Archive for April, 2012

How S’pore compares to other cities

April 22, 2012

Dear Straits Times,

I refer to the 6 Apr 2012 article “How S’pore compares to other cities” which reported Singapore as standing out in bus and train affordability compared to New York, Chicago, London, Tokyo and Hong Kong [1].

Hong Kong’s average rapid transit fare was reported as 2.13% of Hong Kong median daily income. This is more than twice that of Singapore’s average rapid transit fare of 0.9% of Singapore median daily income [1].

The following table was constructed using data from MTR’s annual report 2010 [2] and a report from Hong Kong’s census and statistics department [3]. It shows that Hong Kong’s airport express and cross boundary service are a lot pricier than its domestic and light rail services. Considering there are no equivalent to airport express and cross boundary service in Singapore, it would be fairer to leave these out when comparing Hong Kong’s MTR with our MRT. Considering only the domestic and light rail services, Hong Kong’s rapid transit fare is just 1.5% of Hong Kong median daily income, much lower than the 2.13% given in the Straits Times article.

Fare revenue (HK$ m) Ridership (million) Average fare / ridership Median daily income Ratio of fare to median daily income
MTR domestic HK$8,668 1,299 HK$6.67 HK$407 1.6%
MTR cross boundary HK$2,487 100 HK$24.89 HK$407 6.1%
MTR airport express HK$694 11 HK$62.28 HK$407 15.3%
MTR light rail HK$409 155 HK$2.65 HK$407 0.7%
MTR domestic + light rail HK$9,077 1,453 HK$6.25 HK$407 1.5%

Hong Kong is also bigger than Singapore and this would naturally lead to longer distanced trips and higher fares per passenger trip. A fairer comparison would be to compare fares for say a 10 km journey such as the one done by SMRT [5]. The table below takes the 10 km fare figures from that SMRT comparison. It shows that Hong Kong’s 10-km journey fare is 1.9% of Hong Kong daily income, not too far from Singapore’s 10-km journey fare of 1.6% of Singapore daily income. Compared this way, Singapore’s bus and train affordability is slightly better than Hong Kong’s but doesn’t stand out against Hong Kong’s while Tokyo’s bus and train affordability is on par with Singapore’s.

Fare for 10 km journey (SGD) 2008 PPP conversion factor Fare for 10 km journey (local currency) Median daily income (local currency) Fare for 10 km journey as percentage of median daily income
Singapore $1.40 1.06 1.4 90 1.6%
Hong Kong $1.48 5.4 57.6 407 1.9%
Tokyo $1.76 116.85 193.6 12,000 [6] 1.6%

In the case of London, it was reported that London’s average rapid transit fare and London’s average bus fare are 3.35% and 1.05% of London median daily income respectively [1].

The following table was constructed using data from the Transport for London annual report 2010/11 and the UK 2011 annual survey of hours and earnings [7]. It shows that London’s average Underground fare and average bus fare are 1.7% and 0.8% of London median income respectively. The calculated rapid transit fare is almost half that reported by the Straits Times.

Fare revenue (£m) Ridership (million) Average fare / ridership Median daily income Ratio of average fare to median daily income
London buses £1,687 2,289 £0.74 £93 0.8%
London Underground £1,758 1,107 £1.59 £93 1.7%

Finally, it was reported that our average bus and MRT fares are 0.7% and 0.9% of our median daily income [8] respectively which works out to be $0.63 and $0.81 respectively. These are very close to the $0.73 fare for one bus stop ride or one MRT stop ride which is strange because not many Singaporeans travel one bus stop or one MRT stop to work.

We are therefore compelled to consider that Singapore’s hub and spoke public transport system may have distorted our average bus and train fares. Other cities that rely less on the hub and spoke system will be less affected by such distortions.

As an example, suppose someone takes an SBS bus, transfers to the MRT, then transfers to a TransIsland bus. The first bus ride will count in the SBS annual report while the last bus ride will count in the SMRT annual report. Let’s say the first SBS bus ride cost $0.80, the MRT ride cost $0.50 (with transfer rebate) and the last TransIsland bus ride cost $0.10 (with transfer rebate). The average bus fare becomes $0.90 / 2 = $0.45 while the average train fare is $0.50. Notice that $0.45 and $0.50 are both much lower than the $1.40 actual cost of the journey?

In conclusion, there may be room for improvement for Straits Times’ Hong Kong and London fare calculations. Those of New York, Chicago and Tokyo may similarly require re-calculation. Furthermore, there is a need to go beyond average boarding fare to average fare per 10 km journey to account for size differences across cities. Last but not least, many so-called trips used in fare calculations are actually part journeys. A hub and spoke public transport system magnifies these part journeys which in turn lowers the average bus and rapid transit fare. This ought to be taken into account too.

[1] Straits Times, 6 Apr 2012, “How S’pore compares to other cities”

[2] Hong Kong MTR Annual Report 2010

[3] Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2011 Report on Annual Earnings and Hours Survey, page 19, median income reported as HK$12,200 in 2010 for full time employees

[4] Singapore Land Transport Statistics in Brief 2011

[5] SMRT Annual Report 2010, Page 88.

[6] Japan Statistics Bureau, the figure is average wage for Japan rather than median wage for Tokyo. Tokyo average wage tends to be higher than Japan average.

[7] UK Office of National Statistics, 2011 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, Page 1

[8] Ministry of Manpower Comprehensive Labour Force Survey


Wrong to say Yale resolution is wrong

April 14, 2012

Dear Straits Times,

I refer to the 14 Apr 2012 letter by Mr Michael Rebaczonok-Padulo [1].

Mr Padulo questioned the correctness of the Yale resolution’s concern for Singapore’s lack of respect for civil and political rights [2] by pointing to the fact that he has made Singapore his home. Does Mr Padulo’s making Singapore his home demonstrate that Singapore respects civil and political rights? Civil rights comprises amongst other things the right to a free press. Do we have press freedom? Singapore is ranked No. 135 on press freedom by Reporters Without Borders. All of Singapore’s paid newspapers are owned by one company the ownership of which is largely by government linked companies and whose chairperson has always been important ex-ministers. Even the free newspaper Today is owned by MediaCorp which is in turn owned by the government too.

Political rights include amongst other things, the right to assemble, the right to vote and the right to a fair trial. Singaporeans don’t have the right to assemble beyond five persons. Hougang citizens’ right to a by-election remains in doubt. Countless political detainees in Singapore history were never given a fair trial but were simply locked away under the Internal Security Act. Some were locked away for periods longer than Nelson Mandela had been. Therefore, Mr Padulo’s making Singapore his home doesn’t show that civil and political rights in Singapore are fully respected and doesn’t prove that the Yale resolution is wrong.

Mr Padulo claimed that Singapore is doing something right that is worthy of emulation because we have genuine respect and guarantee for the right to walk safely in the streets without fear of gunshots, we do not have overt racial or religious intolerance, we do not have grinding poverty unlike his birthplace, we have good governance and good public service unlike so-called ‘democratic’ countries which are so polarised nothing gets done to help the less fortunate.

The homicide rate data in the table below is from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. While US’s 5 homicides per 100,000 people is indeed higher than Singapore’s 0.5 per 100,000, it is far less than bottom ranked Honduras’ 82.1 per 100,000 and close to the median of 4.9 per 100,000. If US is really such a dangerous place as Mr Padulo suggested, how could it have become the No.1 immigration destination in the world?

Country Latest Homicide Rate (per 100,000)
Monaco 0.0
Palau 0.0
Iceland 0.3
Hong Kong 0.5
Japan 0.5
Brunei 0.5
Singapore 0.5
Austria 0.5
Norway 0.6
Switzerland 0.7
Germany 0.8
Denmark 0.9
Sweden 1.0
Netherlands 1.1
Australia 1.2
United Kingdom 1.2
Ireland 1.2
France 1.4
New Zealand 1.5
Belgium 1.7
Canada 1.8
Macao 1.9
Malaysia 2.3
Taiwan 3.6
USA 5.0
Honduras 82.1

Mr Padulo has essentially focused on what Singapore does well but ignored what Singapore is not good at. The table [3] below brings together homicide rate, government effectiveness, corruption index, press freedom and democracy index. Singapore shines in three categories but barely passes the other two. Considered together, the US is actually slightly better than Singapore and many First World nations, particularly the Nordic countries, are better than us. They are the ones worthy of our emulation.

Country Latest Homicide Rate 2010 Government Effectiveness 2011 Corruption Index 2011/2012 Press Freedom 2011 Democracy Index Average
Denmark 9.9 9.3 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.6
Sweden 9.9 9.0 9.3 9.7 9.5 9.5
Norway 9.9 8.6 9.0 10.0 9.8 9.5
New Zealand 9.8 8.7 9.5 9.7 9.3 9.4
Switzerland 9.9 8.8 8.8 9.8 9.1 9.3
Netherlands 9.9 8.5 8.9 9.9 9.0 9.2
Canada 9.8 8.7 8.7 9.7 9.1 9.2
Iceland 10.0 8.2 8.3 9.8 9.7 9.2
Australia 9.9 8.6 8.8 9.1 9.2 9.1
Austria 9.9 8.8 7.8 9.9 8.5 9.0
Germany 9.9 8.1 8.0 9.5 8.3 8.8
Japan 9.9 7.8 8.0 9.4 8.1 8.7
Ireland 9.9 7.6 7.5 9.6 8.6 8.6
United Kingdom 9.9 8.1 7.8 9.2 8.2 8.6
Belgium 9.8 8.2 7.5 9.5 8.1 8.6
France 9.8 7.9 7.0 8.7 7.8 8.2
Hong Kong 9.9 8.5 8.4 8.2 5.9 8.2
USA 9.4 7.9 7.1 8.4 8.1 8.2
Singapore 9.9 9.5 9.2 5.3 5.9 8.0
Taiwan 9.6 7.4 6.1 8.5 7.5 7.8
Macao 9.8 7.6 5.1 7.5
Brunei 9.9 6.8 5.2 5.6 6.9
Malaysia 9.7 7.2 4.3 5.7 6.2 6.6
Honduras 0.0 3.7 2.6 5.3 5.8 3.5
Monaco 10.0
Palau 10.0 3.3

Again, if racism is so severe in US, it is unlikely that US could become the No. 1 immigration destination in the world. My colleague’s sister emigrated to US many years ago and is so happy with her good life there she says she’s never coming back to Singapore. How could she be so happy in US if racism is such a big problem there? Mr Padulo’s anecdotal evidence is easily countered by other anecdotal evidences. Without data to back him up, his opinion is just one out of thousands of opinions out there. We can also consider that 297,200 Singaporeans or 6.1% of our population have emigrated compared to 2,423,600 Americans or 0.8% of Americans [4]. If Singapore is so much better than US, how come our emigration rate is so much higher than theirs?

It is also difficult to compare ‘grinding’ poverty because unlike US, Singapore hasn’t defined a poverty line. But a report by Belinda Yuen in the Global Urban Development Magazine (Volume 3, Issue 1, Nov 2007) might shed some light:

“If going by the recent number of street people picked up by the authorities, about 170-300 people in Singapore make the streets their home every year. Many (50%) are old (60 and above years old) and have no family, employment or skills. Others are abandoned by their own families. In one report, the Singapore Department of Statistics has released a figure of about 4 per cent of Singapore’s resident population (or 120,000) living at or close to the poverty line in 1998 (The Straits Times, 31 May 2000). Income distribution as measured by the Gini coefficient was 0.481 in 2000. In the most recent population census (2000a), 12.6 per cent of households (116,300 households) in Singapore earned less than S$1000 a month (average household income was S$4943 per month). The lowest 10% of households excluding those with no income earners had an average monthly income of S$459 in 2000 (average household size was 3.7) (Singapore Census of Population, 2001). The unofficial national definition of poverty drawn from the income qualifying criteria in various public assistance schemes seems to cover those surviving on less than S$10 per person per day.”

Some statistics may give us a feel of the poverty situation in Singapore:

– 4.6% of resident households live in 1-room or 2-room flats [5-1]

– 3.5% of resident households are non-retiree households but with no working persons [5-2]

– 3.4% of resident households have household income less than $1,000 a month [5-3]

– Bottom 10% average household income is $1,460 [5-4]

Our public assistance is $400, $700, $880 and $1050 for 1-person, 2-person, 3-person and 4-person households respectively [6]. Assuming the poverty line is roughly $1,000 a month, potentially 7.9% of households or 90,550 households fall below this line. Yet, there are only 2,929 recipients of public assistance [7]. It is difficult to believe Mr Padulo’s claim of no ‘grinding’ poverty in Singapore given such a huge disparity between the number of households falling below the public assistance poverty line and the actual number receiving public assistance.

Talk is cheap. Mr Padulo should substantiate what he says with facts and figures.

[1] Straits Times, 14 Apr 2012, Yale resolution wrong, says former American

[2] Straits Times, 6 Apr 2012, Yale to proceed with NUS college tie-up

[3] Table sources:

– Latest homicide rate from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Data ranged from 0 homicide rate for Monaco and Palau to 82.1 per 100,000 for Honduras. Data has been converted to a 0 to 10 scale by first dividing every data point by 82.1, then taking the negative, then adding 10.

– 2010 Government effectiveness from World Bank’s Aggregate Governance Indicators. Data ranged from -2.5 to 2.5 and has been converted to a 0 to 10 scale by adding 2.5 then multiplying by 2.

– 2011 Corruption index from Transparency International. Data already in 0 to 10 scale.

– 2011/2012 Press Freedom from Reporters Without Borders. Data ranged from -10 (best) to 142 (worst). Data has been converted to 0 to 10 scale by first taking the negative, then adding 142, then dividing by 142 and then multiplying by 10.

– 2011 Democracy Index from Economist Intelligence Unit. Data already in 0 to 10 scale.

[4] Migration and Remittances factbook 2011 Second Edition, Page 221, Page 252

[5] Key Household Characteristics and Household Income Trends, 2011
[4-1] Table 3, Resident Households by Type of Dwelling, 2000-2011
[4-2] Table 4. Resident households by number of working persons, 2000-2011
[4-3] Table 6. Resident households by monthly household income from work, 2000-2011 (excluding employer CPF)
[4-4] Table 14. Average monthly household income of lowest 10th decile (excluding employer CPF)

[7] Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, 2011, Item 22.5 Public Assistance Recipients by Category

Government has changed how it engages Singaporea​ns, says PM Lee

April 7, 2012

Dear PM Lee,

I refer to the 4 Apr 2012 Channel News Asia online report “Government has changed how it engages Singaporeans, says PM Lee”.

No amount of engagement can substitute for substance in the government’s answer to the people. Engagement through false arguments, wrong facts or half truths only works for idiots. Dr Balakrishnan’s blaming of Orchard Road flooding on increased rainfall is one such example. Despite engaging an expert panel, the outcome has been the same old selective use of data to distort the truth.

The Bukit Brown saga is another good example where the government was merely patronising rather than engaging the public. Postponing the joint request by seven organisations for a discussion on Bukit Brown till after the government has announced the final plan [1] and then calling a meeting to explain that decision is not engagement. The various interest groups in the Bukit Brown saga do not need more of the same explanations from the government that neither addresses their concerns nor considers their superior arguments [2] such as:

– no point improving traffic flow from one congested area to another

– inadequacy of roads linked to Lornie Road including Farrer Road – Bukit Timah junction, slip roads from Lornie Road into PIE, Whitley Road, Bukit Timah Road

– traffic light serving cars leaving Singapore Island Country Club slows down traffic

The third point was also raised by a Straits Times reader [3] who gave other excellent suggestions. The perception seems to be that superior considerations have been brushed aside and that the government has once again bulldozed its decision through.

Some policy changes coincided with changes in election outcomes. It illustrates where the electorate’s chief responsibility and contribution lies in: driving policy change through the vote. Singaporeans contribute most towards the success of the nation by actively engaging in policy debates. We help make things right for Singapore by pointing out all that is wrong with your policies.

Toh Yi’s ‘not in my backyard’ saga is the result of the government’s tying of asset enhancement to voting outcomes. Toh Yi’s residents voted for the PAP. They deserve to have their assets enhanced, not diminished through the siting of studio apartments there. This is no more self-centred than it is a transaction between the government and them. Also, unless you lead by example by offering your own backyard to selfless causes, you have no moral high ground to criticise Toh Yi.

Everything “No” is no worse than everything “Yes”. Is Singapore a whole lot better because of the casinos? How much of the casinos’ takings come from Singaporeans’ pockets? How many jobs actually went to Singaporeans? How much of what the casinos make goes back to Singaporeans?

[1] Statement to the Ministry of National Development issued by the Community for Bukit Brown on March 19, 2012,

[2] Bukit Brown at a Crossroad, Goh Si Guim, Nature Society of Singapore,

[3] Straits Times forum, 29 Mar 2012, “Cheaper way to solve congestion in Adam, Lornie roads”, Lee Chiu San

Annual rainfall is increasing here: Experts

April 3, 2012

Dear expert panel,

I refer to the 12 Jan 2012 Straits Times report “Annual rainfall is increasing here: Experts” [1].

It was reported that rainfall increased by 15mm a year on average between 1968 and 2008. The table below was constructed using government rainfall data [2]. It shows that by shifting the years by one or two, a completely different picture emerges. For example between 1967and 2009, rainfall decreased by 23.5mm a year on average.

Period Annual rainfall increase / decrease (mm / year)
1967-2009 -23.5
1967-2008 -14.3
1967-2007 -0.6
1968-2009 -3.8
1968-2008 6.2
1968-2007 20.7
1969-2009 -9.2
1969-2008 0.9
1969-2007 15.7

Regressing annual rainfall on year between 1960 and 2011 gives a p-value of 0.4, an R square value of 0.014 and a coefficient of 3.4. Thus, rainfall might be increasing by 3.4mm per year but there is 40% chance that this is all fluke. Thus, annual rainfall data doesn’t provide a lot of confidence to your claim that annual rainfall is increasing.

It was also reported that the number of days when there were at least 70 mm of rain per hour went up from 5 in 1980 to 13 in 2010. If that contributed to Orchard Road floods in 2010, why were there no Orchard Road floods in 2008 when the number went up to 14 (Figure 1)? If increase from 5 to 13 in 2010 is cause for concern, shouldn’t increase from 5 to 14 in 2008 be cause for more concern? Yet there were no Orchard Road floods in 2008.

Figure 1: Number of days when at least 70mm rain fell per hour [3A]

Referring to Figure 1 again, 1993 is the year with the highest number of days with at least 70 mm of rain per hour. If number of days with at least 70 mm of rain per hour is a parameter that is linked to Orchard Road flooding, shouldn’t 1993 have experienced even more serious Orchard Road flooding?

The ‘evidence’ provided by the expert panel is weak and doesn’t support your view that weather patterns have changed and that higher rainfall intensity contributed to flooding.

Next I refer to your Jan 2012 flood report [3].

Page 18, paragraph 3.2.2 of your report says there is strong year-to-year variability in maximum rainfall intensity and that the amplitude of that variability increased considerably over the last thirty years. But if high rainfall intensity or amplitude is a cause for concern, how come there is no flooding in 1995, 1999, 2007, 2008 and 2009 which have higher amplitudes compared to 2010?

Figure 2: Rainfall intensity [3B]

Considering Figure 1 and Figure 2 together, we find that 2008 experienced more frequent heavy rains and more intense rains than 2010. Yet, there were no Orchard Road flooding in 2008. In just two years, something has changed dramatically to cause Orchard Road to flood despite lower rainfall intensity and lower frequency of heavy rains. Therefore, the culprit for the 2010 Orchard Road flooding is unlikely to be higher rainfall since rainfall intensity was lower and frequency of heavy rains was also lower. We have to look elsewhere to explain Orchard Road floods. For a start, you might want to examine any major underground works or canal diversions in the vicinity of Orchard Road between 2008 and 2010.

Page 21, paragraph 3.3.1 of your report says that 7 stations in southwest and northeast Singapore show statistically significant uptrend in hourly rainfall total. Question is, how much of the rain falling on those seven stations went into Stamford Canal? If not much, why should it matter?

Page 22, Figure 3-7 shows stations registering statistically significant increase in rainfall intensity of at least 70 mm per hour. These stations are located in areas like Seletar, Lim Chu Kang, Boon Lay, Pandan Gardens and Sentosa. How is rainfall in these areas going to affect Orchard Road and Stamford Canal?

[1] Straits Times, 12 Jan 2012, Annual rainfall is increasing here: Experts


[3] Report on Key Conclusions and Recommendations of the Expert Panel on Drainage Design and Flood Protection Measures, January 2012,

  • [3A]Section 3: Rainfall Analysis, page 22, figure 3-6
  • [3B] Section 3: Rainfall Analysis, page 19, figure 3-2
  • Should Petain Road be renamed?

    April 1, 2012

    Dear professor Tommy Koh,

    I refer to your 20 Mar 2012 Straits Times article “Should Petain Road be renamed?”

    You said the French Army had been progressively degraded after the First World War due to budgetary cuts. But between 1920 and 1938, French military spending was 4.3% of GDP, higher than Germany’s 3.3% over the same period [1]. Between 1920 and roughly 1934, French real military expenditure exceeded that of the German’s [2]. French military spending started to increase in 1930 whereas German military spending started to increase in 1933 [3].

    In the second half of 1936 French premier Leon Blum launched the biggest arms programme ever attempted by a French government in peacetime [4-1]. The army and national defence minister Daladier spoke compellingly for accelerated arming because the French already knew from their secret service that the Germans were preparing for total war [4-2]. When Germany doubled its standing army in Aug 1936, France replied with a plan for a 21 billion franc army, navy and air force [4-3] and the cabinet authorised a 14 billion franc army programme on 7 Sept 1936 [4-4].

    Thus, France was actually more ready for war in 1939 than in 1914 [5] but French general staff did not foresee the new type of armoured warfare developed by the Germans [5]. Even the British army, which fought alongside the French was no match for the Germans at the start of the war and were lucky to have been evacuated at Dunkirk. Signing an armistice with Germany when the military situation was hopeless was probably the best thing any general could have achieved. Petain probably saved millions of French lives in doing so. French human losses were so much lower in World War 2 compared to World War 1.

    There was more to just the Petain government collaborating with the Germans. Until mid-1942, one-sixth to one-fifth of French people favoured collaboration [6-1]. Collaboration and self-interest existed at every level in Vichy France [6-2] and there were no shortage of French non-Jews ready to fleece their compatriots through confiscation of Jewish properties [6-3]. In practice, everyone in France was in a state of moral disarray [7]. Support for Vichy was widespread and collaboration was active and extensive [8]. Distinctions between resistance and collaboration were often less sharp than assumed [8]. Regular, average citizens sent thousands of letters identifying members and supporters of the resistance, black marketers and Jews [9].

    Thus, eradicating the name ‘Petain’ won’t eradicate the complicity of the French people in their collaboration with the Nazis. The French has no more reason to be ashamed of Petain than they have of themselves. Even our own Lee Kuan Yew worked for the Japanese during the Japanese Occupation. What happened in France demonstrated widespread anti-semitism in Europe then [10], [11], [12]. If there is any community that should feel offended by the name ‘Petain’, it would be the Jewish community, not the French.

    [1] Unifying the European Experience: Vol. 2, Chapter 6, “War and Dislocation, 1914-1950”, Jari Eloranta, page 17, Table 2

    [2] Military expenditures and economic growth, Jasen Castillo, Julia Lowell, Ashley J Tellis, Jorge Munoz, Benjamin Zycher, page 20, Figure 3.2

    [3], Military Spending Patterns in History, Jari Eloranta, Figure 3 and Figure 4

    [4] Cry Havoc, the arms race and the Second World War 1931-1941, Joe Maiolo
    [4-1] page 160
    [4-2] page 161
    [4-3] page 165
    [4-4] page 163

    [5] The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940, Julian Jackson, page 199

    [6] We Only Know Men: The Rescue of Jews in France During the Holocaust, Patrick Gerard Henry
    [6-1] page 4
    [6-2] page 3
    [6-3] page 13

    [7] France and the Second World War: occupation, collaboration and resistance, Peter Davies, page 6

    [8] War, nation, memory: international perspectives on World War II in school history textbooks, Keith Crawford, Stuart J. Foster, page 82

    [9], Occupied France – Resistance and Collaboration, French Authorities and Citizens Betrayed their Country, Ivan Castro

    [10] Collaboration with the Nazis: public discourse after the Holocaust, Roni Stauber, page 3

    Jews who escaped from ghettos to the forests ended up being hunted down and murdered by local Polish peasants and partisans.

    [11] Organizing rescue: national Jewish solidarity in the modern period, Selwyn Ilan Troen, Benjamin Pinkus, Merkaz le-moreshet Ben-Guryon, page 276

    Polish survivors faced murderous hostility from the local population, a large majority of whom would not accede to the reappearance of Jews on Polish soil.

    [12] Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution, Volume 1, Richard S. Levy, page 27

    The high tide of anti-Zionist persecution came during the purges and trials staged in the USSR and its satellite states between 1948 and 1953. Jews were proportionately overepresented amongst the victims of these purges.