Category: Komentar

Send in your opinion to [email protected].
Kirimkan pandangan anda kepada [email protected].

  • The Workers’ Party: A Response To Lawrence Wong

    The Workers’ Party: A Response To Lawrence Wong

    RESPONSE TO MINISTER LAWRENCE WONG’S OPINION PIECE

    AHPETC finds Minister Lawrence Wong’s accusations in The Straits Times of 5 June 2015 surprising and puzzling.  We would like to make the following clarifications to correct the misconceptions.

    1. What the High Court recently had to decide were, mainly, legal questions i.e. whether the court had power to entertain the Ministry of National Development’s request for the court to appoint and authorise independent accountants (1) to co-sign cheques for the disbursement of the FY 14/15 and FY 15/16 $14m Town Council grants which the MND had withheld; and (2) to look into AHPETC’s past transactions.  The High Court accepted the arguments of AHPETC’s lawyers that there were no legal bases whatsoever for the MND’s request, and accordingly, threw out the government’s entire case.
    1. There was no trial and the High Court did not itself embark on a dedicated fact-finding exercise.  However, in the course of delivering the judgment, the High Court expressed views on AHPETC’s lapses but the views were based, principally, on the findings of the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) Report.
    1. A special two-day sitting of Parliament was convened to debate the AGO Report.  All Workers’ Party Members of Parliament (MPs) who are responsible for overseeing the management of the Town Council, including Secretary-General Mr Low Thia Khiang, participated in the debate to explain and clarify matters raised.
    1. Ms Sylvia Lim denies that she lied to Parliament.  Parliament has avenues such as the Committee of Privileges to ensure that MPs’ conduct meets the standards expected.
    2. Just because AHPETC did not physically transfer monies into Sinking Funds from its Operating Funds does not mean that monies are missing.  Up to Financial Year 13/14, AHPETC has done the necessary transfers.
    1. Currently, MND is withholding $14 million in grants to AHPETC.  If MND continues to withhold the grants from AHPETC that every Town Council should receive, AHPETC will not be able to fulfill its obligations to make the necessary Sinking Fund transfers.
    1. AHPETC does not understand the basis for Minister Lawrence Wong to accuse AHPETC or the Workers’ Party of “dishonesty” or “irresponsible” behaviour.
    1. All Town Councils are required to be audited, and the audit reports are presented to Parliament for public scrutiny.
    1. Whether AHPETC’s contractors are delivering services or not, and the standard of their work, is a matter that residents can assess for themselves.
    1. When Town Councils engage contractors, they are required to comply with rules on the calling of public tenders.  If any Town Council staff has committed any illegal act or corrupt practice, he / she will have to face the full consequences of the law.

    Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council spokesman
    05 June 2015

     

    Source: www.ahpetc.sg

  • Conservative Singapore Not Ready For Same-Sex Marriage

    Conservative Singapore Not Ready For Same-Sex Marriage

    The Republic is not ready for same-sex marriage as the society is still “basically a conservative one”, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.

    While he noted the developments in developed countries, he pointed out the “considerable resistance” from these places too.

    “There is a trend in developed countries. In America, they have gay marriage. It is state by state. Not all states have agreed. In Europe, some countries have done it … but there was big considerable resistance,” said Mr Lee. “Even in America, there is a very strong pushback from conservative groups against the idea.”

    Mr Lee, who was interviewed by a group of journalists from around the region yesterday (June 4), was responding to ABS-CBN News Channel journalist Antonio Velaquez, who had asked for his views on gay marriage and whether Singapore is ready for it.

    Mr Lee said: “No, I do not think Singapore is ready … In Singapore, there is a range of views. There are gay groups in Singapore, there are gay people in Singapore and they have a place to stay here and we let them live their own lives. And we do not harass them or discriminate against them.”

    He added: “But neither, I think, if you ask most Singaporeans, do we want the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community to set the tone for Singapore society. The society is basically a conservative one. It is changing, but it is changing gradually and there are different views, including views especially from the religious groups who push back … It is completely understandable.”

    The Government’s view is that “where we are … is not a bad place to be”, Mr Lee said. “There is space for the gay community, but they should not push the agenda too hard because if they (do), there will be a very strong pushback,” he added.

    “And this is not an issue where there is a possibility that the two sides can discuss and eventually come to a consensus. Now, these are very entrenched views and the more you discuss, the angrier people get.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Why I No Longer Trust GIC (PAP) With My CPF

    Why I No Longer Trust GIC (PAP) With My CPF

    It is a fact that an unbelievable number of our CPF investments are underwater. I am doubtful GIC is a shrewd fund manager.

    The PAP has not been able to convince thinking Singaporeans that our CPF scheme is not a scam. To do so would require GIC to disclose all its investments and I suspect many will prove to be deeply embarrassing.

    Singaporeans who are still unconvinced can analyse the 281 investments on this list. It’s of course not a complete list but if there’s any evidence of GIC’s superior performance, please share the information. I have already posted some wiped-out CPF investments and will continue to do so as objectively as our mainstream media.

    Investments exceeding $1 billion will soon become the norm due to the legislated retention of humongous amounts of our CPF, ie the total amount of CPF balances doubled from $136 billion to $275 billion during the last 7 years. GIC is aware of the “inflated prices across all asset classes” but is forced to invest (risk) about S$20 billion of CPF monies annually. It is a fact that economic ‘growth’ post Global Financial Crisis has been built on a mountain of debt.

    DJIA long-term chart

    Source: Yahoo Finance

    Most stock market indices, such as Germany’s DAX, have been hitting new highs since 2 years ago. Perhaps our multi-million dollar GIC directors do not believe that stock markets are cyclical in nature?

    Source: Yahoo Finance

    GIC is not a nimble investor and frequently goes in for the kill. It is a major shareholder in many foreign companies, with stakes of more than 5%. When a financial crisis hits, GIC will not be able to exit when stock prices are plunging due to a lack of liquidity. In a prolonged economic downturn, divestment by a major shareholder like GIC will result in gargantuan losses.

    A recent example is its 63% investment in Nirlon. GIC’s Plan B = wipeout.

    Unaccountability THE problem with GIC (PAP)

    The 2 biggest investment blunders in GIC’s history are UBS and Citigroup. No one has been held accountable as if the combined 7-year S$25 billion investment is loose change.
    Lee Kuan Yew justified GIC’s bad investments by merely stating “..we went in too early. This is the part of the ride”.
    Lee was actually taking us for a ride because GIC was not investing in solid businesses but speculating for capital gains. Solid businesses make profits, declare regular dividends and the share price naturally heads north.

    UBS AG long-term chart

    Source: ft.com

    Citigroup long-term chart (divide share price by 10 due to reverse stock split in 2011)

    What’s so good about investing in a company whose share price has dropped 90% from 9 years ago?

    GIC did make some money from its Citigroup investment but this has nothing to do with good judgement as many have come to believe. It was entirely based on luck. As confirmed by its current share price, Citigroup was horribly mismanaged, ie it had taken on excessive risks with the possibility of bankruptcy.

    GIC had invested in Citigroup notes with a 7% coupon payment at a conversion price of $26.35. To prevent its bankruptcy, the US government bailed out Citigroup and the original conversion price wasreduced to $3.25. Without the reduction, GIC would be sitting on massive unrealised losses of more than 60%.

    The point to note is GIC had not expected Citigroup to be:
    – a candidate for bankruptcy
    – its ‘attractive’ conversion price of $26.35 to be reduced by 87% to $3.25
    – US taxpayers to bail out its investment.

    Is this then not some sort of ‘tikam-tikam’ investment? Should anyone have faith in a fund manager who makes money by hoping for the best?

    GIC has invested about S$25 billion in Citi and UBS whose net return is close to zero after 7 years. Can GIC’s smaller investments be expected to perform well when it has proven to make lousy judgements on much bigger investments?

    The GIC board may not be involved in the day to day investment decisions but they certainly had beenconsulted before $25,000,000,000 of our CPF and reserves were invested. By not holding any director accountable, it appears the government has condoned risky behavior. GIC has therefore not learnt any lesson form its mistakes and CPF members should expect more losses when the next financial crisis hits.

    GIC’s returns cannot be confirmed

    The payment of CPF interests does not confirm GIC has been able to earn a 20-year 4.1% annualised real rate of return. Without providing a proper set of accounts, no CPF member should believe GIC’s data blindly. The payment of CPF interests was likely to have been from our reserves.

    Government absorbed ‘losses’ 8 out of 20 years?

    Last year, DPM Tharman told parliament that “in eight out of 20 years, GIC’s returns were lower than the rate promised to CPF members, but the Government absorbed the losses”. Why then were our reserves used 8 times without Parliament or the President being informed?

    To claim that “the Government absorbed the losses” is at best a half truth because CPF member are also taxpayers. Assuming a CPF interest rate of 4% with GIC’s rate of return at 2%, we have:

    GIC (2%) + Govt (2%) = CPF (4%, also taxpayers)
    GIC (2%) + Taxpayers (2%) = CPF (4%, also taxpayers)

    The government is not a separate entity and is funded by taxpayers. All CPF members are taxpayers and we are effectively paying ourselves. There are no losses by the government.

    Singaporeans are being forced to pay for an underperforming GIC, our ‘professional’ fund manager. In a true democracy, GIC would have been history.

    Understanding NIR framework confirms my suspicions

    The PAP has tried to confuse the public by introducing complicated schemes and frameworks. Few would then bother to question the government or understand its motives. But it is not really that difficult to understand when we focus on key words.

    The PAP currently supplements our budget with (1) up to 50% of the long-term expected real returns on the (2) relevant assets under the Net Investment Returns framework:

    (1) PAP wants the public to keep guessing its “up to 50%”, which could mean anything from 1% to 49%. “Long term” could mean 10-year or 20-year which again PAP is not being upfront. Words which are meaningless to the public confirm PAP’s intent to conceal information.

    PAP wants to prevent public knowledge of our reserves, money which belongs to citizens but somehow we aren’t supposed to know.

    Bear in mind this is not income earned from investments but expected future earnings. In a bad year where investment income is insufficient, PAP will be able to spend money which has not been earned, ie from our reserves. Neither does it need to inform the president nor consult Parliament. Read post by andyxianwong with links to other blogs.

    (2) Relevant assets are defined under the Constitution as the “assets managed by GIC and MAS, minus the liabilities of the Government (which include SGS and SSGS) and MAS. In short:

    MAS + GIC assets – (SGS + CPF) = Relevant assets

    The ability to determine the returns on relevant assets means the PAP (MAS?) must have known the actual investment returns earned by SGS and SSGS (CPF).

    Conclusion

    It is not possible that PAP does not know the actual CPF investment returns. When the government uses the excess return above the CPF rate to fund government expenditures, money which rightly belongs to me, I feel I have been cheated.
    In order to avoid disclosing actual CPF investment returns, the PAP has created a smokescreen of half-truths.
    The non disclosure of material information on CPF and the unaccountability of GIC have made it impossible for me to trust GIC (PAP) with my CPF. Do you?

     

    Philip Ang

     

    Source: https://likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com

  • Elderly Uighur Uproots Family To Syria To Join ISIS

    Elderly Uighur Uproots Family To Syria To Join ISIS

    Islamic State fighters in Syria have revealed their latest weapon – an 80-year-old from China believed to be one of the the terror group’s oldest jihadis.

    In a propaganda video released by ISIS, Muhammed Amin says he left his home country with his family after seeing a video of his jihadi son being killed in Syria.

    Chilling footage was also shot inside a school run by ISIS and features a child singing about ‘martyrdom’ and another issuing a warning to the Chinese.

    Oldest jihadi? Muhammed Amin, 80, left China with his wife, daughter and grandsons to join the terror group

    Oldest jihadi? Muhammed Amin, 80, left China with his wife, daughter and grandsons to join the terror group

    Despite 'ending training camp very well', Amin was not given permission to fight although posed behind the controls of heavy artillery for the propaganda video

    Despite ‘ending training camp very well’, Amin was not given permission to fight although posed behind the controls of heavy artillery for the propaganda video

    Amin and his family are believed to members of the Muslim Uighur in an autonomous territory in China

    Amin and his family are believed to members of the Muslim Uighur in an autonomous territory in China

    It is believed Amin was a member of the minority Muslim Uighur in Xinjiang, an autonomous territory in northwest China once known as Turkestan.

    ‘I was subjected to oppression in Turkestan at the hands of the Chinese… for 60 years,’ the grandfather told his interviewer – a fellow ISIS fighter.

    ‘I made hijrah (religious journey) accompanied by my four grandsons, my daughter and my wife.’

    Filmed holding an AK-47 in some scenes and at the controls of heavy artillery in others, the elderly jihadi, who is dressed in fatigues, says he trained but is not currently fighting.

    ‘I came to Islamic State and went to training camp despite my old age,’ he added. ‘I went to training camp and I crawled, I ran and I rolled.

    ‘I did almost everything and ended training camp well. After receiving a weapon I asked permission to participate in battle, but he didn’t give me permission so I am presently in ribat (base).’

    Oldest jihadi: 80-year-old grandfather fights for ISIS

    Elderly: Amin boasts in the video that he can walk for two kilometres by foot and 'did almost everything' at training camp

    Elderly: Amin boasts in the video that he can walk for two kilometres by foot and ‘did almost everything’ at training camp

    The elderly jihadi from China, dressed in fatigues, says he went to a training camp but is not currently fighting

    The elderly jihadi from China, dressed in fatigues, says he went to a training camp but is not currently fighting

    The jihadi, who says he was a imam in China, says Muslims face oppression in his home country.

    The video, believed to have been filmed in Syria, cuts to scenes inside one of the terror group’s schools, where children sit inside a classroom wearing hats bearing the recognisable ISIS logo.

    It will certainly unsettle the Chinese security authorities; they have they own very real jihadist threat and anything that inflames the Uighurs will cause the greatest concern

    One child, who looks about 10 years old, tells the camera: ‘O Chinese kaffar (non-believers), know that we are preparing in the land of the khilafah (caliphate) and we will come to you and raise this flag in Turkestan with the permission of Allah.’

    Anthony Glees, the director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, says the footage seems to be propaganda aimed at Uighurs.

    ‘It’s clearly a rallying cry to all Muslims everywhere,’ he told MailOnline. ‘Yet the images of foot soldiers and this wizened man, looking a bit like a hobbit, trekking his way across vast swathes of wasteland to get to ISIS, is curiously old fashioned. No high-tech warfare here.

    ‘The tenor of the entire video is that ISIS is now fighting a ‘crusade’ in reverse: Muslims from all over everywhere are flocking to fight for the caliphate.’

    ISIS footage: The propaganda video - like many of the terror group's others - has high production values

    ISIS footage: The propaganda video – like many of the terror group’s others – has high production values

    Classroom: Children wearing hats bearing the ISIS logo are filmed learning in one of the terror group's schools

    Classroom: Children wearing hats bearing the ISIS logo are filmed learning in one of the terror group’s schools

    Earlier this year, Chinese officials claimed Muslims from Xinjiang were travelling to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS – before returning home to take part in plots against the communist rule.

    Authorities in the western region said they were planning to strengthen a crackdown on terrorism and extremism in the area, home to the minority Muslim Uighur, some of whom want their own independent state.

    China has previously expressed concerns about the rise of ISIS, fearing it will fuel unrest and violence in Xinjiang, where some seek to set up an independent state called East Turkestan.

    Xinjiang has seen repeated violence, as members of the Muslim Uighur have bristled under what they say is repressive Chinese government rule.

    Beijing has previously blamed the violence on Islamic militants with foreign connections who are seeking an independent state in Xinjiang, but has offered little evidence and ignored calls for independent investigations.

    Uighur groups say police have used indiscriminate deadly force against people protesting the government’s policies in the region.

    One child (right), who looks about 10, issues a chilling warning to Chinese non-believers from the classroom

    One child (right), who looks about 10, issues a chilling warning to Chinese non-believers from the classroom

    This child is filmed singing a song about 'martyrdom' in one of the most chilling pieces of footage in the video

    This child is filmed singing a song about ‘martyrdom’ in one of the most chilling pieces of footage in the video

    Attacks blamed on Uighurs have also occurred in other parts of the country, including a car which plowed into Beijing’s Tiananmen Gate in 2013, killing five people.

    Many of the group, who have traditionally followed a moderate form of Islam, have also begun adopting practices more commonly seen in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, such as full-face veils for women in the face of the crackdown.

    Some Xinjiang cities have placed restrictions on Islamic dress, including the capital Urumqi, which banned the wearing of veils in public late last year.

    Professor Glees added: ‘It (the video) will certainly unsettle the Chinese security authorities; they have their own very real jihadist threat and anything that inflames the Uighurs will cause the greatest concern.

    ‘They will fear further Uighur attacks in China.’

    Xinjiang is the largest province in China, and despite only about 4.3 per cent of the land area being fit for human habitation, it is home to more than 22million people, nearly half of whom are Muslim Uighur.

    Source: www.dailymail.co.uk

  • Boston Attack: A Profile Of Usaamah Rahim

    Boston Attack: A Profile Of Usaamah Rahim

    (CNN) Soon after Usaamah Rahim was killed by officers earlier this week, questions arose about his shooting death and his alleged terror plot.

    Was the 26-year-old security guard simply the latest man to be shot dead by police? Authorities quickly showed a video to community leaders to counter the social media claim.

    Was Rahim a radicalized religious extremist? The FBI said his social media posts point in that direction.

    Rahim initially wanted to behead Islam critic Pamela Geller, who had organized a Prophet Mohammed cartoon drawing contest, law enforcement officials told CNN. But then he switched targets to police officers, because he found them easier to access.

    Rahim was fatally shot Tuesday after waving a military knife at law enforcement officers in Boston.

    As the investigation continues, questions remain open. From a possible ISIS connection to additional suspects in his case, here’s what we know and don’t know about the case.

    THE ASSOCIATES

    What we know:

    Authorities say an FBI anti-terror task force had been watching not only Rahim but two associates as well. The pair may have helped Rahim or at least known what he was up to, which could lead to terror- and conspiracy-related charges for them.

    They have named one of them, David Wright, 25, who already faced federal obstruction charges this week. Wright is accused of destroying Rahim’s smartphone to conceal evidence of their plan. He could spend up to five years in jail if convicted.

    The two appeared to use coded language and names in their exchanges, the FBI said. Wright’s lawyer, Jessica Hedges, cast doubt on the investigation connecting her client with the case.

    What we don’t know:

    Were more people involved in the alleged plot? Police on Tuesday conducted a raid on a property in Rhode Island in connection with the investigation and took a third person in for questioning. The FBI is investigating whether there are overseas connections to the case, but law enforcement officials believe they have tracked down everyone involved in the Boston terror plot and are not looking for other suspects within the U.S.

    Who was Usaamah Rahim?

    THE TERROR CONNECTION

    What we know:

    The FBI said Rahim’s behavior changed over time, as they observed him, and that he made social media threats against police. Investigators said ISIS and other extremists radicalized him.

    On his Facebook page, Rahim “liked” a page about ISIS in 2012. He has also “liked” extremist preachers.

    “There’s a certain tone to it, and it points to a certain direction,” said radicalization researcher Nick Kaderbhai from King’s College in London. “We can look back and say the warning signs were there.”

    The case has highlighted fears about the deepening reach of the terror group in the United States. U.S. officials say it only takes online communication for ISIS to inspire and train operatives to plot attacks in the country.

    Rahim graduated in 2007 from Brookline High School in the Boston suburb. He enrolled in Brookline in 2004 for 10th grade after spending his ninth-grade year at the Academic International School in Saudi Arabia. Two years before his schooling in Saudi Arabia, he attended the Baker School in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.

    Rahim had “no major disciplinary infractions” at Brookline High and after graduation he went to college in Florida. He emailed his former dean and guidance counselor at Brookline “thanking them for the help that they provided in getting him through high school,” said William H. Lupini, the superintendent of Brookline schools.

    The dean and counselor remember Rahim as being bright and thriving from the attention of his teachers and tutors, said Lupini.

    What we don’t know:

    Despite suspicions Rahim’s social media activity has generated, any interpretation that these were warning signs is a product of hindsight, Kaderbhai said.

    Had he seen the Facebook feed before the police confrontation with Rahim, Kaderbhai said, he would not have thought much of it. “It’s fairly banal; it’s fairly benign,” Kaderbhai said. It didn’t look like a feed typical of someone determined to commit jihad.

    There were no images of Muslims under threat. “There was very little talk of politics,” Kaderbhai said. Rahim’s social media posts could have easily belonged to someone who believes Islam and Sharia should determine how a society works, but who is unwilling to become violent to achieve that end, he said.

    The public may have to wait for the investigation to reveal more about Rahim’s possible radicalization, as those who knew Rahim casually said the suspicions against him caught them by surprise.

    How deep does Rahim’s network run?

    THE SHOOTING

    What we know:

    An FBI anti-terror task force believed Rahim posed an imminent threat and confronted him with it in public, authorities said. Their guns were not drawn at the time; surveillance video shows this, Boston police said.

    Then, Rahim pulled a knife and went after them. The officers fired to protect themselves.

    Afterward, social media lit up with the claim that Rahim had become the latest young man to be gunned down by police. Rahim’s brother, Ibrahim Rahim, may have triggered it, when he posted on social media that Usaamah Rahim was shot three times in the back while on the phone with their father.

    Boston Imam: Suspect not shot in the back

    Boston Imam: Suspect not shot in the back 01:22
    PLAY VIDEO

    To dispel the claim, police invited religious and civil rights leaders from the community to watch surveillance video of the shooting.

    Darren Williams from the Urban League summed up what they saw — and didn’t see.

    “What the video does reveal to us very clearly is that the individual was not on the cell phone, the individual was not shot in the back and that the information reported by others that that was the case was inaccurate,” he said.

    What we don’t know:

    The viewers said the video doesn’t reveal everything, including a clear view of the knife Rahim allegedly wielded.

    “We do see a very vague video that is not clear as to what transpired. It wasn’t at a bus stop. He wasn’t shot in the back, and there is not detail enough on the video to tell us exactly what happened,” said Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, a Muslim community leader invited to watch the footage.

    Authorities want to wait until Rahim’s family has seen the footage before releasing it to the public.

    THE EVIDENCE

    What we know:

    Officers say Rahim wielded a knife at them before they shot him.

    Rahim purchased three military fighting knives with blades longer than 8 inches on Amazon, court documents said.

    He told his associate David Wright about them. “I just got myself a nice little tool. … You know it’s good for carving wood and … carving sculptures,” Rahim said in a conversation that was recorded, according to court documents.

    He told Wright that he was going after “boys in blue,” a reference to police, because he had grown impatient and wanted a quick target. “I can’t wait that long,” he said.

    The two used coded language, authorities said. Killing police was termed “vacation.” The FBI thought Rahim would act on his plans on Tuesday or Wednesday, so they sent officers to confront him.

    What we don’t know:

    Police have conducted raids in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and questioned people in the case. They have not released all of their findings yet.

    Source: http://edition.cnn.com

deneme bonusu