The Media Development Authority has responded to my suggestions to improve the administration of arts entertainment licences.
REPLY FROM MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SINGAPORE, ON 25 AUGUST 2006
We refer to your email addressed to PS/MICA Mr Tan Chin Nam dated 7 Aug 2006 on the above subject.
With regard to the licence for the Sama Sama exhibition, MDA did not receive the full set of pictures until two days before the event. MDA's requirement is for materials to be received at least 2 weeks before the date of an event. All of the pictures found objectionable were among the ones submitted late.
As for Smegma, it was upon closer scrutiny of the script that MDA decided to withdraw the licence as the play undermined the values underpinning Singapore's multi-racial, multi-religious society, and portrayed Muslims in a negative light. This was done after consultation with the Arts Consultative Panel.
We have noted your recommendations to improve the licensing of arts entertainment. We thank you for your feedback.
Amy Tsang (Mrs)
Media Content Division
Media Development Authority
Friday, August 25, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
MinLaw Reply: Committee To Review Legal Services Sector
The Ministry of Law has responded to my letter on the Committee To Review Legal Services Sector.
REPLY FROM PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, SINGAPORE ON 22 AUGUST 2006
The Committee le[d] by Justice V K Rajah has formed several working groups to look into various aspects of the legal services sector, and it intends to consult widely. The different stakeholders which you have highlighted will be involved either as members of the working groups or as part of the consultation process.
In particular, I understand that committee members of the SCCA [Singapore Corporate Counsel Association] will be invited to join the working groups. Justice Rajah also plans to meet with the leadership of the SCCA personally to hear the concerns and ideas from SCCA.
The Committee also welcomes views from general members of the public, particularly members of the legal fraternity, on how the legal services sector can be taken to the next level.
REPLY FROM PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, SINGAPORE ON 22 AUGUST 2006
The Committee le[d] by Justice V K Rajah has formed several working groups to look into various aspects of the legal services sector, and it intends to consult widely. The different stakeholders which you have highlighted will be involved either as members of the working groups or as part of the consultation process.
In particular, I understand that committee members of the SCCA [Singapore Corporate Counsel Association] will be invited to join the working groups. Justice Rajah also plans to meet with the leadership of the SCCA personally to hear the concerns and ideas from SCCA.
The Committee also welcomes views from general members of the public, particularly members of the legal fraternity, on how the legal services sector can be taken to the next level.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Book Review: Economists Say Goodbye To Economics
On 15 August 2006, a friend who studied economics at a top American university and is now involved in helping set Singapore's economic direction asked me, "How do you get someone interested in a dry subject like Economics?"
I found it hard to answer this question. I gave a positive but absolutely vague answer to avoid adding to my friend's plight about his pet subject.
After all, I had abandoned economics after college to study law in university, and - as much as I did not admit to my friend - I too found economics to be a very dry subject!
That evening, as I walked around a book shop, a Singapore publication by Chen Z J, "Economists Say Goodbye To Economics", grabbed my attention - a result, clearly, of the conversation with my friend.
I found the author, who studied Economics at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, to be even more disillusioned about the subject.
In fact, he is so disillusioned about Economics that he is offering US$1,250,000 to any Nobel laureate in Economics to refute his findings, in particular two key "secrets" the author has discovered about how money works.
The bold author further questions that if no Nobel laureate can claim his prize, should economists even continue to be awarded the Nobel Prize every year?
I immediately bought the book not because I aspire to be a Nobel laureate and hope to eventually claim the cash prize that the author is offering, which could be a strong reason for many specialists in Economics around the world.
Instead, I bought the book for three other strong reasons:
1. The failed economist in me wanted to reinforce my reasons for dropping Economics many years ago.
2. I relished a good debate and challenge - my occupational hazard.
3. I wanted to know what were the two key "secrets" that the author had found.
In the next 102 pages, which I read that same night, I was brought on a journey by the author. He offered a colourful history of Economics. He willingly offered his own beliefs about how the world economy as we know it today has evolved. He described vividly about how economic growth could lead to the end of this world and why economists should really say goodbye to economics!
Having read the book, I found myself unsure about whether or not to believe the author.
If he is to be believed, the very future of Singapore and the rest of the world is at stake, including the jobs of the many experts like my friend advising our government on this vast subject called Economics.
If he is not to be believed, it certainly marks the perfect start for a very robust debate about the many arguments he provides in this book.
Then, voila, it dawned upon me! I had found in this book the perfect answer to my friend's question about how to encourage a person to be interested in Economics.
"Economists Say Goodbye To Economics" is recommended reading for both economists and non-economists. There is much food for thought in this book. The references at the end of the book are especially useful for an individual who wants to do read up more on the issues raised in the book.
The irony of "Economists Say Goodbye To Economics" is that it has given a "dry subject" like Economics a refreshing lifeline. You could also well end up a millionaire after reading this book! So who wants to be a millionaire?
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
I found it hard to answer this question. I gave a positive but absolutely vague answer to avoid adding to my friend's plight about his pet subject.
After all, I had abandoned economics after college to study law in university, and - as much as I did not admit to my friend - I too found economics to be a very dry subject!
That evening, as I walked around a book shop, a Singapore publication by Chen Z J, "Economists Say Goodbye To Economics", grabbed my attention - a result, clearly, of the conversation with my friend.
I found the author, who studied Economics at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, to be even more disillusioned about the subject.
In fact, he is so disillusioned about Economics that he is offering US$1,250,000 to any Nobel laureate in Economics to refute his findings, in particular two key "secrets" the author has discovered about how money works.
The bold author further questions that if no Nobel laureate can claim his prize, should economists even continue to be awarded the Nobel Prize every year?
I immediately bought the book not because I aspire to be a Nobel laureate and hope to eventually claim the cash prize that the author is offering, which could be a strong reason for many specialists in Economics around the world.
Instead, I bought the book for three other strong reasons:
1. The failed economist in me wanted to reinforce my reasons for dropping Economics many years ago.
2. I relished a good debate and challenge - my occupational hazard.
3. I wanted to know what were the two key "secrets" that the author had found.
In the next 102 pages, which I read that same night, I was brought on a journey by the author. He offered a colourful history of Economics. He willingly offered his own beliefs about how the world economy as we know it today has evolved. He described vividly about how economic growth could lead to the end of this world and why economists should really say goodbye to economics!
Having read the book, I found myself unsure about whether or not to believe the author.
If he is to be believed, the very future of Singapore and the rest of the world is at stake, including the jobs of the many experts like my friend advising our government on this vast subject called Economics.
If he is not to be believed, it certainly marks the perfect start for a very robust debate about the many arguments he provides in this book.
Then, voila, it dawned upon me! I had found in this book the perfect answer to my friend's question about how to encourage a person to be interested in Economics.
"Economists Say Goodbye To Economics" is recommended reading for both economists and non-economists. There is much food for thought in this book. The references at the end of the book are especially useful for an individual who wants to do read up more on the issues raised in the book.
The irony of "Economists Say Goodbye To Economics" is that it has given a "dry subject" like Economics a refreshing lifeline. You could also well end up a millionaire after reading this book! So who wants to be a millionaire?
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Mahathir on current issues in Malaysia
At the National Day Rally 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, spoke on a variety of current issues affecting Singapore. It was a speech that brought together some old issues, which have been talked about in different forums and the thrust sounded all too familiar.
In June 2006, Former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, spoke on a variety of currents issues affecting Malaysia. It is interesting how PM Lee's speech mirrored or contrasted some of the issues raised by Tun Dr Mahathir.
While I do not agree with some of Tun Dr Mahathir's views, I found Tun Dr Mahathir's speech had more learning points. And I wished the National Day Rally could have been likewise.
These are some of the positive highlights or learning points of Tun Dr Mahathir's speech. The video of his speech can be watched at the Malaysia Today website in six parts.
RACE RELATIONS
He spoke about why he feels, in 50 years, all countries in the world will be multi-ethnic, except China, and why he thought Malaysia’s management of race relations and religious freedom was a success – though some people disagree there is racial harmony in Malaysia.
LANGUAGE
He felt Malaysia had lost its mastery of English and welcomed the trend to teach Science and Mathematics in English in Malaysian schools.
He emphasized it was necessary to both speak Malay & English well, and also have knowledge to create products and innovate.
ONE-PARTY RULE
He talked about one-party dominance of a democracy, and how it can stifle debate.
He took the view that a government should be strong but not too strong. He spoke about ‘neighbouring countries’ which have been dominated by one political party and how opposition politicians in these countries were charged with corruption or made bankrupt.
His view is that governments having more than 90% majority in Parliament may be regarded as "a little bit too strong". As a result, persons will not criticise the government and, if there is criticism, it will be subdued.
In his view, a strong government is one with a 2/3 majority in Parliament - as opposed to 90% majority - as such a majority can enable critical assessments of policies to be made.
He also felt an opposition was necessary to ensure the government makes the right decisions and to provide alternative viewpoints.
DECISION-MAKING
He encouraged people not to reach conclusions or make decisions about issues before first understanding the issues at hand and the background about the issues involved.
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
He reiterated why it was important for an individual to not have just good knowledge but a strong values system. A strong values system would mean a person who is resistant to vices or temptations in society, and who is disciplined. It also means if a person undertakes to do something, the person must do it well.
To achieve this, parents must spend more time with their children, especially in educating them on the ill effects of television and Internet. The education system too has an important role to play in building character to help individuals face struggles, and shape winners and passionate individuals.
TAKE A STAND
He felt it was important to take a stand and risks, especially when things are obviously wrong.
FUTURE OF MALAYSIA
He shared Malaysia needs good leaders to maintain its premiere position among developing countries. And he is confident of its future.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
In June 2006, Former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, spoke on a variety of currents issues affecting Malaysia. It is interesting how PM Lee's speech mirrored or contrasted some of the issues raised by Tun Dr Mahathir.
While I do not agree with some of Tun Dr Mahathir's views, I found Tun Dr Mahathir's speech had more learning points. And I wished the National Day Rally could have been likewise.
These are some of the positive highlights or learning points of Tun Dr Mahathir's speech. The video of his speech can be watched at the Malaysia Today website in six parts.
RACE RELATIONS
He spoke about why he feels, in 50 years, all countries in the world will be multi-ethnic, except China, and why he thought Malaysia’s management of race relations and religious freedom was a success – though some people disagree there is racial harmony in Malaysia.
LANGUAGE
He felt Malaysia had lost its mastery of English and welcomed the trend to teach Science and Mathematics in English in Malaysian schools.
He emphasized it was necessary to both speak Malay & English well, and also have knowledge to create products and innovate.
ONE-PARTY RULE
He talked about one-party dominance of a democracy, and how it can stifle debate.
He took the view that a government should be strong but not too strong. He spoke about ‘neighbouring countries’ which have been dominated by one political party and how opposition politicians in these countries were charged with corruption or made bankrupt.
His view is that governments having more than 90% majority in Parliament may be regarded as "a little bit too strong". As a result, persons will not criticise the government and, if there is criticism, it will be subdued.
In his view, a strong government is one with a 2/3 majority in Parliament - as opposed to 90% majority - as such a majority can enable critical assessments of policies to be made.
He also felt an opposition was necessary to ensure the government makes the right decisions and to provide alternative viewpoints.
DECISION-MAKING
He encouraged people not to reach conclusions or make decisions about issues before first understanding the issues at hand and the background about the issues involved.
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
He reiterated why it was important for an individual to not have just good knowledge but a strong values system. A strong values system would mean a person who is resistant to vices or temptations in society, and who is disciplined. It also means if a person undertakes to do something, the person must do it well.
To achieve this, parents must spend more time with their children, especially in educating them on the ill effects of television and Internet. The education system too has an important role to play in building character to help individuals face struggles, and shape winners and passionate individuals.
TAKE A STAND
He felt it was important to take a stand and risks, especially when things are obviously wrong.
FUTURE OF MALAYSIA
He shared Malaysia needs good leaders to maintain its premiere position among developing countries. And he is confident of its future.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Take A Message
I have noticed a number times when one receives telephone calls from a person desiring to get in touch with another person.
The most likely response you hear will be: "Sorry, you got the wrong number" or "Sorry, he's not in".
Such a response does not help the person making the call.
A better response could be: "Can I take a message to give the person you wish to contact?"
When you get a call from a person who is looking for another person, be positive and provide a helpful solution to the person.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
The most likely response you hear will be: "Sorry, you got the wrong number" or "Sorry, he's not in".
Such a response does not help the person making the call.
A better response could be: "Can I take a message to give the person you wish to contact?"
When you get a call from a person who is looking for another person, be positive and provide a helpful solution to the person.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Letter: Committee To Review Legal Services Sector
LETTER SENT TO PERMANENT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, SINGAPORE
I congratulate the Ministry of Law for appointing a committee to comprehensively review the legal services sector and make recommendations to make Singapore more attractive as a legal services international hub.
The committee comprises members of the judiciary, representatives from government and lawyers drawn from some law firms in Singapore.
I wish to suggest that the Ministry of Law consider adding the following groups of persons to the committee:
1. Academics who teach law
2. Corporate counsel
3. Law professionals who have left the profession to pursue other roles or have been promoted to management positions
Their addition will complement the composition of the Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers. Plus, they are likely bring to their own unique ideas to make the sector vibrant and competitive.
After all, some of them are important constituencies in the legal services sector and having them on this main committee may underscore this importance.
I hope the Ministry of Law will consider taking up this idea.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
I congratulate the Ministry of Law for appointing a committee to comprehensively review the legal services sector and make recommendations to make Singapore more attractive as a legal services international hub.
The committee comprises members of the judiciary, representatives from government and lawyers drawn from some law firms in Singapore.
I wish to suggest that the Ministry of Law consider adding the following groups of persons to the committee:
1. Academics who teach law
2. Corporate counsel
3. Law professionals who have left the profession to pursue other roles or have been promoted to management positions
Their addition will complement the composition of the Third Committee on the Supply of Lawyers. Plus, they are likely bring to their own unique ideas to make the sector vibrant and competitive.
After all, some of them are important constituencies in the legal services sector and having them on this main committee may underscore this importance.
I hope the Ministry of Law will consider taking up this idea.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)