Quantcast
Channel: If Only Singaporeans Stopped to Think
Viewing all 7506 articles
Browse latest View live

Put Singapore first in the years to come

$
0
0
By Devadas Krishnadas, Published TODAY, 19 Dec 2014

It is convention to end the year with a review of the 12 months that have passed. This can be a useful exercise in reflection and learning. But as 2015 draws near, a more important question should be: What should we expect of ourselves as a people and as a country? This is a more meaningful query as it focuses on what we can control and asks us to take responsibility for our future rather than simply react to events.

In the 1990s, there was a popular and long-running local English television series called Under One Roof. This speaks to the essential truth that, on our tiny island, we are really all living under one shared roof. Yet, in the recent past, divisiveness among Singaporeans is a growing feature of our discourse.

This divisiveness is being driven by a number of prominent wedges.

First, it has become fashionable in social media to speak in apocalyptic terms about Singapore’s future. This is patent nonsense. Despite modest economic growth, we have and continue to do well. While no country’s future, let alone that of a small nation, is a given, we have no reason to throw up our hands in despair.

There are those who see a terminal decline in episodes of periodic “ponding” due to heavy rainfall, the occasional failure in the public train system and isolated misconduct of public officials. Such people look for evidence to support this perception and persistently interpret isolated points as system-level manifestations.

While people are entitled to their views, we should recognise that a sense of optimism is vital to succeed in our national tasks, the foremost of which is to always be building the future we wish to inhabit. Adopting a negative frame of mind infects and informs that future — we should be looking at things in perspective and in proportion. We should also be committed to making improvements, not just whining or finger-pointing.

Second, it has become a national pastime to blame the Government for any inconvenience or social discomfort. The many who do this often justify this instinct on two premises — one, that the bureaucratic government is assumed to be omnipresent and second, that ministers earn high salaries.

Such a logic leads inevitably to two unhealthy and unhelpful results. The first is the expectation that government is both the problem and the solution to any issue and the second that anything less than sustained perfection is unacceptable.

Neither of these contentions can be supported in fact.

Singaporeans need and deserve to have high but not unrealistic expectations. We should also realise that achieving high expectations is beyond the capabilities of the Government alone — it requires strong civic participation. Solutions, ideas and practical contributions define our civic society more than righteous indignation, blame assignation and keyboard venting.

A more positive and proactive citizenry operates at all levels — neighbourhood, community and national. No one should need permission to make a positive contribution to society. And government agencies should take an enlightened view of individuals or groups who come forward in deed or with ideas to make us a better and more liveable place.

Third, and most discouragingly, is the phenomenon of xenophobia disguised as nationalism. I hope to see Singaporeans committing ourselves to be a welcoming and multicultural society, where our differences make us interesting and more culturally rich rather than more divided and culturally defensive.

The call for defending the “Singapore Core” or putting “Singaporeans First” should be seen for what it is — a fear of change. It could also be an opportunistic play by political actors who, rather than propose credible plans, project a romantic vision of our past.

To progress, we must remain a society that is open, enlightened and engaged with the rest of the world.

SINGAPORE AS A WINNER

It is not a secret that we are rushing down a runway to the next General Election. The guessing of the timing of when it will be called is predictably turning into a national pastime. But there can be no doubt about the seriousness with which the Government is treating the coming elections. The Prime Minister has made his appreciation of the political situation clear in his stark remarks at the People’s Action Party’s 60th anniversary party and subsequent general assembly.

Singaporeans should enjoy but not be distracted by the “rah-rah” mood of celebrations for SG50. The next elections should be one about ideas for our longer-term future, and of finding and putting in place capable leaders to help take us forward. For this to happen, the electorate needs to face the issues before us squarely, educate itself on the choices and pay attention to the details of actual ideas.

Let us not allow the electoral process to be hijacked by wild sentiment and bogeyman politics. We need to play to win — regardless of the electoral result, the winner should be Singapore. We can make sure this is so by committing ourselves to an election of reason, not rhetoric.

We need capable Singaporeans of any age to step forward as leaders. This will always be a big ask. But leadership need not automatically imply running for Parliament. We can be leaders in our communities, in our peer groups and on social media. If, collectively, we are focused on the key issues and on generating better outcomes through quality ideas based on facts — not cheap slogans and conspiracy theories — we can enrich the debate, hold politicians more accountable and ensure that the electoral process yields the best possible results in both leaders and ideas.

It is to be expected that Singaporeans have wide and varied aspirations. Much remains to be done to ensure that all Singaporeans who work hard and responsibly can realise our personal goals.

But to survive as a country, we must be bound more by the things that are common than we are pulled apart by the things that are different. For this to remain true, we must see and work towards one future.

It will take each of us working together to find it. When we do so, we put “Singapore First”.

Devadas Krishnadas is the chief executive of Future-Moves Group, an international strategic consultancy and executive education provider based in Singapore.



Singapore Government responds to allegations by ex-detainee Poh Soo Kai on Operation Coldstore

$
0
0
Crackdown on leftists in 1963 not political move: Govt
Claim by ex-political detainees and historians 'misleading, disingenuous'
By Zakir Hussain, Deputy Political Editor, The Straits Times, 19 Dec 2014

THE Singapore Government has rebutted recent allegations by former political detainees and some historians that a major crackdown on leftists in 1963 was a political exercise, saying the claim was "misleading and disingenuous".

A full reading of the available evidence would highlight the "serious security threat" which the communists posed, it said.

The crackdown, Operation Coldstore, was a continuation of security operations mounted since 1948 to contain the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).

The fact that the operation shattered the CPM's underground network throughout the island was acknowledged by no less than CPM secretary-general Chin Peng in his memoirs, the Government said. "Clearly, Operation Coldstore had not targeted innocent, non-communist 'socialists'."

The Government's comments were made by Singapore High Commissioner to Australia Burhan Gafoor in a strongly worded letter yesterday to the Australian National University's New Mandala website.

They were in response to a commentary on the website by former Coldstore detainee Poh Soo Kai earlier this month.



Dr Poh, a former Barisan Sosialis leader, was among 113 left- wing politicians and unionists rounded up in Coldstore, which he called a "set-up" against political opponents of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, including Barisan chief Lim Chin Siong.

The Straits Times at the time reported that the arrests of these members of Communist United Front (CUF) groups were aimed at preventing subversives from setting up a "communist Cuba" in Singapore and mounting violence as Malaysia was to be formed.

Dr Poh's commentary follows a bid by some historians in recent years to shed new light on Singapore's political developments in the 1960s, basing their work on confidential and secret records of the British colonial authorities that have been declassified in the past 10 years.

Several academics and officials have rebutted the revisionists' claims, and in October this year, the Government re-issued The Battle For Merger radio talks that Mr Lee gave in 1961 to expose the communist agenda.

A marker to commemorate about 8,000 victims of communist violence in Malaysia and Singapore from 1948 to 1989 was unveiled at Esplanade Park on Dec 8.

Dr Poh criticised the reprint of the radio talks, describing it as a "Cold War diatribe" and aimed "implicitly to justify Coldstore".

Mr Burhan's letter is the first official response to cite the declassified documents from the British archives. It also reiterates what former CPM leaders had said about Barisan Sosialis, the CPM network in Singapore and Mr Lim.

Mr Burhan noted that "revisionists" like Singaporean historian Thum Ping Tjin "conveniently omit mention" of incriminating information in the declassified documents, such as the colonial officials' concern about the extent to which the CPM had penetrated Barisan.

"Barisan was not an ordinary left-wing political party, and its leaders were not 'unwitting dupes' of the communists. It was the prime CUF body in Singapore in the 1960s, influenced, directed and led by CPM cadres," he said.

In his nine-page letter, Mr Burhan outlined how the evidence showed "they were ready, when the opportunity arose, to use violent, unconstitutional means to overthrow the government".

He said the then British Commissioner to Singapore, Lord Selkirk, had by late 1962 recognised the extensive communist hold on the party and said "it would be wise to make arrests of communists in Singapore as soon as possible".

Mr Burhan also said there was "ample evidence" in the British archives and accounts by CPM members to show that Mr Lim played a key role to advance the CPM's cause.

"What is missing is an explanation from the revisionists as to why they have systematically ignored revelations by CPM leaders, as well as the many British documents that demolish their claims," he said.

Dr Poh had also failed to explain his role in helping CPM elements between 1974 and 1976, Mr Burhan added. "A mere 'left wing' anti-colonialist, as Dr Poh describes himself now, would not have given material aid surreptitiously to the CPM's violent armed struggle as late as 1976."

He also said Dr Poh and the revisionists' disregard of the facts "is disrespectful to the many Singaporeans who chose a non-communist path at great risk to themselves, and contributed to the success of modern Singapore".





Doc who made allegations about Op Coldstore
By Lim Yan Liang, The Straits Times, 19 Dec 2014

ONE of the more prominent men arrested during Operation Coldstore in February 1963 is Dr Poh Soo Kai.

Now 82, the medical doctor was among 113 people detained in the crackdown on communists and leftists and their key supporters.

Dr Poh was left-leaning from his student days at the then University of Malaya in Singapore. He was president of the University Socialist Club.

Later, he became a member of the People's Action Party (PAP) until 1961, when 13 left-wing assemblymen were expelled from the party.

They formed the Barisan Sosialis party, which was led by Mr Lim Chin Siong.

Dr Poh was its assistant secretary-general and, with many Barisan leaders, was detained in 1963. He was freed in end-1973 but re-arrested in 1976 for plotting to revive Communist United Front activities.

After his release in 1982, he practised as a doctor for eight years before moving to Canada. He returned here in 2007.

In recent years, he has been active in presenting his side of the Operation Coldstore story.

He co-edited a book of essays by former detainees and historians to mark the crackdown's 50th anniversary last year.

In the book, Dr Poh said Coldstore was targeted at political opponents of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, a point he repeated in his Dec 3 article on the Australian National University's New Mandala website.

"What it did, in effect, was to eliminate Lim Chin Siong and the Barisan Sosialis from the 1963 General Election," he wrote on the website.

Dr Poh also disagreed with the official reason for the arrests of the leaders: their close ties with rebel leaders of the 1962 Brunei Revolt, and the statement they issued supporting the uprising. He said the statement was one of moral support, "no different from those Barisan had issued for other anti-colonial uprisings".

The argument that the arrests were partly politically motivated and that the Government overstated the communist threat, has also been made by a number of historians like Dr Thum Ping Tjin, former Asia Research Institute fellow, and some former detainees.

But the Government has said revisionist accounts portraying the struggle against the Barisan as a peaceful and democratic disagreement over the terms of merger with Malaysia have ignored the communists' agenda to seize power by subversion and armed struggle.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said recently the communist efforts to destabilise Singapore have been well documented by academics and other writers, "including top leaders of the CPM (Communist Party of Malaya) such as Chin Peng and Fong Chong Pik".





A ferocious struggle for Singapore's future

This is a response from High Commissioner to Australia Burhan Gafoor to an article by the former assistant secretary-general of the Barisan Sosialis party, Dr Poh Soo Kai. Dr Poh's Dec 3 article appeared in New Mandala, a Web magazine hosted by the Australian National University that focuses on South-east Asian affairs.

DR POH Soo Kai's commentary ("Singapore's 'Battle For Merger' revisited") in New Mandala on Dec 3, 2014 is a misleading account of Operation Coldstore, Singapore's merger with Malaya, the Barisan Sosialis Singapura (Barisan) and his own role in that period.

Dr Poh and other revisionists like Dr Thum Ping Tjin have alleged that Operation Coldstore was a political exercise meant to suppress what they claim to be legitimate, presumably peaceful, democratic opponents of the PAP government. A full reading of the declassified documents from the British National Archives shows clearly that Operation Coldstore was a security operation meant to counter the serious security threat posed by the outlawed Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) and their supporters in Singapore, working through the Barisan and associated communist united front (CUF) organisations. The revisionists conveniently omit mention of the incriminating information in these documents. For example, they quote selectively some of then UK Commissioner to Singapore Lord Selkirk's remarks to claim that Operation Coldstore was an act of political suppression with no security basis. But a holistic reading of all the documents debunks their accounts. The documents reveal that both Lord Selkirk and his deputy Philip Moore were concerned about the extent to which the CPM had penetrated the Barisan and had concluded that security action was imperative. Indeed, about two months before Operation Coldstore was carried out, they had begun to urge strenuously that action be taken.

The Barisan was not an ordinary left-wing political party, and its leaders were not "unwitting dupes" of the communists. It was the prime CUF body in Singapore in the 1960s, influenced, directed and led by CPM cadres, as the British officials then, as well as CPM leaders themselves since, have acknowledged.

CPM in Singapore

IN 1948, the CPM launched an armed struggle to establish communist rule in Malaya and Singapore. This was part of the wave of communist revolutionary wars then taking place in Asia. When terrorist attacks, sabotage and assassinations did not work, the CPM decided to pursue mass struggle. It re-activated the CUF by infiltrating and subverting open and legal organisations, including political parties, trade unions and student organisations.

This CUF instigated student and labour unrest in Singapore. Consequently, the Labour Front government of Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock - with the full concurrence of the colonial authorities - arrested over 300 CPM and CUF elements in 1956 and 1957 alone. Operation Coldstore in 1963 was a continuation of security operations that had been mounted since 1948 to contain the CPM.

The People's Action Party was elected to office in June 1959 on a platform that called for the merger of Singapore and Malaya. Both the non-communist faction of the PAP led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew as well as the pro-communist faction led by Mr Lim Chin Siong supported merger. In May 1961, then Malayan Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman proposed a "Greater Malaysia", including Malaya, Singapore, and the British territories in Borneo. Mr Lee's government welcomed the Tunku's proposal. However, the pro-communists in the PAP came out in opposition to merger. They tried to capture the PAP and the Singapore Government in July 1961. They and the CPM believed that merger at that point would have frustrated their aim: to capture Singapore and use it as a base to subvert the Federation, in order to establish communist rule over the whole of Malaya. They also opposed merger because it would have put internal security in the hands of the anti-communist Malaysian central government in Kuala Lumpur, which would have had no hesitation to suppress pro-communists in Singapore as it had in Malaya.

When the communists and their supporters narrowly failed in their bid to capture the PAP, they were expelled from the party. They formed their own political party, the Barisan Sosialis. The following year, in September 1962, they lost the merger referendum. The Barisan then began discussing the question of armed struggle, and also pinned their hopes on Sukarno's Indonesia opposing Malaysia.

The issue of armed struggle was discussed at length at a Barisan HQ meeting attended by about 40 cadres, including members of the central executive committee as well as branch representatives, on Sept 23, 1962. Summing up the views expressed, Barisan central executive committee member Chok Kok Thong urged his colleagues to "themselves determine the form their struggle should take: 'basically armed struggle is the highest form of struggle' but whether it should be adopted or not would depend on 'the entire international situation'...". Mr Chok added: "…no one could say that the revolution was complete if it took the form of an armed struggle or incomplete if the peaceful and constitutional methods were used… Experience elsewhere showed that there was no country in the world which had 'attained a thorough success in revolution through constitutional processes', and that throughout South-east Asia, including Malaya, the 'ruling classes would not lightly hand over political power to the leftists'".

The Barisan's support for the armed Brunei revolt in December 1962, and their close association with the rebel leaders, showed that they were ready, when the opportunity arose, to use violent unconstitutional means to overthrow the government.

The Internal Security Council of Singapore (ISC), comprising representatives of the governments of the United Kingdom, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, therefore approved Operation Coldstore in February 1963, as a pre-emptive move against the communists and their supporters.

That the security operation was targeted at the communists and their supporters - not mere democratic opponents of the PAP - has been affirmed by no less an authority than the CPM secretary-general Chin Peng. He acknowledged in his memoirs that he had expected such a crackdown and had advised his cadres and followers to take the necessary precautions. He expressed regret that they did not do so, as Operation Coldstore, in his words, "shattered our underground network throughout the island". "Those who escaped the police net went into hiding. Many fled to Indonesia". Clearly, Operation Coldstore had not targeted innocent, non-communist "socialists".

Barisan and CPM

THE Barisan Sosialis was formed in July 1961 on the explicit instructions of Fong Chong Pik - aka "the Plen", as Mr Lee Kuan Yew had named him in his Battle For Merger radio talks, "Plen" being short for the "Plenipotentiary" of the CPM who had first made contact with Mr Lee in 1957. Fong was the chief CPM representative and operative in Singapore. The Plen's superior in the CPM was Eu Chooi Yip, who was based in Jakarta and in overall charge of the CPM's operations in Singapore. Eu too confirmed in his memoirs that it was the Plen who instigated the formation of the Barisan. As the Barisan was the main CUF organisation, it was led by the top CPM open front leader in Singapore, Lim Chin Siong. Lim became secretary-general of the party while Dr Poh Soo Kai was its assistant secretary-general.

Chin Peng has confirmed that the Barisan was under the CPM's influence. He cagily disagreed that the CPM "controlled" the Barisan, but admitted: "We certainly influenced them." He did not elaborate on how the CPM "influenced" the Barisan or who were the CPM's proxies in its central executive committee, but he confirmed that communists were among those who joined the party.

At least seven of the Barisan's 16 central committee members were known CPM or former Anti-British League (ABL) members. (The ABL was a CPM underground political organisation set up in 1948 and disbanded in 1957.) Two of the Barisan's central executive committee members, Chan Sun Wing and Wong Soon Fong, who were also Legislative Assemblymen, fled after the 1963 General Election and surfaced at the CPM guerrilla camp at the Thai-Malaysian border. At least 15 former Barisan leaders and activists are known to have lived in the CPM's "Peace Villages" on the Thai-Malaysian border; many continue to do so.

The UK Deputy Commissioner in Singapore at that time, Philip Moore, made a perceptive observation that would apply to those who now feign ignorance or deny knowledge of communist control and influence over the Barisan and other CUF organisations. Reporting to London in December 1962, Moore noted that "knowing what we now do about the extent of Communist penetration within Barisan Sosialis, it will be more difficult to acquit many of the other leading members as unwitting dupes".

Moore was referring to two reports of meetings at Barisan HQ that he described as "of considerable importance not only for what they reveal of the future intentions of Barisan Sosialis, but they provide more conclusive evidence than we have had hitherto for the belief that Barisan Sosialis are Communist-controlled".

"It has never been disputed," he notes, "that the Communists in Singapore are following United Front tactics and that Barisan Sosialis is their principal instrument on the political front… The report on the first of the two (Barisan) meetings shows that those engaging in the discussion were Communists examining quite frankly how best to achieve their ends. Furthermore, we can see that the Communist influence within Barisan Sosialis is not confined to the Central Executive Committee but extends to Branch Committee level…".

Moore's superior, Lord Selkirk, concurred with this judgment. A week later, on Dec 14, 1962, after the Brunei rebellion, Lord Selkirk sent a dispatch stating: "I said I had recognised all along that a threat was presented by the communists in Singapore. I had not however previously been convinced that a large number of arrests were necessary to counter this threat. Recently, however, new evidence had been produced about the extent of the communist control of the Barisan Sosialis and also there had been indications that the communists might resort to violence if the opportunity occurred. Recent statements by the Barisan Sosialis and Party Rakyat supporting the revolt in Brunei confirmed this."

Two weeks later, Lord Selkirk sent another dispatch stating "it would be wise to make arrests of communists in Singapore as soon as possible".

Merger

INDEPENDENCE through merger with the Federation had been the PAP's platform ever since its founding in 1954. Merger was supported both by the non-communists and the communists in the PAP. So when the PAP won a strong endorsement in the 1959 General Election, winning 43 out of 51 seats, it pursued merger vigorously. Merger was not "foisted" on an unenthusiastic electorate.

But when the Tunku offered merger through Malaysia in May 1961, the communists made a startling about-turn. They determined to derail merger, even though they had all along insisted that Malaya and Singapore were one entity. Chin Peng later made it clear that the CPM wished to sabotage merger or delay its implementation at that stage. He disclosed that "(The) three of us (Chin Peng, Siao Chang and Eu Chooi Yip) came to the conclusion that it would be in the best interest of our Party (italics inserted for emphasis) if we plotted to sabotage (merger). If we couldn't derail it, at least we might substantially delay its implementation". The Barisan conformed to the CPM line and mounted a strong challenge to the PAP on merger.

On his part, the Plen frankly revealed that he had used the Chinese press to try to delay merger. He wrote: "A lot of the opinions expressed in the newspapers originated from me.

"These included slowing down the process of merger, and adopting the form of a confederation." He was also behind the agitation against educational reform in the Chinese middle schools, resulting in the examination boycott of November 1961. His aim was to arouse public dissatisfaction with the Government in the run-up to the merger referendum.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in his Battle For Merger radio broadcasts in 1961, exposed the communists' objective and strategy. He explained that the communists and the Barisan opposed merger because they wanted to establish control over Singapore so they could subsequently subvert and take over Malaya. The radio talks won over public opinion in favour of merger on the terms proposed by the Government.

In the referendum in September 1962, the specific merger terms were put to the electorate. Seventy-one per cent of the voters opted for the PAP's merger proposal while the Barisan, which called for blank votes to be cast in protest, got only 25 per cent. There were trade-offs in the negotiations with Malaya for merger, as in any negotiation between states and territories. The terms and conditions settled upon were the best that the Singapore Government could obtain under the circumstances. They allowed Singapore to retain control over areas that were key to Singaporeans such as education and labour.

Dr Poh now says that Singapore's separation from Malaysia in 1965 proved that Barisan's position on merger in 1961-62 was correct. This is yet another reversal of position. In 1965, following separation, the Barisan had condemned Singapore's independence, characterising it as "phony". It also withdrew from the Parliament of independent Singapore, declaring its preference to carry out "extra-parliamentary struggle". The Barisan in effect reverted to the CPM's original and real position: that Malaya and Singapore should be one entity (albeit under communist control) and that "extra-parliamentary struggle" was superior to constitutional politics. The reality is that the CPM and the Barisan had all along acted, in Chin Peng's words, "in the best interests of our Party". They never believed that Singapore should be independent of Malaysia and had opposed merger in 1963 merely for tactical reasons. And they never believed that they should restrict themselves to constitutional means to attain their political ends.

Lim Chin Siong

THERE is ample evidence in the British archives to show that Lim Chin Siong was a CPM member. Indeed, the British authorities were quite certain that Lim was a CPM member. One British document noted: "For tactical reasons, the Communist Party is in favour of legal activity through the extreme left-wing of the PAP led by Lim (Chin Siong), who is almost certainly a secret party member". In another, a dispatch in July 1962, Deputy UK Commissioner Philip Moore wrote "we accept that Lim Chin Siong is a communist". In an earlier dispatch, in October 1961, Moore reported:

"Once Lim Chin Siong becomes convinced that the people of Singapore are going to support Merger, then I suspect he may well revert to the original long-term policy of the MCP (Malayan Communist Party) - a Socialist Government throughout Malaya. The opportunity of overthrowing Lee Kuan Yew and achieving a Communist-manipulated government in Singapore seemed, in July (1961), to be so golden that Lim Chin Siong could not resist it."

Lim Chin Siong himself publicly admitted that he was a member of the ABL, a CPM underground organisation whose members included many key communist leaders in Singapore then, namely Eu Chooi Yip, the Plen, PV Sarma (who together with Eu and others later operated the CPM broadcasting station in South China), Samad Ismail, John Eber and others. According to a book on the ABL published in 2013 by six former ABL/CPM members now residing in Hong Kong and Guangzhou, the ABL's objectives included to safeguard the "core leadership of the party (CPM)", build it up and expand its influence, "learn revolutionary theory" and carry out "various clandestine activities". Before 1951, "it even carried out some extreme acts like confiscating identity cards and burning vehicles". ABL members also purchased medicine and supplies to support the CPM's armed struggle.

One writer in the collection, CPM member Zhang Taiyong, described how Lim Chin Siong was transferred from underground activities in the ABL to open front activities. He revealed that Lim Chin Siong, after being expelled from the Chinese High School for his role in an examination boycott, "continued his studies at an English-stream school but later accepted the organisation's decision and devoted himself to trade union movement and constitutional struggle".

Lim Chin Siong's involvement in the CPM has also been confirmed by CPM leaders Siu Cheong and Ah Hoi. They cited Lim as an example of a CPM member who was deployed in open front activities in political parties: "Lim Chin Siong was chosen because he was considered a very important CPM member, who had excellent qualities as a Communist United Front (CUF) cadre, namely, dedication, trustworthiness and moreover, he had been involved in CPM activities since his schooldays."

The Plen himself admitted that Lim Chin Siong was "a person with whom I have had a special acquaintance" and that they had shared "a relationship as fellow workers". The two met several times - including, crucially, on July 16, 1961, a few days before the communists tried unsuccessfully to take over the PAP and the Government.

Documents written in Lim Chin Siong's own hand which clearly show his links to the CPM were cited and published in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's Battle For Merger in 1961.

Lim Chin Siong was no mere leftist engaged in anti-colonial, constitutional activities. Lim and his fellow communist and pro-communist cadres in the Barisan, including Poh Soo Kai, played key roles to advance the CPM's cause. They did so while concealing their communist hand from the Singapore public, whose support they needed for their covert long-term goals. Most senior united front leaders and operatives operated under instructions from communist "back seat drivers" like the Plen and Eu Chooi Yip.

Abundant evidence of communist conspiracy

I HAVE set out just some of the ample evidence of communist activity in Singapore that is available in the public domain. What is missing is an explanation from the revisionists as to why they have systematically ignored revelations by CPM leaders (including Chin Peng and the Plen) as well as the many British documents that demolish their claims.

As for Dr Poh Soo Kai, he has failed to explain his own role in this history. In December 1974, he helped CPM/CUF elements by providing medical aid to an injured CPM bomber, and then failed to report the matter to the authorities despite public appeals by the police for information.

The bomber was part of a three-man CPM team who were on the way to plant a homemade bomb at the home of a factory owner when the bomb exploded prematurely at Katong, injuring the bomber and killing his two accomplices. Dr Poh was also implicated in supplying medicine through an ex-detainee to the 6th Assault Unit of the Malayan National Liberation Army, the militant wing of the CPM, between 1974 and 1976. A mere "left-wing" anti-colonialist, as Dr Poh describes himself now, would not have given material aid surreptitiously to the CPM's violent armed struggle as late as 1976, years after both Singapore and Malaysia had become independent of Britain.

Dr Poh's claim that Mr Lee's account of events in the Battle For Merger radio talks and the Government's justification of Operation Coldstore "(have) been seriously questioned" by the public, is an exaggeration. There were no riots or clashes with the police after the security operation in February 1963, unlike what happened after the arrests and expulsions undertaken by the Lim Yew Hock government in 1956. Instead, seven months after Operation Coldstore, the Singapore electorate endorsed Mr Lee Kuan Yew's leadership and returned the PAP to power with 37 out of 51 seats in the General Election of September 1963. The Barisan, on the other hand, won just 13 seats. In subsequent elections in the 1970s and 1980s, the Barisan failed to win a single seat, eventually dissolving itself in 1988 and merging with another party. The electorate's rejection of the Barisan and communism was thorough and total. Otherwise, Singapore would have laboured under the yoke of communism, and not have developed into a modern, non-communist nation.

A BATTLE OF TWO CONTRASTING VISIONS

The crux of the battle between the pro-communists and the non-communists in the early 1960s was two contrasting visions for the future of Singapore, how we should govern ourselves, and how society should be structured. Merger was the occasion, not the cause, of the struggle. It was a struggle between people on both sides of the ideological divide who were prepared to die for their cause. As Mr Lee said in his Battle For Merger talks, his opponents were men of courage and determination. Fortunately, so were Mr Lee and his non-communist colleagues. And fortunately for Singapore, the latter won.

We must not recast the struggle between the communists and the non-communists as just an ordinary political fight between factions, with one side out to suppress the other for mere political advantage. It was nothing of the sort. Rather, it was a ferocious struggle between people with strong convictions about how Singapore should be run. Singaporeans who lived in those tumultuous times will not forget what was at stake. Attempts by Dr Poh and revisionists to recast the struggle and deny its roots in the communist strategy for domination, including the use of violence, are misleading and disingenuous. Their disregard of the facts is disrespectful to the many Singaporeans who chose a non-communist path at great risk to themselves, and contributed to the success of modern Singapore.



Related

Operation Coldstore: The evidence is clear, says PM

$
0
0
No doubt Barisan Sosialis was formed at instigation of Communists, he says
By Zakir Hussain, Deputy Political Editor, The Sunday Times, 21 Dec 2014

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has weighed in on a recent debate over the legitimacy of a 1963 crackdown on Communists, saying that British documents and first-person accounts by former Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) leaders confirm the extent of the Communist United Front in Singapore.

They also "leave no doubt" that the Barisan Sosialis was formed at the CPM's instigation, and that detained Barisan leader Lim Chin Siong was a Communist cadre, Mr Lee said yesterday.



His comments in a Facebook post came two days after the Government's detailed reply to a commentary by former Barisan assistant secretary-general Poh Soo Kai which questioned the legitimacy of the crackdown, codenamed Operation Coldstore.

Dr Poh's commentary and the Government response were carried in the Australian National University's New Mandala website.

Mr Lim and Dr Poh were among 113 Communists and supporters arrested and detained without trial during Coldstore - carried out when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was prime minister.

Dr Poh said the arrests were directed at the senior Mr Lee's political opponents.

PM Lee's post included a link to the Government's response. He said it was based on evidence from the British archives and CPM sources - all of which confirm that Mr Lee Kuan Yew told the truth.

PM Lee noted that many old Communist and pro-Communist activists have reconciled with their past, and become good citizens.

"But a few hard-core ones still deny these historical facts. They don't want to admit that they had fought on the wrong side, and that luckily for Singapore they lost," he said. "Some 'revisionist' historians make this argument too.

"One motivation: cast doubt on the legitimacy of the PAP government, not just in the 1960s, but today."

PM Lee said he visited an exhibition at the National Library in October, held in conjunction with the reprint of Battle For Merger, a book of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's radio talks in 1961. These explained what the fight against the Communists was about, and why Singapore needed a merger with Malaya.

Dr Poh criticised the reprint, describing it as a "Cold War diatribe" and aimed "implicitly to justify Coldstore".

But PM Lee said: "The CPM was a violent, illegal organisation. So it operated secretly, underground."

But the Communists infiltrated open, legal organisations such as trade unions, student associations and political parties.

"These supported the Communist cause, but denied that they themselves were Communist. Mr Lee exposed this CUF (Communist United Front) tactic," PM Lee said.

His post included photos of two original handwritten documents that he said showed that Lim Chin Siong was a communist, and that the Barisan was Communist-controlled.

One was of a trade union document, signed "Lim Chin Siong". The other was a Communist study cell document, signed "Wang Ming".

"The handwriting was identical. In fact Wang Ming was Lim Chin Siong's party name; Communist cadres took party names to conceal their real identities," he said.

He added that the British have been declassifying archived documents and making them publicly available.

Senior CPM leaders like Chin Peng, Eu Chooi Yip, Fong Chong Pik - also known as the Plen - and others have published memoirs.

"Their first-person accounts, like the British documents, confirm the extent of the Communist United Front in Singapore, and leave no doubt that the Barisan was formed at the instigation of the CPM, and that Lim Chin Siong was a Communist cadre," PM Lee said.


50 years on, still no clear political alternative

$
0
0
By Sanjay Perera, Published The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2014

AT THE recent party conference of the People's Action Party (PAP), the possibility was raised of it not forming the government after the next general election.

This brings to mind former foreign minister George Yeo's two-word Facebook post after the ruling party lost the Punggol East by-election in January last year: "Whither Singapore?" This came after the May 2011 election when the PAP received its lowest votes in a general election since independence.

In this context, it appears intuitive that here is an opportunity for opposition parties to explain why they should run the country. Yet, none is making a claim for the leadership mantle other than trying to increase the parties' parliamentary presence.

But what if all seats are contested again in the next election, and a large collage of candidates from opposition parties are voted in?

How is the country to be governed if its fate pivots on a sizeable number of oppositionists, but none or few of them are ready to hold office? Singapore faces a peculiar phenomenon where there is talk of challenging the PAP but no party or candidate stands ready to take over the government or be prime minister.

Instead, the opposition is gingerly treading between assuaging those angry with an influx of foreigners and not straying too far from the PAP's way of trying to maintain economic growth and social stability. For the most we are presented with "PAP-lite" with some choice rhetoric thrown in.

It is not that the opposition does not offer alternative ideas that challenge the PAP's, but that the ideas need to come across as representing a countervailing force to the grip of market forces on the economy.

Within the PAP itself, some have recognised that fundamental change is needed. Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam stated that the Cabinet's centre of gravity has shifted to "left-of-centre". It may not be clear yet what this means exactly but there are forays in trying to soften the potential for a property bubble through increased stamp duties in buying residential property, and a Pioneer Generation Package in the form of subsidised health care and Central Provident Fund top-ups as recognition of the contributions of first-generation Singaporeans.

However, as Singapore approaches its 50th anniversary, no clear political alternative exists.

The PAP is right to start looking left politically, but what is surprising is that the opposition largely offers piecemeal policy alternatives - if any one of them attempts a vision it is a repetition of what they have been saying for years and is but a variation on a theme of Singapore's current capitalist paradigm.

Key aspects of what the opposition seem to offer include reduced defence expenditure (Singapore Democratic Party or SDP), tightening entry of foreigners into the labour force (Singaporeans First Party, National Solidarity Party), a minimum wage (SDP), encouraging smaller firms and private enterprise and attempts to dismantle government-linked corporations (Workers' Party to some extent, and SDP).

But voters want more insight into the ideas of the opposition.

Should military conscription be reduced even further or halted altogether and by what timeframe?

By how much should the intake of foreigners be curbed? What precisely is the ratio of foreigners to locals that firms should follow? What exactly should the minimum wage be and how is it to be adjusted for inflation? What happens when GLCs are dismantled and what good is this to us if ownership falls into foreign hands?

A comprehensive vision of moving the country to the left and thereby reassert socio-economic balance allows effective claims for a minimum wage, more government intervention in the economy, a sharper interest in the welfare of the needy and raising taxes upon the wealthy to help social expenditure: but the opposition presents a hodgepodge of ideas that may well force them to dip into the state's financial reserves to fund programmes - something that is anathema for the most part and for good reason. Without a hinterland and anything substantial to fall back on like natural resources, a principal resource for Singapore remains its accumulated reserves.

Then there is also the question of whether at some point Singapore may have to consider merging back with Malaysia to ensure its long-term sustainability.

The point is that there are no able leaders from the opposition who can unify it or provide a clear direction for the country. Neither is the opposition abundant in leaders honest enough to tell Singaporeans that whoever they vote for, there are challenging times ahead.

Voting the PAP out or trying to form a coalition is one thing - but what are the answers to a failing capitalist paradigm and the challenges of managing foreign policy issues in an increasingly difficult geopolitical environment?

It is undemanding to wax lyrical about freedom, democracy and whatnot, but it is quite another matter when the reins of government are in one's hands. Singapore needs leaders who can offer clarity of vision and genuine integrity of purpose, and who have the ability to make difficult decisions and, when needed, uncompromisingly tough moves.

The writer, a Singaporean, has worked in the navy and media, taught at tertiary institutions and is the editor of Philosophers For Change, an online journal dealing with alternative socioeconomic paradigms.


Vision for tomorrow must break out of yesterday's mould

$
0
0
By Barry Desker, Published The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2014

AS WE move towards 2015 and our 50th year of Independence, there will be a flurry of books and articles recalling the challenges overcome since 1965 and the destiny which awaits Singapore. The bigger surprise has been the number of efforts at crystal-ball gazing, attempting to look 10, 25, and even 50 years into the future.

What is striking is how much our imaginations are prisoners of the present. Even though we want to look beyond today and aim to conceive of a world which will unfold in the years ahead, we are shaped by our experiences. Linear projections are common. We struggle to grapple with the possibility of discontinuities, of changes which break existing moulds.

At the same time, our natural optimism leads us to plot a future which highlights our role at or near the forefront of nation states, a beacon of economic development and political stability. When we discuss the possibility of changes, the tendency is to think in terms of incremental shifts.

But the possibility of paradigm shifts should not be ignored. The emergence of unexpected issues which become the focus of attention by policymakers can be seen in the current debate over the population challenge.

Singapore is an ageing society, with a total fertility rate of 1.19 last year, well below the replacement level of 2.1. In retrospect, high levels of economic growth over the past two decades resulted from increases in capital and foreign labour deployed, not from significant productivity increases. However, the unsustainable sharp influx of foreigners granted permanent residence, as well as employment permits, in recent years has resulted in a backlash, making the issue of immigration politically toxic.

It is not just younger Singaporeans concerned about competition for university places or preferred jobs. Older Singaporeans worry about the changing environment around them, as they have neighbours with alien languages and different lifestyles. While some welcome the influx of new ideas, different cuisines and fresh faces, others are concerned by the disappearance of comfort foods and familiar styles of behaviour.

Although ethnic ghettos in HDB estates have disappeared, as legislation has ensured an ethnic balance, condominiums are beginning to see such ghettos, as new immigrants and expatriates from certain nationalities congregate in preferred locations.

The past year has seen rising anti-immigration sentiment in Singapore. The views of the general public have been influenced by the pressure placed on Singapore's infrastructure because of the sharp increase in the number of people residing in Singapore. MRT trains are crowded, hospital beds always full, traffic jams occur frequently, once-quiet parks are filled with foreign workers on weekends. The rapid pace of the foreign influx resulted in growing criticism and an undercurrent of resentment reflected in social media sites.

The opposition to immigration has led to the tightening of government policy on foreign workers in recent months. Now that restaurants, offices and department stores, for example, cannot rely on cheap foreign labour, we see Singaporeans employed for such jobs. One wonders where these people were employed before the restrictions were imposed.

The ease with which foreign labour was recruited has resulted in depressed wages for a segment of our population with minimal educational qualifications, unskilled and often in their 50s and 60s. This has led to calls for the introduction of a minimum wage, a move resisted by the Government over the years.

But the reality is that immigration will continue and there will be more foreign labour employed, if low birth rates continue.

Attitudes need to change. We should welcome the presence of new Singaporeans and encourage their integration into Singapore society. We should revise our laws to permit dual citizenship, which benefits some who are permanent residents but do not wish to give up the citizenship of their land of birth. It would also allow the growing numbers of Singaporeans working abroad to retain their links with Singapore.

We should be prepared to adopt a minimum wage policy to protect vulnerable groups in our workforce and to ensure that cheap foreign labour does not displace Singaporeans in their twilight years eking out a living.

The pace of change over the past 50 years has left us with a pioneer generation lacking the education and skills to benefit from the transformation that has taken place in Singapore. Ensuring a basic living wage will do more to retain their pride and sense of purpose than handouts as part of a pioneer generation package.

At the same time, despite the growing reliance on foreign labour to do menial jobs, Internet chatter suggests that many in our community are unwilling to recognise that even temporary workers have rights and should be protected. Do we retain Third World attitudes towards manual labour even as we proclaim ourselves a First World society?

The Little India riots last December highlighted the risk of outbreaks of social unrest. A minor dispute in Geylang or Beach Road on weekend nights involving Singaporeans and foreign workers could easily turn nasty. As large self-contained dormitories are built, dissatisfaction on trivial issues could spark a destabilising wave of riots and public commotion.

The litany of issues arising from Singapore's population challenge suggests that even as we want to focus on big ideas and grand plans for reimagining Singapore, reality will intrude.

Dealing with such challenges should not be seen as a distraction, but as part of the core test in remaking Singapore to meet the needs of the next generation.

The writer is Distinguished Fellow and Bakrie Professor of South-east Asia Policy at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.


Grip of hierarchy strong in South Korea

$
0
0
Respect for authority runs deep in former authoritarian nation, but change is at hand
By Chang May Choon, The Sunday Times, 21 Dec 2014

When Mr Michael Lee was growing up in authoritarian-ruled South Korea in the 1980s, people did as they were told and kneeling was a common form of punishment for misbehaviour in schools.

Thirty years on, the now-democratic country is one of the world's most wired and technologically advanced nations and K-pop is well known around the world.

Some things, however, do not change. For one thing, hierarchy and respect for authority are still deeply entrenched in the South Korean mindset.

Age and seniority determine how people speak and interact with one another, and employees are expected to follow orders, especially in family-run conglomerates, or chaebols, where the owner's word is as good as a royal decree.



"The average Korean has never experienced a life free of hierarchical roles," said Assistant Professor CedarBough Saeji at the department of Korean studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

"You would need to be very confident to talk back in a situation where you know (it) is culturally not acceptable."

Mr Lee, 34, a history teacher at the Singapore Korean International School, said observing hierarchy comes naturally to South Koreans, who nod or bow to show respect.

"Saying 'no' is not easy in Korean culture. People are afraid of losing something - such as money, a job, authority or power - when they say 'no', so they will say 'yes' first to meet the expectations of the leader."

When things go horribly wrong, South Koreans bow deeply to apologise. In extreme cases, kneeling - which dates back to the imperial era under Chinese influence - is required to seek forgiveness.

Earlier this month, Ms Cho Hyun Ah, daughter of Korean Air's chief executive, gained notoriety for forcing a head steward to kneel before her to apologise for a stewardess who did not serve nuts in a bowl on a New York-Seoul flight.

In May, officials of a rural hospital for chronically ill elderly patients went on their knees to apologise for a fire that killed 21. And some contestants of reality show MasterChef Korea have pleaded for a second chance on bended knees.

"Kneeling is an extreme form of bowing, a grandiose gesture that entails throwing away all of one's pride... It can be a show of gratitude or an apology, begging for forgiveness," said Dr Kim Min Kyu, senior research fellow and spokesman for the Northeast Asian History Foundation (NAHF).

Being forced to kneel is deemed disgraceful, but in the Korean Air incident, it won head steward Park Chang Jin massive support and sympathy as he was seen to have suffered injustice meted out by Ms Cho, who resigned soon after as the airline's senior vice-president.

Public outrage over her behaviour was testament to how ordinary South Koreans will no longer tolerate abuse of power by chaebols - Ms Cho ordered the taxiing plane to turn back so as to expel Mr Park, causing a delay.

It also highlighted the need for chaebols - they contribute up to 80 per cent of the country's gross domestic product - to reflect on their autocratic management style for future survival.

Ms Cho, 40, and her father have apologised publicly.

The incident was a "Watergate moment" that exposed a major problem in South Korean society - a system of hierarchy and deference that has bred tyranny and power harassment, said Ms Kim Bon Young, a former journalist now living in Singapore.

Last year, public anger flared when a newly appointed Posco Energy executive hit a Korean Air stewardess with a magazine for serving him ramen not to his liking. He was fired, partly for tarnishing the conglomerate's image.

"The dynastic policies of chaebols are not popular any more among South Koreans. People want meritocracy now," said Ms Kim.

Corporate hierarchy dictates that junior employees stay in the office until the bosses have left, and senior staff are addressed by their designations with honorifics (think Mr Manager or Mr Director) rather than by their surnames.

But with young people becoming more Westernised and an influx of foreigners who dare to speak up, there is hope that change is in place.

"Foreign employees bring a different dynamic to the work environment," said Dr Kim of NAHF. "As the level of exchange increases at the corporate level, I'm sure Korean corporate culture in terms of hierarchy will also evolve."

A glimmer of hope lies in education, which has become less strict in discipline. Mr Lee said teachers have stopped spanking students, for instance, as it is considered barbaric. There is also greater awareness that students are entitled to human rights, he added.

Parents, too, have questioned if compliance is always necessary, especially in the wake of April's ferry tragedy that left 250 high school students dead. It is believed that many would have survived had they not obeyed the crew's instructions to stay put in their cabins.

But the culture of hierarchy runs deep.

Ms Kim said she hopes South Koreans will gradually shift this mindset once they realise that, after the "nut rage" saga, "the world is laughing at you because you're so backward".









Nut rage wiped out all her work
By Chang May Choon, The Sunday Times, 21 Dec 2014

Ms Cho Hyun Ah, 40, who sparked the Korean Air "nut rage" incident, was embroiled in another controversy last year when she delivered her twin boys in the United States.

The move apparently was to give them American citizenship so they could escape South Korea's mandatory military service.

Ms Cho, whose father is the chairman of Korean Air and who is married to a prominent plastic surgeon, stepped down as senior vice-president of the airline after drawing flak for her imperious behaviour and shabby treatment of airline crew early this month.

While it is easy to write her off as another hoity-toity power-abusing chaebol heiress, the hotel management-trained Ms Cho undertook initiatives to improve Korean Air, which she joined in 1999.

Under her charge, the airline had a major image overhaul, complete with new uniforms, redesigned cabin interiors and improved inflight service and duty-free offerings. In 2005, it achieved US$158 million (S$207 million) in duty-free sales, reportedly the highest-ever by any airline at that time.

This figure is expected to hit US$190 million this year, according to travel retail magazine The Moodie Report, which described Ms Cho as a "highly driven individual by her own admission" in a 2006 interview.

Ms Cho was also credited with revamping the inflight magazine and giving it a much-needed feminine touch. She also spent three years convincing La Mer to join the airline's duty-free offerings - a first for the luxury skincare brand.

"I try to be an ambassador to introduce new and great brands to Koreans who travel," she told Moodie Report.

The eldest of three children, Ms Cho was often the face of Korean Air when it launched new initiatives or won awards. She was present when the airline announced its sponsorship of K-pop star Rain's world tour in 2007.

She was also a key figure in running Korean Air's hotel business, which includes the Hyatt chain in Korea and the Wilshire Grand in Los Angeles. She sits on the advisory board of Nanyang Technological University's Nanyang Business School.

Sadly for Ms Cho, a nutty moment of folly, apparently under the influence of alcohol, has wiped out all her hard work and turned her into a major embarrassment for the airline.

She faces possible charges relating to violating aviation laws for ordering the plane to return to the gate at John F. Kennedy International Airport to expel the head steward on Dec 5.


Set maximum sum for CPF members

$
0
0
By Chia Ngee Choon, Published The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2014

IT IS well known that while a provident fund system is fiscally sustainable, it does not address certain risks faced by members.

They face the risk of not having enough income to live independently with self-respect and dignity. They also face longevity risk, the risk of outliving their resources, and inflation risk as higher costs of living erode their fixed retirement income, if any. In Singapore, Central Provident Fund (CPF) members face these risks.

To raise retirement adequacy, in 1987, an innovative scheme - the Minimum Sum (MS) scheme - was introduced. The MS is the amount that must be set aside at age 55 to safeguard CPF members' retirement nest egg. The decreed sum has increased progressively to yield higher payouts. The amount that can be cashed out if one pledges property is now up to 50 per cent of the MS.

In 2009, CPF Life was introduced. This is a life annuity using the MS. As a payout for life, it addresses longevity risks. But inflation risk remains since the payouts are fixed, with no cost of living adjustment.

The two measures - the MS and CPF Life - help improve retirement adequacy and remove longevity risk. But they are not comprehensive enough.

After 27 years, it is time to fine-tune the Minimum Sum scheme. Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin recently mooted the idea of having different Minimum Sums to cater to different needs.

I agree that the MS framework needs refining.

First, the framework is helpful in postponing lump sum cash withdrawals beyond age 55. It does not, however, address retirement adequacy adequately.

This is because half of CPF members are unable to meet the MS at age 55. There is a clear need to help a large segment of our population set aside more funds for retirement.

For those of working age, this can be done within the labour force by raising wages or via wage supplements such as Workfare.

For those already elderly who were unable to contribute to CPF during their productive years - such as the disabled, or women who stayed home to raise children - I would propose a basic pension for their old age, means-tested and preferably inflation-indexed.

Second, the structure of the MS scheme needs to be changed.

Right now, CPF Life annuity payouts depend on the cash component in the MS, and excludes the property pledge. Raising the cash component of the MS, while unpopular, will help make sure members have a higher payout in their old age.

Third, the CPF scheme can be tweaked to give more choices to members who want to set aside more for their retirement.

CPF members generally know that the decreed MS amount will yield payouts to cover "basic" needs. But "basic" can mean different things to different people.

Some retirees plan to live simply in retirement, while others aspire to affluent or luxurious lifestyles. That will affect their decision to either cash out more at age 55 or to save more. CPF Life is currently capped at MS and cannot be annuitised beyond the MS.

To meet the retirement aspirations of different members, a single cohort-specific decreed sum will not be optimum.

One solution is a tiered Minimum Sum. However, it will be administratively challenging to calibrate MS for different incomes or retirement needs and aspirations. The CPF Board would have to estimate the present value of future retirement consumption for different expenditure or income quintiles or different retirement needs/aspirations.

Having different MS levels for different groups may also not necessarily make people happy. This is especially for those on the margins - they may end up having to save more or less than they want.

A tiered system would mean mandating how much people ought to save. But one thing we know from behavioural economics is that people want to have control over their own monies.

A better alternative is to allow people to save more in their retirement account, up to a maximum sum. This is administratively easier. It does not require sorting members into defined categories, which is not easy to do. CPF members can exercise their option to save more if they so wish - up to the maximum sum.

This maximum sum can be set at 40 per cent higher than the Minimum Sum - 30 per cent to beat inflation and another 10 per cent for flexibility.

But all CPF members must still set aside savings to meet the MS for a basic retirement.

Those with more savings in their accounts can opt to set aside more to support a more comfortable retirement.

Why the need to cap the amount that can be set aside? This is necessary as the primary role of a national provident fund is to address the retirement needs of the majority.

Those with monies in excess of the maximum sum can make use of the private annuity market.

With tweaks to raise retirement savings at the bottom, provide a basic pension for the vulnerable, and let people put more aside up to a maximum sum, the CPF will be better able to provide for a variety of members' needs.

The writer is Associate Professor in Economics at the National University of Singapore and Co-Director of the Next Age Institute, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, NUS.


Oral care 'need not be nightmare' for special needs kids

$
0
0
Dental centre: Start them young, teach coping strategies
By Linette Lai, The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2014

MUHD Syamil Abdur Rahman, eight, has autism, and brushing his teeth used to be a daily struggle. One family member had to hold him still as his mother cleaned as many of his teeth as possible.

Said Madam Norlizan Mohidu, 40, of her son: "He just refused to open his mouth because he didn't like foreign objects in it."

Syamil's case is typical of parents who have children with special needs and who often fear taking them to the dentist because of how unruly they can get.

Last month, the National Dental Centre Singapore (NDCS) hosted a public forum for around 70 parents of special needs children for the first time.

A survey of the group showed that four in 10 had never taken their child to the dentist, while the vast majority feared that their child would not cooperate while there.

About half said that no dentist would see their child, or that they did not know where to look for one who would.

Paediatric dentist Terry Teo of The Dental Studio - a Singapore Medical Group clinic - said most children visit him for the first time between ages three and five, but those with special needs do so, on average, four years later.

"Very often, they have been turned away by (other) dentists," he said.

He added that others may bring their children in only when they complain of pain, which may not be detected at the outset in children with special needs, because they might be unable to express themselves.

"It is only when these children get older and have possibly tolerated such pain for a long time do the parents become aware that this is affecting them."

But NDCS hopes to drive home the message that dentist visits do not have to be a nightmare if you start them young.

"When you go to a stressful environment that is new, children do not know how to cope," said Dr Tan Wee Kiat, a senior consultant at the centre's paediatric dentistry unit.

"You have to teach them coping strategies to get them used to the environment. With each visit, the child gets better at coping with stress and, therefore, behaves better."

Ideally, she said, all children - with or without special needs - should start seeing a dentist by age one.

In Syamil's case, his mum, a housewife, sought help at NDCS in 2012, after noticing her son's cavities getting worse. There, he underwent an operation to extract eight baby teeth.

But getting him to trust the dentist was not easy. She related how the dentist would perform check-ups by making Syamil laugh, then sneaking a peek at his open mouth.

"She was so patient," Madam Norlizan recalled. "She would play games with him, and introduce him to all the equipment."

This year, they had a breakthrough when Syamil willingly got into a dentist's chair for the first time.

New adult teeth are slowly emerging - and he brushes these on his own.






















More disabled people getting better jobs

$
0
0
They are being employed in higher-skilled, higher-value roles
By Janice Tai, The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2014

WHEELCHAIR user Timothy Ang was educated up to only primary school level but is now a certified draughtsman.

He uses software to draw up floor plans of bungalows or factories, then - based on details such as the thickness of walls - he visualises them in his head before creating a 3D model on a computer.

It is a far cry from his previous data entry job which paid him up to just $200 a month.

Before that he was unemployed for a decade.

"It has been a breakthrough for me," said the 59-year-old paraplegic who is among a growing number of people with disabilities being employed in higher-skilled jobs rather than manual roles. "I am proud of what I create now."

At least one of five clients of SG Enable, a government-established agency formed in July last year to provide services for the disabled, are placed in jobs that require professional skills, such as accounting, graphic design, engineering and music production. "We expect the number to grow as firms become more aware and open to hiring them to tap their diverse skills and abilities," said its group director Ong Ai Ming.

Non-profit organisation Bizlink, the second-largest employer of the disabled after the civil service, said the number of disabled people employed in higher-skilled and higher-value jobs has increased by around 30 per cent from five years ago.

Stakeholders attribute this growth to an increasing willingness among employers to redesign jobs and offices to cater to this group. Said Mr Abhimanyau Pal, executive director of SPD, an organisation representing the disabled: "More people with disabilities can attain a higher educational level with greater support in the mainstream school system and employers recognise that those with disabilities can be an alternate source of human capital, especially with the tightening of the labour market."

Mr Ang may not have the paper qualifications, but he went through three years of training to be a draughtsman with the help of the Handicaps Welfare Association (HWA).

An architect firm's partner first approached the HWA in 2010 to see if he could volunteer to train some of its members.

The test project ran successfully and last month HWA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Building and Construction Authority and Singapore Institute of Architects to provide advisory services to its clients.

With such support, the HWA established a social enterprise three weeks ago that hires the disabled to offer draughting services. "Some have a tendency to look for data entry or reception jobs because of their lack of qualifications but I thought we should try to change their mindset and push them," said HWA president Edmund Wan.

"Now, they have better self-esteem and job satisfaction and they can earn thousands instead of hundreds."

Mr Darren See, 35, who is hearing-impaired, agrees. He was asked to leave his dream job as an R&D engineer after three months in 2008 because his firm found it challenging to work with those who are deaf. "To survive, I worked as a blue-collar worker in a warehouse doing apparel packaging, but I never gave up pursuing my dream," said Mr See, who is now the world's first deaf-certified instructor for Autodesk - a US firm that writes 3D design software for various industries.

Bosses such as Mr Richardo Chua, 32, who runs events management firm Adrenalin, sets the same standards for all staff, including the disabled. He said: "We had to have sign language classes and screens carrying messages installed all over the office. One designer has only three fingers and takes a longer time to complete the work. But we know they can do it when we nurture them so there is no room for sub-par work."

His firm has hired 35 physically disabled staff over the years to work in its design, finance or studio departments.

Said Mr Ang: "Such opportunities were non-existent 20 years ago so I am determined to succeed in this so that more of my disabled peers can join me in future."


Singaporeans open wallets and their hearts to charity

$
0
0
Individual donations hit new highs, volunteers give more hours to causes
By Janice Tai, The Straits Times, 20 Dec 2014

SINGAPOREANS are giving more of their money and time to charity, according to a survey released yesterday.

Individuals donated a record $1.25 billion this year, the highest since the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) started tracking donations through biennial surveys in 2000.

The average number of hours each person volunteered this year also rose to 93, compared with 72 hours in 2012.

However, the number of people donating and volunteering fell. In 2012, 91 per cent of 1,500 interviewees said they gave money to charities, but the number fell to 83 per cent this year when more than 1,800 were polled.

Similarly, only 18 per cent volunteered this year, compared with 32 per cent of those polled two years ago.

The growth in donations and volunteering hours actually came from current donors who dug deeper into their pockets or volunteers who spent more time serving the vulnerable.

For example, the average amount each person gave annually was $379, up from $312 in 2012.

The NVPC and analysts say the data reflects the importance of retaining and engaging volunteers and donors.

"Many regular volunteers committed more to their chosen causes and activities, having formed closer relationships with the non-profits or groups they had worked with over time," said Mr Kevin Lee, a director at the NVPC.

People offer their time and money when they believe that they are making a difference in the cause they identify with.

Over the years, the NVPC surveys have shown that people give the most to religious organisations or informal and civic groups.

Dr Jonathan Ramsay, a lecturer at SIM University, believes fewer people are donating or volunteering because challenges remain, such as a lack of time or energy.

He said: "An important priority is helping people develop strong local ties with their neighbours, as research suggests that charitable giving occurs more often in such places. Another is to encourage giving in the workplace so that people no longer have to choose between 'work' and 'helping'."

Despite the fluctuation in giving patterns, the poor continued to donate the highest proportion of their income.

For the last three surveys, those who earn less than $1,000 a month have been giving between 1.4 per cent and 2 per cent of their wages, compared with 0.6 per cent for those who are pulling in $5,000 to $6,000 a month.

This is likely due to the poor having a higher degree of affinity with and empathy for their peers, overseas research shows.

Regular volunteer Loo Kuen Feng, who has been running recycling programmes and befriending the elderly for the last five years, said he continued to help out at Buddhist charity Tzu Chi because he felt that it valued his contributions.

"They have a structured programme where once we exceed a certain number of volunteering hours, we get more responsibilities as mentors," said the 34- year-old health-care administrator. "This gives us room for growth and our inputs are considered in decision-making, so we feel our opinions matter."


How to be a smart city (technology not included)

$
0
0
People's actions matter more in making city a better place to live in
By Han Fook Kwang, Editor At Large, The Sunday Times, 21 Dec 2014

What makes a smart nation smart?

This might seem like a stupid question, but it's worth asking, now that a brand-new agency has been set up to make Singapore one.

That's the recently announced Smart Nation Programme Office headed by Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.

So what's a smart city?

According to one definition, it's one that uses digital technologies to enhance performance and wellbeing, to reduce costs and resource consumption, and to engage more effectively and actively with its citizens.

If that sounds vaguely familiar, you're probably thinking you heard it before, when it was known as the intelligent, and then, the connected city.

It's now morphed into "smart city", because advances in digital and telecommunication technologies have brought the idea closer to reality.

In areas such as transport, energy, education, health care and waste management, the ability to connect people and machines and figure out, using powerful computers, the most efficient way of doing the work is now possible.

Imagine knowing exactly where every bus or taxi is on the roads and matching them to commuters, or monitoring the health of elderly people at home.

But just as having a smartphone doesn't make you a smart person, a digitally smart city isn't necessarily one that's doing all the right things by its citizens and making their lives more pleasant.

In fact, a smart city with all the computers at its disposal can be doing many dumb things, and doing them even more quickly.

A really smart city (as opposed to being just digitally smart), on the other hand, knows what the right things to do are, with or without technology.

So what's a really smart city?

I don't have a definition - it's one of those things where you know it when you see it.

Fortunately, there are many such places in the world, and what they do is worth emulating. Here are my three favourite examples.

Singing garbage trucks

Before Mr Ma Ying-jeou became mayor of Taipei in 1998, garbage collection in the city was like in many other places, including Singapore. People would leave their trash in bins outside their homes and the garbage truck would come every day to collect it.

The problems this created are also familiar - the amount of rubbish kept growing every year, sometimes spilling into the roads from bags left overnight and scavenged by stray cats and rodents.

Mr Ma proposed a radical solution.

Henceforth, all rubbish had to be placed only in bags sold by the authorities, with garbage fees worked into the cost of each bag. That means the more you dispose of, the more you pay.

Even more unprecedented - the bags had to be brought down only when the trucks arrived in the evening and thrown into the vehicles by residents themselves.

Almost everyone was up in arms at his proposal; critics said it would not work and that rubbish would pile up in the city.



In fact, it worked like a charm. The amount of waste collected fell considerably over the years and the arrival of the garbage trucks, to the accompaniment of music, is a nightly ritual now a part of Taipei life.

Contrast this with Singapore, which has made it so convenient for people to simply toss rubbish down Housing Board chutes, often without even bagging it.

It tends to encourage lazy and wasteful behaviour, resulting in ever increasing amounts of household trash that require more land and incinerator plants.

The colour of rubbish

In Germany, most homes come with four bins, all differently coloured according to what they are meant to collect.

Blue is for paper and cardboard, yellow for packaging materials like plastic, cellophane or metal, brown for food waste and black for assorted rubbish that doesn't fit in any of the others. Bottles have to be disposed of in bottle banks, garden waste in specially set-up compost bins.

These and other measures have made Germany the leading European country for recycling household waste.

That's smart, because it leads to more efficient disposal of rubbish, saving valuable land and energy.

In Singapore, there isn't much recycling of household waste, and even food waste isn't separated from other trash. This raises the cost of waste disposal, as food contains moisture which needs more energy to incinerate.

If you've ever visited the Tuas incineration plant and smelled the stench from decaying food mixed with other trash, you'll know what I mean.

Two wheels good, four wheels bad

Almost everyone cycles in the Netherlands, Denmark and many other European countries, not for recreation but to commute to work.

Cities are planned around this; there are special bicycle lanes, and cyclists have right of way over other vehicles.

On a recent trip to Amsterdam, I found that I was the only (not so smart) pedestrian on some roads. Everyone else was on a bike.

But it's too hot to cycle in Singapore?

Where I live, in Serangoon Gardens, there is a French school nearby.

Every morning, scores of its students cycle past my house, often with parents riding behind the younger ones.

You never see this with Singaporean parents or students.

Yet, if you think about it, it's such a smart way to travel - cheaper than driving a car, you get a lot more exercise, and it's so much kinder to the environment.

Who's the smarter one - the Dutch cyclist or the Singaporean with his $100,000 car bought with a five-year loan?

I could give many more examples from other cities, but they all have one thing in common. Really smart solutions involve people doing things that collectively make their city a better place.

It's never the technology, but almost always people's actions and motivations that matter more.

Leadership is important, too, because citizens seldom act spontaneously.

Laws need to be passed to get people to take their garbage down, to keep four coloured bins in their homes and to provide for bicycle lanes in the city.

The important point is that a city needs to be really smart first before it becomes digitally smart.

Otherwise, you end up making it even easier for people to do the dumb things they already do, by providing them the technology to do so.

Singapore is smart in many ways - in how it provides housing for most people, in greening large parts of the city, in capitalising on its location to link up with the rest of the world.

But there are many other areas it can be a lot smarter in.

Most have nothing to do with technology.


Lim Swee Say: 有话要说

Europe: Austerity in nothing but name

$
0
0
Europe remains trapped in a pledge of austerity, but is unable to stick to the tough policies needed. What looms ahead is a slowdown and growing unemployment.
By Jonathan Eyal, Europe Correspondent In London, The Straits Times, 22 Dec 2014

IT WAS almost exactly five years ago that the euro financial panic which threatened to tear Europe apart erupted in Greece. So there is an element of ironic symmetry in the fact that the year ends for Europe's currency with another Greek political crisis.

Chances are high that the latest troubles in Greece will not shatter the euro; the armies of financial analysts who frequently predicted this were invariably proved wrong. Still, Europe's single currency will continue to be buffeted by political showdowns. And the reality remains that the euro's survival is entirely in the hands of Germany, precisely the sort of outcome nobody wanted when the currency was created.

The Greeks invented drama and, as their current internal political showdown indicates, they remain true to their vocation. The crisis started when the Greek government decided to call presidential elections. In theory, that should be irrelevant: it's up to Parliament rather than the public to elect the president, and Greece's head of state is of the ceremonial kind. So, this crisis resembles a storm in a cup of Greek yogurt.

Apart from one snag. Under Greece's Constitution, if Parliament fails to elect a president in three consecutive votes held over three weeks, fresh general elections have to be called. And, since the ruling centre-right government does not have sufficient parliamentary seats to elect its presidential candidate, the danger of early general elections is pretty high. That is an awful prospect, for the party which now tops the popularity stakes in Greece is an extreme left populist group which wants to repudiate the country's foreign debts and return to Greece's old habits of borrowing and spending as though nothing had happened. Unsurprisingly, therefore, investors are spooked.

But matters are unlikely to go that far. To start with, Greece's Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, a wily political operator who has been in and out of government for decades and who sits for the same parliamentary constituency his family has controlled since World War II, would not have called this presidential showdown if he didn't believe he could win it.

All that Mr Samaras needs to do is to persuade a few opposition MPs to support the government's presidential candidate, and that is not difficult in a country where people often enter politics in order to line their pockets.

But, even if Mr Samaras fails, new Greek general elections are not necessarily a disaster for Europe, even if they result in the election of an irresponsible populist government. With most financial markets now on better footing and European banks recapitalised, the European Union can now afford to simply ignore a misbehaving Greece which, after all, accounts for only 1 per cent of the continent's overall gross domestic product (GDP). The real worry about the euro is elsewhere; that while the Greeks huff and puff in public with no consequence, France and Italy - the euro zone's second- and third-biggest economies respectively - are flouting the rules governing the single currency with more silent, yet more methodical and potentially disastrous consequences.

Collapse of the souffle

OVER the past five years, France changed its position on the management of the euro no fewer than four times, but always with one objective in mind: to change as little as possible in actual practice. France started the euro crisis in self-denial, claiming that it was all due to some shadowy "Anglo-Saxon financial speculators" who just needed to be disciplined.

As that wore thin, the authorities in Paris hung closely to the Germans, castigating Greece, criticising Italy and advocating prudence elsewhere in Europe; the idea was that, if the French merely sounded like Germans, financial markets would ignore the fact that France is no Germany when it comes to economics.

When President Francois Hollande came to power in May 2012, the strategy changed again, to one of trying to persuade the Germans to relent, by allowing France a longer period of time to adjust its national debt and budget deficits. But when that failed and the Germans proved obdurate, the French simply ignored austerity measures by telling the rest of Europe that they are adopting the Frank Sinatra doctrine, who once famously sang "I did it my way".

French Finance Minister Michel Sapin has admitted his country would run a budget deficit of 4.3 per cent of GDP next year - far from the 3 per cent beyond deficit it had previously pledged. Stripping out the effects of the weak economy, the government's planned cost cuts would amount to just 0.2 per cent of GDP, falling short of cuts worth 0.8 per cent that it had agreed upon with the EU.

Protests from the European Commission, the union's executive body with specific powers to supervise the execution of national budgets, were simply brushed aside as irrelevant.

The same is happening in Italy, where the youthful centre-left Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi came to power 10 months ago claiming to be able to walk on water, only to drown in a sea of economic troubles on his first attempt.

Italy hoped to finish the year with only a 0.2 per cent drop in its GDP, but it looks like the year will end with a 0.8 per cent decline, a huge and ominous turn for the worse. Meanwhile, the country's overall public debt levels have climbed to 135 per cent of Italian GDP, more than double what is allowed for euro countries. The Renzi effect has collapsed like a badly-baked souffle.

This is not to say that these countries are simply guilty of complacency. Italy has implemented reforms to its parliamentary systems and labour regulations. It has also cut its corporate taxes. Meanwhile, the French government has promised to make its labour force more flexible, and has vowed to sell state-owned assets in order to reduce its debt.

But it is also true that none of these provisions are sufficient, and that many will take years before they bear fruit. "So far, reforms haven't broken with the piecemeal approach of the past," concluded leading French economist Jean Pisani-Ferry and his German colleague Henrik Enderlein, who were recently tasked by their respective governments to compile a joint assessment of the progress of economic reform.

In theory, that should not matter too much. Financial markets remain reassured by a pledge from Mr Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank (ECB), to do "whatever it takes" to ensure that the euro survives the crisis.

Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that this pledge was effective until now precisely because - like nuclear deterrence - it never had to be redeemed.

But if push comes to shove and if the ECB has to buy European governments' debt - which is what it would have to do if the euro comes under attack again - Germany would oppose this, since the Germans do not believe that the ECB is empowered to undertake such transactions.

The euro was invented largely in order to prevent German economic influence from being translated into political influence over the rest of the continent: the hope was that a single currency will mask vastly different power structures. But the result has been precisely the opposite: everything now depends on Germany in Europe.

Merkel's dilemma

GERMAN Chancellor Angela Merkel is trapped in her own dilemma. On the one hand, she cannot afford to precipitate a renewed euro crisis by demanding that France and Italy do more to cut spending and put their finances in order. But at the same time, she has to bow to a domestic backlash inside Germany, which opposes offering any further cash to bail out bankrupt European countries.

The result is that Europe remains locked in a pledge for austerity, while not actually applying policies of austerity, the worst of both worlds, since the very idea of economic reform is being discredited, and to little practical effect.

The real danger for Europe is not that its currency will collapse, but that it will remain trapped in a cycle of slow growth, high unemployment and low inflation, a sort of Japanese-style deadly embrace which pulls down all the continent's economies.

And that's not an encouraging note on which to embark on a new year, which will mark the 70th anniversary since Europe emerged from the ashes of World War II.


The engineer who became ExxonMobil S'pore chairman

$
0
0
He grew up speaking dialect and did not learn English till starting school
By Chia Yan Min, The Straits Times, 22 Dec 2014

THE boat ride to Pulau Ayer Chawan was not much of a trip as sea voyages go, but it has proved the journey of a lifetime for engineer turned executive Gan Seow Kee.

These days, Pulau Ayer Chawan has been integrated into the giant petrochemical hub Jurong Island and a highway whisks staff to and fro. But 35 years ago, it was a far different story.

Mr Gan, 60, recalls having to wake up early every morning to catch the boat to a refinery in his job as an engineer.

He still follows a similar routine these days - although the boat is no longer needed - but now he makes the journey as ExxonMobil Singapore's chairman and managing director.

"Growing up, never in my wildest imagination would I have thought that I would be where I am today," said Mr Gan, who grew up speaking the Hokkien dialect and did not learn English until he started school.

He has now been with ExxonMobil for 35 years, in a range of roles, including finance and sales, and in a variety of places.

The energy giant posted him to the United States twice - first to New Jersey in 1992 and then to Virginia in 2012 - before he returned to take on his current role.

His wife and two young children moved with him during his first stint, which lasted for about three years.

"In those days, it was much tougher for families with children to come back to the Singapore system after moving abroad... We arranged for Mandarin tuition for the children when we were in the US," said Mr Gan.

"The system is more accommodating of expats going overseas now, which is a good thing. We need to encourage Singaporeans to be prepared to work abroad."

Singaporeans working in multinational firms have to be able to "operate across different cultures, especially when it comes to running a global unit", added Mr Gan. "You don't have to change your personality, but you need to have an appreciation of what works in different cultures and how people might respond.

"The best way of getting the job you want is to do your current job really well."

Mr Gan has been a witness to ExxonMobil's expansion in Singapore over the course of his career, a journey he describes as "tremendous and remarkable".

The firm has grown from having two small refineries here to making Singapore its largest manufacturing site worldwide and its hub for the Asia-Pacific region. As well as investing well over US$10 billion (S$13.2 billion) here, the firm employs more than 3,200 staff in Singapore.

One of Mr Gan's priorities is to develop Singapore talent for global roles in ExxonMobil.

Almost all the company's functions are represented here, offering good opportunities, he said.

"We are working to provide more opportunities for Singapore staff to work overseas or be involved in projects that cross boundaries," added Mr Gan, whose son and daughter are both working in the US. "The best predictor of how well a business will do is the quality of its people."

Describing the business environment for firms in the petrochemical industry as "challenging", Mr Gan said ExxonMobil's focus remains on cost and energy efficiency.


More firms doing checks on short-term staff

$
0
0
By Amelia Tan, The Straits Times, 22 Dec 2014

MORE firms are getting background screening specialists to check the personal and employment history of short-term staff.

These workers are usually involved in business and support functions, and include IT staff, accounts and finance executives, cleaners, security guards, food caterers and bus drivers.

Three major background screening firms told The Straits Times that in the past two years, they have seen a 10 per cent to 20 per cent rise in companies in Singapore doing checks on temporary staff.

Together, the three specialists have more than 1,500 Singapore-based clients, including local and foreign banks, multinational corporations and international schools.

Mr Nick Roberts, chief executive officer of background screening firm Risq Group, said his staff verify job candidates' qualifications with educational institutions and trawl the Internet for negative references regarding the candidates.

Several of Risq Group's multinational clients go to the extent of verifying the educational qualifications of cleaners and security guards, although schooling history is less crucial for these jobs.

"As long as you lie, you have an integrity issue. It doesn't matter what job you are doing. You can potentially harm a company," said Mr Roberts.

Multinational conglomerate General Electric (GE) spares no effort in screening all its staff. It checks the educational qualifications, job record and criminal history of all permanent, part-time and contract staff.

"Employees have access to our buildings, our technology and systems. It is important that we protect not only our reputation, but our employees who work here," said Mr Mark Staglieno, GE's talent recruitment leader for Asean.

The background screening experts said their checks show that permanent and temporary staff lie about the same things.

Common lies among job candidates include inflating their salaries and job titles, and faking their educational qualifications.

Contract workers, in particular, may fib about being hired directly by previous employers. Mr Edward Hickey, Asia-Pacific managing director of HireRight, said some do this to stand out, as most temporary staff go through recruitment agencies for jobs.

Regional sales director of screening specialist First Advantage, Mr Kannan Chettiar, urged bosses to screen candidates for all types of jobs.

"It doesn't matter if the job is for the short term or if it is a high-level or junior position. To get ahead of the competition, some people will do all it takes and misrepresent information," he said.

While employers have the right to check the background of candidates, these checks should be done with their consent, said Member of Parliament Zainal Sapari, who specialises in labour issues.

He also does not think background checks on rank-and-file staff are necessary. "Employers must be fair to workers and ask for background information that is relevant to the job," he said.



MINDEF to outsource more tasks to boost NS efficiency

$
0
0
Move will free up NSmen to focus on honing combat skills
By Jermyn Chow, Defence Correspondent, The Straits Times, 22 Dec 2014

THE days of reservist soldiers spending countless hours installing and dismantling communications equipment for training exercises look set to be over. They are also not likely to be saddled with washing armoured vehicles.

According to tender documents obtained by The Straits Times, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) is looking for civilian companies to take over these time-consuming tasks, to further enhance national service (NS) training efficiency.

These tasks are currently carried out by armoured troops or tank crew before and after an outfield training exercise.

The outsourcing to civilian contractors will free up operationally ready national servicemen (NSmen) to focus on honing their combat skills.

According to the documents, the civilian contractors will be expected to handle an average of 510 tracked vehicles a year, and will be responsible for mounting and dismantling equipment from the vehicles and washing them.

For a start, staff from private commercial companies will take over these tasks for selected major exercises for NSmen.

"These efforts allow for a faster turnover of vehicles required to support NS training," said Colonel Lam Sheau Kai, commander of the Combat Service Support Command.

It typically takes nine men up to four hours to dismantle communications equipment from the Bionix armoured infantry fighting vehicle and hose it down.

The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is also increasingly handing over the management and warehousing of combat equipment or stores in training institutes to civilian contractors.

The latest contract up for bidding requires civilian contractors to take over the management and warehousing of combat equipment or stores in the Motorised Infantry Training Institute.

Col Lam said store management has already been outsourced in units such as the Army Logistics Base, Safti Military Institute and 2nd People's Defence Force.

Outsourcing non-core jobs is something the SAF began doing in the 1970s, to allow its servicemen to focus on combat training.

Tasks such as fitness instruction, cookhouse operations and aircraft maintenance are now carried out by civilian contractors.

Government agencies, such as the police, civil defence force and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, also do some outsourcing. However, the issuance and management of ammunition is done solely by the military.

The SAF said civilian contractors are put through stringent security checks before they are appointed, to ensure operational security is not compromised.

While outsourcing helps soldiers to perfect their combat skills, Ms Ellen Lee, a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Defence and Foreign Affairs, said doing some of these manual chores can help toughen up soldiers.

"It is through such manual work that you can build that sense of discipline and pride. You also get to know your vehicle better. Such knowledge will come in very useful in battle, too," she said.




OPERATIONS OUTSOURCED
Cookhouse operations
- Aircraft maintenance
- Fitness instruction: Civilian fitness instructors at SAF training institutes and fitness conditioning centres
- Firing-range operations
- Logistics management and warehousing


WHAT COULD BE OUTSOURCED SOON
- Mounting and dismantling of equipment from armoured vehicles during NSmen's in-camp training
- Washing of armoured tracked vehicles

6 in 10 BTO flat buyers opt for open kitchens

$
0
0
By Amelia Tan, The Straits Times, 22 Dec 2014

INTERIOR designer Jolland Lee, 57, has taken a fancy to the spacious look of open kitchens, having designed many of them for HDB flat owners over the years.

That is why he was happy to be given the option of not having a kitchen partition wall built in his new flat in Yishun.

Mr Lee, who applied for a five-room flat in July this year, is among many flat buyers who are choosing an open-kitchen option offered by the Housing Board.

Having an open kitchen will give his family more living-room space, he said.

About six in 10 flat buyers in 30 Build-To-Order (BTO) projects over the past year have requested their homes to come without kitchen partition walls, said the HDB.

An HDB spokesman said it has offered the open-kitchen option since September last year to give families more flexibility in designing their flats.

"This option also saves home buyers the hassle and cost of hacking down the walls if they prefer an open-kitchen layout," said the spokesman.

Flat owners said they can save about $400 from hacking down the wall to create an open kitchen. It would also take contractors about about four to five days to hack down the wall.

Another flat owner who opted for the open-kitchen option is finance executive Ben Chia, 30. He plans to have an island table in the kitchen of his five-room flat in Teck Ghee, in Ang Mo Kio.

"The open-kitchen concept suits our lifestyle. My wife and I cook healthy meals. So we are less concerned about oil and smell travelling to the other parts of our home," he said.

The HDB piloted the open-kitchen option in its September 2012 BTO project Teck Ghee Parkview. About 70 per cent of flat buyers in the project took up the option, and the first batch of flats will be ready in the first quarter of 2017.

The open-kitchen option is part of the Optional Component Scheme, introduced by the HDB in 1989 to allow flat buyers to customise their homes to suit their needs.

The scheme has been expanded over the years and offers different options for flooring, doors and sanitary fittings.


The 'little guy' strikes back - via the Sony hack

$
0
0
By Tom Plate, Published The Straits Times, 22 Dec 2014

LIKE it or not, North Korea may be growing up, but not for the better. For our technological times are a'changing everything.

To get attention, Pyongyang would always throw its rattle out of the cage like a colicky baby. A missile launch (but who knows where it would land?), a nuclear-laced harangue (are they serious?), a gunboat engagement (well, yes…), whatever.

Not this time, we are told.



In its latest angry shout-out, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea looks to be emerging as something of a computer wonk, the obnoxious teen crashing and trashing a Hollywood movie studio's Christmas Day launch-party plans, embarrassing movie executives by hacking into and spamming out their private e-mail messages, and threatening to return like the evil Freddie Krueger if the movie (The Interview, with James Franco and Seth Rogan) about a mock assassination of their leader ever sees the light of day, not to mention the dark of a movie theatre.

The plot thickens: Instead of standing up to Freddie like any normal Hollywood hero, Sony Pictures Entertainment, a mega-studio in Los Angeles, though accounting for but 10 per cent of sales overall of the parent colossus in Tokyo, runs in the other direction - the shrieking coed scared out of her mind. Cowardly act or smart business? The studio has put the blame on frightened distributors and theatre chains allegedly scared off by the uncertainty.

It gets better: President Barack Obama takes a sweeping Lincoln-esque view of Sony's "mistake", all but suggesting that its cowardice will put the American Republic's vaunted freedom of speech and artistic licence in grave peril.

Plot point: At the same time, the Hollywood hack attack is laid by the FBI at the feet of Pyongyang, perhaps in cahoots with some unseen network of hacker hitmen, presumably in China, through which North Korea's Internet traffic flows.

For its part, North Korea denies everything. It even insists on some sort of "joint" probe, whatever that could mean. Certainly, further investigation will be needed before this case (the evidence now based on "malicious malware" fingerprints) goes to the global jury of public opinion - or the United Nations Security Council.

But one way or the other, the point has been made: Internet hacker technology gives the little guy a weapon that can rattle the big guys to the core of their hard drives.

This kind of wonky warfare also adds a new chapter of action-reaction to the global threat textbook. As with the generation of offensive missiles of the 1970s, the cyber-warfare challenge now is to develop powerfully effective malware defensive systems. In the early-stage evolution of the new threat paradigm, the hacking offence looks to be well ahead of the anti-hacking defence - as was exactly the case for a long time with the missile race.

Indeed, the enormous range and depth of Internet and cellphone surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) underscores that. Enemies as well as allies can't be sure their cyber life and phone calls aren't being secretly snooped on. President Obama did promise key partners like German Chancellor Angela Merkel that they have nothing to worry about. But how does he know for sure? Can an American president trust the skilled NSA nerds not to tap any more than he can trust Central Intelligence Agency field agents not to torture under the pressure of some future "national-security" crunch?

The Internet has created a new world of uncertainty. Technology not only takes us to places we never knew existed but also can elevate the attack game of the little bullies if possessing the right malware and the right kind of nerds. Sure, the total amount of sympathy around the world for North Korea could probably fit in a four-year-old's sock. But a little guy is a little guy even if he's a bad guy. No one will say it, and few will want to admit it even to themselves; but the fact of the matter is that anytime the little guy shoves back at the giant, a tiny part of our soul simply can't help but smile. This is the case even when the little guy is as bad as, yes, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

For decades, the United States has strode across Asia with big feet. This is a fact of America's history, and in Asia people tend to have healthy memories. Americans may imagine we are looking down on North Korea from a very high moral horse. But we need to compare our moral height more to that of a pony - and a pony whose tail a brat will always want to yank.

This instinct is actually rather normal, don't you think?

The writer, a veteran columnist on Asia-Pacific affairs, is the Distinguished Scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.







PPP: Promised partnerships (can) prosper

$
0
0
The sorry saga of the grass pitch at the Sports Hub has put public-private partnerships in the spotlight. But such PPPs can prosper with the right structure.
By Chia Yan Min, The Straits Times, 23 Dec 2014

IT WAS meant to be a gleaming homage to Singapore sport, and a testament to the success of partnerships between the Government and the private sector.

Instead, the $1.33 billion Singapore Sports Hub has become better known for its travails, mainly the dismal state of its pitch.

It is among the world's largest sporting infrastructure projects developed by a public-private partnership (PPP): In this case, government agency Singapore Sports Council (now Sport Singapore) and Singapore Sports Hub Pte Ltd (SHPL), a consortium of firms that runs the 35ha facility in Kallang.

The consortium designed, built and operates the facility, in return for an annual payment from the Government throughout the project's 25-year term.

The Government said it chose the PPP model not because it is "short of funds, but because we believe in the benefits that a PPP arrangement can bring".

But the model has now come under fire, given the problems that have plagued the Sports Hub's development from the outset, including funding difficulties and completion delays.

More recently, complaints from international athletes about the state of grass on the pitch led to ire from the public, with some questioning the lack of accountability and coordination between the consortium and the government agency.

Events had to be rescheduled and urgent repairs were made to remedy the surface in time for sporting events, leading to what Singapore Sports Hub chief operating officer Oon Jin Teik admitted were "substantial costs".

While there were exit provisions in the partnership, the Government has made clear these were not being considered.

Last Saturday, SHPL said it would opt for a new, all-natural grass pitch, instead of relying on its problem-plagued hybrid one. It promised to absorb the costs involved and not pass them on via ticket sales to future events.

The sorry saga over grass serves as a reminder that not all PPP projects go as planned.

But given Singapore's aspirations to become Asia's infrastructure and project financing hub, it should not serve as a deterrent either.

Outsourcing risks to private sector

FOR one thing, there are still clear benefits to the PPP model.

Under such an arrangement, the public sector works with private firms to design, plan, finance, construct and operate projects traditionally provided by the Government, such as infrastructure and utilities.

The Government outsources financing, construction and operation of the facility to the private sector, leaving it free to focus on its role of policymaking and protecting the public interest.

This way, construction and operation risks are shifted out of the public sector to the consortium and banks that have provided loans.

Mr Mark Rathbone, Asia-Pacific capital projects and infrastructure leader at PwC Singapore, said PPPs limit governments' exposure to cost overruns and delays when purchasing services and assets through performance-based contracts.

"This can improve the project's quality, efficiency and, in some cases, lower costs," he said. While looking good on paper, the PPP model has had a patchy track record in Singapore since it was adopted here in the early 2000s.

The first PPP here was a $250 million desalination project partnership between national water agency PUB and Hyflux-led consortium SingSpring in 2003.

A year later, the Finance Ministry unveiled its PPP Handbook, recommending the model be considered for all state projects which require the development or redevelopment of capital assets costing more than $50 million.

Since then, successful forays into PPP include utilities-related projects; the construction of vocational training school ITE College West; and TradeXchange, which allows companies in the trade and logistics sectors to exchange information and synchronise data securely.

On the flip side, the $380 million Changi Motorsports Hub PPP failed to materialise, after the consortium behind it ran into financial difficulties.

No public funds were invested in the project.

The National University of Singapore's (NUS) University Town @ Warren PPP was cancelled in 2007. It was originally planned to be operated by a private sector entity but, in January 2008, the Government said it would be owned and funded by NUS. No clear reason has been disclosed for the shift.

A Singapore Management University student hostel PPP has been on hold since 2008.

Success factors

WHAT makes a PPP succeed and others fail?

First, a well-defined project with clear allocation of roles, risks and responsibilities between the public and private sectors is a prerequisite for a successful PPP, said Mr Sharad Somani, KPMG's Asia-Pacific head of power and utilities.

Agencies like the PUB and the National Environment Agency have been able to implement successful PPP projects mainly because of the standardisation of structures and contracts that come with time and experience, he added.

Second, size matters.

Singapore's small market size can be an impediment to cultivating the expertise and flow of deals necessary for a thriving PPP market. PPP players prefer to see a pipeline of similar transactions developed within a consistent framework. This way, investors can build on previous experiences and achieve greater economies of scale on similar projects.

Singapore's small size means most of its deals are not large enough to attract investors, particularly global ones.

The diversity of PPPs implemented here so far has also resulted in a lack of critical mass, except in sectors like utilities.

A clear pipeline of future deals is crucial for drawing and developing a pool of PPP experts here - which, in turn, is necessary to build knowledge for export to Asia's growing PPP markets. One way to get around the size issue is to bundle similar projects together for greater economies of scale.

There is also scope for government-linked companies (GLCs) to play a role. Some of Singapore's successful utilities PPPs were spearheaded by companies such as Sembcorp, Keppel and Hyflux. GLCs in other sectors - property developers, construction firms, and telcos, among others - too, play a larger role in the PPP space.

Over time, their home-grown expertise in project development and financing can be transplanted elsewhere in the region.

As for the Sports Hub PPP, this is seen as a particularly tricky partnership, especially since Singapore does not yet have a "clear and recognisable" revenue stream coming from sports events, in the words of a 2010 Civil Service College study.

Countries such as Australia and Britain, which have hosted several successful sports PPPs, have a strong sporting culture, lending confidence to financial institutions which can be certain of a return on their investment.

Still, for all its troubles, it is too early to consider the Sports Hub a failed PPP, especially since there are few precedents to measure it by.

While it is fairly straightforward to measure the cost effectiveness of a desalination plant, it is less easy to gauge the success of a stadium, which must take into account hard-to-define factors such as user satisfaction.

PwC Singapore's Mr Rathbone noted that a significant amount of work went into determining the reasons for and benefits of using the PPP model for this project.

"There have been far more complex and challenging projects that have been successfully delivered through PPP," he said.

"This project was structured using best practices from the most mature PPP markets. It is 'best practice', it is market leading."

The Sports Hub's problems should not deter the public, nor the private sector, from pursuing PPP opportunities in other areas, or indeed, in the sporting arena.

Instead, more momentum is required in Singapore's PPP market, in order to build up a pool of PPP expertise here. That will help boost Singapore's aspirations to become Asia's infrastructure and project financing hub.


The tough must get going in Singapore’s new economics

$
0
0
By Devadas Krishnadas, Published TODAY, 23 Dec 2014

Singapore’s continuing modest economic growth of only 3 per cent or so each year and the uncertainty inherent in the global economy suggest that we cannot be complacent about our immediate economic future.

Within South-east Asia, the Republic’s competitiveness is being eroded by high domestic business costs and the economic uplifting seen in economies more rich in resource and human capital, such as Indonesia and Myanmar. It has been nearly five years since the Government adopted the recommendations of the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC). The targets set included annual growth in gross domestic product of 3 to 5 per cent, annual productivity growth of 2 to 3 per cent and a 30 per cent rise in the median wage by 2020.

We have barely met the GDP target and only with a significant contribution from the Government’s fiscal impulse into the economy.

We have not yet had a single positive productivity growth year apart from 2010, whose positive number was a one-off given the labour contraction during the 2009 recession.

And while wages at the lower end have risen slightly, they have not done so fast or far enough to give confidence that we will meet the median wage target.

This has not been for want of trying. The Government has poured billions into trying to drive productivity and innovation, and used policy action to tighten the labour market.

At the halfway mark of the ESC plan, it is opportune to ask whether Singapore needs new economics in the next five years.

MORE COMPETITION INSTEAD OF SUBSIDIES

Given the poor results and the increasingly challenging macroeconomic environment, we should have a sense of urgency about the economic restructuring which we have been struggling to realise since 2010.

We have to take a serious look at whether well-intentioned government interventions to support businesses in restructuring have had the perverse effect of retarding rather than reinforcing the effect of natural market forces in reshaping the economy.

After all, after the expenditure of several billion dollars through various schemes such as Productivity and Innovation Credit, the annual productivity growth number is flat.

Why is this so? I think we should avoid adopting the “escape clause” and take the view that matters would be worse if not for the heavy public investment. Rather, we should face the difficult possibility that things might have been better if not for that heavy investment. Under less benign conditions, businesses would have had to adopt the required adjustments or perish.

Business owners should not be complacent and expect to survive on the drip-feed of government subsidies. We should be aggressive in searching out opportunities and taking the risks necessary to exploit them where and as we find them.

We have far too many small businesses — about 140,000 — for far too small a domestic economy. Only a quarter of our annual S$350 billion or so in GDP is not trade weighted and hence can be considered domestic.

We need greater competition and agency within our local business community rather than a continuation of a dependency on the Government to set direction and provide the means to undertake restructuring, when that should really be the business owner’s responsibility.

In the long run, a sustained and generous, even if well-motivated, intervention policy runs the risk of weakening strong businesses by eroding the drive to perform, while not necessarily strengthening weak businesses that would ordinarily be outcompeted. Our companies have to think international from the onset of their operations and be prepared to function in the international arena.

A strong dependency on the Government for support can handicap our small and medium enterprises. It may be better to allow the market to winnow out weak players and ensure that local conditions are not too different from those of the international playing field, such that the transition from domestic to international competition is not a severe wrench for companies.

TIME TO LOOSEN THE GRIP?

We have to also ask ourselves whether, after four years of a policy to tighten the labour force, if the marginal costs of the policy are starting to outweigh the marginal benefits. Our businesses are facing wage pressures at a time when demand levels are not elevated. While the intention of the labour tightening is correctly to incentivise businesses to become more productive and innovative rather than rely on inexpensive labour, we should also recognise that the services sector — which is the fastest-growing sector — is by definition labour-intensive and thus has natural limits to capital substitution for labour. A broad continuation of the tight labour policy may cripple our competitiveness due to wage inflation.

We should also deal with the elephant in the room — the public sector. It employs about 10 per cent of the resident labour force. Is this reasonable for a small population and when we are facing a persistent labour squeeze?

Our cultural competitiveness is a big part of our historical success. Our diverse population is an asset. We have to harvest the best talent globally and concentrate them here to generate competitive ideas, energy and value for the international market.

We simply do not enjoy and thus cannot afford an idealised picture of job security and comfortable conditions when we are being outcompeted on the economic playing field.

There is an old saying that it is sometimes necessary to be cruel to be kind. The new economics proposed in this commentary should be assessed only on the basis of whether they offer a better chance of us succeeding.

Economic success for Singapore, a small economy without resources or a hinterland, is like riding a high-performance bicycle — we either peddle furiously or fall over. We cannot have a second-best economy or a “throttled back” stage — these are false choices.

It is time to get tough with our choices before conditions get tough on us.

Devadas Krishnadas is chief executive of Future-Moves Group, an international strategic consultancy and executive education provider based in Singapore.


Viewing all 7506 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>