Survey: 20% of Singaporeans would not survive even 1 month if they lose their job

By

-

November 6, 2019

Singapore—For a country that has a good percentage of the wealthiest people around the globe, there is still a significant number of Singaporeans who face financial insecurity, according to a new survey, which shows that one out of every five Singaporeans—or 20 percent—would not survive even one month if they lost their current employment.

In a study of regional financial health, Go Bear recently carried out a survey of more than 4,000 respondents from Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia and Hong Kong.

The good news is that the results show that Singapore showed the highest level of financial health among the four locations surveyed, with a mark of a 68 out of 100 based on the GoBear Financial Health Index (FHI). In comparison, Hong Kong’s score was 64, Thailand’s was 61 and Indonesia’s was 60.

However, the survey also showed that 45 percent, or nearly half of all Singaporeans do not possess an emergency fund that can sustain them for six months. Storing up an emergency fund of at least three months’ living expenses is a common piece of advice given by experts, just in case someone loses their job or experiences an unexpected medical crisis. As it turns out, twenty percent of Singaporeans do not even have this, according to a recent survey commissioned by GoBear.

One industry analyst, behavioural finance and market psychology expert Wong Kon How, surmises that this is due to the fact that for many Singaporeans, their assets are locked away in CPF accounts or property ownership.

When asked regarding their attitudes toward investments, one-fourth of all the respondents said they believe that investing is a risky endeavour. Additionally, 20 percent, or one out of every five respondents said they actually keep cash at home in a piggy bank.

Moreover, more than one out of every two respondents (54 percent) said that the cost of living today outpaces the income that they earn.

The survey results from 1,028 Singaporeans between the ages of 18 and 65 were released on November 1. It showed that these are the top three financial priorities of Singaporeans”

Putting away money in savings
Reaching financial independence
Building up an emergency fund

Furthermore, a sizable percentage (41 percent) of Singaporeans said they do not feel optimism regarding their financial future. According to Mr Wong, these insecurities may stem from pressures they feel from society.

He said, “This past year, GDP growth in Indonesia was 5.05%, while in Singapore it was only 0.6%. As a developed nation, we’re limited when it comes to our GDP growth since we can’t rely on the supply and demand of natural resources like other countries. Instead, we’ve invested our future on other high value-added activities in the manufacturing and services sectors. But this leaves our talent under constant pressure to keep up and stay competitive in a space where opportunities are narrow and limited.

On top of that, we’ve become accustomed to a certain quality of life and feel the added pressure to keep up appearances within our community. And it’s all of this pressure combined that’s led to our lack of financial optimism.” -/TISG

The downside to Singapore’s high life expectancy: even retirees are taking care of their parents

Despite appearing flustered Heng Swee Keat manages to pass motion against Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim

By

Jewel Stolarchuk

-

November 6, 2019

0

Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat managed to pass his parliamentary motion 52-9 against Workers’ Party (WP) leaders Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim yesterday (5 Nov), despite multiple accounts that he was flustered and fumbled to defend his motion during the four-hour debate.

DPM Heng, who is expected to succeed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong after the next election, moved to get Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) saga to require Mr Low and Ms Lim to recuse themselves from the town council’s financial matters, in the wake of a High Court judgment that found the MPs liable for damages in the AHTC lawsuit.

Yahoo Singapore noted that the DPM “fumbled” when the WP MPs expected him to clarify the comments he had made in his hour-long speech. When he was being questioned by Ms Lim at one point, DPM Heng reportedly “hesitated in his response and flipped through his folder at length” before moving on.

Former Straits Times heavyweight reporter Bertha Henson had a more in-depth view of Mr Heng’s performance. Revealing that she was in the Parliament gallery during the session, Ms Henson also wrote that Mr Heng “fumbled” and was “flustered” during the course of the debate. She recalled in her blog:

“After he spoke, it seemed like the WP MPs were intent on picking on specific points, asking him for a slew of clarifications. A flustered Mr Heng tried answering the points, before demanding that the party engage on the key issues of transparency, accountability and moral standards.

“But Ms Lim, the most persistent questioner, wasn’t done yet. She spoke from her prepared text and here’s where things took a turn: Mr Heng asked for an adjournment or a recess.”

Ms Henson said that she “found it astonishing that the PAP didn’t seem to have anticipated the WP’s main line of defence: that the House was having the debate before the Nov 11 deadline for appeals against the judgment.”

The WP held that Mr Heng’s motion was premature since the timeframe they have to appeal has not elapsed and since the legal proceedings have yet to conclude. Noting that the WP’s position – that there is still time for it to appeal the judgment and that the MPs intend to do so – seemed to take the PAP and Mr Heng by surprise, Ms Henson recounted:

“Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong had got up for his turn to speak, but Mr Heng beat him to the mic to ask the Speaker for an adjournment.”

After criticising Ms Lim and Hougang MP Png Eng Huat for asking a “series of little questions,” Mr Heng asked for a recess and explained, “Because Ms Sylvia Lim…has made the point that it was improper for me to raise this, and I would like an adjournment for us to consider the matter and respond to you.”

WP chief Pritam Singh objected to the recess since the House had already taken a 20-minute break but Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin granted a ten-minute adjournment that Ms Henson said left those in the gallery “twiddling our thumbs as the House emptied out, presumably for the PAP to decide on strategy.”

Ms Henson said that the motion “to me, seemed more like an opportunity to reprise the failings of the WP by quoting liberally from past judgements and auditors’ statements.” Noting that the PAP MPs who spoke repeated the same things over and over again, she opined that the PAP painted the elected Aljunied GRC MPs as such during the debate:

“Sylvia Lim is the bad one. Low Thia Kiang is a decent guy who actually ran Hougang Town Council competently but…Pritam Singh and Png Eng Huat had been duped by the two above-mentioned.

“Faisal Manap, as town council chairman, doesn’t have the gumption to do the right thing, that is, remove the first two from their town council posts or, at least, make sure they don’t have oversight of finances. Chen Show Mao was the only one who was left scot-free. He didn’t speak – nor was he spoken of.”

After four hours of debate, DPM Heng had the opportunity to round out the debate but it does not appear as though he fared too well as he concluded the debate. Calling this section of his speech “a little garbled,” Ms Henson noted that he made mistakes:

“By then, it was way past 7pm. Mr Heng got up to round up the debate. It was a little garbled. He made mistakes such as talking about an “on-going appeal” (not filed yet) and how Ms Lim had admitted that the discussion was not subjudice (she didn’t).

“At one point, he talked about working with the WP to draw up some basic principles for a code of conduct for MPs both inside and outside the House, which led me to wonder if a new motion would be raised. But no. It was still about the need for ethical standards and “clean politics”.

“He also said the Government would now be “forced to express its concerns” to the AHTC independent panel. So is this the next step then?”

Despite fumbling, DPM Heng’s motion was passed 52-9. All nine WP MPs and Non-Constituency MPs rejected the motion while two Nominated MPs, Walter Theseira and Anthea Ong, abstained from voting.

Will DPM Heng’s parliamentary motion against Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim backfire?

PM Lee’s warning that he will “fix” the opposition resurfaces as DPM Heng readies motion against WP MPs

High praise for PAP MP Lily Neo who helped relocate elderly cardboard collectors

By

Obbana Rajah

-

November 6, 2019

0

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 1.55.53 pm — Photo: FB / Happy People Helping People Community

Two elderly cardboard collectors who had their collection point at Chinatown shutdown have now been relocated to a much nearer one by People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament (MP) Lily Neo.

Initially, when their cardboard collection point at Chinatown was closed down, two elderly ladies who collect and sell cardboard for a living spoke about how much harder their jobs had become. They had to walk up to 30 minutes more, pushing their heavy trollies to another collection point.

“Sometimes I push my trolley and collect cardboard at the same time. Sometimes my cart falls over and I have to get it back up again”, Mdm Lim Ah Lian explained. She also said that if she walked at a quicker pace, she could reach the new collection point in 20 minutes, but if she was slow and collected cardboard along the way, it would take her 30 minutes to reach the new collection point.

Mdm Lai Sau Choo, who looked to be slightly older than Mdm Lim said, “You can’t just jay-walk you have to look for a traffic-light. It’s a busy cross-junction. No choice. I have to push my trolley slowly”.

The two women also said that in terms of profitability, “The boss at the new collection point pays (them) less”.

The boss at the previous collection point used to pay the women six cents per kilogram of cardboard. Now at the new collection point however, the women only get paid five cents per kilogram. They also only get 60 cents for every 60 drink cans, but the at the previous location the boss would give them 70 cents per 60 cans.

A non-profit organization Happy People Helping People (HPHP) reached out to MP Lily Neo, who came through, earning high praise from netizens and from the elderly women.

In a Facebook post, the organization thanked the MP and wrote, “A representative of MP Lily Neo has replied! They have relocated the cardboard collection point for Banda St to a new location and it’s even nearer to Blk 5 Banda Street”. /TISG

Read related: Elderly cardboard collectors struggle to walk up to 30 minutes after their Chinatown collection point shuts down

Over 11,000 sign petition urging the Govt to reverse PMD ban on footpaths within 24 hours

By

Jewel Stolarchuk

-

November 6, 2019

0

Over 11,000 netizens have signed a petition urging the Government to reverse the latest ban on the use of Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) on footpaths, in the span of 24 hours. Following a spate of PMD-related accidents, Senior Minister of State for Transport Lam Pin Min announced in Parliament yesterday (4 Nov) that all e-scooters will be banned from public footpaths.

The ban, which went into effect today (5 Nov), now only allows e-scooter riders to use their PMDs on cycling and park connector network paths. The Land Transport Authority (LTA), a statutory board under the Ministry of Transport, will issue a warning to those who flout the ban between 5 Nov to 31 Dec – a grace period during which the Government will waive heftier penalties as PMD riders adjust to the ban.

From 1 Jan 2020, those caught riding e-scooters on public footpaths will face fines of up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment of up to three months.

The sudden ban has led to some PMD-riders ‘panic selling’ their e-scooters on online marketplaces. Others, however, are urging the Government to reverse the ban. A petition on change.org asking the authorities to allow PMD riders to continue using public footpaths has garnered over 11,000 signatures in a day.

Lamenting the sudden nature of the ban, the petition claims that the news startled the “90,000+ strong PMD community in Singapore” and will negatively impact PMD users:

“The 90,000+ strong PMD community in Singapore received some unexpected news of an immediate ban on the use of PMDs on footpaths in Singapore starting Nov 5th 2019 as announced by MP Lam Pin Min in Parliament on Nov 4th 2019.

“This footpath ban is essentially a de facto ban on the use of PMDs. The bike paths and PCNs are not continuous and it does not connect point to point. Limiting the use of PMDs to bike paths and PCNs is equivalent to letting someone use the bathroom but banning the use of the toilet bowls.

“Banning them on footpaths and not giving viable alternatives will essentially wipe out any practical use of PMDs and along with it, the source of income for many Singaporeans.

“The ban was announced on Nov 4th to be implemented on Nov 5th. There was no warning or viable alternatives for riders dependent on PMDs. In many areas, there are no bike paths or PCNs. There is only footpath or road.

“MP Lam Pin Min mentioned Singapore is following in the footsteps of other countries like France, but he failed to mention that in France, while eScooters are banned on footpaths, they are allowed to ride on roads up to 20km/h.

“While the government is making efforts to build more cycling paths and PCNs, until then what are the alternatives for PMD riders. Riding on the grass? Or like the cyclists, perhaps limitations to the left of the road?

“Without the use of PMDs, the thousands of delivery riders (Grabfood, food panda, deliveroo etc.) will have their main sources of income cut off. Most of the time, riding a motorbike or bicycle are not viable for them because the distances they cover are too great for bicycles and a vast majority of them do not have a motorbike license nor can shell out to get one.

“There will be a lot of people affected: Mothers who ferry their kids on PMDs, food delivery riders who deliver your food, tens of thousands of commuters who rely on PMDs everyday for their office commute etc.

“Please help us petition the Singapore Government to PMD usage on footpaths or roads until which time the PCNs and bike paths are more accessible and cover a wider area.”

In an update, Siti Binte Rahimat – the organiser of the petition – added: “Within 24 hours, we have gathered over 11,000 concerned citizens over this issue. We believe that this ban and how it was implemented truly needs to be re-looked.

“The implications of this hastened regulatory ban is devastating to a group of minorities – PMD users, their friends and families. Is it fair to take away the rights of these minorities? We urge LTA and the Members of Parliament to reconsider this ban of PMDs on footpaths.”

Asserting that the ban will “severely affect” the thousands of delivery riders who work for organisations like Foodpanda, Deliveroo, and Grab Food, Siti said:

“There are approximately 15,000 – 25,000 delivery riders in Singapore at this moment. (source: from Telegram Rider Groups). Effectively with this ban, MP Lam Pin Min, has increased the unemployment rate of Singapore by 0.3 – 0.5% overnight.

“As Singapore’s economy continues to show dismal results (source: CNA Singapore’s 2019 growth forecast slashed to 0.6%), there will be even lesser jobs for Singaporeans. This unexpected move by MP Lam Pin Min will do little to help Singapore’s move towards helping the unemployed.

“For Singaporeans who solely rely on their PMDs for a living, the effects would be even more direct and devastating. An average rider can earn approximately $2,000 – $3,000 a month.(source: https://blog.seedly.sg/food-delivery-riders-grabfood-foodpanda-deliveroo-earns/). An honest day’s wage for a hardworking delivery rider, which is more than enough to feed his/her family. With this overnight ban, the 15,000 – 25,000 riders cannot help but feel at lost.

“I have at least 5 personal friends who rely on their daily wages by being a delivery driver. They might not know how to put food on the table by the end of this week. Is this how the government treats its citizens? Many innocent families and livelihoods are going through chaos because of this.

“The suggested solution using bicycles as deliveries are not feasible. With a bicycle, the average delivery rider can reasonably complete 4 – 5 deliveries a day, given that they require rest in between their deliveries. Whereas with the PMD, almost no rest is required between deliveries. An average delivery rider can complete 15 – 20 deliveries a day. For those of you who think that bicycles are a viable alternative, imagine if you were to take a 75% pay cut. Would you still be doing the same job?”

She added that the ban will also impact families who rely on e-scooters for transportation. Siti asserted that these families save “approximately $100 – $600 per month” using e-scooters and that these savings are “substantial to a lower-middle income family.”

While the ban does not apply to the disabled or the elderly who use Personal Mobility Aids (PMAs), Siti also claimed that the ban would impact this group since “PMDs are a solution for those that cannot use PMAs.” She added: “Although not a large group, we should still consider about their needs and how to work towards an inclusive society.”

Asking whether the Government is treating the PMD community fairly, Siti said: “LTA has been progressively strengthening regulations and controls to ensure that PMDs are safer for users and non-users alike. After all the expenses incurred by users to follow these regulations, the government has decided to implement the ban within 1 day of the announcement.

“Furthermore, we heard only recently heard the announcement in May 2019, “No plans to ban PMDs on footpaths: Ministry of Transport”. Here we are 6 months later, with an IMMEDIATE ban on PMDs on footpaths. What can we say of this reaction from the Singapore government? Are we supposed to expect similar actions in the future?”

Siti also proposed the following solutions to deal with errant PMD users without imposing a ban on PMD use on footpaths:

“1. Continued tuning of regulations and control measures for PMDs on footpaths or roads

“We have seen progress from the above regulation implementation. The implementation of UL2272 certification has greatly reduced incidents of PMDs catching fire. In fact, there are ZERO reported incidents on UL2272 PMDs catching fire.

“We have been reaping the benefits of PMDs in terms of increasing employment, becoming more efficient in last-mile solutions and even cost savings for family transportation. Implementing a ban would erase all the work that we have collectively done.

“In the long term, improve on infrastructure as a whole to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, PMD-users, motorists, etc. This is currently already happening.

“In the short term, increase controls and accountability via licensing and educational awareness programs. PMD users are willing to go for a course/certification so that they will be better informed as a user, as well as safe to other non-users.

“2. Increasing Age Limit and Compulsory Insurance

“Another solution to increase accountability is via an increased age limit, as seen for measure to reduce smoking prevalence in Singapore. To add on, a compulsory insurance policy should be implemented for all PMD users. This will cover any unfortunate incidents for both PMD users and non-users.”

Read the appeal in full HERE.

SDP’s John Tan barred from contesting in upcoming General Election

By

Obbana Rajah

-

November 6, 2019

0

Screen Shot 2019-11-06 at 2.32.29 pm — Photo: YouTube screengrab, John Tan

John Tan, the vice-chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party will not be able to contest in the upcoming General Election, according to a High Court ruling.

In July this year, Tan announced that he sought a declaration of his eligibility to contest in the next General Election (GE) from the High Court.

Tan and activist Jolovan Wham were found guilty of scandalising the judiciary last year, making them the first to be convicted under new contempt of court laws that came into effect in October 2017.

On April 27 last year, Wham wrote on his Facebook page that Malaysia’s judges were more independent than Singapore’s when it came to cases with political implications.

The AGC initiated contempt of court action against Wham over the post.

About a week after, on May 6, Tan posted on Facebook that the AGC’s move to prosecute Wham confirmed the truth of what Wham had written.

The prosecution had called for Tan to be sentenced to at least 15 days in jail. Tan submitted that he should be jailed for three days.

In asking for a custodial sentence for Tan, the prosecution pointed to his previous conviction in 2008 where he was convicted of contempt of court for turning up at a defamation hearing in a T-shirt with a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s gown.

Tan was fined S$5,000 for contempt of court earlier this year.

International human rights lawyer M Ravi served Tan’s application to the Attorney-General’s Chambers “to seek a declaration from the Court that he be allowed to stand for elections and that he is qualified to do so under Article 44 of the Constitution of Singapore”.

However, under Article 45(1)(e) of the Constitution, anyone “convicted of an offence by a court of law in Singapore or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year, or to a fine of not less than $2,000 and has not received a free pardon” cannot contest in the General Election or become a Member of Parliament.

In his written judgment released on Wednesday (Nov 6), Justice Aedit Abdullah dismissed Tan’s application, saying he was disqualified from standing in elections under the “plain words” of the Article.

According to a Facebook post, Tan’s lawyer M Ravi told TODAY that his client “expresses his utter disappointment” and that their legal team is studying the decision on the prospects of appealing against it.

Ravi also said that the decision was “deeply disturbing”, as “people who are not convicted of a criminal offence can now be disqualified from standing for elections”. /TISG

Read related: SDP’s John Tan seeks AGC’s clarification on eligibility to stand as a candidate at the next GE

GrabFood says e-scooter ban on footpaths will mean longer wait for deliveries

By

Anna Maria Romero

-

November 6, 2019

0

46362785_2138679662829131_2034579343019081728_n — FB screengrab: Fajar Pratama Hanidin

Singapore — Delivery service GrabFood has asked for customers’ patience now that a ban on a ban on the use of electric scooters on public footpaths is in place.

The ban may well mean that customers will have to wait longer for their food deliveries, the company said.

In related news, Grab’s rival delivery service, Deliveroo, announced that their riders who insist on using their e-scooters on footpaths despite the ban will no longer have a place in their company.

Grab told The Straits Times (ST) that over one in three of the company’s delivery staff use e-scooters on the job.

A spokesman for Grab told ST, “With the new direction, affected partners will have to consider other modes of transport, which may not be readily available to them.”

The company asked for customers’ patience and understanding at this time.

“During this period, we would like to seek consumers’ understanding that they may have to wait longer for their orders or may experience an increase in cancellations by delivery-partners who may not be able to cover the delivery distance on foot.”

ST reports that there are around 7,000 people who deliver food using e-scooters, most of whom very likely work for Grab.

And while Grab respects the decision from the Government to disallow electric scooters on public footpaths, the company told ST that it wishes to dialogue with the Government in the future to examine whether its delivery staff who use their e-scooters responsibly can be allowed to continue to do so under specific conditions.

The company plans on speaking to all of its affected delivery staff by the end of this week.

On its part, Deliveroo told ST that it expects the effect of the ban on its customers to be “minimal.”

“We anticipate minimal impact to customers’ deliveries, given that personal mobility device (PMD) and power-assisted bicycle riders currently constitute five percent of our overall fleet of 6,000 riders.

Safety is of utmost importance for Deliveroo and we are speaking with our current riders on PMDs on how to best support them moving forward, including the possibility of helping them to transition to different vehicles if they prefer,” a spokesperson for the company said.

As for the third big food delivery service in Singapore, Food Panda, it says that only 12 percent of its delivery staff use e-scooters.

Lam Pin Min, the country’s Senior Minister of State for Transport, made the ban public in Parliament on Monday, November 4. He said that the government will collaborate with Workforce Singapore (WSG) for rendering assistance to any rider who may have lost their job due to the ban.

According to WSG, it is equipped to help Singaporeans in their job search “including those who may be affected by this announcement such as food delivery riders who use e-scooters as their main form of transportation”.

“Jobs seekers can also tap WSG’s MyCareersFuture.sg, a smart job search portal that can match individuals to relevant jobs based on their skills, including jobs in adjacent sectors or industries,” said Richard Lim, WSG’s director of career services division.

“Panic selling” of e-scooters after notice of permanent ban

Edwin Tong comes to “fumbling” Heng Swee Keat’s rescue in AHTC parliamentary debate

By

Jewel Stolarchuk

-

November 6, 2019

0

Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong came to Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s rescue after the latter fumbled while defending a parliamentary motion he had brought forward against Workers’ Party (WP) politicians Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, yesterday.

DPM Heng, who has been identified as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s presumptive successor, moved to get Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) saga to require Mr Low and Ms Lim to recuse themselves from the town council’s financial matters, in the wake of a High Court judgment that found the MPs liable for damages in the AHTC lawsuit.

Yahoo Singapore reporter Nicholas Yong noted that the DPM “fumbled” when he was expected to defend his motion after Ms Lim and Hougang MP Png Eng Huat asked him to clarify the comments he had made in his hour-long speech.

Ms Lim’s request for Mr Heng to clarify his apparent remarks that “millions have been lost” appeared to fluster the heavyweight ruling party politician who later claimed that he had actually said “millions of dollars in public funds are involved”.

Mr Yong reported: “Heng hesitated in his response and flipped through his folder at length, before moving on to the rest of Lim’s queries.”

When Mr Png asked the DPM for clarification on his implication that only one signatory was needed to encash a cheque under AHTC when the town council actually requires two signatories including the AHTC chairperson or vice-chair, Mr Heng wanted to get back to why he put forth the motion and criticised Ms Lim and Mr Png for asking “little questions”.

He said: “Let me get back to why I moved this motion. This is a question of integrity…I have asked very serious questions about how the transactions were done…but both of you have just stood up to ask me a series of little questions.”

Shortly after Mr Png shot back that “it’s a question of integrity,” Mr Heng asked for a ten-minute recess to consider and respond to Ms Lim’s questions. Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin granted the adjournment despite WP chief Pritam Singh’s objection.

Edwin Tong came to the rescue of Mr Heng following the break and addressed Ms Lim and Mr Png’s questions. On Mr Png’s point about co-signing cheques, Mr Tong hit out:

“I think the position is very clear: it’s not about one signatory or two signatories, it’s about the entire system that you have set up as a result of what you have done…That entire system has been completely subverted, a proper system has been subverted by the way in which you’ve done this.

“Don’t penny pinch a dime with us.”

Referring to the “serious and grave findings” of the High Court judgement, Mr Tong said that the judgment constitutes a “serious and grave indictment” of the WP MPs conduct.

He also accused the WP of spreading a “misleading narrative repeatedly put out to the public over several years” that they had to immediately appoint a new managing agent after the PAP-owned Action Information Management (AIM) abruptly stripped them of the town council management computer system.

AIM saga thrust back in the limelight after WP chief’s comments on “political double standards”

DPM Heng suggests that WP is “playing the victim” and urges it to hold itself to the same standards as the PAP

Heng Swee Keat asks WP if it will remove Sylvia Lim from her post as vice-chairman of AHTC

‘PAP must “explain truthfully” its motive in bringing motion against Low and Lim’ – Pritam Singh

By

Jewel Stolarchuk

-

November 6, 2019

0

rlib81 — Photo: Parliament screencapture

Workers’ Party (WP) secretary-general Pritam Singh asked the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) yesterday (5 Nov) to “explain truthfully” its motive in bringing forward a motion against Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim that is centred on ongoing legal proceedings.

Mr Pritam made this call after Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat introduced a motion calling on Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) to require Mr Low and Ms Lim to “recuse themselves” from the town council’s financial matters, in the wake of a High Court judgment that found the MPs liable for damages in the AHTC lawsuit.

Asserting that a “time of reckoning” has come for the WP after years of “deception,” DPM Heng demanded that the WP “cannot stay silent,” in an hour-long speech in Parliament. Asking the party if it will apologise and remove Sylvia Lim from her post as vice-chairman of the town council, Mr Heng suggested that the WP leaders are “playing the victim or the underdog.”

Ms Lim, who serves as the party’s chairman, noted that the PAP was “clearly excited” about the High Court judgment and stressed that the motion appears to be aimed at curtailing Mr Low’s and her duties as elected MP:

She said: “As Members of Parliament, Mr Low Thia Khiang and I have duties to discharge, and this motion appears to be aimed at curtailing us from discharging our duties while the case is still pending for final adjudication.”

Calling DPM Heng’s motion “telling but premature,” Ms Lim asked Parliament to reject the motion and clarified that the WP MPs will appeal the High Court decision at the apex court. Noting that Singapore has a “court structure” that allows parties to appeal High Court judgments through the Court of Appeal, she pointed out that the WP politicians are within the one-month timeframe to do so.

Echoing Ms Lim’s views, Mr Pritam called the motion “hurried” and “premature”. He said: “There is no reason for Parliament to be prematurely hijacked as a substitute for the judicial process when the window for appeal on the judgement has not closed.”

Pointing out that the timing of the motion is “highly unusual for a legal system that places an exacting premium on the rule of law as a defining characteristic of the country,” Mr Pritam asked the PAP to “explain truthfully” what its motive was in filing such a motion before the legal case concludes.

Despite Mr Pritam’s views, the motion was eventually passed 52-9. All nine WP MPs voted against it and two Nominated MPs abstained from voting.

Earlier, Mr Pritam had said that he will not vote for Mr Low and Ms Lim to be recused from financial matters in AHTC’s internal vote even if the motion was passed. He stressed: “Once again, it is only appropriate for council to take a collective decision on any recusal if it decides to do so, and AHTC will act according to council’s decisions.”

On why he will not be voting to recuse Mr Low and Ms Lim, Mr Singh said that the existing town councillors could use Mr Low’s insight and depth of town council experience and a longtime elected opposition town councillor.

Pointing out that Ms Lim managed AHTC “without the major disruption of service affecting the lives of residents” in spite of “challenging circumstances” and “tremendous pressure” during her time as AHTC chairman from 2011 to 2015, Mr Singh added that she contributed to the “positive transformation” of AHTC in her current role as vice-chairman.

This transformation led to the town council’s auditors submitting an unqualified audited report of its annual report for its last financial year. -/TISG

Heng Swee Keat asks WP if it will remove Sylvia Lim from her post as vice-chairman of AHTC

DPM Heng suggests that WP is “playing the victim” and urges it to hold itself to the same standards as the PAP

DPM Heng demands that WP “cannot stay silent” and must “take action” in the wake of AHTC judgment

Prince Harry made an emotional call to ex before marrying Meghan Markle

By

Lydia Koh

-

November 6, 2019

0

sussex — Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are living in the US now. Picture: Instagram

Just days before Prince Harry walked the aisle with Meghan Markle last year, he had an emotional ‘final call’ with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, according to a royal insider.

In May 2018, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle tied the knot in a stunning royal wedding.

The Duke of Sussex won hearts as he shed a tear of joy during the ceremony.

It is said that in the days before he got married, Prince Harry shared an emotional moment with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy.

Britain’s Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, speaks to members of the media at Windsor Castle in Windsor, west of London on May 6, 2019, following the announcement that his wife, Britain’s Meghan, Duchess of Sussex has given birth to a son. – Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, gave birth to a “very healthy” boy, Prince Harry announced. “We’re delighted to announce that Meghan and myself had a baby boy early this morning — a very healthy boy,” a beaming Prince Harry said. (Photo by Steve Parsons / POOL / AFP)

According to Express UK Katie Nicholl, the royal author who wrote in Vanity Fair last year, talked to friends of Davy and the prince about the tearful phone call.

An insider told Nicholl: “It was their final call, a parting call in which they both acknowledged Harry was moving on.

“Chelsy was quite emotional about it all, she was in tears and almost didn’t go to the wedding.

“In the end, she went and promised Harry she wouldn’t try to gatecrash the party.”

Nicholl adds: “Though reports claimed Davy was there, a family friend told Vanity Fair that she didn’t get an invite to the party.”

Both Davy and Cressida Bonas, who dated Harry from 2012 to 2014 were present in St George’s Chapel for the royal wedding ceremony.

During the evening event which was held in Frogmore House on the Windsor estate, the two ladies were not invited.

Another friend of the Duke told the author: “Some of Harry’s pals were a bit surprised not to get the golden ticket to the evening party.

“There was actually another wedding that weekend that a lot of them were invited to, so they got to have fun in any case.”

According to Nicholl, one of the prince’s oldest friends Astrid Harbourd was not invited to the evening celebration.

Matchmaking friend Violet von Westenholz who started it all was not present as well.

Neither was old pal James Blunt and his wife.

Nicholl continued, “There was also no invite to either the wedding or the reception for Harry’s old party chum Natalie Pinkham.”

Pinkham, a Sky Sports presenter has known Prince Harry for more than 10 years and they are frequently in contact.

A source told her: “Natalie was a bit surprised not to be there.

“She and Harry still talk so it was a surprise for her not to be invited at all.”

Harry and Chelsy Davy dated for seven years before breaking up in 2010.

Even though they split up before Kate Middleton and Prince William’s royal wedding in 2011, Davy was invited to the event.

According to Nicholl, Davy realised “once and for all” that she could not be a royal at the 2011 ceremony.

In her biography “Harry: Life, Loss and Love”, Nicholl writes: “Being part of the royal wedding had made Chelsy’s mind up once and for all.

“The life of a royal bride was not for her and she told Harry she could never make the sacrifices Kate had made.”

Davy, who is born in Zimbabwe shared that she couldn’t cope with the media scrutiny that comes with being romantically linked to the prince.

According to Express, she told the Daily Mail in 2016: “It was so full-on: crazy and scary and uncomfortable. I found it very difficult when it was bad. I couldn’t cope.

“I was trying to be a normal kid and it was horrible.”

Davy returned home to Zimbabwe in the aftermath of the break-up, and now divides her time between Africa and the UK.

WP plans to appeal AHTC judgment and calls on Parliament to reject DPM Heng’s “premature” motion

By

Jewel Stolarchuk

-

November 6, 2019

0

Revealing that the Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MPs) will appeal the High Court judgment that found them liable for damages in the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) lawsuit, WP chairman Sylvia Lim asked Parliament to reject Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s “premature” motion against her and veteran WP leader Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Heng moved to get AHTC to require Ms Lim and Mr Low to “recuse themselves” from all financial matters related to AHTC today (5 Nov) and noted that both politicians have not responded to the High Court judgment in the AHTC legal case that was released on 11 Oct.

Following DPM Heng’s hour-long speech, Ms Lim clarified that she and her colleagues Mr Low and Mr Pritam Singh have reviewed the judgment with their lawyers and will appeal the decision at the apex court.

DPM Heng had accused the WP of staying silent in the wake of the AHTC judgment and asked whether there will be an appeal and what will be “done in the interim, pending the appeal, if there is one.” Noting that an appeal takes time, he asked: “Will the Workers’ Party provide the House with any guarantees to uphold accountability and transparency between now and the appeal?”

Pointing out that the three WP MPs had updated on their blog that they were “reviewing the judgment and will take advice from our lawyers” right after the judgment was released, Ms Lim noted that any party involved in a lawsuit may appeal the judgment within a month.

Pointing out that the WP’s timeframe to appeal was between 11 Oct and 11 Nov, Ms Lim said: “We are still within the timeframe to do so, and it will be filed by Nov 11. Whatever the trial judge has decided is subject to review by the Court of Appeal. This is a civil proceeding and involves novel points of law.”

She added: “And contrary to what I think DPM (Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat) suggested, it has not been decided as to whether any loss has been caused to the town council.”

Noting that Singapore has a “court structure” that allows parties to appeal High Court judgments through the Court of Appeal and that the apex court “will review the findings at the trial and may affirm, reverse or vary the findings,” Ms Lim called Mr Heng’s motion “premature” and asked the House to reject it:

“DPM Heng filing this motion at this point in time is telling, but premature.

“The PAP Government is clearly excited about certain findings and comments contained in the High Court judgment issued on Oct 11. And these are findings in relation to certain actions taken by some of us in the aftermath of the 2011 General Election.”

PM Lee’s warning that he will “fix” the opposition resurfaces as DPM Heng readies motion against WP MPs

Will DPM Heng’s parliamentary motion against Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim backfire?

The survey results from 1,028 Singaporeans between the ages of 18 and 65 were released on November 1. It showed that these are the top three financial priorities of Singaporeans”

Putting away money in savings

Reaching financial independence

Building up an emergency fund

“After he spoke, it seemed like the WP MPs were intent on picking on specific points, asking him for a slew of clarifications. A flustered Mr Heng tried answering the points, before demanding that the party engage on the key issues of transparency, accountability and moral standards.

“But Ms Lim, the most persistent questioner, wasn’t done yet. She spoke from her prepared text and here’s where things took a turn: Mr Heng asked for an adjournment or a recess.”

“Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong had got up for his turn to speak, but Mr Heng beat him to the mic to ask the Speaker for an adjournment.”

“Sylvia Lim is the bad one. Low Thia Kiang is a decent guy who actually ran Hougang Town Council competently but…Pritam Singh and Png Eng Huat had been duped by the two above-mentioned.

“By then, it was way past 7pm. Mr Heng got up to round up the debate. It was a little garbled. He made mistakes such as talking about an “on-going appeal” (not filed yet) and how Ms Lim had admitted that the discussion was not subjudice (she didn’t).

“At one point, he talked about working with the WP to draw up some basic principles for a code of conduct for MPs both inside and outside the House, which led me to wonder if a new motion would be raised. But no. It was still about the need for ethical standards and “clean politics”.

“He also said the Government would now be “forced to express its concerns” to the AHTC independent panel. So is this the next step then?”

“The 90,000+ strong PMD community in Singapore received some unexpected news of an immediate ban on the use of PMDs on footpaths in Singapore starting Nov 5th 2019 as announced by MP Lam Pin Min in Parliament on Nov 4th 2019.

“This footpath ban is essentially a de facto ban on the use of PMDs. The bike paths and PCNs are not continuous and it does not connect point to point. Limiting the use of PMDs to bike paths and PCNs is equivalent to letting someone use the bathroom but banning the use of the toilet bowls.

“Banning them on footpaths and not giving viable alternatives will essentially wipe out any practical use of PMDs and along with it, the source of income for many Singaporeans.

“The ban was announced on Nov 4th to be implemented on Nov 5th. There was no warning or viable alternatives for riders dependent on PMDs. In many areas, there are no bike paths or PCNs. There is only footpath or road.

“MP Lam Pin Min mentioned Singapore is following in the footsteps of other countries like France, but he failed to mention that in France, while eScooters are banned on footpaths, they are allowed to ride on roads up to 20km/h.

“While the government is making efforts to build more cycling paths and PCNs, until then what are the alternatives for PMD riders. Riding on the grass? Or like the cyclists, perhaps limitations to the left of the road?

“There will be a lot of people affected: Mothers who ferry their kids on PMDs, food delivery riders who deliver your food, tens of thousands of commuters who rely on PMDs everyday for their office commute etc.

“Please help us petition the Singapore Government to PMD usage on footpaths or roads until which time the PCNs and bike paths are more accessible and cover a wider area.”

“There are approximately 15,000 – 25,000 delivery riders in Singapore at this moment. (source: from Telegram Rider Groups). Effectively with this ban, MP Lam Pin Min, has increased the unemployment rate of Singapore by 0.3 – 0.5% overnight.

“As Singapore’s economy continues to show dismal results (source: CNA Singapore’s 2019 growth forecast slashed to 0.6%), there will be even lesser jobs for Singaporeans. This unexpected move by MP Lam Pin Min will do little to help Singapore’s move towards helping the unemployed.

“I have at least 5 personal friends who rely on their daily wages by being a delivery driver. They might not know how to put food on the table by the end of this week. Is this how the government treats its citizens? Many innocent families and livelihoods are going through chaos because of this.

“1. Continued tuning of regulations and control measures for PMDs on footpaths or roads

“We have seen progress from the above regulation implementation. The implementation of UL2272 certification has greatly reduced incidents of PMDs catching fire. In fact, there are ZERO reported incidents on UL2272 PMDs catching fire.

“We have been reaping the benefits of PMDs in terms of increasing employment, becoming more efficient in last-mile solutions and even cost savings for family transportation. Implementing a ban would erase all the work that we have collectively done.

“In the long term, improve on infrastructure as a whole to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, PMD-users, motorists, etc. This is currently already happening.

“In the short term, increase controls and accountability via licensing and educational awareness programs. PMD users are willing to go for a course/certification so that they will be better informed as a user, as well as safe to other non-users.

“2. Increasing Age Limit and Compulsory Insurance

“During this period, we would like to seek consumers’ understanding that they may have to wait longer for their orders or may experience an increase in cancellations by delivery-partners who may not be able to cover the delivery distance on foot.”

Just days before Prince Harry walked the aisle with Meghan Markle last year, he had an emotional ‘final call’ with ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, according to a royal insider.

“DPM Heng filing this motion at this point in time is telling, but premature.

“The PAP Government is clearly excited about certain findings and comments contained in the High Court judgment issued on Oct 11. And these are findings in relation to certain actions taken by some of us in the aftermath of the 2011 General Election.”

Singapore News

Business

Singapore Politics