Retard Cenotaph Vandal Pwned and Rotan Soon

Dumbass vandal Mohamad Khalid Mohamad Yusop is only getting 3 strokes. I thought he deserved more in jail time or better, rotaning as he was the dick who sprayed on the Cenotaph. Sticker Lady was at least funny in a cheeky way. If want to break the law, at least try to get popular support by being funny or relevant to the popular imagination. Khalid 's "work" was just distasteful. Vandalism of a memorial for the war dead is cock and crass. BTW Swiss FT Oliver Fricker got 5 months and 3 strokes for tagging MRT trains.

Cenotaph vandal gets 3 months’ jail, 3 strokes
SINGAPORE — A security officer who vandalised the Cenotaph War Monument was sentenced to three months’ jail and three strokes of the cane today (Aug 26).
By Claire Huang Jingyi



SINGAPORE — A security officer who vandalised the Cenotaph War Monument was sentenced to three months’ jail and three strokes of the cane today (Aug 26).

Mohamad Khalid Mohamad Yusop, 33, was also made to pay S$208 to the state for the cost of repair.

He had used a can of red spray paint to write an “X” followed by the word “Democracy” on the monument on 23 April night.

In sentencing, District Judge Lim Tse Haw described the act as “highly anti-social” and “very selfish”.

Citing the case of Oliver Fricker, the foreigner who vandalised two SMRT train carriages, the judge said Singapore’s strict laws against vandalism are largely responsible for a clean and graffiti-free environment here.

While the judge noted that the cost of repair was higher in the Fricker case at about S$11,000, compared with the S$208 in the Cenotaph case, he said the key aggravating factor is the significance of the public property that was vandalised.

Built in 1922, the Cenotaph monument is dedicated to the memory of 124 British soldiers born or resident in Singapore who died in World War I. It was later also dedicated to the memory of those who died in World War II.

“These soldiers sacrificed their lives so that we can enjoy the peace that we have today,” the judge told Mohamad Khalid. “By your actions, you have shown great disrespect to the memory of our war dead and hurt the feelings of their descendants.”

The judge noted that Mohamad Khalid had a low level of premeditation.

He also took into account the fact that Mohamad Khalid had apologised and sought the forgiveness of all Singaporeans for his unthinking action.

Still, the judge said the monument is in a public place and a deterrent sentence is warranted.

Mohamad Khalid could have been fined up to S$2,000 or jailed up to three years and caned between three and eight strokes. CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Pastors, Monks and Pie in Face

Don't you just shake your head when you read about priests, pastors, monks, ustaz, Jedi master all behaving very human and base? Can I use the word "charlatan" without offending? I can't? OK CHARLATAN!

On one side, the story about Venerable Sek Meow Di going into a casino business and made $1.28m magically disappear into his robe pocket according to business partner Chua Kwee Sin! Monks and casino don't really mix, and check out his fat neck! Must be the good food and life as a monk!

On another side, the tale of the prosperity gospel megachurch Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong being loaded enough to be a polo club member and mystical enough to be a magician also! Never mind that Jesus was a poor carpenter and some fundies think that magicians are Satanic. LOL BTW don''t forget that while Jesus had compassion and liked to forgive, Lawrence didn't have that when he sacked his church worker who had an extramarital affair and became pregnant as a result of it. The sacking was without just cause by law, and without compensating her entitled salary and maternity benefits by law. Shhhh I'm going to a FCBC service soon to pick up horny married women!

Ahem, in case you don't know, the other place to pick up loose horny women is at abortion clinics - Ahem not I say one, from Kevin Smith's Dogma.

PSLE is Dead, Long Live PSLE! WTF?

PM Lee said PSLE is no more, or rather repackaged it a bit some time down in the future. When nobody knows. As PM said, as we all know already from kopitiam uncles to NUS academics, to decide a child's education path and fate at 12 on PSLE results is outright meaningless, however "meritocratic" it is.

Whether it is good or not, depends on whether you think the PSLE is similar to O Levels or not is good. The stress to students and their parents is still there, just that instead of the knee shaking T-score, it is now the nail-biting point system A1 - 1 point A2 - 2 points etc. Smokes and mirrors. LPPL. Anyway, PSLE is just a cultural Albatross around parents' necks. Parents conform to the belief that PSLE is the be all and end all in their children's education what. Even if they claim they don't believe in it, they participate in the chase nonetheless. The reason, if you speak to a friend, uncle, aunty, brother, sister who is a parent of a P6 kid, is that if they don't strive, there is a risk their boyboy or girlgirl would fall behind as other children and parents are way ahead hothousing for 4 A*.  LOL Time to run faster on the hamster wheel.

NDR 2013: PSLE scores to use wide bands for grades like O' levels
Tham Yuen-C

The PSLE T-score, long a source of stress for students and parents, will eventually be removed and replaced with bands similar to those used for O' and A' levels, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday.

He said the move was to the remove the fine distinctions in the T-score and ease excessive competition to chase every point: "An A* is still an A*, whether you score 91 marks or 99 marks."

The move would not take place immediately, however. He said it would take several years to do.

Calling the PSLE one of the most important examinations, he said that many believe it "determines a large part of a student's future", and felt tremendous stress. Doing away with the T-score would help to lessen this pressure, said Mr Lee who added that he does not know his own PSLE score.

When he took the exams in 1963, the scores were kept confidential, he said, and students were only told whether they had passed or failed and which school they were posted to. "Luckily I passed," he quipped.

The changes to PSLE scoring, though, will only kick in in a few years time.

In an effort to make sure that top secondary schools are accessible to more students, the Ministry of Education will also broaden Direct School Admissions categories, he said.

With this change, "special qualities" such as character, resilience, drive and leadership, will also be considered in admitting students into these schools.

Another change Mr Lee announced will let all secondary one students take a subject at a higher level. But this is provided they have done well in it in the PSLE.

Currently, only students in upper secondary levels are allowed to do so.

This will provide more flexibility in tailoring their education to their abilities and development, he said.

Happy National Day!

The great thing about this NDP was that it had a Singapore choir for this year's Oh-Oh-Oh song, it takes a mean ass to make fun of the kids singing the song, and also turned the spotlight on Team Singapore athletes from ulu sports to most us, synchronised swimming, gymnastics, and a warm appreciation to our para-Olympians. Sports bring us together. Go Lions XII! The singer leading the national anthem to close the parade was quite awesome and a nice change. However, the military hardware show-off is still cock, very Communist in sabre-rattling strutting. What to expect if the SAF organises the bash year after year.

Singapore is home, no shit, no sarcasm, it isn't perfect, but it is home what.

Even with retards like TRS, Atwell and some of those commenting popping up now and then to really stir shit.

Retards: The Show Goes On

Kovan Murder Wheels Within Wheels

OK first, congrats to the police for catching the murderer. Although the guy did manage to escape to Malaysia first and enjoy a Ramli burger at Danga Bay, his last meal as a free man. He escaped north like Mas Selamat and One-eye Dragon, and Malaysians helped us catch our fugitives. We better let our neighbour win football the next few rounds otherwise they really won't help us anymore. The lesson is that if you want to whack someone, have your passport ready and your car filled with tank more than 3/4 full, do the job, quickly go onto PIE (towards Tuas) and all is steady. Until Malaysian police pounces on you over there as they do  not want to give the impression that Singapore's fugitives can treat their country as sanctuary.

If Singaporeans can't even return their own food trays in food courts, don't expect them to call 999 about a tip off. The Toyota Camry abandoned was seen at Eunos but was not reported to the police until the next day. So maybe the police could have caught the suspect sooner in Singapore rather than wait for extradition. Hmmm No Stomper in Eunos then as at least it would have appeared in Stomp. Anyway, no time for What Ifs.

But there is time for What Is. Then we realise that the suspect in the murders is a policeman, a SSG. WTF So it was a case of a dirty cop? From sex scandals and corruption, now mata murderer - the damage to the reputation of our Home Team that we can get fucked by someone who should keep us safe? Then NST reported last night after the Malaysians nabbed him but before it was public, if it is true, that the murderer was a gay partner of one of those killed! Angry pink dot killer mata! So don't fuck with them, they can really fuck you bad back like driving off and dragging you under the car.

HIGH ALERT: Man wanted for double killings entered Johor
13 July 2013| last updated at 01:00AM

 JOHOR BARU: A 34-YEAR-OLD Singaporean man wanted for   double murder  in the island republic is believed to have fled across the causeway to escape the authorities.

It is learnt that the suspect can shed light into the high-profile murder of a senior citizen and his son on Wednesday.

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) confirmed that the suspect had entered Johor through the Woodlands checkpoint at 11.17pm on the day of the incident.

Cameras at the Immigration and Customs Authority checkpoint recorded the suspect riding a scooter and exiting the checkpoint en route to here.

The SPF released the suspect's profile and, through Interpol, requested that Johor police put the suspect on a "stop list".

The request to Malaysian and Johor police came from SPF's criminal investigations department assistant director (major crime) Adrian Quek Sei Wei.

A source familiar with the request said all active duty police personnel in Johor were alerted on the all-points bulletin on Thursday, before being briefed about the suspect's particulars and his vehicle.

"Police have been asked to inform the Johor police contingent's serious crimes unit or the Interpol liaison office here if they come across the suspect," the source told the New Straits Times yesterday.

Johor police chief Datuk Mokhtar Shariff said police would act within the powers of the law to apprehend the suspect and return him to Singapore.

"The Johor police have always cooperated in the interest of justice with our counterparts in Singapore," he said yesterday.

The SPF had received a call at 4.16pm on Wednesday after the body of Tan Chee Heong, 42, was found in front of the Koven MRT station.

Chee Heong's death was initially believed to have been because of a traffic accident, before investigators learnt that he may had been tied underneath a car and dragged for about one kilometre before his body got untangled from the vehicle.

Investigations led police to Chee Heong's house at 14J Hillside Drive in Hougang, where his father, Tan Boon Sin, 67, was found dead with multiple slash wounds and a slit throat.

Investigations revealed that both victims were at home when the murders took place.

The SPF also identified the silver Toyota Camry involved in the case, which was later found abandoned in nearby Eunos.

An SPF source revealed that that the suspect was believed to be romantically involved with Chee Heong and the motive behind the murder could be revenge.

"The SPF is not ruling out the possibility that this may be a crime of passion."

Police are keen to contact Singaporean Iskandar Rahmat (Singapore national registration identity card number S790436A) to assist in investigations.

He is believed to be riding a green Vespa.

Lies, Rumours and FUD in the Internet

What's new anyway. The PAP has its spin, and the idiots in the Internet, which there are legion, have rumours and lies.

Funny that the same people usually cynical about the PAP, do not apply that same cynicism to news critical of the PAP. Rumours and lies about policies and parties are part and parcel of politics, to win voters, to attack opponents. Obama was Muslim was one. PAP was helping DAP win in the recent Malaysian election was another. Fun to hear and spread.

Some people's noses getting longer and longer

The fabrication of a PSI 393 was just out to spread some good old fashion FUD and ripe at the time when Singaporeans were panicky about getting N95 masks, at the detriment of NEA. Pierce reservoir wild boars, dengue mozzies, Indonesian haze, what next? Acid rain! This is not to say we should take everything the government says uncritically, just that we should be equally distrustful of all information and agenda peppered in the Internet as well. Pssst, BTW the rumour is that Indonesia's SBY said sorry to Singapore because his government had a big fat ang pow made up of our taxpayers money, from Vivian. Marty earlier said no Sorry so why the u-turn hor? OK is that the next Facebook meme or are we going to be cynical of that rumour? LOL

Govt debunks PSI rumours
Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin's call: Don't spread false information on the haze.
Wed, Jun 26, 2013
My Paper

A worker wearing a mask holds a stop sign as he directs traffic along the East Coast Park in Singapore as haze engulfs the island state, June 21, 2013.
DON'T spread false information on the haze.

He noted in a Facebook post yesterday that some people have fabricated falsehoods on the haze situation.

These include claims that the National Environment Agency (NEA) changed a three-hourly Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) reading for 10pm last Wednesday from 393 to the actual value of 321 on its website. A photo of a screenshot with the 393 figure was also shared online.

"It was a lie. The photo was doctored... It is unfortunate that this is happening amid this present situation," he said.

Mr Tan said that if people want to be critical about the situation, "it's fair game".

"But don't fabricate lies. Please. Not in the midst of dealing with issues of public concern and safety," he said.

The Government has been debunking rumours related to the haze on www.e101.gov.sg

For instance, it noted there were claims that the PSI readings on NEA's website do not take into account fine particles called PM2.5, but are based solely on PM10 particles. The site said these claims were false.

PM10 refers to particulate matter smaller than 10 microns, while PM2.5 is for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. So, PM2.5 is a subset of PM10.

PM10 measures "would also capture what is captured in the PM2.5 readings", so "a rise in PM2.5 levels would reflect a change in the PSI", the site said. PM2.5 is more dangerous than larger particles.

The PSI measures five pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone and PM10.

The NEA said afternoon showers are expected today and in the next two days.

The 24-hour PSI is likely to be in the moderate range today. But due to elevated PM2.5 levels, the health advisory for the public is in the unhealthy range.

The NEA said rain can "significantly reduce" PM10, but it is less effective when it comes to PM2.5, as those are much smaller. It would therefore take longer for the rain to "wash down" the particles.

myp@sph.com.sg

Unemployment Low, Don't Worry Foreigners Didn't Steal Jobs

Citizen unemployment rate is unchanged at 2.9%, and about 50,000 citizens were unemployed according to MOMmy. There were also job vacancies, 21,900 (43%) of lobangs in March 2013 were for PMETs and 29,200 (57%) were for non-PMET jobs like cleaners, labourers, service workers. That means there is job and skill or worker mismatch, structural unemployment especially in the blue collar, shift, and physical type of jobs. There are jobs but they are not being filled up. So the intake of foreigners is a cause of unemployment according to those No 6.9 Million herd, or an effect of structural unemployment? Hmmm structural unemployment is a problem that has to be addressed tho. Retraining is the mantra NTUC and the government kept repeating. Is it really working?

Which sectors are hiring? With the number of houses being planned and built, construction (8,400) was among the lead sectors Broadly, services (21,000) were also a big recruiter. What it means is that foreigners are being hired here more tho as locals usually don't go into down and dirty construction and service work. Manufacturing, in contrast, shrank its recruitment.

Redundancy declined and with US economy recovering hopefully if the tapering of QE is a sign in the entrails laid out, that trend is going to hold. As everyone knows, those affected most by redundancy were those 40 and over (more expensive, less productive, slower to learn and adapt) and they formed 2/3 of the entire cohort of those let go in first quarter of 2013). 75.2% of those made redundant were PMETs. So based on statistics and if you want to keep your job if you are over 40, your best chance would be you have a post-secondary (non-tertiary) education instead of a degree. Who says ITE is It's The End LOL. Also helps if you are in the sale, service and clerical line.

Job vacancies up, unemployment low: MOM

SINGAPORE: Job vacancies in Singapore rose in the first quarter of this year while unemployment remained low, revealed a report released by the Ministry of Manpower on Friday.

Singapore’s seasonally adjusted overall unemployment rate stayed low at 1.9 per cent in March, compared to the 1.8 per cent registered in December 2012.

The unemployment rate for Singapore residents rose to 2.9 per cent from 2.7 per cent while the citizen unemployment rate remained unchanged at 2.9 per cent.

Long-term unemployment also improved slightly over the year; 13,700 unemployed residents making up 0.6 per cent of the resident labour force in March 2013 had been looking for work for at least 25 weeks, down from 14,000, or 0.7 per cent, a year ago.

Total employment grew by 28,900 in the first quarter of 2013, substantially lower than the seasonal high increase of 44,000 in the last quarter of 2012 but slightly above the 27,200 in the first quarter of 2012.

This brought total employment to 3,386,500 in March 2013, which was a 4.0 per cent increase on-year.

The number of workers made redundant in the first quarter of 2013 stood at 2,120, marking a decrease from the 3,350 workers affected in the preceding quarter and the 2,600 in the first quarter of 2012.

Job openings also rose after declining in the previous quarter, with seasonally adjusted vacancies increasing over the quarter by 17 per cent in March 2013, reversing the decline of 7.0 per cent in December 2012.

The seasonally adjusted ratio of job vacancies to unemployed persons rose from 1.05 in December 2012 to 1.21 in March with the increase in job vacancies.

Ian Grundy, head of marketing and communications at Adecco, commented: "Job seekers clearly have more choices now but they can't get complacent. The best jobs, the good jobs are always going to go quickly and job seekers, even though they have more choices, have still got to negotiate sensibly and seize the right jobs when they come around quickly."

Recruiter Randstad said the rise in job vacancies reflected the strong business confidence in Singapore.

It shows employers are focused on growth and are proving to have the strength in their balance sheets to replace or create new roles as needed, it said.

Randstad added that unemployment remained low as demand for professional talent in Singapore remains buoyant, despite broader economic uncertainty.

With the continued tight labour market, demand for experienced and skilled staff is being felt within the financial services and insurance, information technology, research and development, and the retail and hospitality sectors, it said.

However the HR firm said that "even with the declining layoffs in the past quarter, it remains crucial that jobseekers and current employees do not get complacent and continue to update their skills and qualifications.

"This will not only add value to their workplace, but will also ensure that they remain relevant in today's tight labour market."

The "Labour Market, First Quarter 2013" report is available online on the Ministry of Manpower's website at http://www.mom.gov.sg/mrsd/publication.

Khaw Rocks Market and HDB Doesn't Get It

Remember Khaw Boon Wan, the minister who introduced means testing for healthcare? The one who said send your parents to Batam old folks' home?

Khaw Boon Wan recently sent little shock waves into the EC, resale and BTO markets by saying something is wrong with the EC system. He never elaborated what he really meant and now buyers, sellers, agents and developers all not sure whether new rulings would go south for them or not.

Khaw said that EC owners tended to make more compared to BTO when they sell their flats and that is unfair. WTF is he talking about? Market forces what! If people want to spend more to buy a resale EC compared to a resale HDB because the former has condo facilities, of course the EC seller can earn more profit from the sale! Also, ECs are more expensive in the first place compared to BTO, and the grant is the same for an EC and a BTO? What inequity towards the BTO buyer? The EC buyer's housing grant as a percentage of buying price of condo is smaller than that of a BTO right? WTF!

People are going crazy trying to guess what this MND minister has got to say in the coming weeks and months. Resale levy is in the air, capital gains tax on EC when sold, less subsidy for EC buyers? BTW I thought HDB is about building basic homes? I don't mean attap houses like in our grandparents' days but EC are really departures from "simple" homes, OK I admit "simple" is subjective and we expect more comforts compared to when the first HDBs were built in the 1960s. But tennis courts and swimming pools for public housing?

Actually, if there is any HDB policy revamp HDB should look into right away, besides building as many flats as possible now, is COV of resale flats. Bring it down, get rid of it. Not really the EC market which is just a tiny market compared to HDB homes up for sale.

Analysts call for resale levy on HDB-to-EC upgraders


SINGAPORE: Some property observers say imposing a resale levy on those upgrading from a HDB flat to an executive condominium (EC) could be one of the tweaks the government may make to the current EC scheme.

But they remain divided over the relevance of the current EC scheme in today's market.

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan had said on Thursday that the EC scheme cannot carry on in its current form.

He pointed out a "sense of inequity" between HDB and executive condominium owners.

Mr Khaw had suggested that EC owners may make more profit than HDB flat owners in the resale market.

Executive condominiums seem to be drawing a larger profit margin for owners in absolute terms, compared to HDB flats in the resale market.

According to data from the Singapore Real Estate Exchange, a four-room flat in Choa Chu Kang was sold at a median price of S$136,000 in 2005.

But the median resale price for such a unit was more than S$420,000 last year.

In comparison, executive condominium The Quintet was priced at about S$478,333 in 2005.

The median resale price for such EC units was about S$905,000 last year.

Observers point out that the price increase in percentage terms tell a different story.

For the same four-room Choa Chu Kang HDB flat, there was a 209 per cent price increase, as compared to the 89 per cent increase for the executive condominium.

Analysts say the percentage gain should also be considered when factoring the profit made by home owners.

Currently, HDB flat owners upgrading to a new Build-To-Order flat are subject to a levy, ranging from S$15,000 for a two-room flat to S$50,000 for an executive flat.

Property observers said imposing a resale levy on HDB flat owners upgrading to an executive condominium could be one of the tweaks the government may make.

Mr Mohamed Ismail, CEO of PropNex, said: "An existing BTO flat owner, when he buys another BTO flat, he is subjected to a levy based on the existing size of a BTO flat.

"But on the other hand, an existing HDB owner, when he wants to upgrade to an executive condo, he is not subject to a levy. There again, a sense of inequity.

"The point that you can afford and the point that you are making a profit from your BTO flat, why are you not subject to a levy while an HDB upgrader is? Probably this is another area, if any form of tweaking may well take place."

Lee Sze Teck, senior manager of research and consultancy at Dennis Wee Group also held this view of imposing a resale levy on those upgrading to an EC.

Mr Ismail added that the government could choose to get rid of all forms of grants for ECs or impose a tax on the capital gain made from selling an EC.

But he said these measures would be extreme.

According to data from the Singapore Real Estate Exchange, 135 executive condominiums have been sold on the resale market this year, fetching a median price of
S$990,000, an 8 per cent increase compared to 2012.

The executive condominium scheme was re-introduced in 2010 and caters to the sandwich class in Singapore - those who do not qualify for a new HDB flat but who also cannot afford a new private property.

But just how relevant is the EC scheme in today's context?

Observers have mixed views.

Ku Swee Yong, CEO of International Property Advisor, said: "ECs in the totality of things only cater to a fraction to the total market of 1.2 million households in Singapore.

"There are about 10,000 of them today, with another 9,000 on the way. Do we really need a scheme for just this category of people?

"Is the scheme of executive condominiums today outdated? Is it right in today's age, given the income that's above the median GDP per capita, that these families really need to buy taxpayer subsidised products? Are they really a sandwiched class?"

But Nicholas Mak, executive director for research & consultancy at SLP International Property Consultants, said: "Right now, the scheme does serve its purpose. There are many households out there who are aspiring to buy private condominiums but are not able to do so and actually this EC scheme is serving a large part of this sandwich class.

"But the other thing is that buyers of executive condominiums are bounded by public housing rules. So, if the government were thinking of reducing the subsidy given to EC buyers, they should likewise roll back on the public housing rules that bind EC buyers.

"But if the government were to roll back all the subsidies, that means reduce all the subsidies to nothing, then ECs would be no different from the mass market private condominiums."

Mr Mak also suggested the government could potentially consider having the HDB, and not private developers, develop EC projects.

He said if the government were to develop EC projects, it would be able to control the price of ECs as well.

The topic of executive condominiums is set to be discussed further at other Our Singapore Conversations on housing in the next few months.

Making NS Less Fuckup - Rebates! Subsidies!

The government is again cracking its small head on how to make NS less frustrating and fuckup. OK I buy the poison shrimp, and diplomacy with deterrence doctrine, and powering up in peacetime. But I still hate ICT, as I already can't fit into my new digi uniform and I hate IPPT. Although I know the importance - look at Kuwait 1990.The pussies there were smacked like bitches all the way into Saudi Arabia. Nobody is going to smack us out of out little red dot into the sea.

$3000 pumped into my CPF is nice at different stages of my NSmen journey, but the best of the best, not SAFRA vouchers, or free SAFRA membership, but tax rebates!

That is how it makes Singaporean men feel appreciated. Instead of the current tax relief now, make it tax rebate, tiered according to high key ICT, low key ICT, silver or gold IPPT score, rank and appointment. If I get a cap of $2,000 or higher tax rebate cap the year I do ICT if I am CSM or officer , plus extra $1,000 rebate after getting silver or more if gold for 2-3 years in a row, putting a price to NSmen responsibilities makes me motivated more and even Zen about it if I am hit with an ICT this year which I can't defer.

Oh, if I can't get tax rebates, then give me decreasing HDB housing grant subsidies for 2nd and 3rd HDB flats bought, even resale. Or free polyclinic outpatient consultations up to $300-$500 a year until we MR or reach the statutory age.

Where is the money coming from. I thought there were more taxable foreigners coming here to work? Am I putting a price to my NSmen duties, yes, and that is the new reality.

"Committee to Strengthen National Service" to be formed
By Dylan Loh | Posted: 11 March 2013 2140 hrs

SINGAPORE: Senior Minister of State for Defence Chan Chun Sing will lead a working group to see how servicemen's abilities can be maximised in fulfilling their duties.

This group will also look into increasing support for National Service from various groups, such as families, employers, schools, permanent residents, new citizens and the broader community.

Another group, led by Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Maliki Osman, will look at issues on recognition and benefits for National Service.

The committee's goals are to strengthen Singapore, National Service, the Singapore Armed Forces, and to serve all Singaporeans.

It will comprise members with a good appreciation of National Service issues.

The committee's work should be completed within a year.

Lower Income Screwed by Inflation

We all know that already but facts reported and repeated. For the lowest 10% of households, real income drop by 1.2% per household member in 2012. BTW Inflation in 2012 was 4.6%. Budget coming soon, will this be addressed in the form of subsidies and rebates, to lessen the burden of inflation and shrinking wages as a result?

Median household income growth moderated in 2012
By Imelda Saad | Posted: 20 February 2013 1610 hrs

SINGAPORE: Singaporean households earned more from work last year compared to the year before, but wage growth moderated, with bottom earners being the hardest hit.

Despite the economy slowing down last year, wages continued to rise.

The median monthly household income from work grew in 2012 by 7.5 per cent in nominal terms, and 2.7 per cent in real terms after factoring inflation of about 4.6 per cent.

According to the Department of Statistics' latest report "Key Household Income Trends", household median income rose by S$530 -- from S$7,040 in 2011 to S$7,570 in 2012.

Despite the wage growth, the rate of increase actually moderated.

In 2011, real wage growth was 5.6 per cent.

Analysts put it down to several factors, including the economic slowdown and inflation.

Dr Tan Khay Boon, senior lecturer at SIM Global Education, said: "I believe this is linked to the economic growth rate, because our last year's economic growth has significantly slowed down -- although it's in the positive range, it has slowed down significantly.

"Wage growth may still be able to increase partly because of the tight labour market, but the increase will be more moderated because of the economic slowdown."

As for the lowest 10 per cent of households, they saw real income dropping by 1.2 per cent per household member in 2012, while the top 10 per cent of households saw real income growing by about 5 per cent.

Associate Professor Annie Koh, Vice President of Business Development and External Relations, Singapore Management University, said: "I think if you look at the bottom 10th percentile, again if you look at just the headline figures alone, you would be asking 'what are the jobs, what are the descriptions and what are they paid at', and essentially those wages do not move.

"So again with inflation variable being higher this year than last year, if your real wages went down, it's because your nominal wage did not change. Inflation hits you and therefore in real terms, you're actually taking back less."

The Gini Coefficient, which measures the wage gap, increased slightly to 0.478 last year, from 0.473 in 2011.

Government transfers like utilities rebates, GST Credits and Workfare Bonus helped to mitigate this gap. With such social transfers, the Gini Coefficient moderated to 0.459.

Figures also showed that Singaporeans who live in smaller flats received more of such transfers.

On average, resident households received more than S$1,300 of transfers per member, from the various government help schemes.

Those in 1- to 2-room public flats, received the most -- at over S$6,000 per household member, followed by those in 3-room HDB flats at S$1,530 per household member on average.

Analysts said that as a developed country, the income divide in Singapore would remain, but it could be managed.

They added that more could be done to help low wage earners.

Dr Tan said: "The more long-term issue is to help this group to move up the income level. That means provide education and training, provide job opportunities that are higher value-added for these group of people to move into."

But the outcome of re-skilling and enhanced productivity takes time. So analysts argued that year-on-year, the government needed to look into setting aside more funds for social transfers.

Assoc Prof Koh said: "So if you're looking at a budget surplus that's coming up, everyone's expecting it -- they'll say 'why isn't the government helping us as we tide over this period waiting for this upskilling to get the higher wages coming'."

With Singapore's Budget Statement coming out on Monday, analysts expect the government to dish out more help for the lower wage earners.

They said there is room for more social transfers to help with immediate needs and added that the government should press on with long-term efforts to help the low income group.

Assoc Prof Koh said: "There's definitely a need for us to look at inter-segment and inter-governmental transfers beyond just credit bonus for work, beyond just healthcare subsidies.

"Literally, I think there should be a longer transfer mechanism -- maybe not in terms of tax reliefs, because if you are in the low-income bracket you are not taxed at all."

"So how are you going to get better subsidies to help the buying power of the lower 10 per cent of our population?" added Assoc Prof Koh.

Protest Hong Lim Park Style!

Look daddy and mummy! I'm making a xenophobic loser statement that I think damn cool! Yeah! Xenophobes Not Dead!

Last Saturday's protest was an eye-opener! Ignoring the rain, people actually give a shit when it comes to livelihood bread and butter issues! Compared to the other liberal rights protests by at Hong Lim park when nobody goes except maybe the 5 journalists, 50 plainclothes mata and 5 hardcore supporters, which is almost like a PAP rally in the boredom-meter!

More foreigners, as far as the mob at the event think, means no jobs as they were stolen by foreigners, no wives as they stolen also by foreigners, no space on MRT trains, not enough housing, foreigners jacking up COE and buying Ferraris and beating red lights to crash into taxis at junctions.

Anyway if xenophobia is in the minds of the public's blame game on their woes, it's their right. Sure, blame the Other. Right. People are free to rant what they want at their own risk of being seen as whiners. What was funny was that Gilbert Goh was exposed as a xenophobic twat with that post stereotyping foreigners in Singapore. That comment on finding Viet women in Joo Chiat! LOL Even Siew Kum Hong TOC lawyer was so pissed that he said he rather have 2 million more foreigners than one more Gilbert Goh. Poor demagogue Gilbert. And he sabo the speakers in that xenophobic protest who did not know it was a xenophobic protest. Vincent Wijeysingha who was from TWC2 before had to explain that he was not xenophobic during his speech even, to distance himself from Gilbert publicly. His Home and TWC2 friends, busily helping PRC and Bangla workers must be facepalm the whole Saturday afternoon that Vincent got himself into this shit.

WP was not there as they are quite disciplined and restrained, cautious of being seen as opportunistic. Again, good instinct and leadership from Low Thia Khiang to keep WP away from such rabble. Imagine if WP went, seduced by what they thought was easy scoring of political points by just turning up at Hong Lim Park that afternoon. In the end as things fell apart, the stain of being xenophobic would have stuck on them too. Vincent from SDP was there. Ravi Philemon from NSP was also there. So it was actually like a mini-opposition unity minus WP rally, with president losers Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say and all probably regretted their involvement with Gilbert Goh.

Cute kids but cock parents. Asking gina to carry these kind of placards is damn lame and low.

Lost Your Job? Easy, Claim Sexual, Gay, Racist, Bigot, Foreigner Harassment or Unfairness and Sue!

Boo hoo hoo. The new normal now when you lose your job, blame the foreigner who stole your job. Blame the Ah Neh boss as racist if you are not Indian, and that the boss recruited his same kind Ah Neh to replace you. The most recent excuse, blame the boss who dislikes gays.

Sometimes as bosses we don't get along with kar kias as they are stupid, cocky, incompetent, political or whatever reason. Sometimes as kar kias we don't like our bosses as they stupid, cocky, incompetent, political or whatever reason too. Whether they are gay, fat, skinny, pimply, body odour, bald, skanky, these are just physical pretexts. Office politics and progression is about chemistry and personal relations, besides performance, and if a boss thinks kar kia is incompetent or doesn't fit in as one of the girls or lads, that's it time for the kar kia to move on. That's life, don't be a pussy about it.

This gay Lawrence Bernard Wee, is he a gay Catholic BTW?, wants to sue aunty-fashion giant Robinsons! WTF and the reason is that he thinks he was unfairly dumped as he was gay and his ang moh boss hates buttfuckers. Caveat, some heterosexual guys also into butt-fucking, giving and taking, if porn films are reality TV documentaries of sexual tastes.

I digress. Maybe the boss thinks Lawrence is incompetent or no integrity which are fair grounds for dismissal, and Lawrence used the gay card as his own defence of unfair dismissal instead? I don't know what is going on under the boss table over this case but Lawrence might have a better defence if he said the ang moh foreign talent boss sacked him because he is a local and that the boss is racist. Cannot fly, but better.

Persecuted at work because he's gay
Ex-senior manager sues Robinsons, says he was forced to leave over his homosexuality; company denies allegations. 

Juliana June Rasul
Mon, Feb 11, 2013
The New Paper

SINGAPORE - In what is believed to be a first here, a local man has sued his former company, claiming he was harassed into leaving his job because he is gay.

In papers filed in the High Court in December, Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, who turns 40 this year, is claiming "constructive dismissal" against Robinsons.

He says his former boss at the departmental store, Mr Jim McCallum, had harassed him because he did not agree with Mr Wee's homosexuality.

He worked for Robinsons for six years before leaving last August.

In its defence, the store denies Mr Wee's claims of "biasness", "unfair treatment" or "persecution" by anyone at Robinsons, or that he faced "difficulties" or "threats" when he wanted to leave the company.

It said Mr Wee had made the decision to leave last June "to pursue other interest, outside of Robinsons effective 2013" (sic).

It also said that Mr McCallum, whom Mr Wee has accused of treating him unfairly, was the one who had approved his promotions and salary increments.

In his affidavit, Mr Wee claimed he resigned from Robinsons last August "not as a matter of choice", but due to "unrelenting and unceasing persecution" by Mr McCallum, who is the Asia head of the store's Middle-Eastern owner, the Al-Futtaim Group.

Mr Wee claimed that in April or May last year, his direct supervisor, Mr Shia Yew Peck, was told by Mr McCallum that "anything from Lawrence cannot be right to begin with as Lawrence is wrong already as a person".

A few months earlier, Mr Shia, who has known since 2006 that Mr Wee is gay, had allegedly asked him whether he had ever considered turning "straight".

The supervisor later explained that Mr Wee would then be deemed more "normal" and "accepting" to others, especially his bosses, he added.

Last June, Mr Wee started talking about leaving the store and he claimed he had a discussion with Mr Shia.

In that discussion, Mr Shia shared how it was unfortunate that Mr Wee's career at the store would be prematurely terminated primarily due to Mr McCallum's personal bias against him because of his sexual orientation,Mr Wee said in his affidavit.

Pay rise, bonuses

Mr Wee joined Robinsons in 2006 as a senior manager of its cards department. In his six years there, he received raises and bonuses.

By the time he left in August last year, his salary had more than doubled from $7,200 in September 2006 to more than $16,000.

As part of the store's cards department, Mr Wee claimed that he was key in increasing the store's corporate sales from $20 million in revenue a year to over $32 million a year due to "key strategic accounts" that he had brought on board.

Mr Wee also said that at a management town hall meeting in July 2010, the then chief executive officer of Al-Futtaim Group, Mr Robert Willett, had praised him for "being a leader with business acumen and guts" after hearing him speak.

Mr Wee claimed Mr Shia later told him that Mr McCallum had said he (referring to Mr Wee) should "learn to keep his mouth shut".

Mr Wee claimed that his professional life suffered after he began working directly with Mr McCallum in 2011.

On several occasions, he claimed he was put down by Mr McCallum in front of other colleagues during meetings.

He also had his work disparaged, Mr Wee said.

Last April, Mr McCallum asked Mr Wee whether he had orchestrated a compliment he had received from a customer, specifically asking if "the card member was (Mr Wee's) auntie".

Mr Wee claimed he was told on several occasions by Mr Shia that he might not have a future at the store because of Mr McCallum's perception of him.

On a business trip to London in July 2011, Mr Shia told him that Mr McCallum "still had a strong dislike" for him despite his good work, Mr Wee said.

Almost a year later, in June 2012, after what he claimed to be persistent harassment from Mr McCallum,Mr Wee tendered his resignation.

The harassment, he claimed, did not end there.

After discussing his resignation with Mr Shia that month, Mr Wee said that it was agreed (verbally and via e-mail) that he would work until December - more than the contractually agreed two months' notice - to allow Robinsons ample time to find a suitable replacement.

Mr Wee claimed that Mr Shia later told him that Mr McCallum wanted him to leave early as he did not want him to be introduced to Robinsons' new managing director.

In August, Mr Shia told him the store would pay him three months' salary if he were to leave that month.

A day later, Mr Wee met the store's general manager of human resources, Ms Chee Nian Tze, to inform her that he wanted to stay on until December as originally agreed, and that he should be paid accordingly even if he were to leave before then.

Robinsons then agreed to pay Mr Wee a total of four months' salary when he left last August.

Robinsons: None of his claims is true

Robinsons denies Mr Wee's claims that he was unfairly harassed by his boss, Mr Jim McCallum.

The company also expressed dissatisfaction with Mr Wee's failure to provide written or verbal proof of his claims of what Mr McCallum had said to him or to his supervisor, Mr Shia Yew Peck.

It denies that any of Mr Wee's claims are true, including his claim that Mr McCallum had told Mr Shia that Mr Wee" is wrong already as a person".

In defence papers filed in the High Court, Robinsons said Mr Wee had tendered his resignation twice in his six years with the store, to pursue other career opportunities.

On both occasions,he later withdrew the resignation notice.

It also said that Mr Wee's salary increments, promotions, and company bonuses between 2010 and 2012 had been approved by Mr McCallum.

Robinsons also denied Mr Wee's claim of having "increased the corporate sales" for Robinsons from $20 million to over $32 million a year.

Instead, it described Mr Wee as being a member of the Robinsons team which "reported to and executed the decisions made by senior management".

As for his claims that he was made to quit his job, Robinsons said: "There was no actual or constructive dismissal of (Mr Wee). Rather it was (Mr Wee) who resigned from (Robinsons)on 24 August 2012."

Robinsons denies that Mr Wee faced "difficulties" or "threats" in leaving the company.

It also denies that Mr Wee had "performed well" in his role at the store, and had received increments and bonuses as "an acknowledgement of (his) excellent service".

It said that before he resigned,Mr Wee and Mr Shia discussed the former's "handling of (Robinsons') relationship with one of its key business partners and on other matters related to his unsatisfactory work performance".

In his affidavit,Mr Wee had claimed that he was harassed to leave earlier than the six-months' notice he had agreed on with Mr Shia.

Not true, Robinsons said in its defence.

It pointed to Mr Wee's employment contract and his conversation with its human resource general manager, Ms Chee Nian Tze.

The contract stated that "written notice of termination from either party will be two calendar months or two calendar months' salary in lieu of such notice".

Ms Chee had explained to Mr Wee that the offer of two months' salary in lieu of serving notice, and an additional one month's salary was"generous".

julrasul@sph.com.sg

Referendum!

Should there be one as it sounds appropriate given the controversy? If yes, what is the basis for calling for a referendum? Not only "controversy" as isn't any policy controversial? Bringing in casinos? 377A? 6.9 population by 2030? No referendum called for those either. I can't think of other democracies having referendums recently as it is a waste of time and resources as the elected representatives are supposed to do that.

NSP Calls for National Referendum on White Paper on Population Policy
9 February 2013
Singapore

Mr Lee Hsien Loong Prime Minister of Singapore

Dear Mr Prime Minister,

The Parliamentary Debate has now been concluded with the Population White Paper being endorsed by 77 to 13 with one abstention. However, it is clear to many that the vote does not reflect the views of Singaporeans because the PAP Members of Parliament clearly voted along Party lines.

The Population White Paper will affect Singaporeans - for better or worse - for the next 20 years and beyond. All Singaporeans have the right to decide how their future is shaped. The future of this country is something that all Singaporeans have a stake in. It is only right that they should have a say in it as well.

For this reason, we call on the Government to hold a National Referendum on the White Paper.

We hope that the Prime Minister recognises that a mandate to lead the government and people of Singapore also encompasses the willingness to listen to the people whose lives will be irrevocably changed by the decisions that their elected leaders make on their behalf.

Thank you,

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party

Below is the letter from NSP to President Tony Tan:

NSP Calls for National Referendum on White Paper on Population Policy

9 February 2013
Singapore
Mr Tony Tan Keng Yam President of Singapore

Dear President

The National Solidarity Party has written to the Prime Minister to urge that a National Referendum be called on the White Paper.

The Parliamentary Debate has now been concluded with the Population White Paper being endorsed by 77 to 13 with one abstention. However, it is clear to many that the vote does not reflect the views of Singaporeans because the PAP Members of Parliament clearly voted along Party lines.

The Population White Paper will affect Singaporeans - for better or worse - for the next 20 years and beyond. All Singaporeans have the right to decide how their future is shaped. The future of this country is something that all Singaporeans have a stake in. It is only right that they should have a say in it as well.

In announcing your intention to run in the last Presidential Election, you had said, 'I believe that the next President of Singapore may have to make very significant decisions that will affect the security and well?being of all Singaporeans.' One very significant decision you could make with the well-being of the citizens of Singapore in mind would be to ask the Government of Singapore to hold a National Referendum on the White Paper.

We hope that the President will act in the interest of the citizens of Singapore and ask the Government of the People's Action Party to listen to the people whose lives will be irrevocably changed by the decisions that their elected leaders make on their behalf.

Thank you.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party

White Paper and the Idiotic Public and PAP

And just as it quickly began, shallow White Paper dropped in front of our faces, the debate is over in parliament. OK feedback was sought last year but only 2,500 was collected.  As the PAP did not lift its party whip, the results were more or less expected. The PAP leering at one end, the WP and NMPs huddled back to back at the other. One lone NMP abstained, the coolest one as he signaled that the White Paper has both its merits and shits and would not commit. Or the dumbest as he with one cast of no-vote, he won enemies on both sides. The lesson from that, get WP in with at least a third of the seats and then we can see bills being negotiated before they can be passed in parliament. Not like now lock stock and barrel White Paper passed as policy.

There are lots of dumb fucks shouting Nay to population growth to 6.9 million by 2030. Like Gilbert Goh NSP member who whined about no jobs for locals as foreigners stole the jobs. He is going to hold some Speakers' Corner xenophobe bash soon. Great no maids, foreign wives and cleaners for you. Was he ever a businessmen to understand how the businesses feel? Anyway, WTF, unemployment is about 2% since 2010, and higher at 3% during that short 2009 recession. Despite all the hordes of Tiongs, Banglas, Ah Neh, Pinoy coming in, unemployment is still low and stable, not at 10%!. Facepalm.

Another sadly who lost the plot, is former MP Chiam See Tong. Listen me out. He said he was appalled that population would increase to that 6.9 figure as it would strain Singapore's living space and condition. The fucking problem is not the number of people, but the number of housing, the capacity of transport, social services and overall living space and thus quality of life.  Not the number of people in a city. Look at Hong Kong, New York, Tokyo. Modern international cities with high population density but with infrastructure that can cope. 

WP is right all along and actually struggle to maintain the balance between the dumb fuck PAP blind to public concerns and the dumb fuck masses, blind to the fucking need of businesses and the economy, not seeing beyond their noses that businesses, the economy and human capital is what keeping Singapore afloat. Human resources, human capital, skills and sweat, that is needed. Bringing in foreigners is fine - but slowly slowly slowly. WP got it right, listen to them you brainless shitheads.

Parliament endorses Population White Paper
Posted: 08 February 2013 1849 hrs

SINGAPORE: After five days of intense debate, Parliament on Friday passed the amended motion to endorse the White Paper on Population with 77 ayes and 13 nays.

Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan abstained from the vote.

Workers' Party MP Low Thia Khiang called for division on the amended motion to endorse the White Paper. In a division, the vote of each Member is collected and tabulated through an electronic voting system.

Other than opposition MPs, who all voted against the motion, NMPs Faizah Jamal, Janice Koh and Laurence Lian also voted 'no'.

The amendment, proposed by MP Liang Eng Hwa and passed by MPs, among other things, explicitly states that the White Paper "supports maintaining a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from shrinking".

"Although the Amended Motion captures some of the Workers' Party concerns about the White Paper, fundamentally the White Paper still forms the basis of the roadmap forward to 2030, which the House was asked to endorse," said WP chairman Sylvia Lim in a statement.

Explaining the party's reason for voting against the amended motion, she said the party "believes that the path proposed by the White Paper will further dilute the Singaporean core and weaken our national identity" and lead the Republic to "require unsustainable population injections in the future".

Ms Lim added that the party believes that the greater well-being of Singaporeans "lies in sustainable economic growth driven by increases in our productivity and in our resident workforce, rather than further increases in our dependency on imported foreign labour". Demographic challenges must be "addressed fundamentally and urgently" but focusing on increasing the total fertility rate and growing the resident labour force participation rate, she said.

Earlier, both Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean addressed the House.

Concerns over the impact on the Singaporean core and caps on the foreign workforce were among the issues debated over the last five days.

Speaking on a range of topics, Mr Lee pledged that Singaporeans would not be "overwhelmed" by a flood of foreigners and sought to assure Singaporeans that their interests are at the centre of all the government's plans, and economic growth and population policies are just a means to improving citizens' well-being.

Over the next few years, the conversation on population will continue, said Mr Lee. He listed three areas for discussion: marriage & parenthood, the economy and the Singapore identity.

Foreigners at the Gates, Ooops, Inside Already, Too Late!

More Tiongs, Banglas, Ah Neh, Pinoys coming! As long not those white trash ones who beat up a local cabby at the Durian and run road, or those Tiong drivers who strike, they are welcomed, in a way. Small  and medium businesses are happy as there would be a steady pool of foreigners to hire and fire, especially if the blue-collar foreigners are cheaper, experienced, work longer and harder.

You ask any towkay about the need to employ foreigners as cleaners, cooks, labourers, sales staff, service staff, they say that there is a shortfall of local workers coz no locals want to do the job. Service jobs are shunned and scorned by locals. There is no denial. Well, some are denying!

Minimum wage is the answer, some people loftily complain, so that Singaporeans can be hired to do the job instead of hiring a foreigner. Any of those critics actually had the balls and entrepreneur spirit to run a family business? Why pay a bad attitude local $2000 to clean the floor and or run the shop when a foreigner can do the job for half the price? How to run business like that if labour costs so high if employ Singaporeans? The ones who whine are usually employees who bitch that their jobs were taken away by foreigners. No, your job was taken away by someone who could do a job better than you and cheaper, not because the replacement has a different passport, speaks Mandarin with that loud accent or English with that Pinoy drawl.

You know who are the foreigners' only competitors? The Singapore old aunties and uncles doing cleaning and serving crew at McDonalds and SPC petrol pumps etc coz these pre-65 citizens know what hard work is and aren't scared of it. They strike fear in the hungry Pinoy or Tiongs' hearts as these tough old timers, they are of different era.

The resentment towards foreigners is very typical of the local who see obstacles instead of opportunities. The population in Singapore is expected to be 7 million by 2030, a 30% growth! Fucking hell! I'm going to buy as many rental residential properties of all kinds as I can afford to take advantage of this news! Overpriced D'Leedon, here I come this weekend to take milk the easy credit despite CM7! Also a walk-up in Serangoon to convert into a worker dorm .. oops should not have said it aloud! I'm going to get some and rent it out!

January 29, 2013 1:15 pm
Singapore calls for 30% population growth

By Jeremy Grant in Singapore

Singapore’s government has laid out a vision for sustaining the tiny city-state’s economic growth, predicting that it will have to accept a continued influx of foreign workers while it tries to persuade its citizens to have more children.

In a long-awaited white paper published on Tuesday, the government forecast that its population would grow by up to 30 per cent, to 6.9m by 2030.

Of that, up to 36 per cent, or 2.5m, would have to be made up of foreign workers, or what it called “non-residents”, as Singapore tries to balance a shrinking working-age population and low birth rate with the need to have enough workers to maintain economic growth.

Yet that influx comes as Singapore’s ruling party is already grappling with one of its biggest challenges in decades: persuading a population uneasy with a growing number of foreigners and ballooning housing costs, in an country only slightly larger than London, that some level of immigration is needed to sustain the economy.

At the same time as it says it needs more foreign workers, the government has recently curbed the number of foreigners allowed to work in Singapore. Those limits – which have intensified in recent months amid popular unease and a series of hard-fought local elections – have started to hit foreign investors.

Foreign workers currently make up 28 per cent of a total population of 5.3m.

Some foreign companies have reported difficulties obtaining approval for employment passes for non-Singaporeans. The European Chamber of Commerce has just completed a survey of its members on the issue, with results expected within weeks.

The government is also trying to boost worker productivity and to encourage its citizens to have more babies, warning of a “hollowing out” of the island nation’s population if the birth rate does not rise.

Last week, it unveiled a S$2bn ($1.6bn) package of incentives to encourage people to marry and reproduce. That was a 25 per cent increase on an existing package of similar measures.

Such issues have become a challenge for the continued legitimacy of the ruling People’s Action party (PAP), after years in which Singapore’s electorate has generally rewarded the government’s management of the economy at the ballot box.

However, last weekend, the PAP suffered a shock defeat in a by-election. The PAP’s candidate lost heavily to the main opposition Workers’ Party, whose campaign blamed the government’s immigration policy for high housing prices and breakdowns on congested public transport.

The government’s white paper warns that the number of citizens aged 65 and above will triple by 2030 and the number of those of working age, between 20 and 64, would decline from 2020.

“It will become increasingly difficult to grow our workforce through our citizen population alone, unless we succeed in reversing the declining fertility trend,” the paper, produced by the office of prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, said.

A shrinking working-age population would mean “a less vibrant and innovative economy”, while companies might not find enough workers, the paper said.

“Business activity would slow, and job and employment opportunities would shrink,” it added.

Michael Wan, economist at Credit Suisse, said that with the government projecting gross domestic product growth averaging 2-4 per cent over the rest of the decade, Singapore had “set itself an ambitious target” of 2-3 per cent annual productivity growth from 2010 to 2020.

Walloping Traffic Wardens

WTF, if illegal park, must look out in case CISCO traffic warden come lah! Then quickly must rush out jump into the car and drive off! If too slow, and get summoned, appeal. Why must wallop the wardens? They doing their job and as illegal parkers, all drivers know it is the cat and mouse game. The worse idiots are those who actually cheer and clap when wardens get physically abused! BTW These are some retards on Facebook who actually said they would be happy if they see traffic wardens get walloped by angry illegal parkers. Losers. Frus with the summons from the traffic wardens does not mean you can whack them lah.

Those who punch others are wrong lah and yet want to cheer them? WTF

Traffic wardens become punching bags as abuse on the rise
Published on Sep 23, 2012
By Bryna Sim

Mr Pannirselvam Muthusamy has had hot noodles thrown in his face and he has been punched in the ribs. He gets sworn at almost every day. This is the life of the enforcement officer for parking and traffic offences, because his job is to issue summonses to motorists who flout parking and other traffic rules.

Though only six months in the job, Mr Pannirselvam is already involved in three ongoing police cases of abuse by motorists. His plight is shared by many others doing the same job.

Certis Cisco, Mr Pannirselvam's employer, told The Sunday Times that the number of cases where members of the public have abused traffic wardens physically or verbally has been creeping up. This is aside from almost routine encounters, when motorists get angry when issued a summons.

Traffic wardens said that some drivers would crush the summons, or turn on their vehicles' windscreen wipers to get rid of it, or hurl it back at the officers.

Must Mind the Child-Care Sector

The childcare sector is a sensitive and popular topic as it is related to education and couples having more children/brats. Many parents bitch that it is too expensive to bring up a kid and childcare is neither convenient nor cheap. Blablablabla. Depends. PAP aka PCF kindergartens are cheap (less than $200/month), give out lots of homework and are everywhere in a void deck near you, but people want to send to those branded $1,000++ a month Eton or Pats what. Of course those are expensive! Other parents complain that it is stressful to bring up a child in Singapore's no-mercy stream and stream some more education system.  Then don't ask the government to put one leg into the childcare sector as it would be more stressful! Facepalm.

PAP promised during the rally that the government would use taxpayers' money to support and expand the anchor operators in the childcare sector. OK they didn't mention "taxpayers" but obviously it as where else is the money coming from.

Who are the anchor operators? They are - PCF (PAP) and NTUC (PAP)! On one hand it is good as there are standards and standardisation since 2 giants are getting into the pen. On the other hand, it crushes the competition. Once public money is pumped into PCF and NTUC and make these giants even bigger, from an unfair business competition understanding, small-medium childcare centres would bleed to death.

Hence, this is something I truly like about WP NCMP Yee Jenn Jong, who is the SME champion and in the past, he complained about NTUC with its economies of scale and resources, finishing off SMEs retailers and service providers. SMEs are the foundation of Singapore's businesses and employers and they should be given their space to grow and innovate. In parliament, while it is hard to ignore that PCF and First Campus' expansion is good for parents, the WP NCMP said that it should not be at the expense of the little guy. Branded Eton, Pat, Julia Gabriel etc would not suffer as they target a different market and demand for them would not be affected as people would still be biased in favour of their supposed better quality childcare and education, compared to the anchor operators.

However, the other smaller childcare centres either the non-profit or the profit ones, would face unfair competition as public money is used to subsidise the anchor operators. Not the same but good to compare, think of SMRT and SBS and how crap they are because they don't have real competition. What the NCMP suggested in the end is that if public money is used, better than giving it to PCF or NTUC outright, it can be in the form of subsidies and rent control for childcare businesses if they meet strict conditions e.g. hygiene, staff-student ratio,

Proposal for transforming the child care sector

In the child care industry, there are many private operators, most with one or a few centres while several run chain stores.

We also have non-profit operators, dominated by NTUC First Campus and PCF Sparkletots. They are called Anchor Operators, so determined after an exercise in 2009. The criteria used included: (a) $5 million paid-up capital, (b) non-profit and (c) without any religious or racial affiliation.

Anchor Operators function mostly from HDB void decks, at rents of between $2 to $4 per square metre as disclosed by MCYS. For a typical centre of 400-500 sqm, this means monthly rent of $1,000 onwards. They receive generous set-up and furnishing grants for each new centre. In addition, Anchors get recurrent grant for manpower development and learning programmes which is estimated to go into $30 million per year.

MCYS publishes upcoming new centres from HDB and SLA. From its website, I see just a few centres available to private and non profit operators. Yet at the opening of the 100th NTUC centre in October last year, NTUC declared it will open 50 new centres over the next 2 years, which is one every fortnight. PCF too had been growing just as rapidly in the last three years. Just five years ago, PCF was a small child care player. Today, it is number 2 with 90 centres, just behind NTUC. The many new centres by these two do not match the very small number of published centres for non profit operators. Are they given unpublished quotas?

We are told that the role of non profit and Anchor operators is to bring cost down while maintaining quality.

Sir, there is no magic in non profit or in Anchor Operators. The lower fees they provide can be matched by private operators. I will now demonstrate that if private operators get the same benefits as non profit and indeed the Anchor Operators, they have shown that they could match the fees of non profit peers.

Financial modelling for child care is straightforward. The main start-up cost is renovation, fitting out, and investment in resources. Set-up cost can be high, running into several hundred thousand dollars per centre.

In a typical centre paying competitive rents, manpower and rent account for some 80% of all ongoing operating costs. Private operators function from landed houses, commercial and government-owned buildings or purpose-built HDB void decks. Tenancy is often subjected to bidding. When tenancy expires, there is usually open bidding or adjustments to market rate.Competition has caused rents to be in excess of $10,000 to even as high as $40,000 per month in recent tenders.

Anchor Operators getchoice new sites regularly at highly subsidized rents. They receive start-up, furnishing, maintenance and recurrent grants. These give them huge operating benefits over competitors.

The difference in monthly rent between non profit and private operators can be $15,000 per month or more. Divide $15,000 by a typical centre enrolment of 75 children. That works out to around $200 cost advantage per child per month. With setup grants, Anchor Operators need to provide less for amortization of investment. They get ongoing grants to defray costs. Yet with these cost advantages, non-profit’s median fees is currently just two hundred over dollars lower than that of private operators. We can find private centres whose fees are not much higher than that of Anchor Operators. Are Anchor Operators with all these cost advantages, really doing enough to keep fees affordable?

Sir, there are other industry data to support my claim.

In a parliament reply this year, MCYS disclosed that EtonHouse, a premium operator with fees of $1,500 per month, charges only $728 per month at its Hampton Preschool. The centre is a collaboration with PCF. PCF secured the site at low rent, and can enjoy other grants. EtonHouse is responsible for programme delivery, set-up and pedagogy. According to a speech by Mr Wong Kan Seng in 2009 , EtonHouse manages the centre and was selected because PCF wanted to work with a private operator that could deliver ‘high quality programmes’. While there could be variations in operations compared to a typical EtonHouse’s centre, the fact is, EtonHouse could deliver ‘high quality programmes’ atless than halfof its usual fees when it operates at a void deck that enjoys subsidised rents and grants.

In the 1990s, government buildings started to provide for workplace childcare. There was an interesting practice then to charge $1 or other token monthly rent for purpose-built child care facilities which catered to children of staff working in the building. Bids were called. I noted that in open competition, these sites went to established private players whose own centres charged in the mid to upper price range.

The condition for low rent then was that fees for children of staff in the buildings must be kept low. Premium private operators could match prevailing fees of non profit operators.

Today, costs are escalating due mainly to rent and manpower. Manpower cost affects all in the industry. Anchor Operators with recurrent grants can better retain staff, head-huntfrom other centres and deal with rising costs. Rent is steadily rising in our competitive market.

This has caused fees to rise. Out of pocket payments by parents in many private centres today are higher than before subsidies were increased in 2008. MCYS has no control over fees. Centres just need to give ‘ample’ notice to parents, which MCYS recommends as 3 months, and then fees will go up.

The government has announced new measures for the industry. While they may be initiated with good intent, I fear it could end up creating more unfair competition, destroying the diversity and innovation in our current system.

I have a proposal to bring costs down while pushing for quality and diversity – Child care as a public good with private partnership through contestability.

I noted that in delivering public goods such as transport, the government has pumped billions in rail and bus investments without expecting payback from private operators or charging infrastructure at market rent to them. We were told this is to bring the cost of public transport to a level that people can accept.

If we wish for young working couples to be able to afford child care and be encouraged to have more children, then we have a case to use a public good’s approach for child care.

Government can build and lease out centres at managed low rent. All its existing sites can come under the model. Based on answers in parliament, there are 290 void deck centres for non profit and 176 for private operators in void deck and JTC buildings, and another 52 in government buildings. That’s 518 centres, roughly 52.4% of all child care in Singapore. With 200 more centres to be built mostly in government controlled spaces, the share of sites under government‘s control will rise.

Old schools, disused community centres and other SLA spaces can be purpose-built by the government into mega child care facilities, even housing different operators under one roof. Child care generally should be within 2-3 km of workplaces or homes. Many small void decks in new flats are not ideal for child care, limiting options in new towns. We can have mega child care sites as long as we ensure there is easy access by parents, with roads and parking well planned.

We can utilise unused land parcels next to primary schools. There are small plots around some primary schools which are not big enough for meaningful commercial projects. We can tap on infrastructure of the primary schools to add new preschool facilities. This will make use of unutilised space, save on infrastructure costs and cultivate exchange between preschool and primary school.

The government can negotiate as main tenant with large private landlords for sites as a bloc to supplement their bank of child care sites. It can work with property developers who get additional Gross Floor Area when they set aside preschool space at cheap rents and let the government use the space for any type of operator. We should actively pursue all options to increase the state’s child care bank to cater to the mass market.

How do we allocate these centres? Rather than have more Anchor Operators, I have another suggestion.

The Anchor Operators concept has skewed the market. It is like giving a boxer super glooves and energy boosters while tying the hands of the competitor and asking them to fight each other. The stated objective for Anchor Operators was to “develop childcare operators that will set the benchmark for quality and affordable childcare services.”

It may have allowed Anchor Operators to achieve higher quality as they get resources, economy of scale, and certainty of their leases. Is it fair to expect other operators to keep pace? Other operators get little or no state funding. They hesitate to invest, worried if others will outbid them for their centres at each renewal, which will wipe out sunk investment. New HDB sites are so few compared to unannounced sites for Anchor Operators. Anchor Operators could lure their staff away with scholarships. Instead of encouraging other operators to step up, it cancause some to think short term and extract as much out of their investment while they can.

We can apply contestability. Contest clusters of sites openly based on concept rather than on rent. This was done before, when government building sites charged token rent and selection was on other factors such as quality and fees.

There is no need for a one-time selection of new Anchor Operators which will strengthen only a select few and weaken everyone else. Worst, it may become impossible for new operators to enter the market, killing off future innovation. We need active competition to raise standards and to continuously drive innovation.

Recurrent and other grants should apply to all qualifying participants as long as they meet strict selection criteria on fees and quality. There should be no differentiation between private and non profit operators. We already know what the current Anchor Operators can do with the support they had been given. Why have we been limiting ourselves to think only selected non profit players can bring cost down? Let’s open up and see how all others, including private operators can better that in terms of price and quality, if given similar support. I believe fair competition may even force current Anchor Operators to better their pricing, ultimately benefiting consumers.

New operators can surface from time to time. Small operators may band together into economic groups to better compete.

Contestability will drive diversity and quality. Operators cannot increase fees without approval. The government will regain control over the fee process to ensure affordability.

Government can better direct its key programmes. MCYS had found it hard to get private operators to go along with some of its programmes, such as SPARK. Last month, we were told only 115 preschools had attained SPARK accreditation, of which just 39 were private operators. This is way way below the target of 85% of all centres to be SPARK-tested by 2013, a figure established by Minister of State for Education, Mr Masagos in November 2010. We can allow only SPARK-accredited operators to contest these sites.

There may not even be a need for state-run preschools. The call for nationalisation was made by many frustrated with differing standards and high costs. We can improve quality even at the low cost segment by having a critical mass of centres available in this public-good model, and the state regulate to steer quality and pricing. It can designate some centres for the low income group by packaging centres for different market segments in each tender exercise.

While this proposal is in the context of child care, it can also be used for kindergartens.

In summary, I am calling for child care to be a public good with fair contestability of sites at managed rents for all types of operators, with tighter control of fees and quality by the state. This will benefit Singaporeans as fees will drop industry-wide while preserving diversity and driving up quality and innovation. I hope the government can carefully consider this proposal.

Alex Tan, Not Hero, Still Zero

Alex Tan is a zero in so many ways. Every Day Party caught Alex Tan's The Real Singapore with its pants down, not only for faking news, but for faking originality and plagiarising an article, and even abused those who chided him.

A TRS and Alex Tan Fan Club - Every Day Party

Now, this former RP candidate for AMK GRC in GE 2011, is not only a cheat for faking news and taking articles without attribution and pretending it to be a TRS original, but actually was crass and dumb enough to send a profanity-filled complaint to SBS. Classy. Real style! SBS then made a police report. Alex Tan loves the controversy from stoking xenophobia to trolling people, and SBS bit the bait in this textbook David vs Goliath contest. Alex Tan is a loser, who talked about migrating but is still around. One thing for sure, he makes being a loser an art form.

One Tan talking about another Tan

Looks like it is a race to the bottom among TRE, TT and TRS. TRS is leading the pack. TRE with its increased collaboration with TOC and hoping that whatever is left of TOC's dwindling respectability is rubbed off on TRE, is trailing far, far behind in 3rd place. Kinda fun to see Alex Tan get sued and I'm waiting for that day as I'm sure many would be openly or secretly pleased. Come on Alex, don't disappoint!

More Universities More Hope or Despair?

Good with more universities! Depending on whether the graduates churned out are needed by industries or not though. If they get useless degrees like BSc Modernist Flower Arrangement for the local economy, then lots of unhappy unemployed grads around unless Singapore turns into a global decorative flower export hub. Even if there is abundance of jobs for grads in the market, these grads expect cushy high pays, to be advanced upwards fast, all hopefully with minimal and maximum office politics.

What should be in the works for courses in the universities? Easy to say have more unis but exactly what courses which the 6 universities each have their own niche and therefore customer-student base? NUS and NTU are increasingly so alike that they are just monkey see monkey do. If I'm a million $ salaried minister, I would say - technical and applied skills, those with logical degree extensions of current poly diplomas as an alternative of going to some bush university in Australia. Do you know that with the current AUD exchange rate, it might be cheaper to send your child to USA rather than Australia! Traditionally unglam skills like cooking, nursing, maritime and shipping, contracting and construction? Besides, 2 more universities in Singapore also not much use unless these unis are kept "affordable". SMU! With real estate like that, of course it is expensive!

Also, if 40% of each cohort is a grad, there would be more competition in the job market, like in Korea and China, and everyone wants to be a management associate or something equivalently glam sounding. While menial and technical jobs still need available are snapped up by hungrier and more desperate foreigners. Getting a degree does not guarantee that someone gets a job or raises employment rates. Might be the reverse!

Higher education participation rate to rise to 40% by 2020 – PM
Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has announced that the proportion of young people attending higher education will rise to 40% by 2020 compared to 27% now, with two new publicly-backed universities slated for the city-state.

Education is “Singapore’s most important long-term investment in its people and it is a key response to the changing world”, Lee said during his annual National Day Rally policy speech, delivered at the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) on 26 August.

Lee said that SIT and the Singapore Institute of Management University (UniSIM) would be upgraded to become Singapore’s fifth and sixth universities offering applied as well as part time degrees.

This would open up an additional 3,000 full time university places, offering 16,000 university places by 2020 against 13,000 now.

The Ministry of Education, in a statement on 28 August, described the expansion as “carefully calibrated”.

The figures include planned increases in enrolment at Singapore’s main existing universities, including National University of Singapore incollaboration with Yale University in the US, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Management University, the new Singapore University of Technology and Design in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and two arts education institutions.

Panel review of university education

The prime minister’s announcement comes a year after he initiated a wide ranging review of university education, to investigate how to increase the number of university places available for Singaporeans.

Lee said the review panel led by Senior Minister of State for Education Lawrence Wong “concluded that we should create more university places”, but the “we should focus on applied practice-oriented degrees, for example, engineers, physiotherapists, social workers – skills that are in demand and which will help get graduates jobs, and we should not just churn out graduates regardless of the quality or employment opportunities.”

Pointing to some other countries, including Britain, the United States and China, with unemployment or underemployment of graduates, he added: "Singapore must avoid leading people up the wrong path, misleading them that if you spend three years of your life doing this, at the end you will have a happy outcome.”

"We must make sure that if we encourage people to go that way, that at the end the prospects are good."

UniSIM, a private college that is part of the Singapore Institute of Management, currently offers only part-time programmes but will add full-time programmes.

Meanwhile, part-time undergraduate students, including working adults at UniSIM, could become eligible for government grants and loans to enable them to “get the same support” as students at the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, Lee said – although UniSIM would remain a private university.

Providing more details, the Ministry of Education said UniSIM had a strong track record in providing part-time degree programmes in close collaboration with industry, and provided “a good balance of theoretical and real-world education”.

The review panel noted in its final report published this month: “UniSIM remains the only private institution to date that the Ministry of Education has assessed as being of sufficient quality to be accorded university status and degree-awarding powers.”

SIT, a multi-campus institution designed to allow polytechnic students to upgrade their qualifications, would begin to award its own degrees, the ministry said.

Instructive experience of other countries

The decision to increase university enrolment without expanding Singapore’s research-intensive universities further, or opening new research universities, was based on an examination by the review panel of higher education in the UK, Hong Kong, Germany, France, Canada and Finland.

The panel said problems with the UK university system had been “particularly instructive”.

In 1992 the UK government granted university status to polytechnics, which had been mainly teaching institutions

“This proved to be a double loss for the wider higher education sector – the vast majority of these post-1992 new universities still struggle with their new mission and are unable to rise in quality and standing; and the UK tertiary system is now devoid of a tier of institutions that was previously instrumental in producing a technically-skilled workforce,” the panel said.

“Therefore, it would be prudent for us to avoid this path while there are other more viable options.”

Singapore also has around 70 registered private higher education institutions offering external degree programmes of overseas university partners. They enrolled some 47,500 Singaporean students full-time and part-time in 2011.