In a Facebook post on Wednesday night, the PM made another statement of breathtaking economic illiteracy. He said, “Singapore must never fall into the same hole as some countries which spend more than they can earn,” Perhaps it is the fact that he studied Mathematics rather than Economics that has led him to make such a fallacious statement.  As every first-year student of Economics learns, while one country may be able to increase its savings as long as other countries are willing to go into deficit, if all countries simultaneously tried to increase their savings and run current account surpluses, the result would be a catastrophic slump. This is what caused the Great Depression and fiscal austerity has unnecessarily prolonged the Great Recession since 2009.

However I suspect his motivation is political rather than economic. As the head of Singapore’s elite he has a vested interest in stopping spending on the bottom 80% of the population if it might conceivably lead to a rise in taxes for him and his cronies down the road.

But such fears are unfounded. Singapore is in no danger of spending more than it earns for the forseeable future. We run a current account surplus (which represents our external saving or forgone consumption) of around 20% of GDP year after year.  This is already attracting attention internationally from the US and the IMF because of the drag it exerts on world growth.

Singapore has no external debt and while the PAP rip off CPF holders by forcing them to lend money to the government at below-market rates of return, all CPF debt is owned by Singaporeans. So if we were to spend more than we earn we would be borrowing from ourselves. However we are very far away from this ever happening. In fact the rate at which government reserves are accumulating, at least on paper, is accelerating.

As I wrote about in Budget 2014: A Very Generous Amount of Wool Pulled over Your Eyes, the PAP government is hiding a surplus of around $30 billion a year from its citizens. Over the last six years to 2012 the cumulative surplus amounted to $187 billion, even with the poor returns the government has been able to achieve with our captive CPF money.  Even the Pioneer Generation Package, which the PM said MPs from both sides of the House had paid tribute to for its generosity, only represents $260 million of current spending and not the $8 billion headline number, which is unlikely ever to be spent. Why then, for goodness’ sake, is the PM talking about taxes having to rise? To quote the PM,“We are alright for the next few years. Beyond that, we must think about raising more revenues.” 

One might suspect he has taken leave of his senses. On present trends, using the figures the government reports to IMF, the cumulative surplus to 2020 is likely to be in the region of $250 billion.  So either he is mad, mendacious or we should be afraid, very afraid, that our vaunted reserves are not all they are cracked up to be.  Government secrecy can be used to hide a multitude of sins.

I wrote about this in “Where have our reserves gone”, “Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Missing (or Merely Hidden) Reserves“, and “An Unappetizing Picture.” It is one of the classic signs of an autocracy that the government treats the people as children, who cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves. The Finance Minister’s Budget presentation is certainly like a nursery story for children.  It serves to cover their political motives in not wanting Singaporeans to realise how badly they are being short-changed.

However I will reserve further discussion of the contradictions in the PM’s statement to another time. Here I just wanted to make one simple point. If the PM and the PAP were serious about not burdening future generations then why not give HDB owners the freehold of their apartments once they have paid off their thirty-five year loans?  As everyone knows, HDB leases are only for ninety-nine years, which means that future generations will have to start the process of paying for a home all over again because the property will revert to the government at the end of the lease.

In his National Day Rally Speech in 2011,  the PM said “The way we have done it which I think has been successful has been to give people assets, especially an HDB flat;”. As usual the PM is being economical with the truth, as in an actuality the HDB purchase price should be amortized over the life of the lease. At the end of the lease the asset will be worth zero and our descendants will inherit nothing.

If Singaporeans collectively own the freehold of our HDB properties then we can manage the estates ourselves and make our own decisions about upgrading and redevelopment. The full rise in the value of the land will accrete to us rather than a large part being siphoned off by the government. If the majority of us can never aspire to owning (a share of) freehold property, then we can never become a true democracy, because we will always be dependent on the government.  Just as at Cheng San in 1997, the PAP government will continue to try and use Singaporeans’ insecurity over property ownership to ensure that they stay in power. This cannot be to the long-term good of our country

Kenneth Jeyaratnam

* As a blogger, KJ hopes to help imagine a model for a New Asian Nation to bring about a free and fair future for Singapore. KJ is a Cambridge-trained economist who could be broadly described as from the Keynesian school. He is also a successful ex-hedge fund manager and a liberal opposition politician who contested in the 2011 General Election with The Reform Party. He is currently its Secretary-General. The article first appeared in the writer’s blog.

1. Population white paper is good - its good for you because when they bring in more foreigners, more jobs will be created in the process. Fact - many local PMETs were replaced by incoming foreigners and even if they could find job the salary is being suppressed. Real reason - government wants to convert as many foreigners into new citizens for their votes.

2.Polytechnic education is enough - why study so hard for a degree when you can't get a job afterwards? Fact - most diploma graduates end up as rank and file workers as highly educated foreigners take up senior positions. Real reason - educated foreigners need good jobs so they can stay on and be enticed to become new citizens. A well-educated population also tends to be demanding and bold.

3. GRC is good - different minority races will be represented in the constituencies. Fact - GRC makes it difficult for opposition to contest as they need to find enough contestants and at least one minority one. Real reason - want to remain in power.

4. Transport fare hike is necessary - need to increase fares as operational cost has gone up. Fact - SMRT and SBS Transit still made 200 million nett profit last year. Real reason - corporate greed.

5. Town council service and conservancy fee increase reasonable - need to increase because cost is creeping up. Fact - town council has a combined sinking fund of $2 billion. Real reason - greed.

6. National service is important - still needs conscription as the world is very dangerous. Fact - the region around us is war-free for almost five decades. Real reason - control and indoctrination of the population. 

7. Housing is affordable - $1000 salary and you can own a flat as the government will help home earners with huge subsidy. Fact - many low-income earners could not own a flat and has to rent cheap public housing from the government. Real reason - dependence on government for subsidy thus perpetually under their control and sway.

8. Scholar system is necessary - they need scholars as the talent pool in Singapore is limited. Fact - thinkers and bright people are consistently rounded up by the government to be on their side eg Philip Jeyaretnam. Real reason - less people who are capable will be freed to join the opposition camp and there will be minimal dissent. 

9. Limit internet space - people need to read the right stuff as the internet is full of fabrication. Fact - they are worried that people read the truth online as the mass media is controlled. Real reason - control of what can influence the masses.

10. Four races living in harmony - our people need to be segregated according to the four races and respected. Fact - segregation by races has led to discrimination especially at the job front for the minority races and is a classic divide and rule strategy of the ruling party. Real reason - minority races portrayed as the trouble makers for the country thus aligning the majority race with the PAP.

Gilbert Goh

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/goh.gilbert/posts/10152692023333975

Disclaimer: TheRealSingapore.com is a platform for users to submit content and all content remains the property of the individual contributors. The views and opinions expressed by author(s) within the website are solely that of the contributors and in no way reflects the views of TheRealSingapore.com.

Tony Tan’s track record at Government of Investment Corporation (GIC) has been a disaster. According to the Wall Street Journal, during his time as Deputy Chairman, GIC lost approximately $42 billion.

In January 2008, just when investors are shorting U.S. banks, Tony Tan spent billions of dollars of Singapore taxpayers’ monies to invest in Citigroup and UBS.

To justify his reckless actions, Tony Tan said in an interview with the Business Times, “In the case of UBS, they have a worldwide global wealth management business which is something not replicable by any bank. Citigroup has an international worldwide consumer business which is also unique.”

At the time, Jim Rogers, a former partner of George Soros in the famed Quantum Fund, said he felt “sad” for Singapore as it would be losing a lot of money.

Rogers continued, “They’re making a big mistake; these banks have many more problems still ahead. They should wait until these companies are really on the ropes a few years from now . . . and trading at $5 a share.”

Rogers also expressed doubts about the capability of GIC’s fund managers, including Tony Tan, “I know these people, and they have never given me the impression that they’re smarter than anyone else…They have gigantic amounts of money, but they’ve made a bad judgment in these cases.”

A few months later, the value of GIC’s shares in Citigroup and UBS crashed after both got mired in toxic debts during the 2008 global financial crisis.

The news was naturally censored by the Singapore media, but the Wall Street Journal reported that GIC suffered a loss around 59 billion Singapore dollars (US$41.6 billion) in 2008, making it one of the worst years for the sovereign wealth fund since it was established in 1981.

Now, Tony Tan is Singapore’s president.

John Harding

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

<above pic: The author speaking at a rally during GE2011>

What Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) had built will soon be destroyed at the hands of his prodigal son.

While LKY gained mass support during his tenure as PM by winning elections after elections, and monopolised our political scene albeit with autocratic leadership, his genius mathematician son, reverse all those sterling performances his father had painstakingly achieved.

The Lee's legacy will soon crumble spectacularly under Lee Hsien Loong (LHL). His incompetence is conspicuous. He is the product of what an elite leadership style will bring us into.

He floods his cabinet with scholars who totally have no idea what is happening on the ground. The elites usually dont take feedbacks seriously.

They reckon they are the best example from the community and their ideas triumph over anyone else. This explained the bulldozing of the 6.9M white paper population without due regards to the populace.

What other ideas do they have except to bump the population to advance our economy? LHL said that in order for salaries to increase, we need to have economic growth. This may be true if its ceteris paribus. But as we know, they then flood our shores with cheap labour and thus, our wages stagnate.

Its a double whammy when we are now the costliest city in the world. Im beginning to doubt that LHL is genius at maths.

Its imperative that our economy is restructured to a more sustainable one where productivity and innovation take centre stage.

Clearly, the PAP is devoid of ideas. Time and again, they took short cuts to achieve temporary success while we, the people suffer the consequences of bad decisions.

LHL took over the reign from Goh Chok Tong in 2004. He then led the PAP in 2006 elections. He won the election with a 66.6% if the votes. This was a huge decline in support as compared to 2001 election where GCT manage a 75% support.

In 2011, support for LHL was further reduced to 60.1%. I'm anticipating a plunge in percentage of support for LHL on the next coming election. How much? It depends on the electorate to quickly realised the gutter we are in under LHL leadership.

Osman Sulaiman

*Comment first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/osman-sulaiman/the-pap-decline-is-in-moti...

Nicole Seah has officially announced that she will be moving to Thailand.

The NSP candidate for Marine Parade GRC in GE2011 explained in a facebook post that the move is in order to further her advertising career.

However, she also said that she will continue being a part of NSP and serving in its CEC. She said she will be back in time for GE2016. 

Here is her facebook status in full about her decision to move temporarily:

Dear friends

I will be relocating to Thailand to further my career in advertising. It was a difficult decision, but I chose this country for a couple of reasons: 

- ASEAN as a region has much diversity to offer. Thailand is a much larger country than Singapore, and the larger scale of work, managerial duties and budgets involved will be training for the challenges of public service.

- I am constantly humbled by the grace, and creativity of the Thais. As a single person living in a new country alone, I am excited to integrate with the locals, make new friends, and learn more from a different culture. 

- It is near Singapore, and I will be able to return regularly to keep in touch with the ground.

At present moment I remain a member of NSP and the CEC. I will be back for the elections in 2016. 

The tuition programme will continue without disruption, with the help of steadfast volunteers. Please continue to get in touch with us if you know of someone who needs help. I will be back in Singapore once a month (Yay for budget flights) for the Saturday morning programme and house visits. We are also constantly in touch via whatsapp, over emails and Facebook daily. (Yay for technology!)

If you require help, do continue to send in your feedback to Nicole (dot) Rebecca (dot) Seah (at) gmail (dot) com. If it requires a house visit, I apologise that I might only be able to attend to your query when I am back in Singapore once a month. 

Thank you for your understanding and see you all in 2016. Kop-khun-kaa!

Nicole Seah

It is clear from the comments on her status that she will be missed but generally, people are supportive of her decison and commented that it will be a good opportuinty for her to gain an outside perspective and use that to her advantage when she returns to Singapore:

Nicole also later thanks all her supporters for their positive and heartwarming comments and added that she believes the re-locaiton will be good. She assured everyone that Singapore will always remain her home and she will surely be back:

Written by: Chee Siok Chin & Chong Wai Fung

Do women face discrimination in politics in Singapore today? Could they contribute differently than men in the political arena? How are issues viewed, approached and dealth with by women leaders? These were some questions a group of NUS students wanted to know when they interviewed us for a paper they were writing on gender equality in Singapore's politics.

First, why did we choose the SDP? There are many issues that had to be highlighted and challenged in Singapore's political system vis-a-vis women participation. Although Siok Chin joined the SDP in 2001 and Wai Fung in 2011, we both joined for the same reasons: We felt that instead of merely griping about the discrimination, we could constructively address the problem and work towards change.

The SDP was our choice since it had been, and still is, the party that is most active in challenging some of the PAP's ill-considered policies (including those that discriminate against women) and making constructive criticisms. The fact that the ruling party has not appointed a woman as a full minister is telling of the PAP's attitude towards women political leaders.

Did we face any gender discrimination and are women treated less favourably than our male counterparts in the party? There has never been any form of discrimination against women in the SDP. In fact, women have always been encouraged to play more active roles and take up leadership positions. Wai Fung, together with Ms Jaslyn Go, are tasked with the unenviable responsibility of heading the fund-raising team within the party. In fact, Wai Fung and Jaslyn are the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer respectively.

And even as the only woman candidate campaigning in the general elections in 2001, Siok Chin was not treated differently. She didn't feel that she had to prove herself because of her gender. She didn't feel intimidated by the male-dominated scene even though she was the only female among the opposition candidates then. 

What about entering politics, is it more difficult for women than men? Getting into opposition politics in Singapore can be quite a challenging and difficult step to take given the PAP's authoritarian rule – regardless of whether one is male or female. Neither gender is spared from the ruling party's machinations. As long as the PAP continues to govern through intimidation, our city-state will not be able to benefit from Singaporeans, men and women, who are genuinely able to contribute in the political sphere.

On the question of women bringing a different perspective to political issues, it is a fact women in general tend to be able to look at issues from different viewpoints and therefore adopt a broader perspective. Women are also more adept at building bridges and nurturing relationships. This important aspect is often overlooked in the political arena here and elsewhere – at great cost to society.

Whether it is intra- or inter-party or even foreign relations, women bring to the table a much needed quality of calm assurance minus the aggressive bluster that some male leaders tend to demonstrate which has resulted in disastrous consequences in the past.

The students wanted to know if we had any regrets getting involved in politics. Our response was a resounding no. In fact, we encourage more women to get involved in politics or political activism as women can bring a unique and important perspective to a political landscape long dominated by men.

There's no better time to do this than during the commemoration of this year's International Women's Day. 

Chee Siok Chin is Head, Training & Development and Head, Women Democrats. Chong Wai Fung is Treasurer of the SDP.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/dr-m-malaysia-will-be...

It was reported that the Government will make data on rental rates available for small and medium-sized businesses, so they can make informed decisions on the renewal of their leases (“Rental data to be more transparent”; March 7).

This will not solve the problem of crippling rental cost in a tight market, but could make the situation worse.

Businesses need stable rental rates to stay viable over a long period. They should not be subject to uncertainty over a key component of their cost of operations because of short-term volatility in the speculative investment market.

I have two suggestions to deal with this problem.

First, we should revert to an earlier system in which the Government, through statutory boards – such as JTC Corp and the Housing Board – makes commercial and industrial properties available at affordable rates. The rent can be adjusted to take into account inflation and construction cost, but should be shielded from the speculative investment market.

Making a large supply available at moderated prices could set a benchmark for rental rates of private properties.

Second, the Government should encourage landlords and tenants of private properties to enter into long-term leases by offering property tax concessions for such leases.

The property tax rates could be fixed at a prevailing level for the duration of the lease.

Tan Kin Lian

* Article first appeared in ST Forum (14 Mar)

Have you read this article by Charlotte Ashton on BBC? Would you agree?

I am sorry the writer feels the way she did but I think many of us would be able to relate to some of her experiences. I remember my wife facing the same situation. When she was expecting, there was a period when she injured her arm and it was in a sling and yet, no one offered her a seat on the MRT. People pretended to sleep or not to notice.

We do hear of stories of people being callous, indifferent, unfeeling. And I guess we need to look at ourselves and ask if we too sometimes reflect these ugly traits in the little things that we do or say, or don't do and don't say when we really should do the right thing.

Truth is, we often do know what is the right thing to do. And we can, if we choose to. 

Many do. In fact, many of us can also cite examples of wonderful kind-hearted Singaporeans who reach out to others and make that difference to those around them. I certainly have encountered many of these Singaporeans, young and old, who go that extra mile.

Building a gracious society starts with everyone of us. When we begin to care for those around us, we would have started building not only a gracious society, but perhaps a great nation.

Are we up to it? It's not easy but let's keep trying. All of us. Jiayou!

Viewpoint: Does Singapore deserve its 'miserable' tag?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26546169

Minister Tan Chuan Jin

*Comment first appeared on his Facebook page here.

Throughout his life, Mr Lee Kuan Yew Lee has held the view that heredity determines intelligence and, therefore, the elite in society must be given priority when allocating state resources. In 1967, he said that every society has approximately 5 percent of the population:

who are more than ordinarily endowed physically and mentally and in whom we must extend our limited and slender resources...

He repeated his ideas in 1969, this time more forcefully:

Free education and subsidised housing lead to a situation where the less economically productive people in the community are reproducing themselves at rates higher than the rest. This will increase the total population of less productive people. Our problem is how to devise a system of disincentives, so that the irresponsible, the social delinquents, do not believe that all they have to do is to produce their children and the government then owes them and their children sufficient food, medicine, housing, education and jobs.

In his 1983 National Day Rally, Mr Lee reiterated his life-view:

If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society...So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.

As recently as 2008, Lee re-stated his position at the Singapore Human Capital Summit:

You marry a non-graduate, then you will worry about whether your son or daughter is going to make it to university. You marry another graduate, especially if she gets a first or an upper second and if you get a first or upper second. Chances are you don’t have to worry about them. They will look after themselves.

We present these quotes not as red meat for PAP's detractors to hurl more invective at Mr Lee. In fact, as objectionable as these views are, we would like to see political discourse remain civil and respectful. Anything else would distract us from the central problem of reforming the way our country is governed.

From education to healthcare to the wage structure, Mr Lee's elitist outlook permeates public policy. Indeed, the PAP has not been diffident in lavishing state resources on people it defines as intelligent and capable, its minister included.

This has led to a Singapore that has been seeing our fortunes take a turn for the bleaker as we presented in our piece We must turn Singapore around.

Singaporeans, in increasing numbers, are seeing the train wreck in slow motion and are making their views known: Change is not only necessary but also urgent.

The current crop of ministers know this and, every so often, they come up with measures like Medishield Life and the Pioneer Generation Package. Unfortunately, such policies are meant more to placate critics than a genuine attempt to resolve the underlying problems that its elitist model has engendered.

Consider, for example, the move to pay cleaners a minimum wage. While the Government is loathe to betray its views of subsidising "stupid” and "economically unproductive” people, it cannot ignore the crescendo of opinion against the injustice and dangers of growing income inequality in this country. But minimum wage for cleaners only ignores workers in other vocations who are still paid a less-than-survival wage? Are they not entitled to a living wage?

This is the problem that Singapore faces today: We have a ruling party that is unable or unwilling to extricate itself from the philosophy of its founder which has, to put it mildly, become an anachronism as far as the present and future needs of our people are concerned.

Unless the younger leaders of the party jettison Mr Lee's unfortunate view of humanity, the PAP will continue to make patchwork revisions to policies which will only confuse and exacerbate the malaise in our society.

The PAP must go beyond spouting buzzwords which are ultimately vacuous when not accompanied by meaningful policy change. Remember former prime minister Mr Goh Chok Tong's adoption of the "kinder, gentler society” slogan and his vision of creating a "gracious” and "compassionate” society? It has resulted in the Wee Shu Mins, Amy Cheongs, and Anton Caseys popping up with disappointing regularity. And when altercations break out, Singaporeans belittle each other on the kind of jobs they hold or the type of cars they drive. 

The divide is picking at the seams of our community; sooner or later society will come apart.

If Singapore is going to succeed as a nation, we need a very different governing outlook. The SDP has articulated a vision antithetical to the PAP's. We believe that if state resources are limited, then all the more they should be used to assist the trampled and voiceless; to give those in non-elite circles a leg up so that they can compete fairly. There are no "intelligent” and "stupid” people, only exploitative ones – and they should not be at the seat of political power.

We believe that "compassion” is not merely a word in a slogan, it is an ideal that can be attained with the right people in government. Competition, individual reward, and meritocracy present enormous problems when they are not tempered by an equally strong regard for compassion.

It is on such a philosophy that our alternative policies – be they healthcare, housing, population, education, treatment of our minorities – are derived. Only when we have a clear idea of the kind of country we want for ourselves can policy-making be carried in a coherent and effective manner. 

This is what the SDP is working towards, it is an alternative Singapore that we hope to persuade our fellow Singaporeans to help us build. 

SDP

Source: YourSDP.org

In my blog yesterday I wrote about the inexplicably high offer that Temasek had made to buy out Olam, a Singaporean commodities firm hemorrhaging cash and burdened by debt repayments falling due.  As this offer was inexplicably generous and the timing irrational I feared that at least US$2.1 billion that belongs to the citizens of Singapore was being squandered  recklessly and that Temasek was trying to mask its real performance by increasing the proportion of  private companies in its portfolio.

At the end of yesterday’s blog I also said that in the period before the deal was announced, I feared Olam and Temasek had breached the Singapore Takeover Code which is regulated byt the Singapore Securities Industry Council.  The Takeover Code is designed to protect shareholders in the run up to an announcement and. Our Singaporean code is mirrored on the UK version.

Yesterday I said “ (the code) places very clear obligations on both the offeror and offeree companies to keep any offer discussions secret. In the event of an unusual movement in the share price of the offeree company or an increase in turnover they are required to make an immediate announcement as to the possibility of an offer.” 

I believed there had been a breach of the Code because I saw “unusual movement” in Olam’s market price that to me looked like absolute evidence of failure to protect the secrecy of the deal process. Temasek had then failed to make the immediate announcement required in the event of share price movement. Failure to make that announcement was therefore a breach of the takeover code.

Temasek made the official announcement of an offer to buy all the remaining shares in highly leveraged and cashflow negative Olam on March 14th.  However in the month preceding that offer being made, Olam’s shares rose by 35%, with no good news announcement to explain that rise and no similar rise being seen in its peers or the market itself.  The Straits Times Index only rose by 2.3 % in that period, for example. Once the official offer announcement was made the preceding 35% rise in Olam’s price looked like evidence that the cat had got out of the bag early.

I am not the only person who noted this. In a March 16th article Bloomberg Business Week quoted Mr. Sachin Shah, a special situations and merger arbitrage strategist at New York based Albert Fried and Co, on his concerns that “there’s been leakage in the deal process”.  In fact you wouldn’t need to be an expert in M&A activity as I am or an analyst specializing in this area like Mr. Shah, to have serious concerns over “deal leakage”. Any reasonable observer would reach the same conclusion.

I seem to have hit a nerve with my article because today SGX has published an astoundingly defensive statement that not only fails to rebut my concern that a breach had occurred but even seems to give evidence to support it.

Naturally, I stand by yesterday’s blog when I stated that the movement in Olam’s share price was “unusual” by the definition of the takeover code and the failure to make an earlier announcement had been a breach.

Here is what SGX said in reply:

“Market commentaries noted that in the six weeks from 3 Feb 2014, Olam’s share price increased 34.8%, higher than those of its peers such as Wilmar International which rose 11.2% and Noble Group which rose 12.6% over the same period. During the period, the Straits Times Index rose 2.3%. Such comparisons should be conducted with care as the financials and outlook of individual companies may differ even if they are within the same industry. While we do not prescribe a view of value or pricing of stocks, we note that of the 13 analysts who issued reports on Olam in February 2014, seven raised their target price by an average of 10.4% with the highest increase being 21.4%. The 13 analysts had target prices of $1.50 to $2.00 for Olam. In the case of Wilmar, eight analysts raised their target price by an average of 2.6% with the highest increase being 4.8%.  For Noble, one analyst raised the target price in February. Trading in these three stocks were within the price ranges set out in the research reports, suggesting they were trading within the general market view of these stocks with Olam shares reflecting a more positive market view.”

The so called clarification by SGX fails to answer the question as to why Olam rose so much more than its peers pre-announcement. A 34.8% rise was three times more than the average of 10.4% by which analysts raised their price target for the stock.

SGX quotes the rise for peers Noble and Wilmar but the statistics for Noble and Wimar only back up my assertion that Olam’s rise was unusual. The rises for those two companies were much smaller and completely in line with the general movement in the MSCI agricultural commodities index over the same period. In any case the large movement in Olam would have the effect of pulling up its peers due to technical activity driven by index rebalancing and quantitative trading.

Nothing that SGX has said above allays my suspicions that there had been “leakage” and that failure by Temasek to respond with an immediate announcement broke the Takeover Code.

Not only do I believe that the Code had been breached but the stock exchange also needs to conduct a convincing investigation of possible insider trading. If evidence of insider trading is found then we must prosecute those responsible.

Who are SGX , anyway and are they sufficiently independent to comment?  SGX is itself not independent since SEL, a Temasek holding company, controls 23% of SGX (and a further percentage could be held by nominees).  The chairman of SGX, Chew Choon Seng, is also the chairman of the Tourist Promotion Board and the former CEO of SIA.It thus has a clear conflict of interest and cannot investigate itself on suspicions of insider trading or violations of the Code by either or both parties.

What about the Securities Industry Council responsible for the Takeover Code?  Similarly the composition of the Securities Industry Council needs to be proven to be independent. What we do know is that Lee Kuan Yew’s son and our Prime Minister’s brother sits on the board of SGX and Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter–in–law and the Prime Minister’s wife, heads Temasek.  At least 7 members of the Securities Industry Council are connected with the Government or Government Linked Companies.

We thus need an independent body to investigate this as any statement by SGX concerning Temasek is open to criticisms of being partisan. The investigation will need to come from outside Singapore as an investigation of accusations of possible misconduct by a Government-owned company is likely to face difficulties in finding individuals who do not have a conflict of interest given Temasek and the PAP government’s pervasive control over the economy and given that members of the same family are in key positions at Temasek, in the government and at SGX.

Meanwhile I repeat my offer to assist any MP, NCMP or NMP who wishes to raise this issue in Parliament.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

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

First, we can't believe the temerity of this anonymous person hiding as the page's admin. Who is he or she to issue that kind of statement? Is he the national ombudsmen? Or the leader of the supreme council?

Secondly, this appears to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"Get your facts right?" Is he referring to the untrue allegations made by PAP hogs like Jason Chua that parties like SDP are receiving foreign funding?

Or the untrue accusations made by his own comrades that Opposition politicians are calling for drawing of reserves to increase social spending?

Perhaps this presumptuous PAP page admin might want to refer to the words of his Gold Standard lapdog sheet, the Straits Times, which had defended its role in spreading the false news of Kim Jung Un's uncle being mauled to death by 100 dogs, with these words:

"It is true a newspaper's duty and credibility depend on getting the facts right. It is equally true that the inability to verify the accuracy of a story may still require a newspaper to run it because of the tale's portent."

So to the PAP and the Admin of its Facebook page:

1. Don't throw stones when you yourself are living in a glass house.

2. Get your facts right first before accusing others.

The Alternative View

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=672038572857478&set=a.5980976869...

President Tony Tan has officially approved the budget for 2014 and he posted a status to facebook to explain this.

The president is required to safeguard the national reserves and as such, he must judge whether a budget is likely to draw on past reserves and is able to reject a budget if it is deemed to be likely to draw too much from the national reserves.

Tony Tan explained that the budget has already been debated in Parliament and been passed and he felt that it was a "prudent and responsible" Budget.

He had been advised by the council of Presidential advisors that the budget is suitable for assent and he has approved of it accordingly.

He said that he has exercised his constitutionally given discretionary power to assent to the budget.

Here is his facebook status in full:

The Singapore Budget 2014 was debated over a two-week period in Parliament which concluded on 13 March 2014. At the end of the debate, Parliament passed the Supply Bill to authorize the Government expenditures proposed in the Budget. The Bill has been submitted to me for assent as required under the Constitution. 

This is a prudent and responsible Budget. The Government will be setting aside $8 billion from its Current Reserves to fund the special measures proposed for members of our pioneer generation beyond the next few years. The pioneer generation has stood by Singapore through the difficult early years of our independence, and it is only right that we take care of their healthcare needs in their old age. 

In accordance with the Constitution, the Council of Presidential Advisers has considered the proposed Budget and recommended that I assent to the Supply Bill on the basis that the Budget is unlikely to draw on the Government’s Past Reserves. The Ministry of Finance had also given me a detailed briefing on Budget 2014. I have therefore exercised the President's discretionary power provided for under the Constitution to give my assent to the Supply Bill.

TT

 

A few days ago, the internet was abuzz with the story of Miss S'pore finalist, Ms Jesslyn Tan, who found the sight of a man with a hole in his T-shirt napping on the MRT so amusing that she took a snapped a photo of him and put it on her FB with the caption "Holey moley. Sibei trendy worzxxz".

The post caused a minor internet storm. Many were critical of it, and Ms Tan has since removed the post and apologised online for being insensitive.

What's it to me? Well, you see, the man in that pic is my resident, Mr Koh Hee Huat, and I have known him for many years. I want to share a little more about this man who has been unwittingly caught up in this mini furore.

Mr Koh is a helper at the Ye Shanghai Teochew Muay stall at Bukit Merah View (BMV). The stall opens at night till the early hours of the morning. Those familiar with the area - and certainly all the taxi drivers on the midnight shift - will know this stall and Mr Koh. He's the man who takes the orders from the customers in the queue and dishes out their selections into small plates for the other helper to bring to the tables. He's on his feet from evening until 3.00 am in the morning when the stall closes.

Every time I've been to the stall after my Friday night MPS ( and that's many times over the years ) he's been there - in good or bad weather, quiet and unassuming, but always hard at work, and responsive to all customers, no matter who they are.

He makes an honest living to support his mother and his family. His wife works at the same stall. He has a daughter waiting to enter poly. 

In the midst of all the buzz and noise on the topic, I would like to address this from his perspective, so people can understand the impact the episode has had on him.

First, he's genuinely bewildered why he has been singled out like this out of the blue, and on such an issue. His T-shirts have holes because he wears them for work. The stall has metal fixtures which snag on the T-shirts, causing them to tear. It's just part and parcel of his work environment, in the same way that people who wear overalls may get grease stains, or outdoor workers get dust on their uniforms.

But more importantly, the episode caused him to feel a deep loss of face and hurt. When I visited him at the stall last night, he said many customers asked him about the incident, and it was very embarrassing for him because so many people know him. Despite that, though, he still turned up for work over the past few days, stoically carrying on with his job. Many may not realise this, but it takes courage to do this - to turn up and carry on when suddenly, through no doing of your own, you are the subject of national discussion, and every eye is on you. 

Mr Koh initially thought of quitting in the wake of this, but his boss encouraged him to stay. His boss told me that he has known Mr Koh since he was boy and he is a very good worker. When Mr Koh's father passed away, he asked the boss to take care of Mr Koh, which the boss promised to do. The boss is determined to keep that promise.

My grassroots leaders and I encouraged Mr Koh to stay too. We told him that this will pass. He doesn't surf the net and he wasn't aware that many have people expressed support for him.

So if you are in the area and have a yen for teochew muay, do go and give Mr Koh a word of encouragement or a thumbs up. He's very much part of our Bukit Merah family, and just like whenever a family member feels down, it helps when others rally round to give a morale booster. And if anyone merits a boost it is this quiet, hardworking, unassuming man. He may not be sibei trendy, but he is definitely "sibei ho".

As for Ms Tan, I am glad that she has apologised, albeit online and not to Mr Koh directly. She says she has learnt from this and would be very mindful of social media in the future.

I do hope so.

We still do not sufficiently appreciate the impact that what we do or say can have on others, especially via social media. The consequences are often unintended, but by then it is too late. The old adage "the pen is mightier than the sword" still holds true in the internet age, even though the keyboard has replaced the pen. A sword cuts deep, but words can cut deeper. We need to have a care in what we say about others.

Minister Indranee Rajah

*Article first appeared on her FB page here.

RELATED: MISS UNIVERSE SINGAPORE FINALIST APOLOGIZES FOR INSENSITIVE REMARKS

Ten things I wish will happen in Singapore:-

1. Public transport will be deprivatised - the privatization has brought on too much unhappiness due to profiteering because its now a business entity and fare kept going up as shareholders want more money. The strange thing about the latest fare hike is that the transport business is still profitable for both operators but yet fare has to increase. Greed...

2. Wage gap to close up - we are now the number two country in the world for having the highest wage disparity and this has cause much social unhappiness as mobility is getting more difficult.Many people still earn below $2000 a month and struggle for their whole life whereas well-paying expats open up $1000 bottles of wine during their weekend binge without blinking an eyelid. Lets continue to press on for minimum wage to be implemented here so our low waged workers can have a decent salary to survive on.

3. Young Singaporeans to be more aware of politics - everything is about politics in our country but our young people are strangely shying away from getting involved. Maybe years of conditioning through fear and control have created this massive apathetic feeling among the younger population. I wish that our younger lot be less apathetic as this is our country and we need you to rise up before its too late. Less fear and more heart.

4. Senior citizens need not work anymore because of finances - we probably have the highest number of senior citizens in the world toiling away in the tiolets and foodcourts and my belief is half of them don't have a choice due to various reasons. Set up a pension fund for them and allow them to retire comfortably without the need to work till they die.

5. Stop the foreigner influx - we now see more foreigners in the train than locals and its time to stop the influx before things boil over. Many Singaporeans are resenting the heavy foreign pressure and having to work under foreign superiors and managers. Tear up the population tiolet paper now and flash it down the bowl! No Singaporean in their right frame of mind will support the 6.9 million population target by 2030.

6. Be more caring for one another - I just heard of a heart-aching story of this Singaporean family who dumped their aching father in a nursing home in JB and disappeared when the home contacted them for over-due fees. Let's be more compassionate and caring towards our own kind and debunk the myth that Singaporeans are selfish and self-seeking. A gracious society is measured by not how rich you are but by how you treat the lowest rung in your own backyard.

7. Be less materialistic - the word most used in a conversation between two people is often called money. How much you earn, how much is that dress, how much should I pay you back are stuff that many of our own people talk about alot when they catch up. We also measure one's success by his paycheck and this is so wrong. Lets look beyond money in our outlook of life and focus on the finer things - love, hope, charity and peace of mind.

8. Encourage diversity - Singaporeans are becoming too homogenous and think alike for their own good. Shopping malls are also getting too boring due to their similar theme and some people are crying out for a different identity. Its time to embrace some diversity within our system and accept others for who they are than chiding them as weird and abnormal. Moreover, many artistes and talented people have to leave the country as they are seen as out of the mainstream and trouble makers. Change can only come if the differences are allowed to romp freely within a society.

9. Study less and play more - I personally find our children over study and many of them still have to attend all kinds of enrichment classes over the weekend when they should be having fun playing away. Academic pursuit won't get you very far here anymore unless you are those scholarly type and why not scrap those dreadful classes away and let your kids be kids for once! Anyway what good is a world-renowned educational system if you are constantly being replaced by incoming third-world foreigners?

10. Be more risk taking - I have recently heard of friends rejecting lucrative jobs abroad due to the fear factor and find that we really need to be less risk-adverse in order for us to move forward. Foreigners are flocking by the hundreds of thousands in search of a better life abroad whereas we are always feeling very contented with our life here. Lets take some calculated risk for ourselves as we need that challenge sometimes to lift us beyond the comfort zone.

Gilbert Goh

Dr Ng Eng Hen indicated that the new potential candidates for the PAP in the next general election are all already working the ground and are active in the constituencies.

He explained that they are already doing various work such as being active in grassroots organisations and volunteering with meet-the-people sessions.

Dr Ng, who is the PAP's organising secretary, said that the PAP likes people who have been active in grassroots as these people have clearly shown that they are dedicated to the residents.

He also said that it's important that the PAP selects new candidates who are active on the ground from early on as this was one of the common themes that arose out of feedback in the last GE.

This way, the candidates will understand the residents better and be able to know their needs.

Dr Ng did not indicate which constituencies the new potential candidates were in nor did he say how many they had. However, he said that they have plenty of candidates to ensure that they can pick good quality candidates.

The next general election must be held before January of 2017.

Putrajaya must restrict information on the Internet about Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 to protect Malaysians from the rage of Chinese families of the MH370 passengers, says Kinabatangan MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin today (Mar 25).

According to Malay Mail Online, he feels that continued bad news about the plane that is now assumed lost with no survivors among the 239 people on board could move Chinese citizens to take out their anger on Malaysians abroad.

He asked in Parliament:

"What will happen if Chinese citizens believe in such issues?

"They will riot and torture any Malaysians wherever they are. We don’t want this to happen.

"With our uncontrolled media, everything can be uploaded to their heart’s content. What will then happen?"

This comes as scores of angry relatives of the Chinese passengers aboard flight MH370 set out on a protest march to the Malaysian embassy in Beijing today to demand more answers about the fate of the missing plane and those on board.

Najib this morning submitted an emergency motion in Dewan Rakyat to mourn the fate of passengers and crew on the missing airliner, expressing Putrajaya’s condolences over the incident.

The emergency motion was seconded by Arau MP Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim. Representatives from the main parties will debate the motion today.

By: Jeremy Chen | Your.SDP.org

The PAP and its supporters routinely make ideologically based claims that are supported by hypotheticals but not by real evidence (especially statistical evidence). One example is the topic of introducing a minimum wage, an area of contention where PAP claims are more ideological than logical. In this discussion, the PAP has been particularly long on hypotheticals and very short on specifics.

In the domain of mathematics, it is well known that one can prove anything one wants about "elements of the empty set" because there is nothing in there. (For instance, the following statements are true: (i) all elements of the empty set are greater than 1, (ii) all elements of the empty set are less than 0, and (iii) all elements of the empty set are made of green cheese.) Similarly, one can make any claims about classes of businesses or workers to which nothing belongs and have those be tautologically true. But such claims add nothing to the public discourse and serve only to mislead.

So let's be grounded in our discussion. We propose that a supply chain (or part of a supply chain) that operates in Singapore and cannot afford to pay its Singaporean workers a living wage (say about $7/hr) is not productive enough to be operating here. This is a reasonable point to begin our discussion. Singapore is a space-bound nation and unproductive commercial businesses should not be operating here and taking up that space (not that their cashflow would support it for long anyway).

The question, then, is whether the above proposition is reasonable. We put it forth as a possible starting point and are open to reviewing our position should reality throw up relevant facts we have not considered. We challenge the PAP to offer REAL and SPECIFIC examples of for-profit businesses that should be operating in Singapore but are unable to offer such a wage. If such examples exist, they should be easy to point out. No pointless hypothetical, please.

There is an alternative formulation to the above question: We ask that the PAP cite an example of work that should be carried out in Singapore but is not worth $7/hr. Let us be precise with regards to what "worth" means. Such "work" would serve some people or organizations. In the event that such work is withheld by all suppliers unless $7/hr is paid, would those customers be willing to fork out $7/hr or decide to forgo it altogether? If those customers, acting as clinically rational economic agents, are willing to fork out $7/hr, then it is worth at least $7/hr to those customers, and hence has a market value of at least $7/hr.

So in this discussion of the minimum wage (and other policy discussions, for the matter), let us all be grounded and work with real examples. This way, can we move forward and contribute positively to public discourse.

Jeremy Chen is pursuing his PhD in Decision Science at the NUS and is a member of the SDP's housing policy panel.

By Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the recent Parliamentary proceedings reported in Hansard.

Replies not reported in media?

I found some interesting replies to questions that I so not remember reading in the media.

17 February, 2014 : MEDIUM-TERM TO SHORT-TERM COMCARE SCHEME APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS