MOM Prosecutes 25 Foreigners for Submitting Forged Academic Certificates!

20 sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment; five fined $5,000

17 July 2013 

1. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) charged 25 foreigners on 16 July 2013 for furnishing false information to the Controller of Work Passes by submitting forged academic certificates to obtain work passes. This is the largest number of individuals brought to court so far this year for this offence.
   
   
   Accused persons fraudulently obtained 24 S Passes and one Employment Pass
2. Investigations revealed that the 25 accused persons1 furnished false information to the Controller of Work Passes between May and August 2012 in their applications for work passes.
3. Of the 25 accused, 24 obtained forged academic certificates from their home countries and used them to apply for work passes. The other accused person knew that a forged academic certificate was submitted on her behalf by an employment agent and intentionally failed to notify MOM. All the accused did not possess university degree qualifications and the forged academic certificates were knowingly used to mislead MOM into issuing them with the work passes.
4. Based on the information declared, the 25 accused were issued with work passes to perform work in operations, sales and retail. Among them were also chefs, a hairstylist and a dance choreographer.
5. MOM’s investigations into the 25 cases commenced after the ministry had verified with the institutions issuing the certificates that they were forged. The work pass holders were less than one year into their employment here when they were arrested and investigated in May 2013. At the conclusion of the investigations, MOM brought the 25 foreign nationals to court and charged them under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act for furnishing false information and for intentionally omitting to furnish information to the Controller of Work Passes.
6. All 25 accused pleaded guilty to the charges on 16 July 2013. Of the 25, 20 were sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment. The remaining five accused were fined $5,000 or in default to 20 days’ imprisonment. As these five accused were unable to pay up their fines, they would be serving the default sentence.
7. In 2012, MOM successfully prosecuted 43 offenders for similar offences. In the first half of 2013, a total of 28 offenders were convicted. The majority of these offenders were jailed for up to four weeks by the Court.
   
   
   Responsibility of Foreign Workers to Make Truthful Declarations
8. It is the responsibility of all applicants to make accurate, complete and truthful declarations to the Controller of Work Passes. Making a false declaration to the Controller through the fraudulent submission of forged academic certificates to by-pass work pass eligibility criteria is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Controller. Applicants are warned not to fabricate and submit forged documents as there are stringent checks by MOM to detect and enforce against such false applications. MOM will not condone such acts of false declaration, and will take severe actions against offenders.
9. Members of the public who have information of persons or employers who contravene the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act should report the matter to MOM at Tel: (65) 6438 5122 or email mom_fmmd@mom.gov.sg. All information will be kept strictly confidential.

---

1 Twenty-one from Myanmar, three from India and one from the Philippines, comprising 20 males and five females aged between 19 and 48 years old.

http://m.mom.gov.sg/newsroom/Pages/PressReleasesDetail.aspx?listid=516

SINGAPOREAN TAN SEET ENG: MAIN SUSPECT FOR THE WORLD'S LARGEST MATCH-FIXING SCANDAL

It's a conventional life for a well-to-do Singaporean businessman: he lives in a condo, drives a BMW and enjoys trips to the casino, according to people familiar with his routine.

The difference is that Tan Seet Eng -- better known in global law-enforcement circles as Dan Tan -- is the key suspect in what could be the biggest match-fixing scandal in football history.

When news broke this week that nearly 700 games, mainly in Europe, had been targeted by Singaporean-linked fixers, questions were immediately raised about Tan, who has been in the spotlight for the past 18 months.

His name has cropped up in multiple investigations. In the latest probe revealed by Europol, hundreds of players and officials are under suspicion, 14 people have been sentenced and more than 100 prosecutions are expected.

But the head of Interpol complains that, while the integrity of the world's most popular sport is under threat, the alleged ringleaders are living freely.

Tan, in a rare interview in 2011, vigorously protested his innocence and said he was mystified as to why he had been accused.

"Why I'm suddenly described as a match-fixer, I don't know. I'm innocent," he told Singapore's The New Paper. "If there's anything against me, I can take it to court and fight it."

Tan, an ethnic Chinese man in his forties, first reached public attention in 2011, when his alleged partner and fellow Singaporean Wilson Raj Perumal was arrested in Finland, convicted of match-fixing and jailed.

Perumal, believed to be a key source for blowing open the "calcioscommesse" scandal in Italy, as well as this week's Europol revelations, maintains he was double-crossed by Tan and named him as a key figure in his fixing syndicate.

Italian police have issued an arrest warrant for Tan, and court papers quoted by The New Paper called him the "leader" of an international fixing ring.

Reports have named him in a German court case and police probes in several countries. According to Perumal, who spoke to the "Invisible Dog" investigative website last year, Tan was still active as recently as June.

"If you arrest Dan Tan, the signal it gives is that investigators can reach out and touch you," said Zaihan Mohamed Yusof, The New Paper's investigative reporter who interviewed Tan.

But Tan appears to feel secure in Singapore, according to Zaihan, who recounted his routines including trips to the casino.

"It doesn't make any sense for him to leave the country, he could be arrested. It's safer for him to be in Singapore," the reporter told AFP.

Attempts to contact Tan this week failed. His listed phone numbers are disconnected, and a visit to his home, a run-down condominium next to a suburban shopping mall, proved fruitless.

Singapore is considered the nexus of global match-rigging after fixers learned their trade in the local leagues and neighbouring Malaysia.

With the birth of online gambling, Singaporean fixers were perfectly placed to take advantage, with contacts in the European leagues and criminal gangs, and in the underworlds of Asia where illicit betting is possible on a huge scale.

Last month, Interpol secretary-general Ronald Noble said match-fixing generates hundreds of billions of dollars around the world each year, comparing the revenues to multinationals such as drinks giant Coca-Cola.

With enormous pressure now on to smash the match-fixing syndicates, Singapore, a wealthy island state known for its low crime and low corruption, is squirming in the glare of attention.

Its powerful Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) said "match-fixing of any form is not condoned in Singapore" and that it investigates allegations of game-rigging through bribery.

Since 2005, the CPIB has investigated eight such cases in Singapore, with 11 individuals charged and convicted, it said in a statement. However, the CPIB also told AFP it was not involved in matters concerning Interpol.

Singapore's police force has confined its comments to a few terse statements saying it is cooperating with Europol and Interpol, including handing over information about Tan. But it said it needed hard evidence to make arrests.

"A question that really must be asked is why so little is being done to question Singaporean individuals allegedly involved in such a global match-fixing operation," Neil Humphreys, a Singapore-based football columnist and author of the novel, "Match Fixer", told AFP.

Interpol chief Noble told the Straits Times: "Until arrests are made in Singapore and until actual names, dates and specific match-fixing details are given, these organised criminals will appear above the law and Singapore's reputation will continue to suffer."

Source: AFP

Ref:therealsingpore

Employers hire FTs because of poor quality of local grads

[This letter was first published in ST Forum on 14 Feb

We often hear that Singapore needs to bring in foreigners for the growth of the country.

I agree that we have little choice in the matter if we are referring to jobs Singaporeans do not want. But how about jobs that Singaporeans do want?

It would be good to find out the real reasons why employers hire foreigners instead of Singaporeans for such jobs, whether they be in banking, information technology or marketing.

A Singaporean friend of mine, who was then a director in a European multinational corporation located here, told me a few years ago that he specifically directed his human resource department not to hire any graduate from our local universities unless absolutely necessary.

His view was that local graduates lacked the necessary mindset and attitude to do a job well. In contrast, graduates of foreign universities, Singaporean or otherwise, tended to be more independent, streetwise, resilient and self-driven.

According to him, the only positive thing about local graduates was that they were book-smart.

At another function where lecturers and heads of department – both Singaporean and foreign – from local universities were present, the bulk of the conversation was on our university students – they lacked independent thought, needed spoon-feeding, were whiny and complained about everything but did not do anything to improve the situation.

We have a sizeable number of tertiary graduates every year. So why is it that some employers still seek to employ foreigners instead of Singaporeans?

Some of my friends who are employers tell me that cost is often not the issue. They are willing to, and actually do, pay these foreigners more for no reason other than that they can do a better job.

As an educator, I have encountered many students who display the traits cited above.

What we need to do is obvious – improve the quality of our graduates, thereby making them more attractive to hire and consequently reducing the need to hire foreigners.

.

Alex Yeo

Ref:tremeritus

Dr Teo Ho Ping’s latest statement on AIM

On 28 December 2012, I issued a press release in response to Ms Sylvia Lim’s statement on the website of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. Ms Lim had made various assertions in her statement. However, her statement was made without citing the relevant facts. I now make this further statement to set out fully the relevant facts.

I am the co-ordinating Chairman of all the PAP-run Town Councils (“the TCs”). The PAP TCs meet regularly and work closely with one another. This allows the TCs to derive economies of scale and to share best practices among themselves. This improves the overall efficiency of the TCs, and ensures that all the PAP TCs can serve their residents better.

In 2003, the TCs wanted to harmonise their computer systems. Hence, in 2003, all the TCs jointly called an open tender for a vendor to provide a computer system based on a common platform. NCS was chosen to provide this system. The term of the NCS contract (“NCS contract”) was from 1 August 2003 to 31 October 2010. There was an option to further extend the contract for one year, until 31 October 2011.

In 2010, the NCS contract was going to expire. The TCs got together and jointly appointed Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services Pte Ltd (“D&T”) to advise on the review of the computer system for all the TCs. Several meetings were held with D&T.

After a comprehensive review, D&T identified various deficiencies and gaps in the system. The main issue, however, was that the system was becoming obsolete and unmaintainable. It had been built in 2003, on Microsoft Windows XP and Oracle Financial 11 platforms. By 2010, Windows XP had been superseded by Windows Vista as well as Windows 7, and Oracle would soon phase out and discontinue support to its Financial 11 platform.

The TCs were aware of and concerned about the serious risks of system obsolescence identified by D&T, and wanted to pre-empt the problem. In addition, as the NCS Contract was about to expire, they sought a solution which would provide the best redevelopment option to the TCs, and in the interim would allow them to continue enjoying the prevailing maintenance and other services.

As Coordinating Chairman of the TCs, I had to oversee the redevelopment of the existing computer system for all TCs. It was clear to me that the existing computer software was already dated. The NCS contract would end by 31 October 2011 (if the one year extension option was exercised). However, assessing new software and actually developing a replacement system that would meet our new requirements would take time, maybe 18-24 months or even longer. We thus needed to ensure that we could get a further extension (beyond October 2011) from NCS, while working on redevelopment options.

D&T also raised with the TCs the option of having a third party own the computer system, including the software, instead, with the TCs paying a service fee for regular maintenance. This structure was not uncommon.

We decided to seriously consider this option. Having each of the 14 individual TCs hold the Intellectual Property (IP) rights to the software was cumbersome and inefficient. The vendor would have to deal with all 14 TCs when reviewing or revising the system. It would be better for the 14 TCs to consolidate their software rights in a single party which would manage them on behalf of all the TCs, and also source vendors to improve the system and address the deficiencies.

The TCs thus decided to call a tender to meet the following requirements:

To purchase the software developed in 2003, and lease it back to the TCs for a monthly fee, until the software was changed;
To undertake to secure extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost i.e. take on the obligation to get an extension on the existing rates, until the TCs obtained new or enhanced software. This was put in to protect the financial position of the TCs; and
To work with the TCs to understand their enhancement and redevelopment needs and look for a suitable vendor to provide these upgrades.
Under the tender, the TCs sold only the IP in the old software. The ownership of the physical computer systems remained with the individual TCs. We wanted to sell the IP rights in the old software because it had limited value and was depreciating quickly. Had we waited until the new system was in place, the IP to the superseded old software would have become completely valueless.

The TCs advertised the tender in the Straits Times on 30 June 2010. Five companies collected the tender documents. These were CSC Technologies Services Pte Ltd, Hutcabb Consulting Pte Ltd, NCS, NEC Asia Pte Ltd and Action Information Management Pte Ltd (“AIM”).

I am aware that NCS considered bidding but in the end, decided not to do so as it was of the view that the IP rights to software developed in 2003 on soon to be replaced platforms were not valuable at all.

Another company withdrew after it checked and confirmed that it was required to ensure renewal of the NCS contract without an increase in rates. The company did not want to take on that obligation. The others may also have decided not to bid for similar reasons.

In the end, only AIM submitted a bid on 20 July 2010.

We evaluated AIM’s bid in detail. First, AIM’s proposal to buy over the software IP would achieve our objective of centralising the ownership of the software, consistent with the model suggested by D&T.

AIM was willing to purchase our existing software IP for S$140,000, and lease it back at S$785 per month from November 2010 to October 2011. The lease payments to AIM would end by October 2011, with the expiration of the original NCS contract. Thus after October 2011, the TCs would be allowed to use the existing software without any additional lease payments to AIM, until the new software was developed.

This meant that the TCs expected to gain a modest amount (about S$8,000) from the disposal of IP in the existing software.

Second, AIM was willing to undertake the risks of getting an extension of the NCS contract with no increase in rates. This was the most important consideration for us, as it protected the TCs from an increase in fees.

Third, we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments.

Given the above considerations, AIM had met the requirements of the tender on its own merits. We assessed that the proposal by AIM was in the best interests of the TCs, and thus awarded the tender to AIM.

Under the contract with AIM, the TCs could terminate the arrangements by giving one month’s notice if the TCs were not satisfied with AIM’s performance. Similarly, AIM could terminate by giving one month’s notice in the event of material changes to the membership of a TC, or to the scope and duties of a TC, like changes to its boundaries. This is reasonable as the contractor has agreed to provide services on the basis of the existing TC- and town-boundaries, and priced this assumption into the tender. Should this change materially, the contractor could end up providing services to a TC which comprises a much larger area and more residents, but at the same price.

Since winning the tender, AIM has negotiated two extensions of the NCS contract until April 2013, at no increase in rates. The first extension was from November 2011 to October 2012, and the second from November 2012 to April 2013. The TCs received a substantial benefit in terms of getting the extensions from NCS beyond the original contract period, without any increase in prices.

AIM has also been actively working with several vendors to explore new software options and enhancements for the TCs. AIM has identified software from a number of possible vendors, and has invited them to make presentations to the TCs in order for a suitable option to be chosen.

Following the expiry of the initial lease arrangement for the software from AIM on 31 October 2011, no further lease payments for the software were made to AIM. During the period of its contract extension from November 2011 to April 2013, the management fee payable to AIM for the whole suite of services it provided was S$33,150, apart from what was payable to NCS for maintenance. In the end, inclusive of GST, each TC paid slightly more than $140 per month for AIM to ensure continuity of the existing system, secure the maintenance of this system at no increased costs, and identify options for a new system to which the TCs could migrate.

We entered into the transaction with AIM with the objective of benefitting the TCs. Over the last two years, the intended benefits have been realised. There is thus no basis to suggest that the AIM transaction did not serve the public interest, or was disadvantageous to residents in the TCs.

.

* Dr Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman of PAP town councils, gave this explanation in a 26-paragraph, four-page statement outlining why and how the town councils came to have a sale and lease back deal with the PAP-owned Action Information Management (Aim).

Interesting history of AIM Pte Ltd>>

#http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/12/25/mystery-of-aim-pte-ltd/

#http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/463505_275880362533818_2093570385_o.jpg

Ref:tremendous

Yale must not be complicit in suppressing rights of Singaporeans

Dr Chee: Yale must not be complicit in suppressing rights of Singaporeans

Dear friends, ladies and gentleman,

I want to thank the Yale Council on Southeast Asia Studies and Yale International Relations Association for organising this forum and for so graciously inviting us to participate in it.

Many of you here today probably know very little about Singapore, at least not before the Yale-NUS controversy erupted. What you probably heard is that Singapore is this rich, clean island renowned for its disciplined workforce and no nonsense government.

This assessment is not entirely wrong. Singapore is very rich. We have the most number of millionaires per capita in the world. In fact, Singapore is one of those places that some would sight as an unmitigated success story. In 2011, US Ambassador to Singapore Mr David Adelman said: “The agreement with Singapore is perhaps our most successful FTA globally.”

The US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement was signed in 2004 by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and US President George W Bush.

At that time, I had raised serious questions about how such an agreement would affect workers in Singapore. I visited the US Congress and AFL-CIO to urge caution about the FTA because the lack of democratic freedoms, in general, and workers’ rights, in particular, would mean that workers would be exploited instead of helped.

That was in 2004. Now some 8 years after the FTA was implemented, the results are in. And they look very pretty, I must admit – at least for a few.

As I mentioned earlier, Singapore is the richest country in the world in terms of GDP per capita – US$57,000, the United States is around US$46,000. This is, in large part, due to the influx of a staggering number of millionaires emigrating to the city-state. Between 2010 and 2014, it is projected Singapore will see a 67% increase in centa-millionaires – that’s folks with over US$100 million in disposable wealth. We have the highest percentage of millionaire households in the world.

It is perhaps inevitable that such wealth will have a significant impact on the economy. This year, the Economist Intelligence Unit listed Singapore as the 9th most expensive city in the world – more expensive than London, New York and Frankfurt. And not just by a whisker – Singapore is 42 percent more expensive than New York City.

But the FTA doesn’t do as much for the rest of the population. In fact, it keeps the poor firmly anchored at the bottom. About 5 percent of Singapore’s workforce draw an annual income of less than US$5,000 – that’s less than US$100 a week – in a city that is 42 percent more expensive than New York City. Ten years ago they made the same amount. For a decade they saw no wage increase.

How is this possible, a city that is one of the most expensive in the world with wages that are one of the lowest? Because there is no minimum wage legislation. And why is there no minimum wage legislation? Because there is no opposition to fight for it.

The ranks of opposition parties have been decimated with years of persecution, there are no independent trade unions because labour leaders have all been imprisoned or run out of the country.

There is no free media – all Singaporean TV stations, radio channels and newspapers are owned and run by the government.

You have just come through a presidential election where income disparity was a major issue.

A couple years ago, you had the Occupy Wall Street campaign which brought to the fore, amongst other issues, the yawning gap between the rich and the poor here in the United States.

I hear that the richest 1 percent of the population in this country owns 50 percent of the wealth. The statistic is indeed alarming. And yet, the income disparity is wider in Singapore.

Middle-income workers in Singapore don’t have it better. According to a survey of conducted by the International Labor Organisation (ILO), Singaporean workers work the longest number of hours.

And yet, the study reported that their real incomes have diminished. A UBS study done in 2011 used New York as the benchmark upon which workers’ wages of 73 cities were compared. New York was given the score of 100. Zurich came out at the top at 144. Singapore? 35.8 – below that of Sao Paolo, Johannesburg and Moscow.

These are not just numbers. They have a huge impact on the quality of life of Singaporeans. We are one of the most, if not the most, stressful places to live in Asia and one of the unhappiest peoples in the world. In a survey of 14 economies, Singaporean workers were found to enjoy going to work the least, are the least loyal to their employers and have the least supportive workplaces. Only 19 percent of those polled in Singapore look forward to their work each day, the global average is 30 percent.

It’s not like we can vote out the ruling party. Former prime minister and strongman Mr Lee Kuan Yew, whom many still consider to wield ultimate power in Singapore said: “Please do not assume that you can change governments. Young people don’t understand this.”

So what can Singaporeans do to make things easier for themselves? They leave the country – for good. More than half of Singaporeans say that given the chance they would emigrate.

And an astounding number do. According to the World Bank, 10.1 percent of Singaporeans pack up and leave the island. Another survey found that more than a third of younger Singaporeans say that feel no loyalty to their country.

And it isn’t that the Singapore government is doing all this by itself. It has ample support from the West especially the neoliberals here in America.

In 2003, prior to the signing of the US-Singapore FTA, the AFL-CIO wrote to the House of Representatives bringing its attention to the pitfalls of the agreement which, if enacted, would mean that Singapore’s workers “are likely to face widening income inequality.”

The AFL-CIO letter continued: “Singapore’s government has wide powers to limit citizens’ rights and to handicap political opposition…The Government continued to significantly restrict freedom of speech and freedom of the press, as well as to limit other civil and political rights.”

So it wasn’t that the US Government did not know of the problems the agreement would present. As it was, there was hardly a debate in Congress and the US Government promptly signed the FTA – the first in the world.

To be sure, the love affair between the Singapore government and the neoliberals started a long time ago. In 1986, when a minister (the late Ong Teng Cheong) sanctioned a strike in the shipping industry he incurred the wrath of some of his cabinet colleagues.

He said: “The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America, asking what happened to Singapore? – we are non-strike. If I were to inform the cabinet or the government they would probably stop me from going ahead with the strike.”

Since then there have been no strikes. Until four days ago when a group of bus drivers recruited from China struck because of low wages and poor living conditions. The Singapore government has said that it has zero tolerance for such action and four workers have been arrested.

So what has all this to do with Yale?

When it was first announced that Yale would be setting up a campus with NUS in Singapore, I had my reservations but kept my own counsel. My colleagues and I in the Singapore Democratic Party cautiously welcomed the set up.

We had hoped that given Yale’s proud history that it would not allow the Singapore government – or any government – to dictate the kind of experience it provides for its students.

But my worst fears were confirmed when it was declared that Yale-NUS would not allow certain political activities, including students forming party-affiliated organisations.

It seems now that instead of Yale opening up the minds of Singaporeans through academic inquiry and scholarship, it is the Singaporean Government that will close the minds of the people running the College.

I also understand that degrees will be awarded by NUS, and not Yale. If this is the case, then I have to question why this is so. Is Yale not proud of the students if produces in Singapore?

I fear – and I sincerely hope that I will be proven wrong on this – that the Yale leadership does not, like American multinational corporations that have come before it, cynically looking to make that quick and easy dollar from Singaporeans while completely disregarding what such actions would do to our society.

My experience with foreign academic institutions lead me to be very skeptical of their claims to want to provide Singaporeans with the best that academia can muster.

Will I be unwelcome again at an academic institution in my own country? What kind of message will Yale be sending to Singaporeans when you call security to stop me when I visit the campus to talk to students about their rights and civil liberties.

I don’t presume to lecture the US, and even Yale administration, on how to conduct its business but I will say this: Where you come to make your profits is where I bring up my children. Like you, I want them to grow up enjoying the quality of life that you want for your own children. Where you come to advance your interests is where my fellow Singaporeans and I live in the hope of freeing our country and knowing what it’s like to be free. Like you, we want a say in how our country is run and be able to elect our own government.

Don’t get me wrong – I am not asking you to change our country, Singaporeans are more than capable of doing that ourselves. What I am asking is for the US and its institutions like Yale not to be complicit in helping the ruling Peoples’ Action Party to oppress and exploit Singaporeans.

But when an institution, despite knowing the repression that goes on in a country chooses to take advantage of the lack of freedom to install extractive and exploitative economic policies for its own benefit, when you seek to advance your interests at the expense of ours, then I question if you are friends at all.

If all America is interested in is to make money regardless of the damage that profit-making venture is, then we are all going to be poorer for it. If we continue to choose the beggar-thy-neighbour approach to globalisation, the global community will fail.

I fear, despite all the assurances and because of the what I have seen of what corporate America together with the Singapore state has done to my country, that making money is the be-all and end-all of all that is collaborated. I hope you can see why the Yale-NUS venture leaves me suspicious of Yale’s motives – whether you are there to educate or simply to line your own pockets. I have never yearned so much to be proven wrong.

Asian values under the guise of Confucianism, have been used by the Singapore government to steer the people away from democracy which, it argues, will hamper economic progress. I argue the opposite – and data that I have presented bear me out – that openness and accountability, in other words democracy, is essential for the economic advancement of a people.

But that’s not the point.

Others argue that democracy is a Western concept not suited to an Eastern culture like Singapore. The irony is that it was the West which subjugated and oppressed Singapore, together with much of Asia, for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. Freedom from colonialism was not given but won; the rebellion was instinctual. In short, the longing for freedom is not Asian or Western – it is primordial.

But that’s not the point either.

Humankind must not live in a world where the poor and the elderly live off the crumbs that fall off the rich man’s table; where Westerners, with the help of autocratic governments, exploit the locals in the countries that they invest in. Instead, we must work out a way to live in peace and on the premise that human equals human.

That’s the point.

If you come to Singapore to visit, you will see a conspicuous display of opulence. But hidden away in the unseen corners are pitiful figures of poverty.

I don’t care if this bent and gnarled figure is an American or Singaporean and neither, I suspect, do you (see photo below, right).

For a struggling American worker is not different from a struggling Singaporean worker. We’re first and foremost human beings: when oppressed, we long to be free; when exploited, we seek to break that yoke.

And if you care enough that education at this revered institution will prepare you for a life that not just enables you to get ahead but to also improve the lot of those around you, of humanity, then you will also care that Yale University not yield on the principles of higher education on which it is founded.

You will want this proud arena of intellection to care that it upholds its reputation of imparting not just knowledge but wisdom, the wisdom that invites an individual to enter the door of his conscience.

Such wisdom cannot be found in textbooks, you can’t score a correct answer on it in your multiple-choice test. It can only be approximated when you have the freedom to challenge authority, to question the status quo and push the limits of convention, a freedom that Yale so boldly and nobly embodies, a freedom that we have lost in Singapore.

Teachers and students, if you will not accept anything less for yourselves here in New Haven, why then do you acquiesce to a demand that will deny your counterparts at Yale-NUS that same, rich experience?

I can only hope that as we progress into the future, as the global community becomes more intertwined and our interests become increasingly linked, that our values – the values that people come before profit, rights before riches and wisdom before wealth – will also become inextricably bound.

I have been censored and censured, ridiculed and mocked, I have been sued and made bankrupt, and I have been jailed over and over. But that only makes me more determined to speak truth to power and to you, my friends, here at Yale.

Thank you.

Chee Soon Juan

Read also: Singaporean opposition leaders challenge Yale-NUS

Ref:tremeritus

High prices, low wages will lead to crisis!

Dr Vincent Wijeysingha recently spoke at the Online/Offline forum held last weekend where he talked about the current economic arrangements in Singapore and its implications for our future. Below is the text of his speech.

The issue we are addressing today – and the incident that gave rise to it – is a serious one and has wide ramifications for societal stability.

I think we should, therefore, be very clear about what we are talking about, because a wrong approach can so easily ignite the wrong gunpowder: History has many examples of problems that have derailed societies because of a misapprehension of the core problem.

Let us first of all acknowledge that all nations are vulnerable to national security challenges. Sadly, we don’t live in a world where it is possible to exempt ourselves from danger. In this region, Singapore is, perhaps, particularly vulnerable because of the many antipathies the first PM made through his arrogant commentary against our neighbours, their cultures, their economies.

China’s geostrategic ambitions and contracting economy, terrorist elements in Indonesia, and the proximity to a North Korea governed by a very inexperienced leader also give rise to potential dangers.

But at the same time, we are oddly safe because of our Strategic Framework Agreement and Free Trade Agreement with the United States, our place in the regional economy, and the significant share of the Asean trade that we carry. So this is the framework we are operating in.

The issue we are discussing today can easily be hijacked by a xenophobic causal discourse because it implicates the lowest-waged sectors of our workforce which are also massively populated by foreigners. But to interrogate the issue from a security perspective may be precipitate and premature. My take is that national security implications raised by the volume of foreign workers in Singapore are limited and they are not imminent.

Having said that, I readily accept that the frustrations of our people are very real. They are deeply influenced by the social and economic hardships which the immigration policy has raised and which we have not had the opportunity to debate widely.

But in my view, the central issue is the stability of the economy. Our industrial structure continues to be based on a goods and lower services model propelled by cheap labour. More than half the economy is based in these sectors, employing half of the workforce. This economic model, although tinkered with at different times and in limited ways to varying success, has really not departed a great deal from the low-waged predominance.

Now, there are only two ways to enhance output: either you reduce your costs or you increase your productivity. There are no magical alternatives.

In the late 1980s, the principles of the Washington Consensus were developed. They advocated, among other factors, reductions in public spending and privatisation of public goods as the policy options for the coming period. Singapore adopted the principles unhesitatingly.

The government coupled this with eliminating the means by which workers can bargain for better wages and limiting the space for debate.

Salaries across the lowest centiles of our workforce declined in the last ten years and have not risen much more noticeably for those in the middle centiles while they have rapidly increased at the upper levels.

Coupled with low or depressed wages, there has been a lack of political will to tackle inflation.

In the last 4 years, the government has blamed inflation entirely on external factors, even though the most significant inflationary pressures have been in transport and accommodation. Both of these inflationary pressures the government has significant control over through COE levels and HDB prices.

Now add to that mix the privatisation of public goods. The outcome?

A demoralised, struggling population working among the longest hours in the world at incredibly poor productivity levels in what the Economist Intelligence Unit has recently described as the ninth most expensive city in the world, and constantly at the mercy of being replaced by more cost effective foreign workers.

We are a population that feels little strength or ability to improve our conditions, either through fear of change, fear of the PAP, or distrust of the alternative policies.

History has taught us the suffering and desperation that gave rise to the revolutions in America, France, China, Russia did not come from the outside. They came from the policies of capricious kings living exorbitant, expensive lifestyles and apparently deaf to the suffering of their subjects. There is nothing so calculated to provoke social unrest as a hungry stomach and the inability to fill it.

In Singapore, we are a far cry from such scenarios, you say. But not so much because we are a happy, satisfied lot. We have in place a formidable police apparatus, aided and abetted by laws such as the Internal Security Act and Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to silence any form of dissent. You will notice across its history that the PAP government reacts most harshly and swiftly when a social movement is calculated to attract widespread support. They dealt with the SMRT industrial action harshly and swiftly. The PAP’s longevity has depended on this.

It has also depended on a socio-economic compact it established with the citizens in its early years. But what are we to make of the eventual outcome – and it will come – when Singapore’s comparative advantages on which the compact is based begins to fade? The real threat to our security will come when the PAP’s performance legitimation begins to decline.

So far, it is sad to say – but we must face it if we are to engage with the challenges of the moment – it is our silence and fear of acting in the way the Chinese bus drivers did that keeps the lid on social unrest.

High prices and poor wages will eventually reach a point where our citizens have more to lose than to fear. Then, the government will be faced with precisely the kind of crisis that leads to regime change. And if inertia or poor quality leadership, as we are already seeing examples of, make the government incapable of responding decisively and creatively, it may be too late for us to suddenly realise that the emperor has no clothes.

Studies have shown that poor labour conditions lead to high turnover, poor productivity, a sense of aimlessness and lack of commitment. The morale of our people, their commitment to the nation, the sense that they are being listened to, these engender a sense of ownership and responsibility. However, two key principles which have animated PAP policymaking have led to a significant divide between the people and the government. They are that the people are mere economic digits and the nation nothing but an economic laboratory.

Fear is not an enduring phenomenon. It has a breaking point beyond which people are no longer fearful because their fear safeguards nothing. When we enter into an interim period where the cheap labour advantage moves elsewhere – and it is already beginning to – if we haven’t done the hard thinking and planning beforehand, we will struggle to remedy the situation at crisis point.

The UK faced that problem in the 1980s during Mrs Thatcher’s time in office. Thankfully for them, they suddenly found oil in the North Sea which allowed them to stabilise the transformation. Singapore is not likely to be so lucky.

An economy based on a cheap labour foundation eventually faces a race to the bottom, that is, to compete to be able to offer the cheapest wages. Such a situation is only politically manageable when there are means by which workers can bargain as equal partners in the economic enterprise. In the absence of this, you generate the pressures I describe.

What can we do? Sufficient time needs to be given to deliberating on a Singaporeans First framework encompassing alternatives such as a Minimum Wage; the refocusing of our industrial structure towards the SME sector; a far more creative education, not just for children in elite schools but all schools; sovereign wealth funds delinked from absolute government control; and public services run on a service rather than profit ethos.

Where do we start? The only means of opening up the discourse is to return to citizens their role – in fact, their responsibility – in policymaking. Those fundamental rights that have been limited or even removed in exchange for the social compact, the freedoms of assembly, association and speech, need to be returned to the people. Even in ancient societies like the Roman empire, the nation started to crumble at the very point where exploitation, inequality and royal deafness began to couple together.

Contrary to what the PAP – and especially the first Prime Minister – clung to over the years, the fundamental freedoms are not fanciful notions without a bearing on our economic system. They are fundamental elements of it for the simple reason that no one individual or group can be expected to anticipate the answer to every question for all time.

The effects of the Washington Consensus are considerable. But in the absence of different views heard and different methods tried, we will learn too late. We cannot respond to existential crises by pretending they don’t exist.

The Minister of Manpower’s handling of the SMRT industrial action; the Transport Minister’s statement on fare increases; the general refusal to even countenance alternative approaches, together with the resolute silence of the mainstream media, will do nothing for our ability to weather future storms.

We need to be freeing up our social structures so that the project of nation building can expand rather than contract. The intellectual bunker to which the government appears to have retreated is a dangerous reaction.

Want to reAD more comment post>>>

ASK LIBBY!

A FAMILY MEMBER IS REFUSING TO PAY ME BACK AFTER BORROWING MONEY FROM ME. WHAT CAN I DO?

A family member recently borrowed some money from me. Now that she is financially stable, she is refusing to pay me back. What should I do? Also, she says if I continue to ask her when she is going to pay me back, she will report my actions as loansharking. Is that a valid charge ? 

There are two parts to your question. 1) Will I be charged for loansharking if I try to recover money from my relative? 

According to the following webpage by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) athttp://www.spf.gov.sg/ahlong/index.htm, a person can be charged for loansharking only if he lends the money illegally or assists illegal moneylenders by the following acts: Harassing the debtor (e.g, locking the gates, vandalising the walls, sending hell notes etc); debt collection; buying SIM cards for loan sharks; providing transport for runners etc. 

If you did not lend money illegally with the intention to profit from the interest, but had merely lent it as a concerned friend or relative, then it is unlikely that you could be charged for loansharking if you have not acted violently, harassed the debtor or mounted any threats of violence or destruction of property in the process of retrieving the loan. 

2) What should you do to recover money that you have loaned to your relative? 

If you have tried talking to her and that fails to work, you could talk to another family member whom she respects and is able to give her the right advice. 

If this still fails, you might want to take legal action. It will be helpful if you have proof, such as IOUs, written notes or a record of internet transfer. If you have given the borrower a cheque, you can write to the bank for copies of the encashed cheque as evidence. If you have indisputable evidence, you can issue a writ of summons, and if the borrower does not make a respond to the court in 14 days, or pay up in 21 days, the lender can file a bankruptcy petition against the borrower. Courts will appoint an officer to distribute the bankrupt’s assets to the lenders. 

For avenues to receive free legal advice regarding credit counselling, please see the links given at Credit Counselling Singapore at http://www.ccs.org.sg/link.php

Please note that the above general information given does not constitute legal advice. For specific advice, we suggest that you seek the help of legal professionals. 

Ref;Stomp

WAKE THE F**K UP, SINGAPORE!

HEREALSINGAPORE Sun, 12/30/2012 - 06:57

[Warning: this blog write-up contains obscene words. Readers be advised.]

My final standpoint is that Singapore is a great place to go on holiday to – sunshine, beaches, great food. But it is one of the worst places to work in (and thus live in, since you need to work to sustain yourself, duh) in the world.

I’ve had enough of this fucking parade of egos, moral righteous asses and self justified fucks.

I’ve had enough of job interviews.

Yes, I’ve been lucky. Yes I’ve aced almost every interview I’ve been to and been offered a fuck load of jobs. But no, I’m not happy about it. After this past fortnight of nightmarish interviews, I am now convinced the only reason I am here is because my family is here.

I can’t make films because the government is made of conservative cunts who censor all the good shit and banned the only local made film which has been decent (15 by Royston Tan). And all the other so-called independent productions companies are not independent because they’re all linked and commissioned by Mediacorp. And Mediacorp, the SOLE broadcasting company in Singapore is a government company. How fucking great. Is it just me or does anyone else see how damned ridiculous this whole situation is? Singapore is a joke. Our press and our media are monopolies owned by the government- How the FUCK are we ever going to achieve a free press and freedom of speech/expression status?

So yes, I can make films, but nobody will help me or give me the money because they are either (A) the Government or (B) too Fucking Scared of the Government. I’ll make my films still. I’ll make films with a camcorder and no lights and no equipment and no money, but I’ll make films where nobody in the fucking world can censor my content or tell me where the fuck the moral of the story should be in my plot. SO FUCK OFF.

I’ve gone for interviews where someone has:

1) Used his age against me to win an argument. I.e. I’m older than you and have a successful career whereas you haven’t proven yourself therefore your opinion (on this unrelated issue) is wrong. HELLO, THIS IS 21ST CENTURY SINGAPORE, WE ARE NO LONGER IN ANCIENT CHINA WHERE ELDERS AUTOMATICALLY GET RESPECT WITHOUT EARNING IT.

2) Used the fact I’ve studied and worked overseas against me. I.e. You can’t fit into the culture because you have been westernised and Singaporeans value efficiency whereas Western people are too laidback and unproductive. Also, there is the whole “How do you think your white boyfriend will impact on your image and lifestyle?” – YES THIS HAS COME UP IN INTERVIEWS 3 TIMES

3) (This point applies to all of them) Made me fill in an application form asking about my religion, marital status and intrusive details about my family such as their names and where they are working or studying. These forms weren’t as part of an equal opportunities form. And no, Singapore has no equal opportunities principles either. When I refused to fill it in, I realised I couldn’t cite the right to private life or freedom of religion as a reason, because SINGAPORE HAS NO FUCKING HUMAN RIGHTS. I got told off by a few people for adamantly not filling it in.

4) Interrupted me while I am speaking all the time. I fucking hate that. If you love the sound of your own voice so much why call it an interview? Why not call it a talk from the start, so I don’t even bother to speak at all?

5) Made assumptions about my values based on me being a Girl Scout in High School. Yes, there were assumptions I had good values, but then again, the good values were defined by him, and values are subjective. Also, I hate it when people make assumptions about your character based on the ecological fallacy (logical fallacy using stats of a group to define an individual in the world). I am an individual and I have my own values and I will not be defined by the fact I went camping and sang songs around the campfire.

6) Told me that if work clashed with my boyfriend’s birthday for example, I must put the job first. Are you fucking kidding me? When you are so short-staffed / have such poor management you cannot let employees off for important events like family / good friends / boyfriend’s birthdays, you need to reexamine your company structure and hire more staff to cover, NOT threaten your prospective employee during the interview that she MUST put work force. Go fuck off and kill yourselves please.

Wake up the fuck, Singapore. We can’t call ourselves a developed country when people still barge into you when you try to leave the lifts, trains or buses. That’s uncivilised barbaric behaviour. We can’t call ourselves a leading nation in politics when all we have is a dictatorship and we piss every country off by killing their people when they come in with drugs. We can’t call ourselves a leading nation in the economy when the only reason the economy is so successful is because we piss on the poor and our ministers are higher paid than President Obama. We can’t call ourselves leaders in international issues when we don’t even have fucking human rights.

Singapore is definitely a pitstop. A fucking short one if I can help it. And if any fucking person wants to bitch about how I am ungrateful and disloyal to my country, I’d say fuck off. Loyalty is earned. What has my government done for me? Fuck all. My parents fought for every single cent they got in this capitalist work environment, they paid for my medical bills, they paid for my school fees, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Certain teachers in school inspired me to think and shaped my character. These were individuals who inspired and helped bring me up in the world through their unique views which didn’t conform to convention, not the school academic syllabus, and certainly NOT THE GOVERNMENT. A good government doesn’t need emotional blackmail to get its citizens to stay. And now it is griping about how the best talents leave, has it stopped to wonder why? It’s because not everyone can stand to live in a dictatorial draconian country, especially when they have been exposed to the benefits and necessity of free speech, media and press. Singapore is the only country in the world I know who has legitimised corruption.

Yes, I have great affection for Singapore (THE LAND) because I grew up here with many fond memories. But one cannot be citizen in a country where they cannot respect the government. The government is the influencing factor which determines social culture, politics, human rights (or lack of). So yes, I have tried to be happy in Singapore. And to a great extent I am, with my family, my good friends, and the sunshine. But I cannot bring myself to work in, and therefore pay taxes to a government I don’t trust or respect.

Maybe Paul and I will be in New York by Christmas.

.

Melissa Low

* The author is a writer and film & theatre director and producer. She blogs at http://milomel.blogspot.com.

Ref;realsingapore

NOM-NOM-NOMing

Posted on November 7, 2012 

As it appears, more people other than me have concerns with regards to the exponentially escalated public housing prices issue. The talk of the town today has finally raised legitimate questions towards how the relevant authorities have structured their pricing schemes (or, some call scams).

If we recall my sharing of material costs to build stacked template pre-fabricated high rise housing not long ago (A “Prison” for a Home? & Same-same but different), the actual material costs is actually quite consistent over the past 2 decades, not withstanding the minor on-year inflation. Labor employed to expedite the works are predominantly low waged foreign nationals. Variable costs involving equipping & logistics may swing the figures a fair bit.

As a whole, the average total cost for constructing unfurnished studios/ single bedroom/ 2 bedroom units should not exceed 6 figures.

The recent article published by a particular political party seems to strike a cord in many dwellers of the island. Many of whom start raising brows, reflecting if they have been scammed to put themselves through 25-30yrs mortgage for a 2 bedroom unit that doesn’t exceed 100sqf.

Hypothetically, let’s assume the total average cost to construct & build a 2bedroom unit hovers at $100k and the going rate to purchase it hovers at $250k.

Shocking? What accounts for the $150k? Is it somebody’s profit margins, or is it land price?

The fundamental concept towards public housing is to make them affordable. These assets should not be designed to be investment driven, simply because they were built using public funds, bought using subsidies. And if there should be any appreciation in value, it should not be based on incoherent factors, simply because public housing deeds do not entitle owners to land strata. In a nutshell, it’s just a cell in the air.

I have to say that I’m inclined to agree with the concept of Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme for public housing, because it resonates with the fundamental principles for public housing.

Therefore, home owners pay exactly for what they buy – bricks, mortar, essentials and utility etc. and when the time comes to liquidate the asset, the home owners sell it back to the housing board, where the property is then sold to a new prospect at the revised values.

The idea is innovative, sound and with good conscience, because the order of the day is not to over profit on essentials.

Sure, people like to compare, and tend to compare with better developed nations. Well, in some most developed countries, citizens have concession rates to assets and lands. While the ongoing situation on this island is such, where; prices are marked above realistic value, and “subsidy” is thrown in as a sweetener, but the prices after subsidy are still ridiculous where home owners barely make ends meet.

The demand & supply is also a problem, because people are encouraged to buy beyond their means. If a prospecting couple decides to be frugal & buy a 2bedroom unit, their chances are diminished because there are plenty others need it more. And they are forced to go for a 3bedroom unit, or more. Therein resulting in a credit crunch, where they take up 25-30yrs mortgage.

And the problem doesn’t stop there. The mortgage situation is going to result in the future generation being denied tertiary education, and will be the start of a new set of problem – incurring debts for higher education (a necessity in this day & age).

Bold as the policy makers are, calling the situation affordable. Yet little do they realize that the truth is contrasting.

What really is affordability?
Definition (Affordable): Adjective – inexpensive, reasonably priced
Synonyms: available, accessible

In my opinion, affordability is when one can comfortably purchase/transact a belonging/asset, without having to compromise daily way of life, without having to jeopardize savings for future use i.e.: children’s education, medical emergencies, retirement, a holiday or two etc.

When it comes to a situation where home buyers are required to deplete their savings, live from hand to mouth while servicing a mortgage duration that sees them through till age of retirement, and not having sufficient funds to retire, resulting in a need to sell the home they struggled so long to live in, is not affordable – to put it in proper perspectives, it is a debt situation.

Nothing is guaranteed for life, and in the unfortunate event that one is laid off from employment, they are done for. And that debt situation puts the lives of the entire household in limbo.

On learning of what reality lays in ambush, wouldn’t you say no to the present public home pricing scheme (or, some call scam), and welcome the NOM scheme with open arms?

Ref:therealsingapore