SG Complains

There is also a limitation on growing your own food. How much potato we can grow along HDB corridor ?

Govt to fork out record $2b for tech projects

Bulk of spending will be for new computer system for public sector

By Grace Chng, Deputy News Editor
Apr 27, 2007
The Straits Times

THE public sector will spend a record $2 billion this year – double the previous high in 2005 – on technology to improve service and security, and protect the environment.
The lion’s share of the spending – up to $1.5 billion – will go towards a new computer system for the public sector.

The new system, called SOE (Standard Operating Environment), will be used by about 60,000 public officers and span almost the entire civil service.


It is the largest-ever IT project outsourced by the Government, and will offer several advantages over current systems – among them, higher efficiency and lower costs.

For instance, officers will not need to go through training when they are transferred from one department to another.

They will also be able to access their work and government resources from virtually anywhere, both here and overseas. And because the same software will be used throughout the civil service, there will be no issues with incompatibility.

At the moment, agencies buy their own PCs and software and sub-contract helpdesk and maintenance work to various vendors. This means each agency has to deal with multiple vendors and contracts.

Ms Pauline Tan, senior director of the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA), said: ‘With one SOE vendor, complexity will be reduced, support costs will drop, while maintenance will become easier and more convenient.’

The first site is expected to go live in mid-2009, with all agencies to be fully switched over by the end of 2010.

The SOE will be installed in all government agencies, except the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) and Defence Science & Technology Agency (DSTA), all Education Ministry schools, polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education, as well as the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University.

Also yesterday, the IDA announced that a total of 341 tenders worth $730 million will be called by the various government agencies over the next fiscal year, ending March 31 next year.

Topping the list of government buyers is the IDA, with a budget of $255 million. Mindef and the DSTA come next, with a $155 million purse.

But the SOE project, first announced two years ago, is the jewel in the crown, and the IDA yesterday launched its final phase – a tender exercise to select the winning consortium.

Of the six consortia that submitted pre-qualifying proposals last year – including giants like IBM, Hewlett-Packard (HP) and ST Electronics – four will compete for the prize.

They are the iN’spire team led by HP, NexGenea led by NEC, OneMeridien led by EDS and One Team led by local company NCS. Behind each consortium is a cluster of ICT companies like Cisco and Microsoft providing technology and services.

Each has been involved in months of consultations with IDA to get to grips with the demands of the project.

Mr Seah Moon Meng, president of ST Electronics, which is partnering HP, said: ‘The time taken to consider all aspects of this project allowed thorough clarifications on requirements. It also allowed us to address in greater detail certain important aspects of the tender, such as financing and security concerns.’

Final proposals must be submitted by June 7. The contract will be awarded by Oct 10.

http://news.asiaone.com.sg/st/st_20070427_114612.html

IT SECTOR IN SINGAPORE IS GROWING, THERE WILL BE DEMANDS FOR PEOPLE WITH WEB, PROGRAMMING,NETWORKING SKILLS SO FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN THIS SECTOR AT THE MOMENT, CONGRATS !

Censorship: What’s the way forward?
Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

THE decision by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts — and its use, for the first time, of the Minister’s discretionary powers — to ban a film based on the arrest and detention of a former journalist and politician throws up a number of questions.
.
Why ban the film, Zahari’s 17 Years, when it was passed with a PG rating not once but twice last year, to be screened at the Singapore International Film Festival and the Substation’s Asian Film Symposium?
.
Neither organiser screened the film and it was reported that the Media Development Authority had told the Substation that the film may include defamatory content.
.
Why ban the film when the memoirs of Mr Said Zahari, a former editor of the Malay language newspaper Utusan Melayu and president of Parti Rakyat Singapura, are available in bookshops here?
.
As the 77-year-old told AFP: “What I said in the movie I have already said in my book, and much, much more.”
.
Why create unnecessary curiosity and drive people online to watch the film, which has already found its way on to the Internet?
.
In today’s wired world, it is more likely than not, the ban will be ineffective and counter-productive. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said as much recently: Censorship in the Internet age “makes no sense”.
.
Indeed, a movie has a wider and more evocative reach than a book, since voice, motion, drama and images do tend to have a bigger impact on shaping the minds of audiences — which is why different rules must apply to different media, especially on issues that could get the viewers worked up.
.
I saw the film before the ban. It gave an account of Mr Said’s arrest and detention days — including his recollection of taking Chinese lessons from a fellow detainee. He said he was not a foreign agent, nor a communist sympathiser. He also spoke critically about Mr Lee, when asked for his take on why he was detained.
.
Mica said that the film gives a “distorted and misleading” portrayal of Mr Said’s arrest and detention and “could undermine public confidence in the Government”. The film, it added, was “an attempt (by Mr Said) to “exculpate himself from his past involvement in communist front activities against the interests of Singapore”.
.
Most Singaporeans recognise a good government — and a flat lie for that matter — when they see one. If the authorities were worried about whether the audience would be discerning enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, they could have given the film a higher classification rating.
.
If the intention was to send an unequivocal message, there are better ways to do so, including a rebuttal of the false accusations.
.
The Government has every right to take a stand against what it feels is a distorted account. If it felt that an open rebuttal would raise the film’s profile unnecessarily — which it has inadvertently already done with the ban — the authorities could impose, as a condition for screening, a “government advisory” at the start or end of the film, to refute any misleading statements.
.
Actually, this was a great opportunity for the Government to engage Singaporeans on an important part of the country’s history.
.
The tumultuous period from the ’50s right through the ’70s, with its backdrop of riots and demonstrations, can arguably be described as the defining period of nationhood.
.
These events, which were openly documented by newspapers, shaped the Republic’s relatively short but no less rich history.
.
Yet, our school children do not get a good grasp of these events from our history textbooks — the same sources that described the ’50s Hock Lee bus riots as having been primarily fuelled by dissatisfaction with long work hours and low pay.
.
Some researchers and historians have offered other possible reasons for the riots, such as anti-colonial sentiments and instigation by pro-communist quarters.
.
It is not that these accounts are not available here. One can go to the Internet, visit libraries and bookshops, attend forums — like the one held last year by former political detainees Messrs Tan Jing Quee and Michael Fernandez — or even get second-hand accounts from their parents or grandparents, to piece together this important chapter of the Singapore story.
.
Censorship is a double-edged sword, especially in today’s YouTube world, where privacy is constantly under threat.
.
Allow anything and everything and you are likely to have an uncontrollable situation on your hands. Cut and censor and you will have a population hungry for the forbidden fruit.
.
So, how do we move forward?
.
Engage Singaporeans, let contrarian views find their voice and challenge the views of those who have different accounts.
.
The Government took a rare and bold move to debate ministerial salaries openly in Parliament, although it was not duty-bound to do so. Singaporeans wrote in to newspapers to give their views, not all of them agreeing with the Government.
.
Censorship deserves a similar airing. I can’t think of a better way forward.
Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

THE decision by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts — and its use, for the first time, of the Minister’s discretionary powers — to ban a film based on the arrest and detention of a former journalist and politician throws up a number of questions.
.
Why ban the film, Zahari’s 17 Years, when it was passed with a PG rating not once but twice last year, to be screened at the Singapore International Film Festival and the Substation’s Asian Film Symposium?
.
Neither organiser screened the film and it was reported that the Media Development Authority had told the Substation that the film may include defamatory content.
.
Why ban the film when the memoirs of Mr Said Zahari, a former editor of the Malay language newspaper Utusan Melayu and president of Parti Rakyat Singapura, are available in bookshops here?
.
As the 77-year-old told AFP: “What I said in the movie I have already said in my book, and much, much more.”
.
Why create unnecessary curiosity and drive people online to watch the film, which has already found its way on to the Internet?
.
In today’s wired world, it is more likely than not, the ban will be ineffective and counter-productive. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said as much recently: Censorship in the Internet age “makes no sense”.
.
Indeed, a movie has a wider and more evocative reach than a book, since voice, motion, drama and images do tend to have a bigger impact on shaping the minds of audiences — which is why different rules must apply to different media, especially on issues that could get the viewers worked up.
.
I saw the film before the ban. It gave an account of Mr Said’s arrest and detention days — including his recollection of taking Chinese lessons from a fellow detainee. He said he was not a foreign agent, nor a communist sympathiser. He also spoke critically about Mr Lee, when asked for his take on why he was detained.
.
Mica said that the film gives a “distorted and misleading” portrayal of Mr Said’s arrest and detention and “could undermine public confidence in the Government”. The film, it added, was “an attempt (by Mr Said) to “exculpate himself from his past involvement in communist front activities against the interests of Singapore”.
.
Most Singaporeans recognise a good government — and a flat lie for that matter — when they see one. If the authorities were worried about whether the audience would be discerning enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, they could have given the film a higher classification rating.
.
If the intention was to send an unequivocal message, there are better ways to do so, including a rebuttal of the false accusations.
.
The Government has every right to take a stand against what it feels is a distorted account. If it felt that an open rebuttal would raise the film’s profile unnecessarily — which it has inadvertently already done with the ban — the authorities could impose, as a condition for screening, a “government advisory” at the start or end of the film, to refute any misleading statements.
.
Actually, this was a great opportunity for the Government to engage Singaporeans on an important part of the country’s history.
.
The tumultuous period from the ’50s right through the ’70s, with its backdrop of riots and demonstrations, can arguably be described as the defining period of nationhood.
.
These events, which were openly documented by newspapers, shaped the Republic’s relatively short but no less rich history.
.
Yet, our school children do not get a good grasp of these events from our history textbooks — the same sources that described the ’50s Hock Lee bus riots as having been primarily fuelled by dissatisfaction with long work hours and low pay.
.
Some researchers and historians have offered other possible reasons for the riots, such as anti-colonial sentiments and instigation by pro-communist quarters.
.
It is not that these accounts are not available here. One can go to the Internet, visit libraries and bookshops, attend forums — like the one held last year by former political detainees Messrs Tan Jing Quee and Michael Fernandez — or even get second-hand accounts from their parents or grandparents, to piece together this important chapter of the Singapore story.
.
Censorship is a double-edged sword, especially in today’s YouTube world, where privacy is constantly under threat.
.
Allow anything and everything and you are likely to have an uncontrollable situation on your hands. Cut and censor and you will have a population hungry for the forbidden fruit.
.
So, how do we move forward?
.
Engage Singaporeans, let contrarian views find their voice and challenge the views of those who have different accounts.
.
The Government took a rare and bold move to debate ministerial salaries openly in Parliament, although it was not duty-bound to do so. Singaporeans wrote in to newspapers to give their views, not all of them agreeing with the Government.
.
Censorship deserves a similar airing. I can’t think of a better way forward. Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

THE decision by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts — and its use, for the first time, of the Minister’s discretionary powers — to ban a film based on the arrest and detention of a former journalist and politician throws up a number of questions.
.
Why ban the film, Zahari’s 17 Years, when it was passed with a PG rating not once but twice last year, to be screened at the Singapore International Film Festival and the Substation’s Asian Film Symposium?
.
Neither organiser screened the film and it was reported that the Media Development Authority had told the Substation that the film may include defamatory content.
.
Why ban the film when the memoirs of Mr Said Zahari, a former editor of the Malay language newspaper Utusan Melayu and president of Parti Rakyat Singapura, are available in bookshops here?
.
As the 77-year-old told AFP: “What I said in the movie I have already said in my book, and much, much more.”
.
Why create unnecessary curiosity and drive people online to watch the film, which has already found its way on to the Internet?
.
In today’s wired world, it is more likely than not, the ban will be ineffective and counter-productive. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said as much recently: Censorship in the Internet age “makes no sense”.
.
Indeed, a movie has a wider and more evocative reach than a book, since voice, motion, drama and images do tend to have a bigger impact on shaping the minds of audiences — which is why different rules must apply to different media, especially on issues that could get the viewers worked up.
.
I saw the film before the ban. It gave an account of Mr Said’s arrest and detention days — including his recollection of taking Chinese lessons from a fellow detainee. He said he was not a foreign agent, nor a communist sympathiser. He also spoke critically about Mr Lee, when asked for his take on why he was detained.
.
Mica said that the film gives a “distorted and misleading” portrayal of Mr Said’s arrest and detention and “could undermine public confidence in the Government”. The film, it added, was “an attempt (by Mr Said) to “exculpate himself from his past involvement in communist front activities against the interests of Singapore”.
.
Most Singaporeans recognise a good government — and a flat lie for that matter — when they see one. If the authorities were worried about whether the audience would be discerning enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, they could have given the film a higher classification rating.
.
If the intention was to send an unequivocal message, there are better ways to do so, including a rebuttal of the false accusations.
.
The Government has every right to take a stand against what it feels is a distorted account. If it felt that an open rebuttal would raise the film’s profile unnecessarily — which it has inadvertently already done with the ban — the authorities could impose, as a condition for screening, a “government advisory” at the start or end of the film, to refute any misleading statements.
.
Actually, this was a great opportunity for the Government to engage Singaporeans on an important part of the country’s history.
.
The tumultuous period from the ’50s right through the ’70s, with its backdrop of riots and demonstrations, can arguably be described as the defining period of nationhood.
.
These events, which were openly documented by newspapers, shaped the Republic’s relatively short but no less rich history.
.
Yet, our school children do not get a good grasp of these events from our history textbooks — the same sources that described the ’50s Hock Lee bus riots as having been primarily fuelled by dissatisfaction with long work hours and low pay.
.
Some researchers and historians have offered other possible reasons for the riots, such as anti-colonial sentiments and instigation by pro-communist quarters.
.
It is not that these accounts are not available here. One can go to the Internet, visit libraries and bookshops, attend forums — like the one held last year by former political detainees Messrs Tan Jing Quee and Michael Fernandez — or even get second-hand accounts from their parents or grandparents, to piece together this important chapter of the Singapore story.
.
Censorship is a double-edged sword, especially in today’s YouTube world, where privacy is constantly under threat.
.
Allow anything and everything and you are likely to have an uncontrollable situation on your hands. Cut and censor and you will have a population hungry for the forbidden fruit.
.
So, how do we move forward?
.
Engage Singaporeans, let contrarian views find their voice and challenge the views of those who have different accounts.
.
The Government took a rare and bold move to debate ministerial salaries openly in Parliament, although it was not duty-bound to do so. Singaporeans wrote in to newspapers to give their views, not all of them agreeing with the Government.
.
Censorship deserves a similar airing. I can’t think of a better way forward. Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

THE decision by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts — and its use, for the first time, of the Minister’s discretionary powers — to ban a film based on the arrest and detention of a former journalist and politician throws up a number of questions.
.
Why ban the film, Zahari’s 17 Years, when it was passed with a PG rating not once but twice last year, to be screened at the Singapore International Film Festival and the Substation’s Asian Film Symposium?
.
Neither organiser screened the film and it was reported that the Media Development Authority had told the Substation that the film may include defamatory content.
.
Why ban the film when the memoirs of Mr Said Zahari, a former editor of the Malay language newspaper Utusan Melayu and president of Parti Rakyat Singapura, are available in bookshops here?
.
As the 77-year-old told AFP: “What I said in the movie I have already said in my book, and much, much more.”
.
Why create unnecessary curiosity and drive people online to watch the film, which has already found its way on to the Internet?
.
In today’s wired world, it is more likely than not, the ban will be ineffective and counter-productive. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said as much recently: Censorship in the Internet age “makes no sense”.
.
Indeed, a movie has a wider and more evocative reach than a book, since voice, motion, drama and images do tend to have a bigger impact on shaping the minds of audiences — which is why different rules must apply to different media, especially on issues that could get the viewers worked up.
.
I saw the film before the ban. It gave an account of Mr Said’s arrest and detention days — including his recollection of taking Chinese lessons from a fellow detainee. He said he was not a foreign agent, nor a communist sympathiser. He also spoke critically about Mr Lee, when asked for his take on why he was detained.
.
Mica said that the film gives a “distorted and misleading” portrayal of Mr Said’s arrest and detention and “could undermine public confidence in the Government”. The film, it added, was “an attempt (by Mr Said) to “exculpate himself from his past involvement in communist front activities against the interests of Singapore”.
.
Most Singaporeans recognise a good government — and a flat lie for that matter — when they see one. If the authorities were worried about whether the audience would be discerning enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, they could have given the film a higher classification rating.
.
If the intention was to send an unequivocal message, there are better ways to do so, including a rebuttal of the false accusations.
.
The Government has every right to take a stand against what it feels is a distorted account. If it felt that an open rebuttal would raise the film’s profile unnecessarily — which it has inadvertently already done with the ban — the authorities could impose, as a condition for screening, a “government advisory” at the start or end of the film, to refute any misleading statements.
.
Actually, this was a great opportunity for the Government to engage Singaporeans on an important part of the country’s history.
.
The tumultuous period from the ’50s right through the ’70s, with its backdrop of riots and demonstrations, can arguably be described as the defining period of nationhood.
.
These events, which were openly documented by newspapers, shaped the Republic’s relatively short but no less rich history.
.
Yet, our school children do not get a good grasp of these events from our history textbooks — the same sources that described the ’50s Hock Lee bus riots as having been primarily fuelled by dissatisfaction with long work hours and low pay.
.
Some researchers and historians have offered other possible reasons for the riots, such as anti-colonial sentiments and instigation by pro-communist quarters.
.
It is not that these accounts are not available here. One can go to the Internet, visit libraries and bookshops, attend forums — like the one held last year by former political detainees Messrs Tan Jing Quee and Michael Fernandez — or even get second-hand accounts from their parents or grandparents, to piece together this important chapter of the Singapore story.
.
Censorship is a double-edged sword, especially in today’s YouTube world, where privacy is constantly under threat.
.
Allow anything and everything and you are likely to have an uncontrollable situation on your hands. Cut and censor and you will have a population hungry for the forbidden fruit.
.
So, how do we move forward?
.
Engage Singaporeans, let contrarian views find their voice and challenge the views of those who have different accounts.
.
The Government took a rare and bold move to debate ministerial salaries openly in Parliament, although it was not duty-bound to do so. Singaporeans wrote in to newspapers to give their views, not all of them agreeing with the Government.
.
Censorship deserves a similar airing. I can’t think of a better way forward.


http://www.todayonline.com/articles/185404.asp

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_GEN_HONG_KONG_MCREFUGEES_ASOL-?SITE=ASIAONE&SECTION=SOUTHEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-05-01-07-20-59

Very interesting article from Asiaone website today. I think when the IR opens in Singapore, more and more people will be sleeping in at those 24hour fastfood outlet. Reasons could be they lost too much money and sell off their house or been kicked out of their house by their spouse due to gambling addiction. Other than that, 24hours fastfood outlets are good venues for people studying for exams, the free wireless service is a plus point too !

Thanks for sharing this information. Really is pack with new knowledge. Keep them coming.

Thanks for sharing this information. Really is pack with new knowledge. Keep them coming.

Thanks!,