CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case?

Justice at the crossroads: 'Trash' in court hoopla...

Why the big hoopla?(see disclaimer below), exerps are from article below.Because a Judge has judged not on substance but the book by its cover...

A simple analogy will help :A robber 'breaks into' a mafia boss's home, tying up his 2 maids at (fake)gunpoint. Having found nothing substantive to steal upstairs, he explores the basement wine cellar, only to discover a woman gagged and tied to the staircase railing outside the cellar door. She motions him to enter the cooled cellar where in a fresh corpse is seen. A burglar alarm sounds, but before escape, the robber videotapes his findings, ostensibly with the intent of blackmailing the rich man/ releasing the captive (s). The rich man refuses to pay blackmail$ nor release his captives and the photographs of the scene, deceased and captive are extremely incriminating. (Victims are persons on the police 'missing persons' files).
The robber then posts his pictures and video on U-tube...
Shouldn't the police investigate the matter?Is the (criminally obtained) evidence admissible in the court of law?
Who is this High Court judge Andrew Ang i wonder...And how does this episode differentiate Singapore from other parts of the world where $$$ influences the judgement: where Judges are corrupt, greased by the provision of $$?
Who then upholds the law of justice?
Why crossroads:There is justice and there is Justice.Some judges are plain corrupt.Some are incompetent/ lazy, prefering dice/ expediency for convenience.But the Golden few, they judge on substance. And it is because of such good men that our lives are a pleasure today. And where does Singapore stand?

- "this is a grey area in Singapore law"- so I infer: the Mafia Boss is protected, police cannot investigate illegal footage?

- "Lawyer Adrian Tan said: 'Many multi-national companies... ...come from places where their laws are more stringent. ...So, if we want to attract them here... ...We need to make a stand that personal information should be protected.'"- so Mafia Boss is welcomed to SG and its IRs?

"CJ Chan says during appeal hearing last month that this is a serious issue as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes. CJ Chan allows appeal, says issue of who owns garbage should be decided in separate trial."

The issue is one of case fact, and the court must address all relevant evidences of fact as the case so presents, eventually upholding the justice of the matter; if necessary, the Judge should make his judgement contigent upon the addressing of other pertinent issues, e.g.:- Directing police/ lower court to investigate issue of trespass/ willful damage of pte property/ intimidation/ harassment and prosecute/ order eventual return of such property (after all material fact is admitted to the higher court) etc.- informing defendents about restitutive means should plaintiffs have caused injury during any illegal actions.- using such 'plaintiff violations' as mitigating factors in judgement where approprate but NOT disregarding any evidences of fact.

So I conclude that Singapore High court would have made a judgement of convenience, not a judgement of substance (having omitted essential material facts), in doing so, the SG high court has betrayed the cause of Justice.
Same problem in many enblock processes... (which riles me)

Disclaimer:(comments are solely based upon substance of report and accurate only to the extent of personal observation for the purpose of forum discussion; I cannot gurantee the accuracy of the quoted newspaper report).

-----------
The Electric New Paper :

Can trash be used in court? Clear legislation on issue may help draw more MNCs to set up shop here, says one lawyer

CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case?

By Andre Yeo 18 October 2007

CAN information from the rubbish in your bin be used against you in a civil case?
Right now this is a grey area in Singapore law.
But it is allowed in the US state of Florida, said a lawyer who is here for the International Bar Association (IBA) Conference. He gave details of how a debtor was caught concealing his assets.
In Singapore, the issue came up when the High Court ruled in February that information from your rubbish bin can't be used against you.
But Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong allowed an appeal against the ruling, saying the issue would have 'serious repercussions for everybody'.
However, he said the issue of who owns the rubbish should be decided in a separate trial.
Lawyer Adrian Tan said: 'Many multi-national companies would be comforted to know if there is clear legislation on this topic. They come from places where their laws are more stringent.
'So, if we want to attract them here, we need to offer them the same level of protection that they get in their own countries.
'We need to make a stand that personal information should be protected.'
Criminal lawyer Mark Goh said there were some hurdles to overcome when dealing with garbage ownership.
Said Mr Goh: 'Information can be confidential and must be separated from the physical piece of paper.
'So a person can argue that while he threw away the piece of paper because he did not want it anymore, he can also argue that the information contained on that piece of paper was confidential and he did not intend to give it away.
'So, the confidential information would still be his property.
'If I deliberately shred a piece of paper, that indicates I treat the information as confidential and want to deny public access to it.
'But if you retrieve it and piece it back together, how can you argue that it was in the public domain?'
FLORIDA CASE
Mr Martin Kenney, one of more than 4,000 participants from 120 countries at the IBA Conference, said in Monday's session on business intelligence and industrial espionage, that for 18 months, his law firm monitored a fraud suspect's movements at home.
He said his clients had accused the man in Florida of owing them US$21.9 million ($32m), which he had borrowed in a business deal.
He was also found to be involved in Medicare (a medical insurance programme for the elderly) fraud and was made a bankrupt.
Before Mr Kenney's agents began the sting operation, they had to make sure taking the man's trash was allowed there.
He said: 'We had to make sure it was not illegal in the state of Florida.
'It wasn't. It was by the side of a public road.
'As long as the trash was outside the person's property, it was considered 'abandoned property'.'
He said they found documents from the man's lawyers and other incriminating information showing he had had an elaborate plan to conceal his assets.
A settlement was reached, but Mr Kenney said he could not reveal its details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE question was posed last month in a case before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
Creditors who use private investigators to sift through debtor's bin want to use it against debtor in court.
High Court judge Andrew Ang says improper and/or illegal to do this, in February last year. Rules against creditors, but they appeal.
CJ Chan says during appeal hearing last month that this is a serious issue as people often leave their trash bins outside their homes. CJ Chan allows appeal, says issue of who owns garbage should be decided in separate trial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,145106,00.html?

Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co.

Ad discrimination: How do we draw the line between bias and practicality?

"... she went on to put an ad in The Straits Times' Classifieds, but was told she could not put in these race and sex requirements"

Home > ST Forum > Online Story
Oct 23, 2007

Ad discrimination: How do we draw the line between bias and practicality?
I REFER to Ms Radha Basu's article, 'Time to amend the Constitution' (ST, Oct 12), and many other commentaries that fight against the discrimination of women and/or races.
It appears that sex and race are becoming more touchy issues as Singapore is more willing to recognise that minorities such as females, local non-Chinese and gays have been subject to discrimination.
These changing attitudes are reflected - and also brought about - by changes in the Penal Code.
While I laud no matter how slight changes that to me reflect a maturing society, I believe there are some tricky issues at hand.
My mother wishes to employ a clerk for her company currently consisting of a female clerk and herself.
Her office space is small and crowded with furniture and office supplies.
She specifically wants a female worker because it would be awkward for these two women to share such a tight physical space with a man.
She specifically, too, wants a Chinese worker because the job requires conversing with Mandarin and dialect-speaking clients.
(Of course, one might argue that race does not dictate the language spoken, but while we are in Singapore, these two are still very much closely correlated.)
Furthermore, she has her lunches in the office and is afraid of making a Muslim clerk uncomfortable with the smell of Chinese food, which also includes pork, in the poorly-ventilated office.
Hence, she went on to put an ad in The Straits Times' Classifieds, but was told she could not put in these race and sex requirements.
Consequently, she had to politely turn down many ad respondents who did not fall in these categories, which was a waste of both these jobseekers' and my mother's time.
I believe there are many other arguments for employers who have a preference for one sex and/or race over another.
Some of these reasons could also be biologically-related (for example, men are generally physically stronger than women, as well as the very controversial issue of the need for pregnancy and post-natal leave which men are most unlikely to require).
Then how?
How do we institutionally draw this line so as to serve practical needs without tipping onto the side of sex/racial bigotry?
Chen Weiling (Ms)
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_169376.html

Taxi woes: Reduce surcharges, raise fares

Home > ST Forum > Story
Oct 22, 2007

Taxi woes: Reduce surcharges, raise fares
LATELY, there was quite some coverage in The Straits Times (articles as well as readers' letters) about Singapore's taxi situation.
The problems mentioned are not new, but they are 'uniquely Singapore'.
I have travelled to many countries, from well developed to less developed ones, but none seems so helpless at getting a proper taxi system organised. As Singapore plans to aggressively increase its population, improvements are really called for.
This cannot be very difficult and I think the answer lies in simplicity. The current system is too complex with so many surcharges, which gives cabbies a lot of room for abuse. Some suggestions:

• Abolish all time-based surcharges and implement one standard flag-fall and kilometre rate 24-7, including weekends and public holidays; and
• Increase standard fares and booking charges to cover the resulting loss of revenue.
  Another issue quite unique to Singapore is the quality of cabbies.

I use taxis on average twice a day when in town (and when I manage to get one), but often I wonder how some drivers obtain a taxi licence.
Many would fail a standard driving test in other countries, but here they are allowed to drive a taxi.
Most notable, apart from little knowledge of the city and ignoring traffic rules, is their bad handling of a manual car. Why not give them automatic ones so they have one task less to worry about?
Stefan Erich Hirt
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_169177.html

Demand-management policies required

Home > ST Forum > Story
Oct 23, 2007
SOARING PROPERTY PRICES
Demand-management policies required
AT A Singapore Economic Policy Forum organised by the Department of Economics of the National University of Singapore (NUS) on Oct 18, I presented a paper with the title, 'Singapore's property market and the macroeconomy'. This was reported in The Straits Times the following day under the headline, 'No bubble in property market: NUS study'.
The title of the report may have created the misperception that current increases in property prices are all fundamental and policy intervention is not necessary. Some clarification is necessary with regard to the findings of the research and its policy implications.
In our analysis, the long-run demand for housing is determined by the growth of resident population, foreign population, per-capita disposable income, per-capita CPF balances (a proxy for financial wealth) and an adjustment factor to account for what is known as the user cost of housing. If the housing stock grows in line with the growth of the long-run demand, house prices should stay the same in the long run.
The current surge in house prices is largely a result of the housing shortage that was caused by the crash of the price bubble in 1996 and the prolonged slump in the property sector. Large imbalances in demand and supply create conditions for bubbles and subsequent crashes.
Based on data available up to the second quarter of this year, our model predicted that house prices should increase by 18 per cent in 2007 purely due to the fundamental demand-supply imbalance. We know that house prices by now have increased well above this rate. In the third quarter of this year the average price level had gone up by at least 27 per cent over the third quarter of 2006. Price persistence (panic buying when prices rise and waiting when prices fall) and speculation are the key drivers of the short-run price acceleration.
Although price bubbles are usually attributed to speculation, large gyrations in property prices are unhealthy for the economy. As housing supply cannot keep pace with demand because of construction delays and land scarcity, demand-management policies, especially with respect to investment demand, have to be in place.
Associate Prof Tilak Abeysinghe
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_169583.html

Means testing put on hold and People will be consulted first: Minister Khaw

www.pap.org.sg : 2May06.
Means testing put on hold and People will be consulted first: Minister Khaw
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has announced that MEANS testing will not be implemented within the next two years as originally planned. He said that it will only be implemented after he has consulted the people.
Mr Khaw said he is not going to rush through without consulting people but will take his time discussing it with the community, and find practical ways to implement it.
Instead, Mr Khaw said he would focus on revamping the MediShield national health insurance system and on improving healthcare for the chronically-ill.

Said Mr Khaw: "I will do it only if it is practical, because the theory may be sound but if the implementation is more costly ... then it's not worth the effort. "So whether to do it or not, I don't know. It depends on whether we can come up with practical ideas."

He accused the WP of trying to score political points by proposing populist healthcare solutions that have proved disastrous in Britain, Europe and elsewhere. In Britain, he said, patients wait for months for even simple procedures.

And ideas such as reducing GST for medical bills, which is already being done for subsidised patients, would benefit the rich more than the poor. Private hospital bills are many times the size of Class C hospital bills. "Instead, our solution is to provide Class C with the greatest subsidy (at 80 per cent of cost)," he said.

Responding to the opposition’s idea to reduce GST for medical bills, Mr Khaw said that would benefit the rich more than the poor. Private hospital bills are many times the size of Class C hospital bills. “Instead, our solution is to provide Class C with the greatest subsidy (at 80% of cost),”


Source: Extracted from The Straits Times and TODAY 2 May 2006
WWW www.pap.org.sg Published by and at the directions of People's Action Party PAP HQ, Block 57B New Upper Changi Road, #01-1402 Singapore 463057. Copyright © 2006 People's Action Party. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=894&mode=&cid=23

This bitter pill is why I won't work in Singapore

This bitter pill is why I won't work in Singapore
Friday • October 19, 2007
EMILY POH
I AM a Singaporean pharmacist trained and qualified in the United Kingdom, where I have been working for the last two years.
I have considered coming back but feel that the industry is not ready for me. Apart from a demoralising environment due to poor staff retention, there is also little recognition of the pharmacist's role as a drug expert.
The choice of medicine prescribed for a patient may be driven by the amount of incentives given to doctors by drug company representatives, instead of a guideline of what drugs are clinically proven to be efficient and cost-effective.
I have spent four years at university getting my degree and another doing my pre-registration year learning about clinical pharmacology, pharmaceutics and therapeutics. Yet I've noticed that Singaporeans would rather go to a doctor than a pharmacist for advice on their medications.
They feel they should get advice from the person who has written the prescription. But when they see a general practitioner (GP), they get their medications at the dispensary from someone who is not even a qualified dispenser. There is no one to pick up any drug interactions and dispensing errors at that point. Besides, the patient might be forgoing some professional advice regarding his/her medication.
How many patients have spent more than 15 minutes speaking to their pharmacists about their medication? Do the pharmacists even explain how the medicines work or suggest having their medicine use reviewed?
Being a pharmacist is not only about keeping the waiting time down. It is also about how to reduce drug-dispensing errors, picking up drug interaction as well as giving best advice about the medication and possible lifestyle changes to go with the treatment.
Most pharmacists are not given a chance to use their expertise. Most of the time — under pressure to keep down the long waiting times at clinics — the most they do is dispense the correct medication according to the prescription and not question it. They only have the time to tell you the dose and frequency of the medication to be taken — all of which is already printed on the label.
That is certainly not what pharmacy is all about. If that is the practice of pharmacy, it would be easier to get an accuracy-checking technician rather than a pharmacist. It would be far cheaper, too!
With the growing number of ageing Singaporeans, we have to look into problems with increasing drug interactions due to increasing aliments.
Furthermore, GPs, polyclinics and hospitals are not linked up properly to create a seamless access to the medical history of patients. As a result, some patients may end up in hospital due to polypharmacy, or taking too many different drugs.
The system is far from mature. The salary, other incentives and opportunities are just not attractive enough to woo me back to Singapore. It will take a long time for the pharmacist profession to be respected in the Republic. Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved. http://www.todayonline.com/articles/217509.asp

Worker caught on webcam stealing alcohol from guests

'We were convinced that someone was taking our alcohol.'
'We were shocked as it is a five-star hotel in Singapore, a country known for its high standards of service.
'They immediately alerted the management, who refunded their three night's hotel stay of $597 and waived their Internet charges.

The Electric New Paper : Hotel housekeeper cleans up... ...in more ways than one
Worker caught on webcam stealing alcohol from guests
She picks up bottle... unscrews the cap... ...and pours out the booze
THEY suspected that someone might be stealing alcohol from their whisky bottle.
By Veema Bharwani 16 October 2007
THEY suspected that someone might be stealing alcohol from their whisky bottle.
So three Hong Kong tourists staying at the Hilton Singapore set up a webcam to see if they could catch the culprit on camera.
The result?
A 20-second video clip of a hotel housekeeper pouring whisky from the guests' bottle into an empty water bottle.
She repeats the process by pouring more whisky from another bottle into a separate water bottle.
The video was recorded on a webcam attached to one of the tourist's laptops.
This was the last thing the trio from Hong Kong was expecting on their weekend getaway in Singapore.
'We didn't expect this to happen in Singapore. We were looking to have a good time here,' said Mr Manoj Budhrani, a 28-year-old businessman.
The three men were in town for a weekend getaway from 28 Sep to 1 Oct and stayed at the Hilton Singapore.
They started their weekend by popping open a one-litre bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label whisky in their hotel room on Friday night. They said they had bought it for $237 from the airport duty-free shop. They also had a bottle of the less expensive Johnnie Walker Black Label.
They left the bottle in the room and went out clubbing later that night.
The next day, just before stepping out to lunch, one of the three men, MrJai Chulani, 28, remarked to the other two: 'Wow, we drank a quarter of a bottle last night. Not bad.'
But when they returned to the room at 5pm the same day, they noticed the level of alcohol in the bottle had dropped from the three-quarter mark to the half-way mark.
'We would not have noticed it if Jai hadn't remarked how much we drank before we left for lunch,' said MrBudhrani.
He said the others teased him saying he must have been drinking the alcohol on the sly.
'I told them it wasn't me,' MrBudhrani said with a laugh.
'We knew something was up because when we came back the room was clean. So someone had been there in our absence.
'We were convinced that someone was taking our alcohol.'
Not willing to let the incident rest, Mr Chulani suggested that since he had a laptop with a built-in webcam, they could leave it on to record what was going on in the room.
So on Sunday morning, just before leaving the room for the afternoon, the three men created the perfect setup.
They turned on the laptop and its camera, pointed it towards the side table on which the whisky bottles rested and pressed the record button.
They made sure that the laptop had its screen-saver on, so it couldn't be seen that it was recording.
Also, since they had almost finished the first whisky bottle, they opened a second and drank a bit out of it.
'We thought if someone was taking the whisky, they were trying to be careful about it and wouldn't take it if it was obvious - like when the bottle was too empty or too full,' said MrNavin Gaba.
Later that Sunday, when the trio came back to the room, they got a shock when they scanned through the five-hour long video recording.
CULPRIT CAUGHT
The camera caught a housekeeper, who looked to be in her late 40s, swiftly pouring some 20 per cent of the whisky from the first and second bottles into separate empty water bottles.
She did this without hesitation.
Added Mr Budhrani: 'We were shocked as it is a five-star hotel in Singapore, a country known for its high standards of service.'
Added Mr Gaba, 28: 'It's not how much she stole but the principle behind it.'
They immediately alerted the management, who refunded their three night's hotel stay of $597 and waived their Internet charges.
The hotel's general manager, MrAlain Mahillon said they had reprimanded the employee involved when asked what action was taken.
The hotel would not confirm if they have or are planning to file a police report against the housekeeper, or if the housekeeper had been dismissed.
They also declined to comment on whether they run background checks on staff before employing them.
He would only say: 'Guest satisfaction is key to our business and we strive to ensure all team members receive regular training and development to ensure they deliver the quality of service that our hotel name is renowned for. We regret that this isolated incident occurred.'
But the guests are not entirely satisfied.
Said Mr Budhrani: 'We are seriously considering filing a police report as we don't want other guests to go through what we went through.'
On complaints of theft and similar incidents in hotels, The Singapore Tourism Board's director of communications, Mr Muhammad Rostam Umar, said: 'STB does receive feedback from all sectors, including hotels. The Board is committed to providing prompt assistance to affected visitors by channelling their complaints to the relevant agencies for their necessary action.'
For example, if a tourist complained of a theft while staying here, STB could advise the tourist to file a police report.
Consumers Association of Singapore executive director Seah Seng Choon said that while it had not received complaints on thefts in hotels, there had been other complaints like unsatisfactory service and hotels over-charging for bookings made over the phone, among other things.
'The complaints were usually resolved by means of refunds, discounts or complimentary vouchers,' he added.
The irony in this case is that the staff may have got the liquor anyway.
Said Mr Budhrani: 'We would have never been able to finish the two bottles of whisky on our own. We would have left the unfinished bottles in the room for the staff.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co. Regn. No. 198402868E. All rights reserved.Privacy Statement and Conditions of Access

Sanctions against Myanmar will be counter-productive: PM Lee

[treating the morally bankrupt] (artc. below) ... …whether you want to do petty indignities to individuals, which is really against human nature.
'Somebody who is sick, he wants to come to Singapore, he needs treatment and you're telling me that I shouldn't treat him because he is not a good man? It goes against the Hippocratic oath of doctors.'…

The temptation of convenience, the path of disaster.

Who really runs this country, is it PM Lee or the Drs (Hippocratic oath)? Admitting despotic rulers to SG govt hosp? "Myanmar junta leader's family reportedly in Singapore "
To promote medical tourism the Hippocratic oath of doctors is quoted,
And during elections, then buying votes becomes okay… …
Mana ada moral mandate?



Sanctions against Myanmar will be counter-productive: PM Lee
By Wong Siew Ying, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 05 October 2007 2045 hrs

SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that sanctions against Myanmar will be counter-productive.
He also stressed that ASEAN alone cannot solve the problem in Myanmar, and called on the international community to weigh in as well.
Mr Lee said this in an interview with the CNN, which was aired on Friday evening.
He was responding to the presenter who asked if ASEAN could do more besides issuing strong statements against the unrest in Myanmar.
ASEAN has to take a clear stand on Myanmar because what happens there affects the group's reputation, said PM Lee.
What ASEAN wishes to see is developments that will lead progressively to a Myanmar government that has more legitimacy at home and greater acceptance internationally, added Mr Lee.
But ASEAN, he stressed, does not have the leverage to solve the problems in Myanmar.
Mr Lee also explained why economic sanctions against the military-ruled country may not be productive.
He said: "First of all, this is a country which wants to isolate itself from the world, so they are not afraid of you cutting them off.
"Secondly, if you want to have sanctions, it cannot just be Singapore or even ASEAN, but all of the countries in the world have to do that, and that includes the Western countries, investors in Myanmar and its neighbours like China with big stake in Myanmar.
"And thirdly, if you do have sanction and it worked, I think the people who will be hurt by the sanctions will not be the regime or the SPDC (State Peace and Development Council), the government, but the people of Myanmar, so it will be counter productive."
Mr Lee added that the United Nations will play an important role, and the recent visit to Myanmar by UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari is the first step to improving the situation there.

Mr Lee also responded to a question on whether Singapore should prevent members of the Myanmar government from coming to Singapore for medical treatment.
He said: "I think we have to decide whether we're trying to influence the policy of a government or whether you want to do petty indignities to individuals, which is really against human nature.
"Somebody who is sick, he wants to come to Singapore, he needs treatment and you're telling me that I shouldn't treat him because he is not a good man? It goes against the Hippocratic oath of doctors."
Separately, Mr Lee spoke on the phone with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday.
The UN chief invited Singapore, in its capacity as the current ASEAN chair, to make a statement at a UN Security Council meeting on developments in Myanmar.
PM Lee told Mr Ban that he has written to China, India and Japan to work together with ASEAN and the UN to help the parties in Myanmar find a way towards national reconciliation. - CNA/ir

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/304073/1/.html

[http://disgruntledsporean.blogspot.com/2007/10/not-treating-burmese-murderous-junta-is.html#comments : another view pt.]

PM Lee says countries worldwide respect and admire Singapore's proven system

LHL: It's OK to buy votes...

"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. ... ...I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"

PM Lee says countries worldwide respect and admire Singapore's proven system
By Sharon Tong/S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 03 May 2006 1839 hrs
SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says Singapore is at the top of its game because of a strong political system and quality leadership.
Speaking at the first lunchtime election rally in Singapore in nine years, Mr Lee says the PAP has a proven system that works.
He says countries the world over respect and admire Singapore's system.
Mr Lee says what the PAP wants for Singapore is something special and precious that's worth fighting for.
So Singaporeans must put their hearts and souls into working together as a team to realise and create this special Singapore.
Raffles Place - in the heart of Singapore's financial district - was the venue of the election's first lunchtime rally.
Lunchtime rallies, which were absent in the last General Election, have made a comeback this year.
The target is to reach out to the professionals, managers, executives and businessmen.
Nine PAP candidates took to the stage to explain the importance of maintaining good policies and programmes for Singapore, and why the PAP is the right party to deliver the right essentials.
Mr Lee says: "Deep capabilities in our population, in our government, in our leadership and deep values in our people to understand, to support, to work together, to make it work. Our system is different, it's good, it's good for Singapore and it works."
He says some Singaporeans want a more open, multi-party system.
Mr Lee says the opposition parties are capitalising on this by asking for their votes, not because of their abilities or policies, but because then, the opposition would exist.
But he questioned if this would make things better for Singapore.
Mr Lee says: "What is the opposition's job? It's not to help the PAP do a better job ... because if they help the PAP do a better job, you're going to vote for me again and they're going to be out of a job for a long time. So their job is to make life miserable for me.
"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"
Mr Lee says while any Singaporean can enter politics, the quality needed to get elected must be very high.
He says this is why the PAP has assembled a strong, national team with a long term view - one that would work together and fight to realise its vision for Singapore.
At the rally, Mr Lee also named four potential office bearers, whom he will appoint after the elections.
They are Grace Fu, Lee Yi Shyan, Masagos Zulkifli and Lui Tuck Yew.
Mr Lee says if they are elected, they will be appointed parliamentary secretaries and ministers of state, adding that some of them have potential to go higher.
He described them as "big people with broad shoulders" who could deal with big issues and would serve the people well.
As to whether there would be more office-holders, Mr Lee says only time will tell as he learns more about the new candidates and their abilities.
Earlier, Mr Lee says he is especially proud of the bicultural candidates - those who are equally comfortable speaking Chinese and English, like former IE Singapore CEO Lee Yi Shyan. - CNA/de
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/206313/1/.html

Compulsory annuity scheme unfair to the poor, sick and those without longevity genes

"a compulsory annuity scheme, which pays out only to those after the age of 85, would be depending on the poor, the sick and those without longevity genes to support the healthier and better off"

Path of convenience, a future of despair...
Rich enjoy free hold properties [link], old have magical calculation to afford food forever...
Ministers enjoy high salary, all fine and dandy...

Sounds like the weak subsidising the strong to me, no morals, just law of the (concrete) jungle...
Singapore is afterall, just another cowboy country; we have no dignity.

Sep 29, 2007
Compulsory annuity scheme unfair to the poor, sick and those without longevity genes
AS SINGAPOREANS begin to live longer and as our society begins to age, there is this fear that this would put a great strain on the taxpayers and other resources.
To alleviate this problem, the conventional thinking is that the aged should have enough money to take care of themselves. Hence, the idea of a compulsory annuity scheme has been mooted where a pooled contribution would allow any survivor beyond 85 years of age to draw out a monthly sum of income.

Though the Government does not believe in giving out handouts because this would mean having to tax the people more, a compulsory annuity or compulsory longevity insurance would actually be doing just that. Once we strip off the veneer of fanciful names, we will see that as long as it is compulsory and non-refundable, such a scheme would, in fact, be a kind of taxation to finance a handout that will be given to those who have managed to live beyond 85 years old.

A scheme like this would have been laudable if it is not so inequitable. Statistics have shown that the poor, the people with chronic illnesses and those in the lower social class and without a family tend to die earlier than those in the higher social class.

This means that such a compulsory annuity scheme, which pays out only to those after the age of 85, would be depending on the poor, the sick and those without longevity genes to support the healthier and better off.

Furthermore, many of those who live beyond 85 are likely to be those who really do not need the 'handouts'.

The problem of a bulging population of dependents is not something new. After World War II, a baby boom did give governments such a headache. The pressure on governments then was even greater, given the depleted resources of a post-war economy. There were no reserves to fall back on.

In Singapore then, the rate of unemployment was high. Half the population was illiterate and there were not enough schools for the young. Living conditions were appalling. In other words, the majority of the population lived in poverty and filth and always under threat of disease and crime.

The government then had to build standpipes for people to have free water to bathe, wash their clothes and cook their food. It had to provide free health care, free mass vaccinations, free mobile X-rays and free hospitalisation for the poor. Money was not only spent on building schools, it was also spent on free milk to nourish the children who were suffering from poor nutrition and free textbooks for those who could not afford them. Cheap housing had to be built to provide decent living quarters for a growing population and recreation facilities for youths to keep them off the streets.

The problem then, if not more, was no less severe than what we will be facing in future. Statistics projected to 2030 showing only four people who are able to support one aged person are often quoted to show the gravity of the future problem. Is this figure any worse than the number of dependents that had to be supported by one provider in the period after the war?

These same baby boomers who had given governments problems when they were growing up are now part of the elderly boomers who are growing old.

What are the issues facing the governments then and now? Is the problem going to be greater in future than then?

In the past, the need for employment, housing, education, health care, utilities, transport and social facilities was urgent. They were all major items. Now the only big-ticket item is health care. There is no reason why with sensible health-care policies, the high cost of health care could not be overcome. In the past, the Maternal and Child Health Clinics and the School Health Clinics provided very good health care to both the growing baby boomers and their mothers. There is no reason why a similar basic health-care system could not be developed to care for the elderly. Good health care does not necessarily mean executive-class health care.

One of the reasons why many elderly boomers do not have enough money for their retirement is that a lot of their savings was eaten away by expensive health care, some of which may merely be adding a bit of quantity to life without giving it any quality.

Thus, the approach that was used to tackle the problems of the baby boomers should be transposed to tackle the problems of the elderly boomers. We cannot expect a paltry monthly annuity payout to do this. There is no way to avoid government interventions, the involvement of the state agencies and society to deal with the problem.

We need to rationalise health care, especially for chronic diseases and end-of-life care, so as not to make health care a burden to the patient, the family or the state. We have to develop greater social support for the elderly. As with child care, we now need government-subsidised day-care centres, nursing homes and community hospitals. We need to introduce parent-care leave and no-pay leave for people who want to take time off to look after an ailing parent. Instead of the Baby Bonus scheme, we can have elderly-parent bonus scheme and exemption of maid levy for the totally-dependent elderly. A similar scheme like health education and home visits that nurses used to do for rural Singapore could be used for home-bound elderly.

A compulsory annuity scheme that is non-refundable is not only inequitable. By implicitly telling the very old that they have to take care of themselves, we are giving out the signal that the old aged no longer need the family and the society to take care of them. What kind of society would we be if families and society try to wash their hands off the old elderly?

There is no reason why we cannot overcome that problem of the elderly boomers if families, society and the Government put their shoulders together against the wheel. Even if some money is spent, it is worth every cent if what we get in the end is a more compassionate and enlightened society.

After all, with all the prosperity generated by the elderly boomers during their prime, whatever programme would merely be a gesture of gratitude from a country to the people who have served it well.

Dr Wong Wee Nam

Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_162177.html

What makes these two tick?

KBW stressed, looses his Karma powers... His wavering in the means testing issue is showing... Will he resign soon?

But who wouldn't with an unsolved $2.03B p.a. 'economic albatross' around the govt's neck; LHL's parliament's moral weaknesses, Ng EH's policy of weak subsidising the strong, the continually increasing rich poor divide, the pressure of such prejudices will surely make any dignified Health Minister jump to his grave!

May his Karma be strong.

• "In Mr Khaw's case, his spirituality is often cited as a key to his success."
  
• "last November, Mr Khaw dropped hints of retiring as he recalled how entering politics was never his wish. He had said this might be his last term in the Health Ministry, a "very meaningful portfolio" from which he would like to retire from politics. ..."
  
  
  What makes these two tick?
  Weekend • October 20, 2007
  Christie Lohchristie@mediacorp.com.sg
  EVEN in a centralised, collegiate and behind-the-scenes style of leadership like Singapore's, a few individuals do stand out.
  They may not be seen as possessing the giant stature of past ministers such as Dr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S Rajaratnam — yet. But the qualities of an agent of change, helping to shape a nation's future, are already surfacing in a couple of today's ministers.
  One does it with his Zen-like nature; the other, with his business-like mien.
  Beyond these qualities, what is it that makes ministers Khaw Boon Wan and Tharman Shanmugaratnam tick?
  The two career civil servants were among the so-called "Super Seven" to have risen rapidly within the ranks — joining the Cabinet in August 2003, just two years after making their political debut in the 2001 general elections.
  Since then, the two names have become synonymous with the national agendas for health and education.
  Mr Khaw, 54, is a man fighting to keep medical costs low. Hence the online posting of charges by private and public hospitals to make it easier for patients to compare prices and choose the kind of treatment that best suits their pockets.
  Then, there's the ongoing reform of the 3Ms (Medisave, MediShield, Medifund) — aimed at ensuring that Singaporeans will have sufficient enforced savings for medical contingencies — an issue which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong once said Mr Khaw "lives and sleeps with every day".
  In education, Mr Shanmugaratnam, 49, has tackled areas that have long troubled parents and their children. Among the lauded efforts to make education less rote and less based on academic results are the scrapping of the 29-year-old system of primary school streaming and the introduction of more fun ways to learn the Chinese language.
  In short, what the two men set in motion concerns everyone from the cradle to the grave.
  "It is the importance of the ministry that defines the importance of the man," said political scientist Ho Khai Leong from the Nanyang Technological University (NTU).
  While health and education are big issues in any country, they have become major preoccupations in Singapore, where concerns over affordable health care for the elderly have grown in tandem with the ever-growing number of senior citizens; and where education is seen as the key to keeping Singapore a step ahead of competitors who are catching up faster than ever.
  But while the portfolios in themselves are high profile, the leaders put in charge have also certainly excelled in their jobs, observers said.
  "They answered the call," Assoc Prof Ho said of Mr Khaw and Mr Shanmugaratnam, who became Senior Ministers of State immediately after the 2001 elections. "They are meticulous, knowing the details of the issues."
  Such understanding is seen as closely linked to two things: The individual's mental agility and his pre-politics experience in policy-making.
  During Mr Khaw's 23 years as a civil servant, he spent 14 years in the Ministry of Health (MOH). There, he had conceived the idea of Medisave in 1983 when he was an administrative service officer working for then-Health Minister Goh Chok Tong, said a former colleague.
  After that, the high-flier went on from 1985 to 1992 to head three hospitals: National University Hospital, Kandang Kerbau Hospital (now known as KK Women's and Children's Hospital) and Singapore General Hospital.
  While the engineer-trained Colombo Plan scholar had never expected such a healthcare-centred career, the experience has certainly revealed his flexibility and given him the "intimate knowledge" necessary for him to "make things happen" as Health Minister, said an industry insider.
  The experience probably also played a big part in imparting the necessary confidence to act firmly as minister.
  Looking at his track record in MOH, it wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that Mr Khaw had impressed Mr Goh enough to be invited to join the 2001 campaigning team of Singapore's second Prime Minister.
  For Mr Shanmugaratnam, his career at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) provided him with a similar opportunity to prove his mettle to another future Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong.
  The MAS was where Mr Shanmugaratnam, a London School of Economics graduate, spent nearly his entire professional life, working as an economist. It was only from 1995 to 1997 that he hopped over to the Education Ministry as its Deputy Secretary (Policy).
  So, although he had not spent much time in education circles, Mr Shanmugaratnam was, like Mr Khaw, an old hand at crafting big plans for the nation.
  The chance to shine before one of the country's top men came in 1997 when Mr Shanmugaratnam returned to MAS at a higher position than before: Deputy managing director. It was from then that he had ample opportunities to work with and impress Mr Lee, who was Deputy Prime Minister at the time and concurrently appointed head of MAS in 1998.
  Mr Shanmugaratnam was later promoted to managing director and then invited to join the People's Action Party.
  Prof Ho believes Mr Shanmugaratnam's "professorial" quality is one reason why he has been an effective Education Minister — he is able to break down complex issues and policies such that the public understands him. It is a trait that Mr Khaw shares, Prof Ho said.
  Another of Mr Shanmugaratnam's strong points is the "ability to empathise with the anxieties, concerns and aspirations of the people", noted Mr Viswa Sadasivan, chief executive of public relations firm Strategic Moves.
  Such empathy may have something to do with the fact that this is one minister who knows what it is like to be on the wrong side of the law.
  In 1992, Mr Shanmugaratnam, an MAS economist at the time, came under intense public scrutiny when he was charged for breaching the Official Secrets Act. Because he had brought a confidential report — containing an advance estimate of Singapore's quarterly economic growth — into a meeting with journalists who went on to publish the figure ahead of its official release, the courts fined him $1,500 in 1994.
  "All these experiences have made him a well-rounded person," said Mr Viswa.
  In Mr Khaw's case, his spirituality is often cited as a key to his success.
  Several commentators have said before that the Buddhist never appears ruffled. He is always calm and, like Senior Minister Goh, is able to connect with people on a grassroots level.
  Mr Viswa puts it down to the Zen belief that people on the ground should be treated with fairness and dignity, thus lending Mr Khaw a certain "moral courage" to act.
  Perhaps, Mr Khaw's readiness to act — in terms of pushing for far-reaching changes in Singapore's health landscape — may also be related to his desire to retire from politics sooner, rather than later.
  In a Today interview last November, Mr Khaw dropped hints of retiring as he recalled how entering politics was never his wish.
  He had said this might be his last term in the Health Ministry, a "very meaningful portfolio" from which he would like to retire from politics.
  And for a minister, what can be more meaningful than to put in place reforms that would benefit the whole nation long after he is gone?
  No matter when he makes his exit, there is little doubt that Mr Khaw has left his mark in the ministry. Ditto for Mr Shanmugaratnam.
  But for all their outstanding performances, one thing should not be forgotten: That no minister, or his ministry, is an island.
  As Prime Minister Lee once said, his Cabinet is "a collegiate team", where ministers jointly work on issues, such as dengue or labour, which touch their portfolios.
  At the same time, those who oversee ministries that deal with more sensitive information, such as Home Affairs and Defence, may be less in the public eye, but they too are making big contributions behind the scenes, said political commentator Zulkifli Baharudin.
  The businessman and former Nominated Member of Parliament added : "The Singapore system emphasises less on personality."
  Except that of the Prime Minister.
  Said Assoc Prof Ho: "PM is the first among equals. He's the one making policy and the rest are overshadowed by his presence." Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved http://www.todayonline.com/articles/217671.asp

SG govt expenditure2006

Fr 'SG in fig 07': http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/reference/sif2007.pdf
In short:2006:
Tot Opr expenditure: $23,463M
Edu spend: $5,684M
Health: $1,764M
Defence: $11,973M

$5,600 psf for penthouse new high in property price here

$297,000p.a. for the next 99yrs (every-yr),

Dear 'foreigner', (if your $$ is legitimate): thank you for your faith in Singapore's ability to contribute to your future.

I think:
1) You are a responsible person, understanding that SG's defence costs $11B p.a. and are willing to play your part through investing in a leasehold property that depreciates @ $297K p.a. In return for your interest in Singapore, I'm sure our citizens (trough various NS liabilities) will safeguard your property like their own- with their lives.

2) I salute your vision and integrity.
- -

Rich Singaporeans should realize that they are 'Defrauding' the govt of $2.03B p.a. through their support for freehold property laws in a land scarce developed country.
ERP, COE, water conservation taxes, GST, medisave etc are all well established pay per use systems.
SLA has already legislated that new 99yr-leasehold land shall be valued at 96% its freehold worth.
Can SG afford $2.03B p.a. annual subsidy to the rich?

Why hurry to implement means testing, annuity schemes?
$2.03B donation to the rich?
***FREEHOLD HAS NO PLACE IN A LAND SCARCE DEVELOPED CITY***

& MBT must stop copying the British crappy property laws...


Anyhow, thank you foreigner, given your contribution, I hope the next GST increase can be delayed by a short while...

($297k pa= $280k +4%prop tax, 1% bc 99yr, 1% maintenance fee )



------
$5,600 psf for penthouse new high in property price here
BT 12.10.2007
53rd-storey Orchard Residences unit fetches over $28m

By KALPANA RASHIWALA

A NEW record property price for Singapore has been set, even though fewer sales are being made in high-end residential projects since the time of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis.

CapitaLand and Sun Hung Kai Properties are said to have sold earlier this week a penthouse on the 53rd storey of The Orchard Residences for about $5,600 per square foot (psf), or over $28 million. This surpasses the previous benchmark of $5,500 psf set in August when a 54th storey penthouse fetched about $27.8 million.

This means that all four penthouses in the 99-year leasehold development are now sold.

The developers are said to have sold about 73 per cent of the total 175 units in the condo. The buyer of the final penthouse sold this week is believed to be a foreigner. The 5,048 sq ft unit has five bedrooms, a study and a family room.

A stone's throw away, Wheelock Properties (Singapore) is said to have sold more than 30 apartments at its freehold Scotts Square since the official launch of the project on Sept 28.

The developer is said to have largely maintained its average price at around the $4,000 psf mark from its preview in July, when it sold about half of the project's 338 apartments.

Over in Sentosa Cove, Ho Bee has sold 38 of the 50 units it has released so far in its 91-unit condo, Turquoise, since late September. The units have been sold at prices ranging from nearly $2,500 psf to $2,770 psf.

The average price is about $2,600 psf, Ho Bee Investment executive director Ong Chong Hua said when contacted by BT yesterday. Buyers of the 38 units - which include four penthouses - were an equal mix of foreigners and Singaporeans, he said.

Apartments at the 99-year leasehold Turquoise typically cost around $5.3 million for a three-bedroom unit, $6.4 million for a four-bedder and around $9.3 million for a penthouse.

DTZ Debenham Tie Leung executive director (residential) Margaret Thean acknowledges that buyers, both local and foreign, have been more cautious after the stock market setback at the time of the US sub-prime mortgage crisis.

'But we still see activity going on. For the high-end projects, we've not noticed any withdrawal of liquidity. The only difference is that prospective buyers are more cautious, doing more calculations and being more selective in their choice of investment before making a commitment,' she said.

Market watchers also say that the recovery in the stock market in recent weeks has led to a return of confidence in the property market, as seen in a pick-up in subsales activity lately.

Over in the Seletar Hills area, Tong Eng Brothers unit Fairview Developments is launching two landed developments. One is the freehold 8 @ Stratton, comprising eight cluster semi-detached houses priced at $1.98 million to $2.2 million.

The houses have built-up areas ranging from 3,595 sq ft to 3,649 sq ft and strata areas of 4,930 sq ft to 5,145 sq ft. The second project is Nim Green, a collection of just three terrace houses - a corner unit with an asking price of $2.5 million and two intermediate units with a price tag of about $2 million.


Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://forums.condosingapore.com/showthread.php?t=2758

No need to raise GST if land sales seen as revenue

STI Home > ST Forum > Story > Print
Feb 3, 2007
No need to raise GST if land sales seen as revenue
THERE has been much debate in the media about the proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike.
The crux of the official argument is that the hike is needed to fund Workfare, and a cut in corporate-tax rates for Singapore to remain attractive to investors.
I am all in favour of a balanced Budget but we have unfortunately adopted a super- conservative approach in budgeting that fails to present a fair view of the true economics of the numbers. Government land 'sales', which contribute a huge chunk of revenue, have been ignored.
I am convinced that the Budget can be balanced without a GST hike if land 'sales', which are a true cash inflow, are included in Budget calculations.
The Government does not actually sell land; it sells leases, most of which are 99 years or less. In due course, the land reverts to the state or the leases are topped up, for example, the Marina Bay integrated resort has delivered $1 billion to the Treasury on a 30-year lease.
Hence, the cash inflow is similar to rental income and thus recurring in nature. Indeed, not including government land sales in Budget calculations as part of operating revenue is an economic distortion.
The impending two-point hike in GST will raise an additional $1.5 billion in revenue but data from the Ministry of Finance website shows that proceeds from land sales are in excess of this amount. At $4 billion per annum, revenue from land sales is about 2 per cent of GDP or about 14 per cent of government expenditure.
Ignoring the value of land sales is like a household with an income of $100,000 per annum refusing to bank $14,000 cheques.
The GST hike is also expected to further stunt the domestic economy which, despite its small size relative to GDP, employs the majority of the workforce. We need a vibrant domestic economy for local entrepreneurship to flourish. Also, virtually all the MNCs that we court today and local big boys were once small companies selling to the domestic community.
Joseph Chong Thiam Fook

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access
http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:d212076185380110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:vgnpdate:1170539940000

Rise in land development charge will allow fair sharing of property gains

MBT "Rise in land development charge will allow fair sharing of property gains "

22 July 2007 2106 hrs
SINGAPORE : The primary intention of the land development charge increase is not to slow down the frenzied property market.
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan says the aim is to facilitate a fair sharing of the enhancement in the value of the land.
Last Wednesday, the government announced an increase in the land development charge from 50 to 70 per cent.
Experts were split, with some saying it would slow down the en bloc sales frenzy as developers would have to fork out more for land.
This would in turn stem rising rental costs as fewer redevelopments mean fewer apartments torn down.
But others said the bullish market sentiments would override that.
Weighing in, the National Development Minister says the impact on en bloc sales will be minimal and underlines the rationale behind the charge.
He says: "The development charge is to take some of that increase in value to go and improve the infrastructure. Roads, rail, power, whatever. Because you know when you increase the plot ratio - build more flats, build to a higher level - you need to provide the infrastructure. So that's what the development charge is. You could say it's a tax on the increase in the value as a result of government action."
So depending on the stipulated land use, some projects may not be affected.
Mr Mah says: "When you look at the different en bloc sales you'll realise that some en bloc sales actually do not incur development charge at all, partly because they are actually able already to develop up to a higher intensity. So, the government doesn't have to go in and change the planning parameters."
He notes that a recession in 1985 led to the downward revision of the land development charge.
But now that the property market has more than recovered, it is time to reinstate things.
Mr Mah says: "It's what we feel to be a fair share of the enhancement of the value of the land. So that's why during this time, the market is healthy, we decided it's timely for us to go back to the original."
He says the current squeeze will only last a short while as he expects ample supply to come in over the next 2 or 3 years in various categories.
And to further ensure smooth functioning of the market, there should be comprehensive information sharing by analysts and developers.
He says: "This is not just government coming out with such information. I think developers and analysts should also make it a point when they put out information that they should put it out based on facts, not based on speculation. And if they do publish information based on their own analysis of the situation, I think it's important for them to upfront say so, so that people know."
"It's not just the government agencies putting out information. It's very important to make sure that you keep publishing out this information so everybody knows, so they don't get spooked, panicked by one particular headline, one report in the papers about record prices here or record rentals there."
In all, Mr Mah says the property market will continue to be monitored with sustainable growth in mind, and more land will be released through the government land sales programme if necessary
http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showpost.php?p=24747096&postcount=65

Singapore's Rich-Poor Divide

HOW COME THE RICH-POOR DIVIDE DOES NOT CLOSE DESPITE BEING THERE BEFORE AND CORRECTING THE PROBLEM? WHAT ARE WE MISSING?
Singapore Swing
The island's economy is booming. So why are so many citizens worse off than they were 10 years ago?
- Singapore's Rich-Poor Divide
By Sonia Kolesnikov-Jessop (Newsweek International)
Jan. 29, 2007 issue - Tiny Singapore, with its population of 4.3 million, is often lauded for the way it has embraced globalization to maximum advantage. In the last decade, the city-state has opened its doors wide to foreign investment and talent, slashed corporate taxes, offered incentives to nurture strategic industries (such as biotech, pharmaceuticals and financial services) and cut free-trade deals with a host of other countries. The payoff has seemed clear: over the past three years, Singapore's economy has averaged 7.6 percent growth—a staggering pace for an industrialized state—and created new jobs at a rate any European government would envy.
There's only one problem: average citizens have yet to reap the benefits. New statistics reveal that middle-class households have tasted none of Singapore's spectacular growth, and that the island's poorest 30 percent are worse off than they were five years ago. "Although we have seen very strong growth, we're experiencing this new phenomenon of median real-wage stagnation and low-income decline," says Yeoh Lam Keong, vice president of the Economic Society of Singapore. This predicament is hardly unique. Wages and salaries are stagnating across the industrial world. What's surprising is that even a country famous for its smart and transparent leadership has been unable to prevent the gains of globalization from flowing mostly to rich individuals and multinational corporations. In its bid to adapt Singapore's economy to international competition, the government has tried hard to reduce business costs. This has meant slashing labor prices, which has helped push wages down. According to official figures, over the past five years Singapore's wealthiest 10 percent have seen their income rise by 2.3 percent annually (and that doesn't include nonwage earnings such as capital gains or dividends). At the same time, the poorest 10 percent have suffered a staggering 4.3 percent drop in their salaries each year. The government has also allowed employers to cut their contributions to Singapore's Central Provident Fund, which pays for pensions, public housing, medical expenses and educatn on.
Together, these factors have led to lower-than-expected private consumption, which has risen by just 3 percent in the past two years. "Private consumer spending has been the weak link in this current expansion," says Chua Hak Bin, an economist at Citigroup Global Markets in Singapore. This has, in turn, stung Singapore's large retail sector. "It is evident that [they] are not the big winners from high growth," says Manu Bhaskaran, a director of the U.S.-based Centennial Group.
Foreign competition is also hurting. Contractor Tan Boon Soo is one of many Singaporeans feeling the pinch. He installs windows for a living but laments "cutthroat competition" from contract laborers, who have flooded the island from places such as Indonesia and Bangladesh. Unskilled workers like street sweepers and security guards are also finding themselves undercut by immigrants willing to work for less. This is forcing native Singaporeans to change occupations or work harder for less money. "They talk about growth, but I don't see it," says Tan. "Maybe the bankers are doing well, but construction has not been. I'm worse off now than I was in 1997."
All this could spell big trouble. "If these trends continue unchecked," warns Yeoh, "we could begin to get the formation of an underclass [and] the makings of social instability." Such an underclass was never part of Singapore's grand plan. Now its leaders must figure out how to prevent one from emerging without relying on the kind of welfare programs they often deride. Last year the government launched an experimental workfare program that gave low-wage earners bonus pay of up to $780. Now Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's government is con- sidering making the program permanent in an effort to thin the ranks of the working poor.
"We will try out different forms, but the principle will be the same—help yourself [and] we will help you," the prime minister told lawmakers last November. "It's essential for us to tilt the balance in favor of lower-income Singaporeans because globalization is going to strain our social compact."
Lee has already announced that he'll make Singapore's rich-poor divide a major focus of his annual budget speech next month.
If knowing is half the battle, it could be an important first step.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.lopn.net/ST_Casestudy22_Richpoor.html

Overcharged by cabbies twice in a week

Home > ST Forum > Online Story
Oct 18, 2007
Overcharged by cabbies twice in a week
ON OCT 6, I took a Comfort taxi from Marina Bay outside Superbowl Country Club to Tagore Avenue.
The driver told me that he would use the PIE and pass by Yio Chu Kang. The fare was $24.60, including peak hour surcharge.
But just last week, around the same time and at the same location, the journey in a Transcab taxi cost me less than $15, including peak hour surcharge.
I called Comfort to lodge a complaint. The following week, somebody called me to say that the driver had been given a warning. I was slightly appeased.
But to my dismay, on Oct 16 at 6.19pm, I boarded a Comfort cab - this time, I was going from Tagore Ave to Compassvale Crescent Block 295A.
The driver used a route unfamiliar to me, so I asked him whether he knew the way. He assured me that he knew the place and told me it was a short cut.
Upon reaching somewhere near the Layar LRT station, he asked me if I knew the way. How could he claim earlier that he knew where he was going? Eventually, after circling around the area for a while, he reached the destination.
The total fare was $10.80, including peak-hour surcharge. The same journey previously cost me only $8.
Yes, two cabs can get to the same place in the end but what consumers are looking for is a cheaper and faster journey to our destination.
Warning the drivers is one thing, but we have already been overcharged.
Chen Zhenzuan (Miss)
http://www.straitstimes.com/ST+Forum/Online+Story/STIStory_167944.html

Court orders a stay on Phoenix Court en bloc sale

It's a real mess: Judge
Court orders a stay on Phoenix Court en bloc sale
Weekend • September 8, 2007

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg
IT HAD seemed like a walk in the park for Phoenix Court residents en route to a windfall, when the owners of all but one of the units agreed to sell off their apartments collectively for $88.1 million.
But just 11 days to go before the owners were due to pocket $1.8 million each, the sale has been stalled indefinitely — in a complicated legal saga that demonstrates why impending sweeping changes to the en bloc legislation, unveiled just two weeks ago in Parliament, are desperately needed.
On Friday, High Court Judge Andrew Ang, after hearing an appeal by the dissenting co-owners ordered that the sale be put on hold as he reserved judgement.
The tussle began in April last year when owners of freehold Phoenix Court (picture), a 13-storey apartment block in River Valley, inked the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). Out of the 47 units, the only dissenting co-owners were an elderly couple, Mr Yip Hoi Thong and Madam Ng Swee Lang.
Six months later, a deal was sealed with Bukit Panjang Plaza for $88.1 million. The sale committee went on to apply for a Strata Titles Board (STB) order to proceed with the sale in January. After the Board dismissed the couple's objection, they took the matter to the High Court, demanding that the sale be annulled due to "defective" procedures.
Their lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Hwang, argued that two of the three majority owners who had applied to the STB for the sale order, were not authorised to do so.
He also took issue with the fact that the valuation report by Savills was done six weeks after the CSA was signed — which while in line with current legislation, would flout new laws which are expected to kick in next month.
Furthermore, the method of distribution of the sale proceeds was also omitted from the sale and purchase (S&P) agreement.
Lawyer Christopher Yong, who was acting for the sale committee, pointed out that it was common industry practice to set out the method in the CSA only, adding that it was "at worst a technical error" that should not jeopardise the whole sale.
But Mr Hwang argued that the S&P agreement must define the contractual obligations between a buyer and the individual owners — since members of sale committee "lose interest very quickly, especially if they have gotten their money".
The prevalent practice of treating the owners as one collective entity has resulted in many problems arising from "post-completion issues", including the deadline for each owner to vacate.
Mr Yong maintained that what mattered was for the STB to be satisfied that the deal was done in "good faith" . He said the statutory requirements "are not absolute" and a deal must be allowed to go through as long as the procedural lapses are immaterial.
But Mr Hwang disagreed: "This is in effect a compulsory acquisition. The onus is on those who acquire my clients' properties to adhere strictly to the requirements set out by the law."
With the sale due to go through on Sept 18 and with many owners already committed to their new properties, Justice Ang did not hide his unease at ordering a stay on the deal — a move that could potentially result in further lawsuits by the buyers.
"Aptly summed up, it's a real mess," the judge said as he shook his head.
This is not the only "mess" for Phoenix Court residents. In a separate development, a group of 13 majority owners — who had turned their backs on the sale — have filed an appeal after their case was dismissed by the High Court. The group argued that the extension to the CSA — which had already expired — was not valid.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/210030.asp

Put specialists and GPs under one roof

HEALTH-CARE COSTS
Put specialists and GPs under one roof
By SALMA KHALIK, Health Correspondent
ST Oct 19, 2007
Today, the provision of chronic care is divided between specialists in their specialist clinics and general practitioners in their private clinics or polyclinics.
The best way to treat the growing group of patients with chronic ailments is a holistic approach specialist care when needed, GP or polyclinic care at other times, and even care by nurse practitioners in between for patients whose conditions are stable.
Such "right-siting" of care has been the buzzword in health-care circles here for some years. Giving the Proper level of care and no more than that is the best way to keep health-care costs down.
In theory, everyone agrees with this. In practice, it is more difficult to implement.
Part of the problem is that patients do not want to move down the expertise ladder once they are being treated by a specialist.
This is partly due to the belief that specialists give better care. But specialists are the first to admit that not: all patients need the level of care they give.
Many sick people whose conditions are not severe, or are stable, can be treated by their family or poly-clinic doctor. But public-sector specialists complain that they have a hard time discharging patients who refuse to leave their care especially subsidised patients, who fear that once they are discharged from the Specialist Outpatient Clinic (SOC), they might have difficulty getting back in as subsidised patients should their condition deteriorate.
Add to that the very modest consultation fee of $20-$25 for subsidised patients seeing a specialist. This is close to what a private GP would charge. While polyclinics cost less, at $8 per visit, and half that for the elderly, the difference may not be too significant today.
Furthermore, patients, especially elderly ones who are more prone to chronic illnesses, are creatures of habit. Those who have been going to an SOC will want to keep doing so.
The solution appears obvious. Instead of moving patients from polyclinics to SOCs and back to polyclinic why not have both specialists and family doctors operating from the same place?
Instead of keeping SOCs hospital based, where the cost of space is high, why not move them out?
Similarly, polyclinics originally meant to treat the poorest 20 per cent of the population for acute illness are seeing increasing numbers of chronic acute patients.
Chronic-care centers housing both specialists and polyclinic doctors would solve several problems at the same time.
It would leave the polyclinics free to deal with acute illness and thus get rid of the long queues seen today.
Subsidised patients no longer need to decide whether to stick to a specialist or return to the polyclinic.
They go to this centre, get a quick check from the triage nurse who then gives them an appointment with either a general doctor or a specialist, according to the patient's need at the time of visit.
This way, fewer specialists will be needed to care for a larger pool of patients.
Even better yet, train more nurse practitioners who can see patients on alternate visits. Some polyclinics are already doing this. This practice should be extended to bring specialists into the loop as well.

Moving SOCs out of hospitals will have another benefit. It frees up expensive hospital space for inpatient care. Instead of expanding existing hospitals, build these chronic-care centres in large housing estates.
Specialists who have inpatients could spend half a day at the hospital and the other half at the chronic-care centre. Should the patient need to be hospitalised, he would be treated by the same specialist.
For patients, having a chronic-care centre that treats various ailments such as diabetes, hypertension and heart problems means going to just one place for all their needs.
The patient's files would be shared by all the doctors he sees at the centre, so they would know what other medicines he is taking.
This way, a patient who needs specialist care for a short period need not have to get a referral from a polyclinic doctor then make an extra trip to a hospital to see the specialists. It can all be done during that one visit. The pharmacy would also be able to double check to ensure that he is not given any medicine that would react adversely with something else he is taking.
Peripheral health-care services, such as podiatric care for diabetics, rehabilitation centres for recovering stroke patients or a gym for heart patients to get back into shape, could: all be housed in the same place.
As the population ages, number of people with chronic ailments will go up. If Singapore continues with its current pigeon-hole system, health care will remain fragmented.
Bringing the various services under one roof will give patients holistic care and free specialists to look after those who really need their level of expertise. It should also he keep a cap on rising health-care costs.
salma@sph.com.sg

http://www.straitstimes.com/Review/Others/STIStory_168324.html

MOH deserves a hand for the 'reality' check

Ok... some good feedback for MOH.... (I'm impartial)

MOH deserves a hand for the 'reality' check
Friday • September 21, 2007
Letter from Jeffrey Yeo
I REFER to the letter, "Give more thought to new ideas" (Sept 18). The issue of long waiting times at polyclinics has been around for some time. But due compliments have to be given to all healthcare workers and the Ministry of Health (MOH) in coming up with initiatives and ideas to arrest the pain of these agonising long waits.
The polyclinic is an important institution to many heartlanders like myself, as they offer affordable and quality medical services. While there is currently no perfect solution, it is comforting to know that agencies have taken the first step in bringing "reality" to members of the public.
The webcam system allowing members of the public to know the length of the queue will improve with time, as I believe MOH and the two healthcare groups will come up with a better framework.
Members of the public could and should play an active role in suggesting innovative and constructive ideas to help improve the process. Good healthcare involves both you and I. We, too, can help bring it to the next higher level.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/212482.asp

Why pharmacists resign ...

Now we know why...

Why pharmacists resign ...
Better work conditions, pay may help stem high turnover rate of these professionals
Friday • September 21, 2007
Letter from Darren Chong
I refer to the report, "MOH to recruit more pharmacists from overseas" (Sept 17). It was reported that of the 1,482 pharmacists on the register here, less than half are involved in direct patient care, such as practising in hospitals, polyclinics and retail pharmacies.
This is a worrying figure. While I applaud the ministry's efforts to recruit more pharmacists from overseas, it should also delve further into why pharmacists are not practising and find ways to stem the drain.
I know a pharmacist who has worked in a retail pharmacy and in one of the restructured hospitals. During her stint with the retail pharmacy, she worked from 10am to 10pm, with only half an hour's break for lunch and dinner. This included Saturdays and Sundays, when business is most brisk. Most times, she was the only pharmacist during that 12-hour stretch.
When she was working at a hospital, it was common to see her and her colleagues having lunch at 3pm, after they attended to the last patient from the morning crowd.
At times, she was called back to the hospital even though she was on leave. She worked till 3pm on Saturdays, even though the official knock-off time was 12.30pm. Sundays could become working days when duty called — working one Sunday per month is common.
Such is the life of a pharmacist, be it in hospitals, retail pharmacies or polyclinics.
Increasing demands on pharmacists without adequate compensation leads to many leaving the profession.
Perhaps it is time to review pharmacists' salaries. They are, after all, highly-trained medical professionals who run specialised clinics and make rounds with the doctors to ensure patients fully benefit from treatment.
Until we address the concerns of pharmacists and plug the outflow, increasing the number of pharmacists will not ease the crunch. Sourcing from foreign supply is but a short-term solution to a long-term problem.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/212495.asp

Means testing a minefield

Means testing a minefield
ST: April 19, 2007 Thu

MEANS testing to allocate subsidy for using the public hospital system appears imminent. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has gone so far as to suggest that, for a start, a limited form of sorting to steer more aid towards low-income patients could be the five-day threshold.
Patients who have stayed longer than five days in B and C class wards will have their finances checked to determine how much or how little support they should receive, based on their means. It is important that the basis of evaluation is understood.
There is no quarrel with the thinking that rationing of state-funded health-care resources is necessary since these are limited by the Government's fiscal priorities. An unequal shareout among patients can be defended if done with fairness. It is unlike subsidised education, which is not means-tested as it is an inalienable right of citizens. There is a political dimension to the issue as well, in that the Government has to demonstrate its seriousness in minimising the bad effects of the wealth gap.
Implementation is the tricky part. Devising the yardsticks to make the means test least objectionable is going to challenge the most imaginative of ministry bureaucrats.
Should it be the income or assets test or something else? On income, the ministry can expect to run into a thicket of exceptions and objections. Patients of the middle-income bracket and upwards will reasonably expect undiscounted subsidised care, if they choose to, as they pay tax. Two-thirds of the workforce do not pay tax but receive the most state benefits.
The middle-income group will not begrudge non-taxpayers receiving the full subsidy, but will resent the means test as discriminatory of them. There are other inherent weaknesses. People of 'means' could be supporting aged or ailing parents. Assets test then? Assets can be hidden in trusts or are simply undeclared. Statutory declarations are intrusive, which will invite more resentment.
Retirees living in private housing but on limited savings would be most fearful of the cost of falling ill. They are a large group of health-care consumers. The assets test will probably penalise them.
In the end, the Government will come under pressure to increase its Budget allocation for health. Careful thought must go into the means exercise so that the system does not end up alienating one segment of the citizenry while helping another. The best neutral advice: Those who can afford it should consider taking out private medical insurance. It is the soundest bet against an inexorable trend of ever costlier treatment and husbanded resources.
http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/...e:1177019940000 http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?t=1590174&page=2&pp=15
------

Have disease-specific time limits for means testing
I REFER to the editorial, 'Means testing a minefield' (ST, April 19). Most people would agree with the principle that the less well-off should receive more subsidies. However, follow-up questioning would likely reveal that none of them would consider themselves as 'well-off', and therefore they, too, should be deserving of subsidies.
Therein lies the difficulty of means testing - everyone agrees with the principle, but the devil is in the details of the implementation. I would like to make the following suggestions for the public and Health Ministry to consider.
Firstly, on the qualifying criteria for subsidy, no matter how the cut-off line is drawn, there will be unhappiness among those above the line. The use of a sliding scale, so that everyone enjoys at least some subsidy, is to be commended.
Furthermore, the criteria should keep pace with healthcare inflation. For example, the current maximum of $500 per capita family income for downgrading to C class was implemented in 2001. Data from Statistics Singapore shows that health-care costs have risen by almost 10 per cent since then, and only 238,000 households met this limit in 2005.
Secondly, the proposed limit of five days' stay in a public hospital is too simplistic. Certain conditions, by their very nature, necessitate a stay of more than five days, e.g., colon-cancer operation. It is also for these very conditions that we worry about chalking up large bills, rather than one-off admissions like childbirth, hernia surgery or knee replacement. With disease-specific data readily available from Casemix, the ministry should instead set disease-specific time limits.
Lastly, the public is apt to view this exercise as a cost-cutting measure. To assure us otherwise, the Government should channel the projected savings back to us, especially to those who will be affected adversely by means testing. This could be in the form of an upgrade of our MediShield packages, to assure us that although we may no longer qualify for C-class subsidies, we would still be able to afford the necessary health care when the need arises.
Gerald Tan Jit Shen
http://angrydr.blogspot.com/2007/04/subsidy-and-other-preoccupations-11.html