The so-call "case by case basis" ends up those with good legal knowledge or connection (know where to look for info, and who to ask, ect.) will get much more. Those who are ignorance and poor, those who need help most, those need the money from their failed "minibomb" saga most get the lest.
The Karaoke story ... you can compare the "rule of law" against the "more democratic ways" in China today. And this apathy continues on ... "apathy is a Singaporean trait not confined to lawyers,..." as per the SC's speech.
Double standard in applying the "rule of law" also exist. An individual cannot get rules change to overcome his problem. But a Govt. linked body can do it quietly overnight...if it sees the benefits...maybe that's why we have so many large GLC and few entrepreneurs.
He said this story illustrates the closed mind and lack of imagination of our civil servants of that generation ... but I think this lives on ... nothing much has changed for the better.
Apathy is also the reason why so much ranting about unethical insurance agents in your blog and no one is doing about it. MAS knows it very well. Drag the matter and hope it will be forgotten.MAS didn't sweep it under the carpet but people forgot therefore no need to take it up.
REX comments, Mr Tan, i have a somewhat unrelated matter to discuss and solicit assistance from you or any other reader. Please feel free to move this post to another title if you find it misplaced.
What exactly is the legal definition of "Charity"?
I am asking because i am somewhat confused by the We Are One campaign which is enjoying an unprecendented TV coverage, to solicit public donations.
Why are retrenched people who can't find jobs, being lumped with the traditional Charity recipients, as in, chronic sick, aged, infirm, homeless, destitute. Is this legal? Surely a lot of retrenched people get at lease some retrenchment benefits whilst those really in dire need e.g. kidney patients, poor sickly aged people, are actually more deserving of :charity: money?
Why are "those affected by the economic downturn" now being sanctioned by the government as charity recipients?
Who isn't affected by the economic downturn, it is a question of the "degree". How do you qualify to get this charity money? Who is the judge? this is very important. Everyone would like to say he is affected terribly by the economic downturn!
I went to "weareone" website to find outmore. The FAQ just tells you how to donate, not telling how the money is administered, who qualifies to get it, how, when, who, zilch!
The website, as in the tV clips, said that the donation is for those "affected by the economic downturn". this is a very vague statement for me to part with my donation money, which could also be given to a kidney patient in financial trouble.
I am quite traditional, i still think that if retrenched people cannot find work and is in financial trouble, it is the Government's duty to generate jobs, or have a system to cushion the impact.
Is it a shift in the policy to pass the burden of supporting jobless people to the rest of the people with jobs, and the government will wash half its hands off the burden of generating jobs, by putting the jobless on charity? I wonder if the small boy on tv who felt proud of contributing the lego bricks, does he know wht he is doing?
In summary, I don't feel comfortable at all constantly being bombarded by the media in the last few weeks, and not getting any wiser going to their website.
What does everyone here think? Tell me, am i being selfish, oversensitive and unreasonable?
There was no mention about strategic thrusts, legal hubs and adding value.
Just a simple appeal by a leader to his followers to aspire be the best human beings they can possibly be. Somehow I don't think Michael Hwang regards his fellow lawyers as digits.
Mr.Hwang is the only person from the legal profession who dared to speak out against the failings of our so-called prestigious legal system and rule of law. I've lost trust in this legal system, a system that could be challenged only by the rich, and the poor just have to accept the injustice meted out to them. This inequality sickens me that I have better transfer more moneys to countries that i could have better legal protection e.g. Hongkong.
He talks about the average Singaporean being apathetic. What can the average Singaporean do against the mighty machinery of all these ministries when a legal eagle like himself cannot? All I can recall is that a former Law society chairman has not fled to the US after going against this machinery. Why is the Singaporean apathetic? When we see a tiger being slaughtered, will the mere household cat wants to risk that? But times are changing. People are realising that they are not better off by keeping quiet and but it really needs the professionals like the lawyers to be the catalyst for change. Indeed Michael is heading in that direction.
The so-call "case by case basis" ends up those with good legal knowledge or connection (know where to look for info, and who to ask, ect.) will get much more.
ReplyDeleteThose who are ignorance and poor, those who need help most, those need the money from their failed "minibomb" saga most get the lest.
Great speech.
ReplyDeleteThe Karaoke story ... you can compare the "rule of law" against the "more democratic ways" in China today. And this apathy continues on ... "apathy is a Singaporean trait not confined to lawyers,..." as per the SC's speech.
Double standard in applying the "rule of law" also exist. An individual cannot get rules change to overcome his problem. But a Govt. linked body can do it quietly overnight...if it sees the benefits...maybe that's why we have so many large GLC and few entrepreneurs.
He said this story illustrates the closed mind and lack of imagination of our civil servants of that generation ... but I think this lives on ... nothing much has changed for the better.
Apathy is also the reason why so much ranting about unethical insurance agents in your blog and no one is doing about it. MAS knows it very well. Drag the matter and hope it will be forgotten.MAS didn't sweep it under the carpet but people forgot therefore no need to take it up.
ReplyDeleteREX comments,
ReplyDeleteMr Tan, i have a somewhat unrelated matter to discuss and solicit assistance from you or any other reader. Please feel free to move this post to another title if you find it misplaced.
What exactly is the legal definition of "Charity"?
I am asking because i am somewhat confused by the We Are One campaign which is enjoying an unprecendented TV coverage, to solicit public donations.
Why are retrenched people who can't find jobs, being lumped with the traditional Charity recipients, as in, chronic sick, aged, infirm, homeless, destitute. Is this legal? Surely a lot of retrenched people get at lease some retrenchment benefits whilst those really in dire need e.g. kidney patients, poor sickly aged people, are actually more deserving of :charity: money?
Why are "those affected by the economic downturn" now being sanctioned by the government as charity recipients?
Who isn't affected by the economic downturn, it is a question of the "degree". How do you qualify to get this charity money? Who is the judge? this is very important. Everyone would like to say he is affected terribly by the economic downturn!
I went to "weareone" website to find outmore. The FAQ just tells you how to donate, not telling how the money is administered, who qualifies to get it, how, when, who, zilch!
The website, as in the tV clips, said that the donation is for those "affected by the economic downturn". this is a very vague statement for me to part with my donation money, which could also be given to a kidney patient in financial trouble.
I am quite traditional, i still think that if retrenched people cannot find work and is in financial trouble, it is the Government's duty to generate jobs, or have a system to cushion the impact.
Is it a shift in the policy to pass the burden of supporting jobless people to the rest of the people with jobs, and the government will wash half its hands off the burden of generating jobs, by putting the jobless on charity? I wonder if the small boy on tv who felt proud of contributing the lego bricks, does he know wht he is doing?
In summary, I don't feel comfortable at all constantly being bombarded by the media in the last few weeks, and not getting any wiser going to their website.
What does everyone here think? Tell me, am i being selfish, oversensitive and unreasonable?
REX
Wow! I am sincerely impressed.
ReplyDeleteA speech about values.
There was no mention about strategic thrusts, legal hubs and adding value.
Just a simple appeal by a leader to his followers to aspire be the best human beings they can possibly be. Somehow I don't think Michael Hwang regards his fellow lawyers as digits.
Mr.Hwang is the only person from the legal profession who dared to speak out against the failings of our so-called prestigious legal system and rule of law.
ReplyDeleteI've lost trust in this legal system, a system that could be challenged only by the rich, and the poor just have to accept the injustice meted out to them.
This inequality sickens me that I
have better transfer more moneys to countries that i could have better legal protection e.g. Hongkong.
He talks about the average Singaporean being apathetic. What can the average Singaporean do against the mighty machinery of all these ministries when a legal eagle like himself cannot? All I can recall is that a former Law society chairman has not fled to the US after going against this machinery. Why is the Singaporean apathetic? When we see a tiger being slaughtered, will the mere household cat wants to risk that? But times are changing. People are realising that they are not better off by keeping quiet and but it really needs the professionals like the lawyers to be the catalyst for change. Indeed Michael is heading in that direction.
ReplyDelete