TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent The PAP government has come up with a most ingenious way to stop Singaporeans from selling their HDB flats to make a quick buck: by tying a person's CPF to the purchase and sale of a HDB flat. Right now, flat sellers are able to obtain profits made from the sale in cash so long they have repaid their CPF loans, but if the PAP were to get their way, this may mean that all the profits must be returned to the CPF board. During a speech made at a forum organized by REACH, the PAP's "feedback" unit, Prime Minister Lee revealed that the government is concerned that "home-owners selling HDB flats to pay off debts, only then to ask their MP for help in getting a rental unit." "When we help people to own a home, it's really for you for life......When you're not so old, and you've bought the house, and now you see that the pot of gold is down there and you ignore the 'please don't break the glass sign' and you break the glass and take the money out straightaway, then what happens to you? Or more importantly, your children and your dependents? Where do they go?," he said. He added that's a key reason why the government wants to strengthen the CPF route in the buying and selling of flats "Like what we've been doing with the Additional Housing Grant - that grant we give you into your CPF, you can use it to buy a house....If you sell the house, the money goes back into the CPF. So if you're buying another house, you can use that for another house. If you're not buying another house, the money is there for your old age," he was quoted as saying in Channel News Asia. In the past, Singaporeans are able to withdraw their CPF savings in one lump sum when they reach the age of 55.  In 2003, the Minimum Sum scheme was introduced which stipulates that Singaporeans must keep a minimum sum (MS) of money in their CPF accounts. From July 1 2009, the CPF MS was revised from $106,000 to $117,000. Now all Singaporeans are "automatically" included in the CPF Life scheme if they turn 55 from 2013 and have at least $40,000 balance in their CPF Retirement Account or their CPF savings increase to $60,000 by the time they reach 65 years of age. The CPF Life is an extension of the MS scheme to provide “lifelong” income for Singapore elderly in their retirement. It has four different schemes which provide varying amount of monthly payouts to Singaporeans till they reach 85 years of age. It is not known exactly to this very day how the CPF monies of Singaporeans are being used by the PAP. If the PAP gets its way (which is likely to be the case) and enforces a rule stipulating that the profits made from the sale of HDB flats are channelled back to CPF, many Singaporeans will never be able to see their CPF monies in the lifetime.   Related articles: >> Singaporeans with $60,000 in CPF account automatically included in CPF Life  Read More →

Writtten by Our Correspondent In her first ever interview with the mainstream media, the wife of veteran opposition leader Mr Chiam See Tong, Ms Lina Loh revealed that Mr Chiam was forced out of the Singapore Democratic Party he founded in 1980. Ms Loh contacted Lianhe Zaobao herself after reading the Zaobao interview with Dr Chee Soon Juan which was published on 28 February 2010. Dr Chee was quoted as saying in the interview that he tried to stop Mr Chiam from leaving SDP to no avail, but was disputed by Ms Loh who said it is only "half the story." Ms Loh was interviewed together with former SDP CEC member and current Singapore People Party's Chairman Mr Sin Kek Tong by Lianhe Zaobao journalist Ms Yew Lun Tian. She sneered at Dr Chee's claims that he had wanted Mr Chiam to stay. "If he really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he coulld well reject the position of the Secretary-General or object to his expulsion when the CEC moved a motion to do so," she was quoted as saying in Lianhe Zaobao. During that critical disciplinary proceedings taken against Mr Chiam, only one out of 13 CEC members objected to Mr Chiam's expulsion. Another one abstain. Mr Chiam had been hauled up for disciplinary action by SDP CEC for criticizing Dr Chee Soon Juan's hungry strike in the media. The latter had done so to protest against his "unfair" sacking from NUS for "misusing" research funds. Ms Loh revealed that Mr Chiam had threatened to resign from his position as Secretary-General in a fit of anger and was amenable to mediation between the two camps spearheaded by Mr Sin. As Mr Chiam was heading towards the political oblivion as being sacked from SDP would mean he lose his parliamentary seat as well, Mr Sin founded the Singapore People's Party in 1994 which Mr Chiam eventually joined later in the year. Ms Loh stressed that her decision to be interviewed is not to bad-mouth Dr Chee or to argue with him. "I am only saying the truth for my husband to let the younger generation to understand Uncle Chiam, I need to step forward to clarify that he did not abandon SDP, when we were forced to leave, we were in so much pain in our hearts," she said. Mr Chiam's acrimonious departure from SDP marked the beginning of its decline. After reaching dazzling heights during the 1991 general election when it won an unprecedented 3 seats, it would go on to lose all its seats in the 1997 election. Though Dr Chee has perservered against all odds to keep the party together in the face of crippling defamation lawsuits launched against it by PAP leaders, it is unlikely that SDP will regain its former glory again.  Read More →

Dear Rachel,   I refer to your Straits Times article dated 11 Dec 2009 which detailed the work of Mr John Kampfner.  It began with a question posed by Mr Kampfner on why educated people are willing to hand over their freedoms in exchange for prosperity and security.  In the case of Singapore, the answer is invariably ignorance.  Generations of Singaporeans have been sold to the idea that our prosperity comes from our brilliant PAP government without which there would have been no prosperous Singapore.  Singaporeans believe this to their bones and will not give up the PAP for fear of losing their prosperity.  Little do they realise that the key ingredients to our prosperity have little to do with the PAP.  The world renowned success formula of embracing foreign direct investments was not conjured by the PAP but was gifted to us by Dr Albert Winsemius, an economic advisor sent to us by the United Nations.  A well oiled civil service and robust institutions were British inheritances along with the inheritance of a hard working population of largely East Asian descent.  One cannot disagree that Singapore was already a prosperous city and one of the crown jewels in the British Empire long before the PAP came about.  We were also amongst the top in Asia in terms of per capita GDP prior to our self-rule and independence.  But this side of the Singapore story has become less common place now.  In its place is the often touted but rarely questioned rhetoric of the PAP led success.   Mr Kampfner rightly saw that free markets can exist within a not so free political environment while the response by our High Commissioner fails to address the crux of the issue.  Saying that the true test of what works comes from the real world doesn't say anything about what else might work or what really is the reason behind why it works.  Singapore has worked but that does not mean that Singapore would not have worked had it been governed in another way.  For if we were to strip away Singapore's authoritarianism, what remains would simply be another Hong Kong which has proven to be just as successful.   So there's a lot that Singaporeans don't understand, contrary to Mr Kampfner's assertion that Singaporeans have entered these pacts with their eyes wide open.  We may not be as blind as the North Koreans but we are certainly not as discerning as we ought to be.  On the other hand, the Burmese people aren't as blind as Mr Kampfner might think given their dislike for the military junta and their love for Aung Sang Su Kyi.  There is very little choice for the Burmese people living in fear of the guns of their military junta.   The so-called Asian values espoused by MM Lee are really East Asian values.  But do East Asians prefer collective well being over individualism?  East Asians love to make money.  But it's hard to see East Asians working hard to make money for their countries rather than for themselves.  Therefore, the most definitive characteristic of East Asians is individualistic rather than collectivist in nature.  Do East Asians prefer social harmony over dissent?  In the case of Singaporeans, more likely than not, it is not social harmony but personal safety that is being preferred over dissent.   The supposed irreconcilable difference amongst the various civilisations as propagated by Samuel Huntington is largely religious, not cultural in nature.  If the East Asian cultures of Japan, Korea and Taiwan can become so affable with the Western culture of America, clearly culture is not the reason for the antagonism between the US and China?  That antagonism is probably more similar to the one between the former Soviet Union and the US.  It is an antagonism between opposing political-military mights, not a clash of civilisations.  The real clash of civilisations is between the Christian West and the Islamic Middle East, which is a conflict that has existed since the first Crusades nearly a thousand years ago.   The question by the Singaporean academic of whether an illiberal democracy is more stable cannot be answered without first qualifying the countries being compared.  If we compare similarly successful societies like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea, then the answer is invariably no because despite the antics in the Taiwanese parliament and the strikes in Korea, the other three East Asian dragons have proven to be no less stable than us despite they being a lot more liberal.  If we were to compare third world African countries instead, the conclusion is the same.  There is no evidence that an illiberal third world country is inherently more stable than one that is more liberal.   The 'pact' that Mr Kampfner so often see nowadays will not seem so bewildering if we can understand how modern democracies came about.  All the defining moments of democracy from the Magna Carta and the English Civil War to the French and the American revolutions all involved some form of money struggle or struggle for material well being.  Democracy is rooted in people fighting for their fare share of material well being.  As long as the nationwide surveillance and money laundering in Britain do not compromise the material well being of the British people, they will not become major issues.  On the other hand, the numerous strikes in Britain goes to show that democracy as the means for demanding a fair share of material well being is still very much alive and kicking in Britain.   Finally, Mr Kampfner suggested that democracy may come when the state fails to deliver prosperity.  That day nearly came for Singapore some years back when state bureaucrats failed to appreciate our over reliance on the electronics industry and were caught napping while electronics firms emigrated en masse to China.  There were massive retrenchments along with a mad scramble to replace the lost firms with biomedical firms.  The people tasted hardships but there was no revolution, no clamour for democracy.  This reminds us of North Korea where many children have died of starvation and yet the people remain rooted for the ruling Kim family.  It wasn't difficult to put the blame on climate just as it was easy to find a scapegoat for the recent North Korean currency revaluation crisis.  And so it is with Singapore too that even if the state were to fail to deliver prosperity, state newspapers will always be there to explain things away.  We may not be as blind as the North Koreans but we are not so discerning either.     Thank you     Ng Kok Lim  Read More →