20161027 Government preparing citizens for economic downturn by … talking nonsense

Minister after minister has kept making unverifiable statements to prepare Singaporeans for a severe economic downturn.

Unsurprisingly, PM Lee claims “we are pursuing the right strategies” but he does not know if the “right strategies” will work wonders in a year, a decade or a century.

The problem with our “right strategies” is they are merely economic shortcuts to generate GDP growth.

How can economic strategies be “right” when the issue of stagnant productivity has yet to be addressed? The fact is, PAP has been increasing the population to grow the GDP and till today, nothing has changed.

Since Lee became PM in 2004, the foreigner population saw an increase of 1.19 million or 108% while citizen population increased by only 12%. The Population White Paper is a step in the same direction for the next 14 years. It will of course increase GDP growth but is PM Lee “pursuing the right strategies”?

PM Lee cites statistics on our educational system and concludes young Singaporeans have many more opportunities than a generation ago. But without more opportunities in the 1980s, a degree could buy meals at different restaurants. What is the point of having more opportunities when a degree cannot be eaten?

30 years ago, Singaporeans had meaningful opportunities such as buying affordable homes which are fully paid in 20 years or less. And Singaporeans had no second thoughts about having sex in a small space or rather a bigger space before HDB shrank flat sizes.

Without more opportunities 30 years ago, more babies were born

By “opportunities”, perhaps PM Lee meant Singaporeans’ lost opportunities?

Truth is, PAP has been creating more opportunities for foreigners in order to help our GLCs – managed by scholars and elites – to lower business costs.

PM Lee says it’s not so hard to print more degrees or produce more graduates and the difficult thing is to train people and to build the economy at the same time, etc. It appears PM Lee is trying to impress upon SIT students the difficulty in running our little red dot. If running Singapore is really too demanding for PM Lee, why don’t PAP ministers just quit and not beg voters at elections?

PM Lee then claims Singapore is “unique among many of the developed countries” because PAP has ensured we do not have a youth unemployment problem. As usual, PM Lee wastes no time in taking pot shots at South Korea and Taiwan in order to get his point across to … students.

But if PM Lee were the leader of South Korea or Taiwan, the unemployment problem would still be an issue.

Unabashedly, PM Lee claims “We are not made of candy floss… We are not like the strawberry generation – these are durians, very tough”. Sure or not? PAP elites have never tasted failure and suka suka rewrite legislations to its advantage all the time. Is someone who always hits under the belt as tough as durians or softer than tofu?

The takeaway from PM Lee’s speech is PAP has already done its part in anticipation of a severe economic downturn. PAP is totally prepared to deal with the crisis and the ball is in ordinary citizens’ court.

But of course we know it’s 100% …. pure PAP bullshit.

20161024 Minister Ong Ye Kung talking cock about job creation for Singaporeans

Khaw used to be top on the talking cock list but younger aspirants like Minister Ong Ye Kung seems to have mastered the art in double quick time.

Perhaps being sarcastic, Ong says “Singapore needs an economy driven by new ideas”. Something wrong with Lau Goh’s open-leg policy? Or PM Lee growing our GDP by opening casinos or inviting billionaires to take up citizenship?

In a recent talking cock session to an audience of mostly students from SUTD, Ong uses an analogy of the “world as an airport” and says our economy has to be more than a “control tower”: it has to become a “runway” where ideas are conceived, business plans are developed, and products and services eventually launched.

Question: How to have such a runway when PAP leaders are preoccupied with propaganda, self service and control?

Did someone write Ong’s thesis? Does Ong not have ZERO experience in the real private sector, not GLCs? (Since 1993, Ong has served in different ministries, as PPS to PM Lee, CEO of WDA, NTUC Asst. Sec-Gen, etc and finally entered Parliament via the GRC back door system)

Ong: “… be more gung ho and prepared to take risks and fail..”. What about PAP leaders? Aren’t the careers of PAP scholars iron rice bowls, smooth as silk since day one?

It’s easy for policymakers and part-time MPs earning more than $50,000 every month to exhort risk taking from behind a desk. During the GFC when risk takers were … taking risk, PAP ministers were looking at their CPF statements every month and rewarding themselves with 19-month bonuses.

Image result for 2008 ministerial service salaries

PAP leaders are the most risk-adverse species, preferring others to take risk while they reap the rewards. Can Ong name any PAP member who took real risk besides Michael Palmer and David Ong?

A good example would be the HDB which takes ZERO risk with its BTO flat allocation system, unlike private developers.

Ong should not expect others to walk his talk when he and his party members only talk.

Thanks for the joke Ye Kung.

Risk takers exist in every society and who doesn’t want to make money when the opportunity arises? PAP should just stop monopolising public resources and tweaking legislations to favour GLCs, stop crowding out SMEs and genuine businesses and there will be risk takers aplenty.

In another report, Ong cited unverifiable job statistics: 30,000 IT professionals are needed next year. So which companies are hiring 30,000 Singaporean IT professionals? You bet Ong can’t even name the companies hiring half the number of IT professionals.

If PAP had any planning and had known there would be future demand for IT professionals, why were polytechnics and universities not conducting more IT courses years ago? Nobody wants good jobs with good pay or were 30,000 IT jobs miraculously created this year?

Equally optimistic is Ong’s cabinet colleague Gan Kim Yong who has a surprise for Singaporeans: 30,000 additional healthcare workers will be needed in five year. Gan describes these as “ample good jobs for Singaporeans”. Don’t know who he’s trying to hoodwink.

For at least a decade, PAP has been depressing wages of healthcare workers by importing foreigners. Healthcare wages are not determined by market forces but government immigration policy which now allows PAP to label citizens ‘choosy’.

Like PM Lee who realised “easy ways” to economic growth were “maxed out”, Ong seems to have realised “easy ways” to job growth have also been “maxed out”. Ong warns of tougher times ahead for retrenched workers who had it so much easier when the government was preparing to open 2 casinos in 2008.

Ong claims the government is “helping laid-off workers find new jobs and retraining workers to have the necessary skill”. But aren’t these mostly lower-paying jobs, not the good jobs promised by PAP?

Truth be said, the government has never assisted meaningful numbers of retrenched PMETs. There are no statistics to confirm X number of retrenched PMETs were re empolyed through government assistance. PAP has been merely talking cock all the time and using the MSM to gloss over unemployment numbers.

Ong’s final advice to employees: be multi-skilled, possess mental skills and be willing to unlearn, learn and relearn. If it were really so simple, retrenched workers would be re employed almost immediately. But of course Ong was referring to menial jobs/blue collar jobs which qualify one to beg for state handouts.

So what about PAP? When are ministers going to unlearn their economic shortcuts and learn to generate real GDP growth through increased productivity?

It’s about time Singaporeans pause to think: in the absence of supporting statistics, PAP is just talking cock. The days of treating citizens as fools are over. Or are they not?

20161023 Are part-time MPs Baey and Tin snake oil sellers?

I refer to PAP’s wayang in “Falling parts in old blocks: Call for more checks”.

The misleading article gives the impression that parts are falling off HDB blocks because they are old, ie more than 30 years. What about the slab of plaster which fell from a 17-year old block in Whampoa?

In the latest incident, MacPherson MP Tin Pei Ling attempts to push the blame to the HDB. She says the building facade was added to the the 51-year old block which “undergone HDB’s Main Upgrading Programme” in 1997.

Tin then claims that her town council conducted “recent checks on the block and adjacent blocks” and “found them to be in good condition”. In one fell swoop, soiled sanitary pad discoverer Tin exonerated HDB and her town council.

Are MacPherson residents too stupid to believe there could have been oversight by Tin’s estate officers? Tin must have thought so.

Since no one is to blame and taxpayers will be picking up the tab, issue closed. What will PAP do without MPs like Tin?

Tin also appears very concerned and hopes “more checks can be done on the older blocks”. If another incident happens at a newer block, more checks should then be conducted on the newer blocks right?

According to the article, Tin will also be filing parliamentary questions to “address the issue”. Of course the issue is not about the accountability of civil servants or politicians. Tin wants to request for more tax dollars to be thrown at another round of upgrading. This sort of snake oil seller MP is a joke but this joke is unfortunately at Singaporeans’ expense.

In another incident, a false ceiling at the void deck of a Tampines HDB block collapsed on Monday. Of course this is clearly not ‘train fault’ or ‘signal fault’ but ‘termites fault’, according to our quick-to-blame Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng. Baey reassures his constituents that it was an isolated issue, not systemic one, and termites won’t cause the building to collapse.

To prevent this from becoming a systemic issue, Baey’s town council will be inspecting nearby blocks for termite infestations. So clever, our PAP MPs.

Like Tin, Baey appears to be another snake oil seller taking his propaganda-loving constituents for another ride. The possibility of an entire false ceiling collapsing suddenly is probably slimmer than striking Big Sweep 1st Prize because there would have been signs like tiny holes on the wood, damaged wood, mud like traces/tunnels, swarms of flying ants, thousands of dropped wings, etc.

Baey’s town council was either not working and grassroots members as usual bochap. To minimise their workload, town councils mostly work on the basis of complaints. Like SMRT, they are cutting corners and cutting costs in proper maintenance as if there are no consequences.

So which town council manager gave the green light to use untreated wood instead of metal in our humid weather? Why is Baey afraid to name the contractor? Is the contractor PAP affiliated, a grassroots member or related to one?

Things are not looking up for Tampines TC Chairman Baey as the worstest incident had recently happened in his estate less than a month ago. On 25 September, a concrete sunshade was dislodged and partially fell onto the sunshade on the third storey.

Of course one should not expect Baey to address the obvious question of accountability. PAP and their affiliates do not make any errors and so long as tax dollars are thrown at a solution, Singaporeans should just move on. No point to KPKB.

Original image @ dreamstime

20161022 More feedback needed to prevent road accidents

I have been providing feedback to the TP for a number of years. (link in my email below)

The TP have acted on my feedback but the few feedback are insufficient to paint the real situation of our roads. Businesses must be convinced that unsafe practices to lower costs are unacceptable.

Providing feedback to the TP will take at most 10 minutes of your time and if possible, include photos.

Preventable accidents have resulted from our collective silence. The next victim could be our loved ones.

From: Efran KOH (SPF)
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 2:19 PM
To: pipakh
Subject: (SR#: SR/20161020/0543) – Activity # – 1-FROAJW: FW: 20161019 Additional enforcement/deterrent measures by Traffic Police needed

Dear Philip,

I refer to your email of 19 Oct 2016 addressed to Commander Traffic Police, Sam Tee, with regards to your call for more enforcement actions and measures against errant heavy vehicles. My name is Efran, Head Service Quality for Traffic Police. On behalf of Traffic Police, I will like to thank you for raising your feedback to our attention and for recognising our road safety efforts thus far. We indeed acknowledge and thank the various key stakeholders, community partners, and of course many other law abiding motorists for coming on board with us to achieve safer roads for Singapore.

2 Please be assured that Traffic Police will continue with our efforts to enhance road safety through education, engagement, and enforcement. Our Patrol Unit has been alerted on your feedback and will take them into operational considerations during their daily deployment on the roads. Once again, I thank you for engaging Traffic Police. Have a great week ahead.


Efran Koh
Head Service Quality
Service Quality Branch / Traffic Police

Singapore Police Force

DID: (65) 6547 6361 | FAX: (65) 6547 4900

A Member of the Home Team – Keeping Singapore Safe and Secure

WARNING: “Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorized person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error.”

From: “pipakh” <pipakh>
Date: 19 October 2016 at 8:28:07 PM SGT
To: “TP AC SAM TEE” <sam_tee>
Cc: “TP CMD” <cheang_keng_keong>, “TP CO PATROL UNIT” <CHOY_CHAN_HOE>
Subject: 20161019 Additional enforcement/deterrent measures by Traffic Police needed


AC Sam Tee

Traffic Police

Dear AC Tee

I refer to my numerous feedback on overloaded heavy vehicles, improperly secured/unsecured cargoes, etc. link

While I appreciate the TP have stepped up enforcement measures, it appears additional enforcement/deterrent measures are needed to prevent unnecessary accidents.

It is doubtful that these heavy vehicles are carrying cargoes in a safe manner. (images below)





Please increase enforcement measures and ensure that businesses do not blatantly flout safety rules.

Thank you and have a nice day.


Phillip Ang

20161022 Temasek-linked companies given access to unlimited tax dollars?

Temasek-linked companies seem to have access to unlimited tax dollars.

In June last year, TLC Surbana Jurong (SJ) acquired KTP Consultants and Sinosun Architects & Engineers. Surbana Jurong intends to continue acquiring companies to morph into a global player and money will not be an issue. CEO Wong Heang Fine confirmed this when he said “..there’s no limit to the amount that we are willing to spend as long as it fits our growth strategies.”

As to be expected, this joker CEO Wong had started his career with the EDB and parachuted into numerous government-linked companies. link

It is strange for Temasek-linked companies to be acquiring companies as if there’s no tomorrow because ample warnings – inflated asset prices and weaker returns – have been sounded. Even by its sister company, GIC.

Temasek’s business model is simplistic: buy over companies to make more money. But companies that are put up for sale are either risky or if they aren’t, their owners would demand a very high premium. Or perhaps owners are stupid?

What’s worse, Chairman Liew Mun Leong’s focus is on growing revenue, not profits. Liew: “Surbana Jurong will grow its annual revenue from S$500 million currently to potentially S$1.5 billion in the same time frame.” Any other chairman who’s not interested in the bottom line?

As confirmed by NOL, revenue targets are meaningless. NOL had managed to achieve 8 times SJ’s current revenue but was eventually sunk by ex paper general Ng Yat Chung.

NOL’s revenues averaged more than $9 billion from 2010 to 2014.

(In 2009, Liew was reported to have been awarded a $20 million bonus and was described as “a civil engineer who spent 22 years as a civil servant before taking the corporate world by storm”. The ST journalist must have received a bonus beyond his wildest imagination for his conviction in hogwash. PAP’s corporate ‘success’ stories have been written with billions of tax dollars, no doubt. If PAP-affiliated civil servants could, on their own merit, be successful in the corporate world, pigs can skydive.)

Shrewd investors and businessmen see Temasek (and GIC) as ‘Robert’, the rich kid on the block, a ‘carrot to be chopped’. Or maybe a money tree. What these PAP-affiliated scholars need is an inflated ego to part with billions of tax dollars. Real performance is never an issue as it will not see daylight.

Legendary investor Jim Rogers had this to say about Temasek: “I know these people, and they have never given me the impression that they’re smarter than anyone else. They have gigantic amounts of money, but they’ve made a bad judgement in these cases.” Rogers correctly predicted Temasek’s billion-dollar losses after it had invested in failed financial institutions during the GFC.

Temasek can’t simply employ its simplistic growth model by going on a shopping spree. Which goondu would sell a well-managed profitable business?

Two months ago, Temasek again gave some loose change to SJ to buy Australia’s SMEC for S$400 million. This is what was reported in Australia’s press:

Thank you Singaporean tax payers!


In the BT report, SJ again mentioned a revenue, not profit, target of $1.5 billion. Throwing more tax dollars to achieve this is so difficult meh? Joker Wong was reported to be shooting for a new revenue target of between $2.5 billion and $3 billion in 3 to 5 years’ time.

The same report also mentioned SJ having crossed its staff strength target of 6000. For ?? Does a company exist to Increase staff and revenue or bottom line? It’s as meaningless as Temasek disclosing its organisational weight profile of its employees.

To inflate Temasek’s ego, SMEC CEO Andy Goodwin own self praised own self and said: “In the markets that we are in, with the skill sets that we offer, it would not be unreasonable to expect organic growth in the region of 10 to 15% per year. Sure or not? If can grow so much, then why sell the company? Hmm.. so fast learn to talk cock like Temasek?

However, the overly-optimistic BT report failed to mention an ongoing investigation (same link above) that could potentially affect 15% of SMEC’s fees. The “involvement or allegation of involvement by the company in “illegal or questionable business practices (including facilitation payments and bribery)” could damage its reputation.”

It also did not mention SMEC’s current net debt which was last reported to have increased by A$25 million to A$56.6 million from Dec 2015 to March 2016.

With former civil servants running Surbana Jurong and tax dollars falling from the Singapore sky, will CEO Wong be taking the corporate world by storm? Or is it goodbye to more tax dollars?