Taking national security for granted?

Magdalene Choo, a research associate at the Institute of Policy Studies conducted a survey on Singaporeans’ attitude towards national security. She was concerned and so was the IPS about our national security. She may want to relate the thinking of Singaporeans and how it would affect out national security. This is a very serious study and I believe the relevant national intelligence agencies would also have our national interest in their minds and would have been monitoring the threats to our country.
It is a good effort to raise the interest of our peoplke with regards to our national security and not to take our national security for granted. This is our country and if Singaporeans are not interested or concerned with our national security, then it is an area of grave concern.
 
We have spent a lot of money and resources on our national security and defence. Our young men have devoted their whole life to the country and paying a very heavy price for it, including family members and compromising their career development.
 
The question is, what is the point of worrying whether the people are interested or concerned with our national security when the Trojan Horse in inside our country? And it is not just one Trojan Horse but many. What is more important is that people who should be concerned with our national security must be thinking about our national security and not compromising on our national security? How safe are we as a country when more than half of the population are foreigners with questionable affiliation, loyalty and interest to our national security? How safe are we when our economy and vital professions and installations are run or dominated by foreigners?
 
What kind of joke is this? I can remember the joke about the British pointing all their big guns at the sea when the Japanese came in from the Malayan mainland. We are concerned that the people are not interested in our national security when we don’t mind sleeping with strangers or inviting strangers into our homes? Do we have any intellect? Do we know where the threat to our national security is coming from? It is like the sheep all up in arms guarding the pen when wolves made up half of the flock in the pen.
 
How stupid can Singaporeans be?

Public Transport Fare Hike obtained by Fraud and Misrepresentation?

Did PTOs Lie to obtain Latest Fare Increase?

By MIKOspace

The True Lies of Singapore Public Transport Operators (PTOs)

Was Law Broken in order to Profiteer?

The Case is strong, definitive and irrefutable. The glaring implications of fraud and misrepresentation are prevalent to demand clear and unequivocal answers from the PTOs. The PTOs, ComfortDelgro and SMRT, are reported to have cited incredulous rising costs and lower profits to justify a public transport fare hike, and to which the Public Transport Council (PTC) have agreed as 2.8% effective April 2015. 

According to Section 24 of the Public Transport Act (Chapter 259B), the PTO’s case for any fare increase has to be supported by submitting to the PTC such documents it desires. None of these documents have been deposited in the public domain in the interest of transparency.

These documents should not be fraudulent or contain misrepresentation to the extent that such misconduct would render any approval voidable.

The PTC shall thereafter consider any fare increase request from the PTOs according to whether such fare increase was NEEDED to maintain the financial viability of the PTO and whether the public interest is safeguarded, among other things.

The Financial Viability of PTO

No reason has been evinced to support any conclusion that the financial viability of Singapore PTOs would be adversely impacted without the approved fare increase.  The over-whelming facts and evidence from various sources are unanimous in their happy finding that both PTOs would be reaping revenue and profit windfalls in 2014-2015 and in the years ahead mainly due to the drastic drop in global oil prices of more than 50% in the last 6 months of 2014.  The financial viability of the PTOs DOES NOT require the 2.8% fare increase because their expected windfall revenue and profits far exceed this amount significantly.

The following paragraphs are adapted from an independent DBS Bank Report dated 20 Jan 2015 BEFORE the transport fare increase announcement.

“Factoring in lower fuel prices, we’ve raised 2015 earnings for Singaporetransport operators SMRT and ComfortDelgro significantly by 7% and 4% for 2015 respectively.”

“The top performers over the last 12 months (of 2014) were led by Singapore’s land transport stocks, with SMRT up 38%, followed by ComfortDelgro with 29%. This can be attributed to the May 2014 announcement of the transformation of the public bus operations into a Government Bus Contracting Model [thereby making ComfortDelgro asset light].”

“Energy and fuel account for 9% and 14% of ComfortDelgro’s and SMRT’s costs respectively, and ComfortDelgro has hedged 70% of its diesel requirements for 2015.  Positive changes their EPS (earning per share) also take into account lower oil price, offset by stronger S$ and lower fare increases.”

Read more in Full Article

“ComfortDelgro has actively hedged its fuel/energy requirements to the best of its ability. It has hedged around 70% of its Singapore diesel requirements in view of the lower oil price. Even if oil price were to trend upwards, the positive is that we would see a lower diesel cost for the Group, given its hedges that are in place.”

The main conclusion of the independent DBS Bank Report is that BOTH PTOs are in the best of financial health in 2015-2017 (at least) and at the top of unprecedented profitability windfalls.

The savings from falling global oil and gas prices are real and substantial. Between July 2014 and January 2015, average gas prices fell by 19 per cent. As fuel costs make up around half the tariff, the electricity tariff between July 2014 and March 2015 has been accordingly reduced by 9.3 per cent.  SMRT depend more on electricity to drive its train and diesel for its buses. Prices at petrol pumps have fallen by 15 per cent between July and December 2014, and are expected to continue falling into 2015. 

Did Fare Increase Safeguard the Public Interest?

Public Transport Fare increases must be “Affordable” and “Justifiable” is the Test for public interest stewardship. 

The latest fare increase requires a S$7.5 million subsidy in the form of 250,000 public transport vouchers of $30 each to help needy commuters to mitigate its negative impact on them.  This is tantamount to subsidising the profits of highly profitable private PTO companies.

It is further announced that ComfortDelgro and SMRT would contribute $13.5 million of the increased fare revenue to the Public Transport Fund for the subsidy of $7.5 million!

Whither then the case of non-financial viability?  The subsidy is also unnecessary if the fare increase were affordable.  It is conclusive evidence that the public interest has not been safeguarded in this fare increase.

Investigation of Fraud by PTC

The Betrayal of Public Trust has finally come to a head as our public transport operators (PTOs) traded social conscience and responsibility for profits when they gradually erode the sacred Social Contract in Public Transport with Singaporean commuters.

Under the PTC Act, the PTC can revoke any approval for public transport fare increase if it found that the increase has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.  The PTC should now initiate an investigation as to whether such is the case, if indeed the PTOs did cite rising costs and lower profits to justify a public transport fare hike.

Read Full Article:

Singapore – The True Lies of Public Transport Operators

CPF – Silver Brigade beware

When I hit 55, I was informed that my minimum needed to be retained by the CPF was $X. This sum is fixed and would not increase over time or as the years go by. This is quite assuring haven’t decided that leaving a small sum for retirement uses is reasonable, and with half set off by the value of the flat. This does not mean that I agree with the principle that anyone or govt could use the excuse that it is good for you to withhold your savings. This is fundamentally wrong.
 
Many seniors grudgingly allowed their money to be held in ransom by the CPF and had to squeeze their balls as they have no avenue to fight this policy, at least under this govt. Maybe a change in govt would give them a chance to reverse and get rid of this monstrous logic for good.
 
Then there was another minimum sum that was not that big then, the Medisave Minimum Sum. I would think that the principle governing retention of the people’s savings in the MS would be the same as the Minimum Sum for the whole savings. This is NOT the case. The MS for the Medisave continues to go up over the years. It does not freeze at the time when a member reaches 55. It keeps growing as and when the CPF choose to be ‘caring’ and decides how much to increase every year.
 
How can this be the case? Seniors who are still working or self employed would have their contributions transferred to the Medisave MS whenever it is raised. What the shit! Why is this MS allowed to keep increasing over the years? CPF no money? CPF needs more money? Money sucked into this Medisave MS is like entering a dark hole and can be there until one surrenders the IC. It is as good as money not yours except for those who need to use them for approval medical treatments.
 
I hope all of your can join me to protest against this obnoxious policy of taking our money as and when they like on the pretext of it is good for us. I say bull. Don’t think you can get away with this in the next GE.

$1m for Singaporean students and $2b for foreign students

In an article posted in TRE by a ‘Win battles lose war’, titled ‘$1m bursaries past 5 years – $2b for foreign students?’ he produced some statistics on the amount of money the govt spent over a 5 year period on bursaries for children of Singaporeans. He then presented another chart showing how much was spent on foreigner students on scholarships here and the amount came to a mind blowing $2n against a miserable $1m for our children. And the ministers were crowing how generous the govt was to help lower income Singaporeans.
 
The full article can be viewed in TRE. I took a look and almost gone crazy. I cannot believe our govt would spend so much money on foreign students and so miserly on our own children. What is going on? What is the weird logic? Is the govt mad? Is this part of the pragmatism that our elite have been drugged in?
 
No govt, or no one in his right mind will give away public money to foreigners in such a big sum but stinged on giving to the children of our citizens. I just cannot understand the logic? I keep asking myself, what the hell is going on in their minds? You mean all 80 over PAP MPs agreed to this kind of spending and did not see anything wrong with it?
As a country we can be generous, but to the extent of spending billions on foreigners and a miserable $1m on our own children is insanity. Yes, the only reason I can think of is that we may have mad people making decisions on how to use our tax payers’ money foolishly and extravagantly. I can’t think of a logical reason to spend this kind of money even if it is Other People’s Money. I just dunno what to say. What have they been smoking?
 
I still cannot believe what I read. I cannot believe that our super talents think this is the right thing to do, the right thing to spend our money on. Maybe that is why they deserved to be paid in millions for being able to see things that we commoners cannot see. We should vote them for another term of office and pay them more, increase their salaries, so that they can do more good to foreigners and their children. Even if we are scratching our heads, never mind, trust them to do the right thing, trust the deaf frogs. Remember, they are the smartest, the cleverest, the most talented. They know what they are doing. Fools like us would not be able to understand the goodness of what they are doing and that is expected. Just believe it is for our own good.

Pragmatism the guiding principle to go forward

Singapore Perspective 2015, did not follow what it was but saw a few clips of it on TV with all the luminaries and intellectual who’s who in the gathering talking about Singapore and its future. Happened to watch a small exchange between Assoc Prof Eugene Tan in an intellectual exchange with Prof Kishore Mahbubani on the topic on pragmatism. Eugene Tan was on the side saying that pragmatism as a guiding principle must be moderated or it would be too harsh and lacking soul and values when applied with no exception. Kishore was on the side arguing that pragmatism must be the guiding principle of our policies and we cannot afford to compromise on this great cornerstone of functionality. As a little island we would perish if we are soft and not pragmatic. There was no choice, but Eugene was saying that they were choices.
 
The audience of intellectuals, top civil servants and academics and many more, were put to a vote and more than 60% agreed with Kishore’s passionate plea that pragmatism is our only tool and pillar to survive. I believe, being a bunch or gathering of the brightest minds, they were indulging in a purely academic exercise and though they voted for pragmatism, it was just for the moment, a debate. I believe that they would not apply pragmatism in their policies or in the conduct of their lives and making decisions that affect other human beans.
 
Put it very simply, pragmatism in its extreme form, in black and white, is about functionality and usefulness. Anything that does not work, not practical, not useful, should be abandoned, rejected and threw away. In another word, if one is no longer contributing, ‘jiat liao bee’, one must be put away, culled or put to sleep. When a person is no longer useful to himself or society, he lost his reason or right to exist.
Using this pragmatic logic, all Singaporeans must be replaced by more talented and capable foreigners. No but’s and no if’s. Not good enough, you don’t deserve a place here. By the same logic, when one is no longer productive or useful to society, handicapped, sick, weak, with no relevant skills to contribute to the betterment of people, society and country, that person must be put to sleep.
 
Very likely not many people would be allowed to live past 60 years if pragmatism is the guiding principle for the right to live in this world class city. But then again we must congratulate ourselves that pragmatism would not be practiced to such an extreme and there are many other things that are of value to being human, kinship, family, compassion, love, caring, kindness, mercy, heart, emotion, feelings etc to temper the sharp edges of the ruthless and emotionless concept of pragmatism.
 
The thought is quite frightening if a society or country is run or operates under the principles of being useful and functional or not and with its elite talking about them emotionlessly as the right way forward. If our top talents and intellectuals were to rule using pragmatism and survival as the only basis, where would we be heading to? We would probably keep a population that is young, healthy and clever. Anything else would be deleted.