I refer to the statement on Swine Influenza by WHO Director-General (29th April 2009)
The WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan, upon assessment of the situation and consultations from fellow experts, has raised the current level of influenza alert from phase 4 to 5 in less than 48 hours.
According to her, Influenza pandemic must be taken seriously because of their capacity to spread rapidly to every country in the world.
She remained positive though, citing that the world today is better prepared for an influenza pandemic, such as through preparedness measures undertaken and the ability to track the evolution of a pandemic in real-time for the first time in history.
However her biggest question ‘How severe will the pandemic be, especially now at the start?’ remains unanswered. Let divine mercy be upon Singapore.
News Link:
Swine Influenza (29th April 2009, WHO Director-General)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Singapore on Alert
I refer to 'WHO raises flu alert level', ‘Singapore takes action’ & ‘Asia is better prepared: WHO’ (TODAY, 28th April 2009)
The World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee held its second meeting on 27th April 2009. On the advice of the Committee, the WHO Director-General has raised the level of influenza pandemic alert from the current phase 3 to phase 4.
Just 3 days ago, a great sense of discomfort tingled within me as I first watched CNA’s report on the first outbreak of Swine Flu in Mexico. This same sense of discomfort grew when it was reported the next day that the first cases of swine flu were reported in the United States of America. As of this morning the list of countries with both confirmed & suspected cases has grown.
According to WHO an influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness. To make things worse, given the increase of air travel, this new influenza virus can now cross oceans in matters of hours.
In Singapore, our airport, hospitals & schools have rolled out respective procedures to prevent the spread of this pandemic. It was also reported that Asia is better prepared resulting from our experience with bird flu and Sars. Regardless of these, Singaporeans must not be complacent and must stay vigilant.
Below are 5 practical precautions for our considerations:
1) Not to travel unnecessarily to affected regions.
2) Frequent hand washing especially before food
3) Cover up coughs & sneezes
4) Stay away from work or school if not feeling well (but see a doctor)
5) Consume vitamin C tablets & drink lots of water
May God bless Singapore & humanity.
News Links:
WHO raises flu alert level (TODAY, 28th April 2009)
Singapore takes action (TODAY, 28th April 2009)
Asia is better prepared: WHO (TODAY, 28th April 2009)
The World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee held its second meeting on 27th April 2009. On the advice of the Committee, the WHO Director-General has raised the level of influenza pandemic alert from the current phase 3 to phase 4.
Just 3 days ago, a great sense of discomfort tingled within me as I first watched CNA’s report on the first outbreak of Swine Flu in Mexico. This same sense of discomfort grew when it was reported the next day that the first cases of swine flu were reported in the United States of America. As of this morning the list of countries with both confirmed & suspected cases has grown.
According to WHO an influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness. To make things worse, given the increase of air travel, this new influenza virus can now cross oceans in matters of hours.
In Singapore, our airport, hospitals & schools have rolled out respective procedures to prevent the spread of this pandemic. It was also reported that Asia is better prepared resulting from our experience with bird flu and Sars. Regardless of these, Singaporeans must not be complacent and must stay vigilant.
Below are 5 practical precautions for our considerations:
1) Not to travel unnecessarily to affected regions.
2) Frequent hand washing especially before food
3) Cover up coughs & sneezes
4) Stay away from work or school if not feeling well (but see a doctor)
5) Consume vitamin C tablets & drink lots of water
May God bless Singapore & humanity.
News Links:
WHO raises flu alert level (TODAY, 28th April 2009)
Singapore takes action (TODAY, 28th April 2009)
Asia is better prepared: WHO (TODAY, 28th April 2009)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
工人党秘书饶欣龙 “先思后冲”不当“小怒汉”
日期:19/04/2009 新闻来源:联合晚报 记者:许翔宇 摄影:吴伟国理念不同，曾与刘程强起冲突，但工人党组织秘书饶欣龙说，经历9年政治历炼，他已非当年的“小怒汉”！
曾在2006年大选，被工人党派往宏茂桥集选区挑战李显龙总理团队的“敢死队”队长饶欣龙日前接受《联合晚报》专访时说，他从“样样都要冲”，逐渐转变成“先思后冲”。
33岁的饶欣龙，目前在私人学校担任讲师，也是一家生物认证科技公司的合伙人。
9年前加入工人党的他，“热血青年”形象鲜明。
工人党秘书长刘程强从政初期，言论风格具火药味，被华文报称为“潮州怒汉”；后来的饶欣龙，在媒体上，成了“小怒汉”。
回忆起这封号，饶欣龙笑说，“小怒汉”已成熟很多。“我体会到，要在政治发挥实质作用，持之以恒很重要。刘程强就曾对我说：‘你必须学会将火焰，转变成点燃的火炭’，即政治热忱与其烈火狂烧，更应如缓缓燃烧的火炭，才能持久释放热量。”
他回忆，入党不久，他建议把后港的青年基层组织的模式扩大到全岛，遭该区议员刘程强反对。为此，两人曾起冲突。
后来，尝试几个月后，饶欣龙意识到，对资源有限的工人党来说，这作法并不切实际，从而明白要落实任何计划，得先考虑它能否持之以恒。
“以前，我招募党员就好像在‘撒网’；现在我宁愿点花时间，小心物色好的人选。”
可能参加来届大选
不排除来届大选会应战，饶欣龙婉转表示，一切听从党的指示。
2006年大选带队挑战总理选区，回忆起3年前，宏茂桥集选区投票结果宣布那一刻，饶欣龙依然难掩兴奋之情。当时，他带领的工人党年轻团队得票率33.87％，被李显龙总理率领的行动党团队，以66.13%得票率击败。
“近5万张的选票，代表这些选民对我们的期望，这足以激励我继续坚持我们一直在做的事。”
他否认当时挑战总理选区是故意搞噱头，而坚称是要给宏茂桥选民“有机会作选择”。
“若对比各自所投入的资源和最终结果，我认为，我们的投资回报率很不错；见识到对手如何进行选战，对我们是很好的历炼。”
对于是否会参加来届大选，饶欣龙婉转表示，一切听从党的指示，但他相信，党在斟酌时，“会把我长期在基层的工作考虑在内。”
News Link:
工人党秘书饶欣龙 “先思后冲”不当“小怒汉” (Wan Bao, 19th April 2009)
Photo Source: Taken from OMY Website
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Opposing the Public Order Bill
I refer to the article ‘Discretion in public order’ (TODAY, 14th April 2009) and the parliamentary speech on ‘Public Order Bill’ by NCMP Sylvia Lim (WP, 13th April 2009).
Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam’s attempt to package the public order bill as a ‘substantial relaxation’ of regulations is done in a rather oxymoron manner. A reading of the Public Order Bill will certainly give any readers an immediate concern over the luxurious amount of discretion that the Public Order Bill grants law enforcers.
The police will now have even more pre-emptive powers to deal with cause-related activism, instead of just participant-numbered activism. Police will also have the powers to deem a person or a group of persons to be a threat to public order and hence the right to exercise a ‘move on’ discretion of the said person or groups of persons from any particular area.
What that also came to pass is that, now the police have the authority to direct any person or stop filming and spreading photos or recordings of police operations or investigations. This is such a direct contradiction to the spirit of the citizenry journalism.
The importance of citizenry journalism is best exemplified by the Ian Tomlinson incident, recounted by NCMP Sylvia, whereby London police’s account of his death on April 1, the eve of the G-20 meeting was contradicted by a citizenry journalist who captured on video the police’s action of violently pushing Tomlinson to the ground when he was merely doing nothing but walking away from the area peaceably.
NCMP Sylvia further questioned that ‘if the above case were to happen here, how does this government expect truth and justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded by public-spirited citizens?’
Unfortunately, Minister Shanmugam’s response was far from satisfactory. He cited the Mumbai terrorist incident and reiterated that such powers were necessary in the light of new media technologies, where intelligence or counter-terrorism operations would have been compromised. Did he answer NCMP Sylvia’s questions? Apparently he chose not to.
Furthermore Minister Shanmugam’s over-arching rationale that the Public Order Act ‘applies only to cause-based activities’ but ‘does not ban such activities per se; it only requires the getting of permits’ is PAP-regime-centric and politically motivated. His explained that ‘about 50% of the activities (sporting & recreational activities organised by statutory & charities) that now require permits will not longer require permits.’
The operative variables above are ‘statutory & charities’. Many will still remember the government’s explanations why WP didn’t get a permit for a sporting initiative - a proposed cycling activity to commemorate WP’s 50th Anniversary, amongst the justifications was the Machiavellian-like legal contrast that the PAP Community Foundation is a registered charity and not a political party.
The government has cleverly-postured the ‘move on’ orders under new Public Order Act as a ‘low key matter’, yet police now has the power to issue orders to persons or groups suspected of ‘undesirable’ behaviour, including being ‘disorderly, indecent, offensive, or threatening’ to passers-by.
My concern is that political development & alternative political expressions in Singapore will potentially take a back seat, as police may now exercise high degree of discretion in issuing move-on orders to political groups reaching out to fellow Singaporeans on the ground.
If the above is to happen, the only recourse for political-alternative activists is to make a case to the Commissioner of Police, but prior to that, complying is a must, otherwise, a fine up to $20,000 or jail term of up to 12 months, or both could be possible. Such draconian laws & punishments seem to be the signature handicrafts of hardcore soviet regimes.
Minister Shanmugam argued further that between enough space for political expression and society’s need for stability. He said that ‘stability has to be given greater weight’. From a political development and political defence point of view, his argument is nothing but myopic. This is because on the contrary, stability would have been enhanced, if a society’s propensity to accept diversity is widen & deepened rather than curtailing it.
Lastly, regardless of international events or ‘special events’, I conjure with MP Sin Boon Ann’s views that government “had gone for the overkill” and “Surely, there are other security-related instruments under our legislative armoury that could have dealt with such issues?” Indeed.
News Links:
Discretion in public order (TODAY, 14th April 2009)
Public Order Bill by NCMP Sylvia Lim (WP, 13th April 2009)
Why WP Didn't Get Permit for Event (TOC, 9th Sept 2008)
Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam’s attempt to package the public order bill as a ‘substantial relaxation’ of regulations is done in a rather oxymoron manner. A reading of the Public Order Bill will certainly give any readers an immediate concern over the luxurious amount of discretion that the Public Order Bill grants law enforcers.
The police will now have even more pre-emptive powers to deal with cause-related activism, instead of just participant-numbered activism. Police will also have the powers to deem a person or a group of persons to be a threat to public order and hence the right to exercise a ‘move on’ discretion of the said person or groups of persons from any particular area.
What that also came to pass is that, now the police have the authority to direct any person or stop filming and spreading photos or recordings of police operations or investigations. This is such a direct contradiction to the spirit of the citizenry journalism.
The importance of citizenry journalism is best exemplified by the Ian Tomlinson incident, recounted by NCMP Sylvia, whereby London police’s account of his death on April 1, the eve of the G-20 meeting was contradicted by a citizenry journalist who captured on video the police’s action of violently pushing Tomlinson to the ground when he was merely doing nothing but walking away from the area peaceably.
NCMP Sylvia further questioned that ‘if the above case were to happen here, how does this government expect truth and justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded by public-spirited citizens?’
Unfortunately, Minister Shanmugam’s response was far from satisfactory. He cited the Mumbai terrorist incident and reiterated that such powers were necessary in the light of new media technologies, where intelligence or counter-terrorism operations would have been compromised. Did he answer NCMP Sylvia’s questions? Apparently he chose not to.
Furthermore Minister Shanmugam’s over-arching rationale that the Public Order Act ‘applies only to cause-based activities’ but ‘does not ban such activities per se; it only requires the getting of permits’ is PAP-regime-centric and politically motivated. His explained that ‘about 50% of the activities (sporting & recreational activities organised by statutory & charities) that now require permits will not longer require permits.’
The operative variables above are ‘statutory & charities’. Many will still remember the government’s explanations why WP didn’t get a permit for a sporting initiative - a proposed cycling activity to commemorate WP’s 50th Anniversary, amongst the justifications was the Machiavellian-like legal contrast that the PAP Community Foundation is a registered charity and not a political party.
The government has cleverly-postured the ‘move on’ orders under new Public Order Act as a ‘low key matter’, yet police now has the power to issue orders to persons or groups suspected of ‘undesirable’ behaviour, including being ‘disorderly, indecent, offensive, or threatening’ to passers-by.
My concern is that political development & alternative political expressions in Singapore will potentially take a back seat, as police may now exercise high degree of discretion in issuing move-on orders to political groups reaching out to fellow Singaporeans on the ground.
If the above is to happen, the only recourse for political-alternative activists is to make a case to the Commissioner of Police, but prior to that, complying is a must, otherwise, a fine up to $20,000 or jail term of up to 12 months, or both could be possible. Such draconian laws & punishments seem to be the signature handicrafts of hardcore soviet regimes.
Minister Shanmugam argued further that between enough space for political expression and society’s need for stability. He said that ‘stability has to be given greater weight’. From a political development and political defence point of view, his argument is nothing but myopic. This is because on the contrary, stability would have been enhanced, if a society’s propensity to accept diversity is widen & deepened rather than curtailing it.
Lastly, regardless of international events or ‘special events’, I conjure with MP Sin Boon Ann’s views that government “had gone for the overkill” and “Surely, there are other security-related instruments under our legislative armoury that could have dealt with such issues?” Indeed.
News Links:
Discretion in public order (TODAY, 14th April 2009)
Public Order Bill by NCMP Sylvia Lim (WP, 13th April 2009)
Why WP Didn't Get Permit for Event (TOC, 9th Sept 2008)
Friday, April 03, 2009
WP v2.009
I refer to the article 'It's the message, not the platform' (TODAY, 3rd April 2009)
TODAY’s Reporter Loh Chee Kong called me to ask about the progress of WP's new media strategy. Specifically Chee Kong asked me about WP's Twitter & Hammersspeed initiatives.
Other than the comments I had given to him, I also mentioned that initiatives are always 'work in progress'. The idea is to establish more channels of communication to reach out and to be reached by fellow Singaporeans.
As per reported I added that the bottom line is indeed not how many new platforms of communication a party has, rather it should be that of what are the key messages it has. As such IT platforms are mere tools of communication.
This is not to say that IT platforms are not important. US President Obama’s elections campaign has given the world an excellent case study on how IT platforms can effectively reach out to galvanise support.
So what exactly is the other bottom line? It is actually none other than the people behind respective political causes that make the REAL difference! Do you wish to make this difference? Do you want to serve Singapore by fighting on the blue side? WP welcomes you.
News Link:
It's the message, not the platform (TODAY, 3rd April 2009)
TODAY’s Reporter Loh Chee Kong called me to ask about the progress of WP's new media strategy. Specifically Chee Kong asked me about WP's Twitter & Hammersspeed initiatives.
Other than the comments I had given to him, I also mentioned that initiatives are always 'work in progress'. The idea is to establish more channels of communication to reach out and to be reached by fellow Singaporeans.
As per reported I added that the bottom line is indeed not how many new platforms of communication a party has, rather it should be that of what are the key messages it has. As such IT platforms are mere tools of communication.
This is not to say that IT platforms are not important. US President Obama’s elections campaign has given the world an excellent case study on how IT platforms can effectively reach out to galvanise support.
So what exactly is the other bottom line? It is actually none other than the people behind respective political causes that make the REAL difference! Do you wish to make this difference? Do you want to serve Singapore by fighting on the blue side? WP welcomes you.
News Link:
It's the message, not the platform (TODAY, 3rd April 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)