The relentless rising cost of living in Singapore

[kuasimi]

http://theindependent.sg/fas-gate-co...ersonnel-1-6m/


FAS' gate collections $2M while salaries for 6 key personnel $1.6M

By The Independent - September 28, 2016






By: 永久浪客/Forever Vagabond

It was earlier reported that while FAS was only willing to spend $70,000 on local football tournaments and community development, it was more than happy to spend $1,640,056 on the salaries of its key management personnel (http://theindependent.sg/fas-spends-...-key-personnel).

In its annual report, it has listed its key management personnel as:
• General Secretary
• CEO of S.League
• National Coach
• Technical Director
• Director S.League
• Deputy General Secretary


Of the six, 3 was revealed to have received annual salaries of:
• $200,001 to $300,000 – 1 person
• $400,001 to $500,000 – 2 persons

That is, these 3 received a total salary of between $1,000,003 to $1,300,000 out of the $1,640,056 in the last FY 2015.



Tongue-lashing incident of S.League CEO COL (NS) Lim

It was further revealed that FAS General Secretary who was promoted from his previous S.League CEO position is Winston Lee. The current S.League CEO is COL (NS) Lim Chin, the former SAF Chief of Artillery (http://theindependent.sg/ceo-of-s-le...-salary-in-fas).

COL (NS) Lim was in the news 2 years ago when his tongue-lashing incident with some S.League players occurred in closed-door, was recorded by someone and put online for the public to view. In that incident, when the players questioned the club management and himself, he exploded:



“The chairman of the club and the management committee (are) above all of you. You are players, nobody is bigger than the club. The chairman heads the club. The management committee is not for you to judge… So I think you all need to know where you stand as a player, as a staff, as a coach. Do not ever question the chairman on his role and responsibility.”

Dismal gate collections

According to its annual report for the last FY, FAS was only able to get $1,969,705 for its gate collections.





This means the gate collections alone are just able to cover the $1,640,056 of FAS’ 6 key management personnel.

In fact, most of the FAS revenue has to come from the generous donations of Tote Board – money from Singaporean punters of 4D, TOTO, Singapore Sweep, sports betting and horse racing.

In the last FY, donations amounted to $23,657,179 or close to 70% of FAS total revenue.

[Chewbakhwa]

Why are you always using old articles ???

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by Chewbakhwa

Why are you always using old articles ???

This is because the issues remained relevant today and remained unresolved.

[graveleg]

Any association or company headed by ex-SAF personnel are heading towards failure

[Meijing]

Originally Posted by graveleg

Any association or company headed by ex-SAF personnel are heading towards failure

Heard SPH and SMRT both are losing money . They already lost NOL .

[Kopikop]

Originally Posted by Chewbakhwa

Why are you always using old articles ???

Is there such a rule cannot use old articles ??

[Halogen8]

Originally Posted by Meijing

Heard SPH and SMRT both are losing money . They already lost NOL .

Loong and Jinx will find ways to recover the losses .

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

https://www.facebook.com/JoseRaymond...type=3&theater


https://www.gov.sg/~/sgpcmedia/media...e%20Report.pdf






Jose Raymond 乔立盟
Like This Page · 18 June ·


Various pro-PAP Facebook pages, and PAP MPs have taken issue with my Facebook post about the visually handicapped 59-year old Toa Payoh resident who was denied long-term social assistance. I'm glad.

One pro-PAP Facebook page has even gone to the extent of trying to justify the Government's proposed increase in GST because of such cases so the Government can do more. How classy.

Along with MSF Singapore's response, their framing is that the resident already receives a plethora of assistance from various parties, a fact which my post had already indicated.

I am happy the revelation of ground realities has irritated the PAP because they need to be made aware of what's hurting people. Writing the post was a last resort, as I had taken the resident to meet his MP Saktiandi Supaat in January this year.

The government and the PAP can frame the issue one way, but I can reframe it another way so the public can see the issue from a different perspective. That's how policies can be tightened, as ultimately we must do what's best for our citizens.

The Government also needs to ask itself if its policy and decision making in such matters is morally and ethically acceptable.

As I had stated previously, here are the facts and key questions so the public can decide if MSF can and should be doing better.

1. The 59-year old resident is visually handicapped.

2. He has kidney failure and gets dialysis treatment three times a week.

3. He has been declared as medically unfit to work.

4. He gets a payout of $620 from his own CPF Retirement Account.

5. He looks after two other blind gentlemen who are also unable to work.

6. He applied for social assistance and was rejected, and in its response to his application the MSF states that he doesn't meet the criteria because he earns an income from his CPF Retirement Account.

7. He gets support from other VWOs, well-wishers to help pay for rental, some food, transport to and from dialysis treatments.

Here are the questions we must ponder over:

1. Why is one's CPF Retirement Account being considered income? What is the policy rationale behind this especially when dealing with cases like the one above?

2. Why is this resident allowed to dip into his CPF Retirement Account before he is of retirement age? Shouldn't he be accorded long-term social assistance first and then have him dip into his Retirement Account later?

3. How much does someone need to live in dignity in Singapore, and especially so if he isn't able bodied.

4. Is the Government's policy and decision making in such matters morally and ethically acceptable?

Policies should always be reviewed and discussed based on ground realities. It's through extensive debate and looking at issues through various lenses and perspectives that we can make our policies better for the benefit of Singaporeans.

This is something the PAP and its supporters need to get used to, for the benefit of Singaporeans, the people it claims to represent.

Loving Singapore means loving its people. ����

#SGLivesMatter

https://www.facebook.com/andrewlohhp


There were calls recently that our public/civil service must not be politically partisan. Unfortunately, the calls are apparently falling on deaf ears.

The deputy chairman of the People's Association, Chan Chun Sing, pledged 2 years ago that he would not allow the PA to be politicised.

See here:

https://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/ch...be-politicised



Words are one thing, action is another. Mr Chan should take some action against grassroots leaders who use their positions to play politics.

It does not do our country any good to behave like this.


https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...th-his-banner/






PAP Aljunied grassroot advisor apologised for covering Workers’ Party’s event banner with his banner

Published on 2018-06-23 by Terry Xu



Victor Lye Thiam Fatt, People's Action Party (PAP) Candidate candidate for the Aljunied GRC in the General Election 2015 and grassroots leader for Aljunied GRC, has acknowledged that his volunteers put up a banner to cover up another banner from the Workers' Party and apologised for the action.

Mr Lye had earlier published a Facebook post about him not being paid to do community work in the constituency and quoted a resident saying that the opposition politicians have it better for them as their best losers are given a seat in Parliament with salary while Mr Lye and his team who were the best losers in GE2015, did not.

Mr Lye is one of the appointed grassroots advisors to the Bedok Reservor-Punggol Grassroots Organisation despite not being the elected Member of Parliament of the constituency.

https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71003689750636

The post spurred a member of public, Ong Yu Shan to ask Mr Lye, "Didn’t you tell resident you love to use underhand tactics?!? Passed by and saw your lovely face banner covered Aljunied banner @ WP constituency." and posted a photo of Mr Lye's banner blocking another banner which was purportedly taken recently at the Aljunied GRC.

Mr Lye promptly responded to Ong's post by acknowledging that the banner should not have been placed in the said manner and asked his volunteers to rectify.





The banner which was from Mr Lye's team is meant to inform the residents of the activities organised by the Bedok Reservor-Punggol Grassroots Organisation; activities such as porridge distribution, prayers, a community fair and groceries distribution during the Hari Raya period.

As for the banner being blocked, it can be seen from the color and viewable details that it is a banner put up by the Aljunied Town Council managed by Workers' Party, promoting a festive event organised by the Aljunied constituency which is scheduled to be held on this coming 30 June.

https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcom...500927/?type=3



https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcom...500927/?type=3

This is not the first time that Mr Lye's volunteers are guilty of such uncalled for behaviour. Shortly before the elections, the PAP Aljunied team distributed political flyers in the middle of the night to residents, warning them about the alleged mismanagement by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. And from Mr Lye's Facebook posting, he would have been part of the team that went around distributing the flyers.


https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71969069654103


Regarding the distribution of leaflets, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) issued to the media on 19 March 2015:

“In consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers on the police report made on the distribution of flyers at Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, it has been determined that there is no offence disclosed. The distribution of flyers in itself is not an offence in Singapore.”

Note that at the point of the flyers being distributed in March 2015, the parliament has yet been dissolved and the Prime Minister has yet to call for the General Election, therefore it cannot be said to be political campaigning during the election period.

Now compare that with the case in 2006, where members of the Singapore Democratic Party were charged for illegal assembly while distributing flyers “in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road”. They were accused of participating in “an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government" without a police permit.

The police licensing officer during the trial, testified that distributing flyers for a commercial cause did not require a permit whereas one was needed if the cause was political.

Given the SPF's reply, it can be safely assumed that the PAP activists did not apply for a permit for their political activity but yet not charged for illegal assembly as in SDP's case.

With such double standards in place, no wonder such uncouth behaviours by the PAP grassroots continue till today.



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155618399508977&set=p.10155618399 508977&type=3

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981277375230535&set=a.247269498631 340.68016.100000448763402&type=3


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f... 508977&type=3


Andrew Loh
Yesterday at 9:05 AM ·
Let me just say this because this post by Mr Lye is so utterly shameful, self-serving and highly misleading.

Mr Lye laments that volunteers like him have to fork out their own money when doing volunteer work in the community, unlike the paid NCMPs from the opposition, and despite Mr Lye being the "best losers" in the election, he is not in Parliament (as NCMP).

First, WP NCMPs are in Parliament legally. They are there legally under laws which Mr Lye's party created and instituted. So, Mr Lye should have corrected his resident's mistaken views (and why he - Mr Lye - though having garnered more losing votes is not an NCMP). (Imagine a Parliament of elected PAP MPs and non-elected PAP NCMPs. What would be the point of the NCMP scheme then?)

Second, Mr Lye should have explained to his resident the purpose of the NCMP scheme - to allow diverse views in Parliament.

Third, Mr Lye should have informed his resident that there are already 82 elected PAP MPs, out of 89, in Parliament.

There are only 3 NCMPs.

Fourth, to give the impression that WP NCMPs benefit from the NCMP seats in Parliament more than Mr Lye is misleading. This is because:

a. While Mr Lye may be using his own money for his own community work, no one forced him to do so. He can decline doing so right now.

b. While he claims to fork out his own money, he is also chairman of his area's CCC and thus has access to government funds via the People's Association when it comes to organising and holding activities in his area, which raises his profile with residents which in turn gives him a huge advantage over the opposition when Mr Lye - despite being in a supposedly non-partisan GRO - runs for election under the PAP banner (which he did in 2015).

In short, Mr Lye benefits politically from the activities funded by public money even though he is not an elected member.

See this link below, where the PA states that "CCCs plan and lead major grassroots activities within the constituency, oversee local assistance programmes, and organise major fund-raising projects and national campaigns."


https://www.pa.gov.sg/our-network/gr...ive-committees



Some of his (political) activities are also questionable, including this one where he, a chairman of a non-political grassroots organisation by day, goes out to distribute political leaflets to residents by night:

Read here:

https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/20...of-sneakiness/


c. If Mr Lye feels it is unfair for him (and his volunteers) to have to fork out their own money when doing community work, he should take it up with the People's Association whose chairman is the Prime Minister.

It is truly unfortunate that Mr Lye, instead of correcting the mistaken views of his resident, chose to use such misguided views to show off, that he is selfless and use his own money to serve reaidents, despite the fact that the PA's budget has doubled the last 4 years, from $500m to $1b in each of the last 2 years.

To give the impression that the grassroots is so poor that he has to fork out his own money is highly misleading, at best.

The grassroots organisations are in fact generously funded by the govt, and headed by pro-PAP members who later run in elections:

See here: https://www.todayonline.com/singapor...rifted-mandate

One would expect a would-be MP to be fair and correct wrong views, and not propagate them as truths.

By the way, the other non-MP WP candidates who, like Mr Lye, lost in the last elections, are all still continuing doing their volunteer work on the ground, in the community, at their own expense even. I do not see them boasting about it, or lamenting about it. They go on doing their work diligently, quietly, as it is right to do so, for people who have their hearts in the right place - and not making a mountain out of it.

Lastly, do note how Mr Lye has conflated his role as a CCC chairman (in the Bedok Reservoir area) with that of his political membership of the PAP. NCMPs are political roles, being the best-losers in a general election.

Mr Lye is also Branch Chairman of the PAP in the Bedok Reservoir area.

Mr Lye's post conflates his role in Bedok Reservoir as a PA volunteer, and that of him not being an NCMP, a political position involving the political party, the PAP.

It saddens me to see a grassroots leader seemingly unable to distinguish his two roles. (Which is why there should be a ban on grassroots leaders being members - and candidates - of a political party.)

*NCMPs get a $2,000 honorarium to primarily allow them to have legislative help when crafting their parliamentary speeches, for example. It barely covers the costs which an NCMP would have to assume (from his own pocket) when he attends to parliamentary work, including having to take time off their full-time jobs.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981277375230535&set=a.247269498631 340.68016.100000448763402&type=3

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by Halogen8

Loong and Jinx will find ways to recover the losses .

Yep but Singaporeans like you and me will foot the bill for them, not them.

Look at the complicated chain of payments for Malaysia's 1MDB case.

In the end, the New Malaysian Government discovered that it was the Malaysian taxpayers that foot the bill for 1MDB's debts via a complicated chain of network designed by previous Malaysian Government.

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/yeejj.wp/


Yee Jenn Jong, JJ (余振忠)
Yesterday at 02:00 ·

As a former NCMP, it feels kinda surreal to have a PAP politician 'envy' the position and allowance of a NCMP.

Perhaps more information is needed about life on the other side in case one thinks the grass is greener there ...

The allowance (about $2,000 monthly) is set at about 15% of a MP's allowance. It is meant to cover expenses for parliamentary work, which a losing PAP candidate will not have to do. Parliament sits for 40-60 times a year. Usually it is 1-3 times a month but during the Budget period, there will be about 2 continuous weeks of sittings commencing from around 11am till 7pm. When there are special bills or motions, there will be additional sittings, each of which can go on for several days.

My fellow NCMP colleagues and I, past and present, have taken pride to have good attendance and participation records. Usually during the intensive budget sitting days, I absent myself nearly completely from my regular work as I make it a point to participate as much as I can in as many of the Committee of Supplies' (i.e. various ministries) debates. There is also much to research on and we have to be resourceful as access to non-public information of the government is not available to us.

I do not believe the allowance for NCMP was designed by the PAP government to cover grassroots activities; hence NCMP gets 15% of a MP's allowance. In addition, NCMPs do NOT get any access to facilities in the constituency he/she contested in previously, unlike that of losing PAP candidates.


I have continued my work on the ground even though I am no longer a NCMP, Many of my Party's colleagues have continued their work on the ground. We do not get the support of the People's Association, which gets some $1 billion annual allocation from the government's budget for their work.

PA will work only with PAP MPs and grassroots advisors appointed by the government, which include the losing candidates for the PAP in an opposition ward (But hey, it's non-partisan, as someone famously said). Any expenses for our work, including food distribution projects for the needier families, have to be raised though our resourcefulness. Thankfully, there are Singaporeans and organisations willing to support, though some do come from our own pockets too. Work are organised by volunteers.

The Elections Department reports to the Prime Minister's Office. It is fond of giving surprises to the opposition, with short notices for elections and sudden change of boundaries just before elections. Before GE2015, about 6 weeks' notice was given. Many constituencies had changes, and that which I contested in previously was merged into something much larger. I am not sure what uncertainties PAP candidates have to deal with.

Sometimes it is better to count one's blessings and then we will realise that there are actually much to be thankful for.

[kuasimi]

http://www.wp.sg/wp-votes-no-to-the-...-in-2021-2025/


WP votes NO to the announcement of GST hike in 2021-2025


The Workers’ Party MPs voted “no” to the motion that Parliament “approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019” for the sole reason that WP is unable to support the announcement of a GST hike from 7% to 9% in 2021-2025 at this point in time.

We support the Government’s budget strategy and measures for the coming Financial Year, as presented to Parliament. However, the future GST hike is an announcement and not a budget measure. We are unable to support the announcement for three reasons:

1. the lack of clarity on long-term projected Government income and spending;

2. the lack of consideration of alternative revenue streams and whether there is scope for the reserves to better support and invest in Singaporeans;

3. the lack in details on the effect of the future GST hike on low-income and middle-income Singaporeans and the Government’s permanent GST offset packages.

We asked the Government to consider other options for raising revenue to meet increased spending. These options included raising the NIRC cap and using a small, capped fraction of land sales proceeds for Budgets. However, the latter was brushed off by the Government.

WP MPs intended to vote “yes” on the budget measures for the Financial Year 2018/2019. However, Minister Heng insisted that voting “yes” would mean WP supports the announced GST hike in the next term of Government in 2021-2025 and called for a division.

It is unreasonable for us to vote for a drastic future tax hike that will financially affect Singaporeans based on inadequate information and justifications on the need for the hike. We therefore voted NO.

The Workers’ Party
1 March 2018

[DisGraceFool]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

https://www.facebook.com/andrewlohhp


There were calls recently that our public/civil service must not be politically partisan. Unfortunately, the calls are apparently falling on deaf ears.

The deputy chairman of the People's Association, Chan Chun Sing, pledged 2 years ago that he would not allow the PA to be politicised.

See here:

https://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/ch...be-politicised



Words are one thing, action is another. Mr Chan should take some action against grassroots leaders who use their positions to play politics.

It does not do our country any good to behave like this.


https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...th-his-banner/






PAP Aljunied grassroot advisor apologised for covering Workers’ Party’s event banner with his banner

Published on 2018-06-23 by Terry Xu



Victor Lye Thiam Fatt, People's Action Party (PAP) Candidate candidate for the Aljunied GRC in the General Election 2015 and grassroots leader for Aljunied GRC, has acknowledged that his volunteers put up a banner to cover up another banner from the Workers' Party and apologised for the action.

Mr Lye had earlier published a Facebook post about him not being paid to do community work in the constituency and quoted a resident saying that the opposition politicians have it better for them as their best losers are given a seat in Parliament with salary while Mr Lye and his team who were the best losers in GE2015, did not.

Mr Lye is one of the appointed grassroots advisors to the Bedok Reservor-Punggol Grassroots Organisation despite not being the elected Member of Parliament of the constituency.

https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71003689750636

The post spurred a member of public, Ong Yu Shan to ask Mr Lye, "Didn’t you tell resident you love to use underhand tactics?!? Passed by and saw your lovely face banner covered Aljunied banner @ WP constituency." and posted a photo of Mr Lye's banner blocking another banner which was purportedly taken recently at the Aljunied GRC.

Mr Lye promptly responded to Ong's post by acknowledging that the banner should not have been placed in the said manner and asked his volunteers to rectify.





The banner which was from Mr Lye's team is meant to inform the residents of the activities organised by the Bedok Reservor-Punggol Grassroots Organisation; activities such as porridge distribution, prayers, a community fair and groceries distribution during the Hari Raya period.

As for the banner being blocked, it can be seen from the color and viewable details that it is a banner put up by the Aljunied Town Council managed by Workers' Party, promoting a festive event organised by the Aljunied constituency which is scheduled to be held on this coming 30 June.

https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcom...500927/?type=3



https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcom...500927/?type=3

This is not the first time that Mr Lye's volunteers are guilty of such uncalled for behaviour. Shortly before the elections, the PAP Aljunied team distributed political flyers in the middle of the night to residents, warning them about the alleged mismanagement by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. And from Mr Lye's Facebook posting, he would have been part of the team that went around distributing the flyers.


https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71969069654103


Regarding the distribution of leaflets, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) issued to the media on 19 March 2015:

“In consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers on the police report made on the distribution of flyers at Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, it has been determined that there is no offence disclosed. The distribution of flyers in itself is not an offence in Singapore.”

Note that at the point of the flyers being distributed in March 2015, the parliament has yet been dissolved and the Prime Minister has yet to call for the General Election, therefore it cannot be said to be political campaigning during the election period.

Now compare that with the case in 2006, where members of the Singapore Democratic Party were charged for illegal assembly while distributing flyers “in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road”. They were accused of participating in “an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government" without a police permit.

The police licensing officer during the trial, testified that distributing flyers for a commercial cause did not require a permit whereas one was needed if the cause was political.

Given the SPF's reply, it can be safely assumed that the PAP activists did not apply for a permit for their political activity but yet not charged for illegal assembly as in SDP's case.

With such double standards in place, no wonder such uncouth behaviours by the PAP grassroots continue till today.



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155618399508977&set=p.10155618399 508977&type=3

Such a disgracefool and shameful act .

[bonk69]

Create great tension for singapore by posting inflation in the web. Time is very bad now. Bread winner how to stretch your dollar and support family? One cup of hot water cost 40cents. Coffee although still affordable at 1.3$ but who knows the quality had dropped so much since then.
Who cares?

[Grabara]

Originally Posted by DisGraceFool

Such a disgracefool and shameful act .

Our future disgraceful PM .