The relentless rising cost of living in Singapore

[nitecrawllerr]

Originally Posted by CaptNeeda

How come he doesn't know ???

When lightning and his cronies plead ignorance, i am worried.

[nitecrawllerr]

I have this question. Msia had been charging Spore 3 sens till today. How come lightning keep increasing our water bills? Poor sillyporeans. Ka ki ciak kaki lang!

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by ComplainKing

Do you have any evidence to support what you are saying ???

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155318627736688&set=p.10155318627 736688&type=3&theater

Chong Win
26 June

this Lee Hong Chuan will be the next contender at Hougang....his picture is always in flyer in whatever event at hougang community club....i thought hougang belongs to WP ?



https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155774432793931&set=p.10155774432 793931&type=3&theater

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...s-dr-mahathir/





New heads of Malaysian GLCs should not expect big salaries, says Dr Mahathir

Published on 2018-07-03 by Danisha Hakeem


Under the new Pakatan Harapan government, those who have been appointed to spearhead Malaysian government linked-companies (GLCs) should no longer expect to receive big salaries.

Speaking to Malaysian media at the end of his two-day visit to Jakarta on an ASEAN tour on 30 June, Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said that while their salaries will not be big, there is a possibility of granting heads of GLCs big bonuses in the event that they perform well.

He said that in the previous government, “we found [that] those appointed were chosen not because of their abilities in business or management, but due to being party supporters.”



“They were inefficient, but were paid high salaries. We found projects under them had failed or were not profitable,” he added.

He declined to name the GLCs as there are too many of them.

Dr Mahathir said that the new government will hire professionals who have had previous experience in running companies to run the GLCs, and will ensure that said professionals are not politically-linked.

“At any time (they are involved), action will be taken,” he added.

It is understood that among the government-linked companies (GLCs), Lembaga Tabung Haji (LTH) and Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera (LTAT) are expected to see changes in the nearest future, after the retirement of Tan Sri Abdul Wahid Omar as chairman of Permodalan Nasional Bhd (PNB), according to a report by The Star Online.

LTH is headed by its group Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Datuk Seri Johan Abdullah, while LTAT's chieftain is Tan Sri Lodin Wok Kamaruddin, who is also Boustead Holdings Bhd's Deputy Chairman and group Managing Director.

In 2015, LTH purchased a 1.55-acre parcel in the Tun Razak Exchange (TRX) project from scandal-ridden 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB), which gave rise to speculations that the deal was made for the purpose of bailing out 1MDB.

Lodin, meanwhile, was appointed LTAT's CEO in 1982. He joined Boustead in 1984 and became the company's Managing Director about seven years later.

He was appointed Chairman of 1MDB, but had stepped down in 2016 after the Public Accounts Committee's tabling of its audit report in the Dewan Rakyat.

On Jun 29, PNB announced that former Bank Negara Malaysia Governor, Tan Sri Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz will replace Wahid as PNB's chairman, which took effect on July 1.

Commenting on Zeti’s appointment, Wahid said that he believes that Zeti and members of the board “will be able to continue leading PNB to a higher level of success”.

Wahid's resignation was one of the changes that took place in the upper levels of some of the more prominent GLCs. This is in line with the aims of reformation under the Pakatan Harapan government.

According to The Star Online, “the heads started rolling” on May 14 when Tan Sri Shahrir Abdul Samad resigned from his position as Chairman of the politically-linked Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA).

On the same day, Tan Sri Irwan Serigar Abdullah's contract as Treasury Secretary-General was axed. He was subsequently transferred to the Public Service Department. Irwan has since stepped down from board positions of companies under the Ministry of Finance.

The following week saw LTH's Datuk Seri Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim step down as Chairman.

The resignation of Bank Negara’s governor Tan Sri Muhammad Ibrahim soon followed. His resignation took place only weeks after queries were made regarding the central bank's purchase of land to bail out 1MDB.

Other significant resignations related to GLCs in recent times included that of Telekom Malaysia Bhd's group, CEO Datuk Seri Mohammed Shazalli Ramly, and Malaysian Resources Corp Bhd (MRCB)'s Tan Sri Mohamad Salim Fateh Din, the developer of KL Sentral.

Additionally, Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) independent non-executive director Datuk Mohd Omar Mustapha had also tendered his resignation on June 1.

Earlier this week, it was reported that Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan had stepped down from his position as the chairman of Petronas, while Bursa Malaysia CEO Datuk Seri Tajuddin Atan could also be replaced before his term ends in March next year.

Professor of Political Economy at Faculty of Economics & Administration at the University of Malaya, Edmund Terence Gomez wrote in a letter to The Star Online that “institutional reforms can be formulated to ensure accountable and transparent governance of the companies”.

He also mentioned that “power has to be devolved to key oversight institutions such as Bank Negara, the Securities Commission and opposition-led parliamentary committees”.

He also highlighted the role of reviewing legislation on “how statutory bodies, holding companies and foundations function”.

Gomez’s key message in his letter appears to be that above all, the government has to have significant control over the workings of a GLC in order to avoid any form of inappropriate concentration of power or wealth by select individuals or stakeholders:

“[…] the government would need to retain ownership of GLCs in utilities, banking, oil and gas, defence, plantations, airport services and ports.

The transfer of ownership of huge firms in these sectors to private investors may not serve the nation’s interest.“

He concluded his letter by highlighting the potentially beneficial role of GLCs in Malaysia’s economy:

“[…] it must be considered that GLCs have played an important developmental role, creating a vibrant domestic privately-owned enterprise base, promoting mechanisms to encourage private firms to venture into new economic sectors, and enhancing the development of rural- and niche-based enterprises. GLCs must still play this role.”

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...e-in-the-govt/





The curious case of the GST Increase and the trust that PAP expects people to have in the govt

Published on 2018-07-03 by Ghui


The cat is now out of the bag and government has pretty much tacitly confirmed that the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is set to increase from 7% to 9% some time between 2021 to 2025. Given official statements issued by the government before the General Elections of 2016 (GE2016), the government appeared to have unequivocally denied the possibility of a GST increase.

In public statements, they made clear that the government plans ahead and that there is enough from income tax not to have to increase GST. It seems therefore rather strange that a government who professes to plan ahead did not seem to have foreseen the need to announce a raise in GST in just under 3 years? So much for planning ahead!

Either that or the government has very cleverly planned the timing of their announcements to reassure the public before GE2016 to ensure maximum vote share. Neither scenario is very reassuring.


In considering which scenario it is, it is important to note that there are slight differences between the 2 purported identical statements issued by the government.





In the third hyperlinked article "unequivocally denied the possibility of a GST increase", there is an additional line inserted at the end of the article stating : "This article is accurate as of Aug 2015." This crucial statement is missing in the second hyperlinked article "statements".

Incidentally, this second hyperlinked article is found in the "archives" section of the Gov.SG website which suggests that this was the original article which has now been amended to insert the disclaimer. When was this disclaimer added and why?

Is this a fudging exercise to prevent the government of being accused of misleading the public about GST increments pre GE2016? Or was it to rectify an oversight by the government?

Also, why is there such a wide time period for when GST is meant to increase? Between 2021 to 2025? That is 4 years! Given that the government allegedly plans ahead, it should surely know with greater certainty when GST will need to be raised? Why the 4 year period then?

Given that our next election is set for sometime 2020, is this raise (which will coincidentally takes place after the election) meant to ensure that the PAP gets the votes before increasing the tax? In fact, by giving such a wide spectrum for timing, the People's Action Party (PAP) can in fact potentially squeeze in 2 more general elections before finally increasing the GST - thereby ensuring the maximum chance of killing 2 birds with one stone. I.e. Winning 2 elections and still getting their GST increase.

Whichever way I look at it, there appears to be some fudge going on. Did the PAP know ahead of GE2016 that they would have to increase the GST? Did they choose not to divulge this to the public because they did not want it to affect their vote share? Why is there a 4 year period between when the taxes will be increased? Don't the public deserve greater certainty?

Giving themselves such a wide berth seems to give rise to the suspicion that this will somehow be used to ensure that the government can keep its options wide open to ensure the best result for them.

Addressing the GST issue in Malaysia and how it played in Malaysia's recent General Election at the end of the President's address, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that voters have to trust the government to do the right thing on their behalf, even when it is painful.

He noted that the country will need to spend more – on healthcare, defence, education, or something else – and if revenues are not enough, it will have no choice but to raise taxes. Then, the government must convince the population that it is raising taxes for a good reason, for the right reason. And whether the voters accept that will depend not just on the arguments, but also crucially on whether they trust the government.

Other than going back against its earlier promise about not raising GST, PM Lee's point about trust seems to be pitted against the situation where Singapore announced a surplus of $9.6 billion for FY2017 and at the same time, say it needs to increase GST hike to 9 per cent because Singapore has to ensure revenue is sufficient to meet the country's spending.

Without a strong alternative media and opposition politicians to challenge these things such as the 9% GST hike, we will never know the truth and what to trust. Is this the society we want to live in?

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...n-a-walkabout/





Everyone and anyone is entitled to not engage with a politician on a walkabout

Published on 2018-07-02 by Ghui

I see that some drama erupted at Minister in the Prime Minister's office, Indranee Rajah's 1 July 2018 walkabout in Tiong Bahru Market. While I was not present and cannot independently verify what version of events is true, I will give both parties the benefit of doubt and presume for the sake of this article that the truth is somewhere in between.

Although the accounts of how things transpired differ, the basic facts that are not in dispute are as follows:

• A man who did not want to engage was indeed approached by Ms Rajah; and
• The issue of nationality was raised.

Everyone has a right to privacy and a private citizen not wanting to be disturbed is perfectly acceptable. Rajah herself accepts this. Why then would someone post on Facebook about what should really be a normal run of the mill occurrence? Is it because we still perceive our elected politicians as somehow "above" us in standing and that refusing to engage with them is some kind of act of rebellion?

If that is indeed the attitude we have (whether conditioned or otherwise) then we ought to change it. All citizens reserve the right to have a meal in peace. There is no need to entertain someone even if you don't feel like so doing when this person has shown up unannounced just because that person is in a position of power. We can't expect the government to treat us like equals when a man refusing to engage is considered big news.

Secondly, why was the issue of nationality raised? The minister has admitted to asking people on their nationalities but I still struggle to see why that question needs to be asked? Would a person's nationality affect how she would treat them? Would she spend less time with them? I just don't understand why there is a need to ask such a question at all. It just seems rather odd and leads me to wonder if she assumed the man was not Singaporean simply because he dared to not engage?

If this is indeed the case then the government really needs to readjust its own perception of itself. They are elected to serve us. Being a politician is a profession like any other. It does not make you some kind of super star that guarantees public fawning.

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...mains-healthy/




New Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong: Overall public trust in PAP Govt remains healthy

Published on 2018-07-02 by Correspondent

In the long interview with Channel News Asia which was published today (1 Jul), new Senior Minister of State for Law and Health said that the overall public trust in the PAP Government has remained healthy.

Mr Edwin Tong said, "A lot more effort has gone into revamping our feedback mechanism. Every single one of the MPs must know the ground well enough so that we don’t only end up knowing around elections that there’s unhappiness about this policy or that policy,"

He said he does make an effort to recruit and hear from grassroots leaders of diverse backgrounds who are willing to give MPs an honest picture of ground sentiment.

"Going by what I see on the ground, I think people appreciate that the Government spends time addressing the unhappiness, whether it is in terms of social transfers or immigration policies. I think that has made a difference over the years."

He admits the transport system has been "a constant bane" but it'll be sorted out with time.

"As with all functioning and mature democracies, the trust level ebbs and flows on different issues. But I think the overall trust in the Government has remained healthy. It’s a gut feel I have while internalising everything that I see, everything that I hear, talking to people within or outside of my constituency,” he said.

CareShield Life

He concedes that on specific issues "more could be done" in terms of communication. CareShield Life is one example.

"CareShield Life for example is meant as a good policy but people are asking if we’re making money out of it. The Government could afford to explain why we’re doing it and to allay such concerns," he said.

"We’ll see all that come to light when we debate the issue in Parliament but I do think more could be done to bring home the key messages in a way that the average Singaporean can better appreciate."

CareShield Life is another mandatory insurance scheme hatched by the PAP government requiring Singaporeans to join when they reach 30. It is supposed to provide "better protection against the uncertainty of long-term care costs".

In any case, going by Tong's confidence of the healthy trust bestowed on the PAP government by Singaporean public, it looks like Tong and his compatriots in People's Action Party (PAP) should have nothing to worry about in the next coming General Election.

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-for-them-too/



MPs not only pay $365 yearly for HDB carpark, some have policemen reserving carpark lot for them too

Published on 2018-06-30 by Correspondent


It has been reported that elected Members of Parliament (MPs) pay only S$365 for an annual HDB carpark permit. This works out to S$1 per day parking at HDB carparks. The huge concession is supposed to allow them to park at HDB estates when doing constituency work and at Parliament House too.

The Ministry of National Development (MND) said on Mon (25 Jun) that the rate is a proportion of the prevailing HDB season parking rate since MPs do not park overnight or full day at their constituencies. It also added that Non-constituency MPs and Nominated MPs are not given this permit.

For HDB residents, the monthly parking charge is S$80 for surface car parks and S$110 for sheltered ones (that is, S$960 and S$1,320 annually).

Grace Fu explains

Earlier this month, Ms Grace Fu, Leader of the House, wrote to ST in a letter, stating that MPs do pay for their parking at Parliament House after an ST article implied that they don't. But she avoided mentioning the special S$365 HDB carpark fee which the MPs pay.

She said, "Elected MPs who drive pay for an annual permit that allows them to park in Housing Board carparks, in order to do their constituency work."

"This payment, which Parliament deducts from the MPs' allowances, is deemed to cover the occasions when they park at Parliament House to fulfil their duties," she added.

Police helps 'chope' HDB parking lot

Not only do MPs get a special HDB carpark rate of S$365 per year when doing their constituency work, it appears that they, especially those political office holders like Ms Fu herself, also have policemen helping to "reserve" HDB parking lots for them, before they arrive at the HDB estates to do "constituency work".

About one and a half years ago, Ms Fu was caught on camera by a netizen, showing that she had parked her Mercedes at a season parking lot.

It was reported that the netizen who took the photos was at the HDB car park waiting for his wife when he saw a man standing at a red season parking lot 'choping' the slot. The netizen went up to the man, who then identified himself as a policeman. Amazingly, the policeman explained that he was reserving the red colored parking lot for a "VIP".

The netizen later moved back to his car to continue waiting for his wife. When the VIP arrived to park the Mercedes at the lot reserved by the policeman, it turned out that the VIP was Ms Fu.

At the time, the public didn't know that MPs are given this special S$365 per year HDB parking permit and was angry that Ms Fu was parking at a season parking lot meant for residents. But now that the news of an MP only needs to pay S$365 for an annual HDB parking permit, she, like other MPs, would be entitled to park at the HDB season lots too.

Teachers to pay for parking at school premises

Meanwhile, teachers at all national schools and junior colleges will have to start paying from 1 Aug, when they park their vehicles on the school premises to work.

To park in uncovered lots, teachers will have to pay for $75 a month during the school term and $15 a month during the school holidays in June, November and December. While, those who wish to park in sheltered lots, have to pay for $100 a month during the school term and $20 a month during school holidays.

The implementation of the parking fees for the teachers at schools, sparked an outcry from the members of the public, asking whether is there a need to charge parking to teachers for carpark lots which would not be used by the public.

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...d-help-hyflux/





SP Group’s announcement of increase in electricity tariffs should help Hyflux

Published on 2018-06-30 by Correspondent


Yesterday (29 Jun), SP Group announced that electricity tariffs will increase by an average of 6.9 per cent or 1.50 cents per kWh from Jul 1 to Sep 30 this year, compared to the previous quarter.

"The increase is mainly due to the higher cost of natural gas for electricity generation compared to the previous quarter," SP Group said.

For households, the electricity tariff will increase from 22.15 to 23.65 cents per kWh.

The announcement of SP Group has come at an opportune time for the beleaguered Hyflux, which has recently obtained a court protection from its creditors.

In a public statement last month, Hyflux Chairman and Group CEO Olivia Lum blamed the depressed electricity prices in Singapore for her company's woes.

Tuaspring dragging Hyflux's net profit down

In particular, Tuaspring, an integrated water and power plant, has been dragging Hyflux's net profit down. Hyflux posted its first ever annual loss last year since listing, and continued losing into the first quarter of this year. It reported a net loss of S$22.2 million in the three months ended March 31, with net debt surged to 165 times EBITDA earnings from about 32 times at the end of last year.

Ms Lum, who was hailed from Malaysia said, "One of our landmark projects is Tuaspring, the first Integrated Water and Power Project in Asia, which is an important track record to boost the group's solution offering to its municipal clients."

"This innovative project which contributes significantly to our nation's water security, has, in recent years, not escaped the impact of depressed electricity prices in Singapore," she added.

"As a result, 2017 marked the first full year of losses in our operating history. Although improvements in wholesale electricity prices have reduced losses in the last few months, a sharper rebound in prices is necessary to restore the group to its previous levels of profitability."

She said that operating in a capital-intensive industry, Hyflux has always tried to divest their completed projects in order to recycle capital into new investments. However, plans to divest Tuaspring and another project in China "have taken longer given the prevailing market".

"This has added stress to the business," she acknowledged.

Now that SP Group has announced an increase in electricity tariffs for the next quarter, it should spell good news for Ms Lum.

Assuming that the electricity tariffs will continue to "rebound" sharply in prices in the coming quarters, Hyflux should surely be restored to its "previous levels of profitability" and Ms Lum would be smiling again.

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by nitecrawllerr

I have this question. Msia had been charging Spore 3 sens till today. How come lightning keep increasing our water bills? Poor sillyporeans. Ka ki ciak kaki lang!

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-lim-guan-eng/





Malaysia had just avoided “financial Armageddon” after GE14: Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng

Published on 2018-06-27 by The Online Citizen


In an interview with The Malaysian Insight published on Jun 22, Finance Minister of Malaysia, Lim Guan Eng said that the nation “had just avoided financial Armageddon” through the timely change of government in the 14th General Election on May 9.

Lim was quoted as saying that had Barisan Nasional managed to stay in power under the leadership of former Prime Minister Najib Razak for even one more term, Malaysia’s debt could have risen to RM3 trillion, an amount that would have been beyond the government’s capacity to repay.

“Look at the way the money was spent? Look at the bags of cash, jewellery, super yachts,” Lim told The Malaysian Insight, justifying his prediction of the RM3 trillion debt.

In a press conference in Putrajaya on May 22, Lim announced that Malaysia’s debt has surpassed RM1 trillion.

This is in stark contrast to the figure of RM686.8 billion given by the former Barisan Nasional administration.

Lim had reportedly said that the RM1 trillion debt as of Dec 31 last year included RM686.8 billion in Federal government debt, plus RM199.1 billion of government guarantees to be paid on behalf of entities that were unable to service their debts, including RM42.2 billion for Danainfra Nasional Bhd, RM26.6 billion for Prasarana Malaysia Bhd, and 38 billion ringgit for 1MDB.

The RM1 trillion figure also includes various leases for private and public projects such as school construction, police station, road-works and others amounting to RM201.4 billion.

There were also several “mini-1MDBs” where the government is paying the debts of companies that it guaranteed, he said. These debts amount to between RM500 million and RM1 billion.

“Some of these companies had no financial resources any more, so all the expenses were taken over by the government or the government has to pay for loans that these companies took out,’ according to Lim.

The Pakatan Harapan government has also decided to halt large-scale infrastructure projects, including a high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, as a means to reduce government expenditure in the meantime.

In response to the Finance Minister’s statement in his interview with The Malaysian Insight, a netizen under the pseudonym of Ckone J commented:

“If BN won GE14, Malaysia would have a similar fate to Venezuela which coincidentally also had sham election right after Malaysia GE14. The only difference was that the ruling party won again. Maduro used all kinds of dirty tactics including barring key opposition figures from contesting. The ruling party had spent frivolously immediately after Chavez's win in 1999. As a result, the country became saddled with huge debts and began defaulting on its obligations when oil price tanked in 2014. The country is a huge mess right now: people had to queue for hours just to buy toilet paper, the currency became almost worthless, there is no basic medicine, prices of everyday goods went up 5000+% annually for years due to hyperinflation, social order has broken down completely with rampant crime and people are leaving in droves. This is an example of what could happen if BN had won again. A Malaysia totally destroyed and Malaysians forced to migrate overseas to make a living. Malaysia would become a failed state where the rule of law no longer applies. […] Let this be a reminder for all Malaysians of the independence of free and fair elections and the separation of powers between all branches of government. The next time a Najib or Maduro type of politician appearing in Malaysia, [he] would likely be much more smarter and cunning, having learnt the lesson of GE14 and therefore be much harder to remove. The changes made to ensure our democratic systems are robust must be enshrined in the Constitution […] This is crucial!”

Julia Yeow, in her think-piece for The Malaysian Insight, “The view from across the Causeway”, dated Jun 25, echoes the Finance Minister’s sentiments about the possible consequences of the re-election of the previous Barisan Nasional administration:

“Just months before the 14th general election, Singapore’s ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan said in an interview that he “should certainly hope Barisan Nasional and Prime Minister Najib (Razak) are returned” to power, but conceded the election results were “not my business”.

Mr Bilahari, who is policy adviser to Singapore’s ministry of foreign affairs, said while Singapore was ready to work with whoever takes charge of Malaysia, “it would "be easier to deal with some kinds of government”.

I’ll not try to make any inference as to why Mr Bilahari would think that a corrupt, kleptocratic government would be easier to deal with, but the fact is that while Najib might have been good for Singapore, his re-election would have guaranteed many more years of a Malaysia mired in racial politicking and unconstrained corruption.

[…]

In less than two months, we have already sought to trim down the excesses of the previous government, reviewed lopsided domestic monopolies and foreign deals, and reopened investigations into major financial scandals that have handicapped our country for years.

It will be many years before Malaysia can recover from the crippling effects of wastage, corruption and inefficiency, but make no mistake that we will.”

Nation fund-raising effort on reducing debt

Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced the setting up of Tabung Harapan Malaysia (THM) on 30 May as a legitimate channel through which Malaysians could contribute voluntarily towards reducing the country’s debts, according to The Star Online.

Economist and Chairman of Centre for Public Policy Studies, Ramon Navaratnam was quoted by MalaysiaGazette in response to THM as saying that “the country is not bankrupt yet,” and that national debt is the government’s responsibility, and it should not be extended to the people.

However, RHB Research Institute Sdn Bhd Chief Asean Economist Peck Boon Soon remarked, in a statement to Bernama on Jun 16, that Malaysia is not the first country to have a national crowd-funding initiative to alleviate the nation’s debt, as South Korea had initiated a similar campaign during the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and 1998.

Collections for Tabung Harapan Malaysia (THM) have since surpassed the RM100mil mark, less than a month since it was launched.

A total of RM108.2 million has been collected as of 3pm on Jun 25, according to New Straits Times Online.

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...oreigners-are/





Singaporeans not permitted dual nationality but foreigners are

Published on 2018-06-27 by Ghui

I note that Briton, Sir Andrew Witty was made an honourary citizen* of Singapore for his contributions to the pharmaceutical industry. While I am glad that individuals regardless of their race or nationality are being honoured for their contributions, I wonder if that is fair to Singaporeans who are not permitted to hold dual nationality?

Witty has been conferred this special status after having only spent 4 years in Singapore (1999-2003). While he may well have contributed significantly to Singapore, is it just that Singaporeans by birth don't get a similar right if the roles were reversed?

For example, if a Singaporean living in Britain were to be conferred honourary British citizenship, he or she would have to give up their Singaporean citizenship just to accept this honour.

If Singapore does not permit its citizens to hold dual nationality, it should not be conveying this right on the citizen of another country. After all, if the recipient of such an award accepts the honour, he or she would become Singaporean which would in turn mean that the laws of Singapore would apply.

In other words, he or she should have to renounce their other citizenship to accept Singapore citizenship, It doesn't seem equitable that Singaporeans have to renounce their Singaporean citizenship in order to be citizen of another country while a foreigner does not have to do so.

If Singapore wants to give out this award, it should then permit its citizens the right to hold dual nationality as well.

The issue of dual nationality has been raised a number of times and I understand from reports that Singapore is worried that permitting dual nationality would affect a Singaporean's sense of belonging. I strongly disagree.

By forcing Singaporeans to choose, you are in effect alienating them. In our globalised world, the issue of dual nationality really shouldn't be that controversial. If Singapore wants to be known as a first world country, it needs to give its citizens the same trappings as other first world citizens. The right to hold 2 passports would be among those rights.

While I congratulate Witty on his award, it rankles that we are not all treated fairly. Surely if someone who has only spent 4 years in the country can have the privilege of dual nationality then this right should similarly be accorded to all Singaporeans should they qualify for citizenship in another country.

*Honorary Citizen is the highest form of national recognition for a non-Singaporean. It is conferred for life, including the right to live and work in Singapore for themselves as well as their immediate dependent family members, but unlike Singapore citizenship, they have no voting rights or obligations to fulfill National Service.

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...fake-news-act/




Malaysia promises to repeal current Anti-Fake News Act

Published on 2018-06-29 by Neyla Zannia

The controversial Anti-Fake News Act 2018 (AFN Act) of Malaysia is set to be repealed in its first Parliament sitting after its 14th General Election on 16 July.

This is according to a letter dated June 11 by Amran Mohamed Zin, the ambassador and permanent representative of Malaysia to the United Nations office and other international organisations in Geneva.

Mr Amran wrote the letter in reply to David Kaye, the UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, who raised his concern on 3 April this year.

The ambassador wrote, "I wish to inform you that the new government of Malaysia has decided to repeal the Anti-Fake News (AFN) Act. The process to do so has already begun, and a specific proposal is expected to be tabled during the upcoming parliamentary session beginning on 16 July."

Kaye wrote to Putrajaya urging them to reject the legislation process just one day after the Dewan Rakyat passed the AFN Act, saying that the legislation did not appear to comply with the international human rights standards on freedom of expression.

The new ruling party Pakatan Harapan had earlier pledged to revoke the AFN Act in its first 100 days of taking over Putrajaya.

DAP Iskandar Puteri MP Lim Kit Siang had proposed that the media help draft a new anti-fake news law after the current one is repealed, adding that the decision was taken after some editors in the UK had agreed with the anti-fake news law.

As Malaysia sets out to repeal the highly controversial legislation passed by the Najib administration, Singapore is setting out to formulate and pass its own law to combat "fake news" which is said to be in the coming year.

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-2-weeks-jail/





Former Chief Engineer Officer COL Kek still has SMRT job waiting for him after 2 weeks’ jail

Published on 2018-06-29 by Correspondent


It was reported in the news yesterday (28 Jun) that SMRT Trains chief operations officer COL (NS) Alvin Kek Yoke Boon has been sentenced to two weeks' jail and a fine of $4,000 for drink driving, two months after he was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint.

COL Kek came from SAF. In 2009, as the Deputy Assistant Chief of the General Staff (Operations Planning), he won a Public Administration Medal (Bronze) for his superior performance in his work. He was later promoted to become the Chief Engineer Officer of SAF and in 2011, he was also awarded the State Medal for his 25 years of service in the SAF.

After LG Desmond Kuek took over from Saw Phaik Hwa as SMRT chief in 2012, he brought in many former SAF men such as Lee Ling Wee, a former Air Force regular who was appointed as SMRT Trains CEO, and COL Kek who became the Director of Train Operations. But Kuek and his team seemed unable to resolve the perennial issue of train service breakdowns.

At the time when COL Kek left the SAF for SMRT, SAF paid tributes to him, "Under his (Kek's) leadership, the Engineer Formation achieved and operationalised many new capabilities and platforms such as the Leopard 2 Armoured Vehicle-Launched Bridge and Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat, and successfully organised the National Day Parade in 2011."

COL Kek: I drink because my dad recently passed away

During the court hearing, it was revealed that COL Kek was having drinks with his colleagues at the Temasek Club at Rifle Range Road at about 11pm on April 20. Temasek Club is the SAF Officers’ Club for both active and retired SAF officers. Its purpose is to promote "greater cohesion and interaction among the Officers".

In his defence, COL Kek said he drank because his father had recently passed away.

He left Temasek Club at about 2.30am and drove in the direction of Woodlands, ending up at Woodlands Checkpoint at 2.55am on April 21.
He told an Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officer there that he had entered the checkpoint by mistake and had no intention of leaving Singapore.

The ICA officer suspected that he had been drinking as he "reeked of alcohol" and instructed him to alight from the car before escorting him to an office for a breath test. He was found to have 65 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, nearly double the limit of 35 micrograms, and was arrested on the spot accordingly.

However, this was not the first time he was caught drink-driving. In court, it was revealed that he had previously been convicted of another drink driving offence in 2004 while he was still serving in the SAF. Furthermore, he also had several other driving-related offences, including using his mobile phone while driving in 2015 and failing to conform to a red-light signal in 1999.

In a statement to the media, COL Kek said, "I deeply regret the incident and would like to assure everyone that I will not drink and drive again."

Suspension from work

When asked by the media about his employment status, SMRT's vice-president of corporate communications Margaret Teo would only say, "Alvin has been suspended from work."

So, technically, suspension from work means COL Kek will still have his SMRT job back when he is released from jail later. In this regard, COL Kek is considred lucky to still have a high-paying job waiting for him despite his conviction and upon his release from prison.

Blogger Roy Ngerng, sued by PM Lee, was not so lucky. Back in 2014, Roy was sacked by Tan Tock Seng Hospital for "conduct incompatible with the values and standards" of the hospital and for "misusing hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits".

The hospital issued a public statement at the time, "TTSH has terminated its contract with Mr Roy Ngerng with immediate effect because of conduct incompatible with the values and standards expected of employees, and for misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits."

Since COL Kek was not sacked like Roy, one can only assume that SMRT must have condoned his drink-driving conduct. It's not known if SMRT would likewise allow its train drivers to drink and drive while driving trains in SMRT.

What do you think?

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...arpark-permit/





Barrage of angry comments posted in response to Singapore MPs’ $365 annual carpark permit

Published on 2018-06-27 by Neyla Zannia



It was revealed on Monday that Elected Members of Parliament (MPs) pay S$365 for an annual permit that allows them to park at Housing & Development Board (HDB) car parks when doing constituency work and at Parliament House when on official business.

This is according to the Ministry of National Development (MND) who noted that the rate is a proportion of the prevailing HDB season parking rate since MPs do not park overnight or full day at their constituencies, adding that the permit fee was increased from S$260 in 2016.

In response to this revelation, many online readers took to the comment section and expressed their disagreement regarding the policy.

Some of our readers commented on our Facebook page.

Clarkson Lim wrote, "Citizens should also be allowed to buy an annual HDB season parking for a year at $365 irregardless of estate. Why so special? This country will still be running with or without you guys. Don't you guys realise this FACT?!? You guys are the servants of the people, you are paid by the people. You are not above the law. Everyone should be able to have this too. Why the double standard again?!?"

Goh Rayson wrote, "Teachers don't park overnight too. Ownself-checkmate-ownself! If MPs cannot afford to pay for parking while discharging their duties, don't drive! There's always Ofo and Mobike even though Obike has ceased operations."

Tan Elvin wrote, "Using taxpayers money for their own privilege and some more cover up until someone dig it up. I think there are many more things cover up that are not known to the citizens. Very dirty government."

Meyer Tan wrote, 'Goes to show they are unaware how much normal citizens are paying per annum for their season parking at their car park, let alone how much more parking charges a normal citizens are paying in public car parks, to justify their bragging about MPs are also fairly paying for $365/annum for all/any public car parks on this island."

Melvin Tong wrote, "Give all civil servant Singaporeans a choice to buy this $365 at all HDB parking rates la. You MP being civil servant, why different treatment? Where is your self discipline?!"

Dilys Tan wrote, "It’s $1 per day rate vs $3 per day rate for the public. They are being paid $$$$$ to do their constituency work, so why is there a need to give them concession parking rates ? Double standard, still dare to defence, disgracefoo. They are just “elected officials” paid to carry out their duties, they are not “gods” or “emperors”! Self-entitlement & self-important. Not happy just resign."

Thephilus Tan-Hen Wei wrote, "Earn more than $10,000, but only pay $365 per year for all kind of carparks. I earn $2,000 a month and have to pay $1080 per year only for open carpark.
So I conclude that I am more rich and generous in a poor way. Thanks them for creating this environment that make us look like a kuku."

Muhammad Fadli wrote, "We should also have such package. Some/most of us worked from morning till night. Practically, that's not even a full day parking."

Peter Yow wrote, "They get elected & then becomes the master?? When the real pay master is the citizens!!! Does that make any simple sense???!!!"

Walter Gan wrote, "So most of my time I don't park full-day at my HDB block. They should not charged full season rate as it becomes double standard since these MP only use min hours. So why should residents be paying full season rates."

Heli Hob Poh wrote, "What is new? They have all the hidden privileges and we are all open to pay till pants drop!"

Tomy Tan wrote, "Teachers and those affected, vote wisely at next GE."

Angeline Lee wrote, "MPs get a discount for parking when doing constituency work. All the volunteers “eat 西北风”?"

The netizens also went to comment on Channel NewsAsia's Facebook page.

Sui Jin wrote, "Teachers also don't work overnight. What are these policy makers thinking?"

Dawn Choi wrote, "Ermmm... Excuse me, I also do not park overnight and full day at my workplace, why I pay $1320 and not $365 annually, huh?"

Christina Loke wrote, "Why MP pay so little and their salary so super high?"

Reddot Ng wrote, "Our government is getting greedier by the days."

Fei Chen wrote, "People also do not park their cars in HDB car parks all day long. In addition, they have to pay additional parking fees when they park their cars in another HDB car park.
What a nonsense excuse. In fact, what is the need for this explanation which draws negative views from public."

Lin Weixiong wrote, "I don't always stay at home too, can have 70% discount for my flat?"

Victor Lee wrote, "What rubbish they saying. I pay for two season parking when I got one car only. Just to visit parents. I don't stay overnight also what. Rubbish excuses."

Darryl Kang wrote, "$365 per year. That's $1 per day for unlimited parking at HDB carpark (excluding overnight). Where do you find such good rates? So can teachers apply for such parking arrangement too?"

Georgina Lee wrote, "So Teachers park full day and overnight at their school's carpark?!"

Tony Teng wrote, "Why can’t MPs use the parking coupons like everyone else. What’s so special about their cars, do their cars occupy less space?"

Adrian Adrian wrote, "It’s a mere small amount of money for these MPs to pay, instead of raising so much unnecessary awareness towards unfair policy. Just pay the full amount like normal people and continue with your life. Is that too much to be asking for? Sometime it’s not we looking for trouble, instead it’s you that is creating access for us to find trouble. Genius!"

Wen Kai wrote, "Doing MPS & going to Parliament House is their job! We go to work, park in our office tower carpark also need to pay full fee. We also don’t stay overnight also."

Teo Rodney BK wrote, "Which driver actually park full time even they pay full price for it?? Teacher? Office workers? This excuse is totally flawed. Those paying full price should voice their protests. Part time MP, half price parking and full time pay. Chiak liao liao, chiak gao gao."

Dylan Poh wrote, "AGO don't dare to challenge MND? AGO, please wake up your idea! You want to eliminate hidden subsidies, please do so across the board."

And here what some of them wrote on The Straits Times' Facebook page.

Leonard Low wrote, "We pay $90 per month $1080 a year for season parking which we only use at night after a hard days work. We should also be allowed to park at any HDB by paying this amount as flat fee. If we can pay what is it to million dollar salary people."

Bernard Low wrote, "When come to salary allowance in Singapore, our MP has to be paid market rate in order to match market. But when they buy parking, they enjoy the way below market rate and no market price can match. Do not know what logic is this."

Say Thye Ng wrote, "Perhaps Teachers can pay $1 per day for parking in school, since they don’t park their cars in school the whole day and they don’t park overnight either. Most Teachers also don’t park their cars in school on most Sunday and public holidays and school holidays."

Priscilla Chin wrote, "MP should pay market rate if they need to park their car. We are paying them market rate for their salary."

Siah Jin Kim wrote, "Other vehicles also don't park overnight at their workplaces. What kind of reasoning is this?"

Eric Lee wrote, "If MP pay is "market rate" then please pay the same parking rate as Singaporean. The same logic that apply to teacher quoted by minister should be apply to MP."

Vince Koh wrote, "Now some Government workers who earn a fraction of what the MP are earning are paying. $110 season parking + $90 Workplace = $2400/year. Some even need to pay for 50% season at parent place $55/monthly Cannot believe the scholars came out with this explanation and expect us to digest it."

Harbhajn Singh wrote, "By that logic, any delivery van or lorry should be entitled to the same consideration. They go all over the island but do not park all day or night. Shame."

Bar Boo wrote, "What kind of logic is this? I am paying open car park HDB at S$960 per year (S$80 per month) and can only park at one miserable carpark at my place. This Government is just not working."

Rash Rasheed wrote, "Since it is not a whole day parking, charged hourly. Isn’t it this is what citizen are charged? Car parks are not specially provided for you. School compound are not for public yet teacher have to pay for it. Talking of clean wage. Be fair! Don’t prata here and there to suit ownself."

John Han wrote, "What a joke seriously. Even Sundays, parking also not free now, there are no shopping malls around. Everything also money. I don’t park my car whole day too. So why am I being charged $110 monthly?
And MPs pay only $365 per year?!"

Steven Goh Robo wrote, "While its good to come clean and clear, but sometime, I wonder do they ever consider the consequences of making such report or announcement? Wouldn't they realise such matter will definitely draw flakes and negative sentiments from almost every sectors? Justification? Just because they don't park there the whole day?! Seriously? Who would buy a car or vehicle then park at car park 24/7? Not even the OPCs does that. They should have thought of a better justification than this."

Carol Tay wrote, "The more they attempt to justify themselves, the worse they make themselves look. What happened to the social inequality that 4G is trying to address? They receive special treatment because they are MPs. Just admit it. Period."

Bernard Wee wrote, "I also do not park all day or overnight for my routine works and to visit my parent over weekends. Can I enjoy the same rate too?"

Jimmy Tang wrote, "To justify, they can always come up with millions of excuses . Take the expensive rubbish chute for example. Kbkb so much for what. I say when the time comes, just do what you think is right lor."

Zhang Huixuan wrote, "The newspaper seriously not shy to publish this kind of news? Make teachers pay market rate for parking in schools then tell us MPs pay only $1 each day when they are earning millions. Which is tax paper money by the way. Really not pain when they slap themselves on the face?"

Sheliyan Shativelu wrote, "Personally i wish election can call as soon as possible so that we can have someone with a heart and brain to serve the nation. Really tired of PAP and their excuses. Wanna see how these so called highly educated and great souls fair in theprivate sector. Hmmm. Wonder which private sector grab our exceptionally talented George Yeo with the multi million dollar salary intact?"

Phillip Lim wrote, "Collected $16K per month in allowance which is to compensate them for expenses like these.
But ended up got a better deal by paying only $365 per year."

Goh Beng wrote, "They earn a gargantuan pay check and yet they pay only $1 for parking everyday and have access not only to parliament but also HDB estate. What is self discipline cited?"

Seetoh CF wrote, "Teachers also don’t park overnight. Sometimes only half a day. The government is digging themselves into a bigger hole with the clean wage policy."

Fan Teoh Hung Martin wrote, "Does it means they don't park elsewhere? Where did they pay parking? Unless their car is at home and they take public transport. They want to 算够够, we also 算够够. They don't understand the concept of give and take. You make eveything rigid things can't move. Things have to flow like water in the river. Anyway all these idiots will not understand."

Tony Chan wrote, "Those school teachers/poly/ite also never park full day. Why charge full? Family season ticket also never park whole day. Why charge full? I also never park whole day, also pay full."

Lee Philip wrote, "Don't make sense. There is such thing as hourly parking. I don't park whole day and I pay by hourly parking in all HDB car parks. No exception please."

Bar Boo wrote, "National Development Agency - NONSENSE remarks - "don't park all day or overnight". The fact remains they can chose topark all day or overnight if they chose to. Just look at all the great HDB parking places in Singapore (covered or open). They have so much flexibility for $365 per year while I have ZERO flexibility and I pay $960.00 per year. Don't make us even more upset with your nonsense comments. You identify yourself and bring this up for debate. Even RC members have the privilege of parking in any car park in their neighborhood. This is why my neighbor (RC member) drive to the market just opposite our block because no need to carry groceries "from so far away" since she is entitled to park there. She even encouraged me to join the RC. I see red with this huge gap ($365 versus my $960)."

Aaron Ong wrote, "Wah I park at Hdb go watch movie also not full day sia. Plus I contribute more to the economy by spending money. Why I no $1 parking sia."

Teh Hong Low wrote, "People doing sales run around and never park for long in the same place. They should be entitled to the same fee, paying $365 a year for parking."

Leonard Hew wrote, "I'm already paying S$900 yearly just to park at my HDB car park and it's only limited to the car park at my house. If we go other car park we pay additional and if never put coupon kena summon. I go other ministries if needed also need to pay. This is total rubbish. Earning so much more than common people, but many times lesser than common people. Now even teachers in school pay more than any of the ministers do. What makes them so different!? What rubbish is this?"

Ah JeCK wrote, "I wonder if anyone park his car at HDB whole day everyday? Like that why buy car?"

Here is what some of them wrote on Mothership.

Michael Tok wrote, "MND said in its statement: “The rate is a proportion of the prevailing HDB season parking rate since MPs do not park overnight or full day at their constituencies.”
More realistically it's actually saying that the MPs don't really spend a lot of time at their constituencies so why ask them pay so much?"

Muhd Haikal wrote, "Those 70% better do not kaopeh. U vote for 70% then you deserve. So better vote wisely for the next GE."

Daniel Sim wrote, "When the Government imposed carpark charges for teachers, I commented that it will open cans of worms; let the worms start to come out!"

Lee Lai Lai Amy wrote, "I can’t help feeling that these politicians are here to have privileges instead of helping the people! The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer!"

Jovan Neo wrote, "And Teachers are paying $720 annually to park in schools? Pretty ridiculous."

Michael See wrote, "Wayang too much. Now deep rooted into the policy making. All worms start crawling. My goodness with the money you people make still do calculating over HDB parking.
What about people who struggle to make ends meet but yet have to paid normal rate. Isn't it the same one car can occupied one lot why we cannot park at all carpark w one season ticket?? So in Singlish, what talk you about inclusive society?"

Lynn Yining wrote, "Remember the viral comment by one of the MP's kid? "Get out of my elite uncaring face"? Well, that's how it is. Everyone can make noise but doubt there will be any change."

David Lee wrote, "IRAs keeps quiet on discounted car park to MPs huh. If the rate is not a market rate, a deemed market rate should be used for tax reporting."

Pawana Wind wrote, "Teachers creates future leaders but yet have to pay more. Likewise MP work for people if you analyzed in depth both work for people but yet treated differently."

Vicki Chan wrote, "Elected MPs also have the biggest salaries so they can afford to pay more instead of enjoying the "perks". With they salaries they can afford to pay 100 dollars a day at the carpark and not feel any pinch."

JoAnne Lee wrote, "Earn so much still so cheap carpark for them. Shouldn't it be the other way round? They pay more for parking and we get $1/day parking?"

Boon Kean wrote, "Can we extend this to our teachers? I rather to see teachers get this privilege cause I see more of teachers than MPs."

Edwin Kwan wrote, "But part time CCA Instructors at schools pay full or proportionate ? What about CCC, RC members ?"

Winson Tan wrote, "Singaporeans have always know that PAP elites enjoy extra benefits besides high pay. And this has proven to be true."

Cedric Hoon wrote, "The MPs can afford to pay normal rate. Though not comparing the same thing. Parking concession to be given to teacher instead. MPs should have the integrity to opt out and voluntarily pay the norm rate. Collect these excess money and give to the needy community. My worthless opinion."

Yap Kw Steve wrote, "Are the private cars of MPs considered as Public service vehicles? Why are they accorded this privilege?"

Matthew Chua wrote, "Earning so much of an obscene amount and yet pay less than ordinary citizens. What kind of leadership is this?"

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/chris.kuan....45304398992983



Chris Kuan
1 July at 02:34 ·


Edwin Tong saying that he has "seen experiences of the Western countries where the more you give, the more one asks and I think that’s really the start of the erosion of the work ethic that Singaporeans have."

One assumes that Western workers are all lazy, incorrigible scroungers and western countries have lousy work ethic. Then how come so many of them have higher productivity and are more innovative?

The truth of the matter is there will always be scroungers, cheats and lazy buggers, and it is way off the mark to insinuate in the defence of party ideology that the entire population or for that the matter all the poor and the unemployed are scroungers, cheats and lazy buggers.

One scrounger, cheat or lazy bum, then everyone must be so and the country's work ethic must go down the drain. Everyone must be punished.

That is the problem when the establishment speaks about inequality and poverty. They are condescending, patronizing and took too easily to extremely flawed narratives and examples to exaggerate the negativities of welfare and back their preferred approach - one that go after the few scroungers, cheats and lazy bums at the cost of denial of welfare and transfers for the vast majority.

The govie might not wish to go down that mythical slippery slope but that does not mean the poor, low income and unemployed are themselves not forced by circumstances and the govie;s approach to welfare to go down their own slippery slope.

We are meant to have a discussion about inequality and the social divide, or so we are told by the govie. But let's quit these deeply flawed narratives and irrelevant examples.