Recently, a person shared with me her plans about the future. She is going to study dentistry.
Without the slightest hesitation, I jumped in and listed all the things she should not be doing about her future. She was rather taken aback by my response.
Later that evening, I reflected about this incident. I tried to put myself in her shoes.
If I were in her shoes, I'd probably tell myself, "How dare he tell me how to live my future?"
I realised that by sharing with me she had meant to share and celebrate her happiness. I had, unfortunately, spoilt her plans.
Such incidents are typical in world surrounded by negativity. I am sure, at some point, we have tried to tell others "what we think is right", even though it may not be "right" for them.
It is a plague that involves many: families, friends, colleagues and even strangers!
This space is my personal attempt to confront my own negativity, and hopefully find the happiness I seek.
In making this public, I hope to share this happiness with others. Love Happiness is therefore an attempt to find happiness, share happiness and celebrate happiness.
In the time that is yet to be, I hope to share positive thoughts that inspire other positive people so that, at least, the world around me can become a more positive world.
Yesterday, someone shared with me his plans for the future. It was something he has always wanted to do: become a lawyer. I replied, "Great! Let's have lunch and celebrate."
You too are invited to share and celebrate your happiness, in order to help me make this difference.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Consult Public On Films Act
The time for consulting the public (again!) on the Films Act is now due. The Media Development Authority should activate its Films Consultative Panel for a public consultation exercise jointly with the Feedback Unit.
WHY ACTIVATE FCP
Recently there has been much public criticism about s. 33 of the Films Act (Cap 107). It provides:
The MDA has successfully applied this broadly; 'controversial' films have been banned.
However, the widely-publicised public criticism seems to indicate that MDA's position is not in synch with public norms/interest.
HOW THE FCP CAN HELP
According to the MDA, the terms of the reference of the FCP are as follows: "The Panel is to provide for a more balanced and objective approach to film classification, in keeping with changing social mores. The Panel is consulted whenever a decision needs to be made on a controversial film."
As such, it would be within the FCP's mandate to conduct such a public consulation exercise to check if the position in s. 33 of the Films Act reflects current "social mores".
A public consultation exercise will not be new to the MDA. The MDA has often activated its panels in response to public criticism about the legislation under its purview. For example, in response to public criticism, the MDA recently conducted a public consultation exercise on its magazine content guidelines.
Such a public consultation exercise should be conducted by members of the FCP who are neither members nor donors of political parties in Singapore or overseas.
As the MDA did for its public consultation on the Code of Practice for Market Conduct in the Provision of Mass Media Services, the findings of the public consultation exercise on s. 33 of the Films Act should also be made available on the MDA website.
These measures will enable the public consultation exercise to be conducted in a neutral, fair and transparent manner.
CONCLUSION
Clearly, a public consultation exercise can help the MDA better decide on the way forward for s. 33 of the Films Act. And it should be done soon!
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
WHY ACTIVATE FCP
Recently there has been much public criticism about s. 33 of the Films Act (Cap 107). It provides:
Making, distribution and exhibition of party political filmsThe Films Act defines "party political film" as a film "(a) which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or (b) which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore".
33. Any
person who —
(a) imports any party political film;
(b) makes or
reproduces any party political film;
(c) distributes, or has in his
possession for the purposes of distributing, to any other person any party
political film; or
(d) exhibits, or has in his possession for the purposes
of exhibiting, to any other person any party political film,
knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe the film to be a party political film shall
be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not
exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
The MDA has successfully applied this broadly; 'controversial' films have been banned.
However, the widely-publicised public criticism seems to indicate that MDA's position is not in synch with public norms/interest.
HOW THE FCP CAN HELP
According to the MDA, the terms of the reference of the FCP are as follows: "The Panel is to provide for a more balanced and objective approach to film classification, in keeping with changing social mores. The Panel is consulted whenever a decision needs to be made on a controversial film."
As such, it would be within the FCP's mandate to conduct such a public consulation exercise to check if the position in s. 33 of the Films Act reflects current "social mores".
A public consultation exercise will not be new to the MDA. The MDA has often activated its panels in response to public criticism about the legislation under its purview. For example, in response to public criticism, the MDA recently conducted a public consultation exercise on its magazine content guidelines.
Such a public consultation exercise should be conducted by members of the FCP who are neither members nor donors of political parties in Singapore or overseas.
As the MDA did for its public consultation on the Code of Practice for Market Conduct in the Provision of Mass Media Services, the findings of the public consultation exercise on s. 33 of the Films Act should also be made available on the MDA website.
These measures will enable the public consultation exercise to be conducted in a neutral, fair and transparent manner.
CONCLUSION
Clearly, a public consultation exercise can help the MDA better decide on the way forward for s. 33 of the Films Act. And it should be done soon!
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Giving Racists Second Chances
ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN TODAY (SINGAPORE) ON 28 APRIL 2005
Chua Cheng Zhan is a name that the people of Singapore, especially its ethnic minorities, will remember for a while to come.
He is a scholar of Singapore's prestigious public service, whose views have given a new lease of life to the spectre of racial insensitivity.
Chua, a 21-year-old mathematics student at Northwestern University in the United States, wrote recently in his online diary: "somehow, the singaporean association here in my school has become an Indian association. So gross. some more non-singaporean."
He continued: "ya. I discovered I'm so racist. at the club (under lighting in which everyone is supposed to look good), i still find indians and filipinos (dark ones) so repulsive n such a turn-off."
His derogatory remarks, and more, are now freely available on the Internet.
Something similar happened when Choo Wee Khiang, a member of Singapore's Parliament from the dominant party, took advantage of the privilege accorded to him by the House to make disparaging remarks about the same group of ethnic minorities.
He told his fellow legislators in 1992: "One evening, I drove to Little India and it was pitch dark but not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around."
At that time, not many dared to call for his removal from office.
Choo apologised for his racist remarks and the matter was swiftly brought to a close by Singapore's leaders, who said the apology had been accepted.
Unfortunately, the incident merely preceded the revelation of greater character flaw.
Soon after, Choo pleaded guilty to the charge of abetting his brother-in-law in using false invoices to cheat a finance company into granting loans of around $1 million.
He was sentenced to two weeks in jail, fined $10,000 and barred from contesting parliamentary elections for five years. He now keeps a low profile.
As such, it is no surprise that many in Singapore find it difficult to accept Chua's apology and the subsequent retraction of his remarks.
There have been calls for the Public Service Commission to revoke his scholarship and others have asked that he never be allowed to take a position of responsibility in Government.
As noted in the Tomorrow Bulletin of Singapore Bloggers:
"Calling for his head, or asking for his scholarship to be revoked, serves no purpose. If he is truly racist, doing those things would not change his views. What it would do, however, is to make him hide those views.
"From a broader perspective, making an example of him would also do nothing to change society in general.
"Racists will always be racists, and find reasons to be racists. Only they themselves can change their minds, not us."
The commentator then provides some wise words of caution: "What we have to be watchful for is whether his racist thoughts impact the way he acts if and when he ever attains public office."
Indeed, Chua's remarks raise some questions that Singaporeans must confront sooner or later.
Are his remarks a reflection of a younger generation that is less racially tolerant?
Or do they merely highlight a heightened state of racial consciousness?
To what extent does it reflect the psyche of the future leaders of Singapore?
While asking these questions, we must also find ways to deal with the likes of Chua Cheng Zhan.
Do we allow them to carry on with their lives after an apology or apply the iron hand?
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has said that we can be a more gracious and forgiving society. I prefer to give people a second chance.
As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at his swearing-in ceremony: "We must give people a second chance, for those who have tasted failure may be the wiser and stronger ones among us. Ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore."
Chua deserves a second opportunity to more constructively contribute to Singapore.
If he becomes another Choo Wee Khiang, it's his loss.
If he learns from this experience to become a better person, it is Singapore's gain.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Chua Cheng Zhan is a name that the people of Singapore, especially its ethnic minorities, will remember for a while to come.
He is a scholar of Singapore's prestigious public service, whose views have given a new lease of life to the spectre of racial insensitivity.
Chua, a 21-year-old mathematics student at Northwestern University in the United States, wrote recently in his online diary: "somehow, the singaporean association here in my school has become an Indian association. So gross. some more non-singaporean."
He continued: "ya. I discovered I'm so racist. at the club (under lighting in which everyone is supposed to look good), i still find indians and filipinos (dark ones) so repulsive n such a turn-off."
His derogatory remarks, and more, are now freely available on the Internet.
Something similar happened when Choo Wee Khiang, a member of Singapore's Parliament from the dominant party, took advantage of the privilege accorded to him by the House to make disparaging remarks about the same group of ethnic minorities.
He told his fellow legislators in 1992: "One evening, I drove to Little India and it was pitch dark but not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around."
At that time, not many dared to call for his removal from office.
Choo apologised for his racist remarks and the matter was swiftly brought to a close by Singapore's leaders, who said the apology had been accepted.
Unfortunately, the incident merely preceded the revelation of greater character flaw.
Soon after, Choo pleaded guilty to the charge of abetting his brother-in-law in using false invoices to cheat a finance company into granting loans of around $1 million.
He was sentenced to two weeks in jail, fined $10,000 and barred from contesting parliamentary elections for five years. He now keeps a low profile.
As such, it is no surprise that many in Singapore find it difficult to accept Chua's apology and the subsequent retraction of his remarks.
There have been calls for the Public Service Commission to revoke his scholarship and others have asked that he never be allowed to take a position of responsibility in Government.
As noted in the Tomorrow Bulletin of Singapore Bloggers:
"Calling for his head, or asking for his scholarship to be revoked, serves no purpose. If he is truly racist, doing those things would not change his views. What it would do, however, is to make him hide those views.
"From a broader perspective, making an example of him would also do nothing to change society in general.
"Racists will always be racists, and find reasons to be racists. Only they themselves can change their minds, not us."
The commentator then provides some wise words of caution: "What we have to be watchful for is whether his racist thoughts impact the way he acts if and when he ever attains public office."
Indeed, Chua's remarks raise some questions that Singaporeans must confront sooner or later.
Are his remarks a reflection of a younger generation that is less racially tolerant?
Or do they merely highlight a heightened state of racial consciousness?
To what extent does it reflect the psyche of the future leaders of Singapore?
While asking these questions, we must also find ways to deal with the likes of Chua Cheng Zhan.
Do we allow them to carry on with their lives after an apology or apply the iron hand?
Former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has said that we can be a more gracious and forgiving society. I prefer to give people a second chance.
As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at his swearing-in ceremony: "We must give people a second chance, for those who have tasted failure may be the wiser and stronger ones among us. Ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore."
Chua deserves a second opportunity to more constructively contribute to Singapore.
If he becomes another Choo Wee Khiang, it's his loss.
If he learns from this experience to become a better person, it is Singapore's gain.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Letters to Press & Climate of Fear
INTERVIEW WITH TODAY (SINGAPORE) IN NOVEMBER 2004
What motivates your letter writing/public dialogue exploits?
I started writing letters to the press (and everyone else) in 1999.
At the end of my national service, I realised that my command of English had taken a beating. My grammar was twisted and my vocabulary was constipated.
It was thus, in the first instance, a bold (arguably, foolish) attempt to improve the language.
In the second instance, there was this fire in the belly, which my friends will tell you has grown over the years and one that I have been wanting to put out.
And finally, my Singaporean teachers used to tell me that I talk too much. I guess this was one way of taking the talk for a walk.
What does it take to be one - someone so involved in public dialogue - in Singapore?
Nothing. But, as you go down this less travelled road, the experience of those few that journey this far will show you why this is such a road less travelled.
Don't ever expect anything in return. Sometimes, it can cost you, not just your career but your future in Singapore too.
While such an unfortunate consequence, fortunately, is limited to a minority, it is enough to keep a majority of Singaporeans entranced in a climate of fear, to self-censor and sit on the fence.
And so dead are the famous E W Barkers, who in being pro-Singapore offered a contrarian perspective - no offence intended to this late founding father, of course.
How real is the fear "myth" in Singapore that prevents Singaporeans from speaking up, taking part?
The fear is real and near. Questions like "does he have a political agenda", "who is funding her work", "does he intend to join the opposition" or "is she with the Think Centre" are common parlance. Such veiled language is piercing enough to prevent Singaporeans from even thinking about constructive debate and participation.
However, once in a while, we can go far. For example, there is a conspiracy theory making its rounds right now.
The story goes like this: "All this talk about our new Prime Minister opening up Singapore is really a national attempt to identify those critical of present practices. Plus, former trusted civil servants are being encouraged to openly criticise policies so as to speed up the process of identification well before the General Elections are called. This information gathered will then be used to decide how best to re-draw the electoral boundaries to ensure a postive mandate for the ruling party."
Wow, what a theory indeed! I give credit to the creativity of the person that crafted this theory because some people are actually buying it.
Sigh... if only we could transplant some of this imagination into our economy, we'd be a crucible of innovation!
What are some of your pet peeve or points of pride about Singapore?
My areas of interest revolve around three themes - law, which is my first love; the media, which is my "in case the law dumps me"; and youth, which is the source of my energy!
Points of pride about Singapore:
1) After returning from London, the journey from Changi Airport to home in Jurong - very scenic;
2) Singlish;
3) Little India - "the land of darkness", as one MP infamously labelled; and
4) the Durian or Esplanade!
Give me a bit of your background - how long have you been writing letters, then why did you move on to writing commentaries and organising forums.
I moved on to writing commentaries, when I felt there was a dire need in Singapore to offer a Singaporean perspective that one doesn't normally read in the established national broadsheet. (Otherwise, the foreigners will keep throwing stones at your country, saying that there is no space to express a different perspective in Singapore!)
These were concerns that the then Sintercom editors shared, and these empowering revolutionaries paved the way by showing me that such space does exist.
I first started contributing to SG_Daily, a section of the old Sintercom that still survives.
Some of the commentaries that I posted here went on to be mirrored on other websites like Singapore Window and Littlespeck.Com. Then, I started writing for Today.
I still regularly contribute some articles to two alternative spaces: New Sintercom (Provided kindly by the anonymous New Sintercom Editor)and Big Trumpet Magazine (Provided kindly by NTUC Income).
As for organising forums, it is something that has come out naturally from my involvement in voluntary bodies like the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association and Insurance Law Assocation (Singapore). These forums have a professional bias.
With the relaxation of the public entertainment licensing legislation, I am now tinkering with the idea of organising a forum by youths for youths like me.
One of my friends even suggested that we organise a "talk-cock-sing-song" festival in Speakers' Corner!
Let's see where this tinkering takes me; it's in procrastination mode for now.
How would you describe the way critical feedback, especially, is taken by the civil service or government - warmly welcomed? barely tolerated? reluctantly considered? ignored? Or does it run the gamut, depending on the area of feedback?
When you speak to a fool, you are likely to come out thinking you were the greater fool. It is better, in such cases, to forget the fool. With some practice, as is true with any other skill, you will know who the fools are.
A person who is serious about hearing from you will listen to what you say. He will not ask about your background, unless you share that with him. He will respect you as a fellow human being. He will make detailed notes, rather than depend on another person to do it for him. He will engage or even challenge you. You will learn something from him and he will learn something from you. Soon after, you will know he paid attention to what you said because what you provided [to] him will become measurable outcomes.
That is the high standard my Member of Parliament, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, has achieved. All Singaporeans - and not only those in the civil service or government - should aim to achieve this standard.
What - if anything - has been the most promising development in recent times, in terms of opening up the public space or citizen-official relationship? eg new PM, TODAY's presence, efforts to revamp civil service mindsets?
Without any doubt, the most promising development occurred when the founding father of independent Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, stood before the political party that he has held together for 50 years and recognised the need for some chaos within the dominant party to enable it to stay relevant to Singapore.
I am positive that this one view will soon permeate the arteries of our nestling nation and fundamentally change the way this country operates. This may well be the mindset leap that takes us from "good to great".
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
What motivates your letter writing/public dialogue exploits?
I started writing letters to the press (and everyone else) in 1999.
At the end of my national service, I realised that my command of English had taken a beating. My grammar was twisted and my vocabulary was constipated.
It was thus, in the first instance, a bold (arguably, foolish) attempt to improve the language.
In the second instance, there was this fire in the belly, which my friends will tell you has grown over the years and one that I have been wanting to put out.
And finally, my Singaporean teachers used to tell me that I talk too much. I guess this was one way of taking the talk for a walk.
What does it take to be one - someone so involved in public dialogue - in Singapore?
Nothing. But, as you go down this less travelled road, the experience of those few that journey this far will show you why this is such a road less travelled.
Don't ever expect anything in return. Sometimes, it can cost you, not just your career but your future in Singapore too.
While such an unfortunate consequence, fortunately, is limited to a minority, it is enough to keep a majority of Singaporeans entranced in a climate of fear, to self-censor and sit on the fence.
And so dead are the famous E W Barkers, who in being pro-Singapore offered a contrarian perspective - no offence intended to this late founding father, of course.
How real is the fear "myth" in Singapore that prevents Singaporeans from speaking up, taking part?
The fear is real and near. Questions like "does he have a political agenda", "who is funding her work", "does he intend to join the opposition" or "is she with the Think Centre" are common parlance. Such veiled language is piercing enough to prevent Singaporeans from even thinking about constructive debate and participation.
However, once in a while, we can go far. For example, there is a conspiracy theory making its rounds right now.
The story goes like this: "All this talk about our new Prime Minister opening up Singapore is really a national attempt to identify those critical of present practices. Plus, former trusted civil servants are being encouraged to openly criticise policies so as to speed up the process of identification well before the General Elections are called. This information gathered will then be used to decide how best to re-draw the electoral boundaries to ensure a postive mandate for the ruling party."
Wow, what a theory indeed! I give credit to the creativity of the person that crafted this theory because some people are actually buying it.
Sigh... if only we could transplant some of this imagination into our economy, we'd be a crucible of innovation!
What are some of your pet peeve or points of pride about Singapore?
My areas of interest revolve around three themes - law, which is my first love; the media, which is my "in case the law dumps me"; and youth, which is the source of my energy!
Points of pride about Singapore:
1) After returning from London, the journey from Changi Airport to home in Jurong - very scenic;
2) Singlish;
3) Little India - "the land of darkness", as one MP infamously labelled; and
4) the Durian or Esplanade!
Give me a bit of your background - how long have you been writing letters, then why did you move on to writing commentaries and organising forums.
I moved on to writing commentaries, when I felt there was a dire need in Singapore to offer a Singaporean perspective that one doesn't normally read in the established national broadsheet. (Otherwise, the foreigners will keep throwing stones at your country, saying that there is no space to express a different perspective in Singapore!)
These were concerns that the then Sintercom editors shared, and these empowering revolutionaries paved the way by showing me that such space does exist.
I first started contributing to SG_Daily, a section of the old Sintercom that still survives.
Some of the commentaries that I posted here went on to be mirrored on other websites like Singapore Window and Littlespeck.Com. Then, I started writing for Today.
I still regularly contribute some articles to two alternative spaces: New Sintercom (Provided kindly by the anonymous New Sintercom Editor)and Big Trumpet Magazine (Provided kindly by NTUC Income).
As for organising forums, it is something that has come out naturally from my involvement in voluntary bodies like the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association and Insurance Law Assocation (Singapore). These forums have a professional bias.
With the relaxation of the public entertainment licensing legislation, I am now tinkering with the idea of organising a forum by youths for youths like me.
One of my friends even suggested that we organise a "talk-cock-sing-song" festival in Speakers' Corner!
Let's see where this tinkering takes me; it's in procrastination mode for now.
How would you describe the way critical feedback, especially, is taken by the civil service or government - warmly welcomed? barely tolerated? reluctantly considered? ignored? Or does it run the gamut, depending on the area of feedback?
When you speak to a fool, you are likely to come out thinking you were the greater fool. It is better, in such cases, to forget the fool. With some practice, as is true with any other skill, you will know who the fools are.
A person who is serious about hearing from you will listen to what you say. He will not ask about your background, unless you share that with him. He will respect you as a fellow human being. He will make detailed notes, rather than depend on another person to do it for him. He will engage or even challenge you. You will learn something from him and he will learn something from you. Soon after, you will know he paid attention to what you said because what you provided [to] him will become measurable outcomes.
That is the high standard my Member of Parliament, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, has achieved. All Singaporeans - and not only those in the civil service or government - should aim to achieve this standard.
What - if anything - has been the most promising development in recent times, in terms of opening up the public space or citizen-official relationship? eg new PM, TODAY's presence, efforts to revamp civil service mindsets?
Without any doubt, the most promising development occurred when the founding father of independent Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, stood before the political party that he has held together for 50 years and recognised the need for some chaos within the dominant party to enable it to stay relevant to Singapore.
I am positive that this one view will soon permeate the arteries of our nestling nation and fundamentally change the way this country operates. This may well be the mindset leap that takes us from "good to great".
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Parliament For All Youths Please
LETTER SENT TO SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT ON 26 OCTOBER 2004
Last week, a group of youths gathered to debate a "Youth Engagement Bill" in Parliament. These youths were predominantly members of the ruling party or friends of such members.
The event was extensively covered by the media as a matter of national interest.
I commend your team for making such events possible. Such events are useful for the development of an active citizenry.
Nevertheless, some readers and viewers may have come away with the impression that only members of the ruling party are given such opportunities [myself included].
This comes as no surprise since this appears to be an extension of what Parliament provides on its website: "Be the Speaker, Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition for a day! Our programme will take students through a debate on a Bill in a specially created Moot Parliament Chamber. It is designed to allow students to have fun debating and learning about some parliamentary procedures. This programme is open to Junior College and Polytechnic students only."
I encourage Parliament, as a non-partisan organ of state, to likewise extend such opportunities to all youths, irrespective of their political connections or affiliations.
I will be making this letter and your reply (if any) available to members of the public, who I think would be interested to hear from your team on this matter.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
REPLY FROM SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT
The Education Department of the Singapore Parliament organises programmes for the public, especially students, to make them aware of what Parliament is all about. Among the activities carried out are conducted tours of Parliament House, attendance at sittings of Parliament and participation in moot Parliaments.
In addition, Members of Parliament may host groups for educational purposes without involving the Education Department, as in the recent event you referred to. However, this is subject to the availability of the premises, the payment of rentals, and the approval of the Speaker of Parliament.
Abdullah Tarmugi
Speaker Of Parliament
Last week, a group of youths gathered to debate a "Youth Engagement Bill" in Parliament. These youths were predominantly members of the ruling party or friends of such members.
The event was extensively covered by the media as a matter of national interest.
I commend your team for making such events possible. Such events are useful for the development of an active citizenry.
Nevertheless, some readers and viewers may have come away with the impression that only members of the ruling party are given such opportunities [myself included].
This comes as no surprise since this appears to be an extension of what Parliament provides on its website: "Be the Speaker, Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition for a day! Our programme will take students through a debate on a Bill in a specially created Moot Parliament Chamber. It is designed to allow students to have fun debating and learning about some parliamentary procedures. This programme is open to Junior College and Polytechnic students only."
I encourage Parliament, as a non-partisan organ of state, to likewise extend such opportunities to all youths, irrespective of their political connections or affiliations.
I will be making this letter and your reply (if any) available to members of the public, who I think would be interested to hear from your team on this matter.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
REPLY FROM SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT
The Education Department of the Singapore Parliament organises programmes for the public, especially students, to make them aware of what Parliament is all about. Among the activities carried out are conducted tours of Parliament House, attendance at sittings of Parliament and participation in moot Parliaments.
In addition, Members of Parliament may host groups for educational purposes without involving the Education Department, as in the recent event you referred to. However, this is subject to the availability of the premises, the payment of rentals, and the approval of the Speaker of Parliament.
Abdullah Tarmugi
Speaker Of Parliament
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Unconvincing & Confusing Straits Times Price Hike
Early this year, The Straits Times increased its price. Among the four key justifications it gave was that it was not able to absorb rising costs.
Many readers accepted this argument. Some readers, like me, chose not to buy Straits Times on certain days. A few readers even boycotted the newspaper.
The thinking reader then was not convinced.
Shortly after the price hike, Singapore Press Holdings gave out $1.8 billion in special dividends to its shareholders.
10 months on and what happened?
One finds a facelift for The Straits Times. Oh yes, with glossy supplements too!
Was the price increase an attempt to tackle rising costs or merely an opportunity to raise more funds for The Straits Times to spend?
The Straits Times has also made it more difficult for users to access its website.
The reader - even though he or she may well be a subscriber - now needs to sign in to get the information he or she wants.
Such moves by The Straits Times – a national newspaper – do not fit with a Singapore that is committed to providing its citizens better access to information.
The thinking reader is now confused.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Many readers accepted this argument. Some readers, like me, chose not to buy Straits Times on certain days. A few readers even boycotted the newspaper.
The thinking reader then was not convinced.
Shortly after the price hike, Singapore Press Holdings gave out $1.8 billion in special dividends to its shareholders.
10 months on and what happened?
One finds a facelift for The Straits Times. Oh yes, with glossy supplements too!
Was the price increase an attempt to tackle rising costs or merely an opportunity to raise more funds for The Straits Times to spend?
The Straits Times has also made it more difficult for users to access its website.
The reader - even though he or she may well be a subscriber - now needs to sign in to get the information he or she wants.
Such moves by The Straits Times – a national newspaper – do not fit with a Singapore that is committed to providing its citizens better access to information.
The thinking reader is now confused.
Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)