June 9, 2009
Respecting faith's different faces
By Tony Blair, For The Straits Times
FAITH matters. Even if you are not of religious faith yourself. Over four billion people worldwide recognise themselves as religious. They may not attend an organised place of worship. But faith plays a part in their lives.
A recent poll found that religion is important for about 30 per cent to 35per cent of people in Europe, 65 per cent of Americans and for about 90 per cent of people in most Muslim-majority countries.
started the Tony Blair Faith Foundation because I believe the modern world cannot work unless people from different faiths and cultures learn to live in peaceful co-existence with each other. Understanding increases the possibility of peace. Ignorance increases the potential for division.
The reason this is so important today is that globalisation is shrinking the space we live in, pushing people together in a way that is unique in human history. Some dislike this process. Some, like me, are content and even welcome it.
If religious faith becomes a counter-force to this process, one which pulls people apart, then it becomes reactionary and divisive. If I defined myself as a Christian in opposition to you as a Muslim, then just as we are forced to live together by globalisation, so we will be forced apart by a view of religious faith that is exclusionary and hostile to those of a different faith to our own.
The Faith Foundation works in a number of ways to prevent this happening. One way is an inter-faith encounter through action, which is why we are supporting the United Nations' anti-malaria campaign, to mobilise faith communities to become centres of distribution for bed nets and medicines in Africa. We work also for reconciliation where religion is a dimension in political conflict, as in the Middle East.
A key part of our work is education. In partnership with Yale University, we now have a 'Faith and Globalisation' course. This is now being extended to four other universities worldwide, including the National University of Singapore which I visited earlier this year.
Now we are adding a new dimension: an education programme linking up schools across the globe and across faiths. To be launched officially today, Face To Faith is designed to encourage young people of different faiths to learn directly with, from and about each other. Through structured video- conferencing, an online community and course syllabus, it gets secondary school students from across the world to work together, investigating big global issues. In this way, Face To Faith will encourage young people not only to recognise the similarities between faiths but also, importantly, to respect and deal with the differences.
Young people involved in the pilot are already reporting how their understanding of the role of faith in today's world has increased by learning from those of differing social, cultural and religious perspectives. A student from Indian Heights School in New Delhi commented: 'It's so much more interesting and real to learn directly from people of a different religion rather than simply reading about them in a book.'
I am particularly impressed by the way our lead school in Singapore, National Junior College, has taken up the challenge. NJC principal Virginia Cheng was an early pioneer of the programme, and her pupils have responded superbly. The school's engagement in Face To Faith is a testament to the way in which Singapore has embraced the concepts of a globalised world and the way in which people of different faiths must live within it. They have been a valuable leader in the development of this programme.
Already schools in Pakistan, India, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Indonesia, Thailand, Britain, the United States and Canada have taken up the Face To Faith programme and some interesting offshoots are emerging. Two schools in Canada and Palestine are extending the programme, originally designed for 11- to 16-year-olds, by arranging video conference discussions between groups of parents and grandparents interested in improving their understanding of different faiths.
And these adults are not the only ones. One of the Lebanese teachers involved in the programme commented: 'One of the highlights of Face To Faith is the regular exchange with the other teachers of different faiths who have already taught me so much about different practices and perspectives.'
The Faith Foundation is dedicated to achieving understanding, action and reconciliation between the different faiths for the common good. It is not about the faith that looks inward; but the faith that resolutely turns us towards each other.
The writer, the former prime minister of Britain, is founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Simmering anger in the troubled south (Thailand) ST Jun 10 2009
Simmering anger in the troubled south
IN 1786, the kingdom of Siam invaded and destroyed the southern kingdom of Pattani. Through the 1900s, separatist groups waged a low level but occasionally fierce resistance to Bangkok's rule.
Siam - later becoming Thailand - sought to assimilate the region's Malay Muslims but its efforts spawned deep resentment.
However, the insurgent groups failed to gain traction and sputtered on fitfully until Thaksin Shinawatra came to power in Bangkok in 2001.
As prime minister, he made several changes in the way the southern provinces were administered which alienated the people there. Those changes, and deaths in the south at the hands of the police, spawned a backlash.
Simmering anger finally boiled over on Jan4, 2004, when militants raided a military weapons depot in Narathiwat province, killing soldiers and making off with a cache of weapons.
The raid marked the start of the current phase of the insurgency, which has claimed the lives of nearly 3,500 Muslims and Buddhists since.
Thailand's 'deep south' has suffered almost daily bombings, arson attacks and drive-by shootings. There have also been grisly beheadings.
In one of the bloodiest incidents, over 30 militants were killed by security forces in a three-hour gun battle at Pattani's historic Krue Se mosque in April 2004.
Successive Thai governments have tried to end the unrest, alternating between tougher security measures and offers of economic development.
But nothing has worked. Excesses by Thai armed forces - and a lack of accountability - have only served to create a new generation of militants.
IN 1786, the kingdom of Siam invaded and destroyed the southern kingdom of Pattani. Through the 1900s, separatist groups waged a low level but occasionally fierce resistance to Bangkok's rule.
Siam - later becoming Thailand - sought to assimilate the region's Malay Muslims but its efforts spawned deep resentment.
However, the insurgent groups failed to gain traction and sputtered on fitfully until Thaksin Shinawatra came to power in Bangkok in 2001.
As prime minister, he made several changes in the way the southern provinces were administered which alienated the people there. Those changes, and deaths in the south at the hands of the police, spawned a backlash.
Simmering anger finally boiled over on Jan4, 2004, when militants raided a military weapons depot in Narathiwat province, killing soldiers and making off with a cache of weapons.
The raid marked the start of the current phase of the insurgency, which has claimed the lives of nearly 3,500 Muslims and Buddhists since.
Thailand's 'deep south' has suffered almost daily bombings, arson attacks and drive-by shootings. There have also been grisly beheadings.
In one of the bloodiest incidents, over 30 militants were killed by security forces in a three-hour gun battle at Pattani's historic Krue Se mosque in April 2004.
Successive Thai governments have tried to end the unrest, alternating between tougher security measures and offers of economic development.
But nothing has worked. Excesses by Thai armed forces - and a lack of accountability - have only served to create a new generation of militants.
Why such high standards for MPs' conduct? ST 6 Jun 2009
FOUR-LETTER words, unsubstantiated allegations, sexist remarks and even racist slurs - some might find it hard to imagine but the august halls of Singapore's Parliament have heard it all.
At different times throughout the country's history, parliamentarians have been known to indulge in some downright unparliamentary language and behaviour.
MPs in hot water
SEVERAL MPs have been taken to task by Parliament for their conduct in the House, either for what they did or said. Insight looks at four notable cases of MPs behaving badly and one of a minister's hair-raising faux pas.
The first MP to be censured
... more
But few, if any, have got away with it.
Some have been censured, some have apologised, while others have been suspended or fined, all in the name of maintaining a high standard of decorum in the House.
Last week, this strict code of conduct was demonstrated once again after MP Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) read out an e-mail that criticised The Straits Times' coverage of the Aware saga, a criticism that he said he agreed with.
However, he also said the e-mail was from someone he did not know and he had not verified its contents either.
His lack of due diligence prompted the Leader of the House, Mr Mah Bow Tan, to issue a stern reminder to MPs that the privilege of parliamentary immunity - they cannot be sued for what they say in Parliament - must be balanced by high standards of accuracy.
Mr Sin himself was also made to apologise to the House.
Last week's incident was the first time in four years that an MP has been taken to task for his conduct in the House. (See story: MPs in hot water)
It comes at a time when the British Parliament - which Singapore's was modelled after - is embroiled in a scandal over MPs' perks.
The two combined mean a glaring spotlight is now trained on the behaviour of parliamentarians.
To be sure, conduct in Singapore's Parliament is more civil than in many other parliaments. Discourse is typically polite, heckling is mild on the rare occasions when it occurs, and there has never been shouting matches, fist-fights or furniture-tossing.
This emphasis on orderly conduct has led some to question if Singapore's House has become too bland.
How did we arrive at this parliamentary culture? Has it always been like this? And is it really necessary to impose such high standards on MPs?
The dos and don'ts
AT THE most basic level, Parliament derives some of its standards from the law.
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act spells out a list of 17 different offences MPs can be taken to task for. These include assaulting or insulting the Speaker or another MP, presenting any false, fabricated or falsified document with intent to deceive, and refusing to answer a relevant question.
The penalties for these include imprisonment, suspension or a fine of up to $50,000.
There is also the option for Parliament to temporarily suspend the MP's immunity from civil and criminal suits.
But rules only go so far.
Singapore's legislation is no more severe than in most other Commonwealth countries, points out constitutional law expert Kevin Tan.
'The rules themselves do not set the standard of behaviour or decorum,' he says. 'By and large, Parliament is a master of its own rules and can suspend a member's privileges.'
So far, however, it has never come to that. Singapore MPs have, on the whole, stayed within the limits.
In fact, only one person - the late opposition member J.B. Jeyaretnam - has ever been fined for his conduct in Parliament.
In the 1980s, he was referred to the House's Privileges Committee four times - once in 1982 and thrice in 1986.
The 1986 cases involved alleging executive interference in the judiciary and abuse of police powers, and failing to declare a pecuniary interest in a question he raised.
The committee fined him $1,000 on each count.
The trio of offences proved to have deeper repercussions for Parliament. In August that year, Parliament moved to introduce harsher penalties on errant MPs. It was also in the wake of this case that the possibility of suspending immunity was introduced.
To this day, the 1986 examples stand as the most serious transgressions in the House.
Most other cases were resolved with the MP involved apologising.
The cases though run the gamut from crude to amusing.
One case that many MPs interviewed recall happened just four years ago, when an expletive was uttered in Parliament.
'Shit', as an exclamation in the English language, made its way into the House, thanks to then Nominated MP Ong Soh Khim. She said the word during the 2005 Budget debate when she ran out of time. She apologised.
The same earthy entity, but this time enunciated in Hokkien, returned to Parliament two years later when MP Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio GRC) referred to it to make a point in her speech. Though some outside the House criticised her choice of vocabulary, she was not censured by Parliament.
These two bouts of verbal excess were preceded by, among others, a racist remark from former MP Choo Wee Khiang, a comment about women's hairdos from then Health Minister Lim Hng Kiang, and the ABCs of expletives from MP Ling How Doong in 1997.
Recalled former MP Wang Kai Yuen: 'He used ABC. A for asshole, B for bastard and C for talk cock.'
But clear transgressions aside, former MPs recall there generally being more banter in the House.
Heckling, though milder than in other countries, was once commonplace.
One of those who took part was former MP Chandra Das. His target was often opposition MP Chiam See Tong.
'It was harmless, we were just trying to disrupt each other's train of thought,' he tells Insight.
Mr Chiam often gave as good as he got. Mr Ling's ABCs, for instance, came in retaliation to Mr Chiam's heckling.
The practice is now rarely seen. MPs wait their turn patiently.
To voice approval, they no longer shout 'Hear hear' but thump on the chairs.
Dr Wang thinks the disappearance of heckling is simply a generational matter: 'I presume in the 1980s, more of the MPs were exposed to the British tradition. Over time, maybe we have evolved our own tradition so much so that we don't even do this anymore.'
Although he laments: 'If so, the proceedings in Parliament will be rather boring.'
Mr Das puts it down to the stricter time limits imposed on MPs' speeches these days. During Budget debates, for instance, an MP has 18 minutes to make his points - no matter how many ministries he wants to comment on. Those who head a government parliamentary committee get two minutes more.
There used to be a time when there was no limit to how long an MP could talk. This leeway ended, thanks to former Barisan Sosialis MP Lee Siew Choh.
In 1961, he delivered a speech that broke all records - and some backsides - when he argued against the proposed merger with Malaysia. He spoke for nearly 71/2 hours, starting at 11.20pm and finishing the next morning.
A time limit was introduced shortly after.
Too strict?
BUT though some former MPs reminisce fondly of the time when heckling was more commonplace and debates were livelier, all agree that the orderly Parliament in place now is a system that works for Singapore.
'You can focus on what is said rather than how it is said. It is now based more on the substance than on oratory skills,' says Wan Hussin Zoohri, a PAP MP from 1980 to 1991.
Mr Das shares the sentiment, saying one key feature of the local Parliament is that it is a 'working Parliament'.
'They don't have time to waste,' he says.
He stresses that it must always strive to maintain the high standards it has already set.
'When you set standards, there is bound to be abuse. When lapses occur, you correct them. If you set your standards low, you will get a bazaar.'
As for former MP Chew Heng Ching, he boils the matter down to MPs needing to set a good example: 'MPs are role models for many in society. Unlike in other countries, the standards expected of MPs here are very high.'
Says Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris- Punggol GRC): 'The fact that we do have immunity actually means that we have a higher responsibility that we do not abuse that privilege.'
On the matter of Mr Sin's transgression, he feels that where Mr Sin erred was in where he got his information from. If he had simply stated his own opinion, that would have been well within his right - even if the opinion was the same as that in the e-mail. However, because he cited an unverified source, he opened himself to criticism.
The last word on the matter of parliamentary privilege comes from Mr Mah, who is also the National Development Minister.
He is responsible for arranging government business in Parliament, and will advise the House on the action to take if a difficulty arises.
In an e-mail response to Insight, he lays out the rationale behind Singapore's strict system and explains why he made his statement in Parliament.
'Members must maintain such high standards of accountability to safeguard the dignity and decorum of the House, and to maintain the public's trust in our Parliament,' he says.
'If these standards are not maintained, we will be unfair to those who have been criticised by MPs under privilege and who are unable to clear their names. We will end up lowering the standing and authority that Parliament enjoys.'
Mr Mah also points out that the way Singapore remunerates its MPs helps ensure this high standard.
A scandal like the one in Britain will not occur here as MPs cannot ask to be reimbursed for their expenses.
'We have instead provided our MPs with a clean allowance of an appropriate amount, with no additional perks attached. This has enabled our MPs to serve their residents well, in their constituencies and in the House, and be properly compensated for such service,' he says.
jeremyau@sph.com.sg
At different times throughout the country's history, parliamentarians have been known to indulge in some downright unparliamentary language and behaviour.
MPs in hot water
SEVERAL MPs have been taken to task by Parliament for their conduct in the House, either for what they did or said. Insight looks at four notable cases of MPs behaving badly and one of a minister's hair-raising faux pas.
The first MP to be censured
... more
But few, if any, have got away with it.
Some have been censured, some have apologised, while others have been suspended or fined, all in the name of maintaining a high standard of decorum in the House.
Last week, this strict code of conduct was demonstrated once again after MP Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) read out an e-mail that criticised The Straits Times' coverage of the Aware saga, a criticism that he said he agreed with.
However, he also said the e-mail was from someone he did not know and he had not verified its contents either.
His lack of due diligence prompted the Leader of the House, Mr Mah Bow Tan, to issue a stern reminder to MPs that the privilege of parliamentary immunity - they cannot be sued for what they say in Parliament - must be balanced by high standards of accuracy.
Mr Sin himself was also made to apologise to the House.
Last week's incident was the first time in four years that an MP has been taken to task for his conduct in the House. (See story: MPs in hot water)
It comes at a time when the British Parliament - which Singapore's was modelled after - is embroiled in a scandal over MPs' perks.
The two combined mean a glaring spotlight is now trained on the behaviour of parliamentarians.
To be sure, conduct in Singapore's Parliament is more civil than in many other parliaments. Discourse is typically polite, heckling is mild on the rare occasions when it occurs, and there has never been shouting matches, fist-fights or furniture-tossing.
This emphasis on orderly conduct has led some to question if Singapore's House has become too bland.
How did we arrive at this parliamentary culture? Has it always been like this? And is it really necessary to impose such high standards on MPs?
The dos and don'ts
AT THE most basic level, Parliament derives some of its standards from the law.
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act spells out a list of 17 different offences MPs can be taken to task for. These include assaulting or insulting the Speaker or another MP, presenting any false, fabricated or falsified document with intent to deceive, and refusing to answer a relevant question.
The penalties for these include imprisonment, suspension or a fine of up to $50,000.
There is also the option for Parliament to temporarily suspend the MP's immunity from civil and criminal suits.
But rules only go so far.
Singapore's legislation is no more severe than in most other Commonwealth countries, points out constitutional law expert Kevin Tan.
'The rules themselves do not set the standard of behaviour or decorum,' he says. 'By and large, Parliament is a master of its own rules and can suspend a member's privileges.'
So far, however, it has never come to that. Singapore MPs have, on the whole, stayed within the limits.
In fact, only one person - the late opposition member J.B. Jeyaretnam - has ever been fined for his conduct in Parliament.
In the 1980s, he was referred to the House's Privileges Committee four times - once in 1982 and thrice in 1986.
The 1986 cases involved alleging executive interference in the judiciary and abuse of police powers, and failing to declare a pecuniary interest in a question he raised.
The committee fined him $1,000 on each count.
The trio of offences proved to have deeper repercussions for Parliament. In August that year, Parliament moved to introduce harsher penalties on errant MPs. It was also in the wake of this case that the possibility of suspending immunity was introduced.
To this day, the 1986 examples stand as the most serious transgressions in the House.
Most other cases were resolved with the MP involved apologising.
The cases though run the gamut from crude to amusing.
One case that many MPs interviewed recall happened just four years ago, when an expletive was uttered in Parliament.
'Shit', as an exclamation in the English language, made its way into the House, thanks to then Nominated MP Ong Soh Khim. She said the word during the 2005 Budget debate when she ran out of time. She apologised.
The same earthy entity, but this time enunciated in Hokkien, returned to Parliament two years later when MP Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio GRC) referred to it to make a point in her speech. Though some outside the House criticised her choice of vocabulary, she was not censured by Parliament.
These two bouts of verbal excess were preceded by, among others, a racist remark from former MP Choo Wee Khiang, a comment about women's hairdos from then Health Minister Lim Hng Kiang, and the ABCs of expletives from MP Ling How Doong in 1997.
Recalled former MP Wang Kai Yuen: 'He used ABC. A for asshole, B for bastard and C for talk cock.'
But clear transgressions aside, former MPs recall there generally being more banter in the House.
Heckling, though milder than in other countries, was once commonplace.
One of those who took part was former MP Chandra Das. His target was often opposition MP Chiam See Tong.
'It was harmless, we were just trying to disrupt each other's train of thought,' he tells Insight.
Mr Chiam often gave as good as he got. Mr Ling's ABCs, for instance, came in retaliation to Mr Chiam's heckling.
The practice is now rarely seen. MPs wait their turn patiently.
To voice approval, they no longer shout 'Hear hear' but thump on the chairs.
Dr Wang thinks the disappearance of heckling is simply a generational matter: 'I presume in the 1980s, more of the MPs were exposed to the British tradition. Over time, maybe we have evolved our own tradition so much so that we don't even do this anymore.'
Although he laments: 'If so, the proceedings in Parliament will be rather boring.'
Mr Das puts it down to the stricter time limits imposed on MPs' speeches these days. During Budget debates, for instance, an MP has 18 minutes to make his points - no matter how many ministries he wants to comment on. Those who head a government parliamentary committee get two minutes more.
There used to be a time when there was no limit to how long an MP could talk. This leeway ended, thanks to former Barisan Sosialis MP Lee Siew Choh.
In 1961, he delivered a speech that broke all records - and some backsides - when he argued against the proposed merger with Malaysia. He spoke for nearly 71/2 hours, starting at 11.20pm and finishing the next morning.
A time limit was introduced shortly after.
Too strict?
BUT though some former MPs reminisce fondly of the time when heckling was more commonplace and debates were livelier, all agree that the orderly Parliament in place now is a system that works for Singapore.
'You can focus on what is said rather than how it is said. It is now based more on the substance than on oratory skills,' says Wan Hussin Zoohri, a PAP MP from 1980 to 1991.
Mr Das shares the sentiment, saying one key feature of the local Parliament is that it is a 'working Parliament'.
'They don't have time to waste,' he says.
He stresses that it must always strive to maintain the high standards it has already set.
'When you set standards, there is bound to be abuse. When lapses occur, you correct them. If you set your standards low, you will get a bazaar.'
As for former MP Chew Heng Ching, he boils the matter down to MPs needing to set a good example: 'MPs are role models for many in society. Unlike in other countries, the standards expected of MPs here are very high.'
Says Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris- Punggol GRC): 'The fact that we do have immunity actually means that we have a higher responsibility that we do not abuse that privilege.'
On the matter of Mr Sin's transgression, he feels that where Mr Sin erred was in where he got his information from. If he had simply stated his own opinion, that would have been well within his right - even if the opinion was the same as that in the e-mail. However, because he cited an unverified source, he opened himself to criticism.
The last word on the matter of parliamentary privilege comes from Mr Mah, who is also the National Development Minister.
He is responsible for arranging government business in Parliament, and will advise the House on the action to take if a difficulty arises.
In an e-mail response to Insight, he lays out the rationale behind Singapore's strict system and explains why he made his statement in Parliament.
'Members must maintain such high standards of accountability to safeguard the dignity and decorum of the House, and to maintain the public's trust in our Parliament,' he says.
'If these standards are not maintained, we will be unfair to those who have been criticised by MPs under privilege and who are unable to clear their names. We will end up lowering the standing and authority that Parliament enjoys.'
Mr Mah also points out that the way Singapore remunerates its MPs helps ensure this high standard.
A scandal like the one in Britain will not occur here as MPs cannot ask to be reimbursed for their expenses.
'We have instead provided our MPs with a clean allowance of an appropriate amount, with no additional perks attached. This has enabled our MPs to serve their residents well, in their constituencies and in the House, and be properly compensated for such service,' he says.
jeremyau@sph.com.sg
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Perception gap in views on elderly
Survey finds seniors don't see themselves the way others do
By Melissa Sim
A GAP between the way Singaporeans view the elderly and the way senior citizens see themselves has shown up in a new survey.
It shows that while nearly 90 per cent of the general population feel seniors are well-integrated and can contribute to society, less than 70 per cent of those aged 65 and above actually feel this way.
Healthy signs
ALTHOUGH some findings in the Council for Third Age (C3A) survey raised concern, it also showed encouraging trends.
For instance, about half of those aged 50 and below have started planning financially for their later years. And half of those aged 50 and above regularly participate in physical activity with a group of friends at least three times a week.
... more
RELATED LINKS
Attitudes towards the elderly
Another key finding: While 93 per cent of Singaporeans feel intergenerational relationships are important, less than 30 per cent actually spend time with extended members of their families.
The survey of 2,000 people by the Council for Third Age (C3A) was aimed at examining attitudes towards ageing. It provided insights into how a senior's relationship with his friends and family contributes to his overall well-being.
C3A is a group which promotes active ageing in Singapore.
Explaining the difference between what Singaporeans say and what they do, C3A chairman Gerard Ee said one reason younger people spend less time with older family members is that they are 'too busy'.
Other seniors may not have good relationships with their families, and this accounts for their lack of self-esteem, he added.
In some instances, he said, seniors did not prepare enough for their golden years and now find that they either lack money or have few friends to interact with on a daily basis, and this could lead to feelings of loneliness and a lack of self-worth.
Mr Ee said that because families are smaller these days, it is more important than ever for older folk to have 'networks of people to grow old with'.
The disconnect has to be addressed, he said, because another survey finding showed the benefits of making sure seniors are well-integrated: Respondents with supportive families and friends around them were more likely to be satisfied with life.
Take housewife Peggy Cheng, 60, for instance. The mother of three, one of the respondents in the survey, said she was healthy and life was very enjoyable.
She goes to the movies with her grown children, and sometimes even goes to a pub or club with her daughter. 'She can dance, I can have a drink,' she said.
'There are always ways to meet them halfway.'
To encourage more such intergenerational bonding, C3A has lined up several initiatives.
Among them is a conference co-organised with the National University of Singapore.
To be held in April next year, the 4th International Consortium for Intergenerational Programmes will bring together 300 international and local experts and delegates to discuss such issues and how to better integrate seniors into society.
The council will also launch an Intergenerational Bonding Award this month to encourage people to develop programmes which promote such activities.
C3A will also set up the Knowledge Networking on Ageing Programme (Knap), a platform for organisations and individuals to share experiences and information on ageing issues.
The council's chief executive, Mr Henry Quake, said Knap will allow research data to be translated into meaningful programmes.
Another programme on the cards is the annual Active Ageing Festival, which encourages seniors to try new things in a safe and fun environment.
The council will also continue to support the development of interest groups, and promote understanding of seniors and ageing issues among youth.
simlinoi@sph.com.sg
Survey finds seniors don't see themselves the way others do
By Melissa Sim
A GAP between the way Singaporeans view the elderly and the way senior citizens see themselves has shown up in a new survey.
It shows that while nearly 90 per cent of the general population feel seniors are well-integrated and can contribute to society, less than 70 per cent of those aged 65 and above actually feel this way.
Healthy signs
ALTHOUGH some findings in the Council for Third Age (C3A) survey raised concern, it also showed encouraging trends.
For instance, about half of those aged 50 and below have started planning financially for their later years. And half of those aged 50 and above regularly participate in physical activity with a group of friends at least three times a week.
... more
RELATED LINKS
Attitudes towards the elderly
Another key finding: While 93 per cent of Singaporeans feel intergenerational relationships are important, less than 30 per cent actually spend time with extended members of their families.
The survey of 2,000 people by the Council for Third Age (C3A) was aimed at examining attitudes towards ageing. It provided insights into how a senior's relationship with his friends and family contributes to his overall well-being.
C3A is a group which promotes active ageing in Singapore.
Explaining the difference between what Singaporeans say and what they do, C3A chairman Gerard Ee said one reason younger people spend less time with older family members is that they are 'too busy'.
Other seniors may not have good relationships with their families, and this accounts for their lack of self-esteem, he added.
In some instances, he said, seniors did not prepare enough for their golden years and now find that they either lack money or have few friends to interact with on a daily basis, and this could lead to feelings of loneliness and a lack of self-worth.
Mr Ee said that because families are smaller these days, it is more important than ever for older folk to have 'networks of people to grow old with'.
The disconnect has to be addressed, he said, because another survey finding showed the benefits of making sure seniors are well-integrated: Respondents with supportive families and friends around them were more likely to be satisfied with life.
Take housewife Peggy Cheng, 60, for instance. The mother of three, one of the respondents in the survey, said she was healthy and life was very enjoyable.
She goes to the movies with her grown children, and sometimes even goes to a pub or club with her daughter. 'She can dance, I can have a drink,' she said.
'There are always ways to meet them halfway.'
To encourage more such intergenerational bonding, C3A has lined up several initiatives.
Among them is a conference co-organised with the National University of Singapore.
To be held in April next year, the 4th International Consortium for Intergenerational Programmes will bring together 300 international and local experts and delegates to discuss such issues and how to better integrate seniors into society.
The council will also launch an Intergenerational Bonding Award this month to encourage people to develop programmes which promote such activities.
C3A will also set up the Knowledge Networking on Ageing Programme (Knap), a platform for organisations and individuals to share experiences and information on ageing issues.
The council's chief executive, Mr Henry Quake, said Knap will allow research data to be translated into meaningful programmes.
Another programme on the cards is the annual Active Ageing Festival, which encourages seniors to try new things in a safe and fun environment.
The council will also continue to support the development of interest groups, and promote understanding of seniors and ageing issues among youth.
simlinoi@sph.com.sg
Angry Putin rips into top oligarch - ST 6 June 2009
Angry Putin rips into top oligarch
Premier accuses tycoon of greed; likens factory owners to cockroaches
'You have made thousands of people hostage to your ambitions, your lack of professionalism - or maybe simply your trivial greed.' -- Mr Putin (left) to Mr Deripaska (right) -- PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
PIKALYOVO (RUSSIA): Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin publicly humiliated a top oligarch, accusing him and other factory owners in a crisis-hit town of greed and likening them to 'cockroaches'.
Mr Putin, playing on the anger of protesting workers in the town of Pikalyovo, forced Mr Oleg Deripaska, a top metals tycoon and once Russia's richest man, to sign a contract for supplies to help idle factories restart operations.
'You have made thousands of people hostage to your ambitions, your lack of professionalism - or maybe simply your trivial greed,' he told Mr Deripaska and two other businessmen who own cement and alumina factories in the town in a confrontation broadcast on television.
'Where is the social responsibility of business?'
Mr Putin arrived at Pikalyovo by helicopter on Thursday, where hungry workers blocked a motorway this week to protest over unpaid salaries, as world business leaders gathered for Russia's premier annual economic summit in St Petersburg, 270km away.
He rounded on Mr Deripaska and the two other businessmen, making a veiled threat to expropriate their property unless they sorted out the situation quickly.
'Why was everyone running around like cockroaches before my arrival? Why was no one capable of taking decisions?' Mr Putin said as Mr Deripaska stared blankly.
'Has Oleg Vladimirovich (Deripaska) signed? I do not see your signature. Come here and sign it,' Mr Putin said, throwing a pen dismissively onto the table.
His head hanging low like a schoolboy, the once-mighty oligarch walked up to the Premier's table, read the document covering raw material supplies to the factories and added his signature.
Meanwhile, US$1.5 million (S$2.16 million) in back wages flowed into citizens' bank accounts, and lines appeared in front of cash dispensers all over the city.
After the meeting, workers cheered Mr Putin as he told them the problems at the plants had been resolved. The Premier's spokesman, Mr Dmitry Peskov, said Mr Putin had been 'quite strict'.
Mr Putin's intervention in Pikalyovo comes as similar economic troubles unfold across Russia's industrial heartland, despite the recent rise in world oil prices, which has relieved budgetary pressures on the Kremlin.
There are at least 400 Russian 'mono-cities', places like Pikalyovo (population 22,000) where the shuttering of a single factory could throw a whole population into crisis.
Since late last year, sociologists have debated whether these towns had the potential to explode - or whether Russians would quietly adapt to hardship, as they had in the past. For months, evidence has pointed to the latter.
But that calculus changed this week in Pikalyovo, where many workers had been surviving on staples like cabbage soup and becoming progressively angrier.
When the local utility shut off the town's hot water over unpaid wages last month, a group forced its way into the mayor's office. On Tuesday, several hundred people blocked a federal highway for six hours. The next step, they said, was blocking the railroad, or a hunger strike.
'The signal here is simple. The crisis and other difficulties cannot serve as an indulgence from social responsibility and you cannot solve your problems without taking care of people, you cannot try to put all responsibilities on the shoulders of the state,' Mr Peskov said. 'They (businessmen) were not thinking about people at all.'
During his visit, Mr Putin took pains to say he did not approve of the workers' protest actions, and even suggested that demonstrators had been paid. But the police did not disperse Pikalyovo's demonstrators, mostly middle-aged women who had logged decades at the factory.
Citizens here said they could never have attracted Mr Putin's attention if it were not for the protests.
Pikalyovo 'is not dying, it is already practically dead', said Mr Alexander Kruglov, 26. 'People were so worried about their families that they went out into the street. I think it is the only way to defend yourself.'
That message could resonate in other industrial towns. Mr Mikhail Viktorovich Shmakov, chairman of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions, said on Thursday that the protest mood was rising in 'many one-factory towns', among them Tsvetlogorsk and Baikalsk, where 42 employees of a paper mill have begun a hunger strike over unpaid wages.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, NEW YORK TIMES
Premier accuses tycoon of greed; likens factory owners to cockroaches
'You have made thousands of people hostage to your ambitions, your lack of professionalism - or maybe simply your trivial greed.' -- Mr Putin (left) to Mr Deripaska (right) -- PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
PIKALYOVO (RUSSIA): Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin publicly humiliated a top oligarch, accusing him and other factory owners in a crisis-hit town of greed and likening them to 'cockroaches'.
Mr Putin, playing on the anger of protesting workers in the town of Pikalyovo, forced Mr Oleg Deripaska, a top metals tycoon and once Russia's richest man, to sign a contract for supplies to help idle factories restart operations.
'You have made thousands of people hostage to your ambitions, your lack of professionalism - or maybe simply your trivial greed,' he told Mr Deripaska and two other businessmen who own cement and alumina factories in the town in a confrontation broadcast on television.
'Where is the social responsibility of business?'
Mr Putin arrived at Pikalyovo by helicopter on Thursday, where hungry workers blocked a motorway this week to protest over unpaid salaries, as world business leaders gathered for Russia's premier annual economic summit in St Petersburg, 270km away.
He rounded on Mr Deripaska and the two other businessmen, making a veiled threat to expropriate their property unless they sorted out the situation quickly.
'Why was everyone running around like cockroaches before my arrival? Why was no one capable of taking decisions?' Mr Putin said as Mr Deripaska stared blankly.
'Has Oleg Vladimirovich (Deripaska) signed? I do not see your signature. Come here and sign it,' Mr Putin said, throwing a pen dismissively onto the table.
His head hanging low like a schoolboy, the once-mighty oligarch walked up to the Premier's table, read the document covering raw material supplies to the factories and added his signature.
Meanwhile, US$1.5 million (S$2.16 million) in back wages flowed into citizens' bank accounts, and lines appeared in front of cash dispensers all over the city.
After the meeting, workers cheered Mr Putin as he told them the problems at the plants had been resolved. The Premier's spokesman, Mr Dmitry Peskov, said Mr Putin had been 'quite strict'.
Mr Putin's intervention in Pikalyovo comes as similar economic troubles unfold across Russia's industrial heartland, despite the recent rise in world oil prices, which has relieved budgetary pressures on the Kremlin.
There are at least 400 Russian 'mono-cities', places like Pikalyovo (population 22,000) where the shuttering of a single factory could throw a whole population into crisis.
Since late last year, sociologists have debated whether these towns had the potential to explode - or whether Russians would quietly adapt to hardship, as they had in the past. For months, evidence has pointed to the latter.
But that calculus changed this week in Pikalyovo, where many workers had been surviving on staples like cabbage soup and becoming progressively angrier.
When the local utility shut off the town's hot water over unpaid wages last month, a group forced its way into the mayor's office. On Tuesday, several hundred people blocked a federal highway for six hours. The next step, they said, was blocking the railroad, or a hunger strike.
'The signal here is simple. The crisis and other difficulties cannot serve as an indulgence from social responsibility and you cannot solve your problems without taking care of people, you cannot try to put all responsibilities on the shoulders of the state,' Mr Peskov said. 'They (businessmen) were not thinking about people at all.'
During his visit, Mr Putin took pains to say he did not approve of the workers' protest actions, and even suggested that demonstrators had been paid. But the police did not disperse Pikalyovo's demonstrators, mostly middle-aged women who had logged decades at the factory.
Citizens here said they could never have attracted Mr Putin's attention if it were not for the protests.
Pikalyovo 'is not dying, it is already practically dead', said Mr Alexander Kruglov, 26. 'People were so worried about their families that they went out into the street. I think it is the only way to defend yourself.'
That message could resonate in other industrial towns. Mr Mikhail Viktorovich Shmakov, chairman of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions, said on Thursday that the protest mood was rising in 'many one-factory towns', among them Tsvetlogorsk and Baikalsk, where 42 employees of a paper mill have begun a hunger strike over unpaid wages.
ASSOCIATED PRESS, NEW YORK TIMES
Friday, June 5, 2009
1959 + Fifty
1959 + Fifty
Poet Edwin Thumboo, 75, grew up with the nation and, inevitably, his themes have been nationalistic. He penned this poem exclusively for The Straits Times.
I
Our City that
They half-returned, Raffles founded with precision.
He commandeered slick arrangements to oversee his
Island's cross-straits growth, firmly staving off spicy
Interlopers, then tapped migrant energies to build.
Let's credit the old colonial foresight, grip, tenacity.
They made a notable place, a link in their global grid.
No lonely outpost this. In truth, a posh equator-haven
That never questioned fun so long its form was pakka.
Scan old maps, prints, club traditions, pleasance,
For pulsating tropic therapy. List names now slightly
Tanned: Mt Sophia, Mt Faber, Mt Echo. Little, high
Exclusive places to catch airy melur and cempaka
Undulations, while below, variously, were daily lives
Of sweaty heave-and-ho of multi-racial labourings.
They branded Imperial Comfort, kept up ritual till
Worn down, without remit, by a great Depression,
WW2, to a limping victory. Then Batang Kali, Hidup
Negara, and Merdeka, began to stalk the aging itsy-
Bitsy Lion shedding her colonies, reluctantly turning
Post-colonial.
II
This our City-State,
Rose above withdrawal-symptoms creeping home from
East of Suez, black-white bungalows, Nee Soon bars.
We make again, but now according to our leaders who
Muster and assess; chew, cogitate; rotate dreams, inspect
Possibilities including base conversion; calculate the way
Ahead; split racist infinitives; re-dress, re-vive decaying
Precincts; re-place Old Lobb and farm; learn to re-learn;
Keep tradition, yet change, move, do. Lick trade unions
Into shape. Lance the Barisan boil, as ten million sing
Malaysia forever, a brief sojourn, a painful parting for
This our island in the sun.
Assemble KPIs:
Labour, Capital, Government; Meritocracy, Equality;
Integrity, Commitment, Skills Development Fund;
And more, to mix and match into a Pledge, a Unity.
Singapore agak agak sudah jadi
Walk down the years between ever taller buildings, cross
Cleaner streets following a small green man who never tires.
Past Copthorne, to that notorious bend which slows our river.
No sulfide air. There are fish. Then backtrack past bridges
Whose names sound our history. See the Merlion, Durian,
Floating Platform, and emerging Double Helix bridge:
Art and design enhance function as in the newer HDBs.
Stroll Marina Barrage. Stop. Hear the waters on either side:
One composed, one rough, two signifiers for our boundaries.
Guard one; watch the other, so sanctify life within our skyline,
As twilight starts to hum, stretch its limbs, as colours move.
This new lake will gradually re-fresh, sweeten, fill sails, sms,
Accost the rising sun, pleasure lovers who hug its shores then
See the evening set in a pair of eyes, gently foreclosing.
Soon moonlight will start to heap.
Guardian hours that pass will come again,
As I remember what fifty years of vision
Un-did and did,
As what was and is, and may have been,
I place in the fifty years to come.
May 2009
COPYRIGHT: EDWIN THUMBOO
Poet Edwin Thumboo, 75, grew up with the nation and, inevitably, his themes have been nationalistic. He penned this poem exclusively for The Straits Times.
I
Our City that
They half-returned, Raffles founded with precision.
He commandeered slick arrangements to oversee his
Island's cross-straits growth, firmly staving off spicy
Interlopers, then tapped migrant energies to build.
Let's credit the old colonial foresight, grip, tenacity.
They made a notable place, a link in their global grid.
No lonely outpost this. In truth, a posh equator-haven
That never questioned fun so long its form was pakka.
Scan old maps, prints, club traditions, pleasance,
For pulsating tropic therapy. List names now slightly
Tanned: Mt Sophia, Mt Faber, Mt Echo. Little, high
Exclusive places to catch airy melur and cempaka
Undulations, while below, variously, were daily lives
Of sweaty heave-and-ho of multi-racial labourings.
They branded Imperial Comfort, kept up ritual till
Worn down, without remit, by a great Depression,
WW2, to a limping victory. Then Batang Kali, Hidup
Negara, and Merdeka, began to stalk the aging itsy-
Bitsy Lion shedding her colonies, reluctantly turning
Post-colonial.
II
This our City-State,
Rose above withdrawal-symptoms creeping home from
East of Suez, black-white bungalows, Nee Soon bars.
We make again, but now according to our leaders who
Muster and assess; chew, cogitate; rotate dreams, inspect
Possibilities including base conversion; calculate the way
Ahead; split racist infinitives; re-dress, re-vive decaying
Precincts; re-place Old Lobb and farm; learn to re-learn;
Keep tradition, yet change, move, do. Lick trade unions
Into shape. Lance the Barisan boil, as ten million sing
Malaysia forever, a brief sojourn, a painful parting for
This our island in the sun.
Assemble KPIs:
Labour, Capital, Government; Meritocracy, Equality;
Integrity, Commitment, Skills Development Fund;
And more, to mix and match into a Pledge, a Unity.
Singapore agak agak sudah jadi
Walk down the years between ever taller buildings, cross
Cleaner streets following a small green man who never tires.
Past Copthorne, to that notorious bend which slows our river.
No sulfide air. There are fish. Then backtrack past bridges
Whose names sound our history. See the Merlion, Durian,
Floating Platform, and emerging Double Helix bridge:
Art and design enhance function as in the newer HDBs.
Stroll Marina Barrage. Stop. Hear the waters on either side:
One composed, one rough, two signifiers for our boundaries.
Guard one; watch the other, so sanctify life within our skyline,
As twilight starts to hum, stretch its limbs, as colours move.
This new lake will gradually re-fresh, sweeten, fill sails, sms,
Accost the rising sun, pleasure lovers who hug its shores then
See the evening set in a pair of eyes, gently foreclosing.
Soon moonlight will start to heap.
Guardian hours that pass will come again,
As I remember what fifty years of vision
Un-did and did,
As what was and is, and may have been,
I place in the fifty years to come.
May 2009
COPYRIGHT: EDWIN THUMBOO
50 years & after
50 years & after
S'pore has come a long way as a nation-in-formation, while its identity is still shaping itself
By Edwin Thumboo
That Singapore has changed and evolved much is visible all around us, says Professor Thumboo, who finds the view from marina barrage with the right sunset quietly stirring and memorable. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
FOR most of my generation, the sense of Singapore as a nation had crystallised by the mid-1950s. Our journeys and expectations varied - and continue to, in some instances widely - across the generations, political spectrum and our ethnicities, our histories.
But the passion, the impatience and the commitment to be free of British rule, were widely shared. That was our tryst with destiny.
Such feelings have a starting point. For me it was listening to my father and his friends, talking about the war during the latter part of the Japanese Occupation, and the shape of the future.
An uncle from Swatow in China, who had arrived in 1939 and stayed till 1951, was a leftist. I learnt much about nation and nationalism, particularly what I saw as 'red' nationalism, the greatness of China and the abuses of European colonialism. 'Never trust the red-haired devils. They steal.'
The lessons and perspectives broadened further when I went to the University of Malaya, then in Singapore, in 1953. Those and the following five to six years were turbulent. The communists were active. There were strikes and riots.
It was only at the end of the period that there was a party with the vision, integrity, determination and the wherewithal to take up the reins of government. The PAP government was sworn in on June 5, 1959 with Mr Lee Kuan Yew as our first prime minister. A long run, but there are more journeys ahead.
The world is Darwinian: survival of the fittest. And the fittest are those most adaptable in how they simultaneously respond to internal, neighbouring, regional and global changes and challenges.
In response to that inevitable question of how you would sum up Singapore in a sentence, I have said that we generate wealth through capitalist means, and distribute it through semi-socialist means. The same spirit underpins much of our success.
The travelling we did as a nation-in-formation is visible all around us. An obvious statement, but whose obviousness hides a series of narratives, of starts, of continuities, of revisions, of re-inventions, of uncertainties overcome.
Our physical environment is attractive, even beautiful. The view from Marina Barrage with the right sunset is quietly stirring; ever memorable. Almost every visitor is impressed by and appreciates our clean streets, air-conditioned buildings. We have come a long way.
We hope for more beautiful Singaporeans, beautiful inside, gracious in spirit and in action, for the world needs kindness and more kindness, and that should start at home.
Nearly 25 years ago, in 1985, a few of us gathered in the Arts and Social Sciences Senior Lounge to take stock of the first five years of the National University of Singapore. The conversation moved to Singapore. We felt that it had gone through a hundred years of growth.
Given this speed, we have not had the time to evolve and consolidate certain aspects of that deeper unity and solidarity underpinning older societies. We have become global, international, before we are national. There is a Singaporean identity, one still shaping itself. It will come, in time, hopefully during the next 50 years. In the meantime, let us admire the moonlight over Marina Bay.
Cultural Medallion poet Edwin Thumboo is Emeritus Professor of the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore.
S'pore has come a long way as a nation-in-formation, while its identity is still shaping itself
By Edwin Thumboo
That Singapore has changed and evolved much is visible all around us, says Professor Thumboo, who finds the view from marina barrage with the right sunset quietly stirring and memorable. -- ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO
FOR most of my generation, the sense of Singapore as a nation had crystallised by the mid-1950s. Our journeys and expectations varied - and continue to, in some instances widely - across the generations, political spectrum and our ethnicities, our histories.
But the passion, the impatience and the commitment to be free of British rule, were widely shared. That was our tryst with destiny.
Such feelings have a starting point. For me it was listening to my father and his friends, talking about the war during the latter part of the Japanese Occupation, and the shape of the future.
An uncle from Swatow in China, who had arrived in 1939 and stayed till 1951, was a leftist. I learnt much about nation and nationalism, particularly what I saw as 'red' nationalism, the greatness of China and the abuses of European colonialism. 'Never trust the red-haired devils. They steal.'
The lessons and perspectives broadened further when I went to the University of Malaya, then in Singapore, in 1953. Those and the following five to six years were turbulent. The communists were active. There were strikes and riots.
It was only at the end of the period that there was a party with the vision, integrity, determination and the wherewithal to take up the reins of government. The PAP government was sworn in on June 5, 1959 with Mr Lee Kuan Yew as our first prime minister. A long run, but there are more journeys ahead.
The world is Darwinian: survival of the fittest. And the fittest are those most adaptable in how they simultaneously respond to internal, neighbouring, regional and global changes and challenges.
In response to that inevitable question of how you would sum up Singapore in a sentence, I have said that we generate wealth through capitalist means, and distribute it through semi-socialist means. The same spirit underpins much of our success.
The travelling we did as a nation-in-formation is visible all around us. An obvious statement, but whose obviousness hides a series of narratives, of starts, of continuities, of revisions, of re-inventions, of uncertainties overcome.
Our physical environment is attractive, even beautiful. The view from Marina Barrage with the right sunset is quietly stirring; ever memorable. Almost every visitor is impressed by and appreciates our clean streets, air-conditioned buildings. We have come a long way.
We hope for more beautiful Singaporeans, beautiful inside, gracious in spirit and in action, for the world needs kindness and more kindness, and that should start at home.
Nearly 25 years ago, in 1985, a few of us gathered in the Arts and Social Sciences Senior Lounge to take stock of the first five years of the National University of Singapore. The conversation moved to Singapore. We felt that it had gone through a hundred years of growth.
Given this speed, we have not had the time to evolve and consolidate certain aspects of that deeper unity and solidarity underpinning older societies. We have become global, international, before we are national. There is a Singaporean identity, one still shaping itself. It will come, in time, hopefully during the next 50 years. In the meantime, let us admire the moonlight over Marina Bay.
Cultural Medallion poet Edwin Thumboo is Emeritus Professor of the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)