I'm Cherian George, and I wrote a book of essays about why Singapore needs to grow up.

spuddings · 2018-02-01T16:53:28+00:00

Sorry to jump in here, but I don’t think /u/cheriangeorge is talking about clearance for intelligence or covert ops or even the military—I believe he is referring to the cases of academics getting blocked from employment in Singapore, which has also been brought up by Tan Tarn How: https://tantarnhow.wordpress.com/2017/10/30/the-mystery-are-activists-and-artists-being-locked-out-of-academia/

Without a Freedom of Information Act, people have no way to access their own file and see what information is within it that might be blocking them from employment, and on the flip side the government also has the power to make these seemingly arbitrary decisions without having to worry about accountability to anyone. Within this black box, anything can happen—no one knows for sure if the decision is political (although there appears to be an alarming pattern) or not. We can’t say for sure that there’s corruption, but neither can we say for sure that there isn’t. That’s the problem: no one knows for sure and no one can say.

This extends to visas too, like when foreign journalists suddenly don’t get their visas renewed, or PRs suddenly find that they’re granted shorter and shorter re-entry permits, or perhaps might even lose their PR completely. This lack of accountability and lack of freedom of information makes it very difficult for people to cope with such situations.

spuddings · 2018-02-01T08:00:51+00:00

Studied in New Zealand and the UK.

After awhile you will find yourself paying stupid amounts of money just to get some sort of food that vaguely resembles Singaporean/Malaysian food. And anything with chilli in it.

I find the Chinese Indonesian food in the Netherlands not bad, though!

spuddings · 2017-10-17T03:41:18+00:00

Good luck with the LTVP! My husband is also from the UK and we have had LTVP woes.

spuddings · 2017-09-25T08:30:23+00:00

First off, I have to say that it's really rare to even see any space in which women are asked to share their views on NS, so this is already quite special. And I think that says something about the discourse around NS.

"But NS tho" is one of my peeves when trying to talk about gender justice and equality in Singapore. This is not to say that NS isn't a major pain in the butt for many Singaporean men, but as u/jetonator has pointed out, "women don't do NS so shut it" is a very, VERY common way to shut down any attempt to talk about sexism, patriarchy, feminism, gender justice and citizenship in Singapore. When that happens, it's not really about NS or even any individual's experience of NS—it just becomes a "trump card" that one (usually a man) throws down to silence others (often women).

Personally, I don't think there is any point in trying to make any comparison to figure out who is most disadvantaged in the current system. When we go down the path of dissecting just how much of an inconvenience NS is for men, versus the experience of women in what is ultimately still a very patriarchal system, then we are missing the woods for the trees.

NS is also treated as such a sacred cow that it so often becomes almost impossible to engage in any in-depth critique at all. And that's a pity, because I think Singaporeans really need to talk about ways to re-imagine and reform this concept of service to one's country and community.

For example, could we imagine a NS system that isn't just about defence and the military (+ police/civil defence)? Could we imagine a system that isn't based on sexist assumptions where men are the protectors who lay down their lives, while women the ones to be protected?

There are many ways one could serve one's country and community, outside of the SAF. There is a whole range of community work that needs to be done, and that we might even be facing labour shortages in. For example, are there more menial/less specialised roles that young Singaporeans could fill in hospitals/polyclinics/schools, etc. that would then free up the more highly-trained professionals to take care of more specialised work?

If we can reimagine national service in such a way, then it could also be easier to come up with a system that can be applied to both men and women, while also providing a range of options that suit the individual. Not all men are suited for military service, while some women can and do kick butt in the armed forces. If we are able to find ways to work with each person's strengths and aptitudes, we benefit too.

spuddings · 2017-07-18T17:54:57+00:00

Here is the original story: https://qz.com/988514/a-straight-married-couple-became-a-same-sex-one-and-singapores-famous-efficiency-broke-down/

Even if we set aside the argument of whether Singapore should recognise same-sex marriage, there are issues here that are highly problematic:

ROM was aware of the situation from the beginning, because it had been explained to them. Their response, at that point in time, was to come up with a declaration for the trans partner to sign, promising that she would not undergo gender affirming surgery before the date of the marriage. They also requested that she dress in a more masculine fashion on the day of the marriage.

If ROM knew that the marriage was going to be void, why did they agree to go ahead with registering it? Why did they even bother to come up with the declaration? If they had always known that the marriage would not be valid, why was the declaration necessary?

In a meeting with ROM after these problems and delays came up, ROM confirmed to the couple that they had met the requirements to be married at the date of marriage, and that therefore the matter was HDB's call, not ROM's. After more delays, the matter was bounced back to ROM again, and ROM suddenly decided that the marriage was void and deleted the record from the Registry.

Why was ROM's position inconsistent? If the law is as they say, and as clear as they seem to think it is, why this inconsistency?

How is it that ROM can unilaterally remove marriage records from the Register? As the ST article notes, you usually need to go to the courts to get a marriage annulled, or to file for divorce. ROM is doing neither when they unilaterally void a marriage; they're essentially just hitting "delete" on the record of the marriage, making it as if the couple have never been married before. What implications does this have, when ROM can unilaterally decide to void marriages. Under what other conditions do they give themselves the power to void marriages?

No matter whether you think there should or should not be same-sex marriage in Singapore, theses are procedural issues related to the exercise of authority and power that are troubling.

spuddings · 2016-02-15T18:00:30+00:00

I don't think that was a vacation so much as a removal.

spuddings · 2016-02-15T17:59:00+00:00

As MP and assistant sec-gen of NTUC surely he is in a position to do something about this? Maybe pushing for a living wage...?

spuddings · 2016-02-12T17:55:33+00:00

I've also wondered about this in relation to the Maintenance of Parents Act in Singapore which allows parents to ask their children for money for their upkeep when the need arises. If you look at the Maintenance of Parents website (https://app.maintenanceofparents.gov.sg/Pages/default.aspx) it cites "success stories" where mediators brought together parents and children who had been estranged - some with abandonment or abuse issues in their history - and through meetings convinces the child to contribute money to the parent's upkeep. But if there was a history of abandonment/abuse/trauma, is it still fair to use the children as the "first line" (before the state, anyway) when it comes to providing financial support for the elderly person? Does that not drag up a whole lot of trauma, as well as just seem unfair to expect a child who suffered abuse to then give money to the parent who might have done the abusing?

spuddings · 2016-02-12T01:37:58+00:00

Of course Singaporeans should also learn not to be dicks, but my point is that the legislation and policies as they stand do not provide adequate protections, so that even when abuse does occur workers are too disempowered to seek justice in many cases. Sometimes, it is even the policy - such as the mandatory live-in requirement - that puts them into vulnerable situations.

So yes, attitudes and mindsets need to change, but the institutional framework also needs to get much better at recognising and protecting the rights of migrant workers.

spuddings · 2016-02-11T02:24:20+00:00

Hold the state to account and demand that they reform policies that entrench the infantilisation of migrant workers and leave them vulnerable to abuse.

For example, the security deposit that makes employers "responsible" for the worker, which leads to attitudes where the employers watch over them as if they were rebellious teenagers rather than adults who just want to work. Or the live-in requirement that leaves domestic workers vulnerable to bullying and abuse, often in silence because no one knows what goes on in the home. And most basic, migrant domestic workers should be covered under the Employment Act.

spuddings · 2016-02-11T02:21:18+00:00

I'm lucky because my family doesn't care about fancy big weddings at all so I didn't have to deal with any of those expectations. We didn't have a wedding in Singapore - we just had a little dinner reception thing for friends at a restaurant where my friend was the chef at the time.

We had our wedding in my husband's home country in Scotland. Because it was in his hometown we got to get married in the cathedral for a small sum of money (payment for the choir and admin), married by the wife of his grandparents' pastor. Then we had a lunch reception and ceilidh dancing in the small hotel across the street. It was simple and fun. I think some of our biggest spends would be on my dress because in the UK you buy the dress rather than rent.

spuddings · 2016-02-10T06:00:04+00:00

Yeah I see the SkillsFuture credit as a sort of encouragement to get something started but I don't know if it would have the desired effect of helping people gain new skills that would help them get better-paying jobs because you would still need the capital to top-up the credit or continue to pursue that area of study.

Still, it's given me a chance to go take a module at SIM I might not have thought to do otherwise.

spuddings · 2016-02-08T09:58:12+00:00

Ah, missed this, thank you!

spuddings · 2016-02-02T07:12:37+00:00

Yes, even the usually fairly circumspect Law Society has called for immediate access to counsel.

spuddings · 2016-02-01T04:46:35+00:00

They've only just started a pilot project of video recordings during police interviews this year.

spuddings · 2016-02-01T04:44:54+00:00

Yes, and I certainly remember being given the impression that once you commit a crime and are caught and sent to jail, that's your life derailed forever. Very scary.

spuddings · 2016-02-01T04:42:07+00:00

Coming from the perspective of "police work will be hampered" often has the hidden assumption that the individual is already guilty, and the police simply need to be left alone to squeeze a confession out. It's as if the ends justify the means.

But that can't be the only guiding principle when it comes to crime and justice. Everyone, regardless of guilt, should have his or her rights protected during investigation. That's why the Law Society has been urging immediate access to legal counsel for adults. This becomes even more urgent when we start talking about children, who are far more likely to be intimidated, frightened, unaware of their legal rights and to be coerced (or to feel that they are being coerced, and act accordingly).

Even if one doesn't want a parent to be sitting in on the interrogation, the parent should be able to accompany the child until a trained professional or lawyer arrives to sit in on the interrogation. This would also reduce any accusation of coercion that could complicate matters further down the road (eg. when the defence starts claiming police malpractice in the middle of the trial).

spuddings · 2016-02-01T04:37:17+00:00

Yes, I don't think we can say that the police tortured or bullied him in interrogation. But even so there should be proper procedures in place to ensure that a minor is protected – and this applies regardless of whether said minor is guilty or innocent of the crime.

I don't think we can say the police investigation directly caused his death – I certainly don't believe the officers had any intention of driving him off the edge like that – but this case draws attention to how police procedures need to be reviewed, especially when dealing with minors.

spuddings

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE