In a TNP article, both Yaw and Hammer declined to comment on the rumours while Angela (who is supposedly pregnant with Yaw’s child) would “neither confirm nor deny”…so I guess that speaks a lot for itself doesn’t it. When first contacted, the Deputy Treasurer of WP said “we have to think carefully about our response.”

Rev Chua Chung Kai of Covenant Evangelical Free Church who is counseling Yaw and his wife also don’t wanna comment. Your game is pretty much over when the pastor declines to utter the whole truth. And apparently, it was the church members who emailed TRE and TNP.

It appears that so many people know but yet everyone is unsure of what to say. How interesting…

Source: Hardwarezone EDMW forum

According to the TRE article, Yaw was known to have several previous transgressions and the WP CEC was aware of it. If so, it doesn’t speak well of WP if they knew and still let Yaw and Angela continue until they finally got into hot soup. It’s one thing if someone in the organization is having extra-marital affairs outside of work, but it’s another thing if people (who are separately married) are having extra-marital affairs within the organization. This screws up the hierarchy and power relations within especially when one of those involved is a senior leader of the party.

It’s pretty unprofessional and it demonstrates that one’s short-term enjoyment and gain can be put aside at the expense of what the party’s goals and mission. Would Hammer Low sit out on this one just as he sat out on the ministerial salary debate? No hammering out of the issues? And let’s not forget that marriage vows are so precious in this crazy, temptations-filled urban city we live in.

CPIB does spring cleaning

Talking about marriage vows, these powerful leaders of SCDF and CNB who have hundreds if not thousands of men and women looking up to them are a real disappointment. Kudos to the CPIB for hauling them up and taking them to task. High pay doesn’t mean no crime so tough laws and enforcement are needed for wankers who abuse public trust placed upon them. While I would apply the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty”, I hope that CPIB would be thorough and reveal their findings to the public very soon (unlike Kong Hee who become no sight no sound).

But then again, looking at how far investigations have gone and replacements announced, it is very likely that CPIB has a pretty good case against them. Would we finally see who this female IT person is, so charming that she could jeopardize the high-flying careers of such powerful men?? Does she sell gold-plated IT equipment embossed with her curves for powerful men to ornate their desks?? Poor wives and children of all three men who would never return to their simple married lives again!!

And thanks to the folks at premier Mandarin sleaze newspapers Lianhe Wanbao for cheonging out the story during CNY…one wonders how long the govt would take to reveal this to the public if not for the story already out in the press. For once maybe the press is doing its job of bringing the bread, butter and jam to the people.

In this year of dragon, those MIW and their related associates better keep their ass no less than the pristine shade of white, for who can tell of the ramifications of further sleaze and bad behavior. 

Man on trial for posting Facebook entries inciting violence

AsiaOneWednesday, Jan 18, 2012

A man posted content of a violent nature on his Facebook page and on a Facebook fan page.

His postings consisted of a video clip of an assassination, and a photo of a soldier about to execute former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng.

Gary Yue Mun Yew, 36, has denied charges of inciting violence by posting these documents on the Temasek Review’s Facebook fan page, and on his own Facebook page.

On August 9, 2010, Yue allegedly posted the link to a video clip depicting the assassination of former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat on the Temasek Review’s Facebook fan page, with the comment: “We should re-enact a live version of this on our own grand-stand during our national’s parade!!!!!!”

He also allegedly posted a digitally manipulated photo showing a Vietnamese soldier holding a gun to the head of former Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng.

Yue said he did the postings out of frustration with work, and in response to online discussions about national issues such as the Mas Selamat escape and pro-foreigner policies.

His lawyers said he had no intention to incite violence, nor was it likely that the postings would incite violence.

The trial is possibly the first of its kind here.

If convicted, Yue faces a jail term of up to five years and/or a fine on each charge.

If we think about it, if this guy had change the soldier picture to Wong Kan Seng and then show WKS going to execute someone, can WKS charge him for defamation, to say that he is trying to portray him as an unfair murderer? I mean WKS is after all out former Home Affairs minister who have kept out street safe and secure from terrorists, druggies, robbers etc….

Another point, we don’t even have bank robberies in Singapore, so how would anyone even try to assassinate PAPies during NDP? They have to get pass the security cordon, get pass the guard of honour, get pass the personal bodyguards, and then get pass the gong gong looking Chief of Defence with his Excalibur that can loop off your head in one swift swope. LOL. Ok, maybe it is one of those personal bodyguards or guard of honour (with their blank bullets), but if these people really want to do it, they won’t be inspired by a video of Sadat’s assassination right? They must have been verbally abused by ministers or ministers’ wives and children and uncles and aunties etc etc…eat sharks’ fins, abalone, pork knuckes in front of them, let them smell but don’t let them eat!! Evil ministers!! ;p

But if anything and everything can do online also quite extreme. If I born in the 90s and a student in boys’ school now, I MIGHT attach my chio teacher’s face on the body of a most AV star and circulate to my classmates via FB. Sure will incite my teacher’s anger but excite my schoolmates. So many of these things online, how to police? But hey, if you’re going to whack a minister on anti-papies website, you better play ball. Many people can stir the pot of shit, just don’t be caught with ladle!!

Let’s just hope the judge can be merciful with this guy, maybe he stress or just incoherent at that time.

This arguing of money spent on politicians, this to-ing and fro-ing between the incumbent and opposition all over the world is a grand circus that is quite enjoyable.

If the business world is about comparing properties bought, branded watches and bags then I guess among the politicians, they compare who has the lowest salary! In case you didn’t know, China’s No1 Hu Jintao has the lowest annual salary of US$10,633…c’mon you bitches ain’t gonna beat that!!

Let’s take a look at the only worthy opposition in parliament: WP is suggesting that MP’s allowance be pegged to the entry grade superscale monthly salary of $11K. The first question that came to my bird brain: is the monthly salary of an entry superscale really $11K? If these fellas only get $132K per year ($11K x 12 months), I think quite a number of them would quit. Realistically, they will be getting 15 to 18 months including variable, leadership and performance bonuses, ranging from $165K to $198K. Is this really very much different from the current MP allowance of $192K? Why take monthly and not the whole year?

WP’s benchmark for ministers of $55K per month and a typical salary of 16 months (12+1(13 month)+3(bonus)=16months), works out to be $880K per year. PAP proposed $1.1m. For all the trouble, you mean the difference between a WP and PAP govt is only 220K? Yes $220K is a lot of money, I would need years to earn that…but wtf lah, don’t waste time and just agree in the middle lor. What’s more intriguing is that both PAP and WP agree on a base salary of $55K per month. Baffling!! Did Pinky Loong and Hammer Low both consult the same temple medium??

Aiyoo…Let the monkeys have their peanuts and let’s move on to orang utans, gorillas and other primates.

In 2007, when the PAP govt raised ministers’ salaries, Pinky pledged that he will donate all his increments for 5 years to charity so that he will have the ‘moral standing’ to defend their high salaries. When asked if the other ministers should follow his example, Pinky said, “It should not be a public ostentatious display of how generous they are, but a private matter for them to decide at their own discretion.” Yesterday, during his lackey speech, this point was brought up again. Scared people don’t know you donate a lot of money is it?

If 5 years ago, Pinky had moral standing, why now he no moral standing to defend his high salary all the way? Now Pinky take a pay cut, does it mean he has higher moral standing? I think SDP has the highest moral standing because they propose the lowest pay! Haha!!

PAP, WP, SDP, NSP all same same but different…want my vote just say lah!

PS. I think the saddest part is $70 dental subsidy and $350 outpatient subsidy for ministers. Want to keng when feeling low also need to pay for own consultation. Haha. They should enact this into the labour law so that all employers would have to provide medical care to their staff.

What I have stated above is nothing new. In fact, it is common knowledge to many Singaporeans who follow current affairs, not to mention civil servants, academics, politicians and so on. So it baffles me to see that our supposedly very talented and immensely well-paid MPs continue to ask questions in parliament regarding what are ‘internal matters’ of SMRT knowing full well that Lui (where the Tuck are Yew) would simply say govt does not have control over SMRT board matters.

And I quote from a TODAY article:

Ms Ng (Irene Ng) also wanted Mr Lui’s assurance that the new SMRT CEO will have the requisite experience in transport management to deliver a public transport system that Singaporeans can rely on. Mr Lui said this issue was best left to the SMRT board of directors, who are searching for a replacement for Ms Saw.

Similarly, Mr Lui said in response to a question from Non-Constituency MP Lina Chiam on whether the incoming CEO will hold multiple portfolios that it was up to the SMRT board to determine the new CEOs job scope.

Nee Soon GRC MP Lee Bee Wah questioned if Mr Lui was satisfied by the budget that SMRT had set aside for maintenance. Mr Lui responded that ìthe Government does not determine the budget, just the outcomes of the maintenance.  

Moulmein-Kallang GRC MP Denise Phua questioned the timing of Ms Saw’s resignation and whether the move was just a populist decision to placate the public. Shouldn’t the resignation take place after the completion of the public inquiry or ìat least until the next CEO is identified and there is a proper handover, Ms Phua wondered. Mr Lui replied: I know as much as what I have read in the press. Whether she resigns now or why she has resigned, that’s an internal SMRT matter. 

Irene Ng, Denise Phua, Lee Bee Wah and Lina Chiam – what’s the difference between you and the average auntie on the street besides the fact that you are highly paid at the rate of more than $15K/month and is supposed to be well-read and knowledgable so that you will be able to ask questions that benefit Singapore and Singaporeans?? Not much difference I would say.

Taxpayers monies are frivolously spent when compared to such low standard of questioning directed at the Transport Minister on an issue that is of concern to almost all Singaporeans and one of the most fundamental condition of our economy. More tax monies are wasted when the other 70++ MPs have to listen to this banal exchange of questions.

Oh wait, let’s be accurate and say that Prof Cherian George reminded us all to be accurate and avoid sensationalizing. So, does any one expect drastic changes in TOC after 15 days?

Before I start, let me state that I am neither a Catholic nor a gay-hater/sympathizer. I don’t believe in god and gays can shove IT where they want., how they want.

Let’s take a look at this TOC Facebook post. TOC, quoting the new article says the Roman Catholic Pope denounced gay marriage as it threatens the future of humanity.

Source: TOC Facebook Like Page

Let’s see the some of the reactions that followed as a result of this posting:

Conflate the issue by bringing out sex with altar boys…

This one called the Pope a bastard…

…Nazi…

…and the most ‘creative’, calling a Pope a ROTWEILER…

Action begets a reaction…out comes the gay persecutor…

Luckily, there was a minority moderate voice who tried very hard to let haters and lovers see that they are two sides of the same coin…

Admittedly, a Facebook post is not a full-fledged news article but TOC’s Facebook page does have almost 50,000 likes and postings can easily attract 100++ comments. Would one argue it’s a private page? Hence, if one were a responsible opinion shaper like TOC, one would take a look at the Pope’s speech and at least verify if he did indeed make such a contentious and inflammatory statement.

The Pope’s speech can be read here:
www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=552959

The Pope (boxed area) said, “Among these, pride of the place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.”

He certainly did not denounce gay marriage outright but he did lay forth his view that the family based on a union of a man and woman is the fundamental cell of every society. He also reminded Catholics that they should not support polices that were anti-family. Well, fair enough one would say, he was diplomatic in arguing his views and mobilizing his flock. What do you expect the Roman Catholic Pope to say…”go forth and fornicate with whoever u want”…”gay married couples are well-recognized by St Peter when you enter the gate of heaven”…”governments in the world please start recognizing gay marriages so the world can be a better place”?? You must be insane…he is big brother big of the Roman church for Christ sake (literally).

Last month, TOC made an Everest out of a Bukit Timah, lifted Seng Han Thong’s maciam ‘racist’ comment and spark off a barrage of cry wolf comments. All in all, while nothing too adverse came out of this little episode, one really wonders how high TOC would be willing to fly this kite before they lose control of it.

Source: yawshinleong.blogspot.com. The words very small but Shin Min got print out unbrandedbreadnbutter URL. Maciam famous liao. Kiddin'.

First, I think I better apologise to YSL because he say the views that appear on his blog are not his. They belong to those property agents. So I associate him with those views is wrong although they appeared on his blog. All YSL is trying to do is to give the agents an “organic platform” on his blog for them to “organically brainstorm”, but the recommendations are theirs alone although YSL facilitated the group and put up their suggestions on his blog.

So maybe I was a bit wrong and kan cheong to associate the views that appear on his blog to be his. The views that appear on his blog are not his. Paiseh, gwah salah, I am sorry…maybe got some miscomm… Most important, YSL said consumers’ right to buy/sell their own flat must be upheld and I think it’s great that he agrees with this basic argument.

Maybe because my blog not so big time yet, so I don’t have guest writer experience (yet). So I never need to explain to people why I invite this guy to write an article on my blog but I disagree with him and never say and just let him write on my blog. Btw, what is ‘organic’ platform? Are things that appear on organic platform (which arose from organic brainstorming) more healthy and wholesome than things on “unorganic” platforms? (I just love deep fried and trans fats ;p)

In my earlier post, I argued that property agents should pay a yearly subscription (instead of one-time as suggested by 30+ property agents and not YSL) to CEA otherwise the long-term cost of CEA would be borne by taxpayers. When asked about this by the reporter, YSL replied, “Which regulatory body’s body isn’t borne by taxpayers? Why CEA should be excluded?”

I understand that the budget of govt regulatory bodies should in part be borne by taxpayers as they too enjoy the benefits. But I continue to emphasise that capital/resource/service providers should bear their fair and larger share of a regulatory regime as a result of their economic actions to maximise profits. Builders, contractors, developers pay various yearly taxes to Building and Construction Authority, airlines pay a fee to Civil Aviation Authority, liquor sellers pay yearly licenses, even cars pay road tax yearly so why should property agents be excluded from such a regime?

Earlier I had said that if YSL wanted to help the 30+ agents he facilitated, then he should do it privately perhaps with the Institute of Estate Agent, a professional body of real estate agents. When asked about this by the reporter, YSL replied, “It is a most ironic suggestion, had the spirit of this suggestion being upheld in the first place, we won’t be even discussing this here.”

Maybe YSL thinks that I am being sarcastic by saying I flame him in public and still have the cheek to tell him to take the matter privately. For this I am deeply apologetic. I clarify that I suggested a private negotiation is because 30+ agents is not representative of the thousands of agents out there. And since the agents’ recommendations are anti-consumer and maybe he should have consulted IEA to better address their concerns.

Having said that, if a politician as a public figure campaigns for certain issues on his public blog, then I guess the public should exercise civic duty to support the issue if it justified and alert the others when it is unjustified. I am sure YSL would agree with that as he himself seeks to promote “active citizenry” by “encouraging fellow Singaporeans step forward & to discuss about policy issues.” I just hope I was not too active for him.

YSL: I remember my Ah Beng classmate used to smoke this type of YSL ciggies. He say play snooker put this on table is very sart one. People will respect.

My barber was sacked from Sri Dewa, he runs a grass cutting company now.

Most improved dressing for PAP minister 2011

The review committee can cut and cut but if you still choose call to orchard road flooding as ‘ponding’ then god bless you for the next GE. Pay cuts are frivolous, please solve the real issues like transport, education and social safety nets.

On attracting political talent

You mean with $1.1mil and still got problem attracting talent to join politics? Then could it be our society and education system is so steeped in monetary and materialistic terms that we do not know the meaning of sacrifice or sacrifice has degenerated into a measurement of dollars and cents. So PAP, now you know, 40% cut from the median income of top 1000 earning Singaporeans is not considered a sacrifice. Try harder next time, maybe 50% or 60% cut and better make sure your wife don’t work in Temasek or GLCs!

Looking at how this debate is going, it seems almost everyone in Singapore measures sacrifice in $$$. I am sure if you ask any capable CEO (male/female), sacrifice would mean he cannot go KTV visit his favourite PRC consort, cannot buy $10k single malt whiskey, cannot order Hermes bag for Chinese new year to show off to relatives, cannot order new Porsche model, cannot go casino!!

On setting benchmarks

Currently, the benchmark is 2/3 of the median income of the top 8 earners in six professions. Ministers’ pay was highest in 2008 when it was $2mil and nearly 70% of this benchmark while they took a pay cut of $400k in 2009 when the economy was bad. Let’s give unto Caesar what is due to say that this benchmark has never been breached.

Now with the new proposed benchmark of a 40% cut of the median of the top 100 earning Singaporeans (and all their pensions chopped), PAP ministers will die die make sure they meet this benchmark. Economy good, economy bad, top 1000 earning Singaporeans will still earn good money. So this setting benchmark is really just a political wayang. Why do you think Pinky Loong accept the proposals straight after it was presented to him? Clearly, this ministerial review done by Gerard Ee was in-consultation with Pinky Loong and his cronies all along. A source whispered to me the real person behind this ministerial review committee is actually NTUC chief is John De Payva who has a direct line to the Manpower Minister.

What is finally clear

Finally, henceforth we now know ministers’ salaries is about $1.1mil all inclusive of bonuses, perks, benefits, allowances and no more pensions. To know this figure is like harder than finding your ancestors buried on Bukit Brown. Really, who needs to know how many months of bonus they get? We just need to know how much they get in total before we can propose further cuts.

After GE2011, the Govt has to be more transparent, from the CNB statistical error to HSA flawed DNA testing and SMRT failures, the issues are now put up for public scrutiny. With this transparency, it is easier for the public to decide if ministers should suffer more pay cuts or balik kampong in five years’ time since Pinky Loong likes to talk about report cards during general elections. This is perhaps the best thing out of this ministerial salary review.

More deserving than Grace Fu

At the current rate of $1.1mil, hopefully many more Singaporeans more deserving than Grace Fu come forward to serve as they do not see the sacrifices measured in monetary terms like money face Fu but a true willingness to servant leadership. The question for all Singaporeans is how much is enough to please everyone including taxi drivers? $500K for ministers? I am sure Mah Bow Tan and Wong Kan Seng won’t serve for $500K as minister but I am sure Chen Show Mao will. How many Chen Show Maos we have in Singapore or hidden in HK and USA? Faster, please come out and show yourself now.

Tang San Zang: My sacrifice to go collect scriptures is nothing to speak of. It was harder to convince a monkey, a pig and a mutant brute to go along with me for no salary.

Siew also say until sibeh carefully he is a core member, but does not do the editing, although he will give his comments when asked…wah this lawyer speak is sibeh confusing. So he mean he got nothing to do with the Seng Han Thong saga?? Or he mean ok lah TOC got a bit wrong but it is not my fault and here I try to explain to you why we are still right…

Indian Senior Conslut and Indian Senior academic say already, u still wanna argue, sure they more right than any Chinese. They say right is consperm right one. My mother say don’t quarrel with Indians, they very good at arguing and debating, white also can say until black. Aiya aiya sorry sorry, this one is racist thought…monotyping races…my bad…

Now Singapore internet with weakened Temasek Review and Yahoo kena sue by former company of current president is become left with TOC as the big boy of alternative news. TOC becometh shining bacon of pro-opposition and anti-pap view, if they don’t start whack Ah Seng then nobody can follow. But whack also must see how lah…this Ah Seng racist remark is so lame and weak that even Joanne Peh don’t want to pay for plain water also more exciting. Then this TOC machar Ravi still put up article to thank readers who support them. Machar, when you whack PAP sure got about hundreds of comments support u one, like GE sure got about 30% will vote oppsition even if they are monkeys in human clothings.You gibe bananas, monkeys will jump.

So like Prof Cherian say, got strong alternative media like TOC is good one, they can check the government. But they also must have high standard and especially when it comes to race issues because it only takes a spark to get the fire going. When you make mistake then come out and say sorry plainly and gracefully, why must twist and turn the words.

When Ah Seng say sorry for his racist remark then if TOC come out to say sorry to Ah Seng for their mistaken reporting then I think this type ending we all learn something. So Siew must guide his machar Ravi more carefully then he can faster become permanent instead of interim chief editor. He almost singled handedly change the whole issue of SMRT operational failure to AH SENG IS A RACIST and I think Senior Conslut and Pinky Loong secretly thanked him for that. Btw, why call him interim when Machar do this job for most of 2011 already??

So now my england also like Ah Seng, Ah Beng, can understand right…mrt spoil simple england like take smrt taxi or walk home also can understand right…haha…

The CEA was established in Oct 2010 to regulate the real estate industry (especially rogue real estate agents) and protect the consumer from unfair business practices as property transactions are often very expensive and can be complicated. Before the CEA, there was no licensing of real estate agents and the industry had very low barriers of entry leading to many agents who are not only uncommitted to their trade but also devised various means to extract unfair commission and fees from unsuspecting consumers, property owners and even banks.

I bought my first house, a re-sale HDB directly from a seller and we did not engage any agents on both sides. It was pretty neat and clean as we decided on an agreeable price rather quickly although we have not met previously. HDB assisted in us completing the transaction and while it was complicated at first, it was not rocket science, you just needed some effort. Most of all, it saved buyer and seller a combined agent commission fees of $10K on a $350K apartment that is leasehold in the first place!

NOW Mr Yaw and his group of real estate agents is proposing that the CEA ban individual seller and buyer from any property transaction.

On Yaw’s blog: The Council should not permit sellers, buyers, landlord and tenants to transact any property deals themselves, as they are not trained; they do not attend classes; they do not sit the examinations such as Common Examination for Housing Agents(CEHA), Common Examination for Salespersons(CES) etc, and they are not registered with the Council. Therefore, the seller, buyers, landlord and tenants are not licenced to transact any deal with regards to property transactions. If a seller who is not licenced, sells his property to a buyer, essentially, the buyer is not protected, he is not being served by a licence agent.

IMHO, this is the most ridiculous of suggestions, it is anti-consumer and gives an unfair unending meal ticket to real estate agents. If seller and buyer are known to one another, relatives etc, they can just settle the deal at HDB or engage a conveyance lawyer in the case of a private property. Buyers, like me, who approached the seller directly can currently settle the transactions ourselves. If the seller is hard on cash, such a rule would force him to part with more cash and worsen his financial position. Why should a fee be paid to the property agent when he/she had made no introductory at all?? This also increases the cost of business as the property agent would get a cut of every rental property deals. Ultimately, such a suggestion is most damaging to consumer interest, dampens business environment, and basically creates a monopoly for very very small segment of interested persons.

Another ridiculous suggestion found in Mr Yaw’s blog states that real estate agent must be compensated half of the deposit forfeited by the seller if the deal is aborted. Currently, compensation to agents for aborted deals are non-obligatory.

On Yaw’s blog: As stated in Form 1-Estate Agency Agreement for the Sale of Residential Property and Form 3-Estate Agency Agreement for the Lease of Residential Property by a Landlord. Sellers and landlords are not obligated to pay commission to the real estate agents if the sale and the leasing of the property fall through. The real estate agents must be compensated half of the deposit that is forfeited by the sellers and the landlords when deals are aborted, as the real estate agents have successfully secured the deals, and cost spent in marketing the property.

The question of compensation should be a private arrangement open for negotiation between interested parties. If the agent did not perform his role adequately and cause the deal to fall through, why should he/she be compensated half the deposit?? The agent should stipulate in his contract with the seller that any marketing costs should be borne by the seller if the deal does not eventually succeed. Stipulating that real estate agents must be compensated half the deposit of any fallen through deal again grants them an unfair meal ticket.

Mr Yaw together with his group of real estate agents also proposed that the annual license fee for real estate agents imposed by the CEA be amended to a one-off payment.

On Yaw’s blog: The Council imposes an annual licence fee of $246.10 including GST should be amended to a one-off license fee, as agents are paying fees for courses, examination as well as the yearly Continuing Professional Development (CPD). The fees of these courses, examination and CPD amount to more than $500. Currently, if a new agent obtains the relevant certification, say in October 2011, upon registration with CEA, he has to fulfill the full amount of $246.10 for the entire year of 2011. Come January 2012, which is just 3 months after his registration on October 2011, the same agent has to fulfill another payment of $246.10 for the entire 2012. The new agent should only make a full payment of $246.10 as a one-off licence fee regardless the date of registration.

Next thing we know, Yaw would be joining pubs, karaoke and coffeeshops owners asking the government to make their entertainment and liquor licenses one-time payment also. This is part of their business costs and real estate agents should acknowledge it. Real estate agents should bear part of the costs of licensing, enforcement and administration of CEA as they are the ones that benefit from a well-regulated industry. If the CEA license fee is only one-time payment then the long-term buget of the CEA would be borne by taxpayers!!

Is Mr Yaw telling us that real estate agents who earned ten of thousands a year cannot afford a few hundred in licensing fees. If these real estate agents don’t earn a decent salary annually then perhaps they can consider changing jobs. The government can consider waiving the annual license fee if the economy is really bad and there is a drastic drop in volume of property transacted.

There are many other points worth countering in Mr Yaw’s suggestions but I won’t do them here (maybe he would be write to me if he is interested…haha). Is Mr Yaw still in the GE mode where he is opposing zheng hu for the sake of opposing?? Consumers now have more protection with the CEA established as it provides a platform for aggrieved consumers to lodge a complain, meditations to be carried out and rogue real estate agents turfed out. Workers’ Party and Mr Yaw should concentrate on fighting for everyday Singaporeans and the interest of normal consumers rather than the 30-odd real estate agents. And maybe one way of really helping the 30-odd real estate agents would be keeping the dialogue out of blogosphere and addressing it directly with the relevant interested parties together with perhaps the Institute of Estate Agents, a professional body of real estate agents. 30-odd agents out of the tens of thousands in Singapore is really a tiny tiny dot in the little red dot.

All graphics in this post are from www.smrt.com.sg. SMRT had used these graphics to explain and attract shareholders and potential investors.

The argument for privatization was that it improved efficiency and sustainability in the long-term while ensuring that operators stay on their toes and continue to reinvest profits into the business (which is after all a public service).  It’s pretty hard to disagree as capitalism and its related ideas has been prevalent in our time. Being a private company does have its advantages over a state-owned enterprise; although many continue (including premium blogs) to criticise the fact that SMRT is making a profit!

The weakest argument is that since it is providing a public service, it should not be making a profit at the expense of the commuters. However, we all know that without decent profits, the rail system would gradually fall in derelict (unless we would want govt to subsidise it endlessly). The problem really lies in how much profit it should make and how it should distribute its profits as a company that provides a public service.

SMRT’s Dividend Policy

SMRT has a policy that guides it to distribute at least 60% of their profits as dividends. In fact, it has consistently (since 2006) distributed about 75% or more of their profits. For example, in 2010, it earned 10.7c per share and distributed 8.5c as dividend, amounting to almost an 80% distribution of its profits. Hence, if SMRT consistently distributes most of its profits back to its shareholders, how much does it have to to competently maintain, renew, reinvest and innovate on its operations?? Does it then go against the whole purpose of why it was privatised in the first place?  In the years when Singapore’s population was booming due to immigration policies, why didn’t SMRT retain and reinvest more of its profits rather than continue to distribute high dividends (and continue to stress the rail systems)??

 

Besides an internal policy to distribute 60% of its profits, SMRT can propose a special dividend to enhance shareholder value.

Since 2006 SMRT has distributed more than 75% of their profitsas dividends to shareholders except in 2009 where the distribution was 72%.

An indirect taxation

So, since so much of its profits are distributed as dividends to shareholders, who are SMRT’s shareholders? Almost everyone on the street would say it belongs to zheng hu and they are right.Temasek owns 55% of SMRT and the amount they get yearly in dividends is princely. What a brilliant method to impose an indirect tax on commuters while recouping its investment for building the rail infrastructure!! (Great thinking by the scholars!) Hence, with a majority chunk of SMRT owned indirectly by the government, should it not be responsive to realise that the re-investment into existing rail infrastructure was inadequate and incommensurate with the population growth?? Perhaps it is also because SMRT was seeking to maximise profits while ensuring that they distributed high dividends that basic security requirements of a public rail operator were ignored which led to the cases of vandalism earlier this year.

Temasek owns almost 55% while the other big money shareholders make up almost 74%.

Fare hikes and increasing ridership

With fare hikes almost every 2, 3 years since it was listed in 2000 and an increasing train ridership, SMRT’s dependency on fare-based revenue is still a high of about 80%. That is to say 80% of their revenue is derived from commuters paying public fares for trains and buses. Theoretically, if SMRT is able to reap handsome profits from its advertising, commercial rental and overseas operations, it would be able to delay fare hikes to commuter. But due to its inability to do so, SMRT had to time and time again request for a fare hike (which would invariably be given by PTC) in order to maintain its profit margins and maintain its dividend policy. For this reason alone and not the service disruptions, CEO Saw Piak Hwa should vacate the post as she had enough time to proved her mettle, or lack of it. Until today, Raffles Xchange remains the only notable commercial development of SMRT while other Xchanges such as the Dhoby Gaut one remains dearth of traffic.

Conclusion

Hence, after a decade of high dividends and increasing shareholder value, the government and Temasek should take this opportunity to review this model of ownership where a public service company is listed on the stock exchange. It is also ironic that many who can only depend on public transport, cannot afford equities that are listed to provide them this essential service. No doubt, public transport companies should be profit making, but should they be publicly listed? Should they choose to maximise profits at all costs and maintain a dividend policy that would seek to make the rich richer? Should they have a guidance on the rate of return on equity (for fare-based revenue) so as to prevent over-exuberance profit making?

Perhaps even SMRT should be delisted and privately owned by Temasek and cornerstone investors. Ever more should employees of SMRT begin to own part of their company (in terms of shareholding) so that they can feel proud to work in the public service and provide commuters with a “world class experience” – something which was sorely missing from recent events.

Trains are after all machines and it is without a doubt that breakdowns would occur but are the policies and  long structure of SMRT and its symbiotic relationship with the government at the expense of the commuters??

PS: Commuters should also learn to be more gracious as there were many reports of abusive and abrasive commuters and people who ignored children and elderly.