TR EMERITUS

Media Release Dear editors and friends of media, With immediate effect, The Online Citizen (TOC), which consists of the domain name www.theonlinecitizen.com, will be managed by The Opinion Collaborative Ltd (TOC Ltd, see Annex A below), a social enterprise registered under the Companies Act. TOC will retain its full editorial independence, while ceding its administrative and management functions, including those of fund-raising and revenue generation, to TOC Ltd. This will allow the TOC editorial team to focus completely on its key purpose – bringing news and stories that matter to Singaporeans, and continue in our mission of providing an online platform for Singaporeans to champion causes and values that promote justice, openness and inclusiveness. What it means for TOC Having TOC Ltd oversee the financing of TOC provides TOC with a corporate entity with which to raise funds, generate, retain and disburse revenue. At present, this is difficult because of TOC’s lack of corporate status. At present, there will be no new additions to the TOC editorial team, as additional funds have yet to be raised, but we do hope to increase our editorial capacity in the near future. TOC Ltd will have oversight of the editorial team only in instances where any member of the editorial team contravenes the website's editorial values and mission, as this affects public confidence in the website. The editorial team will be able to pursue the day-to-day editorial concerns independently. What it means for our readers As such, from a content perspective, users should not expect any change to what they read on TOC. TOC has always been about writing for the people. This will continue. As TOC's finances will now be managed by TOC Ltd, all donations will go to a corporate bank account under the care of TOC Ltd. As we recognise that all monies raised in support of TOC continue to be subject to the Political Donations Act, we continue to request that all donations to TOC Ltd for the use of TOC be exclusively from Singaporean citizens only. For verification, we will require you to provide your NRIC number. All donations from non-Singaporean citizens will, unfortunately, have to be refunded. We would like to appeal to donors to support us. Advertisers keen to support TOC by advertising on our web pages may also contact TOC Ltd directly, at [email protected], to discuss. Media contact information: Howard Lee Commentaries Editor, The Online Citizen PR advisor, The Opinion Collaborative Ltd Email: [email protected] ---------- Annex A – About The Opinion Collaborative Ltd The Opinion Collaborative Ltd (TOC Ltd) is a social enterprise registered with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority under the Companies Act. TOC Ltd is interested in the development of the online media sphere in Singapore, with the view of promoting an open and diverse media environment that values the constructive collaboration of ideas and views. It aims to do so by supporting websites that seek to enlighten readers and provide diversity of opinion, so as to ignite passion and responsibility in nation-building. TOC Ltd does not receive foreign funding, nor does it intend to. It will seek revenue – through means such as advertising and donation drives – by leveraging its business interests, such as its flagship brand The Online Citizen. Nevertheless, as a social enterprise, TOC Ltd is not-for-profit. Its key interest is to seek social progress. The TOC Ltd Board of Directors consist of: Howard Lee Lee Song Kwang Tan Tee Seng Terry Xu Other board members include: Choo Zheng Xi Andrew Loh The Board of Directors will be the key decision makers of TOC Ltd, with support from the board members. In following the long-held internal practice of its flagship brand, The Online Citizen, no Director of TOC Ltd may be a member of political parties at the point of joining the Board, and will have to step down should they choose to embark on a political career.  Read More →

The PAP government is finally listening to “daft” Singaporeans’ noises. After years of complaining to the government about a host of issues struggling Singaporeans face, the government appears to be acknowledging the noises and responding to the concerns of the citizens. In the past few months, the government has been introducing a slew of initiatives to address the inadequacies of the system from building more childcare facilities to promising more hospitals in 2050 and even perks to the elderly and NS servicemen. Are these changes genuine and going far enough to make a real difference in Singaporeans’ lives for the things that REALLY matter? Consulting with Singapore residents The government appears to consult more now. To mark Singapore’s 50th year of independence next year, the government wanted to give all babies born in Singapore a Jubilee baby gift pack. It asked Singaporeans for suggestions on what should go into the gift pack. More recently, the Ministry of National Development (MND) reported that it is embarking on “The Ubin Project” (http://www.mnd.gov.sg/budgetdebate2014/endearing_enhancingubin.htm). It is going to approach Singaporeans and “consult and engage widely” for suggestions on how Ubin natural environment can be enhanced to increase its heritage and rustic charm. While the government appears to be more consultative, it is not consulting on matters that most impact Singaporeans’ lives and livelihood like the CPF and the Population White Paper (PWP). These issues have created much more chatter over the internet and in coffee shops. The issues it has chosen to consult on is a pathetic, condescending gesture and an insult to all Singaporeans who are requesting a more open and constructive government. Nationalising transport services Last month, the government announced it would be taking over transport operations in 2016. In a statement by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), it said the move would increase the quality of public transport (http://singapore.coconuts.co/2014/05/22/government-controlling-bus-services). In 2011, the Workers Party called for transport services to be nationalised. The Transport Minister, Lui Tuck Yew “pointed out that this idea would result in commuters and taxpayers paying more, and possibly, have a poorer level of service over time” (https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/nationalised-transport-system-downsides-minister-lui-011720547.html). I wonder what has changed between 2011 and now for the government to have changed its mind. Perhaps PAP was just opposing all opposition ideas for the sake of opposing? I also fear nationalising transport will make little difference for commuters because the body that approves fare increases – Public Transport Council – has never flexed its muscles to prevent the privatised transport companies from increasing their fares over the years despite poor service, is it going to moderate the fares when the government owns the transport? Improving education Much has been said and written about the Singapore education system, all I can say is if the gap between the non-performing students and the highly-performing students is not narrowed and the tuition industry continues to boom, it means our education system has failed our children. Whatever initiatives the government is introducing is not addressing the core problem of our results-oriented system that is not focused on teaching and learning. Worse, it is now discouraging Singaporeans from pursuing higher education and our graduates are finding it more difficult to get a job especially after being retrenched. At the same time, millions of dollars are spent to give scholarships to foreign students with living expenses and extra tuition costs fully covered. Pity our burnt-out parents struggling to pay private tuition fees to help their children cope with the school curriculum. Pity our children who are receiving mediocre education that stresses them no end yet doesn’t prepare them for life in Singapore’s fast lane yet at every turn tell them they are not good enough! https://www.tremeritus.net/2014/06/01/sdp-pm-acks-problem-of-teachers-leaving-the-profession/ ; https://www.tremeritus.net/2014/06/02/38-grads-cant-find-job-within-1-year-of-layoff/ Narrowing the income gap Singapore’s National Wage Council (NWC) has once again come forward to recommend that workers earning below $1000 a month be given a built-in wage increase of $60, and the government has endorsed this move. It also backs NWC’s call that wage increases must lag productivity (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/singapore/nwc-guidelines-rightly/1129574.html). Singaporeans already work the longest hours in the world (http://news.asiaone.com/news/business/sporeans-work-longest-hours-world) and are one of the most burned out from work (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/04/doctors-raise-flag-on-singaporeans-stress-level/), how much more “productive” can Singaporeans be? In fact, has employers or the government ever told us how productivity of the workers is measured? By GDP? If this government is serious about narrowing the gap between the lowest waged workers and the middle income group (and they’re not even talking about the gap between rich and poor), shouldn’t it re-think its stand on minimum wage? If that would drive out companies, I wonder why there are many multi-national companies in countries that uphold the minimum wage framework. National Service The CSNS recently put forward some 30 recommendations to strengthen NS which the government has said would cost $4.5bn over the next 10 years. Some key initiatives are employing more regulars, creating more leadership positions NSmen, having volunteer army corps to include women and new citizens, more money into the NSman’s Medisave account and increasing the period for NSmen to complete their IPPT remedial training. All these recommendations have failed to address the most important issue that plague every NSman which is discrimination in the labour market. 40% NSmen believe employers prefer to employ foreigners as they won’t be disrupted at work by reservist training. While there may not be statistics to prove this claim, the fact that almost half of NSmen feel like this means there is cause for concern. Has the CSNS looked into this and put in place measures to help male Singaporeans get employed and stayed employed and not be discriminated against in the job market especially when they have given their prime years to serve this nation? Taking care of the elderly There has been much song and dance over the Pioneer Generation Package. In this package, those born in 1949 and before will enjoy an additional 50% off subsidised treatment, enjoy Medisave account top-up for the rest of their lives and have full or partial waiver of Medishield Life premiums. Of course any help for the elderly is welcome but let’s consider this: 1. Subsidised medical and dental care in Singapore is more expensive than private clinics and from across the ditch. Read: http://therealsingapore.com/content/singapore-polyclinic-charges-50-more-johor-watson ; https://www.tremeritus.net/2014/06/01/dental-public-fees-more-than-50-more-than-private-clinics/ ; http://yoursdp.org/publ/sdp_39_s_alternatives/healthcare/is_this_why_healthcare_is_so_expensive_in_singapore/31-1-0-966 Any subsidy from the government is really transferring money from their left hand to their right, at the expense of the taxpayer. 2. There are strict rules for the use of the Medisave funds. An elderly person who wants to use his Medisave account to pay for treatment is subject to claim limits, deductibles, co-payment, administration fees to name a few. Moreover, are the limits realistic? If en elderly person requires home palliative care, for example, the limit is $1,500 per patient PER LIFETIME. You tell me if the limits are realistic if you have an elderly family needing palliative care! Although the Minister for National Development, Tan Chuan Jin, recently asserted, “Money in your CPF account is your money”, how come it doesn’t feel that way? 3. Singaporeans have no say in Medishield Life. We cannot scout for a more tailored or cheaper insurance package. We have no say in how we want to be insured. Who is providing Medishield Life? Is it another case of left hand to right hand or business to cronies? For the pioneers who still have to pay 50% of the premium, what personal choice do they have since they are using their “own money”? Rather than putting the pioneers and elderly through the web of rules, limits and packages, how about making it easier for the elderly to access their savings locked in CPF? How about leaving the elderly some dignity to manage their funds, with the option of assistance (stay with CPF) should they so choose? We trust male Singaporeans to handle a rifle at 18 without indiscriminately shooting everyone in sight or their overzealous commanders but we cannot trust the elderly to not overspend their own savings? The government thinks every elderly man will wildly shoot blanks as soon as he gets his hands on his savings meant for his coffin (Guan Cai Ben)? There are many elderly here and overseas who continue to work past retirement age. These older folks have calculated and budgeted and know whether it is realistic to retire. Others just enjoy work so much they simply continue to do so. Yet others choose to stay active in this manner to keep dementia at bay. What matters is older people have a say in how they choose to live out their remaining days. Is it too much to ask the government to return choice and dignity to the elderly in Singapore? Singaporeans-first hiring policy When MP Foo Mee Har called for firms to give qualified Singaporeans priority over foreigners for professional, managerial and executive (PME) jobs in Parliament last week, Senior Minister of State for Manpower Amy Khor said that a “Singaporeans first policy would not benefit the economy in the long term” (http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/sporeans-first-hiring-not-good-economy-long-term), never mind that it would benefit Singaporeans. Of late, we have been seeing more contradictory views within the PAP camp. Instead of a split in the party, I am inclined to think there is a carefully orchestrated effort by the incumbent government to show its MPs are speaking up for the people as well as to use the parliament platform to reiterate the government’s rationale to Singaporeans. The party whip will also ensure its MPs do not stray far from the prepared course and the desire of its leader. After the slew of “improvements” from transport subsidies to wage increase for security guards and cleaners to increasing the number of preschool teachers, the government continues to steam ahead with its resolve to increase the population of this tiny island on the back of failing infrastructure. It continues to bend to the wishes of companies and cronies for cheap foreign workers. It continues to ignore the increasing income gap between the poor and rich and the high inflation rate not matched by income rise. The PAP government is hell bent on silencing critics, shutting out our “noises” and threatening our freedom of speech. Its leader has shown he is not slow to bring out the hatchet that once belonged to his father and he will not hesitate to bankrupt, maim and decimate his opponents. As the government pulls out all stops to buy your vote, consider whether it is sincere about becoming a government for the people, whether it is truly sorry for having failed our PMETs, our children, our elderly, our middle-income families, our poor and vulnerable, our disabled and our graduates and whether its vision for Singapore includes our children and their children. As long as the government’s values and the principles guiding its policy framework don’t change, any modification is just cosmetic. It is to make itself temporarily attractive to lure your vote. It doesn’t go deep enough to improve your quality of life and your well-being for the long term and for the future generations of Singaporeans. As a last note, look at Denmark. Like Singapore, it is small and its economy relies almost entirely on human resources (yet does not need to import plane loads of foreigners). The country has the world’s highest minimum wage negotiated between employers and the unions. Its workers pay one of the highest taxes. Its unemployment rate is the lowest in EU. According to World Bank Gini, it has the lowest level of income inequality. Its residents enjoy free, top-notch education up to University and free health and dental care. It is also regarded as the country that best cares for its elder citizens (http://thechronicleherald.ca/careincrisis/1168351-a-better-way-to-care-for-the-aging#.U40c3PmSw40). This is one tiny country that doesn’t have to pay its government millions in salary yet can achieve good balance between welfare and a healthy economy and its people are the happiest on earth!   Cass * Submitted by TRE reader   Editor's note: According to the World Happiness Report 2013 [Link], Denmark is the world's happiest country. Singapore is ranked 30th. Even 3rd world countries like Costa Rica, Panama, Mexico beat Singapore:    Read More →

Jurong GRC MP and Minister of State for National Development Desmond Lee. He is the son of former cabinet minister Lee Yock Suan. I refer to the 31 May 2014 Straits Times letter “Issue is whether WP changed position on foreign workers” by Minister of State Mr Desmond Lee. Mr Lee argued that in the case of WP, the need for time to master policymaking doesn’t apply to the fundamental principles of honesty and integrity. Mr Lee is mistaken; WP doesn’t need time to master honesty and integrity as it already is head and shoulders above PAP in these areas. Mr Lee questioned whether WP had changed its position on foreign workers and whether it has acknowledged that change. He questioned the honesty, transparency and accountability of Mr Low and his colleagues and referred to PM Lee supposedly pointing out the falseness of Mr Low’s claim that WP had not flip-flopped that was supposedly recorded in parliament reports. Mr Lee is wrong again as parliament reports do not record any flip flop by WP. It is wishful thinking on the part of Mr Lee and PM Lee that WP had flipped flopped because it had not. WP was the first to honestly tell the parliament about the problem of excessive immigration at a time when most PAP members didn’t. This speaks volumes about the honesty of WP vis-a-vis PAP. Subsequently when PAP went into a knee jerk scramble to stranglehold the inflow, WP again honestly told parliament about the problem of such knee jerk reaction. Mr Lee must understand that examples abound where warning about too much first then warning against any sudden change are not at odds with each other. For example: • Warning about the obesity of a man who weighs 300 kg is not at odds with warning him not to shed too much weight too quickly as that might kill him • Warning about the overheating of the engine is not at odds with warning against dousing it with ice cold water to quickly cool it as the sudden and extreme temperature change might stress the engine instead • Warning about the excessive altitude of an airplane is not at odds with warning against too sudden a descent as that might stress the airframe or cause discomfort to the passengers • Warning about the high speed of a car is not at odds with warning against suddenly braking the car as the vehicle behind might not brake in time and end up crashing into the car Hence, WP’s warning about too much at first and too fast later are not at odds with each other, are not flip flops of each other. Mr Lee’s caution about Singapore’s future being dependent on constructive politics, honesty and integrity of politicians should therefore be applied on himself and his party first because insisting there was flip flop when there was none is neither constructive, honest nor exemplificative of integrity. PAP and WP argue over immigration issue I refer too to the 31 May 2014 Straits Times article “PAP and WP argue over immigration issue”. Mr Cedric Foo demanded that Mr Chen Show Mao state whether he would welcome immigrants and whether he would rally Singaporeans to support bringing in immigrants given there will be 900,000 Singaporeans above 65 years old and that families are getting smaller. Mr Foo need not have been so worried. The government has been assuring us time and again that our CPF system is the best in the world and sufficient to meet our retirement needs: • In other words, the CPF system is designed to cater fully for the retirement needs of those who are below middle-income, while at the same time, cater significantly for the retirement needs of the middle income group. Speech by Mr Tan Chuan-Jin Minister of State (Manpower and National Development) At The Retirement Conference “Improving Retirement Security in Singapore” At Hilton Hotel, Singapore On 12 April 2012 At 9:15 am • Ultimately, the CPF allows us to have peace of mind because you do have a constant stream of income at the point of retirement and it ensures that will continue, rather than you having to depend on someone else or the state Straits Times, CPF provides peace of mind: Chuan-Jin, 30 May 2014 • SINGAPORE'S Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme has been named one of the top 10 pension systems in the world, among the likes of countries such as Denmark and Sweden. Straits Times, CPF scheme among top 10 pension systems in the world, 7 Oct 2013 • Mr Tharman said: "The results of the study are an important validation of the CPF." Straits Times, CPF provides comfortable post-retirement income: Study, 20 Sep 2012 More importantly, Mr Tan Chuan Jin explained how our CPF system solves the problem of an ageing population and shrinking workforce: • Many countries do the same through a pension system. They collect taxes or get citizens to contribute to a social security fund. This pooled monies is then paid out to citizens who reach a certain age. However, many of these systems are facing challenges, because those who are young are now paying for the old. As most countries age, there are fewer and fewer young people paying for more and more aged people. The status quo cannot hold. Either taxes will have to rise, or old people will get a lower and lower pay-out. The pension payout age is also being increased. In Singapore, we have the CPF. Rather than pool all our monies together, every individual saves for his own retirement via his personal individual CPF account. We contribute monthly into the account … We then make sure this CPF account grows at a reasonable interest rate without risk. Mr Tan Chuan Jin, The Truth About Our CPF and the Minimum Sum, 25 May 2014 In other words, what Mr Tan was saying is that since each and every one of us will be paying for our own retirement needs through our individual CPF accounts, we avoid the issue of a shrinking pool of young people supporting a larger pool of aged people faced by other countries. Mr Foo was thus unduly worried about the 900,000 Singaporeans above 65 years and a shrinking workforce, because no matter how many Singaporeans are above 65 years old or how small our workforce is, CPF is the answer. Conversely, if we have to worry about population ageing and a shrinking work force despite our CPF, does it not suggest that CPF was never the silver bullet it is touted to be? Mr Arthur Fong then took issue with Mr Chen’s supposed prevarication on Mr Foo’s question. Actually, if Mr Fong were to view past videos of Mr Chen’s replies in parliament, they have always been slow and deliberative. There is no evidence that Mr Chen’s latest reply was significantly slower than his previous ones. There is no evidence that Mr Chen prevaricated this time. Thank you Ng Kok Lim [1] Straits Times, Issue is whether WP changed position on foreign workers, 31 May 2014, Minister of State Mr Desmond Lee IN THE article ("Exchange raises questions on role of opposition"; Thursday), assistant political editor Robin Chan said some people may see the Workers' Party (WP) as a "small party that is still growing, still finding its way, and which needs to be given time", that "the WP cannot yet match the PAP in terms of depth and breadth in policymaking, and perhaps also in vision", and that "eventually, the WP, to be a truly credible opposition in Parliament, must be held to the high standards of politics that Mr Lee (Hsien Loong) spelt out". The WP may indeed need time to master the depth and breadth of policymaking, but surely that argument cannot apply to the fundamental principles of honesty and integrity. In Prime Minister Lee's exchange with Mr Low Thia Khiang in Parliament on Wednesday, the issue was less about the merits of the WP's foreign worker proposals, and more about whether the WP had changed its position on foreign workers, and if so, whether it had acknowledged and explained this change. In other words, whether Mr Low and his colleagues had been honest, transparent and accountable to Singaporeans. Mr Low maintained that the WP had not flip-flopped. But as PM Lee pointed out, this is false, and the truth is recorded in the Parliamentary Reports. Singapore's future and well-being depend on political parties practising constructive politics and our politicians upholding honesty and integrity. If a party does not value honesty, transparency and accountability from the very start, it is unlikely to become honest, transparent and accountable one day. [2] Straits Times, PAP and WP argue over immigration issue, 31 May 2014 THE People's Action Party (PAP) and the Workers' Party (WP) tussled over immigration again, two days after a fiery debate between their party leaders. Backbenchers sparred over the subject of foreign workers yesterday, albeit on a far less feisty note than the exchanges between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and WP leader Low Thia Khiang on Wednesday. PAP's Mr Cedric Foo (Pioneer) pressed WP's Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied GRC) on whether he felt immigrants were necessary to deal with Singapore's ageing population. This came after Mr Chen's speech, which focused on successful ageing in Singapore. Replying with pauses in between, Mr Chen said the focus should still be on "the growing of a resident workforce". He added: "When targets we set for the growth in our resident working population... are not met, then I think at that time foreign workers may be... increased so that we're on a path to growth as we have planned." But Mr Foo took issue with this, stressing that he was asking specifically about the flow of immigrants into the country. "There will be 900,000 Singaporeans above the age of 65 and families are getting smaller... we do need immigrants and I'd like Mr Chen's comment on whether he welcomes immigrants and whether he would rally the support of Singaporeans to bring about these immigrants," he said. Mr Chen said the WP has "nothing against immigrants coming to Singapore", but also is in favour of "orderly growth within limits". Mr Foo pursued his point but this time, Mr Low jumped in and said the WP is "not an anti-immigration party". He added: "We welcome foreign talent but talent, real talent, not immigrants who are taking away the jobs of Singaporeans or taking away opportunities that Singaporeans could have been better served." Mr Low also stressed the need to keep a strong Singapore core. He argued that with immigrants coming in, it would be too simplistic to assume "they will integrate with Singapore and Singaporeans". Later, PAP's Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC) hit out at Mr Chen, saying he had "prevaricated on Mr Foo's question on immigrants". Mr Chen pointed out that he was himself an immigrant, and said helping older workers stay productive would help to grow Singapore's workforce and prevent an over-reliance on immigrants and foreign workers.  Read More →