Saturday, April 30, 2011

Beauties and Brains - Do we need foreign talents?

Glenda Han Su Yin and Angela Oon gives stunning performances in their respective rally speeches. Particularly impressive was Angela's performance given that this is her maiden election rally speech in front of a huge crowd at Yishun Stadium.



Saturday, April 23, 2011

President Nathan's Pay increased to 4.2million

From: "AleXX"
Subject: This should make you puke.........

If the President's salary is $4.2million, what about the PM's, MM's,SM's and
other ministers' pay? Well, we suppose as good planners, they must pre-empt
and quickly increase their salary before the next recession caused by th
spike in oil price on account of the turmoil in the Middle East.

The report should make you puke:

March 11th, 2011 | Author: Online Press

While the whole wide world braces for the impact of price increases in oil,
food and commodities, Parliament has quietly moved to increase the
"selected" president's salary to a year sum of $4,267,500; a hefty 20.8%
quantum jump of $890,700. That's double the precentage increase of the
finanial assistance package for the poor, which was recently adjusted from
$360 to $400 per month.

If you haven't spewed your morning coffee yet, listen to this. Minister
Tharman proposed the change for "recruitment of an additional staff officer
to support the work of the Council of Presidential Advisers and a butler
manager to meet increased demand for butler services; and the high variable
payments on account of a strong economic growth". We know from Tom Plate's
account that Lee Kuan Yew has two staff just to provide hot towels for his
aching bones, but are there so many butlers there in the Istana that they
need a "butler manager" to supervise the servants? It's bad enough to read
of "higher variable payments"; Tharman also uses the term "ad hoc spending".
Does the national budget also have a YOG styled "other costs" accounting

Tharman tried to downplay the gross abuse of public funds by saying that the
total expenditure for the "Civil List for the President of the Republic of
Singapore" will be the same as the revised 2010 figure of $11,605,000. What
he did not say to the public is that the original 2010 figure was
$10,354,700. Why and when was the number "revised" by $1,250,300 to
$11,605,000? Just in time for the 2011 budget?

By the way, while sky rocketing COEs are threatening the affordability of
cars for those who need to drive for work purposes, these guys have also
decided that the president needs a new office car. Are we even on the same

From: "AleXX"
Subject: PAP ministerial salaries.......
As reported:

The amounts given below are correct before yesterday's blatant announcement
of an increase in President Nathan's salary.

Top 30 Highest Paid Politicians in the World (Information obtained from the
Clean sweep by tiny Singapore to be in the Guiness Book of Records!
Top 30 highest paid politicians in the world; and they are all from
(All amounts exclude bonuses)

Yearly salaries:

1. "Elected" or "Selected" President SR Nathan - S$3.9 million.
2. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - S$3.8 million.
3. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew - S$3.5 million.
4. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong - S$3.5 million.
5. Senior Minister Prof. Jayakumar - S$3.2 million.
6. DPM & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng - S$2.9 million.
7. DPM & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean - S$2.9 million.
8. Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo - S$2.8 million.
9. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan - S$2.7 million.
10. PMO Minister Lim Boon Heng - S$2.7 million.
11. Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang - S$2.7 million.
12. PMO Minister Lim Swee Say - S$2.6 million.
13. Environment Minister & Muslim Affairs Minister Dr. Yaccob Ibrahim -
S$2.6 million.
14. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan - S$2.6 million.
15. Finance Minister S. Tharman - S$2.6 million.
16. Education & 2nd Minister for Defence Dr. Ng Eng Heng - S$2.6 million.
17. Community Development Youth and Sports Minister - Dr. Vivian
Balakrishnan - S$2.5 million.
18. Transport & 2nd Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim Siang Kiat -
S$2.5 million.
19. Law & 2nd Minister for Home Affairs K. Shammugam S$2.4 million.
20. Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong - S$2.2 million.
21. PMO Minister Lim Hwee Hwa - S$2.2 million.
22. Acting ICA Minister Lui Tuck Yew - S$2 million.

The next 8 from Senior Ministers to Minister of State - each getting between
S$1.8 million to S$1.5 million.

As compared to other countries' Leaders:

1. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong (S$716K)
2. Barack Obama - United States of America (S$555K)
3. Nicolas Sarkozy - France (S$441K)
4. Angela Merkel - Germany (S$420K)
5. Gordon Brown - UK (S$387K)
6. Tarso Aso - Japan (S337K)

Total up the above six leaders: Only S$2.856 million.

In other words, even a Singapore DPM has higher salary than all of the above
leaders combined !!
Could it mean that these PAP's DPMs are more capable than all the leaders
from the 6 biggest world economies combined?
Singapore must be thankful to have such talent !!!!

From: "AleXX"
Subject: After more than 50 years of PAP rules...see what they had given to Singaporeans

1. Singaporeans work the most number of hours per week in the world.

2. Most Singaporeans will never own a car because COEs (Certificates of
Entitlement) are way too expensive and limieted.

3. The average home size of the Singaporean has fallen from 1660 sq. feet to
about 1000 sq. feet in the past decade.

4. Fertility rate in Singapore has fallen to below that of Japan - among the
lowest in the world because the government makes it very expensive for
couples to have children and also the cost of living is very high.

5. Only less than half the Singaporeans can meet the minimum sum for their
CPF retirement accounts. Meaning many will never get to retire.

6. 17% of Singaporeans do not have medical insurance - the highest in the
developed world ~ plus and minus a few percentage point when compared to

7. Singapore has the fastest growing foreigner population per capita in the
world. Within a decade, the majority of people in Singapore will be foreign

8. Singapore has the highest paid politial leaders in the world...

9. Singapore has the highest income gap of all developed countries.

10. More than one person kills himself/herself every day.

11. Singaporeans have the highest savings rate in the world due to CPF; but
many will not get to use them until they are more than 62 and gradually to
65 years old; provided they still have some money left after paying and
deducding for their purchase of very expensive "subsidized" public housing
(HDB flats).

12. The Singapore parliament has the least opposition in terms of percentage
of seats in the world amoung countries that claim to be democratic.

13. Singapore bans chewing gum but legalizes casinos. Casinos are legalized
in only 2 of the 50 American states.

14. Singapore hangs the most people per capita in the world. Even more than

15. Singapore cars are the most expensive in the world.

16. Singaporeans have the lowest purchasing power among all developed
countries according to UBS.... even Malaysians in KL have higher purchasing

17. The Singapore government has the highest sovereign wealth fund per
capita... and among the top few in absolute terms.

18. Singapore spends more on defence than Malaysia and Indonesia combined -
so we guess we do not need too much diplomacy and or diplomats; and can
afford to badmouth them according to Wikileaks.

19. Singapore has a class 1 civil service in the world according to Minister
Lim Swee Say. We also want to add that the people working in those class 1
civil service are paid exorbitant salaries and may bonuses equal to 9 times
their monthly salaries; referred to as "performance bonuses".

20. Singapore has only one newspaper company called SPH that produces horads
of quality and propaganda news of the government; such as Straits Times, Sin
Min and other reading delights. We have 5 newspaper companies decades ago;
but it all becomes one as the population grows.

21. Singaporeans serve NS (National Service) for 2 to 2.5 years; this is the
longest in the world after Israel. We do it because we can afford the time;
as many Singaporeans work their whole life without retirement; and so what
is the difference of putting aside 2 years?

22. Singapore has the world's oldest politicians. His name is Lee Kuan Yew.
As long as he is around, the relentless iron fisted rules will persist. He
will make very sure of that.

23. The present Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loogn is "coincidently" the eldest
son of Lee Kuan Yew.

24. Singapore has the most expensive public housing in the world; although
they were "heavily" subsidized by the PAP government. But according to
Minister Mah, it is still affordable base on their own ministerial salaries
of several millions of dollars per year. What is $400,000 to $500,000 for a
4-room HDB flat?

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Some Profanities thrown at PAP in the net

From: "truth"
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:30:16 +0800
Subject: papist nincompoops self sympathy cries

The way LHL speaks betrayed his mentality. In his mind, he already assumed
that Singaporeans will vote the pap into power again. For sure he is taking
Singaporeans for granted. The election is not even held yet and he is
talking about composition of the cabinet. This is an insult to Singaporeans.
Singaproeans pls punish the pap for such arrogance.

Lately a few of the papist multi$million nincompoops have been crying
publicly over non issues. Pure self sympathy. Just show how self centred
these papist assholes are. Did they cry over the old couples who live by
candle light in their dark one room pigeon hole ? Did they even utter a word
of sympathy or support for the family who has to sell their homes to pay for
their late daughter's medical bill ? Fucking selfish and greedy bastards.

LKY has admitted that Democracy enable a peaceful change of government.
History has shown that no government last forever. The important thing is
when there is a change in government is it peaceful or violent. Histroy is
full of violent changes of government resulting in death and sufferings to
the ordinary citizens. Democracy has proven its' ability in providing the
context for a peaceful change in government.

So don't get suck in by the those 3rd rate pap multi$million nincompoops
that u have to give strong support to the pap for an effective government.
If the pap is unable to govern with a simple majority then it don't deserve
to government at all. Simple as that. Why do we have to give it absolute
total power. This is very dangerous. If the pap fails with total absolute
power, Singaporeans end up being the major loser. There will be no
alternative to fall back on. Give yourself an free insurance by voting

The pap used to have an "A" team in the past. Those were the days of a
dynamic LKY with a caring Dr Goh Keng Swee, Hon Swee Sen, Toh Chin Chye, Ong
Pang Boon, S Rajaratnam, E W Barker and Devan Nair. This "A" really improve
the lives of ordinary Singaporeans. Then LKY wanted all the glory to
himself. So in the name of "self-renewal" LKY removed the solid old guards
one by one. He replaced them with technocrates who in the words of E W
Barker were so silent in Cabinet meetings. So we have people like GCT, OTC,
Dana, Tony Tan executing the orders of LKY. Without the other old guards
around LKY imposed his extreme rightwing ideology on the party. His ideology
of ultra capitalism was slowly but surely weaved into the fabric of
everyday lives of Singaporeans. Everything is watered down to $, cents and
profits. Singaporeans ended up paying full market prices for everything in
their lives. Market prices as determined by a monopolistic government. So
water was priced at cost + profit + security insurance. A major illness can
bankrupt a family. Cars become the most expensive in the world. U not only
have to pay a few hundred % tax on the car but must bid for a limited supply
of the right to buy a car - a world first. Pigeon holes are priced at full
market price of land + construction cost. The papist leegime confused
Singaporeans by telling them that their pigeon holes are subsidised thru a
simple sleigh of the hands. Land forceably acquired at dirt cheap prices
(e.g land in Punggol at 17 cents a sq ft) were repriced in the $hundreds to
sell to Singaporeans. Government services are charged at cost + profit. In
short LKY decided to run Singapore like a corporations. The net result is
the government became very rich while the people poor.

LKY and his pap continued to recruit only those who share their ultra
capitalistic doctrine. So while ordinary Singaporeans were suffering under
the full blast of the free market forces, LKY rewarded themselves with
$millions. Induce by so much $, they enjoy their luxurious lives. They
became complacent and lost touch with reality on the ground. So when the
govenment made a mistake, ordinary Singaporeans got the blame and were
threatened. The pap Leegime began to genuinely feel that Singaporeans owe
the pap government a living. LKY warned that if not for the pap govenment
Singaporeans will end up as maids in foreign land. To drive the economy,
Singaporeans were whipped like slaves. Foreigners were brought in by the
million. Singaporeans ended working harder for less $ as the cost of living
sky rocketed. Singaporeans now have the unique distinction of working the
longest hours on earth.

So it is clear the cause of ordinary Singaporean problems is the pap

Singaporeans are not concerned over jobs. There are plenty of jobs but not
the right kind for Singaporeans. Singaporeans are more concerned over
competition for the right kind of jobs by the influx of million of
foreigners. The sales manager who lost his job can easily get another job as
a dishwasher at a fraction of his former pay. That we imported so many
foreigners proved that there are a surplus of jobs. But not the right kind.
So Singapore should focus on getting the right kind of jobs for Singaporeans
rather than creating more jobs which go to the foreigners. For a start,
reduce the availability of foreigners and companies will be forced to hire
Singaporeans. Wages will rise and older Singaporeans will return to the
workforce. The economy may slow which is not a bad thing with the economy
now in overdrive. Some companies may suffer which is not a bad thing either.
Resources of land are scarce and if these companies cannot afford the higher
wages, then they don't deserve to be in Singapore. Net result is ordinary
Singaporeans benefit from higher wages.
A senior citizen's musings...

SENIOR Minister Goh Chok Tong acknowledged that the prevailing high cost
of living in Singapore would be a likely issue in the coming general
election ("Rising costs a likely issue: SM"; Tuesday).

He asked the people to decide who they thought would have a better
solution to such problems.

I appreciate his forthrightness and am thankful for his timely reminder on
this matter. But his comments have evoked mixed feelings for me.

Every time we are assured that things are still affordable, we find prices
rising higher. Now we are cautioned to choose the right team to provide the

The ruling party has had ample opportunity to resolve these issues, but
the problems still plague us. I may now be an economically unproductive
senior citizen, but I still love my country.

Fu Jiat Joon
I'll add some perspective.

Right now, the cost of living is rising in many countries, not just
Singapore. One cause is the US monetary policy - as they print more and more
dollars to tackle their economic woes, the excess money supply feeds into
the global system and leads to inflation worldwide. In addition, food prices
are escalating around the world, for a complex host of different reasons
that the experts are still debating.

Nevertheless, the rising cost of living in Singapore cannot be solely
attributed to external factors. In fact, the average citizen's difficulty in
coping with the rising cost of living is very closely linked to an
intrinsic, uniquely local factor. That factor is the PAP government's policy
on immigration and foreigners. I'll explain.

A rise in the cost of living is not a problem, if it is matched with a rise
in average wages. Unfortunately, over the past five years, Singaporeans have
NOT been able to earn more money. Singaporeans are working as hard as ever
(and in fact, hold the current world record for working the longest hours),
but their incomes have been stagnating. If you don't believe me, read this.

To put it simply, while Singapore's economic growth has arguably been
decent, this simply hasn't translated into a better life for the average
Singaporean in the street. Our reserves may have grown; our government
ministers may be drawing bigger and bigger salaries; the Bangladeshi workers
and the Filipino waitresses may be feeling satisfied - but the average
Singaporean just isn't getting any benefits out of the nation's success.

Why is this so? Well, wages are related to productivity. To earn more money,
the Singaporean has to raise his productivity by learning new skills and
gaining more knowledge in value-added areas. Companies have a role to play
in this too. They have to innovate, become more efficient, invest in new
technology, and in training their employees. That's how productivity can
increase, together with sustainable wage growth.

But this isn't happening in Singapore. On the contrary, our labor
productivity has fallen to shockingly low levels. In 2009, for instance,
labor productivity growth was worse than zero. It was negative (-14.9%). And
why has labour productivity fallen so badly in Singapore? It's because the
PAP government's policy on foreign workers actually discourages
productivity. Instead of getting Singaporeans to increase productivity by
learning new skills and knowledge, the focus has instead very much been on
importing more and more cheap foreign labour to do the job. To quote the
Wall Street Journal:

By some estimates, a third or more of Singapore's 6.8% average annual
growth from 2003 to 2008 came from the expansion of its labor force,
primarily expatriates, allowing Singapore to post growth more commonly
associated with poor developing nations.

At the same time, though, foreign workers have driven up real estate and
other prices and made the city-state's roads and subways more congested.
Their arrival has kept local blue-collar wages lower than they would be
otherwise, exacerbating Singapore's gap between rich and poor.

Some economists say the most damaging effect of the immigration is that
the influx appears to be putting a lid on productivity gains, as
manufacturers rely on cheap imported labor instead of making their
businesses more efficient. Labor productivity, or output per employee, fell
7.8% in 2008 and 0.8% in 2007�a phenomenon that could eventually translate
into lower standards of living.

Lee Ah Lee, a 58-year-old who makes 850 Singapore dollars a month (about
US$600) clearing tables in a cafeteria, says the flood of immigrants has
made it hard to make ends meet by pushing down blue-collar pay in Singapore,
which has no legal minimum wage. Sitting nearby in a drab apartment block
built by Singapore's Housing Development Board, a state-owned body that
constructs and sells subsidized housing, 79-year-old Lee Kwang Joo says
low-skilled foreign workers are often housed in corporate dormitories,
meaning they have no housing costs and can survive on lower pay.
So I hope that the direness of the situation we face, as a nation, has
become clear. Obviously, we cannot completely shut the door on foreigners,
especially not on foreign talent. But there is a balance that should be
kept. When labor productivity falls to -14.9% and Singaporeans' wages
stagnate year after year after year despite the fact that the economy is
actually growing, you know that the balance has not been kept.

Goh Chok Tong talked about the rising cost of living and posed this question
to Singaporeans - "Which party do you think can solve this problem?". But
here are the better questions to ask yourself. In the first place, which
party caused the problem? Which party IS the problem?

If you are an intelligent person, you know the answer. Vote wisely.
Posted by Gilbert Koh aka Mr Wang
The choice is clear - Vote Opposition for a better life and future.

On 23/04/2011 11:26, truth wrote:
I appeal to all good Singaporeans to step forward to help the Oppositions in
their fight in this GE. This is a massive undertaking and every help is
needed. Do this for a better life as well as for the future of your children
and grandchildren. This your last chance to save the nation from the
destructive path of the evil pap. Come next GE native Singaporeans will be
in the minority as more and more foreigners take up citizenships. The pap is
selling out Singapore to the Foreigners. Stop it before it is too late.
Step forward to help the Oppositions fight the evil pap.

"Kick-ass King" wrote in message
WE THE PEOPLE are selling out Singapore to the Foreigners.

we can stop employing maids (but don't want to).

we can start packing up our utensilts at foodcourts (but don't want to).

our poly students can stardy harder instead of playing computer games
(but don't want to).

we can boycott products services by companies dhat employ apuneh (e.g.
International Big Moufh, ShittyBank), but don't want to.

we can work in the hot sun as construction worker (but don't want to).

our uni students and professors can work/think harder to research on
robert to do construction work (but don't want to).

WE THE PEOPLE convenienly voted the PAP so as to have scapegoat to
blame!!! we nid the PAP to continue to blame them instead of
ourselves!!! if kick out PAP, dhen we may not able do anymore "blaming
others game" -- our favorite passtime.
From: "truth"
Subject: Tinny will drag GCT down.
GCT sensed that and he is indeed worried. Tinny (Tin Pei Ling)
is a major liability. LHL
did it on purpose to destablilse GCT n his faction within the pap.
GCT is striking back in other ways outside the pap. First he let it out what
most of us already knew - pap internal polling pointing to a disaster in the
making. This is a signal to his buddies outside the pap to whack LHL. This
election is as much a fight between the oppositions and the pap as it is a
proxy fight between the two camps in the pap. Very interesting. The major
casualty will be the pap.

From: Joblessjoe

If your grand father sits all day in the coffee shop nursing one kopi
O and your father got to struggle through a 12 hour Security Guard job
just to keep him alive, you know the PAP have CHEATED on both of them!

If the PAP has been a good and caring government, your grand father
should have a decent pension to get him by and your father, need not
have to struggle for survival in this manner. His previous job was
probably taken away by the PAP anf given to a "Foreign Talent".

What can YOU do now?

YOU must vote OUT the PAP and also tell all your friends to do so. If
YOU don't do this, you may one day find yourself having to support not
only your wife and children, but also your parents and grand parents.
Many have already fallen into this PAP crack. Many have committed
suicide because they no longer can to live under the PAP system. This
is the PAP system of passing the buck!

So, save yourself and your family by voting OUT the PAP. If there is
no OPPO in your area, just vote any DOG in your area. DOGS don't make
your life any harder than the PAP!

From: baldeagle

Subject: GST....FM Tharman said GST will be raised....only after 5 years. Is GST a good thing ?

FM Tharman said: "GST will not be raised for at least another five
years." Is this good news ?

NO. It means...GST will be raised on the 6th year. It is bad.

GST is bad for the poor people.

Tharman reveal that Singapore is strong financially... No need to
raise GST. In fact, Singapore do not need to have has enough
if Singapore doesn't pay the ministers and top civil servants millions
and millions every year.

GST is bad for the poor people...why collect GST from pay
the super wealthy Ministers and top civil servants.

GST has caused hardships to the poor people in Singapore. It should be
abolished or suspended.

For the sake of the suffering poor Singapore,....FM Tharman....please
abolish GST.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Lim Boon Heng was surprise to be dropped

From: aioe

Subject: Re: Lim Boon Heng did not expected to be dropped
The reality is LBH is more a liability than assest for PAP.

Firstly, the GRC concept was concieved by LBH and now it seems PAP is
rolling back the whole GRC concept and reverting back to SMC.

Second, when LBH was with NTUC he did not help workers much at all. In
fact, retrenchment and job loss were all time high. The economy was
poor when he was around. He don't even know what productivity means.

Thirdly, he took credit for workfare which he had done absolutely
nothing. The truth is the original concept for workfare was to
supplement income of old age workers earning very low salaries. The PAP
government and NTUC only decided to implement it after raising GST to
7%. Studies showed raising GST to 7% was totally unnecessary and PAP
used the extra revenue to raise their own salaries.

Forth, he was quite ineffective when given the job of raising Singapore
fertility rate.

Fifth he was quite clueless about old age issues in Singapore.

truth wrote:
> Lim Boon Heng was surprised that he has been dropped when LHL told him. Just
> two days before his surprised announcement that he is retiring, he not only
> did not show any sign of retiring but even hinted that he could be used as
> an ACE card to counter any serious challenge from the oppositions.
> So Lim Boon Heng was axed as a reprisal for GCT's talk of restricting
> ministers to two terms which was first rebuffed by WKS ( a Lee loyalist) and
> then subsequently confirmed by LHL himself. All is not well in the pap camp.
> LHL is trying hard to stamp his authority on the party. It is a signal to
> the liberals to stay in line. Lately the liberals and hardliners are giving
> a mixed and confusing signals. LHL is taking the opportunity to weed out Goh
> loyalists and line the party with Lee loyalists.
> The pap is heading for a major defeat. They can easily lose their 2/3
> majority. Singaporeans have wakened up and are no longer afraid of the LKY
> and his pap gangsters.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Tin Pei Ling got lambasted in Facebook for making silly statement

Tin Pei Ling wrote on PAP facebook page: "Cost of living is rising. Impact of this has been reinforced several times by residents during block visits these few weeks. It’s been tough on the elderly & low income families. The pain is felt day to day when buying food & other daily necessities. Hope measures in Budget 2011 will help cope with this pressure."

Here are the responses she got......

Eng-Joo Gay: Hoping will get you nowhere. You need to define and execute concrete plans for these people.

George Wong: You can't go wrong for championing the elderly and low income families but my credit will be reserved for any MP or potential MP who start pushing to convert a few of the golf courses into open space for the public to fly kite, running their dogs etc etc., The rich cannot have exclusive use of so much of land, is sinful that so much land is used for hitting a little golf ball instead of allowing the public to have access to do 10 over different sports or enjoyment at the same time. Scare to touch the nerve of your ministers or what? If so better remain championing the elderly & low income families.

Zaffar Ali: I think ms pei ling is stating the obvious isnt duhhh its a newspaper article ur reading n as though passin a comment over coffee to a frend. Again pei ling i hope with the budget u see my middle finger to u as well

Ben Chen: Well said, but any concrete proposals? If not I will call this airy-fairy talk like some opposition members.

Mogan Sellappan: The Elderly Problem Is Real Issue, A Strategic Thinking Is Needed, Subsidies For Hospitalisation (As A Friend Put It), Health Care Concerns, Meeting Living Expenses, Meeting Once A Year Travel Expenses, Meeting Transportation Needs, Are Some Of The Concerns

Benj Chung: Not a bad deal. For 15K a month you get someone who hope for you.

For the amount the ex-foreign talent goes to the hawker center to praise the hawker for keeping the price tag. Butter it 2 ways of the simple DD and SS economics.

That's the reason we all prefer foreign talent.
Thursday at 8:05am · 1 person

Gerald Heng: ‎'Impact of this has been reinforced...'? Brilliant!

Anthony Chia: What took you so long to find out .. especially during election time. Isnt this is what PAP said about opposition ?

Clement Lin: Oh Sarah Pei-Ling!

Json Lim: Honestly why would a government says hope that the budget works? Hoping is for civilians and commoners like the rest of us. Having all the brains of Singapore work out the budget and hope that it actually works leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Oh well, bad publicity is better than no publicity. Or it isn't?

Ivan Sean: Hor you know what, Obama sold the message of hope cos he's got charisma... you got what huh? & it took you a walk around the estate & that much 'reinforcement' of the message for you to find out? jeez.

Andrew Tan: We have more and more unhappy citizens, let hope the government can be more empathy to the middle and lower class. Inflation are making us worse every year. Disposable income drops year after year.
Thursday at 9:02am · 3 people

Clarence Ho: When you made a bad impression, don't try to cover it up by trying to sound like what others said you should've.
DO SOMETHING to redeem rather than sound smart (:

Jacqueline Wong: Personally think that kampong lifestyle is more suitable for people who feel unhappy... how about farming for vegetables or playing with little fishes while bathing in the river... muddy water taste better to you, perhaps you will be happier...

Francis Lim: How about redirecting part of the sky high ministers' salary to help them?

Json Lim: Jac Wong's comment made me laugh but hey it's the Internet, anyone can say anything without immediate gratification. While I am sure all the singaporeans appreciate the clean environment and access to the fantastic amenities, it's true that...

Json Lim: And no I don't like muddy water, give me ice Milo any day.
Thursday at 10:14am

Sarah Kathy Loh: I agree with Clarence Ho. Otherwise, she should just keep quiet... keep low...

Vincent Teo: Wow.. Look at the responses.. Haha

Roykline Tan: They only open their eyes to see when GE is near. Most of the time their eyes are closed

Catherine Lim: TPL such tweets don 't help. Not interested in your feelings or hope. But this is my hope for all candidate - you will be better served and serve the people better if you articulate your ideas and and what action you can take - concrete ideas. No more I will do my best stuff ok?

Suzie Quah: TPL, "Hope measures in Budget 2011 will help cope with this pressure."
Okie dokie ! Hope you will not be elected in this coming GE too.

Damian Han: pay some attention to the middle class too........

Melsy Robinson Smith: Pardon me... U mean this is the result of her being involved in grassroots for many years? Ok..... Does she only realise the huge issue like, now? U don't hope for budget measures to work.. U need to think of practical solutions! Oh my... Now I really know her better..
A disgruntled grassroots leader from Marine Parade has voiced his unhappiness with the fielding of 27 year old Ms Tin Pei Ling in the GRC.

In an email sent to TR, Mr Chan C H claimed that many PAP grassroots leaders are ‘puzzled’ by the party’s decision to field a newbie while bypassing more senior and qualified leaders.

“Dr Ong Seh Hong is only 48 years old. I seriously don’t understand why he was ‘retired’ when he has at least 10 good years left to serve. No offence to Ms Tin, we have quite a number of professionals in our branches. One is a lawyer who runs his own law firm. I’m surprised he was not selected,” he quipped.

Mr Chan added that the PAP grassroots was not consulted on the matter. Though he had seen Ms Tin around in the constituency, he felt she was still too ‘raw’ to be a MP.

“Being a MP is not like playing masak-masak. I wonder whether she can connect with the working folks in MacPherson, many of them in the lower income group,” he added.

The PAP grassroots should not be surprised at the decision of the party. It’s not the first time that an ‘outsider’ is parachuted from outside to become a MP.

With even PAP members and supporters feeling sore over Ms Tin’s candidacy, the growing background ‘noise’ may well develop into a political tsunami for the PAP in the coming election.
The Truth About Tin Pei Ling a.k.a. Sarah Palin of Sg
The PAP has just unveiled their youngest woman candidate, Ms Tin Pei Ling. She is only 27 years old and a senior associate at the Ernst & Young Advisory. It was reported in the Straits Times that she wants to create more opportunities to help the less privileged children by offering to take them to pre-schools when their parents are out of the house working to make ends meet.

Ms Tin also rebutted a suggestion that she got into politics through the back door because her husband, 40 year-old Ng How Yue is the Principal Private Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

Since her public appearance, the Net has been rife with stories about her. Some netizens were able to retrieve photos of her from the Net.

One netizen forwarded these photos and attached a few questions requesting Temasek Review (TR) to published them, suggesting that the man in the photo may be her ex-boyfriend.

TR was unable to ascertain the identity of this man and his relationship to Ms Tin at this point in time but it appeared that they were close. Assuming that this person is indeed Ms Tin’s ex-boyfriend, it’s obvious then that Ms Tin did not marry him but married the PM’s Principal Private Secretary, Mr Ng, instead.

The same Netizen who forwarded the photos raised this question: ”Did Ms Tin break off with her ex-boyfriend long before she met Ng, or did she decide to dump her ex-boyfriend after meeting Ng? If so, what was the reason for dumping her ex-boyfriend to go with Ng, PM’s Principal Private Secretary and marrying him who is 13 years her senior?

Well, one thing is for sure. She is certainly living a very good life after marrying PM’s Principal Private Secretary. She seemed to be receiving designer clothing for presents (the following photos and information were obtained from her facebook account before she quietly deleted them):

According to kate spade’s website:
kate spade is known the world over for their bold and stylish designer clothing, designer shoes, women fashion accessories and more.

Her good husband even arranged to celebrate her birthday in Tokyo, Japan:

She was reported to dine in expensive fine-dining Japanese restaurant, Takumi, at the Marina in Keppel Bay.

With Ms Tin now a public figure and a possible Member of Parliament, the same reader who forwarded the photos is of the opinion that the public has every right to know about her past, present and future.

Who is the man in the first three photos at the top? Is he really Ms Tin’s ex-boyfriend? If so, under what circumstances did Ms Tin split with him? Why did Ms Tin choose to marry Mr Ng, the Principal Private Secretary of PM Lee instead? Was not her ex-boyfriend good enough for her?

Why So Few Private Sector Talents Joining the PAP?

By Michael Lim

In a recent attempt to refute criticism regarding the PAP’s slate of candidates for the upcoming general election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong alleged that corporate high-flyers were reluctant to step forward because of their aversion to risk.

He said it was difficult to recruit “established” candidates from the private sector because “politics is a new field” and the “risk of failure” was big.

Today, the PAP-controlled Straits Times ran a feature story on a poll it supposedly conducted with 45 individuals from the private sector, all of whom had job titles of Vice President or higher. Only 3 of the 45 polled said that they would be willing to join the PAP if asked, citing various reasons ranging from the amusing (a reluctance to change their lifestyle) to the outright ludicrous (the pay being ‘too low’).

One of the respondents also said that he did not want to placed under the scrunity of the public eye, citing the example of Tin Pei Ling, who has been roundly criticised by the public following her introduction as a PAP candidate.
Of the 24 new candidates introduced by the PAP ahead of the coming election, only 8 are from the private sector. Of these, one (Gan Thiam Poh) works for the state-owned DBS Bank, one (Ong Teng Koon) is the son of a current PAP MP, and one (Tin Pei Ling) is married to the Prime Minister’s principal private secretary.

The number of candidates from the private sector is one of the lowest in recent history.

The other 16 candidates – or two-thirds – were drawn from the civil service, the Singapore Armed Forces and the PAP-affiliated National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).
The Prime Minister’s latest justifications are little but excuses designed to cover up the fact that the PAP is growing increasingly out of touch with society. Critics have alleged that Singapore’s policy-making elite are drawn from an incestuous inner-circle cabal of bureaucrats, most of whom are former government scholars who have little or no experience outside of the civil service ivory tower.

Instead of reflecting on what the PAP can do to broaden its appeal, PM Lee has laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of the private sector, claiming that those who are doing well are too comfortable with their current careers to consider stepping out to heed the call of service.

His arguments are flawed on a number of levels.

First, the claim that joining the PAP carries a “risk of failure” is downright laughable. It is well-known that the PAP wraps its new candidates in cotton wool – allowing them to be whisked into Parliament on the coat-tails of experienced ministers in GRCs. Ms Tin is the perfect example of this – although the 27-year-old senior associate at Ernst & Young has been roundly derided for lacking substance, she is almost certain to be returned to Parliament because she will be fielded in Marine Parade GRC, where the incumbent ‘anchor’ MP is Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.

Joining the PAP carries almost no risk of failure whatsoever, because the party does its utmost to spare its new faces from the rough and tumble of a genuine electoral contest. Mr Goh has admitted as much – he said that the GRC system allows ‘talented but politically inexperienced’ candidates to enter Parliament and learn from their more experienced team-mates.

Second, if corporate high-flyers are supposedly so afraid of failure, why have so many of them stepped forward to join the opposition?

Mr Chen Show Mao, a top corporate lawyer at Davis, Polk and Wardwell, holds degrees from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford, and was a former Rhodes Scholar. He sits on the advisory board of the SMU law faculty and advised the Bank of China in the biggest-ever IPO deal in Asian history. He will be contesting the coming election under the banner of the Workers’ Party.

Mr Tony Tan, Ms Hazel Poa and Mr Benjamin Pwee, all of whom are former top civil servants turned entrepreneurs, are armed with both ‘real world’ business experience and an inside knowledge of the workings of the bureaucracy. The former two will be standing for the National Solidarity Party, while the latter has joined the tiny Singapore People’s Party. Meanwhile, Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, a former hedge fund manager with years of experience working in London, will be leading the newly-formed Reform Party into its maiden election.

By choosing to join the opposition, all five candidates will have to seriously contend with the “risk of failure” – they stand a far smaller chance of being elected in their respective constituencies than Ms Tin does in Marine Parade, despite their credentials and experience being far superior.

As recently as 2001, it would have been unthinkable that candidates with such profiles would have joined the opposition. Back then, it was widely accepted that the PAP had a monopoly on talent, with former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew even calling the opposition a “motley crue” comprising of “riff-raff from the streets”.

The fact that the opposition has been more successful at recruiting candidates from the private sector is a sign that the PAP is becoming increasingly insular, with its head buried in the sand of an sparse and unnavigable bureaucratic desert that is far detached from the realities of the new economy.

Perhaps that is the precise reason why private sector talent is shunning the PAP – because the PAP has lost sight of its values and ideals, and instead become a party of technocrats, not politicians.

If the party can no longer boast of having the best minds, or, at an even more fundamental level, remain relevant in the context of an age of great economic uncertainty, then it ought to either refresh itself or just stand aside. Having its spin doctors make excuses in the subservient mainstream media and blaming others for being ‘risk averse’ is doing a great dissservice to Singapore.

–The author has more than 20 years’ experience in recruitment and strategic human resource management, having worked in multi-national companies such as BP and General Electric. He is currently a partner in his own HR consultancy firm in New York.


AleXX wrote:

In a country where the poor citizens and residents are suppressed; the
electoral system corrupted; and the single party ruling elites enjoying all
the freedoms and raking in $millions in pay, bonuses; and plus$+plus$ from
being directors, chairmans of many Government Owned "Temasek" companies that
run and controlled by their families, relatives and cronies.

Listening to his repeated tons of talk and promises through the years will
as usual will not alleviate the suffering of the common citizens here.
Instead, it only leads to more suffering with higher cost of living; housing
prices beyond the reach of the ordinary working people; jobs given away to
foreigners; citizens competing with foreigners on equal footing for all
kinds applications and opportunites. High taxes, high public transport fares
and.... most of everything that involve with money and paying to the
government. PAP is a money sucking party. Sick with all their controlled
media and propaganda and dictatorial rules.

A strong voice in the oppositions will or can only bring them back to earth
bound and cut down their money hoarding extravaganza.
Every time close to pre-election, they will hand out a couple of hundred
dollars squeezed from taxpayers to the common voters. In no time, it will be
taken back from them again.

soong en lim wrote :

Under the PAP, the salary of the common working men have not only
stagnated but in many cases, become less over the years.
My auntie works as a coffee shop assistant. In 1998 she earned $1400
per month. In 2005, she lost her job to a Malaysian who is prepared to
work for $1,100. In 2010, this Malaysian lady lost her job to a China
girl who works for $900. My Auntie is now jobless and suffering from
poor health. She went back to the same coffee shop to apply for the
same job and was offered $700 on account of her age.
My brother in law was a a shipping executive in 1998 earning $7800 a
month. Today, he does the same job in another company earning a meagre
The PAP and the NTUC knew all these because they are the one who allow
all the FOREIGNERS to take away our jobs and make Singaporeans POORER!

Friday, April 1, 2011

Who is Really Raiding the Reserves?

truth wrote:

"LOWERING land cost as a way to reduce new Housing Board flat prices is
tantamount to raiding Singapore's reserves This is because all land is sold
at prices set by the Chief Valuer, and the land sale proceeds go into the
reserves." - Mah Bow Tan

Well a few day ago, he was saying that healthcare, defense and education
expediture will have to be cut for the govt to sell flats cheaper. Now we
get to the heart of the issue:

1. Most of cost of HDB flats comes from the land cost component.
2. Land cost is determined by a Chief Value in the govt.
3. When this land is sold, the money goes to the reserves (GIC).

The bottom line is when Singaporeans take up 25 year mortgages to buy homes,
they borrow money from the bank to pay HDB and most of the money ends up in
the GIC. Minister Mah uses the phrase 'raiding the reserve' to describe the
suggestion by Worker's PAP to sell land at a more reasonable price. It is
not true that the reserves are 'raided' because not a single cent needs to
come out from the reserves to get this done - money will still flow from our
pockets to grow the reserves albeit at a slower rate.

In the next few questions we asked to explore have to ask are:

1. How can land be valued fairly?
2. How do reserves benefit ordinary Singaporeans in their lifetime once they
grow beyond what is needed for cushioning economic crisis? Who really
reserves really benefit?
3. How do we maximise the benefits of public housing for Singaporeans in the
long term?

HDB's mandate is to build affordable homes. Unfortunately, nobody bother
with the definition of the word "affordable" which has become one of the
must abused words in Singapore. Does affordable means median annual income
times 5 or 10? Does affordable simply means being able to service your
housing loan which have tenures of 10, 20 or 35 years? Because
affordability was not defined, we have politicians arguing that it is still
affordable after a 50% surge in prices.

"First the cost of new houses for 1st time buyers is about 23%...the cost of
servicing the flat. That hasn't changed very much over time and is
significantly lower than Hong Kong and most other cities. It is
significantly lower than the developed countries at large. It is cheaper to
own and service a mortgage on a house in Singapore than it is in any other
developed countries..." - Minister Tharman in CNA Forum, on Singapore's
future, April 2011

There are numerous flaws in Minister Tharman assertion in the recent forum
but I put it up to show how determined PAP is to deny that serious problems
faced by Singaporeans exist. To watch Minister Tharman say that Singaporeans
have it good, homes are easily affordable....better than all other developed
countries just add to the frustration of Singaporeans coping with the high
cost of housing. I'm sure regular readers of this blog can pick out the
flaws in Tharman's argument easily but for those are having trouble figuring
it out here is the explanation. When Tharman talks about the relatively
constant average quantum (23%) that 1st time buyers use to service loans, it
counts only people who can afford a home - many can't afford homes give up
looking for one. Also, they keep the quantum constant by buying homes
smaller than what they want or need at less desirable locations and the
tenure for loans has increased - in the past people finish paying their
loans in 10 years or less now the tenture can be as long as 3
decades....there is a big difference between paying 23% of your income for
10 years vs 30 years.

He then goes on to say we are better off than Hong Kong which is no
consolation given the housing misery there (unhappy Hong Kongers come out in
force to protest every weekend for a good reason). He then goes on to make a
very strange and really hard to believe assertion that the housing situation
in Singapore is better than all other developed countries. Singapore has the
2nd highest population densities[Link] in the world and many cities in
develop countries have suburban areas where housing is very cheap. Singapore
is the 11th most expensive city in the world but is 43th and 49th in
domestic wages and purchasing power respectively, along the likes of
developing countries like Turkey, Slovakia and Qatar and far below the
capitals of other Asian Tigers � Seoul, Taipei and Hong Kong[UBS Report,
Temasek Review on the report]. Singapore has the highest income in equality
among developed countries which means that the lower rungs of our society
are more adversely affected by high housing costs than else where in the
world. Tharman's denial that there is a problem with high housing costs
shows that there is no interest in govt to solve what many Singaporeans
think is serious problem.

The undisputable truth is housing is far less affordable that it was 20
years ago. The median income rose 111% (not inflation adjusted) while the
price of housing as measured by the RPI rose 342%. That is the source of
unhappiness among Singaporeans and it is a very real problem:

The huge surge in housing prices came after the PAP govt liberalised CPF for
the purchase of homes. That single move resulted in billions in CPF accounts
mobilised for the purchase of private homes and HDB flats. Most of the money
ultimately ended up our reserves. Prior to that move, Singaporeans had
enough in CPF for retirement and HDB provided what most people would
consider affordable housing. Once CPF was used for housing, our homes
became inextricably linked to Singaporeans' retirement. In addition to this
move, our CPF is also locked to low fixed returns - the GIC borrows our CPF
at low interest rate to invest for higher returns...yes another reserve
building scheme at the expense of' retirement, Singaporeans. After adjusting
for inflation, our CPF returns is way below other funds such Malaysia's EPF.
The situation is so problematic even pro-PAP writer Chua Mui Hoong called
for CPF returns to be improved[Link]. The PAP solution now to all these
problems is to ask Singaporeans to retire later....and later..and perhaps

Now back to the issue of land valuation. Land in Singapore is a scarce and
precious resource most of which was originally owned or acquired by the govt
using the Land Acquisition Act. We can reclaim some land from the sea
provided our neighbors don't complain but the total land area in Singapore
won't increase much over time. Given this situation, the decision to make
public housing the main form of housing under the control of the govt is a
correct one. We have seen what happened in many developing countries where
free market for land allowed the rich buy up most of the land and the poor
people become landless, sometimes homeless and trapped in a vicious cycle
of poverty - the only solution left in places like Philipines was to carry
land reform in which govt forcibly take back land and redistribute it to the
lower classes. That is the bleak situation that public housing programs try
to avoid - the dynamics of the free market for land which causes income gap
to expand depressing your middle class and sending the lower class down to
poverty. The purpose of public housing is defeated if we directly link the
price of land for public housing to free market auctions to developers.
The success of public housing is measured by affordability and progress
is made when people take up less debt, have more disposable income,
have a better
quality of life and the effects of the income gap is mitigated through the
public housing program. Under Minister Mah, the HDB failed to do all that
and when confronted with WP's manifesto to improve the situation, Minister
Mah is worried that our wages will flow at a slower rate into GIC's
astronomical coffers - is he for more affordable housing or reserve
building? Lets not forget the high resale prices is caused by govt move to
open the flood gates to the foreign influx and the BTO which limits supply.

The situation might be slightly better if the govt articulates a clear plan
on how the Singaporeans will benefit from the reserves in their lifetime.
Will part of it flow back to improve the quality of retirement for
Singaporeans? The GIC today provide high paying jobs for a small number
elites who manage the reserves. For a long time, Singaporeans have been
asking for greater transparency and accountability in the management of the
reserves...these are after all build from the sweat of Singaporean workers
who have to get into heavy debt and delay their retirement to pay for
expensive public housing.

Posting Time 7:33 AM
Posted by Lucky Tan 17 comments
Friday, April 15, 2011
Minister Mah attacks WP's affordable housing plan....
Last year Hazel Poa of NSP caught Minister Mah fudging the numbers to show
that housing was still "affordable". I thought Minister Mah would have
learnt not to do something so deceptive again. Unfortunatlely, we will have
to catch Minister Mah again....this time for fudging logic...

"Minister Mah Bow Tan warned against the Workers' Party (WP) call for
cheaper HDB flats on Thursday, saying it would mean larger subsidies for
housing at the expense of other needs, such as healthcare, education or

Calling the opposition party's manifesto 'irresponsible', he noted that the
WP had not said where the extra money would come from, and pressed them to
reveal the implications of their proposals." - Straits Times (see article
Minister Mah calls WP irresponsible for its plan to provide more affordable
flats. He says that cheaper flats means more housing subsidies and less
money for education and healthcare. Let me ask you a simple question. In the
past few years when the price of HDB flats surge by more than 50% , by
Minister Mah's logic, the govt should be awashed with more money from
selling HDB flats for healthcare and education - if that is so, why did the
govt implement means testing to cut subsidies for healthcare and why did
they have to raise school fees for universities and cuts subsidies for
education of children with special needs etc? The fact is budget has little
to do with HDB selling price. If anything, when the HDB prices go up, the
HDB actually shows more losses due to "market subsidies" which increase
proportionately with price. Why is this so?

1. Land sales are not included in the govt revenue in the budget. This has
been a long standing issue because it distorts the fiscal picture and Sylvia
Lim of WP has called for the situation to be fixed[Link] so that
Singaporeans can get a more accurate picture of govt expediture vs revenue.

2. A large component of HDB flat sale price is due to cost of land priced at
the market.

3. HDB buys land from SLA at market price. The revenue of land sales is not
included in the budget's revenue figures.

4. The HDB then includes the land cost plus other cost to price new HDB
flats. It then sells it at a "market subsidised" prices to flat buyers.
When the price of flats surge up by 50%, no significant amounts of money
went to subsidise healthcare and education. Similarly, if the price rise of
flats is kept close to changes in median incomes as suggested by the WP amd
by pricing the land sales to HDB accordingly, govt healthcare and education
expediture will not be affected.

Linking public housing to median income changes is sensible because if
housing price move significantly vs income, it means that Singaporeans have
to take up more debt to financed their home purchases. Every where else in
the world, public housing is priced for affordability and not directly
linked to market prices. The high debt taken up by ordinary Singaporeans pay
for expensive new HDB flats...most of the money eventually goes into our
reserves i.e. GIC. The issue of risk free gains when 1st time buyers sell in
the resale market can be addressed by lengthening the lockup periods for
selling the flat and limiting the number of timeas a person can buy directly
from the HDB. In the long run a healthy steady state should be housing
market where prices are closely correlated with inome gains. When you have
prices moving up 50% without the corresponding gains in income, debt piles
up and a bubble forms.
Apr 14, 2011
Mah Bow Tan: WP manifesto 'irresponsible'
By Teo Wan Gek
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan warned against the Workers' Party
(WP) call for cheaper HDB flats.
NATIONAL Development Minister Mah Bow Tan warned against the Workers' Party
(WP) call for cheaper HDB flats on Thursday, saying it would mean larger
subsidies for housing at the expense of other needs, such as healthcare,
education or defence.

Calling the opposition party's manifesto 'irresponsible', he noted that the
WP had not said where the extra money would come from, and pressed them to
reveal the implications of their proposals.

'You can't get something for nothing,' he said on the sidelines of the Urban
Redevelopment Authority's Corporate Seminar.

The WP had unveiled its 63-page manifesto on Saturday. Called Towards A
First World Parliament, it contains proposals on 15 broad areas of public
policy, with a number focusing on hot-button issues like public housing and

One of the key points under public housing was to allow for cheaper HDB
flats by pegging the price of the flats to the median incomes of households
that qualify to buy them, instead of pegging them to resale market prices.
Another was for flats to be affordable enough that mortgages can be paid off
in 20 years instead of 30.
Read the full report in Friday's edition of The Straits Times.
Posting Time 9:45 AM
Posted by Lucky Tan