TR EMERITUS

DPM and Finance Minister Tharman Specially for TCJ, I have repeatedly stated how MS is being derived and formula used and based on what I have just read, TCJ was quoted as saying that one of the components constituting the CPI ( consumer price index) is the imputed rent. Imputed rent may be dropped and as a result, MS will end up lower and more monies withdrawn at 55. In addition,concerns about INFLATION impacting retirement adequacy are VALID. Wow, Valid is a very big word… Is it because of many kpkb we have been seeing on the internet, sporadic questions being raised in parliament, more regular protest at hong lim, ge 2016 which is not too far away and really I mean really ” woken up” that you want to start reviewing or all of these reasons combined? Really, I am not sure whether to be excited and look forward to your review or totally dismiss it as just one of your many wayangs…. To Tharman as well, please don’t ever tell me that cpf is RISK FREE. In the very first place, you invest my CPF without my approval and you dare say it is RISK FREE. Of coz, common sense will tell you it HAS I repeat It HAS to be RISK FREE and you expect me to absorb the risk. That is total bullshit and mother of all crap…..shit !!!! You think I am a kid…. To both of you. Why does CPF fall under the purview of MOM and not MOF. Oops, come to think of it, same same…. In a nutshell, g still insist on retaining people’s Cpf and therefore, the draw down age when retired still continues. WHERE and WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS AND FLEXIBILITY OF LETTING ONE’s DECIDE ON HIS OWN ???? ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO REVIEW USING PROPERTY PLEDGE AS WELL ???? WHAT IS YOUR PLAN Especially for those terminally ills with no hope of recovery at all ??? Do you still insist on retaining their CPF ?? Just because the people’s have not been vocal in the past doesn’t mean that you can bulldoze your policy as and when u think is right IN THE NAME OF CARING. I would only respect the g when they start thinking very carefully before implementing policies that it has to WORK BOTH WAYS between the people 1st and the government and NOT THE GOVERNMENT 1st followed by the people. SINGAPOREANS COME FIRST. Stick this mantra into your stubborn thick heads, MIW…. I await your review and I hope you, miw must be aware your “credibility” is on the line now and if you truly want to regain the trust back, be prepared that it will take a long road. Perhaps, for a start, direct your shit times to report a more unbiased, balance, open and accurate news. Somehow. I don’t see that coming anytime soon…. Less you, miw forgets, there are still many unanswered issues relating to HDB and so forth.   Still fed up * Comment appeared in: Govt reviewing how CPF Minimum Sum is calculated    Read More →

SIA put up a Facebook posting on 18 Jul, saying that its flights aren’t using Ukraine airspace. This was put up the day after MH17 was apparently shot down by a missile over Ukraine airspace on 17 Jul: SIA’s claim that it is not using Ukraine airspace has been challenged by reports [Link] stating that Flight SQ351 was about 25km away from the ill-fated MH17 when it went down. Posting on SIA’s Facebook page, netizens were berating SIA on this issue, accusing SIA of not being truthful: Jessica Richardson: SQ it is now all over the international press – you had a flight 25km away from MH17 at the time of the incident. The BUK missile system has a range of 42km. Not only were you in Ukrainian airspace you were potentially in range of the missile. It is time for you to put out a statement and apology. Unlike British Airways, Virgin, Turkish, Lufthansa, Air France, Aeroflot, Qantas and all US airlines you made the decision to continue using Ukrainian airspace until MH17 went down. You have higher ticket prices than other carriers yet still used the shortest route over a war zone with known surface-to-air missile use. You have put your profits over the safety of your passengers and crew. My family and I are frequent flyers on the London-Singapore route and you have lost our custom for good. I used to be proud of Singapore’s national carrier. Now I am ashamed. Tong Foo Cheong: If SIA had said: “SIA was using Ukrainian airspace before the MH17 incident, but is no longer using Ukrainian airspace after the incident.”, SIA would come across as being completely honest and truthful. Now we all know that SIA is keeping quiet about whether its planes were flying over Ukraine before. Michelle Chan: You mean from now? Cause it did fly over Ukraine airspace 4 days ago from SG to Zurich on SQ346. TRE then went to the website Flightradar24 (www.flightradar24.com) to investigate and found out that on 17 Jul, a number of SQ flights were actually using Ukraine airspace on that fateful day ('SIA found using Ukraine airspace but it says no'): SQ351 Copenhagen to Singapore on 17 Jul SQ25 Frankfurt to Singapore on 17 Jul SQ305 London to Singapore on 17 Jul SQ308 Singapore to London on 17 Jul SQ317 London to Singapore on 17 Jul SQ323 Amsterdam to Singapore on 17 Jul SQ318 Singapore to London 17 Jul SQ326 Singapore to Frankfurt 17 Jul SQ333 Paris to Singapore 17 Jul Etc It was sure luck that none of the SQ flights was targeted on that day but instead, MH17 was. Even ST published its readers' letters questioning SIA on the matter of flying through Ukraine airspace. Yesterday (23 Jul), Senior Vice-President Flight Operations of SIA, Gerard Yeap, finally replied on ST Forum to clarify. In the letter, Mr Yeap confirmed that SIA was indeed using Ukraine airspace. "Due to the geographical position of Singapore, we were also a user of this (Ukraine) airspace for some of our flights to and from Europe," he said. He explained that decisions on the use of airspace are made based on numerous factors. These include any restrictions that may be imposed by the national authorities responsible for the safety of the airspace, he said. Mr Yeap then tried to justify SIA flying through Ukraine airspace by saying that the Ukraine authorities have allowed it, "In the case of Ukraine, the particular airspace that MH17 used was cleared by the national authority managing it." He added, "It should be noted that there were other parts of Ukrainian airspace that were closed to commercial flights, and we and other airlines had been avoiding these areas for many months." Still, despite Mr Yeap's explanation that parts of Ukraine airspace were open to commercial flights by Ukraine authorities, many of the world's best-known airlines – including British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific – had been avoiding Ukrainian airspace altogether due to safety fears for months before the downing of flight MH17 [Link]. Mr Yeap then proclaimed that following the MH17 events of 17 July, SIA "immediately re-routed all flights to avoid Ukrainian airspace altogether". Mr Yeap tried to justify further, "There are several other parts of the world that we proactively avoid flying through, even though they are available for use. This has long been our practice, and is the result of our continual assessment of advisories from the national authorities and aviation bodies." So, the question remains why didn't SIA also proactively avoid Ukraine airspace even though it is available for use, just like British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific had avoided altogether? Mr Yeap also quoted the director-general of the IATA, Mr Tony Tyler, saying that 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," Mr Yeap quoted Tony Tyler. But it appears that British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific had better foresight and did not simply assume that the open road is safe, in this case. Mr Yeap ended his letter saying that SIA is actively reviewing its processes and practices to ensure the continued safe operation of its flights. He made no mention of the original SIA's Facebook posting on 18 Jul.    Read More →

Ex-PAP MP Augustine Tan (Photo SMU) At the forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies yesterday (22 Jul), SMU professor Augustine Tan expressed concern that wages were too high in Singapore and it's eroding Singapore's economic edge. He asked Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, who was a speaker at the forum, "Are you not giving way too much to social pressure to raise wages, even when the economy really cannot afford it?" Dr Augustine Tan, who was formerly a PAP MP, also asked if the Government would rethink its foreign labour quotas. Minister Tan replied, "The answer is no. Foreign labour growth needs to be kept at a sustainable pace." Dr Augustine Tan said that there were "contending pressures" at play. He said, "On some of the challenges we face, you will realise there are actually divergent pressures... But at the end of (the day), we do need to make that judgment call about how best to strike the balance between all the different pressures." Dr Tan is a proponent of having a liberal FT and immigration policy in Singapore. In 2011 GE, just 2 days before the polling day, ST published a letter from Dr Tan, lashing out at WP's candidate Chen Show Mao [Link]: Mr Chen Show Mao of the Workers' Party lamented in his (rally) speech recently that wages in Singapore are not increasing as fast as the country's gross domestic product growth, highlighting that most of the growth went to corporate profits and wage income for top earners ('Low continues war of words over housing'; last Friday).Mr Chen should be the last person to complain. He himself is the handsome beneficiary of the global economy which rewards talented people and skews the income and wealth distribution. Is it not true that his income as a corporate lawyer in China was a huge multiple of the ordinary Chinese wage earner's? Mr Chen knows well that Singapore welcomes foreign talent and companies in order to expand the economic pie with job opportunities for all. The high income of foreigners will skew the income distribution but the absolute share for Singaporeans is still much bigger than without them. What the Government has done is to collect taxes and redistribute them to the lower-income group, and upgrade the skills of all our workers. We should all concentrate on better measures to re-skill our workers. Our fertility rate is also well below the replacement rate. Without immigration, we will have a major old age dependency problem. It is more meaningful to discuss the optimal rate of immigration rather than to appeal to concerns about overcrowding and competition from foreigners. The opposition parties are irresponsible to dismiss our vital need for immigrants. They should be reminded that Singapore is one of the very few countries that is able to provide jobs for all and that has zero public debt. Augustine Tan Professor of Economics Singapore Management University Luckily, the Aljunied voters ignored Dr Tan's lashing at WP and Mr Chen Show Mao, and chose to vote Mr Chen and his party into Parliament convincingly. Who is Augustine Tan? His full name is Augustine Tan Hui Heng [Link]. He is a "Practice Professor" of Economics in the School of Economics at SMU. He has been with SMU since 2000. He has a Ph D in Economics from Stanford University in 1968. Prior to SMU, he was with NUS from 1968 to 2000. He was also a PAP MP from 1970 to 1991. From 1972 to 1976, he was the Political Secretary to then PM Lee Kuan Yew as well as the Chairman of National Productivity Board. Dr Augustine Tan was first roped into politics through a walkover in a by-election in Whampoa in 1970. Subsequently, he held the single-seat all the way till 1991 when he stepped down from politics: 1970 Whampoa, walkover (by-election) 1972 Whampoa, beat PF and won 78.6% 1976 Whampoa, beat WP and won 81.0% 1980 Whampoa, walkover 1984 Whampoa, walkover 1988 Whampoa, beat NSP and won 59.5% 1991 Stepped down All this while, of course, he was also lecturing in NUS. In 1991, Whampoa SMC was dissolved and divided into nearby Kampong Glam GRC (now defunct), Jalan Besar GRC and Toa Payoh GRC.    Read More →