TR EMERITUS

Thanks to Trump, the Dictatorship of Zambezistan is far coming closer to home than we could ever have imagined. The USA has always been the beacon of Democracy and rule of Law for people around the world and its' power of American Democracy was always at the heart of the American Dream. Now what do people have to look for? European stagnant bureaucracy with some sprinkling of scandinavian social democracy? Or how about some Chinese authoritarianism, with a side dish of Russian oligarchy? Thank you Trump. For those of us who have been screaming for the past four years about the dangers of Trump and his base, it is cold but welcome comfort that Donald Trump has made democracy a mockery. After last year's disastrous response to the Covid-19 pandemic despite supposedly possessing the 'best' medical facilities and personnel in the world, they now have the spectacle of an obviously government facilitated attempt at a coup d'état. It may be the straw that broke the camel's back for many Republicans but for those of us watching from afar, the road that Trump has led America down is a well trodden one and the inevitable assault on democratic institutions was all too clear. If this can happen in the United States it can happen anywhere. World leaders reacted with shock as the building housing the legislature was taken over by violent Trump supporters. The events marked a huge transition for a nation which was once viewed by many as a beacon of freedom and democracy. European leaders condemned the scenes as "disgraceful" and "an attack on democracy." The German foreign minister called on Mr Trump to "accept the decision of American voters." I've heard many commentators talk about this sordid episode as a humiliation and embarrassment to US foreign allies and others around the world who look to this country for leadership and stability. The US political system is constructed to empower obstructionists and has gotten increasingly corrupt as moneyed interests and their lobbyists have soiled the entire political process. In addition, dealing with the vast and growing divisions within the US will require some way to control the spread of misinformation in the right wing media and on social media. How to do this while maintaining freedom of speech? Thus, for all these reasons, the likelihood is that the US will continue to disintegrate as a political entity. I take no pleasure in writing that. The US is very important to international stability, even if it has often grossly abused its power. The United States will never again be seen as that shining beacon of democracy it has enjoyed for much of it's history. The only way to stop and reverse this decay is for them to change its beliefs and its electoral strategies. But are people who have spent their lifetimes sowing racial animus and opposing effective government really able to turn over a new leaf? I doubt it immensely. It's like asking someone to give up their religion. So, even if these events have scared 'some leaders', others would rather see the country burn than consider that they may have been wrong all along. Without effective, activist government, the social, economic and racial divisions that have fed the rise of Trump will continue largely unabated. "In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true …." - hannah arendt. (1951) This is not about Trump losing the election. It's about America losing it's identity.   SojoüRner      Read More →

“440,000 CPF members qualify for matched top-ups” (Straits Times; 7 Jan 2021) is good news for the New Year. But this also unveiled the dark side of the CPF scheme. According to the CPF Board chief executive Augustine Lee, “About half of CPF members turning 55 today have yet to attain the Basic Retirement Sum. This matching grant by the Government will encourage them to save more with CPF.” This CPF matching scheme was first announced by DPM Heng Swee Keat in his Budget speech on Feb18 2020 and scheduled for implementation in 2021. This Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) is targeted at Singaporeans aged 55 to 70, who have not met the prevailing Basic Retirement Sum (BRS), among other criteria. The prevailing BRS for 2021 is $93,000 which is adjusted annually by 3% per year for the next two years like “a moving escalator”. In fact, “the BSR has increased by 3% per year since 2017, while household incomes per capita have risen by an average of 4.1%, in nominal term.” It is easy to understand the government’s objective on the surface - to encourage anyone, including family members, employers or members of the community, to make top-ups to a person’s Retirement Account. Each dollar of cash top-up will be matched by the Government for the next five years, capped at $600 per year or a total government contribution of $3000 to each of the 440,000 CPF members provided they have received some top-ups to their Retirement Accounts. Ms Sim Ann, Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and National Development and Adviser to Bukit Timah grassroot organization, made a top-up to a 62-year-old hawker without disclosing the actual amount. This new scheme will disadvantage the low income Singaporeans without financial ability to make cash top-ups as they will not obtain any matching top-ups by the government. If they have higher incomes, probably they will not be one of the 440,000 CPF members. The target age group of 55 to 70 were those born between 1966 and 1951, an age group younger than the Merdeka Generation born between 1959 and 1950) and the Pioneer Generation (born 1934 or earlier and 1949). To forestall any complaints from the MGs and PGs, the government enhanced the Silver Support Scheme (SSS) with broader eligibility criteria and higher payouts of 20% increase in the quarterly cash payouts for the elderly. This SSS targets the bottom 20% of Singaporeans aged 65 and above, numbering about 100,000 seniors. While the superficial reason for introducing the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) is to encourage cash top-ups for a segment of the population younger than the MGs and PGs, I believe the underlying objective is politics. The new year 2021 is perfect timing to launch a seemingly social scheme to target a relatively young population for five years, leading up to the next General Election in 2025. For the PAP government to use the CPF Scheme for politics is unacceptable. More importantly, this MRSS target group is made up of 806,890 residents or more (between aged 55 to 69) out of a population of 5.7million in 2019. The older population aged 70 to 90 and over numbered 360,390 and fast shrinking due to age. Going forward, I would expect to see more attention and social assistance given to this younger cohort for a political agenda rather than trying to improve their livelihood as they age. Alternative parties may have no options but to start activities to nurture this younger cohort for the coming GE if this is what the PAP government is doing.   Kok Ming Cheang      Read More →

Like dat also can? A reader reposted an article from Online Citizen Asia about a man, who was charged and convicted for cheating because he had taken payment but had refused to commit a crime he was paid for. It is indeed a baffling and debatable case and we are reproducing it here for our learnered readers to discuss. Netizens baffled that a man was convicted of “cheating” a loan shark who himself was not caught By kathleen -07/01/202114 34-year-old Muhammad Khairul Ismail on Wednesday (7 January) plead guilty to one count of cheating and an unrelated charge of online betting. He was sentenced to 11 days in jail for the cheating. He will also serve another four days in jail for not paying the S$1,000 fine he received on the gambling offence. The cheating charges relates to his plan to deceive an unlicensed moneylender who hired Khairul to harass debtors by chaining up their gates. Khairul, instead, found a way to get payment from the moneylender without actually completing the job. What he did was chain the debtors’ gates, record a video to demonstrate having done so for the purpose of showing the loan shark, and then remove the chains. Khairul is out on S$15,000 bail and is appealing his sentence. Khairul had reached out to the moneylender, known only as “Lucas”, upon seeing a job offer in November 2019, the Court heard. The job was to lock up the gates of people who owed Lucas money, paste a note on their doors, record the acts, and send the videos to Lucas as proof of the job done. Khairul was promised S$100 to S$120 for each completed job, based on messages exchanged between the two on WhatsApp. However, in December 2019 upon instructions from the loan shark, Khairul proceeded to a debtor’s house and locked the gate with two bicycle locks. He then pasted a note on one of the locks instead of the gate to avoid potentially damaging the gate. He then recorded the whole incident before removing the locks and leaving the gate unscratched. After sending the video to the loan shark, he was paid S$120 for the job. The court heard of two other similar incidents, both of which were taken into consideration during sentencing. According to reports, police were alerted to the case after Lucas forwarded the videos to debtors. However, it is noted that Lucas’ identity remains a mystery. This unusual case has caught the ire of many netizens who were baffled by the fact that Khairul was even charged with cheating as they pointed out that what he did was not really a crime as he honoured the agreement. On TODAY’s Facebook page, netizens highlighted that Khairul had taken care to not to harm any of the debtors or their property. Others wondered how it is even possible for someone to be charged with cheating an illegal moneylender since the moneylender is the one breaking the law. Many also questioned whether the loan shark himself would be brought to justice for his crimes, and how the police managed to nab Khairul but not the big boss himself. Other asked how anyone had even accused Khairul of cheating when the victim — the loan shark himself — could not be found. Our stroken techie, Andrew was the first to respond to the reproduced article with the following comment: This is indeed a very interesting case worth wasting time to discuss and study. What the unlicensed moneylender wanted the accused to do was clearly illegal, promising to pay him after he has committed the illegal act. The accused wants no part of it and did not carry out the clearly illegal locking of doors and harassment as instructed by the unlicensed moneylender. So he staged it for the unlicensed moneylender to think that he has done it and collected payment. Point to note: 1. Had the accused carried out the locking as instructed by the unlicensed moneylender, he would have committed an offence and the unlicensed moneylender would be guilty of abetting, if the house owner makes a police report. 2. What the unlicensed moneylender instructed the accused to do was clearly an illegal act, which is against the law. Technically it was a verbal contract, BUT since what the accused was asked to do was illegal, how then can the contract even be binding and valid and how could the accused have been charged for cheating (because he refused to commit an illegal act), even if the accused has received payment, be it before or after the event? By extention, the accused had to commit one crime or another, be charged for the locking of doors or cheating? Picture this: I was asked by Andy to murder someone and was paid upfront for the assignment. Since it was an illegal act, I staged the death of the person I was supposed to murder and told Andy that he was dead. So according to the police’s logic, I had cheated Andy since I took the money and did not murder that someone? Meanwhile, nothing happens to Andy, who had paid me to murder someone? Walan eh, whoever the IO and DPP in this case sibei tokong man, salute ar! Had this happen in China, Andy would have been arrested by teh police and I would get a pat on the back for not committing the muder liao lor. Its called "中止犯罪", a provision under their law for the police to not take any further action against an accused. So what do our learned readers think?      Read More →