The Workers' Party has set up several new community outreach programs through its recently established charity organisation, the Workers' Party Community Fund (WPCF).

The WPCF was set up at the start of this year and it received approval to operate as a charity in February.  It is a company with Low Thia Khiang, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, Png Eng Huat and Lee Li Lian as the directors.

Mr Low explained that the WP wanted to set up a separate charity organisation as it would be independent. It would also help to differentiate the party's political and charitable work.

The new fund aims to help the community regardless of residents' political affiliations. It will help by giving more financial assistance to those who are still struggling even after receiving help from the government.

The WPCF will also disburse food vouchers and set up some welfare in the healthcare field by giving residents health screenings, training for caregivers and medical house visits.

This is not the first time that the WP has been actively involved in charity work and they said that they will be working with several volunteer welfare organisations to ensure that they are able to effectively reach out to the needy. 

Talking in Parliament, Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman, the Senior Minister of State for National Development and Defence, called on the government to engage with unhappy Singaporeans more.

He was referring to online critics and explained that in order to built mutual trust, concerned citizens need to be engaged before they are judged.

He was concerned that if the unhappiness and criticisms spread on social media are left unchecked, it could be detrimental to society. He also acknowledged netizens as genuinely concerned citizens rather than as "trolls" as some other PAP leaders have labelled them.

"I would like to believe that behind many of the grouses and criticisms lie concerned people. Many of them, and I would like to think the majority of them, are well-intentioned. Perhaps they want to do something, they want to advocate, but they don’t know how best to do so.” he had commented.

He said that when the government engages with the people, they can often change their perspectives and make them understand. He shared how his engagement with one of his residents had turned him from a "huge critic" to an active volunteer with the PAP Grassroots.

Pointing to this example, he urged the government to engage with concerned Singaporeans so that differences can be closed instead of entrenched.

Khaw Boon Wan, the minister for national development, warned that elections shouldn't be an "auction" between political parties offering the people more spending and lower taxes.

He explained that naturally, everyone wants to get more without having to pay more in taxes, however, going in such a direction is not sustainable and so political parties should not take advantage of this during elections.

Instead, he suggested that it was the responsibility of politicians to be 'honest' with voters.

"If every election is a mere auction between political parties to give as much goodies as they can with as little taxes they need to pay, I think democracy of that manner must lead to insolvency and eventually, political cynicism." he said.

He was speaking at a dialogue session at the joint World Cities Summit, CleanEnviro Summit and the Singapore International Water Week.

During the dialogue, other topics were also brought up such as the financing of infrastructure development.

On this point, Khaw said that Singapore has "no shortage of money" to finance such development.

Another issue which Mr Khaw raised was that Singapore is a small country with a very small domestic market. Therefore it is essential that Singapore remain open and not implement any protectionist measures.

Singapore Democrats

In the report Shanmugam Criticise a minister but don't sling mud, the Minister for Law said that PAP leaders was not about to stop suing its critics for defamation, but added that lawsuits do not curtail political discussion.

He could not be more wrong. Defamation lawsuits have had a chilling effect on political discussion in Singapore. Through the decades, many opposition leaders have been sued and this has effectively dampened political debate and participation.

But while Mr Shanmugam says that PAP's critics should not sling mud, its leaders have not been shy of doing the same to its opponents. J B Jeyaretnam, Devan Nair, Francis Seow, Tang Liang Hong, Chee Soon Juan, etc. have been labelled and characterised in the most personal and vicious of ways.

And while PAP leaders see no problem in slinging mud at their opponents, they are quick to sue when the mud flies the other way. The party has in recent years turned to suing civil society members and bloggers, the latest being Mr Roy Ngerng over the CPF issue.

Such defamation suits do absolutely no good for political development in Singapore. It must stop. For the sake of progress, it is imperative that we raise the level of politics in this country.

To do this, we must have two things:

One, the government must be transparent and accountable. The PAP must remember that it is the custodian of public money and has the duty to make its accounts and transactions open for public inspection - without the opposition and citizens having to demand it. A good government avails the information as a matter of course.

When the Government is not transparent, it engenders distrust among the people. In particular, Singaporeans are suspicious and unhappy about what is happening to our CPF money and reserves.

Bad governance is non-transparency. Terrible governance is suing citizens when the distrust leads to suspicion and allegations.  

Two, the opposition must be constructive by drawing up an alternative and persuading the people that there is a better path.

The SDP has tried to live up to this expectation. We have not only pointed out the PAP's policy flaws but also, and more importantly, published a series of policy papers detailing comprehensive and viable solutions to remedy the current shortcomings.

It is important to raise the level of politics by showing who has the better ideas to take our nation forward than continually sue for defamation.

We desperately need to change our political ways. Only then can we achieve a First World government - the type that Singaporeans demand and deserve.

Source: YourSDP.org

<above pic: The PAP have controlled and spread propaganda on the mainstream media for decades, the picture above is a classic example>
 

I refer to the article: "The threat facing online comments"

You may think trolling and flaming is a problem unique to Singapore, but it isn’t. 

In Europe, freedom of speech is considered almost a sacred virtue. Yet recently the European Court of Human Rights ruled that when a website publishes a controversial story that may attract defamatory or insulting comments, the website must anticipate this trolling and flaming, and be ready beforehand to remove these comments promptly. 

It is not the last word on the matter. But it reflects how societies are still finding the right balance between freedom of speech and responsible online behaviour. I agree with Minister Yaacob Ibrahim that freedom of speech does not come free from the need to be responsible for what one says, either online or offline. 

This is a tough problem to solve, but we need to develop our own ways to keep online conduct civil and constructive. 

Lee Hsien Loong

*Comment first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/leehsienloong

Editor's Note: We don't think anyone thinks that trolling and flaming is a problem unique to Singapore. Any netizen that uses the Internet since the IRC or Msn Messenger era will tell you that.

Related: 

NASSIM JADE SCANDAL

Founder of Delphin admits that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong helped her get Singapore PR

It is with a very heavy, reluctant heart that I have to announce the cessation of Legal Clinic with immediate effect.

The central reason is the ever increasing pressure on NSP to prepare for the next General Election (GE).  The last GE was held on 7 May 2011. We have crossed the 3rd anniversary of the last GE.

NSP’s resources are limited. We need to focus and deploy our energies to pursue election-specific, election-strategic activities.

At our Volunteers’ Appreciation Dinner held in January this year, we considered whether or not to continue with Legal Clinic.  It was greatly heartening that the Volunteers of our Legal Clinic expressed their willingness to continue their commitment of helping out at Legal Clinic.

However, it has now reached a point where resources in terms of time and energy are being strained.  This pressure is set to increase as the date for the next GE draws near.

It is difficult to let go of something which is enjoyable and successful. Personally, I have enjoyed working with all of our Volunteers. Each of them have been reliable, charitable, kind and patient.

Since our first Session held in Feb 2012 to date, we have conducted 24 Sessions, during which we attended to 138 cases. I wish to end Legal Clinic on a high note. And so, on this high point, we shall end our season as Legal Clinic Volunteers.

NSP will be commencing other initiatives. It is my earnest wish to be able to continue working with all of our Legal Clinic Volunteers again.  I look forward to the opportunity.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss
for the NSP Legal Clinic Team

Source: http://nsp.sg/2014/06/03/cessation-of-legal-clinic-with-immediate-effect/

KUALA LUMPUR, June 4 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today he would not have taken legal action against Malaysiakini even as he backed Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s right to sue the news portal for alleged defamation.

Wading into the row perceived as an attempt to muzzle the media over government reports, the former prime minister conceded Najib had the right to use the existing laws to defend his reputation.

“Ya, it is right,” Dr Mahathir replied when asked by reporters if the sixth prime minister was right in suing for defamation.

Despite that, the 88-year-old insisted he would not have taken the same action as Najib.

“I don't, I won't sue. They call me anything also, they can,” he said.

“This is politics. In politics, you get cursed. That’s alright,” added Dr Mahathir.

The nation’s longest serving former prime minister pointed out that he had been called many names in the past, including “jihadist” and “infidel”.

He also joked that he rarely goes to court because he cannot afford it, referring to his five-year RM100 million legal battle with political nemesis Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

He told reporters that even after the case was thrown out of court and Anwar had to pay damages, most of the money had gone to the lawyers.

“After he lost, I only got RM70,000. It was not even enough to pay the lawyers. Supposedly, if he sued me for RM100 million, then he should’ve paid me that much money when he lost. That would’ve been fair,” Dr Mahathir said jokingly.

He was speaking at a lecture in the International Islamic University Malaysia here, during which he mentioned the futility of restricting online media in protecting the faith of Muslims.

Umno, the country's largest political party, and its president Najib have filed a civil suit against news portal Malaysiakini yesterday over a series of readers' posts published on their website related to the recent Terengganu mentri besar saga.

The suit centres on two articles published by Malaysiakini during the brief leadership crisis in Terengganu last May, titled “A case of the PM reaping what he sows” and “How much will Najib spend to keep Terengganu?”

Source: MalayMailOnline

In an extraordinary turn of events the State Times published a letter in its Forum page yesterday from Temasek Holdings. It seems that last Saturday ST published an article (“Ways to improve CPF”) which quoted an unnamed person as saying he suspected the Central Provident Fund Minimum Sum was raised “because Temasek or GIC lost money overseas”. ( See more at:http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/temasek-doesnt-invest-or-manage-cpf-savings-20140604#sthash.jRLqDrka.dpuf)

Temasek wrote their letter in response to that comment and presumably to deny that rumour. I say it is extraordinary because not only does it fail to prove that CPF monies do not help to finance, even indirectly, the government’s injections of capital into Temasek,  but a large part of the letter is  simply a setting out of current government CPF policy and an explanation of the PAP’s stated reasons for increasing the minimum sum. You know, the one about increased life expectancy blah blah.

The letter was written for Temasek by

Stephen Forshaw

Managing Director Strategic & Public Affairs

Temasek

If you want to know more about Mr Forshaw here is the blurb from an interview he gave to  mumbrella.asia – a site about Asian media and marketing.

Stephen Forshaw is the managing director of corporate affairs at one of Asia’s most powerful investment firms, Temasek Holdings. He is also managing director of Temasek’s operations in Australia and New Zealand, and president of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore.
 

In this interview with Mumbrella Asia’s editor Robin Hicks, Forshaw – who was comms chief for Singapore Airlines and Microsoft before joining Temasek – talks about how corporate communications is changing, how brands should respond to disaster, and why he’s a big admirer of Shell.

 ” A big admirer of Shell?”  You should be panicking by now.  Shell is most recently mired in a Nigerian scandal but last year was found to have cooked its books by wildly inflating its claimed oil and gas reserves resulting in an overstated potential profit of 100 billion dollars! Is it wildly ironic or just exquisitely fitting that a man employed by our government to allay our concerns over reserves and investments admires a company notorious for lying about its reserves?

So now we have an expat explaining our own government’s  CPF policy  to us. Who made him spokesperson for CPF and for the PAP? As he works for Temasek but is being paid to spell out the PAP’s justification for raising the minimum sum in CPF he only adds weight to the argument that the two (CPF and Temasek) are co-mingled. What will we have next? The Head of Standard Chartered ( in which Temask has a 20% stake) writing to ST to explain to us Singaporeans why women will have to start doing National Service? Or the head of Sheng Shiong writing  to tell us why GST is being raised?

So does Forshaw actually dispel the fear that the minimum sum has been raised because Temasek has lost money and the government needs to get the money form somewhere else?  No. This is what he does say.

“As for Temasek’s performance, we have more than doubled our portfolio value since 2002, excluding any net new capital.

As of our last reporting date of March 31 last year, returns to Temasek for newer investments made since 2002, when we started investing directly in a growing Asia, have exceeded returns since 2002 for older investments made prior to 2002.”

So, that’s as clear as mud. It seems Temasek are saying that positions put on since 2002 have done better in the 11 or so years up to 31 March 2013 than those before 2002 but again doesn’t say whether this is from 1974 up to 2002 or  for example, 1992- 2002.

Is the  date 2002 significant?  Well it could be that 2002 has been chosen for this division of performance into pre and post 2002  because it is the  year Mrs PM took over as head of Temasek. (I’ve said before that it is hugely embarrassing and a conflict of interest to have the PM’s wife head up our sovereign wealth fund.)

But I believe 2002 was chosen because that date was during the post-9/11 recession and at the lowest point for the markets before the  Great Recession of 2008) so of course anything after that is likely to look good, by comparison.

Temasek doesn’t provide a link to the balance sheets or any other data. Critically for me or anyone wanting to study their performance, Forshaw doesn’t provide information on the valuation criteria that Temasek uses. I am particularly interested  in their unlisted positions. Again it comes down to transparency and public listing would achieve that.

Still this divide into older badly performing stock and the better performance post 2002 is worrying. If I ran a fund in which all the longer term positions were performing worse than the newer ones, I would expect my investors to be concerned. Consistency is everything.

Of course it begs the question of why aren’t the poorer, older performers culled? Or is there another explanation for recent out performance such as recession recovery or another more sinister explanation or even a bubble waiting to burst.

Actually I have already provided an answer for part of this previously when I highlighted the Olam takeover scandal. That kind of manoeuver allowed Temasek to put the complete purchase on the books as a profit because they had owned shares before what is widely believed to have been a leak in the takeover process, that pushed the share price up enormously. Other Assets such as Changi Airport were transferred to Temasek for a 10th of their true market value. Instant profit.

Go back to the quote again and see that Forshaw tells us “As for Temasek’s performance, we have more than doubled our portfolio value since 2002, excluding any net new capital. -

Let’s look at that “new capital“. That is money that the government injects into Temasek from time to time.  The government is able to inject money or assets into Temasek because of the  constant stream of new investment it receives from CPF. So Temasek is getting CPF money indirectly. Temasek’s answer to the public via the ST forum is economical with the truth to say the least.  CPF may be invested elsewhere and not directly into Temasek or vice versa but it all comes from the same pot which is government capital or surpluses.  As the CPF monies are available for the government to invest elsewhere, it frees up capital to inject into Temasek.

Let’s look at that doubling of the portfolio value since 2002. The S&P 500, the Hang Seng and most global stick indices have doubled over the same period since the low of 2002. So in other words if you had been investing in an index Fund and gone on holiday since 2002 you would have done as well as Temasek. Had Temask done nothing in that time, the simple fact of the market rising would have created the same doubling over that period. Bravo!

Temasek Holdings writes that it is not investing or managing CPF money. This is simply sophistry. It is half a lie and wholly economical with the truth.   Money that the government receives from CPF savings goes to GIC and the profits that GOC earns investing  those funds  swells government surpluses enabling the government to  inject more capital into Temasek. Furthermore Temasek’s own internal rates of return that it is supposed to earn on new  investment will no doubt be related to CPF interest rates. Like everything else we have no disclosure on this but trust me, this is how it is done.

The question remains unanswered. Why is the Central Provident Fund Minimum Sum being raised ?

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/temasek-doesnt-invest-or-manage-cpf-savings-20140604

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

*The author is the secretary-general of the Reform Party. He writes at http://sonofadud.com

I received many comments to my post last week, and many messages from Singaporeans, both personally as well as online. Although I disagreed with some policies which I highlighted, some seem to think that I was rejecting all the PAP Government’s policies which is not the case. (Refer to: PAP MP INDERJIT SINGH: SINGAPORE HAS BECOME RICHER BUT NOT SINGAPOREANS)

In my post, I touched on a number of issues in the way some policies have been implemented which I felt should have been better done. But I also acknowledged that the government has been resolving many of the problems, like transport and housing, and setting a new direction for the future especially in our social policies. For example, I pointed out that the icing on the cake was the Pioneer Generation Package, which is a good example of an inclusive policy showing compassion. 

I am sure the government will continue to focus on solving the problems I mentioned and it will be good to also focus on how to have better policy formulation and implementation so that we have more effective policies in the future. I am confident the government will be doing this. Using the OSC approach for major policies will be one good way to have more ground up inputs for better policies. 

The government has also put in place many social safety nets in the last three years and this has generally been helpful, but as I mentioned in my post, what will be useful is for the government to help Singaporeans through higher incomes instead of hand-outs. Compulsory progressive wages for cleaners and security officers is a good start, which I have been calling on the Government to do for many years. I would like to see this expanded so that we can see more Singaporeans earning a decent living wage. 

While many Singaporeans wrote to me to express their appreciation for my post, some who wrote to me said I made some factual errors especially when I mentioned that cost increases had outpaced wage increases. Let me share what they highlighted to me. They pointed to government statistics that showed that net wages for Singaporeans have generally risen even after taking into account inflation. 

One Singaporean currently studying in the UK wrote to me highlighting that the National Talent and Population Division, a government organization, has been keeping in touch with students studying in the UK and overseas. 

A couple of grassroots leaders told me they felt that the asset enhancement policy did benefit them with real wealth and they are happy with it. Nevertheless, I was glad the PM said that we are looking more carefully at retirement adequacy such as by improving CPF-LIFE and that MND is further improving policies to help elderly Singaporeans unlock the savings in their flats so that they can look forward to a comfortable retirement without having to worry about their finances. It is important we continue to address these issues so that Singaporeans feel life has become better. 

Some have asked me what prompted me to express my views and if they would lead to concrete changes. As an MP elected by the people, it is my duty to make an assessment of the issues which concern Singaporeans based on the feedback I get and reflect them as accurately as possible so that the government can improve upon them. As to whether the government will listen, I can tell you that the reason I voice these concerns so confidently, is because I know they do not fall on deaf ears and that some action will be taken on them. I have seen this for the past 18 years in Parliament and that spurs me on to keep on doing my best as an MP. So the PAP government can and will solve problems and we all must continue to voice our concerns and feedback. 

The debate in Parliament last week was a robust one. I am particularly heartened to see our Prime Minister reiterating what the PAP promised at the last GE2011 - to “Secure Our Future Together”. Many of my fellow MPs also spoke about how we can achieve this and we are on the right track. With this as a governing objective, we should achieve our desired outcome so that all Singaporeans feel their personal and family’s future remains comfortable and secure while the country prospers. 

There is one thing we all need to do together as Singaporeans. We need to rally behind this single cause making Singapore a place where our children, and their children, can live comfortably, be proud of and can call home.

‎Inderjit Singh

Singapore is willing to accept slower growth as a trade-off for social stability as it aims to keep down the number of foreigners working in the city-state, FinanceMinister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Reuters.

Over the past decade, Singapore's economy has expanded by a 6.4 percent annual average. Tharman said that he would be happy if Singapore grew 3 percent a year, as long as growth was driven mainly by gains in productivity.

"Three percent growth is good growth," he said during an interview on Thursday.

High past growth has brought rising numbers of foreigners to work in wealthy Singapore, which in turn has spurred discontent among citizens angered by the strains put on infrastructure and services.

Between 2000 and 2013, Singapore's population rose to 5.4 million from 4 million, with foreigners accounting for the bulk of the 35 percent increase.

Unhappiness about inflows of foreigners helped an opposition party gain ground in the 2011 general elections as the People's Action Party, which has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965, won only 60 percent of votes, its worst showing to date. The next election must be held by January 2017.

Tharman, who is also a deputy prime minister, said the government accepts a slower growth rate as the cost of ensuring the country retains its national identity, combats over-crowding and keeps the ratio of foreign to local workers at around one-third.

NOT LIKE DUBAI

"We are never going to be Dubai, we are a country with a social ethos that we take very seriously," the 57-year-old finance minister said.

The number of foreigners in Dubai is larger than that of locals, a result of its aggressive economic growth strategy.

At the end of 2013, there were 1.32 million foreigners in Singapore who held employment or work-passes, around 38 percent of the total work-force.

In 2010, Singapore launched a 10-year plan to restructure its economy, aiming to increase productivity and cap the ratio of foreigners in the workforce at around one-third. The plan aimed to raise the productivity rate by an average of 2 to 3 percent a year, though it actually fell in 2012 and 2013.

In line with the plan, the government has imposed regulations to curb hiring of overseas workers in some sectors.

Now many companies, particularly in the construction and hospitality sectors, are clamoring for a let-up in the rules, saying they are hurting their businesses.

Last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the government would delay S$2 billion ($1.59 billion) of construction projects in order to reduce demand for foreign labor. [ID:nL3N0OE2KM]

Tharman said no tweaks would be made to the rules to help companies in the sectors that are struggling, as they had to adjust and find more productive ways of working instead.

"Giving them a little more slack can make some sense in the short-term but it delays that long-term transition," he said.

"We know that this is a transition that can be done, it's not inventing something that hasn't been done elsewhere."

SOME INDUSTRIES WILL EXIT

For some companies though, he said, the rules may ultimately mean they have to leave Singapore as its economy becomes less competitive for some industries.

"You can't move into higher value, high innovation activities without freeing up labor and land from the old activities, but you have to leave it to the market," Tharman said.

There are concerns that unhappiness about the number of foreigners in Singapore is causing some citizens to become hostile towards them.

Last month, organizers of a planned celebration on Singapore's main shopping street of Philippine independence day canceled it after online abuse directed at the Filipino community.

Tharman said he didn't believe xenophobia was a major problem among Singaporeans or a threat to foreign investment.

Citizens "would be concerned for valid reasons if there is overcrowding in the buses or in their housing estates" he said. "But I don't think they are motivated in an unhealthy way."

In 2013, Singapore's economy expanded 3.9 percent. The government forecasts growth of 2-4 percent this year. Curbs on hiring foreign workers and steady economic growth mean the labor market is particularly tight, with unemployment hovering around 2 percent.

Source: Reuters

Below is an excerpt from the journal [Beyond Technocracy: The culture of elite governance in Lee Hsien Loong’s Singapore] by Dr Michael Barr

The full journal can be found here: http://www.griffith.edu.au

Chapter 7 - Lee Hsien Loong

The new Prime Minister’s curriculum vitae reads as an exemplary case study of the way that personal power, personal connections and related social advantages lubricate the meritocratic system. Lee Hsien Loong was born in 1952 as the eldest son of two brilliant solicitors, one of whom was to become Prime Minister. His economic position was comfortable without being wealthy (at least not in his early life), but more importantly he had the immense advantage of being born into an English-speaking Chinese household. Even without other considerations, this made him part of a small privileged elite in the Singapore of the 1950s because the Chinese were the dominant ethnic group and English was the language of the colonial elite.

After independence in 1965, his father successfully set out to make English – his own family’s first language – the dominant language of the Republic and the prime language of education. Lee, however, was not content with his children being just monolingual. Even at this early stage Lee Senior had developed a fixation with what he would later call the “cultural ballast” provided by one’s “mother tongue”, and he sent Hsien Loong to top Chinese-medium schools (Nanyang Primary School and Catholic High School) so he could also master Mandarin. Yet despite this immersion in a Chinese-language environment, Hsien Loong was failing his Mandarin, so his parents arranged for private tuition. This enabled him to barely pass his A Levels. His relative mastery of Mandarin was to put him in good stead since, unbeknownst to anyone else, his father was later going to place bilingual Chinese (English and Mandarin-speaking) at the apex of the political and administrative elite. As if this was not enough of an advantage, just as Hsien Loong finished his senior years of school, as if on cue the first of the Junior Colleges (JCs) opened to offer elite students a specialist study and tuition environment to prepare for university. It is barely conceivable that this is a coincidence, but it remains a fact that Hsien Loong was in the first intake of the first JC, National Junior College (NJC), where against all common practice he was allowed to sit for the Cambridge A-levels in two stages.

He matriculated with A1s in pure and applied maths and an A2 in physics in 1969,74 and then returned as a part-time student to sit for the full set of examinations and improve his matriculation results, presumably to get a head start in Cambridge. On the strength of his 1969 results alone he was one of eight winners of the prestigious President’s Scholarship in 1970, and also won a Public Service Commission scholarship to Cambridge to study mathematics.76 After attending NJC, he also voluntarily began his National Service while waiting to depart for Cambridge, even though, as a scholarship winner, he could have deferred. As “luck” would have it, his decision to start his National Service early served him well. While doing his National Service the Ministry of Defence initiated a system of SAF Overseas Merit scholarships and Lee was in the inaugural group of five men to win one for his study in Cambridge.

Upon his return to Singapore in 1974 the SAF initiated a scholarship and leadership programme for serving officers. Unsurprisingly, Lee Hsien Loong was in the first intake.79 All in all, Lee made good use of his study opportunities while he was in the SAF. From 1971 to 1974 he studied at Cambridge, where he graduated with Double First Class Honours in Mathematical Statistics and Mathematical Economics and a distinction in a Diploma in Computer Science. After a mere three years working as a regular officer in the SAF, he was posted to Fort Leavenworth, USA, where he studied at the US Army Command and General Staff College from 1978 to 1979. Upon completion of these studies he stayed in the US for another year as a Mason Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, graduating in 1980 with a Masters in Public Administration. By this stage he had risen to the rank of Major in the SAF, despite having only served for about three years on operational duty. Despite his inexperience he was made Director, Joint Operations Planning Directorate from 1981 to 1982, and then became Chief of Staff (General Staff) from 1982 to 1984, by this time having risen to the rank of Brigadier-General.80 The SAF did not get very good value out of their investment, however, for Lee Hsien Loong left the SAF to run for parliament in 1984.

I have no precise knowledge of the operation of favouritism during his military career, so we can only speculate about the importance of his family name in his rapid and comfortable rise through the ranks, risking not much more injury than a paper cut.81 On his entry into politics, however, there is less need to speculate. Many months before the announcement of his entry into politics, civil servants in the Housing and Development Board (HDB) were told that their job was to prepare the ground in Ang Mo Kio constituency for an Army officer who was going to retire soon and enter politics at the upcoming election. In this case the business of “preparing the ground” involved ensuring that the creation of the first Town Council (another first for Lee Hsien Loong) went smoothly. Zulkifli Baharudin, an officer in the HDB, was put in charge, and apart from the administrative work of setting up a new municipal authority, he oversaw and engaged personally in door knocking, talking to hawkers and shop owners, making sure everyone was happy. Zulkifli says that this was his first political education and his first “real contact with the constituency”. He said in interview that even without knowing that it was Lee Hsien Loong who was being parachuted into the electorate, the work was given a high priority because the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) “was going to fight the election on the basis that it is best able to manage and lead a new municipal entity”.

A few months before the election he was told that the new Member of Parliament was “the son of Mr Lee”. After that, the work intensified, and he remembers it as the hardest working period of his life. Lest anyone is left with lingering doubts that the selection of Lee Hsien Loong’s constituency for the first Town Council might have been an arbitrary selection, it is worth noting that the next assignment given to Zulkifli was setting up the second Town Council in Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s electorate, Tanjong Pagar. It is doubly significant to this study of personal power, patronage and special opportunities that having proved his worth and – it was assumed – political reliability, Zulkifli was later invited to stand for Parliament as a PAP candidate. The unofficial secondment of a team of civil servants into working for the re-election of the PAP government in an election is not extraordinary in itself. Entire ministries routinely devote their resources to the PAP during General Elections. I have interviewed two other civil servants who have worked in two different ministries who each took part in election work on behalf of the PAP during the 1991 election. One (in the Ministry of Information and the Arts) was involved in a ministry-wide exercise of monitoring and managing the press on behalf of the PAP. The other (in the Prime Minister’s Office) was part of a team of civil servants who attended political rallies and reported on mood and responses among the crowds. This was a comprehensive exercise that involved overtime, scheduled shift work, taxi vouchers and full use of the civil service infrastructure. Another interviewee who was campaigning for an opposition candidate (Chee Soon Juan) during the 1996 elections was followed during his waking hours by two people he presumed to be ISD agents (from the Ministry of Home Affairs).

The exercise was carried out without any serious effort at subterfuge, so the primary purpose of the exercise was presumably intimidation rather than surveillance. The dedication of civil service resources on behalf of the PAP is therefore considered routine within the civil service, but the significant feature of Zulkifli’s story is the special treatment accorded “the son of Mr Lee”, even by the standards of PAP candidates. And make no mistake. At that stage of his career, Lee Junior’s handling of his constituency was so clumsy that he would have been in trouble without this help. He tried to approach his early “walkabouts” like a military inspection, allocating a set time to each floor in each block and expecting his constituents to fit in to his schedule.85 Not that you would have known that from reading the press reports at the time. The press at the time brimmed with adulatory reports about the PAP’s new candidate for Ang Mo Kio, beginning with reporting the occasional political speech that he was allowed to make while he was still a serving officer in the army. From there Lee was catapulted into test after test set by his father, all of which he “aced”, riding on his energy, intelligence and problem-solving ability.

At this point it is worth noting that he really is intelligent and hard working. His path through life was cleared by family connections, but family connections are not sufficient to win a double first from Cambridge University, or to hold down very senior positions in a highly professional army. He did these things and then went on to do more as a Minister. His first Regional Outlook test was to tackle the recession of the mid-1980s as the Chairman of the Economic Review Committee. From there he went from strength to strength. He had a dream run through the sensitive and powerful Trade and Industry and Finance ministries and became a Deputy Prime Minister in 1990. His progression was interrupted only by a cancer scare that set back his succession to the premiership by a few years. Without belittling the scale of his achievements, it is important to note that he had an immense advantage over and above his innate “talent” in that he had much greater freedom to act than any other member of Cabinet apart from his father. Whereas his more experienced and more senior Cabinet colleagues had to take tiny, incremental steps to unwind any of Lee Kuan Yew’s initiatives, from the start Lee Hsien Loong was fearless in striking down sacred cows, beginning with the Central Provident Fund.

He could afford to be. He could live up to the mantra, “change it, improve it and build on it” with a freedom enjoyed by almost no one else in the country. As Prime Minister (and even as a disproportionately powerful Deputy Prime Minister) he was also able to invite others into his aura of autonomy, though their autonomy is heavily circumscribed because it is dependent on his patronage. Current beneficiaries of Lee’s largess include the “rising stars” he has been nurturing in Cabinet – especially Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Khaw Boon Wan. Thus Lee’s mantra is a circumlocutious cry of self-legitimation that is personified in Lee Hsien Loong himself and his father. Others may share in it only insofar as their education and “talent” allows, and insofar as they have been socialised into the world of the elite.

Chapter 8 - Conclusion

The Singapore system of elite governance is truly a remarkable beast. Under the legitimating ideology of meritocratic elitism it delivers an effective and thoroughly modern style of technocratic governance that is nevertheless riddled with distortions and failings that threaten to make a mockery of the basic principles of its legitimacy. Worse, some of these distortions – notably the exercise of personal power and the operation of privilege and connections – are intrinsic to the operation of the system to the point where the legitimating ideology starts to look like a threadbare cover for the perpetuation of a dynasty. And yet the system works. There is enough talent in the dynasty and enough truth in the myths of meritocracy, elite governance and pragmatism to ensure that the city-state is in safe hands, and that it is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. If the reality were allowed to stray too far from these ideals then the whole system would degenerate into crony politics – and that is not going to be allowed to happen. The imperfections and distortions create some insecurity and tension, but these are not fatal to the system. The ruling elite clearly believes that they are an acceptable price for peace, prosperity and a smooth, if imperfect system of elite regeneration.

Dr Michael Barr

* Michael D. Barr is Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Editor-in-Chief of Asian Studies Review. A historian by training, he came to Flinders University from The University of Queensland and Queensland University of Technology where he held postdoctoral research fellowships. He is a recipient of the 1999 Asian Studies Association of Australia’s President’s Prize for the best Australian PhD in Asian Studies in 1998.

His latest book, The Ruling Elite of Singapore: Networks of Power and Influence, was published by I.B.Tauris and New Asian Library in February this year.

PRESS RELEASE

Reform Party believes that the current CPF system needs radical change. Its original purpose was to create a pool of forced savings needed to finance investment in industrialisation during the early stages of economic growth.

Today Singapore has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world (though its performance is much less impressive when measured in GDP per hour worked). According to the PAP government’s figures, it has huge external assets of over $800 billion and net assets (after CPF liabilities) of roughly $360 billion. This represents accumulated net assets of over $110,000 per citizen over and above what every Singaporean has in his or her CPF account.

CPF is inequitable for the following reasons:

• It is regressive because of the upper income limit of $85,000 on CPF contributions
• It represents a form of taxation because Singaporeans’ savings are locked up till at least 55. Even then we cannot withdraw any money unless we have the minimum sum in our accounts or have a terminal illness. The interest rates paid are well below what we would be able to earn on AAA investments with similar restrictions on withdrawal.
• Allowing us to use CPF funds to purchase housing has just boosted the price of housing. The supply of which is controlled by the government through its ownership of land and the position of HDB as the supplier of housing to 90% of the population. The rise in property prices has more than negated the value of the rise in our savings.
• Expats and foreigners are not required to pay CPF.

In addition It is incorrect of the PAP government to claim that there is no risk to our CPF savings because they are all invested in Singapore Government Securities. The money received from issuing these securities is then invested in GIC (and indirectly in Temasek). These sovereign wealth funds use the money to make riskier investments in foreign assets. If they lose money on these investments then there will come a point at which the Singapore taxpayer is at risk. The cushion may be large at the moment but a decline in value of 50% such as occurred during 2008 would mean that the government would have less assets than the value of its liabilities to CPF.

There is also a huge conflict of interest between the government’s role as manager of our savings and its control of the economy. It would be in the government’s interest to reduce the value of our CPF debt through inflation and indeed the rates the PAP government have paid on CPF deposits have been below the inflation rate for long periods. Depreciation of the Singapore $ would also erode the value of our savings.

Reform Party would abolish the current CPF system and return control to the people over how much they wish to save for retirement. As a preliminary are some of the changes we propose to make:

1. A certain percentage of employees’ income to be deducted to fund a basic pension and comprehensive universal health insurance.
2. Those on low incomes to have premiums subsidised or at the limit fully paid by the government.
3. After these deductions, individuals to be free to choose what proportion of their income, up to the earnings limit and capped at the current 20%, to save for retirement.
4. These savings to continue to be tax-exempt.
5. Individuals can elect to buy a private pension scheme or one provided by CPF.
6. Employers to make contributions of 16% of final salary up to current earnings limit into a pension scheme of the employee’s choice. These contributions to be tax-exempt.
7. Private sector pension providers (regulated by MAS) to be allowed to compete with CPF on equal terms.
8. CPF no longer to be required to invest solely in Singapore Government Securities but to be allowed to invest in approved investments above a certain rating level.
9. Individuals to continue to be allowed to use both employee and employer CPF to fund property purchases
10. At 55 individuals to be allowed to withdraw their full accumulated savings as a lump sum or to buy an annuity. Possible use of taxation policy to encourage individuals to buy an annuity and not to withdraw all their savings at once.

Source: http://thereformparty.net/about/press-releases/reform-party-white-paper-...

Singaporeans! Does it matter how old we are? Does it matter how much money we have? Does it matter what political views we hold? No. What matters is that we are Singaporeans and that we have ideas and that these ideas get to see the light of day.

An idea that is exposed to criticism, an idea that is filtered through different perspectives, an idea that is bounced around and able to make connections.

The CPF is a collection of ideas. This event here today aims to stimulate a discussion on those ideas and Reform Party hopes it will start a genuine debate.

Debate matters and that is why Reform Party is pleased to be here exchanging ideas .

Does it matter if we disagree on how CPF should work? Does it matter if our ideas are not the same? No. In fact the opposite is true. You can’t have a debate if everyone has the same opinion.
In point of fact, Reform Party doesn’t agree with some of the ideas put forward by the organizers of this event. We don’t, for example, want to see CPF tagged to Temasek’s returns. We believe that is a bad idea. We would prefer to see CPF completely revamped.

But that is not important. Although we may disagree on the details we all share the same misgiving. We all suspect that CPF gives Singaporeans a rotten deal. That is why Roy writes the “heart truths” because he grasps the heart of what matters, which is that Singaporeans are being shortchanged.

There is now a general lack of trust between the people of Singapore and the government we elected to manage our wealth. And make no mistake! It is OUR wealth!

The trust has been broken because the goal posts were moved when the minimum sum was raised.

The trust has also gone because the original promise for CPF has been broken.

But the key issue in the loss of trust, is that this government refuses to provide its people with transparency.

Why is transparency important? Because CPF is one idea but Democracy is a bigger idea and Democracy simply doesn’t function without government transparency.

Government transparency enables YOU, the Singaporean taxpayer, to hold your elected government accountable for how they spend YOUR money at all levels.

It is a distraction to think that we need transparency from Temasek or GIC or CPF. We need transparency from our government.

Transparency means making the financial information publicly available. It needs to be online, easy to use, readily available and in an understandable format.
Freedom of information acts, a free media, published government audits and the internet are some of the best ways to demonstrate transparency in a modern democracy. These demands for transparency are reasonable and normal in most of the modern world.

How do you strangle transparency? Killing the chickens to scare the monkeys is one successful way. People become afraid or too dependent on the government to speak out. They censor their own speech. They become aware of what we call the Out of Bound markers. Nothing kills democracy as effectively as defamation suits and a climate of fear.

Singapore not only has little government transparency but the government goes to great lengths to keep its people in the dark. What are they afraid of? If they have nothing to hide then let them shine a light on the figures.

As it is ,Singaporeans do not have the ability to hold their government accountable. Singapore is NOT a democracy.

Brave young activists like Han Hui Hui and Roy have grabbed that breakdown in trust and turn it into a good thing, a demand for transparency. The government should see this as an opportunity not a threat. It is an opportunity to restore trust.
Meanwhile The activists have done all of us a favour.
They have done Singapore a favour.
They have done democracy a favour.

Finally, even though Reform Party may have its own ideas , even though we may be a political organisation not civil society, we are still standing here today proud to be demonstrating solidarity with Roy and Hui Hui.

We thank the organisers once again for inviting us. It has been an honour and a pleasure. We hope there may be many more occasions to show solidarity in the call for democracy for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

Majulah Singapura!

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

*Speech delivered at Hong Lim Park, June 7th. 
Source: http://thereformparty.net/about/press-releases/reform-party-speech-trust...

Dear fellow Singaporeans,

Let me first thank Ms Han Hui Hui and the organisers for staging this very important event to focus the nation's attention on our CPF and how the Government is withholding our hard-earned retirement savings.

I am unable join you at Hong Lim Park because I am presently at Sydney University to do a fellowship for a few weeks. But even as I am not there in person, I am, assuredly, there with you in spirit.

More than 20 years ago, the SDP had opposed the implementation of the Minimum Sum Scheme. Ever since, we have been doggedly trying to bring this most egregious breach of promise committed by the PAP to the attention of Singaporeans.

The CPF scheme was first introduced by the British colonial government and it started out with a 5 percent contribution from employees matched equally by employers. The goal was to help workers save for retirement. The savings would be returned to the saver upon retirement.

But when the PAP took over, the CPF became a lucrative source of funds for the Government and its original intent has been betrayed. The CPF is now used for housing payments, medical expenses, investment schemes, and so on.

Without an opposition to keep it in check, the Government introduced the Minimum Sum scheme in the 1980s to further retain our pension savings. The SDP firmly opposed such a move.

But this was before the days of the Internet and social media, and the PAP, with the help of the media that it controls, easily railroaded opposing views.

Back then, the amount retained was $80,000. The Government has, over the years, doubled the sum, withholding $155,000 of each member's account today.

Through the years, the SDP continued to bring to the attention of Singaporeans the detriment of the Minimum Sum Scheme. In 2008, when four of your fellow Singaporeans conducted a silent protest outside the CPF Building demanding the abolition of the Minimum Sum and calling for the Government to be transparent when it comes to our CPF money, they were met by the riot police.

But circumstances have changed. Now, on this day of 7 June 2014, we are exercising our rights to assemble here at Hong Lim Park. But our message hasn't changed: We want the Minimum Sum Scheme to be abolished and our CPF savings returned to us. We also want the Government to be transparent about how it handles and invests our CPF savings.

In our alternative economic programme that we published before the last general elections in 2011 called It's About You, the SDP spelt out measures on how our funds and reserves can be managed with a high level of transparency and where Singaporeans have a say in how they want their funds to be invested.

We will further refine our ideas on this topic in our forthcoming economic policy paper. We will present our ideas to the people of Singapore at the next GE and canvass their support.

In the meantime, please keep up your good work to inform the people and to warn them of the dangers of the Minimum Sum policy. Have a courageous rally and let us work even harder to build a democratic society for our nation, a society where the people are in charge and where the government is accountable to the people.

On behalf of my colleagues in the SDP, I wish you all the very best.

I remain yours in solidarity,

Chee Soon Juan

Source: YourSDP.org

Hri Kumar Nair promised to host a ‘honest’ dialouge session open to all where ‘hard’ questions would be dealt with. But all that changed when Kenneth Jeyaretnam and Roy Ngerng signed up. So much for constructive politics eh?

I first saw the event which was hosted entitled “CPF – An Honest Conversation: Public Dialogue with Thomson-Toa Payoh Residents” and I encouraged people with viable alternatives and suggestions for CPF to attend it. I called the event the closest thing we could get to having an “Open Discussion with the PM on CPF” which Roy called for. You can read my first blogpost here.

Soon after, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Roy Ngerng, myself and few other supporters registered by accepting the online invitation which Hri Kumar Nair said was valid.

Many people doubted that they would allow Kenneth and Roy to participate in the dialouge, but they still did indicate their attendance. Usually dialogues in the past such as “Singapore Conversation” or “Talking Point” have all been strategically filled with pro-PAP individuals so as to avoid hard questions or rebuttals. In Singapore, we have no press freedom, thus it is only through dialogues like this that we have a chance to question the People in Power.

During the live televised debate of the Elected Presidency in 1988 where JBJ and Chiam See Tong questioned Lee Hsien Loong and Goh Chok Tong, the opposition MPs made the PAP MPs fumble and stutter. ¹ After that debate, we didn’t have live televised debates on TV for a long time.

And as expected, Hri Kumar Nair has walked down the same path. This was what he did.

1) He edited the privacy settings of the event page so that no one could see who was attending, might be going or invited.

2) He deleted all posts from Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Roy Ngerng and other opposition supporters from the event page. But to keep it from looking too ‘clean.’ He allowed the posts of Abdul Malik, a supporter of the PAP to stay.

Here are two posts that have been removed.

And this is what the event page looks like now

I

Why remove Kenneth’s posts? It didn’t have any expletives and Kenneth said he was looking forward to an interesting debate. Aren’t Kenneth and Roy Singaporean Citizens who have CPF too?

And some netizens have said that Kenneth and Roy couldn’t attend as they were residents not Residents of Thomson or Toa Payoh. This is a misconception.

If you see the picture above, Abdul asks if residents from other parts of Singapore could join in, and Hri Kumar said that they could.

He also acknowledged this in a Facebook post 

We don’t have transparency, freedom of information and press freedom. And now we have to face another ‘honest’ conversation where we will see a room filled with moderates or pro-PAP supporters. This is nothing but Propaganda.

So much for robust debates, hard questions and constructive politics.

To end it off, Hri Kumar (or his PR team) posted this status update

Looks like they’re not going to change their ways. But as I said in my speech last weekend, the secret of change is not fighting the old but building the new.

So lets build the new.

Mark this date on your calender – 21 June 2014

NSP has got the ball rolling with their first dialouge on the 4th of June and now let us all attend the forum organized by SPP on the 21st of June. And this time, even the most die-hard PAP supporters are invited, as long as you do have the intention of having an intelligent discussion. It would be a good chance to learn more, suggest alternatives and raise solutions too.  All you’ve got to do is register here.

Let us build a new and free Singapore. They don’t let us into their forum? We create our own.

See you on the 21st of June!

Ariffin Sha

*The author blogs at http://ariffin-sha.com

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.
 

FLASH BACK 1996:

The Hotel Properties Limited episode that sparked off a political storm in Singapore in 1996 has been buried alive by the PAP. But its ghost will continue to haunt those involved.

It all started when the Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) censured a publicly listed property development company called Hotel Property Ltd (HPL) for not seeking shareholders' approval for the sale of some of its condominium developments at a discount price.

Dr Lee Suan Yew, Lee Kuan Yew's younger brother, was on the board of directors of the company. He had purchased a unit in a condominium project developed by HPL called Nassim Jade.

Shareholders of HPL had been grumbling about the way business was conducted in the company especially when it came to dealings with the Lee family. Many of the shareholders were waiting to buy units at the said project. When the launch of the property never came to pass, the shareholders saw red and demanded an explanation.

The stock exchange authorities quickly announced that HPL had breached regulations. One day later, Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, publicly revealed that they too had bought HPL condominiums. The story made headlines and started tongues wagging. The story was then traced back to one Ong Beng Seng, a property tycoon in Singapore, and Managing Director of HPL.

Ong had developed two condominium projects at the choiciest districts of Singapore. One was the abovementioned Nassim Jade situated where opulent and expansive embassies and mansions were located around Nassim Road. The other, Scotts 28, was at the heart of Singapore's shopping and tourist district Scotts Road. Both projects consisted of condominum apartments valued at millions of dollars per unit before the property slump.

More red faces

It was also revealed that not only had Lee Kuan Yew, his brother and his son purchased these apartments, they were offered substantial discounts to boot. The apartments were due to be put on sale on the open market on 17 April 1995. Three days before the official launch, HPL conducted a "soft launch" where a select group of potential customers were invited to have first go at the apartments. This was not exactly an unheard of practice amongst property developers. The problem was that because HPL was a publicly listed company, it had shareholders to account to. Rules under the SES Manual Listing stated that approval had to be sought for transactions involving "connected persons" of the company involved and those persons' associates. The HPL did not seek the permission of its shareholders. Suan Yew, Lee's brother, was a non-executive director of the company.

At the soft launch, Madam Kwa Geok Choo, chose an apartment to buy. She was quoted a price of $3,578,260 (or $1,583 per square foot) for the apartment. This was a seven percent discount on the list price. Buyers at soft launches are usually given only a five percent discount.

Later, Kwa Geok Choo contacted her son, Hsien Loong, and told him of the Nassim Jade apartments upon which he called Aunty Pamelia Lee, wife of Uncle Suan Yew, and said that he and his wife, Ho Ching, were interested in buying the property as well. Aunty Pamelia then later came back to her nephew and offered him an apartment for $3,645,100 a discount of 12 per cent or $437,412 on the asking price. The Deputy Prime Minister accepted the offer.

This was not all. On the Scotts 28 condiminiums, similar offers and purchases were made. Lee Kuan Yew and son bought two more units and paid $2,791,500 and $2,776,400 respectively for them, each bagging a five percent discount.

All in all, Lee Kuan Yew received from HPL a total of $416,252 whilst Lee Junior got $643,185 in discounts. All the purchases amounted to more than $10 million and were carried out without mortgages and loans.

It must be remembered that all this while, decisions of sales and the discounts were carried out at the directors' level which involved Lee Suan Yew. None of the shareholders nor the SES had the slightest idea of what was going on.

And yet, this was just the tip of the iceberg.

It was later found out that Lee Kuan Yew's entire family was in on the purchases. Daughter Lee Wei Ling, a medical doctor in a government hospital; sister Lee Kim Mon; and his two other brothers Freddy and Dennis; Kwa Kim Li, a niece of Lee; and Gloria Lee, Lee's sister in law, all bought the condos at hefty discounts. Wei Ling bought two apartments at Nassim Jade and was reported to have sold one off for a tidy profit. Again, all these transactions were carried out without the approval of the shareholders of HPL.

Shareholders' anger

News was leaking out about the Lee family's purchases of the HPL condominiums and the shareholders were getting increasingly alarmed and disgruntled. When pressure was brought to bear on the management, HPL decided to belatedly seek the approval of its shareholders a full eleven months later.

The SES had no choice but to issue a statement censuring HPL for the breach of regulations. It noted that some of the discounts given to directors and their relatives in respect of the Nassim Jade units were higher than those given to non-related buyers and that the publicly listed companies have a duty to obtain the best price so as to maximise the return to its shareholders.

Unanswered questions

In spite of this, there was no investigation nor inquiry, merely a censure for the company. Meanwhile, Lee Suan Yew quietly resigned as a director with HPL.

To date, many questions remain unanswered:

1. Who made the decisions to sell the apartments at such discounts to the Lee family?

2. Who authorised Pamelia Lee to sell the units to her relatives?

3. How many more relatives or friends, apart from those readily identifiable, bought the units through such connections?

4. Why did Ong Beng Seng, owner of HPL, offer the units, and presumably the discounts, to the Lee family?

5. Why was there no enquiry into Lee Suan Yew's involvement in affair?

As the story began to build up and as more revelations came to light, the pressure and embarrassment to Lee Kuan Yew mounted.

Dr Richard Hu, the Minister for Finance, then announced that he had recommended to Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, consider giving back the money they had received in the discounts. Sensing that this might ease public disquiet, the Lees agreed. The move backfired. People were now asking why were the Lees returning the money unless they felt that they had done something wrong. To make matters worse, Goh Chok Tong refused to accept the money and instructed the Accountant-General to return it back to the Lees. Talk was that Goh did not want the Government to be involved with the money which might bring complications later on.

Goh knew he had to do something about the situation if he was going to remain untarnished. He then appointed the Finance Minister Richard Hu and Monetary Authority of Singapore Deputy Managing Director Koh Beng Seng to investigate the matter.

Despite the fact that Hu and Koh were not the most independent and appropriate persons to look into the affair, the "investigation" went ahead.

It was then that Goh Chok Tong announced that a parliamentary hearing would be conducted for the matter to be debated "openly." At the same time, Goh announced that if anyone made any inappropriate comments about Lee Kuan Yew's purchases, in or out of Parliament, Lee would not hesitate to sue. So much for an open debate.

The debate that never was

Just before the hearing took place however, HPL owner Ong Beng Seng was reportedly forced by Lee Kuan Yew to call for a press conference. He also defended the transactions saying that it was good advertisement for HPL to have Lee Kuan Yew as a buyer.

If that was the case, why then did all the rest of Lee's family and relatives also buy into the properties with substantial discounts? Was there any marketing value to this? Why was there a need to offer discounts to the Lee family when shareholders were straining to buy the units?

In light of the property boom at that time, it would have been a silly move to sell units at less than maximum price. Did he know that Lee Suan Yew was offering units at discounts to his relatives? Who approved these sales? Why were the shareholders' permission not sought? It would seem that Ong would be asked to answer these questions. But Ong invited only Singapore's local media to his press conference so that troublesome questions by the foreign media could be avoided.

Then came the parliamentary debate. Goh Chok Tong got up and proclaimed that there was no impropriety on the part of Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong in their purchase of the condos. Richard Hu echoed Goh's sentiments and exonerated the Lees of any wrong doing.

During the parliament session, Lee started going on and on about how much his wife was worth ($20 million in his estimate), how a hawker selling char kuay teow would upon seeing him give two eggs intead of one, and how tailors would be falling head over heels to tryito clothe him. He said almost everything except answer the real questions about the involvement of his whole family in the purchases and the breach of regulations by HPL. He so intimidated the four opposition members of parliament that none of them dared ask any question.

No questions allowed

At about the same time, a Chinese weekly magazine called Yazhou Zhoukan (Asiaweek) interviewed Tang Liang Hong (who later joined the Workers’ Party to contest in the 1997 elections) for his comments on the affair. Tang questioned, "Why wasn't this matter handed over to the professional body like the CAD [Commercial Affairs Department] or the CPIB [Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau]? They are government departments not only rich in experience, but also well-known for being ‘iron-faced with selfishness’ [a Chinese phrase meaning firm and impartial]. They would be more detached and their reports would have been more convincing to the people. Koh Beng Seng and Finance Minister Richard Hu are after all not experts in this field."

The result: both Kuan Yew and Hsien Loong sued Tang for making the statement.

But Tang had made a significant observation. Richard Hu had not submitted a written report as to the scope or the findings of their investigation despite the gravity of the matter. Both he and his assistant Koh Beng Seng failed to report the following:

* Why father and son had not checked the size of their discounts, as they claimed, despite the fact that they had bought the properties for investment purposes,

* Why Lee Hsien Loong said he did not know of the size of the discounts he received depite the fact that he had in his possession at the time he bought the unit a copy of the price list of Nassim Jade,

* Why they did not obtain information from Lee Suan Yew or his wife Pamelia as to what their roles were in the sales of the units,

* Why they did not investigate into the circumstances of the purchases of the units by Lee Kuan Yew's extended family,

* Why the HPL had not sought the approval of the shareholders to sale the apartments to the Lee family. This was despite the fact that the SES had censured HPL for failing to do just that.

One country, two laws

Lee Kuan Yew has never failed to brng anyone under the glare of the CPIB if there is a hint of corruption on his/her part. The late Teh Cheang Wan, then Minister for National Development, was driven to commit suicide when it was revealed that he had taken bribes for the construction of Housing and Development Board flats. Another official Wee Toon Boon was also punished severely for his role in a corruption case. Glenn Knight, a former public prosecutor, was charged and convicted for corruption in a business deal. During his case, Knight suffered a massive heart attack and was incapacitated for a period.

In the HPL instance, there is more than ample evidence for the relevant authorities to commence an investigation into Lee's family. When news broke about the Whitewater affair concerning U.S. President Bill Clinton, an independent counsel was set up to investigate the matter. No one was above the law. At least, not in the U.S. In Singapore, however, Lee Kuan Yew cannot even tolerate calls for investigation into his family matters. Alas, he and his family are above our Singapore law.

Perhaps, the PAP should stop telling the world that it is so incorruptible.

It saddens and angers me that this "lee" family can think they rule the whole of Singapore and think they are above the law.

The political arena in Singapore has been stagnant for such a long time the complacency of Harry Lee and his minions are oozing out of the cracks of the PAP.

How long more must Singaporeans stand up for this insult to their "democracy"?

Weirdo

*Article first appeared on http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/127699

Popular Post: FOUNDER OF DELPHIN ADMITS THAT LEE HSIEN LOONG AND LEE KUAN YEW HELPED HER GET PR AND GREW HER BUSINESS

Related Article: 1997 CHENG SAN GRC: PAP DIRTY TRICKS REVISITED

Indranee Rajah attacks WP for their statement on Medishield Life

The Workers’ Party released a statement on the MediShield Life recommendations on Friday and said that they mainly supported the recommendations, many of which had previously been suggested by the WP and Singaporeans.

Today on Facebook, Senior Minister of State for Law and Education, Indranee Rajah attacked the statement, saying that it was “vague” and “quick to claim credit”.

Ms Indranee’s post titled “The Art of Claiming Credit” had suggested that PAP MPs have done much more than WP MPs in the healthcare debate.

Here is Ms Indranee’s Facebook rant in full:

The Art of Claiming Credit

In the Worker's Party (WP) statement on the Medishield Life, Mr Gerald Giam welcomed the recommendations but was quick to claim credit saying: " Many of the recommended enhancements to the MediShield health insurance scheme have been articulated by Workers’ Party MPs in Parliament as well as by many Singaporeans over the years. ......"

The statement is instructive in its' approach which is:

1. claim credit;

2. keep it vague; and

3. call for more.

We can infer from the speed at which WP has claimed credit for Medishield Life that they think it is a great idea.

They are effectively saying the Medishield Life enhancements are their ideas. There is vague attribution to articulation by "many Singaporeans" ( more on that later ) but that's about it. The implication is that Medishield Life happened because they spoke up in parliament. No credit is shared or given to anyone else.

While WP MPs have raised healthcare issues in parliament, so too have PAP MPs and in far greater numbers and volubility.

The fact is, Medishield Life was born out of the Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) with the active participation of 50,000 Singaporeans, and healthcare was identified as a key area in which "Assurance" was needed. Thousands of Singaporeans from all walks of life contributed myriad ideas which were collated, reviewed, analysed, and formed into policy, eventually taking concrete shape in the form of Medishield Life.

Medishield Life is the sum of the combined efforts of OSC participants, civil servants who manned the OSC secretariat and those who worked tirelessly on the policy recommendations, the PAP ministers, in particular the Ministers for Health and Finance and Mr Bobby Chin and his Committee all of whom worked to translate it into reality. It is a live example of what many have called for - a collaboration between government and people, and government listening and acting directly on what it has heard.

Ah, you may say, but WP also attributed the recommendations to Singaporeans. Well, let's see what WP has said elsewhere about this.

In the debate on the President's address. Mr Low Tha Khiang said: "To me what is important is the outcome of political process...constructive politics does not happen by order of the government nor does it happen through a national conversation or public consultation".

A lofty statement and a grand dismissal of the OSC process and public consultation.

Yet here we have one of the most constructive outcomes of a national conversation and public consultation - Medishield Life, an outcome for which WP now seeks to take credit.

Two weeks ago, they dismissed the citizen feedback process.

Now they attribute this policy to citizen feedback, obtained by that very same process.

In the last line of their media statement, WP says that it " will continue to advocate that the Government should shoulder a higher proportion of healthcare costs, and share more risks on behalf of Singaporean families."

WP provides no details of how this sweeping objective is to be achieved and they speak as though the government operates apart from its citizens.

Never mind that when they call on the government to pay more, they are effectively calling on taxpayers to pay more, since government is funded largely through taxes.

Never mind that when they call upon the government to bear more risk, they are effectively asking the taxpayer to bear more risk as the risk has to be funded and paid for.

Never mind that WP has not provided any concrete proposals or details of how this is to be achieved, e.g. how high premiums should be vis-a-vis what the coverage should be, nor are there any suggestions on where the money to pay more is going to come from, nor how the higher risks they call for is to be assumed or protected against.

The sum total of what WP is really saying is: "Whatever the government does, we will say "Do more!"

Thus providing the clearest possible illustration of that void which PM highlighted in parliament in response to Mr Low:

".... what you stand for cannot be what the PAP is doing and a little better. That means you have no stand. Whatever the PAP is doing, ask them to do better. That is easy. I can do that too."

https://www.facebook.com/IndraneeRajah/posts/902064929810477

Speaking at the sidelines of a community leadership event, Minister in the Prime Ministers’ office, Grace Fu, said that it will be difficult for the People’s Association to explain complex, new policies to the public.

She was referring particularly to the Pioneer Generation Package and the new MediShield Life policies saying that the grassroots leaders have their work cut out for them.

She said that the changes to Medishield Life affect all Singaporeans and the PGP will affect older Singaporeans that may not easily understand English.

Ms Fu also said that the ways in which policies must be explained have changed. There are new “fault lines” in Singapore as there are divides between young and old as well as the poor and rich and now even between locals and foreigners.

All these different groups have different information needs and respond differently to the form in which information is shared. Therefore, the PA has to explain policies in a variety of ways to effectively reach out to the public.

PM Lee recently shared an image of a letter which he had received from an unnamed social worker who was writing in to praise PM Lee and the government for the good policies which had helped her family.

Sharing the letter on facebook, PM had written that he was 'cheered' to receive the email. 

Here is his facebook status in full: 

I was very cheered to receive this email from a young Singaporean social worker. She told me how the Government had enabled her family to live comfortably, and how policies like Medisave, MediShield and Medifund have helped many in her work with a VWO. She felt strongly enough about this to take the trouble to write to me about them.

I shared her email with my Cabinet colleagues. This prompted Sim Ann to recount a similar encounter at the recent Pre-U Seminar. Here's her FB post: http://on.fb.me/1l2ifvq

One student, Kuek Jia Yao, had published a thoughtful letter (http://bit.ly/1oG8PLX) in ST. He gamely shared with Sim Ann and the other participants why he did so, and explained why he felt we needed constructive policy debate that offered solutions, instead of “attention-grabbing, unsubstantiated criticism”. 

Thank you to all who have shared your thoughts with us. We will continue to work hard to build a better Singapore for everyone. – LHL

https://www.facebook.com/leehsienloong/photos/a.344710778924968.83425.12...

The letter which he had received praising his policies: 

Editor's Note: It is interesting that PM Lee is so fast to highlight a positive letter of praise which he has received from an unnamed social worker. 

It seems that PM Lee is happy to pat himself on the back, for a job well done while continuing to ignore genuine concerns raised by Singaporeans.

Recently, Catherine Lim had raised concerns about the fact that the government has lost the trust of the people, but the sincere letter was happily ignored by the government.

(See: Catherine Lim: An Open Letter to PM Lee)

He is also working to sue Roy Ngerng who raised concerns about CPF. 

Do you think it's productive for our PM to be selectively listening to only the 'right' things?