A handout budget but something missing

Call it an election budget or whatever you like, it is a handout budget, full of handouts for the people. Everyone is going to collect an angpow somewhere along the line. The biggest and most welcome package would be the Silver Support Scheme. Remisiers would be happy to know that this scheme will be most appreciated as many will join the ranks for this handout. I doubt there would be many criticisms about the money handing out by the Govt other than some minor complaints of people missing out or not getting enough. I would leave the nitty gritty to the social scientists and statisticians to delve into the fine details.
 
I was looking for something else, the future of Singapore. This is what the Govt called this budget, a budget for the future of Singapore. I can see a lot going to education and technical training and some piece meal crumbs for middle management as an after thought that would not result in anything meaningful or substantive. We will be producing a lot of quality technicians and foot soldiers and also an appeased middle management.
 
The issue of PMEs is left blank. Nothing mentioned and very likely many will continue to join this rank and be beneficiaries of the Silver Support Scheme when they join the Silver Brigade. The other important and critical structuring that was left untouched or unsaid is top management. The technical schemes and support given to students would result in a lot of good technicians, a lot of little Indians.
 
What about the Indian Chiefs? Would Singaporeans be good enough only to be little Indians and the Indian Chiefs would still come from non Singaporeans, the so called foreign talents? Is our top world class education system and tertiary institutions real or just hogwash? Why is it that our graduates from these world class universities not making it to the top but being replaced by wild oats from God knows where and definitely not world class universities except those from the North? Do we believe in the quality of our education system, that our graduates should fill the top positions in govt and in the private sector?
 
Apart from the fetish craze that angmohs and foreigners are the best, and the colonial mentality that we are daft remnants or descendants of the British colonial regime, the leftovers, what is wrong with our people that they cannot become Indian Chiefs in their own country while most of these positions have to be filled by foreigners from banking and finance to sports and recreation? Many of these top positions do not require geniuses to do the job and many of the foreigners are not genius either but the average Joe in their country. Why are our top talents found wanting and being discarded?
 
Many years back, the finance industry was filled by our own local talents when there were govt initiatives and policies to ensure that. What is missing today? If we could do it then, we must be able to do better with our world class universities and top grade students. Where is the political will and decision to ensure that our own talents become the Indian Chiefs and not some unknown wild oats given a pink IC or not necessary even?
 
The budget did not mention anything about creating more true blue Indian Chiefs. The policy of bringing in more foreign Indian Chiefs and allowing govt and private sectors to fill the Indian Chief positions as they like is unchanged. The restructuring has left this out completely. Would the future Singapore be controlled and run by foreign Indian Chiefs with Singaporeans providing the little Indians and running around like little Indians and be happy with the situation as long as there are cheap handouts from the Govt?
 
Maybe the Govt would be addressing this restructuring to allow more Singaporeans to rise to the top in a separate White Paper. Do you really need the angmohs to run the parks and the zoos and the aquariums? Do we continuously have to rely on foreigners to train our sportsmen at international level? When are we going to produce our own top coaches? Is there something missing in the budget? What is the missing link?

Mysingaporenews Collection – A book launch by crowdfunding

I have received several suggestions and requests to compile my writings into a book form for easy reading and reference. Depending on the interest, I would want to gauge your support for a Collection of Redbean’s political satires and tongue in cheek commentaries on the social and political affairs of Sin City. A selection of the inconvenient truths, often provocative and contemptuous or shocking ridicules, real or unreal, believeable or unbelieveable posted in mysingaporenews would be made available in print. The book will have about 100 to 120 essays to laugh and ridicule at the things that were happening to our beloved country and people.
 
The cost of production, postage and kopi should not exceed $15 per copy. Please order your copy/copies by sending your donation to POSB savings account 091-04300-9 follow by an email to redbeansg@yahoo.com indicating how many copies needed and the address to deliver to. As an example, for a donation of $50 you can have 3 copies of the book to be delivered to you with the balance as donation for kopi. You can donate more if you like what I wrote. Oh, for deliveries outside Singapore, please add another $5. I did not check but think this would be enough for foreign addresses.
 
The title of the book is:
 
Mysingaporenews
A Collection of Redbean’s tongue in cheek commentaries and satires on Sin City
 
This is Redbean’s crowdfunding project for a book. In case there is insufficient support to cover the production cost the project will be aborted and the donations return to their owners. The book could be ready in July, 3 months after the fundraising project closed in March. Thank you for your support.
 
Redbean

World class education opportunities up North

Malaysia’s tertiary education is world class according to the Second Education Minister Idris Jusoh. Malaysian universities are as good as those in UK, Australia and Germany in terms of quality. To back up his claim, he quoted the large number of foreign students coming to Malaysia for their tertiary education, conducted in English of course. So the quality must be good to attract foreign students to Malaysia.
 
The presence of foreign students is again quoted as a major factor for quality education ie world class. On this aspect, Malaysian universities would never be better than Singapore’s because the number of foreign students in the student population is much higher. Not only that, the lecturers and professors are mainly foreigners, or a large percentage, could be more than 50% in some faculties.
 
Malaysia needs to work harder to better its ranking if it wants to be better than Singapore by importing more foreign students and lecturers. They could also follow Singapore by giving no string attached scholarships to foreign students and pay the foreign lecturers salaries that they cannot refused. Singapore got a lot of money to spend on these foreign students and lecturers, so can Malaysia. Just throw more monies to the foreign lecturers and students and the ranking of Malaysian universities will definitely go up, like those in Singapore. And when there are more foreigners, the quality also goes up.
 
Singaporean students must now be eyeing a place in Malaysian universities. Malaysia just need to spend a bit more money to raise its ranking and Singaporean students would surely make a beeline to the high quality world class university education in Malaysia. And with the exchange rate so favourable, it would be an option that Singapore parents find very attractive. And Malaysia could also earn a lot of foreign exchange, increase its percentage of foreign students with Singaporean students, and thus improve the quality of education further. It would be a virtuous circus. Oops, I mean virtuous circle.
 
Malaysia would be happy and Singaporean students would also be happy. More foreign students and foreign lecturers equal to higher quality of education. It is a simple formula and so easy to achieve.

What is the role of a MP?

The role of an MP is about law making, about national issues and policies, about running the country, about serving the people. It is definitely not about running a Town Council. A Town Council, or whatever you choose to call it, must be a public service not different from other govt services. The people did not vote an MP to run Town Councils and be involved in the nitty gritty details that he has no time for more important matters like attending in Parliament. An MP can head a Town Council, to give it direction, to make sure it run well to serve the people. But the operations of the Town Council must be managed by a team of professionals, not a mix match team to be brought together after an election without continuity.

The MP can be there to ensure that the Town Council serves the people fairly and equally. He should be out of the administrative role, to take the Town Council to task if it does not serve the people and not be taken to task as an administrator of the Town Council. It would be very tough it the MP, a politician, may he be a lawyer, a doctor, a vet, a singer, a soldier, or whatever, be made to run a Town Council as his primary duty.

An MP’s primary duty is in the Parliament. If he cannot be in Parliament, he should not be a Member of Parliament. If he is absent from Parliament most of the time, if he his bogged down by the routine of running a Town Council, how can he serve effectively as a Member of Parliament? You don’t call an MP a Town Council Chairman or Manager, but a Member of Parliament. The people did not go to the polling station to elect a Town Council Manager. They went to the polls to elect their representatives to the Parliament.

The PAP has a different view on this. They want an MP to be first a Town Council Manager, to be able to run a Town Council, as a test to eventually run the country. I quote Boon Wan, ‘…the Town Councils Act has a wider strategic objective of testing parties aspiring to form the national government, by running a town council to first prove their competency.’ This is like telling everyone that he needs to get a degree as a test of his ability to be successful in life or to run the country as a national leader. Is this a logical argument and expectation?

WP said they are not going to form the govt. So can they be excuse from running a Town Council when there is no aspiration to be the govt? So are many independent candidates that would not even dream of running a govt as an individual. Chiam See Tong has wasted more than 20 years of his time running Town Council, an impediment that prevented him from devoting fully to law making when he cannot dream of forming the govt.

What is the primary duty of an MP? Running his clinic, running his law firm, running his business, be directors here and there, running Town Councils and neglecting his duties in Parliament or no time even to attend Parliament that sat for a few days a few times in a year?

What is happening? Running Town Council as a pre requisite to be an MP necessary? I can’t help it when my head keeps shaking. National leaders are not necessary the kind of people that are good at running town councils, running sports associations, running clan associations or trade unions, definitely not necessary to be a successful lawyer or doctor. National leaders are people that have a passion to want to serve the people, to give the people a better life, people with a vision and a political will to make the ministries work towards that goal. What they need is a clear vision, to see the bigger picture of country and people, not about running town councils or squabbling over petty issues. They should be looking at national issues, at problems that involved hundreds of millions or billions, not a few dollars. They must have the helicopter ability, the bird’s eye view of things and not be bogged down by the daily grind of administrative procedures of a town council. The heart must be in the right place, and a really big and good heart with a passion to serve the people.

What do you think? Should an MP be turned into an administrator instead of a law maker, instead of a Member of Parliament? If he is so busy with Town Council matters, with his own business, where got time to be in Parliament to tackle national issues and law making? It is a joke that after paying the MPs such a big sum of money they could not find time to attend Parliament sessions.

A politician/MP's role should be as a check and balance on the govt and all the govt agencies. A politician/MP should not be put in a position to be checkmate in an administrative role.

100 Serangoon residents signed petition against AHPETC

According to an article in TRE, a Chinese paper reported that a petition demanding the WP to explain the loss of funds by AHPETC was signed by 100 Serangoon residents. The matter must be real serious. The PWP only got a miserable 5,000 attendance at Hong Lim Park, the remisier’s petition to Tharman only had a pathetic 1,200 signatures, and my polls here even had more than 150 signatures.  They better approach Raymond and he could easily double the number of signatures with a few phone calls.

The article is receiving a lot of negative comments in TRE and they are all pointing their fingers in one direction and sneering at the 100 signatures in a GRC of more than 200,000 residents. They smell a rat immediately. The stink is spreading.

Actually they could easily get 10% of the 40% who voted against the WP to sign and that would be 8,000 signatures.  No need to be shy, walk the ground and get more signatures to prove a point, that the residents have turned against the WP and would vote the WP out in the next GE. Would they? Or have more voters starting to see the goodness of the WP and sympathise with their plight and starting to cross over to the WP camp?

This 100 signature petition is very meaningful. Read in between the lines and it will reveal many things that cannot be transparent, cannot see light, and no one would come clean on why there is such a petition and who is behind it, and many more things waiting to be revealed.

Online debate more balanced but political blogs more anti govt

This is the finding of the Institute of Policy Studies and appeared in the ST a couple of weeks ago. The IPS survey also assured the Govt that social media is not a Wild Wild West domain and discussions are quite balanced but political blogs are more anti Govt.

I would like to correct IPS on this, that political blogs are anti Govt. There is a world of difference between unhappy and critical of govt policies and being anti govt or more appropriately anti PAP. Just like the commentator ‘simple’ who called me pro China just because I wrote about the farce and hypocrisies of the West and Japan that he is probably more in tune with and agreeable. Exposing hypocrisies and telling the uncomfortable truth that happened to favour China is not necessary pro China. Speaking about the injustice against the Chinese civilization is not pro China but pro justice. If such a simple reasoning cannot be grasped then it is a waste of time trying to explain what it means.

There are many critics of govt policies. And this is not anti govt. There will be no or lesser criticisms of the govt if the policies are well received.  Citizens do not criticize the Govt as a past time, as a fad.  Is it wrong to speak up and disagree with govt policies that are seen as unreasonable or unacceptable or even foolish and against the people? Speaking up against bad policies is NOT anti govt. Hope IPS will be able to understand this subtle difference. Does IPS know what is the meaning of anti govt? Sure they know but the comment must have come about because of an obsession to see things in black and white.

Who would be hitting out against the Govt if the policies are good and well conceived and received? Neither is there a need to praise the Govt whenever good policies are made.  Only an insecure Govt needs to be praised daily. Unfortunately good policies are few and in between for a long time. You may disagree and feel otherwise. Anyway the Govt will be well rewarded when they made good policies by their self rewarding system that is one of a kind in the word. I don’t think there is any govt in the world that would reward themselves with 12 to 24 months of bonuses if they did well. A conflict of interest? Govts are expected to do well and their reward is to be reelected or be booted out if they failed.

Oops, I am criticizing another govt policy, so am I anti govt?

LKY in hospital since 5 Feb

In the news this evening, LKY has been hospitalised since 5 Feb for a severe bout of pneumonia. His condition has stabilised and doctors are monitoring his condition. He is supported by mechanical ventilation and remains in the ICU

Please do not speculate or make unnecessary comments on LKY's condition. Just take this as an important piece of news. During the CNY celebration let's be careful and discreet with what we say. It is always best to say good things about people during CNY than unpleasant things.

Spare the civil servants

Chee Hean reported that cases of abuse against civil servants are on the rise. Among the agencies affected are:

Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Inland Revenue Authority (IRAS), Ministry of Manpower (MOM), Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), National Environment Agency (NEA), Ministry of Health (MOH).

Why are civil servants becoming the target of public abuses? They are just carrying out their duties as officers of the ministries or govt? There could be many reasons, like people getting out of the bed from the wrong side, had a bad night’s sleep, losing money in gambling, losing their jobs, money no enough, and the list could go on and on. These reasons are not important. What is important is why the anger is being vented against civil servants.

There could always be the case of the individuals at fault, the abuser or the abused, a case of bad attitude. But to state that it is against civil servants, it meant something else. It implied that the abusers are angry with the govt and taking it out on the civil servants as an excuse.

Another major reason could be bad policies. When policies are bad, and hurt the people the wrong way, the people will be angry. But this does not lead to abuses unless it becomes a case of ‘beh tahan’.  When policies are badly thought out, contrived, when they got out of control and hitting the people badly, when the pain is unbearable, the docile and meek citizens would flare up as a last resort.

The other possibility is the politicisation of the civil service and civil servants. Are the civil servants carrying out their duties fairly and impartially or are they affected by political influence? This is difficult to determine as what is political or what is not is a matter of perception unless it is outright abuses. When the later, then anger will flow and the reaction of the people can be unpredictable, can be violent and can lead to lighting fire, causing bodily harm.

The civil servants must be spared from becoming the bogey man, becoming an excuse for abuses if it is not their fault. Spare the civil servants from getting into a compromising position, to compromise their integrity and objectivity. Remove whatever sources of conflict in their jobs and let them work objectively, fairly and honestly to serve the interest of the people and to serve the people, as civil servants.

Now, would there be a need to set up a committee to investigate this new development? Would the committee members be neutral people that could provide a neutral view and findings and a decent and workable solution to the problem? Spare the civil servants from being compromised or abused by all quarters. Let them carry out their jobs with dignity and respect that money cannot buy.

Roy Ngerng using Boon Wan and Shanmugam’s templates

Below are a few paragraphs extracted from Roy Ngerng’s latest post in his blog http://thehearttruths.com.

 ‘… I replaced what the PAP ministers and members of parliament had said about the AHPETC with what can also be said about the PAP’s management of our CPF. The hypocrisy of what the PAP has said will then be revealed. (The change of words are in italics.)

GIC and Temasek Holding receive large sums of CPF monies from Singaporeans. These are all public monies. As stewards of public funds, GIC and Temasek Holdings must keep proper accounts and records, and maintain adequate control over their assets. Who has paid and who has not? How is the money spent? Is it properly used? Is anybody doing anything wrong? … These and many other questions directly affect the interests and safety of the Singaporeans. They are not trivial technical issues raised merely to satisfy the accountants or the auditors, or to meet financial regulations. Unfortunately, …(there are) serious questions about the reliability and accuracy of their financial and accounting systems.

There is always the temptation, when the GIC and Temasek Holdings are financially strapped, to postpone saving, and say it will make up the shortfall later, or worse, to put its hand into the cookie jar, to draw from the savings to satisfy immediate needs. Just spend, use the savings first. Sounds appealing, but the GIC and Temasek Holdings will then be simply running down the reserves and mortgaging the future of Singaporeans away.

“GIC and Temasek Holdings did not adequately manage the conflicts of interests of related parties arising from ownership interests of their key officers”.”….

The Chairman of GIC and CEO of Temasek Holdings are, by the way, husband and wife….

 “Taken in totality, the PAP government cannot possibly adequately manage the conflicts of interest involved in related party transactions”. This means that the PAP government may not have obtained the best value for the moneys paid to these related parties. Or worse, there could be opportunities of wrong-doing or unethical practices which the PAP government may not be able to detect or prevent.

Singaporeans and taxpayers need to know that their monies are properly spent and they are getting best value for money. When these contracts are awarded to parties related to the PAP government, the PAP government needs to be upfront withSingaporeans as well as with taxpayers at large, so that there is transparency and proper scrutiny….

We do not know the exact state of the GIC and Temasek Holding’s financial position.

Something is seriously wrong with the PAP government. They paint a picture of financial mismanagement, incompetence and negligence in corporate governance….

Unfortunately, throughout this saga, we have found the PAP MPs running the PAP government to be evasive, unresponsive and misleading. In response to legitimate queries from Singaporeans, they stone-walled, deflected the queries, made false or dishonest claims, raised irrelevant excuses and sought to confuse the public with a flurry of red-herrings.

First, their lack of transparency – they failed to disclose things on time; they failed to submit reports they should be submitting. Every time we reminded them, again and again, they came up with yet another excuse.

The government  need competent, honest people and proper systems to serve Singaporeans well. Good intentions and bland assurances alone are not sufficient. Elected MPs need to supervise the work of the government, GIC and Temasek Holdings. While they enjoy wide autonomy, they also have huge responsibility. And they are accountable to Singaporeans. They have statutory duties but they are also subject to national laws….

What concerns me is that the PAP government’s actions are clearly unlawful….

The rhetoric from the PAP is always about helping the poor man, the reality is that the PAP took CPF money from the man in the street to give to their friends in the GIC and Temasek Holdings.

The PAP keep saying there’s been no loss (of CPF monies from the more than $100 billion that the GIC and Temasek Holdings lost in 2008). Maybe there was no one taking money through the back door in the dark of the night, there was no need because the money was taken from the front door in broad daylight through all this overcharging.

The second major problem arising from the facts is lack of transparency, lack of disclosure. First, the facts do not seem to have been fully disclosed to all Singaporeans. And second, there seems to have been no proper discussion of the conflicts at all.

Active, persistent non-disclosure. Obviously, deliberate. And the consequence of all of this? Of the billions that were paid tothe GIC and Temasek Holdings, who knows how much was justifiable?

The PAP have been quick to say that despite all the problems, no CPF monies have been lost. Can the PAP honestly say that no CPF monies have been lost? When the PAP ministers and members of parliament act in breach of their fiduciary duties; and pay the GIC and Temasek Holdings billions of dollars? Overpayment to a related party is not a loss?....

You can read the full article in Roy’s blog. I assure you it is pretty long as normal of Roy’s writing and with charts as well to show.

Simple joy of being grandpa

Watching grandchildren growing up happily in their innocence is a simple contentment to many grandparents at a time like welcoming the new year.

This is one of the things that I do with my camera, to capture the days when the grandchildren are growing up.

Clash, Competition, Cooperation and Collusion of Civilisation

The 21^st Century is setting a new trend in global competition for development, growth and prosperity of people and nations. Up till the 20^th Century, nations triumphed and prospered by war, conquest, exploitation and domination over countries and people. Till the very end of the 20^th Century, the mindset and strategies of western powers continued to be bogged down by the past, to dominate, control and rule the world for their own well being. The Cold War might be over but divide and rule, and containment as a policy for world supremacy remains the main policy thrust of the Americans, supported by their western allies.

The rise of China as an economic and military super power and expected to give the Americans a run for their money for pole position is vindication that the containment policy is not working, or not effective. China is on a roll despite all the obstacles placed on its path, trade sanctions, trade barriers, blockages, threats, potholes and many other methods that were not seen or spoken in the open. China and the US, representing the East versus West models for achieving economic growth and prosperity are in direct competition and also cooperation are being watched closely by the rest of the world.

There are several distinct characteristics to the two models. The American model features military power, use of power and dominance, and a complex polity of diverse people, culture and ideas, democracy and capitalism. The Chinese model is one of economic growth with equality among nations, big and small as its foundation, a homogenous people in a sense, and a new concoction of communism and capitalism in various degrees of combination. The US, to some extent Europe, is the representative of the 20^th Century western model for growth and development. From the East, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Hongkong, derived their growth from primarily a relatively more homogenous society but a mixed of capitalism, democracy and authoritarian govt model.

The West, particularly the US, became rich and powerful riding on conquest and exploitation of people and countries. The Europeans took everything from the American natives forcefully, terminating them, and exploited the labour of Africa and other parts of the world, and their natural resources to build the foundation for a prosperous country. It then benefited from a mix pot of immigrants mainly from Europe to drive the growth engines under a democratic system of govt and a laissez fair economy under capitalism.

The prosperity of China, South Korea, Taiwan and Hongkong was achieved without resorting to conquest and exploitation of other countries and people. They were the victims of exploitation and conquest but grew to what they are today, through the industry and drive of their own people, and from borrowing the economic models of growth from the West. There was an absence of power and sphere of influence by military means. They prosper today without robbing the colonies or other country’s wealth and resources.

Which of these two economic systems would emerge as the role model for the 21^st Century? A country of diverse people and ideas, economic and individual freedom, democracy and capitalism or a homogenous society, high involvement of the state, and a democracy that is authoritarian in nature unlike the western model, but without resorting to military power and conquest?  The shining model of national wealth in Europe is taking a hit without the free resources and people for exploitation from the colonies. Europe is in decline, in rapid decline when left to depend on their own limited resources and ingenuity, without conquest and colonisation. Europe is expending its past accumulated wealth seized from their colonies fast, and must look for a new economic and political order to revive its wealth and glorious past. The Americans are slowing down and seeing China and eastern countries making a bid to over take them in all fields, without the use of the gun.

What would the 21^st Century turn out to be when countries and civilisation compete and cooperate in a highly complex inter related and inter dependent shrinking world when all economic and human activities are tightly intertwined, where there is intense competition but demanding cooperation as necessary for growth? Both worlds, and all the countries, need each other to grow and prosper together. The USA and China is a very good example of interdependence even as they tried to compete and try to undermine the advantages and benefits of the other for a bigger piece of the pie.

Would the gun be used to scuttle the peace and development in this century when one party feels that it is unable to compete fairly, with ingenuity and industry of its people and system for a better life for its people? Would the mix match potpourri of the US perform better than the homogenous economies of the East, including Japan? Is war the necessary and inevitable solution to the well being of civilisation like in the 20^th Century?

Happy Chinese New Year 恭喜发财

Happy Chinese New Year to everyone.

恭喜发财 万事如意 身体健康

Redbean

Another foreign rogue beat up a Singaporean youth

Another huge foreign bully, a Briton named Alan Benjamin Maybury, was charged in court yesterday for punching a teenage driver 3 times and abusing him. The youth suffered mild swelling and a cut. The cause of the incident was an accident involving the youth’s car and the taxi the rogue foreigner was in.
 
The beating of locals appears to be a habit by the burly and big foreigners against the meek and small built locals. The safety of locals is increasingly being threatened in this otherwise reputed safe city state for foreigners. It is the locals that are getting the beating by the foreigners.
 
Would the govt act more firmly against these foreign rogues to protect the safety of the citizens? Or would this rogue get away with a slap on the wrist? When dealing with violent rogues, it is better to return them the same medicine. I would even recommend public whipping in Raffles Place or Hong Lim Park to make a statement that beating locals is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated. These rogues must be made an example off, like the Japanese hanging chopped heads to frighten the locals. There is an urgent clear and present danger against the locals and it must be stopped once for all. Make it know to all the foreign rogues that beating locals will be harshly dealt with, like hangings for drug trafficking.
 
This cannot go on like this. The situation demands action from the govt to protect its meek and timid citizens. But to assure the foreign darlings that we love them the govt can make a tender loving speech to assure them that the unconditional love for foreigners is still there in case they threaten to move out of this island and turn it into a 3rd world slum. Must handle the foreign darlings with extra sensitive care to make them feel secure, never mind the locals are feeling insecure.
 
Just cannot ‘tahan’ seeing locals being bullied and bashed by rogue foreigners. Would any MPs say something about these rogues or would they say the Sinkies deserved the beating?

AHPETC – Assumptions, assumptions and more assumptions

I mentioned earlier that I did not read the copious text unloaded by the ST on the AHPETC saga. The persistent condemnation to the point of outrage, appearing daily, forced me to take a closer look at what the case was all about. I pulled out Today’s front page article on Friday 13 titled “AHPETC actions ‘unlawful’” with a subheading ‘Public monies have been lost, minister charges’ for a second look.
 
I am just a layman that at best has a bit of common sense and hopefully can understand what a top notch legal mind was talking about without being confused or misunderstanding him, and hopefully agreeing with him. The paper said he had 5 major lapses to flog but focused mainly on ‘related party transactions’ of AHPETC. The beef is that 4 senior staff with closed relationship were appointed to manage the Town Council and they could approve each other’s claims for payment, like writing their own checks. And there were over charging of S&CC fees amounting to taking money from the common people to pay their friends, ie benefitting their friends.
 
Now what is this ‘unlawful’ charge about? To my understanding there must be a law that is broken. Otherwise how can it be unlawful? What law has been broken? Is it about appointing kaki lang to oversee each other resulting in conflict of interest and possible fraud? I am not sure if there is a law that says an organization cannot appoint the father as Chairman, son as CEO and wife as GM or Finance Director. Is there? I am very sure in family businesses this is often the practice. I am not sure if there is a law for public listed companies on this or in the civil service. I am sure it is frown upon, undesirable, unacceptable and maybe there will be company policies against it. That did not make it unlawful right? To be unlawful, there must be a law that forbids it right, learned counsels? Can someone help me on this? I am cocksure that if it is my grandfather’s company, I will appoint anyone to any position I like and have them sign and approve each other’s pay check and you can’t do anything about it. I like what. Cannot meh?
 
The other issue that Shanmugam was talking about is lost of money, lost of a lot of money. The money were collected from common folks, hard earned money, like the CPF savings, dunno which one is more serious, but being used to pay friends or benefitting friends. Let me explain the simple part first. Many ex Ministers and MPs were appointed to high offices and drawing big fat salaries. Could they fall under the same category as paying friends and benefitting friends, or ex Ministers and MPs are not friends but ex colleagues in political office? Not the same meh?
 
My point is that there is nothing wrong with such appointments, even with high pays if the friends, oops, I meant ex colleagues, can do the job well. Tiok boh? So, can I say there is nothing wrong to pay friends high salaries and benefitting them if the job is well done, or is done? Those people appointed chairman and directors here and there are not friends meh? They never benefited meh?
 
I think what is important is money lost. How much is lost, can anyone prove it? I have heard that a lot of money was lost but no numbers being given. But that is beside the point. The most important thing must be the intent or wrongful act like theft or fraud. In the commercial sector, people can lose billions by making bad or wrong investment decisions with no bad intent, with no intent to fraud. And everyone just squeezed their balls and could not do anything about the big losses. Who would be complaining except the rightful owners of the money, the minority shareholders right? There is nothing wrong mah. There must be intent to cheat, to fraud, to steal, according to the law to be unlawful, to be a crime. Has anyone proved any intent in the AHPETC case, or it is assumed? Can one just go around assuming and cut off people’s head or demanding for a pound of flesh on assumptions?
 
A family business with son or wife claiming millions and father happily signing it is quite common as they trusted each other, and they know that they are absolutely honest people, family business what, so what is wrong? As long as there is trust and the trust is not broken, husband and wife signing for each other cannot meh? Where is the law to say cannot? If got law say cannot, then cannot lah, then it will be unlawful. Nothing more to say leow. Like this I sure can understand.
 
Ok, the structure is wrong, according to Shanmugam no town councilor who knew this should approve the structure. Yes, yes. It is not a good practice. But is it against the law, against Town Council regulations? If got such law or Town Council regulations, then surely must be breach of fiduciary duties. Got or not?
 
Now the tricky part, according to Shanmugam, the structure or ‘arrangement was designed. FMSS was a convenient vehicle to which millions of dollars went from the town council. And another obvious question: Money that went to FMSS – where did it actually go? What happened to it?’ Designed for what? For fraud, to cheat? Let me quote Sylvia Lim, what was Shanmugam ‘insinuating’? I say never mind lah. Prove the guilt first. If not, no need to talk more. Let me try to imagine a group of people huddling in a corner designing a town council structure with the purpose of cheating. It would be good if I have a video recording of it.
 
What happened to the money? You dunno, I dunno. So must be unlawful? What I like is this part quoted by Shanmugam. ‘The law takes an extremely strict view on related party transactions (and) on conflicts of interests. Where contracts have been entered into with related parties in breach of fiduciary duties, the law presumes loss.’ This is a matter of law and the Minister must be right. So those contracts signed between family members must be loss according to the law? Must prove loss or not? This part I dunno.
 
Shanmugam also charged that 4 WP MPs are culpable for allowing related party transactions to happen under their noses. Culpable for losses or for allowing such transactions? What law is broken? ‘If not exposed, the money would not have been repaid,’ said Shanmugam. So there was lost of money and the money repaid. Is my understanding tiok or boh tiok?
 
I dunno whether I am wiser after reading the article or not? Anyone of you getting wiser or smarter? Got law broken or not? Got money lost or not? Got intent to cheat proven or not? How I wish I had completed my law school, then not so blur. Lawful, unlawful, legal, illegal, not legal….not lawful, not lawyer.
 
Oh, one more observation. All the town councils used to charge resident and commercial units different fees, with commercial units paying very much higher S&CC. In 2014 the fees were changed to be the same. As a result, AHPETC ended up charging higher fees for commercial units by not lowering their fees. So they are thus overcharging market rate. Not over billing for sure. Is this a crime? The cost of operation of different town councils cannot all be the same right? And being new and inexperience, being ignorant, did not know other town councils have lowered their fees, so it is unlawful, overcharging? Tiok boh? Got shadow or not? Like that also can be a problem ah? Based on the chart put up by Shanmugam there was a difference. But is that a crime? Is that criminal? Is that cheating, overbilling or overcharging? 

What is wrong with collecting more money? You ask me lah?

Best “Ang Pow” for Singaporeans – Revoke 2015 Transport Fares Increases

And It Does NOT Cost Anyone A Single Cent!

By MIKOspace

In the Year of the Goat, the best “ang pow” for Singaporeans, especially for the millions who commute daily by public transport, is the revocation of the 2015 public transport fare increase announced to take effect from April 2015.  And the most innovative element of this “ang pow” is that not only would it not cost the government a single cent, it puts money back into the commuters’ pockets AND also saves public transport operators (PTO) the S$7.5 million needed to subsidise the needy in order to make the “affordable” new fares truly “affordable”.  This is nothing less than a win-win situation for the government, the commuting public and the PTOs.

The Case for no public transport fare increase is the strongest yet for 2015, the Year of The Benevolent and Compassionate Goat (or Sheep). 

Public Transport Companies are Highly Profitable and Economically Viable

Both PTOs, SMRT and ComfortDelgro, are expecting bumper windfall profits in their current closing financial year 2014-2015, and into the next financial year 2015-2016, according to DBS Bank and OCBC Bank analysts.  

Global oil prices have dropped by more than 50% in the last 6 months and would fall further in 2015 and not expected to recover much over the next few years. Gas prices have begun to follow the decline and the costs of grid electricity generation by our gas-power power stations would reduce even further. Public transports especially buses and taxis would have their fuel bills greatly reduced. The fuel costs of MRT trains, mostly using grid electricity, should also fall according.

In end-January 2015, SMRT in fact announces its financial results for 3Q15 (Oct-Dec 2014), showing a 6.8% revenue increase to $313.2 million, and that all its business segments performed better than the previous year. Accordingly, SMRT net profit also increased by 58.4% $22.5 million, as staff costs, the largest expense component, remained flat and electricity and diesel costs decreased.

The April 2015 transport fare increase would have added another $27 million to SMRT revenue without any quid pro quo benefits to commuters by way of significant improvements in train punctuality, over-crowdedness, lesser breakdowns and customer service.  Of critical importance is the fact that even WITHOUT the fare increase, SMRT would still enjoy unprecedented economic viability and profitability.    

 

The other PTO, ComfortDelgro, also enjoys similar increases in ridership and oil price reductions, among other variables, to make it one of the most profitable public transport company on the Singapore Stock Exchange, never mind that two-third of its revenue come from its overseas units.

2015 Inflation Good News

According to a report by DBS, inflation forecast for 2015 has been cut sharply to 0.4% from a previous expectation of 1.7%.   Public transportation is weighted at 3.66% among the “basket of goods and services” considered by the inflation computation formula.   It means that without the April 2015 public transport fare hike of 2.8%, the already low expected inflation rate of 0.4% could be driven even lower to 0.38%!  This is a further bonus to Singaporeans across the board throughout the economy.

Would the Year of the Goat usher Singaporeans into a new epoch of bliss and prosperity with a win-win “ang pow” by revoking the 2015 public transport fare hike?  

It would take the wisdom and courage in the great Servant Leadership personality of the Goat (or Sheep) to give the people the enhanced economic satisfaction in this revocation act without having to spent a single cent of public fund while doing it.    

See also:

Restoring Public Trust in Singapore

Should Singapore Nationalise our Transport Companies

True Lies of Public Transport Operators

Mahathir – Quotes of wisdom or wise cracks

The Today paper published an article by Agencies on what Mahathir said about Najib and his role as a citizen of Malaysia. Some may find his criticisms overbearing, outright, pointed, biased or just wise cracks. Whatever, I find them interesting and some are very relevant to the politics on both side of the Causeway. I will just quote them at random here.
 
1. If you don’t perform and people say you‘re no good, please resign. He went on to say that underperforming leaders should not trouble the nation and should, instead, resign.
2. If you need a tongkat, it means you are decrepit.
3. I advise people who retire to be active. If you are not active, you die. I love this country. I have a right as a citizen to criticize.
4. The country is currently facing a lot of problems, but the govt is not admitting it. They are in denial.
5. A good leader would always look behind him to see if there were people following him. And if there aren’t, they should do the right thing and leave.
 
Though Mahathir said all the above about Malaysia and Najib, they have an uncanny relevance to all political systems and countries. I think they are also applicable to the state of affairs in Sin City.

Town Councils – A proper and responsible handover system

Most of you have experienced a proper handover of office or organization in your passage through adulthood. In employment, when you are appointed to a new position, assume a new role or command, there is always a proper handover of duties, responsibilities and assets/equipment, and staff from the incumbent to the successor. It is the responsibility of the incumbent to account for everything he is handing over and to brief the successor carefully on the roles and functions of the appointment to assist and ensure that the successor could carry on the role of the office quickly and smoothly.
 
The successor can refuse to take over if there is no proper handover. Of course this is an ideal case. In reality many steps are often missed, sometimes totally missed. But in a normal situation, there must be a proper and responsible hand over of duties and responsibilities.
 
The same procedures and considerations are also applicable in the handing over of a society or organization. The incumbent office bearers must hand over all the files, equipment, including furniture and computer systems, money, contact lists, and outstanding matters to the incoming party. The incumbent office bearers cannot take anything belonging to the organization, paid by the organization, along with them like their private properties. A responsible incumbent party would ensure that everything is in order and the in coming party be briefed of all outstanding matters.
 
The handing over procedures of a society and organization are applicable to a Town Council. They cannot strip bear the office, take away furniture and equipment, systems, files and computer software and hardware. The incoming party must be able to continue to function smoothly, or as smoothly as possible other than the change in personalities and staff. They don’t have to reinvent the wheel, introduce new systems, buy new equipment and furniture and operating systems.
 
In the case of Town Councils, who is going to pay for a brand new system, furniture and equipment whenever there is a change of political party everything will have to change. Do not waste public money in the process just because of a change in political office. The big question, is the out going incumbents allowed to take things belonging to the Town Council, paid by the Town Council, with them or even sell them away?
There must be continuity in Town Council operations. It is a public organization set up to serve the residents, paid and supported by the fees of the residents and subsidies from public fund.
 
Is the present Town Council System fitting to serve the people without being hung up to dry when there is a change of MP? Do the people expect someone running for political office to gather a team of administrators, system and what else ready in case he wins an election? Are we asking to much or who is asking too much?
 
Should there be a proper handover and takeover procedure to ensure continuity, cost savings, prevention of unnecessary expenses, breakdown of services etc etc? Can the present Town Council System that is crippled by a change of political parties serve the interest of the people well? Should the present Town Council System be allowed to continue as it is? What should it be? What is the responsible thing to do?
 
What should a responsible and functional Town Council System be? You don’t need to be a super talent to know the answer unless you choose not to want to know, not to want to do the right thing. The present Town Council system is there to shackle and hackle a novice MP or a team of MPs taking office or is there to help them serve the people?
 
What do you think?

A Town Council is not a provision shop

A Town Council is not your provision shop where you could hop around to another one when you are not happy with the service. It is not a shop that can open and close as it likes. It needs to be there providing essential services for the residents. Even a provision shop like 7 eleven has a mission to serve the people at all hours, practically 365 days of the year except one. This is the mindset of an organization wanting to serve the people, to be there when the people need it.
 
Can a Town Council stop functioning for a few weeks, a few months, whenever there is a change of officer bearers, whenever there is a change of political party in charge? It is unthinkable that the services would be disrupted when the MP changed hands. It is unthinkable that the incumbent can simply remove its operating system, its computer software and hardware and leaving the successor in the lurch, to start all over again, to bring in a new computer system, a new set of officers and staff, probably knowing nothing of the functions and management of a Town Council, a new set of contractors, cleaners etc etc.
 
How can a Town Council function this way, being crippled after every change of office bearers? It is not easy to get a new system and a new set of staff to get it running. What are the safeguards and provisions to ensure that a Town Council will continue to function regardless of who is the political master, like the civil service and the uniform services?
 
Is the current Town Council system good for the people? Is this what you called good governance? Why is the Town Council not part of the govt’s essential services to the people, that it would continue to function comes what may? The people deserve an Uninterrupted TC providing continuous services at all time. Who is responsible to set this right?
 
You tell me.

PM under the spotlight

PM ‘facing increasing scrutiny for cracking down on opponents, troubles in a strategic development fund and questions over his family assets, with even ruling party conservatives questioning his leadership….’
 
The above is quoted from an acticle in the Mypaper today on Najib’s problems. There are increasing criticisms on his ability to lead, on backing out of his pledge to sooth racial tensions and bolster democracy. More problematical are the criticisms involving his purchases of overseas properties and the 1MDB fund. Where is the money coming from and where is the money going to? Then there were also comments about Rosmah’s expensive taste for jewelries and luxuries items.
 
The PM’s office has issued official statement to deny Najib’s involvement in the purchases of foreign properties. The problem is that with the easy access to information and the net, not many things can be kept hidden from the public’s view. 
There will be the whisperers doing their jobs. Many things are still under wrapped not because they were not known but the timing is not right. Many skeletons would be thrown out once it is due for exposure.
 
Looks like Najib’s days are numbered. Many of his political friends are sharpening their knives and waiting for the Ides of March.

In Parliament – To err is human

To err is human unless you are an immortal. Law Minister, K Shanmugam, had very strong words for the WP-run town council for all the lapses AHPETC made. It was like unforgiveable sin to make those mistakes even if the value concerned was not in the hundreds of millions or billions, so echoed many of the immortals. Hahaha, AHPETC got caught with their pants down. And the barrage of attacks was continuous for several days in the main media, like the bull dog that would not release its bite. I must say that the WP looked quite bad even though the public looked at it more sympathetically from the perspective of politicking, nothing else but politicking.
 
Now the social media is on fire. They could not bare the ruthless attacks against the WP and were finding an excuse to strike back. Thankfully they discovered that the numbers given by Shamugam were mischievously wrong. And the netizens are biting this piece of grave error fearlessly and refusing to let go, like the bite of, yes, a bull dog. It is not sure if the errors were intented or due to human error, or worse, immortal error. Below are some quotes from an article in TRE titled, ‘Problems with Shanmugam’s chart shown in Parliament’, credited to TOC.
 
….’He (Shanmugam) said “that WP took money from the man in the street and gave it to FMSS, to their friends” and described the town council’s finances as a “sorry state of affairs”.
 
He also took particular issue with the fees which FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) charges AHPETC. They are higher than in other town councils, Mr Shanmugam claimed.
 
From July 2013 to July 2014, FMSS charged $7.43 for each residential unit and $14.92 for each commercial unit, compared to $4.80 to $6.65 for units of each type, charged by the managing agents of the PAP town councils, …. he claimed that FMSS charges the highest rate among all the managing agents. He handed out charts showing a table of the MA rates for the different town councils to the Members of Parliament to illustrate his point.’
 
There was an apparent anomaly in the residential and commercial unit rates in Shanmugam’s chart. They were suspiciously the same. Sylvia Lim picked it up and asked Shanmugam about it.

“From what I know, MA rates are usually different from residential units and commercial units,… But in your chart, they are all the same. So I would like minister to clarify that there has been no mistake in this chart and it is really the fact that all this MA are charging the same rates for commercial and residential units ….So I think minister may want to check his chart.”
 
Mr Shanmugam got up and replied to Ms Lim immediately, “I can answer your answer straight away. You should look at annex 3 and you will see in the first page that the MA rates once they are done on a weighted average basis, these figures are accurate, [I’m] told by MND.”
 
The netizens were delirious with this golden opportunity to take it out on the flawless Law Minister to prove that karmic retribution is real and can be immediate. Do not do to others what you do not want do to you.
 
When Boon Wan was faced with the columbarium fiasco, he took the excuse of assuming the info given by HDB was correct and had to admit that it was not. Here, Shanmugam was cock sure his data was right. Now it is proven that the data was wrong and the netizen and WP are going to make him eat his own words. His template on the lapses in AHPETC is going to be thrown back at him.
 
WP is likely to go to Parliament and demand that Shanmugam gets to the bottom of this error. Who did it, why did he do it, who is going to benefit from it? Is there a conflict of interest? The misleading numbers, would they affect the fiduciary duty of the town councils to the people? What were actually paid and collected and reported? The WP camp is going to demand that Shanmugam comes clean, be transparent, do not hide any information, answers the questions put to him. Was the wrong data in the chart intentional, calculated to cause maximum damage to the WP?
 
What was the intent? Is this the only mistake, a fabrication? Is there a rot somewhere? Were the data presented to mislead the people as the WP was attacked and embarrassed in Parliament because of it? It is not like in the courts where the judge can tell the jury to ignore what was said. The issues were reported boldy in the main media and seen all over the world. And if Sylvia Lim did not notice and brought it up, the WP would be hung for it.
 
There are many questions that the WP would put them back to the PAP. Would there be a consistent patent of denial and deflection, and protecting whoever? Or, to quote Hri Kumar, ‘Why should the WP be let off easy just because it is the opposition?’ with ‘WP’ substituted by ‘PAP’ and ‘opposition’ by ‘ruling party’. The people must not be forced to accept less but full accountability. ‘This cannot be the way to go forward.’ This must be the war cry of the WP.
 
There are many things that the WP would be saying after the bullocking in Parliament and reported in the media. And now they are presented with the same opportunity to ask for their pound of the flesh. The big question, while the anti PAP netizens are having a ball of a time, what would the WP finally do in Parliament? Would they demand an apology for being put in a bad light or would they meekly say, ‘A mistake has been made, let’s move on?’