Singapore needs alternative voices and public political engagement - TOC TV
">
http://theonlinecitizen.com/
-
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Stepping forward – Part 1
Stepping forward – Part 1
Posted by theonlinecitizen on March 23, 2011
In an exclusive interview with The Online Citizen, four former Reform Party members – along with Ms Nor Lella Mardillah – speak about the reasons they joined the National Solidarity Party, their interest in politics, and the issues which should concern Singaporeans as the country prepares itself for the General Election.
Andrew Loh /
It has been quite a rollercoaster ride for some of the National Solidarity Party’s (NSP) new candidates for the General Election (GE), expected to be called in a matter of weeks.
Mr Tony Tan, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Jeisilan Sivalingam and Ms Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss, together with five others, resigned en masse from the three-year old Reform Party in February this year. For a while, their political future seemed uncertain. In the weeks following the resignations, the group held talks with other opposition political parties, ostensibly about joining them.
Most notably, Mr Tan and Ms Poa met with veteran politician and Member of Parliament, Mr Chiam See Tong, in February/March. Mr Chiam is the secretary general of the Singapore People’s Party. The group also held talks with the NSP in the same period.
Eventually, however, the four of the nine RP breakaway faction decided to sign-up with the NSP and were promptly introduced on 11 March as the party’s candidates for the upcoming GE.
One of the reasons why they chose the NSP is because of the ‘complementary’ abilities which they are able to provide to the party, the group tells The Online Citizen (TOC). An example is Mr Tan’s and Ms Poa’s experience in and exposure to public service. Mr Tan was formerly with the Singapore Armed Forces, and Ms Poa with the Administrative Service. The experience and the organizational abilities of the NSP’s veterans, together with the new members’ exposure in public service, would be mutually beneficial to the party especially in a General Election, the group says.
“This election very important for us,” Mr Tan explains. He feels that the experience will cement the bonding among the old and new party members.
Mr Tan, Ms Poa, Mr Jeisilan and Ms Nor Lella were introduced at the media conference in March as the NSP’s candidates for Moulmein-Kallang GRC. However, the party is still in discussion with the Workers’ Party which is also interested in contesting the constituency.
Ms Chong, meanwhile, has set her sights on Mountbatten SMC, where she grew up in, and has begun her outreach activities there.
So, what is it that makes seemingly ordinary folks like them interested in politics, and opposition politics at that?
Mr Jeisilan says he was “disillusioned” with the way things were and the direction that the country was heading. It came to a point where he said he had to get involved. He joined the Reform Party and became its Organising Secretary.
“The primary purpose was to stand [for elections],” he says. As a teenager he would attend events and rallies where the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam would speak at. These inspired him. “I saw the passion and conviction he had in fighting for ordinary Singaporeans,” Mr Jeisilan explains. “That had an effect on me.”
Mr Jeyaretnam founded the Reform Party in 2008.
For lawyer Ms Chong, it was her personal experience which spurred her to dip her feet in politics. When her block was designated for the en bloc programme, she realized that she could do little when the majority of those in her block of flats consented to the programme. She could not fathom how a law could allow one’s home to be involuntarily sold.
“I began to read the parliamentary debates,” Ms Chong says, “to see how that law was promulgated.” While the debate was “lively”, she says, in the end the PAP Government, because of its overwhelmingly majority in the House, passed the law.
“I do not understand how we can have any parliamentary debates over new laws if 82 out of 84 parliamentarians are from one party,” she says. Ms Chong also observed that her own children were becoming disaffected and were lacking a sense of belonging to the country. “That really woke me up,” she says, “that I may lose my children. I [would] be as good as childless because my children would be wanting to go overseas.”
It has since been a journey of several years for her to find out why young Singaporeans such as her children do not feel any affinity to Singapore. Her decision to enter the political arena is, among others, to help facilitate a two-party system in Singapore and to foster a more engaged citizenry.
When Lee Hsien Loong took office as Prime Minister in 2004, Mr Tan believed that PM Lee would take the country “to the next level”. However, soon after, Mr Tan began to realize that things were not quite right. The Government’s decision to peg civil servants’ salaries to the private sector and bonuses to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was a turning point for Mr Tan.
“I personally had a lot of concerns about this,” he says. As someone who had started and managed businesses of his own, he could not imagine that there was only one Key Performance Indicator (KPI) – the GDP – as the determinant in paying such high salaries and bonuses to ministers. “If your system is one that is opaque, and [you] only say trust us, we know what is best for you… I am very uncomfortable with that,” Mr Tan explains.
“I first started having misgivings about the PAP Government when they linked HDB upgrading to party politics,” says Ms Poa. “To me that was the first overt sign that party interest supercedes citizens’ interest.” She became more concerned when other policies were implemented, such as high ministerial salaries and the decision to allow casinos in Singapore. The Government was also not listening to public sentiment, says Ms Poa.
“PAP has been in power for so long, successful for so long they have enormous faith in some of their longstanding positions,” Ms Poa says. “It has come to a point where it’s difficult for any person to change them. I don’t believe the change can come from inside.”
Change can only come from politicians, she feels. “For civil service, it is very difficult to change anything because they are there to execute [policies].”
Ms Poa says that while there are certain people within the PAP who may be trying to change things from within the party, she does not see them succeeding either. “I feel that external pressure is necessary,” she explains.
For Ms Nor Lella, it was her experience in community, charity and counseling work which made her realize that the system was not helping those at the bottom level of society and those who have fallen through the cracks.
“The things I have witnessed with my own eyes, my ground work with Red Staff Community. . it’s very sad,” she says. Eventually, through a friend she got in touch with Mr Goh Meng Seng, the Secretary General of the NSP.
“He asked me what I wanted to do in my life,” Ms Nor Lella says, “and I said well, if I could change something for these people, that’s what I want to do. He asked me to consider NSP as my next platform. I didn’t say no.”
Their individual decisions to step into politics had not been easy, the group says. There were “a lot of push and pull over a duration of a few years”, Mr Tan explains. “For many of us, mother of four, father of two, I must say that all of us make a lot of sacrifices. Time we want to spend with our kids, time to grow our business, gazing at the beach, which is something I miss.”
They are also aware of the state of the opposition in Singapore.
“We know the state of opposition vis-à-vis PAP,” Mr Tan says. “Like machinery versus spears.” But he is not discouraged. In particular, he hopes to get younger Singaporeans to be interested. “This is my message to young people: in 10-15 years this country will be yours, not ours. So what is in it for you? They should know that if they are not happy with the policies, they must speak out.”
In Part 2 of this article, the group speaks about the issues which they feel are important, especially in the General Election.
Posted by theonlinecitizen on March 23, 2011
In an exclusive interview with The Online Citizen, four former Reform Party members – along with Ms Nor Lella Mardillah – speak about the reasons they joined the National Solidarity Party, their interest in politics, and the issues which should concern Singaporeans as the country prepares itself for the General Election.
Andrew Loh /
It has been quite a rollercoaster ride for some of the National Solidarity Party’s (NSP) new candidates for the General Election (GE), expected to be called in a matter of weeks.
Mr Tony Tan, Ms Hazel Poa, Mr Jeisilan Sivalingam and Ms Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss, together with five others, resigned en masse from the three-year old Reform Party in February this year. For a while, their political future seemed uncertain. In the weeks following the resignations, the group held talks with other opposition political parties, ostensibly about joining them.
Most notably, Mr Tan and Ms Poa met with veteran politician and Member of Parliament, Mr Chiam See Tong, in February/March. Mr Chiam is the secretary general of the Singapore People’s Party. The group also held talks with the NSP in the same period.
Eventually, however, the four of the nine RP breakaway faction decided to sign-up with the NSP and were promptly introduced on 11 March as the party’s candidates for the upcoming GE.
One of the reasons why they chose the NSP is because of the ‘complementary’ abilities which they are able to provide to the party, the group tells The Online Citizen (TOC). An example is Mr Tan’s and Ms Poa’s experience in and exposure to public service. Mr Tan was formerly with the Singapore Armed Forces, and Ms Poa with the Administrative Service. The experience and the organizational abilities of the NSP’s veterans, together with the new members’ exposure in public service, would be mutually beneficial to the party especially in a General Election, the group says.
“This election very important for us,” Mr Tan explains. He feels that the experience will cement the bonding among the old and new party members.
Mr Tan, Ms Poa, Mr Jeisilan and Ms Nor Lella were introduced at the media conference in March as the NSP’s candidates for Moulmein-Kallang GRC. However, the party is still in discussion with the Workers’ Party which is also interested in contesting the constituency.
Ms Chong, meanwhile, has set her sights on Mountbatten SMC, where she grew up in, and has begun her outreach activities there.
So, what is it that makes seemingly ordinary folks like them interested in politics, and opposition politics at that?
Mr Jeisilan says he was “disillusioned” with the way things were and the direction that the country was heading. It came to a point where he said he had to get involved. He joined the Reform Party and became its Organising Secretary.
“The primary purpose was to stand [for elections],” he says. As a teenager he would attend events and rallies where the late Mr JB Jeyaretnam would speak at. These inspired him. “I saw the passion and conviction he had in fighting for ordinary Singaporeans,” Mr Jeisilan explains. “That had an effect on me.”
Mr Jeyaretnam founded the Reform Party in 2008.
For lawyer Ms Chong, it was her personal experience which spurred her to dip her feet in politics. When her block was designated for the en bloc programme, she realized that she could do little when the majority of those in her block of flats consented to the programme. She could not fathom how a law could allow one’s home to be involuntarily sold.
“I began to read the parliamentary debates,” Ms Chong says, “to see how that law was promulgated.” While the debate was “lively”, she says, in the end the PAP Government, because of its overwhelmingly majority in the House, passed the law.
“I do not understand how we can have any parliamentary debates over new laws if 82 out of 84 parliamentarians are from one party,” she says. Ms Chong also observed that her own children were becoming disaffected and were lacking a sense of belonging to the country. “That really woke me up,” she says, “that I may lose my children. I [would] be as good as childless because my children would be wanting to go overseas.”
It has since been a journey of several years for her to find out why young Singaporeans such as her children do not feel any affinity to Singapore. Her decision to enter the political arena is, among others, to help facilitate a two-party system in Singapore and to foster a more engaged citizenry.
When Lee Hsien Loong took office as Prime Minister in 2004, Mr Tan believed that PM Lee would take the country “to the next level”. However, soon after, Mr Tan began to realize that things were not quite right. The Government’s decision to peg civil servants’ salaries to the private sector and bonuses to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was a turning point for Mr Tan.
“I personally had a lot of concerns about this,” he says. As someone who had started and managed businesses of his own, he could not imagine that there was only one Key Performance Indicator (KPI) – the GDP – as the determinant in paying such high salaries and bonuses to ministers. “If your system is one that is opaque, and [you] only say trust us, we know what is best for you… I am very uncomfortable with that,” Mr Tan explains.
“I first started having misgivings about the PAP Government when they linked HDB upgrading to party politics,” says Ms Poa. “To me that was the first overt sign that party interest supercedes citizens’ interest.” She became more concerned when other policies were implemented, such as high ministerial salaries and the decision to allow casinos in Singapore. The Government was also not listening to public sentiment, says Ms Poa.
“PAP has been in power for so long, successful for so long they have enormous faith in some of their longstanding positions,” Ms Poa says. “It has come to a point where it’s difficult for any person to change them. I don’t believe the change can come from inside.”
Change can only come from politicians, she feels. “For civil service, it is very difficult to change anything because they are there to execute [policies].”
Ms Poa says that while there are certain people within the PAP who may be trying to change things from within the party, she does not see them succeeding either. “I feel that external pressure is necessary,” she explains.
For Ms Nor Lella, it was her experience in community, charity and counseling work which made her realize that the system was not helping those at the bottom level of society and those who have fallen through the cracks.
“The things I have witnessed with my own eyes, my ground work with Red Staff Community. . it’s very sad,” she says. Eventually, through a friend she got in touch with Mr Goh Meng Seng, the Secretary General of the NSP.
“He asked me what I wanted to do in my life,” Ms Nor Lella says, “and I said well, if I could change something for these people, that’s what I want to do. He asked me to consider NSP as my next platform. I didn’t say no.”
Their individual decisions to step into politics had not been easy, the group says. There were “a lot of push and pull over a duration of a few years”, Mr Tan explains. “For many of us, mother of four, father of two, I must say that all of us make a lot of sacrifices. Time we want to spend with our kids, time to grow our business, gazing at the beach, which is something I miss.”
They are also aware of the state of the opposition in Singapore.
“We know the state of opposition vis-à-vis PAP,” Mr Tan says. “Like machinery versus spears.” But he is not discouraged. In particular, he hopes to get younger Singaporeans to be interested. “This is my message to young people: in 10-15 years this country will be yours, not ours. So what is in it for you? They should know that if they are not happy with the policies, they must speak out.”
In Part 2 of this article, the group speaks about the issues which they feel are important, especially in the General Election.
DA unveils its first batch of election candidates
SDA unveils its first batch of election candidates
By Hetty Musfirah Abdul Khamid | Posted: 23 March 2011 2151 hrs
SINGAPORE: The opposition Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) said it has identified more than 20 potential candidates for the upcoming General Election.
The first batch was introduced on Wednesday with SDA also listing the constituencies they would contest in.
Three of the four candidates introduced are from the Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS), a component party of the SDA.
One of them is 38-year-old Noraine Anabi, a business consultant. She is expected to contest in Pasir Pasir-Punggol GRC.
Ms Noraine's father was a veteran PKMS member in the 1960s and 70s.
"Whatever he had actually done previously, or whatever service he has done for the people and the public, it has inspired me to join politics," she said.
Another first-time candidate is Noraine's husband, 42-year-old Mohd Nazem Suki, who is also secretary-general of PKMS.
The entrepreneur said he intends to stand in Radin Mas constituency, where other opposition parties have also expressed interest.
Other parties like National Solidarity Party and the Reform Party have also expressed interest to contest there.
SDA said it would avoid any three- or four-cornered fights.
Mr Nazem said his candidacy has been acknowledged.
"I have made my stand clear that I will be contesting in Radin Mas, during our last meeting, the inter-party meeting," Mr Nazem said.
"There was interest by other parties, and we are on the negotiation and I think we have come to a conclusion whereby only one party will be contesting in Radin Mas.
"We are still on the negotiation table and I believe, I stand a chance in Radin Mas."
Another candidate is 46-year-old project consultant Ismail Yaacob, who is also first vice-president of PKMS. He said he will stand in Sengkang West constituency.
He last contested in 1988 at the age of 21.
"Our focus now is on education, housing, transportation, medical costs (which) very important for the old age (so) I think we have to do something for that," Mr Ismail said.
Meanwhile, SDA secretary-general Desmond Lim confirmed his candidacy for Punggol East SMC.
SDA said the potential candidates identified so far come from a diverse background.
Their age ranges between 27 and 65 years old.
As for their educational qualifications, they include ITE graduates right up to degree holders.
Mr Lim said: "We offer ourselves, (because) one, to give the people a choice and two, to reduce the government's power and give back the rights to the people to participate in the process of policy-making.
"What we are talking about is transparency and accountability.
"There is no such thing as contesting in the right or wrong GRC, or we are here to just offer ourselves when the elections come.
"I have been in politics (for) more than 18 years - that only reflects commitment... this country, for Singaporeans and for our next generation.
"So the only thing is that we are from different camps but we still serving the same country".
Mr Lim said SDA's candidates will be full-time MPs, if elected.
He added as there are now more candidates expressing interest in the polls, SDA is thinking of contesting in more constituencies.
Among those likely to be fielded are 27-year-old Abdul Malik Mohd Ghazali, former member of the Singapore Democratic Party.
The last time he made the news was when he purportedly incited violence by posting negative remarks against a minister on Facebook.
He was arrested in August last year but the case was dropped in February.
Mr Lim said more candidates will be introduced soon.
-CNA/wk
By Hetty Musfirah Abdul Khamid | Posted: 23 March 2011 2151 hrs
SINGAPORE: The opposition Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) said it has identified more than 20 potential candidates for the upcoming General Election.
The first batch was introduced on Wednesday with SDA also listing the constituencies they would contest in.
Three of the four candidates introduced are from the Singapore Malay National Organisation (PKMS), a component party of the SDA.
One of them is 38-year-old Noraine Anabi, a business consultant. She is expected to contest in Pasir Pasir-Punggol GRC.
Ms Noraine's father was a veteran PKMS member in the 1960s and 70s.
"Whatever he had actually done previously, or whatever service he has done for the people and the public, it has inspired me to join politics," she said.
Another first-time candidate is Noraine's husband, 42-year-old Mohd Nazem Suki, who is also secretary-general of PKMS.
The entrepreneur said he intends to stand in Radin Mas constituency, where other opposition parties have also expressed interest.
Other parties like National Solidarity Party and the Reform Party have also expressed interest to contest there.
SDA said it would avoid any three- or four-cornered fights.
Mr Nazem said his candidacy has been acknowledged.
"I have made my stand clear that I will be contesting in Radin Mas, during our last meeting, the inter-party meeting," Mr Nazem said.
"There was interest by other parties, and we are on the negotiation and I think we have come to a conclusion whereby only one party will be contesting in Radin Mas.
"We are still on the negotiation table and I believe, I stand a chance in Radin Mas."
Another candidate is 46-year-old project consultant Ismail Yaacob, who is also first vice-president of PKMS. He said he will stand in Sengkang West constituency.
He last contested in 1988 at the age of 21.
"Our focus now is on education, housing, transportation, medical costs (which) very important for the old age (so) I think we have to do something for that," Mr Ismail said.
Meanwhile, SDA secretary-general Desmond Lim confirmed his candidacy for Punggol East SMC.
SDA said the potential candidates identified so far come from a diverse background.
Their age ranges between 27 and 65 years old.
As for their educational qualifications, they include ITE graduates right up to degree holders.
Mr Lim said: "We offer ourselves, (because) one, to give the people a choice and two, to reduce the government's power and give back the rights to the people to participate in the process of policy-making.
"What we are talking about is transparency and accountability.
"There is no such thing as contesting in the right or wrong GRC, or we are here to just offer ourselves when the elections come.
"I have been in politics (for) more than 18 years - that only reflects commitment... this country, for Singaporeans and for our next generation.
"So the only thing is that we are from different camps but we still serving the same country".
Mr Lim said SDA's candidates will be full-time MPs, if elected.
He added as there are now more candidates expressing interest in the polls, SDA is thinking of contesting in more constituencies.
Among those likely to be fielded are 27-year-old Abdul Malik Mohd Ghazali, former member of the Singapore Democratic Party.
The last time he made the news was when he purportedly incited violence by posting negative remarks against a minister on Facebook.
He was arrested in August last year but the case was dropped in February.
Mr Lim said more candidates will be introduced soon.
-CNA/wk
PAP introduces its first new woman candidate for coming GE
PAP introduces its first new woman candidate for coming GE
By S Ramesh/Hetty Musfirah Abdul Khamid | Posted: 23 March 2011 1638 hrs
SINGAPORE: The ruling People's Action Party (PAP) on Wednesday introduced its first new woman candidate for the coming General Election.
45-year-old Ms Foo Mee Har is the global head of premium banking for Standard Chartered Bank.
Also introduced at the session was the son of a former Cabinet Minister. 35-year-old Desmond Lee Ti-Seng, an associate director in the Legal & Regulations Department of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, is the son of former Cabinet Minister Mr Lee Yock Suan.
The third PAP candidate introduced on Wednesday was 38-year-old Steve Tan Peng Hoe, currently the executive secretary of Young NTUC, the labour movement's official youth wing.
Ms Foo joined the Stanchart in 1994 and has since held a number of senior roles across businesses and functions.
Ms Foo joined the PAP in 2010 and has been helping out at the Cashew division in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC. She has taken part in various community events and Meet-the-People Sessions.
"I have been doing quite a lot of block visits in different areas, looking at people's homes. Obviously there are plenty of happy Singaporeans....and (there are also) people who need our help," she said at the introduction session.
Ms Foo has also been inducted into the PAP executive committee as assistant secretary to the Women's Wing.
For Mr Steve Tan, he has been exposed to helping workers in different ways in his 10 years with the labour movement. These include managing scholarships and education grants, administering insurance claims for workers and issuing transport vouchers and other assistance schemes.
He said: "I come from a generation which straddles the Singapore as it was developing and the Singapore that we see today....definitely plugged into the psyche of the workers today and Singaporeans today. We have lived meritocracy through our own lives."
Steve is currently a grassroots volunteer at Tampines East. He is the third PAP candidate from the labour movement to be introduced so far. The other two are Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Desmond Lee Ti-Seng started his career as a Justices' Law Clerk of the Supreme Court, providing legal research support.
Before leaving the government service, Desmond worked in the Legal Policy Division of the Ministry of Law as deputy director, where he was involved in the development of legal policies and the review and amendment of various pieces of legislation such as the Criminal Procedure Code.
Desmond said: "When I told him (his father Lee Yock Suan) I was approached by the PAP and invited to drink tea, his advice was, 'think very carefully. Are you able to serve? Do you have the heart for the people and this is serious stuff, 100 percent of your time'. I thought it was very sound advice. The road to reach here was a long and rigorous one and that gave me a lot of time to reflect and think."
The latest batch brings to six so far the number of PAP's new faces made known to the electorate.
Speaking at Wednesday's introduction session, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said the renewal process of PAP has been systematic and structured.
This is done by finding people who will be able to serve the wider interest of Singaporeans, said Mr Wong, who is also the PAP's First Assistant Secretary General.
Mr Wong said that he hopes the opposition, like the PAP, will introduce their election candidates early.
He said this will help the electorate know what the candidates can offer.
The PAP has said it will be fielding more than 20 new candidates in the coming General Election.
Mr Wong said the process of renewal is important as new blood can contribute new ideas and energy to the party.
It also connects the party to societal changes and aspirations on the ground.
"That is the difference between us and many countries....we plan, we think ahead, we want to make sure that there is always a team of people available and around (and) with experience who can take Singapore to the next lap," said Mr Wong.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong reminded Singaporeans that provisions have now been made in Parliament to have up to nine opposition members as Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) so that the voice of the opposition continues to be heard in the House.
He said: "In our parliamentary system, we have tried to ensure that all kinds of voices are heard including the opposition voice. Even if they fail to get into Parliament, we have the NCMP system and the NMP (Nominated MP) system so that opposition and alternate voices can be heard. In the coming election we have also changed the law so that if less than nine opposition candidates are elected, there will at least be nine opposition MPs in Parliament. I don't think any other countries have done that."
Mr Wong also urged voters to weigh the intentions of the opposition to capture a Group Representation Constituency (GRC).
Both opposition MPs Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong have of late spoken of the need for their parties to make a breakthrough by winning a GRC in the coming General Election.
Mr Wong said: "What voters should take into account is to see which political party, which candidate can really do well for them, which is a stronger team, stronger candidate that will bring them forward in the future.
"If you ask why the opposition want to win a constituency, I think the intention is quite clear. Some of them say, 'we want to do that for renewal', others say they want to be the first one to break through into a GRC and win the GRC.
"But what is this election about? Is it about the interests and ambitions of political parties and individual interest to create a legacy and make a history? That is what voters should ask themselves.
"This election is about the future. So when you cast a vote you are not casting a vote for the political party's future, you are casting for your future. So when you exercise your vote, think carefully which political party will do well for you, which MP will work hard for you and enable to achieve what you want to do. That is really the main question.
"You should choose the group that is strong and the people who can deliver for you. You deserve to elect the best for you."
Later Wednesday, MP Low Thia Khiang, who had previously said the opposition must capture a GRC to ensure continuity and renewal, responded to DPM Wong's remarks.
The Workers' Party chief said: "Renewal is important, too, not only to the PAP but to the opposition as well, if an opposition party wants to continue to play a role, if Singaporeans want an opposition party to play a role, to be able to give them a choice during election and to help to safeguard the future of Singapore."
When asked if he would personally lead a team to contest a GRC, Mr Low declined comment.
- CNA/ir
By S Ramesh/Hetty Musfirah Abdul Khamid | Posted: 23 March 2011 1638 hrs
SINGAPORE: The ruling People's Action Party (PAP) on Wednesday introduced its first new woman candidate for the coming General Election.
45-year-old Ms Foo Mee Har is the global head of premium banking for Standard Chartered Bank.
Also introduced at the session was the son of a former Cabinet Minister. 35-year-old Desmond Lee Ti-Seng, an associate director in the Legal & Regulations Department of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, is the son of former Cabinet Minister Mr Lee Yock Suan.
The third PAP candidate introduced on Wednesday was 38-year-old Steve Tan Peng Hoe, currently the executive secretary of Young NTUC, the labour movement's official youth wing.
Ms Foo joined the Stanchart in 1994 and has since held a number of senior roles across businesses and functions.
Ms Foo joined the PAP in 2010 and has been helping out at the Cashew division in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC. She has taken part in various community events and Meet-the-People Sessions.
"I have been doing quite a lot of block visits in different areas, looking at people's homes. Obviously there are plenty of happy Singaporeans....and (there are also) people who need our help," she said at the introduction session.
Ms Foo has also been inducted into the PAP executive committee as assistant secretary to the Women's Wing.
For Mr Steve Tan, he has been exposed to helping workers in different ways in his 10 years with the labour movement. These include managing scholarships and education grants, administering insurance claims for workers and issuing transport vouchers and other assistance schemes.
He said: "I come from a generation which straddles the Singapore as it was developing and the Singapore that we see today....definitely plugged into the psyche of the workers today and Singaporeans today. We have lived meritocracy through our own lives."
Steve is currently a grassroots volunteer at Tampines East. He is the third PAP candidate from the labour movement to be introduced so far. The other two are Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Ong Ye Kung.
Mr Desmond Lee Ti-Seng started his career as a Justices' Law Clerk of the Supreme Court, providing legal research support.
Before leaving the government service, Desmond worked in the Legal Policy Division of the Ministry of Law as deputy director, where he was involved in the development of legal policies and the review and amendment of various pieces of legislation such as the Criminal Procedure Code.
Desmond said: "When I told him (his father Lee Yock Suan) I was approached by the PAP and invited to drink tea, his advice was, 'think very carefully. Are you able to serve? Do you have the heart for the people and this is serious stuff, 100 percent of your time'. I thought it was very sound advice. The road to reach here was a long and rigorous one and that gave me a lot of time to reflect and think."
The latest batch brings to six so far the number of PAP's new faces made known to the electorate.
Speaking at Wednesday's introduction session, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said the renewal process of PAP has been systematic and structured.
This is done by finding people who will be able to serve the wider interest of Singaporeans, said Mr Wong, who is also the PAP's First Assistant Secretary General.
Mr Wong said that he hopes the opposition, like the PAP, will introduce their election candidates early.
He said this will help the electorate know what the candidates can offer.
The PAP has said it will be fielding more than 20 new candidates in the coming General Election.
Mr Wong said the process of renewal is important as new blood can contribute new ideas and energy to the party.
It also connects the party to societal changes and aspirations on the ground.
"That is the difference between us and many countries....we plan, we think ahead, we want to make sure that there is always a team of people available and around (and) with experience who can take Singapore to the next lap," said Mr Wong.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong reminded Singaporeans that provisions have now been made in Parliament to have up to nine opposition members as Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) so that the voice of the opposition continues to be heard in the House.
He said: "In our parliamentary system, we have tried to ensure that all kinds of voices are heard including the opposition voice. Even if they fail to get into Parliament, we have the NCMP system and the NMP (Nominated MP) system so that opposition and alternate voices can be heard. In the coming election we have also changed the law so that if less than nine opposition candidates are elected, there will at least be nine opposition MPs in Parliament. I don't think any other countries have done that."
Mr Wong also urged voters to weigh the intentions of the opposition to capture a Group Representation Constituency (GRC).
Both opposition MPs Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong have of late spoken of the need for their parties to make a breakthrough by winning a GRC in the coming General Election.
Mr Wong said: "What voters should take into account is to see which political party, which candidate can really do well for them, which is a stronger team, stronger candidate that will bring them forward in the future.
"If you ask why the opposition want to win a constituency, I think the intention is quite clear. Some of them say, 'we want to do that for renewal', others say they want to be the first one to break through into a GRC and win the GRC.
"But what is this election about? Is it about the interests and ambitions of political parties and individual interest to create a legacy and make a history? That is what voters should ask themselves.
"This election is about the future. So when you cast a vote you are not casting a vote for the political party's future, you are casting for your future. So when you exercise your vote, think carefully which political party will do well for you, which MP will work hard for you and enable to achieve what you want to do. That is really the main question.
"You should choose the group that is strong and the people who can deliver for you. You deserve to elect the best for you."
Later Wednesday, MP Low Thia Khiang, who had previously said the opposition must capture a GRC to ensure continuity and renewal, responded to DPM Wong's remarks.
The Workers' Party chief said: "Renewal is important, too, not only to the PAP but to the opposition as well, if an opposition party wants to continue to play a role, if Singaporeans want an opposition party to play a role, to be able to give them a choice during election and to help to safeguard the future of Singapore."
When asked if he would personally lead a team to contest a GRC, Mr Low declined comment.
- CNA/ir
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Opposition out in full force
Opposition out in full force
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/03/opposition-out-in-full-force/
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/03/opposition-out-in-full-force/
GE: PAP introduces first batch of new election candidates
SINGAPORE: The People's Action Party has introduced its first batch of new candidates for the coming General Election due by February 2012.
At the introduction session, PAP's Second Assistant Secretary-General and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that in total, the PAP intends to introduce more than 20 new candidates from diverse backgrounds. Most of them are under 40 years old.
The three new candidates introduced on Monday are Mr Desmond Choo, Dr Janil Puthucheary and Mr Ong Ye Kung.
42-year-old Ong Ye Kung is an assistant secretary-general at NTUC. He is also the chairman of Employment and Employability Institute, executive secretary of National Transport Workers Union and of Singapore Manual Mercantile Workers' Union.
He oversees workers' upgrading and job placement projects in NTUC, and champions the welfare of workers in the unions under his purview.
Mr Ong was also the former CEO of the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and was involved in the negotiations of the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.
Mr Ong said: "That was very hard work but I keep thinking to myself, we are a little red dot, they are a world superpower, why do they want to negotiate something like that with us? But at the end of the day we managed to seal a deal, a good deal to secure the economic future for Singapore for many years.
"We, as a small dot must always be fighting for international space, even the seemingly impossible, negotiating with a superpower with grit and determination, working together as a team, making sure we are capable, the impossible can be achieved."
Mr Ong is currently working with Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo and his team at the Aljunied GRC, which saw the most-keenly fought battle in the 2006 General Election.
39-year-old Dr Janil Puthucheary is a senior consultant in the Children's Intensive Care Unit at the KK Women's and Children's Hospital.
He is also the medical director for faculty development and an assistant professor at the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School.
Since January 2009, Dr Puthucheary has been helping at the Meet-the-People Sessions as well as several other grassroots activities in Radin Mas, Bedok and now Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC.
A former Malaysian, he became a Singapore citizen in 2008.
"Apart from our families, there are many other reasons why we chose to make Singapore our home. Major factors were the multi-culturalism and meritocracy. I am very grateful for what we have here; it is very rare and very precious and I am very excited to be involved in it," said Dr Puthucheary.
33-year-old Desmond Choo is a deputy director with the NTUC Youth Development Unit. He is also the executive secretary of the Union of Security Employees and serves with the Singapore Port Workers Union.
Before his appointment as the second adviser to Hougang Grassroots Organisations in February this year, he had worked extensively in the Marsiling and Tampines East constituencies.
Mr Choo has started programmes to help needy residents in Hougang. He said: "I have plans to help the underprivileged, especially those who stay in units that are fairly run down. I have seen a lot of old folks still using squatting toilets when they are 80 years old. That, I've got to change....put in place the schemes, as long as I will be there to see through those stuff.
"Till today what has gotten me through this process is that no one should be left behind, regardless of their financial situation; no one kid should be denied a good education because his family has no financial needs. And we must always be prepared to look out for people who may be plunged into sudden financial difficulties. There will always be cracks in the system; no one policy is perfect."
Mr Choo is widely tipped to face incumbent opposition MP Low Thia Khiang in Hougang in the coming election.
For Dr Puthucheary and Mr Ong, both their fathers were in the opposition in Singapore's political history. But that did not stop the PAP from courting them.
DPM Teo said: "There may be some people who may be a little more left and some people a little more right. But it's a broad range of views and we are quite willing to consider any ideas, suggestions, proposals, provided they work and stand the test of whether or not they bring better lives for Singaporeans. We are not ideological, we are logical. We are focused on what will benefit the people and how that benefit will extend to the long term."
Mr Teo also said that for every General Election, the party tries to have a combination of experienced as well as new candidates who are more youthful and have more energy.
"The other key reason why we bring in young candidates is because we need to make sure we renew parliament and we renew the leadership of the country. And for parliament, we want to have a fresh slate of candidates, and for the government, we want to make sure that we put in place the core team of the fourth generation," he said.
In each General Election, the PAP introduces about 24 new faces and political watchers say a similar number is expected this time round too.
More new candidates are expected to be introduced in the coming days.
Many of the likely candidates have been of late making their rounds during community events.
Singapore's new Parliament will have 87 wards, up from the current 84.
- CNA/ir
Sunday, July 4, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, July 2, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, April 30, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
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/
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/
Thursday, April 8, 2010
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
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.
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.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
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
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
Friday, February 26, 2010
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
