Singapore hit by “freak” floods again and again

Barely a week after Upper Thomson Road, Boon Lay and Ang Mo Kio were hit by flash floods, some parts of Singapore are submerged today in knee-high flood water due to another heavy downpour which occurs “only once in fifty years”, in the words of PAP Minister for Environment Mr Yaacob Ibrahim.

Floodwaters were seen along Paterson Road, near Wheelock Place in Orchard Road, the scene of the worst flooding in 26 years two weeks ago, as well as in Tai Seng Road, Kampong Ampat Road and MacPherson area.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) warned of heavy showers with thunder between 1 pm and 2.30 pm on Thursday but there was no warning of possible flood.

Not surprisingly, Mr Yaacob was nowhere to be found, heard or seen let alone present at the sites of the flooding but according to his earlier statement, he and his ministry are “still learning from the experience”.

Mr Yaacob is the most expensive Environmental minister in the entire world. He earns about $2 million dollars a year, or more than 4 times the annual salary of U.S. President Barack Obama. It is ironic that Singaporeans are actually paying millions of dollar a year for Mr Yaacob to “learn” instead of coming up with solutions.

How many more floods do Singaporeans need to put up with before Mr Yaacob finally learn from the experience, only God knows.

SMRT CEO should heed public discontent and resign

It is not a question if the people could choose to board a train or not rather should Ms Saw continue to manage SMRT or not. Passengers are simply the customers of SMRT and they should be treated with respect. When they have displeasure in matter regarding the SMRT, even if it is the most trivial of matters, it is the responsibility of a good CEO to win the heart and mind of commuters.

However she has chosen to deflects genuine feedback as nonsensical. She as the pinnacle of SMRT management will bring an undesirable culture to the whole SMRT business philosophy. The rest of the people working in SMRT will take her cue that commuters can choose to use SMRT service or not and their grievances are mere hysterics.

The whole organization will feel that they have the most adequate functioning system in place and improvement is not a necessity anymore. This will ruin the organization in the long term. Hence she should be replaced, moreover she also did not do a good job in securing the SMRT causing severe security lapses and disgraced SMRT to no end.

The quality of service she dished out for her position as a CEO is inferior, SMRT board of directors should consider removing her to avoid backslash from commuters. The government also want her head rolling because she has implicated the government with her conspicuous incompetency.

Singaporeans dismayed with SMRT CEO’s reply on train overcrowding

In the Sunday Times report of 27 June 2010 “SMRT: Tighter security will not mean higher fare”, SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa was reported to have said: “People can board the trains – it is whether they choose to.” She also claimed that even at its most crowded, a SMRT train carries 1,400 passengers, which is lower than its crush load of 2,000 passengers.

A dismayed Singaporean Chia Ser Huei wrote in to the Straits Times Forum to question Ms Saw’s unhelpful response to the question of overcrowding. While the fact is that there are many stations where passengers are unable to board the trains at all during peak hours, Ms Saw is sticking to SMRT’s oft-stated view that passenger numbers are acceptable.

It is not a matter of choice, but whether commuters can get in without the train doors closing on them. As it is, passengers have to frequently skip an overcrowded train several times before finding one with standing space. Tempers flares are not uncommon among commuters at these times.

In addition, it is misleading to cite passenger load figures in other cities to justify SMRT’s train load figures and attempt to close the matter. For instance, trains in Hong Kong are more spacious and have more carriages than SMRT trains. Ms Saw’s comments seem to show her disinterest in transit operations or she thinks that Singaporeans can easily be fooled.

Many Singaporeans have complained that the frequency of MRT trains has dropped after the CEO joined SMRT in 2003. In the past, passengers never had to wait more than 3-4 mins for a train. The train frequency for off-peak hours is now 7-8 mins, and this is even so in the weekday evenings and weekends whereby the trains are packed.

Ms Saw has been credited with the rental of MRT station space to retailers to boost the SMRT’s non-transit income. Under her, SMRT reconfigured MRT station space to be rented to retailers. The Malaysia-born Singapore Permanent Resident was previously with retail chain DFS until she was retrenched by the company in 2002.

Ms Saw was paid $1.67 million in 2009, making her the highest-paid CEO that SMRT Corp has ever employed. Excluding share options, Ms Saw’s package last year came up to $1.43 million. Her deputy, Mr Yeo Meng Hin, who worked under Ms Saw at DFS and joined the company together with her in 2003, took home $970 thousand.

Compared to the year before, Ms Saw’s package was 7.1 per cent higher while Mr Yeo’s grew by 13.3 per cent. This outstripped the 6.3 per cent growth in SMRT’s total wage bill over the same period.

It would appear that with its monopolistic power arising from the lack of direct competition from other transport operators, SMRT does not need to worry about the welfare of its transit customers, and just focus on cutting cost on its transit operations.

Kong Hee From City Harvest Church

">

City Harvest Church questioned over its $310 million stake in Suntec

City Harvest Church (CHC) has been questioned by the Commissioner of Charities over its $310 million purchase of a stake in Suntec Singapore which it announced two weeks ago, the Straits Times reported today.

The Church said earlier that it would use two floors in Suntec to house a 12,000-seat auditorium for worship services and that it would be used exclusively for its services, except for about five times a year to allow for international conferences or events to be held there.

The stake raised some eyebrows among Singaporeans who questioned if registered charities should be allowed to go into business and if the income collected by CHC through its Suntec rentals would be taxed.

An irate Singaporean Lester Lam wrote to the Straits Times Forum on 11 March 2010 questioning the relevance of giving religious organisations tax-exempt status when many of them own commercial properties and derive rental income from them.

“Should the Government continue to let religious organisations own commercial properties and earn income from rent? After all, the revenue these organisations use for the purchase is tax-exempt in the first place. Suntec City was developed for commercial purposes. With the church’s purchase of the development and its proposal to convert a section of the exhibition space for church use, is it in breach of the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s land-use policy?” he asked.

A letter jointly issued by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore explained that “incomes earned by charities are tax-exempt because their main purpose is to provide public benefits through their activities.”

There are no laws against charities being involved in business activities except that they “must be done in the best interest of the charity and not subject the charity’s assets and resources to unacceptable risk.”

The Straits Times article did not reveal the exact questions asked by the Commissioner of Charities to CHC. Its Senior Pastor, Kong Hee could not be reached for comments.

City Harvest Church continues to come under fire from skeptical Singaporeans on ST Forum over its purchase of Suntec stake

City Harvest Church continues to come under fire from skeptical Singaporeans three weeks after it announced that it has bought a $310 million stake in Suntec to be used for its worship services.

Since then, more than a dozen of letters have been published in the Straits Times Forum questioning if City Harvest Church should still be considered as a charity and if the returns from its property investments should be exempted from tax.

Two letters are published today in the Forum on the matter alone.

Ms Tan Saw Bin who is an auditor of several charitable groups wonder if “significant involvement in commercial activities by mega churches, through investments in properties, still qualify the churches as charities under the Charities Act and their Constitutions.”

She urged the authorities including the Registrar of Societies and Commissioner of Charities to “look into statutory compliance and evaluate if such religious groups still qualify as charities.”

“New Creation Church and City Harvest Church are registered as charities but not Institutions of a Public Character. This means that donations to these churches are not tax exempt, so donors do not enjoy tax deductions of 2.5 times. Nevertheless, I am impressed by the ability of these churches to obtain significant donation income, which is a feat few organisations can match,” she added.

Another Singaporean Harvey Neo pointed out the blurring of lines between a religious group and its associated business entity in reality:

“For example, the initial start-up funds for the business entity could come entirely from the church. Tax-exempt funds from the church might also be diverted to the business entity in indirect ways.”

He stressed that the problems arises when “the associated businesses of a religious group balloon to such an extent that one starts to forget the raison d’etre of religion and begins to wonder where the profits of such businesses go to.”

City Harvest Church was founded by its Senior Pastor Kong Hee in 1989 as a small Bible study group of 20 and has since ballooned to a mega Church with more than 33,000 members.

Consolidated questions & revelations by a conscientious CHC insider on Kong & Family & their internal crony practices

We have received requests to consolidate articles and postings in different blogs and forums for easily reference.

Here you are:

Consolidated questions & revelations by a conscientious CHC insider on Kong & Family & their internal crony practices

Will there be lawsuits for defamation in view of ST online's wide readership?
Source : ST Discussion Board 'CityHarvest questioned' thread.

Originally Posted by sorenk2233

Kudos to City Harvest for being transparent about their financial statements. They have proudly listed it in their website.

However, some things cause alarm bells to ring.
1. The church has spent millions on television, audio, broadcast, and multi-media.
Audio and Light --> $1.256 and $1.1 million during the past two years.
Christian TV, Broadcast --> $793,000 and $1.039 million during the past two years
Church TV --> $2.105 and $1.374 million, during the past two years.
Internet broadcast --> $573,000 and $432,000, during the past two years.

And if you add them up, a total of $8,672,000 has been spent on multi-media related ventures.

Perhaps the CHC might want elaborate why the need for such expenses?
Perhaps they would also like to explain why Rev. Kong Hee has to be featured on Christian television? The reverend does not receive a salary from City Harvest, but by them endorsing him by placing him on Christian television (seen in US), is that not a benefit/ incentive paid by the Church? Would that not be considered a form of payment?

2. Staff salaries are astonishing! A church is liken to a customer care service. And no doubt there is a need to employ members to meet the needs of Church members. However, how transparent would CHC be in disclosing their staff salaries? I would not be surprised that many senior/ executive level staff in CHC's organization may be receiving 5-figured salaries. There is nothing wrong in paying good and qualified workers well. The question is how much is too much? And whether it is justifiable.

3. A further investigation should look into companies often contracted by City Harvest Church. Are those companies funded by church members? What other interests do the companies play in facilitating CHC? Are any of CHC's board members/ executive members shareholders in the companies? If so, then how much have they benefited?

If such a significant amount is spend on audio and lighting, perhaps a thorough investigation ought to be checked on the co-relation between the company and CHC. Is the same company behind Sun Ho's singing career? High probability it could be so. Also, I understand that CHC started a dance studio to get Youths involved in the arts (great avenue to get kids off from drugs and off the streets). However, has this been a personal gain for Sun Ho's entertainment venture?

3. In the early months of 2010, many CHC members went for a study trip to South Korea. The world's largest church is located there. I wonder if the senior/ executive staff had to pay for the "study trip" or if the trip was absorbed by the church. If so, is this a common practice for independent churches?

Why am I writing this and posing though questions with regards to the financial management of City Harvest Church? Partly because I feel the need for religious organizations to come clean about their transactions. Partly because there is too much going on behind the scenes that needs to come to light. Partly because there needs to be checks and balances in independent mega churches.

A religious organization being extravagant in its spending is not the issue. We see cathedrals, mosques and temples made of great extravagance. In many religions, many high ranking officials often wear robes lavished in gold trimmings, fine fabric and intricate detail. Hence, being extravagant and having state of the art technology should not be part of the discussion. What should be of interest is the co-relation to an independent church with its contracted companies?

1. The lighting and audio for City Harvest Church has contracted Xtron Productions Pte Ltd. This coupled together with the fact that this company is one of the management agencies for co-founder and singer, Miss Ho Yeow Sun.

In addition, many of the employees hired by Xtron Productions are members of City Harvest Church. Many of these individuals are members of CHC's television, media and sound ministries. If this does not raise bells, then perhaps one might like to see who are the owners, co-owners and managers of Xtron Productions.

2. City Harvest Church has changed its financial year-end twice in the last few years. The first in 2007, from 31 December to 30 June. The second in 2008, from 30 June to 31 October. Such unexplained change of financial year-end is commonly seen as a red-flag by auditors and regulators. Should we be concerned?

May those who have read my comments and felt there is validity in it share the burden I have. I have been very careful in my choice of words and tone by which I make my comments. I could have given the names of the owners of Xtron Produtions, who are board and executive members. Unfortunately, my position does not permit or grant me the liberty to be a whistle blower.

Please understand that I am caught between a rock and a hard place. In 2003, when Roland Poon pointed out the church's support of Miss Ho's singing career, I witness the ugliness of hate. However, at the same time, I saw the pain in the eyes of church members who were deeply affected by the media slaughter of the church.

Over the course of days, I question if this was the right time to disclose the information that I have given. Why? Because many of the employees of Xtron, City College, Citycare, Little Big, O School, and along with the staff of City Harvest Church are fully aware of what goes on behind the scenes. Many have families with young children and mortgages and car payments to worry about. There are a large number of individuals dependent on how this system works. Sadly, it is snowballing into something monstrous.

3. Miss Ho Yeow Sun's entourage includes two dancers. They can be seen dancing in Miss Ho's recent music video, Fancy Free. These dancers are instructors of O School, which is funded by City College (that gets funds from City Harvest). These dance instructors are residing in the United States, residing in Miss Ho's Los Angeles home. This brings to question if City Harvest is indirectly paying for Miss Ho's dancers.

4. Xtron Productions have several employees who are board and executive members. Several on its payroll hold positions of leadership in the audio, lighting and media ministries. In November 2009, Rev. Kong Hee had a speaking engagement to Sacramento, California, several church employees (worship band, singers, and media personnel) were flown there with all expenses paid by the Church. In addition to that, Xtron employees were involved in the trip. If the speaking engagement was for the benefit of Rev. Kong, the question is, who pays for the cost to fly and accommodate his entourage?

It is known that Rev. Kong is not a salaried employee of City Harvest church. He relies on speaking engagement fees, love gifts and the royalties of his sermons and bible study material. However, how does the church draw the line between his personal speaking engagements and his service on behalf of the church? Also, why the need for Xtron employees to be part of the trip if this was promoted to church members as a missions trip? For many of Rev. Kong's international speaking engagement, there is an employee from Xtron present to take photographs and record videos. Is City Harvest Church paying for the services or is the Reverend absorbing the costs?

May those who have read my comments and felt there is validity in it share the burden I have. I have been very careful in my choice of words and tone by which I make my comments. I could have given the names of the owners of Xtron Produtions, who are board and executive members. Unfortunately, my position does not permit or grant me the liberty to be a whistle blower.

Please understand that I am caught between a rock and a hard place. In 2003, when Roland Poon pointed out the church's support of Miss Ho's singing career, I witness the ugliness of hate. However, at the same time, I saw the pain in the eyes of church members who were deeply affected by the media slaughter of the church.

Over the course of days, I question if this was the right time to disclose the information that I have given. Why? Because many of the employees of Xtron, City College, Citycare, Little Big, O School, and along with the staff of City Harvest Church are fully aware of what goes on behind the scenes. Many have families with young children and mortgages and car payments to worry about. There are a large number of individuals dependent on how this system works. Sadly, it is snowballing into something monstrous.

From my heart,
Soren

Corruption — a tale from two cities

By Art Harun from The Malaysian Insider

It was sometime in the late 1990’s. And it was in Singapore.

A trailer driver was delivering some goods to a Singaporean buyer. While doing so, he hit some tree branches which fell onto a car behind the trailer and slightly damaged the car.

Both men stopped their respective vehicle. While they were “settling” their “dispute”, a traffic police officer came by and stopped. Upon his inquiry, the trailer driver related what had happened to the officer. The officer then told the car driver that perhaps he should make a claim from his insurance company as it was not the fault of the trailer driver that his car was damaged.

Noting that the damage only involved some minor scratches, the car driver relented and drove off. The trailer driver was so relieved. He was also glad that the officer supported his case and was filled with gratitude to him.

In true Malaysian fashion, the trailer driver took out S$20 and gave it to the police officer. The police officer took it and rode off.

On the way back to Malaysia, the trailer driver was arrested at the Immigration checkpoint and detained. The next day he was charged for giving bribe to a police officer.

I was then advising the transport company for whom the driver worked. A Singaporean Counsel was engaged and he advised that it was an offence to do so. He advised the driver to plead guilty.

He did and was punished, fortunately, with a just rather hefty fine.

Fast forward to last Monday, May 3, 2010.

Time: 1.15am. Location, Jalan Cheras, Kuala Lumpur.

The Sun newspaper (May 6 2010), on page 4, reported of two incidents at a police road block along Jalan Cheras, Kuala Lumpur. The report was entitled “Cop held over alleged bribery, sexual harassment.”

The first lady was driving alone at 1.15am when she was stopped at the roadblock. The police said she was driving beyond the speed limit. According to her, the police officer said the matter could be settled on the spot. She then offered RM15 and the officer agreed to take that sum as “settlement”.

Money exchanged hand. The officer than allegedly told her that she was sexy. He allegedly asked her to lift her t-shirt and pull up her skirts. She immediately drove off.

But not before she performed her side of the agreed bargain. She paid him the 15 bucks and drove off.

Next was a nightclub singer about 30 minutes later. The same thing happened. This time the lady gave RM20. The same officer allegedly made similar advances. The lady also paid him and drove off.

It was reported that the two women were “riled over the incidents.”

The report, however, does not specify whether the two ladies were “riled” over the alleged sexual harassment and the fact that the officer had allegedly asked them for money or whether both of them were only “riled” over the alleged sexual harassment alone.

Reform Party attacked again over its “internal politics” in Straits Times

The fledging Reform Party which has made headlines in recent weeks with a few high-profile recruits and frequent walkabouts, has come under an orchestrated attack yet again in the state media.

Last week, a Straits Times article tried to play up a purported feud between its Secretary-General Kenneth Jeyaretnam and its former Chairman Ng Teck Siong.

Today, another letter was published criticizing its “internal squabbles”. Its writer is none other than the well-known PAP supporter Lionel De Souza.

Mr Lionel wrote about the extradition of Reform Party’s co-founder Balldev Naidu Ragavan to the United States to face charges of conspiring to provide arms and financial support to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as well as the latest “squabble” between Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Ng which was given extensive publicity in the press.

“Internal party conflicts certainly do not augur well for any political party if it wants to be taken seriously by the voters. Any form of internal conflict is usually the root cause of voters’ disillusionment, for the simple reason that if there is no unity of purpose and vision within a party, there will be division and plenty of infighting,” Mr Lionel wrote.

Being a retired police officer, Mr Lionel should be aware of the fact that politics are part and parcel of life. There is internal politics, squabbling and in-fighting in every organization including the Singapore Police Force.

There are internal conflicts between PAP leaders too, just that they were never reported in the media doesn’t mean they don’t exists.

Mr Lionel extrapolated Reform Party’s situation to insinuate that the party leaders will be “preoccupied” in planning and executing attacks on their rivals that “they will not be able to honour the promises they made in their election manifesto presented to the electorate during the hustings.”

It is strange that the Straits Times allows such a wild and baseless accusations to be hurled against the Reform Party. Both Mr Balldev and Mr Ng had since left the party which is strengthened by newcomers such as former government scholars Mr Tony Tan and Ms Hazel Poa.

In fact, the Reform Party has held a series of seminars this year to discuss important national issues with Singaporeans. The party has also put up a comprehensive counter-proposal of the Finance Minister’s Budget 2010 on its website. None of these were ever reported in the press.

This type of selective reporting as practised by the state media over the years has helped to create an erroneous public impression that the PAP is “infallible” and the opposition is constantly wrecked by internal politics and infighting.

Acting Minister for Communication, Information and Arts Lui Tuck Yew once praised the Singapore media as a “trustworthy” source of news in Singapore.

International media watchdog Reporters without Borders ranked the Singapore media a pathetic 133th position among 187 countries in terms of press freedom in 2009, an embarrassing result which was decried by Law Minister Shanmugan as “quite divorced for reality.”

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/04/18/reform-party-attacked-again-over-its-internal-politics-in-straits-times/

Wear Black - Water Festival at Bukit Batok

Irate netizen calls on Singaporeans to gatecrash “Water Festival” organized by Bukit Batok grassroots organizations

An irate netizen by the name of Aurora Long has called on Singaporeans to gatecrash the “Water Festival” organized by Bukit Batok grassroots organizations to welcome the New Year for the Thai, Burmese, Laotian and Cambodians living in Singapore:



After the event was publicized on our site, many netizens expressed their dismay and disappointment at grassroots organizations using public monies for doing so.

While they do not object to foreigners celebrating their cultural festivals in Singapore, many wonder why we have to foot the bill for organizing them.

One commentator wrote in disgust:

“When we go to the United States, do we expect its government to organize CNY or Hari Raya for us?”

Due to the PAP’s liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies, foreigners now make up 36 percent of Singapore’s population, up from 14 percent in1990. Of the remaining 64 percent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas.

As too many foreigners were allowed into Singapore within too short a period of time, the PAP is now having serious trouble integrating most, if not all of them.

To tackle the problem, it has unveiled a mega $10 million Community Integration Fund funded by taxpayers to organize events, seminars and language classes to make the immigrants feel welcomed in Singapore.

The exact cost for organizing the “Water Festival” was not revealed, but it is likely to come from the Community Integration Fund.

Ms Long hopes that those who are not supportive of the government wasting taxpayers’ money on foreigners to turn up in BLACK on that day.



Source: Aurora Long's Facebook

Government seeing red or problem with our CPF Board

PAP to consider ways to discourage home owners from cashing out from their flats prematurely

With the prices of HDB flats at an all-time high, an increasing number of Singaporeans are selling their flats to make a quick buck.

Some of them return to HDB to seek help with housing after selling their flats to pay off debts or buy luxury items.

The PAP is now studying ways to discourage them from doing so, revealed National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan to the Straits Times.

“There are many different options that we have to look at, one of which is to see how we can transfer some of the subsidy that is given when the flat is purchased, whether we transfer it into his CPF for retirement or medical expenses or to buy another flat…to make sure they don’t take it out as cash and spend it away,” he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times.

Though no concrete ideas have been floated yet, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong suggested a few weeks ago to lock the profits from the sale of HDB flats into the CPF accounts of sellers.

The plan, if introduced is likely to be unpopular among Singaporeans as they are unable to cash out on their HDB flats.

The prices of HDB flats have sky-rocketed in recent years due to rising demand fueled by immigration in the face of limited supply of new flats.

With the prices on an upward trend, it is not likely that flat sellers are able to make much profits from the sale of their flats unless they downgrade to a smaller flat or leave Singapore and live elsewhere altogether.

Mr Mah, who admitted that he was “caught off-guard” by the astronomical prices of HDB flats has been put on the defensive lately by accusations from Singaporeans that he has not done enough to control the prices.

The combative Mah retaliated by blaming Singaporeans for being “fussy” and showing obscure charts and figures to substantiate his claims that HDB flats remain “affordable” in Singapore.

The increasingly unpopular Mah may prove to be a liability to the PAP in the next general election due by 2011.

PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew dismissed the threat to Mr Mah’s position by calling Singaporeans “daft” if they dare to vote Mr Mah out of office.

14 year old Singaporean vows to leave Singapore if PAP is not voted out by the next general election

14 year old Singaporean vows to leave Singapore if PAP is not voted out by the next general election

Dear TR,

After reading mails from Ms Melissa Quek, Mr Devoran, Ms T.Rajendran and Ms Judy Eng, I’ve decided to stop idling behind the computer screen waiting for change to happen. I’m writing in hopes that I can reach out to people whom may read and perhaps relate to what I have been experiencing as of late.

First off, I’m a 14-year-old Secondary School student. My family aren’t rich, but we are staying in a 4-room HDB flat. Even though I’m 14, I understand the things that are happening.

A little about my current family position. My mother has cancer and she has to go for check-ups regularly.

Early last month, about 8 hours after my mother had left for a checkup at Singapore General Hospital, I went with my father. It was 11pm then, and we both were worried about her. There was no reason for a checkup to be this long. So we went, but we didn’t know which block she was at. I called her by phone.

Turns out that she was at the emergency block, Block 1.

A little of a back-story. A doctor who removed the tumor in her right lung claimed there was no need for chemotherapy. However, she still complained of pain in her right chest. It turned out that the cancer cells had already infected her lymph nodes and it wasn’t detected then. Now it’s too late though. The cancer cells are slowly eating her life away.

Now that when I recall this incident, I feel disgust and hate towards this medical standard. Is this acceptable? Why should a check-up, in the EMERGENCY block, end up being 8 hours long?! How on earth did that doctor think that chemotherapy was not necessary? I had no idea what happened. By the time my mother had received the report and we reached home, it was almost 2am. I missed school the next day as I was too fatigued.

What is the government doing? Did they even CHECK? Where’s our money going?!

Obviously that greedy geezer and the famiLEE.

This really angers me. My mother also has very little money left in her bank. She cannot go to work, and now I’m also trying to save as much as I can so she doesn’t have to give me too much allowance everyday. GIRO doesn’t help much either. Luckily, my now married sister and brother, who have their own families, are helping. But that doesn’t even amount to much. It’s still a hard road to walk, but walk it we must.

Other than this beyond disappointing medical incident, I also have a school life. It’s not very enjoyable either.

MRT, public buses. I’m sure everyone knows that it’s crowded as heck, and my gigantic monster of a school bag doesn’t help either. Going my car isn’t any better. The road is congested as hell in the morning. In the afternoon, it’s better. But I occasionally have a couple of PRs sitting in the seat before me, talking loudly non-stop. Even the earpieces blasting my ears to deaf doesn’t help.

In school, sometimes we have CME or PG lessons and the teacher gives the class a worksheet which sings praises about what PAP has done for the people. One I recall from memory, was roughly,

“Every time I see old folks gathering recyclables from a garbage can on the street, my heart laments for them. The people these days are lacking filial piety…” …. “…I am glad that the government is helping the needy with assistance schemes. The government is doing a good job.”

Obviously there is something very wrong there. I thought to myself, ‘if the government is doing a good job, then why are these old folks gathering and selling recyclables?’ I asked the teacher so, but he just shrugged and replied that he doesn’t know why.

He’s probably another brainwashed PAP dog, that’s why.

Also, 4 china students transfered into my class during the past month. They are always getting the praises and 1st place for tests/exams. They are leeching the motivation out of everyone. No one really mixes with them. The whole class might as well be a class for PRs instead! I cannot really express myself too well with words, but every time I see them, I can’t help but hate their attitude. I know not all of them are bad, but with all these incidents like then acting all big and mighty, or talking loud and sometimes insulting us behind our back loudly, really left this impression on me.

The government loves them too. They bring money with them. They are also cheaper, faster, better. The way I see it, they are cheaters, liars, asses. Again, I know not all of them are bad. I am referring to the ones that really gives the impression. I have seen it too many times. It’s easy to tell.

I also sometimes worry about my future if I were to continue to stay in Singapore. No doubt the population density would get really dense, and at some point, buying a house would blow a million dollars. Everything sucks you dry. So therefore I arrived with this conclusion. If nothing is done right to change is broken system, then I’m moving to another country. Living here is as good as being in a lifetime debt to the government, and that is the same as being on a leash.
I feel so much rage for this greedy government. Leeching our money, which they then throw them in a well praying a genie would come out. I vow, if PAP is still not voted out after the next election, then goodbye, Singapore, I’m moving onto another country once I am able to stand on my own.

By the by, there’s more mind control worksheets I’ve done.

“Do you feel proud to be a Singaporean? If so, why?”
No. The government is ignorant and greedy, that’s why.

Anyway, thanks for reading. I feel better getting these off my chest. You may do whatever you wish with this.



Kristine Tan


source: http://www.temasekreview.com

New S'pore undergrads, stop whining! See how Korean youths are roughed up in uni

New S'pore undergrads, stop whining! See how Korean youths are roughed up in uni









If you think hazing in Singapore schools is bad, students in South Korea have it much worse. Both guys and girls are forced to go naked and are pelted with eggs and flour in graduation rituals across the country's middle schools.

According to a South Korean news website, since 3am last Saturday, about 40 pictures of naked or half-naked middle school graduating students in Goyang, Gyeonggi have been spread rapidly online.

The pictures include one which shows the students making a human pyramid with their bodies covered in flour and eggs, and others showing them standing still covering their private parts or removing their underwear.

Fifteen of the original hazing victims told police that they received text messages from the older students forcing them to attend the ritual or they would be punished.

Twenty high school students involved in the hazing will be questioned by South Korean police.

The police said offenders can get criminal punishments since they will be charged with an attempted act of violence.

While STOMP has received several stories on students complaining about hazing in their schools, perhaps they can count themselves lucky that such rituals here are not as extreme as that in South Korea.

Do upgrading skills and Workfare help low-wage workers?

I refer to the report “Measures to encourage low-wage workers to take up training expected during Budget” (CNA, Feb 7).

It states that “Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong has hinted that issues such as making it easier for low-wage workers to continue to upgrade themselves and making the Workfare Income Supplement Scheme more accessible will be tackled in the Budget later this month”.

Since this statement and the Economic Strategies Committees’ recommendations on manpower are hinged on the rationale that more training, skills upgrading and Workfare will help to solve the problems that low-wage workers face, I think a good starting point may be to evaluate the success of the SPUR scheme.

In this connection, I refer to the articles “Fewer in full-time jobs” (Today, Jan 7), “42,000 workers have found jobs after Spur training” (Today, Dec 22), “42,000 unemployed find jobs through Spur” (My Paper, Dec 22), and media reports that 264,000 people have committed to training under the SPUR programme.

Since two-thirds have either started or completed training, does it mean that one-third, or about 88,000, have not even started training yet, after one year of the SPUR scheme?

So, is it correct to say that the initial goal of having 220,000 training places has been exceeded?

Media reports state that 42,000 who went through SPUR have managed to find jobs.

So, how many people are still unable to find jobs, after re-training under SPUR?

How many of the 264,000 who have committed to training are employees, and how many were not employed when they were on a SPUR course?

If we add the SPUR unemployed trainees to the average number of unemployed residents last year, which was about 87,000, what would be the total figure?

How many of the 87,000 unemployed have gone through SPUR?

The above statistics may help all stakeholders to review, evaluate and re-design SPUR, so that its effectiveness can be benchmarked for analysis in the future.

The rhetoric on more training and upgrading skills to help low-wage workers is not new, but it does not appear to have been very successful, given the fact that 401,600 resident workers earn less than $1,200 a month as of June 2009, and after adjusting for inflation at 1.4% per annum, the real increase in income for the first two quintiles of households from 1997/98 to 2007/08 was -1.7 and 0.9 per cent per annum respectively.

By the way, the CNA report “Survey shows Singapore in bottom 10 of salary rise rankings” (Apr 7, 2009), stated that: “Employees in Singapore will see some of the lowest pay rises this year compared to their counterparts in other places.”

Out of 53 countries surveyed, Singapore is in the bottom 10 — at number 43. Why is this so?

Mr Gan said his Ministry is studying if the qualifying period for Workfare should be shortened.

To qualify, low-wage workers must have worked for at least three months in a six-month period during a calendar year, or at least six months in a year.

Mr Gan said: “Having discussed this at length with our tripartite partners, we feel that an important objective of Workfare is to encourage regular work.”

”As part of the Workfare qualifying criteria, we will still require a minimum qualifying period and hopefully we encourage our Workfare recipients to go for regular work all the time, so that they can receive Workfare on a regular basis”.

I think the logic of the argument may not be quite sound — it may not be so much that low-wage workers don’t want to work for “at least three months in a six-month period during a calendar year, or at least six months in a year”, but whether they can get work in the first place?

Why would any low-wage worker choose not to work “regularly”, as the minister put it?

Perhaps one could get feedback from low-wage workers and apply some common sense rather than rely on “tripartite partners”?

In my view, perhaps the most important consideration may be to ask why should a low-wage worker be penalised by not making him or her eligible for Workfare, just because he can’t get “regular” work?

With 328,000 qualifying for Workfare, if we include those who did not qualify, or the self-employed who may have chosen not to contribute because the entire Workfare goes to their CPF making them even more “cash poor”, how many older (over age 35) workers are there in total?

If not for the temporary assistance during the recession, given to low wage workers through the one-off WIS Special Payment, which was given in cash, instead of CPF, will the number of workers receiving Workfare decline again from the 2006 figure of 362,000 to the 2008 figure of 297,000?

Why did a staggering 106,000 self-employed Singaporeans drop out of Workfare in 2007, after just 1 year?

According to the CPF Board Question and Answer website:

Q: Why do Self-Employed Persons (SEPs) and informal workers not get cash under Workfare but all the Workfare is paid into Medisave instead?

A: A key principle of Workfare is that each beneficiary has a personal responsibility to save for his own future needs. If Workfare for SEPs and informal workers is given in cash, the net result would be that the Workfare recipient would not be saving on his own.
The Workfare payment for SEPs/ informal workers are fully credited to their Medisave Account as SEPs/ informal workers are required to only contribute to their Medisave Account and at much lower rates compared to employees. To benefit informal workers, we have decided to allow informal workers to contribute to Medisave at the rates applicable to SEPs.

I think the answer and consequently perhaps the solution may be obvious — give Workfare in cash to the self-employed and employees too, as putting all or the bulk of Workfare in the CPF Medisave account does not really help low-wage workers in their already very tight cash-flow.

You can’t use Medisave to put food on the table — only when you are hospitalised or need out-patient treatment for a chronic illness!

By Leong Sze Hian

Singapore Budget 2010

A complacent budget

PRESS RELEASE 23/02/2010

The Reform Party www.thereformparty.net

A Complacent Budget


The Reform Party has already set out its response to the report by the Economic Strategies Committee in its press release dated 3rd February 2010.

We said there that “there must be serious doubts about the government’s ability to deliver given that the track record in this regard (of raising productivity) of the last ten years has been so poor and whether anything more than lip service is being paid to weaning the economy off its dependence on cheap foreign labour.”

The 2010 Budget has done nothing to allay our doubts. In fact it has increased them. The Honourable Minister talks about the need to raise our productivity growth rate to 2 to 3% per annum from its current level of less than 1% p.a. However, given that productivity fell by 1.1% in 2007, by 7.8% in 2008 and by 4.7% in 2009 (for a cumulative fall of 14%), we require at least six years of productivity growth at 2% p.a. to get back to where we were in 2006. In the meantime most of the advanced economies continued to perform better than Singapore. This was particularly the case in the US where productivity has risen by 5% over the last four quarters. In manufacturing alone our productivity grew by an average of 0.7% p.a. over the period 2000-08 whereas South Korea, Taiwan, Sweden and the US managed 7.4%, 5.2%, 4.8% and 4.6% respectively over the same period.

Out of a group of 17 economies we were second from bottom.

So even if we manage to double our productivity growth rate over the longer term we will still be unlikely to close the gap that has grown much wider over the last ten years. We will undoubtedly see a jump in the productivity growth rate in the short-term provided our output recovers rapidly on the back of global economic growth. That may allow the PAP to proclaim the short-term success of their strategy on the basis of what would have occurred anyway. However once the global economy slows down or goes into renewed recession (unlikely but still possible) productivity growth is likely to stagnate once more.

The same faulty reasoning is evidenced in the Honourable Minister’s assertion that the foreign worker policy raised wages for Singaporeans. He justifies this by pointing to a rise in median income per household member, after adjusting for inflation, of 20% in the period 2005-2008. However, using the government’s figures, the rise over the whole decade appears to have been more like 18% because median incomes fell in 2008 and 2009. The Minister has claimed that this demonstrates the success of the government’s policies. However this could have occurred without any rise in the living standards of the median Singaporean citizen. A plausible explanation is as follows.

Firstly though he omits to tell us, he probably means residents (which include PRs) and not just citizens when he talks about Singaporean households. Over the past decade the resident population grew by 15% while the resident labour force grew by approximately 25%. This was undoubtedly due to the surge in new citizens and PRs as a result of the government’s liberal immigration policies. The majority of these new residents did not have dependents (hence the much faster rise in the resident labour force than the resident population) and all of them would have had jobs so the proportion of working adults in the average resident household would have risen. As a result we would have seen an increase in real median income per household member without any real increase in the median incomes of Singaporean citizens who were already here before this period began, i.e., the majority of us.

Another reason why the Minister’s figure is misleading is that it excludes households consisting solely of non-working persons over 60. If their incomes fell during this period or their numbers increased as a proportion of total households), due not only to the aging population but also because of the diminished employment opportunities for senior citizens as a result of the government’s open-door foreign worker policy, then excluding this group would distort the figure for median income per household member and make it look better than it really is.

So the Minister has painted an exaggeratedly rosy picture of the government’s failed economic policies of the past decade while at the same time not even beginning to grasp the enormity of the transformation necessary in the economy if Singapore is to prevent the productivity gap with the advanced economies continuing to widen. However the Reform Party has serious doubts as to whether the measures set out in the Budget will have the effect of achieving even an increase in the productivity growth rate that will take us to the bottom end of the range that the other major industrialized economies are achieving. Taking each of the Minister’s major initiatives in turn, our comments are as follows:

Continuing Education and Training


The Reform Party supports substantially increasing the amounts spent on continuing education and training. In fact we have been saying for some time that Singapore invests too little in education and human capital and drawing a direct correlation between rates of productivity growth and amounts invested in public education. It’s no coincidence that Sweden invests nearly 8% of its GDP in education and had one of the highest productivity growth rates. The neglect of investment in our education system and our own workers by this government for an extended period of time is a major factor in our poor productivity record and also the need to import so many foreign graduates and skilled labour. The Reform Party intends to increase substantially the amounts spent on education at all levels and not just on continuing education and training. In any case $500 million p.a. is probably too small an amount given the scale of the productivity problem and the size of Singapore’s GDP. In addition only the sketchiest details are provided as to how this money will be spent. For instance, the maximum grants given under the related Workfare Training Scheme are far too small to realistically cover the cost of retraining older workers.

At the same time the Reform Party would want to make sure that the funds were not wasted as so many other of this government’s schemes seem to have been. For instance why do we need a new National Productivity Council when we already have SPRING? The government’s answer to everything seems to be just to create more bureaucracy at increased cost to the taxpayer.

Productivity and Innovation Credit


While the Reform Party supports in-principle the idea of tax breaks to boost productivity this measure is not targeted enough to achieve the desired effect, while at the same time inviting creative accounting on the part of companies to reclassify expenditures to fall within these categories. The Reform Party would like to see the tax breaks restricted to specifically productivity-boosting investment. We fail to see the benefit from extending the scope of the tax break to other types of investment. We already have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world and invest nearly 30% of our GDP (a share that has risen substantially over the last few years) so it is hard to see that more broad-brush tax breaks are the answer. Just as with the Jobs Credit Scheme which was a wasteful and ill-conceived labour subsidy which contributed to the dramatic fall in labour productivity, the Productivity and Innovation Credit is likely to lead to wasteful over investment which will depress profitability, ultimately leading to stagnation as the reliance on exports and investment to drive growth rather than consumption becomes more pronounced.

National Productivity Fund


This is only a fund and not actual spending and represents a commitment of only up to $1 billion for the first five years, or $200 million p.a. As the fund is to be disbursed by the National Productivity Council for specific productivity initiatives the risk must be that it is wasted and not properly accounted for. In the example cited, construction, productivity improvements are much more likely to come about if the supply of cheap labour to the construction industry is reduced. The gradual nature and relatively small size of the increase in foreign worker levies mean that this is unlikely to come about. In fact the cost of foreign workers may not rise if employers have enough bargaining power to ensure that they do not bear the cost of the increase. There may be a role for a National Productivity Fund but the Reform Party believes that it is more likely to lead to the waste of taxpayers’ money and is no substitute for using the price mechanism to achieve economic goals. This is a government that rightly is opposed to the development of a welfare state as far as individuals are concerned but seems always prepared to make an exception for business.

Increase in Foreign Worker Levies


As pointed out above, the increases will be too gradual and of too small size to radically affect the demand for foreign labour. In fact depending on employers’ bargaining power and their ability to turn to cheaper sources of labour, there may not be any rise in the total cost of labour and thus no incentive to raise productivity. This is why the Reform Party has consistently advocated the use of a minimum wage instead which would apply to all workers and thus force employers to cut back on the least productive and low-skilled workers first. It is worrying that the Minister says that the growth target is still 3-5% p.a. when the target for productivity growth is only 2%. Assuming that our domestic workforce (excluding new citizens and PRs) is shrinking, this means that the government still intends to allow the foreign workforce to grow, possibly by considerably in excess of 3% p.a. This is the clearest signal that this Budget does not represent a change in the failed policies of the past that have not benefited the average Singaporean. We will continue to see a rise in the foreign worker population despite the government’s statements to the contrary.

In addition the Reform Party would like the Minister to have provided some estimate of the additional revenue to be raised from the increases. Given that the average foreign worker levy is expected to rise by $100 by 2012, it seems reasonable to expect more than $1 billion p.a. in additional revenue to be raised by 2012. So while it may be true that the government is committed to up to $1.1 billion p.a. in extra spending to boost productivity and encourage innovation the effect of the increased taxes will mean that the Budget is revenue-neutral and possibly contractionary if spending under the various schemes is less than anticipated.

Growing Globally Competitive Companies


Naturally the Reform Party supports this aim but it is difficult to see how creating another set of new acronyms and promising yet more spending is any different from the numerous other initiatives announced by the government in previous Budgets. The Reform Party believes that it is high time that the plethora of schemes be audited for efficiency and to ensure that they are not just providing jobs for under-employed bureaucrats without any market experience.

The Reform Party is fully supportive of the commitment to increasing R&D and of the National Research Fund. However it would like to see Singapore concentrate on areas such as the commercialization of innovation rather than trying to duplicate what is being done by the big boys-the US, EU, Japan and China. Also this government fails to recognize that the restrictions on freedom of expression as well as the system of rote-based learning have to be changed if Singapore is to become competitive as a “knowledge” economy. This government fails to recognize that those countries which consistently top the charts for innovation are those that also have the highest levels of human freedom as measured by several objective indices, i.e., Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the US, Canada, Japan and the UK. Singapore ranks in the lower half of the table on most of these indices. Is it any accident that South Korea and Taiwan, which have out-performed Singapore by a wide margin on measures of productivity and innovation, also have considerably freer political systems?

Including All Singaporeans in Growth


Despite impressive-sounding phrases about the government’s achievements in this area, this Budget’s initiatives do very little to achieve this objective. The social safety net is very meagre compared with other economies at a similar stage of development yet far from improving our economic performance this has damaged it. Singapore is one of the most unequal societies in the world (a higher Gini coefficient than the US) despite being only a small city. There is increasing evidence that very high levels of income inequality are correlated with undesirable outcomes in terms of a whole range of indicators of a society’s well-being. Whilst we are not in favour of redistributive taxation, these are some of the measures the Reform Party would introduce if elected to power to ensure a more inclusive society:

•Reduce taxes and fees on the less well-off
•Introduce a minimum wage
•Invest in creating a system of basic universal health insurance to replace the inadequate Medisave and Medishield schemes. This government needs to recognize that public health is an investment good rather than a welfare drain. This can be funded by earmarking part of CPF contributions
•Create a system of limited unemployment insurance to be funded from CPF
•Introduce a basic old age pension again to be funded from CPF contributions
•Allow individuals to decide how much they wanted to put into CPF once the above three objectives had been met.
•Introduce universal, free and compulsory education from pre-school to secondary level
•Expand tertiary enrollment substantially and provide assistance for people at all stages of working life to complete degrees or further education as part of an expansion of the Continuing Education and Training Initiative announced in the Budget
•Privatize Temasek and GIC and distribute equity to Singaporean citizens
•Dismantle the GLC structure and adopt a more pro-active competition policy
•Release more land for low-cost housing and inject more competition into the low-cost house building process by allowing private sector to compete with HDB
•Ensure that NS burden was fairly shared by new citizens and PRs
•Adopt a more rational immigration policy where the growth in the labour force is driven by genuine skill shortages rather than by a desire simply to expand the size of the economy
Budget Position


It is difficult to follow the government’s reasoning here or to obtain any kind of clarity. The Minister talks about the basic deficit (the balance of Operating Revenues and Expenditures) being 2.6% of GDP. However, after the Net Investments Return Contribution and before top-ups to trust and endowment funds, this is reduced and becomes a surplus of 0.2% of GDP. There is no reason in economic terms not to include the whole of the income from our investments, rather than 50% and in that case we are running a considerable surplus of around 3% of GDP. Also top-ups to trust funds does not represent actual spending so has no effect on the government’s overall fiscal position. The Reform Party would have liked to see further tax cuts or increased spending of at least 3% of GDP to advance the objectives above and to stimulate our economy in a weak global economic environment.

Conclusion


Despite acknowledging what the Reform Party has been pointing out for some time, the government has set undemanding targets for productivity growth that are likely to be met anyway as the economy recovers from recession. Singapore is in danger of slipping further behind the advanced economies with all the consequences this entails for real incomes. Yet the Budget fails to address this and instead we get another round of wasteful corporate subsidies and tax breaks rather than targeted incentives to raise productivity. The government has ducked the opportunity to introduce a minimum wage as a means of forcing business to use labour more productively and instead opted for a relatively painless rise in foreign worker levies. These are not likely to have much effect and may even be absorbed by the foreign workers themselves. The Reform Party supports the additional amounts allocated to Continuing Education and Training and to boost public R&D. However this can only be part of a big boost in investment in education which we have called for for some time. While the government pays lip service to building a more inclusive society, this is unlikely to happen until they adopt the Reform Party policies outlined above. Only by investing more in our own people instead of allowing easy recourse to cheap foreign labour are we likely to get a sustained jump in productivity growth.

Medisave contribution may go up to cover costs

Medisave contribution may go up to cover costs

SINGAPORE: Medisave contribution may go up as the need for long-term care increases with Singapore's aging population.

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said the current contribution rate of 6.5% to about 9% does not build up enough reserves to pay for both big medical bills and long-term care.

Medisave has been around for 25 years and was originally meant to pay for major hospital stays but its use has since been expanded to include some outpatient payments.

Mr Khaw said the current contribution rate is not enough to cover long-term healthcare bills.

"We've never priced that into Medisave contribution rate. So that's a topic almost certainly I see a need for discussion during the upcoming Budget Debate," he said.

Speaking on the sidelines of his visit to the Bloodbank@HSA on Thursday, Mr Khaw said the increase in contribution rate will depend on what the Members of Parliament are ready to support.

Meanwhile, more money will be injected into the common health subsidy pool for citizens.

This follows the ministry's decision to reduce health subsidies given to permanent residents (PRs) from January 1 next year. The idea is to further sharpen the distinction between Singapore citizens and PRs.

The Health Ministry said in a statement: "Citizens enjoy heavy subsidy in Class B2 and C wards. PRs receive significant subsidy while foreigners are not subsidised at all. The subsidy distinction reflects the privileges of citizenship, but there is scope for refinement."

PRs now get 10 percentage points less in subsidy than citizens. This will go up to a 20-point difference by 2012.

With the revision, citizens are still entitled to an 80% subsidy for a Class C ward. But PRs will be entitled to 60% of cost, down from 70%.

And Mr Khaw explained how the cost savings from the move will be used.

"Our data suggests that about 6% of our patients are PRs, so this reduction in subsidy for them, will save us about seven million dollars a year, which we would then use to top up our growing subsidy for citizens."

The minister said that it is only right for citizens to enjoy more subsidies than non-citizens.

Mr Khaw added that the move will mean PRs have to make some adjustments like getting additional health insurance.

"If you're not already insured with a private shield, then you should seriously think about taking up one because your basic MediShield is really aimed at the B2, C subsidy rates. So now that your subsidy will be less, I think you need to augment it with a private shield."

To help the PRs affected by the policy to ease into the adjustments, the reduction will be carried out in stages.

From January 1 next year, the subsidy for PRs in the public hospitals (Class B2 and C wards) and specialist outpatient clinics will be reduced by 5 percentage-points.

From July 1 next year, another 5 percentage-point reduction will apply in the public hospitals and specialist outpatient clinics.

Also from July 1 next year, the subsidy for PRs in the intermediate and
long-term care sector like community hospitals and nursing homes will be reduced by 5 percentage-points.

From January 1, 2012, another 5 percentage-point reduction will apply in the intermediate and long-term care sector.

By 2012, there will be a 20 percentage-point difference in healthcare subsidies between citizens and PRs.

- CNA/ir

MM Lee urged voters to support National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan

SINGAPORE: The Housing & Development Board (HDB) is considering imposing a quota on Permanent Residents buying resale HDB flats. This could be done in the same way that racial quotas are imposed to prevent ethnic enclaves.

The issue came up in a dialogue session on public housing with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew where questions on affordability and aspirations were brought up.

Public housing has come a long way from where it started 50 years ago. Still, issues remain. These include how foreigners are perceived to affect pricing of flats.

Mr Lee said over the next five years, the intake of foreigners will slow down but that means Singaporeans will have to increase their productivity.

Going further, dialogue moderator Professor Tommy Koh asked if more could be done to integrate those already here, in much the same way that the Ethnic Integration Policy was introduced in 1989 in public housing estates to get races mingling.

Mr Lee said: "Could the same approach be adopted towards integrating new Singaporeans? We are not allowing new Singaporeans whether from China, India, Malaysia, or whatever, to congregate in the same tower blocks, which they are already beginning to do.


"They buy second hand flats and they congregate. So we have a record of how many new citizens living where and we keep their numbers dispersed. It's a very valuable tool of communal harmony."

HDB later clarified that a quota policy on PRs for resale flats was being considered.

One other issue that came up during the dialogue is that of affordability, which has come up repeatedly. One suggestion was to have HDB provide more rental housing units.

Mr Lee said: 'I completely disagree with that policy. It will lead us into all kinds of problems. You are getting a dependency group - dependent on the government on constant subsidies, whereas our philosophy is 'I give you this asset, I will increase the value of the asset as the economy grows but it is yours and you look after it.' And we do not have run down public housing like other countries which are rental."

Mr Lee was also asked for his take on a recent media report that at least three opposition parties were eyeing National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan's ward with the aim of making public housing affordability an election issue.

He explained: "What is affordabilty? From the point of view of the buyer? And the government that is subsidising you? The government has to price it at a level that is fair to the revenue it is collecting and fair to the individual, not only the present buyer but past and future buyers. If Mr Mah is unable to defend himself, he deserves to lose.

"No country in the world has given its citizens and families an asset as valuable as what we have given every family here. And if you say that policy is at fault, you must be daft."

Mr Lee was speaking before some 500 delegates from 20 countries at a housing conference. - CNA/vm

Public housing in 21st century must meet changing needs: Minister Mah

SINGAPORE: Singapore's National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said public housing in the 21st century must evolve to meet changing needs.

But the core mission of the HDB remains unchanged - that of providing Singaporeans with affordable quality homes and building cohesive communities.

Speaking at the International Housing Conference in Singapore, Mr Mah noted the HDB will face increasing challenges due to shifting demographics. These include an aging population which may require further innovations in housing policies or building design.

These include an aging population, which may require further innovations in housing policies or building design.

In addition, with more new Singapore citizens, greater integration efforts will be required.

Mr Mah said rapid globalisation and affluence may also prompt other lifestyle changes and with it, increased expectations of what public housing can provide.

Singapore is also facing the steadily ageing profile of HDB flats and towns. So there will be an urgent need to upgrade, redevelop and rejuvenate older estates.

Mr Mah said HDB must meet these challenges and continue achieving environmental, economic and social sustainability. This will contribute to Singapore's overall quest to provide a green and healthy living environment, through careful long-term planning.

In the past half century, HDB achieved much for Singapore and garnered significant international recognition, including the UN Public Service Award.

And he urged HDB to continue its relentless pursuit of sustainable public housing for the next 50 years and beyond. - CNA/vm

Former SAF scholar joins Reform Party

Former SAF scholar joins Reform Party











Reformers at a Jurong Walkabout – from left to right – James Teo, Justin Ong, Tony Tan


One can be forgiven for believing that there is somewhat a connection between high-flying scholars and the ruling party. This can be attributed to the number of former scholars who are serving in Parliament and the Cabinet under the ruling party. Mr Tony Tan (TT), however, took an alternative path vis-à-vis his other illustrious colleagues.

A recipient of the SAF Merit Scholarship, he earned a Bachelor of Engineering with Honours from the University of Cambridge. He also earned a MBA and Biomedical degrees from the University of Leicester and Central Queensland University respectively. He left SAF to found an educational provider, achieving success that earned him the Spirit of Enterprise award. He has remained within the educational sector ever since.

Joining the Reform Party, he became a member of the Central Executive Committee in 2009. The Online Citizen was fortunate to be able to catch up with Tony, soliciting his views on various issues, and even managed to catch a slight glimpse into the upcoming educational seminar organised by the Reform Party.

In this exclusive interview, Tony Tan shares his perspective on the economy, national service and education. To find out more about Tony Tan and the Reform Party, why not pop over at the Reform Party’s Seminar on Education? It will be held on 130pm, 23rd January at Berkshire School Pte Ltd, 100 Beach Road #02-19A, Shaw Towers, Singapore 189702. The facebook page for the event is accessible at http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=231270716589&index=1

Blogger Gerald Giam joins the Workers’ Party

Blogger Gerald Giam joins the Workers’ Party
Saturday, 23 January 2010

From Gerald Giam’s blog http://geraldgiam.sg/2010/01/why-i-joined-the-opposition/:

I joined the WP because I believe Singapore needs an alternative leadership that is capable of taking over the reins and steering our country to its next level of development, should the PAP stumble. This will ensure that Singapore will continue to prosper and thrive even without the PAP in power. I believe the WP has the potential to be that alternative government in the future, and I want to play my part to contribute to its growth and development. I hope to be able to help my party sharpen its policy proposals and broaden its outreach to Singaporeans who are not usually interested in politics.

I am under no illusions that the road ahead as an opposition activist will be long and fraught with obstacles, not to mention minefields. Many who have gone before me have paid a heavy price for their ideals. Some have lost everything they had, except their dignity. All Singaporeans are heavily indebted to these heroes, whether or not they realise it.

I hope I will not have to suffer political persecution like these heroes did, but I know many things are beyond my control. I therefore ask my friends and readers for their prayers and support, as I take my first of many steps in this long march towards building a better Singapore for all Singaporeans.

Election-year largesse unlikely

Election-year largesse unlikely

BY FIONA CHAN

DESPITE this being a likely election year, next month's Budget looks set to be a more low-key affair than those of previous election years, with fewer handouts to please Singapore's voters.

Economists expect this year's government spending plan to be generous, but more focused on laying the foundation for medium-term growth.

This will be in contrast to the round of recession-cushioning reliefs announced last year - which included the bumper $20.5 billion Resilience Package - or the liberal payouts unveiled in other election years.

'Last year, we saw more focus on practical responses to the crisis to stem job losses,' said Barclays Capital economist Leong Wai Ho.

'This year, given that the immediate urgency has sort of faded, there will be a shift in emphasis towards longer-term measures in the Budget.'

Likely to dominate the Budget will be the soon-to-be-published recommendations of the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC), which has been tasked with mapping out new ways for Singapore to grow over the next five to 10 years.

In fact, economists are holding back on predicting the contents of the Budget goodie bag until they have a clearer view of what resources the Government will need to commit to implement the ESC recommendations.

Among other things, the committee is expected to outline how Singapore can re-orientate its economy with a greater focus on services, said OCBC Bank economist Selena Ling.

This may result in Budget measures that include more money for education, training and re-skilling programmes, plus extra help for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), for instance in the area of financing, Ms Ling and other economists said.

The Government has already indicated that some of the downturn assistance provided in last year's Budget will be extended this year.

The Jobs Credit scheme will continue to help companies keep their workers employed until June, while the financing schemes under the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative will encourage banks to keep lending to firms.

In October last year, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Parliament that Budget 2010 was going to shift from broad-based relief towards more specific targeting. This, he pointed out, would include 'restructuring, enhancing productivity, and preparing for growth over the medium to longer term'.

Despite this year looking set to be an election year, Barclays' Mr Leong believes lavish cash handouts are unlikely.

'We've already seen a tremendous amount of handouts over the last few years,' he said.

These have included 2006's $2.6 billion Progress Package, the $4 billion GST Offset Package in 2007, and last year's $20.5 billion Resilience Package.

'To be fair, it's probably time to cut back on some of that, rein in the Budget and prepare for the possibility of a rainy day again,' Mr Leong said.

This, he added, was particularly important 'given that we're not certain about the durability of the recovery'.

Economists, however, do not think the Budget will be totally devoid of goodies, although the Government may try to align its handouts to longer-term goals.

DBS economist Irvin Seah expects a lowering of the top personal income tax rate - something which is in line with Singapore's long-term strategy of attracting foreign talent.

'We would also probably see more top-ups in public assistance schemes to help the lower-income groups,' he said.

'This is in line with the Government's long-term objective to foster inclusive growth, as the lower-income groups are finding it difficult to keep pace with development.'

OCBC's Ms Ling suggested that some handouts may come in the form of measures to help Singaporeans cope with rising living costs, assist the needy as well as provide greater differentiation between foreigners and Singaporeans.

'But there won't be big handouts in the style of, say, Growth Dividends,' she added, referring to the cash payouts in the Budget that preceded the 2006 elections.

The 2010 spending statement is slated to be in marked contrast to recent election-year Budgets, all of which were considered to set new levels of largesse when unveiled.

The $2.45 billion Budget of 1996, which came prior to the elections of January 1997, cut the corporate tax rate by one percentage point, reduced the top personal income tax rate by two percentage points, and gave away a 10 per cent tax rebate.

In 2001, a slew of tax cuts and rebates worth more than $2 billion - including $333 million in utility, rental and conservancy fee 'share-outs' to HDB households - was unveiled in the run-up to elections in November that year.

The Government also handed $1.85 billion back to Singaporeans via special transfers, including $1 billion in CPF top-ups.

It then followed this up with 2006's Progress Package, which gave out $1.4 billion in Growth Dividends and introduced Workfare Bonuses for lower-wage workers.

Elections that year came three months after the Budget in May.

This article was first published in The Straits Times.