TR EMERITUS

This is what Tharman said about your CPF savings, ‘Singaporeans who wonder if their CPF monies are safe can rest assured, because their CPF savings are backed by a govt that has substantial assets in excess of its liabilities’. In the same line of thinking, the Americans need not worry about the debts they owed to the whole world as they are backed by substantial assets in excess of their liabilities, ie the land from LA to New York and Chicago to Houston. When forced to pay up, they could sell their aircraft carriers and their nuclear arsenals. Or they could sell the Rocky Mountains as well. Similarly the Greece govt need not file for bankruptcy. They could sell their islands, the ancient ruins and whatever. Are we supposed to feel assured by this kind of statements and this kind of asset backings? Would we be comfortable if the CPF money is gone and the govt starts to patch up the holes by selling the power stations, the heritage sites, SIA, DBS etc etc if the Net Investment Returns Contribution(NIRC) is not enough. Oops, I forgot, we have many billions or trillions of reserves to take on the first charge. OK, OK, now I am feeling quite assured. At worst, just sell a few islands or the whole island. But this is hardly possible as it is impossible to lose so much that we need to sell the whole country right? We have so many valuable assets to sell just in case. Our CPF have a lot of assets to back it up, very very safe.   Chua Chin Leng aka redbean * The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenew.blogspot.com        Read More →

The Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) released the Auditor-General’s Report for the Financial Year 2013/14 last week (17 Jul). This year’s report which was submitted by Auditor-General Willie Tan Yoke Meng to President Tony Tan on 1 Jul and presented to Parliament on (15 Jul), highlighted lapses in the administration of grants, schemes and programmes, as well as instances of weak management of resources which resulted in wastage. Among the ministries and statutory boards cited were the Ministry of Defence, Central Provident Fund Board, National Library Board, Media Development Agency, National Parks Board and National Environment Agency. In the case of National Environment Agency (NEA), AGO caught NEA officials not doing their jobs properly. NEA is supposed to conduct inspections on stallholders to ensure that they comply with NEA's tenancy conditions for the subsidized hawker stalls. In particular, stallholders of subsidised stalls are required to attend to their stalls personally and are not allowed to sublet them to others. But in reality, certain number of subsidized stallholders do secretly sublet their stalls out to make money from rentals. Following complaints received, AGO decided to check on NEA's inspections. AGO carried out test checks on NEA's inspections of subsidized hawker stalls and found that NEA has been lax in doing its job. It found inadequate follow-up by NEA officials with stallholders who might have breached tenancy conditions. From Jan to Mar last year, NEA's inspection records for 1,016 subsidized stalls showed that 235 (23.1%) of the stalls did not have the stallholders themselves manning the stalls or were closed, during NEA's consecutive inspections. AGO found the following inadequacies in NEA's checks and follow-ups: NEA did not take adequate follow-ups on 142 of the 235 stalls and in 23 of these 142 cases, the stalls had remained closed or the stallholders were absent during 9 consecutive inspections by NEA. For the remaining 93 of the 235 stalls which NEA had issued letters to the stallholders asking for explanations, AGO observed that in 60 of the 93 cases, the stallholders continued to be missing during NEA's subsequent inspections. "This is an indication that NEA's follow-up actions were ineffective," AGO said. In one hawker centre, AGO even caught NEA not inspecting 8 subsidised stalls for 9 months even though the NEA officials are required to do so every month. It's not known why these 8 stalls were specially ignored. Last year Apr, a TRE reader sent in a letter and a photo, highlighting that 2 PRCs were seen running a hawker stall at Toa Payoh Lorong 8 hawker centre. He was wondering how this is possible given that NEA’s rules only allowed Singaporeans and PRs to tender for hawker stalls (‘Foreigners owning hawker stalls?‘). Furthermore, the reader noted that ST even published a good review (24 Mar 2013) for the stall: “I was more than happy to chance upon a stall called China Delicious selling the Chinese snacks in Toa Payoh Lorong 8 hawker centre and market recently. Set up by two friendly China nationals from Yantai, a coastal city in Shandong province, the one-year-old stall serves a mean xiao longbao (dumpling).” The reader said: I was formerly a hawker myself and under NEA’s rules for tender of hawker stalls, “Tenderer must be an individual Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident”. If these 2 guys (Ed: TRE saw 2 PRC ladies) belong to the latter category, how did they get to become PRs in the first place? How did they manage to “own” a hawker stall when foreigners are not even allowed to work in such places?… Should NEA care to investigate, the stall is “China Delicious” at Block 210, #01-29, Toa Payoh Lorong 8 hawker centre and market. TRE emailed NEA for comments. NEA later replied that the stall licensee is a Singaporean and not any PRCs. The 2 PRCs are hawker assistants engaged by the stallholder. NEA said, "She (the Singaporean stallholder) had engaged two hawker assistants at her stall." In its report, AGO commented, "Continuous closure of stalls or absence of stallholders could be an indication that the stalls have been used for unauthorised purposes such as for storage or subletting to others." "It is thus important for NEA to enhance its inspection regime to minimize any abuse of the subsidised hawker stall scheme." NEA informed AGO that steps were being taken to review its procedures to ensure that proper follow-up actions would be taken. In addition, it would enhance its computerised system and monitor all follow-up actions. NEA is currently run by Rear Admiral (NS) Ronnie Tay. He was formerly the the Chief of the Navy before he was appointed CEO of IDA. Last year, he left IDA and joined NEA as its new CEO.    Read More →

Lee Kuan Yew In the past, many were illiterate, too young, frightened or hoodwinked into believing that LKY was a good leader. Today, more lights were shed, thanks to the Internet, but still very few believe what had actually transpired. After Singapore was kicked-out of Malaysia, LKY became very annoyed and started his ‘revengeful acts’.  He became hostile and said many things that angered our neighbour, Malaysia. This is just one of those revealing stories (see below) in the past about LKY. The story is revealed by Malaysia's then PM Tengku Adul Rahman. Following story was published in Straits Times on 30 Oct 1965 [Link]. At the time, ST is quite independent with many independent minded journalists and editors working for ST. In 1974, LKY introduced the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, which requires that no newspapers be published without a permit. This permit is granted, refused or revoked upon the government's discretion. Furthermore, it limits the issuing and transferring of management shares of newspaper companies to only individuals who have been approved by the government [Link]. The media industry underwent rapid consolidation after the Act was introduced, and many newspapers critical of the government merged or folded. Today, of course, SPH and Mediacorp survived and both are linked to the Govt. Mediacorp is wholly owned by Temasek and currently SPH's chairman is Dr Lee Boon Yang, a former govt cabinet minister.   Edmund * Submitted by TRE reader * * * * * * * * * The Straits Times, 30 October 1965, Page 1 The Tengku defends position of Malay Rulers (Kuala Lumpur, Friday) -  Tengku Adul Rahman today strongly defended the position of the Malay Rulers in view of recent remarks made about them by the Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In an interview with Inche Othman Abdullah M.P., editor of Merdeka, the Umno’s official weekly, the Tengku said that in making critical and derogatory remarks about them, Mr Lee insulted the Malays and Malaysians who love their Rulers. The Tengku said that Mr Lee had ridiculed the status of Malay Rulers by comparing them with African tribal chiefs and Indian Maharajas, and asked what benefit he derived from this. Constitutional The Tengklu said that the Malays’ custom of having Rulers was a centuries-old tradition. They had Rulers long before Islam came to this country. They were still there when Islam spread its influence and the British did not depose them, nor did the Japanese. “Perhaps if Mr Lee comes to power, he will depose them,” the Tengku added. The Tengku said that it was true the Rulers had absolute powers before the British came. But times had changed and the Rulers had become constitutional monarchs while the Government was run by the people through their elected representatives. “If we look at our governmental system, we can see that although we have a Yang di-Pertuan Agong elected as Head of State for five years by the Rulers, this does not mean the ra’ayat have no powers and democracy is not practised in this country. “The government is run in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by Ministers elected by the people,” the Tengku added. The Tengku said that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Malay Rulers were now regarded by Malaysians of all races as a symbol of unity. They were not a handicap nor a hindrance to progress. There was no other country in South-east Asia which had achieved spectacular progress and prosperity like Malaysia, and the three countries which preserved their monarchical system in this part of the world – Malaysia, Thailand and Japan – progressed far better than those countries which had deposed their Rulers, the Tengku added. ‘Dictatorship’ The Tengku then replied to those who had charged that civil lists for the Malay rulers were a mere wastage of public money by asking them: “If this is so, why is it that those countries which have deposed their Rulers cannot achieve progress and prosperity? Where has the money previously allocated to their Rulers gone to? “To Malaysia, the royal expenditure is for honouring centuries-old tradition and safe guarding the Islam religion. “If the monarchical system is disposed of, I am sure this country will face a dark and chaotic period,” the Tengku said. He added that Mr Lee wanted a dictatorial system of government in place of the monarchical system, and the person who was most suitable to become the dictator was Mr Lee himself. “That is the reason why Mr Lee criticises our Rulers and tries to depose them,” the Tengku said. The Tengku gave two other reasons for Mr Lee’s attitude towards the Rulers. He said that Mr Lee was a highly ambitious man who felt Singapore was too small for his aspirations. “Mr Lee wants a bigger stage for his dictatorial performance. “I am confident that he will not get the support of the Malays and the Malays will not bow to his wishes. He will not be able to influence the non-Malay Malaysians, for Malaysians as a whole are usually polite, disciplined and friendly. ‘Dream world’ “I am sure that Malaysians will reject any person who is dictatorial and this dictatorial attitude of Mr Lee will forever be a barrier between a polite people and a power and glory-mad dictator,” the Tengku said. The Tengku alleged that Mr Lee became prouder when the outside world acclaimed him as a wise and clever man. He was now living in his world of dreams, the Tengku added. The Tengku said that Mr Lee did not get the approval of his Cabinet colleagues for the remarks he made about the Malay Rulers. Except for one or two of them, the Singapore Ministers were not against the Malay Rulers as Mr Lee was, the Tengku added. The Tengku describe Mr Lee’s recent proposal to resume barter trade with Indonesia as a challenge to Malaysia and likened this challenge to Castro’s challenge to the United States. Mr Lee had said that he did not wish to consult Malaysia about the proposal, but when Malaysia raised this matter, Dr Goh Keng Swee, (Singapore Defence Minister) replied it had to be negotiated first with this country. It was obvious that the two leaders did not see eye to eye, the Tengku said. Another “funny” proposal by Mr Lee was to impose taxes on lorries and buses from the mainland because Singapore roads would be damaged by them. “I am sure that Mr Lee will soon come out with other proposals, ideas and theories. All these reflect his restlessness since the isolation of Singapore from Malaysia. “We should be on the alert for all the actions taken by him are hostile to Malaysia and he is now following the footsteps of Soekarno in launching confrontation towards Malaysia,” the Tengku said. The Tengku recalled how Mr Lee came to see him about the merger of Singapore with Malaya. “He praised me sky-high. He tried everything possible to win me. “I realise that he was not sincere in what he did,” the Tengku said. The Tengku added that now that the people of Sabah and Sarawak knew Mr Lee, they should keep their distance from him. He asked Mr Lee to ponder deeply the fact that his hostility to Malaysia could not destroy or divide this country. He emphasised that the security of Singapore was linked with Malaysia and therefore it was no use for the peoples of the two countries to quarrel with each other.  Read More →