I refer to the letters expressing concern that the revised Individual Physical Proficiency Test (IPPT) may lower standards and that it will be too easy to pass (“Revised IPPT represents a lowering of standards”, July 26; “IPPT should be a struggle that builds our strengths”, July 26).

While this may be the impression of those who prefer the old IPPT format, I believe the test will still be a challenge and will not necessarily lead to a lowering of standards.

In insisting on the old approach, we may be losing sight of the purpose of National Service. Being able to excel in IPPT does not mean we can be great soldiers. Skills, knowledge and having the right attitude also matter.

Many of us may not be aware that we are the only country in the world that requires a conscript servicemen to pass IPPT or face remedial training, fines or even detention.

Singaporeans have been very positive in their response to NS. They give up two years of their life as full-time national servicemen (NSFs) and spend the next 13 years as operationally-ready NSmen (NSmen) who sometimes have to attend in-camp training, which may affect their contribution to their employers and their careers. So let us not nitpick over IPPT and consider the bigger picture.

While I appreciate the concerns of those who insist on the old measures of fitness, I am sure push-ups, sit-ups and the 2.4km run are sufficient measures of fitness to perform military tasks. These measures are also used by other countries with regular forces.

As an NS commander myself, I am aware that although pull-ups will no longer be required for IPPT, units will still use them for fitness training.

The question we should be concerned with is not how difficult the test should be but how it can help to encourage our NSFs and NSmen to keep fit and adopt exercises that can be done in the home, without the use of special equipment such as a pull-up bar.

I am not supporting the new system for personal benefit. I have passed the age for compulsory IPPT. I did excel under the old system and always attained the gold standard. I write this letter as a concerned citizen — that we seem to be more bothered with the process than the outcome.

It does not matter if we have three stations or five stations for the IPPT. With the new system, one would be encouraged to excel and, in the end, we would still have a fighting-fit army.

Sreedharan Suresh

*Article first appeared on TODAY Voices (28 July)

I'm DONE being not okay with being chubby. Or okay, let's call it like it is. Fat. I'm done being upset about being a fat Asian girl.

It took me a while, plenty of emotional bashings, tears on my pillow and  plenty of insecure moments that frustrate myself, my boyfriend and my friends. Family not so much, cause their usual reaction is, "just go run."

In fact I remember one year in Secondary Three, at the height of the teenage emotional tornado that was puberty, my Dad forced me to head to the gym where all the cute guys and hot girls were working out and run my flabby self for 30 minutes while standing there and watching me like a hawk. I was dying of shame as I noticed the looks of amusement I got from everyone in the small sweaty room and my dad's authoritarian voice yelled in exasperation, "just run! You have 20 more minutes left!" The tears started welling up and I told him I didn't want to run anymore, in disgust he stopped the machine and said we could go.

 I hated myself. There were many more moments, including one where I participated in a fire drill skit as a comatose patient that had to be carried out on a stretcher. The two "paramedics", both boys, both 15 - I was 14 - they whispered to my dead-weight body, "wah you really very fat. So heavy." I turned bright red and I, with fruitless abandon, attempted to support my whole body weight on my toes and head. Didn't work. Also really made me hate being carried or having to go through trust falls.

School was a cruel place mostly.

I remember a day I had to stand in front of the school hall and sing, I was laughed at heartily. I had to put on a brave face, but once I was done I left and I told myself I would never do it again.

A year later I tried again and joined the drama club. Our first SYF play was Lord of the Flies. Where a group of boys take over the island and a hunger-games sort of ideal played out. I was casted as Piggy. The teacher told me, "we're not picking you because of the way you look.. We believe you would really be able to portray the character!" If you read the book, you'd know that that wasn't a good thing. And the fact they had to open their mouths and tell me they didn't type-cast me because of my size already spoke volumes. I felt humiliated. But I sucked it up and I continued on. 

I hated every minute of it.

During cross-country, a friend jumped on my back and poked it saying, "wah Manda, so soft! Like a cushion."

Needless to say my teenage years were not the best, but I'm done with hating myself. 

Yes, I can't shop at Bugis Street because literally about 80% of the items cannot fit me. I can't shop on all your beloved blog shops simply because they cater for stick-thin girls who look good in draped in oversized cloths. I'd look like I'll be wearing a tent with enough room to hide a circus and five households. But I CAN shop on other websites and stores like Topshop, Warehouse, TEMT, to name a few. At the end of the day, after my usually quite expensive shopping trips (let's be honest, being fat means no cheap clothes) I look good. Or at least decent.

But some days, it's so tough to be okay with it all. Especially when you live in an Asian society.

Living in an Asian society means thin, wispy, helpless girls are in. It also means fat girls are the ones who get laughed at even as they try to stand out and embrace their curves. You'd think a progressive nation like Singapore would be more inclusive but it is not. Let's all be honest: If you're fat you'd never get far. Asian girls aren't meant to be fat. Asian boys don't like fat girls and Singapore simply isn't made for fat people. You are forever conscious of your arms jutting out from the side of aisle bus seats, of jostling your MRT seat neighbours, of squashing yourself to the left of the escalator least your arm gets barged into by a commuter. Our society is a thin society, and I stand out in the worst way possible. Our society, unlike the Americas or Australia, is a judgmental society.  

Advertising doesn't help either. Take SkinnyMint Tea for example:

How does this prove that your tea helps with weightloss??? Their spokespersons are all these stick-thin "inspirational" models who boast 40-something kg weights and have SGsexy faces.

Come one, let's all be honest here: Those teas don't help you lose weight. And these advertisements kinda say, "wanna drink this tea? You gotta look like "insert generic SGsexy, 40-something kg blogger". 

Good for those people who have achieved weight loss through this pseudo-magical tea, but I'm not buying the spiel. The site has two types of spokespersons that convince me that the tea will never work: one type look like they've been thin all their lives and the others look like the work out like a beast every few days.

Come. On. How can one feel good when even weight loss products are marketed for skinny people?! Ridiculous. This just tells me that even companies who claim to help you lose weight can't prove their worth to people who actually NEED to lose weight.

Look, I'm not saying I want to be dumpy the rest of my life. I try to work out, I run in my office gym, I avoid soda except on weddings or super special occasions, and I enjoy yoga occasionally. But ya know.. Losing weight doesn't happen overnight and sometimes it doesn't happen at all. I'm not hard pressed to be model-thin, I rather be healthy and happy, rather than depressed and anxious about losing weight all the time. I want to be accepted and I want to start by accepting myself first.

I hope Singapore starts to accept this too. You can start small, introduce new sizes into cheaper stores, I'd also like to be able to have more wedding dress options and go into a store without having to ask, "I'm a UK14.. Would you have to have my size?" I'm usually told that the company has only a small range. *sigh*

But I'd definitely appreciate more clothes for what counts as plus size in an Asian society. I'm glad that blogshops like 1214 Alley are popping up. 

I want to be able to afford cool clothes too you know?

So my stand, at the end of this long rant, is this: Thanks to all my secondary school bullies that have given me a thicker skin, I don't think I would be where I am without you today. Most importantly, I accept myself for who I am, for who I've become and what I look like. 

And to the guy who facebook messaged me saying that he'd like to get to know me cause he likes chubby girls. Thanks...? I guess?

Hi guys, if this post has made a difference to you or helps you realise that you're not alone in feeling fat in Singapore.. Please share this post. Hopefully, it'll let others know that they're not alone too. Cheers! - Amanda 

**EDIT**

Hello, for everyone who thinks this is a post about "I'm fat and I'm proud of it". You ARE NOT READING MY POST CAREFULLY ENOUGH. This is simply a reminder for everyone, especially myself, to love yourself. Sure you should lose weight! Sure you should make the effort to exercise regularly and eat clean, but why do it because you hate your body? You should do it because you LOVE yourself.

Secondly, please don't assume I don't know what it is like to lose weight, I have done so and I was - and still am - very happy that I did so. I still want to continue, but it's a work in progress. I'm just tired at looking at myself and counting the many more kilos I need to go. Why can't I love myself? Are y'all saying cause I'm fat I should be denied that right? Crazy.

I'm gonna love the shit out of myself and buy myself some nice clothes cause I love myself THAT MUCH.

P.S. I'm sorry if seeing fat people in the streets offends you. Clearly you need to go to the land-that-does-not-exist where everyone is a supermodel. As phrased by a clearly brilliant bitch, "I may be fat but I can lose weight, you'll always be ugly".

Amanda Lee

*The author blogs at http://amandajaynelee.blogspot.sg

CPF & YOU 

I refer to the newspaper advertisement CPF & YOU – “Can we still use our CPF monies to service our housing loans after we turn 55?”

Can use for housing after 55?

“Yes … any amount above half the Minimum Sum in your Retirement Account can be used for your housing needs”

How many have half of Minimum Sum?

So, perhaps the key statistic to ask is how many Singaporeans who turned 55 last or earlier have more than half the Minimum Sum?

For those who turned 55 this year, half the Minimum Sum is $77,500.

I estimate the number who have at least half the Minimum Sum to be only about 30 per cent of all those who reach 55. (“Parliament: CPF replies that throw up more questions? (part 1)“, Jul 8)

70% cannot use CPF for housing after 55?

Hence, does it mean that about 70 per cent cannnot use their CPF after 55 to service their housing needs?

Above half of Minimum Sum can use?

As to ”And if you continue working after 55, as most do, you can also use your new Ordinary Account contributions for your housing loans” – is this not also subject to the requirement that one must have at least half the Minimum Sum first?

How many servicing housing loans after 55?

Perhaps the $64,000 question that I believe nobody has ever asked is “How many Singaporeans above 55 are still servicing their housing loans and are unable to use their CPF because they do not have more than half the Minimum Sum in their Retirement Account?

At age 65 – full Minimum Sum transferred to CPF Life pool?

Moreover, since under the CPF Life default Standard Plan – “One to two months before your drawdown age (DDA) (age 65), we will deduct the rest of your RA savings as the second instalment of your annuity premium” (the first half of your Minimum Sum was deducted at age 55 for your annuity premium) – does it mean that only CPF money above the entire Minimum Sum (currently $155,000 for this year’s cohort) can be used or housing after 65?

And accordingly, how many Singaporeans are expected to have the full Minimum Sum at age 65 in the future, so that they can continue to use their CPF for housing after 65?

Downgraders and flat buyers beware?

If you are downgrading or buying a flat after age 55 or 65, you must factor in the above – that half the Minimum Sum after age 55, and the full Minimum Sum after 65 has to be set aside before any excess can be used for housing.

Leong Sze Hian

P.S. Come with your family and friends to the National Day protest on 9 August 12 pm to 6.00 pm at Speakers’ Corner https://www.facebook.com/events/271583499702725/

Dear Mr Khalid,

I refer to the 24 Jul 2014 Straits Times report “UN director’s praise for Singapore” of your praise for Singapore.

Third World to First?

Singapore isn’t the only economy that has done well progressing to First World in a very short time but one of four East Asian dragon economies including South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. There is no need to overly praise Singapore for what seems to be the common East Asian success story.

We must not blindly parrot the phrase “Third World to First” without first being clear and precise about what Third World or First means. Is a First World nation:
• an Advanced Economy according to the IMF?
• one with the highest Human Development Index according the UN?
• one placed in the highest income category according to World Bank?

For example, Chile and Kuwait do not make it into IMF’s list of advanced economies so by IMF definition they are not First World. But are they Third World then? Certainly not because these countries made it to UN’s list of countries having the highest levels of human development. We must not make the mistake of regarding a nation that isn’t First World as automatically being Third World. That was Singapore’s situation back in 1965, we weren’t First World then, but neither were we Third World.

Carl Trocki classifies Singapore as being of middle income status back in 1960:
• Our per capita GDP in 1960 was already $1,330 which gave us a middle-income status
[Carl A. Trocki, Singapore: wealth, power and the culture of control, page 166]

Using data from the Penn World Tables, it can be shown that we were already of Upper Middle Income status according to World Bank classification back in 1965.

Thus, Singapore did not progress from Third World to First since independence but from Middle Income status to First instead. This is the best portrayal of our progress towards the First World since it is the only one that is based on data stretching back to the 1960s.

Bringing races together?

Singapore didn’t just have racial cohesion under the present government. Singapore already had racial cohesion during colonial times as these evidences attest to:

• Racial Harmony In Malaya
To those who know their Malaya from one end to the other, no less than to the casual visitor, it is a constant source of wonder how so many different races and communities live and work together in the utmost harmony … we repeat, that the different communities live and work in harmony because the British system of justice and administration enables them to obtain fair play. There are no discriminatory or repressive laws, there are few, if any race prejudices in the bazaars and counting houses, there is nothing to prevent the humblest coolie from rising to great wealth – many indeed have done so …
[The Singapore Free Press and Mercantile Advertiser (1884-1942), 26 July 1935, Page 8]

• MALAYA’S RACIAL HARMONY IMPRESSES
“It is a pleasing feature of life in Malaya that there is not merely a complete absence of friction but much cordiality in the relations between the different races inhabiting it. It is quite common to find Malays, Chinese and Indian all living the same street in perfect harmony and apparently, with some degree of intimacy.” The Mui-Tsai Commission Report Chapter VIII.
[The Straits Times, 1 March 1937, Page 13]

• SINO-MALAYAN AMITY IMPRESSES GEN. WU
It makes me happy to see the Chinese and other peoples here co-operating so well with each other.
[The Straits Times, 15 November 1940, Page 11]

• The Malayan Melting-Pot
The Sultan of Perak … “I wish to say to you that Chinese and Malay in the past eighty years before the coming of the Japanese lived side by side in absolute peace. The Chinese lived in the midst of Malays without any trace of fear, and the Chinese also fearlessly and peacefully pursued his vocation in any Malay settlement … Here in Singapore we are constantly impressed by the easy, natural and friendly relationships existing between Eurasians, Straits Chinese, Straits-born Indians and others who went to school together and now meet each other in adult life … Boys – and girls – of the local-born communities who sit side by side in the classrooms of Raffles Institution and St. Joseph’s and St. Andrew’s and the A.C.S., learn to become unconscious of racial differences, to meet on common ground, and to accept each other simply as Singaporeans – not as members of this racial community or that. Naturally this process is more penetrating in the secondary schools than in the elementary ones, because the influence of the school is exerted for a longer period and in years of higher mental awakening …
[The Straits Times, 25 May 1946, Page 4]

• S’pore an ‘example’ of race harmony
Singapore has set an example to the world of racial harmony, said Mr. T. P. F. McNeice, President, in reply to Mr. C. F. J. Ess, at the meeting of the City Council yesterday.
[The Straits Times, 29 September 1951, Page 5]

• Duchess praises ‘one people’ idea
The Duchess of Kent, the first Royal Freeman of the City of Singapore, said yesterday that its people were engaged upon a project of far-reaching significance – the casting into one mould of elements derived from many different cultures.
“This plan in itself testifies to the good will and good sense so characteristic of the people of this island,’ she said.
[The Straits Times, 2 October 1952, Page 1]

• Police help island troop to learn sailing
Singapore’s 84th Pulau Tekong Sea-Scout Troop is certainly helping to strengthen the bonds of friendship among Malays and Chinese on the island. It is undoubtedly a Sino-Malay affair for half of its 20 members are drawn from each race. Even the four patrol leaders in the troop are equally divided on a communal basis. Members of each patrol, however, are mixed.
[The Singapore Free Press, 17 July 1953, Page 12]

• Our racial harmony inspiration to bishop
An American Negro bishop said in Singapore yesterday that complete racial harmony among students and teachers in Colony schools was an inspiration to him. He said it proved his theory that if you get people of all races close enough together for them to smile at each other racial pride and prejudices will vanish quickly
[The Straits Times, 30 September 1954, Page 4]

• ‘See yourselves as just one people’ Governor’s advice to teachers
The people of Singapore must not think of themselves in terms of their racial and language loyalties, but as Singaporeans, the Governor, Sir William Goode, said yesterday. Schools must be Singapore schools, not English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil schools … In 1953, he said, English was the only medium of instruction at the college, but today they worked in English, Malay and Chinese. “In this way too the different races in the Colony can be welded into a united people with a common loyalty and a common pride in Singapore and a united determination to work for the good of Singapore.”
[The Straits Times, 12 October 1958, Page 7]

• U.S. TEACHERS ‘IMPRESSED’
Eighteen American teachers (above) from 11 states left for Bangkok by CPA this morning after a four-day stay here … Prof. Mulder said they were impressed by the racial harmony they had observed in Singapore and had come to know the state much better.
[The Singapore Free Press, 16 July 1959, Page 10]

• TELLING THE PEOPLE
So many races, but one nation
If a world list were compiled of countries enjoying high degree of inter-racial harmony Singapore would undoubtedly occupy a leading position. Here people of various races work, play and live together happily as one nation. They help each other in time of difficulty. They rejoice in each other’s happiness. And they share each other’s grief. Such is the respect, understanding and goodwill between the Malay, Chinese, Indian, European and other races living here that visitors in Singapore have often praised the State as an example for the rest of the world to follow. The latest visitor to express this view is Mrs. A. Qugley, formerly of the Chicago Tribune, who passed through the State during a tour of the Far East. She said that “the people here must be extremely proud of themselves for the “really great” racial harmony that was evident
[The Singapore Free Press, 6 July 1961, Page 6]

Gainful employment?

Singapore does not define a poverty line even though it can be done. Given our high GINI inequality, it can be expected that a sizeable number of Singaporeans have salaries that fall below our poverty line if one is ever defined and those who fall below the line should not be considered as having gainful employment.

To conclude, the success that you congratulate Singapore for today can be traced back to colonial times. Let’s not forget to praise Singaporean forefathers who helped lay a strong foundation for Singapore during colonial times.

Thank you

Ng Kok Lim

Straits Times, UN director’s praise for Singapore, 24 Jul 2014
A UNITED Nations body has praised Singapore for its policies promoting social and racial harmony.
Mr Khalid Malik, from the UN Development Programme, told The Straits Times that the country has done well to progress from a Third-World nation to a First-World one in a short span of time.
“What I also see is very positive is (that) Singapore has managed to bring many groups and races together into a cohesive sense of being a Singaporean,” he said ahead of yesterday’s release of the latest Human Development Report.
Mr Khalid, the report’s lead author and director of the Human Development Report Office, noted that the report found that cohesive societies tend to do better in developing their citizens.
This, in turn, increases the country’s ability to deal with crises, such as a natural disaster or a man-made one like the global financial meltdown in 2008.
He added in the interview on July 10 that Singapore also shines in providing plenty of gainful employment.
But he added that the country has issues to address as well.
“It has also some challenges… of a certain amount of inequality; the lower end of the scale of Singaporeans are not benefiting as much as possible.”

For those who have been following the public discussion on the CPF schemes and how it should be tweaked into a better system must be very assured of how good the improved version 1.01 would be, or must be. The experts have them all worked out. The new system would be carefully structured and calibrated to apportion the CPF savings for retirement, for medical, for emergencies, for sudden short of funds, and for the savers to retire comfortably with no worries.

I would not hazard to guess how much one would need to put into the CPF to have peace of mind and no financial worries in the golden years. And it would likely have to prepare the people to save enough to live till 100 years.

All this sounds so good. The main assumption is that the people can afford to save all the money they need to save. Question, what about those who cannot afford to save? What about those who don’t even have enough to meet their daily needs?

There is also this tussle between saving enough to retire and live comfortably or a scheme that treat the CPF as one of many other provisions for old age, and that a compulsory scheme should only dictate one to provide for the minimum or basic needs. Even the Medishield Life which I thought was on the right track in providing for the basic coverage, there are people, rich people, who wanted the Medishield Life to provide for B1. If this is an upgrade for those who are able to pay for more, it is fair. If this is used by the rich for their rich nees, and used as the premise for computing the premiums for all, then the not so rich would end up sharing the cost of the rich.

I still think that such compulsory schemes should be designed to cater for the lowest denominator, the basics while the extras should be an options for those who demands for them and able to pay for them.  Do not make the poor pay for the fancies of the rich in a public compulsory scheme. And the CPF must not be thinking of becoming the only means of savings and thus must be loaded up for a comfy retirement for the rich. People have many other ways to provide for their retirement and CPF is not the only way. Do not impose a savings schemes on the people that cannot afford to have one. And do not make the CPF the mother of all savings schemes to provide for everything under the sky. Not many can afford such a comprehensive and rich scheme, or need such a scheme. Many would rely on family support for their golden years and even regard the CPF as superfluous.

There are many roads leading to Rome.

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

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

Background Story: Massive toll rate hike for Causeway users from Aug 1

Malaysia recently announced that it would be increasing the tolls for cars going in and out of Malaysia at the causeway.

The new fees are up to 4 times higher than the previous fees and will apply from August 1st.

In response, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in Singapore said that they would also be increasing Singapore's tolls in due course to match Malaysia'  tolls.

The LTA said that this has always been Singapore's practice to peg tolls to those charged by Malaysia.

Cars travelling through the Johor customs, immigration and quarantine complex will have to pay higher fees than before and will have to pay them both ways rather than the previous system when cars only paid to go into Johor.

Reports said that when new charges kick in, cars will pay about S$6.50 (RM16.50) for a return day trip to Singapore, compared to the current one-way charge of about S$1.10 (RM 2.90). Buses would pay S$5.20 (RM13.30) to and from Singapore, while taxis would be charged S$3.20 (RM8.20) per two-way trip.

 The LTA has contacted Malaysian authorities for confirmation of the media reports but it explained that it has yet to receive official information about the new tolls.

Also commenting on the Vehicle Entry Permit being charged on foreign cars entering Malaysia via the land checkpoints n Johor, the LTA already "expressed their concern" about the fees but they said they are yet to receive any response from Malaysian authorities.

It would appear that in the end, Singaporeans and Malaysians will have to pay significantly more to travel across the causeway while both governments get to enjoy higher revenues.

How have all these tit-for-tat fee increases helped the average citizen?

Related:

SHAKHTARSK, Ukraine -- An international police team abandoned its attempt to reach the crash site of a Malaysia Airlines plane for a second day running Monday as clashes raged in a town on the road to the area.

With government troops intensifying their push to claw back more territory from pro-Russian separatist rebels, the death toll is mounting steadily. The United Nations released new figures Monday showing that more than 1,100 people have died in more than four months of fighting.

The international delegation of Australian and Dutch police and forensic experts stopped Monday in Shakhtarsk, a town around 30 kilometres from the fields where the Boeing 777 was brought down.

Associated Press reporters saw a high-rise apartment block in Shakhtarsk being hit by at least two rounds of artillery.Sounds of regular shelling could be heard from Shakhtarsk and residents were seen fleeing town in cars.

The mandate of the police team is to secure the currently rebel-controlled area so that comprehensive investigations can begin and any remaining bodies can be recovered.

Their visit was cancelled Sunday amid safety concerns.

Ukraine has accused rebels of tampering with evidence and trying to cover up their alleged role in bringing the Malaysia Airlines plane down with an anti-aircraft missile.

Separatist officials have staunchly denied responsibility for shooting down the airliner and killing all 298 people onboard.

A Ukrainian security spokesman said Monday that data from the recovered flight recorders shows Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crashed due to a massive, explosive loss of pressure after being punctured multiple times by shrapnel. Andrei Lysenko said the plane suffered "massive explosive decompression" after it was hit by fragments he said came from a missile.

The data recorders were sent to experts in Britain for examination.

In their campaign to wrest control over more territory from separatist forces, Ukraine's army has deployed a growing amount of heavy weaponry. Rebels have also been able to secure large quantities of powerful weapons, much of which the United States and Ukraine maintain is being supplied by Russia.

Moscow dismisses those charges.

While Russia and Ukraine trade accusations, the death toll has been mounting swiftly.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a report out Monday that at least 1,129 people have been killed between mid-April, when fighting began, and July 26. The report said at least 3,442 people had been wounded and more than 100,000 people had left their homes. A UN report from mid-June put the death toll at 356.

At least eight civilians were killed by fighting and shelling in two cities held by separatist militants overnight Sunday, officials in the rebellion-wracked region said.

Authorities in Luhansk said that five people were killed and 15 injured by overnight artillery strikes. Three were killed in Donetsk as a result of clashes, the city's government said.

Rebels accuse government troops of deploying artillery against residential areas. Authorities deny that charge, but also complain of insurgents using apartment blocks as firing positions.

The UN said in its report that rebel groups continue to "abduct, detain, torture and execute people kept as hostages in order to intimidate" the population in the east. It said rule of law had collapsed in the rebel-held areas and that 812 people had been abducted in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions since mid-April.

It also reported heavy damage to electrical, water and sewage plants and estimated the costs of rebuilding at $750 million -- money the government would have to find by cutting social programs.

The U.S. State Department on Sunday released satellite images that it says back up its claims that rockets have been fired from Russia into eastern Ukraine and heavy artillery for separatists has also crossed the border.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov dismissed the claims Monday during a televised press conference, asking "why it took 10 days" before the U.S. released the images.

A four-page document released by the State Department appears to show blast marks from where rockets were launched and craters where they landed. Officials said the images, sourced from the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, show heavy weapons fired between July 21 and July 26 -- after the July 17 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

Source: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/recovered-flight-recorders-show-mh17-suffered-massive-explosive-decompression-1.1934922#ixzz38m8RRsOw

I have observed that there are cars on our roads installed with what look like halogen, light-emitting diode (LED) or Xenon headlights.

These bright lights are very glaring for other road users, especially when viewed from rear or side mirrors. Drivers affected by this glare can be blindsided by approaching motorcyclists from their left or right, thus making it very dangerous when changing lanes.

I urge the Land Transport Authority and Traffic Police to study the dangers these lights pose. Accidents could be avoided.

High intensity discharge (HID) headlights are brighter, more energy efficient, and longer lasting than conventional incandescent headlights. They allow owners to detect road hazards, signage, and pedestrians at greater distances. They are standard equipment on growing numbers of more expensive automobiles.

HID headlights probably improve the safety of night driving for their users. Unfortunately, they can dazzle viewers on two lane highways, making it more difficult for approaching drivers to identify pedestrians, road hazards, and curves in the road. Night-time driving is difficult for older individuals. Confronting HID headlights makes it even more difficult. To understand why older drivers may complain about their encounters with HID headlights, it is useful to understand automotive headlight design and how ageing affects intraocular light scattering, glare, and automobile driving.

Read the full report here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1771460/

Mahinder Singh

I refer to the Department of Statistics’ Statistics on Marriages and Divorces 2013, released on 28 July.

The total divorces for 2013 was 7,525.

Since the median duration of marriage for divorces was 10.4 year in 2013 – I looked at the number of marriages 10 years ago, in 2003. It was 21,962.

1 in 3 divorce?

So, does it mean that the percentage who divorced is about 34.3 per cent (7,525 divorces divided by 21,962 marriages)?

Is this an all time high, that slightly more than 1 in 3 marriages ended up in divorce?

Marriages decrease?

The number of marriages decreased by 6 per cent from 27,936 in 2012 to 26,254 in 2013.

The general marriage rate for males and females dropped from 43.8 to 40.5 and 39.4 to 36.9, respectively.

Divorces increase?

The general divorce rate for males and females increased from 7.1 to 7.3 and 6.7 to 6.9, respectively.

Increasing stress in Singapore?

As I understand that the following are some of the topics that may be covered by the 30 speakers at the National Day protest:-

Foreigners taking our jobs

30% of households spending more than they earn

Most expensive public housing in the world

Lowest public healthcare spending in the world

Lowest real return among all pension funds in the world

- To what extent has the above contributed to the rising divorce rate in Singapore?

Leong Sze Hian

P.S. Come with your family and friends to the National Day protest on 9 August 12 pm to 6.00 pm at Speakers’ Corner https://www.facebook.com/events/271583499702725/

Why do we need foreign talents to win medals for sg?

‘China’ wins four gold medals at the Commonwealth Games.

This is made possible because Singapore imports top Chinese players to represent Singapore. There is nothing to be proud of. Any country willing and able to spend and import players can achieve the same outcomes.

Why stop at table tennis? Maybe we can import some African marathon runners as well?

The fundamental question remains unanswered. Why do we need FTs to win medals for us? Is it something that we can be proud of as a nation?

How about importing some MPs, NSFs, or even top performing Ministers for Singapore? Sorry, maybe we are doing that already.

Even as the TT team wins four gold medals, I am not sure how Singaporeans resonate with the win. Does it mean anything to those who are jobless, earning low income, sick and unable to pay medical bill, worried about retirement, and those without a shelter? Who is even watching the commonwealth games other Mr President and entourage?

It is interesting to look at Feng Tianwei as a case study.

She came to Singapore under the Foreign Talent Import program around the age of 20. Once she turned 21, she converted to Singapore citizenship.

How do we view a person like her? Do we see any loyalty in her where China is concerned? Can we expect any loyalty from her to Singapore? When she wins a medal for Singapore in an international event, does the international arena credit Singapore for any sporting excellence? Or are they mocking at our shamelessness?

Look at another player Li Jiawei. I believe she has returned to China for good. Is this the kind of outcome we are looking for – having interim foreign players to win medals for Singapore?

If we look at the international sports scene, it is legitimate and acceptable when such sporting expenses are incurred by private funds, and do not draw controversy over the nationality of a player. Messi plays for a Spanish club but he represents Argentina at the World Cup.

I wonder if the government could disclose how much money it has spent on such an import program? And when exactly will it stop doing so?

Perhaps it would be better for the resources to be directed to social and medical subsidies for Singaporeans? Gold medals can’t be eaten after all. Rather to adding on to Total Defence, the whole foreign talent import saga just looks like a total joke.

Kampong Boy

Underdog made good

I refer to the 25 July 2014 Straits Times letter “Underdog made good” by Mr Jeremy Cheong Weng Kee.

Mr Cheong characterized Singapore in 1965 as the underdog that overcame the odds to succeed. Far from it, Singapore was already ranked Third in Asia and 29th out of 109 countries in output side per capita GDP (2005 PPP USD) back in 1965 (Penn World tables version 8.0), not top notch but neither underdog either.

We were also more than just the underdogs because:

• Singapore had become a global port that could rival any other in the world by the time the Suez Canal opened in 1869 and with the advent of the steamship revolution in the latter half of the nineteenth century
[Derek Thiam Soon Heng, Syed Muhd Khairudin Aljunied, Singapore in Global History, page 57]

• Singapore was already the estimated 5th or 6th most important port in the world by the early 1930s and the key port in the Straits region by the late 19th century
[Goh Kim Chuan, Environment and development in the Straits of Malacca, pages 107, 114]

• Singapore was the most important communications centre in the Far East, not just for shipping but a focal point for airlines, telecommunications and mail distribution at the beginning of the 1950s
• Singapore was the biggest market in the world for natural rubber, an important international market specializing in tin futures and a major oil distribution centre in the inter-war period
• Singapore had extensive numbers of high quality entrepreneurs and substantial industry and a skilled labour force, not least in ship repair prior to independence
• The first estimates of Singapore national income in 1956 showed rapidly rising per capita income that was very much greater than almost anywhere else in Asia
• Singapore had already experienced considerable economic development before World War II
• Singapore in the mid-1950s had 30 people per private car compared to 70 for British Malaya and more than 120 for the rest of Asia
[The Economic Growth of Singapore: Trade and Development in the Twentieth Century, W. G. Huff, pages 31-33]

Mr Cheong reminded us of the many resilient people capable of extraordinary things Singapore was blessed with. One such resilient person was Dr Toh Chin Chye whom Dr Goh Keng Swee credited as the one who nudged both him and Lee Kuan Yew to snap out of their anguished moods.

• During the Big Split … Dr Goh Keng Swee … recalled Dr Toh Chin Chye visiting him in his Fullerton Building office in 1961, after seeing Mr Lee, saying: ‘I have just come from Harry’s office. He was staring at the ceiling just like you did. You should snap out of this mood. The fighting has just begun. It is going to be long and nasty. But if we keep wringing our hands in anguish, we are sure to lose.
[Straits Times, What if there had been no Toh Chin Chye?, 4 Feb 2012]

Another resilient person capable of extraordinary things was Dr Albert Winsemius:

• Dr Winsemius and I.F. Tang made extraordinary contributions to the economic development of Singapore as leader and secretary of the first UN Industrialisation Survey Team in 1961.
[Ngiam Tong Dow, A Mandarin and the Making of Public Policy: Reflections, page 66]

• Lee’s dismay was also not shared by the country’s most prominent foreign advisor. Winsemius, the former leader of the UN development mission and now a regular consultant to the Singapore government, said in an interview in 1981 … to my amazement, a discussion had started: can Singapore survive? That was the only time I got angry in Singapore. I said: ‘now you have your hands free – use them!’ It was the best thing that happened during the whole period from 1960 till today.
[Sikko Visscher, The business of politics and ethnicity: a history of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, page 171]

Uniquely Singapore way to fund needs

I refer to excerpts from the 27 Feb 2014 Straits Times article “Uniquely Singapore way to fund needs”. The article referred to Singapore as a Third World country which our pioneer generation contributed to.

Using data from the Penn World Tables, it can be shown that Singapore back in 1965 was no longer a Third World country but a middle income nation.

Thank you

Ng Kok Lim

Straits Times, Bouquets – Underdog made good, 25 July 2014

SOME Straits Times readers might ask why there is so much hype over a British artist drawing Singapore’s cityscape (“Artist finishes drawing S’pore from memory”; Monday).

My answer would be that Mr Stephen Wiltshire, who was diagnosed with autism when he was three years old, represents the underdog made good. He is testament that disability does not limit the strength of the human mind.

Similarly, in 1965, Singapore was an underdog in the eyes of the world when it gained independence. But, like Mr Wiltshire, it overcame the odds to succeed.

From the outside, Singapore seems like an ordinary nation, but on closer examination, one would find that this country is filled with resilient people who are capable of doing extraordinary things.

Jeremy Cheong Weng Kee

Straits Times, Uniquely Singapore way to fund needs, 27 Feb 2014

SINGAPORE – Budget 2014 is eldercentric and, in particular, pioneer-centric. It sends a clear assurance to Singapore’s pioneering generation that, having made significant contributions to Singapore when it was a Third World country, they can now retire with health-care security in a First World nation.

I refer to the article: "HDB DENIES A FLAT PURCHASE APPLICATION FROM A SINGLE MOM"

It is not unknown knowledge that there are differentiating criteria (income ceiling; citizenship vs non-citizenship; first time applicants vs second time applicants) with regards to public housing – because of its high demand yet limited supply. These differentiating criteria are there precisely to prevent abuse e.g. foreigners making quick profits at local’s expense; and to prioritize what the state wishes to promote.

Marriage and a family nucleus made up of a father and mother is promoted, as it is in the interest of the state to provide the best child rearing environment for the well-being of a child.

That said, the state has not left out the singles, or the unmarried-parent-and-child-unit totally. HDB’s provisions for them are that they should be eligible for public housing when they hit 35 years of age. According to HDB’s website, single families who are widowed, divorced or separated are allowed to purchase a flat under the public scheme. Generally, this seems like a fair criteria.

We have to understand that any system with a set of differentiating criteria is probably never perfect, but it is necessary. Hence, within the system, concessions for appeal should be allowed. There are special situations I can think of, such as in the case of an unmarried-single family where the parent is a victim, rather than a perpetrator of the “unmarried situation”. He or she has totally no responsibility for contributing to the “unmarried situation” – one which the state has no wish of promoting to all children and families (understandably so!). For such cases, I would believe that an appeal is worth the state’s consideration and assessment for concession.

Currently, there are avenues of appeal, such as writing directly to HDB, seeing MP’s help, or writing to Minister Khaw Boon Wah himself.

I wish I know of Jaxe Pan’s situation fully. Perhaps if I did, I might be writing on her behalf now. But I don’t. Hence, I refrain from commenting on whether she should, or she should not deserve HDB’s concession. Some comments have been quick to call HDB’s letter rejecting her application for a flat unjust. At the current moment, this is still unproven.

However, I did find the way she had pushed for her issue wanting. In fact, I find it suspiciously political in nature.

Jaxe Pan’s situation first became known when she took it upon herself and her daughter to create this meme which went viral on the internet, during the heat of the NLB saga.

When you consider the context of the debate at which this meme appeared, it feels rather abrupt and uncalled for. At that time, the crux of the debate was whether the children’s section of the library should contain books with homosexuality themes. Most people felt that such themes are not appropriate for children, hence, the library should leave such books out of children’s reach. This is an objective point and a legitimate concern.

However, the countering camp obscured such concerns regarding the promotion of homosexuality. They argued mainly under the guise that because “such families exist”, allowing such books would help children “recognize reality” and “love others different from them”. (I am leaving the part where the issue was sensationalized as a “witch-hunting, if-they-burn-books-they-will-burn-people” rhetoric out for another day.)

I thought that it was strange to observe a debate in such disconnecting fashion. Firstly, it was hardly anyone’s intention to not want to recognize “reality”. Secondly, I don’t think anyone is promoting the idea that “one should not love others different from them”.

Even when most Singaporeans do not agree with same-sex marriage, we are aware of the reality that we might see same-sex families on our shores. When that happens, it does not mean that our disagreement will neutralize our humane ability to treat individuals with basic regard and courteous respect. To argue for such a point is to completely side-step the crux of the issue and distract us from the main concern – that homosexuality will be promoted to children.

Till today, I have noticed that none of those points central to the problem of promoting homosexuality have been addressed in the NLB debate.

Therefore, to have Jaxe Pan suddenly come in to address Minister Yaacob Ibrahim by posting her “single family” story on Facebook was abrupt and puzzling.

In the same breadth, Jaxe Pan lumped the existence of single families with same-sex families. It gives the impression that single families have been hated and therefore blotted out by society. Now this is certain to raise emotions. If it is true, it is certainly a big concern for everyone. Singaporeans do generally care – Jaxe’s meme was shared more than 7000 times. But then, by lumping single families together with same-sex families, suddenly, an insinuation seemed to brew – if anyone solely supports the one man, one woman family, they are not just haters of same-sex families, but of single families as well.

This brought about a number of responses from the public. Many felt offended that single families are needlessly put under the spotlight of the homosexuality debate. However, most surprisingly, it was those from single families who spoke out the loudest. Some wrote to clear the air of misunderstanding brought about by Jaxe’s insinuating meme. Some called her message cunning or misleading. There are even those who felt insulted that their “natural” single family is now placed under the same category with “unnatural” same-sex families – no thanks to Jaxe’s prerogative. A blogger’s post objecting Jaxe’s argument was shared more than 1000 times on facebook – he comes from a single family as well. A countering meme from Singaporeans United for Family then went around, explaining the problem with Jaxe’s meme, but affirming single families that they are accepted and loved at the same time.

Remember originally, in the NLB saga, the concerns of promoting homosexuality to children were already obscured under the pretence of “same-sex families exist”. It distracted the public from the real issue, and pushed for the idea that because same-sex families exist, realitytrumps concerns about homosexuality.

Then, with Jaxe Pan’s meme, the concerns of homosexuality are further obscured under an additional layer – “single families are hated by supporters of natural family structures”.

How can genuine concerns about homosexuality ever be discussed then? Steering the debate away from the main issue and politicising it into a “if you don’t support same-sex marriage, you must be a hater of single-families” is most illogical, abrupt and puzzling. Isn’t it?

Therefore, in Jaxe’s latest FB posting about how HDB and everyone who promotes the family nucleus discriminates against her, I felt she has overdone it. She not only called those who have tried to reassure her of their support for single families – including members of single family themselves – ignorant and hypocritical; she also reaffirmed my suspicion that she has a political agenda, and is sharing her plight not to support “single-families”, but to politicize it to undermine the family:

“I had enough of this “I want to promote the nucleus family but I still admire the single family” nonsense. It is at best ignorant, at worsehypocritical, and insufferable when these people start waving the I-am-also-from-a-single-family card in my face.”

I’ll give them the benefit of doubt that it is ignorance, so here are some facts -

Precisely because we promote the nucleus family above all others, our policies become discriminatory towards those who do not conform…”

- Jaxe Pan

In defense of the many well-intentioned people, I wish to highlight to Jaxe that it was her who first waved her flag very publicly and politically, which incurred a response from many who had meaningfully reassured single families like hers. Had she not done so to stir such public interest, would anyone have responded and be named-called and labelled ignorant or hypocritical? Jaxe could not appreciate this, nor the fact that it was her who kept the public ignorant by not disclosing her “unmarried-single-family” situation. Should she now blame others for it? People were clueless about your status Jaxe, not hypocritical. Had you been forthright about your family situation, they might have had more insight into your circumstance.

So now, with another wave of flag that gives us slightly more details to her family and housing situation, she has damned everyone who stands on the side of believing that it is good for the state to promote a natural family unit and marriage.

Once again, the Trojan horse of “hate against me, against LGBTs, against families” is pushed, to sensationalize and stir sentiments from a compassionate public, so as to get society to simply discard the whole debate about the concerns of homosexuality. I can feel for Jaxe’s situation, but I cannot agree with her methods, and the statements she threw at others. Perhaps, Jaxe should also practice what she advocates. She can put herself in the shoes of others to understand them – she has not been the only one who felt, in her own word, insufferable. Maybe then, she wouldn’t be accusing HDB and others of discriminating against her, but would understand the obvious need of a differentiating set of criteria. This would perhaps enable her to ask for more benefits in a legitimate, non-insinuating, non-confrontational way.

In principle, while I believe society should respond to those in crisis, the world does not revolve around individuals, even those who are in unfortunate situations. Quite frankly, every individual and family has their own set of problems. If we demand society to save us all, or for everyone else to change at their expense for our benefit, when will we ever learn to be responsible for the natural consequences that come with the choices we make with our own will? Does anyone really believe that an individual’s right should incautiously overhaul all of public good?

If Jaxe Pan had not politicised this as a LGBT rights issue, but approached the public forthrightly from the start, seeking help for her plight by sharing necessary details about her situation and approaching this matter legitimately, her efforts to fight for her and her child’s welfare might be better supported by Singaporeans across the various sectors, including me. But since this advertising industry professionalseems to be after a political agenda that is against natural families and marriage, and even against other single families, I can hardly agree with her – especially her calculated, political campaigns.

Concerned Singaporean

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

I hope the hard-earned victories of our national shuttlers and paddlers have vindicated the decision of our national sports associations to bring foreign-born sports talent into our national teams (“Shuttlers pick themselves up to land unexpected bronze” and “S’pore glue on crown holds”; yesterday).

Of course, we would love to have local-born athletes mount the victory podium. But the reality is that athletes like paddler Isabelle Li and shuttlers Vanessa Neo and Derek Wong, who are willing and able to train almost full-time, are hard to come by.

Sports training is tough and the hours are long. Careers can be short-lived and there is no guarantee of success.

Our society focuses on academic pursuits and the corporate rat race. This, plus the many other distractions in life, serves to discourage young Singaporeans from taking up careers in sports.

So let’s not begrudge our foreign-born athletes their places in our national teams and, indeed, in our hearts.

It was tough enough for them to uproot themselves from their comfort zones in their native countries to make their new homes here. They then went on to earn their stripes as Singaporeans by training hard daily and then fighting their guts out at competitions for our nation.

This was amply demonstrated by the courageous and spirited performance of Yao Lei and Shinta Mulia Sari in their epic 29-27 win in the second game of Singapore’s deciding women’s doubles match against their Indian rivals for the Commonwealth Games mixed team bronze.

At that moment when match point was won and all the Singapore players and officials dashed onto the court to huddle together in an unbridled display of pride and joy, it did not matter where the shuttlers were born – they were all Singaporeans.

Edwin Pang

*Letter first appeared in ST Forum (30 Jul)

We have been told that our CPF is part, or a major part, of our national reserves. It must therefore be an asset. As such, it is good to keep growing the reserves with more and more CPF money in it. And as an asset, you don’t have to worry about returning it. Our national reserves cannot be used anyhow right? It would need the President’s approval, if I am not mistaken, to touch our national reserves. So to touch our CPF money, which is part of the reserves, is unthinkable. Can see cannot touch. It is sacred, part of the national reserves. A govt can only spend the surplus revenue it generated. 

What if the CPF is a liability to the govt, a borrowed fund that must be returned? If our CPF is a liability, then there would be no incentive to keep it in the reserves but to reduce it when there is a surplus, to reduce the liability. And if it is a liability, the funds managing it must also be thinking about redemption by the members. When CPF members hit 55, they are going to withdraw their CPF savings. But when funds managing the CPF money do not think it is a liability that is subject to withdrawal and redemption, there is no need to ensure that the fund is liquid to meet such requirements. The funds can invest for the long term, and when there is no need to return, and the long term can be forever. 

Why is the CPF saving the nation’s reserves when it is the people’s money that must be returned? Is this an international convention, an accounting convention, to regard the people’s savings as national reserves and an asset that does not need to be returned? 

Can anyone clarify on these contradictions?

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

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

MDA has explained its decision to ban the Archie comic issue featuring a gay marriage while retaining an Astonishing X-Men issue with the same theme.

According to it, the X-Men issue depicted opposition to the marriage and provided a "balanced treatment on the issue of gay marriage.”

“The MDA takes a holistic view in assessing content and considers all factors, including the context, presentation and language," it says.

What is wrong with the MDA?

From the widely criticized implementation of the Internet Media Licensing Regime to the clumsy attempt to register and the ban the Breakfast Network, to the silly episode over a pair of penguins and now this, it doesn't seem to be able to make sound decisions based on rational explanation and justification.

Is it time for its millionaire CEO Koh Li-Net and its laggard minister Yaacob Ibrahim to step down?

The Alternative View

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/358759327518739/photos/a.598097686918234.107374...

You would have thought they heard the strident voices of a people by now, resonating with similar demands on the discredited Central Provident Fund (CPF) system:

• We want our money back at age 55 (as contractually promised);
• We want the returns due us, not the conjured pathetic rate;
• We want transparency so that future generations will not be hoodwinked (like the present lot).

Instead, they are commissioning a new study to find out what the people want, for retirement, and for health needs. Latter must refer to the hated Medisave component of the CPF scam. The market research firm appointed, at taxpayers' expense of course, "The Nielsen Company" may not be a $2 company - unlike Action Information Management (AIM), they actually have qualified staff onboard - will be conducting face-to-face interviews. Anyone familiar with survey work will recognise that data gathering is only the icing for the final report and recommendations. A clever accountant, especially the hired gun type, when asked what is one plus one, will be quick to respond with "What do you want it to be?"

But they are not taking chances with this exercise. The respondents for the interview have been pre-selected, just like the first batch of compliant participants for the National Conversation. As incentive to give the "right" answers, this anointed lot will be receiving supermarket vouchers worth $50 cash (not Medisave top up or utility bill subsidy). To seal the deal, even their spouses can get vouchers worth $25. Was it George Yeo who said pork barrel politics was invented by the Americans?

When they have a working formula, you betcha they won't tweak it. Even though the public uproar is all about tweaking the CPF ponzi scheme.

Tattler

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

The PAP government needs to come clean on the CPF issue which has been festering for decades. Millions of words have been spoken and printed but CPF members remain in
the dark. The PAP government will only lose more credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of citizens if GIC continues to operate in an opaque manner.

I strongly believe that the PAP government has gone all out to conceal factual information from the public because it knows the truth will hurt. The public has the right to know the facts. I believe the factual answers (FA) from GIC to all the CPF questions will go something like this:

Q1 Why does the government not invest our CPF directly in GIC when it could have easily done so?

FA If CPF is invested directly in GIC, the government would be held accountable with annual reports detailing its performance. Publishing the losses and poor performance of some of GIC’ investments is not in the interest of the PAP government. The managed perception of the PAP government will be dented.

Q2 Is CPF a Ponzi scheme?

FA The comparison is not totally wrong because we operate in an even more opaque manner ie. no regulatory oversight. As confirmed by Minister Lim, ”many investments had been lost during the global financial crisis”. As the public already knows, the biggest unrealised loss is of course the investment in UBS. Since this huge chunk of money is earning a derisory return of 0.2%, we have to take higher risks with the balance investment funds in order to pay CPF members. We have received almost $100 billion of CPF monies during the last 5 years. Some of these are from new members with the rest from retirees. The government helps to legislate the retention of retirees’ savings for our investments. The increased Minimum Sum amount is based on the whims of the government, there is no consistent yardstick and CPF members do not have any say.

Q3 But what about information already published on GIC’s website?

FA Most of the information is intended to confuse and maintain the public’s perception that GIC has the unquestioned right to invest CPF monies. It doesn’t. GIC FAQs Many of the questions have not been answered and our strategy to confuse the public has continued to work. Even for a simple question like “Does GIC invest money ffrom the CPF?”, we publish a lengthy answer when it could have been a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Read the entire FAQ section and you will understand our obfuscation strategy. It’s the same with CPF and other government policies

The answers tell you basically nothing of importance and we expect you to simply accept our word at face value. We have operated in secrecy for 30 years and we are not going to change simply because the public demands for change. We did succumb to the pressure from Roy Ngerng and edited GIC’s webpage but we leave it to the public to decide whether we did the “right” thing.

Q4 Is GIC a conservative fund manager as stated by the government?

FA It is evidently not so as you can see from our investing strategy. The public cannot be that daft. Simple Maths – invest for 7% or 9% returns in preferred securities, profit from CPF members by paying them 2.5% to 4%. Profits then channeled into GIC again. We had based our investment on past performance and taken huge risks in an extremely volatile situation during the financial crisis. On hindsight, this is an epic mistake. Our present strategy is best described by a Reuters article “GIC bets big on Chinese debt” where our approach has been correctly described as “newly aggressive approach from GIC” and “it also contrasts with the liquidity-driven investment philosophy of other sovereign wealth funds which typically invest taxpayers’ money in high-rated and well-traded securities”.

Q5 How can GIC be concealing any information when it has news on its ‘Newsroom’?

FA For 2014, GIC has listed 9 news reports on its ‘Newsroom’. Just google ’GIC Singapore’ on Bloomberg or Reuters and see the difference in the number of news reports. We are being selective because we do not want to attract any attention to our investments. Public scrutiny will lead to more questions and more headaches for us as there are no logical explanations for some of our investments. Take for example our big bets on Chinese debts. How do we explain to the public we receive only 4.7% return on US$700 million worth of unrated bonds or 3.2% return from internet group Tencent Holdings? Any Ahmad and Ah Beng can see the GIC will profit 0.7% from the 4.7% and 3.2% paying respectively 4% and 2.5% to CPF members’ MA and OA. We are of course aware that there are exchange rate risks which may even wipe out all our returns and of course we do not want to entertain such questions.

Original image from The cartoon bank

Why are CPF monies used to fund Chinese companies for peanuts returns? Is there a secret deal between the two governments which Singaporeans are unaware?

Q6 Is GIC investing all CPF monies? What about HDB concessionary loans where flat buyers pay 0.1% above the returns of other CPF members’ 2.5%?

FA This is really a no brainer. The HDB/government does not take any risk, including interest rate risk. HDB charges 2.6% but government pays 2.5% confirms the use of CPF monies by the HDB. GIC does not invest in the CPF monies used for HDB concessionary loans. We are in fact investing a lesser amount than assumed and this is also one of the reasons for our opacity. Also, since we do not invest all CPF monies, we therefore cannot pay any higher returns as demanded by CPF members.

Q7 Since the largest SWF, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, has published its entire investment portfolio of more than 30 real estate holdings, 1000 bonds and 8000 equities, will GIC do likewise?
FA No. It will be a complete embarrassment because some of our equities are deeply underwater, somewhere in the Mariana Trench. We took high risks with CPF monies and ended up in the current situation which we are still trying hard to salvage.

Singaporeans should not expect GIC to publish such information.

Q8 Is the government using CPF members’ funds to punch above its weight?
FA Of course. GIC would not be ranked the 8th largest SWF today without CPF monies.

Q9 Will the government be more transparent in future?
FA No. We have concealed too much for too long and there will be repercussions. What we will do is beat around the bush in parliament. Our repeated ‘clarifications’ in the media will exhaust the public.

No Singaporean should expect any transparency from our government. The PAP thrives on opacity, no accountability and total control of parliament. Why should it be transparent when it can afford not to be as it has been doing so for decades? No political party with absolute power has ever willingly ceded control simply for the good of citizens.

Phillip Ang

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

Reference: Property curbs may be 'eased faster if prices drop sharply': Straits Times

Property prices ought fall by up to 38% to match 2009 (pre-financial crisis) prices.
("private home prices have climbed about 60% since the global financial crisis in 2009."), so for current property prices to return to pre-2009 prices, the price will have to FALL by= 1- (100/160)= 37.5%.

Okay, maybe I forgot to factor in inflation at say 2.5% p.a. (pegged to CPF rate) which will mean that the reasonable FY2014 property price level (5yrs after FY2009) should be 113.14% in FY2009dollars (used compound interest calculator to calculate

As mentioned in the Straits Times report, "Housing Board resale flat prices have slid 5.3% since June last year while private home prices have fallen 3.2% since September, going by official figures out last week."

And given the potential increase in living costs with PAP advocating GST increase after GE2016 (in addition to incessantly high inflation in recent years): life is gonna be getting very tough for average Joe.

It is thus reasonable for home/ commercial/ industrial property prices to be reduced so that living/ business costs might decrease as a breather to man-on-the-street. Of course another option would be to increase property taxes on larger, more luxurious units so as to avert the need to raise GST after GE2016.

Also, smart and creative people know how much rent they should pay. If rent in Singapore goes too high, then that is the END of the future of creative industries in Sink@poor and then the economy will really tank. A safe and affordable living atmosphere where creativity, innovation, service and environmentalism thrive is the golden goose of Singapore economics. To raise rents excessively would be to kill the Singapore goose that lays the golden egg: for that reason, rents (and by proxy: property prices) must be TIGHTLY CONTROLLED NOT allowed rise as excessively as was seen in recent years.), so for current property prices to return to pre-2009 prices (corrected for (high) annual inflation of 2.5%), the price will have to FALL by= 1- (113.14/160)= 29.287%.

Thus, private property prices having "fallen 3.2% since September,", ought have at least a reduction of 25% more drop to go...

Screen shots of state media reports warning of increase in GST after 2016:
02March2012: DPM Tharman: Government revenues need to be raised.

Full text:08June2012: Singapore's growth expected to slow in next decade

 22August2013: GST hike ‘more likely’ if Govt needs to raise revenue for new initiatives

Bic_Cherry

*The writer blogs at http://just-my-observation.blogspot.sg/

As more schools go for ballot, it is high time for MOE to abolish the registration system.

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS

The government has repeatedly stated that Singapore Citizens will be given absolute priority over PRs. But in reality, the priority given is not absolute. At each phase, SCs do have priority over PRs. But a PR who gets endorsed as an active community leaders would enter at Phase 2B, over majority of Singaporeans. It is unclear if this explains why PRs are becoming more active in PAP MPS.

If the government is sincere about giving total priority to SCs, there should be a total segregation between SCs and PRs. All eligible SCs should be processed first under the various phases. After all SCs are placed, then the PRs will be processed. That is to say that even if a PR stays within 1km of Henry Park or Nanyang Primary, he can only be considered after all SCs have been considered, unless a sibling is already studying there.

And newly converted SCs should be classified as PRs.

MORE REVAMPS NEEDED

1. School Advisors and Management Committee are given high priority

There is a lack of transparency in this Category. First, schools are not required to publicize names of advisors and management committee. Some do but some don’t.

As a start, MOE should mandate all schools to publish names of all advisors and management committee, and indicate when they were appointed. This is to have parity since Parent Volunteers and Active alumni members do have to serve at least one year.

Second, why should management committee be given priority?

If you look at Nanyang Primary, the committee comprises largely teachers of the school.

Why should teachers of a school be given priority? Are they not performing a job and getting paid for it? If the rationale is on the ground of convenience, then should not parents who work within 1km of the school be given the same priority as well? MOE should explain.

Furthermore, if priority continues to be given to staff members, would it not lead to an undesirable trend where teachers always flock to the top schools, and actively try to avoid the lesser known schools? How can every school be a good school if the good schools entrenched themselves by drawing in all the better teachers and parent volunteers?

2. Priority given to clan members or related church members

As we understand, schools are built with public funds, and teachers are paid by public funds as well. As such, why should clan members or church members be given priority over other Singaporeans who are equally tax paying? Should not all SCs be given equal access?

3. Active community leader priority

There is an odd restriction in this category. One must volunteer in the vicinity of the school. So if a parent is an active volunteer in Taman Jurong, helping with all the hardship cases, he will not have any priority when applying to say Henry Park. To be considered for HP, he must serve in the vicinity of HP. For those who are familiar with the Neighbourhoods around HP, there are largely prime condos and landed mansions. What kind of community service is there to perform other than at PAP MPS?

The MOE should make clear what constitutes as active community leader, other than those endorsed by PA and PAP. Should someone who helps out at old folks homes, or cancer centres be less deserving than a party volunteer?

4. Parent volunteer forever

Some would think that Parent Volunteer is only for 18 months. Unfortunately, it was revealed that some schools continue to pressure parents to serve as PV even after a child gets admitted to the school.

The MOE should put a stop to this. No school is allowed to get a PV to continue serving, even if he is willing. This is again to give parity to inactive alumni members of the school. Most alumni members are inactive but yet given priority for Admission. Schools are public funded, so all SCs should be given equal access. Why should PVs be made to work more hours than alumni who did not even step foot in the last two decades?

MOE CAN DO MORE

While MOE had introduced 40 places in each school to be set aside for Non alumni members, more should be done.

For 2015, perhaps MOE should just set aside 40 places for alumni members, after accepting those with siblings connection. The rest should be just based on pure ballot, regardless of distance from the school. If a lower income parent staying in Taman Jurong would like to try his luck for Henry Park, who is to say no?

Lest we forget, schools are public funded institutions. If alumni think they should have a bigger say, then by all means please set up your own fund and privatize the school.

Revamping primary school registration is a small step towards a more equitable and inclusive society.

Kampong Boy

Dear TRS,

I thought your readers might be interested in this.

Do you realise that local media has lately been blocking Malaysia's TV1 whenever its newstime. Reckon it's due to Malaysia's strong anti-occupation and Singapore's pro-israeli stances? I thought you would like to make it known to the online community, partly because of the solidarity that Singaporeans have shown towards Palestinians in the recent weeks and partly due to our hatred towards the biased state-owned media.

I'm sure if you were to make it known, you'd be the first to do so, because no other mainsteam media have reported it because the PAP government sides with Israel as they are one of Singapore's best alliance in the world. Thought writing to The Real Singapore was the best way to get the public aware. 

Singapore's army is today considered the strongest and most advanced of the military forces in Southeast Asia. The alliance between the Israeli and Singaporean defense establishments intensified and expanded, and it now encompasses cooperation between the two countries' military industries, as well. The scope of the deals, according to foreign sources, indicates that the Singaporean army is one of the major clients of Israeli combat means and military technology. Singapore's aircraft industry is cooperating with its Israeli counterpart and with Elbit Systems in upgrading the F-5 warplanes of the Turkish Air Force. A few years ago, Singapore's defense minister revealed that the Gil antitank missile, which is manufactured by Raphael (Israel Armaments Development Authority), was developed in cooperation between the two countries. 

Lee Kuan Yew explained in his latest memoir the need to maintain secrecy to his close friend in the leadership, and the first defense minister in his government, Dr. Goh Keng Swee. "We have to ensure, as far as possible, that the arrival of the Israelis will not become public knowledge, in order not to arouse opposition among the Malay Muslims who live in Malaysia and Singapore," the prime minister summed up. That, in essence, is Singapore's problem. The residents of the small island, which has an area of about 670 square kilometers (Israel is 30 times as large), are mainly Chinese, and they live between the two Muslim countries of Malaysia and Indonesia. Life in the shadow of the large Muslim majority and fear of a Malaysian incursion are an integral part of the history of the two countries. 

Anonymous 

TRS contributor