TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent A distraught lady by the name of Tan Lay Choo has written to the Straits Times complaining about how HDB's rigid stand caused her to suffer a tremendous financial loss! Miss Tan had applied for a three-room flat under the HDB Build-To-Order Scheme together with her father and the sale and purchase agreement was signed in December 2007. Unfortunately, her father passed away in June this year and she was told by HDB that she was no longer eligible for the flat. HDB would only refund me the 10 per cent down payment and "was silent on other payments such as stamp fee on option to purchase, stamp fee on mortgage, lawyers' fees, HDB conveyancing fee, and yearly Home Protection Scheme premiums deducted last year and this year." Miss Tan wrote that she was not told about the Clause nor was she informed that the rest of the payments would be forfeited if either of the two-member family died: "I was not aware of the so-called Clause 10 of the sale agreement and none of the HDB staff highlighted it to me during the signing of the sale agreement. In addition, at the time of submitting the application, it was not indicated in the form that if either of a two-member family died before collection of keys, the application would be treated as null and void, and all payments, except the 10 per cent down payment, would be forfeited." It is not revealed how much loss Miss Tan has suffered as a result of the cancellation of her eligibility, but it does appear that she is encountering some difficulties in her life with HDB pressing her for payment: "The cancellation of my eligibility to own the HDB flat came even as I was trying to overcome my grief over my father's death. And then the law firm wrote to me asking for payment of a penalty or cancellation fee regarding the housing loan." Being a single, Miss Tan is eligible to purchase a resale flat after the age of 35. One of her parents must be a co-occupant in order for her to qualify to buy a BTO or new flat built by HDB. The prices of resale flats have hit a record high lately, fueled largely by the relentless influx of foreigners in recent years. Despite the increase in the number of PRs and new citizens between the years 2005 and 2008, HDB did not increase the supply of flats resulting in the present housing shortage. A ERA report released last month showed that 40 per cent of the resale flat buyers are PRs. A sale exercise of balanced flats by HDB two weeks ago drew over 20,000 applications for only 2,100 flats. HDB is adamant that public housing remains "affordable" in Singapore which contradicts the real sentiments on the ground. Miss Tan is unlikely to win any sympathy from HDB. She better pay off her debts soon or she will be taken to court in extra quick time by HDB.   EDITORS' NOTE: Do you know of anybody who share a similar experience as Miss Tan? Write in to our Forum section at [email protected]. Unlike the other forum, We will publish it immediately with NO censorship or moderation.  Read More →

From our Correspondent The Straits Times seems to have mastered the art of blowing one's own trumpet lately with another self-congratulatory editorial on how its sites are attracting more readers with a "revamp" of its online sites. In two articles published today, the Straits Times claimed unshamedly that "innovations" have led to "ST sites forging ahead". It was not mentioned though who its competitors are. Of course in a market completely dominated by SPH with only one major English daily like the Straits Times, there is really nothing for readers to choose from. A near-total market monopoly backed strongly by state resources is the key reason why ST sites are able to keep themselves afloat and viable for so long. Even then, their dominance is being eroded gradually with the emergence of more and more alternative new sites like Temasek Review and Kent Ridge Common. At the end of the day, it will be the content which matters most and not techological innovations. The Straits Times may have adopted the use of social media networks like Facebook and Twitter to reach out to the younger generation, but its editorial stance and content remains largely pro-establishment which relegates it to no more than a mere propaganda mouthpiece of the regime. The pathetic international reputation of the Singapore media is highlighted by its 133th ranking out of 175 countries on the world press freedom index, an indication of the degree of press freedom journalists enjoy in their respective countries along the likes of Chad, Nigeria and Zimbabwe, the worst performance of any country in the developed world. Needless to say, the Straits Times and other SPH publications are silent about their dismal performance in one of the most important KPIs of any paper - journalistic integrity, independence and freedom. The Straits Times may still be able to maintain its pole position for a while, but definitely not for long. Malaysiakini took 7 years to overtake New Straits Times and The Star in terms of online traffic. We still have 5 more years to go and we hope that in time to come, our online readership will exceed not only that of The New Paper, but of Straits Times and CNA as well.  Read More →

OPINION During the peak of China's Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong was worshiped by the masses as a god who could not make a single mistake. His public appearances were usually stage-managed beforehand to ensure that only loyal communists with a pure "pedigree" untainted by rightist elements were allowed to catch a glimpse of him. As the Chairman grew increasingly infirm from Parkinson's disease, his speech became slurred and his public appearances were reduced to waving at his adoring fans without betraying his frailty. Singapore's own mini Chairman Mao, Lee Kuan Yew, is more fortunate than his counterpart in China. Living 4 years longer than Mao, Lee was still able to dispense with his usual dose of "wisdom" to undergraduates at the NUS Kent Ridge ministerial forum held on 19 October 2009. Unfortunately, he was subjected to the ignominy of being put through a "maoist" stage-managed "wayang kulit" instead of a real proper forum. The forum was inaugurated in 2004 with then Minister of Education Mr Tharman as the guest of honor. Mr Lee was the speaker in 2005. It was organized by the NUS Students' Political Association and open to NTU and SMU undergraduates as well. As the name itself suggests, a forum is supposed to involve active interaction between the speaker(s) and the audience who will be allowed to field their questions freely in an open setting. For some strange reasons or another, the organizers decided to curb this usual practice and pre-screen the questions before the actual commencement of the forum itself. It is not known if it is done at the request of Mr Lee himself. According to Professor Tommy Koh, the forum moderator, the students who wished to ask MM questions were told to submit them via email, and out of a total of 500 possible questions, the 9 "best" were selected. (Source: Kent Ridge Common) The criteria used in selecting the questions were left deliberately unanswered. Needless to say, only politically correct questions found their way to the audience. Is this the kind of "forum" we expect from a supposedly renowned world-class university like NUS? Why can't the undergraduates be given the autonomy to quiz Mr Lee directly during the forum itself? Why are they treated like a herd of sheep without a mind of their own? There are only two plausible explanations for the weird arrangement: 1. Mr Lee is getting advanced in age and is unable to handle complex and difficult questions. Therefore, there is a need to select only straight-forward questions which he will be able to answer easily. 2. To censor difficult or sensitive questions which might embarrass Mr Lee in order to prevent a similar fracas like what happened in Russia from repeating itself. Then, a Russian student had the "temerity" to ask Mr Lee about his "appointment" of his son as Singapore's prime minister which obviously peeved him off. Either way, if Mr Lee is unable or unwilling to answer questions field from the floor, then perhaps he should not be gracing the event in the first place. After all, he had already attended the forum in 2005. The entire debacle seems to give one the impression that Mr Lee is a man of demi-god status like Chairman Mao whose ego must be protected from being bruised by insensitive questions from reckless and fickle undergraduates. At the same time, the over-zealousness on the part of organizers to protect the "face" of Mr Lee and their submissive attitude to an authoritarian figure reflects very badly on NUS as an institution to promote critical and independent thinking among its students. Neither the organizers nor the participants need to bend over to accommodate Mr Lee. He is only a former prime minister of Singapore. He does not own Singapore or NUS for goodness sake! Mr Lee has already attended many such forums this year where he is the speaker or part of a panel of speakers. Did he answer only pre-selected questions from the audience in these instances? During a tea-party hosted in his honor at a Moscow university last month, Mr Lee answered all questions directed against him deftly by the Russian students. Are Singapore undergraduates inferior to the Russians in terms of intellect? Why are the Russians permitted to ask Mr Lee questions freely, but not Singaporeans? The Kent Ridge "forum" or rather, "wayang" is an utter disgrace not only to the NUS community, but to the entire nation as well! What is the point of attending the forum in person when the participants can simply email their questions to the organizers for them to vet and pass to Mr Lee who can answer them via tele-conferencing from the comforts of his home at Oxley Road? It will save everybody a lot of time, resources and energy and put the million-dollar University Cultural Center, where the "forum" is held, to much better use. What message is NUS sending to the world? That Singapore undergraduates cannot be trusted to ask intelligent questions to a former prime minister or that the "face" of Mr Lee is of greater importance than the spirit of free inquiry? Is it little wonder that there is hardly any public debate between the ministers and the opposition on matters of national importance? Even in Penang, there was a televised debate between its Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and his predecessor Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon held last year! If Singapore's ministers don't even dare to engage the opposition in a public debate or forum out of fear of losing "face", then perhaps they do not quite deserve their multi-million dollar salaries after all. The last time Singaporeans witnessed Mr Lee in a televised debate was more than 20 years ago in 1986 during a Parliament Select Hearing on the legal amendment bill. The broadcast was turned off abruptly halfway when it became obvious that Mr Lee, then the Prime Minister of Singapore, was losing steam against his adversary, a cool-headed Francis Seow who was the President of Singapore Law Society. Respect has to be earn through the hard way. Camouflaging one's weaknesses via stage-managing forums like this will only serve to betray one's deep-seated fears and insecurities and risk turning well-meaning political discourse into a farce. Being a consummate politician, Mr Lee should realize that it is impossible to expect everybody to agree in unison with him even if he is Chairman Mao himself. As a leading figure from a political party, he should expect opposition from his detractors and critics who are not enamored with his views and style of doing things. Disagreements and dissent should be allowed to surface instead of being swept under the carpet as if they do not exist. While Mr Lee is instrumental in bringing stability and prosperity to Singapore, at the end of the day, he is just another citizen of the country. We do not have to go to extra lengths to show our respect to him or to prevent others from expressing their dissatisfaction at him. Mr Lee is not an immortal. His era will soon come to a pass and young Singaporeans will be the ones taking over the reins of the country. It is a worrying sign that there are still significant numbers of Singaporeans who continue to live in Lee's shadow. A country is only as strong as its people. It is never about one particular man, family or party. How can Singapore develop an innovative economy when its citizens are living in perpetual awe or fear of their leaders? Like Chairman Mao before him, Mr Lee will soon be consigned to the textbooks of history and few will remember him in one or two generations' time. Mr Lee claimed during the session that he never thought of leaving a legacy behind when he has unwittingly left one - a legacy of repression, fear and apathy instilled in almost every Singaporean. The very least Mr Lee can do now for Singapore before he passes on will be to leave the political scene completely altogether by the next general election to allow a new batch of leaders to emerge out of his shadow and run the country without his interference or influence.  Read More →