I refer to the article “Towards a broader meritocracy” (Straits Times, Apr 20) and “Cabinet: More left-of-centre now, helping the lower income” (Straits Times, Apr 19).

Shift from centrist to the left?

It states that “The Cabinet has shifted to the left in how it views social policy and helping the lower income, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said.“If I compare our thinking in Cabinet, or the weight of thinking in Cabinet, when I first entered politics about 11 years ago, I would say the weight of thinking was centrist but there were two flanks on either side of it.

“There were some who were a little right-of-centre, and there were some a little left-of-centre,” he said. “Now I would say the weight of thinking is left-of-centre. You still get diversity of views in Cabinet, but the centre of gravity is left-of-centre.”

Focus on lower-income Singaporeans and older folk?

Mr Tharman said the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”.”

Not “focused” all these years?

So, do the above remarks mean that we were “not focused” or “less focused” on “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”, in the past?

“Statistical” evidence?

Well, like they say “talk is cheap – let the numbers do the talking!”. So, I cracked my head to think about what statistics may help to answer this question of “focus”.

Big thank you to ES

Sometimes, life works in strange ways – a reader, ES, had just sent me some Budget documents from 1975 with the remarks “Not sure if they are of use to you”. (Note: ES is also the kind soul who sent me the 1987 university education statistics (“No such thing as “tuition grant” before?“, Apr 2) when I said I could not find the tuition fees in 1987 in an earlier article)

Social spending statistics?

Back to the “focus” issue, I think perhaps a good measure may be how much we spend on social spending in the past and recently. This would be a good indicator as to how much we have done in “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”.

Social spending in the past?

In 1975, government spending on Social and Community Services (Education, Health and Others) was $676 million. Dividing this by the population then of  1.8 million (assuming 80 per cent of the total population of 2.25 million were citizens (no breakdown of population in the Budget report)) gives a per capita social spending of $376.

Fast forward to 2012, government spending (operating expenditure) on Social Development was $17.5 billion. Dividing this by the citizen population of 3.29 million gives a per capita spending of $5,319.

This works out to a 7.4 per cent per annum increase in social spending per capita, over the 37 years from 1975 to 2012.

4.4% p.a.  real growth in social spending?

As I estimate that inflation over the same period was about 3 per cent, does this mean that the real growth in social spending was about 4.4 per cent per annum?

6.9% p.a. GDP growth disappeared to … ?

Since GDP for the same period grew by 6.9 per cent per annum, from $26.1 billion in 1975 to $305.2 billion in 2012, it would appear that social spending may not have grown in tandem with good GDP growth.

Why is this so?

Where did all the GDP growth and Budget surpluses go to – accumulating the Reserves – at the expense of “lower-income Singaporeans and older folk“?

Clearly “no focus”?

Perhaps this may “statistically” support the remarks that we “did not focus” or “had less focus” on “upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk”, in the past.

What about present “focus”?

Now, let’s turn to the present and recent times, to see if “statistically” – “the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”", holds up.

Report card – fail?

Unfortunately, it may not appear to be doing so too, because

Social spending decreased?

“GOVERNMENT OPERATING EXPENDITURE – Social Development (Education, healthcare, community development, etc)  – decreased from $17.7 $17.5 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE – Social Development – decreased from $3.7 to $3.5 billion, from 2011 to 2012.

And we have not even adjusted the above figures for inflation last year – which means that we may actually have spent even less!

In this regard, the CONSUMER PRICE INDEX increased by 4.6 per cent, from 108.2 to 113.1, from 2011 to 2012.” (“Social spending decreased from 2011 to 2012?“, Mar 19)

The motion cannot stand?

Hence, like they say in a debate – Can the motion “”the current team in charge is clearly “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too”" – still stand?

I rest my case!

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “Foreign worker supply tops Ask Tharman list” (Straits Times, Apr 11).

Only ask economists and analysts?

It states that “compiled questions from economists and analysts that they wanted to pose to the Deputy Prime Minister.”

Why not ask ordinary Singaporeans too?

I have a suggestion – wouldn’t it be good to have ordinary Singaporeans to ask questions too?

Aiyah! Cannot find my questions?

As I often ask questions, I looked at the 20 questions that Singaporeans are being asked to vote for the top 10 questions.

I was quite disappointed as almost none of the questions that I have been asking (which I think many Singaporeans have also been asking) were in the list.

My 10 “unasked” questions

So, here’s my 10 “unasked” questions:

1) How many Singaporeans have enough to retire? How many Singaporeans who turned 55 last year were able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum of $139,000 in cash, excluding those who pledged property and including inactive CPF account holders?

2) Have HDB BTO flat prices really stabilised? How do we explain the fact that the cheapest 3-room flat in Sengkang increased by 25 per cent, from $120,000 to $150,000, from 2010 to 2012?

3)What is the Ministers’ bonus for last year?

4)Why is our public healthcare spending so low? Is our public healthcare spending at 1.6 per cent of GDP in the previous fiscal year, the lowest in the world?

5)Can you explain the terminiation of town council’s software after the last general elections? (“Town councils’ new IT contract has “boundary change” clause?”, Apr 3)

6)Can you explain and justify increasing university tuition fees by as much as 11.2 per cent per annum, for the 27 years from 1986/87 to 2013?

7)Can you explain how and why the job placement rate changed from 18 to 49 per cent in 2012, after the change from “Job seekers attended to” to “New registrants” in the statistics? (“Job placement rate increase (magically) by 2.7 times?”, Apr 4)

8)Why do we allow private operators which are primarily majority-stake – state-owned monopolies to make so much profits from essential basic goods and services? (“Collection of “electricity tariff” issues – 2007 to 2013?”, Apr 1)

9)Can you explain why Singapore is only positive in 1 out of the 9 areas in the Social Health report? (“Social Health: Only 1 positive out of 9 – shocking?”, Mar 28)

10)Why is it that the employment change (jobs created), total employment statistics, etc, cannot be broken-down into Singaporeans and PRs, when the unemployment rate can?

theonlinecitizen, TR Emeritus, etc – ask Singaporeans?

Perhaps socio-political blogs like theonlinecitizen, TR Emeritus, etc, can also ask their readers and ordinary Singaporeans to ask their questions too.

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “Japanese company wins PAP town councils’ IT contract” (Straits Times, Apr 3).

New contract has “boundary change” clause?

It says that the contract includes a clause for boundary changes. What exactly is this clause and what does it mean?

“Don’t care a hoot” about AIM review?

Given the public outcry on the termination of the software when the town council changed, and the fact that the review has yet to be completed, is it in a way, jumping the gun and ignoring perhaps a fundamental and controversial issue which the review is expected to address?

How much cost savings?

As to the new software giving cost savings in the maintenance of the town council, can we have more details as to how the savings are derived?

How much are the savings expected to be?

Opposition town council’s software cost?

In the interest of evaluating the prudential use of residents’ funds, how much did the opposition town councils pay for their software?

Difference between “software”?

Are there significant differences in the functionality of the different town councils’ software?

Software is “obsolete”?

When did the town councils realise that their existing software is obsolete and thus require a new software to be developed? Can we be given the timeline of the actions that were taken?

“$64,000″ question remains unanswered?

Finally, the “$64,000″ question that many people have been asking – how much was the cost of the existing software system – remain unanswered?

How can there be transparency and accountability when such a simple question in the public interest continues to be greeted with silence?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “Govt will need to be more open, says PM”. (Sunday Times, Mar 17)

Become more transparent?

It states that “the Government will become more transparent to adapt to society today, even if politics becomes untidy and it’s outcomes less predictable”.

“More transparent” means “less predictable”?

Does it mean that the “more transparent” a Government is, the “less predictable” it may be as to the “outcomes” of the vote in elections?

Disclose statistics?

So, in the context of being “more transparent”, for a start, can we be given the statistics on the following, as Singaporeans may have been asking for some of them for many years:-

Jobs

What is the breakdown of the “locals” statistics into Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) for total employment, employment change, long-term unemployed, etc?

Wages

Since “about 12 per cent of residents, or 238,000 workers, earn less than $1,000 a month for full-time and part-time work. And  6.4 per cent of full-time resident workers, or 114,100, earn less than $1,000″, how many earn less than $1,500?

What is the real wage growth (excluding employer CPF contribution) for the median and 20th percentile of workers, for the last 12 years?

University students

How many non-Singaporean students are there in the total enrolment of the local universities?

CPF

How many Singaporeans (including inactive CPF members) were able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum (currently at $139,000) entirely in cash at age 55, without pledging property?

Healthcare

What is the total sum of subsidies given to public hospitals and community hospitals’ patients, relative to the total sum of the subsidies shown in patients’ bills?

What is the Medifund rejection rates for patients – not number of applications?

Reserves

What is the Government Investment Corporation (GIC)’s nominal and real rates of return in S$ for the past 5, 10 and 20 years?

What is the total sum of our reserves?

What is the annual return on our reserves?

Budget

How much were our Budget surpluses over the years, if we include the transfer to Endowment Funds and revenue from land sales?

ComCare

How many Singaporean families have ever received financial assistance under ComCare, and how many have ever applied for ComCare?

Transport vouchers

How many needy Singaporeans are still getting transport vouchers for the 9 times that public transport fares have increased in the last 12 years?

HDB

What is the breakdown of the costs to build HDB flats?

How many HDB flat-owners have been served letters informing them that their flats will be compulsorily acquired, if their mortgage arrears continue to be outstanding?

How many HDB flat-owners are in arrears over 3 months on their HDB loans and HDB bank loans?

How many HDB flats have been foreclosed by the HDB and banks?

How many needy Singaporean families in HDB rental flats have had their rental of between $26 – $75 increased to $90 – $165 (which is as much as an increase of 246 per cent), when the HDB changed its policy to increase the rentals for household incomes from $801 – $1,500?

Procreation

How much Tax Procreation Benefitss ($8.2 billion for the current year) have been disbursed over the years, relative to Non-Tax Procreation Benefits ($2 billion for the current year)?

Transparency?

Some definitions of  “transparent” are:-

“characterized by visibility or accessibility of information”

“free from pretense or deceit” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Shouldn’t Government just be transparent, instead of “will become more transparent”?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

I refer to the article “three firms bid for PAP town councils IT contract” (Straits Times, Mar 13).

Tender bids $16.8 to $31.5m?

It states that “The estimated tender amounts to develop and maintain the computer systems range from $16.8 million to $31.5 million.”

How much for current system?

Despite widespread calls by Singaporeans for disclosure as to how much the town councils had paid for its current software system, there has been a deafening silence todate.

So, we can only guess what it cost, in light of the “$16.8 million to $31.5 million” being tendered now.

Sell and lease-back?

So, does it mean that a multi-million software’s IP rights was sold in 2010 for $$140,000 and then leased back to the town councils for  $165,030 ($785 x 12 months x 14 town councils + $33,150)?

Why sell and lease-back, when apparently there was actually no need to do so or pay previously?

Tender qualifications?

As to “The three companies have a sizeable presence in the local IT industry” – isn’t it a stark contrast to AIM, which was a $2 company with arguably hardly any presence or experience in the local IT industry?

Government supplier registration guidelines?

With regard to “The latest tender requires the firms to have an annual turnover of at least $10 million and a paid-up capital of at least $1.5 million. This is under the S9 financial grade of the government supplier registration guidelines”, was “the S9 financial grade of the government supplier registration guidelines” applied to Aim, which had paid-up capital of $2 and annual turnover of $58,338 (Consultancy services revenue $57,057 & Interest income $1,281) in 2000 and $1,885 (Interest income) in 1999 – which I understand were the last two years of publicly available accounts filed with ACRA?

To bid or not to bid?

In respect of “AIM, ehich reportedly has a paid-up capital of $2, had earlier decided it would not take part as it helped the town councils prepare the tender documents” – why did it say earlier that “Aim chairman Chandra Das also did not want to reveal whether the IT company had – or would – put in a bid. “Wait and see,” he would only say.” – is this not somewhat self-contradictory?

Aim review overdue?

By the way, the Aim Review may be overdue, as about nine weeks have lapsed and it was said that the review would take about one to two months.

Develop new system?

Finally, in view of the large tender amount, shouldn’t the town councils’ residents be given more information as to why it is necessary now to develop a new software system? At such huge costs, how does it compare to the non PAP town councils’ software?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

New open tender called?

I refer to the articles “PAP town councils call open tender for IT system” (Straits Times, Feb 21) and “No change in tender process for town councils’ computer systems, says Dr Teo” (Channel NewsAsia, Feb 21).

Aim helped to prepare tender?

The former states that “Dr Teo Ho Pin, coordinating chairman of the 14 PAP-run town councils, would not say how many parties had picked up the tender documents or whether Aim was one of them, saying that he did not want to influence the ongoing tender process.

But, he revealed, Aim helped prepare the tender specifications.

Aim may tender again?

Aim chairman Chandra Das also did not want to reveal whether the IT company had – or would – put in a bid. “Wait and see,” he would only say.”

Conflict of interest?

Is there not a possible conflict of interest for the current and last successful tenderer, like Aim,  to help “prepare the tender specifications”?

As indicated in the above remarks of both parties, is not the possible conflict of interest likely, when Aim or others associated with it, could also participate in the tender?

Maybe something is wrong with the town councils’ financial rules?

With regard to “He said the tender process is in compliance with the town councils’ financial rules”, shouldn’t a party like Aim which “helped prepare the tender specifications”, be barred from tendering?

Given the controversy of the subject matter, isn’t the possible conflict of interest even more significant and arguably unacceptable  in respect of the principles of accountability and transparency?

Why not wait for review?

Also, since the review is not completed yet, why hold a tender now which will close on March 4?

As it was said that the review would take about one to two months, and about six weeks have lapsed, why not wait for the findings of the review?

Otherwise, how can we be satisfied that the open tender now is in line with the review’s findings on the subject matter?

For example, how can the possible conflict of interest described above make any sense at all, if the review addresses conflicts of interest?

Is the Ministry of National Development (MND) in concurrence with the calling of the open tender now? Was the MND informed about the subject open tender?

As an analogy, it may be akin to M being asked to investigate possible conflicts of interest, accountability and transparency, public funds, residents’ interest, etc,  issues involving P and A – and yet P and A may be allowed to be possibly involved in a transaction now, before the investigation has been completed?

Why develop new system now?

With regard to “This time round, it is for developing a new town council management system” and “among other things, supply, develop and install a “fully operational integrated town council management system with operational support and maintenance”, given that a lot of money may have been used for the current system, shouldn’t more details be given to justify the need to develop “a new town council management system” now?

Moreover, why not wait for the review which is expected to be completed anytime soon?

Why is there an urgent need to develop a new system now?

In this connection, in respect of “as the controversial contract signed with Aim expires on April 30″, surely the expiry does not mean that the town councils can no longer use the software after April 30?

After all, by April 30, the review may already be out by March 8 – two months from the date it was announced that it would take about one to two months.

Termination again already?

As to “Yesterday, Ms Lim said WP hoped for an extension for the use of the software in Punggol East after the WP won the seat in the by-election last month.

She said the party has written to Aim, but did not reveal if this was to ask for an extension. Mr Chandra Das would only say the firm had received the letter, and did not elaborate on whether an extension would be granted. The WP plans to merge the new Punggol East town council with the existing AHTC”, what do all these mean?

That Aim intends to terminate or WP expects it to?

It may appear that everybody may be doing things as if the review and its findings may not matter at all, at least for now?

Finally, it may be somewhat ironic that “Teo Ho Pin, has said there is no change to the tender process which was recently called for the town councils’ computer systems” – because arguably, the current tender may have thrown up even more new questions than the questions about the last tender!

Leong Sze Hian

Share this:

Protest against White Paper on Population – We are in denial

Share this:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/941572

Share this:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/941310

Share this:

Former Minister never speak?

I searched the Parliamentary records

http://www.parliament.gov.sg/publications-singapore-parliament-reports

for “Mah Bow Tan” for the Parliamentary sittings of the 12th Parliament, since the last general elections in 2011, and could not find anything that was said by him.

So, does this mean that he did not say anything in Parliament over the last one and a half years or so?

NCMP spoke 82 times?

For the purpose of comparision, I searched “Lina Chiam” which returned 82 results.

Former Minister spoke once only?

I searched “Wong Kan Seng” and found only one result.

Are there any other MPs who didn’t say, or hardly said anything too?

Leong Sze Hian

Share this: