3 big lies about national reserves

October 17, 2022

Reference:

Prolific skins

THREE BIG LIES ABOUT THE NATIONAL RESERVES THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT

3 Aug 2022

https://www.prolificskins.com/forum/current-affairs/three-big-lies-about-the-national-reserves-that-you-should-know-about

  • S$108b from net increase in securities issued (issuance less redemptions)
  • S$75b new RMGS issued (for MAS forex reserves transferred to GIC)
  • S$13b from sales of land

Reservist duties for new citizens in their 30s and 40s is only fair

October 16, 2022

Reference:
CNA
Many new citizens enlist for NS every year, Leong Mun Wai’s claims inaccurate and misleading: Ng Eng Hen
2 Aug 2022
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/new-singapore-citizens-enlist-national-service-ns-ng-eng-hen-leong-mun-wai-ministerial-statement-2852251

Mr Ng Eng Hen reportedly said:

“if a foreigner comes to Singapore and becomes a citizen as a mature adult, typically in his 30s or 40s, we exempt him from National Service because he did not enjoy any socio-economic benefits like young Singaporeans and also because he would be too old to enlist for full-time National Service,”

Mr Ng should note that whatever socio-economic benefits enjoyed by young male Singaporeans are more than paid for by two years of National Service during which they receive only a fraction of the market rate compensation for the military services they provide.

Hence by the time these young male Singaporeans reach their 30s and 40s, there should no longer be any such socio-economic debt to compel their continued service as reservist soldiers. Hence if new citizens in their 30s and 40s don’t have to perform reservist soldier duties, it is only fair that Singaporean males in their 30s and 40s should not be compelled to perform reservist soldier duties as well.

If Singaporeans in their 30s and 40s are not too old to perform reservist duties, then new citizens in their 30s and 40s should also not be too old to perform reservist duties that they can perform. They can be tasked to do guard duties in the field or admin duties in the headquarters. They can also be asked to handle store.

Singaporeans are the key to global Singapore companies

October 16, 2022

Reference:
Straits Times
S’pore has to respond to global transitions, seize opportunities: Chan Chun Sing
1 Aug 2022
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/spore-has-to-respond-to-global-transitions-seize-opportunities-chan-chun-sing

Mr Chan reportedly said:

“a yardstick of success should also not be how many jobs are created here for Singaporeans, but how many global companies Singapore can create and how much global talent it has access to.”

When it comes to creating global companies, Mr Chan should take a leaf from the Americans, Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese that collectively account for most of the world’s global companies.

A strong culture of job protection for its own people runs across all these global company champions. These global company champions demonstrate that job protection for its own people doesn’t go against producing global companies. Global Samsung, global Toyota, global Mercedez are run by their indigenous people. They are not run by global talent.

Apart from tech companies, US companies are invariably run by indigenous people too. Even though many US tech companies are now run by global talent (mainly Indian), they were not created and did not become global through global talent. Microsoft, Amazon and Google * were created by indigenous people, not global talent.

If Mr Chan really wishes to have more Singapore global companies, he needs to support Singaporeans first and foremost.

* Sergei Brin of Google migrated to US when he was still in elementary school. So he more or less had an American upbringing

Bad Sports Hub deal

October 16, 2022

Reference:
Straits Times
$2.3b cost of ending Sports Hub public-private tie-up represented ‘fair deal’ for Govt: Edwin Tong
1 Aug 2022
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/costs-of-terminating-sports-hub-ppp-represented-fair-deal-for-government-says-edwin-tong

Mr Tong claimed that the termination fee of about $1.5 billion for the Sportshub public private partnership is comparable to the $1.2 billion that the Government would have had to bear to build it plus $0.3 billion open market value for the Sports Hub

If the government had spent $1.2 billion in the first place to build the Sports Hub, it would have owned the Sports Hub already, why would it have to pay an extra $0.3 billion for the Sportshub’s open market value?

It seems therefore that the $1.5 billion termination fee is marked up by $0.3 billion over the $1.2 billion cost of the Sportshub.

Mr Tong said that after taking back the Sportshub, the annual running cost amounts to $68 million. But he also said that under the original public private partnership, SportSG would have had to pay SHPL $193.7 million yearly from 2014 to 2035.

Why did the government negotiate a $193.7 million a year deal with SHPL when it could have operated the premises by itself for just $68 million a year which is a whopping 65% discount?

NB:

In the original agrement: sum of 12 future annual payments of $193.7 million from 2023 to 2035 = 12 * $193.7 million = $2.32 billion

After termination of agreement: sum of 12 future payments of $68 million from 2023 to 2035 = 12 * $68 million = $816 million which is fairly close to the $800 million figure quoted by Mr Tong

Mr Tong rounded down the figure after termination but did not round down the figure in the original agreement

Yeo is wrong, China is not a democracy

August 8, 2022

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1226255.shtml

Yeo: People are surprised that the PAP has been able to govern Singapore through election after election, staying in power and looking after the welfare of Singaporeans. It is not a communist party, it’s a democratic party, but its organizational structure has Leninist roots

Reply: It is not so much PAP looking after the welfare of Singaporeans but PAP riding on the backs of Singaporeans and accumulating more than its fair share of wealth.

PAP’s so called Leninist roots were all but rooted out very early on when the Leftists left to form Barisan Socialis. PAP’s DNA had been through and through capitalist pretty much from the start because even at PAP’s founding, the Leftists never called the shots.

You wonder where Yeo finds the cheek to claim Leninist roots when the PAP went into overdrive to wipe out the Leftists without trial.

Yeo: My view of democracy goes back to the essence of democracy, to the Greek origin of what democracy is – which is the people as master. Abraham Lincoln talked about government of the people, by the people, for the people. By this definition, China is a democracy.

Reply: It was reported today (15 Aug 2022) that Shanghai shoppers at Ikea were forcefully locked down in Ikea itself. The Chinese people were cheated of their bank savings and prevented from withdrawing their money by CCP tanks. Earlier on, Shanghai people were house arrested by CCP and prevented from buying groceries leading many to starve to near death. The collectivisation of farms by the CCP during the Cultural Revolution led to the death of 30 million Chinese people by starvation. These are all clear evidences that the Chinese people are at the mercy of the CCP and are by no means masters of their own country.

So going by Yeo’s Greek definition, China is not a democracy. The people are not at the apex of the Chinese society, the CCP is.

Yeo: China’s philosophy about the moral basis of centralized governance goes back to Confucius and Laozi. How to govern is always at the center of Chinese philosophical thought. China will find its own way toward achieving the democratic idea.

Reply: The essence of Laozi’s teachings is to let nature take its course. This is diametrically opposite to the CCP way of forcing its will onto the people with policies like the Great Leap Forward, the forceful lockdown of big cities, the use of tanks to crush people who just want to get back their life savings.

The essence of Confucius’ teachings is courtesy and politeness. The forceful lockdown of cities, the use of tanks on the people, the forceful collection of farm produce during the Great Leap Forward are hardly courteous or polite.

Yeo: But the debate of a democracy in the West is not about its essence, but by the way it is implemented. In Western system, voting is very important. The separation of powers, the executive judiciary… these are very important considerations in Western democratic forms.

China’s philosophy about the moral basis of centralized governance goes back to Confucius and Laozi. How to govern is always at the center of Chinese philosophical thought. China will find its own way toward achieving the democratic idea.

Reply: Yeo is wrong to think that the essence of democracy can be easily attained without voting or the separation of powers. It is too easy for a ruler who has no fear of being replaced to degenerate into autocracy. Confucianism and Taoism had never been able to prevent misrule by Chinese Emperors and the fall of Imperial dynasties. Similarly, they will not be able to prevent misrule by CCP or the fall of modern China.

Yeo: The best democracy is the one which is for the people, of the people and by the people, according to its history and culture. Even in Western democracy, there are wide variations. US federal system is not direct democracy. In the UK, you don’t vote for the prime minister, you vote for members of parliament. In Singapore and Australia, there’s compulsory voting. If you have compulsory voting in the US, the politics will change dramatically. So it is not as if there is one Western system. There is a multiplicity of Western systems.

Reply: Regardless of variations, all Western systems have one thing in common – the people have the right to vote out the government. That is the essence of democracy. China’s system doesn’t have this.

Yeo: What is democracy? In the end, we go back to its essence – governance of the people, by the people for the people. We go back beneath the structures and the systems. You can have the best structure and systems. You can still have a democracy controlled by a small group of people who are very wealthy. Or you can be like the Swiss, which is a confederation, where many decisions are taken at the level of the canton through referendums. This is very different from European democracy.

Reply: Governance for the people and by the people is very alien to the Chinese system. The use of tanks on people who merely wanted to withdraw their life savings is for the CCP, not for the people. The soldiers who drove those tanks serve the CCP. They do not serve the people. The people have no control over the CCP.

While the best structure and systems do not guarantee democracy, without them, democracy is simply impossible.

There is no such thing as a democracy controlled by a small group of wealthy people or Yeo would have been able to easily name it.

The Swiss system is the best. In this modern technological age, there is no need for a member of parliament to vote for a policy on our behalf.

Yeo: It is impossible for a US-style democratic system to work for East and Southeast Asian countries.

Reply: There is no need for democratic systems to be 100% US style for them to work well. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have all prospered under democratic systems. They are living proof that democratic systems do work well for East Asian nations.

Yeo: It is very difficult for the rest of us to understand why so many Americans do not want firearms to be banned. How can you have a society where everyone can own a gun? But don’t forget the US was a frontier society until relatively recently and settlers needed guns at the frontier to protect themselves against all kinds of things. This is a part of America history and tradition.

Reply: That frontier culture is no more and the Red Indians have been so decimated they are now the minority of the minorities. So bringing up the frontier history makes no justifications to widespread gun ownership in US. Yes, widespread gun ownership isn’t right for the US. But that itself doesn’t negate the many positives of US democratic system.

Yeo: But Asian societies are very different. If you have the kind of Western debate in Asia, if people lose face, they don’t go out and say let’s have a drink together afterward. No, they will remember and they want to take revenge. Take ASEAN meetings for example, we never vote, we always find consensus. If we can’t agree, we’ll find a way to delay a decision. We will put pressure but never force a vote.  Voting is not a magic solution. Can you imagine if we make decisions by voting in a family? Small things, yes. Big things, we never do that. It will break up the family.

Reply: So many people voiced disagreement over the casino decision, the sudden jack up of water prices by 30%, the manipulation of presidential selection criteria until there was no choice over our president. PAP never delayed any of these decisions despite major disagreements. It is thus hypocritical for Yeo to claim that Asians delay a decision when there is no consensus.

The biggest decision Singaporeans ever had to make was to separate from Malaysia. You don’t get any decision bigger than that and that decision was made on the basis of a vote by all Singaporeans. It did not break up the Singaporean family at all.

Yeo: Even in Japan, which has the trappings of a Western system, the way Japanese democracy operates is very Japanese. It goes back to their own historical traditions. The idea of factions within the LDP is openly recognized and accepted. You have a chief, you follow the chief, you stay loyal to the chief and Japanese democracy continues taking that into account. This is an inheritance from the daimyo system. When a member of parliament retires, the son or daughter takes over. And people accept it.

Reply: That doesn’t change the fact that the son or daughter has to run for elections and win them in order to take over his or her parent’s seat in parliament. It is not as though the son or daughter is automatically given the parliamentary seat. Yeo should not try to pull a fast one. Japan’s political system is still voting based.

Yeo: China is an old civilization with 5,000 years of history. But China as a republic is very young. China only became a republic in 1911. How does China find consensus? In the old days you had the Chaoting (imperial government). But once you become a republic, how do you choose successors

Reply:  You can say the same about the Europeans. Their Hellenistic civilisation is also thousands of years old while young republics like Germany, Italy, Finland abound. Having an old civilisation is no impediment to the implementation of modern voting based democratic systems.

Yeo: We have the Communist Party who represents the entire population.

Reply: Ruling over the people is not the same as representing the people. Are the Myanmese or Thai military junta that rule over their respective nations representatives of their respective peoples? No. These military junta have been voted out election after election but cling on to power by force. Until the Communist Party has been democratically elected by its population, it cannot claim to represent the people.

Yeo: But even within the Communist Party there are millions of members, there are many layers. At the bottom you have elections at the village level. But beyond that, constant discussion and debate about who are better able to lead.

The problem in Chinese society has always been corruption. If corruption exists, whatever system you have, you no longer govern in the interest of common people. President Xi, by reversing the trend of corruption in China, has done Chinese society a very great favor.

This is to me is his single greatest achievement. If China can continue to control corruption, its future will be very bright. 

But if you look at the history of corruption in China, it is a problem because China is a vast country and there are many layers of government. What goes on at the bottom, the central government may not know for a long time until something big happens.

But today there is hope that with data analytics, you may be able to solve the problem of corruption being covered up at the lower levels. Whatever intermediate levels do, the information can still go to the central government directly. The central government cannot monitor every village, every town, every city. China is too big. But you can have computer systems to tell you whether a town or a city is healthy. The data analytics can enable the central government to discover or uncover the problems at the bottom. And local leaders will then be more careful.

Reply: It is always convenient to point fingers at subordinates. That is the hallmark of a politician, not a leader. The biggest problem is always at the top. The Cultural Revolution wasn’t conjured by some low down officials. It was driven from the very top.

Yeo: I would say the most important factor is not the structure or the system. It is the moral quality of the people and their leaders.

Reply: We had a deputy prime minister claiming foul play at the Punggol East elections which turned out to be false. He was never taken to task, the entire PAP accepts this kind of foul play. What moral quality is there?

Long wait at A&E may have cost a life

August 2, 2022

Quite obvious immediate help given may have saved a new life and that the 2 hour wait killed all hopes of that happening

Yet, they are now very certain the foetus died before it arrived at the hospital

How can they be so sure?

Omnipotent law susceptible to abuse

July 31, 2022

Govt policies raised living standards

July 31, 2022

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/clear-evidence-govts-economic-policies-help-raise-living-standards-create-many-good-jobs

Wong claim 1: “PSP’s thinking that jobs taken away from foreigners will go to S’poreans is “fatally flawed”

Reply: The converse is true, Lawrence Wong’s thinking that jobs taken away from foreigners will definitely not go to S’poreans is also fatally flawed

Wong claim 2:  He also pointed out that the data and evidence are clear: The Government’s economic policies have helped to raise standards of living across the board and to create “many more good jobs for Singaporeans”.

Reply: The data and evidence are muddied by the amalgamation of PRs into Singaporeans. For each Singaporean livelihood that the Government tears apart, it can make up the difference with 3 good PR livelihoods and the data would still look better than before.

Wong claim 3: “Our children — fresh graduates from our institutes of higher learning, polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education — are benefiting. They are doing the jobs of the future, not the past

Reply: But many of our children are becoming Grab drivers and deliverymen. If this is the future to go, it hardly inspires confidence in the ability of the PAP to deliver good jobs

Wong claim 4: “In this way, we can grow the economic pie for everyone, and ensure that the cost of globalisation and openness does not fall unfairly on the displaced workers,” he added, noting that Singapore will “stagnate and atrophy”

Reply: Compare your own salary growth and the salary growth of our low wage workers and you immediately see the hypocrisy of your statement

Wong claim 5: The Government, he said, could not accept Mr Leong’s motion because it falsely attributes the challenges faced by Singaporeans in securing jobs to free trade agreements and foreigners

Reply: Only a noble and righteous government will admit wrong when they are wrong. An ignoble and unrighteous government will vehemently deny any wrong doings.

Wong claim 6: “The PSP assumes that if we reduced the number of foreigners here, then all their jobs will automatically go to Singaporeans,” Mr Wong said, criticising the “strong racist and xenophobic undertones

Reply: The converse is true. DPM Wong assumes that if we reduced the number of foreigners here, none of their jobs will go to Singaporeans. DPM Wong should not behave like the pot who calls the kettle black.

Wong claim 7:

Mr Wong pointed out that there are more than 25,000 professional, manager, executive and technician (PMETs) vacancies currently, with many companies still looking to hire.

With so many companies having difficulties filling these vacancies, how would we find people with the relevant skill-sets to take on the additional ‘tens of thousands’ of jobs that Mr Leong thinks can be created by getting rid of the foreigners?”

Reply: Why doesn’t DPM Wong do some of the recruitment interviews himself to understand more clearly why certain companies are refusing to hire the 1/4 million unemployed Singaporean PMETs and insisting on hiring from say India?

Wong claim 8:

If the country’s policies become overly restrictive, companies will just find other places to operate in where they can be more competitive and Singapore would lose all the jobs that these companies had brought in, Mr Wong added.

Reply: DPM Wong should just look at all the First World nations. All of them have restrictive policies and they still rule the world today

Wong claim 9:

However, in the 1990s, the country was not as developed as an economic hub, with foreigners accounting for only about 10 per cent of the PMET workforce. Overall standards of living was also much lower then.

The gross domestic product per capita was around S$35,000 then, compared to the S$80,000 now, and the median salaries of residents were less than S$2,000 compared to around S$4,500 now.

Reply: The same can be said about US, Switzerland, Germany, Sweden and so on. All have much lower per capita GDPs then compared to now. How come First World countries can grow their economies without significant foreigner presence but we can’t?

The answer is invariably this: Lawrence Wong and company are of very low abilities. They do not have the ability to bring Singapore forward like they do in US, Switzerland and Germany. To compensate for their lack of ability they resort to mass import of labour

Wong claim 10:

“Is that what we want? Stagnate in the 1990s, while the rest of the world progresses around us?” Mr Wong questioned.

Reply: Wong can be rest assured that if the entire PAP disappeared into thin air today and an alternative government formed by well intentioned and high ability Singaporeans take over, Singapore will not stagnate.

Wong should instead ask himself, without the cash cow that is Singaporeans to milk, what would they have amounted to?

Wong claim 11:

“Remember how Mr Lee Kuan Yew (former prime minister) once said, ‘Never fear, 10 years from now, this will be a metropolis’? What do Mr Leong and the PSP promise? ‘Don’t worry, 10 years from now, we will go back 30 years’?”

Reply: LKY was a compulsive liar. He also said in 1967 to businessmen in Chicago that Singapore was already a metropolis. Why would LKY set himself 10 years to achieve metropolis status for Singapore only to do it in two years? Obviously he was pulling a fast one. When he made the statement in 1965, he already knew that Singapore was for all intents and purposes already a metropolis or nearly so.

The suggestion Mr Leong made will help Singapore go forward 30 years. Lawrence Wong must have engaged reverse gear and went back 30 years himself. Can’t blame him, he is now the pall bearer of PAP and has the mandate to pull Singapore back 30 years.

Conclusion:

Won’t continue. Too much crap from the future prime minister. What a ridiculous chap and to think that nearly the entire PAP machinery voted for him. The rot must be very deeply entrenched throughout the PAP cadres now.

Shanmugam: Singapore will be destroyed

July 31, 2022

Sham said:

Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his first generation put up, they cut down on any kind of chauvinism whether Chinese, Malay or Indian they stamped out, built this little island into the shining jewel that it is today,” he said.

He said Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965 so that “no one race will dominate” and the majority Chinese would also suffer from a divided community.

Reply:

LKY was through and through Machiavellian and his reasons for doing things were never noble or altruistic but always about self preservation and self interest.

The Chinese speaking was the largest power base then but he was English speaking. So he had to cut them down so much so that there are no Chinese medium schools today while Madrasahs are still plentiful. Because the Muslims were not a political threat to him whereas the Chinese speaking masses were.

It was LKY himself who merged Singapore into Malaysia knowing full well that Malaya’s 1957 constitution had already enshrined Bumiputra rights. Sham should not be hypocritical in waxing lyrical about LKY separating us from Malaysia for the supposed sake of racial equality while ignoring the fact that in the first place, it was LKY who bind us to Malaya and subjected us to racial inequality under Malaysian laws.

In the end, everything LKY did was Machiavellian. He merged Singapore into Malaysia to borrow the Tungku’s powers to destroy the Chinese speaking political force in Singapore. He did not choose to leave Malaysia but was kicked out of Malaysia because his appetite became too big and coveted pan Malaysian political hegemony.

Electrocution of 3 family members in Jurong a ‘truly tragic accident’: State Coroner

July 31, 2022

https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/electrocution-3-family-members-jurong-truly-tragic-accident-state-coroner