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.