Related Article: http://therealsingapore.com/content/singa-kindness-mascot-resignation-letter-publicity-stun

Background information on the people behind the Singapore "Kindness" movement (SKM) and the Singa Kindness Mascot.

*More information can be found on Kindness.sg

Patron

The Patron of the Movement is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Adviser

Mr Lawrence Wong, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, is the Adviser to the Movement. He guides the activities of the SKM Council.

SKM Council & Secretariat

The SKM is managed by the SKM Council, chaired by Mr Koh Poh Tiong, Vice-Chairman of the Ezra Group, and comprises a maximum of 27 members from educational institutions and private organisations.

Immediately after the publicity stun issued by The Singapore Kindness Movement (Kindness.sg) to promote censorship of the Internet, the government mouthpiece media SPH immediately produced a response "letter" as a joke to the "resignation" of the Singa Kindness Mascot.

Below is the full letter published by Singapore Press Holdings subsidary Singapolitics:

Dear Singa,

It has come to our attention that you have just left your long-time position as the mascot for kindness and may therefore be open to new opportunities in the job market.

It our pleasure to offer you, Singa, a job at Singapolitics.

We understand you mentioned the need for a long break but we feel there is a certain synergy between our brands. We are big believers in re-employment and the value of older workers (Not that we want to be discourteous and imply anything about your age, but you have been at your job longer than Sir Alex Ferguson.)

That you are a local icon is also a big plus given the country’s longstanding push to promote things that are uniquely Singaporean.

We can sit down and discuss the details later, assuming you can talk and have simply chosen to be silent out of courtesy.

Your job role at the start will simply to be the “Singa” of “Singapolitics” after which we will see how best we can work together.

You will be compensated fairly though it would not be polite to discuss money so early in the game, right?

And while we are certainly eager to have you on board, there are one or two concerns that we would like to clear up as well.

First, of course, is what are the circumstances surrounding your very sudden decision to resign?

We have read your resignation letter several times and we cannot help but detect a sense of bitterness and resentment in your tone. It’s as if you are resigning in a huff rather than making a calm decision to part ways in the name of public interest.

What was it that pushed you over the edge? Was it something someone said on Facebook? Was it the graffiti on the Cenotaph?

You are right to say that we aren’t a gracious society yet, but isn’t this more an indication that the job is not done, rather than a sign that it is time to give up?

Also, it seems like you have left no time for your employers to seek a replacement. That just doesn’t seem very polite for a Courtesy Lion.

The second concern revolves around authenticity. There have been many suggestions since you issued your resignation letter that this was simply a publicity stunt.

Some are saying that you actually have no intention of resigning and are simply doing this for attention. Many expect you to be back at your job in a matter of weeks. So far, we have heard nothing from you to deny such allegations.

Now, we are aware that this would not be the first time that such a publicity stunt has been pulled.

But we feel that a mascot of your standing and heritage should not allow yourself to be so cavalier with your image.

You are no normal mascot, you are Singa. Everyone knows you. Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for everyone to discover that they were misled by a Courtesy Lion who is acting out (literally) a hissy fit?

Like you said, we all have to be responsible for our actions.

I am sure you have very good explanations and we look forward to hearing them when you become part of the Singapolitics family.

Hear from you soon.

Your friend,
Singapolitics

It looks like the government and the mainstream media is really desperate in trying all kinds of method to restrict and censor the Internet Community. What do you think?

By Singapore Armchair Critic

I was a Potong Pasirian. For more than two decades from my teenage years, my family and I lived in the small housing estate and opposition ward managed by the well-loved Mr Chiam See Tong. A recent visit to the neighborhood brought back fond memories for my family and I, who waxed lyrical about how so little had changed in the charming town.

While we can now look back on our days in Potong Pasir with nostalgia, I remember what I dreaded most about living there: the daily long walks under the scalding sun from block 118 nestled right inside the town to the main road of Upper Serangoon where we then took a bus to school and other destinations.

Potong Pasirians of my time could instantly relate to this inconvenience: in those days there was only one bus service (service 142) that plied the entire neighborhood.

There used to be two, but bus service 147 was rerouted a few months after Mr Chiam was returned in GE 1991such that it no longer looped into the town. Despite the petition of more than 8,000 Potong Pasirians and the fact that the feeder also served hundreds of students at the Saint Andrew’s School in the neighborhood, the bus service was removed in 1992 (source: “No direct bus to town,” The Straits Times, 5 April 1992).

PAP would, of course, claim that this was not politically motivated but Potong Pasirians like myself felt otherwise. And there were other laughingly petty moves in a similar vein throughout the decades in this opposition ward, as listed in a reader’s comments to this blogpost.

You Think We Stupid?

So it was with much amusement that I read Khaw Boon Wan’s self-righteous parliamentary speech (full-text), which I excerpt below.

1) In response to Sylvia Lim’s suggestion that the AIM transaction was meant to trip up incoming MPs:

… are we so stupid? As the WP themselves point out, the people who suffer are the residents. Why would we want to deliberately disrupt the lives of residents in Aljunied? Would the WP just keep quiet and not make a political issue out of it? Who then would get the blame? Why would the PAP want to hurt the interest of residents in Aljunied and alienate them? How could we hope to regain Aljunied if we did this?…

…So when Ms Sylvia Lim said that the AIM transaction shows that the PAP is hurting the people in Aljunied and that it is just “collateral damage in a bigger political game”, I am disappointed at such a comment, What is the bigger political game? It is about winning back Aljunied, not about doing something petty that will just upset everybody and make us lose Aljunied permanently (emphases mine).

2) In response to the politicization of Town Councils (TCs):

Mr Pritam Singh and Mrs Lina Chiam added their own flavour on this politicisation of TCs by referring to this old topic of upgrading projects and CIPC (Community Improvement Projects Committee). Residents in opposition wards are not excluded from the selection of upgrading programmes whether it is the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) or the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP). In our selection process, MND will try to spread out the projects among the wards and TCs. Priority is always given to the older blocks. Within each town, we also give weight to the TC’s ranking of projects. 

I could not help rolling my eyes as I read through the speech.

Going by the experience of Potong Pasirians (and Hougang residents too), it is all too evident that PAP has not been averse to disrupting the lives of residents as a part of its bigger political game.

“Old topic” or not, the HDB upgrading programs are another case-in-point as Pritam Singh and Lina Chiam rightly cited. To refresh selective or failing memory, it was former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong who politicized the upgrading projects (“Voter will decide upgrading priority,” The Straits Times, 13 April 1992):

While those constituencies which gave the PAP a clear vote would receive first priority, Mr Goh made clear that the HDB upgrading project would still be carried out nationwide, as overall, the majority of Singaporeans had voted for the PAP…

When the HDB started deciding on which constituencies to upgrade, factors such as the demographic profile and age of the flats would be considered. But where they were the same, how residents vote at the polls would determine how soon they could have the upgrading (emphasis mine).

Thus residents in opposition wards were unfairly denied the upgrading in their neighborhoods for years. Yet when Low Thia Kiang and Chiam See Tong overcame the hurdles and offered free lift upgrading to their constituents, Mah Bow Tan, citing rules set by the Ministry of National Development, insisted that residents mustco-pay for the upgrading (?!!)

Talk about hurting the interests of residents.

TCs and Governance

The good thing that emerged from the AIM saga is that a review for TCs is now in order. Lee Yi Shyan, Senior Minister of State for National Development and Trade and Industry, said that the review committee will look into TCs’ financial responsibility and handover arrangements in the event of a change of Member of Parliament (MP).

I suppose he meant the procedures in handing over a TC to an MP of another political party, which will likely be increasingly common in the coming years.

Disruptive practices that may sabotage the incoming MP of another party and, in turn, damage the interests of constituents, should be banished.

It is also long overdue to relook at TCs’ financial responsibility, an issue that should be addressed during the financial crisis of 2008 when it was exposed that some TCs had mismanaged their sinking funds.

The review committee has to tackle fundamental questions such as: Should sinking funds even be used for dabbling in financial products? And why do TCs have to chalk up so much sinking funds in excess?

These issues concern the larger good of Singaporeans residing in HDB flats and warrant the attention of Minister Khaw, who ended his parliamentary speech with the following plea:

… I often look at the way politics is being run in many other countries with great sadness. Instead of engaging one another to solve problems, parliamentary debates are conducted more like political theatre, obsessed with only scoring points against each other, while ignoring the serious issues facing the country. I really hope Singapore does not go down this route. Please, for the sake of our children and future generations…

I personally comb through nominations for estate upgrading to ensure that the projects are selected based on objective criteria and that they also respect TCs’ order of priority. Every TC wants MND to select more projects from their town. We try to make sure that all TCs benefit from upgrading within the overall budget that we get from MOF. I cannot satisfy all TCs but I will always strive to be fair … Parliament is now more diverse with different political parties and different opinions. But that should not prevent us from still working together for the larger good of Singaporeans.

Well-said, dear Minister Khaw!

And tolong tolong, please walk the talk. Singaporeans will be watching.

The author blogs at http://singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com/. 

Three years after investigations started, trial commences for six affected CHC leaders, with key differences in how the prosecution and defense wish to take the case forward

The prosecution alleges that CHC’s senior pastor Kong Hee, pastor Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee, Sharon Tan, John Lam and Chew Eng Han have misappropriated more than S$50 million of church funds and have committed criminal breach of trust. The accused have agreed to be jointly tried for all the charges brought against them.RIGHT from first day of the trial for the six affected leaders of City Harvest Church, the prosecution and defense show major differences in how they view the case and seek to proceed.

The prosecution also said that the building fund of the church was inappropriately used for alleged “sham” investments in two companies Xtron and Firna to further the music career of Kong’s wife Sun Ho. In addition, the prosecution stated their defined parameters of the trial.

Before a gallery filled with more than 50 members of the public, mostly CHC members, the prosecution said it is immaterial whether the accused thought Ho’s music career would further the broader objectives of the church. Rather, deputy public prosecutor Mavis Chionh said, the issue lies with whether the building fund was used in an “authorized” manner or not. The prosecution also said it was inconsequential to the case whether Sun’s crossing over into the entertainment circle is “theologically legitimate” or not.

But the defense disagreed. The lawyers sought clarification from the prosecution on whether they equate the Crossover Project with Sun’s music career, and the defense also emphasized that since the case involves a church, theological legitimacy has to be considered, adding “as a matter of fact, there was no unlawful loss of monies by the church.”

The first prosecution witness to take the stand is Lai Baoting, a former accounting staff of CHC. She took the stand to answer questions about emails that were sent from her using an Xtron email account, before the court session broke for lunch.

The trial, which started this morning at nearly 10am, signifies a key development in a long-drawn case about the finances of CHC, which first unfolded when the Commissioner of Charities and Commercial Affairs Department launched investigations into its accounts in May 2010.

Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan toldCity News that there are two key things to note: one, that the prosecution wants to maintain that the use of the building fund for the Crossover Project was unauthorized, but “as my learned friend Edwin Tong said in open court, the use was not unauthorized. But I won’t comment as it’s an issue before the court.”

The second key thing to bear in mind is fourfold: “The accused had no wrongful gain; there was no unlawful loss; the Church made good and there has been no dishonesty.”

Senior District Judge See Kee Oon hears the case. The trial continues this afternoon.

*Article first appeared on http://www.citynews.sg/2013/05/two-sides-of-the-story/

Someone just called me a 'Mat Rep'! Which has to be one of the funniest things I have ever been called. Granted, he confused it with the more generic term, 'Mat', which is short for a common Malay name, 'Muhammad' or 'Ahmad'. (So someone like Mohamad Sabu might be called Mat Sabu). 

Please be reminded that there are many kinds of Mat. Here's a brief guide:

1) Mat Rep: someone who's lowly-educated (often a gang member) with a 'low class' fashion sense (high trucker cap that sort of levitates on the head, dyed hair, skinny jeans with slippers, tattoos) and delinquent or criminal tendencies. 

2) Mat Rock: someone who's a fan of hard rock or heavy metal music. In the 80's, distinguished by long tangled hair, tight jeans (Wrangler or Lee Cooper), Ray Bans, often with a comb or one of those hair-prongs in the back pocket. Forget the 5 C's, he lives by the 5 M's: Minah, Marlboro, Motor, Metal, Maintain. ('Maintain' is slang for 'keeping cool', can be used in phrases like 'didn't cry because he wanted to maintain macho')

3) Mat Jiwang (Or Mat Jiwa-Jiwa, Jiwa=Soul): someone who's always love-struck, who considers himself some kind of wounded, precious troubadour. Always 'feeling feeling' and 'emo nemo'. Usually has a guitar with which he can compose love songs or sing covers of romantic ballads, straining nasally at the high notes. 

4) Mat Bunga (Bunga=Flower, also known as Adik-adik=little brother): someone who's sensitive and sulks easily. Often goes into typical passive-aggressive behaviour known to Malays as 'merajuk' where one pouts, gives silent treatment, says sarcastic things, etc. 

Mat Bunga: OK lah, never mind, you all don't think booking a chalet is a good idea. Just celebrate birthday at my house lah, I know you all miss my family also, can celebrate with them. 

Other Mats: Eh, if you're going to be such a Mat Bunga, you wear skirt lah better. 

5) Mat Kahwin-Kahwin (Kahwin=Marry, soulmate to Minah Kahwin-Kahwin): someone who always has marriage on his mind. Always checks a girl out for the ring on her finger. Will propose two months into a relationship. 

6) Mat Tapered: someone who wears skinny jeans, often used to describe a fashion-conscious hipster. Probably does graffiti art, B-boy or skateboard routines and hangs out at Haji Lane. 

7) Mat Rempit (Malaysian, supposedly comes from 'ramp it up'): someone who's a member of a motorcycle gang and who participates in illegal street racing; who likes to perform stunts like the wheelie, superman, drifting etc. 

8) Mat Smart: someone who's always well-groomed, and who irons all his clothes, even T-shirts. Can also refer to someone who's highly-educated, like the Mendaki scholarship awardee who makes it to the front page of Berita Harian. 

9) Mat Kental (Kental=dense, thick, stiff): someone who's awkward, makes unfunny jokes, probably likes music from his parents' generation, basically un-cool. While observing Mats hanging out at Simpang Bedok for example, you can recognise the Mat Kental as the guy who tucks his T-shirt into his belted jeans.

UPDATE:

Someone objected to my classification of a 'matrep' as someone who is 'lowly-educated', claiming that some matreps are degree-holders. But my point is that 'matrep' is simply the Malay equivalent of a 'chav' or a 'redneck' (or white trash). By the way, I'm not sure how the word was coined, but it is possibly related to 'makrep' in the term 'beruk (the macaque monkey) makrep', to mean someone who is unruly and often causes trouble. 

I think terms like 'matrep' enter the vocabulary because of class stratification in society, and is used by the middle-class to create class distinctions and exclusions. So the appearance of the 'matrep' is related to the phenomenon of an emergent (quite often English-speaking) middle class in the Malay community that is increasingly vocal and visible. The 'matrep' then becomes an abject body where undesirable qualities (low level of education, gangsterism, drug abuse, shotgun weddings) are projected onto. Often these qualities are negative stereotypes associated with 'Malayness' that middle-class Malays would like to exorcise from the community. 

The same was observed in the early use of the term 'ah beng', often by the English-educated Chinese. While it was initially used as a term of disdain, I think it has undergone a semantic shift where it is now being appropriated by some as a marker of authenticity or non-elitism. Perhaps the new 'ah beng' is now 'ah tiong', who now embodies negative Chinese stereotypes like kiasuism, rudeness and poor hygiene. 'Ah tiongs' are the 'bad apples' and 'black sheep' that make Chinese people look bad. 

So when someone claims that 'matreps' are now gaining degrees, perhaps it's a sign that 'matrep' identity is undergoing rehabilitation. But in due time, some other term will inevitably take its place.

 Alfian Sa'at

My question for 13 May 2013 sitting: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will allow Singapore citizens to replace their identity cards that are damaged by wear and tear free of charge every decade.

Minister for Home Affairs:

The Identity Card (IC) is made of a highly durable polycarbonate material that has been subjected to stringent tests to ensure its durability. It is not easily damaged with normal handling. Nonetheless, there are a small number of cards that may be damaged due to excessive wear and tear over time.

The $60 fee for replacing a damaged IC is to cover the production cost, which includes manpower, material, as well as other costs incurred in producing a new card. This fee has not been increased since 1991.

ICA will consider a waiver of the fee for cases which warrant special consideration. This will include situations where the card was damaged due to circumstances beyond the cardholder’s control, such as accidents or fire.

Baey Yam Keng

PAP MP

Dear Singa,

Thank you for your services as a courtesy ambassador of Singapore for the last 30 years. You have left an impact on our Singapore landscape over the last generation.

You mentioned in your resignation letter that society has been getting increasingly angry and disagreeable, and that people increasingly not think about kindness amidst what you regarded as big problems. But perhaps we also need to analyse these “big problems”. As long as these “big problems” remain unresolved, born and bred Singaporeans would not find it any easy to be kind and gracious.

Should we be kind and gracious to some “foreign talent” coming to grab our PMET jobs and lording over us as though it is their right to? Should we be kind and gracious to some “foreign students” not willing to mix and interact with born and bred Singaporeans and grab all the good grades and scholarships from us? Should we be friendly to PRs who drive up our HDB prices but do not even want to say hello when we greet them at the lift lobbies? We may be kind but we are certainly not saints and definitely do not intend to be martyrs.

We have seen too many examples of ungrateful foreigners over the past few years who have been ungrateful to the benefits this city-state has given them. Singapore used to have a great kampong spirit populated with the four major races living in harmony and everyone was friendly to each other. However right now many people don’t feel like they are in Singapore when they go out to work, to have fun, they feel that they are in a foreign land. Who has been responsible for all this misery of Singaporeans? Working in the civil service, I am sure you know the answer as well as we do.

The increasing number of foreigners, new citizens and PRs jamming our transport services have made Singaporeans unhappy with the current state of affairs. I used to enjoy less crowded rides on trains and now sometimes unable to even get on the train and have to rub bodies with strangers in mornings on the train. Will this policy be changed and hence the big problems solved? Probably not. With our national leaders saying that we should take in 6.9 million people by 2030, there is no incentive for us to be gracious with the current state of matters, since things will only get worse.

A final word before we go. A Gallup poll already said that Singaporeans are the unhappiest and most emotionless people in the world. Singaporeans can choose not give up their seats or even sit on reserved seats on the trains, but risk getting filmed and see themselves on STOMP. If Singaporeans go online and be rude, what about foreigners now that born and bred Singaporeans will soon become a minority in our own country? Does that give them the key to say what they want? Perhaps not until things can be changed? Wait for ubah?

Enjoy your long break.

Your friends,
Born and bred Singaporeans

P.S. Did you give the 1 month notice to your employer before you served your resignation?

In the video Sylvia Lim, an MP for Aljunied GRC, asked Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan to clarify his position on whether the 1-month termination clause in the AIM contract for critical IT system did or did not jeopardize the continuity of services to the residents.

By insisting that Town Council requirements can be met with off-the-shelf software such that a Town Council could be up and running within a month, he is stating that a reasonable amount of man effort would suffice to combine off-the-shelf financial software with customizations and usage processes such that Town Council requirements might be met satisfactorily (I agree with him in principle, but not to the extent that it all can be done in a month).Khaw’s reply was surprising. He cited that the 1-month period was sufficient for the Aljunied Town Council to purchase an off-the-shelf accounting package.

The video below bears review:

In any case, the implications of this are clear. By paying $23.8 million over 1-2 year to develop the Town Council Management System, the PAP Town Councils have overpaid. Barring misconduct, such an overpayment implies gross incompetence. Noting that the PAP MPs signed off on the expenditure, they are responsible.

Let me make closing comments on project management. The $23.8 million figure comes as a major shock. If I were awarded the contract, I would spend $600k to comfortably develop the software with 3-4 good software engineers using some high quality open source components.

Imagine a fully distributed TCMS system keeping its data on a distributed database, so that the complete corruption of data in one Town Council would allow that Town Council to resume operations at the speed of data transfer (that is, after getting new hardware and the installation of software, of course). Issues like maintenance and future proofing would all be factored in, a little each ear could be earmarked for support. Granted, at that time some existing components would not have been available so a less ambitious set-up would have been possible at that same cost. The cost of hardware might bring the cost up to over $1 million.

$23.8 million is simply excessive overspending.

Jeremy Chen

* Jeremy is currently a PhD student at the Department of Decision Sciences at NUS Business School. Jeremy believes in the possibility of a beautiful synthesis of “social justice” and “the free market”. He also hopes for less politicking and more policy discussion in the political arena. He blogs at http://jeremy-chen.org.
 

The world’s most expensive home on offer – 33 Nassim Road, Singapore 258418 – may fail to sell after all [Map].

The highly-prized property, a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) which sits on 84,839 square feet of freehold land, is up for sale by tender. The tender closes today (16 May).

Sole marketing agent Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) is hoping to receive offers in the region of $250-300 million or $2,947-3,536 per square foot (psf).

33 Nassim Road has been informally on the market since last year with an asking price of at least $3,000 psf. It is being formally marketed now after the owner received unsolicited offers.

At $300 million, the price is 79% higher than the USD135 million listing for the Crespi-Hicks Estate in Dallas, Texas. The home on the 25-acre site, owned by former Texas Rangers owner Tom Hicks, is touted as the most expensive property for sale in the US, according to a report by Time Magazine on 31 January 2013.

The owner of 33 Nassim Road is Winright Investment Pte. Winright, a company set up in March 1995 for “holding of property for long-term investment purposes” according to company records, is in turn owned by Cheng Wai Keung and his wife, Helen Chow.

Mr Cheng, 62, is the chairman and managing director of Wing Tai Holdings, a listed Singapore property developer and retailer of brands including Adidas, G2000 and Uniqlo.

Mr Cheng acquired the property in the mid-1980’s, a remarkable feat for a young man in his 30’s considering the size and value of the property even then.

Mr and Mrs Cheng used to live on the property, but they now list their address at another Nassim Road home.

33 Nassim Road has an old bungalow with an in-ground swimming pool and a full-sized tennis court. Its tenant – a lawyer who happens to be the Honorary Consul to Singapore for Barbados – vacated it on 10 April 2013.

A sloping driveway leads to the two-storey house built on elevated ground. The bungalow sits in the centre of the plot with a large grassy field occupying about a third of the site. But seriously, the value of the property lies in the fact that it is a huge plot nestling in posh Nassim Road, where the British High Commissioner lives and the Embassies of Japan, Russia and Saudi Arabia are located.

33 Nassim Road actually straddles two plots of land – 31,647 sq ft and 53,192 sq ft. Marketing agent JLL say that the seller is prepared to receive offers for the entire 84,839 sq ft plot, or for either of the two smaller parcels. Since GCBs typically occupy at least 15,000 sq ft, the buyer of the former parcel might divide the land into 2 GCB plots, while the latter parcel can be divided into 3 GCB plots.

According to experts, the deal will stand or fall on whether the value of the land matches its astronomical price tag. Douglas Newby, who is marketing the Crespi-Hicks Estate mentioned earlier, said of the Nassim Road deal, “The primary value of a property is based on the land value. For the Singapore property, if the land is worth $150 million to $200 million, then this might be a legitimate buy.”

Nassim Road is favourably located near the Singapore Botanic Gardens which is bidding to be a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It abuts uppity Tanglin and is on the cusp of shopping heaven Orchard Road.

On the downside however, it is a stone’s throw away from Orchard Towers – the famous or, rather, infamous “Four Floors of Whores” – where prostitutes from the Philippines and Thailand, and local ladyboys meet their mostly ang moh clients. These ladies of the night, however, have never been known to stray onto the hallowed turf of Nassim Road to solicit.

Karamjit Singh, JLL’s head of investments and residential in Singapore says:

A site like this comes on the market maybe once in 10, 15 or even 20 years. The potential buyers of this league would be able to recognize the opportunity.

This is a large site on elevated ground, with a rectangular shape that lends itself to easy subdivision. It should appeal to a large family looking to consolidate their residences at one location – along Singapore’s most desired GCB road name – as well as to newly-minted Singaporean billionaires who have yet to find their dream home. It may also interest a group of friends wishing to team up to buy the plot, subdivide it and live next to one another.

Instead of “newly-minted Singaporean billionaires”, it may be more realistic to speak of “new Singapore billionaire residents” such as investor New Zealander Richard Chandler (54 years, $2.85B), Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin (31 years, $2.2B), and businessman Bhupendra Kumar Modi, 64, who became a Singapore citizen in January this year with a not-too-shabby $755M.

Alan Cheong, senior director of research and consultancy at Savills (Singapore) gushes:

This is beyond economics, it’s mind boggling and probably one of the highest in the world.

It’s no small change even for the ultra high net worth. It could be an Indian tycoon or a Russian oligarch that might bid for it.

Meanswhile, the majority of Singaporeans who can barely afford a 99-year leasehold HDB flat will be salivating, but that is all they can do – salivate. The fact remains that the Swiss standard of living promised to us by former PM Goh Chok Tong remains a distant dream and we slog like mad to pay our utilities bills.

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

​Taiwan on Wednesday slapped sanctions on the Philippines, including a ban on the hiring of new workers, rejecting an apology by President Benigno Aquino for the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman.

Philippine coastguards shot dead the 65-year-old last week after they said his vessel illegally sailed into Philippine waters, and outrage in Taiwan at the incident grew amid a perceived lack of remorse in Manila.

In a bid to contain the diplomatic fallout, Aquino sent Amadeo R. Perez, chairman of the Manila Economic and Cultural Office which handles relations with Taiwan, to the island on Wednesday to act as his “personal representative” and apologise.

“(The envoy) will convey his and the Filipino people’s deep regret and apology to the family of Mr Hung Shih-cheng, as well as to the people of Taiwan over the unfortunate and unintended loss of life,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said in Manila.

Premier Jiang Yi-huah said Taiwan acknowledged Lacierda’s statement but deemed it “unacceptable” that the death was described as unintended.

“Perez did not have sufficient authorisation and this shows the Philippines’ lack of sincerity in resolving the incident and therefore our second wave of eight sanctions are initiated immediately,” Jiang told reporters.

These include a “red” travel alert urging Taiwanese not to visit the Philippines and the suspension of exchanges between high-level officials, as well as a halt to exchanges on trade and academic affairs.

Jiang urged Taiwanese to support the government in pressuring the Philippine government but said the Filipino people should be treated “calmly”.

Taiwan earlier Wednesday had suspended the hiring of Philippine workers and recalled its envoy to Manila in protest at the killing.

It rejected an initial apology made by the Philippines’ de facto ambassador early on Wednesday as inadequate.

President Ma Ying-jeou insisted Manila offer a formal apology and compensation, apprehend the killer and launch talks on the fishing industry.

“President Ma expressed his strong dissatisfaction over the Philippines’ lack of sufficient sincerity and its shifting attitude, and found the Philippines’ reckless and perfunctory response unacceptable,” spokeswoman Lee Chia-fei told reporters.

President Ma expressed his strong dissatisfaction over the Philippines’ lack of sufficient sincerity and its shifting attitude, and found the Philippines’ reckless and perfunctory response unacceptableLacierda urged Taiwan not to implement its threatened sanctions and to reverse its decision to ban new Filipino workers while appealing for calm.

There are 87,000 Philippine workers in Taiwan and labour authorities said nearly 2,000 new applications to work are submitted monthly.

Lacierda did not mention compensation, but said Aquino had asked the Manila Economic and Cultural Office to make unspecified “donations” to the dead fisherman’s family.

The cultural office represents the Philippines in the absence of diplomatic ties. Manila recognises Beijing rather than Taipei as the government of China.

Taiwan’s defence ministry also said it begun a two-day drill aimed at defending its fishermen in waters near a Philippine island.

Maritime tensions are already high over rival claims in the South China Sea, adjacent to where last Thursday’s shooting took place.

China, the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei all have competing claims to parts of the strategic and resource-rich maritime region.

Taiwan also faces overlapping claims involving Japan and China in disputed East China Sea waters.

Analysts said Ma cannot afford to look soft while his approval ratings are low, and his government is apparently also trying to show it can stand tough in maritime disputes.

“Taipei wants to send a signal that it cannot be belittled and that its people should not be harmed,” said George Tsai, a political scientist at the Chinese Cultural University in Taipei.

“But it should be careful not to give other parties an impression that it will argue its point to death.”
 

Source: South China Morning Post

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TOWN COUNCIL MANAGEMENT – WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE

During the debate in Parliament on Town Councils on 13 May 2013, Parliament discussed the controversial sale of the Town Council Management System (TCMS) to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), a company wholly-owned by the PAP, allowing AIM to terminate the TCMS with one month’s notice should there be a material change in the membership of the Town Council.

WP had raised this issue inside and outside Parliament as it viewed the transaction as jeopardising the public interest. We could not see any justification for the sale to a third party, let alone a company owned by a political party, of the most critical town management IT system developed with public funds, leaving a Town Council powerless and at the risk of disruption of services.

It is most regrettable that Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan and Dr Teo Ho Pin have decided to distract the public by casting aspersions on WP’s management of the Town Council and on its Managing Agent, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS). It is disappointing that the Ministry, too, has been drawn into the fray.

Many of Dr Teo’s latest allegations and questions have already been addressed in Parliament or in media statements issued by Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council.

Among Dr Teo’s latest allegations and questions is why we chose to appoint a Managing Agent to run a Town Council rather than hire staff directly as was done in Hougang Town Council. We find it odd that he should ask this question. The reasons should be clear to Dr Teo, as almost all PAP Town Councils have chosen to appoint Managing Agents as well.

Dr Teo also misrepresents my response in Parliament concerning the comparisons of MA rates cited by Minister Khaw. He said that I was “not sure of the unit rates paid by AHTC to FMSS”. I am surprised, as this is clearly different from what was correctly recorded in the draft Hansard which all MPs had received by Tuesday 14 May. What was clearly reflected in Hansard was that I said I needed to double-check the prices the Minister quoted on property units because I thought there might be some errors in the prices that he mentioned, and that we needed to ensure that the comparisons were made on the same basis, that we were comparing apples with apples. Indeed, as it turns out, there were discrepancies between the Minister’s figures and our computation methods, as seen in the subsequent media exchanges between MND and AHPETC.

The repeated reference to Tampines Town Council’s MA rates for 2012 alone is clearly not relevant, since the same Managing Agent quoted a much higher rate for Aljunied in 2010. Whether Tampines is an outlier in MA rates has not been answered.

Discerning members of the public have already seen the clear distinction between the AIM transaction and the appointment of FMSS, and some have even come up with their comparison charts. To summarise, the key differences are tabulated below:

If the Minister, Dr Teo or the Ministry believe there was any wrongdoing in WP’s management of the Town Council, we invite them to make a report to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter, rather than to make these suggestions and insinuations. We assure these agencies of our full co-operation.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
WORKERS’ PARTY AND
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL

"WP had raised this issue inside and outside Parliament as it viewed the transaction as jeopardising the public interest. We could not see any justification for the sale to a third party, let alone a company owned by a political party, of the most critical town management IT system developed with public funds, leaving a Town Council powerless and at the risk of disruption of services. It is most regrettable that Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan and Dr Teo Ho Pin have decided to distract the public by casting aspersions on WP’s management of the Town Council and on its Managing Agent, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS). It is disappointing that the Ministry, too, has been drawn into the fray."

During the debate in Parliament on Town Councils on 13 May 2013, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan made several remarks about the Workers’ Party (WP), Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) and AHPETC’s managing agent (MA), FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS).

Ms Sylvia Lim (Chairman of the WP and AHPETC, MP for Aljunied GRC) and Mr Pritam Singh (Vice-chairman of AHPETC, MP for Aljunied GRC) responded in Parliament to the Minister. The following is a summary of the key clarifications raised:

FMSS’ alleged party affiliations and preferential treatment

Following the General Election in May 2011, then-managing agent, CPG Facilities Management, had asked to be released from its contract with Aljunied Town Council (ATC). CPG was concurrently contracted as an MA with another PAP Town Council (TC) and felt that they could not work for both PAP and WP TCs. Hence there was a need to engage a new managing agent for the newly constituted Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

At that time, there were only a few companies in the market that provided town management for HDB estates: Esmaco, EM Services and CPG, all of which also had existing contracts with PAP Town Councils. The set-up of FMSS was due to the very real possibility that WP would be faced with no other company to manage AHTC.

None of FMSS’ shareholders and directors are WP members and FMSS is not a WP-owned company. FMSS was engaged based on its directors’ experience in property management, professional skills and track record in running Hougang Town Council. One of the directors of FMSS was the former General Manager of Hougang Town Council.

Managing agent contract tendering process

In 2011, Ms Lim exercised her rights as Chairman of the TC to waive a tender for the MA contract when it was first awarded after the GE. The Town Council Financial Rules provide for tender process to be waived in certain circumstances. The reason for the waiver was the urgency in the public interest to put in place a Managing Agent to handle the handover in time.

In 2012, Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) issued an open tender for a new MA contract. There were three companies that picked up the tender documents, but only FMSS submitted a tender. AHTC was aware of its duties when dealing with a sole tenderer, and that the TC needed to ensure value for money for its residents. AHTC had also commissioned a special external audit of the tender award as an additional assurance of compliance and good governace practices, and that steps had been taken to ensure value for money.

Source: WP.SG

Below is Dr Teo Ho Pin's response to Ms Sylvia Lim rebuttal on her previous public statements

Refer to: http://therealsingapore.com/content/sylvia-lim-town-council-management-what-really-stake and

http://therealsingapore.com/content/workers-party-quickly-rebuts-pap-ministers-false-allegations

My response to the WP’s statement on Town Council Management as follows:-

The facts are clear. Based on their own calculations, their MA unit rate for 2012 was $ 7.58, 50% higher than the MA rate of Tampines TC which is of similar size. Based on their staggered pricing, their MA rate will be even higher in the following years. In fact by 2014, their MA rate will be about $8.50 or 70% higher than Tampines TC’s rate. Why doesn’t Ms Sylvia Lim admit these facts?

I asked serious questions about the financial probity of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, which Ms Sylvia Lim chairs.

Why did WP award multi-million dollar contracts to its close associates and supporters? No answer.

Are the Secretary and Deputy Secretary/General Manager, cum owners of FMSS, paid twice? No answer.

Ms Lim has not answered a single question I asked. 

When questions were raised about AIM, I gave a full public explanation and answered all the questions by the MND Review Team. Parliament held a full debate on the matter and the Minister for National Development answered all the MPs’ questions, including from Workers’ Party MPs.

Why is Ms Lim reluctant to answer questions? What is she afraid of?” 

Dr Teo Ho Pin

Co-ordinating Chairman of PAP Town Councils

The Land Transport Authority has released news it will start to implement a progressive COE system where a single owner may be tax more for multiple car ownership. This is a good move but of course unwelcome by the rich – who happens to be foreigners or expatriates here leeching off Singapore’s labor exploitative climate.

A progressive COE is only part 1, and it is useless if it is not implemented along with the following:

Part 2 is to differentiate COE between citizens, permanent residents and foreigners. LTA refuse to declare the percentage composition of the nationality of the COE owners because they know the lowering percentage of Singaporean car owners is a contentious issue – especially in the midst of an overcrowded situation like in Singapore. Singaporean citizens with young children or elderly should get higher tax rebates or even exempted COE, from the extra taxes levied on the rich for possessing multiple cars.

Part 3 is to remove the ERP, and revamp the COE system under one quota system where the vehicle type becomes a multiplier of an index price instead of having several categories. Example: Taking motorcycles have the index price at $1000. Class A becomes a 50 times multiplier, while Class B becomes a 60 times multiplier. The justification to such multipliers is to ensure that today’s situation [Source] where the rich pay lesser taxes for luxury cars than the middle class who could only afford a Toyota in the Class A(below 1600cc) category.

Part 4 is to reduce the population figure and expand suburb towns like Punggol, Yishun and Chua Chu Kang. The old land use strategy must be abandoned – offices must not always be in the central(even though factories should of course remain near the coastlines away from towns)

The implementation of part 1 is always a cause for concern because if the progressive tax is just 10 or 20%, or about $1000 in absolute, the extra tax is negligible and will not deter the rich from possessing more cars. We should be looking at 50% tax hike for the 2nd car, and 50% higher for the total of the 1st and 2nd car. We at Wiki Temasek also recommend that the progressive COE be classified to a household address instead of just a single owner, because the impact will be negligible. Chances are the PAP government is merely going to implement a slap on the wrist for the rich, and the same problem of the rich owning multiple cars continue simply  because the tax hike is negligible.

*Article first appeared on my blog at WikiTemasek.org

The issue of politics and depolitics has again taken the spotlight in Parliament. For obvious reasons, common sense, chicken sense, for the interests of the people, continuity, in the name of administrative efficiency, many govt institutions must be depoliticized. Tiok boh? Agree or not? The judiciary, uniformed groups and the civil service are depoliticized for good reasons. They are the pillars of the non political govt, the state institutions, to provide continuity and the same level or service and dedication to the country and people irrespective of whichever political party took office. 

Many people would sneer at such a comment. Understandable. The level or degree of politicization of state institutions is apparent and many would not want to say too much about the realities on the ground. It is a very subjective thing. But many concerned citizens, righteous citizens, must know that the lesser these institutions are politicized the better for the people and country. Anyone thinks or believes otherwise, that the more politicized these institutions are, the better for country and people? Admittedly it is not possible to be completely neutral from the political realities of the day. 

And more institutions are best depoliticized to maintain neutrality, objectivity and continuity as they are meant to continue to exist and to serve the people regardless of a change of govt. Do I feel talking about this issue?

Of course politicians will want to politicize as many public institutions as possible for the good of people and country, and not for their own vested interests. And they will speak with a hand over their hearts that they are speaking with all honesty, that they are telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And if they are God fearing, they will even swear to their God that they are saying with full convictions, and their conscience are clear. Believe me at your own risk.

What are the obvious institutions that should be depoliticized or politicized for the good of people and country? Dunno leh! I think even this simple obvious state of things would not get an honest answer from honest and righteous people. They say politics is politics. Now what does that mean?

Chua Chin Leng AKA Redbean

*The author blogs at mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

The ubiquitous Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry may become a thing of the past several years down the road.

The Government is looking to develop a next-generation ERP system, based on satellite technology, which will not need the large gantries that require space and time to set up.

But some motorists were concerned that, without the gantries, they might unwittingly enter a chargeable zone.

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew said yesterday that the new system, tentatively called ERP2, will allow the Land Transport Authority to tackle congestion more effectively and quickly.

The current in-vehicle unit (IU) for ERP gantries will have to be replaced for ERP2.

Undergraduate Beatrice Chua, 21, who drives, was worried that, if the ERP gantries are removed, it might be hard to tell where the priced roads are, even if signs are put up.

Motorcyclist Pang Chew Ting, 24, said alerting people beforehand via the new IU that they are about to reach a chargeable road "would be good".

National University of Singapore transport researcher Lee Der Horng said the new IU could be similar to vehicle-navigation systems available on the market now, and deliver value-added services.

Mr Lui - who was speaking during a site visit to the Marina Coastal Expressway, slated to open by year's end - said other possible uses of ERP2 include finding stolen cars, and doing away with parking coupons by using the new IU for charges.

He added that data collected through ERP2 would be rendered anonymous, with the Government working through privacy policies and safeguards.

When ERP2 is rolled out, "we will start it off only on roads that are already priced under today's ERP system", Mr Lui said, adding that the Government did not intend to charge motorists the minute they left home or started their engines.

"(A motorist) will generally have the same paying experience," he said of ERP2, which will be introduced only where there is congestion.

With ERP2, motorists could also be charged based on the distance travelled, rather than at discrete points only, as is the case with ERP gantries.

Distance-based charging will also be "fairer and more equitable", as motorists will be charged proportionally to how much they contribute to congestion, he noted.

Mr Lui also said the Government is looking to tweak the certificate of entitlement (COE) system.

The conditions determining which vehicles qualify for Category A COEs could be changed, such as by introducing new criteria like engine power.

This will address concerns of how Cat A COEs - for cars up to 1,600cc, which are typically smaller, budget models - are being used to buy higher-end cars.

The Government is also considering a surcharge on the second car and above owned by the same person.

With distance-based charging, COE prices could be brought down by the authorities as "owning a car doesn't do any harm in terms of congestion", said transport expert Alexander Erath.

To the The Real Singapore,

Once again, I am very unhappy with the Govt sector, what are they doing, what are trying to do? Because of these issue, I am very adamant as to renounce my citizenship, all bcoz of the Govt' wrongdoing!!!

1. I have few loans with moneylenders & 1 even want to cheat me.

2. I sold my flat & paid off to them until I don't get any balance.

3. I appeal for rental flat only to be told, that the criteria in household income must below $10k.

4. So, I left the company & jobless about 1 year, just to accommodate the rental flat.

5. Only my son works as his salary are $1.5k.

6. About 2 months later, HDB replied that I have about $70k in my cpf & if joint with my son, we can buy from BTO.

7. I applied for BTO, again been told.. the block that I chose, have 110 units while my Q is 259.

8. I am renting from open market, how long must I wait? HDB never reply except wait for others in selection but how long more, must I wait?

9. I just started to work about 1 month ago, thanks to HDB.. playing merry go round with me.

10. I am happily staying in this rental flat when suddenly I received a surprise letter from the moneylender that wanted to cheat me, I am very curious though.. how they got my new address?

11. I report my new address to ICA, does the Govt sold my details too?

12. So, I want to ask this question, Govt... what are u doing or trying to do?

13. This moneylender ever go to my previous workplace & had me terminated on the spot.

14. I just got a job 1 month ago, what if they come again & create a scene again, who should I refer to?

15. I can't refer to SPF as they always told me, since I create this problem, I have to settle it myself. This is from Jurong Neighbourhood Centre.

16. I am the citizen of Singapore but yet, are deny of any problem that I faces, every sector in Govt just turn their back.

17. I just wrote to Mr Lawrence Wong to recommend me a MPs, who is a lawyer to help settle the issue with the moneylender.

I have enough, I am too tired.. If there is anyone, can help.. plz do so.

Thank you.

Larki
 

Editor's Note: Anyone willing to give our friend Larki some good advice on how he should go about settling all the problems? Job employment opportunities for him are appreciated too. Email us via admin@therealsingapore.com