Singapore – Ms. Domenica Tan and her husband had a distressful experience with a wedding photography company called French Toast Production who “lost” all of their actual wedding day photos and the videos to their pre-wedding shoot.
On February 15 (Friday), Ms. Tan shared a post on Facebook stating her experience with French Toast Productions for the bulk of their wedding events. The post started with Ms. Tan apologising to her friends and family because they will not be able to share most of the table photos taken during the wedding banquet. We all know how important these memories captured on paper are especially for those who travelled from different countries just to be with the newlyweds on their special day.
The couple first contacted French Toast in 2017 to finalise the schedule which included the actual day photography and videography, an overseas photoshoot in Hokkaido, and a golden hour local photo and video shoot at Coney Island.
Strike 1
The first inconvenience happened when the agreed rate for the Hokkaido shoot didn’t add up to the actual costs. Even with written communication via WhatsApp, which Ms. Tan also uploaded, the photographer named Shawn extended the argument and brought up all possible loopholes to make the couple agree to the revised rates. Out of the goodwill of Ms. Tan and her husband, they covered for the hotel accommodation costs of Shawn and the make-up artist which should have been included in the initial S$3500 rate.
Strike 2
Shawn suddenly changed the number of printed copies from 50 to 30 without prior notice. When the couple clarified, he assumed that he had informed them of the change when he didn’t.
Strike 3
Early October 2018, the couple received a long message from Jonathan (the videographer) saying that the video footage from Coney Island disappeared. Even though they were very disappointed, Ms. Tan and her husband further expanded their patience and believed French Toast Production when the latter said it wouldn’t happen again.
Strike 4
The last straw happened on January 19, 2019, six weeks after their wedding celebration. To condense a rather long dialogue between the newlyweds and company, the photos were lost due to a virus which rendered the majority of the photos unrecoverable.
Ms. Tan mentioned how Shawn denied the mistake as a failure in his part and blamed the virus. When they suggested a third-party software or service provider to retrieve the files, the photographer merely brushed it aside and said nothing could be done.
When they talked compensation for the loss, the company offered a free baby photo shoot which, as Ms. Tan explained, was “a gross assumption of what married life is” and it meant that they had to wait however long before it could be availed.
She ended her post with, “I hope that with us sharing this experience, no one else would have to go through the trauma of losing pre-wedding and wedding footages like we did.”
On February 16, an instantaneous death of a contorted monitor lizard occurred at Serangoon Park Connector Network (PCN) after it was entangled in the front wheel of a bicycle.
It was alleged that the monitor lizard scuttled across the PCN pavement and got itself entangled in the spokes of the bicycle’s front wheel, causing it to die instantly as its body was twisted and bent in unnatural angles.
Contorted monitor lizard caught up in the front of the bicycle wheel. Taken from a Youtube video under SG Road Vigilante
The cyclist was also injured as she fell off the bicycle which had overturned. While the severity of her injuries were unknown, she was fortunate to have been wearing a helmet and there were passers-by around to attend to her.
It was unknown why the monitor lizard had appeared at the point when the cyclist was cycling on the pathway but according to the National Parks Board, monitor lizards are “naturally shy” and “would rather stay away from humans”. They are harmless unless provoked and are safe as long as a distance is kept within them and humans.
Netizens’ reactions on Facebook have been mixed as they expressed both concern and criticisms towards the cyclist and the monitor lizard.
Some netizens felt that the death of the monitor lizard should deserve greater attention. One person named Jackie commented,” There is no space in Singapore for wildlife now. R.I.P”.
Another person named Marcus alleged and blamed the cyclist for speeeding. He even asked,” How many demerit points for speeding?”
Another person named Gusti Suci simply wanted the cyclist to be charged for “reckless riding”.
There were also some others concerned with the cyclist’s injuries as she seemed to be badly hurt.
At some point in their life, most small businesses will go to a bank or other lending institution with what they believe to be sound business loan proposals to borrow money for expansion of their operation. Many small business owners, however, initially fall victim to several of the common and potentially destructive myths that concern applying for loans. You should always do your own research.
By: Phoenix Lee/
Myths concerning applying for a loan
For example, first-time borrowers commonly believe:
Lenders are lined up and eager to provide money to small businesses.
Banks are willing sources of financing for start-up businesses.
Loans are obtained by talking the lender out of funds.
When it comes to seeking money, the company speaks for itself.
A bank, is a bank, is a bank, and all banks are cold, impersonal institutions.
Banks, especially large ones, do not need and really do not want the business of a small firm.
Research shows that 67 per cent of all small businesses that borrow money get that money from commercial banks. This places banks among the largest sources of credit; and makes them one of the most vital components to small business survival. Understanding what your bank wants and how to properly approach them with sound business loan proposals can mean the difference between getting your money for expansion and having to scrape through finding cash from other sources.
The name for people who simply walk into a bank and ask for money is “Bank Robbers”. To present yourself as a trustworthy businessperson, dependable enough to repay borrowed money, you need to first understand the basic principles of banking.
Your chances for receiving a loan will greatly improve if you can see your proposal through a banker’s eyes and appreciate their position. Banks have a responsibility to government regulators, depositors, and the community in which they are in. While a bank’s cautious perspective may be irritating to a small business owner, it is necessary in order to keep the depositors money safe, the banking regulators happy, and the economic health of the community growing.
Banks differ in the types of financing they make available, interest rates charged, willingness to accept risk, staff expertise, services offered, and in their attitude toward small business loans. Selection of a bank is essentially limited to these choices. Furthermore, a bank will typically not make business loans to any size business unless a current account or money market account is maintained.
Ultimately, your task is to find a business-oriented bank that will provide the financial assistance, expertise, and services your business requires now and is likely to require in the future.
A good loan specialist will be able to assist you in deciding which bank will best suit your needs and prepare sound business loan proposals.
As such, you should devote time and effort to building a background of information and goodwill with the bank you choose, and get to know the loan officer you will be dealing with early on. You should also build a favourable climate for a loan request long before the funds are actually needed. The worst possible time to approach a new bank is when your business is in the throes of a financial crisis. That is like walking into a funeral parlor carrying a body.
Remember that bankers are essentially conservative lenders with an overriding concern for minimising risk. Logic dictates that this is best accomplished by limiting loans to businesses they know and trust, and to those who make sound business loan proposals.
Experienced bankers know that every firm encounters occasional difficulties; a banker you have taken the time and effort to build a rapport with will have faith that you can handle these difficulties. A responsible reputation for debt repayment may also be established with your bank by taking small loans, repaying them on schedule, and meeting all facets of the agreement in both letter and spirit.
By doing so, you gain the bankers trust and loyalty. He or she will consider your business a valued customer, favor it with privileges, and make it easier for you to obtain future financing.
Lending is the essence of the banking business and making mutually beneficial loans is as important to the success of the bank as it is to the small business. This means that understanding what information a loan officer seeks, and providing the evidence required to ease normal banking concerns, is the most effective approach to getting what is needed.
Sound business loan proposals should contain information that expands on the following points:
What is the specific purpose of the loan?
Exactly how much money is required?
What is the exact source of repayment for the loan?
What evidence is available to substantiate the assumptions that the expected source of repayment is reliable?
What alternative source of repayment is available if management’s plans fail?
What business or personal assets, or both, are available to collateralise the loan?
What evidence is available to substantiate the competence and ability of the management team?
Even a brief examination of these points suggests the need for you to do your homework before making a loan request. It is a virtual certainty that an experienced loan officer will ask probing questions about each of them. Failure to anticipate these questions, or to provide unacceptable answers, is damaging evidence that you may not completely understand the business and/or are incapable of planning for your firm’s needs.
If you have limited capital and are searching for personal loans to expand your business, the loan consultants at iCompareLoan can set you up on a path that can get you a it in a quick and seamless manner. Our loan consultants have close links with the best lenders in town and can help you compare various loans and settle for a package that best suits your needs. Find out money saving tips here.
Our Affordability Tools help you make better property buying decisions. iCompareLoan Calculators help you ascertain the fair value of a property and find properties below market value in Singapore.
If you are looking for a new home loan or to refinance, our Mortgage brokers can help you get everything right from calculating mortgage repayment, comparing interest rates all through to securing the best home loans in Singapore. And the good thing is that all our services are free of charge. So it’s all worth it to secure a loan through us for your business expansion needs.
Singapore – The Ministry of Health (MOH) released a statement on February 16 (Saturday), saying that about 7,700 people who applied or renewed their Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) cards between September and October last year received miscalculated subsidies. The error was caused by a computer system malfunction.
CHAS is an initiative by the government to provide healthcare subsidies to its members.
According to an article published by Channel NewsAsia, about 1,300 of the individuals affected by the software issue received lower subsidies while the other 6,400 got more than what was due to them. The excess and deficit amounts were estimated to be about S$2 million and S$400,000 respectively. The S$2 million will be covered for by NCS, the IT services and solutions provider who administered the computer system, as per their contract.
The individuals who received lower subsidies will have the lacking amount reimbursed. On the other hand, those who got an excess could keep the difference.
NCS first detected the anomaly on September 24, 2018 through a means test result of a CHAS card-holder. This test-system calculates the subsidy amount for cardholders based on their income information. Those with lower income will receive higher financial support. Five more cases were spotted between October 9 and November 2, 2018. From here, a more thorough investigation was conducted and the initial assumption of “intermittent network connection problems” was disregarded.
The root cause was traced to a software version issue on the server used by the means-test-system after it transitioned to another government data centre in September. MOH said that “This resulted in the means-test results being computed without the requisite income information.” The software version issue was resolved on October yet the discrepancies incurred beforehand was irreversible. MOH and NCS assessed the damage and fixed the issue before making any public announcements, as MOH deemed it necessary to ascertain the root cause in order to prevent further issues moving forward. As of February 16, the system issue has been resolved and the correct subsidies were restored. MOH aims to have all affected individuals to be fully informed by mid-March 2019.
MOH is currently working with healthcare service providers and scheme organisers to communicate with the affected individuals to arrange for reimbursements. They also added that, at this point, no proactive action is needed by the affected CHAS subsidy recipients.
As for its precautionary actions, MOH has confirmed that “Additional safeguards have been put in place to prevent any recurrence of such incidents. NCS has reiterated its commitment to being held to the highest standards as a service provider.” MOH also reassured the public that it considers the gravity of the incident and is working with NCS to ensure that it won’t happen again.
On a side note, netizens are hoping that the same positive discrepancy would be experienced for their CPF.
A report released by Bloomberg on February 13 showed a shrinking capital market in the Singapore Exchange (SGX). “The decline over recent years has been clear and pronounced,” the study stated. This decline was due to a number of companies dropping out of the listing, while others merged with bigger corporations or went private.
In 2016, the SGX lost an estimated S$15.5 billion due to 27 privatisations. The following year, more companies delisted and confirmed acquisition offers. On the other hand, only four Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) were listed during the first half of 2017. Come 2018, when the total market capitalisation of companies with primary listings had fallen by S$97.5 billion since 2014. The last five years has experienced more delistings than listings in the market with 741 companies at the end of 2018 compared to a peak of 782 in 2010.
Robson Lee, an expert capital-markets lawyer in Singapore who used to help more than 30 companies list in SGX, saw the decline and changed careers in time. His observations state that a global financial crisis does not cause a regression but more of a shift in the capital market. “If you think about the centre of gravity in Asia and where it’s going, it’s all shifting to mainland China,” noted James Thom, an Asian equities fund manager at Aberdeen Standard Investments Ltd. in Singapore.
As Singapore, with its smaller pool of domestic companies and lack of “greener pastures” to explore, slows down, Hong Kong is cementing its position as the prime choice to list in for Chinese companies. An example provided by the study was gaming company Razer Inc, which is one of Singapore’s few successful consumer-technology start-ups. It is led by Singaporean CEO Tan Min Liang and funded by GIC Pte. The company listed in November 2017 but avoid SGX altogether and went for HKEX. In 2018, HKEK raised S$45.4 billion ($33.5 billion) in IPOs as mega-corporations such as China Tower Corp., Xiaomi Corp., and Meituan Dianping listed in Hong Kong, pushing this exchange to the top spot for the year.
Tham Tuck Seng, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)’s head of capital markets in Singapore, says that “Hong Kong’s market is now so much larger and more vibrant than Singapore’s that the two can’t even be compared.” And it is not just Hong Kong that Singapore has to watch out for. Last year, the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange in Vietnam and Thailand’s bourse raised S$3.9 billion ($2.9 billion) and S$3.5 billion ($2.6 billion) respectively.
Why Hong Kong and not Singapore
A short comparison was provided in the report which listed some of Singapore’s “shortcomings” in light of Hong Kong’s strengths such as the education system and homeownership. Singapore is known for producing high-achieving students through rote learning and strict adherence to rules. This system, however, leads to a lack of entrepreneurs and creative people; some things needed for thinking out of the box in a volatile environment such as the stock market. Another drag pinpointed in the article is the focus Singaporeans have toward homeownership. With over 90 percent of Singaporeans owning their homes compared to Hong Kong’s 50 percent, the latter has more money to liquidate in the stock market.
The study did not forget to highlight the success story of Singapore and its journey to becoming the world’s third-richest country in a single generation. While the fate of the stock market may move past Singapore, this will not leave the country empty-handed. Bloomberg tapped Maybank Kim Eng Research Pte’s senior economist, Chua Hak Bin, and Chew Sutat, head of equities and fixed-income businesses at SGX to enumerate some of the strengths of the country amidst the shrinking capital market. These include:
– an established real estate investment trust market
– notably high valuations for medical-services companies
– a good track record in listing consumer stocks
– the ability to help companies raise funds beyond their initial offerings
The experts also agree that Singapore is still “the market of choice for firms looking to expand regionally and tap international visitors.” Head of investment research at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. (OCBC), Carmen Lee, added that “A lot of private bank money is now in Singapore, and they actually like the core, somewhat boring, defensive stocks.”
This “somewhat boring” capital market may be considered as the icing on the cake because it is still a steadily-growing economy that lays a stable foundation for a country.
Proving Karl Marx’s dictum about history repeating itself as a farce, Singapore’s second largest data breach happened in 2016 when the ministry’s very own HIV registry data was downloaded by Mikhy Farrera Brochez, the same-sex paramour of Ler Teck Siang, the head of its National Public Health Unit, but was only disclosed last week.
Why wasn’t the public and the patients on the HIV registry informed in 2016? Why is the public and the patients on the HIV registry informed only now? The minister of health, Gan Kim Yong, explained in parliament the ministry made the right call because in 2016 the police thought they had deleted all copies of the HIV registry data from his devices. Since there was no evidence the data had been published, there was no need to inform those affected because informing them would cause distress and emotional harm.
The minister’s advice comes across as unfortunate at best, and a passive-aggressive challenge at worst.
We assume that the minister was serious when he presented his ministry’s perplexing decision to keep the breach under wraps as the result of a “judgement call” weighing principles of transparency and timely disclosure against the interests and well-being of the patients (i.e. the preference for anonymity and not to be identified as having a positive HIV status).
But how can PLHIV sue the ministry in civil court? They’d have to prove locus standi, which means they must be willing to be named and identified as PLHIV. That is a high, even punitive price to pay, to seek redress wrong and harm for which the ministry may be partially or fully at fault, due to its possible mishandling of the breach in 2016.
And why should PLHIV be made to take a civil suit against the ministry, when there’s a Personal Data Protection Commission that should by right convene an investigation and mete out fines? Has the PDPC stopped existing? Or does the Ministry of Health, as part of the government, have immunity from the PDPC? That would be a perverse state of affairs indeed, if an organ of the state is immune to the same processes and oversight that the SingHealth group was subjected to, for an ever-so-slightly-smaller data breach.
Did Donald Low give the Ministry of Health a free pass?
I think we can accept the Minister for Health’s explanation that his ministry made an honest “judgement call” not to inform the affected patients of the data breach back in 2016, and that it was not unreasonable for them to assess then that putting out the information would have caused more harm than good.
We at Illusio believe Low’s communique is little more than weak hand-waving. Just because the ministry made a judgement call doesn’t mean it should be absolved of blame if it were found to have made the wrong call. In what way was the reasoning as laid out by the minister “not unreasonable”? Low offers no explanation, no yardsticks, no existing standards or guidelines to measure the correctness of the ministry’s decision or the harm done to the PLHIV in the registry.
Readers will recall that in our discussion on the declassification of intelligence documents, the MI5 in the UK voluntarily and selectively releases historical intelligence reports to the National archives, but the minister is entitled to refuse declassification in the interests of national security, as long as the minister enters into (classified) record that he has indeed weighed the factors made a judgement call.
Note that the minister himself did not cite national security as the ministry’s reason to withhold disclosure of the breach. Low’s suggestion, with the implication that it is entirely appropriate for the Ministry of Health to apply a purely political calculus to manage a crisis where it should instead have applied healthcare (as its domain of regulation and expertise) or data governance principles (as the situation fell under), is either pure stupidity or administrative arrogance.
How should the Ministry of Health have acted then?
The Ministry of Health is not a healthcare provider; it does not treat the PLHIV on its HIV patient registry. Hence the Bolam-Bolitho test does not apply. Whether the Ministry of Health can be taken to civil court or just simply thrown the book by the PDPC simply depends on 3 basic tort principles:
What was the duty of care owed by the ministry to PLHIV on its HIV registry?
Did the ministry’s actions measure up or fall short of the duty of care owed to PLHIV?
Would other reasonable, responsible, respectable bodies have made the same decision in its position?
We note that Singapore’s HIV registry is a name-based registry which includes confidential information like “addresses, HIV status and other medical information” of PLHIV resident in Singapore, whether they are Singapore citizens, PRs, or guest workers.
The NHS in the UK has this to say in its 2007 guidance on data governance: holders and controllers of confidential patient information have a common lawduty of confidentiality to these patients. They have a duty of care to facilitate and maintain the confidentiality of patient records. Applying the common law duty of confidentiality, the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care advise that “if information is inappropriately disclosed, the individual can take legal action for breach against the public body concerned.” On a design level, the Information Commissioner’s Office (a far stronger version of Singapore’s PDPC) is to be notified by the organisation’s IT head or equivalent whenever confidential records are processed, and it must be notified when breaches have occurred, and it is the arbiter of whether a public authority has properly dealt with a breach.
If a breach is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, the GDPR says you must inform those concerned directly and without undue delay. In other words, this should take place as soon as possible. Example: A hospital suffers a breach that results in an accidental disclosure of patient records. There is likely to be a significant impact on the affected individuals because of the sensitivity of the data and their confidential medical details becoming known to others. This is likely to result in a high risk to their rights and freedoms, so they would need to be informed about the breach.
And here we have it. A reasonable, respectable, and reputable institution on the level of Singapore’s Ministry of Health would have made the entirely opposite decision that Mr Gan Kim Yong defended and rationalised in parliament as a good judgement call.
But was there a real, high risk to the rights and freedoms of the PLHIV when Brochez helped himself to Singapore’s HIV registry? Instead of calling in the information and privacy watchdog and experts on this matter, the police were involved. Their lack of expertise in this matter (and inappropriateness as an investigation authority in this matter) is evident, when they judged that because the data was wiped from Brochez and Ler’s devices, there was no real risk of the confidential information getting leaked into the wild.
Proving Karl Marx’s dictum about history repeating itself as a farce, Singapore’s second largest data breach happened in 2016 when the ministry’s very own HIV registry data was downloaded by Mikhy Farrera Brochez, the same-sex paramour of Ler Teck Siang, the head of its National Public Health Unit, but was only disclosed last week.
Why wasn’t the public and the patients on the HIV registry informed in 2016? Why is the public and the patients on the HIV registry informed only now? The minister of health, Gan Kim Yong, explained in parliament the ministry made the right call because in 2016 the police thought they had deleted all copies of the HIV registry data from his devices. Since there was no evidence the data had been published, there was no need to inform those affected because informing them would cause distress and emotional harm.
If the 2018 hack of SingHealth records didn’t illustrate the need clearly enough: Singapore’s healthcare industry and its own healthcare regulator both lack a competent data governance model, even though Singapore may have competently carried out its national campaign to digitise healthcare records.
It appears that the PDPC was not designed to be an integral part of active data governance, nor part of crisis and breach management.
As the HIV registry contains not just the details of Singapore citizens but foreign nationals who were resident in Singapore, the fallout cannot be easily contained. Foreign governments, especially European states under the extraterritorial scope of the GDPR regime, have a whip hand against the Singapore government especially if the Ministry of Health is seen to be excused from accountability, responsibility, and even the requirement of competence in this matter. Such an egregious series of lapses require real and overreaching remedies.
We at Illusio therefore recommend a redesign of the structure of data governance, as well as for the PDPC to be beefed up and empowered as a fully fledged information commission. Further, we recommend parliament pass legislation mandating mandatory disclosure for data breaches, along the lines of the Australian model.
Instead of giving his ministry the all-clear, minister Gan Kim Yong should convene an independent inquiry, refer the breach to the PDPC, and allow the PDPC to set whatever fines and restitution it sees fit. And hopefully Mr Gan, as minister in charge of the ministry which has spectacularly failed in its duty of care to PLHIV, should offer his resignation to the prime minister after the end of the inquiry and the PDPC hearings we recommend.
Despite having her very own trained Singaporean army for about 52 years, some of the domestic security work in Singapore are still being taken over by Nepalese Troops. Here’s why.
The recent deaths of servicemen have very much garnered nationwide attention as many questioned the safety precautions of trainings by the Singapore Armed Forces. (SAF) This is further fueled by the death of a 33 year old serviceman a few days ago, as well as the death of the actor Aloysius Pang, which had aroused a major wave of unhealthy skepticism and criticisms regarding the safety measures put in place.
In response,PM Lee has assured that he and the SAF leadership do take “safety with utmost seriousness” in a Facebook post on 15th of February.He even mentioned the importance of seeing “things in perspective when something goes wrong”.
He also added that Singaporeans “cannot outsource our security and defence to anyone else” as “we have to defend Singapore ourselves”.
Despite PM Lee stressing the importance of self-defence, which is heavily maintained by the SAF and Singapore Police force(SPF), why does Singapore still outsource some of her domestic security work to Nepalese troops, who are currently upholding peace and security in Singapore?
The GC, or Gurkha Contingent is a department of the SPF and it primarily consists of Gurkhas from Nepal. Gurkhas are Nepalese troops who used to serve under the British Army during the colonial period. These Gurkhas are well-trained, highly disciplined and very dedicated when performing their tasks. The principal role of the contingent is to be a special guard force, and it is currently used to counter terrorist forces.
These Gurkhas were critical during the 50s and 60s due to their crucial role in maintaining the peace and security during these stormy periods, which were marked by the Maria Hertogh Riots, Hock Lee Bus Riots, 1964 Racial Riots and Konfrontasi.Additionally, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew also highly valued these Gurkhas as he expressed tremendous trust for them in his memoir ‘From Third World To The First’.
It seemed that such trust did not dwindle and continue to be projected by the government today as they continue to outsource Singapore’s security to Nepalese troops, instead of using self-trained Singaporean servicemen and regulars 100% for the job.
To such an admission, netizens do not take it kindly as many were antagonistic, actively expressing hostile statements on Facebook.
Public discussion on National Service and military matters has reached a stage where every family must now be allowed to have a say on how the Singapore Armed Forces should go forward. All that Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen has touched on – every measure to ensure safety and zero fatality during training – is the barest minimum that true-blue Singaporeans would expect. If for any second anyone of us does not buy his reiteration in Parliament of the SAF’s commitment to safety measures following the deaths of CFC Aloysius Pang, NSF Gavin Chan, NSF Dave Lee, NSF Liu Kai and others, then the enlistment letter that will go out to all NS-liable males from here on will not be worth the cost of the paper on which it is printed.
Fifty-two years and many generations of NSmen later, the shape of NS must no longer be determined by just MINDEF and the Cabinet. True-blue Singaporeans must be invited and encouraged to take part in a comprehensive public conversation of the concept. It is not enough to focus merely on safety and have a statement, say sorry, go through some manner of debate in Parliament, tighten up inspections and pass the buck to an inquiry.
Don’t waste this opportunity. Don’t stop here. We have gone beyond the do you or do you not support NS phase. PM Lee Hsien Loong has served his NS. That we know and appreciate. Workers Party’s Pritam Singh is still doing his reservist training. (By the way, many Singaporeans are still unhappy that we have a young male Minister of State who has never done NS at all). Every other millennial male MP – sons of the early batches of NSmen – would have been familiar with Pulau Tekong, just as early batches knew SAFTI and Peng Kang Hill at the back of their palms. Each would have something to say about training, the IPPT, reservist duties – and what they want their own sons to undergo.
There is credibility when ex-NSman PM Lee spoke about how seriously he and SAF leaders took safety. He said: “(While serving in the General Staff) I had to account to the bereaved families and think hard how to keep servicemen safe while still fulfilling the SAF’s mission.”
He added that later as PM, he has to make sure that MINDEF has capable leaders and that “when a training accident occurs, the Government answers, not only to the family but also to all NSmen and the public too.”
When WP’s Pritam Singh tried to push for greater accountability beyond answering to families and upping safety measures, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen became unnecessarily defensive. He replied that he was more interested in dealing with the issue instead of getting involved in posturing and politicking. I don’t think Pritam was trying to earn brownie points in the debate. He is a politician yes but he is also a still serving NSman and has every right to make suggestions, to reflect ground feeling.
Ng did not sound like a man who was deeply sorry. Pritam’s point was perfectly legitimate. Heads must roll if lapses have been proven. Otherwise, the culture of reporting on these lapses as suggested repeatedly by Ng does not make sense, it would have no sting whatsoever.
We have made progress and moved on with the times. Not so long ago, any discussion of any aspect of military matters had to be cleared by MINDEF. I remember in the years just after NS was introduced in 1967 there was a burst of public debate on NS. MINDEF quickly clamped down on it and it got to such an absurd degree where even reporting on a couple of MINDEF-sponsored helium filled balloons for an Orchard Road celebration had to be approved.
Social media makes it impossible now to control every dissemination of information unless of course there is clear-cut breach of national security.
Let the public conversation on NS continue. Don’t stifle it. Every true-blue family has a stake in this country. NS affects their lives – the quality, impact on jobs, future, education.
Three foreigners you just love to hate
You have seen his face on Facebook, showing his middle finger purportedly just outside the Singapore embassy in Washington DC. American fraudster Mikhy Brochez, described as a “pathological liar” by Singapore authorities, had allegedly leaked the confidential records of 14,200 HIV-positive individuals, along with 2,400 of their contacts, with information spanning almost three decades from 1985 up to January 2013. Singapore is trying to extradite him here to face charges.
Photo: YouTube screengrab
Singapore is also still waiting to extradite Canadian David James Roach who is still under arrest in Britain pending an extradition bid to get him to answer a charge for robbing a StanChart bank in Holland Village.
Finally, there was the late Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu, convicted for a deadly 2009 hit-and-run accident in Singapore. , who died of cardio-respiratory problem in a Bucharest jail hospital.
If looks could launch a thousand darts, I would nominate this trio.
Tan Bah Bah is a former senior leader writer with The Straits Times. He was also managing editor of a local magazine publishing company.
ValueChampion, a research company, has recognised Singapore as Asia-Pacific’s most millennial-friendly city.
Tokyo placed second while Hong Kong ranked the third-best destination for millennials to move in.
The research firm evaluated different public data, along with 20 Asia-Pacific cities that were considered most suitable for millennials based on potential job opportunities, living costs, and quality of life.
Joining the top five best destinations were Guangzhou (China) and Melbourne (Australia), respectively.
In a report, led by William Hofmann, ValueChampion senior research analyst, cited most millennials consider Singapore as the best city to seek better careers and achieve the quality of life that many young professionals aspire for.
The report added Singapore’s thriving economy has various job opportunities fit for young workforce.
The study noted the Lion City posted the lowest disparity in terms of gender wage rate and the second-lowest job rate among the 20 cities analysed. Overall, it registered 2.2% while 3.96% for young professionals. This indicates the ease of looking for high-paying jobs in Singapore.
What makes Singapore so distinct to other cities were its language diversity and its global prominence as a finance hub in the Asia Pacific region. Also, it is an ideal place for start-up firms.
Hong Kong fared well in the rankings as a result of its strong economy and high employment rate with 2.8% overall while 8.12% for the young workers.
At the same time, the Singapore-based research firm cited Hong Kong has “very good” health indicators with its citizens’ life expectancy of at least 84.2 years old.
However, their negative indicators for Hongkong were its cost of living (ninth place) and quality of life (sixth in ranking). Most residents of the city have to pay about 31% of their salaries on house rents, which are putting a toll on young people starting their careers.
Guangzhou, situated in Guangdong Province, China was one in the top five most affordable cities, as cited by the report.
The study evaluated the housing cost and used the average price of a pint of beer to determine the basic entertainment costs for the general cost of living.
Hoffman cited Guangzhou was, in general, an affordable city with its relatively high GDP per capita in China and very low rental fees and beer prices.
On average, as Guangzhou resident pays about 22% of their salaries on rent. It was found the second-cheapest city to purchase a beer at around S$1.22 (US$0.9) per pint.
The study showed that Hong Kong sells the most expensive beer at a cost of S$12.19 (US$8.97) per average pint.
Data sources used in the evaluation came from the World Bank, Deutsche Bank, and the World Health Organisation. Some of the key indicators the methodology analysis consisted of GDP growth rates, GDP per capita, low job rates and average monthly house rental fees for a 39sqm space.
The Singaporean government is ready to announce this week the 2019 budget described as “generous” and “expansionary.” This will be months before the local elections kick in.
In a recent report released by Maybank Kim Eng, a Malaysian financial service company, the budget consists of health care cost subsidies and other expenditures for the Singaporean citizens.
The supposed elections for 2021, according to Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s prime minister, will be held this year or almost two years ahead of schedule.
Lee’s leads the People’s Action Party that has been in existence for six decades since 1959. This was prior to the independence of the city-state.
For the very first time since 2016, the government is set to spare more funds compared to its annual set earnings for the coming national elections and drive economic reforms despite the dwindling tensions worldwide.
Singapore’s budget deficit will be between S$1.2 billion and S$6.9 billion or around US$883.3 billion to US$5.08 billion, based on early forecasts. This value is about 0.3% to 1.5% of Singapore’s GDP.
The small but rich member of the Southeast Asian nations has the potential to gain a higher budget deficit than anticipated with its huge budget surpluses in the previous years.
As cited in the country’s Constitution, the Singaporean government should have a balance revenue and expenditure during the five-year term. The 2019 budget is considered the fourth and the last prior to the new electoral period.
For the past four fiscal years, the country’s accumulated surpluses were about S$20 billion, as cited by Citi analysts. This provides Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat, who is anticipated to be Lee’s successor, a full budget if he decides to pursue government projects that require higher spending in the next couples of years during his term.
But Citi noted Heng will most likely be wise in spending the public funds. In general, Singapore is very conservative in its overall spending. Based on Citi analysts’ forecast, over 50% of the surpluses will be stored in the country’s reserves.
Senior Singaporeans born in the 1950s will be the main recipients of the anticipated fiscal year’s budget. Health care subsidy packages will be provided for the estimated 500,000 Singaporean elderly.
The government’s initiative is known as the “Merdeka Generation Package.” In Malay, Merdeka means ‘independence.’
This program has been announced by Lee since last year and the full details will be available during the budget speech on Feb 18. (Monday).
OCBC economists noted the package could be around S$4 billion to S$7 billion. However, both Citi and Maybank analysts cited it would be higher as high as S$8 billion.
OCBC added if the 2019 national budget will be a related pre-election spending program, based on the bank’s previous assessment on city-state’s expenditure, Singaporeans could expect personal income tax rebates and cash bonuses.
Currently, Singapore’s growing economy remains resilient because of its steady global commerce despite the existing trade tensions between the U.S. and China. Singapore’s GDP increased by 3.2% in 2018, a bit lower from 3.9% the past year. For 2019, growth is set to be moderate amid the external threats in the business climate.
The Finance Ministry said the 2019 budget will assist firms to increase their productivity and be globally competitive. This budget continues to incentivise the company to adopt new technologies and apply innovation to widen their business market reach.
