Skip to main content

No Document No Talk


We only know No Money No Talk. Now Singapore official words are No Document No Talk. 

No money, of course, you are not entitle to talk loudly, seek assistance and ask for service.  As the government becomes more efficient and accountability, if you have no paper information and document, they cannot process your request and so you have No Talk.

This applies to everyone, whether you are locals, foreign workers or refugees, whether you know or don’t know English.  The government needs paper documents to carry out their duties and process your case.           

Different signature in the document also carries different weight. In the TODAY’s report “Big turn-out at Punggol East MPS”, the signature of DPM Teo Chee Hean has a weight heavier than the former MP Michael Palmer.   
Another resident, a taxi driver who declined to be named, said he felt assured by the fact that a minister was handling the MPS. "He has weight, let's put it that way."  
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC121218-0000045/Big-turn-out-at-Punggol-East-MPS

Hence, a document with a VIP signature is different from a normal document without a VIP signature.  Not to mention when there is no document, foreign workers and refugees seeking help in Singapore will find ‘no door to enter’.   

Troublesome to make it into a document?

The Ministry of Manpower needs document to substantiate the claims of the workers even though it is ‘troublesome’ to do so. 
When asked why they did not come back to lodge their claims, one worker apparently said it was "troublesome".
"Our officers asked one of them why they did not come back. One of the workers shared that going to MOM to lodge their claims was 'troublesome'," Mr Tan said. Mr Tan said the ministry requires documentation from the workers in order to substantiate their claims so they can handle the dispute fairly.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1241723/1/.html

Does the minister really know the ‘troublesome’ reasons? He even acknowledged that the request to have the ‘troublesome document’ is weighted against workers. 
Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has acknowledged that in general, the relationship between an employer and employee tends to be weighted against workers.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1241723/1/.html

Otherwise, you have to act like ‘Function 8’ issuing a statement in proper English not to call the strike ‘illegal’. And quickly the MOM will issue a counter statement to refute you, document to document and word to word.    
The Ministry of Manpower has refuted civil society group Function 8's accusations that the use of the term "illegal strike" to describe the actions of SMRT bus drivers in late November is wrong and prejudicial.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1243229/1/.html

Legal or illegal we will see it in Court. At least, there will be some documents give a final touch on the SMRT bus drivers dispute.

Rich beyond belief, new Singapore won't share anything with refugees

The above photo caption is taken from Phuketwan.com describing Singapore refusal to accept the entry of MV Nosco Victory and its refugees.

Our economy is structured in a way that we need documents to move forward and upward. Those who have no document, including paper qualification and VIP reference, will be discriminated.  We even don’t share our wealth with our countrymen and our poor, how can we share with foreign workers and refugees?      

In this case, Phuketwan.com does not really understand Singapore. We are a Document Country. We refuse the entry of MV Nosco Victory is not because the word Victory but because they have no documents.

As a result, need no further explanation; the turn away reasons given by MPA are “sketchy” information and no other official documentation.  
The MV Nosco Victory was turned away because the ship's captain could provide only "sketchy" information about the passengers it had picked up off the coast of Myanmar, a spokesman from Singapore's Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) said in a statement."There is no other official documentation to assist at this point, but they do not appear to be persons eligible to enter Singapore," the statement said.http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20121214-389456.html

The next time, when you want to refuse someone’s request, just use the same reason: No Document No talk.

When we look at the Palmer-gate, there are really too many documentary proofs of emails and SMS.   So, with documents, we talk.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...