Apathy in Law Society Elections

More seats than candidates available for the Law Society Elections. The media reported that there were 8 seats and only 4 candidates standing for them. And the President and another incumbent in the senior category were returned unopposed. Also in another category two candidates were the sole nominees. The former President Chandra Mohan was lamenting at the state of apathy in the society and liken it to the general apathy in the population. What I would suggest is for the society to revamp its election rules. The President be only reserved for candidates that have incomes of more than $10m or have more than 20 years of practice. And the critieria for the next few candidates be slightly lower, say $8m annual income and 15 years of practice and so on. For the general committee members level, they can stand as a group of 5 or 10 candidates. Would these suggestions be of help to improve the apathy and more candidates coming forward to stand for office?

Elevating terrorists to cult status

With shocking disbelief I kept reading flattery comments about the great limping terrorist and the expert suicide bomb maker in the media. In the case of the former, his greatest achievement was to escape from detention, while the later was credited for several bombings in Indonesia and the death of innocent people. They were showered with praises as charismatic, super intelligent, great in deception and disguises, experts in their arts of sabotage and military skills. If the little military training and knowledge they had should qualified them to be so glorified, we should better do some glorifications for our own combatants and leaders or they will pale in comparison to these two terrorists. The bad consequences of flattery remarks on two terrorists could raise them to cult status and attracting more naive and gullible recruits into their cause. Would it be better to call a spade a spade, like a half baked school dropout limping terrorist, a killer of innocent people in suicide bombings, misfits of the community, mad men, criminals etc etc? We do not want a Che Quevara and his guerilla fighters fighting the govt do we?

A serious proposition by a blogger

Below are some recommendations by Gerald Giam on how to solve the high prices of housing. The full post is at his blog http://geraldgiam.sg. It shows that bloggers can put up serious articles that are as good as those in the paid media or papers submitted in Parliament. Here it is. I have a few suggestions on how we can lower the cost of public housing for Singaporeans, without causing asset destruction or panic selling. Sell new flats at cost-plus pricing The first thing HDB should do is to reduce the price of its new flats. HDB maintains that flats remain “affordable” and that it still provides a “market subsidy” for buyers. The market subsidy simply means that new HDB flats are priced lower than existing resale properties in the same area. It is not based on the cost of construction and land. Mr Leong Sze Hian from The Online Citizen has calculated that HDB could be making a profit of over $170,000 per flatin the new Punggol development. Mr See Leong Kit, in a letter published in TODAY, also arrived at a similar estimate of $140,000 profit per unit for the Pinnacle@Duxton development. For a start, in the spirit transparency, HDB should disclose the profits it makes from each project ─ by showing how much exactly it cost them to build the flats alongside the prices that they are being sold for. HDB is a government agency. It should not behave like a profit-maximising corporation. There is no reason why new HDB flats cannot be priced at cost plus ─ no more than 5% above the cost price of building the flat and acquiring the land. Reducing the price of new flats will immediately make it more affordable for many more lower- and middle-income couples who do not have the savings to pay over $300,000 for a new flat. It would also have a knock on effect of slowly lowering the price of resale flats, which would also benefit home buyers. Perhaps HDB is concerned that these homeowners will sell their flat 5 years later for an obscene profit in the open market. To prevent this from happening, HDB could require that the flats cannot be sold for more than 10% above the cost price (adjusted for inflation) for the first 10 years. This will prevent home owners from profiting excessively after receiving the government subsidy. Another way of reducing costs is to build flats without all the frills. In recent years, HDB seems to have taken on the mindset of a private developer, coming up with ways on how to meet the apparent demand from yuppie Singaporeans for condo-style living. This is treading down the wrong path. HDB flats should remain no-frills public housing. There is no need to provide posh condo lookalikes and price them like private apartments. Those who want a more high-class living environment should consider buying private properties. Build more new flats During a parliamentary debate in September, opposition leader Low Thia Khiang questioned whether HDB is under-building flats to meet the demand of flat buyers. Mr Mah Bow Tan dismissed it, saying simply that there was “no basis to say HDB is under-building”. He fanned out statistics that showed that the HDB built 2,400 flats in 2007, 8,000 in 2008 and another 8,000 this year. As always, government statistics don’t tell the full story. Just last week, the Sale of Balanced Flats launched by HDB received over 20,691 applications for only 2,132 available flats ─ almost 10 times oversubscribed. The recent Punggol Residences Built-to-Order five-room flats released in August were also 10 times oversubscribed, with 1,587 balloters for just 154 units. The PAP government has dismissed these clear indications that there is a shortage of flats by suggesting that most of those people who applied were just trying their luck and not really interested in buying a place to stay. This is an insult to the thousands of home buyers who have tried numerous times but failed to find a flat that fits their basic requirements. It is likely that the main reason why the HDB does not want to build more new flats is because it will lower the overall price of even the resale market, which may be politically troublesome for them. The HDB needs to examine whether it’s mandate is to provide affordable housing for Singaporeans, or feed voters with unsustainable promises of constantly increasing home asset prices. PRs increasing flat demand Part of the reason for the high prices of resale flats is the large influx of foreigners who take up permanent residency, thus making them eligible to buy HDB flats in the open market. A recent ERA report revealed that 40% of resale flat buyers are permanent residents (PR). This is a phenomenal proportion, considering that HDB flats were built to house Singaporeans, not foreigners. It’s questionable whether all of these PRs intend to sink their roots in Singapore or whether they see Singapore as a stepping stone to better opportunities in the US, or Australia, or back in China when conditions there improve. I welcome foreigners to come to Singapore, to contribute to our economy and add to our social diversity. Many of my friends and colleagues are foreigners, and I have seen the benefits many of them have brought to Singapore. However, I am strongly opposed to the government’s policy of allowing in so many foreigners in such a short amount of time, as this has put a severe strain on the housing market, the public transport system and the job situation. The immigration policy is so liberal that within weeks of arriving in Singapore, a foreigner with the right qualifications can apply for PR and get it approved within three months. Without having contributed even a year to Singapore, these PRs are eligible to buy public housing and benefit from a system which Singaporeans have spent a lifetime building up. Impose waiting period for PRs to buy flats To rectify this, I propose that all PRs must have lived and worked continuously in Singapore for at least three years before they are allowed to buy HDB flats. This would filter out all those PRs who have shown little commitment to our country and are just taking up residence in order to be able to buy a subsidised flat, save on rental and sell it a few years later for a huge profit. Lest this proposal causes alarm to skilled workers who are considering applying for PR, I would point out that under this proposed policy, HDB should look at the entire duration that the PR has been in Singapore, not just the period since he got his blue NRIC. Skilled foreigners who have demonstrated a commitment to making Singapore their home should have no worries about this new policy disadvantaging them. Conclusion I have laid out in this article just a few suggestions on reining in unaffordable public housing costs for home buyers. It is a work-in-progress and by no means comprehensive. I hope that policy makers will consider some of these suggestions for the sake of the thousands of Singaporean home buyers ─ including future home buyers ─ who are just seeking for a decent roof over their head.

Psycho analysing an angry blogger

In two days, this blogger posted 3 comments under the nick of Macdonald Bloggers, Pee on it and Empty Empathy in www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.com in the threads 'Blogging is a waste of time' and 'Amazing Grace'. It was a rare opportunity to look at the content of such a post to reveal what or who is behind these angry comments. For a start let me make a general assumption that both of us do not know each other except for the postings. So he was angry with my posts and sought to destroy me as a blogger, not my posts and views. I am making another assumption that he must have read plenty of my posts, can't be just because of one post and he became so incensed. If the latter, then he is fit to register in IMH. For he claimed that I am flawed and writing rubbish and all the bloggers reading my posts are foolish, listening to a fool. Now why and how could a person be so infuriated by my posts? He came across as a person in rage, blabbing non stop, at the top of his voice, and pointing an intimidating finger at me? Is he of sound mind? I am using he as a neutral term for he could be a she, but more likely he. One thing for sure, in his rage he could not see what he was writing, or he was just a careless person, and all kinds of mistakes, spelling and grammatical errors splashed across his 3 comments. It could also mean that he is a very impulsive person, that when provoked, or felt provoked, he lost his mind, he must let it off immediately from his chest. This is typical of a person who cannot control his own emotion. His 3 comments showed how bitter and combative he is. He just wanted to whack and whack. A very dangerous man that is ruled by his emotion than his head. Uncontrollable! The other thing is that he isn't that clever either. He thought by posting under 3 different nicks he could easily pass off as 3 bloggers. But he failed to cover his tracks. All his style and mannerism were exposed in his posts. Not clever indeed. But he believes he is very clever. My conclusion, a very impulsive, aggressive and angry man that can go into a rage and becomes very destructive. He loses his cool easily and will shout at the top of his voice to win an argument by drowning out his opponents. He is also careless but very conceited. He thought by a barrage of shouting and pointing fingers at his target, he will win the argument. Unfortunately in a blog, people can quietly and carefully read through his posts over and over again, coolly, to dissect him and know what he really is. Imagine if one day someone were to reveal his identity and tell his peers that these were his posts, and the kind of person he is? His alumni, colleagues, friends, if he still has, his alma mater, professional associations, clients, etc will be shocked to know him, the true person behind that false facade he is showing to the world. What kind of upbring did he gone through? Not very good indeed.

The monopolistic competition myth continues in Parliament

The competition between Singtel and Starhub has exploded the myth of competition in a monopolistic environment with people shaking their heads and fearing that they will be the ultimate sacrificial lambs. Can there really be competition that will benefit the consumers? This issue was raised in Parliament yesterday. This was what Lui Tuck Yew, the Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts had to say. The Govt could fix the price service provider could charge the consumers. 'But a move like this, even if intended to keep prices low for viewers, may backfire and deprive them of programming altogether. It is like fixing the prices of public flats and HDB will not build affordable and quality flats anymore. In HDB's case, it is a national duty to build flats, so it will still build. But a programme provider like the EPL may not want to sell their products to Singapore, and all the football fans will suffer. See, the problem is not so easy to solve. Can there be other ways out? Can we open up the sky to look for better and cheaper solutions? Satellite disks? Free competition what? Free market is good for consumers and we believe in the principle of free market forces, free trade and free flow of information. Can this avenue be considered?

The oldies are a treasure to an organisation!

Did anyone say this?When have oldies became a treasure to an organisation and must be duly rewarded? Sounded like the grandpas and grandmas are the treasures in a family. There is now a reawakening and a new call to be good to the oldies. No longer were they seen as retards, slow and useless piece of woods to be quickly discarded when they hit retirement age, at 55 or 60. Now people are seriously saying that the oldies must be paid according to their worth and contributions, not to cut their pay when they reached the magical age of senility. Is there a change of heart or a case of today I proclaim the oldies as bad, tomorrow as good, then I suka suka say they are bad again, good, bad....It was bearly 10 years ago when many oldies, or not even oldies, were given the red ticket to retire unceremoniously. Many were in their early 50s and many are still jobless or driving taxis despite their experience in managerial and executive positions. Can these premature sacking of the oldies be reversed, and these not really oldies but now oldies be invited into the workforce again? Or can they claim for some kind of compensation for the bad mistakes done to them in the past? Who was the wise kid who decided that these not so oldies should go? Who is the wise kid today to say the oldies must be treasured? My god, what kind of mindset change could happen so fast? The think tanks must be thinking too hard and go flipping about with such a major and serious issues. How could they not know that oldies are treasures, that oldies need to work till 80 or 90, but only today to realise this?

Amazing Grace

Hi everyone, my apologies for not being able to post yesterday as I was hosting a party and couldn't slip away. Now the party is over and I am back with my daily sermons for which some may regard it as the sermons of a fool. Oh, incidentally the number of hits and visitors to my blog shot up by 10% during my absence. I am just curious. Were the bloggers missing on my sermons of a fool and kept coming back hoping that I threw in a post? Anyway, may god be compassionate and deliver those who could not bear to read the sermons of a fool from my blog. But if they choose to stay and listen to this fool, they are most welcomed to be intoxicated by my foolishness.

Blogging is a waste of time!

Blogging, whinning, complaining, writing letters to forums to air your disagreements etc were a complete waste of time. This was the message I got in a discussion with some friends. Why bothered whether it was Low or Chiam or Sitoh or Eric making the announcements on the LUP? It was money spent for the good of the people. There was no issue or the issue was too small to talk about. Later I discovered why it was a waste of time. All these talks would be worth nothing, and nothing changed. Go and form an opposition party and take on the govt if you think strongly of issues or else get on with your life and let the govt do what they think best. If this is the kind of attitude that Singaporeans should adopt, then there will be peace in paradise. And everything will be well taken care of. There will be no need for the ST to spare 3 or 4 pages on the public housing issues today. In an article, 'Insight examines the six most hotly debated issues among house hunters today' by Tan Hui Yee, the following were discussed: 1. Are permanent residents driving up resale flat prices? 2. Are investors pushing up prices of resale flats. 3. Are new HDB flats really subsidised? 4. Are new flats affordable? 5. Is $8000 income ceiling too low? 6. Are leftovers flats really 'undesirable'? Though I would expect more insights from these articles than just what have been discussed publicly, it is good that ST officially dealt with these issues and gave it a wider coverage. And there was a letter from Lim Yuin Chien responding to Sylvia Lim's rebutt. What Lim Yuin Chien said is simply, 'Let's agree to disagree.' What this means is very similar to what I heard last night, that the govt will do it its way and you can disagree. But if you want to do it differently from the govt, make sure you form the govt, ie, form an alternative party and vote the govt out if you can. Otherwise, tough.

And we want our workers to be CBF

In order to be CBF, our workers must be cheap, work better and faster. Now there is a new call, not to cut the pay of older workers. Can the older workers be faster than the younger workers, better, possible. Then while the rest of the workers are expected to be cheap or cheaper, would the older workers also be cheap and cheaper? 3 old workers doing the work of 7? In the private sector when everything is about competition, when the money paid to the workers must come from somewhere, from the revenue or at the expense of profit, it is easier said than done to keep paying workers the way they are being paid. Unless of course the organisation can print its own money or money is not an issue. By all means, pay the older workers what they deserve and more, pay them pension as well, or gratuities for long service at the same time. Is there a contradiction?

What CBF?

What is CBF? Someone asked. It means cheaper, better and faster workers. Cheap and good, that’s what it means. How can cheap be good? Singaporeans only know that cheap means no good. You want anything good, you must pay for it. Good public housing, good market price. Good medical, high fees. Good govt, pay them well. If we are not willing to pay the price for it, we will get poor quality public housing, poor medical care and lousy quality govt. Can we really have good and cheap workers? But this is only one part of the equation. Can our workers afford to be cheap when housing is not cheap, medical is not cheap, govt is not cheap, cost of living is not cheap? Cheap worker and high cost of living is a ‘bao si’ or sure die combination. When housing, rentals and everything keep going up, how to get by if the pay is not going up? Ah, here is the secret. Cheap and better worker does not mean low wages. Our workers can expect their wages to go up. Productivity will be improved through mechanization or improvement in work processes. Or anyway, 3 workers do 7 workers’ work. It will mean higher productivity growth versus lower wage growth, but still growth, I think. Tiok boh?

'Ya1 Ban2'

Ha, the 2 words did not make any sense to many. Try to read it in Hokien. The second word should sound like 'barn'. They are used to describe the callous and unreasonable logic and reasons of the rich and powerful whose argument would always end in 'head I win, tail you lose', no matter how illogical their position is. Someone has used these terms to describe the LUP in Hougang and Potong Pasir. From the beginning I thought the award of LUP in the two opposition wards was to bring a message that the govt is neutral, fair and just, and will allocate national resources to all the tax payers equally, regardless of race, language and religion and the MPs they have elected. Such a message should rightly be received positively by the people in general. How is it that the LUPs in the two constituencies have ended like this? All the comments I have heard are like people being incensed, angry, unfair, highhandedness, no respect for the people's choice and many undescribable words that cannot be posted here. It is as good as a good PR exercise turning sour. It is like winning a battle and losing a war. It is better not to have the LUP instead. I think this LUP is going to cost the govt more votes in the next general election rather than to turn the tide against the two opposition candidates. Of course some of you may totally disagree with my observations and claim that the govt has scored big by bringing the LUPs into the constituencies, and the two rejected candidates in the last election, now the govt's appointed advisers in the constituencies, will now stand a better chance to be elected for their great effort and role in the LUPs.

A message that comes too late

Khairy Jamaluddin, the new UMNO Youth boss, has set a new agenda. He is calling on the Malays to stand up, have a new mindset and to lead Malaysia forward with compassion and magnanimity towards all races. He told the Malays to get rid of the seige mentality, that they are slow, backward, and needed to be protected, to 'civilisational confidence'. What he meant was that Malays must be confident of themselves and their ability to compete equally with everyone, with the ethnic minorities at home and the people across the world. 'For too long, Malays and Umno have been caught in a mindset that is negative and overly defensive....' Reflecting on this negative mindset, one wonders how a people who see themselves as backward, slow and lacking in intellect, be able to lead a nation forward? And that was what Malaysia was for the last 30 years under Mahathir. The latter claimed that Malays were stupid or less able than the rest, not sure if it includes himself. And if that is true, how then can Malaysia progress if it is being led by the less able? Would Khairy's new message see a more confident and self assured Malay step forward to face the world squarely, as well as their minorities, and to move forward with the rest of the world?

Cannot buy drinks for me

You guys, especially Wally, please don't buy drinks or chicken rice for me. The latest I heard is that bloggers who received gifts or whatever in kind or money, must declare or else...hmmm. And if any of you buy me drinks and I say good things about you without declaring that I have been bought by you or I am now beholden to you, then I will be in trouble. Actually not like this lah. The MDA, I heard in the kopitiam only, is pondering to introduce controls on bloggers who received payments or goodies from merchants and then wrote glowing reports about them to promote their products or services. It is like kind of advertisement ya. I wonder those analysts writing about stocks were also in such category and must declare as well. What if I write good reports about cameras and the cameras are really good, the truth, can or not? Can they pay me to tell the truth because I really believe the cameras are good?

19,000 applicants for 2,100 flats

The latest exercise for the sale of balance flats by HDB saw a 9 times over subscription for the 2100 flats available. Assuming that each batch of flats put up for sale is 2000, to clear this 19000 applicants will take another 8 sales exercises. And if the sales are done twice annually, it means it will take another 4 years to satisfy all the applicants. Of course this will not be the case. But one thing for sure, if these 19,000 applicants are real, then many will need to apply and apply and apply again before they can get to their dream flats. How many will get their flats on first time application?

Another crisis in the making

A crisis in the making or making waves? 70 banking staff from RBS Coutts defected or were poached by a Swiss private bank, BSI, because of curbs in bonus payments. The 70 can become 700 and then 7000 and the whole financial industry will be in turmoil. With all the banks making so much money, they can afford to pay their talented staff more, and those who are willing can go to the market and woo the best to their folds. Are we going to see a spate of defections and mass resignations from the more stingy banks? Or course I am exaggerating, an alarmist. But these are the exact reasons given in America and Europe to continue to pay their overpaid bankers more. And our local institutions may also sing the same song to pad up their pockets. And we will see the game of musical chairs being played in full swing. Will there be panic? Such high turnovers are bad and destabilising. Something must be done to make sure that these employees are not allowed to change their jobs at their fancies. How about introducing some regulations to prevent job hopping? Or how about the industry players work out some arrangements not to poach staff from each other by trying to outbid each other? I know that such practices are prevalent in some industries. The best part is that when there are only a handful of players and some smart alecs still think it is a clever move to outbid each other or to undercut each other for a better share of the business. What is important? A free market, free movement of staff with the accompanied little tsunamis or a stable and controlled market with seemingly orderliness? In a small little pool, how long can the game of musical chairs be played before the music stops? The high payout must come from somewhere. Any CEOs going to press the panic button?

Low Thia Khiang wrong in LUP

According to Lim Yuin Chien, Press Secretary to the Minister for National Development, Low Thia Khiang was wrong to think that just because he was the MP he should lead the LUP programme. An adviser who is a grassroot leader appointed by the Govt is the rightful person to do so. The details of the all the reasons are in his letter in the ST forum today. Anyone has a different view, politically, constitutionally, administratively or whatever? Would the highly analytical and professional media experts be interested to do an in depth study on this issue by consulting more experts, including legal experts and explain the position from an disinterested angle? Somehow I got this feeling that all the eminent experts will not have any opinion on this issue. I can expect silence. The LUP is a govt programme and how and when a LUP should be launched to benefit the residents should be in accordance to some objective criteria. Whether the blocks of flats are in govt run constituencies or opposition constituencies should not be a factor in the formula for such a programme. The govt is for all citizens. The govt's fund belongs to the citizens, not someone's private savings. Should the criteria for LUP be transparent and made known publicly so that the people know when their flats are due for LUP? Should the priority of an LUP be influenced by lobbying, talking to ministers by MPs or grassroot leaders, or any other subjective factors? I think there must be a standard criteria and SOP in the ministry for such a programme and no amount of lobbying or differential access should be allowed for any precinct to jump queue or be left out of the programme. I may be too idealistic and naive to make such an observation.

Why blame the PRs?

12 October 2009 China woman took up Singapore PR for 'easier travel' I read with outrage a ST Forum letter written by a China national praising Zhang Yuan Yuan, the Singapore PR who declared her loyalty to China on CCTV. It is already ridiculous that a China woman with just a diploma can apply and get PR status in just two months. Accusing Singaporeans of 'naivety' and 'insecurity' is plain outrageous! The fact that Ms Zhang does not hide her true intention of getting PR for the purpose of easier travel is not an indication of her 'pragmatism' or 'motivation'. It is a perfect example of a greedy foreigner taking advantage of the PAP's overly liberal immigration policies for personal benefit. Period.... The above are the first few paragraphs of an article posted in Singapore Dino blog. Apparently there have been many criticisms of Zhang Yuan Yuan for marching in the China National Day Parade. I personally feel that the anger directed at Zhang Yuan Yuan is misplaced and rather unfair to her. She is NOT a Singapore citizen. Period. However foolish we choose to include PRs as if they are part of our citizens or residents, it is our own doing. A PR is just a citizen of another country being granted the right to stay here permanently but never, and not our citizen. The PR has all the rights to be loyal to his/her our country of which he/she is a citizen. The fault lies with us. If there is anyone to be blamed, blame it on ourselves. If we want to grant PRs so happily, citizenship so easily, why blame those who go by the rules and accept our PRs or citizenship? If we want people to take advantage of us, why blame on others for taking advantage of us? As if we do not know what is the intent of many of these PRs? If we want to be hardup and go on our knees to beg people to come here knowing that they are only here when the going is good, why be angry with them and not with our own stupidity?

Eric Low sure win Hougang in next GE

Below is an article posted in SingaporeKopitiam by Temaseksg. With all the good works he is doing in Hougang, and the Lift Upgrading Programme which Low Thia Khiang failed to bring to his constituency, Eric must now be the hot favourite to win Hougang. PAP’s Eric Low claimed credit for bringing LUP to Hougang .... Speaking to the state media yesterday, Eric “Chiku” Low who claimed during the 2006 elections that the Hougang “chiku” was ripe for picking before losing to Workers’ Party strongman Low Thia Kiang, he attributed Hougang being selected for the LUP to his relentless and unyielding efforts: “Though I was not elected, I have been trying hard to lobby the authorities including National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan to upgrade the lifts in Hougang. Now that the lifts will finally be ugraded, I am extremely satisfied about it.” Mr Eric Low also said he is willing to stand in Hougang as a PAP candidate in the next election if the party decides to keep him. He revealed that he will be setting up a PAP kindergarten in Hougang next year which will charge 20 to 30 per cent less than private operators....

What is public interest?

We had been hit by a continuous barrage of articles that were deemed news worthy during the Aware saga and the recent Miss Singapore World scandal. The amount of information and effort spent on these two issues, the number of space allocated to report on them, must have given the public the impression that these were two very serious issues that were affecting the lives of Singaporeans, or at least Singaporeans were nosey and lapped them up with glee. We had a few reports of the LUP in opposition wards and the prominent role played by grassroot leaders over the role of elected MPs. There must be many interesting angles to look at this development, from the constitutional, political and party politics angles. I am hoping that this will be news worthy enough for the issue to be discussed at least for a month with the main media giving it an in depth coverage, front page and centre spread. Looks like this issue is of not much public interests and has died a natural death after a couple of reports and a letter from Low Thia Khiang. Not news worthy. Does not affect the lives of Singaporeans or our political system and culture.

CPF annuity take up rate encouraging

The scheme was announced in February last year followed by promotions and free gifts of $4000 for those who signed up early. 200,000 invitations were sent out to those eligible and 11,787 have signed up. This is an encouraging figure. What, less than 6% signed up for such a good deal? Another 500,000 invitation letters will be out in the next round to encourage more people to sign up. These belong to the group that has escaped the compulsion net. Singaporeans are really hard to please. With such a well thought out scheme, all devised for their own good, and with early bonus of $4000! Why aren't Singaporeans rushing or queuing up for such a great scheme? Singaporeans are known for their kiasu mentality and ability to smell out a good deal. And when there is one, you can bet that they will queue up overnight for it. When there is money to be made, the Singaporeans will be there. The scheme was announced in February last year followed by promotions and free gifts of $4000 for those who signed up early. 200,000 invitations were sent out to those eligible and 11,787 have signed up. This is an encouraging figure. What, less than 6% signed up for such a good deal? Another 500,000 invitation letters will be out in the next round to encourage more people to sign up. These belong to the group that has escaped the compulsion net. Singaporeans are really hard to please. With such a well thought out scheme, all devised for their own good, and with early bonus of $4000! Why aren't Singaporeans rushing or queuing up for such a great scheme? Singaporeans are known for their kiasu mentality and ability to smell out a good deal. And when there is one, you can bet that they will queue up overnight for it. When there is money to be made, the Singaporeans will be there.