Chuan Jin used the analogy of a game to describe what is happening to the CPF scheme at the CPF Forum organized by the Institute of Public Policy. He was referring to the changing conditions and said that the rules of the game had changed, conditions had changed. The CPF scheme is not about a game but about the people’s life savings for retirement. The govt must get this straight and not to confuse with govt pension schemes where the fund comes from the public coffer. The govt can change all the rules of a pension scheme, no one will care or object to it. The money in the CPF scheme comes from the pocket of the people, saving for their retirement. Please don’t suka suka change the rules without the people’s consent. 

The compulsion to save in the first part of the people’s life, up to 55 years old, is a necessary evil. The second part or the next phase must be the return of the money to the savers. It is as simple as that. The govt has no moral right to keep the people’s money at its own pleasure. Legislating it to be legal is still not right. Taking this further, the govt might as well legislate the savings of the people in the banks, like in Greece and take a portion of it? 

Put it simply, the money must be returned to the people at 55. Period. Given the changing circumstances and life expectancy, the younger generations may have to relook at what is a reasonable age to take back their savings. For those in their 50s and above, they should be taking back all their savings at 55. The good hearted govt can think of ways to design favourable and attractive schemes like annuity plans, or savings plans with higher interest rates to entice the people to leave their money in such schemes, VOLUNTARILY, after 55. The people must be allowed to exercise their choice on what they want to do with their money, NOT the govt’s money. This is basic human decency! Can the boys and girls understand this? 

No more funny schemes to retain the money in the CPF compulsorily because the boys and girls said so. The govt can no longer treat the people as daft peasants of the 3rd world, unthinking, irresponsible with their money and helpless. The people are well educated, well informed and definitely not daft, definitely smarter than many of the policy makers. 

And what is this thing that people must keep on contributing to their CPF regardless of how old they are when they have to apply or renew their licences? After certain age, it is time to take out the savings, time to stop savings for tomorrow that can really be the next day or the next hour. For those who have a lot of money, they can go on and on saving even if they are 100 years old. Those are different kind of people. 

What say you, boys and girls?

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

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

Dear TRS,

As the month of Ramadhan is heading towards the end, I would like to highlight a few things that concern me as a muslim individual and maybe other Muslims as well.

There are a lot of stalls set up at the "Geylang Bazaar" with a variety of food and traditional costumes to select from.

This Bazaar is actually a Muslim Eid Festival Bazaar so you would expect that most of the food is Halal. However, this is not the case and I believe there are many Muslims out there that may be confused about what different signs at food stalls mean.

I was excited to try this famous "fried oreo" that has been talked about on social media but when I went to the stall, I noticed that the stall has no "halal" certification.

The stall also sold meat products besides "fried oreos".

They did mention there was "no pork no lard" however not many understand the term. Many would think it is "Ok" to eat. In fact, I did see a few Malay customers lining up at the stall to buy the famous fried oreos. 

But actually, "No Pork, No Lard" does not mean that the stall is halal certified and it is not OK to eat just because there is no pork and no lard. 

I can only assume that the stall is not Halal seeing as they did not display any Halal certification. 

I am quite disappointed that a Muslim Eid Festival Bazaar had non halal food stalls, as clearly there many Muslims also confused about the lack of signage. 

Maybe the government should consider making regulations that require stalls to make it more clear about their foods so that people can know what they are buying. It's a matter of respect and beliefs of people. 

Singaporean Malay

TRS Contributor

The Israeli Gaza Conflict is definitely on everyone's radar and minds these days with a huge dead toll especially on Gaza civilians namely women and children. Destruction of hospitals, public buildings mosques and homes with civilian residents still inside alive by Israeli bombs and jets have raised so many eyebrows and disbelief such mayhem and attack which is against the UN charter and all humanity.

1. PAP:
Even the side watching PAP government which had it's Malay Muslim MPs like Magaos Zulkifli first coming out discouraging Malay Muslim Singaporeans from 'irrational activities' like travelling to Gaza to aid the victims (as some tried to do or done in Syria as MHA revealed) but came out showing bad light by claiming Gaza fighters as terrorists which got the like of the Muslim community.

Link: http://therealsingapore.com/content/masagos-zulkifli-muslims-should-not-do-irrational-things-support-those-gaza

2. Dr Yaacob

Next our famous ' once in 50 years' fame;and now internationally famous Minister who tried to aid NLB to Pulp some books (that's rite was on major media along with NLB, it's CEO and him)- Dr Yaccob Ibrahim came out noting the ground sentiments were not in their favour as more civilian casualties in Gaza were shown daily on all media news different. He famously asked on we  can do is pray and put out rhetoric that both Israel and Gaza -Hamas should Immediately stop fighting and prevent casualities.Really!  
https://www.facebook.com/yaacobibrahim

3. PM Lee On Gaza Pray & now latest Aid $US100k

Now PM Lee Hsien Loong noting the increasing Singaporeans public sentiment esp. in the vote banks of Malay Muslim communities getting worked up and could be detrimental to their soon to be GE plans, comes out publicly to ask all to pray for Gaza victims.

Quote: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/keep-gaza-victims-thoughts-and-prayers-pm-lee

4. Spooked PAP:
But he sights a text book reason of Israelis and Gaza- Hamas having 100 years of enemity and nothing can be achieved.

Further a spooked and Election Ready PAP government announced a first $100,000 USD donation To Gaza Victims via red cross just to win back the angry communities iked by PAP's stand on Gaza so far  in Singapore.

5.Any other reason for this escalating Gaza conflict despite civilian casualties.

Ok but was that the only reason as text book quoted. Was there more to the real objective of the current Israeli relentless destruction of Gaza and civilians. Neither is a relentless and never giving up Hamas with huge death toll and destruction on it;s side too.

Some other political game is being played out which US and pro Israeli media and lobby countries avoid, that is the energy resources under Gaza like Gas and the fight to secure it, keep it under their control. Hamas equally is guilty of the hidden political game as it will continue to fight even more deaths on their side as control on the resources is  much bigger and worth the 'sacrifices' deaths of people Vs a US and Istaeli backed Abbas regime getting control of it and working with Israel.

6. Good article on Energy and Gas a major cause by the Guardian:

A good article from the new media, The Guardian provides a good insight to this development and possible reason for the current continuous fighting in Gaza unlike what PM Lee states from his textbook reading.

Link: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jul/09/israel-war-gaza-palestine-natural-gas-energy-crisis?CMP=twt_gu

Marky

TRS Contributor

Article From the Guardian, 9 July 2014

IDF's Gaza assault is to control Palestinian gas, avert Israeli energy crisis

Yesterday, Israeli defence minister and former Israeli Defence Force (IDF) chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon announced that Operation Protective Edge marks the beginning of a protracted assault on Hamas. The operation "won't end in just a few days," he said, adding that "we are preparing to expand the operation by all means standing at our disposal so as to continue striking Hamas."

This morning, he said:

"We continue with strikes that draw a very heavy price from Hamas. We are destroying weapons, terror infrastructures, command and control systems, Hamas institutions, regime buildings, the houses of terrorists, and killing terrorists of various ranks of command… The campaign against Hamas will expand in the coming days, and the price the organization will pay will be very heavy."

But in 2007, a year before Operation Cast Lead, Ya'alon's concernsfocused on the 1.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas discovered in 2000 off the Gaza coast, valued at $4 billion. Ya'alon dismissed the notion that "Gaza gas can be a key driver of an economically more viable Palestinian state" as "misguided." The problem, he said, is that:

"Proceeds of a Palestinian gas sale to Israel would likely not trickle down to help an impoverished Palestinian public. Rather, based on Israel's past experience, the proceeds will likely serve to fund further terror attacks against Israel…

A gas transaction with the Palestinian Authority [PA] will, by definition, involve Hamas. Hamas will either benefit from the royalties or it will sabotage the project and launch attacks against Fatah, the gas installations, Israel – or all three… It is clear that without an overall military operation to uproot Hamas control of Gaza, no drilling work can take place without the consent of the radical Islamic movement."

Operation Cast Lead did not succeed in uprooting Hamas, but the conflict did take the lives of 1,387 Palestinians (773 of whom were civilians) and 9 Israelis (3 of whom were civilians).

Since the discovery of oil and gas in the Occupied Territories, resource competition has increasingly been at the heart of the conflict, motivated largely by Israel's increasing domestic energy woes.

Mark Turner, founder of the Research Journalism Initiative, reported that the siege of Gaza and ensuing military pressure was designed to "eliminate" Hamas as "a viable political entity in Gaza" to generate a "political climate" conducive to a gas deal. This involved rehabilitating the defeated Fatah as the dominant political player in the West Bank, and "leveraging political tensions between the two parties, arming forces loyal to Abbas and the selective resumption of financial aid."

Ya'alon's comments in 2007 illustrate that the Israeli cabinet is not just concerned about Hamas – but concerned that if Palestinians develop their own gas resources, the resulting economic transformation could in turn fundamentally increase Palestinian clout.

Meanwhile, Israel has made successive major discoveries in recent years - such as the Leviathan field estimated to hold 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – which could transform the country from energy importer into aspiring energy exporter with ambitions to supply Europe, Jordan and Egypt. A potential obstacle is that much of the 122 trillion cubic feet of gas and 1.6 billion barrels of oil in the Levant Basin Province lies in territorial waters where borders are hotly disputed between Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Cyprus.

Amidst this regional jockeying for gas, though, Israel faces its own little-understood energy challenges. It could, for instance, take until 2020 for much of these domestic resources to be properly mobilised.

But this is the tip of the iceberg. A 2012 letter by two Israeli government chief scientists – which the Israeli government chose not to disclose – warned the government that Israel still had insufficient gas resources to sustain exports despite all the stupendous discoveries. The letter, according to Ha'aretz, stated that Israel's domestic resources were 50% less than needed to support meaningful exports, and could be depleted in decades:

"We believe Israel should increase its [domestic] use of natural gas by 2020 and should not export gas. The Natural Gas Authority's estimates are lacking. There's a gap of 100 to 150 billion cubic meters between the demand projections that were presented to the committee and the most recent projections. The gas reserves are likely to last even less than 40 years!"

As Dr Gary Luft - an advisor to the US Energy Security Council - wrote in the Journal of Energy Security, "with the depletion of Israel's domestic gas supplies accelerating, and without an imminent rise in Egyptian gas imports, Israel could face a power crisis in the next few years… If Israel is to continue to pursue its natural gas plans it must diversify its supply sources."

Israel's new domestic discoveries do not, as yet, offer an immediate solution as electricity prices reach record levels, heightening the imperative to diversify supply. This appears to be behind Prime Minister Netanyahu's announcement in February 2011 that it was now time to seal the Gaza gas deal. But even after a new round of negotiations was kick-started between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Israel in September 2012, Hamas was excluded from these talks, and thus rejected the legitimacy of any deal.

Earlier this year, Hamas condemned a PA deal to purchase $1.2 billion worth of gas from Israel Leviathan field over a 20 year period once the field starts producing. Simultaneously, the PA has held several meetings with the British Gas Group to develop the Gaza gas field, albeit with a view to exclude Hamas – and thus Gazans – from access to the proceeds. That plan had been the brainchild of Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair.

But the PA was also courting Russia's Gazprom to develop the Gaza marine gas field, and talks have been going on between Russia, Israel and Cyprus, though so far it is unclear what the outcome of these have been. Also missing was any clarification on how the PA would exert control over Gaza, which is governed by Hamas.

According to Anais Antreasyan in the University of California's Journal of Palestine Studies, the most respected English language journal devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel's stranglehold over Gaza has been designed to make "Palestinian access to the Marine-1 and Marine-2 gas wells impossible." Israel's long-term goal "besides preventing the Palestinians from exploiting their own resources, is to integrate the gas fields off Gaza into the adjacent Israeli offshore installations." This is part of a wider strategy of:

"…. separating the Palestinians from their land and natural resources in order to exploit them, and, as a consequence, blocking Palestinian economic development. Despite all formal agreements to the contrary, Israel continues to manage all the natural resources nominally under the jurisdiction of the PA, from land and water to maritime and hydrocarbon resources."

For the Israeli government, Hamas continues to be the main obstacle to the finalisation of the gas deal. In the incumbent defence minister'swords: "Israel's experience during the Oslo years indicates Palestinian gas profits would likely end up funding terrorism against Israel. The threat is not limited to Hamas… It is impossible to prevent at least some of the gas proceeds from reaching Palestinian terror groups."

The only option, therefore, is yet another "military operation to uproot Hamas."

Unfortunately, for the IDF uprooting Hamas means destroying the group's perceived civilian support base – which is why Palestinian civilian casualties massively outweigh that of Israelis. Both are obviously reprehensible, but Israel's capacity to inflict destruction is simply far greater.

In the wake of Operation Cast Lead, the Jerusalem-based Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (Pcati) found that the IDF had adopted a more aggressive combat doctrine based on two principles – "zero casualties" for IDF soldiers at the cost of deploying increasingly indiscriminate firepower in densely populated areas, and the "dahiya doctrine" promoting targeting of civilian infrastructure to create widespread suffering amongst the population with a view to foment opposition to Israel's opponents.

This was confirmed in practice by the UN fact-finding mission in Gaza which concluded that the IDF had pursued a "deliberate policy of disproportionate force," aimed at the "supporting infrastructure" of the enemy - "this appears to have meant the civilian population," said the UN report.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is clearly not all about resources. But in an age of expensive energy, competition to dominate regional fossil fuelsare increasingly influencing the critical decisions that can inflame war.

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, ZERO POINT. ZERO POINT is set in a near future following a Fourth Iraq War. Follow Ahmed on Facebook and Twitter.

We refer to the “CPF & YOU” advertisement in the Straits Times of 24 July (see image below).

“CPF & YOU” Advertisements everyday?

Such bigger than a quarter page advertisements have been appearing daily, and we understand that so far there are 9 different advertisements explaining various aspects of how our CPF works.

As  we understand that there are advertisement versions in the 3 other languages – have such advertisements been in the Chinese, Malay and Tamil newspapers as well?

Let’s look at today’s advertisement

- “Can the Government spend CPF monies?”

CPF is invested, then silence?

The advertisement ends with “The monies the Government receives when it  issues government securities are invested.”

- This kind of leaves one “hanging in the air”, as anyone reading it may think – So, where or what is it invested in and what were the returns?

In this connection, since the Government has recently clarified that only the GIC had invested CPF funds – Why does the subject advertisement not say so? Also, since the Government has also recently revealed that GIC’s annualised returns in S$ for the last 20 years was 5.2% – Why is it silent now?

By the way, the question that people have been asking on the returns from inception of the GIC, has still not been answered.

Cannot spend or never spent CPF?

“No. Under the Constitution and the Government Securities Act, the Government cannot spend the monies from issuing SSGS to the CPF Board.”

- This may not be entirely correct, because the Finance Minister said at the Institute of Policy Studies CPF Forum on 22 July, that prior to 1992, CPF funds were used (spent) on infrastructure.

Triple A rating and guarantee?

“How are CPF monies invested?

This means that your savings and the minimum interest rates are both  guaranteed by the Government. This is a solid guarantee. The Singapore Government is one of only 11 governments in the world with a triple A credit rating from the major global credit rating agencies.”

- What has a triple A credit rating got to do with a country’s national pension fund? Has any Government that did not have a triple A credit rating – ever run away with the people’s money? – did not return the people’s money?

In contrast, in a sense, Singapore may be the only country in the world that kept the excess returns (GIC’s returns minus the average weighted interest on CPF accounts)?

Are not all the countries’ national pension funds implicitly guaranteed by the Government – that they are the people’s money and will be returned to them?

Guaranteed interest rates?

“Regardless of financial market conditions, you will always be able to receive the guaranteed interest rates.”

Has any national pension fund ever paid zero or negative interest rates in any year in history?

Is our CPF rate the historically lowest real rate of return among all national pension funds in the world?

S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian

P.S. Come with your family and friends to the 3rd Return Our CPF – HDB protest on 23 August 4 pm to 6.30 pm at Speakers’ Corner https://www.facebook.com/events/648543138548193/

It has only been several months since PM Lee Hsien Loong launched a defamation lawsuit against Roy Ngerng for insidious and damaging attacks upon his character and name. The scope of this article, however, is not to question the morality of the lawsuit. Instead, it aims to delve into a field not visited by Roy in his allegations towards the CPF scheme.

This article seeks to challenge the legitimacy of the CPF scheme on moral grounds and dispute the existence of a retirement age in Singapore.

The Central Provident Fund scheme (CPF) was first introduced in the mid-1950s as a mandatory savings plan for Singaporeans, a policy which would fund their retirement. It was meant to relieve the burden on state finances supporting retirees who could no longer fend for themselves when their incomes dried up.

The scheme was exceedingly simple when first introduced, with monies from citizen incomes flowing in while under employment and dispensed out upon retirement. Over the years, however, we have seen an initially straightforward scheme evolve into an unrecognisable behemoth.

Now, the CPF scheme comprises various plans, policies and accounts through which monies can be drawn and used for a variety of purposes such as housing down payments, healthcare, education and financial investments. It is no longer solely about retirement, as first mooted.

CPF itself has outlived its original purpose. It may have been reasonable to enforce a compulsory savings scheme in the 1950s through to the 1980s due to the relatively lower education levels of citizens at that time. But in contemporary Singapore, the antiquity of CPF makes it a legacy of the past. A legacy that like many, including National Service and 377A, the state seeks to retain for reasons unknown or unjust.

The Singapore government has always exhorted a doctrine of individual self-reliance and responsibility. But CPF, being a compulsory scheme, contradicts that position. Far from encouraging self-reliance, it forces people to depend on the state for retirement plans. True self-reliance would entail private search for the best retirement policies available, not have one imposed upon them via legislative and executive power. It is time for the government to practice what it has always preached by abolishing the CPF scheme.

To take the side that CPF should continue to operate is to argue that Singaporeans, the majority of whom are now highly educated, are irresponsible and cannot wisely manage their own monies alone. They would thus be contending that the state needs to step in, take a portion of their incomes, save up for them, and then arbitrarily decide when to return the cash and how much to. They would be volunteering to be puppets led by the strings.

The abolishment of the CPF scheme would enable consumers and companies alike to cumulatively have hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars more to pump into the local economy yearly.

Individuals will be able to seek private insurance policies tailored to suit their needs and wants instead of a one-size-fits-all policy that few can comprehend. Businesses would also be able to channel monies originally earmarked towards CPF onto more productive ends such as research and development projects. The original employer contribution could possibly even be used to raise disposable incomes!

Similar to the CPF scheme, the statutory retirement age should be annulled. The presence of a retirement age serves little purpose.

Over the years, the retirement age has been progressively raised and right now, stays at 62-5. It reduces the independent element in individual decision making and reduces freedom of choice. People choosing retirement earlier will be little affected but anyone choosing to work past that age (62) bears the risk of reduced incomes and benefits.

The issue of increasing the retirement age has never once failed to evoke negative political sentiments towards the state. But these people are not seeing the forest for the trees. They accept the present situation as given, as something expected and required. They do not question the necessity and morality of a legal retirement age.

The recently enacted Retirement and Re-employment Act is yet another deceptive tool for the state to exercise control over the economy and the people. By attempting to engineer labour supply, the state distorts the labour market. Any resultant shortage is then typically attributed to the “laziness” of Singaporeans not working longer for the country’s future or persistently low birth rates.

Had the retirement age served any purpose, it would have been a fixed number with little change over decades. The arbitrary shifting of numbers displays nothing but policy hesitancy and ignorance. That the retirement age has been increasing from 55 through to 62-5 points to an imperfect system, yet the state still persists with the status quo. If the argument provided for a retirement age is that other countries have similar statutes, well the response would be that nothing is morally justified by numbers.

If the state does not have a “20/20 vision” of the future, the best option is to stay out and do nothing. Unfortunately, to ask any state to do nothing is akin to asking for the moon. It will hardly happen, if ever. There is a higher probability discovering oil in Singapore than having the government stay out of our affairs totally.

Is individual sovereignty any less important than the needs of the state? Should the state have the right to legislate when people ought to retire? The state may have the political authority through the electoral process, but the people should not be political obliged to blindly obey. People are morally obliged not to commit crimes such as murder, but they are only politically obliged to contribute to CPF, for instance, by threat of force. There is a huge difference.

Henry David Thoreau once said: “That government is best which governs least.” Not only does the Singapore government govern much but they perversely believe it to be the best for the country and its people, a syncretistic ideal wholly unbelievable and most laughable for its ardent audacity and idiosyncrasy.

Can government with all its inefficiency and red tape bureaucracy really create the personal utopia of every citizen? All the state does is stifle individual dynamism with rules and regulations in the name of a hypothetical greater good. How is that ever the best, if beneficial at all? In terms of a greater good benefiting the majority, how is it morally justified for 51% to benefit at the expense of 49%? It can never be.

In a one-size-fit-all policy, there will always be many minorities unable to draw any benefit and may in most cases, even be disadvantaged. The solution is extraordinarily simple. We eliminate such possibilities by allowing people to make their own decisions privately. There is no need for the state to intervene. Only then will people ever be free of the state’s presence and shadow, able to make decisions best suited to their needs and wants.

Benedict Chong

TRS Contributor

In Singapore it is quite easy to tell the person behind the public mask. ‘Tell’ as in discovering who he is. Not advising him or giving him information for his own good or the good of the public. That it can’t be done: they are deaf to all criticisms. They have constantly, proudly and publicly, ever so just in case you have the mistaken notion they are receptive to suggestions.

In our country we have the elites and the rest. The elites never make any mistakes and the rest is incapable of not making mistakes. This is the narrative sold to the public by the people who earns ten times more than the leader of the greatest power on earth with a population that is 100 times larger: USA.

Don’t get me wrong when these unearthly people – they must be since they are sinless and incapable of making any mistakes in life – step on the wrong toes they do apologize. They are capable of being politically correct and making all the right sound bites. They may even cry publicly. But you have to wonder whether they are crying because they are afraid of losing their job or they see the errors of their way. In English those tears are called crocodile tears. Personally, I wouldn’t put it that way as it would be giving crocodiles a bad name. Crocodiles eat because they have to live. Our sinless leaders live to eat and will consume any free lunch.

Recently, SIA got into international hot soup gloating over Malaysian Airlines MH17 tragedy: Malaysian Airlines lost one of its plane after it was allegedly shot down by Russian surface to air missile. SIA was laughing Malaysian Airlines is so dumb and incompetent to be flying in a war zone and gotten its plane shot down from the sky. Gloating over other people’s misfortunes and tragedies is not cricket.

I guess our elites can’t help themselves. It is their nature. It is their only joy in life since they can’t find joy in accomplishments other than earning money the easy way through gerrymandering and absolute control of all media: public or otherwise.

Initially, SIA reported that they do not fly over the war zone where MH17 met its untimely demise. The manner they reported it in their Facebook could only be construed as gloating over another’s misfortune with strong hints they are not so dumb to make such an obvious mistake. All hell broke lose when the international audience pointed out the fact of the matter was that SIA actually flew in the same war zone and SQ351 was only 25km apart from MH17. SQ351 is serviced by Boeing 777-200, a twin-jet model doing 466 knots or 863 kph. At a distance of 25km this translate into 1 minute and 44 seconds. In other words SIA was only 1 minute 44 seconds away from disaster.

SIA’s faux pas, gaffe, gaucherie, blooper, solecism, boo-boos has a life of its own. It evolved from a culture of hubris initiated by leaders who earn obscene amount of money effortlessly, since they hardly ever show up for work, and have no fear of ever losing their job because they keep moving the goal posts while constantly declaring aloud they are honorable people who only wanted a level playing field. The initial blunder of adopting a holier than thou attitude towards other people’s unhappy situation and mistakes – after being exposed as callous at best and immorally fraudulent at worst – degenerated into the typical damage limitation exercise by people who proudly and regularly announce they are deaf to all criticisms.

And the best media for such a public relation stunt: none other than Straits Times, the official mouthpiece of the incumbent.

On 23rd July 2014, aviation correspondent Karamjit Kaur wrote a piece entitled “SIA ‘avoided parts of Ukraine airspace’ before crash”. I find it strange that she has been identified as an aviation expert. On what basis she is classified as such is not explained or enunciated. The obvious strategy is to influence the readers that she is an expert in her field and her views should be respected. The headline is a complete fraud. SIA actually flew in the same airspace and was only 1 minute and 44 seconds away from disaster.

The article started with a literal truth: “SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA), which has been criticised for flying over Ukraine before Thursday’s Malaysia Airlines crash, has confirmed that it had been avoiding parts of the country’s airspace even before the incident.”

The first four paragraphs of the article in question is a more advertorial than professional journalism.

The second paragraph noted that “It is this same area that the United States Federal Aviation Administration had banned its carriers from flying over in April.” So SIA is trying to give the public the impression that it is complying with international standard by declaring it is adhering to United States Federal Aviation Administration standard. The writer, a so-called aviation expert failed to mention that other international agencies like those in Europe have strongly advised against flying in the said war zone corridor.

Selective choice of rules to follow is the usual baggage of tricks employed by the incumbent to fool the public.

The third paragraph is classic: “But SIA had flown over other parts of the war-torn country, including the area where flight MH17 went down, where there were no restrictions against commercial flights, the carrier said.” It noted that SIA did fly in the war-torn country but quickly added there were no restrictions against commercial flights. They were advised not to fly there by European and International Aviation Agencies but they chose to do so because it is fuel saving and this would create more profits for SIA which is mainly owned by Temasek Holdings.

Noticed that more profits mean all the stakeholders would also benefit financially.

The two stakeholders that benefitted the most financially from a profitable SIA are Temasek Holdings (Pte) with 55.92% stake and DBS Nominees Pte Ltd with 9.36% stake. These two companies are owned by the Singapore government and they are also the largest shareholders of SIA. The senior positions in SIA are controlled by people with links to the incumbent’s higher echelon. Profits at all cost is their raison d’etre as long as they don’t have to bear the cost.

To add support to SIA’s defence that there are no laws expressly forbidding flights over the war-zone the writer wrote “Still, it also said it voluntarily avoids flying over some other parts of the world, even though the areas are open to its aircraft. It did not specify these areas.”

This fourth paragraph is trying to portray SIA in a good light by claiming it is a sane organisation that put the safety of the passengers first by not flying over dangerous areas although such areas are open to its aircraft. At all time you will note it is defending itself by claiming others are doing it: unfortunately others are not on trial here. Then it claimed there are occasions it didn’t take advantage of safety rules when it could.

SIA is utilising the usual tool of deception used to fool the gullible Singapore public for years: to be precise, 50 years. It is literally true that SIA had been avoiding other parts of Ukraine’s airspace before the incident. What is not disclosed and left unsaid is those other parts of Ukraine’s airspace is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The truth of the matter is SIA was flying in the same dangerous corridor that MH17 was flying in. You only get this information if you read carefully and has read widely prior to imbibing this propaganda piece initiated by unknown faces after being caught red handed in Facebook.

Even then it was implicit and you would notice that SIA still doesn’t admit that it was flying in the same corridor as MH17 and was only 25 km or 1 minute and 44 seconds away from disaster. It hinted here and there but no direct admission of guilt. It is very similar to the Japanese way of apologising for the atrocities they committed in Second World War: they very much regretted their action. Of that we are all quite sure. All losers, be it in war or love, will regret some or all of their actions. They regretted they didn’t succeed at it.

The first four paragraphs sounded like it was written by the public relation department of SIA. The actual reply by SIA is a classic exercise in obfuscation that has PAP DNA written all over it.

SIA replied that “decisions on the use of airspace are made based on numerous factors.” This is stating the obvious. Then it added these factors include “weather, safety and security conditions, advisories from international and regional bodies, and any restrictions that may be imposed by the national authorities responsible for the safety of the airspace”. Again stating the obvious as if the public need an education in standard operating procedures of the airlines.

The crux of the matter is SIA SQ351 was in that particular war-zone where it was only 1 minute and 44 seconds away from a national disaster of epic proportion. The writer, hell bent on portraying SIA in a good light, wrote it wasn’t only SIA that was flying there but other airlines were also doing it. More to the point SIA was the heaviest user of the said war-zone route a week before the crash. As a passing mention she admitted other carriers have taken a wide berth and not only avoided the war-zone but avoided Ukraine entirely.

Also, the Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) clearly advised avoidance of Ukraine’s airspace weeks before MH17 was shot down. SIA didn’t obey the European nation’s misgiving on Ukraine’s airspace because they had an incentive not to do so: more profits on fuel saving. Also, SIA can always fall back on the excuse Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) didn’t restrict them on flight operation in that area. Basically, CAAS didn’t consider it unsafe when European authorities has recommended avoiding the Crimea area since April.

In the same breath she tried to justify SIA’s position by claiming “For those airlines that did not use Ukrainian airspace at all, it is possible they did not need to do so when flying the most direct route, aviation experts said.” This really take the cakes as it would be silly mentioning other carriers were avoiding the airspace when it doesn’t even have flights in the area in the first place. Only a convoluted mind with a constant eye fixed on providing excuses for every mistakes made can raise such a flimsy justification. And you know what kind of people indulges in such skulduggery!

Casting aspersions is the tool of trade for people who are deaf to all criticisms!

By claiming many other airlines such as Germany’s Lufthansa and Air India avoided only the closed airspace the writer implied that Lufthansa and Air India is as guilty as SIA who was 1 minute and 44 seconds away from a colossal mega blunder brought firth by greed of epic proportion. In fact Lufthansa’s security desk has 12 people who oversee a four-step risk analysis process that includes mapping general risks and assessing probability of their planes being shot down and since April Lufthansa had not only been avoiding the Crimean region, but also removed some airports in Ukraine from its alternative list of airports for emergency use. In short the writer has maligned and defamed Lufthansa.

The last paragraph quoted The International Air Transport Association (IATA). It is a ruse to hide behind an international aviation organisation claiming it didn’t forbid it from flying in the said war-zone. The organisation doesn’t dictate where aircraft can or cannot fly but will advise against flying in dangerous territories: which it did. It is governments and air navigation service providers that tell carriers the routes they can fly, and with what restrictions. I guess SIA selectively chose which government authority and which navigation service provider to adhere to for its own convenience and benefits.

The writer ended the article by quoting IATA’s chief executive and director Tony Tyler saying: “It is very similar to driving a car. If the road is open, you assume that it is safe. If it’s closed you find an alternative route.”

I am at a loss for words: driving and flying are two completely different activities much like night and day. In the air there is no such thing as a closed road. There are no roads to begin with. The weatherman can warn carriers there is a thunderstorm ahead and it is up to the carrier to avoid it by rerouting or take a risk by going through it. If the carrier took the risk and it resulted in the plane going down with all lives lost I don’t think the relatives of the deceased would take kindly to being fobbed off with the excuse the aircraft flew within recognised legal limits and too bad, accidents happen.

I am quite sure if it really happened and SIA were involved the ‘accidents happen’ excuse would be proffered together with a statement claiming SIA has followed all rules diligently.

We are a nation of excuse givers because we have 50 years of indoctrination it is the right thing when something goes wrong. We are deaf to all criticisms!

Apolitical

A friend brought to my attention the following article which made troubling reading.

Sevki started playing in the S-league 12 years ago, when he represented Sembawang Rangers. He then moved to the Young Lions during his NS days, where he was a bit part player. Thereafter he moved to Gombak United for 3 seasons where he enjoyed his best spell to date. He was even  made club captain. He also earned his first national cap during the period. He then moved to Geylang United in 2010 but picked up a serious injury that curtailed his career. Eventually he moved on the Lions XII team, that took part in the Malaysia Cup after an 18 year absence.This concerns former Lions XII and national defender, Sevki Sha’ban, who represented Home United FC since last year. He was unceremoniously dismissed over a week ago without any compensation. What’s troubling is the dismissal coincides with the Ramadan period and the upcoming Hari Raya Puasa. As a Malay-Muslim, this is the biggest festival of the year. What’s even worse is that he was dismissed without any form of compensation.

Player background

Just when things were looking up for him, he suffered an anterior cruciate injury in October 2012. This also curtailed his national team career and he missed out on the team’s triumphant Suzuki Cup triumph in December that year. However he managed to recover and signed a 2 year contract with Home United at the beginning of the season last year. He forced his way back into the team and played in the Singapore Cup Final last year, which Home won.

His current predicament

His problems began this year when Home appointed South Korean Lee Lim Saeng as head coach. Sevki fell down the pecking order and has not played a single game this season. His relationship with the coach soured so badly that he wasn’t even allowed to train to with the team. He was eventually dismissed on grounds of ‘unsatisfactory work and under-performance’, as stated in a cryptic club statement.

He was told he was free to leave last month during the transfer window but rejected a lower paying offer by Hougang United. The window has since closed and he’s unable to sign for any other club until the new season. He cannot also represent Lions XII in the Malaysia Cup because that competition’s window has also closed.

As such he’s left in limbo now, and with Hari Raya beckoning, the father of 3 has little or no means to provide for his family other than depend on his wife and family members. He’s now seeking the FAS help to grant him a reprieve and allow him to sign for another club.

The troubling issue

The troubling issue here is the rather callous and heartless manner in which Home United went about in dismissing him. Some may say, ‘Why didn’t he take up the offer by Hougang United?’ or ‘surely he must have known the writing was on the wall ever since he was dropped from training even?’ Perhaps he was a bit naïve but that’s beside the point. The point is – when you sign a contract, you expect it to be honoured, even if you’re surplus to requirements. Or if really there’s a desire to remove you, then compensation must be given, if not in full, at least a portion of it. Home United did neither. Even blogger Roy Ngerng received a month’s salary after being dismissed by TTSH.

If Home found his performance unsatisfactory, then they should have told him as such much earlier, encouraged him to find another club and warned him of the possibility of getting sacked. No such warnings were given. And surely they would have realised that as a Malay Muslim, Hari Raya would soon beckon and just dismissing him like that, is rather heartless. How would Lee or any official in the club feel if they were dismissed suddenly, just as their biggest cultural and religious event was about to begin? Couldn’t they see that as a father he would be called upon to bear the costs of the celebrations especially for his 3 young children? Couldn’t they wait until after Hari Raya to dismiss him?

Sevki’s case is not the first, this is just the latest in a long line of dismissals by local clubs, where players who get injured or dropped, are unceremoniously dismissed without any form of compensation. With such short notice, that leaves them with little or no options. Some people without understanding on how professional football operates may take the view, ‘Hey, what’s he complaining so much about, he should be lucky that he can earn a salary by playing a sport or a hobby!’

That’s not correct, a fulltime sportsman has to sacrifice a lot. Just go try running and kicking the ball for 30 minutes and see how ‘pancit’ (out of breath) you are. What more players playing at a much higher level for 90 minutes. Sevki like others had to train super hard to maintain his fitness and he had to sacrifice the best part of his youth in order to play football. He had to forgo any future education or work experience the past 12 years, not to mention face the prospect of a career ending injury.

Analysis/Conclusion

We often read of the FAS saying how it wants to promote football here and build a strong team in the future, not to mention to make the S-League one of Asia’s best. But the first step in doing that must be to ensure that football is a viable and somewhat secure career. They cannot allow clubs to tear up contracts as when they please, especially when players get injured. They must ensure that contracts are honoured, and adequate compensation is offered when it isn’t.

The FAS makes a lot of noise about wiping out match-fixing which was prevalent here in the recent past. But if you don’t ensure players are paid properly, it only gives match-fixers a great opening to entice these players in a large money-making scheme. They can cite Sevki and others before him, who were unceremoniously sacked with little or nothing to fall back on. Although I have no evidence, former match fixers I spoke to believe that some degree of fixing is still going on. These they allege is done by players themselves, who realise they need to have some back-up plan or finance should their career end suddenly. Not all of them can go into coaching or some other sports related job. Most are not highly educated and have no relevant job experience to fall back on, other than football, which counts for squat in the working world. As said this is just hearsay, but poorly or unpaid players are a fertile ground for match-fixers. If the FAS doesn’t do something to address this, then they shouldn’t be surprised if another major match-fixing scandal engulfs the S-league sooner or later.

Finally, we must take Home United to task as well. As a club representing the Home Team, the dismissal of a player without compensation, indirectly portrays the organisation as uncaring. And the failure to be emphatic to a player or person about to celebrate his primary festival of the year, make Home United look like a heartless and callous employer. The manner and timing of Sevki’s dismissal is deplorable and Home United deserve to be roundly criticised and taken to task for their actions in this unfortunate affair for Sevki.

Sir Nelspruit

*The author blogs at  Anyhow Hantam.

CPF(no)Life scheme – 18% CPF members aged above 55 dead before reaching 65

Is the CPF Life scheme for the living? According to ICA statistics, the answer is clearly ‘no’. Every year, almost 3,000 Singapore residents will be dead before they can even receive one cent from their monthly payout at 65. (a negligible number in ICA statistics non-residents)

(Table 39, page 59)

And out of the total of 16,213 aged 55 and above in 2013:
- 23% or 3,870 between 65 and 74 will only be able to spend their CPF installments between 1 day and 10 years.

The 32% who die between the age of 75 to 84 may seem luckier. But think again – why are we unable to enjoy the fruits of our labour at an earlier age with friends and loved ones when we are in a better emotional, mental and physical state? How did we end up with the PAP trampling over our rights to OUR money?

Since the PAP has forced our CPF savings into the GIC and paying us non-guaranteed monthly installments, it has effectively dictated to us how/when our money could be spent. No deserved holiday/pilgrimage after slogging away for decades nor are we allowed to use OUR savings for children’s tertiary education or other NEEDS.

As for the remaining 27% octo-/nonagenarians and centenarians, what can they use the monthly dribs and drabs for? Upgrading walking sticks or hearing aids?

Conclusion

Thousands of CPF members die every year before they could receive even a single payout from CPF Life at 65. A large number who receive their monthly installments may be frail by then and can only engage in limited activities. The PAP did not consult citizens on such a scheme and clearly it does not serve the living. Shouldn’t the scheme be renamed ‘CPFnoLIFE’?

Phillip Ang

*The writer blogs at  likedatosocanmeh

The following is an extract of what was reported on CNA whereby Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has replied Roy: 

Blogger Roy Ngerng, who attended the forum, asked DPM Tharman several questions, including whether Temasek Holdings had managed CPF monies prior to the establishment of GIC and why GIC did not know if it was investing CPF funds. A full of transcript of their exchange follows:

Mr Ngerng: Now that we know that the CPF is invested in the GIC, is it also possible to know what is the interest earned in SG terms since inception? Secondly, Temasek Holdings has said that they do not invest our CPF, is it possible to know if in the past Temasek Holdings had invested our CPF? Because the GIC was only set up in 1981, so prior to 1981, how was the CPF used and otherwise was it invested in Temasek Holdings? Thirdly, how much has the Government earned in absolute monetary terms from the excess returns of the CPF and will the Government consider returning some of them to Singaporeans? Finally, the GIC has said before June this year that they do not know if they invest our CPF because it is not made explicit to them – they said this on the GIC FAQ. But the Government made an about-turn in June this year and admitted that they do. So in the interest of public interest, is it possibly to know why the Government made an about-turn? It might also be intriguing because the Government is also on the board of the GIC, so it would be insightful to know why. Thank you.

DPM Tharman: I’ll start with Roy Ngerng’s points. First, a few factual matters; you asked some factual questions. Did Temasek manage the CPF funds in the past? No. It has never managed CPF funds. Temasek started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at time of inception. I don’t have the exact figure in my head – but about $400 million dollars worth of assets in the form of a set of companies. It has never received CPF monies to invest.

What was the case in the early days, before we amended the constitution in 1992, is that CPF monies, which were invested in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), could be used by the Government to finance infrastructure - such as road infrastructure, Singapore’s economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. Just like (other) Singapore Government Securities (SGS), the Government was allowed to use borrowings in addition to the revenues it got in its budget, to finance infrastructural investments. That was the old system.

That changed in 1992. Together with Constitutional amendments, we introduced the new Government Securities Act, which disallowed the Government from using borrowings for spending. From then onwards, all borrowings - the SGS, SSGS - have had to be invested.

How are they invested? Prior to the formation of the GIC, it was the MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore). It was an old-fashioned, central bank investment system. Dr Goh (Keng Swee) changed that, explained why, explained that these are basically longer-term assets, and we should invest them for the longer term. And a significant chunk of reserves that were managed by the MAS were passed back to the Government, which then had the GIC manage them.

So that was the system in the old days; the MAS manages the CPF assets, but after the GIC was set up in the early 1980s, it was essentially the GIC that manages CPF assets - but not as CPF assets. It is managing Government assets: managing all Government assets put together.

Which brings me to the next question about whether GIC knows it is managing CPF assets. GIC knows it is managing Government assets. That is the Government’s mandate for the GIC. The mandate is irrespective of the sources of funds it manages, which comprise the SSGS, the SGS, Government surpluses, the proceeds from land sales - all Government funds.

And the GIC (hence) pays no regard to what the source of funds is. It just has to meet its mandate: to invest for the long term, take risks, in the hope of achieving good long-term returns, significantly about global inflation.

And that is a real strength of our system. The real strength of our system is that besides the CPF, we have unencumbered Government assets – Government assets that don’t have liabilities like the CPF. And the GIC is therefore able to invest, blind to where the funds come from. It’s able to invest the whole pool of funds for the long term. If the GIC was just managing CPF funds as a CPF fund manager, it would be managed quite differently. To provide a guaranteed interest rate of four to five per cent of the Special Account, or 2.5 to 3.5 per cent of the Ordinary Account, capital guaranteed and interest rate guaranteed, it would be a very different fund that it would be managing.

It would be invested largely in bond securities, and earning returns that are very different from what it is able to earn by investing for the long term in higher-risk assets. Plus, it would mean the interest rates that the Government has committed to would be unsustainable, because it is no longer possible to earn these interest rates on a guaranteed basis, using a bond portfolio. It’s very difficult.

So the GIC manages a pool of Government assets, irrespective of sources of the funds. It is the Government that then takes the risk. The Government takes the risk that the performance of the GIC from year to year, sometimes even over five-year periods, may not be adequate for it to meet commitments to the CPF. But the Government balance sheet takes the risk to ensure that we can meet those commitments.

And that’s the strength of the system. The strength of the system is we have assets that exceed our liabilities, that enable us to meet our commitments. And that’s why we’re not just triple-A-rated, but we’re able to provide CPF members with a very fair return on a guaranteed basis.

That’s the system. For the GIC as the manager, it is blind to the sources of funds, because of our strength of having assets significantly in excess of liabilities. GIC managers do not need to know exactly where the funds come from because that’s not part of their mandate. There’s no mystery to that.

Next question had to do with excess returns. The GIC publishes five-year, 10-year, 20-year returns. You can look at the returns, and they are easily computed into Singapore dollars. Over the last five years it earned 0.5 per cent in Singapore dollar terms, over the last 10 years it earned five per cent in Singapore dollar terms, over the last 20 years it earned five per cent in Singapore dollar terms. So those are the facts, but that’s not returns gained from investing CPF monies. That’s returns gained from investing all Government assets including the unencumbered assets; it’s returns gained from investing in higher-risk portfolios for the long term. If it was just CPF monies, it will be a different portfolio and a different set of returns. Every serious financial professional knows that.

- CNA/xy

I have to keep this long passage here before it gets amended or deleted. There are a few contradictory and nonsensical points here in Tharman's reply and I expect political parties to point them out in this important National debate over CPF issue.

Tharman has basically contradicted himself a couple of times in this reply as well as obfuscated the primary issue of how our CPF money is managed and who is supposed to be responsible for our CPF money.

He is basically saying, we have your money, put it somewhere call GIC but everybody should pretend it doesn't exist there!

I shall touched on his nonsensical remarks made above but for the mean time, you can try to spot his follies before I write about it in my next article.

Goh Meng Seng

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

Very interesting Parliamentary debate on CPF in 2007

19 September, 2007

CPF REFORMS AND OTHER MEASURES TO SECURE RETIREMENT

Mr Ong Kian Min:

I cannot understand how the Government can say it will not be responsible for providing for my retirement but I must lend the Government my retirement savings for investments and any gains earned on my money is not my money.  It is not the Government’s as well, but it is up to the Government to decide how best to use it because the Government knows best.

Sir, in calling for higher CPF returns, what I am basically asking is whether the Government would share a portion of the returns it makes with the individual CPF members from whose money the Government has invested and made money.

Ms Sylvia Lim:

Getting funds on the cheap from CPF and investing these funds wisely to get better returns to supplement our national budget has helped Singapore to build up its infrastructure, fund different social programmes and build up a fairly substantial amount of reserves over the years since independence.

The question that we should ask is whether the time has now come when we should wean the Government of cheap funds and to rely on careful management and harvesting of investment income of our present reserves to meet the future budgetary requirements. Can and should the Government do more than just to peg the returns on our CPF accounts to just long-term bond yields?

18 September, 2007

CPF REFORMS AND OTHER MEASURES FOR A SECURE RETIREMENT

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Minister has said that the improved returns on the new CPF interest rate will help the people to purchase the annuity, we have just heard from the Minister that 78% of our CPF members could not meet the Minimum Sum requirement in their CPF accounts.  In fact, many Singaporeans, particularly housewives and those who are in the low-income group, do not even have the Minimum Sum in their CPF account. How are they going to purchase the annuity?

Dr Lily Neo: CPF interest rates have been nil in real terms in past years.  How viable is it for CPF investments in Government bonds to be hedged with other investment vehicles which yield higher returns and 100% capital preservation?  GIC, for example, achieved an average 8.2% per annum (in S$ terms) or 9.5% per annum (in US$ terms) returns on its reserves over the last 25 years.  In this regard, could the CPF Board consider working with GIC and perhaps peg the interest rates at 2 percentage points below GIC’s returns?

Mr Siew Kum Hong: The 2002 paper (Asian Development bank) I referred to said:

“This arrangement has not provided members with high enough real returns to capture the power of compound interest.  To the extent the Government earns a higher rate of return on the CPF funds than what it pays to members, there is an implicit tax on CPF wealth.  This tax is likely to be fairly large and regressive, as low-income members are likely to have most of their non-housing wealth in the form of CPF balances.”

That paper went on to state:

“To the extent that the [GIC's] return on investments has been higher than the return actually credited to CPF members, a recurrent, highly regressive, large implicit tax on the CPF wealth has been borne by CPF members.”

Madam, how much has this contributed to the situation in which we now find ourselves, with an ageing population with insufficient retirement savings?  And if we do not rectify this, are we not perpetuating this undesirable state of affairs?

S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian

P.S. Come with your family and friends to the 3rd Return Our CPF – HDB protest on 23 August 4 pm to 6.30 pm at Speakers’ Corner https://www.facebook.com/events/648543138548193/

If any principal or teacher dares tell their pupils, “There are many ways of being smart”, then I’m confident of S’pore’s future, even if the PAP maintains its hegemony.

A letter sent to pupils at a Lancashire primary school along with their key stage two test results has gone viral on social media sites.

The letter to pupils at Barrowford Primary School in Nelson told them the tests do not always assess what makes them “special and unique”.

The letter reads:

Please find enclosed your end of KS2 test results. We are very proud of you as you demonstrated huge amounts of commitment and tried your very best during this tricky week.

However, we are concerned that these tests do not always assess all of what it is that make each of you special and unique. The people who create these tests and score them do not know each of you… the way your teachers do, the way I hope to, and certainly not the way your families do.

They do not know that many of you speak two languages. They do not know that you can play a musical instrument or that you can dance or paint a picture.

They do not know that your friends count on you to be there for them or that your laughter can brighten the dreariest day. They do not know that you write poetry or songs, play or participate in sports, wonder about the future, or that sometimes you take care of your little brother or sister after school.

They do not know that you have travelled to a really neat place or that you know how to tell a great story or that you really love spending time with special family members and friends.

They do not know that you can be trustworthy, kind or thoughtful, and that you try, every day, to be your very best… the scores you get will tell you something, but they will not tell you everything.

So enjoy your results and be very proud of these but remember .

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-28319907

Somehow I doubt if any principal here would send this letter, or any teacher  even think about thinking about “there are many ways of being smart”, even though the education minister talks the talk of holistic education. The principals and teachers would fear being sacked or “marked”.

Easier for pigs to fly or Maruah and other middle class kay pohs to call for the release of Dan Tan from detention without trial.

Even in the UK, the principal had to deny that the letter was telling pupils that test scores did not matter.

“We never give pupils the message that academic attainment isn’t important – what we do is celebrate that we send really independent, confident, articulate learners on to the next stage of their school career.”

BTW, the school is a good school. The exam results of its pupils are good.

Cynical Investor

*The writer blogs at http://atans1.wordpress.com/

Visitors to Singapore can’t help being dazzled by Asia’s only global city. Marina Bay. Sentosa Island. Botanical Gardens. Temples. Museums. Casinos. Luxury hotels. Shopping on Orchard Road and lots more.

But scratching below the surface reveals a system struggling for survival.

Singapore was not born to authoritarian government led by Lee Kuan Yew, despite his now almost divine status. Some argue that the late 1950s and early 1960s was a golden era for Singaporean democracy.

Many of the foundations of Singapore’s current society, like the Central Provident Fund and the Housing & Development Board, were established then.

The end of an era

This period came to an abrupt end in 1963 with “Operation Coldstore” by which Lee eliminated his political opposition. Over 100 members of Barisan Sosialis were arrested and detained on the false pretext that they were part of a communist conspiracy.

Singapore’s 1965 expulsion from a two-year union with Malaysia was an emotional shock for Lee Kuan Yew and his People’s Action Party (PAP). But once Lee got over that, he led the city state on a miraculous journey of authoritarian capitalism.

In the space of four decades, Singapore’s economy has risen to become one of the world’s most advanced, with virtually the highest GDP per capita in Asia, if not the world. However, despite its flashy hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure is a weak point. This shows up in poor creativity and innovation performance.

Several key ingredients makeup the Singapore policy cocktail.

Open trade and investment. Education and a strong work ethic. Migrants for both high skilled and low skilled jobs, interestingly, Singaporeans typically slot into the middle of the labor market in their home country. And a strong guiding hand of government. Singapore might practice the rule of law, but only one party determines the law.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.theglobalist.com/dazzling-singapores-deep-contradictions/

We would like to thank Sgcynic for his message alerting us to something in the CPF web site which we have never seen before.

No cash withdrawal unless both CPF and Medisave Minimum Sums are met?

“On or after 1 Jan 2013
Cash balances can only be withdrawn after setting aside both the CPF Minimum Sum and Medisave Minimum Sum”

Minimum Sum has effectively been raised to $198,500?

- This effectively raises the Minimum Sum to $198,500 (Minimum Sum $155,000 plus Medisave Minimum Sum $43,500), instead of what most people know – just the CPF Minimum Sum of $155,000 currently.

Was policy change announced?

In the past, only those who were able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum in full at age 55, were required to also meet the Medisave Required Amount. When was this change announced to the public or in the media, although we know now that it has been effective since 1 January 2013?

All the statistics given need to be revised?

So, does it mean that all the replies in Parliament recently, as well as the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) CPF Forum on 22 July, may need to be revised, as we understand that all the statistics given for those able to meet the Minimum Sum, do not include the Medisave Minimum Sum of $43,500?

Only 1 in 10 met Minimum Sums?

Based on this new information, we now estimate that only about 1 in 10 Singaporeans who reached 55 last year were able to meet the combined Minimum Sums of $198,500 in cash, without pledging property.

Withdrawals after 55 must top-up Minimum Sums’ shortfall first?

“Q: What is the amount that I can withdraw from my CPF account at my next withdrawal if I have made a withdrawal at 55?

A: For your next withdrawal, you can withdraw your cash balances in your Special Account and/or Ordinary Account, as well as any balance above the Medisave Minimum Sum (MMS) prevailing at the time of withdrawal in your Medisave Account (MA).

When you withdraw, you will need to set aside the CPF Minimum Sum (MS) in your Retirement Account.

However, if you have a MS shortfall, all or part of your new contributions, voluntary contributions, government top-ups and other refunds received after 55 will be used to reduce the shortfall upon your withdrawals.

Increasing MMS must also be topped-up?

If you have met the CPF MS requirement and do not have the MMS, you need to top up your MA with all or part of the balances from your Special Account and Ordinary Account to meet the MMS prevailing at the time of withdrawal.”

Increasing MMS apply no matter when you turned 55?

- “Medisave Minimum Sum (MMS) prevailing” means that no matter when you had reached 55, as the MMS increases every year, it will also apply to you. In other words, the Minimum Sums has become effectively, an ever increasing sum, and not fixed at age 55 like in the past.

Govt top-ups, workfare also eaten up?

Also, any funds that go into your CPF accounts after 55, even those from Government top-ups, Workfare, etc – will have to meet any Minimum Sum shortfall as well as the increasing prevailing MMS.

Maybe no more withdrawals for your future birthdays?

Bottom line – you may not be able to withdraw anything on each of your birthdays as you grow older, like in the past, because of this policy change.

Was this change announced to the public or in the media?

You know or don’t know?

We bet many of you didn’t know about the above – right?

S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian

P.S. Come with your family and friends to the 3rd Return Our CPF – HDB protest on 23 August 4 pm to 6.30 pm at Speakers’ Corner https://www.facebook.com/events/648543138548193/

Uniquely Singapore, F1 or F9: Parliamentary debate, then self-rebuttal? (October 15, 2007)

By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “S’pore has an edge in grooming leaders: MM – A robust system is in place here to groom a new generation of leaders” (ST, Oct 6).

Grooming leaders – MPs?

So, what has grooming the next generation of leaders got to do with members of Parliament (MPs) writing to the Straits Times forum?

MP wrote to newspaper to apologise?

Well, MP for Tampines GRC, Sin Boon Ann, wrote to the Straits Times forum on 3 October, “MP now convinced CPF funds don’t come cheap” (link) and said that:

“… it was reported that I used the word ‘cheap’ to describe CPF monies as a source of funds for the Government, in the debate in Parliament on CPF reforms.

I wish to clarify that my choice of the word was motivated by a comparison between the cost of CPF monies to the Government and the returns that the Government is able to get in the longer term through careful fund management…

I should emphasise that the word was not chosen, as some may have suggested, to imply that the Government was making money at the people’s expense.

I am glad to note that your newspaper had accurately reported my remark that any income derived from such investments has been applied for the benefit of the people of Singapore.

Having considered carefully the explanation of the Second Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, I am now satisfied and have come to the conclusion that the CPF monies, with risk-free interest guaranteed, do not represent a cheap source of funds to the Government, particularly now that the interest rate on the CPF balances has been pushed higher by the recent changes.”

MP said in Parliament – why CPF returns so low?

In this connection, another MP’s (Ong Kian Min) speech in the Parliamentary debate on CPF changes, was the “talk of the town” amongst Singaporeans.

He had made a strong rebuttal to the proposed CPF changes, particularly on the issue of why the returns on CPF are so low.

Another MP wrote to newspaper to apologise?

On 27 September, Mr Ong wrote to the Straits Times forum, to clarify the remarks he had made in Parliament.

From rarely refreshing speeches from the heart for the people by the MPs, to the (27 September) “apology like” letters in the Straits Times by the same MPs themselves – is it any wonder why some Singaporeans say that Parliamentary debate in Singapore is kind of docile, and not very lively?

Self rebuttals of MPs own remarks in Parliament?

The letters sounded almost like “self rebuttals” of the MPs’ own remarks in Parliament!

Unprecedented in Parliamentary history?

This I believe is unprecedented in Parliamentary history.

Just when we thought a new era of more open debate had arrived …. alas …..

Speaking up in Parliament?

It may indeed be a sad day for Singapore – who else will ever dare to speak up in the future?

What message are we sending to MPs and Singaporeans?

What kind of leaders are we grooming?

With reference to the articles “PAP wary of those too eager to please” and “In search of 4th-generation leaders” (ST, Oct 6), what kind of leaders are we grooming when they have to write to the Straits Times forum to clarify their own rebuttals in Parliament in debating national issues?

The whip?

The fact that the whip is seldom lifted, may be a stumbling block to diversity and alternative view points in Parliamentary sessions.

As for the issue of CPF changes itself, since it has been said that the CPF system is flawed, and that’s why there is a need for a major reform of the CPF system now, how can we be so sure that the current proposals to fix the “flaw” are perfect ?

The past policies were not perfect (flawed), how can we be sure that the new policies are perfect (not flawed too) ?

Free and unfettered debate in Parliament?

Only a free and unfettered debate in Parliament can ensure that policies are subject to comprehensive and diverse review, on a continuing basis.

P.S. Come with your family and friends to the 3rd Return Our CPF – HDB protest on 23 August 4 pm to 6.30 pm at Speakers’ Corner https://www.facebook.com/events/648543138548193/

Leong Sze Hian

To many CPF members, all they want is to get their money back at 55. What is there to tweak? To the govt, it could mean a few things. They believe they were doing all the right things and could afford to be deaf. Now when the muffler had be snatched away, they found the noise too painful to bear, and with a lot of genuine complaints that cannot be ignored, that what the govt was doing to the CPF was unacceptable. Apparently the govt is acknowledging that not all is well. 

Credit must go to Roy and Hui Hui and their team of speakers, not forgetting the protestors that spent time and money to get to Hong Lim, rain or shine. No one can keep a rotting carcass in a box forever without the stench reaching out to hit everyone. 

Now is tweaking time instead of scheming time. And the govt is going to tweak the CPF, but it is still not going to return the money to the people at 55. This part die die cannot be tweaked. So, would all the impending tweaks mean anything or change anything? 

What is the main issue? What is the main bugbear? Would the tweaking deal with the real problem, the real unhappiness of the people? 

What do you think? Roy, please tell them the truths, gently, nicely. If they don’t understand or don’t want to understand, keep repeating, keep repeating. 

The govt is still practicing selective listening. The part on returning the money at 55 is still not heard, would not be heard.

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

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

I refer to “CPF system will evolve to meet changing needs: DPM Tharman” and “CPF under review to better buffer against inflation: Manpower Minister”. Both ministers were speaking at a CPF forum organised by IPS on 22 July.

Recall we had “Our Singapore Conversation” 2 years ago where, strangely, CPF was a non issue. Now that a ‘CPF’ forum has been organised, the more important issues such as transparency and the need to consult members on their needs are ignored. The government should not forget it needs to return CPF monies to their rightful owners because it is a flawed policy.

DPM Tharman cleverly deflected the issue to one of “taking higher risks to earn higher income from investing their CPF monies”. GIC’s opacity does not seem to be a concern to DPM Tharman.

Question:
- If GIC has indeed performed remarkably well, achieving a 20-year TSR of 6.5% in USD, why are CPF members not allowed to invest directly in GIC?
- Why should Tharman even need to talk about investing in private pension plans when GIC is an established fund manager with a proven track record?

With CPF members invested directly in GIC, there will be full transparency. Is GIC afraid of this?

Tharman also said that “CPF system has served Singaporeans well” and “it is to keep the basic strengths of the CPF system”. Questions:

- If CPF has served Singaporeans well, then why are there huge shortfalls in our retirement savings?
- Why are there hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans who are unable to meet the Minimum Sum to afford a basic standard of living?

The fact is there are inherent weaknesses in the multi-purpose CPF system and that’s the reason for the current parliamentary debate. CPF’s inherent weaknesses are not its “basic strengths”.

DPM Tharman says “GIC manages a pool of assets irrespective of the sources of funds”. There are only 2 sources of funds ie CPF monies and (real) government reserves (land sales proceeds, budget surplus). There is no logic in Tharman’s explanation because CPF monies do not belong to the government, they are not Singapore’s reserves. One has to question the intent of the government for co mingling the funds and causing confusion.

As for Minister Tan Chuan Jin, he attempted to appease CPF members by saying the government “is looking at how it calculates the CPF Minimum Sum (MS) figure”. It’s good the government has woken up to its flawed calculation which should have been obvious years ago.

MS table

Some jiak liow bee civil servants attempted to pull wool over CPF members’ eyes with double inflation of the MS:

Step 1 – Increase the absolute amount from $80000 in 2003 to $120000 in 2015. This has already factored in a 50% inflation over 12 years (4% per year).
Step 2 – Add “in 2003 dollars”! (double inflation)

The government was aware there would be outrage if it had stated the MS amount will double in 12 years. The “in 2003 dollars” double inflation trick seemed to have worked for a while but has nowbackfired.

The MS increase is not limited to the OA; the MA has also increased from $25000 in 2003 to presently $$43,500. Within 12 years, CPF MA increased by a whopping 74%!

Tan Chuan Jin then engaged in fear mongering tactics by highlighting the issue of citizens living longer in future. Pertinent questions citizens are asking: Why does the government see retirees as a liability to the country after all our contributions? Where is the government’s role in taking care of the elderly? Why does the government continue to force the elderly without income to fend for themselves?

Tan says: “So when we talk about shifting goal posts, I would say it is actually not about shifting goal posts”. From delaying the withdrawal of all CPF monies at 55 to 65 to returning a very small regular percentage monthly till we expire is not shifting goal posts? Tan is clearly sleeping as thePAP shifted the goal posts years ago – outside the stadium.

Ministers Tharman and Tan are basically saying the need to maintain a broken system with band aid when CPF needs attention in the ICU. If they still do not understand our concerns, I would strongly suggest they read “TOC Policy Exchange on CPF – rethinking the system”. The discussion was attended by members of opposition parties whose views resonate with CPF members.

Conclusion

Important concerns of CPF members have been glossed over by PAP politicians. Fortunately they were highlighted by opposition political party members at the TOC Policy Exchange on CPF.

The PAP should no longer skirt the transparency issue as stakeholders demand and deserve answers. GIC must disclose all investments with CPF monies.

The PAP only wants to address CPF members’ concerns with tweaks. It should be mindful that this will only sow more distrust.

Phillip Ang

*The author blogs at http://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com

Like many of my peers, recent policy changes and reviews initiated by the PAP government will have a favourable impact on my life. The review of CPF interest rates will enhance retirement cash flows, while the removal of certain IPPT stations has save me from numerous wasted weekends as I am instantaneously propelled from being an “IPPT failure” to easily managing a silver. 

At this point in time, many may be pleasantly surprised with the PAP for taking a more pragmatic approach to governance by considering the views of the electorate. However, more analysis will reveal that there are still numerous PAP-orientated structural problems despite such tokenism concessions, while welcoming political alternatives will be good for Singapore as a whole. 

Foremost, one must see that the last time tweaks were made to these two practices were more than 15 and 32 years ago respectively despite much calls for action during in the interim. Are we expected to believe that the PAP has acted bona fide, or has this been coerced by a fear of losing political votes? Clearly, the PAP is acting out of necessity to quell public discontent. 

In this regard, a report by the committee to strengthen NS concedes that such changes were to “remain relevant” while more than 40,000 NSmen have offered feedback, highlighting clear discontent and disconnect from a considerable segment of society. Even with some tweaks to the system, such efforts remain largely insufficient to mitigate the evils of other PAP policies.

Much has been discussed about Singaporeans losing out in the workplace to foreigners. Upon further scrutiny, we see that their GE2011 promises to reduce foreigner intake is only limited to PRs and E-pass holders. In fact, there has been a marked increase in the number of semi-skilled S-pass holders by more than 35% since GE2011. Such a skewed increase is evidently unhealthy for the economy.

At an entry-level pay scale, the typical S-pass holder is almost similar in costs to a polytechnic graduate but yet offers some work experience and perhaps better educational qualifications. As a result of this mass influx, many Singaporeans at the junior management level will find it increasingly hard to compete and rise with their utility (and therefore salary) peaking much faster as compared to the absence of this group as employers do not spend much on human capital development.

Such short-sightedness by the PAP has resulted in a continuous decline in Singaporean productivity levels. By contrast, immigration policies in elsewhere are mainly geared towards high-skilled workers have a positive impact on the domestic economy: A US study found that every 100 high-skilled workers brought in resulted in 484 jobs created for locals.

Most of the issues are not unfamiliar with Singaporeans as a similar line of policy failures and flawed thinking is applied. From public transport to housing and healthcare, we have seen conditions drastically drop because of the flaws of PAP’s incompetent and misguided leadership with GDP-growth as a key priority.

For example, frequent MRT breakdowns has led to revelations that track maintenance expenditure has remained constant over the past decade while their fare revenues and profits have been on a clear uptrend. What is worse is that with fare increases to supposedly mitigate the increase in maintenance costs after the fiasco, wealth is being transferred from average commuters to shareholders.

With the political scene playing out, we also see the benefits of getting more political diversity in parliament. Because of a question from WP MP Yen Jenn Jong in 2000, we know that there are in excess of 2000 scholarships given to foreigners costing taxpayers’ at least $36 million a year. It is thanks to this very backlash that we see promises to cut down the foreign student population from 18% to 15%.

As much as one might mistakenly start to think that the PAP has begun to give the illusion of starting to care, it should become clear that such measures to change are grossly inadequate after considering public anger from other quarters. The need for a powerful opposition to keep the PAP in check is clearer than ever as the next general election looms.

J Leow

TRS Contributor

Last weekend I followed my uncle to the Mercedes show room at Hap Seng Star. He was checking out the new S class and wanted to place an order for it. When he got there he insisted that he placed a booking with one particular salesman named Kee. When I asked him why he told me this story:

A short while ago one of my uncle’s friends went to the same showroom to order the new Mercedes S-Class.

He walked into the showroom dressed in shorts and his simplest outfit. All the sales people around him ignored him. So he showed himself around and walked around the car on display.

He was ready to place a booking even without test driving the car… but there wasn’t anyone who wanted to approach him to take his booking. So finally he walked over to the other end of the showroom where the lower end Mercedes C-class were all on display.

Immediately a salesperson approached him and introduced himself as Kee. He then walked my uncle through the C-class  and all its features. Kee wasn’t the smoothest of car salesman. By the way he spoke English you could tell English probably wasn’t his first language but he knew his facts and seemed honest in his recommendations.

When Kee was done with his run down of the C-Class, my uncle’s friend finally told him that he wanted to book the higher end flagship S-Class right there and then.

Kee looked a little disappointed and said “I”m sorry Sir I can’t sell you the S-Class. For that I need to pass you on to my colleague”.

He then later went on to explain why. My uncle can’t remember exactly why but perhaps it was something to do with Kee being a junior sales person so he wasn’t allowed to sell the higher end cars.

My uncle’s friend didn’t give up. He thought why should he give the sale and the commission then to a so-called higher ranking sales person who didn’t seem to give a damn about him when he walked in.

So he asked to see Kee’s manager. When his manager came by he said

“I want to buy the S-Class right now but I only want to buy it from Kee.  So if you don’t want to let him sell it to me, I’ll buy it from another distributor”.

Immediately the manager gave Kee the sale.

My uncle’s friend went back and told the same story to all his friends… one of them being my uncle himself who was interested to buy the car. So my uncle decided to buy it from Kee.

I loved this story because it’s a story where the underdog wins and  it’s also on an experience that we all face too often: Being looked down upon based on what we wear into a designer store.

Now of course who knows… maybe the more senior sales people didn’t bother talking to my uncle’s friend not because they looked down on my uncle’s friend based on what he wore but maybe because they were lazy. Though I’m not sure if that’s a much better excuse.

Now here’s the second part of my story.

Before I went with my uncle to the showroom I had visited the showroom a few days before. My uncle was telling me about the new S-Class and how it’s really nice and I should go and see. So since I was passing by a few days earlier, I went to see it with no intention to buy one. I walked in with jeans and casual clothes and with Shorty.

Now Shorty and I as a couple hardly look like we can afford anything expensive let alone a Mercedes. Often we wear simplest outfits with little or no designer wear and we look like a couple of kids. Heck we even got snubbed at Thomas Sabo in Pavilion once (which is why today we maintain that we will NEVER buy anything from Thomas Sabo).

So if a relatively cheap store like Thomas Sabo could snub us… I wouldn’t blame Mercedes if they did. But Kee saw us walk in and gave us the tour like we were real customers.

Look at what Shorty wore to view the car. Even her handbag was some free cloth bag she got from buying something. I wasn’t dressed much better myself. But Kee didn’t seem to notice or care.

We left that day without buying a car from Kee but he was polite and showed us all the way to the door.

When I found out that the person my uncle’s friend was talking about was Kee… I was impressed. It wasn’t a one time thing that Kee did with my uncle’s friend. He was consistent throughout… even with me and Shorty. He doesn’t care about how you look. The minute you walk in the door you are a potential customer and he treats you like one.

This is a lesson I will continue to remind myself and my salespeople. Yes in a business point of view I understand if high-end companies focus on customers they think have a higher chance of buying. But this is a car showroom with the sales people standing around with nothing better to do anyway. I don’t really see a harm in talking to anyone who walks in the door.

So if you want to buy a Mercedes…. please look for Kee at Hap Seng Star.

Update: After posting this entry a few hours ago I decided to let Kee know that he inspired me to blog about him. So I sent him a text and this was his reply.

Pretty Cool.

I blanked out his number because I thought that maybe that second number was his personal number. The number on his name card though is the one I’ve been texting. So for the benefit of anyone who wants to buy a Mercedes from Kee, his number is +6019 383 1823.\

Update 2: This blog entry seems to have gone far more viral than I ever thought. Yesterday alone my blog saw over a 100K views and 9.2K shares. I happen to speak with Kee again since this last text and here’s what’s been going on at his side. He’s been getting tons of calls for people looking to buy cars from him and he’s really thankful for that. One thing he did me to clarify was that the first story that my uncle told me about his friend actually happened a long time ago. Like 5 years ago. In any case my uncle remembered this story and ended up buying a car from Kee anyway. Anyway Kee is grateful for all the support and nice comments you guys have given him 

Timothy Tiah

*The author is the Co-founder of Nuffnang and ChurpChurp. *Article first appeared on his personal blog http://www.timothytiah.com/

Written by: Ian Tan

When I was 13, I couldn’t do a pull-up and I was in despair.

I had joined the National Cadet Corps as my extra-curricular activity and being able to do pull-ups like a real adult in the army was a big deal. You were often admired if you were a “pull-up king”.

My good friends Derek, Eu Jin and Jerry appeared to have no problems doing pull-ups and I kept struggling to get my chin over the bar just once. I remember I even had a dream where I managed to do ten repetitions and I was so happy, then I woke up.

Over time, with many push-ups and help from my friends who had to keep pushing me above the bar, I earned the ability to do my first pull-up and I was over the moon… err, iron bar.

In ACJC, we joined the dragonboat team and did 45 pull-ups (3 sets of 15) daily during canteen breaks. In the army, pull-ups were easy-peasy and I never had to feel sad over not being able to conquer that iron bar again.

This week, the Singapore Armed Forces announced that it was revamping the Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) to have just three stations – 2.4km run, sit-ups and push-ups – instead of the current five. The SAF eradicated the standing broad jump, shuttle run and pull-up stations.

The Defence Minister says the change was to make the test easier to pass. The Chief of Army disagrees, saying it was to make the test easier to train for. What we can all agree on is that the Gahmen continues to flunk at basic public relations when it cannot be consistent with the right message.

A lot of people have opinions on the IPPT changes. My personal take is that it’s a real cop-out and a poor case of problem solving by the SAF to solve the high failure rate in the IPPT test.

It has also effectively killed off the pull-up, an exercise which has caused much pain, and perhaps joy, with us SG guys.

Solving the wrong problems

I don’t know the actual numbers (and the media didn’t even know how to focus on this bit), but from observation alone over the past decade, the camps have been swelling with too many people taking Remedial Training (RT) after failing their tests.

Even during my own reservist training, there were years when nearly half my company of guys in their 20s would fail their annual in-camp test.

High failure rate means a lot of money and time being spent by the SAF to conduct RT sessions for tens of thousands of NSmen. Giving out monetary awards for getting a pass grade ($100) didn’t work either in reducing failure rates.

To make things even worse, the SAF made it a 9-mth window instead of 12-mth window for one to take their test each year, causing much more grief among NSmen.

So rather than truly understand why is it that failure rates were going up, the SAF decided to lower its physical fitness standards. No matter what their logic is – 3 stations is obviously easier than 5 stations.

Of course, they will deny this all the way but you can read between the lines of the story misalignment between the minister and COA.

Read the rest of the article here: http://iantan.org/2014/07/the-death-of-the-pull-up-in-singapore/ 

I read the news today that Rebecca Loh, the woman who pushed her disabled nine-year-old son out of a window, would plead guilty to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Though she was diagnosed as suffering from post-schizophrenic depression at the time and has a history of schizophrenic illness, IMH still judged her fit to stand.

We need answers to the following questions:

1. Why was Rebecca left to fend for herself with a nine-year old son who suffered from osteoporosis and numerous other debilitating conditions? The report says that she did not intend to kill her son only wanted him injured so that he would be taken to a home.
2. Was there a social worker assigned to her case by MSF?
3. As she had a history of schizophrenia and police had been called to her mother’s flat on several occasions when she had beaten and strangled her mother, why was the child not put on an “At Risk” register as in other countries like the UK? She had also been arrested for threatening a stall holder with a chopper in 2011.
4. What help did the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) provide? Rebecca should have been entitled to close to $1000 a month from Public Assistance as her mother was earning below $1700 a month. Perhaps because she lived with her mother MSF deemed her ineligible for assistance? When foreigners write about our Government being stingy they assume that the levels of assistance they promise to provide are in fact provided. However they are not aware that this is frequently not the case. Our bureaucracy seems especially skilled at denying those in need the help to which they are entitled
5. Why do we not provide Special Assistants to disabled children like Rebecca’s son so that they are able to attend school? Again this would be the case in most first world countries. Her son’s disabilities were physical not mental.

Unfortunately the questions will not be answered now that Rebecca has pleaded guilty. In other advanced countries there would be outcries against the social workers and the Ministry responsible for letting this happen. The role of MSF and the social workers (if any) has not been examined. An incident like this would also normally lead to changes in policy to ensure that this does not happen again. There would be a public inquiry. Yet this has been quietly brushed under the carpet.

Lee Kuan Yew after all is well known to be a supporter of eugenics and his philosophy is embodied in such policies as providing financial incentives to poor women and single mother “who keep their families small” with free family planning through the HOPE scheme..

 Recently we have been working to help another woman in a similar situation to Rebecca Loh. I first met Madam S while conducting block visits with my volunteers in Radin Mas. Since the 1980s she has been the sole carer and provider for her son who suffered severe brain injuries as the result of a hit-and-run car accident. Her son was seven when he was injured but now is in his mid-thirties. As a result of his injuries he has a range of disabilities, both physical and mental, is an epileptic and unable to work.

The driver of the vehicle was never caught and it is not clear what compensation Madam S received, if any, from the special fund set up by insurers to compensate the victims of hit-and-run accidents. Madam S has been unable to work for years as she has to look after her son full-time and is in any case too old to work now.

At the time I first met her she seemed quite cheerful despite her sad story and  hard life challenges. She asked to have a photo taken with me and I gave her my contact details to get a copy of that photo. A few days ago  she phoned me to say that her situation had deteriorated and she was feeling quite desperate. She was particularly concerned that had no money to buy food or new clothes for Hari Raya.   She had been suffering from asthma attacks which really needed hospitalization but this was a luxury she could not afford as she had full-time care of her son.

When I saw her she seemed in a very bad way and far from the happy smiling woman of the first photo. I asked her whether she was getting help from CDC and she said no. I pointed out that she should be getting around $800 a month from Public Assistance She has been to see her MP but he does not seem to have been able to help her. She has also approached MUIS but said that MUIS were unable to give her much help.

This is where our team of volunteers and members came in aided by the power of the internet where we put out a call for help. .Thanks to our great team of volunteers and public response, we were able to put Madam S. in touch with a lovely woman called Zarina who runs a charity called 3R Sincerely and Giving. I will quote from her Facebook post:

“Just for info, I’m the admin from 3R Sincerely & Giving. We are just a small outfit currently assisting needy family and adopting few families with long-term need. We are self funding as such we won’t be able to extend large monetary to any one family. At most we can give her $200 per month till more permanent solution is found. We also do a monthly visits to our adopted family more like a befriender programme. Sometimes, we rope in their neighbors to keep an eye on them and beep us if there’s a need.

 Admittedly, we are rather stretch as we have only a small team doing the errands and currently very involve in our Ramadan Charity Drive.”

 Zarina has already been to see her and has given her some NTUC vouchers and a set of baju kurung for Hari Raya. Some of our volunteers, though not by any means well off, have also made personal donations. They will follow up with MUIS to see what help she is getting.

As for me, I will pick up her case to see why she is not getting Public Assistance.  I will follow up on that with CDC and the Family Service Centre. I understand that CDC stopped helping her some time ago and Madam S. has shown me a letter from CDC over a year ago promising to look into her case.  Till now nothing has been done. If this is correct, then that is absolutely unacceptable but unfortunately I frequently see these cases where people fall through the  cracks and paperwork gets lost.  I have been helping an elderly gentleman again in Radin Mas in a wheel chair to liaise with AIC in order to get him a mobility scooter.  After a few months when there had been no progress I chased them up and it turned out they had lost his contact details. They asked me to go and visit him and tell him they were trying to contact him. Often those who are most in need are worn down by the paperwork and the necessity of chasing people up by phone. If they are carers as Madam S is then visits to these offices are almost impossible.

Towards a  longer term solution I will try to establish whether Madam S did receive compensation from the insurance fund for her son’s accident and if not whether it is still possible to apply.

The charity is now also working with her to try to persuade her to let them clear out her living space and give it a lick of paint.

 So even if our Government, which runs a surplus of over $30 billion a year, is unwilling to help its own citizens, it is good to know  that people like Zarina  and our volunteers, with hearts of gold,  are prepared to step in and help even though the resources at their disposal are modest.

It would be too easy to contrast this case with Rebecca Loh, who appears to have had no resources or charity network to call upon,because Rebecca’s case is one of mental illness, schizophrenia. As such I have been told by  charities that they would not have worked with her as they are not professionally trained. This make it even more unbelievable that Rebecca was deemed fit to take care of her son, day in day out without any respite.

We need to ask what is the purpose of Government?  Why do we elect one that wriggles out of even the most basic responsibilities to care for its people? Why does the Government need excess assets of $400 billion and to force us to save so much through CPF? As the Government runs a real Budget surplus of $30 billion a year why can in not afford to help the citizens who fall through the cracks?

More importantly as it is our money can we not afford to help these citizens. I would like to make it clear here that form an economist’s point of view I am not a big fan of the Nanny State or the Welfare State model.   Even the Swedes are no longer fans of the Scandinavian model , putting back their retirement age at which they can draw their generous pensions. So I am not suggesting we use this surplus to fund a full welfare state and a dependency culture. If I could sum up my  philosophy it would be that I believe in less STATE and more WELFARE, rather than a welfare state. My reading of the Government’s figures shows that we can afford to be more generous with welfare neither needing to raise taxes or cut  spending elsewhere.

Certainly on an individual and small group level this case above shows that Singaporeans are caring generous and  compassionate. How strange then that our government so poorly reflects the citizens on the ground being heartless,  stingy and  uncaring.

I dedicate this article to all the volunteers in charities or individually who devote themselves to helping in our communities and catching those in need before they slip through the cracks.  Thank you. You make a difference.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

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