Just as recently as the 2008 global recession, we were told that Singaporeans had been reinventing themselves and had adopted a change in mindset to make themselves more globally competitive. And because these Singaporean professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) were in so high demand, they were snapped up by the global business community as prized catches. Asiaone even published some extensive charts to show where these highly sought after PMETs were heading and in which sectors.

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/Office/Story/A1Story20080303-52391.html

Fast-forward to today, 5 years later. How the tide has changed. We see in today's State Times the dereliction of the picture that was painted just five years ago. If the picture painted today is as true as what was published in the States Times, then Singaporeans had better start asking the PM why this is so? What happened in these five years that saw the highly sought-after Singaporean PMET crashing down to become an unwanted pariah? The PM had better come clean with this; why his policies have reduced the Singaporean PMET to such a state.

Having said that, we mustn't forget to question the integrity of the writing. Singaporeans, as well as foreigners the world over, know that the State Press is wont to do as the PAP Government dictate to it. Could it have been dictated that it should help the government ridicule the people so that the population white paper can be better justified?

Singaporeans know too well of late, that when the PAP government runs into difficulty pushing citizen-unfriendly policies across, it will lay the blame on the people. In this case, because the local economy could do better with cheap foreign labour, they government saw it necessary to disguise their policy as one seeking foreign talents to boost the employability of the Singaporean. Beneath that disguise is nothing but a policy which sought to replace the globally attractive and talented Singaporean worker which they find hard to pay, the remuneration they deserve for their talents.

We know also that talent comes with a price. For this reason, the Singaporean worker has always come with a higher price tag when compared to regional PMETs. And because of this, the PAP government does not have the faintest idea how to fit these highly skilled Singaporean PMETs into its scheme of things.

Finally, it is a very sad day to see our State Press succumbing to the level we see it in. A national press must first and foremost help to ask the unaskable questions rather than help shove the unshovable poison apple down citizens' throats. 

By this, the State Press has shown itself an accomplice to the politics of division. The PMET article, where the acronym was retranslated to mean Pampered, Mediocre, Expensive, Timid, was nothing more than an irresponsible and disrespectful attempt to divide further a divided people. Shame on you, Warren Fernandez.

Both him and the PM had better come clean with real talent if the Singaporean PMET, and stop playing games with their lives just for that cheap foreign worker who helps keep labour cost low.

The Alternative View

[Source: https://www.fb.com/photo.php?fbid=548439671884036&set=a.360220640705941....

There are more pressing issues than the cleaning of hawker centres to be discussed and debated in Parliament (“WP MPs ‘untruthful’, says Vivian”; Wednesday).

The 36-minute exchange in Parliament on Tuesday between Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Workers’ Party MPs could well have been devoted to health and safety matters like the haze situation and dengue.

As it is seldom that Parliament sits, it is imperative that MPs best utilise such sessions to address national issues.

The Bedok hawker centre cleaning saga should have been resolved long ago if both parties had thrashed it out in private.

After all, it is a constituency issue and should not be dragged into Parliament in the first place.

Jeffrey Law Lee Beng

* Letter first appeared in ST Forum (13 Jul)

(AFP, 12 Jul) – Suicide rates in Singapore hit an all time high of 487 in 2012 according to a local charity group dealing with the problem.

The Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) say there has been a 29 per cent increase since 2011 as more young people, bogged down by stress and relationship woes, took their own lives.

“These include unemployment, stress with studies or work, financial worries, family life, struggles with social interactions and feelings of loneliness,” said SOS.

SOS provides emotional support through private counselling and a 24-hour telephone hotline to prevent suicides.

Christine Wong, executive director of SOS, says young people under stress tend to hide their pain behind a facade, not knowing where, how or who they can approach for help.

“People around them may not be aware of their distress and are hence, unable to provide the support needed,” Ms Wong said.

Ms Wong says the community should play an important role in “de-stigmatising” suicide by encouraging those under stress to talk about their struggles and suicidal feelings.

SOS received 39,994 calls on its telephone hotline in 2012, down from 40,025 in 2011.

Suicide cases have consistently hovered around two percent of total deaths in Singapore, an affluent city-state of 5.3 million residents known for its pressure-laden school system.

Despite a virtually full employment rate, Singapore also has a highly competitive work environment.

Suicide is an offence in the compact island-state and anyone who survives an attempt faces a jail term of up to a year, a fine or both.

Source: AFP

While I am not surprised TRS receives lots of threats and warnings on regular basis, MP Zagy's choice to use the state media to give TRS an ultimatum of removing an "inaccurate" online article if they do not produce proof to back up their claims, surprised me. The government has never like online publication websites and they have made no secret about it. Only not too long ago, they seem to refuse to accept the existence of these websites and wish they will go away. So, their mode change from "They-must-not-be-named" to attacking them directly, amused me.

Unfortunately, the government again did not learn an important lesson from online dissent. Every Singaporean can see the government spending a lot of manpower, time and (now) valuable resources to "regulate" these online media with the tax monies that came from the people. They fail to understand that these alternative sources of Singapore tabloids are operating on a simple demand/supply model and will never be completely eliminated. It's not much different to piracy in this sense. Every Singaporean is technically a criminal by being a consumer. Will the government come out with a new policy one day to criminalise anyone who is caught reading "wrong news"? With their directionless scatters these days, expect the incredulous.

MP Zaqy's move peeved me off for some reason. It has nothing to do with TRS or clamping down on online media whatever. I feel really pissed whenever the government demands things from the people. Why did the people of Singapore give them the audacity to do things like that? Whatever that isn't within their own spectrum of truth, they demand for proofs or apologies or retraction. Does this mean truths automatically become lies without evidence? I understand where the government is coming from. It must be frustrating to deal with fabrications, pranks and hoaxes. But that is how the internet has been since day 1 and the government should learn to leave things they way they are and accept the good and bad of the internet. If anything, these disgruntled online chatter serves as a valuable resource to find out how they can dangle the "right carrots" to win back the electoral in a few years' time. Time is running out. Spending time on meaningless battles will only lead them to their demise.

Lastly, I would like to invite Singaporeans to think along the lines of Zaqy Mohamed's demands and apply it for more important issues. For example, we have long demand from the HDB to release the figures of building a HDB flat but we were denied for years. Without proof, how can the government claim our HDB flat pricing is not unfairly manipulated. The details of contract awards to HDB contractors should be made public as well. Without evidence, how can the government claim that none of these transactions are fraudulent? These are public money and we have full rights as citizens of Singapore to know how it is spent right down to the last cent. That goes the same for Temasek & GIC investments, CPF, our reserves and so on.

If history is anything to learn from, the lack of transparency NEVER fail to lead to corruption and frauds. Many years back, when Dr Chee Soon Juan raised the issue of Singapore's secretive US$5 billion loan pledge to Suharto just before the corrupted Indonesia dictator was toppled in May 1998, the PAP took the opportunity  and used the same state media to make Dr Chee look like a lunatic. Till today, many still believe he is one. The most important fact here was nobody asked about that US$5 billion dollars anymore. Our attention had been successfully diverted somewhere else and a political opponent was vanquished with a permanent scar as a 'mad man'. Killing two birds with one stone.

2 decades later, the PAP is still using state media to discredit any voice that questions loud enough. If the PAP believes in telling the truths, producing evidence for every claim and coming clean when a mistake is made, they have a mountain load of work to do to account for Singaporeans who were denied truths for many decades without knowing so. They should be the one taking a step forward to be truthful instead of pointing their fingers at others.

A Singaporean Son

*The writer blogs at asingaporeanson.blogspot.com

The Kovan's murder has lead one to ponder whether has the Singapore Police Force (SPF) failed in their values, Fairness and Integrity.   

On their website, "We are fair in our dealings with people, irrespective of their race, religion, gender, age, standing in life and irrespective of whether they are victims, suspects or convicts. We also (apply the same standard to the members of the SPF.)"  

"We (never forsake our ethics in order to attain our objectives. Our actions are guided by our principle), not expediency." 

The suspect has definitely failed the SPF but could the SPF have done more to help him with his financial issues? Notice that the suspect was once a role model, one could only have imagined the aspiration that he had for the Singapore Police Force and as a Police Officer.

Was the reason behind the murder been due to financial issues facing by the suspect, could I ask what could have the SPF done more to avoid a double murder, and saved the bright future of a Police Officer, who is now set to face Capital Charges.  

He might be covering up his financial issues, suspending him from active duty is fair enough. but could the SPF clarify how much of a blow would their 'financial embarrassment' disciplinary action have on someone, even if one is mentally healthy? 

I could only imagine the stress and thoughts been through the mind of the someone who is heavily in debt, HOW is one going to repay one's debt? being shamed by suspending of one's active duty, and potentially losing one's rice bowl, and on the edge of being bankrupt.  

Could the SPF look into giving members of the SPF any form of financial help and advice when they are faced with financial issues?

• Giving them a loan to pay back the bank, could help them from being bankrupt.
• Look into what issues they had that caused the debt and help from there.
• Provide them with counseling.

However I would like to applaude the SPF for suspending the suspect from active duty, noting that someone who is financially stress should not be handling weaponry and prevent one from being in the position to corrupt or exploit what one do in active duty.This has help avoid a more brutal killing, and a less dangerous suspect for the public, and make it easier for our SPF's counterpart, Royal Malaysia Police to nab the suspect. 

Anonymous

TRS Contributor

Publishing of False Information on The Real Singapore on 13 Jul 2013 (Response 2)

I thank The Real Singapore (TRS) for their response earlier today (http://therealsingapore.com/content/trs-official-response-mp-zaqy-mohamad). 

As at 1235AM, 24 hours following my post, TRS has not taken down the post. Despite its reply, it has not provided proof on the two allegations I took issue with in my post.

The allegations about the replacement of railings at the staircase are false. All evidence is in public view that the railings have been there for some time and not new.

TRS could have also checked with Ms Tham or the insurers with a simple question, which it has not so far. Has she been in contact with insurer's Loss Adjustment officer to investigate her case over the past 2 months? We were only informed there was a typo in the contact number provided only on 10 Jul 2013, a few days ago. We acknowledged to Ms Tham that this may have caused some inconvenience, but had no bearing on the claims investigations ongoing for 2 months.

My intent for the post is to set the record straight for public record as TRS had allowed the posting with serious allegations in the public domain. It is unfortunate that in its reply, TRS set out to cloud the situation further rather than abide by editorial integrity, even though I personally put forth our facts to defend the allegations.

Our interest here is not with Ms Tham nor any opinions of the case that TRS wishes to allow posted. We reserve our rights to protect the interests of all parties involved in the claims, including the interest of Ms Tham.

Our position remains that we will respect the claims investigation being conducted and the legal process, and be accountable for the outcome - whether in our favour or otherwise.

Zaqy Mohamad 

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/zaqymd/posts/10152021627959256

Editor's Note: 

We appreciate the effort that MP Zaqy has taken to clarify his stand on this issue and while we realise that more than the 24 hours since MP Zaqy's post has passed,  we are currently still in communication with Ms Serene Tham. 

We will stick to our original response here: http://therealsingapore.com/content/trs-official-response-mp-zaqy-mohamad and in addition to that we have included some pictures of the old staircase which Miss Serene Tham has fell down and also some photos of her injuries.

We have spoken on the phone with Ms Tham and she has expressed that she wishes to write a clarification article on the issue to address MP Zaqy's points including pictures of the staircase. Firstly, however, as this is still currently a case pending with the insurer, she is seeking legal advice on what information she is able to release. 

Our understanding is that we will receive an update from her later today and her response will be published on our website once we recieve it. 

We don't wish to make this issue any bigger than it needs to be and we continue to endeavour to present both sides. Ms Tham's repsonse will be published shortly and we hope that with that, everything can then be put to rest.

Again, we attempt to allow citizens to voice their concerns and as we are yet to receive the final clarification article from Ms Tham, we will not be altering her previous articles as the issue is still outstanding. We have noted MP Zaqy's concerns about some of the information in her original article and we will make any appropriate editorial adjustments following her official response. 

A netizen has posted an interesting piece of information on the popular online forum Sammyboy. In the posting, the netizen talks about some inaccuracies he found in the dossier of documents which Minister Vivian presented in Parliament recently.

The netizen highlights the first paragraph of the documentary evidence in Vivian’s dossier [Link]:

It states that Ms Chin of NEA informed Mr Pradeep of AHPETC that the Block 538 Hawker Association representatives had proposed that their annual March 2013 spring cleaningbe scheduled from 4 to 8 March 2013.

However, if one looks at the actual email correspondence between Ms Chin and Mr Pradeep on 20 December 2012 as documented by Minister Vivian in the dossier, the word “annual” is not found in the email – this email correspondence is published on AHPETC’s site [Link] as well:

Ms Chin of NEA described the cleaning as “Next Spring Cleaning” rather than “Next Annual Spring Cleaning” or “Annual Spring Cleaning”. There is no mention of the word “annual” in the email correspondence of 20 December 2012 at all.

The netizen says, “And if you look at Chin Peiyun’s email, she did not say ‘annual’. However, Vivian’s dossier added that word.”

The netizen then highlights AHPETC’s original annual cleaning schedule on its website [Link]:

In other words, AHPETC had already planned to carry out the annual cleaning for Blk 538 hawker center in the “last week of Oct 13″.

With regard to the ongoing hawker center cleaning dispute between Minister Vivian and AHPETC, Mr Low Thia Khiang, in his reply to the press on 10 July 2013 (‘Low stands by Sylvia & Pritam, says Vivian’s attack was not good politics‘), restated his stand in Parliament that there was a misunderstanding whether the cleaning session was an annual or a quarterly one.

Mr Low clarified that if NEA was referring to quarterly cleaning, the town council would not have been obliged to clean the high areas since the contract with NEA stipulated at least once a year cleaning for the high areas.

Minister Vivian Balakrishnan

However, if they meant annual cleaning, it would then be the town council’s duty to clean the high areas at its own cost, as stipulated in the contract. He said that if NEA had wanted an annual cleaning session to be carried out, it should have communicated this clearly. In any case, there was no basis for NEA to make such requests since it is up to the town council to decide on the schedule for the annual cleaning for the markets in the constituencies under its charge, he added.

On a conciliatory note, Mr Low said that both the town council and NEA have “room for improvement” when it comes to communication.

Clearly, Ms Chin of NEA did not make clear if the cleaning was to be “annual” cleaning, which mandates the cleaning of the high areas, or a “non-annual” one which does not require the high areas to be cleaned. Ms Chin simply referred to the cleaning as “Next Spring Cleaning” in her 20 December 2012 correspondence with AHPETC.

It was Minister Vivian who, purposely or carelessly, added the word “annual“ in describing the event of 20 December 2012 in his dossier under “Chronology of Events”.

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

Republished with permission.

What is education for? Is education for the sake of education? Or is education about equipping the student to participate fully in life, in the economy, simply about getting a job to earn some money to provide for himself and his family should he decide to have one? For the elite and the gentry class, the royalties and aristocracies, education is just for education, to learn to read and write. The need to get a job or the need for an education to equip the student to be gainfully employed is not necessary in the lives of such privilege classes of people. Contrast this to those who need to work for a living, an education is seen primarily as a means to a job. Of course one does not need an education to get a job. A fisherman, a butcher, a boxer or a golfer or a tennis player, they don’t need an education to earn a living.

Putting aside those that don’t need to work, and those jobs that don’t need an education, education is the acquisition of a piece of certificate, diploma or degree or the acquiring of a passpost to a job. Several of our wise leaders have spoken many times to encourage the young to get a good education and advocating how important education is to a good job and a good life. Education is the leveller for all to compete on equal grounds to material success. And the Govt spent hundreds of millions annually to provide an excellent and world class education system for the population. And the universities and colleges all strived to be the best, to produce the best students for society and the economy. 

Then out of the blue we heard two ministers in a matter of days said these. Khaw Boon Wan: “You own a degree, but so what? You can’t eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless”. He later went on to encourage people to become crane drivers when there is a great demand for it and the pay is good. Then Heng Swee Keat followed up a few days later by saying that ‘beyond providing students with a good education, he wasn’t sure or neither would he be responsible if these students could not find good jobs after graduating.’ 

Could you believe it, that two ministers in the same breath told the people that our world class education could not guarantee them a good job and maybe they should consider becoming crane drivers or take on other jobs that don’t require a good formal education? What the hell the Govt set up all the good schools, colleges and universities for? The students in these institutions are mostly from the working class that need to work for a living. They are not children of royalties or aristocrats or the super rich when working is an unnecessary chore, and if they choose to work, it is to kill their boredom. Why encourage the parents to send their children through the system, invested time and resources when it can be all for nothing? 

Does anyone think that this is strange? Would the NTUC, the super advocates of training and the organisation that has been sending hundreds of thousands of workers for training, tell the workers that the training would not guarantee them a job? Then why waste their time and money? 

The sick part of this conversation is that the country can provide a few hundred thousand jobs to foreigners who came from less prestigious or even doubtful institutions of learning with great jobs and good paying jobs. And we are telling our children that despite the fact that they have gone through one of the best education system, they may not get a good job here. 

I think this must be the joke of the century. Now who started this joke and set the whole world laughing? Education, and expensive education, stressful education, is not ‘main main’ ya. Who in his right mind would tell the parents that this gonna be the case, that their children with good grades from this expensive and world class education system may not find a good job while the questionable students with questionable grades from questionable education institutions could be in a better position to get good jobs? Is there someone suffering from bipolar sickness but is not detected? Did someone say bird talk? 

And there is the acting Minister of Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, scurrying around like a bull arse fly shouting discrimination by employers, both locals and foreigners, against Singaporeans in employment. Now, what is that all about? Maybe have to wait for people to clean the hawker centre first before they have time to explain what is going on.

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

*The writer blogs at mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

Omigosh, the proverbial fecal matter has hit the rotating cooling device. Rating agency Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the outlook on Singapore's banking system from "stable" to "negative".

The anticipated rise in interest rates coupled with the high level of household debt - most of it tied down to mortgages - will present a perfect storm to the local lenders' credit profile. CFO Chng said a rise in short-term interest rates will lift DBS's net interest income and mitigate higher credit costs. That may be good news for the bank, but not the house owners.

The latest round of cooling measures introduced last month were meant to make sure outstanding debt obligations do not exceed 60 percent of monthly income, which is another way of saying many have already committed more than 60 percent to service housing loans. The numbers tell us that since 2009, household debt has risen 40.4 percent while monthly incomes rose only 26.3 percent.

Why are the lemmings still leaping off the cliff?

One reason could be the Minister's lack of resolve to burst the festering housing bubble. He may think he's helping the asset enhancement devotees to realise a fat profit for retirement, but by hoping to offload $400,000 public housing flats at $1,000,000 price levels, that's downright ripping off the younger generation coming into the market. The expression that comes to mind is "kicking the can down the road". Not every young person has a godfather with a million dollars paycheck to help with the mortgage payments.

So has the sub-prime crisis made its way across the globe to the little red dot? Moody's noted that Singapore banks have sufficient buffers to withstand losses under stress test scenarios - without spelling out what those stress scenarios are.  If they are so confident, why has DBS's outlook been rated "negative" since last August?

Tattler

*The writer blogs at singaporedesk.blogspot.com

Minister for National Development Khaw BW has been ignoring citizens' cry that our home prices are getting pricier and pricier, burdening young couples and families. But he appears aloof to citizens' woes. 

The resale HDB market and the private property market are interlinked. Anyone who says that they are mutually exclusive is probably living in Mars. Ever since the ordinary account portion of the CPF has been allowed to be used for private home property around the late 1980s, the resale of the HDB market has been climbing and climbing in tandem with the private property market. Simple economics will tell you that the CPF OA opened the floodgates with loads of money for the purchase of property, property and more property.

The property market hit the peak around mid 1990s before the SE Asian financial crisis kicked in. Many property owners including bona fide HDB dwellers who have upgraded were saddled with mortgage loans they couldn't service. 

Today in the year 2013, is this uptrend of property prices going to repeat? We don't know. But Moody has certainly pinned the rising property prices as one of its reason for downgrading Singapore's banking sector from "stable to negative".

Of course the PAPpy gang as always don't take criticism kindly. So they object. The lesson learned here is that the PAP can ignore citizens' cries, but they cannot ignore the words of international bodies.

Khaw Boon Wan and the PAPpy gang now know that what Moody and other international bodies say is also beyond their control. Tsk tsk.

Moody's moody statement about Singapore - 

Moody's Statement on Singapore

Our outlook for the Singapore banking system is negative. The outlook expresses our expectation of how bank creditworthiness will evolve in this system over the next 12-18 months.

We have revised our outlook on Singapore’s banking system to negative from stable. The two main drivers underpinning our opinion are the recent period of rapid loan growth and rising real estate prices in Singapore and in regional markets where Singapore banks are active. These have increased the probability of deterioration in the banks’ credit profiles under potential adverse conditions in the future.

Singapore’s banking system has been operating in a favorable operating environment for an extended period, with low interest rates and strong economic growth domestically and in the surrounding region. This environment has given rise to strong credit growth and asset inflation in both the real estate and financial markets. Domestically, household debt increased to 77.2% of GDP as of March 2013 from 64.4% at end-2007. For the same time period, prices for private property grew 1.2 times andprices for Housing Development Board (HDB) real estate 1.7 times.

High leverage and high growth in property prices. Just like in the 1990s. Are we heading there again?

PAPpy's typical self-denial reply -

In response, here is PAPpy Lackey puppet MAS's reply - Singapore banks are strong, not at risk, says MAS

The three local banks have the highest average credit ratings in the world and are not at risk, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said yesterday, a day after rating agency Moody’s Investors Service cut its outlook on the Republic’s banking sector to negative from stable.

Stooperd reply from MAS. Moody's statement is about only 24 hours old. It is based on very recent judgement. It is very current. MAS quotes a rating that was based on what was known then. Putting it simply, MAS is trying to rebut Moody's current statement with an about to be outdated data.

That's the typical PAPpy mindset. Just because a piece of data suits them once, they will hang onto to it for as long as they can. Small wonder Khaw cawed like a proud crow about Singapore's growth when citizens cried out about the exponential growth in price for housing. 
 

In its report, Moody’s said these factors have increased the probability of deterioration in credit quality under potentially adverse conditions for the banks in the future, such as an increase in interest rates.

If that happened, borrowers’ ability to pay outstanding obligations could be undermined, it noted.

In response, the MAS said that while it had been concerned that some borrowers could become overstretched, “the local banks are not at risk”.

Yo ho ho. But the borrowers, who are mainly part of household debt, make up 77.2% of GDP. That's not risky? Of course not all borrowers will be in difficulty. But you don't need all to be in difficulty to have a problem, do you? In the 1997 SE Asian financial crisis, not all were affected too. But it did have an impact on the ability to repay mortgage and that further dragged our finance sector down.

One final note -

A final note that I would like to highlight is the typical PAPpy approach to praise and criticism. They always bathe in the glory of praise, yet will try to deflect the negative ones and blame others or factors as something that is "beyond their control". 

The report ends its statement with the following...

The MAS also pointed out yesterday that Moody’s had been revising downwards its ratings outlook over the past two years for a number of well-rated banking systems.

“This is understandable, in light of the impact that low global interest rates have had on credit growth and asset prices and the potential risks when interest rates rise. The local banks are not immune to such concerns,” the central bank said.

Again, note the self-denial tone. MAS is trying to say that the latest downgrade is just part of Moody's exercise to downgrade about everyone globally. 

That's right. When we get rated highly, the PAPpies will crow and boast. When the rating puts us in negative light, deny, deny, deny. Small wonder every cry our citizens make, they just care not. 

In conclusion, we can say that citizens have long been telling the PAP that household prices have shot through the roof. Now it takes Moody to give the PAP what a moody gloomy picture we would face if that obscene household price is not kept in check.

==========

Update - 

A point to note - HDB loans versus bank financing

More than 83 per cent of residents in Singapore live in a Housing Board flat. Last year, more than 59,000 residents became proud owners of new and resale HDB flats.

Two-thirds of these home buyers also took a direct loan from HDB at the concessionary rate of 2.6 per cent.

The remaining one-third HDB home buyers take bank loans which means they will be affected if the interest rates rise, as per Moody statement. And that has happened already - Some banks in Singapore raise interest rates for home loans.

Barrie

*The author blogs at www.wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com

The Straits Times on Saturday, 13 July 2013, carried an article, “Slower pace of life comes with trade-off, says Shanmugam“, which said that Law and Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam had spoken at a forum at the National University of the night of Friday, 12 July 2013.

The Straits Times reported that Shanmugam had “painted a stark picture of the scale of challenges facing the country”, saying that “there is also a fiscal challenge as public spending already outstrips revenue from taxes in this year’s Budget.” It also reported that, “The only reason there is no actual deficit is the income stream from the reserves built up over many years.”

But what The Straits Times did not report on and that Shanmugam did not say is that Singapore also has the lowest public spending among the developed countries, even as Singapore is the richest country by GDP per capita, has the highest reserves per capita in the world, and that GIC and Temasek Holdings, which manage our reserves, are the 8th and 11th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

If we are starting on a very low base – with the lowest public spending among the developed countries, and we have more than adequate resources to provide for the people, why is the government choosing to paint a “stark picture” instead of simply providing for the people?

The Straits Times also reported that, “as the proportion of senior citizens grows, they will hold more votes and could potentially push politicians to spend more to benefit their age group.” Why does the government choose to paint the elderly as snarky, painful pests who want to feed on the system?

What The Straits Times had also not reported is that the situation is actually very dire and bleak for the elderly in Singapore. Among the low-income jobs, the majority of these workers are the elderly. For the elderly in these low-income jobs, this means that they have been earning low wages for several decades. This is highly problematic, because first, for the low-wage workers, their real wages have dropped over the past decade. Second, for low-wage workers, they see their wages drop over their lifetime. This means that low-wage workers and our elderly face a double-whammy where their wages simply cannot sustain the pace of growth of the cost of living in Singapore. Add to that, in 2005, 62% of the elderly had said that they needed work because they needed the money. Fast forward to 2013, the proportion of elderly who might need to work because they do not have enough savings would have possibly grown to 80%.

And why is this the case? Several studies have shown that Singapore’s retirement funds – our CPF – are actually the lowest among the developed countries compared, and even lower than countries such as Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia.

What The Straits Times and Shanmugam had not acknowledged and said is this – Singapore has the lowest public spending among the developed countries, and because Singaporeans also receive the lowest wages among the developed countries and we have the lowest purchasing power because of relatively much higher prices, by the time we retire, we have the smallest retirement funds that this creates a lot of burden for the elderly in Singapore. Add to that the increasing healthcare costs and the lowest government expenditure on our healthcare bills, the elderly simply cannot afford to get sick with meagre savings and retirement funds, and cannot afford to stop working.

The Straits Times had also reported that, “Such trends will affect the amount of taxes today’s young will have to pay in future.” The Today newspaper had carried a report, “MediShield: Young people willing to pay higher premium“, on 12 July 2013, which said that, “Three quarters of the respondents, or 38 out of 50 (of 50 respondents???), said they are willing to pay more so that the elderly — and themselves eventually — pay less.” But what had not been said in all of these? With the lowest public spending among the developed countries and the highest reserves per capita and one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, can the government afford to do a lot more to intervene, before the people are forced to pay from their own pockets, from real wages which have remained stagnant and which had not caught up with inflation?

It is highly unacceptable when the government refuses to acknowledge that with the lowest public spending among the developed countries and with one of the highest reserves and the highest reserves per capita in the world, that the government can do a lot more for the people. The picture isn’t stark if the government takes on the responsibility which it has not been taking for more than the past decade.

The government needs to increase the interest rate for CPF and Medisave and Medishield payouts, at least for the low-income earners and the elderly. The government needs to increase public spending for the low-income and the elderly – if they are not willing to impose a minimum wage to uplift the wages of these workers. And the government needs to significantly increase the proportion of the government’s expenditure on our healthcare bills. Other governments with a similar GDP per capita are already forking out 80% for the healthcare bills where our government is only forking out slightly more than 30%.

Before we even have to ask the people to dig from their own pockets, which have not grown, the government should look at the mirror and repeat what they are saying to the people to themselves. If the government can afford to pay itself high salaries which have shot through the roof, then it has no right to claim that the situation is “stark” when the people are paying them such exorbitant salaries precisely because they are supposed to fix the problems. The people have given the government enough solutions and if the government is not willing to act on these solutions, then this government doesn’t deserve to be paid such ridiculously high salaries.

Roy

*The writer blogs at http://thehearttruths.com/

I would like very much re-visit the whole concept of “grass-root” leader and I have so many questions that need answers. This structure has been around for decades and I am sure it has evolved over the years.

1. What is the grand idea behind having a grass-root structure/organization ?
2. What is their primary function/duties ?
3. Who do they serve ? I know that the adviser is the MP.
4. What is the role of the adviser ?
5. Is there a budget to support the running of this structure ?
6. Are the members being paid a salary/allowance/etc. ? If not, what about “other” benefits if any ?
7. How much “say” have the members on the well being/improvement of their respective area ?
8. Do they involve themselves in political activities ?
9. Now that the Worker Party is in control of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol, do the Worker Party required to keep the existing grass-root structure running? If not, what happen to these grass-root structures that were previously under a PAP MP ?
10. Do the Worker Party believes in the concept of grass-root organization and do the Worker Party have or intent put up their own grass-root organization ?
11. Did these grass-root organization serve its purposes/objectives ? Are they still relevant today ?

Someone please enlighten me/us on the above or may the PM considered as these organization COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

Lim Swee Say said grassroots leaders are the “voice of the silent majority”, helping to strengthen ties between the ground and the government. I would like to put it another way, grassroots leaders are the “silent operatives” of the PAP not the government. They become the “eyes and ears of the PAP”. But since this is a PAP government, so we can put it in definitive the “SILENT OPERATIVES OF THE PAP GOVERNMENT”.

TKM

The internet is full of attention-seeking trolls and snarky teenagers. Is the law current enough to deal with their offensive comments and threats?

In February, Justin Carter, then 18, was engaged in a Facebook dispute with someone from his online gaming community. The gamer called Carter mentally disturbed on a public wall, and Carter, with withering sarcasm and a teenager’s poor judgment, wrote back:

I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten

And watch the blood of the innocent rain down

And eat the beating heart of one of them.

Carter and his lawyer insist the statement was a joke – albeit one in poor taste. But it’s hard to read sarcasm over the internet.

Soon a Texas law enforcement agency received an anonymous tip from Canada. Carter’s home was searched and he was arrested. Now, he’s been sitting in jail for almost five months, unable to pay the $500,000 (£334,470) bond required for his release.

“His comment was facetious. It was also rude and inappropriate. But they were trash talking,” says Don Flanary, a lawyer who has taken on the case pro bono.

“It’s no different than what goes on in playgrounds and basketball courts and streets and neighbourhoods all the time.”

But local police say threats like Carter’s must be taken seriously after incidents like the Sandy Hook school shooting in December, in which 26 people, including 20 school children, were killed.

Carter was charged with making terroristic threats. He is scheduled to appear before a judge on 16 July, when his lawyer hopes to get the bond reduced. If the case goes to trial and he is convicted, Carter faces up to 10 years in prison.

In the meantime, British citizen Reece Elliot has been jailed for two years and four months after making an online “joke”. Elliot filled a Facebook page created to memorialise a Tennessee student who died in a car crash with abusive language and threatened to open fire at a local elementary school.

His words prompted school lockdowns and forced thousands of children to miss class.

In Newcastle Crown Court, he admitted one count of making threats to kill and eight counts of sending grossly offensive messages.

Speaking to the Daily Mail before his sentencing, Elliot’s girlfriend said his actions weren’t malicious.

“He does things for a laugh on Facebook – that’s what he does,” she said.

In neither case was the joke particularly funny.

But the jokes bring up a debate about the limits of free speech – and whether old laws need to adapt to a new online culture.

Elliot was charged, for instance, under a law more than 150 years old. It states: “A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.”

The law is similar in Carter’s case – a threat is legitimate if the accused shows intent to do harm and the accuser has reasonable grounds to fear harm.

Elliot’s specificity and the absence of any reason for people to believe he was jesting left good reason to fear he might carry out his threat. For instance, he singled out one girl for abuse after she asked him to stop commenting.

In Carter’s case, his lawyer says once the facts are heard in court, his true intent will be clear.

“He didn’t threaten anyone,” Flanary says. “He didn’t call this in to a school, a police station or a newspaper. He’s saying it privately to a person online.”

Still, his “private” statement was visible to others. As with much online communication, his words were on display to a much larger group of people than that which might hear similar threats on the playgrounds and basketball courts.

The medium, a 21st Century technology, also makes intent harder to discern. Does speech on social networks require new laws?

“Surely the laws, when drafted, didn’t consider the type of speech we now see on the internet, and the effect of technology,” says Robert Weisberg, a professor of criminal law at Stanford University.

On Monday, 15 July 2013, The Wall Street Journal carried an article, “Asia Has World’s Biggest Pay Gap“, which said that, “In Asia, middle managers such as department heads make more than 14 times as much as operational employees such as clerical workers–the biggest such pay disparity in the world… The difference in pay in Asia is far greater, for example, than in North America (3.5 times) and Europe (2.9 times), and somewhat bigger than in the Middle East (11.9 times) and Central and South America (10.2), other regions comprised mostly of emerging markets.”

I took a look at Singapore’s inequity rate, and it showed that middle managers earn 6.7 times as much as workers (Chart 1). Singapore’s inequity rate is actually the highest among the cities of the developed countries, after Slovakia (Bratislava) and the Czech Republic (Prague), which had inequity rates of 7.4 and 7.1 respectively. Both these countries are newly-developed countries, depending on which measure you use.

If we were to look at the inequity rates of the other cities in the developed countries, London has an inequity rate of 4.2, Sydney is at 4, Paris 3.9, New York 3.6, Montreal 3.3, Berlin 3.1 and Oslo 2.6.

Chart 1: Hay Group Inequity Rate

Singapore’s inequity rate actually stands between that of the developed countries and the developing countries. If you look at the inequity map, you would see that the cities in the richer developed countries are more equal whereas the cities in the developing countries are more unequal. If this is the case, shouldn’t Singapore’s inequity rate be much lower since Singapore has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world?

This is not the only report that shows the huge income disparity in Singapore. The ECA Global Perspectives National Salary Comparison 2012 had also showed that executives (Chart 2) are much better paid than the junior managers (Chart 3).

Executives are ranked 7th in their relative wealth while junior managers are ranked 21st, 14 places below. If you look at the other countries which have more equitable income distributions, junior managers are better paid (Chart 3).

Chart 2: ECA Global Perspectives National Salary Comparison 2012

Chart 3: ECA Global Perspectives National Salary Comparison 2012

What is wrong here then? If Singapore’s GDP per capita can be taken at face value, then what are the factors that have allowed the other cities in the developed countries to have higher equity, whereas in Singapore – one of the richest in the world – the people are more unequal, when by right, there should be more equity?

According to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Discussion Paper, “Trade, Income Distribution and Poverty in Developing Countries: A Survey“, “When looking at the relationship between output growth and poverty for developing countries, the evidence suggests that the faster countries growth, ceteris paribus, the faster poverty rates will fall. In the case of the least developed countries, higher growth also leads to lower poverty.”

It thus makes sense that as a country develops and moves from being a developing country to a more developed country, that income inequality should also drop as well. But why hasn’t this happened in Singapore?

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s report, “Economic Policy Reforms: Going for Growth 2012“, under the chapter, “Reducing income inequality while boosting economic growth: Can it be done?“, it states that the “growth-enhancing policies … that are likely to reduce labour income inequality” are as follows:

1. A rise in the share of workers with upper secondary education
2. Promoting equity in education (and) raising social mobility by making educational outcomes less dependent on personal and social circumstances … (and) a more equitable distribution of educational opportunities. (Examples of reforms include postponing early tracking, strengthening links between school and home to help disadvantaged children learn, and providing early childhood care and basic schooling for all.)
3. Active labour market policies … by better matching jobs with skills and enhancing job search support and monitoring.
4. Reducing the gap between employment protection on temporary and permanent work (with) more even job protection
5. Better integration of immigrants in the labour market
6. Improving labour market outcomes of women (by introducing) policies to improve the availability of formal care for children and the elderly.
7. More effective legal rules (e.g. legal action against those who engage in discriminatory practices)
8. Taxing in a way that allows equitable growth

Looking at this list, what has Singapore done? Singapore has done points 1 and 3. Point 2 was somewhat debated on over the past one year but there are still inconclusive outcomes – our education system continues to be unequally-accessed. For the rest, I can safely say that none of them are being done. There are no anti-discrimination laws in Singapore. Policy-wise, Singaporeans and immigrants are treated differently. The wages of the foreign workers continue to be pegged to the ‘E’ Pass and ‘S’ Pass, which thus depresses the wages of Singaporeans. Women continue to receive lower wages and single mothers are not able to receive the Baby Bonus.

So, the root problem as to why high inequality continue to persist in Singapore? The answer lies in the question itself. Our government practices a policy of discrimination which perpetuates inequality. There are no laws to protect against discrimination of any form and policies are developed to segregate the different types of workers, and in so doing, inadvertently results in Singaporeans being unfairly treated as well, such as through the depression of our wages. Schools continue to exist on class-differentiation. Because the government does not believe in equality but in skewed equitable meritocracy, inequality continues to rear its head.

The reason why Singapore continues to have high inequity is because of policies chased by the government which does not protect the workers and pushes certain upper-income classes ahead of others.

But up until the late-1990s, things were actually looking up for Singapore. There was growing equity in Singapore. Everything changed from 2000.

In The Straits Times on 6 April 2013, in Saturday’s Insight, “Closing the Rich-Poor Gap”, it was reported that the gap between the top and bottom earners grew from 2000 (Chart 4).

Chart 4: The Straits Times Closing the Rich-Poor Gap

The ratio of what the skilled workers earned, as compared to the unskilled workers also started growing in 2000 (Chart 5).

Chart 5: The Straits Times Closing the Rich-Poor Gap

In fact, according to The Straits Times article on 17 January 2012, “Foreign talent policy had effect on income gap“, since 2000, the real income growth rates for the poorest 10% in Singapore had actually dropped while that for the richest 10% had grown the fastest (Chart 6).

Chart 6: The Straits Times: Foreign talent policy had effect on income gap

So, from 2000, the government went on a trajectory that betrayed the people. What happened?

Why did the government turn its back on the people it was supposed to serve from 2000?

It was in 1994 that the government started pegging ministerial salaries top four “elite” earners in six professions. In 2000, “the variable component of ministers’ pay is increased from 30 to 40 per cent” and “the performance bonus of ministers also rises to five months’ pay, from an average of four months’ pay”.

When your prime minister is ranked at about the 382nd richest person in Singapore, where will his concerns lie?

Roy

*The writer blogs at http://thehearttruths.com/

‘Makkusu Bodi’ boasted that it catered for men who like "explosive boobs and bums". Photo for illustration purposes only (Photo: Beautiful fat girls Facebook page)

(TOKYO) Japanese police have arrested the alleged ringleader of a sex home delivery service specialising in women weighing up to 150kg, a force spokesman said on Tuesday.

Keiko Saito, 41, and one of her employees are suspected of conspiring to run a prostitution business under the name ‘Makkusu Bodi’ (Max Body), which boasted that it catered for men who like "explosive boobs and bums", police said.

Saito is alleged to have had about 30 overweight women in her employ, including one who tipped the scales at more than 150kg, Jiji Press reported.

Police say punters in Tokyo could telephone to request a visit in their home or hotel room, a service called "deri-heru" (delivery health) that is widespread in Japan, where it is illegal to sell penetrative sex.

Saito, who is believed to have earned about 400 million yen (S$5 million) over three years, had previously worked as a prostitute, Jiji said. She began her business because she believed larger women were popular with customers, the agency added.

Source: AFP

‘Moving People, Enhancing Lives’. Does it ring a bell? Formed any impression from that slogan? Here is why probably you took so long to figure. It’s SMRT’s vision. SMRT, (not endorsing that SBS Transit is any better), has lost it’s positioning as a credible and world-class transport system that has failed in promising to move people with their trains and to enhance the lives of commuters. With little avenue to voice my concerns, this issue has sent mixed signals, leaving me full of confusion and full of frustration.

Let’s start with ‘Enhancing Lives’. How have the trains enhanced our lives? By introducing half-height platform screen doors on above ground stations to enhance our lives by preventing deaths? Or by enhancing our lives in reminding us to plan our trips earlier and to estimate and anticipate delays?

Now let’s take a look at ‘Moving People’. What is their way of moving us? By constantly reminding us to move to a less crowded area along the platform when the whole platform is filled with people? Or telling us to move to the centre of the car when there is isn’t any more centre space?

Delays and breakdows have become a norm in Singapore. This was not to be a decade ago, that I remembered very vividly. But today, society has evolved so rampantly, the crowd is alarming. The morning rush is overwhelming. Then we ponder, has the transport, in this case, the trains in particular, has the infrastructure keep up with the changing times?

We are constantly being told to mind the platform gap. Has anyone mind your personal space? Do they leave gap or gaps for you to breathe? Then the other kind of gap derives from social division. Not many are willing to give up something for someone, be it a seat or a communal space. Hence, as society becomes more and more divided, disparity becomes significantly evident in today’s context.

Is it our problem, or has it become our problem that our society is shaped as how it is today? Or are there greater factors contributing to such a social crisis? Maybe it’s politics, or could it be the Government’s lack of foresight, together with their poor judgment, poor planning and poor execution?

The Government finally tries to do something for the common good of society. One wonders whether or not they know it’s going to be effective or not. They recently launched the ‘Travel Early, Travel Free on the MRT’ campaign three weeks ago. Question is, has it worked? http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=c3983784-2949-4f8d-9be7-d095e6663632

The whole concept looks utterly flawed. Who would be awake so early to catch the train for free then to drag themselves to work, (assuming that’s the main target audience for such an initiative), and to wait for work to commence? How absurd can that be? It saddens me to see so many Singaporeans working so hard at work, till the late hours, sometimes 9pm or 10pm, just to make ends meet. They do not even have quality time to spend with their family and loved ones.

One more thing, the poster of the egg irks me. The egg yolk represents the relentless Singaporean, while the egg white looks like the rest of other people, all on the trains. And the poster reads, have a leisurely breakfast. Leisurely? This whole approach of free ride feels indifferent even before the initiative was implemented. I personally experienced it myself, first hand and I can attest to the very fact that all this just boils down to the lack of infrastructure capabilities we are facing.

Or simply, there is too much on Singapore’s public transport. But haven’t we always been encouraged to use public transport? This issue has sent mixed signals, leaving me full of confusion and full of frustration. 

SG Freedom Fighter

TRS Contributor

There is a quibble going on between MP Zaqy Mohamad and a Ms Serene Tham over at The Real Singapore (TRS) website.

I say quibble because it seems such a small thing.

But MP Zaqy evidently thinks otherwise.

He has demanded that TRS take down a posting within 24 hours if they cannot prove Ms Tham’s allegations, since, according to our hyper-sensitive MP, they are “clearly false and border on defamation”.

Ms Tham fell down a staircase at Blk 293, Chua Chu Kang Ave 3. Suffering pain in her lower spine and an injured tailbone, she has sent pictures of her injury and medical updates to Chua Chu Kang Town Council.

Mr Zaqy is chairman of the town council.

In the TRS piece that Mr Zaqy is unhappy about, Ms Tham alleges that the staircase railings have been replaced. She says that Mr Zaqy was “adamant” that the staircase was safe even though the railings had been replaced since her accident.

“Why (was) there a replacement if there (were) no issues with it as claimed by MP Zaqy?” Ms Tham wondered aloud.

Mr Zaqy disputes the allegation. “Clearly, there has been no replacement of any staircase railings as mentioned in the article whatsoever,” he replied, adding that the matter is being investigated for an insurance claim and urging all parties to respect the legal process.

Mr Zaqy said: “I would have expected (The Real Singapore) to know that during such time, disclosure of the facts would be prejudicial to the parties involved. It seems even odder since (the website) had been long aware that the article contributor, Ms Serene Tham, has personal interests, as the one claiming insurance in this case.”

How does disclosure of the facts prejudice the parties involved in any way? I certainly cannot imagine how, can you? It sure sounds pompous to say (chest sticking out), “disclosure of the facts would be prejudicial to the parties involved.”

Sometimes it’s dangerously true e.g. naming a suspect or revealing certain facts in a murder case might tip off the murderer. In other words, scared the killer will run away.

But it can’t be true in Serene Tham’s simple case. Either the railings were defective and replaced, or they were not. Why, scared the railings will run away ah?

MP Zaqy has made a bare assertion and if he thinks that it passes muster because it sounds pompous, he is sorely mistaken.

If Mr Zaqy thinks he can get away with it because he is an MP, he is doubly mistaken.

Mr Zaqy has no more rights than any Singaporeans. If he makes any assertion, no matter how bombastic it sounds, he has to prove it.

Since he is fond of 24-hour deadlines, perhaps he should, with all integrity and honesty befitting a PAP MP, self-impose the same deadline. Let Singaporeans know exactly how “during such time, disclosure of the facts would be prejudicial to the parties involved”. Come on Mr Zaqy, the clock is ticking…

Politicians should learn not to throw phrases around like cheap confetti. To say the public –including especially the online public – mustn’t discuss a case because an insurance claim is being processed is ridiculous.

PAP MPs have a terrible habit of talking nonsense and making it seem as if they are dispensing wisdom.

But wait, Mr Zaqy embarrasses himself further.

He says, “The website should have taken “great care to validate all facts before considering to publish such potentially defamatory articles.”

Hang on! Didn’t he just say that “disclosure of the facts would be prejudicial to the parties involved”? And now he advises TRS to “take great care to validate all facts” before publishing them?

Do you want the facts to be made known or don’t you, Mr Zaqy? The poor man doesn’t know what he wants!

It is amazing how much the calibre of the PAP has dropped.

People say PAP stands for “Pro Alien Party”, “Pee And Poo”, “Pui and Pui”. How about adding one more – “Poor Argument Party”?

No Shit