The Commonwealth Games have ended in Glasgow, Scotland.

Singapore has won medals in 5 events at the Games – table-tennis, shooting, badminton, swimming, and gymnastics.

The total number of medals given out for the five events is 38.

Out of these 38 medals, 29 medals were won by foreign-born Singaporeans from different countries.

This means Singapore-born athletes won only 9 medals.

China-born Singaporeans collected the most number of medals – 23 – mainly from table-tennis.

The rest of the 29 medals were won by Indonesia- , Malaysia- and Thailand-born Singaporeans.

The final medal tally means that foreign-born Singaporeans collected a whopping 76% of the medals won by Singapore at the Games.

Singapore won 8 gold, 5 silver and 4 bronze medals in Glasgow.

This was a poorer showing than the 11-11-9 medal haul in 2010 in Delhi.

Do you feel proud that 76% of the medals were won by foreign-born athletes?

Here are the medal tally, with the athletes' birth place in brackets:

Singapore Commonwealth Games Medallists

GOLD MEDALS

TABLE TENNIS - Men's Singles

Zhan Jian (Wuhan, China)

TABLE TENNIS - Men's Doubles

Li Hu (Hebei, China)

Gao Ning (Hebei, China)

TABLE TENNIS - Women's Singles

Feng Tian Wei (Harbin, China)

TABLE TENNIS - Women's Doubles

Feng Tian Wei (Harbin, China)

Yu Mengyu (Liaoning)

TABLE TENNIS - Men's Team

Chew Zhe Yu

Li Hu (Hebei, China)

Zhan Jian (Wuhan, China)

Gao Ning (Hebei, China)

Yang Zi (Beijing, China)

TABLE TENNIS - Women's Team

Feng Tian Wei (Harbin, China)

Isabelle Li Siyun

Yu Mengyu (Liaoning, China)

Lin Ye (Liaoning, China)

Zhou Yihan (Liaoning, China)

SHOOTING – 50m Rifle 3 Positions

Ser Xiang Wei Jasmine

SHOOTING – Women’s 10m Air Pistol

Teo Shun Xie

SILVER MEDALS

TABLE TENNIS - Men's Singles - Silver

Gao Ning (Hebei, China)

TABLE TENNIS - Women's Singles

Yu Mengyu (Liaoning, China)

BADMINTON – Men’s Singles

Wong Zi Liang Derek

BADMINTON – Men’s Doubles

Triyachart Chayut (Thailand)

Danny Bawa Chrisnanta (Indonesia)

SWIMMING – 100m Fly

Joseph Isaac Schooling

BRONZE MEDALS

TABLE TENNIS - Men's Doubles

Zhan Jian (Wuhan, China)

Yang Zi (Beijing, China)

TABLE TENNIS - Women's Singles

Lin Ye (Liaoning, China)

BADMINTON – Mixed Team

Wong Zi Liang Derek

Danny Bawa Chrisnanta (Indonesia)

Triyachart Chayut (Thailand)

Huang Chao (Hubei, China)

Hee Yong Kai Terry (Penang, Malaysia)

Yao Lei (Jiangsu, China)

Shinta Mulia Sari (Jakarta, Indonesia)

Neo Yu Yan Vanessa

Fu Mingtian (Hubei, China)

Liang Xiao Yu (Nanjing, China)

GYMNASTICS – Artistic Individual Vault

Hoe Wah Toon

Foreign-born – 29 Medals

Singapore-born – 9 Medals

Total - 38

*Article first appeared on http://publicopinion.sg/70/no-pride-in-76%25-of-medals-won-by-foreign-bo...

Jakarta. More Indonesian Muslim groups and public figures have voiced their rejection against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. Some urge the government to take firmer action against the possible spread of a growing movement in Indonesia, while others suggest that a lack of media attention would reduce interest in the extreme religious campaign.

“We strongly condemn the violence and terror waged by ISIS; they go against Islamic teachings,” Teguh Santosa, deputy chairman of Indonesia’s second-largest Muslim organization, Muhammadiyah, said in a press statement on Saturday.

“We cannot stand silent as we witness this [movement]. It’s true that forming and joining a group is the right of every citizen, but we cannot tolerate violence. The government must take firm action [against ISIS’s influence].”

Teguh warned Indonesian Muslims not to be duped by the hardline Muslim crusaders of ISIS, saying that the group is merely donning an Islamic mask but do not carry the true religious teachings of the prophet, given its notoriety for brutal force and violence.

ISIS, also known for its extreme interpretation of an offshoot of Islam called Wahabism, has reportedly been targeting Shiites and Christians in Iraq, one of two countries where the group currently operates — the other being war-torn Syria.

Teguh, who is also an international relations lecturer at the Islamic State University (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah in Jakarta, theorizes that ISIS had possibly been developed by an “anti-Islam” movement that aimed to benefit from the escalating tension and fighting in battle-worn Middle East.

The Islamic Student Union (HMI), meanwhile, condemns Indonesian Muslims condoning and adhering to ISIS’s extremist ideology, following the recent upload of a YouTube video featuring an Indonesian man who claims to be a member of the radical movement, calling on local Muslims to stage jihad and support ISIS by migrating to a trans-national caliphate it claims to have established.

“Indonesians who inhabit [the space] between Sabang and Merauke, we weren’t born in Iraq or Syria,” HMI secretary-general Muhammad Chairul Basyar said on Friday, referring to the eastern and western extremes of Indonesia.

“In our homeland, people of all backgrounds enjoy religious freedom,” he added. “Citizens who act as though they don’t live in Indonesia, as though they are foreigners in their own homeland, disgust us.”

Teguh and Chairul made their statement following a written warning by Religious Affairs Minister Lukman Hakim Saifuddin, in which he stated the government will strip any citizen pledging allegiance to the ISIS caliphate, of their Indonesian citizenship.

The country’s largest Muslim group, the Nahdlatul Ulama, has also joined the chorus of rejection of the un-Islamic “extremist movement.”

An unwarranted fear?

Syarifuddin Jurdi, the head of the political department at UIN Alauddin in Makassar, is worried that some Muslim groups in Indonesia that have been campaigning for an Islamic caliphate will be interested in joining ISIS.

“Since the fall of the Turkish Ottoman [Empire], fights to re-establish the caliphate have continued. ISIS emerges as a response to the crisis in the Middle East, and the virus is spreading across the Muslim world,” Syariffudin said.

“ISIS is a transnational movement of whose development we must remain alert. Those who aren’t satisfied with the current political condition of this nation may join ISIS. The government and community groups must try to anticipate that,” he added.

However, Qasim Mathar, a professor of Islamic studies also at UIN Alauddin, believes Indonesia’s fear of ISIS was “too raw,” and that blowing the issue out of proportion might trigger unnecessary suspicion among local Muslim groups.

Hardline Islamic groups Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) and the Indonesian Islamic State (NII) may be in danger of becoming the subject of such paranoid fears. HTI has on previous occasions voiced the idea of a pan-national Islamic caliphate, while NII is known to be running its own pseudo-Islamic state inside Indonesia.

Neither group is known to be affiliated with ISIS, said Qasim.

“[The attention surrounding ISIS] may turn Indonesian Muslims against each other; it has the potential to divide our people,” Qasim said. “Furthermore, [the fear of] ISIS might shift the country’s focus from humanitarian problems and Israel’s strike against Gaza. Let’s ignore the ISIS issue in Indonesia until we receive proof of law enforcers arresting members of ISIS here.”

HTI has also denounced ISIS’s version of a caliphate on its website, saying the group has not used the “right methods” for establishing a separate Islamic state.

Chairul, too, suggested that a heavy focus on ISIS may foster unnecessary worries and fear among Indonesians.

“We must not take heed of people spreading animosity and spite,” he said.

Source: http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesian-muslims-denounce-isis-ide...

I was surprised at the report “MOH may run its own nursing homes” (Aug 1). In view of our ageing population, are we promoting the easy way out; that is, putting our sick and aged in these nursing homes?

We should be encouraging families to care for the sick and aged via more subsidies for employing domestic helpers and for home care by doctors and nurses, as well as more tax reliefs.

The ministry should train more home-care specialists and have more day rehabilitation centres instead. There would surely be more savings in all these than in building more nursing homes with the subsequent operating costs.

Based on my experience with my late father, putting him in a nursing home three years ago was more expensive than engaging a helper. Giving our loved ones home care is also something they need during their final journey and what I call filial piety.

The ministry could perhaps have a rethink.

David Soh Poh Huat

*Letter first appeared on TODAY, Voices (5 Aug)

In his reply to WP MP Gerald Giam’s and other MPs’ questions on CPF, DPM Tharman finally revealed GIC’s 5-year return in Singapore dollar was peanuts at 0.5%. It now appears our reserves had been used raided to pay CPF members 2.5% to 5%.

DPM Tharman’s figures (2012/2013 US$ and S$ five year return)

Table A

(Figures in US$ are of no relevance to CPF members besides for comparison purposes. Ultimately, returns from foreign investments have to be converted into Singapore dollar to be paid to CPF members. GIC is not being upfront on this and it is obvious returns in Singapore dollar is much lower due Singapore dollar appreciation. Publishing returns in Singapore currency will expose GIC’s weak performance.)

How were CPF members paid with GIC’s 5-year 0.5% returns?

A 0.5% compounded interest of a $100 initial capital increases to $102.53 after 5 years. Total yearly interests add up to 2.53%. (Compound Interest Calculator)

If GIC made total returns of only 2.53% for 5 years, how did GIC manage to pay CPF members between 2.5% to 5% every year?

Total CPF credited to members:

Table B (in S$ millions)

From 2008 to 2012, CPF members were $33 billion by GIC.

On 4 August, Gerald Giam asked DPM Tharman the following questions in Parliament:

(a) whether the buffer of “net assets” that are used by the Government to ensure that Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) interest rates are paid to the CPF Board even in years when GIC’s returns are weak refers to
(i) past Government reserves requiring Presidential assent for drawdown
(ii) current Government reserves or (iii) current or past reserves accumulated by GIC or MAS; and
(b) what limitations apply to the use of these net assets.

DPM Tharman’s reply merely reiterated GIC’s framework, how funds are comingled so that GIC has the excuse not to know where they originated from, history of GIC and before it was formed, GIC’s unverifiable “good long-term returns”, past and current reserves, etc. Tharman was clearly evasive in his non reply.

Some questions in Parliament could be easily answered with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. A multiple choice question could be easily answered. But PAP politicians love to beat around the bush every time they try to conceal information from the public.

Government raided past reserves to pay CPF members

DPM Tharman was unable to be concise in his reply because the government did raid our past reserves. The government had already indirectly confirmed this with GIC’s 5-year 0.5% return in Sing dollar.

The returns of most funds took a hit during the 2008 financial crisis but recovered subsequently in 2009 and 2010. GIC’s 5-year S$ 0.5% return can be inferred from:

- 2008/2009 – huge losses.
– 2009/2010 to 2010/2011 – regain losses
– 2010/2011, 2011/2012 to 2012/2013 – gains which account for most of the S$ 0.5% return.

Performance of SWFs generally mirror that of Norway’s with a steep loss in 2008 followed by a subsequent recovery.

Norway’s yearly pension fund returns from 2008 to 2013. (No reason for GIC not to publish its yearly returns)

Since there were insufficient current reserves in 2011 and 2012 (post election), GIC therefore must have drawn on past reserves to pay CPF members.

But of course the president wouldn’t know

Was the president consulted on using our reserves to pay CPF members? The answer is likely ‘no’ judging from the ignorance of our past president Mr Nathan. Just before stepping down as president, Nathan revealed that “past reserves have been used 27 times” when in fact it was “used 55 times”. Tony Tan, our current president has been silent on just about every major issue affecting Singaporeans. So he is unlikely to be aware if our reserves have been used.

Conclusion

DPM Tharman’s 14-point reply appears to be an attempt to obfuscate the CPF/GIC issue and conceal important information from the public.

GIC has been earning less than the amount it has paid out to CPF members after the general election. GIC should clarify how CPF members were paid if it did not draw on past reserves.

Phillip Ang

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

The only time when we have a peace of mind is when he seriously addresses the mad immigration policy and start to de-populate selectively, especially the foreign PMETs.

Even then, we have no more trust in this government. Change we must.

I have known of many companies that promote their own kind and hire their own kind, both MNCs and GLCs with foreign heads of departments.

Many companies that used to have no more than five expatriates are now having over a hundred expatriates. How to be productive and competitive as most expatriates come with generous family packages.

Spoke with some, they say why not. EDB gave very generous grants, tax free for a good number of years.

One German company engaged a property agent friend of mine to look for twelves upmarket service apartments to house their expatriates and asked my property agent friend where to get the best in groceries, German sausages and such. NTUC Fair Price, not good enough. Cold Storage, not up-market enough. Tanglin gourmet super-markets and all fancy butcheries are what they want. “Your government hand us very generous grants and so we must make the best use of it.” and so they said.

This Germany Company have their management and executive, all German expatriates. Office boys, clerks, drivers and those at the bottom of the hierarchy, all locals.

They all drive company cars, BMWs and Mercedes, company paid, EDB granted.

Now you know why COE prices cannot come down. The demand is driven up by these expatriates’ demand who can bid high for it’s company sponsored.

We are all f**ked deeply by our own government.

Getting Screwed Real Bad

Wow. I filed my affidavit for the defamation suit by Lee Hsien Loong yesterday, with evidence on the discrepancies in how the government and the GIC manages the CPF of Singaporeans.

However, none of the mainstream media reported on it. In this time and age, I cannot believe that the mainstream media in Singapore would sideline such an important piece of news about Singaporeans’ CPF!

My fellow Singaporeans, if you want answers to how your CPF is being used, it is up to you now. If you want something to be done to your CPF and for the government to tell you the truth, then please share this article far and wide. The mainstream media won’t do it. They won’t do what they should do – report the news. It is now up to you – it is your duty and responsibility – to share this article if you want to know the truth of what is really happening to your CPF. Share it via Facebook, Twitter, email, WhatsApp, or any other chat apps that you have. Share it. Only then when the truth come out.

I revealed 5 key evidences in my affidavit. Here is a very quick look at what they are here.

(1) The Government Claimed in the Past that They Do Not Take Our CPF to Invest in GIC, But Finally Admits to the Truth for the First Time in June This Year

Before June this year, the GIC claimed that they do not know if they use our CPF funds to invest because it is “not made explicit” to them by the government.

In fact, the government also claims that they do not take our CPF to invest in the GIC, and they did this on at least 3 counts over the past 15 years.

In 2007, then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen also claimed that the GIC does not “use money derived from CPF to invest”.

Chart: Worker’s Party Singapore News

In 2006, then-Minister Mentor and Chairman of the GIC also said that, “there is no connection between GIC’s rate of return and the interest paid on CPF accounts”.

In 2001, then-Senior Minister and also GIC Chairman Lee Kuan Yew also said that, “there is no direct link between the GIC and the CPF”.

However, in June this year, for the first time ever in Singapore’s history, the government “volte-faced on their position” and admitted the truth – that they do take our CPF to invest in the GIC.

(2) The Government Deleted Evidence of How Our CPF is Invested in GIC and Temasek Holdings

In 2012 and 2013, I had written two articles that traced specifically on the government websites, which showed how the government indeed takes our CPF to invest in the GIC and Temasek Holdings.

However, by May this year, the government deleted all traces of the evidence. They deleted information on how our CPF (via the SSGS) is invested “in reserves”.

They also deleted evidence on how our CPF (via the reserves) is managed by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), GIC and Temasek Holdings.

But by June this year, the government admitted to everything, and admitted that they do take our CPF to invest in the GIC. They deleted everything to cover their tracks, but by June this year, they had no choice but to admit to the truth.

(3) Temasek Holdings Claim that It Does Not Use Our CPF to Invest but It Did – Were Our Monies Returned?

In June this year, for the first time ever, Temasek Holdings claim that they do not “invest or manage CPF savings”.

Temasek Holdings also makes this claim on their website.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam also claims that Temasek Holdings, “has never managed CPF funds”.

Mr Tharman said that, “Temasek started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at time of inception… (of) about $400 million dollars worth of assets in the form of a set of companies.”

However, it is revealed in a speech given by the Minister for Labour and Communications in 1982 that, “CPF savings form a large portion of Singapore’s savings. These savings are used for capital formation which means the construction of new factories, installation of new plant and equipment, expansion of infrastructure such as roads,’ ports and telecommunications, the building of houses and so on.”

Which means that our CPF was indeed transferred into Temasek Holdings, but did the government return to Singaporeans our CPF returned when these companies were privatised and returns were earned?

(4) Today, GIC and Temasek Holdings are the 8th and 10th Richest Sovereign Wealth Funds in the World, But Singaporeans Have One of The Poorest Retirement Funds in the World

Today, GIC and Temasek Holdings are the 8th and 10th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

But Singaporeans have one of the least adequate retirement funds in Asia, according to the Asian Development Bank Institute.

We also have the least adequate retirement funds among the highest-income countries, according to the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index 2013.

Singaporeans also have the least adequate retirement funds in the world, according to the OECD.

If so, I had said in my affidavit that, “My point was that something was not adding up. Why was it that GIC and Temasek Holdings were amongst the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the world and yet Singaporeans had one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world? Especially so when GIC and Temasek Holdings (according to the GIC at that time) were managing CPF monies?”

(5) The Government Claims that the Government Does Not Interfere in the GIC, But the Government is the GIC

Finally, the GIC claims that, “The government holds the GIC board accountable for portfolio performance, but does not interfere in the company’s investment decisions.”

The government also claims that, “The Government plays no role in decisions on individual investments that are made by GIC, MAS and Temasek. At the GIC and MAS, whose boards include Ministers, these investment decisions are entirely the responsibility of their respective management teams.”

However, I said in my affidavit that, “this is implausible as the head of the Government, the Prime Minister, the two deputy prime ministers and the ministers for Trade and Industry and Education also head GIC as its Board of Directors. It is clearly impossible that the Government “neither directs nor influences the company’s decisions”.

Indeed, these are who are on the Board of Directors of GIC:

And these are the people in the government Cabinet. These are the same people.

GIC also says that, “Once a year, the GIC Management formally meets the Minister for Finance”

But the Finance Minister is also on the GIC Board of Directors so “such a claim is counterintuitive”.

Finally, the GIC says that, “GIC is a private limited company wholly owned by the government. The Ministry of Finance, representing the government, ensures that a competent board of directors is in place; GIC helps by suggesting qualified candidates.”

However, I make clear in my affidavit that, “There is a clear conflict of interest in how the Government and GIC continues to present itself in a mischievous way and to mislead Singaporeans… When the Government appoints itself onto the Board of Directors, and where the selection process is not transparent or made known to Singaporeans, the selection process and the quality of the candidates become doubtful.”

For the government to claim that the GIC “pays no regard to what the source of funds is”, “is clearly impossible, unbelievable and absurd since the Government, and the Prime Minister and Finance Minister no less, who are tasked to be in charge of the overall financial matters of Singapore, is also on the GIC Board of Directors. It is illogical and impossible that the GIC Board of Directors “invests the assets … without regard to the sources of the Government’s funds” when the GIC Board of Directors, by virtue of their positions in Government, would know exactly what the sources of the Government’s funds are,” I said in my affidavit.

The Government is Putting Singaporeans’ Lives at Risk and How the Government Manages Our CPF is a Threat to Our Security

Finally, I said that, “I make clear here that if there has been any allegation of misappropriation by me (which is denied) that certain entities might profit from the peoples’ funds that that allegation is against the Government, GIC and Temasek Holdings, as they do not return to Singaporeans the full amount of investment gains made from investing Singaporeans CPF monies.  Neither were they at the time I wrote the Article transparent as to who was managing CPF monies.  There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that I have accused the Plaintiff of Criminal Misappropriation of Singaporeans CPF monies.  I have never accused him of taking a cent of Singaporeans CPF monies and I have no intention to do so as well.  It is only persons who are avid for scandal who would say I meant this in the Article.”

In summary, I had said:

Evidently, it is clear that GIC knew where the funds were coming from and that the funds used by them are public funds, but after their knowledge of this was highlighted, GIC changed this information. Thus since it is evident that GIC and Temasek Holdings use public funds and Singaporeans’ CPF monies to invest, it is absurd that GIC and Temasek Holdings are made private limited entities which are not required to disclose full information. GIC and Temasek Holdings use public funds and should not be made private limited companies. Also, a significant pool of GIC’s funds actually do come from Singaporeans’ CPF and it is disingenuous for the Government to delink the two. They and their Board of Directors and the Government have to be fully transparent and accountable to the citizens of Singapore. The lack of transparency and accountability at this level at GIC and Temasek Holdings and by the government is completely unacceptable and disingenuous, and puts the lives of the citizens of Singapore at risk.

I believe that I have a defence to these proceedings as the Article does not in law, bear out the meaning which the Plaintiff solicitors claim it does. Also, as the above clearly bears out, there is a clear case of a lack of transparency and accountability on how GIC, Temasek Holdings and the Government manages public funds and Singaporeans’ CPF monies, and in order for this case to be adequately argued, an open enquiry on this issue is of utmost importance. The Government and the GIC has made numerous changes and flip-flops in their stance, which has been shown to conceal important facts about how the Government and the GIC manages Singaporeans’ CPF. This is disingenuous and remains a threat to the security of how Singaporeans’ CPF are being managed. The Government’s and the GIC’s inconsistencies in their statements and answers pose real risk to the lives of Singaporeans, whom lack of knowledge of how the CPF is being managed, due to the “private limited” nature of the GIC and Temasek Holdings, due to the lack of full annual records of these companies since inception, and due to the conflict of interest posed by the Government also being on the GIC and questions the integrity of how Singaporeans’ CPF is being managed and whether Singaporeans can trust the Government and the GIC to continue to perform in such an unilaterally-non-transparent and accountable manner. These are legal matters for my lawyers to argue in Court and I will leave it to my lawyers to make the legal arguments and for the Court to decide on the legal meaning of the words.”

My conscience is clear and I have always believed in working towards the greater good of our country and for Singapore and Singaporeans. It has always been my wish that when we have a Government which is honest and transparent and estates of governance (i.e. civil service, civil society, think tanks, media, educational institutions etc) are independent of the Government and of one another, will there be clear and strong checks and balances which will prevent such a lack of transparency and accountability from happening, and where the lives of Singaporeans will improve and be protected. The current situation where Singaporeans have been placed at a disservice, due to the lack of information from the Government, MAS, GIC and Temasek Holdings, is due to a lack of checks and balances within the Government and among the estates of governance. Such disservice is dishonourable and requires a thorough examination of the issues at hand. Only when these issues are dealt with rigourously and held accountable to Singaporeans where where the lives of Singaporeans will be truly safeguarded. This is where I have written in good faith from, and which I maintain, towards a just and equal Singaporean society.

If you want justice done, please share this article far and wide. They won’t let us know, but only when we let more people know, will we be able to fight back and let the truth be known. Please share this article.

To read the full affidavit, you can refer to the link below. You can read the affidavit in the first 18 pages. The rest of the pages are annexes.

Roy Ngerng Affidavit to Lee Hsien Loong 4 August 2014

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event

On 23 August, there will be a third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event.

Join us at the third edition and take a stand. The government cannot take Singaporeans’ CPF to use and tell us that they do not know what they are using it for. This is a derision to Singaporeans and daylight robbery!

On 23 August, we will see you at Hong Lim Park. Let’s come together, be united and speak for change, for the better for our lives, and our children’s.

You can join the Facebook event page here.

Also, my first court case will be held on 18 September 2014, at 10.00am. It will be a full-day hearing.

Roy Ngerng

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

One message we always get from the govt and the constructive, nation-building media is that an aging population and the refusal of married S’poreans to do NS when having sex means we need FTs to grow the population so that S’pore can finance the needs of an aging population.

But another message is that in our CPF system, we finance our personal retirement needs (see yesterdays ad in ST), unlike the ang mohs who have a pay-as-you-go system. The Manpower Blog from MOM describes it thus, ... a pension system. They collect taxes or get citizens to contribute to a social security fund. This pooled monies is then paid out to citizens who reach a certain age. However, many of these systems are facing challenges, because those who are young are now paying for the old. As most countries age, there are fewer and fewer young people paying for more and more aged people …

In Singapore, we have the CPF. Rather than pool all our monies together, every individual saves for his own retirement via his personal individual CPF account.

(Emphasis is mine)

So my question is why do we need to worry about an aging population? MOM says that we oldies don’t depend on younger S’poreans to pay for our pensions? It’s our money that is funding ourselves.

So why need population 6.9m by 2030? Or is it now 10m? Juz excuse to import FTs by the A380 cattle-class?

But then MOM also says CPF monies is S’poreans money, even when govt tells us how we can spend it: sounds like

“War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.” .

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

My take

And then there is this rubbish

When the British introduced the CPF scheme in 1955, we could withdraw all our savings at 55. Do we remember what our retirement age was then? It was 55. What was the life expectancy in 1955? It was about 60. Hence, what you withdrew at age 55 would have to last you for just a few years.

Today, the retirement age is at 62 and we could be re-employed until 65.And life expectancy is at least 82 and rising fast. For those turning 65 years old today, 1 in 2 will live beyond 85, and 1 in 3 beyond 90. What would happen if we withdrew everything at age 55? Or even 65? Would we ourselves be able to manage our monies for two decades or more? 

Well there are many other solutions other than forcing Minimum Sum and CPF Life down our throats at age 55. Ask the SDP about one possible solution. and the ang mohs too have ideas. Related post on ang moh view supporting PAP’s stance

Thoughts of a Cynical Investor

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

When I walk around my estate in Tampines, I find that many Singaporeans are not displaying our flag. Other than a few blocks decorated with flags by grassroots members, fewer blocks are adorned with symbols of our national pride this year.

I visited another part of Singapore and observed the same trend.

In my block, there is only one flag flying – from my apartment. I cannot help but ask if Singaporeans have lost their national pride.

Could it be that they are demonstrating their unhappiness with life in Singapore? Or could it be a show of unhappiness with the Government, which they equate with the country?

National pride and political affiliation are separate issues. I fly my flag because I love my country and want to show the world that I stand united with my fellow Singaporeans, regardless of race, language, religion and political affiliation.

We will be a laughing stock if we continually complain about the influx of foreigners, yet do not even bother to fly our flag in the lead-up to National Day. How would other countries view us? Would they regard us as a country united on the surface but divided at the core?

We will be celebrating our 50th anniversary of nation-building next year and it would be very sad if Singaporeans do not feel proud about it.

I urge my fellow citizens to fly the flag and be proud Singaporeans.

With National Day around the corner, what better time to demonstrate national pride?

David Tan Kok Kheng

*Letter first appeared in ST Forum (5 Aug)

I refer to the 4 Aug 2014 TodayOnline letter “FTs may bring more good to SG than some may assume” by Mr Melvyn Chong.

Singapore’s initial phase of experience didn’t happen after our independence. It happened after our founding in 1819. After blossoming for more than a hundred years under the guiding hand of our British administrators, Singapore could hardly be called a start-up by the time of our independence.

A start-up neither operates through press control nor through social engineering. Did Google founders Larry Page or Sergey Brin try to control what each other read or tried to engineer each other during Google’s start-up? Did Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Paul Allen or Apples’s Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak try to do the same to each other respectively? It is ridiculous to characterize start-ups as operating through press control and social engineering. Start-ups start with few cooks not because they are afraid too many would spoil the broth but because there isn’t much broth to cook at first when customers are few.

It is a perpetual lie that Singapore went from Third World to First in less than 50 years. The truth is that Singapore went from Middle Income status back in 1965 to First.

Social media hasn’t pulled discussion in a different direction. Social media merely provides the truth that has been absent all these years. Would people flock to social media if the newspaper and television had been speaking the truth and speaking for the people all this while?

Positive change cannot help but create disunity when there are those who stubbornly cling on to the negative past.

Who is to say who the trolls, bigots or haters are? Given some of the nonsense that Mr Chong uttered, is he not a troll, bigot or hater himself?

Accepting diversity doesn’t mean accepting the continuous increase in diversity.

Why should our falling birth rate be compensated for by the influx of foreigners? According to Minister Tan Chuan Jin, Singapore’s CPF is supposed to ensure everyone has enough to retire so we need not worry about the aging of our population, we need not compensate for our falling birthrate.

The goodness of diversity cannot be the excuse to continuously import people beyond the point of overcrowding, beyond diminishing returns to diversity. No matter how diverse our people becomes, we still rush for the same trains and bid for the same COEs.

Why should Singapore’s dependence on migrant workers become our debt to them? Do we not pay them wages that are many times better than what they would get back home that is the reason why they come in the first place? Do they not come willingly? Do we not house them in good condition dormitories? Do we not fight for their welfare? The examples of First World nations like Australia and Hong Kong show that if pay is right, if industry practices are right, if social norms are right, there is no reason why Singaporeans cannot take up construction jobs.

In order to look up to the American dream for inspiration, we must first eradiate press control because press control is the ultimate antithesis to the American dream.

The interesting creation of a Singapore identity going beyond race and religion has already been experienced during colonial times. But any supposed Singapore identity that goes beyond nationality should not blur the difference between owners and visitors in Singapore. If visitors are elevated to the same status as owners in Singapore, the Singapore nationality will become worthless and the land of Singapore will cease to be worth defending.

Thank you

Ng Kok Lim

Some people, especially the old and patriotic Singaporeans, are lamenting why so few flags are seen on the flats? It used to be nearly the whole block of flats flying the Singapore flags. Now it is like you can count them on your finger tips. 

Let me explain this phenomenon by arithmetic. First point, not too long ago, the majority of the population was Singaporeans. Then you have the element of being a closed knit society of One People, One Nation and One Singapore. Practically everyone will be flying the flag. 

What does the number says today? 40% are foreigners. That is 2 foreigners to 3 Singaporeans. By this you can at best get 3 flags flying from every 5 units. But actually if you include the new citizens who are still fresh and not really one of us, you are talking about 50% are Singaporeans and 50% new citizens cum foreigners. This will mean that for every two units, only one will fly the flag at best. So at best, only 50% of the flats will be flying the flag. 

But of the 50%, 30% are hard core anti PAP which will translate to no flag flying. This will reduce the number of flags flying from 50% in a block of flats to 35% at best. The 30% hard core supporters of the PAP/Govt will mean only 15% of the flats would fly the flag. Thus, for every 100 units, 15 units will be flying the flag(from the hard core supporters) and at best 35 units if all the swing voters are included, the grey area of 40% neither pro or anti PAP. If half of this group will to fly the flag, it will mean 15 + 10 or at best 25 flags will be flying for every 100 units. 

And if you take away some from these 25 units due to forgetfulness, angry because of summons/fines, or not happy with MPs, or jobless, or for whatever real or unreal reasons, the number of flags flying could be less than 20 for every 100 units of flags. 

So, the dearth of the national flag being flown in the HDB estates is normal, the new normal, when the population of Singaporeans is so much reduced. This could be a statement of how big is the Singaporean core that is left in the city state. It is a new reality when there are simply too many foreigners living here. 

Make sense? You can’t expect the foreigners to be flying the Singapore flag right? If they could, as some have done, they would fly their own national flags. They are not Singaporeans and have no reason to fly our flag. They are not one of us.

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

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

There was once a father who had a son. There was a sporting event at his son's school. The father who was a smart man realized that his son would probably not win. Besides it detracted from the more important goals of studying for exams. The father still wanted a gold medal. So the father took some money from his son's college fund which his son had been working for - and hired someone to impersonate his son at the Sports event. That person won. The father gave the person some money and took the medal home. The father now had a gold medal to proudly hang in the dining room.

That parable just about sums up my opinion of the decision by the govt to stack the sporting teams with talented foreign born players.

True - other nations - including Australia also give citizenships to talented foreign born sports people as well. But Singapore goes over the top with this tactic of minting fresh citizens for the purpose of winning sports medals more so than other nations.

Seriously what the fuck is the point?

Its about the same as making a bunch of Germans, Russians, Maoris, and Africans into citizens so that Singapore can field a winning soccer team, ice-hockey team, rugby, or basketball team at the next international games.

The extend of their citizenship only goes so far as holding a pink IC.

Here's a question for you - What really makes a Singapore citizen Singaporean?

Instead of doing that cynical approach to sports - I think its much better to spend the nation's money on its own locally born citizens. Here are some examples:

1. Spend the money on training our sports teachers. Its highly important that our sports and physical education teachers are knowledgeable about the whole dynamics of muscle growth and training. Think of the amount of good it would do to the nation if the sports teachers were highly skilled and knowledgeable - they could teach entire generations of citizens to be more aware and conscious of their health and physical training.

Money that goes into this field also goes into creating our own Sports Industry.

2. Raise up our own sports people. Sure what for? But Singapore spends billions of dollars on its armed forces and military. I'm not saying its wasted money (sidetopic: consider how much Hong Kong govt spends on its own military.) But if Singapore is prepared to spend so much money on its own armed forces - why not devote the money used for awarding citizenships foreigners to training and sponsoring its own locally born sports people?? Each dollar spent on a Singapore born sports person also goes to his Singapore family, his parents, his children and would quite likely encourage a Singaporean child to do the same rather than swotting for the exam in an air-con room. This is Nation-building stuff.

If you disagree with this - you might want to consider the sheer amount of man hours spent by each Singaporean male and the contributions made by his family in NS (not to mention the number of Singaporeans killed or maimed in the line of duty). NS conscripts are being paid fuck all. And what for? Don't talk about duty when you are being paid a highly exorbitant (public) salary.

We pay taxes. We stay law abiding citizens.... Wait... What for?

You might as well hire Gukhas to defend our nation... Hmmmm.... oh wait a minute.... :D

I don't mind if the (minted fresh citizens) foreign born players stay in Singapore and contribute to the culture of Singapore - but if they go back home after they won the medal and got their prize money and whatever monetary reward they were promised by the Gahmun - what's the point? It would be cheaper just to go to a shop in Chinatown and make a copy of the gold medal and put a photoshoped face next to it.

But if you are running the country like a college or like a corporation than it does seem make more economic sense to purchase foreign sports talent. Using that sort of logic however and you might as well kill old aged citizens who can't work anymore or withhold the CPF pensions of old aged citizens... or whatever horrible, soulless but economically rational ideas you can think of.

Yau Ming

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

Since Professor Michael Hor Yew Meng assumed his Deanship in Hongkong University’s Law Faculty, after being by passed for the post in NUS when he was Number Two and first on the waiting list, there have been this funny talk of Marriedtocracy in Sin City. This is best exemplified by Michael Hor’s reply to the media when asked why he was found not good enough and a junior guy, a foreign talent was offered the top job instead, Michael’s reply, ‘I don’t know.’ 

What is this thing called Marriedtocracy? Simply, it is merit by marriage, as was suggested in the rumour mill. One can earn merits by getting married in Sin City. I think this is nothing unusual. It happens everywhere, in different degrees. It is just that in a small City state, oops, I am being dismissive as some think we are the biggest country in the world, when everyone knows everyone, when everyone is living next door to the Who’s Who, there can’t be many secrets that were unknown. All, or nearly all, secrets are public knowledge. 

This rumour of Marriedtocracy over Meritocracy is just mischievous. There is no such thing in this corruption free state. Everyone is appointed based on merits. This is the secret to the City State’s success story. You can’t have dunces appointed based on Marriedtocracy and expect them to do well. It must be real merit at work. Or else it is only a matter of time when merit sounds more like married. The truth about married, or merit, will surface with time. Merit can last and can survive the test of time. Married often does not last and would lead to divorce, separation and unsavoury marital affairs. 

Eight times Australian National Champion and Commonwealth Games Men’s Singles silver medalist (2006), William Henzell, lambasted Singapore for sending a “professional team” - the politically correct descriptive for "mercenary" - to Glasgow that was largely made up of PRC-born players. “I don’t think what Singapore does is in the spirit of the Games,” Henzell whinged. “It’s disappointing to see.”

Henzell touched a raw nerve. You see, what Singapore does is not exactly in the spirit of nation building either. Bringing in hordes of foreign players into the workforce, some with doctored and dubious paper qualifications, and calling them talents. Gong Li and Eduardo Saverin may have signed on, but they only add to the rarefied list of multi-millionaires, not the types doing the grunt work like having to bear arms to defend a country. At time of jumping ship, the Brazilian-born resident of Singapore was reputedly joining a growing number of people giving up U.S. citizenship ahead of a possible increase in tax rates for top earners.

The trial of a man from Hong Kong accused of killing his parents with the help of a friend on Wednesday (Aug 6) pleaded not guilty to murder, as gruesome details of severed heads in fridges and body parts cooked to resemble barbequed pork were played out in court.

30-year-old Henry Chau confessed to killing his parents as he thought they were "total losers". He told the court he was on the verge of a breakdown, as his emotional connection with his parents was getting worse.

The court was also told that Chau had planned the murder with his friend, Tse Chun-Kei, for more than three months.

In their bid to murder and dispose of the bodies of 65-year-old Chau Wing-Ki, and his wife Siu Yuet-Yee, the duo had bought knives, refrigerators, microwave ovens and a rice cooker.

It was revealed that after the killing, Chau and Tse dismembered the bodies, storing the couple's heads and organs in the fridge. They had also cooked parts of the remains to make it look like barbequed pork, packed it in lunch boxes with some rice, and disposed of it in a rubbish bin, after they ran out of storage space in the refrigerators.

The grisly find was uncovered after police searched an apartment the couple were last seen at in March 2013, a day after Chau reported his parents missing. DNA tests confirmed the identities of the bodies.

(1) Tan Chuan-Jin did not answer the question – if Singaporeans could set aside more than $155,000 to get higher payouts

Yesterday in Parliament, Ms Foo Mee Har asked the Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin if “Singaporeans who wish to set aside larger sums than the Minimum Sum of S$155,000 in their CPF in order to secure higher monthly payouts of more than S$1,200 for retirement incomes” could do so.

Tan Chuan-Jin did not answer the question directly.

In effect, he said no.

(2) Tan Chuan-Jin did not answer the question again – how the CPF Life payouts are calculated

Ms Foo Mee Har pursued her question. She asked why there is a need for the government to set a cap for members to top up to the prevailing CPF Minimum Sum.

She also asked the Manpower Minister how the structure and funding mechanism for CPF Life was decided.

Tan Chuan-Jin replied with the textbook answer that $1,200 was computed for the living expenses for a lower-middle income family.

He still did not answer the question – he still did not explain how the calculations behind the $1,200 CPF Life payout.

By Mariam Ottimofiore

I was walking through the very crowded Dhoby Ghaut MRT Station, hot, sweaty people pushing past me in all directions to beat the rush hour when it happened. My husband turned to me and asked “Hey, could you imagine living here?” I thought of the iced coffee I couldn’t take with me to drink inside the metro or the metro station unless I wanted to get fined $500. I thought of the suffocating heat and humidity which made  my usually fashionable chic bangs hairstyle look more like a dishevelled mop stuck unflatteringly to my forehead. I thought of the “air-conditioned bubble” I felt I had landed in – which felt sterile, too manicured and not authentic enough.

My answer was a resounding “never”.

Life often plays cruel jokes on us and I was to be no exception. In a strange twist of fate a few years later,, I found myself packing our bags to leave icy Copenhagen for sunny Singapore, to embark on our new expatriate assignment.

How was I going to fare in this hot and humid tropical island far, far away?

The first few months were a flurry of adjusting to the soaring temperatures (by taking 3 showers a day and piling ice cubes in every drink), responding to excited emails from friends and family back in Europe (no, I couldn’t spot any panda’s from our apartment sadly and yes, could they please bring some chewing gum with them on their next visit), and getting used to the concept of covering up in sweaters and shawls when INSIDE amidst the freezing air conditioned malls (finally able to wear those favourite pair of jeans to go see a movie at the cinema!).  

What I loved right from the start though was the ease of doing everything in English, learning the Singlish short hand of “Can lah” (yes its do-able) and “Cannot lah” (no, it can’t be done), being able to wear T-shirts and flip flops all year round, sampling all the delicious local cuisine, meeting amazing people from all over the world and making friends at the drop of a hat. Must be the eternal summer, that meant most people in Singapore were so friendly and chatty and before you knew it, you had 3 coffee dates lined up for next week.

First impressions soon gave way to second impressions– I realized random people will stop you on the street to touch your precious baby and take pictures while you try to explain you’d rather they not (let it go, it’s an Asian thing), cab drivers will drop you at your condominium and ask “hey, how much do you pay in rent?” while you’re still looking for the right change (smile, it’s just the local way of being direct), you will think twice before buying a slab of parmesan cheese that costs $10 (this might be the perfect time to curb your favourite Italian and French cheese addiction) and “kiasu” or “the fear of losing out” demonstrated in a general lack of civility in stealing the last parking spot or getting in the elevator before you, will bother you at many a time (these usually make for great stories when you’re trying to explain your new life to incredulous folks back home).

As the year progressed and I witnessed first the celebrations for Eid (Hari Raya) with the tantalizing Malay sweets on display at Mustafa Center, followed by the Festival of Lights as Little India burst into colour to welcome Diwali, only to give way to the Christmas decorations and festivities on Orchard Road, followed by red lanterns and amazing fireworks  everywhere as the Chinese New Year drew close – I realized I was coming to appreciate and truly love living in a country so diverse, where each celebration meant a national holiday; where Chinese locals, indigenous Malays and Western expats came together to celebrate each other’s festivities with fervour, and where the label “Chin-Dian” (half Chinese, half Indian) was originally coined.  

Because of the interesting composition of Singapore’s residents (70 % local Chinese, 15% Malay, 10% Indian and 5 % Western expats) and the government’s closely regulated policies to promote racial peace, harmony and tolerance – living in Singapore soon came to feel like  nothing else I had ever experienced. I looked around at the young children and teenagers who were being exposed to this wonderful multicultural, multiracial and multilingual environment and couldn’t help think that they would be the future of tomorrow; and what a brilliant head start they would have in building a more tolerant and peaceful society.

With the birth of our first child in Singapore and our newfound status as parents, I soon came to recognize Singapore as an ideal place for starting and raising a family. While Singapore still lags behind other countries in terms of maternity leave, it encapsulates more varied options for childcare, with live-in help being a norm. Babies and children are not just tolerated, but appreciated and genuinely loved, adored and welcomed in the local culture. I have never felt unwelcome taking my child out to eat at a restaurant or a café, and instead, am usually greeted by staff eager to ask “Would you like a baby chair?” Nursing rooms, changing diaper rooms are plenty abound and so life on the go with a small baby is very convenient and with Singapore’s plethora of activities to keep toddlers and young children entertained, I came to gradually appreciate Singapore as a safe, secure, baby-friendly and child friendly place to live. My personal favourite Singaporean invention: a water park for children to splash and play no matter where you go – the Zoo, Gardens by the Bay, Sentosa, Clark Quay etc., what could be better to beat the heat?

Holidays and long weekends, coupled with proximity to exciting and exotic Asian destinations in the region, form the perfect excuse to constantly be travelling. It’s simply what you do when living in Singapore. With the ease of fantastic cultural experiences at your fingertips, Singapore is a great hub from which to explore Asia. We are completely spoiled for choice when it comes to beach vacations with some of the best beaches in Phuket, Bali, Borneo and Boracay only a couple of hours by flight, the cultural melting pots of Siem Riep, Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok easily accessible and a trip to see the spectacular natural beauty in New Zealand suddenly within reach. One of the best aspects of living in Singapore has definitely been the amazing travel opportunities it afforded, as we familiarized ourselves with so many different cultures and opened our hearts and minds to new ways of living and thinking.

Over the past two and a half years, I have come to love and appreciate Singapore for the diverse, multicultural and fantastic Asian country it truly is. With experience came insight and a fresh perspective, and amongst other things, I realized 3 important things:

Because you can’t eat or drink in the Singapore metro, the metros and the stations are the cleanest I’ve seen anywhere in the world (just go back to Paris or NYC and try taking the metro there without missing Singapore’s spotless one!). The answer to the humidity and bad hair days is either a Brazilian blow-out or a semi-permanent keratin treatment (ask the Singapore Expat Wives on Facebook and they’ll tell you exactly where to go). And the antidote to feeling trapped in an air conditioned bubble is Arab Street. When in doubt, go to Arab Street. Take all your friends and family visiting you from out of town straight to Arab Street for a healthy dose of culture right away, before they have a chance to proclaim Singapore cleaner and more perfect than Switzerland!

Till Deaf Do Us Part

Prof Chan Heng Chee, Chair of the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities, SUTD, writes another opinion piece for the ST, ‘Learning to talk through our differences’.

In her own words (1996), she’s

“anti-establishment and… a bit of a dissident” and had “something of a shock… when… offered the (US) ambassadorship because I was highly critical of government in a society that is not used to being critiqued.”

Looks like age – or her long years as a diplomat – has mellowed her much. Perhaps, too much to the point of being neutered and then co-opted as an apologist for her employer. 20 years is a long time in the payroll and diplomacy cocktail party circuit. Readers of her recent public utterances will find little evidence of any dissidence past, let alone anti-anything about anything SG government.

It’s a great pity. Whilst the under-siege SG govt gains from her assuring its staunch and marginal supporters, dissenting and dissatisfied citizens can only grow in their cynicism of enlightened civil leadership. In turn, Singapore society is poorer for it.

Singapore’s Three Seminal Struggles

Notwithstanding the above, let’s not fall into the funk that supporters on either side of the Establishment are so want to do, interpret everything and anything from their preferred angles.

Prof Chan’s opinion piece does add to the conversation in the mainstream media leading up to our 49th National Day.

She correctly identified our three seminal struggles to be ‘first… our political-economic identity – communist or non-communist. The second was political – our territorial identity – interpreted as whether to go for merger with Malaya or not. The third was over cultural identity shaped by the language policy.’

Any reasonable person will not argue with her general thrusts of how history dealt Singapore a hand that could have sunk us but fortuitously did not. Giving credit where due for the leadership past is only right – where citizens have benefitted and not just some select groups.

Broad Strokes vs Details

Hence, in the three struggles, Prof Chan leaves no doubt about the seminal roles played by PAP and its leaders. But in trying not to be biased, we must call it as we see it.

Firstly, she implies that the recent ‘shift to the left in the social policies’ was a PAP-initiated response to ‘growing inequalities in society exacerbated by globalisation’. And that ‘Singaporeans… share an egalitarian outlook and believe in the state’s provision of social safety nets. There is wide support for the Government’s moves to increase assistance for the poor and disabled.’

Sorry, she cannot be more mistaken. She doesn’t need to hear the cries of citizens left behind; struggling to make ends meet not with one but two or more jobs, furious over CPF monies that have been arbitrarily denied them to withdraw as originally agreed or paying more than 5X annual salaries for what is touted as ‘public’ housing, etc . All she needs to dissect as a distinguished academician is Vivian Balakrishnan’s (in)famous ‘Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?’ ministerial response to a request for, perhaps, an additional S$2.50 per day to eat 3 square hawker meals. But that was 2007, you say. Well, the cabinet has progressed to the new ‘kueh lapis’ approach premised on no ‘dead poor’ in SG by a new million$-salary MCYS minister and supported by the PM himself  – this in Nov 2013? No ‘poverty line’, please, we are Singaporeans.

FIRST, seeing fewer State flags being flown at this time which is traditionally a period when Sporeans show off their pride as citizens, could be that there are now more non citizens staying in those areas since many locals are renting out their homes to make ends meet.

SECOND, it could be that they, like me, would normally wait until the eve of National Day to fly the flag to ensure a spanking new flag which would otherwise be soiled from dust and dirt if flown days ahead.

THIRD, which is scary, is the utter disdain among such locals who are so fed up with their current living conditions that they no longer have pride as citizens because citizenship makes no difference --- except for the National Service they must do --- compared with the legions of PRs and foreigner residents on our soil.

I hope PM Lee and his team will seriously start to rethink very hard as we head for our 50th Anniversary next year.

It will be the start of the end for our country even if we are economically strong but as a nation, socially weak, if our people are so disheartened, disunited and bitter. As they say, even as we continuously strive towards economic excellence, we should not ignore the people's well-being, and learn to stop along the way to smell the flowers and rejuvenate our people so that we can be united for even tougher challenges ahead.

Abolish PR by 2016. We should all make this appeal to MPs and Ministers to debate this in parliament

NO NEED FOR PRs

It was reported that

“For former PRs who fail to serve NS, any immediate or future applications for renewal of their parents’ and immediate family members’ Re-Entry Permits may be adversely affected, including curtailment of the Re-Entry Permit.” [Link]

Instead of arguing whether PR needs to serve NS and in what fashion, the fundamental questions to ask are:

-  how does allowing PR status benefit Singapore?

-  is PR not a silly way allowing foreigners to have the best of both worlds, keeping foreign citizenship while staying in Singapore?

-  how can we allow PRs to buy private and resale HDB properties while crowding out Singaporeans in the process?

-  how can we allow PRs to skip NS and the government pretends to take a tough stance on this?

-  why do we want to allow part time uncommitted residents here, who does not have the interests of Singapore at heart?

-  how can we even allow PRs to work in the government?

HONG KONG DOES NOT HAVE PRs

The government loves to benchmark against other leading economies such as HK.

The fact is in HK, you are either a HK citizen or not. For those who are not HK citizen, you are simply considered a resident who holds an employment pass. A resident enjoys no benefits from the government at all. There is no priority for housing, healthcare and education.

However, a resident having resided in HK for over seven years can apply to become a HK citizen.

The point to note in HK is that you are either a citizen or not, there is no intermediate status such as a PR.

ABOLISH PR IN SINGAPORE BY 2016

In Singapore, a PR status is renewed every five years depending on whether a person has made significant economic contribution. The criteria is subjective. It is speculated that a PR residing overseas mostly can retain the status if he has volunteered CPF contribution, and if he happens to work for a Singapore enterprise outside Singapore.

Lest we forget, like HK, Singapore PR status is for sale. As “little” as a few million, PR status can be bought for the whole family. It is a PR investor scheme administered by EDB.

Many people have raised the issue of first generation PRs not serving NS. Some even deliberately opt to become citizens after a certain age to avoid NS. But if I am not mistaken, the often repeated defence to this policy is that the second generation of PRs or citizens would have to serve NS. This took away some of the vehemence of NSmen for the time being. Finally their children would have to serve NS. 

This is what I have believed, rightly or wrongly. Now there is an article in TRE that told a different story. Maybe I have been mistaken all the time. According to this article, ‘PRs who fail to serve NS face serious consequences’, the children of PRs can opt not to be PRs and stay here under student passes. I swear this is new to me. Blame me for being ignorant. I quote an elaboration of what this means in the same article. 
‘Foreign expats’ sons go for Student Pass instead 

Due to the stringent tightening of NS policy especially after the PAP Govt suffered a GRC loss in the last election, foreign expats will now tend not to apply PR for their sons. Their sons are put on student pass so as to avoid NS and work or study issues later. 

A good example is former Indian national and now new Singaporean citizen, Raj. During an interview with TOC [Link], Raj revealed that only he in the family has converted to Singaporean citizenship. His wife and daughter remain as PRs and his son is on a student pass. 

Raj said that if his son was a PR, he would need to serve NS. He preferred to “let his son decide if he wanted to put his roots down in Singapore or go back to India when he turns 21″. 

The benefit of having his son on a student pass is that his son can always work in Singapore later as a “foreign talent” and eventually become a PR himself. He will not be considered a second-generation PR since he was not sponsored by his parents in the first place. A second-generation PR who gives up his PR is barred from working or studying in Singapore. 

Raj said, “We have friends who are from India as well as Singapore. My kids must grow up knowing their roots and our Indian culture, so we purposely go out of the way to stay connected with our friends from India, especially those from our own hometown.”