Wet Markets must stay

Wet markets make a world of difference

MY 77-YEAR-OLD mother drew my attention to last Saturday’s commentary by Ms Jessica Lim, ‘Time for wet markets to go’.

Ms Lim has not seen some of the better-run wet markets, such as the ones in Tiong Bahru and Bukit Batok East Avenue 4.

My mother and I do the bulk of our weekly grocery shopping at FairPrice Finest and Shop & Save at West Mall, but we visit the two wet markets every month to get items which we either cannot find (surprise, surprise) or which cost far more at the supermarkets.

Like Ms Lim, I have seen some of the fresh produce markets in First World countries. However, she should remember that many folk who frequent wet markets here have never been to a First World country. The cleanliness is something we must try to emulate – Tiong Bahru, for example, is much cleaner than it used to be.

But the market smell is also related to the climate. In England, household refuse is collected once a week – something which would be unthinkable here.

My mother’s face lights up whenever we go to Tiong Bahru wet market, where she has shopped regularly for more than 20 years. The market is a half-hour drive from our home in Hume Avenue, but my mother’s happiness alone makes the hour-long round trip worthwhile.

Joanne Tay (Ms)

Since I can’t link ST’s article by Ms Jessica Lim (how typical), I link this by Joanne Tay. Jessica Lim’s remarks came across as snobbish nearly arrogant and smack of a West-Is-Best colonial mindset. I’ve been to many produce markets in the West and while nearly all of them are indeed much drier, to me it was more by dint of their dietary habits. The fact that our local markets are wet should not be the point of contention, rather the cultural and historical even national identity that our local markets possess.

Having to browse lifeless aisles of merchandise and produce, encountering metal trolleys and plastic baskets, to end off with a machine that goes DEET DEET DEET and a faceless employee from China, is a decidedly experience from the friendly banter of a stallkeeper, listening to their brickbats and grouses and enjoying the hustle and bustle of a brisk morning marketing session.

HDB and a certain Grace Fu might lead you to believe that wet markets are subject to market forces and their existence or disappearance is nary to warrant a blip in our radars. Unless you’re content to watch our history pass us by, content with looking back via grey photos pasted on supermarket whitewalls or exhibition halls, then vote with your wallets.

Hardship Posting

I read Today Online somewhat regularly since it’s a source of local news I can get online without having to pay for it. One of the stories that has gotten my attention is the Hardship Posting article by Tabitha Wang the budget tai-tai. In her article she laments the wonderful lifestyles of the rich and famous expats in Singapore, and suggests an expat tax levy like Singapore’s maid levy.

It drew many heartfelt responses from the expat community expressing disappointment and positing that life isn’t as rosy as Tabitha depicts. Before this I thought Hardship Postings were all shindigs and sex in elevators, but responses included topics like “local packages”, daily medication regimes and lines like “When in Rome”.

Seriously man, what’s the problem? It’s the company’s prerogative to invite someone to work overseas and it’s again the company’s prerogative to pay that person whatever they deem fit, no? No one’s pointing a gun to the chap’s head here, nor can any one individual make ridiculous demands on the company without risking their own job.

But an expat levy cuz the person’s worth it? That’s like asking for a “good-looking” levy on pretty boys and girls cuz people wanna date (and bed) them!

Well that aside, maybe someone rubbed Tabitha the wrong way one day, who cares. The ugly truth is, while a vocal minority in the expat community did come out to speak against Tabitha, rest assured the ones Tabitha talked about won’t be writing to Today anytime soon saying, “yeah babe you’re spot on, I rock!” There are indeed expats in Singapore with lavish lifestyles and packages to support them. Then again the companies probably thought they were worth the bundles of cash to send them here (or anywhere else).

I’ve heard my fair share of Singapore Expat Love Stories, and a stroll along places like Cluny, Oei Thong Ham, Old Holland Road and the districts 9, 10 and 11 will put you straight if you’re clueless. But a recent one took the literal cake. A Singaporean born and bred studied overseas and stayed there to work. Years later, after marrying a local (there) and fully converted to the lifestyle and culture of the host country, the company decided to send him back to Singapore as an expat, on the expat terms of the host country. All this while he still is a Singaporean with a pink IC and red passport. The goodies on the table included a SGD$20,000 monthly rental allowance. While the chap settled on a SGD$6k 3-storey condo penthouse in Havelock Road, it’s pretty clear expat packages still exist. But this isn’t a Ris Low case here, no one’s fooling anyone here, if everyone and everything’s above board, what’s the problem, besides envy?

Upturn the Downturn? How about “I just kneed you in the groin!”

Tiger Uppercut! Tiger Knee!

Reminiscent of the MDA Rap and the P65 hiphoppers, Lim Swee Say and some NTUC jokers (and a few other MPs?) danced and sang their way into labour union workers’ hearts.

Upturn the Downturn? What? Haven’t they got better things to do? And what’s with the HUGE ostentatious stage and lights?

Has the NTUC really “upturned the downturn”? Well this soiree did raise $23mil for the U Care Fund, according to the Youtube info. Wonder where that money goes.

But seriously, could Singaporean public servants please stop singing and dancing?

No embeds, you might go blind.
Upturn the Downturn: The Online Citizen’s take

Arms Race or Reverse Psychology?

Tun Mahathir Mohamad’s concillary tone in a recent statement is worth a chuckle or two. To Singapore’s participation of an airshow in Langkawi, Tun Mahathir asked the Malaysian Government not to enter into an arms race with Singapore as it was a “waste of money”.

Actually his exact words were, “It’s a waste of money. We’re not fighting, we’re not going to war with Singapore.” Wise words indeed.

Except when it comes from the same person who once said, “Please never mention Singapore in front of me again. Don’t you know we are at war with Singapore?” it just sounds ironic.

More tongue in cheek was the Malaysian King’s statement when Malaysian received shipment of its first submarines, “I hope you will have better avenues to protect the nation from threats, now that you are equipped with such expensive assets that are a force-multiplier.” I’m not even sure if the King is for or against buying submarines!

Perhaps both are on the same ticket, that an arms race with anyone in the region (or is it just with Singapore?) is a waste of money, and I tend to agree. But is there a split in ideology between the past and powerless rulers of Malaysia and the recent regimes of Badawi and Najib? Let us look at the recent past of military purchases by Singapore and Malaysia:

Singapore’s Archer Submarine – June 2009
Malaysia’s Scorpene Submarine – Sept 2009 (3 months later)
Singapore’s F-15 Fighter Jet – May 2009
Malaysia’s SU-30 Fighter Jet – Aug 2009 (again 3 months later)

Coincidence? Maybe.

F1 Singapore: Cars or Concerts?

As I wait in anticipation for the Singapore F1 2009 Night Race to start, I recall all the news about happening concerts staged during the period of the F1 Singapore Night Race. The list of hot acts include Beyonce, A-Mei and Black Eyed Peas.

Near as I can tell, the news of the takeup rate for the F1 weren’t as stellar as the inaugural F1 Night Race, where the maestro of F1 Mr Bernie Ecclestone once proclaimed it the crown jewel of the F1. But with the economic meltdown of 2008 and the shrinking wallets (or shrinking egos?) of the rich and well-travelled, it struck me that the organisers of the F1 Singapore saw inviting music acts as a way to draw the crowds.

Perhaps, but drawing crowds to concerts most likely doesn’t translate to crowds for the F1 Night Race. There’s definitely a beneficial effect on the hotel occupancy rates for sure, as tourists coming down to attend the concerts will need to shack up somewhere. However, to my mind there’s very little trickle down effect from concerts to the race. Afterall the audience and demographic is decidedly different.

But that won’t deter the statistics-mongers at wherever to likely tout the entire event as a resounding success going by pure tourist entry numbers alone, be it for the F1 or the concerts. To be sure there’s no way to differentiate an F1 tourist from a concert-goer and the numbers might look favourable as a total sum. Will this entertainment circus extravaganza become the default model for the F1 Singapore Night Race?

I don’t know really.

HDB Prices: another lame letter

This letter puzzles me:

Letter from Ignatius Lourdesamy Deputy Director (Marketing & Projects) for Director (Estate Administration & Property), Housing & Development Board

I REFER to the letter “It’s not all about the numbers”, (Sept 16) by Mr See Leong Kit.

It is misleading for Mr See to use the example of flats at Pinnacle@Duxton to conclude that HDB is profiteering from the sale of public housing flats. HDB is able to recover the cost for some projects, while incurring significant losses for others. Overall, in the last three years, HDB incurred an average deficit of $1,045 million a year in its home ownership programme. This cost subsidy, which has to be financed by the Government, is reported in HDB’s audited financial statements.

Why does HDB benchmark its flat prices to market in spite of these huge deficits? Because this is the fairest way of pricing new HDB flats while ensuring equitable distribution of subsidies.

How is this done? HDB first determines a flat’s equivalent market price by taking into account various factors such as location, finishes for the flat and other attributes. This price reflects the flat’s value at the point of sale. It is what people are willing to pay in the open market. HDB then sells the flat at a significant discount, which is the subsidy given by the Government.

Market-based pricing is fairer to all buyers because it allows buyers to receive similar levels of subsidy regardless of market movements and fluctuations in development costs. Mr See states that the Pinnacle@Duxton flats were re-launched at an average selling price “which is $180,000 higher than initial launch prices (in 2004)”. If HDB were to sell those flats at 2004 prices as Mr See suggests, it would be giving Pinnacle buyers today an additional subsidy of $180,000. This is not fair to those buying other HDB flats today, or indeed to all taxpayers.

A market-based pricing approach ensures that all groups of buyers at any point in time enjoy similar subsidies, and balances the demand for new and resale flats.

It is illogical for Mr See to attribute the increase in property prices to HDB, because the recent appreciation in asset and equity values is not unique to Singapore. Nonetheless, flats remain affordable – first-time flat buyers use 17 to 29 per cent of household income for their loans, below the international benchmark of 30 per cent.

HDB is ramping up new flat supply, up to 8,000 Build-To-Order (BTO) flats this year. HDB’s latest BTO project, Punggol Spectra, offers smaller two- and three-room flats with affordable prices that start from $89,000 and $151,000, respectively. HDB will continue to ensure that flats remain affordable.

Could someone explain the bold paragraph to me like a 2 year old what the heck that meant? The way I read it, Mr See is asking HDB to sell the flat at a fixed 2004 price, whether it was launched in 2004 or 2009. HDB’s reply is, if they sold the 2009 flats at 2004 prices, taxpayers are paying for the price difference via subsidies.

But isn’t the price difference exactly what Mr See is asking you to get rectify? If you sold the 2009 flats at the same 2004 flats there won’t be a “$180,000″ to speak of would there? Sometimes I wonder who the hell these people are and how they managed to climb up the corporate ladder.

On another note, I think Singaporeans need to get over the idea that HDB Corp is there for Singaporeans to obtain affordable housing. They are not. It is a Corporation and like all corporation it exists to make money. The suits at HDB Corp are frankly laughing all the way to the banks from this current property bubble of inflated prices and huge financial liabilities, and Singaporeans need to finally realise that, with or without our dear Minister Mah Bow Tan’s protestations that HDB is there for you.

Just like nearly all services in Singapore, like SMRT, SBS Transit, Ez-Link, NETS, et al. All exist to make money while providing monopolistic services to Singaporeans.

Spectacularly Secular

Wow, I now know what it’s like to be deprived of the Internet for a long period of time. Liberating! Yes it was tough at the beginning, working at a country practically devoid of the Internet, with only my GSM phone and PS3 to accompany me, where any instance of the Internet is instantly snapped up for personal communiques with loved ones, all the other things that we do on the Internet suddenly seem frivolous.

Like the recent shitstorm surrounding this upcoming website Singanews. The local blogosphere is awash with allegations of the continuing encroachment of Christianity into Singapore’s secular landscape, by none other than the Thioliban (great idea btw), an amalgamation of Thio Li Ann the ex-NMP and daughter of the matriarch puppet master I mean womentor of the AWARE saga and the obvious Taliban ultra-conservative Afghan guerrilla band ex-what stood for an Afghan government.

Looking back (thanks to Google and Sam’s Thoughts), it appears that the 1-2 punch delivered by The Void Deck (props) and Temasek Review lit up the collective brains of the liberal blogosphere. Allegations abound with veiled portents of conversative Christianity creeping into the sacred liberal grounds of the blogosphere and despite protestations that Singanews was under siege by “secular militants”, it would continue on its merry trek towards providing alternative views and filling the gaps in national debate.

Naturally the liberal blogosphere interpreted that as typical double speak, and frankly with Singanews already wearing the scarlet letter, can Singanews continue to exist other than that of a site expounding Christian values?

The AWARE saga jolted this generation’s bloggers into coming to terms with the idea that values (religious or any other kind) are everywhere and seep into our venacular and consciousness whereever and whatever you do. Even as I type this, my values are imparted into the message. Dare anyone who blogs say that whatever they expound or express on their blogs do not in every way impart their own values to the reading public? Apparently a majority of Singapore’s bloggers are bleeding heart liberals, but liberalism is also a value, just like conservatism is one as well.

What we’re seeing here, is 2 camps being formed and a line drawn in the sand. Both are right and both are wrong at the same time, be it secular militants or conservative fundamentalists (or fundies as people are wont to call them these days). Is the local blogosphere to be dictated by the front-runner liberals? Is the local blogosphere so small that “deviant” speech cannot be tolerated? As a Christian would say, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Well it looks like everyone’s casting stones right now. However it is fair in my mind to say that Secular Singapore remains the way it is with its careful balance of multiple races and religions because it accords all equal treatment, and such it has been an unstated condition that your religion is yours alone and thus understated. The Fateha tudung incident reminded us that grandiose religious displays are frowned upon and you only need to stay in Malaysia for a few days to understand the effort the Malaysian government puts to appease  its Muslim majority. Then why the anger? If we are ok with Christian bookshops, why can’t we tolerate Christian websites? I  suspect the liberal blogosphere is so put off by the Thioliban because of the way they apparently conduct their “business”: in a surreptitious manner.

Happy 44th Birthday

Happy Birthday all the way from Germany! The greetings from afar was a nice touch! The staged terror attack wasn’t, considering recent events, especially using Cheryl Fox instead of a Mediacorp thespian.

Net Bonus or Malus?

For the second year running, Temasek Holdings staff will be looking at “negative bonuses”, revealed Ms Ho Ching.

Though it delivered almost 7 per cent of positive total shareholder return last year, Temasek saw its portfolio value fall by at least $40 billion in the year to March 2009. Thus, there will be cuts in the staff’s bonus pool that comes under the Wealth Added Bonus plan, where employees share in the institution’s performance.

Returns above the cost of capital target means Temasek has gains to share with staff. But returns below its risk-adjusted cost of capital hurdle means deductions from the staff’s bonus pool.

The challenge lies in how to share a negative bonus equitably and fairly among staff, said Ms Ho, noting that “from CEO to office attendants”, all staff were allocated negative bonuses last year and will be distributed more of the same this year once audited financials are approved.

Temasek did not elaborate if this means staff would take home smaller or no bonuses.

However, Today understands the company’s total bonus package also consists of a 13th-month payout and a performance bonus.

Ms Ho said this “very difficult market cycle” has put Temasek’s compensation framework to the test, and enabled it to rethink and refine its incentive elements. Leong Wee Keat

http://www.todayonline.com/Business/EDC090730-0000099/Negative-bonus-for-all-staff

While the concept of malus is certainly not novel it is certainly an industry practice and one that should be rightfully adopted by Temasek at this current juncture. However what remains unclear as pointed out above is, is it a net malus or net bonus? All signs point to a mere slap on the wrist, ie a net bonus. For shame.

And another thing, could someone explain to me like I’m a 3 year old how Temasek could achieve overall 7% net shareholder gain yet lose S$40b of their portfolio? Am I being a moron or does that statement read like an oxymoron?

Goodbye to Goodyear

Shocking news from Temasek Holdings, Chip Goodyear, who was hand-picked as incoming CEO of Temasek Holdings, in a regal and year long selection process, has been booted! Hitherto previous CEO Ho Ching will resume her position as CEO of Temasek Holdings. I guess that puts paid to speculations that she would enter politics beside her husband.

So, literally, WTF happened with Chip and Temasek? According to official statements Chip’s directions didn’t gel with the overall strategic direction of Temasek. Eh? Isn’t the CEO’s role to chart the direction and for the company to follow? I think it’s clear from here that a privately-owned corporation is a totally different creature from a GLC like Temasek, where the true captains of the ship are the political masters, especially if you have SWFs on the table. Instead of being the puppeteer, the CEO ended up being the puppet, and I think that didn’t go down very well with Chip.

This will not bode well for Temasek in any future endeavours in trying to find another successor to helm Temasek, since any idiot will give Chip a call to dig some dirt and there will be dirt. Who in their right mind will want a job working alongside political sycophants, wastrel scholars looking for the high-life and otherwise never-do-wells paying more attention to the OB markers than stock indices?

Speaking of wastrels, what happened to Wee Shu Min?