Yang Yin’s case has proven CPF policies are right

Say what you want, look at it this way, Yang Yin has proven that it is right to assume that those above 55 years, or in the particular case above 80, cannot be trusted with their money. Just a bit of give and take, maybe 65 or 75 years would be just right. The second point that has been proven is that it is not only the men that cannot be trusted with their money. No need to go to Batam or Bintan. They can fly here from China or anywhere to take good care of our oldies … money.
 
Come to think of it, there is a lot of wisdom in the govt’s policies on the CPF. Give the govt a Tiger. Whatever came out with this idea deserves a good bonus. Keep them tight, don’t let the oldies have a free hand in their money. They would squander it, if not will be cheated of it. Some will get dementia through no fault of theirs and lose their money too.
 
It is action time. How to protect the rich oldies from losing their monies or being cheated of their monies? Should they be sent to a holiday camp for oldies so that they will not be in harm’s way? Should their money be put in a trust of sort and then a stipend be given to them ala the CPF formula? If there is a need to protect the oldies from losing their CPF monies which in most cases are less than a peanut, the multi million dollar assets and cash of these oldies demand more attention to keep the huge sums of money safe and sound, and to keep the poachers and looters away.
 
What do you think? Tiok boh?

Kopi Level - Green

More reasons not to have a degree

Since Hsien Loong and his ministers commented that there was really no need to have a degree to get promoted or to be successful in life, there have been a lot of discussions on this issue. Of course many were simply cheeky and hilarious.
 
I would like to join the fun on a Monday morning with a few unconventional reasons for not having a degree. The first consideration of getting a degree today is all about cost. And the next is about the time wasted, 3 to 4 years in acquiring a degree that may not be of any use commercially. This is particularly true when one has decided to make hawking a career or sell pork in the market. So why waste time and money when the alternative is so much easier and more attractive? Just go to the degree mills or even a roadside stall and buy one. A PhD is also available though a bit more expensive. And a genuine honorary one would cost several thousand dollars.
 
The govt too has no fear of not having enough Sinkies with degrees to form a Sinkie core. Like what Tharman recommended, bring in the foreign talents and issued them a pink IC and we have instant Sinkies with instant degrees, and very likely very talented ones, good enough to run for Premiership as well. Many are already on the right path, starting with being MPs. Some are starting as grassloot leaders. Oops, my auto spelling check not working again. Must be a fake one. I meant to write grassroot leaders.
 
Success in Singapore is all about money. The more money one has, the more successful one is seen to be, and it comes with a lot of dignity. No worry how the money is made. There are many roads to instant success in Singapore. Please don’t include the road of being a tour guide.
 
Many are working very hard at it to be instant success. Spend a night in one of the two casinos and one can possibly walk out a successful man the next morning with a few millions in the pocket. This kind of success formula surely does not need a degree. Another alternative is the Singapore Pools. This one also no need for a degree.
 
Success can come in many ways. And definitely a degree is not needed. The practical part is that in most cases a degree will not bring any success but a debt of a few hundred thousand bucks and a waste of time. Some ended with their parents losing their homes to get the money for an overseas degree.
 
No one is going to know what you have stored inside your head from the degree. People are more interested in what you have in your pockets. That is real success, the Singapore way.

Kopi Level - Red

Singapore the flag bearer of TPP

After putting the intelligence of our super talents together, Singapore carved out an idea called TPP. It was so convincing that this TPP thing is so good, they never tell you any negative things about it, so it must be one of those things that only have goodness and no bad effects, they also think that it is good to all the countries in the Asia Pacific region. Hsien Loong even travelled all the way to the US to convince the American law makers that this TPP thing is the ‘koyoke’ to save the declining American economy. Obviously Obama could not sell this ‘koyoke’ to his colleagues and the American people.

And because this is our baby, we have been trying all means to get the Chinese, Koreans, the Japanese and Asean countries to come on board. Ouch, someone just elbowed me. Oops, this is NOT our baby. It is an American baby, an American construct for American domination and control of the Asia Pacific countries again. Then why are we in such a state of frenzy in pushing for the TPP? Do we get a cut for the effort?

You see, there have been many free trade agreements signed in the Asia Pacific region without the Americans in them. How can that be, how can they exclude the Americans in these agreements and not allowing the Americans to be the leader and calling the shots? America must be the leader of all world and regional organisations so that it can continue to dominate and control the world. Now, why are the Americans taking the back seat and Singapore carrying the TPP flag?

Look at the MH370 incident. What expertise or technical knowledge do the Australians have to be dictating to the countries involved that they knew the aircraft sank in the Antarctic Ocean? Are the Australians the technical experts in satellites, are they in control or in touch with the captain of MH370? Did any Australian radar actually pick up signals or radio conversation with MH370? Zilch. How is it that Abbott thinks he knows all and the whereabouts of MH370? Think.

Why is Australia calling the shots and acting like the front man in the new coalition against the ISIS? Why are the Australians hyping up the terror threat in Australia when the war is half way across the world? Why is Australia the flag bearer of this coalition?

Let’s get back to the phrase, ‘If the US did not do this, it would be “giving the game away”’. ‘Giving the game away’ could have different meanings. One is to lose the game. Another is to let out a hidden intent or agenda. Put this in a proper context, in Rachel Au Yong’s article, Delays in TPP ‘could affect US presence in Asia’ in the Sunday Times on 21 Sep, the whole intent and purpose of the TPP is about ‘a strategic and significant presence in the Asia Pacific’. It is not really about trade and commerce. And Hsien Loong had this to say, ‘having a presence “is not just battleships and aircraft carriers and aeroplanes. You have to have trade, goods exchanges …interdependence. And the TPP is your way of doing this.’

Agree, TPP is the only disguise the Americans could have to pretend that its presence is about trades and not about war and domination. And this is followed by the quote, ‘If the US did not do this, it would be “giving the game away”’. Now the meaning is clear, the true agenda of the TPP.

In the same article Hsien Loong was quoted to say, ‘We are all in Asia, interacting and trading with one another…So, you don’t promote trade, what are you promoting? What does it mean when you say you are a Pacific power? It just does not make sense’.

To the Americans, their presence of battleships, aircraft carriers and aircraft make perfect sense. It is all about American power and control of Asia Pacific countries. Trade is secondary and a guise to promote the military interest of the American Empire. Do I still need to explain what the TPP is all about?

Kopi Level - Red

Chok Tong going to help India build a smart city

A statement like this tickles a lot of thinking and questioning. Are the Indians stupid and not able to build their own smart cities? Are we smarter than the Indians to build smart cities for them? Who is going to pay for the building of smart cities? Would we end up building the smart cities using our public fund and paying for it?

We have been telling the whole world that we don’t have the talents and needing foreign talents to come and help us. And we are importing all the talents from India to help us. Practically every Indian with some talents are here, or in Europe and US. Perhaps that is the reason why the Indians could not build their own smart cities. They have lost their talents to the world and to us.

So what is the likely formula to help the Indians build smart cities? We bring in Indian talents and used our money, packaged it and bring the whole lot to India, Indian talents and Singapore money, to build smart cities for India.

Can it be like that? I can’t find the local talents here to do the job. Our people just don’t have the skill sets for such a high tech project. Our talents are only equipped to drive taxis. Or would we be asking the recruitment agents to recruit the talents from India for this job?

So, may I ask how much are we going to spend and what is the protection clause to ensure that we get our money back and not dump it into a bottomless pit because it is OPM? Is this another I want, I want project?  Sure the potential of building another 100 smart cities is there, like Suzhou.  And on paper the benefits are tremendous, like Suzhou and the F1. And the intangible benefits could reach sky heaven. The bottom line is what is real, how much is it going to cost us and how much are we getting in return and not another few hundred millions for the intangibles.

The Chinese were smart enough to learn from one Suzhou Park to go on and build many other industrial parks on their own. The Indians with all their talents that are more talented than our talents would be equally smart to build their own smart cities after we build one for them. We have so far proven that we are not as smart as the Chinese or Indians. It is time to learn from our stupidity and not to keep reinforcing it and wasting our money like OPM.

Remember CECA!

Who doesn't know how to spend OPM to make a name for himself? How many millions has Singapore spent on the Nalanda University?

Kopi Level - Yellow

What’s the Fuss over Singapore CPF and Roy Ngerng?

By MIKOspace

Nagging Questions abound on Roy Ngerng’s "Shocking Facts About CPF" .

Did PAP Take Our CPF to Pay for the GIC’s and Temasek’s Losses? Unfortunately, or fortunately, Roy and his co-writer DID NOT answer his own question in the undisputable affirmative.

I read many times Roy’s arguments over several posts regarding CPF, income inequality, Government Reserves, HDB Car Parks, Medisave and Medishield, poverty and a host of social issues he so passionately advocates. Most of these issues are unrelated to each other. It is however plainly painful to see Roy’s desperate attempts to persuade his readers to connect his missing dots so as to make some kind of connections between his interesting infographics in order to arrive at his “conclusions” regarding some kind of sinister motives in the PAP Government to conspire against Singaporeans and, particularly, to expropriate our hard-earned CPF funds.

It is known that GIC and Temasek Holdings lost $117 billion in 2008, mostly due to the US financial crisis. The writers produce lots of “official” statistics in beautiful charts and infographics. But statistics are not arguments. Not a single shred of evidence - no smoking gun - is produced to trace the flow of funds from CPF to their supposed end eventually to cover GIC and Temasek’s losses.  It would have been better if the writers had “follow the money” and show the “missing funds” in the CPF, and trace their path, in some forms - whether as loans, equity, advances, gifts or bonds – into the books of GIC and Temasek.  They did not do so.  It would also be a better bonus revelation for them to reveal that these “losses” – an astonishing S$117 billion were never paid back into the CPF. 

The alleged big dark hole of $117 billion in the CPF’s books is surely difficult to miss since the CPF reported its Funds to have only about S$252.5 billion as at 31 December 2013.  And if no money were actually “missing” from the CPF – please check audited public accounts in CPF Annual Reports – how could the CPF have been used to cover up GIC/Temasek losses?  In fact, the writers already refuted their own conclusion when they observed that since 2007, “CPF balance Grew by 90% … but GIC grew by only 69% and Temasek Holdings grew by only 21%.

The writers fail to grasp the significance of their own discovery. Their statement is by far the clearest evidence that GIC and Temasek DID NOT receive CPF Funds. The figures are true and only make sense if both GIC and Temasek were just “fund managers” and therefore the funds under their  “management” are not technically Temasek/GICs’ and therefore cannot be entered into their accounting books or balance sheets in accordance with standard accounting procedures and practices.

This should have been the end of the allegation that “the PAP took our CPF to pay for the GIC’s and Temasek’s losses”.  It did not.

Perhaps, “Shocking Facts About Singapore CPF” was NOT and was NEVER intended to argue that “CPF was used to pay for GIC/Temasek losses”.  That conclusion was seized upon only sometime at the end without leading logical arguments towards it. Therein lies the fundamental weakness and failure of of “Shocking Facts”.

The “Shocking Facts” posts began by pointing out and illustrating that the contribution rates to CPF was “unusually” high relatively when compared to other countries’ provident and pension contribution rates. Nothing “shocking” here. This is neither new nor revealing.  There is nothing sinister; and the associated reasons for this to be used for national development, housing and medical are transparent, and are not unduly unreasonable....

It is clear that the writers did not understand the concepts that they used to argue poverty and income inequality in Singapore. If they did intend to use “Poverty” defined and measured by the World Bank as daily earning of just US$1.25 (or S$1.50 per day), the writers have actually asserted that 28% of Singaporeans or 963,200 persons in 2013 earn just S$39 per month!  In 2013, the Singapore labour Force was 3.44 million as at June 2013.

I wonder whether I have been reading and fed blatant falsehoods and lies. Or it is simply just sloppy research, ignorance and poor analysis. Better analysis, better research, credible statistics and direct relevant evidence cannot be substituted by loud and emotional political slogans to cover up for illogical and bad arguments.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Read Full Article with more References:

What's the Fuss over Singapore CPF and Roy Ngerng?