She walks to school with the lunch she packed
Nobody knows what she’s holdin’ back
Wearin the same dress she wore yesterday
She hides the bruises with linen and lace

The teacher wonders but she doesn’t ask
Its hard to see the pain behind the mask
Bearing the burden of a secret storm
Sometimes she wishes she was never born

Through the wind and the rain
She stands hard as a stone
In a world that she can’t rise above
But her dreams give her wings
And she flies to a place where she’s loved
Concrete angel

Somebody cries in the middle of the night
The neighbors hear, but they turn out the lights
A fragile soul caught in the hands of fate
When morning comes it’ll be too late

Through the wind and the rain
She stands hard as a stone
In a world that she can’t rise above
But her dreams give her wings
And she flies to a place where she’s loved
Concrete angel

A statue stands in a shaded place
An angel girl with an upturned face
A name is written on a polished rock
A broken heart that the world forgot

Through the wind and the rain
She stands hard as a stone
In a world that she can’t rise above
But her dreams give her wings
And she flies to a place where she’s loved
Concrete angel

Soaring prices - the poor cannot afford three basic meals.

I am reminded of a Professor Kishore Mahbubani who said,

“There are no homeless, destitute or starving people ..Poverty has been eradicated`

Incidentally, this is the same gentleman who slam our folks for thinking lesser of NUS and sending their kids to overseas universities - but surprise surprise, his own children are in overseas universities.

I am also reminded of a Dr Vivian Balakrishnan-

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, I want to check with the Minister again when he said on the strict criteria on the entitlement for PA recipients. May I ask him what is his definition of “subsistence living”? Am I correct to say that, out of $260 per month for PA recipients, $100 goes to rental, power supply and S&C and leaving them with only $5 a day to live on? Am I correct to say that any basic meal in any hawker centre is already $2.50 to $3.00 per meal? Therefore, is it too much to ask for just three meals a day as an entitlement for the PA recipients?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?

Apparently, some can’t even afford three meals in a hawker centre.

And now, Mrs Yu Foo Yee Shoon is questioning as to how much is enough in the issue of aid for the poorest households in Singapore.

I am reminded of Wee Shu Min again. Elitist. Doesn’t know much about the lower income group and couldn’t care less. Unsympathetic. Uncaring.

At times like this, take heart that there are still good folks who know the meaning of empathy.

Rather hilarious. I think it’s good to laugh at ourselves a little sometimes.

After throwing a prima donna tantrum, Ms Lee Bee Wah later back-wheeled - “I didn’t say Antony and the coach will be sacked” and “I don’t want to be entangled in this whole issue”.

In my house, if my children were to pull such a stunt, there will be consequences. I love my children dearly but I will not accommodate lying and twisting of words - herein lies the issue of honesty, responsibility and integrity.

When contacted by ST last night, her first words were “I’m bruised”, which indicated a lack of remorse in her actions and a self righteous indulgence.

When asked if she would have done things differently in hindsight, she replied,

‘No, I don’t think there was anything wrong. Maybe the only thing is that I would not have talked to Peh Shing Huei. My intention was blown out of proportion.’

See, people, it’s all Peh Shing Huei’s fault. Of course.

I think she should zip it because the more she talks, the more she reveals the lack of integrity and responsibility.

This woman is not fit to be the president of the Pussycat Dolls Fan Club, much less our STTA and much less a MP. This is the same MP who talks about “pang sai” in parliament. How unbecoming and inappropriate, not to mention, extremely crass.

**

In a bid to stop the downward spiral of matters, Dr Balakrishnan, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports said,

‘I’m very concerned about the way it seems to be spinning out of control because I don’t want a situation where people say things or do things which destroy relationships, relationships and partnerships which we need in order to keep Team Singapore intact and in order for us to perform at the highest level,’ he said.

I guess it is too late. 过河拆桥. The trust, relationship, partnership, faith, goodwill and morale in question have already been destroyed. Given the trigger happy tendency to fire and replace people at a whim -  and these are people who are deemed to have performed - good luck to getting your next team for London.

Following the Prime Minister’s rally speech easing up (slightly) on political films, outdoor demonstrations are now allowed. It’s a baby step forward, but nevertheless, good news.

WHAT’S NEW

As usual, people will react differently. I append some of the reactions here:

EXPAND IF SUCCESSFUL

‘I’m glad that they (the Government) have put their money where their mouth is. But I wish to see public demonstrations extended to the rest of Singapore. If nothing bad happens in the next two or three years, they should start expanding it, incrementally, to the whole country.’

Activist Choo Zheng Xi, who runs the The Online Citizen blog

NOT A BIG DEAL

‘It’s no big deal. It is actually enshrined in our Constitution, the freedom of speech and expression. So it should have been there in the first place.’

Mr Yaw Shin Leong, organising secretary of the Workers’ Party

IT’S JUST A TOKEN GESTURE

‘The liberalisation to allow public demonstrations but confined to Speakers’ Corner is not meaningful. The details on the new rules are just icing on the cake. I do not intend to dignify the tokenism. Why should we be shunted to Speakers’ Corner? As citizens, we will do what we want, where we want. There are no excuses to shunt us into a quarantine.’

Gay rights activist Alex Au

I think it’s a good step forward (albeit a small step).Frankly, even if they don’t relax the rules on outdoor demos, it doesn’t matter, as seeing how people are actively engaging each other in online forums and blogs. So, it is a clever move on their part to “concede” a little. I hope, like Mr Choo, that the boundaries be extended wider. After all, like what Mr Yaw said, it should have been there in the first place.

I am somewhat apprehensive of what Mr Aw said - “as citizens, we will do what we want, where we want“. I am of the Durkheim school of thought that human beings had a built-in insatiability, one only restrained by social institutions. Individuals need groups and rules - in their absence you got egoism and anomie, linked in Durkheim’s study to higher suicide rates. The more choice and the more uncertainty, the more anomie, whether economic, religious or familial.

Also, for a nation not used to such unbridled freedom, a sudden lack of boundary might lead to a kneejerk reaction not entirely welcome.

Baby steps..

So, I think it is something that should have been there in the first place. But I do not agree that it is mere tokenism. It’s probably reached a point where we make noise when they don’t and it’s tokenism when they do. Let’s not become a nation of complainers, nitpickers and whiners.

After all, Speakers’ Corner could have remained a joke, you know. Let’s be happy for the little changes, and voice out for bigger ones.

A MAN is charged with a crime. After a trial, he is acquitted and goes free. Does that mean he is innocent?

Not necessarily.

Witnesses may have changed their evidence or a technicality may have got in the way. The end result: The prosecution is unable to convince the judge that the man had done the deed.

And once there is a reasonable doubt as to his guilt, duty requires that the judge acquit the man.

Said Law Minister K. Shanmugam in Parliament on Monday: ‘It is entirely possible for a person to have committed acts which amount to a crime and yet, there may be no conviction. No serious lawyer will question this possibility.”

He was responding to two lawyer-MPs, who wanted him to clarify the position of the Attorney-General on the subject of acquittals.

The issue of guilt and innocence has been in the air since mid-May when AG Walter Woon stated that an acquitted person may be ‘not guilty” in law, but guilty in fact.

Two months later, Appeal Court Judge V K Rajah weighed in on the issue, noting that such comments could undermine confidence in the courts’ verdicts and the criminal justice system which is predicated on the doctrine of ‘innocent until proven guilty”.

Not so, said Mr Shanmugam.

He described the presumption of innocence as an ‘important and fundamental principle” which the Government is ‘absolutely committed to upholding.”

‘There is no intention to question or qualify that principle in any way. I am surprised that any doubt should at all have arisen about this,” he said.

More here..

**

This is all very interesting. Which brings me to the point of something that had been niggling at the back of my mind since I read about it a few years ago.

JBJ was the first opposition party candidate to be elected a Member of Parliament (MP) in Singapore, 16 years after the country gained independence.

This was what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had to say on this episode when they delivered their judgment, allowing Jeyaretnam’s appeal against being struck off from the roll of Singapore lawyers:

“Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession. Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore.”

Very interesting.

1/3 cup oil
115g unsweetened baking chocolate
1 1/4 cups sugar
1 tsp vanilla extract
1/4 tsp salt
2 eggs
1/2 cup all purpose flour

Preheat the oven to 160C and line and grease 8-inch square metal baking pan.
Melt the butter and the chocolate together, stirring often until smooth. Stir in sugar, vanilla and salt. Add eggs one at a time, followed by flour. Stir until very smooth, about 1 minute.
Scrape batter into prepared pan and bake at 160C for 40 minutes.
When the brownies are done - and they will look a bit dry on top - take them immediately from the oven to cool.
Store in an airtight container for up to 3 days.
Makes about 12.

I was having a bite with the children at a local food court just now. There was a table of three adults and two kids beside us. The disparity between our children could not be more obvious. My children were alternating between speaking in conversational tones and eating quietly. Their kids were shouting “I don’t anything! I don’t anything!” at every ten-second intervals.

Their parents carried on with their own conversations as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening. They were not bothered that their children were being public nuisances. In fact, their conversations took on a higher decibel and that was how we heard that they are primary school teachers.

School teachers! I looked at Big, he looked at me and I swear my jaw was touching the table. He knew I was thinking, if these were teachers and how they cultivate their children, what about the children in their respective classes?

I know some teachers are sensitive about having their characters scrutinized during and after school hours. They say, primarily it should be the education parents should be concerned about. We should not overload them with the burden of being a paragon of virtuous example for our children. The importance of good character, graciousness and integrity in a teacher seems almost unreasonable. I beg to differ. The teacher is one person that our children look up to, respect, obey and emulate. How can it be unreasonable that we, as parents, feel that the requisites should be good character, graciousness and integrity?

Why should there be a differentiation between school and after school hours? After all, you are what you are, regardless of time and place. It is worrying if the teacher puts on an act during school hours and is another person after school hours, is it not?

I knew this teacher who smokes, swears, drinks and leads a lifestyle of debauchery - the details of which I will not go into. Suffice it to say that the behaviour is such that we would not want our children to behave. Her lifestyle after school apart, we knew her to have very serious fundamental character flaws - one of which is a blatant disregard for truth. Another would be that she hates teaching.

Would it be unreasonable to say that we do not want people of dubious character and values to teach our children? Is there such a bad shortage of teachers that MOE would accept people of any calibre to guide the future of our next generation?

I know some very dedicated and outstanding teachers, whom I have great respect for. Teaching is not an easy vocation. But I also know some who made me shake my head in disbelief.

To play the devil’s advocate - the sole responsibility of upbringing lies on the parents and not the teacher. It is up to us, as parents, to cultivate the right values, principles and beliefs in our young (and impressionable) children. So, what does it matter if a teacher has questionable character and values?

What do you think?

Credit: Chua Chin Hon of ST

Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) president Lee Bee Wah told The Sunday Times yesterday that the services of team manager Antony Lee are not needed anymore.

The shock move, which some view as not only too rash but also harsh, is sure to put a dampener on the team’s scheduled celebrations when they arrive back in Singapore tomorrow. Mr Lee will return to the Singapore Sports Council, where he was seconded from.

Ms Lee, who took over as STTA president last month, her first foray into sports, said: ‘I have a new team and will have a new CEO and technical director. It is best that the manager is chosen by them. Antony is welcome to apply for the position when we ask for applications.’

But a clearly upset Mr Lee, 39, did not take kindly to the news.

‘I find it funny that after we achieved the greatest success in 48 years, I am no longer needed. It is baffling,’ he said, close to tears, yesterday.

The silver - won by the women’s team of Li Jiawei, Wang Yuegu and Feng Tianwei - was Singapore’s first since 1960.

‘I’m surprised she did not tell me directly. That would be the courteous thing to do. I have to hear this from third parties. After doing so much for Singapore, I deserve a little respect,’ he said.

Ms Lee, an engineer who is also an MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, had said last Thursday that Mr Lee and the team’s head coach Liu Guodong should be responsible for the ‘Gao Ning incident’ at the Games.

Gao, Singapore’s top men’s table tennis player ranked 12th in the world, had to play without a coach on courtside. He crashed 0-4 to unheralded Tan Ruiwu of Croatia in the first round.

More here.

**

Someone screwed up and Gao Ning didn’t win. That is not acceptable, seeing how much we spent on buying bringing Gao Ning over. Of course, “someone will have to be accountable for this”. Of course. Otherwise, how does PAP account for all that money down the drain? Of course, there has to be a fall guy and you can be sure it is not the one who said that “our ministers are only drawing S$1.2 million.”

Who dares to say it is an honest mistake - let’s move on?!

No, of course not.

Accountability

As an MP and as the newly elected president of STTA, did she handle this matter well?

The lack of social grace and the PR gaffe is so appalling that Project 0812 chairman Ng Ser Miang said he was ‘shocked at the timing as well as the manner in which this decision had been made‘.

1. She didn’t even know how many accredited coaches were brought to the Olympics. It was 4 and she claimed there were 5. This is unacceptable. Someone has been sleeping on her job. Who then “have to be accountable for this?”
2. The Olympics Games are not over yet and to make such a huge PR gaffe in the face of the world is unacceptable. We have set ourselves up as a laughing stock. Who then “have to be accountable for this?”
3. Why the choice for such an unfortunate timing? Can’t it wait till the team is back and for a decision to be made after proper and fair investigations? I can’t help but feel that it is a play for the eye of international media attention. Well, not all publicity is good publicity. Who then “have to be accountable for this?”
4. Gao Ning is a Olympic competitor and one of the top Table Tennis Men’s players. Does a player of such calibre need hand holding from a coach? Does he need to be babysit by a coach to win? Is it crucial? Should he himself not bear some responsibility and “accountability” for his own poor performance?
   
5. Sportsmanship - a basic trait that should be proudly worn on the sleeve of every STTA official and member, is being mocked and trampled upon. The president herself made a mockery of the spirit of sportsmanship. Who then “have to be accountable for this?”
6. The manager was not extended the basic courtesy of being informed of such a grave decision. He had to know from third party sources. Is this the best that a MP and president and committee member on various committees could do in a matter of international impact and exposure? Where is the social grace?
7. Last but not least, if there were not enough accredited coaches sent to the Olympics - such a huge event in the eyes of the government, that we have to spend millions to buy a medal - it is poor planning at its epitome. Shouldn’t it then be the responsibility of the president herself to ensure such a slip should not have happened? Who then “have to be accountable for this?”

Mr Ng said, ‘I’m quite puzzled as to how a decision like that can be made by the STTA president, who has been in office for just over a month.’

Well, I am sure the whole of Singapore is equally puzzled, if not disturbed. 过河拆桥 - is this in the spirit of Singapore?

Just a few days ago, our PM urged us to be more gracious as a nation and to improve on our social graces. It seems that his directive might have missed Ms Lee.

**

Additional reading:

Andrew touches on courtesy and professionalism.

Yaw Shin Leong (WP) recommends STTA to review the future of its current president