TR EMERITUS

I refer to the article “S’pore has an edge in grooming leaders: MM – A robust system is in place here to groom a new generation of leaders” (ST, Oct 6). Grooming leaders – MPs? So, what has grooming the next generation of leaders got to do with members of Parliament (MPs) writing to the Straits Times forum? MP wrote to newspaper to apologise? Well, MP for Tampines GRC, Sin Boon Ann, wrote to the Straits Times forum on 3 October, “MP now convinced CPF funds don’t come cheap” (link) and said that: “… it was reported that I used the word ‘cheap’ to describe CPF monies as a source of funds for the Government, in the debate in Parliament on CPF reforms. I wish to clarify that my choice of the word was motivated by a comparison between the cost of CPF monies to the Government and the returns that the Government is able to get in the longer term through careful fund management… I should emphasise that the word was not chosen, as some may have suggested, to imply that the Government was making money at the people’s expense. I am glad to note that your newspaper had accurately reported my remark that any income derived from such investments has been applied for the benefit of the people of Singapore. Having considered carefully the explanation of the Second Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, I am now satisfied and have come to the conclusion that the CPF monies, with risk-free interest guaranteed, do not represent a cheap source of funds to the Government, particularly now that the interest rate on the CPF balances has been pushed higher by the recent changes.” MP said in Parliament – why CPF returns so low? In this connection, another MP’s (Ong Kian Min) speech in the Parliamentary debate on CPF changes, was the “talk of the town” amongst Singaporeans. He had made a strong rebuttal to the proposed CPF changes, particularly on the issue of why the returns on CPF are so low. Another MP wrote to newspaper to apologise? On 27 September, Mr Ong wrote to the Straits Times forum, to clarify the remarks he had made in Parliament. From rarely refreshing speeches from the heart for the people by the MPs, to the (27 September) “apology like” letters in the Straits Times by the same MPs themselves – is it any wonder why some Singaporeans say that Parliamentary debate in Singapore is kind of docile, and not very lively? Self rebuttals of MPs own remarks in Parliament? The letters sounded almost like “self rebuttals” of the MPs’ own remarks in Parliament! Unprecedented in Parliamentary history? This I believe is unprecedented in Parliamentary history. Just when we thought a new era of more open debate had arrived …. alas ….. Speaking up in Parliament? It may indeed be a sad day for Singapore – who else will ever dare to speak up in the future? What message are we sending to MPs and Singaporeans? What kind of leaders are we grooming? With reference to the articles “PAP wary of those too eager to please” and “In search of 4th-generation leaders” (ST, Oct 6), what kind of leaders are we grooming when they have to write to the Straits Times forum to clarify their own rebuttals in Parliament in debating national issues? The Whip? The fact that the whip is seldom lifted, may be a stumbling block to diversity and alternative view points in Parliamentary sessions. As for the issue of CPF changes itself, since it has been said that the CPF system is flawed, and that’s why there is a need for a major reform of the CPF system now, how can we be so sure that the current proposals to fix the “flaw” are perfect? The past policies were not perfect (flawed), how can we be sure that the new policies are perfect (not flawed too)? Free and unfettered debate in Parliament? Only a free and unfettered debate in Parliament can ensure that policies are subject to comprehensive and diverse review, on a continuing basis. P.S. Come with your family and friends to the 3rd Return Our CPF – HDB protest on 23 August 4 pm to 6.30 pm at Speakers’ Corner             https://www.facebook.com/events/648543138548193/   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 →

Despite repeated demands by lawyers acting for deceased engineer Shane Todd's family, two pieces of evidence which the family believes to be crucial to finding out the real cause of Shane's death were destroyed by the Singapore authorities. American engineer Shane Todd was working for Singapore's Institute of Microelectronics when his body was found hanging in his Singapore apartment in June, 2012. Even though the state coroner had concluded in July, 2013 that Shane's death was caused by "asphyxia due to hanging" and ruled out foul play, Shane's parents, Mary and Rick Todd insist that their son was murdered and there was a cover-up. The Todds believe that their son was murdered after he was asked to compromise U.S. security by revealing secrets to a Chinese company, and that the crime scene was staged to make it appear like suicide. As such, even though they had left Singapore early during the coroner's inquiry, they retained the services of a local law firm to ask local authorities to hand over two pieces of evidence which were seized by the Singapore police during its investigation. The two pieces of evidence which the Todds had wanted the authorities to hand over were a hand-made noose and a towel that were found around Shane's neck when his body was discovered hanging on the bathroom door of his apartment. Both the noose and the towel contained the DNA of two unknown persons, according to reports done by Singapore police, but no further testing was done by authorities to determine whose DNA it was, said Mary. Rick and I wanted the towel and the strap returned to us in order to do what the SPF [Singapore Police Force] should have done in the first place -- to test the...DNA (on the items).. we have ample evidence that our son was murdered, but the towel and the strap were the only DNA evidence in Shane's case, and now they have been destroyed forever. Lawyers acting for the Todds have been writing to the authorities for months demanding for the return of the two items as they belonged to Shane, but it was rejected by the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC). In its reply to lawyers acting for the Todds, the AGC said that it is "normal protocol" for items used in hanging cases to be 'forfeited to the state for disposal'. The family was reportedly asked to explain why it wanted the items returned, but this was turned down by the lawyers acting for the family. In law, there is no reason to explain why you want your property back. It's like justifying to a robber why you want your belongings returned. Sheer chutzpah. It's the family's by right. Meanwhile, the Todds have received written confirmation from local authorities that the two items which they wanted returned have been destroyed. Shane Todd died under disputed circumstances in Singapore in June 2012. His family insists that he was murdered, possibly in connection with the work he had been doing at the Institute of Micro Electronics involving a gallium nitride based semiconductor amplifying device for the Chinese telecom company Huawei (which has been declared a threat to U.S. national security by the House Intelligence Committee). Both companies subsequently denied that their work had progressed beyond the discussion stage. Ex-colleagues of Shane Todd also testified that there had been no such collaborations.   Related: Search TRE  Read More →

ST published an article today (25 Jul) from Devadas Krishnadas, CEO of consultancy Future-Moves Group, which provides advisory services and solutions on risk management and strategic planning to organisations. In the article, he asked how Singaporeans would respond if an SQ flight was shot down instead of MH17. Mr Krishnadas wrote, "For ourselves as Singaporeans, we may feel some relief at our good fortune. But perhaps we can also spend some time to pause and reflect on what it would mean if it had been an SIA aircraft that had been shot down and if many of the passengers had been Singaporeans." "How would our Government have responded? How would our people have reacted?" he asked. Mr Krishnadas thinks that the quality of a country’s response to a tragedy is not only a function of the crisis management efforts of the government but the reaction and conduct of the people. With regard to the MH17 incident, he praised the Malaysians and the Dutch for supporting their Governments. Mr Krishnadas said, "The Malaysian people have been supportive of their government’s actions and, broadly speaking, have been understanding of the difficulties and challenges it is facing in responding to the event." "The Dutch people have been shaken but have stayed calm, despite losing the most in the casualty list from MH17, while their government has been restrained but firm in its response. The Dutch and the Malaysians deserve not only our sympathy but respect for how they have respectively conducted themselves as a people and as a government in relation to this unexpected tragedy," he added. Turning to Singaporeans, he noted that many Singaporeans these days appear to "hold unrealistically high expectations" of their political leaders and the public bureaucracy, and are "prone to criticising and perpetuating criticism of the government". "Whatever the divides or disappointments during normal times, it would not do well for us to continue in the same vein when the country faces a tragedy or confronts an existential shock," he said. "I can't help but wonder whether Singaporeans would pull together and rally behind their leadership. Would we be able to constrain our high expectations and face realistically the challenges inherent in dealing with a tragedy so far away and in such a conflicted space? Or would there be brickbats aplenty?" he asked. He said that without the backing of the people, the government would be "fighting a war on two fronts" - the crisis itself and domestic criticism and harping "from an impatient and insistent people". In such a scenario, no government can bring full focus to bear or have complete self-confidence in its handling of the crisis, he said. ST then posted the following questions on its Facebook page [Link]: In the wake of the Malaysia Airlines MH17 crash, columnist Devadas Krishnadas asks: What if it was a Singapore Airlines plane that was shot down, and many of the passengers Singaporeans? How would our Government have responded? How would our people have reacted? Surprisingly, instead of giving answers to the questions, many netizens were pouring cold water on Mr Krishnadas for writing the piece and ST for publishing it: Chung Chiang Shiao: There will be very little our government can do. Just look at what happened when we called for penalising the culprits behind the haze. Dhiah Rahmat: What kind of sicko is that to even think of such things to happen? It's better to think how to prevent such things from happening! Ronald Ko: He must be a PR from Malaysia. Collin Chan: Article contents totally irrelevant to the MH17 crash Kenneth Teo Kian Hao: Stupid Solomon Peter: I guz we got bigger problems in Singapore for Singaporeans to worry abt ...than to speculate a plane crash.... Pravin Casthri Choy Choy Choy... David Wong: It is pointless to go into the "coulda, woulda, shoulda.." type of thinking. They are usually done by losers. James Chtay: this is cashing-in on others misfortune! Tevan Teva: Wat a silly question.. Paul Alan: Stupidly wit ultra stupid statements Suresh Sadasivan: How would ST have reacted? Kelvin Emmanuel Ng: It's a good question but a terrible article tt seems to say a lot but reads like a PR piece written by a Risk Consultant marketing his business... 2 cents மோஹன் Mohan: Everyone not free to answer Devadas question. He too free My Wish Lah Must be FT lah... what if it was Air India? And one netizen said: Kathy Ng Seven: Well written, but unnecessarily bring up subjects at a wrong time, instead of encouraging Singaporeans to be more united, it has put Singaporeans down, a lead should never put anyone down at anytime. Instead of praising others of their great deeds, now arouse unnecessary arguments among countries and people. Spend ur talent on writing something positive to praise others and encourage ur own people. What about TRE readers? How would you react to Mr Krishnadas/ST's questions?    Read More →