Mirror Ravi Philemon Net

Friday, December 23, 2011

There was no need for TOC to cry wolf

When TOC first received the email about Seng Han Thong's comment past 6pm on Wednesday, 21 November, we were not sure if an MP would really make such a comment. The exact words used by the contributor were, " During the (BlogTV) episode, he (Seng Han Tong) commented that the reason why SMRT has a lack of communication between its ground staff and commuters was due to the Malay and Indian staffs having a poor command of the English language."

We asked the contributor if the exact video could be pointed out to us. The video pointed out was a CNA one which was embedded in Microsoft's Silverlight software. The video being available in this format made rewinding and listening to the exact words spoken that much difficult. (The Youtube version of the BlogTV programme only became available much later.)

In the end, we could not decide if Mr Seng had used the word "PR" and if he had, was he referring to his own PR or the PR department of SMRT. So we decided to err on the side of caution and publish that Mr Seng had said "some staffs are “Malay(s), they are Indians, they cannot converse in English good, well enough”."

One reason we did that was because with the recent failures of SMRT, we did not want the general public to be incensed unnecessarily towards the staff of SMRT. In this instance the staff of the PR department of the SMRT. We were angry with management of SMRT for the service lapse, but we are 100 per cent behind the SMRT workers. The disruptions were not their fault and we also mentioned that in our rally at the Speakers' Corner recently.

We reasoned that if he was quoting someone else, Mr Seng would write to us to clarify or post somewhere the accurate version, and when he did that we would put it up on our website. TOC did exactly that when Mr Seng later clarified that what he had actually said was, “I notice that the PR mention that, some of the staff, because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, from but I think we accept broken English.”

There was absolutely no intention to do a (as Dr Cherian George says in his blogpost), "sensational report on what a PAP MP said". With the recent fiasco of SMRT, (if TOC was going for the sensational) it would have been more sensational to direct the anger at SMRT - never mind if it was the management or the staff. TOC did not do that!

Also TOC did not set-out to mislead the general public by omitting what Mr Seng said. We embedded the CNA video and left a time reference to the exact point at which Mr Seng's comments appeared. 

With the benefit of hind sight, how TOC kept the article relevantly updated was good because the outrage did not become focused on the workers of SMRT. 

TOC chose not to make any assumptions with reporting the article. Dr George however assumed that Mr Seng's "slip could have been due to political naivety rather than racism"; and in the first draft of the article (which is still available here), Dr George wrote, “As he spoke, he waved at the laptop screen facing the panelists, which presumably displayed comments from viewers. Seen in context, Seng was quoting the comment as part of a larger point he was making, that SMRT should have proper SOPs in place, and that in an emergency the drivers’ standard of English is no excuse for silence.”


I have been a part of TOC since August 2008, and I know that TOC is not always right. But we try to do what's right. In this issue, after the report went up, TOC published the clarification by Mr Seng (as an update to the same article), then we updated it with his apology. Then we further updated it with SMRT's response. Whenever we did an update we linked the update on our Facebook so that our readers could be appropriately informed. With all these care taken in reporting this story, Dr George still calls TOC reporting "loose" in hisblog post today. 


Well, TOC did not muddy the water by making unwanted assumptions. We don't have a need to paint Mr Seng as a racist. When we could not accurately verify what Mr Seng said, we chose to err on the side of caution. 

And as it turned out, TOC did not misrepresent Mr Seng at all. SMRT in their statement on the episode that at no point did SMRT highlight any particular race was highlighted when SMRT tried to explain the challenges the organsiation faced in trying to train its drivers to make announcements, as not all of them are comfortable speaking in English. Which means that the comments made by Mr seng were his own.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Ministerial salaries - my view

The following is my view on what the ministerial salary revision should look like and is calculated by using the table above as the base (the table is found HERE).

The MPs monthly salary should be calculated by averaging: 1 - 10th of Employed Household by Decile: $1400 41 - 50th of Employed Household by Decile: $5888 91 - 100th of Employed Household by Decile: $23684 (1400+5888+23684)/3 = $10324 Annual income: $10324 X 13 months = $134,212

The monthly salary for Ministers and Senior Parliamentary Secretaries should be calculated by multiplying $10324 (salary for MPs) by the average of real annual change in percentages for the: 1 - 10th of Employed Household by Decile: 4.9% 41 - 50th of Employed Household by Decile: 7.1% 91 - 100th of Employed Household by Decile: 4.1% 4.9+7.1+4.1 = 5.4% 10324 X 5.4 = $55750 Annual income: $55750 X 13 months = $724,750

The monthly salary for Administrative officers at SR9 superscale grade should be calculated by dividing 5.4% by 3 = 1.8%, and multiplying it by $10,324 = $18,583. Annual income for AOs at SR9 grade: $18583 X 13 = $241,579

The monthly salary for the Prime Minister should be calculated as such: (1.8 X 2) +5.4 = 9% $10324 X 9 = $92,916 Annual income for the Prime Minister: $92916 X 13 = $1,207,908

The monthly salary for the President should be calculated as follows: ($92916 X 14)/13 = $100,063 Annual income for the President: $1,300,819

On top of this the MPs, AOs, Ministers, PM and President should also receive bonuses that are not higher than 3 times their monthly salary, reflecting the strength of the economy, as well as the performance and prospects of the nation in GDP, productivity growth, consumer price index and other relevant indicators.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

PA will openly campaign for PAP

Although PA's grassroots organisations are supposedly separate and independent from the PAP, many grassroots leaders are also PAP branch activists, and the PAP's defeat affected grassroots work in the GRC. Former PAP chairman Lim Boon Heng said in an e-mail to The Straits Times that 'after the May GE, there was a slowdown in (grassroots) activities. In some parts of Aljunied GRC, it has been less than what we normally expect post-elections'. Last week, The Straits Times reported that Mr Lim was assembling a PAP task force to 'take back' Aljunied GRC for the ruling party. He is also a special adviser to the chairman of the PA, who is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Mr Lim said he is working on ensuring that 'there is no let-up' in Aljunied GRC when it comes to grassroots activities, in the face of some grassroots advisers stepping down. 'We will appoint new advisers. These will be people who can fill that role, not necessarily politician-wannabes.'

from: The Straits Times dated 8 Dec 2011

I helped Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss in her campaign in Mountbatten in the last General Election. There were many memorable moments and many invaluable lessons I learnt while helping her in her campaign.  But one incident which stands out in my mind is the encounter with a People's Association (PA) leader from Mountbatten.

It was still early days and nomination papers have not yet been filed. But there was a lot of buzz that Jeannette was going to contest Mountbatten. A group of us met at the void deck of a block in Jalan Batu to discuss her campaign and after the discussion we walked to the hawker centre at Blk 4A for some snacks. As we were walking towards the hawker centre, Jeannette spotted someone she recognised (someone known to some of her family members as well) and stopped to greet him. The person was a PA leader for that constituency. He was wearing a PA T-shirt (red part added on 8/12/11 for clarity).

After asking her how she was, he said to her, "your mother is so proud of you. She keeps telling everyone that you are contesting in Mountbatten as an opposition candidate. But why are you contesting in Mountbatten? Lim Biow Chuan is a very good MP. You should consider contesting in some other wards where there are no good MPs" (paraphrased)

I was shocked! Here was a person from People's Association, which is supposed to be apolitical and he is openly campaigning for a PAP MP! And worse, he was asking someone not to contest in that area and so have a walkover (at least that's the message I got).

And today we read this piece of news from ST. Lim Boon Heng is a special advisor to the Chairman of PA (PM Lee Hsien Loong) and he is unashamedly going to use a tax-payer funded statutory board for a political purpose - to fight another political party.

Here we have the Workers'  Party playing football with the incumbents to show that they will not oppose for the sake of opposing, and then you have someone like Teo Ser Luck (playing on the same team) who has said that he will "step into the breach" in Aljunied and with the help of the well-funded People's Association hope to unseat Workers' Party from that constituency.

Well you know what...for a start, I think the MPs from Workers' Party should stop playing soccer with these guys from the PAP. The PAP has absolutely no concept about fairness and no guilt-feelings whatsoever in using the institutions of the State for its own political advantage.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Complaint to CCS against NTA's anti-competitive behaviour

UPDATE: Competition Commission has responded to my complaint and I reproduce it in full here:

CCS Feedback (CCS)  
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:16 PM
To: XXX

Dear Mr. Ravi Philemon,

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

2. CCS does not comment on individual cases because every CCS’ determination or finding is possible only after a thorough investigation of the detailed circumstances of each case. Neither does it comment on whether it is investigating a case. Having said that, CCS reiterates that price-fixing among businesses is illegal and opens them up to investigations and possible financial penalties under the Competition Act. Businesses are, however, free to determine their own prices independently. Trade or industry associations should not become the vehicle to facilitate price collusion or price-fixing.

3. CCS advises businesses and associations to familiarise themselves with the Competition Act which sets out the types of behaviour that are prohibited because they are considered to be anti -competitive. Any body or person who wants to know whether a specific behaviour is considered anti -competitive should seek legal advice, or file a notification for guidance or decision with CCS.

Thank you.

Regards

Pwee Inn

 --

I lodged the following complain with Competition Commission Singapore against National Taxi Association's anti-competitive behaviour:

Powered by Upload PDF

Download document to PC

See HERE to lodge your own complain.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Suddenly everyone's happy in Singapore

In their debate on the President's Speech in October, the Workers' Party (Chairman Sylvia Lim), raised this with the government of Singapore:

In July this year, Bhutan initiated a resolution at the UN General Assembly titled “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development”. There were a total of 66 co-sponsors of the resolution and the General Assembly adopted it without a vote.

The resolution’s preamble states that “the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal”, and that “the gross domestic product indicator by nature was not designed to and does not adequately reflect the happiness and well-being of people in a country.” Member states have been invited “to pursue the elaboration of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding their public policies.” 

With such international interest, is it now time for Singapore’s government to conspicuously focus on happiness as a national goal? Should policies be articulated to show how they will ultimately achieve happiness for Singaporeans as a whole?

source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/10/sylvia-lim-asks-government-focus-on-happiness/

Then suddenly everyone's happy in Singapore!

Singapore workers are happier than they were compared to previous years, says a Jobs Central survey. (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1164500/1/.html)

Smaller HDB flats does not mean lower quality of life. "It can be a very comfortable living environment" says CEO of HDB, so Singaporeans must be happier. (http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC111111-0000071/Smaller-flats-have-not-lowered-quality-of-life--HDB-CEO)

I wonder how much more happier we're going to be in the months and years to come?

Monday, November 28, 2011

Internet lynch mob and community moderation

Since TOC published Donaldson's story, some 'people' have been private messaging me on Facebook. They have all spoken up for Serena Lee the person highlighted in TOC's article (see HERE) and have chided Jewel (the writer of the article) and me for publishing the article without fact-checking.

The first 'person' to private message me was Andrea Tan:

I replied to her that TOC only reported from the police report (of which we have a copy). TOC also has a policy to give the person we write about, the right of reply, if they feel that they have been wrongly misrepresented or maligned in our article. For the record, Serena Lee did not contact me in any way (or TOC) to express her displeasure.

What has happened instead is 'various people' have gone on various platforms to speak up against Jewel, me and TOC. I am fine with differences of opinion, which is why after making clarifications on the matter on Gwee Li Sui's wall, I did not try to defend myself.

I also tried to find out who some of commenters on Gwee's wall were  and instead of sending a note which could be misinterpreted, decided to see if I could initiate a face-to-face meeting with them. I called the organisation listed in one of the commenter Elle-Bee Tan's FB wall (which is public information) 'Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory' but the CEO of the organisation Dr Michael Chee said that there was no such person there.

Then this morning, I had a FB note from one Danny Tan (who I do not know), and he said:

"Do heed my gentle advice as this matter will not go away until the good reputation of the individuals are sincerely repaired. There are many of us who support Serena and know she is anything but a Muslim basher and she stated quite clearly that though she was anti-theism for the violence occuring in the world as a result, she was not anti-theists. One suspects that in your daughter's lazy reporting and her ignorance, led her to utterly and completely fail to recognise the seriousness of her boldness, believing that generating traffic superceded that of journalistic integrity. Worse, TOC editors still left the article there quoting Serena completely out of context up until this very moment. Many screenshots have been taken and circulated and with the help of the many enemies that TOC has made and the secular community, this matter will not go away until an apology is issued."

I offered to meet him in person to hear him out, which he declined. The subsequent conversation between us is below:

Then, later today I had the most worrying FB note from one Audrey Tan, which is below:

'She' threatened to lift pictures of my daughter's FB page, doctor them and release them on the internet unless I took down the article where Serena is mentioned in TOC and Jewel issued a public apology. 'She' also commented on Gwee Li Sui's wall that "we must shame Ravi and his daughter".

I was very alarmed and making a police report crossed my mind. But I thought I should 'walk the talk'. We so often talk about community moderation on the internet. I hope the blogging community would come out and censure these 'people'.

So far, only Alfian Sa'at has called them out. Of course I have had phone calls of support and private messages on FB. But for such cyber-bullying to stop, people must come out openly and condemn such acts. I am made of tougher-material (my daughter too) and we can withstand such attacks. I shudder to think what it would have been if it was another person.

Jewel and I are real people, with real faces. You can call us, meet us and talk to us in person. We are not cyber-trolls and certainly do not hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Should we now cower in  fear because of these threats and make our FB profile and pictures private?

No, we will not do that! We have confidence in the ability of the online world of Singapore, to do the right thing.

But of course, I will also reserve my right to take appropriate action (legal included) if this cyber-bullying gets out of hand.

--
The full conversation between Donaldson, Amran, Serene and others on the racially offensive 're-post' is HERE.

--
Update: Serena Lee has since PMed me and our conversation is here:

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Have blog will write

Since New Asia Republic has published this article (seeHERE), I think that it's important that I say the circumstances under which TOC decided to publish the article 'Racist posts on FB by blogger – police investigates'.

On 20 November, Amran who is a personal friend PMed me on FB and asked if I knew Donaldson and if I'd advise him to take down the offensive picture.  He also said, "I really don't want him to get into any trouble, not at this period of time. Tried talking to him but he stand on his believe that he has the right to post things on his wall and that if I don't like it I can take out myself from being his FB friend".

By the time I saw the PM and tried to refer to the offensive picture, FB had already deleted it. Even if FB had deleted the offensive picture, Donaldson had continued to post insensitive comments on his FB justifying his right to post what he did.

When friends cautioned him against such postings and requested him to apologise for bad judgment on his part for re-posting that picture, Donaldson defended his action by continuing to say insensitive things about a particular religion. Although later Donaldson came out to say that he was only "whistle-blowing" and that some others who are Muslims had also posted the same picture on their Facebook but were not accused of trying to create ill will; but when a non-Muslim like him does it, he is accused of inflaming anti-Islam sentiments.

On late Monday afternoon, Amran notified TOC that he had made a police report. When I asked him why he did so, he said that he did it out of frustration as Donaldson continued to offend Islam even after the picture was taken down.

So with a lot of deliberation on the consequences of reporting something like this, TOC decided to go ahead and report it as it is. The main reason TOC decided to publish it was because we considered if we were not to publish that a blogger had offended religious sensitivities, when we had published earlier that a YPAP member and a national serviceman had done so, would it be construed that we were trying to protect one of our own (as Donaldson was formerly a TOC editor)?

Jewel, my daughter is a writer in her own right. I wonder what was the necessity to inject in the NAR article that she is my daughter, except maybe to flame her and me along with her. She only reported the facts, as they were given to her, and NAR being a group blog should know that whatever writers write, has got to be edited (and we adopted the most stringent standard for articles of this nature). So, she is not entirely responsible for the article. The editorial team is equally responsible.

The suggestion in the NAR article that TOC should not report on the article because investigation is ongoing is ingenuous because the media (not just TOC) have reported in the past that police investigations are ongoing in certain cases. An example being Tin Pei Ling being investigated for flouting election regulations (see HERE).

So is the writer from NAR suggesting that TOC should not have reported on Donaldson until investigations are concluded because he is a fellow-blogger, when anyone else including PAP members and national servicemen are fair-game for such reporting?

NAR to suggest in their article that the police reports were politically motivated by a certain opposition political party is even more worrying. Already, the Government is using cases like Donaldson's as an excuse to regulate the internet (see HERE), and now aspersions are cast on opposition political parties - that they practice divisive politics.

The question I have for the other editors of NAR is, did they advise Donaldson to moderate his FB 're-post' considering the ill-will it will generate for NAR? Those in the core team of TOC for example are very careful what we post in our own personal FB, for we are aware that readers will associate personal leanings to official positions. Also, who is 'Jay Sus' (the original poster of the picture)?

But having said all this, let me say here that I do not think that Donaldson is a racist. He could be an idiot - but certainly not a racist. I also certainly do not think that a police report should have been lodged against Donaldson. If Amran had asked me before he made that report if he should do it, I would have advised him against it.

Let me quote the NAR article on what I think about the article on NAR which prompted me to write this blog post - "what separates good editors from the bad ones is the ability to judge which stories deserve the light of the day, and which to turn away or keep in view". .

Dr Yaacob's excuse to regulate the internet?

source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1167815/1/.html

The CNA article 'Dr Yaacob commends community's response to racist bloggers', cast all 3 persons who seem to have made disparaging remarks about Islam as 'bloggers'. Where all 3 actually bloggers? None of the people who are alleged to have made the offensive comments, did it on their own or group blog. The comments and/or pictures were from their Facebook.

If anypne who posts something on Facebook is considered a blogger, then a large portion of Singapore (including some Ministers) should be identified as bloggers as well.

Actually of the 3 who allegedly made the offensive post on FB, only one can be identified as a blogger. And even he has made it quite clear in re-posting the picture on his FB that it was a 'repost' and was a 'flame-bait' by the actual person who posted it.

And when Mr Yaacob speaks of a 'code of conduct' for the internet, would this code be something like the Highway Code - which even if is called a code is actually law? If the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts were to use these instances as an excuse to regulate the internet, it would be akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

And also as Mr Yaacob had rightly pointed out by saying,"The voices that came out from the Internet were not just Muslim voices, there were also non-Muslims that stepped forward and said 'this is not right. Let us do something about it'. Therefore it reflects the value that they place on the racial and religious harmony that we have in Singapore", there already exists a code of conduct (not legislated and yet effective) on the internet. So, why the need for a Code which may in fact be Law?

Can you really regulate the internet? If you do that, it will only further cast Singapore as an authoritarian State, less attractive to the investors from all over the world.

Saturday, November 26, 2011

YPAP call for fairer fares and past precedence

If past precedence is an indicator, this would be the response from the public transport operators to YPAP's call for 'fairer fares':

"...but both SBS Transit and SMRT said they are exploring the possibility of concessionary travel for the disabled. SMRT said that any concessionary travel is effectively cross-subsidised by full-fare paying commuters. Hence, there is a need to exercise prudence in granting travel concessions."

Source: Renewed calls for public transport subsidies for the disabled

(For the record, the public transport operators have been "considering" for about 2 years if people with disabilities should have concessionary travel.)

--
If the matter for fairer fares for polytechnic students goes to the Public Transport Council, the Council would say:

"The Council supports targeted help being rendered (to the polytechnic student) group. Currently, there are agencies which serve to provide various forms of transport help for the (polytechnic students). Examples include...Assorted constituency-based financial help targeted at the needy (polytechnic students)...If public transport operators choose to offer additional concession schemes to more groups of beneficiaries (such as the polytechnic students group), the PTC would welcome it."

Source: PTC responds to our petition

If the same matter goes before the Transport Minister, he would say:

“I’d be very slow in stipulating (to operators) how best to run the concession policy.”

Source: Raymond Lim once proposed a way for “completely free” public transport

--
At the Parliamentary sitting of 22 November 2011, Transport Minister Lui Tucjk Yew in response to MP Baey Yam Keng said that the purview of public transport prices mainly resided with the Public Transport Operators (PTO), and not with the Government.

Unhappy with the PTO's non-response to the disparity, Young PAP took to Speakers' Corner this morning to campaign for fairer fares, which was supported by about 40 participants.

Writing about their campaign for 'fairer fares' on their Facebook YPAP says:

"But will the PTOs’ respond? Can more be done if they do not respond or respond negatively? Whatever the outcome, the YP etched a milestone in supporting citizen activism today and will continue to do more."

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

That article on the senior citizen

I wrote an article about a senior citizen recently for TOC (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/11/a-senior-citizen-asks-why-should-i-seek-help-now/). Some people were asking what my purpose was in writing it, because besides factually narrating the difficulties of that elderly person, I did not cast any of my own opinions in crafting it.

Let me say here why I wrote that article. I wrote it because I was angry. Angry that here is this older person who has sufficient money in CPF to pay for her medical needs, but is not able to do so.  Angry that despite having sufficient savings in her Medisave (which was meant especially as a safeguard for the old age), she still has to depend on handouts to get herself treated.

I wrote that article because I was amazed at the resilience of that older person, and surprised that the Government besides talking about the need for people to be self-reliant, still attempts to keep them indebted to them through handouts such as these. Where is the walking the talking? It is as if she is being penalised because she is healthy enough to be treated as an outpatient. The CT-Scan that she has to go through would have been absolutely paid-for through her Medisave if she was an inpatient (meaning she becomes too sick and has to be hospitalised).

A few well meaning people wrote to me and said that there are a lot of help schemes available for this person. I wonder...why is it so difficult for some people to understand that people don't want to be helped all the time - especially if they have money of their own to help themselves.

And while we are on topic of the elderly, I was terribly upset by the report on Sunday Times about the Senior Citizens 'choosing to sleep in the streets' (dated 13 November 2011), I mean who would choose to sleep in the streets?

How many of us get along all the time with your mother, brother, sister, wife, children...? I mean even people who are so close and related by blood squabble over many issues like cleanliness, toileting habits...just because they live in the same house, and so share the same space.

And here you have a stupid HDB rental housing policy which specifies that only two adults (even if they are not related to each other), can rent a flat from HDB. They even do you a favour and give you a list of people who are in need of a partner to rent a flat. And if you cannot find a partner, then SORRY! you shall have no house of your own.

The article by Sunday Times could have been deeper and explored the deficiency in the HDB rental housing policy being the main reason why some elderly in SIngapore 'choose to sleep in the streets'.

What about Mdm Perumal who I interviewed for TOC? Since her daughter passed away last year, she has roped in a stranger (who seldom stays in that house) to be the co-renter of her rental HDB flat. A flat - no wait a minute...a HOME - she has lived in most of her life.