This chinese saying tells the story of a peasant who wanted to hide his silver from possible burglars. So he hid the silver in a hole dug in the ground and planted a sign over the spot that says, "There isn't any silver here, 300 taels of it".
This saying came to my mind becoz I saw this article in the papers. The full article is below...
Bodies chopped – but each case is different
Judge in Aguilar case says she displayed a tortured mind
Ansley Ng
ansley@newstoday.com.sg
WITHIN two weeks, the trials of two killings — where both victims were strangled then chopped up to be disposed in similar fashion — came to a close, but with quite different endings.
While one was sentenced to death for the murder of a Chinese factory worker, the other, Filipino maid Guen Garlejo Aguilar, was sent to prison for 10 years for manslaughter yesterday.
Aguilar, 30, pleaded guilty to killing fellow maid Jane Parangan La Puebla on Sept 7 last year, strangling her good friend to death during a fight.
Yesterday, before he handed down the jail sentence to Aguilar, Justice VK Rajah made it a point to note — without directly referring to the case of Leong Siew Chor — that it was wrong to compare different cases of body dismemberment, "given the multitude of imponderables associated with human behaviour".
Leong was sent to the gallows on May 19 for killing and dismembering his lover and colleague Liu Hong Mei.
"No two cases of this nature are or can conceivably be symmetrical," Justice Rajah said. "It bears reiteration that the act of killing in this case occurred well before the body was dismembered."
Aguilar, the judge added, behaved "paradoxically".
While she had intended to conceal the body after the killing, her decision to plant the body parts in "two very public places … strikes one as nothing short of incoherent and incomprehensible", he said.
Aguilar's conduct after the killing was "baffling" and also showed that she had a "tortured mind".
"It would be fair to infer that her prevailing illness was in all likelihood severely exacerbated after she killed the deceased," Justice Rajah added.
The judge also noted that Aguilar could not have been able to distinguish between right and wrong due to her mental abnormality.
He also accepted State-appointed psychiatrist Dr Tommy Tan's testimony that Aguilar — a mother of two — was unlikely to re-offend, adding that the mayor in her hometown of Tagudin has pledged to provide social and counselling support when she returns to the Philippines after her release.
After the hearing, Aguilar's lawyer Shashi Nathan also said that to compare Leong's case with his client's was being "unfair".
"Every case has its own peculiarities," he said. "What the court recognised was that, clearly, there was no pre-meditation. Both girls were involved in a fight."
A Singaporean in Aguilar's situation would have received the same sentence, he said, adding that she could be released after six years for good behaviour.
...
Such a long article to defend and explain the court's actions. By the time I finish reading, my tea already turn cold liao. And cold tea will make your stomach sour and uncomfortable. I wonder if Leong the S'porean got do NS or not? Is he a supporter of a system that appeases foreigners at the expense of his life? Is he wondering about the double standards??
In 1994, Johannes Van Damme a Dutch citizen was hanged for drug trafficking. An uproar erupted in the West. A year later in 1995, a Filipina, Flor Contemplacion, was hanged for murder. Another uproar erupted in the Philippines. S'pore flag kena burned some more. Since then the PAP rgime has learned a lesson, don't ever hang foreigners becos S'pore will pay a price. When they hang an Australian last yr, thinking that white racist Aussies would not care since the Aussie was of Vietnamese descent, they miscalculated. S'pore international reputation took yet another beating.
The PAP regime only knows how to howlian and talk big in S'pore. They threaten and are merciless when it comes to punishing S'poreans. But when it comes to foreigners, it is a different story. From 10 feet tall, they shrink to 10 inches high. Their lum par chees all drop off. They sweat and their faces turn pale, all kan cheong with stones in their throats, blabbering incoherently about having principles and dogma. Yet they betray principles and strike deals so that foreigners' lives can be spared. Remember McCrea that Briton murderer? Fucker now want to plead insanity some more, the last I heard...
"Justice" in S'pore really depends on who you. If you are suay enough to be a S'porean Shamugam, Leong Ah Chor or Ahmad Ali while committing a crime, too bad for you loh.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Monday, May 29, 2006
Da Vinci Code again
Recently this movie like a lot of people talk about it. Most of it negative, like this letter in the papers. What is special about this one is that it attacks from a new angle..
Movie poisons art
Letter from Cyrel M
I was watching TV one night when I saw the trailer of the movie, The Da Vinci Code. And I started to imagine, what if Leonardo the artist were still alive today?
I grew up knowing that the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper were both painted by the great Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci. He was considered one of the greatest painters who ever lived and known to be of high integrity and sensitive to moral issues.
I'm still astounded and amazed by the beauty of his works but the movie's interpretation of his works have confused me. It's a waste that these masterpieces were used to create a multi-million dollar fiction which could affect modern interpretation of his art.
The book's author has splattered a permanent ink on these works of art by poisoning the minds of people about the art.
Well, that's me. And I'm not Leonardo. But what if? What would the great man feel?
Wah, talk about art liao leh! Cyrel here say that Leonardo da Vinci is a great painter known to be "of high integrity" and "sensitive to moral issues". So is Cyrel talking about Leonardo's art itself, or is he talking about Leonardo's personal character? Got difference one wor... for e.g. I may be a very tok kong musician but I can be a damn asshole and fucked up fascist who believes in bullying the poor and weak etc etc. So cannot confuse the two mah. Going down a bit Cyrel then say that the movie's interpretation confused him. But wait, I thought Cyrel said he saw the trailer of the movie only? So he got watch the movie or not? Wah lao now I am starting to doubt this Cyrel's character liao.. (Either he is sibei blur or he is very 狡猾.) In conclusion Cyrel thinks that the fiction has "posioned the minds of people about the art". Knn he is really cunning. Lim peh not an artist or arts person lah, but even I also know that art hor is something you leave to an individual's appreciation and personal taste. What you think is great art must also be great to me meh?! If I don't think so, how? You going to say my mind poisoned issit? What fuck rubbish is he implying? Art here art there, basically Cyrel is just after one thing lah, he wants to discredit the book and the movie lor. He must be one of those religious fundamentalist type.
I haven't watch the movie yet, but it is people like Cyrel M who is against the movie (or the book) & making so much noise that is making me more and more interested to go watch. I mean obviously he is very bothered and buay song about something lah, so now lim peh is curious to see what people like him is so buay song about hahaha! To find out what is it that piss them off. Btw the papers also damn cock, go and print this kind of fuck letter for what! Maybe is to make people laugh at Cyrel M whoever the cockanathan is.
Btw my friend Derek told me movie itself like so-so only, better to save $$ and watch the "friendly" version hehe. :)
Movie poisons art
Letter from Cyrel M
I was watching TV one night when I saw the trailer of the movie, The Da Vinci Code. And I started to imagine, what if Leonardo the artist were still alive today?
I grew up knowing that the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper were both painted by the great Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci. He was considered one of the greatest painters who ever lived and known to be of high integrity and sensitive to moral issues.
I'm still astounded and amazed by the beauty of his works but the movie's interpretation of his works have confused me. It's a waste that these masterpieces were used to create a multi-million dollar fiction which could affect modern interpretation of his art.
The book's author has splattered a permanent ink on these works of art by poisoning the minds of people about the art.
Well, that's me. And I'm not Leonardo. But what if? What would the great man feel?
Wah, talk about art liao leh! Cyrel here say that Leonardo da Vinci is a great painter known to be "of high integrity" and "sensitive to moral issues". So is Cyrel talking about Leonardo's art itself, or is he talking about Leonardo's personal character? Got difference one wor... for e.g. I may be a very tok kong musician but I can be a damn asshole and fucked up fascist who believes in bullying the poor and weak etc etc. So cannot confuse the two mah. Going down a bit Cyrel then say that the movie's interpretation confused him. But wait, I thought Cyrel said he saw the trailer of the movie only? So he got watch the movie or not? Wah lao now I am starting to doubt this Cyrel's character liao.. (Either he is sibei blur or he is very 狡猾.) In conclusion Cyrel thinks that the fiction has "posioned the minds of people about the art". Knn he is really cunning. Lim peh not an artist or arts person lah, but even I also know that art hor is something you leave to an individual's appreciation and personal taste. What you think is great art must also be great to me meh?! If I don't think so, how? You going to say my mind poisoned issit? What fuck rubbish is he implying? Art here art there, basically Cyrel is just after one thing lah, he wants to discredit the book and the movie lor. He must be one of those religious fundamentalist type.
I haven't watch the movie yet, but it is people like Cyrel M who is against the movie (or the book) & making so much noise that is making me more and more interested to go watch. I mean obviously he is very bothered and buay song about something lah, so now lim peh is curious to see what people like him is so buay song about hahaha! To find out what is it that piss them off. Btw the papers also damn cock, go and print this kind of fuck letter for what! Maybe is to make people laugh at Cyrel M whoever the cockanathan is.
Btw my friend Derek told me movie itself like so-so only, better to save $$ and watch the "friendly" version hehe. :)
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Cannot defer NS
This latest piece of news shows clearly how anal retentive Mindef is...
Top US school wants him but he can't defer NS
Teen talent's bid for deferment to pursue music studies rejected
By Maria Almenoar
ONE of the few Singaporeans ever offered a prestigious music scholarship to the Curtis Institute of Music in the United States, may have to pass up the opportunity of a lifetime.
Violinist Ike See, 17, has applied to the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) a second time to postpone his two-year national service stint and pursue his dream of being a top musician.
Said the son of a pastor and a retired teacher: 'I understand that serving my nation is important and I will do so eventually, but this is a dream and an opportunity of a lifetime.'
In an e-mail statement yesterday Mindef said: 'Mr Ike See was earlier not successful in his application for deferment. His family has recently put in an appeal and the appeal is currently under consideration.'
So far, it is understood only two other Singaporeans have attended the Curtis Institute in Philadelphia - violinists Siow Lee Chin and Kam Ning.
All students who are accepted to the school receive a scholarship which covers their tuition fees, totalling about US$28,500 (S$44,000) a year for four years.
The youngest of four children, Ike started playing the violin when he was 3 1/2 years old.
His first music performance was in kindergarten...
blah blah blah. The rest of the news is about Ike's talent and how only 44 in the whole world each year gets accepted to this prestigious insitute. I mean his is damn special lah.
And this is Mindef's reply...
What Mindef says:
SINCE December last year, Mindef has tightened its rules on national service deferment.
With the change, pre-university students who have won places in overseas universities now have to do NS first, just like everyone else.
This is to ensure equality, so all who enlist have a similar level of basic educational qualifications - A levels or a polytechnic diploma - before they do their full-time NS.
In recent years, fewer than 100 students have been granted NS deferments while they complete their university degree.
Said Mindef in an e-mail statement yesterday: 'All requests for deferment of full-time national service are considered based on the specific circumstances of each case and within the context of the fundamental principles of universality and equity that underpin our national service system.'
Really chow cheebye! This kind of standard lanjiao cut-and-paste reply really make people's blood boil. It confirms Mindef as the most clumsy, brainless and fucked up organisation in S'pore. In fact it deosn't reply at all, just put down standard policy statement nia. What kind of fucking idle jiat liao bee regulars work there man?!
What it doesn't say is that the 100 students granted deferment are those on gahmen scholarships. How come gahment scholarships so special one? KNN they big fuck issit?! All going to be future PAPaya ministers and MPs issit? So now can start white horse treatment liao?! Simi similar basic level of education bullshit excuse, chao cheebye just say it is elitism lah KNNBCCB! Btw the current defence minister Rear Admirer Teo something his son is on gahmen scholarship, recently defered his NS and flew off to USA to study liao. See?!! S'pore got this kind of fuck type minister and hor gao kan gahmen is fast fast up lorry liao!
Top US school wants him but he can't defer NS
Teen talent's bid for deferment to pursue music studies rejected
By Maria Almenoar
ONE of the few Singaporeans ever offered a prestigious music scholarship to the Curtis Institute of Music in the United States, may have to pass up the opportunity of a lifetime.
Violinist Ike See, 17, has applied to the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) a second time to postpone his two-year national service stint and pursue his dream of being a top musician.
Said the son of a pastor and a retired teacher: 'I understand that serving my nation is important and I will do so eventually, but this is a dream and an opportunity of a lifetime.'
In an e-mail statement yesterday Mindef said: 'Mr Ike See was earlier not successful in his application for deferment. His family has recently put in an appeal and the appeal is currently under consideration.'
So far, it is understood only two other Singaporeans have attended the Curtis Institute in Philadelphia - violinists Siow Lee Chin and Kam Ning.
All students who are accepted to the school receive a scholarship which covers their tuition fees, totalling about US$28,500 (S$44,000) a year for four years.
The youngest of four children, Ike started playing the violin when he was 3 1/2 years old.
His first music performance was in kindergarten...
blah blah blah. The rest of the news is about Ike's talent and how only 44 in the whole world each year gets accepted to this prestigious insitute. I mean his is damn special lah.
And this is Mindef's reply...
What Mindef says:
SINCE December last year, Mindef has tightened its rules on national service deferment.
With the change, pre-university students who have won places in overseas universities now have to do NS first, just like everyone else.
This is to ensure equality, so all who enlist have a similar level of basic educational qualifications - A levels or a polytechnic diploma - before they do their full-time NS.
In recent years, fewer than 100 students have been granted NS deferments while they complete their university degree.
Said Mindef in an e-mail statement yesterday: 'All requests for deferment of full-time national service are considered based on the specific circumstances of each case and within the context of the fundamental principles of universality and equity that underpin our national service system.'
Really chow cheebye! This kind of standard lanjiao cut-and-paste reply really make people's blood boil. It confirms Mindef as the most clumsy, brainless and fucked up organisation in S'pore. In fact it deosn't reply at all, just put down standard policy statement nia. What kind of fucking idle jiat liao bee regulars work there man?!
What it doesn't say is that the 100 students granted deferment are those on gahmen scholarships. How come gahment scholarships so special one? KNN they big fuck issit?! All going to be future PAPaya ministers and MPs issit? So now can start white horse treatment liao?! Simi similar basic level of education bullshit excuse, chao cheebye just say it is elitism lah KNNBCCB! Btw the current defence minister Rear Admirer Teo something his son is on gahmen scholarship, recently defered his NS and flew off to USA to study liao. See?!! S'pore got this kind of fuck type minister and hor gao kan gahmen is fast fast up lorry liao!
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Benjamin says...
I saw this quote of Franklin Benjamin from another blog... damn tok kong!
"One who gives up freedom for a little security deserves neither and will lose both."
.
"One who gives up freedom for a little security deserves neither and will lose both."
.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
PAP come out same pattern again!!
Wah lan eh, PAP chut pattern liao! Old Lee and little Lee want to sue SDP wor.. for simi defamation bullshit! I want to go buy the SDP newsletter and read leh.. see what is so scandalous that make father and son so hot under the collar. But someone posted on the internet liao, so i fast fast copy and paste here for keepsake hehehe.
Govt’s role in the NKF scandal
Ministers went out their way to defend NKF even as people were unhappy over the organisation’s operations
In all the hand-wringing and breast-beating by the Government over the NKF issue, Singaporeans must not lose sight of one thing: Such a scandal is inevitable given the kind of secretive and non-accountable system, bred by the PAP.
The Government now tries to exonerate itself by playing the innocent and gullible party duped by greedy NKF officials.
It forgets that in April 2004, Minister Khaw Boon Wan had, in reaction to public unease about the NKF, sought to appease Singaporeans by telling them that the Ministry of Finance “would have reacted many years ago” if there was any breach of rules by the NKF. (See Channel News Asia report on right.)
At the same time the Second Minister for Finance, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, said that the NKF had “quite a sound record” because it spends “ore than 80 percent of its funds on its beneficiaries” (See Straits Times report on right) whom we now know are not kidney patients.
Clearly, alarm bells were raised. People could see that something was wrong and they had expressed their unhappiness over the years.
And yet, the Government which had the power to do something, chose not to.
Not only did it choose not to rein in NKF but it also continued to praise the charity and encouraged people to donate to it.
With assurances from not one but two Ministers, the charity went on its merry way.
The question that is on everyone’s lips is: If Mr TT Durai had not taken out the legal suit, would the Government have bothered to look into the NKF records? NKF would in all likelihood have continued to operate with the Government’s blessings.
The NKF fiasco is not about bad practices. It is not even about negligence on the Government’s part.
It is about greed and power.
It is about the idea that the political elite must be paid top dollar, no matter how obscene those amounts are and regardless of who suffers as a result of it.
It is about a system engineered over the decades by the PAP that ensures that it and only it has access to public information and by fiat decides what is allowed and what is not.
It is about what a “democratic society, based on justice and equality” should not be.
Singaporeans must note that the NKF is not an aberration of the PAP system. It is, instead, a product of it.
To ensure that there is transparency and that Singaporeans are kept informed of matters directly affecting them and their future, the Government must:
One, disclose the breakdown of the cost of building HDB flats and the profits HDB makes.
Two, reveal where and how GIC uses our savings.
Three, disclose the salaries of the top executives of Temasek Holdings and other GLCs.
Four, declare the assets and incomes of its Ministers.
Five, reform the election system to ensure that it is free and fair.
It goes without saying that someone must be held accountable over the sordid NKF affair. However, real accountability starts much higher up.
The second contentious article in the newsletter.
If you think the running of NKF was bad, read this...
It is impossible not to notice the striking resemblance between how the NKF operated and how the PAP runs
Mind Boggling salaries
Mr Durai was paid $50,000 a month. He charged an average of almost $33,000 a month to his corporate credit card.
He was paid overtime and given backdated salary increments. His leave that was not taken were converted to cash.
And yet, Mrs Goh Chok Tong, in all her wisdom, brushed these aside and defended Mr Durai saying that his salary of $600,000 is “peanuts”.
Compare this to what her husband, Mr Goh, said when the prime minister wanted to pay himself $160,000 a month and the ministers $120,000 a month: “You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.”
Peanuts seem to be a rather popular plant in PAP circles.
Mr Durai had apparently forgotten that his job was to help people stricken with kidney disease, not to enrich himself.
If he wanted to earn the kind of salaries that corporate managers earned he should join a business enterprise whose mission is to maximize profit, not a charitable organization like the NKF whose mission is to provide medical assistance to those who unfortunate enough to need it.
Again, how is this different from the ministers who claim that without the high salaries, they would not have the incentive to serve in the cabinet?
The simple answer is: There will be others who are no less capable, and even more dedicated, willing to serve this country.
Like Mr Durai, the ministers cannot claim that they deserve to get the mind-boggling salaries because of the work they do, especially when their performances have been questionable given the hardships that Singaporeans continue to have to face in today’s high cost
Lack of transparency
Right up till Mr Durai’s ill-fated court room appearance, few people knew about the shenanigans that were going on within NKF.
Everything was shrouded in secrecy until the jaw-dropping revelations recorded in the KPMG audit.
How does this compare to the PAP? The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) is a business entity set up, and chaired by Mr Lee Kuan Yew to manage and invest our national reserves.
Incredibly, the GIC will not give an account of its investments (how and where our money is invested, and the profit/losses they record) to the people. Even Parliament is not privy to the information. The GIC operates in secrecy.
The HDB is no better. It continues to stonewall longstanding questions about the actual cost of building the flats and the profits it makes when it sells these flats to the people.
What about the CPF? Many Singaporeans are still concerned that the Fund is broke and that is the reason why the Government comes up with all these schemes to retain our CPF savings even when we retire.
Defamation suits
Singaporeans have know this for a long time but it needed the NKF scandal to drive home the point: The use, or rather abuse, of defamation laws in this country has led to a situation where wrong-doings cannot be exposed.
Two Singaporeans, Mr Archie Ong and Ms Tan Kiat Noi, had raised the alarm on the abuses of NKF funds, accusing NKF officials of paying themselves obscenely high salaries and bonuses, and flying first class on business trips.
Mr TT Durai promptly smacked them with lawsuits.
Unable to fight the huge sums of money involved in a defamation suit, Mr Ong and Ms Tan capitulated and settled the case out-of-court, both having to pay damages and costs amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. This happened in 1997 and 1998.
This had the effect of silencing all critics of NKF.
It wasn’t until 2005 that Mr TT Durai decided to sue the Straits Times for making similar accusations against the NKF.
The difference was that this time, the Straits Times had deeper pockets than the NKF and could contest the suit all the way.
The truth spilled out and we now know that NKF officials had not only flown first class and paid themselves bonuses of up to 14 months, (not to mention Mr Durai’s $600,000 slalary) but had also installed gold-plated taps, bought a fleet of luxury cars, and took trips to
In other words, Mr Ong and Ms Tan were right. The only thing they were guilty of was that they were not rich enough to fight Mr Durai in court.
Does this remind you of the PAP?
Its officials, strarting from Mr Lee Kuan Yew on down, regularly sue their political opponents.
The cases of Mr J B Jeyaretnam, Mr Tang Liang Hong, and Dr Chee Soon Juan are just a few examples.
Authoritarian control
It is obvious now that the NKF was run in an autocratic manner. The KPMG report said: “Power was centred around one man, and was exercised in an ad-hoc manner through Mr Durai and his coterie of long serving assistants.”
Is not power in
With the PAP monopolizing power and making sure that no one has the means to challenge that hold on power (by banning protests, introducing GRCs, suing political opponents, making legitimate democratic actions criminal offences, etc.) are we not witnessing the NKF but on a larger and national scale?
If there is a lesson that the NKF fiasco has taught us, it is that good governance cannot do without democratic practices which include openness, transparency and accountability.
The use of the media
It would have been impossible for the NKF to raise the kind of money they did if it weren’t for the use of MediaCorp to stage all the charity shows and using teary-eyed artistes to pull at the heart-strings of donors.
With control of the media, the PAP Government has likewise been able to present good news to the people and take credit for them (justified or not), hide the bad news, and portray the opposition in the most undesirable light possible.
Again, without a free media to expose the excesses of the Government, Singaporeans will never know what is going behind the scenes and officials like Mr Durai and the PAP will continue to use their “victorious” lawsuits as a measure of competence and absence of wrongdoing.
wah lao eh... simi defame?? Commentary only wat! Cannot comment meh? Lidat opposition might as well diam diam. All sporeans already know this anyway since last yr. The two Lee are really jialat man. Most likely is the old man's idea, whole life same pattern wont change liao.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Legalized Corruption
An article from last year... very true!
From: Carl Kapeland
To: Mellanie Hewlitt
Singapore Review - Legitimized Corruption Understood
In the latest developments the entire National Kidney Foundation Board of Singapore and its CEO have taken the easy route out and resigned. That's leadership for you, when things get messy, just get up and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.
But I don't think the new CEO or Board will do much cleaning up. Looks like they are replacing one bunch of rotten apples with another bunch of potentially more rotten apples. It does not address the real problem.
WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM?
There are several recurrent issues here. Singapore is in this current mess because Lee's PAP Government has forgotten that not everything can be reduced to money. You cannot throw money at all your problems and expect it to magically disappear.
The material base that motivates Singapore's "leaders" is only too evident when the NKF's transit CEO (Gerald Ee) hinted that "SGD600,000/- may not be sufficient for the new replacement to take office"!!! Money is the only motivating factor and if they have elected a leader and a board who is motivated only by money, its only
a natural and unavoidable result that they will end up with an organization which has forgotten its once noble purpose and replaced it with more materialistic pursuits.
Have they (Singapore) appointed a Wolf in sheep's clothing to guard their precious flock? For positions like these in charity organizations, THE CHIEF MOTIVATING FACTOR CANNOT BE MONEY! as they are not running an investment bank.
The same applies senior public service positions and for ministerial positions. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE REDUCED TO MONEY. But Lee's PAP Ministers have used this holistic approach to address any and all issues under the sun.
Lee and his ministers simply CANNOT RUN A COUNTRY THE SAME WAY THEY RUN A COMPANY. Why? Because a country comprises of flesh and blood and spirit. A company is merely a corporate vehicle that is often set-up for the sole purpose of reaping a monetary profit.
SINGAPORE AS A COUNTRY, IS NOT SINGAPORE INC!!!! And even if it is, its directors (and that means Lee and his million dollar cabinet) have to remain accountable to the shareholders (Singapore citizens). Singapore MINISTERS have to be transparent, and they are not especially as regards their salaries and the management of the country's reserves.
Consider this, the NKF was originally set up as a supposedly charitable organization. In form and function it appeared above board and reputable. But in actual practice it had a hidden agenda to siphon wealth from the public into state coffers. And what happens to all this money (all SGD200 million of it?) No body knows.
These same similarities in the NKF saga are reproduced on a grander scale in overall state administration in Singapore. Whether its the CPF, LTA, GLCs, Temasek etc they all relate to the the same basic issue. It goes back to the same bunch of corrupt leaders paying themselves and their cronies humongous rediculous salaries, approved
and legitimized under a set of bogus laws that they legislated in the first place.
But even before this NKF scam, transparency issues have dogged Singapore's state administration for decades and repeated requests by the World Bank, IMF, FTA and other NGOs for greater accountability and transparency have basically fallen on deaf ears.
These are basic transparency issues which plaque management of public moneys by all state entities (whether its the CPF Board, GLCs, Temasek, LTA etc). There is massive deception on a grand scale and I suspect the latest NKF debacle only surfaced due to internal friction within Singapore's "inner-circle of elite politicians." Perhaps
someone amongst Singapore's Ruling Elite wanted a bigger portion of the loot.
Think about it. Durai commenced his latest law suite on the confident assumption that it would be a "no contest" walk-over like his two previous suites. But whilst the Singapore sham courts had no problems finding in his favor in the 2 previous suites (which were taken against private individuals and a volunteer who correctly questioned his lavish spending), the latest suite was against another state bureaucracy.
And it was inevitable that the sham court found in favor of the bigger devil. So even amongst the thieves there is a power struggle over who gets a bigger piece of the loot.
So this then is justice ala Singapore styled. Who you are and who you are connected with ultimately decides the outcome of the law suite.
The material facts of the case (and legal premise) have little relevance in the kangaroo's court final assessment.
But by far the most troubling problem is that of Legitimized Corruption. You (Mellanie) have used the term "Legitimized Corruption" very accurately, but failed to elaborate on its true meaning and implications.
Legitimized Corruption means essentially that the corrupt act itself is made perfectly legal. That is why there is a possibility that the external audit on NKF may turn out nothing because Durai and his actions may have been all perfectly legitimate and authorized according to the internal constitution of the Board.
In a normal organization with bona fide controls in place, the Board would not have approved and allowed such unreasonable and lavish expenditures. However, in Singapore's setting where "anything goes" it is possible that the board were within their discretionary powers to authorize such lavish expenditures. Mind you these are
expenditures which (by any ordinary definition) would have amounted to an immoral mis-management of public moneys for unauthorized applications. But if the internal rules of conduct of NKF allowed the Board to act in this manner, it would then be an authorized and legitimate act.
So even after the process of audit has concluded it is perfectly possible for the auditors to conclude that the use of donor funds for;
a) Durai's pay of SGD600,000 and his salary of SGD1.8 million;
b) All expenses and application of donor funds used for purchase of SGD990/- god taps;
c) All expenses for first class air travel;
d) The levying of a 30% Admin Fee;
e) The hiring of personal drivers and limos.
All of the above are authorized and legitimate.
Anyway we all know that the so called "audit" of the NKF accounts is merely a publicity stunt to show case to the world that the current government and the new board is taking steps to remain accountable.
But does this make the above acts any more acceptable and morally correct. NO! Of cause not. An atrocity is still an atrocity even though it is legitimized.
One clear example is prostitution in Singapore. It is legal and the fact that it is legal does not detract one iota from the fact that it is still immoral, depraved and inhuman.
Of cause there are critics who will argue that moral values are to subjective concepts and we cannot always use these imprecise measures to define what is right or wrong. And I concede that there is some truth in this as we live in a world coloured in grey.
However, there will always remain some acts which are so blatantly wrong that they remain morally objectionable and immoral by any standard and yardstick. And the NKF scam (as well as Singapore ministerial salaries) fall within this category. It is morally wrong by any measure and this is not a grey area at all.
This same logic applies on a larger scale as regards ministerial salaries and the process that is orchestrated to "approve" such unreasonable and lavish salaries (amounting to millions of dollars per minister).
Legitimized Corruption works much like Money Laundering, but is worse. In essence Legitimized Corruption is corruption which is made legal. These perpetrators attempt to do what drug cartels and money launderers do;- basically "launder" the money (or the dishonest act) and make the final product appear nice and clean.
But senior politicians differ from your average drug lord or mafia boss in one important respect;- these ministers are much more sophisticated. They know the system (and probably designed it) and know how to manipulate and tweak the system so that they can have access to the ill-gotten gains without getting their hands dirty.
Next to them, Gordon Gecko and the God-Father look like novices and vestal virgins.
However make no mistake the underlying act itself remains wrong, dishonest and morally objectionable but is hidden under a cloak of legitimacy. Drug money (and money from dishonest trades) is still ill-gotten loot. Behind this elaborate sham are a host of corporate and state entities (GLCs, state owned entities and yes, charitable organisations) which are set-up to place a corporate veil between the
real perpetrators and the morally objectionable and dishonest transaction.
The fact that it is perfectly legitimate does not itself make it MORALLY CORRECT.
This is especially the case when you have a legislature that is totally removed (and remains out of touch) with the moral values and aspirations of the people it is supposed to serve and protect.
In fact, this kind of legitimized corruption is the worst possible kind as it means the corruption has infiltrated the most senior ranks of management (and the political leaders).
Compared to this elaborate deceit, the more obvious corruption in Indonesia are crude by comparison and far easier to identify and correct as it is acknowledged that such objectionable acts itself are WRONG and are not endorsed by the country's laws.
How do you ask a cop to catch a thief when the cop himself is a thief?
Legitimized Corruption by its very nature is more sinister and difficult to identify. For instance, a government official who accepts bribes worth $1.6 million a year is guilty of corruption. But what happens if this same official or minister receives this money as part of his "LEGITIMATE" salary.
In both cases the act itself is the same unconscionable and immoral act. But in the later case, there is no need for the official to hide his ill-gotten gains as it is
formally endorsed by an equally corrupt legislature/parliament who has a hand in the ill gotten gains.
The definition of a Parasitic Leech is as follows: "leech: a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage"
The kind of legitimized corruption already endorsed and prevalent in Singapore's state machinery is far worse. It is a cancerous malice which is more surreptitious and insidious.
The festering rot is not immediately apparent to an external casual observer but is eating away the core of the its host. Left unchecked, such parasites will consume a once healthy body before discarding the empty shell and relocating to another unwary host.
Legitimized Corruption is also like cancer. It is a chronic ailment which rooted itself very deeply within the host (and the state machinery). Such a chronic ailment did not occur over night but took place over decades of accumulated unchecked accesses.
Durai himself was in the NKF for over 30 years and it is no mere coincidence that
Singapore has been under the same government (and people and family) for over 30 years.
This is precisely the reason why in the US and other bona fide democracies there is a mandatory change in administration every 4-8 years. A new administration brings forth a completely new government which will was away unchecked accesses and commence things tabula rasa.
But somehow in Singapore it appears that only families starting with the Lee sirname or who are closely affiliated with this first family are the only candidates who qualify for election.
What a quaint and family friendly arrangement! Its just too bad that the average
Singaporean is excluded from this elitist inner-circle.
However, Singapore's Ruling Elite also have to be wary of the accompanying dangers of in-breeding which can occur from a small and exclusive gene pool. Cancerous deformaities can result after generations of in-breeding.
And the Cancer has many signs and symptoms. There have already been many evident tell tale signs of the internal rot and its accompanying putrid stench. However, Singaporeans in their numbed state of awareness may be mistaking the over-powering stench of decay for sweet perfume.
The entire state machinery is orchestrated to maintain this state of illusion and deception.
In the normal mechanics of an open and transparent state legislature and government, the moral values of the mans on the street is reflected (although not perfectly) in the policy formulation process.
This is not the case in Singapore and your "leaders" know it. Just challenge them to run a referendum regarding their salaries and it will be evident that 90% of the population are totally disgusted by such blatant acts of greed.
Of cause the local state owned media will somehow always paint the picture of an adoring and obedient public as part of an elaborate charade. So the truth never ever gets out.
Corruption of this scale starts form the top and slowly works its way down the ranks to pollute every senior arm of the state machinery from the Judiciary to Legislature to the Executive and especially to a docile and compliant state managed local press.
It cannot be stopped easily without external intervention.
Slowly but surely what started off as a morally unacceptable issue becomes part and parcel of "accepted norm" which is disguised behind a pile of state endorsed laws and bills.
Even the once sacred document, the Constitution, is not spared and is re-written to the whims and fancies of those they serve. How many Singaporeans are aware of the fact that the country's Constituion has been amended to allow state owned entities and GLCs easier access directly to the country's reserves?
And it also does not take a genius to work out that it is the close affiliates of the Ruling Elite who sit on the management boards of these state owned entities and GLCs.
The following is a fascinating observation. The exact size of Singapore's foreign exchange reserves and the management of those funds is designated as a STATE SECURITY FOR INTERNAL SECURITY REASONS.
Is it mere co-incidence that the conservative ball park estimate of the net worth of the Lee family is roughly equivalent to your country's reserves? (USD130-140 billion?)
What you have in Singapore are a bunch of hired mercenaries who are ripping off the very people they are supposed to look after.
Singaporeans. This is your country and your life. If you continue in this state of drugged apathy, you will cease to have any control over your own faith and destiny.
Do you really want to hand over your life to the devil?
Do you want to have a Singapore with No Singaporeans?
Its time to wake up from your state of denial and confront the harsh reality before your very eyes.
Yours faithfully
Carl Kapeland
Ohio State
From: Carl Kapeland
To: Mellanie Hewlitt
Singapore Review - Legitimized Corruption Understood
In the latest developments the entire National Kidney Foundation Board of Singapore and its CEO have taken the easy route out and resigned. That's leadership for you, when things get messy, just get up and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.
But I don't think the new CEO or Board will do much cleaning up. Looks like they are replacing one bunch of rotten apples with another bunch of potentially more rotten apples. It does not address the real problem.
WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM?
There are several recurrent issues here. Singapore is in this current mess because Lee's PAP Government has forgotten that not everything can be reduced to money. You cannot throw money at all your problems and expect it to magically disappear.
The material base that motivates Singapore's "leaders" is only too evident when the NKF's transit CEO (Gerald Ee) hinted that "SGD600,000/- may not be sufficient for the new replacement to take office"!!! Money is the only motivating factor and if they have elected a leader and a board who is motivated only by money, its only
a natural and unavoidable result that they will end up with an organization which has forgotten its once noble purpose and replaced it with more materialistic pursuits.
Have they (Singapore) appointed a Wolf in sheep's clothing to guard their precious flock? For positions like these in charity organizations, THE CHIEF MOTIVATING FACTOR CANNOT BE MONEY! as they are not running an investment bank.
The same applies senior public service positions and for ministerial positions. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE REDUCED TO MONEY. But Lee's PAP Ministers have used this holistic approach to address any and all issues under the sun.
Lee and his ministers simply CANNOT RUN A COUNTRY THE SAME WAY THEY RUN A COMPANY. Why? Because a country comprises of flesh and blood and spirit. A company is merely a corporate vehicle that is often set-up for the sole purpose of reaping a monetary profit.
SINGAPORE AS A COUNTRY, IS NOT SINGAPORE INC!!!! And even if it is, its directors (and that means Lee and his million dollar cabinet) have to remain accountable to the shareholders (Singapore citizens). Singapore MINISTERS have to be transparent, and they are not especially as regards their salaries and the management of the country's reserves.
Consider this, the NKF was originally set up as a supposedly charitable organization. In form and function it appeared above board and reputable. But in actual practice it had a hidden agenda to siphon wealth from the public into state coffers. And what happens to all this money (all SGD200 million of it?) No body knows.
These same similarities in the NKF saga are reproduced on a grander scale in overall state administration in Singapore. Whether its the CPF, LTA, GLCs, Temasek etc they all relate to the the same basic issue. It goes back to the same bunch of corrupt leaders paying themselves and their cronies humongous rediculous salaries, approved
and legitimized under a set of bogus laws that they legislated in the first place.
But even before this NKF scam, transparency issues have dogged Singapore's state administration for decades and repeated requests by the World Bank, IMF, FTA and other NGOs for greater accountability and transparency have basically fallen on deaf ears.
These are basic transparency issues which plaque management of public moneys by all state entities (whether its the CPF Board, GLCs, Temasek, LTA etc). There is massive deception on a grand scale and I suspect the latest NKF debacle only surfaced due to internal friction within Singapore's "inner-circle of elite politicians." Perhaps
someone amongst Singapore's Ruling Elite wanted a bigger portion of the loot.
Think about it. Durai commenced his latest law suite on the confident assumption that it would be a "no contest" walk-over like his two previous suites. But whilst the Singapore sham courts had no problems finding in his favor in the 2 previous suites (which were taken against private individuals and a volunteer who correctly questioned his lavish spending), the latest suite was against another state bureaucracy.
And it was inevitable that the sham court found in favor of the bigger devil. So even amongst the thieves there is a power struggle over who gets a bigger piece of the loot.
So this then is justice ala Singapore styled. Who you are and who you are connected with ultimately decides the outcome of the law suite.
The material facts of the case (and legal premise) have little relevance in the kangaroo's court final assessment.
But by far the most troubling problem is that of Legitimized Corruption. You (Mellanie) have used the term "Legitimized Corruption" very accurately, but failed to elaborate on its true meaning and implications.
Legitimized Corruption means essentially that the corrupt act itself is made perfectly legal. That is why there is a possibility that the external audit on NKF may turn out nothing because Durai and his actions may have been all perfectly legitimate and authorized according to the internal constitution of the Board.
In a normal organization with bona fide controls in place, the Board would not have approved and allowed such unreasonable and lavish expenditures. However, in Singapore's setting where "anything goes" it is possible that the board were within their discretionary powers to authorize such lavish expenditures. Mind you these are
expenditures which (by any ordinary definition) would have amounted to an immoral mis-management of public moneys for unauthorized applications. But if the internal rules of conduct of NKF allowed the Board to act in this manner, it would then be an authorized and legitimate act.
So even after the process of audit has concluded it is perfectly possible for the auditors to conclude that the use of donor funds for;
a) Durai's pay of SGD600,000 and his salary of SGD1.8 million;
b) All expenses and application of donor funds used for purchase of SGD990/- god taps;
c) All expenses for first class air travel;
d) The levying of a 30% Admin Fee;
e) The hiring of personal drivers and limos.
All of the above are authorized and legitimate.
Anyway we all know that the so called "audit" of the NKF accounts is merely a publicity stunt to show case to the world that the current government and the new board is taking steps to remain accountable.
But does this make the above acts any more acceptable and morally correct. NO! Of cause not. An atrocity is still an atrocity even though it is legitimized.
One clear example is prostitution in Singapore. It is legal and the fact that it is legal does not detract one iota from the fact that it is still immoral, depraved and inhuman.
Of cause there are critics who will argue that moral values are to subjective concepts and we cannot always use these imprecise measures to define what is right or wrong. And I concede that there is some truth in this as we live in a world coloured in grey.
However, there will always remain some acts which are so blatantly wrong that they remain morally objectionable and immoral by any standard and yardstick. And the NKF scam (as well as Singapore ministerial salaries) fall within this category. It is morally wrong by any measure and this is not a grey area at all.
This same logic applies on a larger scale as regards ministerial salaries and the process that is orchestrated to "approve" such unreasonable and lavish salaries (amounting to millions of dollars per minister).
Legitimized Corruption works much like Money Laundering, but is worse. In essence Legitimized Corruption is corruption which is made legal. These perpetrators attempt to do what drug cartels and money launderers do;- basically "launder" the money (or the dishonest act) and make the final product appear nice and clean.
But senior politicians differ from your average drug lord or mafia boss in one important respect;- these ministers are much more sophisticated. They know the system (and probably designed it) and know how to manipulate and tweak the system so that they can have access to the ill-gotten gains without getting their hands dirty.
Next to them, Gordon Gecko and the God-Father look like novices and vestal virgins.
However make no mistake the underlying act itself remains wrong, dishonest and morally objectionable but is hidden under a cloak of legitimacy. Drug money (and money from dishonest trades) is still ill-gotten loot. Behind this elaborate sham are a host of corporate and state entities (GLCs, state owned entities and yes, charitable organisations) which are set-up to place a corporate veil between the
real perpetrators and the morally objectionable and dishonest transaction.
The fact that it is perfectly legitimate does not itself make it MORALLY CORRECT.
This is especially the case when you have a legislature that is totally removed (and remains out of touch) with the moral values and aspirations of the people it is supposed to serve and protect.
In fact, this kind of legitimized corruption is the worst possible kind as it means the corruption has infiltrated the most senior ranks of management (and the political leaders).
Compared to this elaborate deceit, the more obvious corruption in Indonesia are crude by comparison and far easier to identify and correct as it is acknowledged that such objectionable acts itself are WRONG and are not endorsed by the country's laws.
How do you ask a cop to catch a thief when the cop himself is a thief?
Legitimized Corruption by its very nature is more sinister and difficult to identify. For instance, a government official who accepts bribes worth $1.6 million a year is guilty of corruption. But what happens if this same official or minister receives this money as part of his "LEGITIMATE" salary.
In both cases the act itself is the same unconscionable and immoral act. But in the later case, there is no need for the official to hide his ill-gotten gains as it is
formally endorsed by an equally corrupt legislature/parliament who has a hand in the ill gotten gains.
The definition of a Parasitic Leech is as follows: "leech: a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage"
The kind of legitimized corruption already endorsed and prevalent in Singapore's state machinery is far worse. It is a cancerous malice which is more surreptitious and insidious.
The festering rot is not immediately apparent to an external casual observer but is eating away the core of the its host. Left unchecked, such parasites will consume a once healthy body before discarding the empty shell and relocating to another unwary host.
Legitimized Corruption is also like cancer. It is a chronic ailment which rooted itself very deeply within the host (and the state machinery). Such a chronic ailment did not occur over night but took place over decades of accumulated unchecked accesses.
Durai himself was in the NKF for over 30 years and it is no mere coincidence that
Singapore has been under the same government (and people and family) for over 30 years.
This is precisely the reason why in the US and other bona fide democracies there is a mandatory change in administration every 4-8 years. A new administration brings forth a completely new government which will was away unchecked accesses and commence things tabula rasa.
But somehow in Singapore it appears that only families starting with the Lee sirname or who are closely affiliated with this first family are the only candidates who qualify for election.
What a quaint and family friendly arrangement! Its just too bad that the average
Singaporean is excluded from this elitist inner-circle.
However, Singapore's Ruling Elite also have to be wary of the accompanying dangers of in-breeding which can occur from a small and exclusive gene pool. Cancerous deformaities can result after generations of in-breeding.
And the Cancer has many signs and symptoms. There have already been many evident tell tale signs of the internal rot and its accompanying putrid stench. However, Singaporeans in their numbed state of awareness may be mistaking the over-powering stench of decay for sweet perfume.
The entire state machinery is orchestrated to maintain this state of illusion and deception.
In the normal mechanics of an open and transparent state legislature and government, the moral values of the mans on the street is reflected (although not perfectly) in the policy formulation process.
This is not the case in Singapore and your "leaders" know it. Just challenge them to run a referendum regarding their salaries and it will be evident that 90% of the population are totally disgusted by such blatant acts of greed.
Of cause the local state owned media will somehow always paint the picture of an adoring and obedient public as part of an elaborate charade. So the truth never ever gets out.
Corruption of this scale starts form the top and slowly works its way down the ranks to pollute every senior arm of the state machinery from the Judiciary to Legislature to the Executive and especially to a docile and compliant state managed local press.
It cannot be stopped easily without external intervention.
Slowly but surely what started off as a morally unacceptable issue becomes part and parcel of "accepted norm" which is disguised behind a pile of state endorsed laws and bills.
Even the once sacred document, the Constitution, is not spared and is re-written to the whims and fancies of those they serve. How many Singaporeans are aware of the fact that the country's Constituion has been amended to allow state owned entities and GLCs easier access directly to the country's reserves?
And it also does not take a genius to work out that it is the close affiliates of the Ruling Elite who sit on the management boards of these state owned entities and GLCs.
The following is a fascinating observation. The exact size of Singapore's foreign exchange reserves and the management of those funds is designated as a STATE SECURITY FOR INTERNAL SECURITY REASONS.
Is it mere co-incidence that the conservative ball park estimate of the net worth of the Lee family is roughly equivalent to your country's reserves? (USD130-140 billion?)
What you have in Singapore are a bunch of hired mercenaries who are ripping off the very people they are supposed to look after.
Singaporeans. This is your country and your life. If you continue in this state of drugged apathy, you will cease to have any control over your own faith and destiny.
Do you really want to hand over your life to the devil?
Do you want to have a Singapore with No Singaporeans?
Its time to wake up from your state of denial and confront the harsh reality before your very eyes.
Yours faithfully
Carl Kapeland
Ohio State
Sunday, April 16, 2006
SG Blogshpere in Fear?
Election is round the corner, PAP and their gahment lackeys have publicly warned that blogging on it is outlawed. Is the Sg blogshpere in fear? Judging by this and the silence over at Yawning Bread they must have been warned.
The fear is real. Fuck the PAP!!!
The fear is real. Fuck the PAP!!!
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
NS Men robbed in JB
This news from the TNP just once again shows how NS has made s'poreans so retarded and cannot think for themselves. 李敖 is right, S'poreans are stupid, and NS is one major contributing factor.
FOR the three friends who had completed their national service last December, it was a regular trip to Johor Baru on Saturday.
Their agenda: Shopping and seafood dinner.
It turned out be anything but.
They were robbed of more than $900 worth of valuables by a man. Apart from cash, the lost their handphones and a watch.
All this within an hour of crossing the Causeway.
Worse, it happened in broad daylight and in a crowded shopping mall.
After arriving in JB at 2pm that day, they headed for the City Square mall - a short distance from the Causeway - to check out sports gear and shorts.
They were there for barely 20 minutes when trouble came their way.
Mr Tan, who is now awaiting admission to a polytechnic, said he and his two NS buddies got off the escalator on the second floor of the mall and walked towards the shops.
STOPPED IN FRONT OF THEM
A man suddenly stopped in front of them, causing Mr Tan to dodge him.
Mr Tan said: 'It was strange because he was not doing anything but just stopped purposely. So I just felt my pockets to see if my wallet and handphone were still there.'
Nothing was missing, so they moved on.
Then they stopped in front of a Watsons outlet to look over the railing at an IT fair below.
The same man they had earlier dodged reappeared.
'The man asked me for RM12 ($5). He did not look like a beggar, but we decided to just give it to him,' Mr Tan said.
He said the man was in his mid-30s to 40s and was wearing a black T-shirt and jeans.
He then demanded they hand over all their cash.
Mr Tan recounted: 'The man told me, 'Take out your wallet and quietly give it to me. If you're looking for trouble, I got a gang here... a lot of fighters. You can scream, you can shout, but I've got back-up.'
'We looked at each other, but we did not know what to do. So we gave him our wallets. We took out the money we had just changed and some Singapore dollars.'
It totalled more than $250.
But it was not over yet.
The man calmly told them to remove the SIM cards from their handphones and give him their phones, Mr Tan claimed.
They estimated that their handphones were worth about $600.
Then he allegedly threatened them again, saying: 'You can scream if you want, go ahead. But I can't promise you'll be okay after this.'
Then the man asked for Mr Tan's Seiko watch.
Mr Tan said: 'It was a cheap watch, maybe worth $80, but what would he want with it? Then he threatened us again and I thought, what the heck, money and things we can earn back, but safety is more important.'
Said software tester John Yap, 20: 'I was getting very frustrated, but we couldn't do anything. We tried looking around to signal people for help, but they passed us without looking. What if we screamed and no one bothered?'
Besides, Mr Yap could not run far because of a thigh surgery he had undergone eight months ago.
THREE MEN TO ONE
IT technician KY Ng, 20, added: 'Three of us could have held him down, sure no problem. But what happens if his gang members are around, like he said? At that time, we cared more for our lives.'
So the three gave in to the man.
After that, the man told them to return to Singapore.
The three claimed that the man threatened them again, saying that if they lodged a police report, they may not be able to return safely.
So they made their way back to the Causeway.
Said Mr Ng: 'All the while we were looking behind us. Even though we didn't see the man, who knows if there were others from his gang watching us?'
When they reached Singapore, they went to the nearest police post hoping to lodge a report.
Said Mr Tan: 'They advised us to file the report in JB because that is where the crime happened. They told us we can still lodge a report in Singapore but they would still need to contact JB police to help.'
A police spokesman confirmed that the three had approached the Bukit Panjang North NPP but did not make a report eventually.
Mr Tan said: 'We thought about it and decided not to because we don't think we'll get anything back anyway.'
Will they return to JB?
'I don't think so. We were all cautious, but we still 'kena' (got hit in Malay),' said Mr Tan.
'When you're in a foreign country, it's even more scary because you don't know where to look for help.
'Sure, I've been reading reports about people getting robbed in JB, but I didn't think it would happen to me on that Saturday. This incident is very 'suay' (unlucky in Hokkien).'
Mr Ng added: 'I won't go back there, not for a long time.'
WAHAHAHAHA!!!! So 乖乖 and so obedient! This type of sillyzens where else in the world can find?! People threaten say don't make police report then they also listen! Are they fucking idiots and retarded?! SAF has this doctrine that says engage in combat when you are assured of numerical superiority of 3 to 1 or more. Hahahaha!!! I salute these 3 'well trained' soldiers who will start their 10 yrs cycle of reservist soon. Simi lanjiao specs ops training lah, 3G army lah, IPPT lah, all for fuck?! One unarmed old jiu hu fart is enough to make three fighting fit soldiers from the Shitpore Ass Force to wet their pants and surrender! Hahaha!!!
Oh and the most retarded thing of all. The three did decide to make a police report... but in S'pore and not JB! Hahahaha!!!
FOR the three friends who had completed their national service last December, it was a regular trip to Johor Baru on Saturday.
Their agenda: Shopping and seafood dinner.
It turned out be anything but.
They were robbed of more than $900 worth of valuables by a man. Apart from cash, the lost their handphones and a watch.
All this within an hour of crossing the Causeway.
Worse, it happened in broad daylight and in a crowded shopping mall.
After arriving in JB at 2pm that day, they headed for the City Square mall - a short distance from the Causeway - to check out sports gear and shorts.
They were there for barely 20 minutes when trouble came their way.
Mr Tan, who is now awaiting admission to a polytechnic, said he and his two NS buddies got off the escalator on the second floor of the mall and walked towards the shops.
STOPPED IN FRONT OF THEM
A man suddenly stopped in front of them, causing Mr Tan to dodge him.
Mr Tan said: 'It was strange because he was not doing anything but just stopped purposely. So I just felt my pockets to see if my wallet and handphone were still there.'
Nothing was missing, so they moved on.
Then they stopped in front of a Watsons outlet to look over the railing at an IT fair below.
The same man they had earlier dodged reappeared.
'The man asked me for RM12 ($5). He did not look like a beggar, but we decided to just give it to him,' Mr Tan said.
He said the man was in his mid-30s to 40s and was wearing a black T-shirt and jeans.
He then demanded they hand over all their cash.
Mr Tan recounted: 'The man told me, 'Take out your wallet and quietly give it to me. If you're looking for trouble, I got a gang here... a lot of fighters. You can scream, you can shout, but I've got back-up.'
'We looked at each other, but we did not know what to do. So we gave him our wallets. We took out the money we had just changed and some Singapore dollars.'
It totalled more than $250.
But it was not over yet.
The man calmly told them to remove the SIM cards from their handphones and give him their phones, Mr Tan claimed.
They estimated that their handphones were worth about $600.
Then he allegedly threatened them again, saying: 'You can scream if you want, go ahead. But I can't promise you'll be okay after this.'
Then the man asked for Mr Tan's Seiko watch.
Mr Tan said: 'It was a cheap watch, maybe worth $80, but what would he want with it? Then he threatened us again and I thought, what the heck, money and things we can earn back, but safety is more important.'
Said software tester John Yap, 20: 'I was getting very frustrated, but we couldn't do anything. We tried looking around to signal people for help, but they passed us without looking. What if we screamed and no one bothered?'
Besides, Mr Yap could not run far because of a thigh surgery he had undergone eight months ago.
THREE MEN TO ONE
IT technician KY Ng, 20, added: 'Three of us could have held him down, sure no problem. But what happens if his gang members are around, like he said? At that time, we cared more for our lives.'
So the three gave in to the man.
After that, the man told them to return to Singapore.
The three claimed that the man threatened them again, saying that if they lodged a police report, they may not be able to return safely.
So they made their way back to the Causeway.
Said Mr Ng: 'All the while we were looking behind us. Even though we didn't see the man, who knows if there were others from his gang watching us?'
When they reached Singapore, they went to the nearest police post hoping to lodge a report.
Said Mr Tan: 'They advised us to file the report in JB because that is where the crime happened. They told us we can still lodge a report in Singapore but they would still need to contact JB police to help.'
A police spokesman confirmed that the three had approached the Bukit Panjang North NPP but did not make a report eventually.
Mr Tan said: 'We thought about it and decided not to because we don't think we'll get anything back anyway.'
Will they return to JB?
'I don't think so. We were all cautious, but we still 'kena' (got hit in Malay),' said Mr Tan.
'When you're in a foreign country, it's even more scary because you don't know where to look for help.
'Sure, I've been reading reports about people getting robbed in JB, but I didn't think it would happen to me on that Saturday. This incident is very 'suay' (unlucky in Hokkien).'
Mr Ng added: 'I won't go back there, not for a long time.'
WAHAHAHAHA!!!! So 乖乖 and so obedient! This type of sillyzens where else in the world can find?! People threaten say don't make police report then they also listen! Are they fucking idiots and retarded?! SAF has this doctrine that says engage in combat when you are assured of numerical superiority of 3 to 1 or more. Hahahaha!!! I salute these 3 'well trained' soldiers who will start their 10 yrs cycle of reservist soon. Simi lanjiao specs ops training lah, 3G army lah, IPPT lah, all for fuck?! One unarmed old jiu hu fart is enough to make three fighting fit soldiers from the Shitpore Ass Force to wet their pants and surrender! Hahaha!!!
Oh and the most retarded thing of all. The three did decide to make a police report... but in S'pore and not JB! Hahahaha!!!
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Upcoming - Death penalty film
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Committee presents:
DEADLINE: The Screening
Guinness Theatre, Substation
8 pm. Wednesday, 5th April, 2006
Free Admission.
Deadline is a documentary on Illinois Governor George Ryan, who, with 60 days left in office, makes a decision on the fate of death row prisoners. Directors Katy Chevigny and Kirsten Johnson tackle the volatile topic of the American capital punishment system with intelligence, compassion and balance. Furthermore, they capture the extraordinary transformation of one man who holds the power of life and death in his hands.
Deadline is New York-based Big Mouth Productions's sixth feature-length documentary film and both Johnson and Chevigny's second film. Chevigny's directorial debut was Journey to the West: Chinese Medicine Today (2002), distributed by Wellspring Media. Johnson's previous film, Innocent Until Proven Guilty, premiered at the Berlin International Film Festival in 1999 and was featured on HBO.
Among other awards, Deadline has won the 2005 Cine Golden Eagle Special Jury Award, the Thurgood Marshall Journalism Award, Best Feature Documentary and Best Director at the Black Point Film Festival, Lake Geneva.W!. It has also screened at Amnesty International Film Festival, Human Rights Watch International Film Festival and The Independent Film Festival of Boston.
This screening is organized by The Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Committee, which is a group of concerned individuals who believe that it is wrong for the state to take someone's life. We have organized this film screening as part of our public outreach. We hope to show more people the facts and the myths behind the death penalty.
Friday, February 24, 2006
NKF, HDB, and an Open Letter
Date: 24 February 2006
To: Editor, Singapore Review
From: Mr See Leong Kit
Subject: Be Open on HDB Flat Pricing --- Open Letter to PM Lee
Note for fellow S'poreans:
> Please circulate freely to all interested parties (esp HDB flat buyers/owners comprising some 90% of our population).
> As HDB flats are supposed to be low-cost public housing, S'poreans have every right to know whether they are priced with a "true cash subsidy" or a "cleverly-disguised profit".
The HDB Flat Pricing Issue is all about TRANSPARENCY (i.e. as in the NKF Shameful Scandal).
> If someone makes wild accusations, the PAP Govt will quickly issue a "robust reply" to rebut same.
Read on carefully and judge for yourself why PM Lee did not bother to render HIS response (i.e. choosing to maintain a DEAD SILENCE) despite my following reminder:
" In the absence of your response, our citizen-voters (already fed-up with Minister Mah's constant dodgy replies) will naturally wonder why Singapore's Prime Minister do not seem to have any comment/opinion on an issue that affects some 90% of the population."
Original full text of my Open Letter emailed to PM Lee (which he did not bother to respond):
Date: 21 February 2006
To: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
cc: MND/HDB Minister-IN-CHARGE Mah Bow Tan
MoS/MND Heng Chee How
MND Parl Sec Maliki bin Osman
MND Perm Sec Tan Tee How
DPM Wong Kan Seng
PMO Minister Lim Swee Say
Head of Civil Service & PS/MFA Peter Ho
Ex-Head of Civil Service & PS/MOF Lim Siong Guan
PS/PSD Lim Soo Hoon
HDB Board Members:
Chairman Aline Wong
Dy Chairman Koh Cher Siang
Member David Wong Cheong Fook
Member Edmund Koh Kian Chew
Member Quek Bin Hwee
Member Ravi Menon
Member Halimah Yacob
Member Tan Boon Huat
Member BG Tay Lim Heng
Member/HDB CEO RADM (NS) Lui Tuck Yew
HDB Dy CEO Tan Poh Hong
HDB Dy CEO John Keung
Members of Parliament:
MP Dr Amy Khor (GPC Chairman,Environment/Nat'l Devt)
MP Dr Lily Neo
MP Chiam See Tong
MP Low Thia Khiang
NCMP Steve Chia
From: Mr See Leong Kit [ 58-year old educated/thinking citizen-voter and
whistle-blower (one who MUST speak up,when things are NOT RIGHT) ]
BE OPEN ON HDB FLAT PRICING --- OPEN LETTER TO PM LEE
1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
1.1 During my idealistic youth, I was a staunch PAP supporter (just like my illiterate parents) through my unquestioning support and blind loyalty --- being systematically "brain-washed" by the endless flow of "feel-good" propaganda dished out by the PAP-controlled Press/TV Media.
My Greatest Regret --- it has taken me so long (at around age 40) to "see through" the many convoluted/unprofessional political ploys played by the PAP to entrench itself and to "ride roughshod" over the people (in not according rightful respect for their concerns/feedback).
But My Greatest Consolation --- more younger/better-educated/Internet-savvy Singaporeans are able to do so at an early age (in their 20s and 30s).
Over the Internet, their message goes like this:
"We, Singaporeans, Not Stupid! We do not like to be treated like 3-year old kids. Nor have our intelligence insulted by spurious arguments from public officials. We can THINK, READ between the lines and ADD one and one to make five!"
[ Other Internet postings:
> Politicans may fool MOST people MOST of the time.
But they can never fool ALL the people ALL the time.
> TALK IS CHEAP. Politicians must WALK THE TALK
in order to "earn" the respect/trust/credibility of the people.]
[ ST 7 Jan 06 headline: "Coming polls: Voters want leaders to EARN their TRUST."]
[ "People don't vote for a politician for what good things he has done IN THE PAST. People will support the man for what he can do for them GOING FORWARD." --- PAP MP Ong Kian Min (ST 20 May 05) ]
1.2 Is Singapore's PAP Government Really Open?
[ "We are OPEN AND TRANSPARENT...WE CANNOT HIDE what goes on in Singapore" --- MHA Minister Wong Kan Seng (ST 18 May 03) ]
[ "DPM Lee promises a more open Singapore"; "I don't make promises I can't keep: DPM Lee" (ST 7 Jan 04) ]
[ TODAY 13 Aug 04 headline: "The PM for all Singaporeans. Newly-sworn-in PM Lee pledges an 'open and inclusive' Singapore".]
[ TODAY 25 Aug 04 headline: "An Open Society? We'll See. Young Singaporeans sceptical about promised changes."]
[ From Internet posting:
Singapore is a supposedly First-World country, with a supposedly Open Government run by supposedly World-Class million-dollar ministers and supposedly First-Class half-a-million dollar senior bureaucrats.]
(b) What Foreigners Say:
[ "I hope my Singaporean friends can drop their ARROGANCE and the Chinese can let go of their pride"
--- Former Chinese Ambassador to Singapore Chen Baoliu (ST 20 Nov 03).]
[ "Singapore has flourished over the past 40 years, but is a 20th century model adequate for the 21st century?
Remaking its economy is, in a sense, the easy decision. Shaping a political system to reflect the needs and aspirations of its citizens is more difficult and more sensitive.
What are the bounds of expression? What say should citizens have in their government? In this era of Weblogs and Webcams, how much sense does it make to limit political expression?
As part of Singapore's success is its strong international links, it is surprising to find constraints on discussions here.
In my view, governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of their citizens."
--- Former U.S. Ambassador to Singapore Frank Lavin (ST 17 Oct 05) ]
[ "The use of libel and financial penalties can be a tremendous hindrance to freedom of expression.
When people who express critical views are sued, and sued out of existence by imposing financial penalties, they are prevented from participating in political life.
Obviously, Singapore does NOT qualify as an open society.
Prosperity and an open society have a symbiotic relationship. When a serious problem develops, a society without freedom of expression can't cope.
Singapore is a prosperous society....So I HOPE Singapore will become an open society."
--- U.S. billionaire financier/philanthropist George Soros (11 Jan 06) ]
1.3 What Singaporeans have learned from the NKF Disgraceful Debacle-cum-Shameful Scandal:
(a) From the Internet: "What the NKF saga has proved is that people who win defamation lawsuits may not be innocent and those who lose may not be guilty."
(b) Most quoteworthy Internet posting by a young/educated Singaporean:
"People with INTEGRITY counter accusations with the TRUTH, not lawsuits!"
(c) What Singaporeans at large think about defamation legal threats:
--- a most unbecoming/unprofessional as well as distasteful/disgraceful habit (especially coming from Public Officials).
--- a cunningly-clever way to strike fear and prevent charity-donors [or taxpayer-citizens] from asking rightful questions and seeking rightful answers on how their donated monies [or public funds] are being spent.
(d) [ "Obviously the checks and balances didn't work." --- PM Lee's first comments on the NKF Scandal (CNA 15 Jul 05) ]
Immediate Postings on the Internet:
Wearing his hat as Finance Minister, PM Lee had constantly preached on the importance of Good CORPORATE Governance and the need for "checks and balances"; "transparency and accountability"; "level playing field" (under Competition Act) and encouraging "whistle-blowers" (to expose corporate fraud/wrong-doing).
BUT wearing his hat as PRIME MINISTER, WHEN is PM Lee going to DO SOMETHING about the long-overdue/much-needed similar "checks and balances", etc,etc, to promote Good POLITICAL Governance ???
WHY the double standards between Corporate and Political Governance?
[ ".....we can always do BETTER if we try HARDER. We ALWAYS MUST try HARDER. Don't just do NATO (No Action,Talk Only)....."
--- PM Lee Hsien Loong (5 May 05 CNA "Up Close" programme) ]
......In 1997, he slammed the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) for its election practice of linking votes to upgrading of HDB estates.
"Voters are supposed to vote without fear and favour, and now we have a situation where both elements are in", he said sharply in an interview with Insight then.
In January 2001, Dr Balakrishnan found himself at lunch in the Istana with then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, who asked him to join the PAP.
Muses Dr Balakrishnan: "I've never forgotten what he told me, that 'if you join us, don't compromise and lose your values because if you do, you lose your value to us'."
He meets head-on the accusations that in the last four years, he has capitulated too quickly, too much --- and had essentially become a PAP yes-man.
So what alternative views has he expressed to the Government? He declines to go into it, saying "it's wrong for me to now publicly criticise".
ST reporter Li Xueying: "Some people have drawn parallels between the NKF and the Government, namely the use and justification of high salaries to draw talents, the use of libel suits to silence critics and the political patronage."
Dr Balakrishnan: "Those are opposition politicians trying to grasp at straws, but let me take it on.
Do I believe in paying people what they're worth? That's a principle which we still are for. Who decides how much you earn? In the case of Government, it's TRANSPARENT. We're not secretly being paid or collecting things. It's the INTEGRITY of the system. THAT'S INTACT.
TRANSPARENCY --- is there any fact being suppressed simply because we're embarrassed about it or because it cannot withstand public scrutiny? NO.
In even the so-called things which people are concerned about --- Temasek or the GIC --- there are good national financial reasons for certain amount of discretion in what is put out in the public domain. After all, this is to protect our own reserves and our own fiscal situation."
2 PRICING OF HDB FLATS --- AN ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY
2.1 Many of Singapore's national/social problems (eg insufficient job creation; rich-poor income gap; rising divorce rates; procreation problem; younger/educated/disillusioned S'poreans emigrating; etc) can be traced back to these two fundamental causes:
(i) For COMPANIES/BUSINESSES (creating jobs for the people), the HIGH COST of doing business here
(ii) For our PEOPLE, the HIGH COST of living
WHO SAYS S'poreans must "pay through their noses" for good Government, a roof over their heads, a decent education for their children and a decent quality of life?
And WHO SAYS S'poreans must tolerate (ie suffer in silence) our high cost of living in order to enjoy a high standard of living?
[ Australia has a high standard of living, but its cost of living is nowhere as ridiculous as Singapore's! ]
2.2 The various/numerous taxes and dues S'poreans have to "Pay And Pay" include:
income tax; property tax; ad-valorem stamp duty on property purchases;
GST, COE, ERP, maid levy;
transport fares and varsity fees going up and up; etc, etc.
[ From the Internet --- With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill, never in the history of Mankind has so Many Singaporeans been Milked for so much Monies over so Many years by the PAP Government! ]
Million-Dollar Question --- To run a tiny red dot island, WHY do the PAP Government have "to milk so much monies from the people" ???
Final Correct Answer:
(i) to pay for the humongous remunerations/perks of our Ceremonial Presidency, Bloated Cabinet and Bulging Bloated Bureaucracy.
(ii) to provide an abundant/cheap source of funds for GIC, Temasek and other Government-linked business entities.
(iii) to pay for GIANT ELECTION CARROTS to seduce the people for their votes --- as in "pork-barrel politics" (using taxpayer's monies for political advantage) and "election gerrymandering" (fiddling with electoral boundaries for political advantage).
2.3 Irrefutable Facts on HDB Home Ownership In Singapore:
FACT 1:
Singapore's private home prices are "obscenely-high" while HDB flat prices are "sky-high".
For most S'poreans, a home is the most expensive purchase they will make in their lifetimes.
Some 90% of our population live in HDB flats --- representing the less-well-off who cannot afford private property.
FACT 2:
Despite our high home prices, few buyers "feel the pinch" immediately because up to 90% of the cost can be financed by long-term debt (over 20 -30 years).
Thus, many do not give a second thought to the fact if they borrow, say, $100,000 under a 20-year home loan, they could ultimately cough up some $200,000 in total capital and interest repayments.
FACT 3:
If prices of cars reach intolerable levels [at one time, COE nearly hit $100,000!], we can at least forego owning a car and fall back on public transport.
However, to encourage young S'poreans not to delay marriage and have more children [solution to our Procreation Problem!], they need a roof over their heads! IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT !!!
FACT 4:
BUT if a young couple in Singapore have to "sink so much monies" into their "brick and cement" HDB flat, how much monies will there be left to raise a family and sent the children to school/university (not to mention providing for their own healthcare/retirement needs in their golden years) ???
2.4 Timeline on the HDB Flat Pricing Issue:
(a) 23 Jan 2002 ST Forum letter "Govt should be open about true costs" by Wendy Lee Wan Fern, on the building costs and pricing of new HDB flats.
(b) 27 Aug 2003 TODAY letter "So, what's the true cost of an HDB flat?" by See Leong Kit:
" The impending CPF cuts raise two issues of concern for Singaporeans who use their CPF savings to finance their home purchases.
First, the affordability of public housing should be examined. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan "promised" in Parliament that HDB flats will be kept "affordable" but did not elaborate.
What is the true cost of --- and what is the Government subsidy for --- an HDB flat? Singaporeans have the right to know how the flats are priced.
I urge Mr Mah to follow the example of Acting Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan in his move to publicise healthcare costs to help patients make informed choices. "
(c) 12 Jul 2004 ST Forum letter "How does HDB price its flats?" by Douglas Chow Tuck Kheong.
27 Jul 2004 ST Forum letter "Subsidy should be based on flat's building cost" by Mohamed Rafiq Hamjah.
11 Aug 2004 ST Forum letter "Flat buyers pay more than cost unless resale prices take a sharp dip" by Ee Teck Siew.
Mr Douglas Chow had "discovered" from ST reports that Chip Eng Seng Contractors had in 2000 built 824 flats in Bukit Batok for the tendered sum of $39.78 million, and would be completing in 2004 another 456 flats for $23 million.
That works out at around $50,000 construction cost per flat (in both cases). He then rightly asked why these new 4/5 room HDB flats are priced upwards of $200,000?
[ Following the above letters, there were considerable angry reactions on various Internet websites over the PAP Government's recalcitrant "lack of transparency" on the HDB Flat Pricing issue.]
(d) 1 Dec 2005 TODAY letter "Transparency begins at home. How does HDB derive flat prices? What are the costs?" by See Leong Kit.
2 Dec 2005 TODAY letter "How does HDB manage its finances?" by Gary Lee.
Note:
> For (b) above, although specifically asked to, Minister Mah Bow Tan did not bother to furnish a public reply i.e. he chose to maintain an arrogant/disrespectful DEAD SILENCE to an issue affecting some 90% of our population.
> For (a),(c),(d), the HDB had dodged the issue ALL THESE YEARS with its standard exasperating "wishy-washy/mumbo-jumbo/fuzzy-wuzzy" reply that a "market subsidy" is provided for new HDB flats to make it "affordable".
The same reply was regurgitated by Minister Mah in Parliament as follows:
[ Reproduced from Singapore Parliament website ]
Parliament No: 10 Session No: 1 Sitting Date: 2004-09-01
Title: Affordability-Based Scheme for HDB Flats
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for National Development:
--- what is the basis and rationale for the Government to choose an affordability-based pricing scheme for HDB flats instead of a cost-based pricing system
--- whether this affordability-based scheme is taking more money than necessary from the people's savings than for other needs like children's education, medical care and retirement
--- whether this affordability-based scheme is turning previously well-affordable HDB flats into a backbreaking financial burden for those hard hit by the economic restructuring and who cannot find jobs with the matching pay.
Mr Mah Bow Tan:
The Government has committed that the majority of Singaporeans would be able to afford a basic HDB flat. Affordability is therefore the key consideration in pricing HDB flats. All HDB flats come with a market subsidy, i.e. they are priced below their equivalent market value.
Last year, 3- and 4-room HDB flat buyers used, on average, less than 20% of their monthly income to service their monthly loans. It is well within the 40% guideline used by financial institutions in credit assessment. It is also lower than international benchmarks of household expenditure on housing, which is typically around 25% or 30% of household income. This clearly shows that HDB flats remain affordable to Singaporeans.
We have consistently adopted an affordability-based pricing system. This has enabled more than 80% of Singaporeans to own their HDB flat.
Compelling Rebuttals to Minister Mah's statements:
(i) Previously, HDB flats were said to be "heavily subsidized".
In recent years, Minister Mah had cleverly switched to "market subsidy" --- perhaps realising that younger/educated/not-so-gullible S'poreans are "smelling a rat" in the pricing of HDB flats?
(ii) "Affordability" is often a relative/subjective thing.
Example: A Mercedes car priced at $250,000 is certainly "affordable" to Million-Dollar Minister Mah but definitely "not affordable" to the 400,000 S'poreans earning less than $1,500 per month!
As Minister Mah himself admitted, the 40% is just a "guideline" (general yardstick) used by banks to assess home loan instalment repayments.
Does he not know the "primary security" for the lending banks lie in the "legal mortgage" on the property???
(iii) See how Minister Mah (and other PAP politicians) like to constantly boast that "80% of Singaporeans own their HDB flat".
BUT notice how they cleverly avoid mentioning how many of the HDB flats still have outstanding mortgage loans, the amount outstanding and the remaining duration of the loans ???
2.5 Comparison between the "cost-based" and HDB "market subsidy" flat pricing approach :
(a) First, the logical "cost-based" approach used by Private Developers to price their condo flats:
Selling Price = Construction Cost + Land Cost + Other Related Costs + Profit Margin.
The profit margin is for the Private Developer assuming business risks, and generally range from a few per cent to say 20% (depending on market conditions and competition).
[ Note: HDB should be adopting such a "cost-based" approach but without the profit element --- since HDB is supposed to be a "not-for-profit" Developer of low-cost mass public housing.
(So that, through its large-scale developments, it can reap the "economies of scale" and pass on the "substantial cost savings" to HDB flatbuyers!) ]
>> Consider the example of a 5-room HDB NEW flat,
with a tendered construction cost of $50,000 [as verified in 2.4(c)]
but selling price set by the HDB at $200,000
[ Note: It is a GRAVE INSULT to the intelligence of S'poreans for the HDB to argue that the hugh balance of $150,000 is accounted for by Land Cost & Other Related Costs (eg piling works; consultancy/project management fees; financing/marketing/legal/misc costs).
Nowadays, HDB flats are built HIGHER and CLOSER TOGETHER i.e. with MANY flats cramped into a SMALL PLOT of land --- so the PER UNIT share of Land Cost & Other Related Costs cannot be so high at $150,000.
Let's estimate it at, say, around $70,000.]
>> So, Total Break-even Cost of the 5-rm new flat
= $50,000 (Construction Cost) plus $70,000 (Land Cost & Other Related Costs)
= $120,000 (which the HDB should set as the Selling Price --- if it genuinely want to help S'poreans in home ownership)
(i) If the Total Break-even Cost of a new flat is $120,000 and the HDB sells it for $100,000, then it is granting a "true cash subsidy" of $20,000 to the buyer.
(ii) Alternatively, if the HDB sells it for $120,000 (Total Break-even Cost), there is no such subsidy to the buyer ( but he will AT LEAST benefit from buying the flat at the LOWEST POSSIBLE COST! )
(b) Coming to the HDB's "market subsidy" flat pricing approach:
Minister Mah is trying to tell a young Singapore couple planning to have 3 children and wanting to buy a 5-rm HDB flat as follows:
Hey fellas, you have only the following two choices (so take it or leave it):
--- Apply for a NEW 5-rm flat, but be prepared to wait a few years (at one time, as long as 7 years! )
--- If you cannot wait, then go and buy a RESALE 5-rm flat at the (higher) prevailing market price.
We, the PAP Govt, like to proudly proclaim that buyers of new HDB flats get a "market subsidy" --- which is provided "by pricing NEW flats below the market price of comparable RESALE flats."
So, the HDB will look at the prevailing market price (say, $260,000) of a RESALE 5-rm flat --- and then "pluck from the air" the lower figure of, say, $200,000 as the selling price of a NEW 5-rm flat (NEVER MIND if its actual Total Break-even Cost is only $120,000 !!! ).
You, Singaporeans are "so damn lucky" and should not "moan and groan" --- the PAP Govt is giving you a "market subsidy" of $60,000, right???
And that's why you must vote for the PAP for another 40 years of MORE GOOD YEARS !!!
IMPORTANT CONCLUSIONS FOR ALL HDB FLAT BUYERS:
(i) The HDB "market subsidy" is thus really a "fake non-cash subsidy" --- as compared to a "true cash subsidy" [ mentioned in 2.5(a)(i) ]
By selling a new 5-rm flat (with Total Break-even Cost at $120,000)
for $200,000, there is actually NO "true cash subsidy" at all
AND the HDB is actually raking in a WHOPPING PROFIT of $80,000 PER FLAT SOLD !!!
[ Is this yet another ingenious way to milk more monies out of the people? ]
(ii) The HDB "market subsidy" flat pricing approach had actually resulted in both NEW FLAT prices and RESALE FLAT prices "chasing each other in an upward spiral" --- that is painfully disadvantageous to buyers of both new and resale flats !!!
2.6 HDB Flat Pricing --- Show Us The Numbers:
See how, recently in Parliament on 13 Feb 06, Minister Mah (ONLY WHEN IT SUITS HIM) was able to provide detailed facts/figures pertaining to the HDB Racial Quota Policy?
And amazingly, from the following two quotations, see how Minister Mah had also proudly preached about being "open and transparent" in tackling Bird Flu (but NOT in HDB Flat Pricing ???)
and being "professional" in football (but NOT so in furnishing to the people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth behind HDB Flat Pricing ???).
[ "....It is better to be a bit kiasu and over-react rather than under-react, because you never know what surprises await you --- a lesson learnt from the SARS outbreak.
The other lesson is that it is better to be OPEN AND TRANSPARENT, and TELL PEOPLE WHAT'S GOING ON , whether good or bad, so that they will be BETTER PREPARED...." --- MND Minister Mah Bow Tan (ST 2 Feb 04) ]
[ "I urge all of you involved in football in Singapore to remember that it is in your own interest to make sure that players behave PROFESSIONALLY at all times and do not do anything to bring the game into disrepute." --- Former FAS President Mah Bow Tan (ST 19 Feb 02) ]
3 CONCLUDING REMARKS
3.1 Difference between a Truly Competent/Caring Government and a Dud Government:
(a) A Truly Competent/Caring Government is one that will do its utmost to SERVE THE PEOPLE through keeping the COST OF LIVING at sensible levels by providing basic social services --- such as housing, education, transport, healthcare, security --- at lowest-possible and cost-efficient prices/charges.
(b) A Dud Government (which will do Singapore in) is one that will think of many ingenious ways to "milk as much of the people's hard-earned monies as possible"
--- such as "do HDB flatbuyers in" through pricing supposedly low-cost public housing at a cleverly-disguised profit using the clever semantics of "market subsidy".
[Origin of the PAP-coined phrase "a Dud Government that will do Singapore in":
At every Singapore General Election, there will be scare-mongering politicians warning voters ( with silly/childish threats like "time bombs" which grossly insult the people's intelligence) that if they vote for the Opposition, they will be voting in "a Dud Government that will do Singapore in". ]
3.2 [ "And we must invest in our young, who are the hope for our future. This will strengthen our bonds, and assure every Singaporean of a brighter future, as we create OUR BEST HOME IN SINGAPORE."
--- PM Lee Hsien Loong 2006 Budget Speech 17 Feb 06 ]
PM Lee, the whole world knows about the notorious/overly--kiasu insistence by PAP politicians on their "right of reply".
I will thus be fair and professional in according you such right of reply to this Open Letter.
Please do so within our PS21 Civil Service 3-working day Response Directive i.e. by 5 pm Thursday 23 Feb 06.
More specifically, Singaporean voters will be most interested in your replies to the following rightful questions:
(i) WHY is the PAP Government not genuinely helping HDB flat-buyers by passing on to them the cost-savings from economies of scale in massive HDB developments through pricing the flats on a cost-recovery "break-even" basis?
(ii) Are HDB new flats priced with a "true cash subsidy"?
If the answer is NO, say so directly and openly.
If the answer is YES, convince the people with detailed facts/figures and indicate the amount of the "true cash subsidy".
[ ST 8 Dec 05 front-page headline: "Allegations of Rampant Maid Abuse. Govt counters rights group's claims with figures."
STForum 21 Dec 05 reply: "Govt had to set record straight on maid abuse" by Jean Tan, Press Secretary to Minister for Manpower. ]
3.3 Thereafter, (in keeping with your promise of an "open and inclusive" Singapore), I will proceed to download over the Internet this Open Letter and Your Reply so as to "openly include" the 90% of our population who are directly affected by this important HDB Flat Pricing Issue.
PM Lee, this is indeed a golden opportunity (ahead of the coming General Elections) for you to live up to what you preach/promise and demonstrate the requisite political leadership needed to "earn" the votes of the people.
In the absence of your response, our citizen-voters (already fed-up with Minister Mah's constant dodgy replies) will naturally wonder why Singapore's Prime Minister do not seem to have any comment/opinion on an issue that affects some 90% of the population.
Other Irrefutable Statements:
(a) Citizen-voters have EVERY RIGHT to ask QUESTIONS of Politicians (as Public SERVANTS). And it is a Politician's BOUNDEN DUTY to provide truthful/proper ANSWERS.
(b) HDB flats are developed using public funds --- so Singaporeans have EVERY RIGHT to know exactly how HDB flats are actually priced.
(c) ANY Public SERVANT (i.e. politician or bureaucrat) who choose to maintain a DEAD SILENCE to questions/issues raised by the people is guilty of a brazen act of arrogant disrespect towards the very same people who are actually paying various taxes/dues towards his public-funded remuneration.
Most Quoteworthy Statement on Unresponsive PUBLIC SERVANTS:
"The Four Monkeys of Unresponsiveness --- SEE Nothing, HEAR Nothing, SAY Nothing, DO Nothing"
--- title of 2002 "pep-talk" speech by Permanent Secretary Lim Siong Guan
( who, as Head of Civil Service, did precious little to curb our Bulging Bloated Bureaucracy. He had also allowed civil servants [ including himself !!! ] in dealing with public feedback to get away with either maintaining Dead Silence or issuing exasperating "half-answer or non-answer" public replies that insult the intelligence of educated/thinking Singaporeans.)
ADDENDUM
Other Notable HDB Fiascos (Under Minister-IN-CHARGE Mah Bow Tan)
(1) 2002 HDB Hub Overboard Extravagance Fiasco:
> In June 2002, HDB moved to its spanking-new $380 million HDB Hub from its still-new Bukit Merah premises.
1st Screw-Up --- WHY was the HDB Hub's "very prime site" (directly above Toa Payoh MRT Station) allocated to a Government building and not tendered out to Private Sector Developers(with deep pockets) to reap handsome revenue for the State coffers ???
2nd Screw-Up --- Most Shocking Revelation: Apparently NOBODY in MND/HDB had given a thought on WHAT TO DO with the vacated Bukit Merah premises !!!
[ As a result, the Bukit Merah premises were left vacant for some 18 months, incurring an opportunity cost in lost rental estimated at $1 million per month!
And what about the wasteful expenses incurred in first moving some 8,000 HDB staff from Bukit Merah to HDB Hub, and subsequently "moving back" some 2,000 (as HDB Corp staff) to Bukit Merah? ]
3rd Screw-Up --- What "posh extravagance" [like a 5-star hotel lobby] for the HDB Sales Office at HDB Hub:
Plush fabric sofas instead of durable moulded plastic chairs.
Polished granite floors (slippery) instead of heavy-duty ceramic tiles.
Large expensive Plasma TV screens instead of cheaper alternatives.
> Pertinent Questions:
WHO pays for such SINFUL EXTRAVAGANCE and WASTEFUL SPENDING of public funds but OUR PEOPLE (already burdened with our high cost of living and paying numerous taxes and dues)?
A Business Times reader also rightly asked: "Have these well-paid and pampered bureaucrats no sense of shame?"
MOST IMPORTANTLY --- Instead of "throwing public monies to the wind", why not lower prices of HDB flats TO DIRECTLY BENEFIT OUR PEOPLE ???
(2) 2003 HDB Overly-Generous $220 million Retrenchment Payout Fiasco:
> Under Minister-IN-CHARGE Mah Bow Tan, the HDB had grew unchecked into a 8,000 staff organisation with a $500 million annual wage bill (or $55,000 per person --- pointing to many over-paid "fat cats" !!! )
In July 2003, it then went overboard with its stupidly and overly-generous $220 million retrenchment payout to let go 2,630 staff (or $84,000 per person !!! ) --- pointing to an inexperienced/panicky/botched-up handling of its first major retrenchment exercise.
Human Resource practitioners in the private sector were rightly shocked at the humongous payout !!!
Again, WHO pays for all these MINDBOGGLING SUMS OF MONEY but OUR PEOPLE ???
> Of the 2,630 staff, about one-third (some 900) were really "leaving" the HDB, with the remaining two-thirds actually "transferred" to HDB Corp (a new subsidiary of HDB).
WHY were the latter HDB staff ( who should be very thankful they still have a job at HDB Corp! ) also given retenchment payouts? [ Giving such benefits to "transferred staff" is unheard of in the private sector !!! ]
And WHY was there no 25-year cap on the retrenchment payouts (as is the standard practice in the private sector)?
Most ironically, there was a 25-year cap applied to the earlier (Feb 2003) PSA Retrenchment Exercise! (A clear-cut case of left hand not knowing what right hand was doing !!!)
Without the 25-year cap, some HDB staff apparently received nearly half a million dollars in retrenchment benefits --- thus "laughing all the way" to the bank and "profusely thanking" Minister Mah Bow Tan!
[ Why Worry? After all, it's just the People's Money, lah!
And $500,000 must be really "peanuts" compared to our world-infamous and handsomely-humongous million-dollar ministerial salaries! ]
For sure, retrenchment benefits are meant as compensation for being laid off, and certainly NOT A TOTO-LIKE WINDFALL !!!
WHY such "special" treatment for civil servants (at taxpayers' expense) ???
[ Do not forget the 26,000 retrenched S'poreans in 2001 (and 19,000 in 2002) were all private sector employees! ]
(3) 2003 Marine Terrace Upgrading Delay Fiasco:
> Not one but three contractors in succession abandon work (pointing to sloppy monitoring/supervision of the project by HDB staff).
> From ST Forum 10 Jun 03 write-up "Marine Terrace: A Brush-Off":
" The offhand way with which National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan dismissed the plight of the Marine Terrace residents left stranded by the delayed upgrading work is a big disappointment, write three Forum readers.
After putting up with filth, debris, diversions, noise, stench, crippled lifts, mosquitoes and rats, they expect some sympathy. But it seems that topmost on the Minister's mind was the issue of compensation --- not how quickly the works can be rectified."
[ Adding insult to injury, Minister Mah had even accused the residents of telling "half-truths" !!! ]
> Then HDB CEO Ngiam Chiang Meng also did not dare show his handsome/moustached face to apologise to the residents until the very last minute.
( How "Uniquely Singapore" --- after screwing up at HDB, this obviously "mollycoddled" bureaucrat was subsequently "promoted" to MCYS Permanent Secretary [ to screw up further at MCYS, which deals with pressing social issues??? ]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/2242
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/2242
Friday, January 27, 2006
PAPaya dog spotted!!!
Election must be round the corner. The 147th ranked Shit Times has been churning out articles after articles of sycophantic pro-PAP shit. Sycophantic bootlicking PAPaya scums must have been instructed by their masters too to do their part in the papers' forum. If not, meaning they are writing in on their own accord, they are truly beyond hope sillyzens shit the country can do without with. The latest in these eunuchs and toadies (the other two mentioned in this blog are Ephraim Loy and Tang Li) is no stranger... Thanks to google and the brudders at sammyboy, today we have a face to the name hahahaha!
Ladies and gentlemen, introducing Ace Kindred Cheong! (WTF kind of chee bye name is that anyway?! -_-")
http://www.julieroberts.com.sg/images/ace.jpg
And here is little more about Ace... http://aceimagesmedia.com/profile.shtml
Steady lah! Apparently lumpar-face there is a photographer wannabe! Wah lan eh, just take a look at his portfolio and i wonder did he pay his models to pose for him? I mean with a face even his own mother would hate no wonder he is such an ACE.. ugly fucker really aced it in the looks department! HAhahaha!!! And i bet he is probably a brainwashed xtian too, giving himself such a shameless chee bye name... sibei jialat leh. I mean would anyone give work to a complete waste of time like him? No wonder he has to learn to suck cock and be an ass-crack licker, busy tripod-ing the PAP! *Gasp* Lumpar face has a hidden agenda there! Going by his super retared looks, he has better chance working as extras appearing in those TV charity shows posing as some down syndrome spastics or brain cancer victims, sure can get record number of people to call in one!
Sometimes i really think there is a God. He is fair lor... useless people sure got one kind of useless hum kar chan face one, and being fucking ugly is a given. I think this is god's way to help normal people to be able to one look distinguish them from the rest. Just look at Ace, Ephraim and Tang Li (and of coz Hairdo Lim and miniLee)! Hahahaha!!
Ladies and gentlemen, introducing Ace Kindred Cheong! (WTF kind of chee bye name is that anyway?! -_-")
http://www.julieroberts.com.sg/images/ace.jpgAnd here is little more about Ace... http://aceimagesmedia.com/profile.shtml
Steady lah! Apparently lumpar-face there is a photographer wannabe! Wah lan eh, just take a look at his portfolio and i wonder did he pay his models to pose for him? I mean with a face even his own mother would hate no wonder he is such an ACE.. ugly fucker really aced it in the looks department! HAhahaha!!! And i bet he is probably a brainwashed xtian too, giving himself such a shameless chee bye name... sibei jialat leh. I mean would anyone give work to a complete waste of time like him? No wonder he has to learn to suck cock and be an ass-crack licker, busy tripod-ing the PAP! *Gasp* Lumpar face has a hidden agenda there! Going by his super retared looks, he has better chance working as extras appearing in those TV charity shows posing as some down syndrome spastics or brain cancer victims, sure can get record number of people to call in one!
Sometimes i really think there is a God. He is fair lor... useless people sure got one kind of useless hum kar chan face one, and being fucking ugly is a given. I think this is god's way to help normal people to be able to one look distinguish them from the rest. Just look at Ace, Ephraim and Tang Li (and of coz Hairdo Lim and miniLee)! Hahahaha!!
Saturday, January 07, 2006
S'pore judiciary eat shit!!!
Media release: Judiciary steps into politics with decision on protests
11 Dec 05
The ruling by Mr V K Rajah mocks the Constitution and the principles of democracy. The decision removes all doubt, if there was any to begin with, that Singaporeans effectively live under a dictatorship.
By making this decision, the courts have signaled its refusal to protect the rights of Singaporean citizens to assemble peacefully to protest against the Government and its policies. This is in spite of the fact that there were only four protesters and the Constitution guarantees that only five or more people constituted an illegal assembly.
It is utter nonsense for the judge to equate public protest to public nuisance or “something even more serious.” This is an insult to decent and right-minded Singaporeans who want to express their unhappiness with the Government through public protests – a freedom enjoyed by civilized and open communities all over the world.
This tired argument has been used by the PAP through the years whenever calls for freedom of speech are made. It is also the kind of antiquated thinking that retards Singapore’s development as a modern nation able to run with democracies of the world.
Mr Rajah’s reference to the words “CPF, NKF, HDB, GIC: Be transparent now!” painted on the protesters T-shirts as “incendiary” truly boggles the mind. If calling for transparency and accountability is “incendiary” (and thus prohibited) what can the Singaporeans call for? Even the Government admits that for (specious) commercial reasons, the GIC cannot be transparent.
The judiciary is effectively saying that it will act as the police and decide what messages are permissible and what are not in a public protest, assuming that protests are allowed. By doing this, are the courts not dragging themselves into the political arena, something that all judiciaries in established democracies assiduously avoid?
What about the National Trades Union Congress protesting against the US Government in 1988 for “interfering” in Singapore’s politics? What if it was the opposition who had tried to conduct that protest? Would the protest then be considered “incendiary”? Which authorities will decide what messages are proper and what are not? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a protest of four or less persons shall be allowed only if the message is deemed proper.
And since when was it the courts’ duty to protect the integrity and reputation of public institutions? Already the Government has an iron-grip on the media to ensure that the public gets to watch, read and hear nothing but good news about the Government. The voice of the Government shrieks loud and deafening. What is needed is protection of the citizens’ voice. The one-way traffic of political debate in Singapore is painfully clear to all who are willing to see.
Saying that Singaporeans do not have the right to “picket public institutions” because to do so would be to “question the [institutions’] integrity and cast a slur on their reputation” is tragic beyond words.
The judge has unwisely stepped on a political mine that will explode with serious consequences in the future.
The courts have spoken and they have made clear their stand. There is no recourse left available for citizens to express their dissent in a Constitutional manner.
It is confirmation, if any more is needed, that civil disobedience is the only route open to Singaporeans who wish to see our country embark on the path towards democracy and openness, and to remain faithful to our national pledge “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality…”
CHEE SOON JUAN
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
Also see Yawning Bread's damn steady article.
11 Dec 05
The ruling by Mr V K Rajah mocks the Constitution and the principles of democracy. The decision removes all doubt, if there was any to begin with, that Singaporeans effectively live under a dictatorship.
By making this decision, the courts have signaled its refusal to protect the rights of Singaporean citizens to assemble peacefully to protest against the Government and its policies. This is in spite of the fact that there were only four protesters and the Constitution guarantees that only five or more people constituted an illegal assembly.
It is utter nonsense for the judge to equate public protest to public nuisance or “something even more serious.” This is an insult to decent and right-minded Singaporeans who want to express their unhappiness with the Government through public protests – a freedom enjoyed by civilized and open communities all over the world.
This tired argument has been used by the PAP through the years whenever calls for freedom of speech are made. It is also the kind of antiquated thinking that retards Singapore’s development as a modern nation able to run with democracies of the world.
Mr Rajah’s reference to the words “CPF, NKF, HDB, GIC: Be transparent now!” painted on the protesters T-shirts as “incendiary” truly boggles the mind. If calling for transparency and accountability is “incendiary” (and thus prohibited) what can the Singaporeans call for? Even the Government admits that for (specious) commercial reasons, the GIC cannot be transparent.
The judiciary is effectively saying that it will act as the police and decide what messages are permissible and what are not in a public protest, assuming that protests are allowed. By doing this, are the courts not dragging themselves into the political arena, something that all judiciaries in established democracies assiduously avoid?
What about the National Trades Union Congress protesting against the US Government in 1988 for “interfering” in Singapore’s politics? What if it was the opposition who had tried to conduct that protest? Would the protest then be considered “incendiary”? Which authorities will decide what messages are proper and what are not? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a protest of four or less persons shall be allowed only if the message is deemed proper.
And since when was it the courts’ duty to protect the integrity and reputation of public institutions? Already the Government has an iron-grip on the media to ensure that the public gets to watch, read and hear nothing but good news about the Government. The voice of the Government shrieks loud and deafening. What is needed is protection of the citizens’ voice. The one-way traffic of political debate in Singapore is painfully clear to all who are willing to see.
Saying that Singaporeans do not have the right to “picket public institutions” because to do so would be to “question the [institutions’] integrity and cast a slur on their reputation” is tragic beyond words.
The judge has unwisely stepped on a political mine that will explode with serious consequences in the future.
The courts have spoken and they have made clear their stand. There is no recourse left available for citizens to express their dissent in a Constitutional manner.
It is confirmation, if any more is needed, that civil disobedience is the only route open to Singaporeans who wish to see our country embark on the path towards democracy and openness, and to remain faithful to our national pledge “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality…”
CHEE SOON JUAN
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
Also see Yawning Bread's damn steady article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
