A man of all emotions and stories, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Overheard from ->  Huifong Ng  (FB Link)

My tears were wiped. My palette was placed. My brushes were laid. ‘Thank you,’ I said.

I have finally finished painting the highly esteemed Mr Lee Kuan Yew, at his emotional announcement of Singapore’s independence, back in 1965.

I had taken 3 months to find a most poignant moment to paint of this great man. Amidst pictorials, interviews and videos of Mr Lee, this particular moment of his announcement touched my heart, even though it was 49 years ago! Only a genuine emotion is able to travel across such a long span of time into another one’s heart!

Due to the passion towards his country and compassion for his people, a dedicated soul too strong in his love for his nation, shed tears. Crying is not a sign of weakness but a significant meekness of heart with distinctive quality and strength.

Singapore has always been sentimental for me. In 1984, I was only three, my family took our first trip ever to the Lion City. To prepare all of us for this momentary first time on a plane, my mother dressed my brother and me up in our finest clothes. As she put a dash of makeup on my face, she whispered excitingly, ‘We’re flying on a plane!’ That moment still sits vividly in my heart to this day.

In the recent years, I have also been to Singapore frequently. Destiny has given me the opportunity to hold my first solo exhibition towards the end of the year. It was with an overwhelming gratitude that I wanted to paint something or better yet, someone for this beloved country.

Painting Mr Lee was an emotional experience. I had to take rest in between days so I could get away from crying. Then, I would return to paint again with persistent heartfelt passion. At the same time, it was also an exhilarating moment as I enjoyed each brushstroke and painted this man with my heart.

This is what I learned after watching and reading media about Mr Lee:
1. A sincere person who appreciates friends and colleagues.
2. A compassionate leader who cheers for his team.
3. A doting grandfather just like anyone his age.
4. A loving man to his family and the late Mrs Lee.
5. A man of all emotions and stories, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

As Singapore celebrates National Day on 9 Aug, here’s wishing all Singaporeans ‘A happy and beautiful 49th birthday!’

Huifong Ng

 

 

Advertisements

Portrait Photography of the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong by Alan Lim

Overheard from ALAN LIM, link -> ELEVEN | Singapore Photographer 

Portrait photography of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong by Alan Lim
PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY OF SINGAPORE PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG BY ALAN LIM

When I received a call from the Singapore Prime Minister’s office asking to produce a series of Portrait Photography for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, I was delighted. During my 12 years career as the senior executive photographer in The Straits Times I had photographed a few ministers and presidents of  Singapore in countless occasions including oversea trips for world conferences and meetings.

But this time it was a very different one, it was one-on-one, it was exclusive. Just a few years before, I had the same privilege to photograph the founding father of the modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew for his memoir.

After the meeting with the Prime Minister’s secretary and the usual pre-shoot location scouting, we finalized the concepts, locations, date and time for the shoot, but it was postponed a couple of time. First it was due to his busy schedule, then it was mine, but eventually it happened, of course.

On the day of the shoot, my assistant and I arrived at the Istana in the early morning, after getting all the set up ready we waited for the arrival of the Prime Minister. Shortly, I was informed of his arrival and I was called to see him. As I stepped into his office, there he was already walking toward me with his charming smile and the very approachable personality. Before I could greet him ‘Good morning, Mr Prime Minister’,  he beat me with a warm ‘Hello Alan, long time no see!’.

We had a little chat and I briefed him what we were gonna do, then he said to me the best thing any Professional Photographers would love to hear from someone with his status and power. ‘You just tell me what to do’, he said, and that was how the shoot began.

In less than three hours, a series of eight powerful up close and Personal Portraits were created within the Istana. The shoot went extremely well and the entire session was smooth with jokes and light-hearted conversation.

Till date, I would say that was one of the best, easiest, smoothest and most satisfying shoots I ever had.

Thanks to “You just tell me what to do”. To me, that sentence really means, professionalism, respect, and trust.

Alan Lim,

ELEVEN | Singapore Photographer

***********************************************************

Overheard from Wilson 

It’s hard to walk away from the shadow of your father, especially when latter was a giant. But LHL did.

Decisions made under his leadership often seem contrary to what the Elder Lee would have otherwise done.

  • While his father was near iron-fisted, he preferred a gentler hands off mutual consensual approach.
  • While his father was the face of the government, he preferred his team fronting the government.

You cannot deny him, his place, his position that he is indeed, his own man.

***********************************************************

 

Medishield Life : A Model for Affordable Healthcare Nationwide

Overheard from Mr Ho :

Medishield: A Model for Affordable Healthcare
Nationwide

Upon reflecting on Singapore’s remarkable achievements, this Writer is reminded of the proverb: ‘Necessity is the Mother of all Inventions’.

Indeed NEED was, has been, and always will be what drives Singaporeans and their Leaders to leave no stone unturned in their urgent quest to ‘invent’ ways to overcome obstacles in order for them to survive, progress and prosper.

To illustrate the crucial point about NEED or Lack, Singaporeans need no reminding that their lack of a source of water-supply for domestic, commercial and industrial needs challenged their leaders in the Public and the Corporate Sectors, relentlessly to find a solution for the Nation’s need for water.

With dedication, perseverance, the never-say-die attitude, and their faith in Science and Technology, the leaders pushed relentlessly at the frontier of the latest Technology, and of Experimentation and Research. Their effort paid off and Singapore is now no longer totally dependent on external sources for its water-supply. Singaporeans now have their source of water-supply in NeWater. And in the near future, the Singapore Establishment is confident that the Nation may be ‘water’ self-sufficient.

Deprived of natural resources, the leaders of the ruling PAP realised, at the outset of the emergence of Singapore as an independent, sovereign state, that Singapore needs to invest in the education of its people. Singaporeans have to be empowered with the requisite knowledge and skills to overcome their initial disadvantages and then to be able to provide the very services and needs that people of other countries would have a need for them.

To fight off competition, Singapore’s leaders are also only too well aware that Singaporeans need to be superior to their competitors. For the Government and the Private Sector this entails providing the working population with intensive training and ongoing upscaling of knowledge, expertise and skills. This is what the leaders in both the Corporate Sector and the Establishment think Singapore would have to do to stay abreast, if not ahead, of the best in the tertiary sector of the First World economies.

Likewise in the area of providing for the needs and healthcare of the Senior Citizens, the leaders in the Establishment and the Private Sector as well as those at the Community level need to come together to help formulate a sustainable healthcare model for the well-being of both their current working population as well as for the disabled, the poor and needy and their retired Senior Citizens.

With the support of the People, the leaders of Singapore have overcome many seemingly insuperable problems in the past. And to their credit, the world has come to recognise Singapore for its remarkable achievements.

Given Singapore’s standing as an exceptional Nation, can Singapore not also strive to be recognised for how it is able to cater to the health-care needs of all its citizens, both working and non-working?

Such a health-care model may entail different segments of the working population having to bear with additional differentiated sacrifice in terms of costs.

However they may find the sacrifice they have to bear for the moment more palatable when they realise that upon their retirement, or should they become unemployable on account of their health or other valid reasons, they will also enjoy the same healthcare benefits as their predecessors before them.

Surely Singaporeans and their Leaders would look keenly toward having another feather that they could add to their cap. However more importantly,

Singaporeans must gradually realise that they cannot have a Nation when everyone places a priority on self-interest. They must be able to see themselves each as the sum-total of the component parts of a whole which sustains them as a body. That body is the Community of Singaporeans from different ethnic grounds and cultures and from all walks of life.

Singaporeans response toward the government-initiated Medishield Scheme would serve as a good yardstick to show how much more effort we have to put in before we arrive at Nationhood. Meanwhile we need to continue to educate our people, young and old alike, to understand and accept that just as the survival of the individual is indispensibly dependent on the overall well-being of the Community, the welfare of the Community must of necessity take priority over that of the constituent individual.

This axiom of the rights and interest of the individual subsuming under those of the Community is a non-negotiable prerequisite of Nationhood.

By Ho Cheow Seng
July 25, 2014

*****************************************************

Official Link ->  Medishield Life

Congratulations to TeamSG Shooter Teo Shun Xie for clinching Singapore’s very first Gold medal ! :)

 FB link ->   Dr Tony Tan

Team Singapore shooter Teo Shun Xie won the Gold medal in the Women’s 10m Air Pistol competition earlier today. I just spoke with Shun Xie on the phone to congratulate her on winning Singapore’s first medal in the Glasgow Commonwealth Games. Well done! I wish her all the best for her next event, the 25m Pistol, which will take place tomorrow.

TT

(Photo credit: Ng Jing Hui, Singapore Shooting Association)

*************************************************************

#OurTeamSG GOLD!  ~  Tan Chuan-Jin

********************************************

Congratulations to #OurTeamSG Shooter Teo Shun Xie for clinching Singapore’s very first Gold medal at the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games!!! Her final score of 198.6 is also a new Final Commonwealth Games Record. Well done Shun Xie! You have done the nation proud!

Follow this link for more updates  -> Team Singapore

  • This is also our first medal in this commonwealth games is it?
    Team Singapore –  Yes, this is Singapore’s very first medal at the Games, and we’re happy that it’s Gold!
  • 3Cs to describe her – cool, calm, collected. And another C for her. CONGRATULATION !
  • Congrats, Teo Shun Xie, All Singaporean is proud of you. Congrats to Team Singapore.
    Our National Day Present
  • She wasn’t one of spotlight athletes to win a medal, but she did it and got a gold. Good going! Congratulations!
  • Well done. In the process, she beaten the current world number 1….

Strength of govt’s investment system is “we have assets that exceed our liabilities”: Tharman

 By ,  POSTED: 23 Jul 2014, Channel NewsAsia

Source link :  Strength of govt’s investment system is “we have assets that exceed our liabilities”: Tharman

SINGAPORE: Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam fielded questions about the Central Provident Fund (CPF) and retirement adequacy at a forum organised by the Institute of Policy Studies on Tuesday (July 22).

Questions touched on areas ranging from increasing the withdrawal amount beyond S$5,000 for CPF members who are not able to set aside the Minimum Sum after they turn 55 years old, to coping with inflation.

In response, Mr Tharman said: “You do want to provide some flexibility for withdrawal, some people incurred debts, some people have sudden needs and allowing them to withdraw some monies meets a real need, but it comes at a cost, because if you withdraw monies early, it means that the stream of income you have for the rest of your life diminishes.

And it diminishes by more than most people expect because you are losing out not just on that lump sum but the interest that you are going to accumulate in retirement. And bear in mind that the interest rate that our annuity scheme provides through CPF Life is vastly superior to most others.”

There were also questions about helping lower-income Singaporeans meet their retirement needs. Mr Tharman said that the CPF today, along with Government subsidies targeted at lower- and middle-income CPF members, provides a solid foundation for the future.

“If you take what we are doing in the Government budget, through all the enhancements we have made, it is really a different set of social policy and social support for lower-income Singaporeans, through life and in retirement compared to what we used to have,” he said.

“If you take Workfare, if you take the housing grants, if you take the support for medical needs, if you take the range of support that we are providing, if you just look at what goes through the CPF system and leave out support outside the CPF system, what it will mean is by the time today’s lower-income young family retires, the Government would have given them about $160,000 by the time they are 65.”

Blogger Roy Ngerng, who attended the forum, asked DPM Tharman several questions, including whether Temasek Holdings had managed CPF monies prior to the establishment of GIC and why GIC did not know if it was investing CPF funds. A full of transcript of their exchange follows:

Mr Ngerng: Now that we know that the CPF is invested in the GIC, is it also possible to know what is the interest earned in SG terms since inception? Secondly, Temasek Holdings has said that they do not invest our CPF, is it possible to know if in the past Temasek Holdings had invested our CPF? Because the GIC was only set up in 1981, so prior to 1981, how was the CPF used and otherwise was it invested in Temasek Holdings? Thirdly, how much has the Government earned in absolute monetary terms from the excess returns of the CPF and will the Government consider returning some of them to Singaporeans? Finally, the GIC has said before June this year that they do not know if they invest our CPF because it is not made explicit to them – they said this on the GIC FAQ. But the Government made an about-turn in June this year and admitted that they do. So in the interest of public interest, is it possibly to know why the Government made an about-turn? It might also be intriguing because the Government is also on the board of the GIC, so it would be insightful to know why. Thank you.

DPM Tharman: I’ll start with Roy Ngerng’s points. First, a few factual matters; you asked some factual questions.

Did Temasek manage the CPF funds in the past?

No. It has never managed CPF funds. Temasek started off with a set of assets which were transferred by the Government at time of inception. I don’t have the exact figure in my head – but about $400 million dollars worth of assets in the form of a set of companies. It has never received CPF monies to invest.

What was the case in the early days, before we amended the constitution in 1992, is that CPF monies, which were invested in Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS), could be used by the Government to finance infrastructure – such as road infrastructure, Singapore’s economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. Just like (other) Singapore Government Securities (SGS), the Government was allowed to use borrowings in addition to the revenues it got in its budget, to finance infrastructural investments. That was the old system.

That changed in 1992. Together with Constitutional amendments, we introduced the new Government Securities Act, which disallowed the Government from using borrowings for spending. From then onwards, all borrowings – the SGS, SSGS – have had to be invested.

How are they invested?

Prior to the formation of the GIC, it was the MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore). It was an old-fashioned, central bank investment system. Dr Goh (Keng Swee) changed that, explained why, explained that these are basically longer-term assets, and we should invest them for the longer term. And a significant chunk of reserves that were managed by the MAS were passed back to the Government, which then had the GIC manage them.

So that was the system in the old days; the MAS manages the CPF assets, but after the GIC was set up in the early 1980s, it was essentially the GIC that manages CPF assets – but not as CPF assets. It is managing Government assets: managing all Government assets put together.

Which brings me to the next question about whether GIC knows it is managing CPF assets.

GIC knows it is managing Government assets. That is the Government’s mandate for the GIC. The mandate is irrespective of the sources of funds it manages, which comprise the SSGS, the SGS, Government surpluses, the proceeds from land sales – all Government funds.

And the GIC (hence) pays no regard to what the source of funds is. It just has to meet its mandate: to invest for the long term, take risks, in the hope of achieving good long-term returns, significantly about global inflation.

And that is a real strength of our system. The real strength of our system is that besides the CPF, we have unencumbered Government assets – Government assets that don’t have liabilities like the CPF. And the GIC is therefore able to invest, blind to where the funds come from. It’s able to invest the whole pool of funds for the long term. If the GIC was just managing CPF funds as a CPF fund manager, it would be managed quite differently. To provide a guaranteed interest rate of four to five per cent of the Special Account, or 2.5 to 3.5 per cent of the Ordinary Account, capital guaranteed and interest rate guaranteed, it would be a very different fund that it would be managing.

It would be invested largely in bond securities, and earning returns that are very different from what it is able to earn by investing for the long term in higher-risk assets. Plus, it would mean the interest rates that the Government has committed to would be unsustainable, because it is no longer possible to earn these interest rates on a guaranteed basis, using a bond portfolio. It’s very difficult.

So the GIC manages a pool of Government assets, irrespective of sources of the funds. It is the Government that then takes the risk. The Government takes the risk that the performance of the GIC from year to year, sometimes even over five-year periods, may not be adequate for it to meet commitments to the CPF. But the Government balance sheet takes the risk to ensure that we can meet those commitments.

And that’s the strength of the system. The strength of the system is we have assets that exceed our liabilities, that enable us to meet our commitments. And that’s why we’re not just triple-A-rated, but we’re able to provide CPF members with a very fair return on a guaranteed basis.

That’s the system. For the GIC as the manager, it is blind to the sources of funds, because of our strength of having assets significantly in excess of liabilities. GIC managers do not need to know exactly where the funds come from because that’s not part of their mandate. There’s no mystery to that.

Next question had to do with excess returns.

The GIC publishes five-year, 10-year, 20-year returns. You can look at the returns, and they are easily computed into Singapore dollars. Over the last five years it earned 0.5 per cent in Singapore dollar terms, over the last 10 years it earned five per cent in Singapore dollar terms, over the last 20 years it earned five per cent in Singapore dollar terms. So those are the facts, but that’s not returns gained from investing CPF monies. That’s returns gained from investing all Government assets including the unencumbered assets; it’s returns gained from investing in higher-risk portfolios for the long term. If it was just CPF monies, it will be a different portfolio and a different set of returns.

Every serious financial professional knows that. 

  • Typical oppie tactic: To post controversial questions to cast a bad light as though as those questions were not addressed properly and strengthening such biased and erroneous perceptions, when it takes just a bit of effort to unravel the misconceptions. By the time these fools are lied to, it is already too late, their minds are poisoned.

Open Letter to Roy Ngerng

Open Letter to Roy Ngerng

Dear Roy

Greetings!

I have been reading your blogs, particularly the ones on CPF, and I should say that it has opened my eyes. I am a member of the silent majority and I think it’s about time to stand up and make my voice heard. Previously, I paid scant attention to issues like these – it was all on auto-mode for me. If the government was doing it right, let them do it, I thought.

I am a neutral person and without any political affiliations. The articles in the papers about you and your clamour for the release of CPF funds got me interested in the issues, and I find you persuasive and you tend to ask interesting questions.

But there is one inherent problem in your blogs. I found them repetitive and you tend to go off-tangent several times and sadly, you tend to sensationalise the issues concerned.

Your form of political activism is refreshing. You are not afraid to stare down the opposition. Your back is up against a very solid and comforting wall, I see. And it is commendable that you confidently espouse your views, in person or online.

But before expressing your views or the views of others, kindly pause to think if those viewpoints are relevant and most importantly, factually correct. That would save all, including non-partisans like me, a lot of time and effort in separating the wheat from the chaff.

I am glad that the government has decided to review the way it determines the inflation rate for the Minimum Sum. This is indeed good news for people in my age group who will be hitting the magical figure of 55 in a few years’ time as we will be paying lesser. I should convey my gratitude to you and Laurence Lien, among several other writers, for highlighting this issue.

I strongly recommend you to read Laurence’s opinion piece in The Straits Times, 21 July 2014: “Joint responsibility for old age income security,” is an excellent piece. Very rational and succinct. I did not know that he worked at the Finance Ministry but his disclosure that our CPF monies are safe was very reassuring and that “the total balances of CPF members have increased every year from $52 billion in 1993 to$253 billion in 2013” shows that our CPF is growing.

Here we have a third party and a neutral person, at risk of infringing the Official Secrets Act, coming out to reassure us that our money in the CPF is safe and that the returns are fair.

While you keep on harping that the GIC and Temasek were using our CPF monies, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has clearly indicated that Temasek is not involved while “GIC does manage CPF monies as part of a pool of the Government’s assets.”

Return our CPF,” seems to be your constant refrain. I seriously think the Singapore government should do so and they should apologise to us, unreservedly, for safeguarding and making it grow or if you would rather, keeping our money. Look at our HDB flats. Many of us bought it with our CPF savings. We buy it at x dollars and later sell it at a profit of x+y dollars. Where in the world can you find such a system, which not only provides you a home at such affordable prices but also allows you to make money on your property?

But, I digress. I seem to be struck with the same malady as yours, I presume.

Let’s come back to the issue. If the government decides that the CPF monies are returned to all Singaporeans at the age of 55, what are the repercussions? Will we be able to invest on our own and get returns in excess of CPF’s current rates of 2.5% interest on savings in the Ordinary Account and 5% on funds in the Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts?

You mentioned that you knew someone who invested her CPF Ordinary Account and made a profit of 3% on about 40% of her portfolio after about four months. Very impressive. But how many of them out there are like her? How diverse was her portfolio. Was it high or low risk? I am afraid you forgot to mention that. And please state the age of your friend too because you see, many are content to leave their funds in the CPF as it offers rates that are higher than the banks and most importantly, something that they are comfortable with. Not for them the highs and lows of the stock market.

Higher returns entail higher risks. How many of us are savvy enough or rather brave enough to do so? Remember, that money is our hard-earned money and if it is lost through trading in the stock exchange or other avenues, there can never be a bigger heart-ache. How are we going to tide over our old age? That’s a very frightening thought. Tharman, recently mentioned that it is important for people to understand the risks involved and that “private pension plans will not be a walk in the park.”

Over the past sixty years, Singapore has developed into a first world country and with a higher standard of living, longevity comes as a bonus issue. We Singaporeans are living longer and we would need funds to cover us during our lifetime. The CPF Minimum Sum ensures a monthly pay-out in our retirement. Although not generous by any standards, it is enough to get by if we do not have any other heavy expenses to take care of. And personally, I would prefer calibrated disbursement of my funds. If taken at one go, I might spend it all on frivolous and impulsive purchases. I have read many sob stories where senior citizens got swindled out of their life savings. It was very sad.

I dread to think how I would survive if I blow up my savings. There will be many others like me too, I am sure. What then? The government takes care of us? Is it fair to the rest? Who bears the cost? Don’t tell me the younger generation have to bear the cost.

I don’t think the burden should fall on our sons and daughters.

Is this what you are advocating when you say: “Return our CPF”?

You also mentioned that “the government takes our CPF monies and gives us only 2.5% to 4%. Then they take our CPF to earn 5% at the GIC and 16% at the Temasek Holdings.” Tharman has already stated that Temasek does not get the CPF monies, so we’ll leave it out. As for GIC, it has been mentioned in Parliament by Tharman “that the GIC does manage CPF monies as part of a pool of the government’s assets.”

The 2.5% for our savings in the Ordinary Account, if compared against the miniscule interest rates offered by the banks, is fair enough. Furthermore, as Tharman says our CPF monies are protected from the inherent risks as the “government has substantial assets in excess of its liabilities.”

Let’s put things in perspective here. We deposit our monies in the banks and the banks deem it fit to invest the monies, and also gives out the monies at hand, as loans to individuals and institutions. The banks give us a paltry amount as interest when we deposit and charge interest several-fold when they give out loans.

Roy, did you question the banks as to why they adopt this practice? Did you ask them to increase the interest rates for deposits? The money that you have collected from the public to fight the defamation suit against you, is it tied up in a gunny sack and left under your bed? I believe it would be safer that way. The banks could invest it and give you a lower return, which I presume is against your principles. It would be interesting to see you take on the banks and fight for higher interest rates on behalf of our fellow Singaporeans.

Roy, you also mentioned that you “voted for the government to protect us, to take care of Singaporeans first. We did not vote for the government to take care of the GIC or Temasek Holdings first.” The GIC and Temasek Holdings constitute our sovereign funds. The more that these funds have in their coffers, the better and stronger would be our buffer against any calamity.

After reading your speech on your blog, I checked the GIC and Temasek websites and saw that you were correct-our minister were indeed on the boards of these two institutions. But unlike you, I do not see anything wrong with that. In fact, I am reassured and grateful that they are on board.

And I would say it is wrong to create a gulf between the government and people by referring to them as masters and us as servants. Kindly stop using this terms. Remember we are all equal. This is a dangerous ideology that could only force a country to go into a tailspin.

You also talked about HDB flats and if we are owners of the flats that we live in? That’s the problem with you. You go all over the place. Supply and demand dictates the prices of HDB flats and HDB does dole out generous grants (please check it on the HDB website) to subsidise the sale of the flat. And yes, the HDB flats, like some private condominium units, are sold on 99-year leases.

These temporary shelters as you call it, are financed with our CPF funds and the monthly instalments take care of the out-of-pocket payment, which is so required for a rental flat. Ask those foreigners, the impact of out-of-pocket payments for their rents, on their finances. And it explains why these foreigners seek to become PRs and citizens just so that they could buy an HDB flat with their CPF savings.

You asked why are the flats sold over and above their building costs. Then who pays for the beautiful facilities and infrastructure in your estate? These infrastructural developments enhance the value of your properties. You can’t just have the blocks there without any accompanying infrastructure. The public would not like to stay in such developments.

I also see that you brought up Dr Goh Keng Swee in your speech. You mentioned that he wanted us to live in a home that we can be proud of. Roy, it was realised. He saw it during his lifetime. We are living his dream.

Let the great man rest in peace.

It is interesting that you talked about losing your job in your speech. I agree with you that your termination should not have become a national issue. It was indeed heavy-handed. I agree totally. But I did not understand the following, which you wrote: “Which government in the world would laugh and cheer when its own citizen is left out in the cold, unprotected and scared, and then blames you for not working hard enough.”

In the press reports, it was quoted that you were “misusing working time, hospital computers and facilities for personal pursuits.” I understand that despite being issued a warning letter, your contract was also renewed. That was very generous of your employer. There are not many employers who would give their employees a second chance. Admit it, you blew it. You have also gone on record to admit: “The stress of the court case has made it difficult for me to concentrate on my job. And my advocacy on the CPF has also taken a toll on my ability to do my job as well.”

Roy, a person is paid to do a job and if the person can’t perform, don’t blame others. And don’t try to milk it. It is very pathetic and it calls your integrity into question.

Which leads me to the next question. What got into you to allege that PM Lee Hsien Loong had misappropriated CPF funds? I am at a loss for words. Do you have the evidence or is it based on hearsay? I don’t know what to make of it and to comment on it would amount to subjudice.

You have been clamouring for a change and calling upon Singaporeans to fight and to make a stand and to change the government. I don’t know if that would be a good idea. I see you are treading a dangerous path with your rhetoric. Do you think we have an alternative to the present government? Are the opposition up to the tasks ahead? I won’t know as I am just an observer and I am not involved with any political party. But thankfully, I, like many Singaporeans understand the stakes involved and do not wish to undo the good that has been done. Let another opposition politician of Lee Kuan Yew’s calibre come forth and prove that he or she is up to the task. I would gladly cast my vote for him or her. Otherwise, mere rhetoric would do us no good and it could and would only lead us down the path of ruin.

Roy, I hope my letter would serve as an eye-opener. I have written my letter as a concerned Singaporean. I am not against you. You have your views and I have mine. Please share facts; not untruths. No hard feelings.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

R H de Souza

Source link -> Open Letter to Roy Ngerng

**************************************** end  *********************************


image from FLOP

**********************************************************

5 Major Facts about Singapore that every Singaporean should understand

5) No explanation needed

https://theinfluencermedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/singapore-river.jpg?w=437&h=360

https://theinfluencermedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/1_marina_bay_night_2012.jpg?w=598&h=152

Our government has transformed Singapore from 3rd-world kampung island to 1st-world global recognized state in a matter of 40 odd years. If you can’t even appreciate this fact, it’s time to do some self-reflection of whether you can do a better job in their shoes, if we reset time to 1965.

The Influencer Media: Popular Culture Redefined

Lately there has been an ongoing trend of Singaporeans lashing out at the government, voicing out unhappiness and dissatisfaction. We saw a article of how we are ranked in the top most expensive cities, we had Roy Ngerng causing a huge stir about the CPF system, we had photo comparisons of what a 3-room flat in Bishan can be like a bungalow in Pennsylvania. Many people are saying that our ministers are getting paid too high and there is a large widening gap between the rich and the poor.

To make things worse, the recent boom in foreigners has caused upset amongst Singaporeans, citing that “Singapore has less Singaporeans than foreigners”. We love comparing to successful first-world countries. “Oh, look at how great Germany is doing. Look at how wonderful it is to live in the Scandinavian countries. It will be so much better to migrate to the UK or…

View original post 1,630 more words