Singapore local news reflection--by Eric

Original article:
Shanghai S'pore Day deferred
from http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_489784.html

Summery:
As an annual event for the overseas Singaporeans-- SINAGAPORE day is deferred this year which was supposed to be held in Shanghai, China. The time of the SINGAPORE day was put off to the first half of the next year and the location of the issue will not change. The reason why the Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU) which organises the event every year gave for the delay is due to the consideration of the clash with the World EXPO that will be held in Shanghai this year and Many Singaporeans will be involved in this.

My reflection:
When I first read this news I thought it didn't make any sense. Actually I think there were not any connection between the SINGAPORE DAY and the world EXPO except for the place of issue. Although the two events were both held in one city, the time is different and the whole ideas of the events are totally different. I cannot see any of the 'clash' through the news.
Based on the news, the reason why the OSU cancel the event is that they thought there would be many Singaporeans in Shanghai during the world EXPO. So why didn't the OSU change the date to May 2010? It will be really convenient for the overseas Singaporean to celebrate their SINGAPORE DAY while visiting the EXPO. In this case, overseas Singaporeans will have to come to Shanghai again in the next year. Will it be same as the situation right now? It is really fard for me to understand this.
Sorry for that.
post by ERIC.

Local issue reflection ---- by Holly

Source from:http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_482903.html

original article:

Fertilisers regulated because of national security

WE REFER to Ms Grace Lin's Forum Online letter on Jan 18, 'Is it illegal to bring fertilisers into Singapore?' The importation of fertiliser is regulated in Singapore. This is because many types of fertilisers contain nitrates, which are oxidisers and can be used as ingredients to make explosives.

One common explosive ingredient found in a fertiliser is ammonium nitrate, which is considered an explosive precursor if it is of a certain composition. The use and movement of such explosive precursors are monitored and regulated by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) under the Arms and Explosives Act.

In addition, the importation of organic fertiliser made from materials of plant or animal origin is regulated under the Animals and Birds Act and the Control of Plants Act. An import permit is required from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) in order to bring in organic fertilisers.

Travellers may refer to the SPF website at www.spf.gov.sg or the AVA website at www.ava.gov.sg for more information.

As the border security agency, it is the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's (ICA) role to ensure the security of Singapore's borders against the entry of undesirable persons, goods and conveyances through our land, air and sea checkpoints. Regulating the entry of items of security concern is crucial to Singapore's safety and security.

In the current security environment, precaution must be taken to ensure that such items, including fertilisers, are brought into Singapore with authorisation and for legitimate use.

We seek Ms Lin's understanding and cooperation in keeping Singapore a safe and secure home for everyone.

PERSONAL REFLECTION

After reading this article, I really agree with the author and Singapore government's opinion that the fertilisers should not be brought into the island. As we all know, Singapore is an nonagricultural country, which means there is no need for this nation to use fertilisers. In addition, fertilisers contain some chemical substances may cause explode. For the security issue, it is a proper decision to keep fertilisers away from the public. However, there are also some doubts in my mind. Nowadays, many things is forbidden by government, people is getting less freedom. Does the development of technology limit our freedom?

Regional News Reflection_by Mengyi

Article Source: Wang Meng Meng(Feb 10, 2010), Cheaper F1 tickets, from http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_488759.html

Ariginal article:

Cheaper F1 Tickets
THE Singapore Grand Prix will introduce a new category of tickets which will allow its holders to roam virtually the entire Marina Bay Street Circuit.
These $348 Premier Walkabout tickets will permit fans to stand at viewing areas opposite the Pit Building on all three days and see the Formula One cars and their crews in action up close in the pits for the first time.
Race organisers Singapore GP's executive director Michael Roche said yesterday: 'The Premier Walkabout has opened up a niche for a new group of fans as the grandstand prices could be prohibitive for some of the real F1 fanatics.
'This came about because we listened to feedback from blogs, Twitter, Facebook, e-mail and phone calls from fans.
'As the Singapore street circuit is a tailor-made one, that gives us the flexibility to customise it to the fans' needs.
'The Premier Walkabout is unique as fans can stand opposite the Pit Building and there are sweet spots for them to catch the action up close.'

Reflection:
The F1 Grand Prix has been around in Singapore as a racing feast for fans and also an important economic source which brings considerable tourism income every year. From this article, I find out the much attention Singapore government has put into this annual event. Besides, the feedback from media sources is a good method to spot out constructive advices from public. It must be a good news for F1 fans to have opportunities to roam the whole circuit. However, the high price still prohibits a large portion of the F1 fanatics from trying to be at the circuit. Watching games at home is still what most people will opt. Anyway, we have observed the postive movements the government takes to satisfy the fans, whether the price will be more acceptable to the majority will we wait and see,

Reflection by Mengyi

The original article is shown below:

Loan shark cases up sharply

"THE number of loan shark cases rose 58 per cent last year as Singaporeans reeling from the economic crisis turned to loan sharks to tide them over the tough times, a senior police official said on Monday.

There were about 18,600 cases of illegal loans made by loan sharks last year, a 58 per cent increase from about 11,800 cases in 2008, said Mr Ng Boon Gay, director with the Criminal Investigation Department.

Illegal moneylenders lend at exorbitant interest rates and use threats and intimidation to pressure debtors to pay up if they renege on payments. 'We expect loan shark cases to continue to be a concern. We'll try to take it down, but we'll see how it will turn out,' said Mr Ng. 'We are watching it very carefully.'

Mr Ng said the police arrested 958 illegal moneylenders last year, a 90 per cent jump from 2008 as the economic slump pushed cash-strapped locals to turn to loan sharks.

Singapore's economy shrank 2.1 per cent last year after slipping into a severe recession in the third quarter of 2008 due to the impact of the global economic crisis.

Although Singapore has pulled out of the slump, the loan shark situation is not expected to improve as 'the percentage of bad debt has actually increased' following the crisis, Mr Ng said. 'Even though there is some upturn in the economy, based on the data that we get... we expect it to increase,' he said. -- AFP"

In my opinion, the reason for this circumstance happening cannot be simply attributed to the economic crisis. Illegal moneylender appears at any time, not only just in this session. To prevent this circumstance become worse, there are some measures that government can take. Firstly, as Mr Ng said, the government should keep concern on it and put more pressure on these moneylenders. For example, the police pay more attention to investigate these illegal actions and once they catch some moneylenders, they should be put on the newspapers with how they are punished to show the consequences. Besides punishing these lenders, government should consider why this happens. To solve the problem that people borrow money illegally, government may authorize some banks such as POSB or OCBC to lend money to the ones who need it urgently. At the same time, banks should easy the procedure for people to borrow money. In this way, I think that the number of illegal moneylender would decrease. --By Ryan.

reflection on forum--by Eric

Original Website: http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_483956.html

Jan 30, 2010

Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk

I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Keith Gerard Tan, 'New ugly Singaporean', and Mr Lionel De Souza's response on Wednesday, 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists'.

The term 'Web defacement', or rather the defacing of a webpage, has a completely different meaning. Web defacement is an attack on a website, typically by system hackers, who replace the website they attack with one of their own. Web defacement is illegal and carries a potential prison sentence.

'Keyboard warrior' was a term forged in the Internet age to describe someone who expresses his feelings (mostly anger), thoughts and beliefs online.

On top of this, the cyber warriors who are the main target of Mr Tan do not frequent websites. They are commonly found on online forums and chatrooms, and their very existence is to exchange views and voice thoughts, be they coherent or not.

I am not sure if Mr Tan knows the expression, but I am sure Mr De Souza is familiar with the term 'coffee shop talk', a term coined long ago to describe political comments made over coffee in traditional coffee shops.

Now in the modern age, we should understand we have the tools to express ourselves on a more powerful platform, that of the Internet, and comments will cover the whole spectrum and may even be of an extreme nature.

Having said that, it saddened me that Mr Tan took something that is fundamental to human rights and the human condition - to express one's unhappiness - and somehow married that to Web defacement, a criminal activity. This makes me wonder if it is such a heinous crime in Mr Tan's eyes to express unhappiness with government policies that it is now comparable to a criminal offence.

What is even more worrying is that Mr De Souza, a known security expert, states that keyboard warriors are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when they are not. In fact, extremists have been snuffed out and tried in court, so there is no anonymity and everyone is and will be held accountable for what he says.

Chai Shiew Chee

I REFER to the letter by Chai Shiew Chee 'Relax, it's just the Internet version of coffee shop talk' on saturday. According to Chai Shiew Chee, the people who express their ideas and thoughts including all the positive and negetive ones on the internet should not be treated as kinds of criminal activities. She insists that the right of expressing their thoughts should always be protected here in Singapore. She thought the original letter's author, Mr Keith Gerard Tan, 'New ugly Singaporean', and Mr Lionel De Souza 'Keyboard warriors? New ugly Singaporeans are more like cyber terrorists' should not treat the foundamental human right of expressing their ideas as the criminal activity.
I AGREE with Ms Chai's idea about this. I think to say whatever you want is a basic human right that protected by the law of constitution in Singapore and even all the modern countries all over the world. If you treat those people as a kind of 'web defacement' and forbid them to speak online, the freedom of speaking will no longer have the meaning that it should have. This is a common sense of all the Internet users around the world. But as a precondition of speaking online, what you want to say should obey the law of the residence country. You should not say whatever you want online and that may cause a very bad panic and maybe other bad results on the internet. In conclusion, there should be a restrict line of the content of what you are about to say. This will make you a 'keyboard warrior' instead of a 'web defacement'.

posted by Eric

Subsidies, tax reliefs should apply to family unit as a whole--Ryan

I REFER to Thursday's letter by Ms Ng Hwee Kiang, 'Full-time mums should enjoy full subsidies too', on the subsidies to be enjoyed by full-time mothers.

I was once a working mother and my husband and I shared the responsibilities of bringing home income as well as caring for our first child after he was born.

We used to take leave in turns to care for our child as and when the need arose - and with young children, needs arise more often than not.

I have since decided to become a full-time mother. This way, my husband can concentrate his energies on his work so that as a family unit, we can better manage our childcare and financial needs.

Indeed, this decision has paid off for our family because my husband can focus on his work - and keep his job in these difficult times or gun for a promotion when the economy recovers - and I can concentrate on taking care of my first child, and having a second one.

I would like to point out for the umpteenth time - in view of the numerous letters by others on the same issue - that tax rebates and reliefs do not encourage full-time mothers who gave up our jobs so we can contribute to increasing the birth rate or our husbands can increase economic productivity.

On top of childcare subsidies that are not extended to full-time mothers, a large part of the tax savings is in working mother child relief that is available to the family unit as a whole - only if the mother is working. With policies like these, there is no doubt the authorities are trying to encourage women to work. However, perhaps they should look at the bigger picture and see how economic productivity and birth rates can both be increased by rewarding the family unit as a whole.

I appeal to the authorities to convert it to a working PARENT child relief or working PARENT childcare subsidy so those of us who have chosen - perhaps temporarily - to put our careers on hold for the sake of childbirth and family do not feel left out.

Since working mother child relief is calculated as a percentage of income, implementing this as working parent relief may encourage households with higher single incomes to have more children, so increasing the birth rate.

Tan Su Ling (Madam)

I refer today’s forum ‘Subsidies, tax reliefs should apply to family unit as a whole’, by Tan Su Ling (Madam) who suggests that the subsidies should be given to the whole family instead of the working mother. She told us that she gave up her job to take care of her first child. The whole family benefited from this decision because she can manage all her time to her kid and the finial for the whole family while her husband can concentrate all his energies in working. She noticed that the government and authorities’ policies aim to encourage women to work, and they can give the working mother subsidies. Ms. Tan appealed to the authorities to change the policies to give the full-time mothers who are dedicating all their time to their children subsidies. As a result, it can encourage families to have more children.

By Tan Su Ling (Madam), she used her story to show the benefit bought to family as she to be the full-time mother, and she appeal to get subsidies as a full-time mother who are caring her child. In my opinion, since the policy in Singapore is to encourage people to have more children, authorities should think about for a family that the consequence to have more than 2 children is the economic pressures. No matter the working mother or full-time mother, they all have the right to get subsidy from government because mothers put their all heart on taking care of children and work or not, their love to children are all the same. I think the best time for assign subsidies is to give the whole family according to the number of children and the income of the family. From the bottom of my heart, I prefer to give the same subsidy to working mother and full-time mother, because if they get the same subsidy, the difference of income is decided by whether they work or not.

Reflection on Forum Letter —— Holly

Original websiter:http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_482909.html
From The Strait Times Jan 28,2010


Full-time mums should enjoy full subsidies too

BEFORE parents decide to have another child, they must consider all aspects, including finances. I did so and was disappointed to find out that a non-working mother receives only half what a working mother is entitled to when her child is placed in full-day care.
Although I understand the rationale of a non-working mother as the main caregiver, I have some questions that need to be answered before I decide if having another child is well within my means.
Logically, doesn't a single-income family deserve more subsidy than a dual-income one?
As working and non-working mothers both 'contribute' to increasing the population, why make a difference?
Have policymakers ever tried taking care of a newborn, and meeting the demands of a young child and housework, all without help?
While many stay-home mothers may be able to cope with a newborn, a young child and housework, how many have found it a struggle and kept silent?
Having a baby is a joy but imagine that joy turning into a juggling nightmare.
If this struggle is removed, some single-child mothers like me may be persuaded to have another child.
Ng Hwee Kiang (Ms)



Reflection
I REFER to today's forum commentary. 'full time mums should enjoy subsidies too' by Ms Ng Hwee Kiang. She indicated a phenomena that full time mothers did not get as much as the working mothers. From her letter, she doubted the policymakers' decision of non-working mothers' subsidies. In additon, she also described the diffficulties for a full time mother to rise up a baby. So, she hoped that the full time mothers can get full subsidies.

In my own opinion, I agree with what she said. For a family rises several children, the mother has to give up her job to look after these babies at most of the time. As we all know, it will cost much to rise up a baby. For these families, if the govrnment did not provide enough subsidies, how can them live a good life. In that condition, mothers may not willing to give birth to another children and the population of the nation can not increase.

So, I think the government should take the pubilc's advice, making sure that the full time mothers can get full time subsidies.