But it doesn't mean I've forgotten how to.
Just want to say for now...
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Hougang by elections
I haven't blogged in awhile.
But it doesn't mean I've forgotten how to.
Just want to say for now...
But it doesn't mean I've forgotten how to.
Just want to say for now...
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Lawyer is mightier than the sword
I enjoy watching CSI. The original CSI.
You know the part where they present incriminating evidence to suspects in the interrogation room?
Yes that's where most suspects start to "lawyer up".
The ancient city of Homs is one of Syria's biggest industrial cities. There is significant Opposition presence and Bashar Assad's has opted to mercilessly lay seige upon anyone and everyone who lives there in a bid to quell political dissidents and maintain grip on power. This at the expense of thousands of innocent lives and the ire of most of the international community.
China has allegedly unleashed violence on dissenting Tibet. There are unconfirmed reports that civlians and even religious have been beaten and imprisoned. The want-away Xinjaing province is apparently also subject to similar actions.
Adolf Hitler consolidated power by absolutely crushing political dissent. Those who were against party ideology were sent to concentration camps or executed. The rest is history. Nazi Germany was totally devastated in a gruelling six year war that left many dead.
But the PAP has refined the art of suppressing alternative voices without resorting to violence. And it's called "lawyering up"!
At the first sighting of one of the founders of the increasingly popular political website TR Emeritus, who up until then (much to PAP's chagrin) were annonymous, PM Lee Hsien Loong immediately served a lawyer letter demanding the removal of a certain posting. The letter "alleged that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong secured or was instrumental in securing the appointment of his wife, Mdm Ho Ching, as the chief executive officer of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited...."
In the days following local media (or government mouth piece) field day with Yaw Shin Leong's fall from grace, there was online buzz that some of PAP's own were also involved in marital indiscretions. This prompted Law Minister K. Shanmugam to immediately threaten legal action.
When Chee Soon Juan was taken to court by MM Lee, yes lawyering up indeed, for allegedly defaming the latter, it was reported (actually not reported by Mainstream media) that even the incomparable statesman had to rely on his counsel to defend cross examination from Dr. Chee. And we all know how the verdict went.
The late Opposition icon JB Jeyaretnam shocked the then impenetrable PAP by winning a seat in the Anson ward and then subsequently getting re-elected. But he was subject to so much legal pressure by PAP leaders that he was eventually bankrupted and expelled from Parliament.
I guess the point is if there is nothing to hide, why the need to stand behind legal representatives?
What happened to good old fashioned debates and then letting citizens decide for themselves?
In the case of Yaw Shin Leong, the right thing to do is to hold the by-election immediately. Let the people of Hougang judge the Workers' Party, not PAP. If anything, WP did the right (and accountable) thing to expel Yaw. Would PAP have done the same to an office holder in similar circumstances?
It is the PAP who would have let voters down if a by-election is not called asap.
Or maybe they are waiting to "find" more dirt and unleash the ultimate weapon... lawyers!
You know the part where they present incriminating evidence to suspects in the interrogation room?
Yes that's where most suspects start to "lawyer up".
The ancient city of Homs is one of Syria's biggest industrial cities. There is significant Opposition presence and Bashar Assad's has opted to mercilessly lay seige upon anyone and everyone who lives there in a bid to quell political dissidents and maintain grip on power. This at the expense of thousands of innocent lives and the ire of most of the international community.
China has allegedly unleashed violence on dissenting Tibet. There are unconfirmed reports that civlians and even religious have been beaten and imprisoned. The want-away Xinjaing province is apparently also subject to similar actions.
Adolf Hitler consolidated power by absolutely crushing political dissent. Those who were against party ideology were sent to concentration camps or executed. The rest is history. Nazi Germany was totally devastated in a gruelling six year war that left many dead.
But the PAP has refined the art of suppressing alternative voices without resorting to violence. And it's called "lawyering up"!
At the first sighting of one of the founders of the increasingly popular political website TR Emeritus, who up until then (much to PAP's chagrin) were annonymous, PM Lee Hsien Loong immediately served a lawyer letter demanding the removal of a certain posting. The letter "alleged that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong secured or was instrumental in securing the appointment of his wife, Mdm Ho Ching, as the chief executive officer of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited...."
In the days following local media (or government mouth piece) field day with Yaw Shin Leong's fall from grace, there was online buzz that some of PAP's own were also involved in marital indiscretions. This prompted Law Minister K. Shanmugam to immediately threaten legal action.
When Chee Soon Juan was taken to court by MM Lee, yes lawyering up indeed, for allegedly defaming the latter, it was reported (actually not reported by Mainstream media) that even the incomparable statesman had to rely on his counsel to defend cross examination from Dr. Chee. And we all know how the verdict went.
The late Opposition icon JB Jeyaretnam shocked the then impenetrable PAP by winning a seat in the Anson ward and then subsequently getting re-elected. But he was subject to so much legal pressure by PAP leaders that he was eventually bankrupted and expelled from Parliament.
I guess the point is if there is nothing to hide, why the need to stand behind legal representatives?
What happened to good old fashioned debates and then letting citizens decide for themselves?
In the case of Yaw Shin Leong, the right thing to do is to hold the by-election immediately. Let the people of Hougang judge the Workers' Party, not PAP. If anything, WP did the right (and accountable) thing to expel Yaw. Would PAP have done the same to an office holder in similar circumstances?
It is the PAP who would have let voters down if a by-election is not called asap.
Or maybe they are waiting to "find" more dirt and unleash the ultimate weapon... lawyers!
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Friday, 10 February 2012
Singapore- From First World to Third
1) The deterioration of SMRT and transportation in general.
When SMRT trains started running in 1987, I remember the buzz and excitement it generated. There was alot to be proud of. Metro train travels became part of our daily lives and travelling time was reduced. Happy days.
But ever since its listing in 2000, company execs (and technically PAP since Temasek Holdings own a majority stake in the entity) indiscriminately focused on cost cutting, revenue generation and keeping shareholders happy.
Today, train breakdowns are as commonplace as tissue paper packets used to "reserve" seats in eateries all across our business district. SMRT has become a national shame.
Whilst performance have gone down, fares have headed the other way. The regulatory body Public Transport Council has sanctioned nearly every adjustment request from buses, trains and taxi operators. These companies are majority-owned by the Singapore government.
The roads are no better. Toll gantries known as ERP are erected all over the island, expanding from town and business districts to heartland areas, in the name of traffic flow management. Yet the expressways and even in-roads are still jammed. Once I overhead an Australian remarking that if they did this ERP thing down under, the public would have the mayor lynched.
COE or the piece of paper that allows you to purchase a car now costs as much as a brand new Mercedes C Class in Australia!
2) The unspoken wage decline.
The real earnings, the most accurate measure of wage growth as it takes into account inflation, have been on a steady decline for as long as one can remember. UBS's latest prices and earnings studies reaffirms this. Singaporean's wage levels are in the league of Brazil, Slovakia and Malaysia. Nowhere near Swiss standards for sure. That's shocking considering how highly paid our leaders are.
When SMRT trains started running in 1987, I remember the buzz and excitement it generated. There was alot to be proud of. Metro train travels became part of our daily lives and travelling time was reduced. Happy days.
But ever since its listing in 2000, company execs (and technically PAP since Temasek Holdings own a majority stake in the entity) indiscriminately focused on cost cutting, revenue generation and keeping shareholders happy.
Today, train breakdowns are as commonplace as tissue paper packets used to "reserve" seats in eateries all across our business district. SMRT has become a national shame.
Whilst performance have gone down, fares have headed the other way. The regulatory body Public Transport Council has sanctioned nearly every adjustment request from buses, trains and taxi operators. These companies are majority-owned by the Singapore government.
The roads are no better. Toll gantries known as ERP are erected all over the island, expanding from town and business districts to heartland areas, in the name of traffic flow management. Yet the expressways and even in-roads are still jammed. Once I overhead an Australian remarking that if they did this ERP thing down under, the public would have the mayor lynched.
COE or the piece of paper that allows you to purchase a car now costs as much as a brand new Mercedes C Class in Australia!
2) The unspoken wage decline.
An International Labour Organisation report also documents that Singaporeans put in the longest work hours globally!
3) Corruption in public service
-Golden tap, first class travels, undeclared directorships and a "peanut" salary package of just $550,000 per year. The man TT Durai was the head of the National Kidney Foundation. Instead of focusing efforts to help dialysis patients, his corporate extravagance and misdeeds were just small symptoms of the wider elitist network that the government has created.
-A senior civil servant at the Singapore Land Authority defrauded the government and bought luxury cars with the dirty money.
-Most recently, the former heads of the Singapore Civil Defence Force and Central Narcotics Bureau were arrested for alleged misconduct. Both were high flying government scholars chosen by the PAP establishment. Looks like there's going to be alot more fire fighting for PM Lee's party if the regime's foot soldiers can't start kicking the bad habits.
Corruption exists in nearly every country but Singapore's sycophantic media has always been quick to point out how the nation is one of the least corrupt in the world.
Unfortunately for them, the irksome social media has all but erased decades of cover up for ruling party.
Watch this space for more revelations of breaches of trust.
4) Ballooning public debt
President Tony Tan claimed in his recent Lunar New Year speech that owing to PAP's fiscal prudence, Singapore does not have high sovereign debt. But that's not true.
CIA and Eurostat estimate that Singapore's public debt is 105% of GDP or ninth highest in the world!
Most of the obligation is probably to the Central Provident Fund (CPF). When the PAP liberalised CPF for housing, they had the opportunity to "borrow" money cheap (the interest rate that CPF pays account holders) to fund their activities. Over the years, misguided policies and investments (mostly kept from Singaporeans) created losses that the government increasingly can't keep up with. See Temasek Holdings, GIC and other stat boards and GLCs.
This is why the PAP keeps raising the minimum sum and withdrawal age because they just can't afford to return the money to retiring Singaporeans.
More puzzling, none of the extraordinarily high debt is due to citizen welfare schemes for the state provides almost none, which is the case for most developed state with significant government obligations.
Singaporeans have a right to know where and how government borrowing is really spent all these years.
5) Love affair with foreign talent (or trash)
60% of registered doctors in 2010 are foreigners.
50% of expats earned more than 200k a year.
38% of the population are foreigners/PRs attracted by pro foreign employment policies, lax banking rules and good physical infrastructure.
30% of our private homes were bought by foreigners in 2011.
20% of A&E patients in our hospitals are foreigners... and enjoying subsidies.
Singaporeans aren't xenophobic. Many of us have grown suspicious of foreigners who are perceived to take away many PMET jobs that Singaporeans want to do. Most of these foreigners are here for the quick buck and simply use the country as a stepping stone (and Visa-less travel) to their dreams elsewhere.
Further, you just have to question the true ability and qualifications of some foreigners. There are reports of foreigners paying for fake certs to get into Singapore.
A prestigious club in Singapore had to sack its CEO for not producing a Masters cert which he claimed to have obtained.
The country's football association removed its French deputy CEO for not disclosing his bankruptcy before taking up the job.
We're not exactly sure how foreign CEOs like Jackson Tai, John Olds and Philip Paillart (combined total tenure of 4 years), added value to Singapore's biggest bank DBS before departing with very golden handshakes.
We're not sure how three expats who started a brawl and two of them subsequently fled the country before facing court, got jobs with leading banks here. It's outrageous how they let foreign trespassers post bail and retain their passports when they refused to allow bankrupt Opposition leader Chee Soon Juan permission to travel to attend an innocuous award ceremony.
Monday, 9 January 2012
Anwar Ibrahim acquitted
Our Minister Mentor Emeritus Lee Kuan Yew crossed path with Malaysia on numerous occasions.
In 2010, he alluded that Malaysia was a "failed state".
He also incurred the wrath of Malaysian Muslims for criticising Islam openly in his book.
Little does he realise (nor care) that Singapore pales in comparison in terms of democratic and civil freedom.
Who would have thought Malaysia had an independent judiciary?
Anwar Ibrahim acquitted!!!
In Singapore, our judges send three Singaporeans wearing kangaroo T-shirts to jail.
And you apparently can't voice an opinion on the death penalty.
I wonder if Singapore's political immaturity will affect the nation's ability to compete both economically and socially.
In 2010, he alluded that Malaysia was a "failed state".
He also incurred the wrath of Malaysian Muslims for criticising Islam openly in his book.
Little does he realise (nor care) that Singapore pales in comparison in terms of democratic and civil freedom.
Who would have thought Malaysia had an independent judiciary?
Anwar Ibrahim acquitted!!!
In Singapore, our judges send three Singaporeans wearing kangaroo T-shirts to jail.
And you apparently can't voice an opinion on the death penalty.
I wonder if Singapore's political immaturity will affect the nation's ability to compete both economically and socially.
Friday, 6 January 2012
Minister pay cut justified?
Yes, it's trending on twitter and carried in newspapers all over the world, from Guardian to Bloomberg.
Everybody's talking about the seemingly massive 36% pay cut that Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has "agreed" to take.
While it's a long overdue step in the right direction, he remains, and by some orbital mile, the highest paid elected official on this planet. Still 4 times more than Barack Obama and 45 times that of Manmohan Singh.
But the root of the problem remains that many within the regime's ranks still think that high salaries are needed to attract the "best" talents to political office.
Such as one Grace Fu, who probably summed up what many of her colleagues feel:
"If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office."
Unfortunately, money cannot be the main motivation for joining politics. You are simply attracting candidates that will put the moolah before servitude. Such as this MP with 64 other jobs.
Personally, I think the pay cut is totally justified and there should be more to come.
GDP growth, the indicator that PAP swears by, is looking extremely weak going into 2012. Singapore could again be the first Asian country to go into a technical recession defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
The party state has failed to diversify from the volatile and highly competitive electronics sector which makes up a massive 35% of non-oil domestic exports.
Worryingly, the Purchasing Managers' Index or PMI, which measures future business activity, has been declining for 6 straight months.
Granted that if US and Eurozone growth tank in 2012, and if there were a hard landing in China, most economies of the world will be adversely affected.
Difference is that other leaders don't have million dollar salaries nor tell the US to put its fiscal house in order.
I can't help but notice the inverted commas around the word Mentor in this WSJ article.
Additionally, the SMRT debacles, Orchard floods, taxi fare hikes and persistent rise in cost of living speak volumes of the extremely disappointing performance by our Ministers.
This move may have swayed some citizens over to their side.
But please ask yourselves this: Imagine that you were all shareholders of this company called Singapore Inc. Would you continue to agree to pay directors (Ministers) the highest salary among their global counterparts millions of dollars for repeated sub par performance?
I agree with some Opposition parties' suggestion that in addition to top earners, the average salaries of bottom and average earners should also be incorporated into the salary calculation.
After all, the greatest leaders (arguably) didn't have seven figure pay packages: Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Tony Blair, Franklin D Roosevelt.....
Finally, an honourable mention to our dear President who apparently volunteered a 51% pay cut. Bravo!
Everybody's talking about the seemingly massive 36% pay cut that Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has "agreed" to take.
While it's a long overdue step in the right direction, he remains, and by some orbital mile, the highest paid elected official on this planet. Still 4 times more than Barack Obama and 45 times that of Manmohan Singh.
But the root of the problem remains that many within the regime's ranks still think that high salaries are needed to attract the "best" talents to political office.
Such as one Grace Fu, who probably summed up what many of her colleagues feel:
"If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office."
Unfortunately, money cannot be the main motivation for joining politics. You are simply attracting candidates that will put the moolah before servitude. Such as this MP with 64 other jobs.
Personally, I think the pay cut is totally justified and there should be more to come.
GDP growth, the indicator that PAP swears by, is looking extremely weak going into 2012. Singapore could again be the first Asian country to go into a technical recession defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
The party state has failed to diversify from the volatile and highly competitive electronics sector which makes up a massive 35% of non-oil domestic exports.
Worryingly, the Purchasing Managers' Index or PMI, which measures future business activity, has been declining for 6 straight months.
Granted that if US and Eurozone growth tank in 2012, and if there were a hard landing in China, most economies of the world will be adversely affected.
Difference is that other leaders don't have million dollar salaries nor tell the US to put its fiscal house in order.
I can't help but notice the inverted commas around the word Mentor in this WSJ article.
Additionally, the SMRT debacles, Orchard floods, taxi fare hikes and persistent rise in cost of living speak volumes of the extremely disappointing performance by our Ministers.
This move may have swayed some citizens over to their side.
But please ask yourselves this: Imagine that you were all shareholders of this company called Singapore Inc. Would you continue to agree to pay directors (Ministers) the highest salary among their global counterparts millions of dollars for repeated sub par performance?
I agree with some Opposition parties' suggestion that in addition to top earners, the average salaries of bottom and average earners should also be incorporated into the salary calculation.
After all, the greatest leaders (arguably) didn't have seven figure pay packages: Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Tony Blair, Franklin D Roosevelt.....
Finally, an honourable mention to our dear President who apparently volunteered a 51% pay cut. Bravo!
Thursday, 29 December 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, 24 December 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
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:
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.
- 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)
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.
Monday, 26 September 2011
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.
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.
Friday, 23 September 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, 15 September 2011
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.
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.
Monday, 12 September 2011
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:
Contrast with PAP run Singapore:
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.
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
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???
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.
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
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...
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...
Thursday, 25 August 2011
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.
Thank you.
Oh yes, please observe Cooling Off day which begins in 3 hours.
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
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".
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".
Monday, 22 August 2011
Sunday, 21 August 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, 18 August 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)