The Workers’ Party never misses an opportunity to pander and its response to the fare review exercise was, to a large extent, predictable.

First, they claimed credit for the concessions. That’s always easy. Except someone else did the real work of sorting out the math and getting the balance right. 

Then, it criticises the Government, for directly funding programmes like the Bus Services Enhancement Programme.

It also opposes operators getting more fares through the adjustment. 

But, it wants better services. 

It conveniently avoids the question of how better services are to be paid for. 

More buses, more drivers, more trips on the road, more depots and interchanges, more maintenance, more equipment.

In WP’s world, these things can all be achieved without more effort and resources.

Not in the real world.

As most reasonable commentators agree, the current package of fare increase coupled with significant concessions is to be lauded.

Government will contribute as much as commuters are contributing, while fares are kept affordable.

One million plus commuters stand to benefit – and many have said they appreciate it.

Finally, WP does it again. They demanded that the new fares start only when new concession schemes kick in July for low-wage workers and persons with disabilities. Would have been better if they read the reports carefully - transport vouchers of between $30-$80 are going to both groups from Apr to tide them over. And everyone else who needs extra can get additional vouchers year-round. 

Gerard Ee and his team deserve our thanks for taking on this incredibly difficult job.

WP should just give its unqualified endorsement of their great work done.

PAP Minister Josephine Teo

*Article first appeared on her FB page here.

We were privileged to interact with Tunisian activists and MPs from various parties and hear about their experiences in the on-going process of drawing up the Tunisian constitution when we attended a conference there in December last year organised by the Swedish International Liberal Centre.

We also heard from Egyptian activists about the missteps pro-democracy forces made in the continuing democratisation process. There was also a panel where representatives from various countries, including us from Singapore, shared our experiences of working in undemocratic states and how to operate within such environments.

A major thread running through the conference was how to effectively execute a transition of governments such that minority rights (and women’s rights) are upheld even as we make economic progress.

Our perspective of the so called “liberal project” has been that civil liberties and human rights (such as freedoms of interaction and entitlements to individuals) should be guaranteed on the basis of human dignity (such as sanitation, housing and healthcare respectively). They are the basis of a strong society.

Only with firmly grounded rights will citizens have a say in government and be able to advocate for and defend their well-being against cunning back room machinations geared towards (economic) extraction.

In Singapore, the truth of this has been hinted at by the power of forms of relatively new Internet-based organization and communication to effect some change in the rhetoric of the ruling PAP in Singapore, where traditional forms of political organization and communication had already been effectively reserved to the ruling party through its exercise of “rule by law” and the “emerging” Internet “blindsided” the “far-sighted” PAP government.

Yet, as evidenced by the experiences of people around the world, peoples’ willingness to stand up – even by an educated populace – to a government’s abuse of power tends to emerge only when there is prolonged economic deprivation, as was the case in Tunisia and Egypt.

Though deteriorating economic well-being is the trigger for populations to realize that something is wrong, how can people be made to realize that civil rights and human rights are by far the best way to build and sustain economic well-being in the long term?

From a practical standpoint, one must canvas for votes with implementable policy plans that directly improve well-being of citizens. But how can a party raise the consciousness of the electorate on the importance of their rights?

These questions were never fully answered during the sessions, but one aspect of human nature that arose seemed to provide the answer. Fundamentally, people want to be treated with dignity. But in authoritarian societies citizens are forced to trade dignity for survival; they are told that exigencies of survival take precedence over dignity. People are fooled into thinking that dignity becomes a luxury that we cannot afford. That is, until society’s consciousness is raised.

Perhaps the challenge is how to effectively link civil liberties and human rights to economic concerns.

Many Singaporeans feel downtrodden by the economic policies of the PAP government and, as a result, found extremely compelling the idea of a legislature that would not allow extractive policies go unquestioned and wanted a fundamental change in governance where the dignity of the people would begin to be upheld. The sentiment was manifest in the 2011 General Elections results.

This indicates that, at a fundamental level, the SDP has been on the right track. We have been working on practical and implementable policy plans to improve the lives of Singaporeans and solve major problems they faced. Our proposals on healthcare, housing as well as population and foreign manpower policy are premised on rights, and they uphold the dignity of Singaporeans.

The challenges that we face, going forward, are to continue developing rational and sensible policy plans and to communicate these to Singaporeans. The SDP would have to continue to work to communicate and persuade Singaporeans to support what’s in their best interest.

The PAP’s recent “declaration of war” on non-PAP ideas is unfortunate. Instead of fighting ideas that are different from ours, the SDP will reason and persuade the people of our views and policies.

Democratic ideals are not high-minded principles separated from our everyday lives. They are held by people, advocated for by people, and lived by people.

We were extremely heartened by the activists we met in Tunisia. We met earnest and genuine people seeking to make their nations better, we met committed people who were willing to stand up and be counted often in the face of extreme danger, and we met thoughtful and experienced individuals who were humble. We are glad to have made their acquaintance.

The questions we sought answers to defied straightforward solutions, but we came away enriched from the experiences shared, sharpened from learning the specific issues faced in different settings, and heartened by our global colleagues on the shared project of promoting democracy around the world.

Jeremy Chen & Mansura Sajahan

* Jeremy Chen is pursuing his PhD in Decision Science at NUS and is a member of SDP’s housing policy panel. Mansura Sajahan is SDP’s Secretariat Manager.

Dear SMOS Josephine Teo Li Min

Predictably, you lambasted the WP on your FB link for supporting the public transport concession schemes with a delay in fare hikes. link

Like a few other PAP MPs, you try too hard to be in PAP’s good books. When the opposition takes a stand, the numerically superior PAP will execute its ‘carpet bombing’ with the help of the MSM. When their views are not divergent, they are called fence sitters. Do you really think Singaporeans are stupid?

The WP has spoken for the majority of ordinary Singaporeans but you appear to be totally in the dark on public transportation issues. What qualified you to become an SMOS at the Ministry of Transport when you know nuts about the needs and expectations of commuters?

You said that “More buses, more drivers, more trips on the road, more depots and interchanges, more maintenance, more equipment. In WP’s world, these things can all be achieved without more effort and resources.”

Fact – the PAP government should have put in all the effort and resources BEFORE increasing the population. Instead, it went ahead and ignored all these predictable issues. These problems were single handedly caused by your party as it controls all state resources. And our Parliament. Blame the PAP for upside down planning.

Any fare increase must be opposed because SMRT and SBS Transit collectively made $1.6 BILLION in net profits from 2001 to 2010! http://singaporeelection.blogspot.sg/2011/07/profits-of-mrt-and-sbs-over-years.html These profits were distributed to shareholders, the major beneficiary being Temasek Holdings. Since both PTOs have emptied their kitty, the government had to provide them with a $1.1 BILLION handout, compliments of taxpayers, last year to help run their business. Again, you conveniently ignore this fact. Is this fair to commuters?

“One million plus commuters stand to benefit – and many have said they appreciate it.” Let me just ask you who in their right mind will refuse free money? Will you not be appreciative if your million dollar salary is increased? The money does not come from the PAP but the other 4 million plus commuters who seem non existent to you. Talk to the other 4 million plus commuters and you will know they condemn the fare hike. link to satire

As an MP, you should have understood the issues faced by ordinary citizens. But some say you are ‘blur as a sotong’ because you don’t walk the talk and are therefore unable/refuse to understand our issues. Should you insist on continuing down the same path, an increasing number of ordinary Singaporeans will start losing respect for you and label all that you say as ‘talk cock, sing song’. This is clearly not in Singapore’s interest.

Don’t ever forget your salary is paid by us and not the PTOs.

Phillip Ang

TRS Contributor

*Submitted on* 19 January 2014 - 11:26am
*Submitted by user*:

Title: PAP reject gets more coverage than WP winner
Article Text :
Lots of pictures to tell a story
http://readtherightthing.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/pap-reject-gets-more-coverage-than-wp-winner/

Author: Read The Right Thing
Suggested Caption for sharing on Facebook.: See how biased and PLP the local
media can be
Email: noelark2006@hotmail.com
Image:

The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://therealsingapore.com/node/5192/submission/821

We have always recognised our mainstream media to be quite bias when it comes to political coverage and this is part of the reason why the opposition in Singapore has been crippled for so many years.

It is a system which is used a lot by the ruling PAP to keep control over the thoughts of Singaporeans and politicians keep wanting us to read the "right" thing:

"If you read something in the Straits Times or on CNA, you must know that it’s real."– Lee Hsien Loong, 2006.

I want to share through how even the lack of coverage can be used to silence opposition. 

This is what WP MP for Punggol East has been doing on the ground.

Visit Lilian’s facebook page post here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=567552883333223&set=a.501105499977962.1073741825.393604124061434&type=1&relevant_count=1

More pictures from this page: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.681181591939999.1073741854.489895054401988&type=1

She gets no media coverage although she was elected by the people and won fair and square in the elections, demolishing the PAP’s Koh Poh Koon empathetically.

But when the PAP does something in Punggol East, this is what happens:

Channel Newsasia

Straits Times

Straits Times

TODAY

Notice how Koh Poh Koon tags along to DPM Teo Chee Hean.

This is how the lapdog media helps the PAP.

Read The Right Thing

*The writer blogs at http://readtherightthing.wordpress.com/

As Singapore gets more politically liberal, I will discuss why I believe that voting for the opposition may bring you more benefits than if you were to vote for the PAP.

Rivervale Plaza: Checks and balances: to counter the PAP’s incompetence?

Rivervale Plaza has finally been opened slightly less than a year after the by-election. The significance here is that the poor state of the mall in 2012 has been put under scrutiny at the electoral debates. For those who don’t recall, the main contractor went bust while the newly appointed contractor did not seem to have resolved tenant’s complaints satisfactorily. For such an issue to have happened is unacceptable in the first place.

Despite promises from the PAP that it would be completed in less than 6 months, the whole duration took one year. Nevertheless, two points can be made. Firstly, the fact that the opening took twice as long as promised illustrates that the PAP is a party which overpromises and under-delivers even for something that was clearly their fault. Next, the need for more opposition voices to present the PAP’s inadequacies to the electorate should also be key factor in a new political paradigm.

PAP’s complacency pales in comparison to the efforts of the new party?

In addition to the Rivervale Plaza issue, the efforts that the PAP has put in other areas such as transport has been quite lacking as well. Despite complaints that there has been a lack of bus services, nothing much has been done under the PAP’s care. Instead, 2 essential services - 371 and 624 – will connect the residents to their town centres and the CBD more effectively. Such efforts can be attributed to both the new party’s efforts as well as the PAP’s fear. This aptly quells resident’s fears that voting for the opposition would mean the deterioration of their estates as life has been better for them under the WP.

Too little, too late?

The grassroots at Punggol East has recently launched a service to provide vouchers to needy families. It disgusts me to see that such a simple measure was only initiated after so long.  By contrast, the WP had initiated their programme of distributing household necessities long ago and is in the midst of starting a new scheme to involve giving tuition services to needy children. It is quite sad that such measures strongly seem to be an election strategy than a sincere measure to help out.

Is such tokenism enough to swing votes?

Looking at the current sentiments of the electorate, many of them are no doubt pleased that the grassroots are doing something. However, there are bigger issues on a national level which frustrate the average person; these includes competition from foreigners as well as inadequate infrastructure and fare hikes. Given the Singaporean mentality, accepting such gifts are no doubt welcome with open arms but are otherwise unlikely to sway voters by much.

Concluding Remarks?

Moving forward, more problems are likely to surface within the next few years with a few dollars’ worth of goodies unlikely to provide much ease to voters. Instead, Singaporeans should get used to a new paradigm where voting for the opposition may benefit you more than the PAP does.

Joseph Kheng-Liang Tan

*The author is a 21 year-old polytechnic graduate who is currently pursuing his law degree in Australia. A believer of the free press, he has contributed extensively in his personal capacity to popular socio-political sites such as TRS and TRE. Supremely homophobic, he would rather vote for the PAP if the opposition sends in a homosexual representative.

In the first parliamentary sitting of 2014, the Workers' Party raises questions concerning the Little India Riots, the Personal Data Protection Act, transport, education, healthcare, housing, childcare facilities, and money lending activities. 

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER*

*4. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs regarding the Committee of Inquiry set up to inquire into the Little India riot on 8 December 2013 (a) when will it commence its formal hearings; (b) who will lead evidence in the inquiry; and (c) whether the proceedings will be conducted wholly in public or otherwise.

*10. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the criteria used to choose the four members of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) on the Little India riot; and (b) whether any member of the COI is familiar with migrant worker issues to be able to ask appropriate questions and assess the information collected, particularly with regard to grievances of migrant workers in Singapore.

*11. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the policing arrangements for Little India (a) what was the division of work among state police, auxiliary police and private security prior to the riot of 8 December 2013; and (b) pending the Committee of Inquiry's findings and recommendations, whether any interim changes have been or will be made to the arrangements.

*16. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs in each of the years from 2009 to 2012, how many public and beer house licences and 'takeaway' alcohol licences have been issued in the recently proclaimed demarcated zone in Little India.

*37. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether Singapore's interests are affected by China's declaration of an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the South China Sea in November 2013; and (b) what is the Ministry's assessment of the prospects of China establishing a similar ADIZ over the disputed Spratly Islands.

*44. Mr Chen Show Mao: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information what are the reasons for the reversal by the Personal Data Protection Commission to now allow businesses to send marketing messages to persons with whom they have an 'ongoing relationship' without having to obtain their consent and notwithstanding their having registered their names in the Do Not Call Registry.

*45. Mr Chen Show Mao: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information what will the Ministry do to educate consumers and individuals of steps that they may take to stop receiving marketing messages from businesses including those with whom they may have an ‘ongoing relationship’.

*54. Ms Lee Li Lian: To ask the Minister for Law (a) how are the effective interest rate caps of 13% and 20% for secured and unsecured loans for lower income earners determined; (b) whether the caps can be extended to loans for higher income earners; and (c) for each year in the last 5 years, what is the average interest rate charged by licensed moneylenders for secured and unsecured loans respectively to borrowers with annual income of less than $30,000 and to those with annual income of $30,000 or more.

*55. Ms Lee Li Lian: To ask the Minister for Law (a) what is the number of places of business operated by licensed moneylenders as at 31 December of each year in the last 5 years; (b) whether a limit is set to the number of places of such businesses in each HDB town; and (c) what is the value of such moneylending loans as at 31 December of each year in the last 5 years.

*60. Ms Lee Li Lian: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) what is the status of the review of staff-child ratios in childcare and infant care centres; and (b) what are the plans to reduce the current one staff-five children (1:5) ratio in these centres in light of the recent announcement to create 20,000 more childcare places by 2017.

*61. Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many families have been identified by the Ministry as homeless and camping by the beach annually between 2010 and 2012; and (b) whether there are any measures in place to assist these families especially those with young children.

*66. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what internal disciplinary action has been taken against the superintendent, supervisors and other officers involved in the death of prison inmate Dinesh Raman s/o Chinnaiah.

*70. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) in the past two years, what is the number of Singaporeans with non-citizen spouses who applied to keep their sole overseas property after they purchased their flat from HDB or the resale market; (b) what is the number of applicants who are granted exemption to keep their overseas properties; (c) what are the main reasons for granting such exemptions; and (d) what is the breakdown by nationality of those given such exemptions.

72. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport (a) what is the quantum of MRT and bus fare increases sought by each public transport operator in their latest submission; (b) whether the new fare subsidy schemes recommended by the Fare Review Mechanism Committee will be rolled out before any fare increases take place and all eligible commuters given ample time to apply for the subsidy schemes; and (c) how the Ministry will reach out to all commuters to ensure that they benefit from the subsidies they are eligible for.

*78. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs what are procedures that the police have in place when investigating suspected sexual assault cases, including rape, to ensure that victims do not feel humiliated or faulted for what happened to them.

*82. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will consider studying the feasibility of accommodating the wearing of the hijab by Muslim staff with the heads of the uniformed services in their organisations subject to considerations such as operational exigencies.

*91. Mr Png Eng Huat: To ask the Minister for Education in each of the years from 2010 to date (a) what is the number and percentage of international students who receive tuition grants in the 13 approved institutions, grouped by polytechnics, universities, and others; (b) what is the total tuition grant given to international students; and (c) what is the number of international students who default on their agreement to work for Singapore-based companies for three years upon their graduation.

*92. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Education whether the Ministry will review and reduce the school and tertiary institution fees payable by international students who have at least one parent who is a Singapore citizen.

QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER

2. Mr Yee Jenn Jong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs over the past three years (a) how many incidents related to drunkenness have been reported to the police; (b) how many of these incidents involved foreign workers; (c) how many of these incidents were in the Little India vicinity; and (d) which were the three localities with the highest incidence of reported drunkenness.

7. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB blocks are more than 40 years into their 99-year lease; (b) what will be the value of an HDB flat once it reaches the end of its 99-year lease; (c) what is the average number of flats undergoing redevelopment under the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) each year for the past 10 years; and (d) whether the pace of SERS is fast enough to redevelop all HDB blocks before they reach the end of their lease.

12. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health what is the current waiting time for cancer patients seeking specialist outpatient appointments at public hospitals and the National Cancer Centre.

13. Ms Sylvia Lim: To ask the Minister for Health what is the current waiting time for placement in a subsidised stay at nursing homes.

16. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport with regard to the new Bus Service Reliability Framework (a) what evidence does the LTA rely on to determine that providing financial incentives rather than just penalties to public bus operators to arrive at bus stops on schedule will improve waiting times; and (b) whether the incentive amounts will be funded by taxpayers.

23. Mr Pritam Singh: To ask the Acting Minister for Manpower in how many instances over the past 10 years has the Labour Court ruled that the basic rate of pay as provided under the Employment Act covers overtime hours.

Parliament Sitting on 20 January 2014

QUESTION FOR ORAL ANSWER

*1653. Mr Vikram Nair: To ask the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what are the factors which the Media Development Authority takes into account in deciding which websites are required to register under the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification; and (b) which websites have been asked to do so thus far.

Answer: 

      MDA adopts a balanced and practical approach in its regulation of Internet Content Providers (ICPs). These include any individual in Singapore who provides any programme, for business, political or religious purposes, or any corporation or group of individuals who provides any programme on the Internet.

2    There are three forms of licences for ICPs under MDA’s licensing framework – (i) an individual licence; (ii) an automatic class licence; and (iii) an automatic class licence with the requirement to register with the MDA.

3    Individual licences are issued to content providers which offer a television service through the Internet. Examples are MediaCorp’s Toggle and xinMSN. Individual licences are also issued to news portals that report regularly on Singapore’s news and current affairs and enjoy significant reach among Singaporeans. Ten online news licences have been issued since the scheme was implemented on 1 June 2013.

4    The rest of the ICPs are regulated under a class licensing regime that has been in place since 1996. They do not need to apply to MDA for individual licences, but are automatically class-licensed once they operate their websites. This remains the Government’s approach of light-touch regulation. It remains the primary route through which the vast majority of websites on the Internet are licensed.

5    By virtue of their class licence, the ICPs have to comply with the conditions under the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification and the content guidelines in the Internet Code of Practice. ICPs that fail to abide by the Code can be taken to task by MDA by having their class licences cancelled or suspended. Since 1996, MDA has not had to cancel or suspend any ICP, which also means it has not had to prosecute any party.

6    Lastly, there are certain types of ICPs to which class licences are granted automatically, but with the condition that they register with the MDA. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Schedule of the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification spell out the types of ICPs that need to register with MDA. They include ICPs who are political parties registered in Singapore providing any programme through the Internet, and ICPs who are “a body of persons engaged in the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore through the Internet”. MDA also reserves the right to require ICPs who are in the business of “providing through the Internet an on-line newspaper for a subscription fee or other consideration” or who are “individuals providing any programme for the propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues relating to Singapore through the Internet” to register with it. These are provisions already provided for and spelt out clearly in the Schedule, and the need to move from automatic class licence to class licence by registration only occurs when an individual or body meets the criteria spelt out in the Schedule.

7    Registration is straightforward and only requires the applicant to provide relevant information such as contact details, brief description of the website, key personnel operating it and any information that might shed light on possible foreign funding. There are currently 8 websites run by political parties, 39 websites involved in the “propagation, promotion or discussion of religious issues relating to Singapore” and 4 websites “involved in the propagation, promotion or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore” registered under this Notification.

8    As the regulator, MDA exercises the discretion to invoke the clauses consistently. If there are developments or trends suggesting a need to require registration on a new group or category of entities and to register them in a different form or manner, MDA will do so. It is in this context that I wish to elaborate on MDA’s decision to register The Independent in July last year and most recently, The Breakfast Network.

9    As members would be aware, in July last year MDA asked The Independent to register under the Broadcasting (Class License) Notification. Although it describes itself as a newspaper, it was also clear from its stated aim of bringing in-depth perspective and analysis on political issues in Singapore that it intended to engage in the propagation, promotion and discussion of political issues in Singapore. Furthermore, the Government had received specific information which gave it cause for concern over foreign interest to fund The Independent. Hence, MDA asked the providers of the The Independent to register, and as part of the registration, to sign an undertaking not to receive foreign funding.

10   It is a longstanding principle that foreign entities are not allowed to engage in Singapore politics. Foreign interests should also not be allowed to control or worse, to manipulate our local media platforms, which are prime vehicles for influence or even subversion. This is not in itself new. All the 12 sites which MDA had previously registered for providing political content had been gazetted as political associations under the Political Donations Act and hence are prohibited from receiving foreign funding. What is different in the case of The Independent is that it had not been gazetted as a political association, and part of its business plan was to obtain subscriptions and advertising revenue. Therefore MDA had required, as part of the registration, that it signs an undertaking not to receive foreign funding. It is also for this reason that MDA had revised the registration forms to include such an undertaking. The undertaking only requires that the organisation does not accept foreign funding, and is not a blanket prohibition on funding, which would render the site’s intended business plan unworkable.

11   The case of The Independent revealed potential problems when sites which engage in the “propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues” structure themselves as corporate entities to receive investment, including from foreign sources. In the case of newspapers operating under permits issued under the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, there are clear provisions to allow newspapers to be subject to provisions controlling foreign influence. The Broadcasting Act, which ICPs are regulated under, also recognises this principle but the class licence does not contain specific provisions against this as this particular scenario of foreign funding was not, back in 1996, recognised as a likely one.

12   Having noticed this, MDA decided that cases similar to The Independent, where sites operated by corporate entities that engage in the “propagation, promotion or discussion of political or religious issues” and which had a greater possibility of coming under foreign influence through foreign funding, would be dealt with in the same way. Hence, MDA asked The Breakfast Network to register.

13   MDA had earlier said that it will look into introducing more comprehensive safeguards within the Broadcasting Act to prevent foreign interests from influencing local politics through the Singaporean media, whether in print, broadcast or online. But it was necessary for MDA to act in the interim and to ensure that the providers of The Independent andThe Breakfast Network are aware of the conditions from the outset, rather than for them to accept foreign investment into their corporate structure only to have to unwind it later. That would have caused them even more problems. The principle of not accepting foreign funding is something which responsible operators agree with. The Independent has stated that it accepts this principle.

14   In summary, let me stress that the class licence with the requirement to register is not new. It has been part of the licensing framework under the Broadcasting Act since 1996. Both the providers of The Independent and Breakfast Network had not been gazetted; but as websites run by corporate entities which are bodies of persons “engaged in the propagation, promotion or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore”, and MDA saw the need for them to sign an undertaking not to receive foreign funding as part of the registration. The class licence with registration is an integral part of our licensing framework. It has been used selectively, but consistently. MDA will continue to adopt this approach.

Source: http://www.mci.gov.sg

After several years of tense relations and threats not to upgrade opposition wards, the People's Association (PA) has finally decided to work with the Workers' Party to bring community improvement projects to the AHPETC area.

The PA is in charge of all grassroots groups in Singapore and it is known to be closely linked to the PAP. It has been having bad relations with the WP since just after 2011 when there was conflict about the use of PA-leased spaced by the town council.

There was also further conflict when several sites in the Aljunied area were transferred to the PA from the town council shortly after the election saw WP take over the town council.

Now, it seems that PA has finally decided to stop giving Worker's Party trouble and is teaming up with them to bring nationally funded projects such as the building of covered walkways, fitness corners and barrier-free access to the area.

Mr Ong Ye Kung, the adviser to Kaki Bukit grassroots organisations said that it is important to keep resident's interests in mind when deciding to do these projects.

If the resident's interests were really the priority from the start, the PA shouldn't have given WP trouble in the first place which distracted them from their duties to the residents.

Even though the WP took control of the town council following the election, PA was still the one who would decide how government budget on improvements and upgrades would be used in the area.

The announced upgrades include 17 projects to meet the urgent needs of residents in the area.

In Parliament yesterday, DPM Teo gave a ministerial statement about the Little India Riot and accepted questions on the incident.

However, he was apparently not too happy with some of the questions as he later cautioned the MPs that they should not "indulge in speculation".

Some MPs including MP for Tampines Irene Ng had asked about the riot and questioned whether the COI would consider all possible causes including the worker's being frustrated about their work conditions and treatment in society.

"I would say that we should be careful of this kind of speculation on various kinds of causes,” he had responded.

He had in fact given a similar warning to the general public the day after the riot broke out asying that the public should not speculate on the causes.

It appears that DPM Teo is set on allowing the Committee of Inquiry to do its investigations and won't acknowledge unfavourable speculations into what caused the riot.

Despite his numerous warnings to others not to speculate, it appears that he is turning a blind eye to the speculation that the government has been putting out.

Since day one, they have pinned it on alcohol and they've even taken immediate steps to ban alcohol in the area.

Isn't this speculation too? Or is it simply because the other speculations make the PAP and it's control over foreign labour policies look bad?

Related: DPM Teo to enact new temporary laws to give police officers more powers

By Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam
[Delivered in Parliament on 21 Jan 2014]

Mr Deputy Speaker,

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance is seeking Parliament’s approval to increase Singapore’s membership subscription limit to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (or IBRD) from the current US$40 million to US$672 million.

The IBRD – commonly referred to as the World Bank – is an important international development institution that focuses on uplifting poor and vulnerable communities in the developing world. It aims to promote global collective action on issues like health, trade, agriculture and climate change; strengthen governance and anti-corruption efforts; and prepare for crises.

Singapore has been a member of the World Bank since 1966. We have in the past benefited from World Bank loans for infrastructure development projects. Between 1963 and 1975, Singapore received 14 loans from the World Bank for port expansion, sewage, power, telecoms, education and environmental management. These included US$15 million for the Port of Singapore Authority and another US$15 million for Pasir Panjang Power Station.

Now that we are a developed economy, I think it is right for us to contribute back to the development of other countries by supporting the work of the World Bank. As a responsible member of the international community, we should play our part to help alleviate poverty in our world.

Our current subscription limit is US$40 million. This limit has not changed since 1966, when we were much smaller and poorer. Considering our economy has grown a lot since then, our current subscription appears relatively low. We have one of the lowest subscriptions among the 188 member countries in the World Bank.

Having said that, the quantum of the proposed increase in our subscription limit is not small. It is going up from US$40 million to US$672 million – an increase of almost 17 times. Can I ask the DPM how the Government arrived at this quantum?

I understand that voting power at the Bank is allocated based on the capital stock held by each member. Is the increase in our subscription intended to strengthen our voting power or increase our influence at the Bank?

If so, can the DPM explain what tangible benefits it translates to for Singaporeans? Does it make much of a difference if we raise our vote share from the current 0.05% to 0.25%, and is it worth the full US$672 million?

What will be the frequency of the payments of our subscriptions, and under what extreme circumstances that the DPM mentioned will Singapore have to make a full subscription? Will we be obliged to contribute the full subscription if the Bank calls for it?

Sir, I support Singapore playing a bigger role in international organisations like the World Bank. However, I would like more clarity on why our subscription needs to be increased by such a large amount, and how Singaporeans will benefit from this change. Thank you.

Ansari Abudeen & Leong Yan Hoi | YourSDP.org

In January 2013, the government published a population white paper, A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore, detailing a plan to raise the country’s population from 5.3 million to 6.9 million by 2030; the non-resident population is expected to grow from the current 2 million to 2.7 million, or just under 40% of the total population.

Amid the ensuing impassioned public debates and demonstrations on the social, economic and political impact of the proposed plan, there are a few pertinent points on the healthcare front that remain to be addressed by the government: what are the implications of a rapidly expanding population for our already over-burdened healthcare system, both in terms of financing and infrastructure? And in particular, what is the impact of large numbers of foreigners on our healthcare system?

The SDP has proposed replacing the current inadequate 3M system with a single-payer healthcare insurance system (The SDP National Healthcare Plan) that provides affordable and universal healthcare for all Singaporean citizens and permanent residents. Foreign residents are at present not compelled to join the plan; nevertheless it is anticipated that a fast-growing non-resident population would place increasing strain on our healthcare resources in the future.

Population growth increases healthcare costs through increased healthcare utilisation and the need for healthcare expansion. At present, foreign residents contribute to the 3Ms, which defray only utilisation but not expansion costs.  Although they also pay income taxes (which help finance healthcare infrastructure) and are not entitled to subsidies, it can be argued that at the point of entry into our job market, they are going to enjoy healthcare services for which Singaporeans have earlier paid.

Moreover, with the entry of a large number of foreigners, there will be a need to increase healthcare expenditure to meet the demand for more physicians, allied health professionals and healthcare facilities.

Initially there will be a higher demand for primary healthcare, emergency room services, and obstetric and paediatric care.

In about 20 years, the huge inflow of foreigners will shift the healthcare demand to tertiary care and intermediate and long-term care services, such as community and chronic sick hospitals, hospices, and home nursing. Healthcare expenditure will rise exponentially even as the tax base shrinks proportionally.

As it stands, the government is already investing $1 billion in two new hospitals, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital and Jurong Community Hospital, to be completed in 2014 and 2015 respectively.[1]

As it is only fair that foreign residents should pay for the privilege of joining a healthcare system already established and maintained by Singaporean taxpayers’ money, as well as bear a major portion of the cost of healthcare expansion, we could make it a requirement for a foreigner entering our healthcare system to pay a:

1.  Healthcare entry levy, a one-time fee or paid in instalments; and a

2.  Healthcare expansion levy, charged on a per-visit basis.

These principles are already worked into the healthcare systems of many OECD nations, where foreigners have to pay higher medical insurance premiums as well as higher co-payment fees per visit.

An independent review panel should be formed to review existing levels of healthcare capacity, quantify the estimated increase in capacity needed to cope with increased population targets, and recommend target milestones on how capacity needs to be expanded progressively over time. This evidence-based policy approach will avoid the PAP's mistake of leaving healthcare planning to politicians and Ministry of Health administrators who have failed to adequately restructure the healthcare system in tandem with the liberalisation of immigration.

At the same time, an independent epidemiology and public health expert panel should be convened to study the demand-side impact issues: estimate how disease burden will change over the longer term with the dramatic population increase, and recommend the shifts required in health promotion and disease prevention and management.

No time should be lost in implementing these policies if we are to prevent a catastrophic breakdown in the healthcare system in a decade or two, a foretaste of which was seen in the recent reported bed crunch in our hospitals. [2]

Insofar as Singapore is facing the dire consequences of a declining birth rate, it is telling that the population paper makes no mention of how the government intends to raise our total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.2 – one of the developed world’s lowest – to replacement level.

One cannot over-emphasise the perils of expanding the population through immigration without recourse to increasing fertility rate. As the population ages, large numbers of immigrants will eventually cause the population pyramid to widen at the top and narrow at the base, resulting in an ageing crisis where there are insufficient tax revenues to meet the health needs of the elderly.

Unless the population grows organically through raising the TFR, and adequate evidence-based healthcare policies are implemented to cope with the population increase, the combination in an ageing population of burgeoning healthcare cost and shrinking tax base is a prime recipe for bankrupting the nation’s healthcare coffers. 

Read Also: Fail to understand burden of diseases, fail to understand healthcare reform, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Ansari Abudeen is a Singaporean health economist based in the University of New South Wales. His policy research and consultancy work focuses largely on evaluation of services, programmes and government measures in Australia, Thailand, Malaysia and India. He contributed to this article in an independent consultative capacity, with the hope that it will aid in improving and maturing healthcare policy dialogue in Singapore and promote greater priority for evidence-based policies.

Dr Leong Yan Hoi is a general practitioner and a member of the SDP's Healthcare Advisory Panel.

[1] Ramachandani, Nisha. "Government investing $1 billion in two new hospitals in Jurong.” Business Times 10 Nov 2010. Retrieved 20 Jan 2014.http://www.juronghealth.com.sg/uploadedImages/News/Media_Coverage/20101110-BT-SingaporeNews-11-24x25.jpg

 

[2] Khalik, Salma. "Hospitals facing severe bed crunch take unusual steps.” Straits Times 8 Jan 2014. Retrieved 20 Jan 2014. http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/hospitals-facing-severe-bed-crunch-take-unusual-steps-20140108

Dear William Wan of the Singapore Kindness Movement,

I heard your plea for empathy. It is indeed a call worthy of your lengthy essay.

In this regard, I hope you will speak up for me when the police harassed me again for making a political film, organising a political forum or any such activity. 

I hope you will make a similar plea to the government to exercise empathy for cartoonists, artists and bloggers whose homes get raided and computers confiscated by the police for merely expressing their views. 

I hope you pen 10,000 word essays on behalf of the JB Jeyaretnams, the Chee Soon Juans, the Yaw Shin Leongs and all the bankrupted, exiled and vilified politicians and activists whose only crime was to oppose the very people who fund and supports your organisation - the PAP Government. 

I hope you extend your call for empathy towards the Chia Thye Pohs and the Said Zaharis, and for the thousands who suffered decades of stigmatization and deprivation by the detention without trials of their family members. 

And finally, I hope the Singapore Kindness Movement embarks on a nation-wide empathy campaign for the working poor in Singapore, whose tolerance, goodwill and hard work has enabled the Anton Caseys to prosper in an environment for which we build on the back of stagnant wages, long hours and rising inflation - but only to have it rubbed onto our faces. 

Yours sincerely,

Martyn See

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201287000232788&set=a.19747126...

It used to be called Minister without Portfolio, now it's called Minister, Prime Minister's Office. Presumably "without Portfolio" doesn't sound nice, especially in Chinese, 不管部长.

PMO Ministers are full Ministers, but don't helm a ministry personally. Usually they are Second Ministers in a ministry, so they are full cabinet positions. But because it's not nice to have their title as only Second Minister for XXX, they are given the title of "Minister, Prime Minister's Office" to remove any doubt that they are cabinet level.

For example, Grace Fu is 2M for MFA and MEWR; Iswaran is 2M for MHA and MTI.  

There used to be a time in the mid 2000s when all ministers with the surname Lim are in PMO and all the PMO Ministers have the surname Lim: Lim Boon Heng, Lim Swee Say, Lim Hng Kiang, Raymond Lim, Lim Hwee Hua.

PMO Minister doesn't necessarily mean no power; the Secretary General of NTUC will always be a PMO Minister, because by custom they are cabinet positions, but they can't possibly helm another ministry, or even be Second Minister. Lim Swee Say relinquished his 2M for MND when he became NTUC Secretary General.

It is true that PMO is a "retirement" place for some; Lim Boon Heng stayed as PMO Minister for 4 years after stepping down from NTUC. Lee Yock Suan, who used to helm Labour and Education, retired as PMO Minister. 

PMO Minister may also be a stop-gap measure for people who have been promoted to cabinet level, but have no "free" ministry to helm yet; case in point: Raymond Lim, who became PMO Minister in 2005, and only took over Transport when Yeo Cheow Tong retired after GE2006. The same could be said for Grace Fu and Iswaran now, though it remains to be seen if they will ever helm ministries.

Finally, PMO Minister... may be seen as "time-out" for some. It has been said that when Lim Hng Kiang didn't handle SARS properly, he was made PMO Minister for a year after being forced to step down from MOH. He has since recovered and helmed MTI ever since 2004. When LHL + 2 DPMs were both on leave in 2013, he was even Acting Prime Minister. Should be safe to say he's fully
"rehabilitated". 

In any case, it is certainly puzzling that these PMO Ministers seem to always be in between jobs given that they command a high ministerial salary paid by our taxpayers money.

Tony Lee

TRS Contributor

Amidst the dreary news that have been coming out of late: overcrowding, MRT breakdowns, immigration checkpoint failures, fare hikes, a riot, income inequality, unaffordable housing, etc, the Singapore Democrats carried one important message as we launched our 2014 campaign: Better policies, brighter future.

We did this as we conducted our Chinese New Year walkabout - our first ground activity of the new year - visiting residents at the Tanjong Pagar, West Coast and Holland-Bukit Timah GRCs. 

As bleak as the present looks - and we met many residents who were palpably angry at the Government for the current unfortunate state of affairs - we called on our fellow citizens to remain hopeful and to face the future with courage and gusto. 

This is because with every major problem that has befallen Singapore, the SDP has committed ourselves to drawing up alternative policies that will allow Singapore to move ahead with confidence. 

With the next general elections not that far away, Singaporeans will be able to see what an alternative Singapore looks like - a Singapore that ensures our stressed out workers lead a healthy work-life balance, an economy that reduces income inequality, and a compassionate society that elevates happiness and quality of life for our citizens.  

More important, they will be able to choose between what we have now and what we can become. 

Speaking in Hokkien, a middle-aged lady told us: "You must come in the next round! We've had enough already!" 

An elderly man at Ghim Moh spat on the ground as he scolded: "Everything keeps going up! This PAP is too much!"

An engineer said: "With my salary I'm doing well but I can see that if the country goes on like this, we're finished." 

We hear you, we told our constituents, and that's why we're working hard to make Singapore better. 

We have been disciplined in spending time and effort to draw up alternative policies, we've been working hard on the ground, and we've been diligent in building up our party machinery.

We're not waiting until the Prime Minister calls for elections - we've already gone ahead with campaign. In fact, it started immediately after the last GE. 

We're calling on our fellow Singaporeans to get us into Parliament so that we can start with building a better alternative for our nation.  

Donate, volunteer, spread the SDP message. Do whatever you can to help the cause, our future and our children's future are at stake.  

New faces have joined our ranks. Our members are fired up, and even though the work is hard, we persevere and remain positive. It's better to light the candle than curse the darkness. 

At certain locations during our walkabout yesterday, we split up into two teams to cover more ground and to greet more of our fellow Singaporeans.

We wanted to share with them our message of hope: That they are not stuck with the present policies. They have a choice in the SDP and our alternative ideas. 

Needless to say, we were warmly received. 

One grave issue is the Government's intention to raise our population to 6.9 million. We explained how we can be smarter in our immigration policy by allowing only truly qualified foreigners to work in Singapore, especially the PMETs. 

This can be done with the SDP's Singaporeans First Policy where our TalentTrack scheme will allocate points for qualifications, age and competencies of potential foreign workers, and only those who meet the cut-off mark can be employed here. 

Businesses can only hire these foreigners after demonstrating that they cannot find Singaporeans with the requisite skills. 

In this way, we ensure that Singaporeans are not discriminated against and that only the best foreign talent work here. 

At the same time, we don't deprive businesses of genuine foreign talent and skills. Best of all, we keep our population to a healthy level and improve our quality of life. 

Read also SDP unveils six-point plan to control population

We want to leave you with this picture on the left. It was a tiring five hours after trekking across six food centres and markets, but all of it was more than compensated for by this adorable little girl. Made. Our. Day.

Happy Chinese New Year and have a good holiday, everyone! 

More photos of the event at SDP's facebook photo album.

SDP

*Article first apppeared on http://yoursdp.org/news/2014-01-27-5770

Labour chief and minister without portfolio, Lim Swee Say, has announced that he is interested to continue running as a candidate in the East Coast GRC.

He said that he has enjoyed serving the residents there in the Bedok ward and said that he has plans for the ageing constituency there.

Funnily enough, this goes against his previous comments saying that 2011 would be his last election.

Back in 2007, he had suggested that if he still had to contest in 2016 to fill the positions of NTUC secretary General and PMO Minister, it would mean that the PAP's efforts to attract the 'best team' must be struggling.

Is Lim Swee Say implying that the PAP is not able to attract the best team anymore to fill the ministerial positions? What does that say about the calibre of the current ministers?

Or is it simply because he is enjoying his current salary too much to want to allow GE2011 to be his last?

There is a very poorly written article in The Independent - Singapore about the re-election of Mr Chiam See Tong and Mrs Lina Chiam as the Secretary-General and Chairman of Singapore People's Party respectively. I shall not dignify the article by posting the link to it here.

The article suggests that the Chiams do not have the stamina to lead a political party and so, are not serious about contesting the next general election. That if they were to contest the next election, they'd only get the anti-PAP votes.

That article must have been written by someone who do not know the Chiams personally. I mean, how did the writer come to the conclusion that Mr Chiam did not have the stamina to continue leading a political party? Is it because of his age? Or perhaps his frailness? if either were the reasons, then the writer is being unfairly discriminating.

I know the Chiams personally. I remember a conversation we were having in SPP's HQ about a-year-and-a-half ago on the topic of Internal Security Act. Party members and friends of the Party were discussing if opposition political parties should support the abolition of the Internal Security Act, - if there was any mileage in openly doing so.

Mr Chiam who was listening to the conversation weighed-in after most had given their opinion on the topic. He explained very clearly why it was important for political parties to support the abolition of ISA. I still remember his words clearly.

"It is a sword of Damocles and is hanging above our heads. It can be used at anytime against political opponents. It has to go!", Mr Chiam said.

No one could disagree with his reasoning. 

SPP is fortunate to have leaders like the Chiams who have such foresight and decisiveness. Mr Chiam especially is very well-liked by Singaporeans of all walks of life. 

I only wish the best for Mr and Mrs Chiam, as well as the newly elected CEC.

Ravi Philemon

*Article first appeared on his FB page here.

Trust Lim Swee Say to announce that he will be contesting in the East Coast GRC at the next general election, supposedly to implement plans he has for the ageing constituency. Only in Singapore, can an ageing politician simply declare he plans to be minister again, regardless of the wishes of the electorate.

Lim must be addicted to the high he gets each time he looks at his Central Provident Fund (CPF) account balance. "Some more, it's guaranteed," he gleefully told his audience. He may have to step down as union chief when he turns 62 in July 2016 - pursuant to a National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) constitutional change made in 2011 - but he still wants to keep collecting those million dollar cheques. You would expect an outgoing chief to endorse at least one of the 4 successors in waiting, but the selfish sycophant (synonyms: toady, creep, crawler, fawner, flatterer, flunkey, lickspittle, kowtower, obsequious person, minion, hanger-on, leech, puppet) would not volunteer a single word of support for Zainal Sapari (48), Patrick Tay (42), Ang Hin Kee (48) or Yeo Guat Kwang (52).

He did say earlier he would step down once a suitable replacement for his role is found. And what exactly is his role? Minister-without-portfolio implies good for nothing special, and changing the title to Minister in the Prime Minister's Office suggests he's just another useless appendage. As for distinguishing himself as resident jester in the court, the keechiu general has proved himself worthy of wearing that hat one time too many. Doing battle in every street corner, every cyberspace corner, be it in the mass media or social media, except in dicy quarters like Little India or being mired in the Anthony Casey saga.

Lee Hsien Loong shares his disrespect of the people's will, by giving Lim the ringing endorsement, "I haven't agreed to let him go". Someone should have made a police report when Lim pilfered toothpicks from the fancy Din Tai Fung Chinese restaurant - half a box is definitely more than reasonable use quantity. That would have taken the decision out of Lee's hands.

In one of his rare utterances without a grammatical error, Lim said, "In democratic societies, people give us their trust." Then he segued into what has to be a horrific rape of the democratic process, "If we look at votes as our ultimate goal and play politics, then we will fail eventually." That has to be the most sacrilegious assault of the ballot box, ever. Assuming, of course, that there was no hanky panky behind those empty ballot boxes for the 2011 Presidential Election.

Tattler

*The writer blogs at http://singaporedesk.blogspot.com/

Internet rules are necessary to restrain "pack behaviour" in social media and ensure civility between users, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in remarks released Wednesday.

Speaking at a university forum late Tuesday, Lee said social media raised the risk of an overreaction from the public when contentious incidents occur in the ethnically diverse city-state, with "unrestrained, anonymous viciousness".

Lee, who has nearly 260,000 Facebook followers, referred to several local incidents that have sparked off unbridled web outrage, including derogatory comments against Singaporeans posted on social media by British expatriate Anton Casey last week.

"Each one issue can cause a spark. Because of social media it becomes harder to settle such problems quietly and we risk having an overreaction," Lee told students at the Nanyang Technological University.

A video of his speech was posted on his Facebook page on Wednesday.

"It becomes like pack behaviour. You scold, you swear, you curse. All the wrong instincts get fed and in a group, there's a certain group dynamic and it is like a pack of hounds hunting, which is bad," he said.

"That by the way is also why we need rules in cyberspace..in human engagement you must have some basis on what is out of bounds, what we will comply with, what is acceptable, and what is not."

Lee said Internet users in the city-state had the right to repudiate and condemn unacceptable acts.

"But do not lower ourselves to that same level to behave in a way which really makes us all so ashamed of ourselves," he said.

British wealth adviser Casey was forced to temporarily leave Singapore for Australia last week after he claimed that he received "threats" following his Facebook posts disparaging Singaporean public transport commuters as "poor people".

The Porsche-driving permanent resident, his Singaporean beauty queen wife and five-year-old son were subject to virulent anti-foreigner abuse on social media after the posts went viral last Tuesday.

Responding to a question from a student who raised concerns about a surge of expatriates in recent years, Lee said the move was necessary because the economy has grown.

Singapore is highly dependent on foreign labour. Out of its total population of 5.4 million, only 3.84 million are citizens and permanent residents.

Source: AFP

In October 2013 the Court of Appeal dismissed my argument that the PAP government’s US$4 billion line of credit to the IMF needed Parliamentary and Presidential approval as required under Article 144(1) of the Constitution. The learned judges ruled that I had failed to make a prima facie case and that furthermore I lacked standing to challenge the government. The judges accepted without question the AG’s arguments that a loan was an asset and not a liability and took the opportunity to belittle my knowledge of finance at the same time. I  had  argued that a loan commitment was a liability and not an asset.  To quote from my article criticising the Appeal Court judgement:

I produced evidence from a wide variety of sources, including the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Manual, the Bank of England’s Yellow Folder and the last published accounts of J P Morgan, the leading US bank, to show that banks were required to record loan commitments as contingent liabilities on their balance sheet. As the judges mention, I pointed out that the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer himself referred to the UK’s loan commitment to the IMF as a “contingent liability.”

This is reinforced by the fact that the interest rate on loans made to the IMF is virtually zero. It is therefore inexplicable how Singapore’s IMF loan commitment could be considered an asset.  Since the government pays CPF holders 4% to borrow their money the IMF loan, if drawn upon, must be a money-losing proposition from the moment it is drawn down.

In support of the argument that the loan commitment was a liability not an asset I cited US Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 133.  This requires that loan commitments be treated as options on bank balance sheets and marked to market. A loan commitment is in the nature of a call option granted to a potential borrower that gives them the freedom to draw on the money at a time of their choosing. An option cannot be worth less than zero and should normally have a positive value while the writer of the option would have to record a corresponding liability. The option could not be worth less than the present value of the difference between what it would cost the IMF to borrow in the open market and the interest rate that it would pay on the loan if drawn down (effectively zero).

Yet the judges chose to misunderstand my point and claim that they were surprised that as an economist I did not understand the difference between a loan commitment and an option. There may be a legal difference but clearly in economic terms a loan commitment is an option because the borrower has the right to draw down the loan but is not obliged to do so. It is the learned judges who demonstrate their basic ignorance of modern finance theory.

 However on 21 January 2014 Minister Tharman  dropped a bombshell in Parliament when he moved the following motion in Parliament with reference to our subscription to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.. In the following he explains how the government accounts for the loan commitment and this new explanation is in complete contradiction  to the information given by the MOF and the basis  on which the government had won its case . Both versions can’t be correct. Read the motion and see for yourselves.

“That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 7(3) of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (Chapter 27 of the 2012 Revised Edition), resolves that the subscription of Singapore to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development be increased to a sum not exceeding Six Hundred and Seventy-Two Million United States dollars (US$672 million).”

 In support of the motion he went on to say that “we will be paying 6%, or US$38 million, as paid-in capital” while  “The remaining 94%, known as callable capital, will not be drawn by the IBRD except in extreme circumstances, when it cannot meet its obligations on borrowings or guarantees.  To date, the IBRD has never had to call on the callable capital.  It is an AAA-rated institution with a sound balance sheet for over 50 years.  Nevertheless, the full increase in Singapore’s subscription to IBRD’s capital will be charged to the Consolidated Fund, as the callable capital represents an increase in the Government’s financial liabilities.”

 Please refer to the sentence in italics.  How is callable capital fundamentally different from a loan commitment? Both represent an option given, in one case to the IBRD and in the other case to the IMF, to call upon the Singapore government to provide the capital in the first case and in the second case to make the loan.  In his Parliamentary speech Tharman points out that  ”To date, the IBRD has never had to call on the callable capital.  It is an AAA-rated institution with a sound balance sheet for over 50 years”.

This is how Tharman describes the US$4 billion line of credit when answering a tame Parliamentaryquestion on 12 May 2012 from a subordinate member of his Jurong GRC team:

4  More than 30 countries including Singapore have so far committed to provide bilateral loans to the IMF, amounting to more than US$430 billion as at end-April 2012. Singapore has committed to the IMF a contingent line of credit worth US4 billion as part of this international effort.

5   These are however temporary resources, provided to the IMF in advance of the expected increase in its permanent capital subscriptions (or quota subscriptions) that will be decided in early 2014. Participating in the current round of bilateral contributions to the IMF will in effect bring forward part or all of Singapore’s likely share of the increase in the IMF’s capital base in 2014.

6   Singapore’s US$4 billion contingent line of credit to the IMF means that  Singapore is expected to lend the funds when the IMF considers necessary. 

 Again the italicized sentence is highly significant. If the US$4 billion contingent line of credit is to become part or all of Singapore’s likely share of the increase in the IMF’s capital base in 2014 then how is it different from the callable capital portion of the increase in Singapore’s subscription to the IBRD. Also note the last sentence which states that Singapore is committed to provide the funds when asked to do so by the IMF.

Tharman’s explanation means that I did not need to bother to go through a lengthy citing of precedents from other countries and  standards set by accounting bodies. The government uses the same accounting treatment. Had I been able to cross-examine the FInance Minister or one of his officials or submit written questions this would have been established. However the lawyer who represented me previously before I decided to argue the case myself advised me this was not possible. What this new information makes clear is that in order to win its case and prevent embarrassment the AG pretended that the loan commitment (or contingent line of credit) was an asset and not a liability. The government succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of the judges.  However the judges, like spectators at a magic show, were happy to be taken in by this gross misdirection , “citing former CJ Chan Sek Kheong’s “green-light” theory of administrative law”  and “saying there has to be “extremely exceptional instances of very grave and serious breaches of legality” to warrant allowing an action by an individual in the public interest.” If this is not a very grave and serious breach of legality then what is?

Now we have ended up with a situation where the government, and the Finance Minister, have been caught out in misrepresenting and lying in court in order to get away with breaking a Constitutional provision that it itself drafted.  It is demonstrative of the contempt the PAP feel for Singaporeans and their belief that they are above the law. In any democracy the Finance Minister would be forced to resign and might face criminal charges. Unfortunately the judiciary has now come to the rescue of the executive by ruling that we have no  locus standi  to challenge illegal government actions.  The PAP government can safely continue its long tradition of doing as it pleases without bothering with such niceties as accountability, transparency, rule of law or even simple honesty.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

*The author blogs at http://sonofadud.com

LUNAR NEW YEAR FLORA AND COMMUNITY FAIR AT HOUGANG CENTRAL HUB

The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council has today received a summons to attend court in relation to the Lunar New Year Flora and Community Fair held at Hougang Central Hub, a venue under its management. 

The TC had initiated communications with the National Environment Agency (NEA) over its intention to run the event since 20 December 2013, with the nature of the community fair and the benefit to residents clearly stated. The event commenced on 10 January 2014. 

In addition to summons against the TC as the organizer of the fair, the NEA has also issued notices to attend court and to pay fines to residents and their family members assisting there on 28, 29 and 30 January 2014.

As the case against the TC is already fixed for court mention on 18 February 2014, it would not be appropriate to comment further on the matter at this time. The TC will present its case in court.

ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL

30 January 2014

Related: NEA causes trouble for AHPETC: warns TC about 'unlicensed' fair