TR EMERITUS

Something I do not understand on  GST Voucher payout to credit off the Utilities Account. I have a family of 5 staying with me. Looking at the MOF Letter, every family member is given a $180 to offset their household utility bills. So a total of $900. However, I can only deduct $180 for my SP Services. So where did the balance $720 go? Lost into thin air? If the Government openly declared xxx dollars are set aside for this whole 2014 GST Voucher program, and from my example above, the actual $900 was not factually paid to offset our utilities bill, then the balance $720 must be still sitting in the Government budget accounts. So in turn, will the Government openly declare that balance amount (which is suppose to be ours) be spent on? So for every each year, since the GST Voucher Budget started, what happen to that "missing balance amount" went to? This example of that unspent $720 amount we are talking about, is just for one household, my one family. Think about that dollar amount when we are talking about millions of households. So is the GST Voucher budget really helping us or is it helping the Government to have "Enlarge" money to channel it to other areas not openly announced. Meng *  Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

Singapore-Johor Causeway (Pic: Wikipedia) Gelang Patah (3 Jul): Those driving into Singapore on a regular basis are unhappy with the move to raise the Vehicle Entry Permit fee for Malaysian cars. Businessman Sean Cheng, 27, who crosses the border about thrice weekly, said the increase would be very taxing for those entering Singapore daily for work or study. “I pity those going in daily to earn a living as living expenses are already quite high in the republic. I feel that with the development and opportunities in Johor at Iskandar Malaysia, it is better for Malaysians to move back here,” he said. .... Durian seller Gan Cheng Hock, 52, who frequently delivers musang king durians to the republic said, “They should be more lenient because Singapore depends a lot on Malaysia for production and trade. [Read more:  The Star Online]  Read More →

Pinoys still “ng kum guan” (dissatisfied) about 8 June fiasco? And are the Pinoys trying to stir the pot in revenge? Or is the Pinoy embassy juz hard at work showing that it is doing its job of protecting Pinoys against hate-crime, bullying and exploitation. After complaining about a hate (no such thing, IMO: it was juvenile, offensive, dumb: anything and everything except "hateful"), it is now looking into a report that domestic workers, including Filipinos, were being put on display at malls in Singapore. Al Jazeera reported that the workers are allegedly made to sit beneath signs and posters that testify to their qualities, or advertise promo rates and discounts. Seems to me that ever since the 8 June fiasco when the Pinoy community were collectively given a tight slap that the S'pore Police Force was not their grandfather's police force and that "P" in SPF, PM and PMO did not stand for "Pinoy" but for "Police" and "Prime", the embassy has become "garang" (fierce), and assertive: trying to find fault with S'poreans. Trying to repent for the embassy's failings over that fiasco? The undermentioned letter to Voices reflects what the Pinoys and their S'pore friends expected from what they tot was the S'pore Pinoy Force, Pinoy Minister and Pinoy Minister's Office: What message was police sending over Filipino event? Daniel Sim Shao Qi Published: May 29, 4:03 AM The police have advised the Pilipino Independence Day Council that there are public order and safety concerns with the venue proposed for its celebration plans. Consequently, the organisers decided to cancel their event. I am disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their intolerance. Instead of advising the organisers to hold the event elsewhere, they should have promised additional security if needed. What message are we sending to the Philippine government — that we are unwilling to protect its citizens? What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore? When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking responsibility. [Link] I think the police have better things to do than to organise and help out at the Pinoys' party. My understanding is that the Pinoys didn't have a clue about the requirements to host a function in a crowded thoroughfare on a Saturday afternoon in S'pore's premier shopping area. They tot all they had to do was to set up a stage, sound system and bring in the gals and the booze, and leave the rest to the S'pore Pinoy Force. When they were disabused by the police, they were not happy at the work and costs involved: marshals, medical support, cordoning off the area (see below), etc. Not happy, pls go home (even though I like being served by Pinoy service staff: they are tops and gd at parting me from my money happily) especially as PinoyLand is the new Asian economic power house, supposedly. But then unlike home, there's no goons with guns here: safer here for all the claims of feeling victimised, exploited* and afraid. Only got Gilbert Goh's, Goh Meng Seng's and friends' hot air to irritate them: don't see this hot air killing them. To end, on a constructive note, here's a gd Voice explaining a situation that would have worked on 8 June: All the Pinoys needed to do was to arrange to close the plaza for their function. It would have been expensive though. They had only themselves to blame for allowing Goh Meng Seng, Gilbert Goh and friends to whip up sentiment against the event. And among themselves, they could reasonably have expected the embassy to give them this advice in a timely manner, not a S'porean, after the event.. Venue for Philippine celebration would not have been ‘public space’ Timothy Tang Published: May 29, 4:03 AM In regard to the Philippine independence celebration meant to be held at Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza, which has now been shelved, I feel that the complaints about the event were mainly due to a misunderstanding of what constitutes public space. Many Singaporeans who complained online thought it would be held in a public area, which they saw as conflicting with and disrespectful to the interests of Singaporeans. But if Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza were not to be open to members of the public during the event, the event space would not be defined as a public place. Legally, “public place” means “a part of a place that the occupier of the place allows members of the public to enter, but only while the place is ordinarily open to members of the public”. The location at Orchard Road might have been chosen simply because of convenience and familiarity to Filipinos who frequent Lucky Plaza. Understanding the legal definition of public and non-public places can explain why Singapore Day last year, at Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens, was not actually held at a public space. Although the park is normally a public place, the event venue was closed off to members of the Australian public. An event can be held outdoors and not be defined as a public event, as long as the event space is closed off from public access. [Link] Related posts: [Link], [Link] ------------------------------------------------ *And we don't do this here to anyone: Pinoys do this to Pinoys in PinoyLand THE usual story of child sex-tourism goes something like this. A predator from a rich country arranges a meeting with a fixer and travels to a poor country. The fixer could be a pimp, or even a family relation of the child. If so, the predator might shower the child’s family with gifts and money in exchange for being alone with his victim. Eventually, the offender flies home and returns to his normal life as if nothing had happened. However, the rapid spread of fast and cheap internet connections in the poor world, and particularly in South-East Asia, is adding a new twist to this nasty old story. It’s called “virtual trafficking”, where predators now meet children in video-chat rooms. ... The problem is particularly bad in the Philippines. There, whereas 2% of its 77m people had access to the Internet in 2000, today over one-third of its 104m people do. Combined with deep poverty, this gives fixers and families both the means and the incentive to put children on the web. Fortunately, however, unlike in most countries the Philippines justice system allows for entrapment. “This facilitates prosecution in cases where the victims are unable to testify in court for whatever reasons,” says Darlene Pajarito, an assistant city prosecutor with the department of justice. [Link] Cynical Investor [Source]: Thoughts of a Cynical Investor.  Read More →