When was SMRT Corporation listed?
SMRT Corporation was listed on the mainboard of the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited on 26 July 2000.

SMRT’s concept of shareholders is sheer nonsense. Who is competing with SMRT? No one. Who provided the cost of the network? The people. The SMRT should just break even. It should be considered one of Singapore’s national assets for the people. Instead the nonsense we hear is that they must make profits for shareholders. At the citizen’s expense.

When Singaporeans were blinded by this IPO nonsense many years ago, they were led to believe by the govt that this was the best way forward. However, I wonder how many actually think this SMRT IPO is really beneficial to the public. I say someone should put a survey up to ask how many think we should delist the SMRT. Why should the SMRT CEO earn $1.8 m. The SMRT is no rocket science. There are many more complicated jobs in Singapore where the CEO really has to crack his brains. For the SMRT, the decision is simply whether to increase the number of trains, cut down interval to ensure people are better served, or to do the opposite and increase the profit. You decide what this CEO has been doing and clearly it is not to the benefit of Singaporeans.

CEO SMRT pay should not be more than $0.5 m at most for a good civil servant to do. This is a public service job and I am sure there are many people in government service who would excel in this position without taxpayers footing the salary of the CEO. When will such nonsense stop in this country. No wonder fewer and fewer people are flying national flags. Why? How can you feel a sense of patriotism in this country when you are being robbed in plain sight. Where is the feeling that the government thinks about the citizens. Yes, the government claims it is looking at the big picture. But remember the small actions count and until the government gets its act together on things that truly benefit Singaporeans at the street level, I am afraid this country is truly becoming Singapore Inc.

CIA World Factbook

With the Presidential Elections just weeks away and the fact that the president is supposed to act as a custodian of our financial reserves, it is amazing that the state of our reserves and hence our nation’s fiscal health is not more a subject of national debate.

How these reserves are deployed has a bearing on our financial well-being – a bearing much more direct and serious than people think.

The SDP has in the past raised concerns about the high level of public debt incurred by the Government. At 102.4 percent of GDP, this amount is the ninth highest in the world. In fact, Greece which is facing severe economic troubles is placed only slightly higher at fifth spot with 144 percent of GDP.

The public debt-to-GDP ratio is a measure of what a country owes as a proportion to what it produces. A high ratio means that it is harder for a country to pay off what it owes and that it is more likely that the country will default on its payments. This is the financial predicament that Greece currently finds itself.

Singapore debthttp://www.scribd.com/embeds/59764858/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-uokmw0ea9b2h63x9cqo(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();
What about Singapore? Is Singapore’s situation as bad as it looks? Despite our high public debt, analysts say that Singapore is in a different category. This is because our economy generates budget surpluses most years and this surplus counter-balances the debt incurred. Therefore, on balance, our books show a surplus and not debt.

Borrower calling the shots

But why, if we are generating budget surpluses, would the Government need to borrow money and go into debt? At last count the amount of debt is upwards of $200 billion. And, equally important, who are we borrowing from?

Let’s tackle the second question first. From whom is the PAP Government borrowing these large amounts of money?

The answer is us, the people. The Government issues debt instruments in the form of bonds, securities, Treasury bills, and deposits with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) which financial institutions buy.

One of these financial institutions is, of course, the CPF which uses almost all of our savings to buy these instruments making it the single biggest holder of Government debt.

So we have a situation where the Government is the debtor and we the people are, collectively, the creditor. With a twist, of course. A big one. In our case, instead of the lender setting the terms on when and how the debt will be repaid, in this case it is the borrower who decides the terms. And to add insult, the debtor keeps changing the terms of repayment.

Years ago when the CPF scheme started, we were able to withdraw our CPF funds at age 55. But the Government changed the law in the late 1990s, introducing the Minimum Sum Scheme which gave it the power to retain a portion – a huge portion – of our savings even beyond the age-55 limit. The amount started off at $80,000 and has been increasing every year. As of July 2011, the Minimum Sum is set at $131,000.

Singaporeans reaching 55 will only be able to withdraw any savings in excess of $131,000 (which the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans do not have).

It is only when one reaches 62 will one be able to start withdrawing one’s savings – in monthly instalments of a couple of hundred dollars depending on how much one has in one’s account. Of course, this is after the Government deducts another $27,500 more (as of January 2011) for Medisave.

After “borrowing” our savings, issuing debt as a collateral, the Government is now free to use the funds for whatever it deems fit. It invests this money mainly through the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings.

Through the years, these two conglomerates have invested in industries ranging from telecommunications to banks to hotels and everything in between. Domestically, it uses the funds to set up companies that deal with all kinds of businesses. To what extent and where these funds are parked no one quite knows because they are hidden from public view, especially those of the GIC.

The perfect arrangement

There is still the question of why the Government needs to borrow our CPF funds when it generates a healthy budget surplus annually. The simple answer is that the money is there. By issuing securities and bonds at low interest rates, the Government avails itself to more than a hundred billion dollars of CPF funds.

With such a vast amount of money at its disposal for investments, Government officials can strut the world’s stage and command fawning attention from the international business community that few politicians can.

Domestically, it places itself as employer, CEO and landlord to all that Singaporeans do. The next time you buy a house, watch cable TV, or buy your groceries chances are that you are giving your business to the Government. Not that you have much of a choice as a customer because most big local businesses are run, directly or indirectly, by the Government through GLCs.

The political control that the PAP derives from such economic dominance is what has kept it in unchecked power all these decades. For the PAP it is the perfect arrangement. It borrows money at low interest rates from the CPF at little or no risk. If it incurs losses, it doesn’t have to tell the people. It simply changes the rules governing the return of the savings to CPF members. If it turns over a profit, it pays to the CPF a paltry 2 percent and pockets the remainder.

Heads the Government wins, tails the people lose.

Democrats

1. Singapore is a parliamentary republic where the people elect their representatives every five years to represent them in Parliament as MPs
2. The party that controls the most seats in Parliament forms the Government and executive power is exercised by the Cabinet.
3. Checks and balances and holding the government to accountability is through parliamentary debates, a role expected of the opposition whose increasing presence in Parliament will ensure that.
4. The role of the president as head of state has been historically, largely ceremonial.
5. The custodian and veto powers of the elected president are very limited in scope and will, in practice, not achieve the objective intended.
6. The purpose of an elected presidency was to block or pre-empt a future non-PAP government on the assumption that such a government will not be capable and honest.
7. Based on the present stringent criteria required of any presidential hopeful, the elected president, in all probability, will be a pro-PAP or ex-PAP man.
8. It is unlikely that the opposition can win enough seats in the next few elections to topple the PAP government to warrant a pro-PAP elected presidency to use its powers to stymie the governance of the new government.
9. Even if a new non-PAP government is formed, it will come about through free and fair election and will thus, have the mandate of the people to govern without the need for presidential interference.
10. Should the PAP indeed fail to form the government in future, it will still have considerable weight – given its collection of multi-million dollar ministerial talents – to play out its role as an effective opposition to check on the new government of the day.
11. Having a pro-PAP president to interfere with a government freely elected by the people runs counter to the system of parliamentary democracy and risks usurping the functions and powers of the executive, the government.
12. For a president with limited role to play in the functioning of the government except in situations where he, as head of state, has to perform ceremonial functions, $4.2 million is way too much to pay, an extravagance for which there is surely much better use.
13. The salaries of presidents and heads of state of the world’s most developed nations are at least 3 or 4 times lower than what Singapore pays its president.
14. Paying the president $4.2 a year is used as an additional alibi by the government to justify and pay its ministers equally much, thus eroding the moral authority of the government to govern.
15. For the reasons listed, Singapore does not need an elected president for the role intended, and most Singaporeans are not in favour of it either.

In light of the above, it is therefore suggested that the government move to hold a national referendum as soon as possible so that the people of Singapore can decide if they want an elected president or an elected presidency in its present form.

The answer to that question will depend on when the PAP government is expected to lose power – GE2016, GE2021, GE2026 or even longer? If the PAP government doesn’t lose power, it will continue to control or use (call it invest if you like) the reserves as it deems fit since it is the one who has accumulated them (the reserves). In which case, the pro PAP EP will not want to rock the boat and be happy to just cruise along.

And even if the PAP does lose power one day, why is there a need for the pro PAP EP to invoke the said powers to block the new government of the day and prevent it from going about its business of governing? Does the PAP not expect that the new government of the day will be elected by the people through fair and democratic election? And if the new government is indeed democratically elected by the people, why shouldn’t it be allowed to govern freely without the need for presidential interference?

The argument that reserves accumulated by previous government and cannot be used by the government of the day is flawed because reserves belong to the people. Or is it right for the government to always assume that whichever party wins a future election – other than the PAP – it can only win by default because of a freak election outcome threw up by an ill-informed electorate, as envisaged by LKY in justifying the idea of an elected presidency?

In the context of Singapore as a parliamentary democratic republic, the idea of an elected presidency for the purpose intended is clearly and hopelessly skewed. Surely, there is no harm to elect the president if the government is really obsessed with democratic practices and truly believe in the need to choose our president through fair and open elections.

But it should only be done for the right reason. Electing a president for a function that, for all practical purposes and intent, is not needed to be carried out cannot be said to be the right reason. It is simply nothing more than political melodrama at work and therefore, a pure waste of time and public money.

A better use of public money is to hold a referendum for the people to decide if they want in the first place, an elected presidency that costs the taxpayers $4.2 million a year for a purported role it doesn’t play or need to play.

About 73 per cent of those polled agreed or strongly agreed that the PAP is a credible party, down from 87 per cent in 2006, according to a survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, a think-tank within the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore.

“The political consciousness of Singaporeans has changed very radically,” said Chua Beng Huat, a sociology professor at NUS. “The PAP will probably continue to be the dominant party for the next twenty years, but we’re moving toward a more normal, democratic culture.”

The PAP has dominated Singapore political life since the country split from Malaysia in 1965. It won 60 per cent of overall votes in a parliamentary election May 7, the lowest percentage since independence, while the Workers Party won six of 87 parliament seats, the most by an opposition party since the PAP came to power.

Voter discontent has grown in recent years as housing prices soared while wages stagnated amid a surge in foreign workers. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong pledged after the vote to reconsider PAP policies and governing style, and ordered a review of minister salaries, which are among the highest in the world.

But the government so far hasn’t expressed plans to make fundamental changes, such as establishing a minimum salary or easing the city-state’s economic dependence on foreign workers.

“The election was a warning to the PAP not to be complacent and to seek new ways to reconnect to a younger and more demanding electorate,” said Lam Peng Er, senior research fellow at the East Asian Institute. “But it’s unclear whether the PAP will re-examine its economic model of development and be more open and transparent in policymaking to citizens.”

The survey showed the most important election issues were the cost of living, efficient government and checks and balances in Parliament.

The telephone survey of 2,080 people aged 21 and above was conducted May 8-20. No margin of error was given. Normally, a poll that size would have an error margin of about 3 percentage points.

During the election campaign some PAP leaders acknowledged the perception that they sometimes govern in an arrogant or high-handed manner. Lee offered a rare public apology for PAP mistakes days before the vote.

However, some PAP leaders reject criticism that they are out of touch with the struggles of ordinary Singaporeans.

“When people say that the members of Parliament are disconnected from the ground, or don’t want to engage with the people, I find it hard to believe,” PAP Member of Parliament Vikram Nair said in a speech at a conference hosted by IPS. “We do what we think is right and sometimes, people won’t be happy.”

“Don’t focus too much on the 40 per cent that didn’t vote for you,” he said. “We have to remember and keep in mind the interests of the 60 per cent that did.”

Perhaps the biggest change since the election was the resignation of Lee Kuan Yew from the cabinet. The 87-year-old Lee, who is Lee Hsien Loong’s father, was prime minister from 1959 to 1990 and subsequently held senior cabinet positions until May.

The senior Lee is credited with guiding the rise of Singapore from a sleepy port town into a one of richest and safest countries in the world. He also jailed some political rivals for years without trial and sued other opponents into bankruptcy with defamation cases. That helped isolate the opposition, which has just begun to abate.

“One of the factors that will contribute to Singapore’s road to democracy is the retirement of Lee Kuan Yew,” Chua said. “A lot of the authoritarian atmosphere is the result of that one man’s mentality.”

Alex Kennedy

“Introduced in 2009, the Town Council Management Report (TCMR) framework was put in place to provide residents with objective information on the key areas of estate management.”

If this was truly the aim of the TCMR framework as conceived in 2009, then I dare to venture to say that it has failed such an objective of being ‘objective’.

First, an unspoken agenda of the TCMR, as it appears in the run-up to GE2011, is necessarily political. On the one hand, it is overtly meant to assess the performance of the Town Councils, which is a legitimate move. On the other hand, it is designed to portray the opposition-held wards in a negative light. We need no elaboration on this. If one can look at the past records, isn’t it uncanny that the PAP-held wards consistently performed better than the opposition-held wards, when the truth is much more than this?

Yet, we see that those PAP-held town councils are not performing as reflected in the TCMR scores. PAP-held wards, not all but some of them, are not anywhere better in terms of cleanliness than than the opposition-held wards, and in some instances, even dirtier. I live in Aljunied, and during the time when it was held by PAP, it was not at all cleaner than neighbouring Hougang SMC which despite the resource constraints it faces still at least managed to do a better job in keeping its estate clean even if the HDBs appear rather a throwback to the past in terms of design and due to lack of upgrading.

And to add further insult, those PAP-held town councils also do not hesitate to raise service and conservancy charges (SC&C) bills, for the type of services they provide: slow response to neighbourhood complaints, and lacklustre services in some places. We need no more reminder of the corpse-in-the-tank incident to impress upon us that PAP-held wards aren’t necessarily good. And to all those who voted for PAP just because you think they will sure do a better job than opposition parties, think twice again please. Other than the corpse-in-the-tank saga, how about the massive losses to ill-conceived investments during the 2008-2009 financial meltdown? They were happily sucking more monies out of you for SC&C, using some very nice-sounding ‘justifications’ while not in substance improving the services and yet still did not bat an eyelid to thrash your monies in risky ventures, without any sense of accountability and transparency.

So, may I ask PAP, what is the meaning of ‘objective information’ that the public can access regarding town council management if there is no transparency and accountability? How can that be objective if the TCMR has a heavy dosage of political undertones meant to promote the PAP and discredit the opposition?

An impartial TCMR should first be depoliticised, and should be based on benchmarks that are overseen and decided upon by an impartial panel of experts (though realistically I doubt this can ever happen in Singapore since the civil service is either penetrated throughout by PAP or those who are not are rather cowed by the PAP). The important safeguards should include accountability and transparency in terms of the town council accounts, which should be all audited and be publicised to the citizens in the form of monthly newsletter or leaflets.

Any citizen should have the right to request to view the accounts of the town council so that with public scrutiny, no one in the town council management is able to misuse the monies, such as the repeat of the 2008-2009 financial fiascoes. Such a step should truly be one the most credible measures ever taken by the incumbent ruling party to ensure that the interests of every citizen, whether in PAP or opposition-held wards, be truly safeguarded.

And that’s also probably one of the first bold steps to be taken to ensure the TCMR is truly objective and serves the interests of the constituents. Otherwise, PAP, you can continue your charade to hoodwink the people of Singapore by acting as if you’re really trying to serve the people. The constituents can judge better than TCMR does.

However, in the most recent years, those theme songs had lost their meaning, and become half-bucket attempts perhaps by PAP in trying to cut budget while at the same time, appeal to the younger generations. Trying too hard maybe. But NDP theme songs should embody the inclusiveness of everyone who owned the country – not just PAP, but every Singaporean from all walks of life – and it should also embody the patriotic spirit.

The degenerating state of affairs in our NDP theme song, I personally feel, probably reflects the sort of ill sentiments increasing segments of Singaporeans have towards the state of affairs in Singapore. Hearing the theme song of this year, I couldn’t help but shake my head. What has our country come to? Has the ruling regime had enough on their hands to piss off and turn off the people?

We can do well without this additional source of irritation which simply makes one feel less and less enamoured to even celebrate NDP, for this NDP in recent years has lost meaning for the common Singaporean, and simply degenerated into another grandoise event to prop up the PAP, especially with the massive dosage of monies thrashed into organising it, and having the SAF put up its military prowess to show how it has to help prop up a degenerating ruling regime.

I just wish to say, dear PAP, enough is enough. The daily bread and butter issues had already caused sufficient headache, and the attitudes by you chaps high up in the ivory tower aggravated the frustration. We don’t need a controversial NDP song to further worsen the situation for all of us. Return us the Singapore we belong to and which rightly belongs to us.

Singapore is a wicked regime whereby the rich can pay almost 0% tax, meanwhile the effective tax rate for poor in my estimate is more than 40%. For a rich person that earns for example S$10 million, from dividends, he will pay almost NO tax at all.

Tax burden on poor
For a poor man earning $2000, he is not going to be able to retire and withdraw anything meaningfully from CPF due to minimum sum requirement and inflation. Hence, just as the some economist view social security contribution as taxation, we assume that CPF is a form of tax.

Due to high cost of living, the poor man would be living hand to mouth every month, having zero savings. Hence, all his remaining income is subject to 7% GST. Together with CPF contribution rate of more than 30%, the poor pays around 40% of tax.

Shifting tax burden to the poor
PAP has all these while been giving their own class of people tax cut goodies by providing excuses that the tax cut help to develop financial center and spurs the relocation of high net worth individuals.

Hence, taxes on dividends are cut to 0 together with other cuts that benefit only the rich. Meanwhile, to compensate lost of tax revenue, PAP make the poor pay by introducing the regressive GST and hiking it to 7%.

Alternative tax system
The GST is a regressive tyranny that we should do away with. The lost of tax revenue in earlier cut can be fully compensated by implementing landed property tax. Since foreigner is restricted from buying landed property, such tax will claw back earlier tax cut to the local rich elite.

And since landed property tax only hit elite citizen owning landed property, it will not affect the development of financial center. It will not have no impact on any high net worth foreigner wanting to migrate here, so long if they do not buy landed property. Unfortunately, nothing is going to stop our elite from ducking tax burden and dump it to the poor Joe.

Veritas

1. Share with us the cost of the HDB – this will allow citizens to understand the difficulty that HDB is facing and accept the increase or high price of HDB flat. Citizens can also offer solutions to help lower HDB cost.
2. Non-citizens should not be allowed to purchase HDB flats which are meant for the natives. This will allow the latter to have a shelter over their heads as they are the ones who are staying on to keep the country going. The foreigners may just up and leave any time down the road when they’ve raked in sufficient $ to bulk up their deep pockets. HDB flats should be solely for the Singaporeans, if not how can they feel that they have a home country when everything they have here, they now have to compete with foreigners that have infested the island.
3. Remove GST from necessity items such as staple food of commoners. This will help reduce the cost of living of commoners. You can increase the taxes on all other stuff enjoyed by the very rich citizens.
4. Share with us the information on our reserve. Let us understand the difficulty of our government when the price of utilities, education and medical is forever increasing but nothing done to stablize it. This will also allow citizens to feel that their CPF is in good hands and can definitely get back the money. It is not true that our reserve is depleting and government has no money to return to the citizens.
5. Scrap ERP. Instead impose very high taxes on family with 2 or more cars. I read from the flood issue that some rich families have 3 cars!!! Solution to solve traffic jam is reduce number of cars.
6. Seriously… cut the intake of foreigners coming to SG to work. I am not talking about stopping it totally.. I need to mention this for any of those who wanted to start their nonsense again. The current number in Singapore is considered ridiculous and we should lower the number staying in Singapore.

I have given some of my suggestions here. These are not some new suggestions from me and these are not new issues. How many of the suggestions above will PAP take heed, consider and implement? If all the above are not valid, can you give us an explanation why and proceed to further discuss from here?

We ask all readers to donate to the campaign as a show of your support, and to encourage your friends, colleagues and contacts to do likewise.

We’re going to raise S$1 Million dollars.

How to donate

If you wish to send a cheque, please make it out in favour of “Tan Kin Lian” and send it to 24 Sin Ming Lane #02-107, Singapore 573970.

You can also make your donation through internet banking transfer to this DBS Current account:

Bank: DBS Shenton Way (7171)
Current Account: 001-111060-0

You can also donate by PayPal to: tklep.2011@gmail.com