TR EMERITUS

Dear Radha Basu, I read with great concern your article "Life's a beach but it's no holiday" published in the Straits Times on March 9, 2010. It is an article that talks about an issue which is very important to Singapore, and yet is often side-lined in the rat race, or maybe an issue that the government does not want to admit, face up to, or address. I find it highly insensitive, irresponsible and inappropriate for you to suggest that "homelessness in Singapore is often the result of personal irresponsibility, stemming from avarice or divorce and dysfunction". With growing divorce rates in Singapore, you probably know someone who is a divorcee. Would you still say that that is a result of "personal irresponsibility" or "reckless misdeeds"? Divorce is the last resort for many couples, and whilst I may not condone it, I do not think it apt to blame it on the persons involved. There are the poor living in rental flats, and there are the poorer still, who cannot even afford rental flats. If you are prepared to say that those who are camping out on beaches are irresponsible, then by the simplest logical derivation, you will also be prepared to say that anyone except the richest few living in mansions or bungalows are irresponsible, albeit to a lesser extent. Why do you think people sell off their apartments? Because they want to splurge it on luxury goods? I think not! Whilst you may put it in that manner to suggest that these people are irresponsible, it does not paint the full picture as it neglects to study the underlying causes behind that move - be it rocketing costs of living, a poor job market, a job market skewed by a huge influx of immigrants, etc - causes which I will be very hesitant to blame on the victims of our government's ill-managed macro-economic policies. I apologise if I do come across unduly harsh, for I know not the extent of political or bureaucratic pressure under which you are. But I do appeal very strongly to your sense of professionalism to issue a statement of regret, and also to refrain from allowing yourself to be, consciously or otherwise, an automatic mouthpiece of the government - and in the true spirit of journalism, I hope you can explore and bring out to the public a facet of Singapore we are ignorant or apathetic about, and come up with impassioned opinion pieces that are not simply a rehash of government rhetoric. There is a very mistaken yet pervasive idea that even opinion pieces have to be "balanced" for the sake of it - but what can be more personal than an opinion? Some ideas for you to consider are why the government view HDB flats as an investment asset, instead of a necessity which provides a roof over the heads of citizens? Regarding your example of Britain's situation, is welfare not a matter of balance? Yes, the British government may have probably gone over, whilst our government is obsessively allergic to providing even the most basic of welfare to vulnerable groups - and maybe to help too much is better than to help too little. Maybe you could also consider whether the salary formula for our ministers are less-than-ideal, since their salary are pegged to the top earners in the country, and hence there is no pecuniary incentive at all for them to look after the welfare of the poor. Perhaps you could study how the government's policy of awarding generous bonuses to themselves based on economic growth would create a strong monetary incentive for them to bring foreigners in to grow the economy for its end, even if per-capita income or standard of living is not improved. I thank you for your kind attention and time in reading this, and I hope that you will consider my points.   Best Regards, Gordon Li  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent It appears that Singaporeans can never hope to get their CPF monies back in full so long the PAP remains the government. Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong announced in Parliament two days ago that Singaporeans with $60,000 or more in their retirement accounts when they turn 65 will now be "automatically" included in the CPF Life annuity scheme. At the present moment, CPF Life only apply to those who turn 55 from 2013 and have at least $40,000 balance in their CPF Retirement Account while those having less are left out. However, this group of Singaporeans will now be included in CPF Life as well if their CPF savings increase to $60,000 by the time they reach 65 years of age. In the past, Singaporeans are able to withdraw their CPF in one lump sum when they reach 55 years of age. In 2003, the Minimum Sum scheme was introduced which stipulates that Singaporeans must keep a minimum sum (MS) of money in their CPF accounts. From July 1 2009, the CPF MS was revised from $106,000 to $117,000. The CPF Life is an extension of the MS scheme to provide "lifelong" income for Singapore elderly in their retirement. It has four different schemes which provide varying amount of monthly payouts to Singaporeans till they reach 85 years of age. To put it bluntly, the government is witholding the CPF savings of Singaporeans and "managing" them on their behalfs out of fear that they may deplete their savings and end up being a burden to the state. Though Singapore is the second richest country in Asia after Japan, Singaporeans enjoy few social welfare benefits from the PAP government. Singaporeans are often exhorted by PAP leaders to be "self reliant" and to work for as long as possible till they drop dead while remaining  "cheaper, better and faster" at the same time. For those who are certified permanently unable to work or are completely destitute without any living relatives, they can apply for Public Assistance (PA) from the government which provides a miserly monthly allowance of $360. In other countries, the ruling party will be voted out of office for treating its citizens so shabbily, but not in Singapore where its cowardly, apathetic and ignorant citizenry remains beholden to the PAP thanks to 50 years of "brainwashing" from the state-controlled media. The PAP has always claimed that it will have to raise taxes in order to fund more social welfare programmes for Singaporeans and yet it can afford to splurge out $10 million dollars in an instance to make the new immigrants feel accepted, welcomed and happy in Singapore. Even then, the amount pales in comparison to the nearly $10 billion dollars "paper loss" suffered by GIC in its disastrous investment in Swiss bank UBS. How can a country which can afford to lose billions of dollars in failed overseas investments without blinking an eyelid not do more to help its own citizens? Without realizing the importance of exercising their own political rights, Singaporeans are doomed to slog like "sheep" for their entire lives and still not able to retire or see their CPF monies locked away forever under the "safekeeping" of the nanny state.  Read More →

Synopsis: "Kaiji: The Ultimate Gambler" is an exciting psychological thriller starring Tatsuya Fujiwara as Kaiji, man forced to enter a deadly gambling competition aboard a cruise ship, to erase a large financial debt. Based on Nobuyuki Fukumoto's hit manga series which has sold over 11 million copies, Kaiji is a 26 year-old job-hopping bum who suddenly finds himself riddled in debt after a shadowy loan company informs him that he is responsible for a loan taken by his friend (who has since gone missing) and whom he casually co-signed as a loan guarantor for! [Source: MSN Entertainment]  Read More →