Uniquely Singapore- Photo of the day

Singapore is just a very unique place to live in. We pay $70,000 for a chance to own a car for 10 years. We give away fully-paid scholarships to foreigners and deny local citizens that opportunity. And although 40% of citizens voted against the PAP, they still have a 81 to 87 majority in Parliament.

So I'm starting a segment to feature things that make our nation Uniquely Singapore.

Starting with this: A shuttered police post.
Who would have thought crimes won't be committed in the mornings.

SMRT see-Sawing

I must apologise for not updating the blog for several weeks. But I'm back now.
Kicking off with the most talked about story on PerezHilton.com, the Mass Rapid Transit.

After the 2010 World Cup, Brazilian coach Dunga offered to step down after the country's failure to get past Netherlands in the quarter finals. Reaching the last 4 of arguably the world's most prestigious and competitive tournament is no easy feat.
But in a nation which is football crazy and that once was the global leader in the sport, this is failure.
In any case, Dunga was promptly fired by the CBF.

The UK faced one of its worst winters in recent times last Christmas, leading to the resignation of Scottish Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson for failure to tackle the travel chaos.
In the words of Scottish Labour leader, "Scotland had lost confidence in the transport minister and it was only right that he should resign..."

If you recall, state-owned monopoly SMRT picked up the "Best Passenger Experience" award in an annual conference in 2008. The win was debatable even then, more so if you've ever taken the trains in Seoul, Taipei or Hong Kong.
Since then, SMRT has come a very long way. A long way down.
I documented in September about the less than stellar track record of the rail operator.
Two months later, SMRT's CEO Ms. Saw Phaik Hwa was given an extra 176, 600 shares as a reward for "performance". This is equivalent to S$332,008 at Nov 11 closing price of the stock.

Much has been said on and offline about the recent spate of SMRT malfunctions. I will not list the details since the Singapore Democrats have already done so here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that a leader should always step down when things go wrong. Everyone should be given a second chance to redeem themselves.
What is clear here is that Ms. Saw oversaw, no pun intended, and presided over a spate of breakdowns over the last two years, in addition to two hugely embarrassing graffiti incidents.
As CEO, she obviously had ample opportunities to put things right but no.

As of today, SMRT trains are running at increased intervals. Waiting times have shot up and queues have gotten longer. And they are going just about as fast as Cinderella's pumpkin carriage.
Retailers are reportedly hit, people are late for work and some couples even cancel their dates. In short, SMRT has adversely affected the lives of many Singaporeans.

But our transportation woes lies deep within the system...the same regime that took quite a few brazen gambles over the last decade. Not just the casinos but the irresponsible immigration policy to prop up its "GDP growth at all costs" model.

You see, when the first SMRT trains started running in 1987, I don't think the urban planners then  envisioned over 5 million people squeezing into this island in such a short period of time. Singapore's resident population then was just 2.7 million.
To make matters worse, our current generation of Ministers keep getting caught off guard, using stop gap measure like ERP, COE etc to "regulate" the system.
Minister for Transport Lui Tuck Yew's comments summed his party's inaptitude perfectly:

 "There have been a number of train disruptions in recent days. I do not know if these are isolated incidents or whether there are systemic and more serious underlying issues causing these breakdowns."

Ms. Saw's position is totally safe for now. This is because Ong Ye Kung, who also happens to be a PAP MP, is on the Board of SMRT. And out of sheer coincidence, he's also tasked to carry out this on-going independent investigation into the breakdowns.
So with salary that is higher than any former SMRT CEO and a position with zero accountability, this lady is here to stay.

Spend more on defence, spend less on healthcare

Since taking over from Mr. "$8 bypass" Khaw, Health Minister Gan Kim Yong has been buy introducing a few cosmetic changes to our healthcare system:

• Under the Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS), the qualifying age has been lowered from 65 to 40 to help citizens manage their chronic diseases earlier. The income criteria has been raised from SGD800 (US$616) a month to SGD1,500 (US$1,156) a month
• Subsidies for some higher-cost standard drugs will increase from 50% to 75% for eligible patients with healthcare benefits card
• Increase in Medication Assistance Fund (MAF) for selected drugs, up to subsidies of 75%
• Medifund to be extended to community- and home-based intermediate and long-term care (ILTC) services
• Medisave withdrawal limit for Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) to be increased from SGD300 (US$231) (Medisave300) to SGD400 (US$308) (Medisave400)

Still, the changes will have minimal impact on affordability of healthcare due to a minor problem: The continued lack of facilities and beds.
According to a Straits Times report, despite the long overdue arrival of Khoo Teck Puat hospital, the new kid on the block had to divert patients elsewhere due to chronic bed shortage.

The problem actually lies deep within the PAP hierarchy.
The World Health Organisation puts Singapore's government healthcare expenditure as a percentage of GDP is a meagre 3.9%, way behind the region's average of 5.4%. Private healthcare expenditure, where patients bear the cost of healthcare, as a proportion of total healthcare expenditure is at 63%, a figure more commonly associated with developing nations. Indeed, this puts us in the league of Vietnam, Philippines and India.

International research firm Business Monitor documents that the government has drastically reduced its burden from 45% in the year 2000 to an all-time low of 32% in 2007.
In other words, as the colloquial saying goes "you die your business", the PAP has cunningly shifted the rising cost of healthcare to Singaporeans.
The situation is even more mind-boggling when you consider that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong opened the floodgates to foreigners as soon as he took office in 2004. Shouldn't increased population growth = higher government healthcare spending?

Singstat recently revealed that there are 1.9 million foreigners living in this red dot. More than one in three people you meet in the street has not taken part in our nation building nor contributed to national service but are enjoying the fruits of Singaporeans' labour, including our over-stretched and under-funded healthcare.

Yet the PAP continues with the archaic behaviour of spending huge amounts of our budget on Defence.
Indeed, we rank 13th out of over 200 countries in terms of the magnitude of our military spending, as a % of GDP. Looking at the table below, most of the high spenders are from the Middle East, a region notorious for religious unrest even till today. What's even more puzzling is that our % spend is so close to the proverbial global superpower and policeman, the United States of America.
While the US Congress is stabilising (and trying to reduce) military spending, still hovering at 4.8% in 2010, our Singapore leaders opted to increase the share to 5.4% in this year's budget.
So we officially spend more as a % of GDP on defence than the USA!!

In dollar terms, that's S$ 3,350,000,000 more than what we spend on healthcare!

I'm not downplaying the signficance of self defence. But in an age where nations are more worried about mortgages and defaults, and where cross border trade is the order of globalisation, how real is the external military threat?
Terrorism is here to stay but wouldn't a self sufficient, small but highly trained regular army do the job?
Not even the battalions of National Servicemen dispatched could find the limping Mas Selamat when he escaped.

And just imagine the Singaporean lives that could be bettered or saved with that extra 3 billion dollars every year?

Parliament finally convened, 5 long months after the General Elections. As usual, like a well-choreographed dance routine, PAP MPs pop up in numbers to endorse the President's opening address.
Dr Tony Tan used the usual catchphrases like "better life for all", "all inclusive society" etc etc.

What I would like to see is Parliament debating on whether it's necessary to spend such exorbitant sums on defence. If reducing the 10 year reservist cycle or duration of each in camp means billions of dollars channeled into healthcare and education, we should do it.

At least this is more productive then spending precious sittings bashing Singaporeans.

Million dollar homes- who's buying?

According to a Straits Times report, average sales value of both resale and new condos crossed the S$1 million mark in Q2 this year.
You wonder who's snapping up these homes when the government reported that median household income in 2010 was just S$5,000. This figure is also likely to be skewed as Permanent Residents are kneaded into the calculation. So the actual income is in all likelihood, lower than the figure published.
Without a strong and independent Press, our politicians will continue to use statistics as a smokescreen.
Indeed, a publication by the World Bank describes how a free press is no longer a luxury but essential to equitable economic development.

In an effort to revitalise the nation (and win votes), Malaysian PM Najib promised to review press controls and media censorship. Following his speech, there are even calls to totally abolish such stifling laws.
Will PM Lee ever do the same?
Will we ever find out the actual standard of life of Singaporeans and Singaporeans alone?

The PAP has always played the "housing value" card whether at elections or a Sunday luncheon.
MM Lee continues to forewarn that without the PAP, our housing value will fall. The former Minister Mentor even went so far as to challenge Aljunied GRC voters to compare the GRC's housing values with Opposition run Hougang estates.
Unfortunately for him, they didn't listen.

In 2002, there was a study by IMF covering 16 OECD nations that claimed that rising housing prices have positive effect on consumption. This would be music to our ministers' ears.
Bearing in mind that the sample size consisted mainly of developed states in Europe and North America, does the study apply to Singapore?
A Singapore Management University faculty member, backed by the Wharton-Singapore Management University Research Centre did her own study using Ministry data and rejected the findings.
This paper claimed that rising housing prices did not create wealth effect. Rather, there was some evidence to say that "house price increase appear to have a dampening effect on aggregate consumption".
One implication of this is that "policy makers should treat housing wealth as distinct from other assets when considering the impact of wealth on consumption".

Put simply, rising housing value does not necessarily mean that standard of living is improving or that Singaporeans spend more.

One key reason could be that unlike the OECD countries studied, many Singaporeans have their retirement savings wiped out by housing loans.
Another possible reason is the relative low purchasing power of Singaporeans caused by stagnant wages and a general lack of subsidies on anything from petrol to healthcare. This is confirmed by the widely circulated UBS Prices & Earnings Study.

Thus, it will be interesting to know who are the ones buying those million dollar properties.
What's pretty clear, not all are Singaporeans.

Wheels stop spinning on Circle Line

Back in June, I wrote about the unacceptable performance of SMRT. The company 54.3% owned by Temasek Holdings and a listed entity at the same time, is putting shareholders' interest above passenger welfare. Thousands of commuters have endured breakdown after breakdown while the company's executives continue to seek fare increments year after year.
Earlier this week, they went one better when the entire Circle Line, that's 16 stations in all, stopped functioning for hours leaving an estimated 20,000 commuters stranded.

In the Philippines, the Aquino government raised fares on certain lines after a year of deliberation. The reason for the fare increase is justifiable due to a decade of heavy subsidies and loss making. SMRT is an extremely profitable venture. In fact, it returned record dividends to shareholders in 2010.
Don't get me wrong. Many transport operators around the world are listed too. The difference is that there is zero competition for SMRT in Singapore.
The company will continue to suck more from commuters and pay fat cheques to their executives and shareholders.

It was reported this morning that Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew has asked for a probe into this mess. If it ends up in the customary fine, which some claim is akin to passing money to the Land Transport Authority and back to government coffers, nothing will change, as history will tell us.
It's not enough to probe at the gums...the decaying tooth must be extracted.
Especially when the incident comes hot on the heels of a second graffiti faux pas just last month.
Heads must roll, leaders made accountable.
Last December, Northern UK experienced one of the worst winters ever, causing travel chaos in Scotland forcing its transport minister to resign.
Resignation is not a sign of shirking responsibility. It's a gesture that acknowledges accountability and accepts that someone else could do the job better.

Minister Lui was spotted "going undercover" taking the MRT during peak hours. I wonder what his response would be if he was personally stuck in the Circle Line.

MP sitting on the floor

Many PAP Ministers like to sit.
None more so than Ang Mo Kio GRC's Yeo Guat Kwang, who in addition to his cushy MP seat, sits on the board, panel, council of 64 other organisations!
Even Superman can't be in 65 places at the same time! So he's either short-changing these 64 organisations or the Singaporeans that elected him into Parliament. Go figure.

Some others like to sit on piles of cash. Despite his hearty monthly MP allowance and fat pay cheque from NOL, Pioneer SMC's Cedric Foo gives out $4 ang paos!
Nothing wrong with that except that the dude's filthy rich. 

Then there are those that like to sit on pressing issues. Health Minister Gan Kim Yong is apparently dragging his feet to reform nursing homes after the well publicised shocking abuse of an elderly patient by foreign nurses at a home, claiming that "these are long-term issues that will require very careful analysis and understanding of the impact".
Careful analysis? Some poor old woman got abused... I don't know how much more straightforward it gets.

In contrast, a certain other nobody, well actually a member of the Worker's Party's Aljunied GRC team, sits unassumingly on the floor in effort to mingle with residents. So much so that the politicised People's Association decided it was better to kick this MP and his fellow colleagues out of most public spaces so they have nowhere to sit.

Now with one of their own sitting on the President's throne, it remains to be seen if the 81 PAP MPs can descend their ivory towers and sit among ordinary Singaporeans.

Oh by the way, the nobody MP is a chap called Chen Show Mao.

Reinvention

As the PAP's soul searching continues 4 months after the party's most disastrous poll performance, PM Lee Hsien Loong is urging his careers first, country second, politicians to "reinvent" themselves.

The word "reinvention" normally has a positive spin to it. The Internet reinvented the way people connected and. Apple reinvented the cell-phone into a lifestyle accessory. Lady Gaga reinvented fashion...just kidding.

Then he continues "to anticipate and counter attempts to score political points by those who do not want us to succeed; and to gain recognition for the good work of the Government."
Two things can be inferred here
1) That people voted opposition because they don't want PAP to succeed
2) PM Lee still feels this current government has done good work

Firstly, people voted opposition because they want Singapore to succeed. This is another example of how PAP politics puts party above country. Remember numerous party members chanting "Majullah PAP" during elections?

Secondly, as long as the current generation of leaders continue to live in fantasy world and believe they have been performing well, there will be no reinvention.
There will only be repetition. Repetition of the same old party serving policies.

Case in point, the PAP is now using research carried out by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) to justify the need for this relentless influx of foreigners. The paper made Nobel prize-worthy discovery that our population will decline without migration. It somehow also generated a mind-boggling 48 different population scenarios, far more elaborate than Paris Hilton's social life.
Oh by the way, the IPS is chaired by the venerable Lee Kuan Yew himself.

Falling birth rates is common in many developed nations. Western European countries are no different.
Nordic countries like Sweden and Norway have managed to raise their birth rates close to 2. (2.1 is the universally accepted rate for a population to replace itself). Some of the common features of their success include:

• About 12 months of paid leave for working mothers
• Weeks or months of paternity leave, in some cases mandatory
• Generous if not full subsidies for state run child care
• Flexible work schedules

In a nutshell, these countries have implemented schemes to take the financial burden off early parenthood.
Contrast with PAP run Singapore:

• Mothers get max 4 months paid leave
• Fathers get a total of 6 days childcare leave, subject to time spent at current employment
• Average subsidies in place but mothers must work for at least 56 hours per month. Close to none for non-working mothers
• Flexi hours exist in Singapore???

So instead of focusing on long term solutions, PAP simply disburses one time monetary amounts through the Baby Bonus scheme and then wonder why fertility rates continue to decline.

Like a gambler going for broke, the government then imports inordinate amounts of foreigners to boost population growth. This turns the rat race into a sprint so most Singaporean couples just don't want the burden of raising kids.

Further, who does rising population growth really benefit?
Singaporeans?
Unless you call these benefits:
1) Stagnant wages
2) No job security
3) Rip off housing prices
4) Expensive healthcare
5) Elusive CPF savings
6) Overcrowded public transport and spaces
7) etc

Population growth benefits the PAP.
Let's take a look at the commonly used equation for GDP.
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

GDP is the holy grail for our ministers. It not only determines their bonuses, it also masks the real story behind the country's standard of living so long as GDP keeps growing.

As you can see, the more people there are on this island, the more private consumption increases.
When the Indian national eats at a food court, that contributes to private consumption.
When the PRC masseuse buys a bar of soap, that contributes to private consumption.

So you can see why the government will never accept falling demographics.

Still, there is one reinvention that is more powerful than the rest.
The reinvention of our political landscape is the key to how Singapore survives the next 50 years.
40% of the populace have reinvented themselves and given us these.

Reinvention is cool.

No confidence for the future

Congratulations to the 35.2% who voted for five more years of mediocrity. The lot of you have demonstrated that "fools seldom differ" by choosing a President to extend the incapacity that is the elected Presidency.
Dr. Tony Tan certainly has big shoes to fill.
Can he actually shape a Presidency even more redundant than the last twelve years? His predecessor has set the standard for what it means to be a pure ceremonial head.

Still, unless you are like Dr. Ibrahim living in self-denial, the fact is 64.8% voted against Dr. Tan and the PAP.
Many opposition voters went with Dr. Tan Cheng Bok whom they saw as someone from the old guard, those who helped build Singapore with true servitude, unlike the elitist career politicians that Tony Tan exemplifies.
In addition, more than half a million Singaporeans cast their votes for Tan Jee Say, a newcomer to politics with no political base.
The PE clearly shows that more and more Singaporeans are losing patience with the PAP.
The Men in White may have won the battle, but it remains to be seen if they can win the war with democracy in 2016.

Further, Tony Tan barely scraped past the finish line despite having glowing public endorsements from unions, clans and pandering business federations. When many Singaporeans fret over job security in an environment where foreigners can be hired at a whim, it is not surprising that these workers wouldn't dare go against the union line. Together, they would have ensured Dr. Tan 200,000 or so votes.
Yet these pitifully naive Singaporeans didn't stop for a moment to ask what their unions have done for them.
Have the unions protected them from excessive foreign competition? Have the unions fought for restoration of employers' CPF to what it was at 20%?

The Tony Tan-PAP ticket also campaigned on the climate of fear in the global economy. While the global economy is a concern for Singapore, it remains to be see how Tony Tan has "sound understanding of the global economy and challenges facing business" as he claims.
Remember this is the man who oversaw GIC's staggering S$60 billion loss in the 2008 global crisis and  sanctioned billions (from our reserves?) to shore up greedy western banks instead of investing in Singaporeans.

But what is done is done. 1.5 million Singaporeans will just have to put up with five more years of hegemony and group think. We came so close to voting in some semblance of moral authority but far too many daft Singaporeans remain daft.

Our only hope is six brave souls from the Workers' Party. How they perform against 81 overbearing PAP MPs is anybody's guess.

For now, we're left to lament what might have been...

Tan Jee Say: Heart of the Nation, Voice of the People

For those who have not made up their minds, and for those perilously close to voting for the wrong candidate, please view this video before casting your votes.
Thank you.

Oh yes, please observe Cooling Off day which begins in 3 hours.

Can Tan Jee Say win?

A crowd of about 20,000 turned up yesterday at Toa Payoh Stadium to support Tan Jee Say.
Whether or not it is reflective of how the votes will go, its anybody's guess.

In my opinion, Tony Tan started as the front runner, implicitly backed by the PAP machinery.
A few weeks later, Dr. Tan is just about clinging onto the lead and this shift in momentum is largely due to the fairly rapid rise of the obscure dark horse Tan Jee Say.

I think many neutrals have been turned off by Dr Tan's wishy washy statements, his son's unprecedented 12 year deferment from National Service and his new starring role as the "Interruptor".

So PAP, and credit to them for always having "plan B", realises this. If you've been reading between the lines in State Media these past few days, they've thrown more weight behind Tan Cheng Bok. The man whom many in the current establishment saw as the party pooper may actually be PAP's best hope if Dr. Tan's popularity continues to dip.

To any rational citizen, the President must be independent, not just independent-minded, but independent of the ruling party.
Most of us have fond memories of our schooldays. 20, 30 years after leaving school, many of us still hold a sense of pride and loyalty to our Alma Mater, whether or not we've been actively involved in alumni activities.
I still reminisce my first job about a decade ago. Ten years later, I still hold a degree of attachment to that company and from time to time turn to them for certain services I require in my current capacity.

The point I'm trying to make is that we are all human beings and one of the things that makes us unique among living creatures is memory and nostalgia.
Last I checked, all four Presidential candidates are human beings.
Now do you seriously believe that Tony Tan, Tan Cheng Bok and Tan Kin Lian, each with 2-3 decades of ties and service to the PAP, can suddenly erase all the emotional and nostalgic attachment to the regime?

As Tan Jee Say puts it, "there may be constitutional constraints in what the President can or cannot do but there is no limit to what I can do as a Singaporean for Singaporeans".
A President that has cultivated decades of ties to the PAP is very likely to be alot more limited in what he can do for Singaporeans.
And that is bad for us because the PAP will continue to shove unpopular policies like immigration, unrestrained investments by GIC and Temasek and CPF withdrawal age/sum down our throats without aa moral authority to protect Singaporeans.

The power of independence and alternative views cannot be taken for granted.
Many Singaporeans are appalled by the People's Association move to ban Workers' Party MPs from attending grassroot events in their own Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.
The move is obviously politically motivated and serves to diminish the WP's outreach effectiveness.
But today, State Media reported that the PAP has sort of retracted this probably in response to public anger which may hurt its candidates chance in the Elections.
The four candidates had also come out to question the move by PA and HDB (some from the heart, others to score voter points) Is this an "exercise" of moral pressure?
I think it's clear that if used courageously and wisely, the President has significant influence over day-to-day operations of the PAP.

It will be a close fight down to the wire but I feel that Tan Jee Say has a genuine chance of winning this.
1) He has some sort of machinery behind him. His campaign posters are suddenly everywhere. His merchandise also pretty deccent. Presence = votes
2) We don't know how PAP candidates Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bok will split the votes. We do know they will
3) I don't think Tan Kin Lian will have as big an effect on Jee Say's votes. I admire what he tried to do for minibond investors but I just don't think he has the machinery or aura for this job
4) Public anger over the WP v PA incident, transport fare increase, SMRT vandalism, weak economy etc etc could sway swing voters toward the alternative vote
5) His rag to riches story- washerwoman mother and poor childhood to successful civil servant and investment banker and now, running for the highest office in the land

In the meanwhile, coming to a polling booth near you, I present the blockbuster "The Interruptor".

Tan Jee Say Rally- Tuesday 23 August, 7pm, Toa Payoh Stadium

PAP needs a dose of morality check

Despite opposition from various parts of society and numerous petitions sent to President S R Nathan, PM Lee Hsien Loong and his totally dominant party decided in 2005 that two casinos will be built in Singapore.
They even came up with an ingenious plan to charge Singaporeans $100 for each entry while foreigners walk in free.
The only other thing more ludicrous was when PM Lee said he was raising GST to help the poor!

Well you can argue that the casinos have contributed to GDP. They obviously fattened the pockets of Malaysia's Genting and the once nearly bankrupt American Las Vegas Sands Group.
While it may too early to measure the social cost of gambling, it is widely documented,  unsurprisingly, that the casinos have attracted more than its fair share of patrons, including prostitutes and petty thieves.
And accordingly to a study, Singaporeans have been losing big.

Has the PAP government taken on the right bet?

Did S.R Nathan play any part in all this? Now hold on. Before you start accusing him of doing nothing, think again. On the contrary, our President contributed in a massive way.
By keeping silent and counter-signing a blank cheque, he effectively sanctioned the casinos.

Could the President have stopped it? Nobody knows for sure. But if we had an independent President who cared for the people, he could have raised moral objections and increased public scrutiny of casinos.
Maybe we would have just gotten one, not two casinos. Maybe none.

This is why the elected Presidency is crucial to the future survival of the country. Paying another puppet $3 million dollars just to grace a couple of annual charity programmes, recite poems and cut ribbons is just gambling our future away.

We need a President who can return some moral authority to a government who has lost its moral compass. And a candidate that carries all that emotional baggage and cozy ties with Lee Kuan Yew and his merrymen is simply not cut out for this role.
And a candidate who presided over a staggering $59 billion loss in our reserves, monies, call it what you like, is certainly unsuitable.

The good news for Singaporeans is that there is one candidate who has an alternative vision for Singapore, one that creates better jobs for citizens, returns accountability to the government and importantly, puts Singaporeans at the heart of policy making.
Fortunately, this vision can be found here.

Vote for the President who is most PRO SINGAPOREAN

The PAP will not lose power even if its poster boy Dr Tony Tan doesn't win.
Their 2/3 majority in Parliament stands for the next five years.
This means that Lee Hsien Loong and his government can and will still get to pass most if not all of its motions legislatively.
So why should the President matter? Is there a need to vote wisely?

Although largely ceremonial, the President is the highest moral authority in the country.
While the PAP has the ultimate say in the day-to-day operations, an independent President can inject moral conscience and objection into each decision the PAP makes so it becomes that much harder to force policies that are not pro-Singaporean.

Pro Singaporean. This is how we should judge the four candidates. Who among the four is the most pro Singaporean?

For sure, Tony Tan is not. For the sake of these Elections, he has tried to camouflage his pro-foreigner policy by using ambiguous phrases like ‘Singaporeans first’ is different from saying ‘Singaporeans only’.
So please don't believe all the smoke-screen this PAP endorsed man is throwing at you.
He's extremely cozy with the Lee family evidenced by the apparent special treatment his son received during National Service.

While Tan Cheng Bok and Tan Kin Lian both are good candidates, there is no one more pro Singaporean than Investment Advisor and former principal private secretary of Goh Chok Tong, Mr. Tan Jee Say.

He is undoubtedly, the pro Singaporean choice, the right Singaporean choice.

Unimpressed with the National Day Rally

The State Media is in full force today extolling PM Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally speech.
While there were teeny weeny steps for the greater good of native Singaporeans, I can't help but feel the proposed policy changes are as cosmetic as the make-up on some flight attendants.

And he did not address the needs of the sandwiched or middle class. Singapore purportedly has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world so you would expect a large segment of society to fit into this category.
Notwithstanding, any compassionate government will take measures to improve the lives of all citizens regardless of strata.

Before the May Elections, the man himself spoke about how the PAP will ease burden on the middle class.
60% of votes and four months later, nothing much is done.

Let's talk about cost of housing.
Raising qualifying income ceiling does not really help because the real concern is flat prices. This move has no impact on flat prices and they continue to trend higher.
In any case, couples with higher than average income can always choose from the private market. If a family can afford private housing, why wouldn't they? (24 hr security, private amenities, cleanliness etc)
I'm interested to know which feedback channel the HDB has been using,
What may work is for the government to implement disincentives for speculative buying and restrictions on foreign ownership of property.
I repeat, raising the qualifying income ceiling does not tackle the problem of housing inflation!

Even more laughable is his take on "tightening" foreign worker policies. Many of us will know by now that there are far too many foreigners, who apparently do not possess unique skill sets (I don't mean juggling five cola bottles at the same time.), taking away our PMET jobs.
You don't need a whole lot of unique technical skills to be an accounts executive, marketing assistant or business developer do you?
These are jobs that should be readily filled by our ITE, Poly and fresh uni grads.

On Sunday, retiree Lee Kuan Yew again championed the need for immigrants claiming that Singapore will lose vitality and drive without immigrants.
So what has this vitality and drive brought to the majority of native citizens?
Unnecessary competition for jobs and school places, depressed wages, overcrowded public spaces and  ridicule from these new residents.
Maybe we should send these foreigners packing, accept lower economic growth, slower pace of life and just be happy.
Is Mr. Lee also suggesting that the loss of "vitality" is reason to seek alternatives? So what is his advice to marriages that have lost "vitality"? Perhaps that is the reason for Singapore's high divorce rates.
As usual, he cited the country's pathetic birth rates as justification for opening the floodgates.
Has he paused for a moment to reflect the consequence of his ingenious "Stop at Two" policy?
Despite repeated warnings by experts that it is the stress of living that contributes most to low birth rates, the PAP government continues to apply stop gap measures like dangling monetary incentives and running dating schemes instead of addressing the root of the problem.

The attempt at making outpatient care more affordable is quite frankly a weak one at best.
While raising the qualifying income to $1,500 is in the right direction, the fact that only 20% of private clinics participate in the scheme makes this all rather redundant.
In Malaysia, it costs 30 Singapore CENTS to see a government outpatient clinic and $2 for a specialist clinic.
A visit to the Polyclinic here would set the average patient back by S$15-20 and 120 minutes of waiting.
Delivery fees in private hospitals are nearly 4 times more expensive in Singapore than Malaysia.

So dear Singaporeans, the healthcare measures announced by PM Lee are not nearly as signficant as what State Media makes them out to be.

Oh yes, back to foreign workers. Anyone in HR will know that companies can easily circumvent the "rules" because of MOM's lax controls. Moreover, the $200 increase in qualifying salary for fresh foreign grads is a lot cheaper than the mandatory employer CPF contribution to Singaporean grads.
The outcome- we will continue to be flooded by fake talents from third world countries.
There is no doubt that a sprinkling of foreign talent is healthy for the economy.
But what Singapore needs is a transparent point system employed by most developed countries from Australia to Hong Kong. This will go a long way in ensuring that we get capable and respectful foreigners that will together raise the standard of living of all citizens.

Not the ones that complain about the smell of curry from their neighbour. You don't go to China and start telling people to stop burning joss sticks do you?
My friends, this is not an isolated incident. Whether or not the mediating decision to cook curry only on Sundays was agreed by both parties as K Shanmugam claimed, it sends the wrong message to foreigners that they have the right to change Singaporean habits and culture.
Foreigners must respect our traditions or f&#k off! The Community Mediation Centre should be ashamed for not affirming the Singaporean identity. Or is it run by foreigners too?

I feel there is genuine simmering discontent among Singaporeans and the breaking point could arrive sooner than later.
This is why we need a President who can empathise with Singaporeans and preside over "government expenditure of financial reserves and appointments to key public offices". In other words, serve as an independent and impartial moral authority to a morally corrupt regime.
While the four Tans vying for the position all had prior PAP connections- one Tan shines as the Lee family's chosen one- Dr Tony Tan. Seriously Singaporeans, do you want another head of state drawing 18 million in the six year term to be another rubber stamp? That's 18 million we are paying through GST, income tax, ERP and what not.
Unfortunately, State Media has been in overdrive to promote Tony Tan. Suddenly, Unions that we never knew existed are coming out to make their support public.
This is the former Minister who refused to protect Singaporean jobs and university places from foreigners.
Can someone with wavering loyalty to his own people be worthy of the highest constitutional authority in this country?

With polling day imminent, let's take a moment to remember a President who truly cared for the people and made Lee Kuan Yew angry along the way.

Happy belated National Day Singapore

The Singapore economy continued its recent anaemic performance registering a quarter on quarter fall of 6.5% in Q2.
While the PAP has been vigilant in heaping self praises when the economy does well, its highly paid ministers go mysteriously quiet when the opposite occurs.
We do however get the customary incoherent rumblings such as the televised segment by Lim Swee Say.

Although the politicking in US Congress borders on silly, we should never disregard the need for a well-balanced government. If the Republicans and Democrats existed without opposition, then the US will be raising debt ceiling at a whim or following through a one-sided tax policy. This is potentially even worse for the global economy.
Incidentally, the US$2.1 trn increase in the debt ceiling is equivalent to giving US$295 to every man, woman and child on earth!

It's precisely the one-sided, unopposed policies of the PAP regime that has made Singapore ever so vulnerable to the global economy. Of course, no open economy is immune to what happens in US or Eurozone but the continued reliance on labour-intensive electronics and pharma manufacturing is worrisome.
For land scarce economies, services is the way to go. While the PAP has taken steps to increase services share of the economy to about 60%, it pales in comparison to Hong Kong's 90%.
And most of the increase came from the two casinos.

Our financial services sector lags far behind Hong Kong. IPOs in Singapore have slowed to a crawl in a time when big MNCs like Samsonite and Prada raised billions on HKSE. Despite the recent return to risk aversion, more massive offerings are still expected.

Our aspirations to be an education hub has suffered numerous setbacks. The number of private schools have fallen drastically caused in part by prior lack of proper monitoring from authorities.
In 2007, top Australian university UNSW unceremoniously pulled out of Singapore before the first students walked through its doors.
Don't let the high level of foreign enrollment in local universities fool you. According to a study by the British Council, Singapore does not feature within the top 10 countries favoured by foreign students. The "foreign talents" we are taking may not be the cream of the crop.

DPM Teo Chee Hean said there could be serious economic problems if what happened in the US were to happen to a smaller country and that the Singapore government has been undertaking many measures to deal with issues - such as building more HBD flats.
I may be missing his point but how does buidling more HDB flats alleviate economic woes? Maybe permanently barring private developers from building HDB flats would. How about imposing more restrictions on foreigner/PR ownership of public flats? In retrospect, if Mah Bow Tan had been relieved of his post sooner, that could have helped.

Party supporters will claim that most economies around the world are reeling right now and it isn't fair to judge their leaders' performance.
But wait, they do know we do have the highest paid ministers in the world. Our PM is paid 4-5 times more than President Obama.
This means that we have the right to expect superhuman performance from our government. Singaporeans must demand more ingenuity from Lee Hsien Loong ruling a tiny island than Obama watching over 50 American states.

Which is why the Elected Presidency, whether custodial or not, is so important. Law Minister K Shanmugan and a few others have been busy de-emphasising the Presidential powers. Outgoing President S R Nathan went as far as to say that the President is constitutionally obliged to act on advice of Cabinet. In other words, a puppet.
Then why elect a President? The PAP might as well promote one of its own all the time.
The President should have some power to check the decisions of each incumbent government.

The least he could do is to censure MPs who play with their mobile phones during the singing of the national athem on "live" TV...such as Pasir Ris Punggol GRC MP Penny Low.

Eat That Peanut

Couple of days after I'd written about Singapore Airlines (SIA) losing market share, the company shocked the business world today by reporting that Q1 profit dived 82% from a year ago.
I don't like to say this but hey... I told you so!

As usual, they said fuel prices were to blame. Which airline isn't affected by it?
And seeing that they, together with subsidiary Tiger Airways, have been appointing "foreign talents" to head up operations, we would expect them to do better.
Instead, competitors like Emirates and Cathay Pacific have been steadily chipping away at SIA's market share.

Former Straits Times journalist Rodney King's book "The Singapore Miracle - Myth and Reality" threw doubts on the PAP's claims of "cutting-edge efficiency, global competitiveness, economic freedom and transparency."
A must read for anyone concerned about our future sustainability as an economic success. While it may not be as ubiquitous as a certain other politician's books, you should be able to find it at Kinokuniya at Ngee Ann City and Select Books at Tanglin Shopping Centre. And there's always Amazon.com.

When ex-SDP candidate and current Presidential hopeful Tan Jee Say introduced his S$60 billion National Regeneration Plan (NRP) during the lead up to the May Elections, many PAP Ministers including his former employer Goh Chok Tong rushed to shoot it down.
The reason is simple.
This plan benefits Singaporeans, not PAP.
Part of it involves training another 30,000 teachers and building 300 more schools. The aim is to bring down class room size which has remained the same (40) since I was in primary education in the early 80s!
It will also save Singaporean parents the unnecessary grief of the daunting balloting for primary school places.

Another part of it advocates a regeneration of our manufacturing industries and move towards higher productive and higher valued service-related industries. Currently, the MNCs and Government Linked Companies are enjoying huge amounts of tax breaks, rental subsidies etc but are creating lower quality jobs for Singaporeans. Many MNCs are also guilty of exploiting the lax foreign labour laws and hiring foreigners to occupy the better positions.

Why is the PAP so apprehensive of the NRP? Afterall, it is endorsed by a former British Head of Civil Service. (The British incidentally were responsible for many of our institutions, including our Civil Service)

- MNCs might start to pack up and leave. This reduces demand for foreign workers and affects population growth. GDP is hit and Ministers lose some of their bonuses.
- GLCs may be dismantled much like what happened to the Chaebol. With so many of the party's fraternity related to these GLCs, it's anathema.
- They will have to start spending more on healthcare, education and social services. Which leaves little for Temasek and GIC to play with.

In 2008, a political storm swept across Malaysia resulting in Barisan Nasional's worst electoral showing ever.
And to this day, the storm hasn't let up.
This minor democratic success served as a wake up call to the country's ruling elite culminating in the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP).

Call it funny, creative, cheesy or anything else, its exactly what Singapore needs. Malaysians may already have surpassed our quality of life. The ETP should help them race ahead one day.

MAS loses money, SIA losing share

It's that time of the year again. Nope I don't mean Christmas.
National Day is approaching and our PAP ministers have taken out the huge banners of themselves and pasted them all over the country.
This is probably one of the two occasions where our million dollar MPs are generally seen. The other is General Elections.
I say this because the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), currently helmed by Tharman Shanmugaratnam, PAP MP for Jurong GRC, made a record S$10 billion loss in FY ended March 2011 and blamed it on external factors.

Quoting Ravi Menon, Managing Director of MAS, "The translation loss is not a factor. It is just a reporting phenomenon where you report in Singdollar, the strength of the Singdollar diminishes the value of the reserves. Like I said, if we had reported our results in foreign currency or US dollar, this is not an issue."

Firstly, any commercial or government entity anywhere in the world reports in local currency.
Secondly, any of such organisations invested in foreign assets is susceptible to foreign currency movements.
Thirdly, most Asian currencies have steadily appreciated against the US dollar since the 2008 global financial crisis. And the current wrangling in Congress over the debt ceiling is reinforcing the weak sentiment for the dollar.

To pin the blame of the huge loss on currency strength is nothing short of lame. Hedging Mr. Menon?
Also, currency translation DOES affect the bottomline. It is not just a reporting phenomenon because it translates into real profits or losses.

In any case, Hong Kong Monetary Authority netted HKD 79.4 billion in profits in the same FY.

This incident brings to mind MAS' inept handling of the minibond crisis. MAS basically told investors to seek their own redress despite the fact that they are tasked to regulate all elements of monetary, banking and financial aspects of Singapore.
Hong Kong's Chief Executive Donald Tsang in contrast, vowed to bring the people responsible for saga to justice.
His government's resolve, coupled with the strong consumer movement, forced DBS to return Hong Kong investors most of their money. Singaporean investors on the other hand, were told to f**k off, despite the fact that DBS is a Singapore bank!

Well actually Singapore bank in name. DBS has been run by a string of come and go foreigners like John Olds, Phillipe Paillart and Jackon Tai. Even Piyush Gupta, the latest head honcho, is an Indian.
Retired politician Lee Kuan Yew reiterated his penchant for foreigners by saying they are "vital" to Singapore.
I'll accept if he said they were important. But "vital"? What is he on?

I suppose local universities like NUS and NTU have been screwing up so badly that no Singaporean is qualified to head the country's own financial institution.

Malaysian CEO and founder of Air Asia, one of the world's fastest growing airlines questioned Singapore Airline's faith in locals when they keep hiring "foreign talents" to lead the business. Air Asia's commercial head is Singaporean!
Incidentally, Air Asia made record profits of US$500 million in 2010, fast catching up with SIA's US$800 million. That's why they are rushing to set up a low cost-long haul carrier to compete with the former.

The points I'm trying to make in this entry are:

1) Singaporeans are a clever bunch. Ministers and GLCs can no longer hogwash their way into explaining poor performance.

2) Because 1) is true, Singaporeans can and should lead their own national companies. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that foreigners have raised the standard of business in the country.

In any case, let's take off with Asia's first and leading low cost long haul airline.

Musings on integration, Temasek and Goal 2010

PM Lee urged Singaporeans to be inclusive.
For awhile, I was excited that this could signal a paradigm shift in PAP policy towards native Singaporeans. That was until and read on.

He was referring to foreigners and new citizens and went so far as to ask the local Indian grassroots to integrate Indians from other parts of India (North).

I've come across many North Indians working here saying rather unpleasant things about our native Indians who hail mainly from the South. Can't elaborate further for fear of being hauled up for questioning. I'm not PRC so the law won't be so lenient towards me.

So do new Indians want to integrate with our local Indians or just prefer to hang out with their own?
I'd wager that most North Indians are forming their own foreign cliques and circle of friends.
Why then should local Indian grassroots spend tax-payers' money planning programmes to integrate these foreigners?

In any case, the onus is on foreigners, Indians or not, to humbly integrate themselves into the Singaporean society. After all, they came here on their own volition.

Further, it begs me to question (continuously) if there's a real need for so many foreigners in Singapore.
How talented are these foreigners that step into our shores? Are we actually getting people of the highest calibre?
An interesting article from Temasek Review pulled out global rankings for universities around the world.
The top Indian university is a shocking 113 places below NTU and even further behind NUS. I'd also documented previously that India (and many developing nations) are notorious for fake degrees. More proof here.

If you search LinkedIn for office holders at Temasek Holdings, you'd realise that many of them are from India. That's our national sovereign fund for crying out loud!

It's little wonder that its latest FY performance is nothing to crow about.
Unlike Kuwait Investment Authority, who sold their stake in Citigroup in 2009, landing a $1 billion profit, Temasek befuddled the investment community by selling off its entire stake in Bank of America, making a whopping $2 billion loss in the process.
Remember that both investments were made around the same time during the global financial crisis in 2008.
The fund also managed to get embroiled in regulatory issues with both the Indonesian and Thai governments over their botched investment attempts.
It's mind-boggling how Temasek can't get a proper due diligence team in place when they spent $31 billion on expenses in FY08.

Then again, we can't put the blame on its foreign staff. Maybe they just weren't integrated.
Singaporeans should be held accountable for this.

On a related note, they aren't going to allow Tan Jee Say to run for President. This fella will spend all his time trying to pry open GIC and Temasek's books.
That will leave little time for more pressing issues like soliciting feedback for Major General (NS) Chan Chun Sing's sports masterplan.
Can't we at least be more original with the name- Vision 2030.

This just has Mah Bow Tan's Goal 2010 written all over it....

SMRT and SBS to increase fares.....again

For the whole of 2009, the Hong Kong MTR made US$77 million from advertising revenues. Because this was a significant drop from the previous year, probably due to the '08 financial crisis, the management promised to go all out to bring in additional ad dollars.
Check out some of their digital campaigns here:

If you've been to Kuala Lumpur recently, you will see lively advertising in their metro stations.

Contrast this with SMRT. The billboards lining Tanjong Pagar and Raffles Place stations are mostly empty. These are probably the stations with highest human traffic as they are located in the heart of our business district.
And the economy surely can't be in recession when State Media reported today that Mastercard claimed there was a 49% rise in spending on their cards in the first month of the Great Singapore Sale compared to last year.

Train operators rely on advertising revenue to boost earnings in bad times and to combat rising costs of operation among other things.
That naturally means they need a well trained and motivated sales force to solicit advertising business.
And Singapore is the home to many consumer goods HQ so there can't be a lack of corporate targets.

So why doesn't SMRT (and SBS) appear worried at the lack of ad dollars?

Because they can increase their fares any time they want.
It was reported today that both SMRT and SBS are seeking the maximum fare increase. What gall!
Unlike many cash strapped operators in other countries, SMRT's FY11 revenues grew y-o-y to reach nearly 1 billion dollars.
You can see from the table below that with the exception of FY 2009 and 2010, growth in car kilometres operated did not keep pace with the growth in ridership.
That means SMRT did not adequately increase service levels despite the surge in Singapore's resident population over the last five years.
This would explain why trains are overcrowded, air-conditioning faulty and the numerous breakdowns.

Yet they have the cheek to consistently seek fare increases because they just be bothered to look for alternative sources of revenue like ad dollars or increase productivity?

I wonder what the Public Transport Council (PTC) has to say about the latest request for adjustments.
Since PTC is a statutory board under the Ministry of Transport, Lui Tuck Yew and PAP must also be held responsible if the PTC approves the latest round of profiteering by our public transport operators.

But there is nothing out of the ordinary here. Prices and fares of most public services go up after Elections. Thanks to the 60% daft Singaporeans, we should brace ourselves from yet another vicious cycle of price hikes.

In any case, SMRT has lots to learn from a truly world class system--- The Seoul Metro.

Fun Pack Song--- Sigh

Many people reacted with dismay when JJ Lin's infamous YOG song was broadcast from tree to tree.

Many people reacted with horror when Colonel Ong Tze Ch'in and his band of organisers for this year's PAP Parade aka National Day Parade (NDP) created a totally absurd version of Lady Gaga's Bad Romance song.

Just with previous attempts at hip-hop dancing and rapping, the PAP establishment bungles at every chance to be "cool".

When I was a kid, we used to sing community songs proudly. "Stand Up for Singapore", "Count on me Singapore", "We are Singapore" etc etc.
Now with the Singaporean identity lost in a sea of foreigners, the feeling is quite different.

But at least, the "Fun Pack song", as this debacle has come to be known, has helped draw some attention to the NDP, albeit unwanted.
More and more Singaporeans use the National Day holiday to visit Malaysia instead of watching the parade.
You can't really blame us for our indifference to our independence day when Lee Kuan Yew himself labelled some contents of our National Pledge as "high falutin" ideas.

Still, the light at the end of the tunnel is that the organisers may have to pull the song out of the parade due to copyright infringements. And it so happens that Lady Gaga is in town today.

Will the musical freak herself freak out at these lyrics?

Let’s start with the bag
That’s right grab your bag
It’s the fun pack pack
Attack the fun pack

Take out the flag, (inaudible)
You can wave it, if you feel like it
Let’s wave the flag
Wave, wave, wave
Let’s wave the flag

(Very nice Singapore, well done)

Take out your light stick, it’s two of a kind
It’s interactive, means you can join
Just pretend
Oh, oh, oh
(Inaudible)

I want Newater and water for a drink
You and me let’s share a bit
I want a biscuit and I want a sweet
You and me let’s share this treat

Kopi O o o o o o o
Time for the fun pack song
Kopi O o o o o o o
We like the fun pack song

Let’s start with the bag
That’s right grab your bad
It’s the fun pack pack
Let’s get the fun pack

I want Newater and water for a drink
You and me let’s share a bit
I want a biscuit and I want a sweet
You and me let’s share this treat

Kopi O o o o o o o
Time for the fun pack song
Kopi O o o o o o o
We like the fun pack song

Let’s start with the bag
That’s right grab your bad
It’s the fun pack pack
Attack the fun pack

One thing's for sure, the incident is frankly embarrassing Singapore.
It probably embarrassed Hitler too.

To conscript or not to conscript?

Taiwan's former President Chen Shui Bian's Democratic and Progressive Party (DPP) pro-independence stance was always going to increase Cross Straits tension. Whether rightly or wrongly, he often irked Beijing with his combative style. So when Ma Ying-Jeou of the Opposition took power in 2008, all eyes were on his China policies.
Within months of taking office, Time Magazine documented that Cross Straits Relations had improved dramatically.
Among other things, Ma launched direct weekend charter flights between PRC and Taiwan for the first time, opened Taiwan to mainland Chinese tourists, eased restrictions on Taiwan investment in mainland China and approved measures that will allow mainland Chinese investors to buy Taiwan stocks.

Despite all this, it was reported in 2009 that China continued to aim more than 2,000 missiles at Taiwan. I may not be an armament specialist but that seems enough to level most of Taipei.
Nonetheless, diplomacy has probably reduced the chance that those warheads would ever be fired.

You would think that such real military threat calls for an extension of Conscription.
But that couldn't be further away from the reallity.

Taiwan wants to completely do away with conscript and have a full volunteer force by 2014. The draftee service period will also be shortened to 12 months.
This trend is prevalent in many countries today. Close to 100 countries have no enforced conscription.
Many are also reducing service period.
Other than South Korea and Israel who obviously live in fear of their neighbours, Singapore is the only developed state that has compulsory service over 18 months, joining the likes of Cuba, Angola and Syria.

I guess most nations see that the pen is mightier than the sword. In today's globalised world where inter- regional trade sustains most economies, the risk of armed conflict is simply too high.
Many armies are also reinventing themselves by leveraging on technology advancements. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) is an example of replacing soldiers with machines. In the last Iraq War, the US Army also started using Unmanned Ground Vehicles to conduct dangerous missions.

The Singapore Armed Forces claims that it is transforming our military into a 3G Army. Yet one could argue that the manpower requirements seem to be the same as before.
Many people are questioning what they are defending, this compounded by the fact that over 40% of the population today are foreigners with no long term loyalty to Singapore.
Defence Minister Dr. Ng Eng Hen reiterated that he sees no reason why new citizens should serve National Service. (NS)
New walkover MP and former Chief of Army MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing shocked Singaporeans when he affirmed this view to defend another PAP MP who became citizen just three years ago without serving a single day of NS.
For those who don't know, the 2 years (plus 10 reservist years) of military service is a rite of passage for every Singaporean male.

I agree that we should never take security for granted. Which is why PAP officials should stop criticising other governments behind their backs.
It may be an opportune time to review the entire military service institution. If governments in warring or high tension regions can do it, why can't we?

To be honest, there is much more internal security issues to worry about considering that dead bodies have been turning up everywhere. And we had artwork done on our MRT trains, remember?

Opposition sweeps Thai Elections

Opposition Puea Thai won a clear majority in Thailand's landmark elections on Sunday.
Thai voters have overwhelmingly ditched the elitist Democrat Party in favour of populace policies of the poor that Thaksin's party stands for.

While nothing is black and white in politics, the fact that Thai people had the guts to vote for change after waves of red shirts, yellow shirts protests, speaks highly of the electorate.

In Singapore, a developed state, more and more people have fallen through the cracks. The poor has gotten poorer. Purchasing power is diminishing.
The middle class is increasingly sandwiched between chunks of foreigners who've taken away good jobs and depressed wages in the long run. Housing has become a life long burden, retirement a dream and marriage rates have dipped to an all-time low.

Yet 60% of Singaporeans didn't have the testicular fortitude to vote for change.

Singaporeans have lots to learn from our Northern neighbours. Or remain daft for life.

Higher...higher....high off the ground

The Energy Market Authority of Singapore has approved yet another hike in electricity tariffs in the city state. Tariffs have been on an upward trend for 33 months!!

I compared the latest household tariffs across select countries and Singaporeans pay alot more than other countries to keep our food chilled or play Xbox.

In fact, only UK and Japan from the chart above registered higher tariffs. Hong Kongers and Australians pay significantly less than us.

With the exception of Russia and Malaysia, all the countries on the chart are net oil importers. That means the lame reason cited by SP Services that increased power generation costs due to higher oil prices are to blame is invalid.
Higher oil prices effect nearly every economy in the world and yet many of these economies have found ways to either produce energy more efficiently or increase subsidies.

In 2004, Singapore Power forked out S$6.3 billion to buy Australian assets of TXU Corp.
It gets better.
Of that amount, $2.2 billion came from SingPower's own cash hoard. The only way a power producer cum seller can make that obscene amount from a tiny market is profiteering.
It doesn't stop there.
In 2007, the company was at it again teaming up with Babcock to buy more Australia assets spending $6 billion in the process. In addition, the consortium agreed to assume $6.5 billion in Alinta's debt.
Babcock eventually collapsed in 2009 so it is not known how much bad debt is on the books of Singapore Power.
Are Singaporeans being overcharged to shore up accounts?

Then in 2008, they sold a power generator PowerSeraya to Malaysian company YTL Power.

It seems that Singapore Power has put shareholder interest way above consumers whom they have been sucking blood from all these years.

Also, do you know that Singapore Power exports electricity to Malaysia? It has excess power generation capacity of over 3000 megawatts.

So with overhanging supply, basic economics ceteris paribus, prices should be low.
Yet Singaporeans continue to get ripped off month after month because Singapore Power is a complete monopoly.

In any case, it is unlikely for oil futures to go much higher for the following reasons:

1) Unlike the 2008 oil crisis, there is a supply glut. Half the OPEC countries want to increase production and half don't. Supply is there for sure.

2) Slowdown in US and Eurozone to dampen oil consumption in medium term.

3) While the Japan disaster has affected nuclear programmes globally, it is still currently the only long term viable solution to energy-hungry developing states. So as countries diversify from oil into renewables, demand for oil may decrease in future.

So why isn't the PAP stepping up to protect the interest of Singaporeans?

I'm dedicating this song to the 60% who voted for higher electricity bills.