Ignored and Sacrificed by Global Universities Ranking Standards

By MIKOspace

Singapore Universities are acknowledged as among the very best in Asia and the world institutions of higher learning and research.

A great University is committed to organizational excellence at all levels and in all the Departments providing professional support to sustaining excellence in teaching, research and professional service to the Community and Society at large. Through its research and educational programs, as well as various campus activities, a great University must also develop leaders for all sectors of the society and prepare them to address the challenges facing the community and nation.

The Ministry of Education unveiled in 1997 and defined the specific outcome of Singapore Education System for Universities. According to our Ministry of Education, the Desired Outcomes establish a common purpose for educators, drive our policies and programmes, and allow us to determine how well our education system is doing.

The person who is schooled in the Singapore Education system embodies the Desired Outcomes of Education. He has a good sense of self-awareness, a sound moral compass, and the necessary skills and knowledge to take on challenges of the future. He is responsible to his family, community and nation.

He appreciates the beauty of the world around him, possesses a healthy mind and body, and has a zest for life. In sum, he is:

1. a confident person who has a strong sense of right and wrong, is adaptable and resilient, knows himself, is discerning in judgment, thinks independently and critically, and communicates effectively;
2. a self-directed learner who takes responsibility for his own learning, who questions, reflects and perseveres in the pursuit of learning;
3. an active contributor who is able to work effectively in teams, exercises initiative, takes calculated risks, is innovative and strives for excellence; and,
4. a concerned citizen who is rooted to Singapore, has a strong civic consciousness, is informed, and takes an active role in bettering the lives of others around him.

Our Universities students would be further strengthened in their belief in Singapore, and develop a profound understanding of what matters to Singapore in the global context. Our universities curriculum make explicit what we aspire to develop in our young so as to empower their strong foundations for them to thrive and achieve success in life as active and contributing members of Singapore.

NONE OF THE OUTCOMES of our Education System was addressed by the Global Universities Ranking vendors.  And they were therefore NEVER measured or evaluated among and with the other Universities.

It is baffling why Singapore Universities would want so desperately to subscribe to dubious Universities ranking standards of dubious excellence. It is even more disturbing that the Ministry of Education would have allow them to expend public funds to woo and court the Global Universities Rankers when it was so blatantly clear that NONE of their Criteria even remotely measure or evaluate our own Outcomes of Education. 

Singapore Universities should no longer participate in any Global Universities Ranking scams, no matter which other “famous” Universities had been included.  All Marketing collaterals making references to the bogus University Rankings should also be cleansed of the lie and return our Institution to our Authentic levels of transparency and integrity.  

Kopi Level - Yellow

Read More here:

Desired Outcomes of Education Sacrificed in Universities Ranking

LKY to Yong Ying I , Permanent Secretary PSC

“It is in our interest to show that under the system of ‘one man, one vote’ there can be an honest and efficient govt which works through an efficient administration in the interests of our people.

If we do not do our best, then we have only ourselves to blame when the people lose faith, not just in you, the public service, and in us, the democratic political leadership, but also in the democratic system, of which you and I are working parts…

I am confident that … you will respond to the urgency of the task. The mass of the people are not concerned with legal and constitutional forms and niceties. They are not interested in the theory of the separation of powers and the purpose and function of a politically neutral public service under such a constitution.

As far as they are concerned, in May 1959…they did elect their own govt in order that there might be a better world for them and their children.”

The above appeared in the ST today as comments by Yong Ying I on LKY’s book on Big Ideas. Look at the above statement carefully and decipher what are the important points and in what priority. To me, the importance of the points raised should be read in reverse order, from the last to the first.

The most important thing is that the people ‘elect their own govt in order that there might be a better world for them and their children.’ And if the govt can achieve this, the people would not be too concerned with ‘the theory of the separation of powers and the purpose and function of a politically neutral public service under such a constitution’.

And if the govt failed in creating a better world for the people and their children, then they will ‘have only ourselves to blame when the people lose faith, not just in you, the public service, and in us, the democratic political leadership, but also in the democratic system, of which you and I are working parts…’

And to achieve a better life for the people, ‘It is in our interest to show that under the system of ‘one man, one vote’ there can be an honest and efficient govt which works through an efficient administration in the interests of our people.’

It is all about an efficient govt serving the interests of the people and to provide a better life for the people and their children. If the govt fails to understand this, they only have themselves to blame.

Is the present govt living to this wisdom of LKY?  Are the people losing faith in the govt?

Kopi Level - Green

International judges presiding in Singapore – What a foolish idea?

I hope readers will spend time to re read the serious implications of this silly idea that is submitted to Parliament for approval. Try to understand the thinking behind silly Parliamentarians, what is inside their numbskull, where are they leading us to, and how it would make Singaporeans irrelevant in their own country and would lead to their own self destruction and extinction.

‘(Oct 8, 2014) Singapore’s move to allow foreign judges to hear commercial cases may boost its standing against regional rival Hong Kong where concerns have mounted that its judicial independence is being undermined by China.

Judges from other jurisdictions will be able to hear cross-border disputes at the Singapore International Commercial Court, according to proposed changes tabled in Parliament yesterday. Singapore, which earlier allowed foreign lawyers to advise clients on its corporate laws, will also let them appear in the new court.’

The above is posted in TRE under the heading SG Welcomes Foreign Judges as H.K. Lawyers Fret.

I must say I have mixed feelings on this. And this is a very polite way of expressing what I am thinking. We have set up an international court to arbitrate over inter state/juridistiction issues and must have foreign judges? I remember that when the International Court idea was first broached it was the integrity and reputation of our courts that we were marketing. We were marketing the Singapore brand, the place where people can see justice done and served in a clean, incorrupt and fair environment by competent legal professionals. 

Litigating parties were looking for such a jurisdiction and judicial system where they could find justice when they could not find it elsewhere. And Singapore’s reputation was the key factor for such a court. And this reputation must have been derived from our clean govt and impartial justice system run by great legal minds with impeccable record for delivering justice when justice needs to be seen and done. And judges were honest, upright, not beholden to any party and very competent. It is the Singaporeans that make our system upright and desired by people that cannot find justice in other places.

Are people suspecting that our judiciary and judges are not up to mark that they need foreign judges to give the litigants a fair trial? Did anyone complain that our judges are not good enough and foreigners best? Or our judges are incompetent? Can our judges be trained in international laws to judge in the international courts? If foreign judges can be trained to handle international cases, why are our judges not capable of being trained to do so? Are our talented less talented than foreigners? Come on, our law students have proven themselves to be the best in many international moot courts over and over again. We are not inferior unless we believed we are inferior.  But these are secondary!

What is really important is the integrity of the system and the legal professionals. If litigants are looking for smartest and cleverest lawyers and judges, there is no need to come to Singapore, there is no need for an International Court here. They are coming here because it is Singapore, that they are confident of getting a fair judgement by the clean and no nonsense Singaporeans.

The international court is here most of all is because of our integrity. Once this premise is lost, once our competence and integrity are undermined, why would people want to bring their cases here for arbitration? They might as well go to countries where these foreign judges are presiding. They did not go to them because they don’t trust them no matter how smart they are.

If we are thinking along the lines that foreign judges should rule in our country, should we designate some parts of the island into foreign concessions like Old Shanghai where foreign laws and jurisdiction ruled? Then they can even bring in their police and soldiers to run the concession and Sinkies will be treated as foreigners in the concession?

If international arbitration business is so big, Should we turn the whole island into a foreign concession too to make more money from this business. How far are we prepared to go to turn our little island to foreigners for a little revenue? How far are we prepared to accept that we are not the best and the best are from elsewhere? Are we kicking our own backside?

Or is this part of the New Concept City State? We have made our Singaporean bankers obsolete, our IT professionals extinct, our professors in the universities have been replaced by foreigners. Our tertiary students are also being replaced. Now we also want to replace our judges and legal professionals in our own country with foreigners. Would they be thinking of replacing our men in uniforms too, because they could find better foreigners?

The people that really need to replace are the silly crackpots in Parliament who came out with this idea of foreigners are the best and Singaporeans are daft and must be replaced. We cannot continue down this slippery road to oblivion. We cannot let them bring in all the so called foreigners are betterer to replace us, the owners of this island and make us drive taxis and be security guards. This is our only place in the sun.

Are you thinking? What are they smoking? Look ahead 20 or 30 years and see what kind of Singapore will it be and where is the place for Singaporeans, your children and grand children.

Kopi Level - Green

Uniquely Singapore – A summary of the recent strange happenings

Many strange things or uniquely happenings are occurring in this island over the last few weeks. Let me just jot them down here for a good laugh or a good reflection of how unique Singapore has become.
 
1. Protesters protesting and jeering at a minister became of case of heckling Special Needs Children a distance away. Evidence, the Special Needs Children missed a beat in their performance. Wondering what that meant.
2. Protesters protesting against govt policies in a park(Speakers’ Corner like Hyde Park) designated specially for freedom of expression and assembly for such purposes are investigated for illegal assembly.
3. Elected Members of Parliament wanting to hold a community event to sell festival goodies to the residents need to get approval from grassroot leader that is a volunteer community leader.
4. Law Society confirmed that a lawyer charging a client $1.3m dollars for legal fee but reduced by the court after client appealed, is not overcharging.
5. Further to this, when a lawyer sent a bill to a client, client can appeal to a court and the judge will decide the correct amount to be paid. This is the right thing to do between a lawyer and the client on what is the final fee to pay.
6. A young foreigner, stranger with no relationship, could obtain a Lasting Power of Attorney to manage the assets of a very rich widow without raising any eyebrow. And the procedures to obtaining such LPA is claimed to be effective and nothing wrong that needs changes.

There are of course quite a number of others that are circulating in the social media. Anyone wants to add more to the list?

Kopi Level - Green

Americans have selective memory or memory lapses

The assault on the Russian annexation of Crimea is still the top agenda in the American politician and analyst’s agenda. Russia and Putin are the favourite footballs to be kicked around. Bad country, bad boy!
According to Gideon Rachman in his article in the Financial Times and reprinted in the Today paper on 8 Oct 14, ‘Russia through the nuclear looking glass’, he wrote, ‘The annexation of Crimea was an illegal act of aggression.’ Yes, sure, it is an act of aggression, not much different from the aggression against Iraq and Libya and many more.
 
But in the not too distant past, how many states have the European Americans annexed to form the USA through acts of aggression? New Mexico, California, Texas and what else, were either independent states or part of Mexico. No, not acts of aggression? Or were acts of aggression by the Americans to annex other states are not acts of aggression and not violating any rule of law?
 
It is a historical fact that the whole of the USA was annexed by acts of aggression against the native of North America. No? They came and they found America and they have the right to own the whole of North America?
 
Are the Americans suffering from dementia nationwide? Why keep harping on the Russian annexation of Crimea as a big wrong as if the Americans have not committed any such crimes? What about human rights, the human rights of the negroes and Red Indians?
 
In the interest of the American Empire, North and South Korea must always be kept apart and agitated to keep them fighting. The Japanese would also want to see this state of hostility between the two Korean people to last forever. And now they are agitating the students in Hong Kong to demand things that are utterly out of the Basic Law and defying China to do a Tiananmen in Hong Kong.

Kopi Level - Green

PANORAMA: A Big-Brush History of Singapore’s Battle for Merger

By MIKOspace

Personal Perspectives on:

“Flesh and Bone Reunite as One Body”: Singapore’s Chinese-speaking and their Perspectives on Merger

by Dr Thum Ping Tjin ©2012

The year 1962 was the worst of times, and the best had yet to herald. The Japanese were long gone, but the British had returned. China became Communist. The age of foolishness descended upon Singapore the Lion City. It was the epoch for belief and incredulity. We were in a season of Darkness, holding out desperately for the coming season of Light. Trapped in a never-ending Summer of despair, awaiting signs of the hopeful Spring.  A very wet and warm Winter of gloom followed instead. We only had our everything behind us, and nothing before us; some thought we were all going direct to our Heavens, but we were all going directly every each way but upwards.

The Proposed Singapore-Malaya Marriage through Merger was doomed from the get-go. One party was eager, enthusiastic, and the other lukewarm and hesitant. One demanded dominance and total subservience, the other hoping for equality and justice. One racist and the other ethnocentric.  One for a “Malay Malaysia”, the other for a “Malaysian Malaysia”. Never in the History of Civilisation has a Political Marriage so destined for failure from the Courting stage as our victorious Battle for Merger.  What hastened the eventual Union was a Third Party so feared by both Malaya and Singapore.  Communism....     

  

“The idea of Merger for a new Homeland, however, was never far from the minds of Singapore’s Chinese. Malaya and Singapore were always seen as “complete and indivisible as a family”.  A major stumbling block to Merger is Chinese fears about the dilution and destruction of their heritage.”

“By 1955, all major political parties in Singapore were committed to the reunification of Singapore and the Federation. Among Chinese Singaporeans, support for Merger was virtually unanimous.

Inside Malaya however, “the Tunku and the UMNO leadership were opposed to Merger. The single most important reason was “the fear that the incorporation of a million Chinese would immediately threaten and ultimately abolish Malay political dominance and power” in the Federation. UMNO instead equated Malayan culture and identity with the Malay one, and demanded that the minority races should assimilate to the Malay culture and accept the privileged position of Malays in the Federation. They brought this same argument to the debate on merger.

For the Tunku and his Malay Power Elites, the integration of Singapore’s Chinese would threaten the special position of Malays in the Federation. They knew that the Chinese would never assimilate and so never accept Malay predominance.  

It is NOT and has NEVER been in the Chinese psychic to assimilate other ethnic groups to Chinese Culture, and they therefore did not expect to be assimilated to Malay society and culture. The Chinese had regarded themselves as equal to the other races. They did not think it necessary or relevant to accept the special status of Malays and their dominance in the New Malaysia. Chinese Singaporeans envisioned the growth of a new, distinctive Malayan or Malaysian culture that merged the best aspects of Chinese, Malay and other cultures, and with equality for all.

“The Singapore Chinese had looked to Merger as confident, equal partners, not for economic salvation. They saw themselves as the most significant contributors to the Malayan economy and Malayan multiculturalism, and were full of conviction that they had a rightful place on Malayan soil.”

They had fought the British and Japanese for Malaya as their own country. By 1960, nearly 80% Singapore Chinese were born in Singapore. They possessed patriotism, cultural pride and a deep conviction that their contribution to Malayan cultural, economic and political life entitled them to an equal place in Malaya. Citizenship and Nationality were important and crucial issues in any Merger agreement.”

Tunku and his Malayan power elites feared the possible ascendency of mostly Chinese-speaking Opposition leaders who may not be able to resist the increasing Communist influence before the latter eventually won real political power through the ballot box.  At this time, the PAP was already decimated by the expulsion of 13 PAP Assemblymen, with their supporters of nearly two-third of the PAP membership, including 19 of its key 23 Organising Secretaries.

“The basic Merger agreement was quickly negotiated by 24 August 1963 meeting all the conditions by giving Singapore autonomy on the critical areas of commerce, labour, and education. Both territories would retain their separate citizenships while enjoying equal rights as Federation Nationals bearing the same passports. However, Singapore citizens could only vote in Singapore, and Federation citizens could only vote in the Federation.  Basically, a “One Country, Two Systems” type of arrangement.

The Marriage with Malaysia was never consummated. The constant acrimonious foreplay over the conflicting visions of meritocratic, multicultural “Malaysian Malaysia” vs a Malay-dominant, racist, ethnic supremacist “Malay Malaysia” marred 2-years of love-hate, bittersweet honeymoon. With no ethnic group then exceeding 50% in the population, a Malaysian Malaysia would have made the most sensible choice, but not to the powerful Malay political elites and their interest groups..... 

Kopi Level - Green
 

Read Full Article:

PANORAMA - A History of Singapore's Battle for Merger

1962 – When the people were not daft

‘I have recounted these events so that you can see and decide for yourself what is in your best interest’. I heard this statement by LKY over the TV promoting the Battle for Merger book/film.
 
In 1962, LKY had full confidence in the people to think and to decide for themselves what was best for them. In 1962, the bulk of the people were illiterates. In 1962, the highest educational level attained by the population was primary with some at secondary school level. In 1962, the people were still British subjects, but were allowed to make the most important decision in their lives, to decide in a referendum, whether to be a part of Malaysia or otherwise.
 
The best part, and I repeat, the LKY govt did not treat the people as daft, unthinking and irresponsible. And the govt would not decide what was good or bad for them but for the people to decide for themselves.
 
Today, after achieving 1st World status, high level of university education and sophistication, the people became daft, irresponsible, unable to think and decide what is good or bad for them. They could not even be trusted with their money in the CPF. They could not be trusted to view a movie to decide what is truth or untruth, and the govt has to ban the film to protect them from being misguided or conned.
 
In a way the govt’s position is understandable. Just look at the numbers of unthinking IBs in the internet. They simply parrot whatever the official view is and went around attacking netizens that have a different view from them. If this is the level of thinking of the majority of the population, then I can support the govt’s decision to ban the film as we are becoming a nation of irresponsible and unthinking daft. Totally blank in the head.
 
No wonder they did not know that their country is being overwhelmed by foreigners to the point of them becoming a minority, a stranger in their own country. They could not see the risk of losing their country and are laughing away happily and unthinkingly, like what daft usually do.
 
How could the people of 1962 be smarter and better thinking people than the daft of today? Unbelieveable, but it is true. The govt in 1962 trusted and believed in the people to decide what was best for themselves. The govt of today does not trust the people and think they are daft, which is, in a way, quite true also.

Have we progressed as a people?

Kopi Level - Green

Law Society – Alvin Yeo did not overcharged

‘In Singapore, the general rule is that the losing party has to pay costs to the winning party. Parties can agree on the quantum to be paid, or if they disagree, the court will decide the amount payable after hearing arguments from both sets of lawyers. This is known as taxation.
 
The winning party’s lawyers submit an itemised bill of costs for taxation, which sets out the work done, time spent, lawyers involved and quantum claimed. This bill of costs is subject to the court’s detailed scrutiny, and the losing party is entitled to challenge both the overall quantum claimed as well as specific items.
 
The winning party is entitled to a reasonable amount of all costs reasonably incurred. Any doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favour of the losing party. The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client….
 
The Law Society does not condone overcharging by lawyers, and complaints about overcharging are subject to a statutory regime. Complaints made to the Law Society are referred to independent committees for investigation. These committees are not appointed by the Law Society, and it has no control over them.
The public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one’s own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.’
 
Shawn Toh
Director, Communications
The Law Society of Singapore

Below are some of the comments posted in TRE in response to the above letter (not in full) from the Law Society. I leave it to the readers to enjoy the read.
 
• downfall of singapore:
October 16, 2014 at 11:52 am (Quote)
these people know now that singapore is in a state of disarray with regards to moral and ethical behaviour so fleece as much a possible before it tanks
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
 
• Crooked ppl, crooked logic:
October 16, 2014 at 11:54 am (Quote)
Why no such logic in the medical field? Dr Susan Lim wouldn’t have been found guilty if she can also defended herself by saying, “Medical fees being judged to be lesser than charged doesn’t mean overcharging.”  
Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
 
• Define "over-charging"...:
October 16, 2014 at 11:58 am (Quote)
If the Law Society claims that Alvin Yeo did not overcharged Susan Lim then can it kindly elaborate on the following:
(1) what did Alvin do if it was not overcharging?
(2) define overcharging (in legal and in layman’s terms)?
(3) isn’t a lawyer ultimately responsible for the bill on his services?
(4) what is different in Alvin’s Yeo case from those cases previously judged by the Law Society as overcharging?  
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
 
• Confirmed & double confirmed !:
October 16, 2014 at 11:59 am (Quote)
The law is a joke, is a rich man game. Now, it confirmed that it is also manipulated protection of the PAPees Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
 
• Party Against People:
October 16, 2014 at 12:02 pm (Quote)
The blatant increase in Alvin legal fees is not overcharging makes the rapist claim that he did not rape the victim but had sex. Come off Lembus, speak in clear
English as majority of your clients do not have your legal skills. LS statement is joke of the decade and SDP Chee should highlight in his speech in IBA. Hahaha

Kopi Level - Yellow

Tony Abbott – Is Australia having a mad man as PM?

Tony Abbott first came on to the international limelight when he jumped the gun by telling Najib that he knew where MH370 had crashed. Today he is still telling the interested parties that the knew where the aircraft had sunk, into the Antarctic Ocean. Today he is still leading the search. Of course nothing was found and it may take another decade for him to tell the Chinese and Malaysians where the aircraft is.
 
In the Today paper yesterday, 14 Oct, Abbott is warning Putin that he would pull him by his shirt to give him a good shake up. This was what was reported, ‘Look, I’m goint to shirtfront Mr Putin, you bet I am….I’m going to be saying to Mr Putin, Australians were murdered and they were murdered by Russian backed rebels using Russian supplied equipment….we now demand that you fully cooperate with the criminal investigation.’
 
Anyone thinking that George Bush Jr was mad, think Abbott. He even threatened to ban Putin from entering Australia to attend the G20 summit. Is this a statesman or a gangster?
 
Wondering what Putin will do if Abbott really did what he said? Would Putin pull his ears and ask him to kneel? Or would Putin carry a cane and give him a couple of whacks?
 
Australians, what is happening to Tony Abbott? Sure he is alright?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Singapore a New Concept City State and a New Consumerism

I am not sure if this is the concept plan for the future of Singapore as a rich, prosperous and vibrant city state. But if anyone is to look at the policies being implemented, it is like clockwork precision in its execution. The concept is to buy anything and everything that the city state needs.

It goes like this, the state needs sportsmen and sportswomen, just buy. If the state needs professors, just buy, engineers, doctors, scientists etc, just buy. If there is a need for bankers, just buy, IT specialists, just buy. Needs billionaires, this one no need to buy, just seduce them to be here for free.

On a bigger scale, if there is a need for any specialty engineering equipment or processes, or companies, just buy. Needing tunnelling expertise, just buy, building of marina barrage and undersea tunnel expertise, new stadium, just buy the companies lock, stock and barrel. No need to grow indigenous companies too. SMEs just remain as SMEs, low tech, low skill to service the high tech, high skill big companies brought in to do the major works.

If this is the concept plan, there is really no need for universities, no need for polytechnics. There is really no need for schools too. Why bother to have schools and tertiary institutions to teach and educate students when there is no guarantee of the products, and it takes a long 15 to 20 years? Just buy. Close down all the schools and tertiary institutions.

Actually there is no need for babies, no need for citizens. Just buy the best from the rest of the world. What about the bought expertists and citizens growing old, can sell them and get rid of them? Or how best to get rid of them when they are no longer useful?

Tell them that they can only get their CPF if they give up their citizenships. If they don’t, selling their properties may not help much either as a huge sum of money will be retained as minimum sum in the CPF. Want your money, please quit and go live somewhere. All residents having out lived their usefulness shall vacate this city, take their CPF and go.

In this way, Singapore can become a New Concept City State where all its manpower needs and technology or engineering and professional needs can be bought. It can save on not having any need for schools and education institutions. It may not even have needs for maternity hospitals as no children need to be born here.

Oh, uniformed police and soldiers can also be bought. No need SAFTI and training grounds too.

And the population will be kept at a young and commercially productive age range. No children and no oldies. It will be a truly vibrant city state of vibrant and economically active and productive people. What citizenship, obsolete idea.

Kopi Level - Yellow