Global notable deaths of 2012
From the first man on the Moon, to the man whose followers became known as the Moonies - and from Dallas's JR Ewing to the puppeteer behind Sesame Street's Count von Count - the past 12 months have seen the passing of many well-known figures.
At the end of another year, spend a few minutes looking back at some of the faces - no longer with us - who made their mark on the international stag
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Desert Storm Commander Norman Schwarzkopf Dies
By Associated Press. Dec. 27, 2012
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/27/retired-gen-norman-schwarzkopf-dies/#ixzz2GXEe2AUW
(WASHINGTON) — Truth is, retired Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf didn’t care much for his popular “Stormin’ Norman” nickname.
The seemingly no-nonsense Desert Storm commander’s reputed temper with aides and subordinates supposedly earned him that rough-and-ready moniker. But others around the general, who died Thursday in Tampa, Fla., at age 78 from complications from pneumonia, knew him as a friendly, talkative and even jovial figure who preferred the somewhat milder sobriquet given by his troops: “The Bear.”
That one perhaps suited him better later in his life, when he supported various national causes and children’s charities while eschewing the spotlight and resisting efforts to draft him to run for political office.
He lived out a quiet retirement in Tampa, where he’d served his last military assignment and where an elementary school bearing his name is testament to his standing in the community.
Schwarzkopf capped an illustrious military career by commanding the U.S.-led international coalition that drove Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait in 1991 — but he’d managed to keep a low profile in the public debate over the second Gulf War against Iraq, saying at one point that he doubted victory would be as easy as the White House and the Pentagon predicted.
(MORE: The Commander: Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf On Top)
Schwarzkopf was named commander in chief of U.S. Central Command at Tampa’s MacDill Air Force Base in 1988, overseeing the headquarters for U.S. military and security concerns in nearly two dozen countries stretching across the Middle East to Afghanistan and the rest of central Asia, plus Pakistan.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait two years later to punish it for allegedly stealing Iraqi oil reserves, Schwarzkopf commanded Operation Desert Storm, the coalition of some 30 countries organized by President George H.W. Bush that succeeded in driving the Iraqis out.
At the peak of his postwar national celebrity, Schwarzkopf — a self-proclaimed political independent — rejected suggestions that he run for office, and remained far more private than other generals, although he did serve briefly as a military commentator for NBC.
While focused primarily on charitable enterprises in his later years, he campaigned for President George W. Bush in 2000, but was ambivalent about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In early 2003 he told The Washington Post that the outcome was an unknown: “What is postwar Iraq going to look like, with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites? That’s a huge question, to my mind. It really should be part of the overall campaign plan.”
Initially Schwarzkopf had endorsed the invasion, saying he was convinced that Secretary of State Colin Powell had given the United Nations powerful evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. After that proved false, he said decisions to go to war should depend on what U.N. weapons inspectors found.
He seldom spoke up during the conflict, but in late 2004 he sharply criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon for mistakes that included erroneous judgments about Iraq and inadequate training for Army reservists sent there.
“In the final analysis I think we are behind schedule. … I don’t think we counted on it turning into jihad (holy war),” he said in an NBC interview.
Schwarzkopf was born Aug. 24, 1934, in Trenton, N.J., where his father, Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., founder and commander of the New Jersey State Police, was then leading the investigation of the Lindbergh kidnap case. That investigation ended with the arrest and 1936 execution of German-born carpenter Richard Hauptmann for murdering famed aviator Charles Lindbergh’s infant son.
The elder Schwarzkopf was named Herbert, but when the son was asked what his “H” stood for, he would reply, “H.”
As a teenager Norman accompanied his father to Iran, where the elder Schwarzkopf trained the Iran’s national police force and was an adviser to Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah of Iran.
Young Norman studied there and in Switzerland, Germany and Italy, then followed in his father’s footsteps to West Point, graduating in 1956 with an engineering degree. After stints in the U.S. and abroad, he earned a master’s degree in engineering at the University of Southern California and later taught missile engineering at West Point.
In 1966 he volunteered for Vietnam and served two tours, first as a U.S. adviser to South Vietnamese paratroops and later as a battalion commander in the U.S. Army’s Americal Division. He earned three Silver Stars for valor — including one for saving troops from a minefield — plus a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart and three Distinguished Service Medals.
While many career officers left military service embittered by Vietnam, Schwarzkopf was among those who opted to stay and help rebuild the tattered Army into a potent, modernized all-volunteer force.
After Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Schwarzkopf played a key diplomatic role by helping persuade Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd to allow U.S. and other foreign troops to deploy on Saudi territory as a staging area for the war to come.
On Jan. 17, 1991, a five-month buildup called Desert Shield became Operation Desert Storm as allied aircraft attacked Iraqi bases and Baghdad government facilities. The six-week aerial campaign climaxed with a massive ground offensive on Feb. 24-28, routing the Iraqis from Kuwait in 100 hours before U.S. officials called a halt.
Schwarzkopf said afterward he agreed with Bush’s decision to stop the war rather than drive to Baghdad to capture Saddam, as his mission had been only to oust the Iraqis from Kuwait.
But in a desert tent meeting with vanquished Iraqi generals, he allowed a key concession on Iraq’s use of helicopters, which later backfired by enabling Saddam to crack down more easily on rebellious Shiites and Kurds.
While he later avoided the public second-guessing by academics and think tank experts over the ambiguous outcome of the first Gulf War and its impact on the second Gulf War, he told The Washington Post in 2003, “You can’t help but … with 20/20 hindsight, go back and say, ‘Look, had we done something different, we probably wouldn’t be facing what we are facing today.’”
After retiring from the Army in 1992, Schwarzkopf wrote a best-selling autobiography, “It Doesn’t Take A Hero.” Of his Gulf War role, he said: “I like to say I’m not a hero. I was lucky enough to lead a very successful war.” He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II and honored with decorations from France, Britain, Belgium, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain.
Schwarzkopf was a national spokesman for prostate cancer awareness and for Recovery of the Grizzly Bear, served on the Nature Conservancy board of governors and was active in various charities for chronically ill children.
“I may have made my reputation as a general in the Army and I’m very proud of that,” he once told The Associated Press. “But I’ve always felt that I was more than one-dimensional. I’d like to think I’m a caring human being. … It’s nice to feel that you have a purpose.”
Schwarzkopf and his wife, Brenda, had three children: Cynthia, Jessica and Christian.
by LOLITA C. BALDOR and RICHARD PYLE
Stacy was the AP’s Tampa, Fla., correspondent when he prepared this report on Schwarzkopf’s life; he now reports from the AP bureau in Columbus, Ohio. Associated Press writers Richard Pyle in New York and Jay Lindsay in Boston contributed to this report.
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/27/retired-gen-norman-schwarzkopf-dies/#ixzz2GXELGNTe
By Associated Press. Dec. 27, 2012
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/27/retired-gen-norman-schwarzkopf-dies/#ixzz2GXEe2AUW
(WASHINGTON) — Truth is, retired Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf didn’t care much for his popular “Stormin’ Norman” nickname.
The seemingly no-nonsense Desert Storm commander’s reputed temper with aides and subordinates supposedly earned him that rough-and-ready moniker. But others around the general, who died Thursday in Tampa, Fla., at age 78 from complications from pneumonia, knew him as a friendly, talkative and even jovial figure who preferred the somewhat milder sobriquet given by his troops: “The Bear.”
That one perhaps suited him better later in his life, when he supported various national causes and children’s charities while eschewing the spotlight and resisting efforts to draft him to run for political office.
He lived out a quiet retirement in Tampa, where he’d served his last military assignment and where an elementary school bearing his name is testament to his standing in the community.
Schwarzkopf capped an illustrious military career by commanding the U.S.-led international coalition that drove Saddam Hussein’s forces out of Kuwait in 1991 — but he’d managed to keep a low profile in the public debate over the second Gulf War against Iraq, saying at one point that he doubted victory would be as easy as the White House and the Pentagon predicted.
(MORE: The Commander: Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf On Top)
Schwarzkopf was named commander in chief of U.S. Central Command at Tampa’s MacDill Air Force Base in 1988, overseeing the headquarters for U.S. military and security concerns in nearly two dozen countries stretching across the Middle East to Afghanistan and the rest of central Asia, plus Pakistan.
When Saddam invaded Kuwait two years later to punish it for allegedly stealing Iraqi oil reserves, Schwarzkopf commanded Operation Desert Storm, the coalition of some 30 countries organized by President George H.W. Bush that succeeded in driving the Iraqis out.
At the peak of his postwar national celebrity, Schwarzkopf — a self-proclaimed political independent — rejected suggestions that he run for office, and remained far more private than other generals, although he did serve briefly as a military commentator for NBC.
While focused primarily on charitable enterprises in his later years, he campaigned for President George W. Bush in 2000, but was ambivalent about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In early 2003 he told The Washington Post that the outcome was an unknown: “What is postwar Iraq going to look like, with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites? That’s a huge question, to my mind. It really should be part of the overall campaign plan.”
Initially Schwarzkopf had endorsed the invasion, saying he was convinced that Secretary of State Colin Powell had given the United Nations powerful evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. After that proved false, he said decisions to go to war should depend on what U.N. weapons inspectors found.
He seldom spoke up during the conflict, but in late 2004 he sharply criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon for mistakes that included erroneous judgments about Iraq and inadequate training for Army reservists sent there.
“In the final analysis I think we are behind schedule. … I don’t think we counted on it turning into jihad (holy war),” he said in an NBC interview.
Schwarzkopf was born Aug. 24, 1934, in Trenton, N.J., where his father, Col. H. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., founder and commander of the New Jersey State Police, was then leading the investigation of the Lindbergh kidnap case. That investigation ended with the arrest and 1936 execution of German-born carpenter Richard Hauptmann for murdering famed aviator Charles Lindbergh’s infant son.
The elder Schwarzkopf was named Herbert, but when the son was asked what his “H” stood for, he would reply, “H.”
As a teenager Norman accompanied his father to Iran, where the elder Schwarzkopf trained the Iran’s national police force and was an adviser to Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah of Iran.
Young Norman studied there and in Switzerland, Germany and Italy, then followed in his father’s footsteps to West Point, graduating in 1956 with an engineering degree. After stints in the U.S. and abroad, he earned a master’s degree in engineering at the University of Southern California and later taught missile engineering at West Point.
In 1966 he volunteered for Vietnam and served two tours, first as a U.S. adviser to South Vietnamese paratroops and later as a battalion commander in the U.S. Army’s Americal Division. He earned three Silver Stars for valor — including one for saving troops from a minefield — plus a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart and three Distinguished Service Medals.
While many career officers left military service embittered by Vietnam, Schwarzkopf was among those who opted to stay and help rebuild the tattered Army into a potent, modernized all-volunteer force.
After Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Schwarzkopf played a key diplomatic role by helping persuade Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd to allow U.S. and other foreign troops to deploy on Saudi territory as a staging area for the war to come.
On Jan. 17, 1991, a five-month buildup called Desert Shield became Operation Desert Storm as allied aircraft attacked Iraqi bases and Baghdad government facilities. The six-week aerial campaign climaxed with a massive ground offensive on Feb. 24-28, routing the Iraqis from Kuwait in 100 hours before U.S. officials called a halt.
Schwarzkopf said afterward he agreed with Bush’s decision to stop the war rather than drive to Baghdad to capture Saddam, as his mission had been only to oust the Iraqis from Kuwait.
But in a desert tent meeting with vanquished Iraqi generals, he allowed a key concession on Iraq’s use of helicopters, which later backfired by enabling Saddam to crack down more easily on rebellious Shiites and Kurds.
While he later avoided the public second-guessing by academics and think tank experts over the ambiguous outcome of the first Gulf War and its impact on the second Gulf War, he told The Washington Post in 2003, “You can’t help but … with 20/20 hindsight, go back and say, ‘Look, had we done something different, we probably wouldn’t be facing what we are facing today.’”
After retiring from the Army in 1992, Schwarzkopf wrote a best-selling autobiography, “It Doesn’t Take A Hero.” Of his Gulf War role, he said: “I like to say I’m not a hero. I was lucky enough to lead a very successful war.” He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II and honored with decorations from France, Britain, Belgium, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain.
Schwarzkopf was a national spokesman for prostate cancer awareness and for Recovery of the Grizzly Bear, served on the Nature Conservancy board of governors and was active in various charities for chronically ill children.
“I may have made my reputation as a general in the Army and I’m very proud of that,” he once told The Associated Press. “But I’ve always felt that I was more than one-dimensional. I’d like to think I’m a caring human being. … It’s nice to feel that you have a purpose.”
Schwarzkopf and his wife, Brenda, had three children: Cynthia, Jessica and Christian.
by LOLITA C. BALDOR and RICHARD PYLE
Stacy was the AP’s Tampa, Fla., correspondent when he prepared this report on Schwarzkopf’s life; he now reports from the AP bureau in Columbus, Ohio. Associated Press writers Richard Pyle in New York and Jay Lindsay in Boston contributed to this report.
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/27/retired-gen-norman-schwarzkopf-dies/#ixzz2GXELGNTe
Norman Schwarzkopf, retired US general, dies aged 78
Norman Schwarzkopf, retired US general, dies aged 78
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20855937
Retired US General Norman Schwarzkopf, who led troops in the 1991 Gulf War, has died aged 78.
Gen Schwarzkopf - known as Stormin' Norman - was commander of coalition forces in the first Gulf War in 1990-91.
The US-led coalition drove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait.
Former US President George H W Bush described Gen Schwarzkopf as "one of the great military leaders of his generation".
Gen Schwarzkopf spent his retirement in Tampa, Florida, where he had served in his last military assignment as commander-in-chief of US Central Command.
His military success made him one of America's most famous modern generals, although some criticised him for negotiating ceasefire terms which allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power, says the BBC's Ben Wright in Washington.
President Bush, who was in office during the first Gulf War, said he "mourned the loss" of Gen Schwarzkopf, "one of the great military leaders of his generation".
Mr Bush, who remains in intensive care at the Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas, issued a statement, saying: "A distinguished member of that Long Gray Line hailing from West Point, General Schwarzkopf, to me, epitomised the 'duty, service, country' creed that has defended our freedom and seen this great nation through our most trying international crises.
"More than that, he was a good and decent man - and a dear friend. Barbara and I send our condolences to his wife Brenda and his wonderful family."
US Republican Senator John McCain tweeted that Gen Schwarzkopf was "one of the great American heroes".
"We thank him for his service," he said.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta also paid tribute to the general, saying his 35 years of service had "left an indelible imprint on the United States military and on the country".
"His bravery during two tours in Vietnam earned him three silver stars, and set him on the path to lead our troops into battle in Grenada, and then to take charge of the overall allied effort in the first Gulf War as Commander of United States Central Command," he said.
"General Schwarzkopf's skilled leadership of that campaign liberated the Kuwaiti people and produced a decisive victory for the allied coalition.
"In the aftermath of that war, General Schwarzkopf was justly recognised as a brilliant strategist and inspiring leader. Today, we recall that enduring legacy and remember him as one of the great military giants of the 20th Century."
During Operation Desert Storm, Gen Schwarzkopf famously used one of his regular news conferences to taunt his opponent.
"As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier: other than that, he's a great military man - I want you to know that," he said.
Gen Schwarzkopf's sometimes fiery temper meant that he clashed with subordinates and superiors alike, including the then Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Colin Powell.
Despite this and his bluff appearance, he was smarter and more diplomatic than many critics gave him credit for, says BBC world affairs correspondent Nick Childs.
After the first Gulf War Gen Schwarzkopf became a national celebrity, but always rejected suggestions that he run for office himself.
Stormin’ Norman,’ 1934–2012
By Mark ThompsonDec. 27, 2012
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/27/stormin-norman-1934-2012/
For those who came of age during World War II, or post-9/11, the death Thursday of retired Army general H. Norman Schwarzkopf may not be of great moment. But for those of us who came of age during Vietnam, when that war veered from the discredited Gulf of Tonkin to the Tet Offensive to Kent State, he was a godsend.
While there was trepidation before the Persian Gulf War began in January 1991 — a six-week bombing onslaught followed by a 96-hour ground campaign — it pitted a Cold War superpower against Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein (it was a mismatch that would have to be replayed 12 years later). Nonetheless, the U.S. went wild after the U.S.-led coalition pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
After a six-month buildup in Saudi Arabia that looked like a martial bolero, Schwarzkopf burst into American living rooms just about the same time CNN did. As intrepid Cable News Network crews stationed in Baghdad followed the twists and turns of incoming Tomahawk cruise missiles, Schwarzkopf briefed reporters from his headquarters in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, two weeks into the war.
“I’m now going to show you a picture of the luckiest man in Iraq,” Schwarzkopf said as a video of an air strike against an Iraqi bridge appeared on a television screen. “Keep your eye on the crosshairs.” A vehicle appeared, driving across the bridge, as an American pilot targeted the span. The truck drove into, and across, the bomber’s crosshairs, and then scooted off screen. “And now, in his rear-view mirror,” Schwarzkopf quipped, as an explosion filled the screen, destroying the bridge, but leaving the Iraqi truck driver alive.
Schwarzkopf was a bona fide American hero, complete with a New York parade and talks of a presidential run. There had been no such military heroes in this country since World War II’s Dwight Eisenhower. “By God,” declared President George H.W. Bush, himself now ailing at a Houston hospital, “we’ve licked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”
The son of the superintendent of the New Jersey state police, who investigated the kidnapping and murder of aviator Charles Lindbergh’s infant son in 1932, Schwarzkopf made the Army his career. He won recognition in Vietnam for taking care of the soldiers under his command and ended up as the third commander of U.S. Central Command, the Pentagon post responsible for the Middle East and Persian Gulf region, in 1988. (His two most recent successors, Army General David Petraeus and incumbent Marine General John Allen, have found their careers derailed, at least temporarily, by scandal.)
“General Schwarzkopf’s skilled leadership of that campaign liberated the Kuwaiti people and produced a decisive victory for the allied coalition,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday night. “In the aftermath of that war, General Schwarzkopf was justly recognized as a brilliant strategist and inspiring leader.”
Following his incandescent fame, Schwarzkopf retired to Tampa six months after the Gulf War’s end. He died there, of complications related to pneumonia, at 78.
Reporters had their own shorthand to spell his complicated surname right: “War Kop, no T.” Battleland can recall taking his two young sons to the Gulf War victory parade in Washington on June 8, 1991, down by the Lincoln Memorial. He was proud to show them what the U.S. military can do when the stars align.
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/27/stormin-norman-1934-2012/#ixzz2GXCv3CWv
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20855937
Retired US General Norman Schwarzkopf, who led troops in the 1991 Gulf War, has died aged 78.
Gen Schwarzkopf - known as Stormin' Norman - was commander of coalition forces in the first Gulf War in 1990-91.
The US-led coalition drove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait.
Former US President George H W Bush described Gen Schwarzkopf as "one of the great military leaders of his generation".
Gen Schwarzkopf spent his retirement in Tampa, Florida, where he had served in his last military assignment as commander-in-chief of US Central Command.
His military success made him one of America's most famous modern generals, although some criticised him for negotiating ceasefire terms which allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power, says the BBC's Ben Wright in Washington.
President Bush, who was in office during the first Gulf War, said he "mourned the loss" of Gen Schwarzkopf, "one of the great military leaders of his generation".
Mr Bush, who remains in intensive care at the Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas, issued a statement, saying: "A distinguished member of that Long Gray Line hailing from West Point, General Schwarzkopf, to me, epitomised the 'duty, service, country' creed that has defended our freedom and seen this great nation through our most trying international crises.
"More than that, he was a good and decent man - and a dear friend. Barbara and I send our condolences to his wife Brenda and his wonderful family."
US Republican Senator John McCain tweeted that Gen Schwarzkopf was "one of the great American heroes".
"We thank him for his service," he said.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta also paid tribute to the general, saying his 35 years of service had "left an indelible imprint on the United States military and on the country".
"His bravery during two tours in Vietnam earned him three silver stars, and set him on the path to lead our troops into battle in Grenada, and then to take charge of the overall allied effort in the first Gulf War as Commander of United States Central Command," he said.
"General Schwarzkopf's skilled leadership of that campaign liberated the Kuwaiti people and produced a decisive victory for the allied coalition.
"In the aftermath of that war, General Schwarzkopf was justly recognised as a brilliant strategist and inspiring leader. Today, we recall that enduring legacy and remember him as one of the great military giants of the 20th Century."
During Operation Desert Storm, Gen Schwarzkopf famously used one of his regular news conferences to taunt his opponent.
"As far as Saddam Hussein being a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is schooled in the operational art, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier: other than that, he's a great military man - I want you to know that," he said.
Gen Schwarzkopf's sometimes fiery temper meant that he clashed with subordinates and superiors alike, including the then Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Colin Powell.
Despite this and his bluff appearance, he was smarter and more diplomatic than many critics gave him credit for, says BBC world affairs correspondent Nick Childs.
After the first Gulf War Gen Schwarzkopf became a national celebrity, but always rejected suggestions that he run for office himself.
Stormin’ Norman,’ 1934–2012
By Mark ThompsonDec. 27, 2012
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/27/stormin-norman-1934-2012/
For those who came of age during World War II, or post-9/11, the death Thursday of retired Army general H. Norman Schwarzkopf may not be of great moment. But for those of us who came of age during Vietnam, when that war veered from the discredited Gulf of Tonkin to the Tet Offensive to Kent State, he was a godsend.
While there was trepidation before the Persian Gulf War began in January 1991 — a six-week bombing onslaught followed by a 96-hour ground campaign — it pitted a Cold War superpower against Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein (it was a mismatch that would have to be replayed 12 years later). Nonetheless, the U.S. went wild after the U.S.-led coalition pushed Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
After a six-month buildup in Saudi Arabia that looked like a martial bolero, Schwarzkopf burst into American living rooms just about the same time CNN did. As intrepid Cable News Network crews stationed in Baghdad followed the twists and turns of incoming Tomahawk cruise missiles, Schwarzkopf briefed reporters from his headquarters in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, two weeks into the war.
“I’m now going to show you a picture of the luckiest man in Iraq,” Schwarzkopf said as a video of an air strike against an Iraqi bridge appeared on a television screen. “Keep your eye on the crosshairs.” A vehicle appeared, driving across the bridge, as an American pilot targeted the span. The truck drove into, and across, the bomber’s crosshairs, and then scooted off screen. “And now, in his rear-view mirror,” Schwarzkopf quipped, as an explosion filled the screen, destroying the bridge, but leaving the Iraqi truck driver alive.
Schwarzkopf was a bona fide American hero, complete with a New York parade and talks of a presidential run. There had been no such military heroes in this country since World War II’s Dwight Eisenhower. “By God,” declared President George H.W. Bush, himself now ailing at a Houston hospital, “we’ve licked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”
The son of the superintendent of the New Jersey state police, who investigated the kidnapping and murder of aviator Charles Lindbergh’s infant son in 1932, Schwarzkopf made the Army his career. He won recognition in Vietnam for taking care of the soldiers under his command and ended up as the third commander of U.S. Central Command, the Pentagon post responsible for the Middle East and Persian Gulf region, in 1988. (His two most recent successors, Army General David Petraeus and incumbent Marine General John Allen, have found their careers derailed, at least temporarily, by scandal.)
“General Schwarzkopf’s skilled leadership of that campaign liberated the Kuwaiti people and produced a decisive victory for the allied coalition,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Thursday night. “In the aftermath of that war, General Schwarzkopf was justly recognized as a brilliant strategist and inspiring leader.”
Following his incandescent fame, Schwarzkopf retired to Tampa six months after the Gulf War’s end. He died there, of complications related to pneumonia, at 78.
Reporters had their own shorthand to spell his complicated surname right: “War Kop, no T.” Battleland can recall taking his two young sons to the Gulf War victory parade in Washington on June 8, 1991, down by the Lincoln Memorial. He was proud to show them what the U.S. military can do when the stars align.
Read more: http://nation.time.com/2012/12/27/stormin-norman-1934-2012/#ixzz2GXCv3CWv
Sg Press Freedom
Singapore ranks 150th in 2012 Freedom of the Press World Ranking
http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/06/13/spore-ranks-150th-in-2012-freedom-of-the-press-world-ranking/
In the 2012 Freedom of the Press report published by Freedom House last month (May), Singapore ranks 150th position globally [Link]. The ranking remains unchanged for Singapore from last year’s ranking. The report classified Singapore’s level of press freedom as “Not Free”.
Taiwan, which was under martial law for many decades, has already loosened up its press control and is now ranked 47th.
Neighbouring 3rd world countries like Indonesia (97th) and Malaysia (144th), are all ahead of Singapore.
Even the newly independent East Timor, which became a sovereign state in 2002, is ranked 75th, also ahead of Singapore.
And some of the 3rd world African countries are seen to have more press freedom than Singapore:
Tanzania 97th
Kenya 111th
Senegal 117th
Zambia 132nd
Central African Republic 139th
Singapore currently shares the same ranking with Angola and Qatar at 150th position.
Freedom of the Press is a yearly report by US-based non-governmental organization Freedom House, measuring the level of freedom and editorial independence enjoyed by the press in nearly every countries around the world. Levels of freedom are scored on a scale from 1 (most free) to 100 (least free). Depending on the ratings, the nations are then classified as “Free”, “Partly Free”, or “Not Free”. Freedom House conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights.
The near-bottom ranking of the level of press freedom in Singapore should not come as a surprise to all. According to a WikiLeaks document [Link], the editors of the mainstream media in Singapore are handpicked by the State and groomed to tow the official line.
In the document, it was revealed that an ST Bureau Chief in U.S. had previously told a member of American Embassy in Singapore that ST editors have all been groomed as pro-government supporters and are careful to ensure that reporting of local events adheres closely to the official line. He observed that none of the editors has the courage to publish any stories critical of the government.
He also revealed that the government exerts significant pressure on ST editors to ensure that published articles follow the government’s line. For example, ministers routinely call ST editors to ensure that media coverage of an issue comes out the way they want it. He said that no editors have been fired or otherwise punished for printing articles critical of the government because all of them have already been vetted to ensure their pro-government leanings. The ST Bureau Chief even conceded that he would likely never advance higher up the ladder at ST due to the ‘expectations’ placed on editors.
Such is the pathetic situation of the mainstream media in Singapore, a first world country supposedly.
For Link to List of rankings: http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Global%20and%20Regional%20Press%20Freedom%20Rankings.pdf
Singapore’s press freedom index drops 14 positions to 149th
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/21/singapores-press-freedom-index-drops-14-positions-to-149th/
Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières, or RSF) has just released its annual press freedom ranking – “World Press Freedom Index 2013″ last month [Link].
Singapore’s ranking dropped 14 positions from 135th last year to current 149th. It appears that Singapore’s ranking has been getting worse over the years:
2009 – 133rd
2010 – 136th
2011/12 – 135th
2013 – 149th
At 149th, Singapore’s ranking is even worse than countries like Cambodia (143rd), Congo (142nd), Ethiopia (137th), Zimbabwe (133rd), Libya (131st), Angola (130th), Algeria (125th).
Singapore is only slightly better than Myanmar (151st). And of course, compare to China (173rd) where new citizen Li Yeming came from, Singapore is a lot better.
The Press Freedom Index is an annual ranking of countries compiled and published by RSF based upon the organization’s assessment of the countries’ press freedom records in the previous year. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations, and citizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. The index only deals with press freedom and does not measure the quality of journalism nor does it look at human rights violations in general.
RSF is a French-based international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press and freedom of information. This organization, which has consultant status at the United Nations was founded in 1985.
us
http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/06/13/spore-ranks-150th-in-2012-freedom-of-the-press-world-ranking/
In the 2012 Freedom of the Press report published by Freedom House last month (May), Singapore ranks 150th position globally [Link]. The ranking remains unchanged for Singapore from last year’s ranking. The report classified Singapore’s level of press freedom as “Not Free”.
Taiwan, which was under martial law for many decades, has already loosened up its press control and is now ranked 47th.
Neighbouring 3rd world countries like Indonesia (97th) and Malaysia (144th), are all ahead of Singapore.
Even the newly independent East Timor, which became a sovereign state in 2002, is ranked 75th, also ahead of Singapore.
And some of the 3rd world African countries are seen to have more press freedom than Singapore:
Tanzania 97th
Kenya 111th
Senegal 117th
Zambia 132nd
Central African Republic 139th
Singapore currently shares the same ranking with Angola and Qatar at 150th position.
Freedom of the Press is a yearly report by US-based non-governmental organization Freedom House, measuring the level of freedom and editorial independence enjoyed by the press in nearly every countries around the world. Levels of freedom are scored on a scale from 1 (most free) to 100 (least free). Depending on the ratings, the nations are then classified as “Free”, “Partly Free”, or “Not Free”. Freedom House conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights.
The near-bottom ranking of the level of press freedom in Singapore should not come as a surprise to all. According to a WikiLeaks document [Link], the editors of the mainstream media in Singapore are handpicked by the State and groomed to tow the official line.
In the document, it was revealed that an ST Bureau Chief in U.S. had previously told a member of American Embassy in Singapore that ST editors have all been groomed as pro-government supporters and are careful to ensure that reporting of local events adheres closely to the official line. He observed that none of the editors has the courage to publish any stories critical of the government.
He also revealed that the government exerts significant pressure on ST editors to ensure that published articles follow the government’s line. For example, ministers routinely call ST editors to ensure that media coverage of an issue comes out the way they want it. He said that no editors have been fired or otherwise punished for printing articles critical of the government because all of them have already been vetted to ensure their pro-government leanings. The ST Bureau Chief even conceded that he would likely never advance higher up the ladder at ST due to the ‘expectations’ placed on editors.
Such is the pathetic situation of the mainstream media in Singapore, a first world country supposedly.
For Link to List of rankings: http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Global%20and%20Regional%20Press%20Freedom%20Rankings.pdf
Singapore’s press freedom index drops 14 positions to 149th
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/21/singapores-press-freedom-index-drops-14-positions-to-149th/
Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières, or RSF) has just released its annual press freedom ranking – “World Press Freedom Index 2013″ last month [Link].
Singapore’s ranking dropped 14 positions from 135th last year to current 149th. It appears that Singapore’s ranking has been getting worse over the years:
2009 – 133rd
2010 – 136th
2011/12 – 135th
2013 – 149th
At 149th, Singapore’s ranking is even worse than countries like Cambodia (143rd), Congo (142nd), Ethiopia (137th), Zimbabwe (133rd), Libya (131st), Angola (130th), Algeria (125th).
Singapore is only slightly better than Myanmar (151st). And of course, compare to China (173rd) where new citizen Li Yeming came from, Singapore is a lot better.
The Press Freedom Index is an annual ranking of countries compiled and published by RSF based upon the organization’s assessment of the countries’ press freedom records in the previous year. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations, and citizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. The index only deals with press freedom and does not measure the quality of journalism nor does it look at human rights violations in general.
RSF is a French-based international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press and freedom of information. This organization, which has consultant status at the United Nations was founded in 1985.
us
Hidden slums of Singapore revealed
Hidden slums of Singapore revealed
By Andrew Loh | SingaporeScene – Sat, Dec 29, 2012
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/hidden-slums-singapore-revealed-021739643.html
It was a bright afternoon. The innocent-looking, pastel-coloured façade of the row of buildings was deceiving.
The passageway was as dark as night. You could hardly see the steps on the stairs.
On the second floor lies the narrow doorway to the dormitory. Step inside and you are met with a room packed with 20 double-decker beds, stacked so tightly together there is hardly room to even walk or move around. The absence of storage space, such as cupboards or shelves, means possessions are strewn anywhere and everywhere.
Laundry is aired or dried inside the dormitory as well, given that there is also a lack of space outdoors for drying. Windows line one side of the wall but they hardly provide adequate ventilation. The room reeks of stale air.
There are 40 migrant workers in this one room.
This writer visited 4 dormitories in the same area and they all average 30 to 40 beds in each dormitory. This is not uncommon, nor surprising, to those who work with migrant workers. The SMRT drivers who recently went on strike and complained about having to share their rooms with 7 other workers, by comparison, had it good! Their complaints sparked a flurry of reaction from relevant authorities suddenly keen to look into the living conditions of migrant workers, despite many years of non-governmental organisations and activists raising these same concerns.
Admittedly, as far as the living conditions of foreign workers are concerned, there have been some improvement – there are now more purpose-built dormitories, more serious enforcement of the rules, and employers have been taken to task by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for failing to provide adequate housing for their workers.
Nonetheless, one wonders if these employers are only doing what any employer would do when faced with the rising costs of doing business.
In 2009, the MOM said that “acceptable accommodation is now readily available in purpose-built dormitories and there is no excuse for employers to house their workers in unapproved housing.”
But just earlier this month, concerns have been raised about the rising rents of dormitories, and how all 39 purpose-built dormitories are already fully occupied. The squeeze is exacerbated by the influx of more such migrant workers the last couple of years, putting a strain on infrastructure.
The government allows factory space in industrial estates to be converted to dormitories but they should meet certain requirements or benchmarks. Just take a walk around any of these industrial estates and visit these dormitories.
I did and here is what I saw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NBfwNLUDrCY
The conditions are, quite honestly, appalling. It is even more unacceptable when one considers that employers are required to furnish the MOM with the addresses where their workers are put up, that the authorities claim to conduct regular inspections of these areas, and the fact that these dormitories have been around for quite some time. There is no reason for the authorities not to be aware of the existence and locations of these dormitories.
In total, there are easily a few hundred workers living in the dormitories in this particular industrial estate alone.
MOM statistics show that there are 722,800 work-permit holders here, excluding maids, as of June. With the purpose-built dormitories providing a reported 150,000 bed spaces, it means a sizable number of our migrant workers are housed in other facilities. Are they regulated, inspected regularly? If they are, it would be surprising then that the atrocious conditions in some of these dormitories have not been spotted, or the employers not taken to task.
One of the obvious concerns of these squalor-like dormitories is safety. Often, the main entrance is narrow, at times dark. The rear exits are just as narrow, some with obstruction or even had their gates locked. One shudders to think of the consequences if, say, a fire breaks out.
Mr Alan Lum, who heads MOM's Housing Enforcement Branch, is reported to have said in May this year: “We want to send them the message that they are entitled to a good living environment and that they should let us know when their living conditions are not meeting the standards.”
What MOM should realise, however, is the fear among the workers of speaking up and raising concerns which they have.
When this writer spoke to the workers in these dormitories, virtually all of them seemed resigned to their fate, even as they endure their inhumane living conditions. As one of the workers told me, “I tell [about this bad living condition], my boss will send me home. So, how to tell?”
According to Dr Noorashikin Abdul Rahman, the vice-president of migrant workers NGO, Transient Workers Count Too, “Employers may fire and repatriate the worker if they find out who complained. MOM should run a shelter for these workers to protect them from their employers.”
Unfortunately, MOM does not currently run such a shelter. It should if it is serious about improving the workers’ living conditions. It will go a long way in empowering these workers, and protect them from having to accept abuse and exploitation in silence.
Also, employers who fail to provide adequate housing for their workers may have the work permits of their workers cancelled. This is another reason why the workers will not speak up – once their work permits are cancelled, they will be sent home. But why should the workers be penalised – and this is a heavy punishment – for the recalcitrance of their employers?
Some members of the public opine that these workers actually are having it better than they do back in their own country, that although their living conditions here may be bad, they are actually better than what they face back home -- and thus they should not be complaining.
Human decency
It is appalling that we as Singaporeans should hold such views. Even if these workers did come from worse living environments back home, it doesn’t mean we treat them or provide for them just as badly.
In 2008, Member of Parliament for Tampines GRC, Irene Ng, asked the then-Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan: “Can I ask the Minister whether he agrees that as a decent society, it is our duty to provide the foreign workers in our midst decent and humane housing, so that they can come here and earn an honest wage and not feel like modern-day slave in Singapore?”
The minister agreed with the MP. “I think it is important for us to provide proper housing for all our workers,” Mah said, “not just from the point of view of humanity, as Ms Ng put it, but also because there are basic standards of fire safety and basic standards of health and sanitation that we need to take into account.”
No worker, who puts in an honest day’s work, should have to say – as one did to me – that he has no choice but to put up with such atrocious, slum-like living conditions.
Ms Ng is right. These workers have come to build what we need. It is thus our basic duty to treat them with humaneness and decency.
‘Proper channels’ for workers aren’t adequate
Dec 13, 2012
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/proper-channels-workers-aren-t-adequate-060327169.html
COMMENT
The plight of foreign workers has finally come to the fore, with the SMRT workers' action about two weeks ago. Yet, their complaints — of discriminatory wage policies and poor living conditions — are not new. They are part of a whole slew of problems faced by migrant workers.
Amelia Tan's article in The Straits Times on 13 December titled "Get to the root of workers' unhappiness", while timely, repeats what has already been raised many times in the past — by migrant workers NGOs, activists, bloggers, and volunteers. Tan's piece follows two other articles in the same paper over the weekend. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is well aware of the issues raised in all these.
Yet, there seems to be little done.
The three main points or issues raised in the article, for example, have been repeatedly suggested to the MOM for a long time now: one, the ability of employers to easily cancel the work permits of their foreign workers and repatriating them home; two, the tedious and long process foreign workers have to go through to settle wage disputes and compensation claims; three, the high placement fees migrant workers have to pay to come to work in Singapore.
As mentioned earlier, MOM is aware of these problems faced by the workers. In 2010, the two migrant workers NGOs, TWC2 and HOME, issued a paper titled "Justice Delayed, Justice Denied", highlighting these problems and suggested solutions to address these.
In short, these have been repeated ad nauseum, it would seem.
It is thus quite misleading to claim that there are "proper channels" or "available avenues" to which workers can turn to seek redress. This is only half true because some of the problems they face are institutional, rather than just simple cases of non-payment of salaries, for example. They are institutionalised because the system is weighed so heavily against the average migrant worker.
And even when one goes through the "proper channels", one may still not have one's problems resolved. The case of Nepalese workers Rana Kumar Rai is an example. He had brought his case all the way to the courts — and won judgment in his favour. Yet, even with the help of MOM, he was unable to recover the salary owed to him by his employer. His employer simply refused to abide by the court's orders — and there was nothing even MOM could or would do about it.
Rana eventually had to leave Singapore because his special pass had expired, and he was told by MOM that his presence in Singapore was no longer required to assist in investigations.
Rana went home a broken man. He had worked 18-hour days at a coffeeshop while he was here.
[Read his story here: "How the system failed this worker"]
So, let's be clear about one thing. All the talk by the authorities and the union that workers have "proper channels" to seek help or redress is not entirely true. In any case, these would be trying to put out fires as they occur, instead of preventing the fires in the first place.
It is puzzling why the government apparently does not want to introduce and implement the suggestions by TWC2 and HOME, suggestions which would go a long way to address some of the shortcomings of the present system. Why, for example, does the government not mandate that all salary payments be done through the banks, as suggested by the NGOs, so that there are records of these, which will help in any salary dispute, claims or settlements?
Why does the government not outlaw repatriation companies which behave like nothing more than legalised gangster outfits?
Tan, in her Straits Times article, says changes "must be coupled with a deeper look into the fundamental problems facing foreign workers." I agree. In fact, we should realise that migrant workers are human beings, and not just some "cheap labour" which we use and abuse as and when we like. This too requires a shift in our fundamental perception of these workers.
So, let's not kid ourselves that the "proper channels" which exist are adequate. They are not, and we should not pretend that they are.
But will the MOM and the government listen, now that migrant workers themselves are taking desperate means to have their grievances heard? Or are we going to wield the big stick and talk tough with them, while at the same time doing little to empower them in concrete and meaningful ways?
When will we realise and understand that as long as employees — whether local or foreign — are disempowered, employers will always easily abuse them? And do we really think that suppressing such seething unhappiness is how we preserve our so-called "industrial harmony"?
Indeed, with the massive number of foreign workers here, ignoring their grievances will only lead us down the murky road of what we fear most — the rupture in our social stability. And it would be no fault of theirs, but ours, for ignoring their cries. All because we can threaten them into silence with the big stick that we wield.
Indeed it is time for the authorities to get serious, get to the root of the unhappiness, and to act to protect migrant workers.
PS: There is a public forum this Saturday, 15 December, at Park Mall, which will discuss some of these issues. Do come and share your views. Details can be found here: "SMRT Strike And Its Implications On National Security".
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011.
By Andrew Loh | SingaporeScene – Sat, Dec 29, 2012
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/hidden-slums-singapore-revealed-021739643.html
It was a bright afternoon. The innocent-looking, pastel-coloured façade of the row of buildings was deceiving.
The passageway was as dark as night. You could hardly see the steps on the stairs.
On the second floor lies the narrow doorway to the dormitory. Step inside and you are met with a room packed with 20 double-decker beds, stacked so tightly together there is hardly room to even walk or move around. The absence of storage space, such as cupboards or shelves, means possessions are strewn anywhere and everywhere.
Laundry is aired or dried inside the dormitory as well, given that there is also a lack of space outdoors for drying. Windows line one side of the wall but they hardly provide adequate ventilation. The room reeks of stale air.
There are 40 migrant workers in this one room.
This writer visited 4 dormitories in the same area and they all average 30 to 40 beds in each dormitory. This is not uncommon, nor surprising, to those who work with migrant workers. The SMRT drivers who recently went on strike and complained about having to share their rooms with 7 other workers, by comparison, had it good! Their complaints sparked a flurry of reaction from relevant authorities suddenly keen to look into the living conditions of migrant workers, despite many years of non-governmental organisations and activists raising these same concerns.
Admittedly, as far as the living conditions of foreign workers are concerned, there have been some improvement – there are now more purpose-built dormitories, more serious enforcement of the rules, and employers have been taken to task by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for failing to provide adequate housing for their workers.
Nonetheless, one wonders if these employers are only doing what any employer would do when faced with the rising costs of doing business.
In 2009, the MOM said that “acceptable accommodation is now readily available in purpose-built dormitories and there is no excuse for employers to house their workers in unapproved housing.”
But just earlier this month, concerns have been raised about the rising rents of dormitories, and how all 39 purpose-built dormitories are already fully occupied. The squeeze is exacerbated by the influx of more such migrant workers the last couple of years, putting a strain on infrastructure.
The government allows factory space in industrial estates to be converted to dormitories but they should meet certain requirements or benchmarks. Just take a walk around any of these industrial estates and visit these dormitories.
I did and here is what I saw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NBfwNLUDrCY
The conditions are, quite honestly, appalling. It is even more unacceptable when one considers that employers are required to furnish the MOM with the addresses where their workers are put up, that the authorities claim to conduct regular inspections of these areas, and the fact that these dormitories have been around for quite some time. There is no reason for the authorities not to be aware of the existence and locations of these dormitories.
In total, there are easily a few hundred workers living in the dormitories in this particular industrial estate alone.
MOM statistics show that there are 722,800 work-permit holders here, excluding maids, as of June. With the purpose-built dormitories providing a reported 150,000 bed spaces, it means a sizable number of our migrant workers are housed in other facilities. Are they regulated, inspected regularly? If they are, it would be surprising then that the atrocious conditions in some of these dormitories have not been spotted, or the employers not taken to task.
One of the obvious concerns of these squalor-like dormitories is safety. Often, the main entrance is narrow, at times dark. The rear exits are just as narrow, some with obstruction or even had their gates locked. One shudders to think of the consequences if, say, a fire breaks out.
Mr Alan Lum, who heads MOM's Housing Enforcement Branch, is reported to have said in May this year: “We want to send them the message that they are entitled to a good living environment and that they should let us know when their living conditions are not meeting the standards.”
What MOM should realise, however, is the fear among the workers of speaking up and raising concerns which they have.
When this writer spoke to the workers in these dormitories, virtually all of them seemed resigned to their fate, even as they endure their inhumane living conditions. As one of the workers told me, “I tell [about this bad living condition], my boss will send me home. So, how to tell?”
According to Dr Noorashikin Abdul Rahman, the vice-president of migrant workers NGO, Transient Workers Count Too, “Employers may fire and repatriate the worker if they find out who complained. MOM should run a shelter for these workers to protect them from their employers.”
Unfortunately, MOM does not currently run such a shelter. It should if it is serious about improving the workers’ living conditions. It will go a long way in empowering these workers, and protect them from having to accept abuse and exploitation in silence.
Also, employers who fail to provide adequate housing for their workers may have the work permits of their workers cancelled. This is another reason why the workers will not speak up – once their work permits are cancelled, they will be sent home. But why should the workers be penalised – and this is a heavy punishment – for the recalcitrance of their employers?
Some members of the public opine that these workers actually are having it better than they do back in their own country, that although their living conditions here may be bad, they are actually better than what they face back home -- and thus they should not be complaining.
Human decency
It is appalling that we as Singaporeans should hold such views. Even if these workers did come from worse living environments back home, it doesn’t mean we treat them or provide for them just as badly.
In 2008, Member of Parliament for Tampines GRC, Irene Ng, asked the then-Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan: “Can I ask the Minister whether he agrees that as a decent society, it is our duty to provide the foreign workers in our midst decent and humane housing, so that they can come here and earn an honest wage and not feel like modern-day slave in Singapore?”
The minister agreed with the MP. “I think it is important for us to provide proper housing for all our workers,” Mah said, “not just from the point of view of humanity, as Ms Ng put it, but also because there are basic standards of fire safety and basic standards of health and sanitation that we need to take into account.”
No worker, who puts in an honest day’s work, should have to say – as one did to me – that he has no choice but to put up with such atrocious, slum-like living conditions.
Ms Ng is right. These workers have come to build what we need. It is thus our basic duty to treat them with humaneness and decency.
‘Proper channels’ for workers aren’t adequate
Dec 13, 2012
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/proper-channels-workers-aren-t-adequate-060327169.html
COMMENT
The plight of foreign workers has finally come to the fore, with the SMRT workers' action about two weeks ago. Yet, their complaints — of discriminatory wage policies and poor living conditions — are not new. They are part of a whole slew of problems faced by migrant workers.
Amelia Tan's article in The Straits Times on 13 December titled "Get to the root of workers' unhappiness", while timely, repeats what has already been raised many times in the past — by migrant workers NGOs, activists, bloggers, and volunteers. Tan's piece follows two other articles in the same paper over the weekend. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) is well aware of the issues raised in all these.
Yet, there seems to be little done.
The three main points or issues raised in the article, for example, have been repeatedly suggested to the MOM for a long time now: one, the ability of employers to easily cancel the work permits of their foreign workers and repatriating them home; two, the tedious and long process foreign workers have to go through to settle wage disputes and compensation claims; three, the high placement fees migrant workers have to pay to come to work in Singapore.
As mentioned earlier, MOM is aware of these problems faced by the workers. In 2010, the two migrant workers NGOs, TWC2 and HOME, issued a paper titled "Justice Delayed, Justice Denied", highlighting these problems and suggested solutions to address these.
In short, these have been repeated ad nauseum, it would seem.
It is thus quite misleading to claim that there are "proper channels" or "available avenues" to which workers can turn to seek redress. This is only half true because some of the problems they face are institutional, rather than just simple cases of non-payment of salaries, for example. They are institutionalised because the system is weighed so heavily against the average migrant worker.
And even when one goes through the "proper channels", one may still not have one's problems resolved. The case of Nepalese workers Rana Kumar Rai is an example. He had brought his case all the way to the courts — and won judgment in his favour. Yet, even with the help of MOM, he was unable to recover the salary owed to him by his employer. His employer simply refused to abide by the court's orders — and there was nothing even MOM could or would do about it.
Rana eventually had to leave Singapore because his special pass had expired, and he was told by MOM that his presence in Singapore was no longer required to assist in investigations.
Rana went home a broken man. He had worked 18-hour days at a coffeeshop while he was here.
[Read his story here: "How the system failed this worker"]
So, let's be clear about one thing. All the talk by the authorities and the union that workers have "proper channels" to seek help or redress is not entirely true. In any case, these would be trying to put out fires as they occur, instead of preventing the fires in the first place.
It is puzzling why the government apparently does not want to introduce and implement the suggestions by TWC2 and HOME, suggestions which would go a long way to address some of the shortcomings of the present system. Why, for example, does the government not mandate that all salary payments be done through the banks, as suggested by the NGOs, so that there are records of these, which will help in any salary dispute, claims or settlements?
Why does the government not outlaw repatriation companies which behave like nothing more than legalised gangster outfits?
Tan, in her Straits Times article, says changes "must be coupled with a deeper look into the fundamental problems facing foreign workers." I agree. In fact, we should realise that migrant workers are human beings, and not just some "cheap labour" which we use and abuse as and when we like. This too requires a shift in our fundamental perception of these workers.
So, let's not kid ourselves that the "proper channels" which exist are adequate. They are not, and we should not pretend that they are.
But will the MOM and the government listen, now that migrant workers themselves are taking desperate means to have their grievances heard? Or are we going to wield the big stick and talk tough with them, while at the same time doing little to empower them in concrete and meaningful ways?
When will we realise and understand that as long as employees — whether local or foreign — are disempowered, employers will always easily abuse them? And do we really think that suppressing such seething unhappiness is how we preserve our so-called "industrial harmony"?
Indeed, with the massive number of foreign workers here, ignoring their grievances will only lead us down the murky road of what we fear most — the rupture in our social stability. And it would be no fault of theirs, but ours, for ignoring their cries. All because we can threaten them into silence with the big stick that we wield.
Indeed it is time for the authorities to get serious, get to the root of the unhappiness, and to act to protect migrant workers.
PS: There is a public forum this Saturday, 15 December, at Park Mall, which will discuss some of these issues. Do come and share your views. Details can be found here: "SMRT Strike And Its Implications On National Security".
Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011.
Yale under fire for new campus in restrictive Singapore
Reuters By Stephanie Simon | Reuter
30/12/2012
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/corrected-yale-under-fire-campus-restrictive-singapore-183816710.html
NEW HAVEN (Reuters) - For more than 300 years, Yale University has prided itself on training top students to question and analyze, to challenge and critique.
Now, Yale is seeking to export those values by establishing the first foreign campus to bear its name, a liberal arts college in Singapore that is set to open this summer. The ambitious, multimillion-dollar project thrills many in the Yale community who say it will help the university maintain its prestige and build global influence.
But it has also stirred sharp criticism from faculty and human-rights advocates who say it is impossible to build an elite college dedicated to free inquiry in an authoritarian nation with heavy restrictions on public speech and assembly.
"Yale's motto is 'Lux et veritas,' or 'Light and truth,'" said Michael Fischer, a Yale professor of computer science. "We're going into a place with severe curbs on light and truth ... We're redefining the brand in a way that's contrary to Yale's values."
Yale President Richard Levin describes the new venture as a chance to extend Yale's tradition of nurturing independent thinkers to a dynamic young nation at the crossroads of Asia. In the 19th century, Yale scholars fanned out to launch dozens of American colleges, Levin noted in a 2010 memo presenting the concept to faculty. "Yale could influence the course of 21st century education as profoundly," he wrote.
Levin, who spent years expanding Yale's campus in New Haven before initiating the Singapore project in 2010, has announced plans to retire at the end of the academic year. His successor, Yale Provost Peter Salovey, also supports the Singapore venture.
Working with the National University of Singapore, or NUS, Yale is building a comprehensive liberal arts college from scratch. The school will offer majors from anthropology to urban studies, electives from fractal geometry to moral reasoning, and a rich menu of extracurricular activities -- sports, drama, debate, even a juggling club.
Scheduled to open this summer with 150 students, it is slated to grow to about 1,000 undergraduates living in a high-rise campus now under construction.
While American universities have been venturing overseas for decades, they have mostly offered tightly focused degree programs, often for graduate students. The closest analogy to the Yale project may be New York University's branch campuses now under construction in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai.
But the new NYU campuses are extensions of the university. The Yale venture, which targets top students from around the globe, is an unusual hybrid.
It will be called Yale-NUS College. It will draw some faculty -- and its inaugural president, Pericles Lewis -- straight from New Haven. Students will spend the summer before freshman year in New Haven, attending seminars with Yale faculty. When they graduate, they will be welcomed into the Association of Yale Alumni.
Yet Yale officials are emphatic that the new school is not a branch campus. The degrees it issues will not be Yale degrees.
"It is not Yale," said Charles Bailyn, an astronomy professor on leave from Yale to serve as the founding dean of Yale-NUS.
OPPORTUNITY OR "FRANKENYALE"?
The new college will be funded entirely by the Singapore government, which will also subsidize tuition. Singapore citizens will pay about $18,000 a year, including room and board. International students will pay about $43,000 unless they secure a discount by committing to work for a Singapore company for three years after graduation.
Yale and Singapore will get an equal number of seats on the new college's governing board -- but Singapore's education minister must approve all the Yale nominees.
The arrangement exposes Yale to risk because its name is on the college, yet the university does not have control over the end product, said Richard Edelstein, who studies trends in higher education at the University of California at Berkeley. One angry member of Yale's faculty, Christopher Miller, a professor of French and African American studies, has dubbed the venture "Frankenyale."
Those involved in the project say the novel structure is a boon that will enable educational experimentation, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary seminars and student research. It's a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a new college program from the ground up," said Yale anthropologist Bernard Bate, who has signed on to teach in Singapore.
He and others say they will bring the best of their new approach back to New Haven. And they contend that fears about censorship in Singapore are wildly overblown.
That issue came to the fore last spring, when Yale faculty voted 100 to 69 for a resolution raising concern about the venture in light of "the history of lack of respect for civil and political rights" in Singapore.
Human Rights Watch, the international advocacy group, subsequently accused Yale of "betraying the spirit of the university." This month the American Association of University Professors weighed in, expressing concern about the project's implications for academic freedom.
Singapore, an island nation in southeast Asia, is a democracy but has been dominated by one political party since securing independence from Britain half a century ago. In the name of stability and security, the government restricts public demonstrations to a corner of one park and heavily regulates news and entertainment, according to the U.S. State Department.
Last year a British author was jailed for writing a book critical of Singapore's judiciary. This spring the government prevented an opposition politician from leaving the country to speak at the Oslo Freedom Forum.
Still, Yale faculty working on the new college said they had spoken with foreign professors teaching on other campuses in Singapore and came away convinced that academic freedom would be respected.
George Bishop, a Yale PhD who been teaching psychology at the National University of Singapore since 1991, says he has never felt restricted. In a class on the AIDS epidemic, he and his students freely discuss how Singapore's anti-sodomy laws hinder the nation's public-health response.
"We criticize the government all the time in class," said Bishop, who has joined the faculty of the new college.
PLENTY OF APPLICANTS
Yet Yale-NUS will not be free and open in the way American students may expect.
Singapore bans speech deemed to promote racial or religious strife. As long as they toe that line, students will be free to hear speakers and express views inside campus buildings. But many outdoor assemblies will require a government permit, Yale-NUS President Lewis said. Singapore law defines "assembly" quite broadly, to include a single protester holding a sign or an open-air debate.
"Can you march on City Hall?" asked Bailyn, the Yale-NUS dean. No, he answered -- but said that didn't trouble him, as "that's not really an educational matter." Bailyn said he had been promised complete freedom with "the core mission of the college -- researching, teaching, unfettered discussion."
Indeed, Yale-NUS faculty say they expect Singapore to be cautious about interfering with the new college for fear of provoking an incident and prompting Yale to withdraw its name.
"We know what a liberal arts education is, what intellectual freedom is," said Keith Darden, a professor of social sciences at Yale-NUS, "and we'll accept nothing less than that for ourselves and our students."
Under the philosophical questions lies a pragmatic one: Will the new college succeed?
For all its wealth, Singapore has not always proved an ideal marketplace for higher education. Australia's University of New South Wales opened a campus in Singapore in 2007 -- only to shut it after one semester because of low enrollment. This fall, NYU announced it would close its graduate film school in Singapore because of financial trouble.
Other American ventures in Singapore have done better, including a music conservatory developed by Johns Hopkins University.
Interest in Yale-NUS is running high. Almost 2,600 students from around the globe have applied for the initial 150 spots. Several dozen have already been accepted -- among them, Singaporean students who suggest Yale's faculty might do well to back off the criticism and trust in the value of the liberal arts education they hold so dear.
"Ideological purity and moral righteousness from these critics will not make Singapore a free society, but education and the spread of ideas will," Jared Yeo, a Singapore native accepted to Yale-NUS, wrote on the college's blog.
Perhaps the most pointed critique of the New Haven protests came from E-Ching Ng, a Singaporean who earned an undergraduate degree at Yale and remained on campus to study linguistics. In a column in the Yale Daily News last spring, she urged faculty to respect the rules Singapore has developed to maintain public order.
"Qur'an burning is illegal in Singapore, and we like it that way," she wrote. "We prioritize our values differently, and different doesn't mean wrong. At least, that's what I learned from a Yale liberal arts education."
(Reporting By Stephanie Simon in New Haven. Additional reporting by Kevin Lim in Singapore. Editing by Jonathan Weber and Douglas Royalty.)
30/12/2012
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/corrected-yale-under-fire-campus-restrictive-singapore-183816710.html
NEW HAVEN (Reuters) - For more than 300 years, Yale University has prided itself on training top students to question and analyze, to challenge and critique.
Now, Yale is seeking to export those values by establishing the first foreign campus to bear its name, a liberal arts college in Singapore that is set to open this summer. The ambitious, multimillion-dollar project thrills many in the Yale community who say it will help the university maintain its prestige and build global influence.
But it has also stirred sharp criticism from faculty and human-rights advocates who say it is impossible to build an elite college dedicated to free inquiry in an authoritarian nation with heavy restrictions on public speech and assembly.
"Yale's motto is 'Lux et veritas,' or 'Light and truth,'" said Michael Fischer, a Yale professor of computer science. "We're going into a place with severe curbs on light and truth ... We're redefining the brand in a way that's contrary to Yale's values."
Yale President Richard Levin describes the new venture as a chance to extend Yale's tradition of nurturing independent thinkers to a dynamic young nation at the crossroads of Asia. In the 19th century, Yale scholars fanned out to launch dozens of American colleges, Levin noted in a 2010 memo presenting the concept to faculty. "Yale could influence the course of 21st century education as profoundly," he wrote.
Levin, who spent years expanding Yale's campus in New Haven before initiating the Singapore project in 2010, has announced plans to retire at the end of the academic year. His successor, Yale Provost Peter Salovey, also supports the Singapore venture.
Working with the National University of Singapore, or NUS, Yale is building a comprehensive liberal arts college from scratch. The school will offer majors from anthropology to urban studies, electives from fractal geometry to moral reasoning, and a rich menu of extracurricular activities -- sports, drama, debate, even a juggling club.
Scheduled to open this summer with 150 students, it is slated to grow to about 1,000 undergraduates living in a high-rise campus now under construction.
While American universities have been venturing overseas for decades, they have mostly offered tightly focused degree programs, often for graduate students. The closest analogy to the Yale project may be New York University's branch campuses now under construction in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai.
But the new NYU campuses are extensions of the university. The Yale venture, which targets top students from around the globe, is an unusual hybrid.
It will be called Yale-NUS College. It will draw some faculty -- and its inaugural president, Pericles Lewis -- straight from New Haven. Students will spend the summer before freshman year in New Haven, attending seminars with Yale faculty. When they graduate, they will be welcomed into the Association of Yale Alumni.
Yet Yale officials are emphatic that the new school is not a branch campus. The degrees it issues will not be Yale degrees.
"It is not Yale," said Charles Bailyn, an astronomy professor on leave from Yale to serve as the founding dean of Yale-NUS.
OPPORTUNITY OR "FRANKENYALE"?
The new college will be funded entirely by the Singapore government, which will also subsidize tuition. Singapore citizens will pay about $18,000 a year, including room and board. International students will pay about $43,000 unless they secure a discount by committing to work for a Singapore company for three years after graduation.
Yale and Singapore will get an equal number of seats on the new college's governing board -- but Singapore's education minister must approve all the Yale nominees.
The arrangement exposes Yale to risk because its name is on the college, yet the university does not have control over the end product, said Richard Edelstein, who studies trends in higher education at the University of California at Berkeley. One angry member of Yale's faculty, Christopher Miller, a professor of French and African American studies, has dubbed the venture "Frankenyale."
Those involved in the project say the novel structure is a boon that will enable educational experimentation, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary seminars and student research. It's a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a new college program from the ground up," said Yale anthropologist Bernard Bate, who has signed on to teach in Singapore.
He and others say they will bring the best of their new approach back to New Haven. And they contend that fears about censorship in Singapore are wildly overblown.
That issue came to the fore last spring, when Yale faculty voted 100 to 69 for a resolution raising concern about the venture in light of "the history of lack of respect for civil and political rights" in Singapore.
Human Rights Watch, the international advocacy group, subsequently accused Yale of "betraying the spirit of the university." This month the American Association of University Professors weighed in, expressing concern about the project's implications for academic freedom.
Singapore, an island nation in southeast Asia, is a democracy but has been dominated by one political party since securing independence from Britain half a century ago. In the name of stability and security, the government restricts public demonstrations to a corner of one park and heavily regulates news and entertainment, according to the U.S. State Department.
Last year a British author was jailed for writing a book critical of Singapore's judiciary. This spring the government prevented an opposition politician from leaving the country to speak at the Oslo Freedom Forum.
Still, Yale faculty working on the new college said they had spoken with foreign professors teaching on other campuses in Singapore and came away convinced that academic freedom would be respected.
George Bishop, a Yale PhD who been teaching psychology at the National University of Singapore since 1991, says he has never felt restricted. In a class on the AIDS epidemic, he and his students freely discuss how Singapore's anti-sodomy laws hinder the nation's public-health response.
"We criticize the government all the time in class," said Bishop, who has joined the faculty of the new college.
PLENTY OF APPLICANTS
Yet Yale-NUS will not be free and open in the way American students may expect.
Singapore bans speech deemed to promote racial or religious strife. As long as they toe that line, students will be free to hear speakers and express views inside campus buildings. But many outdoor assemblies will require a government permit, Yale-NUS President Lewis said. Singapore law defines "assembly" quite broadly, to include a single protester holding a sign or an open-air debate.
"Can you march on City Hall?" asked Bailyn, the Yale-NUS dean. No, he answered -- but said that didn't trouble him, as "that's not really an educational matter." Bailyn said he had been promised complete freedom with "the core mission of the college -- researching, teaching, unfettered discussion."
Indeed, Yale-NUS faculty say they expect Singapore to be cautious about interfering with the new college for fear of provoking an incident and prompting Yale to withdraw its name.
"We know what a liberal arts education is, what intellectual freedom is," said Keith Darden, a professor of social sciences at Yale-NUS, "and we'll accept nothing less than that for ourselves and our students."
Under the philosophical questions lies a pragmatic one: Will the new college succeed?
For all its wealth, Singapore has not always proved an ideal marketplace for higher education. Australia's University of New South Wales opened a campus in Singapore in 2007 -- only to shut it after one semester because of low enrollment. This fall, NYU announced it would close its graduate film school in Singapore because of financial trouble.
Other American ventures in Singapore have done better, including a music conservatory developed by Johns Hopkins University.
Interest in Yale-NUS is running high. Almost 2,600 students from around the globe have applied for the initial 150 spots. Several dozen have already been accepted -- among them, Singaporean students who suggest Yale's faculty might do well to back off the criticism and trust in the value of the liberal arts education they hold so dear.
"Ideological purity and moral righteousness from these critics will not make Singapore a free society, but education and the spread of ideas will," Jared Yeo, a Singapore native accepted to Yale-NUS, wrote on the college's blog.
Perhaps the most pointed critique of the New Haven protests came from E-Ching Ng, a Singaporean who earned an undergraduate degree at Yale and remained on campus to study linguistics. In a column in the Yale Daily News last spring, she urged faculty to respect the rules Singapore has developed to maintain public order.
"Qur'an burning is illegal in Singapore, and we like it that way," she wrote. "We prioritize our values differently, and different doesn't mean wrong. At least, that's what I learned from a Yale liberal arts education."
(Reporting By Stephanie Simon in New Haven. Additional reporting by Kevin Lim in Singapore. Editing by Jonathan Weber and Douglas Royalty.)
Thursday, December 20, 2012
On Guns America Stands Out
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?src=me&ref=general
CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: December 19, 2012
Sometimes I think the best argument is raw data. This is one of those times.
In the wake of the horrible school shooting in Connecticut and on the heels of politicians finally being smoked out into the open to talk seriously about sensible gun control policies, it’s important that we understand just how anomalous America is on the issues of guns and violence among developed countries. This table shows how shamefully we measure up against other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Among the O.E.C.D. countries that the World Bank groups as “high income,” America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita and the highest rate of deaths due to assault. In fact, America has more homicides by gun than all of the other high-income O.E.C.D. countries combined.
It’s just shameful.
Looking for Lessons at Newtown
Looking for Lessons in Newtown
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 19, 2012 476 Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?src=me&ref=general
After my column a few days ago urging tighter gun control, I faced incoming salvos from firearm enthusiasts. Let me respond to some of their arguments:
1. Don’t politicize the tragedy in Connecticut. This is a time for mourning, not for demonizing gun-owners.
Oh, come on! The president and Congress are supposed to address national problems — and every two months, we lose more Americans to gun violence than we did in the 9/11 attacks, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A study by the Children’s Defense Fund found that we lose some 2,800 children and teenagers to guns annually.
That’s more than the number of American troops who have died in any year in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. More than twice as many preschoolers die annually from gun violence in America as law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty.
So this is a time for mourning, yes, but it’s time for President Obama to display leadership as well as grief.
2. What happened in Newtown, Conn., was heartbreaking, but gun laws are feel-good measures that don’t make a difference. Norway has very restrictive gun laws, but it had its own massacre of 77 people.
It’s true that the 1994 assault weapons ban was not very effective, even before it expired (partly because it had trouble defining assault weapons, and partly because handguns kill more people than assault rifles). But if that law’s ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines had still been in effect, Adam Lanza, the gunman in Newtown, might have had to reload three times as often.
As for Norway, its laws did not prevent the massacre there last year. But, in a typical year, Norway has 10 or fewer gun murders. The United States has more than that in eight hours.
If people want to kill, you can’t stop them. Even a fork can be deadly. On the same day as the Connecticut tragedy, a man attacked 23 schoolchildren in China with a knife.
But, in the attack in China, not one of those children died. What makes guns different is their lethality. That’s why the military doesn’t arm our troops with forks.
Gun suicides (nearly 19,000 a year in the U.S.) outnumber gun murders (more than 11,000), and a gun in the home increases the risk that someone in the home will commit suicide. The reason is that suicide attempts with pills or razors often fail; with guns, they succeed. When Israel moved to have many soldiers store guns on base rather than at home, its military suicide rates plunged.
3. We have the Second Amendment, which protects our right to bear arms. So don’t talk about gun control!
There’s a reasonable argument that the Second Amendment confers an individual right — to bear a musket. Beyond that, it’s more complicated. Everybody agrees on a ban on fully automatic machine guns. The question isn’t whether to limit the right to bear arms, but where to draw the line.
I’d like to see us take a public health approach that reduces the harm that guns cause. We could limit gun purchases to one a month to impede traffickers, make serial numbers harder to file off, ban high-capacity magazines, finance gun buybacks, require solid background checks even for private gun sales, require microstamping so that bullet casings can be traced back to a particular gun and mandate that guns be stored in gun safes or with trigger locks.
And if you need to enter a code to operate your cellphone, why not to fire your gun?
4. If you were at home at night and heard creaking downstairs, wouldn’t you want a Glock in your night stand?
Frankly, at that moment, I might. And then I might creep downstairs and fire at a furtive figure in the darkened kitchen — perhaps my son returning from college to surprise the family. Or, God forbid, somebody who lives in the house might use the Glock to commit suicide.
The gun lobby often cites the work of John Lott, who argued that more guns mean less crime, but scholars have since thoroughly debunked Lott’s arguments. Published research makes it clear that having a gun in the home simply makes it more likely that you will be shot — by your partner or by yourself. Americans are safer if they rely on 911 for protection rather than on a gun.
Nancy Lanza is a case in point. She perhaps thought that her guns would keep her safe. But they were used to kill her and then schoolchildren.
As children were being rushed out of Sandy Hook Elementary School, they were told to cover their eyes. I hope we don’t do the same and blind ourselves to the lessons of this tragedy.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 19, 2012 476 Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html?src=me&ref=general
After my column a few days ago urging tighter gun control, I faced incoming salvos from firearm enthusiasts. Let me respond to some of their arguments:
1. Don’t politicize the tragedy in Connecticut. This is a time for mourning, not for demonizing gun-owners.
Oh, come on! The president and Congress are supposed to address national problems — and every two months, we lose more Americans to gun violence than we did in the 9/11 attacks, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A study by the Children’s Defense Fund found that we lose some 2,800 children and teenagers to guns annually.
That’s more than the number of American troops who have died in any year in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. More than twice as many preschoolers die annually from gun violence in America as law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty.
So this is a time for mourning, yes, but it’s time for President Obama to display leadership as well as grief.
2. What happened in Newtown, Conn., was heartbreaking, but gun laws are feel-good measures that don’t make a difference. Norway has very restrictive gun laws, but it had its own massacre of 77 people.
It’s true that the 1994 assault weapons ban was not very effective, even before it expired (partly because it had trouble defining assault weapons, and partly because handguns kill more people than assault rifles). But if that law’s ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines had still been in effect, Adam Lanza, the gunman in Newtown, might have had to reload three times as often.
As for Norway, its laws did not prevent the massacre there last year. But, in a typical year, Norway has 10 or fewer gun murders. The United States has more than that in eight hours.
If people want to kill, you can’t stop them. Even a fork can be deadly. On the same day as the Connecticut tragedy, a man attacked 23 schoolchildren in China with a knife.
But, in the attack in China, not one of those children died. What makes guns different is their lethality. That’s why the military doesn’t arm our troops with forks.
Gun suicides (nearly 19,000 a year in the U.S.) outnumber gun murders (more than 11,000), and a gun in the home increases the risk that someone in the home will commit suicide. The reason is that suicide attempts with pills or razors often fail; with guns, they succeed. When Israel moved to have many soldiers store guns on base rather than at home, its military suicide rates plunged.
3. We have the Second Amendment, which protects our right to bear arms. So don’t talk about gun control!
There’s a reasonable argument that the Second Amendment confers an individual right — to bear a musket. Beyond that, it’s more complicated. Everybody agrees on a ban on fully automatic machine guns. The question isn’t whether to limit the right to bear arms, but where to draw the line.
I’d like to see us take a public health approach that reduces the harm that guns cause. We could limit gun purchases to one a month to impede traffickers, make serial numbers harder to file off, ban high-capacity magazines, finance gun buybacks, require solid background checks even for private gun sales, require microstamping so that bullet casings can be traced back to a particular gun and mandate that guns be stored in gun safes or with trigger locks.
And if you need to enter a code to operate your cellphone, why not to fire your gun?
4. If you were at home at night and heard creaking downstairs, wouldn’t you want a Glock in your night stand?
Frankly, at that moment, I might. And then I might creep downstairs and fire at a furtive figure in the darkened kitchen — perhaps my son returning from college to surprise the family. Or, God forbid, somebody who lives in the house might use the Glock to commit suicide.
The gun lobby often cites the work of John Lott, who argued that more guns mean less crime, but scholars have since thoroughly debunked Lott’s arguments. Published research makes it clear that having a gun in the home simply makes it more likely that you will be shot — by your partner or by yourself. Americans are safer if they rely on 911 for protection rather than on a gun.
Nancy Lanza is a case in point. She perhaps thought that her guns would keep her safe. But they were used to kill her and then schoolchildren.
As children were being rushed out of Sandy Hook Elementary School, they were told to cover their eyes. I hope we don’t do the same and blind ourselves to the lessons of this tragedy.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Do you hate things about Singapore so much that you’ll never migrate?
Do you hate things about Singapore so much that you’ll never migrate?
By Daniel Wong |
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/hate-things-singapore-much-ll-never-migrate-013400680.html
Yes, you read the title correctly. I do mean "hate", not "love".
(You'll understand what I mean by the end of the article.)
As Singaporeans, we complain about many things: the government, high COE and housing prices, foreign talent taking away our jobs… the list goes on.
We have to admit, though, that compared to most other countries we have it pretty good here in Singapore.
But I'm not here to talk about gratitude or about how things really aren't that bad or even about what the government could do better.
I'm here to talk about patriotism. National pride. Love for country.
Do you dream of migrating one day?
Let me start by asking you: If you had the means to, would you migrate to somewhere less stressful, say New Zealand or Australia?
I've talked to plenty of people who dream of the day when they can retire and leave Singapore for good.
I'm guessing that, like me, you too have wondered before about what life would be like if you lived elsewhere.
What we can learn from a courageous Iranian
Whether you're someone who has shrugged off those thoughts, or whether you're someone who entertains those thoughts daily, I'd like to tell you a story that might just help you to see this whole notion of national pride in a different light.
When I was studying in America a few years ago, I had the privilege of attending a talk by Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer, social activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner.
A truly outstanding woman!
In her talk, Ebadi described the lack of freedom and opportunities that Iranians face. She expressed anger toward what she viewed as human rights violations, which were taking place in Iran.
Ebadi went on to talk about the beauty of capitalism and democracy, which aren't present in Iran. She urged people living in democratic societies never to take their liberty for granted.
"I know where this talk is going," I thought. "She's going to tell us about what we can do to help Iranians and get them out of Iran and into Western countries."
"I'll never stop being an Iranian"
I couldn't have been more wrong.
Ebadi concluded her speech:
"Iran faces terrible problems. These problems are daunting, and there are no easy solutions.
"That's why I'm determined to make a difference. I'm going to give my everything to help Iran become a better place to live.
"Iran is my country and my home. I'll never stop being an Iranian."
Wow.
Ebadi loved Iran so much that even though she hated things about Iran, she would never willingly migrate. (Since June 2009, however, she has been in exile in the UK.)
Are you someone who can't wait to get out of Singapore?
When the speech was over, I started thinking about how an average Singaporean's outlook differs from Ebadi's.
A Singaporean might say, "It's so competitive here and it's so difficult to find a job. The cost of living is insane. And the government isn't doing enough for its citizens!"
What do you expect the person to say next?
Maybe something along these lines: "That's why I'm going to work hard, and when I have enough money I'm going to get out of here."
Obviously, not all Singaporeans think this way, but a significant proportion of the population does.
Love for food, love for country
I don't claim to know the exact reasons why there isn't an overwhelming sense of national pride among Singaporeans, but I do think it's worth noting how Singaporeans generally respond to the question, "What's the best thing about Singapore?"
"The food!" is usually the enthusiastic reply.
The diverse array of mouthwatering food that's available in Singapore is something to be thankful for, but it's troubling to me if the food really is the best thing about Singapore.
After all, I doubt that a shared love for nasi lemak, roti prata or bak chor mee will get us through a national crisis.
On the other hand, if you were to ask an American "What's the best thing about America?" you'll likely get this response: "Freedom, democracy and the opportunity to pursue your dreams."
(I know this to be largely true, because I lived in America for four years and I've asked many Americans that exact question.)
What describes us vs. what defines us
Why this stark difference?
I believe that it's because we Singaporeans, as a nation, haven't asked ourselves what we stand for.
We have yet to thoroughly examine what principles and values we hold dear, and neither have we developed a compelling, collective vision of the future.
We pride ourselves on being an efficiently run country, but efficiency is more an outcome than it is a core value.
Pragmatism—another trait that Singapore is renowned for—too is more a necessary mode of operation than it is an enduring principle on which to build a great country.
Our ability to be efficient and pragmatic is what describes us, but it doesn't define us.
We're defined by what we believe, by what we'll live for and what we'll die for.
A national and individual conversation about Singapore's future
It's encouraging that, at a societal level, we've started a national conversation about Singapore's future.
But there's work to be done at an individual level, too.
We need to decide how we want to contribute toward Singapore's destiny, and we need to decide what Singapore means to us.
Is Singapore just the place where we'll live and work?
Or is Singapore where we'll devote ourselves wholeheartedly to a cause greater than us, something that will go far beyond our lifetimes?
If it's the latter, then "Singaporean" won't just be our nationality. It will be our identity.
"Singaporean" won't just describe us. Instead, it will define us.
Pursuing your goals is easy, living out your values is hard
At both a personal and national level, it's easy to pursue your goals, but it's difficult to live out your values.
Living out your values requires that, first of all, you take a good look at yourself and ask yourself who you are, and who you want to become.
That takes time, energy and courage—and a people who are united and committed.
In closing…
I don't claim to be the most patriotic Singaporean around, but I do believe that our little red dot has an abundance of unfulfilled potential.
Together, let's become a people who love Singapore so much that, even if we hate things about Singapore, we won't think about migrating as the number one solution to our problems.
At the end of the day, national pride isn't mainly about feeling patriotic every 9th of August when the fireworks go off.
It's about intentionally and purposefully building a better Singapore the other 364 days of the year.
By Daniel Wong |
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/hate-things-singapore-much-ll-never-migrate-013400680.html
Yes, you read the title correctly. I do mean "hate", not "love".
(You'll understand what I mean by the end of the article.)
As Singaporeans, we complain about many things: the government, high COE and housing prices, foreign talent taking away our jobs… the list goes on.
We have to admit, though, that compared to most other countries we have it pretty good here in Singapore.
But I'm not here to talk about gratitude or about how things really aren't that bad or even about what the government could do better.
I'm here to talk about patriotism. National pride. Love for country.
Do you dream of migrating one day?
Let me start by asking you: If you had the means to, would you migrate to somewhere less stressful, say New Zealand or Australia?
I've talked to plenty of people who dream of the day when they can retire and leave Singapore for good.
I'm guessing that, like me, you too have wondered before about what life would be like if you lived elsewhere.
What we can learn from a courageous Iranian
Whether you're someone who has shrugged off those thoughts, or whether you're someone who entertains those thoughts daily, I'd like to tell you a story that might just help you to see this whole notion of national pride in a different light.
When I was studying in America a few years ago, I had the privilege of attending a talk by Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer, social activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner.
A truly outstanding woman!
In her talk, Ebadi described the lack of freedom and opportunities that Iranians face. She expressed anger toward what she viewed as human rights violations, which were taking place in Iran.
Ebadi went on to talk about the beauty of capitalism and democracy, which aren't present in Iran. She urged people living in democratic societies never to take their liberty for granted.
"I know where this talk is going," I thought. "She's going to tell us about what we can do to help Iranians and get them out of Iran and into Western countries."
"I'll never stop being an Iranian"
I couldn't have been more wrong.
Ebadi concluded her speech:
"Iran faces terrible problems. These problems are daunting, and there are no easy solutions.
"That's why I'm determined to make a difference. I'm going to give my everything to help Iran become a better place to live.
"Iran is my country and my home. I'll never stop being an Iranian."
Wow.
Ebadi loved Iran so much that even though she hated things about Iran, she would never willingly migrate. (Since June 2009, however, she has been in exile in the UK.)
Are you someone who can't wait to get out of Singapore?
When the speech was over, I started thinking about how an average Singaporean's outlook differs from Ebadi's.
A Singaporean might say, "It's so competitive here and it's so difficult to find a job. The cost of living is insane. And the government isn't doing enough for its citizens!"
What do you expect the person to say next?
Maybe something along these lines: "That's why I'm going to work hard, and when I have enough money I'm going to get out of here."
Obviously, not all Singaporeans think this way, but a significant proportion of the population does.
Love for food, love for country
I don't claim to know the exact reasons why there isn't an overwhelming sense of national pride among Singaporeans, but I do think it's worth noting how Singaporeans generally respond to the question, "What's the best thing about Singapore?"
"The food!" is usually the enthusiastic reply.
The diverse array of mouthwatering food that's available in Singapore is something to be thankful for, but it's troubling to me if the food really is the best thing about Singapore.
After all, I doubt that a shared love for nasi lemak, roti prata or bak chor mee will get us through a national crisis.
On the other hand, if you were to ask an American "What's the best thing about America?" you'll likely get this response: "Freedom, democracy and the opportunity to pursue your dreams."
(I know this to be largely true, because I lived in America for four years and I've asked many Americans that exact question.)
What describes us vs. what defines us
Why this stark difference?
I believe that it's because we Singaporeans, as a nation, haven't asked ourselves what we stand for.
We have yet to thoroughly examine what principles and values we hold dear, and neither have we developed a compelling, collective vision of the future.
We pride ourselves on being an efficiently run country, but efficiency is more an outcome than it is a core value.
Pragmatism—another trait that Singapore is renowned for—too is more a necessary mode of operation than it is an enduring principle on which to build a great country.
Our ability to be efficient and pragmatic is what describes us, but it doesn't define us.
We're defined by what we believe, by what we'll live for and what we'll die for.
A national and individual conversation about Singapore's future
It's encouraging that, at a societal level, we've started a national conversation about Singapore's future.
But there's work to be done at an individual level, too.
We need to decide how we want to contribute toward Singapore's destiny, and we need to decide what Singapore means to us.
Is Singapore just the place where we'll live and work?
Or is Singapore where we'll devote ourselves wholeheartedly to a cause greater than us, something that will go far beyond our lifetimes?
If it's the latter, then "Singaporean" won't just be our nationality. It will be our identity.
"Singaporean" won't just describe us. Instead, it will define us.
Pursuing your goals is easy, living out your values is hard
At both a personal and national level, it's easy to pursue your goals, but it's difficult to live out your values.
Living out your values requires that, first of all, you take a good look at yourself and ask yourself who you are, and who you want to become.
That takes time, energy and courage—and a people who are united and committed.
In closing…
I don't claim to be the most patriotic Singaporean around, but I do believe that our little red dot has an abundance of unfulfilled potential.
Together, let's become a people who love Singapore so much that, even if we hate things about Singapore, we won't think about migrating as the number one solution to our problems.
At the end of the day, national pride isn't mainly about feeling patriotic every 9th of August when the fireworks go off.
It's about intentionally and purposefully building a better Singapore the other 364 days of the year.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Singapore Slings Arrows at Bank State Investment Company Presses U.K.'s Standard Chartered for Additional Independent Directors
Singapore Slings Arrows at Bank State Investment Company Presses U.K.'s Standard Chartered for Additional Independent Directors
Oct 3 2012
By P.R. VENKAT And DAVID ENRICH
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578034210943017432.html
SINGAPORE—Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., the Singapore state investment company that is the biggest shareholder of Standard Chartered STAN.LN -0.23% PLC, has been expressing its discomfort with the bank's governance and is pressuring it to appoint more independent directors, people familiar with the investment company said.
Temasek, which owns an 18% stake in Standard Chartered, doesn't have any immediate plans to sell its shares in the bank, people familiar with the investment company said. To register its unhappiness with the bank, it abstained from voting for the re-election of the nonexecutive directors to the board in May, one of the people said
Standard Chartered is based in London but does most of its business in emerging markets and has a significant operation in Singapore, including the headquarters of its private bank. It is one of the few banks that continued to expand through the financial crisis, and it has stepped up lending in Asia as other banks have pulled back.
But the bank was blindsided over the summer by accusations from a New York regulator that it violated U.S. trade sanctions by hiding more than $250 billion of transactions with Iranian customers. Its shares plunged 20% on the news but have since recovered. The bank reached a $340 million settlement last month and remains under investigation by other U.S. regulators in the case.
The Singaporean investment company first bought shares in Standard Chartered in March 2006, and investment bankers have been approaching it for years trying to arrange a deal to sell the stake. Temasek would seek a premium to the current share price for its stake in the bank, people familiar with the Singapore company's thinking say, adding that Temasek is still a "very long way off" from "a willing buyer, willing seller" situation.
A person close to Standard Chartered said the dispute stems from Temasek's desire for the bank to have a supervisory board consisting of just one Standard Chartered executive, with the rest of the board made up of independent directors. Standard Chartered views this arrangement as incompatible with British governance rules, this person said. "It's a difference of opinion that's long been there," the person said.
Standard Chartered has been considered an attractive takeover candidate because of its presence in fast-growing markets and its strong balance sheet. But the bank's relatively high valuation has made that less likely.
Even acquiring a large stake, such as Temasek's 18% position valued at $9.7 billion, could be difficult for another bank to pull off. A new set of rules governing bank balance sheets, known as the Basel III accord, requires banks to stockpile large quantities of capital if they hold minority ownership stakes in other financial institutions. The rules, which take effect gradually over coming years, already have prompted many large banks to ditch minority stakes in other institutions. Bankers and analysts say they are a powerful deterrent against acquiring additional stakes.
Standard Chartered last week announced that it will appoint four new independent, nonexecutive directors, but a person familiar with Temasek's thinking said the company hopes the bank will move further. Two of the independent directors will join the board in November and the other two will join in January.
A Standard Chartered spokesman said last week's board changes were part of a long-awaited "succession exercise" that has been in the works for more than a year and didn't stem from shareholder pressure.
Before last week's announcement, 10 of the bank's 16 board members were independent, and it is unclear whether the ratio will change with the new appointments. The bank said last week that the "overall size of the board will remain broadly in line with current levels" but added that additional board changes will be announced by the bank's 2013 annual meeting in May.
One of the people familiar with Temasek said the investment company would like to see fewer executive directors at Standard Chartered.
The number of executive directors at the bank has climbed from four to six since 2007, while the number of independent directors has stayed the same. While Temasek abstained from voting for re-election of the bank's independent directors in May, it did vote to re-elect Chief Executive Peter Sands, according to people familiar with the situation.
As a matter of policy, Temasek doesn't hold board seats in the companies in which it invests. But it is placing a new emphasis on governance. In its latest annual report released in July, Temasek added a section about governance: "To provide effective oversight of management on behalf of all shareholders, we advocate that boards be independent of management. We do not support excessive numbers of executive members on company boards."
Temasek doesn't specify what it is seeking in the makeup of a company board, but two of its biggest holdings have a higher ratio of independent directors than Standard Chartered. Singapore bank DBS Group Holdings Ltd., D05.SG +0.27% in which Temasek holds a 30% stake, has seven independent directors including the chairman on its nine-member board, while Singapore Telecommunications, Z74.SG +0.30% or SingTel, which is about 52% owned by Temasek, has seven independent directors on its 10-member board.
Another big U.K.-based bank, HSBC Holdings HSBA.LN -0.28% PLC, in which Temasek doesn't hold a stake, has a 16-member board of which 13 are nonexecutive, independent directors.
Oct 3 2012
By P.R. VENKAT And DAVID ENRICH
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578034210943017432.html
SINGAPORE—Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., the Singapore state investment company that is the biggest shareholder of Standard Chartered STAN.LN -0.23% PLC, has been expressing its discomfort with the bank's governance and is pressuring it to appoint more independent directors, people familiar with the investment company said.
Temasek, which owns an 18% stake in Standard Chartered, doesn't have any immediate plans to sell its shares in the bank, people familiar with the investment company said. To register its unhappiness with the bank, it abstained from voting for the re-election of the nonexecutive directors to the board in May, one of the people said
Standard Chartered is based in London but does most of its business in emerging markets and has a significant operation in Singapore, including the headquarters of its private bank. It is one of the few banks that continued to expand through the financial crisis, and it has stepped up lending in Asia as other banks have pulled back.
But the bank was blindsided over the summer by accusations from a New York regulator that it violated U.S. trade sanctions by hiding more than $250 billion of transactions with Iranian customers. Its shares plunged 20% on the news but have since recovered. The bank reached a $340 million settlement last month and remains under investigation by other U.S. regulators in the case.
The Singaporean investment company first bought shares in Standard Chartered in March 2006, and investment bankers have been approaching it for years trying to arrange a deal to sell the stake. Temasek would seek a premium to the current share price for its stake in the bank, people familiar with the Singapore company's thinking say, adding that Temasek is still a "very long way off" from "a willing buyer, willing seller" situation.
A person close to Standard Chartered said the dispute stems from Temasek's desire for the bank to have a supervisory board consisting of just one Standard Chartered executive, with the rest of the board made up of independent directors. Standard Chartered views this arrangement as incompatible with British governance rules, this person said. "It's a difference of opinion that's long been there," the person said.
Standard Chartered has been considered an attractive takeover candidate because of its presence in fast-growing markets and its strong balance sheet. But the bank's relatively high valuation has made that less likely.
Even acquiring a large stake, such as Temasek's 18% position valued at $9.7 billion, could be difficult for another bank to pull off. A new set of rules governing bank balance sheets, known as the Basel III accord, requires banks to stockpile large quantities of capital if they hold minority ownership stakes in other financial institutions. The rules, which take effect gradually over coming years, already have prompted many large banks to ditch minority stakes in other institutions. Bankers and analysts say they are a powerful deterrent against acquiring additional stakes.
Standard Chartered last week announced that it will appoint four new independent, nonexecutive directors, but a person familiar with Temasek's thinking said the company hopes the bank will move further. Two of the independent directors will join the board in November and the other two will join in January.
A Standard Chartered spokesman said last week's board changes were part of a long-awaited "succession exercise" that has been in the works for more than a year and didn't stem from shareholder pressure.
Before last week's announcement, 10 of the bank's 16 board members were independent, and it is unclear whether the ratio will change with the new appointments. The bank said last week that the "overall size of the board will remain broadly in line with current levels" but added that additional board changes will be announced by the bank's 2013 annual meeting in May.
One of the people familiar with Temasek said the investment company would like to see fewer executive directors at Standard Chartered.
The number of executive directors at the bank has climbed from four to six since 2007, while the number of independent directors has stayed the same. While Temasek abstained from voting for re-election of the bank's independent directors in May, it did vote to re-elect Chief Executive Peter Sands, according to people familiar with the situation.
As a matter of policy, Temasek doesn't hold board seats in the companies in which it invests. But it is placing a new emphasis on governance. In its latest annual report released in July, Temasek added a section about governance: "To provide effective oversight of management on behalf of all shareholders, we advocate that boards be independent of management. We do not support excessive numbers of executive members on company boards."
Temasek doesn't specify what it is seeking in the makeup of a company board, but two of its biggest holdings have a higher ratio of independent directors than Standard Chartered. Singapore bank DBS Group Holdings Ltd., D05.SG +0.27% in which Temasek holds a 30% stake, has seven independent directors including the chairman on its nine-member board, while Singapore Telecommunications, Z74.SG +0.30% or SingTel, which is about 52% owned by Temasek, has seven independent directors on its 10-member board.
Another big U.K.-based bank, HSBC Holdings HSBA.LN -0.28% PLC, in which Temasek doesn't hold a stake, has a 16-member board of which 13 are nonexecutive, independent directors.
Temasek Sells Down Thai Telecom Asset At Loss
Temasek Sells Down Thai Telecom Asset At Loss
http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmontlake/2011/08/19/temasek-sells-down-thai-telecom-asset-at-loss/
Wall Street 8/19/2011 @ 4:56AM
Interesting news today that Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund has offloaded shares in Shin Corp, its major Thai asset, at a substantial loss. Temasek Holdings sold around 8% of Shin Corp for 36 baht a share, yielding $308 million, a substantial discount to the market price, according to Reuters:
"Temasek’s stake sale comes just over a month after the Puea Thai Party led by Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of self-exiled Thaksin, won a general election in a landslide. She became the prime minister this month."
The sale of Shin Corp’s controlling stake by Thaksin’s family in 2006 triggered the events that led to his overthrow by the military in September that year.
The news of Cedar stake sale sent Shin Corp shares down more than 6 percent as investors worried that Temasek may sell more Shin shares at a discount. At 0509 GMT, the shares were at 38.25 baht, down 4.4 percent.
The 36 baht offer price is a 10 percent discount to Shin’s Wednesday close of 40 baht.
It is also a significant discount from the 49.25 baht a share that Temasek-linked units paid in 2006 to purchase a controlling stake in Shin Corp from the family of Thaksin Shinawatra.
Temasek may have decided to cut its losses as Thailand’s telecoms sector is hopelessly tangled in political and regulatory battles that have delayed the introduction of 3G, even as other Asian countries embrace 4G. Its placement of shares in the market will raise the free float of Shin, whose major asset is AIS, Thailand’s largest mobile operator. Investors don’t bother with the stock as there is so little liquidity.
But it doesn’t end the controversy over foreign ownership of Thai telecoms, which is supposed to be capped at 49%. Temasek still controls 88% of Shin Corp via two affiliates. Its largest competitor DTAC is controlled by Norway’s Telenor. Both are trying to launch full-scale 3G services, even as politicians and bureaucrats squabble over who has the regulatory authority. AIS remains hugely profitable, for all the political noise. 2Q net profit was up 26% on the year-earlier period.
SingTel ups direct stake in AIS by 2%
7 Nov 2011
http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2011/11/07/singtel-ups-direct-stake-in-ais-by-2/
Singapore Telecom (SingTel) has agreed to increase its direct stake in Thailand’s leading cellco Advanced Info Service (AIS) from 21.27% to 23.32% at a cost of up to THB7.9 billion (USD255 million). Singapore-controlled, Thai-based conglomerate Shin Corp has agreed to sell 61 million shares on the Thai stock exchange representing a 2.05% stake in AIS. The move to grab an additional 2.05% of AIS is aimed at maximising value from SingTel’s existing stakes in affiliated telecoms operators in countries including Thailand, India (Bharti Airtel), Indonesia (Telkomsel) and Pakistan (Warid Telecom). If approved by regulatory authorities and stakeholders, the shares will be acquired through a subsidiary, SingTel Strategic Investments, at a price set at THB7.3 billion-THB7.9 billion.
TeleGeography’s GlobalComms Database notes that Singapore has a much larger controlling interest in AIS than SingTel’s direct stake would suggest. AIS is currently owned by Shin Corp (42.6%) and SingTel (just under 21.3%), with 36.1% in free float, but Singapore’s government investment arm Temasek Holdings has a 42% stake in Shin Corp via Thai-registered Aspen Holdings, and also owns 55% of SingTel. Temasek’s other shares in Shin Corp are held through a nominee structure to keep direct foreign shareholdings under the 49% legal limit; when the Singaporean investor took over the Thai group it took indirect control of around 54% of Shin’s largest stakeholder Cedar Holdings, but unloaded some stock to Thai funds to meet stock exchange regulations dictating that listed companies must maintain a free float of at least 15%. AIS effectively fell into foreign hands in January 2006 when the family of Thaksin Shinawatra sold its 49.59% stake in Shin Corp to Temasek in a tax-free deal worth THB73.3 billion, and Temasek went on to gain over 96% of Shin through a mandatory share offer. The deal stoked up fierce public resentment towards the then-prime minster for offloading Thai assets to an overseas government. In the run-up to Thailand’s military coup in September 2006, political action groups urged the boycotting of AIS, causing a slowdown in its customer take-up rate lasting a number of months
http://www.forbes.com/sites/simonmontlake/2011/08/19/temasek-sells-down-thai-telecom-asset-at-loss/
Wall Street 8/19/2011 @ 4:56AM
Interesting news today that Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund has offloaded shares in Shin Corp, its major Thai asset, at a substantial loss. Temasek Holdings sold around 8% of Shin Corp for 36 baht a share, yielding $308 million, a substantial discount to the market price, according to Reuters:
"Temasek’s stake sale comes just over a month after the Puea Thai Party led by Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of self-exiled Thaksin, won a general election in a landslide. She became the prime minister this month."
The sale of Shin Corp’s controlling stake by Thaksin’s family in 2006 triggered the events that led to his overthrow by the military in September that year.
The news of Cedar stake sale sent Shin Corp shares down more than 6 percent as investors worried that Temasek may sell more Shin shares at a discount. At 0509 GMT, the shares were at 38.25 baht, down 4.4 percent.
The 36 baht offer price is a 10 percent discount to Shin’s Wednesday close of 40 baht.
It is also a significant discount from the 49.25 baht a share that Temasek-linked units paid in 2006 to purchase a controlling stake in Shin Corp from the family of Thaksin Shinawatra.
Temasek may have decided to cut its losses as Thailand’s telecoms sector is hopelessly tangled in political and regulatory battles that have delayed the introduction of 3G, even as other Asian countries embrace 4G. Its placement of shares in the market will raise the free float of Shin, whose major asset is AIS, Thailand’s largest mobile operator. Investors don’t bother with the stock as there is so little liquidity.
But it doesn’t end the controversy over foreign ownership of Thai telecoms, which is supposed to be capped at 49%. Temasek still controls 88% of Shin Corp via two affiliates. Its largest competitor DTAC is controlled by Norway’s Telenor. Both are trying to launch full-scale 3G services, even as politicians and bureaucrats squabble over who has the regulatory authority. AIS remains hugely profitable, for all the political noise. 2Q net profit was up 26% on the year-earlier period.
SingTel ups direct stake in AIS by 2%
7 Nov 2011
http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2011/11/07/singtel-ups-direct-stake-in-ais-by-2/
Singapore Telecom (SingTel) has agreed to increase its direct stake in Thailand’s leading cellco Advanced Info Service (AIS) from 21.27% to 23.32% at a cost of up to THB7.9 billion (USD255 million). Singapore-controlled, Thai-based conglomerate Shin Corp has agreed to sell 61 million shares on the Thai stock exchange representing a 2.05% stake in AIS. The move to grab an additional 2.05% of AIS is aimed at maximising value from SingTel’s existing stakes in affiliated telecoms operators in countries including Thailand, India (Bharti Airtel), Indonesia (Telkomsel) and Pakistan (Warid Telecom). If approved by regulatory authorities and stakeholders, the shares will be acquired through a subsidiary, SingTel Strategic Investments, at a price set at THB7.3 billion-THB7.9 billion.
TeleGeography’s GlobalComms Database notes that Singapore has a much larger controlling interest in AIS than SingTel’s direct stake would suggest. AIS is currently owned by Shin Corp (42.6%) and SingTel (just under 21.3%), with 36.1% in free float, but Singapore’s government investment arm Temasek Holdings has a 42% stake in Shin Corp via Thai-registered Aspen Holdings, and also owns 55% of SingTel. Temasek’s other shares in Shin Corp are held through a nominee structure to keep direct foreign shareholdings under the 49% legal limit; when the Singaporean investor took over the Thai group it took indirect control of around 54% of Shin’s largest stakeholder Cedar Holdings, but unloaded some stock to Thai funds to meet stock exchange regulations dictating that listed companies must maintain a free float of at least 15%. AIS effectively fell into foreign hands in January 2006 when the family of Thaksin Shinawatra sold its 49.59% stake in Shin Corp to Temasek in a tax-free deal worth THB73.3 billion, and Temasek went on to gain over 96% of Shin through a mandatory share offer. The deal stoked up fierce public resentment towards the then-prime minster for offloading Thai assets to an overseas government. In the run-up to Thailand’s military coup in September 2006, political action groups urged the boycotting of AIS, causing a slowdown in its customer take-up rate lasting a number of months
Singapore Air Rises After Virgin Sale: Singapore Mover By David Fickling
Singapore Air Rises After Virgin Sale: Singapore Mover
By David Fickling - Dec 12, 2012 6:51 PM GMT+0800
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-12/singapore-air-rises-after-virgin-sale-singapore-mover.html?cmpid=ysing
Singapore Airlines Ltd. (SIA) rose to the highest in almost three months on the city’s stock exchange after agreeing to sell its stake in Virgin Atlantic to Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL)
Delta will buy the 49 percent shareholding for $360 million, according to a stock exchange filling late yesterday. Singapore Air will book an S$322 million ($264 million) gain from the sale, after accounting for a writedown in its investment in the U.K. carrier controlled by billionaire Richard Branson.
Singapore Air is exiting Virgin after more than a decade as it sharpens its focus on faster-growing Asia-Pacific markets. The carrier has ordered 54 Boeing Co. (BA) 737 planes to double the size of regional unit SilkAir and bought a stake in Virgin Australia Holdings Ltd. (VAH), that nation’s second-largest carrier.
“We are positive on the deal as it helps unlock the hidden value from a long-held asset,” Morgan Stanley analysts Edward Xu and Chin Ser Lee said in a note to investors. The Virgin investment has “yielded limited returns and synergies.”
Singapore Air, which already has more than S$4 billion of cash in hand, may use the sale proceeds for a special dividend, share buyback or investment in other carriers, the analysts said. It could also use the funds as buffer against capital spending plans totaling about S$6.75 billion, they said.
The airline rose 1.1 percent to close at S$10.87, the highest since Sept. 21. The benchmark Straits Times Index gained 0.8 percent.
‘Not Performed’
Singapore Air bought the stake for S$1.65 billion, Germaine Shen, a spokeswoman, said by e-mail.
The investment “has not performed to expectations,” the carrier said yesterday. “The synergies the parties originally hoped for have not materialized.”
The airline expects to maintain commercial ties with Virgin, such as codeshares and frequent-flier tie-ups.
Delta, based in Atlanta, is buying the Virgin stake to increase its presence on lucrative trans-Atlantic routes. The two carriers intend to begin a joint venture on 31 daily round- trip flights between North America and the U.K. taking advantage of Virgin’s base at London’s Heathrow airport, Europe’s busiest.
Singapore Airlines puts focus on Asia after selling Virgin Atlantic stake
Date
December 13, 2012
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/singapore-airlines-puts-focus-on-asia-after-selling-virgin-atlantic-stake-20121213-2bc6m.html#ixzz2F9q3Qvde
Singapore Airlines' sale of its 49-per cent stake in Virgin Atlantic will allow the cash-rich Asian carrier to focus resources on its fast-growing regional market, analysts said Wednesday.
The Singapore carrier's tie-up with British billionaire Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic never really took off since the alliance began 12 years ago when the stake was bought for 600 million pounds ($A918 million).
Singapore Airlines (SIA) on Tuesday said it will sell the stake to Delta Air Lines of the United States for $US360 million ($A341 million) in cash in a deal to be completed next year.
SIA said it "had been evaluating strategic options for the stake for some time, as the investment has not performed to expectations and the synergies the parties originally hoped for have not materialised."
Analysts said SIA, consistently one of the world's most profitable airlines, had little say in how Virgin Atlantic was run by the flamboyant Branson, and the sale allows it to exit an underperforming investment in the troubled European market.
"SIA can now focus on investments in the Asia Pacific region," Brendan Sobie, a Singapore-based analyst with industry consultancy Centre for Aviation, said.
Sobie said it made more sense for Delta to have a strategic stake in Virgin Atlantic as there are more synergies in their trans-Atlantic network.
Jason Hughes, an analyst with IG Markets Singapore, said that despite the higher acquisition price paid by SIA, the $US360 million "will go down as a profit, as losses had already been accounted for in previous years".
Malaysian bank CIMB said in a note that the sale would give SIA a "short-term boost" but urged investors to focus on the long-term challenges posed by Middle Eastern carriers and budget airlines.
Shukor Yusof, an aviation analyst with Standard & Poor's Equity Research, said SIA can use the extra cash to "redefine its business strategy on top of beefing up its regional subsidiaries".
"It's also good to exit out of Europe because the market conditions there are quite atrocious," he said.
Shukor said conflicting management styles with Branson was one of the chief reasons why the alliance failed to prosper beyond a code-sharing agreement.
"Branson remained the controlling shareholder and he called the shots," he said.
Virgin Atlantic also did not have enough slots at London's high-traffic Heathrow airport for SIA to latch on in its bid to gain a share of the lucrative trans-Atlantic route to New York, Shukor added.
Analysts said SIA's decision to buy the stake in Virgin Atlantic in March 2000 was a good move at the time because Asia was just emerging from the 1997-1998 financial crisis.
But the centre of global economic power has since shifted to Asia, sparking a travel boom in the region.
Passenger traffic in the Asia Pacific is forecast to account for 33 percent of the global market in 2016, up from 29 percent in 2011, according to trade body International Air Transport Association (IATA).
"This makes the region the largest regional market for air transport, ahead of North America and Europe which each represent 21 percent," IATA said in a statement on their latest industry forecast.
SIA has been investing both in the premium travel segment, where it faces competition from Middle East carriers, and in the low-cost market where it is challenged by budget airlines.
SIA in June launched a long-haul budget wing called Scoot while maintaining a substantial stake in low-fare carrier Tiger Airways. It also operates a regional wing, SilkAir.
SIA and Scoot in October announced orders for 45 Airbus and Boeing aircraft. The orders came after SilkAir in August said it would buy 54 new Boeing planes with an option to buy a further 14 aircraft.
AFP
Sri Lanka Matale 'mass grave could be a crime site'
Sri Lanka Matale 'mass grave could be a crime site'
14 Dec 2012
By Charles Haviland BBC News, Colombo
Human remains in what appears to be a mass grave unearthed last month in central Sri Lanka could be "the site of a crime", a forensic medical specialist has told the BBC.
The remains of nearly 60 people have been excavated in the town of Matale.
There are allegations that the bodies are those of Sinhalese guerrillas who fought a bloody left-wing insurgency more than 20 years ago.
But other theories hold that the people died in non-political contexts.
The skulls and partial skeletons were discovered late last month by workers building a facility at a hospital in Matale.
'Extreme violence'
Forensic medical specialist Ajith Jayasena told the BBC that 58 sets of remains have been found so far, some full and some partial. He said that more may still be discovered.
Dr Jayasena said the grave appeared to be the site of a "crime" as it was not a regular place of burial.
"We have to find out whether they are male or female, their age, whether they had any injuries, and the cause or circumstances of their deaths," he said.
"Finding multiple human remains there means we have suspicions."
Dr Jayasena said that no real conclusions could be drawn until a team of experts had finished its work. He said that some bones had been damaged during the initial discovery.
The Matale area was an epicentre of a late 1980s insurgency by leftist Sinhalese group, the JVP, in which the state matched the guerrillas' extreme violence.
The modern-day JVP suspects its former members may be buried at the site and has demanded an inquiry.
But Colombo police spokesman Prishantha Jayakody said that those buried were probably victims of a landslide in the 1940s.
"We can't pinpoint [the exact time]," he said.
"But we can say it's more than 60 years old. The doctors and neighbours say so. Old guys, 80 or 90-years-old, said there was a big landslide nearby. Five hundred people [either] died [or] were taken to hospital and badly treated. That was in 1946."
Hospital workers meanwhile have suggested that the grave could contain the bodies of smallpox victims.
If it is a grave of people who were killed during the JVP insurrection, this would unfortunately be nothing new in Sri Lanka.
There are believed to be dozens of similar sites from that era, a time in which 60,000 or more young people are said to have disappeared.
Large numbers may be buried in the same area in the north where thousands of civilians perished in shelling towards the end of the war against Tamil Tiger insurgents in 2009 - but where no open process of excavation has been permitted.
JVP Website - http://www.jvpsrilanka.com/en/
Sri Lanka Newspapers - http://www.dailymirror.lk/
14 Dec 2012
By Charles Haviland BBC News, Colombo
Human remains in what appears to be a mass grave unearthed last month in central Sri Lanka could be "the site of a crime", a forensic medical specialist has told the BBC.
The remains of nearly 60 people have been excavated in the town of Matale.
There are allegations that the bodies are those of Sinhalese guerrillas who fought a bloody left-wing insurgency more than 20 years ago.
But other theories hold that the people died in non-political contexts.
The skulls and partial skeletons were discovered late last month by workers building a facility at a hospital in Matale.
'Extreme violence'
Forensic medical specialist Ajith Jayasena told the BBC that 58 sets of remains have been found so far, some full and some partial. He said that more may still be discovered.
Dr Jayasena said the grave appeared to be the site of a "crime" as it was not a regular place of burial.
"We have to find out whether they are male or female, their age, whether they had any injuries, and the cause or circumstances of their deaths," he said.
"Finding multiple human remains there means we have suspicions."
Dr Jayasena said that no real conclusions could be drawn until a team of experts had finished its work. He said that some bones had been damaged during the initial discovery.
The Matale area was an epicentre of a late 1980s insurgency by leftist Sinhalese group, the JVP, in which the state matched the guerrillas' extreme violence.
The modern-day JVP suspects its former members may be buried at the site and has demanded an inquiry.
But Colombo police spokesman Prishantha Jayakody said that those buried were probably victims of a landslide in the 1940s.
"We can't pinpoint [the exact time]," he said.
"But we can say it's more than 60 years old. The doctors and neighbours say so. Old guys, 80 or 90-years-old, said there was a big landslide nearby. Five hundred people [either] died [or] were taken to hospital and badly treated. That was in 1946."
Hospital workers meanwhile have suggested that the grave could contain the bodies of smallpox victims.
If it is a grave of people who were killed during the JVP insurrection, this would unfortunately be nothing new in Sri Lanka.
There are believed to be dozens of similar sites from that era, a time in which 60,000 or more young people are said to have disappeared.
Large numbers may be buried in the same area in the north where thousands of civilians perished in shelling towards the end of the war against Tamil Tiger insurgents in 2009 - but where no open process of excavation has been permitted.
JVP Website - http://www.jvpsrilanka.com/en/
Sri Lanka Newspapers - http://www.dailymirror.lk/
Thursday, December 6, 2012
What Singapore can learn from Europe By Tommy Koh
May19 by Repost on SgHardtruth
IT IS a sad reflection on human nature that when a region is faced with a crisis, it is often treated with disdain instead of sympathy. I recall that during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, some of our European and American friends were extremely unkind and predicted that Asia would suffer a lost decade.
We must not do the same to Europe which has been faced with a serious financial and economic crisis since 2008. I have, therefore, decided to swim against the tide of anti-Europe sentiments.
I wish to highlight the fact that not all the countries of Europe are in crisis. Last year, of the 27 European Union countries, only three had a negative growth rate. In the 2010-2011 Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum, six EU countries were ranked among the 10 most competitive countries.
I wish to make the case that Singapore has much to learn from the successful countries of Europe. I will focus on four European countries whose populations are below 10 million – namely, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.
LESSON NO. 1
Inclusive growth
THE citizens of the world aspire to live in fair societies. One important aspect of fairness is the equitable distribution of income and wealth. This is the moral force behind the economic doctrine of inclusive growth. As a result of globalisation, technological change and domestic policies, many countries have become extremely unequal.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is a reflection of the American people’s sentiments against a growth model which over-rewards the top 1 per cent and under-rewards the remaining 99 per cent. The inequality in Singapore, as measured by the Gini coefficient, is even greater than that in America. Too great a gap between rich and poor undermines solidarity and social cohesion. It poses a threat to our harmony and our sense of nationhood.
Let us compare Singapore, on the one hand, and Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden on the other. Their per capita incomes in 2010 were as follows:
Singapore: S$59,813
Denmark: S$69,249(€42,500)
Finland: S$54,584 (€33,500)
Norway: S$105,096 (€64,500)
Sweden: S$60,613 (€37,200)
The Gini coefficient is used universally as a summary measure of income inequality. It is based upon the difference between the incomes of the top 20 per cent and the bottom 20 per cent. Zero represents total income equality and one represents total inequality. What are the Gini coefficients of the five countries? In 2010, they were as follows:
Singapore: 0.46
Denmark: 0.27
Finland: 0.25
Norway: 0.24
Sweden: 0.24
In order to get a better sense of the wages earned in the five countries by the bottom 20-30 per cent of the working population, I have chosen the cleaner and the bus driver. The average monthly wages of the cleaner and bus driver in the five countries are as follows:
Singapore
Cleaner S$800 Bus driver S$1,800
Denmark
Cleaner S$5,502 Bus driver S$6,193
Finland
Cleaner S$2,085 Bus driver S$3,910
Norway
Cleaner S$5,470 Bus driver S$6,260
Sweden
Cleaner S$3,667 Bus driver S$4,480
A few observations are in order.
First, Singapore’s per capita income is roughly similar to those of Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
Second, the four Nordic countries are much more equitable than Singapore. This is reflected in their Gini coefficients as well as in the average monthly wages earned by the cleaner and the bus driver.
Third, some Nordic countries have a minimum wage and some, such as Denmark, do not. The minimum wage is, therefore, a means but not the only means to ensure that workers earn a living wage.
Fourth, the argument that the only way to raise the wages of our low-wage workers is through productivity increase is not persuasive. I would like to know, for example, how the two women who clean my office can be more productive than they already are in order to deserve higher wages? I would like to know how the Singapore bus driver can be more productive so that his income will approximate those of his Nordic counterparts?
The truth is that we pay these workers such low wages not primarily because their productivity is inherently low, but largely because they are competing against an unlimited supply of cheap foreign workers. Because cheap workers are so plentiful, they tend to be employed unproductively. In the Nordic countries, unskilled workers are relatively scarce and thus deployed more productively, with higher skills, mechanisation, and better organisation.
What is the solution? The solution is for the State to reduce the supply of cheap foreign workers or introduce a minimum wage or to target specific industries, such as the hospitality industry, for wage enhancement.
LESSON NO. 2
Higher fertility
ONE of our challenges is our low fertility rate. For a country’s population to remain stable, it needs a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.14. Singapore’s current TFR is 1.2. Our population experts tell us that our population will begin to shrink by 2025. They have, therefore, argued that, to make up the deficit, we need to import foreigners to add to our population.
Importing foreigners is the second best solution. The best solution is to raise our TFR. On this point, our policymakers seem to have run out of ideas. The various incentive schemes, such as baby bonus, do not seem to be productive. It is time to look at our four European countries for inspiration. Their 2010 TFRs were as follows:
Denmark: 1.87
Finland: 1.87
Norway: 1.95
Sweden: 1.98
The four Nordic countries have TFRs which are close to the replacement level. This achievement seems extraordinary. They do not have the benefit of maids. There are over 200,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore. They also do not have grandparents who help with child-rearing. At the same time, they have very high participation of women in their workforces. In terms of availability of time and help for child-rearing, common sense would suggest that the TFR in Singapore should be higher than those in the Nordic countries. How do we explain this paradox?
Our population experts cannot explain this paradox. I will venture a hypothesis. I believe that the high TFR in the Nordic countries could be due to four factors: the availability of convenient, affordable and good childcare; good work-life balance; an excellent and relatively stress-free education system; and the relative absence of male chauvinism.
Let me say a few words on each of the four factors.
First, one of the missing links in Singapore is the inadequate supply of conveniently located, good quality and affordable childcare for infants and young children.
Second, the work-life balance in Singapore, especially for many young professionals such as lawyers, architects and teachers, is poor. Singaporeans work one of the longest hours in the developed world. They have little energy for life other than work and thus little time for meaningful family life.
The Government and our employers should reflect on whether the existing climate of encouraging or requiring our young professionals to work late into the night is necessary or desirable.
Third, sociologists like Paulin Straughan have pointed out that Singapore’s highly competitive and stressful education system is also a deterrent to working parents having more children. The Nordic countries, on the other hand, are famous for their high quality, egalitarian education which fulfils the children’s aspiration for a happy childhood. It is a paradox that Finland, with no streaming, no elite schools and no private tuition industry, is ranked as having the world’s best education system.
Fourth, it is significant that the developed countries with low TFRs include Japan, Korea, Italy and Spain, which have a high degree of male chauvinism. Is it possible that Singapore too has a high degree of male chauvinism? The women of Singapore are often blamed for not marrying and having children. Perhaps, the main problem is not our women but our men. Perhaps, what we also need is a mindset change on the part of our men towards the status and role of our women and the shared responsibilities of the husband and wife, and father and mother in domestic chores and child-rearing.
LESSON NO. 3
Embracing nature and sustainable development
SINGAPORE is probably Asia’s cleanest, greenest and most liveable city. Our air is healthy, our water is potable and our land is wholesome. In addition, we enjoy good public health and food safety. Visitors are astonished by the fact that, in spite of our high density, 47 per cent of our land is covered in greenery. In view of this, the reader will ask what can we learn from the four Nordic countries? I suggest three things.
First, people there love nature and their natural heritage. They seem to have an emotional, even a spiritual, relationship with nature. They love their forests, lakes and fjords. In contrast, most Singaporeans tend to have a more pragmatic relationship with nature. They apply a cost-benefit analysis to the destruction of a natural heritage. Pragmatism is one of our virtues. We should, however, be aware of the defects of our virtues. Not everything in life can be monetised.
Second, we can learn useful lessons from the way in which the Nordic countries have been able to reconcile economic competitiveness with a deep commitment to sustainable development. After the 1992 Earth Summit, each of them has established a national commission to mainstream sustainable development.
In the case of Finland, the Prime Minister chairs the National Commission on Sustainable Development. The result is that there is a national consensus in each of those countries to internalise the ethic of sustainable development into all aspects of life.
Third, at the micro-level, there are lessons in areas where Singapore has room for improvement – for example, in energy efficiency, the use of solar energy, the recycling of waste, the use of non-polluting buses, changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, etc.
LESSON NO. 4
Heritage, culture and the arts
IN THE past two decades, inspired by the 1989 Ong Teng Cheong report and Mr George Yeo’s leadership at the then Ministry of Information and the Arts, Singapore has undergone a paradigm shift in the areas of heritage, culture and the arts. The arts have blossomed. More and more Singaporeans are interested in knowing their history and preserving their heritage. The trend is, therefore, favourable. What can we learn from the Nordic countries?
First, we can learn the importance of giving all our children a good education in the arts. We have made good progress in recent years. The opening of the Yong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music and the School of The Arts were important milestones.
We can strengthen arts education in our schools. We should consider starting courses in art history and museum studies at the undergraduate and graduate levels. This will help in the training of teachers, curators, dealers, collectors and museum administrators, all in short supply.
Second, we can emulate the achievements of the Nordic countries in respect of museums. They have an impressive range of museums with strong collections. They have been able to harness the benefit of public-private partnership. Their museum collections extend beyond their nations to the cultures of the world.
For example, the David Collection in Copenhagen is one of the world’s best collections of Islamic Art. The Kiasma Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki has a very ambitious programming agenda, covering Western as well as Asian and African art.
Third, because of their ancient Viking past and current strength in shipping and other maritime industries, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have outstanding museums of maritime history.
Given the importance of maritime trade to Singapore’s past and present, it is puzzling that we do not have a museum of maritime history. I hope one day the historic Clifford Pier, which now houses a restaurant, will be the home of a world-class museum of maritime history. When that time comes, we can look to the Nordic countries for inspiration.
By Tommy Koh, For The Straits Times, May 19, 2012
The writer is chairman, Centre for International Law and Rector, Tembusu College, National University of Singapore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)