TR EMERITUS

4-room BTO flat price increased 14.4%? HDB has just launched BTO flats in the mature estate of Toa Payoh, with 4 – room prices starting from $413,000.           http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10296p.nsf/PressReleases/B14702B33C6CFD2E48257D190030132E?OpenDocument In the November 2012 Toa Payoh Crest BTO, 4 – room prices were from $361,000. http://esales.hdb.gov.sg/hdbvsf/eampu11p.nsf/0/12NOVBTO_page_8931/$file/12NOVBTO_about0.htm This is an increase of 14.4%. But Resale Price Index decreased 5.1%? The HDB Resale Price Index http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10321p.nsf/w/BuyResaleFlatResaleIndex?OpenDocument has dropped by about 5.1% from 206.6 in the 2nd quarter of 2013 to 196.0 (2nd quarter 2014), and about 3.4% from 202.9 to 196.0 from the 4th quarter of 2012 to the 2nd quarter of 2014. So, if the Resale Price Index dropped by 3.4%, why did the price increase by 14.4%? BTO prices delinked from resale prices? It may be bad enough that in the past, we were told for years that HDB BTO prices were pegged to resale prices, and then recently that they have been delinked – only now to appear as if they increase much more when resale prices dropped quite a lot in the same estate. Transparency and accountability please? Can we have more transparency and accountability as to how HDB flats’ prices are determined? Land costs 60%? Is it about 60% of the price is allocated to land costs? HDB lose billions every year? How much profits has the HDB been making all these years? Govt not spending a single cent on HDB? Is the Government still not spending a single cent on public housing (HDB) as it makes profits from the sale of HDB flats?   S Y Lee and Leong Sze Hian 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/  Read More →

A friend brought to my attention the following article which made troubling reading. Sevki Sha'ban This concerns former Lions XII and national defender, Sevki Sha'ban, who represented Home United FC since last year. He was unceremoniously dismissed over a week ago without any compensation. What's troubling is the dismissal coincides with the Ramadan period and the upcoming Hari Raya Puasa. As a Malay-Muslim, this is the biggest festival of the year. What's even worse is that he was dismissed without any form of compensation. Player background Sevki started playing in the S-league 12 years ago, when he represented Sembawang Rangers. He then moved to the Young Lions during his NS days, where he was a bit part player. Thereafter he moved to Gombak United for 3 seasons where he enjoyed his best spell to date. He was even  made club captain. He also earned his first national cap during the period. He then moved to Geylang United in 2010 but picked up a serious injury that curtailed his career. Eventually he moved on the Lions XII team, that took part in the Malaysia Cup after an 18 year absence. Just when things were looking up for him, he suffered an anterior cruciate injury in October 2012. This also curtailed his national team career and he missed out on the team's triumphant Suzuki Cup triumph in December that year. However he managed to recover and signed a 2 year contract with Home United at the beginning of the season last year. He forced his way back into the team and played in the Singapore Cup Final last year, which Home won. His current predicament His problems began this year when Home appointed South Korean Lee Lim Saeng as head coach. Sevki fell down the pecking order and has not played a single game this season. His relationship with the coach soured so badly that he wasn't even allowed to train to with the team. He was eventually dismissed on grounds of 'unsatisfactory work and under-performance', as stated in a cryptic club statement. He was told he was free to leave last month during the transfer window but rejected a lower paying offer by Hougang United. The window has since closed and he's unable to sign for any other club until the new season. He cannot also represent Lions XII in the Malaysia Cup because that competition's window has also closed. As such he's left in limbo now, and with Hari Raya beckoning, the father of 3 has little or no means to provide for his family other than depend on his wife and family members. He's now seeking the FAS help to grant him a reprieve and allow him to sign for another club. The troubling issue The troubling issue here is the rather callous and heartless manner in which Home United went about in dismissing him. Some may say, 'Why didn't he take up the offer by Hougang United?' or 'surely he must have known the writing was on the wall ever since he was dropped from training even?' Perhaps he was a bit naïve but that's beside the point. The point is - when you sign a contract, you expect it to be honoured, even if you're surplus to requirements. Or if really there's a desire to remove you, then compensation must be given, if not in full, at least a portion of it. Home United did neither. Even blogger Roy Ngerng received a month's salary after being dismissed by TTSH. Lee Lim Saeng If Home found his performance unsatisfactory, then they should have told him as such much earlier, encouraged him to find another club and warned him of the possibility of getting sacked. No such warnings were given. And surely they would have realised that as a Malay Muslim, Hari Raya would soon beckon and just dismissing him like that, is rather heartless. How would Lee or any official in the club feel if they were dismissed suddenly, just as their biggest cultural and religious event was about to begin? Couldn't they see that as a father he would be called upon to bear the costs of the celebrations especially for his 3 young children? Couldn't they wait until after Hari Raya to dismiss him? Sevki's case is not the first, this is just the latest in a long line of dismissals by local clubs, where players who get injured or dropped, are unceremoniously dismissed without any form of compensation. With such short notice, that leaves them with little or no options. Some people without understanding on how professional football operates may take the view, 'Hey, what's he complaining so much about, he should be lucky that he can earn a salary by playing a sport or a hobby!' That's not correct, a fulltime sportsman has to sacrifice a lot. Just go try running and kicking the ball for 30 minutes and see how 'pancit' (out of breath) you are. What more players playing at a much higher level for 90 minutes. Sevki like others had to train super hard to maintain his fitness and he had to sacrifice the best part of his youth in order to play football. He had to forgo any future education or work experience the past 12 years, not to mention face the prospect of a career ending injury. Analysis/Conclusion We often read of the FAS saying how it wants to promote football here and build a strong team in the future, not to mention to make the S-League one of Asia's best. But the first step in doing that must be to ensure that football is a viable and somewhat secure career. They cannot allow clubs to tear up contracts as when they please, especially when players get injured. They must ensure that contracts are honoured, and adequate compensation is offered when it isn't. The FAS makes a lot of noise about wiping out match-fixing which was prevalent here in the recent past. But if you don't ensure players are paid properly, it only gives match-fixers a great opening to entice these players in a large money-making scheme. They can cite Sevki and others before him, who were unceremoniously sacked with little or nothing to fall back on. Although I have no evidence, former match fixers I spoke to believe that some degree of fixing is still going on. These they allege is done by players themselves, who realise they need to have some back-up plan or finance should their career end suddenly. Not all of them can go into coaching or some other sports related job. Most are not highly educated and have no relevant job experience to fall back on, other than football, which counts for squat in the working world. As said this is just hearsay, but poorly or unpaid players are a fertile ground for match-fixers. If the FAS doesn't do something to address this, then they shouldn't be surprised if another major match-fixing scandal engulfs the S-league sooner or later. Finally, we must take Home United to task as well. As a club representing the Home Team, the dismissal of a player without compensation, indirectly portrays the organisation as uncaring. And the failure to be emphatic to a player or person about to celebrate his primary festival of the year, make Home United look like a heartless and callous employer. The manner and timing of Sevki's dismissal is deplorable and Home United deserve to be roundly criticised and taken to task for their actions in this unfortunate affair for Sevki. Sir Nelspruit *  The author blogs at  Anyhow Hantam.  Read More →

SIA In Singapore it is quite easy to tell the person behind the public mask. 'Tell' as in discovering who he is. Not advising him or giving him information for his own good or the good of the public. That it can't be done: they are deaf to all criticisms. They have constantly, proudly and publicly, aver so just in case you have the mistaken notion they are receptive to suggestions. In our country we have the elites and the rest. The elites never make any mistakes and the rest is incapable of not making mistakes. This is the narrative sold to the public by the people who earns ten times more than the leader of the greatest power on earth with a population that is 100 times larger: USA. Don’t get me wrong when these unearthly people – they must be since they are sinless and incapable of making any mistakes in life – step on the wrong toes they do apologize. They are capable of being politically correct and making all the right sound bites. They may even cry publicly. But you have to wonder whether they are crying because they are afraid of losing their job or they see the errors of their way. In English those tears are called crocodile tears. Personally, I wouldn’t put it that way as it would be giving crocodiles a bad name. Crocodiles eat because they have to live. Our sinless leaders live to eat and will consume any free lunch. Recently, SIA got into international hot soup gloating over Malaysian Airlines MH17 tragedy: Malaysian Airlines lost one of its plane after it was allegedly shot down by Russian surface to air missile. SIA was laughing Malaysian Airlines is so dumb and incompetent to be flying in a war zone and gotten its plane shot down from the sky. Gloating over other people’s misfortunes and tragedies is not cricket. I guess our elites can’t help themselves. It is their nature. It is their only joy in life since they can’t find joy in accomplishments other than earning money the easy way through gerrymandering and absolute control of all media: public or otherwise. Initially, SIA reported that they do not fly over the war zone where MH17 met its untimely demise. The manner they reported it in their Facebook could only be construed as gloating over another's misfortune with strong hints they are not so dumb to make such an obvious mistake. All hell broke lose when the international audience pointed out the fact of the matter was that SIA actually flew in the same war zone and SQ351 was only 25km apart from MH17. SQ351 is serviced by Boeing 777-200, a twin-jet model doing 466 knots or 863 kph. At a distance of 25km this translate into 1 minute and 44 seconds. In other words SIA was only 1 minute 44 seconds away from disaster. SIA's faux pas, gaffe, gaucherie, blooper, solecism, boo-boos has a life of its own. It evolved from a culture of hubris initiated by leaders who earn obscene amount of money effortlessly, since they hardly ever show up for work, and have no fear of ever losing their job because they keep moving the goal posts while constantly declaring aloud they are honorable people who only wanted a level playing field. The initial blunder of adopting a holier than thou attitude towards other people's unhappy situation and mistakes - after being exposed as callous at best and immorally fraudulent at worst - degenerated into the typical damage limitation exercise by people who proudly and regularly announce they are deaf to all criticisms. And the best media for such a public relation stunt: none other than Straits Times, the official mouthpiece of the incumbent. On 23rd July 2014, aviation correspondent Karamjit Kaur wrote a piece entitled "SIA 'avoided parts of Ukraine airspace' before crash". I find it strange that she has been identified as an aviation expert. On what basis she is classified as such is not explained or enunciated. The obvious strategy is to influence the readers that she is an expert in her field and her views should be respected. The headline is a complete fraud. SIA actually flew in the same airspace and was only 1 minute and 44 seconds away from disaster. The article started with a literal truth: "SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA), which has been criticised for flying over Ukraine before Thursday's Malaysia Airlines crash, has confirmed that it had been avoiding parts of the country's airspace even before the incident." The first four paragraphs of the article in question is a more advertorial than professional journalism. The second paragraph noted that "It is this same area that the United States Federal Aviation Administration had banned its carriers from flying over in April." So SIA is trying to give the public the impression that it is complying with international standard by declaring it is adhering to United States Federal Aviation Administration standard. The writer, a so-called aviation expert failed to mention that other international agencies like those in Europe have strongly advised against flying in the said war zone corridor. Selective choice of rules to follow is the usual baggage of tricks employed by the incumbent to fool the public. The third paragraph is classic: "But SIA had flown over other parts of the war-torn country, including the area where flight MH17 went down, where there were no restrictions against commercial flights, the carrier said." It noted that SIA did fly in the war-torn country but quickly added there were no restrictions against commercial flights. They were advised not to fly there by European and International Aviation Agencies but they chose to do so because it is fuel saving and this would create more profits for SIA which is mainly owned by Temasek Holdings. Noticed that more profits mean all the stakeholders would also benefit financially. The two stakeholders that benefitted the most financially from a profitable SIA are Temasek Holdings (Pte) with 55.92% stake and DBS Nominees Pte Ltd with 9.36% stake. These two companies are owned by the Singapore government and they are also the largest shareholders of SIA. The senior positions in SIA are controlled by people with links to the incumbent's higher echelon. Profits at all cost is their raison d'etre as long as they don't have to bear the cost. To add support to SIA's defence that there are no laws expressly forbidding flights over the war-zone the writer wrote "Still, it also said it voluntarily avoids flying over some other parts of the world, even though the areas are open to its aircraft. It did not specify these areas." This fourth paragraph is trying to portray SIA in a good light by claiming it is a sane organisation that put the safety of the passengers first by not flying over dangerous areas although such areas are open to its aircraft. At all time you will note it is defending itself by claiming others are doing it: unfortunately others are not on trial here. Then it claimed there are occasions it didn't take advantage of safety rules when it could. SIA is utilising the usual tool of deception used to fool the gullible Singapore public for years: to be precise, 50 years. It is literally true that SIA had been avoiding other parts of Ukraine's airspace before the incident. What is not disclosed and left unsaid is those other parts of Ukraine's airspace is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The truth of the matter is SIA was flying in the same dangerous corridor that MH17 was flying in. You only get this information if you read carefully and has read widely prior to imbibing this propaganda piece initiated by unknown faces after being caught red handed in Facebook. Even then it was implicit and you would notice that SIA still doesn't admit that it was flying in the same corridor as MH17 and was only 25 km or 1 minute and 44 seconds away from disaster. It hinted here and there but no direct admission of guilt. It is very similar to the Japanese way of apologising for the atrocities they committed in Second World War: they very much regretted their action. Of that we are all quite sure. All losers, be it in war or love, will regret some or all of their actions. They regretted they didn't succeed at it. The first four paragraphs sounded like it was written by the public relation department of SIA. The actual reply by SIA is a classic exercise in obfuscation that has PAP DNA written all over it. SIA replied that "decisions on the use of airspace are made based on numerous factors." This is stating the obvious. Then it added these factors include "weather, safety and security conditions, advisories from international and regional bodies, and any restrictions that may be imposed by the national authorities responsible for the safety of the airspace". Again stating the obvious as if the public needs an education in standard operating procedures of the airlines. The crux of the matter is SIA SQ351 was in that particular war-zone where it was only 1 minute and 44 seconds away from a national disaster of epic proportion. The writer, hell bent on portraying SIA in a good light, wrote it wasn't only SIA that was flying there but other airlines were also doing it. More to the point SIA was the heaviest user of the said war-zone route a week before the crash. As a passing mention she admitted other carriers have taken a wide berth and not only avoided the war-zone but avoided Ukraine entirely. Also, the Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) clearly advised avoidance of Ukraine's airspace weeks before MH17 was shot down. SIA didn't obey the European nation's misgiving on Ukraine's airspace because they had an incentive not to do so: more profits on fuel saving. Also, SIA can always fall back on the excuse Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) didn't restrict them on flight operation in that area. Basically, CAAS didn't consider it unsafe when European authorities has recommended avoiding the Crimea area since April. In the same breath she tried to justify SIA's position by claiming "For those airlines that did not use Ukrainian airspace at all, it is possible they did not need to do so when flying the most direct route, aviation experts said." This really take the cakes as it would be silly mentioning other carriers were avoiding the airspace when it doesn't even have flights in the area in the first place. Only a convoluted mind with a constant eye fixed on providing excuses for every mistakes made can raise such a flimsy justification. And you know what kind of people indulges in such skulduggery! Casting aspersions is the tool of trade for people who are deaf to all criticisms! By claiming many other airlines such as Germany's Lufthansa and Air India avoided only the closed airspace the writer implied that Lufthansa and Air India is as guilty as SIA who was 1 minute and 44 seconds away from a colossal mega blunder brought forth by greed of epic proportion. In fact Lufthansa's security desk has 12 people who oversee a four-step risk analysis process that includes mapping general risks and assessing probability of their planes being shot down and since April Lufthansa had not only been avoiding the Crimean region, but also removed some airports in Ukraine from its alternative list of airports for emergency use. In short the writer has maligned and defamed Lufthansa. The last paragraph quoted The International Air Transport Association (IATA). It is a ruse to hide behind an international aviation organisation claiming it didn't forbid it from flying in the said war-zone. The organisation doesn't dictate where aircraft can or cannot fly but will advise against flying in dangerous territories: which it did. It is governments and air navigation service providers that tell carriers the routes they can fly, and with what restrictions. I guess SIA selectively chose which government authority and which navigation service provider to adhere to for its own convenience and benefits. The writer ended the article by quoting IATA's chief executive and director Tony Tyler saying: "It is very similar to driving a car. If the road is open, you assume that it is safe. If it's closed you find an alternative route." I am at a loss for words: driving and flying are two completely different activities much like night and day. In the air there is no such thing as a closed road. There are no roads to begin with. The weatherman can warn carriers there is a thunderstorm ahead and it is up to the carrier to avoid it by rerouting or take a risk by going through it. If the carrier took the risk and it resulted in the plane going down with all lives lost I don't think the relatives of the deceased would take kindly to being fobbed off with the excuse the aircraft flew within recognised legal limits and too bad, accidents happen. I am quite sure if it really happened and SIA were involved the 'accidents happen' excuse would be proffered together with a statement claiming SIA has followed all rules diligently. We are a nation of excuse givers because we have 50 years of indoctrination it is the right thing when something goes wrong. We are deaf to all criticisms!   Apolitical * Submitted by TRE reader Related: SIA: We use Ukraine airspace cause its Govt clears it   SIA 'avoided parts of Ukraine airspace' before crash PUBLISHED ON JUL 23, 2014 1:16 AM BY KARAMJIT KAUR AVIATION CORRESPONDENT SINGAPORE Airlines (SIA), which has been criticised for flying over Ukraine before Thursday's Malaysia Airlines crash, has confirmed that it had been avoiding parts of the country's airspace even before the incident. It is this same area that the United States Federal Aviation Administration had banned its carriers from flying over in April. But SIA had flown over other parts of the war-torn country, including the area where flight MH17 went down, where there were no restrictions against commercial flights, the carrier said. Still, it also said it voluntarily avoids flying over some other parts of the world, even though the areas are open to its aircraft. It did not specify these areas. Replying to readers who wrote to The Straits Times Forum Page to raise concerns over SIA flights that used to cut across Ukrainian skies, Captain Gerard Yeap, SIA's senior vice-president for flight operations, said decisions on the use of airspace are made based on numerous factors. These include weather, safety and security conditions, advisories from international and regional bodies, and any restrictions that may be imposed by the national authorities responsible for the safety of the airspace, he said. He added that owing to the geographical position of Singapore, SIA had been crossing Ukraine for some of its flights to and from Europe. Even as it did so, "there are several other parts of the world that we proactively avoid flying through, even though they are available for us", he said. "This has long been our practice, and is the result of our continuous assessment of advisories from the national authorities and aviation bodies," he added. SIA, along with many other airlines, has been criticised for flying over Ukraine when some other carriers have been avoiding the country entirely. Still, with the exception of a few carriers - including Australia's Qantas and carriers from South Korea, which all did not operate any flights over Ukraine before the crash - many other airlines such as Germany's Lufthansa and Air India avoided only the closed airspace. For those airlines that did not use Ukrainian airspace at all, it is possible they did not need to do so when flying the most direct route, aviation experts said. For instance, a flight from London to Dubai would take another route. Since the crash of MH17 - apparently shot down while crossing a conflict zone in eastern Ukraine where pro-Russian rebels are fighting government forces - commercial carriers, including SIA, have re-routed their flights to avoid Ukraine altogether. The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents global carriers, said yesterday that airlines depend on governments and air navigation service providers to inform them of the routes they can fly, and with what restrictions. IATA's chief executive and director Tony Tyler said: "Airlines depend on governments and air traffic control authorities to advise which airspace is available for flight, and they plan within those limits. It is very similar to driving a car. If the road is open, you assume that it is safe. If it's closed you find an alternative route."  Read More →