Dear Prime Minister Lee,

I read your recent statement with great interest about politics being “first and foremost about integrity.”  This gives me great hope in your leadership especially since you understand that we need to “speak the truth even when it is inconvenient, and to admit mistakes when things go wrong.”  These are wise words and ones that should be heeded by all leaders.

I would like to attend a conference in Singapore to which I have received an invitation, but given the Singaporean proclivity to litigation against those who have written or spoken about problems in Singapore, I honestly fear for my personal safety and security.  I believe you want to move past this history of silencing your critics through imprisonment or other punitive measures and become the open and thriving city you claim to be.

Additionally, if I am allowed to come and my schedule permits, maybe we can arrange a time to meet over coffee to discuss the state of Singaporean public finances.  I am quite concerned that the information you are being given by people you have entrusted to oversee entities like Temasek Holdings and GIC is erroneous.  I would be more than happy to take time to review some of these disturbing findings in greater detail as I am able to “back up my charge.”

Given your admonishment that “if we cannot trust a politician to tell the truth, then we cannot trust him or her to safeguard public funds”, let us strive for this ideal together “speaking the truth even when it is inconvenient.”

I look forward to receiving your public and personal guarantee of safety and freedom to travel to and from Singapore without fear of imprisonment or other legal action against me.  I hope that no one in Singapore, public or private, is behind the recent threats I have received and instead will address the concerns I have raised even if it is “inconvenient”.

I am sure your people know where I am and how to contact me.  I look forward to hearing from you and meeting you Prime Minister Lee.

Best Regards,

Christopher Balding

*The writer blogs at http://www.baldingsworld.com/

Disclaimer: TheRealSingapore.com is a platform for users to submit content and all content remains the property of the individual contributors. The views and opinions expressed by author(s) within the website are solely that of the contributors and in no way reflects the views of TheRealSingapore.com. 

So you are fasting. The sun is bearing down on you, your stomach is growling and your throat is parched. It is only 12.30 in the afternoon; you still have hours to go before you may break your fast. All of a sudden, a non-Muslim person appears before you, enjoying an icy cold can of your favourite cola. He looks like he is savouring the cola. You could imagine the sensation of that very same cola filling your throat with diabetes-inducing caffeine goodness. So you flare up. How dare this person drink in front of you? Does he have no respect for the holy month of Ramadhan, to be wantonly quenching his thirst in full view of Muslims? Does he not know that Muslims form the majority of this country and therefore must be respected?

This is the basic premise prevalent amongst many Malay-Muslims in this country. Muslims form the majority and therefore they are entitled to be respected. Malay-Muslim sensitivities must not be offended; the Malay-Muslim public must be protected from harm, confusion and many other bad and insidious things that may threaten the ummah. In recent times, these deep rooted sentiments are brought to the fore by opportunistic politicians. Thus it appeared as if Malay-Muslims have become more and more intolerant of minorities.

Malay-Muslims are entitled not to have a Hindu temple in the vicinity of their housing estate. Malay-Muslims are entitled to dictate what names others may use to invoke the Creator. Malay-Muslims are entitled to stop the sale of alcohol beverages and deny the establishment of a cinema in Malay majority areas.

Every Friday, Malay-Muslims are entitled to abandon their civic consciousness and park all over the place as if the streets belong to them. Malays-Muslims are entitled to blare religious ceramahs to every corner of the neighbourhood and into the wee hours of the night.

The prime minister must be Malay-Muslim, the civil service must be filled with Malay-Muslims and government bodies are seen as Malay institutions, tasked first and foremost to safeguard Malay and Muslim interests.

This premise of entitlement has also been used to justify the persecution and discrimination against sexual and religious minorities, purportedly because Article 3 provides that Islam is the religion of the Federation. So we say that LBGTs do not enjoy protection of the Constitution because their sexual orientations are against Islam, although we conveniently forget that other things, like gambling, are also forbidden in Islam but are still legal in this country. Books are seized and banned and fatwas are made absolute. In a recent decision, the Federal Court went so far to say that the integrity of the religion needs to be safeguarded at all costs. Does ‘at all costs’ include the supremacy of the Federal Constitution as the highest law of the land?

Make no mistake, this is not about Islam. It is about how we justify the discrimination, persecution and blatant disregard for fundamental liberties, all in the name of religion. It is how we view and treat others as inferior to us because we believe that we are entitled to do so. We permit transgressions because we labour under this presumption that Malay-Muslims, by virtue of being Malays and Muslims, are entitled to the best of the country as they occupy a higher standing than the rest of the rakyat out there.

There is no legal or constitutional basis for this. Article 3 does not make Malaysia an Islamic state and Article 4 expressly provides that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Article 8 provides that every citizen is equal before the law and enjoys equal protection of the law. The oft quoted Article 153 does not make Malay-Muslims superior in law or fact, it only provides for the reservation of quotas for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak in certain matters.

So what if Muslims are the majority? We have such a flawed understanding of democracy; as if in a democracy, the rights of minorities are inferior to the rights of the majority. That is why we have a Constitution, which protects and guarantees the fundamental liberties of citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

We find ourselves up in arms at the fate of Muslims minorities in other countries like Thailand, Philippines, Myanmar and China.  We invoke freedom of religion when we hear of minarets being banned in Switzerland or burqas being banned in France. But if the rights of Muslim minorities should be protected in the face of the majority, why is it that we do not have the same vigour to protect the rights our non-Muslim minorities? Why must the rights of others here only be exercised if we deem those rights as exercisable?

So before you take offence at someone who is drinking in front of you while you are fasting, take a step back and think of your religion. Put aside your sense of entitlement and think; just because you are fasting, does it mean that everyone else around you must stow away their food and drinks?

Remember what Islam has instilled in you, not what Muslims have told you.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Syahredzan Johan adalah seorang peguam muda dan seorang rakan kongsi di sebuah firma guaman di Kuala Lumpur. Dia melihat dirinya sebagai seorang pengkritik politik dan pengulas sosial. Tetapi dia sebenarnya hanyalah seorang warga Malaysia yang mempunyai terlalu banyak pendapat. Dia adalah seorang yang patriotik, walaupun bukan dengan cara biasa seperti mengibar bendera. Dia percaya Malaysia mempunyai potensi yang hanya dapat direalisasi sekiranya rakyatnya belajar bersatu-padu dan bukannya berpecah-belah. Ikutilah Syah di Refleksi Minda. Article first appeared on http://www.loyarburok.com/

Editor's Note: Thanks for sharing the article with us. It is a well-written article.

I can't help note the usual PAPpy scare threat that our money would be gone if a populist govt spends large amounts irresponsibly. As if that is the what we are asking for. But that's what the PAP would have you believed that's what you are asking for. 

The PAPpies are good at twisting words. Be it the oppositions' words or the words of the lay people. What the lay man is saying is that there are areas that the govt can spend more, while at the same time, we should cut down on the ridiculous monster expenditure on defence. But nooo.... PAPpy makes it sound that we are asking the govt to spend, spend, spend, as if there's no tomorrow. 

Twister K Shanmugam, implying that Singaporeans are asking the govt to spend, spend, spend, when what is said is that the govt can afford to increase its spending on certain areas only. At the same time, Shanmu makes no mention that the PAP led govt has indeed spent, spent, spent on overseas ventures and lost billions in the process. What ironic dumb words from a million dollar minister.

Biggest risk for S'pore is a populist govt that spends increasing amounts of money: Shanmugam

Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said one of the biggest risks for Singapore is a populist government that spends increasing amounts of money to succeed.

Already, he noted, there are other challenges facing the nation, such as an ageing population, a shrinking workforce and rising healthcare costs.

Mr Shanmugam said: "There's always something else on which money can be spent. But every time the government agrees and puts down a programme, you must remember it's hard-coded, very difficult to take it back.

What we really should be concerned about is that the PAP has been spending like nobody's business - on overseas ventures and on defence. Such obscene amounts can be used for domestic purposes instead. 

A look at paranoid PAP's expenditure on defence -

For sure, one area that we can afford to decrease spending is defence. Compared to the rest of the world, it looks like this tiny red dot is ready to start WW3. A past article I posted - More fear mongering to justify mad, mad defence over-expenditure

How we compare to others on defence spending -

To give readers an idea about the madness expenditure, here is a link - List of countries by military expenditures

Country; Rank; Spending ($US); % GDP; per capita

Singapore compared to its neighbours:

Singapore - 24th; $7,610,000,000; 4.3%; $1,593
Indonesia - 28th; $6,009,000,000; 0.9%; no data
Thailand - 38th; $4,336,000,000; 1.9%; no data
Malaysia - 47th; $3,259,000,000; 2.0%; no data
Philippines - 59th; 1,486,000,000; 0.8%; no data
Brunei - 91st; $327,000,000; 3.1%; $866

Here are the stats for the warmongering nations:

United States - 1st; 687,105,000,000; 4.7%; $2,141
Israel - 18th; 13,001,000,000; 6.3%; 1,882

We are spending 4.3% of our GDP while our neighbours are spending less. Aren't we closer to the warmongering nations, compared to our peaceful neighbours? Save for the oil producing countries, which can spend what they want and need to because they have resources to protect, what the hell do we need to spend as if we are going to war?

We are going to increase our defence spending for Year 2012 -

Here's another article that shows that the 4.3% of GDP we are spending is a little outdated. A more updated report here shows that for the Year 2012, Singapore wants to increase to 6% - almost as close to Israel's expenditure. What the hell for?

Singapore: Little Tiger With A Big Military Roar

While Asian giants China and India rapidly build up their already huge military arsenals, the tiny, prosperous Southeast Asian city-state of Singapore has been quietly ramping up defense expenditures at a rate disproportionate to its size and population.

With only about 5.1 million people (about one-fourth that of the city of Beijing) and an annual GDP of US$260 billion (about the same as Finland or Chile), astonishingly, Singapore was the fifth-largest arms importer in the world from 2007 to 2011, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Only India, China, Pakistan and South Korea spent more on weapons than tiny Singapore over that period.

On a per-capita basis, Singapore's arms-buying spree is topped only by the U.S., Israel and Kuwait.

Singapore’s Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen told parliament recently that the government may spend up to 6 percent of GDP on defense -- overall, military expenditures have climbed 4 percent annually from S$10.7 billion (US$8.6 billion) in 2008 to reach the S$12.3 billion ($US9.7 billion) level in 2012.

Conclusion -

Shanmugam is less than honest, making aspersions that Singaporeans are asking the govt to spend, spend, spend when what the lay man is saying is that there are certain areas the govt can afford to up their expenditure. At the same time, it is hypocritical that the PAP govt has indeed spent billions on overseas ventures and defence, two areas we can afford to slow down. 

In the end, this over-spending makes the PAP govt look very miserly indeed. Like Scrooge. The ability to spend is there, but it is instead put into areas that do not benefit the lay man. Only the top elites benefit with their million dollar pay.

The biggest risk is not a populist govt overspending. Nobody is asking for that. The biggest risk is the current dominant party, the PAP, is over-spending and wasting money on areas that do not benefit the ordinary citizen. Not that anyone has been held accountable for the losses incurred so far.

Barrie

*The writer blogs at http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.sg

TRS reader Viviean's brother was attacked by a group of men at Serangoon North Avenue 1 yesterday night (Jul 14). They hit him with an umbrella and did not stop even after he told them that they had mistaken him for someone else.

Vivean says her family has been traumatised ever since they were informed of the incident, and is worried that this might happen again. Her mother had collapsed upon hearing the news and is currently in a state of shock.

She added that her brother, who has a history of epilepsy, is obedient and unlikely to have provoked his attackers.

She said:

"My brother is 20 years old and is in hospital now.

"Yesterday (Jul 14) after our family dinner, my dad dropped us home at Serangoon North Avenue 1. It was at night, about 10.30pm.

"My granny had asked my brother to make a money transfer to her friend whom needed cash urgently.

"As he went to do the money transfer at the POSB machine near our block, seven to eight Chinese guys hit him badly with their umbrella, while calling him someone else's name. They hurt his head too.

"My brother tried to say that he is the wrong victim, but they were not ready to hear it. They fled after hitting him.

"They were all older than him and had tattoos.

"The saddening thing was there was a 24-hour clinic nearby and people were seating down at the nearby coffee shop, but nobody came forward for help or call the police. What's happening to Singaporeans?

"My brother had to struggle with himself to get up and use the public phone to call the police.

"When we were informed of this issue, my mom collapsed and since yesterday till now she has been calling for my brother but has no other responses.

"We come from a respectable family and this incident has really traumatised us.

"Police are still investigating after we made a report.

"I hoping that this will never happen again, after my brother is discharged.

"What if those guys had a knife during that moment? I can't even imagine.

"My brother is the only son to our family and he has a bad condition of epilepsy a year ago. Now we are just praying for everything to be normal in his scan report."

I refer to Mr Gary Chua's Chen Show Mao’s Facebook post shows lack of respect.

Mr. Gary Chua says Worker's Party's Chen Show Mao shows lack of respect. But he has forgotten that PAP has show no respect at all to their opponents, the activists, and the people of Singapore in the last 50 years of iron rule.

How about PAP calling Dr. Chee Soon Juan a "Psychopath"?

How about PAP’s fear mongering tactics on Singaporeans?

"If you are a troublemaker...it's our job to politically destroy you. Put it this way. As long as JB Jeyaratnam stands for what he stands for - a thoroughly destructive force - we will knock him. Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac.”
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man And His Ideas, 1997 

How about saying Singaporeans are stupid?

“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society…So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.”
– MM Lee in 1983

How about saying loss of public monies is alright?

“For a person who runs a million-dollar charitable organisation, $600,000 is peanuts as it has a few hundred millions in reserves.”
– Mrs Goh Chok Tong

Restoring pay of Ministers is reasonable, but then restore CPF cannot?

“Restoring the pay cuts of civil servants and ministers is reasonable as Singapore’s economy has now regained momentum.”
– Ng Eng Hen

“I don’t think my reading for the economy is strong enough for us to even consider asking for the restoration of the cut in CPF.”
– Lim Boon Heng

And not forgetting all the cases, when “lets move on”, “honest mistake” was used.

We can cite numerous, in fact, so many examples of how PAP, has over the years, forgotten about the people of Singapore, and thinks they are the best, and high almighty. Akin, to a Dynasty?

We recall MM Lee Kuan Yew calling JBJ "a mangy dog", and saying "I will make him crawl on his bended knees, and beg for mercy."?

"Jeyaretnam was made of sterner stuff. To his eternal credit he never did crawl on bended knees, or ever begged for mercy. And it is to Lee Kuan Yew's eternal shame that Jeyaretnam will leave the political scene with his head held high, enjoying a martyrdom conferred on him by Lee. Lest I be misunderstood, let me state that Jeya more than deserves the crown of the martyr for his indomitable courage and dignity in the face of the vilest persecution. 

Even greater human spirits than Jeyaretnam had refused to bend their knees to Lee Kuan Yew. It is my considered view that the greatest human being living in Singapore today is one who declined to surrender to the intimidation of prolonged incarceration and restrictions imposed on him without trial for a total period which exceeds that suffered by Nelson Mandela. And here was the mark of true greatness. He emerged from the experience like a god unembittered. His name is Chia Thye Poh. And it is Lee Kuan Yew who emerged from the episode as the knave and fool of his own mindless vindictiveness, while the real conqueror smiles benignly - unnoted, of course, by the local media. For only sound waves from the Istana Annexe are picked up and regurgitated by His Master¹s Voice. ",

- Devan Nair

Will Mr. Gary Chua ask PAP to apologise?

Will he turn his head away when he sees ISA detainees on the street, or go forward and hug them, and say "I am sorry I didn't speak up" ?

Joe Tan

Source: AFP

A 31-year-old woman was charged with the death of her son at her Housing and Development Board (HDB) unit in Clementi on 1 June.

Rebecca Loh is accused of throwing her 9-year-old son Gabriel from the fifth-floor apartment at Block 704 West Coast Road, Clementi. Gabriel suffered severe health problems and had difficulty walking. Rebecca was often seen pushing him around in a pram in the neighbourhood. They lived together with Rebecca's mother, who worked full-time for $1000 a month to feed the family. That said, the Lohs were certainly not well off and must have been struggling to keep their heads out of the water.

If there were any philosophy that may have contributed to Rebecca's sorry emotional state, it would certainly have been neoliberalism. This was a doctrine favoured by prominent statesmen (and women) such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and followed by John Howard (and Tony Abbott, if he becomes Australia's next Prime Minister). Singapore, despite being criticised widely for its absence of liberty, is unwittingly neoliberal in how it treats its workforce.

The seeds were sown when current president Tony Tan was serving as Education Minister in Lee Kuan Yew's cabinet. Then Prime Minister Lee instructed Tan to implement a series of educational reforms, aimed at benefiting those children whose mothers had at least obtained a Bachelor's degree. Women who had not received tertiary qualifications were encouraged to go for sterilisation after having two children (while nothing was said of their male counterparts). But then again, the trend of men marrying down seems almost natural. Even so, the son of a graduate man would still have to fight it out with the dregs of society for a place in Year 1 when he turns school age, if he was born of a non-graduate's womb.

Needless to say, anyone having a baby out of wedlock would almost certainly miss out on any potential benefits that their sweet and innocent offspring rightfully deserved (and badly needed). To top it all, they were prevented from buying a brand-new HDB unit outright (correct me if I am wrong). This effectively rendered them homeless in a sense. Many unwed mothers happened to be school-going teenagers at their prime. Their pregnancies would have seen them expelled from school, possibly never returning to the education system ever again thanks to their youthful indiscretion.

Some of these girls gave their babies away for adoption, while others chose to raise the children as their own. A large number of these "fatherless" babies were aborted (an unwitting form of human sacrifice to the Fallen One). Raising a child as a young unwed mother was tough. For one, Eastern traditions made it such that these women were to be shamed, mostly by petty gossip. Secondly, the lack of social support groups specialising in their kind only increased their isolation from the rest of society. Thirdly, having had to cut short their education so soon, many of these women did not have the right skills to enter the workforce. A great number of them wound up struggling to make ends meet doing menial jobs while their bosses claimed credit for the dirty work despite having clean hands the whole time.

During the 1980s, the power of trade unions was finally extinguished, no thanks to the arrest and detention without trial of left-leaning intellectuals at the height of Operation Spectrum. The ruling People's Action
Party (PAP) assumed full control over the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), setting the stage for a cheaper, better and faster workforce to grow. This tactic could be said to contain elements of neoliberalism. For what followed in years to come was deregulation of industry (albeit in name) and abolition of minimum wage rules. Even the Howard Liberal government in Canberra could not manage to suppress the power of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, like it or not. Neither could they manipulate the country's minimum-wage legislation. In short, was Singapore more neoliberal than the neoliberals themselves? The answer is obvious. 

It did not help at all that salaries in the tiny city-state was often tied to the level of academic qualifications. Even recognised diploma holders had to contend with a lower pay scale than their university-educated counterparts.

Hence, the policies implemented by the PAP in the 1980s and 1990s paved way for the Rebecca Loh tragedy to unfold. Rebecca was unfortunate enough to fall pregnant when she was 22 and yet to be betrothed. Her son being born with a liver disorder dealt a double whammy to Rebecca and her mother. Gabriel had yellow skin and eyes as a result of his condition, and had undergone an unsuccessful operation on his liver. Because of his illness, he could not attend mainstream schools. Rebecca had to care for him full-time while her mother brought home the dough (as a bakery worker). Tensions between mother and daughter often ran high due to their sensitive states of mind. On numerous occasions. the police were dispatched to calm things down.

The PAP wanted all citizens of Singapore to be self-sufficient. Yet they conveniently forgot that for the average Joe, creating wealth for himself was not going to be a walk in the park. Certainly not for someone walking in Rebecca's shoes. The poor lady must have been under so much pressure from her personal circumstances that she must have cracked. Every mother or parent wants the best for their child. To actually kill one's own flesh and blood would require a lot of effort as few could bear the thought of it. RIght now, Rebecca may be regretting her rash decision, whether the death penalty even exists or not is immaterial. The Singapore media, famous for its one-sided coverage, may try to paint her as a cold-blooded psychopath with evil intentions but I beg to differ. Rebecca had Gabriel's best interests at heart. In doing what she did, she may have released him from his earthly suffering and sent him to a better place. Ironically, the State may decide to do the same for her if it finds her guilty of the capital charge of murder.

What Rebecca needs is not an execution, but a fresh start in life. To find the Mr Right who is willing to be with her, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad. To land her dream job and start an actual career. To show those neoliberal snobs that she could do it better.

It is not worth pressing charges of any sort against her as it merely wastes precious State resources that could have been used to help Rebecca and others in the same boat as her. In the interest of the public, the prosecution should pull back on compassionate grounds.  

Fenwick Melville

During the recent exchanges in Parliament between Minister Vivian and MP Sylvia Lim, the Minister released a dossier of documentary evidence [Link] to “prove” that Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) had attempted to charge the hawkers extra for cleaning the high areas of the hawker centres in question.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, in his reply to the press on 10 July 2013 (‘Low stands by Sylvia & Pritam, says Vivian’s attack was not good politics‘), denied this. He restated his stand in Parliament that there was a misunderstanding whether the cleaning session was an annual or a quarterly one.

Mr Low clarified that if NEA was referring to quarterly cleaning, the town council would not have been obliged to clean the high areas since the contract with NEA stipulated at least once a year cleaning for the high areas.

However, if they meant annual cleaning, it would then be the town council’s duty to clean the high areas at its own cost, as stipulated in the contract. He said that if NEA had wanted an annual cleaning session to be carried out, it should have communicated this clearly. In any case, there was no basis for NEA to make such requests since it is up to the town council to decide on the schedule for the annual cleaning for the markets in the constituencies under its charge, he added.

On a conciliatory note, Mr Low said that both the town council and NEA have “room for improvement” when it comes to communication.

In the dossier, there are 2 petition letters by Block 511 and Block 538 Hawker Associations which were forwarded to the press. It was the petition letters which, after being published by the press in early June, brought the cleaning issue to the public’s attention.

Jonathan Oh Swee Yang

The dossier also includes email exchanges between Block 511 Hawker Association, NEA and AHPETC. In the series of exchanges, it was revealed that a “Jonathan Oh” is the Chairman of Block 511 Hawker Association. He was the one representing Block 511 Hawker Association in its correspondence with AHPETC. He goes by the email address “jonathan@etronin.com“, indicating that he is working for Etronin.

A cursory check of the company’s website (www.etronin.com) reveals that Etronin is a shop at Blk 510, Bedok North St 3 #01-51, selling electrical appliances:

Its website says:

Etronin Electromart began life as Etronin Electrical Co in 1980, re-incorporating in 1997 to reflect its new focus.

We have always been located in Bedok New Town, and we carry a great range of household, electrical, airconditioning equipment and audiovisual products.

Etronin carries a great variety of products and brands, ranging from Toshiba, Electrolux, JVC, Samsung, Sanyo, Pioneer, to Kenwood, etc. You can visit us regularly at trade shows and exhibitions at Singapore Expo, Suntec City and World Trade Centre.

Our strength is not only our reasonably priced products, but also our value-added services, such as delivery/installation, hire purchase, product sourcing, etc. As such, we have built up a network of loyal satisfied customers island-wide.

Feel free to drop in at our premises or our website to view our products. You can also give us a friendly call to find out more about that electrical appliance you are interested in.

Checking the business listing for “Etronin Electromart” at ACRA, TR Emeritus discovered that the business is a sole-proprietorship owned by Chew Wee Peng. It lists Oh Swee Yang as the person managing the business [Link].

Hence we surmised that the “Jonathan Oh” working for Etronin and “Oh Swee Yang” are likely to be one and the same person.

A search on the Net for “Jonathan Oh Swee Yang” turns up more interesting finds.

In the old copies of Marine Parade Town Council Annual Report prior to 2011, his name appears inside. He was a town councillor and member of the Audit Committee for Marine Parade Town Council:

Marine Parade Town Council Annual Report 08/09 [Link]

Jonathan Oh is likely to be a PAP member since PAP normally allows only their own members to be town councillors. However, his name, together with the known PAP grassroots leader Ng Kok Khim (‘The man in the centre of AHPETC controversy is a PAP grassroots leader‘) was absent after 2011:

Marine Parade Town Council Annual Report 11/12 [Link]

In other words, both Jonathan Oh and Ng Kok Khim were no longer town councillors of Marine Parade Town Council anymore, after 2011.

Why is this so? The reason is quite simple. Jonathan Oh and Ng Kok Khim are now grassroots leaders in Kaki Bukit ward. In the 2011 General Election, Kaki Bukit ward was cut out from Marine Parade GRC and put into Aljunied GRC in the hope of bolstering the PAP votes in Aljunied GRC.

As it turned out, PAP lost Aljunied GRC, thereby ending the town councillor careers of Jonathan Oh and Ng Kok Khim. They could not represent Kaki Bukit as town councillors in the opposition-controlled (then) Aljunied Town Council. Both of them must have been quite “disappointed” when they lost their town councillor jobs.

Indeed, if one was to Google search “Jonathan Oh Kaki Bukit”, one will find his many links to grassroots activities in Kaki Bukit. The following are his postings on Kaki Bukit CC Facebook page [Link]:

Now, clicking on “Jonathan Oh” on the Kaki Bukit CC Facebook page brings you to his own Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.oh.75):

As can be seen, he has been GM of Etronin Electromart, running the electrical appliance retail business since 1979. Interestingly, he also put down “Kaki Bukit Community Center” and “People’s Association” as his other employers. He has 2 brothers, Oh Swee Kim and Oh Swee Hwa.

On his Facebook page, he remarks that it is interesting to meet “all types of people by moving around the estate” and states his political views as:

MEETING NEW PEOPLE and CREATE LAUGHTER. Enhance the estate enviroment (sic) for better of the people living in….

Further search on the Net reveals an interesting Facebook posting he supposedly made on PAP MP Faishal’s Facebook page in late 2011 or early 2012 [Link]:

“Omg, what will happen to us living in Aljunied GRC, what have we got into. Help is nowhere from the MP (WP) except the Govt (CDC). One should see the numbers of people in Kaki Bukit who need financial welfare, and only those whom had helped during the last will know….. so those who see “no matter” should think harder and consider for others……or one of those day..”

Conclusion

We have hence established 2 facts – that both Block 511 and Block 538 Hawker Associations in Aljunied GRC are represented by PAP-linked grassroots leaders:

• Block 511 Hawker Association – Mr Jonathan Oh Swee Yang
• Block 538 Hawker Association – Mr Ng Kok Khim, PBM

It is not known why the hawker associations are not represented by the hawkers themselves but by non-hawker PAP grassroots leaders. Take the case of Jonathan Oh. He is clearly a retailer and GM of a electrical appliance shop. He is certainly not a hawker selling Char Kway Tiao or Satay, is he? So why is he representing the hawkers? Should not the hawkers elect an apolitical representative among themselves to represent their interests?

It is perhaps time for Singapore to depoliticize all these so-called grassroots organizations and return to the basics of helping the people.

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

Could it be the jostling for power and control has begun?

Remember just not too long ago we got to hear National Development Minister, Khaw Boon Wan saying the Ministry of Education's job was to provide Singaporean students with a good education; apparently trying to help bail Education Minister, Heng Swee Keat out from the predicament he was in over the unemployability of our degree holders.

Heng Swee Keat quickly capitalized on that and added a few days later that beyond providing students with a good education, he wasn't sure or neither would he be responsible if these students could not find good jobs after graduating. What both of them had implied was that the job of providing good jobs to graduating Singaporeans lies in the hands of the Manpower Ministry. 

Khaw Boon Wan: "You own a degree, but so what? You can't eat it. If that cannot give you a good life, a good job, it is meaningless".

Heng Swee Keat: "A good education alone does not guarantee a career, let alone a job".

By May this year, Manpower Minister, Tan Chuan Jin, with no answers to the accusations by Khaw and Heng, decided to take on employers and chided them for discriminating against the Singaporean graduate.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/05/23/tan-chuan-jin-acts-against-discrimination-in-job-opportunities/

Looks like Camp One triumphed over Camp Two.

This morning, Camp Three, led by the frequently discredited Vivian Balakrishnan, shot an arrow in the direction of already weather-beaten Health Minister, Gan Kim Yong. As with his vitriol in Parliament against the Workers Party over the amicably concluded cleaning saga between NEA and the WP, he chose to hit the Health Minister with an equally poisonous arrow from out of the blue. For reasons known only to himself, he warned the Health Ministry to "be mindful of rising healthcare costs".

The Health Ministry in Camp Four, was quick to respond to the warning with the Health Minister himself replying that "MediSheild premiums will be affordable to both young and old". 

Looks like something serious is cooking inside the PAP Camp. Taking the hint from Vivian's comment in parliament, it seems like there is indeed a contest for power - just that his words may be more aptly applied to what may be going on inside the PAP camp itself. Readers are advised to draw their own conclusions.

The Alternative View

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Alternative-View/358759327518739?fref=ts

This article might be a bit late, but it's something I want to talk about nonetheless. Obviously from the title it refers to 2 issues, so let's start with the first - Singapore Democratic Party member and parliamentary candidate, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha.

Mr Eugene Wijeysingha was a respected educator in Singapore and principal of the premier boys school - Raffles Institution.
Since he burst on the political scene at the last general elections, Dr Wijeysingha-the 2nd son of retired and respected Raffles Institution Principal, Eugene Wijeysingha, has created a very favourable impression of himself especially with opposition supporters and I dare say a chunk of neutral ones as well. He speaks articulately and seems to have an understanding of the problems facing the ordinary voter, despite him being away for a period of time for work and studies. Despite failing to win a seat in the House - having contested in a GRC, he put up a good show and some have even suggested that he should helm the SDP, instead of its leader Dr Chee Soon Juan, who's been continually dogged by problems following his run ins with PAP's top brass.
 

        SDP's Dr Vincent Wijeysingha has received a lot of positive reviews since joining them.

However that usurpation seems very unlikely since Dr Wijeysingha confessed he joined the SDP because of Dr Chee. Some have also suggested that he should contest in an SMC where he stands a higher chance of winning or at least being amongst the highest place losers and as such become a Non-Constituency MP ( if the opposition doesn't win 9 seats outright). Simply put many of us want to see him in Parliament. Being so popular also means he's always on the PAP's radar. So it was no surprise when rumours were spread about his sexual orientation after he attended a gay forum prior to the 2011 GE, that his primary opponent in that electoral contest - the esteemed Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, alluded to it and demanded to know whether he had a 'gay agenda'. Dr Wijeysingha didn't take the bait and Dr Balakrishnan instead of hoping to cash in on a 'Gotcha moment', had to make grovelling statement indicating it was never his intention for it to descend to a personal attack.
 

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan,  flanked by wife and daughter, was Dr Wijeysingha's principal opponent in 2011.
For the unknowing, 'gay agenda' seems to attract a lot of buzz, both positive and negative. The main issue for those who support the LBGT (lesbians, bisexuals, gay and transsexuals) movement is Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises any sexual act other than those between consenting men and women - something they feel is against their human rights. The main issue for those who oppose it, is a so called 'loss of morals' or acts contrary to 'conservative Asian values', not forgetting of course - it being incompatible with major religions like Christianity or Islam amongst others. Those who oppose it (LGBTs) are not best pleased by anyone trying to change the law or promoting the movement. They might not be against individual gays or lesbians, they just don't want them promoting their cause.
 

           Pink Dot 2013 at Hong Lim Park attracted a sizable crowd of nearly 20,000.

Anyway back to Dr Wijeysingha, the rumours have persisted and gained a notch or 2, when he announced on his Facebook page that he would be attending the Pink Dot event (for LGBTs) on June the 29th. A pro-PAP Facebook page - 'Fabrications about the PAP' immediately seized upon his proposed attendance. So Dr Wijeysingha decided to put the issue at rest with the following announcement on his Facebook page:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/politician-vincent-wijeysingha-comes-gay-man-facebook-071331920.html

The reception to this disclosure has generally been very warm with many praising him for 'coming out'. In fact he went further to state that he doesn't have any 'gay agenda'. Personally I felt it was a very gutsy decision on his part and congratulated him personally for admitting such a personal issue just in order to silence the critics.

For myself, I don't seem able to decide where I should stand in regards to the 'gay agenda'. If I read or hear from a gay or lesbian person, I might agree wholeheartedly with them, then if someone from an opposing camp gave me their take, I might find myself agreeing with them as well! But generally I feel that what a person does in private in regards to love or orientation should never be an issue. And in electing someone into Parliament that should be a non-factor as well. We are electing men and women whom we deem capable of representing us and our aspirations, to lead us and make good laws for our benefit. We are not electing someone for a moral or spiritual position, and so long as they have a good character, their orientation shouldn't matter at all.
 

Unlike myself, there's no prizes for guessing which side of LGBT debate popular blogger Alex Au (above) is on.

So it's a bit unfair that LBGTs have to come out and end all speculation. Although Section 377A remains on the record books, the authorities ( Police, AG's Chambers and Govt) have taken pains to assure the LBGT community that no prosecution will be enforced if their activities are done in private and by consenting persons within the meaning of the law (generally persons aged 16 and above, and 18 or older for commercial sex). Since this is the position then why the need for people like Dr Wijeysingha to come out and declare his orientation, and why did Dr Balakrishnan demand an assurance from him that he has no 'gay agenda'? Has it reached a stage where only non LGBTs can comment or act on issues pertaining to this 'gay agenda thingy', but LGBTs can't because of their orientation? Something just doesn't seem to add up.

Whatever it is, Dr Wijeysingha deserves a round of cheers for having the guts to declare in the open, something so private even when it should not be incumbent on him to do so. Whether or not this 'gay agenda' will become a hot-button issue, let us not deny any of our elected leaders or aspiring politicians the right to raise and speak on the issue on our behalf.

Next up, is the saga that involved PAP MP for Tampines GRC, Irene Ng. An article purportedly written by her, was submitted to The Real Singapore (TRS) - an online website that highlights mainly political issues in Singapore especially the opposition's views, in other words ' an alternative news site' to the main stream media which almost always highlights issues raised by the ruling PAP.
 

The Real Singapore (TRS) website: www.therealsingapore.com found themselves at the receiving end of Ms Ng's wrath.
Although TRS editors do write articles themselves, the bulk of their online articles are submissions by individuals most of whom use a moniker. I am one of those who do so. Like many others I would submit my articles to them for republication, in order to reach a wider audience. Of course they will look at the submissions and if it's deemed not be malicious or bordering on libel, it gets posted on their webpage, because they stated clearly they are a community based platform for readers to post articles. They do not have the means to censor or trace the identities of persons writing submissions. So it was no surprise when they received an article from an "IreneNg.TampinesGRC@gmail.com, they duly published it. This was the article received:

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/pap-mp-scolds-government-playing-blame-game-hypocritical-instead-solving-haze-problem-4258560.html

Although the article appears critical of the Govt response, it was well written and could have passed as being written by Ms Ng, especially since her name and position was written as the sender. Perhaps it's a bit foolish for any of us to actually believe that a PAP MP would ever dare to criticise their own party leaders, but sometimes we do hope that a few could see the other side of things, instead of just parroting the same old tired refrains from the same song-sheet of their political masters.

And didn't the PAP top brass always suggest that there's no need for opposition MPs here because it's their very own PAP MPs who are asking and raising the tough questions? So anyone could be blindsided by this purported article as being 'kosher'. Anyway TRS duly republished it without checking or calling Ms Ng. In fact it's not possible for them to do so, as they received a lot of submissions - all they would do is send a reply back to the email sender acknowledging receipt of the article. Perhaps Ms Ng disagrees with this policy and feels that as a 'highly esteemed member of the House', they must call and check with her first?

And boy oh boy, she did very much disagree indeed. She went ballistic! This was her response which the TRS also had the courtesy to publish:

http://therealsingapore.com/content/irene-ng-real-singapore-falsely-attributed-article-me

I wouldn't disagree with her, it's quite discomforting to know that someone has claimed to be you and sending articles in your name. However it's definitely another thing to behave or over-react in the manner she did. First she rightly denies being the author, then she demands an apology, nothing wrong in that too.

However it all goes downhill when she announces she's making a police report and accuses TRS of cheating, fraud and impersonation! My dear woman, do actually know what is cheating, fraud and impersonation? After all you yourself are a lawmaker that helps to craft, pass or amend such laws pertaining to this. How can it be all 3 things? Cheating is an offence where deception is used to cause wrongful loss and wrongful gain, fraud involves cheating to deprive someone of their valuables through deceit and of course impersonation is an act of assuming someone's else position or authority. She goes on further to accuse TRS of duping Singaporeans with fictitious articles and forgeries! Does she know what forgeries are in the first place? A forgery is a fraudulent copy of an original item. How on earth can the article published become and an act of cheating, fraud or a forgery? At most it's an act of impersonation or more likely a libelous article which the normal recourse would be to sue for defamation - a civil matter only.
 

Tampines GRC MP Irene Ng speaking in the House. For good measure, she accused TRS of not just 1 criminal offence but 4-5! She hoping the Police will share the same sentiments. 

She finishes with a flourish and suggests she supports freedom of speech, but then goes on to accuse TRS of deceit, without even checking what TRS does normally with submitted articles. She again alleges forgery and an intent to deceive and goes further to call this a criminal act! She calls TRS unethical and irresponsible and calls for their exposure as such.  Whoever submitted or wrote that article did not in any way accuse Ms Ng of any wrongdoing, and certainly did not go to the lengths she took in making all sorts of unsubstantiated allegations against the TRS. She demands an apology, a take down of the offending article and then makes a police report and alleges numerous criminal misconduct! Pardon my ignorance, but I think in responding in the way she did, she committed a far worse act of defamation than what the purported article did to her!

At least the persons behind TRS had the courtesy to take down the article as requested, and 'big enough' to ignore the barrage of crude allegations against them by Ms Ng, and assure cooperation in any police investigation.

However, I do hope that Ms Ng will withdraw her police report, and not bother the police to investigate what seems to be a 'trivial matter' on a personal issue. The author did not impersonate Ms Ng in such a way that used her or usurped her powers as an MP. He or she only penned and published an article on another side of the argument of the haze issue, albeit one more likely by an opposition member. It had some merit as well, as certain points were worth consideration as well. The only loss might be Ms Ng appearing critical of the actions of her party leaders, although they themselves say that MPs like Ms Ng do much more to raise critical appraisals and offer alternative views than the opposition MPs.

This does not appear to such a serious act or a criminal act that would warrant criminal investigations. It's more suitable for a defamation suit if the author is found or perhaps she could sue TRS if she so wished, although they complied with her demands and took her 'over the top' allegations and personal attacks in their stride. The police I'm sure have far better things to do, than pander the paranoia of a person libeled, even if she feels that as Member of Parliament, she entitled to.

Finally before I end up as the next target of Ms Ng's wrath, I think perhaps I should direct you to her Facebook page. I understood that some years ago, she had a banner erected in the constituency inviting people to 'like her page'. Well perhaps some of you might be interested in doing so, and help garner more likes than the measly 1500 or so she has as of now. Here it is:

https://www.facebook.com/msireneng

Sir Nelspruit

*The writer blogs at http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg

On the covering page of Today paper is a full page on the COE system with the question ‘How do you fix the COE system? There are three more questions following this, ‘Why not make car buyers pay what they bid for their COE? Or should COE just be balloted? What should COE categories be based on?

The unhappiness over the COE system has been on going for many years. Occasionally people would raise their grievances for a while but soon forgotten. The Govt knows best and this is the best system they could come up with. The fact that this system is coming up for criticism year in and year out and for Today to put it in an exclusive page and a TV programme dedicated to it speak a lot about how good or shitty the system is. 

Why is this system allowed to go on for so long? The answer is obvious. Or maybe everyone can see the problem but our super talents could not. Their thoughts are more intelligent and they could see all the merits of the system but the farmers could not. So, like the clever deaf frogs, they knew that this is the best way to go and no time to waste listening to the daft. 

Everyone in the street can see the flaws of this system, how is it that the Govt thinks that this is the best and is willing to overlook the flaws? Now I am being silly. Where got flaws? Let me tell you the merits of this system. If I am very rich, I can guarantee myself getting the COE and paying the least despite bidding for $1m. See, the system is so good to me, the rich man. And who is the one suggesting that I should pay the $1m that I bidded? Don’t be stupid can. How can you make me pay $1m for a COE? I only bid to make sure that I got the certificate with no intent to pay the million dollar lah. Siao. 

As for the Govt, it is so generous to make sure that everyone pays the lowest successful bid. How can anyone blame the Govt for being so kind? Imagine paying $1m for a COE and another bidder pays $50 for it? Such injustice cannot be allowed. The Govt must be fair to all the bidders. Everyone pays one price, the lowest price. See, fair or not? The people must be very grateful to such a considerate Govt that thinks for their own good. 

And if everyone were to pay what he bids, it is so complicated and messy. It will drive everyone nuts to compute the exact amount for every car during transfer or rebates or whatever. With one price, so easy to calculate, use fingers also can. 

Doesn’t the system encourage everyone to bid as high as possible knowing that they need only pay the lowest? Doesn’t this in a way lead to the price to be artificially higher than it should be? Really ah, cannot be lah. Buyers still only pay for the lowest bid so even if the price is unusually higher it is okay what. Good for Govt revenue and money can be used to improve public transportation and roads better. It is a good thing. 

Shouldn’t the bidders pay for the price they bidded since it is their own free will to bid high? Cannot, not fair for the rich to pay higher COE and the poorer buyers pay lower COE. The Govt must ensure that there is fair play for everyone. Have you heard of leveling the playing field? 

This COE system is about as good as it gets. Now who thinks he is smarter than the super talents and wants to change the system? Every good idea has been thought through and found to have other problems and not workable in the long run. Let’s stick to this present system and move on. No need to waste more time on it. But if it is just to allow the people to let off some steam, then it is ok to talk about it and let the people think, for once, that they are smarter than the super talents and have cleverer ideas to contribute. There is a saying that the fools may have something wise to learn from ya? Swee boh?

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

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

TRS reader Vivian saw a woman drying fish at a block of flats in Choa Chu Kang.

She said the area smelled bad because of the fish. She said: "I normally don't alight at the Choa Chu Kang Interchange to send my niece to the childcare centre but since the bell on bus 300 didn't work when I pressed like three bells on the bus, I ended up walking from the interchange to the childcare centre. That was when I smelled something fishy and stinky. 

At first I saw a lady in pink on her mobile who sounded like a Chinese national with a big blue plastic bag, which she was waving around while she was talking. And the next thing I notice was this fishy situation. Damn it smelled bad.  I wondered if the second floor residents could smell it? Please have a little consideration and don't just lay your fish on top of a drain. When I came back from the childcare centre the owner left the stinky fish on top of the drain and I took these photos.

"Really I don't get it. I know Singaporeans won't do it.  Like come on, the whole block stinks because of the fish."

Since Day One of the NEA-AHPETC isue, I have been saying that there’s a concerted effort by the PAPpy gang to tarnish WP. I have maintained my stance since. Now with every passing event and report that is tied to this issue, it vindicates my point further. The latest is the salvo from PM Lee himself.

But before we look into that, let’s recall how PM Lee said he would have to fix the opposition quite some years ago.

PM says: Fix the Opposition

PM Lee showing his vindictiveness without inhibition. Look at his facial expression. Look at his eyes. Look at his gestures. Listen to the tone of his voice. So much anger. So much vindictiveness. He wants to get rid of the opposition and even publicly says he will have to “fix them”. Indeed, it looks like that’s his personal mission and agenda.

Fast forward to today….
Front page on Straits Times, dated 13 Jul 2013
Click on image to enlarge.

Wow! A big piece of news with headline fonts bigger than the reports on Singapore’s GDP and the double gruesome murder at Kovan! What is so important about some Town Council stuff that deserves such prominence?

Hellooo? Isn’t PM Lee using the govt machinery to fix the opposition?

Report here – PM urges WP chief to clear doubts on fellow MPs’ integrity

A PAP MP who lies will be out; and if innocent, must clear his name, he says

This guy should not be too arrogant. Remember the remarks he made about WP’s Yaw Shin Leong, only for the issue to bounce back in the form of Michael Palmer?

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday urged Workers’ Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang not to leave grave doubts about the integrity of his fellow MPs unresolved, following the recent hawker centre cleaning dispute.

At the heart of the issue, he said, was integrity and honesty.

“If we cannot trust a politician to tell the truth, then we cannot trust him or her to safeguard public funds, to put public interest ahead of personal gain, or to make decisions affecting the well-being and security of Singaporeans.

“This is the standard that we must hold ourselves to, and that Singaporeans have rightly come to expect from those in politics, whether in government or opposition. This is why we must take accusations of dishonesty against political leaders very seriously,” he said.

Mr Lee said that if any of his People’s Action Party (PAP) colleagues were accused of dishonesty – as WP MPs Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh had been – he would get to the bottom of the matter.

It is PM Lee who is the dishonest one. The issue is closed. In fact, it was started by a PAPpy member who happens to be a grassroot leader. It was WP members who controlled the damage which the PAPpy caused. Evidence here – The man in the centre of AHPETC controversy is a PAP grassroots leader.

A step by step guide to what exactly happened can be found here – [Infographics] AHPETC-NEA Stand-Off: What’s Really Going On? (Part 3)

It is PM Lee who should look into the mirror. He should examine himself before lecturing others about honesty and integrity.

Barrie

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

We wrote about the recent property loan regulations announced by Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in our article on 2nd July. We also posited that the introduction of a mandated 3.5% interest rate for total debt servicing ratio (TDSR) calculation implies an unspoken expectation of an interest rate hike in the short to medium term.

As we mentioned in the second article, such a hike in interest rate would surely be accompanied by some market corrections and turbulence. And needless to say, there will be some whose pocketbooks are exposed to a direct hit, due to their property investments.

We will attempt to identify these groups of home and property owners, so that they can take corrective action before things really take a turn for the worse.

So, just who are those at risk, should the interest rate rise to 3.5%?  These are the ones we have identified:

(a) Those who bought their properties at a relatively high purchase price

You may be lucky enough have a friend or two who did not borrowed much, being cash-rich. Logically, they may have the impression that an increase in interest rates is not likely to have an impact on their relatively smaller loans. However, you should caution them if your friends bought at a high price in the past year or so. In this current property climate, even sub-par properties demand an outrageous premium. This phenomenon extends to even public housing, where we saw cash-over-valuations (COV) spike in the beginning of this year.

“… according to the Singapore Real Estate Exchange (SRX), the overall median cash-over-valuation (COV) for HDB resale flats reached a peak of S$35,000 in January.” – Channel News Asia1

Should the interest rate rise towards 3.5%, it would most likely trigger a tumble in property prices. Overpriced, sub-par properties would be hit the hardest, as their poor qualities would no longer be masked by a buoyant seller’s market. Buyers who ignored the fundamentals and just bought at a high price for the sake of owning property will find themselves in negative equity.  This is not unheard of; in fact it is such a prominent and serious matter that in Hong Kong, these property owners who were then bound to the liabilities of paying high interests to a deflated property were nicknamed “大闸蟹”.

As observed in 2011, “[t]he estimated number of mortgages in “negative equity” jumped to 1,653 at the end of the third quarter from 48 three months earlier, with the value of those loans rising to HK$4.1 billion ($528 million) from HK$58 million, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority said Oct. 28.” – Bloomberg2

(b) Those whose loan and other expenses are at the limit of their regular income

This group is at the forefront of the mind of the BLUTA team members. However, we gave this group a secondary priority, since they have taken these risks with their eyes wide open by borrowing to the limit of their income. By stretching their resources to the maximum in order to secure a loan, they have allowed any change in the ratio of loan/expenses versus income to have a great impact on their daily juggling of finances. In other words, they have borrowed a lot on very little capital, increasing their debt exposure to dangerous levels, which leaves them vulnerable to a rise in interest rate.

In our opinion, those who have taken home loans at or exceeding 80% of the purchase price in the last 3 years will need to do a thorough reassessment; and for the risk assessment to be meaningful, it must include the potential pitfalls pointed out here and elsewhere.

(c) Those who borrowed at very low interest rates

There are those people who rely heavily on low interest to buy property. We are talking about those who are utilising loan packages with interest rates that start off very low but balloon with the ordinary rate, and any other methods to leverage on a currently low interest rate, thereby actually putting themselves in an over-leveraged position. This position is extremely susceptible to changes in interest rate. And with interest rates already so low, the more likely change would be a disastrous upward direction. Those among this group, who have also fully, or for the matter, nearly maximised their borrowing ability, are most at risk.

(d) Those whose income source is at risk

There are those who would still be able to service their loans even at a 3.5% interest rate, as long as they are gainfully employed. The trick, of course, is to be gainfully employed when the economy is undergoing a correction. Loss of a job could be a trigger for foreclosure if one does not have enough financial reserves to fall back on. Vulnerable sectors would include the usual suspects: the construction industry, luxury goods, retail, tourism (if the crisis is on a global scale), and of course property. Sectors prone to cutbacks when funds are tight, such as marketing, advertising and ironically, banking and finance, would also be at risk.

For example, in the 2008 crisis triggered by the sub-prime mortgage events in the United States, Singapore experienced “its worst recession in history.” In the same article, it is stated “Singapore’s financial companies were severely impacted by the credit crunch. Services slowed 5.3% in the fourth quarter of 2008 compared to the previous period, and the construction industry only grew 13.3% in the last quarter, much less than the previous forecast of 18.6%.” – Asia Economic Institute3

Anyone who works in these sectors may be more vulnerable than they think.

We would caution these groups of people to be more aware and take preparatory steps in order to minimise the potential impact of any downside risk. Our observations of the risk inherent in the Singapore property market are mirrored in the article on Moody downgrading the outlook of Singapore’s three main banks to “negative” from “stable” on Monday.

In our next article, we will explore the various options available to minimise exposure to such risk.  So if you reckon that you may fall into the “at risk” group, you will certainly do well with more research or at minimum read our follow up article on how to minimise your risks.

Do you have any opinions or responses to add? Let us know in the comments below, or reach us on our social media channels, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+.

1. source article: COV for resale flats could continue downward trend: analysts, 25 May 2013

2. source article: Hong Kong Homes Face Rising ‘Negative Equity’ on Sentiments, Barclays Says, 31 Oct 2011

3. source article: SINGAPORE EXPERIENCES ITS WORST RECESSION

Bluta Singapore

*The author blogs at www.Bluta.com.sg

By Gerry Shih

(Reuters) - Asiana Airlines said Monday it will sue a TV station that incorrectly reported racially offensive names of four pilots onboard the flight that crash-landed in early July at San Francisco International Airport.

An anchorwoman at KTVU, a Fox affiliate based in Oakland, California, fell victim on Friday to an apparent prank and reported four bogus pilot names, including "Sum Ting Wong" and "Wi Tu Low," during the noon newscast. Within hours, the broadcast footage had gone viral on the Internet, drawing widespread criticism and ridicule.

"We decided to sue KTVU because Asiana Airlines thinks their news defames our pilots and our company's reputation," Kiwon Suh, an Asiana spokesman, said Monday.

During an extended on-air apology late Friday, KTVU said it failed to "read the names out loud, phonetically sounding them out." But in a bizarre twist, the station also blamed the National Transportation Safety Board, which had confirmed the names for the station prior to the broadcast.

The NTSB apologized late Friday and acknowledged that a summer intern who was answering phones as a volunteer at the agency confirmed the fake names "in good faith" for KTVU. So far, neither KTVU nor the NTSB have explained where the names originated.

On Monday, Suh, the Asiana spokesman, played down earlier reports that the company threatened legal action against the federal agency as well. "We will never sue the NTSB," Suh said.

KTVU, which is owned by the media conglomerate Cox, and the NTSB did not respond to requests for comment on Monday.

The gaffe came five days after Asiana disclosed the names of the pilot and co-pilot on Flight 214 as Lee Kang-kook and Lee Jeong-min, respectively.

The crash of the Boeing 777 plane resulted in the deaths of three teenage girls in a group of students from eastern China who were visiting the United States for a summer camp. Over 180 passengers and crew members were injured.

(This story was corrected to remove inaccurate reference to anchorwoman taking leave of absence)

(Reporting by Gerry Shih; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

SOURCE: REUTERS

I am a 3rd generation Singaporean who is gravely concerned. Let’s first look at these recent cases involving Singapore’s public servants:

SCDF Ex-Commissioner Sex for Graft Case

Peter Lim who is the ex-commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) was proven guilty and sentenced to 6 months jail. Many would recall he received sexual favours with 3 different women in return to committing to business contracts with the companies these women represented. To put it simply, Peter Lim requested these women to perform sexual acts, which they did, and in return he approved the business contracts. Such business contracts were worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and these women were Sales representatives for their companies who were incentivized to close such a large sales contract.

Regardless of whether the Sales women were the protagonist or initiator, the fact remains the Commissioner of the SCDF should NOT have received such sexual favours. For those of you who are unaware, the SCDF is Singapore’s Fire Service and is responsible for all fire outbreaks and rescue work. In addition, SCDF is responsible for Search and Rescue for any accidents, Extrication in traffic accidents, Ambulance services, Chemical and Hazardous Material outbreaks, Air-raid and bomb shelters, Food and water storage, and even potential Nuclear leaks. Clearly the SCDF is a very important organization responsible for the safety and welfare of all people physically living in Singapore.

Now, the Commissioner of the SCDF is its Number One man. He is similar to the CEO of any organization. Peter Lim was this Number One man. Peter Lim’s career history shows he first joined the SCDF in 1987 as a Fire Safety Engineer. In the course of his career, Peter Lim assumed various leadership and key management appointments, including Division Commander, Head of the Operations Department in Headquarters, SCDF, Director of the Civil Defence Academy, Assistant Commissioner of the General Staff and Deputy Commissioner of SCDF. On 20 May 2009, Peter Lim was officially appointed as the Commissioner of SCDF by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Peter Lim graduated in 1986 from the University of Applied Science, Hamburg, Germany with a Bachelor Degree in Mechanical Engineering. He has also participated in the Columbia Senior Executive Program in 2003 and the Stanford Executive Program in 2008.

What a colourful career history Peter Lim has! After becoming the commissioner, he abused his position of authority and was found guilty in the sex for graft case. My question to the people of Singapore is: Where is the Professionalism and Integrity of such a Public Servant?

CNB Ex-Director Sex for Graft Case (acquitted)

Ng Boon Gay who is the ex-Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) was proven NOT guilty in a sex-for-contracts case. What is clear though is he admitted to committing such sexual trysts with another woman despite him being married. Many of you would recall the evidentiary proof given by the parties is undisputable that Ng Boon Gay did indeed commit sexual acts and adultery whilst being appointed as a senior officer in CNB. CNB is Singapore’s primary drug enforcement agency entrusted with the responsibilities of coordinating all matters pertaining to drug eradication. Singapore has always taken an extremely tough stand towards drug abuse, and clearly, the CNB’s role is extremely important.

Now, the Director of the CNB is its Number One man. Ng Boon Gay was this Number One man. His career history shows he was a PSC local merit scholar, majored in Mathematics and graduated with First Class Honours from NUS in 1990. He joined the Singapore Police Force soon after and was appointed Assistant Superintendent of Police the following year. Ng was promoted 8 times and took on key command and staff appointments in the Police Force. As Commander of Tanglin Police Division from 2001 to 2003, he was charged with the overall responsibility to police one of the busiest regions in Singapore encompassing Toa Payoh, Bukit Timah and Orchard Road. In 2003, he was appointed the Director of Manpower Department, Police Headquarters and in 2008, he was promoted to Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) of Police and appointed Director of Criminal Investigation Department (CID). As Director CID, he was overall in charge of the principal agency responsible for the detection and suppression of major and specialized crimes. In Jan 2011, he was appointed to his last position in the Police Force, Director CNB before his arrest in Dec 2011.

As a senior member of the Force, he is also the staff authority responsible for policy formation, operational strategies and system & technological development on all investigation matters in the Police Force. In 1999, in recognition of his performance and potential, Ng was awarded the Singapore Police Force Postgraduate Scholarship. He opted for the NUS Master of Business Administration programme with an exchange module with University of Michigan. He completed the programme and obtained his MBA in 2001 with excellent results, topping the class and being awarded the Reginald Quahe Medal. Ng was also a board member of Certis Cisco. He was a former council member in the Northwest Community Development Council, and participated in clubs’ and associations’ activities.

What a colourful career history Ng has! But that does not deny the fact that although he was acquitted of his sex-for-contracts case, he still committed adultery when he was a married man holding an extremely important appointment in one of Singapore’s most important civil agencies. My question to the people of Singapore is: Where is the Professionalism and Integrity of such a Public Servant?

Academia as a Yardstick to Select Competent Civil Servants is WRONG As far back as I can remember, civil servants in Singapore have always been selected based on their academic grades. Good grades have always been a measure of competence and performance. And the younglings with the highest academic scores get appointed to the highest ranks of public service. This is a practice that is WRONG and has to be eradicated. The main problem with academia is it does NOT measure other virtues such as Integrity, Benevolence, Chastity, Commitment, Compassion, Dependability, Discernment, Discipline, Forgiveness, Fortitude, Generosity, Grace, Gratitude, Helpfulness, Honesty, Impartiality, Kindness, Magnanimity, Mercy, Meekness, Patience, Prudence, Purity, Reliability, Responsibility, Righteousness, Selflessness, Sensitivity, Sincerity, Tact, Trustworthiness, Understanding, Wisdom, Zeal etc and the list goes on and on.

So what has happened since Singapore gained its independence in 1965?

Over these past 40+ years, our public servants have been selected through this flawed notion of meritocracy, measured in large part by Academic Grades. So many of these trained scholars, who have excellent grades and impeccable resumes on paper, have been put through our flawed systems and are now amidst us, in extremely high positions and ranks throughout our most important organizations. The above two cases in the Number One man in SCDF and CNB are but simple examples. How many more are out there?

And perhaps this leads to a more pressing issue. If these senior civil servants are cut from such a stained cloth, where they have been appointed solely because of academic prowess and not because of other virtues, then it is difficult to believe the policies they put in place are indeed good policies. As many people have attested, the policies implemented in recent times have been terrible and are not in the best interests of the Singapore people.

If the above thinking is indeed true, then this opens a larger can of worms. It leads and follows on to the highest authority of civil servants in Singapore – the Government and the Cabinet of Ministers. If the individuals with the highest authority in Singapore have been selected in large part due to good academic grades, but have not been assessed based on other virtues, then it is extremely worrying as these individuals will NOT be instilling policies which place the people of Singapore as priority. They simply will not have the “Heart” to do so. How can these individuals in power understand and relate to the people on the ground, when they have for a good part of their entire lives, conducted their management by merely sitting behind a desk and pushing a pen.

Another extremely worrying issue is many of our key organizations are helmed by individuals who for a good part of their lives, were signed on regulars from the Singapore Armed Forces. As many people have noted before, these senior officers from SAF (some call them “Paper” Generals) have been parachuted into many key state-owned organizations after nearly reaching the tail-end of their military career. One often ponders, how much does a military man, especially one being conditioned in a Singapore type “Wayang” military for so long, know about managing a real-world commercial organization? Are his experiences and skills sets even relevant to begin with?

I do admit it may be challenging to assess an individual based on other virtues and characteristic traits. And really, it is the easiest way out to measure someone by merely looking at academic grades. But clearly, this is an extremely flawed measurement yardstick that has permeated many facets of our Singaporean culture and practical lives. Academia does not automatically translate into success. There are many other developed nations and global organizations that have started to realize such a fact, and are selecting their employees based on many other worthy merits instead of just paper grades.

The old adage used to read “Knowledge is Power”. I beg to differ. Knowledge is NOT Power. What you actually do with relevant knowledge, and do it well you must, is true Power.

3rd Generation Singaporean

Sex bloggers Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee have received death threats, presumably from angered Malay rights groups after their insensitive poster of breaking fast with Bah Kut Teh. It seems that they have been affected by the death threats after asking for mercy on their twitter account.

They have also been asked to surrender themselves to the Kuala Lumpur police after being investigated under the Communications and Multimedia Act for causing disharmony, disunity and hatred on grounds of religion.

Besides an impending court case, the particulars of Alvin and Vivian and some of their family members, including telephones and addresses, have been posted online by a pro-bumiputra facebook group, Malay Right 1957. On their blog, they said that the sex blogger duo are Christians and added that they should be taught a lesson. 

Although Alvin and Vivian have apologised for their insensitive poster, the public doesn't seemed convinced as complaints led to their facebook page being removed and criticisms against them continue to grow. These sex bloggers should keep to sex as it appears race is a more sensitive topic than sex here in Malaysia and Singapore.

Singapore Hall of Shame

The Kovan's murder has lead one to ponder whether has the Singapore Police Force (SPF) failed in their values, Fairness and Integrity.   

On their website, "We are fair in our dealings with people, irrespective of their race, religion, gender, age, standing in life and irrespective of whether they are victims, suspects or convicts. We also (apply the same standard to the members of the SPF.)"  

"We (never forsake our ethics in order to attain our objectives. Our actions are guided by our principle), not expediency." 

The suspect has definitely failed the SPF but could the SPF have done more to help him with his financial issues? Notice that the suspect was once a role model, one could only have imagined the aspiration that he had for the Singapore Police Force and as a Police Officer.

Was the reason behind the murder been due to financial issues facing by the suspect, could I ask what could have the SPF done more to avoid a double murder, and saved the bright future of a Police Officer, who is now set to face Capital Charges.  

He might be covering up his financial issues, suspending him from active duty is fair enough. but could the SPF clarify how much of a blow would their 'financial embarrassment' disciplinary action have on someone, even if one is mentally healthy? 

I could only imagine the stress and thoughts been through the mind of the someone who is heavily in debt, HOW is one going to repay one's debt? being shamed by suspending of one's active duty, and potentially losing one's rice bowl, and on the edge of being bankrupt.  

Could the SPF look into giving members of the SPF any form of financial help and advice when they are faced with financial issues?

• Giving them a loan to pay back the bank, could help them from being bankrupt.
• Look into what issues they had that caused the debt and help from there.
• Provide them with counseling.

However I would like to applaude the SPF for suspending the suspect from active duty, noting that someone who is financially stress should not be handling weaponry and prevent one from being in the position to corrupt or exploit what one do in active duty.This has help avoid a more brutal killing, and a less dangerous suspect for the public, and make it easier for our SPF's counterpart, Royal Malaysia Police to nab the suspect. 

Anonymous

TRS Contributor

First Warrant Officer, Rajendran Pachemuthu, 51, was found hanging from a tree yesterday in army training area in Lentor. The reason for his apparent suicide is unclear as he was only 4 years from retirement.

Officer Rajendran is believed to have rose from rank and file in the Combat Engineers formation. Currently known to be a trainer at the Engineer Training Institute, he was a former "encik" at 30the Battalion Singapore Combat Engineers. His former charges described him as "hard on the outside, soft on the inside", "friendly" and "does not throw his weight around".

Last May, another SAF regular, 2nd Sergeant (2SG) Suresh S/O Seluras, 24, was found hanging from a rope in Changi Airbase. He was a military policeman from the 608th Squadron.

RIP.

Many people who know Warrant Raj personally said that he was a well-respected, friendly and humble man:

Singapore Hall of Shame