TR EMERITUS

Sembawang residents should reject a PAP Aljunied reject It has been confirmed Ong Ye Kung will be contesting the next election in Sembawang GRC instead of Aljunied. Sembawang GRC voters would do well to scrutinise the latest PAP parachutist. Who is Ong Ye Kung? Ong Ye Kung According to Wikipedia, Ong is currently a director at Keppel Corporation, a government-linked corporation. He was previously the Dy Sec-Gen of NTUC, SMRT independent director and CEO of WDA. In short, Ong does not have any private sector experience and his career is totally dependent on the PAP government and its flawed policies. The NTUC as everybody knows is a pseudo workers’ union. It is directly responsible for cleaners’ wage decline, in real terms, by about 40% from 2000 to 2012. The WDA is as good as a recruitment agency for unskilled/low skilled workers. Ong has worked in the Ministry of Communications and Ministry of Trade and Industry. Ong was part of the team which “helped to develop the LTA White Paper” and also helped in to establish Singapore’s LTA. In short, he was part of a system which promoted increased transportation costs ie COE, ERP, etc. Ong later became the Principal Private Secretary to PM Lee. Ong’s meteoric rise in the civil service probably convinced him that PAP’s system with multiple failures in housing, healthcare, education and transportation is working fine. Ong was parachuted into the Aljunied GRC during the 2011 election and touted to be of ministerial calibre. Despite riding on three ministers’ coattails ie George Yeo, Lim Hwee Hua and Zainul Abidin, Ong became part of Singapore’s history with PAP’s loss of a GRC. Aljunied voters apparently believed the PAP was self serving and not serving Aljunied residents as claimed. It appears Aljunied residents have given the PAP and its grassroots 5 years to repent. In a recent interview on Mothership.SG, Ong claims “a PAP-led Government has shown results in terms of policies and implementation”. But the reality is public hospitals have prioritised medical tourism over citizens’ health needs, the severe hospital bed crunch will take about a decade to resolve, affordable resale public housing is still years away, our education policies favour foreigners without basic English, etc. Before being elected, Ong has already spoken from an ivory tower like other PAP politicians. A politician who is divorced from ordinary Singaporeans’ reality is likely to maintain the status quo of flawed policies. In the same interview, Ong claims that he has been “asked by Minister Khaw Boon Wan” to assist him in Sembawang. Ong should know that he is more familiar with the issues of residents of Aljunied GRC and has been the grassroots leader for about three years. If Ong is the best person to serve Aljunied residents, he should have politely rejected Khaw’s invitation. Any PAP grassroots leader parachuted in to take over Ong in Aljunied will be the second best person. This is a lose-lose situation for Sembawang and Aljunied residents should the PAP be elected. Perhaps Ong has figured he does not stand any chance against the Workers’ Party? Perhaps the PAP has already given up on contesting the Aljunied GRC and will sacrifice all its pawns, like maybe even transferring Tin Pei Lin from Marine Parade GRC to Aljunied? Ong also seems to think highly of Minister Khaw for some baffling reasons. Some facts which Sembawang GRC electorate should note: Khaw Boon Wan failed Singaporeans as the Health Minister from 2004 to 2011. From 2001 to 2011, our hospital beds decreased from 11,936 to 11,394. During the period, hospital admissions increased from 384,054 to 469,445 and the population increased by 1,100,000. Citizens are also neglected because public hospitals are being used for medical tourism. The government’s focus has always been the bottom line, not citizens’ welfare. Healthcare is increasingly affordable. After his abject failure at the Health Ministry, Khaw was rotated to the MND. What is Khaw’s achievement at the MND? So far, Khaw has promised to deliver about 100,000 new HDB units by 2016. But the issue of unaffordable housing is still years from being resolved. To be fair to Khaw, the problem was created by his predecessor, Mah Bow Tan. Khaw’s role as MND minister is therefore only to resolve a PAP-created issue. Is there really anything Ong could learn from Khaw’s failure at the Health Ministry and zero achievement as MND minister? As sincere as he may appear to be, Ong does not possess any idea to lift the lot of low wage Singaporeans. “We believe that for workers to have their wages to go up, the best way is drive for productivity” [video link]. Although the government has failed in its drive on productivity for decades, Ong still insists on tying productivity to wage gains. Most employers do not and never will share their increased profits with workers. If productivity has been increasing, we would not be having this problem today! Ong seems to be parroting his ex-NTUC colleague, Lim Swee Say, who many sees as a toothpick-picking failure who has been using the productivity mantra for years to depress wages. CPF is currently the biggest issue. Voting for another PAP yes-man will only entrench the opacity in our system. CPF members who have been affected should consider their choice of candidate very carefully. If not for their interests, at least their children’s. Conclusion It is shocking for Ong to jump ship at a minister’s request, leaving his supporters to work with the second-best PAP grassroots leader. In other words, Ong is a quitter. If the PAP is elected, chances are CPF issues which affected tens of thousands of Sembawang GRC electorate will never see daylight. Ong’s career is totally dependent on the PAP which runs our country on a for-profit basis. If Ong is voted into Parliament, chances are he will maintain the status quo. Aljunied voters did not reject Ong and three other ‘disconnected’ PAP ministers for no rhyme or reason in 2011. If Ong has indeed learn from his former GRC team mates, it must have been all the wrong things or the PAP would not have been booted out. PAP is now offering its Aljunied reject to another GRC. There are no reasons for Sembawang GRC electorate to accept PAP’s loser. Phillip Ang *  The author blogs at  likedatosocanmeh.  Read More →

In Parliament yesterday, Teo Chee Hean and Sylvia Lim crossed swords on the issue of police training. Addressing the adequacy of the training methods following the Little India riot in which the police came up short in the way they had handled the crowd, Sylvia Lim had suggested that peaceful protests be legalized as part of civil liberties, with secondary benefit of according the police real training ground on how to handle mass assembly events. Teo's response in return typified the PAP's approach to governance in the past 50 years. Conjuring up an image of chaos to instill fear, he ignored Sylvia's point on "peaceful protests"and said: "I don’t think many Singaporeans would want to see more chaos, demonstrations on the street disrupting their daily lives and also taking up resources which can be used for other purposes." As for what these "other purposes" are, he cited that "one of the reasons why I want to increase the size of the SOC is because we have a lot of events in Singapore." So Teo Chee Hean, the police is there to marshal crowds in large scale events like the Stanchart Marathon? If this is the case, doesn't this defeat the purpose of the Little India Riot COI's call for ensure the police are well trained to handle incidents of similar nature to the Little India Riot? Throwing a large number of police officers at a protest that has gone unruly is not going to work, Mr Teo. After all, Mr Teo, didn't you read the COI's finding that culture and psychology of the crowd at that point in time after the accident was a key factor in causing the riot to spiral out of control?   The Alternative View [source]: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Alternative-View/358759327518739  Read More →

DPM Tharman Speaking in Parliament today (8 Jul), DPM Tharman attempted to defend the Singapore's CPF system. He reiterated that CPF members’ monies are guaranteed, regardless of the returns on investments made by GIC. Presently, GIC's long-term rate of return in real terms is 4% [Link]. Real rate of return means return over and above the inflation rate. Mr Tharman said, "CPF members bear no investment risk at all in their CPF balances. Their monies are safe, and the returns they have been promised are guaranteed." "Neither does the CPF Board bear any risk, regardless of whether GIC’s investments earn or lose money in any particular year. The risk is wholly borne by the Government, on its own balance sheet," he added. Mr Tharman said that the CPF Board invests CPF members’ monies in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), bonds specially issued by the Government to the Board. The payout from the SSGS is pegged to the interest rates that the the Board is committed to pay its members. They are non-tradeable. He said, "The Government guarantees these SSGS bonds, so that the CPF Board faces no risk of being unable to meet its obligations to its members. This is a solid guarantee, from a triple-A credit-rated government. The triple-A credit rating reflects Singapore’s very strong financial position, with the Government’s assets comfortably exceeding its liabilities." SSGS proceeds are then pooled with the rest of the Government’s funds, such as proceeds from the tradable Singapore Government Securities (SGS), any government surpluses as well as the proceeds from land sales. These comingled funds are first deposited with MAS as Government deposits, which the MAS then converts into foreign assets through the foreign exchange market. A major portion of these assets - those of a longer term nature - are transferred over to be managed by GIC. The Government will guarantee the SSGS bonds in the sense that if a catastrophe befalls GIC and GIC loses all its investments, the Government can use its credit rating to borrow from financial institutions or foreign governments to redeem the SSGS bonds. The Government can also choose to impose new taxes to raise the money to redeem the bonds. In this case, it would be like taking one's money through taxation and paying him back his CPF money. Finally, the Government can also decide to keep printing money to pay back one's CPF but that would result in catastrophic runaway inflation just like what happened to Germany between the wars. Mr Tharman also explained that GIC does not manage SSGS monies on their own, separate from the Government’s other assets. "GIC is fund manager for the Government, not owner of the assets and liabilities. It seeks to achieve the Government’s mandate of achieving good long-term returns, without regard to the sources of the funds that the Government places with it – for example, whether they are proceeds from SGS, SSGS or government surpluses," he said. Over the past 20 years, there were eight years in which GIC's investment returns were below what the Government pays on SSGS. However, the Government has a "substantial buffer of net assets" which ensures it can meet its obligations, he said. "The Government has been absorbing that volatility, and protecting CPF members," he added. "Our CPF system is hence sustainable, so long as the Government continues to run prudent budgets, and invest the reserves wisely." Mr Tharman also praised Singapore's CPF system saying that it has worked well and provides a strong foundation for the future. "It has protected members from risk,” said Mr Tharman. “The scheme is aimed at meeting basic retirement needs. As many members have had relatively small balances, it has been right to shield them from risk. The CPF has also avoided imposing risk on taxpayers, unlike many countries where ordinary citizens face a much larger tax burden in future." He said that although Singapore's CPF is not a perfect system, it is among the better-regarded internationally. He pointed out that the system here is sustainable, as there are no unfunded or sudden liabilities that will burden future generations. Also, the CPF offers some flexibility for members to withdraw savings - for example, to pay for their homes, with nominal out-of-pocket cash. While the scheme does not offer the highest returns, Mr Tharman said it is fair and one of the safest in the world. "Few systems offer the guaranteed floors on interest rates - 3.5 per cent for OA (Ordinary Accounts) and currently 5 per cent on SMRA (Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts) for those with smaller balances, who comprise the majority of members, and 1 per cent less for larger balances. The interest rates are guaranteed by one of the few remaining triple-A rated governments in the world.” The 3.5%/2.5% for OA is of course, the nominal interest rate before inflation, much less than the current GIC's long-term real rate of return of 4%. On top of the guaranteed interest rates, Mr Tharman also said the Government subsidises CPF members through the Budget - for example, through housing grants and Medisave top-ups. HDB housing grants, however, are in effect discounts from the HDB BTO prices. They are actually not real money going into one's CPF when one is buying a HDB BTO flat. At present, half of active CPF members were able to meet the Minimum Sum last year, including 15% who used their properties to support up to half the Minimum Sum. Only about 20% of the entire cohort who turned 55 last year had balances above the Minimum Sum that were not withdrawn.  Read More →