What is education for? Is education for the sake of education? Or is education about equipping the student to participate fully in life, in the economy, simply about getting a job to earn some money to provide for himself and his family should he decide to have one? For the elite and the gentry class, the royalties and aristocracies, education is just for education, to learn to read and write. The need to get a job or the need for an education to equip the student to be gainfully employed is not necessary in the lives of such privilege classes of people. Contrast this to those who need to work for a living, an education is seen primarily as a means to a job. Of course one does not need an education to get a job. A fisherman, a butcher, a boxer or a golfer or a tennis player, they don’t need an education to earn a living.

Putting aside those that don’t need to work, and those jobs that don’t need an education, education is the acquisition of a piece of certificate, diploma or degree or the acquiring of a passpost to a job. Several of our wise leaders have spoken many times to encourage the young to get a good education and advocating how important education is to a good job and a good life. Education is the leveller for all to compete on equal grounds to material success. And the Govt spent hundreds of millions annually to provide an excellent and world class education system for the population. And the universities and colleges all strived to be the best, to produce the best students for society and the economy. 

Then out of the blue we heard two ministers in a matter of days said these. 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”. He later went on to encourage people to become crane drivers when there is a great demand for it and the pay is good. Then Heng Swee Keat followed up a few days later by saying 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.’ 

Could you believe it, that two ministers in the same breath told the people that our world class education could not guarantee them a good job and maybe they should consider becoming crane drivers or take on other jobs that don’t require a good formal education? What the hell the Govt set up all the good schools, colleges and universities for? The students in these institutions are mostly from the working class that need to work for a living. They are not children of royalties or aristocrats or the super rich when working is an unnecessary chore, and if they choose to work, it is to kill their boredom. Why encourage the parents to send their children through the system, invested time and resources when it can be all for nothing? 

Does anyone think that this is strange? Would the NTUC, the super advocates of training and the organisation that has been sending hundreds of thousands of workers for training, tell the workers that the training would not guarantee them a job? Then why waste their time and money? 

The sick part of this conversation is that the country can provide a few hundred thousand jobs to foreigners who came from less prestigious or even doubtful institutions of learning with great jobs and good paying jobs. And we are telling our children that despite the fact that they have gone through one of the best education system, they may not get a good job here. 

I think this must be the joke of the century. Now who started this joke and set the whole world laughing? Education, and expensive education, stressful education, is not ‘main main’ ya. Who in his right mind would tell the parents that this gonna be the case, that their children with good grades from this expensive and world class education system may not find a good job while the questionable students with questionable grades from questionable education institutions could be in a better position to get good jobs? Is there someone suffering from bipolar sickness but is not detected? Did someone say bird talk? 

And there is the acting Minister of Manpower, Tan Chuan Jin, scurrying around like a bull arse fly shouting discrimination by employers, both locals and foreigners, against Singaporeans in employment. Now, what is that all about? Maybe have to wait for people to clean the hawker centre first before they have time to explain what is going on.

Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean

*The writer blogs at mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

Omigosh, the proverbial fecal matter has hit the rotating cooling device. Rating agency Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the outlook on Singapore's banking system from "stable" to "negative".

The anticipated rise in interest rates coupled with the high level of household debt - most of it tied down to mortgages - will present a perfect storm to the local lenders' credit profile. CFO Chng said a rise in short-term interest rates will lift DBS's net interest income and mitigate higher credit costs. That may be good news for the bank, but not the house owners.

The latest round of cooling measures introduced last month were meant to make sure outstanding debt obligations do not exceed 60 percent of monthly income, which is another way of saying many have already committed more than 60 percent to service housing loans. The numbers tell us that since 2009, household debt has risen 40.4 percent while monthly incomes rose only 26.3 percent.

Why are the lemmings still leaping off the cliff?

One reason could be the Minister's lack of resolve to burst the festering housing bubble. He may think he's helping the asset enhancement devotees to realise a fat profit for retirement, but by hoping to offload $400,000 public housing flats at $1,000,000 price levels, that's downright ripping off the younger generation coming into the market. The expression that comes to mind is "kicking the can down the road". Not every young person has a godfather with a million dollars paycheck to help with the mortgage payments.

So has the sub-prime crisis made its way across the globe to the little red dot? Moody's noted that Singapore banks have sufficient buffers to withstand losses under stress test scenarios - without spelling out what those stress scenarios are.  If they are so confident, why has DBS's outlook been rated "negative" since last August?

Tattler

*The writer blogs at singaporedesk.blogspot.com

I am writing in to share my disappointment over my pleas with ICA and our much trusted system.

Three days ago, I had emailed ICA via its email feedback system:

Subject: Complaint against abusive foreigner living at our house who was deported before now applying for PR status.

Dear officer,

On behalf of my family and myself, I would like to enquire regarding the thoroughness of a background check done for a foreigner who is currently applying for a Singapore Permanent Residence status.

I had called in the Immigrant Offender line but was informed that as I do not have adequate information (such as sponsor’s IC number or offender’s passport number), investigations are very unlikely to be carried out. However, the aforementioned foreigner has been deported back to her home country before and my abused family is very upset to see her back for good again.

Officer, I implore you to please allow me to highlight my reason for this email.

My Singaporean uncle who is residing under the same roof as my grandparents and me has married a Thai woman. She stayed for a few years before getting arrested and then deported back to Thailand. We had received a letter from Changi Women’s Prison stating that the reason behind was due to her fake passport. She didn’t return until January 2013.

She had informed us that she would be leaving by April 2013, which then became June 2013 and promptly ended up applying for a status for permanent residence. We assumed that ICA would run a detailed check and deny it but after submitting details of my aunt – who don’t even talk to my grandparents – to back their case, it seems that she would be getting the green light for staying.

My grandparents are about 90 years old with history of chronic and cardiac diseases yet every single day, they had to be verbally abused by her several times a day. This morning, she was just threatening them that if they do not obey her, ICA might send her back to Thailand if she fails their impromptu spot check at our house.

Despite her daily screaming, my old grandparents do not dare to offend her and refrain us from doing so as they are superstitious and fear her twice-daily angry Thai chanting in her room. We now cannot live comfortably and my grandma is often ashened after being yelled at for at least 30 minutes. They do not contribute to the bills at all and her usage costs us almost a hundred dollars in excess a month. My uncle do not have a favourable financial status.

I would like to know if there’s really nothing that can be done for our situation as it is impossible to acquire her name or passport number or my uncle’s IC number. They had purposely locked up their room even if they go to the washroom to prevent anybody from getting her details. She would also hide in the locked room if she suspects that there are investigators/officers knocking at the door. They have now duplicated a key to the letterbox so nobody can access their mails for information.

Please kindly advise, thank you so much. I look forward to your prompt reply.

Regards,

Miss Chua

Like what I was told at the Offenders’ hotline, with mere address and name, they can do nothing about it:

“Dear Miss Chua

We refer to your email dated 14 Jul 2013.

ICA treats every feedback seriously and would need to conduct the necessary investigation.  With the brief information provided, it is not sufficient for us to conduct the necessary investigation. You can update us when you have further information about the foreigner’s details.

Thank you.”

Basically, my uncle’s wife is to roam here indefinitely and allow to abuse my grandparents on a daily basis. I fear for their deteriorating health and am saddened by how ICA’s inability. No point calling the police since it would be treated as a domestic dispute. No relatives care or can help. I have never felt so helpless.

Cheryl Chua

The Straits Times on Saturday, 13 July 2013, carried an article, “Slower pace of life comes with trade-off, says Shanmugam“, which said that Law and Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam had spoken at a forum at the National University of the night of Friday, 12 July 2013.

The Straits Times reported that Shanmugam had “painted a stark picture of the scale of challenges facing the country”, saying that “there is also a fiscal challenge as public spending already outstrips revenue from taxes in this year’s Budget.” It also reported that, “The only reason there is no actual deficit is the income stream from the reserves built up over many years.”

But what The Straits Times did not report on and that Shanmugam did not say is that Singapore also has the lowest public spending among the developed countries, even as Singapore is the richest country by GDP per capita, has the highest reserves per capita in the world, and that GIC and Temasek Holdings, which manage our reserves, are the 8th and 11th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

If we are starting on a very low base – with the lowest public spending among the developed countries, and we have more than adequate resources to provide for the people, why is the government choosing to paint a “stark picture” instead of simply providing for the people?

The Straits Times also reported that, “as the proportion of senior citizens grows, they will hold more votes and could potentially push politicians to spend more to benefit their age group.” Why does the government choose to paint the elderly as snarky, painful pests who want to feed on the system?

What The Straits Times had also not reported is that the situation is actually very dire and bleak for the elderly in Singapore. Among the low-income jobs, the majority of these workers are the elderly. For the elderly in these low-income jobs, this means that they have been earning low wages for several decades. This is highly problematic, because first, for the low-wage workers, their real wages have dropped over the past decade. Second, for low-wage workers, they see their wages drop over their lifetime. This means that low-wage workers and our elderly face a double-whammy where their wages simply cannot sustain the pace of growth of the cost of living in Singapore. Add to that, in 2005, 62% of the elderly had said that they needed work because they needed the money. Fast forward to 2013, the proportion of elderly who might need to work because they do not have enough savings would have possibly grown to 80%.

And why is this the case? Several studies have shown that Singapore’s retirement funds – our CPF – are actually the lowest among the developed countries compared, and even lower than countries such as Malaysia, Philippines and Indonesia.

What The Straits Times and Shanmugam had not acknowledged and said is this – Singapore has the lowest public spending among the developed countries, and because Singaporeans also receive the lowest wages among the developed countries and we have the lowest purchasing power because of relatively much higher prices, by the time we retire, we have the smallest retirement funds that this creates a lot of burden for the elderly in Singapore. Add to that the increasing healthcare costs and the lowest government expenditure on our healthcare bills, the elderly simply cannot afford to get sick with meagre savings and retirement funds, and cannot afford to stop working.

The Straits Times had also reported that, “Such trends will affect the amount of taxes today’s young will have to pay in future.” The Today newspaper had carried a report, “MediShield: Young people willing to pay higher premium“, on 12 July 2013, which said that, “Three quarters of the respondents, or 38 out of 50 (of 50 respondents???), said they are willing to pay more so that the elderly — and themselves eventually — pay less.” But what had not been said in all of these? With the lowest public spending among the developed countries and the highest reserves per capita and one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, can the government afford to do a lot more to intervene, before the people are forced to pay from their own pockets, from real wages which have remained stagnant and which had not caught up with inflation?

It is highly unacceptable when the government refuses to acknowledge that with the lowest public spending among the developed countries and with one of the highest reserves and the highest reserves per capita in the world, that the government can do a lot more for the people. The picture isn’t stark if the government takes on the responsibility which it has not been taking for more than the past decade.

The government needs to increase the interest rate for CPF and Medisave and Medishield payouts, at least for the low-income earners and the elderly. The government needs to increase public spending for the low-income and the elderly – if they are not willing to impose a minimum wage to uplift the wages of these workers. And the government needs to significantly increase the proportion of the government’s expenditure on our healthcare bills. Other governments with a similar GDP per capita are already forking out 80% for the healthcare bills where our government is only forking out slightly more than 30%.

Before we even have to ask the people to dig from their own pockets, which have not grown, the government should look at the mirror and repeat what they are saying to the people to themselves. If the government can afford to pay itself high salaries which have shot through the roof, then it has no right to claim that the situation is “stark” when the people are paying them such exorbitant salaries precisely because they are supposed to fix the problems. The people have given the government enough solutions and if the government is not willing to act on these solutions, then this government doesn’t deserve to be paid such ridiculously high salaries.

Roy

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

I would like very much re-visit the whole concept of “grass-root” leader and I have so many questions that need answers. This structure has been around for decades and I am sure it has evolved over the years.

1. What is the grand idea behind having a grass-root structure/organization ?
2. What is their primary function/duties ?
3. Who do they serve ? I know that the adviser is the MP.
4. What is the role of the adviser ?
5. Is there a budget to support the running of this structure ?
6. Are the members being paid a salary/allowance/etc. ? If not, what about “other” benefits if any ?
7. How much “say” have the members on the well being/improvement of their respective area ?
8. Do they involve themselves in political activities ?
9. Now that the Worker Party is in control of Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol, do the Worker Party required to keep the existing grass-root structure running? If not, what happen to these grass-root structures that were previously under a PAP MP ?
10. Do the Worker Party believes in the concept of grass-root organization and do the Worker Party have or intent put up their own grass-root organization ?
11. Did these grass-root organization serve its purposes/objectives ? Are they still relevant today ?

Someone please enlighten me/us on the above or may the PM considered as these organization COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

Lim Swee Say said grassroots leaders are the “voice of the silent majority”, helping to strengthen ties between the ground and the government. I would like to put it another way, grassroots leaders are the “silent operatives” of the PAP not the government. They become the “eyes and ears of the PAP”. But since this is a PAP government, so we can put it in definitive the “SILENT OPERATIVES OF THE PAP GOVERNMENT”.

TKM

Dear The Real Singapore,

I am a professional journalist for a trade media based in Singapore. Recently, I noticed many of my fellow reporters left the industry for greener pastures. The recent announcement about SPH's weakened performance didn't help things. I started to take a look at Jobsdb.com.sg just to get a clearer idea of what is up with the exodus of workers in from the media.

A local media company owned by the military has been looking for a Deputy News Editor - first time I saw the advertisement was some time in June. It's mid-July now and they have extended the application deadline to August. Further looks reflected a change in criteria which left me skeptical; to the point of wondering if the employers are asking for the impossible.

I name one employer Hoods Inc (something like that) who posted a vacancy for Assistant Producer/Assistant Writer. The company has been detailed in listing the duties which amount to be nothing more than a Finance, Video Production, All-rounder in one position with a package promising bonus. It even mentioned they provide On-The-Job training.

Link: http://sg.jobsdb.com/SG/en/Job/Jobs?jobAdIds=400003001545196

Sad to comment local employers have come to a point where exploiting workers is a norm. This is the illustration making turnovers in companies not surprising - the experienced won't be foolish enough to apply. The employer cannot expect workers to stay long with the kind of working conditions. I wish Hoods Inc best of luck in their search for a slave.

Christel Lee

TRS contributor

By Ooi Pei Qi

Whenever Singapore is mentioned, certain characteristics may surface in minds of many Malaysians. Typical descriptions of the country include a fast-paced life, a clean city, competitive culture and abundant career opportunities. These attributes have been at the core of the Singaporean lifestyle for the past decade, and still hold true today. But make no mistake: change has been coming to Singapore.

A series of events that happened in recent years demonstrated that one of the fastest growing countries in the past 40 years is also vulnerable to its own seemingly reliable system. Singapore’s virtually flawless public transport system was marred by two major mass rapid transit (MRT) breakdowns in December 2011. Delays in train services then became a norm in the following months, which culminated in the resignation of SMRT Corporation Ltd’s (SMRT) CEO. A labour strike involving 171 SMRT bus drivers occurred in November 2012, Singapore’s first in 26 years. The strikers were mostly Chinese nationals frustrated with what they called unfair wages and poor living conditions.

A more concrete evidence of change is the collective action taken by Singaporeans themselves – more than 4,000 people took part in a protest in February this year, in a very public rejection of the government’s 6.9 million population projection by 2030. They were angered by the government’s plan to increase the population via immigration into the already congested island.

Incidents like these highlight pertinent issues that are inherent to Singapore’s system, including Singapore’s overreliance on low cost foreign labour, the public’s disdain for foreign workers that can border on xenophobia and the government’s dominant role in public policymaking.

The Singapore government assumed the role of taking care of its people when it broke off from Malaysia decades ago, and has largely succeeded with spectacular results. In return, its citizens conformed to most of the government’s stance in public policy. In particular, Singaporeans accepted the government’s foreign workers policy when it was first introduced in the 1980s. The government convinced the people that foreign labour would only take up jobs that Singaporeans would not have taken in the first place, such as construction work and cleaning services.

Conversely, the government sold the idea that foreign talent was necessary for innovation and economic growth. In essence, it conveyed the message that without foreigners, Singapore would not develop. As the number of foreign workers grew, Singaporeans began forming uncomfortable relationships with both foreign labourers and talent. Citizens want their houses to be built, but do not want to be in contact with those who “work behind the scenes”. They have also found themselves competing with foreign talents in the job market.

The factor that propelled Singapore to become the economic success it is today is the same factor that led to citizens’ resentment towards foreign workers – the small size of the country. Being only an island with no hinterland, Singapore faces limitations in maintaining economic growth while housing its growing population. In the 1980s, foreign workers could enter the country and stay in different enclaves, not intruding into the daily lives of locals. However, as the country’s population and the number of new citizens grew (due to the government’s liberal stance towards immigration), the constrained land size inevitably led to the closer proximity of foreigners and locals. There is no second-tier city for citizens who feel overwhelmed to find respite in.

Letters to the editor in Singapore dailies such as The Straits Times mentioning foreigners as a cause of frustration became more frequent. One high profile clash between foreigners and locals was a highly-publicised incident when a mainland Chinese family complained about the smell of curry from a Singaporean-Indian neighbour. And the internet became an avenue for people to voice their unhappiness and form a collective voice against the government’s foreign workers policy.In the last decade, Singaporeans felt the squeeze (literally) in their own country. Buses and trains were getting more crowded, and the frequency of public transport did not catch up with the increase in population. The tension between foreign workers and locals intertwined with the widening income gap. Locals were also dissatisfied with the increasing inequality. The increase in foreign talent gave the perception that jobs were being taken away from locals.

Government’s response 
The government has implemented a series of measures to douse the fire, such as slowing down the approval of new citizens and permanent residents. The levy on low cost foreign labourers was raised, discouraging employers from hiring them. Of course, this has the side effect of delaying construction work on the island; in spite of assurances from public officials, new projects launched in Singapore now have a waiting period of four to five years instead of the normal three.

Real change has yet to take place, and it will come only when the core government structure is transformed to face this new Singapore, a society that no longer thinks that the government knows best.However, the structure of the government remains the same. The top 300-odd administration officers make most of the decisions for the 5.3 million residents in htmlSingapore. These officers are largely government scholars or people from the private sector who have performed well in their respective professions. The recruitment of officers from similar backgrounds encourages groupthink, and the officers may not be in touch with the daily grouses of Singaporeans.

Conclusion 
These issues highlight the growing pains of this small developed nation. Singapore has enjoyed strong economic growth, transforming itself from a state deserted by Malaysia into a top-notch global city. However, given the land constraints, the government faces its toughest challenge yet. It has to cope with slow global growth but cannot rely on its traditional liberal foreign talent policy. Citizens seem to prize a smaller income gap over high economic growth.

The government recognises that with local and global forces against it, it has to change itself to see the country move forward. Already, the government has taken active steps to take into account the voices of Singaporeans, through public feedback on policies and open dialogues such as Our Singapore Conversations. Nonetheless, a complete restructuring of the public service remains necessary. Empathy and a genuine desire to bring Singapore forward as a whole should be the core of policymaking.

Ooi Pei Qi is a research analyst at Penang Institute. She is interested in global trends that affect Penang.

*Article first appeared on http://penangmonthly.com/limits-to-growth-in-singapore/

The PAP government’s definition of affordability requires a serious relook by all Singaporeans.  Unless we’re not a developed and wealthy nation:

-   most of us should not be requiring any form of subsidy/grant from the government to own a basic housing unit.
-   the government, which has full land control, should not continue to dictate where we live (move to a new town, away from family etc.)

Public housing in every country in the world is meant for lower income citizens but the PAP has used it to control and dictate where ordinary citizens should be located and whoever supports the PAP gets priority in upgrading.

The majority of ordinary Singaporeans are subjected to such a bias, except the rich.

A reasonable definition of affordability should therefore mean the financial ability to live in any location other than central parts of Singapore eg. Pasir Ris, Woodlands, Tampines, etc.

Using a new public housing unit subsidised with taxpayers’ money masks the issue of an opposite situation. 

It is not unreasonable for a Singaporean couple to expect the ability to purchase at least a 3 rm HDB unit after working almost 10 years, just before starting a family.  What is the objective of so much investment in education if few can afford a lower end public housing unit?

We proceed now to use the HDB 3 rm resale flat as the yardstick to determine affordability, with statistics pertaining to reality instead of the government’s textbook scenario.  Reasonable assumptions are: (some from singstat)

-   A male marries at around 30, having worked only 7 years due to NS liability. (awaiting poly course and NS, job application time loss)
-   A female at around 28, having worked 8 years.
-   Both are diploma holders.
-   Starting salary of about $1900, last drawn of $2700, average of $2300 for the period.
-   Annual salary includes 1 extra month.

Below is a typical financial situation before a couple with diploma purchase a resale flat.

The couple’s CPF monthly installment is $1242. 

From the chart below, the couple’s CPF covers the monthly installment for a 3 rm flat but has a shortfall of $230 for a 4 rm flat.

3 rm HDB (Tampines) and 4 rm (Pasir Ris)

HDB website: http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyResaleFlatMedianResalePrices

25 fake FTs, 21 from Myanmar, 3 from India and 1 from the Philippines have been charged for forging certificates to get employment passes and very likely all will be jailed as none will be able to pay the $5000 fine. The jail sentence is for 4 weeks while those unable to pay their fines will be jailed for 20 days. The difference in the days for the jail sentence could be due to the cases being different.

These FTs were caught after being employed for less than a year. They are new applicants. Many enraged Sinkies are calling for tougher measures as the sentences were just too insignificant for the risk and reward considerations. It is a good start for the MOM and people are expecting more to come as this is only skimming the surface of a problem of several hundred thousands of FTs here.

To mean business, MOM should go after the employers and the recruiting agencies as well. They have to go for the source of the problem and not the foreigners that are trying their luck. And worse, they are not going to pay the fine and the govt would still have to feed and house them for the duration in jail.

Go for the jugular, and employers and recruiting agencies that failed to do the due diligence or actually in cahoot with the job applicants should be severely punished. And the employers and recruiting agencies are likely to have the finances to pay up and would avoid repeating the act.

Hope this is not just a show and the reaches of the MOM should extend to all the existing EP holders under employed and eventually even to new citizens who have gotten away. It is a long and tedious process and it is best that MOM signals its intention and how far it will go to nab the culprits and the cheats. MOM must issued a stern warning to all employers and recruiting agencies. In that way it could be seen as giving them a chance to get out while they can and for employers to clean their own houses before the net closes in on them.

By placing the responsibilities on the back of the employers and recruiting agencies will shift the burden to them as well. MOM just does not have the manpower and resources to deal with the few hundred thousand FTs here. Leave it to the employers and recruiting agencies to do the vetting and checking. MOM should just take on one company at a time starting from the big ones to send the message across that it means business.

The citizens are demanding that the govt must act thoroughly and seriously on such violations of the employment law and cheating the deserving citizens of their right to employment. Also it will save the embarrassment of being seen as a silly govt that claimed to be intelligent and sophisticated first world talents but got cheated easily by third world half baked non talents and fraudsters.

The Sinkies are not daft and are watching carefully to see how real is the effort of the MOM. There are many fakes hiding deeply in the banks and financial institutions and some may be holding very senior positions for many years here. It is also good that MOM has asked the public to whistle blow, to feed back on suspected cases to their hotlines.

MOM said it will not condone such acts of false declaration, and will take severe actions against offenders.

Members of the public who have information of persons or employers who contravene the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act should report the matter to MOM at Tel: (65) 6438 5122 or email mom_fmmd@mom.gov.sg. All information will be kept strictly confidential.

Chua Chin Leng AKA Redbean

*The writer blogs at mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

On Monday, 15 July 2013, The Wall Street Journal carried an article, “Asia Has World’s Biggest Pay Gap“, which said that, “In Asia, middle managers such as department heads make more than 14 times as much as operational employees such as clerical workers–the biggest such pay disparity in the world… The difference in pay in Asia is far greater, for example, than in North America (3.5 times) and Europe (2.9 times), and somewhat bigger than in the Middle East (11.9 times) and Central and South America (10.2), other regions comprised mostly of emerging markets.”

I took a look at Singapore’s inequity rate, and it showed that middle managers earn 6.7 times as much as workers (Chart 1). Singapore’s inequity rate is actually the highest among the cities of the developed countries, after Slovakia (Bratislava) and the Czech Republic (Prague), which had inequity rates of 7.4 and 7.1 respectively. Both these countries are newly-developed countries, depending on which measure you use.

If we were to look at the inequity rates of the other cities in the developed countries, London has an inequity rate of 4.2, Sydney is at 4, Paris 3.9, New York 3.6, Montreal 3.3, Berlin 3.1 and Oslo 2.6.

Chart 1: Hay Group Inequity Rate

Singapore’s inequity rate actually stands between that of the developed countries and the developing countries. If you look at the inequity map, you would see that the cities in the richer developed countries are more equal whereas the cities in the developing countries are more unequal. If this is the case, shouldn’t Singapore’s inequity rate be much lower since Singapore has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world?

This is not the only report that shows the huge income disparity in Singapore. The ECA Global Perspectives National Salary Comparison 2012 had also showed that executives (Chart 2) are much better paid than the junior managers (Chart 3).

Executives are ranked 7th in their relative wealth while junior managers are ranked 21st, 14 places below. If you look at the other countries which have more equitable income distributions, junior managers are better paid (Chart 3).

Chart 2: ECA Global Perspectives National Salary Comparison 2012

Chart 3: ECA Global Perspectives National Salary Comparison 2012

What is wrong here then? If Singapore’s GDP per capita can be taken at face value, then what are the factors that have allowed the other cities in the developed countries to have higher equity, whereas in Singapore – one of the richest in the world – the people are more unequal, when by right, there should be more equity?

According to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Discussion Paper, “Trade, Income Distribution and Poverty in Developing Countries: A Survey“, “When looking at the relationship between output growth and poverty for developing countries, the evidence suggests that the faster countries growth, ceteris paribus, the faster poverty rates will fall. In the case of the least developed countries, higher growth also leads to lower poverty.”

It thus makes sense that as a country develops and moves from being a developing country to a more developed country, that income inequality should also drop as well. But why hasn’t this happened in Singapore?

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s report, “Economic Policy Reforms: Going for Growth 2012“, under the chapter, “Reducing income inequality while boosting economic growth: Can it be done?“, it states that the “growth-enhancing policies … that are likely to reduce labour income inequality” are as follows:

1. A rise in the share of workers with upper secondary education
2. Promoting equity in education (and) raising social mobility by making educational outcomes less dependent on personal and social circumstances … (and) a more equitable distribution of educational opportunities. (Examples of reforms include postponing early tracking, strengthening links between school and home to help disadvantaged children learn, and providing early childhood care and basic schooling for all.)
3. Active labour market policies … by better matching jobs with skills and enhancing job search support and monitoring.
4. Reducing the gap between employment protection on temporary and permanent work (with) more even job protection
5. Better integration of immigrants in the labour market
6. Improving labour market outcomes of women (by introducing) policies to improve the availability of formal care for children and the elderly.
7. More effective legal rules (e.g. legal action against those who engage in discriminatory practices)
8. Taxing in a way that allows equitable growth

Looking at this list, what has Singapore done? Singapore has done points 1 and 3. Point 2 was somewhat debated on over the past one year but there are still inconclusive outcomes – our education system continues to be unequally-accessed. For the rest, I can safely say that none of them are being done. There are no anti-discrimination laws in Singapore. Policy-wise, Singaporeans and immigrants are treated differently. The wages of the foreign workers continue to be pegged to the ‘E’ Pass and ‘S’ Pass, which thus depresses the wages of Singaporeans. Women continue to receive lower wages and single mothers are not able to receive the Baby Bonus.

So, the root problem as to why high inequality continue to persist in Singapore? The answer lies in the question itself. Our government practices a policy of discrimination which perpetuates inequality. There are no laws to protect against discrimination of any form and policies are developed to segregate the different types of workers, and in so doing, inadvertently results in Singaporeans being unfairly treated as well, such as through the depression of our wages. Schools continue to exist on class-differentiation. Because the government does not believe in equality but in skewed equitable meritocracy, inequality continues to rear its head.

The reason why Singapore continues to have high inequity is because of policies chased by the government which does not protect the workers and pushes certain upper-income classes ahead of others.

But up until the late-1990s, things were actually looking up for Singapore. There was growing equity in Singapore. Everything changed from 2000.

In The Straits Times on 6 April 2013, in Saturday’s Insight, “Closing the Rich-Poor Gap”, it was reported that the gap between the top and bottom earners grew from 2000 (Chart 4).

Chart 4: The Straits Times Closing the Rich-Poor Gap

The ratio of what the skilled workers earned, as compared to the unskilled workers also started growing in 2000 (Chart 5).

Chart 5: The Straits Times Closing the Rich-Poor Gap

In fact, according to The Straits Times article on 17 January 2012, “Foreign talent policy had effect on income gap“, since 2000, the real income growth rates for the poorest 10% in Singapore had actually dropped while that for the richest 10% had grown the fastest (Chart 6).

Chart 6: The Straits Times: Foreign talent policy had effect on income gap

So, from 2000, the government went on a trajectory that betrayed the people. What happened?

Why did the government turn its back on the people it was supposed to serve from 2000?

It was in 1994 that the government started pegging ministerial salaries top four “elite” earners in six professions. In 2000, “the variable component of ministers’ pay is increased from 30 to 40 per cent” and “the performance bonus of ministers also rises to five months’ pay, from an average of four months’ pay”.

When your prime minister is ranked at about the 382nd richest person in Singapore, where will his concerns lie?

Roy

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

I refer to today's Straits Times article "TRS website popular but ranks low on credibility".

I chuckled when I read it.  I don't know about everyone else but when it comes to political news, ST has sunk so low that it is just as non-credible as TRS.  Years ago, I used to spend about 30 minutes reading the ST. Nowadays, I take no more than 10 minutes.  I skip political commentaries - just a quick browse just to get a sense of what it is that Chua Moi Hoong and the likes are now bitching about.  I easily spend over an hour in total getting my political news from social media, Facebook, websites, blogs.  I suspect that the average citizen also spends no more than 10-20 minutes reading the ST and several times more on social media, blogs.

Why is that so?  Because in today's time and age, the more ST plays its role as the moutpiece of the PAP, the more non-credible it gets.  Lets take the recent hawker centre saga for eg. Most neutral Singaporeans I spoke to, tell me that they have long "switched off". Nobody bothers to read anymore into who said what. Its like a husband and wife quarelling over, whose turn it is to do tonight's dishes.  Yet ST devoted 2-3 pages coverage to it. Interestingly that same day, Business Times devoted merely a column to it, deep inside its pages.  Not newsworthy.

Lets look at today's article by Tessa in detail.  "TRS website popular but ranks low on credibility".  Says who?  Some anonymous "news watchers".  And why not credible?  "Plagiarised content, unverified assertions and editors are anonymous".  Is the Marxist conspiracy so well played up by the ST today a verified or unverified assertion?  ST is assuming its verified simply because the Govt says so isn't it?  When Shanmugam cautioned against populist measures that draw on our reserves, isn't Lui Tuck Yew subsidising billions to SMRT and SBS also a form of "raiding our reserves"? Isn't Khaw Boon Wan's self-appointed unpegging of new flats to resale flat market rate also a form of "raiding our reserves"? The list goes on and on and on.  In all such cases, the ST merely publishes the Govt's assertion - never mind if it is full of holes - with not a single thought put into whether the Emperor is really wearing clothes.

Lets take anonymity.  After PM Lee blasted bloggers for being anonymous in the infamous tea party hosted just after GE 2011, PAP's Internet brigade has by now assembled quite a team who's very active online too. Some of them form their own blogs (the hard truth, sgthinker etc) and many more leave comments in popular blogs (including Alex Au's, TRE) combatting any negative news. And all of them are anonymous.  If anonymity is a sin, why is the PAP now embracing this strategy?

And what's the point of revealing your true identity when the laws in Singapore are so unfairly stacked against you, as to bankrupt you, or even banish you .. to say, St John's island for 20+ years in solitary confinement? I applaud TRS for remaining anonymous and I hope it can continue doing the good work its been doing.

Many of the sources of "authority" cited by Tessa are the usual suspects - Institute of Policy Studies research fellow.  Hello?  Did you watch TCS's coverage of the Punggol BE where they got a IPS fellow live to comment?  Do you find her comments excruciatingly partisan (pro-PAP)?  Do you feel like throwing your shoes at the TV?  That's the kind of "authority" ST is relying on?  Come on .. give me a break.  IPS is funded by the Govt .. all the fellows know they must toe the line.  Heck, even Chen She Mao cannot be invited to events organised by his constituency because PA funded by the Govt disallow it.  What's more saying things in public that does not put PAP in the good light?

The only reason SPH is able to thrive in the past is because its a media monopoly.  A ST subscription costs $29.65 monthly.  I subscribed to the NYT online too and it costs me only US$15 (or S$19) monthly.  Which news source do you think is more credible, ST or NYT?  Why am I paying 50% more for ST? Because its a monopoly.

But times are changing.  I'm now getting more of my info from online sources. None of them needs to be "100% credible" because I get them from multiple sources, so I get different points of view and I can make up my own mind accordingly. The days where there is only ONE source of "truth" is over. When I want foreign news and analysis, I go to NYT. Or yahoo.com.  Or so many other websites.  When I want local news, I can get channelnewsasia or Today for free.  Its a matter of time before I drop my ST subscription.  And its not just me - but many of my friends too.  The days when Chua Mui Hoong's or Warren Fernandez's political commentary is a must-read is long over. Today, its more important to read what Alex Au writes because you know he's objective and when he speaks, the govt listens and responds too.  In fact, ST is so afraid of its own shadow that it does not allow users to leave comments on its website - because it knows it will be blasted upside down.  Compare that with the NYT or blogs.  Look at how interesting the many comments are left in Alex Au or TRE's blog.

The only reason Tessa is huffing and puffing is that more and more people are recognizing TRS as a more credible source of political news than ST.  And ST knows it. That's why its calling the kettle black.  That may have worked decades ago. But ST is a like a dinosaur left behind in the dark ages, still wondering why it is no longer trusted as a purveyor of truth. And why its revenues are falling.

Cassandra

TRS Contributor

‘Moving People, Enhancing Lives’. Does it ring a bell? Formed any impression from that slogan? Here is why probably you took so long to figure. It’s SMRT’s vision. SMRT, (not endorsing that SBS Transit is any better), has lost it’s positioning as a credible and world-class transport system that has failed in promising to move people with their trains and to enhance the lives of commuters. With little avenue to voice my concerns, this issue has sent mixed signals, leaving me full of confusion and full of frustration.

Let’s start with ‘Enhancing Lives’. How have the trains enhanced our lives? By introducing half-height platform screen doors on above ground stations to enhance our lives by preventing deaths? Or by enhancing our lives in reminding us to plan our trips earlier and to estimate and anticipate delays?

Now let’s take a look at ‘Moving People’. What is their way of moving us? By constantly reminding us to move to a less crowded area along the platform when the whole platform is filled with people? Or telling us to move to the centre of the car when there is isn’t any more centre space?

Delays and breakdows have become a norm in Singapore. This was not to be a decade ago, that I remembered very vividly. But today, society has evolved so rampantly, the crowd is alarming. The morning rush is overwhelming. Then we ponder, has the transport, in this case, the trains in particular, has the infrastructure keep up with the changing times?

We are constantly being told to mind the platform gap. Has anyone mind your personal space? Do they leave gap or gaps for you to breathe? Then the other kind of gap derives from social division. Not many are willing to give up something for someone, be it a seat or a communal space. Hence, as society becomes more and more divided, disparity becomes significantly evident in today’s context.

Is it our problem, or has it become our problem that our society is shaped as how it is today? Or are there greater factors contributing to such a social crisis? Maybe it’s politics, or could it be the Government’s lack of foresight, together with their poor judgment, poor planning and poor execution?

The Government finally tries to do something for the common good of society. One wonders whether or not they know it’s going to be effective or not. They recently launched the ‘Travel Early, Travel Free on the MRT’ campaign three weeks ago. Question is, has it worked? http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=c3983784-2949-4f8d-9be7-d095e6663632

The whole concept looks utterly flawed. Who would be awake so early to catch the train for free then to drag themselves to work, (assuming that’s the main target audience for such an initiative), and to wait for work to commence? How absurd can that be? It saddens me to see so many Singaporeans working so hard at work, till the late hours, sometimes 9pm or 10pm, just to make ends meet. They do not even have quality time to spend with their family and loved ones.

One more thing, the poster of the egg irks me. The egg yolk represents the relentless Singaporean, while the egg white looks like the rest of other people, all on the trains. And the poster reads, have a leisurely breakfast. Leisurely? This whole approach of free ride feels indifferent even before the initiative was implemented. I personally experienced it myself, first hand and I can attest to the very fact that all this just boils down to the lack of infrastructure capabilities we are facing.

Or simply, there is too much on Singapore’s public transport. But haven’t we always been encouraged to use public transport? This issue has sent mixed signals, leaving me full of confusion and full of frustration. 

SG Freedom Fighter

TRS Contributor

TRS reader Eve was flabbergasted when a male secondary school student asked her if she was willing to part with used undergarments for a 'school project'.

The student had contacted her via facebook, and had offered her $50 per item of clothing.

She wrote: "I received a random message over at facebook earlier this week. This young guy actually asked me whether I am interested in earning $50 in 15 minutes and it is not legal, so my natural reaction is asking him what is it.  He then told me that he needed to ask me a few questions to see if I am suitable. His questions started with asking my age, and whether I wear socks, and then slowly asking me if I wear thongs, pantyhose, stockings etc."

In the end, he actually ask me to sell my used and unwashed stocking to him for $50 a pair! He claims that it is for a school project to find out more about girls' outfits and to test the smell and sweat stains! I really want to ask his school if there really was such a project? If there is, this is ridiculous! If there isn't, I want to warn all girls out there to beware of this guy! I believe he is a very young teenage guy in secondary school , and at his age if his thinking is like this, I can't imagine how will he be when he grows older. 

Seriously what has our society become nowadays? He even told me that I can treat it as selling my clothes or donating my stockings, thongs or pantyhose to CHARITY!

From referring to bloggers in Parliament, to overtly naming those who had their run-ins. It looked like bloggers have become the punching bag for the PAP government, especially those who do not toe the line.

Thus, we are led to think that PAP’s bête noire would be the new media? Is that really so? This is where I come in with my own story, that I feel could present another perspective.

I led a nomadic life during my formative years. Was born in Singapore, and attended kindergarten until my parents were stationed in a foreign country, which by definition is considered a liberal democracy. I had a conservative upbringing, being a quiet child with little words. However, the culture of the new country that I was suddenly thrusted into was a very conversational one.

Even if you pass a stranger in the street, it is easy to strike a conversation ranging from minimal ones such as “hello”, with a warm smile to an exchange about the current weather. In order to integrate, I gradually had to open up.

I found in my visits back to Singapore, this newly acquired trait served me well. I made friends easily, it was easy for me to strike conversations with others. The most important thing I learnt is that in any conversation, conveying one’s empathy for others is a key in getting others to open up about themselves.

I returned to Singapore permanently upon my parents’ retirement and went through the same educational milestones as every other Singaporean. In as far as my political perspective lies, I considered myself sympathetic to Singapore’s opposition. Perhaps, that was bred by my stay in a liberal democracy.

Anyhow, I bought books written by Dr Chee Soon Juan and the late Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam. However, despite my inclination towards the opposition side of Singapore’s politics, I made an unusual choice of joining the Young PAP.

Maybe it sprung out of my innate sense of curiosity to find out what made the party that I was opposed against tick. It wasn’t difficult for me to integrate, I kept my political views to myself, and just involved myself in grassroots work. I was advised to just stick to my work, and steer clear of any politicking lest I get backstabbed.

However, given my conversational nature, it did not take long to get fellow Young PAP members to open up about themselves. I did not take any sides, but what I did was to provide more of a listening ear. I gathered that there was at least a sense of unhappiness among some Young PAP members. This arose from the known fact that Young PAP was by no means a grooming place for future PAP leaders. I used the term unhappiness, but it could come across as a strong word to others. A sense of “helplessness” maybe?

*Read the rest of the article here: http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=40784

The PAP Government will not be able to control property prices as long as it does not have any long term strategy to bring down property prices through its own land sale mechanism.

The PAP Government has had it too good reaping profits from land parcel sales to property developers, with URA fixing the minimum prices that it sets for each parcel of land offered for sale.

After taking as large a price as the market can bear, the PAP Government will then take a cut of the developer’s profits by levying a “Development Charge” based on a percentage of the entire cost for developing the parcel of land. Such dubious “Development Charge” will only place a bigger financial burden on the project, which the developer will calculate into the cost of the development to be borne by the buyers.

The costs to the development do not stop there, as there are further miscellaneous charges that range from Stamp Duties for every contract concluded between constructors during construction, up till the sales with the property buyers; as well as the various fees collected by each Government Agency overseeing the various construction matters related to the development.

The high prices of property and its development insisted by the PAP Government are in total contrast to the neighboring countries that see properties constructed at much lower prices to make housing within reach of their citizens.

During the 1960s, private properties in Singapore were sold at prices such that a fresh graduate could afford to get a bank loan and pay if off in full within 15 years.

In the 1970s, public properties could be purchased with HDB loans fully paid in 10 years, while prices of private housing had risen modestly that took up to 20 years to fully pay.

Now in 2013, public properties are purchased with bank loans that need 30 years to be fully paid, and with most purchasers taking such loans in their mid-30s.

Can these mid-30s buyers keep their job long enough to meet their bank loan obligations as they pass age 40 ?

Singaporeans will have to hold the PAP accountable for the current pathetic state of affairs that is no different from that faced by the 1950s Generation – who had faced poor job opportunities, low wages, poor housing conditions and limited housing opportunities.

The 1950s Generation had the confidence to throw out a useless Lim Yew Hock Government, and gave the opportunity of a lifetime to a young lawyer – named Harry Lee – and his team of young cohorts, to form a NEW Government, even as they had ‘ZERO political track record and ZILCH experience in government’.

This generation of Singaporeans will have to take a grip on the situation to change course before the PAP leads us further into destruction with its determination to serve its own political agenda before that of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Emeritus Singaporean

I normally do not bother or concern myself with how people react to my blog posts. Basically I blog to express my views on certain issues, if people agree well and good, if they disagree, it's also okay with me. But I do take some time to consider what I am blogging about, obviously it'll undoubtedly contain some bias on my part, but I try my best to be objective and raise valid points.  My post (below) elicited both FB likes and criticism on the TRS website and FB page, as well as opinions elsewhere, so I think I should at least offer some explanation.

http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/07/kovan-murders-police-commissioner.html

The crux of the matter is 3 points I raised namely:

1) CP Ng Joo Hee should resign
2) Then Commander of Bedok DAC How Kwang Hee should be demoted
3) Disciplinary charges should be filed against SSS Iskandar Rahmat's senior officers.

Let's not confuse things, the murders allegedly committed by SSS Iskandar is the main issue (as much as the evidence presented in the press points to his guilt, we have to wait for a verdict, hence the term 'alleged'). This issue is not for me or anyone to pass judgment, it's a matter entirely for the courts and the Public Prosecutor (PP) to prefer charges. The PP has absolute discretion on what charge to prefer, and at this early stage it's best not assume too many things. What if the PP after considering the evidence, decides to go for a lesser charge, are we gonna accuse him of doing a poor job? Or if the trial judge decides on a different finding which doesn't entail the death penalty?
 

A younger Iskandar Rahmat as a sergeant, when he was earmarked for greater things. How did things go so far wrong? 

It would be wrong to make demands at this stage that could set a 'view in stone', that only 1 possible outcome must occur. That's why I took exception at DPM Teo and CP Ng's remarks calling for the 'full weight of the law' to be brought to bear on this case. Rather they should have said, their duty is ensure that those accused of crimes, irrespective of whom they are, must face justice before our courts. The authorities in this case, the Police, will throw all their resources to investigate the crimes fully including every angle or evidence that is raised, to either prove or disprove SSS Iskandar's guilt. Let justice take its course, let the DPP who handles the case liaise solely with the SIS investigators and no one else, and decide exactly what course to take in the pursuit of justice. Let not the DPP feel that there is outside influence demanding that he ensures 'conviction at all costs for the highest charges'.
 

    CP Ng and DPM Teo at their press conference on SSS Iskandar's arrest last Saturday
CP Ng as Commissioner and DPM Teo as the Minister in charge of the police have a right to kept informed of the progress of investigations, and they have a duty to ensure it's not impeded and can assist, guide or lead to ensure that the SIS investigators have all the tools they need to investigate it thoroughly, be it scientific evidence, access to witnesses and the cooperation of the Malaysian Police (RMP) or whoever is in a position to help. What they however cannot and must not do, is interfere or pressure the investigators. I am not suggesting they are, but making statements like the aforesaid, I believe is unhelpful.
 

Attorney General Steven Chong is also the Public Prosecutor (PP). As PP, it's his discretion (and given to a DPP) entirely on how and what to charge SSS Iskandar with at trial.
Similarly the courts must be free from any influence or comments especially by persons in authority, the public or media, that they are expected to use the full weight of the law. Judges are free to decide whatever weight in law they feel they should impose, based solely on the evidence at trial. In determining sentences, whilst they may consider the public view and even the views of the authorities that crafted the law, they should be allowed to decide that only after the prosecution and defense have made submissions and not before.

I trust that both the DPM and CP made those statements with a view to assure the public rather than impress any view, but I feel they should avoid making statements that are unhelpful and can be subjected to ambiguity. They should have just stuck to saying that all offenders will be brought to justice before the courts and the authorities will provide the necessary resources.

That is the main issue - the investigations and subsequent trial. My previous post is not based on that, that is for the experts and the legally qualified to deal with. My post is based on the questions not directly related to the investigations of the murders or the trial, rather the questions around them namely:

a) The issue of man management
b) The flaws in the system and most importantly

c) The taking of responsibility

And because of them, I recommended that 1(or all) of the 3 things should happen.

a) Man Management

Some people might say I am convicting CP Ng of guilt by association or in such cases, for every failure or wrong a junior person in an organisation does, the head should go. In other words, SSS Iskandar's boss, the Bedok Commander, CP Ng and the Minister as well. Or another point is how is the CP going to account for the misdeeds of every single officer, given that every organisation will have a bad apple or two?

Those are fair counter arguments, and I'm not calling for this in every single instance. It doesn't mean every time a policeman does wrong the CP should quit. However this case is entirely different - this is not a normal or the usual cases that have seen policemen run afoul of the law. This is Murder for crying out loud - a double murder at that! What worse crimes could a policeman be accused of?

This is the worse breach of public trust by a police officer if proven true. And don't forget that until November last year, the victims had no contact with the suspect. That contact came via making a police report of a crime. The tragedy started because a member of the public had done what every member of public must do when a victim of a crime - inform the police. Is this not a tragic breaking of trust? Whilst I don't expect every future complainant to become a police murder victim, what measures are in place that CP Ng has placed to ensure that his officers do not abuse that trust? It could well be bribery or cheating, not necessarily murder. Has CP Ng implemented a system that keeps his officers dealings with complainants and accused at a professional level at at times? What monitoring steps were in place?

CP Ng has himself to blame, for trumpeting his vision to 'prevent crimes from happening' in a March interview. Nothing wrong in that vision, but doesn't he have to shoulder blame when his officers get involved in crime? Is he not looking to keep his house in order as well? Surely identifying weakness in management and supervision has to be a priority? After all no one expects police officers who have taken oaths to defend the laws, to be the ones committing them. Besides this case, how many cases of police officers involved in crimes have surfaced? Just this week a police technical officer was convicted.

And before this case, SAC Ng Boon Gay's trial was a disgrace. He was not some junior police officer in some far off unit away from CP Ng's view, he was directly under him. Just imagine if Ng Boon Gay's affair and this murder happened at the same time when he was CID Director? So perhaps we excuse CP Ng for SAC Ng's affair as a one off, this was even worse, and do we say, it's ok sir, another one off? Do we wait for more policemen to put themselves in vulnerable or compromising positions and commit crimes, before CP Ng does something to stem it?
 

                           Ng Boon Gay in his insignia as Senior Assistant Commissioner

And his press statements were underwhelming and totally lacking of taking responsibility. Maybe we can excuse him saying July 13th instead of July 10th as a sad day - but what about going on the defensive to thwart criticisms in the manner he delivered them? Did he once say how ashamed he was? Did he apologise for the conduct of the suspect and damage caused? Nope, instead he said - 'we'll take in our stride' and go about our duties! So what does that imply - business as usual?

What about leaks about the conduct of the investigations? Is that not damaging? What about the swift removal of SSS Iskandar's glowing performance on a police website? Yes, some may say it's insensitive to have it there after these heinous crimes, I don't disagree, but shouldn't it have been removed the moment he was under investigations for false declaration or at worst once his name emerged as the suspect? Only after the announcement was it taken down - doesn't it show more damage control than taking responsibility?

I am not saying CP Ng is a bad person, but I think he's clearly been pushed into this job far too early (aged 42). He has older deputies with many years of experience handling all sorts of things - from crime investigation and management, man management and administration. Why was he promoted over them to the top job? Shouldn't or couldn't he be a deputy CP (DC) for 5-6 years before taking over? Just look at his predecessors - Goh Yong Hong, Tee Tua Bah and Khoo Boon Hui. CP Goh actually was involved in gunfights as a young ASP and endured many postings and experience at all levels, the same with CP Tee ( I forget whether he also battled gunmen) but he threw his life on the line in 'the Laju incident' as OC Marine. CP Khoo was amongst the first batch of scholars, all of whom demonstrated sterling leadership qualities ( I believe Education Minister Heng Swee Kiat was one of them as well).

If CP Ng was given more time, he could go around the various units, impress upon his subordinates his vision, identify potential problems, get to know myriad of officers junior and senior, ensure and encourage transparency. Armed with that experience, he would step into the top job and his subordinates would be looking up to him as a role model and leader, instead of him needing experienced deputies to hold the fort while comes to grips with the task at hand.  

In the private sector, if the company goes into the red or something goes terribly wrong, the top guy has to go. In the SPF, the top guy basks in the glow of reports of lower crime, managing big events, etc. But when 2 shocking things happen - SAC Ng's case and this murders, he goes on the defensive, his subordinates do damage control and no one wants to 'carry the can', In the US in the late 90s, an admiral - Richard Macke made a stupid remark following the rape by his personnel in Japan - he 'carried the can'. He was removed and demoted and made to retire as only a 2 star Rear Admiral.
 

Admiral Richard C Macke was forced to resign and demoted for making an insensitive remark at a press conference. CP Ng may not have said anything insensitive but press conference remarks showed immaturity at best, and 'pushing the buck' at worst. 

Even in our Army, when something goes wrong - they commission a Board of Inquiry as to investigate what went wrong and how to prevent a recurrence. Has CP Ng done anything of the sort? Did he suggest something similar in his press conference? Did he suggest or instruct his commanders to identify and investigate why their officers go rogue? Did he do anything after the SAC Ng saga, to ensure that potential conflicts of interest are monitored? Did he notice any change in SAC Ng's behaviour and performance when he was having the affair? SAC Ng reports under him, if he was having marital problems, didn't he or anyone notice? 1 press report I remember suggested SAC Ng was investigated and warned prior to his arrest and trial, what did CP Ng do at the time and why was SAC Ng allowed to continue and then bring further shame? Even if he wasn't CP at the time, he was still senior to SAC Ng, what did he do or recommend? I don't recall any investigation being made known to the public after that case came to light. And now this - followed by his remarks. Should the matter end like this?
 

Then US President Truman with the famous sign on his desk - The Buck Stops Here, acknowledging that the top man has to at least answer and take responsibility when things go awry.

So was I wrong to call for his resignation after he did nothing to suggest action on his part? No commission of inquiry, no expressions of regret and a pledge to get to the bottom of things to prevent a recurrence, or at the very least measures to identify potential problems much much earlier, before things come to a shameful and tragic end.

I'll leave you the reader to decide that. Whether there is any justification for my call. Since this post is already quite lengthy, I'll go into the other 2 points in Part II. (Part 2 at: http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2013/07/who-carries-can-when-things-go-wrong-in_18.html)

Sir Nelspruit

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