1. Eye of Africa (Mauritania)
2. The Belize Blue Hole
3. Suqatra Island (Yemen)
4. Pamukkale (Turkey)
5. The Bermuda Triangle
read more
05/05/2015
04/05/2015
President declares August 7 a public holiday for SG50
August 7 will be a public holiday in Singapore this year to commemorate the nation's 50 years of independence, which will extend the Jubilee weekend over four days.
Chairman of SG50 Steering Committee Minister Heng Swee Keat says, "SG50 is a unique moment in our young nation’s history. It is a time for us to show appreciation to our pioneers, to strengthen our ties as one big Singaporean family, and to celebrate all that is special, all that we love, about our home. Many Singaporeans and organisations have come up with ideas on how to make SG50 meaningful and personal.”
Over the extended weekend, programmes will be prepared around the island such as at the Marina Bay area, the Singapore Botanic Gardens, parks, and the Sports Hub. There will also be carnivals and mini-parades being held in neighbourhoods for families, friends and neighbours to spend time together.
read more
SG50 plans may be adjusted
The SG50 steering committee will consider whether to adjust plans for the Republic’s 50th birthday celebrations, in light of the death of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, said its chairman Heng Swee Keat.
Mr Heng, who is Education Minister, today (March 30) told reporters this on the sidelines of a visit to Changkat Primary School. Asked by reporters about whether the festivities will take into account Mr Lee’s death, Mr Heng said SG50 and its related activities are about “what we stand for as Singaporeans (and) what we are going to do together to build a better future”.
“How we are going to modify particular aspects of the programme, my committee will have to look at that in the coming days,” said Mr Heng, who added that he welcomed ideas from Singaporeans.
read more
S’poreans request for 1-week public holiday to get over loss of Lee Kuan Yew
Singaporeans from all walks of life who spent the past week mourning the loss of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew have formally requested the government for a one-week public holiday to be set aside for coming to terms with their loss.
They say this period of down time is needed for their bereavement and acceptance of the eternal demise of the elder statesman.
One Singaporean, Zho Hao Lam, said: “Singaporeans would really appreciate it if we can have some time to ourselves and reflect upon our loss.”
read more
Correct Not to Declare a Public Holiday for Lee Kuan Yew's Passing/Funeral
In what must be a trying time for the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, following the death of his father and the country's 1st PM, Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), I do believe he and his Govt have handled the matter in a very professional manner. He handled himself with poise when announcing the death on TV on Monday morning. He was close to tears but composed himself to deliver a fitting statement in the 3 national languages he's proficient in, English, Mandarin and Malay.
And the funeral arrangements and national mourning were done professionally too, taking into consideration both the private needs of the family and that of the nation as a whole. A 7 day mourning period, the first 2 being private, a State funeral and a private cremation. The State Flag lowered to half-mast, the Lying in State at Parliament and a motion/tribute to LKY in the House. All these are good and proper precedents to set and follows the norm in most countries. The tribute in Parliament was a fitting touch, recognising the supremacy of the House as the principal representatives of the people. Many countries use this method. In Australia last year following the death of Gough Whitlam, a motion was moved in the Australian Parliament for MPs and Senators to express their feelings on the country's 21st PM.
I suspect and hope that a 21 gun salute will take place on Sunday and maybe a 'Missing Man Flypast' by the Air Force in LKY's honour. But amidst all these outpouring of grief, there's 1 glaring omission, perhaps even 2. The 1st - no declaration of a public holiday, either on the day of his death or for his State Funeral. However this is a correct precedent to set. A public holiday should only be accorded for the death of a sitting or serving President, perhaps even a serving PM. The other is of course, no switching to mournful music or a cancellation of normal programmes on TV and radio. Both of these things occurred when President Benjamin H Sheares died in office in 1981 (I believe the same occurred for President Yusof Ishak's death in 1970, but I was too young to remember).
read more
Impractical to make all key festivals public holidays
We appreciate the perspectives shared by many Singaporeans on whether Thaipusam should be reinstated as a public holiday. As many have noted, it was a public holiday until 1968. (“Reinstate some public holidays”; Feb 11, online)
The prospect of the British withdrawal and the need to compete for a living in world markets necessitated many changes in the country. The Government decided to reduce the number of public holidays, among other things.
The decision on which to give up in 1968 was reached only after careful discussions with various religious groups. The Muslims chose to give up Prophet Muhammad’s Birthday and an extra day for Hari Raya Puasa.
read more
Can we have our holidays back now?
There has been heightened public discourse on the reinstatement of Thaipusam as a Public Holiday in Singapore. An online petition to make Thaipusam a holiday has gathered more than 10,000 signatures within 24 hours. There has even been an event organized at Hong Lim Park on 14 February to stand in solidarity with Indians and demand for Thaipusam to be gazetted as a religious public holiday under the Holidays Act.
There have been a handful of arguments which support this. One argument which is central to the aim of the petitioners is the disparity between the number of holidays for the major races of Singapore as outlined in the picture below.
It is indeed a very convincing argument. If the strong show of support from Non-Indians for Thaipusam to be made a public holiday isn’t a hallmark of our much-vaunted Racial Harmony, then I don’t know what is.
read more
Why Thaipusam is no longer a public holiday in Singapore
The manpower ministry says Thaipusam is no longer a public holiday in Singapore because it was one of several religious observances that were given up by various religious leaders in 1968.
In a letter to the Singaporean Today newspaper on Friday evening, Ministry of Manpower (MOM)'s Workplace Safety and Strategy Division director Alvin Lim said the religious public holidays were given up due to the need to compete in the global market, following the withdrawal of British colonial troops.
His letter could be viewed as a response to claims that public holidays here were allocated by race, as opposed to what it actually is — religion.
read more
Re-instate Thaipusum a religious holiday
Seek views on Thaipusam as a public holiday | TODAYonline
Why Thaipusam is no longer a public holiday in Singapore
Make Thaipusam a religious holiday in Singapore
17,000 sign petition to reinstate Thaipusam as official
Make Thaipusam a Public Holiday Protest: Saturday 14 Feb
Can we have our holidays back now? | The Online Citizen
Petition To Make Thaipusam A Religious Holiday Gets Over
Petition: Make Thaipusam a religious holiday in S'pore
ConnexionSG - Over 7000 people have signed this petition
Petition To Mdm Halimah Yaacob To Reinstate Thaipusam
Petition · Make Thaipusam a religious holiday in Singapore
Petition to make Thaipusam a religious holiday in Singapore
Fighting For Thaipusam - Five Stars And a Moon
Can we have our Holidays back now? - Ariffin Sha
MOM: Bid to make festival a public holiday will stir
MOM: Bid to make Thaipusam a public holiday will stir
MAKE THAIPUSAM A PUBLIC HOLIDAY PROTEST
03/05/2015
The best and worst foods for your teeth
We can brush and floss as much as we like, but we are fighting a losing battle if we do not take into account the role of diet in our oral health. What we eat and drink determines how healthy our teeth are.
It is important to strike a balance between salty and sweet foods, while also consuming natural teeth cleaners such as leafy greens. The key is to stay away from regularly consuming acidic foods. And when you do give in to temptation, rinse out your mouth afterward.
Here you will find all the foods that you should stay away from, as well as foods that you should eat in order to maintain your dental health. Click through to discover more.
02/05/2015
The Amos Yee affair
Partisanship versus Principles
The point of this post is not to argue in favour of a particular position. This post is a call for consistency. The latest ‘free speech’ saga to hit our society is the one involving the 16 year old Amos Yee. I have my reservations about what he said and the way he said it. I also have issues with the heavy handed response. More than anything else, I am somewhat alarmed by the readiness of my fellow citizens to file police reports in relation to offensive online statements.
These police reports appear to have a partisan motive. We need to get off our partisan horses and address issues on the basis of principles rather than the particular political (party) position that we come from.
Over the years, there have been several incidents involving individuals making statements that could potentially be seditious under our laws. There has been much attention on how our authorities have appeared to have treated some individuals ‘lightly’ or pursued others vigorously. Amidst the public outcry over the Amos Yee video and the corresponding outcry over the excessive response to the video, there is something that I couldn’t help but notice. Whether you supported Amos Yee or were against him appeared to depend partly on whether you were pro-PAP or anti-PAP. (I emphasize on ‘partly’.)
Clearly the lynch mob that has been calling for Amos Yee to be hit hard under the law is not of the same composition as the ones that called for Jason Neo (YPAP member) to be charged in 2011. Jason Neo had posted a picture of a bus carrying Malay kindergarten children and captioned it as “bus filled with young terrorist trainees?” Police reports were filed. There was much disquiet online over that caption. Apologies were made by a couple of MPs in relation to that incident. Given the fact that Jason Neo was a YPAP member, there was little doubt that those that were calling for his conviction were primarily anti-PAP. Were there Muslims that felt offended? Understandably, there were. There were also many others that chose to brush it aside. I know of this from among my own circle of friends.
The Amos Yee video is allegedly insulting towards the Christian faith. However, it does appear that the lynch mob that has turned against Amos Yee has done so because his video was maligning LKY rather than because of the reference to Christ. This fact is plainly obvious from the numerous facebook comments that flooded in when Amos Yee’s video came out. One of those that filed a police report against Amos was a lawyer by the name of Chia Boon Teck. It may appear that Mr Chia was quite offended by the remarks made against the late LKY. In a letter to the Straits Times appearing on 27 March 2015 (a day before we found out about the police reports ), Mr Chia had written as follows:
Naturally, questions were asked about Jason Neo’s posting. Some brought this up, obviously, by way of contrast to highlight the difference in treatment. The stark difference being that Jason Neo was a YPAP member and Amos Yee criticized the person that is virtually godlike in PAP mythology.
The case of the Filipino nurse, Edz Ello, who made disparaging comments about Singaporeans was also brought up. That issue started in December 2014 and was quite hot in January this year eventually resulting in his firing on 9 Jan 2015. Police investigations were still ongoing. The swift arrest of Amos Yee resulted in netizens questioning the police about the Edz Ello case (with the police responding on 1st April that he was still under investigation ) and the latter was eventually charged on 7 April 2015.
Many netizens also highlighted the Amy Cheong case (in 2012) where she made comments about music from a Malay wedding at the void deck. There was swift reaction from NTUC on that occasion in dismissing her (in relation to which I have some concerns about due process and I blogged about it here). However, many anti-establishment persons view the authorities as having acted in a lax fashion in allowing her to leave the jurisdiction without getting charged. Eventually in March 2013, the police issued a stern warning against her.
I’ve used these examples as a sampling of the kind of ‘debate’ that is going on online. It’s a plainly (and often painfully) partisan debate. A person could be a ‘free speech proponent’ one moment when protecting or defending Amos Yee and could be part of the lynch mob braying for blood the next moment when the individual involved is somewhat identified with the ‘establishment’. In the case of Edz Ello, the identification with the establishment has arisen as a result of his Filipino nationality. Part of the anti-establishment rhetoric in Singapore coalesces with the anti-foreigner sentiment. In the case of Amy Cheong, her employment at NTUC and her foreigner status are factors that helped to place her in the ‘establishment’ camp.
At this point, I have to state that many genuine free speech proponents have been consistent over the years and I don’t see them insisting that any of these individuals should have been charged as criminals. There is, in fact, a concern that the law is being used inconsistently with a possible partisan approach. Certainly the swift approach in Amos Yee’s case stands as a contrast to the Jason Neo incident. (Edz Ello and Amy Cheong should be seen as mere distractions as the ‘establishment identification’ is somewhat tenuous.)
The concern that I have is not so much about the staunch free speech advocates nor even those that have consistently advocated in favour of tough speech laws on a purely principled basis. That is a different debate and one that is worth having and that is capable of being rationally engaged in.
The concern I have is with the pro-establishment or anti-establishment motivation behind some of the arguments thrown around either in support of Amos Yee or against him. After the death of Lee Kuan Yew, there appears to be a mushrooming of mini-LKYs asserting a return to the knuckle-duster days. (I’m not sure if those days ever ended. :-) ) . Clearly, these PAP sympathizers can be seen to lambast Amos Yee whilst finding justifications for the lax treatment of Jason Neo. On the other hand, there are those that are advocating for the release of Amos Yee whilst at the same time advocating that someone like Jason Neo ought to be brought to task or rejoicing that Edz Ello has now been charged.
I do not wish to engage in a naming and shaming exercise by stating who these individuals are. I hope that they recognize their own inconsistency. If you want to assert that the speech-based offences should not be formulated in the way that they have been in Singapore, then a consistent position to be adopted would be to assert that Amos Yee, Edz Ello, James Neo and Amy Cheong should not be charged. If you want to assert that such offences as currently formulated are necessary for the maintenance of order in this society, then you should be a staunch advocate for the equally expeditious prosecution of these parade of characters that we saw earlier. (If you want to be really principled about it, there are plenty of examples online, almost on a daily basis, of objectionable and legally actionable comments that I can direct you to and you will find yourself in police report heaven.)
Let’s get real about this. The only reason for inconsistent positioning with regard to the different incidents is our own party-political standpoint. ‘Find excuses if he is our guy but whack him senseless if he is from the other camp.’ – This seems to be the prevailing attitude. This has led to the madness of filing police reports. I would prefer that the limited resources of the police force be channeled towards real and substantial crime-fighting instead of citizens distracting the police by piling up the police reports because they feel offended by online rants/posts.
Can we all just come to our senses and stop this nonsense at once? Can we not have a serious and rational debate instead of being partial about it or running off to the police for protection because we are not thick skinned enough? This should not be about ‘us’ versus ‘them’. If today we want to whack one of ‘their’ chaps under the law, then we must be prepared tomorrow for one of ‘our’ chaps to be whacked under that same law. Consider the merits of the law and not who should get whacked.
Oh yes, whilst we are at it, can we not grow a thicker hide as a people and not get worked up by the rubbish spouted by others? Back in 2012, when Shimun Lai made a racist remark about Indians, there was some furore on the net and I blogged about the need for levelheadedness in responding to such comments.
We can’t afford to stress ourselves over the comments that others make. It is psychologically unhealthy and counterproductive. We also need to formulate a strategy of response within ourselves in relation to youthful ranting. Confront stupidity and anger with logic and compassion. Police reports, handcuffs, shackles and prison time do not make us a better society. Reason and compassion certainly will.
(I have chosen not enter into a discussion of the merits of the Amos Yee case itself. He has been charged (i) for distributing obscene content online under s.292(1)(a) of the Penal Code, (ii) for uttering words intended to wound religious feelings of other persons under s.298 of the Penal Code and (iii) making abusive communication that is heard by a person likely to be distressed/alarmed/harassed under s.4(1)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act. The last piece of legislation is relatively new and it was passed in November 2014. If you are keen on reading academic articles on the Protection from Harassment Act and do not have access to academic legal journals, proceed to the Singapore Law Blog at this link. They have extracted 3 useful articles for the benefit of the public.)
(Note on the photograph: I have included an image of Kumar, the local comedian/comedienne together with MargaretLeeFlagrante Amos Yee, Edz Ello, Amy Cheong, Jason Neo and Shimun Lai for a reason. For those of us that have difficultly dealing with racist comments, it would be healthy to go for a few of Kumar’s shows. Kumar makes some jokes that will normally rile up the online lynch mob and he does it with finesse. We, as a nation, will benefit from some ‘Kumar therapy’. :-)
(P.S. Kumar – If you are reading this, you owe me a favour for this free advertisement. :-p )
*The writer blogs at https://article14blog.wordpress.com/
read more
related:
#freeAmosYee @ Hong Lim Park
The Amos Yee Saga
The Amos Yee affair
Amos Yee - Disagreeing graciously
Amos Yee - A Mother's Pain
Arrest of Amos Yee makes world news
When it comes to free speech, there are those of us that are
absolutist (not sure if that is possible), others that believe that only
speech that can cause ‘harm’ (which is variously defined) should be
restricted and still others that believe that any speech that may offend
or be insulting should be banned. There are many arguments advanced in
favour of the different positions adopted and to be fair, the spectrum
is much wider than just the 3 that I stated above.
The point of this post is not to argue in favour of a particular position. This post is a call for consistency. The latest ‘free speech’ saga to hit our society is the one involving the 16 year old Amos Yee. I have my reservations about what he said and the way he said it. I also have issues with the heavy handed response. More than anything else, I am somewhat alarmed by the readiness of my fellow citizens to file police reports in relation to offensive online statements.
These police reports appear to have a partisan motive. We need to get off our partisan horses and address issues on the basis of principles rather than the particular political (party) position that we come from.
Over the years, there have been several incidents involving individuals making statements that could potentially be seditious under our laws. There has been much attention on how our authorities have appeared to have treated some individuals ‘lightly’ or pursued others vigorously. Amidst the public outcry over the Amos Yee video and the corresponding outcry over the excessive response to the video, there is something that I couldn’t help but notice. Whether you supported Amos Yee or were against him appeared to depend partly on whether you were pro-PAP or anti-PAP. (I emphasize on ‘partly’.)
Clearly the lynch mob that has been calling for Amos Yee to be hit hard under the law is not of the same composition as the ones that called for Jason Neo (YPAP member) to be charged in 2011. Jason Neo had posted a picture of a bus carrying Malay kindergarten children and captioned it as “bus filled with young terrorist trainees?” Police reports were filed. There was much disquiet online over that caption. Apologies were made by a couple of MPs in relation to that incident. Given the fact that Jason Neo was a YPAP member, there was little doubt that those that were calling for his conviction were primarily anti-PAP. Were there Muslims that felt offended? Understandably, there were. There were also many others that chose to brush it aside. I know of this from among my own circle of friends.
The Amos Yee video is allegedly insulting towards the Christian faith. However, it does appear that the lynch mob that has turned against Amos Yee has done so because his video was maligning LKY rather than because of the reference to Christ. This fact is plainly obvious from the numerous facebook comments that flooded in when Amos Yee’s video came out. One of those that filed a police report against Amos was a lawyer by the name of Chia Boon Teck. It may appear that Mr Chia was quite offended by the remarks made against the late LKY. In a letter to the Straits Times appearing on 27 March 2015 (a day before we found out about the police reports ), Mr Chia had written as follows:
“ I have heard many disrespectful jokes and opinions regarding Mr Lee Kuan Yew over the past few weeks.There were many netizens that got quite riled up about the eventual arrest of Amos Yee and they started raising older cases involving allegations of sedition.
With his death, let all Singaporeans stop tolerating such disrespectful comments made against Mr Lee and take the individuals who make them to task, by raising the issue with the relevant authorities or the individuals’ respective professional or governing bodies.
There is a limit to freedom of expression. “
Naturally, questions were asked about Jason Neo’s posting. Some brought this up, obviously, by way of contrast to highlight the difference in treatment. The stark difference being that Jason Neo was a YPAP member and Amos Yee criticized the person that is virtually godlike in PAP mythology.
The case of the Filipino nurse, Edz Ello, who made disparaging comments about Singaporeans was also brought up. That issue started in December 2014 and was quite hot in January this year eventually resulting in his firing on 9 Jan 2015. Police investigations were still ongoing. The swift arrest of Amos Yee resulted in netizens questioning the police about the Edz Ello case (with the police responding on 1st April that he was still under investigation ) and the latter was eventually charged on 7 April 2015.
Many netizens also highlighted the Amy Cheong case (in 2012) where she made comments about music from a Malay wedding at the void deck. There was swift reaction from NTUC on that occasion in dismissing her (in relation to which I have some concerns about due process and I blogged about it here). However, many anti-establishment persons view the authorities as having acted in a lax fashion in allowing her to leave the jurisdiction without getting charged. Eventually in March 2013, the police issued a stern warning against her.
I’ve used these examples as a sampling of the kind of ‘debate’ that is going on online. It’s a plainly (and often painfully) partisan debate. A person could be a ‘free speech proponent’ one moment when protecting or defending Amos Yee and could be part of the lynch mob braying for blood the next moment when the individual involved is somewhat identified with the ‘establishment’. In the case of Edz Ello, the identification with the establishment has arisen as a result of his Filipino nationality. Part of the anti-establishment rhetoric in Singapore coalesces with the anti-foreigner sentiment. In the case of Amy Cheong, her employment at NTUC and her foreigner status are factors that helped to place her in the ‘establishment’ camp.
At this point, I have to state that many genuine free speech proponents have been consistent over the years and I don’t see them insisting that any of these individuals should have been charged as criminals. There is, in fact, a concern that the law is being used inconsistently with a possible partisan approach. Certainly the swift approach in Amos Yee’s case stands as a contrast to the Jason Neo incident. (Edz Ello and Amy Cheong should be seen as mere distractions as the ‘establishment identification’ is somewhat tenuous.)
The concern that I have is not so much about the staunch free speech advocates nor even those that have consistently advocated in favour of tough speech laws on a purely principled basis. That is a different debate and one that is worth having and that is capable of being rationally engaged in.
The concern I have is with the pro-establishment or anti-establishment motivation behind some of the arguments thrown around either in support of Amos Yee or against him. After the death of Lee Kuan Yew, there appears to be a mushrooming of mini-LKYs asserting a return to the knuckle-duster days. (I’m not sure if those days ever ended. :-) ) . Clearly, these PAP sympathizers can be seen to lambast Amos Yee whilst finding justifications for the lax treatment of Jason Neo. On the other hand, there are those that are advocating for the release of Amos Yee whilst at the same time advocating that someone like Jason Neo ought to be brought to task or rejoicing that Edz Ello has now been charged.
I do not wish to engage in a naming and shaming exercise by stating who these individuals are. I hope that they recognize their own inconsistency. If you want to assert that the speech-based offences should not be formulated in the way that they have been in Singapore, then a consistent position to be adopted would be to assert that Amos Yee, Edz Ello, James Neo and Amy Cheong should not be charged. If you want to assert that such offences as currently formulated are necessary for the maintenance of order in this society, then you should be a staunch advocate for the equally expeditious prosecution of these parade of characters that we saw earlier. (If you want to be really principled about it, there are plenty of examples online, almost on a daily basis, of objectionable and legally actionable comments that I can direct you to and you will find yourself in police report heaven.)
Let’s get real about this. The only reason for inconsistent positioning with regard to the different incidents is our own party-political standpoint. ‘Find excuses if he is our guy but whack him senseless if he is from the other camp.’ – This seems to be the prevailing attitude. This has led to the madness of filing police reports. I would prefer that the limited resources of the police force be channeled towards real and substantial crime-fighting instead of citizens distracting the police by piling up the police reports because they feel offended by online rants/posts.
Can we all just come to our senses and stop this nonsense at once? Can we not have a serious and rational debate instead of being partial about it or running off to the police for protection because we are not thick skinned enough? This should not be about ‘us’ versus ‘them’. If today we want to whack one of ‘their’ chaps under the law, then we must be prepared tomorrow for one of ‘our’ chaps to be whacked under that same law. Consider the merits of the law and not who should get whacked.
Oh yes, whilst we are at it, can we not grow a thicker hide as a people and not get worked up by the rubbish spouted by others? Back in 2012, when Shimun Lai made a racist remark about Indians, there was some furore on the net and I blogged about the need for levelheadedness in responding to such comments.
We can’t afford to stress ourselves over the comments that others make. It is psychologically unhealthy and counterproductive. We also need to formulate a strategy of response within ourselves in relation to youthful ranting. Confront stupidity and anger with logic and compassion. Police reports, handcuffs, shackles and prison time do not make us a better society. Reason and compassion certainly will.
(I have chosen not enter into a discussion of the merits of the Amos Yee case itself. He has been charged (i) for distributing obscene content online under s.292(1)(a) of the Penal Code, (ii) for uttering words intended to wound religious feelings of other persons under s.298 of the Penal Code and (iii) making abusive communication that is heard by a person likely to be distressed/alarmed/harassed under s.4(1)(b) of the Protection from Harassment Act. The last piece of legislation is relatively new and it was passed in November 2014. If you are keen on reading academic articles on the Protection from Harassment Act and do not have access to academic legal journals, proceed to the Singapore Law Blog at this link. They have extracted 3 useful articles for the benefit of the public.)
(Note on the photograph: I have included an image of Kumar, the local comedian/comedienne together with MargaretLeeFlagrante Amos Yee, Edz Ello, Amy Cheong, Jason Neo and Shimun Lai for a reason. For those of us that have difficultly dealing with racist comments, it would be healthy to go for a few of Kumar’s shows. Kumar makes some jokes that will normally rile up the online lynch mob and he does it with finesse. We, as a nation, will benefit from some ‘Kumar therapy’. :-)
(P.S. Kumar – If you are reading this, you owe me a favour for this free advertisement. :-p )
*The writer blogs at https://article14blog.wordpress.com/
read more
related:
#freeAmosYee @ Hong Lim Park
The Amos Yee Saga
The Amos Yee affair
Amos Yee - Disagreeing graciously
Amos Yee - A Mother's Pain
Arrest of Amos Yee makes world news
01/05/2015
Labour Day 2015
In Singapore, May Day (or Labour Day) is celebrated on the 1st of May each year as a mark of solidarity amongst workers. The celebration of May Day as a public holiday began only in 1960 after the PAP came into power. Before then, only workers defined as such under the Labour Ordinance 1955 and those defined as industrial clerks under the Clerks Employment Ordinance 1957 were given paid holidays.
May Day is a day of special significance for organised workers, as it serves to remind others what their collective strength has achieved for workers. By making it a public holiday, the Government of Singapore had intended it to be a day set aside in honour of workers and their contributions to the country. It also makes it easier for workers to come together for celebrations.
In the past, rallies and resolutions also form the central features of May Day celebrations. Through these activities, organised workers symbolically express their unity of purpose and their faith in solidarity. Today, May Day celebrations are increasingly planned for the enjoyment of workers and their families, which include events like the May Day Family Fiesta.
History of May Day - In the early days of Singapore, May Day rallies had the atmosphere of a persecuted sect preparing for another round of war. Mr. S Rajarathnam, then Minister of Labour in 1968, quoted that May Day rallies were intended as demonstrations of worker's strength and solidarity. Militant speeches and militant attitudes were necessary as this was a time when organised labour had to struggle against the colonial government.
As labour relations improved through the years, May Day presented an opportunity to celebrate the solidarity and the achievements of the democratic trade unions, and to rededicate worker's alignments to the ideal of a just society in which men are not exploited by their fellow men, and in which labour enjoys a fair share of the fruits of labour.
In the 1969 May Day message, Mr. Peter Vincent, President of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) stated that "May Day celebrations have undergone a change of character… less of an aggressive spirit, little or no slogan shouting and few or none of the grandiloquent resolutions. In its place there is harmony of outlook oriented towards the advancement of our developing economy".
read more
May Day is a day of special significance for organised workers, as it serves to remind others what their collective strength has achieved for workers. By making it a public holiday, the Government of Singapore had intended it to be a day set aside in honour of workers and their contributions to the country. It also makes it easier for workers to come together for celebrations.
In the past, rallies and resolutions also form the central features of May Day celebrations. Through these activities, organised workers symbolically express their unity of purpose and their faith in solidarity. Today, May Day celebrations are increasingly planned for the enjoyment of workers and their families, which include events like the May Day Family Fiesta.
History of May Day - In the early days of Singapore, May Day rallies had the atmosphere of a persecuted sect preparing for another round of war. Mr. S Rajarathnam, then Minister of Labour in 1968, quoted that May Day rallies were intended as demonstrations of worker's strength and solidarity. Militant speeches and militant attitudes were necessary as this was a time when organised labour had to struggle against the colonial government.
As labour relations improved through the years, May Day presented an opportunity to celebrate the solidarity and the achievements of the democratic trade unions, and to rededicate worker's alignments to the ideal of a just society in which men are not exploited by their fellow men, and in which labour enjoys a fair share of the fruits of labour.
In the 1969 May Day message, Mr. Peter Vincent, President of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) stated that "May Day celebrations have undergone a change of character… less of an aggressive spirit, little or no slogan shouting and few or none of the grandiloquent resolutions. In its place there is harmony of outlook oriented towards the advancement of our developing economy".
read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)