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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)