TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent The beleaguered organizer of Miss Singapore World ERM World Marketing find itself stuck in another legal wrangle following the controversies it found itself embroiled in with the dethronement of its choice for the crown, Miss Ris Low after it was revealed in the media that she is on probation for credit card fraud. One of the main sponsors of the Miss Singapore World 2009 pageant,Young And Healthy has sent lawyers' letters to organiser ERM World Marketing.  In a press release, it said "has been affected in its business and suffered losses" due to the "uncertainty" over Ms Ris Low's replacement in next month's finals in South Africa. The beauty supplements company said there were "questions which needed to be answered", such as whether ERM knew of Ms Low's conviction for credit card fraud before it was reported in the press on September 25. The one-page statement ended with: "Our clients will weigh their options accordingly." One of the options, said Mr Loh, would be to sue ERM. Acting for the sponsor, Clifford Law had written to ERM last Friday, and extended the deadline for ERM's reply from Monday to Tuesday. The organiser has since replied through its lawyers, but Young And Healthy claimed their questions "were not answered". This year's Miss Singapore World has attracted public attention for all the wrong reasons. The winner Ris Low was criticized for her poor command of the English language before she relinquished the crown unceremoniouslty last week after a slew of negative press reports. Next, she accused first runner-up Miss Claire Lee for "faking" her back injury and leaking news about her probation to the press. Miss Lee has since clarified that she will not take part in the competition in December unless she is sued by ERM World. The replacement for Ris Low is still not found which left both the organizers and sponsors in limbo.  Read More →

From our Correspondent In a landmark verdict which will send reverberations throughout Singapore's political landscape, three leaders and two supporters of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) were acquitted in court yesterday of the charge of taking part in a procession without a valid permit on Sept 16, 2007. The SDP leaders were Mr Gandhi Ambalam, chairman; Mr John Tan, assistant secretary-general; and Ms Chee Siok Chin, central executive committee member. The supporters were Mr Yap Keng Ho and Mr Chong Kai Xiong. District Judge John Ng, in a written judgment, said he acquitted the five on the sole ground that he did not consider what they had done a 'procession'. 'The prosecution's position appears to be that so long as a group of five or more people walked from one point to another point in a public place to commemorate an event, the people in that group had participated in a procession for the purposes of the Act...I am not able to agree with such a simplistic interpretation of the word 'procession',' he wrote. The walk by the SDP five was held to mark the first anniversary of a similar protest planned for September 2006, when the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings were held in Singapore. The five who were wearing T-shirts with the words 'Democracy Now' and 'Freedom Now' with a picture of a lighted candle, had walked from the Speakers' Corner along North Bridge Road to Parliament House and then along Bras Basah Road to the Istana and then along Orchard Road to the Queenstown Remand Prison on 16 Sep 07. Judge Ng concluded: "I am fortified in my views when I consider that the principal [Miscellaneous Offences] Act and the Rules were meant to relate to offences against public order, nuisance and property. The walk which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians." The defendants maintain that taking part in processions and assemblies in Singapore is part of the fundamental rights of citizens provided for in the Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However Judge Ng had ruled that the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) under which the defendants had been charged was not unconstitutional. He wrote that "There was no basis for the defendants to attack the constitutionality of the legislation." SDP's Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan wrote on the SDP website that there's "nothing to be elated" about the Judge's decision. (read article here) Dr Chee wrote that Judge Ng misses the bigger point which is that the police will not approve any application for outdoor political activity. The defendants made this point their main contention. Nevertheless, Dr Chee conceded that it is a small yet significant concession. "Call this judgement a judicial baby-step if you will. But isn't it true that all things great always first happen with baby-steps?....What is absolutely clear, however, is that without challenge, the status quo will remain. I am reminded that failure does not come when we fall short, it comes when we don't try." he wrote. Dr Chee Soon Juan has been vilified and demonized by the state media for throughout the course of his chequered political career as being a "radical" who deliberately broke the nation's laws on many occasions. This is the first time that SDP members have been acquitted of a charge levelled against them by the state prosecutor. It is not known if the verdict will have a bearing on a similar case in which 18 SDP members and supporters are charged with the same offence in March 2008 when they marched to Parliament House to protest against rising cost of living. Three of the defendants - Mr Chia Ti Lik, Mr Ng E Jay and Mr Jeffrey George had earlier pleaded guilty due to work commitments. Though the judgement is a "baby step", it marks a significant breakthrough in SDP's epic struggle to fight for greater democracy, freedom and civil rights for Singaporeans. Despite being sued for defamation during the 2006 elections by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, SDP did not disintegrate as initially feared and has grown from strength to strength lately. The party has been actively reaching out to young Singaporeans through its popular website and social media tools like Facebook and Twitter. It has also relaunched its newsletter - the New Democrats in the four national languages of Singapore. The verdict will surely give a boost to SDP's fortunes and inspire other Singaporeans to join in their fight to challenge the status quo.  Read More →

From our Correspondent In less than a week since the Sale of Balanced Flats is launched by HDB, 12,700 applications have been filed for only 2,132 available flats - about six times oversubscribed! Analysts say applications could hit 20,000 when the process closes next Wednesday, making 10 bids for every available flat. The scheme was announced hastily by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan last week to quell public resentment and disgruntlement over rising prices of HDB flats. Previously, HDB has constantly maintained that HDB flats remain affordable to the masses and there is adequate supply of flats to meet the demand.     Source: HDB Infoweb] It is blatantly obvious from the above figures that the current supply of flats is insufficient to meet demands even at such high prices which smacks of poor planning and foresight on the part of the authorities. In an earlier report by ERA, it was revealed that 40 per cent of the buyers are permanent residents. Did HDB take into account the artificial increase in Singapore’s population in the last few years? The balanced flats are actually "leftover" flats from previous ballotting and flats repossessed by HDB for a variety of reasons such as default in mortage loans. As such, some of them are built more than 10 years ago and yet they command a price which is comparable to flats in the resale market. For example, the 29 available units of three-room flats cost between $244,000 and $ 262,000 and Queenstown between $302,000 and $308,00. These old flats probably cost much less than BTO flats to build years ago and HDB had already sold some of them in the first round to buyers. The ruling party has often trumpeted its achievements of enabling Singaporeans to own their homes. More than 85 per cent of the population live in public housing built by the government agency HDB. However, these are 99-year old leasehold flats whose sale and resale are subjected to a variety of conditions such as a minimum 5 year occupation period. Government leaders and HDB officials have insisted that the rising prices of flats helps to "create wealth" for Singaporeans. This prevailing misconception has been debunked by a research done by two NUS professors NUS professors Abeysinghe and Gu Jiaying showed clearly that “higher property prices, instead of creating a wealth effect, exert a significant and negative “price effect” on consumption expenditures leading to a fall in the average propensity to consume.” (read article here) As house prices go up, the increase in the value of housing assets is accompanied by a concurrent rise in the financial liabilities of households, in the form of higher downpayments for purchase of residential properties and burgeoning housing loans. The record high prices of both new and resale HDB flats have also brought to the key question whether they are sustainable in the long run and if a property bubble is in formation. As the prices of new flats are pegged to that of resale flats, their prices can be manipulated easily by limiting the supply of flats and ramping up the demand through immigration. Though there are calls from some quarters for HDB to release the full figures for the land and construction costs to justify its prices for the new flats, the statistics are unknown to this very day. A crude estimate made by Finance Consultant Mr Leong Sze Hian of the profits made by HDB has been circulating around cyberspace: “Since there will be 864 HDB flats, the average cost per flat, inclusive of communal amenities, site works and contingency works, is about $120,602 ($104.2 million divided by 864 flats). With the latest HDB new 4-room flats at Punggol (Punggol Residences BTO) selling at an average price of $293,000 (price range of $264,000 to $322,000 divided by 2), does it mean that the HDB stands to make a profit of about $172,398 per flat, or a profit margin of about 143 per cent?” [Source: Hardwarezone] As expected, HDB has refused to answer to these speculations about their "profit margin" so far. Their carefully crafted replies through the state media are almost always the same: "HDB flats are affordable because first-time flat buyers use 17 to 29 per cent of household income for their loans, below the international benchmark of 30 per cent." This simplistic answer fails to address the key concern of Singaporeans: will they have enough savings to cater for their retirement needs after paying for their housing loans at the end of the 30-year tenure?   Related articles: >> Number of applicants exceed number of flats >> HDB to increase supply of flats >> Mah: don’t compare with prices in the past >> ERA: 40 per cent of HDB flat buyers are PRs  Read More →