I refer to the article “DPM Tharman clarifies his views on the mainstream media, Bukit Batok by-election” (Straits Times, Sep 28).

It states that “Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has come out to clarify his views on the mainstream media and the Bukit Batok by-election, topics which he was asked about during a dialogue with students last week.

Mr Tharman also elaborated on his comments about the mainstream media, saying he regards the media as “serious-minded, responsible players in an evolving Singapore democracy – helping to take it forward, but airing views in a way that avoids fragmenting society”.

The Deputy Prime Minister was clarifying comments he made at a a dialogue last week, where he was asked by a student about media control and whether he agreed with the “gutter politics” of the ruling party during the 2016 Bukit Batok by-election.

In his post, Mr Tharman also clarified his remarks on the mainstream media.

Reiterating a point he has made in the past, he said while the mainstream media in Singapore is not a “free-for-all”, it is also not the “heavily controlled media that some critics caricature it to be”.

He added that the mainstream media “doesn’t wait around for instructions, and it doesn’t excuse everything Government does”, and in fact plays a crucial role in advancing democracy.

“In my opinion our media does a better job at advancing the collective interests of Singaporeans than that in several other Asian countries, where the media has added to a divisiveness in society not seen in a long time,” he said.

“Even in some of the mature western democracies, people are segregating themselves into media bubbles of their own – both in the mainstream and social media – and public trust in the media is now at an all-time low.”

He added that the mainstream media in Singapore carries all the important news of the day, including articles about both sides of the political debate.

Noting that Singaporeans read things and discuss them freely, he said: “So blaming the mainstream media for electoral losses is not a good strategy – it doesn’t square any more with the reality of a public that reads, follows issues and thinks more critically.”

He added: “We should keep this going – the mainstream media as responsible players in our democracy, helping to move it forward. We should hope too that the middle in the social media gets stronger, for Singapore’s good.””

In this connection, may I suggest that you read the following:-

… “So, is there something wrong with the subject Straits Times news report which said that “Singapore’s per capita liabilities was €36,075 at the end of last year, among the highest in Asia” – when in fact according to the report – Singapore’s debt is actually the highest in Asia?” (“S’pore No.1 in debt, No.1 in gross assets?“, Sep 28)

… “Singapore is already under increasing pressure internationally and domestically for its poor human rights’ record, 151st Press Freedom ranking” (“The S’pore model is out of date?“, Sep 26)

… “how do we account for our Press Freedom ranking of 151st in the world, and all the recent legislation and rules which have been criticised by Singaporeans and international human rights organisations, as attempts to undermine the freedom of expression in Singapore, political participation, etc.

For example, the Administration of Justice (Contempt of court) act, Protection from Harassment act, media licencing changes, changes to the rules in connection with the use of Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim park, etc” (“Sense of fear, constraint has reduced in S’pore?”, Sep 21)

… “the most obvious and most important quality of a presidential candidate is what I believe has not been mentioned and covered adequately in the several commentarities in the mainstream media so far on the presidential elections – that is to be independent and have the courage and willingness to stand up against or criticise the Government, if the President does not agree with the Government’s proposals to the President.

Otherwise, what’s the point of having a President in the first place as a check and balance on the Government – primarily in respect of the reserves and key appointments?” (“PE: Mainstream media commentaries – missing the obvious quality?“, Sep 10)

… “Some of my friends who read the above article said that they were rather surprised that there was no mention of what may arguably be the most significant and recent change in political campaigning that may be on everyone’s lips – kind of like missing the elephant in the room – that it is very unlikely that there will be any rallies for the upcoming presidential elections.

In this regard, according to the article “Presidential Election 2017: New rules to ensure candidates act with dignity” (Straits Times, Aug 31) – “There will be no designated rally sites for candidates in this election” (“PE: No rallies – who or what are we afraid of?“, Sep 8)

… “So what is Mr Teo and his committee to do?

Well, the best that can be done under these difficult circumstances, in my view, would be for the committee to accept that there is only one candidate who qualifies under the present rules spelt out by Parliament.

Why is the Straits Times through its editor-in-chief arguably, in a sense, already campaigning for a walkover by one of the candidates, even before “the notice of contested election is issued“?” (“ST editor: PE walkover is “the best”?“, Sep 3)

… “it is likely that there may be a walkover on 13 September.

If so, this would be the third walkover in Singapore’s history.

Are there any other countries in the world that has walkovers in their presidential elections?

Is our mainstream media (ranked 151st for Press Freedom in the world) arguably, preparing Singaporeans for possibly, the obvious foregone conclusion on 13 September?” (“Straits Times: 2 of the presidential hopefuls do not qualify?“, Aug 31)

… “Why did it take about 23 days for the mainstream media to as I believe to the best of my knowledge – to write about how ridiculous the statistics announced by the Government on 27 July was – that “the MRT system’s reliability has improved by three times since Mr Khaw Boon Wan moved to the Transport Ministry in 2015, but the minister wants to raise the bar much higher”? (“Khaw Boon Wan sets new rail network reliability target as MRT becomes three times as dependable as in 2015” (Straits Times, Jul 27)

Social media vs mainstream media?

Social media was then all abuzz about how ridiculous such a claim was.

For example:

– “Ownself exclude ownself?” (“MRT: Mainstream media took 3 weeks to “breakdown”?“, Aug 19)

And the above are just eight examples/instances of what the mainstream media has been doing in just the last two months of August to September alone!

Uniquely Singapore!

Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “Most members in CPF Investment Scheme made a profit in 2016” (Straits Times, Sep 28).

It states that “The board has changed the methodology it uses to measure performance to get a more rounded idea of how members’ investments made through Ordinary Account savings are performing.

Besides excluding members with no investments in CPFIS, the new formula assesses not only the realised profits and losses of investments that were sold, but also the unrealised profits and losses that members held during the reporting period.

To reflect longer-term performance, the board is providing the cumulative profits or losses over time.

Previously, the annual report on the performance of the CPFIS-Ordinary Account captured only realised profits or losses and included all members with a CPF investment account, even if they had no investments.

Over the two financial years from Oct 1, 2014, to Sept 30 last year, about 293,000 members made cumulative total profits in excess of the CPF-Ordinary Account interest rate of 2.5 per cent per annum.

About 128,000 members made cumulative total profits equal to or less than the CPF-Ordinary Account interest rate. The remaining 172,000 members made cumulative total losses.”

Since the return from 30 September 2014 to 30 September 2016 for the MSCI ACWI Index(All Countries World Index) (equities) and the Citi World Government Bond Index (WGBI) (bonds) was about 1.5 and 4.7 per cent, respectively – a typical globally diversified portfolio of 60% equities and 40% bonds may have returned about 2.8 per cent or about 1.4 per cent per annum in the two years.

So, why is it that 29 per cent or 172,000 members who invested their CPF had losses?

Similarly, since the return from 30 September 2015 to 30 September 2016 for the MSCI ACWI Index and the Citi WGBI was about 9.6 and 12.6 per cent, respectively – a typical globally diversified portfolio of 60% equities and 40% bonds may have returned about 10.8 per cent (per annum) in the one year.

So, why is it that 12 per cent or 66,000 members who invested their CPF had losses, and 10% or 20,000 had profits less than or equal to the CPF benchmark interest (Ordinary Account) of 2.5 per cent?

Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “Changes proposed to ease CPF transfers to parents, grandparents” (Straits Times, Oct 3).

It states that “More people may soon be able to help their elders save for retirement.

Changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Act have been proposed in Parliament to lower the minimum amount that members must have in their own CPF accounts before making transfers to their parents and grandparents.

Currently, CPF members must meet the prevailing Full Retirement Sum – which is $166,000 for CPF members aged 55 this year – before they can transfer extra savings to their parents’ or grandparents’ accounts.

Members aged above 55 need to meet the retirement sum specified for their cohort.

The changes proposed by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) yesterday will allow CPF members to make such transfers if they have at least the Basic Retirement Sum – which is half the full sum – and a sufficient property pledge or charge to make up the rest of the full sum.”

As to “The ministry said in a press statement that the aim is to improve the retirement adequacy of CPF members” – it may instead have the reverse effect for some members.

Allow me to explain. If you transfer your CPF to your parents and/or grandparents’ CPF – it may mean that you will have less CPF for yourself.

Since the minimum amount that you need to keep in your own CPF, in order to do the transfer has been reduced from $166,000 to $83,000 if you are able to pledge say your HDB flat – with the recent confirmation that the value of HDB flats may decline to zero at the end of the 99-year lease – will you have enough for your own retirement?

Whilst you may be tempted to top-up your parents and/or grandparents’ CPF because as long as they are age 65 and over – they can immediately take monthly payouts.

This is akin to turning your own CPF to cash which your parents/grandparents can use, and arguably your cashflows may improve because you may not need to give them as much cash as you are doing now.

However, under the old CPF Retirement Sum Scheme (RSS) – the monthly payout that your parents/grandparents may be able to withdraw, may be much lesser than if they opt-in to the CPF Life Scheme.

However, the downside may be that if they die early – like within the next five to 20 years – the bequest may be much lower compared to if they had not opted-in to CPF Life.

Let me illustrate this with an example.

If you transfer $123,000 to your mother who is age 65 (date of birth 1.9.1952) – the CPF Life Estimator calculator shows a monthly payout of $654 – $691 and very low bequests of $40,658 – $45,124 at age 75 and $0 – $5,859 at age 80 under the Standard Plan, compared to getting the actual balance in your Retirement Account upon death under the old RSS.

In contrast to the very low bequests under CPF Life above – the actual balance upon death under the old RSS is estimated to be $93,851, $73,272 and $47,254, at age 75, 80 and 85, respectively.

With regard to “Last year, the threshold to make transfers to a spouse’s CPF account was lowered to the basic sum, instead of the full sum” – will the reduced threshold be extended to parents-in-law and grandparents-in-law too, since you can now also transfer your CPF to top-up theirs?

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

I refer to the article “Parliament Shorts: 39,200 needy households on ComCare” (Straits Times, Oct 3).

It states that “About 39,200 needy households received financial aid from the Community Care (ComCare) Endowment Fund in the last financial year ending in March, a dip of about 300 from the year before. Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Social and Family Development Faishal Ibrahim gave this update yesterday in reply to Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC).

Mr Seah said he was surprised by the decrease, since some income criteria were relaxed.

Dr Faishal said that with the setting up of social service offices – which administer ComCare aid – from 2013 to 2015, help was brought closer to people in need, and the number of ComCare cases has since stabilised.”

I agree with MP Seah Kian Peng’s remarks “he was surprised by the decrease, since some income criteria were relaxed”.

It seems rather strange that in the economic downturn and rising unemployment over the last year or so – coupled with “some income criteria were relaxed”, as well as the Minister’s recent remarks “The Government is also stepping in earlier to help workers and families who are showing signs of financial struggle yet would not usually qualify for ComCare aid.

Last year, nearly half of approved applications for short- to medium-term aid were granted to such beneficiaries, said the Ministry of Social and Family Development. Some were offered a higher cash quantum or had their period of aid extended if they still could not find jobs.

Mr Tan said such flexibility is especially important today when many Singaporeans are finding their livelihoods affected by disruption due to technology. “I think we will continue to see this affecting us for years to come. Some jobs will disappear from the market” (“Interview with Tan Chuan-Jin: Early action to break cycle of poverty in Singapore“, Straits Times, Jul 17) – in addition to “with the setting up of social service offices – which administer ComCare aid – from 2013 to 2015, help was brought closer to people in need” – that the number of needy households helped has decreased.

I suppose we shall have to wait for this year’s ComCare Annual Report to try to figure out what’s going on?

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

I refer to the article “35 of 191 households who must leave Geylang site by 2020 qualify for public housing: SLA” (Straits Times, Oct 3).

It states that “About one in five households living in private terrace houses at Geylang Lorong 3, who were asked to leave by the end of 2020 with no extensions allowed, have qualified for public housing, said the Singapore Land Authority in an update on Tuesday (Oct 3).

Of the 191 units, 35 have stepped forward to meet  Singapore Land Authority officers and qualified for public housing after having their circumstances assessed by SLA and the Housing Board (HDB).

Of the 35, one owner has successfully applied for a Build-To-Order (BTO) two-room flexi flat in a BTO exercise in August. Three other households have applied for flats in an August Re-offer of Balance Flats exercise, which are still being processed by HDB, added the authority in its statement.”

So, what are the other 82 per cent (156 divided by 191) going to do when their lease expires in 2020?

As to “The 60-year lease for these units cannot be renewed, and owners were told four months ago that they had to hand back the vacated units by Dec 31, 2020, with no compensation.

It was the first time that residential properties in Singapore had to be returned to the State when the lease ran out, with no extensions allowed.

While some owners have asked about the possibility of lease renewal during their engagement with SLA, the authority has explained that as a general policy, leasehold land will return to the State upon lease expiry” – this may be a precursor of what’s to come for HDB flats’ typical 99-year lease when they expire.

What percentage of those whose lease will expire, will also not be eligible for public housing, like these owners in Geylang now?

Are we arguably, sitting on a timebomb or what?

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

Why is it that “Information and Communications’ jobs” have the highest growth potential, but also has the highest unemployment rate? 

I refer to the article “Infocomm media to create jobs, pump up economy” (Straits Times, Nov 4).

It states that “By 2020, the sector that already employs 194,000 people will create another 16,000 jobs. Of these, 13,000 are expected to be professional, managerial, executive and technician (PMET) roles.”

Why is there no breakdown of the 194,000 workers into Singaporeans, permanent residents (PRs) and foreigners?

As to “ICM’s value-add is expected to grow at 6 per cent a year – twice as fast as the overall economy.

“This presents immense opportunities for both companies and workers in the ICM sector, and stands in stark contrast to the larger backdrop of the global slowdown”.

IMDA was ready to invest in manpower training for AI, said Dr Yaacob. It will launch an AI apprenticeship programme to provide on-the-job or course training for the first batch of 200 AI professionals over the next three years.

The programme is a first for AI under the IMDA’s tech skills development and job placement initiative, TechSkills Accelerator (Tesa), which has already trained 16,000 professionals in new tech skills to prepare them for the digital economy since April last year”

“Information and Communications” highest unemployment rate

– According to the latest MOM report (Labour Force in Singapore 2016) – “Information and Communications” had the highest unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent among all the categories, in June 2016.

So, don’t you find it rather strange that we keep hearing the rhetoric that this sector has a lot of vacancies and demand particularly for PMETs is increasing?

Competition from foreigners?

Is it due partly to Singaporeans losing their jobs with fierce competition from foreigners and permanent residents (PRs) – and finding it hard to get re-employed?

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

Since the 3-year average shows more PMET jobs growth went to locals – why is the actual number of PMET jobs growth not given?

I refer to the article “Parliament: Local PMETs facing brighter job prospects, says Lim Swee Say” (Straits Times, Nov 6).

It states that “The job front is perking up for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), with a bigger share of them forming the local workforce.

The proportion of locals being added to the pool of PMETs has also grown while the real incomes of workers who are in full-time jobs have risen. Real income takes into account inflation.

Manpower Minister Lim Swee Say painted this optimistic picture in Parliament on Monday (Nov 6) when he gave an update on the outcome for workers of the Government’s efforts to transform the economy to be more innovative, productive and manpower-lean, and help PMET residents – comprising Singaporeans as well as permanent residents – adapt to changes.

Mr Lim gave figures to underline the positive changes.

This year, PMETs make up 56.1 per cent of the resident workforce, compared with 53.5 per cent in 2014.

This growth rate is higher than that of the previous three years, Mr Lim said.

Residents also make up a bigger proportion of the net employment growth for PMETs.”

As to “A three-year moving average shows that out of every four extra PMETs employed in the past three years, three were locals. Five years ago, the figure was lower: one local out of every two extra PMETs” – Why is it that there was no mention of the actual number of PMET jobs created in the last three years?

If we account for the estimated 90,000 new PRs and 60,000 new citizens granted in the last three years – how many of the jobs to locals went to Singaporeans?.

With regard to “In the first eight months of this year, these programmes (Adapt and Grow) to help workers adapt to rapid technological changes helped more than 16,000 workers land new jobs.

More than half of them (58 per cent) are PMETs, nearly three in 10 are older than 50, and around three in 10 were long-term unemployed who had been jobless for more than six months.

Of the PMET jobseekers who seek help from Workforce Singapore and Employment and Employability Institute, about 65 per cent are placed in jobs.

Recent schemes announced along these lines include the SkillsFuture Series to help working adults learn industry-relevant skills in eight areas related to the industry transformation maps.

There is also the Manpower Ministry’s Capability Transfer Programme, which will help companies bring in foreign experts to train locals in advanced skills that are not yet prevalent in Singapore” – All these piecemeal statistics may arguably by quite meaningless, from the overall perspective of how many of the “jobs growth” actually went to Singaporeans?

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

How does Singapore score in terms of  “Social Solidarity Economy”? 

I attended the Asian Solidarity Economy Council (ASEC) conference in Manila from 11 to 13 November, which was held in conjunction with the Asean People’s Forum (APF)/Asean Civil Society Conference (ACSC).

How does Singapore relate to the core values of “Social Solidarity Economy” (SSE)?

Governance – participation of the poor in ownership and management – Singapore is arguably lacking in transparency and accountability. For example, it does not even breakdown it’s labour data into citizens and permanent residents (PRs) and lumps them as “locals”.

Edifying values – equity, caring and sharing – Singapore has one of the highest inequality in the world. Its gini is the second highest in the world.

Social development – Singapore – from a cashflow is probably the only country in the world that does not spend any money on healthcare, pensions, public housing – and also makes money on water, electricity and transport.

Environmental conservation – Singapore is one of the highest carbon emissions countries in the world, and also utilises a relatively massive amount of resources and materials in the generation of its GDP. Singapore’s environmental ranking in the 2015 Living Planet Report by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) – out of more than 150 countries analysed, the report found Singapore to have the seventh-largest ecological footprint — a measure of the population’s demands on natural resources — in the world.

Economic sustainability – sustainable development – share in profits, direct involvement of the poor and financial benefits – arguably, is the Singapore model of heavy reliance in the last one to two decades or so, on immigration and liberal foreign labour policies to fuel economic growth sustainable?

Singapore’s state-centred economic and social development model may be in a sense – the opposite of the increasing emphasis on the need to be people-centred in the United Nations’ development agenda.

Some indicators from the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2016, relating to the above:-

Social Protection: 29 out of 30 countries

Singapore’s ranking for Social Protection is 29 out of the 30 countries that make up the advanced economies in the world.

Education & Skills – Access: 25 out of 30 countries

For Education and Skills – Access – Singapore is ranked 25 out of the 30.

Fiscal Transfers: 22 out of 30 countries

For Fiscal Transfers – Singapore is ranked at 22.

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

Our “elitist” procreation policies are the root cause of the decline of our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) to an all-time low

I refer to the article “Let’s not condemn Singaporeans to extinction” (Straits Times, Nov 17).

It states that “the 2011 elections and conversations on the Population White Paper revealed how Singaporeans might be nervous about the inflow of immigrants. If we over-compensate through immigration to address the needs of the economy, we may aggravate social tensions and jeopardise racial harmony on home ground …

Singapore has shown it is capable of crafting pro-family policies. Since 2001, when the Baby Bonus schemes were first announced, the slate of public policies supporting marriage and parenthood has been revised at least four times to stay abreast of emerging challenges to family formation. This demonstrates the Government’s commitment to partner Singaporeans in their aspirations to grow family.”

In this connection, historically our procreation policies have always been elitist, such as the “graduate mothers”, “HOPE (Home Ownership Plus Education) schemes, etc.

In the original HOPE scheme – low-income and low-education couples had to ligate, in order to receive CPF Housing Grants and other benefits.

Arguably, even now – our procreation policies continue to be elitist.

For example, according to the article “More than S$8.3b disbursed in tax rebates to encourage procreation” (Channel NewsAsia, Jan 20, 2013) – “The government last year gave out more than S$8.3 billion in tax rebates and reliefs aimed at encouraging procreation in the Year of Assessment 2012.

Tax benefits more than 166 times childcare assistance spending?

So, does it mean that the above indicates that the procreation tax benefits may be about 166 times ($8.3 billion divided by $50 million) more than the annual childcare spending of $50 million?

Lower-income don’t get tax benefits?

What this means is that those who do not earn enough to pay any or very little income tax, do not benefit from the procreation tax benefits.

For the rich, the higher the income and tax rate, the greater the procreation tax benefits.

Procreation incentives favour the higher-income?

There are too many procreation incentives that discriminate against lower-income Singaporeans, like the parenthood tax rebate, working mother’s child relief and qualifying child relief.

How many don’t get tax benefits?

As to “more than 850,000 working mums and dads enjoyed such tax breaks in 2012″, how many working mums and dads did not enjoy any or very little tax breaks?

In this connection, according to the Inland Authority of Singapore’s (IRAS) Tax Calculator, Singaporeans earning less than $3,000 a month generally do not have to pay any income tax, after the deductions of their employee CPF contribution and personal reliefs.

Same benefits regardless of income?

Why not just give the same benefits to parents, regardless of their income? After all, I understand that about 60 per cent of Singaporeans do not or hardly pay any income tax.

Lower-income procreate more?

The notion that giving more financial incentives to the higher income and educated may be “statistically” flawed. Statistics have always indicated that the lower-income and lower-educated are the ones who tend to procreate more.

Rich are motivated by money to procreate?

If you are a lower-income family, the benefits may make a world of difference. But, if you are highly paid, how much more motivation is there for you to procreate by dangling more financial incentives?

Meritocracy?

How can the principles and ideals of meritocracy be truly procreated, when our procreation incentives may be so lob-sided that they pay out about 166 times more for procreation tax benefits vis-a-vis childcare assistance spending?

Less tax benefits, more childcare benefits?

Just imagine how much more parents may be truly helped if some of the procreation tax benefits are channeled to childcare assistance instead?

We need to spend more, and more equitably, to help Singaporeans to procreate, regardless of their economic status.

Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article “It’s not about being rich, says man who made waitress cry with $2,000 tip” (Straits Times, Nov 18).

It states that “(she) was moved to tears after a customer gave her a tip of $2,000 – nearly three times her monthly salary.

The waitress, a single mother of two young children, shared her story on citizen journalism website Stomp recently.

The 37-year-old, who asked for her name not to be used and gave only her initials XYW, arrived in Singapore from Penang a decade ago and has struggled to make ends meet since her divorce in 2012.

My ex-husband, a Singaporean, left me for a woman from China,” she told Stomp.

She does odd jobs such as cleaning houses and washing clothes in the day, while her nights are spent toiling away at a steamboat restaurant in Katong.

She said: “As I am a permanent resident, I have very few subsidies.”

My take-home salary from the restaurant is $700 plus while I can earn $50 for every home I clean (about four hours each time). Sometimes, I have to clean up to 20 houses a month,” said the woman.”

What struck me when I read this story, was – why do we keep seeing such stories practically every week in the media or social media?

Does it not indicate that something may be very wrong with the assistance schemes that we have in Singapore?

How many such “heart-wrenching” cases are there in Singapore?

As to “Despite her hard work, she recently hit a rough patch and did not have enough to pay for her children’s school fees” – since her two young children are presumably Singaporeans – I thought that their school fees would be almost free, as her monthly income of about $1,000 should have met the eligibility requirements of practically every financial assistance scheme – such as the MOE financial assistance scheme, Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme, ComCare, etc.

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

Is it fair for commuters to pay train fares when they have to take buses, because there are no trains?

I refer to the article “Shuttle bus services along MRT stations affected by engineering work to follow train fare structure: SMRT” (Today, Nov 27).

It states that “Next month, shuttle bus services — following the same fare structure as trains — will be provided along the 19 MRT stations affected by additional engineering hours, operator SMRT said on Monday (Nov 27).

If even the venerable Ministry Of Education needs unfair competition against the private sector – what kind of message are we sending to the private sector and entrepreneurs in Singapore?

I refer to the article “Private pre-schools worry about new P1 admission policy” (Straits Times, Nov 29).

It states that “Some private pre-school operators are watching the changes in the sector with concern, after the Ministry of Education (MOE) announced on Monday that children in its kindergartens would get priority admission in the Primary 1 registration exercise.

Smaller players are worried about being squeezed out as MOE expands its reach and adds an advantage to attending its kindergartens, though MOE said the move is to better ease children into Primary 1 education.

Under the new rules, children in its 12 kindergartens will be allowed to apply for places in the primary schools whose premises the kindergartens share, under Phase 2A2 of the registration scheme, which now applies to children whose parents or siblings were former pupils but are not in the alumni association.

“This will put private schools which are not affiliated with any primary school at a disadvantage,” said Ms Kelly Chua, principal of Appleland Playhouse, a childcare centre with 170 children.”

This is obvious and blatantly unfair competition, and discrimination against the private sector.

As to “Appleland in Telok Blangah might feel the heat from the MOE kindergarten in Blangah Rise, whose children will get priority admission to Blangah Rise Primary. Parents of children who are eligible for admission in later phases than 2A2 might feel pressured to move them to MOE kindergartens, said Ms Chua” – some children may suffer the trauma of moving to a new school and parting with their schoolmates.

With regard to “MOE entered the pre-school sector in 2014, with the goal of raising the quality of early childhood education here. The kindergartens will charge $160 a month from next year, up from $150 now, and take in 60 to 120 children each. This can go up to 160 if there is demand.

By 2023, MOE hopes to have 50 kindergartens located in primary schools and offering 14,000 places – enough to cater to a fifth of all Singaporeans and permanent residents aged five and six. There are about 450 kindergartens here now, with a median monthly fee of about $170” – by this action of unfairly giving a competitive advantage to itself – the end result may be complacency, and a stifling effect on the growth and quality of the private sector.

Unfair competition is not new, as it used to be that the subsidies could only be used in two public sector-linked childcare groups.

In respect of “Dr T. Chandroo, chief executive of pre-school chain Modern Montessori International, which has two centres in Sengkang, said the new policy would affect all private operators in the long run as more MOE kindergartens come up.

“Instead of being able to play a pivotal role in the child’s life in his formative years from birth till six years of age, there is a likelihood that parents may leave our centre after the nursery programme for the MOE kindergarten,” he said, adding that private operators may become centres for just children aged up to four.

Dr Timothy Chan, director of SIM Global Education’s academic division, noted that early childhood education was a key part of the National Day Rally speech given by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who announced plans to invest in pre-schools and ramp up places for young children.

“The role of the state stepping in is to level the playing field from the beginning and provide an education experience that can be enjoyed by many people without them having to pay hefty fees that some private pre-schools charge,” he said, adding that private pre-schools must find “new value propositions” to keep parents going to them” – what this issue may highlight is the current and historical presence of unfair policies and practices in so many areas in Singapore.

For example, the parachuting of high-ranking military men to the private sector with argubly so many examples of disastrous outcomes.

The protection of our politicians from “real” criticism by a 151st Press Freedom Ranking media.

Well, the joke may be on MOE, because despite all its resources – why does it need to compete unfairly?

In the final analysis – this may be yet another message that we seem to keep sending to the private sector that it may be harder to succeed in Singapore. The general feeling may be that Singaporeans are generally lacking in creativity and entrepreneurship – thanks to unfair competition from the public or quasi-public sector.

Uniquely Singapore!

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

Will the future increase in healthcare spending be the same as the way healthcare is funded now?

I refer to the article “Govt spending on healthcare to rise sharply in next 3-5 years: Heng Swee Keat” (Straits Times, Dec 6).

It states that “predicts that by 2020, government spending will go up by “at least $3 billion”.

In this year’s Budget, the Ministry of Health (MOH) received $10 billion, up from the $4 billion health received in 2010 … predicting an annual budget of “at least” $13 billion from 2020.”

In this connection, from a cashflow perspective – will the Government in the future years – may still not be spending a single cent on healthcare, as total annual Medisave contributions plus the annual interest on total Medisave accounts’ balances may exceed total annual government spending on healthcare and withdrawals for medical expenses and insurance premiums?

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

Why is it that ComCare assistance remained the same, at $130 million in an economic downturn, with rising unemployment and hardly any jobs growth for Singaporeans? 

I refer to the article “Helping to tide them over a difficult phase” (Straits Times, Dec 10).

It states that “In the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s (MSF’s) last financial year, which ended in March, figures show 28,409 households were on the same scheme, down 4 per cent from the 29,511 households the year before.

In its last financial year, the MSF gave out $130 million in ComCare help schemes to about 83,000 beneficiaries. The sum given out has increased from $106 million in FY 2012.

If you total the number of households in the three categories – the total number of households is 40,738 (28,409 + 7,942 + 4,387).

This is 1.190 unique households or three per cent more than the 39,548 unique households according to the ComCare annual report for FY2015 which said that they received $130.2 million of financial assistance from ComCare.

So, the amount of assistance remained the same at $130 million, despite the increase in the number of households helped?

Since the year ended March this year was a period of one of our worse economic downturns, with rising unemployment and hardly any jobs growth that actually went to Singaporeans – why has the amount of ComCare assistance remained the same at $130 million?

Leong Sze Hian
A.S.S. Contributor

Despite the recent hiccups and unhappiness over the many bilateral issues between Singapore and Malaysia's new Mahathir-led government, the Singapore to Kuala Lumpur air route has been voted the busiest international air link for the second year running.

the 296km route, which is also the amongst the shortest international air link in the world, is operated by 8 carriers with an average of 82 flights daily. Amongst the carriers traveling this route are Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Scoot and Air Asia.

Malaysia's PM, Mahathir Mohamed is known for his dislike of Singapore's policy against Malaysia, with some disagreements including raising the water issues again, his proposed crooked bridge and his government putting on hold indefinitely of a rail link between Singapore and KL. But with this recent data on air route, this just shows that KL needs Singapore as much as Singapore needs KL.

The Marine Parade Town Council (MPTC) is in hot soup with cat lovers all over Singapore, after their heartless act of relocating two cats that were from the Marine Terrace estates to HabourFornt backfired. One of the cats had died, while the other has gone missing.

The two cats were catnapped by the by the staff of MPTC at Marine Terrace, and sent away to an unfamiliar surroundings of the Seah Im Food Centre at HabourFront. It was not known why this was done, other than the fact that the staff of MPTC thought this would be a good way of ridding themselves of stray cats problems. It was a surprise that the staff did not send the cats away to opposition ward Aljunied instead, to let the opposition deal with their tai chi.

MPTC have since issued an apology, saying their staff had misjudged the situation, and the cats should have been sent to AVA instead of letting them loose in foreign surroundings to the cats. It was also reported that MPTC had denied their staff had done such a thing at first, until they were called out by their bluff bu cat lovers in the area. In their reply, MPTC also tried to shift the blame, by saying the cats had been a nuisance and that many residents had lodged complaints.

Standard MO by any PAP Town Council, push the blame to someone else and never take full responsibilities for mistakes made.

According to a survey by health service company Cigna had indicated what many Singaporeans have known, that they are the most stressed workers in the whole world, and are very sleep deprived. In the survey, nearly 92% of the Singaporeans surveyed said that they were stressed from work, and 13% of this group of workers said their stress was unimaginable.

The survey also points to Singaporeans not getting enough sleep. The survey was measured against five indexes, family, financial, physical, social and work. The survey collated about 13,200 responses from over 24 countries, with a sample of 502 respondents in Singapore.

This is amidst the backdrop of Singaporeans saying that work life balance is almost non-existent, and this survey just proves it.

A man has been jailed a total of 12 weeks after he was caught filming them in a toilet in a building after Christmas dinner last year. Bryan Fang Zhongquan, 30, was still a financial adviser when filmed a total of 14 women relieving themselves in a toilet.

Fang had been with a friend having Chritsmas dinner at the NTUC Income Building at Tampines Junction and were also having drinks. When the friend left, Fang returned to the building, hid himself in a female toilet cubicle and locked the door. he then proceeded to film 7 women who went in to the next cubicle to relieve themselves. He left the toilet about 15 minutes later, but thinking he had gotten away with his crime, he returned to the same toilet half an hour later, and proceeded to film another seven women. However, he was caught when his last victim saw his phone.

Fang ran out of the toilet and tried to run out of the building as well, but was caught by a male friend of the last victim. To avoid being detained by the police, he apologised to his victims and wished them Merry Xmas. Fang has since lost his job, as well as his girlfriend. The phone that he used to take the videos of the women, an iPhone X, has been seized by the police and will be disposed of.

Islamophobia is a real thing, and it has inched its way to Singapore. In a recent survey conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) s part of a global study, it was found that while 70% of the Singaporeans surveyed said they believe people of different faiths can get along well when they stay close together, 15% of those surveyed said they found Muslims threatening.

This is even though Singapore have had no incident of religious animosity in almost 50 years. The survey also had a very revealing fact - those that stay in private housing are more likely to find Muslims threatening than those who are living in HDB flats. Shows you what kind of a bubble these elite rich are staying under. The survey also reveals that while Buddhists and Hindus relatively views Muslims in a positive light, about one in five Catholics, Christians and those without religion find Muslims threatening.

This also shows how much global terror and the fact that it was being associated with Muslims have played into the minds of Singaporeans. While most said that 15% is not a majority, it is still a significant number, and this number must not be allowed to grow in order to have a peaceful and tolerant country. The study noted that 1,800 Singaporeans from all walks of life were surveyed. The recent New Zealand tragedy shows how a united country can bind together against terrorism, and terrorist does not conform to any race or religion.

Heng Swee Keat has gone on record as openly saying that Singaporeans are not ready to accept a minority raced candidate as their Prime Minister. This, despite 53 years of nation building, emphasizing the point that Singapore is a multi-racial society. And despite the fact that it was Heng's own party who decided a Malay President should be at the forefront of Singapore itself.

In a forum held at the NTU on Thursday, Heng was asked by an audience member on current issues surrounding DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who has been found to be a popular choice among many Singaporeans to take on the top job, on hwy he was not considered. Heng's reply was that while young Singaporeans can put race based issues aside, the older generation are still resistant and unable to accept this. Tharman had come out tops in election results during the 2015 GE, and was also found in a survey conducted by Blackbox in 2016 that he was also a top choice amongst Singaporeans.

Heng again rolled out the PAP standard answer, by saying that his interactions on the ground shows that many Singaporeans are still not convinced of a minority raced PM. Of curse, his interactions on the groud is not verifiable, we just have to take his word for it. And in explaining away why then Singapore President is reserved for a Malay during the last PE, Heng responded that it was precisely because of Singaporeans not ready for a minority leader that the post had to be specially reserved for one.

Contradictory? Try to make sense of Heng's comments.