Search the Community

1999 ban on raw pork from Malaysia lifted Raw pork from Malaysia is back in markets here, marking the end of an import ban on the product for more than a decade. The Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) recently approved the import of frozen pork from one slaughterhouse in Sarawak. The first consignment arrived here in February and, as of last month, about 9 tonnes of frozen pork products have been imported from there. The ban on the import of live pigs and raw pork from Malaysian was introduced in 1999, after an outbreak of the Nipah virus. The virus, which is carried by pigs, killed 100 Malaysian pig farmers and an abattoir worker here. A spokesman for AVA said Sarawak's state animal and veterinary public health programmes were assessed, and inspections were conducted at the pig farming area and slaughterhouse to ensure that their bio-security control measures and hygiene standards meet AVA's requirements. "During our inspections, areas of improvement were highlighted, which the slaughterhouse rectified accordingly," she said. A trial sample batch was also tested at AVA's Veterinary Public Health Laboratory and met food-safety requirements. Austria was also approved as a new source of pork last year and, as of last month, about 175 tonnes of frozen pork from Austria have been exported to Singapore. In April last year, Singapore imported its first batch of beef products from Britain since 1996, after AVA lifted its ban on deboned beef from Britain in September 2013. Over the last year, around 2.5 tonnes of chilled or frozen beef products have been imported from 15 slaughterhouses. The ban had been placed on British beef imports due to the threat of mad cow disease. At that point, Singapore was importing about 15 tonnes of beef from Britain, which made up about 0.12 per cent of overall beef imports. AVA has since found the situation in Britain to be "well-controlled" and the threat of the disease "negligible". It added that, as a precaution, it allows the import of only deboned beef from cattle under 30 months of age as they have less nervous tissue, which reduces their risk of contracting the disease. The spokesman said the agency will monitor all consignments and take the necessary action when there are food-safety lapses. It will also continue to diversity its food sources. "By buying from diverse sources, we are better buffered against potential short-term supply disruptions from any one source," she said. [email protected] Buzzing in and around Singapore - See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/1999-ban-raw-pork-malaysia-lifted#sthash.NeZwv7nx.dpuf

Transcript of Lee Kuan Yew's interview with the Straits Times Straits Times August 12, 1999 In an interview with the Straits Times, Lee Kuan Yew gives a blunt retort to popular views about the role of an elected president and clarifies the limits of his powers. Lee, the chief architect of the scheme, also speaks on the importance of rotating the presidency among the races and his assessment of Mr S.R. Nathan, the only candidate to obtain an eligibility certificate, who was named president August 17. ST: Do you think the current excitement over the post of the EP is some sort of reflection for a greater check on government, or is it just a lack of understanding? SM Lee: First, people think there should be more consultations and their views should be heard. If they can't have their views heard, then get an Elected President to get their views through. Well, then you're going to have two centres of governments and you're going to have trouble. Supposing the President goes out and makes speeches contrary to the government's policies, there's going to be a clash. He is acting outside his province. That is not on. There are only two ways in which you can change the government's view. One, stand for elections, contest. The other way is to get your views over time accepted by the majority, including the Government. The PAP has survived not because it stuck by its guns all the time. If it were ideological and dogmatic, it would have become irrelevant. With every change in circumstance, I said, let's look at the options, what are the solutions? It doesn't matter who produces the solution; if it's going to work, adopt it and if he's got many solutions to offer, co-opt him. I see no disadvantage in that. ST: You brought up a fundamental point when you mentioned how Singapore cannot move away from the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. SM Lee: No, I'm not saying we cannot move. I say it has worked, so do we want to alter the system? Are you sure that altering it will make it work better? We have evolved, we have changed bits here and there. Once we had a parliamentary draughtsman from England who wrote up a brand new Constitution. I said this looks neat, but should we go and change our habits of working just to fit the Constitution? The Constitution has got to accommodate the political, social and cultural habits of the people. It has worked. People know how it works. Better leave it largely as it is. Continue to make it work. ST: There's some confusion on the ground on the role of the EP, but that's also due to the fact that the Government has put out expectations that the EP office is to clip its wings. SM Lee: No, if you've to clip the wings, then you are in for trouble, you cannot govern. It is to prevent the Government from doing manifestly wrong things. ST: But that quote came specifically from Mr Goh Chok Tong in Parliament. SM Lee: Well, I cannot remember it but I would not have used that phrase because the executive powers of the Government should not be clipped. It is when it exceeds what is proper that it should be blocked or vetoed. ST: But considering that it's a new office, wouldn't you expect that there should be disagreement between Government and the EP? SM Lee: Yes. There must be these disagreements. ST: What is the reason? SM Lee: Because the system is new and the President does not know the exact limits of his powers. ST: Are these over fundamentals? SM Lee: No, disagreements are over the finer points, at the margins. The broad outline of his powers is already clear. ST: What would you count as interference by a president? SM Lee: The government should not be stopped from doing what it has always been doing. ST: You've also said that the president should not be an activist? SM Lee: No, he cannot initiate. He's not an executive president. It's not for the president to say, look, I want to use the second key, come on, let's use the reserves. His job is to protect the reserves, not to use them. ST: But if you look at the small pool of people qualified to be presidents, most of them would be former Cabinet ministers and they are by nature activist. SM Lee: Yes, therefore when you move into this job, you must change your mindset. ST: One view is that the elected president's job is a very big responsibility and is a complex task, in terms of looking at the numbers, for example. No, you don't need to be an accountant. This is not a job for an accountant. What comes up to him or what should come up to him is the final summary of the position: this is what has been going on; this is what the Government is going to do; does it infringe on the constitutional rights of the president? That's all. If it does, he has to stop it. ST: Another issue that has surfaced is that people think there has been a lack of transparency in the relationship between the Presidency and Government. SM Lee: What is there to be opaque about? There's nothing that requires the Prime Minister to be secretive. He does not require anything of the President other than official signatures. When they are sent to the President, he signs or he doesn't and he queries, if it is his right to block it. ST: One comment, including by Mr Lim Kim San, is that the presidency can be manipulated by a rogue government.I have had this argument with him many times. SM Lee: He has seen politics in the raw and he knows that if the PM is a good populist mobiliser, he can work up feelings, then arrange a referendum to support his expenditures or appointments and eventually overturn the Constitution. Either the president gives way or the PM may get his amendments through a referendum. I accept that is possible. Therefore I say we must have a president with six people who in such a crisis will sit down and quietly plan what to do to block this move and not to allow this populist to gather more support. He would have to explain coolly and quietly to the people with the support of his CPA why if you do this you're putting in jeopardy your life savings and your future. No, I agree with Kim San it is not foolproof because if you want to make it foolproof, you have to block yourself permanently into a corner, which you don't want to do. You may actually have to use those reserves from time to time. ST: Do you think the system could be improved further? SM Lee: I think it has to be worked out by convention, by interaction over time. The present government has to be careful that it does not take too constricted a view that a future government may not be able to operate without going to see the President almost every other time, which will be unworkable in practice. Also, you cannot work on the basis that every government is a rogue government. So, therefore, you must give a rogue government rope for two to three years before you reign its excesses in. If you start off on the basis that the next government is going to be a rogue government, then you lock up everything. ST: There is also some general unhappiness about the fact that the powers of the President are not operationalised like the Article 5(2A). SM Lee: Once you operationalise it, you've got to go through a referendum to change it. Do you want to do that? ST: Your argument also seems to be that with the PAP in power - and the PAP is definitely not a rogue government - the role of the EP would be mostly 99 per cent ceremonial as before. SM Lee: Well, provided the Government is doing right, I think that should be the position. If he's interfering then he is becoming an Executive President. You can't have a division of executive powers. ST: So as long as this is the case, the next elected President will be like the previous ceremonial presidents like Wee Kim Wee, Benjamin Sheares and Yusof Ishak, playing basically the same role. SM Lee: Yes, it has to be that or the Government is unduly restricted. It cannot be otherwise. Supposing you have another source of authority and the Government says, "No, we will not do this," and the President says, 'Yes, we will do this" then we say, 'All right, let's take a vote." And what will happen? Then he should resign from there and get into Parliament for a proper contest. ST: So you would need somebody who can just carry out the symbolic functions of the office? SM Lee: With the proviso that he is at the same time looking at all the reports submitted in to make sure it is in fact on the right track. You cannot assume things will not change. You might get a PAP Government but a new generation, beyond this present one, that becomes spendthrift and has less skills, and begins to bribe the voters. Then next to no time, the reserves are run down. ST: One popular catch-phrase in the recent debate is "We want an independent President". Mr S.R Nathan countered by saying "Independent of what?" In your view, he would be independent only insofar as the need to check a rogue government but beyond that, no? SM Lee: No. Under the Constitution he has to act on the advice of the Government. There's no difference between him and any other other previous presidents. It is in the Constitution, he has to act on the advice of the Government. He can't make speeches against the Government. His address to Parliament is written up for him. He cannot act independently of the Government. He cannot act against the wishes of the Government, full-stop, except when the Government wants to do things which he's entitled to block or veto. ST: Maybe if we could turn to Mr Nathan and you could share some insights on what sort of person he is. SM Lee: Well, I've known Nathan since the 1960s. I think he first came to my notice when I was looking for people to boost up the NTUC because the NTUC lost many of its capable workers when they split with the communists, so among those we sent there, we seconded to the NTUC research unit was Nathan and Hsu Tse Kwang, and I remember seeing them personally and telling them that this is a secondment, help them build the unions up. Then from there, the relationship went on. I found him very stable, steady, can get things done his quiet way. He was sent to university later in life, but he had his other qualities that enabled him to rise above his disadvantaged youth. So he ended up I think Perm Sec (Foreign Affairs), Director SID and he was in Mindef for quite a long while, associated with intelligence, and because I used to meet the intelligence people regularly to gather updates and not just read reports, so I got to know him. So after he retired he joined the Straits Times Press Group but then we needed somebody in Kuala Lumpur at a difficult time, so I asked him to take on that job. And after that he went on to Washington. He came back, he was still active, he's got energy, ideas, so he started IDSS which he launched and it's got on its way. I would consider him a person who can accomplish things, in his own way. ST: Was race a consideration when you drew up your shortlist of three candidates to Cabinet? SM Lee: Yes, in this regard, it's very difficult to find suitable minority candidates. Because the population is so small, when you reach the apex, the number of minority candidates who can fill the job becomes even smaller. So when you have a good man from the minority race, I think it helps to remind Singaporeans that we are a multiracial society. Although this is elected presidency, had there been a contest against a populist Chinese, we would have gone all out to make sure that he's elected. It'd be a very sad day if a populist Chinese candidate were to turn up and Nathan were defeated. I would have gone all out for him. The Prime Minister and the ministers knew that, if there was a contest with a populist Chinese candidate, we have to throw in all our resources to help him get elected. ST: Right. But the fact that he was Indian, do you think there was a feeling that it's time for a minority to be president? SM Lee: Yes, I think so because we've had two terms of Wee Kim Wee, one term of Ong Teng Cheong. I think it's time to remind Singaporeans that we are a multiracial community. And it's also good. It's a symbolic expression of our national identity. ST: So this idea of rotating the presidency among the races is on? SM Lee: I think it will continue. I would be very sad if expediency made future governments just support Chinese candidates. I think that would be a very bad thing. But if they put up a minority candidate, they must be prepared to back him to the hilt because if he comes up against a populist, Chinese chauvinist type, you have a problem. There's no doubt that this is a problem because it would take several generations before we get out of this. ST: Before Singaporeans stopped voting along racial lines? SM Lee: Yes. It took several generations for the Americans to vote for a Catholic candidate as President. These are gut feelings, emotional prejudices which are very difficult to wear down. ST: Was it difficult to persuade Mr Nathan to stand? SM Lee: Well, he did not jump at it. He knew it would mean a change of life for him and for his wife and family. So he asked for time to discuss it with his wife. The wife of a President can be of great help because, for many of the social functions, you will need a hostess and a good hostess helps in keeping more people happy. ST: You mentioned that it's difficult to find candidates for the position, why do you think this is so? SM Lee: Well, why should they give up their privacy. If you are not a megalomaniac, why do you want this job for? Everywhere you go, the spotlights are on you. People salute you, you are on parade. You can't go sauntering around to a hawker centre or go to Daimaru, and do whatever you like. And if you go for a walk in the Botanic Gardens, some crazy guy may approach you and say, "Look, here's my petition" or whatever. You have lost your right to be yourself; you are on parade. ST: The Straits Times ran two surveys to find out whether people wanted an election and the majority, 80 per cent, wanted to see an election because they wanted to take part in the process of choosing their President. But it would seem there would not be an election after all. SM Lee: You want us to go out and look for another candidate? (Laughs) ST: No, my question is: If there were no election, would you consider it a good thing or an unhealthy development? SM Lee: No, I'm completely agnostic on that. In many of the last 10 general elections I've been uncontested. Now, why did they not contest? Because their chances of winning were pretty small, so they looked around for where they thought their chances were better, that's it. I was ready to contest and I made sure that my party branch, although I don't go down as regularly as other MPs, is functioning. I've got another MP to nurse it. I go down from time to time and I know come election time I can meet anybody in the contest. I don't know, should we have arranged for a second candidate? ST: To put it another way, maybe even if it was a contrived contest, at least the candidate will be able to say, 'I have X per cent of the people" behind me. Would that help the moral standing of the President? SM Lee: I don't know. They have not contested because they don't believe they stand a chance. Nathan's name was out in the newspapers for several weeks, right? Singapore is a small place, you can calculate who are the possibles. You can eliminate the unlikely ones and come down to about half to a dozen people. If people thought they stood a chance they would have come out, that's what my experience tells me. The last time we had to go out of our way to nudge Chua Kim Yeow to come out. ST: Why did the Government not feel the need to do so this time around? SM Lee: Well, the last time was the first time ever so it was necessary to run the system in. This is the second time so we didn't feel strongly about it. ST: But don't you think it's actually not a good precedent in the sense that, of course, the Government would put up its own candidate, one with qualities required for the EP. Then every time a term ends, there might not be an election. SM Lee: I would not be prepared to say that. That depends upon the mood at that time and the standing of the person and the standing of the Government. If the Government is wildly unpopular, I think its candidate would not enjoy the same acceptance. But I wouldn't like to project what would happen in the next election; it's six years down the road and many things can happen in six years. ST: But do you think the public should seriously consider taking it upon themselves to put up their own candidates rather than keep waiting for the Government? SM Lee: Go ahead. First he must be qualified; secondly, he must have some weight to be credible or he will lose $30,000. ST: But this will be the sixth President that you would have recommended. Do you think there will ever be a time where the President can actually emerge out of natural selection, where people actually come forward to offer themselves? SM Lee: It depends upon the evolution of the relationship between the political parties and the people. If there is a credible opposition that credible opposition will put up a candidate. But the opposition cannot put up a candidate because it's not credible. If you just stand for election you must have the organisation to canvass for votes. You can't just say, 'I'm Jimmy Carter, I'm a peanut farmer, vote for me." He had to run around like mad using the Democratic Party machine. It's easy to say I'll run but is it so easy to do, if you haven't got the organisation? When you talk about an alternative, either the alternative has to be a PAP alternative or it has got to be an opposition alternative. ST: But it can be an independent alternative as well. SM Lee: Ah yes, but who's going to run around for you? ST: Civil society groups perhaps? SM Lee: (Laughs) You know, civil society groups are okay for committee meetings, issuing statements and press conferences. Go on the hustings? Do you know how tiring it is to go up 20 floors, and walk down to shake hands? ST: Perhaps the Presidential election is less taxing than the General Election. SM Lee: Right, okay, if you believe that. You put up a candidate next time with your NGOs.

Hi guys, any recommended workshop for fixing of a 1999 toyota echo headlamp... broken by some idots who threw stuff down from the flat. Any idea what the cost will be

anyone has 1999 year EK4M 4 door for sale? please pm me asap tks

what the difference besides the exterior look ?

Hi guys, the car has been scrapped. I manage to savage the original radiator grill. Look exactly like this: Interested parties can PM me your offer. Thanks.

Was informed that i brought 1999 Toyo T1-S Tyres when i was at Stamford Tyres Yesterday. That was a 6 year old tyre. Obviously i was pissed, so i went back to the place i brought my tyres and ask wtf is going on. According to Mr Song of New Hoe Seng Tyre & Battery Services (the place i brought my tyres) he told me that the tyres no problem one, its was warped up with proper warping and has oil covering it. no sun no water...tyre wont spoil one. Told him that i push my tyres hard and he assure me that there is no problem one. Is it true? any advice?

My humble lancer after some polish and wash thanks bros. [/url]

Hi All, Please check if your Octavia is built been the dates. Vehicle Recall Details Reference : R/2003/042 Manufacturer Ref : 47J1 Make: SKODA Model : OCTAVIA Launch Date : 26/03/2003 Numbers Involved : 2200 Build Start Date : 01/09/1998 Build End Date : 30/06/1999 Details Concern : BRAKE VACUUM SUPPLY PIPE CONCERN Description : On Octavia vehicles within the affected chassis number range tension cracks may occur on the vacuum pipe to the brake servo in the area of the pipe connections, due to a manufacturing fault. If a vacuum pipe leaks, the brake servo loses it's function. Without servo assistance a lot more force must be used on the pedal. But this will not lead to total failure of the brake system. Remedial Action : The fitted vacuum pipes will be checked and if necessary replaced. Vehicle Id : TMB***1U*X2148718 TMB***1UY2285279 Other Vehicles Affected (Click the vehicle to perform and extended search) OCTAVIA Home | Back Link ---> http://www.via.gov.uk/apps/recalls/searche...0256CDA0045B061