TR EMERITUS

An all-Singapore podium for the table tennis women's singles: Feng (Gold), Yu (Silver) and Lin (Bronze). (Photo AFP). Eight times Australian National Champion and Commonwealth Games Men's Singles silver medalist (2006), William Henzell, has hit out at the Singapore table tennis team, claiming they tarnish the spirit of the Commonwealth Games by "stacking their squad with Chinese players" [Link]. Henzell lost 15-7 11-6 9-11 11-7 11-6 to Singapore's Gao Ning in his quarter-final match at the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow yesterday (1 Aug). PRC-born Gao was the top seed in the men's singles draw. He was hailed from Hebei province of China and given Singapore citizenship later to represent Singapore. Gao won a gold medal as a team member plus silver medals in the men's singles and men's doubles at the last 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. Henzell accused Singapore of bringing a "professional team" to Glasgow that was largely made up of PRC-born players. "I don't think what Singapore does is in the spirit of the Games," Henzell said. "It's disappointing to see." Henzell said that Singapore only had two "token" Singaporeans in their team - Clarence Chew and Isabelle Li - while the rest were all hailed from China. "They decided it was much easier and quicker to buy a team rather than produce a team," he said. A spokesperson for the Singaporean table tennis team declined to comment. According to information from the 2014 Commonwealth Games website [Link], Australia also has PRC-born players in its table tennis team but not as many as what Singapore has: Australia Table Tennis Team (50% PRC-born) Melissa Tapper (Australia) William Henzell (Australia) Kane Townsend (Australia) Heming Hu (Australia) David Powell (Australia) Zhenhua Dederko (Shanghai) Jian Fang Lay (Wenzhou) Miao Miao (Tianjin) Ziyu Zhang (Shijiazhuang) Xin Yan (Xi'an)   Singapore Table Tennis Team (80% PRC-born) Isabelle Li (Singapore) Clarence Chew (Singapore) Gao Ning (Hebei) Zhan Jian (Wuhan) Yang Zi (Beijing) Li Hu (Hebei) Feng Tianwei (Heilongjiang) Yu Mengyu (Liaoning) Zhou Yihan (Liaoning) Lin Ye (Liaoning) Er Dr Lee Bee Wah Meanwhile, it was a clean sweep for Singapore in the table tennis women's singles tournament at the Commonwealth Games yesterday (1 Aug). All 3 medals, gold, silver and bronze, went to the PRC-born Singapore players. Singapore's top female paddler Feng Tianwei comfortably beat her compatriot Yu Mengyu in the final 11-7, 11-8, 11-9, 10-12, 11-2. In the bronze medal match, Singapore's Lin Ye beat Australia's Lay Jian Fang 11-5, 11-4, 11-7, 11-7 to ensure an all-Singapore podium for the table tennis women's singles. "I'm really happy I could defend my title after winning in Delhi," said Feng. STTA President and MP Lee Bee Wah must be very proud of her PRC-born players.    Read More →

JB Toll Increase The Causeway to Malaysia I wish to thank LTA for single-handedly contributing further to Singapore’s already astronomical cost of living because numbskull policy makers cannot understand basics of politics within a geopolitical zone. You fired the first salvo to increase vehicle entry fees citing factors correlating to local vehicle costs so that road use cost is more equitably shared between foreign and local vehicles.  This is pure stupid and foolish. Imagine creating a policy to enact costs just to make road usage costs more equitable for foreigners. Then the lack of consideration as to how this will play out may have also have missed the attention of the dumb nitwits at LTA. The businessmen who drive will pass on costs to consumers in one way or another. The logistic transport costs will directly pass on the costs to the wholesalers here in Singapore. So the end result – further inflation of goods, especially food. Then you have the daily working group commuters. Both Malaysians and Singaporeans alike will be hit hard given that Malaysia has increased their toll and will be charging a vehicle entry permit. I will not be surprised if Singapore side increases the toll too as there is supposed to be correlated policy for  toll fees that was previously reported. All in all, the poor consumer suffers, the poor public suffers. Not the governments who use taxpayers money to build the infrastructure, not the businessmen who will find ways and means to recover costs back, but the general working community will pay for this. I am not sure if this episode has been purposely acted out by both governments. But surely with LTA firing the first salvo, it shows the kind of dumb, narrow minded, self-conceited, short sighted nitwits and numbskulls helming the highest echelon of government agencies today who cannot think outside of $$$ behind any policy crafted out. Singaporean *  Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

I refer to the article “CPF launches study to quiz 25,000 residents on health and retirement needs” (Straits Times, Jul 30). Considering study since early last year? It states that “The study’s launch comes after much recent discussion about whether CPF funds are enough for people’s retirement needs, prompted in part by blogger Roy Ngerng’s May 15 post, which alleged that the Government “misappropriated” CPF savings. But The Straits Times understands that the authorities had been considering having such a study from as early as last year.” - Why did it take more than one and a half years to say for the first time that there is such a study, since “the authorities had been considering having such a study from as early as last year”? First time do study? According to the CPF web site – “Many developed and developing countries have implemented similar longitudinal studies on retirement and health.” - Is this the first time in 49 years that the CPF Board is conducting a study? If so, why did it take so long, since “Many developed and developing countries have implemented similar longitudinal studies on retirement and health”? $75 vouchers per respondent? As to “Market research firm The Nielsen Company will conduct face-to-face interviews and ask respondents to fill up a questionnaire, which takes 1½  to two hours to complete. Respondents stand to receive supermarket vouchers worth $50 when they complete an interview, and even their spouses can get vouchers worth $25.” - Does it mean that the costs of the vouchers alone may be about $1,875,000 (25,000 times $75 vouchers)? Study cost tens of millions? The costs of employing the interviewers and travel to and from the homes of the respondents may be in the millions, as well as the costs of engaging the private survey research firm. With regard to “And it is a longitudinal study: A participant will be polled once every two years over 10 years” - the costs may be repeated 5 times over 10 years. So, what is the total costs of the study? Tens of millions? Will this be paid by CPF members or taxpayers, since the CPF Board is doing the study? Still no transparency and accountability? Arguably, what’s the point of doing such an expensive and very long study (10 years), when there is still no transparency and accountability on our CPF – when the following remain unanswered or un-addressed?: 1)         Why is it that whilst it was only recently disclosed that our CPF funds have been managed by the GIC – but a former Manpower Minister replied in Parliament in 2007 that the GIC does not manage CPF funds, and a former Prime Minister also said that there is no link between the GIC and CPF funds? 2)         What is the GIC’s returns from inception, since we now know that CPF funds have always been managed by the GIC? 3)         What is the average weighted interest on all CPF accounts, yearly, since the extra 1% on the first $60,000 was only effected on 1 January 2008? 4)         What is the average weighted interest on the Ordinary and Special Accounts (excluding the Medisave Account) since Medisave cannot be used as retirement funds? 5)         What is the cumulative excess returns (GIC’s rate minus CPF average weighted interest) in absolute dollars that CPF members have lost over the years? 6)         What is the percentage of all Singaporeans (active and inactive CPF members, self-employed) who reached age 55 last year, who were able to meet the combined CPF and Medisave Minimum Sums of $198,500, since both minimum sums must now (effective 1 January 2013) be met before CPF members can withdraw the excess in their accounts? 7)         What is the cumulative surplus (including accrued interest) on MediShield since its inception – now that it was recently disclosed that the excess of premiums to claims in the last 5 years alone, was $2.3 billion? 8)         Since it was recently disclosed that Singaporeans have used 55% of their CPF for housing – What is the percentage of their CPF (including accrued interest) that Singaporeans have used in buying the most expensive public housing in the world? The right study? Perhaps it may be more useful to conduct a study as to why there is still no transparency and accountability on our CPF?   Leong Sze Hian P.S. Come with your family and friends to the National Day protest on 9 August 12 pm to 6.00 pm at Speakers’ Corner   https://www.facebook.com/events/271583499702725/   Leong Sze Hian Leong is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, has authored 4 books, quoted over 1500 times in the media , has been host of a money radio show, a daily newspaper column, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow, columnist for Malaysiakini, executive producer of the movie Ilo Ilo (26 international awards). He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at www.leongszehian.com    Read More →