A Singaporean In Australia

Ladies and gentleman, what do the two men above have in common?

Alright. Other than the thick nice hair, determined cheekbones, fleshy lips, thick eyebrows, nerdy glasses. same hair parting on a buay song face. What else? It shouldn't be too difficult for you. Both men spoke out against the PAP and were sued by the same family. Both men worked for public entities and were sacked respectively by their companies. The older man was made a bankrupt and the younger one is doomed to follow suit. A stark difference stood out between the two. One is a politician and the other, a commoner. The happenings in the previous weeks shown Singaporeans clearly that there the setting point didn't matter so long as the motivation was the same - all will be exterminated.

In another display of Constructive Politics, Roy was sacked from his job at TTSH. Whatever reasons that his employer gave, I am not really interested. That was his employer's prerogative. I'm sure they would have perfectly valid reasons to do so. For me, the question was never the justifications behind the sacking but whether the motivation mimics the intent. A justification can be crafted to sound perfectly gracious or even noble even when the motivation was anything but that. That, only TTSH knows for sure.

In the mean time, the people of Singapore, of course, believe that the sacking was not politically motivated. Because Constructive Politics.

At 0615 hrs, I sat on the toilet bowl in the cold 2°C Perth winter morning. To take my mind off the discomfort of my cold butt, I browsed through my phone and found multiple messages to me related to the sacking of the famous commoner of the late. One even sent me a photo of an enslaved chicken lamenting about the injustice of a society that accepts “杀一做百”. Even Miss V asked me, "What do I think of Roy Ngerng?" The last time I was asked a question in this manner, someone was trying to hook me up with another girl. I cringed at the thought and that helped me sober up for the day ahead.

The majority of Singaporeans will look at characters such as Chee or Ngerng in disdain. They did wrong. They were radical. They were illogical, ill-advised, irrational, tactless.... Most importantly, they offended the wrong guy so thus, they would be destroyed and rightly so. The extermination of such would come in a package of character assassination, bankruptcy and (probably a permanent) removal of livelihood. By the end of that, their credibility would have sunken to the depths that no one would believe them even if they call the sun the sun, rendering them eternally toothless to their political foes.

To V, I'll leave you my thoughts on this. As we know it, even if Roy does not end up in prison eventually, he would not be able to leave the country and seems doomed for decades of financial hardship. In a glance it is easy to agree that he deserves his punishment. But what wrong did he really do? Yes, he defamed somebody he shouldn't. Somebody powerful. No... what wrong did he really do? I meant in a raw form. Did he physically hurt someone? Under the penal code of SG, The penalty for using criminal force to another person is imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine of up to S$500, or both. If Roy's insinuation of PM Lee was actually true, the PM could be charged under a criminal breach of trust which the penalty is imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine, or both. It seems like Roy Ngerng is receiving a punishment harsher for defamation than what PM Lee would have received if he was found guilty of what he had been accused for.

Under the seven deadly sins; lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride, how many sins did Roy committed? And how many did PM Lee committed? Can justice in such a society ever address the inequality of the human beings?

Public announcement:

Starting from the next General Election (GE), all elected Members of the Parliament (MP) or part thereof shall go through a mandatory 6 months civic training. Upon successful completion of the course, members will be awarded the LWPP certification, which is a requirement for any elected MPs to start their round of duty. MPs who failed to obtain their LWPP within the stipulated window will be disqualified from their roles.

What is LWPP?

LWPP stands for Live with Poor People, designed as an initiation program for any elected MPs, regardless of which party they represent.

In one of the earlier scenes of the movie, '300', a young boy was shown embarking on a perilous quest to slay a snow wolf alone, with nothing but a spear in his hands. He would have died or emerge victorious to be the King of his people.

To be a Chieftain of the Beggar Sect, the elected one must go through a ceremony where every attending member of the beggar sect would spit on the would-be Chieftain to be recognised as their leader.

Any distinguished leader of Singapore will be revered upon their initiation program. LWPP is a modified program to suit the modern needs of such so as to render it meaningful and relevant.

Summary of LWPP

After the results of the GE is established, all MPs are to report to the Padang within 4 hours. A study was made to confirm the timing is sufficient for thank-you speeches, other whatnots and travelling. All MPs are to seat the designated part of the field and wait for their turn to draw a posting slip in a concealed box.

The posting slip will reveal which Singapore poor the MP is assigned to live with for the next 6 months. During the 6 months, each MP's living conditions will mimic their assigned Singaporean poor, including their type of day-job, salary, mode of transport, distance to work place (± 2km variable distance allowable). MPs who are posted to unemployed Singapore poor will start their program with no income or whatever amount the commoner is receiving as assistance from the state. MPs are neither allowed to meet up with friends or family nor receive assistance from friends or family in any form. Their movements shall be under surveillance by the police.

At the end of the 6 months program, MPs will sit for a written examination which consist of 100 simple multiple choice questions. From the exams, they are expected to demonstrate knowledge from a commoner's perspective such as a pair of chopsticks does not cost $11.50, heart surgeries don't cost $8, a amount of $5,000 is not at all derisory, $600,000 is certainly not peanuts.

MPs are required to pass both their written papers and assessment of LWPP. Upon completion of LWPP, MPs will be awarded a certification and fully recognised as the esteemed representatives of the people.

Rotation of MPs

MPs are allowed to start work after the GE but they must complete obtain their LWPP within a stipulated window. Failure to do so will disqualify their mandate. To avoid the scenario where all MPs embark on their initiation at the same time, each MP will be subjected to a LWPP qualifying window which commences on the MP's next birthday after the GE and ends on the prior prior to his next birthday. For example, if the MP's birthday is 26 Dec 1970, the window will start on 26 Dec 20xx (year of GE) and ends on 25 Sep 20xx+1.

MPs who failed their LWPP the first time will be given a chance under the Remedial Program (RT). Under the RT, the MPs will be required to live with homeless Singaporeans for 2 additional months. This is to ensure MPs know such a under-privileged group actually exist, (to address the notion of "There are no poor in Singapore") and experience the exciting lifestyle of camping at public parks playing hide-and-seek games with NParks Officers.

Renewal of LWPP

IT professional have to renew their MCSE every couple of years. Accounting professionals have to upkeep their CPAs. So do lawyers and doctors. An MP is no exception. The LWPP certification is only valid for a single term of duty. Should an MP be re-elected during the following GE, he or she will have to go through a fresh LWPP program to be re-certified.

LWPPA

The Live with Poor People Authority (LWPPA) is a fully non-partisan committee formed lower income Singaporeans (first 20%). Any Singaporean with links with any political parties is not eligible as a member of the LWPPA.

Do you like the LWPP program?

Well, first they suggested sending our parents to JB. Then they suggested sending our children to poor countries. How about this time, for once, we make the suggestion?

We can only dream.

I used to share tales of Singaporeans in Perth often but felt short later because it didn't feel nice to share personal stories of real people like that. However, I had people walking up to me during gatherings who told me a particular sharing (which I would have forgotten I did that) benefited him a lot. Some of them also connected after reading the stories. For example, the nurses would contact the nurses, the teachers would contact the teachers, parents with special needs children, IT workers, funky people living in Melbourne etc.

It has been some time since I last shared a story of somebody I've met here. This isn't one of those story but one constructed by combining Duchess' sharing about some Singaporeans she met during her course in Perth and my own thoughts after having some conversations with a few Singaporeans in Singapore, one being my personal friend.

Lately an ex-Singaporean who left Singapore in 1989 wrote to me. I felt tempted to share her email but it was quite personal so I decided against it. There was something she said that I will quote for today's discussion. "Migration is like music, it resonates differently with different people." How apt she had put it. Like how the lyrics of the golden oldie "Hotel California" goes, This could be heaven or this could be hell. How then, shall one answer to the question, "Is living in Australia (or any country) better than living in Singapore?" by the curious minds of Singaporeans contemplating a move but have absolutely no idea if it suits them.

Singaporeans of all walks of life migrate to Australia. You have the slaves, peasants and even elites. I personally got to know a Singaporean who ran a successful restaurant business for many years who decided to call it quits and moved to Perth. From the last time I heard from him, he was washing cars for a living and his wife was a bus driver. Another gentleman who ran multiple business wrote to me and told me (at that point in time) he was selling up his businesses and properties in Singapore moving to Indonesia for opportunities and was looking at the possibility of moving to Australia in eventuality. Then there were career high flyers, normal salaried peasants and slaves like me who moved.

As we can see, there is little to indicate that migration is about economic issues, like the way our MSM would always paint to the people. Still, I've received noob remarks recently that stated things like "High taxes", "Medical is not free" or whatever crap else I don't bother reading more. Stale. Let's put it this way, there are more new Singaporeans moving our directions than Singaporeans moving back to Singapore. Only the fools will continue to insist that migration is all about dollar and cents. To illustrate this with a real life example, I'll attach a Facebook feed that I came across this morning.

Like I said, different strokes for different folks. Logging on to Facebook after my first landing in Perth 2 years ago was the last thing on my mind but there you go, a Singaporean who chose to tell you why he left as his first priority, before going on to enjoy the beautiful landscape and fresh air of NZ or drooling on the lower prices of cars.

Back to Duchess' story. She spoke too quickly for my retarded mind so forgive me for my poor story telling. Her course mate included a couple of Singaporeans. One particular couple came in their 40s, with three kids, gave up their well paying careers to take a course in hope of being eligible (with no guarantees) for Permanent Residency later on. Within a week or two of Perth life her children asked, "Mum, we are not going back to Singapore after you finish your course right?

Meanwhile, one of my old friend in Singapore told me his Permanent Resident visa is expiring soon but he could not make himself take the big leap because he couldn't get a job offer in Australia. Such irony - the ones without the visas are desperate to stay, the one who has it is unwilling to move.

Singaporeans returning to Singapore for good is not unheard of here though it is quite rare. In a few months't time, I'll have to cope with the return of someone I regard as a good friend in Perth. She has been a great motivator and friend to my family since I came so her departure will be sorely missed. I didn't want to probe so much into her reasons of moving back and I gathered it was due to better career opportunities.

Through my journey I met many Singaporeans and tried to understand their mentality behind their moves. The reasons were aplenty and wide ranging but rarely about money. Elsewhere outside Australia, we even have Singapore bloggers who moved out of Singapore to live in the jungles or exploring uncharted strange land, building their farming empires respectively. In comparison, Singaporeans who returned to Singapore were often monetarily motivated more than anything else.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says Singapore needs to develop its own ways to keep online conduct civil and constructive.

Sharing a Facebook post from Communications and Information Minister, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim on Tuesday (June 3), Mr Lee said trolling and flaming are not problems unique to Singapore. He cited a court ruling in Europe, where freedom of speech is considered a near-sacred virtue.

"Recently, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that when a website publishes a controversial story that may attract defamatory or insulting comments, the website must anticipate this trolling and flaming, and be ready beforehand to remove these comments promptly".

Mr Lee said the case reflects how societies are still finding the right balance between freedom of speech and responsible online behaviour.

He agrees with Dr Yaacob that "freedom of speech does not come free from the need to be responsible for what one says, either online or offline"

Years ago, the previous PMs went to bed greying their hair over penetrating issues such as how to make Singaporeans propagate but the current PM apparently, has other priorities. It is astonishing to watch how much time he has been spending thinking about how to develop its unique ways to keep online conduct "civil and constructive."

The cheapest solution to internet trolling is having a little sense of humor. Otherwise as we know it, life will be tough on the internet because it is so easy to get angry over remarks splashed on an individual, especially so if he or she is a public figure. Just ask Justin Bieber. When one gets flustered easily, everything can be offending and any remark can be used to sue. For instance, suing someone's pants off over the internet because he called you a pink fag without substantiation. The chap would, of course, be made a bankrupt because while he might be able to prove the pink fetish, he wouldn't be able to prove the fag was a fag. In such a case, the court may gives the plaintiff a clean name but it doesn't change what many think - that he is now a suing pink fag. Like it on not, that is how it works on the virtual world. The above is just an example. Any references to any non-frictional shady characters are unintended and coincidental.

Although trolling and flaming on the internet has potential to be damaging, it doesn't come close to trolling in real life. Take for example, when someone fucked up for a term or two, realised it too late and made a public apology at a CBD area a week before polling day, it might incite a giggle or two from the majority. However when he repeated his mistakes the apologised for, it wasn't funny anymore, even for those with a large capacity of humor.

For someone who called his people a disgrace for defending their identity, he expected the same people to defend the country after declaring that Singapore 'belongs to everyone.' He endorsed extensions after extensions of CPF withdrawal ages, claiming longer life expectancy while trying his best to reverse that of the people, allowing food imports with 'very low' radioactive contamination. [link] Trolling the people at a new level.

In Parliament, his set of guidelines for what he termed as "Constructive politics" actually meant what hasn't been working for the people for the last 10 years, anything outside the golden boundaries will be deemed 'destructive,' and any opposition party that crosses it is 'sub-standard'.

The PM doesn't seem to understand the happenings in the internet is inconsequential should the job be done right on the ground in the first place. Thus to the observer, allocating so much time and resources focusing on curbing the internet, is both illogical and meaningless. For someone who claimed he was flame proof yet sues when provoked, his relentless pursuit for internet control along with trolling masses at its finest, highest level attainable with dead-end policies since the day he was sworn in for duty, wouldn't that makes PM Lee is the King of the Trolls?

Singapore needs social capital to build cohesion amongst Singaporeans, said Member of Parliament Mr Cedric Foo when debating the President's address in Parliament on Friday (May 30).

He said there was a time when Singapore had "very high social capital", and called it the "Kampong Spirit". This was when neighbours looked out for one another and when people set aside personal interests for the sake of others, not envy, ruled the day.

He called for this spirit of a closely-knit society to be rekindled even as the country grows the economy and plug into the global economy.

Mr Foo also said that Singapore needs to stick to certain principles in order to do well and avoid pitfalls. This includes not burdening future generations by ensuring the government maintains prudent fiscal policies and financial discipline, he added.

The meaning of "Kampong spirit" can waver for each individual. To some, it means social cohesion among a community. To the others it can mean a sense of loyalty, self sacrifice, a code of brotherhood or for some, it simply means a ghost haunting a small village. In truth, "Kampong spirit" has no form or true definition. When it comes to societal conditioning though, "Kampong spirit" has been given a facade since the early days of SBC dramas. In the nice shows I enjoyed as a kid, commoners were often portrayed to love one another, such as lending the neighbour a piece of belacan despite competing against her in a cooking competition. There would always be a villain in the show but he or she would always be destroyed or converted into someone better. Happy ending.

Though one cannot deny that can be illustrated as an example of "Kampong Spirit" but it doesn't define it. Let me put it another way. A gun can be regarded as a aegis or a murder weapon and that depends largely on which hands it is placed on. During the dire once upon a time, racial riots broke out on the streets of Singapore. It was a slice of history that nobody wants to reminisce or see a repeat of. Oddly enough, no one could see the unfortunate events driven by the so call "Kampong spirit". A clash of groups with plenty of "Kampong spirit" among themselves.

Since then, all organisations, including religious groups were required to be registered and regulated. Secret societies were eliminated fervently and so were the kampongs (literally) - in the name of progress. The people began to live behind closed doors and stopped talking to one another. The authorities controlled the racial quota of every living space so that enclaves would never be formed again, effectively killing 'it', or at least that was safely assumed so. Then they spent years wondering where had the "kampong spirit" shown in the television programmes gone to.

So is "Kampong spirit" truly nailed and dead? Like I said, only the fools who do not understand the true meaning of the "Kampong spirit" will fail to recognise it even if it is staring at you right in the face. For the rest, its survival is as clear as the sky when strangers donated money to a single man too weak to fight a bully. The spirit do not judge what is right or wrong, the people do. So when the ignorant calls for a return of a 'very high social capital', he better knew what he was really asking for. For the "Kampong spirit" always ensures the people to fight for what they love and love what they fight for.

Broken glass because assholes

A short update. Stargazer was grounded for almost a month because some punk decided it was worth smashing a glass to steal a furry bear kiddy bear bag containing a few plastic toys to entertain Albany in the car that cost no more than $10. Truth to be told, if anyone had the courtesy to paste a post-it note on my glass requesting for the bag for his or her kids at home, I would have donated it generously with a plate of whatever lunch I was having that day. Perhaps with some biscuits, a toothbrush and a propagated Aloe Vera shoot to complete a goodie-bag. Just imagine the face of the recipient, tears rolling down his or her cheeks, on hearing that I even bothered to give my goodie bag a name, say Fun Pack Pack or something. A touch of Singaporean goodness.

Unfortunately, kiddy bag admirer decided that smashing the glass was the better way to go, to escape the possibility of hearing me chant the Fun Pack Pack song as I award him or her the Fun Pack Pack. Needless to say, that left me disappointed in humanity but I didn't spend time feeling sorry. So, I sprung into action to be stunned into inaction for the next 4 weeks. My neighbours began to be concerned because I chose to leave the broken glass unattended to. It must have felt uneasy for the neighbour next door, who was trying to rent her unit out one Saturday. Still, she had takers, broken glass or not. A bad broken glass reflected poorly on the man of the family because it showed his lack of initiative or the ability to act quickly to get things back to normal. In my case, I couldn't be bothered, that was all.

So the mechanic quoted me $140 for the job. Hmm... should I pay it? Maybe not. It was a quarter glass, not a full side glass. I thought I was wearing t-shirts with holes. Weren't the holes big enough to be noticed? Did I look like a carrot head from Singapore? So screw them, I decided to do this myself. Sadly, this episode showed me the bad side of WA because it ended up not a single of the ten companies responded to me with a quotation. We ended up asking a wrecker for a glass but was quoted A$70.00 for a piece of used glass. Hmm... not even brand new? Not that I really need a new glass, but 70 bucks? I told my neighbour at work, who was a glass specialist that didn't specialise on autoglass. He simply told me, "People in WA are greedy."

It hasn't fallen off since, so it's a good job

It turned out that he was right. A company in Brisbane was willing to sell me the part I needed for $59.00, inclusive of postage. After trolling me by sending me the wrong glass, I thought it was an expensive lesson. Fortunately they were worth their salt and promised to resend the correct part. Another week later, the glass finally arrived. So the excited wife took the initiative to vacuum the glass bits and set me up for the replacement after I returned from work.

By then, Stargazer couldn't even start up. It wasn't even the battery problem. Something was choked so badly with hardened carbon that filled the entire port with smog when I finally manage to squeeze the life out of it. Within seconds, Startgazer woke to its previous best. Work was hard. I was no mechanic but being a miser, I was nothing and everything. So I became autoglass mechanic for that evening. After some drama and delaying dinner longer than I initially planned, the glass was put in place. That ended a 4 weeks grounding of my wife and daughter. Congratulations ladies.

Albany helping to clean the
dust-caked grey (previously white) car

I noticed a commentor came to the blog and commented a load of bullshit about Australian healthcare, tax and other what nots on a Singapore CPF post. I supposed talking out of point was infectious, since it started from the government and spread to one too many citizens who couldn't debate a topic with valid points without bringing in irrelevant factors.

Since there seem to be a fraction of population here who can't sleep unless they read something awful about Australia, let's summarise every short tales about my life here with something bad, so that someone living somewhere else can feel good. Seems like a better deed than handing a single person a Fun Pack Pack.

Remember, from this episode, you would have learnt that:

1. Australia is dangerous. Criminals and psychopaths lace the streets.

2. Tax is very high. Whether or not it is relevant to anything, just remember that. And it's bad.

3. Australia business people are greedy, especially in WA.

4. A piece of glass job by the mechanics cost me 4% of the total cost of my car. In Singapore, 4% of a Corolla is $6,000, inclusive of COE. Mechanics are day light robbers. So are plumbers by the way. And electricians. And probably you, whatever you are working as.

If you are fishing for what you want to read and now you know how bad Australia is, do yourself a favour and fuck off from this website.

Singapore has the Lift Upgrading Programme and the Hawker Upgrading Programme. Why not a Noticeboard Upgrading Programme?, asked Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio GRC).

People are not looking at their flats' noticeboards for longer messages, he said in a speech about improving communication between the Government and citizens on Friday.

Instead, more are looking at their smartphone's small screen for shorter ones.

But this does not mean the big screen is not effective. Just look at Suntec City's big screen, he said. "It is colourful and with short, moving messages."

A "Noticeboard Upgrading Programme" in the same vein of electronic screens would help improve communications, and promote constructive politics, he said.

Apparently the government were looking to meliorate communication between citizens and themselves which seemed lacking in recent times. It looked like Mr Seng Han Thong was ~~arrowed~~ selected to take this ... burning issue on and one of his solutions was to upgrade the noticeboards at the void decks of every HDB flat. He deemed the current ones ineffective and reckoned a electronic screen in place of the traditional pin-up model would be a fitting solution.

Let's make this clear, I'm all for brainstorming, lest anyone accuses me of stifling creativity. Unfortunately there is a line that divides genius and asininity. Before I go into noticeboard upgrading, let's spend a few moments to consider arguably successful upgrading programs such as the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). The LUP was introduced as an General Election carrot in 2006. The first projects took place in early 2007 and went full fledge the following year. The programme also served as an unintended but timely stimulant to the ailing construction industry in late 2008, after a major financial crisis which crippled global economies, including Singapore's. Though each household had to pay a few thousand dollars for their lift upgrade, citizens responded generally well towards to the programme because they could see the direct impact to their lives.

The above example illustrated two points. For every meaningful introduction of a physical change in our heartlands, the people who foot the bill must be the same people who benefit from it. In fact, the PAP sneakily took a bite of the benefits of the LUP programme by scoring a landslide victory in the GE, considering it was the people who paid the majority of the costs for their own benefits. I supposed that was that people term as a 'win-win situation'. At the subsequent GE, the PAP proposed chaining the entire island up with covered linkways. Again, it was accepted by the electorate though seemingly less enthusiastic than before. Perhaps a small section of Singaporeans slowly realised that holding up an umbrella would suffice and felt a little uneasy over the question of whether spending premium costs for a luxury like that could be justified. Like the previous upgrading programme, the people paid for it but the actually benefits seemed diminishing.

By 2010, the PAP showed some signs of desperation as they were running out of ideas for impact upgrades. They began a carpark upgrading scheme to cover up the open level at the top of multi-story carparks (MCP). I supposed the authorities decided the costs could be recovered by charging car park users sheltered car park rates for that level, never mind that might require decades to do so. My hunch is that the several MCPs will probably be demolished and rebuilt before they could even recover their full cost, on the basis of how often they do such things to perfectly functioning bus stops, road railings or whatever they could get their hands on.

The next GE is looming. There will always be upgrading plans on the horizon, dangling as sweet carrots to the remaining unsuspecting Singaporeans. Let's hope Mr Seng's uninspiring noticeboard upgrading is not going to be earmarked as the core upgrading strategy. Interestingly, Mr Seng likened Suntec City's big screen as 'effective' because it is "colourful and with short, moving messages." He reckoned a mini model in place of the 'retro' ones we have now would promote 'constructive politics' by improving communications. From what I was taught in school, communication is an activity of exchanging or sharing of ideas, feelings or intentions. However I'm not entirely surprised that the government deems communication as a one-way dissemination of information. As far as I'm concerned, I regard communication of this quality as propaganda and the proposed noticeboards with their suggested functions are simply going to be propaganda towers.

I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps they'll make an interactive noticeboard where citizens can flick the touch screen after they pick their noses and enable us to enter our own views and thus, 'improving communication.' If such functions are not available, would I be arrested for vandalism if I paste a post-it note saying, 'No!' on the new noticeboard because it does not come with a receptacle to listen, akin other 'communication channels' of the government? I believe many would like their voices head but have no intention of joining 17 years old Ah Bengs and 71 years old Ah Gong in the Hall of Fame.

You may not believe this. I'll share this little snippet with you anyway. Do whatever you want with the information or just treat it as a fairy tale if you think it's a load of bullshit. It doesn't bother me anyway, because my mind was made up to leave after I did my analysis (be it right or wrong) and I have been standing by my decision since without regret.

The first spark in my mind about migration occurred in 2006. That was the year started my first job in Singapore. My friend Tucky started work earlier than me, so he was much sharper towards any changes in our financial environment than me. In 2003, one major change was made to our CPF, the sole retirement fund of many Singaporeans. Back then, there wasn't much talk about it, especially among my peers who just started their careers. By 2006, we realised something was amiss and sat down one evening to discuss about it. The CPF minimum sum had already risen $14,000, or 17.5% since its inception 3 years before. Still, most of my peers were not bothered by it at the slightest. Not Tucky and I though. We knew something was brewing and eventually ordinary Singaporeans would be in hot soup in regards to this policy change.

In 2006, migration was never on my mind. It was never an option. The thought of leaving Singapore to work and live elsewhere was simply too overwhelming for someone who planned to live and die in Singapore. I mean, who doesn't? Still, the first discomfort the CPF change continued to lingered in my mind, like a plague that refused to go away. By 2008, my worst fears were confirmed after I continued to monitor the progress of the new Minimum Sum scheme. It was the year I decided I had to do something drastic in my life because I knew I would be heading into financial hardship if I were to continue doing what I had been doing. There was only an obvious choice as a money minded Singaporean - to make more money. I was heading nowhere in achieving that goal be it in employment or self employment. Then the idea of migration was brought up by my ex-girlfriend Jen and the rest was history.

The purpose of this is not to share my migration story. It has been done to death. Instead, I'm going to share what I saw in 2006 that got me panicking. As a matter of fact, by now I believe many more Singaporeans have already woken up to the fact that the Minimum Sum policy is going to have a much larger impact on themselves than they initially thought. An elaboration may not be necessary after all. Still, I thought it is a good time to do so, since we finally have 10 years of data to refer to.

In 2006, I realised the inflation rate used by the CPF was close to 6% per annum since the Minimum Sum scheme was introduced in 2003. I used that rate to forecast the amount I would be dealing with at the year I turn 55 and I didn't like what I saw (if things continue to go on the same way). Sadly, a decade of data reaffirms that the Minimum Sum has been increasing around 6.3% year-on-year, worse in the 6% rate I used to project in fact. I would update my calculations today:

If you are 50 years old today, your Minimum Sum by your 55th birthday is likely to be $207,000
If you are 40 years old today, your Minimum Sum by your 55th birthday is likely to be $371,000
If you are 30 years old today, your Minimum Sum by your 55th birthday is likely to be $665,000
If you are 20 years old today, your Minimum Sum by your 55th birthday is likely to be $1,119,000
* feel free to audit and correct me if I am wrong.

The above doesn't defer much from my original forecast in 2006. Back then I knew that amount of Minimum sum I had to deal with (for my case) was about half a million dollars. That was a great deal of money for any ordinary employee like me. I made an unrealistic projection of myself working for 30 straight years without a window of unemployment nonetheless.

500,000/30 (years) / 12 (months) = $1,388,

is the amount of money I have to had to put into the CPF on average per month, if circumstances remain the same. So how much monthly salary do I require for me to deposit $1,388 into my CPF account without topping up with cash? On current rates (36%), my salary has to be at least $3,850.

That was a nightmare of a finding to me because of 3 factors that make this totally unrealistic. Obviously, my entry level job during those years was never going to pay me $3,850 or anywhere close to it. In fact, many of my seniors who had worked for a few years did not hit this level of salary range. Even if I did better later on and manage to enjoy a $3,850 monthly wage or higher, how could I possibly make up enough for the deficient years? The second factor was that my assumption of 30 working years would have taken me to 60 years of age at the end of the projection. Many Singaporeans are still unaware that our employer's contribution to our CPF will drop from (the current) 16% to 14% (at 50 - 55 years old) and to 10.5% (at 55 - 60 years old). That will make a huge difference for 10 years worth of working wages. Lastly, of course, it is never realistic to expect employment for the full 30 years without a hiatus.

A possible purchase of a HDB flat was not even considered for this equation.

In short, I knew I was screwed.

I knew I would not be able to withdraw a single cent from my CPF account at age 55. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying that I would be able to withdraw a healthy pension fund elsewhere at the same age. Let's not go there and stick to the topic. What was truly disappointing was that I knew I would not even hit my Minimum Sum if I took an average career path. I might have a chance if I burst a gut (I tried for a few years and got bladder cancer as the prize) but even if I worked that hard, did better than the average and made it, what about the rest of the Singaporeans? Is there any meaning to this if the majority of the population will not be able to make it?

Now for the worse news, even if you hit the Minimum Sum, you will still withdraw nothing at 55 years old because the CPF board only allows you to withdraw anything beyond your Minimum Sum. So yeah, you burst your gut and made it at the last minute. Well done, thank you here is $16.88 for your effort. The rest of your money had been used for purchase an annuity whether you agree to it or not. You will be paid $600 a month for your effort thereafter. Thank you for your participation.

In my opinion, no one should be penalised for failing to amass a certain amount of money in their working career. Singaporeans grow up being guided to a selection of schools (because the rest are deemed shit), channeled to certain units during National Service (whether they like it or not), herded to take up a selection of jobs (because the rest could not pay enough to fulfill your Minimum Sum) and when we finally exhausted all our life capital to head towards the final chapters of life, we cannot even decide the way we want to die. Is that what life is about as a Singaporean?

PM Lee created a mist of irony [link] when he stated his expectations of what a good opposition party, labelled the Worker's Party substandard because they did not perform to his guidelines and then asked the Worker's Party what they stood for. I supposed if the opposition stand at where exactly the PM Lee preferred, that would be what the PAP referred to as 'Constructive Politics'.

At one point, a flustered PM Lee jabbed his finger in the air while making a point as if he was waving his finger-wand to cast an Avada Kedavra on all the members of the opposition party in the House and closed his speech with, again, by telling the others how they should behave. He said,

"We have to call a spade a spade. If you have to change a position, because your previous position was wrong – say so. But to weasel away, play with words, avoid the issue and then claim to be responsible – that is what we fear can drive Singapore’s politics into same place where many countries have gone."

I was told that when one decided to point or wave a finger, he should be aware that his other four are pointing towards himself. I would expect the PM and his party members do conduct themselves in the same manner that they advocated their opposites to do so. Year by year, the people's faith in the PAP government wanes, as suggested by the declining number of votes they received on each GE. It seems to me nobody has bother to whisper to the PAP when it comes to managing a country, not only actions speak for themselves but the integrity of their words hold the same weight, if not more.

The power of words lies in the people's faith in them. In other words, when this faith is no more, the people will cease to believe whatever the government says, even if it is nothing but the truth. This happens when the government is the biggest offender in playing with words, diluting their integrity doing so and allow the civil service to emulate it.

When 'constructive politics' means 'serving the government by telling them how to do better and not to 'make a molehill of out their mistakes', it served to tell the people that the government is perplexed over the people's growing unhappiness and has little confidence in themselves in reading the minds of the general population.

If 'ponding' had to be officially used to play down actual circumstances, where do the authorities stand in terms of tackling the issue head-on?

If an 'honest mistake' is a licence to move on, whether or not the population is primarily concerned if the mistake was intentional, where is the claim to be responsible for a shocking error?

If 'lease buyback' means literally pawning your assets for survival, why should a scheme be regarded as a solution to broken mechanics in terms of sustainable living in Singapore?

When the PAP government and the civil service pick up a habit not to call a spade a spade, play with words, avoid issues, evade critical questions, claim to be always here for us and promise more good years ahead, one can't help but wonder where does the government stand?

Why so dulan? Passive income coming lah

I've been pasted plenty of links of blog articles often. Among them are links to bloggers who called themselves my father and Roy Ngegntrng, however you spell or pronounce that name. In all honesty I never read their blog articles because I have an extremely short attention span and have a strong dislike for blogs that paste pictures or videos all over the place. Purely personal preference, nothing personal against the bloggers themselves. Now then I learnt the Roy may potentially be sued by our Prime Minister, maybe it's time to read his blog - for it has to make plenty of sense. I used to think Dr Chee Soon Juan was a academic wank until two of our ex-PMs sued him. Then I listened intently to whatever he had to say and found plenty of sense in words. That was the standard our government set for us, everyone should consider heeding it.

There are plenty of articles going on about whether the PM was right or wrong or what he should do or not. That was really no concern to me because the PM has the right to make his own decisions through legal means. His morals and character is out for the public to judge, nothing more needs to be said. Even before Roy penned his articles on the CPF, the topic has always been a black hole of mystery and secrecy. In any situation when the truth is withheld from minds, endless speculation and imagine follows. A classic example is Area 51 of the US government. Conspiracy theories about the secret place could be published in volumes by today. Aliens, human testing, you name it. So whose fault is it really, when a zealous commoner conjured a hypothesis so believable to the masses that sound truer than the real truth itself? And the real truth. That was swept under the carpet, bursting at its seams as already.

What PM Lee did was effective for his standing in the upcoming general elections - to stifle online dissenters and thicken the vile miasma of fear that such an act can and will destroy an individual's life. That's a considerable weapon by his side as half of the battle of the next GE will be fought on the internet. Apart from that, the CPF mystery remains. By suing Roy's pants off, what the PM achieved was merely driving the coffeeshop talks to the backyard and will only create wilder speculations and interests by the Streisand effect.

Come to think of it, that is such a great money making machine. Mystifying something of great concern to the masses, bait for the next guy who question it hard enough, sue and profit! A rough calculation tells me that 5 successful sues should generate enough passive income for a common Singaporean for lifetime. What a privileged position one can be get to. That is a common illustration used by financial gurus to explain why most people are poor, as their parents do not impart sound financial education to their children. As we can see, PM Lee has great parents.

Past Rants