Yvonne Lim
Night editor
AS YOU turn on the television to watch the National Day Parade at home, or wave that little red-and-white flag in the midst of the excitement at Marina Bay — or perhaps just enjoy the public holiday with family and friends – consider this: Does doing any of this make you any more, or less, of a patriot?
We could have asked that question differently, as we set about our survey of 466 Singaporeans here and abroad to mark the nation's 42nd birthday. We could have just simply asked: "How patriotic are Singaporeans?" — as if there was some fixed formula to calibrate this.
But looking at all the families who turn up in red-and-white face paint to support the footballing Lions, and every 18-year-old male who surrenders part of his life to the military, how do you measure any individual's love for and willingness to stand up for his (or her) country when it truly counts?
.
What defines the "country"? Who deserves your allegiance? The state, the community, the physical land, your family?
And who's to say if a "stayer" who votes responsibly, raises his children here, works within "the system" and donates to the needy knows any more about patriotism than the growing number of globe-trotting citizens, who seek opportunities abroad but continue to criticise and defend Singapore beyond her shores?
So, instead of doing the predictable and holding a measuring rod up to Singaporeans, we asked them to tell us: What is important to you about being a citizen? What does this tiny city-state mean to you?
Who, in short, is the new "patriot" — and does that image in the mirror comfort or disturb us?
TO LOVE …
IF Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong's worry once was that Singapore would become more like a hotel than a home to its people, here's some heartening news.
Of the resident citizens polled in TODAY's National Day Survey, 76 per cent said they were proud or very proud of being Singaporean - 72 per cent of Singaporeans overseas shared this sentiment.
It was perhaps not a surprise that, when asked to rank the reasons for this bond (they were asked to pick three out of 11 statements), the top pick for both groups was "a place where my friends and family are".
Both also agreed Singapore was where their roots were, however far a-field they ventured – and to a lesser extent, that they'd like to raise and educate their children here.
But is Singapore "a place to live out one's dreams"? Maybe not…
This statement scored the lowest overall ranking among overseas respondents, and not much higher among Singaporeans at home.
Tellingly, overseas citizens felt a more poignant connection to the food and culture of home, than to Singapore as a place that they wanted to live out the rest of their lives – something residents, on the other hand, felt strongly about.
But even if the Singapore Dream isn't shared equally by all, at least, it was clear that few endorsed cynical statements such as "I'm here because I've no choice" or "this is a fallback if I fail it make it elsewhere".
SUPPORT …
Asked what being a supportive citizen meant, there were starkly different answers from the overseas and resident groups.
Generally speaking, resident citizens thought in tangible terms – that you had to be physically here, contributing to the economy and society. That you helped those around you. That you hung out the flag every August, and watched the parade – if not in person - then at least "live" on television.
.
Politically, being supportive implied compliance. Back the Government so that it could run the country more effectively. Stay out of trouble, pay your taxes, study hard.
.
For the Singaporean living abroad, on the other hand, physical presence was – for obvious reasons – the last thing on their minds.
Rather, being a supportive citizen to them was more likely to mean speaking out critically and constructively – in newspaper forums, in cyberspace, through official channels – if, and when, policies proved inadequate. Or even trying to drive change if they felt something was wrong.
Despite their disagreements with the state on some issues, the Singaporean expatriate felt that it was also important to speak up in defence of Singapore when outsiders criticised her.
Which leads us to the third aspect of patriotism…
AND DEFEND
Are Singaporeans prepared to die for the love of their country?
If the survey results are to be believed, and they were done professionally by Media Research Consultants, just over half of the Singaporeans polled – here and abroad - are willing to lay down their life for their nation.
Should we be disturbed that 23 per cent of overseas citizens and 13.5 per cent of locals do not attach any importance, or willingness, to make the ultimate sacrifice for the nation – the rest aren't sure either way.
Does this mean Singaporeans will refuse to take up arms, or worse, turn tail and run, if a threat loomed?
No, some would argue, pointing to this study's limitations.
Most Singaporeans from the post-65 generation don't feel this urgency because they have never faced the threat of actual hostilities. The real test, will not come in the shape of a survey question, and may well evoke a completely different response when the stark prospect of losing everything is thrust in one's face.
But others worry because they see a young country with a population, which has largely not had its character, nor its patriotism, tested in the fires of war, disaster or real hardship.
They see a people, cultured and conditioned to entrust important decisions to wiser authorities, as they speed down the road of globalisation passing pastures green with opportunities.
Against this broad canvas, one wonders about the character, and characteristics, of the new Singapore "patriot". And if this patriot's ties to country centre solely on factors such as food, family and jobs, or even pure happenstance of birth – can this be enough?
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
CIBC faces massive overtime lawsuit
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070605.wcibcsuit0605/BNStory/Front
VIRGINIA GALT AND JANET MCFARLAND
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
June 5, 2007 at 10:36 PM EDT
TORONTO - - Dara Fresco took a day off from her job as head teller at a Toronto branch of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce [CM-T]Tuesday, dropped her toddler at daycare, and launched a $600-million class-action lawsuit against her employer.
Her action has the potential to affect tens of thousands of Canadians who routinely work hours of unpaid overtime and "should be of concern to all employers," according to a lawyer who has tracked the trend of multimillion-dollar settlements in the United States.
"It was only a matter of time before the trend moved into Canada," said employment lawyer Adrian Miedema, a Toronto-based partner with Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. He made the observation after Ms. Fresco launched her legal action with the assistance of two other Toronto law firms.
Ms. Fresco, 34, has worked as a personal banker and teller at the CIBC for the past 10 years and is paid an annual salary of $30,715. She has recently been recognized by the bank for outstanding customer service, and she says she loves her job.
However, she said at a news conference, she and roughly 10,000 of her colleagues in front-line positions at CIBC branches across the country regularly work overtime for which they do not get paid.
"What is unfair is that my colleagues and I are rarely being paid for the overtime that we are working, and that's just not right," said Ms. Fresco, who calculates that she is owed $50,000 for unpaid overtime over the past decade.
Tuesday, as representative plaintiff, she filed a statement of claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging that the bank actively discourages employees from submitting claims for the overtime they are required to work.
If the court agrees to certify the case as a class action, it will be the largest lawsuit of its kind ever launched in Canada.
The bank, which has 30 days to file a statement of defence, issued a brief written statement yesterday.
"With respect to overtime, we have a clearly defined policy as to how we compensate our front-line retail branch employees that exceeds legislative requirements in Canada," the bank said, adding that it has only just received the lawsuit and will review it in detail before responding further.
"We believe it may establish a very important class-action precedent [in Canada]," said Douglas Elliott, a partner with Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP, who is representing the CIBC employees along with Louis Sokolov of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP.
Statistics Canada reports that more than 1.6 million Canadians worked unpaid overtime in April.
The lawyers representing Ms. Fresco said that while managers are excluded from overtime pay requirements in Canada, most other employees are protected by employment standards laws. CIBC employees are covered by the federal labour code.
Mr. Sokolov said the purpose of the law "is to prevent employers from using subtle, or not so subtle, pressure on their employees to volunteer their time in hopes of advancement … or fear of reprisal.
"We believe that unpaid overtime is widespread in many industries in this country … including financial services," Mr. Sokolov said.
Ms. Fresco said she is currently required to work an average of two to five hours a week in unpaid overtime. When she was a personal banker, she sometimes worked up to 15 hours in unpaid overtime a week, she added.
Overtime work is routine throughout the banking sector, former bank employees say, and demands to work unpaid time are exacerbated if individual bank managers try to keep costs low because their own performance bonuses are based on branch profitability.
David Soulis, a retired Royal Bank of Canada branch manager in Settings Port Hawkesbury, N.S., said many factors lead to frequent requirements for overtime work in banking, including possible discrepancies in cash balances that require after-hours recounts, or unscheduled cash counts for security purposes.
He said there are also frequent sales and staff meetings to explain new products or procedures, which must be held outside branch hours so all staff can attend.
"That's all extra time that is outside what the customer sees," he said. "There are a whole lot of other things behind the scenes that take place."
He said during his career he saw some managers who were "gluttons" who wanted to reap the largest possible annual bonuses - and branch profits are usually one factor in earning those bonuses.
"I went through 35 years of it, and I know there were times when management said, 'You can't have any overtime. You can get off an hour early some time or whatever.' But that 'some time' thing never happened."
Mr. Miedema notes that several major employers in the United States - including Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Taco Bell and Radio Shack - have been forced to pay massive retroactive overtime costs to employees.
The CIBC case will likely prompt many other Canadian employees to follow suit.
"People start to pay attention and say, 'Wait a minute. I have been working extra hours. Maybe I should file a claim for overtime,' " said Mr. Miedema, who represents employers in his law practice.
Employers are at risk, he said, if they do not comply with employment standards laws requiring them to pay eligible employees overtime at a rate of time-and-a-half after regular working hours. With a report from John Partridge
VIRGINIA GALT AND JANET MCFARLAND
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
June 5, 2007 at 10:36 PM EDT
TORONTO - - Dara Fresco took a day off from her job as head teller at a Toronto branch of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce [CM-T]Tuesday, dropped her toddler at daycare, and launched a $600-million class-action lawsuit against her employer.
Her action has the potential to affect tens of thousands of Canadians who routinely work hours of unpaid overtime and "should be of concern to all employers," according to a lawyer who has tracked the trend of multimillion-dollar settlements in the United States.
"It was only a matter of time before the trend moved into Canada," said employment lawyer Adrian Miedema, a Toronto-based partner with Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. He made the observation after Ms. Fresco launched her legal action with the assistance of two other Toronto law firms.
Ms. Fresco, 34, has worked as a personal banker and teller at the CIBC for the past 10 years and is paid an annual salary of $30,715. She has recently been recognized by the bank for outstanding customer service, and she says she loves her job.
However, she said at a news conference, she and roughly 10,000 of her colleagues in front-line positions at CIBC branches across the country regularly work overtime for which they do not get paid.
"What is unfair is that my colleagues and I are rarely being paid for the overtime that we are working, and that's just not right," said Ms. Fresco, who calculates that she is owed $50,000 for unpaid overtime over the past decade.
Tuesday, as representative plaintiff, she filed a statement of claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging that the bank actively discourages employees from submitting claims for the overtime they are required to work.
If the court agrees to certify the case as a class action, it will be the largest lawsuit of its kind ever launched in Canada.
The bank, which has 30 days to file a statement of defence, issued a brief written statement yesterday.
"With respect to overtime, we have a clearly defined policy as to how we compensate our front-line retail branch employees that exceeds legislative requirements in Canada," the bank said, adding that it has only just received the lawsuit and will review it in detail before responding further.
"We believe it may establish a very important class-action precedent [in Canada]," said Douglas Elliott, a partner with Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP, who is representing the CIBC employees along with Louis Sokolov of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP.
Statistics Canada reports that more than 1.6 million Canadians worked unpaid overtime in April.
The lawyers representing Ms. Fresco said that while managers are excluded from overtime pay requirements in Canada, most other employees are protected by employment standards laws. CIBC employees are covered by the federal labour code.
Mr. Sokolov said the purpose of the law "is to prevent employers from using subtle, or not so subtle, pressure on their employees to volunteer their time in hopes of advancement … or fear of reprisal.
"We believe that unpaid overtime is widespread in many industries in this country … including financial services," Mr. Sokolov said.
Ms. Fresco said she is currently required to work an average of two to five hours a week in unpaid overtime. When she was a personal banker, she sometimes worked up to 15 hours in unpaid overtime a week, she added.
Overtime work is routine throughout the banking sector, former bank employees say, and demands to work unpaid time are exacerbated if individual bank managers try to keep costs low because their own performance bonuses are based on branch profitability.
David Soulis, a retired Royal Bank of Canada branch manager in Settings Port Hawkesbury, N.S., said many factors lead to frequent requirements for overtime work in banking, including possible discrepancies in cash balances that require after-hours recounts, or unscheduled cash counts for security purposes.
He said there are also frequent sales and staff meetings to explain new products or procedures, which must be held outside branch hours so all staff can attend.
"That's all extra time that is outside what the customer sees," he said. "There are a whole lot of other things behind the scenes that take place."
He said during his career he saw some managers who were "gluttons" who wanted to reap the largest possible annual bonuses - and branch profits are usually one factor in earning those bonuses.
"I went through 35 years of it, and I know there were times when management said, 'You can't have any overtime. You can get off an hour early some time or whatever.' But that 'some time' thing never happened."
Mr. Miedema notes that several major employers in the United States - including Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Taco Bell and Radio Shack - have been forced to pay massive retroactive overtime costs to employees.
The CIBC case will likely prompt many other Canadian employees to follow suit.
"People start to pay attention and say, 'Wait a minute. I have been working extra hours. Maybe I should file a claim for overtime,' " said Mr. Miedema, who represents employers in his law practice.
Employers are at risk, he said, if they do not comply with employment standards laws requiring them to pay eligible employees overtime at a rate of time-and-a-half after regular working hours. With a report from John Partridge
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The Cure for the nostalgic
Zul Othman
IF there was ever an award given out for the "best value for money" concert, then The Cure’s performance at the Singapore Indoor Stadium on Wednesday would lock in the grand prize.
Clocking in at a full three hours, it was quite possibly the longest gig by a single band in this reviewer’s recent memory.
Sure, watching four men in black stand almost expressionless while backed by an exuberant strobe light display for 180 minutes was a bit trying for the senses. But the almost 7,000 fans did not seem to mind. In fact, they loved every minute of it.
The mostly male audience was an eclectic bunch - teenagers and young adults in fitting T-shirts, middle-aged office types, and even a few with their little ones in tow - all constantly on their feet.
Never mind that from the time the quartet first stepped on stage at 8pm, they looked worse for wear.
The signature look was there - white face, red lipstick, heavy eyeliner and black clothes. But front man Robert Smith (pic¬ture) from five rows away looked bloated and the 48-year-old’s appearance was more tragic clown than Godfather of goth rock.
But that was only in the looks department. All uncharitable thoughts were banished with the first few bars of 1989’s Fascination Street, which by all accounts confirmed that The Cure is still an entity to be reckoned with.
Backed by guitarist Porl Thompson, bassist Simon Gallup and drummer Jason Cooper, Smith was a shrieking troubadour of hypnotic power. The show was essentially a back catalogue review.
The Cure delivered what could be 2007’s most memorable rock concert.
The quartet churned out 42 tracks covering the high points of their illustrious 30-year career.
Fans were treated to note perfect renditions of 1985’s Inbetween Days, 1987’s Just Like Heaven as well as the now classic Friday I’m In Love from 1992. However, the exclusion of 1996’s Mint Car, had some fans grumbling.
Older fans went home smiling, pleased that lesser-known gems like 1979’s Fire In Cairo and 1980’s A Forest were given an airing. Especially thrilling was the night’s closing song Killing An Arab, one of their early singles from 1978. It was a night of songs about misery and love.
Smith and his morose men may have enjoyed peddling songs that brought on the tears, but to this reviewer, they were tears of joy.
IF there was ever an award given out for the "best value for money" concert, then The Cure’s performance at the Singapore Indoor Stadium on Wednesday would lock in the grand prize.
Clocking in at a full three hours, it was quite possibly the longest gig by a single band in this reviewer’s recent memory.
Sure, watching four men in black stand almost expressionless while backed by an exuberant strobe light display for 180 minutes was a bit trying for the senses. But the almost 7,000 fans did not seem to mind. In fact, they loved every minute of it.
The mostly male audience was an eclectic bunch - teenagers and young adults in fitting T-shirts, middle-aged office types, and even a few with their little ones in tow - all constantly on their feet.
Never mind that from the time the quartet first stepped on stage at 8pm, they looked worse for wear.
The signature look was there - white face, red lipstick, heavy eyeliner and black clothes. But front man Robert Smith (pic¬ture) from five rows away looked bloated and the 48-year-old’s appearance was more tragic clown than Godfather of goth rock.
But that was only in the looks department. All uncharitable thoughts were banished with the first few bars of 1989’s Fascination Street, which by all accounts confirmed that The Cure is still an entity to be reckoned with.
Backed by guitarist Porl Thompson, bassist Simon Gallup and drummer Jason Cooper, Smith was a shrieking troubadour of hypnotic power. The show was essentially a back catalogue review.
The Cure delivered what could be 2007’s most memorable rock concert.
The quartet churned out 42 tracks covering the high points of their illustrious 30-year career.
Fans were treated to note perfect renditions of 1985’s Inbetween Days, 1987’s Just Like Heaven as well as the now classic Friday I’m In Love from 1992. However, the exclusion of 1996’s Mint Car, had some fans grumbling.
Older fans went home smiling, pleased that lesser-known gems like 1979’s Fire In Cairo and 1980’s A Forest were given an airing. Especially thrilling was the night’s closing song Killing An Arab, one of their early singles from 1978. It was a night of songs about misery and love.
Smith and his morose men may have enjoyed peddling songs that brought on the tears, but to this reviewer, they were tears of joy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)