TR EMERITUS

SINGAPORE — The Government of Singapore Investment Corp. saw an investment loss of around 50 billion Singapore dollars (US$33 billion) in 2008 as a result of tumbling asset prices around the world, two people familiar with the situation said. “The loss on the investment portfolio last year is estimated at around S$45 billion to S$50 billion,” one of the people said. “But GIC has no thoughts to sell down any of its major investments. They’ll wait until they recover.” A second person said GIC’s investment loss last year was “recently estimated to be similar to Temasek’s.” Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore’s other sovereign wealth fund, saw its investment portfolio fall 31%, or S$58 billion, to S$127 billion in the eight-month period ended Nov. 30, Senior Minister of State for Finance Lim Hwee Hua said last week. GIC spokeswoman Jennifer Lewis said the sovereign wealth fund won’t comment on individual investments. Read rest of article here  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan For far too long, the autocratic regime and its sycophantic mouthpiece have dominated political discourse in Singapore. They have been the ones to set the agenda for the populace to believe in with no questions asked. In the face of the worst economic recession Singapore has ever experienced, let us revisit the myths which has been propagated and perpetuated about the necessity and merits of the "PAP system" of governance in order for them to maintain their political hegemony. The 5 myths below have been often repeated ad nauseaum till they are deeply etched in the collective consciousness of Singaporeans: 1. Singaporeans owe a debt to Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP from transforming Singapore from a third to first world country. 2. Singapore needs to open its doors to the global economy in order to enjoy years of uninterrupted economic growth. 3. Singapore cannot afford to spend more to help needy Singaporeans to prevent going down the slippery slope of welfare. 4. Singapore needs a strong one-party state to ensure social stability and economic progress. 5. Only the PAP knows how to govern the nation. The opposition is irresponsible and will fritter away our precious reserves by the billions if they were to come to power one day. Now let us dissect and dismantle the myths one by one. 1. With due respect to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, he has put together a capable and formidable team in the early years of Singapore's independence to kickstart our economy, but he can hardly take the credit all by himself. The true architect of Singapore's success story is Albert Winsemius, a Dutch economist who was a long-term Chief economic adviser to Singapore from 1961 to 1984, playing a major role in the formulation of Singapore's national economic development strategy. With his help, Singapore attracted big oil companies like Shell and Esso to establish refineries here. In the 1970s, Singapore was upgrading its industrial capacity to use higher technological methods, including electronics. He personally went to persuade large Dutch electronics companies like Philips to set up production plants in Singapore. He also proposed that Singapore could be developed as a financial centre, as well as an international centre for air traffic and sea transport. Over the next twenty years, these predictions proved to be accurate. Singapore also owed its success to the PAP Old Guards like Mr Goh Keng Swee, Mr Toh Chin Chye, Mr E W Barker, Mr Ong Pang Boon and Mr Hon Sui Sen who were Lee's "lieutanents" in office and a docile, sensible, hardworking and thrifty citizenry willing to work hard and save up for the sake of the next generation. Under British colonial rule, Singapore is already a major trading entrepot in the region by virtue of its unbeatable strategic position at the tip of the Malay Peninsula thereby giving it leverage to control shipping traffic passing through the Straits of Malacca, one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. To attribute Singapore's success over the years solely to Mr Lee Kuan Kew is not only a travesty of truth and justice, but an insult to our pioneers and ordinary Singaporeans on the streets who have given their sweats, blood and tears to build our nation to where it is today. 2. As a small island with no natural resources, we are heavily dependent on external trade for our survival and prosperity. It is true especially in the early years when political stability, social cohesion and economic openness are key factors propelling us ahead of our competitors. However, our vulnerabilities become clearly exposed now in the current global economic turmoil when Singapore becomes the first country in Asia to slip into recession and is poised to be one of the worst performing economies in the near future. Singapore will be more resilient if we have a higher domestic consumption, a more diversified economy and vibrant home-grown enterprises to cushion the fallout from the loss in exports and trade. The deficiencies of our economic model are caused by the narrow mindset and myopic view adopted by the PAP to pursue growth at all costs in the shortest possible time. Our domestic consumption is low compared to other developed Asian economies because of high cost of public housing and ordinary living, a mandatory pension scheme requiring citizens to contribute 20% of their monthly salary to it and relatively low wages kept depressed by the influx of cheaper foreign workers. Our economy is heavily focused on a few "winners" like the manufacturing and electronics sectors in the past, the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry now and the gaming industry in the future. Gigantic state-linked companies such as DBS, Capitaland and NTUC are squeezing the life out of local startups and enterprises with their virtual monopoly over the economy rendering them both unimaginative and uncompetitive. We have already moved past the initial stages of developing our then labor-intensive fledging economy and we need to rethink our current economic blueprint now in order to compete on a different level with other developed countries where creativity, passion, entrepreneurship and a willingness to take calculated risks are essential and pivotal qualities for success in a new world order. 3. Under the combined propaganda machinery of the PAP and SPH, "welfare" has become a dirty word in official parlance. We have been told repeatedly to be self-reliant and not to depend on the government for cash handouts, but isn't it the responsibility of the incumbent government of the day to care for the people who voted for them into power in the first place ? The welfare system of Western countries have often been used by the regime to obsfuscate the issue. It is both irrational and unreasonable to equate "welfare" for Singaporeans to the promotion of a welfare state. Singaporeans do not expect the government to support them for the rest of their lives after retirement. All we ask for is for the government to make the present living conditions more bearable for us by reducing the cost of living and to be more generous with the distribution of aid to needy and vulnerable Singaporeans. We do not expect the regime to be as generous as the Hong Kong government to give its elderly citizens a monthly allowance amounting to 80% of their last drawn pay. Much more can be done to alleviate the hardship and suffering of our senior citizens who have contributed to the nation-building process during their productive years. The Singapore government is filthy rich by first world standards. It is not as if it is a pauper, why is it so stingy in rendering financial assistance to the poor ? Would it rather spend billion of dollars to bail out distressed banks which went eventually to lining the pockets of its rich executives or help its own citizens ? 4. In the early years of Singapore's nationhood, a strong government is crucial to bring about political stability and social harmony so that we can focus on developing the economy to uplift the lives of our people. The regime has conveniently corrupted the definition of a "strong" government with that of a one-party state. A strong government can exist in the presence of a sizable opposition in Parliament to check on the ruling party while a one-party state though appearing "strong" on the surface, has inherent deficiencies caused by the over-concentrating of power in the hands of a few. The only reason why the regime appears strong on the outside is that the key decision makers belong no more to an inner clique of a particular family of which even ordinary MPs without any portfolios are excluded. Only one center of power exists to give the orders, the rest simply follow behind like blind sheeps thereby giving the facade of a clear sense of direction and purpose in the formulation and implementation of policies. The Finance Minister Mr Tharman gave Singaporeans a glimpse of how the PAP system worked when he remarked in Parliament in response to an opposition MP's question that they work on a system based on "trust". What was not mentioned is how much trust he has in the system itself. Is it a 100% trust ? Ask yourself whether you ever trust anybody in your life including yourself completely without any doubts. A self-serving totalitarian state which do not hesitate to make use of the police and media to suppress dissenting voices from its own people is not a strong government. On the contrary, it is a weak government precisely because it is unable to stand up to external challenges and defeat them based on its own strengths and merits alone without resorting to foul play. A strong government is one which can face up to the challenge of any opposition without resorting to 'fixing' them. A strong government is one which is fully accountable to the people and is not afraid of being scrutinized. A strong government does not hide things from the people and is completely honest, transparent and above board. A strong government does not make use of state instruments like the police and media to suppress political dissent because it knows it owes its power to the people who voted for it. And lastly, a strong government does not sue its critics to silence them because it has faith in its own ability to win them over by their reasoning and argument. By these 5 counts, the PAP does not qualify to be a strong government. It is no more than a weak, pathetic and cowardly bully which makes use of its position as the incumbent to quash its political opponents. History have shown us that such "strong" states like the U.S.S.R and Nazi Germany did not last long while others like South Korea and Taiwan only manage to avert a similiar implosion like the former by making a peaceful transition to democracy. If a one party state has worked for Singapore in the past, that's because it has only benefitted a small of group of people with links to the regime. It is not going to work now and in the future where a rapid changing geo-political landscape will require a diversity of ideas and views to cope and tackle the problems which may surface . A one party state stifles creativity, innovation and passion in the population and will ruin us politically, socially and economically in the long run.  Can we expect the regime to check on itself ? Time and time again, we have been proven otherwise. There is a serious lack of accountability and transparency from the Singapore government in spite of its frequent lame attempts to ingratiate itself with these attributes as defining yardsticks for its rule. 5. As the present financial turmoil has shown us, we do not need a profligate opposition to fritter away our precious reserves. A substantial proportion of it is already missing. I guess most Singaporeans would prefer the sum of $58 billion lost by Temasek to be spent on helping the poor and needy rather than go to make a few hundred millionaires out of Merrill Lynch's employees. What we really need is not the empty promises made by the PAP to safeguard our reserves, but a proper calibrated system of checks and balances to guide the modus operandi of the government and a real opposition in Parliament to ensure accountability and transparency from the government. The regime's glaring deficiencies is exposed for all to see with its inept handling of the Temasek fiasco. We are talking about the loss of $58 billion dollars and more of our reserves and not a single question is asked in Parliament. The perpetuator of this disaster did not have to face the music and the state media even have the gall to suggest she ran for political office in the future ! In other developed countries, an independent Commission of Inquiry will be called immediately to probe into the loss. The regime will never risk eroding further whatever little public trust and confidence they have left by revealing the full extent of losses incurred by Temasek and GIC because it has been using the reserves all along to frighten Singaporeans from voting the opposition into power. The myths of the PAP system are fast being dismantled on a daily basis with alternative news sources from the internet. Even the mainstream media is finding hard to spin fairy tales on behalf of the regime without appearing ludicrous itself. The regime can continue to believe in its own propaganda, but less and less Singaporeans, especially the young are taken in by them. Eventually, Singaporeans will become so averse to the one-sided reports carried by the mainstream media that they will be completely switched off, preferring to read only what they want to read on the internet even though its factual accuracy cannot be independently verified and that will finally send the myths of the PAP system into their death throes.  Read More →

By Eugene Yeo In spite of my frequent diatribes against SPH, I was quite excited and intrigued by this article in "MY PAPER" today (Read full article here) which appears to contradict the establishment's propaganda about blogs lacking credibility. In a recent study conducted by marketing agency OgilvyOne Asia Pacific, more than one in two Singaporeans said they trust blogs as much as newspapers or TV news bulletins. Commenting on the findings, Ms Debbie Swee, a market analyst with information-technology research firm IDC, told "MY PAPER" that bloggers here have some influence over their readers. I am not really surprised by the report's findings. In fact, blogs are expected to supersede the mainstream media in terms of credibility in the near future. The reasons for blogs gaining acceptance as an alternative news source in Singapore can be attributed to three reasons: 1. The reticence of the mainstream media on critical national issues such as the decline of Temasek's investments will continue to be its Achilles heel, spurring Singaporeans to switch to blogs to obtain information, and in turn breed cynicism in a growing number of astute readers who are becoming increasingly peeved and frustrated with its apparent slant towards the government. It will eventually reach a stage where readers just want to read what they want to hear and ignore the mainstream media altogether. 2. The threshold for credibility is much lower for self-funded amateur blogs than the well endowed mainstream media. What is deemed acceptable on blogs may be considered outrageous if repeated by the print media. Readers are often aware of the chasm in terms of quality, accuracy and objectivity between the two media and are willing to give blogs benefit of the doubt on news which they can't find on the traditional media. 3. Blogs are moving away from text-based commentaries to active fact finding on the ground to substantiate their content. For example, the Enquirer TV has conducted numerous interviews with Singaporeans on the streets to find out their exact thoughts on sensitive issues not covered by the press which has greatly boosted its credibility and popularity. Due to political pressure from above to self-censor themselves, the mainstream media will continue to strike a discordant note from the grassroots to serve its own agenda leading to its downfall in the long run. The second point brought up by the article is that Singaporean bloggers tend to write what they feel, whereas Malaysian bloggers tend to write what they think which seems to insinuate that we "think less" than our counterparts across the causeway. I an unsure of what the commentator meant exactly by this. Perhaps, she is referring to dearth of "straight-thinking, objective and analytical" socio-political blogs in Singapore compared to Malaysia where the political bloggers such as Raja Petra Kamarrudin and Haris Ibrahim are very influential and respected in the community. Singapore's blogosphere is populated chiefly by personal blogs writing about one's experiences and feelings about life and work. Blogs focused on socio-political issues run by a team of writers like ours belong to the minority and have little appeal as evident by our low traffic ranking in comparison to popular "lifestyle" blogs like Xiaxue, Cowboy Caleb and Jialat.com while in Malaysia, political blogs are amongst the top 500 visited sites. One possible reason is that young Singaporeans are generally quite apathetic and ignorant when it comes to politics. Not many will bother to visit blogs to read about political matters and even less will blog about it. However, there is a small but rising number of netizens who are becoming more vocal in voicing out their concerns, resentment and anger against the establishment, making their presence felt even in Parliament. The question is: who will exert a greater influence on this group of politically inactive readers who seldom read the papers and are ignorant of current affairs ? The mainstream media will be engaged in a tug of war with the new media over these "virgin" voters who are easily impressionable due to their lack of exposure to the local political scene. This is where politically active netizens will play a pivotal role in influencing their peers by word of mouth: get our message out, publicize the alternative news blogs and win new converts to our side in our protracted struggle against the entire propaganda machinery of the state.  Read More →