Channel NewsAsia quoted Communications and Information Minister Yaacob Ibrahim saying:  ”It’s about making sure that our regulatory framework is consistent — that’s the most important thing. At the moment, whether we like it or not, Singaporeans are receiving news both from mainstream media and online sites.

“Our mainstream media are subjected to rules, you know… Why shouldn’t the online media be part of that regulatory framework?

“I don’t see this as a clamping down, if anything, it is regularising what is already happening on the Internet and (making sure) that they are on par with our mainstream media.”

It sounds seductively rational, especially when online media are steadily becoming important. Why should offline be regulated and online not?

TRS reader Doris is irked at the rude manner in which a hawker treated her mother. First he quoted the ridiculous price of $10 for a pack of Hokkien mee without bean sprouts, then refused to sell her any altogether.

According to Doris, her mother is unable to eat bean sprouts because she suffers from gout.

The TRS reader related the incident.

"I'm very angry with this Hokkien mee stall owner . 

"This slim uncle with spectacles is so rude and unfriendly. Just because his Hokkien mee business is good doesn't mean he can be so rude to my mum, after all my mum is just a customer who really loves to eat Hokkien mee . 

"My mum love to eat Hokkien mee but she has gout so she can't eat bean sprouts (and other bean products) .

"She was really craving Hokkien mee and so she went to this Toa Payoh Lorong 8 market stall to order Hokkien mee without bean sprouts, but the shop owner told my mum that he doesn't fry special orders of Hokkien mee as it is too troublesome.

"So my mum told him that since he cooks Hokkien mee in batches, she offered to buy the entire batch of mee without bean sprouts. This totalled four packets.

"However, the owner of the shop (who is also the one cooking) turned to my mum while cooking another order said 'Auntie, you want me to cook without bean sprouts har?' 

"My mum replied 'yes', thinking that she still had a chance to get her order. 

"The uncle replied, 'Can... One packet $10.00.' 

"My mum was shocked and thought she had heard wrong and asked the uncle whether it was $4 or $10? Even the guy behind my mum had a shock too. 

"One small portion of Hokkien mee for $10? 

"But my mum still wanted to buy it, and the stall owner backed out again and insulted my mum, saying 'Even you want to pay me $10 I also don't want to sell you, cause I don't like to trouble myself cooking without bean sprouts.'

"This uncle is really unreasonable, can anyone tell me where can I make a complaint against this stall owner please? 

"I really feel bad for my mum because, even at this age, she still has to be insulted by a rude stall owner who thinks his Hokkien mee is the best."

**TRS EDITORIAL PIECE**

The Media Development Authority (MDA) said the new individual licensing framework for online news sites is not intended to clamp down on internet freedom.

The changes resulted in a strong public backlash from the online communnity.

While on the surface, it seems to only affect Yahoo! The implications of such changes are huge. The changes are set to take effect from Saturday and prior to the announcement earlier this week, no one had heard anything about the plans.

There was no consultation with the public, nor was it presented for questioning or voting in parliament. It really is a sad day for democracy in Singapore.

Maybe the government is trying to fool the public by insisting that the changes are not major and are in fact just put in place to maintain the status quo of ‘proper’ regulation. That’s probably why they only wanted to include Yahoo! Singapore News.

No one would make a fuss over Mediacorp and SPH websites being ‘regulated’ as these are controlled by the government anyway. Perhaps they thought the people would simply agree that Yahoo! can afford to pay the $50 000 bond.

At the moment, not that many people are affected by it, but how can we let it go unchallenged when it’s seriously eroding democracy.

While currently aimed at controlling racially insensitive posts and articles, it has the potential to be used as a complete censorship tool. If there’s any article or post that MDA doesn’t approve of, all they have to do is send a quick e-mail and then 24 hrs later…. *Poof*  problem solved.

It could easily be used to stem seditious, defamatory or contemptuous posts. But where is the line drawn on content that is actually offensive vs content that simply makes the government a bit unhappy?

The implementation of it is also totally bizarre. MDA went to the effort to come up with the number 50 000 for unique monthly visitors, but how are these calculated and how can websites know if they will be affected?

The Online Citizen said they clearly matched the criteria, posting web statistics showing that they had over 170 000 unique visitors monthly but MDA insists that they do not currently meet the criteria.

Traffic rank comparisons using one of the most reliable webstat sites Alexa.com,  shows that some of the ‘news sites’ slated for inclusion such as tnp.sg and zaobao.com have much lower traffic than other independent news sites that have not been included. What is the point of creating ‘criteria’ when it is not even applied uniformly?

Is it ok that the government can enact such potentially freedom-crippling regulations without any public or parliamentary consultation? Where is the transparency about the way the new regulations operate?

Source: Channel News Asia

In this guest post, Siew Kum Hong, the former general counsel for Yahoo! Southeast Asia, speaks out against the Singapore government’s clamp-down on online news reporting, announced on Tuesday.

My sense is that for a long time now, the Singapore government has been looking for a way to give itself the power to censor the internet, in the same way that it has the power to censor offline media.

It may choose to exercise that power sparingly; but the mere possibility of censorship creates a strong chilling effect.

This new regulation is a mistake, and reinforces the perception that Singapore is a repressive place — which is precisely the wrong message to be sending to a globalised and networked world, when you are trying to build an innovative and creative economy where freedom of thought is so essential.

This is a significant retreat from the “light touch” approach to internet censorship that the Singapore government has espoused since the late 1990s.

We have gone from being arguably the first country in the world to gazette a socio-political community blog as a “political association” (by this I mean The Online Citizen), to being probably the first democratic country in the world to require websites to post a significant monetary bond before they can continue publishing.

While the Media Development Authority has sought to frame it as establishing regulatory parity between online and offline news outlets, the details available to date show otherwise.

Most notably, the MDA now has the power to order online news sites to remove purportedly illegal content within 24 hours, failing which the site stands to lose its $50,000 bond.

But there is no equivalent to this for newspapers, for example; if the Straits Times publishes an article that is prohibited under MDA guidelines, the Straits Times is not obligated to recall all unsold copies within 24 hours.

More fundamentally, the power to compel content removal is simply the power to censor outright. If the intent was to ensure responsible or accurate reporting, then surely the MDA should have chosen to include the power to order the publication of an update or correction as well. But this does not seem to be the case, at least based on the MDA’s own announcement.

Now that the government has announced this, the damage has been done. But the MDA can still mitigate this by clearly affirming that this regulation will cover only commercially-operated sites, and not true citizen-operated sites like The Online Citizen and The Real Singapore. That will go a long way towards addressing the perception that this measure is solely intended to bring the internet to heel, so to speak.

Now, I can’t speak for what Yahoo! should or might do, as the license conditions have not been published. I am a little surprised that MDA chose to make the announcement without also publishing the license conditions — this creates uncertainty and lacks transparency.

It is however notable that of the 10 sites [which are: Asiaone.com, Businesstimes.com.sg, Channelnewsasia.com, Omy.sg, Sg.news.yahoo.com, Stomp.com.sg, Straitstimes.com, Tnp.sg, Todayonline.com and Zaobao.com], Yahoo! Singapore was the only site that is not operated by a government-controlled or -owned company (so Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp).

This will inevitably lead to speculation that this regulatory action is aimed directly at Yahoo!, with the goal of ensuring that the government has direct or indirect control or influence over all major online news outlets in Singapore.

Siew Kum Hong is a former Nominated Member of Parliament, activist and corporate counsel. He was the general counsel of Yahoo! Southeast Asia up to October 2012, but did not work on this matter. He wrote this piece in his personal capacity

*The MDA had not responded to Mumbrella’s request for comment about this article at the time of publication. A news story published on Mumbrella today mentions the MDA’s assertion that the new rules were not intended to impose on internet freedoms in Singapore.

mUmBRELLA

*Article first appeared on http://mumbrella.asia/2013/05/why-the-singapore-governments-crack-down-o...

Singapore’s bilingual policy has been a cornerstone in its development miracle “from Third World to First”.

However, as global power shifts gradually but irresistibly from the English-centred West to Asia, especially with the rise of China, it may be time for Singapore to take the step up further from bilingualism to biculturalism. While there is already a bicultural programme in place in some schools, to foster a bicultural elite, more could be done.

If Singapore wants to continue riding on China’s growth, its traditional, distinct competitive advantage of mastering both the English and Chinese languages will not be enough. Therefore, from a pragmatic perspective, Singapore needs to foster more bicultural talent.

Moreover, as an immigrant nation, Singapore needs to strengthen its cultural underbelly. Singaporean culture is a mixture of mainly British, Chinese, Malay and Indian cultures. However, just like Singlish, the local culture seems to be neither fish nor fowl.

While the Government has realised the importance of culture and has been intensifying efforts in cultural preservation, governmental efforts alone are never adequate. At the ground level, families play a more critical role in promoting both bilingualism and biculturalism.

Instilling biculturalism is an ambitious vision, but several precautions should also be considered.

First, Singapore must firmly uphold its sound institutional culture, especially the rule of law, which is one of its precious competitive advantages. While learning from other cultures, Singapore should be mindful to “take the essence, but discard the dross”, as a Chinese axiom goes, to avoid diluting its core social values.

Second, the aims of biculturalism should be practical. Only few elites can equally master two languages and two cultures, especially English and Chinese. As it is unrealistic to expect all students to acquire such bicultural genius, there must be a delicate balance in policy.

Last but not least, immigrants from Asia could contribute to Singapore’s biculturalism, and the Government can inject more authentic Chinese, Malay and Indian culture here by attracting more cultural talent.

Although integration is the priority, whereby new immigrants should embrace Singapore’s core values, they should also be more explicitly encouraged to retain their positive original cultures to inspire locals.

Singapore’s success has been largely credited to its foresight. If Singapore can succeed in its great upgrade from bilingualism to biculturalism in the future, it would likely continue to and even enjoy greater prosperity in this Asian Century.

With bilingualism and biculturalism, the world will be infinite, as another Chinese adage goes.

Sun Xi

* The writer, a graduate of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, is an investment analyst based in Singapore. He was born in China and became a Singapore permanent resident in 2011. His letter first appeared in TODAY (29 May).

‘Singapore is ready to help Maharashtra develop its infrastructure in major cities like Mumbai and Pune, an official said Friday.

This was indicated by visiting Singapore Deputy Prime Minister T. Shanmugaratnam in talks with Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan here.

“Singapore is a very small country compared to India. We focussed on providing the best urban infrastructure and developing cities to progress,” Shanmugaratnam said.’…. Dajiworld.com, 25 May 2013.

I think this is a good thing as Singapore has all the experienced and expertise in infrastructure development, and also the talents to do the job.

What is likely to happen is that Singapore will manage the projects and send an army of new citizens and PRs who were ex Indians, to India complete the job. These super talents will have the advantage of former home ground knowledge, know the language and culture, and given the chance to help redevelop India after having helped to develop what Singapore is today. They came to Singapore as foreign talents and now can return as foreign talents from Singapore.

India would benefit from these talented Indians, or new Singaporeans to build more modern cities that it has failed to do so far. Some of you may be puzzled who is helping who, talents from India helping India or talents from Singapore helping India.
 

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean

* The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

Details On Facebook Verified Pages

According to the announcement, users will recognize Verified Pages by the small blue checkmark which appears next to the name. The checkmark will show up on the timeline, in search results and in most other places where the page is named on Facebook.

At this point, Facebook Inc (NASDAQ:FB) said Verified Pages will belong to “a small group of prominent public figures,” such as popular celebrities, journalists, businesses, brands and government officials. The social network also said that over time, the update will roll out to profiles also.

One thing that’s noticeably missing is any description of the verification process Facebook Inc (NASDAQ:FB) will use to ensure that pages really do belong to those whose popular names they bear. Users apparently can’t ask to have their identity verified, either. If the social network believes that it’s necessary to ask for verification of the user’s identity, then it will ask for it.What’s Missing From Facebook’s New Feature

The new Verified Pages are somewhat similar to the identity verification feature on Twitter. The checkmark even looks a lot like the checkmark Twitter uses to mark accounts that have been verified as belonging to celebrities or well-known people.

Facebook’s Previous Verification Feature

TechCrunch’s Darrell Etherington reminds us that Facebook did have a different kind of verification feature in the past. In February of last year, it enabled people to verify their Facebook account using a valid ID. The feature could be used for those who wanted to utilize nicknames, like celebrities who use stage names. However, that feature didn’t have any kind of public display on the Facebook pages like these new blue checkmarks.

By now everyone should have heard about the new MDA regulations for online websites, and even the blind see it is a scam to legally take down sites and censor the news the government doesn't like. This is probably the 'N'th article on the subject, so I'll try to keep it to stuff that is not yet discussed by other people.

Who let THIS guy in?

I would like to begin by saying, screw "Yakult" Ibrahim. Here's a fine example of a braindead nunchuck who wants what people read online to be "the same as what they read from the mainstream media".

Finished puking yet? Good, because now I have to ask WHY?!

Hey, if I wanted to read about how the job market is doing great (it's not), people's lives are getting better (they aren't), and this is all because of a great big circlejerk on part of the government, I'll read the national newspapers. Then I can have a few good laughs and, it's into the trash it goes! Otherwise, if I want an opinion which is not on the government payroll, I'll read someone else. Then I'll do this thing that the government doesn't like; it's called THINKING, and make up my own mind on what seems right. Of course, the ride doesn't stop there. The genius goes on the state that "since the mainstream media is subjected to rules", "why shouldn't online sites (be subjected to rules too)".

Well, that sounds logical.

Until you think about it for half a second, and you realize it's complete bullocks. I find it incredible nobody pointed out right there and then that the mainstream media is being bankrolled by the political elite, is tremendously biased towards the government, and internet reports tend to be individual citizens and groups not affiliated with said government, are not going to toe the government line, and should be free to say whatever the hell they want. Especially not with interference or fear of said government. Unlike the pussified press in this country, people on the internet actually have the cojones to point out bullocks when they see it.

No Need For Tedious Whys And Hows 

He might as well have come down and said "Hey guys, we don't like these anti-government sites you have there. So we're going to shut them all down! Shut it all down! Oh, and that's a nice popular site you have there, it would be a pity if something happened to it. Annnd, it's gone. Say goodbye to your fifty grand of monies too. You want to talk about Singapore? Tough luck." At least then he would have been honest.

That's another thing I am thankful to the internet for. You won't see anyone pointing out the real motives of these new regulations in the lamestream media. And even if they did, it would be in the letters section, and it would be neutered, neutralized, reduced, limited, muted, downplayed so much that in the end it more closely reassembles a crippled baby flushed down a toilet than the original letter. Only then is it fit for publication. Then it will seem that said sender doesn't like the regulations, but feels it is "needed". All in the name of being "fair and balanced".

Screwing Yahoo

Now, when I started writing this, one of the first articles to appear on the subject was on Ravi Philemon's blog^1, which mentioned that only ten websites would be covered initially; a list which is obviously going to expand in the coming days. Now, what is interesting about it is that of the ten websites, nine are government affiliated, belonging to the SPH and Mediacorp. So basically it seems that they are regulating themselves for now. So maybe this whole fear about government taking down The Real Singapore is just pointless fearmongering.

Haha. You wish. ^2

Now the only website that is not directly under the control of the government, and will be forced to abide by the new regulations, is Yahoo Singapore News. I don't read Yahoo Singapore News, so I have no idea if they are in fact government shills in disguise or not. What I do know is that my initial thoughts were: Yahoo? Why screw Yahoo? Don't you have more important people to go after like Temasek Review Emeritus? Or The Online Citizen? What did Yahoo do to piss off the government?

Since the lamestream media won't answer my questions, I decided to ask Yahoo Search instead. And it turns out that Yahoo did piss off the government, or more specifically, SPH, two years ago. Turns out that SPH accused Yahoo of plagiarism, and through legal trickery or what not, Yahoo filed a counter-suit. ^3 Then withdrew the countersuit and are implied to have settled. ^4. Notice the dates on these articles, the first one was written in December of 2011, and the other was made in August 2012.

Of course, being the inquisitive bastard I am, I decided to try and read the court proceedings for myself at the high court webpage. Unfortunately the case in question, S 831/2011, was not available for viewing. ^5 What is more interesting is that there appear to be even more recent developments on the case that neither Google nor Yahoo provided in their searches. The latest update apparently happened on 22nd May 2013 according to the high court's search engine.

Huh.

How come nobody has said anything about this? Does it have anything to do with the new regulations that are going to be in place for Yahoo? What will happen to Yahoo Singapore if it doesn't want to be regulated? What will happen to other sites that report on Singapore news and don't want to be regulated? Will Yahoo become a government regulated shill site? Probably not, but it does seem rather strange nobody has said anything about Yahoo settling, or even pointed out that SPH has a beef against Yahoo.

Shut It Down! Shut It All Down!

Back to the regularly scheduled program. And I say program just to make fun of the MDA's definition of news programs.^6 They think that any programme (whether or not the programme is presenter-based and whether or not the programme is provided by a third party) containing any news, intelligence, report of occurrence, or any matter of public interest, about any social, economic, political, cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, or any other aspect of Singapore in any language (whether paid or free and whether at regular intervals or otherwise) but does not include any programme produced by or on behalf of the government... is news.

That's bullocks.

Try saying all that in one breath.. Why don't you just cut to the chase and say EVERYTHING is news. Yes, EVERYTHING! You include Singapore in the title and it's a friggin' Singapore news article, and it belongs to the government, and we have the right to shut you down. You probably can't even report on a fact like Singapore's birth rate is abysmally low without it contravening the new regulations one way or another. In effect, the government is saying if you even dare to utter something about Singapore, without the government's magic seal of approval, we will make sure you suffer. And suffer you will.

Facebook Never Was Safe

What is very enlightening about the actual amendments is that this point is not covered in the news:

(2) For the purposes of reckoning access and content under

sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) ––

(a) where a computer on-line service is provided by a website with a domain and one or more sub-domains, all sub-domains shall be regarded as part of the domain of the web site; and

(b) where a computer on-line service is provided by a web site in or from Singapore (referred to in this sub-paragraph as the original web site) which is duplicated on or transferred to one or more other web sites in or from Singapore (referred to in this sub-paragraph as the mirrored web site), all mirrored web sites shall be regarded as part of the original website.

So in fact, Facebook and Youtube fall under the first part of this law too. Does Facebook get 50k hits from Singapore in a month? You bet your ass it does. Does it have "news articles" written by Singaporeans and published by Singaporeans? Hell yes. Does it cater to the Singapore market? Why don't you skip the yadayadayada and shut it all down. Doesn't matter if guy posting news articles only gets about ten views and even less likes a month. So long as you are under the Facebook banner, you are screwed. So much for justice.

I'm quite interested to see if Facebook will grovel before the Singapore government and heed this obviously unjust and unfair law, or will it turn around and flip the middle finger to them. Knowing that Facebook provides information to the FBI on a regular basis without a warrant, I'm not keeping my hopes up.

What's more dangerous is the second part of the amendment. What the flocking featherface is this nonsense? The very act of sharing, SHARING an article from a popular website is now punishable by law. And by extension, even if you don't meet the arbitrary standards of 50k hits set by the jackals, you are in violation of the law. So even little guys get punished now. That's ridiculous. Talk about government overreach. Not only are you not allowed to say anything, you can't say that someone else said something, and if you have to say something it better be a licensed source. What's next? You can't "like" unofficial media sources and need to "like" the sanitized garbage that the mainstream media spits out on a daily basis?

Socialist Scumbags

The people should be completely outraged at this. They should be getting angry like this ^7 guy here. You can't just be disappointed or sad over this. No! You little twats! The government is enacting laws that punishes just about anyone who doesn't quote the national rag as a source. Not only are these people arrogant enough to think that they are always right, they are now legally entitled to propagating their nonsense as truth as well. You need a license just to talk about current affairs in this country now, and only government controlled publications are given licenses. They want a monopoly on facts and now they want regulations to create a monopoly on opinion as well. Does this not strike anyone as being rather insane?

I say let the people think for themselves what is right and wrong. I call it the free market of ideas.  In the free market of ideas, bullocks is instantly called out on and thrown out of the room. So what remains are the ideas that people find good and acceptable in general. And if for some reason stupidity sneaks past majority of the people, you can be assured that there will be asshats like me who will keep pointing out "this is friggin' stupid, this is friggin' stupid, this is friggin' stupid!"

Samuel

Junior TRS editor

Source:
^1 http://www.raviphilemon.net/2013/05/mdas-new-licensing-framework-may-be.html
^2 It is stated in the Business Time's (SPH) take on this by a professor that it could extend to TOC or TRE
^3 http://thediplomat.com/asean-beat/2011/12/30/singapore-press-vs-yahoo/
^4 http://sg.news.yahoo.com/yahoo--reaches-settlement-on-counterclaim-against-sph.html
^5 http://app.supremecourt.gov.sg/data/registrarHearing/10_22052013.pdf
^6 http://www.mda.gov.sg/NewsAndEvents/PressRelease/2013/Pages/28052013.aspx
^7 http://therealsingapore.com/content/fk-you-pap-censoring-my-online-media

I have been a regular follower of Leslie Chew cartoons, exposing the dirty tricks of the government through Demon-cratic Singapore. Every TheRealSingapore and TemasekReviewEmeritus readers and supporters should sign up on his facebook to show him support for standing up to the bullies and master Con artists. I recently dug up a book of a cartoonist called HENG, where the foreward was written by George Yeo and the back cover comments by, non other than  Lee Hsien Loong. It just goes to show what a bunch of hypocrites the PAP government is. The following are what they wrote:-

GEORGE YEO'S  - Foreward

I have long been Heng's fan. When international publications like the International Herald Tribune and Yazhou Zhoukan started carrying him regularly, I felt so proud that Singapore has produced an international editorial cartoonist. Over ten years ago, through a grassroots leader, Heng sent me a copy of his newly-published compilation of his cartoons. Although he was then my constituent, we did not have an opportunity to meet. until recently, when I went down to the Art House to see a nice exhibition of his works. As I expected from his works, Heng has an unusual ability to look deeper into a situation, into his very essence, and to see the humour or the irony of it. (SO DOES LESLIE CHEW). After the exhibition, we adjourned to the Singapore cricket club across the road for a bak kut the lunch. When he asked if I could write a foreward for his new book, I said, yes, immediately. Through his cartoons, Heng holds a mirror up to us, which is not only funny, it often also points us to aspects of reality which are not obvious. ( SO DID LESLIE CHEW, BUT THEY ARRESTED HIM) I hope Heng will do more political cartoons about Singapore so that we can see ourselves more clearly, sensitive though it may be sometimes. (LESLIE IS DOING IT, BUT YOU ARRESTED HIM WTF). Like Malaysian cartoonist Lat, I know Heng has a deft touch. It is good to be able to laugh at ourselves. (YEAH RIGHT? LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO LESLIE). When he asked if he could do a cartoon of me (as if he needed my permission), I not only agreed but said it would be an honour. (WHAT A BUNCH OF HYPOCRITES).
                                          ==================================

LEE HSIEN LOONG - Comments on the back cover While foreign policy is a serious matter, serious points can often be made most effectively with a sense of humour. Your work demonstrates this. (SINCE YOU FEEL THIS WAY, WHY CAN"T YOU ACCEPT HOW LESLIE CHEW IS ENLIGHTENING YOU THRU HIS HUMOUR, ON HOW BADLY YOU ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY).
                                             ==============================

In short, it is okay to do cartoons and poking fun at all the leaders in the world, but if it is done about the PAP, it's not alright. I guess the truth is really hurting them. My hats off to Leslie Chew for making themselves realize that they can't hide behind their propaganda newspaper The Shit Times. Leslie, keep up the good work exposing the government of Demon-cratic Singapore's bad policies and evil schemes and educating many Singaporeans in the process. Thank you for doing a great service to Singapore. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Historically, Singaporeans did not stand up for one another. So when lawyers like Francis Seow and JBJ were getting whacked even though they were prosecuted for wrong reasons and unjustly, we just stood by the sideline and watched the show. I too must admit that I am guilty of past indifference. The consequences of such apathy is now evident in the malaise that our democracy is suffering from. JBJ and Chee Soon Juan saw it all coming. Visionaries they were, but we failed them. Going forward, let’s voice our opposition at every opportunity when we encounter injustice and inhumane treatment to our fellow countrymen by the authorities. Because one day, the ones on the receiving end may turn out to be us. The PAP Govt should know that Singaporeans of today are no longer the same herded bunch bullied by LKY in yesteryear. We won't allow Gang Raping Citizens, you bunch of Askholes. ASKHOLES are people who constantly ask your advice, then went ahead and did a total opposite of what you told them. Singaporeans have awakened!

DJANGO UNCHAINED (Not Real Name)

Contributor

DESPITE flat demand in the luxury market so far this year, at least two condominium units with a price tag of over $10 million each were sold over the past fortnight.

Keppel Land told the Singapore Exchange on Tuesday that family members of Mrs Koh-Lim Wen Gin, a former Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) chief planner, bought the units at its upcoming project Corals at Keppel Bay.

Mrs Koh has been an independent director of Keppel Land since January 2010.

One of the buyers is her daughter, Ms Koh Lin-Net, the chief executive of the Media Development Authority. Ms Koh took office last November and prior to that was deputy secretary of trade at the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Ms Koh and her husband Lawrence Low bought a 3,477 sq ft four-bedder at Corals for slightly below $10.1 million, which works out to around $2,901 per sq ft for the second-floor unit. The option to purchase is dated May 19.

The other family member is Mr Kevin Koh In-Chuen, who bought a first-floor 3,660 sq ft four-bedder for around $10.3 million. This translates to around $2,816 psf. Mr Koh's option to purchase is dated May 20.

There have been nine transactions of condo units worth $10 million or more so far this year, according to caveats lodged with the URA. Most of the sales were in the prime District 10 at projects such as Sage at Nassim Road.

From January to May last year, there were also nine condo unit sales worth $10 million or more. This was a sharp drop from the nearly 20 transactions at or above $10 million in the first five months of 2011.

Prices at the 366-unit Corals are said to range from $1,800 psf to $3,000 psf. Sizes range from 600 sq ft to 3,500 sq ft.

The project is on a 99-year leasehold starting from 2007. It is not subject to rules that stipulate that the developer has up to five years to build the project and then has to sell all the units within two years of getting the temporary occupation permit.

Most units sold at Corals have been one- to three-bedders, with the three-bedders being the most popular, Keppel Land said last week. There are also four-bedroom units and eight penthouses.

*****************Background Story *****************

There have been nine transactions of condo units worth $10 million or more so far... Most were in the prime District 10.

Source: STproperty

Singapore’s Media Development Authority (MDA) is seeking to recover S$27.5 million ($21.8 million) from RGM Group, the Australian talent management and executive production firm.

RGM’s Australian Stock Exchange listed parent, now known as One North Entertainment, has acknowledged the dispute and revealed that the MDA has an injunction freezing its assets in Singapore.

Now, further details are set to emerge following preliminary court proceedings in Singapore and local disclosures.

Hearings in Singapore’s Supreme Court took place on Monday and Tuesday last week involving three cases in which the MDA is the plaintiff and Devesh CHETTY (pictured), RGM’s former managing director, the defendant. In two cases Chetty appeared in person. In a third, his private company Montrose Holdings was represented by a lawyer.

The MDA is trying to recover money it advanced to RGM, with which it had five separate agreements between 2005 and 2010.

The MDA provided RGM with S$2.5 million ($1.98 million) in 2005 in part to attract the company to the country.

In 2008, the MDA provided it with S$10 million as seed money for a film production fund that RGM announced would be worth $300 million over five years.

In 2010 (a year after it was criticised by the Auditor General for poor management of public funds) the MDA struck two further agreements with RGM. These were billed as joint venture vehicles with Sony Pictures Entertainment (with S$10 million of MDA seed capital) and with Fox International Pictures (with S$5 million of MDA seed capital), part of 20th Century Fox.

The production fund did not materialise and RGM did not secure its position as an investor alongside either FIP or Sony.

Last year RGM missed the scheduled first repayment of a S$2.5 million loan. A replacement cheque was issued by Chetty’s Montrose Holdings. It has been reported that this cheque subsequently bounced.

The MDA subsequently cancelled its agreements with RGM and succeeded in winning a summary judgement against RGM.

One North, however, has asked for the two cases to be set aside as they relate to deals conducted by Chetty, who is no longer a company director, and involved private companies controlled by him.

The MDA has refused media comment, arguing that legal proceedings are ongoing.

*Article first appeared on http://www.filmbiz.asia/news/mda-seeking-22-million-from-rgm

Hi,

I would like to input from a perspective unknown to most sinkies.

Due to personal circumstances, I stayed outside of home for a while. A few foreign workers told me things which I would like to share here.

One woman from PRC told me that she regretted coming to Singapore because Singapore is not what she thought she saw on TV, which was a nice image of our island some more than 5 years ago.

Hear this, she said she went to many parts of Singapore and found that she could not see any Singaporeans, only Indian nationals, many more from Myanmar, Viets, Indons, Negos, Pinoys, Cambodians and from all over the world.

The nice image of Singaporeans is non-existent here while she has been here. And she remarked that tourists see only the nice parts of Singapore like the IRs which do not represent the day-to-day lives of people living here.

She said the island is like a mess with a mixing pot of TOO MANY nationalities and none represents Singaporeans!

And her other folks here said also that all the areas in Singapore are occupied by foreign workers with all their laundry drying in common areas and Singapore is full of litter everywhere she goes.

All these observations came from people here to work. Not direct from the Singaporeans mouth, but it comes close because the observation cannot be so uncannily the same unless this is the BARE TRUTH!!!!!!! Which Sinkies are protesting about on the proposed WHITE PAPER on POPULATION GROWTH which is going to be a TOTAL DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!

TRUE DISASTER

* Comment first appeared in: Major online websites in Singapore to protest against licensing requirement

Please help me publish this as i would like to alert all parents to be aware of KK hospital Bullying Tactics.

This is what i wrote to KK hospital:

“I am totally disappointed by KK B bill dating 21 May 2013, asking me to pay for the full hospitalization bill for my son.

As I have indicated that I was under distress to admit my son for ward, based on the suggestion by the doctor in charge of examining my son on 1st May 2013. Within 30 minutes of signing the ward admission, I appeal to the nurses at ward 5 to release us from the ward as we decided not to subject our son to 3 days of ward admission.

As the day was 1st May 2013, a public holiday, the nurse Ms Karla said she will file a case for me to appeal.

Over the next few weeks I called KK multiple times to appeal against the ward fees and a gentleman David said he will investigate. I have stressed many times that I did not use any of the ward services and never use the bed at all, and to subject me to pay for 1 day ward fees due to the my decision to sign on the ward admission under distress, is pure bully by KK, as I have alerted the nurse of the day, within 30 mins,  that I do not wish to let me son stay in the hospital.

As all my appeal has fallen to deaf ears, I will have no choice but to seek recourse by publishing all the facts to the popular websites informing all parents to be careful when signing up for ward admission, as there will be no way to appeal for that is you decide not to stay in the ward within 10 minutes.

Thank you, and I hope to receive a reply from you soon”

All parents do take note. Once you sign on the Ward Admission form, there is no recourse for you to cancel it, even if you cancel it, you have to pay one full day ward fees in cash. This is how KK hospital runs, all appeal will be useless as KK only care about money, so be careful before you sign.

Alan Koo

**UPDATE**

KK Hospital has responded to Alan. Read more here: http://therealsingapore.com/content/kk-hospitals-response-trs-reader-alan
 

Dear Mr Koo, 

We have looked into the concerns raised and wish to share our findings with you. 

Our records show that you spoke to our Business Office staff on 06 May 2013 regarding your appeal against the ward fee. As such, our reply of 21 May 2013 clarified the hospital policy of levying a minimum one day ward charge. 

Following your email today, the ward has further investigated and wish to share the outcome with you. Guo Sen arrived at the ward at10.30am and the ward doctor attended to him 30 minutes later. At about 11.40am, the nurse dressed his wound and took swabs for the various lab tests ordered by the doctor. Subsequently, Guo Sen was discharged at 12.45pm following your request. The ward nurse had informed you that cash payment would be required as the admission was less than 8 hours and thus non-Medisave claimable.

Nevertheless, we have reviewed your appeal and would accede to your request for waiver of the $66 ward fee on a goodwill basis. Please see the revised bill enclosed.

Mr Koo, thank you for your feedback and we wish you and your family the best of health always.

Yours Sincerely,

Alan's Note: I am not satisfied with this as they did not reverse the warding registration fees. It makes no send that if i am not staying in the ward, i should not be paying for the warding registration fees, seems that they like to suck money. I wrote to them that under ISO 9001 (which KK obtained), clause 8 continual improvement, they should revise the total fees for the ward (Reg plus Ward fees) if they want to meet customer expectation and improve.

Anyway thank you for voicing out for me.
 

Related article: BEWARE OF KK HOSPITAL’S BULLY TACTICS! (http://therealsingapore.com/content/beware-kk-hospital%E2%80%99s-bully-t...)

NCMP Lina Chiam files motion to debate MDA licensing regime in Parliament

The SPP views the Media Development Authority's latest licensing regime for websites with grave concern. We find it even more worrying that the regulations were not brought for debate in Parliament, the body of elected representatives of the people. As such, NCMP Mrs Lina Chiam has filed an adjournment motion to speak on the matter at the next Parliament sitting, pending the confirmation of the Parliament Secretariat. 

"SPP chairman Lina Chiam, who is also a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, questioned why they were not “brought before Parliament to be debated”. Mrs Chiam added: “It is a... major shift in how the Internet is regulated. There are many questions too - how is a news website to be defined? What if many of the hits which a website receives are generated from a bot?”

In raising this motion in Parliament, the SPP also wants to be as representative of the community-at-large as possible. We therefore seek to hear from bloggers and concerned citizens as to how the MDA's latest internet regulations that will affect their activities. If you have any comments to make, please email us at: media@spp.org.sg.

SINGAPORE PEOPLE'S PARTY