TR EMERITUS

1. Someone said that Hyflux incurred large losses on their overseas projects on on underquoting for the supply of water in the Tuaspring project. 2. Hyflux invested in the following overseas project Tianjin Dagang Newspring - loan of $121 million taken from a China bank Oman Quarayyat IWP - $250 m project awarded to Hyflax Hydrochem Saudi - $72 million awareded to Hyflux The total investment by Hyflux in these three overseas projects was $450 SGD. There are no information about the losses, if any. If we assume that the loss is 20%, it would amount to $100 million. 3. Hyflux invested $1,300 million in the Tuaspring project. The book value was reported to be $1,470 million. I guess that interest and management expenses must be added to the original project cost. The water plant was handed to the Public Utilities Board for free, on the termination of the long term water agreement. The power plant was sold to the Francis Yeoh of the YTL group for $270 million. Hyflux incurred a loss of over $1,000 million on Tuaspring. 4. If Hyflux had underquoted for the water that is provided under the long term contract, how much would that be? Hyflux was awarded a 25 year contract to produce 318,500 cubic meters of water a day at $0.45 pcm. The total contract value is $52 million a year of $1,300 million over 25 years. If Hyflux had underquoted by 20% for the production of water, the loss would be $10 million a year or $250 million over 25 years. 5. From the above information, I conclude as follows: a) The loss (if any) on the overseas contracts would be less than $100 million. b) The loss (if any) from underquoting of the water price would be less than $250 million c) The bulk of the loss could be attributed to the generation of electricity at a time when the price had collapsed due to oversupply.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

Recently the PAP have made use yet again, in a typically arbitrary high-handed and arrogant manner of their authoritarian POFMA law. LHL and his Government find this a brilliant tool to intimidate Singaporeans and stop them from questioning obvious discrepancies or piercing the veil of secrecy that shrouds the reserves and the Budget. Despite my relentless questioning of Government fabrications and accounting tricks to hide money and the true state of the finances, I have never been POFMA’ed which would suggest that I am getting close to the truth and that answering me might open a can of worms since they would be obliged to provide more information. Instead they ignore me because they know I will not be intimidated and nothing will induce me to shut up. I will keep on asking questions until I get answers. This time the POFMAs were issued because the individuals (including the ex-chief economist at GIC) had asked why HDB BTO flats are not priced using the original acquisition cost of the land plus the construction costs. Since the majority of this land was “acquired”, a euphemism if there was ever one, by the Government for a tiny fraction of its true value back in the 1960s and 1970s, the true cost of new BTO flats (most of which constitutes land cost) is much lower than the supposedly “market” price the HDB sells the flats for. Some of the individuals from whom the land was expropriated were extremely wealthy but many were not, including small holders who lost their farms and were forced to live in relative poverty. Many in the Opposition have asked going back at least a couple of decades why the Government does not simply price the cost of BTO flats at the original book value of the land plus the cost of construction. The Government’s standard retort, most recently by Sim Ann and in the form of the message that those POFMA’ed were forced to carry as well as on the Government website (Un)Factually.sg, is that for the Government to charge anything less than market price for the land would be deplete the reserves and thus shortchange future generations. I have always found this argument to be disingenuous since if the Government was concerned about future generations of Singaporeans it would do a lot more to provide support to families and make education free up to tertiary level so that younger generations had the best possible start in life. Rather than help disadvantaged Singaporeans the PAP have always preferred to offer scholarships to talented foreigners who are then invited to work here and become citizens without having to do NS, and to welcome FTs with mediocre degrees who similarly enjoy low taxes and no NS obligations. But in any case talking about a “market” price is nonsense when the Government owns nearly 90% of the land and a similar proportion of Singaporeans live in public housing. With a nearly complete monopoly the “market” price is wherever the Government chooses to set it. So why does the Government not set the price of land lower or at least set it at a level that would mean that HDB would not make a loss every year? HDB’s loss is This necessitates the Government, or to be precise the Ministry of National Development (MND,) providing a grant every year ($4,4 billion in 2022) to HDB. Why artificially make a loss by requiring HDB to pay the “market” price for land which it purchases from the Government and which the Government paid next to nothing for in the first place. The answer came to me after I spent some time pondering this question. As usual the PAP put up a smoke and mirrors misdirection to confuse and bamboozle Singaporeans. Having HDB overpay for the land. using a market price that is meaningless when the Government controls the supply, and then having the MND reimburse HDB for its loss through the Budget, provides a conduit by which revenues from taxes like GST and income tax is “spent” buying the land for a second time after it was originally bought when the land was acquired, or rather expropriated, from its original owners. The money thus spent represents part of the Past Reserves and can then be channelled to Temasek and GIC, which are controlled by the PM and, at least until recently, his wife, and which are not accountable to Parliament for their performance. This sleight of hand just represents one among the many fake accounting tricks and potentially outright fraud that the Government to keep resources out of the hands of what it regards as undeserving Singaporeans and to argue constantly for the need for taxes to rise. I have highlighted several of them in the past including the Net Investment Reserves Contribution which in many years has gone straight into long term funds of which only a small fraction is spent every year, contributions from long term funds and endowments that mysteriously appear again under current expenditures to be set against current revenues and mysteriously exponentially rising healthcare (and also education) expenditures which also are set against current revenues in the Budget while at the same time fees collected from Singaporeans by the privatised MOH Holdings are not shown and may also be channelled directly to Temasek and GIC. This, along with overpayment for land, may be one way the Government disguises losses by our sovereign wealth funds and keeps up the facade that they are making if not great at least acceptable returns. I admit it always puzzled me when Tharman and then my old Cambridge colleague, Heng Swee Keat (of the East Coast Plan), waxed lyrical about the generous subsidies given to Singaporeans for housing, healthcare and education and contrasting this with democratic countries with proper social safety nets. There are no real subsidies, just the Government making you overpay or pay twice for what you already own and diverting the money into unaccountable private companies managed by people, including the PM’s wife, PAP connected persons and relatives as well as a whole army of foreign sycophants and brown nosers, whose salaries you as a lower class peasant are not entitled to know, while making it look as though there are no resources available to help you with the problems you face. Singaporeans are perpetually putting money into the but no money ever seems to come out. If that is not the perfect Ponzi scheme, I do not know what is. If I do not get POFMA’ed for this blog then you will know I am right.   Kenneth Jeyaretnam   I’m a Singaporean economist who became an opposition activist. I blog to provide an alternative to the porkies that the Pinkies tell. It just so happens that my alternative is the truth. That’s why I’ve never been sued in any civil or criminal court no matter how hard hitting my criticism. I’m quoted and interviewed and asked to speak across the world but largely censored in Singapore in an effort to silence my political opinions. The left hate me because they think I split their vote and because I eschew their outmoded economic models. Models that don’t work. The Right and the Conservatives hate me because I’m a liberal. I’m not sure what the middle think of me. I don’t think there are more than a handful of people in the middle, here in Singapore. I’m a Singaporean born and bred, dual heritage, my parents Singaporean established here before the State of Singapore was created. I’m not Eurasian. I read economics at Cambridge and could be broadly described as from the Keynesian school but I believe in interventions. I was formerly a successful hedge fund manager. After economics and politics my greatest interests are history, film and Makan. I run but I run so I can eat like a Singaporean.      Read More →

On 11 January 2023, the media reported that in October 2022, the Internal Security Department (ISD) arrested and imprisoned Mohamed Khairul Riduan bin Mohamed Sarip, a 38-year-old teacher, under the Internal Security Act (ISA). It took the Ministry of Home Affairs three months to inform Singaporeans that he had been detained. Mohamed Khairul Riduan was not the only person arrested and imprisoned last year. Two others were similarly arrested and today languish in prison without trial. They are Radjev Lal s/o Madan Lal, a 29-year-old Mover in a logistic company and Mohamed Hassan bin Saynudin, a 48-year-old man alleged to be a member of the Singapore Jemaah Islamyah network. He had returned from another country where he had served a jail term and was presumably arrested at Changi Airport. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) does not inform the public about the number of prisoners they are holding without trial under the ISA. Written requests to reveal statistics do not even elicit an acknowledgement. It is like the ministry is so very, very busy that it has no time to practise courtesy even while it expects others to respect them. But according to my record, there are today about 15 prisoners confined to tiny cells in the Changi Prison Complex. Three of the 15 have been in prison since 2001/2002 a very long period of 20 years. They were arrested at the time the Twin Towers were destroyed, and the whole world was up at arms against the poor Muslims. Today’s detention of ISA prisoners is no longer the same as the days of our colonial master. In those days, I am told, selected prisoners enjoyed the luxury of St John’s Island and bungalows along Changi Beach. Those imprisoned in the old Changi Prison lived in halls and were allowed to be together to organise daily activities such as language classes and take turns cooking meals in the communal kitchen. But there were, I am also told, heated cells located above burning ovens to punish so-called “communists” in the hope that they would go insane. According to the memoir of Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff, an Australian PhD student who was imprisoned from 2016 to 2020, they are today confined to tiny hot concrete cells in the Changi Prison Complex and treated like convicted prisoners. They sleep on mats and are monitored by CCTV cameras 24 hours. They are also denied reading materials and are not permitted to meet other prisoners. In solitary confinement for 24 hours, their fate is as bad as death row prisoners who, I am told, are subjected to inhuman treatment. Even family members who visit them are deliberately made to suffer indignity. I don’t understand why the prison authority treats prisoners and their families so badly. Why are ISA prisoners treated so harshly when they have not been tried in open court and convicted of any offence? The British though evil, allowed them to live in communities and share communal lives. Why cannot the PAP treat them humanely? The Whitley Detention Centre was built and gazetted as a prison in the 1970s. Unlike Changi Prison under the British, communal halls do not exist. Three types of cells are known. The first is the Punishment Cell which is bare concrete with a cement block for a bed. The space is just sufficient for one prisoner to sleep in. The second type of cell contains two cement blocks for beds and presumably can punish two prisoners. There are ventilation gaps at the top. The third type of cell is proudly referred to by ISD officers as the “Shangrila suite”. This is a big cell that can accommodate many prisoners. Half the cell opens to the sky. Compared to today’s single cells within the Changi Prison Complex, Whitley is a luxury. I don’t know if the Justices of Peace, whose duties include visits to prisons, have ever visited ISA prisoners today. If they do, they are perhaps under oaths of secrecy, and the public will never know what is happening there. Singapore boasts of a government which respects the Rule of Law. If this is true, how is it that they imprison people without trial under so many laws – the ISA, Misuse of Drugs Act, Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act and the provisions that allow the prison authority to lock up prisoners in mental institutions at the President’s pleasure? Do we have independent bodies like the International Red Cross to check how these poor prisoners are kept? What rehabilitation programmes do the prisoners undergo? Why is it that at least three ISA prisoners are still imprisoned for 20 years? Will they ever be released? I think Singaporeans have to spare a thought about how our government treat people who have the misfortune of being accused of national security crimes. Do they have evidence to prove that they are terrorists and deserve to be locked away for decades?   Teo Soh Lung      Read More →