TR EMERITUS

By George Tan, Guest Columnist I received a TV Licence Payment Advice from MDA requiring me to cough up S$110 to pay for the annual fees a few days ago. Like any ordinary Singapore citizen, without wanting to argue why it is totally unnecessary for such fees to exist, I surrendered without a fight and went to look for a AXN machine near my house. As I dragged myself to pay, I read the payment advice more closely. The more I read, the more I think and the more I am upset.   First two highlights were that it is an offence to have a TV set at my premises without a valid TV licence. And authorised licensing officers would be conducting inspection for the presence of any TV set. Next were the late payment fees were $25 and penalties after late payment stage is $200 and above. At the back of the letter is a comic strip with the highlight of why the need for TV licence. The reason stated was that "Under the Broadcasting Act (Cap.28), it is be an offence to have a TV set at your house without a valid TV licence. Authorised licensing officers would be conducting checks on properties with no TV licence. A fine of $200 shall be imposed if a TV set is found at your home during inspection."   In the court of law, you are presume innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it is not true. If I buy a TV for home decoration and I don't watch TV programmes on it, why should I pay for a TV licence which is suppose to be licence for me to watch TV? So isn't licence like the car COE? As long as you buy a car, you must pay for the licence to own the car. After 10 years, you must buy the licence again. For the TV, its annual fees is $110 which means its 10 years fee is $1320. But the car is a choice, is the TV a choice? If the government wishes to speak to the people, can it do it if its people don't have TV? Furthermore, if I rented a place out to people, and those people bought a TV set, I would be fine for allowing a TV set in my house. But the point is that if i rented out the house without a TV set and on one fine day the tenants decides to buy a TV,  why should I be the one responsible?   Another thing. Authorised licensing officers can conduct inspecting for the presence of any TV set implies that they can search any house without a warrant. So if any licensing officers feels that on one fine day, they are irritated with hapless victim, they can go to anyone's house in Singapore and conduct a search. I should have taken note of such privileges when I was looking for a job. There are many people I would like to irritate if I have the power, boy would I want to get them.   The best part of the letter is this. The payment advice was sent to my new HDB flat whereas the TV licence fees is for my old flat which I handed back to HDB more than 6 months ago. As I last remember, a person isn't allowed to own two HDB flats in Singapore. And I have paid for the TV licence fees for my new house a few months ago. And looking at the address of the new flat, can't MDA conclude that I have moved and is therefore chasing after the wrong man? And can I sue them for causing undue stress for threatening to fine me for not paying up for something I am not responsible for on time? So what I am going to do is to call up MDA soon and tell them to go over to my old flat and search around for a TV. They can't sue me for asking them to learn from their mistakes, right?  Read More →

Original Blog Written by Lucky Tan HERE 在犯了世界上最大的投资错误和丢失了五百八十亿元($58B)纳税人的金钱以后，下一步并没有承认犯了差错和需要改正，反而揑造比较表现的报告去通知普通市民他们的投资表现胜过世界上有史以来最了不起的投资家Warren Buffett。 几年前，李玮玲教授(Professor Lee Wei Ling)发表了关于(童年的？) 诵读困难症 (dyslexia) 的演说，她一向是个诚实说出自己想法的人，因而提及她的父亲以前也有诵读困难(dyslexic)。 我认为她设法告听众这样一个小毛病并不妨碍患者后期的成就。 海峡时报的编辑允许此报导出版，次日全国便知道了伟大的领导人有这一点小毛病。 在许多其他国家，这故事将被认定为正面的报导，因为领导人是被视为与普通人并无太大分别的，除了他们有更大的欲望去服务和带领人民。 然而，在一个伟大的人和平凡的人(greater and lesser mortals) 有分别的国家这情况便不一样了。既然如此，海峡时报怎么减低损害(damage control)呢？ 他们不可能指李教授关于她父亲的事说了谎。 他们在第二天发表了一篇头版文章题为“爱因斯坦(Albert Einstein)诵读有困难” 和爱因斯坦的一张大图片去收拾这个残局。或许缺乏证据去证明爱因斯坦诵读有困难[链接]，但这并不紧要，因为整件事的目的是把我们的领导人视同本世纪的最伟大的天才。 ..... 他们用同一种想法去比较Warren Buffett与淡马锡(Temasek)的表现。哎呀，如果淡马锡比世界上最了不起的投资者还更好，我们大家便应该停止提出疑问，和对他们的良好工作表示一些赞赏，我们并且应该让PAP 政府去自我查核，因为我们平凡的人没有什么可以贡献政府..... 我们反复聴到的故事是关于新加坡的经济奇迹是由于领导人对新加坡的经济发展计划具有高瞻逺触(helicopter vision)的结果。 这些领导人的能力超出基本的能力范围，他们并且诚实…他们是有远见之士，并且实际上充满信心地去绘制新加坡的经济发展蓝图而迖至我们今天的成果。这‘伟大的成就’是他们高瞻逺触的计划的直接成果。 今天海峡时报发表一篇文章报导中国正在热卖关于新加坡的(或者是PAP的)政策和计划的畅销书本。 所有这些故事和报导使如下的神话得以永久流传：优越的领导人是新加坡成功的主要原因。 如果您回想在六十、七十和直到八十年代PAP实施了人口控制政策。 如果您参看那个时期的文件，导致这项政策的原因是他们害怕如果人口继续增长他们不可能创造足够的工作，因此他们迫使父母不要生养太多孩子。 如果PAP当年己构想并且计划了经济奇迹去扩展国家经济到今天的规模，他们为什么实施这项惨重的人口控制政策，最终导致进口劳工来解决现在的人口不足呢？ 从领导人和所有的人民来看，新加坡的成功是一场意外。这意外是一些偶然和聚合发生的原因所引致的结果。但他们现在编造故事宣传优越的领导人创造了这经济成果。遗忘了从七十年代直到九十年代差不多三十年的那一班世界第一级劳动群众的男和女：这班劳动群众从未举行罢工，愿意每天分三更工作，从未要求更好的薪水，对困难不退缩，是一班吸引亿万元国外投资的劳动群众。PAP夸大了它党领导人的优越，而且在PAP版本的新加坡的成功故事中几百万新加坡人的坚苦工作不值分文。 您从未听见任何PAP领导人提出普通新加坡人的坚苦工作在新加坡的成功故事中扮演了一个重要的角色。 PAP的问题是它相信了自己的神话，并且设法把他们的做法移植到中国苏州从而证明这神话可信。他们完全恶魔般地设法用纳税人的金钱来证明这神话： PAP领导人(的政策和计划)可以在其他地方运作，而不需要新加坡人出力，意即表示新加坡人与成功无关。不幸地(从PAP来看)，中国人有其他的想法，他们开始建立他们自己的工业园来吸引更多投资并且快速地增长。在新加坡财团降低了股权并且在中国人接管了之后，苏州工业园才开始挣钱… 但这故事被编造为新加坡的‘软件’的成功[链接]可以在任何地方运作..... PAP想要证明普通的新加坡人并不重要而且成功的关键只在于PAP的政策和计划。这个神话现在驱使了所有的政策：帮助创造新加坡奇迹的几代工人现在被要求更艰苦和更长期地工作，而无法有体面地去退休。 PAP领导人自己支付了天文数字的薪金，然而许多新加坡人的收入下跌至紧及第三世界的水平。 . 在2009年5月，李总理谈及三个分割 (divide)新加坡的空隙(gaps)：外来人才、收入差距、和多元种族 [链接]。 他忽略了在新加坡最重要的空隙：领导人和普通人之间的空隙。这伟大的人和平凡的人之间的空隙、是一个由神话和幻觉所驱使的危险空隙，它对政策的制定产生了一种不平衡状态，无视真相(只看见编造的故事)和防碍新加坡发展至近似如下的理想：‘一个民主的社会建立在正义和平等之上’。 如果新加坡要持续发展，我们将需要诚实的和愿意做正当事的领导人，并且深信我们国家承诺(national pledge)的领导人。  Read More →

By Carolyn Hong from The Straits Times Malaysia's pro-Malay economic policies were never meant to be only about Malay corporate ownership, but the focus inevitably narrowed to just this one aspect. It was seen as a litmus test for any leader who wanted to signal reforms in a highly politicised economy. Thus, when Prime Minister Najib Razak removed the longstanding quota on Malay ownership of public-listed companies yesterday, along with a wide swathe of liberalisation measures, it was an extremely bold move - and a huge political risk. Companies will no longer have to sell at least 30 per cent of their shares to Malays. Instead, they will have to maintain at least 25 per cent of their shares for sale to the general public, of which half must be sold to Malays. The aim is to distribute wealth more widely. For a long time, it was the politically connected Malay businessmen who became rich on the quotas, causing resentment among the Malay masses and the minorities. Datuk Seri Najib's move has been described as a seismic shift in Malaysia's economic policy. 'Indeed, the measures represent the beginning of a mindset change that is bound to excite investors, stimulate the economy and inspire the people to be even more competitive,' Malaysian Chinese Association president Ong Tee Keat wrote in his blog. The economists have largely hailed it, although most say the effects would not be immediate. Mr Lee Heng Guie, the chief of economic research at CIMB, said the dismantling of policies that had hampered investments will put Malaysia on a better footing for sustained growth in the medium and long term. Mr Najib had earlier also announced the liberalisation of 27 sub-sectors of the services sector, and financial sector. There is bound to be some disquiet on the Malay ground, although most Umno politicians are sticking to the party line for now. Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin told The Straits Times that there has been a bit of rumbling among the Malays because the grassroots members do not understand the big picture yet. 'It can be easily manipulated to say that the Malays are losing out. We will give an explanation to our members,' he said. To him, the change may be seismic in terms of the psychology of it, but the Prime Minister was merely getting rid of old tools that did not work. The Malays, Mr Khairy said, should understand that the overarching Malay agenda was still in place, but a new method was being fashioned to achieve it. He pointed out that participation through quotas did not develop capacity or skills. Leakages were serious, making millionaires of the few who were allotted shares. Mr Najib said that of the RM54 billion (S$22 billion) in shares allocated between 1984 and 2005, only RM2 billion worth of shares were left in the hands of bumiputeras. Umno MPs like Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir, Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman and Datuk Jamaluddin Jarjis were quoted by the online media as saying that the new model could break the stagnation of Malay economic participation. Another Umno MP, Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed, too said the initial reaction on the ground was not good, but he said people needed to understand the pressures of global competition. Source: Straits Times  Read More →