For example, the following picture was taken at Clark Quay, one of our most popular tourist areas. According to wikipedia:

"José Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonzo Realonda (June 19, 1861 – December 30, 1896), was a Filipino polymath, patriot and the most prominent advocate for reform in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial era. He is regarded as the foremost Filipino patriot and is listed as one of the national heroes of the Philippines by the National Heroes Committee. His execution day in 1896, now known as Rizal Day, is a national holiday in the Philippines."

The Jose Rizal marker located at Clark Quay had this to say:

"In May 1882, when he was 21-years old, he left for Spain to study medicine. His first stop on his way to Spain was Singapore, which was the first foreign land that he visited.

"Singapore was then a thriving British port-city and he found it buzzing with people and economic activity. He visited numerous churches and temples around today's Bras Basah area and was impressed by the Botanical Gardens as he was also a keen botanist."

Apparently, even in the 1800s, Singapore was already a "thriving British port-city... buzzing with people and economic activity."

So, the question is: was Singapore really just a "mud-flat swamp" or a "fishing village", as some claim, or was Singapore already a centre of economic activities, as Jose Rizal's marker says?

Are we selectively telling our history according to what suits our purpose - that Singapore was a "mud-flat swamp" when politicians want to make themselves look good; and that Singapore was a "thriving.. port-city... buzzing with people and economic activities" when we want to impress the tourists?

Perhaps independent historians could share with Singaporeans their thoughts.

He is also seeking the Court to grant leave to apply for a Quashing Order “quashing the Government and/or the MAS’ decision to make a US$4 billion loan commitment and/or guarantee to the IMF for contravening the provisions of Article 144 of the Constitution.”

Mr Jeyaretnam is arguing that in making the pledge to the IMF, the Government has contravened the provisions in Singapore’s Constitution, namely that Parliament’s and the Elected President’s approval were not sought before the commitment was pledged by Singapore.

"The Parliamentary record shows that parliamentary approval was not sought," Mr Jeyaretnam said in his affidavit filed in the Court today.

We will have a more detailed report later today.

Five Letters and a Quashing Order
By Ng Jing Song

Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the Reform Party Secretary-General, has applied for a “Quashing Order” against the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s US$4 billion loan commitment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

This challenge filed to the High Court is not a lightning bolt out of the clear sky.

In April 2012, Jeyaretnam picked up on the IMF’s vote of thanks to Singapore for the latter’s US$4 billion contribution. This contribution was meant to bolster the IMF’s lending capacity as the Eurozone crisis roiled the global economic waters.

This contribution in turn roiled Jeyeratnam because the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) allegedly failed to seek the approval of both Parliament and the President. The failure contravenes Article 144(1)(a) of the Constitution, which dictates that “No guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs...”

Prior to this legal challenge, Jeyaretnam had mailed out five notable letters.

Two letters reached the desk of Tharman Shanmuguratnam, the Minister of Finance, Chairman of the MAS, and the head of the IMF’s policy advisory committee. The first letter clarified that the Reform Party’s opposition to Singapore’s commitment was not due to the loan’s riskiness. Rather, the issue at hand was the lack of accountability. It was a procedural objection. The second letter opened with the same query before delving into the alleged discrepancies spotting the National Budget. Both letters ran into a wall of silence.

Jeyaretnam managed to draw out a response with his next two letters to President Tony Tan. The first note to the President probed if approval had been sought before the US$4-billion pledge was made. More than two weeks later and thirsty for a reply, Jeyeratnam sent his second query to President Tan. He included the quip: “I received no response to [the earlier] letter which puzzles me considering the speed with which your gracious decline of [the Reform Party’s] invitation to the JBJ Memorial Event was received.” Jeyeratnam then learnt that the MAS had not sought presidential approval.

After four open letters to the Singaporean authorities, the fifth letter was bound for Washington D.C. Jeyaretnam laid out his education and financial credentials at the start of his letter to Ms Christine Largarde, the Managing Director of the IMF. In the letter, Jeyaretnam lamented that Singapore’s commitment was not undergirded by accountability, “the speed humps of democracy”. He also raised that this might be symptomatic of a larger problem: Tharman Shanmuguratnam’s multiple appointments, Jeyaretnam wrote, permitted the minister to “approve a loan to [the IMF] without any scrutiny back home and will not even provide transparency to its citizens”.

Should Largarde buy Jeyaretnam’s case, Singapore’s loan commitments could be annulled. However, there is a significant reason to believe that the IMF’s position will not jibe with Jeyaretnam’s stance. In the letter to Largarde, Jeyaretnam lamented the “unnecessary austerity” foisted on Singaporeans in order to amass the country’s sizable reserves. The IMF has traditionally lauded such austerity as fiscal rectitude: liberalising the labour market, trimming government spending on welfare, and running budget surpluses.

It appears that the odds are stacked against this particular recourse. Perhaps this explains the other recourse sought by Jeyaretnam: now in the High Court, an ex-hedge funds manager who graduated from Cambridge University with double First Class Honours and a Masters in Economics from Cambridge University wants a “Quashing Order” against a government lauded for its fiscal rectitude.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

A reduction in the proportion of non-resident foreigners in Singapore, let's say to 17 per cent of the population, would mean immediate vacancies for about 415,000 jobs, the vast majority of which would be incapable of being filled by Singaporeans. The resident unemployment rate (non seasonally-adjusted, again as at June 2011) was just 3.9%, or 81,200 Singaporean citizens and PRs. Improved productivity, higher wages and enhanced training programmes could over time permit a reduction in the number of foreign workers in Singapore, especially in construction. We can certainly slow down the rate of growth of the foreign workforce in Singapore, as the country is already beginning to do. But Singapore will continue to depend on a sizeable number of foreign workers for the foreseeable future. The reality is that there is no easy short-term answer to the question posed in the title of Mr Low's article. A thought experiment may help frame the problem: what if we woke up tomorrow, and all the foreigners were gone?

Who would drive the bus that you take to work? Who would take my blood sample when I do my health-screening examination? Or help build the 43,000 HDB flats currently under construction, and the new general hospital in Jurong? Who would take care of our aged? None of the things we want -- HDB flats available sooner, more hospital beds, more MRT lines and stations -- can be accomplished without foreign workers.

An “us-versus-them” dichotomy in the discourse on foreigners is understandable in the context of contestation for jobs and scarce resources, as well as fears of a dilution in national identity. The upward pressures on the costs of living, the greater congestion in public transport and in parks, the new and sometimes loud cacophony of accents and languages that we overhear in everyday life, have created a sense of disquiet amongst some Singaporeans.

Foreigners, who have historically found locals to be at the very least tolerant of newcomers, are now feeling less sure of their place in this country. Certainly, more needs to be done, not just to provide the right physical, economic and human capital base for Singaporeans, but also to ensure equitable growth and better involve citizens in deciding our future. In the meantime, can we afford to throw out 415,000 foreign workers, let alone 1,157,000 of them, and bring our country to a halt?

-------------------

Andrew's response:

I agree with Christopher that a sudden reduction, as it were, of foreigners or foreign workers will have serious consequences for our economy and society. Which is why my article in Yahoo made no such calls.

I also agree with Christopher that more needs to be done which, incidentally, is what my article had called for - in particular for the Government to let Singaporeans know what its plans are, going forward. The National Population and Talent Division (NPTD), under the Prime Minister's Office, has laid out various scenarios for our population into the future. However, these are scenarios and not solutions. The Government will, of course, take these studies and projections into consideration in forming its various policies. Perhaps it could also share with Singaporeans how it sees Singapore's dependence on these foreigners changing (or not changing), going forward.

The point of my article was to make the case that the negative sentiments about the presence of the large number of foreigners here are based, at least in part, in my opinion, on the uncertainty of where our policies - and our country - are headed with regards to population and economic policies. (Both of which are mutually-dependent, it seems.)

Besides the concerns which Christopher mentioned, if we retained (or even increased) the number of foreigners here, there is also the other side of the equation - namely, the social friction which is occurring. While this may not be as pronounced for the moment, the fear is that it will take root and become a serious problem.

These and other concerns were also echoed by other participants at a recent forum: Is Singapore turning into a xenophobic society?

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

This seems to suggest two trends: first, an increasingly determined and assertive LGBT community, the product of more of its members shedding the layers of fear and self-doubt engendered by anachronistic societal attitudes; and second, growing (if still relatively weak) acceptance by the wider public.  Indeed, a survey by the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in 2010 indicated that there had been a slight increase in those harbouring “positive” attitudes towards LGBT compared with five years before (though it has to be said that this change was statistically non-significant after controlling for demographic changes) as well as the number of those who think that being gay is “acceptable” outnumbering those that do not.

However, such weakish trends are not irreversible.  First, the NTU survey confirmed what was already known in other parts of the world - that people who had more contact with the LGBT community were likely to be less prejudiced, and that religiosity was likely to be the biggest factor colouring negative attitudes towards homosexuality.  These two factors are at odds with each other in Singapore, as despite the fact that the number of interactions between straight people and the LGBT community is increasing, religiosity is also on the rise, given the fast growing Christian as well as the Malay-Muslim populations.

Second, despite official assurances that the government will not enforce the notorious 377A article of the Penal Code criminalising homosexual acts, fears that its hand might someday be forced were reinforced by the legal establishment's worrying affinity of late for a literalist interpretation of the statutes. If the courts and the police were to maintain the strict approach they took in the prosecution of the recent under-aged prostitution case, a single complaint or investigation related to 377A could similarly result in the mass prosecution of scores of members from the LGBT community.  Even the implied threat of this is likely to have a chilling effect on the community.

The government should do better. Its ambiguous stance over 377A is not – as many have rightly pointed out – tenable, but nevertheless in taking such a position, it has already conceded that criminalising homosexuality is outdated.  It should go further and give up the discredited notion that underpins the retention of 377A: the idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, a notion which the NTU survey has pointed out is a significant factor inveighing against wider acceptance of the LGBT community. (This is not to mention another equally valid reason, which is that the government has no business to intrude on the privacy of the bedchamber.)

The justifications the government has for its current stance are weak. Its stated reason – that it is afraid of getting too far ahead of sentiment – does not justify a supposedly rational and technocratic government defending a fallacious notion (that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice) which is shaded more by prejudice than fact.  Its probable unstated reason – that this may lead to a slippery state of having to grant more gay "rights" – is a red herring: the question of what sort of rights the LGBT community should have, such as the right to marriage or civil unions, is still a contested one even in countries that have accepted their LGBT minorities. However, what is fundamentally not in question in such countries is the right of the minorities to embrace their sexual orientation without fear of persecution.

As a first step, the government could commission an official inquiry to examine the case for retaining 377A. At an analogous period in the UK during the 1950s, when attitudes towards homosexuality were still largely negative but when nevertheless a sense of uneasiness had already crept in, the British government commissioned the celebrated Wolfenden report to look into reforming its statutes. This eventually led to the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in 1967, a decade-long process that changed law and public opinion for the better along the way. The Singapore government should try to find it within itself to take that first step towards creating a level playing field for sexual minorities – which is a moral obligation that it owes to any minority group at risk of being treated unfairly.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Then came sex ed in junior college, an unfortunate job for one of my teachers. She was otherwise a calm, capable teacher, but here she looked flustered at having to talk to us about sex. "Err, just don't do IT," she kept repeating in a variety of ways, almost pleading with us for a good twenty minutes.

"So... how many of you think it's OK to do 'it' before marriage?" she asked, looking slightly relieved at nearing the end of the lesson. We looked around at each other. Dead silence in the room. Then one of my classmates piped up cheerfully, "I think it's OK what. If you want to do it, just do it lah!"

My teacher was stunned. "Err, no.. It's not OK! You're not supposed to do it. You're not supposed to do it before marriage OK? It's not good." We smirked at her discomfort. The lesson was over.

Years later, when I joined the teaching service, I met several other teachers who just didn't feel comfortable talking to their students about sex. Nevertheless, being form teachers, they all had to go through with it, possibly staging a repeat of what happened to my poor teacher many years ago.

And this is partly why I support the Ministry of Education's latest controversial statement about sex education guidelines.

Firstly, the core team of teachers who will be tasked to teach sex ed "must be comfortable teaching the subject" and must "have rapport with students". ('Social media drives MOE to revise sex education', AsiaOne, 4 July 2012)

On a practical note, I'm glad teachers who are clearly uncomfortable with this (and, through no fault of their own, pitifully inept) will no longer need to conduct sex ed. And this is good for the students too, who will surely benefit from a more effective sex ed talk from teachers who are comfortable enough to speak candidly and openly.

Next, MOE states that the teachers "must practise mainstream values that are aligned with MOE". This has been of concern to many people, who question the looseness of the phrase "mainstream values" and the difficulties involved in assessing just who "practises" these values - and I share their confusion.

Even MOE's clarification late on 4 July did not shed much light on exactly how the "mainstream values" and "wholesomeness" of teachers would be judged. With their clarification, MOE implied there was no need for teachers to "practice what they preach", that they [MOE] would "not be prying into teachers’ personal lives" but reaffirmed that the "the teachers must have 'mainstream values'... and have the life experience, maturity and wholesome values". ("MOE 'won't be prying into teachers' personal lives'", TODAY, 5 Jul 2012)

Since MOE has apparently pledged not to pry into the private lives of teachers - yet wants these sex ed teachers to "practise mainstream values", I infer that they will have to make their judgment based on public lives. So, perhaps only (publicly) married teachers (who are not publicly having affairs) will be asked to take on sex education - after all, maybe single teachers could (privately) be having pre-marital sex or could be gay (or both)!

Of course, we all know that being married or outwardly heterosexual or even religious is no guarantee for "wholesome values" (whatever that means) - but then how else would MOE judge their teachers' values? Confusion abounds.

But what I appreciate about this whole matter is what I read between the lines - that MOE recognises not all of their teachers adhere to, or even believe in this supposed "mainstream", abstinence-based, "wholesome values" message that sets itself in opposition to "non-mainstream views on sex". ('Social media drives MOE to revise sex education', AsiaOne, 4 July 2012)

In fact, MOE has set a very realistic target of identifying "at least 10" teachers per school who are aligned with their "mainstream values". So for the other non-sex-ed teachers (in some schools, they may even be in the majority), it is good that they will be freed from the burden of having to preach something they are not comfortable with - or perhaps don't even believe in. And don't you think the students may ask them questions too?

When I was 18, my sex ed consisted of acquaintances getting abortions, the un-asked-for (and slightly disturbing) sex tips from classmates, the suicide of schoolmates due to relationship problems, having both straight and gay friends, and the complicated relationships, and convoluted stories of rampant promiscuity of so many people in university or in the working world. As young people, we had to make sense of all that on our own.

Today, the kids are getting their sex ed from these things and more. There's the frenzy of social media, 'sexting', pornography, advertisements and movies laced with sex, and the overload of information of all sorts. It is for these reasons and more that MOE has instituted the revisions to sex ed - and one hopes, for the better.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

Bernice Wong, 23, freelance photographer; Joses Kuan, 26, currently doing his Masters degree; and Ng Yiqin, 24, freelance filmmaker, are headed to Bangladesh, where many of the workers are from, on a mission “to stretch the boundaries and explore what goes on the other side.”

The seed for the project, called “Beyond The Border, Behind The Men”, was planted after “discussions and deliberations over a few kopi sessions” among the 3 friends.

The endeavour will see them visiting the families of some of the workers whom they came to know from their time as volunteers with The Cuff Road Project (TCRP), a soup kitchen which is run by the non-governmental organisation, Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2). TCRP provides free meals to migrant workers who are in need and assists them with other work-related problems as well.

“It took only a few sessions at the soup kitchen to create a very strong impression on me,” Bernice says. “I started to learn about this other side of the men I was previously unaware of.” Her relationship with the workers blossomed into friendship, which gave her insights into the personal lives of the workers. “Another thing that struck me was the resilience and positivism they have for life despite the precarious situation they were caught in,” she adds.

“It has grown from a working relationship to dinner time conversations to more personal ties – including invitations to their spontaneous music sessions and even sending them off at the airport,” Yiqin says.

“Working with the men was never just a professional relationship,” explains Joses, who volunteered with TCRP during his undergrad days. “[I] was privy to intimate stories of hope and anguish, family and love, interrupted dreams and more importantly, the resilience of the human spirit. For me, the message of hope and resilience has always not been given the attention it warranted.”

“What hit me the most was the degree of invisibility faced by these migrant men,” says Yiqin. “They are mostly seen as mere labourers or have to deal with very stale stereotypes.” He has always wanted to do a film from a socially conscious angle. “So when Bernice approached me with her idea, I jumped on it.”

Instead of focusing on the troubles which these workers face, the group’s project aims to “convey a message of hope and inspiration.”

“[We] are not trivializing or denying that the conditions and circumstances that confront the men here in Singapore leave a lot to be desired,” the group says. “Having volunteered with migrant workers, we know too well that their everyday reality here is a precarious one - negotiating the various contours of salary and debt, accommodation, remittance, errant employers, injury and more.”

Because the problems the workers face are often the focus, the group feels that we “often lose sight of the fact that migration is very much a social process involving real people - feelings and sentiments, affections and attachments, memories, love and loss.” Hence, the 3 friends hope to expand this narrative to include stories of love and life which inspires. “They have inspired us and we want to pass that story on.”

“We often lose sight of the fact that despite the incredible odds and abject situation that confront them here, the men seem to keep coming back, risk life and limb when here, and bite the bullet for their families,” Joses says. “The strength they drew from images of home, memories of family, and the sacrifices that the ‘left behind’ make was a recurring theme in my time with them. The project wanted to capture this - stories that spread cheer and hope, not doom and gloom. Stories that salute the human spirit and dignity and simultaneously can inspire us.”

“Their stories are also a rich tapestry of emotions, warmth and glow,” the group says. “Beyond the one-dimensional caricature of anguish and despair, there is much to celebrate. At the same time, we are careful not to aggrandize or romanticize their lives.”

Behind the Border, Behind the Man will showcase how the families of the workers cope, adapt and negotiate the physical absence of their loved ones and the distance between them. “We pay tribute to the men and those left behind,” the group says, “and also how ‘invisibility’ and ‘anonymity’ are celebrated in their own unique ways.”

“Whether it is maintaining contact through the humble village telephone, the taken-for-granted written word, conversation with others or through other tools and props, the migrant is never really invisible and absent,” the group explains.

“He is celebrated, ‘re-lived and reproduced’, and never a distant and amorphous figure. We want to showcase that celebration, to pay homage to the men and those left behind, and ultimately, how they live and embrace life.”

Most of the men whose families they will be visiting are still here in Singapore. “They are either gainfully working or jobless because of a workplace injury or salary-related case,” Yiqin says. “Despite the various circumstances, they were enthusiastic to have us visit their country and readily invited us into their homes. We will graciously be hosted by their families in various districts.”

While the men may be or have spent a prolonged period away from home, they are nonetheless very much a part of the lives of their loved ones, “weaved and embedded” into the everyday life back in Bangladesh.

“Whether its waxing nostalgia about home through photographs, collecting snail mail, sending back presents, making calls, and receiving news from a relative or village friend who’s just arrived in Singapore,” the group says, “these moments of affection and endearment are what make us human too.”

“We are sure that we will (and definitely want to) be surprised by more of their untold stories,” Yiqin says.

The 3 friends leave for Bangladesh in a week's time.

-----------------------

Publichouse.sg will feature the stories from Beyond the Border, Behind the Men when the group has completed its project. So, stay tuned for more information. In the meantime, do "like" the project's Facebook page here.

------------------

Here are some pictures taken on Sunday at one of the favourite haunts of migrant workers in Singapore – Little India at Serangoon Road.

Pictures by Andrew Loh.

(c) The act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury, and such bodily injury is sufficient in the ordinary course  of nature to cause death; and

(d) The act is done with the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, and without any excuse for incurring the risk of death.

5. If any of these situations are proven beyond reasonable doubt, then

section 302 provides for the mandatory imposition of the death penalty.

6. Based on the review that was undertaken, the Government intends for the mandatory death penalty to apply where there is an intention to kill within the meaning of section 300(a). 2

7. For cases falling within the other sub-sections  of section 300, the mandatory death penalty will be removed. The courts will be given the discretion to order either life imprisonment or the death penalty. The drafting details are being worked out.

III. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

8. Let me now explain how the changes will affect existing cases.

9. As DPM Teo mentioned, all executions have been suspended since July

2011, when the current review began.  Executions will continue to be suspended until the proposed changes are enacted.

10. Once legislation has been put in place, all accused persons who meet the requirements can elect to be considered for resentencing under the new law.  This will involve accused persons in ongoing  cases, as well as convicted persons who have already exhausted their  appeals and are currently awaiting execution.

11. While we have outlined the principle of the changes today, we ask that those giving legal advice to the accused persons should carefully study the legislation when it is enacted and properly understand the precise scope of the changes. In the meantime they should not make any assumptions or give misleading advice.

12. And let me reiterate, the court will have the discretion not to impose the death penalty only when an accused person satisfies the necessary criteria. For drug trafficking, the two criteria have been set out by DPM Teo. For murder, the accused must have been convicted under section 300(b), (c) or (d) of the Penal Code. In cases where the criteria are not satisfied, for example where the accused is convicted of murder under section 300(a) of the Penal Code, or where he is not just a drug courier, the death penalty will still apply and the law will take its course, and in the context of being a drug courier, the other conditions which DPM Teo has mentioned, have to be considered.

IV. WHY THESE CHANGES?

13. The changes announced today will result in the mandatory death penalty applying to a much narrower category of homicides,  compared to the situation today.

14. Let me explain the considerations leading to these changes.

15. In deciding whether and how to apply the death  penalty to a particular offence, several factors have to be considered. In particular I will mention, in broad terms, three interconnected factors: 3

(1) The seriousness of the offence, both in terms of the harm that the commission of the offence is likely to cause to the victim and to society, and the personal culpability of the accused;

(2) How frequent or widespread an offence is; and (3) Deterrence.

16. These three factors must be considered in their totality. For example, the fact that an offence is not widespread or that incidence is low may not, by itself, be a decisive factor. The overarching aim of the Government is to ensure the safety and security of Singapore, while maintaining a fair and just criminal justice system.

17. For murder falling within section 300 of the Penal Code, our assessment is this:

(1) Intentional killing within the meaning of 300(a) is one of the most serious offences in our books. Put simply, this is a case where the offender intends the death of the victim. It is right to punish such offenders with the most severe penalty. It is right to provide for the most powerful deterrent against such offences. It is right, therefore, that the mandatory death penalty should continue to apply to such intentional killing.

(2) In respect of the other categories of murder, under sections 300(b) to

(d), there could be different degrees of intention, and these offences are committed in a variety of situations. In some cases, the culpability of the offender is serious, but additional considerations may come into play. Today, that is something considered by the Public Prosecutor when he decides the appropriate charge in each case.

The factors he considers include the precise intention of the accused, the manner in which the homicide occurred and the deterrent effect a charge may have on others. We want to move towards a framework where the Court also has the discretion, to take the same factors into account during sentencing.

(3) This change will ensure that our sentencing framework properly balances the various objectives: justice to the victim, justice to society, justice to the accused, and mercy in appropriate cases. This is a matter of judgment and the approach being taken is not without risks. But we believe this is a step we can take. We now have a relatively low incidence of homicides – last year we had 16 recorded homicides, or about 0.3 per 100,000 population.  As our society becomes safer, less violent, and more mature, we believe that today’s changes are a right step to take.

18. For those who agree with the imposition of the  death penalty, its application to murder will be largely uncontroversial, though some may still 4 question whether it should be mandatory even for cases falling within section 300(a). For those who are opposed in principle to the imposition of the death penalty for any offence, these reforms will not be fully satisfactory. We hear and take note of these views, but ultimately we have to do what we believe is right for Singapore.

19. I should also mention our assessment for firearms offences, which also carry the mandatory death penalty. Our conclusion is that such offences are a serious threat against law and order, against which we must continue to maintain a highly deterrent posture. The mandatory death penalty will therefore continue to apply to firearms offences.

V. CONCLUSION

20. Sir, to sum up, capital punishment will continue to remain an integral part of our criminal justice system. It will continue to apply to all offences to which it now applies. At the same time, the courts  will be given more discretion in its application.

21. For drug couriers, the courts may decide not to impose the death penalty if two tightly defined conditions are satisfied.  As DPM Teo explained, first, where the accused’s only role was that of a courier; and second, if the accused has either cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau in a substantive way, or has a mental disability which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of his acts. Where these two conditions are satisfied, the court may decide to impose life imprisonment, with caning, instead of the death penalty.

22. For murder, the mandatory death penalty will continue to apply where the killing is intentional, within the meaning of section 300(a).  For murder falling within section 300(b), (c), and (d), where  there is no outright intention to kill, the courts will be given the discretion to impose either the death sentence or life imprisonment.

23. In making the changes today, the Government seeks to achieve and balance two broad objectives.

24. First is to continue to take a strong stance on crime. Where many other countries have failed, we have succeeded in keeping the drug menace under control. Singapore’s homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world, and we believe that the deterrent effect of the death penalty has played an important part in this. Our tough approach to crime has resulted in crime rates which are significantly lower than many other major cities. Young children can take public transport by themselves. Women can move around the city freely. We have no gun violence, no protection rackets, no drug pushers on the streets, no inner city ghettoes. Citizens and visitors alike feel safe, in and out of home, at all hours of the day. This is 5 something enjoyed by few cities in the world, and that is something we should seek to preserve.

25. The second is the refinement of our approach towards sentencing offenders. Our cardinal objectives remain the same. Crime must be deterred. Society must be protected against criminals. But justice can be tempered with mercy and where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance.

26. How these objectives are achieved and balanced  depend on the values and expectations of society, as it evolves and matures. We believe that the proposed changes strike the right balance for Singapore today. They will ensure that our criminal justice system continues to provide the framework for a safe and secure Singapore, while meeting the need for fairness and justice in each case.

27. Draft legislation implementing the changes outlined today will be introduced later this year.

28. Sir, I seek your permission to distribute copies of my Statement to

Members. DPM Teo and I will now take any clarifications which Members may seek.

b. Drugs are harmful and we must make every effort to deter drug taking. To curb demand, we will introduce more intervention measures for young abusers, and compulsory aftercare and a supervision regime comprising electronic monitoring with curfew hours, counselling and casework for inmates released from long-term imprisonment to help them stay away from drugs. To restrict supply, we will put more resources into border checks and enforcement, invest more in technology and intelligence, increase penalties for repeat traffickers, and introduce new offences for those who sell to vulnerable groups and organise drug parties.

c. Drug situation remains a serious threat. We therefore need to maintain severe penalties for drug trafficking, including the mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, in most circumstances. However, when two specific, tightly-defined conditions are both met, we propose to make the death penalty for trafficking no longer mandatory, but to be imposed at the discretion of the courts. First, the trafficker must have only played the role of courier, and must not have been involved in any other activity related to the supply or distribution of drugs. Second, discretion will only apply if having satisfied this first requirement, either the trafficker has cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau in a substantive way, or he has a mental disability which substantially impairs his appreciation of the gravity of the act.

d. We will retain the strong deterrent posture of our capital punishment regime. The proposed changes will sharpen our tools and introduce more calibration into the legal framework against drug trafficking, and put our system on a stronger footing for the future.

2. The Minister for Law spoke on the changes to the application of the mandatory death penalty to homicide offences. The following are the key points that Minister had made:

a. The Government’s strong stance on crime has helped Singapore keep our crime rates one of the lowest in the world. This must be preserved to ensure the safety and security of Singapore.

b. The mandatory death penalty will continue to apply to the most serious form of murder, intentional killing. Offenders who intend the death of their victims ought to be punished with the most severe penalty, and the law ought to provide the most powerful deterrent against such offences.

c. Other categories of murder could be committed with different degrees of intention and under a variety of situations that may not deserve the ultimate punishment. In such cases, the courts will be given the discretion to order either life imprisonment or the death penalty.

3. These are the key points relating to both sets of changes:

a. Once legislation has been put in place, all accused persons who meet the requirements can elect to be considered for resentencing under the new law. This will include accused persons in on-going cases, as well as convicted persons who have already exhausted their appeals and are currently awaiting execution. Draft legislation implementing the changes outlined today will be introduced later this year.

b. In making the changes today, the Government seeks to achieve and balance two broad objectives:

i.  The first is to continue taking a strong stance on crime. Singapore’s homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world, and we believe that the deterrent effect of the death penalty has played an important part in this.

ii. The second is the refinement of our approach towards sentencing offenders. Our cardinal objectives remain the same. Crime must be deterred and society must be protected against criminals. Criminals should receive their just desserts. But justice can be tempered with mercy and where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance.

c. How these objectives are achieved and balanced depend on the values and expectations of society, as it evolves and matures. We believe the proposed changes strike the right balance for Singapore today. They will seek to ensure that our criminal justice system continues to provide the framework for a safe and secure Singapore, while meeting the need for fairness and justice in each case.

4. For the full Ministerial Statements, please refer to the attached documents.

This change unshackles the judge from tightening the lethal noose on people convicted on drug trafficking. Mandatory death sentences eliminate judicial discretion. This is problematic. The balancing beam of Lady Justice should not be replaced by the metallic weighing scale for opium/morphine/diamorphine/cannabis/cocaine/etc. When a human life is hanging by the balance, the digits on an electronic scale must not be the determinant. Judges are chiefly there to assign a punishment that is commensurate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s specific circumstances. By removing mandatory sentencing in some instances, the law is being less sensitive to the marginal pinch of heroin and being more sensitive to the moral quandaries entwined with every judicial decision. This jibes with the Law Society of Singapore’s 2007 report to the Ministry of Law.

This change also whittles down grounds for prosecutorial discretion. The mandatory death sentence vests the Attorney-General’s Chambers with a worrying degree of sway over the accused’s life. Such was the case when a Public Prosecutor charged Ravinthran with the possession of 5560g of cannabis while Arujunan, Ravinthran’s partner, faced charges of having 499.99g of cannabis, a quantity scraping past the threshold for the gallows. The Public Prosecuter had decided that the latter was not deserving of the death penalty but the judge had no say in the matter.

However, the announced changes introduces a criterion that gives law enforcers a louder voice in the sentencing of drug traffickers. Cooperation in a “substantive way” is a necessary condition if a non-mentally incapacitated drug mule hopes to escape the death penalty. Presumably, what constitutes a “substantive way” will be left up to the CNB officers. Our law enforcers might be able to extract more information as the interrogation rooms become de facto guillotines. Such information could be precious as the state attempts to preserve a society unravaged by drugs. On the other hand, there is the nagging discomfort that another layer of decision making, a decision on whether to sever a life, lies with law enforcement officers who have to grapple with the immense moral heft behind the use of two words: “substantive way”.

A whole discussion will rightfully ensue on the alternative sentence - life imprisonment with caning - laid out by the Deputy Prime Minister. This alternative still crimps judicial discretion and is still controversially harsh. Although the brutal scars from caning are indelible, at least wrongful convictions can be reversed.

Criticisms and cheers should not crowd out the significance of today's change. From 2010 to 2011, there was a 20% increase in drug abusers who were arrested. The traditional reflex of clamping down even harder, perhaps by reducing the quantity threshold for drugs that pertain to the death sentence, has given way to a change that recognises not just the pursuit of brute deterrence but also the integral dimension of fairness.

The belief that the mandatory death sentence is an effective deterrence is highly controversial. Singapore now has its quasi-experiment on the deterrent effect of the mandatory death sentence. As he announced this change, Teo Chee Hean remained circumspect, “If the situation worsens, we will consider tightening the provisions, or making other changes.” The question implicit in this caveat is: If the situation stays the same or becomes better, will we scrutinise the relevance of punishments that have given our sunny island the slightly sour sobriquet crafted by a journalist in 1993: "Disneyland with the Death Penalty"?

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

MARUAH President Braema Mathi says, "We applaud the Singapore Government for taking this important first step. But this is only a small step in the right direction, as the mandatory death penalty is fundamentally troubling, and it continues to be applied to a substantial number of criminal offences."

The Government announced today that it will change the law, such that the mandatory death penalty will not be applied in two types of cases: firstly, where a drug trafficker only played the role of a courier, and the trafficker had substantively cooperated with the police or had a mental disability; and secondly, where there is a homicide but there was no intention to kill. In these cases, the courts may either impose the death penalty, or sentence the convicted person to life imprisonment with caning.

MARUAH is troubled that the mandatory death penalty will continue to be maintained for offences such as intentional murder, kidnapping, firearms offences and drug trafficking where the conditions spelt out by the Government are not met. MARUAH also notes that there has been anecdotal evidence of inadequate due process and fairness in capital trials. Finally, the Government has still not provided convincing evidence of the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring crime.

Accordingly, MARUAH renews its call, as first articulated in its UPR submission, for the Government: to review the scope of capital offences, so as to ensure that the death penalty is imposed only in the most serious of crimes; to prohibit the imposition of the death penalty in the context of group crimes, where the accused person has not personally intended to commit murder; to review the criminal process to ensure that capital cases undergo the most rigorously fair pre-trial and trial process, including access to counsel immediately upon arrest, an effective system of supervision of the extraction and recording of confessions by the police, and a repeal of the use of presumptions in capital cases; and to publish persuasive, objective evidence of the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

-------------------------

From Today:

The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) and the Law Society of Singapore have hailed the proposed changes to how the mandatory death penalty is applied in drug trafficking and homicide cases.

Their statements in full are as follows:

"The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore is heartened to hear that the Ministry of Law is proposing the partial abolishment of the mandatory death penalty for certain offences.

"This marks a significant first step in re-tuning the oft-derided application of the mandatory death penalty for accused persons who are not at the extreme ends of the culpability scale. The Ministry of Law's proposal to give our Judges the discretion in deciding if the death penalty should be imposed in Section 300(b), (c), and (d) of the Penal Code recognises that there is a wide spectrum of culpability in murder cases. We are glad that the Ministry of Law has acted upon the realisation that the mandatory death penalty has a limited (if any) deterrent effect on certain accused persons such as those who act without properly considering the consequences of their actions. In this vein, the limited exceptions moored by the Ministry of Home Affairs for certain drug runners recognise the need not to impose the ultimate penalty on the pawns in the drug trafficking game.

"Further, the proposal to consider the retrospective application of these laws to the inmates currently on death row is reflective of the sincere thought that has been put into formulating this progressive change in the law. The ACLS understands that the effecting of the death penalty has been suspended since 2011 and the new measures put in place will provide a massive sense of relief to these inmates. The ACLS looks forward to contributing to the discussion surrounding the scope of the proposed retrospective effect of the said amendments.

"This change is a significant milestone in Singapore's legal history and recognises that the measure of a society is how it treats its most unfortunate. Death row inmates deserve punishment, but not all deserve death. These new measures are progressive and will have (a) massive impact on the criminal justice system," wrote Mr Subhas Anandan, President, ACLS.

"The Law Society welcomes this development in our criminal justice system. During the review of the Penal Code in 2007, the Society had recommended to the Government that the death penalty should be discretionary for all offences where the death sentence is now mandatory. This first step towards greater discretion in sentencing for murder offences will give judges more flexibility in the administration of justice, and more room to temper justice with mercy where the facts of the case require," wrote Mr Wong Meng Meng, SC, President of the Law Society of Singapore.

"This is a historic moment for the criminal justice system in Singapore. The announcement represents a significant step in humanising the criminal law. The criminal Bar has laboured many years for such a change to the mandatory death penalty in order to give the courts more discretion. We are very happy that the Ministry of Law has heard our voice over the years and that our views matter. As criminal lawyers, we are proud to be a stakeholder in the administration of criminal justice," wrote Mr Wendell Wong, Chairman, Criminal Practice Committee, Law Society of Singapore.

The government’s cautious step forward is a welcome one, given the well-worn and familiar arguments against the mandatory death penalty.  The chief drawback is that it leaves no room for judicial discretion and the consideration of mitigating conditions, such as the age of the defendant or his personal circumstances, as well as the possibility of rehabilitation.  It is therefore needlessly arbitrary and cruel.  The government has now proposed to legislatively vest the courts with the discretion to take into account specific mitigating considerations when passing sentence.

Unfortunately, the conditions for opting out of the mandatory death penalty – in drug trafficking cases – outlined by the government may be so overly stringent that only a small minority of deserving cases would benefit.  The first condition is if the accused suffers from a mental illness which precludes him from taking full responsibility for his actions. It is a criterion likely to have been brought about by a controversial case in 2011 when charges against a low IQ individual were inexplicably lessened by the prosecution, even though he had initially been in the dock for the same charges as a co-accused who received the death penalty.

The second condition – that of “substantive co-operation leading to concrete outcomes, such as the dismantling of [drug] syndicates or the arrest…of syndicate members” – may simply be out of reach for the majority of drug couriers as these are usually low-level runners who were picked or manipulated precisely because they have little knowledge of the syndicate.  While this stipulated condition does afford the courts some leeway, the latter’s tendency to take a literalist interpretation of the statutes means that most drug couriers will probably be consigned to the gallows anyway.  Indeed the government has stressed that the mandatory death penalty will continue to apply in most cases.

But it is these very offenders who may deserve a reprieve, as the mandatory death penalty lacks all sense of proportionality.  A young unwitting drug mule (a typical profile of those arrested for trafficking) caught with 30 grams of morphine, for example, gets no more sentencing consideration than a serial killer, while this does nothing to deter the real traffickers who put him up to it. Furthermore, the defendant is saddled with an unusually onerous burden of proof by the statutes: if caught in possession of a drug, he is automatically presumed to be responsible for it and to know its nature, and if caught with a certain amount he is presumed to be trafficking.

The failure to address this worrying lack of proportionality indicates that the government is still largely driven by an overwhelming focus on perceived deterrence rather than ensuring substantive justice. Indeed, when presenting its reforms, the government repeatedly cited the mantra that the mandatory death penalty had a serious deterrence effect.

The problem is that there is little evidence for this – partly because it is difficult to show what might be the outcome without the mandatory death penalty – but it is nevertheless a mindset that is strongly supported by a society that seems to hold the perception that Western liberal democracies are ‘overrun’ by crime because their laws are too ‘soft’.  Yet the truth is that effective law enforcement and an expeditious court system may play far more important roles in deterring potential offenders. Civil society groups campaigning against the mandatory death penalty and capital punishment therefore still have a long way to go.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

"But much more important than the legal status are the intangible factors, the 'heart' part, that make citizenship meaningful," he said on Saturday during a ceremony welcoming 200 new citizens as they received their identification certificates in Ang Mo Kio.

"Whom you identify with, what you identify with, the values, the goals, the aspirations of your people. Your loyalty, which is your country, who are your fellow citizens. And the emotional attachment, of you and your family, the places, the memories, where you feel you really belong."

Recognising the increasing tension between local Singaporeans and new citizens, he emphasised that the practices new citizens were used to “may not be considered socially acceptable in Singapore”, Yahoo Singapore reported.

In recent years the issue of immigration and the number of foreigners in Singapore have been in the spotlight, and they have raised disquiet among the populace. The presence of these foreigners has been cited by Singaporeans as being potentially detrimental to the social cohesion which Singapore society has enjoyed for many decades. Non-Singaporeans have been blamed for everything from the high prices of public housing flats to the crowded public transport system.

Also, Government ministers and Members of Parliament (MP) had called on Singaporeans to integrate and welcome these foreigners, much to the chagrin of the locals. “Why should we bend over and integrate with them, instead of them making the effort to integrate with us instead?” is a rebuttal often heard whenever Singaporeans are urged to extend a welcoming hand to non-Singaporeans.

PM Lee also expressed the Government’s awareness of the unhappiness among Singaporeans. “Of course, we also have to manage the numbers and the flow and make sure that we're not overwhelmed,” he said.

In this regard, the Ministry for Manpower announced a tightening of the rules for foreign workers who wish to sponsor their spouse and children for their stay in Singapore. From Sept 1, foreign workers must earn at least S$4,000 a month compared with the current S$2,800 before their families will be allowed to bring their families here.

The ministry said this is “part of the overall direction to moderate growth of Singapore’s non-resident population.”

“This will help ease the pressure on our social infrastructure. Nonetheless, Singapore remains a global talent capital.”

The Government also introduced amendments to the Immigration Act aimed at permanent residents. Under the proposed amendments, permanent residents who flout Singapore’s laws or are involved in any activity which “threatens a breach of peace or is prejudicial to public order” will lose their permanent residency status or have their re-entry permit cancelled.

This latter move is perhaps a reaction to the recent spate of incidents involving non-Singaporeans and permanent residents which have hogged the headlines and raised the ire of locals.

It would thus seem that the Government is being more sensitive to the sentiments on the ground, and acting in a more timely fashion to disquiet, unlike in the past when it would dismiss these sentiments and admonish Singaporeans for being “xenophobic”.

Thus, PM Lee’s call and the changes proposed by the MOM are timely, reflecting the sentiment expressed by Singaporeans for the Government to direct its integration call at the new citizens and foreigners, and for the Government to regulate the number of foreigners allowed into Singapore.

While Singaporeans are indeed right in expressing unhappiness at the influx of some 2 million foreigners onto our shores, it is also good to keep in mind that we do not want a society fragmented or fractured among the different nationalities, or among new citizens and Singaporeans.

Everyone has a part to play in how our country turns out, going forward – Singaporeans have to realise that the fault lies not in the individual non-Singaporean or new citizen, but on the policies which have facilitated the large influx of them. The Government too must continue to regulate, or bring down, the number of foreigners in our midst.

New citizens and non-Singaporeans certainly also have the responsibility to recognise and realise that Singapore is what it is today because Singaporeans at all levels have worked very hard to make the country what it is – and they should respect this and do their part to not divide and fracture what Singaporeans have built.

In brief, they should understand that while we welcome them, we are not servants to them.

Second Chances, a group of Singaporeans who are against the death penalty, reported:

During interrogation, Chun Yin gave detailed descriptions and phone numbers of “Lau De”, the man who set him up. However, the CNB officers made not attempts to trace this man.

In his judgement, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck stated that “It was immaterial that the CNB did not made adequate efforts to trace Lau De or check on his cell-phones.”

Chun Yin’s clemency appeal to the President was made last April.

There has been no word from the President since then.

On Monday, 9 July 2012, the Government announced changes to the mandatory death penalty, which Chun Yin had been sentenced under. Mainly, accused in drug trafficking and murder cases may now escape mandatory death if they satisfy two conditions. Inmates currently on Singapore’s death row, who have been sentenced to death, may apply for re-sentencing to have their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment and caning.

The two conditions are:

1)   Trafficker must only have played the role of courier, and not have been involved in any other activity related to supply/distribution of drugs.

2)   Trafficker must have cooperated with CNB in a substantive way, or have mental disability impairing appreciation of the gravity of the act.

While the exact words of the proposed amendments are yet to be established, the changes have given Mr Cheong – and his son – renewed hope that the younger man will be spared the death sentence.

It is the light at the end of a very long and dark tunnel for both men. A temporary relief, perhaps.

Mr Cheong has been travelling between Johor Bahru, where he lives, and Singapore regularly, to visit his son at Changi Prison. At times, Mr Cheong – who rides a motorbike – would get into accidents because his mind is preoccupied with thoughts of his son. He showed this writer the lesions on his right shin, a result of another recent accident.

It is also evident that the prospect of having his son taken from him forever has taken a toll on Mr Cheong. His eyes tell a tale of sorrow, and his voice one of despair and desperation.

Mr Cheong’s plea has been the same since Chun Yin’s arrest – “Please give my son another chance.” He repeated the plea several times during our short interview with him on Wednesday.

Perhaps a second chance will now be given to his son, in light of the changes to the law. But nothing is confirmed and the road is still fraught with uncertainty. Mr Cheong is nonetheless cautiously hopeful that his son will be given a reprieve.

He will be visiting his son on Thursday morning, along with lawyer M Ravi. When asked what he would tell Chun Yin, Mr Cheong said, “[I will] tell him not to worry.” He said he will also let his son know that the Government has made changes to the law and that there is hope that Chun Yin’s life may be spared.

Here is a short video of the interview publichouse.sg did with Mr Cheong:

{youtube}uN-4HfGoqnc|600|450|0{/youtube}

Over the years, he has reached out to families of both inmates and victims, hoping to help bring about healing, understanding and closure.

Read more about last year's event here:

http://secondchances.asia/eyes-on-preciousness-a-photo-presentation-by-mr-toshi-kazama/

http://secondchances.asia/our-precious-things/

Mr Kazama will be visiting Singapore again this July. We are honoured to have him share his work, ideas and experiences with us.

DETAILS

Date: 14th July, Saturday

Time: Please be seated by 6.45pm. The event will end by 9.30pm

This is not a public event. Admission is strictly by invitation only.

To register for an invitation, please email your full name and contact number to eyesonpreciousness@gmail.com

Invites with information on the venue will be sent to you via email. There are a limited number of seats, so please register early!

(If you RSVP via this events page, please also make sure you send an email registration to make sure we don't miss your name out!)

Not in modern, developed societies, where much-valued education has given rise to this phenomenon called ‘adolescence.’ During this period of life, people are half-child, half-adult—physically and sexually mature, but without the adult responsibilities of earning a living and caring for a family, still living under mum and dad’s purview, on their allowance, still going to school.

And while our minds have come to accept adolescence as a natural phase of life, our bodies have no clue what that is. Girls and boys hit puberty between the ages of 10 and 12, and after that, it’s all systems go. We have crushes, wet dreams, fantasize about our first kiss (or more), masturbate and start being curious about sex.

The thought of a child becoming a sexual being though fills the hearts of many parents with fear and abhorrence.  The reasons are many: we can’t imagine our innocent, virginal babies growing up and having sexual desires; social attitudes are conservative and only sanction sex after marriage—which these days happens later and later, if at all, certainly well after a person has hit sexual maturity. And we naturally want our children to be ready to cope with the responsibilities that come with being sexually active—the possibility of having a child and knowing how to look after one’s sexual health.

Yet as we continue to try and put a lid on teenage sex, our adolescents are having their way. It’s no secret that teenagers in Singapore are becoming sexually active at a younger age and are more open in their attitudes towards sex.

A recent survey by the National University of Singapore revealed that, of the 900 sexually active teens they polled, 75 percent did not know how to use a condom. And, just last month, the Ministry of Health published statistics that the number of HIV+ people under the age of 29 has doubled in the last seven years, and now account for 20 percent of new cases of HIV.

So clearly, although the prevailing message is ‘say no,’ many teenagers are saying ‘yes’—and then not having a clue.

When MOE recently announced revisions to its sex education programmes, The Growing Years and eTeens, that essentially reinforce an abstinence-only approach, I think they’re not addressing a major part of the picture.

Safe sex is obviously a key part of sex education, but is a controversial area when pertaining to sex education for teenagers. A large camp balks at teaching teens how to use, say, condoms and feels it will only encourage teenagers to have sex, while more progressive parents think it’s better for their kids to be safe than sorry.

But while it’s easy to fault MOE’s programmes for what they don’t say, it’s harder to answer the question—what should we be saying to our teens then? On one hand, we should acknowledge that they are sexual beings; on the other, I can’t imagine parents saying to their teenage sons or daughters to ‘go for it!’

There is a middle ground—and quite a well-established one. Known as the ABC approach to sex education, this path is based on the concept of harm reduction. Standing for ‘Abstain, be Faithful, use a Condom’, it advocates abstinence as a failsafe way to prevent pregnancy and STDs (true) but also talks about safe sex and condoms.

This approach arose as a practical way to help prevent the spread of HIV while not sacrificing moral tone and has become popular in the US, in parts of Africa as well as amongst NGOs and some religious organizations.

It seems to strike the right balance: the ideal of abstinence is still advocated but the reality of our sexual nature also acknowledged and protected. Adopting this or something similar for our Singapore community will require a leap of faith but might be one we want to consider taking—if the current trend of teenage sex continues.

The ABC approach is not without issues, of course. For instance, teenagers span the ages of 13 to 19, but while one might talk to a 19-year old about condoms, having the same conversation with a 13-year old would seem inappropriate, and lessons would need to be sensitive to the developmental difference of younger teens and older teens. Nevertheless, this approach allows for much more room for negotiating the complexities of teenage sex than any other.

When our children become sexually active—whether in their teens, 20s or later—there is one thing we can almost be certain of: they aren’t going to be telling us about it (do you talk to your parents about your sex life?). So it’s important they know how to look after themselves. That can mean saying ‘no,’ or if they find themselves saying ‘yes’—because they get carried away, because they want to feel grown up, because of peer pressure, because they are in love – they would at least know how to use a condom.

In addition to the all-expenses paid trip to Sydney sponsored by Microsoft, finalists competed for a myriad of cash prizes totalling US$175, 000.

Teams from Singapore performed well under pressure, with Joshua Sim, 24, from Nanyang Polytechnic - School of IT, clinching third place in the IT Challenge competition, and the team from Nanyang Polytechnic progressing to the final 20 teams in the Software Design Category.

Joshua’s story is an inspiring one.

The second year Diploma in Information Security student took the ITE route and completed his Higher NITEC before joining Nanyang Polytechnic.

There, he was approached by his lecturer who suggested that he consider entering the competition.

Preparation was key. Joshua spent many nights reading books on technology, trawling online IT forums and building servers for various “problem” scenarios from scratch.

The competition was intense and included a 24 –hour hands-on lab challenge where competitors were provided a scenario which they had to provide a solution for.

“The most nerve wrecking thing was the feeling of not being able to succeed [in getting the servers up]. It was nervous waiting to see if the servers would come up...  because if it doesn’t come up I know that I would have to spend another hour on this! The adrenaline [made me nervous] as well – didn’t feel sleepy for the entire 24 hours!” he said.

Joshua walked away with a US$3,000 cash prize which he hopes to invest in a computer that will aid his ambitions of participating in next year’s Imagine Cup competition in Russia.

While Joshua was busy building servers in the IT Challenge, the Software Design team from Singapore shared its innovative project, the Dementia Assistance and Recall Engine (DARE), a digital scrapbook designed to assist in Reminiscence therapy for patients with dementia.

Nur Nadiah Binte Zailani, 23, Eustace Zheng, 20, Koh Kai Wei, 20, and Mong Yunheng, 20, spent a year conceptualising this interdisciplinary project before putting the plan in motion 4 months prior to the start of the competition.

While the group did not win any prizes, all agreed that the experience had been a rewarding one.

“Of course competition is never easy but everyone is a winner. Never ever give up on what you truly believe in, because people might not believe in you initially but if you keep true to your beliefs, one day you can win them over and that’s where you can make the social impact,” said Eustace.

The members of the group describe their experience as “eye-opening” and have plans to develop their technology further so that it can be applied and sold commercially.