TR EMERITUS

Reform Party leader Jeisilan Sivalingam has voiced out against the "large" size of the Singapore government. The 40 year old is a Process Improvement Manager in a multinational company located in Singapore and graduated from the University of South Australia with a Bachelor of Management, specialising in Logistic and Supply Chain Management. In an email interview with votingrp.wordpress.com, Jeisilan said he joined politics because he loves Singapore and he believes "that pluralistic democracy for Singaporeans is the only way to improve our lives." He took a swipe at the Economic Strategy Committee’s recommendations earlier this year to boost national productivity, but conveniently ignored the expenses incurred by the government: "We have an oversized government for such a small country – where else in the world would you find Ministers Without Portfolio? For a small country like us, do we need three generations of Prime Ministers in the Prime Minister office? Uniquely, we have a Minister for Manpower and then have another Minister to represent to worker. And these ministers don’t come cheap." Singapore must be the only country in the world with two former prime ministers in holding ministerial positions in the cabinet and continues to get paid by taxpayers on top of the pension which they are entitled to for the rest of their lives. "These are issues that need to be looked at with serious urgency and honest self-reflection. Complacency and Wasteful spending have to make way for a culture of prudence and being ‘lean’ when spending tax payers money," Jeisilan added. Under Singapore's unique political system, there is literally no opposition in Parliament to hold the ruling PAP accountable which occupies 82 out of 84 seats though they won only 66 percent of the votes in the last general election. Read the full interview with Jeisilan here.   Related articles: >> Kenneth Jeyaretnam asks netizens to step forward to fight for democracy >> Netizens express support for Reform Party >> Reform Party leader voices concerns over police harassment of netizens >> Favorable response from Toa Payoh residents to RP/SPP walkabout >> Reform Party’s response to PM Lee’s National Day Rally speech >> Reform Party calls for a more rational labor policy >> National Day message from Reform Party >> Kenneth Jeyaretnam: 45 percent of Singapore’s GDP goes to foreigners >>Proposed strategem for Reform Party for next 10 years     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

I cant help but ponder about the upcoming future of our public transport system in the near future. At the rate that it is going, it seems that the government is encouraging people to take buses from their homes and change to trains in order to travel to central city areas for their work. While the government has taken notice of the congestions experienced during peak hours, it seems to underestimate the problems that commuters are facing. As the current plan entails, more commuters are encouraged (or “forced”) to take trains to travel, as there is little cheap alternatives since long-distance buses are “facing extinction” to “prevent wastage of resources”. I personally believe that this is a flawed thinking to allow trains services to dominate long-distance travels (by long I mean say Punggol to Raffles Place, Orchards…etc.). You don’t consider two hawkers selling chicken rice in the same coffee shop as resource wasting; neither should you consider buses travelling near parallel to train services as resources wastage. Let me elaborate, sometimes back when North East Line begins to operate, there was some outroar when buses like 502, 111, 97…etc. which travels from Hougang, Serangoon North to CBDs, and Jurongs were cancelled or shortened as it was considered duplication of resources. While buses like 111 or 97 maybe, express bus 502 is certainly not since it travels on expressway and will serve as a good alternative to NEL to city areas. Express bus services like bus 502 could be allowed to run during peak hours, and relieve the congestions that now commuters are experiencing. But now it is impossible as both the buses and trains especially in the NEL areas are controlled by the same company, SBSTransit.  Furthermore, the current public transports are dominated by few heavyweights like SMRT and SBSTransits, this has clearly reduced the competitiveness in the industry and in the end consumers suffer. Consider a different scenario, if the public transport industry is open up. New small bus outfits are allowed to come up with any transport routes and get automatic approval to operate in 24hours. New operators could setup with little capital, and get the EZ-link terminals installed for a small fee (much like SingTel or Microsoft’s SME business startup package). In no time, the industry will become competitive with several niche new bus operators running, and the big heavyweights will begin to crack their entrepreneur heads on really optimizing their resources. There is really no big risk with opening up the public transport sector, furthermore employment will be up as new bus operators will provide jobs and cost saving to consumer. Unless there is direct competition, there will be no innovation. If NEL is owned by SMRT and buses 502, 111 & 97…are owned by SBSTransit, you think SBS Transit will give up their buses over “duplication of resources”? If we continue on our current way, well, the heavyweights will only continue to “bloat”. And since there is no survival threat (there’s no competition), the heavyweights will just have to innovate on how to optimize (read squeeze) their current revenues (EZ-link deposit non-refundable, fare increase every few years and so on).   Tony Ong  Read More →

OPINION Speaking during a community event at Radin Mas yesterday, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew reiterated yet again that Singapore needs immigration to make up for the shortfall in population with Singapore's total fertility rate (TF) reaching the historic low of 1.22 last year. As the current immigrants are mostly adults in their 20s to 40s, he hopes that  'the immigrants who come here will have more than two children, so maybe the next generation, we may redress the problem'. What if the immigrants have a TFR similiar to native Singaporeans? The key reasons behind Singapore's low birth rate are economic, rather than personal, as the PAP would like us to believe: 1. Stagnant wages: Unlike in the past, it costs a lot to have kids in Singapore nowadays. The median monthly salary of an average Singapore worker remains stagnant at $2,400 for the last ten years. 2. Higher cost of living: The annual inflation rate of between 4 - 6 percent far outstrips the paltry interest rates the banks are offering right now which means that the values of our savings actually depreciates with time. Unless one belongs to the top 20 percent of the income group, it will be difficult to start a family with such meagre savings and pay. 3. Sky-rocketing prices of HDB flats: In the 1970s and 1980s, it is possible for a Singaporean to pay off the HDB mortgage in ten years. Now, in dual-income families, a couple will have to take up a thirty year loan in order to do so. A roof over one's head is a most basic requirement for starting a family. At today's astronomical prices, it is hardly a surprise that more and more young Singaporeans are postponing marriages and starting a family of their own. When the immigrants relocate to Singapore, they will be subjected to the same set of conditions as Singaporeans. An Indian from Chennai may be able to have two or more children, but will he afford to do so in Singapore at our cost of living? As the Prime Minister has revealed himself in his recent National Day Rally speech, not all the new citizens in Singapore are high income earners. Some of them are just blue collar workers like bus drivers, cleaners, clerks and technicians. Will they be able to have more than two children in Singapore? In all likelihood, they will probably have two or less children if they decide to get married in Singapore or worse, childless which will not increase Singapore's TFR by much? What is the TFR of the new citizens? The Singapore Department of Statistics should reveal the figures for Singaporeans to judge for themselves if immigrants are contributing to Singapore's TFR as proclaimed by MM Lee. If the immigrants have similiar TFR to native Singaporeans, aren't we creating a bigger problem for ourselves in the future? The immigrants which we are accepting yearly - about 20,000 new citizens and 90,000 PRs will grow old one day and will impose a tremendous strain on our already stretched public healthcare system. The government should not keep imploring Singaporeans to accept immigration by plucking figures out of thin air without showing us concrete evidence that immigrants does contribute to Singapore's TFR. What is the targeted TFR for the immigrants in order for Singapore to have a combined TFR above the replacement rate? What is the median income of the immigrants? What is the number of immigrants who leave Singapore with their children to prevent them from being drafted into the army? In the absence of these official statistics, there is no way we can be convinced that immigration is essential to boost Singapore's declining birth rates. For all we know, we may end up providing a "free ride" for some immigrants who will retire back home where the cost of living is much lower after earning a living in Singapore for a number of years. At the end of the day, it will be native Singaporeans who are penalized by the government's failed immigration policies. The new citizens and PRs can always pack up and return to their lands of birth if things go wrong here, but not Singaporeans who have nowhere else to turn to.   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us  Read More →